Citizens' Oversight Maryland---Maryland Progressives
CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE----SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Citizens Oversight Maryland.com
  • Home
  • Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
    • Mayoral Election violations
    • Questionnaires from Community >
      • Education Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
      • Emerging Youth Questionnaire
      • Health Care policy for Baltimore
      • Environmental Questionnaires
      • Livable Baltimore questionnaire
      • Labor Questionnnaire
      • Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
      • Maryland Out of School Time Network
      • LBGTQ Questionnaire
      • Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
      • Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
      • The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
      • Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
      • African American Tourism and business questionnaire
      • Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
      • City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
      • Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
      • Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
      • AFRO questionnaire
      • WBAL Candidate's Survey
  • Blog
  • Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
  • Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
    • Third Way Think Tanks
  • Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >
      • CFPB Actions
    • Voted to Repeal Glass-Steagall
    • Federal Reserve >
      • Federal Reserve Actions
    • Securities and Exchange Commission >
      • SEC Actions
    • Commodity Futures Trading Commission >
      • CFTC Actions
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency >
      • OCC Actions
    • Office of Treasury/ Inspector General for the Treasury
    • FINRA >
      • FINRA ACTIONS
  • Federal Healthcare Reform
    • Health Care Fraud in the US
    • Health and Human Services Actions
  • Social Security and Entitlement Reform
    • Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP Actions
  • Federal Education Reform
    • Education Advocates
  • Government Schedules
    • Baltimore City Council
    • Maryland State Assembly >
      • Budget and Taxation Committee
    • US Congress
  • State and Local Government
    • Baltimore City Government >
      • City Hall Actions
      • Baltimore City Council >
        • Baltimore City Council Actions
      • Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting >
        • Board of Estimates Actions
    • Governor's Office >
      • Telling the World about O'Malley
    • Lt. Governor Brown
    • Maryland General Assembly Committees >
      • Communications with Maryland Assembly
      • Budget and Taxation Committees >
        • Actions
        • Pension news
      • Finance Committees >
        • Schedule
      • Business Licensing and Regulation
      • Judicial, Rules, and Nominations Committee
      • Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee >
        • Committee Actions
    • Maryland State Attorney General >
      • Open Meetings Act
      • Maryland Courts >
        • Maryland Court System
    • States Attorney - Baltimore's Prosecutor
    • State Comptroller's Office >
      • Maryland Business Tax Reform >
        • Business Tax Reform Issues
  • Maryland Committee Actions
    • Board of Public Works >
      • Public Works Actions
    • Maryland Public Service Commission >
      • Public Meetings
    • Maryland Health Care Commission/Maryland Community Health Resources Commission >
      • MHCC/MCHRC Actions
    • Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
  • Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
    • Baltimore/Maryland Development History
    • Committee Actions
    • Maryland Development Organizations
  • Maryland State Department of Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Public Schools
    • Algebra Project Award
  • Baltimore City School Board
    • Charter Schools >
      • Charter Schools---Performance
      • Charter School Issues
    • Public Schools >
      • Public School Issues
  • Progressive Issues
    • Fair and Balanced Elections
    • Labor Issues
    • Rule of Law Issues >
      • Rule of Law
    • Justice issues 2
    • Justice Issues
    • Progressive Tax Reform Issues >
      • Maryland Tax Reform Issues
      • Baltimore Tax Reform Issues
    • Strong Public Education >
      • Corporate education reform organizations
    • Healthcare for All Issues >
      • Universal Care Bill by state
  • Building Strong Media
    • Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
      • anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
      • "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
      • Promethius Radio Project
      • Clearing the Fog
      • Democracy Now
      • Black Agenda Radio
      • World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
      • Daily Censured
      • Bill Moyers Journal
      • Center for Public Integrity
      • Public Radio International
      • Baltimore Brew
      • Free Press
    • Far Left/Socialist Media
    • Media with a Third Way Agenda >
      • MSNBC
      • Center for Media and Democracy
      • Public Radio and TV >
        • NPR and MPT News
      • TruthOut
  • Progressive Organizations
    • Political Organizations >
      • Progressives United
      • Democracy for America
    • Labor Organizations >
      • United Workers
      • Unite Here Local 7
      • ROC-NY works to build power and win justice
    • Justice Organizations >
      • APC Baltimore
      • Occupy Baltimore
    • Rule of Law Organizations >
      • Bill of Rights Defense Committee
      • National Lawyers Guild
      • National ACLU
    • Tax Reform Organizations
    • Healthcare for All Organizations >
      • Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
      • PNHP Physicians for a National Health Program
      • Healthcare NOW- Maryland
    • Public Education Organizations >
      • Parents Across America
      • Philadelphia Public School Notebook thenotebook.org
      • Chicago Teachers Union/Blog
      • Ed Wize Blog
      • Educators for a Democratic Union
      • Big Education Ape
    • Elections Organizations >
      • League of Women Voters
  • Progressive Actions
    • Labor Actions
    • Justice Actions
    • Tax Reform Actions >
      • Baltimore Tax Actions
      • Maryland Tax Reform Actions
    • Healthcare Actions
    • Public Education Actions
    • Rule of Law Actions >
      • Suing Federal and State government
    • Free and Fair Elections Actions
  • Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
    • 2014 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICES
    • Maryland Assembly/Baltimore
  • Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
    • Complaints - Government and Consumer >
      • Sample Complaints
    • Petitions >
      • Sample Petitions
    • Freedom of Information >
      • Sample Letters
  • State of the Democratic Party
  • Misc
    • WBFF TV
    • WBAL TV
    • WJZ TV
    • WMAR TV
    • WOLB Radio---Radio One
    • The Gazette
    • Baltimore Sun Media Group
  • Misc 2
    • Maryland Public Television
    • WYPR
    • WEAA
    • Maryland Reporter
  • Misc 3
    • University of Maryland
    • Morgan State University
  • Misc 4
    • Baltimore Education Coalition
    • BUILD Baltimore
    • Church of the Great Commission
    • Maryland Democratic Party
    • Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
    • Maryland Municipal League
    • Maryland League of Women Voters
  • Untitled
  • Untitled
  • Standard of Review
  • Untitled
  • WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
    • Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
    • Speaking Events
    • Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
    • Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
    • Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections >
      • Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
      • Amended Complaint
      • Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
      • Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
      • Injunction and Mandamus
      • DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint >
        • Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals >
          • Cover Page ---yellow
          • Table of Contents
          • Table of Authorities
          • Leniency for Pro Se Representation
          • Statement of Case
          • Questions Presented
          • Statement of Facts
          • Argument
          • Conclusion/Font and Type Size
          • Record Extract
          • Appendix
          • Motion for Reconsideration
          • Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
          • Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
      • General Election fraud and recount complaints
    • Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations >
      • Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
      • Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
      • Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
      • US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
      • Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
        • Print press accountable to false statement of facts
      • Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
      • Viability of a candidate
      • Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
      • 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
        • 501c3 violations of election law-----private capital
      • Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
  • Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
  • Maryland Elections ---2016

July 24th, 2014

7/24/2014

0 Comments

 
Just a few more days on education policy------let's continue to look at higher education and Maryland is ground zero for the dismantling of our public education system at all levels.

Yesterday I showed that Economic students are demanding universities stop teaching only neo-liberal economics-----they said the field had become so narrow as to block all other thought.  Think how that translates to Common Core in our K-12.  They intend to do the same thing in our grade schools as they have done in universities.......narrowed the curricula to corporate policy.  'Competition' replaces personal best......'Getting the edge' becomes bullying........'Taking out the competition' becomes rape.  The level of aggression in our schools and universities is growing because of this corporate mentality.  Attacks on women are soaring even at universities because Chancellor Kirwan does not see himself as a public servant upholding public justice and Rule of Law-----


WE WILL SELECT WHOMEVER WE WANT TO BE HEARD IN ELECTION FORUMS AND THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSION ON ANY UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAMPUS THAT IS ANTI-NEO-LIBERALISM!

We heard recently that UMUC----the online college structure that O'Malley spent hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars to create is failing miserably.  No one wants online education yet neo-liberals funded by Bill Gates and Wall Street are going to push this until we have no choice they say.  O'Malley even went overseas to push our active military to use their GI Bill education benefits on these online degree programs----IT IS A DISGRACE.  As you will see below there is absolutely no research that shows these online education programs are providing any quality or creating higher achievement.  The data is not there.  The only reason they are creating these online venues for 90% of Americans is that it is cheap and only prepares for a job.

FORGET THE WELL-BALANCED EDUCATION THAT IS BROAD AND ALLOWS GRADUATES TO APPLY THEMSELVES TO MANY FIELDS.

First UMUC was going to be made a non-profit so the public could not see how it operates.....now University of Maryland is keeping a failed structure alive but wants to deregulate.  Bill Gates requires online instruction and neo-liberals are going to give it to him!
  The amount of education funding wasted on these global corporate policies mirrors O'Malley's tying the public to Hilton and Hyatt hotels in order to keep them from losing money.  Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are lost every year in all categories of industry in what is clearly public malfeasance and fraud against the citizens of Maryland.  Why do we need a UMUC Asia/Europe?

Meanwhile financial aid and grants are being cut and that aid given is being tied to these cheaper structures as WE THE PEOPLE see our strong public education dismantled by neo-liberals. 

DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN TO CHANGE THIS----THIS IS REPUBLICAN POLICY-----NEO-CONS ARE JUST AS BAD.



UMUC’s Mission in Asia


The mission of University of Maryland University College (UMUC) in Asia is to offer academic programs to United States military communities throughout Asia and the Pacific. While serving overseas, students can take a single course or many courses leading to a certificate, an Associate of Arts degree, a Bachelor of Arts degree, or a Bachelor of Science degree. Since University of Maryland University College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, students can take courses with the intention of transferring their credits to other colleges or universities in the United States. Students may also continue their studies with UMUC online. Additional information is available at www.umuc.edu.

Although the educational setting is overseas, UMUC’s programs in Asia are in all respects comparable to those offered at public institutions of higher learning in the United States. Courses are taught by faculty whose credentials meet standards set by appropriate University of Maryland University College academic departments in Adelphi, Maryland. All UMUC courses taught in Asia carry University of Maryland University College resident credit. UMUC is committed to maintaining standards of academic excellence. The past 50-plus years demonstrate that those standards can be maintained in overseas settings.



UMUC Europe offers thousands of courses for students interested in associate's and bachelor's degrees and undergraduate certificates. UMUC also offers graduate-level certificates and several master's degrees in Europe. With UMUC's 150 locations worldwide, and extensive online offerings, students can begin and finish a degree with us regardless of where they are located.


I bet the citizens of Maryland did not even know UMUC was a global corporation.  Meanwhile fewer Maryland citizens are going to 4 year universities.


I don't hold any credence to these online workplace comment programs because they work like American Idol.  It is good to see a consistent referral to 'people needing to be treated with respect'. ' Low pay with no opportunity to grow'.  THIS IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENT WE WOULD WANT IN A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY.  THAT IS WHAT A CORPORATE STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE.  That is because it IS  a corporate structure.  Under neo-liberals labor is treated as badly as if a Republican were in office yet every election Maryland labor unions get behind these neo-liberal pols.  We need the citizens of Maryland taking back the Democratic Party to reverse this failed neo-liberal/neo-con policy!



“Failing company, horrible management” Academic Advisor (Current Employee) Pros – Great vacation/time off. Get to become a state employee after 3 years.

Cons – Moral is so low! Micromanaged beyond belief, constant layoffs, not worth you time.

Advice to Senior Management – Treat us like the educated adults that we are. Learn to value your employees.

No, I would not recommend this company to a friend – I'm not optimistic about the outlook for this company

Add Employer Response
  1. Apr 8, 2014
    • Culture & Values
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Senior Management
    • Comp & Benefits
    • Career Opportunities
     

    “Not good. Too many secrets and financial problems” Administrative Assistant (Current Employee) Largo, MD I have been working at UMUC full-time for more than 8 years


    Pros: Convenient location and great benefits Cons: Low pay and minimal advancement Advice to Senior Management: Treat the regular people like people No, I would not recommend this company to a friend – I'm not optimistic about the outlook for this company… More

                    

Below you see what the deregulation issues discussed by Mikulski and Kirwan will include----as you see again everyone in the system is in the dark as to what these discussions look like.  WE DON'T ALLOW CITIZENS IN MARYLAND KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING SAY NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS.


UMUC considering plan to become independent nonprofit with ties to university system
Under proposal, it would no longer be a state entity; president seeks input from university community




By Nayana Davis, The Baltimore Sun

7:54 p.m. CDT, July 10, 2014

The University of Maryland University College, which has been struggling with declining enrollment, is considering severing some ties with the state university system to avoid burdensome regulations and work more closely with the private sector.

Under the proposal, the university would become an independent nonprofit organization that retains an affiliation with the state system. The school's president, Javier Miyares, said during a Thursday town hall meeting in Largo that the idea came from a task force of experts organized by the university as a response to a shrinking student body.

UMUC, a mainly online institution, has struggled with a competitive online education market and a smaller military. Members of the military or their families make up about half of the college's students.



The main objective of the proposal is to more readily secure partnerships with the private sector, including working with companies to make courses more employer-friendly and building relationships to help students secure jobs. Miyares said such partnerships can be challenging to forge as a state agency.

"This way we would not be bound by all the regulations and statutes that apply to a public state agency," Miyares said.

University officials also hope the move would help it attract more students outside the United States, though it would retain the University of Maryland name. Based in Adelphi, UMUC offers courses to students in 24 countries.

The plan would allow the university to keep ties with the 12-institution University System of Maryland, but the details have not been worked out. "The validity and credibility you get by being part of the University of Maryland system is huge," Miyares said.

No immediate action will be taken on the task force recommendation, as the school begins a process of soliciting feedback from the college community. University officials said there are few concrete ideas on how the effort would be implemented at this stage; Miyares said he wanted to get input first.

UMUC has the support of the University System of Maryland to look into alternate business models.

"The university is facing some significant challenges," said William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the system. "They are appropriately addressing those challenges."

Kirwan said a more concrete proposal would need approval from the system's Board of Regents before implementation, and possibly the governor and General Assembly. The governor's office declined to comment on the plan.

But some higher education experts expressed concern about the university putting out such a proposal with few details.


Barmak Nassirian, director of federal relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, said it's not uncommon for public universities to form private-sector relationships to outsource certain functions, but it's unclear what the change in status would mean for the university.

"Honestly, I don't know what to make of this," he said. "The decision to operate under a different set of rules is interesting. Whether the move is good, I don't know."

UMUC has been struggling with declining enrollment both stateside and overseas since fall of 2011. Although the rate of decline stateside has remained less than 10 percent in the past three years, overseas enrollment declined 20 percent for spring 2014.

The school has struggled to increase enrollment because of competition from traditional academic institutions that have started offering Web-based classes and popular massive open online courses known as MOOCs, university officials said.

A shrinking military, which is facing large-scale budget cuts, also is a factor in loss of enrollment.

University officials said that 90 percent of its budget comes from tuition and 10 percent from the state. Other colleges in the university system get about 30 percent of their budgets from the state.

"We don't know what the future is going to be like," Miyares said. "But if we don't adapt, we will go into a death spiral."

UMUC's struggles are "a reflection of how competitive online education has become," Kirwan said. "What we do need is to explore if operational flexibility is possible."


"UMUC has been quite unique in the university system," Nassirian said. "It had been mostly self-sufficient because it provides excess revenue back to the system, but that [online] business model has not fared well as of late."

Traditionally, changes in business models for colleges have occurred when a struggling nonprofit university becomes a for-profit venture after a large corporation acquires it. Nassirian gave the example of the Clinton, Iowa-based school Ashford University being purchased by Bridgepoint Education.

Miyares said the change could occur as early as next summer. Academic programs and staffing levels are not expected to be affected if the model changes, unless enrollment continues to drop.

The school laid off 70 staff members from departments at the Adelphi and Largo campuses earlier this year, and 58 the year prior. The university employs about 2,000 in the U.S.

"The whole goal is to get enrollment up," Miyares said. "If enrollment is fine, there should be no dramatic difference to the academic side. This is a pivotal moment in our history."

nadavis@baltsun.com



________________________________________________

The article above gives yet another spin----that UMUC and online colleges are being edged out by the popularity of MOOCs-----only MOOCs are not popular.  They are used less frequently then online UMUC.  We are being fed nothing but spin and this happens more and more because the public universities that would be the first to shout THAT IS NOT TRUE ----IT IS SPIN are now the ones handing us spin because they are corporations.  Maryland Assembly was the very first to pass laws that move the accreditation process towards making these online structures legitimate.  NO ONE THINKS THIS IS GOOD POLICY.  Needless to say when it comes to bad education policy it is Johns Hopkins pushing it in Maryland.  Indeed, Baltimore is cursed with a gorilla in the room that pushes the worst of policy all so they can make more profits.


This looks like a Gates Foundation study-------most employers in North Carolina have not heard of MOOCS but 3/4 of them think they are good. Meanwhile, there is no interest in the public for MOOCs outside of simple extracurricular help with existing university structures. Gates says he will buy these policy implementation yet! You know, because he is the 'good billionaire' as NPR always tells us.



All Hail MOOCs! Just Don’t Ask if They Actually Work | TIME.com

Why Do So Many Students Drop Out of MOOCs?www.brighthub.com/education/online-learning/articles/...



Study: MOOCs Viewed Positively Among Employers

April 2, 2014 Inside Higher Education

Most North Carolina employers haven't heard of massive open online courses, but about three-quarters of them view MOOCs as having a positive effect on hiring decisions, a survey conducted by Duke University and RTI International shows. The study, founded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also suggests 71 percent of employers could see themselves using MOOCs for professional development.

Think about how the real world views MOOCs but the article in the Maryland media makes you think they are supported.  It happens all the time because they can get away with it.  Online resources for education are good----everyone thinks online instruction adds to the classroom at any level.  The problem is that corporations have as a goal to replace the classroom with these online products ------aiming at the 90% of Americans becoming trapped by Vocational K-12.......
With all public education funding going to subsidize corporate research and Human Resources we have to make the cost of educating the 90% as cheap as possible say neo-liberals and neo-cons!  Calling MOOCS a democratizing tool in a nation with the strongest public education system in the world is a mockery.  STOP DEFUNDING AND DISMANTLING PUBLIC EDUCATION.


The University of Maryland is now taking a look at bestowing transfer credit to those who are able to demonstrate a specific level of knowledge after completing a MOOC.


- See more at: http://www.educationnews.org/online-schools/can-moocs-be-a-solution-to-the-us-student-debt-crisis/#sthash.uhO1mk7Y.dpuf


Are MOOCs really dead?

  • By Jake New, Editor, eCampus News
June 6th, 2014 Recent studies suggest that MOOCs are very much alive, but are not a threat to traditional higher education For some educators and journalists, the rasping final breaths of massive open online courses (MOOCs) began late last year.

They followed nearly two years of hype and excitement that even the most skeptical of instructors and reporters got swept up in. Many of those who denounced the courses did so in a similarly frantic fashion, writing proclamations and open letters condemning MOOCs, as though they were caught in a great academic war.

Then, suddenly, a blow was struck. And it came from one of MOOCs’ most famous creators.

“Sebastian Thrun, godfather of the massive open online course, has quietly spread a plastic tarp on the floor, nudged his most famous educational invention into the center, and is about to pull the trigger,” Rebecca Schuman wrote at Slate in November 2013.

It was a dramatic way of saying that Thrun had announced that his company, Udacity, would now focus its MOOCs more on vocational training rather than traditional liberal arts courses.

That Udacity was only one company of a growing number focused on MOOCs — and that many of these platforms, including its main competitor Coursera, still aimed to disrupt traditional higher education — did little to slow the wave of speculation.

It was the capper on a year of MOOC hand-wringing. If 2012 was the “year of the MOOC,” then 2013 was the “year of the MOOC backlash.” Those who trust Gartner’s “Hype Cycle” believed MOOCs were going through a common “trough of disillusionment,” that would soon be followed by a “slope of enlightenment.”

But by the start of 2014, many were already asking: “Are MOOCs dead?”

The answer is not as sensational as the question. MOOCs aren’t dead — not yet -- but they likely won’t be replacing any traditional means of higher education, either.




Here is the source of creating a massive online system of education for the 90% in Maryland-----Wall Street itself!  The quality of education drops each time they grow this online education industry.  Since it isn't working at the university level they are now talking of sending it to K-12 vocational.  Sitting children in front of computers for online classes the goal of education reform as vocational K-12----YOU BET


Johns Hopkins Offers Nine-Course Specialization in Data ...www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/coursera...   CachedThe series of nine MOOCs are now open for enrollment and free to anyone. ... 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205. ... Courses Careers Accreditation Web Policies ...

0 Comments

July 23rd, 2014

7/23/2014

0 Comments

 
THE REASON MARYLAND IS SILENT AS THE REST OF THE NATION BRINGS OUT MILLIONS IN PROTEST OF NEO-LIBERAL AND NEO-CONS POLICIES IS THAT ERHLICH/O'MALLEY HAS WORKED HARD TO PRIVATIZE MARYLAND'S PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES.  IT IS HERE THAT HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE BEGINS AND THAT IS WHY NEO-LIBERALS FROM CLINTON TO OBAMA ARE WORKING AS HARD AS THEY CAN TO MAKE THEM INTO CORPORATIONS.

We saw yesterday that it is University of Maryland's Chancellor Kirwan seeing the need to deregulate universities.  Maryland has allowed for-profit career colleges defraud for a few decades now because of deregulation of private career education so now we need to see the same in our public universities.  Kirwan says we are making money using taxpayer money to patent research but we need to super-size the profits from the products we are now sending to the corporate structures attached to our campuses----YOU KNOW---THE 'BIOTECH FACILITIES'.  Kirwan and Mikulski are not only talking about getting rid of a silly regulation that is out of date----they are intending to deregulate how universities can operate as businesses.  All those requirements for receiving taxpayer money for research that make the public partners in this research need to go.  We have proprietary patents now with that taxpayer funded research and it is heading for the open market for profit! 

Below you see what Kirwan and Mikulski are working towards.  Corporations are dismantling their research facilities because universities ARE THEIR RESEARCH FACILITIES.  University students are now paying tuition to work in a corporate research project for free supported by NIH and NCA research money.  IT'S ALL ABOUT CREATING JOBS!  Actually, college grads are as likely now to remain unemployed now as at the time of the 2008 crash because global corporations and neo-liberals are keeping the US economy stagnant.  So, these students are more likely to work as VISTAs then to get a job in the field for which they received a degree.  Meanwhile, the foreign students coming in to get degrees------doing OK especially if they go back home to work for the US corporation overseas.  FREE LABOR PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS----NOW THAT MAXIMIZES CORPORATE PROFITS SAY NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS.  See why taxes and tuition are soaring on the working and midde-class?  It costs lots to subsidize every corporate activity.

CORPORATIONS NO LONGER NEED RESEARCH FACILITIES------UNIVERSITIES DO THE RESEARCH AND ANYTHING THAT IS SUCCESSFUL COMES TO THE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS THROUGH STARTUPS BUYOUTS.  THE PEOPLE THEY HIRED TO DO THE WORK IN PRIVATE RESEARCH LABS ARE NOW STUDENTS PAYING TUITION.

The process of patenting university research while having corporations 'partnered' with these universities is a mockery as if people cannot see that this is why student tuition is soaring and all of taxpayer money is funding this 'university' research leaving no money for student financial aid and grants. Directors of these 'university' research facilities being paid like corporate executives.

LET'S GO BACK TO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AS PUBLIC EDUCATION!


Below you see what deregulation Kirwan and Mikulski are working towards......making universities driven by profit-----



Colleges Urged to Count Patents in Tenure Reviews

April 29, 2014
  Inside Higher Ed


Universities should begin making patents and other industrial and commercial research count toward promotion and tenure, in an effort to stimulate such research nationwide, argues a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. "There is a fundamental disconnect between technology transfer activities and incentives for faculty members in terms of merit raises, tenure and career advancement," Richard B. Marchase, co-author and vice president for research and economic development at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a news release. "Beyond the monetary benefit of licensing, which is small in most cases, there is presently little to no benefit to a faculty member's merit raises, tenure and career advancement."

The paper builds on a 2012 report from the National Research Council and other groups saying that business and industry have "largely dismantled large corporate research laboratories that drove American industrial leadership," and which argues that research universities must "fill the gap."
In the new paper, called "Changing the Academic Culture: Valuing Patents and Commercialization Toward Tenure and Career Advancement," the authors argue that filling the research gap will entail changing the university "rewards culture" to value not only large research grants but also professors' patents and other commercial activities. Co-author Eric Kaler, president of the University of Minnesota, notes that this kind of work should not replace but "add to" traditional means of assessing scholarly activity. The paper's lead author is Paul R. Sanberg, senior vice president for research and innovation at the University of South Florida and president of the National Academy of Inventors. An abstract is available here.


_________________________________________________

Keep in mind the same global corporations for whom University of Maryland's Chancellor Kirwan and neo-liberals work are the same entities keeping the US economy stagnant-----and it is deliberate.  Remember, the bond market is going to crash causing a greater recession is so there is no intent to employ these grads----but they do free work and pay to do it with ever-higher tuition.  THIS IS A SWEET DEAL FOR CORPORATE PROFITS SAY NEO-LIBERALS IN MARYLAND!

The media shout that all of this a great education policy.  That more students are being sent to college and graduating with skills that corporations need.  OH REALLY? 

THEY NEED THEM TO WORK FOR FREE WHILE PAYING FOR COLLEGE AND THEN FORGET ABOUT IT AFTER GRADUATION.

The structure neo-liberals and neo-cons are building have the job pipeline coming from the Ivy League schools-----business leaders now come from these schools and any startups that may come from the public universities are simply bought by those corporations in the portfolio of Ivy League schools.  Working and middle-class grads are largely being funneled into poverty jobs or the military.


University of Maryland Baltimore County and Grabinsky were front page news as UMBC is the face of this free labor as corporate university.  While Maryland says its unemployment is 6.1% we all know that is only the number of people receiving unemployment checks.  Maryland's unemployment is 36% and growing with this economic model.  Remember, these are Republican policies of placing corporate profit first so voting Republican will not help----Democrats simply need to shake the corporate neo-liberals out of the Democratic Party!


FOLKS----THIS IS A NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMIC MODEL THEY CALL THE 21ST CENTURY ECONOMY!

All we need is to rebuild state economies having domestic businesses driving the economy and all of this will disappear.


The Deliberate Low-Wage, High-Insecurity Economic Model submitted by pmcovay3 ScienceIndex.com  Dec 2012

In contrast to the general biases of orthodox economists, the jobs crisis in America is not inevitable or natural-and more important, does not contribute to more economic efficiency through lower wages or more productivity. It is the result of deliberate political policy choices the nation has made at least since the early 1980s, when productivity was rising on a secular basis at a slow rate. Also, the policy choices were made before the rise of very low-wage emerging markets like China’s. In sum, there has been a low-wage, high-unemployment policy regime in the rich world, and especially in the United States, for a generation.


Students Call for Reform of Economics Education


May 6, 2014  Inside Higher Ed

Economics students in 19 countries have issued a joint call -- published in The Guardian -- to change the way economics is taught. The students' analysis (similar to that of some professors in the United States and elsewhere) is that economics has become too uniform in its approaches and too removed from real life. "[I]t's time to reconsider the way economics is taught. We are dissatisfied with the dramatic narrowing of the curriculum that has taken place over the past couple of decades," the letter says. "This lack of intellectual diversity does not only restrain education and research. It limits our ability to contend with the multidimensional challenges of the 21st century – from financial stability to food security and climate change. The real world should be brought back into the classroom, as well as debate and a pluralism of theories and methods. This will help renew the discipline and ultimately create a space in which solutions to society's problems can be generated."



All academics and analysts now look at employment figures as below----the employment to population ratio.  We all know some adults of working age may choose not to work but that percentage is not too high.  So, if 58% of the population is working------42% are not.  36% unemployment is about right.  As this article points out----with wages at an all time low people are now forced to have two incomes in a family.  The employment data media and government provides is simply meant to conceal this deliberately high unemployment.

Do you know who is not fooled by the failure of neo-liberalism------ECONOMICS STUDENTS!

The article above shows that university students are fed up with universities that only offer neo-liberal economic models in economic degree programs.  As this article states----WHY STUDY A FAILED ECONOMIC MODEL?  It is the duty of public universities to hold power accountable and give the public real data and we see this is not happening because of this corporate capture.

That is what university heads like Kirwan are doing.....they are appointed to force global corporate policies that no one wants and it is the governor that appoints these people to public universities.

Unemployment Data Manipulation The Economic Recovery is a Lie!
  By Seth Mason
Friday, November 1st, 2013  Wealth Daily

I've argued time and time again that, due to the severity of job losses during the Great Recession, there cannot be a true economic recovery until the labor market has recovered.

Unfortunately, hiring was weak in September, continuing a slowing trend that began in the spring.

To make matters worse, the majority of jobs created last month were menial in nature (nearly 2/3 of them were truck drivers, bureaucrats, salespeople, and temps). These trends have been ongoing throughout this economic depression.

The number of new jobs wasn't enough to keep up with population growth.

And yet the unemployment rate fell.

So, all is well... right?

Clearly, the "headline" 7.2% unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story about the sad state of the American labor force.

You have to take any data from the Fed with a grain of salt, anyway, as the Obama administration has a vested interest in presenting the best-looking unemployment picture possible, just as all administrations have.

The employment-to-population ratio actually provides a much more accurate gauge of the health of the American job market — and wouldn't you know, it's been showing unhealthy readings since the economy crashed five years ago...

The proportion of Americans in the workforce has barely budged since falling from 63% to 58% during the Great Recession, as you can see on the following chart:



A Precipitous Decline

The last time the employment-to-population ratio was 58% — in the early 1980s — a relatively small proportion of American households sent more than one income earner into the workforce.

Now, in a nation of mostly one-breadwinner households, the 58% employment-to-population ratio was reasonable.

Today, however, due to a decline in real personal income (thanks for the inflation, Federal Reserve), most households send multiple income earners into the workforce.

In fact, it's not uncommon these days for households to have more than two income earners.

Under this paradigm, an employment-to-population ratio stuck at 58% like it's 1982 (when "homemaker" was still a common job title) is very unhealthy.


  Also worth noting is that a large percentage of the 58% of Americans who do work are working lower-quality jobs than they were before the economy crashed.

Although the population of the United States has increased by approximately 20 million since 2008, there are 5 million fewer “breadwinner” jobs in this country than there were before this economic depression.

"Breadwinner jobs" are those positions with a base salary of $35,000 or more that enable one to live independently, however meagerly. 

So the real health of the labor force is even worse than the unsettling 58% labor force participation rate!

Here we are, more than five years since the fall of Lehman, and the job market is still awful... and it's started to backslide again.



Niagara Falls

The Fed's Niagara Falls-scale liquidity pumping measures (I say "liquidity pumping" as opposed to "printing" because QE is only one of the Fed's tricks) clearly haven't had much impact on unemployment — or the federal government's $787 billion spending binge, also known as the grand "stimulus," for that matter.

Remember the laughable estimates of unemployment with and without the "Recovery Plan"?

According to the White House's October 2009 estimate (the dark blue line on the chart above), the Fed/federal government's plan should have taken us back to pre-recession unemployment levels by now...

Yet the unemployment rate sits at an unacceptable 7.2%.

And keep in mind the 7.2% headline unemployment rate belies the true awful state of the job market.

Considering the pitiful 58% employment-to-population ratio and the 5 million fewer breadwinner jobs since 2008, it would be an understatement to say that Washington's stimulus measures have failed to reduce unemployment. (That's assuming they were created for that purpose. More about that in a future article.)

We should expect more of the same from our esteemed central planners.

The Fed, which has officially delayed "tapering," will continue to pump indefinitely.

Uncle Sam will continue to borrow and spend like mad, whether he's wearing a DEM or GOP hat.

As a result, the "mother of all bubbles," as Nouriel Roubini has called it, will continue to expand...

And we'll continue party like it's 2006, only with higher unemployment.

We'll keep ignoring the fact that 2008 is just a couple of years away.

Happy crash 2.0!

Until next time,

Seth Mason for Wealth Daily
_____________________________________________


Having a policy that brings more foreign students into the US with the goal of green cards and employment in high-skilled jobs does nothing for the American people, the high unemployment, or creating quality education and higher achievement in our US students.  It is purely a profit-making scheme that continues to consolidate the wealth at the top.

Maryland pols are all neo-liberals so whether Milkulsi and Cardin working in the Senate on legislation to build corporate universities and send trillions of dollars to expand overseas as corporations-----or the Governor of Maryland O'Malley and the Maryland Assembly appointing these corporate university heads and building the corporate structures in our universities-----

THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLY REBUILD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN MARYLAND BY RUNNING AND VOTING FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE.



Currency February 21, 2014

Should Universities Profit From Student Research?
By John Bringardner  The New Yorker





In 2011, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that Cornell University and Israel’s Technion would jointly open a new school on Roosevelt Island to help boost New York’s tech sector. The first buildings of the new campus won’t open until 2017, but classes are already under way in borrowed space on the third floor of Google’s New York office. And, on Monday, Cornell Tech, as the school is called, plans to announce that it has enrolled its first batch of post-doctoral researchers in a one-year “Runway” program, designed to launch them into business ventures based on their specialties: urban planning, e-commerce, health care. In an unusual twist, the school will invest in the companies founded through the program, but also allow students to keep ownership of the intellectual property they create on campus; typically, universities profit by keeping the rights to such property.



Cornell Tech isn’t the only institution to invest in student startups. Stanford announced last year that it would invest in companies founded by its students. M.I.T. also takes an equity stake in companies developed on campus. But Stanford and M.I.T. both require those companies to pay royalties on any technologies the students patent while in school.
Rather than negotiate complex patent-licensing rights with their researchers, Cornell Tech will treat the value of each post-doc position it awards—about a hundred and fifty thousand dollars—as an angel investment in any business spun out of the program; in exchange, Cornell Tech expects to get an average of a five-per-cent stake in each business. The Runway program echoes the accelerators and incubators popular among venture capitalists—three- or four-month programs in which entrepreneurs get resources to build new startups in exchange for a stake in their companies.

Universities didn’t always have the right to the spoils of the research they sponsored. The government spent heavily on research and development at U.S. universities during the Cold War, but new technologies developed with federal cash became government property. By 1980, the federal government had amassed twenty-eight thousand patents but licensed fewer than five per cent to companies that could turn them into products. That year, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed universities to keep and profit from the patents their students and researchers developed on campus using federal funds. The Economist called it “perhaps the most inspired piece of legislation in America over the past half-century.”

Soon, offices focussed on “technology transfer” opened up in schools around the country, staffed with lawyers who poked around campus research labs and flipped through student notebooks to suss out patentable research that they could license to corporations. A new chemical combination might become a blockbuster drug; a technological breakthrough could lead to smaller, faster semiconductors.

In 2012, American universities earned $2.6 billion from patent royalties, according to the Association of University Technology Managers. The tech-transfer model is entrenched in medical schools and in biotech development. But its usefulness in the software world has been less clear. The success of a software startup often depends less on any particular innovation than on how several pieces of technology fit together and appeal to users. A company’s value usually becomes apparent years after it has developed and refined its business model, not at the moment it files a patent application. Plus, the very concept of a software patent hangs in the balance: in December, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case that could eliminate them altogether.

Cornell Tech’s approach—taking an equity stake in each company instead of licensing rights to a handful of patents—may be a more straightforward way for the school to profit from spin-offs. “Universities look to place a value on technology at its inception, finding a fair rate for splitting royalties between the school and the inventor, but that’s not the way digital startups work,” Cornell Tech’s Dean, Daniel Huttenlocher, said. “I think intellectual-property protection, especially in software and digital tech, is a very small piece of commercialization, one that becomes too big a part of the conversation when universities are involved.”

The Runway program is designed to turn deep academic research into a marketable product; its first post-docs have already spent years in the lab, sometimes running into dead ends and starting over in a way that pure academic research allows but investors don’t. “A principal mission of Cornell University is the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit and use of society,” the school’s existing intellectual-property policy reads. Whether society benefits most when knowledge is turned into an I.P.O. is an open question.

“The entire Bay Area is enamored with these notions of innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, mega-success,” the historian and Stanford professor David Kennedy told Ken Auletta in 2012, in a report from Stanford. “It’s in the air we breathe out here. It’s an atmosphere that can be toxic to the mission of the university as a place of refuge, contemplation, and investigation for its own sake.” And when students showed up for their first classes at the temporary campus, in January, 2013, Isaac Kramnick, a professor of government at Cornell in Ithaca, told the Times, “The university has been at the forefront of big science since the 1940s and 1950s. Now it’s entering an era in which it seems to be interested in for-profit science, and that does require some thinking as to what the fundamental purpose of a university is.” (“Such potential for conflicts is quite manageable with the appropriate procedures in place, enabling this very effective interaction between students, faculty, and companies,” Huttenlocher told me.)

Yet universities are forging ahead with more business-oriented models. Over the past decade, angel investors, the main source of capital for startups, have made high-risk bets, providing money for startups to get off the ground in exchange for the right to a piece of the company’s equity if it succeeds. Most never do. Venture capitalists call their strategy “spray and pray,” sinking money into lots of different startups in the hope that at least one will be the next Facebook. It’s a gamble, but it could be a better way for universities to take advantage of the work their students are doing. The amount of revenue schools generate from patent licensing is small compared with over-all university budgets. Alumni philanthropy brings in far more money. “What would happen if schools gave up rights to their students’ intellectual property?” Adam Shwartz, the director of Cornell Tech’s Jacobs Institute, which runs the Runway program, asked. “Their patent revenue goes to zero, but down the line the successful alumni give back far more money. Here we have the first controlled experiment of this nature.”

Rendering of Cornell Tech by Kilograph.
____________________________________________

Below you see how bad the success rate of this model is for the student /school so a corporation directs the research it wants to fund----gets free labor and a taxpayer funded research facility----and VOILA all the failures are paid for by you and me.  No need for corporate R and D.  In lieu of corporate taxes these investment firms just send there money to these university projects and we are told this is the best mechanism for funding universities.

All work on campus is now product-driven-----professors are judged on patenting rather than academics or teaching.  Tenure is tied to being this corporate executive.  Students are engaged only in what will pay off and not with a broad education limiting their futures.  As this article shows it is the student that loses and graduates with the tuition debt and limited focus degrees.


What is sad is that the student's future success with whatever they create requires handing a percentage of future earnings to these university/venture capitalist and the few that do create successful businesses simply hand them to these global investment firms.  This is all simply universities as corporate facilities.

THE ENTIRE ACADEMIC MODEL HAS BEEN RUINED AND THE US IS AGAIN ON THE BOTTOM ACADEMICALLY IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS.  THIS IS WHAT MIKULSKI AND KIRWAN ARE SITTING DOWN TO BOLSTER.

DEAR ENTREPRENEURS: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are
  • Henry Blodget  Business Insider

  • May 28, 2013, 11:03 AM

As a wise investor puts it: "Many turtles hatch. Few make it to the sea."


Everyone knows that starting companies — and investing in startups — is a risky way to earn a living. But few people appreciate just how risky it is.

Thanks to a recent tweet from Paul Graham, the founder of "startup school" Y Combinator, we now have a better idea.

Graham says that 37 of the 511 companies that have gone through the Y Combinator program over the past 5 years have either sold for, or are now worth, more than $40 million.

Most entrepreneurs would probably view creating a company worth more than $40 million as a success (unless the company raised more capital than that). And, on its face, the "37 companies" number seems relatively impressive.

In fact, however, the number tells a scary and depressing story.

This number suggests that a startling 93% of the companies that get accepted by Y Combinator eventually fail.

(Not all companies that sell for less than $40 million are "failures," obviously. Assuming a company hasn't raised much capital, a sale between $5 million and $40 million could be considered a success. But a high percentage of Y Combinator companies likely end up being worth zero. And for companies that are hand-picked by very smart investors, the 93%-below-$40 million rate is still surprisingly low). 

A company accepted by Y Combinator, therefore, has less than a 1-in-10 chance of being a big success.

More alarmingly, the companies accepted by Y Combinator are only a tiny fraction of the companies that apply.

Some have estimated that Y Combinator's acceptance rate is 3-5%.

If we use the 5% rate, we can estimate that Y Combinator has received about 10,000 applications for the ~500 companies it has chosen over the years.

Assuming Y Combinator has even a modest ability to pick winners, therefore, the odds that a company applying to Y Combinator will be a success are significantly lower than the odds of success of the companies accepted into the program.

If only 37 of the companies that have applied to Y Combinator over the years have succeeded, this is a staggeringly low 0.4% success rate.

Put differently, only one in every 200 companies that applies to Y Combinator will succeed.

The reality is that Y Combinator probably misses a few winners, so the actual odds are probably slightly higher.

But in case any entrepreneur or angel investor is deluding themselves into thinking that startups are an easy way to cash in, they might want to think again.









0 Comments

July 22nd, 2014

7/22/2014

0 Comments

 
Now that universities are corporations we need to get rid of all that public protection stuff that will keep them from being profitable.  Forget all that silly stuff about educating Americans to be citizens and leaders......forget equal opportunity and access for the disabled......you cannot maximize profits that way.  Let's open our universities to the world's rich and let them attend simply because they can pay higher and higher tuition.  THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL AND NEO-CON FOR YOU.....IT'S ALL ABOUT PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

As you can see it is Maryland behind this deregulation attempt just as it leads in corporatization of universities into global systems. 


LOOK----THERE'S MIKULSKI -----MISS NEO-LIBERAL HERSELF.  SHE HANDED A COOL TRILLION OF TAXPAYERS MONEY OVER TWO DECADES TO MAKE JOHNS HOPKINS A GLOBAL CORPORATION AFTER ALL.

Also at the lead is University of Maryland Chancellor Kirwan-----you know----the one Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is taking to court for rigging the elections for governor by choosing which candidates were heard on public university campuses across the state-----all of which is illegal.  Sure, we solve this corruption by fewer regulations!


WE WILL SELECT ANY CANDIDATE WE CHOSE FOR THESE ELECTION FORUMS FOR GOVERNOR SAYS CHANCELLOR KIRWAN.


Oh, that's how you keep installing legislation no one wants ----you rig the system so we cannot get people in office that will reverse these policies!  THAT'S KIRWAN FOR YOU-----A TRUE GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERAL/NEOCON.  Public universities as the hotbed of democratic political debate?  That's no way to maximize corporate profits!

A New Deregulatory Push

February 13, 2014
By Michael Stratford  Inside Higher Education

WASHINGTON -- The last time the Higher Education Act came up for a vote in Congress in 2008, Senator Lamar Alexander trotted out a five-foot stack of cartons onto the Senate floor to show the enormity of existing regulations governing higher education.

Now that lawmakers are once again contemplating how to rewrite that massive piece of legislation -- which authorizes, among other things, the $150 billion-a-year federal student aid program -- Alexander is returning to his props.

Speaking to a group of community college leaders Wednesday, Alexander unfolded the full paper version of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which was taller than he is, to underscore his distaste for the federal government’s bureaucratic reach onto college campuses. And last week he made the same demonstration before a group of private college presidents.

Alexander said Wednesday that his goal is to “simplify and deregulate” higher education in the upcoming renewal of the Higher Education Act -- a process he has said should “start from scratch.”

“What we’re trying to do is establish a continuous process for deregulation to overcome the continuous momentum for overregulation,” he said, noting that the “inertia” for creating new regulations comes from across the political spectrum.

“The conservative senators, from my party, they’re sometimes the worst,” he said, describing how he has to remind his colleagues that they are “the party of federalism, the 10th amendment” when they want to impose conservative ideas on how colleges should be run across the country.

All of their ideas “sound good, but you know what happens when you have to comply with it: it takes time and money away from your mission,” he told a group of community college trustees and presidents.

Alexander has formed, along with three other senators, a task force to recommend ways to reduce federal regulations on colleges and universities.  

That group of higher education leaders gathered behind closed doors at the offices of the American Council on Education on Wednesday to begin producing recommendations on how to deregulate the industry. The panel consists of college presidents from a range of sectors and higher education associations.

Reducing or eliminating regulations on colleges has long been a goal of the higher education lobby in Washington, though previous efforts have largely been unsuccessful.

William E. (Brit) Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland and co-chair of the task force, said he was encouraged by the Congressional interest in reducing regulations.

“What seems different this time is the very strong commitment of these four senators,” Kirwan said. “They are determined to address this issue and get our help in finding some meaningful reforms.”


Alexander and Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado, attended Wednesday’s meeting, and two other lawmakers -- Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, a Democrat, and Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican -- are also on board.

The panel will focus on identifying “the most egregious, excessive regulations," but will also make recommendations on the Education Department’s rule making process in general, Kirwan said.

“The hope is that we can make some suggestions that will enable us to meet our obligations and be accountable to the federal government but to do so in a way that is cost effective and not excessively bureaucratic,” he said.

Kirwan said that one example of the type of regulations that his task force would be targeting is a campus safety rule that requires colleges to collect crime information from local police jurisdictions when students study abroad or when athletes travel to an out-of-town hotel.

The task force hopes to produce a report on its recommendations within the next 12 months, Kirwan said. The group will also be coordinating with the National Research Council, which was directed by Congressional appropriators last month to conduct a $1 million study of the cost of regulations on higher education.

Kirwan, who also chairs the subcommittee at the NRC that will oversee the study, said that work would be focused on all federal regulations that affect higher education, while the Congressional task force would focus only on Education Department regulations.

_______________________________________
This is what Kirwan and his group of global corporate bosses think they are going to do with our universities and deregulating gets rid of all that public justice and civil rights stuff....you know----THE US CONSTITUTION AND OUR STATUS AS AN EQUAL PROTECTION DEMOCRACY.  Who in the world wants people like this deciding what is good.


That is what testing from K onward is about----the state determining how a child will be tracked and into what vocation from elementary school on. Remember, school privatization means the entity deciding will be corporations. This is already happening in Baltimore and it is nothing but autocratic.

O'Malley has made his career as Governor of Maryland building these tracking systems into our schools at every level......it is failing miserably although spin will make it sound a great success.


It is the for-profit colleges AND THAT DEREGULATION that distorted who and how students went to college last decade and it is infused with fraud and corruption so it is not our decades-old system of allowing families to decide where and what that child will pursue that failed----

IT IS THE SAME PEOPLE WRITING THESE PRIVATIZATION POLICIES THAT DISTORTED A GOOD SYSTEM.


This article is long but please glance through!


College material or not: who should decide?


By Valerie Strauss March 26 (The Washington Post)

College, of course, isn’t for everybody, but who should decide — and how and when — which students should go and shouldn’t? In this post, Kevin Welner and Carol Burris ask whether the decision should be made by policy makers and school officials or parents and students after young people have had equitable opportunities to learn in elementary and secondary school.

Welner is the director of the National Education Policy Center, located at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. He is the author of the 2008 book, “NeoVouchers: The Emergence of Tuition Tax Credits for Private Schooling.” Burris is the award-winning principal of South Side High School in New York. She was named New York’s 2013 High School Principal of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and in 2010, tapped as the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State.


By Kevin Welner and Carol Burris

Robin should become a printer. That’s what Robin Calitri’s school counselor told his dad in 1965. Robin thought his counselor’s advice was just swell. He wasn’t a motivated high school student. But his dad, who was a professor of English Literature at Hofstra University, made it clear to the counselor that his son was going to college.

Robin later became the principal of Long Island’s South Side High School and was a finalist for the national principal of the year in 1999. He would tell that story about the counselor whenever he explained the harm done by tracking—the sorting of some students into classes that are not designed to prepare those children for post-secondary education.

If his dad had gone along with the counselor’s recommendation, his son would likely have ended up in a trade that was becoming obsolete. To his credit, Robin understood that this was precisely the situation faced by children in working-class and poor families. Research on tracking and choice confirms this; working-class and poor families, as well as parents without a college education, are more deferential to the advice of school authorities and less willing to push back on the system. Robin also understood that a young person’s future hangs in the balance when school authorities are making rules that will cut off college as an option.


Yes, we can all agree: college is not for everybody. But should school officials and top-down policy makers decide based, for example, on Common Core college readiness test scores, or should the decision be left to parents and students after schools have given them meaningful, enriching, equitable opportunities to learn?


While college is not for everybody, opportunities to be prepared for college definitely should be.
When college-educated parents have the capacity to secure the college advantage, they certainly seize it for their own children. It is not unusual, for example, to see upper middle class parents spend thousands on tutoring—including tutors for the SAT and the college essay. College-educated parents understand that a four-year diploma is key to securing financial success.

That’s just one reality that Mike Petrilli, the executive vice president of the Fordham Institute, refuses to confront in his article in Slate, with the man-bites-dog title, “Kid, I’m Sorry, but You’re Just Not College Material” Is exactly what we should be telling a lot of high school students.”

The “we” who are the deciders is left somewhat undefined, but it’s safe to assume that the use of “we” does not give power and capacity to the students themselves.

Before continuing, this is a good spot to pause and acknowledge when we are talking about other people’s children. The two of us, like Mr. Petrilli, represent families where post-secondary education is a given. Accordingly, we’re essentially debating what’s best for those “other” families. As we contemplate tinkering with their fate, it is wise to remember John Dewey’s axiom:

“What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy.”

Perhaps we are unwise in working our tails off for our children to go to college. But unless and until we acknowledge this, we should be wary of sending other families down a different path.


The vocational education push isn’t coming from just Mr. Petrilli. As he notes, it’s also coming from a project headquartered at Harvard University (apparently with no irony intended) as well as from policymakers throughout the nation. The Education Commission of the States recently studied the “State of the State” addresses from the nation’s governors and found that “at least 13 governors and the D.C. mayor outlined proposals improving or expanding CTE [career and technical education, aka vocational education] options for students.”

Mr. Petrilli and the governors are correct to the extent that they are simply acknowledging that not all children will go to college and that those who do not should nonetheless have opportunities to thrive. It is also true that the decision to forgo or delay college should be made before graduation day.

From that point on, however, the “sort and select” advocates get almost everything wrong. Their fundamental two-part assumption is, first, that they can and should identify children who are beyond academic hope. Second, they believe that it is possible and beneficial to identify these children early, separate them from their academically oriented peers, and put them on a track that hopefully prepares them for post-secondary employment but does not prepare them for college.


Equitable schools reject such tracking policies because they believe in the American Dream and because they have learned from past mistakes.
History tells us that schools should not be in the business of foreclosing children’s options. At the start of the 20th century, schools faced an influx of immigrants, and policymakers responded by creating programs for those who were called the “great army of incapables.” Vocational tracks prepared immigrants to be factory workers, while the children of well-off parents were given a college preparatory education. This pattern of separating students into different classes was repeated during the era of racial desegregation as a way to maintain segregated classrooms—and then again in the 1970s when students with special needs were increasingly enrolled in mainstream schools.

History and research show that when schools sort in this way, it is the disadvantaged children who are directed toward lower-tier tracks. No matter what criteria are used—scores, recommendations or even choice—the same patterns of stratification occur. Accordingly, when lawmakers adopt these misguided policies, they open up opportunity gaps that inevitably lead to the achievement gaps that these same lawmakers then decry.

Mr. Petrilli concedes that he understands the danger. Describing the bad old days, he writes, “Those high school ‘tracks’ were immutable, and those who wound up in ‘voc-ed’ (or, at least as bad, the ‘general’ track) were those for whom secondary schooling, in society’s eyes, was mostly a custodial function.” Yet he turns back to voc-ed because, as he contends, the odds are otherwise too long for disadvantaged students.

Beginning with the statistic that only 10 percent of these disadvantaged students earn a four-year degree, Mr. Petrilli asserts that if we work really hard as a society maybe this number would rise to 30 percent, which for Mr. Petrilli is not good enough. Since recent data show that 33.5 percent of Americans ages 25 to 29 have at least a bachelor’s degree, that sounds like a pretty good outcome to us. By the way, that’s the highest percentage ever for Americans, and it doesn’t include those who earn two-year degrees as well as certificates in our community colleges and post-secondary technical schools.


The “You’re Not College Material” approach is the same one we use far too often in schools.  Too many kids hear--You’re not ‘honors’ material, or Challenging science and math isn’t for you. And every time that strategy is used, we see the same results—classes that are stratified by social class and race. It’s an approach that reinforces existing inequalities. To say in a supposedly neutral way that not all students will go to college is disingenuous without first acknowledging something else: that what’s really being said is that we should accept that college is for the already advantaged.

On some level, Mr. Petrilli grasps these concerns—when he acknowledges the past harms of tracking and that “when judgments were made on the basis of ZIP code or skin color, the old system was [deterministic, racist, and classist].” What he doesn’t acknowledge is that his new system would be the old system.

It’s interesting to us that the Petrilli article’s argument relies in part on the German system of tiered schooling, where college-bound students head to the Gymnasium while vocation-bound students head to the Hauptschule or Realschule. Yes, it’s true that students attending the German vocational schools do better than voc-ed students here, in part because of a more equitable job sector following graduation. But a team of German psychologists recently published an article in The Journal of Educational Psychology on the effects of the German vocational track on the development of student intelligence—and they found that students in the academic track experienced substantial IQ gains as compared to those voc-ed students. Not only did the learning gap grow, so did the very capacity to learn between German academic and vocational students. That outcome should give us pause.

Our quarrel is not with offering vocational opportunities in high schools. Rather, we favor a smart and fair approach that works for children and families who, at the right time and place, make the choice for a career after high school.
We might, for example, retool our two-year colleges so that they offer more programs in technology and other marketable areas, without making students jump through remedial hoops to stay. We might also follow the lead of Finland and prepare students with a strong and equitable academic education without tracking until age 16, and then allow them to make meaningful career and life choices. We may even look at promising models, such as California’s Linked Learning schools, which integrate career preparation while still preparing students for college. High schools have an obligation to do their best to prepare students for college and career; preparation for both has more overlap than often assumed.


We reject, however, No College for You! proposals that sort  14 year olds into vocational high schools. South Side High School, one of the best in the nation, would likely be a very different place if co-author Carol Burris’ predecessor, Robin Calitri, had obliged his counselor when he was told “Kid, you are not college material.”  That counselor did not have the right to make that decision—and neither does Mike Petrilli.



___________________________________________

Neo-liberals installed the education policy in South Korea after the Korean war that it is trying to install in the US today.  The difference is that the US has a history of public education and people as citizens with the rights to legislate and equal protection laws.  From Korea this policy traveled to China and Singapore and involves very autocratic and pedantic learning where parents in these countries have been fighting for decades to get rid of it.  NO ONE LIKES THESE NEO-LIBERAL EDUCATION POLICIES.  Look below and you see the AFT union leader Weingarten with Arne Duncan praising this neo-liberal model.  Weingarten allowed the AFT to support these Race to the Top and Common Core policies for the first years of Obama's terms but the public outcry and teachers grew too large for Weingarten to follow the neo-liberal lead and as you see in the article after this one-----the AFT is now fighting Obama's and Wall Street's education reform.

IT WAS THE PUBLIC OUTCRY THAT FORCED THIS UNION LEADER TO STOP FOLLOWING NEO-LIBERALS.  WE MUST HAVE THE PUBLIC PROTESTING LOUDLY AND STRONGLY TO SUPPORT TEACHERS IN KILLING THIS VERY BAD EDUCATION REFORM.  NEITHER REPUBLICANS NOR DEMOCRATS WANT THIS REFORM.  IT IS ONLY ABOUT MAKING EDUCATION INTO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS.



I spoke at great length about the Finland model for education that has made Finland number 1 in education.  Finland embraced the American model of the 1950s and 1960s while the US was dismantling the best in the world public education to make this corporatized model they are pushing today. 

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GOING BACK TO THE PUBLIC EDUCATION BUILT FOR DEMOCRACY AND AWAY FROM THIS AUTOCRATIC CORPORATE MODEL.




Which winning ideas could the U.S. steal from Singapore?


Singapore has one of the best education systems in the world, according to international assessments. President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan talk about its performance. United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten visited in 2012 and her counterpart at the National Education Association, Dennis Van Roekel, has praised its teacher training. And in 2012, Singapore was featured in the first-ever International Summit on the Teaching Profession as a country that many places – including America – could learn from.



In light of all this hype, I spent the past week in Singapore visiting schools to find out why they are so successful. But, not surprisingly, there’s no big secret or magic trick that the United States could simply copy tomorrow. Rather, my impressions were of a nation where education is respected, where educators and administrators think critically about their jobs and the qualities they want their students to develop and where self-reflection is ingrained. Those are qualities already found in many American schools, and that reformers are trying to spur in others.

But some of Singapore’s latest strategies go beyond or challenge some of the most popular ideas right now for improving American schools. At the same time, it’s important to remember the vast differences between the two countries that make it difficult to transfer ideas. Here are my main takeaways from my conversations with educators, students and education officials:

- Singapore is looking to revamp their standards. As most states in America continue the rollout of the Common Core State Standards, an internationally benchmarked guide laying out what students are supposed to learn in each grade in math and English, Singapore also has changes planned. But education officials there are more concerned about some less tangible skills, like collaboration and creativity, and coming up with ways to systematically introduce those into the curriculum. In theory, the end goals of Common Core and Singapore’s newest push are similar. They both aim to create individuals with critical thinking skills who can thrive in a modern economy. But as we try to copy Singapore’s methods, like their math sequencing, educators there are already moving on to new ideas.

- Lots of Singaporean students are stressed. The country is looking for ways to reduce this and trying to decrease the emphasis on grades and test scores. The Ministry of Education is trying to reduce the emphasis on the primary school exit exam, which all students have to take to determine which secondary school they will attend, for instance. But many people told me one of the biggest challenges will be changing the mindset of parents. Not all students in Singapore worry endlessly about exams, but several people said that for those that do, parents are a primary source of their anxiety.

- Singapore is small. As several people pointed out to me, if you drive for an hour in any direction, you arrive at the water. While some people told me the small size of the country has disadvantages for education – it severely limits options for field trips for instance – it also has its benefits. Most notably, the country’s size, along with the fact that the schools are run by a centralized authority, allows the Ministry of Education, the National Institute of Education – which trains every teacher in the country – and the schools to be in close communication about research and new strategies. New programs can be implemented quicker and the National Institute for Education can easily keep track of what is actually happening in classrooms to tweak its offerings when needed.

- The schools are big. Half a million students are enrolled in the island’s schools, but most schools have student populations of more than a thousand – even at the primary level. With that many students, classes of 35 to 40 are typical, but nothing seemed disorderly. The atmosphere in the classrooms that I visited switched between formal and relaxed. Students bowed to greet visitors and again to thank them for coming. They stood up to speak whenever called upon, and chatter while a teacher was talking was almost nonexistent. At the same time, though, laughter was common. Teachers would gently tease students and discussion was highly encouraged.

Not everything Singapore does would apply to our much larger, decentralized education system and not everything they do should be emulated. But there are some inspirations we could draw from the country, such as trying to get more high-performing students into the classroom as teachers or being more explicit in the character qualities we want students to develop – without obsessing over how to measure them.

__________________________________________

As a social democrat I do not want to break from the Democratic Party-----I want to take the Democratic Party back from corporate neo-liberals.  The important thing is that more and more people are understanding where this is going and know we can stop and reverse this no matter what political stance you take.  We need Republicans pushing against this as these policies are written by neo-conservative and neo-liberal think tanks.

'The way forward for teachers requires a complete break with the pro-corporate trade unions and Democratic Party.


.......calling for Duncan’s resignation, saying he had championed a “failed education agenda” consisting of policies that “undermine public schools and colleges, the teaching education professionals, and education unions.”




Seeking to regain credibility, US teachers unions criticize Obama’s education secretary
By Phyllis Scherrer
22 July 2014


After spending the last five-and-a-half years collaborating with the Obama administration’s attack on teachers’ jobs and conditions, the two teachers’ unions in the US recently passed resolutions seeking to distance themselves from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his anti-public education policies.

The National Education Association (NEA) passed a resolution at its national convention in Denver, Colorado, on July 4, calling for Duncan’s resignation, saying he had championed a “failed education agenda” consisting of policies that “undermine public schools and colleges, the teaching education professionals, and education unions.”

This was followed by a July 13 resolution at the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) conference in Los Angeles, California, which called on President Obama “to implement a secretary improvement plan” for Duncan, modeled on the punitive testing measures used to fire “failing” teachers. “If Secretary Duncan does not improve, and given that he has been treated fairly and his due process rights have been upheld, the secretary of education must resign,” the statement read.

The conventions were held just weeks after Duncan’s enthusiastic support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Vergara v. California case, which attacks tenure and another job protections won by teachers over decades of struggle. At the time Duncan hailed the right-wing forces behind the lawsuit, saying, “millions of young people in America” are “disadvantaged by laws, practices, and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students.”

The NEA and AFT resolutions, however, were nothing more than an exercise in damage control by the unions, aimed at reviving the credibility of both unions, which have been undermined by their collaboration with Duncan and the administration’s pro-corporate “school reform” agenda. The resolutions will have no affect whatsoever on the continued collaboration of the teachers’ unions with the Obama administration.

In fact, the day the NEA convention passed its resolution, officials from the rival AFT were at the White House meeting with Duncan to collaborate on the implementation of a new “teacher equity plan,” another teachers “evaluation” plan to rid poor school districts, with the assistance of the unions, of higher paid, more senior teachers.

Duncan dismissed the NEA resolution with the contempt it deserves, saying, had NEA officials not been at their convention, “I think they would have stood with us on this” today, too. He congratulated new NEA President-elect Lily Eskelsen Garcia and added, “We’ve had a very good working relationship with the NEA in the past.”

In addition to concealing their own role, by presenting Duncan as the author of this anti-teacher agenda, the unions are seeking to protect President Obama and the Democratic Party. The teachers unions promoted the lie that Obama would reverse the attacks of his Republican predecessor. In fact, the Democratic president has gone well beyond the attacks associated with Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.

Under Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT) the administration allocated $4.35 billion to fund a “competition” designed by the Bill & Melinda Gates, Eli Broad, Boeing, Walton Family and other Foundations. School districts were forced to vie against each other for funds already severely reduced under Bush’s NCLB—federal funds that under the War on Poverty reforms of the 1960s were allotted directly to districts serving high percentages of students in poverty.

Under RTTT “winning” districts are those who agree to fire teachers and close or privatize schools based on poor standardized test scores, which are chiefly the result of poverty and decades of budget cutting, not bad teachers. Since the implementation of RTTT, public schools have been starved of funding, 330,000 teachers and other public school employees have lost their jobs, at least 4,000 public schools have been closed, and the number of students enrolled in charter schools has doubled.

Obama and the Democratic Party have embraced the anti-teacher nostrums long associated with the most right-wing sections of the Republican Party. This is underscored by the fact that former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and several other former Obama aides are spearheading a national public relations drive to support lawsuits in New York and other states, modeled on Vergara, to overturn teacher tenure, seniority and other job protections.

On the local level, Democratic mayors and school officials from Chicago, Philadelphia and New York to Detroit, New Orleans and Washington, DC, have spearheaded the attack on public education and expansion of for-profit charters.

The well-heeled executives who run the teachers’ unions--including AFT President Randi Weingarten and NEA President Dennis Van Roekel who received salaries of $543,150 and $306,286 respectively in the last year alone—are not opposed to the pro-corporate school “reform.” On the contrary, they are only looking to be partners in this process, as the AFT slogan, “School reform with us, not against us,” makes clear.

Both the NEA and the AFT were direct recipients of Gates’ money for the implementation of the so-called Common Core curriculum, which will be used to further attack teachers, while subordinating public education to the needs of profit-making technology and publishing companies. In 2012, the AFT accepted $4.4 million in order to “work on teacher development and Common Core Standards.” In July 2013 the NEA endorsed the Common Core and was awarded $6.3 million to assist with developing the Common Core Curriculum.

As teachers became wise to the character of Common Core, and every more disdainful of the AFT’s support of it, AFT officials tried to distance themselves from Gates last March by refusing to take any additional money from the Gates Innovation Foundation Fund, only one of several conduits of the billionaire’s money to the AFT.


Part of the grandstanding against Duncan is the increasing turf war between the AFT and NEA and their competition for dues money among a shrinking number of teachers. The AFT convention passed a dues increase by 45 cents per month this year and 55 cents per month next year, for a total monthly dues bill of $18.78 for each member by September 2015—largely to offset the loss of Gates money—and is increasingly seeking to get a foothold among low-paid charter teachers, as well as non-teaching members like nurses.

The NEA, the nation’s largest union, with just over three million members, including teachers, paraprofessionals and higher education instructors, has seen a significant drop in membership. Since the 2010-2011 school year, which coincides with the recession and the election of Obama, union membership for the NEA is down by 201,000 of its teacher members.

Under conditions in which more states are enacting Republican-backed “right-to-work” laws, which end automatic dues deduction from teachers’ paychecks, and sections of the Democratic Party are openly discussing dispensing with the services of the unions altogether, the AFT and NEA are doubling down to ensure state and local officials that they can be relied on to slash costs, destroy teachers’ conditions and suppress opposition to the closing of schools and the attack on education.

Over the last five years there have been growing struggles of teachers—in Wisconsin, Chicago, Portland, Oregon, St. Paul, Minnesota, and other cities—which have led to a direct clash between teachers on the one hand and the Democratic Party and their servants in the trade unions on the other.

Well aware of the growing anger of rank-and-file teachers, a section of trade union bureaucracy and its supporters in pseudo-left movements like the International Socialist Organization, whose supporters have gained union positions in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City and other districts, are doing everything they can to refurbish the image of the teachers’ unions.

Their model of “social justice unionism” has proven to be a dead end as the betrayal of the 2012 teachers strike, by Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis and Vice President Jesse Sharkey, a supporter of the ISO, showed. The CTU shut down the nine-day strike by 26,000 Chicago teachers before it could develop into a direct political confrontation with Mayor Rahm Emanuel—Obama’s former White House Chief of Staff—and the White House.

This betrayal gave Emanuel the green light to close 50 schools and lay off 3,500 teachers and school workers. As a reward, an AFT-affiliated union was given the franchise to “organize” low-paid teachers at the Chicago United Neighborhood Organization (UNO) charter schools run by one of Emanuel’s closest supporters.

Lewis and the CTU are now promoting the idea of running “independent” political campaigns in Chicago. Far from challenging the Democratic Party and advancing any independent political strategy for the working class, these campaigns fully accept the domination of society by the corporate and financial elite and are solely aimed at pressuring the Democrats to more effectively use the unions as partners in the dismantling of public education.


The way forward for teachers requires a complete break with the pro-corporate trade unions and Democratic Party and the fight to mobilize the working class as a whole against the profit system and to defend all of the democratic and social rights of the working class, including access to high quality public education.


____________________________________________
Below you see how other states still have democratic debates and open elections while in Maryland any politician that speaks against neo-liberals and neo-cons are censured.  We must fight for free and fair elections to make sure we can vote these neo-liberals out of office.

Remember, Common Core is not about quality education.....it is about controlling what is taught.  Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math are already standardized and we do not want our humanities and liberal arts standardized because that is what makes the US a plurality and democracy-----differing points of view.  So this is simply a policy meant to give global corporations control of what our children learn in classrooms.

We have the AFT, the CTU, and it looks like the UFT moving against these education reforms and now we need parents and communities fighting with them.  It does not matter your political stance----these policies hurt all Americans.


New York Now Leads the Way in the Movement Against Common Core- At The Polls | With A Brooklyn Accent
20 Jul 2014   | Common Core · New York Share NPE News Briefs

Something truly extraordinary has happened in the New York State Gubernatorial race-something with broad national implications.  A big money Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, who thought he was going to make himself a front runner in the 2016 Presidential Race by ramming through legislation requiring teacher evaluations based on Common Core aligned tests, has generated so much opposition among teachers and parents that there are now three different Gubernatorial candidates who oppose Common Core- the Republican candidate, Rob Astorino, the Green Party candidate, Howie Hawkins, and the new and quite formidable challenger in the Democratic Primary, Zephyr Teachout.

There are two reasons this situation is “game changer”

First, it shows how much opposition to Common Core is emerging  across the political spectrum.  For the last year, Common Core supporters in the media, the corporate world, and the US Department of Education have tried to portray Common Core opponents as extremists whose views should be rejected out of hand, but the what we have in New York is a mainstream Republican, a strong candidate on the left, and a liberal Democrat all saying that Common Core is untested, undemocratic and a threat to strong, locally controlled public schools.  And this position is going to be put forward strongly from now until election day. Even if Andrew Cuomo wins the Democratic primary, he will be facing two strong anti-Common Core voices in the general election.

0 Comments

July 08th, 2014

7/8/2014

0 Comments

 
CORPORATIONS ARE USING PRIVATE NON-PROFITS TO CONTROL PUBLIC POLICY.  THEY CAPTURE AN ISSUE AND PROMOTE POLICY THAT WORKS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF CORPORATIONS.  IN MARYLAND THE PUBLIC SECTOR HAS BEEN DISMANTLED AND IS REPLACED BY THESE PRIVATE NON-PROFITS.  IT IS WHY THERE IS NO PUBLIC VOICE OR CONTROL OF POLICY IN MARYLAND.  A DEMOCRAT WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN....NE0-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS ARE DOING THIS!


I have spoken about Maryland's capture of politics centered in the movement away from a strong public sector which has been replaced by private non-profits controlled by corporations that simply place someone as head of the organization that makes sure public policy goes the way the corporations want.  In Maryland we have AGAB serving that goal.  Johns Hopkins creates and controls most non-profits in Baltimore and in doing so captures all public policy.  What we see less of in Maryland and Baltimore are real citizens coming out and organizing and controlling their own non-profits.  My non-profit, Citizens Oversight Maryland speaks freely because there is no corporate connection.  If you see a non-profit that is silent on all of the issues I address here-----they are being controlled by a corporation.  We have great groups doing good work in Baltimore but very few of them will shout against the power structures -----Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development or identify the fact that all of Baltimore's politicians work for these institutions and not the citizens of Baltimore.  I told you about the anti-fracking environmental group that ran when I asked them to educate about Trans Pacific Trade Pact and the fact that it allows all environmental laws to be ignored.  Now, if an environmental non-profit is not talking about this----it is headed by a corporation.  This is why TPP is not even mentioned in Maryland.....corporations control all of our private non-profits.

PLEASE WAKE UP AND ENGAGE IN POLITICS FOLKS!  THE MIDDLE CLASS CANNOT WATCH AS THE POOR ARE BRUTALIZED BECAUSE WE KNOW THE GOAL OF NEO-LIBERALISM IS TO GET RID OF ALL MIDDLE-CLASS.  YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN/GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE THE POOR.  YOU CANNOT BE SILENT FOR FEAR OF YOUR JOB BECAUSE LOSING DEMOCRACY AND YOUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS IS MORE IMPORTANT.


Maryland and especially Baltimore is now running just a global corporations do overseas----Non-governmental organizations NGOs control our state and local governments as a 'quasi-governmental agency' and corporations 'donate' rather than pay taxes to private non-profits that then do what that 'donor' wants.  No doubt national non-profits have always been this way but now they are controlling all policy at state and local levels as well.  This is the capture we are feeling in Maryland.  The neo-liberals and neo-cons work to establish these private non-profits and then make sure that these groups are the ones heard in policy discussion.  This is why many community associations in Baltimore are silent to politicians pushing neo-conservative/neo-liberal policies that are killing the residents living in these communities.  They instead are the ones backing these same pols dismantling our democratic structures.  The heads of these organizations sound to be supporting the community when in fact they are working to push corporate policy.

As you see below you must have politicians in office that want the public engaged in public policy.  They build the structures to make sure to stimulate participation.  In Maryland all policy is written behind closed doors and the public is pulled from public meetings if they try to speak on the most important issues.  Go to Baltimore City Hall and you look at pols that are simply sitting there----they are no more connected to the people speaking than a man on the moon.  They are simply meeting a charter requirement to have hearings.

IT IS THE DISMANTLING OF ALL OF THE PUBLIC STRUCTURES OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT THAT HAS PRODUCED THE LACK OF PARTICIPATION AND IT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY THESE PRIVATE NON-PROFITS.



The Citizens Most Vocal in Local Government

View detailed demographic data from a national survey about the most and least likely people to speak up. by Mike Maciag | July 2014 Flickr/Kelby Carr


In his first few months in office, Park City, Utah, Mayor Jack Thomas has heard from quite a few constituents. His office phone rings off the hook. Going out for lunch takes about twice as long as before, too, as he constantly fields concerns from residents who walk up. “If you want a quiet moment,” he jokes, “you’ve got to leave town.”

The small resort community is home to some of the nation’s more vocal residents. In a recent survey, 28 percent of city residents reported contacting elected officials to express their opinions and 37 percent said they had attended a local public meeting over a 12-month period.

Nationwide, though, citizen participation in local government remains abysmally low. The National Research Center (NRC), a firm that conducts citizen surveys for more than 200 communities, compiled data for Governing shedding light on the types of residents who are most active. Overall, only 19 percent of Americans recently surveyed contacted their local elected officials over a 12-month period, while about a quarter reported attending a public meeting.

In many city halls, extremists on either side of an issue dominate public hearings. Those who do show up at the sparsely attended meetings are often the same cast of characters week after week. But some public officials have found ways to reach a much wider segment of residents.

Park City’s Mayor Thomas said he’ll go door-to-door along the town’s main corridor to gauge resident sentiment about everything from new development projects to air quality and garbage pickup. “If you want to have a government that’s rooted in the community, you better start that way,” Thomas said. “It’s all about trust.”

NRC survey data identifies types of residents who are the most active or, in some cases, the least vocal. Individuals living in a community for more than 10 years, for example, are about three times more likely to attend public meetings and contact elected officials than new residents. Among racial groups, Asians tend to have the lowest participation rates. Low-income residents also aren’t as active as those earning six-figure incomes.

In general, residents often aren’t compelled to weigh in on an issue unless it negatively affects them, said Cheryl Hilvert of the International City/County Management Association. It’s for this reason that much of the citizen engagement in communities is confined to typical hot-button issues, such as planning and zoning meetings.

Many residents don’t think they have time to participate. Others, particularly newer residents with lower participation rates, may not know where or how to get involved, Hilvert said.

Survey data further suggests that younger residents aren’t inclined to speak up. Those under the age of 35 attend meetings and contact elected officials at far lower rates than those over 35. Hilvert suspects their busy lifestyles may have something to do with it, especially if they have children.

Connecting with these groups of residents requires stepping outside of city hall and meeting residents on their own turf. Park City officials say they’ve held meetings in school lunch rooms, performing arts centers and with local homeowners’ associations.

“To truly engage the community,” Hilvert said, “managers have to think broader about it than in the past.”

Some localities employ unconventional approaches to raise the level of citizen engagement. When the city of Rancho Cordova, Calif., debated permitting more residents to raise chickens on their properties last year, it launched an online Open Town Hall. More than 500 residents visited the interactive forum to make or review public statements. “It is noisy and smelly enough with pigeons, turkeys, feral cats, and untended dogs without adding chickens to the mix,” wrote one resident. The city drafted an ordinance reflecting citizen input, then emailed it to forum subscribers.

Outreach efforts through local media or civic organizations help further community involvement. Some residents also form Facebook groups or online petitions to promote their causes.

The city of Chanhassen, Minn., relied heavily on social media to connect with citizens when it confronted an issue that’s about as contentious as any local government can face: a proposal to build a new Walmart. The city posted regular updates on its Facebook page and uploaded all documents online. Laurie Hokkanen, the city’s assistant city manager, said residents continued hearing rumors even after the city rejected the company’s rezoning proposal. As a result, staff kept lines of communication open.

“A vote by the city council does not end the issue for residents who are invested in it,” Hokkanen said. “It’s important to tell people you appreciate their input.”

Citizen Survey Data Across much of the country, citizens rarely voice their opinion to local governments. The National Research Center provided survey results from local jurisdictions throughout the country participating in the National Citizen Survey, collected between 2012 and earlier this year.

Two questions on the survey assessed how vocal citizens were in government. Survey respondents were asked if they had done the following in the last 12 months:

1) "Contacted [locality name] elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion?"

  • Yes: 19 percent
  • No: 81 percent
2) "Attended a local public meeting?"

  • Two times a week or more: 1 percent
  • Two to four times a month: 1 percent
  • Once a month or less: 22 percent
  • Not at all: 76 percent
___________________________________________
We all know the quasi nature of Baltimore Development and the University of Maryland Medical Center but let's look at AGAB and how corporations 'donate' for tax write-offs and then simply write the public policy tied to that non-profit.

If you could look at what this organization does------and the details are very private-----you will see that corporations and the rich simply choose a category to contribute and then are allowed to write what that 'donation' will create.  So, greening as a category can channel money to paying for corporate parks that simply subsidize the costs of a corporation's headquarters.  Why pay to landscape your property when you can get a tax write-off as 'donation' to greening and have the city contribute a chunk for example.   A corporation wanting to 'donate' to eduction would direct that money to a national education non-profit controlled by corporations to go into schools and tell parents, teachers, and students just what 'wellness' will look like in the schools.  In Baltimore parents asking for recess for their children may not be discussed in these 'wellness' groups in many schools.

This entire system allows corporations not paying taxes in Baltimore and Maryland to instead 'donate' money and then control the public policy in whatever area they choose.  This is how the citizens of Maryland have lost their voices in their own communities.  When I first moved to Baltimore I had the nerve as a citizen to try to organize for an athletic field on a vacant lot in my community and the response-----JOHNS HOPKINS HOMEWOOD DEVELOPMENT WILL DECIDE WHAT WILL GO THERE----ARE YOU CRAZY?  As a resident of a community you must go to that development corporation for community grants to do anything and that allows that development corporation to decide what they want-----


AND ALL OF THIS IS THE CORPORATION THAT IS JOHNS HOPKINS AND BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT.



This is what happens when the public sector is dismantled-----all money is funneled through private non-profits that have no transparency and whose membership becomes ever more exclusive.

GET RID OF THE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS ALLOWING THIS DISMANTLING OF OUR PUBLIC SECTOR----REMEMBER, IF YOU THINK GOVERNMENT HAS TOO MUCH CONTROL----CORPORATE CONTROL IS MUCH WORSE AS REGARDS DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS.

About The Association of Baltimore Area Grantmakers (ABAG)

ABAG's mission is to maximize the impact of philanthropic giving on community life through a growing network of diverse, informed and effective grantmakers.

The Association of Baltimore Area Grantmakers is the region’s premier resource on philanthropy, dedicated to informing grantmakers and improving our community. ABAG was founded in 1983 to provide a forum in which colleagues could address common problems, approaches and interests.

Our members include more than 145 private and community foundations, donor advised funds, and corporations with strategic grantmaking programs - representing the vast majority of institutional giving in our area.

ABAG is …

  • The Resource on Grantmaking
ABAG provides critical information and services to the philanthropic and nonprofit communities.

  • The Network for Givers
ABAG convenes grantmakers and others to address issues and create lasting solutions.

  • The Voice for Philanthropy
ABAG represents the philanthropic sector to key audiences, including the media, legislators, and national organizations, raising public awareness and understanding about the role and impact of philanthropy on our society.


_________________________________________

Maryand Health Care for All and Baltimore Education Coalition are two examples of many.  Maryland Health Care for All is a Johns Hopkins non-profit created to make sure the Affordable Care Act was the health reform that moved forward in Maryland and not REAL health care for all like Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.  People see that the ACA is not about access----it is about building structures that will deregulate and consolidate the health industry killing oversight and accountability and denying most people most access to care.  Maryland has already disconnected from Medicare by receiving exemptions from the Federal government.  All of this makes Maryland have one of the worst health environments in the nation.  The poor have a life span  30 years less than affluent, people are fearful when going to the hospital because of poor quality and staff work in some of the most difficult conditions.  Now, the state health reform is creating a tiered health system that has most people only able to connect to clinic care.  We see this breakdown in health care in Maryland best if we look at the dismantled Veteran's Administration with Baltimore having the worst in the nation.  All of the doctors in this system were moved out and into private health systems that now cater to the world's rich------HEALTH TOURISM.  THIS IS JOHNS HOPKINS SPECIALTY NOW.



Below you see two Hopkins grads placed in charge of controlling the health care policy.  Bill and Hillary tried to do to health care what Obama has done with ACA at the same time they created the conditions for global banks---so this group in 1999 had the goal of moving health policy in that direction.  This is why Maryland sought the exemption from Medicare----to create the private health systems that are tied to the Maryland state health exchange.  Medicare and Medicaid fraud is rampant in Maryland because the oversight and accountability of the public sector was long ago dismantled.

The leaders advocating for the Affordable Care Act knew the goal was maximizing corporate profits and building global health corporations and not REAL health care for all.  The groups joining this coalition often did not.  They assumed they were actually working for health care for all.  This is an example of corporate capture of a policy.  Maryland spent this time from 1999 dismantling the public programs Medicare and Medicaid---and the Veteran's Administration and creating a tiered level of coverage that denied basic access by allowing health institutions to create the most profitable definition of care. 

While neo-liberals claimed to be building the most cost-effective health delivery system------patient outcomes in Maryland worsened and longevity declined.  So much for health care for all.  Johns Hopkins was able to build a global corporate empire with all that Medicare and Medicaid----not to mention Federal, state, and local grants and public funding. 

A GLOBAL HEALTH EMPIRE BUILT ON PUBLIC MONEY----THAT IS A SUCCESSFUL PRIVATE NON-PROFIT.

The people attached to Maryland Health Care for All really seeking this goal now need to join Expanded and Improved Medicare for All in Maryland to actually get health care for all.
  We need to replace the most private and profit-driven health system in the nation that is Maryland health exchange with this public structure that keeps Medicare strong.


The Founder of the Initiative is Peter Beilenson, MD, MPH, and the President is Vincent DeMarco, MA, JD.

The Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative Education Fund (“MCHI”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit advocacy organization that was created in 1999 with a mission to educate all Marylanders about sound ways to achieve quality, affordable health care for all. In order to create a comprehensive, economically sound health care for all plan, MCHI organized the state’s largest coalition and solicited input from coalition members and thousands of Maryland citizens in town hall meetings.  National experts at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of Maryland Law School then worked to incorporate this community input into MCHI’s Health Care for All! Plan.  In 2002, MCHI released its first plan and conducted a statewide campaign to educate people about how the plan would guarantee health care security for all Marylanders.  A revised version of the plan was released in 2008 by the same set of experts that created the original following another round of public stakeholder meetings. The updated plan includes similar components as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) and is being used to guide analysis and planning for state and local implementation of the federal health reform law.

Over 1,200 faith, labor, business, health, and community organizations have joined the Health Care for All! Coalition to support enactment of MCHI’s plan.  This is the largest coalition ever created in Maryland and certainly one of the largest health care consumer coalitions in the country.

The Coalition successfully advocated for a number of laws that will increase access to care and prescription drugs.  In addition, MCHI continues to work with key state leaders to educate members of our broad coalition about how they can access health care programs now in existence.  In the years ahead, MCHI will continue to educate and activate its powerful coalition to increase health care access in Maryland.

___________________________________________


Baltimore Education Coalition is the Michelle Rhee of privatization groups again created by Johns Hopkins this time with the goal of capturing education policy and making sure reforms go the way of corporate control-----just as did Maryland Health Care for All.  In both cases the leaders knew the goal but the people joining often think they are really working towards the goal of health care for all or quality public education.  It is not until all of the bad policy the BEC unrolls that many people in these coalitions find they did not get what they bargained for.  Good people wanting to work for good public policy captured by joining private non-profits that exist to make sure that does not happen.

This is why activism in Baltimore and Maryland is so low----people trying to organize have to fight these corporate non-profits ! 

Please stop allowing corporate non-profits to control all public policy in Maryland.  Know what the policies these groups are advocating and know that they actually have a goal that works for the people and not only for maximizing corporate profit.

This is a prime example of why getting rid of neo-liberals and neo-cons is so important.  It is not only how they vote in City Hall or the Maryland Assembly.  It is the environment they allow to exist in public community organizations ------where is the public discussion-----is it open and inclusive?  Neither Maryland Health Care for All nor Baltimore Education Coalition would allow Cindy Walsh to come in to educate and/or speak against these policies.
  If they do not allow open dialog----they are hiding something and that is that what they are doing is not in the public interest!


Baltimore Education Coalition

We are public schools – traditional and charter. We are after-school programs and neighborhood associations. We are education policy organizations, religious institutions, broad-based organizations, and schools. We are policy analysts, teachers, students, parents, community members, grandparents, and Baltimoreans working together to organize, mobilize, and energize the City of Baltimore to achieve our mission that all Baltimore students receive an excellent education. We focus on the issues that impact our students and families the most. Together, we have stopped over $100 million dollars in proposed funding cuts to city schools. In the face of potential harmful cuts to School Based Health Centers the BEC responded and advocated to successfully keep this important resource in the budget. We have also worked together to address the deplorable facility conditions in Baltimore City including winning the bottle tax in Baltimore City to support the successful campaign to pass state legislation to provide an unprecedented financing plan providing up to $1 billion to rebuild or renovate schools in Baltimore City. This effort was successful due to the dedication and perseverance of the more than 3,000 parents, students, teachers, administrators, and community leaders who came to Annapolis and City Hall to make their voices heard for Baltimore City’s 85,000 students and their communities.



0 Comments

July 04th, 2014

7/4/2014

0 Comments

 
As I listen to republican voters in Maryland shout out against Race to the Top and Common Core I have to remind them that both are republican education policies written mostly in the Bush/Cheney Administration by US corporations.  These are corporate policies and neo-conservatives are behind them.  Neo-liberals are pushing the implementation of these corporate policies.  THE PROBLEM IS CORPORATE POLS.


'but as Timothy Noah of the New Republic points out—in this case about Maryland’s Prince George County—“When 10 percent of a school district’s teachers are foreign migrants, that isn’t cultural exchange. It’s sweatshop labor—and a depressing indicator of how low a priority public education has become.”'

That sounds pretty different than what Anthony Brown and O'Malley say out on the campaign trail.  Indeed, I have spent years outing the lies regarding education achievement in Maryland as pure propaganda used to pretend these education privatization policies are providing quality.  THESE EDUCATION REFORMS LOWER QUALITY AND ACCESS THEY DO NOT RAISE THEM!  The intent is to eliminate access to strong humanities and democratic education for 90% of the US population......the entire middle/working class and poor.  That means Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland, coming from a middle-class family would not have the multiple degrees I have and the career opportunities that I have had.

Below you see how spin occurs.  Education Week places Maryland as tops on a few issues and O'Malley and neo-liberals milk those rankings for all their worth.  Look at the overall record and Maryland is ranked at the bottom for most measures in education policy and achievement.  That is because neo-liberals do not care about achievement and quality for 90% of Marylanders.  They are working only for those they deem the 'best' students......and that is 10% of Maryland citizens. 

WALL STREET'S MEDIA 'MARKETPLACE MONEY' LAUGHED THAT MOST US STUDENTS ATTENDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE POOR BECAUSE THE MIDDLE-CLASS HAS BEEN LOOTED OF ITS WEALTH BY MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUD.
  INDEED, THE ATTACK CONTINUES AND IF YOU THINK YOUR UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS STATUS IS SAFE YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE COMING ECONOMIC CRASH!

What we see is a funding level for K-12
that appears at higher levels than in the past.  Look at the distribution-----most of that funding is going to the schools having students that are scoring the best on tests----they are identified in elementary school as the 'best' students and receive a bulk of that education funding.  Again, these students are only 10% of the population so 90% of students are receiving far less.  In Baltimore, neo-liberals and neo-cons have built a system that is far more repressive in that the tiered funding is tied to decentralizing the city's school system into 'schools as businesses' and has created individual schools most of which receive so little funding as to barely pay for toilet paper and a few that receive enough to create the best of programs within the schools.  Add to that the practice of charter schools receiving private donations and the entire public school system and equal opportunity and access is thrown out the door.  Remember, over 70% of Americans are at or near poverty and growing fast so 90% of people will be exposed to this education funding scheme.  Mike Miller of the Maryland Assembly says that state funding of public schools will stop altogether so that 90% will be thrown into the hands of private corporations for support----national charter chains.


Maryland has a second problem with funding in that with no oversight and accountability we do not know that money actually ends up where it is supposed to go.

Take a look at these charts----I am not going to post them in this blog.....just note that what looks to be good is not good for 90% of Marylanders and it is reflected with actual achievement stats which again are skewed by elected officials and the media.  Achievement in Maryland was low to begin with because of poor standards of funding and resourcing schools....it is now only slightly better and that may simply be a statistical error.

State-By-State Report Card Unearths Inequities In School Funding
Education Week

“Is school funding fair"?


A report by that name was released this week. And it answered its own question with a resounding ‘no’ … The authors find that school funding was flat between 2010 and 2011, with about half the states making cuts and 14 spending less in 2011 than in 2007, even without adjusting for inflation … Most states did not allot more money for high-poverty districts, where report authors contend that students have higher needs … All but three states spent a smaller percentage of their GDP on education in 2011.”

Table 2. Fairness Measure #1: Funding Level

Maryland ranked 8th in funding level

Maryland$11,41711
$13,1109
$1,694
$13,4858
$375$12,971

Table 3. Fairness Measure #2: Funding Distribution

Maryland ranked at the bottom for distribution

Maryland89%D
94%D
99%C
93%D
$13,656 $13,167 $12,695 $12,240
90%F

I am not bragging but I would have fallen into this high achieving category and as a student having the skills to achieve early on----I did not need the resources other children needed because I was able to find what I needed and I excelled.  That is what high-achieving students do. 

THEY DO NOT NEED THE BULK OF SPENDING.

It is those children not having the benefit of learning skills that need the funding to allow them the opportunity to achieve in later grades.  So, this funding leaves the children needing that development most without the funding and resources to reach this goal.


Let's not forget that this dynamic moved more children from poverty to graduating with high achievement in the 1950s - 1970s than in any period in history----IT WORKS AND THERE IS NO REASON TO STOP THIS FUNDING EQUITY.

Note as well that Maryland has placed so much emphasis on reading and math to the exclusion of all other courses that children are graduating today with little or no background in humanities and liberal arts----which is what neo-liberals and neo-cons want----children in Baltimore in schools deemed low performance are sitting in front of Rupert Murdoch online lessons for goodness sake.  In Baltimore this is driven by Johns Hopkins.

THIS IGNORES ALL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS REGARDING ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY IN EDUCATION.

Consequently, students are graduating not knowing anything about history, civics, social studies, and culture and I dare say that the methods of instruction are so bad in Maryland that even the constant emphasis on math and reading are achieving little.  Again, it is Johns Hopkin infusing the Baltimore education system with methods that do not work and that looks to be the goal.

This is what happens when a state is captured by neo-liberal and neo-con politicians-----the policy is all about corporate profit and benefit and not people's rights and what is best for them.  This is not a black, brown, or white issue.  It is not even a class issue because middle-class is facing the same discrimination.  It is a complete dismantling of a public education system for 90
% of Americans that allows for the movement of students into higher achievement and ability to access the best schools.

Funding Student Needs: Per Pupil Weights

How are schools funded under Student Based Budgeting (SBB)?

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS14201 SCHOOL LANE, UPPER MARLBORO, MD 20772



High Performance.

Students in grades 3 to 8 receiving the “High Academic Performance” weight have scored advanced in both Reading and Math tests, while students in high school receive the weight if they have passed all HSA exams by the 10th grade.

Low Performance.Students in grades 3 to 8 receiving the “Low Academic Performance” weight have scored basic in both Reading and Math tests, while students in high school receive the weight if they have failed all HSA exams.

________________________________________

As Maryland citizens know our schools were allowed to crumble as the heyday of market boom and bust brought plenty of money to government coffers but all that money went to expand corporations like Johns Hopkins----now a global corporation and its Baltimore headquarters----and to rebuild downtown into global corporate meccas.  So, there is no excuse for crumbling school infrastructure except that neo-liberals and neo-cons do not value public education.  Remember, this happened from the Reagan/Clinton years forward----neo-liberalism took hold of the Democratic Party.

We have the bulk of public schools not receiving the funding they need and these schools are being rebuilt with a funding scheme designed specifically to hand huge profits to Wall Street along with the deed to the school building itself as the coming economic crash will cause the state and city to default on these building funds.

THE ENTIRE FUNDING SCHEME SURROUNDING PUBLIC EDUCATION IS DESIGNED TO HAND OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM TO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS WITH A DISMANTLING OF THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION 90% OF PEOPLE RECEIVE.  THERE GOES OUR SCHOOL BUILDINGS!


This is another reason for public banks -----another issue Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland supports!  Boy, no wonder corporate Maryland censured my campaign!

People were brought out to support this scheme not knowing the implications-----
and this happens because there is NO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY IN MARYLAND!

School districts pay dearly for bonds…ANOTHER reason for publicly-owned banks!

by Administrator Trey Bundy and Shane Shifflett, California Watch • http://www.sfgate.com • January 31, 2013

The Napa Valley Unified School District had a quandary: The district needed a new high school in American Canyon, but taxpayers appeared unwilling to take the financial hit required to build it.

So in 2009, the district took out an unusual loan: $22 million with no payments due for 21 years. By 2049, when the debt is paid, it will have cost taxpayers $154 million - seven times the amount borrowed.

...This form of borrowing has created billions of dollars in debt for taxpayers and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for financial advisers and underwriters. Voters are usually unaware of the bonds' high interest. At least one state, Michigan, has banned their use.


_________________________________________

Each year we listen to O'Malley and the Maryland Assembly tout their funding levels in Maryland and each year they fail to provide close to what is required according to legislation...the Thornton formula.  Each year they pretend to have met or exceeded a goal and that does not even bring them to what they should be doing. 
The Maryland Education Coalition works hard to demand these Thornton requirements are met, but the problem with lobbying is that a group becomes afraid to alienate pols----this makes citizens beggars for policy and not drivers of policy. The reason an education coalition has become a beggar of policy is that the entire Maryland Assembly are neo-liberals and neo-cons---not a democrat to be found. Yet every election labor and justice back the same incumbents killing their membership.  Now, how can politicians act as though they make education in Maryland a priority when all of the education advocacy groups are pushing just to get funding up to where it should have been a decade ago?  The media selects stats and makes it appear that pols are doing something when they are not.
Remember, Maryland has a record amount of money going to corporate subsidy and tax breaks......there is no shortage of revenue.....



'We are currently $700 million per year behind the original Thornton formula for state aid to public schools, and our bill is designed to prevent the State from falling further behind the funding levels necessary to achieve these goals'. 


Maryland Education CoalitionMEC Newsletter
April 1, 2013 


The 430th Maryland General Assembly Legislative Session is drawing towards an end.  This is our second newsletter, and we will publish a Session wrap-up edition in April. Please feel free to email David Beard at dbeard@acy.org if you have any questions, thoughts, or concerns.    MEC Priorities 


We worked hard on MEC’s main policy initiative for the 2013 session – to make the State actually protect public school funding. House Bill 1474 and Senate Bill 958 would directly advance our mission and our current priorities
Directly countering a very serious threat to learning – the eroding power of school funding under the current inflation  cap on State aid;  Protecting the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) so that children in higher-cost jurisdictions have fair funding.  Setting a goal for State capital aid that updates the target– set by the Kopp Commission nine years ago - to reflect current construction costs.  In the Thornton Commission process, the State very carefully considered the cost of providing an adequate education and closing achievement gaps.  We are currently $700 million per year behind the original Thornton formula for state aid to public schools, and our bill is designed to prevent the State from falling further behind the funding levels necessary to achieve these goals.  Considering the past five years of structural deficits, it was an accomplishment to win the support of well-positioned sponsors: Sen. Madaleno of the Budget and Taxation Committee and Del. Luedtke of the Ways and Means Committee, but we missed the filing deadline.  The Ways and Means Committee heard HB 1474 on March 19th.  The local school boards, the State teachers’ union, and the Budget and Tax Policy Institute provided strong support and testimony.  Baltimore City English teacher Iris Kirsch told her compelling story of how less funding in the classroom is affecting students.  To date, however, the bill has not been brought to a vote.  


_______________________________________

This is a message from a teacher to a parent in Chicago----we know this is happening in Maryland.  Teachers are so pressed to have students appear to be improving under an education regime that is the worst of possible approaches to educating students----that they will naturally look for any means possible to raise scores.  This is what pushes the best teachers out of the teaching profession and it pushes education right into the same corruption that has our corporations and government---

FORCING TEACHERS TO REACH GOALS THAT ARE UNATTAINABLE IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE WILL CREATE A CORRUPT EDUCATION SYSTEM.  WHEN THE GOAL IS SIMPLY SKEWED DATA---THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.



CPS test cheating – focus on “bubble” kids From a parent who received this message from a teacher:

This kind of thing is happening all over, and it’s awful. This idea of concentrating on kids “on the bubble” is terrible educational practice (or malpractice…)

Begin forwarded message:

From: (teacher wishes to remain anonymous)
Date: February 12, 2014 at 9:39:42 AM CST
To: ******
Subject: NWEA

Today we had a grade level meeting about the NWEA scores for the fourth grade students at my school. We teachers were all given printouts of our students’ most recent scores: RIT bands, percentiles, the whole shebang.

Then we were instructed to highlight the students in our classes who had scored between the 37th and 50th percentile. These students, the admin informed us, are the most important students in the class; they are the ones most likely to reach the 51st percentile when students take the NWEA again in May.

Making the 51st percentile is VERY important to CPS, and thus to principals, literacy coordinators, test specialists and teachers-who-don’t-want-to-lose-their-jobs.

It might not be important to individual students, their parents or anyone else, but it is life or death in Chicago Public Schools.

We nodded, wide-eyed.  These students, our guide continued, should be your primary focus.  Make sure they get whatever they need to bring them up to that percentile. Sign them up for any and all academic programs, meet with them daily in small groups, give them extra homework, have them work with available tutors…whatever it takes.

What about the kids at the very bottom, one teacher wondered, the kids under the 20th percentile…shouldn’t they be offered more support too?  The admin squirmed a bit. Well, they don’t really have any chance of hitting the goal, so for right now, no.  There was silence.

Left unsaid was what might, could, will happen to any school that does NOT have enough students meet that magic number. No one really needs to say it. We all saw the 50 schools that got closed down last year.  We see the charters multiplying around us.  We’ve also seen the steady stream of displaced teachers come through our school doors as substitutes.  We know that we could be next.

- See more at: http://pureparents.org/?p=21149#sthash.KYq3Vl6C.dpuf

_______________________________________
I use reports from other cities and states because there is no education activism in Maryland....there is only collected voices by private non-profits aligned with the education privatization groups.  In Baltimore, that is the Baltimore Education Coalition----BEC, a Johns Hopkins organization of charter school, Teach for America, and Michelle Rhee supporters.  They, like this article below are the ones who bring bus loads of citizens from Baltimore to support policy that works against the interest of the communities where the policy is being implemented.  Charter and Teach for America advocates seem less worried about the tiered funding and closing of schools then they are about the right to have charters used in Baltimore as development tools.  If you think using  schools as development tools is OK since you are in the midst of needing better schools----please look at the longer term implication of these policies----they do not stop with moving the poor out of neighborhoods----these policies will effect your schools as well!

All across the country we know the stats on charters are largely fictional and skewed.  Yet, we are subjected to these reports because we have pols simply moving these privatization policies forward with no regard to citizens and the quality of education children will receive.

PLEASE STOP RE-ELECTING THESE VERY INCUMBENTS EACH ELECTION CYCLE.  IF THEY ARE NOT SHOUTING THESE EDUCATION POLICIES ARE BAD FOR EVERYONE-----THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS OR NEO-CONS AND NEED TO GO.


In Baltimore, the stats on charters are not online and when you call Baltimore School Board they pretend they do not have a problem.  All of this is illegal and has nothing to do with public education.



PSAT for 4-8-14: Let Springfield know the truth about charter schools Today, charter school advocates will be taking out their checkbooks to fund Springfield trips for folks to lobby for less oversight of and more money for charter schools.

Mayor Emanuel says that the truth about charter schools’ mediocre performance compared with regular schools is “yesterday’s debate.”

Not really. The truth always matters, and the truth about charter schools is only beginning to get front page coverage.

So, while Bill Gates’ and the Walton’s minions are trudging down to Springfield to echo the Mayor’s efforts to brush off the truth about charters, please call, fax, or e-mail your state representative and senator with the truth.

Here’s what I faxed to every member of the Illinois House:

Look at charter school evidence, not expensive PR


Yesterday, Chicago’s two major newspapers made it very clear that charter schools can be very problematic and DO NOT provide better academic results.

But today you will be approached by busloads of well-financed charter school advocates trying to spin the facts while they ask you to ignore the truth and pave the way for more money and  “freedom” for charters.

Here’s the truth about charter schools:

The Chicago Tribune reported on the drastic, regressive discipline policy of one of the largest of these charter franchises, the Noble Network of Charter Schools. Even as the Chicago Public Schools is working toward more effective, positive discipline policies that keep students in school and learning, Noble is suspending and expelling students at a vastly greater rate than the district, and making their families pay significant dollars in the process.

The Sun-Times reported that Chicago’s charter school achievement rates are no better than that of the district overall, and far worse than the more comparable district magnet schools which have similar non-selective lottery enrollment systems. This confirms years of research which has been largely ignored as corporate reformers demand an ever-expanding “marketplace” for privately-run charter schools.

PURE ASKS YOU TO :

  • Pay attention to the research, not the rhetoric about charter schools.
  • Support HB3937, (HCA1) which extends the moratorium on virtual charter schools.
  • Support HB4591, which would require charter schools to return pro-rated funds for the kids they “counsel out.
  • Support HB5328, LSCs and other accountability for charter schools.
  • Support HB5887, which puts reasonable financial accountability on virtual charter schools.
  • Support HB6005, a major charter school accountability act.
Thank you!

- See more at: http://pureparents.org/?p=21237#sthash.6dWJajMn.dpuf

0 Comments

July 03rd, 2014

7/3/2014

0 Comments

 
THESE ARE NEO-CON AND NEO-LIBERAL POLICIES SO TO ESCAPE BAD POLICY---DO NOT SIMPLY VOTE THE OTHER PARTY-----CLEAN UP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Maryland's Governor Martin O'Malley announced that shortfalls in the 2014 state budget due to a complete stagnation of Maryland's economy and high unemployment  created by control of Maryland's economy by global corporations will focus on programs and services valuable to the citizens of Maryland but not affect the massive giveaway of revenue in the guise of corporate subsidy, tax breaks, or any effort to reign in billions of dollars in corporate fraud. 

O'Malley as a neo-liberal calls this FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY


So, $10 million will be taken from higher education and that includes grants, financial aid, and scholarships to Maryland citizens and employment to 4 public universities essential to middle-class/working class/poor families.

Below you see how a neo-liberals systematically eliminate all public sector employment by saying it is not firing anyone but eliminating positions not filled.  Maryland has had its entire oversight and accountability sectors eliminated in this way.  What I want to focus on today is higher education and the outsourcing of public university jobs to such an extent that the state spends money to support an education system that does not even operate in the US or benefit the citizens of Maryland.  O'Malley spent his 8 years developing the structures for overseas education and made marketing and recruiting foreign students a priority.  This is where our higher education money is spent and media states that never has there been fewer citizens of Maryland unable to attend Maryland universities.  It is not only high tuition----it is the elimination of financial aid, grants, and scholarships.  It hurts the economy in that people are not hired to these state positions to earn the money needed for consumption of goods and this creates a stagnant economy.  O'Malley does this because he works for global corporations that want all state and local revenue spent expanding their businesses overseas,  promoting exports, and bringing foreign students to Maryland to graduate and be sent back overseas to work for US global corporations in other nations.  This entire process leaves out the families in Maryland and their children's ability to attend the best public universities in the state.  Don't worry.....O'Malley and neo-liberals spent hundreds of millions building a separate system of higher education for the citizens of Maryland that cheapen and track all into vocational training programs.  This also increases the number of foreign graduates that are not citizens ready to take high level jobs thanks to Obama's executive order to allow the high-skilled green card worker quotas to rise.  So, Maryland citizens are not able to access the higher education venues that lead to the best jobs.  When people who are not citizens are given these jobs they have no workplace rights and are not free to report abuse or illegal activity within the corporations for which they work.  In these times of systemic corporate fraud and corruption----this is critical.

So, an election year budget that protected labor positions is followed by budget cuts eliminating jobs right after the primary for Governor of Maryland.  Union leaders knew this would happen-----it happens all the time.  Neo-cons would be worse.
  Neo-liberals only pretend to be progressive labor and justice!

Remember, I have for years been explaining that the state was giving a rosy economic picture that was not real and I stated why the economy was indeed stagnant and unemployment high.  Below you see Franchot being the spoiler but the Comptroller's Office is ground zero for corporate tax fraud and the wrongful designation of corporations as non-profits and therefor losses in the hundreds of millions in state tax revenue each year which would happen with a republican in office as well.


State approves O'Malley's $84 million in budget cuts Poor economy prompts spending reductions


By Erin Cox, The Baltimore Sun 1:19 p.m. EDT, July 2, 2014



The lackluster economy prompted Gov. Martin O'Malley to propose erasing $84 million in planned spending for next year.

Just a day after the new state budget took effect, O'Malley persuaded the Board of Public Works unanimously to approve a modest set of cuts to Maryland's $16.1 billion general fund.

About $10 million in cuts come from the state's higher-education institutions, although O'Malley aides said it would not affect tuition rates.

The cuts would not cause any layoffs but would trim 61 vacant jobs from the state's workforce of about 80,000 people, aides said. More than half of those jobs will come from higher education, including 36 vacant posts in the University of Maryland system.

Even though the official estimate of how far revenue lags behind state spending will not be ready until September, the administration chose to begin budget cuts now — before agencies started spending this year's cash. Together, the cuts represent less than half a percent of the state's general fund.

O'Malley said that the cuts "build upon a tradition, a culture of fiscal responsibility." He pointed out the belt-tightening was much smaller than cuts the state took during the recession.

Comptroller Peter A. Franchot voted for the cuts, but said that state leaders need to drop the "political spin" about the state's improving economy and "stop pretending that we made it through the thicket."

"Our citizens don't want to hear the spin anymore, and they're not falling for it," Franchot said.

A federal economic report released last week showed that the U.S. economy contracted more during the first quarter of 2014 than in any quarter during the previous five years. That followed another U.S. Department of Commerce report showing that Maryland's economy had stagnated in 2013.

The sluggish growth means state revenues have fallen lower than officials estimated earlier this year.

O'Malley defended the state's financial health by citing its AAA bond rating and comparing Maryland's relatively small budget shortfall to larger looming problems in other states on the Eastern seaboard, some of which have shortfalls in the hundreds of millions.

"We are coming through this recession faster than a lot of other states," O'Malley said. He added, "there's a lot that is going right, and of course, still, a lot of work to do. In that spirit, I agree with the comptroller that we should have an honest conversation."

In January, O'Malley proposed a $39 billion state budget that increased spending by 4.9 percent and took effect Tuesday, the final state spending plan of his eight years in office.

T. Eloise Foster, O'Malley's budget secretary, said Wednesday's cuts are designed to resolve the shortfall for the entire year. "My plan is not having to do this again," she said.

While O'Malley's staff declined to offer a list of all the $84 million in specific cuts, they said they include $56 million to various government agencies, with some asked to eliminate vacant jobs, forgo software upgrades or pare back other expenses.

In addition to the $10 million cut from higher education, another $10 million will be shaved from the state budget by spending federal cash already in state coffers. And budget experts said they expect $7 million of anticipated expenses to not materialize.

The cuts would not affect the struggling Maryland Health Benefit Exchange insurance website or a series of new economic development programs to expand cybersecurity and biotechnology sectors in Maryland.

All cuts must be approved by at least two members on the state's three-person Board of Public Works, on which O'Malley, Franchot and State Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp sit.

The cuts pale in comparison to the big spending reductions the board approved during the recession. In 2010, O'Malley went to the board three times for a total of $614 million in spending cuts from the general fund. In 2009, he asked for a total of $429 million in cuts over three requests. And in 2008, O'Malley requested a single $213 million spending cut.

_________________________________________________

Below you see where all the money for higher education has gone during the neo-liberal O'Malley's terms in office-----building this network of global PhDs and it has nothing to do with the citizens of Maryland!  This is what the US Senate based their immigration reform bill ------the bringing of foreign students and grads to America and then allowing them to take these US corporate positions often the best positions.  We are not anti-immigrant nor do we want to exclude foreign students from our universities-----quite the opposite, this should be robust.  We are against the simultaneous defunding of higher education for the bulk of Maryland citizens and it is deliberate.

WE CAN FUND HIGHER EDUCATION FOR ALL THAT WANT TO ATTEND OUR MARYLAND UNIVERSITIES BY ENDING CORPORATE SUBSIDIES AND TAX BREAKS AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUD.

All this is happening because of global corporate control of the Maryland economy.  We do not need these global connections for a healthy economy------it does just the opposite----it stagnates the economy.

The Global Ph.D.
July 3, 2014 By Holly Else
for Times Higher Education



Internationalizing the doctoral training process could help to overcome negative perceptions about the employability of Ph.D. students outside academia, said participants at a recent conference.

Universities in several countries are beginning to think of new ways to cater for the rising number of overseas doctoral students, speakers at the European University Association’s annual meeting on doctoral education told delegates in Liverpool.

International doctoral students offer a “cost-effective” way for institutions to build international links. But problems surrounding complex visa rules, falling domestic student numbers and the cost of running international joint doctoral programs remain.


The number of domestic doctoral candidates at Australia’s University of Queensland started dwindling in 2008, according to the head of its graduate school, Alastair McEwan. To compensate, the university has enrolled international students, who now make up about 40 percent of the doctoral student body.

The shift is “most dramatic” in engineering, architecture and IT, where departments are “heavily reliant” on overseas students, he said. He added that the university is investing in this area because Ph.D. students “are absolutely critical” to research output and are “a very cost-effective way to promote international linkages.”

McEwan said that the benefits international doctoral candidates bring to the institution “cannot be overestimated”. Their presence offers students a “breadth of knowledge about other cultures.”

“That is an important transferable skill that should be part of a student’s employability development. Internationalization of the Ph.D., or international interactions, could help us overcome some of the negative perceptions about the employability of Ph.D. students outside academia,” he added.

But he said that having overseas students enrolled on doctoral programs was a one-dimensional method of internationalization. “The next stage is to start thinking about other ways,” he said, adding that the answer did not lie in Ph.D.s that are run jointly with overseas institutions.

“These come with a high overhead as they are very hard to manage.... I’m not convinced that this is the most efficient or effective way to manage things in the long run,” he added.


American institutions are also seeing a rise in the number of overseas doctoral candidates in science, technology and engineering subjects. The vice provost and dean of Cornell University, Barbara Knuth, said: “We should be concerned in the U.S. in terms of [what] our doctoral pool will be for economic development purposes.”

She said that the nation’s immigration policies are “complex and quite limiting.”

“Doctoral students are eager to come to the U.S. to study, but we are not very good at encouraging them to stay after their degrees,” she added.

Cornell is now working to internationalize the doctoral experience for all students. Internationalizing the Ph.D. process would help to expand a graduate’s professional networks and employability, she said.

At the institutional level, it will broaden intellectual discoveries, help academics to address complex global problems and increase the visibility and exposure of the institution globally, she said.

Jean Chambaz, president of the University of Pierre and Marie Curie in France, said that universities needed to move beyond memoranda of understanding when it comes to working together internationally.

“We need focused, balanced programs on questions of common interest that include multilateral doctoral candidates and staff circulation,” he told delegates.


______________________________________________
Below you see why more and more staff are being cut from our public universities-----all the jobs are being outsourced to global corporations that are doing the work overseas that people right here in Maryland should be doing and these citizens of Maryland would do a better job.  It is done simply to reduce labor costs as pay is lower overseas and we wouldn't want all of those pesky public sector benefits providing the citizens of Maryland a first world quality of life say neo-liberals.


Is a global corporation needed to process college applications charging fees for doing so -----money which could hire a local person with a public university to do this job?  We all know massive corporate fraud is infused in all these business arrangements so universities are losing far more money by outsourcing these jobs than saving.  So, fighting fraud in court is worth eliminating staff at a university who could be held accountable to do the work right?

THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU---WORKING FOR
WEALTH AND PROFIT SENDING ALL PUBLIC ASSETS TO CORPORATIONS WHILE IMPOVERISHING THE CITIZENS OF AMERICA.


IT IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD THAT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS INVOLVED IN ALL THIS INTRIGUE------JUST EDUCATE THE US CITIZENS!


Troubles at Embark

July 3, 2014 By Ry Rivard  Inside Higher Education

Embark, whose software helps colleges to process online applications, has owed graduate and professional schools millions of dollars and misled university officials about why it wasn’t quickly paying up, a former executive of the company is alleging amid an ongoing legal dispute.

In June 2013, Embark owed its clients $4.7 million from student application fees it collected, according to a filing in New York state court by lawyers for Raza Khan, a former chief technology officer and board member at Embark.

Even though payments were supposed to be made in a matter of months, $1.2 million of that had been owed to colleges for more than a year, according to a spreadsheet filed last month that is said to reflect the company’s bookkeeping as of late June 2013.

Khan, who left the company around the same time, alleges company officials improperly spent money owed to colleges in order to deal with Embark’s “cash flow problems.” The money was supposed to go to colleges directly and quickly, but, according to Khan, Embark officials intentionally delayed paying back colleges and “concocted” false stories to cover up the true reason for the delays.

Embark processes admissions applications for colleges across the world, including elite graduate programs. Colleges pay Embark for its services, but Embark is obligated to pay the institutions all or most of the application fees it collects. Khan’s allegations center on Embark’s failure to give colleges their share of those student application fees.

Embark got a judge to partially seal the documents, but they were available on the court’s website for several days last month.  The company’s lawyer declined repeated requests for comment on the merits of Khan’s claims.

Khan is engaged in a bitter legal fight with his former business partner and high school classmate, Vishal Garg.

In June 2013, Embark owed its clients $4.7 million, including student fees collected as far back as 2009, according to Khan’s filing.

The largest single unpaid amount is over $1 million, which Embark is said to owe to Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

Sid Dinsay, a spokesman for the medical school in New York City, declined to comment.

When colleges asked for their money, the company sometimes “concocted” reasons that its payments were delayed, according to Khan’s filing.

In a September 2011 email also contained in Khan’s filing, Blake Avalone, then director of client relations, told another Embark official to use a “canned response” to hold off a college that was asking for money dating to the beginning of that year. The response Avalone approved blamed a “credit card processor” for the delay. Khan said in his filing that this was among the “false explanations” Embark gave colleges for payment delays.

Another Embark employee in the same email thread suggests that the email “be sent from ‘Accounting’ if that helps.” In an email chat included in the court filing, the same employee also said, “if we're going to lie, the vaguer the better no.”

Avalone, now Embark’s managing director, did not respond to multiple emails seeking comment. Emails and voicemails were not returned by anyone at Embark over the past two weeks.

Several universities, including the University of Michigan and at least one graduate program at Harvard University, have threatened legal action against Embark. Officials at both those institutions said they were paid by Embark after they made those threats.

At least one other university has recently complained to Embark. The University of California at Davis hired a lawyer to help it collect money it says Embark has owed since spring 2012, according to a letter released by the university.  In mid-May of this year, the university’s lawyer demanded that Embark pay $38,589 by June 15. That didn’t happen.

“No money was received – only a promise from the [Embark] president to follow up,” a UC Davis spokeswoman said in an email last month.

Other universities are being paid back, if only gradually.

A spokesman for Thunderbird School of Global Management said last month Embark still owes it $71,000. The school ended its relationship with Embark last fall for other reasons, the spokesman said. Khan’s filings suggest the school was owed $215,000 at one point. Thunderbird could not confirm that figure.

As of last summer, Rutgers University’s business school was owed $261,000 for fees dating as far back as April 2011, according to Khan’s filing. Much of that has been paid, the university said last month.


“Since the beginning of 2014, Embark has paid $229,260 to the Rutgers Business School – Newark and New Brunswick,” a Rutgers spokesman said in an email. “The school continues to work with Embark to collect the remaining balance.”

It’s not clear exactly how precise the spreadsheet is in Khan’s filing: It says Georgia State University is owed $81,000 for fees it collecting in 2010 and 2011, though a Georgia State official said that Embark paid it $80,000 several years ago for work done in 2009 and no longer owes the university money. UC Davis, on the other hand, is asking for more money than the spreadsheet shows it is owed.

Khan first made allegations about Embark’s repayments to colleges in July 2013, when he sued his business partner Garg. But Khan provided more details about Embark’s business last month in a separate case in which Embark is suing him.

Garg and Khan founded MyRichUncle, an upstart student loan company that made its name lending directly to students before its parent company, MRU Holdings, went bankrupt in 2009. MyRichUncle was well-known in higher ed circles in the mid-2000s for its aggressive marketing that accused college financial aid officers of engaging in “kickbacks.”

Before the bankruptcy, MRU quietly bought Embark from the Princeton Review in 2007, vowing to invigorate a company that had seen its value and reach tumble during the six years Princeton Review owned it.

Khan’s filing suggests he and Garg were unable to do so. Now, Garg’s wife, Sarita James, is president of Embark. James did not respond to multiple emails over the past two weeks seeking comment.

Khan claims Garg and others at Embark “circulated false financials” to the company’s clients and delayed payments to them because of cash flow problems.

Sometimes, even after threatening legal action, a client would stick with Embark.

In February 2013, a graduate program within Harvard Law School asked Embark for $120,000 owed to it since November and December 2012.

“Despite the promise of wire transfers by Embark (supposedly made on Feb. 1 initially and then again on Feb. 20), and despite our request for actual confirmation of the transfers, we have not received anything, not even evidence that any of the wire transfers were actually made,” Harvard assistant dean Jeanne Tai wrote in a February 2013 email, which appeared in the court filing. Harvard is not a party to the litigation.

Reached last month by phone, Tai said everything had since been squared away.

“They have since made good on everything they owed and since that period of time, we haven’t had any trouble getting what they owed us,” she said.

The Harvard graduate program remains a client.

Khan’s filing said even though Embark knew that it owed money to colleges, Garg, the former head of the company, “did not intend to cause Embark to pay such amounts owed unless and until the schools complained.”

Officials at several other institutions said to be owed money declined to comment in detail or did not return calls seeking comment about their relationship with Embark.

After the MRU bankruptcy filing, Khan and Garg quickly started another company, Education Investment and Finance Corporation, or EIFC, which manages and services private student loans and mortgage-backed securities.
______________________________________________

Bill and Hillary Clinton are the face of these global corporations and neo-liberalism.  They plan to win the White House in 2016 and are getting Hillary into all venues they had a hand in destroying.  High tuition and devastating student loan debt happened because the Clintons started the corporatization of US universities with the goal of creating US global corporate universities.  Bill and Hillary are the face of the 2008 economic crash that has left millions of US college grads without employment----they created these Wall Street banks by deregulating the financial industry and breaking Glass Steagall so these banks could grow to the global corporations knowing they would control the US government and economy.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW HILLARY AND NEO-LIBERALS TO TAKE CONTROL OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAMPAIGNING----RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE CANDIDATES AGAINST ALL NEO-LIBERALS IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.  You can see why, here in Maryland it was critical for Anthony Brown to win-----heaven forbid the candidate wanting to dismantle all of this corporate structure win!


The Clinton's funded Anthony Brown's campaign because he will embrace this global corporate structure as O'Malley did and the marginalization of the citizens of America.
  The Clinton Foundation is a global corporate development institution so all that money she is making will be tax-free.

Scrutiny for Hillary Clinton Speaking Fees at Colleges

July 3, 2014

Inside Higher Ed

At least eight universities have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton to speak on their campuses, The Washington Post reported. Students at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, where she is due to be paid $225,000 to speak in the fall, have protested, and that is drawing attention to the likely presidential candidate's high fees, not all of which have been previously disclosed. Some of the payments ($200,000 is believed to be standard) have gone not to Clinton personally, but the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

____________________________________________
Here in Maryland, Baltimore is ground zero for the dismantling of public education from K-college.  Johns Hopkins is the driver of this policy.  They have a corporation that works to recruit overseas education labor and bring them to America to work in K-12 and in universities and colleges.  Why bring immigrant labor to teach in US schools when we have huge unemployment and plenty of teachers?  Well, Race to the Top and all of the teacher accountability that has nothing to do with quality education but everything to do with chasing current teachers out of a hostile system----- will need people to replace the US teachers that leave out of frustration and the fact that no one will want to be exposed to these kinds of working conditions.  There comes the need for foreign workers taking jobs in public schools.

Remember, the goal with K-12 is to have online classes that only need a person like an education tech in the classroom to facilitate an online presentation of material.  That education tech does not need to be a real teacher-----they only need to know how to start the online lessons and administer the tests.  So, neo-liberals have as a goal of completely dismantling our entire public education system and quality democratic education.  Think the absolutely botched rollout of Race to the Top is an accident?  This policy has been in the making since the beginning of the Bush Administration----it is a republican policy written by US corporations a decade ago----it is no accident that teachers are being subjected to the worst of conditions in this education reform rollout----neo-liberals hate labor and unions and want to get rid of public sector unions through privatization with national charter chains and global corporations specializing in education temps.


I cannot tell you how revolting it is that America is behind all of this labor abuse and it is neo-liberals controlling the people's Democratic Party leading this.

Neo-cons write the policy and neo-liberals run as Democrats to implement these policies that kill the labor that votes for them.

Monday, May 26, 2014, 1:00 pm

Trafficked Teachers: Neoliberalism’s Latest Labor Source

BY George Joseph Working In These Times


Recruiting companies in the U.S. are attracting some of Philippines' best teachers with one-year guest worker visas to teach in American public schools, saddling the teachers with hidden fees and furthering the Philippines' growing teacher shortage. (SuSanA Secretariat/ Flickr / Creative Commons)  

Between 2007 and 2009, 350 Filipino teachers arrived in Louisiana, excited for the opportunity to teach math and science in public schools throughout the state. They’d been recruited through a company called Universal Placement International Inc., which professes on its website to “successfully place teachers in different schools thru out [sic] the United States.” As a lawsuit later revealed, however, their journey through the American public school system was fraught with abuse. 

According to court documents, Lourdes Navarro, chief recruiter and head of Universal Placement, made applicants pay a whopping $12,550 in interview and “processing fees” before they’d even left the Philippines. But the exploitation didn’t stop there. After the teachers landed in LAX, they were required to sign contracts paying back 10 percent of their first and second years’’ salaries; those who refused were threatened with instant deportation.

“We were herded into a path, a slowly constricting path,” said Ingrid Cruz, one of the teachers, during the trial, “where the moment you feel the suspicion that something is not right, you're already way past the point of no return." Eventually, a Los Angeles jury awarded the teachers $4.5 million.

Similar horror stories have abounded across the country for years. Starting in 2001, the private contractor Omni Consortium promised 273 Filipino teachers jobs within the Houston, Texas school district—in reality, there were only 100 spots open. Once they arrived, the teachers were crammed into groups of 10 to 15 in unfinished housing properties. Omni Consortium kept all their documents, did not allow them their own transportation, and threatened them with deportation if they complained about their unemployment status or looked for another job. 

And it’s not always recruiting agencies that are at fault. According to an American Federation Teachers report, in 2009, Florida Atlantic University imported 16 Indian math and science teachers for the St. Lucie County School District. Labeling the immigrant teachers as “interns,” the district only spent $18,000 for each of their yearly salaries—well below a regular teacher’s rate. But because the district paid the wages to Florida Atlantic University, rather than the teachers themselves, the university pocketed most of the money, giving the teachers a mere $5,000 each.

Researchers estimate that anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 teachers, imported on temporary guest worker visas, teach in American public schools nationwide. Such hiring practices are often framed as cultural exchange programs, but as Timothy Noah of the New Republic points out—in this case about Maryland’s Prince George County—“When 10 percent of a school district’s teachers are foreign migrants, that isn’t cultural exchange. It’s sweatshop labor—and a depressing indicator of how low a priority public education has become.”

A manufactured problem School districts frequently justify hiring lower-paid immigrants by pointing to teacher shortages in chronically underfunded rural and urban school districts. And it’s true: In poorer areas, classrooms are often overcrowded and understaffed. But this dearth of instructors did not come out of nowhere. Rather, it is an inevitable result of the austerity measures pushed through on a federal, state, and local level after the panic of the 2007 financial crisis.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, between 2008 and 2011, school districts nationwide slashed 278,000 jobs. This bleeding has not stopped: According to the Center on Education Policy, almost 84 percent of school districts in the 2011-2012 school year expected budget shortfalls, and 60 percent planned to cut staff to make up deficits.

Thus, we see a familiar pattern of neoliberal “restructuring” in American school systems: Cut public institutions to the bone, leave them to fail without adequate resources, then claim the mantle of “reform” while rebuilding the institutions with an eye towards privatization.   

In many cities, newly laid-off instructors are left to languish while their former employers employ underpaid replacements to fill the gaps. For example, the Baltimore City Public Schools district has imported more than 600 Filipino teachers; meanwhile, 100 certified local teachers make up the “surplus” workforce, serving as substitutes and co-teachers when they can. 

The manufactured labor scarcity narrative, used to justify the importation of guest worker teachers, provides districts with the opportunity to employ less costly, at-will employees, whose precarious legal status is often exploited. Such moves to pump up the workforce with workers—not here long enough to invest themselves in organizing or bargaining struggles—also serve to weaken shop-site solidarity and unions’ ability to mobilize on a larger scale.

The recruiting contactors’ advertisements to districts are particularly instructive in this regard, noting their recruits’ inability to qualify for benefits and pension contributions. In an extensive study, education professors Sue Books and Rian de Villiers found that recruiting firms tend to appeal to districts on the basis of cost-saving, rather than classroom quality. As one Georgia contractor, Global Teachers Research and Resources, advertises, “school systems pay an administrative fee [to GTRR] that is generally less than the cost of [teacher] benefits. Collaborating with GTRR means quality teachers with savings to the school systems.” Even more egregiously, a Houston based recruiting firm called Professional and Intellectual Resources exclaims that their “bargain-priced” Filipino teachers can “make the most out of the most minimal resources. 

Memorizing isn’t learning This criterion for hiring makes sense in the context of what philosopher Paulo Freire calls “the banking concept of education.” In his 1968 classic, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire critiques the pedagogical tradition of rote memorization, in which the teacher-as-narrator “leads the students to memorize … the narrated content.” Freire argues, “It turns [students] into ‘containers,’ into ‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is.”

However, Freire’s “narrative” is no longer even in the hands of teachers, who might at least have some understanding of content relevant to students. Instead with the rise of test-based approach to education, forced through with No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Common Core, and numerous ramped-up state tests, nameless corporate and federal employees now tie teachers and students’ success to the production of higher test scores. Thus, today’s cutting-edge education reform movement has brought this “banking concept of education” back into vogue, demanding “objective measures” and “accountability” through constant standardized testing. 

The idea that new teachers should be imported from halfway around the world for yearlong stints, knowing no background about the communities they are entering and the content relevant to them, is only justified if the teacher is reduced to an instrument of standardized information transmission. And if teachers are just such instruments, why not search the global market for the cheapest, most malleable ones possible?

As Books and de Villiers point out, many recruiters’ advertisements reflect this logic: “Only two [recruiters’] websites apprise teachers of the socio-economic, racial, ethnic, and religious diversity in many U.S. schools. Only five include useful educational links, and only three provide information about school-based mentoring.” So for corporate recruiters and their district clients, finding the right match for a school is not about teacher quality or experience, but rather cost and expendability.

The phenomenon of teacher trafficking, then, doesn’t rest entirely on recruiters’ mercenary tendencies or districts’ drive to cheapen their labor. It also rests on the larger neoliberal conception of workers. In this case, teachers become moveable parts, switched out in accordance with the iron laws of supply and demand in order to more efficiently output successful test scores, whose value comes to represent students themselves. 

Colonialism in the classroom The American importation of Filipino teachers, as well as educators from other countries, has consequences beyond the United States, too. According to Books and de Villiers, several recruiting agencies only seek out teachers in the Philippines because its high poverty rates and supply of quality teachers make it, as one journalist from the Baltimore Sun put it, “fertile ground for recruits.” Meanwhile, the nation has an estimated shortage of 16,000 educators and the highest student-teacher ratio in Asia at 45:1.

As one Filipino union leader told the American Federation of Teachers, “To accommodate the students, most public schools schedule two, three and sometimes even four shifts within the entire day, with 70 to 80 students packed in a room. Usually, the first class starts as early as 6:00 a.m. to accommodate the other sessions.” And as American corporate forces have exploited the Philippines for its best teachers, pushed across the world by the beck and call of the market, agents of the nonprofit world have taken it upon themselves to send American substitutes in their place.

Launched last year, Teach for the Philippines presents itself as “the solution” to this lack of quality teachers in the country—a claim similar to those of its U.S. parent organization, Teach for America, a behemoth nonprofit that each year recruits thousands of idealistic college graduates to become (and often replace) teachers in low-income communities after a five-week training camp.

The Teach for Philippines promo video begins with black and white shots of multitudes of young Filipino schoolchildren packed into crowded classrooms, bored and on the verge of tears. A cover version of a Killers song proclaims, “When there's nowhere else to run … If you can hold on, hold on” as the video shifts to the students’ inevitable fates: scenes of tattooed gang kids smoking, an isolated girl and even a desperate man behind bars. In the midst of this grotesquely Orientalizing imagery, text declares, “Our Country Needs Guidance,” “Our Country Needs Inspiration,” and finally “Our Country Needs Teachers.”           

Teach for the Philippines recruits young Filipinos both domestically and internationally, with special outreach to Filipino Americans. Though still in its start-up phase, with only 53 teachers in 10 schools, the program presents a disturbing vision for the future of teaching in the context of a global workforce. While the Filipino teachers imported to America are not necessarily ideal fits, given their inability to remain as long-term contributors to a school community, at least they are for the most part trained, experienced instructors. Within the Teach for the Philippines paradigm, however, Filipino students, robbed of their best instructors, are forced to study under recruits, who may lack a strong understanding of the communities they are joining and have often have never even had any actual classroom experience.

But Teach For the Philippines is just one growing arm of Teach for America’s global empire, now spanning the world sites in 33 countries and enjoying millions in support from neoliberal power players like Visa and even the World Bank. So while austerity-mode Western nations may seek to cut costs by employing no-benefits guest workers, countries such as the Philippines will be forced by the unbending logic of the market to plead for international charity—summer camp volunteers looking to “give” two years of their lives to really make a difference.           

In the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire argues, “It is to the reality that mediates men, and to the perception of that reality held by educators and people, that we must go to find the program content of education.” But for such a reality to be approached, teachers and communities must have the opportunity to grow together, to listen to each other, and to understand the reality that they seek to transform. By pushing teachers into a globalized pool of low-wage temp workers, teacher trafficking precludes this possibility.








0 Comments

June 04th, 2014

6/4/2014

0 Comments

 
I like to refresh people's memory every now and then as to what I mean when I repeat -------recover corporate fraud of tens of trillions of dollars from last decade.  Many people do not know the US Treasury was literally fleeced by US corporations and especially the banks in massive fraud and this is what caused the economic collapse of 2008 and the national debt of $17 trillion now. 

SIMPLY REINSTATING RULE OF LAW AND RECOVERING THIS FRAUD WOULD PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT AND MAKE GOVERNMENT COFFERS AT ALL LEVELS FLUSH WITH MONEY.


The citizens of America and our government are not impoverished----we've been looted and we have politicians in office protecting that stolen money.  That is what neo-liberals and neo-cons do----they work for corporate profit and wealth at the expense of labor and justice.  Do you hear your incumbent or candidate shouting---RECOVER TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CORPORATE FRAUD?  NOT A PEEP IN MARYLAND.

ALL CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND ARE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS EXCEPT CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR.


I am not even touching the surface with these posts as fraud hits every industry in the US.  My mention of the subprime loan fraud and the banking industry does not even mention the tens of trillions of dollars in all kinds of other financial frauds this past decade-----THE NUMBERS ARE HUGE.

Remember, all your pols know these frauds happened.....they know recovery is not that hard......and they know the people charged with justice----the Maryland Attorney General Gansler and Governor O'Malley for just two-----are aiding and abetting these crimes.  YET THEY GET THE STAGE AT ELECTION FORUMS AND DEMOCRATIC EVENTS!


OH, THAT'S WHY CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND IS NOT ALLOWED IN ANY OF THE REINDEER GAMES!

HEALTH INDUSTRY FRAUDS IN THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS LAST DECADE

Let's take a look at what both government watchdogs and public policy organizations calculate to be a conservative look at how much money was stolen and from which agencies.  Since I just spoke of health care and corporate universities, below you see the health care fraud for the health industry at $200-400 billion each year.....that is billions of dollars stolen from Medicare and Medicaid in Maryland each year.  Which hospitals handled most of these patients?  Johns Hopkins and UMMS in Baltimore.  It does not take a rocket scientist to know the institutions handling most of the poor and seniors is where these frauds occur.  Padding fee for service is rampant and happening all over Maryland but it is not fee for service that is the problem as much as the fact that there is absolutely no oversight and accountability in these Federal programs.  They are being allowed to be gutted with fraud.

So, as your neo-liberal in Congress, the Maryland Assembly, or Baltimore City Hall pretend they have to gut social services, public services, public employees and their pensions and wages.......WE ALL KNOW IT IS THE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.  THIS IS WHY CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THIS PRIMARY!  All the other candidates are involved in this system and will keep the status quo and that is why they have the place in the media.


Below you see a well-researched paper on health fraud.  Notice that the amount of fraud back in 1998 was $250 billion a year.....THAT WAS BEFORE CORPORATE FRAUD WENT ON STEROIDS IN THE 2000s


'It is clear to see why Americans consider this the biggest cause, when health care fraud was estimated to cost approximately $100 billion to $250 billion per year in 1998, or 10 percent to 25 percent of total health care spending'

An Undergraduate Honors Thesis by
Emily Fisher

April 2008

ABSTRACT
Health care fraud is an important and visible factor associated with increasing health care costs in the United States. Medicare and Medicaid contribute to a vast majority of those cost sand therefore must be heavily scrutinized. This thesis will investigate the types of fraud, who commits them, and why the health care system is more susceptible to fraud. More specifically, the problems and complications of current fraud investigation for Medicare and Medicaid are examined. This thesis will then evaluate how successful these initiatives were in reducing health care fraud and explore new suggestions for preventing health care fraud in the future.


________________________________________________
The amount of fraud in the subprime mortgage fraud was in the trillions and we have received a few hundreds of billions in settlement----I should say the US Justice Department settled for that much and much of the money was sent right back to those committing these frauds and not those defrauded.  The point was at the time of this first settlement that $25 billion was a postage stamp of a settlement meant only to try to keep the public from continuing legal recourse for the rest of the fraud.  Maryland was ground zero for this fraud as we are still seeing the repercussions across Maryland and the major tool for the fraud, MERS operated right here in the Washington suburbs of Maryland and Virginia.  It was a Maryland court that ruled MERS did not break law when EVERYONE KNOWS MERS BROKE LAW.  This ruling simply needs to be appealed to ever higher courts to negate that corrupt ruling.

The thing to remember is those developing this massive scheme targeted low-income specifically for the availability of taxpayer-backed FHA loans that had taxpayers paying all kinds of attorney fees, title fees, down payments----the whole nine yards on loans everyone knew would fail.  At each stage fraud and corruption was involved no matter how much they tell you it cannot be proven or an individual cannot be found----THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY COLLECTED AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN FOUND.  THE POLS ARE LYING TO YOU AND ME.

Maryland is a mess because this fraud was allowed to go wild even as 50 states attorney general shouting this mortgage system was full of fraud back in 2005.  All that had to be done is for government officials to educate and warn people to stay away----instead the marketing increased.  This was O'Malley working for Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore as these frauds had a second goal----clearing out the urban center of working and middle-class homeowners so big developers could own all real estate----which is what is happening now. 


TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBPRIME MORTGAGE FRAUD HAS YET TO BE RECOVERED AND THAT IS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR MARYLAND ALONE.


New Fraud Evidence Shows Trillions Of Dollars In Mortgages Have No Owner

By Alan Pyke on August 13, 2013 at 2:57 pm

902Share This 343Tweet This "New Fraud Evidence Shows Trillions Of Dollars In Mortgages Have No Owner"

Share:

Share on email Thanks to forged documents, banks can’t prove that they own trillions of dollars in mortgages, according to recently unsealed court documents relating to a lawsuit the government decided to settle out of court for $95 million in 2012. The evidence gathered by Lynn Szymoniak, a Florida resident who fought off a wrongful foreclosure after three years of legal wrangling, could invalidate ownership claims to the homes in question. Yet foreclosures based on these documents continue to be approved.

The unsealed documents indicate Szymoniak, whose career as an insurance fraud investigator may have helped her piece together the complex web of documentary evidence, found invalid documentation underlying at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. The “robosigning” form of mortgage fraud – where banks forged documents that are legally required to transfer the ownership of a given mortgage – was ostensibly settled in the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. Szymoniak received $18 million for her role as an expert whistleblower who helped build the pool of evidence used to achieve settlements over robosigning and retained the ability to press ahead to a trial with the banks that weren’t party to the government’s settlement, which she plans to do.

Other evidence of widespread mortgage fraud has recently surfaced.
Researchers looked at just one mortgage lender that was a major player in the subprime bubble. They found fraudulent misrepresentations of 9 percent of all loans sold off to financial firms seeking to package up loans into mortgage-backed securities, and in 93 percent of those misrepresentations, the lender knew it was lying about the nature of mortgages it was passing along. The researchers stress that the actual fraud rate is likely higher, as they only searched for two specific forms of misrepresentation.

Despite the growing mountain of evidence of fraud in both mortgage securitization and foreclosures, the federal government’s response has been feeble.
The 2012 settlement has failed to stop bank abuses. A much-touted program to provide relief to homeowners failed to serve nearly as many as intended, and half of the mortgages modified under it are back in default. And over the weekend, the Justice Department admitted it had dramatically inflated its successes in a yearlong task force targeting mortgage abuses.

______________________________________________

The entire online college business is one big fiasco meant to undermine the US higher education system that is ranked #1 in the world but is failing because of defunding and privatization schemes like this one.  Maryland is ground zero for these online colleges that simply have as a goal of forcing 80% of Americans into a substandard system of higher education that is cheap and poor quality.......which is why most students drop out!

If you listen to Maryland's data it will no doubt say these online courses are thriving because-----all data in Maryland is skewed.


Harvard, MIT Online Courses Dropped by 95% of Registrants

www.bloomberg.com

About 95 percent of students enrolled in free, online courses from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dropped them before getting a completion...


The amount of for-profit education fraud is also in the trillions and it is infused with millions of student loans that are now subjecting these students to predatory education loan collection.  These students were lured to these programs and government officials knew they were bogus and allowed trillions of education dollars be funneled into these fraudulent programs and now they say-----there's no money for higher education funding for financial aid and grants for the working and middle-class students.....BECAUSE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FOR-PROFIT EDUCATION FRAUD HAS NOT BEEN RECOVERED!  Our students are being held captive to fraudulent loans and Obama has the US Department of Education run by Wall Street collection contractors.

I want to emphasize that none of what Obama and neo-liberals in Congress said would happen in accountability happened.
  In Maryland all of these for-profits listed in this article are still filling the Maryland airwaves with advertisements and have facilities operating and no accountability has happened.  Instead, Maryland citizens are straddled with this fraudulent student debt and our government revenue stolen in the trillions of dollars!

The article below is long but please glance through!



'The for-profit predatory colleges, in their mad dash to suck up as much as they can in Title IV funds, Pell grants, and other government subsidies, thus enriching their investors at the expense of students, prey on and then wolf down the most disadvantaged students they can find'.

Neoliberalism and the For-Profit, Predatory Educational Industry: You Can't Regulate a Criminal Enterprise

Thursday, 23 September 2010 11:55 By Danny Weil,

t r u t h o u t | Report | name.


You might have been following Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his department's attempts to reign in the for-profit universities and colleges for their criminal activities. Perhaps you recognize some of these for-profit universities and colleges,
for they are well known due to their marketing and are heavily traded on the stock market - DeVry (ticker: DV), Grand Canyon Education (LOPE), as Apollo Group (APOL), ITT Educational Services (ESI), Kaplan (WOP) and Strayer Education (STRA). There are literally thousands of these schools in existence and most are online schools with office fronts that act as administration centers for the whole for-profit syndicate.

The Department of Education (DOE), after a 2010 Government Accounting Office (GAO) sting operation that unveiled the vile tactics of 15 of these predatory institutions, says it wants to adopt new regulations that would rein in the for-profit educational industry. Yet, this is not the first time the "industry" has been caught with its pants down and its fists full of dirty money. Earlier, in 2009, another GAO investigation was launched and similar acts of criminality were found (United States Government Accountability Office, Proprietary Schools: Stronger Department of Education Oversight needed to help ensure only eligible students receive financial aid, August 2009,).

Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, any school can receive federal taxpayer funds in the form of student aid if it offers courses of study such as certificates, associate degrees, bachelor degrees, graduate degrees or professional degree programs. Proprietary schools offer a small percentage of bachelor degrees, but a substantial percentage of certificate degrees. Overall, the proprietary sector receives the smallest percentage of Title IV funds, 19 percent, as compared with the public and nonprofit, which is 48 percent and 33 percent, respectively. Although the majority of enrollees in these colleges are in four-year programs, the two-year proprietary schools account for a significant percentage of the proprietary customer base.



The Crime Scene

Before we discuss the proposed new regulations due to take effect on November 1, 2010, it is important to understand the for-profit college and university venture industry as a virtual crime scene.
For that is what it is. When one begins to think about the for-profit educational industry as a larcenous crime scene then it becomes ludicrous to even consider regulations of what are criminal acts; at the same time, it also becomes apparent how the for-profits work, and the human lives they decimate and destroy in the name of education when their sole motive is profit.

Any "cop on the beat" knows that when a crime scene is found, the first thing that is necessary is to put yellow tape around the area so that no evidence is tampered with and the crime scene can remain "clean and intact" for purposes of critical investigative scrutiny. Imagine yourself a detective arriving on the for-profit crime scene. The yellow tape is all around the "industry" carnage and now you must bend down and get yourself under the yellow tape and enter into the crime zone in an attempt to gather and bag evidence, obtain information and collect any clues as to how the perpetrators operate and who they might be. Looking around inside the circumference of yellow tape, one sees the following evidence of larceny, fraud, misrepresentation and theft:


  • Federal aid to students at for-profit colleges jumped from $4.6 billion in 2000 to $26.5 billion in 2009. Publicly traded, higher education companies derive three-fourths of their revenue from federal funds, with Phoenix University at 86 percent, up from just 48 percent in 2001 and approaching the 90 percent limit set by federal law. And the fact of the matter is that, although the default rate is climbing through the roof (see: "Predatory for-profit colleges and universities: the escalating default rate for student loans," July 13, 2010), the predator colleges continue to enroll more and more students knowing they cannot and will never be able to pay their loans.
  • What is being sold as education for "debt" are such phony degrees as Homeland Security degrees - cost $80,000 a year for a bachelors degree; or try $30,000 to get a "Surgical Technical" degree at Kaplan University that is itself fraudulent. Culinary and arts "education" is being peddled for more than $50,000! A whole swath of surveillance and criminal justice "degrees" are being auctioned off for as much, if not more ("Drive-by predatory colleges put students into debt purgatory and deficits into the stratosphere," April 11, 2010, Weil, Danny).
  • Kaplan, the for-profit predatory college whose name keeps popping up when one looks at fraud, misrepresentation, larceny of Title IV funds, theft of student funds, recruitment practices that parallel the military and many other issues such as poor professors, pre-packaged curriculum and failing colleges, has tried to privatize part of the Community College System in California.
  • Kaplan College in Pembroke Pines suspended enrollment following the federal investigation covered in the 2010 GAO report referenced above. They stopped enrolling new students after federal investigators uncovered incidents of high pressure and potentially fraudulent and misleading sales tactics.
  • A second Kaplan campus in Riverside, California, did the same thing. They also put new admissions on hold pending the results of an internal investigation ("Kaplan College suspends admissions at Pembroke Pines campus following federal investigation, Scott Travis," Sun Sentinel, August 5, 2010).
  • Students were enrolled in the CHI/Kaplan Surgical Technology Program year after year, but they were purposefully not being told by Kaplan and their personnel that, in all likelihood, externship sites, required for the SurgTech program would not be available. If verified from further investigations, the practices amount to concealment fraud, overt misrepresentation and possible theft of Title IV funds. CHI/Kaplan upper management, well aware of the lack of externship sites needed to permit students to complete their program, continued for years to recruit and enroll students in a program whose tuition costs approached nearly $24,000 a year. When the fraud was detected, the college then engaged in illegal practices designed to reduce the number of enrollees by forcing students out on technicalities. Hundreds of students were unable to finish their programs and had their personal lives and credit history ruined ("Whistleblower Exposes How Kaplan University Cheats Low-income Minority students and The Washington Post Benefits," April 18, 2010).
  • Kaplan is hardly alone in its hyperbolic predation. Corinthian College and the notorious Phoenix University have paid millions in whistle blower fines under Qui tam suits brought against the colleges.
  • The Apollo Group Inc., the company that owns the University of Phoenix, fraudulently misled investors in 2004 about student recruitment policies. The panel ordered the company to pay shareholders about $280 million (January 17, 2008, The New York Times, "Fraud by University Owner Is Found").
  • Jurors said Apollo officials "knowingly and recklessly" made false statements in a news release, a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and four conference calls with market analysts. By doing so, jurors said, Apollo violated federal securities laws (ibid).
The Washington Monthly found that in late 2009:

"The students who are flocking to these schools are mostly poor and working class and they rely heavily on student loans to cover tuition. According to a College Board analysis of Department of Education data, 60 percent of bachelor's degree recipients at for-profit colleges graduate with $30,000 or more in student loans - one and a half times the percentage of those at traditional private colleges and three times more than those at four-year public colleges and universities. Similarly, those who earn two-year degrees from proprietary schools rack up nearly three times as much debt as those at community colleges, which serve a similar student population. Proprietary school students are also much more likely to take on private student loans, which, unlike their federal counterparts, are not guaranteed by the federal government, offer scant consumer protections, and tend to charge astronomical interest - in some cases as high as 20 percent" ["The subprime student loan racket," Washington Monthly, Stephen Burd].

The criminal activity is not simply constrained to for-profit universities and colleges, as they like to refer to themselves. In December of 2009, the owners of the Business Computer Training Institute, or BCTI in Oregon, agreed to pay $3.2 million to settle six lawsuits by former students who attended its two Oregon campuses.

The lawsuits accused BCTI of fraud and unfair business practices, saying it lured students with inflated job-placement claims, but failed to provide the education it promised. The school closed in March 2005 under regulatory pressure ("Settlement with ex-students in Oregon," The Oregonian, Brent Hunsberger).

Then, there is ITT Educational Services,
which reported in 2009 that new student enrollment increased 27.2 percent to 27,738 in its third quarter. With private sector lending still in decline, the for-profit educator is increasingly funding growth through an internal loan program not much different than a payday loan center. As a result, growth metrics looked impressive for ITT at the quarter that ended September 30, 2009:

  • Total revenue per student increased 4.5 percent to $4,852 per student, helped by a five percent hike in tuition fees implemented in March 2009. Looking to 2010, management expects to raise tuition another 4 to 5 percent.
  •  The third-quarter operating margin improved 437 basis points to 36.1 percent, or $122.7 million, helped by lower advertising rates and more effective lead conversion rates (into enrolled students). ("Lessons not learned at ITT Educational Services," November 8, 2009, David Phillips, BNET online.)
As BNET online noted back in 2009, the notion of ITT lending money to students who then pay them back the money with interest through an internal loan program is shylocking:

"With a 10 percent unemployment rate in this country, the for-profit education industry is a playground for those in need of dreams. Do not be mislead by ITT's numbers, as the trail of money starts and ends back at ITT itself. Federal loan programs are falling short, so the company is dipping into its own coffers to help students cover this widening tuition gap. Up to 65 percent of its students need private lending, and analysts estimate that $100 million to $120 million in loans and scholarship assistance will need to come from ITT's internal lending program." [ibid]

Student Victims as Prey

The for-profit predatory colleges, in their mad dash to suck up as much as they can in Title IV funds, Pell grants, and other government subsidies, thus enriching their investors at the expense of students, prey on and then wolf down the most disadvantaged students they can find.

The for-profit predatory colleges sign up as many "borrowers" as they can - even pounding on homeless shelters to recruit bodies, looking for drug addicts they can enroll from recovery programs and all of this with debilitating consequences for borrowers who miss payments and borrowers' families. They set up at welfare offices, hang out at laundromats in low-income neighborhoods, recruit at public housing units, and their "recruiters" patrol the streets of distressed neighborhoods in automobiles or on foot looking for vulnerable working class bodies they can register for government cash.

As I noted at Dailycensored.com back in July of this year:

"You see, such disadvantaged students are desirable for the for-profit colleges because they qualify for federal grants and loans, which are largely responsible for the prosperity of the predators, the more bodies the colleges can 'ranch' the more money they make. When the students default and go back to alcoholism, drugs abuse, lock-down programs, mental institutions, prisons or the streets, you the taxpayer pay the government 97 percent of the loan, for you are covering the bet the students will graduate and pay their loan obligations, a bet not even Las Vegas would touch" ("For-profit predatory colleges and universities prey on the homeless while hedge fund operators get busy shorting the sector's stock: the next big economic bubble").

Many of the student-victims see the ads these syndicates run perpetually on TV hawking the educational degrees and the consumer life they promise to deliver. They promise the student this degree or that degree will bring them out of poverty or help them gain some of the material wealth they see on TV and in ads throughout their young lives. ("Stimulus Wreckage," Matt Smith, September 30, 2009 www.sfweekly.com.) They advertise themselves as conveyor belts to successful jobs in the middle of the Second Great Depression, spending as much as 50 percent of their revenue on marketing alone.

Many of the schools exclusively prey on low-income people and many candidates find out information about proprietary schools from presentations given or brochures left at food stamp offices, welfare offices or at low income housing projects. Cars with large signs on the doors have also been known to drive through housing projects slowly, like ice cream trucks (United States Government Accountability Office, "Proprietary Schools: Stronger Department of Education Oversight needed to help ensure only eligible students receive financial aid," August 2009).

The schools employ recruiters, who also attend staged or legitimate "job fairs," in an attempt to attract the unemployed, who they can then cannibalize at the fair itself. One young woman I recently talked to at the Phoenix University told me she was recruited this way. At a job fair, she was approached by an "academic counselor," who aggressively got her to the school's "financial aid counselor" the same day. These are drive-by schools, "disaster schools" without a doubt, and their tactics are ruthless, their owners are without conscience and their profits sheets are bulging.

The Public as Victims

According to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com:

"Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today - both federal and private - total some $829.785 billion.

"The growth in education debt outstanding is like cooking a lobster. The increase in total student debt occurs slowly but steadily, so by the time you notice that the water is boiling, you're already cooked. (August 9, 2010, Mary Pilon, "Student-Loan Debt Surpasses Credit Cards").

By Kantrowitz's estimations there is $605.6 billion in federal student loans outstanding and $167.8 billion in private student loans outstanding. His tabulations show that $300 billion in federal student loan debts have been incurred in the last four years; this, while Americans were asleep and the corporate media purposely concealed the story (ibid). The bad news: none of the debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy and, therefore, will be paid by the general taxpayer.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, "one in every five government loans that entered repayment in 1995 has gone into default. The default rate is higher for loans made to students from two-year colleges, and higher still, reaching 40 percent, for those who attended for-profit institutions." ("Government vastly undercounts defaults," Field, K., July 11, 2010.)

Corinthian Colleges, another large, publicly traded player in the predatory, subprime, education market, announced in July 2010 that more than half of the loans it makes to its students will go bad. No problem, the college still makes profits for its investors and CEO's. Like most of the predatory institutions, it gets its money from government Pell grants and Title IV funds ("The Chronicle of Higher Education, Why do you think they're called for-profit," July 30, 2010).

The Phoenix University (the Apollo Group) is saddled up this year alone to receive $1 billion dollars from Pell Grants, not to mention the other $4 billion it will get from Title IV funds (ibid).

This means that government taxpayers will be on the line to cough up the money already siphoned off by the for-profit predatory schools as defaults spiral out of control and bankruptcy eludes students as an option.

The Community and State Colleges as Victims

The community colleges of the state of California, reeling from debt, entered into a memorandum of understanding this year which would have allowed students to take courses at Kaplan University, the private, online school. When the manure began to ripen, and it was discovered that the "units" would not be transferable to UC or Cal State campuses, the deal was canceled. (Larry Gordon, "Community colleges cancel deal with online Kaplan University," Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2010)

The plan, basically contracting out education for profit, was intended in part to offer students at the state's 112 community colleges a way to take courses that might have been canceled or overcrowded because of state budget cuts. But some faculty, concerned about getting entangled with a proprietary school, especially one like the notorious disaster college Kaplan, revolted. Kaplan, in its efforts to commodify education, planned to charge students a whopping $646 for a three-credit class, compared with $78 at a community college. Why? This is part of their business plan and how they take Title IV money (90 percent of their money comes from Title IV government monies).

Walmart recently announced a deal with the for-profit American Public University System (hardly public, the stock is traded daily on the New York Stock Exchange and is the brainchild of Jim Etter ("The Chronicle of Higher Education, Why do you think they're called for-profit," July 30, 2010). The "university" is better known as the American Military University, which has developed into a publicly traded, for-profit behemoth that now sucks in veterans, either those in active duty or retuning from war. The university is also the home of Larry Forness, the "professor," who lectured students on the best means of using torture, such as injecting Muslims with pig blood ("Does the American Military University (AMU) teach torture to its students or has it taught torture in the past?" WikiLeaks, March 29, 2010). Now, with the veteran market cornered, the American Public University seeks to train nine-dollar-an-hour employees for Walmart under the auspices of higher education, using government funds and especially Title IV monies.

With the current economic devastation sweeping the nation like locusts, more and more students, through visible high-level marketing, are being seduced to attend for-profit colleges. The words to the song are always the same: you need an education; we offer the best-buy in online degrees; you can do the work at your home; times are tough; to get ahead, additional and high-paying work skills are needed to thwart off individual economic collapse; and on and on. The message is very clear; there is no systemic economic problem under the current economic regime that cannot be staunched with a good, for-profit education. Insipid individualism and the commodification of education itself are now joined in a fervent embrace. All of this creates the opening for the predatory, proprietary college system, while it leaves in its wake an economic devastation for public institutions and student lives.

November 19, 2009, California Community Colleges Chancellor Jack Scott (who forged the failed deal with Kaplan) delivered the keynote speech at the opening session of the Community Colleges League of California Annual Convention and Partnership Conference in Burlingame, California.

Chancellor Scott's speech, Living in Difficult Times, addressed the issue of the growing numbers of students crowding into community colleges and how, in these lean financial times, college leaders must find creative ways to do more with less funding. Focusing on the irony of the situation, Scott noted, "At the same time our funds have been reduced, our enrollments have surged."

This fall, statewide enrollment increased at California community colleges by more than 3 percent while the funding was cut by eight percent. Colleges reported, at the time of fall registration, 95 percent of course sections were completely filled, with many students on waiting lists and some turned away with no classes available.

As Peter Phillips from Project Censored reported late last year:

"Higher education has been cut in twenty-eight states in the 2009-10 school year and further, even more drastic cuts, are likely in the years ahead. California State University (CSU) system is planning to reduce enrollments by 40,000 students in the fall of 2010. The CSU Trustees have imposed steep tuition hikes and forced faculty and staff to take non-paid furlough days equal to 10 percent of salaries. Our current budget crisis in California and the rest of the country has been artificially created by cutting taxes on the wealthiest people and corporations. The corporate elites in the US, the top 1 percent, who own close to half the wealth, are the beneficiaries of massive tax cuts over the past few decades. While at the same time working people are paying more through increased sales and use taxes and higher public college tuition." ["The Higher Education Fiscal Crisis Protects the Wealthy," November 22, 2009.]

Countless numbers of Californians are flocking to the community colleges for job-retraining after losing their jobs in the economic downturn. Community colleges are also becoming increasingly popular because the California State University and University of California campuses are full and far too expensive; more veterans are utilizing the GI Bill benefits, and the economy is forcing many to look for affordable higher education options. (Paige Marlatt Dorr, director of communications
California Community Colleges)

When public social institutions like colleges and universities collapse and when veterans return with GI Bills and no public institutions to attend, this is all good news for the predatory colleges, their owners and shareholders. For, as public colleges turn away students in droves due to financial collapse, it means more and more students will flock to the for-profit college centers in hopes of receiving an education and this, of course, means that like vampires, the schools can get their hands on more public monies - the GI Bill funds, Pell Grants, Title IV funds - all this while public institutions starve.

Ah, the beauty of privatization, the free market. But it's hardly free as stated earlier, not with the large default rates in the billions that are shouldered by hard-working Americans who are forced to pay them. The only thing that is free is the public funds transferred to private coffers of these predatory institutions that see only an exchange value in education. The proprietary schools are now like privatized pike in a public lake.

Creating the Material Conditions for the Private Ownership of the Means of Educational Production: The Role of the Neoliberal State

Acting as a collection agency, the federal government collects taxes from ordinary citizens and then distributes the money to proprietary colleges through a middle man, usually Wells Fargo or Sallie Mae. A student must enroll and be accepted at one of the proprietary schools before they can receive Title IV funds in the form of grants, loans or campus-based aid through Sally Mae, Wells Fargo, or any other third party. The schools themselves must also be "approved" by the DOE in order to participate in receiving the Title IV funds. This means the schools must be licensed or otherwise legally authorized to provide higher education in the state they are located in; they must be accredited by an agency recognized for this purpose by the secretary of the US Department of Education and they must be deemed eligible and certified to participate in the federal student aid programs by the Department of US Education (United States Government Accountability Office, "Proprietary Schools: Stronger Department of Education Oversight needed to help ensure only eligible students receive financial aid," August 2009).

This is what is referred to in government parlance as the "triad" - the threshold colleges must meet for government funding. It is the DOE, now under the tutelage of Duncan, that must oversee this entire process and ensure that only eligible students receive Title IV monies in accordance with the triad mandates. The DOE, FSA, manages and administers student financial aid assistance under the Higher Education Act passed in 1965, also known as Title IV. The programs include: William D. Ford Federal Direct Student Loan Program (Direct Loan Program), the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), the Federal Pell Grant Project (Pell Grant), the Campus Based Aid Program or the Federal supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work Study (FWS) and the Federal Perkins Loan Program (administered directly by the Financial Aid office at each school). In 2008 alone, Title IV funds provided more than $85 billion dollars in student aid of which roughly 16 percent went to the proprietary schools and colleges. That's a lions share by any estimates, especially if you look at the 64 percent default rate, which is and will eventually be paid by taxpayers.

Currently, there is what is called a "90/10 rule" which applies only to proprietary schools. What this means is that at least 10 percent of student tuition must come from means other than student-loan funds. And then there was the "50 percent rule," which required a proprietary school to offer no more than 50 percent of its courses online. These rules were enacted to address rampant fraud among proprietary schools in the 1970s and 1980s. However, in February of 2006, the 50/50 rule was repealed in a reconciliation act passed by Congress. The bill, SB1932 passed the house by a slim margin, 216 to 214, but it then went on to slide through the senate. Now, the schools can offer all their classes online and this means no need for brick and mortar. Most are now "ghost schools," or disaster colleges that reside in office buildings and hardly offer any campus life other than vending machines and computers.

As to the 90/10 rule, which simply mandated that ten cents of every dollar the proprietary school took in had to be from another source other than the federal government, it, too, has been drastically eroded if not vitiated. In July of 2008, long before the $787 billion stimulus, the federal government increased its guaranteed educational loan limits by $2,000 per student. Why? According to Business Week, they were worried that privately funded lending would dry up in the recession, but one of the shocking implications of this move directly benefited the proprietary colleges. Now, with the federal government increasing its guaranteed educational loan limits by $2,000 per student under the new Obama rules, these monies are "counted" as part of the 10 percent by the proprietary schools, creating an accounting mish mash - a paper shuffling accounting system with no transparency and where no one can actually really trace the percentages.

Borrowers must begin repayment after dropping below half-time enrollment, according to the rules of Title IV. Usually, the default rate can be seen after nine months, or 270 days, when the borrower, in this case the student, has not obtained cessation of the debt through myriad and complicated processes, or, in the case of some students referred to deferment or forbearance due to hardship or disability (United States Government Accountability Office, "Proprietary Schools: Stronger Department of Education Oversight needed to help ensure only eligible students receive financial aid," August 2009).

The social policies of the neoliberal capitalist state are responsible for laying the groundwork for creating the material conditions for the private ownership of the means of educational production. This is no surprise. Take the current "stimulus" passed by the Obama administration.

According to an article in Business Week, a web site that covers the rapidly declining state of public education:

 "Career-oriented schools such as the University of Phoenix, a unit of publicly traded Apollo Group (APOL), have been benefiting from lean times as adults scramble for credentials they hope will help them find work. The stimulus enacted last month will accelerate this trend by providing an additional $15 billion in Pell Grants for students over the next two years. Apollo, which received more than three-quarters of its $3.1 billion in revenue from federal student aid in the fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, is well positioned to take advantage of the stimulus. Its Phoenix unit already is the biggest recipient of government student aid. In its most recent quarter, which ended Nov. 30, Phoenix boosted ad spending by 24 percent, to $88 million. Its enrollment rose in the quarter by 18 percent, to 385,000 students, who study at campuses in 39 states as well as online." ["For-Profit Colleges: Scooping Up the Stimulus," March 12, 2009, by Ben Elgin and Jessica Silver Greenberg.].

In a letter dated November 19, 2008, to Henry Paulson, then secretary of the US Department of Treasury, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Offices along with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Consumers Union, The National Consumer Law Center, the Project on Student Debt, the National Association for the College Admission Counseling, US Public Interest Research and the United States Students Association all wrote to urge Paulson to reconsider his plan to unleash the Bush stimulus monies for private student loans. They implored Paulson in the letter, noting that:

"Most students and families do not use private student loans to pay for college, nor should they." [Letter to Paulson, November 19, 2008, by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Offices along with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Consumers Union, The National Consumer Law Center, the Project on Student Debt, the National Association for the College Admission Counseling, US Public Interest Research and the United States Students Association]

The correspondence to Paulson indicated that only 8 percent of students currently use standard bank loans to attend university. This changed now that the banks are flush with money and looking for profitable investment strategies and new investment "opportunities." What could be better than to offer subprime loans to desperate young people looking for an education and a way to maintain civilian life? Yet, the fact is private loans are risky and expensive and lack the protections, oversight and regulations of safer federal loans. Furthermore, providers of private student loans already receive special treatment in bankruptcy at the borrower's expense. But the students don't; their loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

The letter to Paulson went even further, noting the signing groups, unlike federal loans, have no real protections for borrowers and co-signers. And there is no limit to how high the interest rate can climb. The letter notes that private student loans are like subprime mortgages where the lowest income borrower is saddled with the highest interest rates and the worst terms. Not only this, but the letter goes on to point out that in cases of unemployment, disability or periods of no income - even death, their families have few options for relief (ibid).

The loans are impossible to discharge in bankruptcy courts, unlike other forms of consumer debt such as credit cards. As the associations indicated in their letter to Paulson, someone who racks up thousands of dollars buying skis on a credit card can get relief through bankruptcy. Yet, in the case of, say, a teacher saddled with private loans from the proprietary schools who can't work due to disability - she has no way out. The use of bailout monies now put the lenders' investments, or usury, in a privileged category at the expense of students and consumers.

It is criminal that billions of taxpayer dollars are allowed to be spent enabling lenders to continue to make these high risk loans, which then become defaults picked up by taxpayers. But, unfortunately, this is precisely what is going on; for Paulson, of course, didn't listen to the various gate-keeping organizations intent on protecting the public interest, nor did he care; he was more focused on bailing out his friends, not public citizens who have to work for a living. He doled out federal monies despite fervent warnings to major banks, for private student loans, just as he bailed out AIG and Goldman Sachs. The Fed bailed out the lenders of these student loans by allowing them to use subprime student loan assets as collateral for accessing federal funds. Now, the proprietary schools have another venue for slopping up funds headed for debt - thanks again to the actions of the federal government. This is legal crime committed during broad daylight hours, but, of course, no mention of it was reported in the corporate press.

But the story begins long before the stimulus bailout and Obama even thought about entering government. The DOE under George W. Bush and Rod Paige used government deregulation in an effort to help create a system of debt peonage for students, while offering larger and very profitable business opportunities to their friends, the proprietary colleges. Today, we see the chickens have come home to roost as Wall Street continues to find ways to bilk the American people and the corporate media continues to hide the crime scene. Kaplan College, for example, is owned by The Washington Post, a blood bank providing more than 62 percent of the paper's revenue ("Kaplan University: Blood Bank for the Washington Post," July 27, 2010). You can hardly count on them to run a story on the private ownership of the means of educational production.

As Sam Dillon, reporter for The New York Times, reported as early as March 2006:

"The power of the for-profits has grown tremendously," said Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee who has expressed concerns about continuing reports of fraud. "They have a full-blown lobbying effort and give lots of money to campaigns. In 10 years, the power of this interest group has spiked as much as any you'll find."

Sally L. Stroup, the assistant secretary of education who is the top regulator overseeing higher education, is a former lobbyist for the University of Phoenix, the nation's largest for-profit college, with some 300,000 students.

Two of the industry's closest allies in Congress are Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, who just became House majority leader, and Representative Howard P. McKeon, Republican of California, who is replacing Mr. Boehner as chairman of the House education committee.

And the industry has hired well-connected lobbyists like A. Bradford Card, the brother of the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr.

The elimination of the restriction on online education, included in a $39.5 billion budget-cutting package, is a case study in the new climate. Known as the 50 percent rule, the restriction was one of several enacted by Congress in 1992 after investigations showed that some for-profit trade schools were little more than diploma mills intended to harvest federal student loans.

Since then the industry has grown enormously, with enrollment at such colleges outpacing that at traditional ones. In 2003, the last year for which statistics were available, 703,000 of the 16.9 million students at all degree-granting institutions were attending for-profit colleges. (March 1, 2006, New York Times, "Online Colleges Receive a Boost From Congress," Sam Dillon.)

Regulating the Criminal Enterprise

With the deficit growing astronomically due to two illegal wars, the bloated defense budget, bailouts to Wall Street and the costs of subsidizing the for-profit predatory colleges and universities, there was little the neoliberal state could do in light of the criminal activities of the private educational complex, but attempt to regulate the industry.

The new proposed rules by the DOE, due to be passed sometime in November 2010, would supposedly grant the DOE stronger authority to stop these for-profit "colleges" and schools from making false or misleading statements about financial charges. They do this regularly as the GAO report reveals and as the whole sordid history of the industry has shown. They also lie about the expected employability of their graduates, many claiming they can place students in gainful employment when, in fact, they cannot. The DOE also wants the predatory for-profit colleges, universities and schools to be barred from paying recruiters based on how many students they brought in. That's the practice now, and you can read about the whole recruitment corralling of students in an article I wrote back in 2009 entitled: "Private Predatory Colleges: How the neoliberal Alchemists Turn Debt into Profit and Citizens into Fools".

However, the most important and currently onerous "regulation" proposed for the for-profit educational industry would cut off federal aid to for-profit programs that repeatedly saddle students with debt that is defined as unaffordable under a new formula that takes earnings into account. This is the "gainful employment" rule that will drive a stake through the heart of many for-profit colleges and universities if it is passed in November of this year. The rule is all about assuring that the for-profits are offering an educational service that will prepare graduates for gainful employment. The problem - there is no employment.

It has long been believed by politicians and corporations that education is little more than a training ground for capitalist labor to eventually be exploited. Simmering education down to gainful employment is not a novel idea when one is laboring under these assumptions. Rather than see the entire enterprise of for-profit colleges as criminal, which it is, the government now seeks to rein in some of the "abuses" they see in the system they helped create. Regulating the material conditions for private ownership of the means of educational production can only come from starving the insidious institutions that fail to comply by withholding government subsidies. While certainly a start, the whole notion is problematic, for it leaves the predatory industry intact when anyone who has studied the crime scene can see that this criminal enterprise cannot be regulated; it must stopped. However, even this small bit of "rhetorical" regulatory posture has the billion dollar, for-profit industry on the offensive.

Corporations Fight the Neoliberal State Regulations With Faux, AstroTurf Groups

The for-profit, cybernetic educational industry has come forth on record, calling the illegal practices uncovered by the GAO a case of "bad apples." Kaplan officials said they found the disclosures "sickening." In a joint statement from Donald E. Graham, chairman and chief executive of The Washington Post Co., and Andrew S. Rosen, chairman and chief executive of Kaplan Inc.:

"They violate in every way the principles on which Kaplan is run. We will do everything in our power to eliminate such conduct from Kaplan's education institutions."

Similar to the movie "Casablanca," Graham, like the actor Claude Rains, seems surprised "gambling" is going on at Rick's Place. Yet, while the government is getting ready to step in and put into place policies that will allow the industry to continue its ownership of the educational means of production, albeit regulated, the for-profits are now busy building a faux revolution, akin to Dick Army's Freedom Works; or the fake coalitions put to together by the Koch brothers to fight any regulation of the coal industry; or the "Parent Revolution" out of Los Angeles controlled by Green Dot, a charter school CMO, which recruits parents to work for charter school legislation by disassembling public education. What these groups have in common is that they are heavily supported by legions of right-wing cash.

The New York Times of September 7, 2010, noted that:

"For-profit colleges have increased their lobbying against proposed Education Department rules to cut off federal financial aid to programs whose students take on too much debt for training that provides little likelihood of leading to a well-paying job" [For-profit colleges step up lobbying against new rules, New York Times, September 7, 2010.]

In addition to making personal visits to Capitol Hill, executives for many of the colleges have recently provided their employees with "personalized," standardized, form letters urging them to send them to Washington to fight the new regulations. They have also started a campaign to get their students to speak out against the new "gainful employment" regulation. Sound like the phony health care groups set out to battle Obama's health care reform? You betcha!

So far, The New York Times has found that the DOE has received about 45,000 letters on the proposed "gainful employment" rule within the last month.

John Sperling, the born-again Christian fundamentalist and founder of the nation's largest for-profit college, the University of Phoenix, emailed every member of Congress, seeking help opposing the regulations, and attached a sample letter to be sent to Education Secretary Duncan, asking him to withdraw them. He has conveniently married his new-found, fundamentalist religion with market fundamentalism.

Graham, the chairman and chief executive of The Washington Post Company, which receives 62 percent of its revenue from its various Kaplan educational businesses, visited Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, whose Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is holding hearings on the for-profit education industry. His goal: stop the regulations.

But the heavy, billion dollar players have done more than just urge employees and students to come out for their for-profit cause. The Education Management Corporation, the second-largest, for-profit company in the industry, hired DCI Group, a public relations firm, to contact its employees for information that could be used to create a "personalized" letter, which would then be delivered back to the employee for signature, along with a stamped, addressed envelope aimed straight at the DOE. ("Astroturf U: Goldman's For-Profit College Battles Obama Crackdown," Mother Jones, Andy Kroll, September 2, 2010.)

The AstroTurf group also drafted and is offering pre-crafted letters that students can use to send to their Congressmen. Mother Jones reported that:

"Some of the letters show little familiarity with the proposed regulations. For example, an Education Department official said, students at a particular school sent in dozens of hand-written letters asking for continued aid to for-profit colleges, but never mentioning the regulations. He said he called a letter-writer to ask whether the letter was intended as a comment on the regulations, and was told, 'This is what the school asked us to write.' He would not identify the school." [ibid]

This is not unusual and echoes the practices of many of these predatory colleges who have their professors write student papers so students can remain enrolled and thus beneficiaries of the federal dollars that end up in the coffers of the blood banks.

EDMC also has a web site, the Higher Education Action Center, guiding students or employees to oppose the regulations, offering their own "pre-crafted" letters. Argosy, a unit of EDMC, said last month in an email soliciting more comments that more than 2,000 people had used the site in the previous week.

The Real Problem Is the Private Ownership of the Means of Educational Production

Beginning in the Bush years, or actually before, the neoliberal state worked diligently to provide the material conditions allowing for the enormous growth of education for profit. In doing so, it has now created its own Frankenstein of debt and default that seeks refuge in the pockets of ordinary taxpayers. The for-profit industry, armed with billions of dollars and working off the disaster economics that has left the public sector unable to keep libraries open, let alone provide a decent opportunity for students to gain universal access to education, is now enabled with lobbyists and private firms to fight Washington tooth and nail against their proposed regulations. But this is hardly the point. For the regulations promise to leave intact a criminal enterprise that is not just a collection of bad apples, but is a rotten barrel of despair, financial ruin for students and moral outrage, not to mention the source of costs that will be thrown on the backs of ordinary Americans as students find there is no "gainful" employment under the economic policies of market fundamentalism and Wall Street crimes, and the defaults quicken. What all this means is that taxpayers may be on the hook for close to one trillion dollars or more.

Summary

I spoke to a young man of about 30 years old in my last sojourn at the Phoenix Institute in Oakland. When I asked him how his classes were going, he told me that they were going well, but he was living in his car with no job. However, he indicated, a bit animated, with the federal monies for school he received not only does he have the use of the computers and a warm place to go, but he can clean up in the office bathroom. This is privatized homelessness under Title IV that is parading as privatized education.

The free-market policies ruthlessly pursued through the calamitous corporatization over the last 30 or more years have imposed crushing and profound changes onto the lives of children and working adults. On National Public Radio, November 23, 2009, a student at one of these proprietary colleges was interviewed. She reported that she now pays $300 dollars per month to service her federal loans and that her parents had to take second jobs just to help her pay for her proprietary education. Currently, she cannot find a job, so her answer: she will borrow more money now to go on to graduate school, for in this way, she will not default on her loans, meaning wage garnishment, withheld social security and an inability to rent or buy a home. Debt peonage and a lack of public and civic life are forcing her and her family into the brutal margins of society (NPR, "All things considered," November 23, 2009).

Each and every day I receive letters and emails from students asking me what they can do to stop the predation. These are students whose lives are now ruined; they cannot get credit, they cannot involve themselves in any financial life and they cannot rent apartments or go to school.

Whistleblowers, known as Former Disgruntled Employees (FDE's) have written me telling me of the ghastly policies they have witnessed and/or participated in, but they dare not use their names or they will find that the power and authority of these for-profit dungeons of despair will literally blackball them from the industry overnight. I have spoken with countless lawyers who have told me they have no resources to fight the billion dollar industry attorneys.

There is no "college experience" at these proprietary schools; there are not even libraries at most of these schools or facilities where students can meet. At many of the proprietary schools that offer a "campus," one finds the colleges really languish in grimy storefronts in large office buildings along side other businesses, like insurance companies, mortgage outfits and financial institutions that share the office building rent. Usually the administration office of the "campus" is comprised of simply a desk and rows of computers; the food services are vending machines dominated by Pepsi and Coca Cola and the class rooms are rented to corporations when not in use by the proprietary school. At the Phoenix Institute's "campus" in Pasadena, California, the college sits in a large office building that shares tenancy with the Rand Corporation, harbored on the upper level floor. The college also makes $25,000 - $30,000 per month just renting out the classrooms when they are not in use (interview with former Phoenix employee).

As I chronicled back in 2009, for-profit predatory colleges for years marketed to the disenfranchised, the down and out, the sub prime students and, thus, they make up the "fringe economy" of other such predators like cash loans, payday loans, title loans for cars, check-cashing scams and the like. These "operations of higher predation" have been caught recruiting students at housing projects, welfare office, unemployment offices, laundermats in poverty stricken areas and, now, yes, the true down and out - the homeless and often drug addicted segments of our population, mostly minority. They actually enter homeless shelters where they rabidly prey and feed on the underclass of America ("For-profit predatory colleges and universities prey on the homeless while hedge fund operators get busy shorting the sector's stock: the next big economic bubble," July 19, 2010, dailycensored.com).

As any crime fighter knows, you cannot regulate larceny. What needs to be done is to build a sustainable economy that can provide a quality, public school experience for our nation's children. However, as long as education is boiled down to training for a capitalist society in ruins, this can hardly expect to take place. As the public sector diminishes due to the disaster capitalism of the last 30 years, we can only hope to see a few changes in the form of regulations. Until then, look for this storm to pass, as once regulations are passed, paying to get around them becomes part of the business plan as it always has been. In the interim, look for the for-profit educational scam that was and has been allowed to exist thanks to the partnership between business and the neoliberal state to be the next big financial bubble just waiting to burst.


____________________________________________
Below is a long article but please glance through it.  I am posting articles from the 2000s because it is then we know Reagan/Clinton started dismantling oversight and accountability in the name of smaller government.  Republican voters were sold on small government because they were told social programs would be axed-----but what global corporate pols had in mind was small government as a way to unleash unlimited fraud and corruption====just as exists overseas in developing worlds.  These US corporations steal much of overseas development money and now they are doing it here in America thanks to neo-liberals and neo-cons suspending Rule of Law.
 The actual amounts of defense industry fraud is in the trillions of dollars and the Wikileak documents exposing the defense industry expenditures that mainstream journalists will not investigate but international investigative journalists are show the absolute looting of our US Treasury by defense industry contractors just as happened in health care, the financial industry, the for-profit education industry, and the housing industry.  At each step your politicians knew it was happening and could have shouted loudly and strongly but you do not hear a word beyond a few soundbites at the time of an exposure.  MARYLAND IS KING OF THE FLEECING OF TAXPAYER MONEY FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and this is why the poor are being made third world in poverty and the working and middle-class are seeing their taxes climb and fees and fines galore.



Obama is continuing to make it 'easier for contractors' and Trans Pacific Trade Pact simply tries to make all of this ignoring of US law legitimate by re-writing the Constitution without all that bothersome Citizens as Legislators,  Equal Protection, and Rule of Law stuff



"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.  $2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.


'The Clinton-Gore Administration

From its beginning, the Clinton-Gore Administration has pushed for changes to make things easier for contractors through its Acquisition Reform program in the Defense Department. The initiative was the culmination of a long process of working closer with industry and its campaign contributors undertaken by the Democratic Party when it began targeting corporate campaign contributions more aggressively in the 1980s.

The defense industry succeeded beyond its wildest dreams in winning endorsement of its proposals after the 1992 presidential election. Their plans proved to be in the right place at the right time when Vice President Gore was looking for new changes to make through his Reinventing Government initiative. Industry wishes were compiled by a Congressionally-created committee known informally as the "Section 800 panel," which was industry-dominated. 19 The panel's report was completed soon after the Clinton-Gore Administration took office. Its recommendations helped shape the Reinventing Government plan, which was put together under a tight deadline and needed new proposals quickly'.




Defense Waste & Fraud Camouflaged As Reinventing Government
September 1, 1999 Table Of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
The Problem: Pentagon Waste Returns
Why We Need Oversight - 618% Overpricing
Acquisition Reform 101
A Detailed Study: Getting Good Prices Without Acquisition Reform
Acquisition Reform's Claims: Confusing What the Government Buys With How It Buys
The Cause: Why and How Is This Happening?
Today's "Acquisition Reform:" Rolling Back Yesterday's Reforms
Important Procurement Reforms of the 1980s and Their Current Status
Counterattack in the 1990s
The Clinton-Gore Administration
The Congress
Acquisition Reform - Not Really Adopting the Free Market
Monkeying with Oversight: Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil
Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
Acquisition Reform: "Streamlining" Dollars from Our Pockets
Paying for Luxury Hotels Again
Accepting Data That Need Not Be "Current, Accurate, and Complete"
The $435 Hammer That Won't Go Away
The Solution: How to Stop De-Inventing the Wheel
Appendix
Endnotes



Executive Summary


Overpriced spare parts horror stories from the 1980s taught us how to prevent fraud, and led to useful reforms. By the 1990s, however, defense industry interests dovetailed with Vice President Gore's Reinventing Government campaign, and new policies bypassed some of the earlier reforms.

In the name of adopting "commercial" practices, the Administration's defense Acquisition Reform effort has gone beyond cutting red tape into throwing out important protections against contractor abuse that are needed even in a more commercial environment. For example, a new greatly expanded definition for a "commercial" product has exempted many more purchases from normal oversight.

The problem has predictably begun to appear in the form of more overpriced parts stories:

  • AlliedSignal corporation was found to have overcharged the government for spare parts by as much as 618%. The government overpaid on the overall contract with AlliedSignal by 54.5%.
  • Prices were inflated by more than 1,000 percent on a variety of spare parts. For example, the Boeing price for a commercially-available $24.72 "spoiler actuator sleeve" was $403.39 - a markup of 1,532 percent. Another contractor charged $714 for an electric bell worth $46.68.
The cause - Acquisition Reform's new policies, including drastic staff cuts to oversight agencies:

  • The AlliedSignal cases provide examples of the government paying more for spare parts under the new "commercial" rules than it paid under the earlier reforms. As the Defense Department's Office of the Inspector General has noted, the loose definition of commercial items "qualifies most items that DoD procures as commercial items" [Emphasis added].
  • A Defense Department Inspector General's report indicates how adopting commercial practices has come to mean subservience to contractors and blind acceptance of their claimed costs and prices: "contracting officers shall require information ... when necessary to determine price reasonableness for commercial items, but there is a strong DoD [Department of Defense] preference not to use that mechanism and the Government has not asserted its right to have the data." [Emphasis added.]
  • Despite highly favorable dollar returns on taxpayer investment in oversight agencies, many of them have been gutted by personnel cuts. For example, the Defense Contract Audit Agency saves almost $10 for each dollar invested, but staff positions have been cut by 19% from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 1997. As of 1998 the Administration scheduled it to suffer a total loss of more than 3,000 staffers - a 44% cut - over the period FY 1990 to FY 2002.
  • The Administration has pushed defense corporate mergers, at a time when Acquisition Reform has failed to create adequate competition, a key requirement for the government to benefit from commercial markets. As a Department of Defense Inspector General noted, "If anything, the risks may be greater today because there is such market dominance by a few very large suppliers. In this environment, getting cost information and maintaining audit rights is a prudent business practice. Failure to do so will be very costly for the Department and ultimately the taxpayer." [Emphasis added.]
The solution lies in making use of what we have already learned about preventing contractor abuse:

  • Restore meaning to the definition of "commercial."
1) Restore the definition of commercial as actual sale of items to the general public, not just to the government.

2) Restore the definition of commercial to mean substantial sales in a large free market.

3) Restore the definition of "competitive bidding" to be at least two bidders.

  • Clarify that the government can and should still negotiate actively for some commercial items.

  • Restore the use of cost or pricing data where prices are not set by a true free market.

  • Preserve funding for the auditors, investigators, and independent rule-setting Boards like the Cost Accounting Standards Board.

  • Defend the False Claims Act against industry assaults.

  • Improve price-based contracting by increasing competition and reversing the trend of mergers leading to fewer competing contractors.
Following Pentagon acknowledgment of "readiness" problems, and after the war in Kosovo, defense budgets - and procurement spending - are being increased sharply. For this reason it is especially imperative for us not to forget what we already know about good acquisition reform - there is no need to re-invent the wheel. If we do forget, the budget surpluses the Defense Department is enjoying will quickly be frittered away on overpriced weapons and parts, and the taxpayers' money will, once again, be wasted.

Introduction In the 1980s, as military spending boomed, numerous stories of waste in weapon buying surfaced in the media. The Project on Military Procurement, as the Project On Government Oversight was then known, along with others, brought to light $7,600 coffee makers, $435 hammers, and $640 toilet seats billed by unscrupulous defense contractors. The cases were disturbing because they implied that if such prices were being paid for simple items whose prices citizens understood, the total overcharging for complex weapons as a whole was enormous.

As a result of these revelations, measures were taken to tighten up oversight of defense contractors. Then, in the 1990s, the defense industry counterattacked, arguing that these reforms had gone too far. By 1994, with a Congress hostile to government regulation, and an Administration adopting a particularly accommodating relationship with business, the rhetoric of acquisition "reform" and "reinventing government" was used to justify moving beyond cutting red tape into bypassing key earlier reforms. For example, a new greatly expanded definition for a "commercial" product has exempted many purchases from normal oversight.

The results of these changes have already begun to show, with cases of gross overcharging for spare parts surfacing once again. The cause is an "Acquisition Reform" effort conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) and supported by some in Congress. Acquisition Reform unabashedly seeks to reduce oversight of contractors and replace it with "trust," and has dovetailed with Vice President Gore's "Reinventing Government" campaign. The problem is that by going so far in reducing oversight, the reforms have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, resulting in cases of 618% overpricing again.

We already know how to protect against defense contractor abuses. We have been through many previous rounds of hyped reform initiatives that blew a lot of hot air but did not do much. But pushing the new "Acquisition Reform" too far and bypassing proven checks and balances now could actually make the situation worse - it is leading to de-inventing the wheel, not re-inventing it.

This report first looks at recent cases of defense contractor overcharging. It then examines the elements of Acquisition Reform that have caused the problem in more detail. The report concludes with suggestions for remedies.



The Problem: Pentagon Waste Returns Why We Need Oversight - 618% Overpricing Evidence of the results of loosening oversight is beginning to surface. A Department of Defense January 1999 report reveals that defense money is again being wasted on spare parts, as it was in the 1980s. In the report by the DOD Inspector General (IG), AlliedSignal corporation was found to have overcharged the government for spare parts by as much as 618%. The government overpaid on the overall contract with AlliedSignal by 54.5%. The irony is that these parts were bought under the new, much-touted "commercial" price system promoted by the Administration and Congress. According to the January 1999 investigation by the Inspector General: 1

The government "paid Allied prices that were higher than fair and reasonable in FYs [Fiscal Years] 1996 and 1997 when compared to the noncommercial prices paid to Allied in previous years." The parts included items such as gearshafts, wheels, nuts, bearings, seals, filters, and valves.

The Defense Department "paid a 54.5 percent premium for commercial parts from Allied" - in other words, were overcharged by more than 50%.

For parts that AlliedSignal did not even make itself, but merely bought from original manufacturers or dealers and then sold to the government, some items were variously marked up by as much as 294%, 325%, and 618%.

The Defense Department paid an even higher average markup in Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 (60.1%) than it did in FY 1996 (45.8%). It appears that in this case an Acquisition Reform "learning curve" is not being realized.

Defenders of the acquisition system argue that the government paid higher prices because the prices included more stocking services - but the Defense Department failed to use the services.

The Defense Department report blacks out the names of specific spare parts that were grossly overpriced. (See p.12 of Appendix A) Although contractors routinely claim such information is "proprietary," the real effect is that the public cannot easily find out how much they are overpaying for items they might recognize.

The Inspector General report on AlliedSignal followed 1998 IG reports of overcharging under "commercial" contracts with Boeing and Sundstrand corporations. The earlier reports (see "Acquisition Deform: A Study in Hasty Deregulation," Project On Government Oversight Alert, October 1997) found that:

Prices were inflated by more than 1,000 percent on a variety of spare parts. For example, the Boeing price for a commercially-available $24.72 "spoiler actuator sleeve" was $403.39 - a markup of 1,532 percent. 2

Sundstrand billed the government $6.1 million for parts that were worth only $1.6 million. 3 

Boeing charged $5 million for parts that were worth $3.2 million in the competitive market. 4

A contractor charged $76 for 57¢ screws. 5

Another contractor charged $714 for an electric bell worth $46.68. 6

The Inspector General found that higher prices were paid for "commercial" items than had been paid earlier because: 7

  • although Acquisition Reform allowed the Sundstrand items to be purchased under loose "commercial" item rules, in fact "there was no competitive commercial market to ensure the reasonableness of the prices";

  • Sundstrand "refused to provide DLA [Defense Logistics Agency] contracting officers with 'uncertified' cost or pricing data for commercial catalog items";

  • items were defined as commercial as long as they were merely "offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public" (emphasis added); and

  • in the Boeing case, "contracting officers accepted Boeing commercial catalog prices as fair and reasonable without adequate support for price reasonableness, even when DoD was the 'primary' customer procuring significantly larger quantities than other commercial customers and there was no competitive commercial market to ensure the price integrity. The contracting officers made no attempt to exert the leverage that a major customer ought to be able to exert to negotiate significant discounts, as is common commercial practice." 8
The DOD IG notes that the loose definition of commercial items "qualifies most items that DoD procures as commercial items" (emphasis added), with the result that:

"This opens up a major loophole for sole-source vendors to charge prices that cannot readily be evaluated for reasonableness. This concern will continue to grow as more companies merge and the aerospace industry becomes more of a sole-source environment." 9

Similarly, items under the loose definition can be merely "of a type" sold to the public, rather than a product that actually is sold to the public.

Acquisition Reform 101 The widely-promoted "Acquisition Reform" initiative emphasizes buying more products for the government on a "commercial" basis. "Commercial item" purchases bypass many of the protections and oversight put in place to prevent the infamous overcharging by defense contractors that occurred during the defense spending increases of the 1980s. The 1980s reforms included tougher Truth in Negotiations Act enforcement, re-establishment of the Cost Accounting Standards Board, strengthening of the False Claims Act, and passage of the Competition in Contracting Act.

The report on AlliedSignal provides examples of the government paying more for spare parts under the new "commercial" rules than it paid under the old rules. This is the opposite of what Acquisition Reform is intended to achieve. According to the Inspector General, the government "paid higher prices for commercial spare parts on the Allied corporate contract when compared to previous noncommercial prices for the same items."10

Astoundingly, government officials have been sent to training courses on commercial item acquisition run by the defense industry and taught by executives from AlliedSignal and Sundstrand! (See Appendix B)

Hinting that Acquisition Reform may have gone too far, the Inspector General report noted that if the government could not make commercial buying work as intended in the contract with AlliedSignal, it "will need to revert back to the previous buying practice of negotiating better prices for the spare parts ...."11

A Detailed Study: Getting Good Prices Without Acquisition Reform The government offices designing Acquisition Reforms have done precious little analysis of the actual effect of Acquisition Reform so far. Fortunately, a military officer undertaking an academic study has completed one of the few in-depth analyses to date comparing prices paid by commercial firms and by the government.

This study by Major Joseph Besselman examined a large number of DOD electronic, engine, and software commodity purchases. (See Appendix C) In contrast to the conventional wisdom that "commercial" prices are lower than what the government has obtained in the past, the report found that when the government is allowed to negotiate prices, and when the government has access to the manufacturer's cost data, it performs better than the commercial sector - obtaining even lower prices than commercial firms making similar purchases:

"Overall, weighted price difference analysis reveals the DoD outperformed the average commercial sector organization using commercial wholesale prices by 41.5 percent." 12

This key finding even held up when the government's costs of employing extra oversight and contracting people to gather cost data and negotiate prices is included:

"This research's case studies provide evidence that cost and pricing data enhances the DoD's buying position in high dollar value procurements, even when the costs of collecting that data are considered."13

The study sums up with guidance for how Acquisition Reform can avoid oversimplifying the real world in its enthusiasm for reducing oversight:

"The DoD's leadership needs to more realistically evaluate its push towards 'one size shoe fits all' public policy decisions as it tries to commercialize its operation to a greater degree. This research suggests that buying commercial items off commercial price lists will cost the taxpayer more money. Uniformly eliminating in-plant oversight personnel that collect cost and pricing data will adversely affect the DoD's purchasing power. Cost and pricing data is a valuable commercial sector tool the DoD buyer should exploit under the appropriate circumstances." 14

Government procurement practices are not all bad, and can successfully use commercial practices without necessarily abandoning other protections that have proven effective in preventing overpricing.

Acquisition Reform's Claims: Confusing What the Government Buys With How It Buys Reduced to its substance, Acquisition Reform is about changing the way the government buys goods and services, not changing what the Government buys. Acquisition Reform proponents argue that by changing how the Government buys, a lot of money can be saved. Yet, they produce little evidence to bolster their arguments - such as examples of prices lowered because of savings. In some of the instances where they do present "evidence," it is apparent that they have actually changed "what" they were buying instead of "how." In other words, it is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

For example, Steven Kelman, the Administration's former chief "point person" on acquisition reform as head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy from 1993-97, tells stories of how the Government saved large sums by allegedly changing the way it purchased shipboard telephones. According to Kelman, under Acquisition Reform the Navy was able to reduce shipboard telephone costs from $400 to $20 per unit. When asked how the Navy did this, Kelman answered that they went from using custom telephone specifications (or "mil specs") to buying regular commercial phones. While this might be laudable if the phones really did not need to have special capabilities for a naval combat environment, it really has nothing to do with the "how" part of the buying process. Instead, what was changed was the "what" part - it was decided that commercial phones were capable of the job. It is like saying you reduced the price of a car from $40,000 to $20,000, but omitting the fact that you stopped buying Cadillacs and started buying Chevrolets.

Another instance comes from one of the most famous Acquisition Reform stories - the image of Vice President Gore smashing an allegedly overpriced ashtray on the David Letterman Show. The story was that by purchasing commercial ashtrays instead of using lengthy and almost unintelligible custom government specifications for these ashtrays, a lot of money could be saved. The Vice President pointed out to the television audience that ashtrays were only one example of Government custom specifications run amuck. But, what he failed to explain was that this was not a "how" to buy issue, it was a "what" to buy issue. Of course, it probably made no sense to continue purchasing custom made ashtrays (or chocolate chip cookies or t-shirts). But, it wasn't a procurement or contracting procedure change that made for all of the allegedly big cost savings. It was a decision to buy cheaper, standardized ashtrays, instead of the custom models.

According to Acquisition Reformers, the Government can save a lot of money if it changes the "how" part of the buying process. But, most of what the contractors (and their supporters in Congress and the Administration) want changed are exactly the parts of the "how" to buy process that ensure fair and reasonable contract pricing and value to taxpayers.


The Cause: Why and How Is This Happening? Today's "Acquisition Reform:" Rolling Back Yesterday's Reforms In the 1990s, the defense industry has taken up the offensive against what it saw as overbearing procurement reforms of the 1980s. Most of these reforms, however, were useful protections for the taxpayer against contractors that had already taken advantage of us in the 1980s. The reforms, including 35 procurement reform initiatives ordered by the Secretary of Defense in 1983, have had positive results: a DOD Inspector General report notes that "Implementation of the Competition in Contracting Act, enacted in 1984, and the 35 spare parts procurement initiatives resulted in dramatic increases in reported competitive procurements and savings from 1985 to 1988."15

Former DOD Inspector General Eleanor Hill noted the dangers of rolling back these reforms:

"We remain concerned about suggestions to limit or repeal controls that have been proven effective over time, such as the False Claims Act, the Truth in Negotiations Act, the Cost Accounting Standards, the statute that prohibits contractors from charging unallowable costs, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. We believe that these controls have been critical to maintaining the Government's ability to adequately protect its interests in the acquisition area."16

Some of the key reforms targeted by the defense industry and their current status are described in the table.



 Important Procurement Reforms of the 1980s and Their Current Status Reform Purpose Status Today False Claims Act Strengthened 1986: The False Claims Act was originally Civil War-era legislation intended to halt war profiteering. Amendments to the Act in 1986 increased the penalties for fraud and encouraged whistleblowers to come forward when they were aware of defrauding of the government. The law has been under heavy assault by the defense industry. Industry claims that "innocent disagreements" are being prosecuted as fraud. The Defense Department has flirted with pushing changes to the Act, and has worked with industry to gather information to support weakening the law. DOD and the industry have repeated the theme that companies are deterred from doing business with the government for fear of alleged excessive vulnerability to fraud lawsuits. The Department of Justice, however, has strongly rebutted claims that the False Claims Act is burdensome and needs amending. Justice noted in a response to the claims of the Defense Policy Advisory Committee on Trade (DPACT), an industry group that, for example, "DPACT provides no support beyond mere assertion for the proposition that False Claims Act liability has any substantial effect on defense industry profits or on the industry's relationship with DOD. Moreover, analysis of the data available to us shows no such effect 17

So far, strong resistance from Congressional supporters of the False Claims Act such as Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and from the Department of Justice - bolstered by the fact that billions of dollars have been recovered for the taxpayers - have kept efforts to weaken the law at bay, but industry attempts to overturn the strengthened law continue.

Truth in Negotiations Emphasis 1980s: The Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) requires that contractor data submitted to the government to be current, accurate, and complete. Enforcement and emphasis on TINA were boosted in the 1980s. Congress kept a close eye on the issue, and the General Accounting Office (GAO) did many reports that emphasized the importance of TINA. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act (Clinger-Cohen Act) exempted so-called commercial item contracts from TINA. Using false and misleading logic, Acquisition Reform proponents have tried to link application of TINA and application of Cost Accounting Standards, suggesting that anywhere TINA does not apply, neither should the Cost Accounting Standards. Procurement Integrity Statute Created

1988: Amendments to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act attempted to prevent the types of corruption that were exposed by Operation Ill Wind. The scandal revealed that contracting officials were selling source selection information - the strengths and weaknesses of competing bids based on the proposals under review - so that their associates could strengthen their own proposals when they went into negotiations. The Amendments pulled together a variety of laws that prohibited revealing information to contractors and required that officials and contractor employees sign statements saying they were aware of the integrity laws.

In response to industry criticism that the legislation merely duplicated other laws, and was unnecessarily burdensome, the paperwork was simplified in the 1990s.

Cost Accounting Standards Board Reestablished

1988: The OFPP Act Amendments also re-established the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board. The CAS Board sets accounting rules designed to achieve uniformity and consistency in the accounting practices contractors must follow when pricing contracts or submitting bills to the government. The original CAS Board was terminated in 1980 when Congress failed to continue its funding (after heavy defense industry lobbying to abolish the Board).

After a steady drumbeat of industry pressure, by 1999 the Board has been "demoted" as an organization within the Office of Management and Budget, Board Members and staff are largely being bypassed, a government-industry review panel has proposed dramatically raising the dollar thresholds for applying the Standards among other limitations on the Board's rules, and DOD-inspired legislation has been submitted to allow exemptions from the rules for any contract or any contractor.

Competition in Contracting Act Passed

1984: Several factors were behind the important Competition in Contracting Act. First, an influential GAO report concluded that only a small share of contracts were being competed, and noted that competed contracts brought down prices sharply. Also, scandals involving spare parts overcharging were caused in part by markups as prime contractors supplied parts to the government that were actually produced by subcontractors. Finally, the small business community lobbied to be able to sell more to the government directly.

The Act opened up competition by requiring contracts to be "fully and openly competed." The Defense Department's ability to choose whomever it wanted for a contract was narrowed.

The Act has been weakened. Technically, full and open competition is still in place, but now only to the extent that it is "consistent with efficiency." In many cases, the competition requirement is now just for a "reasonable opportunity to be considered" for a contract.

The rules have been bypassed in part by expanding another form of contracts, those in which specific deliverable products are not specified exactly in the contract, but the contractor is available to perform services or produce products if called upon. Major weapon contracts are not usually of this form. The new form of contracts - which are more like "supplier agreements" or "licenses to sell to the government" - were exempted by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, so that requirements for full competition are much less robust.

Penalties Increased for Disallowed Costs

1985: The 1985 DOD Authorization Act increased the penalties for costs submitted for reimbursement by contractors that the government determines are not valid claims.

The statutes are currently still on the books, but are under industry criticism, since the industry feels the statute excessively "criminalizes" what they see as "civil" violations.


Counterattack in the 1990s Industry has lobbied hard to reverse or bypass many of the reforms of the 1980s. In the climate of cutting back government of the 1990s, both Congress and the Administration have pushed for loosening of oversight over defense contractors.

Part of the rationale for the reforms developed out of the overpriced spare parts scandals of the 1980s. The scandals were often the result of line items in "cost-plus" contracts - the type of contracts in which the government pays all of a contractor's permitted costs in executing a contract, plus an amount of profit on top. (Often the profit was set as a percentage of the total costs, creating an even stronger incentive to the contractor to push the direct costs as high as possible.)

The bad name that these cost-based contracts gave to defense procurement helped lead to official enthusiasm for price-based contracts - contracts based on a fixed price, agreed beforehand. The commercial world usually operates with price-based contracts. For example, a person contracting with a builder to construct a house would have to be pretty crazy or very rich to use a cost-based contract that allowed the builder to spend whatever he or she wanted, with a guaranteed profit on top. Instead, in the commercial world, a contractor has to keep down costs, or the expected profits will drop, or even disappear.

The new enthusiasm for price-based contracting had perfect timing to mesh with the new buzzwords of adopting best commercial practices and privatization popularized by the Clinton-Gore Administration and the Congress in the 1990s. Unfortunately, though, what Acquisition Reform began pushing was price-based commercial contracting without the normal constraints, appropriate incentives, and oversight. Price-based contracting does not work if it just means accepting whatever price a contractor asks.

Acquisition Reform has interfered with keys to getting good price-based contracts - the government's ability to bargain hard, to get the information it needs from a contractor to verify that prices are fair, and to analyze costs to make sure they are based on what things should cost, not what they did cost before, which may have been illegitimate itself. This is nothing new - the procurement system was documented suppressing government access to contractor cost data at least three decades ago. (see Appendix D) But now the effort to blind the government is much broader and has progressed much farther.

Above all, good price-based commercial contracting relies on a healthy level of competition. Yet many of the overpricing problems that have come to light under the new "commercial" Acquisition Reform rules involve inadequate competition. Much of the savings obtained in the 1980s were attributable to strengthened competition, including techniques such as "breaking out" the purchase of component parts from the prime contractor, who often does not make the parts, but purchases them from subcontractors and adds a large markup. Acquisition Reform's failure to promote adequate competition has been sorely compounded by the Clinton Administration's zealous promotion and subsidy of mergers in the defense industry, 18 which has drastically reduced the number of competitors in each sector of the industry.

It is only the lavish, unquestioning kind of price-based contracting that industry wants. But if Acquisition Reform is to work for the taxpayer and not solely for private contractors, it will have to adopt the normal kind of commercial price-based contracting, the kind that is not subservient to industry, but rather corroborates industry claims in a non-adversarial but informed fashion.

The Clinton-Gore Administration From its beginning, the Clinton-Gore Administration has pushed for changes to make things easier for contractors through its Acquisition Reform program in the Defense Department. The initiative was the culmination of a long process of working closer with industry and its campaign contributors undertaken by the Democratic Party when it began targeting corporate campaign contributions more aggressively in the 1980s.

The defense industry succeeded beyond its wildest dreams in winning endorsement of its proposals after the 1992 presidential election. Their plans proved to be in the right place at the right time when Vice President Gore was looking for new changes to make through his Reinventing Government initiative. Industry wishes were compiled by a Congressionally-created committee known informally as the "Section 800 panel," which was industry-dominated. 19 The panel's report was completed soon after the Clinton-Gore Administration took office. Its recommendations helped shape the Reinventing Government plan, which was put together under a tight deadline and needed new proposals quickly.

The approach of the Reinventing Government initiative was to blame the very procedures that were put in place to prevent waste and fraud, saying they were actually adding to the problem. As the first "National Performance Review" in September 1993 stated:

"In recent years, our national leaders responded to the growing crisis with traditional medicine. They blamed the bureaucrats. They railed against "fraud, waste, and abuse." And they slapped ever more controls on the bureaucracy to prevent it.

But the cure has become indistinguishable from the disease. The problem is not lazy or incompetent people; it is red tape and regulation so suffocating that they stifle every ounce of creativity." 20

Cutting out red tape is an undeniably worthy goal, and the National Performance Review identified many areas for improvement. The original report acknowledged that protections were usually put in place for good reason, but argues they got out of control:

"But not one inch of [government] red tape appears by accident. In fact, the government creates it all with the best of intentions ....

Because we don't want employees or private companies profiteering from federal contracts, we create procurement processes that require endless signatures and long months to buy almost anything."21

The difficulty in cutting red tape comes in deciding what really is red tape, and what are vital protections to prevent waste. Unfortunately, the defense industry took the wisdom of the Reinventing Government campaign and pushed it much too far, persuading its allies in Congress and the Administration to apply it where it benefits them alone. The industry has pushed to apply liberalized rules for "commercial" products to non-commercial products too - for example in attacking the Cost Accounting Standards, which apply only to non-commercial products.

If there is a common element to the various defense "Acquisition Reform" initiatives, it might be a reliance on trusting contractors to do the right thing, rather than keeping an eye on them with close oversight. The evidence is beginning to mount that -- as might be expected with reforms that weaken the government's ability to discover, correct, and deter contractor abuses -- these elements of Acquisition Reform are backfiring.

Receiving industry's views is necessary, as long as the relationship does not become too close, and government does not start working for private industry's interests rather than the public's interest. Just one example of how closely industry is involved in developing policy for the Clinton Administration is provided by a case of having industry representatives on the distribution list "for your review and coordination" of a government internal policy review. (See Appendix E)

In building their case for reducing oversight, contractors have claimed that the rules are excessively burdensome, and the Defense Department argues that, as a result, a lot of companies do not want to contract with the government. But the Department's claim about deterred companies is not very persuasive: leading the lobbying charge of contractors against these sensible rules are the largest existing defense companies, who have shown little reluctance to bid for government contracts - including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, and associations that represent the major defense contractors, such as the Aerospace Industries Association. If the changes were really to benefit up-and-coming new competitors in the defense industry, why would the existing contractors push the changes so hard? The Defense Department has mentioned few companies that are refusing to do business with the government.

Furthermore, the defense industry has been highly profitable recently compared to other industries, raising questions about the claims that defense work is so burdensome, unprofitable, and unappealing that companies are deterred from doing it. According to a PaineWebber report, "Profit margins in the defense industry are at the highest levels in history; operating margins have increased from 6% in 1990 to over 12% in 1997." 22

The Administration has touted billions of dollars of savings from Reinventing Government and Acquisition Reform, saying they overshadow the new stories of overpriced spare parts. But even those claims have been challenged in a recently-released General Accounting Office (GAO) report, which points out substantial unsupported and double-counted "savings" in its examination of some of the claims. The GAO's conclusion regarding the claims of the National Performance Review (NPR), as the Reinventing Government effort is also known, was: "NPR claimed savings from agency-specific recommendations that could not be fully attributed to its efforts. OMB generally did not distinguish NPR's contributions from other initiatives or factors that influenced budget reductions at the agencies we reviewed." 23

The Congress The Administration's efforts got a boost when anti-regulation sentiment swept the Congress after the 1994 election. Congress expanded the Administration's initiatives with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (known as the Clinger-Cohen Act - one of its sponsors, Senator William Cohen, soon became Secretary of Defense.) (See Appendix F for a summary of legislative changes.)

The new laws made it easier for the government to buy "commercial" items, but they ended up making it too easy, by defining "commercial" too broadly. The original idea was to ease the government's ability to buy "off-the-shelf" items whose prices could be trusted because they were set by a free market. But the definitions are so broad that "sole-source" items bought from just one company, or items bought by the government alone, can count as commercial items and avoid normal rules. Items such as the C-130J military transport aircraft - a far cry from simple items like ashtrays, bolts, and hammers - have been declared "commercial" purchases.

In practice, contractors can claim a wide variety of products are "commercial" in order to stop government contracting officials challenging them on their high prices. A DOD Inspector General investigation found in one case that, "the contractor has declined to offer prices or provide cost data. The contractor is now claiming all the spare parts are commercial items, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for DLA [Defense Logistics Agency] to negotiate fair and reasonable prices for the sole-source spare parts." 24

The laws allow contractors to sell "commercial" items without having to provide or certify cost and price data to prove that their prices are fair. The problem is that there is not always a single true "commercial price" to rely on if cost data is denied. In particular, so-called "catalog prices" or "list prices" sometimes are not the best commercial prices available. Discounts are usually available for large orders, for example, and the government often makes very large orders yet cannot use its purchasing power under the new system.

Acquisition Reform - Not Really Adopting the Free Market Acquisition Reform is drastically reducing access to cost data, reducing the number of government oversight personnel, and discouraging proactive price negotiating. Acquisition Reform proponents apparently believe that declaring something "commercial" creates market forces out of thin air - so that oversight is no longer needed and all the old rules and procedures can be thrown out.

An element of Acquisition Reform is that it is being used to discourage contracting officers from aggressively negotiating for discounts below "list" and "catalog" prices. There are various reasons why discounts from list prices may be justified, but the most basic is simply a discount for large purchase volumes. Again, this practice is not only a common large commercial firm practice, but also something almost every consumer shopper is familiar with - if you buy in bulk, you pay a lower price.

A simple analogy from our daily lives also illustrates that "commercial" prices are not set in stone. As most car buyers know, you do not necessarily have to pay whatever price the dealer puts on the sticker. Consumers trying to save money find out the "dealer invoice" price - that is, the seller's cost data - and can use that to bring down the exorbitant sticker price. Acquisition Reform, however, pretends that consumers and companies in the commercial marketplace do not gather cost data, and so it limits the government's ability to get the best out of commercial markets.

A June 1999 General Accounting Office study has found that under the new policies and procedures, government contracting officials were not challenging contractors' prices sufficiently:

"The price analysis performed by contracting personnel were often too limited to ensure that prices were fair and reasonable. For example, some contracting personnel believed that when the offered price was the same as the catalog or list price, it could be considered a fair and reasonable price. In several cases, contracting personnel did not use pertinent historical pricing information contained in contract files that should have raised questions about the reasonableness of offered prices. ... Finally, many contracting officers were not documenting in the contract file how they determined that a price previously paid for an item was fair and reasonable and, therefore, could be relied on in evaluating the currently offered price." 25

The legislation and the Administration's policy have blinded contracting officials: when the officials are not buying "off the shelf" items where prices are truly set in the commercial marketplace, they are effectively restricted (and subtly discouraged) from negotiating down from so-called "commercial" prices offered by defense contractors. 26At the same time, contractors no longer have to provide certified cost information to prove that their prices are fair, even when the items are being acquired on a sole-source basis. A DOD IG investigation found that:

"Acquisition reform legislation and the FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] still provide that contracting officers shall require information other than cost or pricing data which includes uncertified cost or pricing data when necessary to determine price reasonableness for commercial items, but there is a strong DoD preference not to use that mechanism and the Government has not asserted its right to have the data." 27[Emphasis added.]

Acquisition Reform defenders seem to pick and choose which parts of "commercial practices" to adopt. In particular, they have discouraged gathering cost data from suppliers, even though it is a practice often followed by large commercial companies. Large companies that buy from small companies have the leverage and the "market power" to get the smaller company to prove that its prices are reasonable. So should the government.

In addition to changing the rules, Acquisition Reform has used a variety of bureaucratic changes to reduce monitoring of the defense industry. The following sections look in more detail at how the Administration has made large-scale cutbacks in government personnel who negotiate, monitor, and oversee defense contracts.

Monkeying with Oversight: Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil A deep reduction in the number of auditors, investigators, and other government personnel who oversee defense contractors is underway. Congress has cut budgets of oversight agencies, and in 1994 ordered the elimination of 272,900 positions throughout the government over several years.28 The likely cost of this reduced oversight will be more fraud and higher prices for the government. Until contractors improve their performance record and eliminate fraud, oversight remains crucial for protecting the public purse. DOD Inspector General Eleanor Hill noted in 1998, "As personnel reductions in the acquisition workforce have occurred, we have also seen reduction in programs for fraud prevention, detection, and reporting." 29

The problem with simply trusting defense corporations - "contractor self-oversight" and "contractor self-governance," as it has been called - is that the contractors have not yet earned that trust. As the DOD IG says:

"While we understand the many benefits of the new emphasis on Government/industry teamwork, the Department should not assume that procurement fraud no longer occurs. To the contrary, our criminal investigators report that their proactive undercover efforts regularly reveal significant fraudulent activity. ... Many advocates of drastic changes in Government acquisition practices are unaware of, or choose to ignore, the fact that procurement fraud remains a threat to the DoD and the U.S. taxpayer." 30(Emphasis added.)

A report by the Project On Government Oversight found that the defense industry returned more than $850 million to the government just to settle fraud cases under the False Claims Act from 1994 to 1996. 31

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish Investment in oversight performed by agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Defense Contract Management Command, the DOD Inspector General's office, and the General Accounting Office produces a highly favorable return for the taxpayer. But large reductions in the DOD acquisition workforce and in these agencies in particular have already taken place, and more are planned. For example:

Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) - Conducts audits of Department of Defense contracts.

"We used to get hundreds of [criminal case] referrals from DCAA. Now I think I can count them on one hand." - William Dupree, head of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. 32

Saves almost $10 for each dollar invested. 33 Produced documented savings of $3.7 billion and an additional $2 billion in unallowable costs that contractors would otherwise have charged in 1997. 34

Staff positions cut by 19% from FY 1993 to FY 1997. 35 Scheduled to suffer an additional loss of more than 3,000 staffers, a 44% cut, from FY 1990 to FY 2002. 36

Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) - Part of the DOD Inspector General's office, detects, investigates and prevents fraud, waste, abuse, and other improper acts in the Defense Department.

"... there aren't any inspectors anymore. Because we're 'working with industry.' ... That's part of the problem: where will it unfold and how will it unfold if you've got the government almost in concert with the contractor?" - William Dupree, Defense Criminal Investigative Service 37

Recovered $466 million in FY 1996-97 fraud investigations. 38

Overall DOD Inspector General staff, which includes Defense Criminal Investigative Service, cut 21% from FY 1994 to FY 1997. 39 Planned cuts of 35% from FY 1995 to FY 2001, including a 37% cut in auditors and 26% in investigators. 40

Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC) - Manages defense contracts, including analysis, review, fraud investigation, and quality assurance assessments of contracts.

"Instead of workforce adjustments being a logical consequence of business process reengineering, the personnel reductions appear to have become a reform goal in and of themselves." - Eleanor Hill, Department of Defense Inspector General 41

Referrals of fraud cases by the Defense Logistics Agency, which includes the Defense Contract Management Command, have dropped by 47% since 1995. 42

80% cut in personnel at the Defense Logistics Agency's Office of General Counsel responsible for pursuing fraud cases.43 Total DCMC personnel cut 27% from FY 1993 to FY 1997. 44 Quality assurance staff at DCMC cut 54% from FY 1990 to FY 1996. 45

General Accounting Office (GAO) - Audits, investigates, and assesses defense and other government programs.

GAO's work "contributes to many legislative and executive branch actions that result in significant financial savings and other improvements in government operations." - GAO's 1999 "Status of Open Recommendations" report

Examples of GAO savings: "six GAO products on concurrency [buying designs while still testing them] and risk in the F-22 program were important influences on DOD actions to decrease concurrency, which included reducing the number of initial production aircraft from eight to six annually resulting in measurable savings of about $1.7 billion." Similarly, "the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations conferees reduced DOD's fiscal year 1998 operations and maintenance request by $199.3 million, based on funds we identified to be in excess of requirements." 46

GAO has been chopped a third in size from FY 1992 to FY 1996, losing almost 2,000 staffers. 47

Cost Accounting Standards Board (CAS Board) - Sets basic accounting rules for contractors covering $125 billion per year in noncommercial contracts - about $90 billion in defense.

"If anything, the risks may be greater today because there is such market dominance by a few very large suppliers. In this environment, getting cost information and maintaining audit rights is a prudent business practice. Failure to do so will be very costly for the Department and ultimately the taxpayer." - Eleanor Hill, Department of Defense Inspector General 48

Estimated to save the government over $6 billion a year. 49

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has made a variety of bureaucratic changes to weaken the Board and its small staff, and legislation to make further changes is under consideration in Congress. 50 At Congressional direction, a Panel has reviewed the Board. (See Appendices G and H.) The Panel suffered from blatant conflict of interest - half of its members were from industry, including Northrop Grumman, which has paid $3.3 million in recent years to settle fraud claims against it under the False Claims Act, 51 and AlliedSignal, which was recently found by a Defense Department Inspector General investigation to have grossly overcharged the government for spare parts. Not surprisingly, the Panel recommended weakening of the Board's Standards. (See Appendix I)

It does not normally make sense to cut back on highly profitable activities. Drastically cutting oversight personnel blinds the government in its oversight of tens of billions of dollars of contracts each year. This serves only to make the government and the taxpayer highly vulnerable to exploitation by an industry with a blemished track record. There can be non-monetary costs, too: in August 1999 a draft GAO report found that the Defense Security Service, which conducts background checks for security clearances, had a backlog of half-a-million cases. Officials cited as one cause the Administration's Reinventing Government personnel cutbacks at the agency - since 1989 the staff was slashed from 4,080 employees to 2,466. 52

Unfortunately, Vice President Gore's National Performance Review regards oversight personnel as part of the problem:

"As we pare down the systems of overcontrol and micromanagement in government, we must also pare down the structures that go with them: the oversized headquarters, multiple layers of supervisors and auditors, and offices specializing in the arcane rules of budgeting, personnel, procurement, and finance. We cannot entirely do without headquarters, supervisors, auditors, or specialists, but these structures have grown twice as large as they should be." 53

But auditors, investigators, and other oversight personnel - who produce large net savings for the taxpayer - should not necessarily be lumped together with general management personnel. Again, Reinventing Government plans took steps in the right direction, but then were pushed too far.

The ideological goal of reducing oversight to work more "in concert" with the defense industry may explain the rush to cut staffs without doing sufficient monitoring and assessment of whether more oversight can be done with less personnel. The situation is made all the more dire by the increasing demands being put on oversight agencies. In the next few years they will have to deal with:

  • A planned increase in the amount of spending on procurement contracts.
  • New requirements to balance the federal government's accounting books.
  • A newly-mandated outsourcing of work formerly performed by the government, which will increase the number of contracts, and hence management and oversight requirements.
  • A hampering of competition by the recent wave of defense mega-mergers. Competition used to be a silent ally in keeping contractors from playing games with the rules.
Acquisition Reform: "Streamlining" Dollars from Our Pockets Another illustration of how Acquisition Reform has gone off track is the Administration's proposals to start "streamlining" other contracting rules called the contract cost principles. 54 The initiative demonstrates the inconsistency of Acquisition Reform in claiming that it is merely trying to adopt commercial practices, but actually is asking for an even sweeter deal for industry.

Paying for Luxury Hotels Again The cost principles are used, for example, to determine which costs that a contractor wants to bill to the government under a contract are "allowable," or payable (e.g., salaries, material), and which are "unallowable" (e.g., costs of alcoholic beverages, club memberships).

Publicly, this streamlining is supposed to be about "Civil-Military Integration" - the merger of defense and commercial industries - which is supposed to bring technical and cost benefits. However, this latest initiative merely removes long-standing ceilings placed on defense contractor travel and relocation costs billed to the government. These ceilings - which ironically are based on commercial indices - limit contractors to the same reimbursements that Federal employees can receive for hotels, meals, and moving expenses.

Since the amounts that Federal employees may be reimbursed are set at standard commercial rates, however, contractors are already limited to operating as the commercial world does. The new initiative, however, wants to eliminate any constraints, and let contractors charge even more than commercial standards. The ceilings were originally put in place to curb abuses such as claims for luxury hotel suites and excessive meal costs while performing government contracts. (See Appendix J)

If the cost principles are weakened, horror stories about luxurious executive lifestyles at taxpayer expense are likely to come up once again. A recent GAO report notes how contractors charging travel rates much higher than the Federal standards contributed to excessive Department of Energy travel expenditures. Acquisition Reform should not be about making it easier for corporate officials to bill the taxpayer for $300-a-night hotel rooms. 55

Accepting Data That Need Not Be "Current, Accurate, and Complete" A final example of the heedless attitude prevalent in the Acquisition Reform era is that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act now allow use of cost or pricing data that oftentimes is not required to be "certified." Such uncertified contractor cost or pricing data is that which "need not be current, accurate, and complete," and is therefore far less useful for determining whether prices charged to the government are fair or not.

Accuracy of cost information is not a trivial matter: yet another investigation by the DOD Inspector General, this time a not-yet-released study, was reported in June 1999 to have found millions of dollars worth of overcharging by AlliedSignal - and attributed them to the flawed, inaccurate, and outdated pricing information provided by the company. The IG reportedly concluded that at least $53 million could be saved through the year 2005 with better data. 56

In an Orwellian attempt to confuse the situation, uncertified cost data is now referred to in the government as "information other than cost or pricing data" and certified data is referred to as "cost or pricing data." Since uncertified data apparently cannot be relied upon, when submitting cost data, contractors should be required to certify the data.

The $435 Hammer That Won't Go Away Rocked by the spare parts horror stories of the 1980s, the Pentagon searched for some cover. They found it in the theories of a Harvard professor, Steven Kelman. Professor Kelman's theory was that the spare parts horror stories were a myth, and were caused by an accounting procedure called the "equal allocation of overhead." At the time, however, the equal allocation claim was exposed as bearing no relationship to reality.

Now, more than a decade later, Acquisition Reform advocates are turning to the same hoax, and astonishingly, Professor Kelman shows up as a major architect of Acquisition Reform - he was head of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy during the early Clinton Administration. A December 1998 National Journal article quoting Kelman led with the alleged revelation that a famous defense scandal story from the Reagan years - the $435 hammer - was a "myth." By implication, all the other horror stories of overpricing were myths too. (See Appendix K)

According to this hoax, the outrageous overcharging of the day had a simple and innocuous accounting explanation: simple items like hammers had an amount of company "overhead" expenses allocated to them equal to the amount allocated to much more complex and expensive items. Allocating large amounts of overhead "equally," rather than in proportion to actual value, would naturally lead to bizarre outcomes like $435 hammers.

Unfortunately this convenient explanation was simply not backed up by the facts: contractors did not use such bizarre procedures - in fact they would not be permitted by Cost Accounting Standards. In the 1980s the Project On Government Oversight (then known as the Project on Military Procurement) worked extensively on Defense Department overcharging scandals and rebutted the equal allocation hoax when it first appeared. Simple examination of the data showed that allocation of the alleged equal amount of overhead as Kelman claimed would mean that many cheaper items found on contract price lists would actually have a negative price once the "overhead" was taken away. (See Appendix L) The Project On Government Oversight pointed out that the proponents of the hoax actually never produced cases of the "equal allocation of overhead," and in fact the Air Force was forced to admit there were no cases. (See Appendices M and N)

Pentagon whistleblower Ernest Fitzgerald traces the history of the "equal allocation" hoax in his 1989 book The Pentagonists. Fitzgerald presciently foretells that, "Doubtless in the future other writers as gullible as George Will and Professor Kelman will front for the Pentagon again." Who would have known that the original author of this hoax would return in the White House more than a decade later?

The Solution: How to Stop De-Inventing the Wheel Acquisition Reform is not necessarily what it sounds like - it is not reform in the old sense of tightening protections against contractor overcharging. To the contrary, it has focused on weakening or bypassing controls - and claiming that the free market will protect the government. But the real world is more complicated, and policies should be revised to take into account the complexities of the free market, and the necessary and desirable contracting and accounting procedures that aid the government in negotiating with large and powerful defense contractors. The following proposals, including suggestions for legislative changes, could help ensure that the new reforms do not come at the cost of crippling previous reforms:

Restore meaning to the definition of "commercial." Commercial status should only apply to items that are bought and sold widely in true free market. This would require:

  1. Restore the definition of commercial as actual sale of specific items to the general public, rather than the loosened definition of a commercial item as one not necessarily sold to the public, but merely "offered for sale."
  2. Also, restore the definition of commercial to mean a large free market -- one that has a substantial level of sales. The Federal Acquisition Reform Act (Clinger-Cohen Act) watered down standards defining a substantial level of commercial sales, and if there is not a large market with numerous buyers and sellers, the "prices" set by contractors should not necessarily be relied upon for government purchases.
  3. Finally, restore the definition of "competitive bidding" to require at least two bidders. The current alternative says that there is competition even if there is only one bid, as long as others could have bid. The phrase "sole-source commercial" is also an oxymoron - commercial exemptions should not apply when the supplier has a monopoly.
Clarify that the government can and should still negotiate actively for some commercial items. Make clear that government contracting officers have full authority to pursue the best commercial price by negotiating down from "list" prices. Commercial prices are sometimes negotiable to other companies and individuals, so there is no need or rationale to prevent the government from negotiating in such cases too. Make clear that the "commercial price" is not necessarily whatever a contractor chooses to claim or list in its catalog, but rather the price that the government or a company could negotiate, based particularly on the normal commercial practice of bulk discounting.

Restore the use of cost or pricing data where prices are not set by a true free market. Since commercial firms large enough to have "buying power" collect cost data from their suppliers, allowing the government to do so also is merely following best commercial practice. The data obtained should be "certified" data.

Preserve funding for the auditors, investigators, and rule-setting Boards like the Cost Accounting Standards Board. Many of the oversight officials save us far more than they cost. To keep cutting back on their numbers is to throw away money.

Defend the False Claims Act against industry assaults. The False Claims Act provides increased protections against fraud. It continues to be a target for industry lobbying. It, and the other reforms put in place to prevent abuses, should be strengthened and not weakened.

Improve price-based contracting by increasing competition and reversing the trend of mergers leading to fewer competing contractors. Ensure that adequate competition exists wherever possible, and where it cannot, negotiate vigorously based on cost analysis of what products should cost now, not extrapolations of what was paid (or overpaid) in the past.

If the Administration and Congress are serious about using Acquisition Reform to adopt best commercial practices, they need to focus more on the most basic ones - such as testing and developing products fully before buying them - and to give government officials the ability to make use of all best commercial practices, even when it means that defense contractors do not get everything they want.

Following Pentagon acknowledgment of "readiness" problems and after the war in Kosovo, defense budgets - and procurement spending - are being increased sharply. For this reason it is especially imperative for us not to forget what we already know about good acquisition reform - there is no need to re-invent the wheel. If we do forget, the budget surpluses the Defense Department is enjoying will quickly be frittered away on overpriced weapons and parts, and the taxpayers' money will, once again, be wasted.


0 Comments

June 03rd, 2014

6/3/2014

0 Comments

 
TALKING ONE MORE TIME FOR NOW ON THE DISASTER OF PRIVATIZING PUBLIC HEALTH THROUGH PRIVATIZING UNIVERSITIES AND THE EFFECTS OF AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.  WE CAN SEE TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT IN THE WAY THE PRIVATIZED PATENT SYSTEM AND THE LACK OF FDA OVERSIGHT IS MAKING OUR HEALTH SYSTEM DANGEROUS!

ALL OF MARYLAND CANDIDATE'S FOR GOVERNOR WILL CONTINUE THIS GLOBAL CORPORATE STRUCTURE FOR HEALTH CARE EXCEPT CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR



I listened to a NPR------corporate media all the time----report on the escalating problem of medical procedures and devices passing FDA approval and failing and sometimes killing the American people.  The numbers are soaring as the FDA is now working to send these products to market for profit and allowing the failures to be discovered after the fact by harming the citizens of America.  This NPR article looked at one medical procedure that was approved by the FDA after a supposed 'clinical trial' of a few hundreds of people.  The entire process looked to be filled with false data and sketchy connections with who and how the medical research was conducted and if any of the results were reproducible or if the efficacy was real.

  ERGO-----THE ENTIRE PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICAL TRIAL PROCEDURE IS BEING DISMANTLED AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WILL NOW BE THE TEST SUBJECTS.  IF HARM IS DONE-----TOUGH LUCK AND WE WILL ALLOW THE BAD MEDICAL PROCEDURE TO CONTINUE REGARDLESS IN ANOTHER FORM.

This is what a corporate state looks like and it is Trans Pacific Trade Pact already in action as Obama has filled his Federal agencies with the same kinds of people that Bush did-----people committed to global corporate control of all public policy.

THIS IS WHAT YOUR ELECTIONS FOR GOVERNOR AND MAYOR ARE ABOUT-----WE THE PEOPLE MUST WIN THESE ELECTIONS!

What is happening as well is that Obama and your neo-liberal Congress person sent hundreds of billions of dollars to higher education under the guise of building stronger education but what they are building are corporate university research facilities complete with patenting of research done at this university.  Most institutions receiving those hundreds of billions to build their corporate R and D?  Ivy League universities like Johns Hopkins.  What this policy does is make these universities corporations that receive tons of public taxpayer money to subsidize research in the guise of education while it is simply a patent machine for corporate R and D.  When you see BIOPARK outside of Johns Hopkins or University of Maryland Medical System in Baltimore (a quasi-institution, not public so they say)   ---you are seeing the public subsidizing with what is called education funding the profits of what are now corporations.

More important is combining this with the fact that the clinical trial structure and fast FDA approval of these patented procedures, devices, or medications that are simply rubber-stamped and you have ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC OVERSIGHT OF ANY OF THE HEALTH INDUSTRY ACTIONS.  Remember, universities----especially public universities ------were the one institutions charged with making sure the data and research of products protected the people.  These corporate structures built by neo-liberals like O'Malley and neo-cons like Erhlich are now doing just that.......creating an unaccountable and fraudulent system in our medical research structure.

OBAMA AND NEO-LIBERALS IN CONGRESS-----ALL MARYLAND POLS ARE NEO-LIBERALS------DELIBERATELY SENT MONEY TO BUILD WHAT THEY KNOW WILL HURT AND/OR KILL CITIZENS IN THE NAME OF CORPORATE PROFIT.


This is what Trans Pacific Trade Pact and the Affordable Care Act is all about.....consolidating the health industry into global corporate health systems that are deregulated and unaccountable and that will do harm without a second thought in pursuit of profit.  This is what the Maryland Health reform has done these several years under O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake in Baltimore-----created the structures to allow all this to happen and with no oversight or accountability structures.

SEE WHY CINDY WALSH FOR GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND AND HER PLATFORM MUST BE KEPT OUT OF THIS ELECTION????


'The 510(k) loophole

Although the FDA requests clinical data in about 10% of cases, one concern over the 510(k) system is that testing is insufficient and so products that are either unsafe or ineffective could be released to market'.


Please read below to the 510 loophole.....it has made the FDA just as the SEC----working for corporate interests against the people's interests.  That is what a corporate state does.

How does the FDA 'approve' medical products?

Thursday 20 February 2014 - 8am PST

Written by David McNamee  Medical News Today



  You may have seen medical products that claim to be "FDA cleared," "FDA registered," "FDA listed" or "FDA approved" - but what do these labels mean? You would be forgiven for feeling confused.

In this feature, we look at what the differences in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification actually mean, what you need to be aware of as a consumer and what the future holds for the regulation and classification of medical products in the US.

Though you may see labels on a wide variety of medical products - from implantable defibrillators to smartphone apps - bearing legends such as "FDA registered," in reality these claims are often disingenuous. But regulation over the correct terminology is rarely enforced.

Class 1, 2 and 3 In truth, the only products that the FDA specifically "approve" are drugs and life-threatening or life-sustaining "Class 3" medical technology (such as defibrillators). These are submitted to a rigorous review process called "pre-market approval" (PMA), to prove that the benefits of the products outweigh any potential risks to the health of the patient.


The only products that the FDA specifically "approve" are drugs and life-threatening or life-sustaining "Class 3" medical technology. Scientific evidence from clinical trials must be provided by the manufacturers demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of their product. Just 1% of products pass PMA.

Over-the-counter drugs are monitored by the FDA, but they are submitted to a less rigorous testing procedure, especially if they are assumed to be safe.

Vitamins, herbs and supplements are not tested by the FDA unless they are an active ingredient in a drug that requires FDA approval - so manufacturers of supplements are not allowed to claim that their products can treat any specific disease, only that they "promote health."

Despite this, some supplement companies are known to illegally claim their supplements are "FDA approved." It is thought that the FDA are unable to intervene in every instance due to limited resources.

Low-risk medical devices, such as stethoscopes and gauze, are known as "Class 1" and are exempt from FDA review.

"Class 2" medical devices are defined as not life-sustaining or life-threatening, though this category covers a wide spectrum of devices, from X-ray machines to some exercise equipment.

The level of scrutiny attached to Class 2 devices is much lower than Class 3. The devices do need FDA "clearance" before they can be marketed and sold, but rather than submit their products for clinical trial, the manufacturers are required instead to convince the FDA that their products are "substantially equivalent" to products that have been previously cleared by the FDA.

Substantially equivalent means that the device has the same intended use and approximate technical characteristics as an existing product.

Products that pass this clearance process may be referred to as "FDA cleared" or "FDA listed," but this is not the same as "FDA approved," which only relates to the prescription drugs and Class 3 devices that have passed PMA.

This approval method for Class 2 devices has been the subject of mounting controversy. The process is known as "510(k)" - named after its section in the law.

The 510(k) loophole


Although the FDA requests clinical data in about 10% of cases, one concern over the 510(k) system is that testing is insufficient and so products that are either unsafe or ineffective could be released to market.


Under 510(k), devices that have passed clearance, but have later been found dangerous or ineffective and are recalled, are not automatically removed from the FDA's list of cleared products. Another worry about this process is that the more "substantially equivalent" (but not identical) products are listed, the more a chain grows of FDA-cleared products that increasingly move away from the original product.


But perhaps the most concerning feature of 510(k) is that devices that have passed clearance, but then have later been found dangerous or ineffective and are recalled, are not automatically removed from the FDA's list of cleared products.

This is a loophole that allows any new products bearing the same faults to remain eligible for FDA clearance through 510(k).

In a 2012 report, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended that 510(k) be replaced with an "integrated pre-market and post-market regulatory framework that effectively provides a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness throughout the device life cycle."

But these recommendations - though popular with consumer advocacy groups - were rejected by the FDA.

A congressman (now senator) for Massachusetts, Ed Markey, campaigned for the reform of 510(k) and proposed a 2012 bill to close the loophole.

But the bill was not passed. It received opposition from medical device manufacturers and members of Congress who claimed that the existing FDA review processes are already too time-consuming and unpredictable, compared with other countries, so inserting more safeguards and regulatory steps would have the effect of strangling innovation.

Medical News Today spoke to Dr. Michael A. Carome, director of the non-profit consumer rights organization Public Citizen's Health Research Group, about 510(k).

Dr. Carome cites a report that Public Citizen issued in 2012 highlighting "a concerted lobbying campaign intended to weaken the already lax regulatory oversight of medical devices."

"For example, in 2011 the medical device industry spent $33.3 million on lobbying, raising its total to $158.7 million since 2007. This lobbying campaign has been very successful and has generally drowned out calls for stronger medical device regulation from consumer advocates like Public Citizen."

Carome also sees a second obstacle in the FDA itself, "which has been very resistant to proposals to strengthen or replace the 510(k) system."


"The FDA seems beholden to the medical device industry and the mantra that promotion of 'innovation' is the most important goal in the regulation of medical devices," he adds.


More recently, Sen. Markey wrote to the FDA, appealing directly for them to reform 510(k).

Sen. Markey was satisfied with the FDA's response, announcing in December 2013 that database modifications proposed by the agency "will help decrease the dangers and increase the awareness of medical devices that may be made based on flawed models."

Dr. Carome feels, though, that the FDA's proposed measures "fail to adequately address the underlying flaws in the 510(k) premarket clearance process."

The central issue remains that new Class 2 medical devices found to be "substantially equivalent" to recalled but previously cleared devices are still obliged - by law - to be cleared by the FDA, despite whatever flaws the devices contain.

"The slightly improved transparency provided by FDA's revised database for 510(k)-cleared devices does not close this dangerous loophole in the existing law that threatens patient safety," Carome concludes.

But what are the Class 2 devices that have caused patient safety concerns?

Carome points to the DePuy metal-on-metal Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip implant - an "example of a medical device heavily promoted as being innovative and better than earlier types of devices."

In November 2013, DePuy - an orthopedics company owned by Johnson & Johnson - announced a $2.5 billion settlement to resolve more than 8,000 of 12,000 public liability claims filed in US courts after their metal-on-metal hip was recalled in 2010. The ASR was found to shed metallic debris as it wears, causing pain and injury to the patient.

The Myxo ring In 2008, a surgeon named Dr. Patrick McCarthy at Chicago's prestigious academic medical center, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, was found to be installing a device he had invented - the McCarthy Annuloplasty Ring - into the hearts of cardiology patients without the informed consent of the patients.


"If you are planning to receive a medical device in a US hospital, there is no way to confirm whether the device is FDA approved, investigational or registered," says Dr. Rajamannan. Concerned patients were even more alarmed when they discovered that the ring had also not been submitted to the FDA for review.

"There are no guideposts for us. You don't learn about this stuff in med school," McCarthy was quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying, when questioned on why he had bypassed FDA approval.

The ring's manufacturer, a company called Edwards Lifesciences, later falsely claimed that the device was exempt from the 510(k) process and so did not require FDA clearance.


When a concerned colleague of McCarthy's, Dr. Nalini Rajamannan, contacted the FDA, an investigation was triggered, which ultimately saw the ring cleared for use - despite having already been sewn into the hearts of 667 patients.

But further controversy surrounded the FDA's clearance, which simply relied on a clinical study Dr. McCarthy himself had written as evidence that the ring - now rebranded "Myxo dETlogix" - was safe and effective.

Dr. Rajamannan - who was co-author on that study before withdrawing when she learned that the patients involved were not giving informed consent - later wrote a book detailing the controversy and continues to campaign on behalf of patients installed with the Myxo ring.

Speaking to Medical News Today, she says that the concerns over the Myxo device have still not been addressed by the FDA:


"The FDA has written a formal letter stating that they would not be investigating the matter any further. These heart valve rings that are being cleared under the 510k process for Edwards Lifesciences are associated with over 4,000 adverse events and over 645 deaths."

"The other major heart valve manufacturers have less than 20 events for their rings in the FDA database."

What does the future hold for FDA regulation? As we have shown in this feature, the confusion over the various stages of FDA "approval" and "clearance" is not limited to patients. These examples show that FDA classifications and processes can also - naively or wilfully - be misinterpreted by manufacturers and medical professionals.

The concerns from doctors, patients and consumer advocacy groups on the lack of regulation of medical products and the conflicts of interest within those regulatory processes remain.

Dr. Carome recommends that the IOM's 2012 guidelines be implemented and suggests that more of the Class 2 products sped through to market under 510(k) need to be reclassified as Class 3, for which the PMA process is much more stringent.

"Manufacturers do heavily promote their devices as being new and innovative, and many health care providers and patients believe that a 'newer' or 'innovative' device must be better," reasons Carome. "However, in most cases, there is no evidence that the newer medical devices are any better than older devices or other less-invasive treatments that don't involve a medical device."

"It is a real safety problem," agrees Dr. Rajamannan, who adds: "If you are planning to receive a medical device in a US hospital, there is no way to confirm whether the device is FDA approved, investigational or registered."

"The patients in the US are at major risk and the FDA is doing nothing to help the patients."
_______________________________________________
As I said, Maryland TV is plastered with injury law firms gathering patients that are victims of this horrendous system.  As we all know, the injury lawyers get all the money in the end and the patients are harmed for life.  This is what a third world nation looks like----citizens cannot even seek medical help without being fearful the procedures are happening in their interests and not for profit.

In Maryland, the Maryland Assembly has passed laws that make it as hard as possible for the public to seek justice in medical malpractice and it does not require medical malpractice insurance---meaning doctors prone to bad practices would love to come to Maryland.  NONE OF THESE POLICIES ARE DEMOCRATIC----YET MARYLAND IS CALLED A 'PROGRESSIVE' STATE.  It is a neo-liberal/neo-con state.





New Jersey Personal Injury Blog FDA Failed to Properly Test Medical Devices before Approval

By Blume Donnelly Fried Forte Zerres & Molinari
on March 9, 2011

CNN
recently reported that a review of recall data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that the majority of the 113 Class III medical devices that were recalled between 2005 and 2009 for serious, life-threatening dangers, did not undergo the FDA’s more rigorous pre-market approval process, also referred to as “PMA.” Instead, the agency cleared the devices using a less stringent process known as the 510(k) process, under which clinical testing is not required. This discovery brings to light that many medical products that were given clearance, such as automated external defibrillators (AEDs), artificial hip joints, and heart valves, were marketed to and used on consumers without undergoing clinical testing in advance.

Under FDA policy, all Class III devices are required to undergo the PMA premarket approval process, including clinical testing, in order to determine if “sufficient valid scientific evidence” is found that the medical device is safe for its intended use.

However, a report from the Government Accountability Office in 2009 discovered that approximately 66 percent of all Class III devices were approved using the less demanding 510(k) process instead of the PMA because it was “less burdensome”. An additional study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine, found that approximately 71 percent of the 113 medical devices recalled between 2005 and 2009 were given approval through the 510(k) process.

Many believe the reasons for the shortcomings in testing are because the agency does not have the necessary funding and staff to conduct a clinical study for all medical devices requiring same. While a medical device’s manufacturer does pay for a fraction of the expenses related to a PMA approval, the majority of the cost falls to the FDA, which is under-funded. Choosing to approve a medical device under the 510(k) process is much less expensive.

The FDA has admitted that the 510(k) approval process needs to be toughened, and has stated it intends to take action to improve the process in 2011. Additionally, the FDA has stated it will evaluate all remaining Class III devices slated for the 510(k) process to determine if the device should undergo the PMA process. As a result, there may be dangerous medical devices on the market that have not received proper government approval.

If you believe that a defectively designed or manufactured medical device may have seriously affected your health or the health of a loved one, contact a New Jersey product liability attorney at Blume Goldfaden. Call 973-635-5400 to schedule a no-cost consultation with one of our lawyers.





____________________________________________________
Keep in mind that a republican Bush slashed funding for most Federal agencies as a way to make oversight and accountability go away.  So, when Obama makes an increase of 2-3% he is doing nothing towards rebuilding these agencies.  In fact, much of the funding that makes it to these agencies is simply lost in private outsourcing with all its fraud and corruption.

When they say 'it's the sequestration and the national debt' 

WE SAY----NO, IT'S THE FAILURE TO RECOVER TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUD THIS LAST DECADE.

This funding status quo simply keeps our Federal agencies in a mode of 'doing no harm' to corporate profits.

STOP ELECTING NEO-LIBERALS!  DO YOU HEAR YOUR POLS SHOUTING TO BRING BACK TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN CORPORATE FRAUD!  MARYLAND POLS LOVE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION SO THERE IS NOT A WORD


Once again republican think tanks are crying foul but they are the ones behind all of the dismantling of these agencies creating the fraud and corruption and loss of trillions of dollars.  Their figures are right---$900 billion from Medicare will be taken from the patient's care and not hospital profits.


Reaction to Obama's 2015 HHS funding:

Various health care providers and organizations have responded to the proposal, with many calling for increased funding for health-related agencies and initiatives.

The Federation of American Hospitals criticized proposed funding cuts to Medicare, with FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn saying they would "further threate[n] seniors' access to vital hospital services" and noting that both Republicans and Democrats oppose such reductions (Demko/Zigmond, Modern Healthcare, 3/4). According to National Journal, the group is hoping to persuade Congress against the cuts by touting a new study estimating over $900 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years through cost cutting resulting from changes to the way providers deliver care (Ritger, National Journal, 3/4).

American Hospital Association President and CEO Richard Umbdenstock said the proposal contained some "problematic policies" that would hurt hospitals' abilities to improve the health care system and place patients' at risk of losing access to services (Demko/Zigmond, Modern Healthcare, 3/4).

Kasey Thompson, president and chair of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA and vice president of policy, planning and communications for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, called for additional FDA funding, saying, "Given that FDA regulates about 25 cents of every dollar of the gross domestic product, it does not have enough money to fulfill its public health mission."

Alliance for a Stronger FDA Deputy Executive Director Steven Grossman added that the group plans to ask Congress for more FDA funding (Lee, Modern Healthcare, 3/4).

The proposed increase in NIH funding also generated backlash. Research! America President Mary Woolley in a statement said that the U.S. "simply cannot sustain [its] research ecosystem, combat costly and deadly diseases ... and create quality jobs with anemic funding levels that threaten the health and prosperity of Americans," adding, "These funding levels jeopardize our global leadership in science -- in effect ceding leadership to other nations as they continue to invest in strong research and development infrastructures" (Viebeck, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 3/4).




_____________________________________________________


This is how crazy things have gotten.  California is indeed ground zero for this university as corporation model starting with Stanford and now consuming all public universities.  Remember, California had the best education system in the world----I had the pleasure of attending California schools at all levels-----but this move to corporatize has ruined the entire higher education system and they are now creating the tiered higher ed as they are in Maryland with working and middle class being tracked into vocational K-career college.

This is critical to health care because these large universities whether public or private are the source of public protections for health.  If the data is corrupt at universities-----no one is watching the health corporations either.  So, if you think funding universities by making them corporations is a good idea----THINK OF ALL THE FACTORS CONNECTED TO THIS.

It is interesting to note that Governor Brown-----who will try to run for President as a 'progressive' on his old record as a real progressive in the 1970s---appointed Napolitano-----HEAD OF HOMELAND SECURITY WITH NO EDUCATION BACKGROUND as Chancellor of California Higher Education School System.

THE CONTINUED USE OF INSIDERS FILLING APPOINTED POSITIONS AT ALL LEVELS.


When they talk of 'start ups from this university research' they do not tell you that 9 times out of ten those start-ups that are successful are simply absorbed into global corporations.  IT IS A PIPELINE.  Keep in mind that these corporate universities sell this corporate structure as funding schools but it is this structure that has student tuition sky high subsidizing this research and patenting process.  Maryland has done the same to its universities as this article shows in California and it is where all public funding for education is now going.  Johns Hopkins has had so much money funneled to it from our Congress neo-liberals that it owns much of the land in Baltimore's downtown and city center and it is all simply businesses connected to Hopkins.  THIS IS HOW YOU BUILD A GLOBAL CORPORATION THAT CONTROLS A REGION----

Patent-reform legislation spurs controversy among universities

Tina Pai/Staff By Tahmina Achekzai

Last Updated April 28, 2014

In 1994, Michael Doyle, then the director of a computer lab at UCSF, patented software that allowed doctors to view embryos online — the first “interactive” application on the web.

A few years later, the University of California licensed a patent to a company Doyle created called Eolas, which, claiming rights to the idea of embedding interactive content on web pages, sued Microsoft in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

The university, a co-plaintiff in the case, took a $30.4-million cut in what is now widely regarded as a classic case of “patent trolling.”

This week, Congress is marking up legislation in hopes of combating patent trolls — companies that purchase patents not to commercialize a product but to reap licensing revenue.

The UC system holds nearly 4,000 U.S. patents that have led to thousands of inventions and hundreds of startup companies. The University of California leads the nation’s universities in patent development, but pending legislation may change that.

Politicians vs. trolls

Traditionally, researchers apply for patents that give them full ownership of their idea or invention and then sell the rights to outside companies, hoping to take their discoveries from the lab to industry. But when the inventions seem to have little hope for commercialization, “patent trolls” may step into the picture.

Trolls, more formally known as patent-assertion entities, will find and subsequently sue businesses they accuse of infringing patent rights. Serving as a middleman between inventors and businesses, trolls collect licensing fees, a portion of which the inventors may receive.

According to the 2013 White House Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation Report, suits filed by patent trolls tripled from 2010 to 2012, at which point they comprised 62 percent of all patent-infringement cases.

Experts say that because it costs millions of dollars to ascertain what a patent covers, companies faced with these lawsuits may choose to settle rather than to fight.

In November, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., introduced a bill hoping to increase transparency within the patent system and to curb the emerging trend of patent trolling.

The bill would require any patentee who has filed a lawsuit to disclose any financial interests. It also requires the Federal Trade Commission to exercise authority over the misuse of demand letters: notices to companies claiming restitution for breach of license.

Academic qualms

Though the legislation is designed to serve as a deterrent to patent trolls attempting to sue other parties, universities worry it will invariably impede their efforts to enforce their own patent rights.

Earlier this month, the Association of American Universities — of which the UC system is a part — signed a joint letter addressed to Leahy outlining its concerns. The letter was also signed by the Association of University Technology Managers, made up of representatives from “technology transfer” offices at many universities who guard university research.

“Much of the legislation that is currently under discussion in Washington goes far beyond what is necessary simply to prevent that abuse of the patent system,” said David Winwood, the vice president for advocacy at the Association of University Technology Managers.

Of particular concern among both universities and members of Congress is the possible addition of a fee-shifting provision, which would require the losing party in a lawsuit to cover fees and expenses incurred by the opposing party.

Carol Mimura, UC Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor of intellectual property and research industry alliances, explained that the threat of incurring additional fees could discourage universities from filing lawsuits against actual infringers.

“The provision favors large, deep pockets, not the little guys,” Mimura said in an email. “Big companies and deep pockets create a David and Goliath situation that discourages investment, as opposed to encouraging it.”

While the university protects its employees, co-inventors are sometimes undergraduate students who are not protected and would have to pay for the damages. As a result, she said, they may be discouraged from filing patents — and, consequently, inhibited from advancing “innovation.”

Gary Falle, UC’s associate vice president for federal government relations, argues Congress needs to take a more “balanced approach” when addressing patent abuses.

“The UC is the lead in the nation in the number of patents (awarded annually), and we want to make sure that is protected,” said Falle. “We just want to make sure that the patents the university is awarded are able to move into technology, commercialization and innovation.”


Trimming the troll

Yet Robin Feldman, a law professor at UC Hastings College of the Law who researches patent trolling issues extensively, believes the legislation is vital to the abused patent system.

Feldman suggested universities might have underlying incentives in opposing the legislation. She noted that universities, while not filing patent lawsuits directly, may deliberately ally with nonpracticing entities to increase revenue.

“They do appear to be feeding the patent trolls at least to some extent,” she said. “There’s so much pressure on universities to find funding sources, and it is difficult for them to resist the temptation to sell to those who won’t make any products.”

Still, according to Mimura, UC Berkeley only licenses patents to commercial entities in accordance with university patent policy. And, despite what history may suggest, Mimura said the University of California does indeed support patent reform and has even reached out to Sen. Dianne Feinstein thanking her for support of patent reform.

In regard to current legislation efforts, the UC system only wants to shift the discussion in the right direction, Falle said.

“We believe that addressing bad behavior by stopping those who send multiple demand letters in the hope of extracting fees out of fear will be the focus of reform — not shutting down the entire patent system that is the goose that laid the golden egg,” Mimura said.

0 Comments

May 24th, 2014

5/24/2014

0 Comments

 

This is not a done deal-----we can reverse this but people must become engaged in politics and stop voting the same global corporate pols into office!!!


ANTHONY BROWN, DOUG GANSLER, AND HEATHER MIZEUR WILL ALL CONTINUE THIS PRIVATIZATION AS WILL THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.


Folks, do not allow neo-liberals play on this----'we have to teach evolution in the classroom' as an excuse for standardization of all information. This is not about bringing education quality up----it is about controlling all information students receive. So, republican states will be the first to reject this-----but remember, Common Core was started in the Bush Administration and is a very neo-con policy.

Remember, in Maryland simply reinstating Rule of Law and oversight and accountability will have State Treasury flush with revenue to fully fund all public schools.


Published Online: May 23, 2014
Okla. House Votes to Repeal Common Core Standards

By The Associated Press

Oklahoma City The Oklahoma House has voted overwhelmingly to repeal standards for math and English instruction that more than 40 states have adopted and to replace them with standards developed by the state.

The House voted 71-18 Friday to reject the Common Core standards. The bill now goes to the Senate.

Supporters say it gives the state control over its education system and prohibits the federal government from having authority over state education standards. Rep. Jason Nelson of Oklahoma City says state educators want to control Oklahoma education standards regardless of whether it makes sense to the federal government.

But opponents say the standards were developed by a group of states, not the federal government. Rep. Ed Cannaday of Porum says the measure politicizes education.


_______________________________________________
As citizens of Baltimore know, our schools are already eliminating these critical courses under the guise of integration into English Language.  We see time and again media questioning the average person on the street who doesn't know very basic history, geography, and civics. 

THIS IS HOW THIRD WORLD EDUCATION WORKS.  YOU DO NOT WANT 90% OF CITIZENS KNOWING HISTORY OR CIVICS......THAT IS FOR THE FEW SELECTED TO LEAD.

The Age of Enlightenment is a period in European history after the citizens of nations across Europe sent an aristocracy packing through revolution declaring that all people are citizens and would be educated in humanities and liberal arts so as to be well-rounded citizens.  YOU CANNOT LEAD IF YOU DO NOT HAVE PERSPECTIVE.  What neo-liberals and neo-cons are doing is trying to take the US back to the days that had 99% of people with access to only vocationally tracked education.

THIS HURTS ALL US  CITIZENS

BUT IT ESPECIALLY HURTS WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR.  Do not think this will happen to someone else----it will take all public schools.

Remember, Boston is Harvard which is Wall Street.  Baltimore is Bloomberg which is Wall Street.  We are ground zero for this Wall Street capture and we must stop it NOW.


Network H-High-S

Boston Public Schools to Eliminate History & Social Science Departments

Joseph J Ferreira, Jr.Wednesday, May 21, 2014

It was announced today that the Boston Public School department is "reorganizing" by eliminating all Departments of History & Social Sciences in all schools and folding the departments into the Department of English Language Arts as a "Humanities Department" with the currciculum determined by the ELA Common Core Standards.  Certified history department heads/chairs are being laid off and, apaprently, no certified history specialist will be hired to replace any of these teachers. This essentially eliminates history and the social sciences as one of the core academic departments in the Boston Public Schools and subordinates HSS to ELA.  This appears to be the first major metropolitan school district to reduce history and the social sciences to merely a supporting role in the education of students.

As it might appear to be a political issue, I will leave it to H-High-S network members to research this issue and the various petitions, political issues, etc. that are circulating about this matter, but as this addresses a core element of our network's raison d'etre, history education, I hope this will generate both interest and discussion.



_____________________________________________
Baltimore and across the nation are seeing Catholic churches taking the lead in charter schools and often in urban areas where they have historically played an expanded roll.  They are doing it so their religious schools can be funded with public money.  Now, I am not against private religious schools---they often provide strong education.  I want these Catholic leaders to know that Wall Street will not be allowing religious charters-----there will be no homeschooling----everyone will be forced into this autocratic school system being built by Wall Street and pushed upon us by neo-liberals. 

REMEMBER----NEO-LIBERALS ARE NOT DEMOCRATS---THEY HAVE SIMPLY TAKEN CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  GET RID OF THEM.


There is nothing wrong with parents of children having high learning skills wanting their children in classrooms that offer stronger learning environments.  We can have that in each school in all communities----that is how it worked for decades.  You do not have to send your child across town to find a good school because equal protection, opportunity, and access will have advanced placement classes right in your community.

So, why are these privatizers creating separate facilities?  Because they say education is wasted on 90% of students and those will only have access to vocational K-community college tracking.  You know what?  I may have fallen into this category growing up as my family was working class.  Instead, I had access to as much education I needed everywhere I moved in the country.  When the rich and corporations are not paying taxes then education must be cheapened.



THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRATIC AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EDUCATION LOOKS LIKE.


Catholic Churches need to stop supporting this charter movement you know will end badly for all.

Cash-Strapped Catholic Schools Resurrect as Charters To combat declines in enrollment and tuition revenue, they close and rent properties to charters. Many Catholic schools are transforming into charters during times of financial distress.


By Allie Bidwell May 1, 2014


Niya White began her teaching career as a member of AmeriCorps – a national community service organization that in 2003 brought her to what used to be known as Assumption Catholic School in Washington, D.C. 

After serving as a fourth-grade teacher, a fifth-grade teacher and a middle school English teacher for several years, she says the school's staff – along with those from six other inner-city Catholic schools – were told a hard story about the dire financial situation of the schools. 

"We were losing families because of the economy," White says. 

[READ: Common Core: A Divisive Issue for Catholic School Parents, Too]

At that time, the executive director of what was known as the Center City Consortium suggested that rather than closing their doors for good, the schools would submit an application to transform into charter schools as a way to remain as a school choice for the same families and communities they had begun to lose. 

Now known as the Congress Heights campus of the Center City Public Charter Schools, the school is just one example of a growing trend: Catholic schools are dropping their religious affiliations and becoming charters to have a chance of survival.

Private school enrollment has been on the decline for years, and is projected to continue to do so, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In the last 10 years alone, there have been almost 600,000 fewer students in Catholic schools, according to Christian Dallavis, senior director of leadership programs at the University of Notre Dame's Alliance for Catholic Education. 

In the same time, more than 1,800 Catholic schools have closed their doors, he says. 

"Most of those are in urban areas and serving low-income communities," Dallavis says. "It's a real challenge our schools are facing, as the cost to educate rises and our ability to collect tuition, especially in communities that serve low-income families, doesn't rise with the cost."



"We really struggle to find ways to sustain our schools," he adds. 

In a report released Monday, Andrew Kelly and Michael McShane of the American Enterprise Institute found the schools that do choose to make the switch generally see increases in enrollment and growth in the percentage of minority students served. 

While it's good for the communities, it can be a blow for the Catholic schools. Charter schools offer for no cost some of the same benefits – uniforms, discipline and a strong focus on character development – for which parents once turned to Catholic schools. 

White says she chose to stay in the same school – regardless of its secular affiliation – because she didn't want to lose the community she had built over several years. 

"No one ever wants to lose the students and parents and families they fall in love with," White says. "You don't want to look at a building that has helped you grow developmentally [as an educator] and watch the doors get closed."

White says that since she took over as principal in 2012, the students have thrived. Student test scores have risen by double-digit percentages in one year, she says. 

[ALSO: AFT, Advocacy Group Want More Accountability for Charter Schools]

"It's the best offer in education I've ever been given, as the Congress Heights campus has been able to rock and roll," White says. 

Although more schools are making the switch (there are just 18 noted in Kelly and McShane's report) the decision is often met with strong opposition among Catholic leaders, Dallavis says. 

"There's a sense in some ways that closing your school to make it a charter is … sacrificing your core identity for money," Dallavis says. "That's something that really challenges a lot of Catholic school leaders who find themselves in a difficult financial situation."


But it's not all bad news for the Catholic schools. They may lose students to the charters that take their place, but the schools that do not make the switch in dioceses where others do change over have seen a large revenue stream, Kelly and McShane write. The properties for Catholic schools are typically owned by parishes or dioceses. When Catholic schools close and charters open in their places, they rent the property to the charter operators. In the 2011 fiscal year, the Center City Public Charter Schools paid more than $3.2 million in rent, according to the AEI report. And a large portion of that money goes to fund scholarships and tuition assistance for low-income students at the remaining Catholic schools.

And in Indianapolis, where two Catholic schools closed and reopened in 2010 as Andrew Academy and Padua Academy, $1 million of annual funding from the archdiocese is split between four schools rather than six, Kelly and McShane write. 

Catholic schools are also attempting to combat declines in enrollment and revenue by supporting policies that provide incentives for families to be able to choose the schools their children attend. That can come in the form of tax credits or voucher systems, which are championed by Republicans but criticized by Democrats and teachers' unions who say they siphon money from traditional public schools.



Dallavis says his organization works with three Catholic schools on the south side of Tucson, Arizona, that were on the verge of closing a few years ago. During the last four years, he says, the schools have seen enrollment growth of more than 25 percent, largely by mobilizing the resources the tax credits make available but also focusing on the academic quality of the schools.

He says policies that allow parents, especially those below certain income thresholds, to receive funding to send their children to the school of their choice, is a continuation of the Catholic schools' legacy to serve the poor. 

"We see those policies as essential to our families' ability to choose the best school for their children," Dallavis says. "There's clearly a lot of demand among parents for their kids to be in Catholic schools. It's just a matter of whether they can afford it and whether there are policies that make it possible for them."


Charter Schools' Expulsion Rate Vastly Higher Than... As it continues to modify strict disciplinary policies in an effort to keep students in the classroom, Chicago Public Schools released data on Tuesday showing privately-run charter schools expel students at a vastly higher rate...


____________________________________


All unbiased education research shows that Race to the Top is lowering achievement in great bounds.  It is not only the implementation----it is the model.  No academic in education would support this as all of the learning research over decades has been tossed out to simply push a policy with a goal of privatization and not achievement.  Foundations pushing Race to the Top will fund research to 'prove' success but parents, teachers, and communities know they are seeing achievement decline and the broad and detailed subject matter and disappearing.  AS ONE PARENT IN MARYLAND'S HOWARD COUNTY SHOUTED -----YOU ARE DUMBING DOWN OUR SCHOOLS.  Indeed, they are.

This is not a democratic or republican issue-----everyone hates this.  It is being pushed by global corporate pols working to create Wall Street businesses out of our public school system.  In Baltimore Johns Hopkins Education is pushing this and O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake are allowing our education schools in the area be taken with teaching this philosophy to our education students.  

STOP ELECTING GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS IN BOTH PARTIES FOLKS!!!
  THE GOVERNOR APPOINTS PEOPLE TO STATE EDUCATION THAT EMBRACES STRONG PUBLIC EDUCATION OR EMBRACES PRIVATIZATION AS IS THE CASE NOW.

This is why in Maryland you hear the Maryland State Education Association---MSEA backing this reform----they are appointed by O'Malley.  Meanwhile, American Federation of Teachers AFT----not supporting this reform.  Look as well at PTA/PTO organizations that are being co-opted into this reform.  You will not hear the Maryland PTA shout out against this even as parents across Maryland do.

The Maryland AFL-CIO joined the Baltimore Teachers Union to campaign for Anthony Brown------WHO WILL SHOVE THIS REFORM THROUGH NO MATTER WHAT!  Why would Baltimore's Teacher's Union support a Wall Street privatization that will kill the teaching profession, kill unions, and kill the opportunity children in these communities might have in the future?

BALTIMORE CITY SCHOOLS ARE BEING STACKED WITH EDUCATION PRIVATIZERS---FROM TEACH FOR AMERICA AND VISTAS----TO PRINCIPALS GRADUATING FROM THESE HOPKINS EDUCATION PROGRAMS.


This is not a done deal-----we can reverse this but people must become engaged in politics and stop voting the same global corporate pols into office!!!

News from EPI

New Report Examines Realities of Race to the Top ImplementationFailure to address root causes of achievement gaps and mismatches between states’ goals and their resources have hindered educational improvements

September 12, 2013

Race to the Top has done little to help most states close achievement gaps, and may have exacerbated them, according to a new report by Elaine Weiss, National Coordinator of the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education. In Mismatches in Race to the Top Limit Educational Improvement: Lack of Time, Resources, and Tools to Address Opportunity Gaps Puts Lofty State Goals Out of Reach, Weiss takes a comprehensive look at the Obama administration’s signature education initiative, and finds a few notable successes but many more shortcomings.

Race to the Top offered federal funding to states that committed to meeting a series of goals—including developing new teacher evaluation systems that rely substantially on student achievement, identifying alternative teacher certification systems, turning around low-performing schools, and substantially boosting student achievement and closing achievement gaps. In her report, Weiss examines how much progress states have made over the first three years of the grant period. With a year to go before funding is scheduled to end, states are largely behind schedule in meeting goals for improving instruction and educational outcomes.

“This report should be a wake-up call, not only to states and districts implementing Race to the Top, but to states implementing No Child Left Behind waivers and those beginning to roll out the Common Core State Standards,” said Weiss. “Real, sustained change requires time and substantial, well-targeted resources. Raising standards in schools cannot work without accompanying supports that make attaining them possible for all students, not just the most advantaged.”

Key findings of the report include:

  • States made unrealistic promises in order to secure Race to the Top funding, and have found greater-than-expected challenges to meeting their goals.
  • The narrow policy agenda and short time frame prescribed by Race to the Top have hampered state and district abilities to improve teacher quality, while failing to address other core drivers of opportunity gaps.
  • Shortcomings in Race to the Top have spurred conflicts between states, school districts, and educators that have further hindered progress.
This report draws on studies from the U.S. Department of Education and others, state and local reporting, as well as a survey of district superintendents and interviews with parents, teachers, and state and community education leaders. The report also includes in-depth case studies of two Race to the Top states, Ohio and Tennessee. Weiss’s analysis provides the most comprehensive picture to date of the successes and challenges states have faced throughout Race to the Top and the policy implications at both the state and federal level.

“This paper details the results of careful examination of implementation of Race to the Top and whether or not it has produced the game-changing improvements proponents promised,” said Daniel A. Domenech, executive director, AASA, The School Superintendents Association. “The report represents the first comprehensive look at the program, the challenges states face in implementing grants and key implications for moving forward, and bolsters what AASA has long advocated—while Race to the Top has some positive impact on education, there are better alternative strategies for improving education, including prioritizing existing federal statutes like ESEA and IDEA, and ensuring that all students in all public schools benefit from limited federal funding. AASA applauds Broader, Bolder for its leadership on this report and we’re grateful for the opportunity to collaborate on the project for the past two years.”

It is especially important to look at challenges posed by Race to the Top as states adopt and implement the Department of Education’s Common Core standards. States’ struggles to reliably and productively hold schools and teachers accountable, and to raise student achievement under the current standards, are likely to grow as demands increase while time, staffing, and other resources remain flat or are further diminished.


0 Comments

May 23rd, 2014

5/23/2014

0 Comments

 
'In recent years, a group of Wall Street financiers and philanthropists such as Bill Gates have put money behind private-sector ideas, such as vouchers, data-driven curriculum and charter schools, which have doubled in number in the past decade. President Obama, too, has apparently bet on compe­tition. His Race to the Top initiative invites states to compete for federal dollars using tests and other methods to measure teachers, a philosophy that would not fly in Finland'.


PRIVATIZING YET ANOTHER PUBLIC SERVICE------THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY-----PUBLIC EDUCATION.

WHETHER YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF SEGREGATION IN EDUCATION IN EMBRACING THESE CHARTER/SCHOOL CHOICE POLICIES-----PEOPLE ARE CARING LESS ABOUT THE SEGREGATION AND SIMPLY WANT GOOD SCHOOLS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.


One thing I do with my campaign is educate as to what is happening with these public private partnerships that corporate pols pretend are for the public good.  I've spoken of communications and the Post Office and public energy/water utilities and VEOLA/Exelon.  I am passionate about public education so much is shared on the road about the privatization of public education in Baltimore.  Wall Street chose urban communities for this push for two reasons.  One, these poor communities are desperate for jobs and to be small business owners and they are desperate for any means of quality education.  It is no coincidence that the majority of organizations supporting this privatization plan are black churches/ministers who are connecting to charter schools.  Do they know that these schools will be taken by Wall Street national charter chains that will not care about children or that the plan will end public education and equal opportunity and access?  I think many of these churches and ministers simply see a need-----and they want an opportunity to operate a small business and are not thinking what vocational K-community college means especially for people of color.  That is what is happening in Baltimore.  BUILD is a great group of people but they embrace this charter movement and they endorse the most global corporate of candidates that work against the interests of people in the communities they represent.  These pols work against all people's interests except the wealthy corporate crowd.

The Baltimore Education Coalition is only a Johns Hopkins organization that is basically a Michelle Rhee education privatization group of Teach for America, charters, school choice, and national corporate non-profits that come into a schools and take over all school policy.  If you take a look at these non-profit websites it is clear they are a standard site with very little information and absolutely no feel on local community.

THIS IS WHAT CORPORATIONS ARE USING TO TAKE OVER COMMUNITY MOVEMENT TOWARDS CHARTERS.  Remember, Hopkins = Bloomberg =Wall Street so the intent is to make businesses out of each individual school.


When I tell people Mike Miller of the Maryland Assembly said he would work to end state funding of public education I have only a case of he said-she said.  If I remind people that all corporations in Baltimore are receiving tax breaks excluding property taxes-----that corporations like Hopkins are still categorized as non-profits and pay no property taxes-----and that the Baltimore City Hall is shouting for large cuts to residential property taxes-----WHICH IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS----where is the money for funding schools going to come?  So, if we are eliminating resources locally----then is it likely that those state funds will disappear?  I encourage people to think what filling our school board with business people, Teach for America, and charter school owners means to public education.  Think about KIPP as the national charter chain that already has gone private in many states across America and is just waiting to do so in Baltimore.  Ending public funding will force schools to partner with corporations and national charter chains will be there to expand.

This Wall Street plan is happening in cities across America and the goal will be to build this private charter platform in these cities and then expand them across the state.  It only takes a few pieces of legislation to do this and we all know how quickly all of this Race to the Top and Common Core legislation passed the Maryland Assembly.  So, this is the goal and ending public education will take yet another cornerstone of democracy into the hands of Wall Street.  Controlling what people are taught is a must in an autocratic society.


I especially talk with religious communities about the intention and how Wall Street will not allow for religious teaching in the system they are developing.  The Catholic Church is taking most of its private schools to charters no doubt to receive education funding giving this charter movement more legitimacy.  I let these leaders know the intent and most are surprised but when they look at the big picture-----

THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE IS CLEAR.  BALTIMORE'S SYSTEM OF CHARTERS AND SCHOOLS AS BUSINESSES ARE SIMPLY A PLATFORM FOR TAKEOVER BY NATIONAL CHARTER CHAINS.


Below you see an article that does a good job looking at both sides. I want to emphasize that when KIPP says the bulk of private donations go to building space for its schools----KIPP in Baltimore simply converts existing space as does most of KIPP across the country.  KIPP is already privatized in some states and as we see these charters are not public schools----they are simply getting the public money other public schools that are closed would be getting.  I have looked at how achievement data and demographic data in Baltimore schools is collected and shared and I know that KIPP in Baltimore just as around the country is allowed to hide much data under guise of 'charter' and that much of the data raises concerns.


So, KIPP is the Wall Street national charter chain of choice and heavy funding up front will end in massive profits when KIPP takes over most public schools across America.  Remember, these national charter chains are made to look good now but believe me----once they are allowed to replace our public schools----if left to move forward this could be in a decade----all of that private donation would stop, quality fall, and these schools will only be vocational tracking into what will be mostly low-wage employment.

Look at some of Baltimore's highest achieving public schools having their funding taken for advanced programs -----while achievement is truly excelling----and you see the future.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EQUAL PROTECTION AS WITH ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY.  USING CHARTERS TO SKIRT THIS IS ONE STEP TO ENDING THIS REQUIREMENT.  WHAT HAPPENS TO 90% OF AMERICANS IF EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS DISAPPEAR?  THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT DISAPPEARS-----WHERE ALL PEOPLE ARE CITIZENS DESERVING A HUMANITIES/LIBERAL ARTS BASED EDUCATION.


Below you see the direct connection with the policy of advancing this one national charter chain.  Maryland is making it harder and harder for low-income families to receive any kinds of financial aid for 4 year institutions like U of M College Park.  Below you see a scholarship directed specifically at KIPP students.  If getting a scholarship to UMD requires attending KIPP----then more parents move their children to KIPP.  College Park and Wallace Loh is the most corporate of public universities and their desire to move public K-12 education to that of corporate is no secret.  More students graduating from KIPP going to college-----WELL, THAT IS WHY!

So, these are the clues one sees to which national charter chains will get the nod as all state funding for public education moves from public schools to these charters.


UMD Forms Partnership with KIPP Charter Schools Network

August 15, 2013 
Contacts: Beth Cavanaugh, UMD, 301-405-4625
Steve Mancini, KIPP, 415-531-5396

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – The University of Maryland and KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) announced today the creation of a formal partnership to attract and recruit KIPP students, including those in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. regions.
Through this partnership, KIPP students will have access to existing programs and resources created for low-income or first-generation college students, as well as scholarships created through a gift from Charles Daggs, UMD class of 1969 and a KIPP Bay Area board member. This partnership will also help to support KIPP's mission to increase college competition rates for underserved KIPP students throughout the country.

"We all win by creating new opportunities and upward mobility," says University of Maryland President Wallace D. Loh. "This new partnership extends our success with talented, low-income students, and our progress closing the achievement gap. It creates a much richer learning environment for all students. Congratulations to KIPP and our alums, whose vision makes this possible."

This fall, four KIPP students – three from Baltimore City and one from Washington, D.C. – will enter UMD's freshmen class. Three of these students have been awarded full scholarships through the Daggs gift and the UMD Incentive Awards Program.

"This partnership will support our hardworking KIPP students as they work toward a degree from one of the best public universities in the country," says Richard Barth, CEO at KIPP. "We are so grateful for Chuck Daggs's generous gift, which is helping to support this partnership and providing much-needed resources to some of our top graduates who have excelled in their schools and communities, to help them attain an excellent college education."

Established in 2002, KIPP Baltimore consists of two schools – one elementary school and one middle school. In Washington, D.C., KIPP operates nine schools – one high school, three middle schools, and eight elementary schools. All schools are free, open-enrollment charter schools that offer a rigorous, college preparatory education.

KIPP Baltimore and Washington, D.C. are part of a national network of 141 KIPP public charter schools. A report released this year by independent research firm Mathematica showed that KIPP middle schools nationwide are producing positive, significant and substantial achievement gains for students in all grades and four subjects—math, reading, science, and social studies. Mathematica researchers found that KIPP achieved these academic gains with students that entered middle school with lower achievement scores than their peers in neighboring district schools.

KIPP – the Knowledge Is Power Program – is a national network of open-enrollment, college-preparatory public charter schools with a track record of preparing students in underserved communities for success in college and in life.  KIPP was founded in Houston in 1994 and has grown to 141 schools serving more than 50,000 students in 20 states and Washington, D.C.  More than 95 percent of students enrolled in KIPP schools are African American or Latino, and 86 percent qualify for the federal free and reduced-price meals program.

Read a story from The Baltimore Sun on the new KIPP partnership here.


_______________________________________________
Keep in mind that Baltimore City schools perform so badly because they have been starved of revenue for decades.  The state underfunded them for decades, Baltimore City is left with systemic fraud and corruption that extends to the school funding....so, students of Baltimore City schools have been victims of misappropriation of education funds they were legally required to receive.  These funds mostly ended up in affluent and corporate development in Baltimore with a few corrupt education administrators joining in to the fleecing of the Baltimore education budget.

THIS IS WHY BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE IN SHAMBLES AND NOT PERFORMING SO SIMPLY MAKING SURE THEY ARE FULLY FUNDED AND RESOURCED----THAT TEACHERS RECEIVE HELP IN THE CLASSROOMS IS THE ANSWER. 

What education privatizers are doing is sending all the funding, resources, and help to charters instead while most Baltimore public schools cannot even afford toilet paper.  Your warm and fuzzy community charter will be taken over by these national charter chains.

THE MIDDLE-CLASS NEEDS TO KNOW THAT THIS GOAL OF NATIONAL CHARTER CHAINS WILL NOT STAY WITH THE POOR STUDENTS----IT WILL BECOME ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS.




March 31, 2011


New study of KIPP says the charter chain pulls in more cash than other schools
By Sarah Garland

Charter schools that post unusually high academic gains are often accused of having unfair advantages over traditional public schools, including more advantaged students and more private money at their disposal. A new and highly contentious study released today attempts to prove that the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), the largest charter-school network in the country, is inundated with both in comparison to its regular public-school counterparts and other charter schools.

The study is likely to give ammunition to charter-school critics as evidence that KIPP’s high test scores can be attributed to extra cash and a population of students that’s easier to educate.
But the study’s findings are far from conclusive: The data used in the financial analysis are limited and, according to KIPP, often inaccurate, and the methodology used to examine KIPP students is problematic.

In the national battles over whether to increase the number of charter schools, research has been a weapon wielded aggressively by both sides. (Teachers’ unions and their supporters are typically on the anti-charter side, and ed-reformer-types like Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of the D.C. schools, and Joel Klein, former chancellor of the New York City schools, are on the other.)

But this study is different than many others because it accepts the fact that KIPP’s academic outcomes are indisputably extraordinary, and seeks instead to dig more deeply into “the reasons for its success.”

Most notably, the study, by Western Michigan University researchers at the Study Group on Educational Management Organizations, addresses the question of whether KIPP receives more money per student from government and private sources than other schools. Critics have wondered whether the chain’s reliance on philanthropic dollars, which have helped fund its rapid expansion, can be maintained as the network continues to grow.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg at a KIPP school in Newark (photo courtesy of Gary He for Facebook)

“Are KIPP schools sustainable, and are we overly reliant on philanthropic dollars?”
are questions that KIPP also asks itself, Steve Mancini, a spokesperson for the charter network, told The Hechinger Report yesterday. The possibility that KIPP is getting more money per student than its traditional-school counterparts also raises the question of whether it’s reasonable to expect regular public schools to match KIPP’s achievements, and whether increasing the number of charter schools is an efficient use of money – an important question in tough economic times.

Here is what the study found:

In the 2007 school year, 12 KIPP school districts encompassing 25 schools received $12,731 per pupil from local, state and federal governments. Public-school districts where the KIPP schools were located received $11,960 (a few dollars more than the national public school average). Charter schools in general received much less on average: $9,579. Compared to regular public schools and other charters, KIPP received much more federal money, as well as more than double what other charters received in local funding.

Besides the extra government money that KIPP receives, the study found that the 12 KIPP school districts reported $37 million to the IRS in private donations in 2008, about $5,760 per pupil on top of the nearly $13,000 per pupil they received from the government.

“We were surprised they were getting so much,” said Gary Miron, a researcher at Western Michigan University and lead author of the study.

But KIPP vigorously rejected the study’s data after reviewing it yesterday. “This report has multiple factual misrepresentations,” Mancini said.

Mancini noted that the study focused on only 25 KIPP schools out of 58 open at the time when researchers calculated the financial data — missing schools in California, for example, which allocates much less money to charter schools than other states. According to KIPP’s own estimates, its schools receive about $9,000 to $10,000 per pupil, on average, from government sources, a figure that is closer to what other charters receive.

As for the private money, Mancini said the study does not take into account the fact that a significant part of the donations goes toward paying for buildings, often a large cost for charter schools in districts that don’t give them facilities. Miron, the study’s author, said that school districts must also pay for buildings, but Mancini countered that these costs are generally not included in per-pupil calculations.

KIPP estimates that it receives only about $2,500 per student from private sources, putting the total (including government money) at around $11,500 or $12,500 per pupil, right around what regular public schools receive. The study does not include data on the amount of private money other charter schools receive, but, keeping in mind that KIPP is the largest and best-known charter network in the country, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume KIPP does better at fundraising and that other charters receive less.

The takeaway is that KIPP’s model is not especially cheap, although KIPP does offer extras that traditional public schools don’t — like Saturday school and longer school days — for a similar amount of money.

“I think what this study does is at least give us pause about inferring that the KIPP model is a low-cost model,” said Jeffrey Henig, a political scientist at Teachers College who briefly reviewed the study before it was published, and who is affiliated with the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, housed at Teachers College. (The Hechinger Report is also located at Teachers College.)

The New York Times and Washington Post coverage of the study focused on the money issues, but articles in Education Week and Bloomberg News focused on the study’s examination of KIPP students.

KIPP uses a “no-excuses” model in which students and parents are required to sign performance contracts. Most of the students it educates are low-income. In fact, the WMU study found that KIPP enrolls higher percentages of low-income students than the public-school districts in which its schools are located.

But the idea that charter schools “cream” the best students from surrounding neighborhood schools and push out students who don’t perform well academically is a persistent critique of the schools, and the study claims to have found that the hardest-to-educate KIPP students tend to leave the schools at high rates.

A study finds that 40 percent of black males quit KIPP schools, a figure contested by KIPP (photo courtesy of brookesb)

In particular, the researchers argue that 40 percent of African-American male students, a group that generally posts lower test scores, “drop out” of KIPP schools between sixth and eighth grade. (Most KIPP schools are middle schools.)

“KIPP schools are cycling out those low-performing students, but they’re not replacing them,” said Miron. This is thought to be advantageous to KIPP for two reasons: first, the schools get to keep the funding tied to the student for that academic year even after he or she leaves the school; and, second, a school’s test score average goes up when low-performing students quit.

KIPP aggressively contests this finding, however. Mancini pointed to a study KIPP commissioned from the nonpartisan research group, Mathematica, which followed individual students over time. The WMU study used aggregated data taken as a snapshot and compared KIPP attrition rates to the rate of students who moved out of the school districts in which KIPP schools were located. Mathematica researchers said that a student leaving an individual school is not the same phenomenon as a student leaving a district.

“You have to do a school-by-school comparison,” said Brian Gill, one of the co-authors of the Mathematica report, which found that, on average, attrition at KIPP schools is about on par with schools in surrounding neighborhoods. “There’s a real danger from people drawing inferences from this that aren’t supported.”

The WMU study also assumes that all missing students have left the school and that none are held back a grade. In fact, many KIPP schools have policies that require low-performing students to repeat a grade, and they have been shown to enforce such policies at higher rates than other schools. Miron contends that students who are held back are more likely to leave, a phenomenon that we examined in a previous story. That some KIPP schools don’t replace students if they leave is true, however, and both Mancini and the Mathematica research team said they have been looking into this phenomenon.

Next week, Mathematica will release a new study on the matter, but as with most charter school studies, it’s unlikely to be the last word.


______________________________________________

The designation of charter schools as public is ridiculous and is done simply to allow taxpayers to pay to build the infrastructure for these national charter chains.  Once the structure is built in a city like Baltimore then all pretense to private will end and you will see these schools listed on the Wall Street stock exchange.

Charters fail to meet all the requirements of public schools as regards equal access and opportunity, public transparency with data, and any oversight of whether information provided is accurate.  It is when large institutions do extended research into these areas that all of the data becomes questionable.

We know that all of the pressure on teachers and administrators of both charter and public schools is forcing some to falsify data because it is impossible to make these changes as fast as these programs are implemented.  Remember, Bush created the No Child Left Behind laws that are now being used to close schools and force these evaluations and tests in the classrooms-----but it was unfunded and never advanced.  This push now for immediate change-----

IS A WALL STREET PLOY TO MOVE A VERY, VERY BAD PUBLIC POLICY THROUGH BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN STOP IT.


I want to emphasize------some charters are good----they do indeed offer choice and do so under the rules of public education.  The problem is that those that do not are gobbling up charter growth at tremendous speed.  That is what a corporation does----expands and takes the market share.

Public or Private: Charter Schools Can’t Have It Both Ways

Email to a friend Permalink Saturday, January 05, 2013

Aaron Regunberg, GoLocalProv MINDSETTER™





Are charter schools public? Are they private? Are they somewhere in between? There is a lively debate in the education community over these questions. Charter advocates claim that charter schools are, of course, public schools, with all the democratic accountability that this entails. The only difference, they say, is that charters are public schools with the freedom and space to innovate. On the other side, charter critics argue that contracting with the government to receive taxpayer money does not make an organization public (after all, no one would say Haliburton is public) and if a school is not regulated and governed by any elected or appointed bodies answerable to the public, then it is not a public school.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was recently forced to weigh in on this question. It came out with a clear verdict that charter schools are not, in fact, public schools.

The ruling came in response to a case regarding a charter school in Chicago, the Chicago Math and Science Academy (CMSA). In 2010, two thirds of CMSA’s teachers voted to unionize, in accordance with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, which grants the employees of all public schools the right to form unions. In an attempt to invalidate this vote, charter officials filed papers with the National Labor Relations Board arguing that CMSA should not be covered under the state law because it does not qualify as a public school.

And that is precisely what NLRB concluded, ruling that CMSA is a “private entity” and is consequently covered under the federal law governing the private sector. According to the federal government, the debate is settled—charter schools are not public schools, and that is all there is to it.

Of course, that is not the whole story, because the charter movement is diverse. On the one hand, there are some community-based charter schools that are very much of and by and answerable to the communities they serve, which to me is what the word “public” is all about. On the other hand, there are corporate charter chains that have been widely criticized for discriminatory practices and unaccountable governance, which do not seem public at all. We should acknowledge these differences, and carve out a place for some nuance in the public-or-private debate.

What we should not do, however, is allow the charter movement or any particular charter chains to have it both ways. The Chicago Math and Science Academy has taken at least $23 million in taxpayer money since it formed in 2004, so it is perfectly willing to be “public” with regards to whose money it spends. But when its teachers want to join a union, now it is a “private entity.” That is hypocrisy, plain and simple. The situation is similar regarding many charter schools’ demographic situations. Chains like KIPP claim they enroll the same student populations as public schools and, like public schools, do not turn any students away. Yet widespread evidence suggests these schools use a variety of tactics, such as counseling certain students out, to create unrepresentative student bodies. In fact, a recent study found that in 2008, 11.5 percent of KIPP students were ELLs, compared with 19.2 percent of students in their local school districts, while 5.9 percent of KIPP students had disabilities, compared with 12.1 percent of students in the local school districts. Likewise, I have written a number of posts about similar irregularities found in the Achievement First charter chain, whose cadre of well-paid lobbyists could not stop stressing the “public” nature of their schools during last year’s hearings in Rhode Island.

That is not how it works. If you’re public, you’re public—you take all students, not just the ones who are easiest to educate; you offer fair protections to your employees; you play by the same rules on an even playing field. And if you’re private, stop claiming otherwise—stop saying your schools are public schools when they are not. Charters cannot have their cake and eat it too, and it’s about time we stopped letting them do so.



___________________________________________

Remember, Finland's education system is based on the US public education of my time----before the Reagan/Clinton education reforms and defunding of public education.  We have a successful model that allowed for the best and the brightest in the world and moved more poor students into the middle-class in history.  So, why are we moving towards something with no research, no proof of achievement, and that takes the entire public education system down?

THAT'S WALL STREET------AND THEIR POLS FOR YOU


As you see below the Finns transformed their schools system 40 years ago----that was when the US system was thriving.....
now the Finns are performing as the US used to.


Why Are Finland's Schools Successful? The country's achievements in education have other nations, especially the United States, doing their homework

By LynNell Hancock Smithsonian Magazine

It was the end of term at Kirkkojarvi Comprehensive School in Espoo, a sprawling suburb west of Helsinki, when Kari Louhivuori, a veteran teacher and the school’s principal, decided to try something extreme—by Finnish standards. One of his sixth-grade students, a Kosovo-Albanian boy, had drifted far off the learning grid, resisting his teacher’s best efforts. The school’s team of special educators—including a social worker, a nurse and a psychologist—convinced Louhivuori that laziness was not to blame. So he decided to hold the boy back a year, a measure so rare in Finland it’s practically obsolete.


Finland has vastly improved in reading, math and science literacy over the past decade in large part because its teachers are trusted to do whatever it takes to turn young lives around. This 13-year-old, Besart Kabashi, received something akin to royal tutoring.

“I took Besart on that year as my private student,” Louhivuori told me in his office, which boasted a Beatles “Yellow Submarine” poster on the wall and an electric guitar in the closet. When Besart was not studying science, geography and math, he was parked next to Louhivuori’s desk at the front of his class of 9- and 10-year- olds, cracking open books from a tall stack, slowly reading one, then another, then devouring them by the dozens. By the end of the year, the son of Kosovo war refugees had conquered his adopted country’s vowel-rich language and arrived at the realization that he could, in fact, learn.

Years later, a 20-year-old Besart showed up at Kirkkojarvi’s Christmas party with a bottle of Cognac and a big grin. “You helped me,” he told his former teacher. Besart had opened his own car repair firm and a cleaning company. “No big fuss,” Louhivuori told me. “This is what we do every day, prepare kids for life.”

This tale of a single rescued child hints at some of the reasons for the tiny Nordic nation’s staggering record of education success, a phenomenon that has inspired, baffled and even irked many of America’s parents and educators. Finnish schooling became an unlikely hot topic after the 2010 documentary film Waiting for “Superman” contrasted it with America’s troubled public schools.

“Whatever it takes” is an attitude that drives not just Kirkkojarvi’s 30 teachers, but most of Finland’s 62,000 educators in 3,500 schools from Lapland to Turku—professionals selected from the top 10 percent of the nation’s graduates to earn a required master’s degree in education. Many schools are small enough so that teachers know every student. If one method fails, teachers consult with colleagues to try something else. They seem to relish the challenges. Nearly 30 percent of Finland’s children receive some kind of special help during their first nine years of school. The school where Louhivuori teaches served 240 first through ninth graders last year; and in contrast with Finland’s reputation for ethnic homogeneity, more than half of its 150 elementary-level students are immigrants—from Somalia, Iraq, Russia, Bangladesh, Estonia and Ethiopia, among other nations. “Children from wealthy families with lots of education can be taught by stupid teachers,” Louhivuori said, smiling. “We try to catch the weak students. It’s deep in our thinking.”

The transformation of the Finns’ education system began some 40 years ago as the key propellent of the country’s economic recovery plan. Educators had little idea it was so successful until 2000, when the first results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues, revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. Three years later, they led in math. By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science. In the 2009 PISA scores released last year, the nation came in second in science, third in reading and sixth in math among nearly half a million students worldwide. “I’m still surprised,” said Arjariita Heikkinen, principal of a Helsinki comprehensive school. “I didn’t realize we were that good.”

In the United States, which has muddled along in the middle for the past decade, government officials have attempted to introduce marketplace competition into public schools. In recent years, a group of Wall Street financiers and philanthropists such as Bill Gates have put money behind private-sector ideas, such as vouchers, data-driven curriculum and charter schools, which have doubled in number in the past decade. President Obama, too, has apparently bet on compe­tition. His Race to the Top initiative invites states to compete for federal dollars using tests and other methods to measure teachers, a philosophy that would not fly in Finland. “I think, in fact, teachers would tear off their shirts,” said Timo Heikkinen, a Helsinki principal with 24 years of teaching experience. “If you only measure the statistics, you miss the human aspect.”






0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Cindy Walsh is a lifelong political activist and academic living in Baltimore, Maryland.

    Archives

    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    2014 Economic Crash
    21st Century Economy
    Affordable Care Act
    Affordable Care Act
    Alec
    Americorp/VISTA
    Anthony Brown
    Anthony Brown
    Anti Incumbant
    Anti-incumbant
    Anti Incumbent
    Anti Incumbent
    Attacking The Post Office Union
    Baltimore And Cronyism
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Recall/Retroactive Term Limits
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Of America
    Bank Settlement
    Bank-settlement
    B Corporations
    Bgeexelon Mergerf59060c411
    Brookings Institution
    Business Tax Credits
    California Charter Expansion
    Cardin
    Career Colleges
    Career Colleges Replacing Union Apprenticeships
    Charters
    Charter School
    Collection Agencies
    Common Core
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Consumer-financial-protection-bureau
    Corporate Media
    Corporate-media
    Corporate Oversight
    Corporate-oversight
    Corporate Politicians
    Corporate-politicians
    Corporate Rule
    Corporate-rule
    Corporate Taxes
    Corporate-taxes
    Corporate Tax Reform
    Corporatizing Us Universities
    Cost-benefit-analysis
    Credit Crisis
    Credit-crisis
    Cummings
    Department Of Education
    Department Of Justice
    Department-of-justice
    Derivatives Reform
    Development
    Dismantling Public Justice
    Dodd Frank
    Doddfrankbba4ff090a
    Doug Gansler
    Doug-gansler
    Ebdi
    Education Funding
    Education Reform
    Edwards
    Election Reform
    Election-reform
    Elections
    Emigration
    Energy-sector-consolidation-in-maryland
    Enterprise Zones
    Equal Access
    Estate Taxes
    European Crisis
    Expanded And Improved Medicare For All
    Expanded-and-improved-medicare-for-all
    Failure To Prosecute
    Failure-to-prosecute
    Fair
    Fair And Balanced Elections
    Fair-and-balanced-elections
    Farm Bill
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmaryland
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmarylandd20a348918
    Federal-emergency-management-agency-fema
    Federal Reserve
    Financial Reform Bill
    Food Safety Not In Tpp
    For Profit Education
    Forprofit-education
    Fracking
    Fraud
    Freedom Of Press And Speech
    Frosh
    Gambling In Marylandbaltimore8dbce1f7d2
    Granting Agencies
    Greening Fraud
    Gun Control Policy
    Healthcare For All
    Healthcare-for-all
    Health Enterprise Zones
    High Speed Rail
    Hoyer
    Imf
    Immigration
    Incarceration Bubble
    Incumbent
    Incumbents
    Innovation Centers
    Insurance Industry Leverage And Fraud
    International Criminal Court
    International Trade Deals
    International-trade-deals
    Jack Young
    Jack-young
    Johns Hopkins
    Johns-hopkins
    Johns Hopkins Medical Systems
    Johns-hopkins-medical-systems
    Kaliope Parthemos
    Labor And Justice Law Under Attack
    Labor And Wages
    Lehmann Brothers
    Living Wageunionspolitical Action0e39f5c885
    Maggie McIntosh
    Maggie-mcintosh
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin-omalley
    Martin-omalley8ecd6b6eb0
    Maryland Health Co Ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops1f77692967
    Maryland Health Coopsccd73554da
    Maryland Judiciary
    Marylandnonprofits
    Maryland Non Profits
    Maryland Nonprofits2509c2ca2c
    Maryland Public Service Commission
    Maryland State Bar Association
    Md Credit Bondleverage Debt441d7f3605
    Media
    Media Bias
    Media-bias
    Medicaremedicaid
    Medicaremedicaid8416fd8754
    Mental Health Issues
    Mental-health-issues
    Mers Fraud
    Mikulski
    Military Privatization
    Minority Unemploymentunion And Labor Wagebaltimore Board Of Estimates4acb15e7fa
    Municipal Debt Fraud
    Ndaa-indefinite-detention
    Ndaaindefinite Detentiond65cc4283d
    Net Neutrality
    New Economy
    New-economy
    Ngo
    Non Profit To Profit
    Nonprofit To Profitb2d6cb4b41
    Nsa
    O'Malley
    Odette Ramos
    Omalley
    O'Malley
    Open Meetings
    Osha
    Patronage
    Pension-benefit-guaranty-corp
    Pension Funds
    Pension-funds
    Police Abuse
    Private-and-public-pension-fraud
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People6541f468ae
    Private Non Profits
    Private-non-profits
    Private Nonprofits50b33fd8c2
    Privatizing Education
    Privatizing Government Assets
    Privatizing-the-veterans-admin-va
    Privitizing Public Education
    Progressive Policy
    Progressive Taxes Replace Regressive Policy
    Protections Of The People
    Protections-of-the-people
    Public Education
    Public Funding Of Private Universities
    Public Housing Privatization
    Public-libraries-privatized-or-closed
    Public Private Partnerships
    Public-private-partnerships
    Public Transportation Privatization
    Public Utilities
    Rapid Bus Network
    Rawlings Blake
    Rawlings-blake
    Rawlingsblake1640055471
    Real Progressives
    Reit-real-estate-investment-trusts
    Reitreal Estate Investment Trustsa1a18ad402
    Repatriation Taxes
    Rule Of Law
    Rule-of-law
    Ruppersberger
    SAIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
    Sarbanes
    S Corp Taxes
    Selling Public Datapersonal Privacy
    Smart Meters
    Snowden
    Social Security
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement0d62c56e69
    Statistics As Spin
    Statistics-as-spin
    Student-corps
    Subprime Mortgage Fraud
    Subprime-mortgage-fraud
    Surveillance And Security
    Sustainability
    Teachers
    Teachers Unions2bc448afc8
    Teach For America
    Teach For America
    Technology Parks
    Third Way Democrats/new Economy/public Union Employees/public Private Patnerships/government Fraud And Corruption
    Third Way Democratsnew Economypublic Union Employeespublic Private Patnershipsgovernment Fraud And Corruption
    Third-way-democratsnew-economypublic-union-employeespublic-private-patnershipsgovernment-fraud-and-corruptionc10a007aee
    Third Way/neo Liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals5e1e6d4716
    Third Wayneoliberals7286dda6aa
    Tifcorporate Tax Breaks2d87bba974
    Tpp
    Transportation Inequity In Maryland
    Union Busting
    Unionbusting0858fddb8b
    Unions
    Unionsthird Waypost Officealec3c887e7815
    Universities
    Unreliable Polling
    Unreliable-polling
    Van Hollen
    Van-hollen
    VEOLA Environment -privatization Of Public Water
    Veterans
    War Against Women And Children
    War-against-women-and-children
    Youth Works

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.