Intercepts
A listening post monitoring public education and teachers’ unions.

Interesting news item about this iconic Time magazine cover photo of DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee and a broom. The photographer who took the shot, Robyn Twomey, weighs in with her feelings about Rhee and the image:

I’m still in awe at how much impact this singular image had on her reputation. The American Federation of Teachers also called me this week, asking if they could use the broom image for a flyer for their rally. I had to say no. I’m not about vilifying an advocate who puts no one but children first. The teachers are desperate to use my image for their cause, and I’m on the other end of the rope tugging to not let go of the integrity and original intentions behind the image making.

It’s a complex story out of Massachusetts with a simple payoff: The state secretary of education wants charter school authorizations to be based on political considerations, and not on their educational merits.

It begins with reporter Patrick Anderson of the Gloucester Daily Times using a public records request to find a February 5 e-mail from Secretary of Education Paul Reville, Gov. Deval Patrick’s school adviser, to Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester. Gov. Patrick, like many other governors, found religion in charter schools soon after the Obama administration made them a centerpiece of Race to the Top funding. But which charter school applications would be approved, and which rejected, seems to be less of an academic concern and more of a matter of political pressure. Here’s the full text of the e-mail:

Mitchell,

Hope all’s well and warm in AZ. I appreciated our talk today and your openness and flexibility. This situation presents one of those painful dilemmas. In addition to being a no-win situation, it forces us into a political cul de sac where we could be permanently trapped. Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we’ll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation. Frankly, I’d rather fight for the kids in the Waltham situation, but it sounds like you can’t find a solid basis for standing behind that one. I’m not inclined to push Worcester, so that leaves Gloucester. My inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester. Can you see your way clear to supporting it? Would you want to do the financial trigger even in light of likely stimulus aid?

Thanks for not seeing this as an independence issue. It really is a matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda. It’s a tough but I think necessary pill to swallow. Let’s discuss some more tomorrow.

Paul

There has been plenty of editorializing about the e-mail itself, so I’ll just add a roundup of links and not add to it myself…

“Editorial: Ed chief’s e-mail kills his, secretary’s and charter’s credibility”

“A political swirl on charter schools”

“Paul Reville must resign”

“Editorial: Charter chess”

…but I’m also intrigued by the press play involved. The story was broken by a small local newspaper, in which the state newspaper of record (the Globe) is mentioned as one of Gov. Patrick’s “key moderate allies” that has to be appeased by approving the Gloucester application. Today, while others are calling for Reville’s head, the Globe published a puff piece headlined, “Seeking calm after charter school storm: Education chief focuses on reform.”

My favorite paragraph was this one:

Ironically, it was Reville who raised the alarm about the politicization of education six years ago, when Governor Mitt Romney proposed restoring the position of education secretary. Placing a gubernatorial appointee in charge of education, as well as other proposed changes, Reville told legislators, could allow political considerations to creep into decisions that should be based on the best interests of children.

“Ironically” isn’t the adverb I would use.

People read this for a lot of different reasons, but no one reads it to hear about my latest tech problem. Alas, EIAOnline.com was hacked over the weekend, but before the conspiracy theorists out there go into overdrive, I was alerted to it by a guy who runs an automobile information site who had the same thing happen to him. It was not particularly malicious, seeking in a roundabout way to direct people to spam sites, but it eventually crashed my site.

Everything seems to be up and working properly now, though I’m spending my time plugging holes and deleting corrupted files. The auto guy says it was a WordPress hack, which somehow screwed with the NEA 2008 election debrief PowerPoint file I posted on my Declassified page, so I’ve deleted it.

This hack doesn’t leave any visual traces on your blog, but you’ll notice some unusual results if you Google your site name. If you use WordPress and you’ve noticed things are not behaving properly lately, it might be worth checking into.

In the meantime, please accept my apologies for the constant interruptions to business. Fortunately, I didn’t plan on doing a communique’ today, so no real harm done. Thanks for your patience.

I know it will tax your memories, but remember way back in the misty past when the teachers’ unions and President Obama were on the same page? It was in the halcyon days of March 2009. And even in July, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel was telling his delegates, “What a difference a year makes” and chiding the press for emphasizing where the unions and Obama diverged.

Now, after a glacial period just short of three months, the meme has turned. AFT President Randi Weingarten is taking her cues from Diane Ravitch and referring to Obama’s education agenda as “Bush III.” NEA savaged the Race to the Top guidelines for their “top-down approach” and “narrow agenda.” California Teachers Association President David Sanchez said, “To be perfectly honest, it’s disappointing again. Our perception is it’s more of the same, and that’s not good, because we thought we were going to be able to change something, make some true reform in public education.” He also advised Obama to “get off the merit pay idea, because that ain’t gonna work.”

Evidently that “seat at the table” rhetoric we kept hearing about turned out to be the electric chair. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will speak to the NEA board of directors this weekend and I’m sure he’ll get an earful. I’m also sure he’ll nod his head sympathetically, stick to his talking points, and the Obama administration will continue down the path it selected more than two years ago. What will the teachers’ unions do about that? What can they do?

Judging by my e-mail, while I was away a lot of you became interested in the relationship between NEA and ACORN. I’m sure I don’t have to explain why ACORN is in the news, and curiosity about NEA’s connection was fueled by stories at Freedom@Work and BigGovernment.com. NEA released a finely crafted statement about the controversy.

Over the past few years, I’ve collected and itemized NEA’s contributions to advocacy organizations soon after the union files its annual Labor Department disclosure report (the most recent is here). NEA stated, ”Since 2002, we have contributed approximately $400,000 to ACORN.” This is supported by the available documentation, but there are limitations.

The approximately $400,000 actually covers a shorter period – from October 2006 to August 2008. Which organizations received funds during the height of the Presidential race last year won’t be known until NEA files – and the Department of Labor posts – the 2008-09 report. We do know that NEA made no contribution to ACORN between fiscal years 2004 and 2006 because we have itemization of the union’s spending. Prior to 2004, spending was lumped under “contributions, gifts and grants.” Back then, even union delegates had difficulty finding out where the money went.

Here’s what we know, working backwards chronologically:

* 8/13/2008 – $13,000 categorized under “community public education grants” to ACORN in Brooklyn, New York.

* 8/13/2008 – $19,000 categorized under “community public education grants” to ACORN in Brooklyn, New York.

* 1/24/2008 – $100,000 categorized under “nonpartisan voter registration” to ACORN in Little Rock, Arkansas.

* 11/26/2007 – $6,000 categorized under “community public education grants” to ACORN in Brooklyn, New York.

* 9/4/2007 – $24,000 categorized under “community public education grants” to ACORN in Brooklyn, New York.

* 9/4/2007 – $12,000 categorized under “community public education grants” to ACORN in Brooklyn, New York.

* 2007-08 – $4,000 to ACORN in “non-itemized transactions.”

* 3/15/2007 – $10,000 categorized under ”community public education grants” to ACORN in DC.

* 10/19/2006 – $200,000 categorized under ”nonpartisan voter registration” to ACORN in DC.

* 10/12/2006 – $6,452 categorized under “community public education grants” to ACORN in DC.

* 2006-07 – $2,000 to ACORN in “non-itemized transactions.”

* In 2005-06, no NEA money went to ACORN, with the only voter registration grant going to the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute.

* In 2004-05, no NEA money went to ACORN, with the Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, and the League of United Latin American Citizens receiving voter registration funds.

* In 2003-04, we only know that NEA contributed a total of $968,074 to non-profits not affiliated with NEA.

* In 2002-03, we only know that NEA contributed $304,980 to groups for “nonpartisan get-out-the-vote activities.”

I’ll be back in this space on September 24.

Click here to read:

1) Be Careful What You Wish For
2) Make Disappearing Ink Visible
3) Vacation at Last
4) Contract Hits
5) Last Week’s Intercepts
6) Quote of the Week