The charter industry in Los Angeles is worried.
Having spent millions to grab a 4-3 edge on the LAUSD board, what happens if Ref has to resign?
Not only is their slim control in jeopardy, but they were hoping to get less oversight, less accountability, more autonomy from the friendly board.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-edu-ref-rodriguez-charter-politics-20171018-story.html
At first their friend Peter Cunningham insisted in an op-ed in the L.A. Times that Ref’s charges money laundering of campaign cash were a “rookie” mistake.
But now that his own charter chain has questioned the whereabouts of nearly $300,000, this may be a bad time to tell the Auditors to go away.
If the charter industry had any sense of integrity, they would insist on annual audits of every charter.
What do they have to hide?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They have a lot to hide.
LikeLike
No kidding, Lloyd. They definitely should be worried.
LikeLike
All the country needs is honest elected officials and courts, but there aren’t many honest elected officials left (it seems the few that are still honest are heavily outnumbered) and the courts are also under attack by the fascist, racist, greed-is-great, no matter who you hurt, Trumpists.
LikeLike
“If the charter industry had any sense of integrity, they would insist on annual audits of every charter.”
The farce of some audits is illustrated in Ohio by The Office of School Sponsorship. This is an office within the Ohio Department of Education that serves as a direct sponsor of 23 charter schools called “community schools.” In effect these schools are under state control, and are supposed to adhere “to the highest standards of approval, oversight, and monitoring” for “academic, fiscal, and governance.”
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute hatched the current plan for monitoring these state-sponsored charter schools. The auditors/evaluators are equipped with 300 criteria for determining whether the contract for each school should be renewed, terminated, or put into probationary status.
In order to be “considered for contract renewal,” the Governing Authority for the school is expected to “meet or exceed” a minimum set of standards for (a) academic performance, (b) financial reporting, and (c) responsible operations/governance. But….“An inability to achieve minor elements of the standards may not prevent consideration of contract renewal.” What counts as a “minor element” leaves a lot of room for excuses, including excuses offered by the auditors–well they were late with reports, the reports were incomplete, and so forth.
I have looked at the standards in this plan and the evaluations of 23 state sponsored charter schools. What a farce. All were approved, a few with a slap on the wrist.
Not one of the 23 charters passed muster on academic performance. In some cases evaluators did note that the state tests and grading system had been changed (again), so the poor rating was not enough to terminate the charter. Seven charter schools were well below state averages and other charter averages. Three were given credit for a sign of “growth.” One was credited with a satisfactory rate of graduation but not academic performance.
Ratings on financial reporting were generally OK, meaning the required paperwork was submitted. Six charter schools were cited for no information or failure to report financial data on staffing. One more was praised for “improvement.” One, in operation for two years, was judged to have “growing pains.”
With one exception, all of these charters had satisfactory ratings on responsible operations/governance. That rating prevailed even though three had reports that lacked required transparency and timely submission of information, two had clear issues with pending investigation of ethics, one had “growing pains,” one was judged flawed but “improved,” and two were excused for problems due to an “new online system for reporting.”
The brief mission statements offered in these evaluation reports were revealing. An “Honors Academy” for grades 6 to 11 had really bad ratings on academics but claimed to instill passion and self discipline.Inexplicably the charter school did not claim to serve students in grade 12.
A “startup” said it was committed to building an “multigenerational community of lifelong learns (sic) and spirited citizens.”
An “elective” academy enrolled only 31 students from Kindergarten through grade 9. In operation since 2006, it failed on academic performance and fiscal accountability including staffing reports. The school described itself as tech-rich with small classes geared to readiness for college, career, and/or military service. That must be a very tech-rich school, ten grade levels and 31 students. No wonder the staffing reports were less than acceptable.
Readers of this blog are aware of the fiascos in Ohio charter school laws and accountability. These evaluations of charter schools are a farce. All of these charters continue to operate, in spite of having an elaborate point system for ratings. The ratings and rubrics, invented by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute mean nothing at all when it comes down to closing schools that fail to pass muster, including one franchise that began in 1999 and exanded to four by 2009.
http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Quality-School-Choice/Ohio-School-Sponsorship-Program/Final-Format-Approval-Criteria.pdf.aspx
LikeLike
From the Times article, “Campaign consultant Michael Trujillo, who worked on behalf of charter-backed candidates this year, said he is not worried that Rodriguez’s legal woes will hurt L.A.’s charter movement. ‘Any time you have a larger organization, whether it’s a nonprofit or a government agency, you find folks that are making human errors or making larger mistakes,’ he said. ‘At no point does the public cast a wider net.'”
What?!? Wait, what?!? How many L.A. Times were the improper actions of one teacher used to cast public aspersions on the entire teaching profession in the last ten years? I lost count. What hypocrisy. (I blame the L.A. Times for complicity in the teacher witch hunt, but note that the paper’s management has been a revolving door, including very recently.) Secondly, charter money scams and scandals are not isolated incidents. They are widespread, pervasive, systemic. How many charter execs and employees have been caught with their hands in the public cookie jar in the last ten years, in Los Angeles alone? I lost count. How about a charter scandal challenge. I challenge any and all to name every charter scandal in California.
LikeLike
California really is underrated as a charter scandal state. It’s easily in the top five.
LikeLike
They’ve certainly succeeded in making charters the only thing that board cares about, apparently.
Didn’t these people run insisting they were “agnostics” and would do some work for the PUBLIC schools in Los Angeles? Why are they so terrified if they lose “the charter majority”? It would be so horrible if there were a “public school majority”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meanwhile, the ed reform majority in the Michigan legislature passes yet another charter school bill, completely ignoring the vast majority of the students in the state who attend the unfashionable public schools.
I guess they’re a “charter majority” too.
Every one of these Michigan lawmakers will go back to their districts at election time and insist they “support” public schools- but they do absolutely nothing for them.
http://www.detroitnews.com/news/
LikeLike
Ed reformers now refer to public schools as “non charter” schools.
These people and their carefully crafted made-up language- more marketing than science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And thus how quickly they have changed the social traditions in lowest income neighborhoods.
LikeLike
What do they have to hide? The fact that, whatever else charters are, they are sources of $!$–lots–for their owners. “Owners” is the appropriate term, too. They are no more “public” enterprises than MacDonalds. And they would like to hide the fact that they are sources of profit rather than of community.
Why are we so reluctant to see them for what they are: fountains of revenue? The American health care system makes money off cancer. As I know, it produces cures, too. That doesn’t make profiting off disease virtuous. Charters produce some education for some kids. But they would not exist if they did not produce profits–and huge salaries–for their owners.
LikeLike
“What do they have to hide?”
The truth
LikeLike
Ref has become a liarbility.
They will cut him loose.
LikeLike
Poor Ref
😦
LikeLike
SDP,
They don’t need Ref anymore because he is damaged goods. They needed him for the 4-3 Majority.
The charter industry had just finished writing a proposal for less accountability, fewer audits.
Ref was not caught by an auditor. He was turned in by his own charter chain.
How can they sell fewer audits Post-Ref?
Caprice Youg, leader of the Gulen charter chain Magnolia, planned to secure her schools, which were in trouble last year because they spent nearly $1 Million of taxpayer dollars importing Turkish teachers and paying for their visas and those of their families. The new board, with charter puppets in charge, would have given Gulen the green light to spend as much as they wanted to import more Turkish teachers. Oh, yes, I forgot that Caprice says the Magnolia schools have nothing to do with Gulen. They just happen to like Turkish teachers. Sheer coincidence. Why don’t they import teachers from high-scoring countries like Finland, Singapore, Japan? No, only Turkish teachers will do.
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-magnolia-turkish-teachers-20161011-snap-story.html
LikeLike
Let’s not forget that Peter Cunningham rushed to defend Ref.
Like Trump did when his middle aged son was caught doing something unethical, Cunningham tried to dismiss Ref’s issues as a rookie mistake.
Cunningham’s job is to immediately do PR for any corrupt charter folks who are favorites of the billionaires whose largesse his salary depends on. He will abase himself and look like a fool but I guess it’s worth it to keep his paycheck.
No doubt if the billionaires tell Cunningham it’s now okay to criticize Ref because they want to cut him loose, Cunningham will do their bidding. There are always one or two pro-reform scapegoats who the billionaires are willing to sacrifice in their pretense that they really care about ethical behavior and won’t overlook anything that promotes charters. Those people are never the ones with the real money. Ref had power, but that’s fading very fast. He is expendable and it’s just a matter of how soon.
I wonder if people like Cunningham ever wonder how long before the billionaires decide to let him take the fall for them. Just being their trained lap dog doesn’t protect you as Ref showed, unless you can offer them something no one else can. There are plenty of people who can shill for the privatizers as Cunningham does. Cunningham defended Ref and next time he’ll defend someone else who is even more corrupt and eventually he’ll make a handy scapegoat when the public says “what’s with those reformers defending these corrupt fake educators” and the reformers can say “yes, we’ve weeded out the bad apples like Cunningham who supported them so strongly, see how wonderful we are”.
LikeLike