Archive

Posts Tagged ‘privatization’

Public/Private Partner’s Perspective: Turn Public $$$ Into Private $$$ and Use as You Please

March 16, 2019 Leave a comment

Today’s NYTimes features a heartbreaking article by Kim Barker describing a complicated scam involving Southwest Key, a charity that operated migrant shelters and operated several charter schools designed to serve children of migrants. While this charity has high-minded mission, it seems that it was really a front for several individuals to convert millions in public funds and donations into high salaries and a large bank account full of unspent money. The scheme to do this involved requirements that the non-profit charity and non-profit charter school rent properties, contract with food service, and contract with cleaning services that were run by the same individuals who operated the nominally non-profit shelters and schools.

After reading this, I concluded that whenever one reads a glowing article about public-private partnerships or charter schools that are not bound by the same regulations as public schools, they should keep this quote from today’s article in mind:

“This is public money they could turn into private money,” said Jaime Huerta, the former superintendent, who was laid off recently after repeatedly battling with Southwest Key. “And then they could use it for whatever they wanted.”

As the article expand, Mr. Huerta was “laid off” because he had the audacity to seek competitive bids for cleaning, maintenance, and food services and discovered he could save tens of thousands of dollars that could be used to remedy deficiencies in the school. Shame on him for cutting into the profits of shareholders!

And where was the board that oversaw this enterprise?

Although Promesa’s school board is supposed to be an independent watchdog, Southwest Key has effectively controlled it. For years, the board has consisted of Mr. Sanchez; another charity executive, Alexia Rodriguez; Mr. Sanchez’s longtime friend and real estate partner, Ruth Hsu; and a Latino activist and retired disc jockey. Two new members joined last month.

For those who think private enterprise will solve the problem of corruption… keep this quote in mind.

Advertisements

If It’s Booker vs. Trump? I May Seriously Consider “None of the Above”

March 11, 2019 Leave a comment

A number of friends I know who do not follow the privatization movement closely see Cory Booker as a viable alternative to Donald Trump. An eloquent African-American who embodies racial justice and has ascended the political ladder from Mayor of Newark to U.S. Senator, Mr. Booker is the heir apparent to the Clinton-Gore-Obama legacy of centrism in the Democratic Party— a level headed moderate. But, as Jacobin writer Eric Blanc reports in his bluntly titled article “Cory Booker Hates Public Schools” Mr. Booker is really the embodiment of neoliberalism, a candidate who fully embraced every element of the so-called “school reform movement”, and— therefore— is a candidate who would attract both Wall Street and Silicon Valley backing.

I am among many voters who begrudgingly cast a vote for Hillary Clinton knowing that such a vote effectively endorsed the Obama-Duncan legacy but fearing (rightly as it turned out) that Donald Trump’s direction for public education would be even worse. If Mr. Booker is the nominee for the Democrats, who can public educators– or for that matter any public employees– turn to?

Over the past two decades I’ve witnessed NCLB, RTTT, and now ESSA, take instructional decisions out of the hands of teachers and put them in the hands of those who design standardized tests. At the same time, governance decisions about public education moved from local school boards to the State Houses who favor test-and-punish methods and free market solutions to public schools. Ultimately vouchers will enable all but the neediest parents to abandon public education in favor of sectarian and/or high-priced private schools… and while those schools will be free from the constraints of teaching-to-the-test the public schools will continue to be “measured” by standardized tests linked to age-based grade-level cohorts.

Given the devolution of public schools under GOP and neoliberal leaders, I may well cast a vote for none-of-the-above if I am faced with Booker vs. Trump. I await some kind of word from the other Democratic candidates on their positions on public education… but do so in dread for I fear that the “reform” movement has captured the imagination of voters.

Something Positive Emerges from the Ashes of the Amazon Debacle: Public Awareness of Tax Breaks

March 9, 2019 Leave a comment

The NYTimes today featured an article by Matthew Haug describing the tax breaks developers received in the construction of Hudson Yards, an ambitious project that involved the construction of several multi-millions dollar office towers, infrastructure upgrades, and parks and a new school on the West Side of Manhattan. The article’s title, “Amazon’s Tax Breaks and Incentives Were Big. Hudson Yards’ Were Bigger” seemed to implicitly accuse those who supported Hudson Yards but opposed Amazon as hypocrites. But from my perspective, the article did something more important than pointing out hypocrisy: it pointed out that not all tax credits are money grabs by a singular billionaire, that not all tax credits have an adverse impact on nearby neighborhoods, and ALL tax credits need to be examined in the sunshine before they are agreed upon by politicians.

The Hudson Yards project DID make several billionaires even more wealthy… but since government cannot directly provide capital for major projects like Hudson Yards (or Amazon for that matter), some venture capital is required and that venture capital requires a high rate of return since, in some cases, the venture capitalists make bad decisions by investing in projects that do not pan out at all. But unlike the Amazon project— which benefitted one corporation that has a deserved reputation for undercutting wages, displacing local small businesses, and rewarding shareholders with the profits made on the backs of overworked employees and underfunded local governments— Hudson Yards engaged multiple businesses most of whom will receive tax breaks contingent on the creation of new jobs. Also unlike the Amazon project, Hudson Yards was coordinated and devised in concert with the local government. Finally, Hudson Yards was taking an area of the city that the Times described as:

…a neighborhood that included a stubby collection of brick warehouses, factories and tenements built when the Hudson River docks were busy. In the middle was an unsightly rail yard.

Hudson Yards supporters believe the development, which included an extension of the No. 7 subway extension, parks and other improvements, will make the Far West Side an overall better neighborhood. And as for critics of economic development projects like the Amazon one, the Times concludes its article with this:

Councilman Brad Lander of Brooklyn, a Democrat who is a founder of the Council’s Progressive Caucus, said it was smart to expand the No. 7 subway and create parks on the West Side.

But tax breaks for specific companies are a different story, said Mr. Lander, who was an opponent of the Amazon deal.

We’re giving away tax breaks without paying close attention to what’s a good deal or not a good deal,” he said.

If the failed Amazon deal compels newspapers and politicians across the country to pay closer attention to what’s a good deal or not a good deal, then some good will come out of this debacle. Who knows, maybe voters will want to provide more funds to the government so that they can upgrade infrastructure on their own as a means of luring business. It’s just possible that good roads, high quality public services, beautiful parks, and good schools might entice businesses to locate in a city or region more so that cold cash.

The Hazards of Unfettered Data Sharing and Poorly Crafted Red Flag Legislation

March 4, 2019 Comments off

Over fifteen years ago I wrote an article for Education titled “A Homeland Security Bill for Public Education“, an article that advocated the sharing of pertinent information among social service case managers, medical professionals, school districts, and police. I reasoned that the various staff member’s confidentiality pledges precluded them from sharing important information with the other agencies in a timely fashion, citing several cases from my work experience where such sharing would have benefitted the clients they were striving to help.

Of late, similar recommendations have come forth in the form of “red flag” legislation that would allow police or family members to take weapons away from individuals with documented mental health problems, individuals who might pose a harm to themselves or others. These “red flag” laws seem to be eminently reasonable. Indeed, some NRA officials and politicians who reflexively oppose any effort to limit anyone’s access to any weapons whatsoever are seemingly open to considering “gun violence restraining orders“.

After reading a recent Motherboard article about the use of data collected by social service agencies, schools, and police in Canada and in several US cities, though, I am having second thoughts about my recommendations and about the efficacy of “red flag” legislation. The Motherboard article underscores the importance of carefully crafting any legislation and/or regulations that deal with data access, for once an individual receives a “red flag” it is difficult to reverse that designation. The article opens with these paragraphs:

Police, social services, and health workers in Canada are using shared databases to track the behaviour of vulnerable people—including minors and people experiencing homelessness—with little oversight and often without consent.

Documents obtained by Motherboard from Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) through an access to information request show that at least two provinces—Ontario and Saskatchewan—maintain a “Risk-driven Tracking Database” that is used to amass highly sensitive information about people’s lives. Information in the database includes whether a person uses drugs, has been the victim of an assault, or lives in a “negative neighborhood.”

The Risk-driven Tracking Database (RTD) is part of a collaborative approach to policing called the Hub model that partners cops, school staff, social workers, health care workers, and the provincial government.

As you can see, the description of the “Hub model” is eerily similar to what I recommended in my 2003 Education Week article. But when I wrote that article, I did not foresee the advent of facial recognition technology… or the widespread use of data warehousing by schools, the medical profession, social service agencies, and law enforcement… or the  avalanche of data that would be collected by social media sites. With all of these technology tools in play, it would appear that some kind of failsafe algorithm might come into play, a means of identifying an at risk individual with laser like accuracy. Such pin-pointing would presumably target those individuals likely to engage in mass shootings or crimes. But it begs the problem of how and when to engage law enforcement officials and how and when to compel an individual to seek treatment for mental illness. As Valerie Steeves, a University of Ottawa criminologist, noted in a VICE article on the use of the Hub model: “As soon as you’re identified [as at-risk], it changes how people interact with you. At that point, you become the problem: ‘we need to watch you, all the time, so we can fix you.’” As one who worked for six years as a high school disciplinarian, I can recall how difficult it was for a youngster who misbehaved as a freshman to shed his or her image as a “troublemaker”… and, as we’ve seen in recent years, Google never forgets. Ill advised posts on social media can limit one’s opportunities as much as poor report cards or low SAT scores.

If we hope to use the massive amounts of data we are collecting on individuals to screen them for “risky behavior” or “mental fitness” we need to enact legislation that sets clear guidelines for the collection and use of that data. We now have surveillance cameras gathering data in schools, shopping areas, at intersections, and, in some cases, on our phones and on our home computers. Who owns that data? Who decides how it can be used? Social media records our “likes” and “loves”, the things that make us laugh, the things that make us cry, and the things that make us angry. Who can buy that data? Who has access to it? Virtually all of our purchases and media consumption results in the collection of data, making it possible for some agency to determine the books we read, the movies we watch, the foods we purchase, the places we are planning to take our vacations, and the major purchases like houses and cars we are examining on-line. Who has access to this data? How is it being used.

15 years ago, I thought that the notion of data sharing was straightforward. The school district’s guidance counselor assigned to a student, the social worker assigned to that student, the probation officer working with that student, and the mental health counselor working with that student, and the physician(s) working with the should all feel free to share information with each other. Each clearly had the student’s well-being at heart and they would each benefit from sharing whatever they knew without completing reams of paperwork or getting clearance through their chains-of-command. Now, I’m not so sure, particularly when the data platforms like those used in the “Hub model” are privately operated and owned and there are no clear parameters on how and when the data are purged.

These questions are complicated and thorny. Presumably we would want to know that someone who is planning a mass shooting has acquired a stockpile of weapons. We would also want to be able to confiscate weapons from someone who is a potential terrorist and know who is communicating with on-line ISIS recruiters. But is everyone who is stockpiling weapons a threat to us? Is everyone who is researching Arabic and Muslim websites a potential terrorist? Is a website purporting to be an ISIS recruitment site a bona fide site?

It would be helpful to have these issues brought to the forefront now, before the data being collected are made available to whomever is willing to pay for it for whatever purposes they wish. I just googled myself. I have 36,000+ that came forth in .42 seconds. The 8th item on the list from MyLife.com indicates that I once lived in Portland, OR. That is demonstrably false…. but there it is for all to see and draw their own conclusions. I’m leaving it there because their is no way I can keep track of all the misinformation that is accumulating. But if I were identified as someone “we need to watch…, all the time, so we can fix you” I might not sleep too soundly as the misinformation accumulates.

 

 

NPR’s “Dog Bites Man” Headline: “DeVos Announces Support for Proposed School Choice Tax Credit”

March 1, 2019 Comments off

An article in the NPR blog had this completely unsurprising headline:

“DeVos Announces Support for Proposed School Choice Tax Credit”

The article was equally unsurprising in terms of who supported it and who didn’t. As the article noted, the “school choice tax credit” idea is nothing new: several states have adopted the ALEC inspired legislation that enables wealthy donors to make contributions to a slush fund that can be accessed to pay for presumably indigent children to enroll in the “school of their choice”… that is unless the school is in a well-funded district or a school whose costs are prohibitive. What “choice” does that leave? A for-profit charter school or a religiously affiliated private school that underpays its staff and offers religious training as part of the curriculum.

Dog bites man is NOT news. Neither is the political reactions to a warmed over ALEC bill promoting “choice”.

Privatization of Probation Case Managers: What Could Go Wrong?

March 1, 2019 Comments off

Jeremy Mohler’s recent In the Public Interest email described the recent shareholder report from CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) that:

bragged about their December 2018 acquisition of Recovery Monitoring Solutions Corp., which provides electronic monitoring and case management services to municipal, county, and state governments in Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Minnesota.

It’s bad enough that prisons are privatized, because once they are viewed as “profit centers” their “revenue stream” depends on a constant influx of prisoners which, in turn, depends on a constant flow of individuals who are arrested. But once “case managers” are added to the payroll the profitability will rely on “efficiency” which translates into the diminishment of services, the diminishment of living wages for employees, and, inevitably, the diminishment of qualifications. It would not surprise me to see the for-profit prisons “re-training” guards to become “case managers” who would view their assignment as remotely monitoring scores of ex-prisoners from a computer screen instead of interfacing with them and helping them navigate their way into the job market. Moreover, given the need for full prisons, I would not be surprised to see recidivism rise…. because the lifeblood of for-profit prisons is, well, prisoners.

The Beat Goes On: Oakland Joining Denver and LA Pushing Back Against Billionaire Reformers

February 15, 2019 Comments off

The first three paragraphs of Nick French’s Jacobin article provides a good overview of the national pushback that is underway:

Wherever there’s a battle over public education lately, a billionaire is somehow involved. Los Angeles, Newark, the “education reform” project as a whole — the ultrarich always have their hands in efforts to antagonize teachers.

One city they’ve now set their sights on: Oakland, where teachers are in the middle of union contract negotiations and just authorized a strike. Some teachers stayed out of school in one-day wildcat strikes in December and January, joined by many of their students. According to posts circulating on Facebook and Instagram, Oakland students have planned to call out sick in solidarity with teachers today.

Just like other teachers’ union battles these days, the contract fight pits students and working people against billionaire pro-corporate school reformers and the politicians backing them.

Slowly but surely the word seems to be getting out…. privatization is corroding public education and undermining the kind of instruction that teachers provide to children. MAYBE one of the political parties will realize that their “bi-partisan” support for the test-and-punish “reform” beloved of the billionaires and privatizers is hurting children, demoralizing teachers, and diminishing middle class jobs.