Archives for category: Virtual Charter Schools

 

A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Toronto reported on the extent to which online charter schools have racial diversity. Benjamin Herold wrote about the paper in Education Week. 

This struck me as an odd finding, because online instruction by definition is delivered by computer tostudents at home. There is little, if any, face to face contact among students.and since students may be spread across an entire state, the opportunities to interact with others is minimal.

There may be “diversity” in the school’s purported enrollment, but this would be diversity without integration. Students could be enrolled in a “diverse” virtual school yet never encounter a student of a different race.

Herold wrote:

“While full-time online charter schools nationally enroll a relatively high percentage of white students, there are significant variations in enrollment patterns by state, according to new research presented today at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, being held here.

“In Colorado, for example, the enrollment of online charters is just 36 percent white, compared to 54 percent in brick-and-mortar traditional and charter schools throughout the state, according to University of Alabama assistant education professor Bryan Mann.

“Online charters in Arizona, Nevada, and South Carolina, meanwhile, enroll significantly higher percentages of white students than do brick-and-mortar traditional and charter schools in their states.

“Most states have majority-white online charter school populations with less diversity than … other schools. However, there are states where students experience more diverse environments in online charter schools,” Mann wrote in a paper presented at the conference, titled “Whiteness and Economic Advantage in Digital Schooling: Equity Considerations for K-12 Online Charter Schools.”

 

 

In every state that has authorized virtual charter schools, these  schools are marked by two characteristics:

1. They are very profitable.

2. The “education” they provide is abysmal.

Typically, they have high attrition, low graduation rates, and low scores on state tests. The state fails to monitor them for quality. Students and taxpayers are fleeced.

The latest example is the Indiana Virtual School. The Republicans who control the legislature ignore failure so long as students are making choices. They happily waste taxpayer dollars so long as an entrepreneur is making money.

A former employee told the state Education Department two years ago that the Indiana Virtual Dchoolwas collecting millions of dollars for students who never enrolled or who enrolled but withdrew. The whistle blower was ignored. Of course. The employee was fired.

”Enrollment quickly swelled at the schools, thanks to the state’s favorable laws and lack of regulation about how fast they could grow. School leaders also had an incentive: Indiana’s funding system that gives schools more money for each student they bring in. Today, Indiana Virtual School and its sister school, Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy, enroll more than 6,000 students and could get more than $40 million from the state this year.

“But staffing didn’t appear to keep pace with that expansion. The schools have already received scrutiny for their tiny teaching staffs — with Indiana Virtual School at one time having more than 200 students for every teacher. And the schools have posted dismal academic results, with graduation rates in the single digits in recent years and a fraction of students passing state exams. Indiana Virtual School received its third F grade in a row from the state last year…

”The high student-to-teacher ratios, lack of student engagement, and high student mobility are often blamed for the schools’ academic shortcomings. Students at most virtual schools, in Indiana and other states, perform far below average on metrics like state tests and graduation rate. Last year, Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy graduated just 2 percent of its 1,009 seniors, and 5.7 percent of 10th-graders passed both state English and math exams.

“At Indiana Virtual School, about 24 percent of seniors graduated in 2018, the same year the school received its third F grade from the state. About 19 percent of elementary and middle school students passed both tests, and 4 percent of high-schoolers did.”

The School insists its students have high needs, blaming them for the dismal rates of completion and achievement.

But it still has not explained why it collected millions of dollars for phantom students.

Betsy DeVos strongly endorses Virtual Charter schools because they offer “choice.” Results and quality don’t matter.

 

 

 

 

In this post, veteran teacher Anthony Cody explains how he happened to have a seat directly behind Betsy DeVos at the Congressional budget hearings, and he fact-checks DeVos’ preposterous claim that large classes may be preferable to small ones. No one asked her why wealthy parents who send their children to elite private schools expect and demand small classes. If they listen to our Secretary of Education, they should insist on large classes.

He begins:

“A video of Betsy DeVos responding to questions from Lucille Roybal-Allard of the House Appropriations Committee hearing has gone viral, and has been watched now by many thousands of people. I appear in the background, shaking my head as DeVos asserts that larger class sizes might actually be beneficial since they allow students to collaborate with more classmates, and might allow the best teachers to be paid more. So in this post, I will take a look at the actual research on the subject, and a bit of the history of the idea.”

Rightwing Activist Jeanne Allen slammed Cody on Twitter and advised him to spend his time helping needy students. 

Apparently she did not know that he spent 18 years teaching middle school science in Oakland. Cody asked her whether she had ever been a teacher, but she did not respond. She runs an advocacy group-the Center for Education Reform- that supports vouchers, charters, home schooling, and for-profit schooling. She opposes public schools and teachers unions. She works closely with DFER and other anti-public school organizations. That’s her idea of “helping needy students”: not actually teaching them but closing their public schools. Her salary: $217,000.

Read the other comments on this exchange: Mitchell Robinson says that Anthony Cody has “forgotten more about teaching than anyone in your group [the Center for Education Reform] has ever known.” I doubt that there are any teachers on the CER board.

 

I just finished reading Noliwe Rooks’ superb book, Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation, and the End of Public Education (The New Press). Please buy a copy and read it. It is a powerful analysis of racism, segregation, poverty, the history of Black education (and miseducation), and their relationship to the current movement to privatize public education. She dissects the profitable business of segregation.

You will learn how cleverly the captains of finance and industry have managed to ignore the root causes of inequality of educational opportunity while profiting from the dire straits of poor children of color. In fact, as she shows, financiers and philanthropists have used and misused Black children throughout our history, for their own benefit and glory, not the children’s.

The book is both highly contemporary and at the same time, probably the best history of Black education that I have read. Rooks understands that the fight for equality runs through the schoolhouse door, and she documents how white elites have managed to block access, narrow access, or literally steal from Black families trying to gain access to high-quality education. She knows that charter schools and vouchers are a sorry substitute for real solutions. She understands that the rise of the profit-driven education industry has benefited the profiteers far more than the Black children they claim to be “saving.” “Saving poor kids from failing schools” turns out to be a lucrative business, though not for the kids.

Rooks invents a new term to describe the current “reform” movement: Segrenomics. In her telling, a sizable number of entrepreneurs and foundations, and organizations like Teach for America, have enriched themselves while advertising their passion for equity. Segregation and poverty have given them a purpose, multiple enterprises, career paths, and profit.

My copy of the book is covered with underlinings, stars, asterisks, and other notations, as is my way when I become enthusiastic while reading.

She bluntly states, “The road necessarily traveled to achieve freedom and equality in the United States leads directly through public education…Schools that educate the wealthy have generally had decent buildings, money for materials, a coherent curriculum, and well-trained teachers. Schools that educate poorer students and those of color too often have decrepit buildings, no funds for quality instructional materials, and little input in structure or purpose of the curriculum, and they make do with the best teachers they can find.” Differences based on class and color have been a constant in American history, and they remain so today.

She notes the rise of the for-profit industry in education, now associated with charter schools, cybercharters, and other forms of school choice. The new for-profit arrangement, which she calls “segrenomics, is “the business of profiting specifically from high levels of racial and economic segregation…The desire that some have to profit from racial and economic segregation in education, coupled with the active desire members of segregated communities of color have for quality education, has led to our current moment where quality education is for some a distant mirage, and the promise to provide it is profitable for others.”

Rooks was director of the African American studies program at Princeton University for a decade and is now director of graduate Africana studies at Cornell University. She interacted frequently with idealistic elite white college students who could not understand her skepticism about the “reform movement.”

Rooks describes the past thirty years as an era when “government, philanthropy, business, and financial sectors have heavily invested in efforts to privatize certain segments of public education; stock schools with inexperienced, less highly paid teachers whose hiring often provides companies with a ‘finders’ fee’; outsource the running of schools to management organizations; and propose virtual schools as a literal replacement for—not just a supplement to-the brick and mortar education experience. The attraction, of course, is the large pot of education dollars that’s been increasingly available to private corporate financial interests…Charter schools, charter management organizations, vouchers, virtual schools, and an alternatively certified, non-unionized teaching force represent the bulk of the contemporary solutions offered as cures for what ails communities that are upward of 80 percent Black or Latino.” Such policies are never prescribed for affluent white communities, she notes.

She suggests that those who seek to profit from racial and economic segregation should be penalized. Without a real and meaningful penalty, the profit-seekers will continue business as usual.

The fundamental argument of her book is that public education for Native American, Black, Latino, and poor youth is being purposefully unraveled, while wealthy elites are plundering the money that should have been spent on their education.

Rooks recounts the history of Teach for America, which had its beginnings at Princeton University. Wendy Kopp had an idea, visited corporate chieftains, raised money, created a powerful board of directors, and started an enterprise that became fabulously wealthy. Rooks observes that she didn’t spend time talking to the students or parents or the communities that she planned to save. TFA created a career path for idealistic and ambitious elite college graduates, who wanted to try their hand at teaching without committing to it as a professional obligation. TFA offered more benefits to those who joined it, she writes, than to those it claimed it wanted to “save.” It provided a resume builder and an entrée into powerful financial and political networks.

She analyzes a number of well-known “reform” organizations, not only TFA, but Democrats for Educational Reform and Students for Educational Reform. The latter was also founded at Princeton, by students who realized that their venture was so lucrative, so swaddled in grants from foundations, that they dropped out of college to tend to the millions heaped upon them. Helping poor children, it turned out, was indeed a rewarding business. She sees TFA, DFER, and SFER through the lens of segrenomics, business ventures that depended on “saving” poor children without disrupting the institutional and systemic roots of poverty and racism that engulf the world in which they live. She calls out “reformers” for their insistence that they could safely ignore segregation or poverty, because their aspirations alone would be enough to “fix” the lives of poor children.

Her richly documented history of Black education in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is fascinating. In the nineteenth century, most Blacks lived in the South, and the whites who controlled the segregated South did as little as they could get away with to educate Black children. Some opposed doing so, while others thought that Blacks should be equipped with no more than basic literacy and vocational training so that they could contribute to the economy, albeit as manual workers. In the main, the Northern philanthropists adjusted their ideals to the white Southerners’ low esteem for people of color. The philanthropists contributed money to build schools for Black children, but required impoverished Black communities to raise matching funds if they wanted a school. Given the desperate poverty of those communities, raising the matching funds required enormous sacrifice. In one of the most moving passages in the book, she describes a 1925 meeting in a small rural town in Alabama, where a Black representative of the Rockefellers’ General Education Board met with the sharecroppers to discuss raising money to build a school. The representative wrote to his supervisors that “’one old man, who had seen slavery days, with all of his life’s earnings in an old greasy sack, slowly drew it from his pocket, and emptied it on the table.’ He then turned to address the crowd and said, ‘I want to see the children of my grandchildren have a chance, and so I am giving my all.’ What he had to offer was $10. The sum total he had been able to save throughout the totality of his life.’” The assembled crowd raised $1,300 that night and eventually contributed $6,500 to match the gift of the Rockefellers.

As I read this, I felt a mix of emotions. Tremendous sadness but also rage at the Rockefellers, who could have just opened their wallets and given the community the school they so desperately wanted and needed without demanding such sacrifice. The foundation officer who read this account from Alabama must have had a heart of stone. The same stories about penurious philanthropists were repeated across the South, where local white officials typically diverted (stole) money meant for Black education and reapportioned it to white schools.

I have read other histories of Black education, but none that so deftly tied together the past and the present. The term “segrenomics” aptly captures the financiers’ fascination with “helping” black children but avoiding any change in the social policies that might lift their families out of poverty and promote genuine integration. The fact that philanthropists today eagerly underwrite segregated charter schools and insist that TFA  or merit pay or standardized tests can cure poverty represents continuity with their nineteenth century counterparts.

Rooks brings valuable historical, sociological, and philosophical insight into contemporary debates. Her analysis echoes the argument made by Anand Giriharadas in his bookWinners Take All: when the wealthiest elites claim that they are “saving” the world, beware. They are actually protecting the status quo and their own dominant position in society.

You will enjoy watching this YouTube video in which Professor Rooks explains her views about education reform, elite white students, and the lingo of reform. 

 

John Thompson, historian and recently retired teacher, wonders how much longer Oklahoma’s low-performing Epic virtual charter school can survive scrutiny and continue raking in the big bucks. Even Republicans are beginning to wonder why they are pouring good money into this sinkhole. How long can a failing school avoid accountability?

Even many of the staunchest pro-charter corporate reformers are criticizing virtual charters for their poor outcomes and draining resources from public schools. For instance, Todd Ziebarth of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, criticizes the high rates of “churn” they contribute to, their low graduation rates, and low levels of student proficiency growth. Online charters don’t need to accept the costs that brick and mortar schools must fund, but fair is fair, and virtual schools like Oklahoma’s Epic charters also need to find money for expenses that neighborhood schools aren’t burdened with. 

Ziebarth notes that their poor performance means that virtual charters must find other ways to grow. They must pay for their “aggressive marketing” campaigns. For instance, Tulsa Public Radio reports, “Epic uses giveaways of big-ticket items like concert tickets to reward referrals, and it recently opened a heavily branded children’s play area at (Oklahoma City’s) Penn Square Mall.”

https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-lawmakers-interim-study-virtual-charter-performance-inconclusive

https://nondoc.com/2018/09/21/okleg-should-conduct-cost-benefit-analysis-of-virtual-charters/

https://oklahomawatch.org/2018/11/30/virtual-charter-schools-founders-ramp-up-political-contributions/

And recently, Epic supporters were forced to spend $180,000 for the 2018 political campaign season. Co-founder Ben Harris said that the reason why Epic ramped up donations was “we kinda felt like it was us against the entire traditional education establishment.”

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/us-vs-them-mentality-leads-epic-charter-school-founders-to/article_04398428-d88b-5f8b-8e48-817c88108de7.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-siderail-latest

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/oklahoma-watch-epic-virtual-charter-school-leaders-ramp-up-political/article_364f2619-3a77-5484-bd75-c5d9c8af8139.html

I kid the private charter “juggernaut” leader. But, seriously, he may be facing more unanticipated operating costs. Until recently Epic has successfully evaded efforts to hold the virtual charters accountable. Republican Senator Ron Sharp became so frustrated at trying to obtain meaningful data on Epic’s performance that he used a wonky state-of-the-art research term to characterize the quality of their numbers; he said, “This is crap.”

After Epic Superintendent David Chaney was criticized for “skewing” the data, Chaney replied that they just did things “differently.”

https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-lawmakers-interim-study-virtual-charter-performance-inconclusive

https://nondoc.com/2018/09/21/okleg-should-conduct-cost-benefit-analysis-of-virtual-charters/

But more costs may be coming to the virtual charter. A previous investigation into 2013 allegations of fraud by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation was turned over to the Attorney General’s Office, but no charges were filed and no official conclusions were announced. But the Tulsa World’s Andrea Eger reports that the OSBI is “once again” investigating Epic, so it is “now the target of scrutiny by state and federal law enforcement in addition to state lawmakers.”

Apparently Epic is being investigated for dually enrolling students who attend private schools. Eger reports that charter authorizers are provided a contract template which “specifically prohibits the funding or offering of any instruction to home-schooled students or private school students.” It also explains that “charter schools ‘shall implement and enforce policies and procedures prohibiting enrollment of students on a part time basis,’ with one or two limited exceptions allowed under state law.”

Epic’s Harris responded to questions on whether it is illegal to be paid for educating students attending other private schools by saying, “Not to our knowledge. And I would also say that we’re not aware of the specific situations that you’re talking about. It’s hard to imagine how they could fulfill our requirements while going to another school full time.”

Harris also told the World, “We don’t think that our private company should have to make any disclosures that any other private company shouldn’t have just because who our customers are.”  Eger explained however, that Epic’s co-founders are “both owners of Epic Youth Services LLC, a separate company with which the school contracts for its operation. That contract indicates an annual cost of $125,000 for ‘development services’” plus a 10 percent share of the school’s collected revenues as an ‘indirect cost allocation.’”

Eger “put that 10 percent into context,” explaining that “Epic Charter Schools has been allocated $112.9 million in state aid funding alone for fiscal year 2019.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/education/epic-charter-schools-under-investigation-by-state-federal-law-enforcement/article_22ffe5cc-b6e5-54f8-9612-4f08ae6ae3d2.html

Ironically, one of the institutions where potential misdeeds are being exposed is Facebook! The World reported:

Shelly Hickman, the school’s assistant superintendent for external affairs, then acknowledged that she had participated in an Epic parent Facebook group discussion just last week in which multiple Epic parents openly discussed how their children were enrolled in private schools and home school cooperatives and even receive credit from their Epic teachers for time spent and work done in those outside entities.

Despite its generous donations to 78 candidates for the legislature and state offices, pressure has increased since an interim legislative committee was unable to pry meaningful information from Epic this fall. Then Epic received $38.7 million in annual, midyear adjustments, as the Oklahoma City (OKCPS) and Tulsa (TPS) districts each faced $2.1 million in cuts. Tulsa Superintendent Deborah Gist, a longtime school choice advocate, complained that her district lost 496 students to Epic in the fall semester, as 196 Epic students returned to the TPS.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/education/skyrocketing-student-enrollment-nets-epic-charter-schools-nearly-million-more/article_ffe29bc2-25b6-58e2-8172-cdac83915f08.html

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/education/tulsa-public-schools-students-left-for-epic-virtual-school-since/article_03d32126-b3f6-5e9b-9a19-f0605014ef48.html

It won’t be easy to find understandable accountability information in the new Oklahoma Report Cards, but now that the press that is doing a great job in investigating Epic’s finance, they might also find readers interested in the virtual schools accountability data. In 2018, two Epic districts, Epic One on One Charter and Epic Blended Learning Charter, had nine schools. According to the Report Card, they enrolled 13,532. They reported test scores for 4,164 students or about 30 percent of their enrollees.

Despite their huge attrition rate, the Report Card said that both systems had attendance rates exceeding 99 percent.

Epic One on One reported 8,059 enrollees. It isn’t easy to find a meaningful presentation of the test score progress on its 2,433 test takers, but the seemingly hidden outcomes of the minority who persist until the spring testing is shocking. About 23 percent progressed to higher achievement levels.  About 36 percent of students remained on the same levels, while over 41 dropped into lower performance levels.

In theory, Epic’s Blended Learning charter would produce better outcomes. But, just over 25 percent progressed to higher achievement level.  Around 36 percent of students remained on the same levels, while a little over 38 percent dropped into lower performance levels.

https://oklaschools.com/district/growth/1115/

https://oklaschools.com/district/growth/548/

Although the recent headlines have been dominated by Eger’s excellent reporting, for several years Oklahoma Watch’s Jennifer Palmer has done great investigative reporting on Epic. Until she documented Epic’s complex story, I just assumed that the virtual charter was just a case of socialism for the rich, a drag on public education funding which helped some kids who were uncomfortable in public schools but which damaged many more by increasing transiency. I no longer see it as an un-slayable dragon that must be endured. And wouldn’t it be great to see Epic held accountable by today’s federal government, as well as Facebook posts?

 https://oklahomawatch.org/2018/11/30/virtual-charter-schools-founders-ramp-up-political-contributions/

 

 

What a Business!

The stateof Indiana shells out millions of dollars to virtual charter schools that educate no one.

Even Republican legislators thank this this could be a waste of taxpayers’ dollars.

“Top state education leaders called it a “scandal” and “serious” that two Indiana virtual charter schools are accused of counting toward their enrollment thousands of students who either never signed up for or completed classes.

“This should be a massive alarm bell that outright fraud has been committed against Hoosier taxpayers to the tune of millions of dollars,” said Gordon Hendry, a state board of education member who led a committee last year to review virtual schools. “If this isn’t a scandal, I don’t know what is.”

“The harsh words came a day after Indiana Virtual School and its sister school, Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy, were put on notice that their charter agreements could be revoked by their oversight agency, the small rural Daleville public school district. The virtual schools, which purported to educate about 6,000 students, could close if they do not find another authorizer to oversee them….

“The state data paint the scope of the issues at the schools as vast. Last spring, none of the 1,563 students reported as attending Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy for the full year were enrolled in any classes, according to the data analyzed by the district. That year, the school received $17 million from the state.

“In fall 2016, none of the 2,372 students reported as attending Indiana Virtual School for the full year earned any credits, according to the district’s analysis. That year, one out of five students enrolled all year were never signed up for any classes. In each semester of the 2017-18 school year, the majority of students reported as attending the school for the full year did not earn any credits. Nearly 60 percent earned zero credits at the end of the year — a year in which the school received $20 million in state funding.”

Despite the waste of state dollars, some choice advocates defended the fraud, because the virtual schools are a choice that parents make even if their children don’t get an education.

 

Cybercharters, especially the for-profit kind, have proven to be a huge scam. The largest in the nation, ECOT (the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow) in Ohio, went bankrupt last year, not because it wasn’t making money buy because the state uncharacteristically insisted on counting and getting refunds for phantom students.

Cybercharters produce poor results for students, no matter which measure you use, yet they are very profitable. The corporation gets full tuition without the overhead of brick-and-mortar schools.

Great business, lousy schools, with lots of money for advertising and lobbying.

No state has been worse than Pennsylvania when it comes to opening cybercharters and ignoring their poor performance and even criminality. The owner of the state’s largest cyber school, Nicholas Trombetta, was convicted of tax evasion when $8 million went missing but not held liable for the diversion of funds meant for educating students.

The state has authorized some 15 or 16 such virtual schools and none has ever met state standards. Real schools that had such dismal results would have been shuttered long ago. But those millions for lobbying legislators….

peter Greene says there is some hope that the reign of the failing cybercharters may be coming to an end. Maybe.

Ten of the state’s cybers are operating with expired charters.

Amazingly, a Bill was introduced in the legislature to end the scam.

“Several lawmakers in Harrisburg would like to put a stop to that.

”Senate Bill 34‘s prime sponsor is Judith Schwank of Berks County, a former dean at Delaware Valley College who’s been in the Senate since 2011. Her bill’s principle is pretty simple– if a district has its own in-house virtual school, it does not have to pay for a student to attend an outside cyber. If a family pulls a student from Hypothetical High and decides that instead of Hypothetical’s own cyber school they want to send Junior to, say, K12 cyber school, then the family has to pay the bill– not the school district.

““It’s crazy,” said State Sen. Schwank, of the fees districts pay to cyber charters. “It’s not based on actual delivery of educational programming.””

Operators of cybercharters say it’s unfair to hold them accountable for actually delivering educational services. Why not let the scam continue?

We willlearn soon enough whether the Pennsylvania legislature dares to hold the cybercharters accountable. Sadly that probably depends on the operators’ generosity to members of the legislature.

 

 

Teachers across the state of West Virginia walked out last spring. Every school in the state was closed until the teachers got a 5% pay raise and other concessions. Among them, the governor promised to block charter legislation.

Now the Republican dominated legislature is moving forward with legislation for charters, vouchers, and cybercharters. One assumes this is punishment for last year’s actions.

Denis Smith warns the legislators and people of West Virginia that the legislation is an invitation to waste, fraud, abuse, theft, and grifters. 

He writes:

In the last several days, I took some time to examine Senate Bill 451 and its provisions for establishing charter schools in West Virginia. My interest in doing so was based on my previous service as a school administrator in the state, as well as 11 years of experience in Ohio as an administrator for a charter school authorizer and as a consultant in the charter school office of the Ohio Department of Education.

It is this experience in both public education and the charter school environment that allows me to urge West Virginia citizens to do everything possible to halt this odious legislation.

After more than 20 years of growth nationally, it is noteworthy that some of the trend lines for charters are on the decline. This experiment with deregulation has resulted in massive corruption, fraud and diminished learning opportunities for young people.

As a state monitor, I observed a number of incompetent people serve as charter school administrators because Ohio state law has no minimum educational requirements nor any professional licensing prerequisites for school leaders.

In addition, numerous conflicts-of-interest, including a board member serving as landlord and management companies charging exorbitant rents for properties conveniently used for charter schools, are only part of the problem of the charter experiment.

In Ohio, where charters have operated for 20 years, the trend line is down significantly. From a high point of more than 400 schools, 340 are operating today. Moreover, there is a junk pile of failed charters that have closed. The Ohio Department of Education website lists 292 schools that are shuttered, with some closing in mid-year, disrupting the lives of students and their families. Moreover, total charter school enrollment in the state is down by more than 16,000 students since 2013, the peak year of charter operations in the Buckeye State.

The West Virginia omnibus measure allows online schools to operate, as does Ohio and other states. But last year, Ohio’s Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, one of the largest e-schools in the country, closed amid scandal, where the owner and his administrators funneled millions of dollars in donations to friendly state legislators while padding enrollment numbers to gain state education payments.

In my home state of Pennsylvania, there is also a growing scandal involving an online school. The West Virginia Legislature has not heeded these lessons to be learned from its neighboring states that have been in the troubled charter school business for decades.

 

Steven Singer says that 10 of Pennsylvania’s 15 cybercharters are operating without acharter. They have expired. This is a scandal-ridden sector that makes big profits but supplies a 9th-rate education for gullible children and families. None has ever met state standards. They should all be closed down.

They get full tuition and supply a computer and online instruction.

Scam. Rip-off.

The founder of Pennsylvania’s largest cybercharter was convicted of tax evasion for failing to report the $8 million he embezzled.

Too much money and no accountability.

Close them all.

Rhese fraudulent “schools” drain money from public schools in the state:

 

Cyber charter drain on Pa districts

Cyber Charter Name 2016-17 Enrollment 2016-17 Revenue from other LEAs
Central PA Digital Learning Foundation CS 199 $2,593,901
Commonwealth Charter Academy CS 9,008 $116,686,603
PA Distance Learning CS 681 $8,751,302
Reach Cyber CS 714 $10,000,219
Susq-Cyber CS 97 $1,064,230
Pennsylvania Virtual CS 2,299 $27,814,441
21st Century Cyber CS 964 $12,683,880
PA Leadership CS 2,361 $34,051,813
Achievement House CS 458 $7,157,951
Agora Cyber CS 5,883 $91,689,396
Esperanza Cyber CS 174 $2,215,660
ACT Academy Cyber CS 146 $1,584,130
Pennsylvania Cyber CS 9,723 $134,280,454
ASPIRA Bilingual Cyber CS 261 $4,178,502
Statewide Totals 32,968 $454,752,482

 

Online charter schools have a problem. Most get full tuition for each student, but they have few expenses. No campus, large classes, no services other than a computer and online instruction. So much money rolling. Problem: What to do with it?

A few online operators have been convicted of stealing millions, like Nick Trombetta in Pennsylvania. The founder of ECOT in Ohio diet get charged or convicted of anything, but he collected $1 billion over 19 years while having the lowest graduation rate in the nation.

And now comes a case in Michigan where an Online charter operator was charged with stealing over $100,000.

Why so little?