Archives for category: Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Los Angeles: Study Reveals the Real Cost of Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
8

The United Teachers of Los Angeles hired an independent research firm to analyze the true cost of charter schools to the school district.

The firm, MGT of America, was free to reach its own conclusions.

Its report concluded that charters are costing the Los Angeles Unified School District nearly $600 million a year in lost revenue.

A report by MGT of America, an independent research firm, reveals that LAUSD has lost an astonishing $591 million to unmitigated charter school growth this year alone. If costs associated with charter school expansion are not mitigated with common sense solutions, the district will face financial insolvency, according to an analysis of the report.

As the number of independent charter schools continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important for LAUSD to quantify, forecast, and manage the costs associated with independent charter expansion. LAUSD oversees more charter schools than any other district in the country. Charters are privately managed despite relying heavily on district and taxpayer funding.

Taken together, the findings in the report paint a picture of a system that prioritizes the growth opportunities for charter school operators over the educational opportunities for all students.

As Massachusetts and Georgia voters prepare to vote on whether to expand the number of charters, they should be fully informed that more money for charters means budget cuts for public schools. Budget cuts for public schools mean larger class sizes, fewer teachers, fewer programs for the schools that serve the majority of students.

As the charter sector continues to expand, because of false promises to parents about their “success” (even before the school opens), the public school system that has been a foundational element in American democracy is threatened by loss of funding and privatization.

Categories Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Funding, Los Angeles, Privatization

Angie Sullivan: The Nevada Achievement School District is Only for Public Schools, Not for Failing Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
7

Nevada imported a woman named Jana Wilcox Lavin to run its “Achievement School District.” She is not an educator. She has a degree in marketing. The Nevada ASD is modeled on Tennessee’s failed ASD, which took over the state’s lowest performing schools and promised to vault them to the state’s top 25% in only five years and failed to do so (most are still in the bottom 5%). Lavin is employed by the United Way at the same time that she plans for the Nevada ASD. She ran charters in the Tennessee ASD and holds it up as a model. Is this what is called an “urban myth” or is it just a hoax? How many teachers and principals will be fired, how many charters will scoop up millions of dollars, and how many will succeed or fail? Place your bets, folks, it is Nevada.

Angie Sullivan, who teaches in a low-income school in Clark County (Las Vegas) writes:

The unfairness of the Achievement School District law became crystal clear during a discussion with Jana Wilcox Lavin.

The law requires a list which includes the under-performing schools in the bottom 5%.

It is apparent that Nevada’s under-performing schools are mainly charters and rural schools. 70% of the under-performing Nevada schools are charters and rural schools.

However the law ONLY allows a public school to be selected for charter take-over.

Severely underperforming charters are not allowed to be taken over by the Achievement School District.

This law is a direct attack on public schools while obviously ignoring the cancerous and tragic Nevada charters.

Also, rural schools which fill the under-performing list will most likely never be selected because there simply is zero appetite by charter schools to take over a rural school. This made me laugh inside to learn -having grown up in the rural communities of Lovelock, Winnemucca, and McDermitt. I would love to see an outsider go into those places and take over the school. I picture the community chasing the outsider out of town with a shotgun.

We also had a frank discussion about the alternative schools – 3 are on the list. These schools fill a specific need in our communities. Desert Oasis for instance is actually a school which serves a unique community of high school students and adult students. Teachers there teach could teach a 90 year old adult student in the same classroom as a 16 year old student. While the data looks terrible for this school, the school is likely to be the most effective we have at actually graduating students. Literally no other school serves the communities Desert Oasis takes on. The Desert Oasis teacher who attended the BEC meeting spoke about helping a student graduate who lied about his age to serve in the American Military during World War II.

For obvious reasons, Jana Wilcox Lavin will be looking into the possibility of the Nevada State School Board moving the Alternative Schools onto a different system because it is not appropriate to grade them as we currently do or include them on this list.

We had a frank discussion about the lists.

Apparently the multiple failure lists which caused 6,000 teachers to panic were produced by CCSD. I’m not exactly sure who or why this destruction and disruption occurs year after year. I would like to investigate this further and ask for the resignation of whomever takes on this task of scaring 140 school staffs – unnecessarily. Media needs to be aware of this scare tactic. Next year, when these lists are published, we all need to ask frankly if it is a “real” list or a scare tactic by the district. If it is not the “real” list – teachers need to stand against this harassment.

Frankly, CCSD blames the Nevada State School Board, I have asked during multiple interviews. Jana Wilcox Lavin stated the only list she has created is the under-performing 5% as required by legislators. And a Nevada State School Board member claims their hands are tied by the legislators.

Everyone blames someone else while public school teachers are bullied and threatened.

Bottom line: There is a list of 47 underperforming schools but the only schools seriously being considered are the 17 regular public schools in Vegas within the urban core. 30% of the schools are targeted. And it will most likely be Limited English Language students who will have their schools taken over.

Nothing will be done about the numerous charters which have extreme failing track records.

Nothing will be done about failing rural schools.

It will be brown children in Vegas with limited English who will be experimented on by the Achievement School District.

Jana Wilcox Lavin claimed the Achievement School District has been successful other places. I have read thousands of pages of University research which refute those claims. I regularly communicate with activist teachers all over the nation who refute those claims.

I follow this unfair and wasteful charter movement very closely – the success of charters nationwide has been very, very limited. The success of charters in Nevada is almost zero. As I have noted, Nevada charters are best at segregation by race, money, and religion.

This is the most blatantly unfair privatization legislation ever implemented. It targets ONLY public schools in urban Vegas and blatantly ignores all the other school failures in the state.

This law is not about helping Nevada kids. It is about public school privatization.

And a very wise BEC Meeting attendee stated: No one ever considers how many bodies will be damaged as we make these changes.

I am tired of being one of the bodies.

No one in power listens to the people directly affected. Teachers, Parents, and Students have zero voice.

Communities which do not want their neighborhood school to participate in this unfair take-over need to stand up for their schools – like West Prep and Tom Williams.

https://ccea-nv.org/dev/wordpress/front-page/roar-of-community-opposition-to-west-prep-charter-school-consideration/

_____________________________

http://www.doe.nv.gov/ASD/

__________________________

http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/education/21-ccsd-schools-eligible-be-converted-charter-schools-through-new-initiative

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Fraud, Nevada, Privatization

Christine Langhoff: The Real Goal of Question 2 in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
8

Retired teacher Christine Langhoff has been following the debate over Question 2 in Massachusetts closely. She concluded that its real goal was not to close the achievement gap–charters have not done that anywhere in the nation–nor even to provide better schools–most charters in the nation are no better and many are unquestionably worse–than public schools.

The real purpose is to bankrupt urban districts, and maybe other districts as well. This has been the story in Pennsylvania, where charters have sucked resources out of public school districts, causing budget cuts, layoffs, and program cuts to public schools. Meanwhile, the charter schools get outside funding from Wall Street, the Waltons, financiers, and other champions of privatization. The ultimate goal is the destruction of public education.

She writes:


It’s becoming apparent to many that the real objective of Question 2 is not merely to further the cause of privatization to benefit the hedge funders, but also to bankrupt our urban school systems. There is no mechanism in the ballot question to financially support more charters because Marc Kenen, executive director of the MA Charter School Association, author of the proposal did not include one.

The current law regarding charter funding is carefully worded. Up to 9% of a city or town’s education funding can be directed to charters. In the so-called “failing” districts, the percentage is up to 18%. This means that if a city like Boston decides to increase school funding, the parasitic charters get more dollars. The state is supposed to reimburse cities and towns for costs associated with charters, but has failed to do so in recent years. Last year, about 50% of the reimbursement due to Boston was not made.

This afternoon, the Boston City Council, which has taken a stand in opposition to Question 2, held a hearing on the financial impact of Question 2, should it pass, and how the diversion of money to charters is already harming the city’s ability to fully fund our schools. Dave Sweeney, Boston’s Chief Financial Officer was among those who testified. (See his explanation of the impact of charter funding on the city’s finances here: https://medium.com/@DaveSweeney3/analyzing-the-fiscal-impact-of-question-2-9f1a36d8d823) Councilor Tim McCarthy pursues this line of questioning about the state’s failure to honor this requirement beginning at about 1:22:00

Tito Jackson expressed his dismay that the state board of education – a cabal of appointees by the pro-charter Gov. Baker – has taken the position that DESE is not obligated to take into acount the financial impact the opening of more charters will have on the host cities and towns where the Board decides to site these charters. He also notes that the state of Massachusetts currently underfunds public education to the tune of more than $1 billion. Start at about 1:37:00 for his testimony.

https://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc_video_library.asp?

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Privatization

Paul Buchheit: New Layers of Dirt on Charter Movement

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2016 //
13

As we know, the charter school movement began as a way to help public schools by encouraging innovation. However, in the past 25 years, it has evolved into an industry that is bent on privatization and that shamelessly diverts money and real estate from public schools.

The charter movement today is the darling of ALEC, the Koch brothers, and every rightwing governor and think tank.

In this article, Paul Buchheit describes the dark role that charter schools now play on behalf of corporate elites and their determination to privatize public education for fun and profit.

Their most important innovation seems to be their commitment to turning schools for children of color into tightly disciplined boot camps, where they learn the value of unquestioning obedience.

Any prospect of collaboration with public schools disappeared long ago, as it would be a compact between a robber and his victim.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Funding, Privatization

Jack Hassard: Governor Nathan Deal is a Bully Who Hates Democracy

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
10

Jack Hassard, retired science professor, refers to Governor Nathan Deal’s proposed “opportunity school district” as the the “misfortunate school district.”

He knows a hustle and a fraud when he sees one.

Governor Deal is angry that the state’s elected school boards don’t want him to have power to seize control of schools and turn them over to private entrepreneurs. So he calls them a “power hungry monopoly.”

Professor Hassard writes:

Deal, The Bully, Calls Local School Boards Power Hungry Monopolies Because They Oppose His Misfortunate School District

monopoly: exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market

bully: a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Governor Nathan Deal is calling local school boards a power-hungry monopoly because they oppose his Opportunity School District which would steal 20 schools per year from the same local school boards. Deal’s definition of a monopoly (according to an AJC report) are entities “that have no competition and see no reason to change.”

Deal, I suppose, is angry that local districts are really not monopolies, but in fact run by democratically elected school boards, which indeed, change. However, since the Federal No Child Left Behind Law, and Race to the Top, the biggest obstacle facing local schools is the State which carries out the laws of the Federal Government.

Schools districts are not monopolies (thank goodness) but independent entities that have the right and responsibility to educate the youth in its communities. The only monopoly in the State seems to be the Governor’s office which wants to control educating children in direct opposition to the Georgia Constitution.

The Georgia Department of Education rank-orders all schools in the state on a scale with 100 being the top score. This score is primarily based on achievement test scores. Any school that has a scale-score less than 60 for three consecutive years is put on the list of chronically failing schools.

It’s from this list that the Governor will be able pick his schools that are “chronically failing” and put them under his control.

Many school districts are opposed to the Governors plan. So now the governor is lashing out saying he will punish districts if his plan is defeated. He says he will mess with the districts use and access to money and will require districts to give parents a choice in sending students in “failing schools” to a better school in the district. This is nothing new. Districts have in place the ability to do this, but it often is simply not realistic for parents who would find it difficult to provide the transportation for their children.

The Governor is acting like a spoiled child. Maybe he needs detention.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Fraud, Georgia, Privatization

Arne Duncan Supports Privatization Measure in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
18

Arne Duncan appeared at a DFER event in Boston to lend his support to Question 2, which would increase the number of privately controlled charter schools by 12 per year forever. The bill was written by the CEO of the Massachusetts Charter School Association. DFER is the organization representing hedge fund managers, who have bet on privatization as the antidote to puberty and low test scores.

Duncan failed in Chicago, where he promised to transform the schools by 2010, and he failed as Secretary of Education, where his Race to the Top produced massive funding for privatization, high-stakes testing for teachers, a national teacher shortage, and endless rancor among teachers, parents, and school officials burdened by his mandates.

Categories Boston, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, DFER, Education Industry, Privatization

Ohio: You Can Buy Republican Legislators at Bargain Prices

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
24

William Lager owns the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), which according to the New York Times, has the lowest graduation rate in the nation. ECOT is a virtual charter school, where students take instruction online. The state recently reacted to public criticism and decided to audit ECOT. It found that the school’s enrollment was vastly overstated, which meant that ECOT was receiving millions of dollars each year for nothing. ECOT went to court and argued that the state had no right to audit participation rates (attendance), but the court did not agree. Unless the decision is overturned on appeal, Lager will have to refund $60 million to the state.

Since 2000, ECOT has given $2.1 million in campaign contributions. Since 2010, 99% of Lager’s contributions have gone to Republican legislators. In the brief period when Democrats controlled the House, Lager gave them nearly $200,000. Since 2000, ECOT has received nearly $1 billion in state funds for its perennially failing school.

Think of it: an investment of only $2.1 million in campaign contributions generates nearly $1 billion in state funding for a low-performing school. What a bargain!

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Funding, Ohio, On-Line Education, Privatization, Virtual Charter Schools

A Free Book on Amazon That Explains the Plot to Privatize Public Schools

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
14

You can go to Amazon and click on this link to receive a free pdf of a 40-page report called “Who Controls Our Schools? The Privatization of American Public Education.”

It is up-to-date, concise, and well-written. It was prepared by Don Hazen, Elizabeth Hines, Steven Rosenfeld, and Stan Salett of THE INDEPENDENT MEDIA INSTITUTE.

If your friends and relatives don’t understand why you are worried about the future of public schools, share this document with them.

Here is the table of contents:

Introduction………………………………….

Analysis/Findings ……………………………..

2.1 How the School Privatization Industry Has Hijacked the Concept of Education Reform

2.2 How a Group of Billionaires Has Aggressively Pushed to Privatize the Public School System

2.3 How the Myth of “Failing Schools” Helped Spur
a Movement. . . One-Sided Propaganda Machine. . . . . . . . . . . ….

2.4 How a Lack of Transparency Undermines Schools
and Communities: Privatization in Action . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5 How Locally Elected School Boards and Democratic Governance Have Been Destroyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In Los Angeles, Pushing Charters,
by Every Means Necessary . . . . . . . . . . .. ……..

2.6 How the Legal Framework for Privatization
and Total Control Has Taken Hold. . . . . . . .. ……. .

2.7 How the Rapid Expansion of Privatized
Charters Is Pushed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ……..
Today’s Battlefront States . . . . . . . . . . . .. ……..

2.8 How to Take a Hard Look at Charter Schools
and Educational Outcomes: Rhetoric Is Not
the Same as Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……..

2.9 How Charters Create Self-Enrichment Schemes
and Crony Capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-Enrichment……. Nepotism … Corporate Profiteering . . . . . . . . .

2.10 How School Privatization Keeps Out Regulators
or Captures Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acknowledgments ………………………………

About the Authors ……………………………….

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Joan Goodman: How No-Excuses Charters Turn “Joy” into Drudgery

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2016 //
25

Joan Goodman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied no-excuses charter schools, notes that no-excuses charters are sensitive to complaints that their heavy emphasis on discipline is joyless. Therefore, many of them have now inserted “joy” into their curriculum or made it a part of their mission statement. True, students must obey the rules to a T, and they must remain silent in the halls, but there will definitely be a time and a place for “joy.” It shall be so.

She writes:

Uncommon Schools promotes *joy* as one of its five values; Democracy Prep advertises a *joyous culture* with enthusiasm as one of its DREAM values; Mastery lists *joy and humor* among its nine core values; and Achievement First includes the child’s joy in its assessments of student progress. Success Academy says that, along with rigor, its schools stress *humor (joy)…making achieving exhilarating and fun!* Meanwhile, KIPP includes joy’s close cousin, *zest,* as one of the seven character strengths on its Character Growth Card. Chicago’s Noble Network has likewise embraced *zest.* According to Doug Lemov, a major source of CMO pedagogy, the Joy Factor, one of his 49 essential techniques, is *a key driver not just of a happy classroom but of a high-achieving classroom…. people work harder…when their work is punctuated regularly by moment of exultation and joy.*

When I first began visiting no excuses schools, I was struck by the striking juxtaposition of teachers presiding over silent class periods during which children diligently followed instructions, only to interrupt them periodically with the demand for reciprocal clapping, rhymed motivational cheers, and choral responses that seemed more appropriate to an athletic or marching event than an academic environment. The effort of schools to whoop up excitement appeared artificial and disingenuous given the often tedious tasks students were assigned, and the passive/receptive role they were, for the most part, expected to assume.

The intentional artifice is particularly clear in teacher training videos, when leaders like Lemov, or Doug McCurry of Achievement First, talk about how teachers must be skilled at quickly turning arousal on and quickly turning it off so that it serves its purpose – aiding their academic objectives. Stimulating this shallow *joy* is, then, just another control technique designed to foster high achievement. Joy has become a *character strength,* like grit, because of the results it produces, not for its own sake.

To elicit joy, the CMOs use emotional arousal techniques such as choral chanting, finger snapping, and gestural sequences. For instance, to lend *sparkle* to a lesson, Lemov advocates the Vegas Technique. This entails breaks from instruction, as brief as 30 seconds, for a ritualized routine loosely associated with the lesson. Students might, for example, do an action-verb shimmy, clap a routine to accompany a pronoun, or perform a vocabulary word charade. Achievement First’s McCurry advises teachers to plan *joyous interludes* by using four chants accompanied with gestures and 10 cheers per class. One chant, for example, is: *hey hey hey, I feel all-right,* followed with a stomp. The phrase is repeated with two stomps, then three stomps and finished off with: *I feel motivated to learn. And graduate college.*

Does it strike you that there is something unnatural about a program that tells you when to feel joy? It rings a bell for me, but I don’t want to be too harsh. It reminds me of a trip I made to China many years ago, about 1986. The government arranged the schedule, and the first stop was a women’s prison. Our group was treated to a performance by prisoners who sang and danced about how joyful they felt because they were being socially rehabilitated. It was joy on command. There was no real joy. It was a performance.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Childhood, Education Industry, Privatization

Massachusetts Teachers Association Calls for SEC Investigation of Possible “Pay to Play” Scheme

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2016 //
15

The Massachusetts Teachers Association released this bulletin just now:

​For Immediate Release
​October 27, 2016

Contact: Steve Crawford, Crawford Strategies, 857-753-4132, steve@crawfordstrategies.com​
Teachers Call for SEC Investigation into Possible Pay-to-Play Scheme

BOSTON – Deeply troubled by campaign contributions from investment firms overseeing millions of dollars in teacher pension funds, the presidents of the two Massachusetts educators’ unions today are calling for an investigation by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and state authorities into a possible pay-to-play scheme involving large donors supporting Question 2, the charter school expansion question that will be on the November ballot in Massachusetts.

A report published today by the International Business Times reveals that management of eight financial firms has contributed more than $778,000 to groups backing Question 2. Together, these financial firms manage over $1.275 billion in state money.

“This is about the integrity of our pension investments and the integrity of our elections,” said Massachusetts Teachers Association President Barbara Madeloni. “We need an investigation to find out whether these firms are wielding inappropriate influence in state government.”

​
“These disclosures are an indication of the degree to which forces seeking to undermine our public schools are spending huge sums to promote Question 2,” Madeloni added.

The IBT report details the ways in which the investment industry circumvents federal rules designed to restrict financial executives from giving campaign cash to governors with the power to influence state pension business. Governor Charlie Baker is a leading proponent of Question 2. Earlier this week, he held a series of private meetings in New York with financial industry executives whose names remain undisclosed.

Although federal law does not cover money donated to the governor’s policy initiatives, executives whose firms are prohibited from donating directly to Baker are still able to give to the dark money groups backing Question 2. But questions need to be answered about the propriety of these donations.

Baker appoints three members of the state pension board.

“Retirees need to know that investment decisions are being made based on their financial security, not to curry favor with Governor Baker and his pension board appointees,” said Tom Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.

On Monday, Governor Baker addressed the members of the conservative, pro-charter Manhattan Institute about his work on Question 2. Paul Singer, chair of the Manhattan Institute’s Board of Trustees, is a major financial backer of charter school expansion around the nation. Singer also owns Elliott Capital Advisors, one of the hedge fund companies in which the state pension board invests its money.

###

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »