Archives for category: For-Profit

 

Steven Singer says that 10 of Pennsylvania’s 15 cybercharters are operating without acharter. They have expired. This is a scandal-ridden sector that makes big profits but supplies a 9th-rate education for gullible children and families. None has ever met state standards. They should all be closed down.

They get full tuition and supply a computer and online instruction.

Scam. Rip-off.

The founder of Pennsylvania’s largest cybercharter was convicted of tax evasion for failing to report the $8 million he embezzled.

Too much money and no accountability.

Close them all.

Rhese fraudulent “schools” drain money from public schools in the state:

 

Cyber charter drain on Pa districts

Cyber Charter Name 2016-17 Enrollment 2016-17 Revenue from other LEAs
Central PA Digital Learning Foundation CS 199 $2,593,901
Commonwealth Charter Academy CS 9,008 $116,686,603
PA Distance Learning CS 681 $8,751,302
Reach Cyber CS 714 $10,000,219
Susq-Cyber CS 97 $1,064,230
Pennsylvania Virtual CS 2,299 $27,814,441
21st Century Cyber CS 964 $12,683,880
PA Leadership CS 2,361 $34,051,813
Achievement House CS 458 $7,157,951
Agora Cyber CS 5,883 $91,689,396
Esperanza Cyber CS 174 $2,215,660
ACT Academy Cyber CS 146 $1,584,130
Pennsylvania Cyber CS 9,723 $134,280,454
ASPIRA Bilingual Cyber CS 261 $4,178,502
Statewide Totals 32,968 $454,752,482

 

Audrey Watters writes here about the promises and realities of EdTech.

Why the boom in education technology? Is it the pursuit of the total transformation of schooling? Is it marketing, competition and the pursuit of profits? Is it an effort to cut costs by replacing humans with machines?

Watters writes:

OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, more than $13 billion in venture capital has been sunk into education technology startups. But in spite of all the money and political capital pouring into the sprawling ed-tech sector, there’s precious little evidence suggesting that its trademark innovations have done anything to improve teaching and learning.

Perhaps, though, that’s never really been the point. Rather, it may be that all the interest in education technology has been an extension of a long-running campaign to make over American schools into the image of corporate endeavor—to transform education into a marketplace for buzzword-friendly apps and instruction plans, while steadily privatizing public institutions of learning for the sake of enhancing the bottom lines of the business interests promoting investment-friendly school “reforms.”

Read about how the trustees of the Florida Virtual School responded to an auditor who was tasked with investigating its former general counsel. When she reported to the trustees, they made clear that they didn’t care what she found, interrupted her, and dismissed her findings out of hand.

This suggests that the Florida Virtual School should be investigated. It has 200,000 students across the state. How much money is it collecting from taxpayers? Where is the money going? How many students graduate? What is the quality of education delivered online? Do taxpayers care? Will Governor Ron DeSantis initiate an investigation?

Can pigs fly?

Scholars Preston C. Green III, Bruce D. Baker, Joseph O. Oluwole, and Julie F. Mead published this article comparing charter schools to subprime mortgages in the University of Richmond Law Review. It appeared in 2016, but it grows more apparent by the day that its warning was prescient. The similarities are striking.

The more authorizers in a state, the less attention is paid to quality. The authorizers have a profit motive to multiply charter schools because they collect a percent of the take. The authors discuss the predatory practices used to lure students to charter schools and the inevitable fraud and embezzlement associated with lack of regulation.

My favorite example of the way that Education Management Organizations profit from charter school rentals:

With respect to fiscal stewardship, charter school boards have the responsibility to ensure that their schools spend market value for the renting of facilities.108 For-profit EMOs have sought to enhance their revenues by charging exorbitant fees for these arrangements.109

For example, the Detroit Free Press reported that the National Heritage Academies (―NHA‖) charged each of its fourteen schools more than $1 million in rent per year.110 The Free Press review of the 2012–13 audits of more than fifty other charter schools run by other for-profit EMOs revealed that only seven charter schools spent more than $500,000 in rent. By contrast, all but one of NHA‘s schools spent more than $500,000 in rent.111 The newspaper also reported that NHA collected $380 million in rent, including nearly $42 million in 2013–14, since the company began running charter schools in 1995.112

The authors may or may not know that National Heritage Academies is owned by J.C. Huizenga, a family friend of the DeVos clan, based in Grand Rapids, affiliated with ALEC and other rightwing groups, and a multimillionaire from his other business interests.

The authors describe how a “bubble” happens, how certain populations are targeted, how they clamor to get in to what appears to be a good deal, then stampede out when the bubble bursts. This may be happening now in urban African American communities. The question that is not addressed is how to restore and rebuild a stable public school system that has been destroyed by predatory charters.

This article is worth your time.

Betsy DeVos often says that Florida is a national model of choice. You will understand why she says this when you read the report from a government watchdog agency called Integrity Florida. This group, which is not focused on education but on government ethics, reveals in detail what happens when government money is handed out freely to entrepreneurs without any oversight or accountability.

Corruption and malfeasance run rampant.

The biggest money to finance the privatization of Florida’s schools came from Betsy DeVos and the Walton Family and a gaggle of rightwing out-of-state elites.

Betsy and the Waltons and their rightwing allies bought the privatization of Florida’s schools.

Here is the executive summary:

Underfunding, coupled with the continual adoption of tax cuts that make adequate public-school spending harder and harder to attain, prompts a look into the future. How much further growth in the number of charter schools is likely? How will that growth affect traditional schools and the public education system?

The answer to the first question appears to be that growth will continue unabated as long as private charter companies consider public schools a profit-making opportunity and they find receptive audiences in the legislature. If current trends continue, a 2015 national report concluded, “Charter schools will educate 20-40 percent of all U.S. public-school students by 2035.”1 Reaching those percentages in Florida would require doubling to quadrupling charters’ current 10 percent share of all public school students.

Some charter and school choice advocates are clear about their goal. Charters already have “created an entire new sector of public education” and they ultimately may “become the predominant system of schools,” the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has said.2 And the ultimate hope of many, as Milton Friedman wrote (see Page 8), is to bring about a transfer of government to private enterprise, in part by “enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop” in education.

Continued growth in the charter sector will exacerbate a problem that seemingly runs against the Florida Constitution’s decree that the state must provide “a uniform system” of high-quality education. As the number of charters has grown, with different rules than in traditional schools, some question whether a uniform system actually exists today. If Amendment 8 had remained on the November ballot and passed, a state charter authorizer could have approved new charter schools without the consent of the school district. In that case, the school district would not “operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district,” as another provision of the Constitution requires.

As the Miami Herald has said during a charter school investigation,
“Charter schools have become a parallel school system unto themselves, a system controlled largely by for-profit management companies and private landlords – one and the same, in many cases – and rife with insider deals and potential conflicts of interest.”

Key Findings

• Charter school enrollment continues to grow in Florida and nationwide, although at a slower rate than in previous years.

• The number of charter schools managed by for-profit companies in Florida continues to grow at a rapid pace and now makes up nearly half of all charter schools in the state.

• Although many charter schools in Florida are high performing, research has found no significant difference in academic performance between charter schools and traditional public schools.

• Numerous studies have found that charter schools strain traditional schools and school districts financially.

• Charter schools were originally proposed as teacher-run schools that would use innovative techniques to be shared with traditional schools. Over time, the concept changed to set up a competitive relationship between charters and traditional schools rather than a cooperative one.

• Charter schools have largely failed to deliver the education innovation that was originally promised and envisioned.

• Some charter advocates have explicitly said their goal is to privatize education by encouraging a for-profit K-12 industry. Today some charter proponents see charter schools, rather than traditional ones, as the “predominant system of schools.”

• Since 1998, at least 373 charter schools have closed their doors in Florida.

• Local school boards have seen reduced ability to manage charter schools in their
districts.

• The Florida Supreme Court removed Constitutional Amendment 8 from the November 2018 ballot that would have created a statewide charter school authorizer. However, future attempts by the legislature to establish a statewide charter authorizer may occur and should be opposed. A state charter authorizer would preempt voters’ rights to local control of education through their elected school boards, even though local tax dollars would pay for charter expansion.

• The charter school industry has spent more than $13 million since 1998 to influence state education policy through contributions to political campaigns.

• The charter school industry has spent more than $8 million in legislative lobbying expenditures since 2007 to influence education policy.

• The legislature has modified the original Florida charter school law significantly over the years to encourage creation of new charters, increase the number of students in charter schools and enhance funding of charters, sometimes at the expense of traditional schools.

• Some public officials who decide education policy and their families are profiting personally from ownership and employment with the charter school industry, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.

• Lax regulation of charter schools has created opportunities for financial mismanagement and criminal corruption.

Policy Options to Consider

• Inasmuch as charter schools can be an inefficient and wasteful option for “school choice,” the legislature should evaluate the appropriate amount of funding the state can afford to offer in educational choices to parents and students.

• Require for-profit companies associated with charter schools to report their expenditures and profits for each school they operate.

• Require charter schools to post on their website their original application and charter contract along with their annual report, audit and school grade.

• Charter school websites should include lease agreements, including terms and conditions and who profits from the lease payments.

• Companies managing charter schools in more than one school district should have annual audits ensuring local tax revenue is being spent locally.

• Add additional criteria for school boards to consider when reviewing and deciding on a charter school application.

• Give local school boards more tools to manage the charter schools in their districts, including greater contractual oversight and the ability to negotiate charter contracts.

• Increase education funding to sufficiently fund all public schools to eliminate competition between traditional schools and charter schools for inadequate public education dollars.

• Prohibit charter schools from using public education funds for advertising to attract new students.

• Limit the amount of public funds that can be used for charter school facility leases to a certain percentage of the school’s operating budget.

• Require charter schools to report annually the number of dropouts, the number of withdrawals and the number of expulsions.

Go to pages 26-30 to see where the money came from to finance this plunder and privatization of Florida’s public schools. You will see familiar names.

Shaina Cavazos of Chalkbeat in Indiana reports on the startling graduation rate of Indiana’s publicly funded virtual charter school: 2%. Two percent.

“About 2 percent of Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy’s 1,009 seniors graduated, putting the school’s graduation rate below just two others — a school that caters to students with significant intellectual and behavioral disabilities and an adult high school that enrolls only a couple dozen students each and graduated no students last year. Across the state, the vast majority of schools graduate at least three-quarters of their senior students.”

Do you remember when charter advocates promised that charters would be more successful, more innovative, and more accountable than public schools? They are not. For-profit Virtual Charter Schools are scams. They are a waste of money. They are a public embarrassment. Why are they allowed to open?

Peter Greene explains here about this Indiana cybercharter, which buys its existence by paying legislators, then collects public money to not educate anyone. This is not unusual. As you will see from the graph he reproduces, lobbying and campaign contributions area part of their business.

For-profit cybercharters, whether K12 Inc. or Connections Academy, should be illegal. They take public money, lobby legislators, get abysmal results, and are never held accountable. ECOT in Ohio was the darling of Republican politicians, who were happy to give its graduation speech, even though ECOT has the lowest graduation rate in the nation.

At the Indiana cybercharter that Greene writes about, only 10% of the money collected is spent on instruction!

These cybercharters are not schools. They are corporate honey pots that wastepublic money and children’s time.

If a state has children who require homebound instruction, the state should provide the online instruction, using certified teachers, with no profits, no lobbyists.

The for-profit college chain Education Corporation of America is closing down. This is the kind of college that Betsy DeVos adores, wants to deregulate, and hopes will grow. But this one is a goner, leaving students with lots of debt and no education.

“The Education Corporation of America, one of the largest for-profit college chains, announced last week it was immediately closing more than 70 campuses in 21 states. Between fifteen and twenty thousand students are now in the unenviable position of being thousands of dollars in debt with no completed degrees or certifications and, reportedly, little prospect of being able to transfer their academic credits to different schools.

“NBC reports that in some instances, students were told in the middle of class — some of them while in the middle of their certification exams — that their school no longer exists. Their student debt, however, sure does.”

Fred Smith is a genuine Testing Expert. He has the technical expertise to dig deep into the numbers and understand what they mean and what they don’t mean. He spent most of his career at the New York City Board of Education. Now he is a valued consultant to the Opt Out Movement in New York. He knows fraud in testing and he’s not afraid to call it out.

Fred Smith is a hero of American education, and he here joins the honor roll.

Read this article about him, which contains links to his latest work.

I have posted several times about the disaster that is happening in Florida, which elected a governor who is a mini-me of Betsy DeVos and Jeb Bush. His name is Ron DeSantis. He did not talk much about education during the campaign, but now that he is governor-elect, he has chosen the F-team to carry out the wishes of ALEC, the Waltons, the Koch brothers, DeVos and every other malefactor of public education.

Peter Greene describes the members of the DeSantis team, every one of them seeking to divert public money to charter schools, religious schools, or for-profit scams. If you are the kind of person who likes to see train wrecks up close, please read this post.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development convened a meeting last spring in Portugal to discuss the condition and future of the teaching profession. Each nation present discussed its perspective. The following is the official summary of the presentation by the Minister of Education from Sweden.

To download the full report click here.

SCHOOL CHOICE

Sweden:

In the early 1990s, Sweden moved to a school choice system in which the education system changed from one where the vast majority of students attended the public school in their catchment area to one where many students opt for a school other than their local school, and where schools that are privately run and publicly funded compete with traditional public schools.

Over the past twenty-five years of this unlimited choice system in Sweden, student performance on PISA has declined from near the OECD average to significantly below the OECD average in 2012, a steeper decline than in any other country. The variation in performance between schools also increased and there is now a larger impact of socioeconomic status on student performance than in the past.

Swedish participants described Sweden’s education system as an object lesson in how not to design a school choice system. Housing segregation leads to school segregation, and if you add to that market mechanisms and weak regulation, the result is markedly increased inequity.

The decline in achievement has fueled a national debate about how to improve the Swedish education system, from revising school choice arrangements to improve the access of disadvantaged families to information about school choices and the introduction of controlled choice schemes that supplement parental choice to ensure a more diverse distribution of students among schools. The Swedish government wants to modify its school choice system but this is politically difficult.

The Swedish government is increasing resources to poor schools but has not been able to solve its problem of teacher shortages, which affect the poorest schools the most. The poorest schools have the least experienced teachers, who are overwhelmed by the many problems they face. Teachers also lack time to work with students, and surveys of students report a lack of trustful relations with teachers.