Big money flowing into Oakland school board races
By Katy Murphy
Thursday, October 18th, 2012 at 11:45 am in Uncategorized.
Photo by Laura A. Oda/Staff
As we reported today, this Oakland school board election is a departure from past cycles — and not just because every race is contested.
The teachers union revived its political action committee after 20 years, throwing its weight behind Thearse Pecot (District 1), Richard Fuentes (District 3), and Mike Hutchinson (District 5).
But the $20,000 the Oakland Education Association PAC expects to spend on those candidates is dwarfed by that of another new PAC, for Great Oakland Public Schools. It had raised more than $123,000 as of Sept. 30.
About 80 percent of that sum came from two people: Former Dreyers CEO Gary Rogers, whose son Brian ran for school board in 2008 against Jody London (District 1), and Arthur Rock, a well-known venture capitalist based in San Francisco.
Rock gave $49,000 and Rogers gave $49,900 to support GO’s picks: Jumoke Hinton Hodge (District 3), Rosie Torres (District 5), and James Harris (District 7). GO has not endorsed either candidate in District 1.
The Rogers Family Foundation is clearly invested in Oakland’s education system — it’s given grants to district and charter schools, and it provided the seed money to start GO in the first place. But why would someone from San Francisco pour money into an Oakland school board race?
GO says Rock, who has supported (on a smaller scale) some of the group’s other initiatives, was inspired by all of the energy in the campaign. Rock wouldn’t give an explanation, saying in an emailed response that his contribution “speaks for itself.”
I talked to David Kakishiba about this yesterday. He’s on the OUSD board, but not up for re-election, so I wanted to get his thoughts. He said he welcomed the infusion of attention and money, saying school board races had been neglected for far too long. Do you agree?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
October 18th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Absolutely agree with David Kakishiba, furthermore you can only get better candidates if and when more people run for public service. There are people out there with the talent,expertise and temperament to successfully lead, but they have to decide to do it.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Too bad all of this money doesn’t flow right into the classrooms.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
OUSD Parent,
I agree with you, if only the majority of the money we spend directly impacted kids in the classroom there might not have been a need for reform of any kind.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I have to say this makes me very suspicious. Outside money and PACs for a school board race? What’s going on here? There must be an agenda, and it’s something that interests big money. Since the candidates that GO endorses are exactly the opposite of the candidates endorsed by the teachers’ union, I have to assume it has something to do with charter conversions.
I have mixed feelings about charters, and I while I support teachers I also have misgivings about the teachers union. But the fact that there’s no transparency about the issue concerns me. Some support charters, some do not, but why won’t the candidates define their positions? Instead, all I see in the campaign literature and on the webistes are banal generalities about looking out for the children.
I’ve asked several supporters of Jumoke Hinton-Hodge directly about her position on the mishandling of the school closures, on Superintendent Smith, on the recent debacles with special ed and teacher consolidation, on plans for addressing middle school failures — and I’ve gotten nothing in return but canned platitudes.
Richard Fuentes, on the other hand, called me himself and took about 20 minutes to answer my questions, although it seemed like he wasn’t fully aware of all the issues.
Is it too much to ask the candidates to clearly define their positions and platforms? Could there be a debate?
I find it appaling that school board elections are going the same way as national elections — no transparency, all special interests and big money.
And who is Benjamin Lang? I can’t find ANYTHING about him.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Ben Lang is a retired Orinda school district administrator (educational technology) and former teacher who lives in Adams Point. He told me a month or so ago that he wasn’t planning to raise any money. Here’s his website (I don’t think that’s him in the picture): http://www.benlang.com/
District 3 story here: http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland/ci_21702488/jumoke-hinton-hodge-faces-two-challengers-oakland-school
October 18th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Thanks, Katy.
October 18th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Also, for those in District 5 and 7: Two candidate forums — complete with voter registration — are coming up at schools.
From 6-8:30 p.m. tonight, students at Life Academy (2101 35th Avenue) will be questioning city council and school board candidates in District 5 (Fruitvale/Glenview).
Then, on Tuesday morning from 8:45 to 10 a.m., Lighthouse Community Charter School (444 Hegenberger Road) is hosting a forum for the four school board candidates in District 5 and District 7 (East Oakland).
Both events are free and open to the public.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Katy:
$20,000 OEA “expects” to raise has not happened. As of today OEA has reported raising $8,450 for its PAC but I expect OEA to raise more than $8,000.
However, the ever changing fortunes of the GO PAC fund have dramatically changed. The reported $123,000 raised reported to the City Clerk as of Sept 30 has been amended and shrunk to $40,791.31
An interesting story is why the reduction in GO PAC money? The answer I believe is that the 1%ers like Eli Broad, T Gary Rogers and San Francisco venture capitalist Arthur DO NOT WANT ATTENTION. Reports of a PAC for local school board race raising over $100,000 was drawing unwanted attention.
According to the latest filing Arthur Rock dropped GO’s PAC contribution like a rock. Mr. T Gary Rogers reduced his contribution to $35,000 but his single contribution is about 70% of the total contribution to GO’s PAC. While the GO super-PAC is not as super as over $100,000 attention getting PAC it is still far ahead of the modest OEA PAC.
The math part of the amended filing and reduction in contributions I understand because of the loss of one big spender and reduction in another’s contribution.
But, what I don’t understand is how 09/30 filing is $41,256.61 in total expenditures can be reduced to $23,780.74 in expenditures. Shouldn’t reported expenditures remain the same?
Following the money in the new world of PACs is hard to do even when you read the filings.
Jim Mordecai
October 18th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
In addition to the amount listed on the form, OEA’s PAC has received an $8,000 contribution from the California Teachers Association. That came in after the filing deadline, so it didn’t show up.
As for the amended filing you referenced: Check the period that was amended.
Although the amendment was filed on Oct. 11, I believe it was for the period ending June 30, which is why it reflects a lower amount than the other form. Arthur Rock’s donation came in September.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
This local race is not an isolated story. The super wealthy are investing in education-related races all over the country, but only offer their money to organizations and people who support the privatization of public education.
An unprecedented amount of Big Money bought a reformy school board seat in Denver.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/12216/the_school_board_battles/
Big Money has filled the coffers of the reformy candidate for a New Orleans parish school board seat.
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2012/10/usdin_draws_110000_haul_in_orl.html
Big Money has supplied 91% of the $8.9 million raised to get a charter school law passed in Washington State. This is the fourth attempt; all three previous attempts were flatly rejected by voters.
http://www.kuow.org/post/10-donors-funded-91-percent-charter-schools-campaign
And in Georgia, where a charter school law already exists, more than 92% of the money contributed to the campaign for a charter school amendment that would create a state charter school-approving commission consisting of political appointees has come from donors who don’t even live in the state.
http://bettergeorgia.com/2012/10/01/charter-school-amendment-debate-whos-for-it-whos-against-it/#more-%27
The plutocrats, who have more wealth than ever before, are simply overriding the concept of grassroots democracy and are well underway with their purchase of U.S. public education policy, at the local, state and national levels.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
In the full story about this issue, I quote Henry Brady from the Goldman School of Public Policy, who co-wrote a book on the role of wealthy individuals in our political system.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
P.S. Thanks for posting those links, Sharon.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
People have a vested interest in education. Many of them are wealthy. There may be money to be made in education, but not in California. Sorry. Question – Are you happy with today’s board leadership? It can get worse. People realize that. It is not a charter issue. Many folks that support non-OEA candidates are Oakland Unified teachers and staff that want better conditions for students. Easy to blame others. How about a board that leads the district so we have no more charter conversions? If these elections go south, there will be more. If OUSD plays unfair, the county has proven that it will support charter law. No way around this. Let’s support candidates that offer solutions and that will lead.
October 18th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Shame on OEA for endorsing Richie Fuentes. He’s clueless and power-hungry – the exact opposite of what we teach children to be. I live in district 3 and his canvassers were straight up lying about his “qualifications”, saying he was “President of the school site at Hoover, the most improved elementary school in the district”.
October 18th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Katy:
I checked on the amendment and you are right the additional funding that brought the GO Super-PAC up to $120,000 was in September and the amendment referenced period of the report ended in June 30th prior to the September increase to $123,175.31. The GO Super-PAC remains truly super large.
Thank you for helping me get the facts straight Katy.
Jim Mordecai
October 18th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Richard Fuentes is the president of the School Site Council at Hoover Elementary. After seeing your comment, I called the school to double-check.
Hoover’s not the most improved school, at least going by API score, though it’s one of the higher-performing schools in the area.
October 18th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
The Black Organizing Project, with other organizations, is putting on an OUSD Board of Education candidates’ forum on Saturday, October 12th from 12 – 3 PM at Castlemont High School.
Info at http://www.blackorganizingproject.org
October 18th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
The forum at Castlemont is this Saturday, Oct. 20.
October 18th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Katy,
Brian Rogers is on the board of directors of Education for Change. This makes me suspicious that the GO people are a front for charters, astro-turf, or something like that. Oakland schools have been under attack almost since I started teaching there. What we need are board members who will be advocates for neighborhood schools, not charters.
October 18th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
While I wish my dear wife were at home more this fall, I support her and the other volunteers who are phone banking and walking neighborhoods.
I would love to see a story about the many community members- parents, teachers, folks without kids in OUSD or at all, and all the hard work they are doing to get the word out about how important good schools and good school board leadership are for Oakland.
October 18th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
@LK – Under attack? By who? Oakland schools are simply not an option for many parents. Look at the middle and high schools. Unsafe, low expectations, and limited course offerings. 50% drop out for black and brown males. Would you send your kids there? We need board members that advocate for great schools. Period.
October 18th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Those of you who suspect an agenda behind the large contributions to GO PAC may be correct. T Gary Rogers and his wife, Kathleen Rogers, are significant contributors to the Republican National Committee (over $60K between them), a Romney affiliated Super PAC ($10K), and the Romney campaign ($5K). I have provided Katy with the documentation for this on Open Secrets.com. The Romney agenda on education includes support for vouchers and charters. Kathleen Rogers is also on the Board of Overseers of the conservative Hoover Institute. This is not to imply that the endorsed candidates of GO PAC all identify completely with this agenda–but some degree of agreement must exist for the Rogers to spend this kind of money to try and get them elected. In the interests of full disclosure, I work for the California Teachers Association.
October 19th, 2012 at 1:37 am
By stating that you are “not trying to imply that the endorsed candidates of GO PAC all identify completely with this agenda,” and then to also mention that in your opinion ”
some degree of agreement must exist for the Rogers to spend this kind of money to try and get them elected,” does imply your conspiracy theory.
Every person, every group including school board members, for profit, non profit, and unions have agendas. Which among you is truly working in partnership to serve students. At least with a private school I can be assured that my voice is heard, that my tuition does empower me to shape the agenda. It s unfortunate that some folks in public education don’t realize that tax dollars from the citizens of Oakland should shape the agenda, not for profit, foundations, or union organizations.
October 19th, 2012 at 7:25 am
Dear Students First
I offer no conspiracy theory. The fact that known supporters of vouchers and privatization (T Gary and Kathleen Rogers) support a particular candidate does not confirm that the candidate supports the position uncritically. As a case in point, Jumoke Hinton Hodge, who has generally been supportive of charters, recently cast a courageous vote to issue a notice of violation to American Indian Charter Schools due to the egregious conduct of its board of directors and executive director. Similarly, Rosie Torres is a decent, public spirited individual–but her acceptance of support from the Rogers backed PAC makes me wonder what, exactly, they see in her utterances or positions that make them believe she will be sympathetic to the privatization agenda.
October 19th, 2012 at 8:56 am
This will be informative:
http://oaklandlocal.com/article/oaklands-black-organizing-project-host-school-board-candidates-forum-community-voices
October 19th, 2012 at 10:26 am
This is a bit off our local topic, but it relates to the trend seen Katy’s article. Check out the powers who want a charter school law in the state of Washington and how much they’ve spent to get things their way.
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=WUVTIFdDIDUwNw====&year=2012&type=initiative
It’s been a huge embarrassment to Bill Gates — a major promoter and funder of charter schools for everywhere else — that the residents of his own state have totally rejected charter schools three previous times. Along with millions in personal contributions, he’s also made contributions through his company. A couple of days ago Microsoft sunk another $50K into the campaign.
October 19th, 2012 at 10:42 am
Arthur Rock is a private sector guy with great stature.
Why would he put his money behind local politicians whose power is limited to choosing school colors and deciding which crony receives a no-bid school contract?
Rock should focus on funding the commercialization of innovative technologies and avoid giving money to bureaucrats who hope to lead buggywhip industries.
October 19th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
What this story overlooks is that both OEA and GO are sending sting messages:
Wake up Oakland, Pay attention to Education on this November’s ballot!
BOTH GROUPS SUPPORT YES ON 30 and YES on J!
We will succeed when we focus as much time on our common concerns as we do our differences.
For full disclosure, I support some of the candidates championed by each group, but believe both groups made their decisions only after receiving Oakland based community input. I am a member of a proud union family, public school parent that has also volunteered with GO around this election.
Each page of you ballot has key education questions on it.
Each person running for school board is a real person, who is more complexed then can be summed up by any one endorsement. Get to know the people and make your own choice.
October 19th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I am a graduate of the Oakland Public Schools, my son Steven just graduated for Oakland Tech, where I still serve on the PTSA committee upgrading the auditorium. I have been involved as a community volunteer in more improve the schools committees than I care to remember, including about 10 years on the Marcus Foster Board. Now I am on the Board of GO Public Schools. Why, simple: GO is committed to improving OUSD for all students. I hope those of you who are suspicious will take the time to see what we are doing at GO. I am sure you will come away impressed. By the way, VOTE FOR MEASURE J. On that we should all agree.
October 19th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
BOTH GROUPS SUPPORT YES ON 30 and YES on J!
OMG. #28 isn’t kidding.
GreatPS is just another one of those pro-government advocacy groups controlled by the wealthy elite. You know the ones.
They always SUPPORT higher taxes “for the children”. It’s a safe bet that if the principals in such organization even have kids, that they’re sent to PRIVATE schools.
They alawys OPPOSE tax cuts. You know, money if left in the hands of the middle class taxpayers who earned it, would enable at least some of them to afford private school also.
October 19th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Katy, I think you did a very good job explaining who is involved in the current school board races. These elections could not be more important! With the focus on big donors to GO Public Schools, I hope people don’t lose sight of the fact that the majority of the group’s supporters are small donors like myself, who are just trying to make a positive difference in our community.
October 19th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Now that a few around here have come out in *favor* of Measure J, it’s time for a quit rebuttal.
Debt financing schemes like J are just a way for special interests to impose a tax increase on *future* generations. Many of those of who someday will have to pay higher taxes to payoff the bonds are not yet old enough to vote.
Naturally.
The face value of the loan is reportedly around $475M. Considering OUSD’s poor credit rating, the underwriting fees for the NY investment banking firm(s) leading the deal must be 1-2%. At least 100 basis points higher than what those sharks could otherwise expect to receive.
Call it a an even $5M!
>= $2M of it will go to pay for the fat XMas bonus checks those sociopaths are notorious for collecting.
Another windfall for the Muni Bond dealers. You can be sure that any banker who stands to profit from the deal has donated to the ‘Yes on J’ campaign, not to mention OUSD and Oakland City Council races.
Once again we see public education working for the interests of the 1%.
October 19th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
In case you don’t know about the muni-bond racket, the interest rates on the bonds are usually pretty meager. That is because municipal bonds probably *always* come with government granted sweeteners, such as:
an early place in line for dibs on local tax revenues
a guarentee (co-sign) by the STATE government
interest exempt from fed/state/local income taxes
etc and so forth
Traditionally, such bonds are popular with investors primarily concerned with capital preservation, like old money, trust fund babies, though I’ve heard that at least one rock’n-roll superstar who’s out campaigning for the DEMs has several hundred million dollars tied up in such assets.
Those risk-averse 1%’ers thank you from the bottom of their nest-eggs for voting to increase the opportunity to geographically diversify their investment portfolios.
The higher taxes you and I will have to pay does not really bother them, and indeed, they actually *prefer* it that way. After all, taxation has always been used by the priviliged class to kneecap those who would presume to join their elite ranks. And in this instance, the money will into their pockets anyhow.
The bigger government which will result also doesn’t bother them, as government always works for *their* interests.
October 19th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Who are the super wealthy that still believe in Public Education? There must be many that went to public schools and received an education that helped them get where they are today. Initially, that was where Bill Gates was coming from even though he went on to illustrate what happens when very wealthy individuals try and play super heroes with school systems. Especially when they tire of that particular “toy” and move on to the next one.
GO is too closely aligned with Charter schools. I’ve listened to members of GO talk about education reform within the public system publicly, only to align themselves with large Charter private conglomerates that barge their way into school districts, siphon students off by targeting vulnerable schools (instead of helping them) and have nothing to say about the practice of dumping students they don’t want to educate back into the district after the 20th day when they’re allowed to keep the entire annual budget. This is one of so many practices thrust on to public systems, pointedly further draining the of resources.
One more platform is the supposed goal of reducung administartive costs (which are criminal, absolutely criminal). And to achive this goal they continue to grow a parallel bureacracy drinking at the same trough.
October 19th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
A dilemma for the community: Special Education and the needs of children with disabilities throw a wrench in simplistic conversations about public and charter schools, and within the agendas of many organizing entities that claim to support the educational rights of all. Economies of scale and centralized oversight are crucial for those children who face barriers, both concrete and socially imposed, and who often get set aside as not worthy of investment.
At this time in which the dismal conditions that children with Special Needs are facing have finally risen to public visibility, I ask that everyone begin to grapple with the structural and resource dilemmas that those conditions present to us.
More resources for ALL public schools is a beginning to that conversation, followed by :specific resource development for special education and special needs support, fierce accountability structures for all schools and as conditions for charter approvals, analysis of the impact of charter schools on special education services and programs overall, the list goes on.
The Special Education/Special Needs conversation is not a tangential one. It is at the heart of why we need to protect public education and at the heart of defining how we best go about doing so.
October 19th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Special Ed Parent:
Do you know anything about El Dorado County offering to be the SELPA for charter schools in California? I know some charter schools in Oakland use the El Dorado County SELPA. But, I believe most use Oakland SELPA.
This is taken from El Dorado County webpage:
Dear Charter Operator,
Since 1992, charter schools have been developing to meet the interests of families who seek viable, high quality K-12 educational options for their children. As a result, many successful charter schools are also being considered as appropriate options for students with special needs.
On July 9, 2007, the State Board of Education approved a three year pilot for the El Dorado County Charter SELPA. Although we believe it is always preferable for a charter school to participate with their geographic SELPA, we do realize that choice regarding SELPA participation may be of interest to some. On January 7, 2010 the State Board of Education took action to lift our pilot status and approved the continuance of the El Dorado County Charter SELPA.
This website has been created so that interested charters can gather the necessary information to make an informed decision. If, after reviewing the website and the associated documents, you determine you are interested in applying to become a member of our consortium, see our website for application process details and deadlines. Also, please feel free to contact David Toston, SELPA Executive Director, should you have any questions regarding the purpose of this consortium and/or the application process.
Vicki L. Barber, Ed.D.
Superintendent
El Dorado County Office of Education
Jim Mordecai
October 19th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
@Observer – “practice of dumping students they don’t want to educate back into the district after the 20th day when they’re allowed to keep the entire annual budget.” Serious? According the state law, charters report attendance to authorizing districts on a quarterly basis. That’s how ADA is adjusted throughout the year. This 20th day that you speak of occurs in the Spring. #factcheck
October 19th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
I have another take on this “shocking” financial support for our Oakland, that so desperately needs a financial infusion. I have nothing but gratitude to these individuals who have stepped up to support our community by uplifting a group of qualified, thinking, community orientated candidates.
Where did the money go? Actually to pay for a series of public candidate forums to listen and question the candidates and sift through the group to figure out who to recommend. One of which I participated in. Not a podium for Go to talk about the candidates and influence anyone but a time for candidates to come and speak to the Go community so they could be questioned about their beliefs and plans. A fair and open process of evaluation. Criminal! Or was that a democratic process?
So my question still remains. What if the people who have given money to Go and it is not just a few wealthy individuals, but a ton of working people like me– really love Oakland and care so much about the children they are willing to throw their money away helping insure a thorough evaluative process occurred to insure a slate of fantastic public school heroes. Weird! They could be buying all sorts of things with that money. What do you think is their ulterior motive….? Please educate me.
I challenge any of you who are fearful of the Go’s agenda to come into the office and meet the host of teachers and parents (75 and counting this week)who did not go home to their families or out to dinner but spent hours phone banking to “educate” the community about candidates who will be able to make the hard decisions to really fix the system. Candidates who are solution orientated, candidates who put the kids at the center and can free them selves from a potentially outmoded noneffective agendas.
OUSD is working its way out of debt, we have better and better scores, the positivity plus that is happening in many many of OUSD departments is starting to amplify. I have nothing but excited finger-crossing hope that we will be at an amazing place in 5-8 years. Please come join in the swelling energy of transformation. I encourage you to jump in where the district is being successful and make it bigger and better. And by supporting Board candidates who believe in this movement is the way. And it can only happen with financial support.
I welcome the help and I hope that all of Oakland can help and continue to rise up every day and do what is needed “today” in a new and more strategic method to fix the problems and help our kids.
I am in my 60′s – I lived “the movement” and even though I am an older parent I have kids who are still in elementary school. It is time to stop arguing and using our precious human capital fighting. “The Man” is not them — it is us. We made this mess, us older people. Let’s get out of the way of people who are willing to help clean it up, and help them do it.
Call me — perhaps we could go together down to Go and join in the exciting energy of setting our kids up for success by insuring the right adults are in charge.
October 19th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Thanks Jim Mordecai for beginning the grappling. I see the structural contradictions that I summarized from experience and am only beginning to understand the specific players out there. I will tap into the community to understand how the El Dorado SELPA works and its implications for children.
You are one of the few persons who responds when I venture to comment within conversations that are not obviously identified as related to children with Special Needs. Unless they already a part of this reality, the response from folks is generally silence.
Thanks for engaging. It makes me hopeful. Your taking the time to respond honors my son and his peers.
October 20th, 2012 at 7:08 am
Ms. Rodman
Your posting does not address the fundamental question raised by this article. Why are two millionaires, one from out town and one who clearly supports a privitazation agenda, spending large amounts to influence Oakland’s school board race?
If you believe that the bulk of the spending done by GO PAC has gone to hosting community forums, I’d suggest you review the expenditure part of the campaign filing which shows that most of the money has gone to printing and mailing costs. Interestingly, I see no expenditures for phone bank costs. This raises a potential question as to whether GO is using their 501 C 3 non profit offices and equipment to engage in political advocacy–which may be a violation of campaign finance laws. I trust that GO’s attorney’s have checked this out.
October 20th, 2012 at 8:45 am
3 Quick Comments:
A) as the 40th comment no one will read this. As much as I respect Katy, this article is everything that is wrong with news why hasn’t there been more coverage about how first the first time in years these races are contested which is good for the political process.
B) It worries me that Katy and man of the folks who have commented (many of whom I agree with) are making this a charter vs. anti charter issue. I’ve read and attended many of the GO events and never have I come under the impression that they “only support charter schools”, it’s about more choices not less choices people.
C) I’m not sure when all the “lefties” started taking queues from the republican party and turned discussion and discourse into a series of talking points by saying things like “privatization agenda” and “large Charter private conglomerates” and not actually understanding what they mean, but it isn’t good. We are now prevented from actually discussing what best serves children.
October 20th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Dear Teacher Man
Thank you for your comments. The issue here isn’t GO per se–there are many areas of agreement between them and other elements of the education community, including the teachers union. In fact, we have had some minimal collaboration during this campaign on both Prop 30 and Measure J–and I hope we enjoy more. There are other matters on which we disagree and I expect we will have continuing dialogue around.
The issue is why big money interests who do have a clear agenda around privatizing education and increasing charter schools are supporting GO and its endorsed candidates. If GO would refuse or refund this money, it would be a clear statement on their part and we would welcome it. I don’t expect that to happen.
October 20th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
http://www.gopublicschools.org/about/faq/
Please check out this link for information about GO Public Schools. Looking forward to further constructive dialogue about ensuring an amazing education for all of Oakland’s kids. Have a great weekend everyone.
Angela Badami
Manager of Teacher Leadership
GO Public Schools
October 20th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
DearTeacher Man:
You may have a point that the GO Super-PAC is not about GO being friendly to charter schools. But, I don’t think your point is correct.
I am opposed to the idea of charter schools as poor public policy that takes choice away from the public with private corporate management of charter schools.
It doesn’t seem so surprising to me that Mr. Arthur Rock, a very successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist, would be so supportive of the charter school idea that he would write a check to the GO Super-PAC for $49,000 and tell a report that his donation “speaks for itself”.
Also, it is believed by many that Jumoke Hodge is perceived as the most charter school friendly of the Oakland School Board members and she was the only Board incumbent to get the GO Super-PAC endorsement.
Another fact is that the CEO of Education for Change charter school management organization is also the Treasurer of the GO Foundation.
Another fact is that Brian Rogers has two charter schools.
Those willing to connect the dots I mentioned can join me in the belief that the GO Foundation and its Super-PAC are charter school friendly looking for candidates that share its value regarding charter schools on both the School Board and the City Council.
It is unlikely to find GO Super-PAC indorsed School Board candidates unfriendly to charter schools as it is to find OEA indorsed candidates charter school friendly.
Finally, in defense of lefties (only humans are in their right minds a scientific fact; but you mean politically left of center): there are often been voices of the left wanting to talk about policy put in the context of class warfare wins and losses. The left doesn’t need to copy the far right dominated Republic Party on broadcasting talking points. But, having a left position does not preclude debate or dialogue on a broad range of issues.
For me debate or dialogue is wanted. However, until I change my mind that charter schools is bad public policy, I will try to educate the public on why I think it is bad policy and needs to be reformed or ended.
Jim Mordecai
October 20th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Bad public policy is a Monopolistic system set in place that is failing yet structurally resistant(from the top all the way down it’s bloated bureaucratic base)to any kind of beneficial change. Protections and advantages written into law like some glorified mafia protection racket. The system as it has been is no longer about educating the children for future success, it is now about jobs and ensuring a comfortable future for those(of the past 3-4-5 decades who haven’t really held up their end academically). All these young kids will be paying that burdensome debt as indentured tax servants(sans title). GOD help us, for we have thrown our own children under the bus of greed and avarice!!!!
http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/07/11/los-angeles-unified-school-district-a-reason-to-end-government-schools/
October 20th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Katy Murphy spins the story as a conflict between the teachers’ union on one side and on the other well-intentioned teachers and community minded folk who only want the best for their children. No. The conflict is between those who are fighting to renew public education and strengthen local democratic control, and those who are determined to corporatize and financialize public education. GO public schools is a prime example of how neoliberalism works: public functions using public money become opportunities for pursuing corporate profit. All sectors of the economy are opened for capital. [Think the 'corrections' industry or what passes for heath care reform.]
October 20th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
#41 wrote: it’s about more choices not less choices people.
Of course these so-called education “choice” advocates don’t really mean it. Nearly ALL of them, for instance, would not recognize a parent’s choice to NOT send her kid to *any* school. See unschooling.
One can’t truly support “school choice” unless that person OPPOSES compulsory attendance.
It’s safe to say that the DEMs are “pro-choice” on only one issue.
October 21st, 2012 at 8:36 am
I’m a bit torn on charters myself, but I find it odd that others are assuming that just because Mr. Rogers supports charters that he wants to privatize Oakland. I googled him, and it’s obvious that he just gives a lot of money to Oakland schools, a lot of them are public schools like West Oakland Middle and Allendale. And it looks like Oakland Tech had their fundraiser at his boathouse or something recently as well. That seems to me that he’s not just trying to privatize everything – he’s just a rich guy trying to do something good.
Doug seems like a conspiracy theorist. I don’t think that what you said about a “clear agenda” is even right. He looks like a guy who just wants Oakland schools to be better and is helping get good people on school board as well as donating money for books and other things. Not everyone has these bizarre ulterior motives, and it seems like there is lots of evidence that Gary Rogers is just a guy who donates a lot to various Oakland schools. As someone who can’t donate anything like that, I have to appreciate that he’s doing something positive with his money.
October 21st, 2012 at 10:31 am
Measure ‘J’, which GOPS is a BIG proponent of, is just another example of *undemocratic* government.
That’s right.
If the special interests can push it through, local taxpayers will be on-the-hook for the money until the bonds are paid-off. The ballot text does not specify a duration, but it does authorize OUSD to go out as far as state law permits, whatever that # is.
You can look it up, but it’s probably 20-30 years.
So that means at least some of our public school kids who are not yet old enough to vote — as well as the out-of-wedlock children they will soon produce (or conceive), and possibly even *their* children — will be responsible for paying it back.
Outrageous!
For these municipal bond schemes to pass any sort of ethical standard the ballot question should have to be confirmed by voters EVERY year (til the loan principle is paid off). That would give the Soviets who originally supported it the opportunity to die-off, and the new taxpayers who are actually paying for it the chance to get RID of it.
We need to record the SSN every person who voted YEA, and hit them for larger and larger portions of the cost of amortizing the bonds. If vcters in 2022 vote to REPEAL, you original supporters are going to have to payoff the bonds entirely by YOURSELVES.
Hey, GOPS billionaires! Make provisions in your wills, foundations, and Trusts to payoff the bonds. For the rest of you, we can place (estate) tax liens on your homes.
October 21st, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Non,
Just to be clear, the bonds are actually matched dollar for dollar by all California taxpayers. Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAN2wsPtVOc
LAUSD has been a massive burden on this state for decades.
October 21st, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Dear Laurel District
You are quite right the Mr. Rogers has given generously to many institutions in Oakland. I commend him for his generosity. However, he also has clear political views that are reflected in his (and his wife’s) large contributions to Republican Party causes. You can find this information on Open Secrets.com or other campaign finance websites. The Republican Party has clear views on expanding the privatization of public education. In addition, the Rogers Family Foundation has given to the Koch Brothers affiliated American’s for Prosperity and the vehemently anti-union Pacific Legal Foundation. This is from their 2008 IRS Form 990, the most recent I was able to find. This is not a conspiracy–it’s a set of facts.
October 21st, 2012 at 4:51 pm
The Republicans support private schools — for their *own* kids. They would like to see financially struggling private schools — at the margin, the ones accessible to the middle class — ruined by making them dependent upon tax dollars (ie “vouchers”).
The Republicans certainly do not favor 100% privatization. The Republicans never talk about *elimination* of the public (taxpayer funded) school system, not even in their country club lounges.
The Republicans are strong supporters of charter schools — alternative forms of PUBLIC (taxpayer supported) education. As usual, they want more tax dollars flowing *their* way — in this case, into the hands of GOP donors who wish to operator them, at the expense of public unions.
Despite what the DEMs want you to believe, the Republicans are actually strong spporters of traditional, brick-&-mortar public schools. Many of their reliable donors are school service providers of one sort or another who have been leeching off the system for *decades*.
Elimination of public funding for education would severely reduce the REPUBLICAN’s oxygen supply.
October 21st, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Would you please direct me to the statute which mandates state matching funds?
I don’t see how it could be constitutional for voters in one special taxing district — big *or* small — to basically impose a tax increase on the rest of the state.
Otherwise, I very much enjoyed the video, especially the constant references to “The Beast”.
October 21st, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Andy Smarick, a Republican who served in the White House and in the Department of Education under President George W. Bush, and who also works for right-wing think tanks (American Enterprise Institute, Fordham Institute), is bluntly proposing the demolition of urban public school districts. In his vision, privately-operated charter schools replace ALL the urban public schools which now exist and a “new citywide education authority” manages this ‘portfolio’ of schools.
http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2012/chartering-the-future.html
Smarick’s proposed scenario is the end game for the neo-liberal, free market logic for public ed. Privatization of urban school districts via charter schools has absolutely nothing to do with helping children from low SES families climb higher on the social ladder, or to improve their life situation in any other way. But charter schools have everything to do with being THE method to gradually transfer an asset traditionally held by the public (a civic-minded, city-owned, locally-controlled public school system) into private hands (for the benefit of real estate acquisition, cronyism, profiteering, etc.). This article lays out some of the who’s and why’s:
http://www.alternet.org/education/education-profiteering-wall-streets-next-big-thing?paging=off
Here’s how it works. Phase One is to get an initial charter school law passed. Almost all states now have a charter school law. The original law starts things gently by placing a cap on the number of schools that can open (This is what is going on in Washington; the Big Money pushing it does not care that voters have have rejected this same proposal three times.) During this campaign, pro-charter forces try to convince voters that charter schools will be a good thing because they’ll “help” the traditional schools in some way (sharing innovation, competition, etc.). After several years, the pro-charter forces launch Phase Two. This is when they rally to have the original charter law amended. Amendments lift caps, extend the number and power of the authorizing entities, loosen restrictions on facility accessibility, etc. This phase is what Big Money is currently paying for in Georgia.
Academic studies have NEVER consistently shown that charter schools do better than traditional public schools. That’s why Big Money has stepped in to fund biased studies, charter advocacy (incl. bus rides and t-shirts), pro-charter propaganda (“Won’t Back Down,” “Waiting for Superman,” etc. ), lobbying public officials (Michelle Rhee’s organization, etc.), etc. The way the laws are written institutionalize inadequate oversight and the near-impossibility to close the schools (e.g. the many years of corruption allowed to go on at AIPCS). As the charter school presence continuously expands within the urban district, pre-existing schools wither away, eventually killing off the raison d’être for a school district in the city. A few charter schools seem innocent enough, but with unrestrained expansion and very few closures, they are just the bellwether of Smarick’s right-wing, neo-liberal vision.
I suspect that a good number of the people who support this current ed reform juggernaut have no idea about from where it originally came, or how deep it goes.
October 21st, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Thank you, Sharon. Horrifying. And quite clear.
October 21st, 2012 at 10:02 pm
#55 Thank you for your clarity.
Can you please address the systematic dumping of students by the Charters back to the public only after the finances have come their way? My experience for the last 7 years in OUSD is, sometime after the fourth week of school or so, we get anywhere from one to 7 kids from the charters (and eventually some from privates)most of them needing an IEP. My understanding is that the by the 20th day, budgets are set on site based on enrollment and the budget does not change no matter what if enrollment increases or decreases.
October 21st, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Non,
A little too much legalese, but I believe the pertinent information begins in #16312. Perhaps Nextset will verify, but I see no more than 80 cents on the dollar of matching(I could be mistaken though).
October 22nd, 2012 at 12:18 am
This is horrifying, and it has been going on for decades without the benefit of widespread academic achievement, too much reliance on remedial education, and low graduation rates( even though the exit exam is eigth grade level.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/24/what-school-bonds-pay-for-from-san-diego-to-burlingame-the-crime-is-whats-legal/
October 22nd, 2012 at 12:29 am
This current system big government education juggernaut has been fleecing taxpayers for decades(taking large sums of money while performing at mediocre levels or worse. 400 million dollar budgets annually(billions in LAUSD)the majority of which is compensation and benefits(past and present)and what do we have to show for it(past and present)? Don’t take youe eye off the ball taxpayers, keep an eye on your wallets and watch them all.
October 22nd, 2012 at 1:15 pm
A few points on this lengthy discussion.
1. GO is a community-based group that has organized a significant volunteer effort for this election. Contributions have been made by more than 200 individuals and GO is averaging 50-70 people a week who are volunteering their time to call and walk districts. This is about creating a more informed electorate in an often ignored election.
2. GO is not pro or anti charter. GO is pro strong outcomes for kids. The charter vs. district debate is pitting people who care about many of the same issues against each other. Kids deserve better than what we currently give them, especially our kids of color. Period. If our district were really focused on meeting the needs of kids, many things about the way our schools are run would change. That does not mean that charters are the answer – they come with other issues. But we cannot be afraid of competition. We must do better than we are.
October 22nd, 2012 at 2:15 pm
#54 wrote: transfer an asset traditionally held by the public (a civic-minded, city-owned, locally-controlled public school system) into private hands (for the benefit of real estate acquisition, cronyism, profiteering, etc.).
You and your comrades, who long have had a free hand to craft public education in your own left wing socialist images now object when right wing socialists want to craft it in *theirs*.
How pathetic!
Taxpayers are sick and tired of watching you big government advocates fight over our money.
We’re sick and tired of you Hegelians arguing over whose form of socialism is better.
We just want to be LEFT ALONE.
October 22nd, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Lake Educator:
If you are not anti-charter then you are not pro public education as charters grow privatization of the management of public schools.
My concern about GO is the money behind GO being the Roger Family Dryers fortune. Brian Rogers has two charter schools. Since two $49,000 checks by T Gary Rogers and Arthur Rock make up almost $100,000 of the GO PAC, my point is if you follow the money you got to be thinking that GO is charter school friendly.
When S.F. Venture Capitalist Arthur Rock was asked about his motivation in contributing to Oakland GO PAC he answered that his donation speaks for itself. I take that to mean he believes in reforming public education as a concept as there appears no other link to Oakland Public Schools. Certainly a capitalist would tend to like the idea of charter schools as a reform of public education.
The bottom line is that about 70% of GO PAC money belongs to the two donations of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Rock. Oakland is not Mr.Rocks neighborhood but it is Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood. Although most do not live or travel in Mr. Rogers’ world of the 1%, many find his wealth attractive and seek the trickle down political dollars.
Jim Mordecai
October 22nd, 2012 at 3:32 pm
If you are not anti-charter then you are not pro public education
IOW, if you are not anti-fascism then you are not pro totalitarian socialism.
October 23rd, 2012 at 7:42 am
I am a lifelong democrat and I phone banked at GO recently. I am so happy that the school board races are finally getting the attention they deserve, and that all board races are contested. That is the way democracy is supposed to work. Public education reform is one of the few places where democrats and republicans actually can find some common ground. I’m not worried about the candidates GO endorsed. I’ve met all of them, and I think they will all be independent, thoughtful school board members. Serving on the School Board is a hard, thankless job. I’m glad that Oakland is developing more civic infrastructure to surface and support good candidates…and if some rich republicans had something to do with that…then we are all in their debt.
October 23rd, 2012 at 9:48 am
Re: #57, I searched the Ed Code. I couldn’t find anything specifically about matching funds for bonds. Who knows? It could be buried within the state financial code; I looked there, too.
FYI, I did see some totally unconstitutional regulations dating back to the school-construction boom of the 1950′s, a time when CA had a part-time legislature, related to a state education *bureaucracy* being delegated the power to make construction-related appropriations during the 1.5 years or so when the legislature was adjourned.
It’s a shame that the “Part-Time Legislature” petition didn’t collect enough signatures to make the ballot this year. It deserves our support.
October 23rd, 2012 at 10:06 am
Non,
I am still looking myself, but I guess that is one of the purposes of legislation:
To relieve the working people of their money and ensure that no one really knows where the money went or how much.
No wonder so many politicians have lived their entire adult lives at the public trough, it pays well and it’s secure(as long as their are boards, commissions and or city,county,state and or federal posts. I doubt that many if not most of these people have ever actually worked an honest day in their lives in the private sector.