Archives for category: Charter Schools

Ref Rodriguez, amidst criminal charges of money laundering, relinquished the presidency of the Los Angeles Unified School District aboard but is remaining on the board. This enables the pro-charter majority to retain control. Long-time charter supporter Monica Garcia will serve as board president until a new election is held.

“Less than three months into his role as president of the Los Angeles Board of Education, Ref Rodriguez announced Tuesday that he would step down from that post to spare the school district the distraction of a criminal case filed against him last week.

“Rodriguez, 46, said he would retain his seat on the board.

“The development is a stunning turnaround both for Rodriguez and supporters of charter schools, who spent record sums in independent campaigns to elect a board majority that is widely viewed as pro-charter.

“In 2015, Rodriguez broke ground as the first member of the board to have deep ties to the charter school community as the co-founder of a charter organization.”

It would be a huge disappointment to Eli Broad, Richard Riordan, Reed Hastings, and Alice Walton to lose control of the board in which they invested so many millions.

Because Rodriguez intends to remain on the board, the charter-friendly majority should remain intact, but his legal problems have become a cloud over what he and the new majority have called their “kids-first” agenda.

You remember Ben Austin? He is the guy in Los Angeles who started an organization called Parent Revolution whose purpose was to organize parents to seize control of their public school and turn it over to a charter operator. This process was made possible by a law passed in 2010 called the Parent Trigger, which says that a majority of parents can sign a petition to grab control of their school and fire the principal, the staff, or give the school to a private charter operator.

A bunch of billionaires, including Eli Broad, gave him millions of dollars to pay organizers to train parents to sign petitions. For a few brief shining moments, the Parent Trigger was the New Coke of education. Rightwing billionaire Philip Anschutz funded a movie to sell the Parent Trigger, but it flopped in the blink of an eye.

Seven years and many millions of dollars later, Parent Revolution can claim the capture of one public school for the charter industry. One. And they got a dedicated Hispanic principal fired. That’s it.

So it’s time for Ben Austin to start a new organization with another pile of money, including billionaire Eli Broad. It is called Kids Coalition. Apparently Austin’s new strategy is to sue and sue until every child has a great education.

That will work about as well as the Parent Trigger, but hey, it’s a living, for as long as the money keeps coming in. Eli has so much. What’s another few million?

The most interesting part of the story is the photograph of Austin. I tried to decipher the books behind him. There is Michelle Rhee’s “Radical.” Steve Brill’s paean of praise to DFER (“Class Warfare”), something by David Brooks. The thinking of a reformer. A real radical. A guy who knows how to start organizations with catchy names. A guy who has his hand on the pulse or purse of very wealthy donors.

http://laschoolreport.com/exclusive-ben-austin-launches-kids-coalition-to-give-la-students-a-legal-right-to-a-high-quality-education/

My favorite quote from the story:

“He also noted that when he drops off his daughters and walks them into their classrooms, the classroom looks, smells, and operates the same way his LA Unified classroom did 40 years ago.”

Maybe he could succeed in changing the smell of the classrooms of L.A. Distribute a spray can to every teacher. That will definitely produce a new smell.

This is a repost, because I forgot to put in the link to the article.

Anita Senkowski is a blogger in northern Michigan who strikes fear in the hearts of frauds and phonies. Her last target, a charter entrepreneur who made off with millions, is in prison.

In this post, she declares the State Superintendent of Public Education in Michigan a weasel. She has a photo of a cute little weasel.

Superintendent Brian Whiston said on a public radio show that school Choice hadn’t worked in Michigan.

“During the segment Whiston drew a hard line in the sand on charter schools — one of Michigan Republicans’ favorite education schemes.

“Asked about the performance thus far of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Whiston said it was too early to make a complete call, but he skewered the idea that “school choice” — i.e. charter schools — were the silver bullet to Michigan’s education woes.

“While I do support choice – and I want to be clear on that – it’s probably taken us backwards overall.”

“School choice is important. I support school choice, but Michigan has proven that school choice isn’t the answer,” he said. “If school choice was the answer, Michigan would be the top performing state because we have more choice than just about any other state.”

After the show, he began backtracking, trying to explain that he didn’t mean what he said, looking over his shoulder at the choice-loving governor and legislature.

Weasel.

Nancy Bailey valiantly followed Betsy DeVos’s national tour, from a distance.

Her message everywhere was the same: Public schools suck! Private schools are awesome!

In public schools, children sit in desks arranged in rows. In private schools, well, maybe the same but it doesn’t matter.

In public schools, children hate going to school. In private schools, they are enthusiastic and happy.

This woman is an ideologue. She knows nothing and learns nothing. Whatever she proposes is meant to damage public schools and communities.

Education is a learning profession, and she is not open to learning anything!

We will wait her out, fight her at every turn, and return to the task of improving and strengthening public schools for all children, a concept unknown to her.

These reports document the widespread financial mismanagement of charter schools in Arizona, compiled by Curt Cardine. These reports are also archived on the Grand Canyon Institute website.

The reports can be read here, here, and here.

Curt Cardine, retired educator, has studied the charter schools of Arizona and discovered that most are financially unsound.

Next year, Arizonans will vote on whether to fund religious and other private schools with taxpayer dollars. How much waste are the taxpayers of Arizona willing to tolerate at the same time?

Cardine writes:

The economic theory behind school choice and vouchers relies on the ‘free’ marketplace and the consumers of educational services to cull winners and losers. Children represent ‘backpacks full of cash’ that follow the child to the school of their parents’ choice.

The data gleaned from 20-plus years of financial reports on charter schools paint a different story. In reality, Arizona families lack sufficient information to make an informed choice about what school their children attend. As Ronald Reagan might have put it, we have trusted without verifying the financial and academic results of that trust.

Since 1994, 424 charter schools have shuttered their doors, a failure rate of 43 percent. Thirty-four percent of all charters that fail do not meet the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools Financial Performance Recommendation. Another 90 charter groups that failed did not meet the Cash Flow Standard. My concerns led to three years of intensive research. This effort was undertaken to statistically verify first-hand observations as a charter and district leader. Special attention was paid to the 2013 through 2016 audits, annual financial reviews and IRS 990s (used by the IRS for nonprofits).

The research findings are documented in a series of three policy reports from the Grand Canyon Institute, a nonpartisan public policy think tank.

The reports are ‘Following the Money,’ ‘Red Flags’ and ‘Teachers in the Charter Marketplace.’

Following the Money presents financial data on charter school management salaries. Charter administrative costs on average are twice district management costs. One case showed two administrators earning a total that exceeded $500,000 for managing one small school with less than 300 students. The top earners are often husband and wife teams, relatives or business associates of the charter holder, collectively making more than $200,000 to oversee a few hundred children.

Charters are not required to conduct a competitive bid process like public district schools. This allows many charter holders to earn compensation by doing business with their own for-profit companies. In one case, a charter holder paid his own ‘for profit’ company $12 million in one year for learning-management software. The cost should have been less than 10 percent of that amount, based on what the Mesa Unified School District spends for a similar type of software.

In 2013-14, related-party business practices were worth a half a billion dollars, representing 48 percent of charter school transactions for contracts, leases and rents. As a comparison, public school districts are not allowed to do business with companies owned by the superintendent or school board.

Also, widespread irregularities abound in the financial information that some charter schools provided to different governmental agencies.

The next post contains the background reports. They are also archived here.

Samuel Abrams, director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, is a hardy soul. He agreed to debate Bob Bowdon, film-maker, pundit, and hater of all things public, in a debate sponsored by the libertarian publication Reason. The debate took place in July but it remains relevant.

Sam taught for many years in the New York City public schools, then wrote his academic thesis on the Edison Project, which grew into a book about for-profit education ventures called Education and the Commercial Mindset, published by Harvard University Press. The book is thoughtful, well-documented, and scholarly.

Bob Bowdon is a film-maker who made a name for himself as someone who despises public schools, teachers, and unions. He is a libertarian, and the crowd was with him from the start. Abrams was brave to go before a pro-choice crowd, and he won some of them over to the idea that there is actually something called the common good.

Bowdon, needless to say, is unfamiliar with the research about vouchers, and is unaware of research from Ohio, Indiana, Louisiana, and D.C. showing that students who take vouchers lose ground as compared to their peers who stay in public schools.

Here is a transcript of the debate.

Jon Shore writes about the Boston Municipal Research Bureau:

“The goal of Boston Municipal Research Bureau Samuel Tyler is to dummy down the Boston Public Schools. The “bold reform” that Samuel Tyler is always talking about is closing and consolidating schools, warehousing children and hiring unqualified, uncertified TFA “corps members” and TNTP “fellows.” These people would never be hired in the tony Massachusetts suburbs of Weston, Wellesley, or Holliston, where Samuel Tyler lives, so why would he entertain hiring them here to educate vulnerable children in Boston Public Schools?

“Boston Municipal Research Bureau Sam Tyler represents the large businesses and institutions that depend on a low wage, no benefit, service sector workforce to maintain their status quo! In Boston, the accommodation and food service industry provides the largest number of jobs and pays the lowest wages.

“Someone needs to make all those beds and Latte’s down in the waterfront and the ugly truth is members of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau are targeting urban youth in Boston for those jobs. That’s their back-up plan as ICE continues to arrest and remove undocumented workers from the state. You have to consider this with ICE being able to snatch undocumented people, currently filling many of those service sector jobs, at roadblocks as they did a few weeks ago in New Hampshire! Three of those detained were Boston Public School students.”

http://nhpr.org/post/three-children-among-25-undocumented-immigrants-detained-nh-highway-checkpoint#stream/0

Karen Wolfe, parent activist in Los Angeles, writes about a dramatic turn of events earlier today. Eli Broad wanted to open a STEM school in Los Angeles. Not with his money, of course, but with public money. He also wanted more autonomy for charter schools, so they have even less oversight than they now have. It is highly unusual for a billionaire to ask the Legislature to give him a school. The Los Angeles Times thought it set a bad precedent but they supported it because, well, he does give the Times $800,000 a year (their reporters are untainted by his money, fortunately, but $800,000 is real money). And if the powerful charter industry in California needs anything, it is more oversight, more accountability, more transparency, not less.

And guess what! ELI BROAD LOST!

Karen Wolfe writes:


Victory in California!

On the final day of the legislative session, a massive coalition of teachers & parents, activists & experts, unions & school boards, those Democrats and these Democrats, and Republicans beat big money!

AB 1217, a bill sponsored by Eli Broad, would have established a school in the middle of Los Angeles, and so much more. It would have created a law–and set a statewide precedent–to let charter school operators circumvent local districts, the County Office of Education, and even the State Board of Education. This has never been done in California, where “local control” is fiercely protected. Obliterating that is a top priority of the charter lobby.

But we won!

What an uprising. First, a couple of us button-holed some of our local delegates to the Democratic Party in Los Angeles. Especially on the heels of the recent school board election, they got it! And they got to work. Within two days, the matter was put on the Los Angeles Democratic Party Central Committee agenda as an emergency measure. It passed unanimously–and it put our state legislators on notice. They were not going to sneak this through.

Then we California BATs sent out an Action Alert and worked up and down the state asking public education activists to call their senators. BATS started tweeting. Diane Ravitch posted it, and our state senators were getting calls from activists across the country. They knew they were being watched.

Before one caller even started talking, a senate staffer said, I’ll put you down as opposing. She said, how do you know that? He told her, I can hear a child in the background.

Each day, it stayed off the Senate floor. Were they waiting for the right moment, or did they know support was crumbling?

Then the Network for Public Education sent an eblast to tens of thousands of Californians who care about public education. Los Angeles activist Lauren Steiner took our message to a whole new community of California activists, opposed to privatization in general.

All the while, the teachers unions were working the legislature, and getting more partners to join the fight. School boards, firefighters, the PTA, all against this bill.

Together, we spoke truth to power and MADE them listen. We will not let them sell off our schools in secret, pretending that it is putting “kids first”.

Thank you to everyone who made calls!

Diane Ravitch always says, “We will win, because they are few, and we are many.” Sometimes it is hard to remember that. Today, I believe!

Remember that scene in the Dustin Hoffman movie “The Graduate” where a sharp guy whispers to the young Hoffman that the business of the future is “plastics!”

In the charter industry, the profits are not in tuition money. They are in real estate.

Pennsylvania theoretically does not permit for-profit charters. But that doesn’t mean that charters don’t make a handsome profit. It is all about real estate, or leasing the property you own to yourself for a fine fee.

The five-story brick and concrete building overlooking Brighton Road in Perry South features a Propel schools banner over its front door, with signs for the charter network at every approach.

The 99,155-square-foot Propel Northside is owned, though, by School Facilities Development Inc., a nonprofit corporation with a very narrow role: Leasing property to Propel.

SFD’s ownership allows Propel to collect around $322,000 in annual lease reimbursements from the state — money it wouldn’t get if it owned its school buildings. It’s an arrangement that had drawn criticism from the state’s top auditor and is threatened by proposed legislation.

“You’ve created this nonprofit and sort of in a sense, you control it,” said Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, a critic of the state’s charter school law. “You’re getting a lease reimbursement for renting to yourself.”

Since 2004, SFD has spent $32.6 million buying a portfolio of seven schools, comprising most of Propel’s 11 locations. With no employees and just a few volunteers and part-time consultants, the nonprofit receives $3 million in annual lease payments from Propel schools, and after debt payments runs annual six-figure surpluses.

From 1965 to 2006, the Pittsburgh Public Schools owned the Brighton Road building, maintained it and used it as Columbus Middle School. That simple arrangement isn’t mirrored in the charter school world, where specialized nonprofits take on various roles and receive millions of dollars in public money.

“Real estate is held in a separate company,” said Propel Executive Director Jeremy Resnick, recounting the advice he’s gotten from attorneys and financiers during Propel’s 15-year history. “This is how it’s being done.”

Jeremy Resnick–founder of the Propel Charter Chain–is the son of the esteemed education researcher Dr. Lauren Resnick of the LRDC at the University of Pittsburgh.