Archives for category: Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Arizona: Sham Charter “Reform” Exempts Major Chains

By dianeravitch
February 4, 2019 //
11

 

Legislation introduced by an influential Republican state senator would require charter schools to disclose more about their finances. But the bill contains a large loophole that would allow the state’s biggest chains like Basis Charter Schools and Great Hearts Academies to avoid revealing how they spend their money.

State Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, said Senate Bill 1394 would accomplish the biggest reform to charter schools since they were created by the Arizona Legislature in 1994.

“It’s an enormous amount of progress, and this is not my last stop,” she said.

She said there’s bipartisan support for the measure, which follows a yearlong investigation by The Arizona Republic that revealed how charter operators have exploited the state’s lax charter regulations to become wealthy from the taxpayer-funded schools.

Brophy McGee acknowledged, however, that her bill would not prevent charter chains from giving large, no-bid management or construction contracts to their founders. Nor would it prevent charter CEOs from paying themselves exorbitant amounts, as Primavera online charter Chief Executive Damian Creamer did by receiving $10.1 million from the school over the past two years.

Democrats, whose past efforts to more tightly regulate charter schools have failed, and Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s Office both said the bill is a step in the right direction. But they said it needs additional work.

Arizona’s 500-plus charter schools are largely privately owned and the choice of more than 200,000 students, or 17 percent of public school students. The state spends $1.2 billion a year funding them.

State law doesn’t prohibit conflicts of interest in charter-school contracts or impose the strict reporting of expenses as it does for district schools. Charter school boards can also be staffed with the friends and relatives of school executives. And there’s no limit on how much money charter schools can spend outside the classroom.

Brophy McGee’s bill, which has not been scheduled for a hearing, could change some of that. It would:

  • Require every charter school to have at least a three-member governing board, with no more than two immediate family members serving. Family members cannot constitute a majority of the board.
  • Prohibit in, certain instances, buying goods or services from a charter owner or family member, governing board member or a related business.
  • Require that any purchase of more than $50,000 be in the “best interest” of the charter school and follow generally accepted accounting principles.
  • Prohibit charter schools from retaliating against an employee who reports violations. Currently, nearly all charter employees can be fired at any time for any reason.

The new procurement regulations, however, would not apply to management contracts between a charter holder and a management company. Charter management companies, popular with major charter chains like Basis and Great Hearts, also would be exempt from the procurement regulations.

Loopholes in the bill

That loophole for charter management companies gives Democrats heartburn, said Rep. Reginald Bolding, D-Phoenix.

Charter operators could avoid the new requirements by simply transferring all or nearly all of their state funding to a management company that runs their schools, he said.

Ryan Anderson, a spokesman for Brnovich, said the attorney general also has concerns about the exemption, as well as language that would require prosecutors to get permission from a charter sponsor in order to investigate wrongdoing.

“We still have a lot of questions,” Anderson said, adding that this is a work in progress.

Brophy McGee said it was not her intent to allow charter operators to avoid procurement restrictions, and she would consider fixing the language. She declined to say whether the Charter Schools Association, which has blocked past reform efforts, or major charter operators with powerful allies in the Republican establishment had inserted the exemption language in her bill.

She said the legislation is a work in progress that ultimately won’t make everyone happy. But, she said, the charter school industry needs more oversight.

Matt Benson, a spokesman for the Charter Schools Association, said the intent of the exemption was “to protect the school brand so that the founder of a charter school doesn’t risk losing control of his/her creation.”

Benson acknowledged the bill may be too broadly worded and that the association will work with Brophy McGee to refine the language. He said the association would oppose any law that requires charter operators to accept open bids for management contracts, as school districts are required to do.

Bolding said the loopholes will allow charter operators to continue self-dealing and enriching themselves. The bill also won’t stop charter operators from using Arizona tax dollars to expand outside the state, he said.

Basis, which has some of the top-ranked high schools in the country, transfers nearly all of its state funds to a management company owned by its founders, Michael and Olga Block.

Basis officials have stated because a closely tied private company, Basis.ed, runs the schools it isn’t required to disclose how much the Blocks or other executives are paid.

Basis has used its Arizona schools as collateral to fund operation of its schools in Texas and Washington, D.C.

The Attorney General’s Office also has expressed concerns that the legislation does not give its office enough additional power to investigate charter schools.

Brnovich wants subpoena power over charters and broader authority for the auditor general to investigate charter finances. Further, Brnovich wants charter schools to segregate public funding from private dollars in businesses related to the charter school.

“The big question is what happens with the public’s money,” said Anderson, the AG spokesman. “The bill does not appear to deal with that issue…We now have difficulty on the civil (enforcement) side on investigating misuse of public money when all money is commingled together.”

Benson said the legislation allows the Attorney General’s Office to investigate procurement related complaints. However, that would not occur for private management companies.

More disclosure?

Bolding said he likes that Brophy McGee’s bill requires charter schools to disclose more information about their finances and governance.

The bill would require charter operators to post on a public website the names of voting members of the governing body, the number of independent voting members, total annual state revenue, as well as expenses, assets and liabilities.

Charter schools already are required by state law to disclose much of that information to the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools. That information is available on the Charter Board’s website.

The bill also would require charter operators to adopt a conflict-of-interest policy and to provide a written statement that describes the services provided by a management company and the cost.

The bill, however, does not require a charter operator to release the actual contract or precise financial expenditures of its private management company. Further, the bill does not require the private management company to disclose how much its executives are paid with public tax dollars.

School districts, which receive less in per-pupil state funding than charter schools, have to abide by much stricter procurement and disclosure laws.

Brophy McGee said she will not seek to have charter management companies disclose financial information, stating that they are private companies and should not be subject to that level of transparency. Republicans in past years have blocked Democrats’ efforts to force charter management companies to comply with state public records law.

The bill also requires the state Charter Board to provide training courses on the state open meetings law, public records requirements, enrollment laws and regulations, applicable procurement rules and discipline.

Charter schools already are required by law to follow the open meeting law and public records requirements. The Republic has found some schools refuse to comply with those laws.

Reach the reporter at craig.harris@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8478 or on Twitter @charrisazrep.

 

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Corruption, Deregulation, Education Industry, Education Reform, Fraud, Funding, Privatization

Chicago: Dollars for Teachers, Milliions for Charter Operator

By dianeravitch
February 3, 2019 //
6

 

News from Chicago Teachers Union:

 

Charter operator CICS would rather spend public dollars on scabs than on student needs.
That’s wrong – and we can do something about it.

We learned this weekend that the management of CICS – Chicago International Charter Schools – has made arrangements to hire in scabs to break a planned Tuesday strike for smaller classes and no cuts to student programs, social workers or counselors. CICS bosses are currently sitting on $36 million in hoarded public dollars – more than half ‘invested’ with a company owned by its co-founder. Yet it says it doesn’t have a penny to provide to classrooms or student needs.

This is wrong, and you can help stop it!

This is wrong, and you can help stop it!

We’ve been bargaining for months with this greedy operator for living wages for our paraprofessionals – some of whom have masters degrees yet earn barely $30,000/year. Management has offered low-wage teachers an 8% raise for the first year of a new contract, but only if we agree to cuts in social workers, counselors and student programs – and throw paras under the bus by agreeing to a 1% ‘raise’ that doesn’t even keep pace with the inflation rate.

CICS siphons off close to 30% of public dollars it collects for top management costs and ‘reserve’ funds. CICS’ CEO Elizabeth Shaw earns more than $230,000 a year to run 14 schools – almost as much as CPS CEO Janice Jackson earns to run more than 500 schools. This is naked management greed, and it comes at the expense of students, their families and our school communities. Take action, join us and say no to CICS’ scheme to put management greed ahead of student needs.
Chicago Teachers Union • 1901 W. Carroll Ave.• Chicago, IL 60612 • 312-329-9100
www.ctulocal1.org
for the schools Chicago’s students deserve

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization

How Teachers in Baton Rouge Beat ExxonMobil

By dianeravitch
February 3, 2019 //
7

In the Public Interest, a nonpartisan organization that fights privatization of public assets, reports good news from Louisiana:

 

ExxonMobil is the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas corporation, often cutting deals with authoritarian leaders in countries like Angola and Equatorial Guinea. Its fourth-quarter profit last year nearly quintupled to $8.38 billion after President Trump’s tax cuts.

Louisiana’s East Baton Rouge Parish School Board has a $30 million budget deficit and teacher shortage. Its school buildings and buses are crumbling. Ninety-seven percent of its students, the majority of which are black or brown, qualify for free or reduced lunch. Teachers and school employees haven’t had an across-the-board pay raise since 2008.

Yet, ExxonMobil has received $700 million in local property tax exemptions from the parish over the last 20 years.

Not anymore.

Earlier this month, the school board narrowly voted against giving ExxonMobil two property tax breaks totaling about $2.9 million over a decade, one for a refinery and one for a chemical plant. Both facilities have already been built, which left some school board members scratching their heads.

“I would be a lot more receptive for a new project, something that’s going to bring in new business, new jobs,” one board member said.

But this isn’t just a story of elected officials making a rational decision based on the facts. It’s also one about democracy— and one that rings out even louder after striking teachers in Los Angeles, California, just won more resources and support for their students.

A teacher walkout threat set the stage in Baton Rouge. Last October, teachers and school support staff voted overwhelmingly to hold a one-day school shutdown to demand that the school board reject ExxonMobil’s request. Within hours, the requests were taken off the agenda for a forthcoming board meeting. Then, after last week’s board vote, ExxonMobil dropped the bids for good.

A company representative says that losing the tax breaks could make them hesitate to invest in the local plants because of a “lack of predictability” and “confusion.”

But the teachers know something much bigger than one corporation’s future is on the line. “The survival of public education is at stake,” said the president of the East Baton Rouge Parish Association of Educators back in October.

She’s right. The idea that taxes should be perpetually cut on corporations and the wealthy — known as “trickle-down economics” — is gutting public education nationwide, falling the hardest on poor, black, and brown communities.

Total state and local K-12 funding per student is still well below what it was before the 2008 recession. Seventeen states actually send more education dollars to wealthier districts than to high-poverty ones. Over 1.5 million students attend a school that has a law enforcement officer, but no school counselor. Spending on prisons and jails has increased at triple the rate of public education funding in the last three decades.

Until we get real about how out of whack our tax system is, more and more students are going to go to schools with no heat, aging pipes, few supplies, and few adults other than police officers and underpaid teachers.

And the quickest path to getting real is more democracy, teachers fighting and making their voices heard alongside parents and communities for what’s best for all public school students.
 

Please help us share this story on social media.
 


Thanks for reading,

Jeremy Mohler
In the Public Interest

 

Categories Education Reform, Privatization

Nathan Robinson: Race to the Top was a Disaster That Should Never Be Repeated

By dianeravitch
February 3, 2019 //
55

 

 

This article by Nathan Robinson, editor of “Current Affairs,” brilliantly explains why Race to the Top was not only a failure but a disaster.  

Schools in Detroit were crumbling, but Detroit got not a penny of the windfall.

Here is a sample:

“There is something deeply objectionable about nearly every part of Race To The Top. First, the very idea of having states scramble to compete for federal funds means that children are given additional support based on how good their state legislatures are at pleasing the president, rather than how much those children need support. Michigan got no Race to the Top money, and Detroit’s schools didn’t see a penny of this $4.2 billion, because it didn’t win the “race.” This “fight to the death” approach (come to think of it, a better name for the program) was novel, since “historically, most federal education funds have been distributed through categorical grant programs that allocate money to districts on the basis of need-based formulas.” Here, though, one can see how Obama’s neoliberal politics differed in its approach from the New Deal liberalism of old: Once upon a time, liberals talking about how to fix schools would talk about making sure all teachers had the resources they needed to give students a quality education. Now, they were importing the competitive capitalist model into government: Show results or find yourself financially starved.

“The focus on “innovation,” data, and technology is misguided, too. Innovation is not necessarily improvement—it’s easy to make something new that isn’t actually any better. The poor learning outcomes of online courses are evidence that sometimes the old methods are best. An Obama administration report on how schools innovated in response to RTT is mostly waffle about “partnering with stakeholders” but also contains descriptions of “21st century” measures like the following:

The majority of Race to the Top states reported to the RSN that they are using or expanding their use of social media communication to keep stakeholders engaged and informed. Ohio, for example, embraced Twitter to communicate with teachers, principals and district leaders during its annual state conference in 2012. “One of the keys to success on Twitter is tweeting a lot — five to seven times a day — morning, noon and at night,” said Michael Sponhour, executive director of communications and outreach for the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). Ohio measures its success on Twitter by the number of tweets that are “retweeted” by its followers; about 70 percent of ODE’s tweets are retweeted, he said.

“So people at state departments of education are being paid to tweet morning, noon, and night, with nearly ⅓ of the tweets not getting so much as a single retweet, while St. Louis’ beautiful old public school buildings are closed, abandoned, and auctioned off. Delaware “was able to use RTT funds to place data coaches in every school,” even as the steam pipe kept leaking onto that playground in Detroit.

“The pro-RTT literature promotes the education reform line of Bill Gates and charter advocates, stressing the need for “accountability” and “evaluation.” There is a mistrust of teachers: The premise here is that unless teachers have the right incentives, they will perform badly. There is an underlying acceptance here of the free market principle that government services do not perform well because they lack the kind of economic rewards and punishments that exist in the private sector. So we should introduce competitive marketplaces in schools (i.e., charterize the system) and do constant assessments of teacher job performance to weed out the Bad Teachers. Race To The Top literature talks about “turning around failing schools,” not “fixing inequality in schools,” and some civil rights activists criticized the program for failing to consider school segregation and inequality in its picture of the country’s educational woes. …

”RTT was wrong in a thousand ways. It prioritized data collection for its own sake, and in spite of its focus on “achievement” and evidence-based policy, didn’t actually boost achievement and wasn’t based on evidence. It was just free market ideology. Instead of talking about adding yet more assessments of teacher performance, we should be talking about the fact that teachers across the country have to buy their own school supplies, and the profession offers too much work for too little pay to attract good candidates who will stay for the long term. No more races to the top. What we need is a race to make sure every school has a music teacher, every building is safe and beautiful and well-maintained, every child is well-fed, every classroom is full of books and supplies, and every teacher has what they need in order to help children discover the world of knowledge.“

 

 

 

 

Categories Data, Duncan, Arne, Education Industry, Education Reform, Failure, Obama, Privatization, Race to the Top

West Virginia: Gov. Justice Promised to Block Charter Schools But He Lied

By dianeravitch
February 2, 2019 //
7

 

During last spring’s historic teacher walkout in West Virginia, which closed every school in the state, Governor Jim Justice promised to block charter legislation.

https://www.register-herald.com/news/republicans-vote-down-democratic-amendments-on-charter-schools-esas/article_e531ec82-0c49-5fd7-8da3-39103fd1826a.html

He lied.

The legislature is set to pass both charters and vouchers.

Trachers in charters won’t need certification. Vouchers will include home schooling. Both bills mean less funding for the state’s underfunded public schools.

Gov. Justice could veto the bill but would it have gotten this far without his support?

He lied.

 

 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Lies, Privatization, Teachers, Vouchers, West Virginia

Dana Goldstein: In 13 Years of Covering Education, the World Has Changed

By dianeravitch
February 2, 2019 //
52

 

Dana Goldstein has been covering education for 13 years. At the beginning of her career, bashing teachers’ unions and praising charters was in. Now red-shirted teachers have canceled that narrative and reminded her (not me) that only 6% of the nation’s children are in charter schools. 

She doesn’t reflect on the damage that charters do to public schools by diverting resources from them and leaving them with fixed costs, larger classes, feeer teachers.

She writes:

I first met Alex Caputo-Pearl, the strike-leading president of the Los Angeles teachers’ union, in 2011, when I shadowed him for a day at Crenshaw High School.

I was working on a book about the history of public school teaching, and Mr. Caputo-Pearl, then a social studies teacher, had a fascinating personal story. He had served in the very first class of Teach for America recruits, in 1990, and was part of a small group of original T.F.A. members who were, 20 years later, still working in urban public school classrooms.

But Mr. Caputo-Pearl didn’t remain in the Teach for America fold. He became a union activist and a critic of T.F.A., charter schools and the entire landscape of test-driven accountability for children and educators. At Crenshaw High, he helped develop a social-justice curriculum in which students organized their learning around the question of how to improve conditions in their low-income South Los Angeles neighborhood. It was unapologetically activist — outside the mainstream of what education reform looked like at the time.

The school district later ended that program, and in 2014, Mr. Caputo-Pearl was elected president of the United Teachers Los Angeles, the local union. He represented a new, more militant generation of teachers’ union leaders. This month, he led 30,000 educators in a weeklong strike for higher pay and more classroom funding, and against the growth of the charter school sector. It’s a story I covered with Jennifer Medina, my fantastic National desk colleague in Los Angeles, and our editors Julie Bloom, Dave Kim and Marc Lacey.

I’ve been reporting on education for 13 years, but I am absolutely stunned by the extent to which teachers’ strikes and walkouts are now a day-to-day part of my job. The Los Angeles action was the eighth mass teacher protest I’ve reported on in just 11 months, shutting down schools for one million students across the country. The reappearance of Mr. Caputo-Pearl in my professional life was just one of several uncanny moments that have made me, at age 34, feel old in beat-reporter years. So much has changed in education, as the focus shifts from calling out and overhauling bad teachers and schools to listening more carefully to what educators say about their working conditions and how students are affected by them.

I was at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, when one of the hottest tickets was to a panel discussion in which rising stars in the party, including Cory Booker, then the mayor of Newark, spoke harshly of teachers’ unions and their opposition to charter schools, which are publicly funded, privately run and generally not unionized. Union leaders argue that charters draw public dollars and students away from traditional schools like Crenshaw High.

Back then, it was hip for young Democrats to be like Barack Obama, supportive of school choice and somewhat critical of teachers’ unions. But now, the winds have changed pretty drastically. The revival of democratic socialism within the party has left many elected officials — even Mr. Booker — much more hesitant, it seems, to critique organized labor. Across the country, red-clad teachers on strike, sometimes dancing and singing, have won the affection of grass-roots progressives over the past year, leading to a new political dynamic around education, just as the Democratic primary field for 2020 emerges. The emphasis now is on what education experts call “inputs” — classroom funding, teacher pay, and students’ access to social workers and guidance counselors — and less on “outputs,” like test scores or graduation rates.

The truth is, both inputs and outputs are important. In some ways, continuing to cover the war between union leaders and charter school supporters frustrates and exhausts me. Charter schools are a growing part of our educational landscape because parents are always looking for more good options when it comes to how and where to educate their children. On the other hand, while politicians and wealthy philanthropists have always given outsize attention to charters, they educate just about 6 percent of American public school children, some three million students. In many ways, the battle is ideological, over what role choice should play in our education system. Will public-sector competition between charters and traditional schools lead to improvement, or simply provoke a melee over scarce taxpayer dollars? So far, both outcomes, I’ve observed, are very real across the country.

A few months ago, I was doing research in The Times’s digital archives when I came across our 1995 obituary of Fred Hechinger, an eminent education reporter and columnist here. I printed it out and clipped a paragraph, which I keep at my desk for inspiration whenever my energy flags after more than a decade on this beat.

“I began to realize that a country’s approach to education in general, and especially to its children, could tell more about its social, political and economic background than a whole battery of interviews with politicians,” Mr. Hechinger once said.

He was right. So I continue on.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, Testing

Nevada Chief Resigns, after Failure as Charter Cheerleader

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2019 //
1

 

Nevada’s State Commissioner Steve Canavero and two of his deputies are leaving.

“Nevada’s K-12 system consistently ranks as one of the worst-performing in the nation, according to NAEP scores and Education Week‘s Quality Counts. This has frustrated state and local politicians, technocrats and practitioners and led to a series of ambitious efforts over the years to improve the system.

“Canavero, whose last day will be Feb. 6, was appointed by former Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval to be the state’s interim superintendent in 2015 and hired full time into the role in 2016.  He has overseen the creation of the state’s plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the start of a state-run district that oversees some of the state’s worst-performing schools, and a debate over how expansive the state’s charter sector should be. “

Canavero loved charters and created a Nevada version of Tennessee’s failed Achievement School District. It was a disaster. Charters in Nevada are the lowest performing schools in the state.

 

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization

Justin Parmenter: School Choice in North Carolina

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2019 //
2

Justin Parmenter, an NBCT high school teacher in North Carolina, writes here about the rapid expansion of charter schools in his state, which is doing serious damage to public schools. Charters were not promoted in North Carolina but by Tea Party Republicans who want to destroy public schools and make money.

Charter schools are playing a damaging role in North Carolina, acting as a vehicle for resegregation of the schools.

He begins:

This week is National School Choice Week, and you’re going to hear a lot of charter school proponents talking about what a great thing choice is for families when it comes to education. Folks who are opposed to unchecked charter expansion will be derisively labeled ‘anti-choice,’ as if their views run counter to American democratic values. But the charter movement in our state is deeply problematic, and it’s important that we have a fact-based conversation about it.

On its face, choice sounds good. We expect it when we go to the store for salad dressing, when we’re looking at books at the library, or when we’re holding the tv remote. What kind of person could possibly be against others having the freedom to make choices when it comes to their children’s education? But what happens when the choices I’m making have a negative impact on those around me? What happens when those choices don’t occur in a vacuum?

Charter schools were originally intended as places of innovation, where educators could develop new approaches in a less regulated setting and collaborate with traditional public schools to improve outcomes for all. In some states, charter schools have been able to stay relatively true to that mission. Not so in North Carolina.

On a systems level, the good that charter schools are able to do is determined 100% by the policies that govern them. In North Carolina, charter school policy is a mess, and that mess is leading to some really bad outcomes for our children.

Since the cap on charter schools was lifted by North Carolina’s state legislature in 2012, the number of charter schools in the state has nearly doubled. This year we have 185 charter schools in operation, serving more than 100,000 students across the state (overseen by a staff of 8 people). Next year we’ll have 200.

The rapidly expanding charter schools siphon money away from traditional public schools and reduce what services those public schools can offer to students who remain, according to a recent Duke University study. As students leave for charters, they take their share of funding with them–but the school district they leave is still responsible for the fixed costs of services such as transportation, building maintenance and administration that those funds had supported. Districts are then forced to cut spending in other areas in order to make up the difference. In Durham, where 18% of K-12 students attend charter schools, the fiscal burden on traditional public schools is estimated at $500-700 per student. As the number of charters increases, so will that price tag.

While charter schools in some states have been used successfully to improve academic performance for low-income students, in North Carolina they’ve been used predominantly as a vehicle for affluent white folks to opt out of traditional public schools. Trends of racial and economic segregation that were already worrisome in public schools before the cap was lifted have deepened in our charter schools. Now more than two thirds of our charter schools are either 80%+ white or 80%+ students of color. Charter schools are not required to provide transportation or free/reduced-price meals, effectively preventing families that require those services from having access to the best schools.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, North Carolina, Privatization, Segregation

Washington State: Charters Fail to Make a Difference

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2019 //
17

“

 

Poor Bill Gates. He has poured billions into reinventing education, and nothing has worked. Nothing! Not even in his home state.

One of his fondest desires was to open charter schools in Washington State. He poured millions into a referendum (the fourth in the state), and it barely passed. Then the highest court in the state said the charters couldn’t be supported by the general fund, because they are not really public schools. Public schools have elected boards. At last, he gently persuaded the legislature to tap into the lottery money to pay for Bill’s charters.

But, as Carol Burris writes, the charters did not outperform public schools and did not close achievement gaps.

Oh, woe. Poor Bill!

Burris writes:

“The 2012 initiative was Washington State’s fourth charter school ballot initiative. The previous three attempts failed — in 1996 (64.43 percent opposed to 35.57 percent in favor), 2000 (51.83 percent opposed to 48.17 percent in favor), and 2004 (58.3 percent opposed to 41.7 percent in favor).

“The fourth and final attempt was not pushed by the parents of Washington State. It was pushed and funded by billionaires. The collection of signatures to get the charter initiative on the ballot was a well-coordinated effort that cost nearly $2.5 million.

“Funders of the initiative included Microsoft founder Bill Gates (who contributed over $1 million) and California billionaire Reed Hastings of Netflix. A dark-money group based in New York — Education Reform Now Advocacy, an arm of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) — contributed large sums as well.

“Without the financial push by billionaires both within and outside the state, the initiative, which barely passed on the fourth attempt, would likely have failed, as did the three previous efforts.

“Let’s fast forward to 2019. What was the outcome for all of those millions contributed allegedly on students’ behalf?

“The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University, which is funded by pro-charter organizations, recently issued its report comparing the academic growth over a three-year period of students in Washington’s charter schools when compared with their true public school (TPS) counterparts. What it found was that charter school students did no better.

“From that report:

“Over that time, the typical charter school student in Washington demonstrated no statistically different academic growth in reading and math when compared to their exact-match counterpart in nearby district schools (TPS). The trend across the two growth periods shows a slight downward trend in reading and math as the number of students served grew. The finding of no meaningful difference in learning gains held across most of the different student groups within the charter population. Only English language learners [ELLs] experience significantly higher learning gains associated with charter school attendance. Other student subgroups such as students in poverty, Black students, and Hispanic students experience non-significant positive gains on average. “

“It should be noted that the small gains experienced by English Language Learners disappeared when Hispanic ELLs in charters were compared with Hispanic ELLs in public schools. The report also confirmed that charters in Washington, as elsewhere, enrolled fewer special education students and fewer ELLs.

 

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Privatization, Washington State

West Virginia: Governor Refuses to Add Charter Schools to Pay Increases

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2019 //
9

 

 

Republican legislators in West Virginia want to tie pay increases for teachers—which they were promised when they went on strike last year—to the introduction of charter schools and vouchers. They think that school choice will raise test scores, which it won’t.

Governor Justice said he won’t support charter schools. The state can’t afford it. Presumably he won’t support vouchers either, which not only reduce revenues but lower test scores.

Governor Justice comes out against one W.Va. big education bill

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, School Choice, Teachers, West Virginia
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »