Anthony Cody wrote a series of posts in which he reviewed some of the key events of 2013.
In this one, he considers the changing perception of charter schools.
He notes that some of their advocates frankly admit that they are for “strivers,” not for all.
While he acknowledges that some charter founders really do aim to help the neediest students, he observes that charter organizations argue in court that they are not really public schools and cannot be held to the same laws, regulations, and standards as public schools.
Charter founders have made the same argument in federal courts, state courts and before the National Labor Relations Board, insisting that they cannot be subject to state laws that govern public schools because they are private organizations with government contracts.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
By law, all charter schools that receive public funding in New Jersey are public schools. What this means in practice differs from charter school to charter school. New Jersey charters generally receive less oversight from the current pro-charter state department of education than “regular” public schools
They AREN’T “public schools”–they are private schools that get public money. Case law supports this. Stop with the propaganda.
I worked for 29 years for the New Jersey Education Association and had input into the law enabling charter schools in NJ. What I said about the law is a fact, not an opinion, and not propaganda. In NJ, all charters are public schools. I know the situation is different in other states, where some charters are private.
Mr. Broderick, are charter schools in New Jersey required to serve the same students as neighborhood public schools? Are they able to skim the ablest students and exclude the ones they don’t want? Do they accept students with disabilities and English learners?
I have been asked:
Mr. Broderick, are charter schools in New Jersey required to serve the same students as neighborhood public schools? Are they able to skim the ablest students and exclude the ones they don’t want? Do they accept students with disabilities and English learners?
The answers: 1) No, they are not required to serve the same students as neighborhood schools, but some of them do; 2) Yes. 3) Some do, some don’t. In fact, in Newark, the current superintendent who is pro-charter is apparently concerned that the charter school ability to pick and choose students gives them an unfair advantage over the district public schools.
I believe New Jersey schools have been a decidedly mixed blessing. I also believe they violate the state constitution, which requires the state to ensure a “thorough and efficient” system of free public schools. Having separate and unequal school systems is certainly not efficient; I also believe charters may violate the doctrine of “separate and unequal” referred to in federal case law.
I also acknowledge that some charters do a very good job. Conversely, many charters in New Jersey have either closed voluntarily or been forced to do so by the state, sending their students back to the neighborhood public schools, which are then forced to use their test results for evaluation purposes even if the student has only been back in the school a few days.
I hope this is helpful to this ongoing discussion. By the way , I worked in Pennsylvania for six years, where the same answers to the above 3 questions are the same — as are my assessment of good and bad charter schools.
The law stands written on the books as Mr Broderick quotes. But since Cerf has been on board in NJ he’s managed to skirt the law with for-profit school-“management” corporations which operate a couple of big inner-city charters from soup to nuts according to Jersey Jazzman and Mother Crusader.
I agree that Cerf has done as stated here, and worse.
Dr. Ravitch,
Is Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax County a public school? It most certainly fails your three part test.
1) Thomas Jefferson High School does not serve the same students as neighborhood public schools
2) Thomas Jefferson High School’s stringent admission standards mean that it explicitly skims the ablest students and excludes ones it does not want
3) I have no doubt that students with academic disabilities and English learners are unable to pass the admission exams for Thomas Jefferson High School.
This leaves us with two choices. We could proclaim Thomas Jefferson High Schools (and similar schools around the country) a private schools getting public money or we could modify your test so that Thomas Jefferson High School is classified as a public school.
In addition to Diane’s questions, are NJ charter schools required to open their books to the public and/or be audited by government auditors?
Are they required to treat their teachers the same as public school teachers (salaries, benefits, tenure, union rights, etc.?) It was actually a labor case that determined that charter schools are not public schools.
We go through this regularly. Charters are public schools, authorized by state legislators, that must follow relevant state & federal laws.
Unlike magnet district schools throughout the country, charter public schools in most states are not allowed to have admissions tests.
Moreover, not all public schools are controlled by local school boards. A number of states have state-wide public schools, often with admissions tests.
Finally, as noted recently, Children Defense Fund founder and president Marian Wright Edelman made a keynote speech at the 2011 National Charter conference. Among other things she said:
She believes in the importance of working on issues outside and inside schools. She also (about 2:10) says that she is “deeply grateful” to people in the charter school movement.
She also asserts: “Poor and minority children can do anything other children can do.”
Marian Wright Edelman does think that high expectations, charter schools and other public schools can be helpful. “We’ve got to challenge low expectations.” “Education is the civil rights issue of our time.”
“Charters are an important part of the answer” she says but we also need to build bridges. She concluded: “You’re doing God’s work. Stand up. Keep at it.”
Joe Nathan, I admire Marian Wright Edelman for her life’s work, but I don’t admire her sons’ involvement in the corporate reform movement. Her son Josh worked for Michelle Rhee in D.C. Here is Susan Ohanian on Josh Edelman (http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=3881). Apparently he is now a senior program officer at the Gates Foundation.
The other Edelman son, Jonah, heads the corporate reform group called Stand for Children, which raises millions of dollars from corporate groups to fight for charters and teacher evaluation based on test scores (which most researchers say are inaccurate and unreliable). That Marian Wright Edelman supports charters, like her sons, does not change the fact that charter operators have gone to federal courts and to the NLRB and claimed that they are not public schools, that they are private organizations under contract to the government and not subject to state law. Also, as I have previously noted on this blog and as Anthony Cody pointed out, the California Charter School Association entered an amicus brief in defense of two charter operators who were convicted of misappropriating public funds; their defense for the couple: their charter school was not a public school and thus they were not subject to criminal penalties.
Diane, what you define over and over again as corporate school reform, Marian Wright Edelman defines (as it pertains to charters that are open to all kinds of kids) as part of the move toward greater justice in this society.
I’d urge you and others to listen to what she has to say in the video posted earlier today.
Joe Nathan – Marian Wright Edelman can define up as down or black as white if she wants. That doesn’t make it so. The fact remains that charter schools are contributing to the re-segregation of America and a corresponding increase in inequality and injustice.
Well said Joe, you really nailed it. Charters are public schools who are overseen by, in the state of NY, the Board of Regents who reviews their independent audits annually. But to answer Dianes questions to you.
1. Charters can only allow in the number of students they have seats for, by law they must hold a blind lottery from within their district to fill those seats. It is illegal for a charter to ‘skim’ given they are holding blind lotteries. They cant take in every kid in a zone because the demand is too high. Ask yourself, why is the demand so high?
Now, how about NYC high schools? They do not take in every child in a zone, in fact they require testing to get in and can set basic requirements. Funny, this is exactly what you claim makes a charter not public, but the entire NYC high school system is based on this private format. Using your logic, there is no public high school system in the city, they are all private. This is a double standard.
What about the fact that Eva Moskowitz (along with other charter operators) was able to close her school and force her students and parents to march in support of charter schools when de Blasio threatened to make them pay rent? Could a real public school in New York get away with that?
Yet that same public school you speak of can go on strike and hold the entire school system hostage over their profit demands and get away with it! Ha! Apparently exercising your constitutional rights is a big no no but legally allowing strikes is just fine.
I do not apologize for this long posting. I give only a few links; googling will get someone interested in pursuing this many many more.
Charter schools are public schools are the same as public schools. Proof by assertion and repetition doesn’t cut it on this blog.
From an LATIMES editorial, 8-28-13 [I provide excerpts; please click on link to put in full context]:
[start quote] When voters passed Proposition 39 in 2000, they surely had no idea of the headaches it would cause Los Angeles schools. Most Californians probably never even noticed the wording about providing space for charter schools, and if they did, they had little idea of what a charter school was. …
But what Proposition 39 gives, it occasionally takes away. Now that the Los Angeles Unified School District has a little room to spare, charter schools — publicly funded, privately operated schools that are free from most district rules and state regulations — have been invoking the provision in the proposition that requires space for charter students that is “reasonably equivalent” to that in the district schools they would have attended. This usually means sharing a campus with a traditional public school. In most cases, the two must coordinate the use of playing fields, gyms, the cafeteria and other common areas.
But the effects go beyond figuring out how to divide up library hours. The California Charter Schools Assn. has been in a legal battle to gain more from L.A. Unified. Under the formula that it says should be used to allocate space for charters — a formula backed by state regulations implementing Proposition 39 — each charter school student would be allotted more space than a district student on the host campus. That’s because charter schools, which are often subsidized through foundation grants, tend to have much smaller class sizes. The charter schools contend that they should be given a room for each class, even if that class has 15 students while a classroom of the same size at the traditional public school might have 30. They also claim that preschool classrooms and parent centers should be counted in the formula under which charter space is allocated.
This shouldn’t be considered “reasonably equivalent.” Nor is it a given that, when a host school’s enrollment grows, it can reclaim some of the charter classrooms. Now that L.A. Unified will be getting significant new money from the state, it can afford to reduce at least some class sizes as well as expand art and science programs. Those will need space, and first priority should go to the traditional public schools. [end quote]
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-charter-schools-lausd-proposition-39-20130828,0,5786417.story#axzz2otZcnq2O
I remind readers that the above is much stronger than it appears because the LATIMES is strongly pro-“education reform” and has frequently passed along charter claims without examining them. So in the same editorial, following the end of the above quotation we can find:
[start quote] That’s not to minimize the contribution made by charter schools. Many have provided a superior education to students who otherwise would have been forced to attend lackluster or even terrible schools. When independent researchers examine whether students fare better in charter schools than they would have in the public schools, the answer for Los Angeles students is yes, they generally do. When there is extra space on a campus, it is unfair and wasteful — not to mention illegal — to withhold it from a charter school.” [end quote]
Charter schools are just like public schools. So public schools can close their doors and order students, teachers and parents to participate in political demonstrations?
Link: http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2013/10/parents-and-advocates-comment-on-todays.html
The heads of charter schools are subjected to the same laws as anyone running a public school governing profane and threatening speech plus obligations regarding work hours, right?
Link: http://jonathanpelto.com/2013/11/20/capital-preps-steve-perry-responds-defeat-tweeting-will-head-injuries/
Link: http://jonathanpelto.com/2013/12/07/steve-perry-continues-record-excessive-absences/
Charter co-locations in public schools are, well, just click below.
Link: http://insidecolocation.tumblr.com
Again, google is one of your best friends when it comes to debunking misinformation.
“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.” [Demosthenes]
An old dead Greek guy. Nailed the edufrauds and the edubullies to the wall over two thousand years ago.
Could the rumors of Mr. Peabody and Sherman and their WABAC Machine be right?
😎
What’s your definition of public schools? Open to all?
a. Some suburban “public” school districts hire detectives to make sure that only people who live in the district attend. Good way to screen out kids they don’t want to enroll.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903285704576557610352019804
How do you feel about detectives being hired to keep out “those kids”?
Fortunately, in Minnesota we allow cross district public school choice – both district & charter.
b. From California to New York (and between) “selective magnet schools” are all over the country, in many large cities. Diane has stated that she’s ok with such schools if that’s what a local board wants to do. Fortunately the late Senator Paul Wellstone was not ok with this, and worked hard to discourage federal funding for magnet schools that planned to have admissions tests.
c. Chicago Magnet School admission rules (depending on test scores, your youngster may not even be allowed to take the particular tests needed to get into a magnet school)
Click to access FAQs%20–%202014-2015%20Application%20Period.pdf
d. In New York City, Townsend Harris High School, Bronx Science, Stuyvesant, Hunter and on and on.
Are all public school run by a local school boards? Nope. Here are three examples: Illinois, Louisiana and Minnesota. None is run by a locally elected school board and all use admissions tests. These are public schools
https://www.imsa.edu/admissions
http://www.lsmsa.edu/content.cfm?id=37
http://www.pcae.k12.mn.us/ahs/adminfo.html
Myth: Sharing space among schools is a terrible idea. Actually, details matter a lot. Some places it’s working out ok. Some places not.
Mr. Nathan:
I speak only for myself:
There are many public schools that are selective, as you point out. I chose such schools for my sons, as did almost all my friends. I don’t even know anyone who placed his child in a school with mainly low-achieving children. That said, this is what I object to:
Fraud: Many charter schools falsely claim that they are doing a better job than the local public school, even though the charter school is almost always selective;
More fraud: In California alone there have been many charter “operators” who have started charters and then absconded with the money;
Even more fraud: As Diane noted, many citizens (myself included) had no idea that these charter laws were being passed. These laws essentially allow someone to open a school with taxpayer money and little oversight. The public then loses all control over the governance of the school. This cannot continue and I predict that it will not.
I have no problem with the original concept of the charter school: a school that is placed in the hands of teachers and parents who want to try new strategies to help children succeed. These schools would still be part of school districts and under the governance of local communities.
The other day a very intelligent and well-read friend of mine stated that the general public has no idea their schools are being privatized. When they find out, I believe they will put a stop to it. Better schools for poor children, yes, Taking these schools away from the public, no.
I do agree with public school open enrollment: any child should be able to enroll in any tax supported school district, regardless of where the child lives.
Am I correct that you are in favor of open admission into a school district but qualified admission into at least some of the schools in a school district?
Thanks for your note. What community are you in?
I object to fraud, where-ever it happens – in district or charters. In previous postings, I’ve givn numerous examples of fraud within district schools. Sadly, there are some people who will exploit opportunities.
I don’t agree that the charter approach allows “virtually anyone” to start a school. Most states and communities (including California’s which is where it sounds like you are from) require an extensive application and a variety of charter proposals have been turned down, as they deserved to be.
However, the charter approach has allowed a variety of educators and parents to create new options despite the traditionalism and opposition to innovation found in some school districts. While some districts are open minded, as AFT president Al Shanker wrote in the late 1980’s, educators who try to start new options in public schools often “are treated like traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lock step.”
The charter approach allows people to create new public schools that (in most states) are supposed to be open to all. You and I agree that there are many district public schools that completely ignore one of the central principles of public education, which is that schools are open to all kinds of students.
Teachingeconomist: Yes, I support open enrollment in all public schools but it’s OK for some schools to be selective. What I am against is privatizing our public schools, which belong to the American people.
I did not say that “virtually anyone” can start a charter school. I said that “someone” can start a charter school with taxpayer money. They can then operate the school with little public oversight, assign themselves large salaries and then some. Are we crazy or just clueless?
.
Linda, sounds like you are in California. Is this correct?
Each California charter has a contract and has to demonstrate that it is meeting performance goals in order to retain its charter. Each California charter also has to have a periodic outside audit to show how it is spending money.
As to your comment about public schools “belonging to the American people,” please say more about what this means to you. As noted earlier, some districts have hired detectives to keep out students that don’t live in the district. You’ve mentioned that you (and others you know) send children to schools that use admissions tests. You wrote, ” I chose such schools for my sons, as did almost all my friends. I don’t even know anyone who placed his child in a school with mainly low-achieving children.”
Moreover, there are public schools in a number of states (mentioned earlier tonight in a previous post) that are not run by locally elected school districts. So the definition of a public school in this country is not that it is run by a locally elected school board.
Some authorities refer to such selective admissions schools as “private” public schools.
A public school is one that is under the governance of the citizens of a community. If they decide that some of them should be selective magnets, they should have that option.
In California where I live, a parent has many options. If he works in a particular community, or has a babysitter there, he can apply to have his children attend those schools. For example, my hairdresser left her Long Beach salon to work in one in affluent Los Alamitos so she could send her daughters to Los Alamitos High School. Many large cities, including my own, allow intra-district transfers.
It’s true that districts restrict enrollment to the students who live within the community. At present this is legal but I’d like to see the law changed in this regard. In my opinion, restricting children to schools that serve mainly low-performing students is detrimental to the children and to our country. The idea of placing all poor children of color in one school (complete with chanting and clapping) is anathema to our democratic ideals.
If the majority of our citizens want to give away their local schools to private individuals or companies, I suppose that will happen. However, I feel certain that most citizens don’t even know this is happening, don’t support it, and will put a stop to it when they find out.
Our people are not stupid and can find a way to provide a quality education for each child without giving away the local school.
Information yearns to be free.
Anthony Cody, 10-7-13, “Charter School Defenders Insist They are ‘Private Entities’”—
[start quote] So let’s end this hoax. Charter schools are happy to accept public dollars, but reject the oversight and accountability that comes with operation as a public school. As the California Charter School Association insists, they are private entities. As Diane Ravitch suggests, if they are going to claim that in court, then that is good enough for me. They are private entities. Not public schools. [end quote]
Link: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/10/charter_defenders_insist_they_.html
SubstanceNews, 12-13-13, George N. Schmidt, with an article on the situation in the state of Washington, with reference to the CA Charter School Association:
[start quote] The court might usefully have looked at rulings in federal courts and the NLRB where charters have fended off lawsuits by disgruntled employees or by employees hoping to form a union by asserting that they are not public schools and are not subject to the same state laws. Or the courts might have looked at the amicus brief filed by the California Charter School Association in support of charter school founders convicted of misappropriation of public funds, earlier this fall. The charter founders were not guilty, said CCSA, because they were operating a private corporation with a government contract, not subject to the same laws as public schools. [end quote]
Link: http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=4676
GoodReads, 10-9-13, “Charter Schools Insist: We Are Private, Not Public.”
[start quote] The California Charter Schools Association entered an amicus brief on their behalf maintaining that the couple are not guilty of any criminal offense because charter schools are not subject to the laws governing public schools. CCSA says that charter schools are exempt from criminal laws governing public schools because they are operated by a private corporation. [end quote]
Link: http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/5011610-charter-schools-insist-we-are-private-not-public
Still don’t get it? I remind all the defenders of the education status quo that they should remember the wisdom in their old Marxist axiom:
“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
¿?
Groucho. Who did you think I meant?
😎
I’ll accept that they’re public schools when their lawyers stop arguing that they are private companies.
They can’t have it both ways. They can’t be private contractors when they’re stonewalling financial disclosures or blocking a unionization action and then claim “public” when it’s beneficial.
The non-profit designation is meaningless, too. It’s a tax designation. If a charter entity is outsourcing every single function to a for-profit contractor they can claim “non-profit” all they want. The “blended learning” test prep charters in NJ are contracted out to for-profits. That’s fact. Telling me state law mandates they be non-profits means nothing to me.
Obviously, they’re getting around the state law by setting up a non-profit entity and then contracting out to a for-profit.
Christie and Cerf in NJ must think we’re all idiots.
Read the comments in any Ohio newspaper under one of the near-daily charter scandal stories in this state. No one in Columbus or Cleveland is fooled by this “non-profit” nonsense either.
A dozen charter leaders (mostly non-educators) make more money than the chancellor of the NYC schools. The top earner makes $499,000 a year to run two or three small schools.
Not a good idea, IMHO
How do you feel about public university president salaries topping $1 million:
Even if the top administrator at my institution earned a couple of million, some employees of the athletic corporation would earn more. As it is, some folks at the medical school earn more than their bosses.
Salary and authority are not perfectly corrolated in higher education. A distinguished professor in one field migh well earn less than an associate professor in another field.
Agreed that salaries are complicated measures. I prefer to focus on the accomplishment of schools, rather than salaries. But salaries are one measure of what an institution values.
At a large university it is not really a measure of relative value, but of if the institution values the the academic effort at all. If the institution values a medical education at all, it will have to pay many multiples of what it would have to pay for a history department, even if the institution valued the history department very highly.
How do you feel about the President of Columbia earning more than $2 million:
How do you feel about the President of Columbia earning $2.3 million?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/15/private-college-presidents-salary-harvard_n_4433229.html
Chiara Duggan: you are elucidating some of the glaring contradictions in the charterite/privatizer program.
I hope Joanna Best does not find me at fault or disrespectful here, but although I am not a religious person I have always had great respect for the following:
“Judge not, that ye not be judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” [Matthew 7:1-3, King James version]
I leave it to others [on other blogs] to draw out the theological implications of the above, but I take the above to be a truly stirring admonition to avoid hypocrisy and double standards. In more current jargon, walk your own talk. *For example, I am a fan of neither man, but what can be said of the moral stature and seriousness of a Newt Gingrich who led the impeachment of a sitting president, Bill Clinton, because of what the former was doing far in excess of the latter? Or as one wag put it, “Newt Gingrich believes the definition of traditional marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and another woman and another woman.” Not to mention changing his faith as he changed his wives.*
And I heartily agree with you that the leading charterites/privatizers have utter contempt for the vast majority of the American population. They are actually offended when we ask them to live up to their own professed standards—google Gov. Chris Christie’s response when asked why he mandates for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN something very different from what he offers HIS OWN CHILDREN.
Although not an old dead Greek guy, Edmund Burke knew the type:
“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.”
Thank you for your comments.
😎
Last night at dinner I sat beside an acquaintance who works in junk bonds, and is connected to hedge funds. She is from Tennessee. She had no idea that some charters are for profit and was aghast at the notion. She did not know that even the non-profit ones can still help the hedge funds who invest in them due to the New Market Tax Credit. I gave her the title of Diane’s new book and also the Lipman (?)–(I had it in my phone) book on the neo-liberalism of urban education (that might even be the title). In jest she said, “I think I’m a neo-liberal,” but when I told her about the Ayn Rand as prophet type thing that I understand goes along with some of neo-liberalism, she was even more eager to read the books I recommended. She said, “Isn’t “profit” and “charter school” a contradiction of terms? And I told her to read the books.
She was also stunned that as a teacher I don’t hail the mission of Teach for America (as it is now—-I think it started out OK, but I think it circumvents some very necessary training for people working with children and youth and undermines the profession of teaching): and she was surprised that I don’t think much of Michele Rhee’s impact on education (I think she is more into promoting herself, quite frankly).
So every day it is possible to make people aware of reality in terms of education for our nation’s schools. Those with children (as she has) will pay more attention, I think.
But back to the neo-liberalism. Bloomberg mentioned God (as a defense of his own actions). Many use religion to justify their actions in terms of education (wanting to set up schools that teach creationism, to protect the children’s minds of those who think that creationism is truth). So to me, a preacher’s daughter and an unapologetic Episcopalian (who believes in evolution) (and one who does think public schools need to be places that continue the separation of church and state in terms of curriculum and what is espoused in the classroom as doctrine (albeit you cannot separate a person’s motivation or character as influenced by their religious preferences—and people tend to go and live in communities that likely have pockets of people who are similar in their religious preferences)), it seems there is no way around the ultimate discussion of what “religions” are driving what actions in terms of schooling children with tax money.
Last week I got to see a dear friend who is a devout Roman Catholic. Her mother always told her (because they attended Catholic school in New Jersey where she says the public schools were very good), that they “paid twice” for schooling. And I think they would probably find relief (if they qualified) in the notion of vouchers (and hence I avoided the subject because I care more about my friendship with her more than a heated debate on the subject in her living room). But at the end of the day, the two blue moose in the room are:
1. What impact is religion (even that of existentialism) impacting decisions driving our schooling and how does it differ from such impact in decades before (that is to say, is there simply a new sheriff in town??) People say follow the money. But I don’t know. Follow the faith and the fears that go with those faiths might be a better use of energy in terms of finding answers.
2. Our society avoids poor minorities. Right? Isn’t that what is happening? Why? So heroes from TFA roll up their sleeves and go in and work with them and Rhee has built her hero legacy (albeit debunked if you read Diane’s chapter on her) on it? But those of us who would and have and do go into the communities loved and inhabited by poor minorities and make no heroic act of it are now marginalized. There must be a parallel in history. Missionary settlements, perhaps? I don’t know. I really don’t.
I just know this battle needs to come to grips with these two blue moose. And there need to be bold conversations about the two so that true bridges can be built and children (of all religions and those who are poor minorities) can be offered a fair shot at elevating themselves, with or without a hero.
The truth is, as I see it, there are no heroes. There are people who influence us and are often in positions of impacting our lives positively (like a teacher, who can point us in positive directions and help us discover meaning and new ideas and who can vouch for us and so forth, mostly because they spend a lot of time with us). So if anyone sets out to be a hero. . .woe is me. I just went to a birthday party with my youngest where everyone wore a superhero costume. The notion of a superhero exists because, as humans, we don’t really have them. And so we do have to set up systems that allow for people to help people without heroism (even though there will be brave acts in the midst of it that will elicit feelings of holding folks up as heroes).
But can you imagine fire fighters if one young college graduate who had always dreamed of being a firefighter decides (because he needs a job and hasn’t time to train to be a firefighter) suddenly to set up a new program to train heroes to save folks from fires? And people who needed the idea of heroes (because of faith or fear) to get them through life’s dark hours suddenly began sending money and support for the hero mission? And eventually people demonized their fire fighters in hopes of attracting these young heroes?
What a terrible mess that would be ?
Again. . .frank conversations about the framework and philosophies that shape people’s motivations is in order. “Hyper-personalized,” I have heard our era described as. And what of our collective thinking? Is there any?
Again, I say. Forget follow the money. Follow the faith, and the specifics therein. Follow the fears and what is being avoided. Follow the poor minorities and see why it is they have repelled an entire nation from standing up for them? And then ask yourself what you can do to help.
(Krazy TA, the length of your comment ain’t got nothin on this southern gal).
🙂
Funny, last week at dinner with a bunch of parents from non chartered public schools, what I realized is how uneducated people are about charters, and how blogs like this and the anti choice movement do a major disservice with their blatant misconceptions they post about charters. After I educated these people on the truths and poured water over the misconceptions they based their views on their eyes practically popped. Let me share a few.
1. “charters pick only the smart kids’. No, they can’t, that would be illegal and they would lose their charter for it, they have a blind lottery that is based generally on students proximity to the school, that lottery is only for children within the district the school is located in. Thousands of kids are denied seats who are much smarter or well balanced then kids who get in, this is the reality of a random lottery.
2. ‘charters are private not public’. No, they are publically funded and overseen by the NY State Board of Regents who reviews their independently audited financials on an annual basis. Charters also have set academic standards spelled out in the charter itself they must meet or be defunded and closed. Charters cannot by law charge a tuition as they are public schools serving the greater public. Charters like SA are 501(c) entities which are by law barred from making a profit or having shareholders, they are tax free entities set up for specific purposes such as education, therefore they cannot be ‘for profit’. Eva, the CEO is also a lifelong elected official, not a hedge fund magnet, but someone who tried to make change within he system only to be forced out by the prevailing interests like the teachers union.
3. ‘charters don’t take in all of a zones kids’. This is only due to the fact they don’t have seats. NYC high schools do not take in all of their zoned kids either, yet no one is arguing that our HS system is private are they? You must test into a HS in this city. The anti choice movement thinks that charters have ‘requirements’ to get in which is a lie, but they obtusely ignore the fact that public HS actually do have requirements to get in.
4. ‘charters should pay rent because they can afford it’. Charters already pay rent by receiving less funds from the state, in the form of a subsidy. A charter receives just 13.5k per child from the state, the non chartered publics receive 20.5k. The cost of rent as assumed by the IBO of the city is around 2.5k per kid. So even if you add this in as a subsidy, the charters still get just 15k per child, a full 5k less than non charters. The NY Supreme Court has also denied a lawsuit by the unions to force rent on charters as unconstitutional in 2013. The reason is simple, you cannot charge rent on a public school simply because you ‘think they can afford it’. This is discrimination and illegal on a city, state and federal level. It’s also blatantly unfair. But the rent isn’t about being fair, it’s an attempt to shut the charter.
5. ‘zoned schools can’t close for a protest’. But they can for a strike? to hold an entire system hostage for money? And that is ok? SA scholars spend 2 to 3 weeks more time per year in school then the colocated zoned schools, taking a 4hr field trip to city hall to express their constitutional rights as Americans is a great thing and more of a learning experience then anything they might have done in that 4hr span in class. There is something uniquely American about expressing our Constitutional rights. We should be proud or kids get to learn it thru application instead of reading about it.
I could carry on with half a dozen more misconceptions that are constantly cited on this blog that uneducated people believe but it’s getting to be overkill, you all should get the point by now. The reality is people need to stop listening to the ‘talking points memos’ that the anti choice establishment constantly barks thru its media connections and actually take time to educate themselves on the reality of this situation. If they do they will see Charters like Success Academy are not only great but a revolutionary concept that at its heart, is challenging the establishment, hence all of the hate directed towards it.
There is always more to the story. I can’t speak about charter schools in other states or even about the charters in NYC. I can mention the fiasco of one charter school in Buffalo, New York that was closed down by Commissioner King less than a week before school started this past September. The BPS had to register and provide buses for the 400 to 500 students who no longer had a school to attend. A new principal had to be found and a staff had to be hired within a few days. Some of the Pinnacle Charter School staff got to stay, but not all the teachers were certified, so some had to go. It was a monumental task.
So much for closing Charter Schools. This one was not a pretty story.
You, too, MS, try to gloss over the details. Just remember, we are all intelligent people who read beyond the comments. We know when someone is being glib. We know there is always more to the story. I challenge you and the others to be more truthful. I challenge the rest of us to question all, knowing that in the end, we come up with our own version of the truth based on our individual beliefs and experiences.
And that’s a good thing.
How are NJ PUBLIC school students doing under Mr. Cerf and Mr. Christie?
Are they abandoned, like public school kids in the other reform states?
It’s funny that I can read REAMS on charters in all media, yet nothing about how kids in existing public schools do under reformers. One would think the public school kids in this country don’t exist.
Why should PUBLIC school parents hire ed reformers? Is there a state, city or district where ed reform has benefitted existing public schools? Or have we all just decided those kids don’t count? Why would I hire people who are hostile to public schools to run my public schools?
Chiara, it’s a good question. And the answer is that many people are interested in seeing overall improvement, measured in various ways (not just test scores).
In this newspaper column I describe some of the encouraging responses to increased charter enrollment in Minnesota. These include
* Collaborations between district & chartered public schools
* New distinctive public school opportunities & options within districts
* Efforts by alternative & charter educators to broaden the way that students are assessed, beyond standardized tests
* Alliances that are succeeding in convincing legislators to put more $ into early childhood and all day kg programs.
http://hometownsource.com/2013/12/25/joe-nathan-column-2013s-memorable-messages-about-education/
I wrote a more detailed response to earlier questions with several links. That’s waiting for moderation since it has several links.
Chiara, it is the same for NJ students in the cities where there are large numbers of charter schools.
Bob Braun, a former Star Ledger columnist often writes about education on his blog, “Bob Braun’s Ledger.” Since he worked for the Star Ledger before retiring he knows the history of reform in the Newark schools. The blog titled “The Star-Ledger Editorial on Newark Schools” gives a good overview of what is happening.
Here is what a Newark teacher wrote on his blog, “Currently the educational leadership in Newark is stacking the deck. It is like they are employed by Pepsi but making decisions on behalf of Coke. Understand that when you support Cami Anderson and Christopher Cerf, you are supporting the destruction of Newark Public Schools, even the many that are extremely successful…Traditionally, if charters admit hard to educate students they counsel them out after the October funding date (the date after which funding is given to the school that the child is enrolled in, regardless of where they go after).”
This new plan in Newark called One Newark which will end up selling 15 schools, most to new or existing charters. In addition at least 7 schools will be renewed where the entire staff will have to reapply for their jobs. Other schools will be redesigned or re-sited. Neighborhood schools are being eliminated and students may end up taking 2 or more busses to school. Newark has already closed a number of schools as well as eliminated staff such as librarians, art and other teachers. Technology is limited and many schools are in need of repair.
This plan was put into place without any parental input and it will vastly decrease the public schools and increase the holdings of the charters. The parents intend to protest. Here is a link to the petition.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-closure-of-the.fb40?source=s.fb.ty&r_by=9570972
When I used to drive to work, I would pass a Charter School and watch while the kids got off the buses. The student population was 99% African American.
I started looking at publications comparing the Charter Schools to the Buffalo Public Schools (almost all the Charter Schools are on the City – the Suburban districts fight to keep them away) and discovered that the majority of Charter schools are synonymous with re segregation. Also, because the population of these schools is impoverished, their results mirror that of the regular city schools.
I knew several parents who opted for these charters. They preferred all minority schools. Often their kids had not been successful in the Public Schools (it was always the teachers’ faults). They would never admit their child was a “handful”. At first, they would love the Charters, but eventually their child would be kicked out for the same inappropriate behaviors and would either attend a different charter or another public school.
The elephant in the room is that some of our inner city youth cannot hack school. They skip school/classes, act out, pick fights, and are generally disruptive. There is no cure all for this type of child. Whether public, private, or charter, they are bounced around and their issues are not addressed. I’ve tried working one on one with this type of student – and they literally refuse to learn.
Charter schools fit many molds. The original concept was admirable, the end product was flawed. My main concern was the way these schools were funded – the monies should not come on the backs of the Public Schools. Now I am also concerned that individuals have their hands in the till. It’s not about the education, it’s about the money.
There are many dedicated teachers in Charter Schools who love their students and want what’s best for them. These teachers are being abused with longer work days/weeks/years. They are following their avocation without anyone watching their back (I.e. Teacher’s Unions). Their contracts can be discontinued if they complain or for any reason, for that matter. Their pay might be equitable, but it might not.
Whether Charters are public, private, or somewhere inbetween, the real issue is their purpose. It’s just another way to desecrate the Public School System (see also CCSS, high stakes testing, and teacher evaluations). Watch the Charter Schools and see the future. If you don’t like this picture, then you need to speak up before it’s too late.
Charters like Success Academy are public schools, they are overseen by the states board of Regents and receive public funding for their operations. They are cheated though, they only recieve 13.5k per student when the co-located non chartered schools get over 20k per kid. Add to that the illegal attempt to openly discriminate against the public charters with this fraudulent rent movememnt and you see that the odds are stacked against the charters. Charters serve a zone as well and must hold a blind lottery to seat children. The question I continuously pose that I never seem to get an answer from the anti-choice side, is why is the demand so high for charters like Success? Why do they have thousands weeping openly when their kid fails to win a lottery seat? People need to look in the mirror a bit more instead of blaming the competition who is beating them.
This is a very insighful documentary that all should watch:
http://www.thelotteryfilm.com/
It captures the essence of why charters like Success are in such high demand and the evils they face from the establishment who clearly fears losing their grip on power…
No one is denying that public schools have problems, and that many parents/guardians are dissatisfied with the education their children receive. However, charters do not have to pay for debt service on the district debt, among many other expenses. In general, most charters are not financially discriminated against; on the contrary, they have an unfair advantage over “regular” public schools. Many charters, for example, receive public AND private funding, while public schools rarely get private support.
As for questions without answers, my friends who are charter advocates have never been able to answer this one: Why should some students get special treatment AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE LEFT BEHIND? The usual answer is that it’s better to help some escape “failing schools.” My answer to that is that leaving anyone behind hurts our country, which was supposed to the reason for the original but awful No Child Left Behind (NCLB). If there was ever a road to hell paved with good intentions, it was NCLB.
I don’t know how common it is, but there is a charitable foundation dedicated to supporting students in my local public school district.
It is becoming more common, but in my experience it is extremely rare in poor districts.
The one supporting our local school district was founded 30 years ago.
Is yours an economically poor district?
About 35% of students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch. I dont know if that makes it a poor district or not. The district is the town: district boundaries are in farm fields in every direction. I have no doubt very different from the suburban districts on the coasts.
Yours in not economically poor in my estimate (there is no one definition of “poor” district. But I congratulate your town for wanting to do more to support their students.
When I worked for teacher unions in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, I worked with teachers in districts where virtually all children qualified for such lunches, such as Camden, NJ or Chester PA. There are many cities in NJ where a strong majority of the children qualify for such lunches: Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Elizabeth, and many more. And in eastern PA, where I worked, Philadelphia, Reading, and Allentown fall into this category.
Charters do pay for debt service as a subsidy, this is why they get less funding. If you demanded they pay for debt service, you must also give them more funding to pay it. There is no difference, if you forced rent on them without increasing their funding you only push the gap they are already living thru even wider. Zoned schools pay for debt service via the funding they get from the state, public charters do the same, only the state pays it for them, it’s the same thing.
As for raising funds, it’s not illegal for non charters to raise funds and many do, check out the numbers schools like PS29, where our new Chancellor taught raise via their PTA. It’s in the millions. Same with PS321 in Park Slope and some of the richer Manhattan schools on the Upper West. You can’t blame a school for successfully raising funds due to great results.
As for your question, how do some students get ‘special treatment at the expense of those left behind’? Do you mean the kids in the schools that lose kids to charters? Well I’d have to ask, do you have proof they get left behind? In other words, can you show me a considerable drop off in results for the ‘left behind’ schools? Do those schools scores drop, graduation rates lessen, etc, etc? To be clear, you need to prove your question a bit more before it can be a question. Below you will find a link to a study by the Manhattan Institute which shows the opposite result from what your question proposes…
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_60.htm#notes
Your first two paragraphs confused me, but I get the point that you are pro-charter. Using the Manhattan Institute to “prove” anything is useless, since it is a well-known right-wing think tank funded by corporatizers/privatizers. That’s like using a statement by the Democratic Party to “prove” something about Obamacare.
As for the children left behind, read this article by Tom Moran on nj.com.: Tom Moran is a senior writer for the Newark Star-Ledger who has covered New Jersey for more than three decades. I would recommend this article to anyone who cares about the public/private charter question. http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2013/12/post_15.html.
Confused how? SA pays rent defacto already, but not being given equal funding as the colocated non charters. If the school upstairs gets 20k per kid and the charter gets 13.5k, its clearly a difference. The reason is charters only get operating funds, not facility funds, that is paid by the state directly. In other words, if you want to make a public charter pay rent, you have to give them the money to pay it too, otherwise you are doing something illegal, public schools dont pay rent.
As for the MI report, you are correct it is rightwing, but that does not mean they are lying. Do you think they are manipulating their results? Do you have any counter reports showing what has happened at the ‘left behind’ schools? I looked as far as I could and this was the only report I found covering this question. I generally take rightwing think tank findings with a grain of salt too, but I dont see any faulty reporting in their data.
I am sure that if you do a search which includes Philadelphia and charter schools, you will find articles similar to the one I referenced about Newark. Charters have exploded, and neighborhood schools have suffered terrible financial losses and been closed. Usually it is the poorest of the poor to which this happens — the people with the least political influence. I worked with the teachers in Chester PA, where the man who owns the largest home on the Main Line in Philadelphia opened a charter school which gets tens of millions of dollars in public funding but refuses to open its books to pubic inspection. The charter expels students who do not behave or perform well on tests, sending them back to the crippled public schools, which lose the revenue the state gives to the charter. By a strange coincidence, the owner of the charter school was the single largest contributor to the gubernatorial campaign of Tom Corbett. As governor, Corbett has continued to help his pal destroy what’s left of the Chester public school system. For instance, the charter school often runs full-page ads in the local daily newspaper recruiting students from the public schools, which of course cannot spend money on such ads. This is competition? This is an insult to democracy!
I forgot to address your defense of the Manhattan Institute. My sides are still hurting from laughter at your question as to whether they manipulate their data. YES! I have a well-earned suspicion of both right- and left-wing so called “think tanks,” which are usually — as in the case of the Manhattan Institute — more “tank” than “think.:
I also forgot to respond to your point about debt service. The laws in New York and New Jersey must be different on this point. Thank you for the article you sent back to me. I am unsure of what is the answer to your question about federal law and the number of ELL students.
Thanks for the article, Id suggest you read this as well:
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130913/upper-west-side/no-more-reserved-ell-seats-at-success-academy-leaves-advocates-fuming
It is a federal rule that prevents Success from accepting the correct % of ELL students, not their own preference. SA had to stop setting aside seats in its lottery for ELL due to a federal directive that would have cost them millions in funding. Is it possible the same thing is the reason for the lower levels of ELL students in NJ?
Rob, I can’t speak to the Newark situation nor will I try. I only know NYC and in particular Success Academy where my child goes. I am sure there is corruption and graft in areas of charter networks around the country just as there is in the rest of the public school system. The system is not perfect by any means and in situations where funds are public oversight should be strict. From what you linked it seems NJ may need greater oversight. Here in NY the oversight is pretty strong as the charters are audited annually. The attack by the comptroller to have a special audit of SA was announced from a UTA press conference, its a sham of a political attack and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Paying rent is just a tax on success, to try to force them out of business. Public schools do not pay rent. The NYSC has already ruled on this in favor of the charters. The entire concept of charging some charters rent but not others based on how much money they have is blatant discrimination and the courts will find this unconstitutional in time as well. Basically every criticism you read on this blog is wrong or based on a false premise.
Now, I do agree in principle to this ‘creaming’ criticism. I can see a charter taking the better kids and the zoned schools being left behind in theory. I have not been able to see it happen here in NYC though, which is why I ask for data on the ‘left behind’ schools. All I can find is the MI study finding a reversed creaming effect in place albeit minimal. I generally wouldn’t accept a random newspaper article either, that is not a scientific study but anecdotal reporting on specific situations.
I can understand your reluctance to accept newspaper articles as proof. (BTW, I hold a master’s degree in journalism.) But my experience with charters in NJ and PA is personal; my observations can be backed up with facts. And two professors of education at the graduate school of education at the University of Pennsylvania generally have agreed with my observations and conclusions.
I admit I have no knowledge of New York state law on charter schools.
My general observation of charter schools is similar to what Stanford University found in a study a few years ago — about 17% of them provide excellent results, most produce the same general results as the surrounding public schools, and the remainder produce worse results. Google Stanford University charter school study.
I know the CREDO stanford study well and you have it a little off in terms of results. Here is the press release:
Click to access UNEMBARGOED%20National%20Charter%20Study%20Press%20Release.pdf
Charters were 25% better in English and 29% better in Math. I think this says it all:
“The results reveal that the charter school sector is getting better on average and that charter schools are benefiting low-income, disadvantaged, and special education students,” says Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of CREDO at Stanford University. “As welcome as these changes are, more work remains to be done to ensure that all charter schools provide their students high-quality education.”
I was referncing the 2009 study. But I think the paragraph about the 2013 study that you did not reference says more than it all. Across
the charter schools in the 26 states studied, 25
percent
have significantly stronger learning gains
in
reading
than their traditional school counterparts
,
while 56 percent showed no significant difference and 19
percent of charter schools have significantl
y weaker learning gains.
In mathematics, 29 percent of charter schools
showed student
learning
gains
that were significantly
stronger
than
their
traditional public school
peers
’
, while 40
percent were not significantly different and 31 percent were
significantly
weaker
.
In other words, 75% showed either no significant difference or were worse in math, and 71% showed no difference or were worse in reading. These numbers justify setting up competing schools and/or school systems? Not to me they don’t. And remember, these figures are the from the Stanford press release you sent me.
Its all how you frame it. It also says that in 2013 in English 81% of charter schools were equal to or better then the competing zoned school with only 19% being worse. In Math 69% of charter schools were equal to or beter then competing zoned schools with only 31% worse. Is this grounds to close charters?
To properly review the results we can say that charters are doing a better job teaching English on average based on these statistics (26% vs 19%) while they are doing a slightly worse job job in math (29% vs 31%).
More importantly, it does not show any signifficant creaming effects that many claim exist.
Oh, PLEASE! The whole rationale for charters is that they would provide a BETTER education that the surrounding schools — not “equal to.” If the clear majority — even in the 2013 study — are only providing the same education as the surrounding public schools, WHY SHOULD TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE TWO SCHOOL SYSTEMS THAT PRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS?
the 19% of charters failing in English and 31% failing in math should be shut and most likely will be as their charter requires them to meet certain standards. However why would you close the 31% and 29% that exceed standards? What is wrong with different forms of schools in one system? Im ok with charters, magnets, vouchers, specialized schools, zoned schools and all sorts of variation that can get better results and give parents more choice. The fact is the old system of a centralized board of ed with a teachers union influence in our cities has outright failed the children. Charters in NYC are a result of demand for something better, not some evil push by greedy capitalists to rape profits from the poor as people on this forum feel.
Now, Ive answered all of your questions and then some and Id like to ask you one. Charters in NYC receive 13.5k per child in state funding. Co-located zoned schools receive 20.5k per student in state funding (the most of any system in the country btw). Why is it fair that charters receive 6.5k less then non charters? Shouldnt all forms of public schooling get equal funding?
MS said, and I respond:
MS: However why would you close the 31% and 29% that exceed standards?
MEI wouldn’t.
MS: What is wrong with different forms of schools in one system?
ME: In theory nothing. In practice, the devil is in the details.
MS: I’m ok with charters, magnets, vouchers, specialized schools, zoned schools and all sorts of variation that can get better results and give parents more choice.
ME: Vouchers are unconstitutional, although proponents keep trying to find a federal court which will agree with them on the issue. (BTW, I went to Catholic schools K-12.) I’m cool with public school choice. I would not have been in favor of charters in the first place, but those in place which are successful
should be kept — but with the same oversight as all other public schools.
MS: The fact is the old system of a centralized board of ed with a teachers union influence in our cities has outright failed the children.
ME: Your teachers obviously didn’t tell you the difference between a fact and an opinion; Your opinion here is one with which I partially agree. Centralized public education governance is a widespread failure which has hurt students (and teachers, by the way, a reason that teachers need unions to speak up for them).
MS: Charters in NYC are a result of demand for something better, not some evil push by greedy capitalists to rape profits from the poor as people on this forum feel.
ME: Again, this is an opinion, and I believe that charters are actually both — a demand for something better from parents AND some are a result of well-intentioned but ignorant business people who really know little or nothing about how education really happens.
MS: Now, Ive answered all of your questions and then some and Id like to ask you one. Charters in NYC receive 13.5k per child in state funding. Co-located zoned schools receive 20.5k per student in state funding (the most of any system in the country btw). Why is it fair that charters receive 6.5k less then non charters? Shouldn’t all forms of public schooling get equal funding?
ME: Again, I know nothing about New York. But my answer to your questions about funding is roughly what I said before: Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize competing school systems? BTW, that is not the most of any district in the country. There is a district in NJ that spends $25K per pupil, but I can’t remember which one at the moment.
Robert – You asked, “Why should taxpayers be forced to support competing school systems.”
a. Taxpayers do this in many states at the higher education level. Students are NOT assigned to public universities. Almost every state has more than 1 and in some cases many publicly supported colleges & universities, from which families can choose.
b. When some of us began promoting options within school districts, the same concern was raised….but gradually school boards learned that there is a value to having options in public education. Educators learned that some youngsters did better in a more progressive option, others did better in a more traditional option.
c. Though it is not widely mentioned, even in the widely praised Finland, taxpayers are supporting different kinds of schools. These include schools teaching in Swedish, those teaching in Finnish, and those that do both. Finnish taxpayers also pay for religious schools, though I would not recommend US taxpayers paying for religious k-12 schools.
A brief response: Higher education is not mandatory under the law. K-12 education is mandatory up to a certain age, which apparently varies from state to state. In addition, K-12 is generally delivered within specific, usually small and/or contiguous physical district(s). High ed is spread across an entire state.
I generally agree with your b and c points.
Robert, glad to read we agree on points b & c. The fact that k-12 is mandatory seems like an even better reason to offer families options.
Buffalo also pays more per student than NYC.
The answer to whether a charter school is a “public school” depends on why you are asking the question.
If you are trying to determine the legal status of the charter’s employees, then you apply one set of criteria. If you are trying to determine what students the charter should serve or what subjects the charter should teach, then you apply another set of criteria.
This is not as hair-splitting as it may sound.
The govt (federal, state, or local) sometimes uses govt employees to provide govt services to the public and sometimes contracts with a private contractor to provide govt services to the public. For example, the govt almost always uses govt employees to provide police services while the govt almost always uses a private contractor to provide highway construction services.
When the govt uses govt employees to provide the public service, the govt is the employer. When the govt uses a private contractor to provide the public service, the govt is not the employer and the contractor is the employer.
For many valid reasons, US laws have long treated govt employees and private-employer employees differently. Under these laws, govt employees have different rights and obligations than private-employer employees have. In order to determine which set of rights/obligations applies to an employee who is providing a public service, the courts focus on whether the employer is the govt or a private employer and the courts have developed criteria to apply in making this decision. The most important criteria include 1) whether govt officials (or even the voters themselves) select the employing institution’s top management, and 2) whether a govt body created the employing institution. Under these criteria, charter schools are private employers, not govt employers and a charter school’s employees have the rights/obligations of private employees rather than of govt employees.
However, regardless of whether the govt uses govt employees or a private contractor to provide a particular govt service to the public, the govt is still paying for that service and therefore has the authority to initially determine what that service will be. For example, with regard to highway construction, the govt does not just go to a private contractor and say “build us a road somewhere”; rather, the govt requires the private contractor to build a road with particular characteristics, in a particular location, for a particular cost, and within a particular time frame. The govt, not the contractor, determines these aspects of the public service. Sometimes the govt specifies virtually all of the aspects of the public service that the private contractor will provide; sometimes the govt specifies only broad guidelines and allows the private contractor wide discretion to decide how to provide the public service.
Charter school operators are analogous to the private contractors with whom a govt contracts to build a road. The govt specifies broad guidelines that the charter school operator must follow but allows the charter school operator wide discretion to decide how to operate the school.
In short, charter schools are private schools in the sense that they are private employers; charter schools are public schools in the sense that the govt is using them to provide a public service.
For purposes of the school reform debate, the main disputes are not private-school vs. public-school, but rather whether the govt has imposed too many as opposed to not enough specific requirements regulating how the charter provides the public service + whether it is wise to create competing providers of the same public service with the providers subject to differing requirements.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I think there is certainly room to discuss the correct level of regulation in charter, traditional public, and private schools.
From what I have read, in Europe, private schools are required to provide exactly the same services as public ones, and hence there are fewer private schools there than in this country, where they are not as regulated.
On the other hand, it is my impression that many European countries provide government funding to private and religious schools, as long as these meet government standards. In Germany, Waldorf schools receive state funding, for example.
This has little to do with regulations, of which Charters have quite strict levels thereof. Its about unions and control. Charters are non-union on average and this is scaring the daylights out of the UTA. Why is the UTA filing amicus briefs in a lawsuit btween Success Academy and the State Comptrollers office in favor of the Comptroller? To what business is this of the teachers union?
It is the business of teacher unions for several reasons, as follows:
1) Organized teachers and school employees are citizens and are thus entitled to state their opinions;
2) They are experts in education, since they are the ones who are delivering instruction, staffing public school libraries, doing guidance counseling, etc.;
3) They have an economic interest in that a smaller number of public school teachers will have a direct impact on the health of the state pension fund, into which teachers are REQUIRED to pay a percentage of their salaries (the amount differs by state).
There are many more reasons, but I hope this will suffice.
The lawsuit is to stop a politically motivated audit by the state comptrollers office. It has nothing to do with any of the 3 points you make other then perhaps the first, being a public issue anyone can comment. Charter teachers do not pay into the state pension system nor is this a topic in which educational expertise is required, it’s about the law and the constitutional powers of the comptrollers office, nothing more.
It is ironic though, in the amicus brief, the UTA argues it is their duty to get invoved becuase some of their members work at charters. Oddly enough, they are arguing AGAINST their own teachers in this case by supporting the political witchhunt that the state comptroller is pushing. Pretty funny isnt it, the UTA opposing what is best for its members!
The assertion that charters are private employers is wrong, at least in New Jersey. As I stated previously, in NJ charter schools are public schools and are thus public employers. As such, they are enrolled in the state’s pension funds — an advantage won by the union, and now enjoyed by the (mostly) non-union charter school teachers. And since the writer here is a labor lawyer, I will add that when NJEA (the association/union) tried to organize the charters, the teachers who invited the NJEA to come and speak to the teachers often mysteriously lost their jobs.
Federal labor law preempts state labor law. Under federal labor law (as interpreted by the NLRB), charter schools are private employers subject to the federal labor law and are not state govt employers subject to state labor law. The NLRB’s lead decision re charter schools (involving Chicago charters) specifically addressed the argument that a state law characterized the charters as “public schools”, saying that this was irrelevant to the issue of whether the charter was a private employer vs. a govt employer. No reason to believe the result would be any different if a NJ law was involved — basically, state law cannot change federal law on an issue where the federal law preempts the state law.
Not surprised that employees who tried to organize a union got discharged. This has been happening all over the US for decades. Indeed, the fact that this happened is itself evidence that the employer is private rather than govt; govt employers rarely discharge employees for union organizing.
Thanks for the response. Can you cite the federal statute or case law of which you speak?
Re: your last paragraph. The teachers that NJEA tried to organize were at a Trenton NJ charter school and did not yet have tenure, which state law requires for all public school teachers — including charter school teachers — after three years and a day. They were public employees. However, this was about a dozen years ago, so perhaps your NLRB case law — with which I am unfamiliar — may have happened since then.
The NLRB decision is Chicago Mathematics & Science Academy, 359 NLRB No. 41 (2012). To get the decision in pdf format, go to http://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/board-decisions + change the volume from 360 to 359 + click APPLY + scroll down the list of volume 359 decisions to No. 41 + click on the case name. Or, do a google search for the case name.
Thanks for the citation — I found the case and skimmed the decision part. May I assume the decision is being appealed?
No easy way to know if the NLRB’s decision in the Chicago Mathematics will be reviewed by a court. This was a decision in an election case; Labor Board election case decisions are not “final orders”; only a final order can be appealed to a reviewing court. If the NLRB’s Chicago Mathematics decision eventually results in a Labor Board unfair labor practice decision (for example, finding that a union won a Labor Board election and that the employer then violated the Labor Act by refusing to bargain with the union), then that unfair labor practice decision would be a “final order” and it could be appealed to a US Court of Appeals by either an unhappy private party in the case or by the NLRB itself seeking a court order enforcing the NLRB decision. Since there was no other NLRB decision by this name in the NLRB website’s case index, there apparently hasn’t been an unfair labor practice decision in this case; there might never be. Of course, eventually a union will win an election at a charter school, the charter will refuse to bargain, and that case will result in an appealable “final order”.
The analogy doesnt work because its the road in question, not the people who build it. The road is the school. unless they make that road private, its a public road, just like a charter is a public school. Who pays the teachers is totally irrelevant. Its a public school just as the road is a public road.
MS, Your reply ignores the fact that laws on charter schools are different in every state, meaning that if the state calls the charters public schools, then by definition they are paid by a public entity. Some states allow funding for “private” charter schools, while some don’t.
Robert Broderick,
Charter schools consistently maintaining federal and state courts that they are NOT public schools and are not subject to audits, state labor laws, even criminal prosecution. The courts have agreed in different jurisdictions that charters are not public schools even if state law calls them “public” schools. They are public when it is time to get the money but private when it is time to comply with laws that apply to real public schools.
Diane,
I would add the word “some” to the beginning of your first sentence. I agree with your second sentence, but in my work experience in NJ and PA, no court has called public charters in either state “private.’ I agree entirely with your third sentence — as in the case of the Chester, PA charter which receives millions in state funds but balked at opening its books for public inspection by The Philadelphia Inquirer.
And please call me Rob.
The NYC charter center successfully fought off a state audit on grounds that charters are private corporations. The court agreed. The legislature rewrote the law so the state Comptroller could see where public money was spent.
I bow to your expertise with New York law, with which I have no familiarity.
Diane, there are +6,700 charter schools in the US today, how many have argued they are ‘private schools’ in court? Can you show us the data backing your claim that they all do? My understanding is that about 4 or 5 have made this claim and they were for profit charters, not 501(c) entities. It would be sad to see you use the actions of a tiny handful of individual schools to subjugate the entire charter system nationwide.
MS,
The California Charter Schools Association, representing charters a Ross the state, entered an amicus brief in a criminal trial a few months ago, where charter founders were guilty of misappropriating $200,000 on public funds. The charter schools association argued that the charter school is not a public school and the founders could not be guilty of breaking the law.
CCSA represents charter schools in California, which has more charters than any other state.
Diane, the CCSA Brief you speak of is here:
Click to access 2013-10-10-CCSA_v_LAUSD-CCSA_Supreme_Court_Reply_Brief.pdf
Can you site for me where they claim California state charter schools are not public schools? The specific language in the breif?
I think you are finding a different conclusion to what the brief actually states and you are doing it for political expediency.
“The NYC charter center successfully fought off a state audit on grounds that charters are private corporations. The court agreed. The legislature rewrote the law so the state Comptroller could see where public money was spent.”
This is blatantly incorrect. SA argued that because it is already audited under state law and the auidts reviewed annually by the Dept of Education, a special interest audit was illegal. They never stated they are not subject to state audits. Here is the summary :
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/11/59266.htm
The audit was announced by the comptroller at a UTA press conference no less. Its a special interest attack by the Union against SA, nothing more. It was already defeated in court because the comptroller overstepped his legal authority. THe court did not find that SA is ‘private’ or that being ‘private’ in any way protects them from being audited. This is another example of the blatant mischaracterization of facts by those who oppose the charter.
I don’t have the time to provide the links, but if you Google Chester Community Charter School and Philadelphia Inquirer, you will find several stories about how the charter claimed to be a private entity despite receiving millions of dollars in public funds. You will likely find references to the specific court papers as well.
I believe you 100% Rob, we also have examples of public school embezzlement nationwide that we can site. I can post story after story of public funds being stolen by public officials. There are bad apples in any system, corruption exists and needs to be rooted out. From what I can tell NJ has done a decent job of highlighting this and combatting it.
I can not say I approve of for profit charters. I also dont approve of public unions but fully support them in the private sector.
Yes, there is corruption in regular public schools. That’s not enough of a reason to set up separate yet unequal systems of public education. And I’m shocked — SHOCKED — to hear of your opposition to public sector unions. Yes, public employees should just do what they’re told and be satisfied with whatever salaries the politicians — who know that about 70% of citizens don’t have children in public schools — give them. NOT!
Charters are not seperate nor unequal. I think the problem is how you view things. If charters are uneuqal than you can show nationally this creaming effect that we are searching for, you can not.
Public unions hold taxpayers hostage for thier demands and disrupt cities like we saw with the illegal MTA strike a few years back in NYC. They also bankrupt cities as you are seeing currently with Detroit with dozens of cities less then a year behind. It is the principle of the argument that matters, private unions are fighting for a share of a profit pool they create, that makes sense. Public unions are fighting for tax dollars, not profits, this is a major difference. Teachers dont have to do what they are told either, they can go work elsewhere if they want, there is no fixed market on teacher hiring. In reality, public sector workers have to accept the fact that the age of fixed pensions are over and join the rest of the workforce, the majority of it, who are non unionized and work in a free market with 401k systems that work just fine.
MS said: Teachers dont have to do what they are told either, they can go work elsewhere if they want, there is no fixed market on teacher hiring. In reality, public sector workers have to accept the fact that the age of fixed pensions are over and join the rest of the workforce, the majority of it, who are non unionized and work in a free market with 401k systems that work just fine.
ME: Ah, now we get to the real issue. You hate public sector unions. I get it. But as for your last point about 401(k) plans, Ted Benna is the financial expert who created 401(k) plans. He has publicly stated that they were intended as a SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS PLAN, not a primary pension plan. (I urge you to Google Ted Benna. ). So has Jack Bogle, the founder of Vanguard Mutual Funds, which would reap a BONANZA if all defined benefit plans were terminated. The traditional retirement model that generations of Americans were given was that they should count on pensions, personal savings and Social Security — it was called the three-legged stool.
As for Detroit’s bankruptcy, how is it that the city can afford $400 million for a new hockey arena but can’t pay for promises it made to its employees? Is it the fault of the city employees that American carmakers kept building big cars when customers were demanding and buying Toyotas and VWs so fast those carmakers couldn’t keep up with demand? How is it that states can grant ENORMOUS tax breaks to corporations which threaten to move but can’t pay for the promises it made to people who worked for 30 or 40 years?
Perhaps you haven’t heard or read anything about the pending retirement crisis coming to this country. Terminating all defined benefit plans would make the tidal worse even worse. But I’m guessing that wouldn’t affect you, and so if people lose years of EARNED BENEFITS, that’s just too bad. It all comes down to trust, and we’re losing trust in each other more and more. That’s the core of why our politics is so polarized.
Rob – you are so right. And MS, I paid 3% of my salary into the NYS Retirement System for the majority of my career. I could never live on my 401K which lost as much as I put in (I called it the “sink hole” savings plan). I plan to use it to supplement my pension. I’m not social security age yet, but I’m sure I’ll need that leg of the stool when I get there. I also paid into that system. Between taxes and payments, my actually earnings were a lot lower than they looked on paper. My pension, now that I only pay the IRS, are now a more reasonable approximation of my monthly payout.
Without my pension, I would be in the poorhouse.
Ellen, Thanks for your comment. and thanks for the use of the term “poorhouse” — I haven’t heard that used in a long time. Sad to say, there are those who would say that if you landed in the poorhouse, it would be your fault for not saving enough or spending too much or both, in spite of your playing by the rules set up by our society and paying into a retirement system, a supplemental plan, and Social Security.
As long as NYS doesn’t call for a constitutional convention and change all the rules, I’ll be fine.
and social security was meant to be a side benefit, when it started it was only meant for the poor not everyone, and the average life expectancy at the time was 59yrs old but benefits did not kick in until you were 62. 401ks provide a valueable asset to everyone. It allows the individual choice to make thier own investment decisions and it gives them a tax free way to plan their reitrement. Defined benefit plans are guaranteed payouts without guaranteed results. Its a ponzi scheme. You claim that workers ‘earned them’ which is false, generally speaking union workers have not paid into their pensions and the returns of pensions are guaranteed despite fund managers not having control over the market. It is a failed logic, we simply can not afford defined plans given the demographic makeup of our society. Now, I dont think we should cut them, those who have them now should be entitled to what they have been promised and will be, but the system must be shut for future generations, grandfathered out of the equasion. You speak of public bailouts of corproations well if you followed the auto bailouts you will see that those were nothing more then handouts to the unions. The Obama administration handed large chunks of ownership to the unions while wiping out private bond and equity holders. I was ok with those bailouts as well given the special nature of the auto industry to our economy and look at the results, they are back on their feet making profitable cars. On Detroits arena, its an economic investment meant to revive an area but a high risk one at that. If you believe in Keyensian economics as I do, you support public works projects such as this to goose aggregate demand. However they can be good or bad, the situation in Miami was utter corruption for the marlins stadium, but the funding for the stadiums in Seattle created inner city revitilization and hundreds of millions in tax recipts over the years since. Its all in the mamagement.
Anyhoo, I think we are getting off track here. I thank you for the points and spirit of your views but we should try to stay on topic, we could surely both write books about or views on these other subject matters.
I agree with much of what you say here. However, in NJ and PA, public school employees are required by state law to contribute to their pensions. Agreed that we are off the original topic and thank you for the spirited debate.
Ironically enough Ida May Fuller, the very first recipient of a monthly social security check lived to 100.
It is ironic isn’t it, Mrs Fuller paid a grand total of $24.75 into social sercurity and received over $22,000 in payments. Not a bad return for $25 bux is it? Not exactly the intent of the system though…
Which states allow funding for “private” charters?
I don’t have a list but as Diane has pointed out, the association representing California charter schools thinks all charters there are private; a Chicago charter school just claimed to be private as per “laborlawyer” and a Philadelphia area charter school has made the same claim in court filings. I don’t know where one could find a list of state which do vs. don’t allow for privates.
In the California case, the state association explicitly said that they are public. In the Illinois case, the NLRB ruled that the schools are public – the debate was whether they needed to follow state or federal regulations. The Philly law (like those in Illinois and California, regards charters as public.
As I stated elsewhere (and I’m losing track of to whom I am responding), I have personal knowledge by the claim made by the Chester PA charter school that it is private, in spite of the PA state law, which seems to say charters are public. Similarly, in Chicago, the charter school argued that it fell under private sector labor law, in spite of seemingly clear language in state law that charters were meant to be private. Perhaps I should not have said “some states” say that some charters are private.
Robert – there are a vast array of schools that are part of many state’s public k-12 system and are available to families at no cost These include
* schools that explicitly are allowed & do have admissions tests (generally urban magnet schools, although not all magnet schools have admissions tests).
* statewide schools that are allowed to have admissions tests
* virtual schools run by districts, the state or function as charters
* schools operated by groups of school districts
* schools operated by private groups under contract to local districts
* schools that are chartered under state law, and supervised by various groups. These supervisors or authorizers may be state depts of education, colleges/universities, non-profit organizations
* schools and programs offered by universities that are available to high school (or in some cases middle and high school students), authorized by state laws
We are a long long way the notion a state’s public education program is just what a local district offers.
Agreed. Happy New Year!
Same happy new year to you and others who share insights here.
From my fast reading of the brief the charter schools were claiming that LAUSD was overstepping its authority as determined by the state board of education. Given the regular criticism of LAUSD by posters on this blog, it seems to me that accusing LAUSD of overstepping its authority is nothing at all controversial.
MS — In my road analogy, the public service is building the road; by analogy, in the charter school context, the public service is educating the students. In either case, the critical issue for labor law purposes is whether the employer is the govt or whether the employer is a private entity. This issue, in turn, is controlled under federal labor law by 1) whether the govt created the entity (as opposed to paid $ to the entity); and 2) whether the entity’s top management is selected by a govt official/elected by the voters (as opposed to being selected by the entity’s shareholders, members, or other private persons). As to whether a charter is a public school for purposes other than labor law, that’s pretty much a wide open question as to which I claim no special expertise.
Anthony raises a lot of good questions about charter schools. They certainly are not treated the same as a public school in my state. They are looked at as special and garner a great deal of praise. Yet, they can barely keep their doors open financially. I do agree that the public school system is facing a dire future. We can’t stop advocating for public schools. They educate MOST of our children.
According to NY State Law, charters are public schools.
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/education/EDN02853_2853.html
(c) A charter school shall be deemed an independent and autonomous ‘public school’, except as otherwise provided in this article. The charter entity and the board of regents shall be deemed to be the public agents authorized to supervise and oversee the charter school.
(d) The powers granted to a charter school under this article constitute the performance of essential public purposes and governmental purposes of this state. A charter school shall be exempt to the same extent as ‘other public schools’ from all taxation, fees, assessments or special ad valorem levies on its earnings and its property, including property leased by the charter school.
Thanks for sharing this.