Three short articles. Watch the trend, note the names, see who profits:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/9869Wednesday, February 15, 1995 - 11:00
"SYDNEY — A report presented to the national conference of the Australian Education Union on January 20 revealed that corporate sponsorship of schools is expanding in all states, 'virtually unmonitored and unregulated'.
Insufficient government funding has forced schools to seek out, and compete for, corporate sponsors. This has led to growing inequalities between schools.
The report, by a University of New South Wales researcher, Jane Coulter, found large sections of the school curriculum were being privatised. Coulter said that the contracting out of education services was often more costly. In some instances, education departments were paying $6000 a day for consultants and up to $300 an hour for academics to conduct training previously undertaken by employees.
Coulter was quoted as saying, 'The term privatisation does not capture what is happening to state education — it is really more deregulation by the government's withdrawal from provision of services'."
2.
http://www.thenation.com/article/schwarzeneggers-education-failuresSchwarzenegger's Education Failures
August 19, 2004
"Arnold Schwarzenegger came to Sacramento promising to end 'politics as usual.' But the partisan barbs continued as the governor called legislators 'girlie men' and likened them to 'children' in need of a 'time-out.' More substantively, shell games, secret deals and borrowing still held the day as the budget was, once again, late. And with his so-called 'no-tax' pledge Schwarzenegger locked himself into a position of drastically cutting (and raising fees for) state-provided services. Nowhere is this more evident than in education, the state's largest expenditure.
'I know the CTA struck the best possible deal,' she says. 'It is fully funding class size, special education, textbooks and all of the categorical programs the state depends on.' To Kerr's credit she says, 'the CTA believes strongly that we need to raise taxes.' But if that is the case, why did she agree to a $2 billion cut to California schools? And how can the 'programs the state depends on' be fully funded if they are shorted $2 billion?
How serious are the cuts? Just take a look at the West Contra Costa Unified School District, an urban area encompassing some of the poorest parts of the San Francisco Bay area. In March, the district, which has been forced to pare down its budget by $28 million over the last three years, eliminated all school sports programs, closed all its libraries and pink-slipped more than 200 employees. That amounts to nearly $1,000 per student in cuts over three years..."
3.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/17/local/me-failure17U.S. May Force California to Call More School Districts Failures
February 17, 2005
"The Bush administration is pressing California to toughen its rules for identifying failing school districts -- a change that could add 310 school systems to a watch list this year and eventually threaten the jobs of superintendents and school board members throughout the state.
The U.S. Department of Education warned that it could cut off money to the state if California did not change the way it classified struggling districts under the No Child Left Behind Act.
'The entire notion of how No Child Left Behind has been enacted is very narrow, very myopic and very draconian,' said Santa Monica-Malibu Unified Supt. John Deasy. 'It sets up a very negative dynamic for schools that have successfully shown they can raise achievement over time.'"
--------------
Even from three short articles, something stinks to high heaven. Force them into failure, then blame them for what was done to them... This is also the trend regarding other infrastructure. We are facing hostile takeover, old-school style. Worldwide. Wolfowitz as part of the World Bank!?
http://www.economist.com/node/9199763http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1316473#1316490