KS
You’re missing an ingredient here:
“Perkins – probably prodded and advised by what I imagine are his biggest supports, the UFT or NYSUT.” Perkins met regularly with GEM people in an open way – the UFT has warned people to stay away from GEM because we are critical of them, those poor dears. Perkins showed some guts to ignore them.

And speaking of ouija boards, exactly how are charter school boards of directors chosen?

One more issue: as you may know, my own entreprenurial spirit has led me in the past – while I was teaching in the 80’s and 90’s to think a charter school concept was intriguing. I often thought of how we can transform the public schools into such a system that would be PUBLICLY controlled. I am still wrestling with the idea. Some of the ideas we in ICE tried to bring to the UFT included a concept of local control at the school level, which Michael took the lead in presenting – rejected of course by the UFT, which loves centralized power. I don’t think we went this far in ICE yet but I hope we do extend it to where each school might have an ELECTED board of parents and teachers, a board which would decide on the school leader.

If such a system existed there might not be a place for charters since each public school could function in some ways in that manner. ICOPE had a model where the local schools would form into districts and there would be a central body that would provide support, guidance and extensive monitoring. Since we know that we will never be able to scale the charter school movement up to include a majority of schools, only a massive change in governance structure will be equitable for all.

And speaking of ouija boards, exactly how are charter school boards of directors chosen?

One more issue: as you may know, my own entreprenurial spirit has led me in the past – while I was teaching in the 80′s and 90′s to think a charter school concept was intriguing. I often thought of how we can transform the public schools into such a system that would be PUBLICLY controlled. I am still wrestling with the idea. Some of the ideas we in ICE tried to bring to the UFT included a concept of local control at the school level, which Michael took the lead in presenting – rejected of course by the UFT, which loves centralized power. I don’t think we went this far in ICE yet but I hope we do extend it to where each school might have an ELECTED board of parents and teachers, a board which would decide on the school leader.

If such a system existed there might not be a place for charters since each public school could function in some ways in that manner. ICOPE had a model where the local schools would form into districts and there would be a central body that would provide support, guidance and extensive monitoring. Since we know that we will never be able to scale the charter school movement up to include a majority of schools, only a massive change in governance structure will be equitable for all.

The “warlord” UFT you decry represents an incomparably larger slice of the population than your charter backers. In fact, the evil UFT and its contract is the ONLY institution keeping Klein and Bloomberg from raising class size to 50 or more.

Of course, charter schools needn’t worry about that: they can go to their hedge fund sugar daddies to keep class size low, which they then use to advertise – with help from the DOE, as the Moskowitz/Klein emails demonstrate – to parents in the local communities that have been destabilized by the very same institutions and players.

It’s win-win for everybody, except the overwhelming majority. Yes, KS, it takes real courage to defend the rich and powerful. Congratulations.

In your plutocracy paradigm, where does a rich PAC like the UFT fit? Are they at least the equivalent of a powerful warlord?

And what about the rich neighborhoods where parents who can afford private schools choose to put their kids in public schools, then contribute $5k to $20k each to, for example, build a state-of-the-art library and hire a librarian. Remember those shiny new bathrooms with plants that Eva Moskowitz’s students have and the kids downstairs don’t? Other kids in district public schools have those same resources – on the Upper East Side and elsewhere where rich parents can afford to supplement what’s available. Contrary to your depiction of the stealing robber barons, hedge fund money has helped level the playing field for *some* poor kids. The biggest issue I see is, Which poor kids?

People like you, driven by no doubt an honorable and well-meaning purpose, find themselves arguing that the kids in Eva’s schools should be consigned to the poor excuse for public education we have now because of the fear of the unknown, the fear that charters will “take over” the district, and because she makes so much money. If she can provide an Upper East Side education for hundreds or thousands of kids in Harlem, which the district has been trying (or perhaps not trying) to do for decades, then I’d pay her a million dollars!

Follow the public money and follow the decision making, Michael F, back to Albany. Where in the growth of the charter sector do you see a dismantling of any fundamental public institution? Other than the fact that the chancellor and local school board have less authority over these funds, and a publicly accountable (through the authorizer), private board of trustees (required to hold public meetings) is responsible instead, I don’t see it. You talk about disenfranchisement, but charters give parents in communities with bad schools options that they have never had before, options that heretofore have only existed in upper-middle class and wealthy communities.

Let’s play reductio ad absurdum with your plutocracy problem. Should Bill Gates and George Soros rescind all of the harm reduction and health initiatives they fund in the developing world because they have profited from the same ugly capitalism you described above? Really?

Face it, MF, Eva was right in her email to Klein. This is about power and politics. You may be thinking macro-economics and “prevent the plight of the proletariat” but for the aspiring ruling class around you that’s a convenient intellectual context. They are thinking one thing: preserve my damn teacher dues and my lobbying power in Albany and Washington, damn it, at all costs.

You contradict yourself.

First, you agree with my analysis about Finance’s hostile takeover of the country and its toxic effects, then you claim, “We don’t have a ruling class today, however. Our system allows for upward mobility.” This is illogical: a complex society such as ours can have both a ruling class and upward mobility. And even the most polarized society can allow upward mobility, as long as it’s based on the cut-throat ethos that governs it.

As for the existence of a ruling class, I can’t believe we’re even arguing about it. Every society has a ruling class, even the most equitable. The issue is the attitudes and behavior of that class: does it act with some minimal degree of social solidarity with other classes, or does it parasitically feed off them and the resulting crises? History shows that any ruling class that is not forced to make concessions to other classes will become parasitic, and use the machinery of the state, especially its coercive machinery, to enforce its advantages. That’s basically what a banana republic is. That’s also what this society is becoming.

Your Horatio Alger trope is heartwarming, but please look at recent US history: income polarization is at levels not seen since the 1920′s, and inflation-adjusted median income has fallen since 1973.

As Warren Buffett, The Oracle of the Magical Marketplace, has said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning” (New York Times, 11/26/06). Unfortunately, his unusual candor notwithstanding, Warren Buffett is combining his billions with those of Bill Gates (who has been quoted dismissing competitors for their “finite greed”) to help privatize the schools.

You say that finance is more regulated than during the 1870′s and 1920′s (when there was absolutely none whatsoever). Ask Bernie Madoff about your vaunted regulation. Where have you been the past three years? We are in the midst of a global financial crisis partially brought on by the dismantling of New Deal-era regulation, de-regulation that was performed by Republicans and Democrats alike, and that was power-lobbied for by the very same people who are forcing charter schools us. Thus, it’s no accident that in this age of sociopathic capitalism, with its most vicious impulses unleashed on the populace, that minimally regulated charter schools, funded and hyped by those same financial interests, should gain ground.

As for all the creaming, filtering and counseling-out at charters, you continue to play the ingenue, seeing and hearing nothing. And your magnanimous support for hearings over charter school behavior is very nice, but the call for such hearings is being driven by the outrageous actions of the schools and their backers. Additionally, if you’re so big on transparency,why did you not dissent when charters backers could not bring themselves top lift the statewide cap in exchange for increased transparency and accountability?

True transparency and accountability will be the death of charters, and their backers know it. That’s why, along with their political proxies, they are smashing and grabbing as rapidly as they can.

MF, I appreciate your cogent description of the complex manner in which the financial industry has taken control of the economy in unhealthy ways. I don’t disagree with most of the facts you present. Throughout human history, the ruling class has been able to monopolize resources. We don’t have a ruling class today, however. Our system allows for upward mobility. You may not like postmodern capitalism, but John Doe can still climb the ladder for success and the people who made gobs of money on Wall Street before the latest bust were not just the descendents of the rich.

I’m saying this not to disagree with you entirely, but point out one crucial element you missed. Human beings are programmed to hold on to power. In the USA, we have one of the most open societies know to man in our million-year history since the Serengeti. Speculation, booms and busts are nothing new. I see finance being more regulated than it was in the 1870s railroad boom and the rolling 1920s. Smart people intent on gaming the system are always trying to stay ahead of the curve.

When your analysis turns to charter schools (which is what I believe you mean when you accurately describe them as privately run, publicly funded) you totally lose me. (I feel compelled to point out that as nonprofits, all charter school board meetings are public meetings under the NYS Open Meetings Law.)

There MAY be individual charter schools who “consciously skim, filter and cream some students, and exclude or counsel out others” but there is simply no evidence – and my personal experience tells me there won’t be – that this claim is true on a widespread basis.

Your final point about charters is that they “divert money from the public schools system: that’s a TAKE.” I’m not understanding why, if thousands of families in poor and ALREADY disenfranchised and woefully underserved communities find a superior education in a charter school, the local district schools should continue receiving the fair student funding for their kids. Parents in these communities are leaving the district schools in droves. And it’s not because of style or the point of a gun from some imagined plutocracy. It’s because it’s their perception that it’s in the best interest of their children.

I’m looking forward to charter hearings. I hope I get the opportunity to testify. I won’t make any broad stroke judgments about charters because I know we are a diverse community with a variety of practices and approaches – and levels of scrupulousness.

In fact, I’d go one step further and offer to help, in this forum, craft a good strong set of questions to illuminate what really goes on in charters. Maybe we can agree on some language to help inform legislators with their line of questioning. Based on the accusations I see flying around, I would ask:

* How do parents come to learn about your school?

* Have you ever told a parent that his or her child is not a good fit for the school?

* What resources do you have in place for students who enter your school academicallly at-risk, or become so while they are at your school?

* Have you ever told a family to leave the school and enroll elsewhere?

* What is your expulsion policy? Have you ever expelled a child and for what reason? What was the process? (Did the child have due process as under Goss v. Lopez?)

* What are your teacher turnover rates?

* Do you issue any surveys of teacher satisfaction?

I, for one, would welcome these questions, and I would be glad to see any unscrupulous charter educators squirm in the hot seat because if they are breaking the law, they are indeed undermining what is a potentially powerful tool for educational reform. Not a silver bullet, mind you.

Yes, and they also give writers for the New York Times “Styles” section opportunities to write fawning, uncritical profiles of them.

Although when you think about it, it’s appropriate that they be featured there, since once their stealth agenda is subtracted, “style” is what it’s all about.

Let’s take a look at this issue of finance capital (which on these pages, hedge and private equity funds are usually a proxy for), it’s role in society and its more recent role in education.

The ostensible purpose of finance capital is to allocate money from those who have it to those who can productively use it, and make interest and/or fee income in the process. So far, so good: that’s how capitalism works, and as long as there is some kind of healthy balance between lenders and borrowers/producers, then a market economy can function well according to its own terms.

But it that what’s really happening in this country, or globally, for that matter?

No. What we have seen over the past 35 years is the financial end of the economy becoming engorged with capital and power, at the expense of both the productive economy and the democratic process, which has been captured by those financial interests. Look no further than home, where NYC’s executive office has been purchased by a Finance/media mogul.

The past 35 years have seen:

- the rescinding of usury laws that limited interest charges, resulting in those 30% interest charges on credit cards.

- the shrinking of the productive, goods-producing (and unionized) side of the economy, with finance becoming an ever-greater percentage of GDP. This has led to the physical and social decline of huge regions of the country that were once major economic engines for the US. This has not been some “natural” process, as mainstream economists would like to fantasize about (or propagandize, depending on your point of view), but has occurred while Finance, through merger and acquisitions, private equity takeovers and outsourcing, has directly based much of it growth on cannibalizing the patrimonial wealth that the goods-producing part of the economy generated over many decades. In fact, this is what is driving both the current financial crisis and the attack on public schools: these fundamentally parasitic forces have extracted so much wealth from the private sector that they are now driven to go after society’s public wealth. Thus the ever-increasing attacks on public education and Social Security.

- Because their wealth and power is increased by enlarging how much they can skim from every corner of the economy, in the form of rents (interest, fees, royalties and actual rents) there is ultimately a negative relationship between the expansion of Finance and the overall health of the economy and society. This doesn’t mean that some, even many, don’t benefit: they do. What else accounts for Manhattan becoming a Xanadu of opulence and ostentatious wealth in the past generation? And there is some trickle down: art auctioneers, designers, high-end caterers and restaurants, valet parking attendants all get their little cut, but the overall effect is the decline of long-term, real wealth-generating capacity. As Finance has fattened off the land, the poverty rate in NYC has increased (and NYC has fared much better than many other parts of the country).

- Because there is a limited amount of wealth-producing opportunities for Finance to invest in, and because the money must go somewhere, it goes into ever more abstruse financial instruments that are ever more abstracted from the physical world of work and wealth: credit default swaps, trading of interest rate indexes, futures trading by parties that have no relation to the commodities being traded, foreign exchange plays, etc. As all of this grows relative to the “real” economy, the system becomes top-heavy and more susceptible to crisis. That explains the increasing incidence and severity of financial crises over the past 35 years, most of it directly related to the credit system: NYC’s “bankruptcy’ (really a banker’s coup) in 1975, a succession of Third World debt crises in the 1980′s, the S&L crisis of the late 80′s and early 90′s, the Asian debt crisis and Russian default of 1997, the LTCM crisis, Dot Com meltdown, and our current crisis, which is entirely fueled by debt and “financial engineering” (really just a euphemism for an ever-expanding financial casino gamed by big players).

What does any of this have to do with education? Well, as I said, these immense amounts of money must go somewhere, and opportunities for “investment,” which has devolved into systemic extraction of wealth, must be found. Enter the the public schools, “the Big Enchilada” (actually just the “Pretty Big Enchilada:” Social Security is really the Big One) according to Jefferies and Co.

But Finance has a PR problem. Most people (rightfully) don’t fully trust Wall Street gamblers. And don’t be fooled: a hedge fund is nothing but a gambling machine, creating no tangible wealth whatsoever. Their “investments” are short term bets, which often (as we’re seeing right now in the case of Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) have negative consequences. So plutocrats and Wall Street gamblers must start foundations, and have Society benefit balls, and make patronizing statements about their concern for the “underprivileged.” Look at the very term”social entrepreneur:” there is a (deluded or deceptive) notion that marketizing the right to an education will somehow benefit people. Sorry, that’s not how postmodern capitalism works.

Meanwhile, they have dollar signs in their eyes. Having ignored if not benefitted from the decades-long disinvestment in inner city schools and communities (which were largely a result of their own investment decisions, combined with their political efforts to reduce their taxes), they become part of the chorus chanting about the failures of public education (which in reality does have many problems and shortcomings, problems that these very same people have an indirect hand in as a result of what they do for a living every day).

Finance makes “investment” decisions that often reduce the productive capacity of the nation, leaving communities and entire regions (Upstate NY, the Great Lakes, etc.) hollowed out: that’s a TAKE.

Finance captures the political process to extend its power and wealth, further skimming wealth: that’s a TAKE.

Finance (along with its political and media assets) uses its increased power to create an echo chamber that endlessly harps on the failures of public education (and the public sector in general) and the faults of teachers and their unions in those failures: that’s a TAKE.

Finance helps establish a parallel, privately-run (but publicly-funded) educational system that consciously skims, filters and creams some students, and excludes or counsels out others. At the same time, it diverts money from the public schools system: that’s a TAKE.

Finance works to create the political climate for the diversion of funds from the public schools by imposing executive (mayoral) control over school systems, disenfranchising school communities, in particular the minority communities they claim to serve: that’s a TAKE.

Now, KS, what exactly do they GIVE?

” adding resources to the public schools in NYC.” Resources that help pay Eva a very nice sum.

Not public schools is where they park their money. Not schools managed by BloomKlein. Or maybe they just won’t give to schools where there is a union contract.

And of course if we had a democratic system the resources they add would be under public management and oversight not under the control of the ouija board chosen charter boards.

Just as a point of fact, the rich hedge fund/Wall Street/robber barons, whatever you want to call them, donors and board members of charter schools: they GIVE money to the schools, adding resources to the public schools in NYC. They don’t TAKE money.

They give, don’t take. If you need me to say it louder, they GIVE, don’t TAKE.

Are their motives all pure? Certainly not. Are their politics diverse? Certainly yes. But remember, they GIVE, don’t TAKE.

What do 3000 charter parent puppets driven to Albany by the edupreneurs to demand more money for their fake public schools get you? Nada.

“The pleas of more than 3,000 charter supporters in Albany last week did not persuade the Governor to reconsider this injustice.” Peter Murphy, Charter Schools Association.

Politicians aren’t stupid, they know the charter parents are being brainwashed to ask for money to fill the bank accounts of the hedge fund edupreneurs. Charter parents need to wake up. Very soon the edupreneurs are going to move onto another business venture that will make even more money for them with less headaches. Then they’ll be flocking to the REAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS because the charters will be closing down.

“I am certain that the vast majority of these takeovers will fail. And I am certain that these new educational entrepreneurs will make a killing by lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars that should go straight into the classroom. And then, I suspect, these do-gooders, these educational experts, will take their money and run.”