Archives for category: Fraud

Blogger Anita Senkowski has kept a close watch on the Grand Traverse Academy charter chain in northern Michigan. Two years ago, its founder was convicted of tax evasion, but apparently the board of directors did not require repayment of the $5 million that went missing. Now, due to Senkowski’s persistence, the state has promised an investigation. The founder of the charter chain, Steven Ingersoll, is an optometrist who claimed to have a unique way of teaching children through a method he called “integrated visual learning”; he recruited other optometrists to serve on the charter board.

Two years after Steven Ingersoll’s March 10, 2015 federal tax evasion and conspiracy convictions, Michigan authorities, including the office of its Attorney General, Bill Schuette, are finally investigating Ingersoll’s related-party financial transactions, the GTA’s debt write off process and its decision not to seek repayment of the money that may have been misappropriated by Ingersoll between 2007-2013, estimated at $5.0 million.

Kicked into action by a formal complaint I filed on March 31, 2017, the Michigan Department of Education confirmed to me in an April 4, 2017 that it is investigating the decision by the GTA’s Board of Directors to “write off” a $1.6 million debt owed to the school by Ingersoll, its calculation of the amount—and the three optometrists who looked at a charter school full of children and saw only a cash-rich “golden goose”: Steven Ingersoll, Mark Noss and Brad Habermehl.

After dithering publicly for months in 2014 about its “plan” to collect money owed to the Grand Traverse Academy (GTA) by its former manager, optometrist Steven Ingersoll of Smart Schools Management, Inc. (SSM), the Traverse City, Michigan, charter school’s annual fiscal audit revealed its board decided to just “write off” $1,623,000 to bad debt, and not pursue collection.

The GTA board included a $1,813,330 “repayment” by Ingersoll into its write off calculation — an amount credited against his debt, estimated in by Ingersoll at $3.58 million as of June 30, 2012.

Ingersoll began serving his 41-month prison sentence in February in Minnesota.

Kathleen Oporeza, executive director of Fund Education Now in Florida, urges all Florida citizens to contact their legislators–by email, by telephone, in person–and urge them to vote against any legislation that refers to “Schools of Hope,” which is a blatant effort to hand public schools over to charter entrepreneurs.

Urge the House & Senate to oppose any bill containing “Schools of Hope/HIgh Impact Charters” language

This dangerous concept has worked its way into at least a dozen bills, making it intentionally harder to track. All of this activity feeds the goal of making it easier to slip this bad public policy into one of several massive “train” bills far removed from public view.

Take action now. Tell our Senators and Representatives to oppose all bills, including HB 5105, SB 796, and SB 1552, that contain “Schools of Hope/High Impact Charter Networks” language.

“Schools of Hope”/“High Impact Charter Networks” create two separate, unequal publicly funded school systems – one under the control of duly elected school boards and the other controlled by outside private corporations under the direction of the appointed State Board of Education.

The deck is stacked. The BOE picks and chooses which district turnaround plans are accepted or rejected while at the same time exercising oversight authority over competing High Impact Charter Networks.

Because the BOE determines cut scores on state assessments and the calculation of school grades which can be manipulated to increase the number of D and F district schools this language will clearly drive the expansion of “Schools of Hope/High Impact Charter Networks.”

Use your voice now! One click easy. Please do not let “Schools of Hope/High Impact Charter Networks” trigger the immediate transfer of 115 “D & F” public schools and their 77K students into private, for-profit hands.

This isn’t about helping our most vulnerable students; it’s about promoting unmitigated charter school growth in an effort to erode district schools.

The Charter “Schools of Hope/High Impact Charter Networks” exponentially expand the effort to allow for-profit charters to keep grabbing tax dollars and tapping new markets to beef up the annual reports of corporate charter chains. None of this has been proven to help students or improve education.

Please tell the Florida Legislature to vote no on the “Schools of Hope/High Impact Charter Networks” language, SB 796, SB 1552 and HB 5105 with its $200M slush fund and block its inclusion in the Senate Budget and prevent it from being slipped by either chamber into a “train” bill.

Your voice has power. Our children are depending on us

Donald Cohen, executive director of the nonprofit group In the Public Interest, wrote the following (co-posted in Huffington Post):

Conservatives seem to have a thing for fast food.

The founder of what would eventually become the country’s largest private prison corporation, CoreCivic (formerly CCA), once declared, “You just sell [private prisons] like you were selling cars or real estate or hamburgers.” More recently, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, an organization founded by Jeb Bush that has lobbied for its corporate funders, including the world’s largest education corporation, Pearson, wrote that public schools should be thought of as fast food restaurants.

But providing public goods and services is nothing like selling hamburgers. In a democracy, human beings should control the public schools, infrastructure, and social services in their communities. Fast food customers vote individually with their wallets, which means they really have very little say. Does anyone really want a handful of corporations, the likes of McDonalds and Burger King, teaching children and locking people up in prison?

This point is especially true of public education, and is driven home by a report we released last week authored by Gordon Lafer, an associate professor at the University of Oregon. Lafer found that taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on charter school buildings in California, yet the state has little to show for it.

In the past 15 years, charter schools, which are privately operated, have received $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized financing to lease, build, or buy facilities. Yet much of this investment has gone to schools built in neighborhoods that don’t need them and schools that perform worse—according to charter industry standards—than nearby traditional public schools. Taxpayers have provided California’s underperforming charter schools—an astounding three-quarters of all the state’s charter schools!—with an estimated $750 million in direct funding.

Public support has even gone to California charter schools that discriminate against students with poor academic records, limited English-speaking skills, or disabilities. Taxpayers have given a collective $195 million to the 253 schools found by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU) in August 2016 to have discriminatory enrollment policies.

Most alarming is the fact that much of the funding has gone to a handful of large charter school chains, and some have used the money to purchase private property. In Los Angeles, for example, the Alliance College-Ready Public Schools network of charter schools has used subsidiary corporations to build a growing empire of privately owned real estate now worth in excess of $200 million. State and federal taxpayers have given Alliance more than $110 million in support, yet, because of a loophole, the schools built with these funds will never belong to the public.

Simply put, California’s leaders are treating schools like fast food restaurants. Local school boards, who are democratically elected, have little say in whether a new charter school is good for their community’s students. The boards charged with authorizing new charters aren’t allowed to consider the impacts on existing public schools—or whether a school is even needed. On top of that, state and federal taxpayers are subsidizing failing and discriminatory charter schools to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

California needs common sense regulation that returns decisions about charter schools to local school districts. Short of that, the state is slowly handing the keys to its public education system over to the charter school industry and the likes of Donald Trump and new education secretary Betsy DeVos, who are pushing the “school choice” narrative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gayle Green is a professor of English at Scripps College. She is writing a book about the corporate reform in higher education.

In this article, she describes how corporate reformers have taken guidance from Orwell’s “1984” in their deliberate distortion of language to mask reality.

She writes:

“In this post-truth age that’s done away with facts, George Orwell’s 1984 has soared to the top of the charts. But in the world of public education, it’s been 1984 for quite some time. And we didn’t even need the clumsy apparatus of a totalitarian dictatorship to bring it about. All we needed was some slick PR and smiley corporate faces and a media ready to spit back the buzzwords they’d been fed – failing public schools, no excuses, accountability, choice, access for every child, closing the achievement gap – repeating them so often that they passed for truth.”

In the current dystopian world of public education, the new Secretary of Education is the leading enemy of the nation’s public schools.

DeVos should be no surprise. She is the culmination of nearly two decades of creeping privatization.

“But DeVos should come as no surprise: she is the culmination of the way things have long been headed. No Child Left Behind, signed into law in January 2002, brought to us by George W. Bush and the moneyed interests he represented, arrived in clouds of rhetoric about “access” and “civil rights.” It announced itself as “an act to close the achievement gap with accountability, choice, flexibility, so that no child is left behind.” But this was never about reform or access or leveling the playing field: it was about opening up public education as a market, siphoning off tax dollars to charters and for-profit vendors, shifting public funds from a system that had public oversight and control to private interests. Education was a rich, untapped market with billions of federal dollars there for the taking. Schools, panicked at having their survival based on standardized test scores, invested heavily in testing technology. Multinational testing corporations, publishing companies, ed-tech ventures rushed in with their wares: software for administering tests, test preps, pre-tests, post-tests, tests scoring, lesson plans, teaching modules, assessment devices; entire new industries sprang into being….

“It’s been quite a feat, transforming teachers, who were once our friends and allies, to the enemy. A real sleight of hand, getting the public to trust those altruistic billionaires over those greedy, opportunistic teachers. Trust a billionaire to have the public’s interest at heart – that spin worked so well it landed us with Trump. But in the world of 1984, two plus two equals five: “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by [the Party’s] philosophy.”

Put kids in front of computers, increase screen time, increase class size – and call it personalized. Depersonalized might be a better word – or perhaps personalised, for Pearsons, the multibillion-dollar transnational corporation that’s siphoned off untold billions of federal money. When teachers protested that students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend not to test well, having not had the benefit of tutors and test-prep programs, GWB said they were making “excuses,” showing “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Yet it’s painfully clear that using test scores to determine the survival of schools only further disadvantages the disadvantaged, and, far from leveling the playing field, tilts it even more. “No excuses” became a mantra of corporate reformers, an excuse for shutting down public schools and moving in with charters, an excuse to ignore poverty and blame teachers for conditions that make teaching impossible – conditions assured by inequities that billionaire reformers have themselves brought about.”

Hundreds of schools have been closed. Thousands of teachers drummed out of their profession. Philadelphia’s Rescue Plan devastated the public schools. Arne Duncan’s Renaissance 2010 came and went with more public schools closed, more children sent to privately managed charter schools. “Choice, choice, choice,” the corporate reformers say, but neglect to mention that the schools make the choices, not the families. The one choice that is off the table is the neighborhood school.

“The confounding of language at its most basic level reduces us to a state of civic catatonia: we can’t think about these issues, let alone discuss them or act against them, when they’ve been so obfuscated, when words have been so twisted.”

The deliberate distortion of language has enabled a corporate coup, the selling out of public education to billionaires and entrepreneurs.

This is an article you can send to your friends who want a short summary of one of the biggest scam of our lifetimes.

In response to the report from “In the Public Interest” about waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars in California facilities funding, Laura Chapman responded that the state doesn’t care if it wastes money:

This shows why the state will do nothing about fraud, waste, abuse. This is current information about charter school financing in California.

Begin Quote:
Through the passage of Propositions 47, 55, and 1D, and most recently, Proposition 51, $1.4 billion has been made available to charter schools for construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities.

The state-funded Charter School Facilities Program (CSFP) is jointly administered by the California School Finance Authority (CSFA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). CSFA directs the financial soundness review process for the CSFP and provides certification of financial soundness for purposes of Preliminary, Advance, and Final Apportionments.

The Charter School Facilities Program (CSFP) provides fixed rate, long-term debt to schools at underwriting terms that are set by the state – not the capital markets.

A $1.4 billion program, CSFP provides low-cost financing for charter school facilities; 50% grant, 50% loan. This money is used to finance the construction of new, permanent school facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities for charter schools throughout the state.
End Quote.

Nobody cares about fraud waste and abuse.

A quick check at the Gates Foundation website shows $31 million invested in amping up charter school facilities in Los Angeles, 24 million in the state of Washington, and some recent funding to promote facilities financing in Boston–not much about $20,000–sent to Bellwether Education Partners , the go-to consultancy for all things for all charter schools.

From http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/charter.asp

The nonpartisan group In the Public Interest has released a major new report on wasteful spending on charter schools in California. It is called Spending Blind: The Failure of Policy Planning in California’s Charter School Facility Funding.

The bottom line is that California spends on charter schools without planning, without supervision, and without accountability. Vast sums of public money have disappeared, as charters close or mismanage funds. Every attempt to impose accountability on the charter industry has been vetoed by Governor Brown. The State Board of Education, which the governor appoints, does not demand accountability. California thinks of itself as a blue state, but when it comes to education funding, it is a Trump/DeVos state.

The key findings:

The report’s key findings include:

Over the past 15 years, California charter schools have received more than $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings.

Nearly 450 charter schools have opened in places that already had enough classroom space for all students—and this overproduction of schools was made possible by generous public support, including $111 million in rent, lease, or mortgage payments picked up by taxpayers, $135 million in general obligation bonds, and $425 million in private investments subsidized with tax credits or tax exemptions.

For three-quarters of California charter schools, the quality of education on offer—based on state and charter industry standards—is worse than that of a nearby traditional public school that serves a demographically similar population. Taxpayers have provided these schools with an estimated three-quarters of a billion dollars in direct funding and an additional $1.1 billion in taxpayer-subsidized financing.

Even by the charter industry’s standards, the worst charter schools receive generous facility funding. The California Charter Schools Association identified 161 charter schools that ranked in the bottom 10% of schools serving comparable populations last year, but even these schools received more than $200 million in tax dollars and tax-subsidized funding.

At least 30% of charter schools were both opened in places that had no need for additional seats and also failed to provide an education superior to that available in nearby public schools. This number is almost certainly underestimated, but even at this rate, Californians provided these schools combined facilities funding of more than $750 million, at a net cost to taxpayers of nearly $400 million.

Public facilities funding has been disproportionately concentrated among the less than one-third of schools that are owned by Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) that operate chains of between three and 30 schools. An even more disproportionate share of funding has been taken by just four large CMO chains—Aspire, KIPP, Alliance, and Animo/Green Dot.

Since 2009, the 253 schools found by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to maintain discriminatory enrollment policies have been awarded a collective $75 million under the SB740 program, $120 million in general obligation bonds, and $150 million in conduit bond financing.

CMOs have used public tax dollars to buy private property. The Alliance College-Ready Public Schools network of charter schools, for instance, has benefited from more than $110 million in federal and state taxpayer support for its facilities, which are not owned by the public, but are part of a growing empire of privately owned Los Angeles-area real estate now worth in excess of $200 million.

This squandering of public funds is outrageous. Will the Legislature and the Governor demand accountability?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do they care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That still leaves the question of who benefits.

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

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

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

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

The students are our future. And the students give me hope.

When I hear “reformers” like DeVos and Gates and Klein and Rhee claim that our schools are “failure factories,” that they are “obsolete,” that they are a “deadend,” and that our students are woefully undereducated, I will think of the students at this typical high school in Kansas. They unmasked a fraud. They engaged in critical thinking. No one paid them to do it. They demonstrated initiative, intelligence, and persistence. They are far smarter than the “reformers” who run them and their generation down.

In Kansas, student journalists checked out the credentials of their newly hired principal. The “university” that she cited as the source of her MA and doctorate didn’t exist. They investigated further and broke the story. The new principal resigned without ever taking office.

Connor Balthazor, 17, was in the middle of study hall when he was called into a meeting with his high school newspaper adviser.

A group of reporters and editors from the student newspaper, the Booster Redux at Pittsburg High School in southeastern Kansas, had gathered to talk about Amy Robertson, who was hired as the high school’s head principal on March 6.

The student journalists had begun researching Robertson, and quickly found some discrepancies in her education credentials. For one, when they researched Corllins University, the private university where Robertson said she got her master’s and doctorate degrees years ago, the website didn’t work. They found no evidence that it was an accredited university.

“There were some things that just didn’t quite add up,” Balthazor told The Washington Post.

The students began digging into a weeks-long investigation that would result in an article published Friday questioning the legitimacy of the principal’s degrees and of her work as an education consultant.

On Tuesday night, Robertson resigned.

This is a reminder why freedom of the press is so important to our democracy.

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

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

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

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