Archives for category: For-Profit

This report from In the Public Interest:

Earlier this month, the Seattle City Council voted not to renew its contract with Wells Fargo, pulling more than $3 billion in city funds from the Wall Street giant. Headlines focused on the bank’s financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline and its recent fake account scandal. And rightly so—Wells Fargo defrauded over two million of its own customers.

But Seattle divested also because Wells Fargo bankrolls private prison companies. The city’s resolution highlighted the privately operated Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, run by GEO Group, where immigrants and refugees from across Washington State are detained as they await deportation hearings.

GEO Group and its main competitor, CoreCivic (formerly CCA), rely on financing from Wells Fargo, along with five other banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. That means Wall Street profits from deportation.

That also means what Seattle did has broader implications. Though only a fraction of the $1 trillion Wells Fargo had in deposits last year, Seattle’s money sends a message, one that rings out not only on Wall Street but also in the White House.

Trump keeps handing gifts to the private prison industry. Yesterday, new Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded an Obama administration order to end the use of private prisons for undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes. Earlier in the week, Trump’s Department of Homeland Security announced it would build more immigration detention centers.

It’s safe to assume GEO Group and CoreCivic will build and operate many of those centers. That’s because today’s detention system is highly privatized—65% of detention space is operated for profit. And it’s safe to assume Wall Street will provide some of the cash needed to build them.

By following the money, Seattle made that a little tougher. So did the University of California system and the cities of East Orange, NJ, and Alameda City, CA.

There are many ways to disrupt Trump’s mass deportations, from sanctuary cities to #FreedomCities, and following the money is one of them.

But bottom line: public money—our money—shouldn’t be in the hands of those profiting from deportation.

Please share this story on Facebook, Twitter, or by forwarding it to a friend.

Sincerely,

Donald Cohen

InthePublicInterest.org

John Kuhn is an eloquent, wise superintendent in Texas who spreads truth to power.

In this address to the Association of Texas Professional Educators, he warned that the very existence of public education was under fire by a coalition of the rich and the greedy.

He is so brilliant, so eloquent, and so on target that it is hard to excerpt his speech. I urge you to read it in full. If you know anyone in Texas, share it. Send it to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the politician who wants to monetize and privatize the state’s underfunded public schools. That’s his game. That’s his shame. Be sure to tweet JOHN Kuhn’s speech to Dan Patrick @DanPatrick and @LtGovTX

Kuhn says:


“It all really comes down to vouchers. This has been the end-game the whole time. Going back through the decades from TABS to TEAMS to TAAS to TAKS to STAAR [the acronyms for successive state tests], it was never about assessing student learning. It was always about smearing teachers and manufacturing a crisis. Vouchers were always a solution in search of a problem, and the test-and-punish industrial complex arose to create that problem. In reality, testing has always shown us the same thing, always. Well-off and middle class American public school students academically outperform kids from private schools and kids from other nations, when matched socioeconomically. And poor American kids outperform poor kids in those other countries and in private schools, when matched socioeconomically. It is only when you lump all the kids together–because we have so many more poor kids testing than they systems they compare us to–that American public school results look bad. It is a trick. We don’t have an educational problem. We have a social inequality problem that politicians and privatizers dress up as an educational problem. And this statistical sleight of hand, this deliberate misdirection has one goal: to justify the need for vouchers and the dismantling of public education as a state responsibility.

“The voucher movement is about money and adult interests. It isn’t about children. It’s not even mostly about parents who want a discount on their private school tuition; it’s mostly about the interests of other adults, very wealthy adults. It’s about the interests of tycoons and political players who are funding school voucher campaigns across our state and nation not because they want to improve schools, but because they want to engineer a cheaper education so their property taxes will go down. They want to hobble teachers’ unions and reduce wages and benefits. And on top of cheapening a system that already has one of the lowest levels of per pupil spending in the nation, Texas privatizers also want to make money on theback end, they want a piece of the education pie, which billionaire school choice advocate Rupert Murdoch said was a $500 billion dollar industry just waiting to be “transformed.” He meant to say hijacked.

“They don’t really want a piece of the education pie. They want the whole thing. They want to convert a public good into a private enterprise. They want to take this public education system that was created by wiser and more selfless people long ago as a public trust, that belongs to the people—controlled by voters engaged in the Democratic process, free to attend, and open to all children—this is the vision of public education as we know it, and this is what is facing an existential threat….

Texas voters and Texas lawmakers have rejected vouchers over and over again. But the voucher lobby cynically repackages the idea under new and confusing names. Let’s call vouchers Opportunity Scholarships. The voters figured that out, time to change the name. Let’s call them Education Savings Accounts. Let’s call them School Choice. Let’s rebrand them over and over until everyone is thoroughly confused and don’t realize they’re voting for vouchers. The Dallas Morning News had a better term for vouchers in a recent headline: “Private School Vouchers are the Fool’s Gold of Better Education.”

Fool’s gold. Pyrite. A worthless material that is just shiny enough to trick the uninformed into believing that it has value. That’s exactly what vouchers are, even if you call them something else. And why would you call them something else? Why would voucher advocates feel the need to trick people by re-branding their pet policy?

Maybe it’s because vouchers are a terrible idea. Maybe they change the name because the research is in, and it’s clear: vouchers just don’t work. In fact, research shows unequivocally that vouchers don’t just fail to make student achievement better; they actually make student achievement demonstrably worse. Vouchers aren’t the civil rights movement of our time; they’re the civil wrongs movement of our time, hurting the children they pretend to help. Three different research studies published recently have found that voucher programs harm student learning—including one study sponsored by the Walton Family Foundation and the Fordham Institute, both proponents of vouchers. Students who use vouchers underperform their matched peers who stay in public schools.

You heard me right. I’m not just saying that vouchers don’t help very much. I’m saying voucher programs result in students learning less than if the voucher programs didn’t exist. Giving a student a voucher to improve his education is like giving a struggling swimmer a boulder to help him swim. The Walton Foundation study said: “Students who use vouchers to attend private schools have fared worse academically compared to their closely matched peers attending public schools.” A study of the voucher program in Louisiana found very negative results in both reading and math. Kids who started the voucher program at the 50th percentile in math dropped to the 26th percentile in a single year. Vouchers are so harmful to children that a Harvard professor called their negative effect “as large as any I’ve seen in the literature.”

Vouchers should come with a surgeon general’s warning like cigarettes. The third study was of a voucher program involving over 10,000 students in Indiana—where our vice president was governor—and it found this: “In mathematics, voucher students who transfer to private schools experienced significant losses in achievement” and show no improvement in reading. Vouchers are not only not helpful—they’re harmful. And they are not only harmful—they are more harmful than any other educational initiative Harvard researchers have ever seen. They are the educational equivalent of smoking cigarettes to treat lung disease. And the voucher lobby treats research exactly like the tobacco lobby does, by paying think tanks to generate copious amounts of pseudo-science and internet content to try and generate support for the harmful ideology behind their business venture.

In the face of this data showing indisputably that vouchers make things worse for struggling students, why then are vouchers still the big focus this session from so many Texas and Washington political insiders? It’s simple really, and sad. It’s because the voucher push isn’t about student performance at all. That isn’t what this is about. It’s about money in the pockets of adults. Vouchers are not, never were, and never will be about kids….

So I ask what is worse? A government in 1836 so blind to the needs of its citizens that it failed to create a system of public education, or a government in 2017 so deeply held hostage by cronyism and corruption that it is actively, session after session, year after year, trying to dismantle a system of public education that has already been created, a system that was built by the treasure and efforts of many selfless generations of Texas taxpayers and teachers, a system that has expanded since 1836 to cover every square inch of the state, to educate every Texas child who wants to be educated, for free, children of every race and color and creed, regardless of ability or disability, regardless of which side of the tracks they were born on, regardless of their home language or any other personal characteristic. Public schools are for the children. Vouchers are for cronies and conmen. When rich elites refuse to invest in the education of the children of the poor, they sow seeds of disenchantment that eventaually unravel the social fabric. They don’t realize what a dangerous game they play.

The public education movement was and is and will always be about the interests of poor and middle class children and families who see education as their path to a more prosperous future. The voucher movement is about funneling tax dollars to schools that have the right to exclude kids that don’t fit their mold. Voucher schools will have academic entry requirements to keep out the riff raff. Voucher schools will have behavior contracts to keep out the riff raff. Voucher schools will have parent volunteering requirements to keep out the riff raff. The voucher schools will have fees for extracurricular activities, fees for books, fees for uniforms, fees to keep out the riff raff.

But they aren’t riff raff. They’re children, and they are all welcome in our public schools.

The voucher movement rests on a foundational lie that the free market will sort good schools from bad when parents choose. But this is smoke and mirrors, because they have no intention for the marketplace of schools to be truly free. The voucher movement wants to create a system in which public schools give STAAR tests—lots of STAAR tests—but the voucher schools give none. That’s not a free market. That’s the government picking winners and losers. And the voucher movement wants public schools graded with A-F grades based on those STAAR tests, but it doesn’t want the voucher schools graded on the same A-F scale, because A-F grades for schools are based on the STAAR TESTS that voucher schools will never ever be required to give. School vouchers are not a free market, they are the government picking winners and losers and guaranteeing that the winners will be private schools that are exempt from the crushing bureaucratic regulations that our state and federal governments have heaped upon the state’s public schools for decades.

It is a cynical ploy, a corrupt, self-serving campaign. Vouchers are not about children, they are 100% about adult interests.

And school choice is not really about giving students their choice of schools. The best private schools cost over $20,000 per year in tuition. The state is talking about giving out $5000 vouchers. That won’t get poor kids into leafy green academies, it will get them into pop-up franchises that some of the voucher lobby’s largest donors are going to launch all over the state. It will get them into online for-profit schools where one teacher at a computer will “teach” 400 kids clicking through modules online, and we will all pretend this is an education, that this clicking through modules is preparing those kids to be engaged, civically-minded, well-rounded citizens.

I’m just going to say that a real education should look a lot like real life, with flesh and blood encounters with teachers and classmates, face-to-face interactions with diverse friends and neighbors, conflicts and shared lunches, recesses and sports teams, student councils and class officers and mums and bonfires, parades down main street led by the band, and news clippings in the gas station about a buzzer-beater win. Letter jackets and class rings, kissing in the stairwell, loud stereos in the parking lot and quiet tears in the counselor’s office. This is the hum and rattle of community, the pulse, the heartbeat of our neighborhoods, this is public school.

Public schools are about the children. Public schools mold the future when they educate our kids, and they always have. When our politicians brag about how great Texas is and how strong the economy is, remind them that it was public school teachers, not politicians, who built Texas, and we built it by educating 95% of the students in this state.

Kevin Carey is doing a great job exposing the failure of vouchers to help the children who are allegedly supposed to be saved by them. In his latest article in the New York Times, he shows how slick politicians and entrepreneurs are cashing in to enrich themselves while administering tax credit programs.

Trump and DeVos are likely to promote school choice through tax credits since it is the fastest way to avoid state constitutional challenges and to divert public money (that would have been paid as taxes) into private religious schools.

Carey looks at the tax credit program in Arizona, where a politician named Steve Yarbrough has made the program his private honey pot. Yarbrough is president of the state senate. Vouchers have made him a very wealthy man.

“The Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization (Acsto) is one of the state’s largest voucher-granting groups. From 2010 to 2014 (the latest year recorded in federal tax filings), the group received $72.9 million in donations, all of which were ultimately financed by the state.

“Arizona law allows the group to keep 10 percent of those donations to pay for overhead. In 2014, the group used that money to pay its executive director $125,000. His name? Steve Yarbrough. Forms filed by the organization with the I.R.S. declare that he worked an average of 40 hours per week on the job — in addition, presumably, to the hours he worked as president of the State Senate.

“Yet the group doesn’t do all the work involved with accepting donations and handing out vouchers. It outsources data entry, computer hardware, customer service, information processing, award notifications and related personnel expenses to a private for-profit company called HY Processing. The group paid HY Processing $636,000 in 2014, and millions of dollars in total over the last decade.

“The owner of HY Processing? Steve Yarbrough, along with his wife, Linda, and another couple. (The “Y” in “HY” stands for “Yarbrough.”) According to The Arizona Republic, Acsto also pays $52,000 per year in rent. Its landlord? Steve Yarbrough. In June 2012, Mr. Yarbrough bought a car for $16,000. In July 2012, Acsto reimbursed him the full amount.”

The Los Angeles Times ran a first-page story about the latest charter school scandal, only a day before the school board election that will decide whether charter advocates will take control of the Los Angeles school board.

There will likely be a low voter turnout for this special election, and the question is turnout: Will enough parents vote to save their public schools, or will the profligate spending of the charter industry on propaganda and false attacks ads enable them to privatize the schools of half the students in the district? If the charter billionaires win, look for more privately run charters that produce incompetence, plunder, profit, and power for the elite.

The big story today is about Celerity Education Group, a charter chain that is thriving with public money. Its CEO is Vielka McFarlane.

In 2013, she earned $471,842, about 35% more than Michelle King, the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, makes today.

McFarlane was prospering, and it showed. She wore Armani suits, ate at expensive restaurants and used a black car service.

Financial records obtained by The Times show that, as Celerity’s CEO, she paid for many of these expenses with a credit card belonging to her charter schools, which receive the bulk of their funding from the state.

It could not be determined whether McFarlane, 54, ever reimbursed the charter schools for her credit card purchases. Neither she nor a lawyer hired by Celerity responded to requests for comment about the transactions.

At a time when charter school advocates are determined to increase the number of such schools in L.A., the story of McFarlane and the Celerity schools offers a case study of the growing difficulty of regulating them. The task of spotting and stamping out risky financial practices in charters largely falls to the school district’s charter schools division, which employs about a dozen people dedicated to monitoring the schools’ fiscal health.

But as the number of L.A. charter schools has grown to more than 220, enrolling about 111,000 students, oversight has become a challenge for district officials, who are at once competitors and regulators.

In 2012, L.A. Unified’s charter schools division made a routine request for financial records from the Celerity Educational Group.

When the school network’s credit card statements arrived that fall, many of the transactions had been blacked out. One page was nearly all black.

Concerned school district staff grew even more alarmed when they received the full records, which showed that McFarlane had paid for lavish meals and out-of-state travel on the nonprofit’s credit card.

In one month in 2013, she had spent $914 at the Arroyo Chop House in Pasadena, $425 at The Lobster, a seafood restaurant in Santa Monica, and $355 at Paiche, a now-closed Peruvian restaurant in Marina del Rey.

From the arrival of the credit card statements until 2015, when it refused to allow Celerity to open two new schools, L.A. Unified took a gentle approach to the charter group’s unorthodox practices. It sent notices urging the organization to institute tighter financial controls, but continued to renew the schools’ charters when they came before the school board.

L.A. Unified officials referred Celerity’s credit card transactions to the district’s inspector general, who eventually opened an investigation into the group’s finances. Then, in late January, federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and other agencies raided Celerity’s offices, as well as the headquarters of a related nonprofit, Celerity Global Development, and McFarlane’s home. The focus of the federal investigation is unclear, and the district’s inquiry is ongoing…

While the district investigated, Celerity went national, expanding into Ohio, Florida and Louisiana, where it operates four schools in addition to the seven it runs in Southern California. McFarlane launched Celerity Global Development, the parent company of the schools in her growing empire, and began offering herself as a consultant to other charter school leaders.

In 2015, McFarlane became the CEO of Celerity Global, an organization that took in millions of dollars in management fees from Celerity’s schools. But Global wasn’t just supporting the schools; it had the power to control Celerity Educational and could appoint and remove the school network’s board members.

The Celerity schools were often short on supplies, but McFarlane spent lavishly on herself and arrived at school in a chauffeur-driven limousine.

She told staff that education was a business. And she knew how to make money–for herself and her lavish tastes.

As the CEO of Celerity Educational Group — and now of Celerity Global — McFarlane steered hundreds of thousands of public dollars to several companies providing services to her schools. Those companies are registered to her, state records show, and list their addresses as either Celerity Educational’s or Global’s offices.

Celerity Educational Group’s check register for the 2015-16 school year shows payments totaling nearly $1 million to an information technology company called Attenture, a general contracting company called Celerity Contracting Services, and Celerity Development, a limited-liability corporation that buys properties and rents them to McFarlane’s charter schools.

The organization has also paid thousands of dollars to Orion International Academy, a private high school in Chino Hills that McFarlane founded in 2013, and where she is still the CEO.

The flow of money from the charter schools to Celerity Development is documented going back to 2011, when Celerity Educational Group signed a 10-year lease with the company, which at the time had only one owner — McFarlane. That made her, in effect, both landlord and tenant of the two sites in South L.A. on which she expanded Celerity Dyad Charter School.

McFarlane’s brother and son are on the company’s payroll. The financial entanglements among the many companies raise ethical and legal questions. Some quoted in the article suggest that there may be felonious behavior.

By late 2015, L.A. Unified officials decided they had seen enough.

Having concluded that Celerity’s financial issues had become too serious to tolerate, they recommended that the school board refuse the group’s request to open two new schools, and the board agreed. Celerity’s leaders appealed to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, which could have intervened, but chose not to.

“This is effective ongoing oversight,” Jose Cole-Gutierrez, the director of L.A. Unified’s charter schools division, said in a recent interview.

Not that it stopped Celerity’s Southern California expansion.

State law allows charter schools that have been denied at the local level to appeal to the state. Last November, over the objections of L.A. Unified and the county, the State Board of Education voted to let Celerity keep growing.

More public money will flow Celerity’s way this fall when it opens two new L.A. charter schools.

Question: In light of the FBI investigations, in light of the LAUSD investigations, in light of the concerns about conflicts of interest and self-dealing, why did the California State Board of Education overrule the LAUSD recommendation and the L.A. County Office of Education? Why did the State Board of Education decide that this charter chain should open two more charters before the investigations are completed? Why aren’t the legal authorities intervening to protect citizens and the law?

If you live in Los Angeles, vote tomorrow.

Vote for either Carl Petersen or Lisa Alva.

Vote for Steve Zimmer.

Do not vote for anyone endorsed by the California Charter School Association, which defends corporations like Celerity. Taxpayers should not pay for Armani suits, chauffeur-driven limousines, or expensive meals. Citizens should support those who want to strengthen and improve the democratically controlled public schools of Los Angeles.

Peter Greene reports on an NPR program explaining charter schools. Perhaps you thought the program would give equal time to charter advocates and charter critics. Perhaps you thought you thought the program might explain why charters are controversial. Perhaps you thought that NPR–supposedly a bastion of liberalism–might explain why Trump, DeVos, the Koch brothers, the Waltons, and every red-state governor–loves them. Or why blue-state Massachusetts voted overwhelmingly not to allow more of them.

http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/03/npr-explains-charter-schools.html?spref=tw

If you thought that, you guessed by now that none of those things happened.

Claudio Sanchez of NPR interviewed three charter cheerleaders and tossed them softball questions.

Maybe this is what NPR had to do to justify the subsidy it gets from the Walton Family Foundation.

For shame.

Our new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is very enthusiastic about virtual charter schools, even though the research shows that students don’t learn much while enrolled in them. Apparently, good works mean less than good profits.

In Arizona, a new online high school is returning remarkable profits. Jim Hall, retired educator, started an organization called Arizonans for Charter School Accountability, and he has a well-documented, horrifying story to tell about the defrauding of taxpayers.

News Release Contact Jim Hall

Arizonans for Charter School Accountability
arizcsa1000@gmail.com
602-343-3021
February 27, 2017
Phoenix, Arizona

The Consequences of Unregulated Charter Schools:

For-Profit American Virtual Academy Nets $10 Million Profit in 2016 After Siphoning $84 Million from Non-Profit Primavera Online. (Full report)

In its first year of operation as Primavera Online High School, for-profit charter holder American Virtual Academy (AVA) made an astounding $10 million profit in 2016. American Virtual Academy was given the charter for Primavera Online by non-profit Primavera Technical Learning Center (PTLC) in 2015 without compensation.

PTLC operated Primavera Online from 2002 to 2015 and had annual revenues of over $30 million a year with accumulated total cash assets of over $44 million with no debt. PTLC was the richest non-profit charter holder in Arizona in 2015.

On May 21, 2015 the PTLC Board suddenly decided to relinquish their charter to their software supplier, American Virtual Academy. There was no money exchanged in the transaction. PTLC is now out of the charter school business and is sitting on $44 million in assets.

Both PTLC and AVA were incorporated and directed by the same man, Damian Creamer. Creamer and his family members have received over $2 million in compensation as officers of PTLC. PTLC has employed Creamer’s software company, American Virtual Academy, since 2005 – paying AVA over $84 million from 2009 -2015 just to use software created by Creamer for Primavera Online.

In 2016 Primavera Online had a record year earning over $40 million. Creamer paid his new software company, FlipSwitch Inc., $13 million for software licenses and another $2.5 million for software support. Despite these huge expenditures, AVA cleared $10 million in profit that went to the company’s only stockholder, Damian Creamer.

Jim Hall, founder of Arizonans for Charter School Accountability commented, “This is worst case of a private citizen profiting from the actions of a non-profit organization imaginable. There is a charade going on in the charter school industry, both in Arizona and around the nation, that allows charter owners like Damian Creamer to control non-profit charter schools to enrich their for-profit subsidiaries – and themselves.”

The full report is at azcsa.org

Heather Vogell and Hannah Fresques published an important piece of investigative journalism that appears in ProPublica and USA Today about a new twist on the charter scamming in Florida. The scam is the result of Jeb Bush’s high-stakes accountability system, which incentivizes schools to get rid of low-performing students in order to maintain their letter grades and rankings.

Here is the shorthand: School officials nationwide dodge accountability ratings by steering low achievers to alternative programs. In Orlando, Florida, the nation’s tenth-largest district, thousands of students who leave alternative charters run by a for-profit company aren’t counted as dropouts. Is this why nationwide graduation rates are going up? Is this what Arne Duncan claimed credit for?

It begins like this:

TUCKED AMONG POSH GATED COMMUNITIES, and meticulously landscaped shopping centers, Olympia High School in Orlando offers more than two dozen Advanced Placement courses, even more afterschool clubs, and an array of sports from bowling to water polo. U.S. News and World Report ranked it among the nation’s top 1,000 high schools last year. Big letters painted in brown on one campus building urge its more than 3,000 students to “Finish Strong.”

Olympia’s success in recent years, however, has been linked to another, quite different school five miles away. Last school year, 137 students assigned to Olympia’s attendance zone instead attended Sunshine High, a charter alternative school run by a for-profit company. Sunshine stands a few doors down from a tobacco shop and a liquor store in a strip mall. It offers no sports teams and few extra-curricular activities.

Sunshine’s 455 students — more than 85 percent of whom are black or Hispanic — sit for four hours a day in front of computers with little or no live teaching. One former student said he was left to himself to goof off or cheat on tests by looking up answers on the internet. A current student said he was robbed near the strip mall’s parking lot, twice.

Sunshine takes in cast-offs from Olympia and other Orlando high schools in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Olympia keeps its graduation rate above 90 percent — and its rating an “A” under Florida’s all-important grading system for schools — partly by shipping its worst achievers to Sunshine. Sunshine collects enough school district money to cover costs and pay its management firm, Accelerated Learning Solutions (ALS), a more than $1.5 million-a-year “management fee,” 2015 financial records show — more than what the school spends on instruction.

But students lose out, a ProPublica investigation found. Once enrolled at Sunshine, hundreds of them exit quickly with no degree and limited prospects. The departures expose a practice in which officials in the nation’s tenth-largest school district have for years quietly funneled thousands of disadvantaged students — some say against their wishes — into alternative charter schools that allow them to disappear without counting as dropouts.

Keep reading. It is a shocking story, especially in light of the fact that Betsy DeVos is so impressed with Florida’s “success” that she wants to use it as a model for the nation. She surely can’t use her home state of Michigan as a model in light of its precipitous decline in national rankings on NAEP. What Florida and Michigan have in common, however, are for-profit charter chains, where the owners profit handsomely but the kids do not.

This is a story I published last June.

It is more timely than ever now that Trump and Devos, both of who love the for-profit sector, have taken charge of the federal role in education.

For shame!

During the Obama years, it appeared that the federal government was going to start cracking down on the for-profit “higher education” industry, which typically gets horrible results and loads students with debt. (As I have reported in the past, former officials of the Obama Department of Education bought control of one of the nation’s largest for-profit college chains.)

But with the election victory of Donald Trump, sponsor of the fraudulent Trump University, the stock prices of for-profit education corporations went through the roof. Why would anyone expect a man who profited as founder of Trump University to crack down on others doing the same?

The New York Times reports:

Since Election Day, for-profit college companies have been on a hot streak. DeVry Education Group’s stock has leapt more than 40 percent. Strayer’s jumped 35 percent and Grand Canyon Education’s more than 28 percent.

You do not need an M.B.A. to figure out why. Top officials in Washington who spearheaded a relentless crackdown on the multibillion-dollar industry have been replaced by others who have profited from it.

President Trump ran the now-defunct Trump University, which wound up besieged by lawsuits from former students and New York’s attorney general, who called the operation a fraud. Within days of the election, Mr. Trump, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to a $25 million settlement.

Betsy DeVos, the newly installed secretary of education, is an ardent campaigner for privately run schools and has investments in for-profit educational ventures.

Please notice the use of the present tense “has.” Betsy DeVos did not divest her holdings in for-profit entities that are in direct conflict with her duties as Secretary of Education. Apparently in the Trump regime, ethics laws have been suspended for everyone, at least at the cabinet level.

While Ms. DeVos’s nomination attracted a flood of attention, most was focused on the K-through-12 system and the use of taxpayer-funded vouchers for private, online and religious schools. Higher education was barely mentioned during her confirmation hearings.

Yet colleges and universities are the institutions most directly influenced by the federal government, while public schools remain largely in the hands of states and localities. So it is in higher education that the new administration’s power is likely to be felt most keenly and quickly.

Under the Obama administration, the Education Department discouraged students from attending for-profit colleges, arguing recently that the data showed “community colleges offer a better deal than comparable programs at for-profit colleges with higher price tags.”

The for-profit sector has about 8 percent of those enrolled in higher education, according to the Education Department, but it has 15 percent of subsidized student loans.

While some career training schools delivered as promised, critics argued that too many burdened veterans, minorities and low-income strivers with unmanageable tuition debt without equipping them with jobs and skills that would enable them to pay it off.

After years of growing complaints and lawsuits, the agency moved aggressively to end abusive practices that ranged from deceptive advertising to fraud and cost students and taxpayers billions of dollars.

Two mammoth chains collapsed — Corinthian Colleges in 2015, and ITT Technical Institute in 2016 — leaving thousands of students stranded without degrees and in debt. Overall enrollment in for-profit institutions declined from 2.4 million in 2010 to 1.6 million in 2015 as hundreds of campuses closed. And as the largest provider of student loans, the federal government was left to bail out the defrauded.

Please open the article and check out the links.

For those of us who find for-profit schooling offensive, this is good news:

If you cannot read this email, follow http://bit.ly/2lT2vHG

Dear Diane,

A judgement delivered yesterday by a Kenyan Court upholds the action taken by Busia County Government to close down ten Bridge International Academies – the largest and most contested chain of low-cost private schools – for violating education norms and standards. It marks a turning point and must signal a move towards fulfilling the right to education in Kenya and other countries, say five organisations. This could be a landmark case as the legality of Bridge Academies’ operations is increasingly contested in Kenya and Uganda.

Nairobi, Kenya, 17 February 2017

Just over a month after the High Court of Kampala, in Uganda, allowed the Ugandan Government to close all schools run by Bridge International Academies (BIA) in the country, the High Court of Kenya in Busia County announced yesterday in a similar case that the Busia County Education Board could proceed in closing ten Bridge schools operating in the Busia county for failing to meet education standards.

Hon. Justice Korir ruled yesterday that it dismissed a complaint from Bridge, which sought to contest a decision by the Busia County Education Board to close their schools. The judge allowed Busia County to close 10 of the schools for which there were school inspection reports recommending closure, out of the 12 in the County. He ordered that the Bridge schools remain open until the end of the current school term (in April), for the County to secure placement in a public school for the affected children. The Busia County has 45 days from the date of the judgement to show evidence that another school has been found for the children.

The County Education Board had decided in November 2014 to close Bridge schools in Busia for not complying with the minimum education standards, including failure to employ trained and registered teachers and managers, inappropriate facilities, and lack of an environmental impact assessment. After the Board moved to enforce its decision in March 2016, Bridge International responded by suing it and its director on the ground that they did not follow the adequate process.

“Beyond just the case of Busia, the Kenyan Ministry of Education has held various meetings with BIA to ask the company to comply with regulations. They wrote to the company at least twice on 17th November 2014 and 17th February 2016, based on internal reports raising concerns about BIA’s compliance with the law, apparently without success. The Kenya Ministry of Education wrote again to BIA on 31st August 2016 with a 90-day deadline until 30th November last year to comply with guidelines and standards. It seems that rather than complying with Kenyan laws, which they’ve had ample time to follow since they opened in Kenya in 2009, BIA keeps on using delaying tactics. The decision shows that the County of Busia was right in demanding standards to be enforced. It is time for the rule of law to be respected. Children’s rights are not negotiable, even by powerful international companies,” reacted Abraham Ochieng, from the Kenyan organisation East African Centre for Human Rights (EACHRights).

The judgement confirms that, contrary to what the company has claimed, BIA had been duly informed by the local and national authorities of the legal requirements it had to follow, but failed to take appropriate action to meet those standards.

Boaz Waruku, from the Africa Network Campaign on Education For All (ANCEFA), commented: “This judgement adds to the similar one in Uganda and is a strong affirmation that Bridge schools do not comply with the minimum education standards in the region. We’re extremely concerned that Bridge Academies, an international profit-driven company with investments that are counted in several billions of Kenya shillings, can come to African countries and charge fees from poor children in our communities without respecting basic laws and education standards of the country.”

Sylvain Aubry, of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) added: “Put simply, together with the Ugandan case, this judgement shows that a multi-million dollars American company, which has the means and resources to comply with regulations, is not fulfilling basic educational standards of two African countries in which it operates. Two UN human rights committee have already raised concerns about this situation. The Government and County authorities are therefore right in taking steps to fulfil their human rights obligations by engaging in dialogue with operators that do not respect standards, and eventually closing them if necessary. It will now be important for the Government to ensure all children affected have access to public schools, as requested by the Judge.”

The decision comes shortly after the Kenya education Cabinet Secretary, Dr Fred Matiang’i, declared that he agreed with a report from the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) and Education International (EI) which highlighted the low standards of Bridge schools and the contravention with national law. The report, titled Bridge vs. Reality: a study of Bridge International Academies for-profit schooling in Kenya, also emphasised the lack of training and difficult working conditions of the teachers, as well as the high hidden fees charged by the company. During the launch of the report on 5 December 2016, Dr Fred Matiang’i, indicated that he would take a decision soon as to the course of action, as reported in the local and international media.

In line with the civil society statements for the case in Uganda, the five organisations signing this statement call on the Kenyan Government to ensure timely and orderly transition of affected students to nearby government schools to ensure the uninterrupted full realisation of the right to education of all children. The signatory organisations also remain highly concerned that BIA’s shareholders, among them high profile investors such as Mark Zuckerberg, Omidyar, Novastar, the World Bank Group, the British development agency and the U.S. Government’s development finance institution could be failing on their due diligence obligations and responsibilities, which might have legal implications.

The organisations supporting this statement are ready to work with the County of Busia, the Government of Kenya, and other interested authorities to support the development of a quality public education system in which all schools comply with human rights norms and standards.

*************************
Background on Bridge International Academies
Bridge International Academies Ltd (BIA) is an American based company registered in Delaware. Operating for-profit the company runs a commercial, private chain of nursery and primary schools. With over 400 institutions and 100,000 children in enrolled BIA schools, it is the largest chain of commercial private schools worldwide.

BIA is one of the most controversial chains of private schools. The use of standardised curriculum developed abroad, the poor working conditions of teachers and the robotization of their work, profit-making by charging poor families in informal settlements, and questions about its respect for some national education and health and safety standards are some of the most debated aspects of Bridge’s operations.

BIA has received funding from several large corporations, investors and development partners including the Omidyar Network founded by the billionaire creator of eBay, Pearson (the world’s largest educational business), Novastar Ventures, Kholsa Ventures, philanthropist Bill Gates, Facebook founder’s Zuckerberg Education Ventures, the International Finance Corporation (a branch of the World Bank Group), the UK’s Commonwealth Development Corporation (with funds from the Department for International Development – DFID) and the US Government Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

The company opened its first school in Mukuru kwa Njenga slum in Kenya in 2009, by 2015 the company had 405 schools in Kenya, as well as other schools in Uganda, Nigeria, Liberia, and India. BIA seeks to grow further with the aim of reaching 10 million students by 2025.

Key Documents
· Court judgement: http://bit.ly/2kRzxnG
· Information statement on ongoing cases involving Bridge International Academies in Kenya and Uganda: http://bit.ly/2eFckEp
· Human rights bodies statements related to States’ obligations with regards to Bridge International Academies: http://bit.ly/2fXvM11
· Human rights analysis of data on Bridge Academies in Kenya http://bit.ly/2h66Br3 and related blog post http://bit.ly/2kngeEW
· Kenya National Union of Techers (KNUT) and Education International (EI) report (December 2016) on BIA in Kenya: Bridge vs. Reality: a study of Bridge International Academies for-profit schooling in Kenya: https://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/Bridge%20vs%20Reality_GR%20Report.pdf
· Education International report (sept 2016) on BIA in Uganda: Schooling the Poor profitably: the innovations and deprivations of Bridge International Academies in Uganda: http://bit.ly/2cSQidq
· August 2016 statement by civil society on the closure of BIA in Uganda: http://bit.ly/2fTQM8Q
· May 2015 statement signed by 120 organisations related to the World Bank’s support to BIA: http://bit.ly/statementWBprivatisation
· July 2016 UN Resolution urging States to regulate education providers and support public education: http://bit.ly/PRHRC2016eng

Key Contacts
· EACHRights: Abraham Ochieng’, info@eachrights.or.ke; abraham@eachrights.or.ke; +254701670090
· ANCEFA: Boaz Waruku, +254 722 663290⁠, boaz.waruku@gmail.com
· GI-ESCR: Sylvain Aubry, sylvain@globalinitative-escr.org, +254 7 88 28 96 34

Signatories
· Africa Network Campaign on Education For All (ANCEFA)
· East African Centre for Human Rights (EACHRights)
· Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
· Hakijamii
· Right to Education Project