Charter School Finance Footnoted

Keeping an eye on what charter schools tell their investors but not the rest of us

[dwelker]

Why is the federal government building the 7th largest school district in Texas?

And what do the residents of Texas actually have to say about the impact in their districts and neighborhoods?

Revisiting the federal ED charter school program for a quick moment today and I just had to comment on the shocking amount of federal money going into Texas.

First of all is the grant amount awarded in 2017 cycle to Texas Education Agency and Wisconsin DPI as part of the broader “State Entities” (more) grants program. How will Wisconsin districts absorb another $96 MILLION in creating new charter schools?  I can’t see any scenario where nearly $100 million spent on new charter seats in Wisconsin doesn’t result in enrollment losses in whichever districts these schools ultimately land in. Districts will be tipped into crisis without thoughtful...oh never mind its Wisconsin: that is the point.

The latest grant to Texas Education Agency for $59 million.  But more outrageous is the grant given to IDEA which brings the total federal grants under CSP to this charter chain to $108.4 million since 2010. The link here goes to the full list of awardees.  IDEA got $14.3 million in 2010, $15.0 million in 2014, $11.9 million in 2016 and $67.2 million in 2017.

Yes, we now have our first federally created $100 million charter chain.  So certainly IDEA must be worth it.  All you have to do is ask them and they’ll tell you (here’s their narrative to the CSP panel).

IDEA Public Schools, which currently serves a student population across Texas that is 88.6% economically disadvantaged, will use CSP funding to further expand in Austin, the Rio Grande Valley and San Antonio and will replicate its model in a new Texas region: Tarrant/Fort Worth,  Over the next five years, the iDEA network will grow its high performing CMO from 51 to 143 schools and will increase the number of low-income, high-needs students it serves from the 29,334 currently enrolled to a projected 81,700 by the end of the CSP funding period in 2021-22. While this rate of growth may seem ambitious, it is important to note that IDEA has grown from one small school with 150 students in 2001 to the fastest growing network of tuition-free, PREK-12 public charter schools in the United States.

GRAPHIC IS TITLED: IDEA’S GROWTH PLAN THROUGH 2021-22

That is mind boggling.  The continue: “IDEA’s big goal is to serve 100,000 students by 2022.”

To put that into perspective: the quickest best list I could find for Texas’ largest districts in 2018 puts the Fort Worth ISD at #5 in the state with 86,000 students and the Austin ISD at #6 in the state with 85,000 students.

How is this possible?

I didn’t do exhaustive search but found at least a straight new story in the San Antonio News Express when IDEA got the grant in October 2017:

With more than 9,000 students now in its Bexar County schools, IDEA plans to build 10 more in the next five years — eight of them funded with nearly $17 million from the federal grant — to boost enrollment to 21,000, said Rolando Posada, its executive director for the region.

Another $18.4 million from the grant will fund more schools in the Rio Grande Valley.

IDEA schools have done well on Texas academic assessments. In this year’s accountability ratings, all of its schools met academic requirements and many won additional “distinctions.”

A preliminary rating under Texas’ new A-F grading system, which will start at the district level next year, awarded IDEA a “B” in the first of the system’s four indexes, student performance — and an “A” in each of the other three: student progress, narrowing achievement gaps among disadvantaged students and postsecondary readiness.

Posada said IDEA has been able to grow “alarmingly quickly” without sacrificing educational quality by deliberately setting “outlandish expectations” — aiming to enroll all students in college even in areas like San Antonio that have relatively few college graduates, and establishing stringent accountability structures and an “environment of continuous improvement.”

The other thing that must be said is this federal stimulus to IDEA is also kicking off hundreds of millions in facilities bonds to construct the buildings with many more millions to follow this 2017 grant.  So the federal grants have the extra topping of whipped cream privatization for the transfer of state aid into pockets of the bondholders.

In 2014 IDEA raised $90.6 million in bond revenue for:

IDEA will issue the Bonds for the purpose of i) financing and refinancing the acquisition and development of MLK campus, Brownsville Campus #3 and Austin Campus #2 (as defined in Appendix B), ii) financing and refinancing the cost of Phase 2 of the South Flores Campus, the Carver College Prep Campus and the Allan Campus (as defined in Appendix B), iii) financing and refinancing the acquisition of land for three future campuses in San Antonio and one future campus in Mission, iv) financing and refinancing improvements to the San Juan Campus (as defined in Appendix B), v) financing and refinancing the acquisition and development of a new headquarter facilities and vi) refunding the Refunded Bonds more particularly described in Schedule I.

And again in 2015 IDEA raised additional $70.1 million for:

IDEA will issue the bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing: i) the development of North Mission Campus, Judson Campus, Waters Edge Campus and Bluff Springs Campus (as defined in Appendix B), ii) additional improvements at the Weslaco Pike Campus, the Walzen Campus and the Monterrey Park Campus (as defined in Appendix B), iii) other capital improvements across existing campuses including the addition of classroom space, iv) improvements at IDEA’s headquarters, and v) acquisition of land for future expansion…IDEA currently operates forty four charter schools two at each of twenty two campuses in the Rio Grande Valley, Austin and San Antonio and plans to begin operations at six schools at three additional campuses in August 2016.

So if you calculate the approximately $160 million in bond revenue in those two issuances was spread around 14 campuses (28 schools) then IDEA’s estimated future facilities finance needs would be around $500 million (for their project 90+ new schools per their plan above).

I hope someone in Texas figures out where democratic oversight ought to take place over this private charter district and its un-elected CEO Tom Torkelson.

[dwelker]

Education Dept sweetens pot to get more charter applicants

In light of the Charter School Program awards announcements last week of September.

I’m struck that fed ED is devoting ever more money chasing ever fewer people who actually want to open charters.

Except for the growth in charter chains, the pattern over last few years is clear: there are fewer people stepping forward to open new charter schools.

From March 2017 Ed Week The number of new charter schools plummeted in the 2015-16 school year, with 329 new charters setting up shop, compared to nearly twice that many—640—that opened just four years earlier.

Why have the numbers of new charter schools dropped off so sharply in recent years, even as student enrollment in charters continues to increase year over year?

It's a big question that one major player [Natl Association of Charter School Authorizers] n the charter school sector—those with the power to approve new schools and shut down failing ones—has pledged to answer, paying careful attention to any part they might be playing in the slowdown.\

<ENDQUOTE>

I've been looking at this phenomenon for a while.  More telling is the absolute growth in open charter schools (newly opened MINUS closed charters) has also been declining for years.

In graphic below, NACSA is using the charter school openings data from Natl Alliance of Public Charter Schools. 

In stitching together the NAPCS annual "Estimated Public Charter School Enrollment" reports over many years, the trend of fewer openings and more closures is clear.

The EdWeek article says NACSA wants to “study” this question over next few years.  

The more important questions are:

 - why so many “authorized” charter schools fail?

 - how much federal stimulus was wasted on failed charter schools? 

ED during the transition from Obama to Trump released the final report on SIG program titled: “School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness.”

Don’t hold your breath for that type of comprehensive study on charter school implementation and effectiveness even though the federal money from SIG stimulus ($3 billion) is comparable to federal charter school creation (approx $2.5 billion).

[dwelker]

More Fake Transparency from DeVos’ Charter School Program

The creeping federalization of charter schools into communities that don’t want them is accelerating under the DeVos Department of Education.

The previous Obama/Duncan/King Department of Education pushed lots of stimulus into the state education agencies to created the sub-programs for competitive grants given to qualified and many obviously unqualified charter school applicants.

One must look carefully at how the ED web page (as of today 6/5/2017) reads:

The FY2017 CSP State Entities application period closed on May 18, 2017.  The U.S. Department received applications from Entities in the following states: Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Michigan, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Alabama, Indiana, Minnesota, Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, Rhode Island, Florida, Idaho, Wisconsin and District of Columbia.

Now under Devos, this pool of money is available to “a state education agency; a state charter school board; a governor of a state or a charter school support organization.”

Further down the chain of definitions in the Federal Register notice for this program, a Charter School Support Organization is “a nonprofit, non-governmental entity that is not an authorized public chartering agency and provides, on a statewide basis: (a) Assistance to developers during the planning, program design, and initial implementation of a charter school; and (b) Technical assistance to operating charter schools. (ESEA section 4310(4)).”

So it follows that a non-profit applicant would be legal equivalent in the eyes of this program to the state agency or board under the Freedom of Information act in their state or the federal statute.  But I figure that is not the case as the Federal notice also clearly signals to applicants their ability to exempt out for “business confidential” information:

“Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the State Entities grant competition, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define ‘‘business information’’ and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended). Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under ‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c)”

This type of business exemption is used frequently in the CSP grants for the charter chain expansion awards but seemingly now goes to the non-profit applicants in COMPETITION against public agencies.  ED did not release the list of applicants for that program even though its competition window closed earlier this year on March 15. 2017.

ED seemingly is going to publicly announce the winners but is unlikely to release the “non winners” and now there would be limited recourse to figure which applicants were rejected and why among the potential non-profit groups.

[dwelker]

Federal charter stimulus goes unspent in IL while local school systems are stuck in budget limbo

This is fantastic follow up reporting by Linda Lutton in Illinois.  Her piece titled “Illinois Struggles To Expand Charter Schools Despite Giant Pot Of Federal Money” is a journalistic primer on how any local ed beat writer - or gadfly - can localize the federal charter school program.

The feds give these awards for charter school start-up to state ed agencies (and under the DeVos ED interpretation to “state entities” of many kinds not just SEAs) EACH AND EVERY YEAR.  And yet there is no investigation after the press announcements are released by the charter cheerleaders on how the money is spent, what school operators applied, what applications were rejected, which applications were awarded and ultimately what were the academic outcomes at the awarded schools or impact on those communities of this federal money.

It is economic stimulus for the charter sector exclusively and with no accountability.

The ED Dept Charter School Office published its SEA awardees (and other CSP awardees) only in response to a deliberate FOIA program to obtain the underlying data.  And ED Dept charter grant administrators haven’t updated the underlying data of individual school recipients since the original “Commitment to Transparency” released on Dec. 23 2015.  Because nothing says commitment to transparency than a Day Before Christmas Eve news dump.

Reporters or just activists of any kind could do what Linda Lutton did, run down the sub-awards to individual schools and turn around and drop that info on their elected officials for not just transparency but accountability.

For God’s Sake

[dwelker]

ASK EMMA about ROCKETSHIP

The place to search for details on charter school bonds is at the EMMA website of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. 

On their search page, enter school name (or just “charter” for a larger list of charter school entities) and you will see if and when a charter school bond was issued.

I hope to stick to some recurring theme called ASK EMMA for bits of insight, analysis and scorn on the worst aspects of these bonds.

Rocketship has struggled in last few years with its school operations, new markets and top leadership.  Looks like the Kiss of Whitmire strikes again.

Regardless of the headline risk, Rocketship has been extremely active in raising funds for its facility costs though good times and bad.

Since 2011, various Rocketship taxable and tax exempt bonds have raised $128,975,000 million through CA or TN or WI issuers.  Much of this money in last few years was raised to pay off previous loans for tax credits for banks or other grants/loans from non-profits.  You can see the EMMA report for Rocketship below.

Rocketship debt seems to have willing buyers each time it comes to market. You’d think that buyers would have more hesitation based on their academic record or other reputation issues.

What is most striking to me is how Rocketship has constantly over-hyped its growth projections.  

Rocketship in 2014 said they would have 28 schools by this year and 60 schools by 2019.

Rocketship in 2017 actually operates 11 schools.  It now says they will have 30 schools by 2020.

Not enough hot air obviously.

[dwelker]

Peer Reviewers stench from Federal Charter School Program

Riffing off Mercedes Schneider’s post on peer reviewers inside ESSA, I submitted comment there & below for my own memory:

There is deep vein of corruption running through all the ‘peer reviewed’ grants and awards over the Obama years and into this first Trump/Devos year. The family and genus of varmin is the same but the species is different. Employees of one CMO or EMO, think tankers, relatives, consultants, etc of Dem or Repub genus wiil jump into peer role for a year then applicant another year, then peer again. This whole revolving door is worth a lawsuit to pry the historic/present lists out of their hands.

It is just as clear in the Federal Charter School grants program too:

CSP grants to “state entities”:

https://innovation.ed.gov/files/2017/03/FINAL-State-Entities-Call-for-Peer-Reviewers-FY2017.doc

NOTE: Even if you applied to be a peer reviewer in the past, please complete the Peer Reviewer Interest Survey as directed below by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, March 3, 2017 to be considered for a peer reviewer position for the 2017 State Entities competition. *If you have served as a CSP peer reviewer in the past and prefer to instead serve as a panel monitor, please note your interest in the peer reviewer interest survey.

WHO: We are seeking peer reviewers from various professions and backgrounds with an understanding of the charter school sector and expertise in at least one of the following areas: Charter School Authorizing and Accountability; Charter School Policy; Charter School Research and Evaluation; Charter School Development and Implementation; or Charter School Grant Administration. Peer reviewers may have expertise in various geographies, including urban, suburban, rural, and tribal communities.

WHAT: Peer reviewers will independently read, score, and provide timely, well written comments for State Entity grant applications submitted to the U.S. Department of Education under the CSP and travel to Washington, D.C., to participate in one week of in-person panel discussions.

CSP Replication grant “call for peer reviewers”:

https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/charter-schools/charter-schools-program-grants-for-replications-and-expansion-of-high-quality-charter-schools/

2017 Peer Reviewers

If you would like to be considered as a peer reviewer, please register yourself in our online peer reviewer database at http://www.g5.gov (G5). To serve as a reviewer you will need to register in G5. The online registration requires you to submit your resume; please ensure your resume (maximum of 5 pages) includes a brief list of career highlights and/or outlines your specific expertise in the areas outlined above. Please do not exceed the five-page limit for resumes. When the system prompts you for your areas of specialization, please ensure you select “charter schools”, along with any other relevant areas.

IF INTERESTED: In addition to the instructions above, please also email a copy of your current resume or vitae to [email protected], with the subject heading “CMO Peer Reviewer application”. Your resume should clearly address your charter school background or expertise. We ask that all interested reviewers register in G5 and email their resume no later than Monday, February 20, 2017. Resumes will be kept on file and panel reviewers will be notified on an as-needed basis. For more information, please contact [email protected].

[dwelker]

SCARY Federal Charter School Program “STATE ENTITIES” Grants announcement

Against past practice where this competitive grant cycle was in Summer/Fall, the Office of Innovation and Idiocy opened the grant app period on March 30. 

 Applications are due May 11, 2017.

Its off to the races for the charter profiteers..The $150 million is largest amount available in history of the CSP SEA program.  Here are the historic figures for this grant program.  Original work by PR WATCH: LINK LOVE FOR LISA GRAVES

In short, more money is available after ESSA and budget, the types of groups who can get the money is expanded (previously only State Education Agencies could apply for this grant), competition is now open to all states every year (previously SEAs with active grants were not eligible for more in their award period) and "performance measures" are changed.

Full March 30 powerpoint for applications here:

https://innovation.ed.gov/files/2017/04/FY-17-CSP-SE-PRE-APPLICATION-WEBINAR.pdf

LOWLIGHTS:

COMPETITION BASICS: AWARD INFORMATION

Type of Award: Discretionary grants

Estimated Available Funds: $157,000,000

Estimated Range of Awards: $2 million to 23 million PER YEAR

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $10 million PER YEAR

Estimated Number of Awards: 3 to 8

Project Period: Up to five years

CHANGES FOR FY2017

The FY 2017 CSP State Entities competition under section 4303 of the ESEA is different from previous CSP SEA competitions. Differences include the following:

1.Eligibility for this program has been expanded

2.If multiple state entities in a State submit applications only the highest-scoring application amongst such State entities (assuming in funding range) would be funded.

3.Subgrants can be for opening and preparing for the operation of: a.New charter schools; b.Replicated high-quality charter schools; or c.Expanding high-quality charter schools.

4.Grant funds may be used for: a.90 percent subgrants; b.7 percent technical assistance; andc.3 percent administrative costs

5.A state entity may use grant funds to carry out technical assistance activities directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.

6.Maximum subgrant is $900,000.

7.Charter schools may serve students in early childhood education programs or postsecondary students.

8.Allowable uses of funds have expanded.

STATE ENTITIES - ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

Eligible applicants are State entities in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the establishment of charter schools.State Entity means—

(a)A State educational agency;

(b)A State charter school board;

(c)A governor of a State; or

(d)A charter school support organization

All State entities are eligible to apply for a grant under the FY 2017 State entity competition, including State entities in states with active grants awarded in prior years.

•The NIA states that “Under section 4303(e)(1) of the ESEA, no State entity may receive a grant under this program for use in a State in which a State entity is currently using a grant received under this program.”

•The Department interprets the language in section 4303(e)(1) of the ESEA as applying only in cases where the active grant was awarded under the reauthorized program (the ESSA version of the ESEA).

•Therefore, a State entity located in a State in which an SEA has an active grant awarded prior to FY 2017 (including an SEA with an active grant) is eligible to apply for a new award under this competition.

Please note: No applicant may receive a new award to conduct the same activities that are approved under the existing active grant; newly proposed activities must be outside the scope of currently funded activities.

CSP PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The primary goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has established two performance indicators to measure progress towards this goal:1) The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation;2) The percentage of fourth-and-eighth grade charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts.Additionally, the Secretary has established the following measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP:3)Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more consecutive years).All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report documenting their contribution in assisting the Department in meeting these performance measures.

COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY 1

Periodic Review and Evaluation (0 or 5 points): To meet this priority, the applicant must demonstrate that the State provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school at least once every five years, unless required more frequently by State law, and takes steps to ensure that such reviews take place. The review and evaluation must serve to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of the school’s charter and meeting or exceeding the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth in the school’s charter or under State law, a State regulation, or a State policy, provided that the student academic achievement requirements and goals for charter schools established by that policy meet or exceed those set forth under applicable State law or State regulation. This periodic review and evaluation must include an opportunity for the authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary.

[dwelker]

Ben Chavis indictment

“An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”  yadda yadda yadda

Some clear-headed investigator within IRS must have won a huge bureaucratic fight to convince all the political appointees above her to make this case.  It is commonly known practice for many charter schools to pay leases (and other fees) to companies privately held by related persons.  This case must hinge on the “concealed” allegation; I can only conclude that if he had said “I DID THIS” than perhaps it is ok under that same mail fraud code.

FROM THE PRESS RELEASE: “The indictment alleges Chavis caused the schools to apply for more than $2.5 million in competitive federal grant funds for the purpose of paying the costs of leasing facilities that Chavis owned or controlled through his companies American Delivery Systems and Lumbee Properties, LLC.  Chavis allegedly concealed his interest in the facilities in the grant applications.  The indictment further alleges that the schools obtained more than $1.1 million in federal grants as a result of this fraud, and that Chavis used fraud proceeds to promote the fraud scheme as to each school.”

Someone should call California Treasurer John Chiang what his office has done to determine if others have defrauded the California School Finance Authority in the same manner.

Below is the actual indictment language.  Big deal and shows a road map to any state or federal investigator how to look into charter school applications to the biggest federal pot of money out there.

[dwelker]

Authorized to inspect Gulen school H1-B employee records

Any citizen can legally inspect the "Labor Condition Application" packets for any employer at the work site that sponsors H1-B visa holders.

TITLE 20 - EMPLOYEES' BENEFITS

CHAPTER V - EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PART 655 - TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES

subpart h - LABOR CONDITION APPLICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS USING NONIMMIGRANTS ON H - 1B VISAS IN SPECIALTY OCCUPATIONS AND AS FASHION MODELS, AND LABOR ATTESTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS USING NONIMMIGRANTS ON H - 1B1 VISAS IN SPECIALTY OCCUPATIONS

655.760 - What records are to be made available to the public, and what records are to be retained?

(a) Public examination. The employer shall make a filed labor condition application and necessary supporting documentation available for public examination at the employer's principal place of business in the U.S. or at the place of employment within one working day after the date on which the labor condition application is filed with DOL. The following documentation shall be necessary: 

(1) A copy of the certified labor condition application (Form ETA 9035E or Form ETA 9035) and cover pages (Form ETA 9035CP). If the Form ETA 9035E is submitted electronically, a printout of the certified application shall be signed by the employer and maintained in its files and included in the public examination file.

(2) Documentation which provides the wage rate to be paid the H1B nonimmigrant; 

(3) A full, clear explanation of the system that the employer used to set the actual wage the employer has paid or will pay workers in the occupation for which the H1B nonimmigrant is sought, including any periodic increases which the system may provide e.g., memorandum summarizing the system or a copy of the employer's pay system or scale (payroll records are not required, although they shall be made available to the Department in an enforcement action).

(4) A copy of the documentation the employer used to establish the prevailing wage for the occupation for which the H1B nonimmigrant is sought (a general description of the source and methodology is all that is required to be made available for public examination; the underlying individual wage data relied upon to determine the prevailing wage is not a public record, although it shall be made available to the Department in an enforcement action); and 

(5) A copy of the document(s) with which the employer has satisfied the union/employee notification requirements of 655.734 of this part.

(6) A summary of the benefits offered to U.S. workers in the same occupational classifications as H1B nonimmigrants, a statement as to how any differentiation in benefits is made where not all employees are offered or receive the same benefits (such summary need not include proprietary information such as the costs of the benefits to the employer, or the details of stock options or incentive distributions), and/or, where applicable, a statement that some/all H1Bnonimmigrants are receiving home country benefits (see 655.731(c)(3)); 

(7) Where the employer undergoes a change in corporate structure, a sworn statement by a responsible official of the new employing entity that it accepts all obligations, liabilities and undertakings under the LCAs filed by the predecessor employing entity, together with a list of each affected LCA and its date of certification, and a description of the actual wage system and EIN of the new employing entity (see 655.730(e)(1)).

(8) Where the employer utilizes the definition of single employer in the IRC, a list of any entities included as part of the single employer in making the determination as to its H1B-dependency status (see 655.736(d)(7)); 

(9) Where the employer is H1B-dependent and/or a willful violator, and indicates on the LCA(s) that only exempt H1B nonimmigrants will be employed, a list of such exempt H1B nonimmigrants (see 655.737(e)(1)); 

(10) Where the employer is H1B-dependent or a willful violator, a summary of the recruitment methods used and the time frames of recruitment of U.S. workers (or copies of pertinent documents showing this information) (see 655.739(i)(4).

(b) National lists of applications and attestations. ETA shall compile and maintain on a current basis a list of the labor condition applications filed under INA section 212(n) regarding H1B nonimmigrants and a list of labor attestations filed under INA section 212(t) regarding H1B1 nonimmigrants. Each list shall be by employer, showing the occupational classification, wage rate(s), number of nonimmigrants sought, period(s) of intended employment, and date(s) of need for each employer's application. The list shall be available for public examination at the Division of Foreign Labor Certification, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room C4312, Washington, DC 20210.

(c) Retention of records. Either at the employer's principal place of business in the U.S. or at the place of employment, the employer shall retain copies of the records required by this subpart for a period of one year beyond the last date on which any H1B nonimmigrant is employed under the labor condition application or, if no nonimmigrants were employed under the labor condition application, one year from the date the labor condition application expired or was withdrawn. Required payroll records for the H1B employees and other employees in the occupational classification shall be retained at the employer's principal place of business in the U.S. or at the place of employment for a period of three years from the date(s) of the creation of the record(s), except that if an enforcement action is commenced, all payroll records shall be retained until the enforcement proceeding is completed through the procedures set forth in subpart I of this part.

 (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1205 0310) [59 FR 65659, 65676, Dec. 20, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 4029, Jan. 19, 1995; 65 FR 80232, Dec. 20, 2000; 66 FR 63302, Dec. 5, 2001; 69 FR 68228, Nov. 23, 2004; 70 FR 72563, Dec. 5, 2005] 

[dwelker]

Admissions Data: the key, missing data to exposing charters

Finally, finally, finally...

The front door clear advantage awarded to charter schools by the Deformists in charge is city wide admissions. [The ejector seat advantage allows them to "counsel" ahem force out low performers.]  Charter schools can selectively admit from a disadvantaged demographic - not freely admit and act as a dictionary-definition neighborhood school.  They aren't like a magnet school quite yet.  I like the term "privilege school" like "your attendance here isn't a right it is a privilege."

Here is an Alderman in Chicago who used a political moment - where UNO needed his support to obtain a zoning change - to extract a commitment that UNO would act more like a neighborhood school and less like a privilege school.  Now let's see how it plays out.  I suspect The Friends of Juan (Rangel) was the determining admissions factor...not neighborhood address.  Joravsky won't let this story go I'm sure.

Well, the last year hasn't been so glorious for UNO. In February, Sun-Times reporter Dan Mihalopoulos began breaking stories showing that companies owned by the brothers of UNO's former chief financial officer had received no-bid contracts for school construction.

With each new Mihalopoulos exposé, UNO became an embarrassment to the charter school community. Quinn temporarily suspended state funding for their projects. The Tribune wrote a critical editorial. Emanuel backed away a bit. And, ironically, Rangel agreed to let his teachers organize.

Moreover, Sposato was still on the case. Based on calls from constituents, he started to doubt that UNO was living up to its agreement to give local applicants the first stab at seats in the school. "Constituents told me they never got in even though they lived very close."

So over the spring and summer he began asking UNO officials to meet with him. Specifically, he asked that they bring the addresses of applicants for this year's kindergarten class so he could compare them to the addresses of the kids who got in.

"They said no problem," says Sposato. "But it took forever for them to meet."

And when they finally did show up to his office on August 16, they didn't have the information he'd requested. "They gave me a piece of paper that said something like 45 kids out of 160 who applied came from the neighborhood," Sposato says. "This wasn't what I asked for or what they said they'd bring. It's just numbers on a piece of paper. Bring me the proof. They said they'd come back for another meeting with what I wanted."

Sposato suspects that UNO has gone back on its promise. He suspects it gerrymandered its admissions lottery to make sure that a favorite few got in.

At the very least, he vows to press on until UNO opens its books.

"It's stall, stall, stall, stall," he says. "First they stalled before we met. Then they didn't bring what they said they were going to bring. And now they're stalling on another meeting. I just want to make sure they're living up to their deal. What's wrong with that?"

[dwelker]

This is an inside joke that may reveal too much about my sense of humor.

[dwelker]

"The World's Most Influential Public Intellectual"

Joshua Hendrick's new book on Gulen - Gulen: The Ambiguous Politics of Market Islam in Turkey and the World - opens with an introduction with that title.

Teasers:

In a 2005 poll administered to determine “the world’s most influential public intellectual,” the U.S. political magazine Foreign Policy (FP), together with its British affiliate, Prospect, published an unranked list of one hundred people whom their editors believed to be the most impactful opinion makers, political leaders, policy advisers, activists, and scholars in the world...After four weeks and more than five hundred thousand votes, Fethullah Gülen was named “the world’s most influential public intellectual” by a wide margin (Nuttal 2008). The July 2008 edition of Prospect magazine subsequently published a series of articles asking the question—who is Fethullah Gülen?

More relevant to the charter school finance theme of this blog:

Indeed, access to public funding via the expanding “school choice” system in the United States has produced an environment whereby, with approximately 130 schools as of March 2012, the United States hosts more "Gulen-inspired schools" than does any country in the world outside Turkey.

This book is worth the money no matter the price.

I wrote the other day that "there is no conspiracy" when it comes to the school privatization forces in the United States.

In the English language only the word "conspiracy" applies to what Gulen's adherents have - shockingly, shamefully, successfully - set up in their network of charter schools here.  

The more important question is: what are we prepared to do to force the necessary public debate about this conspiracy?

[dwelker]

The wellspring of "Follow the Money" research

This is a long post but bear with me...

There is no conspiracy: the privatization crowd meets openly and publishes much of its playbook.  The moneyed advocates for privatization are secure in their world of beach houses, gated mansions, in-breeding and tax avoidance lawyers.  They hire  ("slummin' til my real job prospects improve or daddy takes back his Cayenne") white, black and brown strivers to carry out the privatization agenda in town after town after town.  Sometimes an independent journalist (rarely one at the corporate newspapers or news stations) writes a piece stringing it together and following the money back to some foundation.

But where to start?  Which foundation?  What city?

I go back to the Philanthropy Roundtable.  I would follow any group from your home town or state that donates any of its tax exempt money to this pro-privatization outfit.  If a corporate, (traditional) community or family foundation gives to the Philanthropy Roundtable, they have been hooked/lined/sinkered into the deform agenda.

How bad is Philanthropy Roundtable?

In 2013, where would you expect the deformers to hold a group hive five and congratulatory road show?

In Philadelphia of course.  To wit:

September 30 – October 1

Union League Club – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Co-hosted by Delaware Valley Grantmakers and Cities for Education Entrepreneurship Trust (CEE-Trust)

How can a philanthropist increase the number of great K-12 options in their city? Join donors from across the country as we examine the most promising strategies to grow what works in all of a city’s schools—charter, district, and Catholic/private—and explore the challenges and benefits of a city-based, multi-school sector strategy. How can donors increase a city’s total number of high-quality K-12 seats, regardless of the school sector(s) they fund? We’ll discuss investments that hold the promise of improving multiple types of schools and learn how donors are uniquely positioned to accelerate city-wide student achievement.

Discussions Include:

Incubating and attracting top school providers

Can school choice benefit private and public schools?

Building teacher and leader pipelines that serve all schools

How can blended learning be used in a purposeful city-wide strategy?

What does each sector— charter, district, and Catholic/private—do best, and what can each learn from the other?

Speakers Include:

Katherine Bradley, president, CityBridge Foundation

Mark Gleason, executive director, Philadelphia School Partnership

Scott Gordon, CEO, Mastery Charter Schools

Ethan Gray, executive director, Cities for Education Entrepreneurship Trust (CEE-Trust)

H. Edward Hanway, chairman, Faith in the Future Foundation

Jeremy Nowak, president, J. Nowak and Associates

Don Shalvey, deputy director, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Andy Smarick, research fellow, Bellwether Education

Schedule:

Monday, September 30

12:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.: Site Visits*

Schools Include:

Mastery Charter Schools

Mercy Vocational High School

These school visits will feature an interactive, donor-led conversation of how philanthropists can grow and replicate high-quality schools to achieve major student performance gains in cities.

*Roundtrip transportation will be provided from the Union League Club

4:15 p.m. Special Session (optional):

Not Business As Usual: How Executives are leading Catholic School Reform This special session will feature prominent business leaders who will explore the role of lay leadership in developing new and innovative Catholic school models.

6:00 p.m. Opening Reception

Tuesday, October 1

8:00 a.m. Breakfast Roundtable Discussions

9:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Conference

A significant portion of the conference will give attendees the opportunity to engage in intimate, topic-specific working sessions and discussions about different investment options for accelerating city-wide student achievement.

Meeting Location:

Union League Club of Philadelphia 140 S Broad St. Philadelphia, PA 19102 [phone]

<END>

So clear so far...

In 2009, Philanthropy Roundtable released a paper (here in large pdf) still on their web site titled, "Investing in Charter Schools: A Guide For Donors."  This doesn't actually mean "invest" as in "earn a direct monetary return" but close enough to not be totally misinterpreted by the vulture capitalists.

This report had a subsection titled "Funders Referenced" that will tell you exactly for each city or state who is the primary 'wellspring' for deform activity in a locality.  [New York excepted because that's where all the smarmiest, richest investors are and they can "invest" anywhere.] You'll recognize some of these names more than others.  This coven of deformers has certainly spread since 2009. 

Achelis & Bodman Foundations (New York, NY)

Ahmanson Foundation (Beverly Hills, CA)

Amar Foundation (San Jose, CA)

Beginning with Children Foundation (New York, NY)

Brighter Choice Foundation (Albany, NY)

Boston Foundation (Boston, MA)

Bradley Foundation (Milwaukee, WI)

Broad Foundation (Los Angeles, CA)

California Community Foundation (Los Angeles, CA)

Annie E. Casey Foundation (Baltimore, MD)

Challenge Foundation (Dallas, TX)

Charter School Growth Fund (Broomfield, CO)

CityBridge Foundation (Washington, DC)

Cosmos Foundation (Houston, TX) [Gulen shout out!]

Daniels Fund (Denver, CO

Dell Foundation (Austin, TX)

Richard M. Fairbanks Fdn (Indianapolis, IN)

Doris and Donald Fisher Fund (San Francisco, CA)

Ford Motor Company Fund (Dearborn, MI)

Gates Family Foundation (Denver, CO)

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Seattle, WA)

Greater New Orleans Foundation (New Orleans, LA)

Charles Hayden Foundation (New York NY)

Heinz Endowments (Pittsburgh, PA)

Hewlett Foundation (Menlo Park, CA)

Houston Endowmennt (Houston, TX)

Jaquelin Hume Foundation (San Francisco, CA)

Hyde Family Foundation (Memphis, TN)

James Irvine Fdn (San Francisco, CA)

Joyce Foundation (Chicago, IL)

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (Kansas City, MO)

Kern Family Foundation (Waukesha, WI)

Marcus Foundation (Atlanta, GA)

MCJ and Amelior Foundation (Morristown, NJ)

Newark Charter School Fund (Newark, NJ)

Newschools Venture Fund (San Francisco, CA)

Prudential Financial (Shelton, CT)

Pumpkin Foundation (NY, NY)

Riordan Foundation (LA, CA)

Robertson Foundation (NY, NY)

Robin Hood Foundation (NY, NY)

Rodel Charitable Foundation (Scottsdale, AZ)

Rodel Foundation of Delaware (Wilmington, DE)

Rogers Family Foundation (Oakland, CA)

Ronald Simon Family Foundation (Newport Beach, CA)

Sallie Mae Fund (reston, VA)

The Reinvestment Fund (Philadelphia, PA)

Tiger Foundation (New York, NY)

Victoria Foundation (Glen Ridge, NJ)

Walton Family Foundation (Bentonville, AR)

Weingart Foundation (LA, CA)

Happy fishing!!!

[dwelker]

Orrick and Bond Buyer Charter School Bonds Presentation

The slides speak for themselves but are probably the short version of what the July 10 event at the Hahvahd Club in NYC covered.   LISC was involved in both. The smug comes through exceptionally well with Billy "Its all for the benjamins I mean kids" Wildman.

Note that one of the "Exemplar Transactions" is for New Plan Learning, the land-owning wing of Gulenists' chain Concept Schools.  It would have been a much bigger deal if it hadn't have been for those meddling kids. Fitch downgraded these bonds in March 2013 but it was a mixed assessment with bleets of increasing enrollment supporting increasing revenue (note the absence of the "best practices" supporting academic performance that LISC feels necessary).

It will be interesting to see how the interest rate shock impacts the deals in the pipeline.  This year's first six months saw 26 issuances close compared to 28 in same period in 2012 and 22 in same period in 2011.

[dwelker]

Walton money for "Advocacy" Exceeds $100 million

The Walton family foundation was in news recently as Valerie Strauss published her annual accounting of WFF education donations.  Strauss focused on the recent WFF donation to Michelle Rhee, and rightly since her DC readership will always chime in on news about Rhee.

But the Walton's tenticles go all over the country.  So this coverage made me revisit my data.

I am struggling with how to make tumblr do what I want it to do so I had to load this table to google docs as a workaround.

  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmQmVjgMAh5EdFJvSU1xT0ptQ0VLNnVUOUNhV0RhSWc&output=html

I've added a set of categories to the full database and just labeled the most deforminess groups as EdAdvocacy even though the WFF made another hundred million or so in contributions to other orgs like state "charter school associations."  This subset for EdAdvocacy has 161 contributions totaling $108 million since my data started in 1996.

The exercise we did way in the past was a calculation of the WFF contribution as a percentage of the total revenue for that group in that year (assuming that the reporting years for WFF and the recipient lined up).

To take an example, the Walton Fam Fdn gave the WI outfit "Milwaukee Charter School Advocates" a grant of $235,027 in 2012.  Milwaukee Charter School Advocates in its IRS Form 990 in 2011 reported total $150,000 in contribution/grants.  Is it fair to say that MCSA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Walton Family Foundation?  If one looks at who runs MCAS on its web site - besides the Waltons' man in Wisconsin Howard Fuller - one sees that Tim Sheehy, President of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, is on the board of directors.  Lo and behold, the Walton Fam Fdn has given the "MMAC Community Support Foundaton nearly $10 million since 2001 with $7.6 million alone in 2001.

This is how the Waltons can stay in the shadows while buses carry unknowing parents to rallies on capital steps year after year.

[dwelker]

Who in NYC Enabled $23 million Bond Deal with Walton Family Foundation?

The Walton Family Foundation is unquestionably the vampire squid equivalent to Goldman Sachs in the education deform world.  I am working to update my data for WFF donations over last decade and half.  I am open to suggestions on how to release this and with whom; send me a comment if you'd like a copy or have any ideas.

If one looks at the first years of nearly any charter school in the country the chances are very good that the school founders received either a charter application writing grant (usually $20,000 or $30,000) or a start-up grant (between $225,000 or $250,000) or both from the Walton Family Foundation.  Bronx Charter School for Excellence is one such school. 

And the doors to other financing from the state or other funders usually open after a school secures a WFF start-up grant.  Such a school has a few years to prove itself but it can go back to WFF-backed funds like New Schools Venture Fund or New Schools for Chicago or Newark Charter School Fund or others to secure on-going support.  I've always suspected that many charter operators were happy to take WFF money but didn't want long term association with the Waltons so by agreement these pass-through entities were created (and also its a nice job program for wingnut welfare.)

But a new actor (to me at least) in the WFF orbit was the latest vehicle for Bronx Charter School for Excellence to obtain its $23.3 million tax exempt bonds in April 2013.  This financial enabler, the Charter School Financing Partnership, was co-signer with Bronx CSE at the New York City Economic Development Corporation. 

The NYCEDC is seemingly moving in new direction with issuing tax exempt bonds for city charter schools with the Bronx CSE and a second deal [for International Leadership Charter School; subject of a future post] in 2013 where in the past NYCEDC had no track record for conduit financing for charters.  In fact, EMMA counts only 5 issuances total since 2008 in New York so the new willingness of NYCEDC to issue such debt marks a big development for the pro-charter lobby in New York City.

The NYCEDC has a board full of heavy political hitters.  Including:

Seth Pinsky, President of the New York City Economic Development Corporation

Amanda Burden, Chair Commissioner of the Department of City Planning

Michael Cordozo, New York City’s Corporation Counsel and chief legal officer of New York City

John Liu, New York City Comptroller

Albert M. Rodriguez, General Counsel for Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.

Robert K. Steel, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development of the City of New York

Kevin Doyle, Executive Director of 32BJ

For some officials simply waiting to take a position with the Bloomberg Family Office after the end of his misrule, the association with charter schools is not problematic.  But association with the Waltons may be a bridge too far.  That's where the Charter School Financing Partnership provides plausible deniability or at least the public relations distance from the Waltons.

The Charter School Financing Partnership is a key player for using small amounts of private money ("enhancements" from the Waltons or ugh the US Dept of Education) to get leveraged funds ie debt through tax exempt bonds.  I had not looked at CSFP before but its role is clearly laid out through the promotions of its related partners:

Five community capital organizations have formed the Charter School Financing Partnership to increase capital access for high-performing, emerging charter schools. With credit enhancement from the US Department of Education and the Walton Family Foundation, CSFP offers innovative, flexible-financing solutions for schools. Through CSFP, schools can buy down the effective rate on tax-exempt bond executions and enhance New Market Tax Credit transactions as well as other conventional financing products.

Partners

Community Reinvestment Fund

Housing Partnership Network

NCB Capital Impact

Piper Jaffray & Co.

Raza Development Fund

The Reinvestment Fund

US Department of Education

Walton Family Foundation

CSFB Program Benefits

Program enhances the security of the tax exempt bondholders by:

- reducing the leverage - improving the debt service coverage ratio - reducing debt per square foot and debt per student - reducing other underwriting metrics investors and rating agencies consider when reviewing charter school’s credit

So CSFP can take the financial supports from WFF to sweeten the pot for bond investors in evaluating the credit worthiness of individual charter schools by providing "enhancement."  Why would "bondholders" need enhanced "security" in the case of the Bronx CSE deal?

Because even the New York Charter School Institute recent financial evaluations "dash board" release on April 30 put forward a less-than-secure assessment for Bronx CSE for the 2011-12 year.  The key metrics from the NYCSI were: "fiscally needs monitoring", "working capital risk: high", "acid test ratio: high", "debt to asset ratio risk: medium", "months of cash risk: high."

The school is purchasing its present facility for $7.455 million and acquiring/constructing a building attached to it for $16.773 million.  In comparison the school paid $1.05 mm in "land/rent/lease" payments in 2011-12 according to CSI financial dash board, the school will pay $1.151 mm in debt payments in 2014 and $1.67 mm in 2018 to pay bondholders.  In essence that is $500,000 more per year (until 2043 unless re-financed!) at a school already recognized as needing monitoring by its authorizer SUNY CSI.

The school governing board is primarily responsible for deciding that more debt to get a bigger building is the most prudent way forward for Bronx CSE.  The board leadership should be asked that question:

Chairman Joyce Frost, "Secretary of New York Cares"

Vice Chair Stacey Lauren, "a private tutor for New York city private schools"

Treasurer Dierdre Flynn, "an independent consultant managing finance and operations of growth companies and not-for-profits"

Secretary Kimberly Hartman, "founder of KH Designs and interior design firm in New York City."

I don't have much confidence that this board leadership will be able to give full accounting of how 30 years of public funds paying private bondholders millions of dollars in interest payments advances public education in the Bronx and if this huge outlay for a small school will bring systemic change in the borough.

But if you asked the Walton family and the ideologues they employ, they could clearly explain how their money in Bronx CSE was a worthwhile investment for their policy goals.

[dwelker]

Nina Rees' Former Company Grows Amid Odd Bond Financing in Gary

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see where all this reforminess at the urging of corporate interests is intersecting with the school closures.  The ongoing struggles in Phila and Chicago around mass closures are rightly getting the headlines.  But the smaller scale urban districts and their shuttering of small number of schools show what is in store.  The school will close, a charter operator will obtain the building and property, the operator will apply for bond financing, then contract out the school management to an unaccountable EMO or CMO and the neighborhood school is transformed into a 'privilege school' with private selectivity policies and public money.

A slightly different story is unfolding in Gary, IN in the case of the 21st Century Charter School as told in the very large PDF linked here.

I am unsure if the charter was application an initiative of the board or of the management company.  One of the surest indicators of possible financial mismanagement is the backwards arrangement of an operator selecting the board and leasing the facility to the board's school a la Imagine Schools.

But the confluence of the managers and school board founders is curious.

A member of the founding team is Arlene Colvin, "the director for Community Development for the City of Gary and is the former Chief of Staff for the past four mayors of Gary.  She has served as city planner, economic director and city attorney."  Colvin is now the Secretary Treasurer of 21st Century Charter School.  Colvin should be asked how this deal makes sense in light of the considerable debt burden now on the school and the circumstances and due diligence around purchase of the building from the management organization, GEO Foundation.

What about GEO Foundation?  The intrepid Indiana blogger Craig Martin said this in 2011 about GEOF:

When Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard announced he was closing the Fountain Square Academy charter school last month because of low performance, he focused the blame solely on the Greater Educational Opportunities Foundation, which received a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education less than a year ago.

<SNIP>

If we peer into GEO Foundation CEO’s history, we get a hint at the group’s mindset. As a former member of the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Reagan Office of Public Liaison, and other rightwing groups, Kevin Teasley has been a figure in the voucher/charter movement in several states from the get-go.

While at the Reason Foundation in California, Teasley was associated with the voucher group Excellence Through Choice-in-Education League (EXCEL), which was funded by Indiana’s own Dan Quayle, William Bennett (who once desired to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and has recently radio-interviewed the very proud Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett), and Milton Friedman (whose Foundation for Educational Choice is in Indianapolis now), a group which then-California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig said was attempting to use taxpayer money to breed “cult schools.” The voucher measure, on the November 1992 ballot, did not pass.

<SNIP>

Former Domestic-Policy Adviser to Dick Cheney and implementer of No Child Left Behind for the Bush U.S. Department of Education, Nina Rees also helps run GEO. If this were not enough to set off sirens, Rees also is Senior Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and is responsible for early-childhood education and after-school tutoring for Michael Milken's Knowledge Universe.

The outline of the bond transaction and use of bond proceeds also suggests more than meets the eye.  The $13.5 million raised will put $3.5 m to the purchase of the building from GEO Foundation; $7.55 m to build a new facility ("the construction and equipping of a new 50,000 square foot building facility on land donated by the City of Gary"); $1.01 m in a reserve fund not to be spent on any school operations; and the remaining in fees.

First about the present building, the board is taking on a lot of debt paying 6% and 6.25% on two tranches to buy out the present landlord GEOF.  The local newspaper in December wrote a piece about the transaction that said

Kevin Teasley, founder and president of Indianapolis-based GEO Foundation, which is the management company for 21st Century Charter School, said the school has been leasing the space since it opened eight years ago. For the first four years, the board leased the building for $300,000 a year and then paid $360,000 per year for most of the remaining years after an addition was made to the building.

Teasley said the foundation borrowed $7 million more than eight years ago to construct two new schools — the 21st Century Charter School in Gary and one in Indianapolis. He said the school buildings are identical, and they cost more than $3.5 million each to construct.

"It actually cost us about $4 million to construct and we discounted it to the school," Teasley said. "We spent another $250,000 when we added a music room above the cafeteria four years ago. It was the decision of the board at 21st Century to buy the building because it will save them money as opposed to continuing to pay rent on the building."

Teasley and School Treasurer Dana Johnson said the school is paying roughly $12 per square foot, which is "pretty reasonable."

Teasley also said the management company is not making any money off the sale. He said it has acted as a "pass through" agent.

"We (the foundation) took the risk by borrowing the money and simply passed the cost on to the school," he said.

Added Johnson, "We have not really made anything. We have essentially been paying a loan we received from the bank. The rent was set based on the amount owed to the bank."

In a supplemental audit report released by the independent auditors nearly a week later on Dec. 12, auditors criticized the charter school for not following several accounting guidelines.

That's pretty rich.  What do you think GEOF could get for the building in Gary on the open market without the insider deal to its tenant?

What savings will the school get now that they aren't paying rent?  In fact they will pay $841,000 in interest only in 2014, $1.01 million in 2015 and more than a million per year until 2043.

That second building on donated land will generate some income for 21st Century - because it will be leased to another charter school called Gary Middle College.  And Gary Middle College hires GEO Foundation to serve as management organization.

This is the new pattern where elected and appointed officials simply stop supporting its public schools and instead enable access to (or worse participate in the turnover of) buildings and land that fuel the financialization of school buildings and services.