Daily Archives: January 29, 2012

A Look Back at the League of Education Voters

I’ve been following issues in education since 2009 when my daughter entered the Seattle Public School system and therefore don’t have any previous history with the League of Education Voters (LEV) before that time. I can only tell you what I have observed in the last few years.

LEV is an education advocacy group. They do not have members and rely on funding from individuals to keep going. In 2007, they began to receive generous donations from the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is a great proponent of charter schools, larger class sizes and putting kids in front of computers. He and the other venture philanthropists who have been pushing their notion of “education” on us are also no big supporters of the teacher’s union or any other union for that matter. Did his generous donations affect how LEV “advocates” these days? I’ll let you be the judge. Are they attempting to break the back of the teachers’ union over time as I stated recently on the PTA list serv? I’ll let you decide.

In 2007, LEV started to receive serious money from Gates, $835K “to support capacity building for education advocacy programs”. In October of 2009 LEV received $1.5M “to support the research, public engagement, policy development and coalition work in early learning, college ready and postsecondary”.

In June of 2010, the Gates Foundation gave $40,000 to the League of Education Voters “to support a series of education-related speakers in Seattle” and the same year received another $105K “to support raising awareness of educational attainment issues in King County”. In 2011 LEV received a total of $215K from the Gates Foundation. All of this information can be found at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website.

In the fall of  2010 the League of Education Voters offered up a who’s who of charter school franchise CEO’s  to speak as part of LEV’s imaginary “revolution”, “Voices from the Education Revolution Speakers Series“ featuring:

Richard Barth, CEO of the KIPP Foundation which does not hire union teachers, Steve Barr, Founder & Emeritus Chair of Green Dot charter Schools another charter franchise that does not hire union teachers and moderated by Don Shalvey, former CEO and founder of Aspire Charter Schools and Board member of the Greendot charter franchise neither of which hires union teachers.

Also arriving in town that year complements of LEV was Kevin Johnson, Sacramento mayor and backer of a charter school in his state.

As Sue stated in a post regarding that “Charterfest”:

 Here’s a revealing tidbit that LEV boasts in one of its blog posts about the forum:

“In 2007, Steve Barr sought to take over a failing high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). When the district said no, Steve took a page out of a Wall Street playbook and became the first charter school organization to conduct a hostile takeover.”

So there you have it, spelled out quite plainly, the ed reformers’ MO: apply predatory Wall Street techniques to our public schools. A hostile takeover is indeed what they appear to be trying to do to our entire public school system. Apparently the folks over at the League of Education Voters think this is a good thing.

Back to this loose use of “innovative”: What’s innovative about slapping kids into uniforms, and regimenting them? Why, that’s as old as British boarding school or the military.

In August of 2010, Sue and I posted The Fallacy of “Merit” and “Performance Pay” as Teacher Incentives — they don’t SERVE anyone well. In the post we stated:

In an article in the April 6 Seattle Times “Schools group urges contract changes”, the Alliance and LEV claim to have formed yet another group, “Our Schools Coalition”, and are trying to convince the media that it represents people like us and we all want “merit pay.”

None of us know what this is or how it came about. And it doesn’t represent any parents or public education supporters I know. It is clearly another faux grassroots (aka Astroturf) organization and an effort by billionaire education “reformers” to influence the upcoming teachers’ contract negotiations here in Seattle, and to weaken the teachers’ union.

As for the poll that the “Coalition”/Alliance/LEV/Gates/Broad paid for that allegedly claims parents and community want “merit pay,” by all accounts it started off as a highly questionable and biased “teacher quality” survey, which was withdrawn when genuine school community members protested, and reemerged as a very slanted push-poll taken of a curious cross section of community members (including some teachers via their private cell phone numbers).

 In a follow-up post we noted an announcement on the LEV website:

From the League of Education Voters website:

Give Me a “V”: Way down yonder in Tacoma way, folks aren’t waiting around for the legislature or policy makers or Superman to make change, the people are doing it for themselves. The new Vibrant Schools Tacoma went “live” last week to much fan fare. The coalition is rallying around the Tacoma teachers contract negotiations. The diverse group is focused on  academic achievement, supporting teachers and putting a community voice into the negotiations. Modeled in part after the Our Schools Coalition that worked for change to the Seattle teachers contract, Vibrant Schools represents a new way forward in community engagement.

The tactics used in Tacoma were from the same playbook that was used by LEV in creating Our Schools Coalition to push the contract negotiations but in Tacoma it backfired. The teachers went on strike.

In a follow up Seattle Education post in May, 2011, Strategies 360/DMA Marketing Caught Red Handed in Tacoma describing the LEV strategy that worked in Seattle but failed in Tacoma and with additional information on Our Schools Coalition, the bold typeface was our own:

Our Schools Coalition has not been active since September of 2010 after congratulating themselves on being a part of the bargaining process between the teacher’s union and the superintendent.

According to their website:

The coalition formed here strongly supports the following changes to the Seattle Public School teacher contract, to be renegotiated beginning April 2010 for agreement by the start of the 2010-2011 school year. We advocate that all reforms outlined below be fully implemented in time for the 2011-2012 school year.

Our Schools Coalition proposed changes to the teacher contract*: (This is when they used their push poll to justify their argument by putting polling numbers next to each of their reform items.)

To follow are excerpts from their website:

5. Student academic growth should be used as a significant factor in teacher evaluations. (…polling shows 66% of taxpayers, 59% of parents and 21% of teachers agree.) (By “student academic growth” they meant measuring a teacher’s performance based on test scores and specifically in Seattle, the MAP test.)

6. Teacher performance, as opposed to seniority, should be a significant factor in staffing decisions, including placement, transfers and layoffs. (Polling shows 83% of taxpayers, 79% of parents and 40% of teachers agree.)(Test scores, test scores and more test scores should determine the fate of a teacher in our school system.)

7. Currently, the process to remove ineffective teachers can take 18 months or longer. Instead, the lowest performing teachers should be removed in less than 12 months.(Polling shows 82% of taxpayers, 82% of parents and 63% of teachers agree.) (If specific guidelines are not followed, a company or a school district can be sued for unlawful discharge.)

8. There should be opportunities for increased compensation for teachers based on performance, additional responsibilities, subject-matter expertise in hard-to-staff areas, and placement in high-need schools. (Polling shows 88% of taxpayers, 90% of parents and 58% of teachers agree.) (This is basically merit pay based on test scores.)

9. The teaching profession in Seattle should be opened up to attract additional talent, including through programs such as Teach for America. (Polling shows 72% of taxpayers, 60% of parents and 51% of teachers agree.) (Ah yes, Teach for America, Inc.)

I would love to know what 72% of taxpayers and 60% of parents they are referring to when asked about Teach for America, Inc. because many people didn’t know until very recently who TFA, Inc. was and most people still don’t know.

These inaccurate numbers were used to convince the union leaders and teachers that the majority of citizens in Seattle were for the edicts of corporate reform.

In February, 2011 LEV brought into town Teach for America, Inc. founder Wendy Kopp.

Then there was the big push for TFA, Inc. by LEV. Many charter schools are populated with TFA, Inc. recruits. They are less expensive than unionized teachers and because they have less experience, they are not paid the going salary of a more seasoned professional. Here is what Seattle Citizen had to say about LEV on the Save Seattle Schools blog:

seattle citizen said…

It’s not the Seattle Foundation (SF), it’s SF and the League of Education Voters who want to bring TFA to Seattle. SF is working with/for LEV. Here’s all the info from the SF website on this:

” OVERVIEW: Teacher quality has a greater effect on student achievement than any other factor. Yet, as a nation and as a region, we have not found a way to ensure that our strongest teachers are working with the students who need them the most. Only 34 percent of low-income 6th graders in the Puget Sound region are achieving at grade level in math (compared to 70 percent of non-low-income students). Sixty-one percent of low-income 6th graders are reading at grade level, compared to 84 percent of their more affluent peers.

“Teach For America (TFA) is a national leader in the movement to end educational inequity by enlisting the country’s most promising future leaders in teaching, leading and advocating for schools that serve high numbers of low-income students. TFA recruits and trains top college graduates who commit to teaching in urban and rural public schools, and who ultimately become lifelong advocates of high-quality education for all students. Since 1990, TFA has grown to include more than 24,000 corps members (teachers) and alumni who have taught more than 3 million students across 35 regions nationwide.

“There are a number of donors and funders who are supporting this effort, including the following:: The Seattle Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Raikes Foundation, The Bezos Family Foundation, Intelius Inc.

“ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS: TFA plans to bring 150 Teach for America teachers to the Puget Sound over three years, beginning in Fall 2011. In order to do so, TFA must achieve three key milestones by August 1, 2010:

Secure partnerships (and commitments totaling $1 million over 3 years) with 3-5 school districts

Develop an agreement with a partner—most typically a local university—to certify TFA teachers

Secure $5.2 million in private sector funding

“RECENT GRANTS: In order to bring TFA to the Puget Sound region, TFA must secure $5.2 million in private funds. The Seattle Foundation will dedicate $250,000 to this effort, and is committed to raising an additional $250,000 from TSF donors and contributors (for a total of $500,000).

“GET INVOLVED: Make a contribution: Help us bring the important work of Teach for America to the Puget Sound region by making a contribution to this important initiative. Give online or call (206) 622-2294. Learn more: Become involved with the League of Education Voters and support their work to bring Teach For America to Puget Sound area schools. Contact Caroline Maillard, Education Element Lead at The Seattle Foundation, at (206) 622-2294 or c.maillard [at] seattlefoundation.org to learn more about Teach For America and other efforts to support high quality public schools and give children the skills they need to succeed in school and life.”

And then in another post that we wrote on Seattle Education:

Also just in time for the onslaught of corporate driven pressure on our state legislators in the coming session to allow charter schools in our state, Chris Eide, a former Teacher for America, Inc. recruit who worked in charter schools throughout his career before coming to Seattle where he taught within the Seattle Public School system for a year, decided recently to opt out of teaching  to focus on his new group, Teachers United. His new organization has predictably been featured on the League of Education Voters website. The first words out of his mouth are “seniority” and “last in, first out” which is the argument used to justify breaking up unions, specifically teachers’ unions.

Last year Sue and I posted this on our blog:

The Broad backed, Gates funded League of Education Voters is at it again with another one of their spam e-mails. So far they have backed both bills that propose to determine teacher layoff’s by student performance, basically test scores, and permanently fire teachers if there is a school closing, Senate Bill 5399 and House Bill 1609. They desperately want folks, under the guise that it’s all about the children and not their salaries, to call their representatives in support of Bill 5399.

And this year LEV was at it again with their “megabills” as Kelly Munn with LEV proclaimed them to be referring to the teacher evaluation bill and the charter school bill. Ms. Munn tooted her own horn on the LEV list serv providing the inside scoop on the upcoming bills by providing a summary of the charter school bill. See the post The League of Education Voters Charter School Proposal Annotated.

And now what are they up to? Pushing their megabills, one for charter schools and the other for teacher evaluations based on test scores.

This is WSSDA’s description of these teacher evaluation bills:

  • HB 2427/SB 6203 would make student growth data a significant factor in the evaluation process and would allow for student input (for teachers) or building input (for principals) to be included. OSPI would be required to establish common components of the teacher evaluation systems for school districts to use in the 2013-14 school year. Beginning September 1, 2014, any employee who received an unsatisfactory under the old system or the lowest rating under the new system in two consecutive years would revert to provisional status. By this date, districts would be required to update policies and collective bargaining agreements to consider performance evaluations before other factors, such as seniority, when making reductions in force decisions due to enrollment decline or loss of revenue, or for recall decisions.
  • HB 2451 does not address the entire evaluation process, but would change only school district policies and collective bargaining agreements to provide that contracts of classroom teachers who received comparatively lower evaluation ratings would be nonrenewed before contracts of classroom teachers who received comparatively higher evaluation ratings. The bill would apply to new contracts after the effective date of the bill and on collective bargaining agreements renewed or extended after the effective date.

LEV has created three bills that basically determine the fate of a teacher’s professional life on their student’s test scores.

So who is LEV listening to? Certainly not the people of the state of Washington who have voted three times against having charter schools in our state, they’re not paying LEV’s rent, and certainly not the rest of us when it comes to the devastating effects of high stakes testing.

I’ll let you decide.

Dora

Stop ACTA NOW

I have not been paying attention to ACTA until yesterday when my daughter brought it to my attention and helped me understand the seriousness of this issue. Yes, this blog is about education but it is also about my freedom to say what I believe to be the truth. It’s  a small example of truth to power and I am grateful that I am able to share my views and information freely with others.

We have watched how individuals, countries and now corporations have been able to take control over people’s lives, one incremental step at a time. It happens sometimes without people even noticing it until it’s too late. I don’t want to see that happen in terms of the freedom that we now enjoy and take full advantage of in the use of the internet.

First a little history on this subject. Japan and the United States held basically secret talks starting in 2006 to develop ACTA, then other countries were invited to join the discussion. According to Wikipedia:

ACTA first came to public attention in May 2008 after a discussion paper was uploaded to Wikileaks. After more leaks in 2009 and 2010 and denied requests for disclosure by groups such as Doctors without Borders, IP Justice, the Canadian Library Association, and the Consumers Union of Japan, the negotiating parties published an official version of the then current draft on 20 April 2010. In June 2010, a conference with “over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents” concluded “that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.” A group of 75+ law professors signed a letter to President Obama demanding that ACTA be halted and changed.

Opponents have argued that the treaty will restrict fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and communication privacy.”The bulk of the WTO’s 153 members” have raised concerns that the treaty could distort trade and goes beyond the existing Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.Opponents also criticize ACTA’s removal of “legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers” in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions.According to an analysis by the Free Software Foundation, ACTA would require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media, and DRM-protected media would not be legally playable with free or open source software.

Nate Anderson with Ars Technica pointed out that ACTA encourages service providers to collect and provide information about suspected infringers by giving them “safe harbor from certain legal threats”. Similarly, it provides for criminalization of copyright infringement on a commercial scale,granting law enforcement the powers to perform criminal investigation, arrests and pursue criminal citations or prosecution of suspects who may have infringed on copyright on a commercial scale. It also allows criminal investigations and invasive searches to be performed against individuals for whom there is no probable cause, and in that regard weakens the presumption of innocence and allows what would in the past have been considered unlawful searches.

From 16–18 June 2010, a conference was held at the Washington College of Law, attended by “over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents”. Their conclusions were published on 23 June 2010 on the American University Washington College of Law website. They found “that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.” A group of 75+ law professors has signed a letter to President Obama demanding a host of changes to the agreement. The letter alleges that no meaningful transparency has been in evidence.

As you can see, there are some very serious issues involved that have not received adequate public attention.

Out of the conference that was held at the American University Washington College of Law came the following conclusions.

Text of Urgent ACTA Communique

International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public Interests

June 23, 2010

American University Washington College of Law

Washington, D.C.

This statement reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010. The meeting, convened by American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, was called to analyze the official text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), released for the first time in April, 2010. Negotiating parties released the text only after public criticism of the unusually closed process and widespread disquiet over the negotiations’ presumed substance. (See Wellington Declaration, EU Resolution on Transparency and State of Play of the ACTA Negotiations).

We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.

  • Negotiators claim ACTA will not interfere with citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties; it will.
  • They claim ACTA is consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); it is not.
  • They claim ACTA will not increase border searches or interfere with cross-border transit of legitimate generic medicines; it will.
  • And they claim that ACTA does not require “graduated response” disconnections of people from the internet; however, the agreement strongly encourages such policies.

ACTA is the predictably deficient product of a deeply flawed process. What started as a relatively simple proposal to coordinate customs enforcement has transformed into a sweeping and complex new international intellectual property and internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and governments’ ability to promote and protect the public interest.

Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and meaningful consultative process, in public, on the record and with open on-going access to proposed negotiating text and must reflect a full range of public interest concerns. As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.

Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under further closed-door negotiation over a text we do not have access to, a fair reading of the April 2010 draft leads to our conclusion that ACTA is hostile to the public interest in at least seven critical areas of global public policy:fundamental rights and freedoms; internet governance; access to medicines; scope and nature of intellectual property law; international trade; international law and institutions; and democratic process.

The following specific comments are based on a review of the publicly released text which is highly bracketed and the conclusions are therefore tentative.


FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

ACTA would authorize or encourage private and government enforcement measures that would:

  • curtail enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including domestic and internationally protected human rights to health, privacy and the protection of personal data, free expression, education, cultural participation, and right to a fair legal process, including fair trial and presumptions of innocence.

THE INTERNET

ACTA would

  • Encourage internet service providers to police the activities of internet users by holding internet providers responsible for the actions of subscribers, conditioning safe harbors on adopting policing policies, and by requiring parties to encourage cooperation between service providers and rights holders;
  • Encourage this surveillance, and the potential for punitive disconnections by private actors, without adequate court oversight or due process;
  • Globalize ‘anti-circumvention’ provisions which threaten innovation, competition, free (freedom-respecting) software, open access business models, interoperability, the enjoyment of user rights, and user choice;

SCOPE AND NATURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

ACTA would distort fundamental balances between the rights and interests of proprietors and users, including by

  • introducing highly specific rights and remedies for rights holders without detailing correlative exceptions, limitations, and procedural safeguards for users;
  • shifting enforcement burdens to public authorities and private intermediaries in ways that are likely to be more sensitive to proprietary concerns;
  • requiring formula-driven assessment of damages, potentially unrelated to any proven harm or gain;
  • omitting strong disincentives to abuse of enforcement processes by right holders;
  • including rigid injunction, damages and heightened civil and criminal enforcement  requirements that will restrict government flexibility, impede innovation and slow the development and diffusion of green technology;
  • threaten the continuation or development of innovative public interest exceptions, such as common law approaches to permitting copies of works by “authorization.”

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ACTA would raise barriers to the trade in knowledge imbedded goods, disproportionately harming developing countries dependent on imports and exports of essential goods. Specifically, ACTA will

  • Extend ‘ex officio’ and in transit border search and seizures to a broad range of “suspected” intellectual property infringements, even including alleged patent infringements involving complex questions of law and fact that are impossible to judge by custom authorities.

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

ACTA alters traditional and constitutionally mandated law making processes by:

  • Exporting and locking in controversial and problematic enforcement practices, foreclosing future legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or policy;
  • Requiring substantive changes to laws of many countries without legislative process;

The process of ACTA’s negotiation is fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the negotiations:

  • Have not been conducted in public as are many multilateral negotiations;
  • Have not been accompanied by evidence demonstrating the public policy problems sought to be addressed;
  • Have proceeded under conditions that restrict public input to select stakeholders, held off-the-record and without access to the latest version of the rapidly changing text;
  • Lack a balanced representation of stakeholders, especially from civil society.

This article was published in the Washington Post on January 27, 2012, European parliament’s ACTA monitor quits in protest. To follow is an excerpt. I have put in bold portions of the text:

The European Parliament’s independent monitor for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) resigned Friday in protest after 22 European Union member states signed the anti-piracy treaty Thursday.According to the BBC,Kader Arif said that he condemns “the whole process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation of the civil society, lack of transparency since the beginning of negotiations, repeated delays of the signature of the text without any explanation give, reject of Parliament’s recommendations as given in several resolutions of our assembly.”Protests in Poland and Ireland sprung up over the treaty as critics warned that the treaty could lead to online censorship by extending existing intellectual property laws to the Internet. Several drew parallels between ACTA and two U.S. bills being considered in Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act. Rep. Darell Issa (R-Calif.) said in remarks at the World Economic Forum that he believes ACTA is “more dangerous” than SOPA.

Scholars have said that the treaty has implications for the United States, as well. The Obama administration has already agreed to ACTA through an executive agreement, an act that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged in October. Wyden said that ACTA is a treaty that has implications for U.S. intellectual property law and should have been ratified by the House and Senate. For it’s part, the Obama administration has said that it does not believe ACTA’s implementation would have any effect on U.S. law.

Wyden disagrees, saying in his letter this past fall that, “ACTA’s subject matter — including foreign commerce and intellectual property — appear to me and other to relate to Article I powers of Congress, not issues lying within the President’s sole constitutional authority .”

As attention paid to SOPA and PIPA have turned to ACTA, Wyden has gotten more allies. As of Friday, over 3,800 people have signed a petition to the White House to have ACTA submitted to the Senate.

In Poland thousands of people took to the streets in protests of ACTA when it came to a vote in Parliament this week. According to the Washington Post article ACTA protests erupt in Poland:

It’s not every day parliamentary members identify themselves with a subversive Internet group. But that’s just what happened in Poland when lawmakers from the leftist party Palikot’s Movement covered their faces with Guy Fawkes masks, the look that has become shorthand for Anonymous. A contentious fight broke out in parliament — and in the streets — over Poland’s plans to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

For additional information on ACTA see Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement What is ACTA?

For the most up to the minute news on ACTA actions I would recommend RT.

To sign the petition, go to  End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet.

Dora