Archives for category: Funding
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Los Angeles: Why Won’t the California Charter School Association Debate the UTLA about Charters and Privatization?

By dianeravitch
October 31, 2016 //
33

The United Teachers of Los Angeles invited the powerful California Charter School Association to debate the issues surrounding the explosive growth of charter schools and their lack of accountability. The CCSA refused.

Here are the issues that CCSA doesn’t want to talk about:

Lack of financial accountability; lack of transparency; cream-skimming the students they want; bias against students with special needs and English language learners; the loss of funding for public schools that enroll all students; fraud, self-dealing, profiteering.

Why is CCSA afraid to debate?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Funding, Los Angeles, Privatization

Katy, Texas, Spending $71 Million on a New Football Stadium, But Can’t Afford a New Elementary School

By dianeravitch
October 31, 2016 //
5

The public schools of Katy, Texas, are overcrowded. The district needs a new elementary school, but it can’t afford to build one.

But the city officials know what really matters in Texas: they are spending $71 million for a new football stadium.

Please, let us not hear any rhetoric from Texas elected officials about how they love the children, how they want the state to attract new businesses by having great schools, how they are planning for the future. The legislature never fully restored the $5 billion in cuts to public schools that they extracted in 2011.

The only investment the politicians are willing to make is in charter schools–and if Lt. Governor Dan Patrick has his way–vouchers. That, of course, is not new money. Charters and vouchers take money from existing public schools and transfer it to entrepreneurs and home schoolers and those who prefer a religious education. There is no new money.

Texans are being scammed. There is no investment in children. There is no investment in public schools.

But there will be a super stadium in Katy.

Categories Accountability, Funding, Texas

What Kind of a School Fines a Departing Teacher $6,087 for “Liquidated Damages”?

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2016 //
25

EduShyster knows the answer: A popular suburban charter school in Massachusetts called the Mystic Valley Regional Charter School. This is a school that was created by a group of friends and families that wanted the equivalent of a private school at public school prices. It makes up its own rules. It has very high test scores. And the state has received scores of complaints about the school.

She writes:

So what were parents complaining about?

Special education services, denial of;

English Language Learners, complete lack of;

Teachers, high turnover of;

Property all over Malden, snapping up of (in cash, which seems, um, kind of strange);

Open meeting laws, ignoring of;

Friends and family of founders, hiring of/preferential treatment of;

Admissions lottery, odds-defying nature of, especially when concerning founders, friends and family of;

Communication with board, difficulty of;

Spending priorities, nature of (see $12 million athletic facility, building of)

Student club and athletic team fees, high cost of;

Day-to-day management of the school, interference in

Parents and students who complained, repercussions against, nudging towards door of

In which we pause briefly to consider one downside of the charter model

Let’s pause here briefly to consider why these parents have been deluging state officials with their complaints. You see, because charter schools are autonomous, overseen by their hand-picked boards, parents who have issues with the school and its management have no choice but to bring their complaints to the friends-and-family-esque Board of Directors. Which can be *awkward,* not to mention difficult, because of the board’s penchant for conducting much of its business out of view of the public. The state, meanwhile, doesn’t have much leverage either. While it can step in when the law is being broken or non-complied with, there is no statutory penalty for what might best be described as *dick-ish-ness.* Add in the fact that Mystic Valley is awash in the very treasure that the state most treasures these days—high MCAS scores and a long wait list—and, well, you see where this is not going. As for those unhappy parents, they have a choice: suck it up or *vote with their feet.*

The founders treat the school as their private school, funded by taxpayers. No one cares about the complaints of parents or teachers. The state provides no supervision. What will happen if the charter cap is lifted and more such publically funded, unaccountable, elite charters pop up?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Funding, Massachusetts, Privatization

Los Angeles: Study Reveals the Real Cost of Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
8

The United Teachers of Los Angeles hired an independent research firm to analyze the true cost of charter schools to the school district.

The firm, MGT of America, was free to reach its own conclusions.

Its report concluded that charters are costing the Los Angeles Unified School District nearly $600 million a year in lost revenue.

A report by MGT of America, an independent research firm, reveals that LAUSD has lost an astonishing $591 million to unmitigated charter school growth this year alone. If costs associated with charter school expansion are not mitigated with common sense solutions, the district will face financial insolvency, according to an analysis of the report.

As the number of independent charter schools continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important for LAUSD to quantify, forecast, and manage the costs associated with independent charter expansion. LAUSD oversees more charter schools than any other district in the country. Charters are privately managed despite relying heavily on district and taxpayer funding.

Taken together, the findings in the report paint a picture of a system that prioritizes the growth opportunities for charter school operators over the educational opportunities for all students.

As Massachusetts and Georgia voters prepare to vote on whether to expand the number of charters, they should be fully informed that more money for charters means budget cuts for public schools. Budget cuts for public schools mean larger class sizes, fewer teachers, fewer programs for the schools that serve the majority of students.

As the charter sector continues to expand, because of false promises to parents about their “success” (even before the school opens), the public school system that has been a foundational element in American democracy is threatened by loss of funding and privatization.

Categories Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Funding, Los Angeles, Privatization

Christine Langhoff: The Real Goal of Question 2 in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
8

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

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

She writes:


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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Buchheit: New Layers of Dirt on Charter Movement

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
13

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohio: You Can Buy Republican Legislators at Bargain Prices

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
24

William Lager owns the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), which according to the New York Times, has the lowest graduation rate in the nation. ECOT is a virtual charter school, where students take instruction online. The state recently reacted to public criticism and decided to audit ECOT. It found that the school’s enrollment was vastly overstated, which meant that ECOT was receiving millions of dollars each year for nothing. ECOT went to court and argued that the state had no right to audit participation rates (attendance), but the court did not agree. Unless the decision is overturned on appeal, Lager will have to refund $60 million to the state.

Since 2000, ECOT has given $2.1 million in campaign contributions. Since 2010, 99% of Lager’s contributions have gone to Republican legislators. In the brief period when Democrats controlled the House, Lager gave them nearly $200,000. Since 2000, ECOT has received nearly $1 billion in state funds for its perennially failing school.

Think of it: an investment of only $2.1 million in campaign contributions generates nearly $1 billion in state funding for a low-performing school. What a bargain!

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Funding, Ohio, On-Line Education, Privatization, Virtual Charter Schools

Mercedes Schneider: Municipal Analysts Call for Charter Financial Transparency

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
4

Mercedes Schneider uncovered a fascinating development. The National Federation of Municipal Analysts, a professional association, has called for standards for charter school transparency and accountability. It is impossible to assess the credit worthiness of bonds, whether issued by state or local authorities, without full transparency on the part of agencies receiving public funds.

The Association released a 24-page draft statement on September 28, laying out what its members need to know, including:

“WASHINGTON – The National Federation of Municipal Analysts is urging charter schools to provide detailed financial, academic, and staffing information in primary and secondary disclosure documents. …

The [RBP] draft constitutes NFMA’s first disclosure recommendations for charter schools. …

The paper will be open for public comment through Nov. 30. After that date, NFMA will review comments and finalize the paper. …

According to the RBP, a charter school’s POS (primary offering statement) should disclose all material financial agreements, including the proposed indenture, loan agreement, capital leases, management agreements, and tax regulatory agreements. …Descriptions of facilities and their financing, pledged revenues, and projected cash flows. …Descriptions of debt service, repair and replacement, operating and deficit, as well as insurance and property tax reserve funds.

…Academic performance as well as school management and operations. …

…Charter board membership, compensation, and tenure; information available on the school’s website; management qualification, experience, and compensation; third-party manager control, compensation, and replacement; and charter school teaching faculty, classroom ratios, and teachers’ union affiliation. …Teacher and staff compensation, including retirement benefits, any complaints and claims the school is facing, as well as operating and funding information related to extracurricular activities.

…Information about the size, capacity, and condition of facilities, including equipment, along with descriptions of future capital improvement needs, insurance support, and transportation and parking capabilities for students and staff, respectively.

…Discussion of audited financial statements and interim financials, current budgetary processes, financial covenant compliance and projections, and existing banking relationships…. State aid and other governmental support… information about planned future debt and reliance on endowments, fund drives, contributions, and gifts.

…School’s location, enrollment, potential competition from other schools in the area, and future projections on such topics are also important….

[And] separate but related suggestions to consider credit risks and continuing disclosure.”

This is the kind of disclosure that has not been sought or expected by local, state, and federal governments, as they pump billions of dollars into the charter industry. Some districts and states are heading for a fiscal cliff, pushed there by reckless state and philanthrocapitalists like a Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton family, Doris Fisher, and many more who are reckless with public money.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Funding

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

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2016 //
9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open the post to read the links.

Categories For-Profit, Funding, Nevada

Pennsylvania: Charter Sharks Zooming in for the Kill with HB530

By dianeravitch
October 25, 2016 //
9

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

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

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

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

Here are a few of his reasons:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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