@ THE CHALK FACE: Alex Johnson’s corporate SuperPAC run by Eli Broad’s Dan “students must pledge to capitalism” Chang

First published on @ THE CHALK FACE on July 29, 2014

---

"Financed by conservative billionaire philanthropists like Bill Gates and Eli Broad, charters willingly carry out the indoctrination their benefactors seek." — Professor Ralph E. Shaffer

Corporate candidate Alex Johnson and his backer Mark Ridley-Thomas have already raised incredible amounts of money in their attempt to seize a seat on the Los Angeles Unified School (LAUSD) on behalf of the school privatization project. The charter school industry trade group, California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), has raised huge sums on his behalf in the form of an Independent Expenditure (IE) as well. All of this to try to overwhelm the community candidate of choice, the highly regarded lifelong educator Dr. George McKenna.

Notably missing from this LAUSD special election is the notorious neoliberal corporate education reform SuperPAC — the Coalition for Education Reform (CSR). Founded and funded by right wing billionaires, anti-government ideologues, and charter school sector profiteers, the CSR has provided unparalleled support to anti-public school LAUSD candidates for years. Manipulated by former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, candidates including Tamar Galatsan, Antonio Sanchez, Monica Garcia, Yolie Flores, Kate Anderson, and other privatizers have all counted on a flood of CSR money over the years. Philip Anschutz, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, Frank Baxter, Eli Broad, Jerry Perenchio, and many other reactionary right-wing ideologues have funded the CSR over its existence.

In the absence of the CSR to pump even more funds into non-educator Johnson's campaign, corporate reformer Dan Chang has conjured yet another SuperPAC: the Great Public Schools Los Angeles Political Action Committee. Chang might not be a household name, but he has been a longtime operative on behalf of the ALEC/Gates/Broad/Walton agenda to destroy public education. A graduate of Eli Broad's Urban Residency, his previous positions includes stints with the struggling Green Dot Charter School Corporation, the lackluster Education Management Organization (EMO) LA's Promise, and recently with John Deasy's 501c3, the LA Fund — an organization best known for serving LAUSD students expired processed foods in unsanitary conditions.

Chang's connections to fellow Ayn Rand acolytes has paid dividends for the already asymmetrical fundraising of the Alex Johnson Campaign. In only a few days Chang's corporate SuperPAC managed to raise nearly $100,000. With the big money to be made in the lucrative charter industry through no-bid contracts and sweetheart deals with their unelected boards of directors, charter schools are a favorite investment vehicle of the one percent, who consider these political donations prudent investments.

Like many born into privilege and having studied business rather than the humanities, Chang has difficulty acknowledging that right-wing heroes Howard Roark and John Galt are in fact fictional characters. His obsession with so-called free markets and social darwinism is so unshakable, that he was the central figure in perhaps one of the more shameful episodes of the Green Dot Charter School Corporation's dubious history.

Shortly after the hostile take over of Alain Leroy Locke High School by the privately managed Green Dot corporate charter chain, an important ideological battle played out over astonishing language in the Locke "charter" document itself. The language was discovered by Ralph E. Shaffer, Professor Emeritus of History, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. The charter required for students in history and social studies to "demonstrate an understanding of American history, government, economics and a belief in the values of democracy and capitalism." [emphasis mine]. Here is a copy of the orignal charter.

Green Dot Public [sic] Schools' original Alain Leroy Locke Charter High School petition by Robert D. Skeels

Standing up to Green Dot Corporation's indoctrination of students that clearly violated the US Constitution's First Amendment, Shaffer was right to say Green Dot "can't require students to believe in any ideology. Even requiring a belief in democracy violates students' right to believe in whatever political system they wish." Dr. Shaffer took the issue to Green Dot Corporation and to LAUSD, which, as the authorizing body for the charter, had nominal "oversight" in the issue. Rather than admit to indoctrinating students with the ideology of their backers, Green Dot, and namely Dan Chang — their Vice President of New School Development — dug in. They desperately tried to hold on to their ability to subject young minds to the propaganda of their top funders (e.g. the Walton Family Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Broad Foundation). This letter from Chang shows breathtaking corporate arrogance.

Green Dot Public [sic] Schools' Daniel Chang's smug letter defending their capitalism indoctrination clause... by Robert D. Skeels

Chang's patronizing statement that "Mr. Shaffer may have interpreted a few words of our petition out of context" is stunning in both its arrogance and its ignorance. Only in Eli Broad's version of reality is non-educator with a MBA somehow better equipped to understand a civics rubric than a lifelong educator with a PhD in history. Shaffer, author of several books, and hundreds of published articles and Op-Eds, is infinitely more qualified to "interpret" a rubric than Chang, whose ignorance of the "California state content standards [sic]" is clear in his haughty letter. To be sure, "California's social studies guidelines do not even mention capitalism" whether on require that students demonstrate a belief in its "value." In the end, much to their chagrin, Chang and his corporate charter chain employer were forced to remove the highly offensive requirement from their charter. It's likely that Chang had to bury himself in Rand's The Fountainhead, or The Virtue of Selfishness to salve his wounded pride after having to write this last letter

Amendment Request for the Alain LeRoy Locke Charter High School charter petition - Green Dot Public [sic] S... by Robert D. Skeels

Being able to raise money for fellow neoliberal corporate reformer Johnson is the sort of thing Chang thrives on. While he himself is not a member of the one percent, he is a loyal servant to the power and privilege of the plutocrat class. The dirty money raised to push the Alex Johnson Campaign has been used to try and besmirch community candidate Dr. McKenna. Chang's lack of respect for students, as demonstrated in his letters above, is no different that that of his wealthy backers. Trying to force an unqualified Alex Johnson on a community in desperate need of authentic leadership by a lifelong educator is one more example of how the plutocrat class pushing corporate education reform will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

@ THE CHALK FACE: Alex Johnson’s corporate SuperPAC run by Eli Broad’s Dan “students must pledge to capitalism” Chang

"BROKEN NEWS" - GREEN DOT TO TAKE OVER VERNON?

Dr. Ralph E. Shaffer is Professor Emeritus, History Cal Poly Pomona

Green Dot to Take Over Vernon?

Reliable but unnamed sources at the state capital insist that AB 46, Assembly Speaker John Perez' Vernon disincorporation bill, contains a secret clause. According to a highly placed aide in the Speaker's office, interviewed under an assurance of anonymity, the final version of the bill will turn Vernon over to Green Dot, giving a whole new meaning to "charter city."

Rather than disincorporate Vernon, the city will maintain its legal identity but will technically be managed by Green Dot. Applying to cities the Green Dot principle that any one can run a school, a short list of candidates for Green Dot's city manager include former LAUSD Superintendent David Brewer and soon to be former super, Ray Cortines.

But former Green Dot executive Steve Barr is favored to be tapped for city manager. He disappeared from public view following what was mistakenly thought to be his ouster from Green Dot. In fact, he secretly entered Eli Broad's Institute for City Government, a newly organized training facility to mold municipal administrators with the proper outlook on city management. The Institute is an offshoot of Broad's successful counterpart that indoctrinates "school choice" superintendents.

Green Dot spokesman Marco Petruzzi would not confirm or deny the rumor. Instead he read a statement suggesting that Green Dot's past performance made it a logical choice for such a takeover. Long-time charter school critic Robert D. Skeels agreed: "Good idea. Green Dot already runs its schools like factories."

Following the usual rules involved in reconstituting a school, all Vernon officials and employees will be fired. Some, at the discretion of Green Dot, may be rehired. Under Green Dot, employee compensation will not include any pension benefits, health insurance or sick leave. As at some charter schools, the work week will include Saturday and a full ten hour day on weekdays. Green Dot, as a rule, does not welcome labor contracts.

Several local unions, which had vigorously opposed Vernon's disincorporation and had devoted both manpower and money to defeat the Perez bill, were stunned by the sudden turn of events. Said a dejected representative from the electrical union: "Capital and labor had united in opposition to AB 46. We gave our all for Vernon. Now this."

Maria Durazo, county labor federation leader, says organized labor has an even greater problem in store. The Walton Foundation reportedly has given Green Dot several million dollars to erect worker re-education camps. There, union members will be disindoctrinated through a lengthy process designed to imbue them with a politically correct position on the rights of capital and the subordinate position of workers.

How will a Green Dot Vernon differ from the current city? In keeping with its practice of cherry picking students, Green Dot will decide which businesses can stay and which will be forced to relocate in traditional cities. Using its power as a truly "charter" city, Green Dot will keep only the best performing businesses, sending the rest elsewhere. "For all I care, they can go to Bell," Barr said. Those business owners who resist expulsion will face special assessments, parcel taxes and other irritating fees that will encourage them to leave. Eminent domain looms as a last resort.

Many business and property owners, advocates of "city choice," expressed outrage and vowed to fight. "Owners Revolution," allegedly to be headed by ousted state school board member Ben Austin, is patterned after a highly vocal and abrasive Green Dot subsidiary. Expect the purple prosed newsletters to be penned by charter advocate and Emmy winning comedy writer Bill Gunderfest. Already Owners Revolution has reportedly harassed owners sympathetic to Green Dot. Several billboards have appeared along Vernon Avenue denouncing the takeover.

If the legislature balks, refusing to pass AB 46, Green Dot has Plan B. Those same reliable sources suggest that already Green Dot and the present cabal running Vernon have had extensive talks. Under consideration is a proposal in which the Vernon city council would use its power as a charter city to contract with Green Dot. That would allow the school company to run the city, leaving the current council in office at full salary and with their current pension benefits.

Either way, the term "charter city" will have an new definition.

"BROKEN NEWS" - GREEN DOT TO TAKE OVER VERNON?

Dr. Shaffer's Open Letter to Los Angeles Times on VAM

The Times' ill-conceived campaign to rate public school teachers on the basis of a badly-flawed and highly dubious process called "value added analysis" has claimed its first victim. Inexplicably, The Times has chosen not to offer an apology for the great pain it has inflicted on many teachers who now bear the stigma of "ineffective" or, as in this case, "less effective."

Supt. Ramon Cortines, however, has issued a hypocritical statement. Cortines, who had joined with The Times in demanding that value added analysis be a major part of the evaluation system, had the audacity to praise the deceased teacher as a "passionate and caring teacher" who made a difference in the lives of his students. "We need more teachers like him."

Good grief! Cortines and The Times declare the victim less than effective, but we need more like him. Yes, we do need more like the young man that irresponsible journalism and a hell-bent for "reform" LAUSD administration hounded to his death.

Let the journalists return to crusading for fewer potholes. Let the Superintendent and the one-track reform-minded crowd on the LAUSD board leave the evaluation of teachers to educators, not statisticians. Let The Times publicly admit its responsibility in this tragic event and turn its reporting on education over to those who know teaching because they've been there.

Ralph E. Shaffer
Professor Emeritus, History Cal Poly Pomona

Dr. Shaffer's Open Letter to Los Angeles Times on VAM

It's Not the Refrom Plan That's at Risk, It's the Kids! — Professor Ralph E. Shaffer

"If this study shows anything, it shows that we've got a two-to-one margin of bad charters to good charters, that's a red flag." -- Margaret E. Raymond (Director Stanford Center for Research on Education Outcomes CREDO 2009)

How long does it take the Times editorial board to realize that not all change is reform?

For several years the Times has been the major exponent of charterizing the Los Angeles Unified School District. Whether Mesmerized by the charismatic leader of Green Dot or influenced by the strong pro-charter stance of a local billionaire who may someday own the Times, the paper has become the most outspoken cheerleader for turning dozen, or hundreds, of LAUSD schools over to the charter privateers.

Even though unacceptable acts by charter activists were so egregious that Times editorial writers had to scold them, the editorial board continues to support the dismantling of LAUSD by giving new schools to charter entrepreneurs and turning over existing schools to them as well.

Readers of Monday's editorial, "Policy skirmishing puts LAUSD reform at risk," [1] would have applauded had its concern about the potential scuttling of the misnamed Flores Aguilar "School Choice" plan led to an editorial conclusion that the plan was ill-advised in the first place. But the editorial betrayed LAUSD students and parents by continuing to support a phony reform that lines the pockets of charter privateers with taxpayer dollars.

More important, there is nothing about "School Choice" in the plan the board and superintendent are moving with unacceptable speed to implement. As noted by the paper's own education writer, Howard Blume, this is really a "School Control:" scam. The only "choice" is which school goes to which charter. As it now stands, Flores Aguilar will place a hundred thousand or more of the district's students under the indoctrinating control of ideologically-oriented entrepreneurs.

The Times worries that the plan is "at risk." The paper's editors ought to be worried that the kids are at risk. The editors, the op-ed staff, and the LAUSD board knew that the charter under which Locke High was turned over to Green Dot required that every Locke student would be required to DEMONSTRATE A BELIEF in capitalism. The editors knew that one charter operator requires students to stand each morning and give an oral pledge to capitalism. At that school they don't have to pledge to the flag, however.

This is the wonderful world of charter schools. The two instances cited occurred at schools run by privateers who are frequently cited by charter advocates, including the Times, as outstanding examples of what can happen under charter operation. If the teachers union formed a charter school and required the students to recite a daily homage to the working class can you imagine the outrage that would quickly grace the editorial pages of the Times?

So who is responsible for endangering the Flores Aguilar con? Those favored charter operators themselves. Why? Because they don't like a requirement that makes them enroll all the students living in the attendance area of each of the schools they are about to pilfer. And why don't charters want all those kids? The Times editorial recognized, for the first time, what the reason is. Charters want "students whose parents are informed and involved enough to enter the lotteries in the first place -- which also means that these schools attract a motivated population of students and families. Left out are many students, such as foster children, who most need well-run schools."

If charters took all the students, as a traditional LAUSD school must do, those questionable but highly touted charter test scores would plummet. Attendance problems would suddenly appear. Discipline would be comparable to the problems that existed before the charters moved in and weeded out trouble making kids.

Face it, editorial board, you've ignored the realistic criticism raised by concerned citizens - not the teachers union - for several years now. Even when in your own editorial you recognize what is wrong with the charter movement and why it cannot replicate the unsubstantiated claims that charter advocates put forth, you stand firm in your naive belief that charters, not genuine reform within the LAUSD, is the answer to the district's problems.

Ralph E. Shaffer, long-time charter critic whose op-eds are shuffled off to [the Los Angeles Times'] Blowback or Dust Up, is Professor Emeritus of History at Cal Poly Pomona.


NOTES
[1] http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-lausd2-2009nov02,0,3883858.story

It's Not the Refrom Plan That's at Risk, It's the Kids! — Professor Ralph E. Shaffer

An Open Letter to Los Angeles Times Editorial Page Editor Jim Newton from Professor Ralph E. Shaffer

Greetings, Jim:

First a quotation from Sunday's editorial:

"Check out the Los Angeles Unified School District's website and you can track its encouraging progress on the new policy allowing charter operators and other outside organizations to submit competing proposals to run certain schools. When the policy was approved in August, district leaders vowed a transparent and objective process, and so far they're making good on that vow, posting updates on the website. Given L.A. Unified's history of broken promises and political motives, we're pleasantly surprised."

"Encouraging progress?" "Transparent?" (Surely the next list of most overused words that Mankato State puts out will include "transparent" at the top). I guess it is "encouraging progress" if you consider railroading the dismantlement of LAUSD to be progress. Remember that the Times was upset that the board delayed the vote on the Flores Aguilar plan for a month. You couldn't wait for real transparency and a genuine public discussion. You suppressed the opposition to the plan by refusing to run opposition opinion pieces. Instead you shoved them off to the online Dust Up space where they are seen by only those readers who look specifically for them. One purpose of op-ed is to enlighten the casual reader who otherwise might not be aware of a critical issue facing the community. Readers of the Times think that only UTLA and Duffy oppose this charter grab of billions of dollars worth of property and tens of thousands of our kids.

"History of broken promises?" The promise that charters will be the answer to LAUSD's problems will in the end be the biggest of those problems. White flight from integration was the first proverbial nail in the coffin of public education in LA. Charterization will seal it.

Charterization is one reform that when undertaken cannot be reversed. I don't think you have thought of that. When the public gets fed up with the power of Steve Barr, Green Dot and Eli Broad, it will be too late to reverse the "encouraging progress." Contractual arrangements will be virtually unbreakable, except perhaps at great financial cost to the taxpayers. By then, those at LAUSD who brought on the disaster and the editorial staff at the LA Times who backed it will be gone. And the next degeneration's of Times' editors will be left to wonder how in the world decent, intelligent journalists let this happen.

Enjoy your victory, Jim. But think of what you are doing to the kids of LA by joining forces with the vultures of charterization rather than fighting for real reform in LAUSD.

Ralph E. Shaffer
Professor Emeritus, History
Cal Poly Pomona

An Open Letter to Los Angeles Times Editorial Page Editor Jim Newton from Professor Ralph E. Shaffer

Open Letter to Howard Blume from Professor Ralph E. Shaffer

AN OPEN LETTER TO HOWARD BLUME [and the Editorial Board], in response to his article on L A charter schools, 9/2/09

Was it an inadvertent selection of words, Howard, that led you to refer to the Flores Aguilar plan in your second paragraph as a "school control" program rather than one of "school choice?" You are, in fact, absolutely right in calling it "school control." There never was any "choice" given to students, teachers or parents in the resolution that the LAUSD board adopted. The "choice" in her plan was in the form of outside operators "choosing" which schools they would pick off. Can't you see a smoke-filled room where Villaraigosa, Barr, Palisoc and others are meeting to decide who bids for the right to "control" which campuses?

I thought from the onset that the use of "Choice" in Aguilar's resolution was a come-on, designed to lure unsuspecting but dissatisfied parents into thinking this plan was somehow going to give them a greater say in the education of their children. But, Howard, you know that was never the intention of the charter crowd or the mayor's cabal. It was always an empty gesture - and it worked. Where is the charter school in L A that truly gives parents a decisive voice in the education of their kids? It would be the exception to an almost ironclad rule of no parental authority.

I assume you are aware, Howard, that "school choice" was a code phrase used by the anti-integration rednecks and ultraconservative gentility who wanted the right in the 1960s and 70s to send their kids to racially homogeneous public schools or, better yet, get a voucher from the state to send their kids to private schools. What you may not be aware of is that the California charter school law was enacted in the early 1990s partly as a ploy to block the voucher movement.

May I make a suggestion for a future article over your byline: interview Gary Hart and Delaine Eastin, the two legislators who ushered the original bill through the state legislature. Ask them to comment on how the charter school movement of today equates with the very precise objectives they had for such schools. Also ask them what they think of this whole new cottage industry of charter "companies" - I'm glad to see that you are referring to them as "companies" rather than "educationally institutions," which they are not. We might as well have Blackwater running the schools.

Anyway. a published interview with Eastin and Hart ought to win a Pulitzer.

So now it's in the open. The Flores Aguilar plan was really a move for "control" of the schools by charters and has nothing to do with "choice." We will probably never again hear the word "choice" used in connection with this theft. And theft it is. Didn't Cortines use the word "steal" in a quotation in your article?

As I read your piece it became apparent that a flock of vultures is drooling over the feast that will begin in January. And the vultures are Villaraigosa, Tuck, Hill, Palisoc, Barr, Austin, and the angels bankrolling them: Broad and Wasserman. You tell us that Broad wants to dismantle the LAUSD. I'm not surprised. One of his pets, Green Dot, has apparently catered to him by writing into the curriculum at Locke a requirement that all students there will have to demonstrate a "belief" in capitalism. My, my! Editorial page editor Jim Newton stands by Broad, citing the philanthropist's liberalism. Well, he isn't liberal when it comes to allowing students to have freedom of thought. Apparently Broad would like to dismantle the First Amendment to the U S Constitution as he works to dismantle the LAUSD.

Perhaps, then, "control" has a greater meaning. Not only will private entrepreneurs - with their six figure salaries at their "noon-profit" charters - control the billions of dollars in school property but they will also "control" the mindset of the students they plan to "educate." I will not be surprised if the guru of American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland makes a play for an LAUSD school. You surely remember that character, Howard. Your fellow reporter Mitchell Landsberg did a piece about him in late May, describing how the kids there have to give a pledge every morning -not to the American flag ... but to "Capitalism." This is also the guy who tells teacher applicants that no liberals need apply. He ought to fit right in with the Flores Aguilar "control" plan. Yes. not only will the charters control the property, they will also control kids' minds.

I know you love Green Dot, Howard. You've listened to Steve Barr and his cronies far more than you have to those of us who see in this plan the destruction of public education. You are cordial to the opponents, but in the end Broad is where the power is and it's the Broads of this community who will carry the day. The real opposition to this plan did not come from A J Duffy and the UTLA. Duffy and UTLA were, however, a convenient whipping boy. Reference to them in the Times brings back memories of the old days - before Otis Chandler - when the Times was so anti-union that some of us were ashamed to admit we read the sheet. But vilifying the union was a winning tactic for the plan. It certainly took up enough space that there was no room for genuine opposition to Flores Aguilar's proposal. And, of course, the op-ed staff refused to run two powerful submissions that spoke direct about L A charters and their operators. And Newton could write with a straight face: the Times wants "an honest campaign."

There was no honest campaign, Howard. The Times, Green Dot, the mayor and Broad won. But they didn't do it honestly. And if the Times can live with that, it speaks volumes about the journalistic integrity of the Editorial Board and the staff writing about education.

To the victors go the spoils, and in L A the rot will be worth billions to those vultures.


Ralph E. Shaffer
Professor Emeritus, History
Cal Poly Pomona

Open Letter to Howard Blume from Professor Ralph E. Shaffer

Professor Shaffer's Open Letter to Howard Blume on the Austin/Villaraigosa Love Fest

Professor Ralph E. Shaffer was kind enough to give me permission to reprint his open letter to Los Angeles Times staffer (and Steve Barr sycophant) Howard Blume over his fluff piece: Villaraigosa advocates letting outside operators bid for control of L.A. Unified schools

Were I not nearly blind I would have driven the 25 or so miles to last night's pro-Flores Aguilar plan rally featuring the mayor and Green Dot's hired shill Ben Austin. But according to paragraph 15 of your article - that was almost to the end of your piece - I would have been locked out because I oppose the raid by privateers who want to feast on public schools.

Did you not watch any TV at all yesterday before you went to that one-sided so-called "town hall" meeting? Were you totally unaware that in several genuine town hall meetings held by Senators and Representatives in various states, and yes, even one held by the president, anti-health care reform citizens were /NOT/ locked out?

Howard, if I had been writing the story the lead paragraph and the headline would have been about the dictatorial efforts of Austin and the pro-charter crowd to prevent the asking of responsible, telling questions that would have made the privatization plan look like the money-grubbing, political advancement plan that it really is.

How could you, as a responsible educational reporter, have tucked the lockout away in a spot near the end of your piece? That was inexcusable.

Moreover, you emphasized the union and Duffy as representing the opposition. Stop using the UTLA as a bogeyman. The real opposition to the plan comes not from the union but from concerned educators who know what will happen when Green Dot takes over the job that the LAUSD board is supposed to do. Did you not read the Diane Ravitch op-ed in your own paper yesterday morning? She said more eloquently than the rest of us what we have been trying to tell the LAUSD board for over a year.

Tell us, Howard, what is the "progress" at Locke that you so gratuitously slipped into your article.? Is there any progress other than safety? Discipline, you say? Are the undisciplined kids from last year still at the school? Were they the same kids who created the unsafe problem?

Please write another story, Howard, one in which you tell it like it really is regarding charters and those who truly represent the opposition to the surrender of our schools to private operators. Stop making it a "union" thing. That's exactly what the mayor and Ben Austin want you to do because it plays on a stereotype that is popular with a large segment of the public. And it makes you a shill like Ben Austin.

Ralph E Shaffer
Professor Emeritus, History
Cal Poly Pomona

Professor Shaffer's Open Letter to Howard Blume on the Austin/Villaraigosa Love Fest