As readers of this blog know, I am not in the Kevin Huffman fan club. Unlike him, I don’t believe in free market solutions to education, nor do I care for the teacher evaluations that have been pioneered and continued in Tennessee over the past 20 years (without, be it noted, vaulting Tennessee to the top of the nation).
But I am a fan of this terrific article by Kevin Huffman. Huffman tells the story, in graphic detail, about how he tried to close down the lowest performing school in the state and got outsmarted year after year by the lobbyists for the national corporation that owns the Tennessee Virtual Academy: K12, Inc. That corporation, launched by Michael and Lowell Milken, is the biggest purveyor of online education; it operates for profit. It is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The last time I checked, the CEO was paid $5 million a year. K12 has been criticized repeatedly in studies of its performance but it shrugs off evaluations and keeps going. Recently, CREDO released a study that concluded that students in online charter schools lost ground: 72 days in reading, and 180 days in math. That is, a student who studied math for a year lost the equivalent of a full year of instruction, i.e., learned nothing.
Huffman notes that the school ranked dead last in the state in its first year. It showed no gains or tiny gains in every succeeding year. He tried to close it but each time was outfoxed by the lobbyists. He showed them the data, they said it wasn’t true. He offered to give them suggestions about how to improve their performance, but K12 sent lobbyists to meet with him, not educators.
Despite his attempts to close the school, it was still in operation when he left office. He reached the conclusion that for-profits are a bad fit in the school marketplace; we agree. If the charter industry is ever to clean up its house, it must distance itself from the for-profit corporations that give charters a bad name.
Huffman concludes:
This past summer, the state released the school results from the 2014-15 school year. The Tennessee Virtual Academy earned a Level 1 in growth for the fourth year in a row. It clocked in at #1312 out of 1368 elementary and middle schools in the state. It is no longer the most improved lousy school in Tennessee. It is just plain lousy. It is, over a four-year time, arguably the worst school in Tennessee.
K12 Inc. lives on in Tennessee. The Tennessee Virtual Academy opened its online doors again in August. State officials tell me that they aren’t thinking about other legal steps. After all, if and when the school fails again this year, they will close it down.
I will believe it when I see it.
The K12 saga raises a lot of difficult questions for me. Is it possible for a for-profit company to run schools? Our very best charters all over the country are non-profits, and I see little evidence of for-profits succeeding in the school management business. I may be platform-agnostic, but the data is telling a compelling story on this one.
How do we encourage innovation while still holding the bar on quality? The virtual school concept almost certainly has a place in the future of American education. But how long should an “innovative” school be allowed to fail?
What is the responsibility of the state as a regulatory enterprise, even in a choice environment? None of the parents signing up for TNVA were forced into the school — it is a school of choice.
And yet, the “marketplace” fails when we are not able to ensure that parents know that the school they are choosing has a running track record of failure. Clearly, there is a critical regulatory role, and we cannot simply assume that an unfettered choice environment will automatically lead to good outcomes.
In theory, K12, Inc’s stock should be hammered by its terrible performance in Tennessee, but it’s actually up in 2015. And why wouldn’t it be? The corporate shareholders aren’t looking for student results — they are looking for K12 to expand and grow and add more students.
Nobody asks me for stock advice, but I say: Buy! Buy K12 Inc.! It is the rarest of breeds — a company utterly impervious to failure. It fails again and again, and yet it lives and breathes!
No doubt, I will have ample opportunity to talk about this with their lobbyists at my next education conference.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The online charter sector in Ohio doesn’t worry me so much as the big ed reform marketing campaign to push online learning into public schools does.
I think the online charter sector in this state has probably reached the full market share they’re going to get, so they’re looking for new markets.
Public schools are the big market.
It really doesn’t help that the ed reform “movement” members in the federal government seem to be pushing this REALLY recklessly. I just read that the new federal law on public schools is a big win for the ed tech industry. It just seems almost criminally naive for such sophisticated actors to continue to ignore that this is AN INDUSTRY. It’s not “good” or “bad”- it’s an industry. That’s just a fact. One would think such DC pros would use ordinary good judgment before aggressively pushing ed tech into existing public schools. I consider this reckless behavior and I resent it, because when these “bold innovators” are all down the road we’re all going to be stuck with cleaning up the mess.
Wait a second. I thought one of the selling points of charter schools is that they have to deliver results, and when they fail to do so, then can be easily shut down.
What happened to that?
This online school was authorized thru a district. Several districts have done this in Ohio, in an attempt to compete with the “online charter sector”. I’m sure it’s different in Tennessee- they may not have an “online charter sector” but that’s how it played out here. It’s a race to the bottom.
Our online charters are promoted by ed reform politicians. Both Jeb Bush and John Kasich have gone to their graduations and lavished praise on this “innovative” private sector model. You can’t pay Kasich to enter an Ohio public school, but he’ll happily promote the for-profit “charter sector”.
Looks like it is impossible to shut down poorly performing schools, whether they are charter schools or public schools.
Charter schools have strong lobbies supporting them even if CREDO study shows poor quality of education.
It is rare indeed for a public school to be closed based on its performance. It is just not done and that is the way it has always been.
“The Future Ready District Pledge, developed by the U.S. Department of Education in October 2014, is a commitment by district leaders to work with educators, families, and community members to make all schools in their districts Future Ready. The Future Ready Schools effort will encourage and support superintendents as they transition their districts to personalized, digital learning. District Superintendents can review the pledge by clicking the “Take the Future Ready Pledge” button, and join others from across the country who already have taken the pledge.”
Is there some reason the Obama Administration feels they have to act as a sales force for this? Surely local schools can figure out if they want to adopt this and devote time and (scarce) resources to it without taking a “pledge”.
Give me a break. How is this different than straight-up marketing? They’re basically endorsing product for public schools to buy. Is this an Obama jobs program for the ed tech industry, or what?
Ed reformers in government need to back off. Public schools are strapped enough as it is under ed reform “leadership” without sinking hundreds of millions into this, with absolutely no evidence that the value for students justifies the cost.
The amount of waste and fraud that is being ignored by government in the charter industry is astounding. It is more proof that the “market” is not a solution to poor schools. It is, in fact, a huge problem. As a result of lobbying, our leaders ignore the problems and continue to toss huge sums of money at charters without much oversight or accountability. The ESSA is the latest man made trough designed to feed the corporate pigs billions of dollars that will divert funds from the neediest, most vulnerable students.
While Huffman is concerned about innovation, public schools are more worried about survival. We have yet to see any visionary breakthroughs from the charter industry. As a teacher I observed lots of innovation in the diverse public school district in which I taught, and my district is not unique. It is unfortunate that the federal government has bought the urban legend of the “conspiracy of the union protecting lazy teachers” narrative, especially since none of those making the decisions have any understanding of public education. They just assume “it’s horrible.” What Obama and Duncan have done to public schools is tragic and irresponsible. They have created a toxic environment designed to smother creativity, starve public schools, destroy a comprehensive curriculum, and hold teachers responsible for the effects of poverty. They have tried to test public education out of existence while they turn a blind eye to the nightmare they have created and continue to funnel resources to charter schools, despite the lack of evidence this is warranted.http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/12/massive-charter-giveaways-in-esea-re.html
I don’t understand people who spend a good part of every day saying labor unions are self-interested, but don’t apply this same analysis to private sector actors.
If you are constantly looking for “self interest” and basing 3/4 of your “movement” on ranting about labor unions, how do you miss the obvious “self interest” of for-profit companies? What did he imagine K12 was about, prior to this amazing revelation that for-profit companies are about profit?
I don’t think that government “misses” the corporate welfare shenanigans; I believe, through lobbying, they have been paid to look the other way.
It’s a hilarious irony – well, hilarious if not for the fact that a scam like K-12, founded by a convicted felon, seems untouchable – that a so-called reformer like Huffman would complain that his meetings with K-12 were attended by lobbyists, not educators.
This from a man who barely had a cup of coffee in the classroom, and emerged from a cohort so-called reformers consisting of MBA’s, McKinsey consultants, real estate and software developers, malanthropists and various other frauds and posers who proceeded to tell teachers they’re at fault for the problems facing students and public education.
Somehow, I doubt he gets the irony.
Michael Fiorillo: yes, the irony will certainly be lost on someone that now says that…
Making a fast buck and cheating children Trumped genuine learning and teaching, ensured by the openly self-serving political enablers of rheephorm with the aid of accountabully edufrauds massaging and torturing numbers & stats to make the worse appear the better cause.
He couldn’t have found this out years and years ago by exercising the “choice” of reading, let’s say, the blogs of Gary Rubinstein or Diane Ravitch or Jersey Jazzman or Edushyster or Bruce Baker or Mercedes Schneider, just to name a few? You know, all the “shrill” and “strident” folks” that have made plain for years what he just discovered in a “Eureka” moment?
My guess is that he is now exercising the “choice” called “distancing myself from my own years-long public record of covering for shameless venality.”
But I agree with the owner of this blog: I like his article. It just sports the wrong title. If truth in advertising prevailed amongst the rheephormistas it would read: “Teflon Defense: I Did Not Have Relations With $tudent $ucce$$!”
😎
P.S. “Trumped” beginning with uppercase: not a typo.
P.P.S. Another sign that some rheephormsters are beginning to realize that their words and deeds, and the yawning chasm between them called “Hypocrisy,” is catching up to them.
“Teflon Defense: I Did Not Have Relations With $tudent $ucce$$!”
Good one.
It was a rather interesting article. It’s even more interesting now that the same amount of data, four years, are back for TN’s Achievement School District and an independent, academic review shows the results to be very similar to K12 – flat and or negative. However, district-run initiatives are doing quite well. What’s the ASD’s response? Eerily close to K12 with “Oh, it’s too soon to tell.” No, we’re right in those stages to know the results for what they are: academic failure of private entities providing what should be a public good.
Click to access ASD_Impact_Policy_Brief_Final_12.8.15.pdf
If they choose to ignore that Izone schools with certified, qualified teachers perform better than the ASD schools, it is due to politics, not facts.
I didn’t see much in the article that “thrilled” me. Saw a lot that he said that confirms he still has no clue and still backs the edudeform movement. It’s another one of those “mea culpas” that aren’t mea culpas.
What people don’t understand is that a for-profit corporation, profits are not only their first consideration but are obligated both legally and fiduciarily to be their first consideration. There is no charity or idealism allowed.
The theory is that there is an economic benefit that derives from good will. But it’s difficult to quantify and is arguably a paradox.
The “good will” assumption in privatized education is wrong. Unlike privatizing a water company or even the post office, we cannot allow our children to be subject to the “slings and arrows” of the marketplace. It has destabilized the lives of the poorest children unequally. They should be entitled to a free, public education from certified teachers, just like the students in the suburbs, and their parents lose the right to democratic input in their children’s education. I consider this separate and unequal education. It is unfortunate the feds fail to comprehend the exploitative and segregative nature of privatization.
“Good Will?”
In so-called education reform?
That’s a hot one.
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=faculty_scholarship
Scott: you restated, in just a few words, the reality of corporate education reform—
“The business of business is business” [variously attributed].
Anybody else notice that the terms “good pedagogy” and “genuine learning and teaching” are not present at the tag end of that sentence, and for good reason?
Thank you for your comments.
😎
Quite so, Scott. School-choice promoters not only ignore that basic fact, they routinely insist that the ‘free market’ will self-select for schools best meeting consumer needs. Insist so, right in the face of Citizens’ United, TARP, outsourcing of mfg sector, offshore tax shelters et al corporate welfare. What ‘free market’?
Well, well, well. So now Kevin Huffman (aka the ex-Mr. Michelle Rhee), former Commissioner of Education in Tennessee, has finally decided that for-profit charter schools are a bad idea. Welcome to reality, Mr. Huffman. You may have reached this conclusion years ago if you had a degree in education (BA in English from Swarthmore; law degree from NYU) , or had ever taught anyone anything (and no–I don’t count your stint with TFA as teaching experience, Kevin).
All of these apparent retreats and changes in position must be treated with abundant caution, and a healthy dose of informed skepticism–because as history has taught us, when big piles of money and unbridled power are involved, persons rarely change their goals or tactics.
So, here is my unsolicited advice for Messrs. Huffman, Cheney, and Duncan: Thanks for finally realizing that your “contributions” to education and politics might have caused some unexpected and negative consequences–like the manufactured “crisis” in public education, the rise of a neo-fascist candidate for the highest office in the land, and a rewrite of federal education policy that trashes teacher education programs in exchange for a faux-return of control to the states.
In other words: You broke it, you own it, guys.
http://www.mitchellrobinson.net/2015/12/09/you-broke-it-you-own-it/
I wonder if he sees the irony.
I wonder if he sees the irony? Kevin couldn’t shut them down…but the parents and students could…if they wanted to.
The best thing this man has done for children is keep his daughters away from their mother and her pedophile husband. I fault him for marrying Rhee in the first place. Yea, its personal. She and he, both disgusting thieves.
love it… thanks for keeping it Rheel!