Monday, March 26, 2012

‘Rhee Effect:’ Why depending on private cash for reform is a bad idea

I don't usually post an entire article as a thread, but the following article from The Washington Post showed up just in time for tonight's budget meeting.

‘Rhee Effect:’ Why depending on private cash for reform is a bad idea

Michelle Rhee was a great fundraiser during the 3 1/2 years she was the chancellor of D.C.’s public schools.
During her tenure, from 2007 until 2010, when she resigned, she persuaded a handful of private foundations to pony up a total of more than $80 million to help cover a three-year labor contract she negotiated with teachers that included a performance-based pay assessment system.
But take a look at what my colleague Bill Turque reported on his D.C. Schools Insider blog:
“With Rhee gone and the three-year foundation commitment up, private largess is considerably more scarce. Grant funds are projected at just $3.8 million for FY 2013, an 82 percent drop. Officials have announced that the cost of the IMPACT bonuses has been passed on to the individual schools.”
Now Rhee has gone on to bigger things, becoming a national school reform advocate with her StudentsFirst organization and a goal to raise $1 billion to push for her agenda.
And back in D.C., the entities that had donated before — the Broad, Arnold, Walton and Robertson foundations — don’t seem to be opening their wallets quite as wide now that she’s gone. As Turque noted, the bonuses that teachers could earn under her IMPACT evaluation system now have to be borne by individual schools.
It is certainly true that public education funds ebb and flow with the health of state and federal budgets, and that programs funded with public dollars can be affected in a downward budget cycle. But that is far different from having private individuals pick and choose pet projects, with the effect, often, of redirecting public money and efforts toward them.
But the problem goes beyond pet projects. Last summer, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that money was so tight in the city budget that he was turning to private philanthropists — including himself — to donate $250,000 each to pay for state standardized testing that had been eliminated. The dangers of depending on rich private citizens to cover such core functions are apparent. “The Death and Life of the Great American School System”:
As education historian Diane Ravitch wrote in her book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System”:
“There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquishing control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society’s wealthiest people. . . . These foundations, no matter how worthy and high-minded, are after all, not public agencies. They are not subject to public oversight or review, as a public agency would be. . . .The foundations demand that public schools and teachers be held accountable for performance, but they themselves are accountable to no one. If their plans fail, no sanctions are levied against them. They are bastions of unaccountable power.”

‘Rhee Effect:’ Why depending on private cash for reform is a bad idea

3 comments:

  1. A Lot of folks passed a petition to keep the HS cost down, so why would we be opposed to fund raising that would accomplish that goal?

    John

    ReplyDelete
  2. John,
    The board is pulling a switcheroo. They are now saying that it would go into an endowment fund to pay for teachers and programs.
    I have not been opposed to fundraising to avoid a second bond (provided they don't expect me to contribute.)
    What I am opposed to is the feasibility study. Why pay $41,000 plus up to $5000 in travel expenses? All we are doing with PK is paying them to tell us if it is feasible to fundraise. They are not doing the fundraising. That would be a separate contract.
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hiring PK is like hiring any consultant to advise you how to implement a program with which you are not familiar. We need to do the Study to tell us if fund raising is accessible to us and the best way to proceed before we are involved in hiring new staff to implement a program that is not familiar to the board, staff, and community.

    It is my hope that we are a strong enough district to get a green light and that PK will be given the Contract to raise the funds. They are truly quality folks that I believe we should be associated with.

    PK are the good guys here. They are not like Janney Montgomery Scott that took $45,000 and ran away after we issued bonds two years before we should have. That action was irresponsible and cost our community MILLIONS! Thanks a lot JMS!!!

    As to folks not giving, that is a personal decision to be made by each individual based upon their financial position and personal gifting goals. If you are solicited to give and don't give then nobody will know you were asked so that should not be a problem for anyone in our community. Giving or not giving is truly a personal decision and a non-issue.

    You are correct the Board advertised the fundraising as a way to finance the HS and once the bait was out there JoPo & Co. changed their mind [Or did they?].
    I lost respect for the Board when that happened and
    I believe they owe us a big explanation - WITHOUT A RTK REQUEST and a $2,600 legal charge to process it!

    If we didn't have a union grievance to pay 19 teachers $900,000 in addition to salaries over reaching over $100,000, I would think an endowment would be appropriate. If the Solicitor looses the grievance he should be replaced by attorneys at a different law firm but that is a different issue from the fund raising.

    If we get a green light from PK, hire them to do the fund raising, and get more detail about the percentage distribution of the fund raising between the HS and the endowment I will reconsider giving to the funding unless we are bullied by the District Assets to do so.

    John

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.