Is America’s Romance with Charter Schools Fading Despite Gobs of Political Money from Its Promoters?

Last week’s election produced a couple of significant indicators that the public may be growing weary of charter schools.  At the same time the public seems increasingly aware that adequately funded public schools may be a better way to help the children our society has left behind.  This is despite an enormous political investment by wealthy investors in the future of the charter school movement.

Consider the race for California Superintendent of Public Instruction. Last month for The Intercept, Rachel M. Cohen explained what this highly contentious, non-partisan race between charter proponent Marshall Tuck and his opponent Tony Thurmond has really been all about: “The California charter school lobby is testing its influence in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, turning an election for a somewhat obscure statewide position into a notably expensive battle.  More than $50 million has flown into the contest between two Democrats for a nonpartisan office with little statutory power.  For perspective, this is more money raised than in any U.S. House race this cycle and most Senate races, not to mention every other race in California, save for the governor’s. The race, largely understood as a proxy war for the future of California charter schools, is the second attempt by the state’s charter school lobby to demonstrate its influence…. The candidates, Marshall Tuck and Tony Thurmond, both insist that the race is about far more than charters, which currently enroll 10 percent of the state’s 6.2 million public school students, though they admit they hold different visions for the publicly funded, privately managed schools. That’s something their funders also acutely recognize.”

On election night, Marshall Tuck, the former president of Green Dot Charters and an advocate for expanding California’s already huge charter sector, was ahead by 86,000 votes. But as mail-in and absentee ballot have been counted, Thurmond has progressively caught up. By Saturday night, EdSource reported, Marshall Tuck was still ahead by 38,251 out of 6,934,591 votes counted by that time. However, by yesterday morning, the California Secretary of State was reporting Tony Thurmond had pulled ahead with a 3,500 vote lead. By last evening, each candidate had cornered roughly 50 percent of the vote, with a tiny 1,808 vote margin for Thurmond. Four years ago in an initial run for state superintendent, Marshall Tuck was defeated by then incumbent,Tom Torlakson.  A week after the election, this year’s race has not yet been called.  Update: Here is an update from EdSource published soon after this blog was posted.

While Tuck was the pro-charter school candidate, Tony Thurmond shaped his campaign around policies to strengthen public schools.  In an endorsement of Thurmond, the Network for Public Education explained: “Assemblyman Thurmond has been a member of the State Assembly since 2014.  He serves on the Assembly Committee on Education, and has made education policy his top priority.  Before serving in the legislature, he was on the West Contra Costa Unified School District Board for four years… His public school education prepared him for a 20-year career in social work, where he ran after-school programs and taught life skills and career training… He understands that class size has proven to be one of the most important factors in a child’s learning.  Thurmond said that he will ‘support legislation, policy changes, funding to reduce class sizes.’ ”

The tightness of this race is especially surprising when you consider the amount of money contributed to Marshall Tuck’s campaign—$28.5 million—by billionaire backers of charter schools, many of them from out-of-state.  Writing for Inside Philanthropy, David Callahan describes Tuck’s donors: “The money has come from a who’s who of charter school backers and K-12 philanthropists, including Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, Lynn Schusterman, Julian Robertson, Laurene Powell Jobs, Laura and John Arnold, Dan Loeb, Michael Bloomberg and his daughter Emma, and three Waltons: Carrie Walton Penner, Alice Walton and Jim Walton.  Among Tuck’s biggest backers was Helen Schwab… who gave $2 million to EdVoice for the Kids PAC, which managed independent campaign committees for Tuck; Arthur Rock, the venture capitalist, gave $3 million to EdVoice, while Doris Fisher gave over $3 million… A less familiar name on the list of top backers to EdVoice is businessman Bill Bloomfield.  In fact, Bloomfield was the single biggest supporter of the PAC this year, with $5.3 in donations.”

Callahan adds: “(I)n an era when most economic gains have gone to top earners, the wealthy have more money than ever to press their public policy preferences. California’s education system has been dramatically changed in the past 15 years by the rise of charters.  Much of this change wouldn’t have happened without the backing of rich donors.”

Then there is New York, where the state senate flipped, creating an all-Democratic legislature. For the NY Times, Eliza Shapiro reports that charter schools faced a backlash in last week’s election, where charter school-supporting Republican legislators were ousted and replaced by a Democratic majority: “Over the last decade, the charter school movement gained a significant foothold in New York, demonstrating along the way that it could build fruitful alliances with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and other prominent Democrats. The movement hoped to set a national example—if charter schools could make it in a deep blue state like New York they could make it anywhere.  But the election on Tuesday strongly suggested that the golden era of charter schools is over in New York. The insurgent Democrats who were at the forefront of the party’s successful effort to take over the State Senate have repeatedly expressed hostility to the movement.  John Liu, a newly elected Democratic state senator from Queens, has said New York City should ‘get rid of large charter school networks.’  Robert Jackson, a Democrat who will represent a Manhattan district… promised during his campaign to support charter schools only if they have unionized teachers.  And… Julia Salazar of Brooklyn recently broadcast a simple message about charter schools: ‘I’m not interested in privatizing our public schools.'”

Shapiro emphasizes that, while nobody plans to shut down existing charter schools: “(I)t seems highly likely that a New York Legislature entirely under Democratic control will restrict the number of new charter schools that can open, and tighten regulations on existing ones.”  She adds: “The defeat is magnified because Mr. Cuomo, a shrewd observer of national political trends with an eye toward a potential White House bid recently softened his support for charter schools… Now charter school supporters are wrestling with the unpleasant reality that a supposedly bipartisan movement… has been effectively linked to Wall Street, Mr. Trump and Ms. DeVos….”

Here are some of the challenges charter school promoters will face in New York’s newly all-Democratic state legislature: “The Legislature may not even bother to take up charter advocates’ most pressing need: lifting the cap on the number of charter schools that can open statewide.  Fewer than 10 new charters schools can open in New York City until the law is changed in Albany.  That means the city’s largest charter networks, including the widely known Success Academy, will be stymied in their ambitious goal of expanding enough to become parallel districts within the school system… And charters will now be partially regulated by the movement’s political foes.  State Senate Democrats, with the lobbying support of teachers’ unions, are likely to push laws requiring charter schools to enroll a certain number of students with disabilities or students learning English. Previous proposals indicate that those politicians may force charters to divulge their finances, and could make it harder for charters to operate in public school buildings. Those legislators could even impose a limit of about $200,000 on charter school executives’ salaries.  At least two operators made over $700,000 in 2016.”

Shapiro concludes, reminding readers that last year, Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager and huge backer of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter network , was forced to resign as chairman of the Success Academy board because, in a statement widely shared in the press, he said that, “a black state senator who has been skeptical of charter schools had done more damage to black people than the Ku Klux Klan.” “On Tuesday,” explains Shapiro, “that senator, Andrea Steward-Cousins, became the next leader of the New York State Senate.”

Two Election Results That Hinged on Support for Public Education and School Teachers

There wasn’t much for progressive supporters of public schooling to be pleased about in the results of Tuesday’s election.  In two races, however, public education became the pivotal issue, and in both, the candidate who won had shaped the campaign around support for public education and public school teachers.

Tom Corbett will be remembered as the governor committed to starving the poorest of Pennsylvania’s school districts—most notably the state’s largest school district in Philadelphia but also places like Allentown and Reading.  This blog has extensively covered the tragedy in Philadelphia, where Corbett’s appointed School Reform Commission recently tried to cancel the teachers’ contract (The case is currently under appeal.) after the legislature allowed the district to levy a $2-per-pack cigarette tax instead of raising the state’s contribution back to where it was before the recession in 2008 or equalizing school funding.

Here is the analysis of  Thomas Fitzgerald and Angela Couloumbis, writers for the Philadelphia Inquirer:  “In January 2011, with the effects of the recession lingering, the new Pennsylvania governor needed to find billions of dollars in his first budget.  He had promised not to raise taxes, though. So he cut.  State funding for public education took a $1 billion whack, amid the expiration of federal stimulus money. That may have sealed Gov. Corbett’s fate, according to political analysts sifting the wreckage of the Republican’s historic loss. ‘Signing the Grover Norquist pledge ruined Corbett, just killed him,’ said Democratic media strategist Neil Oxman, referring to the Washington antitax activist who is influential in the GOP.  Corbett could have levied a severance tax on natural gas, or moved money from other programs to soften the blow. He did not, while he reduced business taxes an estimated $400 million and placed more than $600 million in reserve.”

In a race where the Philadelphia school funding crisis, the state’s cuts to public education overall, and Corbett’s attempt to blame Philadelphia’s teachers and save money by cancelling their contract were extensively covered by the press, Corbett secured only 45 percent of the vote on Tuesday, compared to Democrat Tom Wolf’s 55 percent.

Then there was the race none of us would have expected to learn anything about—the battle between incumbent and former high school biology teacher Tom Torlakson and darling of the plutocrats, Marshall Tuck for state superintendent of public instruction in California.  Lindsey Layton of the Washington Post reported on Monday that recent spending in what is a traditionally quiet contest had brought the expenditure total in 2014 up to $30 million, three times more than was spent in the race for governor of California. After Torlakson’s victory,  Layton analyzed the result: “In a white-hot battle in California that is considered a proxy fight for deep national divisions in the Democratic Party over education, Tom Torlakson was narrowly reelected as the state’s schools superintendent, beating back Marshall Tuck by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.  The $30 million downballot contest generated three times as much spending as the race for governor, with money pouring in from around the country.  Torlakson was heavily supported by teachers unions while Tuck had the backing of billionaire philanthropists such as former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs.”  This blog covered spending in the race for California state superintendent here.

The Vergara lawsuit against job protections for school teachers became the primary issue in this race.  A judge found for the plaintiffs and against due process for teachers early in the summer, and Torlakson, as state superintendent, filed one of the appeals in the case.  Tuck said he would cancel the appeal, if elected.  Analyzing Torlakson’s victory for the Sacramento Bee, Alexei Kosell writes: “Much of the debate centered on Vergara v. California, a lawsuit alleging that the state’s teacher tenure and dismissal laws protect bad teachers and disproportionately deprive low-income and minority students of a quality education.  Tuck built his campaign on the case, galvanizing supporters after a judge declared the policies unconstitutional in June.  He wielded the ruling against Torlakson like a bludgeon, spending most of his public appearances urging California to reject the ‘status quo’ and get behind the decision.  His position made Tuck an enemy of the California Teachers Association, which also opposes other policy changes Tuck advocated, such as using student test scores in teacher evaluations.”

The fact that former CNN anchor Campbell Brown has launched a new organization, Partners for Educational Justice, to attack due process rights for teachers and to file Vergara-type lawsuits across the states adds to the national implications of the recent Tuck-Torlakson race in California.  The Washington Post‘s Layton explains the nationwide implications of the race: “Their differences symbolized the national tensions within the Democratic Party over the best way to educate kids.  Torlakson pushed for more investment in public schools, does not believe teachers should be judged by student test scores, and said charter schools need more oversight.  Tuck wants to expand public charter schools, argued for more accountability for teachers and said California’s teacher tenure laws are an obstacle to improving schools.”

In California, after absorbing the contents of 30 million dollars’ worth of brochures and TV ads and after listening to both candidates over many months, the voters chose Tom Torlakson, the incumbent and the supporter of public education and public school teachers.

Plutocracy and Next Week’s Election for California Schools Superintendent

Would you believe it?  The race for California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction is one of the most contentious races in California and is sucking up millions and millions of dollars’ worth of last minute donations to buy TV advertising.  Teachers unions in California and their supporters are funding the campaign of Tom Torlakson, the incumbent and a former school teacher running on a platform of improving the public schools.  Marshall Tuck—a promoter of school choice, former CEO of the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, and former president of Green Dot charter schools—is being funded by big moneyed interests from across the United States—people who generally support corporate school reform and charterization.

The Vergara lawsuit is certainly one of the issues.  Vergara was launched by Silicon Valley telecommunications entrepreneur David Welch, who seeks to eliminate all tenure for public school teachers.  The case was decided in a local court in favor of Welch’s plaintiffs last summer and appealed by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, along with appeals from California’s teachers unions.  Tuck says he will immediately cancel the state’s appeal if he is elected.

And, under Torlakson, California was one of the few states that chose not to apply for a No Child Left Behind waiver from the U.S. Department of Education.  According to Stephanie Simon, who recently covered the policy differences between the two candidates for Politico, “Torlakson said the reforms the federal government demanded were unacceptable.  They would have cost the state $2 billion to carry out, he said.  And they would have required him to impose policies that he believes are wrong for California, such as requiring teachers to be evaluated in part by their students’ test scores.”

What ought to interest all of us in this election is the mountain of money being spent.   According to the newsletter Edsource Today, “the race for California state superintendent of public instruction has been fueled by a combined $24 million in total campaign spending…. Outside groups not affiliated with either candidate represent the bulk of that spending—close to $19.4 million on ads and mailers on behalf of the candidates.”

EdSource Today explains: “By law, donors are limited in how much they can directly contribute to candidates.  Individuals are allowed to contribute up to $6,800 for a primary election and another $6,800 for a general election… There are no limits on donors to outside groups, identified on campaign disclosure reports as ‘independent expenditure committees.’ These committees have intensified their efforts in the past few weeks.  A new committee supporting Tuck, ‘Parents and Teachers for Tuck for State Superintendent 2014,’ formed in early October and has spent about $7.5 million on ads.  It is the outside group that has spent the most of any of the committees supporting Tuck.”

Thanks to Diane Ravitch’s blog, we have a link to a state website that has been tracking political contributions in this race.  It is possible to see the amounts that have been donated just this month and the names of the donors.  In her post, Ravitch names some of the donors and amounts: former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, $250,000; Eli Broad, $1,000,000; Alice Walton, $450,000; Carrie Penner of the Walton family $500,000; Doris Fisher (The Gap), $950,000; Arthur Rock (member of Teach for America’s board), $250,000; and  Laurene Powell Jobs, $500,000.  EdSource Today points out that William Bloomfield, Jr, who has donated $2 million since the first of October is a California real estate developer.  The state website also reports a donation of $300,000 from John Arnold—the former Enron trader whose foundation has launched a campaign against public employee pensions.

All this money for TV advertising and none of it trickling down.  It almost makes you long for the old-fashioned kind of corrupt politics.  When guys were sent out with street money to buy votes, at least the people who got the money probably could use a few dollars.  Last week economist Paul Krugman in a column, Plutocrats Against Democracy, concluded, “The truth is that a lot of what’s going on in American politics is, at root, a fight between democracy and plutocracy.  And it’s by no means clear which side will win.”