Archives for category: For-Profit
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Global Groups Collaborate to Introduce Free Market Education Investments in Africa and Middle East

By dianeravitch
September 20, 2018 //
27

Education International, which represents teachers unions around the world, sent out notice of a disturbing new development. International groups have determined to introduce Marley forces and payment for test scores as their response to educational needs in Africa and the Middle East. The Business-School graduates discovered a “crisis” that has existed since time began: children in impoverished countries are not getting a decent education—or, in some cases, no education at all. Yes, it is outrageous. Why are these great minds not using their brainpower to promote economic development? Asia is booming. Why not transfer some lessons learned to reduce poverty and create good jobs, rather than bring in the hedge funds and social impact investors to monetize education?

Angelo Gavrielatos of Educational International writes:

A new financing facility, the Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East is in development – with plans to become operational in the coming year. The fund commercialises and commodifies education, using tax-payer aid budgets to support private actors and investors to profit from education provision. Similar funds are being developed targeting India and Latin America.

EI responds

EI has responded directly to the EOF and publicly.

Mobilisation of Member Organisations

Education International is mobilising our Member Organisations in potentially targeted countries, which include Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, recommending that they take action to pressure their governments not to engage with the EOF.

What is the EOF and how does it work?

EOF is an initiative of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity (the Education Commission) and the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment (GSG).

As a so-called innovation in education financing, the fund aims to raise $1 billion in development impact bonds (DIBs). DIBs work by employing investment capital to pay services, in this case education provision or education related services, offered by private actors in Africa and the Middle East. If ‘outcomes targets’ are met by the service providers, investors and providers receive a return, financed in part by bilateral donors through national aid budgets.

Putting private actors in the driving seat, disregarding democracy
EOF disregards democratic governance of education by choosing to directly fund private education providers rather than strengthening public systems through the elected national government. Giving investors control and influence over their investments is given precedent over governments’ sovereignty to define their own priorities.

What is more, as reporting systems for outcomes are geared to the needs of private funders, it becomes more difficult for educators, their unions and the broader community to hold their government to account to fulfil their obligation to provide quality education for all.

Funding outcomes narrows education
The EOF argues that its model’s strength lies in the fact that it will only pay for outcomes achieved. However, results-based financing actually negatively distorts quality teaching and learning processes by focusing on narrow outcomes rather than the development of the whole child.

With funding based on students’ test score outcomes, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test. Furthermore, results-based financing creates perverse incentives to invest in short-term gains rather than long term system strengthening. Outcomes in education are not immediate, but take time to manifest, such as its contribution to social, cultural, democratic and economic development.

Apart from the fact that the commodification of education by incentivising private providers and investors by profit-making is highly unethical and in disregard of the right to education, there is no substantial evidence of DIBs in the education sector.

Outcomes bonds leave the vulnerable behind
Importantly, a quest for outcomes and the involvement of profit-making organisations in the education sector leads to the further marginalisation of the most vulnerable groups in society. Evidence shows, when funding depends on test scores, private actors’ student selection processes can discriminate against less able students or alternatively encourage certain students not to participate in tests.

In clear contravention of the global commitment made through SDG4 to leave no-one behind, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, students from minority groups, refugees, students with disabilities or special needs and students living in remote areas lose out.

Proliferation of education privatisation and marketisation

To achieve SDG4, public systems must be strengthened and education must be universally embraced as a human right and a public good, not a market commodity.

Education financing must be sustainable and predictable, there are no shortcuts. It is only through well-funded public education that we will achieve quality education for all, not through attempting to establish new finance mechanisms that undermine the right to education.

Rather than strengthening public systems in regions where increased public financing for education is desperately needed, EOF will finance non-state actors, including for-profit companies and so-called ‘low-fee’ private schools that charge poor families for education of questionable quality.

‘Prime contractors’ will be commissioned by EOF to lead ‘whole-community based interventions’, suggesting that the fund will operate as a massive market creation scheme. Public-private partnerships will also be supported, with Partnership Schools for Liberia (PSL), Liberia’s disastrous experiment with outsourcing education to private providers, held up as a model.

Education is a public responsibility. The SDGs are about assuming those responsibilities. They are essential to the future and cannot be contracted out or sacrificed to the market. And, yes, they require political will to ensure a sufficient and sustainable source of public funding. We cannot rely on charity or the private sector.

If we believe that all children, regardless of their background or circumstances, regardless of the community, country or continent in which they live have a right to quality education, governments and the international community must invest in the expansion and strengthening of quality, free, universally accessible public education.
More information

Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East: Is it a Game Changer? by Keith M Lewin, Emeritus Professor of International Development and Education, University of Sussex, provides a detailed critique of the EOF.

Angelo Gavrielatos
Project Director – EI

Angelo Gavrielatos​
Project Director
Email: Angelo.Gavrielatos@ei-ie.org
Tel: +32 2 224 06 11
Fax: +32 2 224 06 06
5 bd du Roi Albert II | 1210 Brussels | BELGIUM
http://www.ei-ie.org

Categories Accountability, Economy, Education Reform, For-Profit, International

Carol Burris: Is California’s Ban on For-Profit Charters Real or A Hoax?

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2018 //
9

When the California Charter Schools Association celebrates the passage of a bill banning for-profit charters, it raises questions about how much the law matters.

Carol Burris has closely studied waste, fraud, and abuse in California’s charter sector. Her report, “Charters and Consequesnces” is must reading for anyone who wants to see how non-profits facilitate corrupt practice when there is neither accountability, transparency, nor oversight.

This is her review of the ban on for-profit charters, which affects a tiny number of charters in the state. Those few for-profits, she predicts, will find a way to work around the new law.

California charter law needs to be reformed, from top to bottom, to protect children and taxpayers, as well as to stop the charter raid on state funding that is intended for public schools.

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Privatization, Virtual Charter Schools

California: Law Professor Lauds Ban on For-Profit Charters

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2018 //
2

Law professor Derek Black writes that California’s ban on for-profit charters is stronger than skeptics expected. It bans not only for-profit charters, but does not permit non-profits to hire for-profit management companies, a common ruse in many states.

He writes:

“One of the major critiques of charter schools, although not the only one, is that they allow private entities to profit off the education of children. Some say the possibility of profits is a good idea because it brings new players into the education “market,” incentivizes efficiency, and creates competition that might drive down the cost of quality education. In theory, I suppose that is possible, but in reality, we have seen far more evidence to the contrary. And the possibility of profit taking without sufficient state oversight also opens the door to downright corruptions. Preston Green has done an excellent job of tracking scandal and corruption in the charter school sector. I argue here, however, that what we call “corruption” is often actually legal when charters do it. The self-serving contracts and leases are the type of behavior that would land public school officials in jail, but which are relatively common with some charter school operators.

“That is what makes California’s new statute barring for-profit charter school operators so significant. On their face, most charter schools are non-profit. Many states will not issue a charter to a for profit entity. If Big Box Stores, Inc., for instance, applies to operate a charter in Kentucky, they state will reject it. This, however, does relatively little to block for profit entities. All Big Box Stores, Inc. needs to do is form a non-profit. They can call it Big Box Academies. If Big Box Academies gets a charter, it can then simply enter into a contract with Big Box Store, Inc. to supply all the labor and supplies for the charter school. In fact, non-profit charters regularly turn over their entire budget to for-profit management companies. Those companies can then take as much profit as they can manage. As Tom Kelley has shown, they develop “sweeps” contracts that are so egregious that the charter schools are probably running afoul of non-profit rules.

“California’s new charter law takes a big bite out of this problem. It makes it clear that only non-profits can receive a charter in the state. It also prohibits those non-profit charters from transferring responsibility and management to a for-profit entity…

“With that said, there is still more to be done to ensure that non-profit charters are acting like non-profits. The California law stops charters from acting purely as shell companies for outside entities, but they don’t stop non-profit charters from paying their upper level staff and management unreasonably high salaries while paying their teachers unreasonably low ones. They also don’t stop non-profit charters from entering into unreasonable leases. As Tom Kelley has shown, exorbitant leases appear to be one of the biggest profit-taking mechanisms. No non-profit acting in its and its students’ own best interests would every enter into some of these lease agreements. California’s new statute prohibits for-profit management, but it does not prohibit lease deals that are not on the up-and-up. To be clear, the point of leasing out one’s land is to make money. So leases that send profits to landlords are not inherently problematic. But California should not think its job is done with this statute. It still needs to exercise enough oversight to ferret out problematic contracts and leases and ensure that state money is spent on students.”

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Privatization

Jan Resseger: Who Allowed ECOT to Scam Ohio Taxpayers of $1 Billion Over 17 Years?

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2018 //
3

Jan Resseger nails the politicians who are responsible for ignoring the ECOT scam. The $1 billion that ECOT took to produce inferior education (or none at all) was purchased with campaign contributions, 92% of it to Republicans.

As it happens, the guilty politicians are running for state office this November. In only a few weeks, they will be judged by the voters.

Jon Husted, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor; Keith Faber, the Republican candidate for state auditor; Mike DeWine, the Republican candidate for governor; and Dave Yost, the Republican candidate for attorney general.

Will the voters in Ohio remember in November who skimmed millions from their public schools to enrich the owner of ECOT?

Categories Education Reform, For-Profit, Fraud, Ohio, Virtual Charter Schools

Outrageous: Congress Increases Funding for Charter Schools to $440 Million

By dianeravitch
September 14, 2018 //
11

In 2016, the General Accounting Office—watchdog of the federal government—published a report warning about waste, fraud, and abuse by charter school operators. Every day, there are new reports of shady real estate deals by charter schools, embezzlement, and Profiteering.

In 2016, the NAACP national convention passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on new charter schools until they were accountable, met the same standards as public schools, and stopped draining resources from the public schools, which enroll most students.

Yet Congress just agreed to increase annual funding for new charters to $440 Million in the coming year.

Are charter schools more effective than public schools? No.

Do they take resources and the students they want from public schools? Yes.

Do they threaten the viability of public schools? Yes.

Do they already have the overflowing support of the billionaire class? Yes.

Has the charter industry been riddled with waste, fraud and abuse of public dollars? Yes.

Why is Congress pouring more money into expanding this private sector activity which is neither accountable nor transparent?

Write your member of Congress and ask these questions.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corruption, Deregulation, Education Industry, Failure, For-Profit, Fraud, Privatization

Bill Phillis: Who Should Be Held Accountable for the ECOT Fiasco?

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2018 //
9

Bill Phillis is a retired deputy State Superintendent of Schools in Ohio and a passionate advocate of public schools, equity and accountability.

He launched the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding. You should subscribe to his email list.

ECOT (Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow) wasted $1 billion of taxpayers’ money, diverted funding from real public schools, and was endorsed by Ohio’s most prominent Republican elected officials. Betsy Dezvos wants more virtual charters, which have an abysmal track record.

He writes:


The ECOT scandal could have been stopped many times since its beginning

After ECOT ripped off a billion dollars from Ohio school districts and collected a couple hundred million from the federal government during a 17-year run, the corrupt operation was finally exposed. How did this business enterprise feed illegally at the public tax trough in plain sight without being held accountable? That critical question is being debated in the final days before the November 2018 election. Candidates are debating who is to blame.

One person said; don’t blame Bill Lager-he is a businessman trying to make a buck. Lager used millions of tax dollars gobbled up from the public trough to buy political favors. Public officials turned a blind eye to the corruption.

Who should have been watching ECOT and other bad actors in the charter industry?

State Board of Education
Ohio Department of Education
State Superintendents
State Auditors
State Attorney Generals
Governors
Legislators
Private watchdog groups

Over the years state officials have shut down small charter operations-the kind that had meager political campaign budgets. But ECOT wasn’t on their radar.

The ECOT scandal should prompt state officials of all political stripes to put the spotlight on the other big time charter operators such as K12 Inc., Imagine Schools, Gulen Islamic charters, Accel, etc.

“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”
– John Adams, September 10, 1785

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Ohio, Privatization, Virtual Charter Schools

Arizona: Legislator/Charter Operator Sells His Chain for Millions, Or, How to Get Very Rich in the Ed Biz

By dianeravitch
September 11, 2018 //
26

This is a world-class scandal. And it is all legal!

Arizona’s State Representative Eddie Farnsworth sold his for-profit charter chain to a non-profit for about $30 Million and will reap millions in profits, then get a management fee to continue to operate them.

“Yet another millionaire is made, thanks to the latest in charter school scheming.

“This time, it’s state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who has figured out a way to sell his charter school business – the one built with taxpayer funds – and make millions on the deal and then likely get himself hired to continue running the operation.

“Which now converts to a non-profit and thus will no longer have to pay property or income taxes.

“Sweet plan. Sickeningly so, when you consider that Farnsworth is making his millions off of tax money intended to be used to educate Arizona children.

“Other charter schools are getting rich

“Farnsworth is just the latest operator to use charter schools as his own personal ATM – one that shoots out public funds.

“The Republic’s Craig Harris has spent all year reporting on operators who are getting rich – or at least, making a tidy pile of cash – off publicly funded charter schools, aided by laughable state laws that require hardly any oversight or accountability.

“There’s the Arizona Charter Schools Association’s No. 2 guy, using his position to throw business to a company he co-owns with his wife by giving her the names of students looking for a charter school. She scores a bounty for every student (and the tax dollars that go with that student) she delivers to certain charter schools.

“There’s BASIS Charters Schools founders Michael and Olga Block, who scored $10 million in fees to manage the charter chain of schools last year.

“There’s American Leadership Academy’s founder Glenn Way, who scored at least $18.4 million profit by getting no-bid contracts to build charter schools thanks largely paid for with public money.

“Then there’s Primavera online school, where most of the public funding has gone not to educate students but to elevate the company’s investment portfolio. Damian Creamer, the school’s founder and CEO, last year scored an $8.8 million “shareholder distribution” from the for-profit company that now runs Primavera, according an audit filed with the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Taxpayers pay twice for the same schools

“Now comes Farnsworth with his Benjamin Franklin Charter School scheme, approved Monday by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Under the arrangement, Farnsworth is selling his for-profit four-school operation to a non-profit run by a trio of handpicked pals who will now select someone to run the schools. Farnsworth has applied for the job.

“According to state records, Farnsworth will score at least $11.8 million in profit from the deal. He’ll also keep nearly $3.8 million in “shareholder equity” accumulated over the years since starting the suburban charter school chain in 1995. But Farnsworth declined to disclose the total profit he will make on the deal.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” he told the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“And you wonder why Farnsworth has fought efforts to require better oversight and reform of Arizona’s charter schools?

“The Republic’s Harris reports that when the sale closes, taxpayers will have paid twice for the same schools – once to essentially pay the mortgage on the Farnsworth-owned buildings and now to assume more debt in order to buy the buildings.

“And – by the way – it’s all legal

“The most outrageous part of this outrageous story is that what Farnsworth is doing is apparently legal.”

Craig Harris of the Arizona Republic reported on Farnsworth’s meeting with the state charter board (which includes other charter operators):

“[Farnsworth] told them he was requesting the change in organization to strengthen the finances of the roughly 3,000-student school chain. Farnsworth said the new structure will allow Benjamin Franklin to avoid property taxes and to qualify for federal education funds.

“The Legislature gives charter operators up to $2,000 more per student in state education funding than traditional district schools. That’s because charters cannot access local property taxes for building debt.

“Farnsworth acknowledged he would make a profit on the deal.

“Board member Erik Twist, who runs the Great Hearts charter schools, tried to press Farnsworth on how much he stands to gain. But Chairwoman Kathy Senseman interrupted him and changed the direction of the discussion.

“Farnsworth told the board that if he had wanted to make money, he merely could have sold the schools and cashed out.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” Farnsworth said.

“The transfer plan calls for the new non-profit operator to hire a contractor to manage the schools, an arrangement similar to other charter chains like Basis and American Leadership Academy.

“Records submitted to the Charter Board appeared to show Farnsworth had already been hired to manage the schools, but he said the document was a “draft” intended to give board members an understanding of the management contract.

“That’s what happens at Basis schools, many of which rank atop U.S. News & World Report’s “best schools” lists. A private contracting arrangement has paid about $10 million in “management fees” to a private firm run by Basis founders Olga and Michael Block.

“Farnsworth told the board, however, that he had submitted an application for the contract to the company’s new three-member board, all of whom he recruited and are his friends.

“Rebecca McHood, a Gilbert resident who attended the meeting, called the board vote “crazy.”

“They just gave a charter to a non-profit, but they didn’t vet them,” said McHood, a charter school critic whose relatives attended Farnsworth’s schools. “Here we are paying for his private property with our tax dollars, and then he can sell them.”

“State to pay twice for campuses

“Farnsworth built his school chain over more than two decades ago and became its sole owner in 2017, when he used $2.2 million of Benjamin Franklin funds to buy out his partners, Sharon Clark and Roy L. Perkins Jr., records show.

“That deal also made him sole owner of LBE Investments, a Gilbert company that owns the four campuses and leases them to Benjamin Franklin. Both companies are headquartered at 690 E. Warner Road in Gilbert.

“Once the planned sale to the new non-profit business closes later this year, taxpayers will have paid for the same schools twice. That’s because Benjamin Franklin, for years, has used education funding from the Legislature to make lease payments to LBE Investments, records show.

“(A 2017 audit showed Benjamin Franklin paid $4.9 million a year in lease payments, and that the remaining lease balance for three elementary schools and one high school was $53.9 million.)

“Farnsworth told the Charter Board that an appraisal of the schools is underway, and they will be sold at fair-market value.

“Documents submitted to the Charter Board indicate the plan is to borrow $65.7 million through the Arizona Industrial Development to purchase the schools. A sale for the projected loan amount would result in an $11.8 million profit for Farnsworth by retiring the outstanding lease balance.”

Why do Arizona taxpayers acquiesce to this blatant Profiteering with money intended to educate children?

<

Categories Arizona, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization, Scandals, School Choice

Steven Singer: There Is Virtually No Difference Between For-Profit and Nom-Profit Charters

By dianeravitch
September 8, 2018 //
17

Yesterday we learned that Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill to ban for-profit charters. This sounded great, but there are very few for-profit charters in California other than K12 Inc. Even K12 Inc.’s CAVA (California Virtual Academies) won’t close until their charter comes up for renewal. It can go on ripping off students, families and taxpayers until then.

The fact that the California Charter Schoools Association celebrated the ban is evidence that it will do nothing to curtail the graft and corruption that is commonplace in the California charter industry.

How timely that Steven Singer explains that there really is no difference between for-profit and non-profit charters. They all drain resources and the students they want from public schools, undermining them and threatening the future of public education.

He writes in part:

“Stop kidding yourself.

“Charter schools are a bad deal.

“It doesn’t matter if they’re for-profit or nonprofit.

“It doesn’t matter if they’re cyber or brick-and-mortar institutions.

“It doesn’t matter if they have a history of scandal or success.

“Every single charter school in the United States of America is either a disaster or a disaster waiting to happen.

“The details get complicated, but the idea is really quite simple.

“It goes like this.

“Imagine you left a blank check on the street.

“Anyone could pick it up, write it out for whatever amount your bank account could support and rob you blind.

“Chances are you’d never know who cashed it, you’d never get that money back and you might even be ruined.

“That’s what a charter school is – a blank check.

“It’s literally a privately operated school funded with public tax dollars.

“Operators can take almost whatever amount they want, spend it with impunity and never have to submit to any real kind of transparency or accountability.

“Compare that to a traditional public school – an institution invariably operated by duly elected members of the community with full transparency and accountability in an open forum where taxpayers have access to internal documents, can have their voices heard and even seek an administrative position.

“THAT’S a responsible way to handle public money!

“Not forking over our checkbook to virtual strangers!

“Sure, they might not steal our every red cent. But an interloper who finds a blank check on the street might not cash it, either.

“The particulars don’t really matter. This is a situation rife with the possibility of fraud. It is a situation where the deck is stacked against the public in every way and in favor of charter school operators.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corruption, Deregulation, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Fraud, Privatization

Good News! Governor Brown Signs Bill Banning For-Profit Charters! (With a Caveat)

By dianeravitch
September 7, 2018 //
17

Julian Vasquez Heilig reports that Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation to ban for-profit charters. This is very good news. In 2015,he vetoed such a bill.

Now, here’s hoping that the Legislature can pass (and the governor will sign) a bill requiring accountability and transparency in all charters, including a ban on nepotism and conflicts of interest.

The momentum for this legislation was reignited by great reporting on K12 Inc. by reporter Jesse Calefati of the San Jose Mercury News in 2016. Give credit where it is due. Be thankful for freedom of the press!

PS:

An ally in California says this is not as big a deal as it seems. She writes:

“I just can’t understand all of the excitement about this given that there really aren’t any for profit charters left in CA anyway. This bill was approved by the Callifornia Charter Schools Association who were already celebrating and promoting that there are no for profit charters in CA. For profit charters have never really been an issue in CA, we have barely had any in the past. Of course, the vast majority of online charters contract to k12 and we all know they are a huge profit machine.”

http://www.ccsa.org/blog/2018/08/california-charter-schools-association-celebrates-landmark-legislation-banning-for-profit-charter-sc.html

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Freedom of the Press, K12 Inc., Privatization

Ohio & Florida: Charter Scam Rips Off Taxpayers in Both States

By dianeravitch
September 3, 2018 //
14

The Network for Public Education has a Twitter handle called #anotherdayanothercharterscandal, and it is hard to keep up with them. It used to be one or two a week, Carol Burris told me, now it is one or two every day.

Here is only one among many, involving a charter scam that stretched from Ohio to Florida, ripping off taxpayers in both states.

Ohio’s top public accountant is actively investigating the case of two businessmen accused of using charter schools to defraud Florida taxpayers, students and schools — and maybe here, too.

On Friday, Ohio Auditor Dave Yost acknowledged that a probe has been ongoing for a year. Meanwhile, court documents filed this month in Florida indicate 19 Ohio charter schools were overbilled nearly $600,000. Prosecutors and forensic accountants say the money was laundered through 150 bank accounts and shell companies then returned as “rebates” and “kickbacks” to Marcus May, who once ran more than 20 charter schools in Ohio.

In 2012, May used a parent company, Newpoint Education Partners LLC., to open Cambridge Education Group, a charter school operator based in Akron. To grow business in Florida, authorities say he “falsely represented” that his Ohio schools were well managed. By 2016, prosecutors say he allegedly defrauded Florida and its public schools of more than $1 million.

May has repeatedly declined to speak with the Beacon Journal.

The pattern in Florida seems to mirror transactions in Ohio.

One forensic document in the Florida case details how Ohio schools paid $1.1 million to Apex Learning, a Seattle-based company May used to bill the 19 Cambridge schools in Ohio and 15 Newpoint schools in Florida for online and hard-copy curriculum. Russ Edgar, the lead Florida prosecutor in the white collar criminal case against May, has produced invoices that show how Apex inflated pricing to siphon $229,756.57 from Florida’s education system and $456,551.92 from Ohio schools, including four in Akron.

“After the allegations in Florida came to light, Marcus May was immediately relieved of any managerial duties and later of his equity in Cambridge,” John Stack, co-owner of Cambridge, said in a written statement. He said Cambridge hired a forensic accountant to find out if Apex negatively impacted any Ohio schools. Once the schools were identified, the money was returned.

Stack said he no longer owns a stake in Cambridge. He did not say who does owns the company now.

Of the 18 Cambridge schools still open in Ohio, 13 signed new management contracts this summer with Oakmont Education. Stack founded the company with Marty Erbaugh, an investment banker from Hudson. Oakmont will take over Cambridge’s dropout recovery high schools for struggling teenagers and young adults.

“Oakmont doesn’t believe that any of the schools we manage were negatively affected by Marcus May’s actions or Cambridge’s management,” said Stack, who filed the paperwork to create Oakmont on March 20, four days after a Florida jury convicted one of May’s associates.

How reassuring to know that the charter schools are now in the hands of an investment banker. Don’t you feel better already?

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Florida, For-Profit, Fraud, Ohio, Scandals
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »