Archives for category: Education Industry
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Meet Andre Perry, a Superstar in Education!

By dianeravitch
July 11, 2020 //
7

I had two recent contacts with Andre Perry, and I fell in love with him. I’m no threat to his wife because I’m 82 and married.

We met for the first time on this Zoom conversation.

As you will see, he is candid, honest, open, smart, and charming. I don’t always fall for guys just because they have a great smile, but Andre surprised me.

I thought he would be super-serious but he wasn’t.

He talked about his childhood. He talked about his life as a charter leader in New Orleans. He talked about his disaffection with the white reformers and philanthropists who thought that what the schools of New Orleans needed most was to fire black teachers and staff.

The second contact I had with Andre was reading his new book, Know Your Price.

I got to know Andre by reading his book.

More important, I got Andre’s message about seeing the world through a different lens.

We grew up in very different circumstances. I had two parents and a nuclear family. He had a different kind of family, a loving family.

What you will learn from his book is to see the world differently.

That’s a gift.

What you will see is a man who thinks for himself, without regard to orthodoxy.

Watch our conversation. Watch me become charmed by this brilliant young man.

Buy his book and you too will be transformed.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Equity, Justice, Network for Public Education, Racism

The Report of the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force: Good But Weak Pablum on Charters

By dianeravitch
July 10, 2020 //
75

The Biden and Sanders campaigns created a “Unity Task Force” to make recommendations on important issues.

Here is their report with recommendations. It is 110 pages.

There is much to like in the report, proposing an agenda to reverse four years of savage attacks by Trump on the environment, on the rule of law, on government itself.

The education portion aPears on pp. 22-27.

It contains welcome pledges of increased funding, more equitable funding, universal early childhood education, a commitment to racial integration of schools, a commitment to making higher education affordable (including tuition-free community colleges), debt relief for college graduates, and other worthy goals and policies.

On the two issues where Democrats found themselves committed to Republican strategies, the panel has a mixed record.

It took a clear stand against the high-stakes standardized testing that is a legacy of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law of 2001-2002:

The evidence from nearly two decades of education reforms that hinge on standardized test scores shows clearly that high-stakes annual testing has not led to enough improvement in outcomes for students or for schools, and can lead to discrimination against students, particularly students with disabilities, students of color, low-income students, and English language learners. Democrats will work to end the use of such high-stakes tests and encourage states to develop evidence-based approaches to student assessment that rely on multiple and holistic measures that better represent student achievement.

That’s a step forward, especially since so many high-profile DemocratIc Senators voted to retain high-stakes testing when NCLB turned into the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. So, we can celebrate the fact that the Unity Task Force is prepared to discard the Bush policy based on the non-existent “Texas Miracle.”

The other issue that has been a huge burden for public schools is the Republican claim that competition improves public schools. This faulty idea has spurred the development of privately managed charter schools and vouchers. Charters have a flimsy record. Those that get high test scores are known for their low enrollments of students with disabilities and English language learners, as well as their harsh discipline policies (no excuses). Many Republicans love charters because they are a stepping stone to vouchers. They wean people away from public schools and encourage parents to think of themselves as consumers, not citizens. Thanks to private management, charters have been plagued by multiple scandals involving waste, fraud abuse, and bloated administrative overhead. The teacher turnover rate at charters is very large in some high-performing charters, as much as 50% every year. The virtual charter industry is a disaster that has been associated with multimillion dollar embezzlement.

The Network for Public Education published two reports documenting the failure of the federal Charter Schools Program, which hands out $440 million every year to open new charters and expand existing ones. I have referred to the CSP as Betsy DeVos’s personal slush fund because she has given huge grants to corporate charter chains like KIPP and IDEA. THE NPE reports (Asleep at the Wheel and Still Asleep at the Wheel) demonstrate that nearly 40% of the charters funded by the CSP either never opened or closed soon after opening. During the campaign, Senator Sanders called for elimination of the federal a Charter Schools Program.

Five facts stand out about charter schools:

1. On average, they don’t get better results than public schools.
2. They drain resources and the students they choose from public schools that take everyone, including the kids the charters don’t want.
3. About 90% of charters are non-union, by design.
4. Charters are amply funded by billionaires like the Walton family, Betsy DeVos, Charles Koch, Reed Hastings, and Michael Bloomberg.
5. If charters helped solve the problems of American education, then Detroit would be one of the outstanding districts in the nation, instead it is one of the nation’s lowest performing districts.

Why should the federal government spend $440 million every year on new charters and on expanding corporate charter chains?

Given that background, you can understand why I think the Unity Task Force statement on charters is watery pablum.

Here it is in its entirety:

Charter schools were originally intended to be publicly funded schools with increased flexibility in program design and operations. Democrats believe that education is a public good and should not be saddled with a private profit motive, which is why we will ban for-profit private charter businesses from receiving federal funding. And we recognize the need for more stringent guardrails to ensure charter schools are good stewards of federal education funds. We support measures to increase accountability for charter schools, including by requiring all charter schools to meet the same standards of transparency as traditional public schools, including with regard to civil rights protections, racial equity, admissions practices, disciplinary procedures, and school finances. We will call for conditioning federal funding for new, expanded charter schools or for charter school renewals on a district’s review of whether the charter will systematically underserve the neediest students. And Democrats oppose private school vouchers and other policies that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from the public school system.

Nothing is said here that would displease the hedge fund managers and billionaires who support charters. Even Betsy DeVos must be smiling to see the Biden-Sanders task force endorse school choice, which was birthed by southern governors resisting the Brown decision. It’s very sad to see a task force of Democratic leaders giving their blessing to the southern strategy. (Read Steve Suitts’ new book on that sordid history: “Overturning Brown: The Segregationist Legacy of the Modern School Choice Legacy.”)

Taking a stand against “for-profit charters” is piffle. Arizona is the only state that allows for-profit charters. Nothing is said in this statement about banning for-profit management corporations, which manage large numbers of “nonprofit” charters all over the country.

And notice that the task force says nothing about terminating the federal Charter Schools Program, as Sanders recommended, guaranteeing that the government will continue to spend $440 million (or more) to open more non-union charters to compete with public schools. Excluding “for-profit charters” from the federal CSP is good news for KIPP, IDEA, and other “nonprofit” corporate charter chains that are bankrupting local public schools. This recommendation was made with full knowledge of the long-run failure of this program.

Of course, I will vote for Joe Biden, despite this weak-kneed capitulation to the Republican-dominated charter lobbyists. But I won’t hide my disappointment.

The failure of the task force to challenge the charter industry and stand up for public schools as the foundation stone of our democracy is troubling and is an embarrassment to the Biden campaign.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democrats, Education Industry, For-Profit, Funding, Privatization, Special Education, Standardized Testing

Ohio: Audit Finds Misspending and Conflict of Interest at Richard Allen Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
July 10, 2020 //
3

Once again, a state audit has uncovered waste and misspent funding at a charter chain, in this case, the Richard Allen Charter Schools in Ohio. Among other findings, the head of the school leased a Maserati with public funds.

A new state audit of the Richard Allen charter schools includes multiple findings of improperly spent money in 2016-17, and allegations of ethics violations and conflicts of interest that have triggered an ongoing special investigation.

The audit comes 15 months after the Dayton Daily News published an investigation into lack of oversight at Richard Allen, which operated four schools in 2016-17 and now has buildings on Salem Avenue in Dayton and Shuler Avenue in Hamilton.

Last year, the state attorney general’s office did not know that Michelle Thomas — whom the state sued, alleging $2.2 million in misspending — was still running the schools.Thomas, who is still the Richard Allen superintendent, on Tuesday called the audit process “a complete farce.”

School leadership “strongly objected” to the state auditor’s findings in their official response.

Auditor of State Keith Faber’s office said Tuesday that it stands by its work.

The documents released Tuesday cover the 2016-17 school year, as multiple years of Richard Allen audits have been delayed.

The audit’s findings include:

• The schools overpaid their former management company (the Institute of Management and Resources, which was also run by Thomas) by $852,618 in 2016-17 — $139,277 for Richard Allen Academy, $613,870 for Richard Allen II, $15,686 for Richard Allen III in Hamilton and $83,785 for Richard Allen Prep.

A finding for recovery seeking repayment of those funds was issued against IMR, which filed for bankruptcy protection more than two years ago, and against former treasurer Brian Adams and eight school board members: Alphonse Allen, Michael Brown, Gerald Cooper, Laquetta Cortner, Wanda Mills, Lonnie Norwood, Rhonda Ragland and Kelli Vaughn.

• The school also overpaid those eight board members by $1,110 to $1,375 each for attending meetings. The state filed findings for recovery against those eight and Adams for a total of $10,725 on that charge.

• Thomas improperly served as the superintendent of Richard Allen schools while serving as director of IMR, the school’s management company.As the Dayton Daily News reported last year, the audit shows IMR leased a 2015 Maserati for Thomas, while claiming that Thomas made the lease payments. But elsewhere in the audit, the state makes clear that IMR “failed to provide a detailed accounting” of the services it provided to the school, bringing into question how its management fees were spent.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ohio, Privatization, Scandals

Jeff Bryant: Charter Operators Take Advantage of Pandemic to Expand into Suburbs

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2020 //
4

Jeff Bryant noticed and documented a worrisome new trend: Charter operators are taking advantage of the pandemic to open new charter schools in suburban districts with good public schools.

Public school parents have spoken out, as he shows, because they understand that new charters will drain money from their good public schools and weaken them.

Because reopening public schools in the coming school year will be fraught with unprecedented challenges, experts say, and education budgets may get cut to the bone, news of charter school startups and expansions will undoubtedly spark heated opposition from public school parents and teachers, even in well-to-do suburban communities, like Wake County, that may have been insulated from the financial costs of school choice in the past.

“[These parents and public school advocates] should expect charter schools to drain financial resources from their communities’ public schools,” Preston Green told me in a phone call.

Green, a University of Connecticut professor, is the author of numerous critical studies of charter schools, including one in which he argued that the charter industry’s operations resemble the business practices of Enron, the mammoth energy corporation that collapsed under a weight of debt and scandal.

As evidence, Green sent me an email citing a 2018 study of five non-urban, North Carolina school districts. The study determined that these non-urban districts lost about $4,000 to $6,000 for every student enrolled in a charter school.

Green said that because controversial charter schools have so far been less widespread in the suburbs compared to inner-city communities such as Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit, it’s likely that many suburban parents who previously were unfamiliar with the fiscal impacts of charter schools will increasingly express concerns about seeing new charter schools popping up in their communities.

“This fiscal impact is concerning,” Green explained, “because public schools have fixed costs, such as facilities and administration, that cannot be cut very easily.”

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Funding, Privatization

The Federal Paycheck Protection Program Was a Bonanza for the Charter Industry

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2020 //
24

I have posted reports of individual charter schools that received hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, from the federal Paycheck Protection Program. These charters claimed to be small businesses, not public schools, which were not eligible to get PPP money. Until two days ago, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin refused to release the names of those who asked for PPP money.

Now the list is out, and it will take a long time to analyze it because 650,000 applicants received federal funding from this program.

Some charters and charter advocates have already been identified on the PPP list. The grants awarded are not exact. They are in a range. I present here the upper limit of the range. I don’t know why the exact amount was not reported. That’s not like the federal government.

KIPP: 19 different KIPP applicants received up to a total of $58 million

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools received an amount in a range up to $1 million.

The California Charter Schools Association received an amount in a range up to $2 million.

The pro-charter, pro-voucher Center for Education Reform received up to $350,000.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers collected up to $1 million

The handsomely funded Thomas B Fordham Foundation collected up to $1 million (when I was on the board in 2009, the TBF Institute had about $40 million in assets and has since received many grants from Gates and other foundations to promote privatization and Common Core).

It may take weeks to produce a full accounting of the coronavirus funds collected by the charter industry, its lobbyists, its advocacy groups, and its schools.

However, we do have a report for one state, Arizona.

Educator and author Curtis Cardine reviewed the PPP grants to private schools in Arizona and produced this list:

Charter Schools
1. Sonoran Schools, $1 to $2 million.
2. Success Schools, $1 to $2 million.
3. Acorn Montessori Charter School $350,000 to $1 million.
4. Arizona Autism Charter Schools, $350,000 to $1 million.
5. Arizona Montessori Charter School at Anthem, $350,000 to $1 million.
6. Ball Charter Schools (Dobson), $350,000 to $1 million.
7. Ball Charter Schools (Hearn), $350,000 to $1 million.
8. Candeo Schools, Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
9. Career Success Schools, $350,000 to $1 million.
10. Challenge School, Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
11. Desert Garden Montessori School Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
12. FitKids Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
13. Franklin Phonetic Primary School, $350,000 to $1 million.
14. International Commerce Secondary Schools Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
15. International School of Arizona Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
16. Keystone Montessori Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
17. LEAD Charter Schools, $350,000 to $1 million.
18. Legacy Traditional School, Peoria, $350,000 to $1 million.
19. Legacy Traditional School, East Mesa, $350,000 to $1 million.
20. Legacy Traditional School, Gilbert, $350,000 to $1 million.
21. Legacy Traditional School, North Chandler, $350,000 to $1 million.
22. Legacy Traditional School, Laveen, $350,000 to $1 million.
23. Legacy Traditional School, Goodyear, $150,000 to $350,000.
24. Liberty Traditional Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
25. Liberty Traditional Charter School, Inc, $350,000 to $1 million.
26. Legacy Traditional Schools – Nevada Inc., $2 to $5 million. This is the same company that runs Legacy in Arizona.
27. Mohave Accelerated Elementary School Inc, $350,000 to $1 million.
28. Noah Webster Schools – Pima, $350,000 to $1 million.
29. Noah Webster Schools-Mesa, $350,000 to $1 million.
30. Paradise Valley Christian School, $350,000 to $1 million.
31. Prescott Valley Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
32. Verde Valley School, $350,000 to $1 million.
33. Ball Charter Schools (Val Vista), $150,000 to $350,000.
34. Bright Beginnings School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
35. CAFA Charter School, Lp, $150,000 to $350,000.
36. Concordia Charter School Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
37. Crown Charter School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
38. Desert Star Community School, $150,000 to $350,000.
39. E-Institute Charter High School, $150,000 to $350,000.
40. Eastpointe High School Inc. $150,000 to $350,000.
41. Incito Schools, $150,000 to $350,000.
42. Midtown Primary School, $150,000 to $350,000.
43. Milestones Charter School, $150,000 to $350,000.
44. Montessori Day School, Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
45. Montessori International School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
46. Mountain School, Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
47. New Horizon School for The Performing Arts, $150,000 to $350,000.
48. North Star Charter School Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
49. Park View School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
50. Phoenix Advantage Charter School, $150,000 to $350,000.
51. Sedona Charter School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
52. Synergy Public School, $150,000 to $350,000.
53. The Edge School Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
54. The Excalibur Charter School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
55. Tucson International School Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
56. Twenty First Century Charter Schools Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.

Religiously Affiliated
1. Gilbert Christian Schools, $1 to $2 million.
2. Northwest Christian School, $1 to $2 million.
3. Notre Dame Preparatory Roman Catholic High School, $1 to $2 million.
4. Valley Christian Schools, $1 to $2 million.
5. Bourgade Roman Catholic High School Phoenix, $350,000 to $1 million.
6. Desert Christian Schools Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
7. Joy Christian School, $350,000 to $1 million.
8. Phoenix Christian Unified Schools, Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
9. Seton Roman Catholic High School Chandler, $350,000 to $1 million.
10. St Augustine Catholic High School, $350,000 to $1 million.
11. St Mary’s Roman Catholic High School, $350,000 to $1 million.
12. The Gregory School, $350,000 to $1 million.
13. Trinity Lutheran Church And School, $350,000 to $1 million.
14. Ascension Lutheran Church And School, $150,000 to $350,000.
15. Valley Lutheran High School Association, $350,000 to $1 million
16. Yuma Catholic High School, $350,000 to $1 million.
17. El Dorado Private School, $150,000 to $350,000.
18. Imago Dei Middle School, $150,000 to $350,000.
19. Lourdes Catholic School, $150,000 to $350,000.
20. Phoenix Christian School Society, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
21. Salpointe Catholic High School, $1 to $2 million.

Private Schools
1. The Orme School, $350,000 to $1 million.
2. Arizona School Of Integrative Studies llc, $150,000 to $350,000.
3. A Castlehill Management, Llc. Dba Castlehill Country Day School, $150,000 to $350,000.
4. Kriskat Investments, Llc Dba Primrose School Of Ahwatukee, $150,000 to $350,000. https://start.cortera.com/company/research/k9q8pxn1m/kriskat-investments-llc/
5. Lake Pleasant School 2 Llc, $150,000 to $350,000.
6. Lake Pleasant School Llc, $150,000 to $350,000
7. Lexis Preparatory School Llc, $150,000 to $350,000
8. Bayer Private School, $150,000 to $350,000.
9. Summit School of Ahwatukee, $350,000 to $1 million.

Perhaps you could do the same for your state.

The Paycheck Protection Program was indeed a bonanza for charters and other private schools. Charters had the advantage of collecting public funds as “public schools” and then collecting again as “small businesses.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Funding, Privatization

Carl J. Petersen: Los Angeles Charter School Took $4.6 Million from PPP, Then Laid Off Employees

By dianeravitch
July 7, 2020 //
9

Carl J. Petersen, writer and public school parent in Los Angeles, writes here about a Los Angeles charter schools that took millions from the federal Paycheck Protection Plan, then laid off employees anyway.

The purpose of PPP was to help small businesses and to ensure that they did not fire employees because they couldn’t afford to pay them. But charter schools, which had suffered no economic harm, cashed in on the program…because they could.

Petersen writes:

With unemployment rates reaching levels unseen since the Great Depression due to the problems caused by the failed response to COVID-19, every dollar from the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) should be going towards helping small businesses survive. Unfortunately, the charter school industry found a way to double-dip into the government trough to supplement the money they are diverting from public schools with funds from this program.

Despite acknowledging that they could be taking money away from small businesses that needed it to survive the crisis, the governing board of Palisades Charter High School voted last month to accept a $4.606 million dollar loan from the PPP. They admitted at the time that they did not have an immediate need for the money and they failed to articulate a plan to spend the money or to pay it back. They simply felt that it was important to “get the money while the getting’s good.” Discussion of the moral and financial costs of receiving this money was swept aside.

Ignoring the reason for their $4,606,000 windfall, the governing board of Pali voted this month to lay off five members of their staff and reduce the hours for 18 other employees. Even as students throughout the country struggle to transition to distance learning, these cuts included an IT Tech assigned to helping parents, students and teachers navigate the technology needed in this new learning environment. They also eliminated a Tutoring Center Coordinator whom a member of the public and a board member credited with “helping hundreds of kids pass classes and graduate from Pali during e-learning”. A Library Media Technician, Copy Clerk, and Office Assistant will also join the unemployment line in 60 days.

The federal government should “claw back” the wasted $4.6 million.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Fraud, Funding, Los Angeles, Privatization

Peter Goodman: Why Is the New York Board of Regents “Bleeding” Public Schools by Expanding Charter Schools?

By dianeravitch
July 6, 2020 //
8

Peter Goodman is a long-time observer of education politics in New York State and New York City.

In this post, he asks a reasonable question: Why, at a time of fiscal stringency and uncertainty, is the Board of Regents of New York State rubber-stamping the expansion of charter schools?

Charter schools, as he shows, cherry-pick their students to inflate their test scores. Despite state law, their doors are not open to all.

He writes:

If you look at charter school data virtually every charter school enrolls fewer than the “comparable” percentages required in the law. The reason is abundantly clear, students with disabilities and English language learners frequently have lower standardized test scores, impact the charter renewal process and are more costly to educate, i.e., lower class size = more teachers.

The Buffalo charter was out of compliance with state law. Why did the Board of Regents approve a five-year renewal of a charter in Buffalo when the Regent from Buffalo proposed a three-year renewal? Buffalo schools face a large deficit, but its charters are on track to take $108 million out of the city’s public budget.

Why did the Board of Regents approve the renewal of a low-performing charter school in the Bronx?

Goodman writes:

Later in the [Regents’] meeting three New York City charter schools were on the agenda, one of the schools wanted to add high school grades; although there is a moratorium on the creation of new charter schools State Ed staff interpreted the law as allowing grade expansion, in my opinion, an attempt to circumvent the law and should have not been allowed by the state.

The math scores in the school were in the “far below standard” category, ninety percent of teachers were “teaching out of their certification area,” the state average is eleven percent and the register in the sixth, seventh and eighth grade, was sharply reduced, from 71 (6th grade), to 46 (7th grade) and 29 (8th grade): what happened to the kids? In addition the school SWD and ELL students are far below the district averages.

Why did the NYC Department of Education approve the application? Why did the SED approve the application?

The school has a lobbyist who was a college roommate of Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. I’m sure that’s only a coincidence. btw, who paid the lobbyist?

In spite of objections from some Regents members the SED lawyer bundled all three schools together instead of decoupling and voting separately.

Regent Cashin made a motion: a moratorium on approval of new charters and the grade expansion of existing charter schools for the remainder of the COVID emergency. She explained that with sharp cuts in district budgets, with districts facing layoffs and disruptions, to transfer money from public schools budgets to charter school budgets was unconscionable. The SED lawyer ruled her motion was “out of order.”

Any member of the Board can make a motion at any time. The Board should vote on whether to place the motion on the agenda. The Board “owns” the motion, not the lawyer, who is not a Board member.

If the lawyer meant the motion was not “germane” he was still wrong. If he was serving as a parliamentarian he gives advice to the chair, he does not participate in the debate, or make determinate decisions.

The whole business had what Goodman called “a noxious aroma,” a polite way of saying that the Regents’ rush to approve charters of dubious quality in the midst of a fiscal crisis stinks to high heaven.

Why incentivize privately run charters to divert funding and the students of their choice from the public schools.

Why are the Regents betraying the state’s public schools?

That noxious aroma is the smell that is released when politics seeps into decisions about school funding. Someone’s friends are being taken care of, at the expense of the public schools.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Fraud, Funding, Hoax, New York, Politics, Privatization

Wendy Lecker: Connecticut Charter Schools Are Double Dipping

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2020 //
3

Wendy Lecker is a civil rights attorney who writes often for the Stamford (Ct.) Advicate. she writes here about the disgraceful double dipping of charter schools in Connecticut, taking funds designated for public schools, then seeking and getting federal funds intended for small businesses.

Are charter schools to be defined as public schools or private businesses? When it’s time to get public money, they insist they are public schools, even though they are controlled by private boards. But when the money is for private businesses only, they line up to get the money. They are shape-shifters.

Lecker writes that the charters got their share of money intended for public schools:

With the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, Congress provided federal aid to public schools, and specifically directed that charter schools receive aid as public schools. Connecticut public school districts and charter schools are receive comparable aid under the CARES Act’s Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (“ESSERF”). For example, New Haven will receive about $8 million, so a little more than $400 per student, and Amistad and Elm City charters, part of the Achievement First chain, will get similar per-pupil amounts. Bridgeport will receive about $9 million, or about $450 per student and Achievement First Bridgeport will be allocated a similar per-pupil amount. Hartford will get a little more than $10 million, or about $547 per student, and Achievement First Hartford will receive about the same per pupil. The per pupil amounts in Stamford’s public schools and charter school are similar as well. Stamford will receive $2.74 million for its approximately 16,600 students and Stamford Charter School for Excellence will receive a little more than $100 per pupil for its approximately 395 students — about the same as Stamford’s per-pupil allocation.

But that was not enough for the charters. They went for the federal Paycheck Protection Program to claim more money.

Lecker writes:

These charter schools, however, decided that when it comes to going after more federal dollars, it pays to be private entities as well. So each of these charters applied for and received significant forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loans offered to small businesses in dire need as a result of the crisis.

Amistad Academy was approved for a loan of $2.7 million. So Amistad, a charter with a little more than 1,000 students, will receive a forgivable loan for more than the entire ESSERF allocation for Stamford Public Schools’ more than 16,000 students. Elm City’s loan is for $1.24 million; Achievement First Bridgeport’s loan totals $1.4 million, Achievement First Hartford’s loan is for $2.36 million and Stamford Charter School for Excellence’s loan is for $520,648. All these loans are forgivable, thus unlikely to be repaid.

In total, these loans total more than $8.2 million, covering 4,544 students. To compare, New Haven’s $8.5 million in ESSERF aid has to spread over 20,6675 students.

Public schools are in dire financial straits. Charters are not.

Lecker writes:

Are these charter schools really private small businesses in dire need? Last year, claiming charter schools were public schools, Dacia Toll, CEO of the Achievement First charter chain, complained that her schools were “starving” without more state funding. Looking at the most recent publicly available federal tax documents, Amistad has more than $30 million in net assets and reserves. Elm City, another Achievement First school, has more than $34 million in net assets and reserves, Achievement First Bridgeport has more than $6 million and Achievement First Hartford has almost $2 million. Stamford Charter School for Excellence has more than $2 million in net assets and reserves.

Meanwhile, public school districts across the state are facing massive funding cuts — some predicting cuts as high as 30 percent of their budgets. They also face steep increases in costs associated with reopening — from ensuring a clean and safe environment, to addressing the increased academic, social and health needs of their students. And now, with Gov. Ned. Lamont’s order that public schools reopen fully, in person, in the fall — without any promises to increase state aid — public school districts are in an even more precarious financial position. Public school districts are funded by local, state and, to a small extent, federal dollars. They have no options to tap into money intended for private businesses. Because public schools are public.

When charter schools are allowed to act as both private businesses and public schools, taxpayers end up paying twice. In these dire financial times, there are surely better uses for public funds than to double pay to pad the reserve funds of well-resourced charter schools.

The greed of the charter industry is shameful.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Connecticut, Education Industry, Funding, Privatization, Scandals

SAVE THE DATE! July 8, 7:30 pm to Join Me and Andre Perry

By dianeravitch
July 3, 2020 //
0

On July 8, you are invited to join a ZOOM discussion with me and Andre Perry.

Andre Perry has written a new book KNOW YOUR PRICE: VALUING BLACK LIVES AND PROPERTY IN AMERICA’S BLACK CITIES.

He was the leader in the New Orleans charter sector, then became disillusioned and left.

I am fascinated with people who have the courage to change.

Listen in to this conversation. We will talk for an hour, then invite your questions for half an hour.

July 8 at 7:30 pm.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, New Orleans, Privatization, Racism

California Charter Schools Collect Millions Intended for Small Businesses

By dianeravitch
June 30, 2020 //
5

The Network for Public Education has been tracking the charter schools that collected from the federal Paycheck Protectiin Program intended to help small businesses struggling to survive. The charter schools have not had any budget cuts, have lost no money, have not been struggling to pay employees, but their lobbyists get them included as eligible for the PPP funding, although public schools are not eligible.

The San Francisco Chronicle published a story about some of the charters in California that have applied for and received PPP money. You will not be surprised to see V that the Michelle Rhee-Kevin Johnson charter chain in Sacramento is among them.


WASHINGTON — Charter schools in the Bay Area received tens of millions of dollars from a federal coronavirus relief program intended for small businesses, money they say is necessary to stay afloat amid the pandemic.

The schools are alternatives to traditional public schools and are exempt from many state regulations related to class size, curriculum and teacher tenure, yet still receive state funding. Some of the Bay Area charters that got federal bailout money are also backed by Silicon Valley billionaires, and the board chairman of one school conceded that taking the aid could be an “optics issue.”

It’s the latest instance of the federal Paycheck Protection Program coming under scrutiny for giving money to businesses that fit the letter of the law, but which don’t fit the traditional notion of a small business. Among aid recipients were Shake Shack, the owner of Ruth’s Chris Steak House and the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team, all of which gave back the money after it was reported that they were beneficiaries.

But some Bay Area charters say they are well within the spirit of the program. Many teach students from low-income or lesser-served communities, and they say they will accept any resource that keeps their teachers paid and schools open amid uncertainty about state education budgets.

The federal aid is in the form of low-interest loans that recipients don’t have to repay if they meet certain requirements, including keeping all their employees on the payroll. During the initial window for loan applications in May, Bay Area charter schools received funds from the program in amounts ranging from a few hundred thousand to several million dollars.

How we reported the story.

The Chronicle was approached by Parents United for Public Schools and In the Public Interest, which oppose charter schools and the privatization of education, with research they had done on schools that had received aid under the federal Paycheck Protection Program. The Chronicle then independently verified the information and conducted further research, including contacting policy makers.

The Chronicle was able to review charter boards’ meeting videos, audio recordings, minutes, documents and agendas to identify loan amounts and recipients. The Chronicle then contacted high-dollar recipients and schools named in the story to verify the information and to give them an opportunity to share their perspective on taking the low-interest federal loans.

Fourteen charter schools or chains in Oakland combined to receive roughly $20 million from the program. They included Education for Change, which runs six schools in the city and received $5.25 million, and Lighthouse Community Public Schools, which has two campuses and got $2.3 million.

Eight charter schools or chains in Santa Clara County combined to receive roughly $20 million. All but one received at least $1.5 million. Summit Public Schools, which has three schools in the county and a total of eight in the Bay Area, received $6.8 million.

At least two schools in San Francisco received loans. San Francisco Creative Arts Charter School got nearly $600,000. Envision Education’s City Arts and Tech High School also received a loan, but says the money will go to its consulting business — not the school that is supported by public funds. It did not divulge the amount it received.

And the St. Hope charter schools in Sacramento, whose board is chaired by school choice advocate Michelle Rhee and which was founded by her husband, former Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, received more than $1.5 million.

Some of the loans were first publicized by Parents United for Public Schools and In the Public Interest, which oppose charter schools and the privatization of education. The Chronicle independently verified their research and conducted its own.

Traditional public schools are not eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program, and state-funded charter schools’ access to the loans raises questions among their critics about fairness.

“Because charter schools are currently receiving full funding as public schools intended to maintain employees, while at the same time receiving funding as private entities that are also intended to maintain employees, taxpayers are left covering what appears to be the same bill twice,” the groups said in a report questioning whether Oakland schools were “double dipping” on funds.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Funding, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »