Our shining local examples in Hillsborough County are owned by Charter Schools USA. My first glimpse of Winthrop Charter School in Riverview in November of 2011 was during a scheduled visit with then Rep. Rachel Burgin. When told the two story brick building was a charter school, I was mystified. The site on which it was built was purchased from John Sullivan by Ryan Construction Company, Minneapolis, MN. From research done by the League of Women Voters of Florida all school building purchases ultimately owned and managed by for-profit Charter Schools USA are initiated by Ryan Construction. The Winthrop site was sold to Ryan Co. in March, 2011 for $2,206,700. In September, 2011 the completed 50,000 square foot building was sold to Red Apple Development Company, LLC for $9,300,000 titled as are all schools managed by Charter Schools USA. Red Apple Development is the school development arm of Charter Schools USA. We, tax payers of Hillsborough County, have paid $969,000 and $988,380 for the last two years to Charter Schools USA in lease fees!After six and a half years with CSUSA, Saunders moved into the job of Chief Education Officer for the city of Fort Lauderdale, a job that involved expanding education opportunities, including nonpublic schools.
Saunders took her first job in public education, chief strategy and innovation officer got Broward County Public Schools, in January 2024; her job there was the lead the district’s work to “close and repurpose schools,” a source of controversy in the community, according to the Sun-Sentinel. But her time as a school-killer for a public system was short, because Vermont was calling.
Once Scott announced his hiring choice (on a Friday), pushback was swift and strong. John Walters at the Vermont Political Observer, a progressive blog that has been all over this, noted that the lack of qualifications for the job was not the bad part:
The bad part is that her experience as a school killer and her years in the charter school industry are in perfect alignment with the governor’s clear education agenda: spread the money around, tighten the screws on public education, watch performance indicators fall, claim that the public schools are failing, spread the money around some more, lather, rinse, repeat. Saunders may not qualify as an educational leader, but her experience is directly relevant to Scott’s policy.
Objections to Saunders in the job were many, including her lack of any apparent vision for job. Add to the list the fact that she'd never run any organization remotely as large or complicated as a state's education department.
Saunders moved into the office April 15, but the Senate still got to have a say, and what they said was, "Nope." They voted her down 19-9, a thing which pretty much never happens.
And Scott went ahead and put her in office anyway.
Roughly fifteen minutes after the Senate rejected her, Scott appointed Saunders the interim Secretary of Education, a thing that does not require any Senate approval and which he presumably doesn't have to move on from any time soon, particularly given she has announced her 100 day plan. Scott did not appear moved to appoint an interim during the year since Dan French resigned the post.
Scott characterized the vote as a "partisan political hit job," even though three Democrats voted with the GOP senators to approve. He characterized attacks on Saunders as "unfair," "hurtful," and "false."
Scott kept spinning in the aftermath, claiming that it was false to say that she only had three months 4experience in public education, even though she clearly only has three months of experience in the public education sector. As John Walters reported, Scott also tried to pin the defeat on "outside groups." Walters pointed out that Scott has previously said he favors "CEO experience more than public school experience," though Saunders doesn't have that, either.
Ethan Weinstein at vtdigger reported that Saunders was unfazed by her interimness.
“I’ve never been one for a title,” she said, nodding to her “interim” moniker. “I’m really about being engaged and doing the work.”
In an interview with Vermont Public on April 18, Saunders was not particularly impressive, After she brought up Vermont's funding system, she was asked how she would change it, and her answer was argle bargle about just learning and it wouldn't just be her decision and she's really good at developing shared visions with diverse stakeholder groups. Data driven. Collaborative. Absolutely unwilling to say what she thinks a good answer would be.
In that same interview, she was asked about charters and choice, including vouchers to religious schools. "Do you think there should be any limits on the amount of public funding that goes to private schools in Vermont?" First, she wants to make the "charter schools are public schools" point. Sure. Then a long non-answer-- she thinks the feds say you have to include religious schools and she knows that Vermont has been trying to take care of the discrimination-by-schools piece of that, but on and on saying nothing, certainly nothing about what she thinks is right or should be policy.
She did directly say that she's not interested in bringing charter schools to the state of Vermont. So that's a clear statement. But then she's asked about closing smaller schools, and that triggers more corporate speak about student outcomes and local control and not an actual answer to the question. Asked for her view about Ron DeSantis anti-DEI policies, she does manage to work in diversity and inclusion and support for all students in her answer.
She comes across as a sort of corporate tool who is either trying to avoid expressing her vision or simply doesn't have one. Is that better or worse than having a Ryan Walters type who has a strong and toxic vision that he's willing to spew regularly?
Many folks around the whole approval flap report a lot of vitriol and nastiness around this whole business. On the one hand, that's a shame. On the other hand, when you nominate for the post of education chief people who are clearly unqualified and who are also closely associated with anti-public ed interests, it's going to rile folks up. At this point, we've seen that movie several times, and it always ends badly. Good luck, Vermont.
No comments:
Post a Comment