Tom Ultican writes here about the biggest charter fraud in history (to this date).
This fraud was not one of those one-day wonders that people read about and forget the next day.
This one should wake up state legislators and produce genuine reforms of the state’s super-permissive charter law.
Ultican writes about the indictment of 11 people for the theft of $50 million. Other writers, however, peg the loss to the state and its students at $80 million.
Whether it’s $50 million or $80 million, it should catch the attention of those who are devoted to ethical behavior.
Ultican explains that charter advocates designed the law so that it would NOT regulate who got the money or how it was spent. The California charter law is an open invitation to graft and corruption.
And they walked through an open door, reaping millions from the state’s lax law. Deregulation and lack of oversight was supposed to spur innovation. But it mostly spurred theft.
He writes:
The state of California puts more than $80 billion annually into k12 education. Because that money is a natural target for profiteers and scammers, extra vigilance is needed. However, California’s charter school law was developed to provide minimum vigilance.
During its early stages, several billionaires like Carry Walton Penner, Reed Hastings and Arthur Rock made sure the California charter school law was designed to limit governmental rules and oversight. For example, charter schools are not required to meet the earthquake standards prescribed in the 1933 Field Act, which hold public schools to higher building code requirements. Since its enactment no public schools have collapsed in an earthquake. The picture of the Education Collaborative School above is evidence that students in a known earthquake zone are now at increased risk of injury and death.
A few weeks ago Louis Freedberg observedthat a key weakness in California’s chartering law is that there are no standards for authorizers and a lack of expertise. He also wrote about the number of charter authorizers saying, “unlike many states, California has hundreds of them: 294 local school districts, 41 county offices of education, along with the State Board of Education.” Among these 336 authorizers, several are school districts of less than 1,000 students which have neither the capacity nor training to supervise charter schools. Some of these small districts look more like charter school grafters than public school districts.
The California law is deeply defective. It assumes that the market will produce better schools. We now know that isn’t right.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I will try again, and again until I get some sort of response. The democrats have more than 20 people running for president. (they just added another very wealthy man dedicated to impeaching Trump). It should not be taken for granted that Obama made a good choice for public education with Bill Gates and Arne Duncan. The democrats should not get a free–don’t have to talk about it ticket, because of DeVos. Charter schools have been used as a tool to segregate schools, and there are many other issues about them which should demand discussion, and offer choices among the presidential candidates. Or should we stick to the “it’s all local” formula, and talk about all the really important matters?
From July 7th…Carol Burris https://dianeravitch.net/2019/07/07/carol-burris-dont-let-democratic-candidates-get-away-with-im-against-for-profit-charters/
I think there’s another huge unregulated sector developing in ed reform- CTE.
It’s currently fashionable to be interested in CTE, and they are all jumping on the bandwagon:
“Descriptions of 32 programs across the country that are reimagining career pathways, including programs run by school districts, charter schools, and nonprofit organizations”
This is another opportunity for theft and fraud, not to mention they are ramping up these programs at such a rapid pace with little or no oversight or regulation that half will be useless junk that could leave students without an ordinary public school education AND without a career and technical education.
There will be thousands of programs, with no quality measure. A 14 year is supposed to determine if a CTE program is legitimate and worthwhile?
They’re reckless people and they follow fads. The CTE mania won’t end well for students. It reminds me of the “online learning” garbage they all pushed a decade ago.
I have seen more ads recently for both private CTE schools as well as a reemergence of for profit colleges. I have also seen some media stories indicating that secondary schools are not preparing students for vocations. This is probably all part of the DeVosian influence to promote for profit alternatives.
Has anyone in ed reform apologized for mindlessly pushing online schools for 20 years?
Have they ever admitted they got completely snookered by the “digital natives” nonsense that was pushed by tech companies to sell products?
They know that public schools are now pulling back on tech use, right? That “the field” has determined most of it is garbage?
Arne Duncan should apologize to public school students who were plopped in front of screens since 2009 at his urging. They got ripped off.
Maybe public schools could make more of an effort to STOP buying everything these people are selling? I’m disappointed that so many ed reform schemes are swallowed whole. I expect public school leaders to use THEIR OWN judgment. Say “no”. The world won’t end if you skip a couple of fad cycles.
They should have apologized but I suspect they don’t admit being wrong so won’t apologize.
Before apology must come contrition.
Duncan has never said he was wrong.
As Joe Biden can verify….nothing in Obama’s public education decisions needs any apologies.
From 2018- “Ohio schools lost $600 mil. to ECOT since 2012”. It will never be determined how many students and what if anything they learned by enrolling in ECOT. The amount of taxpayer money the operator pocketed will never be known.
The blame goes to Ohio politicians and the voters who elected them.
If nothing else, Ultican’s report makes an incredibly strong case for a statewide audit on Independent Study charters. He only dealt with a scam perpetrated by one small group lead by Sean McManus. If they were able to operate with impunity for years, how many other charter operators in California and in other states have discovered the complete absence of any oversight for IS schools and taken full advantage of all that free money?
Everyone who reads this blog needs to check out what’s going on in their state. Independent Study means that students are working part or full time at home. Since the offices of these charter operators are not required to be close in proximity to the students they are serving, oversight is all but impossible.
This is anecdotal of course but last year my son had one high school teacher who collected tech devices prior to class. This year he will have three. Out of seven, and two of those are music classes. Three of his five core academic classes will be conducted with tech devices banned for the length of the class.
They might have pushed ed tech a SMIDGE too hard, don’t you think? With zero evidence that any of it any value? How much did schools invest in this and do they regret those decisions? If they do regret the investment will they be willing they admit it?
How many ed tech opinion writers and cheerleaders are funded by the tech companies themselves? How is this any different than designing school lunches based around what Nabisco recommends? And where is all this “critical thinking” I keep hearing that students “must” have? Do adults have it?
The “Market” always produces winners and losers. The winners are always a few. The losers are always many.