Archives for the year of: 2013

The latest reports from the Ohio Departmrnt of Education show that charter schools do no better–and often considerably worse–than public schools. Many are operated for-profit, but don’t admit it when they use public funds to market their wares.

Here is a report from Bill Phillis, who worked in the Ohio Department of Education. He offers an article by Denis Smith, who was responsible for monitoring charter schools until his retirement.

Here is the article by Denis Smith:

Former DOE consultant in charter school office writes about charter schools

Charters merit more scrutiny

Saturday September 14, 2013 7:16 AM

On Sept. 1, The Dispatch published “Charter schools’ failed promise,” a front-page story about the academic performance of Ohio’s public schools of choice. The story examined the results for these schools in the new state reporting system, and readers discovered that, on the whole, charter schools not only are no better than the traditional public schools they compete with, but often are far worse.

As informative as this story was, however, it failed to inform the public about the larger issues surrounding charter schools. These issues involve accountability and transparency, and they raise concerns as to whether these publicly funded and privately operated schools fully serve the public interest.

As a former public-school administrator who served four years in the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Community Schools, I can address some of these issues.

The great majority of charter schools are managed by for-profit chains such as White Hat Management, K12, Imagine, Constellation, Mosaica and other entities. Ads for many of these schools this past summer included descriptors such as tuition-free and hands-on. However, the phrase charter school did not appear in any of the ads I viewed.

This lack of transparency did not serve the public.

In another example, Jack Hanna, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo, is featured in commercials touting the benefits of ECOT, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow. In Hanna’s ad, the school is described as “Ohio’s online K-12 public school,” but again, there is no mention of the fact that it is a for-profit charter school.

The endorsement raises a question: Was Hanna compensated by ECOT – a public charter school – to serve as a paid spokesman? If that is the case, shouldn’t the commercial contain a disclaimer, particularly when public funds might be involved? Unfortunately for the taxpayers, there is no specific requirement in state law that directs ECOT or any other charter school to disclose such information, including how much they spend for marketing, administrative or other costs that otherwise are hidden in school-management company budgets. Nor is there any requirement that the board members of these schools represent parents.

A look at most charter schools will find that their unelected governing boards are populated by the management company that operates them or by friends of the school developer. And the problem is the same: Are the board members accountable to the public – the taxpayer – or the corporate interests that put them there?

A final issue lies with the overall rationale for the schools. In Ohio, public charter schools are exempt from approximately 200 sections of law – free from scrutiny in such areas as professional qualifications needed to head such schools, administrative salaries as a percentage of the budget, property management for furniture and equipment purchased with public funds, and the total percentage of school funds going into instruction.
Recently, for example, one management company insisted that the school’s furniture and equipment was its property and not that of the school. State law should be more explicit that anything tangible purchased with public funds remains public property upon dissolution of any school.

But we’ve only scratched the surface here.

In testimony before the Ohio Senate Education Finance Subcommittee in May, I made this statement:
“Unfortunately for the students enrolled, there have been all too many cases of theft, misappropriation of funds, overpayment to vendors, nepotism in the employment of siblings, spouses and children, excessively high administrative salaries against the number of enrolled students and comparative budget size.”

Based upon all of these considerations, I would encourage future Dispatch reporting to go beyond the current state report card and fixation on data-rigging and explore the areas of charter-school governance and unelected and unaccountable boards that supposedly monitor a school’s management and performance.

After all, we’ve paid for these schools, and we need to know how they’re doing in more than A-F terms.

DENIS D. SMITH
Westerville

Denis Smith is a former curriculum director in the Westerville school district and retired staff consultant in the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Community Schools. A former middle school principal, he is also a Fulbright Fellow and his cohort was one of the first to study in the People’s Republic of China after the normalization of diplomatic relations with that country.

It should be noted that Smith’s original article, as submitted to the Dispatch, included, “According to Bush Administration Assistant Secretary of Education, Dr. Diane Ravitch, ‘The scandals in public schools pale in comparison to the charter school scandals. The public sector is regulated; the private sector is deregulated.'”

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

G.F. Brandenburg is a retired math teacher who taught in the DC public schools for many years. He also has a star turn in “Reign of Error.” Here is his review
And here is part 2.

He writes:

“This book gratifies me because it lays out in a concise and organized manner much of what I and a number of other education bloggers have been trying to point out for the last four or five years. Ravitch’s clear prose is a masterful summary of the evidence that the bipartisan “reforms” being committed against public education are not only ineffective by the yardsticks held up by these ‘reformers’, but are also resegregating our schools and foisting an inferior education onto our poorest kids.”

One candidate in the crowded field running for mayor in Boston has emerged as a clear-headed supporter of public schools: Rob Consalvo.

His statement outlining his plans to support the children in Boston’s schools is coherent, thoughtful, and realistic.

Consalvo has taken a principled stand against outside money in the campaign from groups like Stand for Children and DFER, and set an example that others have felt compelled to follow.

He is a class act. He recognizes that we must address the needs of children, not run away from them.

EduShyster is typically hilarious and arch. In this review, the only funny part is when she tells the tale of being required to entertain me for two hours in 2010 while pretending she had read my latest book.

In this review, she shows that she read “Reign of Error” carefully. She actually devoured it in less than two days, then overnight ed it to her sister, an elementary school teacher.

She writes:

“Fully half of the book is devoted to solutions, and it’s a measure of how quickly the worm is turning on the reform debate that Ravitch’s vision reads less like pie-in-the-sky than real policy recommendations. Income inequality, at its most extreme since 1927, seems likely to replace the achievement gap as the fiercely urgent cause of our time, particularly as the gap between rich and poor students now dwarfs the race gap. And poverty, which we now know is not an excuse, seems much harder to ignore when everyone is talking about it.”

When we met last spring, she was “struck by how upbeat she was. While I poked fun at the corporate reform movement on my blog, offline I often despaired. But she could already see that the movement was beginning to groan beneath the weight of its many contradictions, and that a day of reckoning wasn’t far off….

“Ravitch also expressed confidence that her then forthcoming book would succeed in changing the terms of the debate and refocusing attention back onto what public schools and the children they serve need to succeed. I found this almost impossible to fathom, an opinion that I maintained (albeit never expressed) until last week when I turned Reign’s final page, roughly a day and half after I’d started reading.”

Jose Vilson wins the prize for the best, most original title of a review of “Reign of Error.”

Sort of like that phone company where the guy moves to a new spot and says “Can you hear me now?” Only the language is saltier. Jose knows I curse in private, not in public.

Or it might be “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”

Did you hear me now?

Steve Streiker is a teacher and a proud union member who lives in Janesville, Wisconsin. He has felt the brunt of “reform,” where teachers, unions, and public education are the targets.

Here is his review of “Reign of Error.”

He writes:

“Today, Ravitch’s much-anticipated new book, Reign of Error, hits Kindles, Nooks, mailboxes, libraries, schools, and bookstores across the country. While the title smacks of sensationalism, Reign of Error is actually a methodical dismantling of the many myths degrading public education and a detailed historical account of the privatization movement fueling the myths. Ravitch was soul searching in The Death and Life of the Great American School System. In Reign of Error, Ravitch has found her voice. She is unapologetic in her defense of public schools and takes on the reformers intent on injecting their free market ideology into public education.

“While Ravitch is a superhero to many discouraged public educators, she rejects superhero solutions to public education problems. “I have no silver bullets–because none exist–but I have proposals based on evidence and experience,” writes Ravitch. A life lived looking at schools certainly affords her this perspective. Reign of Error spells out the comprehensive, community-wide solutions required to support public schools plagued with socioeconomic problems larger than what public educators can handle by themselves.”

NicholasTampio, a political science professor at Fordham University, asks:

“How did parents lose the right to educate our own children or, at least, have a meaningful role to play in our school districts? How can we reclaim this right?

“Enter Diane Ravitch, America’s foremost historian and theorist of education policy. In her new book, Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools (2013), Ravitch explains how foundations, venture capitalists, and politicians have seized control of America’s schools. She also highlights how parents and citizens may fight back against the corporate reform movement.

“Advocates of the Common Core sometimes say that they belong to the new civil rights movement. Ravitch replies: “It defies reason to believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would march arm in arm with Wall Street hedge fund managers.”

“Follow the money, Ravitch counsels. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent over a hundred million dollars to create and promote the Common Core. Joanne Weiss, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s chief of staff, says that the initiative “means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets.” America spends over 500 billion dollars a year educating children between the ages of 5 and 18. The Common Core, like charter schools or vouchers, helps privatize America’s public schools, in this case, by empowering educational vendors such as Pearson to “enjoy national markets.”

“Schools, Ravitch argues, follow a different logic than businesses. Businesses control their inputs and discard elements that don’t produce. Public schools, to the contrary, must accept and educate all children. New York State Education Commissioner John King applauds the fact that most students failed the new Common Core exams. According to Ravitch, America’s schools should be nurturing its future citizens, not branding them failures at an early age.”

Jason Stanford has written a brilliant analysis of the efforts by state officials in Texas and California to cut back on unnecessary testing, and of Secretary Duncan’s rejection of both requests.

Just in terms of federalism, this situation shows how Washington has now taken control out of the hands of the states, which can no longer decide what is best for their students, even though they put up 90% of the funding.

In California, state officials want to drop the state tests so they can make the transition to Common Core testing, but Duncan said no. The California legislature voted to drop the state tests. This should lead to an interesting showdown between the state and the federal government. Someone might even remember the tenth amendment to the Constitution.

In Texas, state officials developed a plan to test the kids who needed testing and to reduce testing for the kids who don’t.

Stanford writes:

Meanwhile in Texas, the Department of Education rejected a common-sense reform in, of all places, Texas. Legislators and Gov. Rick Perry recognized that it wasn’t necessary to force every child to take every test every year to keep them on track. Under current law, a Texas schoolchild has to pass 17 tests to get to high school. This takes months out of the school year, costs millions of dollars, and produces data of dubious value.

For example, a child who passes a reading test one year is overwhelmingly likely to pass it the next year, according to data from the Texas Education Agency. The legislature asked for a federal waiver to let students who passed their state standardized tests in the 3rd and 5thgrades to skip the tests in the 4th, 6th and 7th grades. Teachers could focus on those kids who needed more help, students who had mastered the work would be freed up to learn new things, and taxpayers would save $13.4 million over two years.

This was a great example of government getting out of its own way, but there was a hitch. Because the Texas law conflicted with No Child Left Behind, Texas needed permission from the U.S. Department of Education to stop giving tests to kids who did not need them in order to produce data that told us nothing.

Unfortunately, Obama’s Education Department said no.

Gosh, when even Texas thinks there is too much testing, that should say something about how far we have wandered from common sense.

A comment on the blog:

I’m an LAUSD middle school art teacher with class sizes reduced to 31, 32, 39, 44, 45 and 48. That averages almost 40/class. AVERAGE doesn’t make sense! With 48 students in a 50 minute class I have no time to actually help students. More students means more time on attendance, more time passing out and collecting supplies (for which I have no budget.) My class of 45 has a sped teacher’s entire class load of 6th graders mixed in with 7th and 8th. If it is based on average and the actual class size doesn’t matter, why not give me 250 in my first period??

Thank goodness for reporters like Jessica Califati of the Star-Ledger in New Jersey!

In this report, she shows how the for-profit K12 corporation has a sweet deal running the Newark Prep Charter School. With only 150 students, the school is paying K12 nearly $500,000 in taxpayer dollars for its services.

The deal is very favorable to K12. If the school wants to cancel the contract, it must give 18 months notice. If K12 wants to cancel, it need give only 60 days notice.

A teacher who left the school complained that she was assigned to “help” 60 students, which was too many.

K12 made profits of $30 million last year. It’s CEO, from McKinsey and Gpldman Sachs, was paid. $5 million, based not on academic results but enrollment.

K12 is under investigation for inflating enrollments to collect higher reimbursements from the state:

“A preliminary report by the Florida Education Department’s inspector general found the company asked employees to teach subjects not covered by their certification and inflated its enrollment. An online charter school in Colorado recently severed its relationship with the company after state auditors found K12 Inc. overcharged the state for students whose enrollment could not be verified.”