Archives for category: School Choice
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A Reader Sends a Comment to the US DOE about Regulating Charter Schools Program

By dianeravitch
April 5, 2022 //
1

A writer who identifies here as quickwrit sent a comment to the U.S. Department of Education commending it for the proposed regulation of the federal Charter Schools Program, which dispenses $440 million a year to start new charter schools or expand existing ones. During the Betsy DeVos years, she showered many millions of dollars on some of the nation’s largest charter chains. Some, like the IDEA chain in Texas, received more than $200 million to grow their brand. Back when the program started, its founders envisioned small mom-and-pop charters or teacher-led schools that needed some money to get started. What they did not envision was the Walmartization of schools into giant corporate chains.

CHARTER SCHOOL FRAUD: The impartial, non-political watchdog Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education has issued a report warning that so much taxpayer money is being skimmed away from America’s genuine public schools and pocketed by private corporate charter school operators that the IG investigation declared that: “Charter schools and their management organizations pose a potential risk to federal funds even as they threaten to fall short of meeting goals” because of financial fraud and their hidden ways for skimming of tax money into private pockets.

This is quickwrit’s message to the U.S. DOE:

There is NO SUCH THING as a “public charter school”. Charter school operators spend a lot of taxpayer money telling taxpayers that charter schools are “public” schools — but they are not. As the Supreme Courts of Washington State and New York State have ruled, charter schools are actually private schools because they fail to pass the minimum test for being genuine public schools: They aren’t run by school boards who are elected by, and therefore under the control of and accountable to voting taxpayers. All — ALL — charter schools are corporations run by private parties. Taxpayers have no say in how their tax dollars are spent in charter schools.

The Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) — which is funded by pro-charter organizations — has been conducting years-long research into the educational quality of charter schools. And yet even this charter-school-funded research center’s findings are that charter schools don’t do any better academically than genuine public schools. Moreover, CREDO reported that in the case of popular online charter schools, students actually lose ground in both reading and math — but online charter schools are the fastest-growing type of charter school because they make it easiest to skim away public tax dollars.

The racial resegregation of America’s school systems by the private charter school industry is so blatant and illegal that both the NAACP and ACLU have called for a stop to the formation of any more charter schools. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA summed it up, stating that charter schools are “a civil rights failure.” The catch-phrase “school choice” was concocted by racists following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling that required racial integration in public schools. After that, racist organizations used racist politicians to conduct a decades-long attack that underfunded public schools and crippled their ability to provide the full measure of education and to “prove” that public schools were “failing”. Public school “failure” is an issue manufactured by racists organizations and politicians.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2019/03/29/report-the-department-of-education-has-spent-1-billion-on-charter-school-waste-and-fraud/#ab1fbdb27b64

Please send your own comments to:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/14/2022-05463/proposed-priorities-requirements-definitions-and-selection-criteria-expanding-opportunity-through#open-comment

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, School Choice, Segregation

Washington Post Editorial Opposes New Regulations to Ban For-Profit Charters and Require Charters to Show Their Impact

By dianeravitch
April 3, 2022 //
25

The federal Charter Schools Program was launched in 1994 with a few million dollars, when the Clinton administration decided to offer funding for start-ups. At the time, there were few charter schools. In the early, idealistic days, charter enthusiasts asserted that charters would set lofty goals and close their doors if they didn’t meet them. They were sure that charters would be far better than public schools because they were free to hire and fire teachers.

Right-wingers jumped on the charter bandwagon as a way to undermine public schools and to bust teachers’ unions. In short order, a gaggle of billionaires decided that charter schools would succeed because they operated with minimal or no regulation, like a business.

What no one knew back in 1994 was that the charter industry would grow to be politically powerful, with its own lobbyists. No one knew that the “most successful” charter schools were those that excluded the students who might pull down their test scores. No one knew that for-profit entrepreneurs would set up or manage charter chains and make huge profits, mainly by their real estate deals. No one knew that one of the largest charter chains would be run by a Turkish imam. No one knew that charter schools would develop a very old-fashioned militaristic discipline that prescribed every detail of a student’s life in school. No one knew that the little program of 1994 would grow to $440 million a year, with much of it bestowed on deep-pocketed chains that had no need of federal money to expand. No one knew that charter schools would become a favorite recipient of big money from Wall Street hedge-fund managers and billionaires like Bill Gates, the Walton family, Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, John Arnold, Betsy DeVos, Reed Hastings, and many other billionaires and multi-millionaires. No one anticipated that by 2022, there would be 3.3 million students in more than 7,400 charter schools.

Perhaps most important, no one expected that charter schools, on average, would perform no better than public schools. And in many districts and states, such as Ohio, Nevada, and Texas, charter schools perform far worse than the public schools.

School choice has been a segregationist goal ever since the Brown Decision of 1954, when southern states created segregation academies and voucher plans to help white students escape from racial integration. It should be no surprise, then, to see that the same states that are passing laws to restrict discussion of racism, to ban teaching about sexuality and gender, and to censor books abut these topics are the same states that demand more charter schools. Coincidence? Not likely. These are culture war issues that rile the Republican base.

How strange then, given this background, that the Washington Post published an editorial opposing the Department of Education’s sensible and modest effort to impose new regulations on new charter schools that seek federal funding. The education editorial writer Jo-Ann Armao very likely wrote this editorial, since she has that beat. Armao was a cheerleader for Michelle Rhee when she was chancellor of the D.C. schools and imposed a reign of terror on the district’s professional staff, based on flawed theories of reform and leadership.

In the following editorial, she makes no effort to offer two sides of the charter issue (yes, there are two, maybe three or four sides). She writes a polemic that might have been cribbed from the press releases of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the amply endowed lobbyist for the industry. She gives no evidence that she has ever heard of the high closure rate (nearly 40%) of the charters that received federal funds from the Charter Schools Program. She seems unaware of the scores of scandals associated with the charter industry, or the number of charter founders who have been convicted of embezzlement. She doesn’t care about banning for-profit management from future grants. She thinks it’s just fine to set up new charters in communities where they are not needed or wanted. She seems unaware that the new regulations will not affect the 7,000 charters now in existence. Charters can still get start-up funding from Michael Bloomberg, the Waltons, or other privatizers. New charters can still be opened by for-profit entrepreneurs like Academica, but not with federal funds.

Here is the editorial, an echo of press releases written by Nina Rees of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (Rees previously worked at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, served as education advisor to Vice-President Dick Cheney, and worked for financier Michael Milken).

The editorial’s title is: “The Biden Administration’s Sneak Attack on Charter Schools.”

Advocates for public charter schools breathed easier last month when Congress approved $440 million for a program that helps pay for charter school start-up expenses. Unfortunately, their relief was short-lived. The Biden administration the next day proposed new rules for the program that discourage charter schools from applying for grants, a move that seems designed to squelch charter growth.


On March 11, a day after the funding passed, the Education Department issued 13 pages of proposed rules governing the 28-year-old federal Charter Schools Program, which funnels funds through state agencies to help charters with start-up expenses such as staff and technology. “Not a charter school fan” was Mr. Biden’s comment about these independent public schools during his 2020 presidential campaign, and the proposed requirements clearly reflect that antipathy.


The Biden administration claims that the proposed rules would ensure fiscal oversight and encourage collaboration between traditional public schools and charter schools. But the overwhelming view within the diverse charter school community is that the proposed rules would add onerous requirements that would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet and would scare off would-be applicants. Those most hurt would be single-site schools and schools led by rural, Black and Latino educators.

Consider, for example, the requirement that would-be applicants provide proof of community demand for charters, which hinged on whether there is over-enrollment in existing traditional public schools. Enrollment is down in many big-city school districts, which would mean likely rejection for any nonprofit seeking to open up a charter. “Traditional schools may be under-enrolled, but parents are looking for more than just a seat for their child. They want high quality seats,” said Nina Rees, president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.Hence the long waiting lists for charter school spots in cities with empty classrooms in traditional schools. Also problematic is the requirement that charters get a commitment of collaboration from a traditional public school. That’s like getting Walmart to promise to partner with the five-and-dime down the street.

The Biden administration surprised the charter school community by what charter advocates called a sneak attack. There was no consultation — as is generally the case with stakeholders when regulations are being drafted — and the public comment period before the rules become final ends April 14.The norm is generally at least two months.

The proposed changes, according to a spokesperson for the Education Department, are intended to better align the Charter Schools Program with the Biden-Harris administration’s priorities. “Not a charter fan,” Mr. Biden said, and so bureaucratic rulemaking is being used to sabotage a valuable program that has helped charters give parents school choice.

If you disagree with this editorial, as I do, please send a comment thanking the Department of Education for proposing to regulate a program that has spun out of control and urging them to approve the regulations. Give your reasons.

If you think that charter schools have no need for federal funding when so many billionaires open their wallets for them, if you think that your community has enough charter schools, if you think that public schools must be strengthened and improved, if you want to stop federal funding of for-profit entrepreneurs, if you are tired of funding schools that never open, please write to support the U.S. Department of Education’s reasonable proposal to regulate the federal Charter Schools Program.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Bloomberg, Michael, Broad Foundation, Censorship, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Corruption, Democracy, Democrats for Education Reform, Education Industry, For-Profit, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Privatization, Republicans, School Choice, U.S. Department of Education, Walton Foundation

Jennifer Berkshire Predicts that Some States Will “Phase Out” Public Schools

By dianeravitch
March 12, 2022 //
43

I’m posting again—this time with the link!

This interview with education journalist Jennifer Berkshire is worth reading. Good questions, sharp answers.

Shockingly, Berkshire predicts that several states will “phase out” public schools, presumably to be replaced by a smorgasbord of choices: charters, vouchers, online schooling, homeschooling, and more.

What do you think?

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Home Schooling, Online Education, School Choice, Vouchers

Charleston: The Power of Parents and Communities Blocked Privatization

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2022 //
6

The following article describes a victory for parents and communities, which blocked a privatization plan to close 23 schools. It appeared on “Parent Voices for Public Schools,” which is sponsored by the Network for Public Education.

What’s the best way to improve public education? That question, hotly contested in communities across the country, has prompted an intense debate in Charleston, SC, a thriving city that is experiencing a boom in growth and economic development and has in many ways become a symbol of the New South. But too often missing from these discussions are the voices or perspectives from individuals from within the actual communities who will be directly impacted or affected by policies to improve their neighborhood public schools. We rarely hear from the parents who rely on public schools to educate their children and even the actual young people themselves, particularly those old enough to articulate and discern what they would like to experience in terms of a quality public school education. While the community organizations putting forth proposals to improve or reform schools in the South Carolina Lowcountry may be well-intentioned, excluding parent and student voices is a critical omission.

The most recent example is the Coastal Community Foundation (CCF) and its Reimagine Schools Proposal. South Carolina legislators recently expanded the state’s “Schools of Innovation” law, which authorizes the takeover of individual schools by an unidentified “Innovation Management Organization” or IMO. CCF’s Reimagine Schools plan calls for these IMOs to manage some 23 struggling public schools in Charleston, all serving students of color from surrounding communities.

In Charleston, the Coastal Community Foundation looms large, managing nearly $300 million in assets. But what it doesn’t have is any proven track record working in PK-12 education, a major concern of local area groups engaged in public education advocacy, grassroots roots leadership, and other critical voices from within the community.

Just how CCF’s Reimagine Schools plan would address the critical issue of community involvement is also unclear. The proposal calls for the establishment of District Innovation Commissions consisting of consolidated and constituent school board members and as many as ten members from the community-at-large consisting of faith and business leaders and other stakeholders. But what entity will determine who these individuals will be? This is a critical question at a time when local area groups and grassroots organizers have been pushing for more community voice regarding the direction of Charleston’s public schools. These advocates are concerned that CCF and its allies are moving forward with a vision that is open to privatization and financial profits for vendors without receiving input from the community, including the parents who rely on the twenty-three schools that are to be ‘reimagined.’

Community voice isn’t just an abstraction. Parents, teachers, faith leaders, and other local stakeholders are at ground zero when it comes to truly understanding the educational needs of children in their communities and the challenges they face when it comes to receiving a quality education. Most importantly, they are not in the game to profit financially through contractual relationships with various outside vendors.

CCF’s Reimagine Schools proposal calls on the Charleston County School District’s consolidated school board to spend $32 million to support privatization schemes. Voices from within the community are calling for these funds to be invested directly into the district to support greater wraparound services for students and their parents, provide two teachers in every classroom and provide additional psychological services given the shortage nationally of qualified clinical psychologists working in PK-12 education. These are common-sense solutions that meet the needs of schools within the local community that elected leaders would be wise to consider.

Since CCF introduced Reimagine Schools late last year, pushback from community groups and public school advocates has been fierce. Recently the school board announced that the proposal is being tabled indefinitely, a response to pressure from grassroots organizers. While experience teaches us that we must remain vigilant, this was a huge victory for believers in public education.

Dr. Kendall Deas is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Race, Freedom, and Democratic Citizenship with the African American Studies Program and Institute for African American Research at the University of South Carolina. He is also the Director of the Quality Education Project, a community-based research organization in South Carolina committed to public education advocacy.

Categories Closing schools, Disruption, Education Industry, Parents, School Choice, South Carolina

No More Hot Air About Swedish Schools!

By dianeravitch
March 10, 2022 //
15

Sweden is debating the effects of its program for school privatization, which began under a conservative government in 1992.

The following article, translated from Swedish, was written by Lars Anell. Anell is an economist with a degree from the Stockholm School of Economics. He has worked at the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was head of the development agency SAREC 1980-83, and was on the Prime Minister’s Committee under Olof Palme. In the years 1994–2001, he was responsible for social issues at Volvo. He has also been chairman of FAS, the Research Council for Working Life and Social Sciences, as well as UN Ambassador and EU Ambassador. Lars Anell is currently Chairman of the Board of the Arena Group.”

The article has lessons for the U.S. First, the bold promises of privatization are seldom, if ever, realized. Second, once privatization takes root, its economic and political beneficiaries strongly defend it, regardless of the consequences for students and society.

Lars Anell writes:

The author of the book Barnexperimentet, Per Kornhall, wrote an article in Dagens Nyheter in 2012 under the heading The principle of a good school for everyone no longer applies in Sweden. He had then decided to leave the National Agency for Education but was formally still employed there – and realized that he had probably crossed the line of what an official should say in public. When he entered the coffee room on Monday morning, the employees raised a spontaneous applause. Those who worked with school issues knew that the activities no longer met the school law’s requirements for an equivalent school. But politically, nothing happened. There was no debate at all

There is a short narrative about how this came about. When joint-stock companies were allowed to run tax-financed schools in the early 1990s, they received compensation that corresponded to 85 percent of the municipal cost per student. An inquiry found this too generous and suggested a level of 75 percent. Instead, a Social Democratic government gave the school entrepreneurs more than what they could have dreamt of – 100 percent. This story is not entirely true. Many would probably say that it is misleading. On the other hand, it is obvious that no one thought about the consequences of allowing schools run for profit.

Stage 1

In September 1991, Ingvar Carlsson’s Social Democratic government commissioned the school director in Stockholm, Mr Sven-Åke Johansson, to investigate “certain issues concerning fees at independent schools.” At this time, there were no for-profit schools. The assignment essentially concerned Waldorf schools, Montessori-inspired and confessional schools that were largely financed by fees and parents’ voluntary efforts. In total, less than 1 percent of pupils with compulsory school attendance were in the schools affected.

The investigator emphasized that the basis for assessing student costs was shaky. Questionnaires were “incomplete and forms not properly filled in.” All schools concerned were dependent on extensive voluntary efforts, but “only a small number of schools in the survey have been able to assess this value.”

If you took the actual cost per pupil, it stayed at SEK 28,000 – 40 percent less than the municipal schools´ average cost. After trying to estimate the value of parents´ voluntary contributions, the investigator calculated that the student cost in independent schools was 13 percent lower.

An interesting aspect is that the investigator took a clear political position. The activities at the independent schools were characterized by a lack of money, low salaries and large non-profit efforts. “Now we notice,” writes the lone investigator, “a clear will to change these unfair conditions. The change is justified and positive. “

However, the investigator was bypassed by Carl Bildt´s right-of center government, which took office after the 1991 election. The new Minister of Education, Ms Beatrice Ask, proposed, in bill 1991/92:95, that municipalities should be allowed to reduce the compensation to private for-profit schools by 15 percent.

The investigator nevertheless completed his assignment and pointed out that the municipalities responsibility for the whole system justified a larger deduction. Most independent schools would fully cover their costs with a public subsidy of 75 – 85 percent of the municipal average cost. He also pointed out that the establishment of independent schools inevitably led to increased costs – especially for premises.

The central conclusion in this context is:

“The basic and statutory grant percentage for independent schools must be set so that competition between municipal and independent schools takes place on equal terms. According to my analysis, its lowest limit can then not exceed 75 percent of the municipality’s average cost per pupil.”

But this conclusion must be qualified. The investigator was tasked to design a system that would free non-profit schools from the obligation to charge fees to finance the activities. He also suggested that these schools should continue to be able to charge certain student fees.

Stage 2

The above-mentioned bill 1991/92:95 on Freedom of choice and independent schools is surprisingly short, which is due to the fact that there was no basis whatsoever to refer to. The ongoing inquiry is mentioned in passing but its report was not yet available. The dramatic change in the Swedish school system, unparalleled in the surrounding world, which this bill portended was not preceded by any preparation and was not met by any organized political opposition.

As said, one explanation is that there were no profit-driven schools yet – dreaming was allowed. And Swedish pupils still scored exceptionally well in international competition.

It is quite clear that Ms Ask, wanted to see more alternatives to the municipal school in order to increase the opportunity for students and parents to choose freely. This would also increase parental involvement and municipalities’ sensitivity to citizens’ wishes. Above all, there was a need for new ideas and pedagogical creativity. “It can be about parent cooperatives, focus on special subjects or schools in sparsely populated areas that can get a new chance under new leadership.” Ms Ask said that this would lead to “better incentives for cost-effectiveness” so that we get “a more efficient use of resources within the overall school system.”

She emphasizes commitments that independent schools can avoid (health care, school transport, home language teaching, especially resource-intensive students and the obligation to take care of students who have left an independent school) but still maintains that the student grant may not be reduced by more than 15 percent. But nowhere is it said that a municipality must adapt the grant to the independent school’s lower cost. It is worth adding that neither Mr Johansson’s 75 nor Ms Ask’s 85 percent are based on any reported analysis.

We must continue to keep in mind that this bill was presented when all independent schools were non-profit and still had the right to charge tuition fees. Ms Ask announces that she intends to return to the Riksdag in the matter. Bill 1991/92: 95 is therefore in many ways a signal of what is yet to come.

However, two sentences are worth remembering:

“My aim is to control the activities of independent schools as little as possible. At the same time, however, there are strong reasons to make it clear that, as they receive general grants similar to the public school system, they must not contribute to economic and social segregation “

The Bildt Government´s second bill on freedom of choice in schools (1992/93: 230) is a somewhat more comprehensive document that is based on an internal paper (Ds 1992: 115) and a public report on grants and student fees (SOU 1992: 38).

The paper dealt with opportunities to choose a school, financial conditions for independent upper secondary schools and opportunities to outsource all or part of an education to another principal. The proposal is that “municipalities and county councils may enter into agreements with a joint-stock company, a trading company, an economic association, a non-profit association or a foundation to perform some of the tasks for which the municipalities and county councils are responsible according to the Education Act.” However, the public responsibility for the school system may not be transferred. The municipality must have full control and a municipal employee must “perform some of the principal’s tasks that involve the exercise of authority, e.g. the issuance of grades. ” Swedish Employers´ Association and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities were in favor of outsourcing schools, but most other consultative bodies were negative. The National Audit Office pointed out that the memorandum did not contain any impact assessment or even a discussion of whether there was a need for contracting solutions.

In the above-mentioned public report, reference was made to the Riksdag decision that the minimum contribution to independent schools shall be 85 per cent of the municipality’s student costs. ” This means that “there is a risk that the independent schools will have more favorable conditions for running activities than the municipal schools.” To create equal conditions, the level should be 75 percent. Only a few of many institutions that provided comments (Nacka and Västerås municipalities and the National Association for Waldorf Pedagogy) wanted to keep a minimum contribution corresponding to 85 percent of the municipality’s own costs. Virtually everyone else wanted to reduce it to 75 percent – some municipalities (Haninge, Hudiksvall and Sundsvall) wanted to go even further. Several consultative bodies pointed to the risk that municipal schools will be disadvantaged.

The bill is interesting in several ways. The ideological attitude is that more independent schools is positive in all dimensions – above all, it leads to pedagogical renewal and increased freedom of choice – and problem-free for all concerned. Even increased bureaucracy is welcomed – “the municipal accounting systems have become more sophisticated when the municipalities have been forced to produce different types of costs and average costs for the school system.” The fact that parents and pupils will be forced “to make an active choice of school” is seen as progress. For some unknown reason it is asserted that competition between several principals is expected to give “the municipalities completely new opportunities to achieve coordination and synergy benefits.”

Against this background, it is interesting that the actual proposals are so timid. “I am not prepared to propose a general opportunity to outsource primary schools,” writes Ms Ask. However, it will be possible for the government to grant an application from a municipality to contract out a school to another principal.” As regards upper secondary schools, the area that will primarily be relevant is vocational training related to relevant companies. Education in economics, technology and aesthetic subjects may also be considered if the teaching has a “vocational character.” In other respects, special reasons are required for the government to approve an independent school.

Most surprising is that the principal and her duties cannot be relinquished. The municipality’s control is thus guaranteed by the requirement to appoint a head-master for independent schools. This means that the term grades are set by teachers, while the principal is responsible for the grade documents issued in the municipality’s name.

The consultative bodies’ solid support for lowering the minimum level for the student allowance to 75 per cent is rejected. But the only argument is that the decision of 85 percent was made less than a year ago.

This bill was written when the expansion of independent schools had begun. In just one year, the number of students had doubled. But there are no thoughts at all about what this development could lead to. The language is toned down. In the internal paper there was talk of joint-stock companies. The bill calls the contractors natural and legal persons and the word profit is never mentioned. But there was nothing that presaged the coming of a capitalist school market.

Stage 3

After the 1994 election, responsibility for the country’s education system again fell to a government led by Ingvar Carlsson. The first measure was to give municipalities the opportunity to reduce the student grant to independent schools by a maximum of 25 percent of their own average cost (Bill 1994/95: 157). The Minister of Education, Ms Ylva Johansson, bases this position entirely on the investigation Mr Johansson made three years earlier. Nothing is said about the risk that independent schools will still receive more than the full cost. The municipalities are not forced to stay at the minimum level.

One year later, in bill 1995/96: 200, the minimum level is replaced by the rule that a student in an independent school must receive a grant according to the same principles that apply to the municipality’s own schools based on the school’s commitment and students’ needs. This opens the way for a powerful overcompensation of independent schools.

The bill is based on two investigations. The report Equal education on equal terms is permeated, like all other documents from this time, by the notion that independent schools are a complement that enriches the municipal school system by increasing diversity and pedagogical creativity. Equal conditions for schools with different principals are seen as “a prerequisite for all parents and students to have freedom of choice and not just financially strong groups.”

The report emphasizes the teachers’ competence as a prerequisite for a school to be able to respond to the requirements of the School Act and the goals of the curriculum. No special admission principles should be applied, but the Education Act should not force an independent school to accept a student “if the reception would lead to significant organizational or financial problems.” The municipality’s contribution shall be based on “the school’s commitment and the students’ needs on the same grounds and according to the same principles” that apply to its own compulsory school. A municipality must be able to prevent the establishment of an independent school if it has “significant negative consequences for other students” or if it “can have serious effects on the municipality’s compulsory school activities as a whole.”

The report Independent upper secondary schools (SOU 1995: 113) initially states that independent schools often “received grants that were higher than the amounts prescribed by the government” and emphasized that equal conditions are a prerequisite for equivalent education. It is then determined that “nationally prescribed amounts” shall no longer occur. Municipalities must calculate the student allowance on the basis of the school’s actual costs, based on the school’s commitments and the students’ needs. The calculation shall be made on the same basis and according to the same principles that the municipality applies in terms of costs for students who attend a corresponding program in a municipal school. “

Bill 1995/96: 200 is dominated, like all other texts, by promises of a good and equal education for all students, regardless of where they live, socio-economic conditions and the school’s owner. This will be achieved through competition on equal terms between municipal and independent schools. “Diversity itself is positive and does not stand in opposition to equality and good quality. On the contrary, diversity is usually a prerequisite for development and pedagogical renewal.” Great emphasis is placed on the influence of parents and students over school and teaching, while the role of teachers is given a less prominent place.

Ms Johansson, followed the inquiry’s (SOU 1995:109) advice regarding the size of school fees. The current order was considered to have been too rigid. The proposal was thus that grants should be given “according to the same principles that are applied to the municipality’s own” schools “based on the school’s commitment and the students’ needs.” If the establishment of a school can have significant negative consequences for a municipality’s school system, the National Agency for Education may refuse to pay grants.

A key aspect that was only touched on by a few consultative bodies was that the municipalities have dual roles – they finance and compete with independent schools. Surely there was a risk that a municipality would favour its own schools? I do not see that Ms Johansson answered this question. The only thing said is “that the municipalities develop clear rules for their resource allocation that can be evaluated.”

This bill sets out the basics for calculating school fees, which does not mean that all schools should receive the same amount. According to the public report A common concern (SOU 2020: 46), however, an agreement with the Green Party led to the level of compensation being raised to 100 percent in 1997. This laid the foundation for the sharp overcompensation and competitive advantage for profit-driven schools that still applies.

It is worth mentioning that the Bildt government’s proposal was to outsource teaching. This indicates an agreement between the municipalities and the contractor in which the assignment to be performed is specified. The Social Democrats did not argue against the idea of independent schools but opposed it being done on a contract basis. In reality, the joint-stock companies that established themselves came to enjoy almost total freedom from oversight.

In the rearview mirror:

With the fragile authority of hindsight, it is easy to judge these bills, investigations and memoranda as clueless and vacuous – and full of hopes that proved pious. If you want to find a single insight into possible consequences, you have to look in the rich harvest of comments from consultative bodies – and even there they are thin on the ground. It must therefore be repeated that even in the mid-1990s, only a few percent of the students went to what could still be called independent schools. And most of them applied an alternative pedagogy. There were not yet any school companies with the venture capitalist’s required rate of return and tax domicile in Luxembourg.

It is only in the rearview mirror that we see that it was unfortunate to abandon the model with a recommended minimum level for grants to independent schools. Judging by the consultation responses to the report Grants and student fees (SOU 1992:38), there was solid support for a compensation level of 75 percent. The argument in Bill 1995/96:200 that it means “an overly rigid allocation of resources, without regard to the needs of the students or the commitment of the schools” is not true. It is not a standard rigidly applied but a guaranteed minimum level for the entrepreneur who wants to establish an independent school and takes into account the fact that municipalities have a greater and more costly responsibility. From this floor, municipalities have all the flexibility in the world to adapt the grant to the commitment of independent schools in addition to the minimum requirements.

Another fundamental condition is that the market to be exposed to competition is autonomous in the sense that effects do not spill over into the surrounding society. If we accept that human capital is a nation’s most important asset – a rule of thumb says that it is worth five times more than other physical production resources – then the school market is by far the least autonomous. This is also a reason to nationalize the school. The state has an extraordinarily strong reason to guarantee that that all young people receive a solid education and opportunities to realize their full potential. This incentive is not at all as strong in municipalities that lose all their young people to universities in larger cities.

Why did we not see it coming?

In fact, it should have been possible to see what would happen. It is extremely attractive to sell goods and services to public authorities. The customer is not only flushed with cash but legally obliged to buy; the cost of capital is low; it is easy to enter the market; the risk is almost non-existent; advance payment is common and the cost of product development is negligible. In the early 1990s, the “school market” in Sweden was opened to virtually anyone who could rent a square room for thirty students. The state abdicated and during the first fifteen years, in practice, all applicants were approved.

The main players in this market were municipalities; a number of companies of varying size that ran schools for profit as well as students and parents who were free to choose school. Students brought with them a voucher of a fixed value. Crucial to the success of private actors was therefore to fill the classrooms. They could choose between two strategies. The hope expressed in the government’s bills was that they would invest in high quality and pedagogical renewal at the same time as competition would guarantee a wise management of resources. This strategy requires investment over a longer period of time. The company must be able to recruit the best teachers; provide attractive premises; have a well-equipped library and access to various types of support staff. It may work, but it requires at least two things. There must be an independent body that evaluates and informs about the high quality and customers must demand a good education and not primarily be interested in good grades. A faster way is to keep costs down. If this strategy is chosen, the quality-adjusted teacher density will be lower; the school library may be missing; premises and schoolyards are less efficient and the nurse is seldom seen. The most important thing for frugal school entrepreneurs is to be able to select students. If it succeeds, the dividend will be doubled. Caring and problem-free students with highly educated parents create an attractive study environment that attracts other students and teachers while keeping costs down. A troubled boy with reading and writing difficulties costs more than school fees. For a school that invests in reducing costs, it becomes almost inevitable to dog-whistle that high grades can be obtained without too much work.

That competition would lead to grade inflation should not have come as a surprise. It arises in all markets where schools have a financial incentive to compete for students. This is very true for many American universities. Michael Parkin states in his textbook Macroeconomics that “grade inflation, well documented in many schools, is particularly characteristic of Ivy League universities.” The cost of studying at the top universities is very high. It is then natural that the customer wants value for money and the universities have every reason to oblige. At Princeton, the situation became so alarming that management was forced to decide that only a third of the students could be considered for the highest grade. It is actually quite obvious that schools-for-profit will provide high grades if that is what the customer demands. Swedish parents and students are very keen to get good grades – they may be worth millions – and Swedish for-profit schools have at least as strong arguments as American universities to satisfy the customer’s wishes. However, we are alone in letting the taxpayer foot the bill.

If high grades become a desirable benefit for students and parents (regardless of whether they reflect knowledge and skills), we should expect that this demand is primarily met in municipalities where private and municipal schools compete. Profit-driven schools must fill the classrooms and the municipal ones must keep up. The high grades are then not necessarily a result of increased knowledge but of the competition itself. The effect is likely to be visibly greater in upper secondary schools than in primary schools.

We can now see the results. The quality-adjusted teacher density is and has always been much higher in municipal schools and the difference is greatest at upper secondary school level. The cost of students is clearly lower in schools run by joint-stock companies. These companies have been extremely successful in selecting students from socio-economically strong backgrounds. Admission on the basis of queuing time practically excludes newly arrived young people.

High school diplomas are worth many millions because they provide access to attractive higher education. All indications show that parents and students prioritize grades over education and educational experiments. Children of highly educated parents manage even if the school’s teaching is mediocre. Teachers complain about late evening calls from aggressive parents. Complaints are almost always about grades – rarely about substandard education. It is therefore inevitable that competition drives joy ratings. At the same time as Swedish students’ performance according to all measurements has fallen since the mid-1990s, the grades have skyrocketed. The tendency to give joy ratings is greater in profit-driven schools and in municipalities where competition with municipal schools is stronger.

When the state handed over the responsibility of education to the municipalities, several school politicians warned of what would happen. What no one seems to have expected is that many municipal politicians would abandon their own schools and wholeheartedly invest in attracting profit-driven schools to establish themselves. The large school groups, especially the International English School, have not only been overcompensated by the regular school fees. In many cases, they have also received bespoke subsidies from municipalities.

Who gets the money and what did we get for it?

Despite the fact that schools run by joint-stock companies since almost thirty years have received 10 – 25 percent more than they have earned, they apparently have a hard time making ends meet. The standard answer from the National Association of Independent Schools is that the profit margin is a modest 3,5 percent. This is reminiscent of the old story of the CEO who asked his auditor what the profit was and got the counter-question: What do you want it to be? When Mr Ilmar Reepalu was commissioned to investigate a profit ceiling of 7 percent, we were told that the industry would wither away if this became a reality. The finance company in Luxembourg, Paradigm Capital, which in 2020 bought out the International English School from the stock exchange for just over SEK 3 billion, is not known for investing in low-yielding assets. The capital that forms the basis for the percentage is a highly malleable entity. The traditional way to hide an uncomfortably large profit is to buy services from other companies in the group (which are often in a more attractive tax jurisdiction) at a premium. For instance, school companies can pay high rents for the premises they have in many cases acquired for a song from a friendly-minded municipality. High executive salaries also lower profits. Managers in private companies have a remuneration that the country’s prime minister does not even dare to dream of. Ann-Marie Lindgren reports, in her well-documented paper Every wasted tax crown, that the CEO salaries in the six largest health and care companies in 2019 averaged 7 million or 580,000 a month. In the same year, the directors general who led three authorities with supervisory responsibility for healthcare (the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Swedish Public Health Agency and the Swedish Health and Care Inspectorate) together received a monthly salary of approximately 370,000.

We can also be sure that the money does not go to high teacher salaries and student care. In both these respects, private schools have clearly lower costs. Many municipalities have also used the opportunity to subsidize rents. Mr Tobias Johansson-Berg, professor of business administration, has recently suggested that instead of limiting profits, school companies should open their books and openly show what money is used for.

But more important, of course, is the added value we are promised as a result of competition between municipal schools and those run as joint-stock companies. The award-winning journalist Mr Kristoffer Örstadius has for several years studied results and grades in Swedish schools. In a popular article, he anonymised some schools’ PISA results and was able to show that the students in the acclaimed English school in Bromma had clearly worse results in mathematics than those who went to the municipal low-performing Petrus Magni school in Vadstena – but the girls and boys in Bromma received better grades. His latest fact-checked article in Dagens Nyheter (2022-02-18) is mainly about primary schools and is based on a comparison between the schools’ final grades and the national tests. It then turns out that “the grades are…systematically more generous in independent schools than in municipal schools. The difference is significant in all school subjects with national tests except Swedish” An interesting circumstance is that the independent schools that are run as joint-stock companies are more likely to give joy ratings than those that are run in the form of foundations. It is also clear that national tests have a restraining effect. In uncontrolled subjects such as art, music and home economics, all inhibitions are thrown to the winds as far as grade inflation is concerned in private schools – especially in the three largest groups.

Örstadius refers to several studies that show that independent upper secondary schools give more generous grades than municipal ones. But despite its lower grade point average, “municipal” students perform better in the first year of university than students from high schools that are run as joint-stock companies. This is in line with the conclusion of a study from the National Agency for Education, From upper secondary school to university, which studied the students who went directly from high schools to the university in the academic year 2014/15:

“The students who have attended an independent upper secondary school have lower performance – despite the fact that this group generally has slightly higher grades from upper secondary school. This difference applies to students at different levels of grade points, and to each of the college preparatory programs.”

The School Commission stated, like many others, that the Swedish schools no longer provide equivalent education for all pupils. Above all, the young people who have the worst conditions have been left in the lurch. The growing segregation is essentially due to other factors, but the promised reduction has not materialized. That competition would contribute to cooperation and synergy was never credible. Home and School associations no longer have a meaningful role in municipalities with a fragmented school system. The pedagogical renewal is not visible. If we accept that higher education credits are an adequate way of measuring the quality of the school, the experiment that began in 1991/92 seems to have produced negative added value.

Towards a brighter future?

The legal institution of limited companies was created in order to give entrepreneurs the opportunity to run profitable businesses with limited personal risk. As long as we allow these companies to sell educational services in Sweden, it will be difficult and expensive to steer development in the right direction with rules and controls. The incentives to provide customers with joy ratings and keep costs down by choosing “cheap” students are compellingly strong. When the “children’s experiment” (Barnexperimentet) began shortly after the school was communalized, the state largely relinquished responsibility for the activities. For a short time, even the activities of private schools were classified. As the need for transparency and control increases, a chorus of teachers testifies to the documentation hysteria that has befallen them.

Nationalizing the school is a step in the right direction, even if part of the business is still run by profit-motivated joint-stock companies. Education from an early age to university studies is society’s most important “production” of genuine public benefit. As shown, the state has a clearly stronger interest than municipalities in giving students a solid foundation for a future professional career and competence to pursue university studies. No matter how a grant system is designed, it must be equal in all municipalities according to the Education Act.

It is of course possible to let university entrance exams determine who gets admission to university studies. However, it will be expensive and opportunistic. The training would focus on passing a test. But above all, we would lose the information value of the grades. An old-fashioned high school diploma – a teacher’s assessment after following their students for three years – has proved to be an excellent and broad proof of competence. The focus should preferably be on strengthening the legitimacy of the grades.

Magnus Henrekson et. al. mention, in the book Kunskapssyn och pedagogi the possibility of having anonymised tests corrected by independent assessors. One such system – the International Baccalaurate Diploma Program – is available in 127 countries and offers tuition at 30 upper secondary schools in Sweden. It is expensive but possible.

Penalty fees against schools that obviously issue joy grades are not appealing. Neither is it possible to tolerate that some schools raise the grades and steal university places from young people who have earned them. In a state system, it would be easier to solve this problem for the simple reason that the state really wants to do something about it.

A simpler alternative is to set the minimum subsidy at 75 percent of the average municipal school fee (it was enough once upon a time) and pay private schools for reported extra costs. This would require the open accounting of the school groups that professor Johansson-Berg advocates.

All these proposals will be met with furious criticism from the school groups’ advocates. It is then important to remember that the experiment was never aimed at creating profitable joint-stock companies that ran schools, but at developing a school system that give all children and young people a chance to “realize the desire of their best moods.”

The program that the present Minister of Education, Ms Lina Axelsson Kihlbom, recently announced is very promising. It addresses a number of issues. Student admission should be fair. The school’s focus on knowledge must be strengthened. We will have better conditions for security and study peace – and the teachers will decide in the classroom. Municipalities should be given the opportunity to reduce the compensation to profit-driven schools because they have a lower cost responsibility. It is all well and good but what happens if municipalities want to overcompensate the school groups?

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Equity, International, School Choice

NEPC: School Choice Does Not Produce Equity

By dianeravitch
March 6, 2022 //
21

The National Education Policy Center reviewed a report about the relationship between school choice and equity. Basically, equity is an afterthought, not a goal.

Rhetorically, school choice advocates regularly claim that these policies advance equity. Yet a new research report of school choice policies in five geographically and demographically diverse states found that equity has been little more than an afterthought in the development and implementation of these policies.

The study is based on interviews conducted with 58 state policymakers and experts in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Oregon. The states were selected with an eye to including a diverse set of geographic, demographic, and school choice policy settings.

Authored by NEPC Fellow Katrina Bulkley of Montclair State University in New Jersey, and by Julie A. Marsh and Laura Mulfinger of the University of Southern California, the report, States Can Play a Stronger Role in Promoting Equity and Access in School Choice, was published in December by the National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice (REACH) at Tulane University in Louisiana.

The researchers found that, rather than equity, lawmakers in the five states emphasized factors such as local control, innovation, efficiency, and parental freedom when designing school choice policies.

These policies have a predictable impact. “A very large number of the charter schools in Colorado serve and explicitly are designed to serve middle-class or even upper middle-class students,” a staff person with the Colorado School Boards Association told the authors of the report.

There are more than a handful who are, for all practical purposes, college prep programs for high-income families. And out of the way we’ve written our laws and the way they’re structured, there’s no reason for them not to do that.

Although the researchers found that state choice policies were neither created with equity in mind nor consistently made more equitable over time, they did suggest several steps that policymakers throughout the United States can take in order to make school choice more accessible, and perhaps therefore more equitable.

  • Accountability: Schools of choice—including charter and voucher schools—should be held accountable for, and incentivized in the direction of, providing high-quality options to historically underserved student populations that too often encounter limited or low-quality school options in or near the neighborhoods where they live.
  • Information: The researchers found that information on schools of choice and school choice policies can be difficult to find and understand. This information needs to be widely available and comprehensible.
  • Enrollment: Burdensome enrollment processes can shut out students from historically underserved groups. States should step in to ensure that this is not the case. The researchers positively highlight a policy in Oregon that financially incentivizes schools of choice to enroll students from underserved populations.
  • Teaching: States should promote teacher quality measures for all schools of choice while also acknowledging the need for teachers who understand culturally relevant pedagogy and other measures designed to serve students from underserved populations.
  • Transportation: Families are often required to provide their own transportation to schools of choice. This can effectively shut out lower-income students whose parents lack the means to help them get to and from school.

These recommendations align with some of those offered in the new book, School’s Choice: How Charter Schools Control Access and Shape Enrollment, by Wagma Mommandi and Kevin Welner. Yet addressing accessibility within school choice systems is best thought of necessary but not sufficient for reaching larger education-equity goals, which must be focused on children’s actual experiences in school as well as the health of the overall system of choice schools and neighborhood public schools.NEPC Resources on School Choice ->

Categories Education Industry, Equity, School Choice

Georgia: School Choice Flyer Funded by DeVos Backfires

By dianeravitch
March 3, 2022 //
11

The Georgia branch of Betsy DeVos’ American Federation for Children made a mass mailing to voters in Republican districts urging them to fight against the “radical left” agenda of President Biden, Kamala Harris, and Stacey Abrams, which denies school choice.

It backfired.

A national advocacy group promoting school vouchers bombarded conservative Georgia voters with glossy mailers tying Republican state legislators from their districts to Stacey Abrams and other “radical left” figures. It backfired in spectacular fashion.

Just days after the American Federation for Children financed the mailers in at least 16 Republican-controlled legislative districts, House Speaker David Ralston told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the voucher proposal the group sought to pass is dead for the year.

“I am livid. I’ve been around politics for a long time, but this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in my career, and one of the most deceitful,” Ralston said. “These are people we have tried to help over the years, and they turned to attack us very viciously.”

Ralston added: “That voucher legislation will not move at all in the Georgia House of Representatives this year, period.”

The mailers were sent by the Washington-based group to back proposals that would give public school students what it calls “Promise Scholarships,” a state subsidy of about $6,000 a year to help cover private school tuition.

The measures had gained early traction in House committees…

The aggressive strategy was meant to pressure legislators to end a yearslong feud over public funding of private education in Georgia. Instead, the Capitol’s halls buzzed Tuesday with incredulous GOP lawmakers infuriated by the group’s approach.

“It’s very disappointing that this group is targeting lawmakers in the middle of the deliberative process,” said state Rep.

Categories Education Industry, Georgia, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers

John Oliver Explains the Link Between “Critical Race Theory” and School Choice

By dianeravitch
February 23, 2022 //
50

John Oliver explained the Republican hysteria over “critical race theory.” At bottom, as he shows, the GOP goal is to persuade parents to escape “CRT” by abandoning their local public schools and enrolling in charter schools or seeking vouchers. The leading anti-CRT crusader, Chris Rufo, made this linkage explicit, as Oliver demonstrates, as did Betsy DeVos. The big money supporting the anti-CRT campaign is coming from the same people funding school choice. And, as Oliver explains, “school choice” has its roots in the fight to block school desegregation in the 1950s.

The fight against CRT is being used to silence any teaching about racism today. Teachers are supposed to teach slavery and racism as a strange aberration from our founding principles and to pretend that it no longer exists.

But if it really were the terrifying problem that people like Rufo describe, why was there no uprising against it in the past 40 years? Why didn’t George W. Bush speak up about CRT? WhY was Trump silent about it until 2020? Why now? Is it mere coincidence that the anti-CRT madness took off after the murder of George Floyd and the nationwide protests against racism?

Categories Bigotry, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Fake News, Fraud, History, Lies, Privatization, Race, Racism, School Choice, Vouchers

Watch Nancy MacLean and Me Discuss the Rightwing Attacks on Public Schools

By dianeravitch
February 20, 2022 //
55

On February 3, Duke University historian Nancy MacLean and I held a Zoom conversation called “Public Education in Chains,” about the nefarious conspiracy to undermine and privatize our public schools. The discussion was sponsored by Public Funds Public Schools and the Network for Public Education.

Dr. MacLean is the author of many books, including the brilliant Democracy in Chains: The DeepHistory of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.

We discussed the historical origins of the movement, calling out the privatizers as a combination of libertarians, anti-government ideologues, the radical right, segregationists, and rightwing evangelicals, funded by billionaires who hate taxes, public institutions, and unions. Their movement threatens not only public schools but our democracy.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Democracy, Education Industry, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers

“Left Behind: The Unintended Consequences of School Choice”: Kids with toughest hurdles stuck in gutted schools

By dianeravitch
February 7, 2022 //
56

Jennifer Hawes Berry of the Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, wrote this account of a Charleston high school struggling to improve and raise its graduation rate, even as its enrollment dwindles in the era of school choice. The main effect of school choice seems to be the damage inflicted on the local public high school. The original story was published in 2015 and updated in 2020.

She writes:

Once a powerhouse Class AAAA school, North Charleston High can barely field sports teams anymore. Half of its classrooms sit empty. Saddled with a reputation for fights, drugs, gangs and students who can’t learn, middle-class families no longer give it a chance.

This is the unintended consequence of school choice.

Two-thirds of students in its attendance zone now flee to myriad magnets, charters and other school choices that beckon the brightest and most motivated from schools like this one.

But not all can leave, not those without cars or parents able to navigate their complex options. Concentrated poverty is left behind. So is a persistent “At Risk” rating from the state…

Berry writes about the senior prom. Before “choice” drained the school of students, the prom drew 250 graduates. Now only about 60 attend.

She writes:

Fresh from jail, the 17-year-old has been at North Charleston High for six days. Principal Robert Grimm fought enrolling the teen given he came with an armed robbery conviction.

A district official said: You have to.

So, the new kid walked into the glass front doors and down the cinder block hallways, bringing with him only a handful of credits and a rap sheet.

Six days later, as students surge into the hallways during a morning class change, he starts shouting and bumping into another boy on the third floor.

Assistant Principal Vanessa Denney responds to the call for help. An ebony-haired Jersey girl, this is her first year at the school. She rushes toward the teens, fueled by an instinct to protect.

But the new kid crosses an invisible and clearly understood line.

With both hands, he shoves her down onto the floor hard enough to leave bruises. Denney doesn’t top 5 feet in stilettos. He outweighs her by 50 pounds.

Other students hurry over to help. Rodrik Rodriguez, the school’s burly North Charleston police officer, barrels in. He orders the student to calm down.

The 17-year-old doesn’t calm down. Rodriguez arrests him.

Then the teen crosses another clear line: He threatens to come back and shoot the officer, Rodriguez writes in a police report. “Watch what happens when I get back. I’m going to straight drop you, brah.”

New charges accompany the teen’s return to jail: threatening the life of a public official and second-degree assault and battery. He faces prison time, if convicted, and expulsion.

So the 17-year-old who Grimm didn’t want to enroll, who arrived with few credits and stayed six days, may wind up counting as a non-graduate on North Charleston High’s critical graduation rate.

The numbers game

It’s Wednesday morning, when several North Charleston High staffers will gather around an oval conference table next to Grimm’s office to tackle an onerous task: scouring the list of students who will count as dropouts because they have vanished from these hallways.

Every name is critical.

When a graduating class has fewer than 100 students, each one is crucial to that all-important number on the state report card: THE GRADUATION RATE.

With the seniors set to cross the stage in a month, time is running out to find students who last enrolled here but might be going to school elsewhere — or who could be persuaded to come back and finish high school.

Denney sits in her office poring over a roster of students counted as enrolled at the school. An educator turned detective, she must track down those whose names show up on the list but whose bodies aren’t warming a classroom seat.

If she can prove the teens are enrolled somewhere else, North Charleston High can scratch them from its rolls — and boost its graduation rate. If not, they count.

Report in hand, Denney heads downstairs to a conference room beside Grimm’s office, joining Data Clerk Kathleen Luciano.

Grimm huffs in, radiating ire.

A parent scheduled to meet with him didn’t show up. For the seventh time. And he’s just learned that two new students have appeared on the school’s non-graduate list. Both enrolled here as freshmen, then never stepped foot on campus.

Because North Charleston High has become so small — school choice drained 700 students from its halls this year alone — every student who shows up on that roster but doesn’t graduate in four years drags the school’s graduation rate down more than 1 percent.

Now he fears they’ll look like two more dropouts on the school’s graduation rate this year.

Grimm grabs his cell phone, dials the school district offices and makes his case.

“But she never stepped foot on this campus!” he insists.

As of today, the school has 84 students who should be seniors and graduate this year.

Of those, 58 likely will cross the stage in a month. Another 12 are self-contained special education students who are unable to pursue traditional diplomas. Yet they will count as non-graduates on North Charleston High’s state report card because rules about treatment of children with disabilities require all students be calculated alike.

But it means that this school, which has the highest percentage of special education students of all high schools in Charleston County, can achieve at most a 77 percent graduation rate, still below the district’s goal, even if every other student here graduates in four years.

The state likely will give it closer to 66 percent.

That’s because, as of this meeting, 14 students who should be crossing the stage are God knows where instead.

Denney recently found one should-be senior on Facebook posting photos of herself partying at clubs, new baby at home. Another earned a GED — but will count as a non-graduate per state reporting rules. One is in a psychiatric hospital refusing to do school work.

Then there is the 17-year-old charged with assaulting Denney. Another new student just was arrested for two gun violations in his neighborhood. Both likely will be expelled. Both could spend time in prison.

A student peeks into the conference room door. He just arrived at school, an hour late because he relies on a CARTA bus. He just moved — again — this time to live with an older sister.

But at least he is here, heading to a classroom.

Categories Discipline and Suspensions, Disruption, Graduation rates, School Choice, South Carolina
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »