Jan Resseger reviews a major report by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General, which condemns the Department’s repeated failure to oversee the spending of federal. charter school funding.
The blame here falls not on Betsy DeVos, but on her predecessor, Arne Duncan, who was so eager to stimulate the creation of new charter schools that he failed to monitor those already opened with federal funds.
She writes:
“The report condemns a trend of poor oversight: This is the third major report in which the Department of Education’s OIG has documented poor management of federal dollars flowing to charter schools. Reports from the Department of Education’s OIG in 2012 and 2016 also disparaged Duncan’s charter school oversight. It is not likely, however, that Betsy DeVos, a libertarian, will improve the Department’s regulatory role.
“The new 2018, OIG report examines whether the U.S. Department of Education has a process for adequately monitoring the management of federal dollars and the management of student records and data when charter schools are closed. OIG examined charter school closures in three states between 2011 and 2015. Defining privately operated charter schools as public schools for the purpose of this report, the OIG notes that in the 2015-2016 school year, there were 98,277 public schools across the United States, among which 6,855 were charter schools. Between 2011 and 2015, 977 of the charter schools closed. OIG studied charter school closures in three states: Arizona, which had the highest number of closed charter schools authorized by the same authorizer; California, which had more charter schools than any other state and more students enrolled in charter schools; and Louisiana, which had the highest ratio of charter school closures relative to the number of charter schools in the state. In its 2018 report, OIG examines the procedures used in 89 of the closed charter schools—45 in Arizona, 31 in California, and 13 in Louisiana. OIG explains: “The purpose of the audit (is) to determine whether the U.S. Department of Education has effective oversight of the programs provided to charter schools….”
“The OIG begins its report by reassuring us—in oxymoronic language— that, “Charter schools are nonsectarian, publicly funded schools of choice that are intended to be held accountable for their academic and financial performance in return for reduced governmental regulation.” Maybe the myth that charters can be held accountable without accountability explains why the Department of Education hasn’t done so well with with preventing the kind of problems the report describes.
“The 2018, OIG report charges that the Department of Education has not provided adequate guidance to enable states and local school districts to comply with the federal laws and regulations they must follow to protect Title I, IDEA and Charter Schools Program dollars when charter schools are shut down. Neither Arizona, California, nor Louisiana had developed required procedures for tracking how the assets of charter schools were disposed after the schools were closed. The report notes that in September of 2015, the Department of Education sent a letter to state departments of education to remind them “of their role in helping to ensure that Federal funds received by charter schools are used for intended and appropriate purposes.” OIG explains, however, that, “The Dear Colleague Letter did not specifically discuss charter school closures.” Neither has the Department adequately monitored states’ charter school closure processes. “The Title I, IDEA, and CSP program offices did not incorporate a review of charter school closure procedures into their State Education Agency monitoring tools.”
“The 2018, OIG report continues: “During our audit period, the Department did not consider charter school closures to be a risk to Federal funds; therefore, the Title I, IDEA, and CSP program offices did not prioritize providing guidance to State Education Agencies on how to manage the charter school closure process….” “Without adequate Department guidance provided to the State Education Agencies and sufficient State Education Agency and authorizer oversight and monitoring of charter school closure processes, the risk of significant fraud, waste, and abuse of Federal programs’ funds is high. The growing number of charter schools, from 1,993 in School Year 2000-2001 to 6,855 in School Year 2015-2016, and the number of charter schools that closed, ranging from 72 in School Year 2000-2001 to 308 in School Year 2014-2015, require the Department’s program offices to develop and implement a modified approach to overseeing the State Education Agencies.””
Finally: “We found there was no assurance that for the sampled closed charter schools (1) Federal funds were properly closed within the required period, (2) assets aquired with Federal funds were properly disposed of, and (3) the students’ personally identifiable information was properly protected and maintained.”
Unfortunately, Kathleen S. Tighe, the Inspector General of the Department of Education, is retiring next month, and her replacement will be named by the president, subject to Senate confirmation. The current deputy IG Sandra Bruce will take over until a permanent IG is nominated and confirmed.
Given the track record of the Trump administration in politicizing every facet of the federal government, this change may be the end of honest inquiry about charter school oversight.
The state education agencies are captives of the state legislatures and/or governors. Many governors and legislatures, as in Ohio, are so eager for no or minimal oversight of the charter industry that any call for transparency is obstructed at the highest levels. Under Devos the charter industry is supported and corruption is flourishing. Diane and other bloggers has been diligent in providing information on the varieties of outright scams.
Ohioans curse Bill Gates’ privatization. His New Schools Venture Fund’s goal for charters, “…to produce a diverse supply of different brands on a large scale .”
The Rand Corp. found Gates’ $1 bil. was a failure for students. Yet, last month, Ohio mayors hosted Gates’ Impatient Optimist and his brethren from the right wing’s Hoover Institute.
And, damn Fordham for promoting privatization and for the route the organization allowed Chester Finn to take to prominence.
I think it’s because the federal government has been completely captured by the ed reform “movement” and the ed reform movement is almost exclusively devoted to expanding charters and vouchers.
Here’s one of their panels at one of the tens of meetings and forums that Gates and Walton fund:
A MORE “EQUITABLE” UNION?: CHARTER, CHOICE, & TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSPECTIVES
What is educational equity? Ask five different people and you may get five different answers, each of them correct. In this discussion, we will talk with advocates and practitioners from different backgrounds, with differing views on “equity,” and differing policy approaches to achieving it.
MODERATOR
Derrell Bradford,
50CAN
DISCUSSANTS
Ian Rowe,
Public Prep
Lindsay Burke,
The Heritage Foundation
Halli Faulkner,
American Federation for Children
Brian Gutman,
The Education Trust-Midwest
4:30 PM – 5:00 PM
They hold forums on public schools and don’t invite any public school leaders or public school advocates.
These are the “experts” the Trump Administration and Congress rely upon and these experts are exclusively focused on expanding charters and vouchers.
The Democrats gave cover to the right wing plan of Bill Gates. Curse John Podesta, Bill Clinton and the Center for American Progress for that. (And, Ellen Degeneres should stop cheerleading for villainthropist, Bill Gates.)
The worst Democratic politicians, men like Jared Polis and Joe Manchin are still better than the best Republican. But, in primaries, DINOS should end up on the trash heap.
In contrast to the panel where traditional public schools were discussed, here’s a panel they held on increasing funding for charters:
MODERATOR
Mike Petrilli,
Thomas B. Fordham Institute
DISCUSSANTS
Andrew Broy,
Illinois Network of Charter Schools
Michael O’Sullivan,
GeorgiaCAN
Dan Schaller,
Colorado League of Charter Schools
Patricia Levesque,
Foundation for Excellence in Education
So discussions about traditional public schools are exclusively composed of charter school promoters and discussions about charter schools ARE ALSO exclusively composed of charter school supporters.
It’s more than a “pattern” – it’s every single one of the policy discussions. You see these same names again and again and again because no one outside this small group is ever heard from.
These are the “debates” Gates and Walton funds- there’s about one of these a month. They flood the zone with pro charter and pro voucher people and exclude everyone else.
I think it’s why we so rarely find anything that’s even relevant to public schools in ed reform policy (which is federal government policy).
The capture problem exists both on the federal level and many states as well, particularly where the reckless charter policy has become institutionalized. Voters need to go to the polls in November and give representatives a shake up. The people need to rid themselves of the useless, complicit profiteers in state houses.
Pity Puerto Rico. The Center for American Progress “will continue working to develop bold progressive policies to help Puerto Rico”. I presume that means to replace the common good with a “diverse supply of different brands on a large scale”, the Gates’ spokesman’s description of the charter school goal. Naomi Klein and The Nation show us what’s happening in PR. It is colonialism in the form of disaster capitalism. Expected, CAP papers reference lots of sources but, omit those that focus on right wing profit taking schemes in education and other areas.
Gates’ $1 bil. plot failed U.S. students so, take the scheme to PR. Gates can always find people willing to pick up a paycheck to take advantage of the vulnerable.
From The Nation, “firms that own for-profit colleges in Puerto Rico are owned by holders of PR’s bond debt”. Nothing like stacking the deck against the University of Puerto Rico, the island’s premier public university. Chiara described in this thread the incest of the privatization movement. Exporting the scourge, the Puerto Rican people were devastated by a natural disaster then, CAP descended on them.
I wish the Gates Foundation would offer one example of the success of the portfolio model or diverse providers model.
Just one.
Everyone else is accountable in the worlds of the Gates’ family and the richest 0.1%, but never the elites.
Consider the case of the leaders of the Center for American Progress. They played large roles in the Democratic 2016 presidential campaign. If the election outcome was a Republican president (which it was), one would expect to see demotions, or a plan for improvement enacted, like promotional strategies for public education (affording some protection for the middle class and poor- workers, students and communities)? But the opposite occurred. Is CAP promoting the addition of a private organization at the state level of education bureaucracy, which could expand oligarchy? (Is that the effect of EdCo, introduced by a state Democratic representative in Maryland?)
So, what should we surmise, CAP leaders aren’t accountable or mission accomplished?
Bill and Melinda Gates could have attempted to make a difference in global warming when there was a window of time to fix the problem. But, they decided to destroy a common good, instead