Archives for category: For-Profit

Charter operators don’t get rich on tuition, although many have a business model that relies on cost-cutting, low-wage teachers, TFA, and replacing human teachers with technology. Those wonderful computers don’t expect health or pensions. When they break, you can repair them or discard them.

The big bucks are in real estate!

ESJ properties
https://therealdeal.com/miami/2018/08/04/aventura-firm-makes-45m-addition-to-its-portfolio-of-school-properties/

It is traded as EPR properties (Entertainment properties in the graph you show

Investing in Enduring Experiences

And they also own the BASIS schools.
https://insightcenter.eprkc.com/basis-schools/

In Arizona, if the school goes under, they get to keep the property, even though the taxpayers have paid for it.

And look at this
https://insightcenter.eprkc.com/education/

This is what is known as “legal graft.”

It is a theft of public assets.

In plain sight.

The bond industry issued warnings against charter schools, because they endanger the financial ratings of school districts and cities.

Mercedes Schneider: Municipal Analysts Call for Charter Financial Transparency

Municipal Analysts Ask Whether Charter Schools Make the Grade

Moody’s: Charters Pose Serious Risk to Struggling Cities

Long, long ago, almost everyone went to the neighborhood public school. The school had a principal, who was overseen by the superintendent. The superintendent answered to a local school board. Those were not idyllic times, to be sure, but no one ever imagined that there was profit to be found in the public schools, or that the public schools would one day be part of “the education industry.” All that is changed now. There are still neighborhood public schools, but now there is an industry that relies on entrepreneurs and market forces. You don’t have to be an educator to manage or operate or start a charter school (think tennis star Andre Agassi or football hero Deion Sanders). There are tax breaks for investors in charter schools. Charter school properties are bought and sold, like franchises or just ordinary real estate. They have no organic connection to the local community. The profit for entrepreneurs is to be found in the real estate transactions.

A recent real estate deal brought this change into focus. There is a buyer and a seller; there are investors. There is return on investment. The world has changed. The charter industry has profits and losses. They open and close. It is not about education. It is a business.

school

[more intro]

A $45 million charter deal suggests profits on the horizon

Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept
August 09, 2018(Fla.) A private real estate fund, which boasts of pioneering big money investments in charter school properties, announced this week a $45 million deal to buy four schools in three states.

ESJ Capital Partners, based in the Miami area, added the schools to a portfolio that includes a number of more traditional investments, including apartment buildings, medical offices and tourist attractions.

But the firm also owns 28 charter school properties that they say are valued at more than $650 million.

The firm promises to “provide optimum returns for our investors through disciplined procedures, selective investment criteria and structured processes,” according to their website.

Although for-profit investment in charter schools accounts for only a small slice of the movement nationally, there are examples of commercial enterprise within the system.

In some instances, a lender might be able to take advantage of a tax break because of their investment in a school that is located in an economically challenged neighborhood. In other cases, an investor might be interested in the consistent, government-back rent that charters can pay.

There is probably far more invested by a handful  of very wealthy patrons of charters, who view the movement has providing a much needed competition to traditional public schools.

Whether driven by profits or politics, the growing availability of financial support for charters is much needed, supporters say.

In comparison to traditional public schools, charters have much more difficulty borrowing money. The banking community has traditionally viewed charters operators has carrying far more risk of insolvency than traditional public schools.

Charters in most states must also pay for school improvements or new construction out of operating budgets.

A number of big philanthropic organizations have stepped in to improve the fiscal landscape for charter facilities.

The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation has been very active in the Los Angeles area, as has the Gates Foundation in Washington State.

Earlier this year, the Walton Family Foundation—led by the heirs of Walmart founder—announced the creation of two nonprofit entities to help finance the cost of building and maintaining new charter schools. Combined, the investment from the foundation is expected to be close to $300 million.

But there apparently is also money to be made too.

In 2016, ESJ sold five Florida charter schools for $72 million to Charter School Capital, a financial services company specializing in charter schools. The partners did provide the purchase price of the schools.

The partnership’s latest acquisition are schools located in in the Phoenix area, Washington D.C. and Toledo, Ohio.

All of them are operated by Virginia-based, Imagine Schools.

ESJ reportedly has $100 million invested in properties operated by Imagine Schools.

“The Imagine campuses that we just acquired have been open over 13 years and are thriving financially and academically, with consistent high enrollment,” Matthew Fuller, chief investment officer of ESJ, said in a statement.

According to a release from the partnership in announcing the 2016 transaction, ESJ was one of the first investment groups nationally to see the potential in charter schools.

“At the height of the Great Recession, ESJ identified a niche in developing charter schools as an alternative to their traditional commercial investments,” the release said. “The real estate asset management group predicted this asset type would evolve and scale into a mainstream, single tenant investment category, attracting more institutional investors, lenders and bondholders.”

…read more

Arizona has a Charter Law that ignores nepotism, conflict of interest, Profiteering, frauds, scams, etc.

Now Governor Doug Ducey is in a tight race with educator David Garcia, and Ducey wants to “reform” the charter law! And I have a bridge to sell you if you are that gullible.

Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic says that this is hilarious. PS: I love Laurie Roberts and Craig HARRIS of the Arizona Republic, who regularly expose charter corruption (he exposes it, she ridicules it).

She writes, to begin:

“A month ago, Gov. Doug Ducey said he wasn’t concerned that the head of Primavera charter school – which puts just 11 percent of its state funding into instruction — scored an $8.8 million “shareholder distribution” from the for-profit company that runs the online operation.

“I’m not concerned about the CEO,” Ducey told The Republic’s Craig Harris. “That is of very little interest. I’m concerned about the child and the parent and what the child is equipped to do after 12 years of education.”

“Today, Ducey and other Republicans have seen the light and the light is a freight train of public outrage racing right at them as they seek re-election.

“As a result, Ducey is now backing a set of charter school reforms proposed by state Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, who like Ducey is facing a fight to get back to the state Capitol next year.

“While I’m certainly happy to see that Ducey and his Republican colleagues at long last might be willing to plug gaping loopholes that have allowed some charter operators to plunder public money, I have to ask the same question I asked when they suddenly saw the need to prioritize public schools as teachers took to the streets this spring:

“Where’ve you been?”…

“Virtually every year, we hear an outrageous story about a charter school operator who has fundamentally failed the smell test, either by shorting kids or lining their pockets – or both.

“Virtually every year, Democrats in the Legislature propose reforms to fix laughable state laws that require hardly any oversight or public accountability.

“And virtually, every year Republicans ignore all evidence of a problem while joining hands and chanting “school choice, school choice, school choice.” This, to the delight of their dark money pals who shovel campaign money their way.

“Indeed, it is a choice to focus only on charter school successes — and there certainly are some — while ignoring problems rampant in the charter school industry.

“Just last fall, the centrist Grand Canyon Institute released the results of a three-year study that found up to up to 77 percent of charter school holders are using public funds on “potentially questionable financial transactions” — often paying themselves or their various relatives to provide goods and services to their charter schools under a price they get to set, courtesy of no-bid contracts.

“The study found that charter school executives earn on average 50 percent more than their school district counterparts while teachers earn 20 percent less. That classroom spending and academic performance are both lower in charters than in district schools.

“Rather than taking a serious look at those findings, our leaders and the charter school industry labeled the Grand Canyon Institute as “anti charter” and did … nothing.”

The Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) is the biggest online charter scandal in the nation, for now. The state poured more than $1 billion over 17 years into this for-profit enterprise, with no accountability until recently. After the state finally audited ECOT, it learned that there was no system in place to know whether students logged in, whether they participated in instruction, and commenced proceedings to recover at least $80 million. ECOT fought the state in court and lost. Rather than return the money, ECOT closed its doors.

Almost every Republican official running for statewide office received campaign funding from William Lager, the entrepreneur behind ECOT. Mike DeWine, the Republican candidate for governor, returned the ECOT money, but continues to accept contributions from other for-profit charter “schools.” Online charter schools everywhere have dismal records and are typically the worst-performing schools in every state where they are allowed.

One thing became obvious: the Republican elected officials who received Lager money showered ECOT with favors, including no-accountability, no oversight, and regular appearances as graduation speakers. It is striking how little money it cost Lager to buy their loyalty.

Bill Phillis, Ohio watchdog, writes here that ECOT got even more than the $1 billion that has been reported.

He writes:

Remember the Straight A Fund grants?

State Superintendent Dr. Richard Ross hatched the idea of passing out grants for school improvement via the Straight A Fund. Millions of dollars were distributed.

Incredibly, in fiscal year 2014, ECOT received a grant of $2,951,755 in Straight A Funds. (ECOT also received a huge grant of state money that was funneled through The Ohio State University.) ECOT over the years collected $130 million in federal funds. All these funds were in addition to the billion dollars ECOT took from school districts.

When ECOT received the $3 million Straight A Fund grant, at least some Ohio Department of Education (ODE) officials should have known that ECOT was collecting money for students not participating in the ECOT program.

The $3 million Straight A Fund grant to ECOT was for “A Personalized Learning Road Map for Every Math Student Grades 6-12…” During the 2015-2016 school year ODE found less than half of ECOT students were participating in any part of the ECOT program.

Obviously the grant didn’t reach all students-possibly not any students.

At this juncture in the ECOT saga, will there be any attempt to claw back any portion of state grants and federal dollars ECOT received? Did anyone at ODE monitor the ECOT expenditures of the federal and state grants?

Who is responsible for allowing ECOT to squander hundreds of millions of dollars?

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

Bill Phillis also posted this question from a public education advocate:


Jeanne Melvin, President of Public Education Partners (PEP), reveals a Michigan charter advocate’s political campaign donations to Ohio politicians

The charter industry has birthed a network of political campaign donors devoted to the expansion of the industry. Such groups as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), All Children Matter, Inc., (formerly run by Betsy DeVos), Michigan Mackinac Center for Public Policy and Democrats for Education Reform, influence state and federal legislation in support of the charter industry.

The idea that charters would be operated by teachers and parents in the context of a school district was hijacked. A charter industry has evolved which has spawned a multi-billion dollar support group. Education policy is primarily driven by campaign contributions from charter operators and charter support groups.

To the Editor:

I respond to the Sept. 2 Dispatch.com article “Which side is right in political battle over ECOT blame?” Why is the demand for accountability concerning the largest scandal in our state’s history being called a political battle?

Speaking up for our children and their families, as well as Ohio taxpayers, should never be considered a partisan issue.

There is no excuse for allowing this $1 billion charter school fraud to continue for 18 years. Concerns were raised about the cozy relationship between charter school boards and their management companies in 2002, and our elected officials looked the other way to protect their campaign coffers.

If Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow’s structural setup had been the same since 2000, why is Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine finally taking legal action against William Lager? If it’s illegal now for Lager to direct taxpayer money to his companies, why wasn’t that problem handled years ago?

It’s nice to see that DeWine recently donated $12,533 in Lager contributions to charity, but sadly, he continues to take campaign cash from for-profit charter school companies.

On Aug. 31, his campaign received $10,000 from J. C. Huizenga, a member of the board of directors of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy “think tank.”

Huizenga is also one of the major funders of All Children Matter Inc., which still owes Ohio a $5.3 million election fine. The unpaid fine dates back to 2008, when All Children Matter – a group that lobbied for school-choice legislation and was run by Betsy DeVos – broke Ohio election law by funneling $870,000 in contributions through its nationwide PAC to its Ohio affiliate, according to the Ohio Elections Commission.

Huizenga’s company, National Heritage Academies, is affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council and sits on its Education Task Force. Through ALEC, corporations, ideologues and their politician allies follow an aggressive agenda to legalize spending public tax dollars to subsidize private K-12 education such as charter schools.

It’s time for Ohio voters to elect pro-public education candidates in November. Our children are counting on us.

Jeanne Melvin, Columbus

Huizenga’s charter chain, National Heritage Academies, operates for profit. He is a close associate of Betsy DeVos.

Florida has about 650 charter schools. Nearly half the charter schools in the state operate for profit. Charter schools on average do not get better results than public schools. Charter schools are rife with nepotism and conflicts of interest. The Leislature favors charter school expansion because many important legislators have ties to the charter industry and engage in self-dealing. Since 1998, 373 charters have closed, indicating that this is an unstable sector.

These are just a few of the conclusions of this important report about the toxic growth of charters in Florida.

The report urges serious review of the charter law. Otherwise the charter industry will continue to strip resources from public schools and create a parallel system that is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt.

Here is a newspaper article about this report that summarizes it and includes responses from critics.

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

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.

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.”

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?

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.