Mike Klonsky interviewed about Chicago's new mayor

This extensive interview I did with on Labor Express begins here at 28.30 and runs until the end of the show.


Labor Express For 2-21-11 - Jerry Mead-Lucero

This is the full 2-21-11 episode of the Labor Express Radio program. The past week has been one of those weeks in which I wished Labor Express aired 2 or 3 times every week. There is no way we can do justice on today’s program to all the important developments of the past week. Of course tomorrow is election day in Chicago and, as promised I will bring you my interview with Mike Klonsky on Rahm Emmanuel’s policy positions on public education...

New book takes critical look at the Gates Foundation

The Gates Foundation and the Future of 

US “Public” Schools 

Edited by Philip E. Kovacs
Price: $95.00
Binding/Format: Hardback
ISBN: 978-0-415-87334-5
Publish Date: October 21st 2010
Imprint: Routledge
Pages: 232 pages

A critical look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that  includes a chapter by Michael Klonsky, "Power Philanthropy: Taking the Public Out of Public Education."

Foreword Deron Boyles. Acknowledgments. 1. From Carnegie to Gates: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Venture Philanthropy Agenda for Public Education Kenneth J. Saltman 2. Power Philanthropy: Taking the Public Out of Public Education Michael Klonsky 3. The Gates Foundation’s Interventions into Education, Health, and Food Policies: Technology, Power, and the Privatization of Political Problems David Hursh 4. Marketing New Schools for a New Century: An Examination of Neoliberal School Reform in New York City Jessica Shiller 5. Corporatism, KIPP, and Cultural Eugenics Jim Horn 6. Disabusing Small-Schools Reformism: An Alternative Outlook on Scaling Up and Down Aimee Howley and Craig B. Howley 7. Governing Identity Through Neoliberal Education Initiatives: "Get[ting] Schooled" in the Marketplace Leslee Grey 8. The Gates’ Foundation and the Future of U.S. Public Education: A Call for Scholars to Counter Misinformation Campaigns Philip E. Kovacs and H.K. Christie 9. The Giving Business: Venture Philanthropy and the NewSchools Venture Fund Jim Horn and Ken Libby 10. Dear Bill: "Grokking’ Education Patti Lather 11. An Open Letter to Bill Gates, Jr. (With a Message to My Colleagues) David Gabbard 12. Why Current Education Reform Efforts Will Fail Marion Brady

There has been much public praise for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s efforts to reform public education. However, few scholars have engaged substantively and critically with the organization’s work. While the Gates Foundation is the single largest supporter by far of "choice" initiatives particularly with regard to charter school formation, it is pushing public school privatization through a wide array of initiatives and in conjunction with a number of other foundations. What are the implications for a public system as control over educational policy and priority is concentrated under one of the richest people on the planet in ways that foster de-unionization and teacher de-skilling while homogenizing school models and curriculum? The Gates Foundation and the Future of U.S. "Public" Schools addresses this crucial, unanswered question while investigating the relationships between the Gates Foundation and other think tanks, government, and corporate institutions.

Reviewed in "Improving Schools"

Michael and Susan Klonsky (2008) Small Schools: Public School Reform Meets the Ownership Society
Routledge ISBN 0 415 96123 8 £14.99 208 pages

Mark Berends, Matthew Springer and Herbert Walberg, eds (2008)
Charter School Outcomes Lawrence Erlbaum ISBN 0 8058 6222 6 £21.99 300 pages

Reviewed by Terry Wrigley, University of Edinburgh

One of the key differences between secondary education in the UK and USA concerns school size. Across Britain, the common assumption is that secondary schools below about 800 students aren’t really viable. The average secondary school size in England grew from 820 to 1000 between 1992 and 2002 (Newman et al., 2006), though at the end of this period 29 per cent of secondary schools still had fewer than 800. There has been little policy interest in small schools, though small size is often used as the pretext for closure and (increasingly) privatization. Ironically, those who make this argument seem unaware that in PISA-prizewinning Finland there are few secondary schools with more than 500 students, and half are below 300.

The few UK-based research studies point to some attainment disadvantages of smaller but also of larger than average schools, but this is slight and sometimes incestuous in its citation. Spielhofer et al. (2002) in their empirical study acknowledge that this may be due to the quasi-market system of English schools, especially in urban areas, which seems plausible: the publication of league tables and their impact on parental choice
systematically leads towards school rolls declining in schools that have lower attainment than their neighbours, even if this is caused by socio-economic factors. Thus, it is probably relatively lower attainment which leads to smaller schools rather than the reverse.

This is in contrast to the many US-based studies that associate smaller size with higher attainment, particularly for poorer and ethnic minority students, and that point to an improved ethos and social development for all kinds of students in smaller schools. There are clear parallels to school-within-school or year-group structures in (already quite small) Norwegian and Swedish schools.

The USA has seen a remarkable movement towards small schools. Some of these replace existing schools, while others are the result of restructuring large high schools to make several schools-within-schools. It is surprising that England’s policy-makers, who have borrowed so much from the USA, have such little interest in the small-school movement.

For an outsider it is difficult to disentangle the question of small schools from the Charter School reform, and there is substantial overlap. In brief, Charter Schools are publicly funded but privately managed schools. There are already 4000 in 40 states, with heavy concentrations in some politically conservative areas and states. Many are small but others aren’t. They vary from community-run schools with progressive teaching teams and curricula to chains of schools run by edu-businesses. It is important for English educators to understand this, since they seem identical to England’s City Academies, which are also publicly funded but privately run. This controversial programme has hit many obstacles and much resistance. Significantly, the English government set a price tag on these by requiring academy ‘sponsors’ (i.e. the private management) to contribute £2,000,000, thus precluding more progressive community based initiatives.

Michael and Susan Klonsky’s book helps enormously in understanding the relationship between the small school reform and Charter Schools. They present a revealing account of ‘two trains running’, the drive towards smaller secondary schools on the one hand, and a business takeover of schooling on the other. They are committed advocates of small schools, tracing the origins of this movement to the Freedom Schools and Citizenship Schools of the 1960s civil rights campaign. They see them as a re-invention of Deweyan progressivism in the Information Age. They emphasize the need for community among students and closer student–teacher relationships, as well as the professional learning community of staff. Staff were empowered to rethink education and respond to the challenge of ‘savage inequalities’ (Kozol, 1991). There is currently
enormous diversity of small schools, often as small as 200 or 300, supported by such networks as the Coalition of Essential Schools.

The drive towards small schools has attracted extensive support, from the libertarian left to big city councils and global businesses. Though some of the business support has been benign and hands-off, the Klonskys describe an accelerating process of privatization, in terms of both control and a redirection of educational aims. The Klonskys tell a powerful story of the corporate takeover of public schooling, involving some of the world’s biggest corporations. These include the gigantic Wal-Mart, through its Walton Foundation. The earlier progressive orientation has been undermined by the Neo-Cons, though often sheltering behind a pseudo-progressive rhetoric. Thus the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) schools, sponsored byWalton,
are singled out as an example of ‘the most mind-numbing and cultish’ charter schools. Particularly widespread in low-income neighbourhoods, such schools seem bent on disciplining and exhorting the poor rather than developing human potential (much likeWal-Mart as a workplace with its relentless company cheers and deadend jobs). (Liza Featherstone, writing in The Nation, quoted on page 110)

The authors also raise questions about a recent change in direction of the Gates charitable foundation, which originally gave hands-off support to a range of models of small school and schools-within-schools, but appears now to be committed to the closure and replacement (privatization) rather than restructuring of existing schools. Good examples are given of supposedly not-for-profit organizations sub-contracting
schools to for-profit management companies to overcome the terms of the charter. Many of the Charter Schools, far from empowering staff, have forbidden union organization.

The school reform has simultaneously been distorted and undermined by the so-called No Child Left Behind policy. Under duress from the NCLB, the district (Chicago) pulled the rug out from under this first wave of school reform, and all traditional schools were put on a strict testprep regimen. Across the city, principals were told to discontinue small-schools initiatives and to focus instead on test preparation. However, the small-
movement had gone too far and attracted too much investment and popular support to turn back… Surviving small schools were pressured to give up many of their innovations and conform to standardized, and even scripted, modes of instruction and assessment. (pages 39–40)

The situation is also complicated because some city councils are strongly backing small school reforms in order to retain schools within the public sector and keep Corporate America at bay. There have been contradictions between city bureaucracies and the dynamics of small-school foundation. The book includes a case study of a large high school whose staff were simply informed by letter that their school was to be broken up into smaller schools, causing massive resentment and the failure of the restructuring. The Klonskys call for a return to the original aims and direction of small-school reform. They remind us that the reform was never just about size, but was about rethinking the nature of education and strengthening professional initiative and control. According to Professor Michelle Fine of City University New York, many of the new small schools have become ‘big schools in drag’.

All too many small schools have the same authoritarian principals, disempowered and uninspired educators, dubious high-stakes tests, and Eurocentric curricula as the large schools they were designed to replace. (Fine, quoted on page 92) The other book reviewed here (Berends et al.) is a less exciting read but important in
its own way. It examines some of the claims that Charter Schools are more successful than public schools, and advises caution. The earlier chapters consider carefully the flaws in some school effectiveness research which doesn’t take important factors into account. For example, it looks at the various reasons why pupils may be transferred by their parents to a Charter School, leading to differences in prior attainment or progress,
and involving different degrees of parental and pupil engagement. It also reviews quantitative research on a range of issues such as engagement, personnel policy, wage setting and management.

The case studies in the final section focus on areas with high concentrations of Charter Schools, and conclude that overall the experiment has not succeeded. They also show that they have tended to lead to greater racial segregation. For example:

Our results from California show that charter schools generally perform on par with or slightly below the achievement levels of traditional public schools, they have not closed the achievement gaps for minorities, and they have not had the expected competitive effects on traditional public schools. (page 190)

* * *

It is useful to read these books in conjunction with Small Schools and Urban Youth (Conchas and Rodriguez, 2008), which illustrates some of the tensions and differences between school ‘designs’. Their book, based on three case studies, shows how internal divisions can, in the worse cases, lead to inequality rather than overcoming it (for example, when one ‘academy’ or internal division has higher status and requires good
skills levels for admission). This book, like the earlier High Schools on a Human Scale (Toch, 2003), also contains many inspiring accounts of innovative and successful small schools.

Book Reviews 281 Improving Schools
Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com by guest on July 7, 2010
References

A SIMPLE JUSTICE

A Simple Justice: The Challenge For Small Schools by Ayers, William;lyon, Gabrielle H.;klonsky, Michael

By	David Roth (Oakland, CA United States) -

I emphatically agree with the book's central message: Small schools are greatly preferable to large. (I went through public school in L.A.; I should know.)

The book gives many wonderful examples of how small schools have revolutionized education in a number of places where public schools had been failing their students. The authors were among those dedicated enough to see through the building, running, and nurturing of such places of learning.

The book also gave a glimpse of what education is meant to be-- intense investigation, asking endless series of questions addressing issues of student interest, a process of learning for teacher as well as student--and contrasted this with what goes on in a typical factory-model school. Hurrah!

Unfortunately, the book made two glaring omissions (thus the four stars, not five). First, there was extremely little discussion of the resources needed to make this happen, and the corresponding lack of political will. It is easy to point out that wealthy school districts think $12,000 a student-year is an appropriate amount to spend for top-flight education, and that the special needs of poor districts suggest that even more is needed there. (And this is still mostly using the factory- model school for middle and high school.) But it is another thing altogether to develop a political strategy to deal with the discrepancies.

Second, I believe that the factory-model school is actually failing almost everyone, not just the poor in the city. Ideals of education are met no better in Novato, CA, than in Oakland. School is an impersonal waste of time in Novato, too. Issues of social justice are nowhere on the radar screen there, either. Kids go to "civics" class, biology, etc. Curriculum never changes, kids do not get to develop major educational programs based on their interests.

We need to find ways of encouraging everyone to engage in a discussion of social justice. Reagan and his welfare queen, Bush and Willie Horton, and years of perverse race-based criminal justice approaches (most notably the war on drugs), have set us back immeasurably. Milton Friedman has won; all the progressive tax systems are being whittled back; social services--from health care to welfare to, you guessed it, public education--are on the out.

Everyone should be in on this mission. I think the book speaks far too narrowly to the inner city and not broadly enough. (An important question here is whether we are asking city schools to perform wildly different functions from suburban schools, and if so, whether this is serving either of these populations.)

Keynote panelist at San Diego EWA meeting

Small Schools and High School Reform: Shrinking Size, Diminishing Returns?

Education Writers Association National Meeting in San Diego

Nov. 8-10, 2009
San Diego, California

Join the Education Writers Association for a three-day seminar exploring issues and story ideas related to small schools and high school reform. Participants will visit schools and take an in-depth look at programs in the San Diego Unified School District, hearing firsthand from teachers, principals, students and parents about their experiences.

Sessions include:

• Left Behind: The Big High School
• Small in Size, but Not in Feel?
• Reporters' Experiences Covering Small Schools
• What Big Districts Can Learn from Small Schools

Featured speakers include Michael Klonsky, Small Schools Workshop and Center for Innovative Schools; Libia Gil, American Institutes for Research; Ash Vasudeva, Stanford University School Redesign Network; Karin Chenoweth, The Education Trust; and Clara Hemphill, New School Center for New York City Affairs.

Article in the Loyola Public Interest Law Reporter

The Terms of Chicago's Consent Decree: There Are No 'Miracles' Here

Public Interest Law Reporter (No.4, Summer, 2009) pp. 255-266.
Loyola College of Law
http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/public.html

Michael Klonsky, the Director of the Small Schools Workshop, questions the efficacy of various efforts to "reform" the Chicago Public Schools. In "The Terms of Chicago's Consent Decree: There Are No 'Miracles' Here," Mr. Klonsky analyzes the small schools movement and Chicago's proposed "solutions" to an inadequate school system, including selective enrollment schools, charter schools, and Renaissance 2010. Mr. Klonsky argues that none of these proposed solutions have substantially narrowed the dramatic gap in achievement that persists along racial and socioeconomic lines. --Dean Michael Kaufman

In the next issue of In These Times

Features » July 31, 2009

We’re Public … No, We’re Private

Charter school corporations take on public school teacher unions.

By Michael Klonsky

On April 23, parents learn whether their children have been admitted to the Harlem Success Academy charter school system in New York. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

Under the Bush administration, charter management organizations with deep pockets and powerful supporters overpowered the small, independent teacher-run charter schools.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE |

What began as an attempt by small groups of urban charter school teachers in Chicago and New York to win collective bargaining rights has exploded into a national battle between teachers’ unions and operators of large charter “chain schools.”

In Chicago, a successful drive to organize three schools run by the city’s largest operator, Chicago International Charter Schools (CICS), and its for-profit subcontractor, Civitas, was temporarily stalled when Civitas management argued that as a private employer it is not covered under rules set down by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB).

Since its founding in 2004—with a $4-million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—Civitas has touted itself as a “public school,” especially when asking for state funding. But in April 2009, when a majority of Civitas teachers at the three Chicago schools signed union cards and the IELRB approved the Chicago Alliance of Charter School Teachers (ACTS) as their representative, Civitas changed its tune. Now the corporation claims that charters are essentially private schools and, as such, the IELRB has no power to recognize any union as the official bargaining unit for charter school teachers. Rather, Civitas insists the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) should decide whether or not to recognize union representation only after a secret-ballot vote. On June 2, the NLRB issued a narrow ruling upholding Civitas’ claim that it is a private entity and that its teachers are private employees.


“What the decision demonstrates is that charter management organizations are private,” Simon Hess, chief executive officer of Civitas, told the Chi-Town Daily News. “That’s part of the entrepreneurial spirit that has come to the public school system.”

The union views it differently, according to ACTS spokeswoman Gail Purkey: “We accepted the ruling as a tactical compromise, only so we could quickly proceed with the election process, which we knew we could win.”

Union meets charter

Charter schools have grown exponentially in the past decade. Today, more than 4,600 charters employ more than 50,000 teachers nationally, and simmering discontent (and even open revolt among a significant group of young, activist teachers) has opened the field to new organizing campaigns by the teachers’ unions.
Union leaders have begun organizing more aggressively, recognizing that charter schools are not going away and keeping a wary eye on potentially competing unions like Service Employees International Union. They’ve also been nudged into this expanding field by recently elected American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten. As leader of New York’s United Federation of Teachers (UFT), Weingarten partnered with Green Dot Charter Schools operator Steve Barr to create two of New York City’s new unionized charter schools.

Barr, considered a maverick among charter management organizations (CMOs), started his original Green Dot schools in Los Angeles, taking over several large, dysfunctional inner-city high schools and converting them into smaller and, by some accounts, more successful charters. Green Dot accommodates union teachers with a short and concise contract to protect them from arbitrary firings and untenable working conditions. Its schools are intentionally smaller than L.A.’s traditional high schools, which are among the largest in the nation, with many exceeding 4,000 students. All Green Dot schools are locally managed and rely heavily on teacher autonomy, heavy parent participation and infusions of foundation dollars for their success.

When Barr met resistance from both the L.A. School Board and teachers’ union chief John Duffy, a majority of tenured teachers at Locke High School in Watts voted to leave United Teachers of Los Angeles and signed on with the California Teachers Association, the largest union in the state.

Weingarten and Barr’s current partnership in New York is at least partially responsible for encouraging recent organizing efforts at two New York City charters run by Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), the largest chain of CMO-run schools in the nation with 66 schools in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
In Brooklyn, the KIPP-AMP (Always Mentally Prepared) School has pushed back frantically, targeting pro-union teachers for firing and harassment, according to Leo Casey, the UFT’s vice president in charge of charter schools. The final outcome isn’t assured, as the union and KIPP negotiators struggle over a proposed 25-page contract modeled on Green Dot’s. According to Casey, the KIPP-AMP contract will place a limit on class size and teacher loads. It will give teachers greater say and put them on decision-making committees. There is also a strong “just cause” standard, making it difficult to fire teachers without due process.

The charter school vision

Early school reformers and visionaries who created the first charter schools nearly 20 years ago saw charters as incubators of public school innovation, experimental pilot schools and teacher-led learning communities. These were progressives and education activists—hardly the hard-line, anti-union types who dominate charter school associations today. One of the most outspoken charter advocates at the time was none other than then AFT President Albert Shanker. The goal of early charter school advocates was school autonomy.

In 1991, Joe Nathan, director of the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota and a critic of the charter operators’ union-busting tactics, helped write the nation’s first state charter law. “In the Minnesota charter law,” Nathan says, “it is explicit that charter schools are public … there’s nothing inconsistent with our teachers being union teachers.” Nathan adds that moves to declare charters as private or efforts to block unionization are “inconsistent with the charter ideal or good public policy.”

He points out that unionization wasn’t an issue back then because most charter teachers were already union members and felt ownership of the schools they had helped create. Often they constituted their own small boards along with parents and community members.
The idea was to create a decentralized space within the big, bureaucratic system. The trade-off was autonomy for accountability, meaning that if the new, small schools weren’t meeting the expectations laid out in the charter, the schools could lose their charters and be closed.
All of that began to change under the Bush administration’s ownership society and “No Child Left Behind” policies. CMOs with deep pockets and support from conservative think tanks and foundations—as well as from Bush’s Department of Education—overpowered the small, teacher-run charters, not unlike the way large food chains have replaced mom-and-pop grocery stores.

The rise of the CMOs brought with it a top-down efficiency model and an aggressive management style. It also brought at-will firings of unprotected teachers and principals, 16-hour work days, pre-packaged curricula and abnormally high teacher attrition rates. In this new vision, charters were seen as business-model schools, complete with quotas for rapid Starbucks-like economies of scale.
President Barack Obama has broken with much of the ownership society legacy—especially in terms of support for school vouchers—though he and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are both big fans of charter schools. Duncan has used his bully pulpit to pump the charter cause and has even threatened states with loss of stimulus funds if they fail to increase the numbers of charter schools in their districts. One big difference from the previous eight years is that the AFT and the National Education Association (NEA) are now at the table pushing for collective bargaining rights for charter school teachers and other accountability measures for charter operators.

At a recent gathering of the nation’s governors, Duncan called on them to “break through the dynamic that positions charters against unions.” After invoking Shanker’s name, he pointed out that “the AFT represents something like 70 charters and the NEA represents another 40. So we should stop fighting over charter caps and unite behind charter accountability.”

Only in the past two years has the leadership of the AFT and NEA come to accept charter schools as a permanent reality. The questions of whether they indeed are public or private and whether their teachers can win the same collective bargaining rights are now being hotly debated, negotiated and litigated.

“Charter teachers are saying they want a voice in their workplace,” UTF’s Casey says. Meanwhile, labor movement and public education eyes would do well to keep a close watch on the coming charter school battles, especially in large urban districts like New York and Chicago.

UPDATE, 8/3/09: Teachers at the three Civitas schools voted 73-49 to unionize in late June, joining the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers & Staff (Chicago ACTS), an affiliate of the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) and AFT. They are currently negotiating their contracts with Civitas Schools.

 Mike Klonsky

Educating children in a "fireball" ??

This is an archived blog post of mine following my visit to Israel in June, 2008.--M.Kl

6.23.08

The Bat-Yam Conference

I’m normally a cautiously optimistic and hopeful guy, especially now that the Obama campaign is gaining strength and Bush’s Ownership Society regime appears to be on its last legs.

My trip to Israel to keynote the International Education Conference in Bat-Yam was enlightening and inspiring. I went there looking to learn, looking for for some hope—a sign that peace was somehow possible and that Jerusalem, where three of the worlds great religions were born, wouldn’t soon become the epicenter of a nuclear winter.

Meeting hundreds of democratic spirited educators and visiting some of their schools gave me that hope. More good news followed the conference. Israel negotiated a ceasefire with the Hamas-led Palestinians in Gaza (are you listening McCain & Obama?) and relented on allowing Palestinian students to study abroad.

But now, returning home, it’s become clear that the two corrupt, crumbling governments of Bush/Olmert are preparing the unthinkable--another preemptive shock & awe strike, this time against Iran, as their regimes’ final legacies.

The question facing educators is, where does school reform, democratic education and small schools fit into this picture?

Small Schools: Public School Reform Meets the Ownership Society

Reviewed by Tom Hoffman

So You Want to be a School Reform Star?

I'm about half-way through my copy of Mike and Susan Klonsky's book, Small Schools: Public School Reform Meets the Ownership Society, which arrived yesterday. It is pretty much a book length take on the issues Deborah Meier and Doug Noon blogged about yesterday (and Mike blogs about all the time).

Specifically, the book is about the collision between the original strain of progressive small school reform (affably personified in the ed-tech blogosphere by Chris Lehmann) and "Ownership Society" neo-con reforms typified by NCLB and privatization schemes. Interestingly, the Ownership Society has no figure in the ed-tech blogging ghetto, but it defines the ground (e.g., a certain kind of crisis mentality) in ways the community has trouble perceiving.

It is genuinely difficult to pick apart the overlapping tactics and rhetoric these two groups employ, and the Klonsky's do an excellent job of explaining the history and philosophy of the dueling "small schools" movements.

Tom Hoffman

LIVE FROM THE HEARTLAND

Mike Klonsky's interview with Michael James on "Live From the Heartland" radio.