Archives for category: Corporate Reformers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Ben Austin Creates a New Organization After Failure of Parent Revolution

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2017 //
14

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.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Failure, Los Angeles, Parent trigger

Arizona: The Widespread Fiscal Mismanagement of Charters

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2017 //
0

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.

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Fraud, Privatization

Arizona: New Study Finds that Three-Quarters of Charters Are Financially Mismanaged

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2017 //
12

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.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Fraud, Privatization

BREAKING NEWS: Eli Broad Lost! WOW! Double WOW!

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2017 //
34

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!

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Broad Foundation, California, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Pennsylvania: How Charter Schools Make Handsome Profits in States Where For-Profits Are Not Allowed

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2017 //
5

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.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Pennsylvania, Privatization

Los Angeles: If Eli Broad Wants a STEM School in Los Angeles, He Should Get It, Says Editorial in LA Times

By dianeravitch
September 14, 2017 //
34

The Los Angeles Times knows that it is a truly bad idea to let a billionaire buy a school of his choice in the LAUSD, but hey, it is Eli Broad, and he does provide $800,000 a year to underwrite education coverage in the LA Times.

LAUSD already has STEM schools, but this is Eli’s STEM school, and he really wants it.

Besides, it will provide wonderful resources for a few hundred kids in the nation’s second biggest school district, so who can say no?

So much for public education. So much for deliberation and due process. So much for billionaires buying whatever they want.

Does the LA Times agree that any other rich person should be allowed to get funding from the state for any school they want to open? Oh, yeah, that’s charter schools.

The LAUSD board split on the issue, with the pro-charter majority (all in debt to Eli Broad) supporting it, and the anti-charter minority saying that the district already has many excellent STEM programs which could use extra funding. (If they voted again today, the vote might be a tie, since the president of the board was just charged with multiple felony counts of campaign finance fraud.)

But with Eli, enough is never enough. He enjoys sticking his big thumb into the public’s eye and expecting gratitude.

Let us never forget that he secretly contributed money to defeat a ballot proposition to increase funding for the public schools.

If he can’t control them, why bother?

Categories Billionaires, Broad Foundation, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Los Angeles, Privatization

Peter Greene: The Hostile Takeover of Teacher Education by Non-Teachers

By dianeravitch
September 14, 2017 //
26

Peter Greene read a new report about how to fix teacher education. Written by two experienced think tank desk jockeys who worked in the Obama administration, the report pretends to be progressive, but it is in fact reactionary.

The key, say these non-teachers, is to judge the quality of teacher education institutions by the test scores of students taught by their graduates. Just what you would expect from two guys who never taught.

The authors, David Bergeron and Michael Dannenberg, suggest several scenarios in which their plan could be imposed. The easiest and cheapest is just to buy the accrediting agencies and change their rules.

Greene writes:

“But really– what a perfect neo-liberal reformy solution to a problem. If something stands in your way, just buy it, and bend it to your will.

“Enter the Golden Era

“Once the New Reformster Accreditation Board was open for business, reformsters could put their stamp of approval on any number of bogus “Schools of Educaytion.” In fact, the paper notes happily, ESSA opens wide the door for all manner of “alternative providers of teacher preparation” as long as they can have their results validated by a USED-recognized authority, which– hey , we just made one of those a few paragraphs ago!! Yes, there’s some pesky law from 1965, but the Secretary can waive (aka “ignore”) that if she’s a mind to.

“The writers characterize the old system as the fox guarding the henhouse; they would like to replace the old fox with their own brand new reformy charter-loving test-driven fox. They are also fond of the same language used by choicesters to attack the public ed system– the current teacher prep system is a “cartel” that needs to be broken up, because these new guys want to cash in, too, and it’s not fair that they have to play by rules that they don’t like. Let a hundred sad versions of Relay GSE bloom. Let charter operators crank out fake teachers from “fully accreditated” fake teacher factories.

“And most of all, let’s base the entire structure of BS Test scores, one more terrible idea that refuses to die.

“It is the last building block in the grand design for a parallel school system, where schools are staffed by substandard teachers trained in only test prep, and therefor providing a substandard education, cranked out by substandard teacher prep programs set up to prove to a substandard accreditation board that they meet the substandard standards.

“Look, I am one of the last people to defend the current system of teacher prep. My solution is simple– replace every single person in the accrediting agency with a classroom teacher. My solution is certainly not to stage a coup to impose a ridiculous standard by which college programs are judged by second-hand results on a third-rate test.

“In the end, I can’t decide if these guys are cynical, arrogant, greedy, or dumb. I mean, it takes some balls to say, “The whole foundation of the teaching profession is wrong. We should rip it out and replace with our own unverified untested unproven results– by force if necessary.” It takes some serious greed to say, “If we just gutted and upended the system, we could redirect so many public tax dollars to private corporate pockets.” It takes huge cynicism to think either, or both, and just not care about the consequences. At this point, it just takes plain old boneheadedness to think that PARCC and its ilk can be used as a measure of educational success. But then, I’m cranky today. These guys have been around several blocks, have done respectable work in other areas. I’m honestly confused– how do people end up pushing such terrible ideas?

“The only good news I see here is that this is not a plan Betsy DeVos is likely to jump on. It comes from so-called progressives, and it involves more structures and institutions and rules. While I suspect that DeVos sees the same problem (“People have to jump through all these stupid hoops to become a teacher and all these dumb rules to run a teacher prep program”), I suspect her solution is much simpler (“No more rules for anyone! You can call yourself a teacher training program, and you can call yourself a teacher training program, and you can call yourself a teacher training program, and anyone can operate a so-called school and hire anyone they want and we’ll shovel money at all of them!”)

“So call it one more reminder that “progressive” doesn’t equal “friend of public ed” as well as a reminder that there are no limits to the huge badness of some reformster ideas.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Teacher Education, Testing

Gary Rubinstein: The Pathetic Excuses for the Collapse of Tennessee’s Underachievement School District

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
7

Gary Rubinstein has followed the progress (and lack thereof) of the celebrated Tennessee Achievement School District. It was the ultimate proving ground of the claim by charteristas that they could “turnaround” the state’s worst schools and vault them into the top 25% in five years.

As Gary reports here, they didn’t.

They have plenty of excuses. And the education press refuses to hold them accountable for their inflated promises and their failure to keep them.

The original architect Chris Barbic (one of the “stars” of the charter industry, having founded the YES PREP chain in Houston) left before the gig was up and went to work for billionaire John Arnold, ex-Enron trader, who devotes his “philanthropic” efforts to two goals: charter schools and eliminating pensions for public employees.

And now, the ASD has changed its goal, having demonstrated that its original goal was out of reach. And its second leader is leaving, having accomplished nothing. She too will go on to a cushy job.

Only the children will be left behind.

Gary reminds us that other states are copying the failed Tennessee model. In “reform,” nothing succeeds like failure.

I am reminded that last year, I had an acerbic exchange with an editor from one of North Carolina’s daily newspapers. I asked on this blog why NC was adopting the Tennessee Achievement School District, right after a team of Vanderbilt researchers found that it was not improving achievement (test scores). I dared to say that the experiment was a failure. The newspaper editor lashed out and demanded to know why I called the TN ASD a failure; it hadn’t achieved its goals “yet,” but that was no reason not to try it in NC. Wonder what he will say now. Give it another decade? Two more decades? Forever?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Maurice Cunningham: Massachusetts Drove “Families for Excellent Schools” Out of the State

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
14

When I learned that the phony “Families for Excellent Schools” was forced to pay a hefty fine by state officials in Massachusetts, I invited Maurice T. Cunningham to write about it. New Yorkers are familiar with this billionaire-funded group from the time when it made a $6 million television buy to thwart Mayor de Blasio’s plan to establish accountability for charter schools. FES, pretending to be the voice of poor black and brown families, suddenly appeared with bulging pockets to shower millions on TV advertising and politicians, not what one would expect from “families” who live in poverty. As a result of their efforts, charters in New York City got the right to co-locate in public school buildings with no rent ever, and if they preferred a private space, the city was obliged to pay for it. What was certain was that not a one of the billionaires behind FES was planning to send any of their children to charter schools or public schools in New York City.

During the campaign in Massachusetts last fall, Professor Cunningham wrote about the dark money pouring in to influence the Question 2 referendum. Despite the money, opponents of charter expansion lost.

This is what Professor Cunningham wrote:

Families for Excellent Schools Driven Out of Business in Massachusetts

Maurice T. Cunningham

Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts at Boston

Families for Excellent Schools, the hedge funded bully of school privatization, has not only been exposed but driven out of business in Massachusetts.

Last year FES was leading the campaign, through its ballot committee Great Schools Massachusetts, to pass a referendum that would expand the number of possible charter schools in the state. Not only was GSM overwhelmed at the November election by teachers unions, but FES’s wild spending attracted the attention of the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. This past week OCPF released a Disposition Agreement with FES that found that the group had violated Massachusetts campaign finance laws. FES acted as a political committee without registering with OCPF, and channeled over $15 million from donors “without disclosing the contributors, and by providing funds to the GSM Committee in a manner intended to disguise the true source of the contributions.” (OCPF press release here).

The consequences for FES: OCPF levied its largest fine in history, over $426,000, being the total amount of cash on hand for FES and its political arm Families for Excellent Schools-Advocacy. FESA agreed to dissolve its social welfare group status with the Internal Revenue Service. FES Inc. agreed to forego political activities in Massachusetts for four years.

Not only did OCPF release its Disposition Agreement it also required OCPF to divulge the donors it had promised to hide, and their contributions. FES’s list of funders was eye-popping. Boston hedge fund titan Seth Klarman of Baupost LLC was in for $3.3 million. Bain’s Joshua Bekenstein and his wife chipped in with $2.5 million. Jonathon Jacobson of Highfields Capital Management was good for $2 million. Other contributors came from Adage Capital Management, Summit Partners, and Par Capital Management. Alice Walton of the WalMart fortune kicked in $750,000.

Each of those powerful individuals was promised by FES that their identities would be kept secret, hidden behind the Internal Revenue Code rules for 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations. Except this time, it didn’t work. OCPF conducted a thorough investigation and exposed FES for what it is: a dark money political operation.

The Disposition Agreement should be studied across the country and state regulatory agencies pressed to follow its teachings. There is absolutely no reason why citizens should not be informed about who is spending millions to influence their vote. It’s shameful and the dark money train must be derailed if we are not to descend into a plutocracy. OCPF’s action is great news for Massachusetts and great news for democracy.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Dark Money, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

California BATS Need Your Help! Stop Eli Broad Now!

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
11

Parent activist Karen Wolfe appeals for your help!

STOP AB 1217, Eli Broad’s latest power play.

California BATS need your help today!

California BATS Action Alert>> Please call or fax the State Assembly Education Committee TODAY! (Fax – (916)319-2187, or contact info at the bottom):

Tell them you OPPOSE AB 1217. A vote is expected this Thursday or Friday.

AB 1217 is sponsored by Eli Broad. It is a GUT & AMEND bill. That means it was sneaked into other legislation while we weren’t looking. Please help us tell the Assembly Ed Committee that we are awake!

Although not technically a charter, the bill would set a statewide precedent that lets charter school operators circumvent local districts, the County Office of Ed, and even the State Board of Education. It creates a new authorizer–the legislature. This is a top priority of the charter lobby.

Please tell Assembly Ed Committee to vote NO because:

– Usurps Local Control. The new LA school board is pro-charter. LACOE is pro-charter. Why skip them?

– Why are legislators far away pushing for a school in downtown Los Angeles? Why don’t they build one in their own district? Assembly member Miguel Santiago, who represents downtown L.A., opposes this bill.

– It circumvents an already established process to open a school. This law would create even less oversight and accountability than charter schools currently have.

– The State Finance Dept recommends a NO vote on AB 1217.

– The fields named are the blue color jobs of the tech industry. Why not a school to prepare for NASA jobs, or biotech or Engineering?

– The math & science problems are in elementary school. A high school does not address the problem, but charter operators receive more money for high schools. So is this really about kids? Or is it about money?

– We don’t need STEM schools; STEAM schools include the arts.

– California’s powerful charter lobby says it is neutral on this bill, but CCSA came to the LA School Board meeting and asked the board not to vote against it. The Center for Education Reform says, “Permitting the creation of multiple authorizers is one of the most important components of a strong charter law. The data show that states with multiple chartering authorities have almost three and a half times more charter schools than states that only allow local school board approval.”

– It will open the flood gates in California. Small, independent charters would be drowned by the big corporate charter management organizations that are ready to expand.

Shareable Action Alert by California BATs: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=776937455825833&id=164608490392069

LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl is against this bill.
On the LAUSD board, all three retired school principals are against this bill – George McKenna, Scott Schmerelson, Richard Vladovic.

The California Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. Its report states:

“It would be more appropriate for the school to seek establishment from the local school district, rather than from the Superintendent. The bill requires the school to develop a similar plan that charter schools must develop when submitting their petitions for charter, while circumventing the existing process to establish charter schools in the state.

“It could result in a school that lacks proper oversight, as it requires the Superintendent to issue reports to the Governor and the Legislature if the school fails to comply with this bill, but does not give the Superintendent authority to rescind its approval of the school or take other remediating measures.

“It sets a precedent for the Superintendent to approve, oversee, monitor, and report on the operation of the school beyond what the Superintendent is required to do with existing state schools.

“It creates additional total costs of $1.4 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund over five years that are beyond those included in the recently enacted Budget Act.”

California Assembly Education Committee:
Fax the Committee (916)319-2187
Patrick O’Donnell, Chair (916)319-2070
Rocky Chavez (916)319-2076
Todd Gloria (916)319-2078
Kevin Kiley (916)319-2006
Kevin McCarty (916)319-2007
Tony Thurmond (candidate for State Superintendent) (916)319-2015
Dr. Shirley Weber (916)319-2079

AB 1217 is wrong. Please call or fax, and share this with allies today!

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Broad Foundation, California, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »