....in case you're local paper won't print it. Take a look.
Dear Editor,
Tony Bennett’s plan to give letter grades to schools has turned into a fiasco. Last January, all 35 speakers in the only public hearing on his plan opposed it, including representatives of all education groups and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Dr. Bennett did not attend the hearing. Nevertheless, he pushed the plan through in February without any of the recommended changes, despite information from his own department that the plan would result in 22% D’s and F’s for Indiana schools. In comparison, Florida last year gave D’s and F’s to 6% of their schools. Indiana schools are not over 3 times worse than Florida schools! This fact is certifiably grounded in data from the National Assessment, which is a test taken in common by all states and is known as “the nation’s report card.” On the National Assessment, Indiana consistently outscores Florida in 4th and 8th grade math and in 8th grade reading, and Indiana consistently scores higher than the national average. Tony Bennett’s A-F system has demeaned the performance of Indiana’s schools compared to Florida. Conveniently, low grades would feed more schools into his pipeline for state intervention which in Indianapolis and Gary has resulted in for-profit corporations taking over schools, accompanied by discord, litigation and fragmented communities.
Mayors have complained that unfairly low school grades damage local economic development efforts to attract new jobs. The calibration of this A-F system is simply wrong. It will hurt our schools and our economy.
This fall implementation has seen major delays, the director of the program took another job in the midst of the roll out, and local school officials say they can’t get answers to their questions about the flawed growth statistics. We need a change. I support Glenda Ritz for State Superintendent who stands for a revised system of grading our schools.
Dr. Vic Smith
Indianapolis, IN
Indiana Citizens for Public Education
Showing posts with label privatization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privatization. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Who's Really Behind Education Reform?
Julie Underwood on ALEC & Education |
|---|
| Julie Underwood, the Dean of the UW-Madison School of Education, discusses ALEC's school privatization agenda. |
Privatizing Public Education, Higher Ed Policy, and Teachers from ALEC Exposed
- Indiana Rep. Cindy J. Noe (R-87)[17], ALEC Education Task Force Member, spoke on "Enacting a Comprehensive K-12 Education Reform Agenda" at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting on August 3, 2011
- Featured speakers have included: Milton Friedman, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, George Allen, Jessie Helms, Pete Coors, Governor Mitch Daniels
Friday, February 17, 2012
Indiana Groups that Want to Privatize Your School
A center out of Columbia University is tracking the lobbying and funding actions of so-called education reform groups that--whether they say this publicly or not--support turning public education over to for-profit companies. Here's the Indiana list that I'm sure could be expanded. Comments?
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (NCSPE): Check it out.
Who supports privatization of education?
A descriptive analysis of NCSPE's links to national and state-specific organizations that tend to support or oppose privatization of education
INDIANA LIST:
Greater Educational Opportunities (GEO) Foundation Indiana
“GEO Foundation, as featured in Forbes Magazine, has been making access to quality schools a reality for children since 1998. GEO incubates quality charter schools and then supports their growth. All four GEO-sponsored public charter schools are high academic growth schools and feature a unique K-14 model--full day kindergarten all the way through two years of college. GEO seeks to provide greater access to quality education for all kids. The foundation currently operates four charter schools.” (website quote)
Indiana School Scholarship Tax Credit
“The Indiana School Scholarship Tax Credit is designed to provide scholarship support for thousands of low and middle income families to enroll their children into the private or public school of their choice. Funding for these scholarships will come from private, charitable donations to qualified scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Donors (individuals or corporations) would be eligible to take advantage of a 50% credit against their state tax liability for contributions made to an SGO. The program is entirely privately-funded, with an incentive to charitable giving from the tax credit.” (website quote)
Indiana Virtual Families
“Indiana Virtual School Families (IVSF) is a grassroots coalition that was formed four years ago, before grassroots coalitions became popular! The Indiana Virtual School Families board consists of a group of passionate parent volunteers that have united in an effort to educate and inform the public and policymakers at all levels of the potential benefits virtual learning opportunities can bring to Indiana. A coalition supporting virtual schools in Indiana” (website quote)
School Choice Indiana
“School Choice Indiana, Inc. is a non-partisan, statewide organization dedicated to the principle that providing parents with real choices in the education of their children will improve educational outcomes and improve the quality of education, both in private and public schools.” (website quote)
Who supports privatization of education?
In 2000, the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (NCSPE) began to collect and classify website links to organizations involved in advocacy or research related to privatization of education. We created three general classifications: (1) organizations that: "tend to support privatization of education," (2) "present both supporting and opposing perspectives," and (3) "tend to oppose privatization of education." Within the general classifications we subcategorized organizations as: "advocacy," "research and policy" "nonprofit and for-profit and education management organizations," "news," and "research journals." In addition, in 2009, since much of the debate and activity related to privatization of education occurs at the state level, we began to add and classify links to state-specific organizations that "tend to support" or "tend to oppose" privatization of education.
Because of the enormous expansion of activity and interest in educational privatization, we recently concluded a robust search of the internet in order to update our links. The purpose of this announcement is to share with you the results of that search.
First, some descriptive data about our links:
In 2005 we had 49 links to organizations that "Tend to Support Privatization in Education;" we now have 85 such links.
In 2005 we had 23 links to organizations that "Present Both Supporting and Opposing Perspectives;" we did not find any new links to add to this category
In 2005 we had 22 links to organizations that "Tend to Oppose Privatization in Education;" we found only one new link to add to this category
In 2009 we had 19 links to state-specific organizations that "Tend to Support Privatization in Education;" we now have 164 such links
In 2009 we had 7 links to state-specific organizations that "Tend to Oppose Privatization in Education;" we now have 247 such links
In addition to serving as a valuable resource for students of school choice and privatization, the links provide a unique window into the evolution of support for school choice and privatization at the state and national levels. The following observations are based on our review of the changes in the distribution of website links within and between the state and national levels.
Continued Ideological Polarization in the National Dialogue on Privatization of Education
Even though a plethora of new reforms, such as online learning, are now part of the national education reform debate, school choice remains a highly divisive political issue. There are a total of 71 advocacy organizations but only 17 research and policy organizations among the support and oppose categories. In fact, if we counted the Education Management Organizations (EMOs) on our list as advocacy organizations, then essentially all of the growth in our list of national-level organizations since 2005 has come from the addition of advocacy organizations. Furthermore, we could not find neutral organizations at the state-level so we left that category out entirely for the states.
Growth in Organizations that Tend to Support Privatization at the State-level
At the national level, there are significantly more organizations that tend to support privatization (85 that support vs. 22 that oppose), while the opposite is true across the states (164 support vs. 245 oppose). This is largely because every state has at least one well-established teachers' organization (usually more than one) clearly opposed to privatization. However, a diverse coalition of state-level organizations that support school choice has emerged to mobilize parents and counter the power of teachers' organizations. These organizations include religious groups (especially religiously-motivated homeschoolers), free market policy organizations, parent advocacy organizations (e.g. Stand for Children), private school networks, and state-specific education management organizations. Most of these organizations, however, are more recently established and not as well connected or entrenched as those that oppose privatization. This trend suggests that we may see some significant legislative conflicts on school choice issues at the state-level in the not-too-distant future.
About the NCSPE
The Center provides independent, non-partisan information on and analysis of privatization in education. The Center's program includes research, evaluation, conferences, publications, and dissemination on a full range of issues regarding privatization of education from pre-school to higher education, both national and international.
National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (NCSPE): Check it out.
Who supports privatization of education?
A descriptive analysis of NCSPE's links to national and state-specific organizations that tend to support or oppose privatization of education
INDIANA LIST:
Greater Educational Opportunities (GEO) Foundation Indiana
“GEO Foundation, as featured in Forbes Magazine, has been making access to quality schools a reality for children since 1998. GEO incubates quality charter schools and then supports their growth. All four GEO-sponsored public charter schools are high academic growth schools and feature a unique K-14 model--full day kindergarten all the way through two years of college. GEO seeks to provide greater access to quality education for all kids. The foundation currently operates four charter schools.” (website quote)
Indiana School Scholarship Tax Credit
“The Indiana School Scholarship Tax Credit is designed to provide scholarship support for thousands of low and middle income families to enroll their children into the private or public school of their choice. Funding for these scholarships will come from private, charitable donations to qualified scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Donors (individuals or corporations) would be eligible to take advantage of a 50% credit against their state tax liability for contributions made to an SGO. The program is entirely privately-funded, with an incentive to charitable giving from the tax credit.” (website quote)
Indiana Virtual Families
“Indiana Virtual School Families (IVSF) is a grassroots coalition that was formed four years ago, before grassroots coalitions became popular! The Indiana Virtual School Families board consists of a group of passionate parent volunteers that have united in an effort to educate and inform the public and policymakers at all levels of the potential benefits virtual learning opportunities can bring to Indiana. A coalition supporting virtual schools in Indiana” (website quote)
School Choice Indiana
“School Choice Indiana, Inc. is a non-partisan, statewide organization dedicated to the principle that providing parents with real choices in the education of their children will improve educational outcomes and improve the quality of education, both in private and public schools.” (website quote)
Who supports privatization of education?
In 2000, the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (NCSPE) began to collect and classify website links to organizations involved in advocacy or research related to privatization of education. We created three general classifications: (1) organizations that: "tend to support privatization of education," (2) "present both supporting and opposing perspectives," and (3) "tend to oppose privatization of education." Within the general classifications we subcategorized organizations as: "advocacy," "research and policy" "nonprofit and for-profit and education management organizations," "news," and "research journals." In addition, in 2009, since much of the debate and activity related to privatization of education occurs at the state level, we began to add and classify links to state-specific organizations that "tend to support" or "tend to oppose" privatization of education.
Because of the enormous expansion of activity and interest in educational privatization, we recently concluded a robust search of the internet in order to update our links. The purpose of this announcement is to share with you the results of that search.
First, some descriptive data about our links:
In 2005 we had 49 links to organizations that "Tend to Support Privatization in Education;" we now have 85 such links.
In 2005 we had 23 links to organizations that "Present Both Supporting and Opposing Perspectives;" we did not find any new links to add to this category
In 2005 we had 22 links to organizations that "Tend to Oppose Privatization in Education;" we found only one new link to add to this category
In 2009 we had 19 links to state-specific organizations that "Tend to Support Privatization in Education;" we now have 164 such links
In 2009 we had 7 links to state-specific organizations that "Tend to Oppose Privatization in Education;" we now have 247 such links
In addition to serving as a valuable resource for students of school choice and privatization, the links provide a unique window into the evolution of support for school choice and privatization at the state and national levels. The following observations are based on our review of the changes in the distribution of website links within and between the state and national levels.
Continued Ideological Polarization in the National Dialogue on Privatization of Education
Even though a plethora of new reforms, such as online learning, are now part of the national education reform debate, school choice remains a highly divisive political issue. There are a total of 71 advocacy organizations but only 17 research and policy organizations among the support and oppose categories. In fact, if we counted the Education Management Organizations (EMOs) on our list as advocacy organizations, then essentially all of the growth in our list of national-level organizations since 2005 has come from the addition of advocacy organizations. Furthermore, we could not find neutral organizations at the state-level so we left that category out entirely for the states.
Growth in Organizations that Tend to Support Privatization at the State-level
At the national level, there are significantly more organizations that tend to support privatization (85 that support vs. 22 that oppose), while the opposite is true across the states (164 support vs. 245 oppose). This is largely because every state has at least one well-established teachers' organization (usually more than one) clearly opposed to privatization. However, a diverse coalition of state-level organizations that support school choice has emerged to mobilize parents and counter the power of teachers' organizations. These organizations include religious groups (especially religiously-motivated homeschoolers), free market policy organizations, parent advocacy organizations (e.g. Stand for Children), private school networks, and state-specific education management organizations. Most of these organizations, however, are more recently established and not as well connected or entrenched as those that oppose privatization. This trend suggests that we may see some significant legislative conflicts on school choice issues at the state-level in the not-too-distant future.
About the NCSPE
The Center provides independent, non-partisan information on and analysis of privatization in education. The Center's program includes research, evaluation, conferences, publications, and dissemination on a full range of issues regarding privatization of education from pre-school to higher education, both national and international.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Battle for Public Higher Education
Recent debate about how these dangerous education policies are at work in higher education as well....the battle has many fronts indeed. Note that the Goldwater Institute's main priority is the privatization of public services; care about public colleges and universities? Better start paying attention!
Cut public "subsidies" of higher education Indy Star:
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/
That is the recommendation of an Op-Ed piece in this morning's (8/14/2010) Indianapolis Star. Its author, Jay P. Greene of the University of Arkansas and a fellow of the Goldwater Institute, bases this recommendation on his analysis of recent trends in higher education cost nationwide as well as in Indiana. Greene argues that
university in the past twenty years have shifted an increasing proportion of their funds away from paying salaries of instructors, researchers, and "service-providers" to pay for a growing number of
highly-paid administrators. The only solution to this "administrative bloat," according to Greene is to shift more of the bill for higher education onto students and their parents and away from public funds.
In his scenario, "cost-conscious" parents will then force the universities to trim their administrative expenses and shift more funds back to classroom education and research.
Greene might be correct about recent trends in the ways funds are spent
in our universities for administrative versus the more primary missions
of instruction and research. University faculty have witnessed teaching
"lines" disappear from academic departments and salaries being frozen
as the numbers of vice-chancellors, assistant deans, and their support
staffs have swelled in recent years. While the latter individuals do
perform invaluable functions in supporting the university's teaching
and research missions, perhaps the charge of "bloat" has an element of
merit that needs to be corrected. In a time of economic downturn, all
parts of the university should be prepare to retrench including the
administration.
Nevertheless, the solution that Greene proposes to reduce public subsidies to higher education is based upon an inaccurate analysis of the financing of Indiana's higher education system and its solution
seems more punitive than helpful towards faculty, researchers, students, and parents. The financial "subsidies" that Indiana taxpayers make of the state higher education system already have been in relative
decline in recent years and more of the cost of running the universities has been transferred to tuitions, private donations, and revenues from research. In fact state funding policies seem intended to
make all Indiana Universities and college "self-supporting" on their own revenue sources rather than public funds. Rather than acknowledging the benefit of "public education" for the Indiana public, state
mandates already have forced universities to raise tuitions to record levels. Expecting industries or philanthropic organizations to step in to help higher education at a time of serious economic recession is
unrealistic.
Following Professor Greene's recommendation of raising tuitions even higher would threaten to bar lower and even middle class students from enrolling. Higher tuitions are likely to drive away Indiana students from pursing college educations at a time when the state needs to increase its base of well-educated workers to compete in the intensely competitive world economy. Faith that the "market" of cost-conscious parents will reform problems in higher education spending is based on untested ideological assumptions that risk causing fatal damage to the state's public colleges and universities. There seems to be a major campaign in the works against public education at all levels and the future of our state is being placed in jeopardy.
Absolutely!
Cut public "subsidies" of higher education Indy Star:
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/
That is the recommendation of an Op-Ed piece in this morning's (8/14/2010) Indianapolis Star. Its author, Jay P. Greene of the University of Arkansas and a fellow of the Goldwater Institute, bases this recommendation on his analysis of recent trends in higher education cost nationwide as well as in Indiana. Greene argues that
university in the past twenty years have shifted an increasing proportion of their funds away from paying salaries of instructors, researchers, and "service-providers" to pay for a growing number of
highly-paid administrators. The only solution to this "administrative bloat," according to Greene is to shift more of the bill for higher education onto students and their parents and away from public funds.
In his scenario, "cost-conscious" parents will then force the universities to trim their administrative expenses and shift more funds back to classroom education and research.
Greene might be correct about recent trends in the ways funds are spent
in our universities for administrative versus the more primary missions
of instruction and research. University faculty have witnessed teaching
"lines" disappear from academic departments and salaries being frozen
as the numbers of vice-chancellors, assistant deans, and their support
staffs have swelled in recent years. While the latter individuals do
perform invaluable functions in supporting the university's teaching
and research missions, perhaps the charge of "bloat" has an element of
merit that needs to be corrected. In a time of economic downturn, all
parts of the university should be prepare to retrench including the
administration.
Nevertheless, the solution that Greene proposes to reduce public subsidies to higher education is based upon an inaccurate analysis of the financing of Indiana's higher education system and its solution
seems more punitive than helpful towards faculty, researchers, students, and parents. The financial "subsidies" that Indiana taxpayers make of the state higher education system already have been in relative
decline in recent years and more of the cost of running the universities has been transferred to tuitions, private donations, and revenues from research. In fact state funding policies seem intended to
make all Indiana Universities and college "self-supporting" on their own revenue sources rather than public funds. Rather than acknowledging the benefit of "public education" for the Indiana public, state
mandates already have forced universities to raise tuitions to record levels. Expecting industries or philanthropic organizations to step in to help higher education at a time of serious economic recession is
unrealistic.
Following Professor Greene's recommendation of raising tuitions even higher would threaten to bar lower and even middle class students from enrolling. Higher tuitions are likely to drive away Indiana students from pursing college educations at a time when the state needs to increase its base of well-educated workers to compete in the intensely competitive world economy. Faith that the "market" of cost-conscious parents will reform problems in higher education spending is based on untested ideological assumptions that risk causing fatal damage to the state's public colleges and universities. There seems to be a major campaign in the works against public education at all levels and the future of our state is being placed in jeopardy.
Absolutely!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)