Archives for category: For-Profit

 

Uh-oh. This wasn’t in the business plan. Teachers at the K12 Inc. virtual charter school in California created a union. They threatened to “logout” if management didn’t recognize them and agree to their demands. Management caved at CAVA.

While CTA welccomed the additions, some members were unhappy to embrace teachers in a for-profit virtual charter that has been subject to fines and investigations for its behavior and consistently gets poor results.

“Inspired by walkouts in West Virginia and Oklahoma, teachers in California’s largest online charter school were prepared to strike if their new union could not reach an agreement with their school’s management.

“But California Virtual Academies, which includes nine schools and contracts with K12 Inc., the biggest for-profit charter school operator in the country, and the fledgling union of California Virtual Educators Unitedhave settled on their first contract, union representatives announced Wednesday. Among the teacher demands the school has agreed to: some limits on the number of students they oversee, more flexibility in interacting with students and parents, and a whopping 17.8 percent increase in pay…

”As a unionized staff, CAVA teachers belong to a small club within the charter sector. Only 11 percent of charter schools are unionized nationally, down slightly from 12 percent in 2010, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Charter schools make up about 7 percent of the nation’s public schools. About 70 percent of all teachers nationwide participate in unions or employee associations, according to the U.S. Department of Education.”

The contract must be ratified by the nearly 500 teachers who belong to the new local.

”K12 Inc.’s financial arrangements with the schools it helps run in California were the subject of an investigation by the East Bay Times. The paper found that the schools had little independence from K12 Inc. and that the Herndon, Va.-based management company charged fees for its service that were at times far in excess of what the schools could afford. Teachers employed by K12 Inc. were pressured to inflate student enrollment and attendance numbers, which help determine state funding. The paper also reported that half of the schools’ students were proficient in reading and only a third were proficient math. Many students that enrolled in K12 Inc. did not graduate.

“K12 Inc. reached an $8.5 million settlement with the California Attorney General in 2016 over allegations that the company misled parents about how well students were doing in the California schools it manages. The company did not:admit to any wrongdoing.

“K12 Inc. and online or cyber charters in general have been under increasing scrutiny both in California and beyond. That’s been driven in part by the ascent of Betsy DeVos to U.S. Education Secretary. DeVos is a supporter of online schools—touting them as a means to bring school choice to rural areas—and an early investor in K12 Inc.”

 

 

 

 

I posted this report during the Obama administration. It remains timely since the for-profit higher education sector is having a renaissance under the leadership of Betsy DeVos, who is the best friend the predatory, for-profit higher education sector ever had.

As a private citizen, she invested in this squalid sector. As Secretary of Education, she has protected predatory for-profit institutions and even put one of their champions in charge of monitoring their behavior. A fox in charge of the henhouse. She has also cut back on federal efforts to help students who were defrauded by these institutions and left with a mountain of debt and a worthless diploma (think Trump U).

Here’s the lowdown: When your company is raking in profits, it can afford to hire top lobbyists. When you are operating in the public sector, you have to squeeze out the money to pay for any lobbyist.

I urge you to read this fascinating report on the predatory for-profit higher education sector, written before the Trump administration came into being by D.C. lawyer David Halperin. It is carefully researched and sourced. It is long, but has the interest level of a detective story. You will find villains in both political parties. You will find distinguished academics who sold their reputation to bolster a predatory for-profit institution. Behind most of the political squalor is one unifying theme: the power of greed.

It opens like this. I invite you to read the entire report to find out who is protecting the for-profit colleges that rip off American students:


Timothy J. Hatch and Ronald L. Olson are two of the most prominent and successful lawyers in Los Angeles. Hatch is a partner at the national litigation powerhouse firm Gibson Dunn. Olson, a name partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson, has represented some of America’s biggest corporations. He is a former chair of the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section, and today he serves on the boards of directors of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, the RAND Corporation, the Mayo Clinic, and the California Institute of Technology.

Both Hatch and Olson also have been for years key parts of the protective infrastructure that has shielded predatory for­-profit colleges, institutions that have deceived and abused U.S. students and taxpayers. Hatch has represented the giant publicly­traded for­profit college businesses Education Management Corporation (EDMC), Kaplan, and ITT Tech against charges of fraud, and he has sued the U.S. Department of Education to halt regulations that would hold poorly­performing colleges accountable. Olson is on the board of directors of Graham Holdings Company, which owns Kaplan, and his law firm has represented Corinthian in major fraud litigation ­­ which is fitting, as the Graham company owned a significant stake in Corinthian until its 2015 collapse. In the fraud case where Olson’s firm represented Corinthian, the other party that whistleblowers were suing was Corinthian’s auditor, giant accounting firm Ernst & Young. Their lawyer in the case was Timothy Hatch.

Although the notorious Corinthian Colleges is gone (sort of), many bad actors remain in business. Seven of America’s ten biggest for-­profit college companies, which collectively received about $8 billion dollars in taxpayer money last year, have in recent months and years been under investigation or sued by federal and state law enforcement agencies for deceptive business practices. Despite the mounting evidence that these seven companies ­­ Apollo/ University of Phoenix, EDMC, ITT Tech, Kaplan, Career Education Corporation, DeVry, and Bridgepoint Education ­­ have engaged in predatory behavior against their own students, they continue to market themselves as affordable places to build successful careers, and they continue to enroll new students and deposit their federal grants and loan checks. These companies also have continued to fight reform measures by government to hold bad schools accountable for abuses.

A key reason why such predatory for­-profit colleges have been able to continue receiving billions annually in taxpayer dollars while ruining the financial futures of students across the country is that national power players ­­ politicians, lawyers, academic leaders, celebrities ­­ have been willing to vouch for these companies, serving as their paid lobbyists, board members, investors, and endorsers. It’s not just Donald Trump who has made big money off a deceptive college operation.

Read on to learn who these power players are. You may be shocked. I was. After reading this, I felt that the whole political system is rigged to protect the predators. I went to wash my hands. Why is the “money all gone,” as reformers like to say when they explain why budget cuts are necessary? Because it is lining the pockets of the rich and connected.

Imagine if that $8 billion dollars were used to make community college free for all those who wanted higher education at a reputable university?

Hear are a few tidbits from this report:

● Department of Education data has shown that the University of Phoenix’s graduation rate for first­time, full­time students is about 16 percent, and that graduation rate for the school’s online programs is about 4 percent.

● A 2012 comprehensive investigative report on for­profit colleges by then­ Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) found that the University of Phoenix spent $892 on instruction in 2009, compared to $2,225 per student on marketing, and $2,535 per student on profit. “This,” the report found “is one of the lowest amounts spent on instruction per student of any company analyzed.”

● Around 25 percent of University of Phoenix students default on their loans within three years of leaving school.

Read and gasp. And weep that students will continue to be defrauded by predatory corporations peddling online for-profit junk.

 

The business media recognize that Betsy DeVos is changing federal policy to make room for for-profit education, both for K-12 charters and for higher education. She is rolling back regulations intended to curb the excesses of predatory for-profit “colleges,” known for preying on and exploiting veterans, the poor, and unwary students.

So here is a business analysis of the stocks that are soaring with the expectation that the DeVos is great news for educationally unsound for-profit colleges.

The basic story is that DeVos’ Department of Education has made clear that it sides with the predators, not the prey. Students will continue to be cheated. DeVos doesn’t care.

For-profit charters and for-profit virtual charters and for-profit higher education strike me as morally reprehensible. They may make money for investors, but they are educationally bankrupt.

By it’s nature, the for-profit corporation owes its first duty to investors, not students. It must turn a profit or go belly-up. Thus, it must cut costs, and the easiest way to do this is to cut the cost of teachers by hiring inexperienced teachers and giving them large classes. They are also incentivized to seek the easiest to educate students and avoid expensive ones who need extra attention.

Many of the for-profit charters are trying to cut costs by putting kids on computers. They call it “blended learning” or use the oxymoron “personalized learning.” But it is cheap education no matter what you call it.

 

A county court in Florida threw out a challenge to a new state law allowing the state to locate charters over local objections and to draw on local revenues.

Charter industry advocates were elated.

“After a nearly five-hour hearing, Leon County Judge John Cooper wasted little time Wednesday in throwing out several school districts’ challenge of HB 7069, the controversial 2017 education legislation that created a new class of charter schools, among several other measures.

“Cooper found the law constitutional.

“He issued his ruling of summary judgment for the defendants — the Florida Board of Education, Department of Education, and intervening parents and charter schools — from the bench without boiling it down to writing. Lawyers for the two sides will submit suggestions for a written order within a week…

“The Florida Legislature created the Schools of Hope charter school system outside the control of districts. It directed local tax revenue away from the districts without school board approval. It changed the rules of the game for improving low-performing schools, in some cases taking operations away from the districts.

“It was really just a pure question of law,” Arnold said.

“Attorneys for the districts argued that the Legislature overstepped its constitutional authority. They pointed to the section of the state constitution that gives school boards the power to establish, maintain and operate schools within their political boundaries.”

Florida Republicans proved yet again that they don’t care about local control, only about the profits of the charter industry with which so many are financially connected.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article208035184.html#storylink=cpy

 

Chris Savage of Eclectablog writes here about the disaster of Governor Rick Snyder’s “emergency manager” plan for poor school districts.

In Muskegon Heights, Governor Snyder installed an emergency manager because the poor, almost all-black district had run out of money. Instead of bailing out the district, which was the state’s responsibility, Snyder put an outside manager in charge. He proceeded to give the district to a for-profit charter operator, Mosaica. After two years, Mosaica departed because it couldn’t make a profit.

The emergency manager had to borrow more money.

Finally, in 2016, the school district was returned to local control. However, things are still not good. In fact, the district is still dealing with the fallout from the state takeover of their schools. As it turns out, in an effort to find every last nickel and dime under the sofa cushions, the Emergency Managers sold off everything that wasn’t nailed down.

That includes the playground equipment. Apparently the Emergency Manager thought the kids could just do without things like swings, slides, and monkey bars to play on at recess.

Now the children have a bare playground.

Does anyone care? Obviously no one in the state government cares. If they can’t raise the money locally, why should the state care. If they were white kids, that might be different. But they are not.

Chris Savage writes:

The day of funding schools using crowd sourcing efforts like GoFundMe drives appears to be at hand.

I have another idea. How about requiring the failed Emergency Manager to pay the cost of new playground equipment?

 

The Michigan House decided to let charters share in the bounty of votes on millage, where citizens vote to fund their public schools. 80% of charters in Michigan operate for profit, so this will boost their bottom line and steal taxpayer dollars intended for the 90% of children in public schools. The decision now goes to the State Senate.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Charter schools could receive the same designation as public schools in a district’s millage ballot under a bill narrowly approved by the Michigan House.

Legislators on Thursday voted 56-53 to pass an amendment to the General Property Tax Act allowing districts to describe charter schools as “public schools” on ballots. The initiative now heads to the Senate and follows a January law signed by Gov. Rick Snyder to let charter schools receive revenue from certain voter-approved property tax hikes….

Democrats counter that voters would be unaware of their tax dollars being funneled to for-profit education corporations.

 

 

 

The Network for Public Education has released an important report on online learning, directed at parents who need more information about the value of the time spent on computers and other devices in and out of the classroom.

The report urges parents to be wary of hype intended to sell a product of inferior quality and to protect their children’s instructional time from hucksters.

The report aims to answer such questions as:

With so much attention focused on online learning, it is important that parents be armed with the facts. What does the research tell us about online learning, and what are the different types? How well do students do when they take courses online vs. courses with face-to-face classmates and teachers? What is online learning’s promise, and what are its pitfalls? What role does profit play in online learning? When virtual schools get dismal results, why are they still supported? And what are the privacy implications of outsourcing more and more student data into private hands, as occurs when more learning goes online?

It reviews the research literature, which is thin, and warns parents against programs whose sponsors whose primary motive is profit. It looks at blended learning, “personalized learning,” and such programs as Rocketship Charter Schools, School of One (now known as Teach to One), and Mark Zuckerberg’s Summit Learning Platform. It also casts a wary eye towards virtual charter schools, behavioral management apps, and online credit recovery. Additionally, close attention is paid to student privacy issues, which few of the vendors have protected.

 

 

 

Renegade Teacher hast taught in both public schools and charter schools in Detroit. He writes here about the highly profitable fraud of online charter schools. Among their most prominent supporters are Betsy DeVos (who invested in them, and now advocates for them) and Jeb Bush, who relentlessly promotes online learning.

From his own experience as a teacher, he saw what online learning lacks: human relationships between students and teachers and between peers. It is soul-deadening.

“Online education in the K-12 sphere is a growing trend- as of 2015, there were some 275,000 students enrolled in online charter schools. In my home state of Michigan, from 2010 to 2014, the number of students in Online Charter Schools increased from 718 students to 7,934 students (over 1000% increase).

“Private, for-profit companies (using public funds) are cashing in- the two largest online charter companies, K12 and Connections Academy, are raking in an estimated $1 billion per year (as of 2014). The motive is profit over substance: less operating costs, less teachers, and less building maintenance.

“The results have been damning: according a study from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CREDO), students in online charters lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading and 180 days of learning in math IN THE COURSE OF AN 180-DAY SCHOOL YEAR. They could have had equal math progress if they had spent the entire year asleep.

“In Philadelphia, a system composed of mainly poverty-stricken Black and Latinx students, online schools educated more than one-third of students as of 2014 [1]. The kicker is that, between 2011 and 2014, 100% of those students failed their state achievement tests. 100%!!! [2].”

The biggest online charter school in Ohio recently collapsed, both an academic and financial disaster.

Renegade Teacher thinks they should be banned. They are educational frauds.

 

Jennifer Mangrum is one courageous woman. She is challenging Phil Berger, the far-right leader of the North Carolina State Senate. Berger has harassed teachers and passed laws to authorize charters, for-profit charters, online charters and vouchers. It is not an overstatement to say that Senator Phil Berger hates public schools and their teachers.

The Network for Public Education Action Fund has endorsed Mangrum. Mangrum has 12 years of experience as a classroom teacher. She is currently a professor of education at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro.

If every public school parent and every graduate of a public school voted for Mangrum, she would oust the worst legislator in the state.

VOTE!!!

VOTE FOR JENNIFER MANGRUM!

 

Parents Across America (an independent group of parent activists that is critical of the commercialization and corporate takeover of education) has created a valuable resource about the effects of screen time on children. 

It is titled “Our Children @ Risk.”

The paper is 26 pages long. It contains extensive documentation.

It is a valuable resource in light of the profit-driven effort to promote EdTech in the schools without regard to is effects on children.

Here is the introduction:

“Children have a basic right to live in environments that promote their social, emotional and intellectual well-being. They have the right to grow up, and parents have the right to raise them, without being undermined by greed.” Susan Linn

“Parents Across America has developed a position paper and associated informational materials which detail a number of concerns about the invasion of EdTech* into our schools, and which we have collected under the title, “Our Children @ Risk.”

“This document is an annotated bibliography of resources we used to inform our position paper and materials. References to the outline letters and numbering below are used parenthetically throughout the informational materials to indicate the corresponding supportive research, documentation, expert opinion, and anecdotal and other background information.

“There is some overlap in the categories, and, of course, many of the sources quoted address more than one area of concern.

“A. Effect on children’s mental/emotional health

“B. Impact on student learning

“C. Physical effects – screen time

“D. Physical effects – vision E. Physical effects – sitting

“F. Effects on schooling

“G. Questionable effectiveness of EdTech

“H. Constant testing/lack of informed consent

“I. Privacy issues

“J. Who benefits?”