Thomas Ultican, teacher of physics and mathematics in San Diego, California, writes about the disastrous impact of charter schools on public schools. According to a study commissioned by the United Teachers of Los Angeles, the district loses $500 million annually to charters.
The charter lobby in the state–led by the California Charter School Association– is wealthy and politically powerful.
Ultican points to Prop 39, passed into law in 2000, as the mechanism that allows privately managed, lightly regulated charters to expand into public space and gobble up resources and the students they want.
“The MGT study illustrates how charter school law in California is fashioned to favor privately operated charter schools over public schools. If a local community passed a bond measure in the 1980’s to build a new public school, it is the law in California that the members of that local community – who still might be paying for that public school – will have no choice but to allow a private operator move into the facility. In addition, the charter school law requires the local school district to incur many direct and indirect costs to support charter schools.
“In California, since its statehood, a super-majority (67%) was required to pass a school bond measure. In 2000, after losing an effort that March to mitigate the super-majority rules and the infamous proposition 13 limitations, supporters brought forward proposition 39 that would reduce school-bond super-majorities to 55% and did not seriously threaten proposition 13 protections enacted in 1978. It passed 53% to 47% in November.
“In the official ballot summary for proposition 39 in the November 7, 2000 election the support message was signed by Lavonne Mcbroom, President California State PTA; Jacqueline N. Antee, AARP State President; and Allan Zaremerg, President California Chamber of Commerce. The statement against the proposition was signed by Jon Coupal, Chairman Save Our Homes Committee, Vote No on Proposition 39, a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Dean Andal, Chairman Board of Equalization, State of California; and Felicia Elkinson, Past President Council of Sacramento Senior Organizations.
“This proposition was a battle royal with every media source and elected official bloviating endlessly about the righteousness of their side. However, like in the official ballot measure statements, there was no discussion of the charter school co-location funding requirement in article six of the proposition.
“When proposition 39 is coupled with the undemocratic charter authorizing system in California, citizens lose all democratic control of their local schools. With the three levels of government having the power to authorize charter schools it is almost impossible to turn down a charter request no matter how bad the schools previous history is or how inundated a community might be with certain types of schools…..
“Public education run by democratic processes is a major good. The past two decades of school reform have produced nothing but negative results and profits. The more enthusiastically the corporate and billionaire driven reforms have been embraced the worse the results (see Denver, New Orleans and Washington DC). It is time to stop all new charter school authorizations in California. It is time to reject the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. It is time to embrace professional educators working democratically within local communities to restore public education in America. It is time to protect our great inherited legacy – public education – which is definitely not a privatized market driven education.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Oh, well. That’s the “marketplace” for you! Public schools lose, I guess. Let’s face it- they were the designated losers right from the start.
The federal government endorses this “markets” approach. They’re billing it as “The Third Way” but it’s identical to privatization- they’re even led by the Reinventing Government guy, Osborne.
“Reinventing government” translates to “privatize services” when you get past all the touchy-feely language about “empowerment” and “voice”. Strip all that nonsense away and you’re left with “privatize”.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-emerging-third-way-blazing-an-optimistic-path-ahead-in-k-12-education-registration-24935034359
LikeLike
The notion of civics and civic virtue has been transformed to privatize citizens as “consumers” with a “choice” and their patriotic duty is at the “point of purchase”. We’re done, have been for a while.
LikeLike
Off topic, sorry… can anyone help put this DOE document released before the holiday weekend into plain English?
Click to access nprmaccountabilitystateplans52016.pdf
The executive summary states:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: On December 10, 2015, President Barack Obama
signed the ESSA into law. The ESSA reauthorizes the ESEA, which provides Federal funds to
improve elementary and secondary education in the Nation’s public schools. ESSA builds on
ESEA’s legacy as a civil rights law and seeks to ensure every child, regardless of race, income,
background, or where they live has the chance to make of their lives what they will. Through the
reauthorization, the ESSA made significant changes to the ESEA for the first time since the
ESEA was reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), including
significant changes to title I.
In particular, the ESSA significantly modified the accountability requirements of the
ESEA. Whereas the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, required a State educational agency
(SEA) to hold schools accountable based on results on statewide assessments and one other
academic indicator, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires each SEA to have an
accountability system that is State-determined and based on multiple measures, including at least
one measure of school quality or student success and, at a State’s discretion, a measure of student
growth. The ESSA also significantly modified the requirements for differentiating among
schools and the basis on which schools must be identified for further comprehensive or targeted
support and improvement. Additionally, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, no longer requires
a particular sequence of escalating interventions in title I schools that are identified and continue
to fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Instead, it gives SEAs and local educational
agencies (LEAs) discretion to determine the evidence-based interventions that are appropriate to
address the needs of identified schools.
In addition to modifying the ESEA requirements for State accountability systems, the
ESSA also modified and expanded upon the ESEA requirements for State and LEA report cards.
The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, continues to require that report cards be concise, presented
in an understandable and uniform format, and, to the extent practicable, in a language that
parents can understand, but now also requires that they be developed in consultation with parents
and that they be widely accessible to the public. The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, also
requires that report cards include certain information that was not required to be included on
report cards under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, such as information regarding per-pupil
expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds; the number and percentage of students enrolled
in preschool programs; where available, the rate at which high school graduates enroll in
postsecondary education programs; and information regarding the number and percentage of
3
English learners achieving English language proficiency. In addition, the ESEA, as amended by
the ESSA, requires that report cards include certain information for subgroups for which
information was not previously required to be reported, including homeless students, students in
foster care, and students with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces.
Further, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, authorizes an SEA to submit, if it so
chooses, a consolidated State plan or consolidated State application for covered programs, and
authorizes the Secretary to establish, for each covered program, the descriptions, information,
assurances, and other material required to be included in a consolidated State plan or
consolidated State application.
We are proposing these regulations to provide clarity and support to SEAs, LEAs, and
schools as they implement the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA–particularly, the ESEA
requirements regarding accountability systems, State and LEA report cards, and consolidated
State plans–and to ensure that key requirements in title I of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA,
are implemented consistent with the purpose of the law: “to provide all children significant
opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational
achievement gaps.”
Thank you!
LikeLike
Danielle,
It is commonplace in DC to release VIP information on Friday and at the threshold of a holiday in the hope that no one will notice.
This executive summary suggests the full document is filled with traps, different traps, than are present in the law it replaces. I have not read the full report, but it is clear there is no let up on tests and measures, stack ratings of schools, munching data from “multiple measures” to include a few more subgroups, per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds; the number and percentage of students enrolled in preschool programs; where available, the rate at which high school graduates enroll in postsecondary education programs, information regarding the number and percentage of English learners achieving English language proficiency, and so on.
ESSA was so poorly written that paths to implementation were unclear. So additional “regulations” had to be written for the law to become intelligible, meaning “actionable.”
The executive summary of the regulations appear to be biased to restore a very heavy federal hand in state policies and practices–the exact opposite of the intent of Congress.
I also think that the report cards requirement are there in the hope that will provide evidence that charter schools have lower per-pupil costs than public schools. There does not appear to be a requirement for these schools to report how their costs are subsidized by major foundations…Waltons, Broad, et al. It is likely that many of the charter chains will also be able to ignore their administrative expenditures, including advertising campaigns to recruit students, personnel training, and so on. I look for some real battles at the state level on reporting per-pupil expenditures.
LikeLike
Ultican’s argument is absolutely on target: The more enthusiastically the corporate and billionaire reforms have been embraced, the more disastrous the results. SEE: Denver, New Orleans, Washington D.C.
LikeLike
English Ed
May 31, 2016 at 1:29 pm
The notion of civics and civic virtue has been transformed to privatize citizens as “consumers” with a “choice” and their patriotic duty is at the “point of purchase”. We’re done, have been for a while.”
Oh, you’ll recognize all the words:
“Osborne and Gaebler suggest that governments should: 1) steer, not row (or as Mario Cuomo put it, “it is not government’s obligation to provide services, but to see that they’re provided”); 2) empower communities to solve their own problems rather than simply deliver services; 3) encourage competition rather than monopolies; 4) be driven by missions, rather than rules; 5) be results-oriented by funding outcomes rather than inputs; 6) meet the needs of the customer, not the bureaucracy; 7) concentrate on earning money rather than spending it; 8) invest in preventing problems rather than curing crises; 9) decentralize authority; and 10) solve problems by influencing market forces rather than creating public programs.”
Steer, not row; outputs not inputs, customers rather than citizens.
Ed reform is basically 20 year old business management philosophies applied to education. It’s a weird mix of business seminar ideas from the 1980’s and 1990’s. It isn’t “new” at all.
It’s truly alarming how captured DC is, though. They have swallowed this whole.
LikeLike
I recall Obama discussing outcome based payment reimbursement for Medicare in an attempt to control spending. You’re right because a lot of these assumptions are part of Obama’s MO. It is ridiculous that an American president neither understands nor appreciates the value of democratic public education.
LikeLike
“Outcome based payment” reimbursement.
Do you think that means that it is more “efficient” to let some sick or elderly patients die right away (and forego the measly reimbursement) rather than to incur hundreds of thousands in medical expenses for a patient who only has a 30% chance of surviving?
Sounds just like the cost benefit analysis many charter schools do when they decide the reimbursement for teaching a kid who will bring down their test scores is not worth it and they drum him out as soon as they can.
Isn’t that the “market” at work just the way the education reformers think is perfect?
LikeLike
Over at the Clinton Fountation they are big on outcomes only, and pay-for-sucess contracting, social impact bonds, every which way to make profits from social services, etc.
LikeLike
I’m ready to privatize Congress. If they’re just a layer between the public and contractors, we can use a reputable accounting firm for that job.
Let’s go private all the way.
LikeLike
There was a story on the news about the privatization of the cafeteria in Congress. The workers all had to take a pay cut, and they lost their benefits. That’s privatization progress for you!
LikeLike
CC$A is so “wealthy and politically powerful,” that not even Diane Ravitch would endorse California State Initiative 15-0114, “The Elimination of Charter Schools,” (originally titled “Public School Restoration Act.”) The president and past-president of United Teachers Los Angeles are vehemently opposed to supporting this initiative as are CTA, AFT, NEA and CFT. They have already given up the fight, teachers and students are the losers. Perhaps we should give up this fight and find something more important to do. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0114%20%28Repeal%20Charter%20Schools%29_0.pdf?
LikeLike
The system, focused on the most populous states, is set up to eliminate teachers’ voices in education. The whole point of the charter chain is to eliminate union protections for me when entrepreneurs try to usurp control of the curriculum. Even working at a traditional, district school, however, the existence of charter school “competition” causes my administration to circumvent, whenever possible, my classroom autonomy with every entrepreneur’s sales pitch received.
Case in point, I was just informed that my school will be daily using an online product called Lightsail next school year. The students will read and be assessed online, all independently — no lessons, no guidance, no discussions of ideas — and their lexile reading level data will be sold to God knows whom. (Who needs annual tests when there are daily activities to collect your children’s personal educational information?!) And why was I told I needed to conform and use Lightsail? The charter school down the street jumped off that cliff, so I should too.
LikeLike
We recently learned that Rocketship is trying to expand its charter school network out into the suburbs. Why? It’s definitely not about the kids. It’s about the real estate. Check out the ad below which appears in an edsurge newsletter.
Should taxpayer dollars be used for this purpose? Do taxpayers even own the properties? We have to wonder what normal school positions this property manager will replace (at perhaps 2 or 3 times the salary). Is it special ed instructors, counselors, music teachers, coaches?
It’s truly sad to learn that America’s once great public education system has morphed into “real estate asset management”. It might as well be Walgreens deciding where to open a corner drug store.
Hiring
——-
Assoc. Director, Real Estate Asset Management Rocketship Education
The Associate Director, Real Estate Asset Management is responsible for asset management activities that will enhance and preserve the value of the real estate as well as efficient operations of the schools.
Operations · CMO · San Jose, CA
LikeLike