Showing posts with label model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label model. Show all posts

Friday, March 14, 2014

Elon Musk Writes A Blistering Take Down Of Chris Christie And New Jersey"s Decision To Ban Tesla"s Sales Model (TSLA)

Elon Musk jokes about his job


Elon Musk wrote a blog post about Tesla’s troubles in New Jersey. 


Tesla’s direct-to-consumer sales model was banned in the state this week. The ban starts April 1. 


Musk’s post basically echos what he said last year about fighting the dealers. 


He doesn’t want Tesla to sell cars through auto dealerships because the dealers will have no incentive to sell electric cars. He says that all other cars that tried the dealership model have gone bust.


In this post he has pointed language for Chris Christie:


On Tuesday, under pressure from the New Jersey auto dealer lobby to protect its monopoly, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, composed of political appointees of the Governor, ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state. Governor Christie had promised that this would be put to a vote of the elected state legislature, which is the appropriate way to change the law. When it became apparent to the auto dealer lobby that this approach would not succeed, they cut a backroom deal with the Governor to circumvent the legislative process and pass a regulation that is fundamentally contrary to the intent of the law.


And later, he adds:


The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures “consumer protection”. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of “protection”, this is obviously untrue. As anyone who has been through the conventional auto dealer purchase process knows, consumer protection is pretty much the furthest thing from the typical car dealer’s mind.


Here’s the whole thing:


On Tuesday, under pressure from the New Jersey auto dealer lobby to protect its monopoly, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, composed of political appointees of the Governor, ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state. Governor Christie had promised that this would be put to a vote of the elected state legislature, which is the appropriate way to change the law. When it became apparent to the auto dealer lobby that this approach would not succeed, they cut a backroom deal with the Governor to circumvent the legislative process and pass a regulation that is fundamentally contrary to the intent of the law.


It is worth examining the history of these laws to understand why they exist, as the auto dealer franchise laws were originally put in place for a just cause and are now being twisted to an unjust purpose. Many decades ago, the incumbent auto manufacturers sold franchises to generate capital and gain a salesforce. The franchisees then further invested a lot of their money and time in building up the dealerships. That’s a fair deal and it should not be broken. However, some of the big auto companies later engaged in pressure tactics to get the franchisees to sell their dealerships back at a low price. The franchisees rightly sought protection from their state legislatures, which resulted in the laws on the books today throughout the United States (these laws are not present anywhere else in the world).


The intent was simply to prevent a fair and longstanding deal between an existing auto company and its dealers from being broken, not to prevent a new company that has no franchisees from selling directly to consumers. In most states, the laws are reasonable and clear. In a handful of states, the laws were written in an overzealous or ambiguous manner. When all auto companies sold through franchises, this didn’t really matter. However, when Tesla came along as a new company with no existing franchisees, the auto dealers, who possess vastly more resources and influence than Tesla, nonetheless sought to force us to sell through them.


The reason that we did not choose to do this is that the auto dealers have a fundamental conflict of interest between promoting gasoline cars, which constitute virtually all of their revenue, and electric cars, which constitute virtually none. Moreover, it is much harder to sell a new technology car from a new company when people are so used to the old. Inevitably, they revert to selling what’s easy and it is game over for the new company.


The evidence is clear: when has an American startup auto company ever succeeded by selling through auto dealers? The last successful American car company was Chrysler, which was founded almost a century ago, and even they went bankrupt a few years ago, along with General Motors. Since the founding of Chrysler, there have been dozens of failures, Tucker and DeLorean being simply the most well-known. In recent years, electric car startups, such as Fisker, Coda, and many others, attempted to use auto dealers and all failed.


An even bigger conflict of interest with auto dealers is that they make most of their profit from service, but electric cars require much less service than gasoline cars. There are no oil, spark plug or fuel filter changes, no tune-ups and no smog checks needed for an electric car. Also, all Tesla Model S vehicles are capable of over-the-air updates to upgrade the software, just like your phone or computer, so no visit to the service center is required for that either.


Going a step further, I have made it a principle within Tesla that we should never attempt to make servicing a profit center. It does not seem right to me that companies try to make a profit off customers when their product breaks. Overcharging people for unneeded servicing (often not even fixing the original problem) is rampant within the industry and happened to me personally on several occasions when I drove gasoline cars. I resolved that we would endeavor never to do such a thing at Tesla, as described in the Tesla service blog post I wrote last year.


Why Did They Claim That This Change Was Necessary?


The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures “consumer protection”. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of “protection”, this is obviously untrue. As anyone who has been through the conventional auto dealer purchase process knows, consumer protection is pretty much the furthest thing from the typical car dealer’s mind.


There are other ways to assess the premise that auto dealers take better care of customers than Tesla does. Consumer Reports conducts an annual survey of 1.1 million subscribers, which factors in quality, reliability and consumer satisfaction. The Tesla Model S was the top overall pick of any vehicle in the world, scoring 99 out of 100. This is the highest score any car has ever received. By comparison, in theindustry report card, Ford, which sells their cars through franchise dealers, received a score of 50. BMW, which makes competing premium sedans, received a score of 66.


Consumers across the country have also voiced their opinion on the sales model they prefer. In North Carolina, a Triangle Business Journal poll found that 97 percent of people polled said Tesla should be allowed to sell cars directly. A poll by the Austin Business Journal showed that 86 percent of respondents were in favor of direct sales, and in a Los Angeles Times poll 99 percent of respondents came to the same conclusion. These aren’t polls that we commissioned and there are many more like them. We have not seen a single poll that didn’t result in an overwhelming majority saying they preferred the direct model to the traditional dealer model. Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people. When a politician acts in a manner so radically opposed to the will of the people who elected him, the only explanation is that there are other factors at play.


Going Forward


Some reassurances are also in order. Until at least April 1, everything is business as usual for Tesla in New Jersey. It should also be noted that this regulation deals only with sales, so our service centers will not be affected. Our stores will transition to being galleries, where you can see the car and ask questions of our staff, but we will not be able to discuss price or complete a sale in the store. However, that can still be done at our Manhattan store just over the river in Chelsea or our King of Prussia store near Philadelphia.


Most importantly, even after April 1, you will still be able to order vehicles from New Jersey for delivery in New Jersey on our TeslaMotors.com website.


We are evaluating judicial remedies to correct the situation. Also, if you believe that your right to buy direct at a Tesla store should be restored, please contact your state senator & assemblyman:www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/districtnumbers.asp.


Finally, we would like to thank the many people who showed up in Trenton on Tuesday to support Tesla and speak out against the MVC’s back-door tactics in passing this regulation change without public consultation or due process. It was an amazing response at very short notice and much appreciated.


Elon


Join the conversation about this story »





    








Politics



Elon Musk Writes A Blistering Take Down Of Chris Christie And New Jersey"s Decision To Ban Tesla"s Sales Model (TSLA)

Thursday, February 20, 2014

The Outdated Business Model of Diversity Inc.


Diversity has become corporatized on American campuses, with scores of bureaucrats and administrators accentuating different pedigrees and ancestries. That’s odd, because diversity does not mean any more “variety” or “points of difference,” at least as it used to be defined.


Instead, diversity has become an industry synonymous with orthodoxy and intolerance, especially in its homogeneity of political thought.


When campuses sloganeer “celebrate diversity,” that does not mean encouraging all sorts of political views. If it did, faculties and student groups would better reflect U.S. political realities and might fall roughly into two equal groups: liberal and conservative.


Do colleges routinely invite graduation speakers who are skeptical of man-made global warming, and have reservations about present abortion laws, gay marriage or illegal immigration — if only for the sake of ensuring diverse views?


Nor does diversity mean consistently ensuring that institutions should reflect “what America looks like.”


If it did, all sorts of problems could follow. As we see in the NBA and NFL, for example, many of our institutions do not always reflect the proportional racial and ethnic makeup of America. Do we really want all institutions to weigh diversity rather than merit so that coveted spots reflect the race and gender percentages of American society?


Does anyone care that for decades the diverse state of California’s three most powerful elected officials have been most un-diverse? Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein are uniformly mature women, quite liberal, very wealthy, married to rich professionals or entrepreneurs, and who once lived within commuting distance of each other in the Bay Area.


Is the University of California, Berkeley, ethnically diverse? If it were, Asian students might have to be turned away, given that the percentage of Asian students at UC Berkeley is about three times as great as the percentage of Asian residents in California’s general population.


Gender disparity is absolutely stunning on American campuses. Women now earn about 61 percent of all associate degrees and 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. With such disproportionate gender representation, do we need outreach offices on campus to weigh maleness in admissions? Should college presidents investigate whether the campus has become an insidiously hostile place for men?


Diversity Inc. is also based on a number of other fundamental shaky assumptions. Race, gender and politics are supposed to count far more in a diverse society than other key differences. Yet in a multiracial nation in which the president of the United States and almost half the Supreme Court are not white males, class considerations that transcend race and gender often provide greater privilege.


Is the daughter of Hillary Clinton in greater need of affirmative action or diversity initiatives than the children of the Oklahoma diaspora who settled in Bakersfield? So-called “white privilege” might certainly refer to the elite networks of insider contacts who promote the scions of Al Gore, Chris Matthews or Warren Buffett. But how about the son of an unemployed Appalachian coal miner? Not so much.


If ethnic, rather than class, pedigrees provide an edge, how do we ascertain them in today’s melting-pot culture? Does the one-quarter Latino student, the recent arrival from Jamaica or the fourth-generation Japanese-American deserve special consideration as “diverse”? And if so, over whom? The Punjabi-American? The Arab-American? The gay rich kid? The coal miner’s daughter? Or the generic American who chooses not to broadcast his profile?


Does Diversity Inc. rely on genetic testing, family documents, general appearance, accented names, trilled pronunciation or just personal assurance to pass judgment on who should be advantaged in any measurement of diversity?


In such an illiberal, tribally obsessed and ideologically based value system, it is not hard to see why and how careerists such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and activist Ward Churchill were able to fabricate helpful Native American ancestries.


Diversity came into vogue after affirmative action became unworkable in the 1980s. Given the multiplicity of ethnicities, huge influxes of new immigrants and a growing rate of intermarriage, it became almost impossible to adjudicate historical grievances and dole out legal remedies. So just creating “diversity” — without much worry over how to define it — avoided the contradictions.


But diversity is not only incoherent; it is also ironic. On a zero-sum campus short of resources, the industry of diversity and related “studies” classes that focus on gender or racial differences and grievances crowd out exactly the sort of disciplines that provide the skills — mastery of languages, literature, science, engineering, business and math — that best prep non-traditional graduates for a shot at well-compensated careers.


Red/blue state divides have never more acrimonious. The number of foreign-born citizens is at a record high. The global status of the United States has never been shakier. To meet all these existential challenges, American institutions — the university especially — would be wise to stress unity and academic rigor.


People in the Balkans, Rwanda and Iraq certainly championed their ethnic differences in lieu of embracing concord and ethnically and religiously blind meritocracy.


Tragically, these are also examples of where the logic of privileging differences, and dividing and judging people by the way they look and believe, ultimately ends up. 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



The Outdated Business Model of Diversity Inc.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

South Carolina expects to pass model legislation to gut Obamacare, FreedomWorks asks other states to follow

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



South Carolina expects to pass model legislation to gut Obamacare, FreedomWorks asks other states to follow

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

VIDEO: Miranda Kerr Shows Skin And Talks Family Life!







Her life is not all photo shoots and catwalks! Miranda Kerr is opening up to Cosmo Magazine about her life as mother and wife! She reveals that she and Orlando keep their work and home life very separate adding that although she considers herself a strong woman, she says it’s okay to let your man take care of you. “Don?t feel like you have to do and be everything. Let the man do some things for you, because if he cares for you, he will want to.”, Miranda tells the mag. Check out more of the model’s interview here!













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Miranda Kerr Shows Skin And Talks Family Life!

Thursday, September 5, 2013

VIDEO: Lindsay Lohan Shows Off Her Curves to Support Her Sister Ali at New York Fashion Week







Lindsay Lohan cheers on her little sister Ali as she walks the catwalk at Wendy Nichol’s fashion show in New York City.













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Lindsay Lohan Shows Off Her Curves to Support Her Sister Ali at New York Fashion Week

Monday, August 19, 2013

VIDEO: Besties: Lily Collins and Her Best Friend, Teen Vogue"s Liana Weston







Lily Collins and bestie (slash Teen Vogue assistant!) Liana Weston are lifers in the BFF department. After meeting in ninth grade as the new kids in school, nothing could come between this artistic duo. Join them as they talk friendship and decorate sugar coma-worthy cakes at Duff’s Cake Mix shop.













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: Besties: Lily Collins and Her Best Friend, Teen Vogue"s Liana Weston

Sunday, July 28, 2013

A Mathematical Model Of Gun Control Means We Can Finally Argue Over Data


UC Irvine researchers have published a model to predict how gun control affects homicide rates.



Gun Control
Gun Control Francois Polito via Wikimedia Commons


As highly debated as the topic of gun control is in America, there’s almost no research into the causes of gun violence or how to prevent it. Until recently, there was a virtual gag on gun violence research because of a stipulation that federally funded research can’t promote gun control.


In January, President Obama changed the game by defining gun violence as a public health issue, and calling for more comprehensive research. In response, University of California, Irvine professors Dominik Wodarz and Natalia Komarova created the first mathematical model to measure how legal gun availability impacts firearm-related homicide rates, published today in PLOS ONE.


Mathematical models are more than just equations–they use statistics and data to describe the way a complex system works, and predict how different variables might effect outcomes. This one provides a model for the full range of possible gun-control scenarios–from the total ban of firearms to the arm everyone approach.


“We’re trying to bring epidemiological approaches to this field of gun violence and violence prevention, so we can predict what strategies are better for preventing death instead of just arguing about it,” says Wodarz, a biologist who studies disease and evolutionary dynamics through mathematical models.


“What is under debate is essentially an epidemiological problem,” he and his co-author and wife, mathematician Natalia Komarova, write in the paper. “How do different gun control strategies affect the rate at which people become killed by attackers, and how can this rate be minimized?”


Models Of One-Against-Many Attacks

Models Of One-Against-Many Attacks: The probability that a ban of firearms would be the optimal policy in shootings that involve one attacker and multiple victims. Above the dashed lines, the ban is the optimal policy for minimizing violence.  Wodarz et al.



They incorporated variables like the percent of the population that legally owns guns, the fraction of the criminal population that owns guns illegally, and whether you’re more or less likely to die in an attack if you own a gun.


“For instance, if there is no gun control–guns are allowed–what is the percentage of the population that will take up their legal right? How many will actually carry it?” Komarova explains. “This is something that can be estimated.”


Though with the previously published data available, their analysis suggested that a ban of private gun possession or a partial reduction in gun availability might lower the rate of gun-related homicides, this model can’t tell us definitively how gun deaths might be prevented yet. It’s just a preliminary model to how we might approach the debate scientifically, one that can be updated as more statistics become available. “There’s a lack of data in the field,” Komarova says, because of the effective ban on federal funding for this type of research. “One of the purposes of the study was to encourage people to go and study these things.” The researchers liken it to trying to diagnose a disease without having access to things like the patient’s temperature or blood pressure.


The researchers plan to continue their work with the model, possibly incorporating how the controversial Stand Your Ground law–the self-defense law that gives people the right to defend themselves against attackers without the obligation to try to retreat from the altercation–might affect homicide rates.


Any science related to gun violence is bound to be controversial, and though they didn’t need federal funding to carry out this study, the publication process was unusually rigorous here. The researchers had to satisfy the whims of 11 different peer-reviewers before publication (the typical paper only has a couple), something Komarova says has never happened to either of them over the course of publishing hundreds of journal papers.


“We complained to our colleagues and they said, ‘What do you want? It’s a paper about gun control,” she says.




Popular Science – New Technology, Science News, The Future Now



A Mathematical Model Of Gun Control Means We Can Finally Argue Over Data

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Cashing in on Kids: 139 ALEC Bills in 2013 Promote a Private, For-Profit Education Model


Despite widespread public opposition to the education privatization agenda, at least 139 bills or state budget provisions reflecting American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) education bills have been introduced in 43 states and the District of Columbia in just the first six months of 2013, according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy, publishers of ALECexposed.org. Thirty-one have become law.


ALEC Vouchers Transfer Taxpayer Money to Private and Religious Schools


News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch has called public education a “a $ 500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed.”


But this “transformation” of public education — from an institution that serves the public into one that serves private for-profit interests — has been in progress for decades, thanks in large part to ALEC.


ALEC boasts on the “history” section of its website that it first started promoting “such ‘radical’ ideas as a [educational] voucher system” in 1983 — the same year as the Reagan administration’s “Nation At Risk” report — taking up ideas first articulated decades earlier by ALEC supporter Milton Friedman.


In 1990, Milwaukee was the first city in the nation to implement a school voucher program, under then-governor (and ALEC alum) Tommy Thompson. ALEC quickly embraced the legislation, and that same year offered model bills based on the Wisconsin plan. For-profit schools in Wisconsin now receive up to $ 6,442 per voucher student, and by the end of the next school year taxpayers in the state will have transferred an estimated $ 1.8 billion to for-profit, religious, and online schools. The “pricetag” for students in other states is even higher.


In the years since, programs to divert taxpayer money from public to private schools have spread across the country. In the 2012-2013 school year, it is estimated that nearly 246,000 students will participate in various iterations of so-called “choice” programs in 16 states and the District of Columbia — draining the public school system of critically-needed funds, and in some cases covering private school tuition for students whose parents are able and willing to pay. 


But promised improvements in educational outcomes have not followed. “If vouchers are designed to create better educational outcomes, research has not borne out that result,” says Julie Mead, chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin. “If vouchers are such a great idea,” after twenty years in effect, “they would have borne fruit by now.” 


The ALEC education agenda also fits into the organization’s broader attack on unions: by lowering teacher certification standards and funnelling public money to non-unionized private schools, ALEC undermines teachers unions, which guarantee fair wages and working conditions and are a major political force that have traditionally backed the Democratic Party.


ALEC Education Bills Undermine Free, Universal Public Education


ALEC-influenced bills introduced in 2013 include legislation to:


  • Create or expand taxpayer-funded voucher programs, using bills such as the “Parental Choice Scholarship Act” (introduced in three states). Under many state constitutions, the use of public dollars to fund religious institutions has been rejected on separation-of-powers grounds, but the ALEC Great Schools Tax Credit Act, introduced in ten states in 2013, bypasses state constitutional provisions and offers a form of private school tuition tax credits that funnel taxpayer dollars to private schools with even less public accountability than with regular vouchers.

  • Carve-out vouchers for students with special needs, regardless of family income, through the “Special Needs Scholarship Program Act” (introduced in twelve states), which sends vulnerable children to for-profit schools not bound by federal and state legal requirements to meet a student’s special needs, as public schools must. A proposal in Wisconsin would have allocated up to $ 14,658 to a for-profit school for each special needs student.

  • Send taxpayer dollars to unaccountable online school providers through the “Virtual Schools Act,” introduced in three states, where a single teacher remotely teaches a “class” of hundreds of isolated students working from home. The low overhead for virtual schools certainly raises company profits, but it is a model few educators think is a appropriate for young children.

  • Offer teaching credentials to individuals with subject-matter experience but no education background with the Alternative Certification Act, introduced in seven states. The bill is part of ALEC’s ongoing effort to undermine unionized workers and promote a race to the bottom in wages and benefits for American workers.

  • Require that educators “teach the controversy” when it comes to topics like climate change — where the only disagreement is political, not scientific — through the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act, introduced in five states.

  • Create opportunities to privatize public schools or fire teachers and principals via referendum with the controversial Parent Trigger Act (glorified in the flop film ”Won’t Back Down”), introduced in twelve states. First passed in California, a modified Parent Trigger bill was brought to ALEC in 2010 by the Illinois-based Heartland Institute, which is perhaps best known for controversial billboards comparing people who believe in climate change to mass murderers like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

  • Create an appointed, state-level charter school authorizing board through the Next Generation Charter Schools Act, introduced in seven states, which effectively shields charters from democratic accountability. The legislation “would wrest control from school boards, and likewise from the community that elects those school boards,” Mead says, since it takes away their power to authorize charters in the community.

ALEC Corporations Reap the Rewards


Some of the for-profit corporations profiting from the ALEC Education privatization agenda include:


“Amplify,” the newly-created education division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, parent company of Fox News. News Corp is on the ALEC Education Task Force. In 2010, News Corp hired former New York City chancellor Joel Klein to run its education division, which includes the for-profit education company formerly known as Wireless Generation. The firm has big plans for a specialized “Amplify Tablet” that would provide lesson plans, textbooks and testing to cash-in on new “Common Core” required state standards.


K12 Inc., the nation’s largest provider of online charter schools, where low-paid teachers manage as many as 250 students at a time and communicate with their pupils only through email and phone. The corporation, whose CEO Ron Packard received $ 5 million in total compensation in 2011, is on the ALEC Education Task Force and its lobbyist Lisa Gillis has Chaired ALEC’s Special Needs Subcommittee. According to a report in the New York Times, students in K12, Inc. schools often perform very poorly, and some K12 teachers claim that they have been encouraged to pass failing students so that the company can receive more reimbursement from states. K12 receives an average of between $ 5,500 and $ 6,000 for every student on its rosters — the same amount that would be spent for students attending a brick-and-mortar school, despite K12 not having to pay for cafeteria, gyms, busing, or heat and air conditioning — and much of K12′s profits are spent on advertising targeted at increasing enrollment, rather than on investments in education. At K12′s Agora Cyber Charter School, which produces more than 10% of the company’s revenue, nearly 60% of students are behind grade level in math, nearly 50% are behind in reading, and a third do not graduate on time.


Corinthian Colleges is a for-profit college chain that operates campuses under names like Everest, Heald, and WyoTech, in addition to offering degrees online. It has become notorious for aggressive recruiting practices and leaving students unprepared for the job market and saddled with massive student loan debts. In Milwaukee, for example, where a Corinthian Everest campus was financed with $ 11 million in city bonds, just 25% of students found jobs and over half dropped out; the campus closed two years after it opened. Nationally, over 40 percent of Corinthian’s students default on their loans, and only 60% of students complete their coursework. In June, Corinthian disclosed that it is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and has been subpoenaed by California’s Attorney General for its recruiting practices and financial responsibility.


Ideological Interests Lift the ALEC Agenda


An array of right-wing nonprofits also promote the school privatization agenda in ALEC.


The 501(c)(4) American Federation for Children and its 501(c)(3) wing the Alliance for Children, for example, have brought an array of privatization bills to ALEC and promoted the legislation across the country. The groups were organized and are funded by the billionaire DeVos family (heirs to the Amway fortune); Richard DeVos has received the ALEC “Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award.” AFC’s top lobbyist is disgraced former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen, who was convicted of three felonies for misuse of his office for political purposes and banned from the state Capitol for five years (though the charges were later reversed and dropped as part of a plea agreement). Jensen represents the organization on the ALEC Education Task Force and has brought AFC bills to ALEC for adoption as “model” legislation. AFC spent at least $ 7 million electing privatization-friendly state legislators across the country in 2012, but reported far less to state election authorities.


In addition to the DeVos family foundations, the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation is one of the top school privatization funders in the country, spending over $ 31 million over the past eleven years promoting “school choice” nationwide, according to One Wisconsin Now; for decades, Bradley has also been a major ALEC funder. The foundation has over $ 600 million in assets and is headed by Michael Grebe, Scott Walker’s campaign co-chair.


Before Milwaukee became the first city in the nation to implement a school voucher program, Bradley bankrolled the groups that laid the groundwork. When the plan was challenged in Wisconsin courts, Bradley funded its legal defense, which included hiring Kenneth Starr — later known for pursuing Bill Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky — to represent the state.


Average Americans Pay the Price


Originally promoted as a program for Milwaukee’s low-income students of color to have access to private education, the initial voucher program gained support from some African-American leaders and was pushed by State Representative Polly Williams, a Milwaukee Democrat. But last session, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker broadened vouchers to families with higher incomes, and in the 2013-2015 budget further expanded the program. “They have hijacked the program,” Williams says. “As soon as the doors open for the low income children, they’re trampled by the high income,” she said. “Now the upper crust have taken over.”


The laws have been sold to poor and minority communities as a way to close achievement gaps, but there is little evidence of success: in Wisconsin, data shows that students receiving vouchers perform no better, and in some cases worse than those attending public schools. Cash-for-kids programs have shown similar results in school districts across the country.


Reports have also emerged in Milwaukee and elsewhere of for-profit schools registering students, keeping them in class until just after the date where enrollment is counted for funding purposes, and then sending them back to public schools. In many cases those students have special needs the voucher schools claimed they could not satisfy.


Six-year-old Trinity Fitzer, who has anxiety and gastrointentinal problems, was attending Milwaukee’s Northwestern Catholic School in the 2011-2012 term on a voucher. After a few months, Northwestern Catholic informed Trinity’s mother that she was being “withdrawn” from the school for “continuing behavioral issues.” The school claimed that “withdrawal is the decision of the parent,” but Trinity’s mother said it was not her decision and “she didn’t have an option.”


Jane Audette, a social worker at Hawthorne Elementary, a public school in Milwaukee, said the school receives several “cast-off” students every year from private schools like Northwestern Catholic. “What has happened over and over with Milwaukee’s Northwest Catholic is they will tell a parent, ‘Your child needs more than we can give your child, so we suggest you go down the street to Hawthorne.’”


And vouchers, testing, and school privatization have in many cases been offered as a substitute for grappling with the persistent structural issues that perpetuate achievement gaps.


“What has been forced on our communities is not reform at all: they are mediocre interventions,” said Jitu Brown, an education organizer for the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization who spoke at Netroots Nation in June. “The only reason that mediocrity is accepted is because of the race of the children being served.“


Privatizing Schools and Other Government Services


Brown puts the education reforms in the context of broader community disinvestment and austerity measures: cutting social programs and closing schools, police stations, hospitals, and other institutions that serve as commmunity anchors, while cherry picking and selling off the better institutions to private players.


And ALEC has played a key role in promoting this agenda. ALEC has sought to shrink the size of goverment by starving states of revenue, voucherizing critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and privatizing all aspects of government, from education to foster care to pensions to prisons.


When the ALEC’s cash-for-kids model is put before the voters, it is resoundingly rejected. In 27 statewide referenda on the topic, voters rejected vouchers on average 2-1. But as long as ALEC “models” continue to garner bipartisan support facilitated by corporate campaign contributions or are slipped into state budgets in the dead of night — ALEC will have continued success with the “transformation” of the American educational system into a profit-driven enterprise.


The ALEC Education agenda not only “converts a public good into something private,” says Mead, but private schools “don’t have the same responsibility [as public schools] to serve everybody, which diminishes public access, oversight and accountability.”


“There is that saying, ‘democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.’ The public school system is the same way,” Mead says. “It has problems, and can be better, but has served us pretty well for 150 years.”


View the full list of 2013 ALEC education bills here.


ALEC Education Bills, 2013



















































































































































































































































































































































































StateALEC BillState Bill
ALFounding Principles ActSB 443
ALThe Innovation Schools and School Districts ActHB 84
AKFounding Principles ActHB 31
AZDistrict and School Freedom ActHB 2496
AZEnvironmental Literacy Improvement ActSB 1213
AZParent Trigger ActSB 1409
AZFounding Principles ActSB 1212
AZResolution Supporting Private Scholarship Tax CreditsHB 2617
AZThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActHB 2617
AZThe Next Generation Charter Schools ActHB 2494
AZThe Virtual Public Schools ActHB 2493
ARFounding Principles ActSB 1017
ARResolution Supporting Private Scholarship Tax CreditsSB 740
ARThe Foster Child Scholarship Program ActHB 1788
ARThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActSB 740
ARThe Innovation Schools and School Districts ActSB 66
ARThe Next Generation Charter Schools ActHB 1040
ARThe Open Enrollment ActHB 1507
ARThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActHB 1897, HB 2260
CAThe Open Enrollment ActAB 1279
COEnvironmental Literacy Improvement ActHB 13-1089
CTThe Lifelong Learning Accounts ActSB 769
DEThe Charter Schools ActHB 165
DCThe Innovation Schools and School Districts ActB 20-0310
FLAlternative Certification ActSB 1664, SB 1238
FLEducation Savings AccountHB 1251
FLThe Innovation Schools and School Districts ActSB 1390
FLThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActSB 172
FLParent Trigger ActHB 867, SB 862
IDThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActHB 227, HB 286
ILAlternative Certification ActHB 513, HB 1868
INParental Choice Scholarship Program ActHB 1003, HB 1001
INParental Rights AmendmentSB 332
INThe Smart Start Scholarship ProgramHB 1003
INThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActHB 1003
IAParent Trigger ActSF 2
IAThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActHB 225
KSEnvironmental Literacy Improvement ActHB 2306
KSParental Rights AmendmentHR 6010
KSPublic Employee Freedom ActHB 2123
KSThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActHB 2400
KSThe Next Generation Charter Schools ActSB 196
KSThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActHB 2263
KYEnvironmental Literacy Improvement ActHB 269
KYThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActHB 66
KYThe Next Generation Charter Schools ActHB 76
KYThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActHB 155
LAParental Choice Scholarship Program ActHB 597
MEAlternative Certification ActSP 461
METhe Next Generation Charter Schools ActHP 967
METhe Virtual Public Schools ActHP 331, SP 391
MDParent Trigger ActHB 875
MAAlternative Certification ActH 418
MAFounding Principles ActH 513
MAParent Trigger ActH 429
MIFounding Principles ActSB 121
MIThe Virtual Public Schools ActHB 4228, SB 182
MNThe Charter Schools ActSF 978
MSParental Rights AmendmentHC 90, HC 96, HB 496
MSThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActSB 2132, HB 1095
MSThe Innovation Schools and School Districts ActSB 2716, HB 118, HB 787
MSThe Next Generation Charter Schools ActSB 2189
MSThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActHB 1004
MOParent Trigger ActSB 311
MOTeacher Choice Compensation ActSB 408
MOThe Next Generation Charter Schools ActHB 315
MTResolution Calling for Greater Productivity in American Higher EducationSJ 13
MTEducation Savings Account ActHB 357
MTThe Charter Schools ActSB 374, HB 315
MTThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActHB 213
MTThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActHB 390
NEParental Rights AmendmentLR 42
NVFounding Principles ActSB 163
NVGreat Teachers and Leaders ActSB 407
NVParent Trigger ActAB 254
NVParental Rights AmendmentSB 314
NVThe Charter Schools ActAB 205
NJThe Charter Schools ActA 4177
NJThe Family Education Savings Account ActA 3959
NMLocal Government Transparency ActSB 63
NYCommon Sense in Medication Students ActA 2972
NYFounding Principles ActS 2134
NYParent Trigger ActA 3826
NYQuality Education and Teacher and Principal Protection ActA 3110
NYThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActS 788
NCParental Choice Scholarship Program ActHB 944
NCParental Rights AmendmentH 711
NCThe 140 Credit Hour ActHB 255
NCThe Innovation Schools and School Districts ActH 960
OHFounding Principles ActSB 96
OKAlternative Certification ActSB 877
OKEnvironmental Literacy Improvement ActHB 1674
OKFounding Principles ActSB 154
OKParent Trigger ActHB 1385
OKParental Rights AmendmentHB 1384
ORParent Trigger ActHB 2881
PAThe Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act (Scholarship Tax Credits)SB 51
RIThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActH6131
SCParent Trigger ActS 556
SCParental Rights AmendmentS 628
SCThe Charter Schools ActS 3853
SCThe Open Enrollment ActS 313
SDFounding Principles ActSCR 2
TNFounding Principles ActHB 1129
TNLocal Government Transparency ActSB 2832
TNParent Trigger ActHB 77
TNThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActHB 387, SB 486
TXParental Rights AmendmentHCR 38
TXStatewide Online Education ActSB 1298
TXTaxpayers Savings Grants ActSB 29
TXThe Education Enterprise Zone ActHB 300
TXThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActSB 17
VAParental Rights AmendmentHB 1642, SB 908
VAResolution Supporting Private Scholarship Tax CreditsSB 1227, HB 1996
VAThe Great Schools Tax Credit (Scholarship Tax Credit) ActHB 1996, SB 1227
WAA-Plus Literacy ActSB 5328
WVThe Charter Schools ActHB 2808
WVAlternative Certification ActSB 359
WVResolution Adopting the 10 Elements of High-Quality Digital LearningSB 37
WVFounding Principles ActHB 2594
WIThe Family Education Savings Account ActSB 111
WIThe Special Needs Scholarship Program ActAB 40


Truthout Stories



Cashing in on Kids: 139 ALEC Bills in 2013 Promote a Private, For-Profit Education Model