In previous speeches, Clinton campaign manager John Podesta indicated that recruiting and grooming younger, more compliant teachers was the plan to overcome resistance to corporate education reform over the long term..... The revolving door was also in full swing, with top Clinton and Obama administration officials working for “non-profits” run by Powell Jobs and Tom Steyer. In the end, the influence of the various well-connected “experts” advising Clinton could be felt in an official education platform that endorsed a test-centric approach that was increasingly unpopular with parents, students and educators, and out of favor with voters. .... Jake Jacobs -While the role of the union was not the purview of this article, I find it interesting how so many are willing to let Randi and the entire UFT/Unity operation off the hook when we talk about the Democratic Party complicity. You can't talk about how the Dems and Clintons screwed unions and teachers without talking about how our own union has been a handmaiden to ed deform. I think it needs a part 2.
But still great work by Jake Jacobs posted by Michael Fiorillo who says: While it’s a given that Trump is beyond awful, this should serve as a little reminder about how Hillary would have screwed educators.
That the article doesn't address Randi/AFT/UFT complicity with the Clintons ed policy -- well, forever, is bothersome - see my post (How Education Reform Ate the Democratic Party - Cl...) and gives Randi some cover when it mentions her pushing community schools with Hillary. Note that the BATS seemed to have some kind of working relationship with Randi at the 2016 AFT convention in Minneapolis so stepping on her toes may be off the agenda.
Despite all this it is a must read article.
https://www.alternet.org/
December 2, 2017, 8:32 AM GMT
A rare peek into the evolution of Hillary Clinton’s education platform is afforded through an overlooked Wikileaks-published document. Entitled “Policy Book— FINAL,” the PDF file was attached to an email sent to Clinton’s future campaign chair, John Podesta. The education portion of the document runs 66 pages, mostly concentrated on K-12 policy, and captures specific input from billionaire donors looking to overhaul and privatize public education.
Today, Donald Trump seeks a rapid expansion of charter schools and private school vouchers, while his Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, touts “school choice” and market competition for public school at every stop. But in private, Hillary Clinton’s donors, dubbed “experts," also sought rapid charter expansion and market-based options to replace public schools.
One of the most connected “thought leaders” discussed is Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, and the head of the Emerson Collective, a prominent education reform advocacy group. Powell Jobs who has been close with the Clintons since the late '90s, also sat with Betsy DeVos on the board of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. She set up billionaire “roundtables” with Clinton’s campaign advisors through 2015 while donating millions to Priorities USA, Clinton’s main PAC.
Fixing teachers
The 2014 policy book reveals some essential lessons about how education policy is crafted: in secret, with the input and influence of billionaire donors seeking more school privatization and testing—regardless of what party is in power. Even as the backlash against testing and the Common Core grew, Clinton’s advisors pushed her to embrace them. Clinton vacillated, then fell silent on K-12 policy, and as a result, education issues were largely left out of the election debate. Today, under Trump, privatization marches on worse than ever.
Jake Jacobs is a New York parent and teacher. His writing has appeared in the Washington Post, as well as on Diane Ravitch’s website and the blog of the Badass Teachers Association.
Today, Donald Trump seeks a rapid expansion of charter schools and private school vouchers, while his Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, touts “school choice” and market competition for public school at every stop. But in private, Hillary Clinton’s donors, dubbed “experts," also sought rapid charter expansion and market-based options to replace public schools.
One of the most connected “thought leaders” discussed is Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, and the head of the Emerson Collective, a prominent education reform advocacy group. Powell Jobs who has been close with the Clintons since the late '90s, also sat with Betsy DeVos on the board of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. She set up billionaire “roundtables” with Clinton’s campaign advisors through 2015 while donating millions to Priorities USA, Clinton’s main PAC.
Fixing teachers
Notes taken by Clinton aide Ann O’Leary’s were made in interviews with Powell Jobs and Bruce Reed, CEO of The Broad Foundation (and former chief of staff to Joe Biden). According to the notes, the “experts” were calling for new federal controls, more for-profit companies and more technology in public schools — but first on the menu was a bold remake of the teaching “profession”:
“Elevating the Teaching Profession and Reforming Teacher Training. Every single person from across the spectrum wrote about and talked about the need to improve our schools of education, entry into the teaching profession and our professionalism once teachers make it in . . . there is consensus that you could offer a bold vision for reforming teacher training and professionalizing the teaching profession for those new to the profession.”
In previous speeches, Clinton campaign manager John Podesta indicated that recruiting and grooming younger, more compliant teachers was the plan to overcome resistance to corporate education reform over the long term. But in the policy book, Bruce Reed also sets his sights on teaching colleges, claiming “they don’t deliver the goods.”
Powell Jobs suggests letting principals “pick their teams," making teachers individually negotiate salary (every teacher—really?), expanding online education offerings like Khan Academy and making teaching universities “truly selective like TFA and Finland.” This comment is perplexing because while Finland has demanding teacher vetting and training, Teach for America places inexperienced teachers in classrooms after a seven-week summer crash course.
A perfect storm
Representing billionaire Eli Broad, Bruce Reed celebrated the paralysis in local governance in post-Katrina New Orleans as key to pulling off the rapid expansion of charter schools, exploiting disaster without oversight by any “central office”:
“New Orleans is an amazing story — when you make it possible to get political dysfunction and sick a bunch of talent on the problem — it’s the one place where grand bargain of charters has been kept the best.”
New Orleans' "amazing" story resulted in the firing of 7,500 mostly black school employees, wiping out a substantial part of the city’s black middle class. Meanwhile, the “miracle” claims of boosters like Reed have fallen apart. A recent editorial in New Orleans’ African American newspaper called out the false promises and lack of results from the charter experiment.
The new normal
Tying campaign donations to a singular issue like expanding charter schools might in days past been seen as a prohibited quid-pro-quo. But in this cycle, Podesta, O’Leary and Tanden all busily raised campaign money from the same billionaire education reformers with whom they were also talking policy specifics.
But they did more than talk. On June 20, 2015, O'Leary sent Podesta an email revealing the campaign adopted two of Powell Jobs' suggestions, including "infusing best ideas from charter schools into our traditional public schools.” When Clinton announced this policy in a speech to teachers, however, it was the one line that drew boos.
“Donors want to hear where she stands” said John Petry, a founder of both Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and Success Academy, New York’s largest network of charter schools told the New York Times. Petry was explicit, declaring that he and his billionaire associates would instead put money into congressional, state and local races, behind candidates who favored a “more businesslike approach” to education, and tying teacher tenure to standardized test scores.
“Donors want to hear where she stands” said John Petry, a founder of both Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and Success Academy, New York’s largest network of charter schools told the New York Times. Petry was explicit, declaring that he and his billionaire associates would instead put money into congressional, state and local races, behind candidates who favored a “more businesslike approach” to education, and tying teacher tenure to standardized test scores.
Clinton’s advisors warned her that wealthy donors like Petry, Whitney Tilson, or Eli Broad could walk if she didn’t support charter schools. Broad would indeed threaten to withhold funding from Clinton when she criticized charter schools for excluding difficult students. John Podesta and Ann O’Leary would publicly correct Clinton, reaffirming her commitment to charters.
The revolving door was also in full swing, with top Clinton and Obama administration officials working for “non-profits” run by Powell Jobs and Tom Steyer. In the end, the influence of the various well-connected “experts” advising Clinton could be felt in an official education platform that endorsed a test-centric approach that was increasingly unpopular with parents, students and educators, and out of favor with voters.
Warnings ignored
Clinton was also advised to “Stand Up for the Common Core” despite the botched implementation that was then unfolding from coast to coast. By this time, states were already moving to junk the standards, while the Washington Post was asking whether Common Core could sink Jeb Bush’s presidential run. Yet her advisors were nudging her to echo the Bush talking point of “kindler, gentler” tests.
The feuds over testing resulted in Clinton largely avoiding the controversy. Her advisors describe New York as a messy example, where rushed implementation of President Obama’s Race to the Top’s test-based teacher evaluations “fueled opposition”:
“Governor Cuomo had a very heated political battle with the state’s teachers unions in 2013 over the new teacher evaluation system…[t]he use of test scores in teacher evaluation has caused a substantial backlash . . . This backlash caused the Governor (in the midst of his re-election cycle) to agree to a “moratorium” on using the tests for two years. In an effort to win over Common Core opponents, he ran ads saying he supported a delay in the “use [of] Common Core test scores for at least five years…”
In their efforts to steer Clinton towards pro-testing policies, her advisors relied on education reform talking points. Neera Tanden, head of the Clinton-aligned Center for American Progress wrote that “New York has shown positive gains resulting from the implementation of the new higher standards.” But New York’s repeated changes of proficiency thresholds nullified any statistical validity. Tanden was advising Clinton based on a test-centric philosophy that educators, psychometric experts and court rulings have rejected since 2011.
Teacher input?
Under the heading “[g]ood ideas from the AFT crowd” the 2014 document mentions Randi Weingarten’s call for more “full-service community schools.” Clinton would not promote this much on the campaign stump though, outside of a speech made right back to the AFT. To this day, the education section of Clinton’s 2016 website says only vaguely that states should “use federal education funding to implement social and emotional support interventions.”
Behind the scenes, however, O’Leary was pushing for holistic student supports, by March of 2016 suggesting that Clinton’s K-12 platform:
Behind the scenes, however, O’Leary was pushing for holistic student supports, by March of 2016 suggesting that Clinton’s K-12 platform:
“…focus on the whole child — and acknowledge that toxic stress created by poverty does impact learning and that teachers cannot do this work alone. We need to support parents through two-generation approaches to learning. We need to provide schools the resources to hire guidance counselors and mental health providers, and make sure that children from low-income communities once again have music and art education and opportunities to participate in gymnastics and ballet. These activities cannot be reserved for only those who can pay for them.”
The Clinton campaign did not bring this message forward, falling silent, even when pressed for more specifics on education plans, as detailed in this CBS article. Meanwhile, emails showed that Clinton and campaign staff knew their donors were behind a lawsuit seeking to end teacher tenure, so her plan was to stay quiet about it.
School’s out
Not mentioning education would become important in the general election. This policy book shows a snapshot in time when wealthy donors were pushing Clinton’s and Jeb’s positions together, seeking more of the federal privatization begun under George W. Bush and continued by Obama.
Seeing this, Trump would tell ticked-off voters what they wanted to hear, vowing loudly to “terminate Common Core out of Washington.” He knew (or should have known) that it was already a state-based decision to use the standards by late 2015. After the election, Trump would completely drop the idea.
This was predicted by John Podesta, who bragged just after the 2012 election about nullifying education policy differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney. Sitting next to Jeb Bush, Podesta proclaimed “ed reform” a bipartisan affair, telling donors “the Obama administration has made its key priorities clear. The Republicans are pretty much in the same place…this area is ripe for cooperation between the center-right and center-left”.
As the reformer money rolled in, Clinton avoided public stances, with articles by 2015 noting she was getting support from both sides yet still unclear on her vision, critical of testing and charters while still supporting them. From Politico:
Clinton will have to walk carefully between both sides of the education reform debate so as not to alienate either side, said a source close to the Walton Family Foundation: “She’ll be able to receive money from both sides of the education reform debate if she plays her cards carefully…”Reading this, John Podesta wrote in a private email: “Complicated. She won’t back off criticism, but won’t object to taking contributions.”
Both sides now
These pre-campaign deliberations show the Clinton team was well aware of the controversies raging in education, courting wealthy reformers who claimed to support poor students’ “civil rights” while pushing top-down privatization, testing, cookie-cut standards and invasive data mining.
Ann O’Leary would later tell Podesta that Powell Jobs and other education reformers were “pleased with our work” but were “wary of a few issues” like test-based accountability, then being negotiated in the U.S. Senate:
“The reauthorization of the law – spearheaded by Senators Murray and Alexander in the Senate – provides flexibility to states to set their own accountability systems and their own goals for improvement. The civil rights groups and the ed reformers are very concerned that this lack of accountability will leave poor and minority students with no real systems for improving the poor education that they are receiving.
To date, HRC has stayed out of this debate: generally praising the Senate for moving forward with the reauthorization by keeping standards and testing in place and saying little about the accountability system. I do not believe that she should weigh in on this debate, but rather should continue to monitor it closely.”
In reality, wealthy and well-connected education reformers were likely more instrumental in calling for the “accountability” that kept federal testing mandates in place than were civil rights groups. A key player in this was Russlynn Ali, former Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights to US Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Ali would become an intimate advisor to Powell Jobs, and the head of the Emerson Collective, the charter school advocacy group that Powell Jobs founded.
What did we learn?
The same cadre of billionaires that tried to steer Clinton towards unpopular pro-testing policies and controversial school privatization schemes are hard at work today. Powell Jobs, for example, has sought greater influence, funding a lavish and high-profile effort to “rethink high school” and acquiring a majority stake in The Atlantic. In July, Jobs was reportedly contacted by Ivanka Trump on behalf of the administration, seeking "advice on shaping funding approaches" for STEM education in public schools.
While Eli Broad may have stepped down from his foundation, his post-disaster playbook of taking advantage of local government paralysis remains alive and well. Efforts to replicate New Orleans’ “amazing story” appear to be thriving in Puerto Rico, where schools were devastated by Hurricane Maria.
Jake Jacobs is a New York parent and teacher. His writing has appeared in the Washington Post, as well as on Diane Ravitch’s website and the blog of the Badass Teachers Association.
8 comments:
Wonderful article- interesting comments after the Alternet version. I like Bernie, but I won't vote for anyone who is not committed to public schools. Also, the arrogance of the billionaires and the fawning of the campaign to call them "experts"!
The AFT and NEA endorsed Clinton. Perhaps the rest of her policies were worth the sacrifice of public schools. Or maybe the meetings with the billionaires were the real lies. Maybe in the end public schools were safe.
Unfortunately, without a history of public school support or at least stated support for public schools and disparagement of privatization, there is really no way for voters to hold candidates accountable after the election.
The right candidates are out there, luckily the wrong ones keep showing their hand.
A very comprehensive summary of what we all already know. We are very good at making pretty much the same points over and over again to each other and at diagnosing the problems without charting a plan to change the playing field on which national education policy is made.
1. How do we make education policy salient in federal elections? If education isn't even discussed during an election there is no way to pressure anyone to look at ed policy differently. We made some progress here in NYS because parents became enraged and put unrelenting pressure on their state and local elected officials. People decide how to vote in federal elections for many good and bad reasons, as we've found out. Most folks who are not involved professionally in education don't consider education to be a "single-issue" consideration when they decide how to vote, as do people who, say, oppose abortion. How do we, without much money or access to media, force the issue closer to the top? I don't know and I've never heard a good plan from anyone else, either.
2. How do we develop and communicate a short, forceful argument on behalf of public education that doesn't require the listener or reader to know all the details about testing, teacher evaluation and charter school funding? People don't read long journal or newspaper articles about education policy. It took me nearly two years of following the issues closely before I really understood much of it or could explain any of it to someone else who doesn't have a lot of time for or interest in ed policy.
3. What's the political consequence of all this analysis? If the Rs and Ds really are the same when it comes to ed policy what do you do if you want to change any of it? If all this means that folks want to support a third party in 2020 that won't just split the anti-Trump vote then everyone needs to be raising money and knocking on doors RIGHT NOW. If you aren't working today on building an effective third party alternative in 2020 beyond the second coming of Jill Stein you will forego the right to complain about any of it when it's too late. Folks who read this blog may not find this heartening but if the Ds don't tear themselves apart before 2020 most folks will have supporting any reasonable non-Clintonian candidate to end T#ump as the foremost consideration.
I don't plan to get involved in anything to do about what happens to the Ds beyond winning at least one house in Congress next year. Ds will disagree violently again about who should be nominated but the votes in 2020 will not turn on education policy unless folks figure out how to answer some of these questions soon. Repeating persuasive arguments to ourselves about the perfidy of education privateers isn't, at least by itself, part of the answer.
What you say is largely true, Harris, but the point is not to re-hash the 2016 election, but to remove the Clinton/Obama/Neo-liberal death grip on the Democratic Party, which continues. One way to do this is to expose their duplicity and collaboration with so-called education reform, so that perhaps one day teachers and their unions (or what's left of them, post-Janus) will toss them aside.
As you say, what has happened in ed takes years to understand and Jake's piece is informative to many who do not know the history. We can't move forward without understanding what happened. Now given the upcoming Dems battles real ed reformers may have to just give up the ship on public education and fight other battles that may be bigger. I often think -- am I fighting to save public ed run by De Blasio or Bloomberg or whatever ends up running it? Am I fighting to save a union run by Unity? Maybe just give up the ghost and do other stuff.
You can look at the glass half full too. Lots of this info was circulated on ed blogs for years, but now it is in more mainstream media. Even the NYT has written some negative articles on charters. The parent test revolution probably turned the tide on charters. Also the election of Trump is causing activists to dig in their heels.
Two points- once, while anti-common core was rising up, I read a very conservative blogger. The anti- common core comments were almost identical to comments I read on the more liberal blogs. Parents across the political spectrum are not happy. Also, most parents like their local schools. They like the local school boards and having a say in their children's education.
There are definitely social problems that need to be addressed- but saying that schools are the cause is not correct.
You make many valid points Harris L. I can't even influence people I know. I see no hope for the Dems. Their refusal to reinvent the party does not portend well for the future. In the meantime, white supremacists and their ilk are taking center stage.
Abigail Shure
Thank for the repost - regarding Randi Weingarten and the AFT, there were only two mentions in this particular Policy Book, the first in full:
"Stand Up for the Common Core.
There is strong agreement that we need high academic standards in our public school system and that the Common Core will help us to be more globally competitive. There is recognition, however, that the implementation of Common Core and the interaction with the testing regime has made many supporters nervous (including Randi Weingarten). However, all agree that you must stand for common core while working on the real challenges of how to implement it in a way that supports teachers."
The only other mention was the AFT calling for community schools:
"IV. GOOD IDEAS FROM THE AFT CROWD
Incentivize the Creation of More Full-Service Community Schools. Randi Weingarten is pushing community schools as an alternative to charters and vouchers, and one that more accurately addresses the needs of students and their families to succeed. Mayor De Blasio just announced the creation of 40 new full-service community schools in New York."
They do mention that they would be interviewing Randi in early 2015. Other leaks show secret coordination between Randi and the Hillary campaign, not to mention secret relationships with high ranking members of the NEA and many other labor unions.
There was also a meeting with the campaign attended by Mulgrew to discuss "questions around testing" as NY stayed the course. The education-related leaks have not been covered much in media, if at all, but showed secret coordination to secure endorsements for Hillary.
One impropriety may be this question by re47@hillaryclinton.com, which was Robby Mook's account: "I agree we should push to keep those other unions neutral. Any word on their boards and if we can lobby members individually to block a vote?"
Another never covered was the question of the AFT needing approval from the AFL-CIO to endorse early. It appears the question was asked in a heated debate in the internal Political Committee, but Trumka cut off debate.
Another article asking about the AFT's involvement in the campaign is here: https://medium.com/@NYArteacher/were-teacher-union-early-endorsements-rigged-against-bernie-4c70306cb315
Post a Comment