the charter school scam in Michigan

[Michchamp]

No surprise... the De Vos family of Amway-pyramid scheme fame, sleazy right-wing politics, and failed gubernatorial bids is hugely involved. That article is pretty great... Rep. Muxlow, a GOP rep from the Thumb of Michigan, voted against raising the cap on charter schools in the state, and sure enough faced a primary challenge funded by the charters that nearly unseated him:

Muxlow, a former school board president, said he voted ?no? because he didn?t support unlimited expansion of charter schools ? though he said he would have supported a limited expansion. He said he was worried about the effect charter schools might have if they came into small rural school districts such as his and siphon off students, potentially devastating traditional schools.
?There are small school districts in Sanilac County, they have good teachers, good test scores,? Muxlow said. ?They (for-profit companies) would rather charter up there than in Detroit. They could make their money and have good results. But it would kill those districts.?
At the time, Muxlow didn?t think much about his vote. But less than six months later, a political consultant dropped by Muxlow?s office to give him a heads-up ? he was about to be punished. The consultant, who wasn?t working for Muxlow, told him he had been approached by GLEP to run an opposing primary campaign.
In July and August 2012, the organization pumped out $184,718.40 to try to defeat Muxlow. His opponent, Bob Eick, spent only $33,847 himself.
GLEP papered Muxlow?s Sanilac County and St. Clair County district with 18 postcard ads featuring photos of Muxlow, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi in hopes of tying him to the Democrats. And there were 23 radio ads, robocalls and cable television ads.
?It was all because of the charter vote,? Muxlow said. ?This was the dirtiest campaign I?ve ever been involved in.?
​

He made the mistake of thinking. Republicans aren't supposed to think. just take the money, and vote.

It appears the GOP-bastion of western Michigan is behind a lot of it. Grand Valley State has gotten involved in quashing some attempts at making charters & their FOR PROFIT parent companies more transparent and accountable for how they use state funds. (link and link).

the scam appears to be no more complicated than a grab for state taxpayer dollars... Step 1: put out a bunch of press releases complaining about public schools and teachers unions. Step 2: funnel money to politicians. Step 3: take taxpayer dollars and run charter schools on shoe-string budgets, with non-union faculty and staff you can fire at a whim and pay like shit, funneling as much of that surplus money back to the for-profits & their shareholders in the form of "rent" for the charter school buildings (See links 2 and 3 above again). step 4: push to make the properties tax free, essentially taking even MORE cash from the people of Michigan (detailed in the first link).

Way more distinguished than going door-to-door selling soap for Amway...

 

[Michchamp]

of course, not all charter schools are bad... some operate transparently and don't squeeze their operating budgets. but that really doesn't justify their existence, esp. since we have existing districts & it flies in the face of logic to think it's more efficient and cost-effective for taxpayers to create what's essentially a second entire school system on top of the existing public schools. twice as many buildings, twice as many staff, etc., for the same number of students.

but I guess if you're in the business of making money, that's the point. siphon students away from publics to justify closing them, taking the whole piece of the pie, and having Big Business fund PR blitzkriegs to cloud the issues, and spin results in your favor... with friends like that, charters can get away with anything.

 

[zyxt9]

meh, charters to me are a poor man's private school. they pay their teachers less but are able to turn away kids who are troublemakers and underperformers. naturally that means their overall test scores will be better than public schools as the kids are intelligent enough to overcome any deficiency in teacher quality due to lower pay, though I imagine many teachers are willing to take a reduced salary for the pleasure of not dealing with the darling little animals...I mean children...in public school. Of course the parents are probably worse...but that just doesn't seem possible from what I have seen.

that said, not a fan of charter schools getting state tax money to operate. you want to be "for profit", then go make your profit and keep your hands off the state treasury cookie jar!!!

 

[hailhail]

Charter schools as an idea are fine -- providing choice to families, particularly in urban areas, where the public school system has seemingly failed. From my understanding, charters as a whole perform no better or worse than public school equivalents, though parents are more likely to evaluate charter performance highly. I've heard some people argue that charters are a big reason to expect that my generation moving into cities will ultimately stay.

The lack of transparency and accountability in Michigan, though, is startling. Charters aren't required to disclose much at all financially despite receiving public funds, and there are no guideline for when and how charter authorizers should disband/punish them. People have certainly turned them into profit mills and there needs to be considerably more oversight of them here.

 

[TheVictors]

I agree with zyxt9's view in characterizing them as "private" schools and think that the larger discussion is really just masking the bigger aim of defunding public schools. The South does it all the time ...any voting initiative to fund public schools is taken to mean "welfare" so voted down and slowly, the public schools are being suffocated.

That said, my son is at a Denver Public School ...and though "public schools" are typically behind the private counterparts, his is the #1 ranked Elementary School in the state: http://coloradoschoolgrades.com/SchoolReportCard.aspx?sid=2027E

The reason?? The families and staff work incredibly hard and though the school itself is located in "Five Points" ...aka, the Hood, it's thriving. Now, it's a public school but also a Magnet School meaning my son had to qualify by taking a State test and then get lucky through a lottery so that entering Kindergarten he was one of sixty kids competing for twelve spots and his 20% chance of getting in worked out. (First and Second grades offer two classrooms, so kids can re-apply then and have better odds).

But I love the fact that he's in a public school and it don't cost nothing to us no more (aside from the taxes we all pay) and that his school located in the heart of Denver is vastly superior to the suburban schools that people flee the city for - it's a funny phenomenon and happens a lot of places, but all these young hipster couples move to Denver, to a hipster neighborhood but then all move to the cul-de-sacs for "better schools," though research typically disproves that assertion.

Some of the Charter Schools we looked at in the city were pretty cool, though. One is the Denver Green School and you can imagine what Charter that is based on ...another is an Elementary that emulates a NOLS sort of experience, emphasizing the environment and sustainability and a third is a Science & Technology Academy that is heavy tech-infusion from the beginning.

But all those schools are funded by Charter and aren't merely presenting themselves as anti-public ...they're coming from a genuine demand for "alternative" education.

 

[Michchamp]

Charter schools as an idea are fine -- providing choice to families, particularly in urban areas, where the public school system has seemingly failed. ...

I think to the extent it has failed... the reasons why need to be examined more carefully, and I don't think charter schools necessarily provide an answer. I also think that the widespread assumption that "schools failed" as though there's some clear black/white distinction (no pun intended) between "failure" and "success" is trotted out as an argument ender when it's really a more complicated situation than that. It's beyond question in our popular discourse that "schools have failed" or "schools have failed our students" when really that's just a buzz phrase the for-profit industry throws around to support their means to an end.

I also still don't think essentially using state money to fund another school system on top of the existing one is a wise use of resources.

A school "fails" and the solution is to build an entirely new one nearby... instead of rehabbing and improving the existing one? There's no way that's cost effective.

 

[hailhail]

I think to the extent it has failed... the reasons why need to be examined more carefully, and I don't think charter schools necessarily provide an answer. I also think that the widespread assumption that "schools failed" as though there's some clear black/white distinction (no pun intended) between "failure" and "success" is trotted out as an argument ender when it's really a more complicated situation than that. It's beyond question in our popular discourse that "schools have failed" or "schools have failed our students" when really that's just a buzz phrase the for-profit industry throws around to support their means to an end.

I also still don't think essentially using state money to fund another school system on top of the existing one is a wise use of resources.

A school "fails" and the solution is to build an entirely new one nearby... instead of rehabbing and improving the existing one? There's no way that's cost effective.

I tend to agree with most of that. I almost wrote out a long disclaimer after my "has failed" claim. But charters can and should be a part of the solution. There needs to be a very high bar of accountability and transparency that's not there in some states. And the existence of charters should never preclude necessary investment in public education (which many people claim is happening in Michigan right now).