Archives for category: Charter Schools

Perry Bacon, Jr. is a relatively new columnist at the Washington Post. He joined the Post a year ago and writes about national and state politics and race. His latest column in the Post startled me and perhaps others, because the Post editorial board has been an enthusiastic supporter of the worst kinds of punitive corporate reform. The Post editorial board frequently defended No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the teacher-bashing by Michelle Rhee and Arne Duncan. Seldom was a contrary view expressed, except on Valerie Strauss’ Answer Sheet blog, which was a haven for critics of the failed reforms based on testing, punishment, and privatization.

The article begins:

America’s decades-long, bipartisan “education reform” movement, defined by an obsession with test scores and by viewing education largely as a tool for getting people higher-paying jobs, is finally in decline. What should replace it is an education system that values learning, creativity, integration and citizenship.

Joe Biden is the first president in decades not aggressively pushing an education agenda that casts American schools and students as struggling and in desperate need of fixing. He has not stated that “education is the civil rights issue of our time,” a sentence said by presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. His administration has backed policies, such as an expanded child tax credit, that view giving people more money, not more education, as the main way to reduce poverty.

There is a push from experts and politicians across partisan lines, including from Biden, to get employers to stop requiring college degrees for so many jobs. There is also a growing defense of college students who study English, literature and other subjects that don’t obviously lead to jobs in the way that, say, engineering does.

An education gospel is being dismantled, one that was 40 years in the making. In 1983, the Reagan administration released a report called “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” It warned that America’s status as an economic powerhouse was under threat because its students were doing so much worse than those from other industrialized nations on standardized tests. That report put education reform on the national agenda and explicitly tied it to economic growth.

But this education fixation wasn’t just about the economy. The two parties couldn’t agree on racial policy. Democrats wanted more funding and explicit policies to help Black people and heavily Black areas to make up for past discrimination, and the Republicans largely opposed them.
What Democrats and Republicans could agree on was making education a priority. So Republican politicians, particularly Bush, pumped more money into schools, as Democrats wanted. And Democrats broadly adopted the view that education was the main way for Black people to make up for the effects of racism, thereby shifting responsibility for Black advancement from the government to individual African Americans, as Republicans wanted.

Eventually education, particularly getting a college degree, became viewed as the primary way for economic advancement for not just Black people but people of all races who weren’t born into the middle class.
The result was a bipartisan education fixation for much of the period between 1990 and 2016. It included the expansion of charter and magnet schools as an alternative to traditional public schools; an obsession with improving student test scores; accountability systems that punished schools and teachers if their kids didn’t score well; increased government spending on college loans and grants as part of a movement to make college essentially universal; and a push for Black students in particular not to just get college degrees but ones in “STEM” fields (science, technology, engineering and math) that would help them get higher-paying jobs.

This agenda was racial, economic and education policy all wrapped into one.

The problem is that this education push didn’t work. While the number of Americans who have graduated from high school and college have skyrocketed in the past three decades, wages and wealth haven’t grown nearly as much. Black people in particular haven’t seen economic gains matching these huge increases in education levels.

The remainder of the column nails the point: the education reform movement of the past few decades is a failure. It’s time for fresh thinking, centered on the idea that education is first and foremost about learning, not test scores.

But if the real aim of education policy is no longer really economic and racial policy, what should its goals be? Neither party seems to have a clear answer. Most Democrats defend teachers, a core party constituency, and extol public schools and community colleges, trying to shed the Democrats’ reputation as the party for graduates of Ivy League schools. But they don’t have a broader theory of education policy.


The Republicans are doing something much worse. At the state level, they are largely abandoning public schools and instead aggressively pushing universal voucherlike programs for K-12 education to help as many families as possible to enroll their kids in private and/or religious schools. They are also casting K-12 public school teachers and in particular college professors as propagandists who impose liberal values on students. At the college level, Republicans are trying to force out left-leaning faculty and push campuses to the right.


I certainly prefer the “teachers, professors and public schools are good” perspective (the Democratic one) over “teachers, professors and public schools are bad” (the Republican one). But neither is a real vision for American education.


Here’s one: Our education system should be about learning, not job credentialing. Schools and universities should teach Americans to be critical thinkers, not automatically believing whatever they heard from a friend or favorite news source. They should make sure Americans have enough understanding of economics, history and science to be good citizens, able to discern which candidate in an election has a better plan to, say, deal with a deadly pandemic. They should foster interest and appreciation of music, arts and literature.


They should be places where people meet and learn from others who might not share their race, class, religion or ideology. Our schools and universities should of course also provide people the core skills for jobs that actually require higher education. They should provide a path to becoming a doctor, lawyer, professor or any profession that requires specialized training without going into debt.


What our education system should not be is 16 years of required drudgery to make sure that you can get a job with stable hours and decent benefits — or a punching bag for politicians who have failed to do their jobs in reducing racial and economic inequality.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that billionaire Jeff Yass is behind a new super-PAC that is attacking progressive candidate Helen Gym in the closing days of the mayoral campaign.

ProPublica wrote about Jeff Yass and so did I.

Jeff Yass is a major funder of charter schools. Although he attended New York City public schools, he hates public schools and supports privatization. He is a MAGA Republican. He opposes abortion. He is a major funder for MAGA Republicans and grievances. The anti-public school lobby called the Center for Education Reform administers the annual Yass Award to charter schools (public schools need not apply).

I hope the Democrats who vote in Philly know who is behind the anti-Gym ads.

Vote for Helen Gym for Mayor of Philadelphia!

Privatizers have boasted for years that charter schools are superior to public schools because students should not be confined to schools by their zip code (I.e. their neighborhood). But a charter school in Philadelphia used student zip codes to exclude kids from their “lottery.” The lottery was rigged to keep out kids from certain neighborhoods.

Each of the 800-plus Philadelphia families who applied for seats at a nationally recognized charter school thought their children had a fair shot at a spot in this year’s upcoming freshman class. Pennsylvania law guarantees it.

But some had no chance at all.

A top executive at Franklin Towne Charter High School said this year’s lottery was fixed, with students from certain zip codes shut out, and others eliminated because they — or their older siblings — exhibited academic or behavioral problems. Some children were also excluded because Franklin Towne’s chief executive didn’t want to take anyone from a particular charter elementary school, in the event he might have to pay for their transportation.

Patrick Field, Franklin Towne’s chief academic officer and an administrator at the school for 17 years, said the lottery tampering was ordered by Joseph Venditti, the longtime former CEO. Venditti abruptly resigned Feb. 27, citing health reasons, after Field alerted the charter’s board chair about the lottery issues…

The Inquirer reviewed a summary of the January lottery results showing that 205 students of 813 who applied were offered seats. The accepted students came from 22 zip codes; in 17 other city zip codes, none of the students who applied got in.

It is astronomically unlikely — with odds of 1,296 trillion — that no students would be selected from those zip codes if Franklin Towne conducted a random lottery as is required, an Inquirer analysis found.

Field, who is still employed by Franklin Towne, said he chose to alert authorities and come forward to The Inquirer because children are being cheated, and becausetaxpayers are footing the bill. Charters are independently run but publicly funded.

“As an administrator in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I don’t have a choice,” Field said. “As an ethical person, I’m just heartbroken that we’re doing this at a school that I’ve given so much of my life to.”

A high school of 1,300 in Bridesburg, Franklin Towne boasts strong academics, with a 97% graduation rate in 2021. It previously was named a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education.

The charter also has fielded allegations over its enrollment practices. Though it’s required to admit students from across the city, Franklin Towne’s enrollment is primarily white — a demographic mismatch in a primarily Black school district — a concern raised in 2018 at a School Reform Commission meeting. It has previously been accused of discriminating against special-education students.

Mercedes Schneider reviewed the story and found that it sounded “fishy.” A mostly-white school in a mostly-black district? And no one knew? The selection process at this charter school has been funny for a long time.

Chalkbeat NY reports that Mayor Eric Adams (whose campaign was heavily funded by charter-loving billionaires) intends to cut $960 million from the budget for the city’s public schools.

The city’s education department budget would drop by nearly $960 million next school year under a more detailed budget proposal released by Mayor Eric Adams on Wednesday, though city officials did not offer specifics about the impact on individual campuses.

Two-thirds of that cut, or $652 million, is the result of Adams’ decision to reduce the city’s contribution to the education department. Another $297 million is from a drop in federal funding, which is drying up as pandemic relief programs end.

Part of the city’s cut is tied to a mandate from the mayor earlier this month calling on city agencies to cut spending, including at the education department. That raised questions about whether schools would take a hit, but on Wednesday, Adams vowed that this specific cost-saving measure “will not take a dime from classrooms.”

Instead, that reduction — totaling $325 million — will largely come from recalculations on how much the city spends in fringe benefits, such as health insurance for teachers. (Officials emphasized this would not result in a loss of benefits or other services.)

“We had to make tough choices in this budget,” Adams said Wednesday. “We had to negotiate competing needs. We realize that not everyone will be happy but that is okay because that is how you get stuff done.”

The education department’s operating budget would total about $30.5 billion next year under the mayor’s plan, down by about 3%.

Note that a large part of the savings will be funded by changes (cuts) in teachers’ health insurance.

Since the city will soon have to comply with a state law requiring class size reduction, it’s not clear how the city will pay for the additional costs of smaller classes. It is a very valuable reform, but it’s costly.

The city will also bear the cost of 14 new charters. Currently the 275 charters in the city are a heavy expense, since the city must pay their rent, even if they locate in private space. In some cases, such as Success Academy, the charter owns the space and still charges the city exorbitant rent.

The charter lobby in New York is well funded by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Paul Tudor Jones as a long list of Wall Street hedge funders. These elites want the state and New York City to open unlimited numbers of charter schools, despite their impact on public schools, attended by nearly 90% of students. New York City has a cap of 275 charters.

But that’s not enough for the billionaires. Governor Kathy Hochul is attentive to their needs because they supply campaign cash.

The legislature rejected her proposal to lift the caps, but she succeeded in inflicting 14 “zombie charters” on NYC. A zombie charter is one that opened but failed.

At a time of budget cuts, this decision will put more stress on the city’s public schools.

The United Federation of Teachers reacted:

Contact: UFT Press Office | press@uft.orgDick Riley | C: 917.880.5728

Alison Gendar | C: 718.490.2964

Melissa Khan | C: 646-901-1501

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Thursday, April 27, 2023

UFT Statement on the State Charter Deal

 

“The Senate and the Assembly did the right thing by rejecting the governor’s plan to lift the New York charter cap. Unfortunately, the governor listened to the demands of a handful of billionaires and revived 14 zombie charters for New York City — even though New York City has nearly 40,000 unused charter seats. Now it’s time for the governor to listen to New York parents who want accountability and transparency from the charter sector and an end to loopholes that benefit corporate charters at the expense of our public schools.”

 

###

Now here is a surprising turn of events. The billionaire funders of charter schools see them as a way to crush teachers’ unions. More than 90% of charters nationwide are non-union. Teachers in them have no rights and there is high teacher attrition.

But teachers at BASIS in Tucson voted to unionize, the first to do so in Arizona. BASIS is owned by its founders, Michael and Olga Block, and operates for profit. Anyone may apply but all students must pass multiple AP exams to graduate. The BASIS schools do not reflect the demography of the state. They have small numbers of Hispanic Americans and Native Americans, and large proportions of whites and Asian Americans. They are regularly ranked among the “best” high schools by US News.

Tucson charter school becomes first to unionize in Arizona

Channel 12, KPNX IN Tucson reported:

A Tucson charter school recently voted to become the first unionized charter school in the state.

Author: William Pitts

TUCSON, Ariz. — A Tucson charter school has become the first charter school in Arizona to unionize.

BASIS Tucson North teachers voted Wednesday to form a teacher’s union.

The union will be represented by the American Federation of Teachers.

It’s the first time a charter school in Arizona has voted to form a union to negotiate with the owners of the school.

“We are managed by a private company with opaque finances,” teacher and union organizer Trudi Connolly said. “We completely believe that they have the ability to make more money available to the individual schools that they, in theory, manage.”

BASIS is a multistate charter school company that began in Arizona. It’s privately owned and for-profit. Connolly said she believes the company could do better by its teachers.

As for whether other Arizona charter schools could follow their lead, Connolly said she believes others, including other BASIS schools, might organize.

“We feel that if we can do this, others will see that they can too,” Connolly added.

If anyone can explain this weird decision about St. Louis schools, please help me out. I posted about it earlier today.

St. Louis Public Radio reported:

An opinion affecting funding for city schools came out of Missouri’s 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday. It is related to the decades-old school desegregation case, Liddell v. Board of Education.

The court was considering whether sales tax revenue meant for desegregation programs in St. Louis Public Schools should continue to go to charter schools. Plaintiffs had argued that more than $80 million in revenue had been improperly diverted to charters.

The court found charter schools are entitled to that money. This upholds a federal judge’s earlier decision. Because the charters are already receiving the funding, this won’t change anything.

The court also found that charter schools are not required to provide desegregation programs with this funding. St. Louis Public Schools is supposed to use the money for those programs, which can include magnet schools, all-day kindergarten and summer school.

Charter school advocates are happy with the court’s opinion.

So the money is a special tax meant to promote desegregation. The public schools share the proceeds with charter schools. The public schools must use the money to promote desegregation. The charter schools are not required to spend the tax money to promote desegregation.

I don’t understand this decision. Do you?

A regular commenter, who signs as NYC Public School Parent, is sharply critical of the games charters play. She doesn’t like the way they push kids out as young as 5 or 6 for misbehaving. She doesn’t like their boasting about test scores when the schools with the highest scores are selective, either in their admissions or their attrition or both.

She writes approvingly of schools that seek out those students with the greatest needs, like the one funded by LeBron James in Akron.

Didn’t the LeBron James-funded school in Akron do just that — specifically took the most struggling students? And wasn’t it part of the public school system? THAT is what all charters should be doing.

The so called “successful” and expanding charter chains have almost universally prioritized the needs of their CEOs over the needs of the most vulnerable children. Their approach to teaching students is that they want to teach students as long as those children make the CEO and administrators look good. Period. The students who don’t make them look good are drummed out and what is most disgusting is that they demonize those students if their parents don’t quietly remove them.

Anyone who doesn’t understand exactly WHO it is whose well-being is most important to charters only has to watch John Merrow’s October 2015 PBS interview with Eva Moskowitz – and the growing RED HIVES that appear on her neck which seems to be her “tell” when she feels threatened by having to defend her false narratives.

Her red hives are particularly evident when John Merrow asked her about the high rate of suspensions of Kindergarten and first graders, who are primarily African American:

“I OFTEN have parents say to me ‘my child never PUNCHED the teacher’, I say ‘well, but you weren’t there”.

That happens OFTEN, Eva Moskowitz claims in the video, referring to those youngest elementary school students. OFTEN.

Only an implicitly racist education reporter would not be extremely suspicious that there must be something very wrong with an inexperienced teacher trained in the Success Academy way if parents OFTEN are having Moskowitz telling them their 5 or 6 year olds were PUNCHING their Success Academy teachers.

And that’s how she justified high suspension rates. I would like to ask Eliza Shapiro and Elizabeth Greene whether they believe that is true, and ask them why they don’t feel that lying to demonize vulnerable children is disqualifying, but instead is something that shouldn’t be mentioned when presenting this person as a worthy source of information. Moskowitz OFTEN had to tell parents their young children PUNCHED their teacher, Eva Moskowitz says, and these reporters’ implicit racism did not even lead them to question such an absurdity that they surely would have questioned if a principal said that they OFTEN had affluent white parents of 5 year olds in her office who didn’t realize how violent their own children were.

“A disciplinary code is written to give maximum freedom…” said Eva Moskowitz, before she invoked how OFTEN 5 and 6 year old Success Academy children PUNCHED their teachers.

Complicit journalists who didn’t even question this when they heard Moskowitz invoking her violent students. Why?

Charters aren’t popping up in affluent white suburban neighborhoods because there isn’t a magic formula to turn students into scholars, there is a magic formula to cherry pick the students who perform well and dump the others but blame someone else because charters will never admit they are the ones who have failed the students they were funded to teach. Presumably the complicit journalists would not be so complicit about ignoring the red flags in the “violent children who needed to be suspended” narrative if those very young students were middle class and white.

The implicit racism that infuses every story about “high performing” charters in the NYT and Chalkbeat is that it would be impossible to cherry pick because there are simply too few academically proficient Black or Latinx students in urban areas to cherry pick. A math-challenged education reporter can see a statistic like “only 30% of Black and Latinx students in NYC are proficient on state tests” and not bother to notice that in a large city like NYC that is over 70,000 3-8 grade public school students. So they fawn over a hugely popular, lavishly funded charter with a disproportionately high rate of attrition whose 3-8 grade enrollment is a tiny percentage of 70,000, and they “inform” us in every story that to cherry pick is virtually impossible. And it simply has never been true, as anyone with a better understanding of numbers could have explained to them if they didn’t depend on press releases instead of trying to understand the evaluate the criticism themselves. It’s so much easier just to write a phrase “critics from the teachers’ union” or “critics who hate charters” disagree and then write more fawning paragraphs about the charters’ unprecedented and miraculous results.

If there wasn’t such lousy reporting that legitimized false narratives – if the reporting had been focused on why charters weren’t being held to their promise to teach the most at-risk students instead of the most motivated and academically strong students – I suspect the charter movement might become something I could support. When I found out that they were not interested in doing what they were funded to do, I was shocked. But when I found out they were LYING about what they were doing, and supporting their lie by throwing very young kids under the bus, I was disgusted.

Gary Rubinstein read an account by a recently fired teacher at Success Academy, and he was alarmed. He says that Success Academy should be investigated to determine if her allegations are true.

He writes:

The brave blog post by teacher Livia Camperi was titled ‘The Cruel Dystopia of Success Academy’and I highly recommend you stop reading my analysis and read the actual source for yourself and then come back here, assuming you’re not already sick to your stomach.

Of all the atrocities Camperi reports, the one that stuck me as the most worthy of a formal investigation was this one:

“SA is a data-driven institution, just like the entire rest of the American education system. This is not a surprise. What was a surprise, though, was the lengths the school goes to attain its desired data. For nearly three months leading up to the NY State English and Math tests (January to March), the students are not learning anything. I feel the need to emphasize that again before I explain: for three months, students attending a school are not learning anything in their time there. What they are doing, instead, is practicing taking multiple-choice tests, day in and day out. This is, ironically, called “Think” season.
“During Think, the students take practice tests for the state exams in every single English and Math class, every single day. For the last two years, halfway through February, when they realized the data was not good enough yet, the network canceled Science and History classes to do more English and Math practice tests. Those are their only four content classes. I say again: students are not learning anything during that time. All they are doing is practicing test-taking skills and hating every minute of it. This is not education. This is callous data-chasing.”

HTTPS://LIVIACAMPERI.MEDIUM.COM/THE-CRUEL-DYSTOPIA-OF-SUCCESS-ACADEMY-53524CFC53D0

If this description is accurate, this, in terms of education, is a crime. To have students do mainly test prep for three months at the expense of all else is a type of cheating. Remember that these middle school students have been part of Success Academy since they were in Kindergarten. So if these middle schoolers need that much test prep in order to get 3s on the state test, then the ‘success’ of Success Academy is the mirage that I always have claimed.

In the comments of the blog post, this teacher has gotten a lot of support from her former students. If students are willing to corroborate her allegations about the test prep for three months, this could be a very big story.

Please open the link and read the rest of this alarming story.

The Network for Public Education sponsored a conversation among me, Daniel Santos, and Domingo Morel.

Daniel Santos is an 8th grade social studies teacher in the Houston schools and vice-president of the Houston Federation of Teachers.

Domingo Morel is author of Takeover and the nation’s leading expert on the process by which a state abrogates local control of a school district.

I am a graduate of the Houston public schools.

As background, there are two things you should know:

1. Houston is not a “failing” district. It has a B rating.

2. State law in Texas allows the state to take control of a district if only one of its schools has persistently low scores.

Students, parents, teachers, and elected officials have complained about this abrogation of democracy. Governor Abbott and State Commissioner Mike Morath ignore them.

Watch the discussion here.