July 19th, 2012

As we know what is happening in Baltimore is happening across the country and this reform is the endgame of a long-term plan.  Bill Gates of Microsoft was speaking to his shareholders a decade ago about how this manufactured education bubble would make Microsoft's profits soar.....all they had to do was position the politicians.   What makes Baltimore different from other Third Way corporate states like New York, Illinois, and California is the crony politics that have made political activism almost non-existent.  Citizens Oversight plans to conduct surveys this school year of neighborhoods having a public school turned charter school to document the kinds of experiences these families have had and their idea of education reform and use the data in court......JOIN ME.  A decade ago the Supreme Court turned conservative and one of the first decisions involved overturning affirmative action with quotas and ratios requirements for students attending schools.  The purpose was to remove special treatment of minorities in desegregating schools.  The reverse of that is happening in this push to gentrify the city communities and it is equally illegal.  In this case it is the affluent, mostly white families calling themselves a minority that need to desegregate predominately black and Hispanic schools.  They know what they are doing is not legal, but as we see in all sectors of society today......they don't care and they don't think there will be retribution.

There was a great comment from a teacher in New York who speaks to the problems with this gentrification.  The 1% have adopted a formula for legitimacy that places 20 under-served families in what will become the affluent school.  I thought this was a Baltimore formula but as this New York comment suggests, this is being used nationwide.  The principal selects the 20 families according to parental involvement and cooperation.......all others are encouraged out.  Those selected out have been going to temporary charter schools and will go again to others as the dynamics move them further from the city midtown and downtown and to predominately vocational schools.  I spoke with a young man in my neighborhood asking why he wasn't in school in early afternoon.  He was in a school program that had him going to another building for a computer lab every afternoon.  He was underwhelmed with going and hated the format.

Midday with Dan Rodrick's, a local Baltimore public radio show had an 'wealth inequity' program that spoke to the standard explanations for today's corrupt and criminal environment and public distrust in most institutions.  The best part came at the end when a Maryland educator spoke, much to Rodrick's chagrin, addressing the education reform in Maryland.  She was apart of the discussion/development of the Maryland State Assessment and asked the question that is the gorilla in the room regarding assessments:  how can you use the results of these tests to determine teacher effectiveness or school funding when you have affluent schools getting financial donations boosting resources and parents paying to have their children take copious test-prep courses for the MSA  while under-served students sit in front of computers completing standardized units and nothing else?  This teacher said that the administrator of this development session just looked at her like it was a rhetorical question that simply didn't matter.  OF COURSE THERE IS INEQUITY.....GET OVER IT!

That is not democratic education and we will not 'GET OVER IT'.  We will get rid of these politicians allowing this to happen.  Mayor Rawlings-Blake is the one that gives complete control of Baltimore schools to Gov. O'Malley and O'Malley is the one that adopts these Race To The Top directives without ever bringing it to the public.  Did you hear Obama use the words 'charter schools', 'vocational schools', or online education when he campaigned in 2008 with his mantra of building strong schools?  He would not have been elected if he had as Democrats have always fought this.    America has always seen the school house as the center of a community and it is unbelievable that politicians would allow a small group of CEOs to create a complete remake of that treasured public asset with no public comment or approval.

VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!!!!!!

New York City teacher's comment to Mayor Bloomberg:

Is Mayor Bloomberg saying that if a child doesn`t attend a charter school they don`t get an education? Mayor Bloomberg, please come to my class where I teach students who in 6,7 and 8 grade are learning the Latin alphabet along with learning how to speak, read and write in English. Not to mention that some have serious learning disabilities, besides the fact that they are ELLs.According to the regulations supported by your administration next year they will all be taking the state tests : ELA and Math You are giving students 2 years of grace period and let them sink. You brought this system to the brink of chaos, just to come up with a `different version` that will save us all. Just by reinventing the wheel every other year, success won`t be achieved. Today you are blaming the public school, the teachers and the UFT, tomorrow it will be another name but the same people working. Teachers in charter schools don`t come from Mars, they don`t have a different training, they went, like the rest of us, to colleges to get a degree in education. So, what the major difference is between the public and the charter is the PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT because you give them a free hand to pick and choose their students. Please let me handpick my students and only teach the kids whose parents care about them. But, then what will happen to the kids who need us the most? The kids whose parents are on different continents? hospitalized or in refugee camps? Kids whose parents can`t afford a hot meal or a jacket? Or the time to sit down and ask their own kids how their day was? It is time for you to face the reality .

WHAT A DISGRACE!!!!!!
_______________________________________________________
REPUBLICAN STATES HAVE ALREADY TURNED THEIR CHARTER SCHOOLS TO ONLINE EDUCATION.......WHY PAY FOR SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE AND A TEACHER IN EVERY CLASSROOM WHEN STUDENTS CAN JUST SIT AT HOME OR IN AN AUDITORIUM AND DO COMPUTER UNITS?


N.C. School Districts Fight Online Charter School by Dave DeWitt

June 25, 2012

One of the fastest growing segments of the charter school movement is online charter schools. For-profit company, K-12 Inc., runs online charters in more than two dozens states and wants to expand to North Carolina. But it's run into fierce opposition from public school districts there

MY RESPONSE TO NPR'S STORY BELOW:

Race To The Top was about privatizing public education and this is one of many examples of the push by Republicans and Third Way Democrats like Obama to do just that.  Opening the Department of Education to 'innovation' in education when we have a successful model in our schools in the 1950s - 1970s shows it is just a push to privatize yet another public institution.  Teach for America and union-busting will be necessary for market efficiency and low-wage teaching options!

Obama says these schools will provide opportunities to climb the income ladder-------REALLY?????

March 28, 2012

  by Eyder Peralta

Anyone who watched Nursery University — a documentary about the trials and tribulations of getting your toddler in the "right" pre-school — won't be surprised by this story.

Still, it's worth noting. The Wall Street Journal's Smart Money reports today that more parents are borrowing to pay for their kids' K-12 education. The whole piece is an interesting read, so we encourage you to click over. But here's how the Journal came to this conclusion:

"Though data is scarce, private school experts and the small number of lenders who provide loans for kindergarten through 12th grade say pre-college loans are becoming more popular. Your Tuition Solution, one of the largest lenders in this space, says demand for the upcoming year is already up: This month, the total dollar amount of loans families requested rose 10% compared to a year ago; at that pace, the company expects its total funding to rise to $20 million for 2012-13. Separately, First Marblehead, which exited the market in 2008, reentered last year as demand for loans began to rise.

"Much of this demand is coming from high-income families. Roughly 20% of families that applied for aid to pay for their children's kindergarten through 12th grade private school education had incomes of $150,000 or more, according to 2010-11 data, the latest from the National Association of Independent Schools. That's up from just 6% in 2002-03. Those who don't get approved for free aid, like grants, increasingly turn to loans, experts say."

The Journal spoke to some parents who said they do this because they believe a better grade school education will put their kids on a path to a better college.


______________________________________________________
California and New York are the leaders in charter school creation.  This review of its system ten years ago, when the system was fledgling like Maryland's now shows the problems and solutions identified.  Maryland's charters are not transparent so in many cases the public does not know what is happening or if the reports they receive are accurate.  Maryland has a systemic problem with accountability and one does not have to stretch to be concerned as to how that relates to its charter schools.  If you listen to teachers and parents today........there is not much to like about many charter schools.  Below we see an update on charter concerns......IT IS LONG AND BORING BUT IT GIVES YOU INSIGHT AS TO WHERE MARYLAND IS GOING:

Three California charter school reform bills would change how schools are run July 8, 2011 |
 By Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

Three charter school bills making their way through the state legislature would significantly change the way charter schools are run.

The promise of charter school advocates has been to create better-managed, publicly funded campuses that outperform traditional public schools.

A large portion of the state’s 823 charters have fallen short.

State Sen. Joe Simitian says he and Assemblywoman Julia Brownley want poor performing charters to close their doors.

"We’re also concerned about the fact that charter schools, frankly, while they have the flexibility of fewer rules and less need to abide by various state regulations, sometimes operate with less transparency," Simitian says. "And I think what we’re hoping for here is that the same conflict of interest rules and the same open government rules that apply to other local schools, local school districts, would apply to charter schools."

Another bill would ensure charters don’t enroll only high performers at the expense of students struggling to learn English and kids with learning disabilities



REPORT 2002-104 SUMMARY - NOVEMBER 2002 California's Charter Schools: Oversight at All Levels Could Be Stronger to Ensure Charter Schools' Accountability HIGHLIGHTS Oversight of charter schools at all levels could be stronger to ensure schools' accountability. Specifically:

• The four chartering entities we reviewed do not ensure that their charter schools operate in a manner consistent with their charters.
  
  
• These chartering entities' fiscal monitoring of their charter schools is also weak.
  
  
• Some charter schools assess their educational programs against their charters' measurable student outcomes, but others do not.
  
  
• The Department of Education (department) could, but does not target its resources toward identifying and addressing charter schools' potential academic and fiscal deficiencies.
  
  
• Finally, although two new statutes attempt to add accountability, without the chartering entities and department increasing their commitment to monitoring, these new laws may not be as effective as they could be.

RESULTS IN BRIEF The California Legislature passed the Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Act) to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, students, and community members to establish and operate schools independently of the existing school district structure, including many of the laws that school districts are subject to. The Legislature intended charter schools to increase innovation and learning opportunities while being accountable for achieving measurable student outcomes. Before a charter school can open, a chartering entity must approve a petition from those seeking to establish the school. Under the Act, three types of entities-a school district, a county board of education, and the State Board of Education (state board)-have the authority to approve petitions for charter schools. As of March 2002, there were 360 charter schools serving approximately 131,000 students throughout California. More than 70 percent of the agencies chartering those schools have only 1 charter school. Chartering entities play a role in overseeing the schools they charter to determine if the schools operate in a manner consistent with their charters and follow all applicable laws. These responsibilities are not explicitly stated; rather, they are implied through the Act and its amendments, which authorize the chartering entities to approve charters, inspect or observe a school at any time, collect fees for oversight costs, and revoke charters under certain conditions. As such, we expected to find that the chartering entities had established policies and procedures for assessing the academic achievements of students in their charter schools, in accordance with the measurable student outcomes required in each charter. We had similar expectations for the chartering entities' assessment of their charter schools' financial operations. Without academic and fiscal monitoring, the charter schools are not held accountable for achieving their measurable student outcomes or for prudent use of the taxpayer funds they receive. Despite our expectations for academic monitoring, the four entities we reviewed-Fresno Unified School District, Los Angeles Unified School District, Oakland Unified School District, and San Diego City Unified School District-do not monitor to determine if their charter schools are achieving their student outcomes. Although each charter agreement contains standards for gauging the academic performance of the school, chartering entities typically do not have guidelines in place to effectively monitor their charter schools, nor do the chartering entities adequately monitor their charter schools against the agreed-upon student outcomes. Without periodically monitoring their schools for compliance with the charter terms, the chartering entities cannot ensure that their schools are making progress in improving student learning in accordance with their charters, nor are they in a position to identify necessary corrective action or revocation. Because the chartering entities were not effectively monitoring their charter schools for compliance with the measurable academic outcomes listed in their charters, we visited a sample of schools. Although some schools assess their educational programs against their charter's measurable student outcomes, others do not. By not assessing student performance against the charter terms, the schools are not demonstrating their accountability for meeting their agreed-upon academic goals. Further, although charter schools are exempt from much of the Education Code that governs public schools, they are still subject to at least three legal requirements as conditions for receiving state funds, including hiring teachers who hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing permit, offering a minimum number of instructional minutes, and certifying that their students have participated in state testing programs. However, we found that chartering entities are not always ensuring compliance with these legal requirements at each of their charter schools. Like the chartering entities' academic monitoring, their fiscal monitoring also had weaknesses. Some schools rely on their chartering entity for operational support. Other schools manage their own operations; these schools we consider to be fiscally independent. Because the chartering entities do not control the financial activities of their fiscally independent charter schools, the risk that these schools will develop financial problems is greater. Thus, we targeted the chartering entities' oversight of fiscally independent charter schools. We found that the chartering entities lacked necessary policies and procedures for effective fiscal monitoring and have not adequately monitored their charter schools. Although all four entities outlined the types of financial data they wanted their charter schools to submit and how often this data should be submitted, and all asserted that they have data review procedures to identify and resolve problems, none could provide evidence of these procedures. Further, even though all four chartering entities recently adopted new policies and procedures for charter schools, only two address fiscal monitoring and appear to provide for improved monitoring of their charter schools' fiscal health. Without adequate monitoring, schools that develop fiscal problems and other reported deficiencies might fail to meet the terms of their charter or deteriorate financially to the point of having to close, disrupting their students' education. Moreover, some charter schools are fiscally unhealthy. Based on fiscal year 2001-02 financial data, 6 of the 11 charter schools showed year-to-date expenditures in excess of revenues, and 4 of the 6 schools did not have prior year-end fund balances sufficient to cover their deficits. If these schools' problems go uncorrected, the schools may have to close and displace their students. In addition, the schools' closures may result in a loss of taxpayer money. The chartering entities are authorized to charge up to 1 percent of a charter school's revenues for the actual costs of providing supervisorial oversight, or up to 3 percent if they provide the charter school with substantially rent-free facilities. For fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-01-the latest years for which data was available during our review-the four chartering entities charged their charter schools more than $2 million in oversight fees. Nevertheless, none of the four chartering entities could document that the fees they charged corresponded to their actual costs, in accordance with statute, because the entities failed to track their actual oversight costs. Rather, the entities automatically charged a percentage of charter schools' revenues, assuming that their oversight costs exceeded the revenues they charged. As a result, the entities may be charging their charter schools more than permitted by law. Moreover, these chartering entities participated in the State's mandated-costs reimbursement process, which reimburses organizations for the costs of implementing state legislation. The chartering entities claimed more than $1.2 million in costs related to charter schools for the two fiscal years. However, because the chartering entities did not track the actual costs associated with overseeing their charter schools, they risk double-charging the State. Finally, although the statute is clear that the entities' oversight fee is capped at a certain percentage, the statute is unclear regarding which types of revenues are subject to the oversight fee. Consequently, the chartering entities are interpreting the law differently and may be applying their oversight fee to too much or too little of their charter schools' revenue. The Department of Education (department) plays a role in holding charter schools accountable for their fiscal and academic practices. The department has the authority to recommend that the state board take action, including, but not limited to, charter revocation. Although the chartering entity is the primary monitor of a charter school's financial and academic health, the department has the authority to make reasonable inquiries and requests for information. It currently uses this authority to contact chartering entities if it has received complaints about charter schools. If the department reviewed the information that it receives related to charter schools and raised questions with the chartering entities regarding fiscal or academic practices when appropriate, the department could target its resources toward identifying and addressing charter schools' potential academic and fiscal deficiencies. In this way, the department would provide a safety net for certain types of risks related to charter schools. The concept of the State as a safety net is consistent with the California Constitution, which the courts have construed to place on the State the ultimate responsibility to maintain the public school system and to ensure that students are provided equal educational opportunities. Although we found that the accountability system at the chartering entity level is weak, our work does not demonstrate the need for the department to play a greatly expanded and possibly duplicative role in overseeing charter schools, or any function beyond that of a safety net. Moreover, when we asked the department to provide any data it had to demonstrate pervasive academic concerns or fiscal malfeasance that may support the need to expand its oversight role beyond that of a safety net, it did not provide any. To apportion funds to charter schools, the department relies primarily on the certifying signatures of school districts and county offices of education-both of which lack the necessary procedures to ensure that charter schools comply with apportionment requirements. As a result, the department cannot be sure that charter schools have met the apportionment conditions the Legislature has established and that they receive only the public funds to which they are legally entitled. In addition, there appears to be a policy gap regarding a chartering entity's authority following a charter revocation-an authority that statutes do not clearly address, as Fresno Unified School District's recent revocation of Gateway Charter Academy's charter demonstrates. Finally, although two recently enacted laws, Senate Bill 1709 and Assembly Bill 1994 (Chapters 209 and 1058, Statutes of 2002), attempt to add accountability to the existing charter schools environment, without an increased monitoring commitment on the part of chartering entities and the department, these new laws may not be as effective as they could be. RECOMMENDATIONS The Legislature should consider amending the statute to make the chartering entities' oversight role and responsibilities explicit so that the chartering entities hold their charter schools accountable through oversight. To ensure that charter schools are held accountable for the taxpayer funds they receive and demonstrate accountability for the measurable outcomes set forth in their charters, the chartering entities should consider developing and implementing policies and procedures for academic and fiscal monitoring. To ensure that chartering entities can justify the oversight fee they charge their charter schools and to minimize the risk of double-charging the State for the costs of charter school oversight, they should:

• Establish a process to analyze their actual costs of charter school oversight.
  
  
• Compare the actual costs of oversight to the fees charged and, if necessary, return any excess fees charged.
  
  
• Use the mandated-costs reimbursement process as appropriate to recover their unreimbursed costs of overseeing charter schools.

The Legislature should consider clarifying the law to define the types of charter school revenue that are subject to the chartering entities' oversight fees. To fulfill its role as a safety net, the department should review available financial and academic information and identify charter schools that are struggling, then raise questions with the schools' chartering entities as a way of ensuring that the schools' problems do not go uncorrected. So that it does not improperly fund charter schools, the department should work with the appropriate organizations to ensure that charter schools' reported ADA is verified through an independent audit or other appropriate means and that charter schools have met other statutory conditions of apportionment. The Legislature may wish to consider establishing a method for disposing of a charter school's assets and liabilities and requiring the department to adopt regulations regarding this process, in this way, ensuring that a charter school's assets and liabilities are disposed of properly when it closes or has its charter revoked. AGENCY COMMENTS The four chartering entities: Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego, strongly disagreed with our conclusions related to chartering entity oversight and stated that we misinterpreted the law and held them to a standard of charter schools oversight that the Act does not contain. They object to being evaluated based on sound oversight criteria unless that criteria is explicitly in statute. Each chartering entity noted repeatedly that the legislation regarding charter school oversight is unclear and several stated that chartering entities have little or no grounds to deny a charter or enforce a charter. The department also disagreed with our audit as it relates to its oversight role. The department stated that it had strong concerns about our interpretation of the Act and our interpretation that the department has the authority and responsibility to monitor the fiscal and academic performance of charter schools. The department also stated that our recommendations do not account for its limited staffing resources. Although not rendering a legal opinion on the issue of oversight, our view that the Act places some monitoring responsibilities on chartering entities is informed by our reading of the statutes as well as the constitutional obligations of the State regarding the public school system. We believe that the statutes, although not explicit, do envision a monitoring role for chartering entities and that a monitoring process is absolutely essential to identifying key issues, providing charter schools the opportunity to take corrective action, and determining whether a chartering entity should exercise its authority to revoke a charter. Finally, we carefully analyzed each of the chartering entity's responses and we stand by our interpretation of the law and our audit conclusions.


California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-0255