BASIS Charter Schools make fraudulent use of Special Education designation

Arizonans for Charter School Accountability is an amazing organization that is exposing malfeasance and fraud in one of the worst charter school states in the nation. We have opined here in the past that Arizona has no concept of a conflict of interest and allows the starkest, most absurd entanglements of financial interests one can imagine.

Now, Arizonans for Charter School Accountability has exposed a crass and cynical manipulation of the charter school financing system. Cynical and crass because it exploits money designated for special needs students to increase its already considerable profits. You can read the details at ACSC's website or jump to the story immediately that has been reproduced below:

Special Education Fraud II: BASIS Inc.

BASIS Inc. does everything possible to game Arizona’s financial system. They received Federal start up funds, designed for new charter holders, to build their 12th school. They charter each school individually and claim they are “small” schools to receive additional funding, even though they have over 8000 total students. Now we find that in 2013-14 they claimed to have 19 severely handicapped students in eight schools. Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, Multiple Disabilities, Autism, Intellectual Disability - all students that require a great deal of support to achieve in school. These students generate four to six times the revenue per pupil of a regular education child to pay for the extensive services they require. These 19 students netted an additional $350,000 in state assistance for BASIS Inc. (Data is on the ADE Finance site: Charter Equalization Report (CHAR55-1) 2014)

The problem? According to their 2014 Annual Financial Report, BASIS expended ZERO dollars on special education in all of its 12 schools, except for $244,800 for “general administration” that went straight to BASIS Inc. Worse yet, every BASIS school claims to have spent an identical amount, exactly $20,400, for special education general administration, whether they had education students or not.

It is hard to image 19 severely handicapped students being able to navigate one of the most rigorous curriculums in the country without assistance. There are three possibilities:

• First is the possibility that BASIS is collecting $350,000 for special education students that don’t exist. That is fraud on both a state and federal level. Or maybe BASIS legitimately has 19 handicapped students and is not providing them appropriate services. That would prompt a huge investigation from Federal officials with I.D.E.A., the ADE Special Education Unit, and maybe the Office of Civil Rights.
• This is exactly what happened at the new BASIS school in Washington D.C. Special education students were simply placed in remedial programs that all struggling students attended. BASIS was forced by OCR to make major changes in dealing with special education students.
• Or finally, maybe BASIS has identified these students correctly and is providing stellar programs to meet their individual needs - hey just are not reporting spending money for any special education personnel, materials, or outside services. The identical $20,400 each BASIS school supposedly spends on special education administration indicates that the figures are made up. What else is fabricated?

At the least, special education students need to be reevaluated every three years. But BASIS shows no expenditures for special education purchase services, the code they would use to pay for a psychologist perform the testing. Why would they show no special education expenditures?

Arrogance. The same arrogance that cons parents out of millions of dollars every year for workbooks, art supplies, extra curricular activities, and even funds to compensate their underpaid teachers and to build new schools. The same arrogance that makes it OK to take startup funds or pretend their school are “small” to get more funding. The total lack of oversight in Arizona breeds arrogance. BASIS is building a national chain at the expense of taxpayers and parents, and high needs special education students.

We filed formal complaints with state and federal officials today. The complaints can be viewed at out website: azcsa.org

Public education. Always.

Visit the Arizonans for Charter School Accountability website and support their work if you can. At present, all this effort is coming out of the hide of one man. Share on Facebook; Tweet out this article.

Gallup Poll Shows Parents Rejecting Standardized Testing

The latest Gallup poll — sponsored in part by Phi Delta Kappa — shows that parents of students feel that there is too much emphasis on standardized testing and that almost half would choose to "opt out" of the testing for their child.

Parents are joined by public school teachers who expressed overwhelming dissatisfaction with standardized testing of the Common Core in an earlier Gallup poll.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Why I Am No Longer a Measurement Specialist

I was introduced to psychometrics in 1959. I thought it was really neat.

By 1960, I was programming a computer on a psychometrics research project funded by the Office of Naval Research. In 1962, I entered graduate school to study educational measurement under the top scholars in the field.

My mentors – both those I spoke with daily and those whose works I read – had served in WWII. Many did research on human factors — measuring aptitudes and talents and matching them to jobs. Assessments showed who were the best candidates to be pilots or navigators or marksmen. We were told that psychometrics had won the war; and of course, we believed it.

The next wars that psychometrics promised it could win were the wars on poverty and ignorance. The man who led the Army Air Corps effort in psychometrics started a private research center. (It exists today, and is a beneficiary of the millions of dollars spent on Common Core testing.) My dissertation won the 1966 prize in Psychometrics awarded by that man’s organization. And I was hired to fill the slot recently vacated by the world’s leading psychometrician at the University of Illinois. Psychometrics was flying high, and so was I.

Psychologists of the 1960s & 1970s were saying that just measuring talent wasn’t enough. Talents had to be matched with the demands of tasks to optimize performance. Measure a learning style, say, and match it to the way a child is taught. If Jimmy is a visual learner, then teach Jimmy in a visual way. Psychometrics promised to help build a better world. But twenty years later, the promises were still unfulfilled. Both talent and tasks were too complex to yield to this simple plan. Instead, psychometricians grew enthralled with mathematical niceties. Testing in schools became a ritual without any real purpose other than picking a few children for special attention.

Around 1980, I served for a time on the committee that made most of the important decisions about the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The project was under increasing pressure to “grade” the NAEP results: Pass/Fail; A/B/C/D/F; Advanced/Proficient/Basic. Our committee held firm: such grading was purely arbitrary, and worse, would only be used politically. The contract was eventually taken from our organization and given to another that promised it could give the nation a grade, free of politics. It couldn’t.

Measurement has changed along with the nation. In the last three decades, the public has largely withdrawn its commitment to public education. The reasons are multiple: those who pay for public schools have less money, and those served by the public schools look less and less like those paying taxes.

The degrading of public education has involved impugning its effectiveness, cutting its budget, and busting its unions. Educational measurement has been the perfect tool for accomplishing all three: cheap and scientific looking.

International tests have purported to prove that America’s schools are inefficient or run by lazy incompetents. Paper-and-pencil tests seemingly show that kids in private schools – funded by parents – are smarter than kids in public schools. We’ll get to the top, so the story goes, if we test a teacher’s students in September and June and fire that teacher if the gains aren’t great enough.

There has been resistance, of course. Teachers and many parents understand that children’s development is far too complex to capture with an hour or two taking a standardized test. So resistance has been met with legislated mandates. The test company lobbyists convince politicians that grading teachers and schools is as easy as grading cuts of meat. A huge publishing company from the UK has spent $8 million in the past decade lobbying Congress. Politicians believe that testing must be the cornerstone of any education policy.

The results of this cronyism between corporations and politicians have been chaotic. Parents see the stress placed on their children and report them sick on test day. Educators, under pressure they see as illegitimate, break the rules imposed on them by governments. Many teachers put their best judgment and best lessons aside and drill children on how to score high on multiple-choice tests. And too many of the best teachers exit the profession.

When measurement became the instrument of accountability, testing companies prospered and schools suffered. I have watched this happen for several years now. I have slowly withdrawn my intellectual commitment to the field of measurement. Recently I asked my dean to switch my affiliation from the measurement program to the policy program. I am no longer comfortable being associated with the discipline of educational measurement.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

The Setting of the Moon: Tom Luna's Short Time on Stage

Tom Luna served briefly as state superintendent of instruction for the state of Idaho. Luna was the darling of the online education corporations. In fact, K12 Inc. actually brought him to D.C. during his campaign for state superintendent and threw a fund raiser for him. It worked; he got elected; and K12 Inc. profited royally from his tenure.

There's more to the story of Tom Luna — who has largely disappeared from the political scene — and few are as well positioned to tell the story tas an Idaho teacher. Enter Jon Ziegler, a twenty-five year veteran of Idaho public education. I have invited Jon to present his thoughts on what the brief life of Tom Luna as state superintendent added up to. Forthwith, Jon's thoughts:

There are two positions concerning Tom Luna, former state superintendent of education for Idaho:

1. His own, which he published on January 2, 2015
2. And the position taken by most professional educators:

Having been a very polarizing politician, it is hard to find middle ground where Tom Luna is concerned.

Since his Wikipedia page appears to be run by a supporter, I will list the accomplishments of his Students Come First "initiative" as they are enumerated at Wikipedia.

Idaho school reforms
As a member of the Nampa School Board from 1994 to 2002, Luna supported school vouchers and tax credits for private schools as a means to increase competition in education.
Running for the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Idaho position in 2006, Luna focused on promoting charter schools. Columnist William McGurn stated that he found Luna's business experience and lack of education degree, "refreshing".

Students Come First
The centerpiece of education reforms spearheaded by Luna following his 2006 election as Superintendent is a package of legislation known as Students Come First. Among the reforms in the Students Come First package, passed by the Idaho Legislature in 2011, are:

• New limits to the collective bargaining rights of Idaho teachers
• Raised the annual minimum pay for new teachers by $345
• Established a performance-based merit pay system for teachers
• Increase classroom sizes in grades 4 through 12
• Phased out tenure, instead implementing one- and two-year rolling contracts for every new teacher and administrator, depending on experience
• Required online course credit for high school graduation
• Provided laptop computers for all high school teachers and high school students and classroom Wi-Fi.

Luna's proposed reforms have been challenged though ballot initiatives. Among the opponents is the Idaho Education Association, a state teachers union. Petitions challenging the Students Come First legislation collected enough signatures to place the matter on the state's November 6, 2012, general election ballot. There were three separate ballot propositions because the reforms were passed with three legislative bills. Voters rejected all three propositions on November 6, striking down the reforms.

Luna's "laws" were nothing more than a reworking of Michelle Rhee's disaster in Washington, D.C. As stated in the above blog, "Students Come First" was not very original. A less biased assessment of Luna’s "reforms" than that found at Wikipedia looks like this.

Working as they do in a Right to Work state before Luna was elected to office, Idaho teachers were already in a precarious situation in regard to collective bargaining. The legislature's passage of Luna’s initiative gave school districts the opportunity for free-for-alls in how they negotiated with teachers. Teachers’ salaries were cutback because of the economy, the administration claimed, but more likely the cutback was due to the wish to purchase laptops and Wi-Fi. One school board member was pushing for a 13% decrease in pay, and wanted to stipulate that it was permanent. It was not until an IEA attorney showed up for negotiations that things calmed down a bit. Our district saw a 6.5% "non-permanent" reduction in pay. That was passed in the Spring of 2010. Teachers are still trying to recoup these losses. Raising the annual minimum wage for new teachers by under $30 a month was a sham. Under Luna, new teacher salaries dropped from $36,000 (statewide) to $29,000 (statewide). So with a smile, Luna told the new teachers that they were getting a "raise."

Merit pay, which I do not necessarily have issues with, was another reason wages were cut for teachers. Luna needed to fund merit pay. Of course within districts, merit pay tends toward crony-ism. To help support his position for merit pay, Luna had Frank Vandersloot (owner or a large radio network and chief financier of American Heritage Charter School) write op-eds concerning how bonuses and merit pay have brought excellence to his company. Currently Vandersloot is suing "Mother Jones" for their the magazine's having called Vandersloot a "gay-basher." Also, the Albertson [grocery chain] Foundation lobbied hard for merit pay.

Luna's position on class size was that the number of students in a classroom did not matter. Imagine, the end of August, 40 students in your classroom, and no oppressive heat (being in Eastern Idaho most schools do not possess air conditioning.) And that has nothing to do with the educational ramifications with having 40+ students in a class.

Under Luna, teachers who had tenure kept it and were to be grandfathered in. New teachers would be on rolling contracts. Although the laws were dumped by Republican voters, this portion of Luna's "laws" has been the most lasting (outside of pay cuts). School administrators used this to move teachers around districts without challenges.

Online courses were a bit duplicitous. Idaho already had the Idaho Distance Learning Academy. Being a large, and somewhat under-populated state, Idaho had implemented distance learning programs for students in rural areas. Instead, Mr. Luna insisted that students take online courses from companies the districts had to pay out of pocket for. In some way, he was duplicating services. Commercial breaks throughout the state were not complete without K12 Inc. ads. If I am not mistaken Tom Luna's sister, has been investigated concerning her participation with various broadband providers. She has continued to be employed by the Idaho State legislature. As of today, according to the Rexburg Standard Journal, she has been appointed to a position with...Homeland Security. And now the FCC is investigating both Teresa and Tom in connection with the letting of a contract for broadband services to schools when Tom was State Superintendent.

Laptops for every student is a still a financial burden for the state. Wireless carriers have been suing the State Department of Education for the money involved with the contracts Tom Luna signed. Until recently, the newspapers did not even mention this was Tom Luna's doing. The headlines just stated that Sherri Ybarra, his successor, was strapped with these contracts to deliver wireless to school districts (which most districts already had), for computers, for which they were no longer required to purchase.

I could continue, but as stated before, the on-line literature concerning Tom Luna is endless. Before the members of his own party voted down the "Luna Laws," Tom Luna was being spoken of in the press as being Idaho's future governor. Although his tenure as Idaho's school's chief has caused chaos within the state's education system (regardless of what he writes), his laws being voted down saved the state from Luna being governor. It destroyed him politically, for now. The state legislators, who jumped on his ship of error, do not mention him. It is as if he never existed. Locally, his former hardcore supporters dropped him for his endorsing the Common Core State Standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to express myself.

Jon Ziegler is a California ex-patriot living in Eastern Idaho. He has taught since. I have taught emotionally disturbed students, regular classroom classes, primarily special education along with math, literature, PE, and history. Currently he teaches at an alternative high school. He graduated with a degree in history, and a minor in philosophy, from Brigham Young University . He received a graduate degree in Instructional Leadership and a second degree in Special Education from National University - Sacramento.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

A Little Piece of the Opt Out Movement

The Opt Out Movement is an unorganized, spontaneous attempt by students and parents – and we can assume, with the support of some teachers – to stem the rising tide of standardized testing by external agencies. The movement is opposed by politicians, testing companies, and the federal government. A recent event brings to the forefront the dynamics underlying the Opt Out Movement.

Jim Vacca teaches an Advanced Placement class in Language Arts at Boulder (CO) High School. Boulder High was a site for the try-out of the PARCC test – the Pearson company’s entry into the Common Core testing business. The administration of Boulder High was prepared for a bit of opting out after the cross town Fairview High School students staged a huge walk out in protest of the state assessment test earlier in the year. Boulder High students were told that if they opted out of the PARCC that they were to attend study hall when the test was administered.

But Jim Vacca’s students were more interested in learning than twiddling thumbs in study hall or serving as guinea pigs for the Pearson company. They asked Vacca to hold their regular AP Language Arts class, and he did.

The Boulder High administration did not take kindly to Vacca’s act of insubordination, and they informed Vacca that he would no longer be allowed to teach AP classes. His students have started a petition to have him reinstated as the AP Language Arts teacher.

We can draw several observations from this incident:

1. The Opt Out Movement is a special middle class movement. Boulder High and Fairview High are not typical middle class schools. They are located in a city that is overwhelmingly Democrat in voting preference. (By city ordinance, pet owners must be referred to as “guardians” in official communications.) The Opt Out Movement has yet to penetrate where testing does most harm.
2. As Diane Ravitch once observed, the hope for the success of the Opt Out Movement resides with the students and retired teachers. Teachers currently employed are easy targets for retaliation.
3. School administrators at several levels are afraid of retaliation by state agencies and the federal government if they refuse to go along with external testing schemes. In a recent exchange on an internet discussion list, and employee of one of the big contractors in the assessment business was quick to point out that those opting out were risking the cut-off of federal funds.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Crony Capitalism Beats the Free Market Again

There's bad news for all those neoliberal and conservatives who think that free markets and competition are the royal road to the shining city on the hill. The free market constantly takes a back seat to "crony capitalism": "an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism."

First, about 5 or 6 years ago the founders of the Basis charter school chain thought they would enter the private school market in Scottsdale, Arizona, and reap those huge private school tuition profits. And why not? Private schools like Phoenix Country Day and Tesseract were charging $20,000+ a year tuition and turning kids away. But the Basis Scottsdale ad campaign produced a mere 7 takers by the time school was to open in the fall, and the founders quickly converted Basis Scottsdale from private to charter. "Free" tuition for all comers — "free," that is, to everybody but the taxpayers. Crony capitalism at work.

And today, crony capitalism has struck again. Tesseract private school, with a couple locations in the Phoenix Metro area, has announced that they are shutting down a large part of their operation. High school will be dumped and other parts of the operation will be consolidated. The reasons are dwindling finances and declining enrollments. Perhaps Tesseract leaders have too much integrity to convert to a charter school, or they don't wish to besmirch their brand name.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Charter School Fraud in Arizona: Just a way of doing business

Arizona is a national leader in charter school activity for the simple reason that its Republican-led legislature has successfully blocked almost all attempts to introduce some fiscal accountability into the system. Consequently, such accountability has had to grow up outside state government as citizen initiated efforts. One of the foremost of these is Arizonans for Charter School Accountability, the creation of Jim Hall, a retired public school administrator.

Jim appeared May 6th on the 10 o'clock news for the Phoenix CBS affiliate. Here's a link to that video: While many public schools struggle, some charters profit.

What is sadly amusing about the televised piece is that the charter school featured at the beginning and portrayed favorably is the very same charter school featured in this blog in February. The Challenge Charter School in Glendale, AZ, has only 600 students, loses the vast majority of them by middle school, and pays the owner, his wife, and his daughter $430,000 a year in salary and benefits! If this is as good as it gets in Arizona, things are indeed in dire straits.

Here's a sample of the kind of reporting that Jim Hall is archiving on his organization's Facebook page:

[Slightly paraphrased for clarity] Leona Group's Sun Valley High School is located in Mesa, Arizona. Nine modular buildings were built in 1995 on 3.7 acres. They sold the school to themselves (a non- profit they created) in 2006 for $7,000,000 and now spend a $1 million a year paying the mortgage and maintaining the campus. They spend $1.2 million on all instruction and support for students. Administration costs come in at $1.2 million. 37% of their budget goes to kids. How can they get away with making all this money? It's an alternative school with low academic expectations, little parent involvement, a four-day week, and 144-day school year.

Compare this with your local public high school. Look at the campus compared to modular buildings. Consider the 180-day school year and all of the programs, sports, clubs, drama, band, and calculus classes they offer. They get the same amount of state funds that Leona gets.

Leona Group, which operates a dozen or so charter schools in Arizona and 60 schools nationwide, operates in the manner of the charter school economy: form a non-profit foundation to get a charter, then purchase teachers, curriculum, and management services from your own profit-making company. And if the state allows, start buying real estate and renting it to yourself.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Politicians tell educators, "Shut up! You have no freedom of speech."

Audrey Amrein Beardsley has reported how the New Mexico state secretary of education has told teachers to keep their mouths shut and say nothing to disparage the state's Common Core testing. As Amrein Beardsley reports, "Rumor also has it that Hanna Skandera [state secretary and former Jeb Bush protege] has requested the names and license numbers of any teachers who have helped or encouraged students to protest the state’s 'new' PARCC test(s). As per one teacher, 'this is a quelling of free speech and professional communication.'"

But New Mexico can never wrest the crown of Most Backward State Government from Arizona. In the 2015 legislative session, the AZ House passed an amendment to Senate Bill 1172 that places a gag order on any school employee who publicly protests legislative action. The bill "prohibits an employee of a school district or charter school, acting on the district's or charter school's behalf, from distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation."

It is always amazing to see how fragile the First Amendment truly is. There is no need to enjoin speech with which everyone agrees. But disagree with politicians in power, and you'll find out quickly how little regard they have for the Constitution.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

David Berliner's Views on the Teaching Profession

Asked recently about his views on teacher associations, David Berliner, Regents' Professor Emeritus at Arizona State University, had this to say:

When a profession as large and necessary to society as teaching is insulted by state and federal Secretaries of Education, judged negatively by the nation's presidents and governors, see their pensions cut, receive salaries that do not keep up with inflation, often cannot afford to live in the communities they work in, cannot always practice their profession in ways that are ethical and efficacious, are asked to support policies that may do harm to children, are judged by student test scores that are insensitive to instruction and more often reflect social class differences rather than instructional quality, see public monies used to support discriminatory charter and private schools, yet still have a great deal of support from the parents of the children they teach, then there is a strategy for making teachers' lives better. It is called unionization. The reasons for unionization could not be plainer. New and veteran teachers should band together and close down school systems of the type I have described. It will be difficult, of course, and some teachers will no doubt be fired and jailed. But if teachers do not fix this once noble profession, America may well lose its soul, as well as its edge.

The Teacher Educator, 50, (1), 2-3.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.

Can the "Opt Out" Movement Succeed?

There's a movement growing across the nation. It's called "Opt Out," and it means, refusal to subject oneself or one's children to the rampant standardized testing that has gripped public schools. The tentacles of the accountability testing movement have reached into every quarter of America's public schools. And the audience for this information is composed of politicians attempting to bust unions, taxpayers hoping to replace high-salary teachers with low-salary teachers, and Realtors dodging red-lining laws while steering clients to the "best schools." Those urging parents and students to refuse to be tested cite the illegitimacy of these motives and the increasing amount of time for learning that is being given over to assessing learning.

At present, the Opt Out movement is small — a few thousand students in Colorado, several hundred in New Mexico, and smatterings of ad hoc parent groups in the East. Some might view these small numbers as no threat to the accountability assessment industry. But the threat is more serious than it appears. Politicians and others want to rank schools and school districts according to their test score averages. Or they want to compare teachers according to their test score gains (Value Added Measurement) and pressure the low scorers or worse. It only takes a modest amount of Opting Out to thwart these uses of the test data. If 10% of the parents at the school say "No" to the standardized test, how do the statisticians adjust or correct for those missing data? Which 10% opted out? The highest scorers? The lowest? A scattering of high and low scorers? And would any statistical sleight of hand to correct for "missing data" stand up in court against a teacher who was fired or a school that was taken over by the state for a "turn around"? I don't think so.

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder

---

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the National Education Policy Center, Arizona State University, nor the University of Colorado Boulder.