This post from Jeff Bryant misses one crucial overarching point: it’s deregulation as much as privatization that’s the problem…. But he touches all the other bases…
Sometimes it takes a funnyman to make sense.Earlier this week, British comedian John Oliver devoted a “Back to School” segment on his HBO program Last Week Tonight to examining the rapidly growing charter school industry and what these schools are doing with our tax dollars.
John Oliver featured PA in his segment with the stae’s AG calling it’s charter law the worst in the country… And this is one example of the consequences….
Calling John Oliver! The charter lobbyists have been criticizing Oliver for his expose of charter fraud last Sunday. Unfair, they say. Untrue, they say. Slanders charters, they say. Let’s see how they fit this story into their narrative.
Nicholas Trombetta, founder of the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, pleaded guilty to stealing $8 million from the school and diverting it for his personal use. Trombetta’s school was often featured on television as the nation’s first virtual charter. With an enrollment of 10,000 students from across the state, Trometta had receipts of $100 million a year. What to do with all that dough rolling in from taxpayers?
I have written about this scandal on several occasions, from the time Trombetta was charged in 2013. (See hereand here and here. Another cyber charter leader in Pennsylvania, June Brown, who ran the K-12 Agora Charter, was arrested and charged with stealing $6…
View original post 379 more words
While I was sent links to this by many of my progressive friends, including my daughter, and links were included on many progressive websites, like Diane Ravitch, I thought readers might want to see how “the other side” views this issue… and join me in scratching my head in bewilderment….
John Oliver’s most recent show repeated union talking points that parents have realized are lies that consign millions of kids to piss-poor schools.
Much has been written over the past several months about Trump University’s horrible track record and until earlier this week I was surprised that Hillary Clinton didn’t make his oversight of his eponymous college more of a campaign issue… But then I read an article on Facebook earlier this week and one today in the NYDaily News on Bill Clinton’s service as “honorary chancellor” of Laureate University and it became clear why Ms. Clinton has steered clear of specific criticism of her opponent. Why? Well… it seems that as “honorary chancellor” Mr. Clinton was paid over $17,000,000 over a five year period that ended just before Ms. Clinton declared her run for President, Doug Becker, the founder of Laureate contributed $5,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and as Secretary of State Ms. Clinton made certain Mr. Becker was invited to dinners where he presumably could come in contact with people seeking college education for its citizenry. As for Laureate itself,
…one of Laureate’s largest schools in the U.S., Walden University, was found to have burdened students with the second-highest debt load of any American school, according to a 2015 study by the Brookings Institution.
Three of the five schools the company runs in the U.S. have been under what the federal Education Department calls “heightened cash monitoring” due to questions over its finances, CNN reported this week.
So while Ms. Clinton promises to “…“crack down” on for-profit schools operating in “lawbreaking” ways” her husband and the Clinton Foundation was willing to accept millions from a college whose finances were under review by the Education Department. All of this makes Ms. Clinton’s pledge to avoid privatization of public education seem hollow and any specific criticism of Mr. Trump’s “University” difficult to level. To quote Paul Simon: “Any way you look at it you lose”.
Both the NYTimes and NYDaily News featured stories on a second grade teacher in Texas who sent a note home at the beginning of the school year declaring that she would not be assigning homework. The NYTimes article by Christine Hauser reported on it this way:
This month, Brandy Young, a second-grade teacher in Godley, Tex., let parents know on “Meet the Teacher” night that she had no plans to load up her students’ backpacks.
“There will be no formally assigned homework this year,” Ms. Young wrote in a note that was widely shared on Facebook. “Rather, I ask that you spend your evenings doing things that are proven to correlate with student success. Eat dinner as a family, read together, play outside, and get your child to bed early.”
Ms. Hauser noted that this debate is not limited to a lone district in Texas:
Other conversations about homework are humming in town halls and online… (and) discussions on blogs like GreatSchools.org or StopHomework.com reveal a belief that the workload assigned to students may be too heavy…. The National PTA and the National Education Association endorse a 10-minute guideline: Time spent on after-school work should not exceed 10 minutes a grade level a night. “That is, a first grader should have no more than 10 minutes of homework, a sixth grader no more than 60 minutes and a 12th grader no more than two hours,” the National PTA says…
Just yesterday a group of high school classmates and I debated this topic based on our experiences as students in the 1960s, parents in the 1970s and 1980s, and now as grandparents. None of us could recall being assigned any homework in the early grade levels and we all had fond memories of our childhood spending time after school wandering in the woods, playing with friends, and reading or daydreaming. We all lamented the increasing pressure applied to children children to be successful from the very outset of school, pressure that is manifested in things like mandatory homework in second grade. Indeed, I doubt that our group from the Class of 1965 would endorse the National PTA and NEA guidelines for homework: we’d prefer seeing elementary age children completely free from homework and given the opportunity to spend their free time, well, FREE. Each of us had independently come to the conclusion that Scandinavian countries, who start formal schooling later and do not rely on tests or excessive homework, have it right and our regimented system that labels children early and pushes them relentlessly has it wrong.
But as long as the public perceives schools as factories that “assemble” educated children we will continue to pile on work in the misguided belief that more work = more productivity…
After years of reading that “school reform” is rooted in and allied with the civil rights movement, it is heartening to read that three civil rights groups— the NAACP, Black Lives Matter, and the Southern Poverty Center— are pushing back. Sunday’s NYTimes featured an article by Kathy Zernike highlighting the emerging rift between civil rights organizations and the for-profit charter schools they portray as “...the pet project of foundations financed by white billionaires”:
In separate conventions over the past month, the N.A.A.C.P. and the Movement for Black Lives, a group of 50 organizations assembled by Black Lives Matter, passed resolutions declaring that charter schools have exacerbated segregation, especially in the way they select and discipline students.
Instead of standing on the sidelines as charter schools take over public education in urban areas, civil right groups are beginning to see the corrosive effects of charter school cherry-picking on the students left behind in underfunded public schools. As Zernicke notes:
Although charters are supposed to admit students by lottery, some effectively skim the best students from the pool, with enrollment procedures that discourage all but the most motivated parents to apply. Some charters have been known to nudge out their most troubled students.
That, the groups supporting a moratorium say, concentrates the poorest students in public schools that are struggling for resources.
But the NAACP and Black Lives Matter are not alone in their disdain for charter schools. The Clarion-Ledger, a part of the USA Today newspaper chain, reports that the Southern Poverty Law Center is filing a suit against the Mississippi state government to “…strike down the Mississippi Charter School Act” because:
The Mississippi Constitution requires schools to be under the supervision of the state and local boards of education to receive public funding. But under the act, charter schools receive public funding even though they are exempt from the oversight of the state Board of Education, the Mississippi Department of Education and local boards of education.
While only 3% of the state funds currently go to charter schools, those filing the suit know where this train is headed and want to make sure it doesn’t leave the station.
“I sent my children to a public school because I believe in traditional public schools,”Cassandra Overton-Welchlin, a plaintiff in the case and mother of two children enrolled there, said in the news release. “I’m outraged that state and local tax dollars are funding charter schools in a way that threatens the existence of important services, including services for those with special needs, at my child’s school. As a taxpayer, I expect my property tax dollars will be used to support traditional public schools, which educate the vast majority of students in Jackson.”
Here’s hoping these public actions by traditional and new civil rights groups compels “…the pet projects of foundations financed by white billionaires” from making the claim that their efforts to tap into what they call the “potentially profitable public school market” is a civil rights issue!
Today’s NYTimes features an op ed piece by former Presidential aspirant and current Ohio Governor John Kasich. In his essay, Mr. Kasich singles out the “one-size-fits-all” approach for special condemnation:
But today, it’s clear that our welfare system is still deeply flawed, thanks in part to later changes from Washington. In 2005, Congress pulled power back from the states, reducing local flexibility by enforcing a one-size-fits-all approach that sets arbitrary time limits on education and training for people seeking sustainable employment. As a result, too many lives are thrown away by a rigid and counterproductive system that treats an individual as a number, not as a person who is desperate to gain new skills and opportunities in life.
As anyone who is familiar with “school reform” realizes, Ohio was one of several states who embraced the test-and-punish model of schooling with Ohio simultaneously rushing to institute market-based deregulated charter schools to help meet the needs of those students who could not pass the graduation test the first time around. The performance of these schools drew criticism from the Fordham Institute, which is usually a reliable cheerleader for “reform”:
Using student-level data collected by the state Department of Education from 2006 to 2010, the analysts report dropout counts and rates for Ohio’s high schools, both district and charter. While the report is chock-full of data, the pieces that are most jaw dropping relate to Ohio’s virtual and “dropout-recovery” schools. For example, in 2009–10, Virtual High School, operated by Cincinnati Public Schools, had a 93 percent dropout rate (196 dropouts over the school year, relative to a baseline high school enrollment of 211) and the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) had a dropout rate of 53 percent (2,908 dropouts relative to an enrollment of 5,468). The dropout rates for Ohio’s brick-and-mortar dropout recovery schools were worse, some greater than 200 percent, meaning that these schools had more than twice the number of dropouts than their baseline enrollment. These appalling statistics should call into question the efficacy of Ohio’s virtual and dropout-recovery-school programs. Still, these statistics could be more illusion than reality, for dropping out of school tends to be a process over time rather than a discrete event. Hence, it is not resolved whether dropouts should be entirely attributed to a student’s final schooling destination—a thorny issue that the report acknowledges. For instance, consider a student who went to Cleveland Metropolitan School District in grades K–8 but then went to one year at a dropout-recovery school before dropping out. Should the dropout-recovery school be held wholly accountable? Probably not. Nevertheless, as the report highlights, there are too many “dropout factories” among Ohio’s high schools—and, as evidenced, too many of the state’s second-chance “recovery” efforts fail to get our high schoolers to the finish line.
So while he condemns the one-size-fits-all approach to welfare reform, Mr. Kasich is all in on the one-size-fits-all approach to public education and, in doing so, has created more drop outs among low income students than most states in our country… and, as the Fordham Institute notes, the drop out rates of the so-called “recovery schools”, on-line for profit schools specifically designed to help students who fail the one-size-fits-all graduation examination, are especially appalling. If Mr. Kasich wants to address job placement for 16-24 years olds, he would be wise to abandon “reform” in K-12 schooling.