Archives for category: Arizona

Politico.com reports a wonderful story from Arizona, where public education is underfunded and embattled as a result of years of budget cuts and yet another round of deep cuts:

“Nearly 50 Phoenix-based Teach for America members and alumni are asking TFA to return a $500,000 budget set-aside. They say public schools – which will see a net loss of about $100 million under the new budget – need the money more than TFA does. ‘There is a massive contradiction that exists when an organization that claims to work for the education of all children is part of a process that robs Peter to pay Paul,’ the group said. However, the organization’s Phoenix arm already said it intends to accept the state funds.”

More from the New Times: http://bit.ly/1Msto7t.

Gene V. Glass is one of our most distinguished education researchers. Fortunately for the rest of us, he blogs from time to time about the lunacy of our era of education “reform.”

 

 

In this post, he explains what he calls “management by pinheads.” Quite simply, it is the effort to improve education by setting numerical goals. Such a strategy invites data manipulation, gaming the system, and cheating. He notes that Beverly Hall recently died of breast cancer. She had an illustrious career, but it all came crashing down because of a massive cheating scandal in Atlanta, where she was superintendent. She prided herself on being a “Dara driven decision-maker,” but it was this approach that created a climate where subordinates–administrators and teachers–cheated to produce the data she wanted.

 

 

Now Glass notes that the Scottsdale, Arizona, school board has set a menu of numerical targets for its superintendent. It is an invitation to game the system, he says. Campbell’s Law rules.

Gene V. Glass, distinguished professor emeritus at Arizona State University, made a stunning discovery: the President of the State Board of Education is CEO of a charter school, which pays him and his family handsomely. The state of Arizona does not care about conflicts of interest, especially where charter schools are involved.

 

He writes:

 

A few years back, Arizonans saw the Chairperson of the State Charter School Board award a charter to a non-profit foundation (which was really K12 Inc., the online school provider), then be hired by the foundation to head the Arizona Virtual Academy, and then be hired by K12 Inc. as a vice-president for something-or-other. She continues to occupy the latter two posts.

 
Arizona simply doesn’t recognize things called conflicts of interest. I could list dozens concerning public education. A staff member the Board of Regents once told me that in Arizona if you declare your connections, then you can no longer be accused of having a conflict of interest. Perhaps this qualifies as some minimal level of ethical behavior.

 

A new flagrant conflict of interest has just become apparent to me. A man named Greg Miller is president of the Arizona State Board of Education. There is also a man named Greg Miller who is CEO of Challenge Charter School in Glendale, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix. Matching up photos of the Board president and the charter CEO leaves no doubt that these two individuals are one in the same Greg Miller. Mr. Miller, a civil engineer for 25 years, founded Challenge Charter School in the late 1990s and for a while served as principal. His current title is CEO. Mrs. Pam Miller, his wife, once served on a school board; the Challenge Charter Schools website lists no current duties for Mrs. Miller. But daughter Wendy Miller was appointed Principal of Challenge Charter School the same year in which she earned her MBA.

 

Glass posts the IRS form 990 for the charter school. Remember, the head of the Miller family is the president of the Arizona State Board of Education.

 

Greg Miller, the CEO of a school “system” with about 650 students, is being compensated to the tune of $145,000 annually. His wife receives the same salary, though her duties are never enumerated at the website and her position is only described as “Executive Director/Vice-PR,” whatever Vice-PR is. The Miller’s daughter Wendy, who has degrees in Public Administration and Business, receives a salary of more than $120,000 for acting as Principal/Secretary. Basically, the Miller family, while working assiduously 60 hours a week each as reported on their IRS form, is taking about $425,000 a year out of the coffers for salary.

 

Glass observes:

 

 

Crony capitalism, conflicts of interest, charter schools lining the pockets of amateur entrepreneurs, “quasi-private” schools being operated at public expense, an increasingly segregated state school system … it’s just education reform Arizona style.

 

 

[P.S. Please do not confuse this family with one of my favorite movies, “We Are the Millers,” which is hilarious, involves criminal activity, and does not involve conflicts of interest.]

 

 

 

 

 

Gene V. Glass, distinguisher researcher of education at Arizona State University, brings us up to the date with the drama in Arizona over privatization and the Common Core, with surprising enemies and allies taking sides:

 

 

Professor Glass writes:

 

 

It all started when Doug Ducey won the governor’s race last November. Duce, who cut his political teeth as a student at Arizona State University editing the campus newspaper, made his millions in the ice cream business (Cold Stone Creamery). Immediately upon taking office he instituted a hiring freeze and promised to increase school choice. That same mid-term election saw a virtual unknown Republican school board member, Diane Douglas, defeat ASU Education professor David Garcia for the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Douglas vowed to dump Common Core on grounds of its being federal intrusion into a state responsibility, but policy had nothing to do with her victory; if you had an R behind your name in the mid-term election, you won.

 

Two days ago, Douglas fired two of her top administrators — Executive Director and Asst. Executive Director — at the Department who were carry-overs from the previous Superintendent. It’s not hard to imagine why; they were far down the road of installing the Common Core in Arizona schools. Yesterday, the whole business erupted in a public fight between Ducey and Douglas over whether the latter has the authority to fire people in her department. After a prayer breakfast Thursday morning, the Governor was barely out the door before he gave reporters an insincere piece of his mind: “[I’m] sorry she chose to go down that path.”Douglas shot back: Ducey, she said, is establishing a “shadow faction of charter school operators and former state superintendents [referring to Lisa Graham Keegan who supported Douglas’s opponent in the election] who support Common Core and moving funds from traditional public schools to charter schools.”

 

Score +1 for Douglas for speaking the truth. The Arizona Senate has moved forward quickly in this session to support the privatization of K-12 education. The Senate education committee has already approved bills that would 1) award vouchers (at 90% state per pupil expenditure) to any student whose application has been turned down to open enroll in a public school or a charter school within 25 miles of their home, and 2) award a voucher to any student on an Indian reservation. Clearly the Republicans are flexing their muscles after the November victory; such radical pro-voucher legislating has never before made it into law in Arizona. Perhaps this is the year.

 

 

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

Julie Erfle enrolled her oldest son in the BASIS Charter School in Arizona. She went to a parent night and was impressed. Basis is ranked by U.S. New & World Report as one of the best high schools in the U.S. “Teachers with degrees from Harvard and Yale and Stanford, with PhD’s and real-world experience. A curriculum that entails AP coursework as early as 7th grade, and the ability to finish high school with every AP class completed by 11th grade. Wow. What’s not to love?” Her son is happy at the school and doing well. She has no complaint about the school but she knows it is not a model for public education.

 

On her blog, Erfle revealed the “secret” of BASIS and other very high-performing charter schools.

 

In a nutshell, the BASIS expectations and requirements are so high that the students who can’t meet them leave.

 

She writes:

 

Governor Ducey wants to “fund the wait lists” at schools such as BASIS. He’s fond of using the school as the poster child for reform. But those wait lists are a mirage.

 

It’s true that hundreds of students are turned away from BASIS and other top-rated charter schools in 5th and 6th grade. But it’s also true that the turnover rate at these charter schools is astronomical, with hundreds of students opting out of the schools after a short period of time, and schools graduating as few as 20-30 students.

 

Many of the critics will say it’s because BASIS filters out undesirable students, such as those with learning or attention differences, while keeping the “cream of the crop.” And they’re correct.

 

The curriculum at BASIS isn’t advanced. It’s highly advanced, as in 2 or 3 years ahead of most schools, similar to the curriculum for highly gifted students. Remember when I said AP classes start in 7th grade? That’s not normal. And it’s not something that just any student can handle.

 

Starting in 6th grade, students take midterms and finals, and the final is a significant portion of the student’s overall class grade. It’s high-stakes testing at its highest. If a student fails even one class (with a small exception for some math classes), that student must retake the entire grade.

 

The vast majority of students, when faced with retaking an entire grade or moving on to a different school, will move on. So will the vast majority of students who struggle with such an advanced load and who find themselves spending 4-5 hours on homework every night. And the same with many students who are involved in extracurricular activities such as club sports, which requires time for evening practices and weekend tournaments.

 

This is why BASIS schools start out with hundreds of students and long waiting lists in 5th and 6th grade but end up graduating only a handful of students. And when a school graduates 25 students who have made it through every advanced, AP course available, one would hope these students would have sky-high test scores.

 

Maybe it is a good idea to give public funding to a school like BASIS, that is so rigorous that few of those who enroll will ever graduate. After all, there are high schools for unusually smart students, like Bronx Science and Stuyvesant High School in New York City, where students who want to attend must first pass an examination. But no one pretends that every school should be just like Bronx Science and Stuyvesant. It is well known that they are highly selective. Their students get high scores because they are selective schools. As Julie writes, BASIS is not for everyone, and it is not a model for public education.

 

As she writes:

 

BASIS schools start out with hundreds of students and long waiting lists in 5th and 6th grade but end up graduating only a handful of students. And when a school graduates 25 students who have made it through every advanced, AP course available, one would hope these students would have sky-high test scores.

 

It’s easy to understand why BASIS makes the list as one of the top high schools in the nation. But to compare a class of 25 students to one with hundreds of students from every background and with every learning challenge imaginable at a school in an economically challenged neighborhood doesn’t really seem like a fair comparison, does it?

 

Of course not. And yet that is what our politicians routinely do.

 

 

 

 

Ed Berger, an experienced educator who lives in Arizona, writes that the corrupt politics of the state are hurting children and public education. Berger has worked in education in Arizona since 1991, and during that time he has met many dedicated, hard-working teachers, doing their best to educate children with inadequate resources.

 

What have I experienced? Great things at all levels Pre-K-University! Dedicated teachers and administrators constantly working to improve our schools; dedicated human beings fighting for children and quality education. They are pitted against an economic system that has created pockets of poverty which damage children and their potential for learning, and political ideologues who want to destroy or profit financially from public education.
I am witnessing first-hand the calculated destruction of Arizona public schools and the professional educators who serve our children.

 

Arizona is a ‘right-to-work state.’ No worker’s rights means no organized opposition to the politicians who control the State. As with other public employees, educators have no power to confront and expose abuses and those who damage our schools and children.

 

Arizona is a ‘one-party-rules state.’ One powerful political party controls what happens to our children and our community schools. That party is closely aligned with the religious right. Those groups gets access to the education tax dollars citizens pay. With tax dollars, they inject religious bias into the curriculum in the schools they run. Politicians in Arizona have effectively broken down the barriers between church and state.

 

How do they do it? Too many make profits from the education tax dollars citizens pay for our children. They do this by privatizing schools, bypassing safeguards, and taking over or eliminating elected school boards that stand in their way. They exempt, stop, modify, or eliminate accountability. They stop full audits and the release of specific information about what these profit-driven schools do to, or for children. They maintain a chokehold on information.

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been diverted from public education–which enrolls 85% of the state’s children– to private bank accounts. The children are cheated.

 

Berger writes that:

 

In Arizona, under the cloud provided by the Legislature, hundreds of millions of dollars are not accounted for. As a result of legislation, well over 600 charter schools have been created since the mid-90s. There are over 450 of these partial schools active now. Whole industries including banks and finance systems, school management services, and curriculum businesses have risen to get a ‘free’ piece of the public education pie. Public tax dollars are being diverted into private ventures. All of these services come out of the tax dollars that citizens are led to believe educate children.

 

Services already provided by law in our public district schools are being duplicated at great cost to taxpayers. In Arizona, ‘schools- of-choice’ spend valuable resources on rent and purchases of buildings. This results in public funding used to buy, build, or lease space. It often pays the property mortgages for private corporations and crooked individuals who will end up owning the buildings. What a great deal for kids. Right?

 
Besides siphoning off teaching money for buildings, kids are not getting the comprehensive curriculum and services that our district schools must provide. Partial schools cheat children by not exposing them to at least 10 disciplines taught by certified and vetted professionals.

 

He adds:

 

Arizona is a state controlled by ALEC (Alliance Of Legislative Executive Councils). Much of the Alliance’s agenda comes from the teachings of the radical right-wing John Birch Society, the legacy the Koch Brothers continue to force on America. The Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the Arizona political machine advocate the destruction of public education in America, the end of workers’ rights and worker organizations, and the right to access public tax dollars for their own profit. They call it “privatizing.”

 

More often than not, legislators allow ALEC teams to write the legislation they will introduce and vote in. This process subverts the democratic process of representative government. It is in fact, corporation representation.

 

The public schools are starved of the resources they need to educate the children. The ALEC-controlled legislature is trying to destroy public education.

 

This is political corruption of the worst kind, the kind that hurts children and undermines the future of the state.

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.”