William Phillis, President of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding is a retired superintendent and long-time advocate of public schools. Likewise, Bill has been an opponent of the Gulen schools, investigating the Gulen affiliated charter schools both in Ohio and throughout the United States since 2008 -- and like me -- is determined to continue our respective quests into exposing and shutting down these criminal entities.
As part of his series, Bill writes about the charter school sponsors and their complicity in secreting public records regarding the Gulenists schools they sponsor. Having worked at one of the Gulenist schools and personally witnessing a Buckeye Community Hope Foundation sponsored school audit, and I can say with great assurance that they do very little other than collect a check and continually appease the Gulenists in order to continue doing so.
Below is Bill’s five- part series on his investigative findings. Of special interest is that the Gulenists have notoriously evaded the Sunshine Laws, deliberately avoiding public records requests, despite being funded by public tax dollars. It begs the question, what are they hiding and why are they so afraid to turn over the records?
By William Phillis
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part One
Since the beginning of the charter school experiment in Ohio nearly 20 years ago, many questions have been raised about the nature of these schools in as much as nearly all are managed by private companies and have hand-picked, unelected governing boards. During the next several days, we will detail an attempt by the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E&A) to find out more about a few of these publicly-funded but privately-operated schools.
Consistent with the Ohio Public Records Law, Ohio E&A sent a request to review all records from 2008 to the present held by the Ohio Department of Education as well as two other organizations that are sponsors of a national charter school chain. The request asked for records that were pertinent to “the operation and oversight” of 17 charter schools in Ohio that are managed by Concept Schools, a charter school management organization located in Chicago. The schools are part of the so-called Gulen network, named for a Turkish cleric who has helped to establish a national charter chain composed of about 167 schools. This chain operates schools under the Horizon Science Academy and Noble Academy brands in Ohio. According to some experts, this means that the Gulen Schools represent the second-largest charter chain in the nation, with only the K12 Inc. chain being larger by total student enrollment.
These schools have been a subject of controversy for years in as much as news reports have shown that they are staffed with many Turkish immigrants, while other staff positions have also been filled by Turkish nationals who are in the country on the basis of H1B visas. Critics have said that every foreign national hired at a Gulen charter school is one less job available for a fully licensed, highly-qualified teacher.
In 2014, some of the Gulen Schools were the subject of raids by the FBI, and records were removed from schools across the country. Three of the schools were in Ohio.
The public’s access to records is an important part of open government and transparency. In June, Denis Smith, a retired consultant in the Ohio Department of Education’s charter school office, wrote an Op-Ed in the Columbus Dispatch in support of Ohio E&A’s request for public records and voiced his displeasure about the slow response from the two public agencies in acknowledging receipt of the request for records. The response from the third agency, a non-profit organization, will be explored further in Part Four of this series.
This week, we will report what we found and could not find in the public records released to us since Ohio E&A sent the request asking for information which the public has a right to know. Based on a review of those records, we will also put forward some needed charter reforms to promote greater transparency and accountability for the authorizers or sponsors of these privately-operated schools.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Two: ESC of Lake Erie West
The Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West was formerly known as the Lucas County ESC. This regional educational agency was one of the three original Ohio charter school sponsors, or authorizers as they are called in the rest of the country. ESCLEW, as it is known in shorthand, remains one of the largest promoters of charter schools and sponsors more than 50 of them in Ohio.
On June 7, Amy Borman, an attorney for ESCLEW, replied to Ohio E&A about the records request for the Gulen Schools under its authorization. The request asked for those records held by the ESC which “detail all correspondence relating to the operation” of those particular buildings. Attached with her cover letter was a 239-page document.
A closer examination of this hefty record revealed a plethora of annual reports, mission statements, corrective action plans, and dozens of pages of reviews conducted by the ESC. In one section of the materials submitted, there are 25 pages of mission statements for the eight schools, with five of the statements apparently identical, except for the name of the school.
The records received included a January 2018 document entitled “ESCLEW Investigative Report: Concept Schools,” which showed that during the 2016-2017 school year, one of the schools hired 17 new teachers out of a total staff of 33. While this represents a nearly 50% change in the teaching staff in just one year, the report, which the ESC completed at the request of ODE, says that “Based on the findings of teacher turn over the ESCLEW did not find the numbers to raise concern for the school.”
In a discussion with counsel for the sponsor, she related that there are many factors involved with staff turnover, including new teachers that are at the beginning of their career, and that the range of factors may not be known within the statistics for staff turnover.
There were several other items found in the records that are of note. All of the eight schools contain board members who sit on multiple charter boards, which should raise oversight issues for critics of these schools. This sentence in the 2018 report is of particular interest. “An in depth review of the board membership and affiliation identifies that each governing authority member only sits on four or less governing authority boards which are not all the same boards for each five members, nor are all the schools authorized by the ESCLEW.”
The following sentence in that section of the 2018 report contains this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” We will discuss this concern in more detail at the end of this series on public records.
A final note is made about a statement found in a response to a corrective action plan. On July 13, 2009, an administrator for Concept Schools stated that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” In examining this statement, it remains unclear as to who will be reimbursed for this expense – the Ohio Department of Education or another entity. As with the concern about the selection and residence of board members, this question will also be addressed later in this series.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Two: ESC of Lake Erie West
The Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West was formerly known as the Lucas County ESC. This regional educational agency was one of the three original Ohio charter school sponsors, or authorizers as they are called in the rest of the country. ESCLEW, as it is known in shorthand, remains one of the largest promoters of charter schools and sponsors more than 50 of them in Ohio.
On June 7, Amy Borman, an attorney for ESCLEW, replied to Ohio E&A about the records request for the Gulen Schools under its authorization. The request asked for those records held by the ESC which “detail all correspondence relating to the operation” of those particular buildings. Attached with her cover letter was a 239-page document.
A closer examination of this hefty record revealed a plethora of annual reports, mission statements, corrective action plans, and dozens of pages of reviews conducted by the ESC. In one section of the materials submitted, there are 25 pages of mission statements for the eight schools, with five of the statements apparently identical, except for the name of the school.
The records received included a January 2018 document entitled “ESCLEW Investigative Report: Concept Schools,” which showed that during the 2016-2017 school year, one of the schools hired 17 new teachers out of a total staff of 33. While this represents a nearly 50% change in the teaching staff in just one year, the report, which the ESC completed at the request of ODE, says that “Based on the findings of teacher turn over the ESCLEW did not find the numbers to raise concern for the school.”
In a discussion with counsel for the sponsor, she related that there are many factors involved with staff turnover, including new teachers that are at the beginning of their career, and that the range of factors may not be known within the statistics for staff turnover.
There were several other items found in the records that are of note. All of the eight schools contain board members who sit on multiple charter boards, which should raise oversight issues for critics of these schools. This sentence in the 2018 report is of particular interest. “An in depth review of the board membership and affiliation identifies that each governing authority member only sits on four or less governing authority boards which are not all the same boards for each five members, nor are all the schools authorized by the ESCLEW.”
The following sentence in that section of the 2018 report contains this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” We will discuss this concern in more detail at the end of this series on public records.
A final note is made about a statement found in a response to a corrective action plan. On July 13, 2009, an administrator for Concept Schools stated that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” In examining this statement, it remains unclear as to who will be reimbursed for this expense – the Ohio Department of Education or another entity. As with the concern about the selection and residence of board members, this question will also be addressed later in this series.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Three: Ohio Department of Education (ODE)
Under state law, the ODE is responsible for the legal oversight of the state’s network of charter schools, the distribution of state funds that support them, and the enforcement of such compliance measures which are in place. The Department is also in the awkward position of being a charter sponsor itself, with about 25 schools under its sponsorship.
In looking at ODE’s role as the compliance mechanism for charters, the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E&A) requested records from the state education agency pertaining to the 17 Ohio Concept Schools from 2008 to the present.
The records received from ODE are abundant in detailing parent complaints regarding the instructional program offered at the Ohio Concept Schools.
Among the complaints received by the Department are issues regarding the proper placement of students consistent with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements that govern students with disabilities.
A review of the correspondence supplied by ODE indicates that a number of the Gulen schools have experienced other issues besides special education, including allegations by a number of teachers in 2014 at the Horizon Science Academy – Dayton, which were reviewed by the state board of education. The report by the school’s sponsor organization (see Part Four) that was submitted to ODE about the charges against the school has formed the basis of much criticism during the last several years. The charges included lax administrative procedures, physical labor required of the staff, and discrimination by administrators against some staff members. Again, this issue will be reviewed in more detail in Part Four.
In late 2017, the records reveal, the law firm representing Concept Schools and the Gulen chain contacted ODE to advise that the FBI investigation into their schools was still ongoing. Counsel stated that the U.S. Attorney in Cleveland is in charge of the government’s efforts to look at possible irregularities into the use of federal funds allocated for these schools.
Prior to that, a Washington law firm representing the Republic of Turkey contacted State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria. In the letter, the attorneys suggested that the state agency look more thoroughly into the affairs of Horizon Science and Noble Academies, the Gulen-related chain managed by Concept Schools. The law firm alleged that these schools, authorized by Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (BCHF) and ESC of Lake Erie West (ESCLEW), “work under a shroud of secrecy and seemingly under the direction of a handful of Turkish religious leaders. Many of these schools and their operators share a history of financial mismanagement, suspected fraud, apparent self-dealing, discrimination, and unusual immigration/visa practices.”
Also found among the documents submitted by ODE were two reports that are both dated January 16, 2018. Both were submitted by the two sponsors of all of the Ohio Concept Schools, BCHF and ESCLEW. Both also bear the same title – Investigation Report: Concept Schools and are similar in nature. They were written in the same format, and only the conclusion part shows a slightly different narrative approach.
Here is one example: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority.” In the report submitted by the BCHF, that identical sentence is found, followed by an additional sentence for each of their schools under contract. That sentence states “No current members live more than 75 miles from the school.” This statement is repeated for all of the schools under BCHF sponsorship.
Both reports end in the same manner, stating that the FBI investigation was disclosed to the sponsor, but no details are offered. Moreover, both sponsors promise to “monitor attendance at (board) meetings, financials, leases, and teacher turnover.”
It is interesting to note that less than a month after these nearly identical reports were submitted to ODE, a staff member in ODE’s charter school office wrote on February 5, 2018 to ESCLEW in Toledo, regarding an observation about Horizon Science Academy Columbus High School:
“Also I would appreciate a copy of the minutes of the GA meeting … And I was surprised that each of the Concept schools in and around Morse Road area of northern Columbus seem to have the same governing authority and they meet on the same day, same place and same time.”
Apparently, this inbreeding among governing boards of Concept Schools does not seem to be an issue with the schools’ sponsors, although it did appear on the radar, however briefly, of ODE. The public would certainly be interested in seeing a graphic of these intersections of boards, along with the traveling distance of the governing board members and the time of day these boards meet.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Four: Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (BCHF)
According to its website, the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation “was founded in 1991 as a non-profit corporation with the mission of developing affordable housing for low-income families and individuals.” In 2005, the organization decided to expand its core purpose by becoming a charter school sponsor. According to an analysis completed by the Education Commission of the States, 44 states provide for charters by statute. However, only Minnesota and Ohio clearly allow non-profit organizations without a singular, core educational purpose like BCHF to serve as sponsors legally responsible for the oversight of these publicly-funded but privately-operated schools.
Since entering the charter school business, BCHF has become the sponsor for 47 schools, nearly as many as the ESC of Lake Erie West (ESCLEW), one of the original charter school sponsors in Ohio. Nine of these are Concept Schools operating under the Horizon Science Academy and Noble Academy brands. These schools are located in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Lorain, and Youngstown.
Consistent with the public records requests sent to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and the ESC of Lake Erie West, the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E & A) sent a letter on May 2 to the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation requesting comparable records for the schools it sponsors. But the reply on June 4 from the BCHF attorney was not unexpected:
“… The Buckeye Community Hope Foundation is not a public entity subject to public records requests. Other places you may get the records you desire are the Ohio Department of Education and the public schools themselves.”
In trying to inform the public about state policy and practices, along with reporting on the condition and needs of schools, it was regrettable, but also predictable, to receive this reply from counsel. Instead of dealing with one agency (ODE and ESCLEW), it was suggested that Ohio E & A deal with nine, along with the state agency, to get the information desired. Irrespective of the statute which allows BCHF to collect significant public revenue but use its non-profit status to be immune from responding to public records requests, legislators need to reexamine the statute and require more transparency and accountability from private organizations that benefit from public funds. We will examine this more in Part Five, the final segment in this series.
A final observation on BCHF and its stance on public records reveal that in fact, the public has to rely on ODE to provide the information about the Concept Schools that are sponsored by the non-profit. For example, we had to find out through records sent by ODE, not BCHF that the non-profit had to deal with the same type of issues in its Concept Schools as the public agency sponsor ESCLEW. When you have to find out information from another source when the first party says no, we are not required to do so, that is not reassuring.
The records available to us from ODE, and not BCHF, clearly demonstrate that it is up to the state education agency and, again, not BCHF, to inform the public regarding the operational condition of nine schools. The ODE records revealed a string of parent concerns regarding student expulsion, Individualized Education Program (IEP) issues, and a teacher complaining about one of the schools cherry-picking students in violation of standard public school admission practices. Again, it is not reassuring to find out about such issues through a third party – ODE.
In our final look in Part Five at the topic of public records requests and charter schools, we will make some recommendations about what we learned and what needs to be done regarding the charter school industry that will better serve the public.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Five: Notes About Records, Privately Operated Schools, and Public Trust
Even before the FBI conducted raids in 2014 on Gulen charter schools around the country and the three within Ohio, citizens have been anticipating word of increased scrutiny and accountability for these schools. These raids also occurred at a time of citizen action, with a rally on the Statehouse steps and a march to the Ohio Department of Education by those who wanted a complete investigation of these schools.
Of the hundreds of pages of reports and summaries that were read by individuals assisting the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E & A) in examining these records, one particular incident stands out. On July 15, 2014, this complaint was recorded in one of the reports. Details: Teachers had to assemble desks and chairs using Turkish instructions. The complaint was followed by this note. Sponsor’s Final Investigative Comment: This allegation does not show any violation of law.
Every public school in the nation has its own challenges, from parent complaints about expulsions, appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP) placement, building and student safety, and other issues that cause concern. However, a teacher report about classroom furniture being purchased, apparently with public funds, delivered with assembly instructions written in the native language of the school administrator, should have raised a red flag with the sponsors. In particular, the Washington law firm in its 2017 letter to the state superintendent raised the issue of alleged self-dealing. The 2014 teacher complaint may provide some insight as to whether those and other charges were adequately investigated by the state board of education.
The amount of time spent in examining these records was helpful in framing the issues that still linger about a group of schools that have a practice of hiring persons bearing visas rather than staffing those schools with fully licensed, qualified and available American teachers. But that is only one issue with these schools. There are a plethora of concerns that arise from examining these public records, and this series was designed to bring them to the surface.
We can only hope that citizens will soon insist on addressing these concerns directly to the Ohio General Assembly, the State Board of Education and to the sponsors of the Gulen schools, viz, the Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West (ESCLEW) and the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (BCHF).
Here are the questions that all of these organizations need to address, and soon.
Why were these schools raided by the FBI? Has the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and the sponsors shown any interest in encouraging a conclusion to this federal investigation?
In 2014, the Akron Beacon Journal investigated the governance structure of these schools. “Some board members — unlike traditional public school board members who cannot be elected without being registered voters — aren’t U.S. citizens, let alone registered voters,” the newspaper reported. Why is state law allowing charter school boards to be populated by non-citizens? Why haven’t sponsors insisted to the management company, Concept Schools that the practice of having non-citizens on so-called “public” charter boards is a burning issue with critics of these schools and should be ended?
News reports have shown that Concept Schools, the management company that operates these schools in Ohio, has applied major political influence in the Ohio legislature through the Niagara Foundation, another organization with Turkish ties. Several years ago, former Ohio Speaker Cliff Rosenberger and others were supplied with all-expense paid trips to Turkey. Rosenberger resigned from the legislature and is currently under investigation for questionable dealings during his time as a lawmaker.
A 2018 investigative report from one sponsor makes this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” The report submitted by the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation contains that identical sentence, along with this: “No current members live more than 75 miles from the school.” How can these entities be considered “local” “public” schools when board members serve on a minimum of four governing authorities and may live nearly 75 miles from the school? Who appointed these board members, many of whom may be non-citizens? Also, what about ODE’s concern that some of these boards appear to meet at the same time and location? Where is ODE with this issue now, as expressed in the February 5, 2018 email included in the records sent to Ohio E & A? What are the sponsors doing about this, as they are charged with operating in the public interest?
As referenced earlier, a July 13, 2009 corrective action plan contained a statement that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” A more important question might be this: why are any tax dollars being spent at all to cover the cost of a visa application or even travel costs for a foreign national to be placed on a “public” charter school staff? Has the Auditor of State or any state official issued an opinion as to the propriety of using funds derived from public sources to pay such expenses? Where is the state on this? What is the opinion of sponsors as to whether reimbursement of such expenses meets the test of a proper public purpose?
Why is state law so lax that it allows charter school heads with no background, experience, and licensure in school administration to be responsible for the education of hundreds of young people? How is the idea of citizenship and community passed on to students who are housed in a building with a board and staff who may not have deep roots in that community or even attained citizenship status? Why don’t charter school sponsors provide leadership about this issue and by doing so force changes in state law and regulation?
Why do reports submitted by two different sponsors appear to have similarity in content, language, style, and conclusions reached about an investigation requested by the Ohio Department of Education?
The records reveal that one sponsor, the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, sponsors nine of the Concept Schools while the other, the ESC of Lake Erie West, sponsors the other eight in the chain that operates in Ohio. BCHF is a non-profit organization, and its attorney advised Ohio E & A that it did not have to comply with its public records request seeking information about these controversial schools. On the other hand, ESCLEW is a public agency and had to comply. Why is it fair for one entity to collect state tax dollars – representing about half of its operating revenue – but not have to assume the responsibility that the other agency, a public entity, had to bear in the same request? Why should any state resident accept that situation, particularly when it fell to ODE to be responsible for revealing some of its dealings with BCHF? Can the public be confident in being informed about correspondence and records held by a non-profit organization that were not otherwise also held by ODE as records?
A comparison of compensation between a charter school sponsor and a public school district superintendent might provide reasons for additional scrutiny of non-profit charitable organizations. According to the IRS filing by the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation for 2015, the total revenue from all sources was approximately $20 million. The head of its school division had a compensation package totaling $277,703.
By comparison, one of Ohio’s largest school districts has total annual revenue of about $900,000,000 but according to data provided by the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, no current Ohio school district superintendent has a compensation package of $277,000. The compensation package of school district employees is often headlined in the media. In the charter world, employee compensation is hard to find but when found is often alarming.
This week, we have tried to inform Ohio residents about lingering questions that surround a chain of 17 charter schools in Ohio, part of a larger nationwide chain of 167 schools that have extensive international ties, mostly to Turkey. It is our purpose to raise questions and hope that some responsible agency of state government will provide the appropriate level of guidance and direction to deal with the issues we have raised.
If any of the information raised here is of enough concern, we recommend that you contact your representatives in the state legislature and start asking some of the same questions that have been raised in the series. In doing so, such questions will continue to raise doubts about the legitimacy, transparency, and accountability of these publicly-funded but privately-operated schools that should exist for a proper public purpose, not for the private agenda of privately-operated entities.
Additional periodic posts regarding the Gulen Movement charter school and business enterprise are forthcoming.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Two: ESC of Lake Erie West
The Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West was formerly known as the Lucas County ESC.
This regional educational agency was one of the three original Ohio charter school sponsors, or authorizers as they are called in the rest of the country. ESCLEW, as it is known in shorthand, remains one of the largest promoters of charter schools and sponsors more than 50 of them in Ohio.
On June 7, Amy Borman, an attorney for ESCLEW, replied to Ohio E&A about the records request for the Gulen Schools under its authorization. The request asked for those records held by the ESC which “detail all correspondence relating to the operation” of those particular buildings. Attached with her cover letter was a 239-page document.
A closer examination of this hefty record revealed a plethora of annual reports, mission statements, corrective action plans, and dozens of pages of reviews conducted by the ESC. In one section of the materials submitted, there are 25 pages of mission statements for the eight schools, with five of the statements apparently identical, except for the name of the school.
The records received included a January 2018 document entitled “ESCLEW Investigative Report: Concept Schools,” which showed that during the 2016-2017 school year, one of the schools hired 17 new teachers out of a total staff of 33. While this represents a nearly 50% change in the teaching staff in just one year, the report, which the ESC completed at the request of ODE, says that “Based on the findings of teacher turn over the ESCLEW did not find the numbers to raise concern for the school.”
In a discussion with counsel for the sponsor, she related that there are many factors involved with staff turnover, including new teachers that are at the beginning of their career, and that the range of factors may not be known within the statistics for staff turnover.
There were several other items found in the records that are of note. All of the eight schools contain board members who sit on multiple charter boards, which should raise oversight issues for critics of these schools. This sentence in the 2018 report is of particular interest. “An in depth review of the board membership and affiliation identifies that each governing authority member only sits on four or less governing authority boards which are not all the same boards for each five members, nor are all the schools authorized by the ESCLEW.”
The following sentence in that section of the 2018 report contains this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” We will discuss this concern in more detail at the end of this series on public records.
A final note is made about a statement found in a response to a corrective action plan. On July 13, 2009, an administrator for Concept Schools stated that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” In examining this statement, it remains unclear as to who will be reimbursed for this expense – the Ohio Department of Education or another entity. As with the concern about the selection and residence of board members, this question will also be addressed later in this series.
William Phillis with the Ohio Coalition.| 614.228.6540 | [email protected]| http://www.ohiocoalition.or
As part of his series, Bill writes about the charter school sponsors and their complicity in secreting public records regarding the Gulenists schools they sponsor. Having worked at one of the Gulenist schools and personally witnessing a Buckeye Community Hope Foundation sponsored school audit, and I can say with great assurance that they do very little other than collect a check and continually appease the Gulenists in order to continue doing so.
Below is Bill’s five- part series on his investigative findings. Of special interest is that the Gulenists have notoriously evaded the Sunshine Laws, deliberately avoiding public records requests, despite being funded by public tax dollars. It begs the question, what are they hiding and why are they so afraid to turn over the records?
By William Phillis
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part One
Since the beginning of the charter school experiment in Ohio nearly 20 years ago, many questions have been raised about the nature of these schools in as much as nearly all are managed by private companies and have hand-picked, unelected governing boards. During the next several days, we will detail an attempt by the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E&A) to find out more about a few of these publicly-funded but privately-operated schools.
Consistent with the Ohio Public Records Law, Ohio E&A sent a request to review all records from 2008 to the present held by the Ohio Department of Education as well as two other organizations that are sponsors of a national charter school chain. The request asked for records that were pertinent to “the operation and oversight” of 17 charter schools in Ohio that are managed by Concept Schools, a charter school management organization located in Chicago. The schools are part of the so-called Gulen network, named for a Turkish cleric who has helped to establish a national charter chain composed of about 167 schools. This chain operates schools under the Horizon Science Academy and Noble Academy brands in Ohio. According to some experts, this means that the Gulen Schools represent the second-largest charter chain in the nation, with only the K12 Inc. chain being larger by total student enrollment.
These schools have been a subject of controversy for years in as much as news reports have shown that they are staffed with many Turkish immigrants, while other staff positions have also been filled by Turkish nationals who are in the country on the basis of H1B visas. Critics have said that every foreign national hired at a Gulen charter school is one less job available for a fully licensed, highly-qualified teacher.
In 2014, some of the Gulen Schools were the subject of raids by the FBI, and records were removed from schools across the country. Three of the schools were in Ohio.
The public’s access to records is an important part of open government and transparency. In June, Denis Smith, a retired consultant in the Ohio Department of Education’s charter school office, wrote an Op-Ed in the Columbus Dispatch in support of Ohio E&A’s request for public records and voiced his displeasure about the slow response from the two public agencies in acknowledging receipt of the request for records. The response from the third agency, a non-profit organization, will be explored further in Part Four of this series.
This week, we will report what we found and could not find in the public records released to us since Ohio E&A sent the request asking for information which the public has a right to know. Based on a review of those records, we will also put forward some needed charter reforms to promote greater transparency and accountability for the authorizers or sponsors of these privately-operated schools.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Two: ESC of Lake Erie West
The Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West was formerly known as the Lucas County ESC. This regional educational agency was one of the three original Ohio charter school sponsors, or authorizers as they are called in the rest of the country. ESCLEW, as it is known in shorthand, remains one of the largest promoters of charter schools and sponsors more than 50 of them in Ohio.
On June 7, Amy Borman, an attorney for ESCLEW, replied to Ohio E&A about the records request for the Gulen Schools under its authorization. The request asked for those records held by the ESC which “detail all correspondence relating to the operation” of those particular buildings. Attached with her cover letter was a 239-page document.
A closer examination of this hefty record revealed a plethora of annual reports, mission statements, corrective action plans, and dozens of pages of reviews conducted by the ESC. In one section of the materials submitted, there are 25 pages of mission statements for the eight schools, with five of the statements apparently identical, except for the name of the school.
The records received included a January 2018 document entitled “ESCLEW Investigative Report: Concept Schools,” which showed that during the 2016-2017 school year, one of the schools hired 17 new teachers out of a total staff of 33. While this represents a nearly 50% change in the teaching staff in just one year, the report, which the ESC completed at the request of ODE, says that “Based on the findings of teacher turn over the ESCLEW did not find the numbers to raise concern for the school.”
In a discussion with counsel for the sponsor, she related that there are many factors involved with staff turnover, including new teachers that are at the beginning of their career, and that the range of factors may not be known within the statistics for staff turnover.
There were several other items found in the records that are of note. All of the eight schools contain board members who sit on multiple charter boards, which should raise oversight issues for critics of these schools. This sentence in the 2018 report is of particular interest. “An in depth review of the board membership and affiliation identifies that each governing authority member only sits on four or less governing authority boards which are not all the same boards for each five members, nor are all the schools authorized by the ESCLEW.”
The following sentence in that section of the 2018 report contains this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” We will discuss this concern in more detail at the end of this series on public records.
A final note is made about a statement found in a response to a corrective action plan. On July 13, 2009, an administrator for Concept Schools stated that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” In examining this statement, it remains unclear as to who will be reimbursed for this expense – the Ohio Department of Education or another entity. As with the concern about the selection and residence of board members, this question will also be addressed later in this series.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Two: ESC of Lake Erie West
The Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West was formerly known as the Lucas County ESC. This regional educational agency was one of the three original Ohio charter school sponsors, or authorizers as they are called in the rest of the country. ESCLEW, as it is known in shorthand, remains one of the largest promoters of charter schools and sponsors more than 50 of them in Ohio.
On June 7, Amy Borman, an attorney for ESCLEW, replied to Ohio E&A about the records request for the Gulen Schools under its authorization. The request asked for those records held by the ESC which “detail all correspondence relating to the operation” of those particular buildings. Attached with her cover letter was a 239-page document.
A closer examination of this hefty record revealed a plethora of annual reports, mission statements, corrective action plans, and dozens of pages of reviews conducted by the ESC. In one section of the materials submitted, there are 25 pages of mission statements for the eight schools, with five of the statements apparently identical, except for the name of the school.
The records received included a January 2018 document entitled “ESCLEW Investigative Report: Concept Schools,” which showed that during the 2016-2017 school year, one of the schools hired 17 new teachers out of a total staff of 33. While this represents a nearly 50% change in the teaching staff in just one year, the report, which the ESC completed at the request of ODE, says that “Based on the findings of teacher turn over the ESCLEW did not find the numbers to raise concern for the school.”
In a discussion with counsel for the sponsor, she related that there are many factors involved with staff turnover, including new teachers that are at the beginning of their career, and that the range of factors may not be known within the statistics for staff turnover.
There were several other items found in the records that are of note. All of the eight schools contain board members who sit on multiple charter boards, which should raise oversight issues for critics of these schools. This sentence in the 2018 report is of particular interest. “An in depth review of the board membership and affiliation identifies that each governing authority member only sits on four or less governing authority boards which are not all the same boards for each five members, nor are all the schools authorized by the ESCLEW.”
The following sentence in that section of the 2018 report contains this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” We will discuss this concern in more detail at the end of this series on public records.
A final note is made about a statement found in a response to a corrective action plan. On July 13, 2009, an administrator for Concept Schools stated that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” In examining this statement, it remains unclear as to who will be reimbursed for this expense – the Ohio Department of Education or another entity. As with the concern about the selection and residence of board members, this question will also be addressed later in this series.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Three: Ohio Department of Education (ODE)
Under state law, the ODE is responsible for the legal oversight of the state’s network of charter schools, the distribution of state funds that support them, and the enforcement of such compliance measures which are in place. The Department is also in the awkward position of being a charter sponsor itself, with about 25 schools under its sponsorship.
In looking at ODE’s role as the compliance mechanism for charters, the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E&A) requested records from the state education agency pertaining to the 17 Ohio Concept Schools from 2008 to the present.
The records received from ODE are abundant in detailing parent complaints regarding the instructional program offered at the Ohio Concept Schools.
Among the complaints received by the Department are issues regarding the proper placement of students consistent with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements that govern students with disabilities.
A review of the correspondence supplied by ODE indicates that a number of the Gulen schools have experienced other issues besides special education, including allegations by a number of teachers in 2014 at the Horizon Science Academy – Dayton, which were reviewed by the state board of education. The report by the school’s sponsor organization (see Part Four) that was submitted to ODE about the charges against the school has formed the basis of much criticism during the last several years. The charges included lax administrative procedures, physical labor required of the staff, and discrimination by administrators against some staff members. Again, this issue will be reviewed in more detail in Part Four.
In late 2017, the records reveal, the law firm representing Concept Schools and the Gulen chain contacted ODE to advise that the FBI investigation into their schools was still ongoing. Counsel stated that the U.S. Attorney in Cleveland is in charge of the government’s efforts to look at possible irregularities into the use of federal funds allocated for these schools.
Prior to that, a Washington law firm representing the Republic of Turkey contacted State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria. In the letter, the attorneys suggested that the state agency look more thoroughly into the affairs of Horizon Science and Noble Academies, the Gulen-related chain managed by Concept Schools. The law firm alleged that these schools, authorized by Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (BCHF) and ESC of Lake Erie West (ESCLEW), “work under a shroud of secrecy and seemingly under the direction of a handful of Turkish religious leaders. Many of these schools and their operators share a history of financial mismanagement, suspected fraud, apparent self-dealing, discrimination, and unusual immigration/visa practices.”
Also found among the documents submitted by ODE were two reports that are both dated January 16, 2018. Both were submitted by the two sponsors of all of the Ohio Concept Schools, BCHF and ESCLEW. Both also bear the same title – Investigation Report: Concept Schools and are similar in nature. They were written in the same format, and only the conclusion part shows a slightly different narrative approach.
Here is one example: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority.” In the report submitted by the BCHF, that identical sentence is found, followed by an additional sentence for each of their schools under contract. That sentence states “No current members live more than 75 miles from the school.” This statement is repeated for all of the schools under BCHF sponsorship.
Both reports end in the same manner, stating that the FBI investigation was disclosed to the sponsor, but no details are offered. Moreover, both sponsors promise to “monitor attendance at (board) meetings, financials, leases, and teacher turnover.”
It is interesting to note that less than a month after these nearly identical reports were submitted to ODE, a staff member in ODE’s charter school office wrote on February 5, 2018 to ESCLEW in Toledo, regarding an observation about Horizon Science Academy Columbus High School:
“Also I would appreciate a copy of the minutes of the GA meeting … And I was surprised that each of the Concept schools in and around Morse Road area of northern Columbus seem to have the same governing authority and they meet on the same day, same place and same time.”
Apparently, this inbreeding among governing boards of Concept Schools does not seem to be an issue with the schools’ sponsors, although it did appear on the radar, however briefly, of ODE. The public would certainly be interested in seeing a graphic of these intersections of boards, along with the traveling distance of the governing board members and the time of day these boards meet.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Four: Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (BCHF)
According to its website, the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation “was founded in 1991 as a non-profit corporation with the mission of developing affordable housing for low-income families and individuals.” In 2005, the organization decided to expand its core purpose by becoming a charter school sponsor. According to an analysis completed by the Education Commission of the States, 44 states provide for charters by statute. However, only Minnesota and Ohio clearly allow non-profit organizations without a singular, core educational purpose like BCHF to serve as sponsors legally responsible for the oversight of these publicly-funded but privately-operated schools.
Since entering the charter school business, BCHF has become the sponsor for 47 schools, nearly as many as the ESC of Lake Erie West (ESCLEW), one of the original charter school sponsors in Ohio. Nine of these are Concept Schools operating under the Horizon Science Academy and Noble Academy brands. These schools are located in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Lorain, and Youngstown.
Consistent with the public records requests sent to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and the ESC of Lake Erie West, the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E & A) sent a letter on May 2 to the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation requesting comparable records for the schools it sponsors. But the reply on June 4 from the BCHF attorney was not unexpected:
“… The Buckeye Community Hope Foundation is not a public entity subject to public records requests. Other places you may get the records you desire are the Ohio Department of Education and the public schools themselves.”
In trying to inform the public about state policy and practices, along with reporting on the condition and needs of schools, it was regrettable, but also predictable, to receive this reply from counsel. Instead of dealing with one agency (ODE and ESCLEW), it was suggested that Ohio E & A deal with nine, along with the state agency, to get the information desired. Irrespective of the statute which allows BCHF to collect significant public revenue but use its non-profit status to be immune from responding to public records requests, legislators need to reexamine the statute and require more transparency and accountability from private organizations that benefit from public funds. We will examine this more in Part Five, the final segment in this series.
A final observation on BCHF and its stance on public records reveal that in fact, the public has to rely on ODE to provide the information about the Concept Schools that are sponsored by the non-profit. For example, we had to find out through records sent by ODE, not BCHF that the non-profit had to deal with the same type of issues in its Concept Schools as the public agency sponsor ESCLEW. When you have to find out information from another source when the first party says no, we are not required to do so, that is not reassuring.
The records available to us from ODE, and not BCHF, clearly demonstrate that it is up to the state education agency and, again, not BCHF, to inform the public regarding the operational condition of nine schools. The ODE records revealed a string of parent concerns regarding student expulsion, Individualized Education Program (IEP) issues, and a teacher complaining about one of the schools cherry-picking students in violation of standard public school admission practices. Again, it is not reassuring to find out about such issues through a third party – ODE.
In our final look in Part Five at the topic of public records requests and charter schools, we will make some recommendations about what we learned and what needs to be done regarding the charter school industry that will better serve the public.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Five: Notes About Records, Privately Operated Schools, and Public Trust
Even before the FBI conducted raids in 2014 on Gulen charter schools around the country and the three within Ohio, citizens have been anticipating word of increased scrutiny and accountability for these schools. These raids also occurred at a time of citizen action, with a rally on the Statehouse steps and a march to the Ohio Department of Education by those who wanted a complete investigation of these schools.
Of the hundreds of pages of reports and summaries that were read by individuals assisting the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding (Ohio E & A) in examining these records, one particular incident stands out. On July 15, 2014, this complaint was recorded in one of the reports. Details: Teachers had to assemble desks and chairs using Turkish instructions. The complaint was followed by this note. Sponsor’s Final Investigative Comment: This allegation does not show any violation of law.
Every public school in the nation has its own challenges, from parent complaints about expulsions, appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP) placement, building and student safety, and other issues that cause concern. However, a teacher report about classroom furniture being purchased, apparently with public funds, delivered with assembly instructions written in the native language of the school administrator, should have raised a red flag with the sponsors. In particular, the Washington law firm in its 2017 letter to the state superintendent raised the issue of alleged self-dealing. The 2014 teacher complaint may provide some insight as to whether those and other charges were adequately investigated by the state board of education.
The amount of time spent in examining these records was helpful in framing the issues that still linger about a group of schools that have a practice of hiring persons bearing visas rather than staffing those schools with fully licensed, qualified and available American teachers. But that is only one issue with these schools. There are a plethora of concerns that arise from examining these public records, and this series was designed to bring them to the surface.
We can only hope that citizens will soon insist on addressing these concerns directly to the Ohio General Assembly, the State Board of Education and to the sponsors of the Gulen schools, viz, the Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West (ESCLEW) and the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation (BCHF).
Here are the questions that all of these organizations need to address, and soon.
Why were these schools raided by the FBI? Has the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and the sponsors shown any interest in encouraging a conclusion to this federal investigation?
In 2014, the Akron Beacon Journal investigated the governance structure of these schools. “Some board members — unlike traditional public school board members who cannot be elected without being registered voters — aren’t U.S. citizens, let alone registered voters,” the newspaper reported. Why is state law allowing charter school boards to be populated by non-citizens? Why haven’t sponsors insisted to the management company, Concept Schools that the practice of having non-citizens on so-called “public” charter boards is a burning issue with critics of these schools and should be ended?
News reports have shown that Concept Schools, the management company that operates these schools in Ohio, has applied major political influence in the Ohio legislature through the Niagara Foundation, another organization with Turkish ties. Several years ago, former Ohio Speaker Cliff Rosenberger and others were supplied with all-expense paid trips to Turkey. Rosenberger resigned from the legislature and is currently under investigation for questionable dealings during his time as a lawmaker.
A 2018 investigative report from one sponsor makes this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” The report submitted by the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation contains that identical sentence, along with this: “No current members live more than 75 miles from the school.” How can these entities be considered “local” “public” schools when board members serve on a minimum of four governing authorities and may live nearly 75 miles from the school? Who appointed these board members, many of whom may be non-citizens? Also, what about ODE’s concern that some of these boards appear to meet at the same time and location? Where is ODE with this issue now, as expressed in the February 5, 2018 email included in the records sent to Ohio E & A? What are the sponsors doing about this, as they are charged with operating in the public interest?
As referenced earlier, a July 13, 2009 corrective action plan contained a statement that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” A more important question might be this: why are any tax dollars being spent at all to cover the cost of a visa application or even travel costs for a foreign national to be placed on a “public” charter school staff? Has the Auditor of State or any state official issued an opinion as to the propriety of using funds derived from public sources to pay such expenses? Where is the state on this? What is the opinion of sponsors as to whether reimbursement of such expenses meets the test of a proper public purpose?
Why is state law so lax that it allows charter school heads with no background, experience, and licensure in school administration to be responsible for the education of hundreds of young people? How is the idea of citizenship and community passed on to students who are housed in a building with a board and staff who may not have deep roots in that community or even attained citizenship status? Why don’t charter school sponsors provide leadership about this issue and by doing so force changes in state law and regulation?
Why do reports submitted by two different sponsors appear to have similarity in content, language, style, and conclusions reached about an investigation requested by the Ohio Department of Education?
The records reveal that one sponsor, the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, sponsors nine of the Concept Schools while the other, the ESC of Lake Erie West, sponsors the other eight in the chain that operates in Ohio. BCHF is a non-profit organization, and its attorney advised Ohio E & A that it did not have to comply with its public records request seeking information about these controversial schools. On the other hand, ESCLEW is a public agency and had to comply. Why is it fair for one entity to collect state tax dollars – representing about half of its operating revenue – but not have to assume the responsibility that the other agency, a public entity, had to bear in the same request? Why should any state resident accept that situation, particularly when it fell to ODE to be responsible for revealing some of its dealings with BCHF? Can the public be confident in being informed about correspondence and records held by a non-profit organization that were not otherwise also held by ODE as records?
A comparison of compensation between a charter school sponsor and a public school district superintendent might provide reasons for additional scrutiny of non-profit charitable organizations. According to the IRS filing by the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation for 2015, the total revenue from all sources was approximately $20 million. The head of its school division had a compensation package totaling $277,703.
By comparison, one of Ohio’s largest school districts has total annual revenue of about $900,000,000 but according to data provided by the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, no current Ohio school district superintendent has a compensation package of $277,000. The compensation package of school district employees is often headlined in the media. In the charter world, employee compensation is hard to find but when found is often alarming.
This week, we have tried to inform Ohio residents about lingering questions that surround a chain of 17 charter schools in Ohio, part of a larger nationwide chain of 167 schools that have extensive international ties, mostly to Turkey. It is our purpose to raise questions and hope that some responsible agency of state government will provide the appropriate level of guidance and direction to deal with the issues we have raised.
If any of the information raised here is of enough concern, we recommend that you contact your representatives in the state legislature and start asking some of the same questions that have been raised in the series. In doing so, such questions will continue to raise doubts about the legitimacy, transparency, and accountability of these publicly-funded but privately-operated schools that should exist for a proper public purpose, not for the private agenda of privately-operated entities.
Additional periodic posts regarding the Gulen Movement charter school and business enterprise are forthcoming.
Public Records and Charter Schools – Part Two: ESC of Lake Erie West
The Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West was formerly known as the Lucas County ESC.
This regional educational agency was one of the three original Ohio charter school sponsors, or authorizers as they are called in the rest of the country. ESCLEW, as it is known in shorthand, remains one of the largest promoters of charter schools and sponsors more than 50 of them in Ohio.
On June 7, Amy Borman, an attorney for ESCLEW, replied to Ohio E&A about the records request for the Gulen Schools under its authorization. The request asked for those records held by the ESC which “detail all correspondence relating to the operation” of those particular buildings. Attached with her cover letter was a 239-page document.
A closer examination of this hefty record revealed a plethora of annual reports, mission statements, corrective action plans, and dozens of pages of reviews conducted by the ESC. In one section of the materials submitted, there are 25 pages of mission statements for the eight schools, with five of the statements apparently identical, except for the name of the school.
The records received included a January 2018 document entitled “ESCLEW Investigative Report: Concept Schools,” which showed that during the 2016-2017 school year, one of the schools hired 17 new teachers out of a total staff of 33. While this represents a nearly 50% change in the teaching staff in just one year, the report, which the ESC completed at the request of ODE, says that “Based on the findings of teacher turn over the ESCLEW did not find the numbers to raise concern for the school.”
In a discussion with counsel for the sponsor, she related that there are many factors involved with staff turnover, including new teachers that are at the beginning of their career, and that the range of factors may not be known within the statistics for staff turnover.
There were several other items found in the records that are of note. All of the eight schools contain board members who sit on multiple charter boards, which should raise oversight issues for critics of these schools. This sentence in the 2018 report is of particular interest. “An in depth review of the board membership and affiliation identifies that each governing authority member only sits on four or less governing authority boards which are not all the same boards for each five members, nor are all the schools authorized by the ESCLEW.”
The following sentence in that section of the 2018 report contains this statement: “The ESCLEW has verified the physical address of all governing authority board members to ensure that geographical locations have not interfered with attendance to the school or to governing authority meetings.” We will discuss this concern in more detail at the end of this series on public records.
A final note is made about a statement found in a response to a corrective action plan. On July 13, 2009, an administrator for Concept Schools stated that “It is Concept Schools’ policy that if an employee’s working visa application is denied by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Concept Schools will refund the expense of the application.” In examining this statement, it remains unclear as to who will be reimbursed for this expense – the Ohio Department of Education or another entity. As with the concern about the selection and residence of board members, this question will also be addressed later in this series.
William Phillis with the Ohio Coalition.| 614.228.6540 | [email protected]| http://www.ohiocoalition.or