Coffee heat rising

The State of the…Whatever-We’ve-Got-Here…

Today’s Quora post:

What are your thoughts on Dr. Fauci telling reporters that America might still be battling smallpox and polio if today’s kind of misinformation existed back then?

Changes: After the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

So by now you’ve probably read this morning’s rumination, which reflected on the ambiguities of the drastic changes already foisted on us by the covid-19 pandemic, and the potentially positive changes that seem to be forthcoming. Depending on your point of view.

For each of these possibilities — and make no mistake, the covid epidemic presents as many possibilities as it does roadblocks — there’s a flip side, and that is why it is so important to think through these coming changes carefully.

Among the many disruptions in our economy, our neighborhoods, our families, and our lives, very probably the foremost is the question of what we will do about the continuing education of our young people.

Distance learning is now most popularly effected by a program called Zoom, which allows groups of people to see each other and interact online. Led by a talented and computer-savvy instructor, this approach can certainly be as effective and maybe even superior to face-to-face classroom time. However…

Yes, the ever-present HOWEVER…

I created the first online course in liberal arts at the Great Desert University’s westside campus. I had to build the course’s shell with existing software available online, because of course at that time there were no IT experts in online learning, there was no expensive and elaborate program available to universities, colleges, and high schools, and no one had a clue how to make this stuff work. Or even if it could work. So…I know whereof I speak.

Here is the issue — the big Roof Rat in the Room — when it comes to presenting content and organizing participation in online teaching for public schools: inequity.

Social and economic inequity. Not all kids have access to the same electronic assets.

Some have none at all. Some can access them only through their schools, or at a friend’s house, or at a local library. Not all kids have access to a library, or would know what to do there during the relatively few hours that Phoenix-area libraries are open.

To use a coffee shop’s wireless access, a kid would need to have a portable computer. And if you are a poor kid, yeah, you might have a cheap cell phone…but you’re unlikely to have the kind of hardware and software needed to work effectively on classroom learning. The kid would also have to be able to buy a cup of coffee or tea or a glass of soda to persuade the proprietor to allow an hour or two of yakking on the computer in the coffee shop. Restaurant owners are, after all, not in the charity business.

Even if a grade-school or high-school kid can obtain access to the hardware and connectivity needed to accomplish a day’s worth of schoolwork, she or he may not know how to make that happen. The kid needs to have not only the gadgetry but also the know-how and sophistication to use it. As we old folks know, this is not so hard for young pups who can get their own computers. But if a kid does not have access to a computer and online connectivity — and have it for several hours a day — that kid’s online education isn’t going far.

It’s easy for us to say that the taxpayer will magically make computers available to hordes of hungry little kids (and many of them are hungry: in the Phoenix area large numbers of grade-school kids get their only full meal of the day at their public school). But how do we propose to do that? Where?

If we give each of them  a notebook or a laptop to take home…well.

Have you spent any time in some of lovely Phoenix’s finest slums? A kid who took a computer to an apartment across Conduit of Blight, right next to the ‘Hood, would see that thing gone in a matter of days: stolen by neighbors, family members, or random thieves either for their own use or sold to support drug habits. A child whose parents earn minimum wage (or less, often enough) cannot trot over to the nearest Best Buy or Apple store and pick up another computer.

The only workable solution to that would be to bring low-income kids together in computer classrooms. And that obviates the whole point of keeping the schools closed until a vaccine can be developed and mandated for school-aged kids.

What moving education online will do is further fracture America’s economy and society along racial and income faults. Parents of poor kids will not be able to afford to band together to hire a licensed freelance teacher to coach their children through each day’s schoolwork. In the US, a hefty portion of children living in poverty are minority children: African American and Latina/o. This means the pandemic will push these children even further into disadvantage than they already are…which is quite far enough.

I’m not suggesting here that the changes I described in my earlier post will not happen, or even that they should not happen. Nor am I suggesting that such changes, if implemented well, could not be highly successful.

What I am suggesting is that if we don’t want to set off a social time bomb, every kid will need to have access to the technology, know how to use it, AND be physically safe in using it.

And that, my friends, will be a far bigger order than just sending a building full of kids home to do their schoolwork online.

Probably the pandemic has already set in motion changes that cannot be reversed. If it goes on much longer, that almost certainly will be so. Some of these will be constructive changes, some not.

Some covid changes will be good for certain people but decidedly bad for others. If we don’t want to see the social unrest that will result from that plain fact, we need to address it now, before it happens. Not later.


There’ll be some changes made…

TODAYYYY….and tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow…  So many changes are emitting from the covid-19 crisis, we can’t keep track of them. We can’t even keep count of the ones we already know about or anticipate.

This morning the pooch and I passed one of the affable gay gents who live at the corner of Feeder Street EW and Feeder NW, also walking his dogs. Small talk was exchanged, largely about the startling switch in weather, which dropped in a day from the 100s to the 80s. I remarked that people are already putting up their Hallowe’en decorations — and that Hallowe’en is my favorite holiday.

“Mine, too,” said he. But…as though we were on the same record groove, we just about sang in unison, “But I don’t think we’ll be participating this year.”

“Nope,” he added, “we’re not opening the door to whatever anyone on the other side is carrying.”

Hallowe’en devolves into a gigantic block party here. Everybody in the more threadbare neighborhoods surrounding the gentrifying ‘Hood trucks in their kids (no kidding: trucks, busses, vans, pickups!) and swoops up and down the streets, while the locals greet them from tables set up in the driveways. A great deal of eating, drinking, and costume-admiring takes place, and much fun is had by all.

If any of that happens this year, though, pretty clearly it won’t be much…

There’s been some talk around the’Hood about setting up tables in the park and just letting people come and take whatever they want. Not, possibly, the greatest idea…and it’s hard to see how that would eliminate the possibility of spreading the disease around.

So I think we’re all afraid that Hallowe’en, a cherished tradition, is about to be a thing of the past.

All across the country, people remark on how little traffic they see on the roads, even during rush hour.

Yesterday morning there were more drivers on the road than the last time I was out at that hour, but for 8:30 or so, it was far from normal rush-hour traffic. Inside the parking garage for the high-rise where the dentist resides, there were no more than half a dozen cars on the first floor. The place was effectively empty, most office types presumably working from home.

Then we have the disappearing restaurants…

Most restaurants that have managed to cling to life here are fast-food joints (where people drive through to pick up food) and places that have converted their sit-down business to pick-up or delivery. Many popular joints have just shut down. The venerable Carlos O’Brien’s, a favorite dispenser of gringo-Mexican chow (it’s white folks’ food — not the real stuff), is now a bull-dozed plot of dirt. We’re told a damnable QT will be stuck on that lot. QT’s, if you haven’t had the delight to find them in your parts, are like 7-11’s on steroids: overpriced gas pumps, junk food, and a corporate tradition of hosting every vagrant for miles around.

The loss of Carlos O’Brien’s is a huge setback for light commerce in the North Central area, where it has long been a favorite for business lunches and tourist dinners. Replacing it with a grungy QT is a disaster. LOL! Count up another 2 dozen families in the vicinity of that intersection, moving to Scottsdale! Or lovely Gilbert.

Assuming any of them can get jobs that pay enough to allow them to move someplace else…

In a more constructive vein, though, the whole Amazon/pick-up at the store parking lot/Instacart phenomenon sure changes my thinking about shopping. Why trudge to a series of grocery stores, burning gas every inch along the way, when you can post a list and have some marginally employed wretch deliver the stuff right to your door? The sole drawback to delivery services is that most Americans don’t eat fresh produce, so the poor flunkies who hire out for $7/hour + tips have NO clue how to pick out fresh vegetables, salad makin’s, and fruit.

That issue is solved, however, with a Sprouts right around the corner. If it were safe to do so, I could walk to that store. But even so…I’ve refilled the car’s gas tank a grand total of three times since the covid fiasco launched on April 1, and just now the tank is still half-full. At two bucks a gallon, by limiting grocery trips to fresh produce, I can order an awful lot of Instacart deliveries for the $90 a month I was shelling out B.F. (Before Fiasco).

Considering that my time, when I’m actually working, is worth $60 to $120/hour, why on earth would I want to spend that time driving around the city to Safeway, Costco, AJ’s, Sprouts, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Walmart, and the various other grungy venues? I mean, c’mon: ONE HOUR of converting Chinese math to English will pay for a month’s worth foisting the grocery shopping onto Instacart shoppers.

We’re going to see major changes in the way people live: not just in the way they work but also in their home lives, shopping habits, and family planning. Yesterday the dentist’s excellent young hygienist and I were chatting. By coincidence, she happens to live here in the ’Hood, making her one of the Gentrifiers. She and her husband have a couple of young kids. They’ve teamed up with other parents to hire someone to come in and supervise a half-a-dozen kids in online learning. You know…if this works and middle-class working parents discover that it can work…well…why would you send your kids to a public school when for a fraction of the cost you can get all the advantages of a private school and none of the frightful disadvantages of public schools???? 

Some of these young parents are gonna figure that out, and when they do, the discovery will spread. Public schools will become more frankly what they already are: day-care centers. But when middle- and upper-income parents tumble to the fact that they can get far better, private school-level education by homeschooling under the supervision of a certified teacher, whatever remains of the public schools will become more frankly what those schools already, de facto, are: day-care for the working poor. And the nonworking poor.

Cost to parents? Well, consider. Hereabouts a public school teacher earns around 40 grand a year — or less, if we’re talking about the lower grades. Let’s say we have three sets of parents, who band together to hire someone tutor a total of five kids for nine months, shepherding them through the online learning process. If each family paid a hired teacher $10,000 per child, that’s a WHOLE lot less than they would pay, per kid, for private or parochial school, and the teacher would be paid more than s/he would earn in private or public schools. Children could get socialization through community athletic teams, churches, clubs, music lessons, art classes, drama clubs, Scouting, volunteer activities of all kinds. How would this be worse than warehousing them in a prison-like school all day? Might it not be significantly better? And, when you take into account the cost of clothing, school supplies, transportation, meals, and all the other expenses incidental on public education — including the breathtaking property taxes on your home, which in these parts go mostly to support public schools — would it really cost that much more?

Another change: thinking once, twice, three times about whether you really need to do X, Y, or Z. Do you have to run that errand now — seriously? — or can you fold it in with another trip and do them both tomorrow? And can you manage your time better by limiting the number of shopping junkets and errands, by making them all happen together, by organizing time and tasks at home and at the office before venturing forth?

Case in point: It’s time, at last, to pull out the heat-fricasseed, dead potted plants, run up to Lowe’s or HD, and get some new seeds and plants to spiff up the gardens. So there I am along about 9 a.m., about to get up from the computer and thinking, reflex-style: “I need to go to Home Depot.”

But then another thought strikes: Do I?

Do I really need to jump in the car, burn a gallon of gas to schlep to Home Depot, Lowe’s, and waypoints…right now? Suppose  instead I were to pull out the dead foliage, sweep up the dead leaves and debris, and haul all that stuff out to the trash or the compost heap now?

If I put off the Home Depot trip for another day, could I combine that junket with a trip to the Walmart supermarket that’s on the way toward the HD? That way I get to tedious errands out of the way in one foray through the traffic. The yard and plants are already cleaned up and ready to receive their new plants. And I have a whole extra day in which to think about lay out the new plants and pots. You know…actually plan? What a unique idea!

Planning: for trips, for shopping expeditions, for projects that require retail purchases… It’ll be good for you and me, but not so great for our retail friends. By noon I got one helluvalot more done around the yard than I would have if I’d charged out of the house and made for Home Depot and Lowe’s, and tomorrow the shopping trip to one or both of those fine emporia will be far more organized, far less catch-as-catch-can than it would’ve been today.

What it means is that I’ll buy a whole lot less on that gardening expedition than I would have today, because now I know how much space is really available for new plantings, how much of the existing plants I may be able to revive, and even — lo! — which pots I’m tired of and will put away until next year.

Meanwhile, we have the work environment, fast merging with the residential environment:

My son is now pretty certain that his employer will NOT reopen its fancy new digs in Tempe, but will continue to do business in the work-from-home mode. They are, however, keeping him on as a manager. This means that he has to ride herd on the underlings, some of whom are about as bright as freshman comp students, and he has to do it remotely. If that doesn’t sound like a bitch of a job, I don’t know what does. Frankly, riding herd on a bunch of Herefords would be a lot less mind-numbing and infinitely less annoying.

I tried to elicit some hint as to whether this means he will consider moving to his dream Tiny House in the middle of 60 acres in southeastern Utah…didn’t get far with that. He probably suspects (rightly) that if he sets up an outpost in the boondocks, his mutther won’t be far behind: a prospect guaranteed to induce cardiac arrest in an adult man.

If M’hijito decamps to Utah or some such, why in the name of God would I stay here in the unholy, crime-ridden realms of L.A. East? Why would anyone do so, if they could carry on their jobs online from some scenic plateau in Colorado, and if they could educate their children from home?

Think of the sheer number of the changes we’re looking at here, to say nothing of the seismic social alterations they imply.

Anyone who can do any job that does not require them to be at a worksite five to seven days a week could, in theory, live wherever they please. How many of us regard “wherever we please” as an eave-to-eave tract of stick-and-styrofoam shacks with a fine commute in to a miserable office? As a far-flung suburb where we must live to put our kids in a decent public school, with an hour-long commute to and from the office? As a crowded city where the kids can’t be allowed to play in the front yard without a housekeeper or a parent watching over their shoulder every moment, lest they be approached by a child molester? Where everyone has a big dog not because they so love German shepherds and pit bulls but because they need an animated, fully armed burglar alarm to alert them to intruders?

Consider what life would be like if…

  • You could do your job and do it well wherever you happened to be, with no need to visit the home office more than once every two weeks to a month…
  • You could get about everything you need to carry on a comfortable life delivered to your home via Amazon, Instacart, USPS, FedEx, and UPS…
  • You could provide your children with the kind of education they would get from an upper-middle-class public school or a fancy private school for a fraction of the cost, anywhere you choose to live…
  • You could do those things from any venue that you desire: an elegant San Francisco-style city, a homey small town, a desert island, the back of an RV, a sailboat tricked out as a yacht, a ranch in the middle of nowhere, a perennial college campus…as you wish, with few or no restrictions on where you choose to live…

Think of how much less gasoline you’d use…just you alone, to say nothing of entire nations of Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans…and whatnot.

You would have a choice over how your child is educated, and you could oversee the quality of their education.

Your kids could spend their days in a quiet small town, suburb, or countryside.

Bullying would not be a daily issue that they would have to learn to cope with.

Neither would widespread use of drugs.

Neither would easy-come, easy-go sex.

Because you would spend so much less on gasoline, so much less on real estate, so much less on local and county taxes, so much less on work and school clothes, so much less on cars to accommodate at least two working family members, so much less on impulse buying, you could live a whole lot better on a whole lot less money. You could travel more and save more for retirement. You could save up enough to send your kids through college, without saddling them with a lifetime of debt.

Mmm hmmm…. There’ll be some changes coming from the covid disaster, that’s for sure. But…what if they’re not all as bad as we fear?

Impractical Subjects…

Here’s a classic stupid question from Quora:

Why do schools not teach us about tax and laws, but teach us about stuff we don’t need?

And the answer…

Define “don’t need.” Some Americans think that subjects such as history, literature, rhetoric, and language come under that heading.

Failing to teach history* and civics (closely related subjects) has brought us the mess we have in Washington today. Ignorance begets ignorance.

Failing to teach rhetoric has meant that voters and consumers do not recognize when they’re being hoodwinked by fast talkers. That lack of basic savvy is aided by our failure to teach logical thinking skills, which come about from studying history, civics, literature, math, and science.

Failing to teach literature has begotten ignorance of human nature, naïveté, insularity, and inability to understand the implications of human behavior on the national and local scenes. That failing also has contributed to the mess our country is in right now.

Failing to teach language has created a lamentable insularity and provincialism among voters, consumers, and leaders alike — making our people vulnerable to the deception and scheming of our enemies and cutting us off from real ability to appreciate the cultures of other nations.

And while we’re at it, failure to teach basic, solid science has brought us the wacky and dangerous anti-vaxxer movement. To say nothing of all the other woo-woo around us.

{sigh} Is there any question as to why one in ten of the drivers in the oncoming lanes is a moron, and one in ten in the lanes going in your direction is a moron? And how we got a moron in the White House?

* You think I exaggerate? One day I asked a classroom of university juniors and seniors what were the most significant events of the 19th century in America. Not a single one of them came up with “emancipation of the slaves.”

The Wages of Longevity

So Monday I’m over at Costco with my friends whom I enjoy driving to various shopping junkets. We’re checking out and chatting with the cashier, who remarks that it’s his fortieth anniversary on the job at Costco!

Wow! Can you imagine? Working as a Costco cashier for forty years! That means he would have started in 1979. He must have started back when it was Price Club, because the first Costco didn’t open until 1983. Price Club opened in 1976, in San Diego.

We know people who work for Costco love working there. Several of them have remarked to that effect to me — in fact, when I happened to say that I’d been laid off, shortly after GDU shut down our shop, one employee recommended that I apply at Costco.

I wonder how a senior cashier’s pay compares with a teacher’s in Arizona?

Hmmm… Costco cashier salaries range from $14 to $25 an hour. That’s $29,120 to $52,000. On the high end, that’s about what I was earning in a 12-month administrative job at GDU, after 15 years in the saddle. When I was teaching there, I made about $45,000 a year.

But believe me: no one at GDU will tell you they love their job. Morale in that place hovers in the sub-basement.

On the other hand, I was able to work at home a lot. Telecommuting was not much of a problem in the particular position I had. This isn’t true of all the jobs there, but faculty positions usually require you to show up only to meet classes, confer with students, and sit through faculty meetings. As a practical matter, most people are generally “around,” and many classes meet at inconvenient hours (such as 7:40 in the morning or 7 to 10 p.m. at night). But…it’s interesting that with a Ph.D., 15 years of teaching and administrative experience, and 15 years of journalism experience, you earn about what a senior cashier at Costco makes.

Yea verily: the median salary for K-12 teachers in Arizona is $47,980; average base pay in Phoenix is $38,441. And believe me, that is not for just 9 months of work: you spend your summers preparing for the next year and whiling away your time in unpaid seminars, conferences, or teacher improvement courses. Or in second jobs, to keep the wolf from the door.

Think of that: At Costco, a cashier earns more than a teacher. With one helluva lot less aggravation.

Charter Schools: What Could Go Wrong?

Interested in charter schools as an alternative to traditional public education? Well, that makes sense, especially in a backwater like Arizona, where schools are shamefully underfunded and the resulting national and international academic rankings are similarly shameful.

Are charter schools The Answer? I don’t know.

Certainly here in the Wild West, where ethics run as short as water, it’s highly debatable. If you’re thinking about a charter school for the kids or the grand-kids, think carefully, and take a long look before you leap. With permission from the Grand Canyon Institute, Funny about Money is reproducing a response to a little firestorm that arose after publication of a report suggesting that over the past 20 years, more than 3/4 of Arizona charter schools have indulged in questionable uses of taxpayer money. If you’d like to read the full 90-page report, which is quite the jaw-dropper, you can download the PDF here. There’s a separate executive summary online, too.

As you can imagine, this report elicited loud squawks of protest from various quarters, some of which contain some fairly heavy hitters, especially within the present political infrastructure. If you care at all about the future of education in this country — and about the use of your taxpayer dollars therein — you need to take a look at this.

Fighting Fire With Data

No substance in critiques of charter school finances report

Oct. 5, 2017 – On Sunday, Sept. 17 the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI) released a policy report that tracks the financial practices of Arizona’s charter schools over the past 20 years. It found that 77% of charter schools use taxpayer money for questionable financial practices. Of the more than $1 billion charter schools received in public funds each year, almost half is paid to related parties – the charter holder’s own for profit business, corporate board members or relatives of either.

Last week, charter sector leaders criticized GCI’s policy report, Following the Money: Twenty Years of Charter School Financial Practices in Arizona, with no substance behind their arguments. The president of the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (ASBCS) responded to GCI’s policy report by labeling the organization as anti-charter and claiming that charter schools are well-regulated. She was joined by the vice chairman of the Arizona Charter Schools Association, who is also the CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He stated that charter schools are held to a high level of accountability and argues that a school’s academic performance should be the ultimate determination of its fiscal responsibility.

GCI is pro-school-choice

The Grand Canyon Institute is pro-school-choice.  The recommendations that we make in our report are to ensure that well managed, fiscally responsible charters create true school choice among all publicly-funded schools. Greater accountability will provide charters that do not engage in such activities a competitive advantage, allowing them to thrive and ultimately improve the academic performance of Arizona’s charter and public district schools.

 The misconception about the superior performance of charter schools

The claim by charter proponents that charter school students’ performance is superior to public district school students is a misconception. Comparing similar students in the two systems tells the story differently. This superior performance claim is based on comparisons of aggregate charter school and public district school scores on standardized tests. Charter schools attract proportionally more higher-performing, advantaged students and tend to “weed out” the lowest performers. Because charters rarely provide transportation, they enroll comparatively fewer students from lower-income families. They also enroll comparably lower numbers of students with special needs. The result is higher aggregate test scores.

GCI’s policy report cites the only recent studies that used student-level data to compare district and charter students of similar socio-economic and demographic backgrounds. Those studies, one from a research center affiliated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford and the other contracted by the Goldwater Institute, both found that overall Arizona district schools modestly outperform charters. Some charter schools, no doubt, do perform better than district schools, but that is not the case for most charters.

Simply put, aggregate data perpetuates the misconception that charter school students perform better than public district school students.

 Academic success does not equal fiscal responsibility

One common critique of GCI’s findings and other research that focused on charter school finances is that academic performance should be the metric indicating whether a charter school is practicing fiscal responsibility. Data that indicates related-party transactions, excessive executive compensation, and shareholder payouts despite a lack of profitability has been routinely dismissed.

GCI does not see why academic performance and financial accountability should be mutually exclusive.  Charter schools that engaged in related-party transactions that led to cost-savings were not included in the 77%. As taxpayers, why should we turn a blind eye to whether our money is being used inefficiently or unethically simply because of strong academic performance by students at a select few charter schools? Is it too much to ask that charter schools engage in both strong pedagogical practice and proper handling of taxpayer dollars?

GCI probed the prevailing economic theory referenced in the charter school marketplace. The theory is that once the state has given taxpayer money to the charter school the charter is free to spend it as they deem fit. Moving large sums of public money to a related party, a for-profit corporate entity, diverts taxpayer funding to companies that do not provide audited accounting to the state or the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools. This does not change the fact that the money came from public sources.

 Arizona’s charter schools are not well-regulated

The Grand Canyon Institute’s comprehensive financial analysis found that charter schools were rampant with related-party transactions, a practice where charter school operators did business with for-profit companies owned by the charter holder, members of the school’s corporate board, or relatives of either. While this activity is illegal for public school districts, it has been allowed for charter schools to create cost savings. However, GCI found that 77% of charter schools engaging in this practice do so in a manner that does not create costs savings for the charter entity. Therefore GCI concludes it is not in the best interests of students or the taxpayer. While charter schools are required under state law to disclose such activities, the Arizona Daily Star reported that the ASBCS does not keep track of such conflict-of-interest disclosures.

Furthermore, stringent oversight of charters at the school level is a dubious claim when the current law allows governing boards for charters as well as, when applicable, parent corporate boards that oversee multiple charters to be composed of the following related-party combinations:

  • One person, the charter holder.
  • Two people, husband and wife who also hold the charter.
  • Two charter holder couples.
  • Relatives and owners of related party businesses.
  • Charter holder serves as the board chair/president.
  • Corporate Boards that are the same for related-party businesses dealing with the non-profit charter. Salaries, bonuses and distributions from these subsidiaries are not reported on the Audits. Money moving to the subsidiaries is noted in the Related-Party section of the Audit.

In addition, 113 charters did not post notices of upcoming board meetings or meeting locations on their websites as required by law.  As a result, a complaint was made to the Arizona Attorney General for their failure to comply with Arizona Open Meeting Laws.

With no aggregate records kept of charter school financial activities, GCI researchers were forced to dive into financial documents charter-by-charter to determine how widespread the practice was. All charters from 1994 to 2015 were financially evaluated using forensic accounting. The result is a database with financial information pulled from Annual Financial Reports, audits, and IRS 990 filings from every charter school that reports to the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools. This information was collected with cooperation from the ASBCS and the Arizona Department of Education.

GCI found that charter governing and corporate boards composed with the above related-parties invite the wolf to watch the hen house. Current charter law enabled the following examples of related-party transactions:

  • Renting from a for-profit business or individual
  • Purchasing goods and services from a related for-profit business or individual
  • Leasing employees from a related party for-profit company or individual
  • Loans and notes to a related-party for-profit company or individual
  • Paying a related party for “board” services on the corporate board
  • Consulting contracts to a related party, and a host of other dealings with parties related to the owners of the charter.
  • Multiple related-parties on the payroll.

GCI also found that charter schools paid teachers on average 20% less than public school districts while paying administrators significantly more (about 50% greater than their counterparts in similar-sized public school districts). This lack of regulation has created an environment where those who control the purse-strings can enrich themselves and their families at the expense of students and teachers. For example, when a charter elects not to participate in the Arizona State Retirement System, the retirement contribution from the employer will likely be less than the ASRS 11.1%. Does that savings go to teachers as additional compensation or into the pockets of charter holders?

Next steps

Charter schools in Arizona, including the one-in-four with good business practices, face a real danger of becoming associated with corruption instead of student success.  That is not in anyone’s interest. The Grand Canyon Institute wants to work with the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools and the Arizona Charter Schools Association to create a highly competitive environment that creates high-performing charter schools.  We suggest starting with the report’s key recommendations that charter schools must:

  • Conduct public competitive bid processes similar to public district schools.
  • Ensure consistency among Annual Financial Reviews (AFRs), audits, and IRS 990 filings, including using the same accounting method, Cash, Accrual, or Modified Accrual across all reports.
  • Adopt executive salaries comparable to similarly sized public district schools.
  • Be subject to annual audits by the state Auditor General similar to public district schools.

These policies will foster high-performing, fiscally responsible charter schools, which will give Arizona what it has strived for: true school choice.

If research like this matters to you, please consider a tax deductible donation to the Grand Canyon Institute,  a  501(c) (3) nonprofit organization and an independent, nonpartisan think tank led by a bipartisan group of former state lawmakers, economists, community leaders and academicians. Donations can be sent to the Grand Canyon Institute, PO Box 1008, Phoenix, Arizona 85001-1008. Or donate online here.

And no, my little chickadees, there’s not a single paid link in this entire squib.