Archives for category: Education Industry

Mitchell Robinson, professor of music education at Michigan State University, was invited to debate the question of charter schools in Michigan.

He wrote this scintillating article.

The counterpoint is linked inside the article.

Professor Robinson writes:

Why is it that every time I chat with a charter school cheerleader and issues of policy (such as privatization, school choice, competition, school closings, vouchers, teacher tenure, funding, regulations, testing) come up, they are unable to muster a defense of those policies?

Instead, they respond with something like, “We probably agree on more than we disagree. Let’s take the snobbery out of our discourse. I doubt combativeness does much to help conversation, let alone students.”

Counter point: Parents don’t consider charter schools political – why do politicians?

Kind of reminds me of conservatives who attacked President Obama for eight years in the most brutal ways, who are now demanding “civility” from liberals.

No. Just no. Public school advocates and charter school boosters don’t agree more than they disagree. We disagree completely on many issues of prime importance. And public school supporters know that many of the problems in the schools, while they may not have all been caused by charters, have been made a whole lot worse by them – and the reform movement leaders who are profiting from charter schools.

“Let’s stop pretending that competition and choice are the solutions to the problems that have been created by competition and choice.”

The most recent charter school booster I spoke to asked me, “So, what’s your solution? It’s obvious you’re not interested in seeking solutions with me, so just tell me.”

OK, here you go ….

Let’s adequately fund all of our schools, and make sure that the school in the inner city is as clean, safe and well-equipped as the one in the wealthiest suburbs.

Let’s stop allowing uncertified, unqualified edu-tourists from groups like Teach for America to be handed the responsibility of educating our children in urban and rural schools, and insist all kids be taught by dedicated, committed professionals, with the appropriate coursework, licenses and certifications.

Let’s demand that all schools offer a rich, engaging curriculum, including music, art and physical education, and let’s stop referring to these subjects as “extras” or “specials” – our children don’t see them as “extras.” For some kids, these are the things that make school worth going to.

Let’s guarantee that every publicly-funded school is held to the same standards, regulations and expectations, that all such schools are required to admit any child who wishes to attend, that “lotteries” and other similar methods of artificially “managing” student enrollment are eliminated, and that every child has access to a high quality public school, regardless of geography or socio-economic status.

Let’s stop pretending that competition and choice are the solutions to the problems that have been created by competition and choice.

Let’s stop trying to fund two parallel, “separate but equal” school systems, and put a moratorium on the creation of new charter schools until all publicly funded schools are “competing” on level playing fields.

And let’s return control for our public schools to where it belongs: elected school boards made up of concerned citizens from the communities in which their schools are located.

Let’s put an end to schools governed by unreliable charter “management companies” and state-appointed “emergency managers” and “CEOs.”

Law professor Derek Black writes that California’s ban on for-profit charters is stronger than skeptics expected. It bans not only for-profit charters, but does not permit non-profits to hire for-profit management companies, a common ruse in many states.

He writes:

“One of the major critiques of charter schools, although not the only one, is that they allow private entities to profit off the education of children. Some say the possibility of profits is a good idea because it brings new players into the education “market,” incentivizes efficiency, and creates competition that might drive down the cost of quality education. In theory, I suppose that is possible, but in reality, we have seen far more evidence to the contrary. And the possibility of profit taking without sufficient state oversight also opens the door to downright corruptions. Preston Green has done an excellent job of tracking scandal and corruption in the charter school sector. I argue here, however, that what we call “corruption” is often actually legal when charters do it. The self-serving contracts and leases are the type of behavior that would land public school officials in jail, but which are relatively common with some charter school operators.

“That is what makes California’s new statute barring for-profit charter school operators so significant. On their face, most charter schools are non-profit. Many states will not issue a charter to a for profit entity. If Big Box Stores, Inc., for instance, applies to operate a charter in Kentucky, they state will reject it. This, however, does relatively little to block for profit entities. All Big Box Stores, Inc. needs to do is form a non-profit. They can call it Big Box Academies. If Big Box Academies gets a charter, it can then simply enter into a contract with Big Box Store, Inc. to supply all the labor and supplies for the charter school. In fact, non-profit charters regularly turn over their entire budget to for-profit management companies. Those companies can then take as much profit as they can manage. As Tom Kelley has shown, they develop “sweeps” contracts that are so egregious that the charter schools are probably running afoul of non-profit rules.

“California’s new charter law takes a big bite out of this problem. It makes it clear that only non-profits can receive a charter in the state. It also prohibits those non-profit charters from transferring responsibility and management to a for-profit entity…

“With that said, there is still more to be done to ensure that non-profit charters are acting like non-profits. The California law stops charters from acting purely as shell companies for outside entities, but they don’t stop non-profit charters from paying their upper level staff and management unreasonably high salaries while paying their teachers unreasonably low ones. They also don’t stop non-profit charters from entering into unreasonable leases. As Tom Kelley has shown, exorbitant leases appear to be one of the biggest profit-taking mechanisms. No non-profit acting in its and its students’ own best interests would every enter into some of these lease agreements. California’s new statute prohibits for-profit management, but it does not prohibit lease deals that are not on the up-and-up. To be clear, the point of leasing out one’s land is to make money. So leases that send profits to landlords are not inherently problematic. But California should not think its job is done with this statute. It still needs to exercise enough oversight to ferret out problematic contracts and leases and ensure that state money is spent on students.”

Until 2015,Kentucky did not have a charter school law. Then hard-right Republican Matt Bevin was elected governor, and he pushed hard to get a charter law passed by the legislature. But the legislature has not yet allocated funding for charter schools. Opposition has been strong and bipartisan. Now the governor has packed the state school board with charter advocates, fired the state superintendent and hired a state superintendent who wants charter schools.

Their target is Jefferson County, which includes Louisville, the biggest city in the state. Parents have mobilized to block a takeover. (I’m speaking at an anti-charter rally in Louisville on October 18, the night before the NPE conference in Indianapolis; the great Jitu Brown of Journey for Justice will be there, and Sue Legg of Florida’s League of Women Voters).

In this article, Jeff Bryant lays out the financial machinations behind Kentucky’s charter cheerleaders. It is NOT about the kids. Follow the money.

Read about the BB&T Bank of North Carolina, which is deeply involved in financing charters and involved in finding Kentucky’s Bluegrass Institute.

“BB&T has collaborated with the Koch Brothers for years in funding academic centers and professorships at colleges and universities across the country with the stipulation gifts will support teaching about principals of free-market capitalism and use the works by libertarian icon Ayn Rand. The bank has donated millions more for capitalism programs at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky in Lexington.

“But BB&T’s investments in spreading capitalist doctrine and education reform are not strictly ideological or altruistic. The bank finances charter schools. “BB&T Capital Markets has been ranked the No. 1 charter school underwriter in the nation for two consecutive years,” claims the bank’s website, where it also lists numerous charter school properties across the country financed by the bank.

“The connections between charter school expansion and real estate development are underreported and little-understood but worth exploring. Charter school expansions in many states, including North Carolina, Florida, and New Jersey, have been accompanied by new schemes to profit off the land and buildings related to the charter organizations.

“In Louisville, locals see this scheme playing out similarly. Rob Mattheu, a Jefferson County parent and avid blogger about local schools, explains in an email, “There are big bucks to be had” in connecting new charter schools with land deals.”

This is a beautiful statement. Computer-graded essays represent the ultimate dumbing down of education. Professor Les Perelman of MIT has has written many studies about the stupidity of machines. They are indifferent to factual accuracy. They don’t understand tone or irony or wit. They can be fooled by pretentious gibberish.

Keep fighting!

Open Letter to Ohio Department of Education from English teachers. Concerning: Computer-graded exams.

Open Letter to Ohio Department of Education from English teachers. Concerning: Computer-graded exams.
by inthevalleyofthedoanSeptember 8, 2018
OPEN LETTER

TO: Paolo DeMaria

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Ohio Department of Education

superintendent@education.ohio.gov

CC: Office of Curriculum and Assessment:

Brian.Roget@education.ohio.gov

Sarah.Wilson@education.ohio.gov

Shantelle.Hill@education.ohio.gov

Daniel.Badea@education.ohio.gov

Sarah.McClusky@education.ohio.gov

FROM: English teachers of Shaker Heights High School

September 7, 2018

Dear Superintendent DeMaria and the Office of Curriculum and Assessment,

We are English teachers at Shaker Heights High School, and we would like to voice our profound dismay over the direction that the Ohio Department of Education has taken with the End of Course exams.

In the nation’s unthinking rush to test, test, test, we have reached a new low: We are now expected to teach our students how to write for a machine to read.

We have been given a document called, “Machine-Scored Grading: Initial Suggestions for Preparing Students,” produced by the Westerville City Schools “in consultation with the ODE.” According to these guidelines, “When composing text to be read by a computer, the writer cannot assume that the machine will ‘know’ and be able to interpret communicative intent.”

Imagine for a moment how humiliating it is for students to hear that what they write will be read by a machine, not by a human. Can you think of anything as pointless? Would anybody be inspired to do their best work?

The message that we send students is this: Your inner self, the ground from which all writing springs, has no value, no relevance. We do not care about the content of your mind, only that you have the mental machinery to decipher and generate informational text.

Writing for a computer is antithetical to everything that led us to become educators. Our overseers in Columbus, however, have a very different attitude. In support of machine scoring, this is from an official statement from an Associate Director of the Office of Curriculum and Assessment:

“This is the only way to get to adaptive testing and to return results faster, with the goal to be eventual on demand results, which has been an extremely vocal issue by the field to legislators, ODE Leadership, etc.”

First of all, this is an appalling sentence. But once we get past the errors in syntax, grammar and capitalization, and the sloppy, confusing phrasing, we are still left with an absurdity. We teachers are supposed to set students before a computer and then wait breathlessly for the machine to tell us how well or poorly the student writes? That is the ultimate goal? And the person in charge doesn’t even know how to write? How much are Ohio taxpayers spending on this?

There are always the same three justifications for computer grading:

It’s fast.
It’s cheap.
It’s objective.
But we can point to a system that is faster, cheaper, and maybe even more objective. There just happens to be a group of trained professionals handy: people who are dedicated to the wellbeing and growth of Ohio’s schoolchildren, people who love writing and literature, people who are trained to the standards of the Ohio Department of Education, people who continually strive to improve their ability to provide meaningful evaluation of student writing:

Teachers.

We can do the job fast because we’re with the students every day. We can do it cheap, in fact at no extra cost to Ohio taxpayers, because it’s what we’re paid to do anyway.

You might assume that machines have us beat when it comes to objectivity. But computers are only as objective as the humans who program them. And we have good reason to distrust multinational corporations when they invoke proprietary trade secrets to hide the systems that determine the fates of millions of public school children.

But objectivity may be the wrong criterion. As English teachers, we love writing because it is one of the most subjective things taught in school. We love the teaching of writing because we love to see students develop their unique voices, their sense of themselves as the subjects of their own lives.

If we begin our thinking with the assumption that standardized tests are a sacred imperative, then, surely the fastest, cheapest, most objective thing is to grade them is with a machine. However, if we begin our thinking with the belief that students should learn how to write well, then we see that artificial intelligence is not just irrelevant, but counterproductive.

Superintendent DeMaria, what is truly being tested here is the ODE itself. Are you so captive to the testing-industrial complex that you throw millions of taxpayer dollars into an unnecessary technology? Or are you so committed to educating students that you are willing to use your available human capital to do it for free?

Yours sincerely,

English teachers at Shaker Heights High School

In 2016, the General Accounting Office—watchdog of the federal government—published a report warning about waste, fraud, and abuse by charter school operators. Every day, there are new reports of shady real estate deals by charter schools, embezzlement, and Profiteering.

In 2016, the NAACP national convention passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on new charter schools until they were accountable, met the same standards as public schools, and stopped draining resources from the public schools, which enroll most students.

Yet Congress just agreed to increase annual funding for new charters to $440 Million in the coming year.

Are charter schools more effective than public schools? No.

Do they take resources and the students they want from public schools? Yes.

Do they threaten the viability of public schools? Yes.

Do they already have the overflowing support of the billionaire class? Yes.

Has the charter industry been riddled with waste, fraud and abuse of public dollars? Yes.

Why is Congress pouring more money into expanding this private sector activity which is neither accountable nor transparent?

Write your member of Congress and ask these questions.

Let’s be clear on this point: Giving single letter grades to schools is a terrible, stupid, invalid idea. It has no scientific basis. It rewards affluent districts and stigmatizes poor schools.

Jan Resseger reports that the state’s letter grades performed as expected. The schools in the most affluent districts get the most A grades. The schools in the poorest districts get the lowest grades.

She concludes:

“Instead of branding Ohio’s poorest African American and Hispanic school districts with “F”s and punishing the state’s very poorest school districts with state takeover, the state should significantly increase its financial support for public schools in poor communities and encourage the development of full-service wraparound schools that provide medical and social services for families right at school. Ohio’s system of branding the state’s poorest schools with “F” grades and imposing sanctions like state takeover undermines support for public education in school districts that desperately need strong community institutions. The school district report cards also encourage segregation of the state’s metropolitan areas by race and family income.”

Stephen Dyer posts graphs showing that charter schools dominate the D and F grades. Of course, that will not sway the charter lobby in Ohio or cause them to rethink their devotion to the free market.

What fascinates Dyer is that ECOT—the virtual charter that collapsed in scandals a few months ago—somehow received an A in achievement because students were not chronically absent. Huh?

He writes:

“This year, ECOT got an A in the Achievement Component.

“How can this be when ECOT has historically been the worst performing school in the state? The answer lies in the fact that ECOT closed half way through the year. So the school did not get graded on several components that it traditionally bombed. The only Achievement category indicator it was graded on was meeting state indicators — raw test score information. Schools can be graded on up to 26 different indicators, depending on how many students the schools tested that are in each category. For example, if a school doesn’t have high school students, it won’t be graded on the performance of high school students.

“Last year, ECOT met 0 of the 23 indicators it was measured on. This year it met one indicator. And it was only measured based on one indicator. What was that indicator?

“I kid you not. It was chronic absenteeism.

“Last year, 13.5% of ECOT’s kids were listed as chronically absent. This year, it was 7.5%, which met the indicator and qualified as an A.

“That’s right. The school that ripped off taxpayers by at least $200 million because it charged for kids who were never there, or were absent for whole months and seasons of time got an A from the Ohio Department of Education because kids weren’t chronically absent.“

Proof positive that school grades are a hoax.

New York State Commissioner of Educatuon MaryEllen Elia defended the state tests in a letter to the editor of an upstate newspaper.

What was interesting was what she did not say.

She wrote:

Your recent editorial “Benefits of Regents testing still unclear” (“Another View,” Adirondack Daily Enterprise, Aug. 28) is riddled with inaccurate information about New York’s student testing requirements. For the benefit of your readers, I am writing to set the record straight.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education approved New York’s Every Student Succeeds Act plan. It reflects more than a year of collaboration with a comprehensive group of stakeholders throughout the state. Approval of our plan by USDE ensures that New York will continue to receive about $1.6 billion annually in federal funding to support elementary and secondary education in New York’s schools. Had we not received federal approval, that money would have been left on the table, to the great detriment of our students and teachers.

Over the past three years, I have communicated frequently with the USDE about test participation rates and the importance of not penalizing schools, students or anyone else when a district’s participation rate falls below the federally required level.

The editorial states that in June the Board of Regents adopted regulations to implement the state’s ESSA plan — leading your readers to believe, erroneously, that these regulations are now final. In fact, the implementing regulations are temporary. We continue to make changes to the regulations based on the many public comments received.

We anticipate the Board of Regents will discuss these comments and proposed modifications to the draft regulations at its September meeting. The revised regulations will again go out for comment before they are permanently adopted. We hope your readers will participate in this ongoing public comment process.

Your editorial also is misleading in its claim that releasing state test results in September “makes the testing data nearly useless for school districts.” Here are the facts. In early June, schools and school districts were able to access instructional reports for the 2018 state assessments. At the same time, the department released about 75 percent of the test questions that contribute to student scores. The instructional reports, together with the released test questions, are used by schools and districts for summer curriculum-writing and professional development activities. Additionally, while statewide test results are not yet publicly available, we have already provided districts with their students’ score information. Districts can — and should — use this information to help inform instructional decisions for the upcoming school year.

The state Education Department’s stance remains unchanged: There should be no financial penalties for schools with high opt out rates. We continue to review the public comments on this and other proposed regulations, and those comments will be carefully considered as we finalize the state’s ESSA regulations.

Ultimately, it is for parents to decide whether their child should participate in the state assessments. In making that decision, though, they should have accurate information. I hope this letter gives them a better understanding of the facts.

MaryEllen Elia
Albany
The writer is state commissioner of education.

I checked with teachers, and this is what they said.

The test scores are released long after the student has left his or her teacher and moved to a different teacher.

Most of the questions are released, but the teacher never learns which questions individual students got right or wrong.

The tests have NO DIAGNOSTIC VALUE.

The tests have NO INSTRUCTIONAL VALUE.

Apparently, it means a lot to Commissioner Elia to compare the scores of different districts, but that comparison is of no value to teachers, principals, or parents.

One middle school teacher said this to me:

“…the whole exercise is meaningless at the classroom level. Admins might look at the data when it comes to certain skills/content areas, but without looking at the questions/answers, it is not helpful for us in the trenches.”

Another teacher told me:

“…we do not get student-specific results for each question, we are supposed to look at statewide results and then somehow extrapolate that back to our classrooms, the following year, with different kids. So this is a BLUNT tool at best and students get no individual diagnostic benefit.”

The state tests are pointless and meaningless. They have no diagnostic value whatever for individual students.

Every parent in New York should understand that their children are subjected to hours of testing for no reason, other than to allow the Commissioner to compare districts. Their children receive no benefit from the testing. No teacher learns anything about their students, other than their scores.

The state tests are pointless and meaningless. They have no diagnostic value for students—or teachers.

OPT OUT.

OPT OUT.

OPT OUT.

ELC CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION OF EXCLUSION OF STUDENTS FROM NEWARK CHARTER SCHOOL

Education Law Center has filed an official complaint with the NJ Department of Education (NJDOE) regarding the recent exclusion of students from Marion P. Thomas Charter School (MPTCS) in Newark. As depicted in videos and news articles, MPTCS excluded dozens of students at the opening of school for non-compliance with the school’s uniform policy. The school also did not notify parents that their children could not attend school, resulting in students congregating in a neighborhood park without supervision.

The ELC complaint explains that MPTCS’s exclusion of students for minor infractions of the school’s uniform policy raises legal violations requiring NJDOE investigation. The complaint is based on reports from parents, including allegations that MPTCS falsely accused one parent of failing to submit residency documentation after her son was featured in one of the videos of the incident. Other parents reported having to expend time and money to buy new shoes conforming to the MPTCS uniform to prevent their children from losing more time in school, even though they were excluded for wearing the exact same shoes deemed appropriate attire the year before.

The complaint asks the NJDOE to investigate the incident and take corrective action, including a thorough review of the school’s uniform policy and whether MPTCS enforcement of the policy is fair and legal. The complaint also asks the NJDOE to conduct training of MPTCS staff to prevent future recurrences and for disciplinary action, if necessary, to be taken against the school and school staff responsible for any violations of student and parental rights. Finally, the complaint asks for recourse for the families, including reimbursement for double expenditures and any necessary corrections to student records.

“It is obvious that these students believed they were in compliance with the school’s uniform policy, because they wore similar or even the exact same shoes last year,” said ELC Legal Fellow Richard Frost. “Excluding these students without notifying parents was an extreme, poorly reasoned, and unlawful punishment for what should never have become a discipline issue in the first place.”

Education Law Center Press Contact:
Sharon Krengel
Policy and Outreach Director
skrengel@edlawcenter.org
973-624-1815, x 24

If you want to understand where the big bucks are in the charter industry, look at the real estate deals.

http://www.mcall.com/news/education/mc-nws-bethlehem-depasquale-charter-school-law-20180911-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

The State Auditor said, “You are either a public school or you are not.”

The laws of Pennsylvania enable charter fraud.

Bill Phillis is a retired deputy State Superintendent of Schools in Ohio and a passionate advocate of public schools, equity and accountability.

He launched the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding. You should subscribe to his email list.

ECOT (Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow) wasted $1 billion of taxpayers’ money, diverted funding from real public schools, and was endorsed by Ohio’s most prominent Republican elected officials. Betsy Dezvos wants more virtual charters, which have an abysmal track record.

He writes:


The ECOT scandal could have been stopped many times since its beginning

After ECOT ripped off a billion dollars from Ohio school districts and collected a couple hundred million from the federal government during a 17-year run, the corrupt operation was finally exposed. How did this business enterprise feed illegally at the public tax trough in plain sight without being held accountable? That critical question is being debated in the final days before the November 2018 election. Candidates are debating who is to blame.

One person said; don’t blame Bill Lager-he is a businessman trying to make a buck. Lager used millions of tax dollars gobbled up from the public trough to buy political favors. Public officials turned a blind eye to the corruption.

Who should have been watching ECOT and other bad actors in the charter industry?

State Board of Education
Ohio Department of Education
State Superintendents
State Auditors
State Attorney Generals
Governors
Legislators
Private watchdog groups

Over the years state officials have shut down small charter operations-the kind that had meager political campaign budgets. But ECOT wasn’t on their radar.

The ECOT scandal should prompt state officials of all political stripes to put the spotlight on the other big time charter operators such as K12 Inc., Imagine Schools, Gulen Islamic charters, Accel, etc.

“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”
– John Adams, September 10, 1785

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org