Archives for category: Privatization

Betsy DeVos often says that Florida is a national model of choice. You will understand why she says this when you read the report from a government watchdog agency called Integrity Florida. This group, which is not focused on education but on government ethics, reveals in detail what happens when government money is handed out freely to entrepreneurs without any oversight or accountability.

Corruption and malfeasance run rampant.

The biggest money to finance the privatization of Florida’s schools came from Betsy DeVos and the Walton Family and a gaggle of rightwing out-of-state elites.

Betsy and the Waltons and their rightwing allies bought the privatization of Florida’s schools.

Here is the executive summary:

Underfunding, coupled with the continual adoption of tax cuts that make adequate public-school spending harder and harder to attain, prompts a look into the future. How much further growth in the number of charter schools is likely? How will that growth affect traditional schools and the public education system?

The answer to the first question appears to be that growth will continue unabated as long as private charter companies consider public schools a profit-making opportunity and they find receptive audiences in the legislature. If current trends continue, a 2015 national report concluded, “Charter schools will educate 20-40 percent of all U.S. public-school students by 2035.”1 Reaching those percentages in Florida would require doubling to quadrupling charters’ current 10 percent share of all public school students.

Some charter and school choice advocates are clear about their goal. Charters already have “created an entire new sector of public education” and they ultimately may “become the predominant system of schools,” the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has said.2 And the ultimate hope of many, as Milton Friedman wrote (see Page 8), is to bring about a transfer of government to private enterprise, in part by “enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop” in education.

Continued growth in the charter sector will exacerbate a problem that seemingly runs against the Florida Constitution’s decree that the state must provide “a uniform system” of high-quality education. As the number of charters has grown, with different rules than in traditional schools, some question whether a uniform system actually exists today. If Amendment 8 had remained on the November ballot and passed, a state charter authorizer could have approved new charter schools without the consent of the school district. In that case, the school district would not “operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district,” as another provision of the Constitution requires.

As the Miami Herald has said during a charter school investigation,
“Charter schools have become a parallel school system unto themselves, a system controlled largely by for-profit management companies and private landlords – one and the same, in many cases – and rife with insider deals and potential conflicts of interest.”

Key Findings

• Charter school enrollment continues to grow in Florida and nationwide, although at a slower rate than in previous years.

• The number of charter schools managed by for-profit companies in Florida continues to grow at a rapid pace and now makes up nearly half of all charter schools in the state.

• Although many charter schools in Florida are high performing, research has found no significant difference in academic performance between charter schools and traditional public schools.

• Numerous studies have found that charter schools strain traditional schools and school districts financially.

• Charter schools were originally proposed as teacher-run schools that would use innovative techniques to be shared with traditional schools. Over time, the concept changed to set up a competitive relationship between charters and traditional schools rather than a cooperative one.

• Charter schools have largely failed to deliver the education innovation that was originally promised and envisioned.

• Some charter advocates have explicitly said their goal is to privatize education by encouraging a for-profit K-12 industry. Today some charter proponents see charter schools, rather than traditional ones, as the “predominant system of schools.”

• Since 1998, at least 373 charter schools have closed their doors in Florida.

• Local school boards have seen reduced ability to manage charter schools in their
districts.

• The Florida Supreme Court removed Constitutional Amendment 8 from the November 2018 ballot that would have created a statewide charter school authorizer. However, future attempts by the legislature to establish a statewide charter authorizer may occur and should be opposed. A state charter authorizer would preempt voters’ rights to local control of education through their elected school boards, even though local tax dollars would pay for charter expansion.

• The charter school industry has spent more than $13 million since 1998 to influence state education policy through contributions to political campaigns.

• The charter school industry has spent more than $8 million in legislative lobbying expenditures since 2007 to influence education policy.

• The legislature has modified the original Florida charter school law significantly over the years to encourage creation of new charters, increase the number of students in charter schools and enhance funding of charters, sometimes at the expense of traditional schools.

• Some public officials who decide education policy and their families are profiting personally from ownership and employment with the charter school industry, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.

• Lax regulation of charter schools has created opportunities for financial mismanagement and criminal corruption.

Policy Options to Consider

• Inasmuch as charter schools can be an inefficient and wasteful option for “school choice,” the legislature should evaluate the appropriate amount of funding the state can afford to offer in educational choices to parents and students.

• Require for-profit companies associated with charter schools to report their expenditures and profits for each school they operate.

• Require charter schools to post on their website their original application and charter contract along with their annual report, audit and school grade.

• Charter school websites should include lease agreements, including terms and conditions and who profits from the lease payments.

• Companies managing charter schools in more than one school district should have annual audits ensuring local tax revenue is being spent locally.

• Add additional criteria for school boards to consider when reviewing and deciding on a charter school application.

• Give local school boards more tools to manage the charter schools in their districts, including greater contractual oversight and the ability to negotiate charter contracts.

• Increase education funding to sufficiently fund all public schools to eliminate competition between traditional schools and charter schools for inadequate public education dollars.

• Prohibit charter schools from using public education funds for advertising to attract new students.

• Limit the amount of public funds that can be used for charter school facility leases to a certain percentage of the school’s operating budget.

• Require charter schools to report annually the number of dropouts, the number of withdrawals and the number of expulsions.

Go to pages 26-30 to see where the money came from to finance this plunder and privatization of Florida’s public schools. You will see familiar names.

This is a curious and entertaining article by Andy Smarick, a prominent Reformer who has made his way in the education industry by working in think tanks, in an occasional government post, opining here and there, and currently serving on the Maryland State Board of Education.

The big takeaway: the corporate reform movement has fractured and fallen apart.

That’s the good news.

But the fragments are splitting off into hit teams to continue their attacks on public schools and the teaching profession.

Portfolio districts! (De)Personalized learning. Never give up, as long as billionaires open their wallets.

Andy will be remembered, for a while anyway, as the coiner of the phrase, “relinquishment,” his advice to public schools. Time to give up! Relinquish your right and power to enroll students with public funding. They didn’t.

As long as the money is there, there will always be Reformers!

I don’t like Reed Hastings. I don’t like that he hates public schools and wants to turn every one of them over to a private corporation. I would never subscribe to Netflix, because it would put money into his overflowing bank account. He is a billionaire.

However I do not live alone and the other adult member of my family subscribed to Netflix despite my protestations.

Then she started watching shows with language I found very offensive. And then, much against my will, I became addicted to that show, called ”Orange is the New Black.” I warn you that the language and the visuals are XXX rated. No, XXXXXXX rated. I got hooked by the story and the characters. It is a story about women in prison, and there is quite a bit of graphic and prurient stuff. You are warned.

The one redeeming feature, having just finished the sixth season, is that the series demonstrates how repulsive, how corrupt, how disgusting privatization is.

Do you think Reed Hastings noticed that the private prison corporation that took over “Litchfield Prison” cut corners at every chance, cutting education programs, cutting the budget for food, hiring inexperienced and brutal guards (Prison Guards for America), subjecting the inmates to even worse indignities than when the government ran the prison? The private corporation cares only about profits, not the lives of the prisoners. The corporation’s budget-cutting caused a riot (that is exactly what has happened in privatized prisons).

The program is a powerful indictment of privatizing public services. I hope Reed Hastings watches his own hit series and learns about the inevitable human costs of privatization.

He is a smart man. He is a billionaire. But can he learn?

I am reading a wonderful book right now by Anand Giridharadas called “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.” He explains a phenomenon that most of us know all too well. The big philanthropists offer gazillions to “save” education, but only if they control how it works. The bright young people coming out of college and graduate school have been indoctrinated into what he calls “MarketWorld.” They want to “change the world,” but they have learned that the best way to change the world is a “win-win.” The haves keep their money and status (and make more money) by “helping” the have-nots. The end result of the win-win market strategy is that the elites pat themselves on the back for their world-changing ideas, make a lot of money, and take control of the lives of the have-nots. Those of us in the education world have seen this scenario play out again and again. Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton family, Betsy Devos, the Koch brothers, Reed Hastings, etc., all have plans to “save poor kids from failing schools,” which end up harming public schools and placing the “poor kids” at the mercy of the market, where they might or might not get into a desirable charter school, which might or might not last more than a year, and probably has no unions. End result: no change, other than the destruction of public schools and unions.

Peter Greene has an apt example of a new entrant into the MarketWorld space.

It is called Camelback Ventures. Lots of bright young people figuring out how to save the world and make money. A win-win.

Question of the Day, Week, Year, Decade:

In the face of so many scandals and failures, why do eduvillainthropists continue to throw good money after bad?

Angie Sullivan, a teacher in Clark County, Nevada, poses this question in a recent letter.


Thank you National Public Education Activists for your work which I follow on a regular basis.

Thank you for your work.

I believe our Nevada legislators should notice:

– Nevada Education Leadership in the NVDOE have failed to prove Nevada Charters are a remedy. Yet our current legislation allows charter takeover of CCSD schools.

– Nevada Charters are segregating. In Nevada, charters segregate by race, money, and religion. Each Nevada charter campus has an obvious identity and group it serves.

– Eduphilantrophists financially propping up or expanding Nevada for-profit charters is not good business practice. This is not competition. Nor is it a good return on investment. It is forced. It is also throwing good money after bad.

– Authentic Education Innovation has been replaced by for-profit corporations creating hedgefund or leasing opportunities. 80% of Nevada Charters are for-profit.

– There is significant and severe lack of financial or academic accountability for Nevada Charters. This is very costly to the Nevada Tax Payer as many charters flounder for years in receivership/ bankruptcy. Or national charter chain corporations sue Nevada draining resources rather than educating students.

– Nevada Charter student enrollment practices and student expulsion need to be examined. Authentic reliable and viable research is noticeably non-existent or extremely limited on Nevada Charters. A simple persual of Nevada charter websites which allow racial slur posting and derogatory statements against some students enrolling can be used as evidence to take action.

– CCSD student population is 20% white. Nevada charters reflect nearly the opposite. “Choice” is white flight. IEP and Free-Reduced lunch numbers also show significant under-service in charters.

– CCSD Schools threatened with charter takeover serve communities which are brown. These schools are NOT the lowest performers in the state. There is something racially unfair about charter takeover selection. It is not “choice” if you have to force brown kids into a disfunctional charter district. Folks would go willingly if the charter district was successful in serving communities of color. Frankly some communities are tired of their children being used in education experiments or being used to meet a quota.

Nevada Education Leadership and the Nevada Legislature need to acknowledge that our education money is limited. Nevada Charters are not authentically successful. Public Relations Spin does not make a student graduate. Billions are spent to promote this failed scam. Continuing to spend tax payer money in a segregating and business manipulated manner is harmful to our communities in significantly distructive ways.

In summary, Nevada Charters are not graduating students.

$350 million and growing. 30 years and zero accountability. This mess needs to be cleaned up.

The Nevada Charter Authority needs the ability to close down national charter corporations.

Nevada needs a charter moratorium.

The nation needs a moratorium.

Keep fighting the good fight. Our public schools are worth the effort. Our students need us to speak up. May God hold us in His Hands.

The Teacher,
Angie Sullivan

Since you have been with me every step of the way on this book, and since many of you have shared stories that will appear in the book, I want you to be the first to know that I finished the first draft on December 31, 2018.

I am now getting my peer review committee to review it for errors, redundancy, whatever. Then it goes to the publisher.

I have proved that it is possible to blog every day and write a book of 125,000 words!

A hint: It is a hopeful book, a book that will show that the light at the end of the tunnel is NOT an oncoming train.

There is good news! The Zombie apocalypse will be repelled!

Stay tuned!

There is an open seat on the Los Angeles school board, because convicted felon Ref Rodriguez stepped down. He was a darling of the charter billionaires, who spent lavishly to elect him. He founded a charter chain. The leading candidate for his seat is Jackie Goldberg, a dynamic and articulate voice for public schools, where she wasa teacher, then became a board member and a state legislator.

The charter lobby has decided not to endorse in the March primary, but will probably throw their weight and dollars into a runoff to beat Jackie, if there is one.

Jackie Goldberg needs to win a majority of the votes to avoid a runoff. She is uniquely qualified. Even with her vote, the billionaires will have a majority, but only by one vote, not two. And she has a powerful voice, which would change the tenor of the board and keep Austin Beutner on the hot seat.

Recent races for the Los Angeles Board of Education have been the most expensive school board contests in the nation’s history — and charter school supporters spent millions more than anyone else. But a key charter group announced Friday it will sit out a March special election to fill an empty and potentially pivotal seat.

The political arm of the California Charter Schools Assn. is not endorsing any of the 10 candidates for the seat left vacant in July, when Ref Rodriguez resigned after pleading guilty to one felony and three misdemeanors for campaign fundraising violations.

The hopefuls are vying to represent the oddly shaped District 5, which covers some neighborhoods north of downtown L.A. as well as the cities of southeast Los Angeles County. The Board of Education, currently with six members, is split on key issues, including how to interact with privately operated charter schools, which compete with district-operated schools for students.

A spokeswoman for the charter group spoke of the many strong options for the board seat.
“There are a number of highly qualified, inspiring candidates in this race,” said Brittany Chord Parmley of CCSA Advocates. “Given the diversity, strength and depth of the field, we have decided not to endorse. … This election is an opportunity for the entire community to engage in a dialogue about what it will take to provide an outstanding public education to all Los Angeles students.”
Close observers have described this race as especially tricky for the charter group. District 5’s boundaries were carved to elect a Latino. And in the previous election, charter backers had a strong Latino candidate in Rodriguez, the co-founder of a charter-school organization.

One obvious option, charter group executive Allison Greenwood Bajracharya, is not a Latina. Nor is Heather Repenning, a city commissioner backed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, another power player. Nor is Jackie Goldberg, the pick of the teachers union, which has been the second-biggest spender in board races and has called for halting the growth of charter schools.

Backing a Latino in this district has mattered to United Teachers Los Angeles in the past, but after recent elections losses, union leaders think they have a winner in Goldberg, who has alliances within the Latino community. Goldberg previously served on the school board and the L.A. City Council as well as in the state Legislature. A wildcard for UTLA is the effect of a teachers strike planned for Jan. 10, which could work for or against the union’s endorsed candidate.

The ideal candidate in this race would be a Latina, according to some consultants.

Three Latinos in the race would be hard sells for charter supporters: School counselor Graciela Ortiz is active in UTLA. Cynthia Gonzalez works as a principal at a district-run school. Activist Rocio Rivas led protests calling for Rodriguez to resign.

The other Latino candidates are: Salvador “Chamba” Sanchez, a community college instructor; David Valdez, an L.A. County arts commissioner; Nestor Enrique Valencia, a Bell City Council member; and Ana Cubas, a community college instructor and former L.A. City Council aide who ran unsuccessfully for the council in 2013.

For the charter group, no one stood out.

Four of the Latino candidates banded together to urge UTLA and the charter group to endorse one or more Latinos.

“As the ‘Charter School vs. Public School’ debate rages on and political heavyweights attempt to bully their way into installing their own,” Cubas, Sanchez, Valencia and Gonzalez said in a joint statement, “this is a familiar scenario for the Latino candidates in this race. The district has long left its Latino students behind in academic achievement and access to public education.”

Other candidates, including a couple who dropped out of the race, originally endorsed the one-and-a-half-page statement, but disagreements developed among the group.

The charter group’s neutral stance may not carry over to a likely May runoff between the top two primary finishers, regardless of their ethnicity.

“It is naive to think this is a retreat or respite on their part,” said Juan Flecha, president of the union that represents school administrators. His union, which lacks big-money resources, has endorsed both Goldberg and Gonzalez.

Even in the primary, a pro-charter mega-donor could step in to fund a campaign. That could work better for charter supporters because the official charter group has the baggage of past ties to Rodriguez, said one political consultant, who requested anonymity because of connections to more than one candidate.

Another consultant, Mike Trujillo, who has worked mostly against UTLA-backed candidates, agreed: “It only takes some limited paperwork and a check to become a player in the primary.”

But it might make sense, he said, for the charter group to bide its time while teachers union president Alex Caputo-Pearl spends a lot on the teachers strike and on Goldberg in the primary.
“I suspect CCSA is gonna just get out of Alex’s way and let him spend away,” Trujillo said.

A number of charter chains have bragged that 100% of their students are accepted into four-year colleges and universities. What they don’t acknowledge is that they have set a requirement that students cannot graduate unless they have won acceptance into a four-year college or university.

The issue came up recently in Nashville.

Metro education officials are reminding one of the largest charter schools in Nashville it can’t make college acceptance a high school graduation requirement.

LEAD Public Schools brags all seniors in its first five graduating classes at LEAD Academy had been accepted into a four-year college. Part of that could be due to the fact that college acceptance was a requirement in its original charter application.

The office in Metro Schools that oversees charters is still consulting legal experts on whether mandating college acceptance is illegal.

What happens to the students who don’t get accepted into a four-year college? Do they stay in 12th grade for years, or do they drop out or return to the public schools?

There are other charter chains who set this as a requirement? Why? It enables them to brag about their success.

Are these graduation requirements serving the students or burnishing the reputation of the charter chain?

The same question came up recently when José Espinosa, superintendent of a school district in Texas, complained that a charter chain was misleading the public with its claims of a 100% college acceptance rate. He said this was misleading advertising. He wrote:

While 100 percent of charter seniors get accepted to college as required, the public has a right to know the percentage of charter students who didn’t make it to their senior year.

Ed Fuller, Pennsylvania State University professor, found in one of his studies of a particular charter network that when considering the number of students starting in the ninth grade as a cohort, the percentage of charter cohort students who graduated and went on to college was at best 65 percent.

In other words, 35 percent of ninth-graders at a charter network didn’t make it to their graduation….

A correspondent in Texas informed me that there are four charter chains with higher graduation requirements than the state:

BASIS
Great Hearts
Harmony
YES Prep

Setting rigorous standards and requiring acceptance into a four-year college weeds out the students who struggle and need extra help.

In this fine essay, Jan Resseger reviews Carol Burris’s article on the five reasons why charter schools cannot be effectively reformed or regulated.

The problems are a feature, not a bug.

Charter schools make their own rules about discipline. They are free from public oversight of their budget. Those considered most “successful” choose their own students. Many states ignore conflicts of interest and nepotism.

When public money is handed out without public scrutiny, abuse of that money is inevitable.

After hearing from a parent in Brooklyn that decisions at the New York City Department of Education were being made by Broadies and TFA, Leonie Haimson did some digging. The parent was right. The same people appointed by Joel Klein more than a decade ago are still closing schools, imposing the portfolio model, and opening charters. De Blasio appointed Carmen Farina to run the DOE. Farina was Deputy Chancellor to Klein and left in a a dispute. But apparently she saw no reason to clean house.

Leonie shows that it is not only Broadies and TFA, but the nefarious Education Pioneers, another billionaire-funded outfit the is running the show in New York City.

Wake up, Bill de Blasio! You inherited the status quo! When if ever will you clean house?