ITT Tech, one of the for-profit college companies which have come under well-deserved scrutiny for their predatory recruiting tactics, dependence on government funds to pay student tuition and the questionable quality of their course offerings, is shutting down nationwide. That includes one campus in Tucson and three in the Phoenix area. Nationally, it has about 35,000 students and 8,000 employees.

ITT Tech blames the Feds for the closure, which is partly true. Last week the U.S. Department of Education said the colleges could no longer enroll new students who needed federal financial aid to attend, which pretty much meant no new students. However, the company's shoddy tactics and performance were the reasons the Department of Ed cut off the funds.

ITT Tech follows the Corinthian Colleges closure in 2015 for similar reasons. And the Phoenix-based Apollo Education Group, which is the parent company for the University of Phoenix, has fallen on hard times because of increased government scrutiny. The last time I wrote about Apollo a year or so ago, the company's stock had plummeted from its 2012 high of 56.64 to 12.45. The stock is currently trading at 8.91.

The future doesn't look bright for the very profitable for-profit schools which prey on their students who often end up with poor educations and high student loans. That's good for the students and could be a boon for community colleges, which often compete for the same students, charge lower tuition and give the students a higher quality education.

The Department of Education is working to help students who are currently enrolled, including possibly forgiving their student loans.

Diane Douglas, Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction, ran as a Tea Party candidate. The banner headline on the first incarnation of her campaign website read, "Kill Common Core." Not "Stop Common Core." Not "End Common Core." "Kill Common Core." With an over-the-top opening line like that and her conservative educational track record as a school board member in Peoria, nothing awful she might have done when she was elected would have surprised me. The surprise for me has been, she's done a pretty good job so far. She's gotten into knock-down, drag-out cage match battles with the governor and the state Board of Education in an attempt to assert her authority, which have been a whole lot of fun to watch, but when it comes to the schools themselves, she's mainly taken a moderate, "First do no harm" approach. She has toured the state in a genuine effort to understand the needs of parents and teachers and has put forward thoughtful suggestions for improvement. I had a chance to talk with Douglas during her most recent Tucson event and was impressed by her sincerity and her commitment to serving the state's school-aged children. She wasn't my first choice for Ed Supe and still isn't, but I'll take her over the two previous superintendents, Tom Horne and John Huppenthal, as well as most any other Republican who might occupy the office. She's been a thoughtful, independent voice for education who has avoided ideologically-based stances and has stood up to the state's Republican establishment.

When Douglas put out a press release saying she's endorsing Donald Trump after attending his xenophobia-fueled immigration speech last Wednesday, I wasn't surprised. Trump's hair-on-fire rhetoric and simplistic, draconian "solutions" to complex problems are right in her Tea Party wheelhouse, so Douglas must feel right at home with the Republican presidential candidate.

What concerns me is the fact that she took a public stand on Trump at all. So far as I remember, she stayed out of the Prop 123 controversy, even though the fate of the proposition had a direct impact on the schools she oversees. Yet when it comes to Trump, she not only gave him her unqualified endorsement, but did it in her official capacity with a news release on the state email system, which may have been illegal.

If you didn't think Tucson was cool enough already, the UA Flandrau Science Center & Planetarium is giving you yet another reason. The planetarium opened on the UA campus in 1975, but has recently been completely renovated from its original digs.

Flandrau is a big deal: It's one of only two planetariums in the entire sate, and it's one of only a few nationwide that is part of a university. Considering the UA is world renowned for its studies in astronomy and planetary science, its planetarium should be equally as impressive. 

About two years ago the university decided to begin the renovation process by installing a full dome digital projection system “which is the current state of the art in planetarium projection,” said Shipherd Reed, Marketing and Communications Manager for the Flandarau Science Center. After the technological systems were updated, it became very evident that the rest of the establishment was outdated, prompting an entire building remodel. The remodel includes better acoustics, lighting, and most importantly seating that takes advantage of the cutting edge projection system.
The Planetarium opened its renovated doors on Saturday, Aug. 27. Go check out the interactive exhibits and the IMAX-esque full dome show. The Planetarium is open seven days a week and offers shows every day except Monday. For more information on specific hours and times of shows visit http://flandrau.org/.

Governor Ducey loves to talk about businesses fleeing states with high business taxes and onerous regulations to come settle in Arizona. It hasn't worked out exactly as planned. Our U-Haul lots aren't overflowing with moving trucks carrying California businesses here, though we've seen a bit of an economic upswing lately. That includes high tech businesses from Silicon Valley setting up outposts or situating in Phoenix. But according to a New York Times article, their primary reasons for moving here aren't our business-friendly taxes and regulations. The more important reason is, Silicon Valley is crowded and expensive, and by comparison, Phoenix is wide open and cheap.

As start-ups across San Francisco and the Silicon Valley try to contend with high salaries and housing costs, many are expanding to lower-cost cities in the West. . . . For Phoenix, which is about a 90-minute flight from San Francisco, the Bay Area’s loss is its gain.

That doesn't mean businesses are deserting Silicon Valley for Phoenix, however. New tech jobs are being added in both places.

At the end of last year in the Bay Area mega-region — including both the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas — there were 530,000 tech and engineering jobs, a 7 percent increase from a year earlier. Phoenix has about one-fifth as many tech jobs, but the total grew 8 percent from a year ago, according to Moody’s Analytics.

According to the Times article, Phoenix is something of a newcomer in tech job growth compared to other areas of the country. When it comes to the percentage increase in tech jobs from 2010 to 2015, Phoenix ranks 14th with an 18.6 percent increase, compared to a whopping 71.6 percent increase in San Francisco, a 28 percent increase in Charlotte, North Carolina, a 27.3 percent increase in Boston, a 27.2 increase in Detroit and a 22 percent increase in Salt Lake City. Phoenix may be adding tech jobs, but not at a breakneck pace.

Lower business taxes may figure into the high tech equation, but the perks in lower costs for businesses and employees rank far higher. An example:

Housing [in Phoenix] is much cheaper [than in Silicon Valley]. The median home price in the Phoenix metropolitan area is $221,000, according to Zillow. In San Francisco, it is $812,000.

For Ms. Rogers and others, that is a far bigger perk than an extra vacation or a raise in California. Instead of renting a rundown house in Redwood City and commuting an hour or more to work, she now lives 10 minutes from the office in a house that is twice the size — with mortgage payments that are half the cost of her California rent.

It helps, of course, that Phoenix built a light-rail system and has revitalized its downtown, making the city a more attractive place for young high tech workers to live. The light rail didn't come cheap, of course. It was built with new taxes, not tax cuts. Some added tax dollars to improve our schools, our roads and other social and infrastructure needs we've left unaddressed would be a stronger draw for new businesses than a few dollars cut from their tax bills.

John Oliver and his staff clearly did their charter school homework. On Last Week Tonight last Sunday, Oliver discussed problems with the lack of vetting of people who open charters and the lack of oversight once schools are open. He shows people plagiarizing their charter applications, others using charters as their personal ATMs, and schools closing without notice. It's not meant to be a takedown of charters. It's more of a spot-on harangue about the need to tighten charter school rules and regulations to keep the bad actors out.

Wednesday afternoon the press released the news that Greg Miller, current president of the state Board of Education, quit. Not only will he no longer be board president, but he says he plans to leave the board entirely. Miller and Ed Supe Diane Douglas have feuded since she stepped into office in January, with Ducey generally taking Miller's side, so it's surprising to hear that, according to Howard Fischer's article, Ducey may be behind the ouster.

Greg Miller said aides to the governor told him they wanted him out as the top board official. Miller said Ducey, who is due to make new board appointments as early as this week, believed the change would help smooth over what has been at best a rocky relationship between the board and state schools chief Diane Douglas.

Miller is the CEO of Challenge charter school in Glendale, and his wife Pamela is executive director and vice president. His daughter Wendy is principal. The school appears to be doing well, as do the Millers. According to the school's 2012 tax forms, Greg made $121,875, as well as $26,956 in "Retirement and other deferred compensation." His wife Pamela made the same. Wendy made $99,167. There's the question out there whether Challenge charter benefits from Miller's school board presidency, but it's only a question. I've never seen any evidence that the school benefits from his political influence.

Which makes this paragraph from Fischer's article fascinating, especially the passage I've highlighted in bold.

[Miller] said he agreed to quit [the board] if he could control the wording of the press release, the timing of the announcement and got some assurances that the charter school he runs would get "political protections that I no longer could provide.''

Fischer, a very careful reporter, put quotes around the words, "political protections that I no longer could provide,'' meaning they're Miller's words. Is Miller saying his school has benefitted from political protection? Why would that be necessary? Is he implying he's afraid Douglas might use her office to target the school, or is there something else we should know?

I'm guessing Miller's statement will be clarified sometime in the near future. Stay tuned.

Bill Buckmaster went and did it. On his Aug. 10 radio show, Bill asked his guest, Doug Ducey, "What is the next step for getting more money into the classrooms?" In the next few minutes, Ducey, employing his usual word-salad-sprayed-through-a-garden-hose style of answering questions, said lots of things about improving education but never said a word about increasing funding. What we were pretty sure we knew about Ducey's position since the beginning of our "Next Step" Watch is now official. No. New. Money.

Here's some of what Ducey said, with commentary.

•"[Prop 123] put additional resources into K-12."
Well, yes and no. True, there's more money flowing into schools courtesy of Prop 123, but calling it "additional resources" is heavy-duty political spin. This isn't additional funding, it's giving the schools part of what the legislature withheld illegally starting in 2009. We don't pat bank robbers on the back for returning the money they stole, do we? And we don't say the bank has "additional resources" when it gets its money back.

•"I want to see our teachers better rewarded."
Great. I assume "better rewarded" means higher salaries, though I have to admit, it's dangerous to make assumptions. Maybe Ducey wants to pass out "Good Job!" medals that teachers can wear with pride as they try to figure out how to pay their rents and mortgages and put food on their family tables. But beyond Prop 123, which raised our teacher salaries a bit, where will we get more money to make our salary schedules competitive with other states?

•"I want to see results and outcomes that come from additional resources."
So. If Ducey doesn't see enough "results and outcomes" from the "additional" Prop 123 funding, he's not likely to give schools more money. And if he sees strong "results and outcomes," that means we don't need any more money, right? Brilliant! Ducey's "No more money" argument wins either way.

Newsweek published its 2016 America's Top High Schools listings. I'm not a fan of these things. Their criteria are usually questionable, and they favor schools in high rent districts, making it look like those schools are doing a better job educating their students than schools in low rent districts. But this one is more interesting than most because it has two lists: one just considering student achievement and the other factoring in students' economic status.

Let's start local. University High is in 30th place on the Newsweek list. It's the second ranked Arizona school, below Tempe Preparatory Academy in 15th place. The only other Tucson-area school on the list is Catalina Foothills High, which came in 310th.

What, no BASIS schools, which do so well on the U.S. News & World Report Best High Schools List? Nope, not here. The reason is, Newsweek asks for the percentage of students on free or reduced lunch, and since BASIS doesn't provide lunch for its students, it couldn't provide the information.

Newsweek's listings include the percent of students on free or reduced lunch for each school, which adds a side order of economic reality to the menu. What you learn from those numbers is, low income and high rankings don't mix. Only one school in the top 50 has more than half of its students on free/reduced lunch, and that school is at 50.8 percent. A total of four schools topping 50 percent make it into the top 100. University High, with 16.4 percent on free/reduced lunch, isn't one of the four.

My favorite part of the Newsweek's listings is its Beating the Odds 2016 list, which factors in the percentage of low income students in the schools. As you might expect, the list is wildly different from the original Top High Schools list.

Scott Stewart, Pima Community College's longest sitting board member, announced yesterday that despite filling paperwork for re-election earlier in the year, he will not be running for another term. He endorsed Meredith Hay, who served as Executive Vice President and Provost at the UA from 2008 to 2012. Hay is running unopposed for the seat.

This morning, Stewart sent me a copy of the statement he made at last night's board meeting: 

I have been a member of this board for nearly 18 years now. Earlier this year, I filed paperwork for getting re-elected, but without enthusiasm. I would run only if no well-qualified candidate stepped forward. I would rather focus my life on my new job, restrict my college activities to forming better industry and customer connections to educational institutions, and of course, advocating for higher expectations and high-return-on-investment programs.

I asked a number of individuals I respect to keep their eyes open for such a person and a highly qualified candidate did step up. I am pleased to have helped Meredith Hay getting signatures on her nominating petition, and getting my friends and supporters to help her as well. Indeed, all of my petition efforts went for her campaign instead of my own.

She is extraordinarily well qualified and sees the higher education landscape in ways not too unlike mine, but I believe her experience, reputation, and communication style will be able to obtain better results.

Meredith Hay is probably best known in Tucson as the former Executive Vice President and Provost (chief academic officer) at the University of Arizona from 2008 – 2012 and while in that role she also served as Special Advisor to Chair of the Arizona Board of Regents for Strategic Initiatives.

If you haven't been paying attention lately, you may not know that BASIS, which began with a single charter school in Tucson, now has charter schools in three states as well as two U.S. private schools—three more are scheduled to open—and a private school in Shenzhen, China. My, how BASIS has grown.

This post is more a BASIS update than an analysis. A lot of this information was new to me when I started looking into BASIS's current status, so I'm guessing it's new to many readers as well.

According to the BASIS.ed website, "We Manage 21 Public Charter Schools, 5 Domestic Private Schools, and 1 International School." Looking through the schools listed on the website, I count sixteen charter schools in Arizona, two in Texas and one in Washington, D.C., which only comes to nineteen, but either way, that's a lot of charters. Of the five private schools, two are open and running—in Brooklyn, NY, and Silicon Valley, CA—two are scheduled to open this fall—in Fremont, CA, and McLean, VA—and one in Manhattan is scheduled to open in 2017. The Shenzhen, China, school has been open, I believe, for two years.

From the look of things, BASIS has been more active lately opening new private schools than new charters. The tuition for the U.S. private schools is around $25,000, and in China it ranges from $21,000 to $30,000, depending on grade level. Comparing that to the $7,000, more-or-less, Arizona charters receive per student may explain why BASIS is moving aggressively into the private school sector.

At this point, I admit, I'm entering territory where I'm completely out of my depth: the various incorporations in various places which are part of the BASIS family. So here are the facts I know with a few questions and concerns thrown in.

The three main BASIS entities are BASIS.ed, BASIS Global and BASIS Independent Schools. Riding on top of the three is BASIS Educational Ventures. According to its website,

BASIS Educational Ventures is a holding company for three subsidiaries: BASIS.ed, BASIS Independent Schools, and BASIS Global. It supports growth, facilitates efficient management and manages the BASIS brand.