Archives for category: Charter Schools

 

Jan Resseger explains here why Ohio should not give more money to charter schools and their sponsors (in Ohio, the authorizers of charter schools get a 3% commission for every student enrolled in their charters). Charter authorizers have a financial incentive to keep their charters open, regardless of their performance.

One reason to reject the increase is the charters’ poor performance.

But the most important and persuasive reason to say no is that their funding is money deducted from the public schools, which serve far more students and serve them better than charters.

“Usually arguments about the quality of public investment in charters are about whether charters do a good job as measured by test scores.  Proponents of charter schools typically want the public to evaluate charter schools and traditional public schools by comparing their test scores—despite considerable research over the years demonstrating that the results are, at best, relatively comparable.  Steve Dyer uses the test score yardstick in a recent blog post: “Not only have Ohio charter schools not gotten appreciably better on the report card since… 2015, but since the 2012-2013 school year, charter schools overall have received more Fs than all other grades combined on state report cards.” Dyer doesn’t think these schools are performing well enough to deserve additional tax support….

“Here is an example—this time from Sunday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer—of how reporting on charter school accountability and funding often goes.   As he describes the request for more money from the legislature, reporter Patrick O’Donnell considers the academic record of Ohio charter schools and whether state regulation has improved enough.  O’Donnell begins: “Charter schools in Ohio have long wanted more money from the state, but a history of well-publicized scandals, mismanagement and poor report card grades have made it hard to justify giving them any more tax dollars.  Have they cleaned up their act enough now?”

“Charter schools in Ohio actually want a lot more money per-pupil in the next state budget. O’Donnell reports: “Some charter officials are pressing the state for another $2,000 per student a year for most charter schools in the upcoming state budget. Leading the charge are the Breakthrough Schools, the Cleveland based chain that has the strongest results out of all charters in Ohio. Joining them are the growing Accel Schools chain, which has grown to 40 schools in the state over the last three years.”  Accel Schools is the charter network run by former K-12 Inc., CEO Ron Packard, who expanded his Accel network by buying up Cleveland’s I Can charters along with many of the schools formerly operated by David Brennan, who died last autumn.

“How should Ohio’s policy makers evaluate whether spending tax dollars on charter schools is a good investment?  And particularly in these times when charter schools are asking for a huge bump of $2,000 extra per-pupil? Measured by test scores, and evaluated by their record of conflicts of interest, fraud. and outlandish financial mismanagement, Ohio should not increase public funding for its charter school sector.  But I believe there is a more important—and usually ignored—reason for denying more funding to the privatized charter school sector in our state. Policy makers must begin examining charter schools’ enormous, persistent drain on local school district budgets.

“In Ohio, California, and many other states, charter schools get their funding through a “school district deduction.” Here is how the Ohio Department of Education describes the process of funding (When you read the following language, remember that charter schools in Ohio are formally called “community schools” instead of charter schools.): “Payments to community schools take the form of deductions from the state foundation funding of the school districts in which the community school students are entitled to attend school. Community schools students are counted as part of the enrollment base of the resident school district to generate funding.” The amount taken from the school district budget by every Ohio student who leaves for a charter school is $6,020.  This is known as a “district deduction” system of funding.”

Charter schools want more money but no accountability. They want to harm public schools.

The Ohio legislature should just say no.

Lisa Haver, a pro-public school activist in Philadelphia wrote to tell me that “It’s a new day in Philadelphia!”

The old School Reform Commission, appointed by the governor and mayor, routinely approved charter school applications, no matter what the charter operator’s performance or record.

Last week, the new school board turned down three charter applications.

She wrote:

Hi Diane,
The new Board, which replaced the state-imposed School Reform Commission last year, voted last night to deny all three of this year’s charter applications.
The decisions, with the exception of a few abstentions due to conflicts, were unanimous.
There was not a single yes vote for any of the three applicants.
Board members gave several reasons why they rejected the applications.
The SRC would approve applications for clearly inadequate applicants, mostly for political reasons.
These schools would have cost the District over $161 million over 5 years, including stranded costs.  Now we can use that money to hire more support staff and fix our older buildings.
Best,
Lisa
Here is the story.

“In a series of historic votes, Philadelphia’s Board of Education denied all three new charter school applications at its meeting Thursday, amid calls for a full moratorium on charters. After protest from charter advocates and a group of students, the votes reversed the dominant reasoning of the former School Reform Commission, which the board seemed to uphold in December when it voted to renew the charter of Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School in an attempt to avoid legal fees that could result from a lengthy appeals process.

“This time, board members denied the three applications to expand the operators’ charter school networks, citing struggling academics at the applicants’ other schools and a difficulty serving diverse and vulnerable students. Members also mentioned that applicants have other charter schools that are operating under expired charters, without signing the conditions offered by the board, which would require the schools to meet various standards.

“City Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown spoke in favor of String Theory’s proposed new charter school, the Joan Myers Brown Academy, named after the founder of the Philadelphia Dance Company. It was envisioned as a performance arts charter school in West Philadelphia with a focus on dance.

“The vote took place after outraged testimony from Joseph Corosanite, the co-founder of String Theory Schools.

“It’s challenging for me to see an evaluation of us that is deeply flawed and biased,” Corosanite said, referring to the evaluation of String Theory’s application by the District’s Charter Schools Office. “I understand that there still may be some question, but there is not part of our application that can’t be worked through if you choose to approve us.”

Corosanite said the school should be approved because the neighborhood schools in West Philadelphia are “some of the worst in the city from an academic standpoint, as well as from a facilities standpoint.

“People don’t know how we do this because they’ve never done it before.”

“Board members explained their thoughts after the votes were taken.

“I did not come to the board with the perspective that all schools were bad. I certainly did not come with the perspective that charters are better,” said member Leticia Egea Hinton. “I’m sometimes confused by the perspective that charters, no matter how low-performing, are better and that public schools, no matter how great, are still bad.

“Our challenge is: How do we create a system that provides a quality education for all, that reflects high standards and expectations for all children, no matter where they live and who they are?”

Chris McGinley, who was also a member of the former School Reform Commission, thought back to the 1990s, when charters first appeared in Philadelphia.

“During the charter school movement in Philadelphia, it was an era where schools were supposed to become more like businesses … a quick fix, mostly for urban school districts,” he said. “We all know that promise has not been realized.”

“ said he would vote to approve only the highest-quality charter schools, “with consistency towards a Pennsylvania charter school law that is big on promise and low on accountability.”

“He added: “Even if we accept the premise that school districts should operate more like businesses, there were valid reasons not to approve. We have unsigned contracts with three of the applicants. No business would accept new bids or new work with providers who refuse to sign current contracts.”

”City Councilwoman Helen Gym, who helped found a charter school when she was a community organizer but became a critic of the state’s charter law, celebrated the votes as a victory for local control — referring to the nearly 20-year struggle of organizers and advocates to abolish the state-controlled SRC, which Mayor Kenney replaced with an appointed school board last summer.

“For years, a state takeover body sold the idea that our public schools’ most basic needs and rights had to be sacrificed in favor or reckless and massive charter expansion — no matter the quality of the charter or the impact on the school district,” Gym said in a statement after the vote. “The needs of our public schools are dire. We need immediate investments to address staffing and curricular vacancies that are robbing our children of their right to a ‘thorough and efficient’ education.” She was referring to a phrase in Pennsylvania’s constitution.

“We need meaningful investments in our school facilities so that they don’t fall apart or continue to put the health of children and school staff at risk,” Gym’s statement continued.”

The Atlanta School Board is controlled by a slate of former Teach for America teachers. They are devoted to privately managed charter schools. They don’t seem to have any ideas about how to improve public schools other than to outsource them. They are determined to impose a portfolio district model that welcomes more charter operators staffed by temps like they once were.

A group of Atlanta citizens, led by Edward Johnson, perennial fighter for incremental improvement, not disruption, has presented a petition to the School Board:

 

An Open Letter to Atlanta Board of Education:
Why the Portfolio Privatization Plan for Atlanta is a Bad Idea

 

We, the undersigned, request that members of the Atlanta Board of Education vote against any resolution or resolutions brought before the Board on March 4, 2019, or at any other time, that would establish any aspects of the would-be Excellent Schools Framework in the Atlanta Public Schools district.
 
The Excellent Schools Framework, which is based on the so-called Portfolio of Schools plan, is another corporate privatization effort intended to, in effect, turn over our public schools to private companies and establish charter schools that use public money for what are essentially private schools.  Our public schools are not stocks and bonds in an investment portfolio to be bought, sold, and speculated. Our public schools are where children ought to be nurtured, protected, and educated.
 
We know that, in addition to privatization, school closures and attacks on teachers will accompany any implementation of the Portfolio of Schools plan, which the Atlanta Board of Education’s would-be Excellent Schools Framework is based on.  No research exists that indicates the so-called Portfolio of Schools plan actually leads to improving learning for students and teaching for teachers.
 
We also know The City Fund is promoting the so-called Portfolio of Schools plan, with $200 million raised to use to influence targeted urban public school districts to adopt, adapt, and implement the plan.  The City Fund’s local designated entity, RedefinED, has used its money to organize astroturf support for this plan.
 
This proposal is especially disturbing, coming at the time when the Board and Superintendent have already set hundreds of billions of dollars to go to billionaire social impact investors and real estate developers in “The Gulch” deal, downtown.
 
We urge you, the Atlanta Board of Education, to forgo your Excellent Schools Framework and, instead, adopt evidence-based models, such as the Community Schools model, that actually work for children.
 

 

The legislature in Missouri is considering bills for charters and vouchers, which will defund public schools.

if you live in Missouri, contact your legislator and express your support for yourcomm7nity’s Public s hoops.

This report from television station KUTV in Salt Lake City points out a bizarre contradiction in Charter World.

Plenty of legislators are cashing in on charter schools

In Utah:

State Sen. Lincoln Fillmore (Dist. 10) is one of the foremost experts on charter schools in the state legislature. That makes sense given that he runs Charter Solutions, a company that from 2015 to 2018 has collected $5.7 million in fees from charter schools.

That is taxpayer money given to those charter schools. As many as 23 different charter schools have hired Fillmore’s company to help them administer their curriculum and take care of back office activities like payroll and human resources.

Fillmore says although he does field questions from lawmakers regarding charter schools, he never sponsors legislation that affects them.

He told 2News:

I’m fully transparent, my job, (as a lawmaker) the law requires all citizen legislators to fill out a conflict of interest disclosure. But I take the additional step of telling my constituents that I don’t run charter school bills

Critics say Fillmore doesn’t need to run legislation. He is the “go-to” voice in the legislature when it comes to charter schools.

In a Beyond the Books investigation, video of Fillmore was found during the second to last day of the legislature last year with him speaking on charter school legislation.

He wasn’t the sponsor of House Bill 231, or even the co-sponsor, but when lawmakers had questions about the bill, he was the one providing the answers.

Beyond the Books wanted to find out if lawmakers’ affiliations with charter schools affects their votes on legislation. A lengthy list of former and current lawmakers who currently sit, or used to sit, on the boards of individual charter schools was discovered.

They include:

  • Former House Speaker Greg Hughes, who is on the board of Summit Academy.
  • Senate President Stuart Adams, who is on the board of Assent Academies.
  • Rep. Kim Coleman is founder and director of Monticello Academy.
  • Former lawmakers Curt Oda, Chris Herrod, Matt Throckmorton, and Merlynn Newbold all sit or sat on the board of Utah Military Academy.
  • Former lawmaker Rob Muhlestein runs Harmony Education Services.
  • Former State Sen. Mark Madsen sat on the board of American Leadership Academy.
  • Howard Stephenson, who is considered the father of Utah Charter Schools because he sponsored the bill allowing for charter schools, says he does sit on a charter school board but resisted all offers until this year.
  • Sen. Jerry Stevenson, is on the board of Career Path High. His son, Jed Stevenson, is also part owner of Academica West with former state Sen. Sheldon Killpack, who resigned from the senate after he was arrested for DUI 8 years ago. Academica West has helped to build, design and manage 17 Utah charter schools. Stevenson says he never talks to his son, or his friend, Killpack, about business, even though the board of Career Path High meets at the Academica West offices. He said: “The only thing we do hold our board meetings (Career Path High) in their office building (Academica West), but they’re (Killpack, Jed Stevenson) not in attendance.”

Beyond the Books also compiled a list of lawmakers dating back to the early 2000’s who made millions off of charter schools while they were members of the legislature.

Former Reps. Glenn Way, Jim Ferrin and Mike Morley where in business together helping to build and run charter schools. The wife of Rep. Eric Hutchings, Stacey, runs Career Path High.

 

 

The California Legislature fast tracked a bill requiring charter school transparency and accountability and prohibiting conflicts of interest. The charter lobby had fought this legislation for years and Governor Brown had twice vetoed similar legislation.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill surrounded by well-wishers, even the California Charter School Association, which pretended to be  thrilled by the new requirements.

Gov. Newsom signs legislation requiring charter school transparency in California

Governor Newsom stressed his support for high-quality charter schools but made clear that the well-heeled industry doesn’t own him.

The days of wine and roses are over.

 

 

 

Education Week conducted a survey of graduation rates and discovered that charter high schools have lower graduation rates than public high schools.

Of course, charter apologists had many explanations and excuses but they apparently forgot their original claim that they would be far, far better than public schools.

A story by Arianna Prothero and Alex Hardin begins:

”At nearly 1,000 U.S. high schools, the chance of students graduating on time is no better than the flip of a coin. And charter schools—which were born to create more options for students—make up an outsized share of the number of public schools persistently graduating less than half of their students.

“An analysis of federal data by the Education Week Research Center identified 935 public high schools with four-year graduation rates of less than 50 percent in 2016-17, the most recent year available. Of those, 54 percent are charter schools. That’s one-quarter of all U.S. charter high schools, and nearly 3 percent of all public high schools.

“These numbers aren’t just a one-time blip. Many charter schools have suffered from chronically low graduation rates of below 50 percent since 2010-11.

“And the number of charters with low graduation rates could be even larger than the Education Week analysis reveals. That’s because some charter schools were excluded from the federal data set due to student privacy concerns. For its analysis, the Education Week Research Center also removed all schools labeled as “alternative” in the federal data.

“The data undercuts the idea that charters are a better option,” said Robert Balfanz, a Johns Hopkins University researcher who is a national authority on graduation-rate patterns. “If kids go to a charter high school where the norm is not to graduate, it’s not delivering on the promise of creating better, more successful schools for kids in need.”

“But some charter advocates and experts argue that it’s unfair to compare how charter high schools stack up against their traditional school peers when it comes to graduation rates…

”Charter schools were created more than 25 years ago as an alternative to the traditional school district system. Since then, the charter sector has slowly grown to about 7,000 schools educating 3 million students in 43 states and the District of Columbia.

”Underpinning the entire charter movement is the idea that with flexibility to innovate and compete for students, charter schools will deliver a superior education—one that’s tailored to the individual needs of students and parents.

“But with nearly a quarter-million students enrolled in charter high schools with an on-time graduation rate below 50 percent, it calls into question whether the sector is delivering on its mission.”

Well, yes, it does raise that question.

The Edweek coverage was funded by the Walton Family Foundation, which has claimed credit for opening one of every four charters in the nation. The Waltons will not be happy with this story.

 

It’s about time. A story in the Los Angeles Times notes that those Democratic candidates who supported charters (and still do) are facing a backlash by their party’s voters. The wave of teachers’ strikes have brought into sharp relief the fact that most families enroll their children in public schools, not charter schools; that charter schools are a priority for Republicans, Wall Street, and far-right libertarians like Betsy DeVos; and that support for public schools is a bedrock principle of the Democratic Party.

The candidate who was most outspoken as a supporter of both charters and vouchers was Cory Booker. He worked in alliancewith anti-union Governor Chris Christie to bring chartersto Newark. He worked closely with Betsy Dezvos and gave a speech to her organization. He was honored by the rightwing Manhattan Institute for supporting school choice. He wanted to turn Newark into the New Orleans of the North, with no public schools and no teachers’ union. He still defends that record.

Michael Bloomberg was a big supporter of charters in New York City and favored them over the public schools he took control of. He’s now out of the race, so no need to worry other than that he will find a Democratic DeVos to fund. He despises public schools.

Michael Bennett of Colorado supported charters when he was superintendent of schools in Denver. Governor Hickenlooper appointed Bennett to the Senate.

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State did not stand up to Bill Gates after the Washington State Supreme Court decided that charter schools and not entitled to receive public money. Gates persuaded his friends in the legislature to give lottery money to charters, and Gov. Inslee neither signed nor vetoed the law, allowing Gates to get state funding. Not a profilein courage.

The election of 2020 will be a deciding moment, when Democratic candidates are asked to declare whether they support the public schools, or the privately-managed, scandal-ridden charters that enroll 6% of the nation’s students.

 

 

 

 

 

Would you put more money into a failing business?

If you were in charge of the charter industry, the answer is yes.

The charter industry in Ohio is lobbying for a 22% increase in tuition, even though 2/3 of the state’s charter schools are rated either D or F. 

If they were public schools, most would have been closed by now.

Back when charters started, their advocates claimed they would get better results with less money. They don’t get better results and they don’t save money. Broken promises.

Recently Education Week posted a column claiming that charters and vouchers do not threaten public schools and that concern about privatization is vastly overblown.

Anthony Cody refutes that argument for complacency in this post. 

The writer of the article, Arianna Prothero, is a staff writer for Education Week.

Cody writes:

Prothero apparently only consulted one side of this contentious issue, as all the statistics she cites are from the National Alliance for Public (sic) Charter Schools.

When she refers to “most parts of America,” she apparently means rural areas, he says.

She wondered why West Virginia teachers were willing to strike to block charter schools, when, she claims, they are no big deal in a state like West Virginia. After all, legislators only want to start small, with one itty-bitty program with only a few charters.

Cody responds:

Wow. That is quite a conclusion! It would be reassuring if this were not the way that almost every charter school and voucher program began – with just a few schools, or only targeting a limited group of students. And then within a few years, the programs are expanded to include nearly everyone. Reporters covering education should know this history.

Indiana’s voucher program started for limited income students who had attended public schools for at least a year. It expanded to the point that today many students are eligible. Take a look at all the student eligibility pathways.   This year, taxpayers will spend $153 million on vouchers for students attending private and parochial schools. Families earning as much as $91,000 a year are eligible.

Voucher programs such as “Education Savings Accounts” almost always start with one group, such as students with disabilities,  and then more groups are added every year. That is what happened in Arizona. The program in Arizona started small, and by last year had expanded to make 20% of students eligible. State lawmakers tried to make 90% of students eligible, but last year voters overturned the law. The proposal in West Virginia, for seven charter schools and vouchers for a thousand students this year, would have been a platform for further growth.

Cody shows how charters are undermining the very existence of public schools in some cities.

And he notes:

Mainstream media coverage for the past decade has, similar to this EdWeek blog post, generally downplayed the potential and real harms inflicted by the expansion of charter schools and voucher programs. The experiences of those in places like Oakland, Los Angeles and Pennsylvania serve as a warning to others — whether they are in urban, suburban or rural areas. Charter schools are a costly experiment that so far, has failed to yield much. Those in states fortunate enough to have avoided charters thus far do not need to repeat these failed experiments to learn the same lessons the hard way. Teachers in West Virginia were wise to ward off this danger.

Readers might be interested to know that blog posts in EdWeek bearing the K12 Parent Engagement logo are partly funded by contributions by the Walton Family Foundation, though EdWeek retains editorial control.

The Walton Family Foundation is anti-union, anti-public school, and pro-privatization. They expect a return on investment.