Cyber charter told to close and refuses

[annie]

Troubled cyber charter school ignores state's demand that it close

I'm sure the impulse to cling on has nothing to do with the CEO being in foreclosure at his house for the second time.

[raider.adam]

Hopefully teachers that interview google the school name first.

[annie]

Hopefully teachers that interview google the school name first.

Also the parents!

I would say Penn GSE must be embarrassed having graduated the guy but they're recently taken up with Michael Milken to fund education entrepreneurs.

[annie]

Cyber charter school may call it quits

Consider this line, from a trove of documents released Tuesday, outlining the state's case against the school: "Frontier incurred significant expenses and debt that were unrelated to the delivery of services to students of a cyber charter school, including purchases at restaurants, cash withdrawals that were not substantiated with receipts . . . and local transportation token purchases."

The school enrolled some students for the sole purpose of taking GED courses, and sent the bills to various school districts, according to the state documents.

The problem?

The Charter School Law prohibited Frontier from billing school districts for GED students, so the cyber school's administrators just didn't bother telling the districts what they were paying for, according to the documents.

Annnnd it's gone.

Philly cyber school to surrender its charter

[Templeton]

How many more of these stories will we have to read before people wake up to the fact that Charters aren't a magic bullet? In fact they just create another troubled educational system to monitor. A company looking for easy profit on the taxpayer's dime does not equal a quality educational institution.

I always feared charters would just lead to a bunch of "McSchools" being created. This seems to bear that out.

[seand]

No "magic bullet" is ever a magic bullet. That does not mean some specific charters and some specific medicines (to use the medical reference) are not effective solutions for some people.

There are a lot of really stupid knee-jerk "charters are always an improvement" folks in state government. They appoint the SRC and tune out till it is campaign contribution time. It has disastrous results in Philly, often worse than the original publics.

[raider.adam]

Only a small handful of naive people think charters are a magic bullet. Charters are an additional option for educating children that can add to the overall goal.

[annie]

There are a lot of really stupid knee-jerk "charters are always an improvement" folks in state government. They appoint the SRC and tune out till it is campaign contribution time. It has disastrous results in Philly, often worse than the original publics.

Only a small handful of naive people think charters are a magic bullet.

I'm far more troubled by those that have (or should have) the sense to know better but don't care because maybe someone can money off it. And it's largely not their kids attending charters anyway.

The SRC charter renewal sessions are a mockery of real oversight.

[Dolemite]

Let's face it the SDP is like 1 giant charter by this definition. It's sucked in so much money over the years with very little results. Should we get rid of public education? The "good" charters have shown that enough money was coming into the system but so little made it to the actual students/schools because the SDP was handing to the politically companies looking to make a buck.

[annie]

There are a lot of really stupid knee-jerk "charters are always an improvement" folks in state government. They appoint the SRC and tune out till it is campaign contribution time. It has disastrous results in Philly, often worse than the original publics.

When Tony Williams came out with his list of 144 low-performing schools eligible for his voucher legislation, his father's namesake charter wasn't on it. However, it did make it onto the list of school eligible for School Improvement Grants (SIG), which required a school to be one of the 140 persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state, and ended up getting $4.3 in federal funding to "restart" with a different charter operator. Funny how that worked out.

[Templeton]

No "magic bullet" is ever a magic bullet. That does not mean some specific charters and some specific medicines (to use the medical reference) are not effective solutions for some people.

There are a lot of really stupid knee-jerk "charters are always an improvement" folks in state government. They appoint the SRC and tune out till it is campaign contribution time. It has disastrous results in Philly, often worse than the original publics.

I think my real problem with Charters is that they are a way for the anti-union, anti-public school folks to drive a wedge and defund public schools at the same time. I just can't get behind a trojan horse.

I know the current system needs help, but starving it of money isn't the answer. I have nothing against parents have choice, but I think they should come up with another source of funds to run their experiments with. I think we should work to improve the existing system. There's no reason we can't make a public school into a more charter-like one, such as Kapa, masterman, Saul, etc.

[Templeton]

Only a small handful of naive people think charters are a magic bullet. Charters are an additional option for educating children that can add to the overall goal.

Unfortunately, it seems that small handful have big mouths. The anti-public school crowd knows that Charters are always better. And I'm not sure the crowd is that small. From the Mississippi GOP:

"For far too long, parents have been forced to enroll their children in failing public schools simply because of their zip code. Charter schools will give parents, particularly in failing school districts, another option in the public school education of their children. It is time that we stop accepting failing schools in Mississippi... "

What they don't say is, "Now these charter schools may be no better, at least you'll have a choice of failing schools."

[OldMama]

Adam, I don't know that I agree with your "handful" of people idea. I think lots of people buy it. And what's more, the people who buy the magic bullet pitches are frequently the parents whose kids need the most help. I believe that too many charters prey on the dreams of less-informed parents who believe the hype. Promising kids 60 college credits by graduation? Really? If a kid can't graduate from Masterman or Central with 60 college credits how can a charter full of kids who couldn't get into those schools promise that? And who is going to check and see how this claim pans out?

We need oversight and we need data on outcomes before we divert any more money to these places. Some charters will come out well in this process but others...

[seand]

Unfortunately, it seems that small handful have big mouths. The anti-public school crowd knows that Charters are always better. And I'm not sure the crowd is that small. From the Mississippi GOP:

"For far too long, parents have been forced to enroll their children in failing public schools simply because of their zip code. Charter schools will give parents, particularly in failing school districts, another option in the public school education of their children. It is time that we stop accepting failing schools in Mississippi... "

What they don't say is, "Now these charter schools may be no better, at least you'll have a choice of failing schools."

Or they may be slightly better. Or they may simply have a unique educational approach or focus that just so happens to work better for your particular kid. In those instances, it is at least a viable alternative.

You wouldn't say, "I went into H&M and I found a shirt where the buttons were missewn. Everyone should only ever be allowed to shop at the Gap from here on. Or the produce section was filthy at ShopRite, people should only be allowed to shop at Acme."

Alternatives are exactly that, alternatives. They are not "the solution" to replace public schools. And most of all they should be held accountable and shut down when they go astray, just like persistantly failing publics should be held accountable. If something isn't working, you need to make changes, charter or regular public.

[seand]

I think my real problem with Charters is that they are a way for the anti-union, anti-public school folks to drive a wedge and defund public schools at the same time. I just can't get behind a trojan horse.

I know the current system needs help, but starving it of money isn't the answer. I have nothing against parents have choice, but I think they should come up with another source of funds to run their experiments with. I think we should work to improve the existing system. There's no reason we can't make a public school into a more charter-like one, such as Kapa, masterman, Saul, etc.

1. You realize the first two on your list are magnet schools that use selective criteria to eliminate kids who have fallen behind. Thats an explicit policy of "cherry picking" that charters are often accused of.

2. So you "know better" what people's taxes should be spent on (exclusively union non-charter magnet schools) than the people paying the taxes or the parents deciding for their kids do. Must be nice being able to appoint yourself dictator.

3. I do think you have a point that "charter" is often used as trojan horse for eliminating the teacher's unions, often from people who simply oppose all unions. That is where a lot of the big money behind "anything but regular publics" is coming from. And it engenders an equally idiotic knee jerk anti-charter response. I think that people are so trained to automatically assume positions about "charters" that have nothing to do with the actual question of "are kids getting a strong education". Its all Kabuki. Eliminating teacher's unions is not the answer, nor is flatly refusing any system to rewards teachers who excell at educating kids.

[Templeton]

1. You realize the first two on your list are magnet schools that use selective criteria to eliminate kids who have fallen behind. Thats an explicit policy of "cherry picking" that charters are often accused of.

2. So you "know better" what people's taxes should be spent on (exclusively union non-charter magnet schools) than the people paying the taxes or the parents deciding for their kids do. Must be nice being able to appoint yourself dictator.

Number one is exactly my point. Why recreate the wheel? Charters do cherry pick for better results, as do magnets. I went to Masterman, i know we were cherry picked, hence the good results. I've said before charters merely do the same thing. Why not make alternatives within the existing system, rather than draining the one we have of needed resources?

I don't recall saying I know better what people's taxes should be spent on. I do know that we a public school system, and i feel we should support it, not drain it. If people want to pay for private school, there's nothing stopping them. It's a silly strawman. As a taxpayer, do I get to decide how the military, social security, whatever spends my money? Of course not. We create a system, and we try to work with the one we have.

We can go around all day. I believe that the root cause of bad schools are the parents and the kids in them. What about you? To me the solution involves fixing that. Charters don't address that main problem. IMO, we should fix the problem at its root, not start a shadow system. To me the question is how are "are kids getting a strong education" at charters? If the answer is "by cherry-picking the best students" it makes me wonder why we don't just do that with the existing system. You don't need charters to do that, the results would be the same, and you wouldn't be splitting scarce education dollars.

[Templeton]

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I should want my tax dollars to go to unelected, unaccountable politically connected cronies, with "mixed" results.

From today's Inky:

Pa. cyberschool that once educated Santorum's kids now tied to FBI probe
This news come as a) evidence mounts that cyber-charters, in spite of -- or maybe because of -- their ability to generate profits, do a poor job of actually educating children (PDF) and b) the state of Pennsylvania is thus racing to approve more cyber-charters. All of which cuts to the deeper question that's been under discussion here at Attytood for more than a year. No one disputes that public schools in Philadelphia and some other distressed cities are a disaster. To address that, we can a) fix our public schools or b) create a system to demolish those schools completely and funnel the money to a network of new schools that includes some worthwhile educators but way too many charlatans looking to make a quick buck or teach kids faith-based pseudo-science.

(Hey, this is almost what I wrote above!)

Cyber charter is a magnet for money - Philly.com
During the 2010-11 school year, the last for which data are available, PA Cyber got $103 million from school districts whose students enrolled in its home-based, Internet-delivered program. PA Cyber then paid $44 million to the National Network of Digital Schools Management Foundation, or NNDS, a nonprofit entity that once shared PA Cyber's top executive and three of its board members.

[seand]

Nope but if you want folks to lump all publics in one bag and say "just toss the whole thing", I'd saying drawing a line in the sand with "No Charters" would be a pretty good way to pick a losing side in that fight. Charters continue to be immensely popular with parents.

A need for governance and accountability is not the same as calling for the elimination of X.

[seand]

Number one is exactly my point. Why recreate the wheel?

Because the wheel is broken and parents hate the wheel and if given the option tend to run away screaming from the wheel more often than not. Because Wheel #2 already seems to be working better, be demonstrably, measurably more round in many instances.

I went to Masterman, i know we were cherry picked, hence the good results. I've said before charters merely do the same thing. Why not make alternatives within the existing system, rather than draining the one we have of needed resources?

So why do we have prioritize the publics producing lousy results instead of simply saying we should prioritize alternatives that are actually working. Full stop. Because you know better than parents? A charter is a public school.

I don't recall saying I know better what people's taxes should be spent on.

You in fact keep saying that we should not give money to a particular brand of public education that works for lots and lots of parents. Why? Again charters are public education.

Do you mean its more important to you that teachers are union members than whether the kids are getting a good education because that sounds like what you are saying.

We create a system, and we try to work with the one we have.

And the system we have includes charters, charters with long waiting lists of parents trying to enroll, more often than not. It sounds to me like you are explicitly trying to take away a choice a lot of parents explicitly say they want.

We can go around all day.

Only because you keep moving the goal posts and saying charters are not public education.

I believe that the root cause of bad schools are the parents and the kids in them. What about you? To me the solution involves fixing that.

"Fixing" the kids and the parents. Depending on the context, that sounds eugenics or something equally heavy handed and attrocious to me.

No. I don't expect schools to "fix" parents or kids. I expect them to give all kids, regardless of their zipcode an equal opportunity to learn. You, so far, not so much.

To me the question is how are "are kids getting a strong education" at charters? If the answer is "by cherry-picking the best students" it makes me wonder why we don't just do that with the existing system.

Mmmm. Its not just by cherry picking. Many charters do seem to produce obstensibly better measurable results with the same economic level of kids. Others are scams. Also, if we only have so much money, shouldn't we just prioritize the schools that work, charter or no, that produce results. Charters by law cost no more to run per student.

You don't need charters to do that, the results would be the same, and you wouldn't be splitting scarce education dollars.

No its you who keeps prioritizing something else, other than is the school producing results, as more important than education. I'm saying, charters, not charters -results first. You are saying charters never. That sounds like you have an agenda other than providing a quality education.

[OldMama]

I think the difference between magnet schools that "cherry pick" (by the way, CAPA, Masterman, and Saul are all magnets, not just the first two), is that we ALL know that they do this; the selection process is far more transparent. Masterman is not claiming that they are getting those scores on a random, lottery picked sampling of kids.Everyone knows they are not. We don't (or shouldn't) compare Masterman's scores to Ben Franklin's down the street. We SHOULD be able to compare Public Elementary School A to Charter Elementary School A down the street because there is not supposed to be cherry picking in that case. When there is cherry picking, it needs to be acknowledged before comparisons are made.