Archives for category: Fraud

Arizona blogger David Safier reports that an investigative team of reporters at the Arizona Republic has won a prestigious Polk Award, one of the highest honors in American journalism, for its fearless reporting about charter school scandals in the state.

Safier writes:

The Arizona Republic’s thorough, ground-breaking stories about charter school corruption and profiteering have received scarce press coverage in southern Arizona from anyone but your faithful education blogger. That’s a serious omission. Though the stories tend to be based in Phoenix-area charter schools, they speak to statewide problems stemming from the lack of adequate charter regulation and oversight. One of the bad actors discussed in the series, for example, is state representative Eddie Farnsworth, who is making millions by selling his for-profit charters, which run on taxpayer dollars, to a non-profit company. That piece of news is definitely relevant everywhere in Arizona.

Also nearly absent in local reporting (I can’t say it hasn’t been reported, but I haven’t seen it) is the team of reporters who put together the articles that won the prestigious Polk Award in Journalism.

So let me be [among] the first in the southern Arizona news media to congratulate reporters Craig Harris, Anne Ryman, Alden Woods and Justin Price for sharing the honor, as well as the investigative editor Michael Squires.

The reporters received the Polk Education Reporting award, one of 14 Polk awards given in 2018, for:

“disclosing insider deals, no-bid contracts and political chicanery that provided windfall profits for investors in a number of prominent Arizona charter schools, often at the expense of underfunded public schools that educate all but 30,000 of Arizona’s 1.1 million students.”

This is one of those series that demonstrates the power of the press.

 

The newly elected Republican governor of Tennessee, Bill Lee, wants vouchers, but he can expect pushback from the local media and local school boards that know of the frauds and scams in other states that have endorsed vouchers.

The Daily Memphian warns about the squandering of taxpayer dollars in other states.

Tennessee lawmakers say that if broader school choice options are offered, the Legislature would need to enact restrictions to avoid the kind of education savings account fraud seen in states where public-dollar vouchers are given to parents for homeschooling and private school enrollment.

Reports from across the nation show situations in which private-school officials and parents spent voucher money for items unrelated to education. Cards were used at beauty supply stores, sporting good shops and for computer tech support, in addition to trying to withdraw cash, which was not allowed.

“Absolutely, that’s one of my concerns,” said Rep. Mark White, a Memphis Republican who chairs the House Education Committee.

The Arizona Republic found many parents there put voucher funds into college-savings accounts then sent their children to public schools, among other fraudulent activity, all amid lax oversight. The Phoenix newspaper also reported the state investigated one case in which voucher funds were allegedly used to pay for an abortion after it adopted an Empowerment Scholarship Account program in 2011.

Arizona voters rejected a 2018 referendum to expand the education accounts to make all public-school students eligible.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in 2004 the principal of a private school used voucher payments to buy two Mercedes-Benz cars, then claimed they were a legitimate expense because he had invested his own money in the school.

The school board in Murfreesboro passed a unanimous resolution against vouchers that would divert public money away from public schools to religious schools and home schooling.

Lawmakers should oppose state money being used for private education, says a resolution approved Thursday by Rutherford County school officials.

The seven Board of Education members also signed the document in opposition to any state legislation allowing vouchers or education savings accounts for private education. The elected school officials represent a district serving 46,772 students from prekindergarten through 12th grade.

Parents and school boards should be aware that the opening bid for vouchers is to authorize one only for students with special needs. That is the camel’s nose under the tent. See what happened in Arizona and Florida, which began with that single group, then added another group, then another group, then another and another. Beware.

 

This is a fascinating article.

Mimi Swartz of the Texas Monthly asks an important question: Are Texas kids failing or are the tests rigged against them?  

Researchers with no axe to grind say the state tests are two grade levels above where the kids are. The state doesn’t agree.

State Commissioner of Education Mike Morath is not an educator, though he was a school board member in Dallas. He was appointed by rightwing Governor Gregg Abbott, a leader in the effort to defund and privatize public schools. Of course, he believes that public schools are  horrible and charters are wonderful. He will believe anything that puts public schools in a bad light, regardless of evidence or research. The legislature slashed the state budget by over $5 billion in 2011, and has never restored funding to where it was before the 2008 recession.

Swartz begins:

 

“Over the last few years, something strange has been happening in Texas classrooms. Accomplished teachers who knew their kids were reading on grade level by virtually all other measures were seeing those same kids fail the STAAR, the infamous State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness test.

“The effect on students was predictable: kids who were diligently doing their homework and making good grades in class were suddenly told they were failing in the eyes of the state, which wasn’t so great for their motivation. Parents were desperate to find out why their once high-performing kids were suddenly seen as stumbling. Teachers felt like failures, too, but had no idea what they were doing wrong, after years of striving to adopt practices proven in successful schools across the country. What’s more, the test results were quickly weaponized by critics of Texas public schools, many of whom advocate state-funded vouchers that would allow parents to send their kids to religious and other private schools.

“The stakes of such exams are perilously high. The STAAR test, developed by the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N.J., had replaced one provided by the British firm Pearson, which Texas officials considered too easy. The STAAR test is used to evaluate students, teachers, individual schools and principals, school districts, and, by extension, the entire enterprise of public education in Texas. Fifth and eighth graders who fail the test can be forced to repeat a grade; high school students may not graduate if they don’t pass three of the five STAAR year-end exams.

“On its face, this approach makes sense. This is, after all, the Age of Accountability, and, according to Governor Greg Abbott and other prominent state leaders, only 40 percent of Texas third graders are reading at grade level. The STAAR numbers are cited as positive proof of that. Texas has to get its kids and its public schools up to the highest standards if we want to have the educated workers and informed citizens we need. There isn’t a minute to lose.

“This reasoning may explain why a report issued in 2012 by two associate professors at Texas A&M was overlooked. Called “STAAR Reading Passages: The Readability is Too High,” by Susan Szabo and Becky Sinclair, the report suggested that questions on the STAAR test were too hard to accurately measure whether students were reading at their grade level.

“The researchers’ examination of five different “readability tests”—commonly used academic measures that rate the appropriateness of written passages for various grade levels—showed, for instance, that in order to comprehend various passages, a third grader would have to read on a fifth-grade level. A fifth grader would have to read on a seventh-grade level, and so on. Generally, the testing showed a gap of about two years. Szabo and Sinclair’s paper made no waves. The STAAR test was new, and if there was a warning included in the research, no one in power thought to consider it. An organization called Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment lodged protests, but they were rebuffed.

“Years passed. The STAAR reading test reported more failures and stirred more concerns. Teachers and administrators continued to see that the STAAR scores didn’t “align” with other indicators of reading levels. Specifically, the numbers didn’t match those of the Lexile scale, which is regarded nationally as the standard gauge of any publication’s degree of difficulty. (Libraries use the Lexile scale to direct kids to age-appropriate books.)

“In 2016, another study was released, this time by Michael Lopez and Jodi Pilgrim, two professors at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, in Belton, Texas. They, too, found that readability formulas showed that the STAAR test contained too many difficult passages for the targeted age groups—“materials may be problematic for teaching and learning”—which confirmed what many teachers were seeing in their classrooms. That same year, a group of fifty Texas school superintendents lodged their protests with the Texas Education Agency (TEA), which administers the STAAR test.

“It’s easy, especially in Texas, to explain away some of the complaints as just so much whining. According to recent Education Week studies, our state ranks 40th in education quality. The blame for our sad showing has been placed on allegedly unqualified and unaccountable teachers, uninvolved parents, and corrupt administrators and school boards.

“But what if that showing isn’t as sad as we’ve been told? What if the STAAR test isn’t measuring what it says it’s measuring: i.e., that a third grader is reading at a third-grade level, rather than a fifth-grade level?….

“Morath did not respond to our request for an interview, but we were able to speak with Jeff Cottrill, TEA’s deputy commissioner of standards and engagement. He explained that TEA’s research on the STAAR reading test included early reviews by Texas teachers and students. “The test is rooted in Texas standards and reviewed by Texas teachers and field tested by Texas students,” Cottrill said. “I have to tell you the process by which TEA determines what goes in this test is solid.” Critics dismiss that method as nothing more than “a gut check,” as none of the test passages were run through standard readability measurements such as the Lexile. Cottrill confirmed that the test was not sent through a Lexile analysis. “TEA relies much more on people to assess the quality of the test than computer based algorithms… Some Dr. Seuss books are actually written at a higher Lexile than The Grapes of Wrath,” he said.

“The Lexile scale was not the only readability test by which researchers outside the TEA have evaluated the STAAR reading test. Dee Carney, the Austin testing expert, pointed out that the A&M research used five readability studies and the Mary Hardin-Baylor research used six. Chambers [the superintendent of the Alief district and president of the Texas School Alliance, representing the state’s largest districts] says new research conducted at A&M is to be released in the next few months and shows even more misalignment, or failing kids, today than in 2012. “If the decision was made to test kids in reading passages that are above their grade level, everyone needs to know that,” Chambers said. “If a third grade reading test is meant to determine if a student is reading at the third grade level, then the test questions should be based solely on what was taught in [and before] third grade, not what might be taught in the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh grade.”

“The consequences, Chambers said, can be severe. “To me, here is the bottom line: if Texas expects every third grader to read like a fifth grader or every fourth grader to read like a sixth grader, then we all need to be prepared to see lower performance. Based on all the expert information that has been provided, these unrealistic standards have the potential to destroy learning.”

 

Question from me: can anyone name a book by Dr. Seuss that has a higher Lexile level than “Grapes of Wrath”?

Proposal: How aboutif Governor Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and Superintendent Morath agree to take the tests in English and math and publish their scores? 12th grade? Eighth grade? How about it, guys?

 

 

 

Cybercharters, especially the for-profit kind, have proven to be a huge scam. The largest in the nation, ECOT (the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow) in Ohio, went bankrupt last year, not because it wasn’t making money buy because the state uncharacteristically insisted on counting and getting refunds for phantom students.

Cybercharters produce poor results for students, no matter which measure you use, yet they are very profitable. The corporation gets full tuition without the overhead of brick-and-mortar schools.

Great business, lousy schools, with lots of money for advertising and lobbying.

No state has been worse than Pennsylvania when it comes to opening cybercharters and ignoring their poor performance and even criminality. The owner of the state’s largest cyber school, Nicholas Trombetta, was convicted of tax evasion when $8 million went missing but not held liable for the diversion of funds meant for educating students.

The state has authorized some 15 or 16 such virtual schools and none has ever met state standards. Real schools that had such dismal results would have been shuttered long ago. But those millions for lobbying legislators….

peter Greene says there is some hope that the reign of the failing cybercharters may be coming to an end. Maybe.

Ten of the state’s cybers are operating with expired charters.

Amazingly, a Bill was introduced in the legislature to end the scam.

“Several lawmakers in Harrisburg would like to put a stop to that.

”Senate Bill 34‘s prime sponsor is Judith Schwank of Berks County, a former dean at Delaware Valley College who’s been in the Senate since 2011. Her bill’s principle is pretty simple– if a district has its own in-house virtual school, it does not have to pay for a student to attend an outside cyber. If a family pulls a student from Hypothetical High and decides that instead of Hypothetical’s own cyber school they want to send Junior to, say, K12 cyber school, then the family has to pay the bill– not the school district.

““It’s crazy,” said State Sen. Schwank, of the fees districts pay to cyber charters. “It’s not based on actual delivery of educational programming.””

Operators of cybercharters say it’s unfair to hold them accountable for actually delivering educational services. Why not let the scam continue?

We willlearn soon enough whether the Pennsylvania legislature dares to hold the cybercharters accountable. Sadly that probably depends on the operators’ generosity to members of the legislature.

 

 

Teachers across the state of West Virginia walked out last spring. Every school in the state was closed until the teachers got a 5% pay raise and other concessions. Among them, the governor promised to block charter legislation.

Now the Republican dominated legislature is moving forward with legislation for charters, vouchers, and cybercharters. One assumes this is punishment for last year’s actions.

Denis Smith warns the legislators and people of West Virginia that the legislation is an invitation to waste, fraud, abuse, theft, and grifters. 

He writes:

In the last several days, I took some time to examine Senate Bill 451 and its provisions for establishing charter schools in West Virginia. My interest in doing so was based on my previous service as a school administrator in the state, as well as 11 years of experience in Ohio as an administrator for a charter school authorizer and as a consultant in the charter school office of the Ohio Department of Education.

It is this experience in both public education and the charter school environment that allows me to urge West Virginia citizens to do everything possible to halt this odious legislation.

After more than 20 years of growth nationally, it is noteworthy that some of the trend lines for charters are on the decline. This experiment with deregulation has resulted in massive corruption, fraud and diminished learning opportunities for young people.

As a state monitor, I observed a number of incompetent people serve as charter school administrators because Ohio state law has no minimum educational requirements nor any professional licensing prerequisites for school leaders.

In addition, numerous conflicts-of-interest, including a board member serving as landlord and management companies charging exorbitant rents for properties conveniently used for charter schools, are only part of the problem of the charter experiment.

In Ohio, where charters have operated for 20 years, the trend line is down significantly. From a high point of more than 400 schools, 340 are operating today. Moreover, there is a junk pile of failed charters that have closed. The Ohio Department of Education website lists 292 schools that are shuttered, with some closing in mid-year, disrupting the lives of students and their families. Moreover, total charter school enrollment in the state is down by more than 16,000 students since 2013, the peak year of charter operations in the Buckeye State.

The West Virginia omnibus measure allows online schools to operate, as does Ohio and other states. But last year, Ohio’s Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, one of the largest e-schools in the country, closed amid scandal, where the owner and his administrators funneled millions of dollars in donations to friendly state legislators while padding enrollment numbers to gain state education payments.

In my home state of Pennsylvania, there is also a growing scandal involving an online school. The West Virginia Legislature has not heeded these lessons to be learned from its neighboring states that have been in the troubled charter school business for decades.

 

Legislation introduced by an influential Republican state senator would require charter schools to disclose more about their finances. But the bill contains a large loophole that would allow the state’s biggest chains like Basis Charter Schools and Great Hearts Academies to avoid revealing how they spend their money.

State Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, said Senate Bill 1394 would accomplish the biggest reform to charter schools since they were created by the Arizona Legislature in 1994.

“It’s an enormous amount of progress, and this is not my last stop,” she said.

She said there’s bipartisan support for the measure, which follows a yearlong investigation by The Arizona Republic that revealed how charter operators have exploited the state’s lax charter regulations to become wealthy from the taxpayer-funded schools.

Brophy McGee acknowledged, however, that her bill would not prevent charter chains from giving large, no-bid management or construction contracts to their founders. Nor would it prevent charter CEOs from paying themselves exorbitant amounts, as Primavera online charter Chief Executive Damian Creamer did by receiving $10.1 million from the school over the past two years.

Democrats, whose past efforts to more tightly regulate charter schools have failed, and Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s Office both said the bill is a step in the right direction. But they said it needs additional work.

Arizona’s 500-plus charter schools are largely privately owned and the choice of more than 200,000 students, or 17 percent of public school students. The state spends $1.2 billion a year funding them.

State law doesn’t prohibit conflicts of interest in charter-school contracts or impose the strict reporting of expenses as it does for district schools. Charter school boards can also be staffed with the friends and relatives of school executives. And there’s no limit on how much money charter schools can spend outside the classroom.

Brophy McGee’s bill, which has not been scheduled for a hearing, could change some of that. It would:

  • Require every charter school to have at least a three-member governing board, with no more than two immediate family members serving. Family members cannot constitute a majority of the board.
  • Prohibit in, certain instances, buying goods or services from a charter owner or family member, governing board member or a related business.
  • Require that any purchase of more than $50,000 be in the “best interest” of the charter school and follow generally accepted accounting principles.
  • Prohibit charter schools from retaliating against an employee who reports violations. Currently, nearly all charter employees can be fired at any time for any reason.

The new procurement regulations, however, would not apply to management contracts between a charter holder and a management company. Charter management companies, popular with major charter chains like Basis and Great Hearts, also would be exempt from the procurement regulations.

Loopholes in the bill

That loophole for charter management companies gives Democrats heartburn, said Rep. Reginald Bolding, D-Phoenix.

Charter operators could avoid the new requirements by simply transferring all or nearly all of their state funding to a management company that runs their schools, he said.

Ryan Anderson, a spokesman for Brnovich, said the attorney general also has concerns about the exemption, as well as language that would require prosecutors to get permission from a charter sponsor in order to investigate wrongdoing.

“We still have a lot of questions,” Anderson said, adding that this is a work in progress.

Brophy McGee said it was not her intent to allow charter operators to avoid procurement restrictions, and she would consider fixing the language. She declined to say whether the Charter Schools Association, which has blocked past reform efforts, or major charter operators with powerful allies in the Republican establishment had inserted the exemption language in her bill.

She said the legislation is a work in progress that ultimately won’t make everyone happy. But, she said, the charter school industry needs more oversight.

Matt Benson, a spokesman for the Charter Schools Association, said the intent of the exemption was “to protect the school brand so that the founder of a charter school doesn’t risk losing control of his/her creation.”

Benson acknowledged the bill may be too broadly worded and that the association will work with Brophy McGee to refine the language. He said the association would oppose any law that requires charter operators to accept open bids for management contracts, as school districts are required to do.

Bolding said the loopholes will allow charter operators to continue self-dealing and enriching themselves. The bill also won’t stop charter operators from using Arizona tax dollars to expand outside the state, he said.

Basis, which has some of the top-ranked high schools in the country, transfers nearly all of its state funds to a management company owned by its founders, Michael and Olga Block.

Basis officials have stated because a closely tied private company, Basis.ed, runs the schools it isn’t required to disclose how much the Blocks or other executives are paid.

Basis has used its Arizona schools as collateral to fund operation of its schools in Texas and Washington, D.C.

The Attorney General’s Office also has expressed concerns that the legislation does not give its office enough additional power to investigate charter schools.

Brnovich wants subpoena power over charters and broader authority for the auditor general to investigate charter finances. Further, Brnovich wants charter schools to segregate public funding from private dollars in businesses related to the charter school.

“The big question is what happens with the public’s money,” said Anderson, the AG spokesman. “The bill does not appear to deal with that issue…We now have difficulty on the civil (enforcement) side on investigating misuse of public money when all money is commingled together.”

Benson said the legislation allows the Attorney General’s Office to investigate procurement related complaints. However, that would not occur for private management companies.

More disclosure?

Bolding said he likes that Brophy McGee’s bill requires charter schools to disclose more information about their finances and governance.

The bill would require charter operators to post on a public website the names of voting members of the governing body, the number of independent voting members, total annual state revenue, as well as expenses, assets and liabilities.

Charter schools already are required by state law to disclose much of that information to the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools. That information is available on the Charter Board’s website.

The bill also would require charter operators to adopt a conflict-of-interest policy and to provide a written statement that describes the services provided by a management company and the cost.

The bill, however, does not require a charter operator to release the actual contract or precise financial expenditures of its private management company. Further, the bill does not require the private management company to disclose how much its executives are paid with public tax dollars.

School districts, which receive less in per-pupil state funding than charter schools, have to abide by much stricter procurement and disclosure laws.

Brophy McGee said she will not seek to have charter management companies disclose financial information, stating that they are private companies and should not be subject to that level of transparency. Republicans in past years have blocked Democrats’ efforts to force charter management companies to comply with state public records law.

The bill also requires the state Charter Board to provide training courses on the state open meetings law, public records requirements, enrollment laws and regulations, applicable procurement rules and discipline.

Charter schools already are required by law to follow the open meeting law and public records requirements. The Republic has found some schools refuse to comply with those laws.

Reach the reporter at craig.harris@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8478 or on Twitter @charrisazrep.

 

 

Steven Singer says that 10 of Pennsylvania’s 15 cybercharters are operating without acharter. They have expired. This is a scandal-ridden sector that makes big profits but supplies a 9th-rate education for gullible children and families. None has ever met state standards. They should all be closed down.

They get full tuition and supply a computer and online instruction.

Scam. Rip-off.

The founder of Pennsylvania’s largest cybercharter was convicted of tax evasion for failing to report the $8 million he embezzled.

Too much money and no accountability.

Close them all.

Rhese fraudulent “schools” drain money from public schools in the state:

 

Cyber charter drain on Pa districts

Cyber Charter Name 2016-17 Enrollment 2016-17 Revenue from other LEAs
Central PA Digital Learning Foundation CS 199 $2,593,901
Commonwealth Charter Academy CS 9,008 $116,686,603
PA Distance Learning CS 681 $8,751,302
Reach Cyber CS 714 $10,000,219
Susq-Cyber CS 97 $1,064,230
Pennsylvania Virtual CS 2,299 $27,814,441
21st Century Cyber CS 964 $12,683,880
PA Leadership CS 2,361 $34,051,813
Achievement House CS 458 $7,157,951
Agora Cyber CS 5,883 $91,689,396
Esperanza Cyber CS 174 $2,215,660
ACT Academy Cyber CS 146 $1,584,130
Pennsylvania Cyber CS 9,723 $134,280,454
ASPIRA Bilingual Cyber CS 261 $4,178,502
Statewide Totals 32,968 $454,752,482

 

St. Louis College Prep charter school is under investigation for fraud.

St. Louis College Prep has lost tens of thousands of dollars in state funding amidst an investigation into whether the charter school’s founder over-reported attendance records.

The Missouri State Auditor’s office accepted a request Jan. 11 from Education Commissioner Margie Vandeven to review St. Louis College Prep’s finances. Charter schools are public schools that receive state and federal funding but operate independently from traditional school districts.

The charter school’s sponsor, University of Missouri-St. Louis, in October “identified possible issues with attendance data and remedial enrollment numbers that would have resulted in overpayments to the school in previous years,” Bill Mendelsohn, the executive director of UMSL’s charter school office, said in a statement.

Mendelsohn brought the findings to the school’s board of directors. When questioned about the potential irregularities, the school’s founder and executive director, Mike Malone, resigned Nov. 1. The board alerted the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education — or DESE — the following day.

Read about how the trustees of the Florida Virtual School responded to an auditor who was tasked with investigating its former general counsel. When she reported to the trustees, they made clear that they didn’t care what she found, interrupted her, and dismissed her findings out of hand.

This suggests that the Florida Virtual School should be investigated. It has 200,000 students across the state. How much money is it collecting from taxpayers? Where is the money going? How many students graduate? What is the quality of education delivered online? Do taxpayers care? Will Governor Ron DeSantis initiate an investigation?

Can pigs fly?

Shaina Cavazos of Chalkbeat in Indiana reports on the startling graduation rate of Indiana’s publicly funded virtual charter school: 2%. Two percent.

“About 2 percent of Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy’s 1,009 seniors graduated, putting the school’s graduation rate below just two others — a school that caters to students with significant intellectual and behavioral disabilities and an adult high school that enrolls only a couple dozen students each and graduated no students last year. Across the state, the vast majority of schools graduate at least three-quarters of their senior students.”

Do you remember when charter advocates promised that charters would be more successful, more innovative, and more accountable than public schools? They are not. For-profit Virtual Charter Schools are scams. They are a waste of money. They are a public embarrassment. Why are they allowed to open?

Peter Greene explains here about this Indiana cybercharter, which buys its existence by paying legislators, then collects public money to not educate anyone. This is not unusual. As you will see from the graph he reproduces, lobbying and campaign contributions area part of their business.

For-profit cybercharters, whether K12 Inc. or Connections Academy, should be illegal. They take public money, lobby legislators, get abysmal results, and are never held accountable. ECOT in Ohio was the darling of Republican politicians, who were happy to give its graduation speech, even though ECOT has the lowest graduation rate in the nation.

At the Indiana cybercharter that Greene writes about, only 10% of the money collected is spent on instruction!

These cybercharters are not schools. They are corporate honey pots that wastepublic money and children’s time.

If a state has children who require homebound instruction, the state should provide the online instruction, using certified teachers, with no profits, no lobbyists.