Archives for category: Privatization

 

We know a few things about the Sackler family. Their family fortune is vast, about $14 billion. Their fortune was derived primarily from the sale of highly addictive opioids. More than 200,000 people have died due to opioid addiction. The Sackler nameis emblazoned on museums, libraries, and universities. Curiously, Jonathan Sackler has been a major finder of charter schools in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and other states. He has been a major founder of the no-excuses chain called Achievement First.

This is the first article I have seen that tries to track the Sackler ties to the charter industry.  

“An examination of 990 donor tax forms draws a wider picture of how Sackler largely came to underwrite many pro-charter entities over several years.

“Sackler made donations to charter schools and charter groups dating back to at least 2003, including a $50,000 unrestricted gift specifically to New Haven charter school Amistad Academy, which received $365,000 from the foundation in 2004 and $20,000 in 2005. The foundation also donated to the Arizona-based Alliance for School Choice in 2004 and 2008, and donated $250,000 to pro-charter organization ConnCAN in 2004 before its official launch, for which he is listed as an interlocking directorate.

“According to forms filed by the Bouncer Foundation, which is Sackler’s foundation, Impact for Education, a New Haven-based “philanthropic advisory practice,” received nearly $100,000 from the foundation for offering “philanthropic advice” in 2013.

“The year “2013 was the heyday for charters and charter expansion,” said Wendy Lecker, a senior attorney at the Education Law Center and a contributing columnist to Hearst Connecticut Media.

“Two years prior, New Haven-based Amistad Academy charter school co-founder Stefan Pryor was named commissioner of the state Department of Education. Also, around that time, then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy publicly stood with charter school advocates, Lecker said.

“(Sackler’s) fingerprints are all over the charter movement, particularly in our neck of the woods, and that’s another stain on the charter movement,” Lecker said. “The most vulnerable are in their schools, and for the charter industry to take this money when they’re claiming to help these kids is pretty questionable.”

“The foundation’s yearly reimbursement for Impact for Education’s annual philanthropic advice increased to $130,454 in 2014 and, after a payment of $90,000 in 2015, was reported to be $470,000 in 2016 and $262,500 in 2017, the most recent year available on searchable public databases.

“Impact for Education engages forward-thinking philanthropists to catalyze systemic change in public education,” the practice says on its website.

“Impact for Education’s president and founder, Alex Johnston, also co-founded the pro-charter advocacy group Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now, or ConnCAN, with Sackler in 2005. Johnston served as executive director, while Sackler sat as chairman of the board.

“According to his biography on Impact for Education’s website, Johnston also is a board member of FaithACTS for Education in Bridgeport, a registered nonprofit coalition of religious education advocates that received $700,000 from the Bouncer Foundation between 2015 and 2017. The group’s founder, the Rev. William McCullough, told the Connecticut Post that the group believes in school choice.

“Neither Johnston, a former member of the New Haven Board of Education, nor Impact for Education returned a request for comment.

“In 2009, the Bouncer Foundation had begun making gifts to Yale University that would ultimately culminate in a $3 million endowment for the Richard Sackler and Jonathan Sackler Professorship, but other donations effectively ceased until 2011, when the foundation gave $100,000 to Students for Education Reform and $5,000 to the conservative Alliance for School Choice. After an austere 2012, the foundation donated to eight groups affiliated with charter schools, including ConnCAN and its subsequently founded national counterpart 50CAN, Students for Education Reform, New Haven’s Booker T. Washington Academy, the Northeast Charter Schools Network. In 2013, Achievement First, the charter network co-founded by Dacia Toll, and which operates Amistad Academy, was named a recipient of a donation….

“In 2013, Achievement First, which runs 35 other schools in three states, received $151,571 from the Bouncer Foundation. The contribution was increased to $250,000 in 2014 and 2015 and was more than doubled in 2016, when the network received $600,000 from the foundation. By 2017, the foundation’s gift to Achievement First was $350,000.

“For 2013, 990 forms show Achievement First reported $29,253,402 in contributions and $40,396,539 in revenue, so contributions were about 72.4 percent of revenue. In the most recent year for which data is available, Achievement First reported for 2017 about $22 million in contributions and grants, of $46 million in revenue.

“For the entirety of the Bouncer Foundation donations, Sackler sat on Achievement First’s Board of Directors.”

Wendy Lecker gave a good explanation of the appeal of charter schools to the Uber-rich like Sackler.

“The Education Law Center’s Lecker said wealthy donors receive tax incentives for donating to charter schools, so a number of wealthy charter donors are seeking financial advantages. However, she believes there’s also a basis in undermining public services.

“The whole privatizing of public education is an effort of the uber-wealthy to tamp down the expectations of what people should want in the public sphere,” she said. “A smaller public sphere in terms of public education and local democracy means people have less of an expectation of what they can get from the public.”

“Lecker said she believes a number of philanthropists believe they are doing a good thing, but the fact that some, like Sackler, “are so aggressively involved, and have been since the beginning, means they have to know what goes on in charter schools and what impact they have on funding for public schools.”

“Advocates for district schools such as Joyner and Lecker see charter schools as a movement to undermine teacher unions and hand governmental control of education to charter management companies and moneyed interests.”

 

 

Mercedes Schneider is a master at tracking down financial records.

In this post, she shows the direct connections between the Sackler’s billions–derived from the sale of OxyContin–and the growth of the charter movement.

OxyContin is a highly addictive painkiller. It has been responsible thus far for more than 200,000 deaths.

The Sackler family is now being sued individually by the State Attorney General of Massachusetts, who claims that they knowingly pushed a drug that they knew to be deadly.

Meanwhile, museums, libraries, and universities are debating whether to keep the Sackler name on the buildings they endowed.

Some of the choice-promoting organizations that Sackler funded have a decidedly rightwing bent: the Philanthropy Roundtable is an organization of conservative foundations; the Alliance for School Choice; and the now-defunct Black Alliance for Educational Options were all fronts for DeVos-style privatization. The NewSchools Venture Fund is the uber-fund of chartering. Campbell Brown’s Partnership for Education Justice got $200,000 of Sackler money to attack teacher tenure and unions. Brown’s “The 74” website got a nice chuck of opioid money, as did KIPP and TFA. Lots more money for charters and charter promoters, including the faux “graduate” school called Relay. Oh, and money too for the libertarian Institute of Justice, which is to the right of DeVos.

So the money rolled in from opioids and went out the door to fund charter schools.

 

 

The story of the task force charged with reviewing the charter law and the fiscal impact of charters on public schools continues to evolve, and not in a good way.

Of the 11 members of the task force appointed by Tony Thurmond, in consultation with Governor Gavin Newsom, at least six are directly connected to the charter industry.

How can this be possible when the charter industry supported former Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa against Gavin Newsom, and when the charter industry spent millions to defeat Tony Thurmond, outspending his supporters by a margin of 2-1?

Here is the task force with new information about one member, the superintendent of El Dorado County:

 

The task force members are:

 

  • Cristina de Jesus, president and chief executive officer, Green Dot Public Schools California (charter chain);
  • Dolores Duran, California School Employees Association;
  • Margaret Fortune, California Charter Schools Association board chair; Fortune School of Education, president & CEO;
  • Lester Garcia, political director, SEIU Local 99 (Local 99 took $100,000 from Eli Broad to oppose Jackie Goldberg, a critic of charters);
  • Alia Griffing, political director, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 57;
  • Beth Hunkapiller, educator and administrator, Aspire Public Schools (charter chain);
  • Erika Jones, board of directors, California Teachers Association;
  • Ed Manansala, superintendent, El Dorado County; board president, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association; the El Dorado County Office set up a Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) specifically to service students with disabilities in charter schools and wooed charter students away from their local districts; El Dorado supposedly offers services to disabled students enrolled in charter schools who live hundreds of miles away;  
  • Cindy Marten,  superintendent, San Diego Unified School District;
  • Gina Plate, vice president of special education, California Charter Schools Association (charter lobby);
  • Edgar Zazueta, senior director, policy & governmental relations, Association of California School Administrators (ACSA endorsed Marshall Tuck against Tony Thurmond). 

 

By my count, six members of the 11-member panel are directly connected to the charter industry, including two from the lobbying organization CCSA. That’s a majority.

As a supporter of public schools, I supported Tony Thurmond as best I could on this blog. I personally contributed to his campaign. I thought that his election and the election of Gavin Newsom meant that charter schools in California would be held to the same standards of academic, financial, and ethical accountability as public schools; I hoped that the state would stop stacking the deck in favor of charters. I hoped that necessary reforms would eliminate shady operators and grifters and put a halt to the unchecked  proliferation of unstable, unsound charter schools.

Now, I am not so sure.

The fox is in charge of the henhouse.

If you are as outraged as I am, if you feel you have been had, please contact Superintendent Tony Thurmond.

Only 10% of the students in the state of California attend charter schools.

Why do their representatives get to police themselves?

Why do their representatives get to decide whether they are hurting the public schools that most students attend?

Why does the charter industry get to decide whether it is okay for them to drain funds and impose budget cuts on public schools?

 

I posted earlier that there are no teachers on the task force appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom and State Superintendent Tony Thurmond to study charter law in California, but that’s not quite right. The task force is meeting regularly and it would likely be impossible for a working teacher to leave her or his classroom on a weekly basis to attend task force meetings.

However, there are at least two members of the task force who were active teachers: Erika Jones of the California Teachers Association and Cindy Marten, superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District.

I don’t understand why the task force has so  many representatives of the charter industry on a committee to study charter law, when only 10 percent of students in California schools are enrolled in charters. The charter industry is infamous for protecting its turf and fighting any regulation or accountability. This is like asking representatives of Big Tobacco to participate in a discussion of whether to regulate cigarette sales.

Charter law in the state is notoriously lax. A district with a tiny enrollment can open a charter in a district 500 miles away and collect a commission on the students who enroll. If a charter asks a district for permission to open or for a renewal, and the district rejects the application, the charter can appeal to the county board. If the county board says that its application or its record is deficient, the charter can appeal to the state board. Under Governor Jerry Brown, the state board rubberstamped applications despite rejections from the affected district and county. Under current law, the state need not consider the fiscal impact of charters on nearby public schools, a factor which has severely damaged Oakland, Inglewood, and other districts. Under current law, charters are parasites on the districts that are forced to host them, draining away students and resources and leaving “stranded costs” (fixed costs).

California has had a large number of scandals in the charter sector. The most recent occurred when the CEO of the Celerity Charter chain pled guilty to using the schools’ credit card to charge luxury items, including designer clothing, fancy hotels, haute cuisine and limousine service, as well as to fund her Ohio charter school.

These are issues the task force will consider. Will the large bloc of charter supporters on the task force acknowledge the fiscal problems caused by charters for the public schools that enroll most students? Or will they fight stubbornly to maintain the charters’ freedom from accountability? Why did the California Charter School Association get two members of the task force but the California Teachers Association get only one? If charter schools undermine public schools, it is a net loss for the children of the state. If failing charters are allowed to be renewed again and again, it is a disgrace.

Here is the complete task force:

The task force members are:

  • Cristina de Jesus, president and chief executive officer, Green Dot Public Schools California (charter chain);
  • Dolores Duran, California School Employees Association;
  • Margaret Fortune, California Charter Schools Association board chair; Fortune School of Education, president & CEO;
  • Lester Garcia, political director, SEIU Local 99 (Local 99 took $100,000 from Eli Broad to oppose Jackie Goldberg);
  • Alia Griffing, political director, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 57;
  • Beth Hunkapiller, educator and administrator, Aspire Public Schools (charter chain);
  • Erika Jones, board of directors, California Teachers Association;
  • Ed Manansala, superintendent, El Dorado County; board president, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association; 
  • Cindy Marten,  superintendent, San Diego Unified School District;
  • Gina Plate, vice president of special education, California Charter Schools Association (charter lobby);
  • Edgar Zazueta, senior director, policy & governmental relations, Association of California School Administrators (ACSA endorsed Marshall Tuck against Tony Thurmond). 

Recommended readings:

Gordon Lafer on the fiscal impact of charters on California public schools.

Carol Burris on the travesty of the state’s charter law. 

 

Carol Burris did a thorough analysis of the abuses committed by the charter industry in California.

Please read this report and send a copy to Tony Thurmond, who just appointed a task force to study charter schools and stacked it with charter allies.

Last November, there was a bitter contest for the position of Superintendent of Public Instruction in California.

The charter lobby pumped millions of dollars into the campaign of Marshall Tuck, former CEO of Green Dot charter schools. The charters spent twice as much as the California Teachers Association, which backed Tony Thurmond.

In a tight race, Thurmond won.

In two recent teachers’ strikes, in Los Angeles and Oakland, teachers demanded a moratorium on new charters until the fiscal impact of charters on public schools was thoroughly studied.

In response, Governor Gavin Newsom asked State Superintendent Tony Thurmond to set up a task force to examine the issues that charters raise and consider any needed revisions in the law.

Thurmond appointed an 11-member panel. Not a single one of the 11 is a teacher, even though teachers raised the questions in their strikes.

Worse, a possible majority of the panel represent the charter lobby that fought so hard to defeat Thurmond, smeared him with negative ads, and lost.

Here are some of the members:

  • Cristina de Jesus, president and chief executive officer, Green Dot Public Schools California;
  • Margaret Fortune, California Charter Schools Association board chair; Fortune School of Education, president & CEO;
  • Lester Garcia, political director, SEIU Local 99; (Charter against Jackie 100K Broad IE)
  • Beth Hunkapiller, educator and administrator, Aspire Public Schools
  • Ed Manansala, superintendent, El Dorado County; board president, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association; (El Dorado Charter Officers. President. Marcy Guthrie … Ed Manansala, Ed.D., County Superintendent El Dorado Co. Office of Education
    Rite of Passage Charter High School – El Dorado County Office of Education …
  • Gina Plate, vice president of special education, California Charter Schools Association;
  • Edgar Zazueta, senior director, policy & governmental relations, Association of California School Administrators. (LED Endorsement of Marshall Tuck)

It appears that seven of the 11 task force members are in the tank for charter schools.

This is by no means a balanced or open-minded committee.

How likely are they to propose tighter regulation of charter schools?

How likely are they to propose that districts should not be allowed to open charter schools in other districts, a policy that has led to financial abuses?

How likely are they to curb the waste, fraud, and abuse that allow fly-by-night charter schools to open in strip malls, collect money, then disappear?

Tony Thurmond, what happened?

Ohio charter schools are very low-performing. They have also had numerous scandals.

And then there is the story of the Richard Allen Charter Schools.

The Dayton Daily News conducted an investigation and found that the charters “are still being run by a person who was sued by the state attorney general 18 months ago for her role in misspending $2.2 million in school money.”

The school leased a Maserati, two Mercedes, and a Jaguar for its leaders. Nothing but the best with public money! I mean, really, would you expect them to drive a Ford or a Toyota or a Chevy?

The investigation “also found that the schools are operating in buildings that have a bankruptcy case hanging over them, and Richard Allen has had no state financial audits released for the past three school years.”

Can you believe this?

Superintendent Michelle Thomas faces pending legal action, as does the Institute of Management and Resources (IMR), which ran the school for years and listed a leased Maserati and Jaguar in its bankruptcy filing.

Asked last week about Thomas’ role running Richard Allen schools, a state attorney general’s spokesman claimed, “The schools are no longer under Ms. Thomas’ control.”

But both the schools’ website and Ohio Department of Education documents confirm that she is the superintendent, and it was Thomas who responded to questions about the schools after a reporter visited the Talbott Tower office for the schools’ management company.

Asked about the contradiction, attorney general’s spokesman Dominic Binkley said he would have to recheck information provided by the AG’s education division that Thomas was no longer running the schools.

Ohio Senate Education Committee Chair Peggy Lehner, who has led charter school reform efforts in recent years, said state officials will investigate.

“I find this information extremely troubling, and I, along with a number of other entities within the state, will continue to look into this,” Lehner said.

Thomas declined an interview request, sending short emails instead.

“Richard Allen Schools has nothing to do with IMR,” Thomas wrote, adding, “The schools are working hard to respect its leases and to secure the property outside of the bankruptcy. The audits are proceeding and it is my understanding that they should be released soon.”

Until summer 2017, the three Richard Allen schools in Dayton and one in Hamilton were run by The Institute of Management and Resources, a company started by Thomas and her mother, Richard Allen Schools founder Jeanette Harris.

Earlier this decade, the state auditor’s office ruled that IMR misspent $2.2 million in public money running Richard Allen. The company denied wrongdoing and appealed in court, but lost in 2015.

Lingering issues

IMR filed for bankruptcy protection in March 2018. The Daily News pored through hundreds of pages of court records, state audits and school records, finding several lingering issues:

** The state attorney general’s office sued IMR, Harris, Thomas and others in late 2017, seeking to turn those $2.2 million in audit findings into collectible court judgments. The case was stayed when IMR filed for bankruptcy protection months later.

“(In addition to IMR), we also sued Jeannette Harris, her daughter Michelle Thomas, and the schools’ former treasurer (Felix O’Aku),” Binkley said. “We seek to hold those individuals strictly liable for the improper payments that resulted in the findings for recovery…

** IMR’s March 2018 bankruptcy filing says that at the time, the company was leasing four cars that were being paid for by IMR officials — a 2015 Maserati Ghibli for which Thomas is listed as co-lessee, a 2016 Mercedes C300 with deputy superintendent Aleta Benson listed as “guarantor,” and both a 2016 Jaguar XJL and a 2016 Mercedes GL 450 SUV with Harris listed as “guarantor.”.”

Ohio spends a billion dollars annually on its failing charter sector, which is now lobbying for an increase of 22% in state aid.

 

 

Jan Resseger explains here why Ohio should not give more money to charter schools and their sponsors (in Ohio, the authorizers of charter schools get a 3% commission for every student enrolled in their charters). Charter authorizers have a financial incentive to keep their charters open, regardless of their performance.

One reason to reject the increase is the charters’ poor performance.

But the most important and persuasive reason to say no is that their funding is money deducted from the public schools, which serve far more students and serve them better than charters.

“Usually arguments about the quality of public investment in charters are about whether charters do a good job as measured by test scores.  Proponents of charter schools typically want the public to evaluate charter schools and traditional public schools by comparing their test scores—despite considerable research over the years demonstrating that the results are, at best, relatively comparable.  Steve Dyer uses the test score yardstick in a recent blog post: “Not only have Ohio charter schools not gotten appreciably better on the report card since… 2015, but since the 2012-2013 school year, charter schools overall have received more Fs than all other grades combined on state report cards.” Dyer doesn’t think these schools are performing well enough to deserve additional tax support….

“Here is an example—this time from Sunday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer—of how reporting on charter school accountability and funding often goes.   As he describes the request for more money from the legislature, reporter Patrick O’Donnell considers the academic record of Ohio charter schools and whether state regulation has improved enough.  O’Donnell begins: “Charter schools in Ohio have long wanted more money from the state, but a history of well-publicized scandals, mismanagement and poor report card grades have made it hard to justify giving them any more tax dollars.  Have they cleaned up their act enough now?”

“Charter schools in Ohio actually want a lot more money per-pupil in the next state budget. O’Donnell reports: “Some charter officials are pressing the state for another $2,000 per student a year for most charter schools in the upcoming state budget. Leading the charge are the Breakthrough Schools, the Cleveland based chain that has the strongest results out of all charters in Ohio. Joining them are the growing Accel Schools chain, which has grown to 40 schools in the state over the last three years.”  Accel Schools is the charter network run by former K-12 Inc., CEO Ron Packard, who expanded his Accel network by buying up Cleveland’s I Can charters along with many of the schools formerly operated by David Brennan, who died last autumn.

“How should Ohio’s policy makers evaluate whether spending tax dollars on charter schools is a good investment?  And particularly in these times when charter schools are asking for a huge bump of $2,000 extra per-pupil? Measured by test scores, and evaluated by their record of conflicts of interest, fraud. and outlandish financial mismanagement, Ohio should not increase public funding for its charter school sector.  But I believe there is a more important—and usually ignored—reason for denying more funding to the privatized charter school sector in our state. Policy makers must begin examining charter schools’ enormous, persistent drain on local school district budgets.

“In Ohio, California, and many other states, charter schools get their funding through a “school district deduction.” Here is how the Ohio Department of Education describes the process of funding (When you read the following language, remember that charter schools in Ohio are formally called “community schools” instead of charter schools.): “Payments to community schools take the form of deductions from the state foundation funding of the school districts in which the community school students are entitled to attend school. Community schools students are counted as part of the enrollment base of the resident school district to generate funding.” The amount taken from the school district budget by every Ohio student who leaves for a charter school is $6,020.  This is known as a “district deduction” system of funding.”

Charter schools want more money but no accountability. They want to harm public schools.

The Ohio legislature should just say no.

The Atlanta School Board is controlled by a slate of former Teach for America teachers. They are devoted to privately managed charter schools. They don’t seem to have any ideas about how to improve public schools other than to outsource them. They are determined to impose a portfolio district model that welcomes more charter operators staffed by temps like they once were.

A group of Atlanta citizens, led by Edward Johnson, perennial fighter for incremental improvement, not disruption, has presented a petition to the School Board:

 

An Open Letter to Atlanta Board of Education:
Why the Portfolio Privatization Plan for Atlanta is a Bad Idea

 

We, the undersigned, request that members of the Atlanta Board of Education vote against any resolution or resolutions brought before the Board on March 4, 2019, or at any other time, that would establish any aspects of the would-be Excellent Schools Framework in the Atlanta Public Schools district.
 
The Excellent Schools Framework, which is based on the so-called Portfolio of Schools plan, is another corporate privatization effort intended to, in effect, turn over our public schools to private companies and establish charter schools that use public money for what are essentially private schools.  Our public schools are not stocks and bonds in an investment portfolio to be bought, sold, and speculated. Our public schools are where children ought to be nurtured, protected, and educated.
 
We know that, in addition to privatization, school closures and attacks on teachers will accompany any implementation of the Portfolio of Schools plan, which the Atlanta Board of Education’s would-be Excellent Schools Framework is based on.  No research exists that indicates the so-called Portfolio of Schools plan actually leads to improving learning for students and teaching for teachers.
 
We also know The City Fund is promoting the so-called Portfolio of Schools plan, with $200 million raised to use to influence targeted urban public school districts to adopt, adapt, and implement the plan.  The City Fund’s local designated entity, RedefinED, has used its money to organize astroturf support for this plan.
 
This proposal is especially disturbing, coming at the time when the Board and Superintendent have already set hundreds of billions of dollars to go to billionaire social impact investors and real estate developers in “The Gulch” deal, downtown.
 
We urge you, the Atlanta Board of Education, to forgo your Excellent Schools Framework and, instead, adopt evidence-based models, such as the Community Schools model, that actually work for children.
 

 

The legislature in Missouri is considering bills for charters and vouchers, which will defund public schools.

if you live in Missouri, contact your legislator and express your support for yourcomm7nity’s Public s hoops.