Archives for category: For-Profit

The blogger Plunderbund here documents the conditions in which certain major charter operators in Ohio become financially very successful.

In this instance, he tells the story of William Lager, founder of ECOT (the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow), who has generously donated $1.3 million to the Ohio Republican Party in the last decade.

His generosity has been amply repaid with generous state funding for his businesses.

Plunderbund writes:

“This weekend we posted about Ohio’s largest charter school, ECOT, being recommended to receive a “bonus” check of $2.9 million that would be quickly rerouted into ECOT owner William Lager’s other private businesses. This is not the first raise that ECOT has received this year. Through the Kasich budget passed this summer, ECOT received the largest increase in state funding for any charter school in Ohio at $4.8 million. This far surpassed the second largest increase of $1.35 million given to Ohio Virtual Academy.

“It’s good to buy friends in high places…

“Since 2004, Lager, the ECOT CEO, has been donating to Ohio political campaigns with staggering regularity and in staggering numbers for someone whose main livelihood is providing a “public” education to Ohio children…”

He supplies the facts and figures.

Let’s put it this way: Mr. Lager’s generosity has been repaid many times over by his benefactors, using tax dollars that were supposed to go to educate Ohio’s students.

Anthony Cody notes that the definition of education has become increasingly utilitarian, thus narrowing what is taught and learned only to the skills that make students college-and-career ready. Joy in learning, aesthetic delight in the arts, the intellectual pleasure of history and literature take a backseat to that which is marketable. Are we all meant to serve the needs of corporate America?

He writes:

“One of the undercurrents fueling concerns about the Common Core is the relentless focus on preparation for “college and career.” Education has always had dual aspirations – to elevate mind and spirit, through the investigation of big ideas, and the pursuit of fine arts and literature, and the service of the economic needs of individuals and society. What we are feeling in our modern culture is the absolute hegemony of commercial aims, as if every activity that does not produce profit is under assault.

“And in our classrooms there is a parallel assault on activities that do not “prepare for college and career,” which has been redefined, in practical terms, as preparation for the tests that have been determined to be aligned with that goal. Preparation for college and career has begun to feel more and more like “preparation to make yourself useful to future corporate employers.”

Cody finds that Mario Savio’s famous rant in 1964 against the ties between the university and the corporations presaged what is happening today. Savio might as well have been speaking for the moms and dads of today when he said fifty years ago:

“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Cody adds:

“In our classrooms, the use of standardized tests to measure and monitor learning, and the imposition of ever-more tightly managed and even scripted curricula, make teachers and students feel as if we are part of a machine. The canaries in the coal mine are the students who do not fit in. But our modern system has a pharmacological answer for that, as this recent New York Times magazine article reported that more than one in ten children between ages 4 and 17 are now diagnosed with ADHD, and many of them are medicated daily. That is 6.4 million children. Before the early 1990s, this number was less than 5%. What has changed? According to the report,

“During the same 30 years when A.D.H.D. diagnoses increased, American childhood drastically changed. Even at the grade-school level, kids now have more homework, less recess and a lot less unstructured free time to relax and play. It’s easy to look at that situation and speculate how “A.D.H.D.” might have become a convenient societal catchall for what happens when kids are expected to be miniature adults. High-stakes standardized testing, increased competition for slots in top colleges, a less-and-less accommodating economy for those who don’t get into colleges but can no longer depend on the existence of blue-collar jobs — all of these are expressed through policy changes and cultural expectations, but they may also manifest themselves in more troubling ways — in the rising number of kids whose behavior has become pathologized.”

“Our education system, in attempting to make everyone fit the same standardized mold, so as to be of maximum usefulness to future employers, is medicating those who don’t fit the mold.”

Cody ends with a veiled prediction that spring 2014 may see the biggest effort ever by parents to remove their children from standardized testing.

Adam Schott and James Jack write here about the poor performance of cyber charters in Pennsylvania.

You might even say the abysmal performance of cyber charters.

Pennsylvania has 16, more of them than any state in the nation, and six more want to open. No wonder they want to open. It is a lucrative business.

They write:

If it was viewed as a single school district, Pennsylvania’s expansive cyber charter sector would represent Pennsylvania’s second-largest district, with more than 35,000 students attending 16 schools statewide. Cyber charters received approximately $366 million in taxpayer funds in 2012-13—drawing payments from 498 of the state’s 500 school districts.

Their performance is awful:

In 2011-2012, just one of the state’s then 12 cyber charter schools met state academic thresholds for adequate yearly progress, while eight schools landed in one of several stages of “corrective action”—the lowest level of academic performance.

A 2011 report by Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes that examined Pennsylvania charter schools found that “performance at cyber charter schools was substantially lower than the performance at brick-and-mortar charters.”

Last week, Research for Action and our colleagues at the Education Law Center weighed new data: School Performance Profile scores, which are at the heart of the state’s new accountability plan under its No Child Left Behind waiver. We examined scores for the 11 cyber charter schools for which complete data were available—together, these schools educate nearly 17,000 students, or roughly half of the statewide cyber charter enrollment.

All 11 cybers scored among the lowest schools in the state. Not one of these cyber schools met or exceeded the average performance of Pennsylvania’s public and charter schools.

In fact, according to the state’s data, the average performance of cyber charters was more than 33 points behind that of traditional public schools, and nearly 23 points behind brick-and-mortar charter schools. Put another way, cyber charters—despite recent expansion—represent less than one half of one percent of the state’s schools, yet account for more than one-third of the state’s lowest-scoring based on that data.

 

Pennsylvania’s cyber charter schools enroll a student population that broadly reflects the state as a whole in terms of special education identification rates, English language learner status, and other characteristics. Yet the sector’s performance is well below that of the overwhelming majority of public schools, both traditional and brick-and-mortar charter schools.

 

Pennsylvania policymakers have an obligation to make decisions informed by all available evidence. We urge them to carefully consider the performance data on cyber charters as they consider further expansion of this sector.

Adam Schott is Director of Policy Research at Research for Action and a former Executive Director of the State Board of Education. James Jack is a Senior Research Associate at RFA.

ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) is the corporate-controlled organization that is pulling the strings on behalf of the privatization movement.

Its next meeting will be held in Washington, D.C., on December 6 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on H Street. Here is the agenda. If any reader of this blog attends, please send a report about the model laws that are adopted to destroy public education, reduce the status of the teaching profession, and mine the public treasury on behalf of private corporations.

Its model legislation for charter schools, vouchers, eliminating tenure and collective bargaining, and promoting virtual learning, has been adopted in state after state, especially where reactionary governors and legislatures are in control. ALEC has a detailed plan to privatize public education and create profits for entrepreneurs.

True conservatives do not support ALEC’s well-coordinated attack on public education. True conservatives respect the traditional institutions that have made America a great country. True conservatives do not blow up democratic institutions.

Keep us informed about the doings of this shadowy but powerful organization, whose members include some 2,000 state legislators, and whose donors include America’s largest corporations.

To learn more about ALEC, read ALEC Exposed, a website to tracking its activities and goals.

No wonder the big corporations and tech companies are so enthusiastic about Common Core.

The education industry is an emerging market!

Look at this Oregon-based company’s website, and you will see the possibilities. It will be supplying cloud-based resources for New York and other states.

And what a team! Fabulous corporate experience.

Wow! No wonder these business guys look down on teachers. You do the grunt work, you know, like doing stuff with kids every day, and they take home big bucks.

Want to know why spending on public education has mushroomed?

Look no farther than the booming education industry that federal dollars have created through No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, are siphoned away from schools to pay for consultants and services that have no track record but promise the moon. Private contractors will train your teachers, train your leaders, create teacher evaluation systems, sell you new technology, turn your school around with minimal or maximal pain, your choice.

As soon as Congress opens the door to the education industry, the industry returns the favor with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Our tax dollars at work!!! Al the while, class sizes grow larger, the arts are eliminated, and basic needs go unmet because “we can’t afford it.”

Consider NCLB’s requirement that low-scoring students must receive tutoring. A sound idea, no? Unfortunately, it encouraged the creation of thousands of inexperienced, incompetent tutoring companies that recruited students by promising rewards to students or principals. The results: Nil.

Consider this story from the Texas Tribune, republished in the New York Times:

“Under the No Child Left Behind tutoring program, underperforming schools had to set aside a portion of the federal financing they received for economically disadvantaged students to get outside tutoring. In Texas, with minimal quality control at the state level, it resulted in millions of dollars in public money going to companies that at best showed little evidence of their services’ academic benefit, and at worst committed outright fraud.

“The program has been suspended in Texas, as the state secured a waiver from the federal law’s requirements last month. Education officials have said that, for now, there are no plans to continue the program at the state level.

“But as No Child Left Behind awaits Congressional reauthorization, the tutoring industry is energetically pushing federal policy makers to preserve public financing for tutoring, either in the updated law or other legislation — lobbying efforts expected to be duplicated at the state level in Texas, where over the years tutoring companies have cultivated powerful political ties.

“I have no doubt that the next legislative session, they will lobby for this way of spending dollars to be decided in Austin instead of the neighborhood school level, and I think that would be a real disservice,” said State Representative Mike Villarreal, a San Antonio Democrat who passed legislation during the 2013 session tightening regulations on the federal tutoring program.

“The law resulted in a booming industry that created an unprecedented role for commercial tutoring companies in public education. At the time, the program’s proponents said such private-sector involvement would fuel innovation in public schools while offering top-notch instruction to students who needed it.

“Instead, it flopped, bringing years of complaints from school districts, which detailed practices like the use of incentives like iPads to recruit students into programs as well as significant concerns about instructional methods and falsified invoices.”

But the lucrative tutoring industry will not let failure for kids get in the way of profit, no-sir-see!

Here is more:

“Texas has taken a “shortsighted, irresponsible approach,” Stephanie Monroe, a former assistant secretary for education in the United States Office for Civil Rights, wrote in a letter to the editor published in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram in response to The Texas Tribune’s series on the program.

“Without the tutoring program, Ms. Monroe said, the state’s poorest students will “no longer have access to the services they need to succeed and otherwise are unable to afford.”

“She said her organization acknowledges that stronger oversight of tutoring services is needed. But Ms. Monroe, who left her government post in 2009 to found a lobbying firm, added that “allowing states like Texas to arbitrarily eliminate them altogether due to a few bad actors is just reckless public policy.”

“Tutor Our Children, which describes itself as a group dedicated to preserving free tutoring for economically disadvantaged students, has spent almost $900,000 in federal lobbying expenses, including on contracts with Ms. Monroe, since it began in 2010. An additional $500,000 has gone to marketing, public relations and fund-raising costs, according to the organization’s tax filings.”

The lobbying was intense in the governor’s office and the legislature:

“In the last two years, the company has spent an estimated minimum of $240,000 on lobbying teams in Austin and Washington. The company’s founder, Charles Young, has given more than $140,000 in political contributions to state Republican lawmakers, including $20,000 to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and $26,000 to Mr. Perry.

“Mr. Young served on a 2013 Texas Education Agency committee that developed recommendations for the state’s school accountability system — a panel that also included Sandy Kress, a former Bush education adviser who has lobbied for Tutors With Computers. The company’s own advisory board has included Rod Paige, the former United States secretary of education and Houston Independent School District superintendent, who helped put No Child Left Behind into place.”

This is called “leaving no child behind,” or “students first,” that is, as long as there are federal dollars attached.

Cindi Pastore created this multiple-choice exam for the people of Infiana.

It illustrates the current crazy situation there. Glenda Ritz won a startling upset victory last fall, winning more votes than Governor Pence. Yet Governor Pence has worked unceasingly to dilute Ritz’s authority and render her powerless to carry out her official duties. He and the unelected state board are thwarting her so they can continue to privatize education in the state of Indiana.

Here is the test:

An Eight Question High Stakes Test for Governor Pence, Brian Bosma, David Long, and Members of the State Board of Education

1. Who was elected by an overwhelming majority (roughly 1,300,000) of the voters (many of whom crossed their party lines) of this state to be the Indiana Superintendent of Public Schools?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

2. Who campaigned and won on the platform of re-introducing evidenced-based educational methods, policies, and standards including: more teaching and less testing, more local control for implementing standards, safe and respectful schools, high standards for educators, improved vocational education, and reserving public dollars for public schools?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

3. Who is a National Board Certified Teacher, holds two masters degrees with licenses to teach elementary, middle and high school in the areas of special education, general education, and library science, and has won both the Teacher of the Year for Washington Township Schools and a Golden Apple Award?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

4. Who held a Community Partners School Improvement Summit and started the Hoosier Family of Readers program since beginning her elected job of Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

5. Who has been continually thwarted in her attempts to carry out the duties of her office, the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, by a bombardment of politically motivated and unnecessary requests for ill-conceived action and irrelevant information?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

6. Who is being hurt by the Governor, the members of the SBOE, and those legislators who are being obstructionist to Superintendent Ritz’ work?
a. The CHILDREN of this state
b. The CHILDREN of this state
c. The CHILDREN of this state
d. The CHILDREN of this state
e. The CHILDREN of this state

7. Whose money is being wasted by the creation by Governor Pence of an agency with an non-elected head, that is essentially an attempt to be a duplication of the Indiana Department of Education?

a. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
b. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
c. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
d. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
e. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana

8. Who will respond to the bullying of Superintendent Ritz by the Governor, the SBOE board members, and members of the state legislature?
a. The VOTERS in Indiana
b. The VOTERS in Indiana
c. The VOTERS in Indiana
d. The VOTERS in Indiana
e. The VOTERS in Indiana

Answer Key: For each of questions 1-5, the answer is c. For each of questions 6-8, the answers are a,b,c,d, and e.

Grading Scale: A= 8 correct answers F= 0-7 correct answers

A reader in North Carolina updates us on the great tablet fiasco, the recriminations, and the eternal question: who is making a lot of money? Hint: not the teachers.

The reader writes:

Add to this fiasco ANOTHER one from North Carolina. (Greensboro’s NEWS AND RECORD has created a page for the great Tablet Deal Gone Wrong):

http://www.news-record.com/news/schools/collection_9555d386-2551-11e3-a120-0019bb30f31a.html

Scroll to bottom article discussing current Guilford County Schools Sperintendent Maurice Green’s connection to Peter Gorman, current senior vice-president for AMPLIFY and former superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools ( i.e. Green’s former boss). Green kept mum about the connection.

Key excerpt below from:
http://www.news-record.com/news/schools/article_9c78ebb8-bd9a-11e2-9fc2-0019bb30f31a.html

Gorman joined Amplify after serving as superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools from 2006 to 2011. Green was his deputy superintendent before leaving in 2008 to lead Guilford County Schools.

“It raises an eyebrow,” said Linda Welborn, school board member. “I could see the concern and possibly the perception from other people that are aware of the connection.
“Had I known, I probably would have asked more questions.”

Welborn and board members Ed Price and Darlene Garrett said staff should have mentioned that history when they recommended Amplify for the four-year contract.
But Price and Welborn said Amplify seemed worthy of the contract because it had the lowest bid and met the district’s criteria.

“The fact that (Gorman) worked there, that in and of itself would not have stopped me from voting for them if they had the best deal,” Price said.

“I do not question Mo Green’s integrity, and I don’t think he would have done something just because of his past relationship with Peter Gorman.”

Nora Carr, the district’s chief of staff, said Green purposely excluded himself from the review process so as not to influence the staff’s decision.

“He certainly made every effort to remove himself from the process so that the team could make decisions that were based on facts and the individual strengths of the proposals,” said Carr, who also worked for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools before coming to the district in 2008.

Carr said business connections in the education sector are common. Green had a previous work history with an employee of another company that bid on the PACE project, she said.

And he developed relationships with executives at Apple, which provided iPads to Montlieu Academy of Technology.

Green and school board Chairman Alan Duncan also used to work for the same law firm.
“Education is a small world,” Carr said. “If we ruled out every company that had a connection with us, we would have a very small pool to draw from.”
Still, some board members were not satisfied with the review process — either because the project team did not include teachers or because details weren’t provided on the other vendors.

Garrett, who voted against the Amplify contract, said she wanted to hear presentations from other companies.

“We should have had more information,” Garrett said. “We should have asked for it, but I think we were in a rush to approve it.”

The school district won a $30 million federal Race to the Top grant in December and is on a tight schedule to put digital devices in the hands of most middle school students this fall. The initiative is part of national efforts to improve student learning through digital technology.

But some people wonder who stands to benefit more from the trend — the students or the companies selling the technology.

“There is the concern that once you’re locked in there, what happens after the four years?” Welborn said about the devices. “This new age of electronic teaching is going to be huge money.”

A reader spots a niche business:

“How about the idea of online early childhood? Learning to play with virtual toys with virtual friends?”

So Los Angeles spent $1 billion on iPads, promising grand outcomes, closing the digital divide between rich and poor, the “civil rights issue of our time,” yada, yada, yada.

But as this blogger points out, this move was made without the most elementary planning or forethought.

Should anyone have been consulted before spending 25-year school construction bond money on iPads? Will voters ever again approve such a bond knowing that it may be diverted to an administrator’s pet project?

She asks questions that apparently never occurred to the administrators who bought the iPads:

“If the ipads stay in the classroom, how is their distribution to be managed in any way efficiently?

If in the classroom, is the physical integrity of the building sufficient to ensure everyone’s and everything’s safety?

If staying in the classroom, does that forfeit the device’s biggest potential, as substitutes for heavy, expensive, resource-intensive textbooks?

If not to stay in the classroom, how will internet access be managed among “not-wired”, very poor or chaotic homes?

How are electronics to be harnessed for education alone and not hijacked by its social, interactive component?

If not in the classroom, how to reconcile bond construction monies targeted to long-term infrastructure support, with transient instruction delivery tied to non-durable goods?

If not in the classroom, how to manage the high turnover (purportedly up to one-third) among students of some high-poverty communities? What is the implication for device-specific instruction? For physical disappearance of the devices?

When was the imperative of Common Core testing agreed upon, as it underlies the drive behind implementing the
ipad program precipitously?

When were teachers presented an honest cost:benefit analysis toward soliciting professional input regarding utility and efficacy in educating their students???

And:

“When were parents presented an honest cost:benefit analysis toward soliciting parental input regarding utility and efficacy in educating their child???

“The bottom line is: the people such massive programs with gargantuan implications affect, need to be asked first. A program of such eclipsing size and existential implications needs at the least to be tested, to be piloted and then: to be evaluated before approving or denying subsequent phases.”

“It is an incredibly uncomfortable position to feel patronized and exploited by in-house imperialists. How do these detached, possibly ulteriorly-motivated administrators know what is best in the classroom, without going into the classroom? Ask the denizens there what they need, and for some sense of the fallout.”

From California to New York, the same questions arise: why don’t the people making decisions about children and education listen to parents and educators?

In a democracy, consultation is necessary and wise. Great leaders know how to listen and are wiling to learn from their errors.