Archives for category: Arizona

Twenty five years ago, when charters were a brand-new idea, advocates said they would cost less and get better results than public schools. Now, however, charter schools are suing for equal funding. The Arizona appellate court just ruled that the state is not obliged to provide equal funding to charter schools and public schools.

The Education Law Center reports:

AZ COURT RULES STATE CAN FUND CHARTER SCHOOLS LOWER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

At the beginning of the charter school experiment, charter school advocates touted their ability to provide a superior education at a lower cost than traditional public schools. Now, we are seeing the charter lobby abandon that claim and turn to the courts to demand equal funding for charter schools. In Texas, charter school advocates recently lost their claim for equal funding. In New York, charter school advocates have sued for equal facilities funding. In a ruling that may have wide ramifications, last week an Arizona appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the differential funding systems for public and charter schools do not violate Arizona’s constitution.

In Craven v. Huppenthal, parents of children in Arizona charter schools sued the state, claiming that Arizona’s school funding scheme was unconstitutional because it caused “gross disparities between charter public schools and other public schools.” The lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and defendant-intervenors the Arizona School Boards Association and Creighton Elementary School District No. 14. The plaintiff-parents appealed.

The appellate court first noted that charter schools are free from many of the regulations governing public schools. For example, Arizona charters are exempt from statutes governing teacher hiring, firing and management. Arizona charter schools may limit enrollment to a certain age group or grade levels. Their curriculum may emphasize a certain philosophy, style or subject area. The court also pointed out that charter schools are funded differently than public schools as well. Unlike public schools, charters receive additional state funding, and may accept grants and donations to supplement their funding. Charter schools owned by non-profits may receive funds obtained through certain facility bonds. Charter schools are also entitled to stimulus funds for start-up and certain facility costs.

The plaintiffs contended that the different funding schemes of charters and public schools violated both the general and uniform education clause of Arizona’s constitution and its equal protection clause. The court, affirming the lower court’s decision, rejected both claims.

Prior rulings of Arizona’s Supreme Court interpreted the general and uniform clause to require that the state provide a public school system that is adequate. The plaintiff-parents in this case admitted that their children were receiving an adequate education at the charter schools. In fact, parents testified that the charter schools had “quality academics” and an “exceptional education.” Thus, the court concluded that the state did not violate the general and uniform clause.

The court also rejected the equal protection claim, noting with approval the reasoning of a New Jersey appellate court, in J.D. ex rel. Scipio-Derrick v. Davy, 2 A.3d 387, 397-98 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010), in a similar equal protection case brought by charter school parents. In that case, the New Jersey court pointed out that children’s attendance at a charter school is purely voluntary. They could withdraw at any time and enroll in their local public school; the school they claimed was funded adequately. Consequently, the court ruled that “the voluntariness of the program vitiates any asserted deprivation of a right to receive an education at a school that is fully funded to the same extent as other Newark public schools,” because the children in the charter school have the “unabridged option” to attend their district public school. The Arizona court applied this reasoning to this case, ruling that since the charter school students can at any time attend their district public school, they are not being treated differently than other students.

In a footnote, the Arizona court noted that the plaintiffs conceded that charter and public schools are not similarly situated, but claimed that those distinctions are irrelevant because the plaintiffs were attempting to focus on the treatment of the children in the charter schools. However, the court pointed out that it was the schools that received the different funding, not the students. Because the students themselves were free to attend their district public schools, their equal protection rights were not violated.

This ruling makes clear that the very nature of charters, as voluntary alternatives to public schools and free from some of the regulations constraining public schools, permits the state to treat charters differently than public schools in matters of funding. The reasoning of the Arizona court can and may very well be applied in future cases as we see charter school advocates across the country appealing to courts to force states to fund them on par with public schools.

Education Justice Press Contact:
Wendy Lecker, Esq.
Senior Attorney, Education Law Center
email: wlecker@edlawcenter.org
voice: (203) 329-8041
http://www.edlawcenter.org
http://www.educationjustice.org

Copyright © 2014 Education Law Center. All Rights Reserved.

Education Justice Initiative | c/o 60 Park Place, Suite 300 | Newark | NJ | 07102

Bloomberg News reports that charter schools are borrowing money at a record pace, relying on state guarantees to improve their credit ratings.

 

On their own, charters would be considered junk bond status. But state guarantees allow them to issue bonds with higher ratings.

 

U.S. charter schools are issuing a record amount of municipal debt, with Texas leading the charge as borrowers rated close to junk tap a program that gives their bonds top credit grades.

The institutions, privately run with public funding, have sold $1.6 billion of securities in 2014, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s more than all of last year and the most in Bloomberg data beginning in 2007. About $464 million has come from Texas, which for the first time in April backed a charter-school deal with its Permanent School Fund. The state-run pool guarantees bonds, lending the debt the AAA grade that Standard & Poor’s accords Texas.

Charter schools, which enroll 4.2 percent of U.S. public school students, are building a presence in the bond market as more parents seek academic options without paying private-school tuition. In Texas, the number of institutions tripled from 2000 to 2012 and enrollment jumped to 190,000 from 26,000, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

“The backing of the Permanent School Fund is critical to the growth of charter schools” given the savings it generates, said David Dunn, executive director of the Austin-based Texas Charter Schools Association. “There’s still a lot of room to go. We’re still not meeting the demand.”

 

Texas’s Growth

 

The growth in charter issuance contrasts with a slowdown in the $3.7 trillion municipal market as states and cities still recovering from the recession hesitate to borrow even as yields approach generational lows. Muni sales are down 7 percent from last year’s pace, Bloomberg data show.

Yet in Texas, home to seven of the 15 fastest-growing U.S. cities, municipalities are borrowing the most since 2008 as a swelling population fuels infrastructure investment. Charter schools have the same need, with enrollment growing about 15 percent annually in the last six years, Dunn said.

Life School, which has more than 4,500 students on campuses in Dallas County and Ellis County to the south, in April became the state’s first charter to issue debt backed by the School Fund.

Tax-exempt bonds maturing in August 2044 priced to yield 4.13 percent, or about 0.5 percentage point more than benchmark 30-year munis.

Without the guarantee from the fund, created in 1854, the school has a BBB- rating from S&P, the lowest level of investment grade. Institutions need to earn an above-junk rank on their own to get the backing.

Republican Governor Rick Perry has said more of the institutions should be permitted. The state guarantee has won over investors.

“It’s a state where you clearly see that they’re supportive,” said John Flahive, Boston-based director of fixed income at BNY Mellon Wealth Management, which oversees about $20 billion in munis and has bought debt of Texas charter schools.

“It’s a tricky sector,” he said. “Politics play a role in whether you can really see it working out for the life of the bond.”

Colorado and Utah also help boost the grades of schools in those states, said Wendy Berry at Charter School Advisors, which is based in Albany, New York, and counsels the institutions.

 

Great Hearts

 

Arizona ranks second behind Texas in issuance in 2014. Phoenix’s industrial development agency this month sold about $80 million of tax-free bonds for Great Hearts Academies in the state’s largest charter-school borrowing this year. The deal refinanced securities and paid for new facilities. S&P rated the debt BB+, one step below investment grade.

Arizona had a hotly contested race for State Superintendent. The last one, John Huppenthal, was a strong supporter of Common Core who embarrassed himself by posting crude comments anonymously on blogs. When his name leaked, he was finished, beaten in the Republican primary by a little-known candidate named Diane Douglas.

In the November 4 election, Douglas ran against veteran educator David Garcia. A Democrat, Garcia received a slew of bipartisan endorsements. Douglas kept a low profile while Garcia racked up endorsements. The only issue associated with her was her opposition to Common Core.

Garcia seemed to be the only Democrat with a chance of winning. He had the experience and the credentials. But at last count, Douglas was leading 51-49, too close to call.

This blogger in Arizona wrote this:

“Douglas ran no campaign that I could see. I never saw a sign, never saw a TV ad. She rarely talked to the media, and she refused to debate Garcia. She had one issue: opposition to Common Core. The tea bagging Douglas had no endorsements whose names you’d recognize, and her own friggin’ website is absolutely empty under the section called “My Record and News.” It says to “check back” later; it still says that. Her online bio proudly celebrates her lack of professional experience:

“I did it on my own, for my own edification rather than through a college of “education” in order to add letters after my name.”

Got that? Education in quotes—not the real stuff like her learnin’. Douglas, who runs a stained glass store, did have one thing going for her: An R after her name. I’d wager a big bucket of cash that the old farts in Sun City and the wingers statewide who elected this Know Nothing couldn’t pick Douglas out of a lineup, or tell you one thing she stands for. Except she’s not a Democrat and she doesn’t like Barack Obama.

Arizona State Superintendent John Huppenthal was defeated by Diane Douglas, a very conservative former school board member who ran on a single issue: rolling back Common Core. Huppenthal embarrassed himself a few months ago when he admitted using a pseudonym to write disparaging comments about other people and groups on blogs.

Douglas is a big supporter of school choice.

“In the November election, Douglas will face David Garcia, an Arizona State University professor who defeated high school English teacher Sharon Thomas in the Democratic primary.”

The Arizona Department of Education under the leadership of John Huppenthal is strongly supportive of the Common Core.

When officials at the Department learned that teacher Brad McQueen had written an article critical of the Common Core standards, they decided that something had to be done about him. He had worked on the Common Core assessments, and state officials began to harass him. Several of them worked together to deal with the problem of Brad McQueen. They could not permit dissent because they wanted to maintain the illusion that the Common Core was both popular and inevitable.

Their efforts were in vain. Despite the best efforts of Huppenthal and his subordinates, Governor Jan Brewer announced that Arizona was pulling out of the federal Common Core tests. And Huppenthal embarrassed himself by posting anonymous comments on the Internet.

John Huppenthal called a press conference to apologize for his outrageous comments on the Intermet, posted anonymously. He said he would not resign as he faces re-election. He broke down and cried.

“”I’m here to renounce those blog comments,” Huppenthal told reporters. “They’re not what is in my mind, they don’t reflect the love that is in my heart.”

A sample of the comments that don’t reflect what is in his mind or heart:

“”No spanish radio stations, no spanish billboards, no spanish tv stations, no spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English,” he wrote, according to the Arizona Republic.”

Arizona State Commissioner of Education John Huppenthal admitted he left many comments anonymously on blogs.

This is causing him some problems in his re-election campaign, as some of his comments were highly insulting and inflammatory to various groups.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry canceled plans to honor him at its annual awards ceremony.

Here are what one blog calls his “top ten” anonymous comments.

Huppenthal is in hot water. As one editorialist in Arizona wrote:

“He called poor people “lazy pigs” and made inane comparisons between stuff he doesn’t like and Hitler, but let’s honor the First Amendment here and leave the content of his speech off the table. He did two things wrong – he hid behind pseudonyms, and when caught he offered up a non-apology apology.

“If you’re going out in the public sphere, use your name, be you and own it. Otherwise, you don’t deserve an audience.

“And if you step in it, do not say what Huppenthal did (and in a “statement,” no less): “I sincerely regret if my comments have offended anyone.”

“What a load of horse puckey.

“What he’s saying is, if no one’s offended by what he said, then he’s not sorry. So if there’s no fundamental level of sorry-ness, why are you apologizing?

Mr. Huppenthal, you’re a leader. If you’re sorry about what you posted, say, “What I said was wrong, I renounce it, and I promise not to promote those beliefs again.” If you’re not sorry, say, “Yeah, I said it, I meant it, and I will use my own name from now on.”

Huppenthal is identified on Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education website as “one of Arizona’s leading education reformers” because of his support for school choice and the Common Core.

Linda Thomas is the school board president of a small rural district in Arizona. She is a strong advocate for public education as a public responsibility.

In this post, she reminds us that 85% of children in Arizona attend public schools despite the state ‘s trepidation as the “wild west” of charters.

She also describes the legislsture’s devious efforts to expand vouchers.

She writes:

“When vouchers (aka Empowerment Scholarship Accounts) were first introduced in 2011, only children with disabilities were eligible. That has now expanded to include children: who’s parent’s are in the armed forces, are a ward of the juvenile court, who attend a school or district assigned a D or F grade, are eligible to attend kindergarten, and who received a School Tuition Organization scholarship. This session, expansion efforts include those whose siblings receive ESAs, all first responder’s children and (HB 2291) children currently eligible for free or reduced lunch percent. HB 2291 also seeks to further raise the income threshold of those who qualify by 15 percent ever year going forward.

“ESA funds can be used for curriculum, testing, private school tuition, tutors, special needs services or therapies, or even seed money for college. The program however, requires parents to waive their child’s right to a public education…a right that is guaranteed under the state constitution, in order to receive the benefits.”

School choice, she says, is a smokescreen. The real goal is to transfer public funds to private hands. The one risk to voucher advocates is attaching any form of accountability. They want the money, no strings attached.

Gene Glass, a distinguished researcher, wrote the following about a charter chain that is regularly lauded by U.S. News & World Report:

Ever Hear a BASIS Schools Sales Pitch?

The Basis charter schools – some ten schools in Arizona and a couple more in places like San Antonio and Washington, DC – have long been a fascinating subject for this blog and others.

US News & World Report continues to rank schools like Basis Scottsdale and Basis Tucson in the top ten high schools in the nation. This happens in spite of the fact that the schools’ practices result in thinning elementary and middle school classes down from a hundred to a couple dozen by graduation from grade 12. Is this the best education in the country or the worst journalism, I ask you,US News? A high school that graduates fewer than 30 students a year hardly deserves the accolades afforded Basis Scottsdale or Basis Tucson. I can assure you that within a radius of 5 miles there are several times as many high school Seniors graduating from traditional public high schools whose test scores and college admissions statistics will outdo those of Basis students.

A little background: About five years ago, Basis decided to open a private school in Scottsdale, AZ. No one knows what their motivation was since their previous schools were all charter schools. Perhaps they saw the eye-popping tuition ($15,000 and up) that was being charged by Phoenix Country Day School or Rancho Solano and thought to themselves, Why not? Basis Scottsdale was created and advertised and by opening day in the fall, seven students had signed up! Basis Scottsdale was quickly converted into a charter school – which had to be quite an embarrassment to Michael Block, Basis founder and a former free-market economics professor at the University of Arizona. This particular little test of the free market failed miserably. Crony capitalism is safer.

Not only does Basis engage in ruthless thinning across the grades, but they also practice rigorous selection of students for high academic ability at the entry grades. David Safier has shown as much in his blog, and it hit a sensitive nerve with the Basis people who attempted to refute his charges. The Basis people insist that they do no selection of incoming students and that admission is strictly by lottery. Clearly we have some word play going on here. Stripped of casuistry, I think we can clarify by saying that Basis randomly “selects” incoming students from a very “select” group of applicants. I didn’t realize just how select that applicant pool is until my friend Mimi just happened to drop by a Basis schools sales pitch.

Mimi is curator of a large private art museum in downtown Phoenix. Basis had announced in early 2014 that they would soon open Basis Phoenix, a charter school in the center of the city in order to favor the unhappy parents of Phoenix with the Basis brand of education. Mimi was leaving work late one evening in March when she saw the placard announcing the Basis information meeting in the conference hall of her very own building. The capacity of the hall was 90 persons, but more than 200 people filled the room and spilled out into the hallway. For just a moment, Mimi considered phoning the fire marshal; but on second thought, she decided to squeeze into the hall and catch the sales pitch.

What Mimi told me about what transpired during the Basis sales pitch was filtered through her years as a curriculum supervisor and teacher in big-city schools across the country. The Basis people would surely claim that her views were thus corrupted and biased by her background. I would argue that her views are well informed by years of experience as an educator. Judge for yourself.

Mimi’s Report (with her reflections in parentheses):

I was stunned by the size of the crowd of parents who showed up at this “informational meeting,” but what was more shocking to see was that maybe 60% of the parents were either far east Asian or East Indian. That really seemed weird because I know that the Phoenix Elementary school district is 2% or less Asian. I saw very few Hispanic or African American parents in the room.

The meeting – it was really an hour long uninterrupted presentation with no questions allowed – was presided over by a pot-bellied man in a florescent orange shirt. Orange Shirt stood in the middle of the stage backed up by a half dozen young adults seated in chairs. He referred to his back-ups as “Subject Specialists”; they sat silently through the entire presentation, never said a word, and left without being asked any questions.

The presentation started with a series of video clips projected onto a large screen. The clips showed school teachers as portrayed in popular media like movies, and each one made the teachers look ridiculous. Of course, the famous Ben Stein scene from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off was featured: “Anybody, Anybody?” The message was clear: traditional, ed school trained teachers are fools. Orange Shirt never referred to the Basis teachers as “teachers”; he made it quite clear that Basis employs Subject Specialists.

Here’s how things were going to run at Basis Phoenix, according to Orange Shirt. The school would start with grades K through 4, and each year a grade would be added until a full K-12 school was reached. In the beginning, grades K-4 would have 30 students each and each subsequent year another track of 30 would be added until each grade’s enrollment reached 100.

Two themes permeated the presentation – all of which consisted of Orange Shirt’s monologue with no questions from the floor entertained.

At all grade levels schooling would be conducted as if it were a high school. From Kindergarten up, the students would experience Basis education just like high school education: lectures, passing from room to room for each subject taught, individual lockers, etc. Children who go through a Basis school will be high school and college ready at the end.

Self-selection. Orange Shirt was emphatic. Basis does not select its students; admission is by lottery. (Of course, if Basis doesn’t “select” then it can claim to be just like a traditional public school that takes all comers – a fatuous claim, of course, since a lottery from among a pool of “self-selected” applicants is hardly comparable to taking on all comers.) Yes, there is a lot of thinning going on across the grades. (Parents have reported that the curriculum resembles a gauntlet of paper-and-pencil tests.) And yes, lots of students choose to continue their education back in the dreaded traditional public schools. But – and Orange Shirt was emphatic on this point – students “self-select” out of the school; Basis does not do any selecting.

Orange Shirt rattled off a series of features of a Basis education:
“Subject Specialists” have not been corrupted by having their brains filled with a lot of “ed school” nonsense.
Students will study Mandarin in Grades K – 3. (Presumably this will make the school more appealing to those highly motivated Asian families.)

Parents are to drive their children to the front entrance, drop them off, remain in the car, and drive away promptly; no congregating at the entrance to the school.

Parents are not used as volunteers in the classroom. (In fact, the whole idea of parent involvement in the school was strongly discouraged.)

Orange Shirt’s monologue took up 45 minutes. No time was allotted for questions from the parents. I pressed forward toward the stage at the end of the talk; Orange Shirt did not seem too receptive to questions but I managed to ask him how much his “Subject Specialists” are paid. “Each contract is individually negotiated,” he said. Sure, what better way to keep the employees in the dark and off balance in any negotiations.

All I can say is that it was a bizarre experience. Looming over the proceedings were the personalities of Michael and Olga Block, the Basis founders who were spoken of reverentially. A picture was painted of small children treated as adults. I couldn’t help thinking of my own grandchildren and how I would never want them treated like miniature college students by the Basis Subject Specialists.

Yes, Mimi. Bizarre indeed. I wonder how much the average reader of US News and World Report knows about what goes on in the Best High Schools in America.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

_________________________
Gene V Glass Blog: http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com
Regents’ Professor Emeritus Tweets: @GeneVGlass
Arizona State University Homepage: http://gvglass.info

Research Professor
University of Colorado Boulder

Arizona’s public schools are among the most severely underfunded schools in the nation.

Arizona has the misfortune of having a state superintendent who doesn’t like public education.

If it was up to John Huppenthal, he would give everyone a voucher and shut down public education.

As it happens, students who go to charter schools get more funding than those in public s hools.

Vouchers were supposed to save money by costing less, but Huppenthal wants to give them more money.

When you read articles about Arizona by local blogger David Safier like this one, you are reminded what charters and vouchers are really about.

They are not about “saving poor kids from failing schools,” because they don’t.

They are not about improving education by competition, because they don’t.

They are not about helping disabled kids get better services in voucher schools, because that’s just the Carmel’s nose under the tent to get vouchers legitimized.

They are not about accountability in exchange for results, because they are not accountable and they don’t produce results unless they skim.

They are not about saving money, because they eventually demand the same or more than public schools.

So what are they about?

Privatization.

Getting government to abandon responsibility for public education and equal opportunity.

Greed.

And all the other possibilities that privatization, deregulation, and lack of oversight make possible, like nepotism, fraud, and corruption.