The Teat – Cloaking Inequity

August 18, 2013April 9, 2014 Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig Charter Schools, School Finance, Teach For America, The Teat

The Teat: The Bloomberg Blues— A Starved Cow on Purpose

The Teat is a series on Cloaking Inequity that examines the financial backing of “reformers” who influence education policy. For this current installment in the series, I am going to examine Michael Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York, school “reformer,” and multibillionaire.

To begin, every post in The Teat series has a Haiku:

Children are starving,
yet people ignore this fact,
engorging themselves.

Mike Bloomberg stepped into office in 2001 and has served three consecutive terms. He is a business executive with an estimated net worth of $27 billion. In addition, he created the Bloomberg Philanthropies, whose one of many goals is

To improve education in America with an innovative program to strengthen educational leadership and to advance good public policy in communities across the United States.

The market value of all assets for the Bloomberg Family Foundation at the end of 2011 was $2.9 billion. So, it is not a surprise that Mr. Bloomberg has much clout in education policy. Even if you don’t know much about education— power and $$$ talks (another i.e. see Bill Gates).

How has Bloomberg wielded his political power and foundation’s influence? As mayor of New York:

[He] fought for and won the right to dismantle the failed Board of Education and institute a system directly accountable to the Mayor…

What have been his priorities? Two of the most visible are Teach For America and charter schools.

He is passionate about using Teach For America as educators and power brokers. In fact, the mayor was “recruiting hundreds until the city’s financial constraints forced him to slow it down” (Cohen, 2013). The relationship between NYC and TFA was strengthened under Bloomberg’s tenure with “more than 65 alumni officials at the NYC Department of Education.” TFA has been used to starve public schools of permanent high quality teachers— their alums are everywhere but the classroom.) TFA has been discussed extensively on Cloaking Inequity here.

Mayor Bloomberg has also been a big proponent of charter schools. Similar to Rahm Emmanuel, Bloomberg has claimed there is a lack of funding for schools while exploding the growth of charter schools. When he first took office in 2001, there were 17 charter schools. A decade later there are now 159. In contrast, almost 140 public schools have closed while he has been in office.

So, the question remains: How have Bloomberg’s education policies worked thus far? According to a recent CREDO study “students in New York City charter schools on average make larger learning gains in both reading and mathematics.” However, in the same report, the CREDO study also found that on average NYC charter schools served fewer Special Education students, 17% to 12%, and English Language Learners, 16% to 5%, when compared to their public school counterparts.

See all of Cloaking Inequity’s posts on charters here.

Something feels amiss. On my Twitter feed I follow Partnership for Student Advocacy (@PFSA), a New York City based nonprofit who envisions

…a world in which our resources continually build and replenish an endowment affording accessible tools to every struggling/”failing” school community in poor, disenfranchised, marginalized neighborhoods in New York City.

Every Tuesday, they tweet asking for donations. They call it $20 Tuesdays and their current goal is to raise $10,000 to help fund college trips and testing fees for high school students at Columbus High School. The community of Columbus High School has had a difficult past few years. The city of New York began phasing-out the school due to its “failing” standards. NYC DOE’s solution was to cut funding to the school, with the latest school finance report showing that Columbus High School only received 82.84% of funding per student (see Diane Ravitch’s post). These budget cuts have resulted in Columbus High School having to forgo AP courses and collegiate preparation.

Sabotage aka starved cow.

The Schott Foundation for Public Policy’s study titled A Rotting Apple: Education Redlining in New York City is essentially a critique of Bloomberg’s “reformer” approach. Schott found that:

Primarily because of New York City policies and practices that result in an inequitable distribution of educational resources and intensify the impact of poverty, children who are poor, Black and Hispanic have far less of an opportunity to learn the skills needed to succeed on state and federal assessments. They are also much less likely to have an opportunity to be identified for Gifted and Talented programs, to attend selective high schools or to obtain diplomas qualifying them for college or a good job.

Bloomberg’s policies are purposefully educationally starving the community of Columbus High School and other high minority, high poverty schools.

In conclusion, Bloomberg peaked my interest when he gave $1,000,000 this past year, the largest single donation ever in the Los Angeles school board races, to three candidates (L.A. school board president Monica Garcia in District 2, challenger Kate Anderson in District 4, and Antonio Sanchez, who was vying for an open seat in District 6). In total “reformers” raised $3.8 million in the LA race. Despite raising millions, they lost 2 of 3.

Despite “reformers” defeat in LA, clearly the reformers still have momentum in New Orleans and Chicago. Our traditional media has not held Bloomberg and the “reformers” accountable to the data and research on their “ideas.” We must refuse to be Pawns of Industrialists and Financiers.

If educationally starving poor communities are the result of Bloomberg’s policies, what can we expect from the candidates he finances?

Many thanks to PFSA for their dedication to students and their school communities. Bloomberg and his “reformers” have much to learn from your example.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

July 28, 2013August 18, 2015 Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig The Teat

The Teat: @ntlBAEO, Choice, $, and Strings Attached?

Today The Teat returns to discuss The Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO).

A few days ago I was giving an interview to an LA Times reporter for an upcoming piece they are going to publish on Teach For America. About midway through the discussion the reporter asked, “Who funds your research?” I replied, I am a scholar, this is what I do for a living, as a tenured faculty member, my time-honored role is to create knowledge for society. I am not saying I have not been hired in the past to consult on various research projects or serve(d) on various advisory boards. However, my peer-reviewed research has not been bought. More on this later…

I have also noticed over the past several years when submitting to peer-reviewed journals, they are now asking who funded the research. Why might this now be necessary? It is also now typical that at the end of an article peer-reviewed journals will now state openly who paid for research…

This brings me to a Tweet i recently received

The tweeter was referring to a new “survey” conducted by The Black Alliance for Educational Options. Edweek reported:

The vast majority of African-American voters in four Southern states believe the government should provide as many educational choices as possible to ensure their children receive a good education, says a new report released by the Black Alliance for Educational Options, a school choice advocacy group.

[BAEO] acknowledged that it is not impartial on the issue of school choice. The Black Alliance for Educational Options states in the beginning of the report that it is an advocacy organization that aims to increase the amount of educational options available for black children.

And within the survey itself, the report says that after asking initial questions about charters to gauge the survey participants’ knowledge of charter schools, participants were then given “informed ballot questions prefaced with facts about charters.”

Those facts included nuggets like “charter schools in some communities have led to significant gains in academic performance, graduation rates, and college readiness for lower-income black students” and “charter public schools serving Black students were over three times as likely to close the achievement gap.”

Clearly BAEO used classic tactics to insert bias into research via recency effects. Who is BAEO? Why might BAEO have been motivated to blatantly introduce bias to the survey respondents? From whose Teat do they partake? In a piece published more than a decade ago Susan Ohanian wrote:

With the voucher legislation and ballot initiatives of the 1980s failing, voucher proponents embraced a new strategy adopting the language of the civil rights movement and targeting the African American community. This political strategy is designed to boost support for vouchers, not only among African Americans, but also among progressive and moderate suburban whites, many of whom support strong public schools. The current public relations and legislative focus on poor children does not alter right-wing voucher proponents’ long-term goal of broader-based voucher systems and privatization that would irreparably harm public education.

BAEO announced its formation on August 24, 2000 at a national press conference in Washington, D.C. Former Milwaukee Schools Superintendent Dr. Howard Fuller, the group’s president and founder, said it would support tax-funded voucher programs, private scholarships, tuition tax credits, charter schools and public/private partnerships.

In March 2001, BAEO began its organizing efforts with its first annual meeting in Milwaukee bringing over 600 African-American voucher backers from 35 states together for the express purpose of starting local chapters. By May, chapters were operating in Milwaukee, New York, Denver, Indianapolis and Philadelphia and the group claimed to be organizing chapters in nine other cities. Two months later, BAEO announced the formation of a new chapter in St. Louis, which immediately announced plans to start running ads.11 One of the Indianapolis chapter’s first activities was to host a conference with the prominent African American voucher supporter Rev. Floyd Flake as the keynote speaker.12 By the summer of 2002, BAEO had tapped into the network of existing local African-American voucher supporters and formed 33 local chapters.13

BAEO quickly converted the new activists into spokespeople, amplifying its press coverage. BAEO spokespeople were quoted widely in national education stories such as the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Cleveland voucher case and on the debate over President Bush’s voucher proposals. BAEO joined the roster of pro-voucher press conferences and briefings, often teaming up with representatives from pro-voucher partisans like the Cato Institute and controversial researcher Paul Peterson.

BAEO bills itself as a coalition of up-and-coming leaders working within the African-American community. But a closer look shows that BAEO has been bankrolled by a small number of right-wing foundations better known for supporting education privatization and affirmative action rollbacks than empowerment of the African American community or low-income families.

Four groups that BAEO originally listed as benefactors back in 2001 are major players in the right-wing voucher movement. In fact, the Walton Foundation and the Bradley Foundation have financed much of the movement. The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation and the American Education Reform Council are pro-voucher advocacy groups that while also receiving significant funding from the Walton and Bradley Foundations are lending their own significant support to BAEO, the relative newcomer.

Right-wing groups have also put a great deal of effort into cultivating African-American spokespeople, and working to counter the legacy of mistrust that communities of color have for a movement that has historically ranged from indifference to opposition toward racial justice efforts. Yet, at the same time, the right-wing political movement has continued to attack traditional civil rights leaders and initiatives.

BAEO is the latest step in the Right’s long effort to portray school vouchers as the new civil rights fight. The group does bring together many African-American voucher supporters and only a fraction of them are involved in right-wing politics in general. But BAEO takes its place among the other think tanks and local organizations that have been created with money from right-wing foundations as well as individuals and organizations hoping to profit from promoting increased privatization of public education.

There is much, much more on BAEO and from funding sources in the Ohanian article. (Also check out Cloaking Inequity’s other posts in The Teat series) A decade later they are up to the same false consciousness. What’s going on with BAEO lately? Well, $10 million more from the Walton and Gates Foundations.

So we know which side BAEO’s bread is buttered.

So looping back to my conversation with the LA Times reporter… Is it possible for academics supported by choice-biased foundations to publish research that show no effects of school choice? What if for example you were an endowed chair of school choice and funded heavily by the Walton foundation etc… Have you ever seen such a person, if in fact they might exist, publish work that shows no effect of choice even while the predominance of the peer-reviewed literature has opposite findings? Food for thought.

Clearly BAEO wants to play the race card/civil rights card. I agree that parents need choice, but I have proffered on CI here is REAL choice. The general public can see through BAEO’s ideology and biased/bought research methods. Furthermore, the predominance of independent empirical research does not support their exaggerated claims on choice (See my Senate testimony on charters). Also, click for all of Cloaking Inequity’s posts on vouchers and charters.

In conclusion, what is The Teat series without it’s Haiku?

Choice a Moniker

Green leaves flutter in the breeze

The Walton money tree

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

p.s. Thanks for Sylvia from Austin for digging up BAEO’s latest money trail.

May 24, 2013April 9, 2014 Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig Teach For America, The Teat

The Teat: Is Leadership for Educational Equity getting TFA’s dirty work done?

In our last segment of the The Teat, we discussed how education reformers have exploded 501(c)3 organizations to push corporate education reform. Now we’ll focus on its big bad cousin: 501(c)4 organizations.

But first, as is tradition, our cow haiku:

Two cows in pasture

A steak and a glass of milk

Dinner is served now

501(c)4 organizations have recently been discussed in the mainstream media, but what are they and how are they different from 501(c)3 organizations?

According to an IRS publication:

501(c)(4) provides for exemption from federal income tax of civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.”

One major distinction between each is that:

501(c)(4) may engage in political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization’s primary activity. In contrast, organizations exempt under 501(c)(3) are absolutely prohibited from engaging in political activities.

Also important, 501(c)4 organizations are exempt in providing a list of donors. Thus, 501(c)4 organizations are very similar to a Political Action Committee (PAC) but with less transparency.

So, what do 501(c)4 organizations look like in the word of education? For this post I will focus on the Leadership for Educational Equity (LEE).

LEE, which was founded in 2008, mission is:

To foster the individual and collective leadership of our members by inspiring them, developing their capacity, and increasing their effectiveness to shape policies and set priorities to ensure that all children have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.

LEE has a famous (and greedy) cousin (drumroll)… Teach for America (TFA)! The Teat has previously covered TFA and their enormous success in raising money as a 501(c)3 organization. Then why the need for LEE? As it turns out, TFA needed a politically-oriented “right hand man” helping assure their interests, such as placing TFA alum into elected offices and helping push education policy that would benefit TFA.

James Ceronsky put it best:

If all goes as planned, LEE could shift control over American education reform to a specific group of spritely college grads-turned-politicians with a very specific politics.

So LEE states that their mission is to “shape policies,” so what is their stance on education policy? Barbara Miner interviewed Jen Bluestein Lamb, VP of TFA’s Political Leadership Initiative and overseer of LEE in 2010.

We have never, and never will, take a policy position ourselves.

Wait. What? Why a c(4) then?

Let’s fast forward to 2012 and see what LEE executive director, Michael Buman, said about their policy stance:

LEE does not have any kind of litmus test about any policies. We’re completely policy-agnostic.

Huh? LEE is policy-neutral? This is hard to believe. As the adage says, actions speak louder than words. Thanks to James Ceronsky, who was able to access to LEE’s “Members In Action” site by an existing members account, we are able to see what education policies LEE members support. Here are a few:

Getting to know LEE is a conundrum. For an organization whose name includes Equity, the policies they support are ones that have proven to be divisive and exasperate inequity in affected school communities. So, ironic instead.

In 2012, LEE’s budget was $3.5 million and even though they state that they limit any funds to politics:

In total, as of August 2011, LEE counts 56 TFA alums in office: 14 on school boards, 13 on local school councils, 24 on neighborhood councils or other local boards, two state senators, a constable, a judge, and a justice of the peace.

Now the need for TFA to create LEE is overwhelmingly clear. LEE, with its 501(c)4 status, is to TFA what Nicky Santoro was to Sam “Ace” Rothstein in the movie Casino.

tumblr_m5yijhWSPM1qmvpboo1_1280

Lee, the guy who gets the dirty work done. No questions asked.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

May 22, 2013May 22, 2013 drbarbveltri The Teat

The Teat: IRS Loopholes/Conspiracy Benefitting School “Reformers”?

Heard anything about the IRS in the news lately? Here is more interesting scuttlebutt about the IRS and educational “reformers.” First, as is the tradition of The Teat, a cow Haiku:

Every cow comes wrapped
in cowhide, but that does not
serve to hide the cow.

Former IRS Commissioner, Doug Shulman, who resigned in November 2012, recalled his roots as an educational non-profiteer, which was shared at the Douglas H. Shulman Council on Foundations 2010 Annual Conference in Denver, Colorado on April 24, 2010:

The non-profit territory is familiar stomping grounds for me. I started my career in consulting, but then became what I refer to as a social entrepreneur. I was privileged to be one of a handful of people who helped co-found and launch Teach for America, which helps place teachers in urban and rural schools across the country. Since that time, I have also started a business, been a private equity investor and a securities industry regulator and now, IRS Commissioner.

Is that just a wild coincidence or something grander that an education “reformer” was put in charge of the IRS?

The recent IRS scrutiny from Congress on the process of tax-exempt status for some (Tea Party groups) and potentially not for other organizations piqued my curiosity. While my interest is not related to partisan political groups, it is directed towards education. For some time now, charter management groups and educational non-profits have burgeoned. Was this always the case or just a phenomenon that expanded over the last few years? It got me thinking. And led me right to the www.irs.gov website.

It takes some doing to weed through volumes of dense material, but my hunch appears warranted.

The Internal Revenue Service actually provides extensive state-by-state listings of tax-exempt organizations on their Business Master File (BMF) and the Statistics of Income (SOI) site. This can be a researcher’s gold mine if you have extensive time and can locate specific information coded under multiple headings.

An organization seeking tax-exempt status would routinely select from one to three codes that aligned with their purpose, operation, and/or activity on their application (Form 1023, Form 1024). This is not as customary, currently, but the general coding organizes the voluminous spreadsheets for viewers and can be downloaded for free. For example, Code (A) related to Arts, Culture and Humanities, but I was more focused on code (B), Education. Then there are sub-headings which for education range from B20 Elementary, Secondary Education, K-12, to B90 Educational Services and Schools-Other.

The data record includes basic fields such as name of organization, address, city, as well as topical subsection and activity codes. I found that the “ruling date” that appears as (yyyy/mm) and notes the actual year and month that the organization was granted federal tax-exempt status, particularly telling.

You might not consider the ruling date significant, but wait! If you connect the dots and consider the growth of educational non-profits over the last five years, is it change, chance or coincidence? You make the call. And then ask why?

In late Fall 2008, Americans were focused on the economic meltdown, coupled with the upcoming election and the final months of two-term, president, George W. Bush. But, on September 9, 2008, the IRS issued temporary Income Tax Regulations that eliminated the “advance ruling process” for any 501(c) (3) application. This means that if an organization can show that it expects to be publicly supported when it applies for tax-exempt status, they can go for it, and do so quickly.

According to the IRS:

Under the old regulations, an organization that wanted to be recognized by the IRS as a publicly supported charity, instead of a private foundation, had to go through an extended two-step process. First, the organization had to declare that it expected to be publicly supported on an on-going basis, then after five years, it had to file Form 8734, showing the IRS that it actually met the public support test.

The new rules not only eliminate filing of Form 8734, but “the organization retains its public charity status of its first five years regardless of the public support actually received during that time” (www.irs.gov/SOI).

Wow! No wonder states like Colorado received such generous shares of Gates Foundation support directed to educational reform non-profits. Here’s a partial list of recipients from just one state— it reads like an all-star starting line-up for “reformers”:

A+ (Denver) $150,000 (for reform efforts and accountability)
Clayton Early Learning (Denver) $500,000
Colorado League of Charter Schools (Denver) $75,000
Colorado School Finance Partnership (Denver) $25,000
Denver School of Science and Technology (Denver) $525,000 (of a $1,500,000 commitment to Charter Management Organization)
Foundation for Educational Excellence (Denver) $400,000
Stand for Children (Denver) $75,000
Strive Prep (Denver) $750,000
TFA (Denver) $ 225,000 (part of a 3-year $500,000 commitment to TFA’s expansion in Colorado Schools)
University Prep School (Denver) $75,000
West Denver Prep Charter School (Denver) $150,000

While The Gates Foundation’s generosity to the educational non-profits in Colorado, alone, exceeds the $3 million total above, for only one calendar year, they regulate applicants: “In compliance with IRS tax laws, we only accept proposals from 501(c)(3) and other tax-exempt organizations. We are unable to provide funding directly to individuals.”

So, yes, that tax-exempt designation does matter! (Just ask TFA: The Teat: ~Half Billion for Teach (Temp) For America)

Under the guise of many nonprofit, public good programs are strategic initiatives that employ reconfigured tax codes, political patronage, philanthropic, corporate/media support, ‘friends’ in high places, (no reference to the mile high city here), and compliant players who assume particular roles for pre-determined time frames or purposes (See Cloaking Inequity’s post Bush Foundation for Excellence in Education: “Pay to Play, Reap profits”?).

The IRS notes that nonprofit charitable organizations are exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and that bodes well for the educational non-profits who seek funding from foundations that direct funds to specific education reform agendas and can direct their business to friendly for-profits (See Cloaking Inequity’s post What BASIS?: Nepotism and aggrandizement in charters?).

Is this due to error or design? (See Cloaking Inequity’s post The Teat: Neoliberals, students first or padding adults’ pockets)

One thing that occurs with Tea Party hearings in Washington, DC, is that light, fueled by public outrage, is shed for once, on a mostly obscure topic ––tax codes. Viewed as mundane by the populace and elected leaders, tax laws and codes, if left unexamined, proceed as is, for years. Tax codes and laws endure beyond Congressional and Senatorial terms and presidential administrations. Misappropriated exemptions for corporations, their designees, and overly politically zealous non-profits.

Congress holds the power of the purse, and that means close the loopholes in the tax laws across the board and hold “non-profits” accountable for irregularities and malfeasance. Gaming the tax system to privilege particular entities, platforms, and ideologies should outrage us enough to persist in our curiosity and questioning. We’re all being misled if the ultimate goal is to make educational policy under the guise of public good, tax-exempt initiatives… that legally and magnificently line pockets.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

April 12, 2013March 24, 2015 Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig Charter Schools, Parent Trigger, The Teat

The Teat: Where does parent trigger movement get their $?

Today on the Cloaking Inequity series, The Teat, I examine where parent trigger proponents get their $. I had pondered parent trigger— because from the outside looking in it appeared to be a community-based approach led by parents and civil rights activists to address the inequalities that have plagued our schools for generations. Recently we even watched excerpts from the parent trigger flimflam, I mean film, Won’t Back Down in my Critical Policy Analysis course. However, parent trigger is not what it seems in this emotional and slick Hollywood film…I first looked into Texas Families First, the proponents of Texas HB300, the proposed parent trigger bill. I came away with Parent trigger laws: Wolves in sheep’s clothing and astroturfing. The CEO of Texas Families First then replied Parent trigger post blowback from Texas Families First. I also had some spirited discussions on Twitter with civil rights minded parent trigger proponents (i.e. Former California State Sen. Gloria Romero). I crafted a public letter to them Letter to Civil Rights and school “choice” advocate. Recently, Gary Cohn, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has worked for the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun and Wall Street Journal published an expose on parent trigger. From whose teat do parent trigger advocates partake? He writes:

At first glance, it is one of the nation’s hottest new education-reform movements, a seemingly populist crusade to empower poor parents and fix failing public schools. But a closer examination reveals that the “parent-trigger” movement is being heavily financed by the conservative Walton Family Foundation, one of the nation’s largest and most strident anti-union organizations, a Frying Pan News investigation has shown.

Who is paying the bills for the parent trigger movement? Cohn found that since 2009, several corporate minded foundations have poured millions into Parent Revolution, a Los Angeles advocacy group that is in the forefront of the parent-trigger campaign in California and the nation.

Multimillion dollar contributors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ($1.6 million); the Laura and John Arnold Foundation ($1.5 million); the Wasserman Foundation($1.5 million); the Broad Foundation ($1.45 million) and the Emerson Collective Education Fund ($1.2 million), founded by Laurence Powell Jobs, the widow of former Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

But the Walton Family Foundation is by far Parent Revolution’s largest benefactor, contributing 43 percent of the $14.9 million total.

See interactive infographic detailing foundation funding.

Do the foundations funding parent trigger have ulterior motives besides parental empowerment?

The Walton Family Foundation, which is run by the family of Walmart founder Sam Walton, is one of the nation’s largest private donors to charter schools. The foundation has also used its money and clout to fund conservative research groups (including the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation) whose analysts have then defended Walmart and its anti-union policies on newspaper opinion pages and in testimony to government committees. In education, it is a strong proponent of the expansion of charter schools, school voucher programs and other efforts to privatize public education. It also gives money to the influential trade publication Education Week to write about parent empowerment issues.

Another large donor to Parent Revolution, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation of Houston, Texas, supports charter schools and also has funded conservative efforts to overhaul and limit pensions in California, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting’s California Watch. John Arnold is a billionaire former Enron trader who also founded a successful hedge fund.

The Broad Foundation, founded by Los Angeles billionaire Eli Broad and his wife, Edythe, and the Gates Foundation, also are big backers of charter schools and other market-driven education reforms, though their overall policies are far less conservative than the Walton Family Foundation.

“Everything the Walton foundation has done over the years is to support privatization and anti-union policies,” Diane Ravitch, an education historian and former Assistant Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush, tells Frying Pan News. “They want privatization and Parent Revolution promotes their goals.”

Does the parent trigger movement have any connection to ALEC?

The Walton foundation, for example, wholeheartedly embraces all state parent-trigger laws, whose language stems from model legislation crafted by the American Leadership Exchange Council (ALEC) – a corporate-controlled generator of far-right legislation, including Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground gun law and the recent statute that made Michigan a right-to-work state.

A 2012 Education Week article described how, in 2010, the Heartland Institute, an ultra-conservative Chicago think tank, borrowed Parent Revolution’s new idea and took it to ALEC.

“Heartland put together a parent-trigger policy proposal and presented it to ALEC, whichcreated model legislation, [that,] . . . sometimes with variations, ended up appearing in about 10 to 15 states,” reported Education Week.

What does someone get paid to sellout schools?

The man whose concept of parent triggers so impressed the Heartland Institute is Parent Revolution’s Austin, a former state school board member and Los Angeles deputy mayor under Richard Riordan. Just as Parent Revolution has become the leading player of the parent-trigger movement, so has Austin become Parent Revolution’s national face. As his group’s executive director, Austin received a total compensation of $239,451 in 2011, according to the organization’s latest available tax filing.

What about Michelle Rhee? You knew she had to appear here somewhere.

Michelle Rhee, whose group StudentsFirst is one of the nation’s leading proponents of parent-trigger laws and other efforts to privatize public education, sponsored a series of screenings and hosted panel discussions to promote the film and its message. Panelists included former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Parent Revolution’s Austin.

California became the first state to pass a parent-trigger law in 2010. So what has actually happened with a parent trigger when it was implemented?

So far, however, parent trigger has only been successfully used in one instance – and in that case, a public school is being converted to a charter. It occurred in Adelanto, a blue-collar town tucked onto San Bernardino County’s High Desert. After a bitter, bruising fight that split the community and ended up in court, the Adelanto school board voted in January to convert its struggling Desert Trails Elementary School to a charter, beginning next fall.

Lori Yuan: “This wasn’t a grassroots movement.”

Opponents, including Desert Trails parent Lori Yuan, say that this parent-trigger effort was controlled by organizers brought in by Parent Revolution, and that they tricked the community into believing this was simply an effort to improve conditions at the school, not to give it over to a private charter operator. Parent Revolution officials, in turn, say that their opposition used unethical tactics in contesting the petitions.

“Our community was misled,” recalls Yuan, who has two children at the school. “Parents didn’t know they were signing for a charter takeover.”

Shelly Whitfield, who has five children at Desert Trails Elementary, says she was repeatedly approached at home and school to sign a petition. “They came to my door several times and said they were going to get computers and help get the kids better lunches,” she remembers. She says she is strongly opposed to the end result – the conversion of the school to a charter operation.

Parent Revolution provided help in many ways. It rented a house for the Desert Trails’ activist parents to use as a headquarters, provided a full-time organizer to work with them, and also sent in experts to train and advise parents on everything from strategy on dealing with the school board to writing letters to help in researching potential charter schools, Ramirez and others say. It even provided T-shirts.

Yuan and other parents had contested the signatures gathered by parent-trigger advocates, but their challenge was rejected by a San Bernardino County Superior Court judge. In the end, only 53 of the 466 original signers would vote in an election to determine the school’s future. The bad feelings in the community over the battle for charter conversion have continued to this day.

“This was a true test of the mettle of empowered parents,” trumpeted FreedomWorks, a prime force in the Tea Party movement.

Yuan disagrees: “We’ve known all along this wasn’t a grassroots movement.”

How about real choices for parents in their neighborhood schools?

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

Click here for Vitae.

Sharing is caring:

Sharing is caring:

Sharing is caring:

Sharing is caring:

Sharing is caring: