Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Charter school scams

Recommended Posts

Ohio Republicans allowed the fraud known as ECOT to rip off Ohio taxpayers to the tune of $.5 BILLION, much of which was funneled back to themselves in the form of campaign contributions. I guess that helps explains why they can’t afford to fund transit, (real) public schools, or the local government fund.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ecot-ohio-largest-online-charter-school-officially-closing-friday/QTooP5B1yapQFlb5t8wLsJ/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are pieces of swamp ontology which inevitably emerge from one-party rule. Republicans want charter schools, okay; Democrats don't like it. But if the Democrats had any influence, they could have provided a check on the Republicans' instincts to 1) reward campaign donors, and 2) provide insufficient regulations in the name of small government/free market/etc. principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As bad as this is, I still favor charter schools, because when this type of thing happens in a charter school, people have another option. The school will close and they can go to their public school or another charter school. If public schools were the only option, when corruption happens, people have no other options or choice but to put up with a corrupt and failed school system. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As bad as this is, I still favor charter schools, because when this type of thing happens in a charter school, people have another option. The school will close and they can go to their public school or another charter school. If public schools were the only option, when corruption happens, people have no other options or choice but to put up with a corrupt and failed school system. 

 

 

 

If the charter system is going to be viable, online options need to be eliminated and there needs to be a more stringent cap per county.

 

School choice is a great thing when investment doesn't corrupt and saturate the market

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't just the online schools which have reported fraudulent numbers. But it's definitely true that it's much harder to verify enrollment and attendance for online schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School choice works when there are proper safeguards in place. When you get rid of the safeguards everything can become corruptible.

 

The only good thing about when a charter school fails is that there are options for the kids to go to take its place. When a public school fails, people are stuck with zero options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School choice works when there are proper safeguards in place. When you get rid of the safeguards everything can become corruptible.

 

As long as the Ohio Republican Party is against all regulations and transparency for charter school financing, the Republican Party is effectively encouraging corruption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue really is that we are handling online education wrong.  It shouldn’t an all inclusive one stop shop of education where it can educate all the troubled students that for whatever reason cannot attend a local school. That is a very tall order. 

    There should be some general online school that can handle pieces of education. The main one that comes to mind for me would be math. But early reading and spelling could also be put online as well. The benefit of this would be that it could meet a standard. There would be testing after each section and a high enough understanding of the section would have to be achieved before moving on to the next section. The best part of this is it could be done in a study hall it could be done on vacation it could be done during the summer. Then provide certifications for achievement based on on-site testing.  Allow students to test out of taking math for the incoming school year.  The positive for students is they can move on to learn other things while other students can get the help they need. The benefit for teachers is your focusing attention where it is needed.  The benefit for schools is they may be able to have less math classes and teachers if students are incentivized to learn on their own.  This could be used by charter schools and home educated kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School choice works when there are proper safeguards in place. When you get rid of the safeguards everything can become corruptible.

 

As long as the Ohio Republican Party is against all regulations and transparency for charter school financing, the Republican Party is effectively encouraging corruption. 

 

absolutely, the GOP fails students in this area and they need to have safeguards to protect against this from happening. However, to blindly say charter schools and school choice is bad because of ECOT and that the money is best served in the public schools is just blinding agreeing to the teacher's union propaganda. Like everything we need competition and checks and balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"School choice" is a propaganda term which infers there can't be a choice between different schools without privately-run schools funded by taxes. Any student can enroll in any non-magnet school in the Cincinnati district; even students from outside the district (neighborhood students currently receive priority in the case of limited slots). That could be called "school choice." Or what about extending that offer across all district borders? That would greatly expand school choice, without any charter schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finland and Sweden don't have school choice and they smoke us. 

 

Huh?  Finland has some of the most robust school choice in the entire world.  It's essentially universal there.

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/magic-education-finland

 

Finland runs a national school choice system where parents and students can choose freely between the 2,600 municipal and 80 privately-managed schools and funding follows the student.  While municipalities provide infrastructure financing to municipal schools, this appears to be the only major way in which the municipal schools differ from private schools.  Crucially, they do not guarantee teacher salaries or fixed costs if enrollments decline.

 

I'm as in favor of school choice as just about anyone and I think the Finnish model has amazing potential.  It's true that there's less distinction between public and private schools in Finland.  That's because Finnish municipal schools are allowed to fail if enrollments decline (like a private business), but are also not constrained by geographical districts (also like most private businesses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finland and Sweden don't have school choice and they smoke us. 

 

Huh?  Finland has some of the most robust school choice in the entire world.  It's essentially universal there.

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/magic-education-finland

 

Finland runs a national school choice system where parents and students can choose freely between the 2,600 municipal and 80 privately-managed schools and funding follows the student.  While municipalities provide infrastructure financing to municipal schools, this appears to be the only major way in which the municipal schools differ from private schools.  Crucially, they do not guarantee teacher salaries or fixed costs if enrollments decline.

 

I'm as in favor of school choice as just about anyone and I think the Finnish model has amazing potential.  It's true that there's less distinction between public and private schools in Finland.  That's because Finnish municipal schools are allowed to fail if enrollments decline (like a private business), but are also not constrained by geographical districts (also like most private businesses).

 

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that people would really want this type of "school choice" system here. Tell parents in Bay Village that kids from inner-city Cleveland can attend their school and see if they still support "choice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's equality of opportunity in this country, or that associated gaps can be solved, while retaining school districts as they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's equality of opportunity in this country, or that associated gaps can be solved, while retaining school districts as they exist.

 

I agree.  I meant my comment more as an indictment of society as a whole and not Gramerye's commentary.  I would love for their to be real school choice where all public schools are free to anyone.  I just don't see the privileged (I know people hat that word) class wanting their kids to go to school with those kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that people would really want this type of "school choice" system here. Tell parents in Bay Village that kids from inner-city Cleveland can attend their school and see if they still support "choice."

Who's "people?"  I'm people and I would favor that system.

 

But you're right, you wouldn't get majority support for it here.  Suburbanites wouldn't want to open their doors any wider, not after so many of them are invested in the premiums they paid to move into those districts just for the school systems.  And progressives would be opposed because the Finnish system really is universal, meaning the students and the money that follows them are free to enroll in religious schools as well (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/finland-schools-curriculum-teaching), not to mention that religion is actually a subject taught in public schools (https://www.suol.fi/index.php/religious-education-in-finland).  That Guardian article also contains the seeds of one of the major differences between the lay of the land here and there, though: While the government funds slots at religious schools as well as secular ones, there are only a tiny handful of religious schools in the entire country.  Identically worded school funding provisions in this country would result in much greater state funding of religious schools, because we have more of them even as things stand ... and we would almost certainly have even more of them if they were suddenly free or dramatically reduced in cost.

 

The one group who would be most enthusiastically in support of provisions like this in the US are also among the smallest factions in the entire country--urban conservatives.  The fact that the "universal scholarship" (or universal per-pupil funding) that Finland offers could be used at religious schools doesn't faze us, and the fact that it would allow us to live in urban downtowns and still send our kids outside of urban public school districts without major tuition expenditures on top of our generally applicable property taxes would be a tremendous benefit.  Suburban conservatives don't need to care as much, and urban liberals will have secularist reservations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that people would really want this type of "school choice" system here. Tell parents in Bay Village that kids from inner-city Cleveland can attend their school and see if they still support "choice."

Who's "people?"  I'm people and I would favor that system.

 

But you're right, you wouldn't get majority support for it here.  Suburbanites wouldn't want to open their doors any wider, not after so many of them are invested in the premiums they paid to move into those districts just for the school systems.  And progressives would be opposed because the Finnish system really is universal, meaning the students and the money that follows them are free to enroll in religious schools as well (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/finland-schools-curriculum-teaching), not to mention that religion is actually a subject taught in public schools (https://www.suol.fi/index.php/religious-education-in-finland).  That Guardian article also contains the seeds of one of the major differences between the lay of the land here and there, though: While the government funds slots at religious schools as well as secular ones, there are only a tiny handful of religious schools in the entire country.  Identically worded school funding provisions in this country would result in much greater state funding of religious schools, because we have more of them even as things stand ... and we would almost certainly have even more of them if they were suddenly free or dramatically reduced in cost.

 

The one group who would be most enthusiastically in support of provisions like this in the US are also among the smallest factions in the entire country--urban conservatives.  The fact that the "universal scholarship" (or universal per-pupil funding) that Finland offers could be used at religious schools doesn't faze us, and the fact that it would allow us to live in urban downtowns and still send our kids outside of urban public school districts without major tuition expenditures on top of our generally applicable property taxes would be a tremendous benefit.  Suburban conservatives don't need to care as much, and urban liberals will have secularist reservations.

 

I would favor this type of system TBH.  But if we are going to allow funding for religious education, then I might request government funding to go back to funding things that religious people object to (abortion.) I'd prefer government funding to be morality neutral.

 

I meant "people" as the majority population. I think suburban residents in general would be the most averse to this. Many of these families fled the city during busing, which brings up another issue if we truly want choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, obviously there's no possible way to bus every child to every school in a universal choice system.  There could be multiple kids living in one large apartment complex that are going to five or ten or fifteen different schools.

 

And of course time and distance constraints are stubborn even if financial constraints are lessened.  While a universal choice system might make it possible for a child in Kenmore to go to Hudson, it's still a very inconvenient drive unless they're the beneficiary of some other practical circumstances in their favor (e.g., one parent works in Hudson--and works normal hours--and therefore can drop the kid off and pick them up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, obviously there's no possible way to bus every child to every school in a universal choice system.  There could be multiple kids living in one large apartment complex that are going to five or ten or fifteen different schools.

 

And of course time and distance constraints are stubborn even if financial constraints are lessened.  While a universal choice system might make it possible for a child in Kenmore to go to Hudson, it's still a very inconvenient drive unless they're the beneficiary of some other practical circumstances in their favor (e.g., one parent works in Hudson--and works normal hours--and therefore can drop the kid off and pick them up).

 

And this is starting to get us to the root of the problem.  The legacy of segregation .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe.  We could obviously argue about that.  But on the flip side, that would actually be how I'd pitch a system like this to the residents of Hudson.  You wouldn't be randomly assigned students like in a government-mandated busing situation.  You'd only get students that freely chose to come there, and that were dedicated and resourceful enough (using the always-tacit cynical definition of "resourceful" that includes luck as a resource ...) to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe.  We could obviously argue about that.  But on the flip side, that would actually be how I'd pitch a system like this to the residents of Hudson.  You wouldn't be randomly assigned students like in a government-mandated busing situation.  You'd only get students that freely chose to come there, and that were dedicated and resourceful enough (using the always-tacit cynical definition of "resourceful" that includes luck as a resource ...) to make it work.

 

That works as a way to sell the idea but it doesn't provide an actual choice to underprivileged students.  Sprawl makes it harder to get these kids to the choice schools just like it makes it harder for their parents to get to the jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True.  But for example, in Akron, those students would have the options of St. Vincent or Hoban, if they could get in.  (Obviously demand exceeding supply is also an issue with some of these places.)  But perhaps a bigger question, and this would perhaps get back to the charter school issue more directly, is whether the universal choice system (a) would put serious performance pressure on the existing Akron neighborhood schools, or (b) would redirect more enrollment, and therefore necessarily more resources (in this system), to Akron's public charter/magnet schools (the National Inventors Hall of Fame STEM School, the Miller-South School for the Visual and Performing Arts, and Akron Early College High School).

 

Of course, at the end of the day, schools are largely defined by their student bodies.  If you swapped the student bodies of Hudson and Buchtel, you'd change the characters of the school infinitely more than if you swapped the teaching staff or the physical buildings.  Akron Early College High School has such stellar scores largely because it's a magnet school that draws honor students from across the entire district.  And of course, while Hoban and St. Vincent might like to say that their faith gives them focus, the fact that they're overwhelmingly recruiting from intact, high-SES families does give them a little bit of an edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple solution would be that anyone living in a failing school district could opt for any number of private schools (religious or secular), but not other community schools. Community schools are not inherently a bad thing - many of the best school districts in the state are in smaller communities - there's no reason to meddle with those and you'd be facing an unwinnable uphill battle if you attempted to do so.

 

Ohio's EdChoice program is a good start at this, IMO. Regardless of income, if your kids would be enrolled in a failing community school, you can get tuition assistance for a private school of your choice. That's huge if your goal is repopulating the urban cores of Ohio's cities with more people, specifically more families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that that's kind of the current center of gravity; freefourur and I were talking more about where we wished the center of gravity were than where it is.

 

I don't understand the need for the "failing" label to attach to a school before we let people leave.  Do I need to prove that East of Chicago is failing before I switch to Papa John's?  That Skyway is failing before I switch to Swenson's?  (In reality, of course, there's no switch involved there ... you just go to Swenson's in the first place. 8) )  Why should I need to prove that Peninsula is failing (it isn't!) if I want to go to Hudson or Revere?

 

I'd still respect capacity limits.  Within reason, I'd respect preferential placement for local residents.  But the hard jurisdictional lines are somewhat nonsensical.  Sometimes they're visibly nonsensical.  The border between Akron and Cuyahoga Falls looks like a screencap from a Japanese kaiju movie about two Godzilla-amoebas that got into a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finland and Sweden don't have school choice and they smoke us. 

 

Huh?  Finland has some of the most robust school choice in the entire world.  It's essentially universal there.

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/education/magic-education-finland

 

Finland runs a national school choice system where parents and students can choose freely between the 2,600 municipal and 80 privately-managed schools and funding follows the student.  While municipalities provide infrastructure financing to municipal schools, this appears to be the only major way in which the municipal schools differ from private schools.  Crucially, they do not guarantee teacher salaries or fixed costs if enrollments decline.

 

I'm as in favor of school choice as just about anyone and I think the Finnish model has amazing potential.  It's true that there's less distinction between public and private schools in Finland.  That's because Finnish municipal schools are allowed to fail if enrollments decline (like a private business), but are also not constrained by geographical districts (also like most private businesses).

 

There must be two different Finlands:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

 

 

There is this idea out there that taking kids out of poverty and plopping them in a rich kid school will magically lift them up.  It doesn't.  One's family culture is like 95% of who we are and a school can *barely* affect that. 

 

School Choice?  Why don't we get to choose whether or not we inherit $10 million?  I'm for Inheritance Choice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charter schools should be shut down at once. They are scams. Upon graduating,  kids can do no better than get into a crummy school like MIT! (or Tufts, Emory, etc...)

 

Teen goes from Bronx homeless shelter to full-ride at MIT

By Selim Algar June 7, 2018 | 10:59pm

 

https://nypost.com/2018/06/07/teen-goes-from-bronx-homeless-shelter-to-full-ride-at-mit/

 

"A Bronx teen made the stunning journey from a homeless shelter to a full ride at MIT — and is crediting Success Academy for lighting his path.

 

Moctar Fall, of The Bronx, is one of 16 members of the charter school network’s first graduating high-school class — all of whom nabbed spots at four-year colleges ranging from Barnard and Tufts to Stony Brook and Emory."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sure, whatever. I don’t think there are many people advocating that charter schools should all be shut down.  However, i would not mind seeing all for profit ones shut down or switched over to non-profit status.  Charter schools are here but they also need to pull their weight and meet the same standards as public schools.

  To me the whole thing is still a republican scam to cut out a big voting block from the Democrats.  As they weaken the public schools by giving them less money, they weaken the teachers unions. That is the point. If republicans can make money while doing this even better.  Obviously public schools are not perfect either.  But instead of trying of improve them, the GOP, decided to cut them out at the knees throughout the midwest.  So a one in a million story where a kid does something great from a charter school is obviously the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, they'd better have produced some success stories by now.  We've been throwing money at them for years.  But there are millions of similar stories for public schools, and they've lost a lot of revenue just to get one kid into MIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these charter schools are employing huge numbers of foreign teachers.  So not only is there no pesky union to deal with, the teachers can't vote AT ALL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple solution would be that anyone living in a failing school district could opt for any number of private schools (religious or secular), but not other community schools. Community schools are not inherently a bad thing - many of the best school districts in the state are in smaller communities - there's no reason to meddle with those and you'd be facing an unwinnable uphill battle if you attempted to do so.

 

Ohio's EdChoice program is a good start at this, IMO. Regardless of income, if your kids would be enrolled in a failing community school, you can get tuition assistance for a private school of your choice. That's huge if your goal is repopulating the urban cores of Ohio's cities with more people, specifically more families.

 

Ohio's EdChoice and other private school voucher programs are, as you mention, more about real estate than education. It's true that most middle-class white families won't send their children to public schools in (Ohio's) big cities. Because private schools are mostly urban (elite) or religious, this tends to benefit people who are already sending their children to private schools; people who are wealthy or committed to their childrens' elite or religious schooling. It might draw in a few more people to inner city neighborhoods.

 

I think it is a mistake to divide up school funding on a per-pupil basis; school funding is for schools, not individual families to use as they choose. The aim should be to have a strong public school system that is publicly funded, and a strong array of private schools that do not rely on public funding. Over time, state funding of private schools will necessarily integrate them into the public system, since they are using public money. If private schools want to remain unique/innovative/elite, they'll eventually have to forgo the public $$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a mistake to divide up school funding on a per-pupil basis; school funding is for schools, not individual families to use as they choose.

 

 

I'm curious as to why you think that's actually better than having individual families able to use the funding as they choose (with the obvious stipulation that it's still school funding for schools and they can't just pocket it, they have to send it to some school).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a mistake to divide up school funding on a per-pupil basis; school funding is for schools, not individual families to use as they choose.

 

 

I'm curious as to why you think that's actually better than having individual families able to use the funding as they choose (with the obvious stipulation that it's still school funding for schools and they can't just pocket it, they have to send it to some school).

 

 

Because the tax structure is set up to require individuals to contribute to a school system, not to paying families to choose where to send their children. The principle is different: we pay school taxes, not tuition taxes. I disagree with having school tax monies pay for the tuition of a student to a school that discriminates, such as not admitting students with disabilities; anti-gay policies; etc etc. I think that students should be able to transfer to other public schools using public money, but not private schools. I do believe that these policies are mostly set up in the interest of maintaining racial-economic segregation in urban areas. Many of my friends with children in Toledo say they wouldn't live here if without programs like this. The well-off children end up attending "good" Catholic schools, charter school etc, which the poor + Black kids generally cannot gain admission; they end up in strip center charter schools without sports, music, etc. There are certainly a few "good" charter schools in Ohio, but many of them are warehouses and e-data centers for students from shuttered public schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic schools I went to were good at keeping their various scandals out of the press, and when something does make news, it dies immediately.  Their finances are not public so any financial malfeasance will never become public. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember there was a crooked charter school in Columbus that was in an old Sun TV store. They hadn't removed most of what was left of the store so there was still store signage and fixtures all over the place. One of the TV stations went in there and started filming. Then another charter school one smuggled in McDonald's since they didn't pay their food delivery service bill.

 

"Now go sit over there in Car Audio and think about what you did. Come back over to checkout in 15 minutes so you can do pushups."

 

It's a total race to the bottom and society has to keep playing wack-a-mole as capitalism constantly finds loopholes, shortcuts, cost-grinds, abuses and workarounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×