Archives for category: Pennsylvania
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A Market Failure: Kids, Teachers, Tough Luck

By dianeravitch
July 27, 2012 //
19

A reader sent an article about a for-profit firm in Pennsylvania that runs four alternative schools for “disciplinary” students. It furloughed its 50 teachers and administrators and closed down without warning. What happens to the students? The teachers? No one knows.

The teachers are in the dark about whether they have jobs in a month. They are paid very low salaries: $31,000 if they have benefits, $36,000 without benefits.  The company is owned by the son of a Congressman. All calls are referred to a lawyer’s office, which has no information.

This is the sector that Republican governors want to expand. Government contracts with minimal or no oversight. At-risk kids put even more at risk in the hands of vendors.

Remind me about the superiority of the private sector. I forget.

Perhaps coincidentally, another reader commented on an earlier post about the market model:

Markets in education are insufficient, because they do not include the overriding public purpose and public interest in educational outcomes. Educational quality is not simply a matter to be settled between “education service providers” and parents. Our entire society has a critical stake in educational outcomes, and public governance  and funding of education is a very effective way to make sure

Categories Education Reform, For-Profit, Pennsylvania, Privatization

Privatization in Pennsylvania: Worth Your Attention

By dianeravitch
July 27, 2012 //
9

One of my most valuable sources of information is an email blast from the Keystone State Education Coalition, which reports on school-related news from Pennsylvania and links to articles in the Pennsylvania press.

I have been watching with fascination and horror the ongoing efforts of Governor Tom Corbett to undermine public education in his state.

One of his closest education advisors and campaign donors also owns the state’s largest charter school.

He now wants to take over and replace K-6 public education in Pottstown with a charter school owned and managed by his corporation.

Please take the time to read the very last link, which includes the emails between the charter operator and the staff of the district.

 

These daily emails are archived at http://keystonestateeducationcoalition.org

Visit us on Facebook at KeystoneStateEducationCoalition

Follow us on Twitter at @lfeinberg

 

How many years away from this privatization scenario is your school district?

Poking around on the internet, this right-to-know request surfaced.  In a series of emails, it details efforts to privatize the Pottstown School District in 2011 and includes correspondence between the district, legislative staff, Vahan Gureghian, CEO of Charter School Management, Inc. and Mr. Max Tribble.

 Mr. Gureghian’s company is under contract to operate Pennsylvania’s largest brick and mortar charter school in Chester.  Mr. Gureghian was Governor Corbett’s largest individual campaign donor and was recruited to serve on the Governor’s Education Transition Team.  Mr. Tribble is registered as his lobbyist on the state’s lobbying registration website via the Washington Advocacy Group and Greenlee Partners, LLC.

Keep in mind that in the 54 page charter school reform amendment to SB1115 (page 75, section 1732-A, paragraph (8)) introduced by Rep, Tom Killion (R-168, Chester and Delaware) on the last day of the legislative session there was language that would have specifically exempted a vendor (like Charter School Management, Inc.) from the state’s right-to-know laws.  SB1115 passed in the Houseby a vote of 120-77, but was not considered by the Senate. You might want to consider asking your legislator why they voted for it.

There has been a right-to-know request pending for Charter School Management’s financial records for several years. Although it was recently upheld by Commonwealth Court, it is anticipated that it will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

It is anticipated that charter school reform will be on the short list for consideration by the legislature during their short session this fall. 

http://www.pottstowncitizens.org/2011pdf/2011-5-19Hyltonstatementtoschoolboard.pdf

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Reform, Pennsylvania, Privatization

Race to the Bottom with Cybercharters

By dianeravitch
July 24, 2012 //
1

In an effort to compete with the big for-profit online companies that take away their students and their state tuition money, school districts in Pennsylvania are considering the creation of their own cyber schools.

This shows the fallacy of competition and the bottom line.

It makes perfect economic sense to compete with K12 by opening another cybercharter.

It makes perfect economic sense to encourage your own students to stay home and learn online, because that is what the competition is doing.

But it makes no educational sense because study after study shows that online learning is not right for many students, that it provides an inferior quality of education for many, that test scores are lower, graduation rates are lower, and dropout rates are higher than in traditional schools.

Yes, public schools can compete. But they should compete by doing what they do best: Providing a place where human beings who are caring and well-prepared teachers can interact with students on a face-to-face basis. Inspiring them, encouraging them, bringing out their best, teaching them as only a human being can.

Categories On-Line Education, Pennsylvania

A Charter Takeover of Public School District?

By dianeravitch
July 20, 2012 //
6

There is a rapidly expanding charter chain in Pennsylvania called Propel.

It has charter schools in several districts in the state with a total enrollment of 2,000. They are “no excuses” schools, and they reportedly get high test scores.

The Propel charter chain wants to open a K-12 charter school in the small district of Sto-Rox, which has 1,400 students.

The charter school would enroll 800 students.

Last November, the school board unanimously rejected its request saying that it would have a “devastating” impact on the public schools. The  charter chain returned with a revised proposal.

At a hearing earlier this month, residents debated the merits of the proposal. Charter school parents supported the idea. Teachers and students in the public schools opposed it.

Based on the amount of money the public schools would lose, the district would probably be bankrupted by the charter school.

Sto-Rox families would pay no tuition to attend Propel. Cost to the district would be $11,000 per student annually, said Jean Mayes, board member. Currently, Sto-Rox spends approximately $8,000 per student, she said.

According to state Department of Education data, the district spent $7,277 per elementary student and $12,154 per secondary student in 2009-2010. The district had 1,375 students registered that year, with 584 in elementary, 409 in middle school and 382 in high school.

For the 2011-2012 budget, the district lost $1.2 million in funding due to state budget cuts. Accountability Block Grants, which fund such programs as full-day kindergarten, partial charter school reimbursement and Educational Assistance Program, which provides tutoring for students in need, were cut by the state.

During the hearing, Jeremy Resnick, executive director and Propel founder, stated that the demand for another charter school is there.

He referred to a petition with 251 signatures indicating interest in having a Propel school in the area. Of those signatures, 234 were from Sto-Rox residents and 131 checked a box indicating they had children who were interested in attending, he said.

So from the founder’s testimony, the chain wants to open a school for 800 students because the parents of 131 students expressed interest.

Earlier this week, the school board surprisingly agreed to form a committee to sit down and talk with the Propel charter chain.

The founder of the chain called this decision “courageous.”

Will Sto-Rox go the way of Chester-Upland, where a charter school absorbed most of their funding and drove the local schools into bankruptcy?

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Charter Schools, Pennsylvania, Privatization

Why Weren’t These Students Taking Tests? Update!

By dianeravitch
July 18, 2012 //
23

Last night, I watched the PBS Frontline program and saw “Fast Times at West Philly High.” It is a wonderful documentary about the teachers and students at this inner-city high school who entered an international competition to create a hybrid car. It follows them as they build their models, then take them to the competition. Theirs is the only team of high school students. All the others in the competition are adults, and many are professionals.

This is real reform, unlike the phony schemes to privatize public schools and hand them over to for-profit entrepreneurs. This is real curriculum, instruction, teaching and learning, where students are eagerly learning and applying what they learn. This is real teaching, where the teachers are fully invested in what they are teaching and respect their students as partners in the learning.

When people ask why it is so hard to motivate high school students to care about their work, tell them to watch this documentary. These students are highly motivated. They are learning the “soft skills” that employers say they want. They are learning self-discipline, teamwork, cooperation, initiative, responsibility, and hard work. They show up on time. They care. They are using computers. They are learning and practicing reading, math, science, technology and engineering.

The title of this post is ironic. I bet these same students would be turned off if the same amount of time was devoted to test prep for the next state exams.

Yet in this endeavor, they are all super stars.

And so are their teachers.

PS: A reader points out that the Chicago Board of Education recently killed the automotive tech program at Lane High School. Perhaps Mayor Rahm Emanuel or Board member Penny Pritzker might arrange a showing of “Fast Times at West Philly High” for the members of the Board.

Categories Curriculum, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Report Says K12 Online Charters Lag Behind Real Schools

By dianeravitch
July 18, 2012 //
21

The National Education Policy Center in Boulder, Colorado, released a report today about the performance of the for-profit online corporation K12. This is the biggest of the online operators, which has been criticized repeatedly for poor academic performance yet continues to expand. Just recently, Ohio and Pennsylvania added more for-profit virtual charters, as North Carolina rejected them and New Jersey deferred making a decision.

The new NEPC report found that students who enroll in these virtual schools do worse in academics than those who attend a brick-and-mortar school.

The authors of the report urged states to slow down in their headlong rush to open more such “schools.”

Here are the major findings, as reported in the press release:

New Report Shows Students Who Attend K12 Inc. Cyber Schools Falling Behind

Students at K12 Inc., Nation’s Largest Virtual School Company,
Are Lagging in Reading, Math and Graduation Rates; Researchers Say Evidence of Success Needed BEFORE Further Expansion

Few Dollars Dedicated to Instructional Salaries and Special Ed, Despite Lower Overhead Costs

WASHINGTON — A new report released today by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado shows that students at K12 Inc., the nation’s largest virtual school company, are falling further behind in reading and math scores than students in brick-and- mortar schools. These virtual schools students are also less likely to remain at their schools for the full year, and the schools have low graduation rates. “Our in-depth look into K12 Inc. raises enormous red flags,” said NEPC Director Kevin Welner.

The report’s findings will be presented in Washington today to a national meeting of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), where the report’s lead author, Dr. Gary Miron, is scheduled to debate Dr. Susan Patrick, president and CEO of the International Association for K–12 Online Learning. The report is titled, Understanding and Improving Full- Time Virtual Schools.

“Our findings are clear,” said Miron, an NEPC fellow, “Children who enroll in a K12 Inc. cyberschool, who receive full-time instruction in front of a computer instead of in a classroom with a live teacher and other students, are more likely to fall behind in reading and math. These children are also more likely to move between schools or leave school altogether – and the cyberschool is less likely to meet federal education standards.”

K12 Inc. schools generally operate on less public revenue, but they have considerable cost savings, says Miron. They devote minimal or no resources to facilities, operations, and transportation. These schools also have more students per teacher and pay less for teacher salaries and benefits than brick-and-mortar schools.

“Computer-assisted learning has tremendous potential,” said Miron. “But at present, our research shows that virtual schools such as those operated by K12 Inc. are not working effectively. States should not grow full-time virtual schools until they have evidence of success. Most immediately, we need to better understand why the performance of these schools suffers and how it can be improved.”

Earliier this week, New Jersey education officials postponed granting approval to a K12 Inc. full- time virtual schools for one year. In many states, however, policy is headed in exactly the opposite direction. In Michigan, for example, legislators decided earlier this year to lift the cap on full-time virtual schools, even though the state was in the second year of a pilot study to see whether these schools work and what could be done to ensure they work better. That pilot study had provided no findings to support such a scale-up.

Student performance results from the current study are clearly in line with the existing body of evidence, which includes state evaluations and audits of virtual schools in five states as well as a more rigorous study of student learning in Pennsylvania virtual charter schools conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. CREDO’s study found virtual-school students ended up with learning gains that were “significantly worse” than students in traditional charters and public schools.

New Report Shows K12 Inc. Cyber School Students Falling Behind/ 3

Miron and co-author Jessica L. Urschel, a doctoral student at Western Michigan University, analyzed federal and state data sets for revenue, expenditures, and student performance. In terms of student demographics and school performance data, the researchers studied all of K12’s 48 full-time virtual schools. In terms of revenues and expenditures, they used a federal data set that includes seven K12 Inc. schools from five different states (Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Ohio and Pennsylvania), although these seven schools accounted for almost 60 percent of all of K12 Inc.’s enrollment from 2008-09, which is the most recent year of available finance data.

In terms of the number of students enrolled, K12 Inc. is the largest private education management organization (EMO) and the largest private operator of virtual schools in the United States. It had contracts to operate 48 full-time virtual schools in 2011-12. In addition to these contracts, K12 Inc. provides services and support to dozens of other schools that have more limited online offerings.

Key findings include:

  •   Math scores for K12 Inc.’s students are 14 to 36 percent lower than scores for other students in the states in which the company operates schools. Across grades 3- 11, the scores were between 2 and 11 percentage points below the state average in reading.
  •   The on-time graduation rate for students the K12 Inc. schools is 49.1 percent, compared with a rate of 79.4 percent for the states in which the company operates schools.
  •   Only 27.7 percent of K12 Inc.’s schools reported meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standards in 2010-11, compared to 52% for brick-and-mortar schools in the nation as a whole.
  •   Student attrition is exceptionally high in K12 Inc. and other virtual schools. Many families appear to approach the virtual schools as a temporary service: Data in K12 Inc.’s own school performance report indicate that 31% of parents intend to keep their students enrolled for a year or less, and more than half intend to keep their students enrolled for two years or less. K12 Inc. also noted in this report that 23% of its current students were enrolled for less than a year and 67% had been enrolled for fewer than two years.

• K12 Inc.’s schools spend more on overall instructional costs than comparison schools – including the cost of computer hardware and software, but noticeably less on teachers’ salaries and benefits.

New Report Shows K12 Inc. Cyber School Students Falling Behind/ 4

  • K12 Inc. spends little or nothing on facilities and maintenance, transportation, and food service.
  • K12 Inc. enrolls students with disabilities at rates moderately below public school averages, although this enrollment has been increasing, but the company spends half as much per pupil as charter schools overall spend on special education instruction and a third of what districts spend on special education instruction.Among the take-aways from all this is that K12 Inc.’s cyberschools reduce costs by having more students per teacher and by reducing overall spending on teachers’ salaries and benefits, particularly for special education instruction. “Part of K12’s problem seems to be that it skimps on special education spending and employs few instructors, despite having lower overhead than brick-and-mortar schools,” said the NEPC’s Welner, who is a professor of education policy at the University of Colorado. 
Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Reform, For-Profit, National Education Policy Center, New Jersey, On-Line Education, Pennsylvania

Annals of Privatization in Pennsylvania

By dianeravitch
July 16, 2012 //
3

Recently, the FBI raided the offices of the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, because of concerns about the intermingling of various for-profit businesses that were created by the school. The school has revenues of about $100 million or more and has spun off a number of other businesses. Apparently, the former governor Ed Rendell made some moves to seek greater accountability and transparency in the school’s booming business, but the current Corbett administration relaxed that effort.

This makes for fascinating reading, if you have any interest in how privatization works and how it is possible to become rich beyond your wildest dreams by running an online charter school for profit. The web of interlocking businesses is dazzling. For some reason, this line caught my eye: “The other person most involved in demanding more transparency from PA Cyber, former Department of Education Chief Counsel Judy Shopp, could not be reached. She left the state’s employ and is now PA Cyber’s compliance officer, also getting income from Avanti, according to financial disclosures she filed.”

Categories For-Profit, On-Line Education, Pennsylvania

Are Charter Schools Public Schools?

By dianeravitch
July 12, 2012 //
12

A reader from Pennsylvania asks whether charter schools are public schools if they seek to avoid transparency and if their teachers are not subject to the same evaluation scheme as public school teachers:

Charters insist on being called “public” schools.

Yet in Pennsylvania charters are in court trying to prevent laws requiring them to be transparent about their operations, as public schools are required to do.

The state legislature just passed a law requiring 50% of teacher evaluations to be based test scores. The law EXEMPTS charter teachers from this new evaluation system.

In the ALEC rush of legislation at the close of its session last week, a bill was introduced in the PA legislature to EXEMPT charters from the state’s Sunshine Law which requires public institutions receiving state money to be transparent about their contracts. It received 120 favorable votes in the House and failed by a few votes in the Senate.

In Philadelphia we have a charter operator, Universal, which was given Audenreid High School, which was made a charter as soon as a new facility was built at tax payer expense, operating for the past year rent and maintenance cost free. Next year they will have to pay $500,000 which just a quarter of the expense for rent and maintanence.  The SRC will cover the rest. This is in a School District which has a $265 million deficit, plans to close 65 public schools over the next few years, and is threatening to unilaterally cut the wages and benefits of public school employees.

So I take back what I said at the beginning of this thread. Charter schools are not open to public scrutiny.

Categories Accountability, ALEC, Charter Schools, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Teacher Evaluations

This Is Unbelievable

By dianeravitch
July 10, 2012 //
60

Pennsylvania just approved the operation of four new cyber-charter schools, bringing the number of online charter schools in the state to 17.

This is literally unbelievable.

We constantly hear lectures from “reformers” about data-driven decision-making and focusing only on results.

They like to say “it’s for the children.” “Children first.” “Students first.”

The existing cyber-charters in Pennsylvania have been evaluated and found to have disastrous results. The data say they are failures.

Of 105,000 charter students in the state, 32,000 are in cyber-charters. Here is the State Education Department release about its decision.

Citing the Stanford CREDO study of cyber-charters in Pennsylvania, the Keystone State Education Coalition writes:

“In an April 2011 study (PDF), the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University reviewed the academic performance in Pennsylvania’s charter schools.  Virtual-school operators have been aggressively expanding in the state for more than a decade, making it a good place for a study; around 18,700 of the state’s 61,770 charter school students were enrolled in online schools. The results weren’t promising.

The virtual-school students started out with higher test scores than their counterparts in regular charters. But according to the study, they ended up with learning gains that were “significantly worse” than kids in traditional charters and public schools. Says CREDO research manager Devora Davis, “What we can say right now is that whatever they’re doing in Pennsylvania is definitely not working and should not be replicated.”

Further, of 12 cyber-charters, only 2 made AYP. Eight were in “corrective action status.”

Would “reformers” please spare us the empty rhetoric about “it’s for the children”?

And would they stop prattling about “data-driven decision making?”

When we see what is happening in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other “reform” states, anyone can see that “the children” will certainly not be the beneficiaries of these decisions. The data are clear. It’s all about the profits.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform, On-Line Education, Pennsylvania

No More Kindergarten?

By dianeravitch
June 25, 2012 //
21

A reader writes:

One of the most shocking pieces of news out of the Pennsylvania school funding crisis created by Gov. Corbett was the cost-cutting plan by many districts to ELIMINATE KINDERGARTEN. What an incredibly stupid and short-sighted idea. It would take decades to recover from such a decision.

The kindergarten idea was introduced to the United States in the 1870s, an import from Germany.

It was first established in St. Louis, which was in the forefront of educational innovation in those times due mainly to a far-sighted educator named William Torrey Harris. Harris believed in the importance of a sound public education. He believed in teaching the classics. He believed that maintaining good public schools was a public responsibility.

Now, in Pennsylvania, due to relentless budget-cutting, many districts are planning to eliminate kindergarten. Thus, what is called “reform” today brings us back almost to where we started. We are turning back the clock, privatizing schools (it’s the civil rights issue of our time, remember?), increasing class size (to close the achievement gap?), cutting the arts and physical education (frills?), and now districts find that the public doesn’t want to pay for kindergarten. I can’t remember which part of the reform agenda that is. Can you?

Diane

Categories Budget Cuts, Education Reform, Pennsylvania
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »