Archives for category: Charter Schools

 

I have recently been in touch with residents of Arkansas who are fighting the Waltons effort to destroy public schools in poor black communities. It is an uphill battle, to be sure, and they need our help.

Minister Anika Whitfield has been working with parents, teachers, and fellow clergy to forge grassroots opposition to resist the onslaught of the Wal-Mart empire.

Pastors are forming their own Pastors for Arkansas Children to defend the principle of public education.

Jitu Brown of the Journey for Justice Alliance will soon be in Little Rock to offer strategic advice. Jitu and J4J led the successful Dyett hunger strike, which blocked theclosing of the last open admission high school in Chicago’s historic Bronzeville neighborhood. As a result of a 34-day hunger strike, Mayor Rahm Emanuel reversed his decision to close the school and instead invested $15 millioninrenovating it into the Walter Dyett School of the Arts.

Please join me in helping the Resistance fight the Waltons and the Corporate Takeover of the state’s public schools by sending a check to:

Grassroots Arkansas

Arkansas Community Organizations

2101 South Main Street, LR,  AR 72206.

It is registered as a charitable organization by the IRS and is tax deductible.

 

I just finished reading Noliwe Rooks’ superb book, Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation, and the End of Public Education (The New Press). Please buy a copy and read it. It is a powerful analysis of racism, segregation, poverty, the history of Black education (and miseducation), and their relationship to the current movement to privatize public education. She dissects the profitable business of segregation.

You will learn how cleverly the captains of finance and industry have managed to ignore the root causes of inequality of educational opportunity while profiting from the dire straits of poor children of color. In fact, as she shows, financiers and philanthropists have used and misused Black children throughout our history, for their own benefit and glory, not the children’s.

The book is both highly contemporary and at the same time, probably the best history of Black education that I have read. Rooks understands that the fight for equality runs through the schoolhouse door, and she documents how white elites have managed to block access, narrow access, or literally steal from Black families trying to gain access to high-quality education. She knows that charter schools and vouchers are a sorry substitute for real solutions. She understands that the rise of the profit-driven education industry has benefited the profiteers far more than the Black children they claim to be “saving.” “Saving poor kids from failing schools” turns out to be a lucrative business, though not for the kids.

Rooks invents a new term to describe the current “reform” movement: Segrenomics. In her telling, a sizable number of entrepreneurs and foundations, and organizations like Teach for America, have enriched themselves while advertising their passion for equity. Segregation and poverty have given them a purpose, multiple enterprises, career paths, and profit.

My copy of the book is covered with underlinings, stars, asterisks, and other notations, as is my way when I become enthusiastic while reading.

She bluntly states, “The road necessarily traveled to achieve freedom and equality in the United States leads directly through public education…Schools that educate the wealthy have generally had decent buildings, money for materials, a coherent curriculum, and well-trained teachers. Schools that educate poorer students and those of color too often have decrepit buildings, no funds for quality instructional materials, and little input in structure or purpose of the curriculum, and they make do with the best teachers they can find.” Differences based on class and color have been a constant in American history, and they remain so today.

She notes the rise of the for-profit industry in education, now associated with charter schools, cybercharters, and other forms of school choice. The new for-profit arrangement, which she calls “segrenomics, is “the business of profiting specifically from high levels of racial and economic segregation…The desire that some have to profit from racial and economic segregation in education, coupled with the active desire members of segregated communities of color have for quality education, has led to our current moment where quality education is for some a distant mirage, and the promise to provide it is profitable for others.”

Rooks was director of the African American studies program at Princeton University for a decade and is now director of graduate Africana studies at Cornell University. She interacted frequently with idealistic elite white college students who could not understand her skepticism about the “reform movement.”

Rooks describes the past thirty years as an era when “government, philanthropy, business, and financial sectors have heavily invested in efforts to privatize certain segments of public education; stock schools with inexperienced, less highly paid teachers whose hiring often provides companies with a ‘finders’ fee’; outsource the running of schools to management organizations; and propose virtual schools as a literal replacement for—not just a supplement to-the brick and mortar education experience. The attraction, of course, is the large pot of education dollars that’s been increasingly available to private corporate financial interests…Charter schools, charter management organizations, vouchers, virtual schools, and an alternatively certified, non-unionized teaching force represent the bulk of the contemporary solutions offered as cures for what ails communities that are upward of 80 percent Black or Latino.” Such policies are never prescribed for affluent white communities, she notes.

She suggests that those who seek to profit from racial and economic segregation should be penalized. Without a real and meaningful penalty, the profit-seekers will continue business as usual.

The fundamental argument of her book is that public education for Native American, Black, Latino, and poor youth is being purposefully unraveled, while wealthy elites are plundering the money that should have been spent on their education.

Rooks recounts the history of Teach for America, which had its beginnings at Princeton University. Wendy Kopp had an idea, visited corporate chieftains, raised money, created a powerful board of directors, and started an enterprise that became fabulously wealthy. Rooks observes that she didn’t spend time talking to the students or parents or the communities that she planned to save. TFA created a career path for idealistic and ambitious elite college graduates, who wanted to try their hand at teaching without committing to it as a professional obligation. TFA offered more benefits to those who joined it, she writes, than to those it claimed it wanted to “save.” It provided a resume builder and an entrée into powerful financial and political networks.

She analyzes a number of well-known “reform” organizations, not only TFA, but Democrats for Educational Reform and Students for Educational Reform. The latter was also founded at Princeton, by students who realized that their venture was so lucrative, so swaddled in grants from foundations, that they dropped out of college to tend to the millions heaped upon them. Helping poor children, it turned out, was indeed a rewarding business. She sees TFA, DFER, and SFER through the lens of segrenomics, business ventures that depended on “saving” poor children without disrupting the institutional and systemic roots of poverty and racism that engulf the world in which they live. She calls out “reformers” for their insistence that they could safely ignore segregation or poverty, because their aspirations alone would be enough to “fix” the lives of poor children.

Her richly documented history of Black education in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is fascinating. In the nineteenth century, most Blacks lived in the South, and the whites who controlled the segregated South did as little as they could get away with to educate Black children. Some opposed doing so, while others thought that Blacks should be equipped with no more than basic literacy and vocational training so that they could contribute to the economy, albeit as manual workers. In the main, the Northern philanthropists adjusted their ideals to the white Southerners’ low esteem for people of color. The philanthropists contributed money to build schools for Black children, but required impoverished Black communities to raise matching funds if they wanted a school. Given the desperate poverty of those communities, raising the matching funds required enormous sacrifice. In one of the most moving passages in the book, she describes a 1925 meeting in a small rural town in Alabama, where a Black representative of the Rockefellers’ General Education Board met with the sharecroppers to discuss raising money to build a school. The representative wrote to his supervisors that “’one old man, who had seen slavery days, with all of his life’s earnings in an old greasy sack, slowly drew it from his pocket, and emptied it on the table.’ He then turned to address the crowd and said, ‘I want to see the children of my grandchildren have a chance, and so I am giving my all.’ What he had to offer was $10. The sum total he had been able to save throughout the totality of his life.’” The assembled crowd raised $1,300 that night and eventually contributed $6,500 to match the gift of the Rockefellers.

As I read this, I felt a mix of emotions. Tremendous sadness but also rage at the Rockefellers, who could have just opened their wallets and given the community the school they so desperately wanted and needed without demanding such sacrifice. The foundation officer who read this account from Alabama must have had a heart of stone. The same stories about penurious philanthropists were repeated across the South, where local white officials typically diverted (stole) money meant for Black education and reapportioned it to white schools.

I have read other histories of Black education, but none that so deftly tied together the past and the present. The term “segrenomics” aptly captures the financiers’ fascination with “helping” black children but avoiding any change in the social policies that might lift their families out of poverty and promote genuine integration. The fact that philanthropists today eagerly underwrite segregated charter schools and insist that TFA  or merit pay or standardized tests can cure poverty represents continuity with their nineteenth century counterparts.

Rooks brings valuable historical, sociological, and philosophical insight into contemporary debates. Her analysis echoes the argument made by Anand Giriharadas in his bookWinners Take All: when the wealthiest elites claim that they are “saving” the world, beware. They are actually protecting the status quo and their own dominant position in society.

You will enjoy watching this YouTube video in which Professor Rooks explains her views about education reform, elite white students, and the lingo of reform. 

 

Valerie Jablow, parent activist in D.C., seems to know the District’s laws better than the members of the City Council.

She knows that the city can’t just give away or lease property to charter schools without following the law. Apparently the City Council doesn’t know that.

Read this account. Apparently the City Council is ready and willing to hand off public schools without going through legally required process.

In one instance, the city leased a property to a charter owner, who in turn sublet it back to the city and is making $200,000 a year on the deal!

Does anyone care about protecting the students and property of the D.C. public schools or are they just an afterthought?

 

 

 

 

In this post, Matthew Gardner Kelly of Pennsylvania State University  explains why demands for charter moratoriums are growing.

The root of the problem is money. Public schools in most states were hurt by the recession of 2008 and funding never recovered. Adding competition with charters made the financial situation worse.

“In Pennsylvania, the local district makes a tuition payment to the charter school enrolling each student from that district. The payment is based on per-pupil spending for similar students. For example, if a fourth grader leaves a public school in the Pittsburgh School District to attend a charter, the Pittsburgh School District is required to pay the charter school $16,805.99 – which is the average amount the district spends on a student in the district.

“At first glance, it perhaps makes sense to have money follow the children. The problem is that increased charter enrollments rarely allow a district to save as much as they lose in charter tuition. As a result, without additional revenue from state governments or local taxes, districts are forced to make budget cuts and spend less on the students who remain in traditional public schools.

“Consider an example. Bethlehem Area School District paid $25 million in charter school tuition payments in 2017. It was not possible to save $25 million with the students gone, however, because of the way the students were distributed across the district.

“The students enrolled in charter schools came from 13 different grades in 22 different schools. Since students moving to a charter were rarely all of the students from a single school, grade or class, the district was not able to reduce staff or close classes to help cover the charter tuition payments. If next year’s third grade class goes from 28 students to 26 students in a school, district officials still need to keep that third grade class open. They cannot pay that teacher 2/28th less, heat 2/28th less of that classroom, or reduce the operation of electricity in that classroom by 2/28th.

“Yet, if the class went from 28 to 26 students because two students enrolled in charters, the district needs to make tuition payments for the missing students. When those payments are repeated and distributed unevenly across schools and grades, it adds up to millions of dollars. Students move between districts all the time, but nowhere near the scale– nor with the fiscal impact – that takes place because of charter expansion. Bethlehem Area School District had 1,900 students, about 12 percent of the district’s population, enrolled in charter schools in 2017.”

This kind of fiscal drain is unsustainable. The vast majority of students are harmed so that 12% can go to charters. If it continues, the public schools will be irreparably damaged. This is not sound policy.

 

Little Rock is a poor and impoverished district with 48 schools. Six of its schools were low-performing so the state seized control of the entire district. The Walton family owns Arkansas, and they want to make it easier to open charter schools. Local elected boards tend to stand in the way of privatization.

Six legislators introduced a bill to restore local control. 

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times, one of the few journalists in the state who regularly stands up to the Walton oligarchs, writes:

 

Six Little Rock legislators have filed a bill that would provide a pathway to return of local control of the Little Rock School District, taken over by the state more than four years ago for low test scores in six of four dozen schools.

Under control of state Education Commissioner Johnny Key the district remains under state supervision and the state Board of Education has seemed unimpressed by improvements in the district, which is majority black and impoverished and has seen charter schools drain off many of its already successful students.

The legislation by Sens. Will Bond, Joyce Elliott and Linda Chesterfield and Reps. Charles Blake, Andrew Collins and Tippi McCullough makes a key change in a relatively new state law that opened the door to perpetual state control of the district — or parceling it out to private operators as forces aligned with the Walton Family Foundation school lobby have long desired.

The bill says that the state “may” rather than “shall” annex, consolidate or reconstitute a district that hasn’t met criteria for exiting Level 5 of the school distress rating. The expectation is that some Little Rock schools will likely have standardized test scores short of sufficiency at the end of five years of state control and thus be unable to exit Level 5.

The legislation says a district could regain local control if it has demonstrated any of the following criteria: “substantial improvement” in the district;  the state Board of Education has approved a plan to address deficiencies; schools at Level 5 have demonstrated progress, or the number of schools that have been judged at Level 5 has INCREASED under state control. That list point is worth noting particularly. Though apples-to-apples comparisons are difficult because of several changes in tests used, the Little Rock School District had eight schools with an F grade in the 2017-18 school year where it had six schools judged as failing when the state took it over. Those eight must make passing scores on a single test given next month or else the district is sunk under current criteria.

Will Little Rock School District taxpayers see their democratically controlled school district taken away forever for Johnny Key’s failure to improve it? That is the question. The new legislation would give the state another path. The bill’s success may depend on just how badly other forces want to see the district (and its teachers’ union) permanently destroyed and its property tax riches and profit opportunities given to the mixed abilities of unaccountable and often secretive private school management corporations.

 

 

Arizona’s charter industry is riddled with fraud and corrruption, meticulously documented by a year-long investigation in the Arizona Republic and by Curtis Cardine of the Grand Canyon Institute.

The Republican-dominated felt that it needed to pass a “Reform” bill, even though it was full of loopholes that would protect charter fraudsters and grifters.

And so it did. The fake reform bill passed on a party line vote, supported by Republicans, opposed by every Democrat. 

So meaningless was the bill that it won the vote of charter operator Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, who made $13.9 million last year when he converted his for-profit charter chain to a nonprofit. Farnsworth gave a speech about why no reform was necessary.

The bill now goes to the House, where Republicans hold a 31-29 advantage.

Republicans rejected amendments from Democrats “to crack down on conflicts of interest and to provide tighter financial transparency on how charters spend tax dollars.

“Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, pushed the bill. It had overwhelming support from Arizona’s $1 billion charter school industry, whose lobbyist helped co-write the bill.“

 

A lot was riding on the State Board of Education’s decision about whether to renew the Thrive Charter Schools of San Diego. The schools have a terrible record, which the district documented. The charter lobby was pushing hard for renewal, showing how little it cares about results or accountability or children’s welfare. It was Linda Darling-Hammond’s first meeting as chair of the State Board.

The Board voted to deny renewal. Facts still matter.

The Board voted 7-1 to renew a Gulen Magnolia Charter. A former member of the charter’s board, now on the State Board, declines to revise herself.

Thrive certainly did not lack funding; it received $575,000 from the U.S. Department of Education to open in 2014 and has received millions of dollars in “New Market Tax Credits” from the federal government since then.

To learn more about Thrive, here are some readings.

Thrive’s scores have dropped every year since it opened.

Christopher Rice-Wilson, a charter parent at another charter in San Diego, called for the closure of Thrive and laid out the facts of its poor performance. 

He wrote:

“I did not feel safe… and I learned absolutely nothing.” That was the testimony heard from one former Thrive Public Schools student who is now doing well in fourth grade at a different school. A group of former students and parents have come forward to describe their experiences during their time at Thrive charter schools. Without a doubt, there are many more like them — the school has a 27 percent to 39 percent attrition rate — roughly one-third of the students leave the school each year. And with good reason, especially for San Diego’s most vulnerable students. Simply put, Thrive is failing low-income, black and Latino students.

Looking at the numbers, Thrive failed to demonstrate it meets the academic requirements to renew its charter, especially when compared to the 13 schools Thrive identified with similar grade and demographic data. For low-income students, Thrive had the worst academic outcomes in both English Language Arts and Math. For low-income students, more than 75 percent of Thrive students weren’t able to meet the state’s standards in math. At the middle school level, the situation is even worse: 80 percent of all of Thrive’s middle school students failed to meet the state achievement standards in math, and 90 percent of low-income students failed the same standard.

Similarly, for black students and Latino students, Thrive’s outcomes were worse than almost all other schools in ELA and math. Fewer than 10 percent of Thrive’s Latino students were meeting state standards in math. All of the comparison schools have a much higher low-income population than Thrive, and a higher percentage of English learners, yet still demonstrated better academic outcomes than Thrive. Thrive argues that it excels at serving students with disabilities. However, Thrive’s academic outcomes for these students are far lower than SDUSD’s outcomes, as well as the outcomes for these students countywide.

Our entire school system needs to do better by black students, and San Diego Unified is 42 points away from having all black students at grade-level proficiency on the California Schools Dashboard in English Language Arts. For these students, Thrive is a disaster. Thrive is more than double that number, at 106.5 points below grade-level proficiency for black students. Outcomes in math are similar. Thrive also has a larger achievement gap in math and ELA between black and white students than the district overall. Why renew the charter for a school that expands the achievement gap?

Thrive argues that parents are choosing Thrive because they were struggling in the schools they were attending. But there are over 130 charter schools in San Diego County, and 46 in SDUSD alone. Wouldn’t we see these same poor outcomes at all of those schools? Thrive argues that they are too new for us to look at state standards. Two other charters in the district opened at the same time as Thrive. They were renewed because they demonstrated improved academic performance. There should be one standard for these schools and Thrive should be held accountable.

Thrive has been given every advantage to show their school can succeed. They have benefited from the investment of millions of dollars from wealthy supporters and received $13 million in new market tax credits from Civic San Diego and another Los Angeles entity. All that and still couldn’t prove their ability to deliver achievement for students.

Schools like Thrive are a symptom of a system in much need of reform. Recent research has found that the dramatic growth of charter schools has cost San Diego Unified about $66 million annually. This cost is born by the students who remain in district managed schools — the overwhelming majority of students in our public school system. Given what’s at stake, we can’t continue to support schools that cost more to our system but do not deliver for our most vulnerable students. We need to ensure our scarce resources are invested in educational strategies that create student success, not expand student failure.

 

 

 

The New York Times published a searing account of the charter schools operated by Southwest Key.

“At East Austin College Prep in Texas, raccoons and rats invade offices and classrooms. When it rains, the roof of the main building leaks. Room 106 was so rickety a chair leg fell through the floor. Yet for all this, the secondary school pays almost $900,000 in annual rent.

“It has little choice: Its landlord is also its founder, Southwest Key Programs, a charity that is the nation’s largest provider of shelters for migrant children. The nonprofit says it formed the charter school and three others to help disadvantaged students get to college, but Southwest Key has financially benefited from the schools. Not only does it collect rent, but it has forced them to hire its for-profit companies, which have charged high fees for everything from maintenance to school lunches.

“We don’t even have a cafeteria — we eat in our gym,” said Yamilet Perez, 18, the student council president at the Austin secondary school. “You’re sitting there eating your lunch, and you can still smell the sweat of the class before.”

”The operations of the charter schools, serving about 1,000 students, show how Southwest Key profits off public money, boosting compensation for charity leaders and stockpiling tens of millions of dollars.

”The charity has been awarded almost $1.8 billion to run migrant shelters over the last decade, but is now under federal investigation for possible financial improprieties, prompted by an article last December in The New York Times. Two top officials, including the founder, Juan Sanchez, have stepped down. And a complaint about mismanagement at the schools, which have received more than $65 million in government money over the last decade, is under review by the Texas Education Agency.

“A spokesman for Southwest Key, Neil Nowlin, disputed that the charity had unfairly taken money from the schools. In a statement, the new superintendent, Salvador Cavazos, said that “our teachers and administrators come to work every day dedicated to supporting students and families….”

”A dozen years ago, Southwest Key decided to open charter schools and for-profit companies, including a florist, that ended up funneling money into the charity. The charters, called Promesa Public Schools, pay almost $1.4 million in rent annually to Southwest Key….

”Money from the schools and for-profits helped raise salaries for charity officials, letting them collect pay far beyond the federal cap for migrant shelter grants — $187,000 in 2017. Mr. Sanchez was paid $1.5 million that year, the most recent tax return available. His wife, Jennifer Nelson, earned $500,000 as a vice president, and Melody Chung, the chief financial officer, was paid $1 million.

“Mr. Sanchez resigned on Monday. Neither he nor Ms. Chung, who left Southwest Key last month, would comment for this article.

“As of last month, the charters were almost $3 million in debt, largely because of a decision last year to add schools in Brownsville and Corpus Christi. The schools — and students — have felt the squeeze.

“Teachers have left and not been replaced, forcing others to take on new roles. A Spanish instructor is teaching world history; a special-education instructor is teaching photography. Sports teams do not have enough equipment or any practice fields. Officials also cited problems from leaks, including mold and structural and electrical issues, according to an October 2017 email….

”Southwest Key Maintenance would charge about $192,000 for janitorial work at the Austin secondary school. But an outside company, Vanguard Cleaning, would charge about $93,000, records show.

“I was shot down,” said Mr. De Los Santos, who soon quit. The schools were finally allowed to hire in-house maintenance workers in 2017.

“Southwest Key’s for-profit food company, Café del Sol, drew many complaints about high prices, poor quality and limited offerings. Students staged at least one hunger strike. Yet the vendor collected almost $3 million from the schools, records show.”

Texas public schools are underfunded but there’s lots of money for Southwest Keys.

As Betsy DeVos would say, as long as parents make these choices, who cares about the kids and the money and the mold?

 

 

 

The Toledo Blade wrote a commonsense editorial calling for repeal of HB 70, which allows the Ohio State Department of Education to take over and privatize the management of low-scoring school districts. Takeover has been tried and failed in Lorain and Youngstown. Now Toledo and other impoverished districts are threatened.

Frankly, it is  shocking to see such sound logic and reasoning, but it is also gratifying. Privatization is not the answer to poverty.

Here is a demonstration of what a thoughtful editorial writer can produce:

All in one day, back in 2015, a quickie amendment was added to an education bill in Columbus and rushed through the General Assembly with no hearings and no committee research. The measure allows the state to take over failing school districts — and Toledo Public Schools is in real jeopardy of being taken over so that state officials can “fix” the struggling district.

The problem is that the state’s cure looks as if it would be worse than what ails TPS.

Under House Bill 70, signed and defended by former Gov. John Kasich, the state can take over if a school district receives an overall “F” grade on its state report card for three consecutive years.

TPS earned an overall “F” last year. Many experts rightly point out that failing grade is a more accurate measure of a community’s extraordinary poverty than it is the quality of education children are receiving.

And because Toledo probably cannot quickly fix systemic poverty problems — more homeless students than any other Ohio district, 40 percent of Toledo children living below the poverty line, one in four children suffering from hunger — the district’s state report card is not likely to miraculously look like an honor roll contender this year or next.

The idea of a state takeover for truly failing school districts mightbe a good idea. Schools cannot be allowed to fail year after year. Districts cannot be allowed to fail their children and their communities.

But the standardized tests used to determine which schools are failing are recognized by more and more experts, parents, and communities as failed measuring tools.

And in the districts that have already endured state takeover — Youngstown, Lorain, and East Cleveland — the process has been revealed as a sham. Youngstown, the first district targeted for takeover, actually posted worse standardized test scores after an outside CEO took over, dropping from 602nd in the state to 606th.

It is not as if state authorities can point to a failing management team or negligent school board. Under the leadership of Superintendent Romules Durant, TPS has increased its graduation rate from 63 percent to 78 percent in the last three years. It has created successful themed magnet schools to let students focus on art, aeronautics, and business. The district has passed a series of levies in the last three years and has a stable financial forecast.

What, exactly, would state officials expect a privatized management team do differently? There is no magic wand to be waved over poor, urban school districts. If a quick fix were possible, the TPS officials would have used it years ago.

Last year, then-State Rep. Teresa Fedor sponsored a bill to halt state takeovers. The moratorium bill was blocked by Republicans and by Mr. Kasich, who promised to veto it. But the General Assembly did agree to study the effect of takeovers on school districts.

Local control is the cornerstone of American public education. Taxes, hiring, curriculum, and policy for a community’s most important public institution — its schools — are meant to be decided by locally elected officials, not hired guns with zero accountability to parents and taxpayers.

The General Assembly must pass — and Gov. Mike DeWine must sign — a bill that halts state takeovers of school districts.

Schools cannot fail their communities and failing schools must be accountable. But the current school takeover process in Ohio does nothing to make failing schools accountable or successful.

 

While the State Board of Education was deliberating the fate of the low-performing Thrive Charter Schools, which they voted to close down,  the charter lobby rallied thousands of allies in front of the State Capitol in Sacramento to fight any new laws. 

One of the speakers was Margaret Fortune, who is president of the powerful California Charter Schools Association and also a member of the state’s task force that is supposed to decide whether to reform the state’s weak charter law and whether charter schools have a negative fiscal impact on public schools.

The charter industry sees any effort to restrict its actions or regulate its policies as a mortal threat to its existence.

“Dubbed the “Stand for All Students Rally,” it was hosted by the California Charter Schools Association and was a highlight of the organization’s annual four-day conference that ends in Sacramento on Thursday. Speakers included Arne Duncan, the U.S. secretary of education during the Obama administration.

“At the rally were charter school administrators, teachers, parents and students, many of whom came by bus from schools across the state. They held signs that said “#kidsnotpolitics” and “Defend Great Schools” and were led in chants by adults on a stage flanked by giant screens projecting their images across the park.”

Since charters enroll about 10% of the students in the state, they should have had a slogan “Stand for 10% of Students,” since they have no concern for non-charter students, who are the vast majority of students in the state.

In addition to Arne Duncan, the CCSA had Steve Perry as a keynote speaker. Perry, who has one or two charter schools, is noted for his vehement hatred of teachers’ unions, whom he has likened to cockroaches.

The rally was a response to four proposed bills that would establish regulations for charters.

“The introduction last week of four new pieces of charter school legislation has aroused passions among charter school advocates. It has raised fears among advocates that California’s charter school sector will face the greatest restrictions on its growth since the state’s first charter law was enacted a quarter century ago.

“If approved, the bills would eliminate the right to appeal to the county or the state if a district denies a charter application; place an unspecified cap on charter schools; allow charter applications to be rejected based on their financial impact on a district; and prevent charter schools approved in one district from setting up in another.”

Charter advocates claim that these reasonable restrictions would “eliminate” charter schools.

Why should a district in the mountains have the power to open a charter in another district hundreds of miles away?

Why shouldn’t the fiscal impact on public schools limit where charters are allowed to open?

Last week, they said that a law banning nepotism and conflicts of interest was a “scorched earth” policy.

How many public school districts are they allowed to destroy before they are reined in?