Archives for category: Funding

Bill Phillis is a wise educator in Ohio, now retired, who served as deputy state commissioner in an earlier administration, one that supported public schools. He is passionate about equitable funding.

 

In this post, he warns about a deceitful funding plan just introduced in the legislature. 

 

Representative Andrew Brenner concocted an ALEC-style funding bill that pretends to be equitable but is in fact a universal voucher plan.

 

Two years ago, Brenner called publichttps://dianeravitch.net/2014/03/23/ohio-you-cant-make-this-stuff-up/ schools “socialism.” His way of responding to critics is to say “they must have gone to public schools.”

 

 

 

 

Mike Klonsky is a nervy guy.

 

In this post, he explains why some schools and states get high marks while others are “failing.” 

 

Let Edweek know.

Michigan has one of the worst charter sectors in the nation, according to the Detroit Free Press, which conducted a year-long investigation of charters in the state. The people of Michigan pay $1 billion a year for a sector in which 80% of the charters operate for profit, in which there is neither accountability nor transparency, in which conflicts of interests don’t matter. Billionaire Betsy DeVos and her husband Dick and other members of the DeVos family control education issues in the Republican-dominated legislature with their generous campaign contributions. Governor Rick Snyder is DeVos’s personal puppet. And the state continues to waste public money on failing schools because they are privately run. No regulation needed!

 

This is Billionaire Betsy DeVos’s idea of how education should work!

 

The Detroit Free Press writes:

 

Michigan taxpayers pour nearly $1 billion a year into charter schools — but state laws regulating charters are among the nation’s weakest, and the state demands little accountability in how taxpayer dollars are spent and how well children are educated.

 

A yearlong investigation by the Detroit Free Press reveals that Michigan’s lax oversight has enabled a range of abuses in a system now responsible for more than 140,000 Michigan children. That figure is growing as more parents try charter schools as an alternative to traditional districts.

 

In reviewing two decades of charter school records, the Free Press found:

 

Wasteful spending and double-dipping. Board members, school founders and employees steering lucrative deals to themselves or insiders. Schools allowed to operate for years despite poor academic records. No state standards for who operates charter schools or how to oversee them.

 

And a record number of charter schools run by for-profit companies that rake in taxpayer money and refuse to detail how they spend it, saying they’re private and not subject to disclosure laws. Michigan leads the nation in schools run by for-profits.

 

“People should get a fair return on their investment,” said former state schools Superintendent Tom Watkins, a longtime charter advocate who has argued for higher standards for all schools. “But it has to come after the bottom line of meeting the educational needs of the children. And in a number of cases, people are making a boatload of money, and the kids aren’t getting educated.”

 

According to the Free Press’ review, 38% of charter schools that received state academic rankings during the 2012-13 school year fell below the 25th percentile, meaning at least 75% of all schools in the state performed better. Only 23% of traditional public schools fell below the 25th percentile.

 

Advocates argue that charter schools have a much higher percentage of children in poverty compared with traditional schools. But traditional schools, on average, perform slightly better on standardized tests even when poverty levels are taken into account.

 

In late 2011, Michigan lawmakers removed limits on how many charters can operate here —opening the door to a slew of new management companies. In 2013-14, the state had 296 charters operating some 370 schools — in 61% of them, charter boards have enlisted a full-service, for-profit management company. Another 17% rely on for-profits for other services, mostly staffing and human resources, according to Free Press research.

 

Michigan far exceeds states like Florida, Ohio and Missouri, where only about one-third of charters were run by a full-service, for-profit management company in 2011-12, according to research by Western Michigan University professor Gary Miron, who has studied charters extensively.

 

While the Free Press found disclosure issues with both for-profit and nonprofit companies, the state’s failure to insist on more financial transparency by for-profits — teacher salaries, executive compensation, vendor payments and more — is particularly troubling to charter critics because the for-profit companies receive the bulk of the money that goes to charter schools. In some cases, even charter school board members don’t get detailed information.

 

Without that, experts say there is no way to determine if a school is getting the most for its money.

 

Authorizers in Michigan receive 3% of the state tuition money for every student who attends a charter school they authorize. That means millions of dollars flow to the authorizing groups, who have no responsibility or accountability. Anyone can open a charter school in Michigan. Charter schools can fail and be reauthorized. Charter operators can run failing schools and get to open new ones. Success is unimportant. Michigan is a free-for-all with public money.

 

State law sets no qualifications for charter applicants

 

In Michigan, anyone and everyone can apply to open a charter school. There are no state guidelines for screening applicants.

 

And in many cases, authorizers have given additional charters to schools managed by companies that haven’t demonstrated academic success with their existing schools.

 

Central Michigan University, for example, gave two additional charters to schools managed by the for-profit Hanley-Harper Group Inc. in Harper Woods, before its first school had any state ranking and despite test scores that showed it below statewide proficiency rates in reading and math. The school’s first ranking, released last year, put it in the 14th percentile, meaning that 86% of schools in Michigan did better academically.

 

“We have a product, yes, we are trying to sell and constantly working to make … better and better and better,” company founder Beata Chochla, who has run several small businesses, including janitorial and home health care, told the Free Press in an interview.

 

Ferris State University has authorized a fourth Hanley-Harper school, expected to open this fall in Oak Park.

 

“We were convinced they had a good plan,” Ferris State’s interim charter schools director Ronald Rizzo said, adding that critics who believe an operator should have a successful academic track record before adding schools are “welcome” to their views.

 

Authorizers also have been slow to close poor performers. Among the oldest and poorest performing schools in metro Detroit:

 

■ Hope Academy, founded in Detroit in 1998, ranked almost rock-bottom — in the first percentile — in 2012-13.

 

■ Commonwealth Community Development Academy, founded in Detroit in 1996, ranked in the third percentile.

 

Both schools are authorized by Eastern Michigan University, which said in a statement that it is not satisfied with either. Yet just last year, EMU renewed Hope Academy’s charter.

 

The article includes a list of recent charter scandals:

 

■ A Sault Ste. Marie charter school board gave its administrator a severance package worth $520,000 in taxpayer money.

 

■ A Bedford Township charter school spent more than $1 million on swampland.

 

■ A mostly online charter school in Charlotte spent $263,000 on a Dale Carnegie confidence-building class, $100,000 more than it spent on laptops and iPads.

 

■ Two board members who challenged their Romulus school’s management company over finances and transparency were ousted when the length of their terms was summarily reduced by Grand Valley State University.

 

■ National Heritage Academies, the state’s largest for-profit school management company, charges 14 of its Michigan schools $1 million or more in rent — which many real estate experts say is excessive.

 

■ A charter school in Pittsfield Township gave jobs and millions of dollars in business to multiple members of the founder’s family.

 

■ Charter authorizers have allowed management companies to open multiple schools without a proven track record of success.

 

Want to get rich quick? Move to Michigan and open a charter school.

 

 

James Harvey is executive director of the National Superintendents Roundtable. See their excellent report “The Iceberg Effect,” which put international comparisons of schools into a broad context.

 

He commented today, in response to an article claiming that we spend more than other nations and get worse results:

 

The “we spend more than anyone less for poorer results” argument is specious. We’d really need a forensic examination of finances to get a better fix on this, but American schools carry in their budgets hugely expensive line items for benefits and health insurance, transportation, and athletics that other nations pay for in municipal budgets or through community groups (in the case of athletics). An apples to apples comparison would either eliminate those costs from American school budgets (to get a better fix on true educational expenditures) or calculate, for schools elsewhere, equivalent contributions from outside the school system.

Rhode Island state officials gave their permission to triple the enrollment of politically connected no-excuses charter chain Achievement First.

 

As reported here previously, increasing the enrollment of these charters will drain students and millions of dollars from the public schools of Providence.

 

Thousands of children in the Providence public schools will suffer budget cuts so that a much smaller number may enroll in a dual system under private control.

 

The final decision is up to the mayor of Providence, who is also chair of the charter chainboard.

 

Arizona spends less on schools than most states. The governor, Doug Ducey, is determined not to raise taxes. The public is willing to spend more to improve education but the governor wants to hold the line.

 

Robert Robb, an editorial columnist for the Arizona Republic has an idea: cut the schools loose from school boards and judge them by standardized tests. And hold everyone accountable for results.

 

Arizona currently spends, from all sources for all purposes, $9,500 per K-12 student. That’s low compared with other U.S. states. But it is in the range spent by countries in Western Europe.

 

For example, Finland spends roughly the same per pupil as does Arizona, and it has one of the highest performing school systems in the world, based on international test scores.

 

However, to have high performance with existing dollars would require blowing up the existing delivery system and substituting a new one built from scratch.

 

What would such a system look like?

 

It would be entirely financed and controlled at the state level. Funding for all purposes, operational and capital, would be folded into a single, lump-sum, per pupil grant. The grant would go to whatever public school the student attended.

 

The principal at that school would have control of the elements of educational success: money, personnel and curriculum. Local school boards and central school district business offices would be neutered or abolished.

 

That would put in place the infrastructure of educational success. But actual success would be ensured by a rigorous regimen of accountability through testing. Failing to achieve the educational benchmarks set by the state would have consequences for all — administrators, teachers and students.

 

Arizona has never had such an accountability- through-testing regimen.And the state Board of Education is fleeing in the opposite direction, bent on adopting a new school grading system even more meaningless and useless than the previous one.

 

This is a surprising proposal because it echoes the failed test-and-punish accountability regime of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Both efforts said that test scores should be used to measure success and to hold everyone accountable. Fifteen years later, what is there to show for these multi-billion dollar initiatives? They aimed to produce higher test scores, and by their own goals and measures, they failed.

 

Mr. Robb must have a lot of faith in standardized testing if he thinks, like Margaret Spellings, Sandy Kress, and Arne Duncan, that they are the best way to identify success.

 

Since he brought up Finland, he should look into that nation more closely. Start by reading Pasi Sahlberg’s wonderful book, Finnish Lessons, or Finnish Lessons 2.0. What he would learn is that students in Finland don’t begin formal academic instruction until they are 7. They never take a standardized test until the end of high school. Their teachers are carefully selected, well prepared in a five-year program (that is hard to get accepted into), and given substantial autonomy over how and what to teach. Children have recess after every class, rain or snow or shine. The arts and physical education are very important. Creativity and play matter.

 

Please, Mr. Robb, learn more about Finland, and compare what you see in Arizona to what the Finns do.

 

 

A reader Catherine Blanche King explained in a comment why it is a mistake that schools will improve if they compete with one another, as shoe stores and automobile franchises do. She reminds me of something that Governor Mario Cuomo said many years ago, and I am sorry I can’t remember the words exactly and can’t find the source. He said that if you are a parent and you have several children, you don’t pick favorites but you give the most love and attention to the child who needs it most. I think he was referring then to children with disabilities.

She writes:

Just a reflection to consider on the difference between (1) running a business and (2) running an educational establishment and the principles that underpin both.

In the first case, businesses are commonly run under the principles of capitalism–as at least assumed to be competitive, and as employed presently in most cases. Competition in business and even in, for instance, the Olympic Games, tends to render the best in each instance, category, or business field which gets the prize or the customer base, whichever. What is “the best” (the principles of intelligence and excellence) in each situation, field, or category is an open question. But it’s the underpinning idea of “branding” –whether you are actually the best or not and according to a wealth of criteria for that title.

In the second case, however, running an educational establishment is more like running a family; that is, those who are NOT the best, are the ones who need the most and, under this principle, are the ones who are helped to become better. It’s (what we can call) the principle of generation that comes first and that underpins the other two principles when they are working well.

In concrete terms, the principle of generation is evident in our own families where we may harbor our favorites, but if one child is not as good as another in math, say, then that child is the one who gets the help so that they can become better. If they are not good at soccer, then we try baseball or whatever they want or need. If you put them in competition with others, however, without adequate preparation and direction, they are already set to be “losers.”

It’s under this principle of generation, however, that we love and care for our children regardless, cradle to grave. And as they move from family to formal educational institution, it’s under this principle that we are constantly PREPARING them–ALL of them in a democratic culture–to work as well as they can when they are ready to enter the world where the other two principles (intelligence and excellence) take the reigns in their lives. (Again, what we concretely mean by those terms is analogous and specific.)

Neither of the three principles ever goes away, however, but remain in tension with one another. It’s just which is emphasized and which recedes in each situation. In families, we play games where someone wins or loses, but no one questions where they live or whether they are included. In schools, particularly in a democracy, and beginning in the early grades, competition again has its legitimate place, but again (as most teachers experience) not when it intrudes on legitimate forms that flow from the principle of generation, e.g., caring and inclusion, educational preparation for all where it is needed–that is, we do not eliminate those who fail or who are not at the top in achievements. Rather, resources are applied in accordance with need and where there is less achievement; and regardless of who they are or what group they belong to. Again, inclusion is a given. Here, applying competitive business principles alone is a gross distortion of the body politic of a democratic culture.

Sheila Resseger is a retired teacher in Rhode Island. She writes in response to an earlier post about the proposed expansion of the Achievement First charter chain in Rhode Island. The state commissioner, Kenneth Wagner, is enthusiastic about the increase in charter enrollment by 2,000, even though it will strip more than $30 million from the Providence public schools, which enrolls far more students. What is the logic of diverting funding to charter schools for 2,000 while underfunding the education of 12,000?

 

She writes:

 

Not only was [Governor Gina] Raimondo’s husband, Andy Moffit, a roommate of Cory Booker’s, but he is a (brief) TFA alum and has been employed by McKinsey for some time. He is the co-author with Sir Michael Barber of Deliverology 101. Now I think that’s enough to know about him.

 

My colleague Wendy Holmes and I wrote a piece about Wagner’s support for the expansion of Achievement First for RI Future. http://www.rifuture.org/achievement-first-education-deform/

 

There have been several fiscal analyses of the impact of an AF expansion on Providence public schools and students, and critiques of the Innovative Policy Lab “report” that Wagner relied on when promoting the expansion. Here are a few:

 

Sam Zurier’s “Report on Fiscal Impacts to Providence Public Schools From Proposed Achievement First Expansion” – http://samzurier.com/public/ upload/11-30-Electronic-Cover- letter-and-Report.pdf

 

“Pro-Achievement First Study is Challenged” from the Providence Journal: http://www. providencejournal.com/news/ 20161208/education-pro- achievement-first-study-is- challenged

 

Mark Santow’s public comments at the December 6 RI Board of Education hearing: http://www.rifuture. org/3-reasons-to-oppose- achievement-first-expansion/

 

Tom Hoffman’s analysis of the Achievement First Fiscal Impact Memo prepared by Brown University’s Rhode Island Innovative Policy Lab – http://www.tuttlesvc.org/2016/ 12/a-closer-look-at-browns- achievement.html

 

There is also a new petition from families of Providence public school students opposing the expansion.

https://www.change.org/p/families-supporting-the-providence-public-schools-and-opposing-achievement-first-expansion?recruiter=1251398&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-no_msg

 

I will say that these two particular Achievement First elementary schools do enroll a high number of students from Spanish-speaking homes. I heard many parents speak at a public forum praising the education that their children are getting there, compared to what they experienced in the Providence public schools. However, when the chief measure of high achievement as opposed to failing schools is the fatally flawed PARCC assessment, we need to be very wary. The bottom line is that 12,000 Providence students should not have to suffer severe cuts to their schools and programs so that an extra 2,000 students can go to a well-resourced school. All children in Providence and throughout the country need and are entitled to fully resourced neighborhood public schools. The emphasis on test prep in ELA and math is counter-productive and not the direction that we should be going.

Kenneth Wagner, Commissioner of Education in Rhode Island, has approved a plan to allow the Achievement First “no-excuses” charter chain to more than triple its enrollment over the next decade to more than 3,000 students. (Other stories say that the number of students will grow from the present 720 to 2,000.) The proposal is controversial because the increase in charter enrollment will cut the budget of the public schools in Providence, where most of the students are now in attendance. So, most students will suffer larger classes and fewer programs so that the well-funded AF chain may expand.

 

The city’s internal auditor estimates that the district public schools will lose between $28 and $29 million annually by the time Achievement First reaches full enrollment. The analysis by the Rhode Island Department of Education estimates that the district will lose $35 million, of which $8 million comes from the city in local aid. The rest comes form the state.

 

The per pupil spending follows the child from a traditional public school to a charter school.

 

Critics say if the charter school grows to 3,112 children, it will have a devastating impact on the traditional public schools and effectively create a parallel school system.

 

By state law, Wagner must consider the financial impact of a charter school expansion on the sending school districts, in this case, Providence, Cranston, North Providence and Warwick. But 86 percent of the charter’s students come from Providence, so the impact will be greatest there.

 

Based on the experience of other states, Providence is likely to see its credit rating fall, meaning that the city will have to pay more for its indebtedness. But when a politically powerful group like AF, backed by billionaires, wants to grow, what matters is not the vast majority of students–who will suffer budget cuts–or the city and state’s bond rating, but placating the billionaires.

 

The mayor of Providence, Jorge Elorza, is chair of the board of the Achievement First charter chain in Rhode Island, and he said recently that he won’t move forward with the expansion unless AF’s wealthy backers raise the $28-32 million that the school district will lose as AF expands.

 

A defender of the expansion plan said that the fiscal impact wouldn’t be as bad as the state and city auditors estimate, because once children learn to read at grade level, property taxes will rise. Yes, he really did make that claim.

 

William Fischer, a spokesman for RI-CAN, part of a national, pro-school choice advocacy group, said the R.I. Education Department has a legal obligation to weigh the fiscal impact on the entire community, not just the school district.

 

“We hope the study will look at the impacts to property taxes when students are reading at grade level,” he said. “I thought [the auditor’s report] was a very simple analysis. It didn’t take into account student attrition and the charter’s growth over a decade.”

 

This is called “magical thinking.”

 

Jonathan Pelto has written extensively about the Achievement First charter chain in Connecticut. He has pointed out that AF schools have disproportionately small numbers of students who are in need of special education and who are English language learners. Like other no-excuses charters, they are known for their high attrition rates. They skim, they cherrypick, and they get extra funding as compared to high-needs districts from which they poach students.

 

The Providence Journal editorial board endorsed the proposal to divvy up school funding between charters and public schools, even though 80% of the kids in need of extra attention will still remain in the public schools after AF reaches its goal, and even though the public schools will lose resources, making them less able to help those left behind.

 

Achievement First spokeswoman Amanda Pinto said the school is “thrilled” by Wagner’s recommendation.

“When considering the fiscal impact,” she said, “The most important factor is the economic value of providing thousands more Rhode Island students with a high-quality education that equips them for success in college, career and life.”

 

In other words, the negative fiscal impact on the vast majority of students in the Providence public schools and on the finances of Providence don’t matter, as compared to any test scores gains for the small minority of students that AF accepts and retains. This is just plain selfish thinking. 

 

Can any sensible person say that it is a good idea to open new schools to enroll 3,000 or so students, when 15,000 students are in need of extra help? If AF follows the pattern it established in Connecticut, it will skim off the most promising students, subject them to stern discipline, and then boast of its test scores.

 

If anyone steps back and thinks about this picture, it makes no sense. This is a recipe for a dual school system, both drawing from the same pie, with one free to choose its students, the other accepting all students who show up. Following this path will weaken the public schools that enroll most students, strip them of the resources they need for the students, and send them on a path of steady decline. This is a bad deal, from the point of view of the students, the city, and the state.

 

 

Latest real estate news in Manhattan:

 

Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain bought a condo on the far west side of Manhattan for $67.7 million.

 

A few years back, Eva’s billionaire allies successfully lobbied the legislature to secure free rent for her schools and free rein to expand, pushing out other kids and programs, even those serving the severely disabled.