Archives for category: California

Charter vs. charter!

Charters in California are angry at the Inspire Charter chain for poaching their students. Inspire is the chain that caters to homeschooling parents.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investigations/Inspire-Charter-School-Unethical-Practices-557802161.html

Critics of Inspire accuse the charter of using unethical practices to entice parents and students to leave their current charter schools and go to Inspire. A spokesperson for Inspire says the criticism is the result of the charter school’s “incredible growth.”

Inspire Charter runs a network of home schools operating throughout California; some of those schools are authorized by the Dehesa School District…

Through Inspire, parents receive instructional funds totaling $2,800 per year for students who are in kindergarten through eighth grade, according to the charter school. High school students can receive $3,000 every year. That money is used for curriculum and extra-curricular activities…

Another critic is Terri Schiavone, the Founder and Director of Golden Valley Charter School in Ventura. Schiavone says her school is one of many that are losing students to Inspire Charter.

“They target a school and then they try to get as many of their teachers and students as possible,” Schiavone said.

Schiavone said families and teachers are enticed by incentives like using instructional funds to buy tickets to Disneyland and other theme parks. Schiavone says there is a lack of oversight and accountability.

No one is making sure teachers are checking up on students’ work, and Schiavone says parents can buy whatever they want from vendors who she says are not fingerprinted or even qualified.

“It’s very desirable for some parents to enroll in schools in which nobody’s looking over their shoulder,” said Schiavone. “They can utilize whatever curriculum they want, including religious curriculum, which is illegal if using public dollars…”

But while supporters defend Inspire, the charter school has made moves to change its operations. It ended the option of using instructional funds to buy tickets to Disneyland and other theme parks last year, according to a letter sent to parents.

Then on August 1, Inspire closed its “Enrichment Adventure Program.” Through the program, parents could use their instructional funds for dinner theater productions, tickets to the Smithsonian, for example, when a family is on an out of state field trip.

Inspire says the other charters are jealous of their success.

It has been widely reported that charter schools enroll fewer students with disabilities and few of the students they enroll have severe disabilities.

The California Teachers Association and the United Teachers of Los Angeles reviewed public records to document the enrollments of students with disabilities in charter schools in San Diego, Los Angeles, and Oakland.

The study is titled “State of Denial: California Charter Schools and Special Education Students.”

https://www.utla.net/news/new-study-reveals-privately-run-charter-schools-under-enroll-students-disabilities

The study found that charters enroll fewer students with disabilities than public schools. Charter enrollment is 11% compared to more that 14% in public schools. Furthermore, charters enroll fewer students with severe disabilities. They avoid the students who are most expensive to educate. Consequently these charter policies cost the three districts between $64 million to $97 million each year.

In some of the charter networks, fewer than 10% of students are entitled to special education services. One celebrated charter in Oakland, the American Indian Model Schools, known for its high test scores, has fewer than 3%. The 12 Rocketship charter schools enroll only 7.34% students with disabilities. The two charters created by former Governor Jerry Brown in Oakland enroll fewer than 10% of students with disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS:

Advocates for students with disabilities have long held that charter schools do not enroll, and therefore do not serve, students with disabilities at the same levels as public school districts—either in overall enrollment or level of need—which leads to a greater fiscal impact for public school districts.

Our analysis affirms these concerns for the first time in the three California school districts we examined. Because of the structure for funding special education in California—which arguably disincentivizes enrolling students with disabilities in charter schools by funding based on total enrollment, and not need—we have no reason to believe that similar results would not be borne out in other districts throughout the state.

These findings are particularly important at this point in time in California, when a growing body of evidence shows that the rapid growth of charter schools has led to growing fiscal impact for public school districts. As policymakers at all levels of government weigh how to best meet the needs of California students equitably, we hope they will take these findings into account.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS

The aim of our report was to provide an in-depth analysis of special education enrollment to quantify the anecdotal evidence so often cited by public education advocates. However, our analysis affirms the need for policy changes brought forth by advocates that would begin to address the inequities described in this report. The following represent just a few of those proposals:

1. Increase Federal Funding for Special Education: Perhaps the most obvious solution to these inequities would be for the federal government to meet its original 1975 obligation to fund 40 percent of public special education costs. This language is already in federal statute and requires only the political will to push Congress to budget the necessary resources. Federal lawmakers should make the original promise the absolute floor, rather than the ceiling, of funding for students with disabilities.

2. Federal Civil Rights Monitoring: The Office of Civil Rights within the US Department of Education must independently and proactively monitor student access to and service within charter schools across the nation. While some states are capable of effectively monitoring their education systems for civil rights abuses, the federal government’s total abdication of this power to prioritize equity and access has not, and will not, lead to a safer and more responsive system for students and their families.

3. Accountability and Oversight by the CA Department of Education (CDE) and Authorizers:
The CDE should hold accountable both the charter schools that are underserving special education students, and the authorizers who are responsible for their oversight. This would not be the first time a state has moved to protect the rights of special education students, as the New York State Education Department’s Office of Special Education recently investigated and concluded the practices at Success Academy Charter Schools were violating the civil rights of special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Both Success Academy and the New York City Department of Education (Success Academy’s authorizer) were held accountable and corrective action was required.8

4. Re-Examine California’s Model for Funding Special Education to Account for Special Education Enrollment Disparities Between Districts and Charter Schools: California’s system of allocating special education funding based on total student population counts, as opposed to targeted counts of students by special education eligibility categories, has led to harmful fiscal impacts for the school districts we studied due to charter schools significantly under-enrolling these students. We have no reason to believe the results would be different for other districts.
This funding model makes two critical assumptions: that need does not vary by network or location, and that all schools are open to serving all students. These assumptions require further serious investigation because the current system actively discourages charter schools from both identifying students with disabilities, and perversely incentivizes the creation of barriers to access through enrollment.

5. Require Charter Schools to Join the Same SELPA as the District in Which They Are Located:

California policymakers should return the responsibility of coordinating special education services for charter schools to local Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs), and end the practice of allowing charter schools to opt-out of their local SELPA in favor of remote charter- only SELPAs that are sometimes hundreds of miles away.
As it stands, from a functional perspective, a student moving between schools within the same local area may have inconsistent accommodations and experiences due to schools belonging to different SELPAs. This undermines continuity of services, which is of utmost importance for special education students. This opt-out also undermines the fiscal stability of local school districts which, as our analysis found, are serving a disproportionately larger share of special education students without a larger share of funding.

6. Conduct Educational and Fiscal Impact Analyses When Considering New Charter School Petitions and Renewals: As fiduciaries of their local education agencies, and as elected officials entrusted to protect all students’ best interests, charter school authorizers must make economic and education impact analyses an essential part of both the charter school authorization and reauthorization processes. Elected officials, the authorizing body, and the public must have independent information about the impact of opening a new charter school in an established education community. Information should cover the full learning needs of all students, including essential topics regarding enrollment, retention, discipline, and the financial impact on the community and the neighborhood’s public schools. Districts must be allowed to use the findings of these impact reports as justification for denying new charter school petitions that will have an adverse fiscal impact on district programs and services.

7. Charter School Site-Based Special Education Committees: Coupled with both state and local governance oversight, charter operators themselves can take a proactive role to ensure they are open to and meeting the needs of all children in the community in which they operate. Each charter school campus should create a site-based special education committee. As those who spend the most time with special education students, both educators and parents are uniquely positioned to lead these committees.

 

The San Diego Union-Tribune featured a front-page top-of-the-fold story by Kristin Taketa about the deepening troubles of the “Inspire” charter chain, which is growing across the state despite academic and financial woes.

The headline: “Inspire Charter Schools Grow As Results Lag.”

The Inspire network of 12 home charter schools is quickly spreading its reach across California as some are calling into question its educational, organizational and financial practices.

At the heart of the Inspire network is a corporation whose CEO makes about $380,000 a year and who helped create the Inspire schools, which now pay his corporation 15 percent of the taxpayer funds they collect.

Inspire has grown in part by advertising that parents can decide how to spend$2,600 or more a year toward their child’s education, with a teacher’s approval. Inspire operates on the idea that parents should have freedom to decide how their children are educated.

Inspire parents have been able to spend state-provided money on expenses they say are educational, from Disneyland annual passes to private ice skating coaching. The list of places where Inspire parents could spend school funds has included Costco, Amazon, Big Air Trampoline Park, Medieval Times, Guitar Center and the DNA testing company 23 and Me, according to Inspire’s list of approved vendors.

Meanwhile, Inspire students are required to meet with teachers and turn in assignments once a month.

The charter network is based in Duarte and enrolled 23,400 students last year.

State data show that Inspire schools underperformed academically. Last year, all Inspire schools performed below the state average in English and math test scores, with some schools showing as few as 16 percent of their students passing math and as few as 25 percent passing English. The state average is 39 percent for math and 50 percent for English.

Put together, Inspire schools had an average graduation rate of 69 percent last year and produced seven graduates — out of 209— who met California state college or university admission requirements.

Why does the State Education Department tolerate this waste of children’s lives and taxpayers’ money?

When will the Legislature crack down on these sham schools?

The good news is that a major newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, is assigning excellent reporters to cover these scandals, which are especially flagrant in California due to the state’s weak charter law, which assures that charters will be unregulated and unaccountable. In the past, the Union-Tribune was considered a conservative paper. It may still be. Conservatives should be outraged by this fraudulent education and blatant misuse of public funds.

The Sausalito-Marin City school district is an outrage. Sausalito is a charming groovy traditionally bohemian (now ultra-wealthy) bayfront town. Unincorporated Marin City, adjacent to Sausalito, is largely public housing, built for WWII shipyard workers — traditionally almost all-black but now including some Latino and Pacific Islanders.. Sausalito right now has a lovely privileged darling adorable charter school serving those with social capital, and one struggling public school serving anyone else — known as the “project school” (meaning housing projects, not school projects).
The state Attorney General demanded an end to this segregation.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/School-district-in-Marin-County-agrees-to-14293740.php

School district in Marin County agrees to desegregate in settlement with state

The state settled a racial discrimination case Friday with a desegregation plan for a tiny Marin County school district whose nonwhite students were mostly enrolled in a struggling, underfunded elementary and middle school.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office announced the settlement with leaders of the Sausalito Marin City School District. The district said it was “an opportunity to openly and transparently acknowledge past failures” and to “put an end to inequitable education.”

The district had 528 students in 2018-19, about one-third of them white and the rest black, Latino, Asian-American or multiracial, according to district records. One of its two schools, Bayside Martin Luther King Jr. Academy in unincorporated Marin City, had 119 students, eight of them white.

Becerra said state investigators found that the district had intentionally created Bayside MLK Academy in 2013 as a racially and ethnically segregated school for grades kindergarten through eight. The district “cut critical classroom programming” at the school while providing stable funding for its other school, Willow Creek Academy, a publicly funded charter serving students in Sausalito, Becerra said.

 

Rebecca Klein, education editor of Huffington Post, broke the story that rightwing groups have infiltrated NAACP chapters in California to create a fake rebellion against the organization’s 2016 call for a moratorium on new charters. The resolution passed by the National Civil Rights Group demands a halt until charters agree to be accountable, to cease diverting money from public schools, and to stop pushing out students they don’t want.

When three local NAACP branches in California passed April resolutions opposing the national group’s call for a charter school moratorium, school choice advocates greeted the news with glee. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVosvoiced her support in an interview. The Wall Street Journal published a flattering editorial about the move, describing it as a welcome “revolt.”

But leaders at the California state NAACP say this so-called “revolt” is fake news. They say the main member who pushed these actions ― a woman named Christina Laster ― is being paid by a right-wing group connected to the Koch brothers to infiltrate the organization and sow chaos. They also note that, despite the media attention, these resolutions were dead on arrival at the national organization for failure to follow proper submission protocol or rejection by higher committees.

In July, California leadership asked the national NAACP to initiate an investigation into the three branches ― Southwest Riverside, San Diego and San Bernardino ― and their leaders’ motivations.

“It’s definitely a funded and deliberate effort to try and do a hostile takeover,” said Rick Callender, the second vice president for the California Hawaii NAACP…

Laster works for the California Policy Center, a conservative think tank that’s an affiliate of the State Policy Network. According to a 2012 report from theCenter for Media and Democracy, the State Policy Network is a main driver of legislation created by the pro-business American Legislative Exchange Counsel and has deep ties to Charles and David Koch, the energy billionaires who spend vast sums of money to promote conservative causes and candidates. The California Policy Center is dedicated to pushing education reform causes, with a focus on beating back the state’s teachers union. The group has been behind a number of lawsuits designed to hurt unions’ bottom lines.

An officer of the San Diego branch of the NAACP is  employed by the California Charter Schools Association, the charter lobby.

“These are people on the payroll of charter school associations and payroll of organizations that are trying to attack the greatest civil rights organization in the U.S.,” said Callender.

 

Bill Raden of Capital & Main reports that the charter industry and its lobby are steaming mad at State Superintendent  of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who actually wants to increase charter accountability.

The California Charter Schools Association has consistently fought accountability and transparency. No matter how many scandals and outright embezzlement, the charter lobby wants no regulation or oversight.

The fact that charter law reform has dominated this summer’s Sacramento legislative session can be chalked up to Reclaim Our Schools Los Angeles (ROSLA), the undersung coalition that laid the foundation for the wide-ranging political victories scored by United Teachers Los Angeles in January’s L.A. teachers strike. The charter task force itself came out of a concession won by UTLA’s strategy of bargaining for the “common good” that went far beyond the scope of a typical labor agreement. Which makes Building the Power to Reclaim Our Schools, ROSLA’s just-released, blow-by-blow case study of its community-based organizing effort, this week’s must-read for activists across the progressive spectrum as they gird for coming battles over reforms necessary to turn back the ultimate threat to public education — California’s manufactured, post-Proposition 13 austerity.

The case study’s most important takeaway? That there’s strength in numbers. “Labor groups are very powerful,” said Cesar Castrejon, a lead parent organizer with coalition member Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. “And they have a lot of resources. So when they use those resources to create spaces where they can amplify and lift up community voices, it creates this sense of unity that gives the community the ability to flex its power. That’s why we were so successful.”

 

The photograph below was taken during the UTLA strike last January. The guy in the center is famous rocker Stevie Van Zandt, who loves teachers and public schools and unions. Stevie is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He played in Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band.

Stevie is constantly giving back, and he gave back in Los Angeles, where he picketed in the rain. Stevie will be a featured speaker at the Network for Public Education national conference in Philadelphia, March 28-29, 2020. Be there!

Stevie made a great video to celebrate International Teachers Day. 

Jeremy Mohler of “In the Public Interest” writes:

 

 

 

Like many districts nationwide, Los Angeles’s public school system was “broke on purpose.”

It’s suffered through decades of underfunding and anti-government rhetoric—”bad teachers.” Despite being the world’s fifth largest economy, California is 41st in the nation in per pupil funding.

It’s also bore the brunt of the charter school industry’s rapid growth. Los Angeles Unified School District has more charter schools than any other district in the country and now spends nearly $600 million annually to prop up a competing, parallel sector of privately managed schools.

That’s why what the city’s teachers did earlier this year was so powerful.

As a new report from Reclaim Our Schools LA outlines, “The Los Angeles strike resulted in a stunning array of substantive victories well beyond the scope of a typical labor agreement.”

Not only did teachers win pay increases, but they also won more nurses, counselors, and librarians in schools; smaller class sizes; reductions in standardized testing; an end to random searches of students in some schools; and more.

If you’re wondering what democracy looks like in the age of Citizens United, voter suppression, and Trump, what’s being dubbed “bargaining for the common good” is a glimpse.

Read Building the Power to Reclaim Our Schools for the story of how teachers and the community organized and worked together to use government for the common good.

Thanks for reading,

Jeremy Mohler
Communications Director
In the Public Interest

Will Huntsberry is the investigative reporter who untangled the $50-$80 million scam that led to the indictment of eleven people associated with a virtual charter chain in California (“Inside the Charter School Empire Prosecutors Say Scammed California for $80 Million”). 

In his latest investigation, he details the complicated business dealings that are enriching the owners of a “nonprofit” chain of 60 charter schools across the state.

John Helgeson, a charter school executive, has a great deal for a public servant.

In 2007, he helped found Charter School Capital, a for-profit Oregon company that loans money to charter schools and buys school properties. In May 2015, he also started making $300,000 a year as an executive vice president at Learn4Life, a nonprofit network of more than 60 charter schools that serves roughly 45,000 students in California.

Charter School Capital lends money to Learn4Life schools and pockets the interest. While working at Learn4Life – which is funded almost entirely by California taxpayers – Helgeson maintained an ownership stake in Charter School Capital. In doing so, Helgeson discovered a way to collect not just one, but two paychecks from California’s cash-strapped public school system.

Learn4Life, which operates nine San Diego locations, serves a unique group of students. Many are at-risk and have dropped or failed out of traditional high schools. The schools are publicly funded and often located in strip-mall storefronts. Students usually come in to meet with a teacher once or twice a week and complete work packets.

Since 2014, Charter School Capital has loaned more than $6 million to two Learn4Life schools in San Diego alone. A charter school borrowing money from a for-profit lender is normal enough. To have a key employee who profits from both is not.

Just two months after Helgeson came on board at Learn4Life, the company increased its business with Charter School Capital. Charter School Capital purchased the 100,000 square-foot corporate headquarters of Learn4Life in July 2015 – making Charter School Capital the landlord of Learn4Life. Now Charter School Capital wasn’t just profiting on its loans to Learn4Life. It was also profiting on a lease. And so was Helgeson.

“It sounds like a classic conflict of interest, where someone is serving two masters,” said Jessica Levinson, former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission and a professor at Loyola Law School.

To learn more about these storefront charters where students meet a teacher once a week, read Carol Burris’s devastating report Charters and Consequences. 

She wrote:

Of the San Diego charter schools, over one-third promote independent learning, which means the student rarely,
if ever, has to interact face to face with a teacher or fellow students. One of the largest independent learning charters, The Charter High School of San Diego, had 756 students due to graduate in 2015. Only 32% actually made it. The Diego Valley Charter School, part of the mysterious Learn4Life chain, tells prospective students that they “are only required to be at their resource center for one appointment per week (from 1-3 hours), so it’s not like having a daily commute!” The Diego Valley cohort graduation rate in 2015 was 10.8%, with a dropout rate of 45%. The San Diego School District’sgraduation rate was 89%.

 

It is very cool to home school in California! There are charter schools for home schoolers where you don’t have to go to school!

Home schoolers get a list of approved expenses, and they can decide how to spend the public’s money. How cool is that! This is a program that Betsy DeVos must love! True educational freedom on the public’s dime!

In California, there’s a way parents can use money from the government to buy multi-day Disneyland Park Hopper passes, San Diego Zoo family memberships, tickets to Medieval Times and dolphin encounters at SeaWorld.
 
There are a handful of charter schools that give students’ families as much as $2,800 to $3,200 — tax dollars sent to the charter schools — every year to spend on anything they want from a list of thousands of home-school vendors approved by the charters, according to the schools’ websites.
 
Some home-school vendors offer tutoring, curricula, books and other traditional educational services. Other vendors sell tickets to theme parks that are billed as field trips, or extracurricular activities that are billed as P.E., including parkour classesacting classesice skating lessonshorseback riding lessons and more. 
Forget college-and-career-ready. How about spending tax dollars on family fun?

 

Bill Phillis points to  the latest online charter scams. He forgot to mention the A3 scam in California, in which eleven people were indicted based on allegations that they embezzled between $50-80 million by inflated enrollments and phantom students.

 

School Bus
Indiana and Oklahoma online charters caught stealing tax dollars
It should not be surprising that online charters steal tax funds for students not enrolled. This charter sector is unregulated and is typically not monitored effectively.
The Indiana experience with online charters seemed to surprise Indiana officials despite stories from news publications going back several years. Two online charters stole $40 million.
Oklahoma officials have charged an online charter (EPIC) of inflating enrollment to steal $10 million.
ECOT may be at the top of the list of thieves in charterland. State officials have documented over $110 million that the ECOT Man stole. There were at least 10 years Ohio officials didn’t even check the ECOT enrollment data.
William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| www.ohiocoalition.org