Archives for category: Privatization

The New Mexico Attorney General demanded that a charter founder resign, but she refuses to do so.

You think taxpayers just don’t care what happens to their money? You think taxpayers think that anyone should step up and claim public money and do with it as they please?

New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas is demanding the immediate resignation of Analee Maestas from the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education after fraud and embezzlement allegations involving the charter school she founded and managed.

“School board members have a duty to treat their position as a public trust and at all times act in a manner that justifies the public’s confidence in them,” Balderas said in a statement.

Balderas emailed a letter to Maestas on Monday saying “it is clear that you are no longer qualified to hold your position as a board member” and that if she did not immediately resign, “my office will take all appropriate legal actions.”

Maestas’ attorney, Marc M. Lowry, said she has no plans to step down.

“The Attorney General’s letter is more concerned with capturing a headline than it is with the pursuit of the truth,” Lowry said in an emailed statement.

“Dr. Maestas has not engaged in any conduct that violated her oath of office with the APS Board, or any other law. Dr. Maestas has brought over 45 years of experience and commitment to childhood education to uphold her oath to APS and maintain the public’s trust, and used her APS office only to advance the public benefit. The Attorney General is wrong to suggest otherwise.”

Balderas’ letter mentions two reviews by state Auditor Tim Keller that found serious problems with apparent misuse of funds regarding La Promesa Early Learning Center, the charter school Maestas started in 2008.

This month, Keller released a report that said it appeared Maestas’ daugther, the school’s then-assistant business manager, had embezzled nearly $500,000 under the watch of Maestas. And an earlier report in February 2016 showed that the school submitted a suspicious receipt to the New Mexico Public Education Department for reimbursement when Maestas claimed the $342.40 invoice was for carpet cleaning at the school. However, it appeared the receipt had been written over and the cleaning company reported that it actually worked on ducts at her home.

In his letter, Balderas wrote that “those investigations appear to implicate potential violations of numerous criminal and civil statutes.”

“While those matters are pending, the New Mexico Constitution does not require that you be found guilty of any conduct related to them to be declared unfit to hold your office, and your oath to uphold the very same Constitution now demands your resignation,” he wrote to Maestas.

But Lowry said that “if the Attorney General had read the State Auditor’s report, he would understand that Dr. Maestas is innocent, and that the State Auditor did not make a single finding suggesting that Dr. Maestas participated in that report’s allegations of embezzlement or fraud.”

Last week, Maestas denied any knowledge of the financial mismanagement at her school and blamed her daughter’s substance abuse problems.

Julieanne Maestas diverted about half a million dollars from the charter school into her personal bank account from June 2010 to July 2016, according to Keller’s investigation. In addition, she deposited about $177,000 worth of checks that were payable to the former executive director – her mother – as well as to her boyfriend, who was a school vendor.

Time for a friendly puff piece from Inside Philanthropy about one of the nation’s most malevolent foundations: The Walton Family Foundation.

Walton has two goals: privatizing education and eliminating teachers’ unions.

It pledged to spend $1 billion to achieve those aims.

It subsidizes many mainstream media, even NPR and Education Week, to make sure that it gets favorable coverage for its nefarious goals.

And now, Inside Philanthropy reports that the Waltons have decided to plunk a couple of million dollars down in New York City and spread the wealth so that some of it goes to traditional antagonists, like Teachers College, Columbia University.

Who funds Inside Philanthropy? I can’t tell from its website. I did notice an earlier article about the Waltons, which claimed that individual members of the Walton family were reaching out to what appear to be liberal organizations, like the Center for American Progress. The writer didn’t even think to ask whether the Walton family members were purchasing the voices and independence of those groups they subsidize.

The Waltons noticed the research about the importance of economic and social integration so they have decided to open seven new charter schools in New York City that will lure in middle-class kids. Thus, in the name of integration, they can both promote privatization of public dollars and do their union-busting at the same time. Why should only poor kids go to charters? Think of the possibilities as Walton millions open charters for middle-class kids too!

Give them points for cleverness.

The Waltons earned their place on this blog’s Wall of Shame, and there is no reason to see anything coming from a family of billionaires that fights unions in their own stores and fights paying a minimum wage and subsidizes the evil American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which is devoted to destroying democracy.

Stephen Dyer, former legislator and current Fellow at Innovation Ohio, writes:

As you know, I’ve contended for years that if charters receive money and kids from all over the state, their overall performance should be compared with the overall performance of all Ohio school districts.

However, as an exercise, I decided to look at Ohio’s urban building performance versus that of charters. And despite the fact that Ohio’s urban buildings typically have 24% higher rates of disabled students and nearly 25% higher rates of minority students, Ohio urban buildings perform about the same as charters. And this is despite the fact that the 90 lowest performing charters aren’t included because they’ve been carved out of these comparisons by the Ohio General Assembly. http://bit.ly/2hw3fhB

In the report that is linked, he expands:

Ohio’s urban buildings perform just about the same as Ohio’s charter schools.

Here’s the issue though:

Ohio’s urban buildings typically (my short hand for median) have a 26 percent higher rate of disabled children and a 23 percent higher rate of minority children than charter schools.

A remarkable 94 percent of all major urban buildings have more than 95 percent of their students classified as economically disadvantaged. Meanwhile, 65 percent of charters fit that bill.

Yet despite these greater challenges, Ohio’s major urban buildings typically have nearly identical attendance rates, slightly less chronic absenteeism and just about equal report card performance, looking at percentages of A, B, C, D, and F grades. Charters have slightly higher percentages of As, Bs and Cs, and lower percentages of Ds and Fs, but the difference is statistically insignificant.

So despite the fact charters have fewer demographic barriers to success on our test-based report card and about half of their kids don’t even come from the urban districts, charters are still unable to perform significantly better than their major urban counterparts — the most challenged group of schools in the traditional public school system.

Only about 260 of Ohio’s 370 charters are included in this comparison. It’s clear that the other 90 — mostly dropout recovery schools located in urban districts — are among the worst-performing schools in the entire country. So the percentage of poor charter grades is likely far higher than the comparison I’m currently making.

Kentucky is a Republican state with both houses in the hands of the Republican party and a Republican governor. The Republicans are doing their best to undermine public schools. They were late in passing charter legislation, and they passed it only recently. Now the legislature is intent on undoing the racial integration of public schools in Jefferson County (Louisville).

Gay Adelmann, co-founder of Save Our Schools Kentucky, attended a recent legislative session and reported back on the discussion, which had nothing to do with improving public schools and everything to do with implementing the privatization agenda of ALEC.

The Republican legislators blame busing for all the ills of public schools. They think that ending busing will bring a new day to Kentucky. Obviously, none of them has ever read any research on the benefits of racial integration to both white and black students.

After listening to them fulminate about “those children,” she offered her own suggestions:


Faulty arguments repeated the theme: “Imagine what you could do if you ended busing.”

No, imagine what we could do if you:

Fully funded our schools.

Ended high-stakes testing.

Placed students’ interests above adults.

Protected our public schools from corporate threats.

Asked us how you can help!

The libertarian American Enterprise Institute, funded in part by Betsy DeVos, will host an event on October 2, when Eva Moskowitz will reveal the secrets of success at her Success Academy charter chain in New York City.

Will she talk about how she screens out the kids with disabilities? how she screens out the kids who don’t speak English? how she pushes out the kids who are unwilling to conform or who are likely to get low test scores by suspending them day after day until their parents withdraw them? how she has the highest teacher attrition rate of all charters in New York City? will she boast about her plan to get rid of public schools or use them as dumping grounds for the kids she doesn’t want?

I won’t be there, unfortunately. I plan to #TakeAKnee for Eva.

Lessons from Success: A keynote and conversation with Eva Moskowitz

Tuesday, October 3, 2017 | 3:00–4:15 PM

AEI, Auditorium | 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036

Join AEI as Eva Moskowitz, the CEO of Success Academy Charter School Network, discusses her new book, “The Education of Eva Moskowitz” (HarperCollins, 2017).

RSVP Watch Live Online

DESCRIPTION
In her new book, “The Education of Eva Moskowitz” (HarperCollins, 2017), Eva Moskowitz, the CEO of Success Academy Charter Schools, offers a memoir about her battles to reform America’s education system.

Join AEI on Tuesday, October 3, as Eva Moskowitz offers a keynote address, followed by a conversation with Frederick M. Hess.

Join the conversation on social media with #EvaatAEI.

PARTICIPANTS
Frederick M. Hess, AEI
Eva Moskowitz, Success Academy Charter Schools

REGISTER
RSVP to attend this event.

To watch live online, click here on October 3 at 3:00 PM ET. Registration is not required.

American Enterprise Institute
1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036
P: 202.862.5800 | F: 202.862.7177 | http://www.aei.org

The Nebraska State Education Association recently paid a visit to the state’s major newspaper and explained why Nebraska doesn’t need school choice:

Editor’s note: In a recent visit to the York News-Times, Nebraska State Education Association president Jenni Benson and executive director Maddie Fennell shared that organization’s thoughts on two hot-button education issues – charter schools and private school vouchers. The NSEA is the union that represents Nebraska teachers. It is the oldest professional association in the state.

The NSEA’s 10 reasons to avoid “private school voucher schemes” are:

1. Nebraska cannot afford to finance private education as well as public education. There would be only two ways to pay for vouchers—take money from already underfunded public schools or raise taxes. Both are unacceptable.

2. Tax dollars for private education won’t fix student achievement challenges at public schools. The best way to assist all low-performing students is by strengthening public schools and addressing individual learning problems directly. Vouchers will siphon tax dollars away from our public schools where children have the greatest needs.

3. A voucher would be a ticket to nowhere for most children. Private schools can choose to accept or reject any student, and many have long waiting lists and only admit top students. On average, parochial schools reject 67 percent of all applicants. Other private schools reject nearly 90 percent of applicants. “Choice” does not reside with parents but with private school admissions committees.

4. Parents have an expanding array of choices for the public school their child attends. Among the many public school options available in Nebraska, parents may choose to send their child to another public school in the same or different school district, or enroll their child in various public academy schools, focus or magnet schools, career academies, or other public alternative schools.

5. Vouchers don’t create a “competitive marketplace.” Competition is based on an even playing field; there is no fair competition when “competitors” play by different rules. Public schools accept all applicants, private schools don’t. Private schools are not required to provide transportation, special education, bilingual education, free and reduced price lunches, and many other programs that public schools provide. They are also not required to meet even basic state certification or accreditation requirements.

6. The State of Nebraska should not spend tax dollars to pilot test a bad idea. Tax-funded pilot projects should only be conducted to test good ideas. Vouchers are a bad idea! A pilot voucher program would not be a “lifeboat” for some students, as claimed. A voucher system would be the Titanic, draining needed funds from public schools where most students would remain.

7. Vouchers would destroy the “private” in private schools. Parents of children in private schools don’t want the status quo disturbed for their children—they want their schools to be truly private. Private schools accepting tax-funded vouchers or private school tax credit schemes would become subject to government regulation. Allowing public tax dollars to be spent on private schools would be mean private schools would have to change admission requirements, implement state-required testing, certification and accreditation, comply with discipline and expulsion laws, and allow voucher students to be exempted from religious activities.

8. Inserting the word “private” doesn’t make a school good. There is no proof that private school vouchers would improve students’ academic performance. In fact, students attending private schools under the Milwaukee, Cleveland and other private school voucher programs did not outperform their public school peers.

9. Vouchers would promote further religious and economic stratification in our society. Private elementary and secondary schools have been founded primarily by two types of entities: (1) religious denominations seeking to teach academics interwoven with their religious doctrine; and (2) wealthier parents seeking to give their children an advantage over other children. Tax-funded vouchers for private schools would increase divisions between rich and poor and among different religions, threatening the future of our American democracy.

10. Public policy should respect parental choice but provide for all students. The best public policy is to provide parents with even more choices within the public schools, which serve more than 90 percent of the children in Nebraska. Nebraska legislators should concentrate on making all public schools stronger, safer, more challenging and accountable. Public tax dollars should be spent only to improve public schools—not to assist the small number of parents who choose to enroll their children in private schools.

NSEA on Charter Schools

The fact is that charter schools are not meeting the need they were created to fill—including to serve as lab schools to develop new teaching techniques—and many are failing their students and families, while squandering taxpayer dollars.

Reports detail fraud and waste totaling more than $200 million of taxpayer funds in the charter school sector. It notes that these figures only represent fraud and waste in the charter sector uncovered so far, and that the total that federal, state and local governments “stand to lose” in 2015 is probably more than $1.4 billion. It says, “The vast majority of the fraud perpetrated by charter officials will go undetected because the federal government, the states, and local charter authorizers lack the oversight necessary to detect the fraud.”1

The result of charter schools on student achievement just doesn’t live up to the hype. Less than a third of the total charter schools in the U.S. perform better than comparable public schools. The other two thirds are about the same or worse.

Article continued below advertisement

In fact, the biggest proponents of charter schools are Wall Street hedge fund and venture capital firms like JP Morgan, USB, and Liberty Partners. Unfortunately, Wall Street losses on charter schools such as Edison have proven that charter schools are a bad investment. Further, even in places where the public schools don’t come close to the standard of quality we have in our Nebraska public schools, charter schools are being closed for poor performance and irresponsible management.

The facts could not be any clearer: Investments in our public schools yield the best returns.

“The Tip of the Iceberg: Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud, And Abuse,” was released jointly by the nonprofit organizations Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and the Center for Popular Democracy. It follows a similar report released a year ago by the same groups that detailed $136 million in fraud and waste and mismanagement in 15 of the 42 states that operate charter schools. The 2015 report cites $203 million, including the 2014 total plus $23 million in new cases, and $44 million in earlier cases not included in last year’s report.

Some studies regarding private school vouchers and charter schools:

• Vouchers close neighborhood public schools and benefit wealthy school districts and privately run schools (Vasquez Heilig & Portales, 2014) http://bit.ly/EPAAVouchers

• Vouchers as a reform agenda are not viable given a paucity of peer reviewed evidence that they improve student outcomes in a consistent or large way in the US. (Vasquez Heilig, LeClair, Lemke, & McMurrey 2014). http://bit.ly/TCEPvouchers

• When vouchers are applied universally, education inequity is exacerbated. Schools do the choosing (Vasquez Heilig & Portales, 2012) http://bit.ly/IUPRAChileVouchers

• Charter schools have a 40 percent attrition rate for their African American students (Vasquez Heilig, Williams, McNeil & Lee, 2011). http://bit.ly/BREAttrition

• Charters schools are more segregated relative to public schools in their vicinity. (Vasquez Heilig, LeClair, Redd, 2014 Under Review)

Ref Rodriguez was elected to the Los Angeles school board in 2015. He ran against a respected educator named Bennett Kayser and used some extremely negative television ads. Kayser has a physical disability, and one of Ref’s ads showed a shaking hand holding a tea cup, then dropping it. It came as close to stereotyping someone on grounds of physically disability as possible. It was ugly.

Questions were raised about the finances of Ref’s charter chain, about food services.

A small publication called the LA Progressive raised questions about his campaign donations.

Rodriguez’ campaign disclosure filings with the City of Los Angeles show that several staffers of his charter school, Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC), gave small donations in December 2014, before a filing deadline at the end of the year. What is odd and striking about several of the donations is that they come from PUC staffers who first made a very small donation early in the month and then, in the last 3 days of the year, suddenly ponied up the largest donation allowed by campaign ethics laws. Six donated the maximum $1,100. One paid $850.;;;

What is highly irregular about this pattern of donations to Rodriguez, however, is the job category of the PUC employees and the timing of their donations.

A janitor, a tutor, a parent organizer, two maintenance workers, a kitchen manager, and an office manager would not raise eyebrows for donating $25, $50, or even $100 to a candidate, as these seven PUC workers did within days of each other in mid-December 2014.

None of that mattered. He won. He was backed by the usual cabal of very wealthy charter supporters who wanted to put one of their own on the school board.

These donations seem to be at the center of an investigation of campaign finance violations by Ref. A number of charges have been filed against him for breaking the law. He stepped down as LAUSD president, but he did not leave the board. It is unseemly for a public official facing criminal charges to stay in a position of authority, but there he is. Doing it.

Peter Cunningham, who used to be Arne Duncan’s communications director and now runs the pro-charter Education Post, funded by the same people who fund California’s charter schools, wrote an article in defense of Ref. He thinks that what Ref did, if he did it, was a mistake made by a rookie. He thinks that it was unfair to bring criminal charges against Ref when others have done the same things and not faced criminal charges. He thinks that the prosecutors in Los Angeles are persecuting Ref “simply because he was elected board president.”

Up until now, no one has alleged that the district attorney was acting improperly. Ref should not be treated unfairly, but then again, he should not get special treatment just because he founded a chain of charter schools and is beloved of Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, and the California Charter Schools Association.

Justice should be swift and unbiased. Let Ref Rodriguez make his case in court, not in the media.

The Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University has always been pro-school choice, pro-charters, pro-vouchers.

But now the PEPG–headed by the General of the School Choice Movement Paul Petersen–has outdone itself.

It is staging a two-day celebration of Betsy DeVos and the Trump agenda of public school-bashing, funded by the Koch Brothers and other rightwing foundations.

There is nary a critic of this radical rightwing agenda, not as a presenter or a panelist.

The conference is called “The Future of School Choice.”

The Charles Koch Foundation is a major funder, but after it became clear that his name was embarrassing, it was removed from the list of sponsors.

How shameful that Harvard would lend its name to a one-sided effort to cheer on the destruction of public education and would give a platform to a woman with no academic credentials.

As the writer for the New Republic, Graham Vyse, points out, the Harvard Institute of Politics invited Sean Spicer and Corey Lewandowski to accept fellowships, so the University apparently has low standards.

Apparently Jeff Sessions is about to give a speech about “free speech” in which he will decry “political correctness” on campus, meaning I assume the refusal to debate issues.

Do you think he will single out Harvard’s PEPG for refusing to hold a debate about the future of school choice and excluding those who recognize the civic importance of public education and the failure of charters and vouchers to live up to their claims?

I’m not holding my breath.

I am adding Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance to this blog’s Wall of Shame for its failure to permit even the most minimal expectations of academic and scholarly fairness, and for turning itself into a propaganda mill for the privatization movement, at the behest of Big Money.

Peter Greene read a report published by the Center for the Reinention of Public Education at the University of Washington, a leading advocate for charters, choice, and the portfolio model. The report offers advice to district leaders about how public schools can deal with declining enrollments by working with charter schools and putting them on an equal footing as partners, not competitors.

Maybe I am being a Pollyanna, but I see this report as a sign of weakness, a recognition by privatizers that they must develop strategies to get embedded because the tide of public opinion is turning against them. The opinion poll in the conservative journal EdNext recently reported that public support for charters dropped from 51% to 39% in one year. The NAACP statement criticizing charters undermined their claims about being leaders of the civil rights movement. The almost daily reports of charter scandals in many states is undermining their credibility. Betsy DeVos’s enthusiastic embrace hurts their carefully cultivated public image. Watch for more statements aimed at normalizing charters. They are worried.

Peter reviews the CPRE list of problems and remedies and he is not impressed.

So how do we fix all of these things? CRPE has some thoughts.

Districts need to close schools and negotiate contracts that don’t spend so much money. The closing school solution seems to run up against the “don’t take on long-term debts and costs” solution, as schools frequently manage consolidation of schools by taking on construction projects.

They would like to see more partnership, but their example is “if charters find a way to give cheap retirement plans might encourage public systems to adopt similar systems.” So, yeah, charters that want to pay teachers less could, I suppose, try to convince public schools not to outbid them. That’s cooperation, sort of.

And there would need to be city-level strategy sessions. Which should be a hoot as long as nobody ever addresses the underlying zero-sum game that is charter vs. public schools. But that’s not going to happen, since one proposed solution is that districts “publicly identify” their legacy costs in exchange for a charter funding formula that more closely resembles public per-pupil costs:

For example, charter schools might receive less per-pupil funding under such an agreement but would be able to tell the public, with confidence, that charter and district students received the same classroom funding and that charter schools weren’t contributing to a district’s impending insolvency.

Yeah, that doesn’t even make sense. “Getting same classroom funding” doesn’t equal “not sucking public school dry.” So maybe the suggestion here is that charter’s get their funding and public schools admit that they’re insolvent because their buildings and pensions and teacher pay are all just way expensive. In other words, charters agree to get paid public tax dollars, and public schools agree to publicly say it’s their own damn fault they’re having financial problems. Why would public schools want to enter into this deal, exactly? And would the funding formula include all the “philanthropic” contributions to charters?

CRPE also suggests that public schools be given some limited extra funding to be used only as a means of down-sizing. Or if districts can prove they’re shrinking as fast as possible, charters would agree to a voluntary growth slow down. Or some other grand bargain that basically involves charters conducting business as usual while public schools agree to work harder at dying, already.

CRPE also has a list of Things To Discuss and Research Further. Gather more data about how much financial vampirage charters are really committing, and how much is just, you know, other reasons for districts to lose money. More data about “fixed costs” and just generally how teachers are draining money by wanting to be paid. Figure out the greatest number of students the charters could handle, because that’s the ideal, apparently– as many students taken out of public school as possible. More power for superintendents. They don’t say which power, exactly, but context suggests that old favorite– hire, fire and set salaries without stupid rules and unions. Learning from other sectors like energy and healthcare, because they’re just like schools.

Bottom Line

CRPE is correct in one thing– we do have to look at how charters affect the whole local educational eco-system. But their belief in the inevitable supremacy of charters gets in the way of a useful conversation.

The report seems to boil down basically to “Charters and public schools should work together to make employment conditions worse for teachers. Also, they should team up to help charters thrive and to help public schools die more efficiently and without making charters look bad. For The Children.”

Maybe this is supposed to be an innovative approach to the Socratic method, and public schools are just supposed to take a hemlock bath because it would make life easier for charters. But I don’t imagine many takers will line up to take CRPE’s offer. Not even for the children.

This looks like a good deal for the leaders of a charter school who were accused of misappropriating
Ropristing $3 million for their personal use. No jail time. A payback of $600,000 and pocket change. And an agreement not to lead any other charters until 2020. The fines apparently will be paid by insurance companies, not the defendants.

“The former leaders of a public charter school for disabled and at-risk teenagers have agreed to settle a District lawsuit alleging they sought to enrich themselves by diverting millions of dollars in taxpayer money meant for the school into private companies they created.

“Donna Montgomery, David Cranford and Paul Dalton, all former managers at Options Public Charter School, agreed to a collective settlement of $575,000, which will be paid to the school that now operates under new leadership as Kingsman Academy. Jeremy Williams, a former chief financial officer of the D.C. Public Charter School Board, who allegedly aided the scheme, agreed to a settlement of $84,237 in a separate deal signed last week. The defendants agreed that they would not serve in a leadership role of any nonprofit corporation in the District until October 2020.

“This settlement ensures that more than $600,000 in misappropriated funds will now go to Kingsman Academy to serve disabled students in the District of Columbia, and will deter future wrongdoing,” said Robert Marus, a spokesman for the Office of the Attorney General. “As the referees for the District’s nonprofit laws, our office will continue to bring actions against any who would misuse funds meant for public or charitable purposes.”

“A statement issued by attorney S.F. Pierson, who represents Dalton, said all three former managers “continue to contest the District’s claims and continue to maintain their position that they managed Options to the highest standards.” Pierson said the former school leaders are “not personally paying” anything to settle the District’s claims. It’s common that insurance plans cover litigation-related costs for nonprofit directors or corporate officers.”

This is a big win for the accused, but a loss for the disabled students, who didn’t get the services intended for them.