Koch-style Big Money Now in School Board Races
I always like to check in on politics in Denver and Colorado, since that is where I cut my teeth in the political world. I’m still good friends with a number of elected officials out there and some of the Democratic Party officials.
So I was surprised to read this today. My brother, who is a Denver Democratic Party officer sent it to me. It seems as though Koch-style big money has trickled down to the school board races.
Emily had thought a “big” contribution meant a few friends joining up to scrape together $500. But, in the last few weeks, news broke that oil CEOs and financial executives were cutting $10,000 and $25,000 checks to her opponent. We found out that notorious front groups like Stand for Children were funneling in tens of thousands of dollars of out-of-state financial industry cash, and we started hearing about serious threats of retribution from big-time professional politicians.
Not surprisingly, many of these donors and politicians are part of the larger national network aimed at undermining traditional public education — a movement that has succeeded in voucherizing the school system in neighboring Douglas County and that has placed Rupert Murdoch-funded voucher activists right here in Denver. In the process, this little grass-roots school-board race has become so inundated by big money and national political forces that none other than former President George W. Bush just made an education-themed appearance – one clearly designed to influence the education debate dominating the upcoming school board election.
You read that correctly. W has lent his name to a Denver school board race. And these groups have ties to ALEC. ALEC passes itself off as a non-partisan group, but as The Nation exposed, they are tied to the Koch Brothers. And one of ALEC’s “scholars” is Kay Coles James, who was the ruinous head of the US Office of Personnel Management under W. She never met a contractor who donated to GOP politicians she didn’t like, handing out millions in no-bid contracts – money that ended up being wasted as none of the projects ever came to fruition. She also has ties to the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council.
Two of the largest donors in the Denver school board race are former GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Benson and GOP money bag man Daniel Ritchie. They both support school vouchers and expansion of charter schools.
So the question for Denver voters, especially in my old neighborhood, is whether you want someone running your schools who is going to answer to corporate interests and destroy traditional public school education, or someone who will be answerable to you. My hope is that it’s the latter. I encourage my friends in Denver to support Arturo Jimenez in District 5 and to reject the Koch Brothers attempt to take over local school boards.
MJ, Salon mentioned the same sort of thing happening in a Dallas school board race. Pretty much kills the idea of a non-partisan school board 🙂
It sure does, Mark. But the money being spent in Denver is ridiculous. Hopefully, ALEC and the Koch Bros. will leave Delaware alone.
Not likely when Delaware’s #1 Republican is Pete Dupont
The charter-school scam is the neocons’ legacy to Delaware.
Big DE business money already here: WSFS Chairman gave $600 to Red Clay candidate in this past May 2011 election
He is also involved with Vision2015 and was on the team to pitch RTTT application in DC to US Dept. of Ed
And if you want to use Red Clay as an example, please go back and look over the last five years at the trend in “monetizing” those elections.
It started 4-5 years ago when DSEA began dumping thousands of dollars (not just here but all around the State) via its PAC into school board elections.
Prior to that, very few candidates anywhere had even spent enough to merit filing a report with the Department of Electons. Careful reading of all the different PAC names that DSEA has used since 2007-2008 will reveal that they have dumped from $6,000-10,000 into each contested election.
It is also important to note that BOTH candidates in that election visited Vision 2015 and gave interviews seeking their financial support, just as BOTH candidates in that election interviewed with the teachers’ union seeking their support. The candidate not supported by Vision 2015 received well over $6,000 in DSEA support.
I agree with Kilroy on this one: don’t throw stones at people spending money in elections as long as it’s legal–and if you are going to hold out for taking money out of those elections, then let’s also take labor money out of them.
Before anybody gets up on their high horse, this disclaimer for full disclosure: my wife was the candidate to which John Young refers. So you can accuse me of have an special interest in this issue, but you can’t say I’m not up front about it.
I was making a point about the money not so much the candidate. While I spent money just for a few cards and signs, I am not so much in a position of arguing teachers v. big banks, except to say that big banks haven’t helped anyone much lately whereas teachers help kids every day.
Not so, Steve. Plenty of RCCSD board candidates have been well-financed, but only when Jack Buckley won in ’06 did DSEA-backed candidate buck the Hockessin/neocon alliance.
John, sorry, but that’s just plain disingenuous on your part.
You published the finance reports from my wife’s campaign on your blog recently and flat-out made the association that she was invited to a Vision 2015 panel purely because she had been bought and paid for by Skip Schoenhals. Your evidence? Campaign contributions.
Your implicit assertion: people/organizations who make campaign contributions purchase the candidate.
http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/so-vision-2015-hold-a-conference-and-invites-school-board-members-to-be-on-a-panel-rttt-netde/
You ignore the fact that BOTH candidates for that school board seat went to Vision 2015 and interviewed for the organization’s support.
Would you make the same claim about DSEA and her opponent, who benefited from over $6,000 the teacher’s union pumped into his campaign?
You try to slip the argument by saying, I am not so much in a position of arguing teachers v. big banks, except to say that big banks haven’t helped anyone much lately whereas teachers help kids every day.
Teachers do help kids every day, and as citizens they have a right to make political contributions. But it wasn’t individual teachers who contributed to her opponent’s campaign, it was the DSEA PAC that has dumped thousands and thousands of dollars into Delaware school board campaigns for the past 4-5 years.
And it wasn’t banks, Vision 2015, or anybody except DSEA that began monetizing school board elections in Delaware.
Moreover, if you’d visit the DSEA website, you would find that virtually all the pages that deal with “Why we’re involved in politcs” and “How we pick candidates” are gated and not accessible to the general public. Why, you might wonder, would that be? I thought politics was all supposed to be about transparency.
Did Vision 2015 make the donation or Skip himself? Also, I don’t ignore Vision 2015 at all, they are terribly busy making headlines getting their schools thrown into the state mandated Partnership Zone for being persistently low achieving.
Also, your wife was not the only board member on that panel.
Also, the other panelists may not have hit the $$ for filing paperwork, unlike your wife which is why we know she received donations from folks who work on behalf of companies seeking to do business with our schools. Also, did teacher union dues go up to the DSEA then back to your opponent via a union RA vote? If so, then your argument about individuals vs. DSEA level contribution amounts to splitting hairs.
The DSEA is an agency that protects the profession of the employees of the system (for good and bad unfortunately sometimes) whereas I can’t find how the banks and philanthropists have done anything but propagate a myth about how charters are better (hint, they aren’t: http://is.gd/8rVCk0 )and seek to offload federal and state tax dollars to consultants and vendors to “fix” school with programs that have no research based efficacy whatsoever.
I am not in denial in the least about union money in the school board races. Is it a chicken and egg argument as to who started it and the other side is just trying to even the playing field? An argument that has no winner likely.
At the end of the day, the voters voted. As a school board member, we just try to get maximally informed about what is good for students, schools and employees and then make decisions with that information. I have strong feelings about that. I’m sure your wife does too.
In my version, big money banks, charters everywhere, and the fallacy of unending choice that dilute the DE taxpayers $$ for traditional public schools which take “all comers” have no positive role.
Also, did teacher union dues go up to the DSEA then back to your opponent via a union RA vote? If so, then your argument about individuals vs. DSEA level contribution amounts to splitting hairs.
Impossible to tell: DSEA refuses to publish their process. Oh, damn, that transparency thing again.
I’m not an opponent of unions–I’m a union president. But, as you admit in your comment, what’s good for the union membership is not always what’s good for the system. Unfortunately, DSEA likes to pretend otherwise.
I am not in denial in the least about union money in the school board races. Is it a chicken and egg argument as to who started it
Check the data, John. There were no school board races in Red Clay where anybody spent over $3,000-4,000 per candidate until 2007-2008 when DSEA started pumping in dollars by the thousands.
Did Vision 2015 make the donation or Skip himself?
You published the document. Look for yourself.
It was Skip, of course. He wouldn’t put Vision’s name on it. That transparency thing works all ways it seems.
Who cut which check 1st in 2007-2008? This will devolve rapidly.
I stand behind my big business philanthropists are destroying public schools position and I will make sure that voters that I come into contact with know that I hold that position.
If Vision were so good, why is DE still so far behind? These are the points I’m making. Showing the flow of monies is but one way I try to make that point.
That said, not sure why your counter argument to my initial observation wasn’t simply: damn right she took that money from Skip, he’s someone she admires as a person making a positive impact on education in Delaware and she is proud to align herself with the ideas espoused by Vision2015 and Skip. Simple and done. We all get to have an angle, no big deal right?
Also, I agree with you on DSEA transparency and lack thereof. I am hopeful that they will chart a new course, but will need to be ever watchful… there is new DSEA leadership and they have a lot to fix….
John, a $600 donation is a far cry from a $26,000 donation.
Great post, MJ.
MJ, have to look at it as a proportion of student population but I will stipulate as to your point. Also, I more focused on who money was from rather than amount so as to speak to the politics of it all.
Thx for the post.
I didn’t read all the comments but I see where it’s going.
Politics is what it is even when it comes to school board elections.
Let me get this out of the way first before I rant on. I consider Faith Newton a wonderful friend who has treated me with amazing respect. Many of those who $$$ supported her campaign are associated with hard-line reformers who are pushing the Race to The Top / Vision 2015 agenda that will prove to be financially unsustainable and financing of those goals and delusional vision will default on the local taxpayers. HOWEVER, this doesn’t mean Faith buys into the complete ideology of those who supported her. Much of the push behind her came from the charter crowd who doesn’t care about the negative backlash charter schools may have on traditional schools. They only see to care about themselves. The old school board guard who were ousted may have had ties in the formation of charter schools and help craft the charter school law. MOST Republicans.! I don’t know Faith ad a board member and the issue she supports or doesn’t support just like all board members are where I am concerned. That doesn’t mean my positions or views are correct. I think we call it a democracy.
In Red Clay there is this riff regarding charters that impacted Charter School of Wilmington in that personal opinions in regards to the charter school concepts spilled out. Also, the Red Clay schools board voted to start charging Charter School of Wilmington “rent”! They were only paying a per square foot formula for heating , building maintenance and such. They benefited from Capital Referendums. Charter School of Wilmington felt and I am sure feels threaten by Red Clay school board. Charter School of Wilmington was created by Red Clay. But by law Charter School of Wilmington is it’s own entity under corporate law and is no way a subsidiarity of Red Clay. All the other charter schools Red Clay chartered came to Red Clay with charter plan in hand and did not ask for a dime. Red Clay wave the magic wand and they approved the charter application.
Make note I support those Red Clay board members who DSEA and Red Clay teacher associations supported. Doesn’t mean I support all labor goals. I support labor in general and fell they must has a seat at the table. It so ironic that the reformist say with labor at the table they will destroy public education but for years there was no labor at the Red Clay school board table! So who screwed-up Red Clay? Super’s aligned with politicians and reformist are the biggest danger far more dangerous than any board member(s). Red Clay had a super who sat on Innovate Schools whose job it was to promote and support charter schools!
It is debatable that those who run for local school board are to support the interest within that school district rather than the broader interest of education. I say, the interest of the school district they serve. HOWEVER, there are those parents within support Red Clay chartering charter schools.
Those who supporter Faith and not Faith! And those who supported other board members like Kim, Eric, Leah and Cathy are not them. Wilson, well I am not so sure anymore. He tends to follow who he perceives leading an internal power struggle.
What Red Clay and all school boards needs is a clear mission statement that they are to act in the interest of their school district and not engage in the broader education reform agenda. The school board we’re held hostage to vote for the RTTT MOU but they made the choice. Do we blame them for supporting the reformist?
BUT I AM HEAR TO TELL YOU! The biggest victim of the power struggle that seems to be driven by the reformist is planning on taking out Eric Randolph a parent om Red Clay school board with a special needs child. Eric bring a voice and insight to the needs of these children to the board. Those Charter School of Wilmington activist who take part in support charter friendly board candidates should ashamed of themselves. Charter School of Wilmington doesn’t have programming serving special needs children. But I respect there right to support pro charter school board members as a democracy. Those reformist who see contributing to school board candidates as some kind of investment better thing twice about taking out a voice for special need children.
As far as Red Clay, Red Clay had made a turn towards addressing all the needs within not lead by those with a wrecking ball that cleared the way for privatization of public education. Red Clay needs to be diverse but at the same time balanced in equity to all.
Christina will be faced with reformist out to saving a failing superintendent and I suspect the race card will be played. CSD board is set to vote on the super’s contract this December. It’s a weird two part process in which last December a no vote was taken not to extend super’s contract and needs a second no vote!
Excuse the grammar as always.
So — next time I make the case that school board elections ought to happen on traditional election days, the argument that a separate day keeps the politics out won’t be made again, yes? Because it has been awfully clear to anyone who watches this that politics is job 1, 2 and 3 in this process.
Rather than debate the de-evolution of non-partison school board elections in Delaware, I think we need to focus on what’s in play here and now.
Disclaimer: I received the DSEA PAC support, it was a check that allowed me to purchase yard signs and print palm cards. I did have a few additional donors who were private citizens. The donations did not rise to the level where I was required to report. And Vision NEVER knocked on my door.
But, what’s occurring in Delaware and across our county is an infusion of business-related funding. And in some state’s it’s become extreme. When I think that $25,000 could buy a para or in some cases a teacher…
So, if Delaware School Board members want to try to sustain non-partisan elections, I think it will be up to us to seek the reform we need. As undemocratic as it sounds, I would consider a donation cap. If we are non-partisan, we need to level the playing field. It doesn’t matter from where the funds originate (as in in-state vs out-of-state)if it’s capped. And I would love to see an elected school board member or other elected official donate their balance to a school at the close of the election. Restrict the funding to whereever you want it – but donate it.
And that’s my pollyanna dream for today. We all know that it will never happen. And we all know that the likes of Vision and it’s allies will continue to seed school board member with funding, b/c this is the easiest way for big business to buy education. It’s the unwritten script. For those who partake in those donations – tread lightly, your donors will leave you stranded if you deviate from their plan.
“So — next time I make the case that school board elections ought to happen on traditional election days, the argument that a separate day keeps the politics out won’t be made again, yes?”
School board election will never take place during general elections because it would be a nightmare at the polling place. School board nominating districts overlap Rep and Senate districts and I do believe those district (rep and sen) overlaps school board boundaries.
School board members are elected public officials which sadly makes them politicians.
I could possibly incur the wrath of some by posting this, but I will post it.
I sat on the RCEA committee that interviewed both of the candidates — Jack Buckley and Faith Newton — for election to our school board.
Without getting into internal discussions or the processes that led us to endorse Jack Buckley, I will say this: We were without a doubt extremely impressed with the thoughtfulness and knowledge both candidates brought to the table. The interviews were lively, engaging, and highly informative for all parties.
We were left with a very tough — yet obvious — decision at the end of the interviews. While we knew both candidates would make good members on the Red Clay Board, our reasoning for picking Jack Buckley was clear. He was the change the Board needed five years ago. He brought the change many times over, whether it was working with the community in demanding more financial transparency for the District or requiring more openness on the relationship between Charter School of Wilmington and the District.
In short, while we didn’t doubt Faith’s abilities, we simply went with the candidate with whom we could guarantee would continue the District down the path it’s been going these past few years after nearly two decades of the Board being used by some for questionable agenda-pushing purposes. In the past three years, I’ve witnessed this Board turn into something wholly different than it was years ago. The Board doesn’t seem to be interested in concentrating the power amongst itself and the administration. It holds publicized committee meetings and goes above and beyond seeking public input.
We did not have that during the Manning/Becnel days. Simple as that. Sadly, for years the “socialist-commie teacher’s union!” had showed little initiative in the Board elections. I can say that after the wreck left by previous District and Board administrations that we won’t allow that to happen again.
There are many who attempt to hijack the debate (I’m not talking here at DL, but certainly the bigger dialogue) and frame the argument as saying we teachers are only looking to enrich ourselves. I can say without question that the questions we asked in our Board candidate interviews had little to nothing to do with that. We discussed the impacts and sustainability of Race to the Top, funding of para-educators, and such hot-button topics as class size and special education. While some may feel that those of us in the union are self-serving thugs (and I suppose that’s their right to feel that way and be misinformed), I can assure you the work we do on a day-to-day basis as part of the union keeps the interests of the kids at the core.
As I said in my public comments at the May Board meeting, we look forward to working with Faith and any other Board member who comes before us. Keeping the dialogue going is all we hope and expect. As a union, we want to be heard because we feel what we bring the table certainly has value considering the many public-education stakeholders we represent in some capacity. Teachers…students…parents…and the community.
I use to think school district need not charter schools and that responsibility should be with DEDOE. But seeing DEDOE failing makes me wonder.
The Delaware Department of Education and that of the governor’s participation in business agendas associated with school reform that even infiltrated USDOE set in motion an agenda to infiltrate local school board via political agenda superintendents supports undermines local school boards.
There is a battle going on by the right and those on the left leaning to the right to undermine labor (teachers) and privatization of public school seems the be the vehicle of choice. Parents and students are caught in the crossfire and Labor has every right to defend themselves. Indoctrinating school boards to the smoke and mirror school reform agendas is preferably. However, if taking board members out by political tactics is needed so be it. Once the back of the teacher’s union is broken the next move will be on prevailing wages. If states were to finance charter school construction in Delaware, prevailing wages must be used.
The only way a person can win a school board race it if they have been involved in the schools and community for years or in a way they publicly stand out. The real dangers in in education comes from a state department of education bound to the political agenda of the governor. I voted for Jack Markell and before doing so I have phone conversation with him critical of his relationship with Rodel where he was once a board member and their financial contributions to his various campaigns. He assured me he was his own man and would do what’s best for children and had a deep concern for the achievement gap.Well he lied ! He allowed Rodel Vision 2015 to be part of the Race to The Top plan and ordered DEDOE to hire form Rodel puppets.
As long as we fight over school board members who may be part of the agenda the real snakes in the garden have their way. School board need to get their superintendents in line and out of politics. The people will awake as always after they’ve been $$$$$ f’ed! Just like in Red Clay.
That being said, and getting back to the subject of MJ’s post, it does concern me to see these types of funds and support entering our public school board elections. While those candidates and organizations are certainly within their rights to run for and support financially these offices, I find it a bit questionable that such individuals whose goal it is to simply antagonize the public education system out of some extreme right-wing ideology cannot possibly serve the system well unless they’re seeking to dismantle it, which would be catastrophic, in my opinion.
When it comes to parent involvement, everybody thinks of going to PTA meetings and board meetings. But the Board isn’t the only game in town. Red Clay has another important parent committee, inspired by Title I requirements: RCPAC (Red Clay Parent Advisory Council). This committee is intended to be more policy-oriented and less school-event oriented than the PTAs, so this is a great forum for asking and getting answers on your District policy issues, and sometimes even influencing them.
The next RCPAC meeting is tomorrow evening, Monday Oct. 24 at 6pm, at Shortlidge Academy in Wilmington. The meetings rotate around the schools and are usually held in the cafeteria or library. The meetings are child-friendly, serving a light dinner and usually supervised child care where your kids can do their homework or play.
Monday’s meeting will be especially interesting and focused on parent-school communication technology, which is a major enabler of parent involvement. A Comcast rep will be giving a presentation on Comcast’s low-cost Internet service for low-income families, and District technical staff will give a presentation on HAC (Home Access Center).
Since February, RCPAC has been discussing and exploring issues and policies related to teacher and District use of HAC technology to benefit students and parents. There is a spirited debate about how HAC can be better leveraged for more parental involvement and communication.
I would like to encourage Red Clay parents and teachers to come to RCPAC meetings when you can.
Monday’s meeting is a unique opportunity to come learn or discuss your issues about communication technology and its relation to parent involvement. If you work with data and web technology for a living, I would be especially pleased to have you come and join the discussion. Or if your spouse perhaps works in IT, please encourage him or her to come.
Damn Matthews are you looking for the push to another career? 🙂 LOL
When did the Manning days end? He doesn’t have to sit om a school board to be a force within school reform. What makes him stand out among others is. He’ll look you in the eye and let you know his agenda. Others were clueless puppets that couldn’t shine a light to his greatest.
It’s very hard to separate people from their titles such as board members and even governors. We can’t have a system going in one direction with one agenda. We need the diversity within and represent the needs of the diversity around. Using Red Clay as an example board diversity is good and the real danger is how much the super can influence the board to the point he controls it. The alignment of a super and the political agenda that is forcing radical change that comes without proven non partisan data is dangerous. The big flag raised was allowing Teach for America in and now Wall Street re: Wireless Generation.
What does Red Clay teachers and labor fear the most? What do I fear?
As far as labor, as long as the public supports operation referendums our valued teachers and support staff will be taking care of. However, with Markell cutting state funding to our schools which defaults cost back on local taxpayers the means to $$ support our teachers and support staff erodes.
Will Jack Markell bully his way in for union support 2012. FYI Markell is a team-payer with the reformist including the old Red Clay guard. I guarantee Markell will keep swinging the wrecking ball if reelected. But yes, what are the alternatives? Perhaps labor should take a non recommendation position in 2012.
“There are many who attempt to hijack the debate (I’m not talking here at DL, but certainly the bigger dialogue) and frame the argument as saying we teachers are only looking to enrich ourselves.”
What, trying to maintain a middle-class standard of living. What, by demanding full control of their classroom if they are to be held accountable? It’s pretty bad when teachers have to call for legislation that prohibits administrators from changing students grades. The former DSEA queen gave membership a black-eye re: Limo deal!
Yes Mike O you are 100% correct! Though I just dropped out of the committee where I was a founding member and former chairperson of the District Title 1 Parent Advisory Board going back with Title 1 to 1995, I can tell you parents can ask hard question at the RCPAC. However, that committee had not say in the RTTT MOU or even bring in Teach for America. They just didn’t know.
The issues Red Clay faces it in the hands of the super and I know the pressures he is under! Markell and DEDOE holds schools district by the $$$$$$$ balls. However, it’s time for the supers of all school districts to let the public know about these political power-plays. But than again there goes the super’s career. But the black-ball game is even played within Red Clay.
“They just didn’t know. ”
Why do you think I am inviting more people to come to RCPAC? 🙂
The meeting agendas and ensuing discussions seem to be excessively driven by the District and we need more parent power on board to make sure we have a voice on things that matter.
Kilroy is indeed a Founding Father of RCPAC and is greatly missed.
Comment by Mike Matthews
“I find it a bit questionable that such individuals whose goal it is to simply antagonize the public education system out of some extreme right-wing ideology cannot possibly serve the system well unless they’re seeking to dismantle it, which would be catastrophic, in my opinion.”
Are you suggesting Markell break his alliance with uncle Pete? How about Skip, Markell’s guiding light? People and organization don’t have political power and control until politicians surrenders it.
Thanks Mike O for the invite. Also, Red Clay board meetings are recorded and online just at the state board of education is. Christina is also online. Hopefully next year we’ll see all school districts and charters be required to do the same. It’s hard for parents to make these events.
As a union, we want to be heard because we feel what we bring the table certainly has value considering the many public-education stakeholders we represent in some capacity. Teachers…students…parents…and the community.
Mike, here’s where we differ. Neither RCEA nor DSEA represents the interests of student, parents, or the community. That’s not a knock on the teachers or the teachers union: widescale representation of other interests is not what unions do. They represent the interests of their membership. And it happens that the interests of their membership and the interests of other stakeholders in the organization sometimes differ–it’s a tough dynamic.
I have no doubt that many of your members think of themselves as representing the students, the parents, and the community, and as individuals I am sure they are deeply concerned with those other interests, but as an organization DSEA must advocate for the interests of its membership above all else. When it doesn’t, there is trouble.
Two examples: one from Kilroy: teachers invariably support referenda because referenda are tied to their future benefits and job security, whether the referenda are objectively good for the district or not.
Two: DSEA departed (in the words of many of its members) from the interests of the teachers in supporting Delaware’s RTTT grant. Maybe they didn’t look hard enough at the potential consequences, I don’t know. But from a union perspective that support has been a disaster not ameliorated by a former DSEA President suddenly joining DOE.
Finally, Mike, a question for you. Once the RCEA decided on a candidate (a process I am absolutely cool with, by the way), how much say–or even information–did you guys at the local have about how much money the DSEA PAC would pump into the election. Did you know DSEA was planning to spend over $6K on the candidate you chose, when you did so? Or did local union officials have no voice in that decision. I have to ask you because DSEA won’t answer.
Steve:
Your points are absolutely fair and correct. DSEA by its definition is a union that advocates for its members, both teachers and related ESP. I suppose I should have clarified that in my relatively short three years being involved with the union, my experiences have led me to come to the conclusion that though the mission of DSEA may be one in which the teachers serve their own benefit, when you drill down to the local level (of which I’m much more active), it’s hard to tell where the line is drawn, as most of the discussion at our RCEA meetings is driven around topics that directly impact classroom instruction and environment and not such topics as benefits and pay, which we usually just leave for the negotiations process every three years.
I cannot disagree with you on the point of DSEA’s position on Race to the Top. I was intimately involved on the union level post-RTTT acceptance and those meetings in Dover were met with near-absolute frustration and consternation by those teachers involved in the workshops. Many of us have tried to remain constructive during the process, but it’s been quite an experience and, quite frankly, I don’t see what good has come out of RTTT at this time. I don’t know why previous DSEA leadership didn’t look upon RTTT with a more critical eye before signing that MOU. Well, maybe I do have a FEW ideas.
Regarding the DSEA PAC, we did know that DSEA would be plugging funds into our local race. I did know it would be about $6K. I’m not sure we had much say at the local about DSEA using its money to back our endorsed candidate. It’s just something they kind of run with once we make the endorsement. I do remember discussions in which we said we did not want any of the literature to be an attack on the unendorsed candidate, and to my knowledge all literature was a positive endorsement of Jack Buckley.
Sitting on a public school board and promoting charters is like being the head of marketing for Pepsi while promoting Coke. How long do you think you’d stay employed by Pepsi. 👿
Steve, you bring up very good points, especially former DSEA president now employed by DDOE. I also agree with primary mission of DSEA to serve members. Maybe I am just naive in suggesting that advocating for teachers SHOULD be the same thing as advocating for kids. It’s just sad that those two ideas are separate from each other too often. That said, I maintain that bug business ideology has wedged administration and teachers with the DDOE as the fulcrum. We are in a spiral of distrust in public education and DE is right there on the national stage in that respect….
Someday maybe….
bug=big oops.
Mike,
I appreciate your honesty and candor, I really do. Now let’s examine what you said in light of all the nonsense floating around. Somebody wants to challenge a sitting school board member because they have ideas they want to bring to the table. Our current system only allows them this privilege once every five years, and their opponent is selected for them by residency requirements, even though the elections are at-large in terms of voting.
So both candidates go to RCEA and make their case. DSEA, like the NRA, apparently has an incumbent-friendly policy, which means if the current incumbent is going their way on major issues they aren’t going to dump him. I am completely OK with that.
But the RCEA board, as you said, knew that their endorsement would not only be worth publicity, but would effectively represent a campaign contribution of $6,000–that’s ten times larger than any individual has the legal right to make in Delaware for these elections.
So what do you expect the candidate you just placed in a $6,000 hole to do? Roll over and say, “OK RCEA and DSEA don’t want me, I’ll go home now?” Or would you expect them to go out and try to raise the money they needed to compete?
I know that my wife’s opponent is not and was not a tool of DSEA–it is clear from many of his public statements that he didn’t agree with everything they did. So it was OK for him to take the money from people whom he only partly agrees with, but if somebody takes money from Schoenhals or Vision 2015 it must be because they are a puppet? I know that’s not what you said, but you know as well as I do that’s what’s being implied across the blogs.
I have no problem if you take issue with my wife or any other candidate over the issues. We have our own arguments, and her politics are certainly not mine. But I’ve reached the point where I’m done with this double-standard innuendo crap.
Personally, I find Skip’s positions so abhorrent, I just wouldn’t take his money. But that is totally different from one’s right to accept it or others to wonder what or if there is any predilection to vote favorably for the patron. The person taking the money has to live with the decision and the way it influences how all constituencies feel about it. It doesn’t make them right, just opinionated.
the same goes for DSEA money, no double standard.
John,
MJ’s original point in this post is sound: however it was done, Delaware school board elections have been monetized. Your point about not taking someone’s money is worth debating, but how many sources of the kind of money needed to offset DSEA contributions do you really think there are in Delaware?
Not many–that’s the problem So should people just sit back and allow DSEA to annoint school board members because the organization has the biggest pot of money to place behind its candidates?
I don’t really think you believe that.
So to turn this conversation away from the specific to the general: what could we actually do to turn the clock back? Place an absolute spending limit (including by outside “unauthorized” entities) on such elections? Let’s say $5,000 indexed to inflation. (If you think that’s high, consider what signs and push cards actually cost, not even to speak of mailings.)
But recognize that if we do that, at least three things will happen:
1) You will end up in an immediate court challenge from somebody over that abominable Citizens’ United ruling.
2) You will provide a long-term advantage to incumbents, because they have name recognition and a public forum. The only way to beat an incumbent is to develop competing name recognition, and that–unfortunately–requires money.
3) You will also still not avoid external influence, because unions (to cite only one example) can turn out their members as poll watchers via a ready-made organization, while candidates not endorsed by the unions either have to create their own or borrow somebody else’s,
I’m all for a completely level playing field and school board races decided on the issues, not by the big contributors–be they big banks or big labor.
Just tell me how to get there and still insure that incumbents (however bad they are) will not be insulated from real challenges.
Diane Ravitch gives a look at the stakes:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/school-reform-failing-grade/
Steve:
I’ll get right to your questions.
No, we don’t expect the unendorsed candidate to roll over. I would certainly expect them to raise money and offer up a hearty challenge, which Faith certainly did.
And you’re right, I never did condemn anyone for taking money from an individual representing the interests of Vision2015. I don’t believe it’s wrong to have done so, though I certainly question the motives of those involved in that organization.
All I know is that we as a union must be vigilant in making sure those members on our Board are looking out for the best interest of the key stakeholders, those being, of course, students, teachers, parents, and the surrounding community. Lower down on that list, in my opinion, is the “business community” and the “edu-reformists” who certainly have every right to inject themselves in the debate, but I don’t particularly find some of their methodologies all that conducive to closing the achievement gap.
We also must be vigilant in making sure the Board and District don’t go back to their “old ways” of approving every charter that comes before it. Of failing to maintain an adequately balanced checkbook with proper transparency. Of signing a contract with Teach for America without first passing it through the board for the A-OK.
That’s why we endorsed Jack Buckley. He represented those qualities that helped return the Board to some semblance of fiscal order. In effect we “knew what we were getting” with Jack Buckley. Which wasn’t to say we wouldn’t find those qualities in Faith.
That being said, I will absolutely make some comments now that should not reflect on my involvement with the union.
As a taxpaying resident and employee of the Red Clay School District, I will not support any candidate seeking to go along with the agenda of a business community more interested in enacting “edu-reform” in our communities as a means to advance its own agenda. I will also not support a candidate who thinks approving an unlimited amount of charters as a means to correct the achievement gap (when there are many other issues at play affecting that gap) is a solution to the problem. I will also not support a candidate who believes in using vouchers.
Again, none of the above should be interpreted as reasons why we endorsed any candidate over his or her opponent in the last few elections. The above are simply qualifiers for how I vote in school board elections.
I could go on and on and on regarding this topic, but it’s Sunday night and I really need to unwind before I head back to my classroom tomorrow morning.
“We also must be vigilant in making sure the Board and District don’t go back to their “old ways” of approving every charter that comes before it. Of failing to maintain an adequately balanced checkbook with proper transparency. Of signing a contract with Teach for America without first passing it through the board for the A-OK.”
Every charter Red Clay approved is rated “Superior” 🙂
As far as TFA a $300,000.00 no bid contract in the basis of Sole Source Provider now that was bogus and political! The was another option called The New Teacher Project. However, the super made the deal without board approval. We need to purge TFA !
But for real! There is this paranoia that Red Clay will go back to the old days. Could we be overreacting? But for sure the community was traumatized. Do keep in mind when those charter applications came before the board the super made recommendations to support or not because, after all the district administrators are responsible for the oversight of their charter schools. So what I am saying it’s better to watch the super’s activities more so than the board’s. We don’t want to tie the hands of the super or micromanage but need to make it clear to the super he is no to engage in business or political agendas. We had a super sitting on Innovative Schools board of directors and all the Jolly Roger flags were flying. Is Red Clay getting compensated for the super times while taking part in Markell’s RTTT committee?
And if anyone doesn’t understand what the “Occupy” movement is all about, here is a good example. The 1% claim that the 99% just want to take their money to “share their wealth”. But it’s the 1% who are actually taking the money from the 99% (the taxpayers) to create charter schools, privatize public education, corporatize them, bust the teachers unions, and keep the public’s money (the 99%) for themselves. And the shame about this, there are a lot of DEMOCRATS running these campaigns in the Denver School Board race.
The charter school movement, is just today’s new “separate but equal”. They splinter, splice, break off and takeaway more kids and dollars from public schools as today’s new form of segregation. They cherry pick the kids, leaving rest to the public schools. And Charters are not the silver bullet. Very few perform above the avg of the neighborhood school.