Archives for category: Ohio

The latest reports from the Ohio Departmrnt of Education show that charter schools do no better–and often considerably worse–than public schools. Many are operated for-profit, but don’t admit it when they use public funds to market their wares.

Here is a report from Bill Phillis, who worked in the Ohio Department of Education. He offers an article by Denis Smith, who was responsible for monitoring charter schools until his retirement.

Here is the article by Denis Smith:

Former DOE consultant in charter school office writes about charter schools

Charters merit more scrutiny

Saturday September 14, 2013 7:16 AM

On Sept. 1, The Dispatch published “Charter schools’ failed promise,” a front-page story about the academic performance of Ohio’s public schools of choice. The story examined the results for these schools in the new state reporting system, and readers discovered that, on the whole, charter schools not only are no better than the traditional public schools they compete with, but often are far worse.

As informative as this story was, however, it failed to inform the public about the larger issues surrounding charter schools. These issues involve accountability and transparency, and they raise concerns as to whether these publicly funded and privately operated schools fully serve the public interest.

As a former public-school administrator who served four years in the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Community Schools, I can address some of these issues.

The great majority of charter schools are managed by for-profit chains such as White Hat Management, K12, Imagine, Constellation, Mosaica and other entities. Ads for many of these schools this past summer included descriptors such as tuition-free and hands-on. However, the phrase charter school did not appear in any of the ads I viewed.

This lack of transparency did not serve the public.

In another example, Jack Hanna, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo, is featured in commercials touting the benefits of ECOT, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow. In Hanna’s ad, the school is described as “Ohio’s online K-12 public school,” but again, there is no mention of the fact that it is a for-profit charter school.

The endorsement raises a question: Was Hanna compensated by ECOT – a public charter school – to serve as a paid spokesman? If that is the case, shouldn’t the commercial contain a disclaimer, particularly when public funds might be involved? Unfortunately for the taxpayers, there is no specific requirement in state law that directs ECOT or any other charter school to disclose such information, including how much they spend for marketing, administrative or other costs that otherwise are hidden in school-management company budgets. Nor is there any requirement that the board members of these schools represent parents.

A look at most charter schools will find that their unelected governing boards are populated by the management company that operates them or by friends of the school developer. And the problem is the same: Are the board members accountable to the public – the taxpayer – or the corporate interests that put them there?

A final issue lies with the overall rationale for the schools. In Ohio, public charter schools are exempt from approximately 200 sections of law – free from scrutiny in such areas as professional qualifications needed to head such schools, administrative salaries as a percentage of the budget, property management for furniture and equipment purchased with public funds, and the total percentage of school funds going into instruction.
Recently, for example, one management company insisted that the school’s furniture and equipment was its property and not that of the school. State law should be more explicit that anything tangible purchased with public funds remains public property upon dissolution of any school.

But we’ve only scratched the surface here.

In testimony before the Ohio Senate Education Finance Subcommittee in May, I made this statement:
“Unfortunately for the students enrolled, there have been all too many cases of theft, misappropriation of funds, overpayment to vendors, nepotism in the employment of siblings, spouses and children, excessively high administrative salaries against the number of enrolled students and comparative budget size.”

Based upon all of these considerations, I would encourage future Dispatch reporting to go beyond the current state report card and fixation on data-rigging and explore the areas of charter-school governance and unelected and unaccountable boards that supposedly monitor a school’s management and performance.

After all, we’ve paid for these schools, and we need to know how they’re doing in more than A-F terms.

DENIS D. SMITH
Westerville

Denis Smith is a former curriculum director in the Westerville school district and retired staff consultant in the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Community Schools. A former middle school principal, he is also a Fulbright Fellow and his cohort was one of the first to study in the People’s Republic of China after the normalization of diplomatic relations with that country.

It should be noted that Smith’s original article, as submitted to the Dispatch, included, “According to Bush Administration Assistant Secretary of Education, Dr. Diane Ravitch, ‘The scandals in public schools pale in comparison to the charter school scandals. The public sector is regulated; the private sector is deregulated.'”

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

The accountability hawks thought that tests and report cards would help to display the failure of urban public schools and pave the way for more privatization via charters. What they didn’t anticipate, however, was that the charter schools would do no better than the public schools–and by their own measures, far worse.

Test case, Ohio.

On the A-F report cards (a favorite of the reformers), nearly 90% of the charters were graded either D or F. These were supposed to be schools that produced spectacular results by dint of freedom from regulation and unions. They didn’t. Embarrassingly, the Ohio charters had a lower graduation rate.

The charter experiment is not working on Ohio, although it is making a few people very rich.

Ohio is the for-profit Capitol of US education. Here is one of the profiteers’ secrets: They collect tax dollars for no-show students.

This is from Bill Phillis of the Ohio coalition for education and adequacy.

Ghost schools

8/30/13

About five years ago, Scripps Howard News Service published, Ghost Schools-A special investigative report by Scripps Howard News Service finds taxpayers paying millions for students who never show up for class. For-profit “ghost schools” collect money even when students are absent.

Although the Scripps Howard investigations of charter schools took place in several states, one of the Ohio for-profit charter school operations is featured in the report. A Salem, MA for-profit company owner is quoted in the report as saying, “Ohio is the profit-making EMO capital of America.”

Investigators learned that during the 2006-2007 school year, Ohio, by extracting money from school districts, paid $29.9 million for absent students who were enrolled in 47 dropout recovery schools. In one such charter school, 64 percent of the enrolled students were not in class on a daily basis during the 2004-2005 school year.

A former principal of a Life Skills Center is quoted in the report as saying “It’s a cash cow. I spend less than $1 million on a $3 million operation. What in the h*&$ are they (executives at his former company) doing with the other $2 million?”

Anyone interested in receiving this Scripps Howard News Service report may contact this office.

When this report was published, those responsible for the documented fraud should have been held accountable. Where was the outrage from the public or education community? At least the state should have followed up on the findings reported. Scripps Howard reporter Thomas Hargrove, a member of the investigative team, indicated in a recent telephone conversation that he was shocked that such fraud in Ohio could exist without somebody going to jail.

Is this type of fraud still practiced in Ohio? Who would know? The charter school lobby is so powerful, primarily due to campaign contributions, that the political environment thwarts any attempt to hold for-profit charter schools accountable. A few years ago the governor attempted to right this wrong but was blocked by powerful political forces.

The money paid for the phantom students comes right out of school districts’ budgets. Hence, educational opportunities for students enrolled in the public common school system are diminished due to that “cash cow” approach that Ohio political leadership has established and maintained.

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

This email was sent by ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net |

Ohio E & A | 100 S. 3rd Street | Columbus | OH | 43215

George Wood is superintendent of Federal Hocking School District and an articulate supporter of public education in a state where public education is under siege by the governor and legislature. How can schools function in an atmosphere of constant turmoil and interference by politicians? Here are his thoughts about the state’s new report card for schools:

 

A perspective on the State’s new report card by Dr. George Wood, Executive Director of The Forum for Education and Democracy

Below is a statement regarding the State’s new report card released by Dr. George Wood. Dr. Wood is the Superintendent of Federal Hocking School District and the Executive Director of The Forum for Education and Democracy. His perspective is worth a read.

 William Phillis
Ohio E & A 

Response to New State Report Card

George Wood, Superintendent, Federal Hocking Local Schools

August 23, 2013

 

            With the release of the new state school report cards we are again being led down a dead-end road. There is no evidence that the way the state reports on student achievement, or school performance, primarily by using standardized test scores, helps children learn or our teachers teach. The ‘new’ report card simply continues this attempt to grade our schools with tools that are not up to the job.

            In the Federal Hocking District we are pleased that our schools received an “A” on the one measure that really matters-graduation rate. Our schools have one of the highest graduation rates in Ohio, and we have some of the highest standards for graduation in the state (including requiring that graduates earn more credits than the state minimum, pass all state tests, and produce a senior project and a graduation portfolio). It should also be noted that among those students that graduated in 2013, and were FHHS students for four years, 87% of them are going on to higher education having been admitted to Ohio University, Marietta College, Middlebury College, New York University, and Ohio State.

            Unfortunately, most of the new state report card is based upon the standardized tests students take. These tests have never been shown to have a positive effect on students after they leave school; be it in college, the workplace, or the military. While they are one measure that helps us identify some strengths and weaknesses in our program, they should not be the sole measure of the success of our children.

            Further, the new report card continues a history of Ohio constantly changing the rules and standards for schools without sound reason or research to make such changes. Over the past two decades we have had a myriad of state programs and mandates on testing, teacher evaluation, and curriculum. In fact, by my count, in the past eighteen years Ohio has instituted, dropped, changed, and added over three dozen mandated standardized tests at virtually all grade levels. As the new report card is issued schools are grappling with a new mandated curriculum (known as The Common Core), a new teacher evaluation system (the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System), soon to be released new high school end-of-course tests, the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, and new health and safety regulations.

            The constant changing of the rules almost seems to be designed to make our schools look bad. All over Ohio schools that have had positive report cards in the past saw their scores tumble. One of our schools went from being rated “Effective” by the state last year to having an “F” grade in achievement-how is that possible?

            It should also be noted that these new programs are more of the ‘unfunded mandates’ for which the State is so well known. There are no additional dollars directly provided to districts to implement these mandates (you can apply for grants, but even if you do not get one you still have to carry out the work). For most districts, such as ours, the current state budget has continued the trend of reduced or flat funding. We have now seen in the past two decades more than half a dozen school funding plans and have yet to see any of them carry out the Ohio State Supreme Court’s order to fix school funding.

            Yet while state funding goes down or is static, their attempt at controlling our schools goes on. At Federal Hocking the state provides around 52% of our budget, but through the new state reporting system and the new state mandates they are attempting to control 100% of our agenda.

            While we will use the new state report card as one measure of our work, we will not rely upon it as a sole or even the best measure of what we are doing. In fact, it would be short sighted for us to focus solely on test preparation, as it would have a negative effect upon our children limiting the range of educational experiences we offer them in our schools.

            Our agenda will be driven by a set of progressive operating principles put together by our staff and approved by our school board in the true spirit of local control. Experience tells us that the state will, in the blink of an eye, change the rules we face again and again. (In fact, as I write this the rules for the testing of high school students for graduation are so unclear they are not even posted on the Ohio Department of Education web site.) In order not to keep trying to dance to the tune played in Columbus we will focus on what is best for our kids. We may not get the best grades on the state report card, and we may be singled out for additional scrutiny by the state. But we will continue to keep our focus on the most important standard of all, providing our families with the schools and classrooms that move our children on to graduation and a productive life after school.

Reformers love to test and rate and grade and rank everyone and everything: students, teachers, schools, etc.

They love school report cards–where schools are assigned a single letter grade–because it sets up the D and F schools to be closed, then privatized.

This enables them to churn the schools and introduce the principle of constant disruption, their favorite state of being.

Disruption, you see, is supposed to create innovation and improvement.

In reality, it produces teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, teacher attrition, student push-outs, and unending anxiety for everyone, as they watch the axe poised over their heads.

But what is most embarrassing to the “reformers” is when their beloved charter schools get grades no better than the public schools.

That is what happened with the release of the latest state-created reports cards in Ohio.

As blogger Plunderbund reports,

“After 15 years of charter school expansion, the new Ohio school report cards provide the strongest evidence yet that this method of using charter schools to supposedly reform education in our state is a complete failure.  The latest results from the state make it clear that the large urban districts are not dramatically improving and the charter schools that are supposed to be transforming educational practices while being given every advantage (including a greater amount of state funding) are doing no better.”

Plunderbund reviews the data and concludes:

“Look, we’re not saying that the urban schools are knocking it out of the park – they wouldn’t be under attack so much by politicians if they were showing dramatic improvement.  But the reality is that the charter school experiment in Ohio has failed as a method of public school reform and it’s time to pull the plug.

“Ohio’s children need a better plan than the one drawn up by our legislators and their donors.”

Bill Phillis, who was deputy superintendent of schools in Ohio, now spends his time advocating for public education in Ohio. He runs the Equity and Adequacy Coalition.

He writes:

“State policies supporting the privatization of public education are draining the life’s blood of the public common school

“8/22/13

“From the advent of the 1851 thorough and efficient clause in the Ohio Constitution until the early 1990s, state, county (ESC) and local school officials worked, often times diligently, to improve educational opportunities to all school children and to extend opportunities to the previously unserved and underserved students. One efficacious strategy was to assemble a sufficient number of students in a central location to efficiently and effectively provide comprehensive high quality educational opportunities. School district consolidation, area/regional service centers, joint vocational school districts, special education consortiums, Ohio State School for the Blind, Ohio School for the Deaf, each linked to the strategy to provide high quality educational opportunities for all students.

“By the early 1990s the Ohio public common school system was poised to take significant strides toward a world class system for all students. The DeRolph school funding case highlighted the need for adequate fiscal resources, equitably distributed to accomplish excellence for all.

“Unfortunately, the Voinovich-initiated choice movement was cleverly orchestrated in ways to undermine the advancement and enrichment of the public common school system. The reorganization of several thousands of school districts into 612 districts took a century and a half to accomplish. In two decades, Ohio school entities have increased by about 400 and voucher schools have added hundreds of school entities funded by public tax dollars.

“The traditional public school system is being dismantled. The new paradigm is proving to be less efficient, less effective and less productive, and is completely irrational. The current education scenario is antithetical to the traditional public school effectual model that was emerging in the early 1900s. It is hostile to the education clauses (Article VI, sections 2 and 3) of the Ohio Constitution.

“The traditional public school system, due primarily to inadequate and inequitable funding, has defects and deficiencies that can be cured. The “choice” remedy (privatization) is wrongheaded. It is like the outmoded bloodletting medical practice of bygone days. This “cure” was counterproductive. History indicates that George Washington asked for a heavy dose of bloodletting for a throat infection. About 3.7 liters of blood was drained from him in a ten hour period. The Permanente Journal, Volume 8 NO.2 page 79 indicates that that procedure contributed to his death.

“The traditional public school system is being bled to death. What the public common school system needed was the analysis of a blood sample, not an ongoing draining of its life’s blood-students and the necessary resources.”

William Phillis
Ohio E & A
Join Our Mailing List!
Forward this email

This email was sent by ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net |
Ohio E & A | 100 S. 3rd Street | Columbus | OH | 43215

This is breaking news.

The Ohio Supreme Court let stand lower court rulings that require the White Hat charter corporations to open its financial records to the board members of the charters.

White Hat is owned by David Brennan, one of the state’s biggest contributors to GOP campaigns. It is the state’s largest charter chain.

The boards of 10 White Hat charters sued the company to gain access to the finances of their schools. White Hat, a for-profit management company, collects 96% of the revenues but insisted it had no obligation to disclose how it spent the money or anything else about its finances because it is a private corporation. Brennan makes millions of dollars each year.

Ohio has a thriving choice sector, but neither vouchers nor charters have ever been approved by voters.

Legislators know that the public–nearly 90% in public schools–would not support funding vouchers or charters and never has. So they find clever ways to establish choice programs and fund them without asking the voters’ opinions. Currently, as the post below shows, legislators have figured out how to force voters in Columbus to share a new tax levy for charters.

Why are supporters of choice so fearful of the democratic process. If people really are clamoring to leave public schools, why not allow them to vote on how public money is allocated?

Bill Phillis wrote the following explanation of how choice programs hitchhike in Ohio. Bill, now retired, was Deputy Commissioner of Education during a time when the government of the state was determined to improve education, not to privatize it. If you want to join his mailing list, you may contact him at ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net

Bill Phillis writes:

“FY2014-FY2015 State Budget: Choice programs hitchhike again

July 24, 2013

Charter schools came into Ohio law by hitchhiking on a budget bill-same is true of vouchers. Choice programs have never been enacted in Ohio as stand-alone legislation. State officials have historically inserted controversial proposals in budget bills that would not pass on their own merit. The Ohio Constitution (Article II, section 12d) requires that bills constitute a single subject but this provision is frequently violated, particularly when there is little or no political balance in government.

The new “universal” voucher program in HB 59 most likely would not have passed if it had been introduced separately. Remember HB 136-a “universal” voucher bill introduced in the 129th General Assembly? It was stopped amid public opposition. Over 400 boards of education passed resolutions of opposition to HB 136.

HB 167 (The Columbus Plan) is another example of choice hitchhiking. This enactment requires the Columbus Board of Education to put a levy on the ballot in November, the proceeds of which would be shared with charter schools. A Columbus school board member proposed that the levy proposal be bifurcated so as to allow Columbus School District residents to vote on the charter school funding piece separately-rather than hitchhiking on the Columbus District levy. The powers-that-be said “NO”, it is a package.

What is the problem with allowing Columbus school patrons to vote specifically on the charter school funding issue? The answer seems clear-it wouldn’t pass. Citizens should have the right to vote on each issue. Charter schools, unless sponsored by a school district, are not a part of the public common school system; thus, a local tax levy for charter schools should be a separate proposal. Local school district revenue is already shared with charter schools inasmuch as, on average, the per pupil charter school deductions are nearly twice the average state payments per pupil to school districts.

Citizens need to challenge the decisions of their elected representatives. The Columbus school board member should be commended for raising the issue of a separate vote.

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

Ohio E & A | 100 S. 3rd Street | Columbus | OH | 43215

A blogger in Columbus updates us on recent developments there.

First the mayor decided to get involved, which everyone thought would be a good thing.

Then the mayor appointed a panel of “experts,” many of whom do not live in Columbus and 96% of whom are not public school parents.

Then the panel released its plan: “And when the panel came out with suggestions that included eliminating the internal auditor (Carolyn Smith), installing more administration in an already bloated system, and taking in more money to support charter schools… the public response went from disappointment to outrage.”

Then the state legislature jumped in to propose that the panel recommendations go on the ballot. In Ohio these days, state intervention is usually bad news for public schools.

The question is whether the people who depend on the Columbus public schools will stand together to protect them.

Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Education and Adequacy writes the following description of the assault on public education in that state:

 

FY2014-FY2015 State Budget Proposal:  Assault on school districts and boards of education

July 1, 2013

The state is responsible for a thorough and efficient system of public common schools.  School district boards of education are responsible for delivering educational opportunities to the children of the community.

Charter schools and vouchers bypass the boards of education in Ohio except for the few charters that are operated by a board of education.

HB 59 greatly expands the choice programming in Ohio and opens the door to the nationwide scheme to remove school funding from the system.  The money-follows-the-child mantra is a code for dismantling the public school system which is democratic operated, community-by-community all across Ohio and America.  The board of education is the fourth branch of government and is being systematically eroded and dismantled.

A bit of history is in order:

Early in the history of Ohio, education was deemed to be a fundamental function of government.  In fact, prior to Ohio statehood, the Land Ordinance of 1785 set aside the sixteenth section of each township* for the support of schools.  “There shall be reserved the Lot N16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools.” The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared education a governmental function in Article 3: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

This 1787 provision was, nearly word for word, included in both the 1802 and 1851 Ohio Constitutions.  In 1821, the legislature enacted the first general school act which provided for the establishment of school districts within townships and made property within the township subject to taxation authorized by the electors.

In 1825, legislation was enacted to require that townships be divided into school districts and to require the election of directors for each district.  Also, each community was required to levy taxes for the support of its schools.

In 1847, legislation was enacted which required the entire state to be divided into school districts.  Then, in 1851, Ohioans adopted a new Constitution which required the state to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.  It was determined by law that locally elected school officials would be responsible for delivering the state’s educational programming to the children of each community. This governmental arrangement for public education was reaffirmed and strengthened by the 1912 constitutional amendment which provided “by law…for the organization, administration and control of the public school system of the state supported by public funds: provided, that each school district embraced wholly or in part within any city shall have the power by referendum vote to determine for itself the number of members and the organization of the district board of education…”  The 1912 amendment reconfirmed the role of the state and boards of education in ensuring high quality educational opportunities for the children in all of the communities throughout Ohio.

This legal framework provides that each school community, as a part of the state’s common school system, will operate its district through an elected board of education.  The school district is a governmental unit responsible for the delivery of educational programming to all of the children of all the people within the district.  The board of education is truly the FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

This common school arrangement is fundamental, workable and essential to the preservation of democracy.  The time-honored practice of each community operating its schools via an elected board of education is being challenged on many fronts. TheCenter on Reinventing Public Education helps communities develop alternative governance systems for public K-12 education.  The Center’s founder, Dr. Paul Hill, was involved in the New Orleans “reform” that resulted in four out of five students ending up in charter schools. The Fordham Foundation, a leading advocate of replacing the public common school with private operations, put out a policy brief on April 23 entitled,Redefining the School District in Tennessee.  The Brief states, “As the challenges of education governance loom ever larger and the dysfunction and incapacity of the traditional K-12 system reveal themselves as major roadblocks to urgently needed reforms across that system, many have asked, ‘What’s the alternative?'”  This is not only a challenge to the elected board of education concept, but to democracy. 

A community that is stripped of its right to elect board of education members is one that loses a democratic right.  If people can be stripped of the right to elect board of education members, they can be denied the right to elect other public officials.  If people are perceived as not being capable of the discretion to elect members to the fourth branch of government, why would they be capable of electing persons to any branch and level of government?  Citizens’ cherished right to vote is dwindled by replacing elected governmental official with appointed persons.

Elected board members who believe in the democratic process should resist, with passion and conviction, the movement to remove the election process from the fourth branch of government or to undermine the elected board’s birthright to manage their schools.

*A township was a six by six miles land area divided into 36 one by one mile sections, thus 36 sections per township.

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

100 South 3Rd StreetColumbusOhio43215United States

(614) 228-6540(614) 228-6542Fax

www.ohiocoalition.org