Archives for category: Education Industry

After a year-long investigation, the Detroit Free Press published a scathing report on the state’s thriving charter sector.

Charter schools receive $1 billion in taxpayer funding with virtually no accountability.

They get worse results than traditional public schools.

140,000 children attend charter schools in Michigan.

Michigan has more for-profit charters than any other state. The for-profit organizations are secretive about their finances because they are private.

“In reviewing two decades of charter school records, the Free Press found:

“Wasteful spending and double-dipping. Board members, school founders and employees steering lucrative deals to themselves or insiders. Schools allowed to operate for years despite poor academic records. No state standards for who operates charter schools or how to oversee them.”

““People should get a fair return on their investment,” said former state schools Superintendent Tom Watkins, a longtime charter advocate who has argued for higher standards for all schools. “But it has to come after the bottom line of meeting the educational needs of the children. And in a number of cases, people are making a boatload of money, and the kids aren’t getting educated.”

“According to the Free Press’ review, 38% of charter schools that received state academic rankings during the 2012-13 school year fell below the 25th percentile, meaning at least 75% of all schools in the state performed better. Only 23% of traditional public schools fell below the 25th percentile.

“Advocates argue that charter schools have a much higher percentage of children in poverty compared with traditional schools. But traditional schools, on average, perform slightly better on standardized tests even when poverty levels are taken into account.”

Some examples of charter abuses of the public trust:

“Michigan’s laws are either nonexistent or so lenient that there are often no consequences for abuses or poor academics. Taxpayers and parents are left clueless about how charter schools spend the public’s money, and lawmakers have resisted measures to close schools down for poor academic performance year after year.

“The Free Press found that questionable decisions, excessive spending and misuse of taxpayer dollars run the gamut:

■ A Sault Ste. Marie charter school board gave its administrator a severance package worth $520,000 in taxpayer money.

■ A Bedford Township charter school spent more than $1 million on swampland.

■ A mostly online charter school in Charlotte spent $263,000 on a Dale Carnegie confidence-building class, $100,000 more than it spent on laptops and iPads.

■ Two board members who challenged their Romulus school’s management company over finances and transparency were ousted when the length of their terms was summarily reduced by Grand Valley State University.

■ National Heritage Academies, the state’s largest for-profit school management company, charges 14 of its Michigan schools $1 million or more in rent — which many real estate experts say is excessive.

■ A charter school in Pittsfield Township gave jobs and millions of dollars in business to multiple members of the founder’s family.

■ Charter authorizers have allowed management companies to open multiple schools without a proven track record of success.”

Investigative journalist David Sirota asks why so many of the super-rich love charter schools.

The answer, with exceptions: profits and money and union-busting, all rolled in one.

Take Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million gift to Newark. At least $20 million went to consultants. Consultants!

Sirota writes:

“But, of course, a lot of corporate execs working for the firms who got Zuckerberg’s money did indeed personally profit off the pro-charter-school campaign. Additionally, in states where charter schools are for-profit enterprises, there are even more business interests with personal financial stakes in undermining traditional public education. And, again, there are all the profits inherent in the aforementioned tax credits. Meanwhile, there’s the whole anti-union element to the charter school movement. As any political consultant for a business group knows, if you get union-free charter schools to replace traditional public education, you damage the public sector unions – aka one of the few political forces with any resources to challenge Corporate America’s broader legislative agenda.

“Of course, this is the kind of thing you almost never hear about in the ongoing debate about education. Most often, that debate pretends the fight pits greedy self-interested teachers’ unions against purely altruistic corporate types who are so rich they couldn’t possibly have a financial motive in their education policy advocacy. Somehow, we are to believe that in the midst of their careers making as much money as possible in their chosen careers, every philanthrocapitalist suddenly is selflessly spending gobs of money with no desire to get any return on investment. Worse, we are asked to believe this even though there are myriad ways to engineer such a return on investment through the campaign to promote charter schools.”

This article in Salon tries to understand education from an economic perspective. It says that the great expansion of public education occurred when our factories were expanding and we needed more workers. Now, with outsourcing and autation, society and our elites are less willing to invest in education, and so we live in an era of austerity and privatization.

Eric Levitz writes of the Obama administration’s reluctance to address glaring inequality:

“We have an economy in which 46.5 million Americans live in poverty, the real unemployment rate is above 12 percent, and our 400 wealthiest citizens enjoy as much wealth as the entire bottom half of the population. But a political system designed for gridlock, the grossly disproportionate influence of the rich, and Americans’ ideological aversion to class politics conspire to make it politically inadvisable for a Democratic president to even speak the words “income inequality” before a national audience. Absent the political will to explore redistributive structural reforms, we’re left with “ladders of opportunity,” and a vision of economic salvation through higher test scores.”

Levitz interviews philosophy of education professor David Blacker. He asks him about how charter schools fit into the current era, and Blacker replies:

“I think the logic there is a kind of marketization logic. It’s an ideal of privatization which I think is ultimately tied to… I think privatization is the twin of austerity. Austerity being withdrawal of public commitment and public expenditure. I see those things as hand in hand, and they are symptomatic, from my point of view, of this decrease in commitment to that project of universal public education. Because the market logic sort of implies that education is this contingent matter for individuals. It’s less of a social good. It’s less of something we ought to worry about collectively, and more a commodity that individuals need to seize or take advantage of on their own. Invest in yourself. Or parents, invest in your children.”

Keystone State Education Coalition
Pennsylvania Education Policy Roundup for June 3, 2014:

In God We Trust? How about a bill that would require charter and cyber schools to post their PA School Performance Profile scores prominently in any advertising paid for with public tax dollars?

Blogger Rant:

At a recent school board meeting I voted against authorizing a payment to Agora Cyber Charter School. Why? During the NCLB regime, Agora never once made AYP; this year their PA School Performance Profile Score was 48.3 (scale of 100). In my district, our Middle School score was 94; our High School score was 96.4. Agora is run by K12, Inc., a for-profit company founded by convicted bond felon Michael Milken. K12 paid it’s CEO $13 million from 2009 through 2013 and spent our tax dollars on over 19,000 local TV commercials. I do not believe Agora should receive one cent of my neighbors’ tax dollars.

Instead of posting “In God We Trust”, how about a bill that would require charter and cyber schools to post their PA School Performance Profile scores prominently in any advertising paid for with public tax dollars?

It is curious indeed that Pearson has been so effective at buying a controlling interest in American education. It is curious because in school we were always taught that heathy competition produces better products, that America reveres an open field for new products, and that monopolies are clumsy and inefficient. We were also taught that the public sector belongs to the public, not to private corporations.

This post, by Jennifer Job of UNC Chapel Hill, follows the money in trying to understand how Pearson inverted these axioms. How did Pearson become a dominating force American education? She examines the tentacles of power. Maybe the CEO of Pearson should be our next Secretary of Education. But no, that would mean taking a salary cut.

Back in 2011, the Florida legislature decreed that every student must pass an online course as a graduation requirement. Was this decision based on research about the value of online learning? No. It was justified as a means of readying all students for an online workplace but there is as yet no solid evidence that students learn better online. Perhaps it was sheer coincidence that the legislature’s mandate coincided with former Governor Jeb Bush’s determination that digital learning was the wave of the future; Jeb launched a national campaign, well funded by the technology industry, to promote digital learning, including a high school graduation requirement to take at least one or two courses online or no diploma. Six states have since adopted Jeb’s propsal and require students to take at least one course online as a graduation requirement. That sold a lot of new hardware and software but there is still no evidence of its necessity or value.

The Orlando Sentinel found that many seniors are familiar with digital technology but they have not met their graduation requirement:

“More than 11,000 Central Florida 11th-graders — about 43 percent of the region’s juniors — have not yet passed an online course, even though they must do that to earn a diploma next year. The class of 2015 is the first to fall under the online-learning requirements the state adopted four years ago.

“Spencer Thompson, 16, met the requirement at his parents’ insistence, but he isn’t surprised many classmates have not.

“I think it’s forcing a lot of kids to do something they don’t want to do,” said the junior at Hagerty High School in Seminole County.

“Some teenagers think they learn better with an in-person teacher, Spencer said, and some have found it a hassle to fit an online course into their schedule. Online courses, he added, are a useful option — he’s taking a virtual math class next year — but shouldn’t be required.”

Now districts are scrambling to find ways to help students meet the requirement for virtual coursework. “Orange, Seminole and Volusia schools next school year will enroll any 12th-grader who hasn’t taken an online class in new “blended learning” economics or government courses.

“These courses will be taught during the school day, with a teacher at the helm, but at least 50 percent of their lessons — enough to meet the state’s requirement — will be delivered via computer. Because economics and government both are required for graduation and typically taken senior year, administrators have a captive audience and a way to make sure students meet the online rule.”

Some students don’t have a computer or Internet access at home. Some prefer face-to-face interaction with a teacher. For a time, students took their drivers education courses online, but “the Legislature later decided that would not count for the graduation rule.

“This year, lawmakers reversed themselves, so if Gov. Rick Scott signs the latest bill, starting in July students can again use an online driver’s education class to help earn their diploma.”

Really, it shouldn’t matter what course the student takes as long as the purpose of the mandate is filled: to divert more public money to private vendors.

In Maine, Jeb Bush’s “Digital Learning Now” campaign stalled when a local reporter wrote an award-winning story about the money trail connecting Bush’s Foundation for Educational Excellence, the tech vendors, and Maine politicians.

Alan Singer asks why National Heritage Academies is still in business, in light of its business practices. For-profit companies are good at making profits, and that’s what NHA does well.

NHA has most of its charters in Michigan, where more than 80% of charters operate for-profit. It has ties to ALEC and conservative think tanks.

It also operates charters in other states.

Singer writes:

“In 2005, the State University of New York closed the Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School because of poor academic performance by its students. Four years later the former charter school’s board of directors sued the for-profit management company, National Heritage Academies. The suit claimed that National Heritage Academies failed to provide the promised “management, operation, administration, accounting and education” which resulted in the school losing its state charter. In addition, the board blamed the management company for the loss of over $2 million.

“In March 2010 the Rochester Leadership Academy Charter School board and National Heritage Academies reached an out of court settlement. National Heritage Academies agreed to “donate” $175,000 to a non-profit organization selected by the charter school, however because of a confidentiality clause in the agreement no other details were released to the public.

“National Heritage Academies is a for-profit corporation based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It operates 75 schools in nine states with approximately 50,000 students. In 2011-2012, it was the third largest for profit charter school company in the United States based on number of schools with second largest number of students.”

NHA also operates charters in Brooklyn. “In May 2014, the New York Daily News reported that National Heritage Academies charged its Brooklyn Dreams Charter School $2.3 million a year to rent space in a Catholic Church that the management company leased from the church for much less. The going rate for rental of this kind was between $14.25 and $25.50 per square foot, but National Heritage Academies charged the school $46.99 per square foot. While neither the management company nor the church would admit how much the company was actually paying to the Brooklyn diocese, the New York Post claimed it was only $264,000 per year. National Heritage Academies also charged another charter school it manages, Brooklyn Scholars, well over the market rate.”

A good business.

Teachers College Press has published a major study of venture philanthropy and its efforts to introduce market forces into teacher education. It was written by Kenneth Zeichner and Cesar Pena-Sandoval of the University of Washington in Seattle.

The article focuses on the key role of the NewSchools Venture Fund in promoting legislation to authorize charter academies to train teachers and principals. This close examination of the NSVF is especially pertinent now that its most recent CEO, Ted Mitchell, was named as Undersecretary of Education, and will play a large role in shaping higher education policy.

The strategy of the venture philanthropists is by now familiar: first, proclaim that traditional institutions are failing; second, declare a crisis; third, propose market-based solutions accompanied by grandiose promises.

Here is a summary of the study:

“Background & Purpose:

“This article focuses on the growing role of venture philanthropy in shaping policy and practice in teacher education in the United States. Our goal is to bring a greater level of transparency to private influences on public policy and to promote greater discussion and debate in the public arena about alternative solutions to current problems. In this article, we focus on the role of one of the most influential private groups in the United States that invests in education, the New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF), in promoting deregulation and market-based policies.

“Research Design:

“We examine the changing role of philanthropy in education and the role of the NSVF in developing and promoting a bill in the U.S. Congress (the GREAT Act) that would create a system throughout the nation of charter teacher and principal preparation programs called academies. In assessing the wisdom of the GREAT Act, we examine the warrant for claims that education schools have failed in their mission to educate teachers well and the corresponding narrative that entrepreneurial programs emanating from the private sector are the solution.

Conclusions:

“We reject both the position that the status quo in teacher education is acceptable (a position held by what we term “defenders”) and the position that the current system needs to be “blown up” and replaced by a market economy (“reformers”). We suggest a third position (“transformers”) that we believe will strengthen the U.S. system of public teacher education and provide everyone’s children with high-quality teachers. We conclude with a call for more trenchant dialogue about the policy options before us and for greater transparency about the ways that private interests are influencing public policy and practice in teacher education…

“This article examines the increasing role of venture philanthropy (Reckhow, 2013; Saltman, 2010; Scott, 2006) and the ideas of educational entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation in influencing the course of federal and state policies and practices in teacher education in the United States.”

Somehow I missed this piece when it appeared several months ago. It is a Mercedes classic, where she shows her skill at reading tax returns and connecting the dots.

You may or may not recall that Attorney General of New York Eric Schneiderman fined the Pearson Foundation $7.7 million for engaging in activities related to its for-profit parent Pearson. In some regions, this fine would be referred to as “chump change” or “chicken feed” for a billion-dollar corporation.

Mercedes digs into this story and finds a golden goose. And the golden goose is the Common Core standards.

The firm created by Andre Agassi with investors plans to an additional $1 billion to build new charters in urban districts.

Investors say the offer is appealing because of the returns.

Agassi formed a new investment partnership with capital investor Bobby Turner called Turner-Agassi.

It has already built 39 charters.

“Among the Turner-Agassi fund’s investors is the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which is focused on education and entrepreneurship and has about $2 billion under management. The Kansas City, Missouri-based foundation’s main reason for backing the fund was its “potential for future investment returns,” Chief Investment Officer Mary McLean said in an e-mail.”

Read the story and see if you can find a single reference to education in any context other than a chance to make money.