Ariana Prothero writes in Education Week about the “Outsized Influence” of lobbyists for the virtual charter industry.
The virtual or online charter industry is a sham and a fraud. Readers of this blog have read many articles and research studies demonstrating that these “schools” survive by the power of their lobbying and campaign contributions, not because they have any educational value. Studies, even by charter-friendly organizations like CREDO of Stanford, have repeatedly demonstrated that virtual charters have high dropout rates, low test scores, and low graduation rates. This doesn’t seem to bother state officials because…well, lobbying and campaign contributions.
K12 Inc is the biggest operator in the field. It was started by the Milken brothers, it operates for-profit, and it is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The article doesn’t mention it, but two dozen K12 Inc schools lost NCAA accreditation because of the shoddiness of the education they offered.
The article goes into detail about K12 Inc and also Connections Academy, which is owned by Pearson. It does not go into the protected status of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) in Ohio, which has been relieved of all accountability because of its owner’s generosity to legislators and the governor.
K12 Inc owns CAVA (the California Virtual Academy), which was shown to be profitable while delivering inferior education in a powerful series by Jessica Califati in the San Jose Mercury-News. The state attorney general worked out a fine for K12 Inc, but the company continues to operate as usual. I personally communicated with a member of the California state school board to ask whether there would be any action to close CAVA, in light of its poor results, and I was told that it was under investigation by three different state agencies. I don’t know if that was real or just another way of saying “forget about it.”
There are even some in the charter industry who realize that virtual charters are an embarrassment to the whole industry.
But to date, even in Republican strongholds like Tennessee, the abysmal Tennessee Virtual Academy has escaped all efforts to close it down.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is still the best reporting I’ve ever seen on the huge lobbying to push online learning as part of ed reform:
“A Maine Sunday Telegram investigation found large portions of Maine’s digital education agenda are being guided behind the scenes by out-of-state companies that stand to capitalize on the changes, especially the nation’s two largest online education providers.
K12 Inc. of Herndon, Va., and Connections Education, the Baltimore-based subsidiary of education publishing giant Pearson, are both seeking to expand online offerings and to open full-time virtual charter schools in Maine, with taxpayers paying the tuition for the students who use the services.
At stake is the future of thousands of Maine schoolchildren who would enroll in the full-time virtual schools and, if the companies had their way, the future of tens of thousands more who would be legally required to take online courses at their public high schools in order to receive their diplomas.”
The focus on charters in most of the reporting obscures what is really the bigger story- charter schools are a small market. They wouldn’t be working so hard to sell it if it was 3% of schools. The goal is to push more and more online learning into EVERY public school.
http://www.pressherald.com/2012/09/01/virtual-schools-in-maine_2012-09-02/
That article in Maine won many awards. It is a classic. But Governor LePage, a racist fool, was re-elected
Dear Diane Ravitch, A year ago we stayed in contact during a stay in Boston. I informed you about the situation in Europe, especially in Switzerland were we are fighting against that what you call ‘output orientation’ and The marginalization of teachers in favour of a regime of technocratic managers. Therefore my friend Beat Kissling and I wrote two articles, we send you, hoping that you can use ist for your blog. Kind regards Alain Pichard Von : comment-reply@wordpress.com Datum : 06/11/2016 – 14:02 (GMT) An : arkadi@bluemail.ch Betreff : [New post] EdWeek: How Virtual Charters Evade Accountability by Lobbying and Campaign Contributions a:hover { color: red; } a { text-decoration: none; color: #0088cc; } a.primaryactionlink:link, a.primaryactionlink:visited { background-color: #2585B2; color: #fff; } a.primaryactionlink:hover, a.primaryactionlink:active { background-color: #11729E !important; color: #fff !important; } /* @media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) { .post { min-width: 700px !important; } } */ WordPress.com body { font-family: arial; font-size: 0.8em; } .post, .comment { background-color: white !important; line-height: 1.4em !important; } dianeravitch posted: “Ariana Prothero writes in Education Week about the “Outsized Influence” of lobbyists for the virtual charter industry. The virtual or online charter industry is a sham and a fraud. Readers of this blog have read many articles and research studies dem”
Reblogged this on DelawareFirstState and commented:
Studies, even by charter-friendly organizations like CREDO of Stanford, have repeatedly demonstrated that virtual charters have high dropout rates, low test scores, and low graduation rates.
Good to see you here.
There is a long history of cheerleading for charter schools among members of Congress. Tons of federal money, last estimate $3.7 billion, have helped to create the charter industry, with much more money from bloated foundations flowing to it—all with marginal or no accountability and least of all for the virtual/online and for-profit component.
Look at this cheerleading.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2007/5/1/senate-section/article/S5401-2
For a performance review not available from USDE, and not duplicating this report from EdWeek see http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2016
This game they play is so silly:
“President Obama’s secretary of education is backing a Massachusetts ballot question that would allow for a major charter school expansion in the state.
“Certainly if I lived in Massachusetts and was a Massachusetts voter, I would be voting in support of the ballot measure,” said John King, the secretary, in an interview with the Globe Friday night.
King, who helped found a charter school in Boston, did not utter the word “endorsement,” even when pressed. But his comments offer the clearest indication yet that the Obama administration supports Question 2, a referendum that has attracted deep interest from national charter school advocates who view the state as an important testing ground.”
Of course they’re endorsing this charter expansion. King gave this interview to campaign for charter expansion. That he refuses to use the word “endorse” is silly.
The Obama Administration has endorsed every charter expansion everywhere, in every state. Why would Massachusetts be any different?
All of ed reform lock-step backed Washington’s charter law and the schools didn’t even exist yet.
They have never opposed a single charter expansion anywhere. Ohio has one of the worst charter sectors in the country yet the Obama Administration just awarded them money for a big expansion. Nothing WHATEVER to do with “quality”.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/04/obama-official-backs-mass-charter-expansion/tuLIGTbj1M2IgMSZlsGVCP/story.html
And, Sen. Sherrod Brown asked the Secretary of Ed. for the money!
Brown, in his letter, asked for unenforceable qualifications for use of the money, like that makes any difference, at all.
“For me, what it comes down to is, what’s the best thing to do to improve educational performance in Massachusetts?” said King, who helped found Roxbury Preparatory Charter School before climbing the ranks to secretary of education. “What’s the best thing to do to close the very significant achievement gaps for low-income students and students of color in Massachusetts? . . . What’s the best thing to do to ensure that families who want a better opportunity for their kids have access to that opportunity? And to me, the answer to all of those questions is to support the ballot measure.”
So is this finally an admission from ed reform that they have no intention of “improving public schools” but instead plan on replacing them?
Good to know if you’re a voter. Now that we’re clear that is not now and was never about “improving public schools” but is instead solely focused on replacing public schools with the privatized system ed reformers prefer, maybe now we can have a real debate
“Agnostic” my foot. This decision has been made and it’s “promote charter schools over public schools”.
LIKE you said earlier, they have never opposed charter school expansion; the concept of”quality” is as ephemeral as “agnostic.”
A charter school paper written by a Columbia Teachers College professor, published last December, listed criteria for successful charter schools. The first item identified was , “political support”. The last criteria listed was, “quality”.
It’s insulting to continue to claim these people are “agnostic” on public versus charter.
This is a high profile charter school promoter:
https://twitter.com/richardwhitmir
Try to find a single positive mention of a public school or single negative mention of a charter school.
All of ed reform is like this- it’s charter cheerleading. You’d really have to be an idiot to believe these people are “agnostics” and that includes the Obama Administration.
Chiara,
Right on comment: All of ed reform is like this- it’s charter cheerleading. You’d really have to be an idiot to believe these people are “agnostics” and that includes the Obama Administration.
Especially, the Obama administration. They’re implementing the Aspen Institute education agenda. David Koch was on the board, until recently.
K12 has also invaded Omaha, Nebraska.
http://www.omaha.com/news/education/ops-gearing-up-for-this-month-s-debut-of-nebraska/article_44be4ae8-1dcd-5bcb-b837-441a842875cc.html
Nancy, that’s terrible!