Archives for category: Funding
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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

Fiscal Impact of Two Charter Schools on Public Schools of Worcester, Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
October 24, 2016 //
40

In the battle over Question 2–whether to expand the number of charter schools by a dozen a year indefinitely into the future–sentiment is running against the proposal, despite the millions of dollars spent on television ads by the pro-charter groups. In western and central Massachusetts, according to this article, a majority of voters are against Question 2 once they hear from a volunteer about the fiscal impact on their public schools.

In Worcester, meanwhile, school officials want to see Question 2 defeated….

“To have the possibility of losing additional funding from our budget – it would be devastating,” said Molly O. McCullough, a member of the Worcester School Committee, which was among the first school boards in the state to officially oppose the ballot question in January.

Brian E. Allen, the Worcester schools’ chief financial and operations officer, said the public schools are already losing critical funding – $24.5 million this year – to the two existing charter schools in the city. If the district were to absorb all 2,000 of Abby Kelley Foster Charter Public School and Seven Hills Charter Public School’s students back into its population, for example, the money it would get back would be enough not only to hire the necessary teachers to instruct those students but also an additional 150 teachers to use elsewhere in the system, he said.

On the flip side, if Worcester were to add 2,000 more charter school seats – the equivalent of two new schools – “now we’re talking about significant financial impacts,” he said, to a district that cut staff last year because of a budget deficit.

In essentially the same boat as Worcester, as far as the financial impact a charter school would have on them, the majority of other school districts in Central Massachusetts have also taken official stances against Question 2. Two other school systems besides Worcester – Fitchburg and Marlboro – already share their city with charter schools. Fitchburg and other districts have also seen recent proposals from local groups to start new ones.

As school boards consider the fiscal impact of the existing public schools, they take a stand against the resolution.

What all this demonstrates is the utter callousness of the pro-charter advocates. Massachusetts has the most successful public school system in the state, yet “reformer-billionaires” think it should be disrupted. Worcester, as the article points out, had a third charter school that lasted only three years. What is the logic of disrupting and defunding the nation’s most successful state public school system by adding a dozen new transient schools every year and causing budget cuts to the public schools that remain?

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

California: Court Decision Stuns Charter Industry and Threatens Stealth Charters

By dianeravitch
October 24, 2016 //
10

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some districts opened resource centers because it was easy money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevada: Andre Agassi Charter School Is A Failing School, Along with Many Other Charters

By dianeravitch
October 24, 2016 //
6

Angie Sullivan sent the following message. The charter schools of Nevada are performing far worse than the public schools. As Angie asks, how can more charters be the answer when they are the problem? Should the failing charters be handed over to another charter? Or should they be closed so the students return to the more successful public schools? Unfortunately, as the law is written, only low-scoring public schools can be closed, not failing charter schools. Another irony: The Andre Agassi Charter school is listed by the state as a “failing school,” yet Agassi and his business partner Bobby Turner are opening Andre Agassi charter schools in many other cities. Why? To make money, not to make better schools.

Angie writes:

We have 39 charters in the state of Nevada and 14 of them are on the lowest performing list. 36% of Nevada Charters are in the lowest of the low in the state.

We have 359 schools in Clark County School District. 2 of the schools listed are alternative schools that teach credit retrieval and adult education. 17 schools in the lowest of the low in the state. That is 5% of CCSD schools.

Can someone explain to me how charters are the solution and not the problem in my state?

Frankly the public schools are doing much much better than the charters – even according to this invalid and weird data.

Also . . . keep in mind these rural schools which are failing represent a huge percentage. If Elko has 22 schools and 5 are failing – that is 23% of all their schools.

Comparatively, Clark County School District is doing better than the rest of the state and especially better than the charters.

CCSD is serving the most disenfranchised and likely to fail communities – we are doing better than the rest WITH the least amount of per pupil money. Everyone else in the state – including charters gets more.

Just think what we could do if we funded near the middle?

Yet the Nevada Department of Education keeps threatening public school staff with turnaround and now the Achievement School District. Schools without textbooks or supplies have to have entire staffs interviewed right before holiday break?

I think we need to start having a REAL discussion about education our state.

We need to demand REAL and timely data if that is what is driving this vehicle – not this sketchy fly-by-night multiple list craziness.

Tomorrow the Charter Authority will be meeting with the Las Vegas City Council at noon.

Those in power need to have a REAL discussion about closing these failing charters and a REAL discussion about the other costs charters have in our communities.

Like receivership – with receivers from Washington DC getting paid $25,000 a month to come out and reorganize charters: Quest and Silver State Schools. Who makes $25,000 a month?

_________________

I recieved the following message from a concerned parent today:

The details how this charter school set itself up is a scam.

It is part of an eviction case.

Then the receiver gets paid $25,000 a month to rehabilitate it. Plus $35,000 for a report.

And the state is soliciting for MORE receivers!!!! (On the charter school authority page.)

Look up Josh Kern and Ten Square he has 2 schools he is doing this for in Nevada the other is Silver State in Carson City.

$25,000 a month plus expenses dont want to miss that part.

Click to access Summary-Eviction-Tenant-Answer.pdf

You should see how insulted he is by the John Oliver attacks on charter schools in the Aug 26 video

http://charterschools.nv.gov/News/Public_Notices/

If they are failing shut them down and pay all of those $$$$ to public schools.

No one is going to jail over any of this.

_________________________

Someone is spending big money to try to protect these charters! BIG MONEY Who makes $25,000 in a month? Is the tax payer paying for these receivers? What a waste!

Charters are making Nevada’s education problems worse.

Angie

 

Carson City, Nevada

Pioneer HS

Charter

100 Academy

http://ccsd.net/divisions/stud ent-support-services-division/ 100-academy-of-excellence

Charter

Agassi SEC

http://www.agassiprep.net/apps /pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=24017 2&type=d&pREC_ID=854780

Clark County School District

Bailey MS

Clark County School District

Brinley MS

Clark County School District

Burk Horizon SW HS

http://ccsd.net/divisions/educ ation-services-division/adult- education-horizon-sunset-high- schools

Clark County School District

Cambeiro ES

Clark County School District

Clyde Cox ES

Clark County School District

Craig ES

Charter

Delta Charter

Clark County School District

Desert Pines HS

Clark County School District

Alternative

Desert Rose ALT

http://desertrosehs.org/apps/p ages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=216521& type=d&pREC_ID=423036

Clark County School District

Ftizgerald ES

Charter

Global Community

Charter

Innovations ES

Charter

Innovations SEC

Clark County School District

Jerome Mack MS

Clark County School District

Kelly MS

Clark County School District

Lowman ES

Clark County School District

Monaco MS

Charter

Odyssey HS

http://odysseyk12.org/high-sch ool-curriculum/

Charter

One Hundred Acad ES

http://ccsd.net/divisions/stud ent-support-services-division/ 100-academy-of-excellence

Clark County School District

Orr MS

Clark County School District

Peterson ES

Clark County School District

Priest ES

Clark County School District

Von Tobel MS

Clark County School District

West Prep Sec (MS)

Clark County School District

Tom William ES

Clark County School District

William Wendell ES

Elko

Carlin HS

Elko

Owyhee ES

Elko

West Wendover ES

Elko

West Wendover JHS

Elko

West Wendover HS

Mineral

Hawthrone HS

Mineral

Schurz ES

Nye

Pathways HS ALT

Nye

Round Mountain ES

Charter

Beacon Academy

Charter

Discovery Charter

Charter

NV Connections Academy

Charter

Silver State Charter School

Washoe

Desert Height ES

Washoe

Charter

I Can Do Anything HS

http://www.icdachs.com/

Washoe

Natchez ES

Washoe

Charter

Rainshadow HS

http://rainshadowcharterhs.wee bly.com/

 

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform, Fraud, Funding, Hoax, Nevada

Texas: Here Comes the Voucher Fight Again

By dianeravitch
October 23, 2016 //
10

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, former talk show host, really wants vouchers for the millions of students in Texas. Fortunately, he has been defeated year after year by a coalition of rural Tepublicans and urban Democrats.

The battle is on again this year. Patrick and his fellow ideological zealots are headed for a showdown on the issue. There is no evidence that vouchers “work,” and much evidence that they don’t. In a state like Texas, the voucher proposal is strongly opposed by a brave group called Pastors for Texas Children. (Make a donation if you can to help them.)

Supporters of vouchers insist that the schools that receive public funds should be exempt from state tests or any other accountability measures, which might limit their “freedom.”

“A bipartisan group of state representatives hammered private school choice proponents at a heated legislative hearing on Monday, signaling an enduring uphill battle in the Texas House for proposals that would use taxpayer dollars to help parents send their kids to private or parochial schools, or educate them at home.

“Rural Republicans and Democrats in the lower chamber have long blocked such programs — often referred to in sweeping terms as “private school vouchers,” although there are variations. Passing one has emerged as a top priority in the Texas Senate for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who unsuccessfully pushed a private school choice program when he was a Republican state senator from Houston and chairman of the Senate Education Committee.”

Of course, the proposal for vouchers is a pathetic excuse for failing to restore the $5 billion cut to the public schools in 2011.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Funding, Privatization, Resistance, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Texas, Vouchers

Report: Most States Have Cut Spending on Education

By dianeravitch
October 23, 2016 //
19

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities documents how states are disinvesting in K-12 education.

This report shows the dramatic contradiction between political rhetoric and economic reality. The state’s that are cutting education spending are also demanding higher test scores, and many have launched charters and vouchers, which further diminish funding for public schools.

It begins:

“Public investment in K-12 schools — crucial for communities to thrive and the U.S. economy to offer broad opportunity — has declined dramatically in a number of states over the last decade. PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN K-12 SCHOOLS HAS DECLINED DRAMATICALLY IN A NUMBER OF STATES OVER THE LAST DECADE.Worse, most of the deepest-cutting states have also cut income tax rates, weakening their main revenue source for supporting schools.

“At least 23 states will provide less “general” or “formula” funding — the primary form of state support for elementary and secondary schools — in the current school year (2017) than when the Great Recession took hold in 2008, our survey of state budget documents finds. Eight states have cut general funding per student by about 10 percent or more over this period. Five of those eight — Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — enacted income tax rate cuts costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars each year rather than restore education funding.

“Most states raised general funding per student this year, but 19 states imposed new cuts, even as the national economy continues to improve. Some of these states, including Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Carolina, already were among the deepest-cutting states since the recession hit.

“Our country’s future depends heavily on the quality of its schools. Increasing financial support can help K-12 schools implement proven reforms such as hiring and retaining excellent teachers, reducing class sizes, and expanding the availability of high-quality early education. So it’s problematic that so many states have headed in the opposite direction over the last decade. These cuts risk undermining schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs.

“Our survey, the most up-to-date data available on state and local funding for schools, also indicates that, after adjusting for inflation:

“Thirty-five states provided less overall state funding per student in the 2014 school year (the most recent year available) than in the 2008 school year, before the recession took hold.
In 27 states, local government funding per student fell over the same period, adding to the damage from state funding cuts. In states where local funding rose, those increases rarely made up for cuts in state support.”

This helps to explain the lure of school choice. It is a thinly-veiled way to divert attention from a state’s failure to fund its public schools. It offers a cheap alternative.

Categories Budget Cuts, Funding, Privatization, School Choice

World Premiere of “Backpack Full of Cash” in Philadelphia

By dianeravitch
October 21, 2016 //
4

If you live anywhere near Philadelphia, you should not miss the premiere of the stunning documentary “Backpack Full of Cash.” It is an expose of the corporate education reform movement. It has the potential to inform the public about the billionaire-funded effort to privatize our public schools.

The producers and director are the same team from Stone Lantern Films that created the award-winning PBS series called “School” a decade ago.

“Backpack” is narrated by Matt Damon.

The producers found it far harder to raise funding for this film than for their “School” series. Try to see the film but also consider a contribution to their crowd-sourcing fund. They need our help to tell the story of an unprecedented assault on American public education. They have started a Kickstarter campaign to get your assistance in telling the story of the efforts to privatize public education. Please give whatever you can. This is a very professionally made film and it will help to educate the public about the dangers of corporate education “reform.”

BACKPACK FULL OF CASH 

WORLD PREMIERE

PHILADELPHIA FILM FESTIVAL 25 

Dear Friends and Supporters, 

We are very happy to announce the world premiere of our 95-minute documentary BACKPACK FULL OF CASH at the Philadelphia Film Festival with screenings to be held on two Saturdays, October 22 and October 29, 2016. BACKPACK producers Sarah Mondale and Vera Aronow will present the film and participate in a Q&A session after the screenings.

The film examines major threats to public education from the movement for market based reform, including the rapid growth of privately-run charter schools, vouchers and tax credit “scholarships”, cyber charter schools, standardized testing, and the attack on teachers. 

backpack1

BACKPACK follows students, parents, teachers and activists through the tumultuous 2013-14 school year in Philadelphia and other cities, giving viewers an inside look at what happens to public schools when scarce taxpayer dollars are shifted into private hands. 

Key participants include children whose lives were upended by the dramatic events that rocked the Philadelphia school district in 2013-14, as well as local leaders including City Council member Helen Gym, Philadelphia’s Chief Education Officer Otis Hackney (former Principal of South Philadelphia High) and School Superintendent William Hite. The film also features interviews with historian Diane Ravitch, policy analyst Linda Darling Hammond, and journalist David Kirp, among other national figures.  One of our goals, as filmmakers, is to emphasize the importance of just, fair public schools that are places of hope for children of all backgrounds.

We are especially happy to be premiering BACKPACK FULL OF CASH  in the city where we spent so much time filming with the support and cooperation of so many wonderful people. Please join us at one of the festival screenings. We hope to see you there.

BACKPACK FULL OF CASH 

PFF25 Festival Screenings

Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 5:10PM

Prince Theater, Philadelphia, PA

and

Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 4:10PM

Prince Theater, Philadelphia, PA 

View the full program guide here.

Purchase your tickets here!

Thank you for supporting our work.  

Sincerely,

Sarah Mondale – Stone Lantern Films and Vera Aronow – Turnstone Productions

Producers

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Funding, Privatization, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »