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

New York Daily News: Bury This Man in a Landslide!

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2016 //
113

This powerful editorial about the election was published by the New York Daily News, Donald Trump’s hometown tabloid. The editorial appeared before Comey injected his explosive news into the election. The Daily News reacted to Comey’s statement with a call for him to be fired for meddling in the election. Then on November 1, the News published a front-page editorial titled: “Damn Right We’re With Her.”

The editorial board of the News knows Trump very well. They have watched him for many years.

If you want to know why Trump must be defeated, this is your reading assignment for today.

The first editorial tells you why Trump should not be president–ever.

The November 1 editorial tells you why Clinton should be elected.

The editorial board has met with both Trump and Clinton many times.

And this is why they doubled down on their endorsement despite Director Comey’s intervention:

The Daily News again extends its wholehearted endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We do so with faith that Clinton would be a transformative leader for the good, far beyond making history as the first female President.

And we do so with fact-based, fearful conviction that Donald Trump would lead a nation divided against itself, with catastrophic consequences at home and abroad.

Lost in a campaign distorted by Trump’s ego-driven demagoguery is the indisputable truth that Clinton’s instincts, skills and programs are an excellent match for the challenges of a uniquely frightening American moment.

We are a country at war. The 50 states are united in rage. The 320 million people of this land tear at one another in a battle to reclaim their destiny from a government that, put bluntly, screwed them on a bipartisan basis.

Almost an entire American generation has been born since the country last had a semblance of responsive, responsible governing. Instead, Democrats and Republicans alike have exhausted the nation in stalemates over symbols and dogma.

Meanwhile, the working and middle classes suffered joblessness, home foreclosures, wage stagnation, massive student debt, opioid addiction and further ills – as the wealthy rode the waves ever more comfortably, often with Uncle Sam manning the galley oars.

Now comes a reckoning that made vengeful soulmates of the unlikely Bernie Sanders and the ungodly Trump. Vessels for white-hot anger, the socialist and the tax-evading billionaire built their candidacies on destroying a “rigged” system as champion of its victims.

But revenge for the sake of revenge – which is the heart of Trump’s campaign – would be madness as the chief motivator for selecting the custodian of the world’s shining-star democracy, largest economy and mightiest military.

On Oct. 20, the Daily News Editorial Board published the longest editorial in its 97-year history – a call for burying Trump in a landslide. We needed 7,500 words to document his unfitness for the presidency as an ignorant and divisive “liar, thief, bully, hypocrite, sexual victimizer and unhinged, self-adoring demagogue.”

Leaving aside his Trumpian mountain of disqualifications, the crucial distinction between the renegade Republican and Clinton is that Clinton is, at heart, a forward-looking optimist who offers rational programs targeted to create a stronger, fairer, more unified America.

Her unparalleled understanding of the world, her unmatched grasp of policy successes and failures and her proven ability to broker constructive compromise between hunkered-down ideologues must far outweigh the nagging mistrust that Clinton generates after her decades at the height of national service….

No illusions: Expecting to hold the House, Republicans have telegraphed plans to launch multiple anti-Clinton investigations. Still more, Senate GOP leaders have pledged to block all Clinton Supreme Court nominations.

Even so, victory — the more solid the better — would position Clinton to win action on behalf of the working and middle classes by addressing the interests both of her ideological foes and of all the Americans who are furious that Washington catered to a corrupt, elite establishment while condescendingly dismissing their needs and beliefs.

Donald Trump is all about selling a single repulsively flawed product: himself.

Hillary Clinton is no saleswoman. Instead, she is a doer who has a historic chance to prove that the U.S. government can actually work to the benefit of its citizen bosses.

No election in our lifetimes has produced a clearer choice: Clinton over Trump, urgently and by acclamation.

There is more. It is worth reading, as is the first editorial referenced here.

Bottom line is that Clinton has plans to improve life for our nation, while Trump is an egotistical bully, a liar, and a vengeful hypocrite who would bring our nation and our economy to ruin.

Categories For-Profit, Fraud, Trump

EdWeek: How Virtual Charters Evade Accountability by Lobbying and Campaign Contributions

By dianeravitch
November 6, 2016 //
15

Ariana Prothero writes in Education Week about the “Outsized Influence” of lobbyists for the virtual charter industry.

The virtual or online charter industry is a sham and a fraud. Readers of this blog have read many articles and research studies demonstrating that these “schools” survive by the power of their lobbying and campaign contributions, not because they have any educational value. Studies, even by charter-friendly organizations like CREDO of Stanford, have repeatedly demonstrated that virtual charters have high dropout rates, low test scores, and low graduation rates. This doesn’t seem to bother state officials because…well, lobbying and campaign contributions.

K12 Inc is the biggest operator in the field. It was started by the Milken brothers, it operates for-profit, and it is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The article doesn’t mention it, but two dozen K12 Inc schools lost NCAA accreditation because of the shoddiness of the education they offered.

The article goes into detail about K12 Inc and also Connections Academy, which is owned by Pearson. It does not go into the protected status of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) in Ohio, which has been relieved of all accountability because of its owner’s generosity to legislators and the governor.

K12 Inc owns CAVA (the California Virtual Academy), which was shown to be profitable while delivering inferior education in a powerful series by Jessica Califati in the San Jose Mercury-News. The state attorney general worked out a fine for K12 Inc, but the company continues to operate as usual. I personally communicated with a member of the California state school board to ask whether there would be any action to close CAVA, in light of its poor results, and I was told that it was under investigation by three different state agencies. I don’t know if that was real or just another way of saying “forget about it.”

There are even some in the charter industry who realize that virtual charters are an embarrassment to the whole industry.

But to date, even in Republican strongholds like Tennessee, the abysmal Tennessee Virtual Academy has escaped all efforts to close it down.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, K12 Inc., Privatization, Virtual Charter Schools

Angie Sullivan: The Nevada Achievement School District is Only for Public Schools, Not for Failing Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
7

Nevada imported a woman named Jana Wilcox Lavin to run its “Achievement School District.” She is not an educator. She has a degree in marketing. The Nevada ASD is modeled on Tennessee’s failed ASD, which took over the state’s lowest performing schools and promised to vault them to the state’s top 25% in only five years and failed to do so (most are still in the bottom 5%). Lavin is employed by the United Way at the same time that she plans for the Nevada ASD. She ran charters in the Tennessee ASD and holds it up as a model. Is this what is called an “urban myth” or is it just a hoax? How many teachers and principals will be fired, how many charters will scoop up millions of dollars, and how many will succeed or fail? Place your bets, folks, it is Nevada.

Angie Sullivan, who teaches in a low-income school in Clark County (Las Vegas) writes:

The unfairness of the Achievement School District law became crystal clear during a discussion with Jana Wilcox Lavin.

The law requires a list which includes the under-performing schools in the bottom 5%.

It is apparent that Nevada’s under-performing schools are mainly charters and rural schools. 70% of the under-performing Nevada schools are charters and rural schools.

However the law ONLY allows a public school to be selected for charter take-over.

Severely underperforming charters are not allowed to be taken over by the Achievement School District.

This law is a direct attack on public schools while obviously ignoring the cancerous and tragic Nevada charters.

Also, rural schools which fill the under-performing list will most likely never be selected because there simply is zero appetite by charter schools to take over a rural school. This made me laugh inside to learn -having grown up in the rural communities of Lovelock, Winnemucca, and McDermitt. I would love to see an outsider go into those places and take over the school. I picture the community chasing the outsider out of town with a shotgun.

We also had a frank discussion about the alternative schools – 3 are on the list. These schools fill a specific need in our communities. Desert Oasis for instance is actually a school which serves a unique community of high school students and adult students. Teachers there teach could teach a 90 year old adult student in the same classroom as a 16 year old student. While the data looks terrible for this school, the school is likely to be the most effective we have at actually graduating students. Literally no other school serves the communities Desert Oasis takes on. The Desert Oasis teacher who attended the BEC meeting spoke about helping a student graduate who lied about his age to serve in the American Military during World War II.

For obvious reasons, Jana Wilcox Lavin will be looking into the possibility of the Nevada State School Board moving the Alternative Schools onto a different system because it is not appropriate to grade them as we currently do or include them on this list.

We had a frank discussion about the lists.

Apparently the multiple failure lists which caused 6,000 teachers to panic were produced by CCSD. I’m not exactly sure who or why this destruction and disruption occurs year after year. I would like to investigate this further and ask for the resignation of whomever takes on this task of scaring 140 school staffs – unnecessarily. Media needs to be aware of this scare tactic. Next year, when these lists are published, we all need to ask frankly if it is a “real” list or a scare tactic by the district. If it is not the “real” list – teachers need to stand against this harassment.

Frankly, CCSD blames the Nevada State School Board, I have asked during multiple interviews. Jana Wilcox Lavin stated the only list she has created is the under-performing 5% as required by legislators. And a Nevada State School Board member claims their hands are tied by the legislators.

Everyone blames someone else while public school teachers are bullied and threatened.

Bottom line: There is a list of 47 underperforming schools but the only schools seriously being considered are the 17 regular public schools in Vegas within the urban core. 30% of the schools are targeted. And it will most likely be Limited English Language students who will have their schools taken over.

Nothing will be done about the numerous charters which have extreme failing track records.

Nothing will be done about failing rural schools.

It will be brown children in Vegas with limited English who will be experimented on by the Achievement School District.

Jana Wilcox Lavin claimed the Achievement School District has been successful other places. I have read thousands of pages of University research which refute those claims. I regularly communicate with activist teachers all over the nation who refute those claims.

I follow this unfair and wasteful charter movement very closely – the success of charters nationwide has been very, very limited. The success of charters in Nevada is almost zero. As I have noted, Nevada charters are best at segregation by race, money, and religion.

This is the most blatantly unfair privatization legislation ever implemented. It targets ONLY public schools in urban Vegas and blatantly ignores all the other school failures in the state.

This law is not about helping Nevada kids. It is about public school privatization.

And a very wise BEC Meeting attendee stated: No one ever considers how many bodies will be damaged as we make these changes.

I am tired of being one of the bodies.

No one in power listens to the people directly affected. Teachers, Parents, and Students have zero voice.

Communities which do not want their neighborhood school to participate in this unfair take-over need to stand up for their schools – like West Prep and Tom Williams.

https://ccea-nv.org/dev/wordpress/front-page/roar-of-community-opposition-to-west-prep-charter-school-consideration/

_____________________________

http://www.doe.nv.gov/ASD/

__________________________

http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/education/21-ccsd-schools-eligible-be-converted-charter-schools-through-new-initiative

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Fraud, Nevada, Privatization

Christine Langhoff: The Real Goal of Question 2 in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
8

Retired teacher Christine Langhoff has been following the debate over Question 2 in Massachusetts closely. She concluded that its real goal was not to close the achievement gap–charters have not done that anywhere in the nation–nor even to provide better schools–most charters in the nation are no better and many are unquestionably worse–than public schools.

The real purpose is to bankrupt urban districts, and maybe other districts as well. This has been the story in Pennsylvania, where charters have sucked resources out of public school districts, causing budget cuts, layoffs, and program cuts to public schools. Meanwhile, the charter schools get outside funding from Wall Street, the Waltons, financiers, and other champions of privatization. The ultimate goal is the destruction of public education.

She writes:


It’s becoming apparent to many that the real objective of Question 2 is not merely to further the cause of privatization to benefit the hedge funders, but also to bankrupt our urban school systems. There is no mechanism in the ballot question to financially support more charters because Marc Kenen, executive director of the MA Charter School Association, author of the proposal did not include one.

The current law regarding charter funding is carefully worded. Up to 9% of a city or town’s education funding can be directed to charters. In the so-called “failing” districts, the percentage is up to 18%. This means that if a city like Boston decides to increase school funding, the parasitic charters get more dollars. The state is supposed to reimburse cities and towns for costs associated with charters, but has failed to do so in recent years. Last year, about 50% of the reimbursement due to Boston was not made.

This afternoon, the Boston City Council, which has taken a stand in opposition to Question 2, held a hearing on the financial impact of Question 2, should it pass, and how the diversion of money to charters is already harming the city’s ability to fully fund our schools. Dave Sweeney, Boston’s Chief Financial Officer was among those who testified. (See his explanation of the impact of charter funding on the city’s finances here: https://medium.com/@DaveSweeney3/analyzing-the-fiscal-impact-of-question-2-9f1a36d8d823) Councilor Tim McCarthy pursues this line of questioning about the state’s failure to honor this requirement beginning at about 1:22:00

Tito Jackson expressed his dismay that the state board of education – a cabal of appointees by the pro-charter Gov. Baker – has taken the position that DESE is not obligated to take into acount the financial impact the opening of more charters will have on the host cities and towns where the Board decides to site these charters. He also notes that the state of Massachusetts currently underfunds public education to the tune of more than $1 billion. Start at about 1:37:00 for his testimony.

https://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc_video_library.asp?

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Privatization

Paul Buchheit: New Layers of Dirt on Charter Movement

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
13

As we know, the charter school movement began as a way to help public schools by encouraging innovation. However, in the past 25 years, it has evolved into an industry that is bent on privatization and that shamelessly diverts money and real estate from public schools.

The charter movement today is the darling of ALEC, the Koch brothers, and every rightwing governor and think tank.

In this article, Paul Buchheit describes the dark role that charter schools now play on behalf of corporate elites and their determination to privatize public education for fun and profit.

Their most important innovation seems to be their commitment to turning schools for children of color into tightly disciplined boot camps, where they learn the value of unquestioning obedience.

Any prospect of collaboration with public schools disappeared long ago, as it would be a compact between a robber and his victim.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Privatization

Marilyn Rhames: “I Don’t Want Your Job, I Want Change!”

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2016 //
8

I posted Robert Pondiscio’s proposal this morning that a talented African-American teacher-journalist should take Peter Cunningham’s job at Education Post, and that other white leaders of the reform movement should step aside because the reform movement has too many whites (with little or no teaching experience) in leadership roles.

The woman he recommended is Marilyn Rhames. She wrote a response to Pondiscio’s proposal.

In a sharp response, she reminds reformers that the point of “reform” is supposed to be about improving the education of black and brown children, not high-paying jobs for reformers.


“I wanted very much to believe that you had moved closer to acknowledging the racist paternalism that exists in reform circles after you lauded my “stellar” resume. But in highlighting my genius, you subtly sounded the alarm: Marilyn Anderson Rhames is a major black talent who could very well take your job, Peter Cunningham (and other white ed leaders who signed the diversity pledge). What a way to endorse multiculturalism!

My Ivy League educated, teacher-journalist-mother African American self has the potential to make a seismic shift in the systemic injustice that blocks black and brown children from a quality education, so why didn’t your piece frame me in that light? Instead, you positioned me as a threat. In your piece, I was the “other” in an us-versus-them fight for limited, high-paying ed reform jobs. Your title says it all: “Reform Leaders: You’re Fired.”

Ain’t I a reformer? In light of all my brilliance, your title should have been, “Black Reform Leaders: You’re Finally Hired!”

Your piece states that my ex-boss Peter Cunningham, and the many other middle-aged, privileged, non-educator white men who manage the education reform agenda that impacts millions of black and brown children living in poverty, need to step down from their six-figure salaries and let the “foot soldiers,” like me take their place. Why stop at Cunningham? You could have offered your nice-paying job at the Fordham Institute to me. I just may be more qualified than you to do your job, too!

Oh, I forgot, that to you would be “suicide.””

Marilyn,

I hope that you know that no high-performing nation in the world allows entrepreneurs, corporate charter chains, and non-educators to get public money to run privately controlled schools. You should also know, though your friends in the reform movement won’t tell you, that the surest path to a well-paying job and the middle class is a union job, with good pay, reasonable hours, and a pension. Surely you know that the money for the reform movement comes from the anti-union Walton family and Wall Street financiers. Rightwing governor’s like Scott Walker and Rick Scott love to create charters and offer vouchers while defunding the public schools that most black and brown children attend.

I invite you to stand with us to protect public schools from privatization and to fight for the resources and transformation in every state that will make every public school a good school for every child. We don’t have any billionaires on our side, but we have millions of parents and teachers and many others who understand that public education is a pillar of democracy. Privatization always produces inequality, winners and losers. Join us. We need you.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democracy, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Inequality, Privatization

Nevada: No-Bid Contract to Businessman to Reorganize Public Schools of Clark County (Las Vegas)

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2016 //
9

Just when you think the corporate reformers had run out of ideas, another pops up. Why not invite a non-educator to reorganize the schools? Why not give him a no-bid contract? Be sure not to include either educators or parents in the discussion of the future of the public schools.

Nevada, case in point, just handed a $1.2 million no-bid contract to a non-educator to reorganize the public schools of Clark County (Las Vegas).

During the October 18 Legislative Advisory Committee meeting about the Clark County School District (CCSD) reorganization, Committee members were presented with a proposal from TSC2, a recently formed consulting firm headed by Tom Skancke, former CEO of Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance (LVGEA). Firm consultants are slated to assist the CCSD with AB394 reorganization efforts, including administrative and financial changes, transition services and education policy development. The contract is for one year.

The $1.2 million contract caught some legislators and concerned parents by surprise. Several members of the Advisory Committee complained about having one day to review all the documents pertaining to the $1.2 million proposal. Legislators also wondered why there was no Request For Proposals (RFP), which would have made this contract subject to a competitive bid process.

Senator Mo Denis asked Glenn Christenson, a businessman who worked with Station Casinos and more recently collaborated closely with TSC2 principal Tom Skancke at LVGEA, how long the proposal had been in development. Mr. Christenson answered 6-8 weeks. Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz asked CCSD Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky how long it would have taken to go through a competitive RFP process, and he responded 6-8 weeks.

Senator Mo Denis asked, about parental engagement. He added that he couldn’t see the proposal succeeding without that input, and noted “there is no plan for parent outreach.”

Assemblywoman Diaz believed the scope of the work from the consulting firm was too broad and needed to be more focused and finite. In particular, she and Assemblywoman Dina Neal noted that the proposed work involved policy development, which is legally the responsibility of CCSD Trustees.

Assemblywoman Diaz also noted that the reorganization plan was designed to give power back to local administrators, parents and teachers and ensure that local schools were building a sense of community. Yet parents are completely absent from the proposed transition structure, she added.

Open the post to read the links.

Categories For-Profit, Funding, Nevada

Carol Burris: Why the Shine is Fading from the Charter School Movement, Part 4

By dianeravitch
October 26, 2016 //
18

Carol Burris concludes here her fourth installment of the sad story of the charter school movement in California. What once was a movement intended to help and collaborate with public schools has been taken over by the power-hungry and the greedy, intent on displacing and destroying public education.

California is now the “wild west of charter schools” because of the state’s refusal to oversee the operations of these schools. Public money is handed out to almost anyone who wants it, and supervision is almost non-existent.

Burris writes:

The shine is off the charter school movement. Freedom from regulation, the sine qua non of the charter world, has resulted too often in troubled schools, taxpayer fleecing and outright fraud. Charters have become material for late-night comedians. That is never a good sign; just ask the proponents of the Common Core.

The greatest blow to charter momentum, however, was delivered by the NAACP. When delegates’ voted for a moratorium on new charters, it unleashed the fury of the charterphiles. A piece on the pro-reform website Education Post was titled, “The NAACP Was Founded by White People and It Still Isn’t Looking Out for Black Families,” accusing the premier civil rights organization of being “morally anemic.” And yet, despite the vitriol and critique, the NAACP board of directors stood fast, supported its delegates, and issued a strong statement calling for charter reform.

The passage of Question 2 on the November ballot in Massachusetts, which would lift the cap on charter schools, once seemed a sure thing. Now support has plummeted. The ballot measure is down by 11 points, having lost support among Democrats, especially from the progressive wing.

The problems with loosely regulated charters can no longer be brushed aside.

In the past three posts of my series on California charters (here, here and here), I highlighted some of the serious problems that exist in a state with weak governing laws, a powerful lobby propped up by billionaires, and a governor who consistently vetoes bills aimed at charter reform. California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat who is usually progressive, has a blind spot when it comes to charters. The governor’s enthusiastic fundraising efforts on behalf of the two charters he started in Oakland came under scrutiny in the Los Angeles Times.

As a result, the problems with charters in the state bear an eerie resemblance to the those found in far more conservative states. As I spoke with Californians, I often felt quite depressed. The story line became clear—a state that generally holds progressive values financially abandoned its public schools with the passage of Proposition 13, thus crippling school funding. That was followed by a scramble to a charter solution to compensate for years of underfunding and neglect. That, in turn, opened the door to profit making schemes, corporate reformers hell-bent on destroying unions, and frankly, a lot of irresponsible educational models, such as storefront charters, boutique schools and “academies” linked to for-profits like K12.

There is hope, however, that California can alter its course. Despite all of the obstacles that stand in the way, there are Californians who want charter reform. They are exposing corruption, illegality, profit-making schemes and schools that are clearly not in the best interest of children. In this final piece, I will highlight some of their work.

Open the piece to see the links and to learn more about Burris’s reasons for optimism.

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Failure, For-Profit, Fraud, Privatization

Pennsylvania: Charter Sharks Zooming in for the Kill with HB530

By dianeravitch
October 25, 2016 //
9

Pennsylvania became an ATM for the charter industry under Republican Governor Tom Corbett. He is gone now, but the legislature remains indebted to the fat, happy charter owners. Many public school districts are on the brink of bankruptcy due to the rapacious charters that snare their students with deceptive advertising. Pennsylvania has more virtual charter schools than any other state, despite the fact that study after study (including one by CREDO, funded by the Daltons) has shown that virtual charters are educational disaster zones. Students who enroll in them don’t learn anything, but the virtual charter industry is rolling in dough. Two different virtual charter leaders have been indicted for theft in Pennsylvania; one admitted stealing millions of dollars, the other saw her trial dismissed because of age and infirmity but was indicted for theft of millions.

Into this land of struggling public schools and thriving charters comes a new legislative plot to privatize and monetize public school funding. It is called HB530. Under the (usual) guise of “reform,” the bill would open the door to the vaults that hold taxpayer money meant for children and welcome the charters to help themselves.

HB530 is a blank check for a rapacious, greedy industry.

Lawrence Feinberg of the Keystone State Education Coalition wrote this post, “20 Reasons to Vote No on PA HB530.”

Here are a few of his reasons:


Pennsylvania taxpayers now spend more than $1.4 billion on charter and cyber charter schools annually, in addition to funding the state’s traditional public schools. The current “rob from public school Peter to pay charter school Paul” system drains money from traditional public schools, forcing districts to cut programs and services for the students who remain. In 2011, the charter reimbursement line was eliminated from the state budget. It provided state funding to districts for the costs and financial exposure resulting from the addition of charter schools.

Legislators are now considering House Bill 530, which would bring much-needed reform to the charter school law that was written in 1997. The bill has several helpful provisions, but the harm that it does far outweighs the good. Here are 20 reasons that the legislature should vote against this measure.

#HB530 does not provide significant accountability to taxpayers for payments made to charter school entities.

#HB530 would create a Charter School Funding Commission that would consider establishing an independent state-level board to authorize charter school entities, bypassing any local decision-making by school boards and their communities.

#HB530 further limits the ability of communities to negotiate the role of charters locally. The decisions about how, when, and where to expand them should be made by those who have the information and expertise to do so in ways that improve education.

#HB530 is an entirely unwarranted intervention in the local governance of school districts. It would remove local control of tax dollars from Pennsylvania taxpayers and their elected school directors.

#HB530 sets no limits to money that charters can drain from local school districts, eliminating districts’ capability to plan and budget.

#HB530 is a vehicle for the Pennsylvania legislature to have local taxpayers pay for unlimited charter expansion.

#HB530 would let charter operators expand and add grades without any local input or authorization, regardless of performance.

#HB530 would let charters expand by enrolling students from outside of the district in which it is located.

If you want to save public education in Pennsylvania, contact your legislators now.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Pennsylvania, Privatization

California: Court Decision Stuns Charter Industry and Threatens Stealth Charters

By dianeravitch
October 24, 2016 //
10

I recently posted Carol Burris’s analysis of a court decision in California that blocked the sneaky expansion of charters into districts outside the one where they were authorized; the new charters called themselves “resource centers” and were infiltrating districts that did not want them.

Here is a report by the San Diego Union-Tribune on the same decision.


California’s booming satellite charter school industry that has persevered through lawsuits, scandals and turf wars suffered a blow this past week when a state appellate court ruled hundreds of the campuses are illegally operating outside their districts.

At issue now is how 150,000 California students — including 25,000 in San Diego County — will continue their education. The court decision also puts at stake millions of dollars in revenue generated by the charters for privately run organizations.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision in a lawsuit filed by the Anderson Union High School District near Redding claiming the Shasta Secondary Home School (now Shasta Charter Academy) illegally opened satellite charter campus, which are officially called resource centers, in its jurisdiction.

Filed Monday and set to go into effect Nov. 16, the appellate decision reverses the lower court ruling, which sided with the charter that was authorized by the nearby Shasta Union High School District. The lower court said it was legal to operate a resource center, as such schools are officially called, in the neighboring Anderson district to give its independent-study students who live there a chance to use computers, receive tutoring and work on assignments in a classroom setting.

Of the state’s 1,200 charter schools, 275 are “resource centers,” many of them storefronts where students show up from time to time. That means that unless this decision is overturned by the state’s Supreme Court, more than 20% of California’s charter schools will cease to operate or seek some other option to survive.

San Diego public schools will welcome the return of the students in these “non-classroom-based” charters:

Andra Donovan, general counsel for the San Diego Unified School District, offers another option: Returning to district and its expanded catalog of independent-study programs.

San Diego Unified “is fully prepared and has sufficient capacity to absorb those students currently attending these charter schools, with fully robust, higher quality independent study and online learning programs as well as traditional and blended programs,” Donovan said. “Our graduation rate far exceeds that of many of these them and our district provides integrated support not available from these charters.”

These “resource centers” are locations intended to coordinate online instruction, which has repeatedly been shown to be a farce, educationally, an easy way to collect credits without getting an education.

Some districts opened resource centers because it was easy money.

Online instruction offers flexibility to students who want an alternative to traditional schools, and big revenue to charter organizations and authorizers. Districts that approve the charters receive up to 3 percent of their revenue for oversight and other services.

The Julian Union district opened its first charter in 1999, and now enrolls some 4,000 students in its charter resource centers across the region. Fewer then 400 local students attend Julian’s district schools.

The tiny rural two-campus district earned nearly $800,000 in revenue from its Julian and Diego Valley charters in the 2014-15 year, when its total revenue was $6.2 million.

Former Julian Superintendent Kevin Ogden helped establish the district’s first charter school, which took in $18 million in revenue last year, and operates 14 programs in eleven facilities.

Ogden helped usher in Diego Valley and Harbor Springs charters, both of which operate resource centers in other districts through independent study programs that offer as much as four days a week of classroom instruction or as little as a few teacher meetings. The Grossmont lawsuit targets Diego Valley.

Ogden retired about two years ago to take a top job at the Lancaster-based Learn4Life, an organization that includes Diego Valley, its Diego Plus Education Corporation and other charters throughout the state.

Following Julian’s lead, dozens of far-flung charters and resource centers have been authorized by other small East County districts, including some that acknowledged the arrangements were forged mostly for the money.

Does anyone seriously believe that the students who receive diplomas from these sham institutions are getting a high-quality education? Is this the way the U.S. will compete in the global economy? Hey, reformers, this is a farce.

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Failure, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »