Archives for category: Charter Schools

David Koch died of cancer a few days ago. He and his brother funded the free-market libertarianism that fueled the rise of the Tea Party and Trumpism. They zealously fought to destroy any government program that helped people, from Medicare to Social Security.

They were major funders of ALEC. They opposed any government regulations.

The story in the New York Times falls to mention that they funded attacks on public education and teacher certification, and they zealously supported charter schools and vouchers.

Interesting from the article:

In addition to Southampton, Mr. Koch had palatial homes on Park Avenue in Manhattan, in Aspen, Colo., and in Palm Beach, Fla. He kept a yacht in the Mediterranean for summer getaways and rented it out for $500,000 a week. His friends and acquaintances included Bill and Melinda Gates, Prince Charles and Winston Churchill’s grandson Winston Spencer Churchill.

No mention of the fact that the Koch brothers set up institutes to spread libertarianism at more than 300 colleges and universities. A resistance group called Unkoch My Campus emerged to expose their malign influence.

They insisted that they adhered to a traditional belief in the liberty of the individual, and in free trade, free markets and freedom from what they called government “intrusions,” including taxes, military drafts, compulsory education, business regulations, welfare programs and laws that criminalized homosexuality, prostitution and drug use.

More:

Among the groups they supported was the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of conservative state legislators and corporate lobbyists. Alec, as the group is known, drafts model state legislation that members may customize for introduction as proposed laws to cut taxes, combat illegal immigration, loosen environmental regulations, weaken labor unions and oppose gun laws.

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.

The evidence is clear that privately managed charters can get higher test scores by culling, exclusion, and attrition. It’s equally clear that charters drain resources from the public schools that enroll most students. Most public officials seem to understand that it costs more to run parallel systems, one public, one private.

But not in Rhode Island, where Governor Gina Raimondo is a big fan of charters (she was a hedge fund manager before running for governor). She is eager to expand Achievement First, a no-excuses charter known for high test scores and harsh discipline.

This article by Linda Borg in the Providence Journal lays out the findings of two independent studies that warned about the negative fiscal impact of charters on public schools (one from Moody’s Investors, the other from the Brookings Institution, which is erroneously described as “left-leaning”).

https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190822/providences-achievement-first-proposal-refuels-charter-debate

Borg should also have Gordon Lafer’s significant study of the fiscal drain of charters on the public schools of three districts in California.

Click to access ITPI_Breaking_Point_May2018FINAL.pdf

Supporters of expanding Achievement First cite a report funded by the Arnold Foundation, a rightwing foundation that zealously supports privatization and opposes public sector pensions. Billionaire John Arnold was an energy trader at Enron.

The recently appointed state commissioner, a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, dismissed the controversy as an “old conversation,” showing her indifference to stripping nearly $30 million from the needy public schools of Providence.

“State Education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green, in an interview Wednesday, called this an “old conversation,” adding that the expansion plan was approved by the Rhode Island Council of Elementary and Secondary Education three years ago after a contentious debate between charter proponents and critics.”

Stuart Egan read Baker Mitchell’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal defending charters against critics who say they foster segregation, and he was flabbergasted.

Here is his post.

He includes Baker Mitchell’s Wall Street Journal article, fulminating against the critics.

Then he cites the ProPublica article, Lindsay Wagner’s reporting, and John Merrow’s commentary, all reinforcing that Baker Mitchell has made millions by operating four charter schools.

Then Stuart goes to the official North Carolina report card site to gather information about Baker Mitchell’s charters.

Three are overwhelmingly white; one is overwhelmingly black. In other words, this champion of charters, this man who told the world that charters do not promote segregation, is managing a charter chain that is highly segregated. Furthermore, contrary to what he claimed in his article, his schools do NOT outperform local public schools.

Baker Mitchell prevaricated Bigly.

Someone should tell the Wall Street Journal to do their own fact-checking.

The Wall Street Journal editorial pages has been promoting school choice—charters and vouchers—for many years. It sees public education as a government monopoly, not a public service. It has published article after article explaining away the failures of school choice and re-interpreting negative evidence.

A few days ago, the paper may have struck a new low when it published a defense of charter schools by Baker Mitchell, the founder of a for-profit chain of charters in North Carolina, a non-educator who rakes in millions of dollars every year by owning four charters.

When he saw the WSJ article by Mitchell, North Carolina Teacher Stuart Egan pointed out that Baker Mitchell was reiterating the talking points created by Rhonda Dillingham, executive director of the North Carolina Association for Public [sic] Charter Schools.

Who is Baker Mitchell? He is a retired electrical engineer and a libertarian in the Koch brothers’ mold. He moved to North Carolina in 1997 and soon became allied with Art Pope, a rightwing libertarian who funded the Tea Party takeover of the state in 2010.

ProPublica featured Baker Mitchell as an example of a businessman who was turning public education dollars into his own private profits.

Here is an excerpt:

The school’s founder, a politically active North Carolina businessman named Baker Mitchell, shares the Kochs’ free-market ideals. His model for success embraces decreased government regulation, increased privatization and, if all goes well, healthy corporate profits.

In that regard, Mitchell, 74, appears to be thriving. Every year, millions of public education dollars flow through Mitchell’s chain of four nonprofit charter schools to for-profit companies he controls.

Over six years, Mitchell’s two companies have taken in close to $20 million in fees and rent — some of the schools’ biggest expenses. That’s from audited financial statements for just two schools. Mitchell has recently opened two more.

The schools buy or lease nearly everything from companies owned by Mitchell. Their desks. Their computers. The training they provide to teachers. Most of the land and buildings. Unlike with traditional school districts, at Mitchell’s charter schools there’s no competitive bidding. No evidence of haggling over rent or contracts.

The schools have all hired the same for-profit management company to run their day-to-day operations. The company, Roger Bacon Academy, is owned by Mitchell. It functions as the schools’ administrative arm, taking the lead in hiring and firing school staff. It handles most of the bookkeeping. The treasurer of the nonprofit that controls the four schools is also the chief financial officer of Mitchell’s management company. The two organizations even share a bank account.

Mitchell’s management company was chosen by the schools’ nonprofit board, which Mitchell was on at the time — an arrangement that is illegal in many other states.

John Merrow wrote that Baker Mitchell could teach Jesse James a few tricks. Merrow reviewed the tax filings of Mitchell’s charter schools and hit pay dirt. Of the $55 million his schools had received by 2014, Merrow wrote, Baker had collected $19 million.

Baker Mitchell’s article charges that there is a “smear campaign” against charters. He begins:

Leland, N.C.

With a new school year ahead, the attacks on charter schools have begun anew. In North Carolina we’re hearing outrageous charges of racism. A public-television commentator claimed recently that “resegregation” was the purpose of charter schools “from the start.”

Meanwhile, parents are voting with their feet. Statewide enrollment in traditional public schools has declined four years in a row. Less than 80% of K-12 students now attend district schools. More than 110,000 are enrolled in charters and 100,000 in private schools. More than 140,000 are being home-schooled…

Charges of racism are intended to divert attention from the failure of traditional public schools to educate minority children….

The Roger Bacon Academy, which I founded in 1999, oversees four charter schools in southeastern North Carolina that are among the top-performing in their communities. All four schools are Title 1 schools, meaning 40% or more of the students come from lower-income households. One of the schools, Frederick Douglass Academy in downtown Wilmington, is a majority-minority school.

We succeed where others fail because we do things differently. Our classical curriculum, direct-instruction methods, additional instructional hours, and focus on orderliness are a proven formula for successful learning…

Charter schools do not seek to replace traditional public schools, but rather to complement them, providing alternatives to the existing system. Our way is better for some students, not all. Let parents decide.

Take five minutes and watch as Superintendent Joseph Roy of the Bethlehem Area School District explains how private charters are harming the public schools and the unfairness of the funding formula, which is rigged on behalf of the charters.

This year, private charters will subtract $1.8 billion from the budget of public schools in Pennsylvania.

Governor Tom Wolf has proposed revising the charter law to prevent the defunding of the state’s public schools, which enroll the vast majority of students.

Please take action and show support for Governor Wolf.

As the backlash against private charter schools intensifies, even Hollywood recognizes that the grand experiment in privatizing the nation’s public schools is a dying cause.

Reed Hastings, billionaire founder of Netflix, made charters a fashionable thing in Tinseltown, but critics have emerged to shatter the money-powered consensus. Some of them woke when charter founder and LAUSD Member Ref Rodriguez was indicted. Some no doubt did not wish to be allied with Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration. Perhaps some are graduates of public schools, like 90% of the populace.

In any event, the waning acceptance of charters and privatization is a sign of the changing times.

When LAUSD board member and charter school advocate Ref Rodriguez pleaded guilty in July 2018 to a felony count of conspiracy, it seemed that Los Angeles’ charter school movement had hit a critical low. Rodriguez’s unraveling over campaign finance violations tipped the balance of power on the seven-member board that oversees the nation’s second-largest school district, weakening its charter school block.

Tensions between proponents of public schools and of charter schools — which are started by parents, teachers or community groups and receive government funding but operate independently of state school systems — were already high. The January teachers’ strike won concessions for LAUSD public schools ranging from smaller class sizes to hiring full-time nurses but was marked by heated anti-charter rhetoric. Critics of charters say they continue to drain much-needed resources from public schools. “If LAUSD were properly funded, then I think the choice that a charter school gives would be a nice one,” says writer Audrey Wauchope (Crazy Ex-Girlfriend). “Unfortunately, it often seems that going charter is now just another way for parents to leave behind their neighborhood school.”

Public-school proponents contend that charters operate without sufficient oversight (proof of which came in May when California authorities arrested two men for allegedly stealing more than $50 million in state funds via a network of online charter schools). For their part, charter school operators argue that they provide parents with other, better options than LAUSD, which they say is failing many of the city’s underprivileged kids.

Democratic State Senator Sam Bell called for the removal of Achievement First management after news spread about a pattern of abusive behavior towards students.

Achievement First is based in Connecticut and practices “no excuses” discipline.

“Dismantling the Achievement First Rhode Island network needs to begin with removal of the Achievement First Corporation from any managerial involvement with the schools. Closure would be too disruptive to the students, and converting the schools into public schools is a better approach,” Bell told GoLocal.

Bell sites a range of issues, including physical abuse of students. in Rhode Island, Achievement First operates under the names Achievement First Iluminar Mayoral Academy and Achievement First Providence Mayoral Academy.

Bell’s demand comes at the same time that the Mayor of Providence is trying to expand the Achievement First chain in his city.

In January of this year, the head of Achievement First Amistad High School in New Haven was caught on video shoving a student. This was one of a number of episodes linking faculty to physical contact with students.

The defenders of the chain say that Achievement First gets high test scores, and it appears that those scores matter more than abusive adults manhandling students.

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.

Betsy DeVos has awarded more than $200 million to the IDEA charter chain to expand in Texas and beyond. IDEA plans to swamp San Antonio, El Paso, and other cities.

IDEA promises that all students will graduate and go to college, but it doesn’t promise that all students will make it to senior year, or that they will make it in college (earlier studies by Ed Fuller, then at the University of Texas, now at Penn State, found that IDEA graduates had high dropout rates from college).

Read this study of IDEA to learn more.

 

Texas Charter Schools – Perception May Not Be Real

IDEA Public Schools: Remove the “RoseColored Glasses and Many RED FLAGS Appear

By:  William J. Gumbert

 

IDEA Public Schools (“IDEA”) is the fastest growing privately-operated charter school in Texas and its rapid expansion in local communities is funded and controlled by “special interests” that desire to “privatize” public education.  With promotions of a “100% College Acceptance Rate” and students being “Accepted to the College or University of Their Choice”, a full-time staff is employed to advocate for IDEA in local communities and to aggressively recruit “economically-disadvantaged” parents dreaming of a better life for their children.

Ann Landers said: “Rose-colored glasses are never made in bifocals.  Nobody wants to read the small print in dreams”.But with the education of children and millions of taxpayer dollars at stake, the small print is vitally important. Part 4 of this 5part series removes the “rose-colored glasses” that are inherent in the promotions of IDEA Public Schools to provide parents, taxpayers and communities an opportunity to review the potential RED FLAGS that appear when the light is solely focused on the facts of the rapidly expanding, privately-operated charter school.

Overview, Growth, Taxpayer Funding and Financial Benefits: As a privately-operated charter, IDEA has been approved by the State to separately operate in community-based school districts with taxpayer funding.  Since opening with 150 students in 2000, IDEA has been consistentlyfocused on expanding its footprint. In this regard, IDEAstrategic growth plan states it will serve 100,000 students by 2022 as new campuses are opened in Austin, El Paso, Houston, Midland/Odessa, Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, Tarrant County, Louisiana and Florida. At 100,000 students, IDEA would be the 31st largest school system in the United States.

With an appointed board in the Rio Grande Valley, the expansion of IDEA is orchestrated without the involvement of local communities and taxpayers.  IDEAs growth is solely controlled by its appointed board, the State and its private donors.  With the legislature supporting the expansion of privately-operated charter schools, the State recently approved IDEA to open 21 additional campuses across Texas.

IDEA Public Schools – Annual Taxpayer Funding

IDEA’s flexibility to expand has resulted in more and more taxpayer funding. Since its first graduating class of 25 students in 2007, IDEA’s taxpayer funding has increased from $14.9 million to approximately $440 million per year.  This represents an increase in taxpayer funding of 2,853% in only 13 years.  

 

IDEA’s growth has also proven to be lucrative for its leadership team.  As disclosed on its 2017 IRS Form 990, the Chief Executive Officer and Superintendent collectively received financial benefits totaling $968,208 in year 2017/18.  In addition, 8 other IDEA administrators received financial benefits totaling between $219,070 – $466,006.  On average, IDEA’s Central Office administrators have a salary of $200,249, while the statewide average salary for Central Office administrators in all Texas public schools is $102,300.

Other benefits for IDEA’s leadership team include free travel for family members to IDEA events and the potential use of IDEA’s private airplane secured through a long-term lease.  That’s right, a taxpayer-funded “charter” school targeting underserved communities uses a private plane for “charter” flights.

Special Interests are Controlling and Directing IDEA’s Expansion – Not Communities and Taxpayers: As a privately-operated public school, IDEA’s expansion is not subject to the approval of local communities. Rather, IDEA’s expansion is controlled, directed and funded by “special interests” that desire to “privatize” public education.  IDEA’s growth strategy proves this: “new regional expansions are the result of community supported education reform groups soliciting and inviting IDEA to open in their region and concurrently offering substantial startup and operational funding…”.  

As shown below, IDEA has received financial commitments totaling over $150 million from private donors to expand in various regions of the State. It is important to emphasize that these financial commitments are contingent upon IDEA following the criteria specified by the donor (not parents, communities or taxpayers), which includes the opening of a specified number of new IDEA campuses in each region.

Private Donor

Commitment to IDEA

Expansion Region

Permian Strategic Partners

(Scharbauer and Abell-Hanger Foundations)

$ 55,000,000

Midland/Odessa

Charter School Growth Fund

(Gates and Walton Family Foundations)

$  23,800,000

Rio Grande Valley

KLE Foundation

$  23,558,800

Austin

CREEED Foundation (Hunt Family Foundation)

$  17,000,000

El Paso

Laura and John Arnold Foundation

$    9,500,000

Houston

Sid W. Richardson Foundation

$    5,774,000

Tarrant County

Kleinheinz Family Foundation

$    5,774,000

Tarrant County

Ewing Halsell Foundation

$    5,500,000

San Antonio

Walton Family Foundation

$    5,417,800

Tarrant County

Choose to Succeed and City Education Partners

(George W. Brackenridge Foundation)

$   4,528,351

San Antonio

 

 

IDEA Reduces the Funding of Community-Based School Districts by an Estimated $350 Million Per Year:   IDEA’s expansions are typically promoted with much publicity and fanfare.  But such announcements routinely fail to mention the negative financial impact to local school districts that result from IDEA’s expansion. In this regard, Newton’s Third Law“for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”, applies to education funding. In most cases, there is not any additional funding provided for IDEA to operate in communities as local public education funding is finite. As IDEA enters a community, the available funding must be divided amongst IDEA and the existing community-based school districts.  In other words, the funding provided to IDEA will directly reduce the funding and ability of community-based school districts to simultaneously serve students. At this time, it is estimated that IDEA’s expansion in local communities has reduced the funding of community-based school districts by $350 million per year.

IDEA Has Lower Teacher and Principal Experience and Larger Class Sizes: Most parents likely prefer for their child to attend a school that deploys lower “student to teacher” ratios and smaller class sizes. Parents are also likely to prefer teachers and principals with more experience. But IDEA’s“education model defies these logical preferences. According to Texas Academic Performance Reports (“TAPR”) published by the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”), IDEA’s average class size in the 3rd grade is 28.9 students or 9.9 more students than the statewide average. In addition, while IDEA publicly advertises that it has “Expert Teachers”, the average experience of IDEA’s teachers is only 1.9 years and 90.9% of IDEA’s teachers have 5 years of experience or less.   In comparison, the average teacher experience for all Texas public schools is significantly higher at 10.9 years.  Teacher turnover has also been historically high at IDEA with 22.1% of teachers leaving each year, which is 33.1% higher than statewide average. 

Maybe IDEA has figured out how to achieve its promoted results with larger class sizes, lower experienced staff and higher teacher turnover.  But if a child was needing to see a doctor, I think most parents would prefer a doctor with 10.9 years of experience, fewer patients and longevity within the community.

COMPARISON OF IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND STATE AVERAGE – TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Teacher and Principal Experience, Class Size and Turnover

 

 

 

State AverageTexas Public Schools

Description

IDEA

Public

Schools

19.0 Students

CLASS SIZE – GRADE 3

28.9 Students

18.7

NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER TEACHER

15.1

10.9 Years

AVERAGE TEACHER EXPERIENCE

1.9 Years

37.3%

TEACHERS WITH 5 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OR LESS

90.9%

6.3 Years

AVERAGE EXPERIENCE – SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

2.7 Years

16.6%

ANNUAL TEACHER TURNOVER

22.1%

 

 

IDEA’s Per Student Expenditures for Instruction and Student Services are Significantly Below Statewide Average:  Like a household or a business, the expenditures of a public school can provide insight into the priorities of the school. Once again, IDEA’s unique model defies the norm. In comparison to all Texas public schools, IDEA spends:

17.3% less per student on instruction;
91.2% less per student on career and technical training;
65.5% less per student on extra-curricular activities to supplement the education of students;
43.6% less per student on students with disabilities; and
Zero dollars to educate students with a discipline history as such students are excluded from enrolling at IDEA.

COMPARISON OF IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND STATE AVERAGE

Per Student Expenditures

 

 

 

However, IDEA does spend 99.7% more per student on “School Leadership/General Administration”.  It is interesting to note that in comparison to the statewide per student average, the lower dollar amount that IDEA spends of “Instruction” is essentially equal to the higher dollar that IDEA spends on “School Leadership/General Administration”.

State AverageTexas Public Schools

Description

IDEA

Public

Schools

$ 5,492

INSTRUCTION

$ 4,543

 62.7%

INSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE RATIO

50.9% 

$    299

EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

$    103

$    296

CAREER AND TECHNICAL TRAINING

$     26

$     75

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION

$      0

$ 908

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP/GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

$ 1,813 

$ 174

SOCIAL WORK, HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

$     62

$ 1,157

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

$   652

 

IDEA Serves a Lower Percentage of “At Risk”, “Special Education” and “Disciplinary” Students: It is true that IDEA serves primarily “economically-disadvantaged” students.   But every “economically-disadvantaged” student is unique; and some students require more attention and resources. These include students that are categorized by the State as At Risk” of dropping-out, “Special Education” due to a physical or learning disability and those with a “Disciplinary” history.   

IDEA Public Schools and Community-Based School Districts Targeted for Expansion

2017/18 Enollment Demographics

While IDEA publicly promotes that it is “Open to All Students”, IDEA’s enrollment eligibility criteria states that it may “exclude” students with a “Disciplinary” history.  In 2017/18, IDEA enrolled zero “Disciplinary” students and as such, IDEA is not really open to all students. In addition, data published by TEA demonstrates that IDEA serves a significantly lower percentage of “At Risk” and “Special Education” students than the community-based school districts from which they recruit students.  While there could be many reasons for this, it may be that IDEA is designed to only appeal to a certain segment of students in the communities they operate within.

Student Description

Austin ISD

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

El Paso ISD

Fort Worth ISD

Ector County ISD

Northside ISD – (San Antonio)

IDEA Public Schools

At Risk

51.3%

44.7%

56.3%

77.8%

57.4%

47.0%

45.9%

Special Education

10.9%

8.0%

10.7%

8.3%

8.4%

11.6%

5.2%

Disciplinary Placement

1,140

1,131

1,049

674

555

1,374

0

 

IDEA Has a Small Number of Graduates and an Alarming High School Student Attrition Rate:  While any high school graduate is to be celebrated, the actual number of IDEA graduates remains relatively small for a charter that has been approved by the State to expand to 83,000 students.  Based upon information published by TEA, in years 2015-2017 IDEA only averaged 571 graduates, which is comparable to the number of graduates at Coronado High School in El Paso ISD.   

IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Graduation Summary and High School Student Attrition – Classes of 2015-2017

 

 

Additionally, the high attrition rates of IDEA high schoolstudents indicate that its “educational model” may not be fulfilling the needs of all students.  As shown below, 24.8% of students enrolled in an IDEA high school during years 2015-2017 did not make it to graduation.  In each year, an average of 202 students left IDEA to attend another Texas public high school. In other words, only 3 of every 4 high school students graduate from IDEA as 1 of every 4 students leaves to enroll at a community-based school district or other Texas public high school.

Graduating

Class

Beginning 9thGraders

No. of Students – Transferring to Another Texas Public School

Actual Graduates

Change – 9thGraders Less Actual Graduates

Percentage Change – 9thGraders Less

Actual Graduates 

2015

747

224

539

208

27.8%

2016

670

181

500

170

25.4%

2017

865

200

675

190

-22.0%

3-Year Average

761

202

571

189

-24.8%

 

IDEA’S “100% College Acceptance Rate” is a False and Misleading Promotion:   IDEA’s promoted legacy is that 100% of (Students/Seniors/Graduates) are Accepted to College and they have even promoted in formal documents that “100% of Graduates are Accepted to the College or University of Their Choice”.  But based upon the facts listed below, these promotions are simply not true and are “materially misleading” to prospective parents, many of which are “economically-disadvantaged”.

First, IDEA does not disclose that its college acceptance rate is artificially manipulated by its graduation requirements, which REQUIRES students to be accepted to a 4-year college/university in order to graduate.

 

Second, IDEA fails to disclose its high student attrition rate as 1 of every 4 students enrolled in an IDEA high school transfers to another Texas public high school prior to graduation.

 

Third, IDEA does not disclose that its number of graduatesis relatively small, ranging from as few as 25 students to 571 students in 2017, and are not comparable to the community-based school districts it operates within. Statewide, over 300,000 students graduate from Texas high schools each year.

 

Third and most importantly, 125 IDEA graduates applied to a 4-year Texas college/university in years 2012-2016and were not accepted according to latest data published by tpeir-Texas Education Reports”,

 

Fourth, the misleading nature of the statement that students are accepted to the college or university of their choice” speaks for itself and such a statement raises thequestion of IDEA’s real motivations.

IDEA Graduates Have a Lower College Graduation Rate: In recent years, IDEA has attempted to broaden its appeal by promoting its unique model and curriculum is preparing students for success in college.  For example, IDEA’s Student Handbook and IMPACT Magazine that is prepared for students, parents and supporters includes the following statements:

“IDEA has focused on raising the achievement levels and expectations of students who are underserved so they have the opportunity to attend and succeed in college”;

 

“Since inception, IDEA has promised countless families that we will get their child to and through college; and

 

Vision: To ensure the state of Texas reaches its fullest potential, IDEA will become the regions largest creator of college graduates.

Despite these statements, the college graduation rate of IDEA students is significantly lower than college bound students graduating from community-based school districts in the geographic areas it serves. According to “tpeir – Texas Education Reports”, only 36.9% of IDEA’s 2012 class of 122 students that enrolled in a 4-year Texas college/university had graduated by 2017.  In comparison, the college graduation rate for college-bound students in community-based school districts targeted by IDEA for expansion ranged from a minimum of 50.2% to a high of 84.1%.

 

IDEA Public Schools and Community-Based School Districts Targeted for Expansion

Class of 2012 Enrolling and Graduating From 4-Year Texas College/University by 2017

 

Description

Austin ISD

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

El Paso ISD

Fort Worth ISD

Ector CountyISD

Northside ISD (San Antonio)

IDEA Public Schools

Enrolled

872

1,409

1,129

525

190

1,120

122

Graduated

603

1,185

567

323

145

872

45

Graduation Percentage

69.1%

84.1%

50.2%

61.5%

76.3%

77.8%

36.9%

 

 

IDEA Graduates Have Lower Success During Initial Year of Attending a 4-Year Texas College/University:  There may be many contributing factors for the lower college graduation rate of IDEA students and unfortunately, poverty may be one.However, information published by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board indicates poverty is not the only one.

Of the 467 trackable graduates within IDEA’s class of 2018 that enrolled in a 4-year Texas public college/university, 37% had a GPA below 2.0 and an additional 21% had a GPA below 2.5 in their initial year.  In other words, despite IDEA’s promoted focus on preparing students to succeed in college, 58% of IDEA’s 2018 graduates had a GPA below 2.49 in their initial year of attending a 4-year Texas public college/university.

 

 

Closing: As IDEA Public Schools expands in your communityat the direction of privately funded “special interests” and your community relinquishes control of certain schools and taxpayer funding to the privately-operated charter, you deserve to know the facts.

To me, the facts do not support IDEA’s self-proclaimedsuccess as many RED FLAGS appear when the “rose-colored glasses” are removed from IDEA’s promotions.  In addition, the facts are very similar to the circumstances of previousattempts to “privatize” public services that failed to fulfill theirpromises.  In this regard, the factual similarities include the promotion by “special interests”, lower expenditures to deliver public services, fewer public services, deployment of lessexperienced staff, higher administrative costs, employment of full-time promotional staffs and misleading advertisements, targeting of prospective customers, high turnover and the denial of service to certain customers.  

But these are only my thoughts and with the future of children and communities at stake, I encourage you to do a little homework and form your own conclusions.  Afterall, it’s your students, your schools, your tax dollars and your community.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8bMZiGFYbRFTjZfYm5ZVnZFVmlFZUw4ZWRhOFYyZWFXaENJ/view