Category Archives: The Corporate University

Tennessee Takes First Annual ‘Turkey at the Top’ Award

Marc Bousquet thinks the biggest turkey in higher ed is U of Tennessee’s Charlie Manning and he makes a good case for him. Bousquet understands what it’s like to work at the U of Louisville, but he never had to work in the same building with Robert Felner, the former UofL education dean now under federal indictment…

In my book Felner’s the biggest turkey in higher ed…ever.

HowTheUniversityWorks.com: Tennessee Takes First Annual ‘Turkey at the Top’ Award

Turkey at the top is always intensely competitive. This year’s contenders included first runner-up Robert Felner, the U of Louisville dean indicted for conspiracy to commit fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion in what the feds allege are repeated acts of embezzlement of grant monies amounting to over $2 million. Not content with these escapades, Felner racked up 31 grievances and complaints in his 5 years at the “U of L” but was consistently backed against the faculty by upper administration, especially Provost Shirley Willihnganz and President James Ramsey, who spent extravagantly on lawyers and consultants to prop up his administration despite what numerous accounts (including this one and others that I’ve privately confirmed) termed an “onslaught” of complaints from faculty, staff and students alleging “unsavory behavior, ranging from sexual harassment to workplace intimidation.” This pair continued the authoritarian regime of wall-to-wall administrative solidarity and secrecy established by their high-living predecessors, former provost Carol Garrison and former president John Shumaker—later found sharing lavish hotel rooms and limousines at public expense, while jetting to trysts in the University of Tennessee’s private plane.

But every year only one can win. This year’s award goes to the chancellor of the Tennessee Board of Regents, Charlie Manning, for his new business model for higher ed in his Appalachian state. Over the past couple of decades, the great state of Tennessee has burned millions of education dollars on executive compensation, sports facilities, and miles of orange carpet—while leading the country in squeezing its faculty.

“If your aspiration is to be a college president, that is a way to become a millionaire”

The New York Times: Increased Compensation Puts More College Presidents in the Million-Dollar Club

Soaring compensation of university presidents, once limited to a few wealthy institutions, is becoming increasingly common, with the number of million-dollar pay packages at private institutions nearly doubling last year, and compensation at many public universities not far behind.

A Worldwide Test for Higher Education?

Inside Higher Ed: A Worldwide Test for Higher Education?

For much of the last year or two, debate has raged among American higher education officials and state and federal policy makers about the wisdom and practicality of creating a system that would allow for public comparison of how successfully individual colleges and/or programs are educating their students. Many college leaders have rejected the push, which has emanated primarily from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education and the U.S. Education Department, on the grounds that the nation’s colleges and universities — two-year and four-year, public and private, exclusive and open enrollment — and their students are far too varied to be responsibly and intelligently measured by any single, standardized measure (or even a suite of them).

But the thirst among politicians and others seeking to hold colleges and universities more accountable for their performance is powerful, and it is not merely an American phenomenon. Proof of that can be found in the fact that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has convened a small group of testing experts and higher education policy makers who have met quietly in recent months to discuss the possibility of creating a common international system to measure the learning outcomes of individual colleges and university systems, along the lines of the well-regarded test that OECD countries now administer to 15-year-olds, the Program for International Student Assessment.

All eyes on DePaul

From the National Project to Defend Dissent and Critical Thinking in Academia:

Friends and Colleagues,

As all of you are no doubt aware, students and faculty at DePaul have organized to support Dr. Norman Finkelstein. Last friday, they held a very successful protest at the university convocation (you can read about it at Chicago IndyMedia, which we link to on our homepage: http://defendcriticalthinking.org/).

Wednesday, September 5, will be the first day of classes at DePaul. Students will be holding a press conference and a protest on campus. Dr. Finkelstein is planning on holding his class which the University canceled. It is likely that Finkelstein and other students will be arrested.

The fact that the students, with some faculty support, are taking such a strong stand is a very good thing. They are already having a real impact on the situation. The administration, along with some allies, are increasing their efforts to demonize Finkelstein and intimidate his supporters. (Two examples: “leaking” memos for an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, which is basically a warning to students not to throw away their academic careers, and a disgusting hit-piece on Finkelstein by Andrew Sullivan. Both of these are available on Dr. Finkelstein’s website: http://normanfinkelstein.com/).

All who believe in justice need to use what means they have to stand shoulder to shoulder with those taking action at DePaul. Here are some concrete ways to help:

* Send statements of support to Dr. Finkelstein, with cc to the administration and the students. Finkelstein recently sent a very appreciative note to us saying how much strength he gets from such letters and other efforts on his behalf. Send these even if you have already sent letters already. Here are the pertinent email addresses:

Dr. Norman Finkelstein: normangf@hotmail.com
DePaul Academic Freedom Committee: info@academicfreedomchicago.org
DePaul University President, Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M. – president@depaul.edu
DePaul Provost, Dr. Helmut Epp – hepp@depaul.edu
DePaul Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Dr. Charles Suchar – csuchar@depaul.edu

* Sign (if you have not already) our Open Letter to DePaul Faculty: A Battle for the Soul of DePaul, and for the Future of Academia. You can do this at our website: http://defendcriticalthinking.org/. The letter is pasted below this message.

* Call informal and formal faculty meetings at your school to discuss the issues in the case. There are a number of resources available on our website.

* Have a session of your class which discusses the importance of critical thinking and dissent, and how they are concentrated in this case. Students could read the piece by Bill Martin (text and pdf available at our website), as well as the statements by Dean
Suchar and President Holtschneider.

* Be attentive to the developments at DePaul on Wednesday and afterwards, and be prepared to shift gears to respond appropriately.

* Forward this email to colleagues and encourage them to help as well.

The DePaul administration must not be allowed to get away with this ugly capitulation in the face of power. At at a time when the “right to think at all is in dispute” (to quote Brecht in his play about “Galileo”), the stakes are tremendous.

Finally, our website has a link to make financial contributions to the National Project. We would like to retire our debt to the person who fronted the money for the full-page ad which was published in the New York Review of Books earlier this year. Doing so will
allow us to be in the position to do similar things in the future (for example, a full-page ad in the DePaul newspaper). Please consider making a donation.

For the National Project to Defend Dissent and Critical Thinking in Academia,
Reggie Dylan
Greg Knehans

————————-

A Battle for the Soul of DePaul, and for the Future of Academia:
An Open Letter to DePaul Faculty

Over the last year, scholars around the country (and worldwide) have been looking to DePaul University with increasing alarm. The denial of tenure to Dr. Norman Finkelstein on June 8, after a mean-spirited campaign spearheaded by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, is widely seen, even by those who do not share Finkelstein’s political views, as a blatant violation of the fundamentals of academic freedom and procedural
guidelines. More, it is viewed as a fundamental threat to the intellectual ferment and critical thinking so desperately needed – in academia and in society – at this time in history.

From the beginning there have been faculty from DePaul who have recognized and responded to the gravity of the situation. Though few in number, they have stepped to the fore, often at genuine risk to their own careers. These scholars have investigated and exposed the facts of this case. Their work has laid bare how shameful and dangerous this decision is.

They have taken heart in the response of the students at DePaul, who protested the decision during exam week and at graduation. These students, organized in the DePaul Academic Freedom Committee (www.academicfreedomchicago.org), have continued their work, spending their summer vacation organizing, establishing their own university Without Walls to learn more about the political issues concentrated in
these decisions, and going to the US Social Forum in Atlanta to present a resolution to 10,000 activists.

Now the situation at DePaul has moved beyond egregious violations of academic freedom to vindictive and arbitrary punishment of kafkaesque dimensions. The administration has refused to let Dr. Finkelstein teach his terminal year (once again violating AAUP guidelines), and cancelled his classes (ironically, on “Equality and Social Justice,” and “Freedom and Empowerment”). It has effectively suspended him against his will and in violation of DePaul’s faculty handbook, locked him out of his office and is evidently even threatening to arrest him if he comes on campus.

In the face of this, the fact that Dr. Finkelstein has refused to back down is a very good thing. His resilience and determination is inspiring many others to stand with him, as well as with Dr. Mehrene Larudee, who many feel had her tenure denied because of her public support of Dr. Finkelstein.

On the first day of class (September 5th), Dr. Finkelstein will return to campus to teach his students. The DePaul AFC has organized a press conference and protest, along with an important conference on academic freedom on October 12 at the University of Chicago.

As a faculty member at DePaul, you have an opportunity to make a profound difference by standing with them, in spirit and in body. We encourage you to use whatever means at your disposal to help them reverse a dangerous precedent which is already sending a chilling message to faculty and scholars to self-censor their scholarship and their public roles, or risk their careers.

As DePaul philosophy professor Bill Martin has written (“The Urgent Need to Right Wrongs at DePaul,” available at www.defendcriticalthinking.org), if this injustice is not reversed, “DePaul will be destroyed as a place deserving of respect in the intellectual and academic worlds, and, if this happens, academic freedom will be under attack everywhere.”

We encourage you to join with others at DePaul who have said they will not allow this injustice to stand. Those of us who have been a part of the National Project to Defend Dissent and Critical Thinking in Academia are determined to support you in every way we can.

Selected Signatories (as of 09/03):

Elizabeth Aaronsohn, Ed.D., Central CT State University
Gil Anidjar, Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures, Columbia University.
William Ayers, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Derrick Bell, Visiting Professor of Law, New York University School of Law.
Robert Brenner, History Department, UCLA.
George Caffentzis, Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern Maine.
Rand Carter, Professor of the History of Art, Hamilton College.
Eric Cheyfitz, Ernest I. White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters, Cornell University.
Ward Churchill, Scholar at Large.
Dana Cloud, Associate Professor of Communication Studies, University of Texas, Austin.
Drucilla Cornell, Professor in the Departments of Law and Political Science, Rutgers University.
Walter A Davis, Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University.
Richard Delgado, University Distinguished Professor of Law & Derrick Bell Fellow, University of Pittsburgh.
Haidar Eid, Department of English, Al-Aqsa University, Gaza, Palestine.
Mahmoud Ahmed El Lozy, Professor of Drama and Theatre, The American University in Cairo.
Randa Farah, The University of Western Ontario.
Silvia Federici, Emeritus Professor, Hofstra University.
Irene Gendzier, Professor of Political Science, BostonUniversity.
William W. Hansen, International and Comparative Politics, American University of Nigeria.
Stanley Heller, Teacher, Chairperson Middle East Crisis Committee, Connecticut.
Ruth Hsu, Associate Professor of English, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Francis A. J. Ianni, Professor Emeritus, Columbia University.
Christine Karatnytsky, Scripts Librarian, Billy Rose Theatre Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts.
Charlotte Kates, co-chair, Middle East Subcommittee, National Lawyers Guild.
Mujeeb Khan, Former lecturer, Department of Political Science, DePaul University. (Doctoral Student, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley).
Peter N. Kirstein, Professor of History, Saint Xavier University.
Dennis Leach, Professor of Economic, University of Warwick.
Mark Lance, Professor of Philosophy, Professor of Justice and Peace, Georgetown University
Gary P. Leupp, Professor of History, Tufts University.
Andrew Levine, Research Professor (Philosophy), University of Maryland-College Park.
Peter McLaren, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bruce Malina, Department of Theology, Creighton University.
Bill Martin, Professor of Philosophy, DePaul University.
Chris Mato Nunpa, Southwest Minnesota State University.
Ann Elizabeth Mayer, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Tom Mayer, Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Matam P. Murthy, Professor Emeritus, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago.
Sadu Nanjundiah, Professor, Physics department, Central Connecticut State University.
Marcy Newman, Assistant Professor of English, Boise State University.
Sam Noumoff, Retired, McGill University.
Sam Peterson, Retired Professor, American University of Cairo, Arizona State University.
Peter Rachleff, Professor of History, Macalester College.
Joseph G. Ramsey, Assistant Professor of English, Fisher College.
Asghar Rastegar MD, Professor of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine.
Rush Rehm, Professor of Drama and Classics, Stanford University, Artistic Director, Stanford Summer Theater.
E. Wayne Ross, Professor of Education, Department of Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia.
Ken Schubert, Swedish Association of Professional Translators.
Henry Silverman, Professor and Chairperson Emeritus, Department of History, Michigan State University.
Natsu Taylor Saito, Professor of Law, Georgia State University.
Paul Vieille, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Michael Vocino, Professor, University of Rhode Island.
Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar, Department of Sociology, Yale University.
Elana Wesley, Human rights and a just peace activist, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, Israel.
David A. Wesley, Anthropologist, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, Israel.
Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus, Boston University
(Affiliations for identification only)

Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor (Issue 14): Beyond the Picket Line: Academic Organizing after the Long NYU Strike

The fourteenth issue of *Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor* is now available online at http://cust.educ.ubc.ca/workplace/

“Beyond the Picket Line: Academic Organizing after the Long NYU Strike” features essays gathered by Michael Palm (Chair of the Graduate Student Organizing Committee at New York University), all of which address the implications of graduate worker activism for the future of higher education. The graduate union at NYU has the distinction of being the first to bargain a contract at a private university, and the first to see negotiations terminated by a private university administration. *Workplace 14* provides various critical accounts of the administration’s renunciation of the union, and a series of in-depth analyses of the strike that followed. Written by the strikers themselves—with one important contribution by a unionist at the City University of New York—these articles comprise one of our most urgent releases to date.

Contents include:

“Introduction to the Special Issue”
by Michael Palm

“The Future of Academia is On the Line: Protest, Pedagogy, Picketing, Performativity”
by Emily Wilbourne

“The Professionalizing of Graduate ‘Students’”
by Michael Gallope

“Making It Work: Audre Lorde’s “The Master’s Tools” and the Unbearable Difference of GSOC”
by Elizabeth Loeb

“The NYU Strike as Case Study”
by David Schleifer

“Armbands, Arguments, Op-Eds, and Banner-Drops: Undergraduate Participation in a Graduate Employee Strike”
by Andrew Cornell

“Another University is Possible: Academic Labor, the Ideology of Scarcity, and the Fight for Workplace Democracy”
by Ashley Dawson

The issue also contains six new book reviews (edited by William Vaughn) as well as Wayne Ross’s *Workplace Blog.*

We are pleased to announce that Stephen Petrina (http://cust.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/petrina.html) has joined *Workplace* as a general editor. Stephen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum Studies at the University of British Columbia where he teaches courses in research methodology, curriculum theory, cultural studies, new media, and technology. His research explores the interconnections among cognition, emotion(s), and technology, concentrating especially on how we learn (technology) across the lifespan. Stephen was co-editor of *Workplace* 7.1, “Academic Freedom and IP Rights in an Era of the Automation and Commercialization of Higher Education” (http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/workplace/issue7p1/), and his recent articles have also appeared in *Technology & Culture*, *History of Psychology*, *History of Education Quarterly* and the *International Journal of Technology and Design Education*. Welcome Stephen!

Special thanks go to Stephen and to Franc Feng for their tremendous design work on the current issue. We welcome Franc as a member of the Workplace Collective.

We also want to express our gratitude to Julie Schmid for her continued editorial assistance.

Look for issues on “Mental Labor” (headed up by Steven Wexler) and “Academic Labor and the Law” (edited by Jennifer Wingard) in 2008.

(Please note that from this release forward, the journal will forgo the point system [1.1, 1.2, 2.1, etc.] and number according to our total collection of issues thus far. Although the last issue was 7.1 [the thirteenth release], we number this issue 14.)

Thanks for your continued support.

Solidarity,

Christopher Carter
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Oklahoma
Co-editor, *Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor*

E. Wayne Ross
Professor
Department of Curriculum Studies
University of British Columbia
http://web.mac.com/wayne.ross
Co-Editor, *Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor*

Arizona proposes legislation to prohibit politcal activity of teachers and professors

In yet another sign of the emerging fascism in the USA an Arizona Senate committee approved a bill that would punish college professors for endorsing, supporting or opposing political candidates, legislation, and litigation in any court; for advocating “one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy” or hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.

This is one of the most outrageous attacks on academic freedom and freedom of speech to come down the pike in a long time. So outrageous that even David Horowitz, the force behind the anti-liberal Academic Bill of Rights, says the legislation goes too far.

Read more here: Inside Higher Ed: $500 Fines for Political Profs

No God Left Behind — Why Not?

In a commentary on Inside Higher Ed, William G. Durden, president of Dickinson College, argues that since schools have NCLB and now colleges and universities have their own accountability plan from the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, that it’s time for an accountability initiative for the faithful.

…In the nation’s current zeal to account for all transfer of teaching and insight through quantitative, standardized testing, perhaps we should advance quantitative measurement into other areas of human meaning and definition. Why leave work undone?

I suggest, for example, that a federal commission propose an accountability initiative for those of faith (not such a wild notion as an increasing number of politicians are calling the traditional separation of church and state unhealthy for the nation). This effort should be titled No God Left Behind. The federal government would demand that places of worship, in order to be deemed successful, efficient and worthy of federal, state and local tax-support exemption, provide quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of their “teaching.” (Places of worship are not unlike colleges and universities in that they are increasing their fund-raising expectations — their form of “price” — because of increasing costs.) The faithful, in turn, would be required to provide quantitative evidence of the concrete influence of their respective God upon behaviors within a few years of exposure — say four years…

National School Testing Urged

This is a development that many opponents of standards-based reforms (which rely on high-stakes testing) predicted at the dawn of the movement during the George H. W. Bush administration.

The US Department of Education’s Higher Education Commission is laying the groundwork for NCLB-like, standards-based reform of post-secondary education, including, perhaps, individual tracking of college and university student performance. So national testing of college and university students, while perhaps far in the distance, is likely a predictable result. The results of which will have a similar effect on undergraduate education as it has had on K-12 education (narrowed curriculum, de-emphasis on critical thought, and loss of academic freedom).

Washington Post: National School Testing Urged

Many states, including Maryland and Virginia, are reporting student proficiency rates so much higher than what the most respected national measure has found that several influential education experts are calling for a move toward a national testing system.

The growing talk of national testing and standards comes in the fifth year of the No Child Left Behind era. That federal law sought to hold public schools accountable for academic performance but left it up to states to design their own assessments. So the definition of proficiency — what it means for a student to perform at grade level — varies from coast to coast.Maryland recently reported that 82 percent of fourth-graders scored proficient or better in reading on the state’s test. The latest data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as “the nation’s report card,” show 32 percent of Maryland fourth-graders at or above proficiency in reading.

Virginia announced last week that 86 percent of fourth-graders reached that level on its reading test, but the NAEP data show 37 percent at or above proficiency.

Some experts say it’s time to be more clear about how well American schoolchildren are doing.

“The more discontented the public is with confusing and dumbed-down standards, the more politically feasible it will be to create national standards of achievement,” said Diane Ravitch, a New York University professor who was an assistant U.S. education secretary under President George H.W. Bush.

The political obstacles are formidable, including a long tradition of local control over public education. But the approaching presidential campaign, a pending debate over congressional reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law and the wide gaps between assessments have raised hopes among proponents that the issue will gain steam. Some say gradual steps toward a national system would be better than none.

A recent study by Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, found that states regularly inflate student achievement. In 12 states studied, the percentage of fourth-graders proficient in reading climbed by nearly two percentage points a year, on average.

The NAEP (pronounced “Nape”) data show a decline on average in the percentage who were proficient over the same period, Fuller said.

Another Fuller-led study found only three states — Massachusetts, Missouri and South Carolina — with proficiency standards that come close to NAEP’s. (A similar rating by the journal Education Next showed that D.C. school standards have been stringent. It showed 14 percent of D.C. elementary school children reading proficiently on the D.C. scale and 11 percent on NAEP’s.)

Unlike state tests, which are used to help rate public schools and measure achievement of all students in certain grades, NAEP has a more limited mission. It tests selected pools of students in key subject areas to produce data on long-term educational trends.

NAEP standards were designed to establish what students ought to know to do well in the next grade and beyond, said Mark D. Musick, former president of the Southern Regional Education Board, who helped draft them. State standards, he said, more typically reflect what teachers say are the levels good students reach in their classes.

Although classroom experience varies across the country, Musick said, what students should know to be proficient in Algebra I is clear to most educators, and a national test would help set that standard.

The argument over national standards splits both major political parties. Many Republicans defend each state’s right to set its own standards, but the Bush administration includes advocates for a stronger federal role.

No Child Left Behind, which President Bush signed into law in 2002, struck a balance: It required a major expansion of state testing programs but left standard-setting authority to the states.

Many Democrats supported President Bill Clinton’s effort in the 1990s to encourage national standards, which was blocked by a Republican-led Congress. Other Democrats, particularly those allied with teachers unions, oppose judging schools by standardized tests.

Charles E. Smith, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP, said many state officials tell him they are moving toward the national benchmarks.

A senior Maryland education official, for instance, said the state’s standards are aligned with some of the NAEP benchmarks. Some, he said, but not all.

“The gaps will generate differences in performance,” said Ronald A. Peiffer, Maryland’s deputy superintendent for academic policy. “If NAEP were the national test to which all states taught and tested, then there would be no gaps, and I would expect Maryland students to do much better on NAEP.”

Last week, the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Foundation released a report from several experts, including advisers to Republican and Democratic administrations, that outlined ways to move toward national standards.

First, the federal government could order a new national testing program. The report said that surely would raise standards but would be unlikely to win congressional approval. Second, Washington could fund an expanded, voluntary national testing system. The report said that probably would raise standards and could be passed.

Third, states could build on efforts to share test items among themselves. That would be less likely to raise standards but politically feasible, the report said. Fourth, the federal government could take steps to ensure that state standards and test results could be easily compared with one another and with NAEP.

The experts in the report include Texas lawyer Sandy Kress and former deputy U.S. education secretary Eugene W. Hickok, both key education advisers to Bush, as well as Ravitch and former Clinton advisers Michael Cohen and Andrew J. Rotherham.

Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Fordham Foundation, a former Reagan administration official and one of the architects of the NAEP standards in 1990, said creating a national test would be difficult. “But I think it’s a manageable hurdle, especially with presidential leadership,” he said.

“There’s an assumption around that national standards are political suicide even if they make educational sense,” Finn said. “We need to bust through that.”

Musick said he believes the best way to introduce national tests would be in a few high school subjects, such as first- and second-year algebra.

Some educators see comparisons with NAEP as unrealistic. Gerald W. Bracey, an educational psychologist who writes frequently on testing, noted that 1996 NAEP results found only 30 percent of fourth-graders to be proficient or better in science, even though an international study that year ranked American fourth-graders third in science among 26 nations.

Others want to cut back on standardized testing entirely.

Deborah Meier gained fame for starting schools in low-income areas of New York City’s Manhattan that had experts rate students by viewing their schoolwork and discussing it with them. The schools did not rely on standardized tests. Instead of a national test, Meier said, the country should adopt “a combination of in-depth local instruments, independent review of schools and student work.”

She also said there is value in limited testing to sample student progress.

Skeptics of national testing have long noted the influence of politics on proficiency standards. Put simply, how many kids will voters allow to score below proficiency? Some policymakers are tempted to keep standards low so that schools will look successful; others seek to set them high to spur schools to improve.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

U of California starts cyber charter school

The University of California, which has offered individual online courses for high school students for the past seven years, is creating a full online high school in which selected students could take all of their courses online, The San Diego Union-Tribune. reported.

The UC Online Academy will open in August, with as many as 125 students starting the program in 9th grade. Like brick-and-mortar charter schools, cyber charters operate free of many public school regulations on staffing, curriculum and spending. In exchange, they pledge to meet specific academic goals. If a school doesn’t achieve the goals, its charter – the permission to operate – can be revoked.