When Hillary Clinton decided to skip an education forum hosted by Campbell Brown last fall, I wrote a piece arguing that pro-reform Democrats shouldn’t read too much into it. I insisted it wasn’t a signal that she was distancing herself from the education policies embraced by the Obama Administration. Surely, I said, Clinton just wanted to placate the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and National Education Association (NEA), whose endorsements she had only recently secured and not without controversy. After all, it was “hard to imagine Clinton, with her New Democrat pedigree and track record of support for reform policies, embracing the teachers unions’ prerogatives.”
Nine months later, with the nomination contest over and the Democratic National Convention less than a week away, I am now convinced that my rosy assessment was wrong. We’re in troubled waters. Soon after I published that post, Clinton made the dubious claim that most charter schools “don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids” at a campaign stop in South Carolina. Although her staff quickly tried to walk back the statement, Clinton’s subsequent comments on teacher evaluation and testing have raised serious red flags.
Clinton says testing hurts low income kids the most. #NEARA16
— Stephen Sawchuk (@Stephen_Sawchuk) July 5, 2016
AFT and NEA have also rallied strongly behind the presumptive Democratic nominee, who in turn, told a crowd of cheering delegates at NEA’s annual convention earlier this month, “If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, educators will have a partner in the White House, and you’ll always have a seat at the table.”
Nevertheless, I’m not as worried about Clinton’s education policy statements as I am about the weakened position of reformers vis-à-vis the teachers unions, both within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s inner circle.
Platform Controversy Points To Larger Issue
Take the current controversy over the education policy changes to the draft Democratic Party platform. The amendments, which were approved during the final meeting of the Platform Committee in Orlando on July 9th, oppose the use of test results to evaluate schools and teachers, uphold the right of parents to opt-out of testing, and are critical of charter schools.
Taken together, the changes represent a near-total rejection of the Obama Administration’s K-12 education policies over the past eight years. Yet when AFT issued a celebratory press release about the platform last week, pro-reform Democrats seemed to be caught flat-footed by the news. In response, Democrats For Education Reform (DFER) quickly issued a statement criticizing the platform changes, saying it would “roll back progress we’ve made in advancing better outcomes for all kids, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.”1 Others sought to downplay their significance by arguing that platforms don’t really matter.
But the concerns raised by the platform amendments have less to do with their practical impact than with the fact they were adopted with little debate and what that says about the position of reformers within the party.
How did we go from a situation in which pro-reform Democrats were setting the nation’s K-12 education agenda to one in which the platform of President Obama’s own party repudiates those policies? A look at the membership of the Platform Committee suggests at least part of the answer. While it’s hard to find steadfast education reform supporters from among the nearly 200 delegates on the committee, the teachers unions and their allies are well-represented. AFT president Randi Weingarten was even on the panel and played a leading role in getting the controversial amendments passed. It suggests that while reformers have had success in pushing our policy agenda over the past eight years, we neglected to build a presence within the party structure (and by extension, within state Democratic Party central committees) to counter the influence of the unions and steer the education conversation among Democrats over the long term.
AFT & NEA: Well-Connected Inside The Beltway
Moreover, while they portray themselves as lowly underdogs fighting against an all-powerful cabal of billionaires and corporate interests, AFT and NEA have extensive connections to some of the most influential organizations in Democratic politics. If anything, reformers appear outgunned and outflanked by the unions, who spend tens of millions each year to advance their political agenda and their 2015 annual reports to the Department of Labor reveal ties to key figures in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.2
One of them is Harold Ickes, an attorney and lobbyist who currently serves on the Democratic National Committee’s powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee. Michael Lewis once described Ickes as “Bill Clinton’s Garbage Man” for his willingness to do the President’s dirty work, both as a central figure in Clinton’s presidential campaign and later as Deputy of Chief of Staff in the White House. He has since served as a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns, her 2008 presidential bid, and is now a top advisor to Clinton’s super PAC, Priorities USA.
AFT gave his political consulting firm, The Ickes & Enright Group, $180,000 in F.Y. 2015. Meanwhile, NEA paid over $725,000 to another Ickes venture, Catalist, LLC, which “provides high quality data and modeling capacity to Democrats and progressive organizations.”
The unions also have ties to David Brock, a seasoned (and hairtastic) political operative who helped orchestrate right-wing attacks on the Clintons in the 1990s before eventually defecting to the Democrats. Brock now oversees a network of super PACs and nonprofits focused on defending Hillary Clinton’s record and taking the fight to her opponents. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times revealed Brock was also paying Clinton’s confidant and unofficial advisor, Sidney Blumenthal, around $200,000-a-year through his various organizations.
They also gave approximately $245,000 to a secretive group of wealthy Democratic Party supporters called the Democracy Alliance. Described as “the closest thing the left has to the vaunted Koch brothers’ political network,” the Democracy Alliance has “steered upward of $500 million to a range of groups…such as the conservative media watchdog Media Matters, the policy advocacy outfit Center for American Progress and the data firm Catalist – all of which are run by Clinton allies.”
Speaking of the Center For American Progress, several high-ranking officials in the Clinton campaign have been drawn from the ranks of the organization (and its sister 501(c)(4), the Center For American Progress Action Fund), including campaign chair John Podesta, communications director Jennifer Palmieri, senior policy director Maya Harris, and research director Tony Carrk. Not surprisingly, both the Center For American Progress and its Action Fund were beneficiaries of the teachers unions’ largesse. AFT and NEA’s financial disclosures show that they gave a combined total of $355,000 to the two organizations in the past fiscal year.
Still, that’s just a fraction of the amount the teachers unions steered toward Waterfront Strategies, an organization which works closely with liberal super PACs to buy advertising in support of candidates. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Waterfront raked in more money from campaigns and PACs than any other firm during the 2014 election cycle: a whopping $136 million.
Waterfront Strategies also happens to be a subsidiary of the political consulting giant GMMB, founded by Jim Margolis, a former advisor to President Obama who currently serves as senior media advisor for the Clinton campaign. AFT and NEA together paid Waterfront Strategies over $1.9 million for their services in F.Y. 2015.
Finally, AFT and NEA are patrons of the Dewey Square Group, a major Democratic strategy firm that Pro Publica has described “as a primary example of an ascendant breed in the Washington influence industry,” whose “main service is what’s known as ‘grass-tops organizing,’ to help corporate clients win over Democratic constituencies.” Filings show the two teachers unions paid a combined total of nearly $750,000 to the group in the last fiscal year.
As first reported by Politico back in January 2014, Dewey Square laid the groundwork for the launch of Hillary Clinton’s current presidential bid. Subsequently, Clinton named Dewey Square’s founder, Charlie Baker, as chief administrative officer of her campaign.3
Where Do We Go From Here?
I’m not raising these facts to suggest that education reform supporters shouldn’t support Hillary Clinton. I have supported Hillary and will continue to support her. I’m also not suggesting that Hillary Clinton has wholeheartedly embraced the teachers unions’ public education agenda. It’s hard to envision a future Clinton Administration undertaking a dramatic shift in direction on education – and in any case, the advent of the Every Student Succeeds Act means that Washington has far less ability to bring about such a change.
But we shouldn’t hang our hat on the idea that Clinton will eventually come around to our side once in the White House. Reformers need to move aggressively to fight for the gains we’ve made in states across the country, which the teachers unions are already furiously trying to undo. We need to build a solid bloc of reform supporters within the apparatus of the Democratic Party. And, we need to reclaim the conversation about public education from the teachers unions. In short, we need to get out of the defensive posture we’ve assumed in recent years and once again go on the offensive.
Explore AFT & NEA’s F.Y. 2015 Annual DOL Reports:
- Full disclosure: I serve on the board of DFER Louisiana (but these views are mine alone). ↩
- Note that these reports, taken together, cover the period between July 1, 2014 and August 31, 2015 (for AFT: 7/1/14 to 6/30/15 & for NEA: 9/1/14 to 8/31/15) and therefore do not include union spending from the past 9+ months. ↩
- I would be remiss if I left out AFT’s ties to political strategist Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign and now serves as Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. AFT paid her consulting firm, Brazile & Associates, nearly $110,000 over an 11-month period beginning in July 2014. Coincidentally, that same month, Brazile announced the launch of Democrats for Public Education, a political organization whose name, as Education Week noted, is a “not-so-subtle swing at Democrats for Education Reform.” Subsequently, AFT contributed an additional $99,000 to support Democrats for Public Education, for which Brazile now serves as co-chair. ↩
A Sibling Dispute In Court Could Spell Trouble for Smothers Academy Charter School's CEO Is Accused Of Financial Impropriety In Lawsuit Filed By Brother
The CEO of a local charter management organization, which was investigated by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) after a report on this blog raised questions about its management and financial practices, is being accused of financial impropriety in a lawsuit filed by his own brother.
On March 28th, I published a post – “Red Flags Everywhere” – which highlighted troubling issues at Smothers Academy, a Type 2 charter school in Jefferson Parish. It noted that the school appeared to be in violation of state ethics laws prohibiting nepotism, seeing that Smothers Academy’s CEO Damon Smothers had hired his brother, Kemic Smothers, as the organization’s legal counsel and director of procurement. The piece also drew attention to several concerns surfaced in Smothers Academy’s F.Y. 2017 audited financial statements, including the assertion that Damon Smothers had spent over $9300 on the school’s credit card for personal expenses.
Read my original piece on Smothers Academy:
A review of documents from a Jefferson Parish charter operator that applied to run a historic high school in New Orleans has revealed that the organization could be violating state ethics laws and has been flagged for serious deficiencies in its management and accounting practices.
A week later, LDOE officials sent a letter to Eddie Williams, president of the board of directors of Smothers Academy, requesting documentation related to the problems identified in their audit. On April 17th, LDOE sent a second letter to Williams, which formally notified the board that Smothers Academy was in violation of the state’s nepotism laws and instructed them to terminate the employment of either Damon or Kemic Smothers by June 30th. As a result, Kemic was fired that same day.
Yet it appears that he is refusing to go without a fight.
Court documents reveal that Kemic is now suing his brother Damon (along with Smothers Academy, Inc., two members of the board of directors, and the school’s CFO Mark DeBose) for breach of contract, violation of the whistleblower statute, retaliatory discharge, and fraud.
In a petition filed with the Orleans Parish Civil District Court in July, Kemic claims that he was summoned to an April 5th meeting with his brother and CFO Mark DuBose in which they revealed that Damon had “gifted himself” $20,000 drawn from the school’s bank account without the knowledge or consent of the board of directors. They then asked Kemic to devise a way for Damon to keep the money without having to inform the board or repay it. However, Kemic refused, noting that the unauthorized allocation of funds was almost certainly illegal.
Kemic goes on to assert that he was subsequently terminated on April 17th – as opposed to June 30th when his contract officially ended – for refusing to help Damon hide the $20,000 he had taken from the school’s bank account. According to the lawsuit, “Damon Smothers insinuated that Kemic Smothers was not a team player and that he should have found a way for Damon Smothers to avoid repaying the $20,000.00.”
It should be noted that accusations made in Kemic Smothers’ lawsuit are simply that: accusations. The court has not ruled on the merits of the case. Nevertheless, in light of the board’s lax financial oversight and Damon’s questionable use of the school’s credit card, these latest allegations should be investigated to ensure that Smothers Academy administrators are not enriching themselves at the expense of their students.
Read Kemic Smothers’ lawsuit against his brother:
Dear Board Members… An Open Letter To The Arkansas State Board Of Education
On January 15th, I sent a letter to the members of the Arkansas State Board of Education to bring their attention to the troubling revelations about Einstein Charter Schools that have emerged over the past several months.
Last fall, the State Board of Education approved a proposal from Einstein to open a new charter school in Little Rock after Einstein officials assured board members that they would provide transportation to students. This was the same promise they made to the Orleans Parish School Board last year as part of their charter renewal agreement. As we now know, they cannot be be taken at their word.
For some reason, I never received a response from anyone on the board. Therefore, I’ve decided to publish my original letter, which I’ve reproduced in full below.
Dear Board Members,
In September, the Arkansas State Board of Education approved a proposal from Einstein Charter Schools of New Orleans to open a new K-3 school in Little Rock School District. Today, I am writing to urge you to reconsider that decision in light of a series of troubling revelations about Einstein that have emerged here in New Orleans in the intervening months.
On September 19th, just five days after SBOE approved Einstein’s charter application, the Orleans Parish School Board issued an official notice of non-compliance [see notice here] to Einstein’s CEO and board president for failing to provide bus transportation to students as required by the terms of their charter. District officials became aware of this breach-of-contract after a parent reported that Einstein had refused to provide yellow bus service for her two children (5 and 10 years old) and instead offered them public transit tokens. News reports subsequently revealed that Einstein had been refusing to provide bus transportation to dozens of students.
Six weeks later, on November 7th, Einstein was issued another notice of non-compliance [see notice here] by the Orleans Parish School Board for enrolling 26 students outside of OneApp, the city-wide enrollment system that assigns students to New Orleans’ public schools. In fact, the notice indicates that district officials previously investigated enrollment violations at Einstein in 2016 and had told administrators that the charter network needed to implement internal systems and procedures to ensure they were in compliance with the OneApp process.
These are serious violations that undermine the systems we have established to ensure that all children – regardless of race, socio-economic background, or disability status – have fair and equal access to our public schools. Since Hurricane Katrina, all of the city’s open enrollment schools – both charter and traditional – have been required to provide free bus transportation to children in pre-K through sixth grade, no matter where they live in the city. Moreover, the Orleans Parish School Board renewed Einstein’s charter last year on the condition that school provide transportation to its students.
In 2012, district officials launched OneApp to simplify the enrollment process by allowing parents to fill out only one application in which they rank schools in order of preference. These preferences are then fed into an algorithm developed by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, which in turn, assigns students to schools. OneApp ensures that schools cannot engage in so-called “creaming” or turn away students with disabilities. All schools are required to participate in OneApp and all are prohibited from enrolling students outside of the system.
Nevertheless, Einstein’s leaders have responded to the school board’s warnings with outright defiance. As a result, the district is now seeking a court order to force Einstein to comply with the busing requirement. According to The Lens, a local non-profit news outlet, Einstein CEO Shawn Toranto responded to the OneApp non-compliance notice with a letter stating they had “simply accepted children whose parents had chosen one of its schools — a hallmark of the charter movement.” She has also taken to the pages of the New Orleans Advocate in an unconvincing attempt to deflect criticism of the school, as if the rules should not apply to them.
Finally, I want to make something very clear: I am outspoken supporter of charter schools. As a former charter school board member and teacher, I have seen the impact that high-quality charters can have on the lives of children. At the same time, I also firmly believe that charter schools are only successful when they adhere to clear operational and academic standards. Given their blatant disregard for the terms of their charter contracts in New Orleans (and the possibility that they could lose their charter if they continue to defy the district), I would once again urge you to reconsider Einstein’s expansion to Little Rock.
If you would like to read more about Einstein’s charter violations:
- Einstein Charter Schools Deemed Noncompliant For Providing Inadequate Transportation (9/21/17)
- Einstein board prepares to fight Orleans school district over its failure to bus students (9/25/17)
- Einstein Charter Schools Push Back Against Transportation Policy (10/25/17)
- Busing dispute at Einstein schools is headed to court (11/30/17)
- School district reprimands Einstein Charter Schools for enrolling students outside OneApp (1/3/18)
- Parents, protesters picket Einstein Charter Schools over lack of busing (1/9/18)
Otherwise, thank you for your time and please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have.
Peter C. Cook
New Orleans, LA
Subscribe to my RSS feed to get updates in your news reader.
- My 7-Year-Old Son Asked Me About George Floyd and It Almost Broke Me 3 June 2020
- Not Even a Pandemic Can Stop Mothers Against Senseless Killings 3 June 2020
- George Floyd Is Proof America Needs More Black Teachers 3 June 2020
- Not Even a Pandemic Can Stop ‘Mothers Against Senseless Killings’ From Serving Children 3 June 2020
- Our Children Need Us Not to Grow Weary in the Work of Anti-Racism 2 June 2020