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

The Battle of Charlottesville

By dianeravitch
August 12, 2017 //
122

One person has died at Charlottesville, where white nationalists have gathered in a “Unite the Right” demonstration, protesting the planned removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.

It is hard to believe that there is so much hatred and bigotry concentrated in one place in 2017. We knew it existed but until now, it dared not show its ugly face so boldly.

Despite Trump’s efforts to denounce the violence, he is the hero of the white nationalists, aka “alt-right,” aka neo-Nazis.

David Duke is there, the dean of the loathsome KKK, openly praising Trump as the man who freed the haters to openly express their hate.

Thanks to those who bravely challenged the Deplorables.

We must be constantly on guard to prevent the peddlars of bigotry and hatred from polluting our society, our civil discourse, our future. It is indeed alarming to realize that Trump has encouraged them again and again–challenging President Obama’s birthplace, refusing to disown David Duke’s endorsement, appointing people to the Cabinet who disdain the enforcement of civil rights.

H.G. Wells long ago wrote that “civilization is more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” On a day like today, it seems that catastrophe is leading the race.

Categories Education Reform

Jan Resseger: Time to Shut Down Unqualified Charter Authorizers in Ohio!

By dianeravitch
August 12, 2017 //
7

Jan Resseger reports that Ohio charter law allows any non-profit to become a charter authorized, even if they have no education experience and even if they have no geographical proximity to the charters they allegedly oversee. The authorized collects 3% of the charters’ public funding, which can mean millions of dollars a year in found money. It certainly creates an incentive for authorizes to keep charters open and growing.

In the latest episode of a long-running drama called “How Charter Schools Fleece Taxpayers,” Resseger says that the Cleveland activists have called on the Ohio Department of Education to block the St. Aloysius Orphanage fromsponsoring charters in Cleveland. The Orphanage hired a for-profit corporation to manage the charters it sponsors from afar.

“In the news this week is charter school sponsor, St. Aloysius Orphanage—along with Charter School Specialists, the for-profit firm with which St. Aloysius Orphanage has contracted to provide all the services required of charter school sponsors by the Ohio Department of Education. St. Aloysius Orphanage was founded in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1837. It has evolved from a 19th century orphanage into a 21st century mental health agency, which also provides a local Cincinnati charter school for children needing special education services. St. Aloysius Orphanage has also become one of Ohio’s statewide charter school sponsoring agencies….

“There are some other serious problems with the new school planned by St. Aloysius at Orchard Park. Patrick O’Donnell, of the Plain Dealer, has been reporting for several weeks about the for-profit company with which St. Aloysius has contracted to open and manage the school, Cambridge Education Group. Cambridge’s Florida counterpart, Newpoint Education Partners has been indicted in Florida, as has the founder of both companies, Marcus May. O’Donnell explains: “Cambridge Education Group, the operator of 19 Ohio charter schools and of a new school about to open in Cleveland’s West Park neighborhood, is distancing itself from recent fraud and racketeering charges in Florida against founder Marcus May. But details are trickling out about how much that alleged fraud may have spread from Florida to the 19 schools Cambridge operates here in Ohio.

“And Cambridge and its counterpart in Florida, Newpoint Education Partners—a company that is itself under indictment in that state—have had a tight relationship for several years, besides just being founded by May. The school logos in both Ohio and Florida for Cambridge and Newpoint have the same theme…. and the two companies have shared the same officers at times, including Cambridge owner and President John Stack. Stack has not been charged in the case. His name does not appear in court filings against May… Stack said that he was unaware of any of the schemes to defraud schools of money that May is accused of.”

“Charter School Specialists, the for-profit company with which St. Aloysius Orphanage contracts to fulfill its sponsorship responsibilities, is headed by Dave Cash, who is quoted in an additional article by Patrick O’Donnell about the problems at Cambridge-Newpoint, which St. Aloysius intends to hire to run its new Orchard Park charter school: “We have been aware of the legal concerns of Newpoint in Florida and have been in contact with the prosecutor in the case… The boards of each school that utilize Cambridge Education Group have also been monitoring the case and staying abreast of the issues.”

Resseger urges the state to tighten oversight of shoddy and shady charter sponsors.

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

Are We Edging Closer to Nuclear War?

By dianeravitch
August 11, 2017 //
34

Life almost seems normal. We discount what Trump says as bluster. But what if he means it? What if this reality show celebrity needs to prove his manhood? What if he sees his performance as a performance, nothing more?

First he warned North Korea with “fire and fury,” the likes of which the world has never seen. Today, he said our military power was “locked and loaded.” That’s NRA talk for ready to fire.

Is he really ready to launch a nuclear war? We pretend he doesn’t. We go about our daily lives. We shop. We vacation. We read. We watch TV. He doesn’t meant it, does he?

Then today, he warned that he was prepared to use “the military option” in Venezuela.

Maybe all this is bluster. Maybe he is “wagging the dog,” invoking a military crisis to bolster his poll numbers.

Barbara Tuchman taught us in her history “Guns of August” that catastrophic war can happen by blundering.

Last night, I found it impossible to sleep because I saw Trump on the news thanking Putin for expelling 755 staff members of the U.S. Embassy in Russia. Trump said we need to cut payroll, and Putin did it for us.

I was stunned. Did Trump really think that Putin had just reduced our staff by 60% and fired 755 people? Doesn’t he know that American foreign staff are not “fired” when they are expelled? Does he know they are still on payroll, with the possible exception of Russians who worked for the Embassy?

We know he plans to slash the budget of the State Department. Is he hoping that our personnel at embassies around the world will be similarly “fired” by the leader of the host country?

The depth of his ignorance and the size of his ego make for a dangerous combination. If nothing else, his bizarre combination of bellicosity towards North Korea and his appeasement of Russia suggests the influence of Steve Bannon, who wants to “deconstruct the administrative state.”

These are strange and dangerous times indeed. A megalomaniac who is entirely ignorant of history or policy is running the country.

Categories Education Reform

Billionaire “Regrets the Language” of Racial Remark, Eva Stays Mum

By dianeravitch
August 11, 2017 //
26

Billionaire Dan Loeb first insulted State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins–who is African-American– by saying she had done more to damage the lives of children of color than anyone wearing a hood, then issued a mealy-mouthed semi-retraction in the face of the outrage he encountered. He was just too passionate about school choice, he said, and didn’t watch his language.

“After midnight on Friday, Loeb apologized for his comment, saying, “I regret the language I used in expressing my passion for educational choice.” Loeb also deleted the Facebook post.”

He is chairman of the board of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy Network of charter schools. In addition to the millions he has personally donated, he has raised millions more from his Wall Street friends.

Will his racist comment spoil Eva’s big moment? Her memoir will be published this year, in which she projects herself as the new face of the privatization movement, once held by Michelle Rhee.

Loeb’s closeness to the Trump administration is not a plus in NYC. Eva too has boldly defended Trump, to the dismay of her teachers and other charter leaders. She was interviewed by Trump for Secretary of Education and welcomed Ivanka Trump and Paul Ryan to tour one of her schools. It matters not at all to her that Trump wants to slash funding on public schools. He wants to increase funding for charters and vouchers, and some of that money may come her way.

“Moskowitz recently angered some of her teachers when she refused to publicly state her support for undocumented and transgender students and staff in her schools, and finally relented to saying she would protect vulnerable students after a tense back-and-forth with staff members. In the weeks following Trump’s election, Moskowitz repeatedly refused to answer questions from reporters about whether she would commit to supporting undocumented students in her schools under Trump’s immigration policies.”

Say this for Eva: she stays focused on what matters most to her: money and power. Don’t expect her to distance herself from Loeb’s racist comments.

There is a subtext or narrative behind this story. You can flesh it out. It is about very rich and very powerful white people civilizing and “uplifting” little black children, while despising the black people who disagree with them. There is a word for it. I think it is called colonialism.

Categories Billionaires, Corporate Reform, Education Reform, Harlem Success Academy, Racism

Leo Casey: The Segregationist Origins of the Voucher Movement

By dianeravitch
August 11, 2017 //
7

In this article, published in Dissent, Leo Casey examines the racist origins of the voucher movement. Casey is executive director of the Albert Shanker Institute, which is a think tank and policy advocacy arm of the American Federation of Teachers. Casey taught in the New York City public schools and was an officer of the United Federation of Teachers.

He writes:

In recent weeks, the issue of private school vouchers has taken center stage in debates over the future of American education. Policy proposals to use public funds for private school tuition vouchers have a long history, dating back to a seminal 1955 essay by Milton Friedman. Over the last twenty-five years, small voucher programs have been established in several states, including Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin, as well as in Washington, D.C.
But the voucher issue took on a new urgency after the election of Donald Trump, given his campaign promise to establish a $20 billion national voucher program. When Trump unveiled his first proposed budget earlier this year, he partnered his program with massive cuts to existing federal education programs, taken largely from funding streams that support the education of students living in poverty. Betsy DeVos, Trump’s secretary of education, is a long-time partisan of vouchers and has been cheerleader in chief for Trump’s education budget cuts and proposed voucher program…

Following the Brown decision, white Southern leaders determined to resist. Nowhere was that resistance more extreme than in Prince Edward County in Virginia:

With the backing of Virginia’s powerful segregationist senator Harry F. Byrd, the white elite of Prince Edward County defied the Brown decision by closing the entire public school system and diverting public education funds into vouchers to be used at a segregated private academy that only white students could attend. As the battles over the implementation of Brown played out, African-American students were denied access to education for five years in a row. Prince Edward County thus stands as an exemplar of the post-Brown segregationist defiance of school integration and the pivotal role of school vouchers in that effort.
An honest appraisal of the events in Prince Edward County poses a major challenge for voucher advocates. This history is thoroughly documented, both in historian Richard Kluger’s authoritative study of Brown and its aftermath and in two excellent scholarly books on the specific events in Prince Edward County, by Christopher Bonastia and Jill Ogline Titus respectively. There is simply no denying the historical connection between the birth of private school voucher policies and segregationist defiance to Brown. But Prince Edward County is only the beginning of the story.

The intellectual guru of the voucher movement was libertarian economist Milton Friedman. His seminal essay on vouchers was published in 1955, at the same time that southerners were thinking up the best ways to defy the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision.

Writing a year after the Brown decision, with segregationist defiance in full bloom, Friedman’s essay explicitly addresses the question of vouchers and school segregation in a lengthy footnote. Readers may be aware that the voucher proposal “has recently been suggested in several southern states as a means of evading the Supreme Court ruling against segregation” and conclude that this is a reason to oppose them, Friedman begins.

But having reflected on this subject, he has decided otherwise.

Friedman’s argument stakes out three positions that most readers will find on their face incongruent. First, he declares: “I deplore segregation and racial prejudice.” Second, though, he avows his opposition to the “forced nonsegregation” of public schools, by which he means the desegregation of public schools that has just been mandated by Brown. Striking a strange posture of neutrality in the great historic battle to abolish Jim Crow segregation that was opened with Brown, he proclaims that he is also opposed to “forced segregation.” Rather, he seeks a third way: the privatization of public education through vouchers. And finally, Friedman contends that in this system of vouchers, parents should be free to send their children to any private school they choose, including “exclusively white schools.” Once public funds are put in private hands in the form of vouchers, he argues, it would be wrong to prohibit their use in support of racially segregated education.

This last position is precisely the posture that enabled and protected segregationist defiance of Brown in Prince Edward County and throughout the South. Indeed, in his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman offers explicit approval of the Virginia law that authorized school vouchers, including those used in Prince Edward County, arguing implausibly that it would have the unintended effect of undermining racial segregation. In fact, the law had precisely the intended effect. For the five years before the Supreme Court ruled that Prince Edward County public schools must be reopened, African-American students were deprived of all education, while white students attended a segregated white academy. After Prince Edward County’s public schools were reopened in 1964, they were underfunded (the county spent twice as much on vouchers as it did on its public schools) and only a handful of white students attended them; the great preponderance of white students used vouchers to attend the segregated Prince Edward Academy. In 1969, the courts finally struck down the Virginia voucher law Friedman supported, ruling that it permitted the continuance of racially segregated education.

Casey goes on to analyze Friedman’s views about vouchers and the freedom of the individual to do as he wished, as compared to the government’s responsibility to provide for the common welfare.

Vouchers are Friedman’s libertarian political philosophy in action—educational freedom through privatization, replacing the public provision of education with a marketplace. Nevertheless, they depend on public subsidy: Friedman proposes turning over the public funds used for education to individuals, creating an exclusive property right to use those funds in any private school they choose. Precisely because he sees private school vouchers as a property right, he is unwilling to limit how they may be used: their bearers must be free to choose racially segregated schools. In this ideological vision, one turns a blind eye to the damage done to the education of African-American students by segregated schools—damage that vouchers actively perpetuated post-Brown—even when it stares you in the face.

Vouchers, Casey argues, are multipliers of inequality, as are similar efforts to privatize public provision of public goods and services:

The unregulated market in which Friedman places all his trust is an inequality multiplier. This effect is most readily observed in income inequality and concentrations of wealth, but it is no less present around other axes of inequality, notably around race and around gender. After the end of de jure racial segregation and the desegregation of the public sector in areas such as health care and education, the historic exploitation of African Americans persisted in other forms, including discrimination in the marketplace in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Without government regulation of markets, without the enforceable prohibition of discrimination, there are only a few, limited restraints on that exploitation. Moreover, to the extent that one transforms the public provision of public goods, such as education, into unregulated markets—as Friedman proposed to do with school vouchers—one expands the ways in which racial discrimination may be exercised. To address the inequality multiplier effect of the marketplace—including the inequality born of the historic oppression of African Americans—one needs both government regulation of the marketplace and the public provision of public goods. Yet Friedman opposes both on principle. For him, government is almost always the enemy, even when it is providing positive freedoms.

Despite protestations from rightwing think tanks and policy advocates, the history of vouchers is firmly rooted in segregationist practices.

Try as privatization advocates might, there is no getting around the segregationist history of school vouchers in the United States. From Milton Friedman to the recalcitrant white elites of Prince Edward County and the legislators they voted in, the forerunners of today’s “school choice” movement understood their freedom as the freedom to deny others an equal education. That history continues into the present: empirical studies of vouchers programs in the United States and internationally show that they increase segregation in schools. As a Trump administration that openly appeals to white racial resentment proposes a massive school voucher program, we would be foolish to ignore the policy’s origins.

Categories Education Reform, History, Segregation, Vouchers

Daniel Loeb, Hedge Fund Manager and Chairman of Success Academy, Slanders African-American Legislator

By dianeravitch
August 11, 2017 //
18

Daniel Loeb, billionaire chair of the board of Success Academy Charter Schools, slandered State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, an African-American woman who is the Democratic leader of the State Senate.

The backstory is that Cuomo has collaborated with a group of breakaway Democrats who side with the Republicans in the State Senate. Although Democrats have the majority in the Senate at 32-31, the so-called Independent Democrats vote with the Republicans, assuring that Republicans continue to control the Senate even though they are in the minority. Charter supporters, like Daniel Loeb, know that the interests of both charters and the financial community are safe with the Republicans. If Democrats had enough votes to control the State Senate, Senator Stewart-Cousins would be majority leader. Cuomo likes having Republicans in control because it allows him to be the broker between the Assembly and the Senate. Cuomo prides himself on his fiscal conservatism, so he is happy to have Republicans running the upper chamber of the legislature. It also guarantees that Cuomo won’t be forced to veto progressive legislation.

In a private meeting with Democratic members of the State Senate, trying for unity, Cuomo noted that most of the Senate members were from New York City, and that the leader of the Independent Democrats, Jeffrey Klein (whose district is mainly in the Bronx, with a sliver in suburban Westchester), had a better understanding of the suburbs than the city representatives. At that point, Senator Stewart-Cousins objected and pointed out that she represents the suburbs of Westchester.

After this story appeared, Daniel Loeb hurled a slur at Senator Stewart-Cousins on Facebook.

The hedge fund manager Daniel S. Loeb, a prominent supporter of charter schools and a major financial backer of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and congressional Republicans, accused the African-American woman who leads the Democrats in the New York State Senate of having done “more damage to people of color than anyone who has ever donned a hood.”

Mr. Loeb made the reference, apparently to the Ku Klux Klan, in a posting on Facebook in response to an article in The New York Times this week in which the Democratic leader, Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, confronted Mr. Cuomo about prejudging her based upon race and gender.

In a private meeting last month, The Times reported, Ms. Stewart-Cousins said to Mr. Cuomo during a debate over who best understands suburban voters: “You look at me, Mr. Governor, but you don’t see me. You see my black skin and a woman, but you don’t realize I am a suburban legislator.”

Mr. Loeb weighed in on behalf of Senator Jeffrey D. Klein of the Bronx, the leader of a group of Democrats that has split from Ms. Stewart-Cousins.

“Thank God for Jeff Klein and those who stand for educational choice and support Charter funding that leads to economic mobility and opportunity for poor knack kids,” Mr. Loeb wrote, with “knack” apparently a typographical error for “black.” “Meanwhile hypocrites like Stewart-Cousins who pay fealty to powerful union thugs and bosses do more damage to people of color than anyone who has ever donned a hood.”

Mr. Klein leads a group of eight Democrats who in 2011 broke away from the main Democratic conference, led by Ms. Stewart-Cousins. Mr. Klein’s group, the Independent Democratic Conference, has in the past sided with the Republicans in the Senate to keep Ms. Stewart-Cousins out of the powerful post of majority leader.

Daniel Loeb is a major player in the charter world because of his chairmanship of Success Academy. He is also a major player in politics because he is a big donor. When Ivanka Trump visited New York City, Loeb escorted her on a tour of one of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter schools.

Mr. Loeb and his wife have donated more than $170,000 to Mr. Cuomo in recent years, state records show. He has also supported Republicans, with contributions including $500,000 to a super PAC that supported Jeb Bush in 2015, $150,000 to the Republican National Committee that year and $700,000 to a super PAC supporting House Republicans in 2016.

Carol Burris wrote recently that Loeb had given even more money to Cuomo than the Times reported:

Success Academy Chairman Daniel Loeb, founder and chief executive of Third Rock Capital, and his wife, have directly contributed over $133,000 to Cuomo. Since 2015, Loeb has added $300,000 to Moskowitz’s PAC, and another $270,000 to other PACs that support Cuomo. That’s more than $700,000.

Daniel Loeb shows the true colors of the charter industry in New York City. He doesn’t pretend to be a liberal. He has the nerve to call an African-American legislator “worse” than the Ku Klux Klan. What do you call a man like this? Indecent? Shameless? Arrogant?

For many reasons, I place billionaire Daniel S. Loeb on this blog’s Wall of Shame.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Cuomo, Andrew, Education Reform, New York, Privatization, Wall of Shame

Cuomo Wants to Find Rich Sponsors for Subway Stations; de Blasio Wants to Fix Them

By dianeravitch
August 10, 2017 //
39

Donald Cohen of “In the Public Interest” lives in California but has been following the debate about repairing the NYC subways.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_598c9d3fe4b0caa1687a5e6f

A couple weeks ago, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that New York City subway stations could soon be renamed after corporate sponsors under a new “adopt-a-station” program. Sponsors, which already include MasterCard, BlackRock, and the private equity firm Blackstone (whose CEO, Stephen Schwarzman, happens to be a key advisor to President Donald Trump), would also help Cuomo “develop private-sector solutions to problems facing the system.”

“We’ve done this in the parks system, and it worked,” Cuomo said.

Actually, it hasn’t, and that’s exactly why the “adopt-a-station” idea is dangerous. New York City’s public parks are suffering from what ails many of the country’s public goods: chronic underfunding. Yet some, like Bryant Park and the High Line, appear to be thriving. What’s going on?

While parks in the poorer outer boroughs fall into disrepair, those in the wealthiest areas rake in massive private donations for improvements and maintenance. Hedge fund billionaire John Paulson—also a Trump backer—gave $100 million to Central Park a few years ago on the condition that none of it be spent on other parks.

When funded by the whims of corporations and Wall Street, public goods meant to serve everyone become separate and unequal systems that further divide communities and perpetuate inequality. One can imagine sponsors lining up for the busiest subway stations, while those in poorer areas continue to suffer the brunt of budget cuts.

Now, New York City’s subway system, like much of America’s infrastructure, needs substantial investment—but funding must be sustainable and with no private strings attached.

Luckily, such funding is on the table. On Monday, Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a “millionaire’s tax” to help fund repairs. A portion of the ongoing revenue, collected from an estimated 32,000 wealthy New Yorkers, would even go to subsidizing fares for the 800,000 city residents living in poverty.

Whether the tax will pass will depend on the people of New York that want a fair and prosperous city and state. But the choice between a handful of New Yorkers paying their fair share for a world-class transit system and selling sponsorships to multi-national corporations is clear.

One supports a thriving city in which everyone, no matter which neighborhood they live in or how much money they have, can get to and from work, the doctor’s office, and the grocery store. The other is, well, just another ‘America for Sale’ sign.

Categories Bill de Blasio, Cuomo, Andrew, Education Reform, Privatization

Mateo, a YouTube Sensation: 54+ Million Views

By dianeravitch
August 8, 2017 //
7

You may have seen this already. Three-year-old Mateo makes his case for cupcakes.

“Linda, Linda, listen to me!”

It is very funny. This boy will be a great lawyer someday.

Categories Education Reform

John Oliver: Why Stephen Miller Was Not Elected President of His High School

By dianeravitch
August 8, 2017 //
21

Stephen Miller is a 31-year-old man who worked for Jeff Sessions when he was a Senator from Alabama. Now he works in the White House and is rumored to be in line to be the next Communications Director.

Miller is the guy who explained why the Emma Lazarus poem attached to the Statue of Liberty is no longer relevant. That won him plaudits from his colleagues.

John Oliver somehow obtained a tape that was made when Stephen Miller ran for Class President of his high school in uber-privileged Santa Monica. Watch it and you will understand why he was attracted to Sessions, Bannon, and Trump.

By the way, John Oliver’s takedown of rightwing talkshow host Alex Jones (the guy who spread the vicious claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax) is well worth watching. In fact, it is both informative and hilarious. If you watch, watch it to the very end, where Oliver does a very funny parody sketch.

Categories Education Reform

Laura Chapman on Charter Scams and Frauds

By dianeravitch
August 8, 2017 //
16

 

 

Our faithful friend Laura Chapman writes:

“There is a hybrid model for charter school development. Real estate is only one part of it. It has multiple components.

The charter company has its own land acquisition arm, its own construction contracts, has a master architectural plan for the design of the school facility (K-8), has a “services” arm for front and back office operations, vendors for components of the preferred curriculum, managerial schemes for accountability and marketing, templates for outsourcing transportation, and a legal firm at the ready to draft very specific policies bearing on attendance, conduct of students and staff, and so on.

A school “district” for the charter school is informally defined by a specific recruiting area for students and by the availability of land for development. Development includes getting subcontractors for school construction, operation, and services such as meals and transportation. The charter school and its self-defined district may have more than one school and the charter district may overlap one or more regular public school districts (compete for those public school students).

Here is one example of the model, developed by Athlos Academies.

First, there is no special focus on low-income neighborhoods. The Athlos Leadership Academy operates in a north Minneapolis suburb that overlaps school districts for Maple Grove, Brooklyn Park, and Falcon Heights. All have relatively low poverty rates. In Falcon Heights the median home value is $323, 805. Maple Grove’s poverty rate is below 5%.

The governing board for the Athlos Leadership Academy is elected. The policy states: “Those eligible to vote for the governing board for the school are restricted to staff members, board members, and parents or legal guardians of children enrolled at the school. … Voters will need to show a photo ID in order to verify voting eligibility. ALA seeks school board nominees with professional experience in business, marketing, law, accounting, fundraising, education, and human resources. The ALA Board is comprised of community, parent, and teacher board members with professional expertise in one or more of the aforementioned categories.”

Second, the Athlos model clearly separates Management decisions from Governance. Governance for ALA means that board points to an issue and a law firm is contracted to write up a policy, citing any federal regulations or state statutes that may be relevant. “Thin” democracy works for the governance of the school. Management is everything else.

Third, in addition to marketing specific features of an Atlos curriculum (see below) the Atlos Model includes a full-service multi-stage package for starting a school.“ This includes everything from developing a charter application and building a facility, to school operations and educating students.”

A complete package of Athlos Academies services includes:<br />PRE-APPROVAL SERVICES: Charter application development; Authorizer approval assistance; Board governance training.

PRE-OPENING SERVICES: Site identification, Facility construction, Lease agreement, Board policy development, Board training and cultivation, Budget development, School launch, Staff professional training, Staff and student recruitment.

OPERATIONAL SERVICES: Bond market assistance; Research-based curriculum; Professional development; Website, email, social media, and marketing; Payroll processing and benefit management; Budgeting and financial management; Uniforms for purchase; Data reporting tools. https://athlosacademies.org/start-a-school.

Fourth, the Athlos charter model appeals to parents/caregivers who want a school that offers a “three pillar” program with an explicit focus on character education, healthy living and physical fitness, and academics.

Pillar One. The Character Curriculum is present in every grade. “Athlos Character is part of a formal, year-long curriculum. Our proprietary lesson plans identify 12 essential performance traits.” (e.g., Grit, Self-control, Optimism, Leadership, Social Intelligence, Courage, Focus, Integrity, and Humility ). “These concepts become part of daily academic instruction and athletic activities.” The traits are taught through “Character Huddles” where “performance attributes” are discussed in relation to student goals and other real-life examples. “Reflections” are re-teaching exercises lead by students. “These are the strengths and skills that social researchers identify with success—far more so than an academic GPA. And they act as the foundation Athlos Leadership Academy uses to point our students toward success.”

Pillar Two. The Athletic Curriculum is a fitness and health program—not training for sports, although some team sports are included for “fun” and to teach the virtues of team play and competition. The program is intended to support the Academic Curriculum, reinforce the Character Curriculum, and ”create good habits, improve skills, and promote healthy bodies.” This aspect of the program is marketed as essential for mental, emotional, and social well-being, not just for physical fitness and health.

Pillar Three. The Academic Curriculum. This will vary by state, with non-standard components and topics developed as needed. So far, the Athlos Curriculum Model is for Pre-Kingergarten to grade eight. I analyzed the curriculum components.

The curriculum is keyed to college preparation with one target, high scores on PSAT, SAT, and ACT tests. The curriculum uses Common Core resources in language arts and mathematics, along with vocabulary exercises drawn from Core Knowledge. Science modules and hands-on kits of materials were developed at the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California. Traditional skills in cursive writing are part of the program.

I estimated that the instructional resources—some with scripted lessons, posters, worksheets, online digital materials—would require contracts for at least twenty vendors, some of these very well known, including Pearson, Prentice Hall, and Scott Foresman.

You can see that the facilities are designed as if for a suburban community and to compete with schools that taxpayers have financed. https://athlosacademies.org/schools-our-facilities/

The founders of the Althos Model are claiming to be on a social mission. The mission is market-based education with a full-service operation that prevents public participation in anything except supplying funds to combine with those of venture capitalists.

http://thecharterschoolfund.com/index.html

Categories Education Reform
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »