From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: California | Central Valley | Education & Student Activism | Labor & Workers
CA Charter Schools Grow Amid Questions of Corrupt Conflicts Including Sac Mayor Johnson
by repost
Saturday Feb 4th, 2012 7:48 PM
There is a systemic conflict of interest in California schools in which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation (Wal-Mart Inc.) are illegally placing lobbyists on school boards and other government agencies where they vote on public money going to charters owned by them. This also includes Sacramento mayor and his "non-profit" St. Hope Foundation which is funded by the Gates Foundation. These
CA Charter School Grow Amid Questions of Corrupt Conflicts Including Kevin Johnson Mayor Of Sacramento
CA Charter Schools Grow Amid Questions of Corrupt Conflicts Including Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson

By Seth Sandronsky

Traditional public school students and their teachers are facing a shortfall of tax support across the US. But things are brighter for tuition-free public charter schools, which operate with a contract (charter) from a public entity.

There were over 2 million students enrolled in about 5,600 public charter schools around the US in 2011, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a Washington, DC-based, non-profit advocacy group. A recent NAPCS statement said that total student enrollment represents a 13% increase in one year.

According to the federal Department of Education, 4% of US public school students, pre-kindergarten through grade 12, attend public charter schools. In 2010, California led the nation in public charter schools with 983, according to the NAPCS, serving over 412,000 students (7% of the over-all enrollment of 6 million pupils statewide).

Asked why California has the most public charter schools, NAPCS spokesperson Sephanie Grisham noted the state’s 1992 law establishing public charter schools with 31 in 1993, biggest state populace nationwide and a “great” California Charter Schools Association (a private firm). “CCSA actively advocates for the promotion and access of public charter schools, academic achievement, and increased accountability,” according to its website (

Kathy Carroll, an attorney for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing from October 2006 to November 2010, is a whistleblower who claims that her employer fired her for speaking out on misconduct such as violations of statutory mandates (providing for fair and impartial decision-making).

Carroll also has a critical view of public charter schools, education policy and policy-makers. She has appealed her firing to the California state personnel board and expects a decision in June.

For her, officials who serve the public interest and a private enterprise at the same time create a situation that fosters the potential for financial and political conflicts of interest.

In her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, education scholar Diane Ravitch unravels the sometimes hazy role of private money in public education policy, and follows a trail that brings her to “The Billionaire Boys’ Club.”

This club includes the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation (Wal-Mart Inc.).

Both foundations fund the CCSA and the NAPCS.

In Sacramento, funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2003 helped the non-profit St. Hope Foundation under current city mayor Kevin Johnson, a Democrat and past NBA all-star guard for the Phoenix Suns, to obtain a charter permission to operate the formerly public Sacramento High School.

The Gates Foundation is also a donor to Capitol Impact, LLC, a “Sacramento-based consulting firm dedicated to improving policy and practice in California, with a particular emphasis on public education,” according to its website (

Asked what what’s next for the US public charter schools movement in 2012, Grisham said the NAPCS will work to change the law in states where there are no or weak public school charter laws to continue the movement’s growth.

Seth Sandronsky lives and writes in Sacramento. Email sethsandronsky(at)

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by anon
Sunday Feb 5th, 2012 11:38 AM
Washington state voted down charters three times. But once again Dems (!) in Washington state legislature just attempted to push through charter legislation which was narrowly defeated.

Seattle, home of the Gates Foundation, is pushing back against the corporations and their charters.

Seattle has kicked out our corrupt superintendent* and is in the process of cleansing our "Broad/Gates" board and administration through a recent election, union votes of no confidence, citizen action, etc.

For solidarity and support and info:

(How far does it go? Dr. Maria Goodloe-Johnson, after being ousted in Seattle, is now the superintendent in Detroit - bought and paid for by the Broad Foundation.)
by All Kids Can Learn
Monday Feb 6th, 2012 1:30 PM
This 'news article' is flimsy, false, and fails to answer one of the basic "w's" of journalism -- WHY?

Charter schools are mission-driven public schools. No student can be forced to attend one. So then, WHY is the charter schools movement growing so fast in California? Because parents from all socioeconomic backgrounds are actively seeking out high-quality public school options. If the demand wasn't there, charter schools wouldn't exist.

While a few charter schools do receive grants from large foundations, the majority do not. In fact, the non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office (1/26/12) just released a study showing that "charter schools receive somewhat less per-pupil operational funding" then traditional public schools. I'm sorry, but Gates and Walton aren't sending all 950+ charter schools a big old check every year, as implied.

It is also false to say that non-profit corporations -- a federal designation granted by the IRS -- are private institutions. Non-profit, public-benefit corporations are neither public nor private. They are non-partisan, non-sectarian, mission-driven organizations created to serve the public good. And non-profits, from the United Way to ACORN, have funders on their boards. It is legal for a non-profit to reserve seats for foundations on their governing board . . . just like it is legal (and required by CA. Education Code) for a charter school to reserve a board seat for their authorizing school district.

One of the reasons public schools fail is under-funding. Foundations like Walton and Gates are stepping up in places where the State of California is falling short. Foundations -- large and small -- put money into programs that work. Walton and Gates have funded the growth of charter schools in California because they have an exemplary track record and the flexibility to get academic results while serving the neediest kids. That's exactly what St. HOPE is doing in Sacramento. If you haven't, check out the results from PS7

Finally, I can't agree with the author's scary "privatization" and "conflict of interest" insinuations. I hope we can agree that we want great public schools for kids. We can also agree that public education funding should be a top priority for the state. Until that happens, don't bash the philanthropic community for supporting public schools that are making a real difference in our community.
by United Public Workers For Action
Wednesday Feb 8th, 2012 7:44 AM
"Teacher Bashing Has To Stop"
CTC Fired Lawyer Carroll on Conflicts Of Interests & Lobbyists
Whistleblower and Fired Commission On Teacher Credentials lawyer
Kathleen Carroll on 1/22/2012 made a presentation on Conflicts Of
Interest, Lobbyists & Privatization Of California Public Education.
She spoke at an UPWA conference titled The Attack On Public
Education and Privatization which was held at Laney College in Oakland.
For further video on Kathleen Carroll go to:
United Public Workers For Action

Kevin Johnson And Another cover-up of Chicago corruption as well? How much clout is keeping St. HOPE charter schools receiving federal money despite scandals?

John Kugler - January 02, 2010

This United States Senate [and House] staff report below is related the investigation of Kevin Johnson's eligibility to receive federal grant funding for his charter schools after he was found to be misusing grant money and engaging in alleged sexual misconduct with students from his charter school.

Nine months before he became U.S. Secretary of Education, then Chicago Public Schools Chief Executive Officer Arne Duncan presided over a carefully staged media event on April 7, 2008, to promote the further privatization of large numbers of Chicago public schools. The event was held at Englewood High School, the famous (Lorraine Hansberry was one alumna) African American public high school that Duncan was closing as a general public high school in June 2008 and turning over to charter operator "Urban Prep" (a controversial all-boys charter school). Urban Prep wasn't the only charter school being touted by Duncan at the April 7, 2008, event, however. One of the new charter schools being feted in Chicago was the even more controversial St. HOPE. Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.

When Johnson wanted to get some of the ARRA (federal stimulus) funds he got Barack Obama to take the IG [Inspector General] off the case because he was against Johnson getting off of his debarment from federal education funding. This story is also connected to corporate school reform chief Michelle Rhee — the DC School Superintendent — because she tried to cover-up the sex and grant misuse by Johnson as well. According to news reports, Rhee is now engaged to marry Johnson.

As those following corporate school reform know, Michaell Rhee — along with Arne Duncan and New York Schools Chancellor Joel Klien — might be called the national face of corporate "school reform." After Rhee appeared on the cover of Time magazine last year (depicted holding a broom, symbolizing that she was a tough boss ready to clean house), she was treated to additional national news adulation. During the same time, like Arne Duncan, the main news media ignored all of the conflicts of interest, allegations of corruption, and outright corruption that swirled around her. One of the photographs from the Michelle Rhee collection shows her standing with Kevin Johnson and Eli Broad, head of the Broad Foundation, at the January 20, 2009, inauguration of President Barack Obama. The script for "school reform" under Barack Obama could have been written by the dozens of educational leaders subsidized by Eli Broad and his billions. In many ways, both locally in Chicago and nationally, it was.

The story about "St. Hope" and the coverups of the misconduct by Kevin Johnson also has a Chicago connection.

One year before he left Chicago to become U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan was promoting St. Hope as another charter school option for Chicago's children. In April 2008, a few months before Barack Obama cinched the presidency in a barrage of slogans about "hope," Arne Duncan announced, at a media event for the Requests for Proposals for "Renaissance 2010" at the soon-to-be defunct Englewood High School, that St. HOPE would join the list of Chicago charter schools. Following the 2008 RFP cycle, things moved very quickly. Arne Duncan was named U.S. Secretary of Education in December 2008 by President Obama and took over the U.S. Department of Education in January 2009, following the Obama inauguration.

Within six months, Duncan's staff had written the "Race to the Top" (RTTT) plan requiring every state in the USA to follow the Chicago model (charter schools, privatization, and other programs) in order to qualify for federal "stimulus" dollars in a time when most cities and states were facing huge cutbacks in education because of the national economic crisis.

The facts behind Duncan's Chicago years were largely ignored, just as the facts about St. HOPE and Kevin Johnson were ignored in the major corporate media.

The controversy over St. HOPE and Kevin Johnson died down shortly after the report reprinted below was published in November 2009. While the report was issued by conservative Republicans, the facts hold up, so it is important to publish the information again here.

Kevin Johnson, a former National Baseketball Association (Cleveland, Phoenix) star is currently mayor of Sacramento, California. The following report is followed by the most extensive news report about the Johnson scandals from the now-defunct New York Sun.

The Firing of the Inspector General for The Corporation for National and Community Service. Joint Staff Report, 111th Congress, Senate Finance Committee (Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member), House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Rep. Darrell Issa, Ranking Member), November 20, 2009, http://republicans. gov/images/ stories/Reports/ 20091120Joint StaffReport.pdf

Executive Summary........

While candidate [Barack] Obama ran for the Democratic nomination and subsequently for President on a platform based in part on increased national and community service, CNCS Inspector General Gerald Walpin was overseeing an investigation of St. HOPE Academy, a charter school founded and operated by Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and self-described friend of Barack Obama.

Based on evidence gathered by the Office of the Inspector General, Kevin Johnson was suspended from eligibility to receive federal grants on September 24, 2008.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California and the Corporation’s leadership began working on a settlement that would reinstate Johnson’s eligibility to receive federal funds. Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown excluded the Office of the Inspector General from settlement negotiations. Despite IG Walpin’s repeated requests to participate in settlement negotiations, he was ignored, apparently because of his opposition to any settlement that would remove Johnson from the suspended parties list.

With Walpin shut out of the process, the settlement reinstated Johnson and St. HOPE Academy’s eligibility to receive federal funds. The settlement also included a payment schedule by which the school, not Johnson, would repay half of the total grant amount. The settlement includes no meaningful guarantee that the United States will actually collect any payments from the cash-strapped school.

On May 20, 2009, Gerald Walpin appeared before the Corporation’s Board of Directors to express his displeasure with the settlement negotiated by CNCS’s General Counsel Frank Trinity and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Walpin also criticized the complacency of the Corporation’s leadership under Acting CEO Nicola Goren.

During his presentation to the Board, Walpin explained his intention to issue a statement calling for an FBI investigation into the destruction of Kevin Johnson’s e-mails while they were under subpoena as part of a federal investigation. This was the first the Board heard of e-mail destruction by St. HOPE personnel, leading members to ask Walpin for further explanation. Walpin then appeared confused and disoriented to some Board members while attempting to respond to their questions. There was concern among Board members that Walpin had experienced some sort of unspecified medical event.

Following Walpin’s presentation at the May 20 Board meeting, Board Chairman Alan Solomont immediately contacted the White House Counsel’s Office. Solomont, whose New England Obama fundraising committee raised more money per capita than any other region during the 2008 campaign, arrived at the White House on the afternoon of May 20 unannounced and shared concerns about Walpin’s fitness to continue serving as IG with White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Craig directed Solomont to take his concerns to Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform Norman Eisen.

Within hours of making remarks critical of the Corporation’s leadership, the process by which Walpin would be removed from his post was in motion. Eisen’s investigation of Solomont’s concerns appears to have been limited to speaking only with Goren and Trinity, the very people Walpin criticized in his remarks at the May 20 Board meeting that precipitated Solomont’s trip to the White House.

In the following weeks, no one from the White House contacted Walpin or anyone else from his office to confirm the accuracy of the information Solomont says led him to contact the White House Counsel. Nor did the White House contact each of the other Board members to obtain their recollection of events. On June 10, 2009 at approximately 5:20 p.m., Eisen informed Walpin by telephone that the President wished to remove him from his post as Inspector General and presented Walpin with a choice: resign or be terminated. Walpin would not resign, and so he was terminated within 45 minutes of the phone call.

Removing Gerald Walpin based solely on complaints from leadership of the Agency he was charged with overseeing undermines the IG Act, especially in the absence of any serious effort to obtain both sides of the story. The President is required by law to give 30-days notice to Congress before removing an IG and to explain the reasons for doing so. These requirements serve to protect the independence of IGs, whose relationship with agency management is necessarily adversarial at times. Moreover the legislation requiring prior notice to Congress was co-sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama.

In response to concerns voiced by a bipartisan group of Senators and Congressmen, the White House first relied on a complaint filed by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown to justify its action. Subsequently, the White House pointed to Walpin’s behavior at the May 20 Board meeting to justify his removal. Finally, Norman Eisen urged House and Senate investigators to conduct their own inquiry into Walpin’s fitness for the IG post. Eisen assured staff their own investigation would confirm that the President acted prudently and with the full consultation and consent of the Board.

Congress’s investigation revealed Eisen’s inquiry was limited to such an extent that it appears the President removed Gerald Walpin based on incomplete and misleading information. Eisen relied entirely on information provided by Solomont and Walpin’s chief adversaries Nicola Goren and Frank Trinity. In many cases, their concerns about Walpin’s fitness to serve as IG lacked merit. Often, their concerns amounted to complaints that Walpin was difficult to work with. Because Eisen apparently did no further investigation and engaged in no genuine consultation with Congress, the White House failed to implement the IG Act as intended.

Eisen’s failure to thoroughly and authentically investigate the basis of the

complaints about Gerald Walpin and the White House’s refusal to provide details about

its inquiry fueled speculation that Walpin was removed for pursuing a political ally of the

President. A request for intervention from a Member of Congress and the involvement of

the First Lady in the Corporation’s management further complicated the effort to

determine the basis for the President’s action.

Eisen admitted to Congressional investigators that before the President removed

Gerald Walpin, he was sensitive to the possibility that Walpin’s firing would appear to

have been politically motivated. He claimed that (1) the firing was an act of “political

courage” because the White House expected that perception, (2) the firing was necessary

because Walpin was incapable of being aggressive enough, and (3) the firing was

intended to send a message to the IG community that the Administration wanted more

aggressive watch dogs, rather than passive lap dogs.

Eisen’s claims are not credible. Despite his stated concern that the dismissal

would look political, he took no steps to consult with or even notify Congress prior to

giving Walpin an ultimatum. The White House’s loose interpretation of the requirements

of the IG Act and failure to use a transparent process to effectuate Walpin’s removal

deprived the President of an opportunity to explain his action in an appropriate way. The

fallout from the sloppy handling of complaints from the Corporation’s management is

likely to have a chilling effect on the IG community, which must now operate more

cautiously in light of the Administration’s swift response to criticisms of agency

leadership and allies of the President without affording any due process to the Inspector


II. Findings

The President’s plans to increase the size and scope of AmeriCorps make it clear

that CNCS and its mission are important to the White House.

Kevin Johnson often described himself as a personal friend of the President and

First Lady. According to Johnson, “I’m friendly with Barack.”

The decision by the Corporation’s Suspension and Debarment Official to suspend

St. HOPE Academy and former Chief Executive Kevin Johnson was based on

sufficient evidence gathered by the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”). The

decision to suspend protected the Corporation from further misappropriation of

funds while OIG and the Justice Department completed their respective


Because the U.S. Attorney’s Office was not open to a settlement that did not

remove Kevin Johnson from the list of suspended parties, Acting U.S. Attorney

Lawrence Brown and CNCS General Counsel Frank Trinity cut Gerald Walpin

out of settlement negotiations.

Faced with mounting political pressure, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the

Corporation’s General Counsel set aside the financial interests of the United

States in favor of a politically palatable settlement. Because the settlement

reached collects payment from St. HOPE and not Johnson, and because of the

school’s precarious financial condition, there is no assurance the United States

will ever be repaid.

In a complaint to the Integrity Council of the Council of Inspectors General on

Integrity and Efficiency (“CIGIE”), Brown alleged Walpin’s interaction with

Sacramento media was inappropriate. Brown also alleged Walpin failed to

disclose exculpatory evidence. Documents and testimony obtained by

congressional investigators do not support the substance of Brown’s complaint.

At a May 20, 2009 CNCS Board meeting, Gerald Walpin complained about the

settlement of the St. HOPE matter to the Corporation’s Board. Walpin also stated

his intention to call for an FBI investigation into destruction of evidence under

subpoena in a federal investigation by St. HOPE personnel. When asked to

clarify this statement, Walpin suddenly appeared confused and disoriented to

CNCS Board members and staff. However, the OIG’s Deputy said he merely

appeared to have lost his place in his notes. The IG went home early later that

day due to a strong headache and upset stomach.

Immediately following the May 20, 2009 Board meeting, Chairman Alan

Solomont arrived unannounced at the White House to complain about Gerald

Walpin. Solomont is a powerful Democratic fundraiser. Under Solomont, the

New England Obama committee raised more money per capita than any other

region. Whether an Agency head without fundraising background would have

had such unfettered access to the White House Counsel is unknown, but

Solomont’s history creates the appearance that political considerations may have

played a role in the process that led to Walpin’s removal from office.

On May 20, 2009, Solomont met with White House Counsel Gregory Craig.

Craig assured Solomont the matter would be reviewed by his office and referred

him to Special Counsel to the President Norman Eisen. At the time, Eisen was

not in his office. As Solomont was leaving the White House on his way through

the parking lot, he ran into Eisen. There, he initially made his case for the

removal of Gerald Walpin.

In an effort to comply with the requirements of the IG Act, the White House sent

a letter to House and Senate leadership on the evening of June 11, 2009 stating

that Walpin would be removed in 30 days. The White House’s letter did not

comply with the notice and reason requirements of the Inspector General Act.

Rather, Walpin received an ultimatum on June 10, 2009 and communicated that

ultimatum to members of Congress himself beginning the evening of June 10,


According to Norman Eisen, his inquiry into the allegations against Gerald

Walpin involved speaking with members of the CNCS Board to confirm that a

consensus existed. In fact, the White House’s “investigation” appears to have

consisted entirely of conversations with Board Chairman Alan Solomont and

CNCS Acting CEO Nicola Goren and General Counsel Frank Trinity. In some

cases, Eisen’s statements during briefings to Congress are explicitly contradicted

by witness testimony.


The IG Reform Act was passed due to Congress’s concerns about improper

political motivation, or the appearance thereof, in the IG removal process. The White

House’s failure to strictly adhere to the Act’s requirements put the concerns of Congress

on full display.

In lieu of meeting the requirements of the IG Act, the White House relied on a

haphazard process set in motion just hours after Gerald Walpin made remarks critical of

the Corporation’s Board and management. In response to complaints from a prominent

fundraiser with disproportionate access to the White House, Norman Eisen conducted an

inadequate investigation that gathered only one side of the story. Instead of engaging in a

thorough and deliberate examination of Walpin’s fitness for the job at a time when the

Administration planned an unprecedented expansion of the Corporation’s programs,

Eisen opted to rely on information provided by individuals with adversarial relationships

with the IG. Notably, Eisen’s investigation did not include conversations with anyone

from the Office of the Inspector General, including Walpin himself. Eisen did not afford

Walpin an opportunity to be heard. In other words Walpin was given no due process.

Eisen’s failure to conduct an actual investigation deprived the President the

opportunity to faithfully adhere to the IG Act. Essentially, the IG Reform Act requires

transparency — the President must give advance notice to Congress before removing an

IG and explain the reasons for that action. Because the White House failed to comply

with the requirements of the IG Act in its initial letter to Congress, and because there

were no findings from a thorough investigation to fall back on in response to

congressional inquiries, the White House Counsel’s Office orchestrated an after-the-fact

smear campaign to justify the President’s action. That approach ultimately led to a

controversial public relations battle in the media and a federal lawsuit by the former

Inspector General.397 The result is decreased public confidence in the integrity of CNCS

programs and the non-partisan, non-political mission of its Office of Inspector General.

Because Norman Eisen’s investigation was incomplete and the White House has

withheld hundreds of pages of documents from Congress, the claim that Gerald Walpin

was removed for legitimate, non-political reasons is unsupported and unpersuasive.

There is simply insufficient evidence to conclusively reject the notion that the removal

may have been motivated by a desire to exert greater control over the Corporation

without interference from an aggressive, independent IG.

The President’s action leaves three top positions at CNCS — Chief Executive

Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Inspector General — vacant or filled temporarily, at

a time when the Corporation is charged with growing to manage 250,000 volunteers

while the annual budget rises from $1.19 billion to $6 billion.399

Congress has heard testimony from the IG community acknowledging the difficulties faced by temporary Inspectors General. “It is difficult for any [temporary IG] to take an unpopular stand or make a critical policy decision,” said Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation IG Rebecca Anne Batts to Congress in March 2009.400 This reality will cripple any effective oversight of CNCS as the President rapidly implements an ambitious expansion of its programs and funding.

The following article appeared in The New York Sun

Ex-NBA Star Who Opened Schools in Imbroglio By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 26, 2008

A former professional basketball player who helped start a charter school in Harlem this year, Kevin Johnson, is on a swing through New York to raise funds for his bid for mayor of Sacramento, Calif., just as his campaign is being rocked by word that he has been barred from doing business with the federal government.

The agency that runs the AmeriCorps program, the Corporation for National & Community Service, announced yesterday that Mr. Johnson, a Sacramento community group he founded, St. Hope Academy, and a former head of the group's neighborhood corps, Dana Gonzalez, were suspended from participating in federal contracts or grants pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation into the improper use of federal grant money.

The agency's inspector general, Gerald Walpin, said in a statement that his initial report "cited numerous potential criminal and grant violations, including diversion of federal grant funds, misuse of AmeriCorps members and false claims made against a taxpayer-supported Federal agency." According to government documents, investigators found that AmeriCorps members drove Mr. Johnson to personal appointments, washed his car, and did personal errands. Also, they said the federally sponsored corps members were used to staff a store St. Hope Academy ran and to perform "routine clerical and cleaning activities outside the scope of the grant."

Mr. Johnson declined to comment about the imbroglio during a $1,000-a-ticket fund-raiser for his campaign last night at an apartment on East 64th Street. Asked if the flap would affect his run for Sacramento mayor, he said, "No."

Mr. Johnson's campaign manager, Steven Maviglio, stressed that the candidate has been cooperating with the federal inquiry. "We're confident in the outcome," Mr. Maviglio said.

Ventura Rodriguez, the principal of the St. Hope Leadership Academy, which opened on West 134th Street last month, said the federal action would not have an impact on the new school. "None whatsoever," he said. "St. Hope Academy is a completely separate board of trustees and financially separate from St. Hope Leadership Academy. ... All the funding is from New York State. There's no money from the federal government or from St. Hope."

Still, it's clear Mr. Johnson played a key role in getting the Harlem school off the ground. Press releases from St. Hope in Sacramento claimed credit for and touted the approval of the New York school. In addition, Mr. Johnson was the featured speaker at the school's opening last month.

"Obviously, there's a connection," Mr. Rodriguez said

An official with the city's education department, who asked not to be named, said the agency was monitoring the situation but that state law requires groups that run New York charter schools to be freestanding entities.

One of the specific abuses found in the federal investigation involved taking AmeriCorps members on a trip to New York in 2006 to recruit students for the new Harlem school.

According to federal records, St. Hope Academy received about $800,000 in federal funds between 2004 and 2007 for tutoring and community programs in Sacramento. "When you instead take the AmeriCorps members to New York for a purpose not within the grant, you are misusing the members and diverting the funds from the purposes intended," Mr. Galpin, the inspector general, told The New York Sun yesterday.

Mr. Galpin denied, when asked, that the probe or the timing of the suspension had anything to do with Mr. Johnson's mayoral bid. "Any local political activity is totally irrelevant to the performance of my office's obligation to protect taxpayers," the investigator said.

At the Harlem school's opening last month, Ms. Gonzalez, who was also personally barred from contracts this week, identified herself to a Sun reporter as a member of the board of the new school. She could not be reached for comment yesterday. The new executive director of the St. Hope Academy, Rick Maya, said she left her job as the new school developer for the Sacramento group on August 1.

Despite claims that St. Hope Academy has no legal connection to the Harlem school, the California group registered in October 2007 with the New York Department of State as a out-of-state entity doing business in New York. Mr. Maya said he could not explain the registration.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento, Lauren Horwood, confirmed that her office is mulling a report from Mr. Galpin. "We received the report in August. Our office is still reviewing it," she said. She said she could not predict how long the review would take.

Mr. Johnson, 42, a former point guard for the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Phoenix Suns, is considered a pioneer in the charter school movement. He founded St. Hope as an after-school program in 1989. Beginning in 2003, he opened six such charter schools in his native Sacramento. He stepped down as the president and CEO of St. Hope in March.

"We like him because he's got the potential to bring a lot of energy and excitement to the issue of education," an organizer of last night's fund-raiser, Joseph Williams of Democrats for Education Reform, said. "Here's a guy who went off to the NBA and could have gone on to do anything else and instead went back to his community and identified education as an important part of rebuilding his community."

Mr. Williams cast Mr. Johnson as in the same mold as Mayor Cory Booker of Newark and Mayor Adrian Fenty of Washington, both of whom have stressed improving schools. "We're very interested in the movement nationally towards mayors grabbing the mantle of education reform," Mr. Williams said.

Mr. Johnson is challenging Mayor Heather Fargo in November. Both are Democrats. Ms. Fargo backed Senator Clinton in the primary, while Mr. Johnson backed Senator Obama. Last night's event doubled as a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama and featured an education adviser to the Democratic presidential nominee, Jonathan Schnur.

Mr. Johnson is still garnering support from his former colleagues in the NBA. Suns center Shaquille O'Neal is scheduled to speak today at a lunchtime fund-raiser in Sacramento for Mr. Johnson's campaign and at a dinner gala for St. Hope Academy.

A Washington lawyer who specializes in federal contracting, Frederic Levy, said Mr. Johnson's suspension could complicate the city's effort to win grants if he becomes mayor and the bar remains in place. Mr. Levy said grant applicants are required to certify that no "principal" is barred or suspended, or to explain why they cannot do so. "That might be a basis for denying those monies," the lawyer said, though he added that agencies have flexibility in enforcing the ban.

Chartering Disaster: Why Duncan's Corporate-Based Schools Can't Deliver an Education That Matters
Chartering Disaster: Why Duncan's Corporate-Based Schools Can't Deliver an Education That Matters
Monday 21 June 2010
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Feature

Arne Duncan. (Image: Jared Rodriguez /t r u t h o u t; Adapted: talkradionews,pareeerica)
The best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina. - Arne Duncan

Visions have nowadays fallen into disrepute and we tend to be proud of what we should be ashamed of. - Zygmunt Bauman

Market-Based Educational Reform and the Politics of Fraud

In Arne Duncan's world, the language of educational reform is defined primarily through the modalities of competition, measurement and quantification. Competition is now one of the most important registers organizing and defining schools and classroom pedagogical practices - no doubt made obvious by the name of Obama's educational reform policy "Race to the Top," with its allusion to Wall Street values and casino capitalism. Within this discourse, there seems to be little understanding, as Stuart Hall has argued, "that there is a limit to the good that can be produced by individual competitiveness."[1] Of course, competition itself is not the problem since competition can be healthy in a number of areas. The real issue is when competition becomes, as Christopher Newfield points out, "the sole organizing principle of society."[2] And when that happens in educational policies such as those pushed by the Obama administration, one consequence is that the ultimate agent of schooling is modeled after the unattached individual competing for financial rewards, status and a job in the workforce. But there is more at work here than the vulgar instrumentalization of the curriculum, homage to an unchecked mode of market competition and the crude reduction of teacher work to thoughtless methodologies and techniques. There is also a neoliberal agenda in which public money is channeled into the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations. In addition, there is the ongoing infatuation with privatization and the push for charter schools, largely used to siphon off and privilege middle-class students, while promoting forms of tracking and social dumping that often mark underfunded public schools.[3] There is also the push for governance structures shaped in the image of a largely disgraced business culture, whose aim is to restructure the administrative apparatus in public schools as part of a broader political project to weaken the power of faculty and unions, while placing unaccountable power in the hands of corporate elites.

Also See:

Part I: Dumbing Down Teachers: Attacking Colleges of Education in the Name of Reform

Part II: Teachers Without Jobs and Education Without Hope: Beyond Bailouts and the Fetish of the Measurement Trap

In Defense of Public School Teachers in a Time of Crisis

As the forces of privatization merge with the destruction of public housing in many urban areas such as Chicago, charter and privatized schools become the beachheads for gentrification and the emergence of gated communities. Moreover, the values that produce such spaces are now replicated in the schools themselves as they are filled by administrators, teachers and students who do not "know how to share public space to common advantage"[4] or who have not learned how to deal effectively with racial and economic differences.[5] Gaining ground since the 1980s, these reform measures represent the triumph of neoliberal ideology and policies over public education, formerly viewed as a repository of democratic ideals, values and practices. Rather than challenge reform measures whose heritage has more to do with fighting desegregation than fostering democratic modes of schooling, Obama and Duncan have simply legitimated and further extended them. The elements of such a reactionary educational policy are well known: unrestrained individualism in all realms, unbridled competition and corporate values as the master metaphors for educational change, all of which signify a gross perversion of democracy and anything approaching an empowering education. Duncan, in particular, appears to have no language for addressing problems, values, issues and goods that cannot be measured and quantified or are not subject to the profit-making dictates of the market. If public schools have the potential to be vibrant spaces for engaging young people in critical dialog, exchange and creativity, such potential is absent from Duncan's view of schooling. In fact, it is fair to argue that Duncan ignores, if not disdains, a long tradition in American life extending from Thomas Jefferson to C. Wright Mills and Hannah Arendt in which it has been recognized that citizens are produced, not simply born, and that public schools are the crucial political site where socialization for a healthy democracy takes place.[6]

Increasingly, students are being subjected to a stripped-down notion of schooling, making it more difficult for them not just to think critically, but also to imagine a world beyond the gospel of competition and profit and the economic calculus of financial gain and loss. Public schooling is more and more being shaped by a pedagogy of containment, security and conformity that undermines critical thought, teaching and dialog while emphasizing market values that often create what William Black calls a "criminogenic environment" - one that promotes and legitimates market-driven practices that include fraud, deregulation and other perverse practices.[7] Black claims that the most extreme pedagogical expression of such an environment can be found in business schools, which he calls "fraud factories" for the elite.[8] He writes:

We now have the entitlement generation as CEOs. They just plain feel entitled to being wealthy ... with no responsibility, no accountability. They have become literal sociopaths. So one of the things is, you clean up business schools, which right now are fraud factories at the senior levels, right? They create the new monsters that take control and destroy massive enterprises and cause global economic crises, cause the great recession.[9]

These same values described by Black now drive the reform movement shaping public education. What is disturbing about Duncan's position is that he rarely makes reference to the corruption, fraud, scandals, greed and criminal behavior in the larger society often associated with the ruthless, business-culture model he has adopted as a model for public education. There is no mention or the slightest bit of self-reflection in Duncan's view of education to indicate that the values driving his call for the reform of public schools share an uncanny alignment with the values that gave us the Enron scandal, the Madoff Affair, "liar's loans," the subprime mortgage crisis and the larger economic recession. Duncan's indifference functions like an autoimmune system that, instead of protecting life, has turned on the body politic, destroying its life-supporting organs and functions.[10] His political and ethical indifference to the death-dealing values that define the business culture to which he is so attached blinds him to the corruptions, illegalities and scandals that now fill the air like the volcanic ash that put Europe in a crisis in the early part of the summer of 2010.

Some of these corrupt practices are obvious and can be found in recent reports of school administrators and teachers in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Virginia, and other states doctoring test results in order to get either salary bonuses or promotions.[11] They can also be found in the desperate attempts by many schools to mimic market-based values by resorting to financial incentives in which they sell not only baked goods to raise money, but also test points for grades.[12] In Chicago and Washington, DC, students in some schools have been paid to get good grades, as if quick financial gain is the most important motivation for learning. In reality, it may pose a serious threat to forms of teaching and learning that enable critical thinking, active citizenship and a heightened imagination. Would it ever occur to students educated to believe that financial gain is the best motivation for learning to question an educational system in which "disciplines such as history, literature, classical studies, and philosophy would be valued only to the extent that they sell themselves as tools of the growing economy"?[13] Would they be able to recognize the importance of values that cannot be commodified or treated solely in terms of their exchange value on the market? Where do matters of honesty, civility, trust, compassion and responsibility for others enter into this discourse?

Clearly, money has the power not only to corrupt, but also to make those educational nonreformers who view it as the most important force for influencing students either stupid or disingenuous. Exchanging grades for money does more than teach students the wrong lessons; it also makes clear that selling out education has now become standard fare.[14] What is rather startling about these stories is that they mimic the same values and practices of Wall Street bankers who shamelessly and without apology engaged in destructive and exploitative financial practices in order to reap large short-term profits, practices that eventually led to the economic meltdown and unbearable hardship and suffering for millions of people around the globe. One would think that schools, of all institutions, would be the last establishment where matters of motivation and teacher merit would be connected primarily to monetary rewards. It appears that Obama and Duncan do not recognize in their own reform policies the unapologetic appropriation of casino capitalism so flagrantly exhibited in the practices of high-flying venture capitalists, who eagerly search out schools as part of their efforts to generate quick and lucrative profits, or who bundle together financial transactions that are bound to fail and then bet against them at the expense of their own investors. Do Obama and Duncan not see a connection between the values that informed the banking and financial industries, who swindled poor people with subprime mortgages, and the incentives behind their own reforms?

The corrupting nature of these market-oriented values on higher education was recently made clear in a "Frontline" television documentary that highlighted a number of educational entrepreneurs, who were in the business of buying failing universities and schools, injecting them with larger amounts of capital, and then turning them into for-profit schools. When asked how he makes such schools successful, one such entrepreneur, Michael Clifford, responded that it took "money, management and marketing," and that his financial backers make profits so large from these deals that he was embarrassed to provide a figure.[15]What he doesn't mention, however, is that for these schools to be profitable, they do away with tenure, hire teachers on short-term contracts, charge inflated tuition rates and promote aggressive marketing campaigns to secure students who have to take out huge federal loans in order to attend these schools. The problem is that, for the schools to be profitable, they have to attract an endless stream of students, and they do this by making it easy for them to secure government-backed loans, which, for many students, are almost impossible to repay, leaving them saddled with thousands of dollars in debt. Moreover, the pressure for growth has resulted in the use of questionable high-pressure recruiting techniques to attract students who cannot succeed or graduate and eventually drop out. The largest for-profit school, the University of Phoenix, spends 20 to 25 percent of its total revenue on marketing, while only spending 10 to 20 percent on faculty.[16]

In some cases, students are recruited on the basis of fraudulent claims such as being told that the degree program in which they are enrolling is accredited, when it is not. Argos University-Dallas is being sued by a number of students who were told that the university's graduate psychology program was going to be accredited by the American Psychology Association. It never received the accreditation, leaving the students with worthless degrees and huge debts.[17] Moreover, enrollment counselors are paid solely through the number of students they recruit, which gives them incentive to use often questionable tactics to recruit such students and hook them up for a quick loan. For instance, Drake College of Business, a for-profit higher education company recruited young people from homeless shelters, while charging them over $15,000 annually in tuition fees.[18] Many of these students defaulted on their loans, providing a profit windfall for Drake. In fact, it has been estimated that "the default-rate at for-profits could be as high as 50 percent."[19] When Duncan was asked in the "College Inc." documentary about the loan scam and default rate for these students, he answered tepidly that it was "something we need to watch."[20] Indeed! But if there were any doubt expressed by Duncan about for-profit schooling, he rescinded it in a later luncheon speech in which he insisted on the "vital role" that "for-profit institutions play in providing job training for students."[21]

Profit once again trumps the needs of students as Duncan enshrines market-driven forces while overlooking the havoc and hardship imposed on students who fall for the high-pressure recruiting tactics and the instant loans. In the "College Inc." documentary, one former recruiter stated, "If our numbers started dropping, trainers would come around and start telling you to up your outgoing calls anywhere from 300 to 450 calls a day to meet these quotas, to get those applications."[22] Even more disturbing is that the "Federal aid to for-profit colleges has jumped to $26.5 billion in 2009 from $4.6 billion in 2000."[23] Yet, the American taxpayer is subsidizing the loans given to students while private investors are reaping the profits on the defaulted loans. Daniel Golden, an education reporter for Bloomberg News claims, "The taxpayers are essentially funding this industry. Something like 75 percent of their revenue comes from federal grants and loans."[24] The University of Phoenix now gets "86 percent of its revenue from the federal government, up from something like 48 percent ten years ago."[25] It is also worth noting that taxpayers have made John Sperling, the founder of the University of Phoenix, a billionaire and have financed the millions in revenue he has handed out to his top executives. Not only are the financial costs of these colleges often much higher than their public counterparts but they also aggressively recruit vulnerable working-class and poor minority students using dubious tactics. Once again, the students who attend these schools are often disproportionally saddled with a heavy debt load, especially if they drop out. As Zygmunt Bauman points out, "Students have been forced/encouraged to live on credit - to spend money which at best they might hope to earn many years later (assuming the prosperity and consumerist orgy lasted that long). The training in the art of 'living in debt' and living in debt permanently, has been incorporated into the curriculum of national education."[26] These are the same predatory neoliberal policies, values and motivations that are also driving the privatization, voucher and charter school crowd that has a strong supporter in Duncan.

The people who are leading the charge for charter schools might as well be taking their cues from the wealthy entrepreneurs investing in for-profit universities. As reported recently in the New York Times, many hedge fund managers now have their sights on charter schools "because they see an entrepreneurial answer to the nation's education woes."[27] What is left out of this alleged concern with the problems of public education is the market-addicted infatuation with the cult of privatization and the lure of easy profits. Charter schools allegedly "appeal to the maverick instincts of many who run hedge funds."[28] One wishes that such statements were merely fodder for late night comics. Instead, they reveal how little these rich, business tycoons and corporate moguls have learned from the financial crisis for which they are responsible. These Wall Street gamblers, whose corrupt and "naked speculation ... drove financial markets off a cliff in 2008," want to use the same disparaged values that sank banks and wiped out the savings and jobs of millions of Americans to develop charter schools and promote educational reform.[29] In the stories surrounding the charter school movement, the incessant search for new markets to invest in surfaces as the main factor influencing its supporters, and certainly not social values or civic conscience. One charter school advocate for Wall Street indicates what appears to be the real motive behind the hedge fund managers' obsession with charter schools. He writes: "It's the most important cause in the nation, obviously and with the state providing so much of the money, outside contributions are insanely well leveraged."[30] Hedge fund managers believe that charter schools are a hot cause and, allegedly, "appeal to the maverick instincts of many who run hedge funds."[31] But there is more at stake here than fashion and inflated testosterone levels, there is also the usual suspect, greed. Of course, in addition to accessing a money flow that requires little accountability, there are also opportunities to break unions, employ cheap and overworked teachers and organize curricula and classroom pedagogy to teach business values and principles that legitimate the investors' own casino capitalist approach to public goods such as education.

Some advocates of privatization who call for the destruction of public schools are quite clear about how they view the role of charter schools. For example Andy Smarick, a think-tank wank at the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, argues that closing allegedly bad public schools - code for all public schools - need to be subject to the "creative destruction" of market forces and that charter schools provide a way station to implementing that goal. Put simply, charter schools should be allowed to fail so they can be then taken over by private industry. As for reforming public education, he argues:

The beginning of the solution is establishing a clear process for closing schools. The simplest and best way to put this into operation is the charter model. Each school, in conjunction with the state or district, would develop a five-year contract with performance measures. Consistent failure to meet goals in key areas would result in closure.... The churn caused by closures isn't something to be feared; on the contrary, it's a familiar prerequisite for industry health.[32]

David Harvey has a better term for this process, he calls it "accumulation by dispossession,"[33] and Ken Saltman in his analysis of how market forces capitalize on disaster in education uses the apt phrase "smash and grab privatization."[34] Unlike Smarick and his ilk who want to replace markets with a market-driven society, Harvey, Saltman, and others make it clear that, after the endless corporate scandals of the last two decades extending from Enron to American International Group (AIG) to the current shameless behavior of BP in the Gulf, what is good for the health of an industry actually may be bad for democracy, the environment and everyone else.

There is a lot of money to be made in supporting charter schools, as seems evident in the number of hedge fund managers, wealthy Americans and Wall Street executives now lining up to support them. Unprecedented numbers of wealthy foundations - what one prominent educator calls "The Billionaires Boys Club," which includes the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and the Broad Foundation - "are committed now to charter schools and to evaluating teachers by test scores."[35] It is worth repeating that the reasons are not always philanthropic. New York Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez wrote an important article indicating that a piece of legislation called the New Market Tax Credit, passed under the Clinton administration in 2000, gave banks and equity funds an enormous federal tax credit when they invested in charter schools.[36] The unsavory business practices, Ponzi scheme corruption and hardships that have been endured by schools as a result of these tax breaks and financial investments are explained by Gonzales. In an interview with Amy Goodman, he states:

What happens is the investors who put up the money to build charter schools get to basically or virtually double their money in seven years through a thirty-nine percent tax credit from the federal government. In addition, this is a tax credit on money that their [sic] lending, so they're also collecting interest on the loans as well as getting the thirty-nine percent tax credit. They piggy-back the tax credit on other kinds of federal tax credits like historic preservation or job creation or brownfields credits. The result is, you can put in ten million dollars and in seven years double your money. The problem is that the charter schools end up paying in rents the debt service on these loans and so now a lot of the charter schools in Albany are straining paying their debt service - their rent has gone up from $170,000 to $500,000 in a year - huge increases in their rents as they strain to pay off these loans, these construction loans. The rents are eating up huge portions of their total cost. And, of course, the money is coming from the state. One of the big issues is that so many of these charter schools are not being audited. No one knows who are the people making these huge windfall profits as the investors. Often, there are interlocking relationships between the charter school boards and the nonprofit groups that organize and syndicate the loans.[37]

As a strong advocate for charter schools, Duncan rarely acknowledges that such schools are fraught with problems, in spite of the many red flags now being brought to the public's attention. For example, there is increasing evidence that charter schools are no better or worse than public schools in terms of student achievement.[38] Moreover, in many instances they produce egregious amounts of fraud, corruption and criminal behavior and, increasingly, they exploit the labor and professionalism of teachers who work in these schools. Regarding the latter point, John Funiciello points out, "The toll [taken] on teachers in charter schools by long hours and lack of job security has not been much discussed or analyzed, but a clue might be found in a study by a pair of Vanderbilt University researchers [that] showed that charter school teachers were 132 percent more likely to leave their jobs, than teachers in traditional schools."[39] We get a hint of why in a statement by one founder of a charter school in New Orleans, who told a Times-Picayune reporter, "the teachers in his school, founded in 2008, are paid for a 50-hour week, but that they often put in 60-70 hours. He also said that none of his teachers is married - and, they don't have children."[40] It gets worse. Diane Ravitch, the renowned educational theorist and former assistant secretary of education for the administration of President George H.W. Bush, also indicates that the "Philadelphia Inquirer reported that at least four charters were under federal criminal investigation for nepotism, conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement. The managers of other charters in Pennsylvania created private companies to sell products or services to their schools or placed relatives on the payroll. One charter, the Inquirer found, paid millions of dollars in rent, salaries and management fees annually to a for-profit company owned by the charter's chief executive officer."[41]

There is more to be said about Duncan's support of charter schools beyond even his unwillingness to recognize the limits of charter school performance, the drawbacks of turning public money and governance structures for public schools over to private investors, the growing evidence of corruption and fraud and the increased hardship for teachers, students and parents that often accompanies charter school development. Duncan's silence on these issues stems from his willingness to view schools like a business and those who run them as CEOs whose job is similar to managing corporate portfolios. But at work here is something even more pernicious than Obama's and Duncan's support for educational reforms that represent a deep distrust of public values and disregard for the notion of schooling as a public good: there is also the broader element of a neoliberal project that view charters as an interim measure on the way to ending public education and replacing it with publicly funded private schooling. While there are individuals and groups who advocate for charter schools as part of an attempt to strengthen public education, they often fail to realize that once a public school is transformed into a charter school, it then becomes easy to close and replace with private services.

We get a hint of these concerns and the political project that drives them in a recent op-ed by Charles Murray, a firm supporter of charter schools. Writing in The New York Times, Murray claims conservatives should no longer defend charter schools based on the achievement of higher standardized test scores. He now claims that test scores prove very little and that the real defense of charters should be issued on the "basis of ... shared parental calculation."[42] Charters should be endorsed as part of a larger movement to create schools that replace "the progressive curriculum used in the country's other public schools" with a more traditional curriculum.[43] It is becoming daily more evident that the unapologetic conservative justification of parental "choice" is code for organizing schools in opposition to the landmark United States Supreme Court desegregation ruling in the 1950s (Brown v. Board of Education). Murray's support for charter schools, vouchers and other elements in the neoliberal knapsack of reforms exemplifies this type of separatist logic, one that, in this case, comes from an ideologue who has utterly disavowed notions of democratic equality in favor of a commitment to what he calls the "cognitive elite," a category of people that excludes the working class and minorities. Given that Murray has argued for the inherent genetic superiority of whites, is a primary architect of social policies that favor the dismantling of the social state and is an apologist for racist modes of segregation, it is not surprising that educational policies favoring vouchers, charters and privatization are compatible with his sectarian notion of schooling.

Yet, more is at stake in the promotion of charter schools than a retooling of public education as an adjunct of the corporation or as a gated institution and bulwark against minorities of class, color and ethnicity. There is also a more capacious attempt to dismantle public schooling as a public good within the broader context of American society being systematically refashioned through the domination and rule of corporations, religious bigots and the rich and powerful.[44] The discourse of "educational reform" promoted by the Obama administration really veils a movement that is attempting to disinvest in the public schools and to dismantle the social state. While Duncan may not go so far as to support the end point of neoliberal policy with its destruction of all things public, he certainly plays a formative role in legitimizing and asserting the values that underpin this neoliberal anti-public ideology.

Educational Casualties

Again and again, but particularly in recent years, it has been noticed that intellect in America is resented as a kind of excellence, as a claim to distinction, as a challenge to egalitarianism, as a quality which almost certainly deprives a man or woman of the common touch. The phenomenon is most impressive in education itself. American education can be praised, not to say defended, on many counts; but I believe ours is the only education system in the world vital segments of which have fallen into the hands of people who joyfully and militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify with children who show the least intellectual promise.[45] Richard Hofstadter

The first effect of Duncan's educational policies is the sabotaging of the formative pedagogical culture, governance structures, and democratic values necessary for educating young people to think critically, embrace democratic civic values and be willing to intervene in the world in order to expand and deepen the processes of justice, equality and democratization. The first casualty of Duncan's stripped-down notion of reform encompass more than the capacities students need to live in a just society, extending even to those elements absolutely crucial to any viable democracy - the ability of citizens to be able to think for themselves, to question authority and to dialog critically with the diverse traditions that enrich American society. Obama and Duncan have defaulted on their responsibility to address schooling as one of the most crucial institutions the nation has for educating young people, to maintain and improve upon its democratic institutions. What is striking in their educational reform efforts is the degree to which the imagination has been left out of their approach. Conceiving of education as anything beyond thinking, reading and relating within the dull confines of memorization, empty drills and punishing social relations, does not appear of even remote interest to the current administration, such that one is left wondering if it has the slightest clue about educational reform.

The second, equally insidious casualty involves the skills and purpose of those who teach and foster critical thinking among young people. Continuing the educational legacy of the Bush/Cheney regime, Obama and Duncan seem intent on stripping teachers of the autonomy, decent working conditions, power and creative tools that would enable them to think and act imaginatively in their classrooms. Removing the pedagogical conditions necessary to foster teacher autonomy in the classroom leads inexorably to the deskilling and dumbing down of existing and prospective teachers. In Duncan's corporatized world, teachers are reduced to cogs and limited to teaching standardized lessons, memorization and test-taking skills in an effort to get schools to "Race to the Top."

But the current administration is not content with just preventing existing teachers from thinking critically and acting creatively. It wants to go further by also attacking any vestige of critical pedagogy and education. Indeed, it seems quite terrified of those modes of critical education that might create future generations of teachers who view their role as more than corporate drones and drab accountants who eagerly embrace teacher-proof lessons and gleefully collect and assess knowledge that is empirically-based and marketable. The depoliticization of teachers means making sure they do not have access to any critical notions of theory, literacy, pedagogy and knowledge. Consequently, conservatives are increasingly developing alternative paths of certification for teachers in an effort to narrow their education to the learning of classroom skills, methods and techniques. At work here is an attempt to transform teacher education programs into simplified forms of instrumental training.

Within this model of reform, teaching and learning are viewed primarily as corporate-based management problems divorced from matters of agency, experience, ethics, theory, history and politics. Anti-intellectualism fuels and works alongside attempts to reconfigure education in utterly instrumental terms, limiting the meaning of education to the narrow and reductive demands of economic development, the acquisition and disposal of commodities, the branding of identities and the legitimation of a life in which all interpersonal and social relations tend to be subordinated to logic of consumerism.[46] Such moves are both poisonous for democracy and severely proscribe any humanistic understanding of education, but they explain how a liberal arts college in Maine recently chose to advertise itself quite shamelessly as the "Home of the Guaranteed Job."[47]

The third casualty of the Obama-Duncan reform movement are those students who are marginalized by class and race. All students are increasingly subjected to curricula that initiates them into corporate values, but such an education can provide the right credentials and opportunities for only a very select group of privileged students. Not all students are from the privileged precincts of the rich and famous; in fact, few students are positioned to benefit from this type of education. Those who are marginalized by virtue of their race and class are often, instead, subjected to a punishing form of pedagogy, one that dumbs down the curricula and forces students to submit to harsh disciplinary tactics such as zero tolerance policies, while also subjecting teachers to performance-based measures and students to the memorization and regurgitation of information as part of the misguided aims of high-stakes testing. These are the students who now constitute a major part of the human waste industry, often pushed out of schools and eagerly marched into the military or prisons. Yet, while such an education bears down disproportionately hard on some students, it does a disservice to all students, as it does little to educate anyone to be able to recognize anti-democratic forces in the culture or provide the knowledge and skills they need to actively participate in critically engaging and shaping affairs of public importance. Duncan likes to describe his educational reforms as part of the legacy of great civil rights movement. And there is an equalizing impulse in such reforms, but one that has less to do with civil rights and more to do with the practice of standardization, conformity and training, and for many poor white, black and brown students the protocols of harsh disciplinary practices. In the end, such reforms largely initiate all students into the values of the corporate factory, which as Stanley Aronowitz points out, may be one of the nation's most authoritarian institutions.[48]

Under the regime of high-stakes testing, the reality of the society in which most young people live is ignored or viewed as a threat to canonical knowledge. The dreams, experiences, cultures, knowledge forms and modes of literacy that exist and flourish outside of schools are viewed as either worthless forms of knowledge or subject to the most superficial attention - making schools all the more alien and oppressive to this generation of young people. Finding themselves in schools that resemble prisons and classrooms that actively remove any vestige of joy, critical learning and meaningful knowledge from the educational experience, students are blamed for their academic failures, while school authority and the larger system that drives it go unmentioned and unaccountable for the fate of these students. Money now follows how students perform on high-stakes testing, which means there is a transfer of huge amounts of public money to publishers, testing organizations and large consulting companies.[49] It also means "that school districts where the affluent live get more than their share and make up for state budget deficits by raising local property taxes and soliciting annual subventions from parents, measures not affordable by even the top layer of wage workers and low-level salaried employees."[50] This surely is a system that promotes a race to the top, but one that neither begins with a level playing field nor attempts to create one.

Beyond the social inequities, corporate corruption, deskilling of teachers and commercial vulgarization of curricula produced by the corporatization of public and higher education, the Obama-Duncan reform movement will inevitably contribute further to removing education from the realm of democratic politics and ideals by undermining the critical formative culture that makes dissent, dialog, thoughtfulness, public values and a commitment to democracy even possible. This speaks to a real crisis in education - one that takes on a certain urgency in light of the fact that, when 73 percent of young people were surveyed in 2009, they responded that their top goal was being financially wealthy, as opposed to only 37 percent who supported that position in 1971.[51]

The culture of intemperate greed unleashed in the late 1970s has taken a terrible toll on the civic skills and imaginations of an entire generation, putting the future of democracy itself in danger. Education now suffers from a democratic deficit and is getting worse. The mission of public and higher education and the role of teachers in American schools and the institutions that educate them deserve more than to be forced to acclimatize to a market-based culture in which anything that cannot be quantified, measured and consumed is viewed as useless, especially if it fails to set individuals in competition with each other and does not lend itself to making an immediate profit. Removed from democratic ideals, education is aligned with an order of privatization increasingly positioned at odds with all public institutions that promote the social foundations of human solidarity.

From a Pedagogy of Technique and Containment to Critical Pedagogy

Any viable notion of school reform has to recognize that public schooling in the United States now suffers from a crisis of vision, power and pedagogy. Schools are no longer viewed as democratic public spheres but as credentials mills, training centers and discipline factories. Clearly, schools must reaffirm their role as foundational institutions in preparing students for citizenship in a global democracy. Education is essential not just for educating students for the workplace, but also for teaching them the skills of civic courage, leadership and social responsibility. This means any viable reform movement must first recognize that the genuine purpose of education is not training, but providing students with the capacities necessary for self-determination and the motivation crucial to maintaining the conditions for an aspiring democracy.

Second, genuine educational reform must address not merely the democratic mission of schooling, but also its fiscal crisis. Within a society racked by massive inequalities in wealth and income, schools suffer from such inequities and reproduce them in the lives of students who are poor and undeserved. In the midst of an inadequate funding scheme based on property taxes, schools fail too many poor white, brown and black students, while foregoing any commitment to the mutually determining registers of equity and excellence. In the midst of a recession, the corrosive effects of a damaged and underfinanced public school system are now crossing over into the suburbs. Even wealthy suburban parents are digging into their own pockets to provide school supplies, fund extracurricular programs and hire teachers.[52] American schools cannot begin to address the class divide, race-based disparities or the challenge of providing the intellectual culture and practical competencies needed by students in a democracy without rectifying how education is funded. Needless to say, this is not merely an economic issue, but a profoundly political one and it goes to the heart of how we define federal budgets, government policies and priorities and the importance of the social state as the fundamental mechanism for promoting the common good.

The third element of educational reform must address how teachers should be treated as intellectuals and work under policies that give them individual and collective power over their working conditions along with salaries commensurate with the importance of their professional status and public roles. Teachers matter in a democratic society; the degree to which they are currently devalued, overworked and underpaid contribute to the erosion of the educational conditions and formative culture necessary for a viable democratic society. Corporate ideologies, values and management practices devalue teachers, degrade instruction and demean students.

Fourth, a careful consideration of how learning happens in the classroom is central to making schools, teaching and learning meaningful, imaginative, critical and transformative in the lives of young people. While I have outlined the first three elements of reform above, I want to conclude with a commentary on the crucial importance of incorporating critical pedagogy into classroom teaching and learning, if educational reform is going to make a difference for democracy. We have heard a lot of talk among so called educational reformers about access to equal opportunity, parental choice, privatization, teacher quality and smaller classrooms, but rarely is the issue of pedagogical theory and practice a subject of debate.

Teaching for many conservatives such as Duncan is often treated merely as a set of strategies used in order to teach prespecified subject matter. In this context, teaching becomes synonymous with a method, a technique or the practice of a particular set of skills. The role of the teacher in this approach has more to do with a clerk offering a grab bag of techniques than a critically informed teacher willing to do more than "serve up well worn and obvious truths that reinforce both common sense, the self-evident and existing relations of power."[53] Critical pedagogy rejects this notion that teaching can be reduced to a set of prepackaged techniques implemented regardless of the contexts in which they are used. Critical pedagogy views education, instead, as a political and moral project attentive to matters of agency and to the history and specificity of the contexts in which students learn. Learning is always political because it is connected to the formation and acquisition of agency. For this reason, pedagogy can never be viewed merely as a method or disinterested practice simply because it always represents, whether consciously or not, a deliberate attempt on the part of educators to influence how and what knowledge and subjectivities are produced within particular sets of social relations.[54] As a political project, critical pedagogy illuminates the relationships among knowledge, authority and power, drawing attention to questions such as who has control over the conditions for the production of knowledge, values and skills. It raises important questions about the kind of life presented to us in the classroom and whether it enables students to be autonomous, self-determining and capable of self and social critique. Moreover, it sheds light on the ways in which knowledge, identities and authority are constructed within particular circuits of power and whether such relations neutralize or make visible the meaning and challenges facing an aspiring democracy.

Ethically, critical pedagogy stresses the importance of understanding what actually happens in classrooms and other educational settings by raising questions regarding what knowledge is of most worth, what it means to know something and desire knowledge, and what future is being imagined within particular modes of pedagogy. It also takes seriously the important relationship between how we learn and how we act as individual and social agents. In this instance, critical pedagogy is concerned with teaching students not only how to think, but also how to assume a measure of individual and social responsibility - namely, what it means to be responsible for one's actions as part of a broader attempt to be an engaged citizen who can participate individually and collectively in society in order to expand and deepen the possibilities of democratic public life.[55] There is no such thing as a disinterested pedagogy. Nor should there be since a noncommittal pedagogy is an impossibility. Rather than forfeiting the responsibility that comes with authority, critical pedagogy embraces it as both an object of ongoing self-reflection and a source for critical agency. Authority in this instance is used to provide students with the pedagogical conditions necessary to enable them to face the responsibilities and choices they have to make in society about their role in addressing human misery, suffering and a sustainable future in which the struggle for equality, reason, freedom and justice is ongoing. Critical pedagogy at its most ambitious offers an approach for educators to foster the conditions that enable students to think critically, take risks and reflect on the connection between the knowledge they gain and the obligations of civic and social responsibility. At the same time, critical pedagogy encourages recognition that effective learning is not about passively receiving knowledge as a commodity or a predesigned method.

Pedagogy is not merely about providing information for consumption - what Paulo Freire called banking education - it is about actively engaging classroom knowledge through critical dialog, judgment, argument and analysis. Public schools and the pedagogies they invoke need not be limited to learning how to take tests and mastering instrumental methodologies designed to produce and use empirical data. They can be about creating spaces that unsettle and inspire, problematize common sense and make knowledge meaningful, challenge authoritarianism both in and out of the classroom and empower students to be informed and critical of the world around them. Such pedagogies can evaluate students through the protocols of writing essays, doing research papers, working collectively on projects, learning how to read and use the new media critically and productively and connecting what they learn not only to their immediate environment, but also to those times and places that exist far removed from their own experiences. This orientation of critical pedagogy toward social justice through transformative personal and social analyses may be one reason why it seems to be viewed as dangerous by Duncan and many of his supporters, including David Steiner, the current commissioner of the New York State Department of Education.

If critical pedagogy is considered dangerous by Duncan and his followers, it may also be because it is, in part, about recognizing the importance of different educational contexts and how these contexts affect the conditions for both teaching and interacting with students. Critical pedagogy is context sensitive and makes the issue of specificity central to the practice of teaching. In doing so, it recognizes that the current emphasis on the standardization of curricula, knowledge, teaching and social relations does an injustice to the different narratives, issues, histories and experiences that students bring to schools. Such outside forces operate in classrooms within different cultural, economic and political contexts, and it makes no sense to ignore them given the unique resources, insights and opportunities they present for teachers.

Critical pedagogy begins with an understanding of students as individuals with enormous capacities to be critical, knowledgeable, imaginative and informed citizens, workers and social agents. Consequently, schools are viewed as a crucial resource in a developing democracy and teachers are valued as the front line of academic labor responsible for educating young people in the ideals, goals and practices of a sustainable democratic society. This is a vision of schooling that should be valued and defended by Americans as part of an ongoing attempt to stop Obama and Duncan from reducing public and higher education to models of economic development and a source of profits for the exorbitantly rich and powerful, asset-stripping corporations. Young people deserve better; an aspiring democracy demands more, and Obama and Duncan should work toward an educational reform movement that embraces public values, democratic ideals and critical teaching over the market values and lifeless pedagogies that are so closely allied with standardized curricula, privatized education, charter schools and high-stakes testing.


1. Stuart Hall cited in Len Terry, "Traveling 'The Hard Road to Renewal': A Continuing Conversation with Stuart Hall," Arena Journal, No. 8 (1997), p. 49.

2. Cited in Isabelle Bruno and Christopher Newfield, "Can the Cognitariat Speak?" E-Flux 14 (March 2010). Online here.

3. One of the best books written on the charter schools movement is Danny Weil, "Charter School Movement: History, Politics, Policies, Economics and Effectiveness," 2nd edition (New York: Gray House, 2009). See also his critique of how charter schools drain funds from the public school sector: Danny Weil, "Neo-liberalism: The Leveraging of Charter Schools with Pubic and Private Funds," Dissident Voice (November 24, 2009). Online here. Another important critical source on the charter school movement is Kenneth J. Saltman, "Urban School Decentralization and the Growth of 'Portfolio Districts,'" Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (East Lansing: Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, June 2010).

4. Tony Judt, "Ill Fares the Land," (New York: Penguin, 2010), p. 216.

5. Kenneth Saltman, "Capitalizing on Disaster: Taking and Breaking Public Schools," (Boulder: Paradigm, 2007).

6. Michael Roth, "Education for a Democracy," Tikkun 9:4 (July/August 1994), p. 51.

7. Bill Moyers, "Interview with William K. Black," "Bill Moyers Journal," (April 23, 2010).Online here.

8. Moyers, "Interview with William K. Black."

9. Ibid.

10. I am taking this concept from Jacques Derrida, "Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides - A Dialogue with Jacques Derrida," "Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues With Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida," ed. Giovanna Borradori (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), pp. 85 - 136.

11. Trip Gabriel, "Under Pressure, Teachers Tamper With Test Scores," New York Times (June 10, 2010), p. A1.

12. Associated Press, "North Carolina: No Test Points for Cash," New York Times (November 12, 2009), p. A25. See also Lynn Bonner, "District Nixes Cash-for-Grades Fundraiser," News Observer (November 11, 2009), Online here.

13. Martha Nussbaum, "Being Human," New Statesman (June 2010). Online here.

14. For an excellent commentary on this issue, see Svi Shapiro, "Cash for Credits: Education in a Time of Hardship," Tikkun (in press).

15. John Maggio and Martin Smith, "College Inc.," "Frontline," (transcript) (Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation, 2010). Onlinehere.

16. Maggio and Smith, "College Inc."

17. Ibid.

18. Daniel Golden and John Hechinger, "For-Profit N.J. College Halts Recruiting of Homeless," Businessweek (May 5, 2010). Online here.

19. Maggio and Smith, "College Inc."

20. Ibid.

21. Cited in Andrea Fuller, "Duncan Says For-Profit Colleges Are Important to Obama's 2020 Goal," Chronicle of Higher Education (May 11, 2010). Online here.

22. Maggio and Smith, "College Inc."

23. Golden and Hechinger, "For-Profit N.J. College."

24. Maggio and Smith, "College Inc."

25. Ibid.

26. Zygmunt Bauman, :Living on Borrowed Time: Conversations With Citlali Rovirosa-Madrazo," (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010), p. 20.

27. Nancy Hass, "Scholarly Investments," New York Times (December 6, 2009), p. ST1.

28. Hass, "Scholarly Investments," p. ST10.

29. Zach Carter, "Financial Reform Makes Headway; Jobs and Social Security in Jeopardy," Truthout (June 15, 2010). Online here.

30. Hass, "Scholarly Investments," p. ST10.

31. Ibid.

32. Andy Smarick, "The Turnaround Fallacy," Education Next (Winter 2010). Online here.

33. David Harvey, "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 159-160.

34. Kenneth J. Saltman, "Capitalizing on Disaster: Taking and Breaking Public Schools," (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2007).

35. Ravitch cited in Amy Goodman, "Leading Education Scholar Diane Ravitch: No Child Left Behind Has Left U.S. Schools with Legacy of 'Institutionalized Fraud,'" Democracy Now! (March 5, 2010). Online here. What Goodman and so many other liberals seem to miss in their slavish adulation of Ravitch's new liberal credentials is why they and she have ignored leftist critics of education for so long - a position that is also evident in liberal journals such as The Nation (its recent issue, June 24, 2010, on educational reform does not include one prominent leftist educational critic). Ravitch's newly found liberalism is spelled out in greater detail in her book, "Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education," (New York: Basic Books, 2010). While Ravitch criticizes venture philanthropists such as Gates, Broad and Walton for promoting neoliberal educational policies, she does so in defense of a larger conservative attempt to restore Western-based curricula marked by fixed disciplines and traditional core knowledge. There is little in this position that recognizes the importance of the knowledge that young people experience daily or the broader cultures and modes of literacy that shape their lives. As Stanley Aronowitz reminds us, teacher authority must be earned by recognizing the traditions, historical and popular, that shape kids' lives, though this should not suggest either romanticizing such experience or doing way with teaching the best of the canon. See Stanley Aronowitz, "Against Schooling: For an Education That Matters," (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2008). Another insightful and critical argument against the casino capitalist philanthropists can be found in Kenneth Saltman's work. Unlike Ravitch, he does not blame progressive education for the system's current failings, and he takes up the current reform movement now bankrolled by "the billionaires club" as part of the neoliberal assault on both schools and democracy itself. See Kenneth J. Saltman, "The Gift of Education: Public Education and Venture Philanthropy," (New York: Palgrave, 2010).

36. Juan Gonzalez, "Albany Charter Cash Cow: Big Banks Making a Bundle On New Construction as Schools Bear the Cost," New York Daily News (May 7, 2010). Online here.

37. This is excerpted from the transcript of the following interview: Amy Goodman, "Juan Gonzalez: Big Banks Making a Bundle on New Construction as Schools Bear the Cost," Democracy Now! (May 7, 2010). Online here.

38. Trip Gabriel, "Despite Push, Success at Charter Schools Is Mixed," New York Times (May 1, 2010), p. A1.

39. John Funiciello, "Who Supports Public Education?," The Black Commentator 79 (June 10, 2010). Online here.

40. Funiciello, "Who Supports Public Education?"

41. Ravitch, "Death and Life," p.134.

42. Charles Murray, "Why Charter Schools Fail the Test," New York Times (May 5, 2010), p. A31.

43. Murray, "Why Charter Schools Fail."

44. This theme has been taken up by a number of authors recently. See, for instance, Chris Hedges, "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," (New York: Free Press, 2006); Henry A. Giroux, "Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Politics Beyond the Age of Greed," (Boulder: Paradigm, 2008); and Sheldon S. Wolin, "Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism," (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).

45. Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), p. 51.

46. This issue is taken up brilliantly in Zygmunt Bauman, "Consuming Life," (London: Polity, 2007).

47. Kate Zernike cites the case of "Thomas College, a liberal arts school in Maine that advertises itself as Home of the Guaranteed Job! Students who can't find work in their fields within six months of graduation can come back to take classes free, or have the college pay their student loans for a year." See Kate Zernike, "Making College 'Relevant,'" New York Times, (January 3, 2010), p. ED16.

48. Aronowitz, "Against Schooling."

49. For an historical account of the struggles over standardized testing, see Mark J. Garrison's "A Measure of Failure: The Political Origins of Standardized Testing Albany," (SUNY Press 2009). For an excellent contemporary take on the relationships between standardized testing and neoliberalism see David Hursh, "High Stakes Testing and the Decline of Teaching and Learning," (Lanham, MD Rowman & Littlefield 2008).

50. Aronowitz, "Against Schooling," p. 22.

51. Zernike, "Making College 'Relevant,'" p. ED16.

52. Derrick Z. Jackson, "Public Education's Dire Straits," (Boston Globe, June 12, 2010). Online here.

53. Zygmunt Bauman, "Afterthought: On Writing Sociology," (Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies 2:3, 2002), p. 361.

54. See, especially, Paulo Freire, "Pedagogy of Freedom," (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999).

55. These issues have been explored in Roger Simon, "Teaching Against the Grain," (Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 1992); Henry A. Giroux, "Schooling and the Struggle for Public Life," 2nd edition (Boulder: Paradigm, 2005); Henry A. Giroux, "Theory and Resistance in Education," 2nd edition (Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 2001); Joe Kincheloe, "Critical Pedagogy Primer," (New York: Peter Lang, 2008); and Deborah Britzman, "Novel Education," (New York: Peter Lang, 2006).
by repost
Wednesday Feb 8th, 2012 10:18 AM
Michelle Rhee Linked to Kevin Johnson Sex Scandal Cover Up
» by GI Korea in: Korea-General Topics
Since the announcement of their recent engagement I had wondered how Washington, DC School Superintendent Michelle Rhee hooked up with former NBA star Kevin Johnson, now I know:

When Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, was under investigation last year for alleged financial misdeeds and inappropriate behavior with female students, he had an important ally behind the scenes.

Michelle Rhee, the nationally known education reformer who is now head of the Washington, D.C., public schools, had several conversations with a federal inspector general in which she made the case for Johnson and the school he ran in Sacramento, according to the inspector general. Rhee, who had served on the board of the school and is now engaged to marry Johnson, said he was “a good guy.”

Rhee’s position had little effect on the inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who filed a criminal referral to the U.S. attorney on Johnson, a self-described friend and supporter of President Obama. But both the Sacramento police and federal attorneys declined to pursue charges. Walpin, who protested the prosecutors’ handling of the case, was ultimately fired by the Obama White House in June. [LA Times]

Rhee sat on the board of Johnson’s charter school in Sacramento, St. Hope and has accompanied Johnson on a number of other official trips. You can read more about Michelle Rhee in my prior profile of her here.

Anyway here is the corruption that the inspector general Gerald Walpin uncovered at St. Hope that was going on under Rhee’s nose:

The investigation began after the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received reports that Johnson had misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope, a non-profit school that Johnson headed for several years.

Walpin was looking into charges that AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for him, washed his car, and took part in political
activities. [Washington Examiner]

The corruption is bad enough, but here is what is really scandalous:

The final four pages of the criminal referral discussed three instances of alleged inappropriate actions by Johnson involving a minor, who had reported she was fondled, and two young volunteers, who reported that Johnson went to their apartment and climbed into bed with one of them. The criminal referral notes that the two educators who reported the allegations left the charter school upset with the way the complaints had been handled.

From the report here is what the women said Johnson did:

G. Improper Sexual Physical Conduct

Our investigation disclosed evidence of sexual misconduct towards young female Members by Mr. Johnson. One Member, [REDACTED] (Ex. 19 hereto), reported that, in the February/March 2007 time frame, she was entering grades into the SAC High database system per Mr. Johnson’s instructions at the St. HOPE office at night, purportedly as part of her AmeriCorps service. [REDACTED] contacted Mr. Johnson to inform him that she had completed the grades and wanted him to review them. About 11:00 pm, Mr. Johnson arrived at St. HOPE and instructed [REDACTED] to gather her things and come with him. Mr. Johnson drove to [REDACTED] apartment, which is managed by St. HOPE Development and houses its AmeriCorps Members, purportedly so that they could review the students’ grades. While in [REDACTED], in which another AmeriCorps Member had a separate bedroom, Mr, Johnson laid down on [REDACTED's] bed, [REDACTED] sat on the edge of the bed to show him the grades, at which time Mr. Johnson “layed down behind me, cupping his body around mine like the letter C. After about 2-3 minutes or so, I felt his hand on my left side where my hip bone is.” Further, although not detailed in her written statement, [REDACTED], during the interview, demonstrated, while explaining, that Mr. Johnson’s hand went under her untucked shirt and moved until his hand was on her hip. [REDACTED] immediately got up and stated she was done and left the room. When she returned, Mr. Johnson was still in her bed, but now apparently sleeping. Only after [REDACTED] sought to take a blanket to sleep elsewhere did Mr. Johnson exit to the living room of the apartment. [REDACTED] related that Mr. Johnson slept on the couch in her apartment living room that night and subsequently left the apartment at approximately 6 a.m. the next day.

After, as [REDACTED] put it, she “got the courage to tell… my supervisors,” she reported the incident, which, she was informed, was communicated to St. HOPE Academy’s Human Resources Department and the Chief Financial Officer. The night after [REDACTED] made her report, Mr. Johnson approached her and apologized. Subsequently, Kevin Hiestand, Johnson’s personal attorney, met with [REDACTED], described himself only “as a friend of Johnson,” and “basically asked me to keep quiet.” Also, about one week after this incident, when [REDACTED] told Mr. Johnson she was going to quit because of financial and family reasons, Mr. Johnson “offered to give me $1,000 a month until the end of the program,” stating that it would be confidential “between him and I.” As [REDACTED] related that conversation, Mr. Johnson “said all he needed was my savings account number,” he would make the deposit and “no one needed to know about it.” [REDACTED] did not accept this offer by giving Mr. Johnson her account number.

Another former Member, [REDACTED] (Ex. 20 hereto), reported that, while attending a St. HOPE sponsored trip to Harlem, NY, from June 26 to July 16, 2006, Mr. Johnson, on three occasions, “brushed [her] leg with his hand,” including once “flip[ingj up the edge of her skirt. Other times, she stated, Mr. Johnson kissed her cheek, brushed up against her as he walked past, and massaged her shoulders. ([REDACTED] reported another incident that occurred in Sacramento, CA, in which Mr. Johnson touched [REDACTED's] inner thigh with his hand while enroute to a restaurant. [REDACTED] said she did not report the incidents to AmeriCorps officials at that time because she feared she would be terminated from the program and because Mr. Johnson was assisting her in obtaining acceptance into the United States Military Academy, where she subsequently enrolled.

In addition, former SAC High teacher Mr. Erik Jones (Ex. 12 hereto) reported that a former AmeriCorps Member, [REDACTED], reported to him, sometime in 2007, that, while at SAC High, Mr. Johnson had inappropriately touched her. Mr. Jones stated that [REDACTED] had reported that Mr. Johnson started massaging her shoulders and then reached over and touched her breasts. (Attempts to interview [REDACTED] have been so far unsuccessful.) Mr. Jones related that, after he reported this incident to St. HOPE Academy officials, he was contacted by Mr. Hiestand, Mr. Johnson’s attorney, but who identified himself solely as St. HOPE’S counsel, and stated he was conducting an internal investigation. Mr. Hiestand told Mr. Jones that [REDACTED's] “story” was different from Mr, Jones’ and told Mr. Jones to change his “story” and then go back to work. Mr. Jones, realizing what he was being asked to do, elected to resign as a teacher and left SAC High. [Washington City Paper]

Rhee’s involvement with Johnson’s legal problems only became known after Republican lawmakers demanded an investigation into Walpin’s firing, which appears to be politically motivated because he had tried to stop Johnson from receiving federal stimilus money due to the corruption surrounding his AmeriCorps money:

In August 2008, at the time Walpin referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney, he also presented the evidence of misuse of federal money to officials at the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees AmeriCorps. In September 2008, those officials barred Johnson from receiving any more federal money.

All this was happening as Johnson was running for mayor of Sacramento, a race he won in November 2008. Johnson’s suspension from receiving federal money became a hot issue in early 2009 after Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus bill. Many people in Sacramento worried that the city would not be able to get its share of that money if the mayor was banned from receiving federal dollars.

Amid that atmosphere of anxiety, in April of this year, the U.S. Attorney’s office announced a deal under which St. Hope would pay back about half of the money it received from AmeriCorps and, in return, Johnson would no longer be banned from receiving federal money. Brown released a statement saying the settlement “removes any cloud whether the City of Sacramento will be prevented from receiving much-needed federal stimulus funds.”

The deal was made by Brown and top officials at the Corporation for National and Community Service — Walpin was cut out of the process. He strongly disagreed with the arrangement, suspecting that it came about more for political reasons than prosecutorial ones. The new report takes his side, saying Brown’s “motivation to reach a settlement was not to protect the financial interests of the United States, but rather to remove Johnson from the suspended parties list in order to ensure Sacramento’s eligibility to receive stimulus funds.” Neither Brown nor the U.S. Attorney’s office cooperated with the Grassley/Issa investigation. [Washington Examiner]

Her is Rhee’s part of the cover up:

Rhee’s involvement in the probe stems from the statements of Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez, a former St. Hope staff member, to federal investigators. According to an interview report, Wong-Hernandez told an investigator that Rhee was well known as someone who filled several roles with Johnson’s St. Hope organization and would use Johnson’s office when she was in town. Wong-Hernandez said that Rhee ‘played the role as “Damage Control”. When there was a problem at St. HOPE, Ms. Rhee was there the next day taking care of the problem.’

When the sexual misconduct allegations were raised, Rhee contacted Wong-Hernandez to figure out what had happened, telling her “she was making this her number one priority and she would take care of the situation.” Subsequently, Wong-Hernandez found out that Johnson’s lawyer had contacted the accuser, after which the accuser dropped the complaint.

Disgusted with how the incident had been handled, Wong-Hernandez quit St. Hope, and it was Rhee who conducted the exit interview. She told Rhee the reason she was leaving was the way St. Hope had handled the sexual misconduct allegation. According to the interview report, “Ms, Wong-Hernandez also informed Ms. Rhee that she didn’t trust the management at St. HOPE. Ms. Rhee documented the interview in her daily planner and responded to Ms. Wong-Hernandez by thanking her for bringing it to her attention how disorganized the program had become. Ms. Rhee didn’t try to talk Ms. Wong-Hernandez into staying.”

The L.A. Times further reports that Rhee spoke directly to Walpin, having discussions “in which she made the case for Johnson and the school he ran in Sacramento” and described Johnson as “a good guy.” [Washington City Paper]

Not the most blatant cover up attempt, but still shady. This inicident really takes a hit at Rhee’s creditability. If she couldn’t ensure AmeriCorps money wasn’t being fraudently spent and workers weren’t being sexually harassed at St. Hope what creditability should people have in her ability to reform the DC schools?