Archives for the month of: October, 2012

Wealthy investors from around te world are pouring millions of dollars into new charter school construction in the US. In return, they get a green card, thanks to a federal program known as EB-5.

Reuters investigative journalist Stephanie Simon has once again broken open a little known story. Here is a link to some of her earlier stories.


An investor forum in China last spring, for instance, touted U.S. charter schools as a nearly fool-proof investment because they can count on a steady stream of government funding to stay afloat, according to a transcript posted on a Chinese website.

Arizona educator Holly Johnson, who runs three charter schools and plans to open a fourth next year, said she couldn’t believe how easy it was to secure $4.5 million in funding from abroad.

“We didn’t have to do anything at all,” she said, other than open her schools to potential investors. They didn’t ask many questions, she said. Their concern was more basic: “They wanted to come over and make sure it was real.”

A reader writes from Wisconsin:

After our Act 10 passed in Wisconsin, a few of my colleagues and I looked into what it would take to take our game to the private sector and start a voucher school in our town. What we learned was that it would be perfectly legal for us to rent an abandoned storefront in our town and lure students in with the promise of free technology that they could keep, even after they left the school. We could collect our voucher money from the state after the third Friday in September, when the state establishes your enrollment. To keep costs low and profits high, we could use Khan Academy as our curriculum and hire uncertified aides to monitor the students (we had a few recent HS graduates in mind who we thought would make good bouncers). The hastily sketched out business plan had us earning far more than we would as public school teachers, based on our best estimates.

But the real beauty of the plan kicked in after the third Friday in September. Immediately after that, we would start “counseling” kids out and sending them back to the public school. We figure that by Thanksgiving or at the latest Christmas, we would have our enrollment down to zero, then we could fire the bouncers, break the lease, take the voucher money and run. All totally legitimate, as far as we could tell by reading the law.

Matt Taibbi really doesn’t like Tom Friedman. He has written several articles taking Friedman apart, both for his writing and his thinking.

What educators have learned about Friedman is that he has no first-hand knowledge about schools and teaching. Whatever he writes seems to be based on conversations with Bill Gates or Arne Duncan. It’s a shame that a journalist who is so out of touch does not take the time to meet with teachers and principals and students, or take a few days in public schools to learn about their challenges and their accomplishments. Until he does, he should not write about what is happening in education–because he is uninformed–and should not offer advice about what ought to be done to improve education–because he is misinformed.

Sometimes people complain that Mitt Romney can’t understand today’s schools because he went to an elite private school.

But don’t be too quick to judge.

EduShyster points out that his school had a lot in common with today’s “no-excuses” schools.

Just forget the part about small classes, ample athletic facilities, a gorgeous campus, lots of arts, no standardized tests.

Kevin Johnson, who was a basketball star but is now the Mayor of Sacramento (and the husband of Michelle Rhee), recently visited Bridgeport, Connecticut, to urge its citizens to support a mayoral takeover of the public schools. He asked them to end the practice of electing their local school board. This is a big goal of privatizers, as it will remove an obstacle to closing more public schools and turning them over to charter operators.

John Bagley wrote an opinion piece answering Kevin Johnson. Bagley is not only a member of the elected board in Bridgeport, but a former NBA basketball player, like Kevin Johnson.

Bagley points out that New Haven, with its appointed board, has more “failing schools” than Bridgeport. And Sacramento has an elected board.

His advice to Mayor Johnson: “Don’t come into my house and mess with my right to vote.”

Jersey Jazzman notes that several districts in New Jersey–all populated by black and Hispanic citizens–have been under state control for years.

The state has no intention of letting them have self-rule.

In many districts, especially where the population is non-white, privatizers insist on mayoral control or state control.

There is no evidence that taking away popular rule improves the schools.

It does make it easier, however, to privatize them.

 

A reader sent this comment about what happened recently in his district in Nevada:

Where I live in Pahrump, Nv, we have had 7 math and science teachers leave the high school this last week. They all planned to leave together as a protest. All of them had Ph.D degrees in math, and two of them had double doctorates in math and physics or biology. They left in protest of test driven evaluations now in place state wide here in Nevada, and they do not approve of the push to try to make all children go to college. As they stated in an open letter, They can only teach, advanced math takes a persistent concerted effort to learn. Many students in their Calculus classes do not need the class and are not prepared well enough to do well. Very few of these students will need the class either. To evaluate the teacher based on these factors they stated should be unconscionable. They close by stating that if math is so easy that all can readily master it, the district should have no problem replacing them. They all have other jobs in different states. None of them plan on continuing in public education.

This is an excellent article, written by NYC charter school teacher Allison LaFave.

It was prompted by Bob Schieffer’s off-hand remark during the last Presidential debate that “We all love teachers.”

Do we all love teachers?

Why don’t we trust them to manage their classrooms?

Why must they be evaluated by the test scores of their students?

Why do so many politicians want to take away their collective bargaining rights?

Why are legislatures reducing them to voiceless robots whose sole job is to raise test scores?

A charter school in Sacramento abruptly closed its doors, locked out the students, and called it quits.

The charter operator said the space could only handle 75 students, but he had enrolled 400.

The parents were not happy. They said the school had collected $2 million or so.

They were puzzled.

So am I.

Hey, that’s the free market. Stores come and go.

Stuff happens.

Go shop somewhere else, consumers.

Kevin Huffman, the TFA Commissioner of Education in Tennessee, demands that the Metro Nashville school board authorize a charter in an affluent section of town. The Arizona-based charter, called Great Hearts, expects parents to offer a cash gift of $1200-1500 at the beginning of the school year to defray various costs. The school board worries about lack of diversity and lack of transportation.

The board has rejected Great Hearts four times. Huffman is punishing Nashville by withholding $3.4 million in state aid. The Republican-controlled legislature has threatened to adopt vouchers because of the Nashville board’s insistence on a desegregated school.

As the following article shows, Huffman knows exactly what he is doing.

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2012/09/huffman-on-charter-schools-use.html

Huffman on Charter Schools Used for ‘Ghettoizing’

Long before he became Tennessee’s education commissioner, Kevin Huffman penned an article on charter schools that a reader points out as interesting in light of his recent decision to withhold $3.4 million from Nashville’s schools because the local school board rejected a Great Hearts Academy application.
A key reason for the Metro Nashville board’s rejection of Great Hearts application was concern that it would be lacking in diversity. Huffman’s 1998 article for the October, 1998, New York University Law Review focuses on the possibility of litigation over school choice legislation.
In doing so, Huffman observes that a charter school can be designed to effectively exclude enrollment of poor students, either by location, which without provisions for transportation restricts availability to those in the neighborhood, or by limiting dissemination of information on the schools to the children of “quick-acting, better-informed parents… leaving children of poor and ill-informed parents behind, consigned to suffering the deterioration of neighborhood schools.”
“In such a scenario, the children of informed and quick-acting parents have a choice while those “out of the loop” have no choice at all,” he writes.
Here’s the article’s “conclusion” section:
Charter schools will play a prominent role in public education during the coming decade. They suit the political agendas of many and hold great promise for developing innovative approaches to public education.
Charter schools have the potential to reinvigorate the public schools in districts that desperately need a boost. However, as states quickly move forward with charter school legislation, they risk establishing a process that merely provides further opportunities for well-informed families while ghettoizing the poor and uninformed.
The movement toward deregulation allows schools to exclude the neediest students, either through explicit policies or simply through lack of adequate information. .Ultimately, plaintiffs will have a difficult time showing that charter schools or state enabling acts violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment….However, state constitutions and successful school finance litigation in state courts indicate that state challenges to charter school legislation have a higher chance of success.
Most significantly, several policy changes would allow states to mandate a strong, autonomous charter school movement without depriving access to the schools. Greater state oversight of admissions policies and dissemination of information would close potential avenues of litigation while maintaining the legitimacy of charter schools.
These changes would add some costs to charter school legislation, but they would ultimately allow charter schools to reach greater numbers of at-risk students.
It would be a terrible waste of resources if charter schools were consistently tied up in litigation. It would be an even greater waste, though, if the charter school movement failed to reach the neediest public school students.
Meanwhile, Joey Garrison has written a detailed analysis of people and politics involved in the Great Hearts flap.
Posted by Tom Humphrey on September 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=73+N.Y.U.L.+Rev.+1290&key=3694149e237c8609415cc0fd3c4e818e

Copyright (c) 1998 New York University Law Review
New York University Law Review

NOTE: CHARTER SCHOOLS, EQUAL PROTECTION LITIGATION, AND THE NEW SCHOOL REFORM MOVEMENT

October, 1998

73 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1290

Author

Kevin S. Huffman *
Excerpt

As the quality of public education, particularly in large urban school districts, has declined, activists and politicians from all points on the political spectrum have proposed school reforms. Many reformers have suggested versions of “school choice” programs. These efforts propose to alter the school assignment systems common to most public school districts, in which students attend neighborhood schools without regard to preference. While some activists seek parent choice just among the area public schools, others would expand the notion of choice to private or even parochial schools, giving tuition vouchers to students choosing to attend private schools. 1 School choice activists have argued for nearly three decades that opening the public school market will both stimulate competition and increase school quality. 2 While the choice movement has found support among political conservatives, 3 full-scale voucher programs have been defeated largely by the efforts of teachers’ unions and the Democratic Party. 4

The continued woes of public schools have forced even the staunchest defenders of the status quo to examine new methods of improving school systems. Many districts strapped for personnel now hire teachers without degrees in education or teaching certifications. 5 Both the Bush and Clinton administrations have moved to redefine public school goals with the aim of increasing quality through national standards. 6 Furthermore, as states’ rights became a more prominent issue on the political agenda, school reformers followed suit, advocating a shift in control from state and local bureaucracies to individual schools. 7 Many …