Archives for category: Charter Schools

Jan Resseger always comments thoughtfully about important issues. In this post, she weighs in on the debate about whether it matters who controls public schools by reviewing a much-discussed article by David Labaree, historian of education at Stanford. Open her posts to see the links.

She begins:


There has recently been a debate among guest writers in Valerie Strauss’s “Answer Sheet” column in the Washington Post. The Network for Public Education’s Carol Burris and Diane Ravitch published a defense of public governance of public schools, a column which critiqued a new report from the Learning Policy Institute. The Learning Policy Institute’s Linda Darling-Hammond responded with a defense of the Learning Policy Institute’s report, which defends school choice including privately governed and operated charter schools. Finally Diane Ravitch and Carol Burris responded to Darling-Hammond’s response. This blog weighed in here last week.

As it happens, Stanford University emeritus professor of education, David Labaree enhances this conversation with a new column on the public purpose of public education at Phi Delta Kappan: “We Americans tend to talk about public schooling as though we know what that term means. But in the complex educational landscape of the 21st century… it’s becoming less and less obvious….”

A spoiler: There is no equivocation in Labaree’s analysis. He is a strong supporter of public education, and he worries that by prizing the personal and individualistic benefit of education, our society may have lost sight of our schools’ public purpose: “A public good is one that benefits all members of the community, whether or not they contribute to its upkeep or make use of it personally. In contrast, private goods benefit individuals, serving only those people who take advantage of them. Thus, schooling is a public good to the extent that it helps everyone (including people who don’t have children in school). And schooling is a private good to the extent that it provides individuals with knowledge, skills, and credentials they can use to distinguish themselves from other people and get ahead in life.”

Labaree traces the history of public education through the 19th and early 20th centuries, but he believes more recently: “Over the subsequent decades… growing numbers of Americans came to view schooling mainly as a private good, producing credentials that allow individuals to get ahead, or stay ahead, in the competition for money and social status. All but gone is the assumption that the purpose of schooling is to benefit the community at large. Less and less often do Americans conceive of education as a cooperative effort in nation-building or collective investment in workforce development.”

I have been watching the website of the California Secretary of State to follow the close contest between Tony Thurmond and Marshall Tuck. The polls and pundits predicted that Tuck would win.

When the polls first closed, Tuck had an early lead, but millions of votes had not been counted. In California, mail-in ballots postmarked on the day of the election must be counted, and they are still being counted.

After election day, Thurmond went into the lead, then Tuck came back, then Thurmond opened up a lead of 65,000-85,000 votes. That lead has held steady over the past couple of days as the vote total grows.

The vote is not final, and the numbers obviously could change in the days ahead.

Thurmond is winning heavily in Los Angeles (the city that should be Marshall Tuck’s base, where the most charters are located) and in San Francisco, which is Thurmond’s base.

On October 28, EdSource in California reported that at least $50 million had been raised for the race, and that Tuck had outraised Thurmond by 2-1.

When all the reports are in, the total amount of spending will surely be even more.

Thurmond was backed by the California Teachers Association and labor unions, meaning that his campaign was paid for by the dues of working people.

Here is a partial list of Tuck donors, a veritable Who’s Who of the school choice movement:

Bill Bloomfield: $6.761 million

Bloomfield is a billionaire Republican mega-donor who has become a charter school advocate.

The Walton Family: $5.138 million

Walmart billionaires

Eli Broad: $3.2 million

The Los Angeles billionaire who believes in closing public schools and privatizing them into charters.

Arthur Rock: $3.2 million

A California venture capitalist and billionaire who gives millions to Teach for America

Doris Fisher: $3.1 million

A billionaire, thanks to The Gap and Old Navy; the family gives heavily to KIPP

Richard Riordan: $2 million

The former Mayor of Los Angeles

These were the totals as of October 28. We will have to wait a few weeks for a complete accounting.

Undoubtedly these donors could have given twice or three times as much, but must have decided that it might embarrass Tuck to have three times as much money as Thurmond. Twice as much should have been enough.

One thing is certain. This is the most expensive contest in history for the job of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, a job that pays $175,000 and has limited authority.

The symbolic importance of this race, however, cannot be overstated. If the charter lobby prevails in a deep blue state, it can prevail in every state. It already owns Governor Cuomo in New York (but lost control of the State Legislature, when progressive candidates ousted fake Democrats in the State Senate). It tried and failed to lift the charter cap in Massachusetts in 2016, routed in a public referendum, even though the Governor and the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is in the hands of the charter industry.

So, we will continue to keep a close watch on California, where the teachers and the charter billionaires are in a face-off.

Fred Klonsky has the charter scandal of the day in Chicago. The founder and CEO of the Noble (no excuses) Charter Chain is stepping down after being accused of inappropriate conduct towards former students.

Public radio reporters Sarah Karp and Adriana Cardona-Maguigad of WBEZ broke the news of the latest Chicago charter school scandal.

Michael Milkie, the CEO of Noble, the city’s largest charter school network, is being investigated following complaints of “inappropriate behavior toward young female alumnae.”

Milkie has resigned in disgrace but without further consequences.

Noble runs 17 charter high schools and one middle school that serve more than 12,000 students.

Read the ugly details.

Noble has been considered Chicago’s premier charter chain.

One of the charters in named for billionaire Governor Bruce Rauner (just defeated). Another is named for billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, who was Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. Her brother J.B. Pritzker, another billionaire, just defeated Rauner.

Marcus May, charter operator, was sentenced to 20 years in prison and a fine of $5 million for fraud.

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — The founder of a company that operated charter schools in several Florida counties has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The Pensacola News Journal reports Marcus May also was sentenced Tuesday to pay a $5 million fine for using those schools to steer millions of dollars into his personal accounts. He was convicted last month of two counts of racketeering and one count of organized fraud.

May’s company, Newpoint Education Partners, operated charter schools in Escambia, Bay, Broward, Duval, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties.

Prosecutors say May misappropriated millions in public money to buy furniture, computers and other materials at inflated prices from fraudulent companies headed by his close associates.

A co-defendant, Steven Kunkemoeller, has been sentenced to 4 1/2 years for racketeering and organized fraud.

It isn’t enough that billionaires are pouring big money into school board races.

Now Laurene Powell Jobs is urging her allies to run for the local school board and become advocates for her ideas about the importance of reinventing high schools along the lines that she and Arne Duncan have chosen.

She has even provided a handy kit about how to do it.

Good move on her part. She doesn’t have to spend millions to elect her candidates. She just asks for volunteers for the XQ army.

If anyone ever believed that charter schools are a “progressive” cause, please consider the reaction in New York to the Republicans’ loss of control of the State Senate.

Governor Cuomo and the Republicans who were in charge of the State Senate showered the charter schools with money and favors, because of the hedge fund money behind them.

But now the Republican grip has been broken and charter advocates are rightly worried. Not progressives, but Republicans.

This article appeared in Newsday on Long Island, the epicenter of the parent boycott of high stakes testing, where several representatives were felled in the last election by parents.

By Michael Gormley michael.gormley@newsday.com @GormleyAlbany Updated November 12, 2018 6:00 AM

ALBANY — One of the losers in Tuesday’s election is the charter school movement, which lost a big and reliable advocate when Republicans gave up control of the majority to Democrats in the State Senate, both sides said.

“There’s no question it’s going to be challenging,” said Robert Bellafiore, a consultant who works with charter schools. He also was part of the team under former Gov. George Pataki that authorized charter schools in 1998.

The strongest backer of charter schools now is Democratic Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who wields extraordinary power in crafting state budgets under New York law.

“What that means is you can stop bad stuff, but it doesn’t mean you will see an expansion,” Bellafiore said.

Advocates had hoped the legislature and governor in 2019 would lift a cap on the number of charter schools that can be created. The cap is 460, including a limit of 50 in New York City where demand is strongest. As of September there were 358 charter schools approved to operate or already operating. Five are on Long Island. Charter schools must be renewed every five years by showing they are successful.

Since 1998, Senate Republicans continued to support the publicly funded, but privately run schools. Many Democrats say charter schools unfairly compete for students, and the state and local aid attached to them. Advocates of charter schools, including some urban Democrats, say they are a needed alternative to failing traditional schools. Charter schools, for example, are free of some regulations, which allows them to experiment with instruction models such as longer school days. Supporters point to long waiting lists for these schools as proof of their value.

“This is a moment for charter schools,” said Andy Pallotta, president of New York State United Teachers, which has opposed expansion of charter schools and seeks greater transparency of their operations. “I think they lost their influence in the Capitol.”

Senate Democrats wouldn’t say what their plans are for charter schools or if the new majority would support any expansion.

“Senate Democrats care about providing a quality education for all New York’s children, including those attending charter schools,” said Senate Democratic spokesman Mike Murphy. “A Democratic majority will seek expanded opportunities for all our schools to ensure a brighter future for students regardless of the type of school they attend.”

There was no immediate comment from Cuomo or the Senate’s Republican conference.

NYSUT takes credit for part of the Democratic wave that ended Republican control of the Senate. Pallotta said the union’s more than 600,000 members were galvanized when Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan (R-East Northport) said the union was among groups acting “almost like the forces of evil,” spending millions of dollars to create a legislature led by Democrats.

“There was a red-hot reaction to that,” Pallotta said. “I believe it was a very bad move on his part.”

The charter school movement has also been a big contributor to Republican senators, until this last campaign, records show.

New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany is a major funder of pro-charter school candidates. Two years ago in the final critical month of the legislative elections, the group spent $2.8 million on TV ads and mailers and in direct campaign contributions, state records show. In the same October period of this year, according to the latest filings, the group spent $69,950.

The group supports StudentsFirstNY, a charter school advocacy group.

“Charter schools give parents in low-income neighborhoods school choices like parents have in affluent communities,” said executive director Jenny Sedlis in a prepared statement. “In New York City, we don’t have enough great school choices. We look forward to working with legislators to ensure all kids have access to high-quality schools.”

Wealthy supporters of charter schools are also big funders of Cuomo’s campaigns, but he has come under increasing pressure by liberal Democrats over his support of the schools. Teachers’ unions, which are also major campaign contributors, argue that charter schools reduce state aid for traditional schools.

Steven Singer writes that Linda Darling-Hammond was one of his heroes. But after reading the new report from the Learning Policy Institute, with its benign embrace of choice, he is disappointed.

Perhaps what he sees is the difference between Linda writing in her own voice and Linda writing as part of a team. I wonder who wrote the first draft.

Tom Ultican has been chronicling the advance of the DPE (Destroy Public Education) Movement. He attended the recent conference of the Network for Public Education, where he heard from leaders of the Kansas City (Missouri) school district and realized that it was suffering from the DPE strategy.

He wrote this post about the deliberate and heedless destruction of what was once a vibrant school district.

The city and the school district were, to begin with, victimized by white flight. Subsidized by federal housing policies, whites abandoned the city. Responding to a court order, the state poured huge sums into magnet schools in hopes of luring white students back, but it didn’t work.

Then the DPE moved in, like vultures, to feast on the carcass of the remaining public schools.

Ultican describes the rapid turnover in leaders, beginning with John Covington, who was placed in Kansas City by Eli Broad. Covington closed numerous schools to make way for school choice and charters. He didn’t stay long, however, because he got a call from the Great Eli himself, telling him to go to Detroit to run the Education Achievement Authority. That was a massive and costly failure.

At present, as he shows (based on the presentation of state data at NPE), the Kansas City school district has only 14,216 students. The charter in the districts, each of them considered a “school district,” has almost as many students. There are currently 20 (20!) separate local education agencies operating in what was once the Kansas City school district (each charter is its own local education agency). Twenty school districts competing for students.

This is expensive, as he shows. The Kansas City district spends more than double what is spent in the similar-size Springfield, Mo., district.

A sad footnote to this tale of harm inflicted on children and public schools is that much of it is funded by the local Kauffman foundation, whose namesake would likely be appalled to see what is being done with the money he left behind:

Ewing Marion Kauffman was a graduate of public schools. Before his death in 1993 he spent money and time promoting public schools. He was an eagle scout and he established the Kansas City Royal baseball team. He would undoubtedly hate the idea that the $2 billion foundation he established is now being used to undermine public education in his city.

Kauffman Foundation money was used to bring CEE-Trust to Kansas City. It was a Bill Gates funded spin off from Indianapolis’s proto-type privatizing organization The Mind Trust. The CEE-Trust mandate was to implement the portfolio theory of education reform. When local’s got wind of a backroom deal that had given CEE-Trust a $385,000 state contract to create a plan for KCPS things went south. A 2017 Chalkbeat Article says, “In 2013, a plan to reshape Kansas City’s schools was essentially run out of town.” It became so bad that CEE-Trust changed its name to Education Cities.

Now the same local-national money combination is funding a new group, SmartschoolKC, with the same portfolio district agenda. The new collaboration is funded by the Kauffman Foundation, the Hall Family Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.

The portfolio model posits treating schools like stock holdings and trimming the failures by privatizing them or closing them. The instrument for measuring failure is the wholly inappropriate standardized test. This model inevitably leads to an ever more privatized system that strips parents and taxpayers of their democratic rights. Objections to the portfolio model include:

It creates constant churn and disruption. The last thing students in struggling neighborhoods need is more uncertainty.

Democratically operated schools in a community are the foundation of American democracy. Promoters of the portfolio model reject the civic value of these democracy incubators.
Parents and taxpayer no longer have an elected board that they can hold accountable for school operations.

José Espinosa is the Superintendent of the Socorro Independent School District In Texas. This article appeared in the El Paso Times.

Superintendent Espinosa thinks the public should know the truth about charter schoools that claim to have a 100% college acceptance rate. They are lying. Rightwingers in Texas and charter promoters are planning on a big expansion of charters in the state, peddling their wares with unverified claims about their “success.”

He writes:

When something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Dating back to 1954, the Better Business Bureau used this catchphrase to alert the public of shady business practices.

In the new era of school choice, this catchphrase can be used to alert the public of misleading business practices by charter schools in order to protect our most prized possessions — our children.

Every year, certain charters tout a 100 percent college acceptance rate as their major marketing pitch to lure parents away from traditional public schools.

The reality is the public isn’t told acceptance to a four-year university is actually a graduation requirement at some charter schools.

It specifically states in certain charters’ student/family handbooks that a student may graduate and receive a diploma ONLY if the student is accepted into a four-year university and has completed 125 hours of community service.

Reading lengthy student/family handbooks carefully before considering charters is just as important as reading the fine print before signing contracts.

We must also ask, “Why is Corporate America bashing our traditional public schools, yet it doesn’t demand transparency or accountability from charter schools?”

While 100 percent of charter seniors get accepted to college as required, the public has a right to know the percentage of charter students who didn’t make it to their senior year.

Ed Fuller, Pennsylvania State University professor, found in one of his studies of a particular charter network that when considering the number of students starting in the ninth grade as a cohort, the percentage of charter cohort students who graduated and went on to college was at best 65 percent.

In other words, 35 percent of ninth-graders at a charter network didn’t make it to their graduation….

Just like the BBB, it is our duty to alert the public.

If charters insist on boasting about 100 percent college acceptance rates, then traditional public schools must insist that our communities be fully informed.

Charters’ news release could read: “Since we require students to get accepted to a four-year university in order to graduate, our seniors have a 100 percent college acceptance rate. However, more than 30 percent of our cohort students in the ninth grade didn’t graduate from our charters. Therefore, we had less than 70 percent of our cohort students graduate and get accepted to college…”

Lauding charters who lack transparency and discount students while bashing El Paso’s public schools disparages the hard work, relentless dedication and success of Team SISD.

Linda Darling-Hammond and her team at the Learning Policy Institute at Stanford published a report called “The Tapestry of American Public Education: How Can We Create a System of Schools Worthy of All?”

Carol Burris and I wrote a critique of that report, because it seems to endorse the reformers’ idea of a portfolio of charters, public schools, and other choices. Some call this the “portfolio” model or the “diverse providers” model, but whatever it is called, it accepts that charter schools and public schools are interchangeable. We argued that governance is crucial, because the public should be in charge of their schools, not private boards that are not accountable.

Linda Darling-Hammond took issue with our critique, and she responded here. I hope you will read her response in full. It recapitulates much of what is in the original publication, although the word “portfolio” has been deleted.

Our response is posted directly after Darling-Hammond’s comment on our original piece.

Here is our response.

We agree on many issues with Linda Darling-Hammond and the Learning Policy Institute. Our goals are the same. We want excellent schools for all children. But we don’t think that charter schools bring us closer to our shared goals.

As Darling-Hammond acknowledges, 40 percent of the charter schools that opened from 2001 TO 2015 have closed. Instability and churn do not provide a path to excellent schools for all. Darling-Hammond and her team believe the problems with charters are fixable. Given the charter sector’s continual resistance to any real accountability, transparency or serious reform, we are doubtful. It has become increasingly apparent that the corruption, mismanagement and self-dealing by private management are not “bugs,” but rather features of the charter sector.

We also think that the LPI team underestimates the damage that privately managed charter schools do to public schools, by siphoning off the students they choose and diverting resources, causing budget cuts to the schools that most students choose.

As Jan Resseger a former chair of the National Council of Churches Committee on Public Education explains here, scholars including Gordon Lafer and Bruce Baker have demonstrated the inefficiency of dividing scarce public resources among multiple systems of schools.

Some of the language we criticized in our prior blog has been deleted from the report, such as the word “portfolio.” We are grateful. Other language has been modified to soften the critique of those who are concerned about school governance, and language that we interpreted as opposition to caps has been clarified.

What remains, however, is a perspective that is consonant with the portfolio model, that is, the belief that privately managed charters can be seamlessly folded into the public school system as one of many choices. Based on what we have reported about charters school scams, frauds, and cherry-picking of students, we remain skeptical.

Given Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ love for charter schools, we continue to see private management of public dollars as privatization and to see privately managed (and unaccountable) charter schools not as public schools but as government contractors in serious need of regulation and oversight.