Archives for category: California

 

The rightwing, anti-union Walton Family Foundation has funded a group called Innovate to push charter schools as the solution to achievement gaps in San Francisco.

Innovate targets Black and Latino families and peddles the hoax that charters have the secret formula for closing achievement gaps that are rooted in poverty.

“Innovate is a South Bay-based group founded in 2013 and describing itself as a “nonprofit organization whose mission is to build the parent and community demand for world-class public schools, and to accelerate the growth of these schools, particularly for low-income students and students of color.”

“Fair enough. But achieving this end has, reliably, taken the form of agitation for charter schools. The organization is generously funded by pro-charter outfits such as the Walton Family Foundation, which has put hundreds of millions of dollars into bankrolling taxpayer-funded, privately operated schools nationwide. Innovate’s own founding documents state that its raison d’être is to “focus on education reform that will support the creation of new charter schools and innovative district schools, parent choice, and strong systems of accountability.”

“Prior to turning its eyes to the north, Innovate won contentious battles in the San Jose area, besting opponents claiming that charter schools are cannibalizing the public system. They began quietly cultivating black and Latino parents in the Bayview and Mission two years ago, but it’s only in the last several months that this has garnered much attention. The organization began saturating area residents’ social media feeds with links to its report claiming San Francisco schools are the very worst in all of California for poor students of color.

“(The district disputes Innovate’s use of the data — but there’s no way to make the stats look good; generations of minority parents have complained that San Francisco’s schools have failed them, and the gaping achievement gap shows no indications of narrowing in the short term.)

“Innovate’s report is titled, “A Dream Deferred,” a Langston Hughes reference lost on few. Also lost on few is the exquisite quality of this document’s online form, which allows readers ample opportunity to share it with elected officials — and share their personal data with Innovate — at the push of a button.

“Innovate’s most recent tax forms indicate it grossed more than $4 million in 2015 alone, and its slick materials, excellent website, and a communications staff dwarfing the San Francisco Unified School District’s are indicative of that.”

Innovate implied that it has the support of the NAACP, but failed to mention that the state and national NAACP have called for a moratorium on new charters. They used the words of Amos Brown, the head of the local NAACP, and he was unhappy.

““You can tell everybody you see, whether in hell or heaven, that it is not my position to support Innovate and their move for charter schools,” Brown told us. “I want to make it crystal clear to those people: They are not to use my name in support of no charter school! I don’t appreciate this one bit.”

”Mission Local has heard many such stories: Innovate staff packing public meetings and clapping and shouting at the right times; Innovate employees crashing seminars intended for parents, participating in them, and scouting for recruits; Innovate staff trying to gain entry into community organizations.

“These are tactics more befitting campus Marxists or Lyndon LaRouche acolytes than a multi-million-dollar nonprofit with dozens of employees and a coterie of extremely wealthy backers. But the strategies employed by scrappy ideological groups do work — and can be even more effective when you have big bucks on-hand to pay professional organizers.”

Innovate is preying on parents’ hopes and fears. You can be sure that parents will never hear about the many failed charters that litter California, Tennessee, Nevada, Michigan, and other states.

 

 

 

 

This is a stunning and shocking expose by Mercedes Schneider, who has corresponded with a teacher at one of the Bay Area Rocketship charters and fed her documents about standard practices and policies. This is a scary documentation of child abuse.

A small sample:

“In a description of the “charter school nightmares” blog, “rkshp employee” notes the following:

“More about my school. We have:

no cafeteria
no school nurse
no on-site custodian
no school library
school is 7:45 – 4 PM (8.25+ hours) daily
recess is 15 minutes
lunch is 15 minutes and kids are not allowed to talk during lunch
every student (from pre-K to 5th grade) has mandatory computer class for 90 minutes a day

“In another post, “rkshp employee” notes, “Our 3 principals are all TFA (Teach for America) alum.””

This is worse than Dickensian.

If we had a functioning Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, it would launch an immediate investigation.

This is child abuse. Why do parents put their children in these absive institutions?

An audit of a charter school in Chico, California, found possible financial fraud. California has a weak charter law and one of the worst records in the nation for holding charter schools accountable and monitoring fraud.

A former Blue Oak Charter School administrator is alleged to have used school credit cards to purchase weapons, movies and clothing, according to an audit conducted by the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team.

The Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, a state agency tasked with providing financial guidance and reviews to California school districts, audited Blue Oak this year in response to concerns brought forth by the school and the Butte County Office of Education.

The team analyzed financial documents from 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, and found that fraudulent activity may have occurred in that period, according to the Extraordinary Audit report released on Nov. 16. The school’s executive director during that time was Nathan Rose.

The 380-student Waldorf school experienced significant financial challenges in recent years and was over budget for several years and struggling with cash flow, Executive Director Susan Domenighini said.

The board became concerned that something “wasn’t right,” and approached Chico Unified School District, the agency tasked with overseeing the school, for additional support and eventually asked the Butte County Office of Education request that FCMAT conduct an Extraordinary Audit.

The findings of that audit, released earlier this month, indicate there may have been misuse of school funds on the part of the former school executive director and noted that “deficiencies and exceptions” and the school’s internal control environment increased “the probability of fraud, mismanagement and/or misappropriation of funds.”

The report states that the school’s then executive director and other administrators routinely used school credit cards for travel expenses and meals, and that the executive director charged meals, snacks and beverages to school credit cards without an identifiable business purpose.

Although no administrators were named in the report, Nathan Rose served as Blue Oak’s executive director from June 2012-June 2016. After leaving Blue Oak, he went on to serve as the superintendent/principal for Pine Ridge Elementary School District, a position he held for several months.

One section of the report states the former executive director “extensively” used credit cards established as school accounts and issued in his name for food, fuel and other purchases that may have been of personal benefit. Some of those purchases include weapons, tactical gear and military radios; a Birchbox monthly beauty product subscription service; iTunes, Amazon On Demand and IndieFlix downloads; numerous fast food purchases; clothing and accessories; Disney Resort transactions; liquor store transactions and more than $3,990 in unsubstantiated expenditures to Costco, among other expenses.

School staff could not account for several items purchased with school credit cards, some of which were shipped to the then executive director’s residence, including an Epson home cinema, a Fuji underwater camera and folding knives.

I spoke to the California School Boards Association yesterday, at its annual meeting in San Diego. I love San Diego. It is on the ocean and always beautiful, with a temperate climate. I had dinner the night before I spoke, with Cindy Marten, the superintendent of the San Diego district. As in the past, we had dinner at Miguel’s in Old Town. The one thing I have never been able to find in NYC is good Mexican food. When I first moved to NYC in 1960, after marrying a Native New Yorker, a friend told me that Texans in the city were always looking for Mexican food and always disappointed. In San Diego, I am never disappointed.

I spoke to a very large and friendly audience at the Convention Center. A few thousand people. I didn’t see any empty seats. When the video is released, I will post it. I was preceded by Marshall Tuck, who is running for State Superintendent and sure to have the support of the charter industry. We spoke in the Green Room, and he assured me that he would lead the fight to ban for-profit charters. The charter industry in the state is unregulated and unaccountable.

In my speech, I went through the history of NCLB and Race to the Top, and the damage they have done to students, teachers, and public schools. I then dissected the negative impacts of standardized testing and its utter uselessness as currently implemented. I pointed out that the achievement gap can never be closed with standardized tests because they are designed on a bell curve, and the bell curve never closes.

I then ticked off the many charter scandals in the state, the inevitable result of a total absence of supervision. I listed scam after scam. I reiterated the conclusions and recommendations of the NAACP report on charters.

My theme was the relationship between public schools, citizenship, and democracy.

When I concluded, I received a standing ovation.

Later, I was sitting in the lobby, waiting to meet a friend from Los Angeles and chatting with people who had heard me speak. One woman stepped up and said, “I walked out on your speech. It was too political. There’s no room for politics her.” She turned on her heel and left. I happened to be sitting with another member of the same school board, and I asked him, “What did she find ‘too political?’”

He said, “She’s a Trump supporter. You mentioned Trump in your opening remarks.”

That was true. I started by mentioning that Trump wants to cut federal funds for education by 13%, and he wants to shift $20 Billion to charters and vouchers.” These are factual statements. But the board member objected and walked out.

I can accept that people disagree. What I find hard to understand is an unwillingness to face plain and incontrovertible facts.

Anyway, I’m writing this on the airplane home. The CSBA was incredibly gracious. I met hundreds of people who are passionate about public schools. I’m looking to them to carry on the fight for better schools in their communities and at the ballot box.

Several elementary schools in San Jose, California, are on the chopping block. Meanwhile, charter schools are booming. Local school boards are helpless to stop the charter growth. If the local board says no to the charter, the charter appeals to the county board. If the county board says no, the charter appeals to the state board, which almost always says yes. Governor Jerry Brown appointed the state board. It is very charter friendly. Unless the next governor reins in the charter industry, it will wreck public education in California.

Karen Wolfe, parent activist in Los Angeles, writes here in response to an ill-informed article in the Napa Valley Register by columnist Dan Walters. I read Walters’ article and it did not reflect what I knew about California. He thinks that the angels of light are on the side of privatization, battling the mighty “education establishment.” He thinks that “civil rights groups” support the privatization of public schools. This doesn’t make sense, inasmuch as the billionaires and privatizers are out to destroy public education in California. Rather than say so myself, from a distance of 3,000 miles, I turned to someone, Karen Wolfe, who is up to date on the state of the “school wars,” to respond to Dan Walters’ views.

She wrote:

California’s school war flares up on three fronts

Dan Walters is right that there is a fierce battle over public education in the state of California that is sure to heat up as the 2018 elections draw nearer. However, the framing of an entrenched establishment pitted against altruistic reformers is naive or misleading.

The real fight is over who gets the money in the state’s second largest budget line and what that means for our notion of government.

Do we update our public school system around the protections and oversight built into its foundation? Or do we privatize the system, handing over money and children to a free-market of charter school choices on little more than a promise to be responsible and effective?

Setting aside for the moment that the purpose of public school is more than achievement on standardized tests, one factor to consider is that the charters aren’t doing any better than the traditional public schools, according to the often-cited CREDO study (Urban Charter Schools in California, 2015).

Cal State Sacramento’s Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Julian Vasquez Heilig, told me that in many cases California charters have a negative impact on student learning. Even where any impact is positive, it is minuscule, he said. This is especially important when the push for more charters is compared to other education reforms like universal pre-kindergarten or class size reduction. Both of these have been found to show far larger positive impacts.

In fact, those are among the reforms sought by the Equity Coalition, a group referred to in the op ed. But the author doesn’t mention those reforms. Nor does he tell readers the primary objective of the group’s lawsuit: A larger overall education budget.

It seems no matter the topic of education policy, the so-called reformers claim that charter schools are the only answer.

This view puts them in close alignment with US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Her home state provides a stark example of the failure of privatization. Education historian and author Diane Ravitch writes, “Since Michigan embraced the DeVos family’s ideas about choice, Michigan has steadily declined on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.” From 2003 to 2015, the state’s NAEP rankings on fourth grade reading and math have dropped from 28th to 41st, and from 27th to 42nd, respectively, she writes.

And what about the money?

Every day, new reports of financial scandals at charters are posted by Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education. A study last year by consumer watchdog In the Public Interest, found that California taxpayers have paid $2.5 billion for charter school facilities alone. Much of that went for buying or leasing facilities in areas that already had surplus classrooms. The Spending Blind report also underscored the CREDO findings, stating that the education offered at three fourths of the charters was worse than that provided at nearby district schools.

Walters also asserts that civil rights groups are behind the push for more charters. This, too, is a talking point of the privatizers. While it’s true that there is an affinity for charters among many civil rights groups, the nation’s oldest and foremost civil rights organization, the NAACP, has called for a moratorium on new charter schools. Following a nationwide series of public hearings, the NAACP said it “rejects the emphasis on charter schools as the vanguard approach for the education of children, instead of focusing attention, funding, and policy advocacy on improving existing, low performing public schools…”

In any discussion about education policy or politics, the well-informed will recognize the talking points in the carefully constructed narrative meant to accelerate the transfer of one of the most important functions of government into a market-based enterprise.

California’s election of a new State Superintendent next year will amplify the school wars. That race pits Tony Thurmond, a former school board member on the pro-public schools side, against Marshall Tuck, formerly of Bain Capital, on the privatizers side.

There is even more at stake in the race for Governor. Both front runners, Antonio Villaraigosa and Gavin Newsom, have ties to charter funders. Villaraigosa has a long track record of trying to advance the corporate reform agenda and Newsom’s education platform is less clear. Current State Treasurer John Chiang has called for greater transparency and accountability for charters to even the playing field with pure public schools.

The future of public education is at stake in the 2018 elections. Underneath the stories the candidates tell, the issue is, who do we trust more with California students: profit-seeking corporations or locally elected school boards?

Karen Wolfe is the Director of PSconnect, a community engagement program for public schools in Los Angeles.


In 2018, California will elect a new governor to replace Jerry Brown. Brown has been an ally to the charter industry, which has been allowed to proliferate with minimal accountability. This great blue state has put the future of public education at risk. Major funders—California’s Silicon Valley billionaires and of course Eli Broad—are all in for charters and privatization. Netflix founder Reed Hastings gives millions to the California Charter Schools Association, and he has asserted that elected school boards should be replaced by thousands of autonomous charter schools. Absent supervision and accountability, corruption is predictable.

Tom Ultican, who left Silicon Valley to become a high school teacher of physics and math, writes here about the governors’ race.

The candidate with the most money is Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco. He has received campaign contributions from Silicon Valley, like Trump friend Peter Thiel. Strangely, he received the endorsement of the California Teachers Association, although Newsom publicly said that he was neither anti-teacher nor pro-teacher. His money comes from charter supporters, but Newsom will have the troops supplied by CTA.

CTA has to d3cide whether it will have a seat at the table or will be on the menu. The Vergara case demonstrated how eager the tech entrepreneurs are to destroy unions and teachers’ rights.

Tom Ultican explains why he, as an educator, will support State Treasurer John Chiang.

Chiang has collected the second largest pot of funding, Not from Silicon Valley billionaires, but from mostly Chinese-Americans.

Ultican writes:

“Because of the relentless attacks on public schools and educators, candidate views on education are key. Many self-styled “progressive democrats,” have adopted education positions attacking teachers’ unions and promoting privatization (Rahm Emanuel, Corey Booker, Antonio Villaraigosa). Some position statements promulgated by Chiang’s campaign:

In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 98, which requires a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-12 education. Unfortunately, while Proposition 98 was meant to create a constitutional “floor” for education spending, it has turned into a political ceiling. As a result, California is grossly under-invested in public education.”

“We also must protect the collective bargaining rights of our educators, classified employees, professors, early childhood educators and child care providers. It is critically important that the people who interact with our students and children every day have a seat at the table and a voice on the job to advocate for the best conditions possible for our children to learn.”

“We must also increase both the quantity and quality of California’s early childhood education programs and assure free access for all working families.

“We also know that small class sizes are the key to improving student learning. We need to expand the Class Size Reduction program so our students have every opportunity to learn.”

“Cities and states across the nation are jumping on board and are finding innovative solutions to provide two free years of community college. California needs to find a way to get to that place, where we make community college free while ensuring students are on the right path through participation and graduation.”

“To reclaim the promise of quality education, we must ensure that children and their families have access to wraparound services to meet their social, emotional and health needs.”

Read about the candidates. If you vote in California, be informed.

The first law authorizing charter schools was authorized by Minnesota in 1991, and the first charter school opened in St. Paul in 1992. The original idea of charters was that they would enroll students with high-needs, would try new approaches, and would share what they learned with the public schools. They were not intended to be competitors with public schools, but to be akin to research and development centers, abetting the work of the public schools.

Now, 25 years later, the charter sector has burgeoned into nearly 7,000 schools enrolling some three million students. Some charters are corporate chains. Some are religious in character. Some operate for profit. Some are owned and run by non-educators.

Instead of collaborating with public schools, most compete for students and resources. Instead of serving the neediest students, many choose the students who are likeliest to succeed.

It is time for a thorough inquiry into the status and condition of charter schools today, and that is what Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, has done in this report.

An experienced high school principal, Burris has traveled the country, visiting charter schools and talking to parents, teachers, students, and administrators.

Not only has she examined many charters, she reviews the marketing of charters and their fiscal impact on traditional public schools. Policy makers have not expanded the funding at the state or local level to pay for new charters. Instead, they have cut funding for the public schools that typically enroll 85-90% of students. Thus, most students will have larger classes and fewer curriculum choices because of the funding taken away for charter schools. Burris also analyzes the report on charters by the NAACP and the response to it by charter advocates.

This is neither fair nor just nor wise.

This is the only post you will see today, except for a graphic that will pop up in an hour or so.

Take the time to read the entire report.

Let me know what you think.

At its meeting on November 7, the LAUSD board showed who is boss: the California Charter Schools Association.

Carl J. Petersen reports here on the meeting.

http://thewire.k12newsnetwork.com/2017/11/10/the-lausd-continues-to-reward-failure/

He begins:

“The California Charter School Association (CCSA) paid millions to purchase the LAUSD School Board, but their narrow majority is in danger. Not only is Ref Rodriguez, one of their hand-selected Board members, facing criminal charges related to his campaign, but the charter school chain he founded has accused him of having a conflict of interest while he was their Treasurer. This, in turn, exposed the charter organization’s lax financial controls. All of this has caused a rare sense of unity across the education divide; both the Los Angeles Times and United Teachers Los Angeles have both called for Rodriguez’ resignation.

“Having reintroduced the chaos back into the District that has been missing since the departure of Deasy, the charter industry played their next hand by blackmailing the District in an attempt to remove language that the LAUSD requires in each charter. If they did not get their way, 13 charters would move to the county or state where even less oversight is provided. Judging by the line of news trucks lined outside the Boardroom on Beaudry, the media was prepared for the November 7, special Board meeting to be full of drama.”

This announcement just arrived:


Contact: Brianna Carroll 650-219-6360 or Sheryl Carruth 562-818-1243
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

California Virtual Academies Teachers Authorize Strike
Educators at State’s Largest Online Charter Schools Network Hope to Move Stalled Contract Talks

Simi Valley[–- By over a 90% margin, educators at California Virtual Academies (CAVA) have voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike after over a year trying to negotiate their first contract with CAVA administration. [California Virtual Educators United (CVEU) has been working to address teacher and student turnover by raising CAVA’s shockingly low, uncompetitive salaries and to ensure a manageable student to teacher ratio that supports quality instruction and learning. CAVA, which contracts with national online, for-profit charter giant K12, Inc., hires instructors at low pay to teach as many students as possible with low overhead, then funnels California tax-payer funding back to executives in Virginia and their investors to pay for management fees, technology, and other services. CVEU represents 450 CAVA teachers.

Ongoing sessions with a state mediator have so far failed to produce a settlement. While continuing to work and hope for a fair resolution, CAVA members see this week’s vote as a strong show of determination and unity. Additional mediation dates are scheduled for November 28 and 29th.

“Our members are deeply dedicated to the over 10,000 students we serve,” said CVEU president Brianna Carroll. “We believe in what we are doing and are working to negotiate changes that will benefit our students and stop the high turnover that is turning CAVA into a revolving door for teachers and enriching an out-of-state, for-profit company at the expense of better quality teaching and learning, and adequate resources for the kids best served by an online model.”

K12, Inc. and CAVA, who bitterly fought the unionization of CAVA teachers and their representation by the California Teachers Association, have been plagued by other issues reflecting poor management. Last year CAVA agreed to a $168.5 million settlement with the California Attorney General over concerns related to business practices, student performance, and use of public funds. Last month CAVA was required to pay back nearly $2 million to the State of California based on ongoing problems with the reporting of attendance, teacher to pupil ratios and student progress. CVEU believes its unionization and a strong contact settlement will help make kids, not profits, more of a priority for CAVA management.

Guess the teachers don’t realize that the K12 Inc. model relies on low-wage, non-union teachers with large classes.