Archives for category: Charter Schools

Reader Jack Covey watched Eva Moskowitz’s ED talk at Governor Cuomo’s Camp Philos retreat:

“Holy moley!

“I just watched a one-woman Eva Moskowitz’ horror show… starring Eva herself. It’s her six-minute “Ed Talk” (get it? rhymes with “Ted Talk”) at the 2014 Corporate Reform jamboree called “Camp Philos”:

She glowingly tells the story of Sidney — an eighth grade Success Academy student — while projecting her picture on a screen. (Did she get permission?)

“During Common Core testing, Sidney was in a life-threatening battle with sickle-cell anemia. Even at the most severe moment of crisis in her health, Sidney insisted on taking the entirety of that year’s Common Core testing. The adults around argued otherwise, because she had just had her infected spleen taken out that very day, “had lost a lot of weight,” and “was extremely cold and weak.” In the light of this, the principal informed Sidney that she was entitled to claim a “medical excuse” and delay taking the test.

“However, Sidney wouldn’t hear of it, and took the test.

“I want to get a 4,” Sidney replied, with Eva recounting these words with emotion.

Eva’s point?

( 02:10 – 03:03 )

( 02:10 – 03:03 )

“EVA MOSKOWITZ: “Children are incredibly resilient, and I would urge you to think about NOT treating children AS children… I think that we have underestimated in this country the pleasure that comes from achieving mastery, and from performance. In my experience, kids actually want to perform. The want to master. Sidney was a perfect example, even though she was in a life-threatening situation.”

Sweet Lord! What is WRONG with this woman?

“Cue the Supremes:

“(By the way, Camp Philos 2015 is this weekend. My invite must have got lost in the mail.
I wonder what Eva’s 2015 “Ed Talk” will be this year, given the timing.)”

Jason France, aka Crazy Crawfish, ran for state board of education in Louisiana and lost. As he explains it here, the winning candidates pretended to share the views of the losers and had the advantage of millions of dollars from super-PACs. The losers were outspent by at least 100-1.

The winners’ campaign was promoted by the Louisiana Association and Industry.

Jason says there are still two candidates in the race who need our help so that the corporate people don’t gain total control.

He writes:

“To everyone who supported and believed in me and the other FlipBESE candidates you have my utmost respect, thanks, and gratitude. With your help we terrified our opponents into outspending us in the 100’s to one range, to fabricate and promulgate lies about us, and to actually adopt OUR platforms to defeat us.

“None of the LABI backed candidates ran on platforms claiming Common Core and PARCC were outstanding or that the state should confiscate and run all of our schools, because they knew those claims would cost them the elections. So while LABI and their allies claim education reform got a mandate in Saturday’s election, nothing could be further from the truth. You won’t see LABI’s remaining lapdogs doing anything to promote the agenda they claim they have a mandate for in their runoffs.

“That means it is crystal clear (even to our opponent’s highly paid political consultants) that it was FlipBESE that won Saturday, October 24th, NOT corporate ed reform and Common Core.

“Now that LABI has most of the BESE seats, and has deceived and bribed their way into unseating two of our greatest champions (Carolyn Hill and Lottie Bebee) it is more important than ever to rally around our remaining champions.

“We NEED Mary Harris and Kathy Edmonston to defend our teachers, parents, and students.

“For this reason I am proud to endorse and support Kathy Edmonston for the BESE district 6 runoff race against LABI owned Jason Engen.”

Alfred Chris Torres of Montclair State University has analyzed a common phenomenon: the high rates of teacher turnover in charter schools.

He says that “no-excuses” charter schools are both popular and polarizing because of their longer school days and school years, their strict discipline, their focus on college-prep, and their data-driven instruction. Yet they have high teacher-turnover, in some cases, one of every three or four teachers leaves every year.

He writes:


Why do so many teachers move on? Common explanations point to the intense workload, which can be as high as 60 to 80 hours per week. Others suggest that these school models often rely on Teach for America teachers who are likely to remain only for a short time. Such factors are important, but overlook more specific working conditions or school practices that influence teacher retention and commitment. To pinpoint such nuanced influences on career choices, my exploratory research uses data from in-depth interviews and survey responses from teachers working in a large charter management organization.

A general theme from my research is the importance of the disciplinary climate in “no-excuses” charter organizations. This climate affects teacher autonomy and, if the climate is dysfunctional, can further burnout in ways that prompt teachers to leave.

Especially in no-excuses charters, strict behavioral expectations mandate how students dress, enter a classroom, walk in the hall, or sit in class, and teachers are expected to enforce these expectations using explicit rewards and punishments, such as merits/demerits or adjustments in “paychecks” that allow students to purchase items from a school store. Supporters consider such close and intense monitoring of student behavior as helpful, while detractors believe that such strict expectations can be demeaning, and counterproductive to students’ overall development, no matter how much academic growth occurs.

As the debate rages, however, little attention has been paid to the impact of disciplinary practices on teachers and their career decisions. My research probes those effects, and my survey analysis reveals that overall teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of student disciplinary systems is an important predictor of rates of voluntary turnover. This is true even after other important factors are taken into account, such as teacher experience, workloads, and teachers’ perception of support from principals. Overall, I discovered that teacher perceptions of school disciplinary environments can affect their career choices in two important ways:

School-wide behavioral rules are considered critical to “no-excuses” schools, and teachers in some of these institutions have little input into the creation or adaptation of strict behavioral expectations, and enjoy little discretion to influence exactly how rules are applied. Experienced teachers, especially, can find such strict sets of rules frustrating because they undermine their professional autonomy. Or teachers may end up in conflict with school leaders on issues of how best to discipline or shape the behavioral socialization of students. When teachers feel such frustrations, as many explained in interviews, they may choose to leave.
Teacher burnout in “no-excuses” charters is often attributed to exhaustion from long working hours, but as psychologists understand, feelings of inefficacy can also lead to burnout. Some teachers I interviewed said they found it difficult to enforce detailed behavioral expectations throughout the day, leaving them feeling not very successful. For others, difficulties in enforcing school-wide rules and punishments led to increased student resistance and undermined student-teacher relationships. Since teachers value positive relationships with students, they may choose to leave if they feel good ties are undermined.

– See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/teacher-turnover-burnout-charter-schools#sthash.LnAdkaxE.dpuf

The parent of the 10-year-old boy who was interviewed by John Merrow on PBS filed a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education that Eva Moskowitz violated her child’s privacy rights under the federal law FERPA by disclosing her child’s confidential disciplinary record tithe media. 

Conflict of interest? How could it not be?

Billionaire Eli Broad is underwriting education coverage at the Los Angeles Times.

Eli Broad wants 50% of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School District to be enrolled charter schools. He intends to pool $490 million to create 260 new charters.

The LA Times wrote an editorial endorsing Broad’s plan to privatize a huge part of public education.

One man wants his way. Eli Broad does not believe in democracy.

Not long ago, I was in Kentucky to speak to local school boards and superintendents. The walls outside the Grand Ballroom were festooned with pictures, quilts, and murals made by students from different communities. I took many photos of beautiful student work. I left with a sense that Kentucky has strong and united communities.

But the corporate reform movement can’t stand the thought of any state that hasn’t unleashed the power of competition and free enterprise, sort of like bringing Walmart into town to compete with the local stores in Main Street. So the usual right-wing funded groups have been pushing charters, promising the innovation and results that no one else has gotten.

Every year, the Republican-controlled Senate votes a charter bill, and every year the Democratic-controlled House ignores it. But this year may be different because all of the candidates for governor say they favor charters. The Democrat says he will support charters as long as they don’t take funding from public schools. Where does he think their funding comes from?

He says:

Democrat Jack Conway said in an interview he supports the concept of charters as long as they don’t take funds away from public schools.

“If it’s a charter where bureaucracy is getting out of the way and allowing for innovation, and it’s transparent, and we’re not in the situation where we’re siphoning off public dollars, then yes, I’m in for more flexibility in the public school system,” Conway said.

He added that he wants to make sure for-profit charter school companies can’t “cherry pick” the best students, leaving an underclass in the rest of the public education system.

How can he make sure that for-profit charter school companies don’t cherry pick the best students? How can he make sure that nonprofit charter schools don’t cherry pick the best students? Why does he think he can figure this out when no other state has? He should learn about the experience of Pennsylvania, where charter schools are bankrupting community public schools. Or about the many financial scandals in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida.

Why not protect the community schools of Kentucky where everyone works together for the benefit of the children?

Eva Moskowitz is operating five city-funded pre-K classes, but she has refused to sign the contract requiring her to agree to the city’s rules, including inspections.

City Comptroller Scott Stringer informed Moskowitz that she must follow the city’s rules, as other charters do, or he will cut off funding for her pre-K classes.

What an audacious idea! Public accountability for public funds! Who knew?

The Detroit Free-Press speculates about why Ichigan did not win $45 million to create new charter schools. Well, it could be because the stat does not exercise oversight of charter authorizers or charter schools. It could be because the state’s charter schools perform poorly. It could be because the Detroit Free Press ran a series about charters and their lack of accountability or transparency or quality.

But why did Ohio win $71 million for its equally poor charter industry?

Last week, the Center for Media and Democracy released a detailed (though not complete) list of financial scandals in the charter industry.

In Michigan, the CMD identified 25 “ghost” charters that received $1.7 million in planning grants from the state (taxpayer dollars at work), but never opened.

One of the “ghost schools” was to be a boarding school called Detroit College Preparatory Academy. After failing to open the school, its proponent was then hired as the head of Michigan’s State School Reform/Redesign
Office which is responsible for fixing “Priority Schools,”schools in
the bottom 5% in terms of academic performance. This is often done with a
state takeover, leading to an Emergency Manager. Sometimes, they get turned over to charter companies.

Being a reformer means there will always be a rightwing governor or think tank to hire you.

Most virtual charters schools are educational frauds. But they are very profitable.The corporation provides a computer, some printed materials, and access to an underpaid, overburdened teacher who is monitoring many screens. In return, the online corporation is paid full state tuition, while providing none of the staff, programs, or resources of a regular school.

New studies find that the academic performance of students schooled online is poor. The worst online schools are in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, in both reading and math. About 8% of charter students are enrolled in cyber charters.

Benjamin Herrold writes in Education Week:

“Students who take classes over the Internet through online charter schools make dramatically less academic progress than their counterparts in traditional schools, according to a sweeping new series of reports released today.

The National Study of Online Charter Schools represents the first comprehensive national look at the roughly 200 schools in the publicly funded, independently managed cyber-charter sector. Such schools enroll about 200,000 full-time students across 26 states.

Reports jointly released by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, the Center on Reinventing Public Education, and Mathematica Policy Research found that:

More than two-thirds of online charter schools had weaker overall academic growth than similar brick-and-mortar schools. In math, 88 percent of online charters had weaker academic growth than their comparison schools.

On average, online charter students achieved each year the equivalent of 180 fewer days of learning in math and 72 fewer days of learning in reading than similar students in district-run brick-and-mortar schools.

As a group, online charters are characterized by high student-to-teacher ratios, low student engagement, and high student mobility.

Online charters frequently offer limited opportunities for live contact with teachers and a relative paucity of supports for families, despite high expectations for parental involvement.

From funding to enrollment to oversight, states are failing to keep up with the unique policy challenges that online charters present.”