Without explanation, Rocketship Charters withdrew its application to open 8 schools each in San Antonio and Dallas.
A group of wealthy philanthropists has put up a large fund to draw charter chains to San Antonio, with a goal of 80,000 students in charters by 2026.
Once a charter has opened in Texas, it can expand without going through the entire application process by merely submitting an amendment to their original application.
Rocketship will not be considered in this cycle.
There has been speculation that Rocketship is slowing its expansion while it retools its program, but officials said that the chain intended to focus on four regions: California, Milwaukee, Nashville, and D.C.
The chain is slowing plans not only in Texas, but in Memphis and New Orleans. It hopes to grow from 9 to 20 schools in the next few years.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why and district would welcome Rocketship, with its abysmal record, is beyond me. Why parents would enroll their kids there escapes me as well. All it takes is little Googling to discover that this is a computer factory where kids gaze all day at screens while clerks walk the aisles to see they are “engaged.” Ridiculousness at its finest.
Rocketship should disband altogether and close up any student-farm it currently has open, and shamefully just…walk…away.
Because Jeb Bush’s lobbying group pays the way for lawmakers to attend his conventions, where they hear a steady diet of the miracle of technology in classrooms, the evils of teachers unions, and terrifying tales of how no one will ever get a job again unless we privatize schools and buy every child a tablet.
http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/jebfest-the-education-miracle?utm_content=buffer75301&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.U72_FahLjSA
This is great news!
Rocketship should be straight with people. They hoped to save money using computer instruction. It was in the business plan for the schools. I fact, Jeb Bush used to promote “blended learning” as a way to save money on public education.
Now, maybe they genuinely believe that this approach is better for kids, and the cost-savings are simply a side-benefit, but they need to admit the dual motivation and explain to the rest of us how this isn’t going to end up as “cheap schools for middle and low income kids”, because THAT is my concern. I live in a state where lawmakers cannot wait to cut costs on public ed. How is this NOT going to be twisted and mis-used? What are the safeguards or checks on this?
That’s a legit concern, given the full-out sales campaign being conducted (including at the US Dept of Ed, who may as well be on the ed-tech payroll) and it has nothing to do with “resisting change” or “protecting the status quo”. It’s reality.
Are we going to end up with low cost online learning in low and middle income schools? If not, why not?
I’m also sort of curious how this ends up if we go to a 90% or 100% privatized system. Can schools (or their management companies) just decide where they want to locate?
What if I happen to live in an area that falls out of favor with the management company? What if all the best charter schools just happen to locate in the states that have the highest per pupil funding? Aren’t we right back where we started, then, where states with better funding have higher-quality public ed?
Doesn’t this “choice” system have the potential to be WILDLY disparate, much more so than the public system it is designed to replace?
According to LAschoolsreprt.com, LA Unified, after closing two campuses, is expanding their investigation to all 8 Magnolia Charter campuses.
Just found out that our district, Redwood City, CA, just approved both Rocketship and KIP to open schools. Connect charter school just opened last school year sharing a public school site. Redwood City is a large district with 13 elementary schools (5 of which are K-8) & 2 middle schools. Not sure where these two new additions will set up shop here?
This reads like a fast food restaurant announcement.