Archives for the month of: June, 2012

The General Accounting Office, which is the federal government’s watchdog agency, just issued a report concluding that charter schools are failing to enroll a fair share of students with disabilities. Advocates of students with special needs have complained about this for the past few years, and it is now confirmed.

The report showed that special-education students—those with diagnosed disabilities from Down Syndrome to attention-deficit disorder—made up 8.2% of charter school students during the 2009-2010 school year. While that was up from 7.7% the year before, it was below the average at traditional public schools of 11.2% in 2009-2010, and 11.3% the previous year.
“These are differences that cannot remain. They are not acceptable,” said Rep. George Miller (D., Calif), a charter-school proponent who asked the GAO to look into the issue. The House passed a bill last year that would make it easier for charter schools to expand, and “we want to make sure that all children—including those who are special ed—have a chance to participate in this revolutionary education reform,” he said. The Senate hasn’t yet voted on the bill.

Congressman George Miller of California, who requested the study, is the leading Democrat on education in the House of Representatives. Miller is a big proponent of testing (he was one of the prime sponsors of NCLB) and now of charters. He is also a favorite of Democrats for Education Reform, the organization of Wall Street hedge fund managers that promotes charters everywhere. DFER has raised large sums of money for Miller.

Eva Moskowitz, a charter founder in New York City, says in the article that the reason the numbers of special education students are low is because her schools are able to move students out of special education because of her schools’  superior methods. But this claim demonstrates that her schools take students with the mildest disabilities, and leaves those with high needs to the public schools, a complaint often lodged against charters.

The most disturbing comment in the article about the study comes at the very end.

Jim Shelton, who oversees charter school initiatives for the Department of Education, said the enrollment gaps between charters and traditional schools are a “relatively small difference,” and that it was difficult to draw conclusions based on the information provided. But he said his office would takes steps to address the issue.

Shelton, formerly of McKinsey, formerly of the Gates Foundation, formerly part of Race to the Top, formerly in charge of innovation grants, now runs the U.S. Department of Education’s charter school initiatives. He sees only a “relatively small difference” in the data presented by GAO. In other words, no problem here. Move on, look the other way. He finds it difficult to draw conclusions. He sees nothing of importance. But his office will “take steps” to address this unimportant issue.
In a story about this report in Huffington Post, Shelton says, “The report puts a fine point on issues we were concerned about,” demonstrating his lack of interest in the issue. Expecting Shelton to monitor charter school violations of the rights of students with special needs or of any other wrong committed by these private sector schools is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Diane

A majority of school boards in North Carolina are opposing the opening of a K12 online charter school. They understand that the North Carolina Virtual Academy will drain millions of dollars from the budgets of the state’s public schools. K12, the nation’s largest for-profit online charter corporation, persuaded one school board to sponsor its operation by promising them a 4% commission. As students sign up for K12, the home districts lose funding.

An administrative law judge granted the charter, but opposition is building among school boards across the state, including the host district.

It’s about time that school boards figured out that the online charter corporations drain revenues from the public schools, while providing an inferior quality of education. A study last year of charter schools in Pennsylvania found that cybercharters got worse results than either traditional public schools or brick-and-mortar charter schools.

It’s past time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars, wasting children’s time, and harming public schools while enriching investors. The point of education is not to make money for a few people but to educate the next generation.

Say no, North Carolina.

Diane

The New York Times had an informative but frankly alarming article about the research that maps out every fact about each of us. The article is called “You For Sale: A Data Giant is mapping, and sharing, the consumer genome.”

The article describes the vast “data-mining” business that collects, stores, and sells about 1,500 data points for every one of us. Corporations are buying financial and health information, as well as the consumer preferences of almost every one of us. Says the article, “It’s as if the ore of our data-driven lives were being mined, refined and sold to the highest bidder, usually without our knowledge–by companies that most people rarely even know exist.

Data-driven, data-mining. The wave of the future. Hundreds of millions of federal education dollars spent to build data storehouses in every state for every child, tracking his or her test scores, courses, teachers, health, behavior, choices, extracurricular activities, postsecondary education, career, everything. Cradle to grave.

Please, will someone explain to me what is good about this? Why does the government need to do all these things about us? Why do corporations need to snoop into every corner of our lives?

Diane

Read this article, which documents how data-driven policing has caused police to report statistics wrongly, classify crimes as more or less serious depending on the quota needed to fill, and has created constructs of “productivity” that warp the goals of policing.

What is the primary goal of policing? To keep our communities safe and crime-free. What is the primary goal of education? To assure that the younger generation is prepared in mind, character and body to assume the responsibilities of citizenship in our society. But what are the goals of education in a data-driven environment? To raise test scores, by whatever means necessary. This is akin to setting a quota for felony arrests for police or directing them that the crime statistics must go down.

Here we see a restatement of Campbell’s Law. When the stakes are high, people will not only forget the goals of their activity but the measure itself becomes corrupted. Thus, the data that are generated–whether by police or teachers–become meaningless because of the pressure applied to get them. In effect, we are paying people bonuses to generate good news that is not true. The good news is not true, the data are not trustworthy, the measures are no longer useful, and we are not achieving the purposes of policing or teaching. It’s what you might call a lose-lose.

But it does have certain benefits. It creates new industries for those who love counting and measuring and reporting. It creates new work for the consultants who will tell you how to reach your targets. It provides a rationale for endless workshops and professional development and study groups, all of which divert even more time from the original goals. It creates new work for the experts who will opine about better ways to reach the targets. And it gives bragging rights to the politicians who think they accomplished something.

In an earlier post, I described how Michelle Rhee’s Students First collects “members” whenever anyone unwittingly signs a petition at change.org for a “kittens and puppies” cause or when they agree that they respect teachers. This is deceptive advertising. It turns out that Jonah Edelman’s Stand for Children also benefited by misleading people who signed heart-warming petitions at change.org.

Never doubt that citizens can make a difference. In response to protests and petitions, change.org will no longer be collecting signatures for Rhee or Edelman because their organizations are anti-union. Change.org claims to be a progressive website, not just a free-market platform for anything. As a progressive website, it was subject to growing criticism for enabling groups like Students First and Stand for Children to promote their agenda of privatization and union-busting.

And don’t doubt for a minute that one person can make a difference. Aaron Krager communicated directly with change.org and wrote a blistering critique of their actions. Krager wrote:

Change.org can hide behind Stand for Children’s focus group tested mission statement all it wants. It doesn’t stop the truth from existing. Stand for Children wants to privatize education, pick and choose the students who receive it, take away the rights of the people working in the schools, and allow corporate funders to dictate education policy. It simply does not fall in line with Change.org’s own policies. Saying so denies the truth and merely aligns Change with the one percent that already benefit at our expense.

Just because a group claims to be working for “the civil rights issue of our era” does not mean it’s true. Now, even Mitt Romney says that his agenda of vouchers, charters and privatization is a civil rights agenda. It is not. Stand for Children claims on its website to be working on behalf of better education by promoting its anti-union, privatization campaign. That is not a civil rights agenda. Michelle Rhee is promoting charters, vouchers, and privatization while encouraging rightwing governors to strip teachers of any right to due process and collective bargaining. These are not progressive groups. They work hand-in-glove with those who want to roll back the New Deal. They work not for children but for the powerful elites who like privatization.

Diane

A READER SENDS THIS WARNING:

Change.org is still collecting sigs for the group. Their petitions remain. The only thing they have agreed to is to stop offering them paid promotion of their petitions. Please read the HufPo article more closely and you’ll see this is so. They have already gained over a million sigs through these automatic ads.

Bottom line: Don’t sign any petitions on Change.org until you feel certain that you are not automatically registered as a “member” of Students First or Stand for Children without your knowledge.

An earlier post considered whether standardized tests were necessary or useful in the arts. Several arts teachers responded to say that they are not only NOT necessary and NOT useful, but they are actually harmful. They miss the point of arts education and they distort instruction. I agree.

This comment makes the case even stronger. Students who are incessantly tested suffer a loss of their capacity for original thinking. Of course, students need knowledge; no one doubts that. But the ability to check off the right bubble should not be confused with knowledge.

And the imposition of test-driven accountability may destroy the very qualities of mind and spirit that our society–and the world–needs most: creativity, originality, ingenuity, inspiration, inquisitiveness.

As a composer and professor of music teaching at the university level in New York City, I teach graduate students from all over the world drawn to our city for its unsurpassed artistic vitality. I have noticed that very talented, intelligent and well-educated students coming to my classes from countries with test-driven education systems often struggle with musical analysis, for one very simple reason: What I value most highly in my students’ analytical work is the capacity to have an original insight into a piece and to develop it convincingly. In other words, the student’s task is not to master what I think, but to teach me something I didn’t know before.This is a skill that can be taught – by nurturing and not stifling the natural creativity of children from an early age right through graduate school. It is also a skill that can be unlearned – by being subjected to an educational system that devalues originality and glorifies the mastery of received wisdom.Creativity without knowledge is as worthless as rote learning. What’s needed is a balance. Our national drive towards testing-based curricula in all subjects is taking education in exactly the wrong direction, towards conformity and away from innovation. I leave it to students of mass delusion to explain why we are doing this in the name of enhancing the competitiveness of our nation’s children in job markets of the future that we believe will demand high levels of flexibility and creative thinking. The major effect of the ever-increasing tendency to gear all learning towards standardized tests will be to undermine our children’s mastery of critical and creative thinking and diminish their prospects for employment — and the enjoyment of life.

The annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the so-called parent trigger idea.

The parent trigger means that 51% of parents at a school can sign a petition, and as the Reuters article about it said, “seize control” of the school.

Once the parents have seized control, with the endorsement of the mayors, they can fire the staff or hand the school over to a charter corporation. In other words, they can seize public property and privatize it.

This is nuts.

The parent trigger idea was hatched by a group called “Parent Revolution,” which is richly endowed by the billionaire boys’ club: the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Foundation. These are not what you call ordinary parents. I expect there are paid parents on its staff, but it is not what you would call a grassroots group. Its executive director, Ben Austin, was appointed to the California State Board of Education by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but removed by Governor Jerry Brown.

When Republicans in Florida tried to push through parent trigger legislation, it was opposed by Florida parent groups. The sponsors had to import Parent Revolution staff from California to endorse it. The bill failed.

The parent trigger is a hoax against parents. In two years since the law was passed in California, not a single school went charter.

But who knows? Maybe hundreds of thousands of schools will be taken over by parents and handed off to for-profit charter organizations.

Sorry to repeat myself, but this is nuts.

Diane

In my post on whether Pennsylvania is the worst state, my original language referred to “teacher evacuation,” instead of “teacher evaluation.”

I fixed my typo, but as I did, I realized that this was a meaningful slip.

Is “teacher evaluation” in fact “teacher evacuation”?

I keep hearing stories of excellent teachers who are retiring early because they don’t want to teach to lousy tests.

So, maybe I should have left the typo as accurate.

Maybe “teacher evaluation” is indeed “teacher evacuation.”

It makes room for the new college graduates who want to try teaching for a year or two, then find their “real” job.

Diane

A reader sent the following article about IRS scrutiny of the financial management of charters, especially for-profit management companies.

http://www.rothgerber.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=1627
 
Alert: Increased IRS Scrutiny of Charter Schools Operated by For-Profit Management Companies
 
 
Author(s): Eric V. HallH. William MahaffeyChristopher D. Freeman
Published: 06/18/2012
 
In some cases, charter schools are managed by for-profit entities (referred to in this article as “management companies”). The management agreements documenting these relationships range from agreements to provide general administrative support to agreements to provide virtually every service to be offered by the charter school, including curriculum, payroll, compliance reporting, providing teachers and staff through employee leasing, and the purchase and leasing of facilities.
Many charter schools are intended to be operated as 501(c)(3) public charities. Historically, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has carefully reviewed other types of charitable organizations operated by management companies to determine whether they qualify as a tax-exempt charities because they are, in fact, operating for the private benefit of the for-profit management company. However, the IRS has not brought a similar focus on this issue to charter schools generally – until now. The IRS is poised to increase its scrutiny of charter school/management company relationships and is now subjecting charter schools to more stringent standards defining such relationships.
Certainly, for those charter schools with management companies that are now seeking or will be seeking tax-exempt status, the level scrutiny of applications for recognition of tax-exempt status will increase.
Charter schools subject to management agreements that are already exempt should be prepared to closely review their management agreements with their counsel to confirm that the management agreement does not violate private inurement and private benefit restrictions applicable to all charitable organizations.
The IRS has thus far refused to disclose the standards and criteria it will employ in reviewing tax exemption applications of charter schools with management companies. It is clear that the IRS’s review of charter school management agreements will become more common and burdensome for both existing and new charter schools, and may require amending management agreements – both with respect to their substantive terms and their pricing.
Background
Charter Schools. Most charter schools are nonprofit charities described in Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). As nonprofits, charter schools often obtain certain benefits including exemption from federal and state income taxes, property tax, and sales tax. As nonprofits, charter schools also qualify for federal and state educational funding.
Management Companies. Many charter schools have contracts through which the school cedes significant control over school operations to a management company. Generally, these companies are for-profit companies. Typically, a management company assists in establishing the charter school entity and thereafter provides employees, administration and most or all management services. Through its contract, the management company may control all of the public funding provided to the school, and may in fact control all of the charter school operations, staff and activities. In some cases, management companies recruit individuals to serve as charter school board members in their local communities, and enter into agreements with the new school’s board of directors significantly limiting their authority to design and implement charter school programs. In other cases, the charter school’s local founders may establish their own management entity which manages the school, for a fee set forth in the management agreement with the founders or their affiliates. All of these arrangements have the potential to be fair and reasonable, and not affect a charter school’s status. However, these same arrangements can cause the charter school to lose its exempt status, and can expose its board members, as well as the management company, to potential penalties and taxes, if the arrangement demonstrates that the charter school is in fact being operated for the benefit of the management company, or if excessive compensation is being paid to the management company.
The IRS’s Role. The IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division is charged with overseeing all nonprofit organizations and ensuring that in operation, nonprofits abide by federal statutory and regulatory standards. In the charter school context, tax exemption and, likely, public funding, are conditioned upon schools operating within this complex regulatory regime and achieving their exempt purposes.
The Management Company “Problem”
Charter school/management company relationships have long confounded the IRS. The IRS’s principal concern is that a nonprofit entity controlled by a for-profit entity may operate to reduce costs and maximize revenue rather than to maximize the delivery of educational services. The perception of a conflict of interest is unavoidable.
Although the IRS has acknowledged these relationships for many years, it has established no defined or consistent approach in analyzing what relationships are permissible for charter schools. Consequently, many management companies have become aggressive in creating and perpetuating relationships with charter schools. The IRS believes that in egregious instances, management companies have so profoundly taken control of charter schools as to vitiate the public benefit the schools are created to fulfill.
In these egregious instances, “private benefit” or “private inurement” concerns arise.[1] As described above, tax-exempt charter schools must operate exclusively for a public benefit – i.e., the benefit of their students. When a management company’s control of a school is pervasive, and where there is little transparency in regard to the management company’s expenditure of public funds, there exists the potential that the management company could operate the school for its own benefit rather than for the benefit of the school and its students.
For example, a management company having full control over school finances and operations might operate the school in a manner that creates “profit” for the management company resulting from excess funding not spent in operations. Alternatively, such a management company, when determining how to operate, could cause the charter school to further the management company’s interest, rather than the interests of the charter school. Examples of this impermissible “private benefit” could include causing or requiring the charter school to purchase or license educational materials from the management company, rather than acquiring materials in the open marketplace. Another example could be payment of excessive compensation to the management company under a management agreement. In such circumstances, the management company may be operating in its own interests rather than in the best interests of students and the community the school serves.
In such instances, according to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury Regulations, prior rulings and jurisprudence, the IRS may penalize the charter school for transgressing the private benefit and/or private inurement prohibitions applicable to all charitable organizations. Further, the management company as a for-profit service provider and, under some circumstances, the charter school’s board members, could also be penalized under a separate set of “intermediate sanction” rules adopted by the Congress to punish individuals and organizations that are overcharging for services rendered to a public charity.
Sanctions for private benefit and/or private inurement transgressions can be severe. Certainly, in an instance in which a substantial private benefit or private inurement arises, the IRS would impose tax and penalties for tax years of the charter school currently open under the applicable statute of limitations.[2] In severe cases, the IRS may also revoke the charter school’s tax exemption. Additional concerns may arise at the state and local level, not to mention the potential for lawsuits filed against the school by members of the community.
While the IRS Implements Its Plan, What Can Charter Schools and Their Boards of Directors Do?
Despite its belief that egregious charter school/management company relationships are prevalent, the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division, historically, has had no defined or consistent approach in investigating or dealing with these situations. We understand that the IRS has changed course, and is now implementing a plan to deal with charter schools that have contracted with management companies.
We believe that new standards will call for enhanced scrutiny of all charter schools with management company relationships. These strict standards, and the IRS’s enhanced scrutiny, will be imposed on review of all existing and new applications for exemption and will be applied to examine existing relationships.
As the IRS undertakes this effort, the benefit for charter school administrators and boards of directors is that there is time to engage in an internal “audit” to ensure that any management company relationship is appropriate and reasonable. Of the many issues to be aware of and concerned with, it is imperative that charter school administrators and boards of directors understand the following:
  • If the IRS enhances its scrutiny as expected, the principal risk is to the charter schools’ tax-exempt status. Therefore, significant risk is borne by the charter schools and the students they serve. Very little risk, at this stage, is borne by management companies. This creates a potential conflict of interest between charter school boards of directors and management companies.
  • Any charter school with a management company relationship that is seeking tax exemption should expect heavy scrutiny of its application, including significant additional document and information requests.
  • Existing charter schools should expect that any management company contracts will be scrutinized by the IRS. We believe that in the future, such contracts could be subjected to more specific and stringent standards governing terms and provisions of the relationship.
  • Boards of directors of charter schools with management company contracts in place should consult with counsel to determine the reasonableness of the terms of the contract and the overall management company relationship with the school.
  • Specific board procedures should be adopted and implemented for the annual review and evaluation of management contracts.
  • Charter schools already under audit by the IRS should contact competent independent counsel as soon as possible, especially when considering any request by the IRS to extend the statute of limitations applicable to any year under audit. Charter schools should be careful to not utilize or rely on counsel provided by the management companies.
The IRS has not issued precise standards, guidelines or requirements for charter school/management company relationships. However, recent questionnaires issued by the IRS in charter school applications this firm is handling illustrate some of the issues the IRS is considering. The treatment of management companies in other charitable contexts is also relevant. We expect the IRS to pay particular attention to:
  • The duration of, and ability to terminate, the contract;
  • Pricing (including any contracts where pricing is based on a percentage of charter school revenues);
  • The provision of staff through employee leasing arrangements;
  • The provision of curriculum services;
  • The sale or licensing of educational materials to the charter school; and,
  • Arrangements which interfere with the independent governance of the charter school by its board of directors.
It is clear that the IRS is poised to deal with the problems it perceives with charter school management companies. Those charter schools that are now parties to a management agreement should contact counsel to review their current arrangements, and to develop a plan of action for these pending IRS changes.
Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP has a team of attorneys dedicated to serving all aspects of charter school operations, from formation, to tax qualification, to charter school financing, to personnel and operational issues. For additional information contact:
Eric V. Hall 719.386.3005 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 719.386.3005 end_of_the_skype_highlighting ehall@rothgerber.com
Christopher Freeman 303.628.9596 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 303.628.9596 end_of_the_skype_highlightingcfreeman@rothgerber.com
H. William Mahaffey 719.386.2005 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 719.386.2005 end_of_the_skype_highlightingwmahaffey@rothgerber.com
 

[1] Although a full analysis of these doctrines is beyond the scope of this article, the private benefit and private inurement doctrines broadly prohibit nonprofit organizations from having any relationship in which the organizations provide more than an incidental benefit to private individuals or entities, or pay amounts to private individuals in excess of fair value for services or property. These issues are extraordinarily complex and subjective, and we recommend that as soon as any concern arises in regard to these subjects, that the charter school board seek assistance from counsel.
[2] We note that in addition to the major issues raised in this brief alert, there are many other complex issues that must be considered in any private benefit or private inurement investigation.

I recently printed a blog about the Oklahoma Department of Education’s outrageous decision to publish personal information about some two dozen students who got waivers and did not take the state tests. This seemed like permission to publish their vital statistics on the department’s website, an outrageous and unprofessional action.

Now we hear from a teacher in Oklahoma:

Oklahoma is NOT OK…we’ve had the misfortune to elect a public-school-hating dentist as Superintendent of Public Instruction for the state…she’s in Jeb Bush’s back pocket, so all we have to do is look to Florida to see what’s coming at us. In less than two years she’s begun dismantling our schools.

She recently published the names, personal information, IEP status of students who appealed for graduation (they hadn’t passed the four required tests of seven) and lost…just the names of the students who lost! Their parents had to sign a FERPA waiver in order to appeal at all. We had been told they removed the information, but they only removed students’ names — initials and all disability info is still on the State Department of Ed’s website.

Vouchers, third-grade flunk law, teacher evaluations based on test scores, A-F school grades, weakened due-process for tenured teachers….we’re there. A dust-up at her first State School Board meeting resulted in her being able to hand-pick a Board of ‘yes’ men. We see the ALEC footprints and Mr. Bush’s.

How very sad that we’re all suffering like this, and the ‘reformers’ will ell you they’re doing this for our students. WE are the ones working for our students!