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

Alan Singer: How Charter Schools Buy Political Support

By dianeravitch
August 10, 2017 //
12

Alan Singer pulls together the threads of charter school corruption across several states in this post. The corruption is pay-to-play. Give money to a politician and turn him or her into your advocate. Florida presents a different twist on the story: charter owners and employees and family members are elected legislators who shamelessly vote to enrich themselves. In Ohio, charter owners contribute to legislators who then turn on the money spigot and shower their benefactors with riches. In New York, Governor Cuomo accepts millions from billionaires who love entrepreneurial schools and hate public schools–and Voila!, Cuomo becomes a charter champion.

“In Arizona charter schools routinely receive exemptions from state oversight requirements, despite a history of misusing tax dollars. They also receive over 25% of state education funds, although they only enroll 15% of Arizona’s school age students. The right-wing Republican governor of Arizona was accused by the even further right-wing elected Superintendent of Arizona schools of establishing a “shadow faction of charter school operators” committed to “moving funds from traditional public schools to charter schools.”

“The reasons for the lack of accountability and the disproportionate state funding are examined in a report by Arizonians for Charter School Accountability. Among other things, they found that Benjamin Franklin, a for-profit charter school, is owned by Arizona State Representative Eddie Farnsworth (R). In 2016, the charter school spent $155,106 more on facilities than on classroom instruction. It leases its schools from LBE Investments, a for-profit real estate company also owned by Farnsworth.

“Arizona has a state board that grants charter status to “qualifying applicants” and is supposed to “oversee charter schools.” The President of the board is a political lobbyist who defines her role as promoting school “choice” and “sponsoring charter schools,” not regulating them. The Board Vice-President is founder of a charter high school. Other members include the operator of a charter school, a charter school teacher, a lawyer for charter schools, a building company CEO who also serves on the Board of Directors for the local Teach for America chapter, and the CEO of a charter school network.”

For the links, open the article.

In Atlanta, teachers were sentenced to prison under the RICO statute (racketeering) for cheating on tests and are out on appeal.

When, if ever, will public officials round up the criminals who are engaged in buying influence for the enrichment of charter schools? In too many states, the public officials who should enforce the law are charter operators or receive millions from charter operators. The charter industry starts to look like the Tweed Ring. Will it clean up its own act or is public corruption now woven into its fabric?

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

Gary Rubinstein: The Alum-Lie Spreads About College Completion Rates for Charter Students

By dianeravitch
August 10, 2017 //
60

Gary Rubinstein has been bothered by the lies spread about the college completion rates of charter students. He has pointed out that it is unfair to say that X% of your students in twelfth grade finished college without admitting that twelfth grade is not the right place to begin, since it excludes the attrition that may have occurred earlier.

Among charters, KIPP has been honest in stating that it counts the students who completed eighth grade and persisted to high school graduation. Others say they just can’t find the data to learn when their senior started in their school. Can you believe that?

Gary posts a twitter exchange he had with Richard Whitmire, who clearly did not want to engage with Gary. Whitmire wrote a fawning bio of Michelle Rhee, then a book praising Rocketship Charters. Not a high success rate.

What Gary is looking for is candor, not boasting.

It seems the public is beginning to understand that charter school boasting is built on cherrypicking students and pushing out the ones that get low scores.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Data, Education Industry, Higher Education, KIPP Charter Schools, Privatization

New York City: Why Eliza Shapiro Should Read “Reign of Error”

By dianeravitch
August 9, 2017 //
28

Eliza Shapiro writes about New York City for Politico.

She wrote a somewhat wistful article about why New York City was no longer “the nation’s education reform capital.”

For one brief shining moment, she suggests, New York City had the chance to expand its privately managed charter schools and to break the grip of the teachers’ union. It came “this close” to evaluating teachers by test scores. It was near to a point where it might have eliminated tenure and seniority.

All of this is supposedly reform?

Well, as she well knows, this is the agenda of hedge fund managers and others on Wall Street. This is the agenda of the billionaires who never set foot in a public school and whose children will never go to public school.

What stopped the headlong rush to crush public schools and teachers’ unions?

Parents. The New York State Allies for Public Education, a coalition of 50 parent and educator groups (not the union), that organized the mass opt outs from testing.

When twenty percent of the parents in the state with children in grades 3-8 refused to allow their children to take the tests, Governor Cuomo stopped in his tracks. He had been gung-ho to evaluate teachers by student test scores; he boldly claimed to be the state’s charter school champion (even though only 3% of the state’s children were enrolled in charter schools). But when the opt out started, he realized he had a political problem. He hired Jere Hochman, the thoughtful superintendent of the Bedford Central public schools, to advise him, and for the first time, he had an experienced educator calming his passions. He formed a commission and grew silent.

Sheri Lederman, a much-loved teacher in the Great Neck public schools, challenged her evaluation, and the judge agreed with her that it was arbitrary and capricious.

The American Statistical Association said that the test-based evaluations in which Cuomo put so much stock were inappropriate for evaluating individual teachers.

Shapiro seems unaware of most of these developments. Her framework is: charter supporters=good; unions=bad; firing teachers at will without cause=good; tenure=bad.

She insists on seeing the New York City story through the framework of “reformers vs. union.” It would have made more sense to look at the NYC story as “parents (in New York State, not New York City) vs. high-stakes testing. Research vs. Cuomo.

Now that the reform laurels are no longer in New York City, she suggests that readers look to Louisiana and D.C. instead, both of which are among the lowest performing jurisdictions in the nation.

I want to suggest to Eliza Shapiro that she read my last two books: The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (rev., 2016); and Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. She should read Mercedes Schneider on John White in Louisiana and John Merrow on the subject of the D.C. “miracle” that wasn’t. (John Merrow and Mary Levy will have an article in the next issue of the Washington Monthly that takes apart the D.C. “miracle.” but in the meanwhile Shapiro can read this post that Merrow wrote: https://themerrowreport.com/2017/08/08/touching-the-elephant/comment-page-1/

If she contacts me, I will send her both books at my expense. If she reads them, she will be a better education writer. Certainly better informed.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, New York City, Privatization, Testing

Ohio: “It’s Not About the %&*%$% Kids, It’s About the Money”

By dianeravitch
August 9, 2017 //
2

Denis Smith once worked in the charter office of the Ohio State Department of Education. Now that he is retired, he writes often about the scams and frauds in Ohio’s charter sector.

In this article, he points out that political contributions by its founder William Lager have greased the way for ECOT to claim hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a very low-performing cyber-charter.

The good news that he brings is that the Columbus Dispatch, an influential newspaper in the state, is all over the charter scams and is acting as a guardian of the public interest. Some Republicans even felt impelled to return charter money because it has become “radioactive.”

Smith says he once took a series of proposals for charter reform to a key legislator and the legislator was not interested.

That one proposal he thought would never happen was an outright ban on political contributions by charter schools and their management companies to state political parties and candidates, as they use public funds to craft state law to their liking, including more than 150 exemptions from the educational requirements provided in Section 3314 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Unless we’re terribly naïve about the corrupt, indeed corrosive effects of money on the legislature, the great Swedish pop group Abba said it best: Money, money, money/Always sunny/In the rich man’s world.

But with ECOT in seeming eclipse, perhaps things right now aren’t sunny in that rich man’s charter world. Indeed, the upcoming solar eclipse might in some way serve as a metaphor for the twilight of ECOT, and, hopefully, the mysterious, gloomy, overcast charterworld, where for nearly 20 years, anything goes.

Could it be that the corruption in the charter industry in Ohio has reached a tipping point?

Has ECOT finally gone too far?

This is a very positive development, if true.

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

Who Cares More About Black Children: The NAACP Or Rightwingers?

By dianeravitch
August 9, 2017 //
90

The NAACP bravely spoke out in favor of regulating charter schools to make them accountable, transparent, and subject to the same standards as public schools.

Most people would say that the NAACP’s concerns and recommendations are reasonable.

But supporters of charter schools are outraged and hysterical.

The Center for Education Reform, which has advocated for charters for more than 20 years, astonishingly called the NAACP “opportunity’s opponent.” This is a breathtakingly insulting slur coming from a conservative organization that has long been hostile to public education.

CER provides a link to other rightwing organizations that oppose the NAACP’s criticism of public schools.

Who cares more about black children?

The NAACP or the Heritage Foundation?

The NAACP or CATO?

The NAACP or Betsy DeVos?

The NAACP or hedge fund managers?

The NAACP or the Walton Family Foundation?

The NAACP or the Center for Education Reform?

The NAACP or the Thomas B. Fordham Institute?

The NAACP or the Koch brothers?

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

The NAACP Report: Why Are Charter Supporters Complaining?

By dianeravitch
August 8, 2017 //
14

Please read the NAACP report on charter schools.

Ever since it was released, charter supporters have complained bitterly about the report and accused the NAACP of being paid off by the unions.

This is ridiculous. It is a sound and sober report.

Consider its recommendations.

1. There should be more equitable and adequate funding for schools serving children of color. The school finance system is extremely unfair and inequitable over states, districts, and schools. School funding in 36 states has not returned to its pre-2008 levels, when budgets were slashed. Federal funds in real dollar amounts have declined for Title I and special education over the same period.

Do charter supporters disagree?

2. School finance reform is needed to ensure that dollars go where the needs are greatest.

Do charter supporters disagree?

3. Invest in low-performing schools and in schools that have a significant opportunity to close achievement gaps. “Students learn in safe, supportive, and challenging learning environments under the tutelage of well-prepared caring adults.” Authorities must invest in incentives to attract and retain “fully qualified educators”; they must invest in creating instructional quality that provides a stimulating and challenging learning environment; they must invest in wraparound services that meet the need of children, including early childhood education, health and mental services, extended learning time, and social supports.

Do charter supports disagree? What would they object to? Maybe they would reject the idea that teachers should be “fully qualified,” since that might be a slap at Teach for America’s teachers, who are never fully qualified when they begin teaching.

4. Mandate a rigorous authorizing and renewal process. States with the fewest authorizers have the best charters. Only local school districts should be allowed to authorize charters, based on their needs.

This would be a problem for many charters, because they like it when there are many authorizers, and they can go shopping to find one that will give them an okay. They hate being overseen by local districts, because they see themselves as competitors to public schools, not collaborators. But that is part of what makes charters obnoxious.

5. Eliminate for-profit charter schools and for-profit charter management companies that control nonprofit charters. Not a dollar of federal, state or local money should go to for-profit charters. The report notes that the widespread reports of misconduct of for-profit charters and their for-profit managers is reason enough to forbid them. As for-profits, they have an “inherent conflict of interest,” and may well put the interest of their investors over those of students.

Do charter supporters disagree? Obviously, this is a sticking point for many charter supporters, including Betsy DeVos, who welcomes for-profit charters. More than 80% of the charters in her home state of Michigan operate for profit, and they get poor results. That doesn’t bother her at all. It bothers the NAACP.

Now, I ask you, what part of these five recommendations suggests that the NAACP is wrong? That it was doing the bidding of teachers’ unions? Is it so objectionable to charter advocates to propose that children should be taught by fully qualified educators? Are they prepared to fight for teachers who are not fully qualified?

Later in the report, on page 26, is an expanded discussion of the recommendations, including a recommendation that charters hire only certified teachers and that charters abide by common standards for reporting on disciplinary practices and admitting and retaining students.

I commend the NAACP for its common sense proposals to reform the charter sector.

Are charter advocates prepared to go to the mat to defend for-profit operations?

What part of this report and its recommendations has lit a fire of outrage in charter land?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Discipline and Suspensions, Education Industry, Privatization

Colorado: “The Most Important School Board Race” in the Nation

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2017 //
3

Douglas County, Colorado, will have a crucial election this fall between its current board majority and challengers. Some say it is the most important school board race in the nation.

Douglas County is the most affluent school district in the state. Yet wealthy Coloradans have showered money on pro-privatization school board members and candidates. On the other side is a pro-public education slate.

The rightwing majority consists of four members on a board of seven. The majority created a voucher program. Its anti-teachers policies have led to a high rate of exodus by experienced teachers.

The Douglas County voucher program is currently under appeal in federal courts.

Two slates are competing in the race for school board.

The differences between them are stark if you read this perceptive article. One is tied to corporate reform/Republican circles, the other is actually pro-public school.

Categories Colorado, Education Industry, Privatization, Supporting public schools, Vouchers

Politico: Colorado Voucher Case Will Be Crucial in Fight Against Privatization of Public Funding

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2017 //
13

Politico reports this morning (open the link for many other links–and for an important story about an online for-profit “university’s” struggle to hold on to federal funding):

RESET ON COLORADO VOUCHER CASE STARTS THIS WEEK: A high-profile school voucher case that had made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court is in district court in Colorado this week after the high court justices kicked it back in light of their June ruling in a Missouri case that religious institutions cannot be excluded from state programs with a purely secular intent. The case, out of the Douglas County School District, represents school choice advocates’ next best shot at scrapping constitutional provisions in 39 states known as “Blaine Amendments” that prohibit public money from aiding religious organizations, including private schools.

– Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court, which had been ordered to take another look at the case, sent it back to the Denver district court. In 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court found that a voucher program in which the majority of participating students elected to attend a private, religious school was in conflict with the state’s bar on tax dollars going to religious groups. Attorneys for the taxpayer group challenging the voucher program said in a notice filed last week that they will contact the trial court judge’s chambers this week to start work on scheduling a status conference.

– The voucher program at the center of the case is also shaping up to be the central issue in a Douglas County school board race. Three of the board’s four pro-voucher incumbents are up for reelection this year, the Colorado Independent reports, and the race to fill those seats is already crowded with voucher opponents, including one of the plaintiffs in the court case. The state’s former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler, who lives in Douglas County, called the election “the most important school board election in the country,” the Independent reports. More on that here.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Privatization

Wendy Lecker: Real Reform Must Come from Within the District, Not by External Imposition

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2017 //
6

Wendy Lecker is a civil rights lawyer who writes frequently about education issues.

In this article, published in the Stamford (Ct.) Advocate, Lecker describes the imposed reforms that breed resentment and failure, not better education.

Corporate reform has been a disaster. Its day of reckoning cannot be indefinitely postponed. The corporate reformers fail and fail and fail, and continue to push their failed ideas.

Connecticut is a state that experienced major corruption in the charter industry. It is also a state with excellent public schools. Why not use the depth of knowledge and experience to help the neediest districts instead of parceling students out to private management?

Lecker writes:

The State Board of Education’s recent rubber-stamping of Capital Prep Harbor charter school’s expansion in Bridgeport is yet another example of a common theme in education reform: trampling community will. Capital Prep, which opened in 2015 over the objection the Bridgeport’s Board of education and community members, does not reflect the community. The school serves no English Language Learners, though 15 percent of Bridgeport’s students are ELL. The school has a 37 percent out-of-school suspension rate, over twice the rate in Bridgeport’s public schools.

Bridgeport’s Board of Education unanimously opposed the school’s expansion. Bridgeport already must pay several million dollars annually to charters. As the superintendent testified, the expansion will drain an additional $200,000 from Bridgeport’s budget; money it cannot afford. Last year, owing to decreased state funding, Bridgeport had to fill a $16 million budget gap. The state board ignored Bridgeport’s needs.

As recent education reform failures demonstrate, robbing local districts of decision-making power over education policies is a recipe for disaster. By contrast, reforms that emanate from the school districts themselves have shown success.

The ultimate in top-down reform for struggling districts is state takeover. Two much-hyped state takeovers occurred in Tennessee — the Achievement School District (“ASD”), and Detroit — the Educational Achievement Authority (“EAA”). After years of consistent failure, both recently closed, returning control of schools to the districts.

ASD and EAA employed reform’s “greatest hits.” Outside managers were hired to run the districts. Charter schools proliferated. They used ill-trained Teach for America recruits.

EAA also employed “student-centered” “personalized” computer-based learning, which caused 10,000 struggling students to fall further behind academically.

Both “reform districts” were plagued with high teacher turnover, a major factor in their failures, and rampant financial mismanagement.

State takeover made things worse for students in the ASD and EAA. In 2015, only one fourth-grader in Detroit’s EAA passed the state math test. After years of EAA control, only three of the 15 EAA schools moved off the list of the lowest 5 percent in the state. In Tennessee, the results were similar, with the ASD’s charter schools performing the worst.

She continues:

At the same time, officials ignore the slow and steady progress made by districts that engage in home-grown educational improvement. Long Beach, California, and Union City, New Jersey, are good examples. Both districts are diverse and majority economically disadvantaged. Yet both have been able to sustain improvement by focusing on the unique needs and strengths of their communities…

In contrast to failed state takeovers, that leave children and communities behind in their wake, district-led improvement methods have staying power precisely because they use the needs of their children and communities as their starting point. It is a shame that Connecticut officials ignore our own local, well-informed voices.

Categories Charter Schools, Connecticut, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Peter Greene: The Dirty Secret of the Charter Industry

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2017 //
21

Peter Greene identifies the dirty secret of the charter industry. Two words. Real estate.

In Ohio, a charter lobbyist wrote the charter law for the state. When a charter operator insisted that he owned everything the charter bought with public money, the courts upheld him. It was in the law.

In Pennsylvania, charter schools own the property where the charter school is housed, and they charge rent. They charge rents above the market rate. The state doesn’t ask questions. The state doesn’t even notice that the charter operator owns the property and pays himself rent.

Greene offers a few examples from across the nation, and he didn’t even include Florida, where the charter scams are commonplace:

Carl Paladino, the notorious bad boy of the Buffalo school board, has made a mint in charter-related real estate deals. Not only does Paladino build the charters and lease them, but he builds the new apartment buildings near the shiny new school– a one-man gentrification operation. And he sits on the public school board, where he can vote to approve and support the growth of charters.

That’s not even the most astonishing sort of charter real estate scam. A 2015 report from the National Education Policy Center outlined what might be the worst. Take a public school building, built and paid for with public tax dollars. That building is purchased by a charter school, which is using public tax dollars. At the end of this, you’ve got a building that the public has paid for twice– but does not now own.

In February of this year, researchers Preston Green, Bruce Baker and Joseph Oluwole dropped the provocative notion that charter schools may be the new Enron. It’s a lot to take in, but Steven Rosenfeld pulled out five takeaways for Alternet, if you’d like a quicker look. But just some little factoids give you a taste. For instance, Imagine Schools take 40% of the money they collect from taxpayers and put that right back into lease agreements. In Los Angeles, owners of a private school leased room on their campus for a charter school that they were also involved in running– then jacked that rent up astronomically.

His article has links. Follow them. This is the most underreported story of the charter world: The big money is in the real estate, not necessarily the students.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »