In this post, Mercedes Schneider reviews the IRS documents for Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain and concludes that they can afford to pay the city rent.
The post begins like this:
Since 2006, Eva Moskowitz has been running a small charter empire that has at least $50 million in assets and the support of hedge fund millionaires. Why is it, then, that her Success Academies have never paid a dime in rent for the public school space occupied by her charter schools?
Recently-elected New York Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to put an end to the rent-free usage of public school space by charter schools.
Moskowitz’s response?
She closed her 22 schools on October 8, 2013, so that her students could “volunteer” to protest.
Public schools do not close in order to have public school students engage in protests– and this protest coincided with the political agenda of Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota, who just happened to attend.
Public schools don’t pay rent. But public schools are not allowed to close for political marches in support of their founder.
Schneider concludes that the Success Academy charters are not public schools. They can afford to pay rent or lease their own space.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Wow I am impressed by Schneider’s investigative reporting skills! I hope there will be a lot more of this work. One comment in the direct link mentioned that she has a skill at making the “convoluted” more understandable. Thanks so much and KEEP UP THIS REPORTING. “Corporate ed reformers” need to be OUTED for the CORRUPTION and for their REAL INTEREST.. MONETARY PROFIT FOR THEM. Eva Moskovitz is one of the most self-serving people in “ed reform”… unfortunately she is far from alone.
They should charge her back rent. I’m sure the city could use the money for schools that aren’t for profit
Typical liberal nonsense, rob from Peter to give to Paul. Success Academy is non profit. You dont have your facts strait. If other schools want money why dont they fundraise as well? There are no laws stopping schools from fundraising. Ive given hundreds of dollars to my zoned PS via the PTA.
Why should a publicly funded charter have to pay rent any more than a public school pays rent? That requirement would tend to break the charter. Perhaps that’s the aim. Make it impossible to run a charter by discriminatory pricing.
When traditional public schools are able to bankroll millions, then they can pay rent, too.
Mercedes,
I sent you an email. Check this out…scholastic and Gates polled 20,000 teachers. Sure:
http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/2013preview/index.htm
Name one public school that receives funding from hedge fund managers like Eva’s “success” charter schools. Name one public school that required students and parents to march across the bridge.
Charter schools ARE NOT public schools and most are failing with declining enrollment.
I don’t know who contributes, but my local school district has an endowment fund. Is that unusual?
My public school has an endowment. But parents, teachersand students started it. Some of the money generated from fundraisers goes in it. Teachersparents and students conribute to the fundraisers. And the money can only be spent on students, not onteachers, admin or aides. It is not unusual, but is not quite the same thing.
My local zoned PS is 29, John Hartigan school, they have raised on average $1,000,000.00 USD annually via their PTA for the last half decade. Most of the people who donate to the school are in high finance or top buisness roles at major NY Corporations, Cobble Hill is a very rich neighborhood.
As for the march, that is as educational as anything a student could do, learning to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to protect their educational choice is as American as apple pie. It seems the unionistas oppose students understanding their rights.
So PS 29 accepts all children in its zone, is very successful, and raises money from its happy parents. Why did Success Academy force its way into the PS 29 zone? The Walmart of charter chains?
once again you have your facts wrong. SACH is not in the PS29’s zone. SACH is co-located with a highschool called the School for Internatlinal Studies. As with all NYC HSs, they are NOT forced to accept all who apply, they can chose who they select to attend their public schools based on various criteria. So public schools in NYC do not have to accept all students in a zone. You seem to think this makes a charter non public, yet dont think it makes a high school non public. That is what we call hypocracy.
As for SACH moving in, it was to the PS261 zone and they moved in for a reason, 261 is failing and the parents in the area want choice. The anti choice movement you cheer for stifuls parents ability to have options for their children. I support school choice, you should too. SACH has had to turn down hundreds to thousands of children who are all but begging to get in due to lack of seats. That should give you a clue as to the real problem here.
deutsch29: fair is fair.
Public schools don’t pay rent for public school space. They have to follow all the rules and regulations [no matter how byzantine or constraining] governing public schools, one of the most critical being to take in and retain all comers without complaint.
One the other hand, a great many charter schools don’t pay rent for public school space. Yet they fight for and joyfully proclaim [often in glossy promotional literature] their independence from a great many of the rules and regulations governing public schools, one of the most critical [if undeclared] being frequently gaming the system to screen out, counsel out and push out ‘test suppressors’ and ‘disruptors’ and the like. *I leave out other ‘small’ differences like greatly reduced student rights, parent rights, and worker rights.*
How’s about a fair trade? A level playing field?
A charter school that faithfully—ok, is an exemplary model of—adhering to any and all rules and regulations governing public schools, one of the most critical being taking in and retaining absolutely all comers without exception and keeping them until they graduate, providing any and all required services [e.g., re IEPs] regardless of cost—
Doesn’t have to pay rent.
Oh, I forgot. And they have to agree to the same kinds of public and other audits—no, make that even more rigorous ones, because charters are ‘model citizens’ of the education community—that public schools are subject to.
I mean, nobody in favor in charters and vouchers would advocate putting public schools on the start line in hundred-yard equivalents of DashForTheCash [aka RTTT] and No Child’s Behind Left [aka NCLB] while charters were automatically placed on the 90 yard line, now would they?
Fair is fair, right?
Or am I missing something here? Did somebody forget—again!—to send me the latest memo?
😕
You cliearly missed a rather large memo given how much yoru posts miss. Most NYC public high schools do not accept all aplicants. The wonderfully financed fancy school that dblazes son is in doesnt accept all comers does it? So why is it ok for public schools to choose who they except based on specific standards but not for Charters? You are committing a blatant double standard.
Charters also do not choose who they let in, that is illegal, they hold open lotteries that pick students at random. The only reason they do not allow more kids in is due to the lack of seats. Why do charters like Success Academy have thousands on wait lists to get in? Because they are not good at what they do?
This is the crux of the anti-choice anit charters arguments, they can not explain the success schollars at charters like Success are having and see it threatens their perch in power. This is how societies change. Its no shock the union power set is scared and attacking Charters, they want to maintain power.
Because that “publicly” (and that really is a misnomer) funded charter is not legally a part of the public school district, and most claim they are private, it’s just that they receive public monies. See my post below as to why they should be charged a user fee. And no it isn’t necessarily a “discriminatory pricing” issue as long as the district charges other entities a fee.
And really, to me, it seems that, if allowed by law, each district should set up some kind of fee paying system for outside entities. That would help put a stop to charters being leeches on the PUBLIC good that are the public schools.
co located charters in NY receive $6,500 on average less per student than the non charters they share buildings with. You want to charge them rent because you wish to discriminate. That is illegal. You do not get to chose who you want to pay a tax and who you dont want, it does not work that way, and the courts have already backed up this point.
Charters deserve more funding from the state and they should take their case to the courts. There is no explainable reason why non charters are given so much more funding per child.
MS, they are not public schools. They say so themselves in federal court and NLRB, and when Eva closed her schools for a protest march, which no public school could do. They should pay rent for using public space.
The charters could get more money from hedge fund managers or the Robin Hood Foundation, which raised $80 MILLION in one night, for charters only.
They should pay rent to use public space.
they should only have to pay rent if they receive teh money for the rent payment from the state. That is how all other forms of public schools pay for the cost of their facilities. Charters do pay rent now in the form of a subsidy, hence receiving less money then other public schools. The rent demanders are uneducated on this matter.
Eva should pay rent. Her charters are not public schools. And she can well afford it. Let the billionaire hedge fund managers on her board pay the rent.
If she should pay rent, then the state should supply the funds for the rent, just as they supply the funds for the cost of running a building to zoned schools. Public schools are public schools, discriminating against one type over another due to how rich they are is illegal.
“Public schools don’t pay rent.”
That is an absurd statement in the same way that the homeowner doesn’t pay rent. The public school district (i.e., the taxpayers of said district) is the owner of the buildings and maintains them in good condition so that it can fulfill it’s constitutional mandate to “provide a free and appropriate education to all up to the age of twenty one” (at least here in the Show Me State).
Public schools can charge “facility fees” for usage of the property to whomever (or whatever organization, profit/non-profit/charitable, etc. . . ) it sees fit. I see no reason whatsoever that a public school district should be specifically banned from charging a “user fee”, i.e., rent, to a charter school that uses the district’s facilities, other than if the legislature has carved out a “special privilege” for charters by law. (Which I find quite problematic.)
Now it is completely different if that charter were an actual school (such as an alternative school) of the district following the all of the district’s policies and procedures, then no, no charging rent. That would be like the homeowner charging himself to park the car in the garage.
In other words, Moskowitz should have been being charge a user fee from the start if that is what the district does for other entities. (I don’t know the situation in NYC so I can’t comment on that).
Does NYCPSD charge user fees at all? Can they? Are they barred from doing so?
Exactly. Charter schools in Los Angeles do pay rent to the district. It’s just about the only advantage the district doesn’t give to charters.
Charter schools in LA, just like NYC are severely underfunded compared to the non charter public schools in the same areas. In LA the difference is much smaller, about 1k per kid, here in NY the difference is demonstrative. The average non charter public gets over $20k per student where as co located charters get just $13.5k.
It is unfair that charters do not receive the same dollar per dollar funding that non charters receive. If you want to be ‘fair’ you would advocate for increased funding for charters to level the playing field not widen the funding gap! That is, if you wanted to be fair.
Can’t stand to be fair. I’m a non-union thug teacher just waiting for retirement so I can suck off the teat of my defined pension while all the other Joe Blow folks work until they’re dead because their companies and/or schools decided to mishandle, drop, or never offer a defined pension plan.
And what is a “non charter public school”? Are you referring to community public schools that have been the backbone of most communities for decades?
An non charter public school would be the other school co-located in a buidling with a public charter school for example.
Defined pension plans are bankrupting cities nationwide. The are dinosaurs from bygone eras that threaten our nations economic well being.
The pledge to make charter schools pay rent is just another bit of overheated campaign rhetoric that de Blasio has no intention of following through with.
I find it far more objectionable that unless the SUNY Charter School Institute demands that they make changes to their charters, Success will have a large network of K-12 schools for which the last entry point will be the very first day of 3rd grade. They do not fill seats lost to attrition after that point; graduation from their elementary programs is a prerequisite for their middle schools, and graduation from their middle schools will be a prerequisite for admission to their high schools.
This is the area where their private money has its most pernicious effect–it makes per-student funding less important to them than less well-funded networks, and no other public school that I’m aware of is allowed to cut off entry way ahead of the terminal grade. It is this practice that should be the centerpiece of any argument that this network isn’t operating truly public public schools (and it needs to be said that other large NYC networks, KIPP most notably, are very aggressive about filling empty seats and serving as many kids as possible).
Emails obtained by DNAinfo highlight the special relationship the high-profile school leader has with the DOE. http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131210/new-york-city/eva-moskowitz-success-academy-gets-preferential-doe-treatment-emails-show?utm_content=blewton%40verizon.net&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Eva%20Moskowitz%27%20Success%20Academy%20Gets%20Preferential%20DOE%20Treatment%2C%20Emails%20Show&utm_campaign=Controversial%20UWS%20Nursing%20Home%20Development%20Gets%20%242%2E5%20Million%20Grantcontent
it would be illegal to charge one type of public school rent but not another based on how much money they have, that is discrimination and blatantly unconstituthional. In fact the NY Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter in SAs favor for this basic reason. you dont get to tax people because they are good at fund raising. It is also silly to chastise SA for their ability to fundraise. They get their money because they get results. Nothing is stopping other public schools from fundrasing, inf act, many of the richest schools in the city are public and raise milliions from their PTA. I see that mrs ravitch doesnt discuss the money schools in Brooklyn like PS 58, 29 or 321 have raised?! Why dont those schools get taxed more as well, they can afford it.
Charters also pay rent already on a defacto basis. they receive $6,500 LESS per student in state funding, the cost of rent according to the IBO is up to 3k per kid, so even if you factor that in, the charters are still receiving $3,500 LESS per student. If you forced them to pay rent that disparity would widen. People who believe rent is required simply do not have their facts strait or do and choose to be willfully ignorant, like mrs ravitch.
Charters are getting a raw deal, even under Bloomberg, they should be receiving equal state funds to zoned schools. All public schools should receive the same amount of funding.
Charters argue in federal court that they are not public schools. They say they are private corporations with a government contract. Pay the rent.
1 to 2 charter schools nationwide out of over 6,000 have made this claim and they were both for profit schools and you wrecklessly pass this claim on to the other 5,998 charter chains. It is very unfair to call the goose the gander.
Public charters that are co-located in NYC already pay rent in the form of a subsidy, by receiving $6,500 less per student from the state. Charging them rent has already been blocked by the NY State Supreme Court.
Charging rent is just a ploy from the anti-choice unionistas to destroy charters. They want them destroyed because charters like Success are blowing them away on the education front as we see year after year.