Archives for category: School Choice

Derek Black, a Law professor at the University of South Carolina, attended the Network for Public Education conference in Indianapolis and left convinced that the privatization movement is not going to survive.

Read it all. It is an uplifting take on the future.

He writes:

Why am I suddenly confident, rather than nervous, about charters and vouchers? I got the chance to meet and listen to teachers from across the country at the Network for Public Education’s annual conference in Indianapolis this past weekend. For the first time in my professional career, I had a firm sense of public education’s future. I have litigated and participated in several civil rights and school funding cases, dealt with lots of different advocates, and watched closely as the teacher protests unfolded this spring. In Indianapolis, I saw something special—something I had never seen before.

I saw a broad based education movement led not by elites, scholars, or politicians, but everyday people. Those everyday people were teachers who were not just from big cities, small cities, suburbs, or the countryside, but from all of those places and as diverse as America’s fifty states and ten thousand school districts. The teachers weren’t just young or old, white, black or brown, men or women, straight or gay. They were all of the above.

So what then binds them together? Their opponents would say they are radicals or self-interested. But these teachers weren’t that either. As I sat down across the table and listened, I was struck by just how “every day” many of these teachers were. They had hopped on planes and come from across the country, but they were not any different from my kids’ teachers back in South Carolina–who had not even hinted at the possibility of a strike.

These movement “leaders” in Indianapolis were reluctant leaders. Like my kids’ teachers, these teachers struck me as the type who put their heads down, follow the rules, teach what the state asks, and care most of all about their students. And while these teachers were obviously disappointed in their states and concerned about the future of public education, I wouldn’t even call them mad. They stepped out on a ledge because they felt they had to.

One teacher, whom I recognized from this past spring’s newspapers but won’t name, actually had a lot of good things to say about her teaching experience and school. She said her principal lets her teach how and what she wants and that her school is good place. If I did not know who she was, you could not have convinced me that she led thousands of teachers this past spring.

There is one stereotype, however, that fits these teachers well: studiousness. They read—a lot. They research—a lot. As a result, they know and keep track of stuff that normally only policy wonks and professors know. Details matter in education policy and these teachers were on top of them. If I were governor and starting a new watchdog agency—whether in education or some other area—these teachers are some of the first people I would hire.

Over time, I have come to realize that clients matter more than attorneys. Groups of committed individuals standing behind movement leaders are, as often as not, more important than leaders. Attorneys and leaders tend to be just vessels for something larger than themselves.

What makes this teacher movement special is that the leaders are also the followers. The leaders come from within the ranks, not urged on by outsiders, elites, or money. They are urged on by their own sense of right and wrong, by their heartfelt care for public education and the kids its serves. For those reasons, they won’t be going away, bought off, or fatigued any time soon.

This article by Tom Ultican tells the sordid story of rich elites who have cynically decided to destroy public education in San Antonio.

They have cumulatively raised at least $200 million to attract charter operators to San Antonio, a figure which includes funding by the U.S. Department of Education and local plutocrats. The lead figure is a very wealthy woman named Victoria Rico, who sits on the boards of multiple charter chains. Rico and her friends have decided to re-engineer and privatize public education in San Antonio. Rico is working closely with Dan Patrick, the State’s lieutenant governor, who loves vouchers, hates public schools, and was the Rush Limbaugh of Texas before winning election to the State Senate.

Was there a vote taken in San Antonio? No. Was the public asked whether they wanted to abandon public education? Of course not. The titans don’t believe in democracy. They know what’s best for other people’s children.

They have hired a superintendent, Pedro Martinez, who was “trained” by the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy, which encourages school closures, privatization, and top-down management. Martinez has worked in school districts but was never a teacher or a principal and apparently knows nothing about pedagogy. Martinez is a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, which promotes privatization and technology in the classroom. He is also a big fan of the faux Relay “Graduate School of Education,” which specializes in charter teachers training new teachers for charter schools and has no professors or research programs.

As a native Texan, this whole deal made me physically ill. It stinks to high heaven. Everyone facilitating this private takeover of public schools should be ashamed of themselves.

They are not “doing it for the children.” They are doing it for their own egos. There are more failing charter schools than failing public schools. What right do they have to destroy the public schools of San Antonio? Who elected them? They have won plaudits from Betsy DeVos, the Koch brothers, and ALEC. They should be held accountable for their assault on democracy. I noticed that the Texas philanthropist Charles Butt refused to participate in this unholy cabal; he prefers to invest his fortune in supporting public schools.

I take this opportunity to name Victoria Rico, Pedro Martinez, and all their rightwing enablers to the Wall of Shame.

Andrew Gillum is an exciting new face in the Democratic party. He has pledged to reverse the damage inflicted on Florida’s infrastructure and education if he is elected Governor.

I am happy to endorse Gillum!

Here are good reasons to change the leadership of the state:

1. The Republican party has inflicted pain on the public school system and its teachers. They have enacted very loose charter laws and voucher laws. Florida has three different voucher programs, despite the fact that vouchers are specifically banned in the State Constitution, and despite the fact that voters rejected an effort to change the State Constitution to allow vouchers in 2012. The legislature and the governor have given away hundreds of millions of dollars to private and religious and charter schools, which have minimal accountability. They have enacted laws to judge teachers by test scores, even though this method has been proven ineffective and harmful in Florida and everywhere else.

2. The Republicans have run the state like their private candy store, bestowing millions on charter chains owned by their family and friends and ignoring rampant corruption via real estate deals in the venal charter industry.

3. The Republican party is the party of climate change denial. The current governor, Rick Scott, now running for the Senate, is a prominent denier of climate change, even though Florida is ecologically fragile. See this article in Politico, which shows the green slime that is infiltrating the state’s waterways. Scott is notorious for ignoring the environmental damage caused by his policies.

Vote for Bill Nelson for Senator and Andrew Gillum for Governor.

Andrew Gillum is a good man with solid experience as Mayor of Tallahassee.

Florida has a chance to start fresh and break free of the grip of the greed hogs now running the state and destroying its education system and its environment.

Vote for Andrew Gillum!

This is the portrait of “choice” in Detroit.

It is a disaster for children. They constantly change schools.

There are 31 students in class 8B in Bethune Middle School. Collectively, these students have attended 128 schools.

Their parents choose and choose and choose.

Most students have attended four or five different schools by the time they are in eighth grade.

Does anyone believe this instability, disruption, and churn are good for children?

Here is Jan Resseger’s commentary: She says that choice “accelerates student mobility, stresses educators, and undermines education.” As the embedded article shows, the more frequently students change schools by eighth grade, the lower their scores on the state’s annual tests.

Is it helpful to have no long-term, reliable relationships with friends or teachers?

Would Betsy DeVos do this to her children?

What do you think?

The virtual charter industry is booming in Michigan, despite its abysmal performance.

Michigan, DeVos’s home state, has outsourced its education system as much as possible to for-profit entrepreneurs. Michigan is the only state where 80% of charters are operated by for-profit corporations.

http://www.wkar.org/post/study-virtual-schools-growing-mi-despite-poor-outcomes#stream/0

According to this report, one-quarter of the 101,000 students attending virtual charters did not pass a single class.

The graduation rate is far below that of public schools.

Michigan’s standing on NAEP has fallen to the bottom 10 since the widespread adoption of school choice.

Michigan is an exemplar of PROFITS MATTER, NOT EDUCATION.

Sue Legg is a retired assessment and evaluation expert who worked for three decades at the Florida Department of Education; she is past president of the Alachua County (Florida) League of Women Voters.

She writes:

>Amendment 8 Behind the Scenes: Political ideology, religion, dark money, billionaires, and of course, the money trail

Florida’s 652 charters run the gamut from small ‘mom and pop’ charters to large chains organized by for-profit management companies. Some serve children and districts well. Many others tell different stories. They involve not only political ideology but also religion, dark money networks, billionaires, and of course, self-interest.

The Erika Donalds version of the charter story starts simply. A small group of members seceded from the Florida School Boards Association (FSBA) in 2015 to form the Florida Coalition of School Board Members (FCSBM). Erika Donalds, a member of the Collier County school board and wife of Florida Representative Byron Donalds, fronts this coalition, but the political network behind it is extensive. It goes all the way to our nation’s capital.

About 14 of the 50 alternative school board association members have been publicly identified, including:

Rebecca Negron, who has just been defeated for a seat on the Martin County school board even though her supporters raised over $250,000 to unsuccessfully attack her opponent. She is the wife of Senate President Joe Negron. Senator Negron wrote the initial legislation for the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program to give corporate taxes to private schools.

Some FCSBM members also have strong dark money ties to national conservative political advocacy groups.

Erika Donalds openly displays the Americans for Prosperity logo on her Collier 912 Freedom Council website. This is a tea party group supported by the Koch brothers and others.

In the March 29, 2018, article in the Tampa Bay Times, Speaker of the Florida House Richard Corcoran’s wife Ann, who operates her own charter school, is identified.

Shawn Frost, who is Chair of the Indian River school board, is part of this coalition.

He announced in the Indian River Guardian that he expects to be appointed to the Florida State Board of Education. Frost reported campaign contributions from Betsy DeVos, the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Education. In 2014, Frost received $20,000 in campaign contributions from the American Federation of Children run by Betsy DeVos. Frost lives in Vero Beach, but maintains a room in his father’s house in Indian River to meet the residence requirements for being on the school board. He is also the head of MVP Strategy and Policy which specializes in consulting for school board races.

A Duval School Board member Scott Shine has reportedly joined the FCSBM. He withdrew from his 2018 reelection campaign due to ‘personal attacks’.

Sarasota school board members Erik Robinson, a former Republican Party Chairman and Bridgit Ziegler are listed members. Ziegler’s campaign reported $45,000 in donations from the out of state Phoenix Media LLC. According to the Herald Tribune, the money was funneled through a PAC run by fellow board member Erik Robinson, who is often called ‘The Prince of Dark Money’.

Some FCSBM members are collaborating to build a Florida chain of Classical Academy Charters. This isn’t just any group of charter schools. They are sponsored by the Hillsdale College Barney Charter School Initiative. The College, located in Michigan, has a long religious/conservative/libertarian agenda. The DeVos immediate family and close business associates have several Hillsdale graduates. \The Barney (SmithBarney) and Stanton Foundations fund the initiative. There are 17 of these charters nationwide. In Florida, there are four: Mason in Naples, Pineapple Cove in Palm Bay, St. Johns in Fleming Island, and the newly formed Pineapple Cove in West Melbourne. Donalds and her husband have been active with the Mason Classical Academy in Collier County. Donalds is currently seeking to add a Classical Academy in Martin County where Rebecca Negron was running for school board.

Erika Donalds has more than running a charter school on her mind. She was appointed by the governor to the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission (CRC) which is convened every twenty years to consider proposals to amend the constitution. Donalds is a strategist to divide the Florida public schools into two separate systems, one for ‘independent schools’ and one for public schools established by locally elected school boards. Essentially, it would allow one system for charters and private schools receiving tax credit scholarships and one for traditional public schools.

This year the CRC was plagued with ‘log rolling’. It is a technique to bundle dissimilar proposals into one law. There is a spate of these ‘logs’ projected to be on the November ballot. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against them, and the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the League of Women Voters was correct in its opposition to at least one. This proposed Amendment 8 to the Florida constitution must be withdrawn from the November ballot. How this amendment came to be is a story in itself.

Amendment 8 combines three separate proposals: school board term limits, civics literacy and a clause stating that school boards are only responsible for schools they create. This third proposal is the heart of the amendment. The title for the amendment, however, is: “School Board Term Limits and Duties; Public Schools”. Voters might be in favor of one part of the combined proposals but opposed to another. It was a ‘take it or leave it’ strategy. The wording, even the title was intended to confuse voters.

Term limits and civics education may seem innocuous, but they are not.

Erika Donalds is also the Florida sponsor for the US Term Limits organization. This group has a well-documented conservative political agenda that targets school boards to create more opportunities to influence policy. The Koch brothers founded the US Term Limits group. The civics course requirement proposed by CRC member Gaetz, the former President of the Florida Senate, made no sense. Civics was already required by the Florida Department of Education. Former Governor Bob Graham, long a champion of civics education, stated that not only is Amendment 8 a hodge podge, it is not even good for civics education. The CATO Institute has a major focus on civics education and provides free civics material to k12 schools. Its message is clear. According to the Huffington Post, the CATO group states: “The minimum wage hurts workers and slows economic growth. Low taxes and less regulation allow people to prosper. Government assistance harms the poor. Government, in short, is the enemy of liberty.”

The third component of Amendment 8 was to remove local school board control over the authorization of new charter schools. This too represented the national move to privatize our schools by creating charters and funding vouchers to private schools. In the proposed Amendment 8, however, the schools were called ‘independent’, not charter schools. Florida Commissioner of Education Pam Stewart stated that removing local school board control over the establishment of charter schools goes too far. CRC member Patricia Levesque, CEO of Jeb Bush’s education foundation however, supported the amendment as did Marva Johnson, the President of the State Board of Education.

Erika Donalds formed a Political Action Committee called ‘8 is Great’ to sway voters to support Amendment 8. According to the Vero Communique, Howard Rich, a wealthy New York real estate investor, invested $100,000 in the ‘8 is Great’ PAC. Rich serves on the Board of the CATO institute which was founded by the Koch brothers. David Koch ran for Vice President of the U.S. in 1980 on a platform opposing social security, the FBI, the CIA and pubic schools. The billionaire Koch brothers have a long and intensive interest in promoting school choice through their Americans for Prosperity organization. They are concentrating on Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin. Their presence takes many forms. Watch for everything from donations to school board races, charter and voucher expansion efforts and state election campaigns. John Kirtley, the founder of Step Up for Children was a major donor. Step Up is the agency that administers a billion dollars for the Florida Corporate Tax Credit Scholarships for private schools. Indian River School Board member Shawn Frost and Duval School Board member Scott Shine have joined the PAC according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Recognizing that term limits and civics education are popular among many voters, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells submitted a brief to the Florida League of Women Voters in which he stated: “This change from local county school board control…is hidden by packaging the change with what are thought to be attractive proposals for term limits and civics education.” These schools were planned to be charter schools but the word ‘independent’ was substituted for the word ‘charter’.

There is a watchdog coalition of about 20 public interest groups, headed by the League, to follow and evaluate CRC proposed amendments. Amendment 8 was identified early by the coalition as part of a package of amendments intended to seize local control from city and county governments. The League of Women Voters and the Southern Poverty Law Center joined forces to file a lawsuit against Amendment 8 asking that Amendment 8 be removed from the November ballot. The suit claimed that the amendment was deliberately vague and intended to confuse the public. The circuit court in Tallahassee agreed. The State filed an appeal.

The Appellate Court immediately referred the case to the Florida Supreme Court saying, “The case involves a question of great public importance and requires immediate resolution by the Supreme Court.” The vagueness of the amendment language and its misleading title: “School Board Term Limits and Duties; Public Schools” was the basis for the justices’ 4 to 3 ruling against Amendment 8. The decision puts a roadblock in the effort to create an alternative charter school system. Some legislators will no doubt continue to push proposals to remove any local school board control of charter schools. In reality, local public schools have very limited responsibility to oversee charters, but they and the local press can shine a spotlight on what is at stake.

After sixteen years of choice, it is clear that choice divides communities, segregates children, and dissipates funding without making any appreciable improvement in student achievement. The Supreme Court has another case before it now, ‘Citizens for Strong Schools vs. Florida State Board of Education’ that has been working its way through the courts since 2009. The plaintiffs contend that Florida’s choice policy has failed to adequately fund schools and does not provide the quality education for all children that the Florida constitution requires. Of particular interest is whether there should be justiciable standards to define a ‘quality education’. The hearing is set for November 8. The future of our public school system will depend upon the ruling from the bench. The future of our public school system will depend on the ruling from the bench.

In the lawsuit that Sue Legg refers to in the last paragraph, a group called “Citizens for Strong Schools” argues that the state “is funding two separate systems of public education through its use of privately-run yet publicly funded charter schools, and vouchers that allow kids to attend private schools for varying reasons. Opponents say such programs take money away from traditional public schools.” Florida courts have rejected that argument in the past.

Mitchell Robinson, professor of music education at Michigan State University, was invited to debate the question of charter schools in Michigan.

He wrote this scintillating article.

The counterpoint is linked inside the article.

Professor Robinson writes:

Why is it that every time I chat with a charter school cheerleader and issues of policy (such as privatization, school choice, competition, school closings, vouchers, teacher tenure, funding, regulations, testing) come up, they are unable to muster a defense of those policies?

Instead, they respond with something like, “We probably agree on more than we disagree. Let’s take the snobbery out of our discourse. I doubt combativeness does much to help conversation, let alone students.”

Counter point: Parents don’t consider charter schools political – why do politicians?

Kind of reminds me of conservatives who attacked President Obama for eight years in the most brutal ways, who are now demanding “civility” from liberals.

No. Just no. Public school advocates and charter school boosters don’t agree more than they disagree. We disagree completely on many issues of prime importance. And public school supporters know that many of the problems in the schools, while they may not have all been caused by charters, have been made a whole lot worse by them – and the reform movement leaders who are profiting from charter schools.

“Let’s stop pretending that competition and choice are the solutions to the problems that have been created by competition and choice.”

The most recent charter school booster I spoke to asked me, “So, what’s your solution? It’s obvious you’re not interested in seeking solutions with me, so just tell me.”

OK, here you go ….

Let’s adequately fund all of our schools, and make sure that the school in the inner city is as clean, safe and well-equipped as the one in the wealthiest suburbs.

Let’s stop allowing uncertified, unqualified edu-tourists from groups like Teach for America to be handed the responsibility of educating our children in urban and rural schools, and insist all kids be taught by dedicated, committed professionals, with the appropriate coursework, licenses and certifications.

Let’s demand that all schools offer a rich, engaging curriculum, including music, art and physical education, and let’s stop referring to these subjects as “extras” or “specials” – our children don’t see them as “extras.” For some kids, these are the things that make school worth going to.

Let’s guarantee that every publicly-funded school is held to the same standards, regulations and expectations, that all such schools are required to admit any child who wishes to attend, that “lotteries” and other similar methods of artificially “managing” student enrollment are eliminated, and that every child has access to a high quality public school, regardless of geography or socio-economic status.

Let’s stop pretending that competition and choice are the solutions to the problems that have been created by competition and choice.

Let’s stop trying to fund two parallel, “separate but equal” school systems, and put a moratorium on the creation of new charter schools until all publicly funded schools are “competing” on level playing fields.

And let’s return control for our public schools to where it belongs: elected school boards made up of concerned citizens from the communities in which their schools are located.

Let’s put an end to schools governed by unreliable charter “management companies” and state-appointed “emergency managers” and “CEOs.”

At last, a gubernatorial candidate who wants to rebuild public education and throw out the profiteers, frauds, and grifters! Voters in Florida have a chance to clean the Augean stables and elect a great Governor for public education!

The Network for Public Educatuon Action Fund is thrilled to endorse Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida!

The Network for Public Education Action is proud to announce its endorsement of Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida.

Andrew Gillum is a strong supporter of public education and he calls Florida’s corporate school reforms “a failure.” He has proposed a $1 billion increase in funding for public schools, which would include a minimum starting salary of $50,000 for teachers and an expansion of Pre-K opportunities.
Mr. Gillum believes that high-stakes testing reforms have failed our students and schools.

When it comes to charter schools and vouchers, Andrew Gillum had the following to say:

“Charter schools have a record of waste and unaccountability that we would never tolerate from public schools. Yet, our state’s education budget continues rewarding charter schools at the expense of public schools; for example, the 2018-19 budget allocates $145 million to charter school maintenance — three times the amount allocated to public schools. As a product of Florida’s public schools, I believe we make a promise to our state’s children to provide high-quality, accessible, public schools. We weaken that promise every time we divert taxpayer funds into private and religious education that benefits some students, but not all.”

On November 6, please cast your vote for Andrew Gillum.

This is a world-class scandal. And it is all legal!

Arizona’s State Representative Eddie Farnsworth sold his for-profit charter chain to a non-profit for about $30 Million and will reap millions in profits, then get a management fee to continue to operate them.

“Yet another millionaire is made, thanks to the latest in charter school scheming.

“This time, it’s state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who has figured out a way to sell his charter school business – the one built with taxpayer funds – and make millions on the deal and then likely get himself hired to continue running the operation.

“Which now converts to a non-profit and thus will no longer have to pay property or income taxes.

“Sweet plan. Sickeningly so, when you consider that Farnsworth is making his millions off of tax money intended to be used to educate Arizona children.

“Other charter schools are getting rich

“Farnsworth is just the latest operator to use charter schools as his own personal ATM – one that shoots out public funds.

“The Republic’s Craig Harris has spent all year reporting on operators who are getting rich – or at least, making a tidy pile of cash – off publicly funded charter schools, aided by laughable state laws that require hardly any oversight or accountability.

“There’s the Arizona Charter Schools Association’s No. 2 guy, using his position to throw business to a company he co-owns with his wife by giving her the names of students looking for a charter school. She scores a bounty for every student (and the tax dollars that go with that student) she delivers to certain charter schools.

“There’s BASIS Charters Schools founders Michael and Olga Block, who scored $10 million in fees to manage the charter chain of schools last year.

“There’s American Leadership Academy’s founder Glenn Way, who scored at least $18.4 million profit by getting no-bid contracts to build charter schools thanks largely paid for with public money.

“Then there’s Primavera online school, where most of the public funding has gone not to educate students but to elevate the company’s investment portfolio. Damian Creamer, the school’s founder and CEO, last year scored an $8.8 million “shareholder distribution” from the for-profit company that now runs Primavera, according an audit filed with the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Taxpayers pay twice for the same schools

“Now comes Farnsworth with his Benjamin Franklin Charter School scheme, approved Monday by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Under the arrangement, Farnsworth is selling his for-profit four-school operation to a non-profit run by a trio of handpicked pals who will now select someone to run the schools. Farnsworth has applied for the job.

“According to state records, Farnsworth will score at least $11.8 million in profit from the deal. He’ll also keep nearly $3.8 million in “shareholder equity” accumulated over the years since starting the suburban charter school chain in 1995. But Farnsworth declined to disclose the total profit he will make on the deal.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” he told the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“And you wonder why Farnsworth has fought efforts to require better oversight and reform of Arizona’s charter schools?

“The Republic’s Harris reports that when the sale closes, taxpayers will have paid twice for the same schools – once to essentially pay the mortgage on the Farnsworth-owned buildings and now to assume more debt in order to buy the buildings.

“And – by the way – it’s all legal

“The most outrageous part of this outrageous story is that what Farnsworth is doing is apparently legal.”

Craig Harris of the Arizona Republic reported on Farnsworth’s meeting with the state charter board (which includes other charter operators):

“[Farnsworth] told them he was requesting the change in organization to strengthen the finances of the roughly 3,000-student school chain. Farnsworth said the new structure will allow Benjamin Franklin to avoid property taxes and to qualify for federal education funds.

“The Legislature gives charter operators up to $2,000 more per student in state education funding than traditional district schools. That’s because charters cannot access local property taxes for building debt.

“Farnsworth acknowledged he would make a profit on the deal.

“Board member Erik Twist, who runs the Great Hearts charter schools, tried to press Farnsworth on how much he stands to gain. But Chairwoman Kathy Senseman interrupted him and changed the direction of the discussion.

“Farnsworth told the board that if he had wanted to make money, he merely could have sold the schools and cashed out.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” Farnsworth said.

“The transfer plan calls for the new non-profit operator to hire a contractor to manage the schools, an arrangement similar to other charter chains like Basis and American Leadership Academy.

“Records submitted to the Charter Board appeared to show Farnsworth had already been hired to manage the schools, but he said the document was a “draft” intended to give board members an understanding of the management contract.

“That’s what happens at Basis schools, many of which rank atop U.S. News & World Report’s “best schools” lists. A private contracting arrangement has paid about $10 million in “management fees” to a private firm run by Basis founders Olga and Michael Block.

“Farnsworth told the board, however, that he had submitted an application for the contract to the company’s new three-member board, all of whom he recruited and are his friends.

“Rebecca McHood, a Gilbert resident who attended the meeting, called the board vote “crazy.”

“They just gave a charter to a non-profit, but they didn’t vet them,” said McHood, a charter school critic whose relatives attended Farnsworth’s schools. “Here we are paying for his private property with our tax dollars, and then he can sell them.”

“State to pay twice for campuses

“Farnsworth built his school chain over more than two decades ago and became its sole owner in 2017, when he used $2.2 million of Benjamin Franklin funds to buy out his partners, Sharon Clark and Roy L. Perkins Jr., records show.

“That deal also made him sole owner of LBE Investments, a Gilbert company that owns the four campuses and leases them to Benjamin Franklin. Both companies are headquartered at 690 E. Warner Road in Gilbert.

“Once the planned sale to the new non-profit business closes later this year, taxpayers will have paid for the same schools twice. That’s because Benjamin Franklin, for years, has used education funding from the Legislature to make lease payments to LBE Investments, records show.

“(A 2017 audit showed Benjamin Franklin paid $4.9 million a year in lease payments, and that the remaining lease balance for three elementary schools and one high school was $53.9 million.)

“Farnsworth told the Charter Board that an appraisal of the schools is underway, and they will be sold at fair-market value.

“Documents submitted to the Charter Board indicate the plan is to borrow $65.7 million through the Arizona Industrial Development to purchase the schools. A sale for the projected loan amount would result in an $11.8 million profit for Farnsworth by retiring the outstanding lease balance.”

Why do Arizona taxpayers acquiesce to this blatant Profiteering with money intended to educate children?

<

The Grand Canyon Institute of Arizona audits the use of tax dollars that are spent for public and private schools. Under Governor Douglas Ducey, the state has been very generous to private, religious, and charter schools, but not with public schools.

Here is its latest report:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dave Wells, Research Director
dwells@azgci.org, (602) 595-1025 Ext. 2
Amy Pedotto, Communications Manager
apedotto@azgci.org, 602-595-1025, Ext. 3

State pays $10,700 subsidy for private school students;
75 percent more than their public school peers

Phoenix — According to a new policy paper, Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs cost the state $10,700* on average per regular education student who would not otherwise have enrolled in private school. This imposes an additional $62 million expense on the state’s General Fund.

Published by the non-partisan think tank the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI), the policy paper $10,700 Per Student: The Estimated Cost of Arizona’s Private School Subsidy Programs looks at how the state’s two private school subsidy programs — private school tuition tax credit scholarships and Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) vouchers — have impacted private school enrollment and then estimated a per student cost to taxpayers. The paper looks at regular education students; it does not include students with disabilities because of the significant cost differences in providing their education.

The study’s findings also include that:

The estimated cost per subsidized private school student has increased $700 in the two years since GCI first analyzed the cost of the subsidy programs in Arizona.

On average, taxpayer-funded private school subsidies cost an additional $4,700 or 75 percent more per student than the $6,000 the state pays to educate a regular education public school student when paid entirely from state funds.

In 2015-16, private school subsidies cost Arizona’s General Fund a total of $141 million, nearly a 50-fold increase from $3 million in 1999-2000.

In 2015-16, GCI estimates that 13,170 students who used the taxpayer-subsidized program would have attended public school if the scholarships and vouchers were not available.

Private school as a percentage of total student enrollment has declined from 5.9 percent to 4 percent since Arizona first introduced a private school subsidy in the late nineties. An increase in the percentage of private school enrollment would have occurred if the programs were more effective.

“GCI’s research of academic studies found that lower income families using similar subsidy programs in other states frequently had negative academic impacts compared to public school peers,” Wells says. “The study raises questions about the efficacy of private school subsidy programs as voters are asked to expand Arizona’s ESA voucher program with Prop. 305 this November.”

George Cunningham, GCI’s board chair and former state legislator, commented, “Arizona can’t afford fiscally irresponsible private school subsidies that siphon money away from its public education system. These subsidy programs are placing an increasing burden on the state’s General Fund meanwhile research shows they provide no academic benefit when comparing demographically similar students attending public and private schools.

“Given these facts, it is appropriate to ask why our state government would continue tuition tax credit scholarships and seek to expand ESA vouchers to the general education population. At a minimum, it is strongly recommended that the total amount in tuition tax credit scholarships a student can receive be limited to the amount paid by the state for regular education public school students similar to ESA vouchers.”

What are Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs?

Tuition tax credit scholarships were introduced two decades ago. They divert individual and corporate taxpayer dollars from the state’s General Fund, providing donors a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes owed while decreasing the state’s revenue. GCI’s research found that in many cases students are receiving more than one tax credit scholarship by applying for funding from multiple School Tuition Organizations (STOs), the private organizations that accept tuition tax credit donations and distribute them to students.

ESA vouchers were introduced in 2011. Distributed by the state’s Department of Education and financed from the General Fund, ESA vouchers allow certain categories of students to attend private schools such as those with disabilities, students from D and F rated public schools, foster children and children of veterans. GCI’s paper did not include vouchers used by students with disabilities in its analysis due to the significant cost differences in meeting their needs. In November 2018, Prop. 305 will give Arizona’s voters the opportunity to decide whether ESA vouchers should be made available to all students, a significant expansion to the program.

Click here to read the full report.

*Methodology:

First, GCI’s analysis estimated that 13,710 out of 46,252 regular education students attending private school in Arizona did so because of the state’s private school subsidies. The ratio of Arizona to US private school enrollment as a portion of all students (0.45) was the dependent variable used in the regression analysis to control for any factors outside of Arizona that impacts private school enrollment such as recessions or economic growth. All of these factors impact private schools generally and would not have a separate impact on Arizona’s private schools. The analysis’ independent variables were the state’s enrollment growth of charter schools and private school subsidies because in both cases Arizona far exceeds the national average.

Next, GCI determined the cost of private school subsidies to the state, for those regular education students that chose private school because of the subsidy programs. This amount was calculated based on the total value of subsidies allocated for regular education students ($140,874,776) divided by the number of students that opted for private school due to the subsidies (13,710). GCI determined that subsidies cost the state an average of $10,700 per regular education private school student for those that would have attended public school if the private school subsidy programs weren’t available.

Finally, Arizona’s private school subsidies cost $140,874,776 for regular education students who would not have otherwise attended a private school. For this analysis, GCI uses the cost of educating a charter school student ($6,000) for comparison because the state government uses this amount to determine the value of ESA vouchers for a regular education student. The cost of educating a charter school student is used in GCI’s analysis because they are completely state funded, whereas the cost of educating a public district school student varies per district based on a state and local funding. (This provides a more conservative comparison because the average cost of educating a regular education student in a district school is less than a charter school.) Arizona would have spent $82,260,000 to educate taxpayer-subsidized private school students if they had attended a charter school instead. Therefore, Arizona’s private school subsidies increased the cost of educating these regular education students by $4,700 each or $62 million in total.

If information like this matters to you, please consider a tax deductible donation to the Grand Canyon Institute to support our continuing work.