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

Betsy and Randi Visit a Rural School District in Ohio

By dianeravitch
April 21, 2017 //
47

Betsy DeVos and Randi Weingarten visited the public schools of rural Van Wert, Ohio. Randi wanted Betsy to see how important federal dollars are to a good public school. Betsy went along and got a promise from Randi to tour a school of choice with her.

Education Week says the “rifts” between them remain. Yeah, a rift the size of the Grand Canyon is not likely to close no matter how many schools they visit together or how often they meet.

Betsy’s spokesperson says she is not anti-public school. She just pours millions into campaigns of state and local candidates who support charters and vouchers, not public schools.

This effort to find common ground between polar opposites strikes me as pointless. It would be like bringing a devout Orthodox Jew to a Roman Catholic Church in hopes of changing his mind, or bringing a devout Roman Catholic to a synagogue and expecting to find common ground. Or hoping that a Bosox fan would be converted by a visit to the Yankees’ dugout. C’mon!

The New York Times’ account has this perceptive comment:

“Van Wert educators said they believed their biggest threat was school choice. An expanded voucher program would be “potentially catastrophic” for the district’s finances, said Mike Ruen, the district’s treasurer.
About 400 students now take advantage of a state open-enrollment policy, which Ms. DeVos endorsed during her visit. It allows students to attend an out-of-district school and take $6,000 in state per-pupil funding with them.
Most of them attend schools in a neighboring suburb. About 20 students are enrolled in an online charter school that has a 39 percent graduation rate. And a local vocational school takes 80 percent of the funding for each student who transfers there.

“Only one private school competes directly with Van Wert public schools: a small Catholic elementary school in town that the public school system provides special education services to, mostly at no charge. A Catholic high school 15 miles away is less of a draw, but could become one if parents receive vouchers. “I don’t think people are against choice,” Mr. Amstutz said. “But when you talk about expansion, taking money away from public schools, it gives people heartburn.”

Betsy DeVos will not change her mind about the importance of giving taxpayer dollars to every family to choose a charter school, a religious school, home schooling, a cyber charter, or whatever other option they want. They can even choose a public school. To the extent she is able, she will divert federal funds away from public schools to the other choices. She won’t resist Trump’s deep budget cuts. This visit will not transform her. It will not make her more attentive to the needs of the children in public schools. No doubt, she feels sorry for them because they are in public schools.

Randi will not stop being a union leader because of visiting a non-union charter or voucher school. She won’t stop believing in the importance or value of public schools. She won’t become a supporter of DeVos’s privatization agenda or Trump’s budget cuts.

Sorry, friends, but I don’t see the point of seeking “common ground.” There is none.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization, Religion, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Unions, Virtual Charter Schools, Vouchers

James Kirylo: Our Obsession with Standardized Testing is Inhumane

By dianeravitch
April 20, 2017 //
22

Mercedes Schneider posted a guest column by James Kirylo on our leaders’ sick obsession with testing and its harmful consequences for students.

Testing has become a grueling rite of spring, he writes.

“Whereas in 1950 those who completed high school took only approximately three standardized tests through their entire K-12 experience, and whereas in 1991 those who completed their K-12 experience took an average of 18-21 standardized tests, students today upon completion of their K-12 school experience can take anywhere between 60-100 standardized tests. In short, more than 100 million standardized tests are administered yearly across the U.S., annually costing the states approximately 1.7 billion dollars.

“This intense focus on testing and its results have moved into the realm of obsession, so much so that we now refer to “high-stakes” testing simply because they are becoming the sole criteria on how we assess and evaluate our children, teachers, administrators, and school districts. In short, the “reform” movement provoked by A Nation at Risk can be characterized as one that is now controlled by the profit-making testing industrialized complex.

“Truly, it has become disturbingly normalized in explaining reform efforts with detached terminology such as outcomes, ratings, scores, performance, monetary rewards, school takeovers, school closures, competition, and comparing and contrasting. As a result we have created an educational system that is analogous to describing a for-profit corporation, which ultimately results in the creation of “winners” and “losers.”

“This corporate-speak loses sight of the humanity behind this type of discourse, which works to objectify school-aged youth, fosters a constricted view of what is educationally important, and largely blames teachers if students don’t “perform” to some kind of arbitrary expectation.

“Make no mistake, this testing environment has placed school-aged youngsters under unnecessary stress, where many are fearful, dealing with bouts of panic, crying spells, apathy, sleeplessness, and depression. Therefore, it ought not be of any great surprise that droves of parents from around the country have opted-out their children from taking these tests, a number among which I include myself.

“And perhaps ironically, this testing movement has yielded very little positive results in improving our schools. In fact, one could argue that our nation is more at risk than it was 30 years ago, still leaving scores of children left behind. Indeed, illiteracy remains high, millions of children still live in poverty, and countless of youngsters are still attending classes with limited resources in schools that are old and dilapidated.”

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Testing

Kelvin Smythe: When Pooh and Christopher Robin Went Searching for a 21st Century Education

By dianeravitch
April 18, 2017 //
9

Kelvin Smythe is an educator and blogger in New Zealand who left the education system when the ideas of the New Right took over. He has since been a critic and an activist.

A friend Down Under sent me one of his recent writings, in which Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet and Christopher Robin go searching for a 21st Century Education.

But first a bit about Smythe. He wrote this about his views:

Kelvin Smythe makes a plea for teachers to see behind the commodification of education, the managerialism, the data gathering, the claims of new knowledge, the fads, the array of electronics to what teaching is really about – key interactions between teacher, child, and what is being learnt. He knows that many of his concerns about education, his aspirations for education, his style of writing about them will be dismissed as out-of-date. His claim, though, is that these key interactions are the essence of what teaching should be, and are timeless.

In the story he tells about Pooh and friends, there is this beginning:

Just as they came to the Six Pine Trees, Pooh looked around to see that nobody else was listening, and said in a very solemn voice: ‘Piglet, I have decided something.’

‘What have you decided Pooh?’

‘I have decided to catch a 21st Century Education.’

Piglet asked, ‘But what does a 21st Century Education look like? Then continued thoughtfully: ‘Before looking for something, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it.’

Smith then observes:

We are, it seems, getting ourselves tied in knots about something called 21st century education – before looking for it, as Piglet suggests, it might be wise to find out what we are looking for.

This could be done in respect to how it might differ from what went before, how it might be the same as what went before, how it might be worse than went before, who is supposed to benefit from it, who is calling for it, does it exist, should it exist, what are its aims and, being education, how much is career- or self-serving bollocks.

I intend this posting to be a search for something called a 21st century education.

As part of that I declare my prior understandings about the concept – a concept because there has never been any discussion about something called 20th century education, it was never conceptualised in that way, so why for 21st century education?

The formation and high usage of the concept label suggests powerful forces at work – forces, I suggest, taking control of the present to control the future.

Those active in promoting the concept of 21stcentury education are mostly from political, technology, and business groupings, also some academics: the immediate future they envisage as an extension and intensification of their perception of society and education as they see it now. And in the immediate future, as well as the longer term one, they see computers at the heart of 21st century education, which is fair enough as long as the role of computers is kept in proportion as befits a tool, a gargantuanly important one, but still a tool….

Smythe goes on to write about the dominant philosophy behind the 21st century education hullaballoo.

School education is being pressured to inappropriate purposes by groups who claim a hold on the future and from that hold generate techno-panic to gain advantage in the present.

Another prior understanding is that the inappropriate use of computers for learning has contributed to the decline in primary school education (though well behind the contribution of national standards and the terrible education
autocracy of the education review office).

For all the talk of personalising learning, of building learning around the child, of individualising learning, the mandating question for 21st century education seems to be: how can we build the digital into learning instead of how can we best do the learning? And even further: how can we build schools for digital learning instead of what is best for children’s learning environment? Large open spaces are not the best environment for children’s learning, meaning that in combination with the heavy use of computers to make large open spaces ‘work’, a distinct problem is developing. Computers and large open spaces are being promoted by 21st century advocates as the two key ideas to carry us forward to the education for the 21st century.

I think you will find this an interesting read and will spot the commonalities that we face, in the U.S., Australia, Great Britain, and New Zealand. It is the phenomenon that Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg calls GERM (the Global Education Reform Movement). Its proponents say that it is sweeping the world, and that the train has left the station. But please notice that educators and children are not on the train. They are on the tracks.

Categories Common Core, Corporate Reform, For-Profit, Global Education Reform Movement (GERM), International, Real Education, Technology, Computers

Florida: Jeb’s Corporate Raiders Attack Public Schools Again

By dianeravitch
April 17, 2017 //
11

Florida has more than 600 charter schools. They open and close like day-lilies. Many operate for profit. The charter industry cannot rest so long as a public school remains undisturbed by the forces of disruption and greed.

A new law has been proposed law to open more opportunities for the industry. It is cynically named “Schools of Hope.” But hope is for the entrepreneurs, not the children.

The Florida House of Representatives passed the law two days ago on a party-line vote. One Democrat called the legislation “Most Children Left Behind”

Behind the new law stands Betsy DeVos’s mentor, Jeb Bush. Jeb will push privatization so long as there remains a public school in Florida, regardless of results.

This letter came from Fund Education Now, a parent group.

Homepage

Status: HB 5105 “Charter School Turnaround Heist/Schools of Hope” passed in the House along strict party lines. No companion in Senate except Sen. Bean’s SB776, which is scheduled to be heard for the first time in committee on Monday, 4/17/17. Please take the time to read and understand the dangerous lie behind HB 5105 and why the Senate must stop it.

Take action now: Urge the Senate to reject Charter ”Schools of Hope” Turnaround language – No on SB776, block inclusion in Budget & “Train Bill”

Politics behind HB 5105:

Thirteen people filled out testimony cards in the House to speak on “Schools of Hope”/HB 5105; the sole proponent was a lobbyist from Jeb’s Foundation for Florida’s Future
Florida legislators chronically move cut scores while ignoring the more important measure of actual learning gains, a practice that deliberately throws schools in and out of A, B, C, D, or F status every year.

Case in point: the controversial “proficiency” language found in HB 773 which, if passed, alters the FSA cut scores again causing the pass rate to fall from 54% to somewhere between 27% and 39%, rapidly increasing the number of “D” and “F” schools, clearly benefiting “Schools of Hope.”

By allowing a “Schools of Hope” to open anywhere in a 5 mile radius from a “D” or “F” public school, legislators are ensuring that entire districts, even affluent areas, will qualify, triggering rapid charter growth.
Codifies a longstanding resentment that for-profit charter developers feel toward public school districts that charters aren’t being allowed to replicate fast enough.

Laws are passed every session to increase unmitigated charter growth.

Right now districts have multiple statutory options to aid in transforming a D or F school, only one of which is the transfer to a for-profit charter operator. Charter lobbyists and folks such as HB 5105 sponsor Manny Diaz, complain that districts don’t pick this option enough.

HB 5105 sweetens the charter pot by forcing districts to select the “transfer to for-profit charter operator” option and eliminating the district managed option entirely.

Send your letters now: Tell the Senate to reject the “Schools of Hope”/Charter Schools Turnaround Heist!

“Schools of Hope” do not ensure success for struggling students:

Students exiting their so-called “D/F” school become part of a large diaspora will be impossible to track to review outcomes, making it unlikely that the success or failure of “Schools of Hope” will ever be known.

The 77,000 students who currently attend D/F-graded public schools (2% of Florida’s 2.75 million public school students) are under zero obligation to attend the “School of Hope” situated within 5 miles of their current school.

“Schools of Hope” are under no obligation to provide transportation

Students who attend their so-called D/F school will be dispersed into the community, free to use the Opportunity Scholarships, Corporate Tax Credit/Private School Vouchers or the state’s liberal open enrollment policy that crosses all districts as well as the “School of Hope.”

Once the for profit charter “School of Hope” accepts the student(s) from the so-called D/F school, which could be as few as 1, they are free to host a lottery for the rest of the community

All the rhetoric about saving kids from so-called “failure factories” is a ruse. Under the “Schools of Hope,” nothing is guaranteed except the exponential growth of charter schools and the deliberate defunding of public district schools.

Triggers multiple ways for districts to lose schools and students, giving voters and parents no voice:

Gives for-profit charter developers access to a $200 million capital slush fund if they are willing to open a so-called “school of hope” within a five mile radius of any “D” or “F” public school, which opens entire districts to charter development.

Immediate transfer of D and F public schools into private, for-profit hands. Districts already have multiple statutory options to aid in transforming a D or F school, only one of which is the transfer to a for-profit charter operator.

Loss of public assets nearly $1 billion per year

Bill takes away district right to manage its own school

Establishes system of “Success” Charter schools that could be designated an independent district with its own taxing authority

Eliminates District managed option
Compresses the time-frame for schools that receive a D or F grade to be handed over to for-profit charter operator

Removes options from school boards for turn-around solutions

Picture of loss:

115 public district schools could be handed over immediately to corporate charter developers

450 additional public schools vulnerable to this charter school heist

77,000 students in those 115 public district schools under immediate takeover threat means the transfer of $555 million dollars to for profit charters per year based on UFTE of $7,420.58.

$200 million capital slush fund per year offered to for-profit charter chains willing to open a so-called “school of hope” within a five mile radius of any D or F public school.

For-profit Charter Chains not interested in struggling students:

Florida charters have demonstrated a chronic disinterest in this population.

Legislators are consumed with labeling children and schools with D or F, but unwilling to walk through the doors to see the remarkable work being done despite chronic underfunding

Charter Chains and legislators disregard the fact that struggling D or F schools face the deep effects of generational poverty that requires greater investment and support not “failure” labels and ridicule.

Charter chains know that struggling students cost more and are “not attractive” to a ‘for-profit” model

Legislators ignore District Success:

A prime example of this is Orange County’s successful Evans High Community School, which is a collaborative effort between the district, UCF and other agencies.

This level of student investment – at least $1M more per year per school – is something no for-profit corporation is willing to justify to its board

Florida has a history of constantly moving cut scores while ignoring the more important measure of actual learning gains, a practice that deliberately throws schools in and out of A, B, C, D, or F status every year.

“Schools of Hope” is based on a lie:

Florida’s A-F Accountability/school grades are based on a false premise since school grades almost always reflect zip code status

Florida’s constantly moving cut scores vs. the more important measure of actual learning gains throws schools in and out of A, B, C, D, or F status every year rendering the grades meaningless

Alters statute to include both D and F schools, exponentially driving up the numbers of schools available for take over

Florida Charter Schools have not lived up to their promises

State has spent $760 million on the building and operation of charter schools since 2000.

Majority of state funding for the construction and renovation of schools goes to charter schools.

U.S. Department of Education found no evidence to support the claims that charter schools ‘save children from “failing schools.”

Research shows that restarting a former public school as a charter school had no significant impact on math or reading test scores, high graduation or college enrollment

In 2016, Florida charter schools closures were the highest in the nation

HB 5105 “Schools of Hope” enticements offered to for-profit charter chains:

Gives for profit operators a $200 million slush fund,

Provides for-profit charter developers with a state tax-payer sponsored revolving loan program

Transfers federal funds meant for district schools to private entities

Forces districts to turn over public school buildings AND requires the school district to maintain them.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from school building codes, taxes, fees and assessments and state procurement laws.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from the current charter law and requirements that they close if they fail.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from the class size limits in our constitution.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from teacher certification requirements

Rescinds district-managed option for turning around struggling schools

Stretching the truth – calling Charter Chains “public”

Parents at Charter Schools have little recourse and must address complaints to a corporate school board whose members may not even live in the state.

For-profit Charter schools are run by corporate operators, are allowed to profit from publicly bonded real estate deals and are governed by separate school boards – all enriched by public dollars.

The 501c3 front door provides cover for a private, exceptionally lucrative for-profit back door charter operators that are exempt from transparency because they are private corporations

Legislators benefit from charter school growth. HB 5105 sponsor, Rep. Diaz, earns his living working for the unaccredited Doral College, which is owned by mega charter school developer Academica, the group that just won the state’s first district charter school takeover located in Jefferson County, The ink isn’t dry on the deal to serve 600 students and already Academica is petitioning the Florida Legislature for an additional $5 Million.

Categories Bush, Jeb, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Florida, For-Profit

Betsy DeVos Withdraws Protections for Students from Predatory Loan Agencies

By dianeravitch
April 13, 2017 //
16

In an inexplicable move, Secretary of Education DeVos canceled rules–some of which date back to the first Bush administration–to set standards for student loan agencies.

This benefits the industry that fattens on student loans, but it will harm students.

The New York Times editorial board asks “Whose Side is Betsy DeVos on?” I think we know.

“Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is inexplicably backing away from rules that are meant to prevent federal student loan borrowers from being fleeced by companies the government pays to collect the loans and to guide people through the repayment process.

“On Tuesday, she withdrew a sound Obama administration policy that required the Education Department to take into account the past conduct of loan servicing companies before awarding them lucrative contracts — and to include consumer protections in those contracts as well.

“The department is doing the loan industry’s bidding at a time when student debt has crippled a generation financially and the country’s largest loan servicing company, Navient, is facing several lawsuits accusing it of putting its own interest before that of the borrowers it is supposed to help.

“A suit brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claims that Navient saved itself money by steering borrowers into costly repayment strategies that added billions in interest to their balances. But as Stacy Cowley and Jessica Silver-Greenberg reported in The Times on Monday, states’ lawsuits are especially damning with respect to Sallie Mae — the company that spun off Navient in 2014.

“The Illinois and Washington attorneys general argue that Sallie Mae engaged in predatory lending, saddling people with private subprime loans that the company knew in advance were likely to fail because borrowers would not be able to repay them. The two attorneys general — part of an investigative coalition of 29 states — argue that borrowers deserve to have these tainted private loans forgiven.

“The scenario outlined in the court documents bears a frightening resemblance to the subprime mortgage crisis of a decade ago — when mortgage companies caused millions of borrowers to lose their homes by steering them into risky, high-cost mortgages they could never hope to repay.

“The Illinois and Washington lawsuits argue that Sallie Mae used subprime private loans to build relationships with exploitative schools that then helped the company make more federal loans to their students. Those loans were the jackpot for the company, the lawsuit argues, because they were guaranteed by the government, which steps in to reimburse the lender when a borrower defaults.

“The defaulted private loans destroyed the financial lives of students. But they benefited the schools — which sometimes made deals with Sallie Mae to subsidize the losses — allowing them to comply with federal rules requiring that no more than 90 percent of a school’s revenue can come from federal financial aid. The case shows the dangers inherent in letting companies service federal and private loans simultaneously.”

Will it make America “great again” by impoverishing a generation of students?

I thought she was a Christian. What would Jesus do? Didn’t Jesus throw the money-lenders out of the Temple?

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Higher Education, Student Financial Aid and Student Debt, Students

Setback for Camelot Education as a Result of ProPublica-Slate Expose

By dianeravitch
April 12, 2017 //
5

ProPublica won a Pulitzer Prize this past week for its excellent journalism.

Only days ago, ProPublica and Slate published an expose of a for-profit education company called Camelot, which operates alternative schools. As a result of their story, a district in Georgia has delayed adoption of a $6.3 million contract for three months, to learn more about Camelot and its methods. This story was co-published with Slate.

The Muscogee County School Board in Columbus, Georgia, dealt another blow to embattled Camelot Education when it voted Monday night to delay for three months a decision on whether to hire the company to run its alternative education programs.

The delay in awarding the $6.4 million annual contract comes in the wake of a recent report by ProPublica and Slate that more than a dozen Camelot students were allegedly shoved, beaten or thrown by staff members — incidents almost always referred to as “slamming.” The for-profit Camelot runs alternative programs across the country for more than 3,000 students, most of whom have emotional or behavioral difficulties or have fallen far behind academically.

“The abuse allegations were one of many red flags for me,” said Muscogee school board member Frank Myers, one of five board members who supported postponement, while three were opposed. If the district is going to privatize such an important service, he said, “You ought to have an outfit that has a pristine record.”

The board bucked the wishes of school district officials, including Superintendent of Education David Lewis, who pushed to hire Camelot. “There was no transparency,” Myers said. “They wanted us to rush this thing.”

Instead, a community advisory council will be created, and additional public hearings will be held. The council is expected to report back within three months.

Efforts to reach Lewis were unsuccessful. Camelot spokesman Kirk Dorn said in an email that the company often encounters delays when it enters new partnerships. The company expects to meet with the community later this month “and will continue to ensure that those who still have questions get answers,” Dorn said. “We know from experience that the more a community learns about how we help students succeed the more reassured they become that we will be an asset.”

Camelot has faced recent setbacks in other states as well. On March 9, the day after the report was published, the Houston school board voted unanimously not to renew its contract with Camelot, instead bringing management of its alternative program in house. And a Philadelphia city councilwoman called for more information about the city’s alternative schools, including their disciplinary practices.

About half a million people in the United States attend alternative schools, which are publicly funded but often managed by private, for-profit companies such as Camelot, which was founded in 2002. They frequently serve as a last resort for struggling low-income and minority students.

Categories Discipline, For-Profit, Georgia

Arizona: Legislators Welcome Profiteers to Scam Taxpayer Money to Subsidize Private Schools for the Affluent

By dianeravitch
April 7, 2017 //
23

Carol Burris spent time in Arizona to find out what happens with the state’s school choices. What she discovered was unbridled profiteering on the taxpayers’ dime.

She wrote in the Arizona Capitol Times that Arizona taxpayers are being hoaxed by the education industry.

It is time for Arizonans to take a hard look at who really benefits from school choice. While some families may want tax-payer funded options, the dizzying array of choices, combined with lax oversight and weak laws, make Arizona’s taxpayers easy marks for profiteering on the taxpayers’ dime.

Arizona is the Mecca of School Choice – for-profit charters, non-profit “fronts” for for-profit charters, Empowerment Scholarships Accounts (ESAs), and tax credits all compete with little regulation and oversight.

Let’s begin with charters. Arizona’s charter laws are some of the worst in the nation when it comes to protecting taxpayer money. For example, the Arizona State Office of the Auditor General is not allowed to monitor charter school spending.

Only the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (AZCB), whose members (with one exception) are appointed by the charter-friendly Governor, can keep an eye on charter school finances.

Does that lack of thorough, objective oversight matter? You bet. Sound oversight produces fiscally responsible charter schools that can afford to stay open. Without it, scams, bad real estate deals and old-fashioned mismanagement abound.

When charters close, millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted and students are left stranded. In a five-year period (2009-2013), 111 Arizona charters shut down. According to former superintendent and charter school administrator, Curt Cardine, in 2013-2014, 138 charter schools “did not meet the AZCB Financial Performance Recommendation. This is fully 33.91% of the charter groups in the state that were financially rated by AZCB.”

Are the citizens of Arizona indifferent to the waste and fraud that permeates the charter industry? Or is it that they just don’t care what they are paying for? Do they fall for every fraud that the hucksters sell? Would they buy snake oil to cure baldness?

There is no penalty for the owners if the school fails. In fact, it is an opportunity for enrichment. All property belongs to the charter owner by law. That means taxpayer-funded buildings, books, computers, and equipment go to the owner of the failed school, which he can sell.

Fiscal problems are not limited to “mom and pop” charter schools. Even well-established charter chains can run into fiscal difficulty. The most recent audit for the BASIS charter chain shows a huge deficit in assets of over $13 million, and a 2014-2015 net loss of $3,074,317. BASIS School Inc., which collects the taxpayers’ dollars, is a non-profit. However, it is managed by the for-profit, BASIS Educational Group, LLC. In 2014-15, just shy of $60 million went from the BASIS non-profit to the for-profit corporation to provide services to BASIS schools. When that happens, spending is blocked from public view.

Additional frauds are perpetrated with Arizona’s so-called Empowerment Savings Accounts, aka deregulated vouchers.

But charter schools are not Arizona’s only worry. Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs), which some in the legislature want to expand, have been a “hot mess” of misspending and even fraud.

For those unfamiliar with the program, parents who participate are given a debit card to buy educational services for their child instead of sending them to a public school. Although it is touted as a program to help poor families escape “failing schools,” an analysis of the state’s ESA program found that most families using it are leaving high-performing public schools in wealthy districts to attend private schools. Students from schools with the fewest students receiving free or reduced-priced lunches received an average ESA benefit of $15,200 – more than twice the average ESA benefit of $7,350 given to students from schools with the highest share of children receiving free or reduced-price lunches.

Parents have used the debit card to purchase personal items for themselves instead of their kids. There was even an attempt made to use it for a dating service. There are cases of parents getting and using the debit card even though their children are enrolled in public school. The state has collected only a fraction of what has been misspent.

Other Arizona school privatization programs have been equally fraught with problems. The $140 million dollar a year tax-credit program is nothing more than a gift of public funds masquerading as a “good cause.” Contributors get a dollar for dollar credit with the money going to support private school tuition. Yes, you make a contribution, but it costs the taxpayers, not the donor.

When will the citizens and taxpayers of Arizona wake up and realize that their tax dollars are underwriting fraud, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and self-dealing?

Do they care?

No, they don’t care about waste and fraud. Yesterday the Arizona legislature voted by 16-13 to expand the voucher program, so that more students can use public money to go to private and religious schools.

Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, had originally sought universal vouchers. Her plan was built on the fact that the cap on enrollment, currently about 5,000 students, is scheduled to self-destruct after 2019, making vouchers available for every one of the 1.1 million students now in public schools.

But Lesko could not get the votes for her plan, with objections ranging from philosophical issues of state aid to private schools to the fact that her legislation would have increased the cost to the state by $25 million a year by 2021.

The stalemate was broken when Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, agreed to go along. But Worsley insisted on a series of changes, including the cap he said should keep the number of vouchers at probably no more than about 30,000 by 2021.

That proved little comfort to Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, who pointed out it would take only a simple majority of a future legislature to remove that cap and create universal vouchers.

Worsley conceded the point. “I think it’s the best deal we can get,” he said. Worsley also said that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and that the next six years will be an “experiment” to show whether vouchers result in better education.

Vouchers were first approved in 2011 to help parents whose children with special needs could not get the services they need in public schools.

Foes sued, charging that it violates a state constitutional provision barring public dollars from being used for religious worship or instruction.

But the state Court of Appeals said the money goes to the parents who decide how to spend the funds, making who ultimately gets the dollars irrelevant. And the judges said the vouchers do not result in the state encouraging the preference of one religion over another, or religion over atheism.

Since that time, proponents have repeatedly added to the list of who is eligible. It now includes everything from children of people in the military on active duty and foster children to all children in failing schools and those living on Indian reservations.

And supporters have made it clear from the beginning the ultimate goal always has been universal vouchers, which was precisely where Lesko was headed.

Worsley insisted he’s neither a supporter or foes of vouchers, formally called “empowerment scholarship accounts,” describing himself as a “pragmatic arbitrator” between supporters and foes.

Farley scoffed at that contention, saying this “compromise” does not acknowledge there are many lawmakers who believe public dollars should not be used to send children, in whatever numbers, to private and parochial schools.

“This is no compromise at all,” added Senate Minority Leader Katie Hobbs. “This is lipstick on a pig.”

Worsley said his amendment does more than cap the number of vouchers — at least unless and until future lawmakers decide otherwise.

He said the amount of the voucher given to a student will be based on the amount of state aid given to students in that district. Worsley estimated that average figure at $4,400 a year, versus the current $5,600.

What that also means, he said, is if the maximum number of children eligible can get vouchers in 2021 there will be a net savings to the state of $3.4 million, versus the $25 million cost.

Worsley said that’s nothing to be sneezed at, pointing out that $28.4 million swing is twice as much as Gov. Doug Ducey, who lobbied in support of this plan, put into this year’s budget for teacher raises.

That still leaves the question of who benefits.

There is some evidence that many of the 3,800 students who are now getting vouchers have moved from schools in affluent neighborhoods. That leads to charges that vouchers help defray what parents pay to have their youngsters attend private schools where tuition can top $15,000 a year.

“They’re just having the taxpayers of Arizona subsidize that tuition,” said Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Phoenix.

The $4,400 will be a nice subsidy for affluent parents. But it won’t be enough to put poor children into elite private schools, which has no space for them anyway.

The research on vouchers has pointed in one direction: It does not produce better education. It produces a lobby to keep the money flowing to private and religious schools without regard to the quality of education.

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Failure, For-Profit, Fraud, Privatization, Vouchers

DeVos is Visiting Pitbull’s Charter School Today, Which Was Investigated by Her Own Department Last Year

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
8

Jennifer Berkshire writes that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is visiting the Florida charter called SLAM started by misogynist rapper Pitbull. It is part of the controversial for-profit charter chain Academica, which was investigated last year by the UlS. Department of Education.

Berkshire interviews Preston Green about The problems of cronyism, conflicts of interest, and corruption that accompany deregulation.

Meanwhile, DeVos will bring the gospel of deregulation and choice without accountability to the converted.

A useful reminder: Join the Network for Public Education to fight DeVos’ efforts to destroy public education.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Florida, For-Profit, Fraud, School Choice, U.S. Department of Education

BREAKING NEWS: Julian Vasquez Heilig Has Won OK to Open Five For-Profit Charter Schools in Michigan!

By dianeravitch
April 1, 2017 //
19

Julian Vasquez Heilig has deep ties to the state of Michigan, as he is from Lansing, and he graduated from the University of Michigan. He has made his mark as a scholar of education policy at the University of Texas and now Sacramento State in California. Although he has established a reputation as a well-informed critic of charters, he could not pass up the opportunity to open a chain of charters in his home state of Michigan, where anyone can open a charter school and the financial rewards of for-profit charters are large. What’s principle when profits are so alluring?

The five charters will open this September, which is kind of quick, but then they are mostly online schools. It is no problem that Julian will continue to live in California, because, well, the weather is better.

It took only four weeks to have his request approved, so why wait to get started?

Here are three of his five new charters. You will have to open the link to read about the other two. They are doozies:

SELL Academy: SELL Academy will be primarily online and have a statewide attendance zone and serve grades 9-12. The school plans to implement an online real estate and sales curriculum through partnership with Trump University. The school aims to integrate sales into project-based learning experiences to allow students to develop critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding of sales— including real estate deals. Tremendous! There will be a brick-and-mortar location at a Trump property to be determined later.

Perfect Graduation Academy for Boys: Perfect Academy for Boys will be primarily online have a statewide with a brick-and-mortar location on land to be purchased by school and then leased back to me by my Charter Management Organization at a “great” price. Perfect will serve grades 9-10. The school will be a single-gender charter school that provides a rigorous, college preparatory program for grades 9-12. We will have a 100% graduation rate for everyone that is still at our school after four years. I promise. Perfect Academy for Boys will offer an extended day, week and year religious-based educational program. The focus is on boys, because, well, you know boys.

Exodus Academy for Girls: Exodus Academy for Girls will be primarily online have a statewide with a brick-and-mortar location on land to be purchased by school and then leased back to me by my Charter Management Organization at a “great” price (see above). I am actually thinking I might sell this school before it opens or mid-year. I’m taking offers— I’m ready to exodus.

He says he knows that Betsy DeVos will be thrilled with his success and that he was inspired by her comparison of schools to Ubers and other disruptive innovations in ride-sharing. He wants to be part of the new economy.

Need I say that Julian will be leaving the board of the Network for Public Education as of close of business today?

(April Fool!)

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Education Reform, For-Profit, Hoax, Humor, Privatization

Carol Burris: The Secrets of Arizona’s High-Performing Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
March 31, 2017 //
51

Carol Burris has been conducting an investigation of charter schools in many states, beginning with her series on California. In this post, she analyzes the remarkable test scores of certain high-performing charter schools in Arizona.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/03/30/what-the-public-doesnt-know-about-high-performing-charter-schools-in-arizona/

Public schools are supposed to learn from the “innovative” practices of charter schools. So, what can be learned from Arizona’s best charter schools?

1. Choose your students carefully.
2. Give preference to students who are white and Asian.
3. Avoid students with disabilities and students whose English is limited.
4. Minimize the number of children who live in poverty.
5. Make the demands so challenging that the weakest students leave.

The top charter schools in Arizona are the BASIS chain, founded by Michael and Olga Block. The first was founded in Tucson in 1998, followed by one in Scottsdale in 2003.

BASIS Tucson and BASIS Scottsdale became top-ranked schools on Newsweek’s “America’s Most Challenging High Schools” list, and later flew to top spots on the Best High Schools list of U.S. News & World Report.

Advocates touted the Tucson and Scottsdale schools as miracles, holding them up as examples of what high expectations, combined with the freedom afforded charter schools, can do. BASIS exploded. There are now 18 BASIS charter schools in Arizona, three in Texas and one in Washington D.C., all managed by the for-profit corporation, BASIS Educational Group, LLC. The same LLC also manages five for-profit BASIS private schools in the United States and one private international school.

Pretty impressive.

But Burris examined the demographics.

In Arizona, 3% of the state’s students are Asian, but 32% in BASIS charters.

In the state, 5% are American Indian, but 0% in BASIS.

In the state, 45% of students are Latino, compared to 10% in BASIS.

In the state, 39% of students are white, but 51% in BASIS.

In the state, 3% are black, and 5% in BASIS.

In 2015-16, only 1.23 percent of the students at BASIS had a learning disability, as compared to 11.3 percent of students in the state. BASIS schools had no English Language Learners. And in a state in which over 47 percent of all students received free or reduced- priced lunch, BASIS had none. Although BASIS may have some students from qualifying households, it chooses not to participate in the free or reduced-priced lunch program.

There are economic barriers to entry:

Because BASIS provides no transportation, where it places schools — along with the lack of a free-lunch program — discourages disadvantaged students from applying. There are also hefty “suggested” parental contributions. BASIS requests that families contribute at least $1,500 a year per child to the school to fund its teacher bonus program. Enrollees must also pay a $300 security deposit, purchase some books, and pay for activities that would be free if the student attended a public school.

The curriculum is so rigorous that less than 50% of those who enter will remain to graduate.

Only the strong survive, and that boosts the rankings of BASIS in the various magazine rating systems.

And then there is the money!

As the empire grows, the management fees grow. The Blocks opened a private LLC to shield their finances from public views.

Salary and travel transparency disappeared in 2009 when the Blocks opened a private, for-profit limited liability company, BASIS Educational Group, LLC. Now the couple’s salary and expenses are hidden from the public. According to the 990 for 2009, BASIS School Inc. spent $3,902,122 in total on school salaries, and $1,728,000 on “management.” BASIS Educational Group, LLC, the for-profit that contracted with BASIS Schools Inc., received $4,711,699 for leased employee costs and $1,766,000 for management, indicating that there were also substantial fees that went to the Block’s LLC.

The latest 990 shows just shy of $60 million going from the non-profit to the for-profit corporation to provide services to BASIS schools.

These are publicly funded private schools whose “owners” generate huge income for themselves.

But as Secretary DeVos reminds us so often, this is child-centric education, and it is not about adult interests. Right.

Categories Arizona, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, For-Profit
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »