Archives for category: Charter Schools

The National Education Policy Center specializes in reviewing think tank reports, few of which are peer-reviewed. Many think tanks are advocacy organizations that use pseudo-scholarship to promote policy goals.

NEPC’s latest review gives a thumbs down to a report that advises on ways to eliminate democratic control of public schools. None of its so-called “reforms” have worked in practice, and the goal itself is unworthy:

BOULDER, CO (June 13, 2017) – A recent report offers a how-to guide for reform advocates interested in removing communities’ democratic control over their schools. The report explains how these reformers can influence states to use the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Title I school improvement funds to support a specific set of reforms: charter schools, state-initiated turnarounds, and appointment of an individual with full authority over districts or schools.

Leveraging ESSA to Support Quality-School Growth was reviewed by Gail L. Sunderman of the University of Maryland.

While the report acknowledges that there is limited research evidence on the effectiveness of these reforms as school improvement strategies, it uses a few exceptional cases to explain how advocates seeking to influence the development of state ESSA plans can nevertheless push them forward.

As Sunderman’s review explains, the report omits research that would shed light on the models, and it fails to take into account the opportunity costs of pursuing one set of policies over another. It also relies on test score outcomes as the sole measure of success, thus ignoring other impacts these strategies may have on students and their local communities or the local school systems where they occur. Finally, and as noted above, support for the effectiveness of these approaches is simply too limited to present them as promising school improvement strategies.

For these reasons, concludes Sunderman, policymakers, educators and state education administrators should be wary of relying on this report to guide them as they develop their state improvement plans and consider potential strategies for assisting low-performing schools and districts.

Find the review by Gail L. Sunderman at:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-ESSA-accountability

Find Leveraging ESSA to Support Quality-School Growth, by Nelson Smith and Brandon Wright, published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Education Cities, at:
https://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/03.30 – Leveraging ESSA To Support Quality-School Growth_0.pdf

Valerie Strauss contacted PBS to ask why the public TV Network ran a one-sided three-hour documentary that lambastes public schools and celebrates vouchers, charters, and for-profit schools.

PBS gave its response.

It likes to air diverse views (clearly without fact-checking).

It pays no attention to where the money comes from, even it is dark money funneled through Donors Trust, which bundles contributions from the Koch brothers and DeVos foundations.

Since PBS welcomes diverse views, be sure to contact your local public television station and urge them to run my rebuttal, which aired on WNET, the NYC PBS station.

Since PBS likes diverse views, urge them to air “Backpack Full of Cash,” produced by award-winning Stone Lantern Films, who’s four-part series, “School,” was aired on PBS in 2000. “Backpack” demonstrates the vicious corporate assault on public schools and the harm done to children by the privatization movement.

Don’t agonize, organize.

Dr. Ralph Northam, Lt. Governor of Virginia, won the Democratic Party runoff for Governor, beating Tom Perrielo. Northam was the favorite of leaders of the state and local Democratic Party. Perrielo was endorsed by Senators Sanders and Warren.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/337675-lieutenant-gov-northam-defeats-sanders-backed-candidate-in-va-gov-primary%3Famp

Education, for once, was a big issue in the race. Both candidates claimed to be opposed to vouchers and charter schools. Perrielo, however, was unable to overcome his past connections with corporate reformers at the Center for American Progress, Jared Polis, and Arne Duncan.

The lesson for Democrats: supporters of school choice are not progressives. Education voters in the Democratic Party back public schools!

Gary Rubinstein was a member of Teach for America who has become an articulate critic of the organization. He objects to the use of the term “failing school,” because he has worked in schools with dedicated staff that were labeled “failing” based on test scores alone. He notes that TFA has benefitted by the use of this term because it sets up for closure, allowing charter schools and TFA to ride to the rescue.

In perusing TFA news, he discovered that one of their training sites in Houston is a “failing school.” By Texas’ accountability standards, the school got a grade of D, and is #720 of 1,000 schools.

The principal is TFA too. No miracle there.

He advises:

“I’m not writing about this to trash this school. I want the corps members who are working there and who are admiring this school to understand, though, that the bogus rating system that makes Robinson ‘failing’ is the same kind of rating system that is being used by all the supporters of TFA who want to declare a large percent of schools, like Robinson, failing. It’s lies like this that have fueled the growth of TFA. Without this growth, most TFA CMs wouldn’t even be in the program right now as it would be a much smaller program than it is.

“I think this would make for a good discussion topic for the TFA corps member groups who work at this failing school. If you are one of those corps members, bring this up at one of the daily meetings and report back how the TFA staffers respond.”

I wish that everyone who sees the PBS program “School Inc.”–which airs nationally this month–knew who was funding this error-ridden attack on public education.

Please watch my 10-minute interview with New York City’s PBS affiliate, WNET, where I gave a concise response to this meretricious three-hour program. It airs locally, not nationally.


Public education today faces an existential crisis. Over the past two decades, the movement to transfer public money to private organizations has expanded rapidly. The George W. Bush administration first wrote into federal law the proposal that privately managed charter schools were a remedy for low-scoring public schools, even though no such evidence existed. The Obama administration provided hundreds of millions each year to charter schools, under the control of private boards. Now, the Trump administration, under the leadership of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, wants to expand privatization to include vouchers, virtual schools, cyberschools, homeschooling, and every other possible alternative to public education. DeVos has said that public education is a “dead end,” and that “government sucks.”

DeVos’s agenda finds a ready audience in the majority of states now controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Most states already have some form of voucher program that allow students to use public money to enroll in private and religious schools, even when their own state constitution prohibits it. The Republicans have skirted their own constitutions by asserting that the public money goes to the family, not the private or religious school. The longstanding tradition of separating church and state in K-12 education is crumbling. And Betsy DeVos can testify with a straight face that she will enforce federal law to “schools that receive federal funding,” because voucher schools allegedly do not receive the money, just the family that chooses religious schools.

Advocates of the privatization movement like DeVos claim that nonpublic schools will “save poor children from failing public schools,” but independent researchers have recently concurred that vouchers actually have had a negative effect on students in the District of Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio. Charters, at best, have a mixed record, and many are known for excluding children with disabilities and English language learners and for pushing out students who are troublesome.

This is a time when honest, nonpartisan reporting is needed to inform the American public.

But this month the Public Broadcasting System is broadcasting a “documentary” that tells a one-sided story, the story that Betsy DeVos herself would tell, based on the work of free-market advocate Andrew Coulson. Author of “Market Education,” Coulson narrates “School, Inc., “ a three-hour program, which airs this month nationwide in three weekly broadcasts on PBS.

Uninformed viewers who see this very slickly produced program will learn about the glories of unregulated schooling, for-profit schools, teachers selling their lessons to students on the Internet. They will learn about the “success” of the free market in schooling in Chile, Sweden, and New Orleans. They will hear about the miraculous charter schools across America, and how public school officials selfishly refuse to encourage the transfer of public funds to private institutions. They will see a glowing portrait of South Korea, where students compete to get the highest possible scores on a college entry test that will define the rest of their lives and where families gladly pay for afterschool tutoring programs and online lessons to boost test scores. They will hear that the free market is more innovative than public schools.

What they will not see or hear is the other side of the story. They will not hear scholars discuss the high levels of social segregation in Chile, nor will they learn that the students protesting the free-market schools in the streets are not all “Communists,” as Coulson suggests. They will not hear from scholars who blame Sweden’s choice system for the collapse of its international test scores. They will not see any reference to Finland, which far outperforms any other European nation on international tests yet has neither vouchers nor charter schools. They may not notice the absence of any students in wheelchairs or any other evidence of students with disabilities in the highly regarded KIPP charter schools. They will not learn that the acclaimed American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland does not enroll any American Indians, but has a student body that is 60% Asian American in a city where that group is 12.8% of the student population. Nor will they see any evidence of greater innovation in voucher schools or charter schools than in properly funded public schools.

Coulson has a nifty way of dismissing the fact that the free market system of schooling was imposed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. He says that Hitler liked the Hollywood movie “It Happened One Night” (with Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable); should we stop showing or watching the movie? Is that a fair comparison? Pinochet was directly responsible for the free market system of schooling, including for-profit private schools. Hitler neither produced nor directed “It Happened One Night.” Thus does Coulson refer to criticism (like Sweden’s collapsing scores on international tests) and dismiss them as irrelevant.

I watched the documentary twice, preparing to be interviewed by Channel 13, and was repelled by the partisan nature of the presentation. I googled the funders and discovered that the lead funder is the Rose Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation, a very conservative foundation that is a major contributor to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which advocates for vouchers. The Anderson Foundation is allied with Donors Trust, whose donors make contributions that cannot be traced to them. “Mother Jones” referred to this foundation as part of “the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement.” Other contributors to Donors Trust include the Koch brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” and the Richard and Helen DeVos foundation.

The second major funder is the Prometheus Foundation. Its public filings with the IRS show that its largest grant ($2.5 million) went to the Ayn Rand Institute. The third listed funder of “School Inc.” is the Steve and Lana Hardy Foundation, which contributes to free-market libertarian think tanks.

In other words, this program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but “School Inc.” does not.

It is puzzling that PBS would accept millions of dollars for this lavish and one-sided production from a group of foundations with a singular devotion to the privatization of public services. The PBS decision to air this series is even stranger when you stop to consider that these kinds of anti-government political foundations are likely to advocate for the elimination of public funding for PBS. After all, in a free market of television, where there are so many choices available, why should the federal government pay for a television channel?

Betsy DeVos has chosen Jim Blew, who is a veteran of the privatization movement, for one of the most important positions in the Department of Education.

From Education Week:

“Jim Blew, the director of Student Success California, a 50CAN affiliate, is a top contender to lead the office of planning, evaluation, and policy analysis at the U.S. Department of Education, multiple sources say.

“Blew declined to comment. The U.S. Department of Education did not confirm the information.

“If ultimately nominated by the White House and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Blew would bring significant policy heft to the U.S. Department of Education, multiple sources say.

“Blew was the national president of StudentsFirst, an education redesign organization started by former District of Columbia schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. He took that gig beginning in late 2014, when Rhee stepped down from the organization, serving until mid-2016, when StudentsFirst merged with 50CAN, a network of state advocacy organizations.

“Before that, Blew spent nearly a decade as the Walton Family Foundation’s Director of K-12 Reform, advising the foundation on how to broaden schooling options for low-income communities. He worked in communications before devoting himself to K-12 policy. More in his bio. (Note: Walton provides support for Education Week coverage of parent-engagement and decisionmaking.)”

Jim Blew has dedicated his career to the destruction of public education. He deserves a place on this Blog’s Wall of Shame.

Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain, known for its harsh discipline and cherryocking students, won the Broad Prize for Charter Schools.

http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblog%2F129%2F%3Fuuid%3D72531

In the past year, the New York Times ran stories about a “got to go” list, identifying students who were supposed to be pushed out because of their behavior or test scores.

There was also a prominent page-one story about a leaked video showing a teacher at SA humiliating a first-grade child and ripping her paper up in front of the class.

According to the press release, former Secretary of Education John King, a member of the selection committee for Broad, lauded the choice and said that Success Academy proved it was possible to give high-quality to “every child.” He meant “every child” except those with disabilities, English language learners, nonconformists, and others who can’t or won’t produce high test scores.

“Success Academy is intentional about delivering quality instruction and offering well-rounded, hands-on learning experiences to every child,” said former Education Secretary John B. King Jr., who’s now president of the nonprofit, The Education Trust, and a member of the Broad Prize’s review board.

“These charter schools understand the benefit of a diverse educational community, with children of different socioeconomic status, race, and background all learning together,” he said.”

In my travels these past few years, one of the most remarkable people I met was Kipp Dawson in Pittsburgh. She is a middle school teacher who is dedicated to her work and her students. She is a warrior for social and economic justice. Before she became a teacher, she spent ten years as a coal miner. I knew about her before I met her and expected to meet an Amazon. But Kipp is diminutive in size with a mighty heart. If I have not already named her to the honor roll of champions, I add her now for her tenacity in fighting for children and public schools.

She wrote:

“The article which follows is a vicious attack on public schools in Pittsburgh, and thus, by extension, on our public schools as a whole. It is on the front page of the Forum section of today’s Pittsburgh Post Gazette. I post it as a call to action to all of those who are fighting to save and improve our public schools, and against those who are working double-time to shut us down.

“Here is the response I just posted on the Post-Gazette page:

“No.

“Ms. Amankulor makes it personal, and I respond, at first, in kind.

“Like her, my family is biracial (my white mom married my black dad in 1952). Like her, I am from Northern California, via NYC, to Pittsburgh, though I have been here since 1977. LIke her, my grandmother was an Eastern European Jew who escaped the Holocaust by finding refuge, and becoming a social justice fighter, here in the U.S. (though she soon lost her husband to murder at the hands of xenophobic anti-Semites in Erie in 1922 — motivated much like the anti-immigrants of today). Like her, my passion is for our children. BUT.

“Unlike Ms. Amankulor, I have allied myself with those children — all of them — and WITH our public schools, even as Ms. Amankulor and her organization have been part of the billionaire-backed forces who first undermined our schools via hostile “reforms,” then stood back, looked at the problems they helped to create, pointed fingers at our public schools, and called them “failing,” even as their “solutions” are to do even more to destroy one of our most basic democratic institutions.

“The “reforms” included closing schools, overcrowding and under-resourcing those that remained, sending Gates-funded “evaluators” to terrorize teachers and drive out many who would not be thusly debased, replace trained teachers with untrained TFA-style passing-through young people (some of whom were highly motivated and so badly mistrained), destroy elected school boards and replace them (not here; not yet) with appointed anti-public-school politicians (Philadelphia and Chicago being among the most outstanding), and then use them to shut us — public education — down, by any means necessary.

“Please, everyone who cares, read up on PennCAN. Please read Diane Ravitch’s prescient book, “Reign of Error,” which predicted this demise.

“Then join us to do the hard but necessary work to make our PUBLIC schools the schools all of our children deserve. ALL of our children.”

Kipp Dawson

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2017/06/11/Pittsburgh-Public-Schools-are-still-flunking-after-all-these-years/stories/201706110130

William Mathis describes Trump’s education budget as a demonstration of Doublespeak, meant to mask its indifference to children.

He writes:

“In 1965, the federal government, driven by the obligation to provide equal opportunities to the least fortunate of our citizens, passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was intended to lift the nation by strengthening our poorest children and schools, improving the quality of teaching, opening the doors of higher education, and providing skills to adults. It embraced the ideal voiced by the late President Kennedy that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” And the emphasis was on building the common good. By widely investing in our citizens, we invest in the health of our society and economy.

“Those principles have found no refuge in the work of President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos; all that remains of these great purposes are a confusion of empty words made to appear as if the worst were the better. Larded with phrases like “commitment to improving education” and “maintaining support for the nation’s most vulnerable students,” Trump proposes to slash federal education programs by $9.2 billion, or 13.5 percent. This is on top of past unmet needs, since federal obligations to poor and special education children have never been fully met. Starved programs are now set to have their rations reduced or cut entirely.

“With a remarkable lack of compassion, the Special Olympics budget was zeroed. Twenty-two programs are eliminated including community learning centers, arts, pre-school and teacher improvement.

Blind to clear evidence, every dollar invested in high-quality early childhood education returns $8 in positive social outcomes such as reduced unemployment, stable families, less incarceration and the like. Yet the Trump budget treats this wise and productive investment as another area to defund: Head Start and child care are slotted for small reductions, while preschool development grants are entirely eliminated.

“The “civil rights” framing is stunning doubletalk, since a growing body of independent research shows that school choice segregates students by race, handicap and socioeconomic level.

“It doesn’t get any easier for poor and middle-class students as they get older. Loan forgiveness programs for new college graduates working in schools or government would be eliminated. Student loan interest would be increased. In Trump’s plan, 300,000 students would lose their work-study jobs. In all, $143 billion would be removed over 10 years.

“Why make these cuts? The proposal calls for an increase in defense spending of more than $50 billion (a 10 percent increase) plus tax cuts for the wealthy – and that money has to come from somewhere. By these deeds, a capacity for war is valued more than the needs of the citizenry.

“Yet, Trump says “education is the civil rights issue of our time.” This budget raises questions about whether his true objective is to cut civil rights. The proposal’s centerpiece is school choice. The budget seeks to funnel $1.4 billion, in new as well as repurposed funds, into private schools. The “civil rights” framing is stunning doubletalk, since a growing body of independent research shows that school choice segregates students by race, handicap and socioeconomic level.”

Read on.

California must be so flush with cash that it simply doesn’t care how many millions are lost to charter school scams.

In California, accountability ranges between lax to non-existent, and charter leaders use public money with no oversight. Sometimes they are honest; sometimes they are not. Does it matter? Apparently the public doesn’t mind squandering its tax dollars to help charter owners get rich.

Here is the latest:

“LIVERMORE — An audit released Thursday suggests Livermore’s two charter schools misappropriated public funds, including a tax-except bond totaling $67 million, and mainly pointed the finger at former CEO Bill Batchelor.

“The audit was ordered by the Alameda County Office of Education in November and conducted by the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT).

“Analysis shows that the Tri-Valley Learning Corporation, which oversees the charter schools: Failed to disclose numerous conflict-of-interest relationships; diverted, commingled and/or misappropriated public funds, including tax-exempt public bonds totaling over $67 million with various private entities; and contributed to an environment of significantly deficient internal controls, according to a county statement.

“The lack of internal controls coupled with financing schemes designed to divert millions of dollars by Batchelor and others through relationships fostered between board members, close associates and other professionals with his nonprofit public and private companies created an environment that made it possible for the essential elements of fraud to occur,” the report states.

“The audit states that internal controls were “so weak” that Batchelor was able to divert $2.7 million of public charter school funds without any supporting documents, covering a span of five years.

“Nathan Ballard, Batchelor’s spokesman, maintained Batchelor’s innocence.

“Mr. Batchelor is innocent of any wrongdoing, and this audit doesn’t change that fact. He is just seeing the audit for the first time, but one thing is clear: Its conclusions are vague and are based a series of inaccurate assumptions,” Ballard said.

“The audit revealed that Batchelor controlled to some degree eight different entities at once during the time that a 2015 bond was issued for TVLC.

“TVLC and California Preparatory Academy went before the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to seek approval for a $30 million municipal bond to finance the purchase of a new high school building at 3090 Independence Drive in May 2015.

“The bond was approved and the Livermore Valley Charter Prep high school and the private school now share the same space.

“At the time of the bond, Batchelor, was the manager of Goldstone United Investments — the seller of the buildings and owner of the land purchased with public bonds. Batchelor was also the owner of California Preparatory Academy and San Francisco Bay Preparatory Academy, which were the co-tenants to the property at 3090 Independence Drive in Livermore.

“FCMAT points out conflicts of interests that Batchelor did not report. The paperworks reveals “a significant lack of disclosure of numerous entities in which Batchelor represented both sides of contracts and lease agreements, which benefited him personally.”

Here is a link to the audit.