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

California Legislator: For-Profit Charters Are Ripping Off Taxpayers

By dianeravitch
June 8, 2017 //
11

Kevin McCarthy, State Assemblyman from Sacramento, published a terrific article in the Sacramento Bee with Joshua Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers, explaining what a rip-off for-profit charters are.

The last time the Legislature tried to prohibit for-profit charters, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it. Let’s hope that as more legislators understand the frauds in both for-profit and non-profit charters, the Legislature will bar for-profits and regulate non-profits.

They write:

“Across California and the country, corporations are expanding their ownership and operation of charter schools and their profits, subsidized by taxpayers.

“In California, 34 charter schools operated by five for-profit education management organizations enroll about 25,000 students. These for-profit charter schools siphon hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money away from students to generate massive corporate profits, and in many cases provide an inferior education.

“They exploit loopholes in California’s charter school law allowing them to cheat our students and reap huge profits at taxpayer expense.

“We have a long way to go before California’s public education system is adequately funded and cannot afford to line shareholder pockets with scarce state revenues.

“The Legislature has the opportunity to fix this flaw in state law. Assembly Bill 406, authored by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty and sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, would prohibit for-profit corporations from operating public charter schools. The bill was approved by the Assembly on Wednesday and now heads to the state Senate.

“It is estimated that California taxpayers provide these companies with more than $225 million a year with little public transparency or accountability.

“K12 Inc., the state’s largest for-profit education management organization, received $310 million in state funding over the past dozen years. In 2016, it reported revenue of $872 million, including $89 million paid to its Wall Street investors.

“It pays millions to top executives while its average teacher salary is $36,000, thanks to heavy recruitment among young, inexperienced teachers, plus burnout and turnover.

“K12 Inc. operates 16 schools in California with about 13,000 students. The average graduation rate of its charter schools is 40 percent, while the statewide rate is 83 percent.

“Like many of these for-profit companies, K12 also overstates student performance and attendance data. Students who logged onto their computers for one minute per day were reportedly counted as full-time students, giving the corporation full average daily attendance funding from the state.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article154084079.html#storylink=cpy

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

Valerie Strauss Recaps Betsy DeVos’s Testimony about the Budget and Civil Rights

By dianeravitch
June 7, 2017 //
17

I confess. I didn’t watch Betsy DeVos testify. I didn’t want to. No one pays me to blog every day, so I have some discretion in how I use my time. What I did instead, which was very taxing, was to watch preview DVDs on the PBS special “School Inc.,” because I have been invited to tape a response for Channel 13, New York City’s PBS station. It is worse than anything you anticipated in terms of distortion, inaccuracies, slander of public schools, and adulation of the free market. Maybe I should have watched DeVos.

Valerie Strauss did watch DeVos. Here is her report.

She made clear that she would not put any limits on for-profit education companies. She recommended virtual charters to an Alabama senator, although even the charter industry has called out online schools for their poor academic results.

And here is a key quote:

“She was asked repeatedly whether private schools that would be part of the administration’s proposed program to fund and study a new voucher program would be subject to federal discrimination and special education laws, and she repeatedly said, “Schools that receive federal funds must follow federal law.””

As our reader Laura Chapman pointed out in a comment, voucher funds are always defended by the assertion that the public money goes to the family, not the school. Tax credits for vouchers go to corporations who pay for vouchers. Every voucher program operates under the fiction that the public money does not go to the school.

The money is laundered through the family or third parties.

So DeVos is cleverly masking the fact that federal law will not apply to schools that receive federal funds.

It is a three-card Monte game.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Fraud, Funding, Hoax, Privatization, Vouchers

Georgia Reviews Low-Performing Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
June 7, 2017 //
5

Charter schools were supposed to “save poor children from low-performing public schools.”

But some of them are low-performing schools, worse than the public schools the children leave.

The State Charter School Conmission is meeting with some of the lowest performing schools to find out why they are getting such poor results.

The worst of them all is Connections Academy, the online school owned by Pearson. It dropped from a D to an F.

How do you save poor kids when they are trapped in failing charter schools and their old public schools are closed?

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

Alan Singer: Pearson and the Neo-Liberal Global Assault on Public Education

By dianeravitch
June 7, 2017 //
4

Alan Singer writes here about the global ambitions and activities of Pearson, the giant British corporation that seeks to dominate education.

He writes:

“Powerful forces are at work shaping global education in both the North Atlantic core capitalist nations and regions historically referred to as the Third World. Neoliberal business philosophies and practices promoted by corporations and their partner foundations, supported by international organizations, financiers, and bankers, and welcomed, or at least tolerated by compliant governments, are trying to transform education from a government responsibility and social right into investment opportunities. They defend their actions as reforms designed to increase educational equity and achieve higher standards; where possible they seek out local community support. But the underlying motivation behind corporate educational reform is extending the reach of free market globalization and business profits.

“An early twentieth century political cartoon from Puck magazine portrayed the Standard Oil Company as a giant octopus with tentacles encircling and corrupting national and state governments. The image can easily be applied to the British-based publishing company Pearson Education, a leader in the neo-liberal privatization movement. Pearson has tentacles all over the world shaping and corrupting education in efforts, not always successful, to enhance its profitability. Its corporate slogan is “Pearson: Always Learning,” however critics rewrite it as “Pearson: Always Earning.”

“Pearson’s business strategy is to turn education from a social good and essential public service into a marketable for-profit commodity.”

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, International, Pearson, Privatization, Testing

Rutgers Professor Prevails Over New Jersey Charter Lobbyists Who Tried to Silence Her

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2017 //
41

This is a sordid story with a happy ending. It tells how the deep-pocketed charter industry tried to silence and discredit a scholar who disagreed with them. The story appears in the Nonprofit Quarterly.

Professor Julia Sass Rubin is an associate professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. She has researched charter schools in New Jersey, and one of her studies concluded that charter schools in the state were not serving the same demographic as public schools. She is also an active leader in the Save Our Schools New Jersey organization.

The New Jersey Charter Schools Association did not like her research. They particularly did not like a study she published in October 2014, demonstrating that charter schools enrolled smaller numbers of students with disabilities, English language learners, and poor children as compared with the public schools in the same school district.

They might have challenged her to a debate. They didn’t. They might have published a response, challenging her facts. They didn’t.

Instead the New Jersey Charter Schools Association registered complaints against her with the New Jersey State Ethics Commission charging that she had violated the state’s Conflict of Interest Law and its Uniform Ethics Code. It also complained to Rutgers University that she had violated the Rutgers Code and Policies for faculty employees.

In other words, they sought to destroy her reputation and her career.

The state board of ethics made no ruling. The university reported that there was no evidence for the charges against Professor Rubin. She was vindicated but it took two years.

Professor Rubin was the intended victim of a SLAPP lawsuit. This is defined in Wikipedia as:

“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

“The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.”

As Martin Levine writes in TNQ, more was at stake than Professor Rubin’s reputation.

“This story came to a happy end. After the state board made no finding, the university found none of the allegations were supported by the evidence. Yet, this remains a cautionary tale. The ease with which political opponents can make the debate personal can have a very chilling effect.

“We ended our piece two years ago with a challenge to others to speak out in defense of free, fact-based speech: “We’re waiting for state and national nonprofit associations to speak out against this travesty, as they should, and stand up for the core nonprofit value of free speech.” While Professor Rubin’s reputation and ability to freely go on with her important work has been upheld, it is more important than ever for others to speak loudly. As we see scientists removed from advisory panels and facts that don’t support political beliefs discarded, the collective voice is still critical.”

For her refusal to be intimidated, for defending the rights of others to write and speak without fear, I add Julia Sass Rubin to the honor roll of this blog. She really should be honored by the American Association of Universities, the ACLU, People for the American Way, and others who are passionate about protecting our freedoms.

Categories Academic Freedom, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Honor Roll, New Jersey

Trump Plans to Gut Civil Rights Agencies in Every Cabinet Department

By dianeravitch
June 1, 2017 //
14

How many times have you heard Trump or DeVos claiming that their privatization plan for public schools is “the civil rights issue of our time”? They heard the same line from Obama and Duncan and even Mitt Romney, so we can’t credit them with originality.

Where they differ from Obama and Duncan is that they have made it clear that they intend to eviscerate the government agencies that enforce civil rights.

This is an example of cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, or lying. You be the judge.

“The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House’s newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights.

“As outlined in Labor’s fiscal 2018 plan, the move would fold the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, now home to 600 employees, into another government agency in the name of cost-cutting.

“The proposal to dismantle the compliance office comes at a time when the Trump administration is reducing the role of the federal government in fighting discrimination and protecting minorities by cutting budgets, dissolving programs and appointing officials unsympathetic to previous practices.

“The new leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has proposed eliminating its environmental justice program, which addresses pollution that poses health threats specifically concentrated in minority communities. The program, in part, offers money and technical help to residents who are confronted with local hazards such as leaking oil tanks or emissions from chemical plants.

“Under President Trump’s proposed budget, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights — which has investigated thousands of complaints of discrimination in school districts across the country and set new standards for how colleges should respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment — would also see significant staffing cuts. Administration officials acknowledge in budget documents that the civil rights office will have to scale back the number of investigations it conducts and limit travel to school districts to carry out its work.”

As we know, Betsy DeVos selected an acting head of the Education Department who is known for her opposition to affirmative action.

“In Education Department budget documents, the administration acknowledges that proposed funding levels would hamper the work of that department’s civil rights office. The budget would reduce staffing by more than 40 employees.”

Categories Civil Rights, Education Industry, Privatization, Trump

The Network for Public Education: Our View on Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
June 1, 2017 //
30

NPE Statement on Charter Schools

https://wp.me/p3bR9v-2st

The Network for Public Education believes that public education is the pillar of our democracy. We believe in the common school envisioned by Horace Mann. A common school is a public institution, which nurtures and teaches all who live within its boundaries, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, sexual preference or learning ability. All may enroll–regardless of when they seek to enter the school or where they were educated before.

We believe that taxpayers bear the responsibility for funding those schools and that funding should be ample and equitable to address the needs of the served community. We also believe that taxpayers have the right to examine how schools use tax dollars to educate children.

Most importantly, we believe that such schools should be accountable to the community they serve, and that community residents have the right and responsibility to elect those who govern the school. Citizens also have the right to insist that schooling be done in a manner that best serves the needs of all children.

By definition, a charter school is not a public school. Charter schools are formed when a private organization contracts with a government authorizer to open and run a school. Charters are managed by private boards, often with no connection to the community they serve. The boards of many leading charter chains are populated by billionaires who often live far away from the schools they govern.

Through lotteries, recruitment and restrictive entrance policies, charters do not serve all children. The public cannot review income and expenditures in detail. Many are for profit entities or non-profits that farm out management to for-profit corporations that operate behind a wall of secrecy. This results in scandal, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds. The news is replete with stories of self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and theft occurring in charter schools [1].

We have learned during the 25 years in which charters have been in existence that the overall academic performance of students in charter schools is no better, and often worse, than the performance of students in public schools. And yet charter schools are seen as the remedy when public schools are closed based on unfair letter-based grading schemes.

By means of school closures and failed takeover practices like the Achievement School District, disadvantaged communities lose their public schools to charter schools. Not only do such communities lose the school, but they also lose their voice in school governance.

There is little that is innovative or new that charter schools offer. Because of their “freedom” from regulations, allegedly to promote innovation, scandals involving the finances and governance of charter schools occur on a weekly basis. Charter schools can and have closed at will, leaving families stranded. Profiteers with no educational expertise have seized the opportunity to open charter schools and use those schools for self-enrichment. States with weak charter laws encourage nepotism, profiteering by politicians, and worse.

For all of the reasons above and more, the Network for Public Education regard charter schools as a failed experiment that our organization cannot support. If the strength of charter schools is the freedom to innovate, then that same freedom can be offered to public schools by the district of the state.

At the same time, we recognize that many families have come to depend on charter schools and that many charter school teachers are dedicated professionals who serve their students well. It is also true that some charter schools are successful. We do not, therefore, call for the immediate closure of all charter schools, but rather we advocate for their eventual absorption into the public school system. We look forward to the day when charter schools are governed not by private boards, but by those elected by the community, at the district, city or county level.

Until that time, we support all legislation and regulation that will make charters better learning environments for students and more accountable to the taxpayers who fund them. Such legislation would include the following:

• An immediate moratorium on the creation of new charter schools, including no replication or expansion of existing charter schools

• The transformation of for-profit charters to non-profit charters

• The transformation of for-profit management organizations to non-profit management organizations

• All due process rights for charter students that are afforded public school students, in all matters of discipline

• Required certification of all school teaching and administrative staff

• Complete transparency in all expenditures and income

• Requirements that student bodies reflect the demographics of the served community

• Open meetings of the board of directors, posted at least 2 weeks prior on the charter’s website

• Annual audits available to the public

• Requirements to following bidding laws and regulations

• Requirements that all properties owned by the charter school become the property of the local public school if the charter closes

• Requirements that all charter facilities meet building codes

• Requirements that charters offer free or reduced priced lunch programs for students

• Full compensation from the state for all expenditures incurred when a student leaves the public school to attend a charter

• Authorization, oversight and renewal of charters transferred to the local district in which they are located

• A rejection of all ALEC legislation regarding charter schools that advocates for less transparency, less accountability, and the removal of requirements for teacher certification.

Until charter schools become true public schools, the Network for Public Education will continue to consider them to be private schools that take public funding.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democracy, Education Industry, Education Reform, Network for Public Education, Privatization

Randi Endorses Charter Schools in Op-Ed Piece with Jonah Edelman

By dianeravitch
May 31, 2017 //
125

Randi Weingarten and Jonah Edelman co-wrote an article in today’s Los Angeles Times, standing strong against vouchers.

I still remember Jonah Edelman as the guy who bragged at the Aspen Ideas Festival that he had crushed the teachers’ union in Chicago by buying up all the best lobbyists and raising the bar for a strike to 75% of the membership. I remember that he went to Massachusetts and threatened a referendum unless the unions capitulated to his demands. Stand for Children was showered with millions by the Gates Foundation and other promoters of the corporate reform agenda. Edelman strongly supports charter schools, even though they promote racial segregation.

In the middle of a strong article against vouchers, this paragraph was dropped in:

We believe taxpayer money should support schools that are accountable to voters, open to all, nondenominational and transparent about students’ progress. Such schools — district and charter public schools — are part of what unites us as a country.

It is public schools that unites us as a country, not charter schools. We have seen a steady parade of scandals, frauds, abuses, waste of taxpayer dollars, exclusion of children with special needs, from the charter sector.

Charter schools should be subject to democratic control (an elected school board), should be financially transparent, and should have the same requirements for teachers as public schools. They should be required to accept all children who apply, in the order of their application. They should not be allowed to exclude ELLs and children with disabilities.

Charter schools exist to bust unions and undermine public schools. They are a form of privatization. They should not be put into the same boat as public schools because they are not public schools.

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

Jeff Bryant: What Is the Point of School Choice?

By dianeravitch
May 31, 2017 //
44

Jeff Bryant is trying to figure out what the purpose of school choice is.

“Another week, another round of evidence that providing parents with more “school choice,” especially the kind that lets them opt out of public schools, is not a very effective vehicle for ensuring students improve academically or that taxpayer dollars are spent more wisely.

“The latest evidence comes from a study of the voucher program in Washington, DC that allows parents to transfer their children from public to private schools at taxpayer expense.

“The study found that students “who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers,” reports the New York Times.

“This study adds to others – from Ohio, Indiana, and Louisiana – finding that school vouchers have negative impacts on students.

“Despite these results, many proponents of school choice contend the purpose of school choice was never about generating better results. It’s about choice.

“The latest evidence comes from a study of the voucher program in Washington, DC that allows parents to transfer their children from public to private schools at taxpayer expense.

“The study found that students “who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers,” reports the New York Times.

“This study adds to others – from Ohio, Indiana, and Louisiana – finding that school vouchers have negative impacts on students.

“Despite these results, many proponents of school choice contend the purpose of school choice was never about generating better results. It’s about choice for choice’s sake.

“Results Don’t Matter?

“That seems to be what US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos argues in her reaction to the news about the apparent failure of the DC voucher program. As the Washington Post reports, the report prompted her to say, “When school choice policies are fully implemented, there should not be differences in achievement among the various types of schools.”

So if choice doesn’t raise scores, what’s the point?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers

Jersey Jazzman: The Facts About Charter Schools in Newark

By dianeravitch
May 31, 2017 //
6

Jersey Jazzman, aka Mark Weber, experienced teacher and doctoral student at Rutgers, follows the claims of charter promoters in New Jersey, especially Newark. His latest post is simply “Facts About Newark Charter Schools.”

Bottom line: the charters do not enroll the same students as public schools. Why is that so hard for the media to understand?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, New Jersey, Newark, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »