During his mayoral campaign in 2013, candidate Bill de Blasio said that he would charge rent to charter schools using public school space, in relation to their ability to pay.
Bear in mind that charters in New York City enroll 6% of children, while the public schools enroll about 1.1 million children.
The charter schools cried foul, and the rightwing Manhattan Institute issued a study with dire warnings about the burdens that de Blasio would inflict on the charter sector.
Bruce Baker of Rutgers University dissected those claims and found them unwarranted.
He writes:
“The report’s central conclusion that charging charter schools rent will reduce the number of high-quality schools in the city is particularly misguided and hardly supported by the crude, poorly connected and poorly documented analyses presented. As noted above, there exists no clear explanation of how deficits were calculated, including whether available assets of individual schools were considered or whether parent organizations’ ending balances or assets were considered. Clearly these are of relevance for determining the fiscal impact of paying rent.
“Second, the assertion that existing charter schools are of “quality generally above that of district public schools” (p. 4) cannot be supported by comparisons of average proficiency rates without regard for students served or existing resource advantages.
“Third, the report cherry-picks “high-performing” charters to draw broad conclusions regarding the negative impact of charging rent on the future distribution of “good schools.” Considering that the city remains responsible for approximately 1 million school children spread across approximately 1,700 schools, the assertion that charging rent to these two cherry-picked charters, or all 84 co-located charters in the author’s sample, will lead to “fewer good schools overall” (p. 4) is an enormously unwarranted stretch.
“Finally, the report fails to acknowledge that the fiscal constraints facing both the city district schools and by extension the charter schools that rely on the city budget, are in large part caused by persistent underfunding of the state school finance formula (shown in Table 4). The state continues to underfund New York City schools by $2.6 to $2.8 billion,”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
While it is true that some charters can afford to pay rent, this is all part of the bigger problem of the uneven sorting of children and resources that has occurred with charter expansion in NYC. It’s all part of a bigger systemwide equity issue which I write about in a forthcoming article in Ed Finance and Policy. I will post the conclusions of that article on my blog.
My think tank review piece specifically challenges the flimsy claims by Manhattan Institute that the only way to provide good schools in NY is to provide unfairly disproportionate subsidies to charter operators. The MI brief falsely and disturbingly assumes that deprivation of the public system to the benefit of the charter system can only yield good results. Where I believe De Blasio has it correct is in his assertion that it is more important to consider the fiscal health of the broader system – that which serves the majority of the kids… and does so under a governance umbrella that affords those children the full array of statutory and constitutional rights of children in truly public schools.
True. True. True.
But I am waiting for the private charter advocates to say,”Stop! If the tests used by CCSS as directed by RttT are invalid measurements of a school’s success, then how can scores be used to compare charters with traditional schools?”. There are those who are skillful at twisting every word of their opponents to strike advantage.
Deb: if I may, let me add a little bit more to your pointed observation.
The trouble—as defined on Planet Reality, not on RheeWorld—with most of the pro-charter/privatization advocates who post here and on other websites is that they forget today what they posted yesterday and what they will post tomorrow.
So when any number/stat favors their argument they swallow it whole, betraying an stunning lack of reasonable skepticism and good sense. But when it comes to any number/stat that they suspect favors public education (and implicitly, disfavors charters and privatization), they suddenly become very troubled by—you guessed it!—the “lack of skepticism and good sense.”
Double standard. A strikingly common feature among the charterites/privatizers and their enforcers and enablers. To be clear: I don’t accept anybody’s figures automatically, whether they favor my own POV or not. To be more specific: it is no secret that I am extremely critical of public education and bring the same reasonable skepticism and good sense to public schools as I do to the charters and vouchers et al.
I love the inconvenient fact. And one of the biggest inconvenient facts in the current ed debates is that the leading charterites/privatizers and their zealous followers are—far too often—flaming hypocrites.
Which is not surprising when, IMHO, the real debate & struggle turns out to be a “better education for all” vs. mad dog pursuit of $tudent $ucce$$ for the few and misery for the many.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
Thank you for your comments.
😎
My objections are not with private schools. Private money used at private schools is not at issue. Public tax money and free rent for privately owned charter schools that pay high 6 figure incomes to the owners and corporate supporters for their profit all the while supporting testing for OTHER public not private schools and pitching out public teachers based on their student scores, is not the correct expenditure of tax dollars. Some public schools have problems and sone teachers are bad…just as in every other profession, job, career. Using “rules” not based in fact, evaluations based on terrible testing implementation, throwing out education theory in favor of bogus Six Sigma automatons, is basically treating all workers regardless of ability, education, expertise as expendable in favor of fake computer data driven dehumanizing patriarchal too down “best” practices is simply crippling and wrong.
I agree: “My objections are not with private schools.”
I don’t begrudge Michelle Rhee’s girls the right to the wonderful education they are receiving at Harpeth Hall.
I just think that all students deserve the same sorts of enriched opportunities.
If the self-styled “education reformers” truly believed that “poverty is not destiny” and that “poor parents should have the same choices as rich parents” then—
Every parent should have the option of a well-resourced public school.
Again, thank you for your comments.
😎
Public. Yes.
I must admit this fascinates me. In real-estate centric NYC this idea of paying rent shifts the reformer’s focus to destroying public schools and teacher unions. Here in Florida, one of the primary benefits of opening a charter school is the legal sanction of grifters to buy subpar properties and rent them to charter schools for outrageous rents. Many a millionaire has been created in Florida through rent-seeking from public funds that are given to charter schools; the destruction of public schools and teacher unions becomes a distant second objective.
Real estate – which is an under examined vector of the so-called school reform gold rush – is a highly localized industry, and charter operators get their skim by adjusting to local realities and opportunities.
In high-rent cities like New York, it’s about inserting politically-connected charters into already-existing public school facilities, with the intention of eventually getting captive politicians to sell them to the edu-preneurs for one dollar.
In low rent areas, it’s more about cobbling together scams where the charters pay outrageous rents to companies with ties to the school administration. Thus the proliferation of charter schools in strip malls and the like.
In other cases, as is happening in Newark right now, politically juiced developers and edu-preneurs (along with TFA, the herpes simplex of so-called education reform) are able to get economic development grants and tax credits for new charter construction.
Whatever the specific method, it all amounts to privatization, union busting and profiteering.
Michael, I like your description of the parasitic relationship of co-location charters. I hadn’t thought much about how they enter the host school for free and then slowly leech away the resources and space until they kill their host school entirely. What an apt description! Thanks!
So why is he supporting co location of charters? And his chancellor is looking to capitalize with her new (co-written) book. The dream may be over, so Hillary can get elected.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/02/8541066/democrats-criticize-de-blasio-approving-co-locations
HILLARY and Goldman-Sachs:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/11/02/hillary_clinton039s_big_paydays_from_goldman_sachs_319105.html
I knew there was a problem when Bill Clinton was holding the Bible for Bill D’s oath. Later we found that the FDR bible was missing. Clinton once called his former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin of Citibank, who destroyed the economy by weakening the investment laws, as the greatest Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton.
I am sure that AH would have challenged him to a duel.
I think that all funds should be strategically placed into public schools to ensure that the education there is reliable and quality. Charter schools is a way of diverting the attention from the quality of public schools while directing the attention to the Charter school that has it’s way of picking and choosing its students. If the public schools offered a great education, with advanced electives, and innovative concepts; this particular discussion would not be an issue.
This actually leads to a KIPP school, and the last rites for sensible vocational education:
Ms. Whitfield.
The package arrived in yesterday’s mail.
Just to be sure that I understand what happened:
4.10.97 Project Preserve
some sketchy notes about a program in Helena to fix up Horner House, apparently owned by Delta Cultural Center
Education Grant…way to go
Stewart Dohrman enlisted as consultant
Education Grant Application:
OK, this is where it gets interesting.
7.01.99 “We are going to need to “help” PCC with a grant application…” (Jeff Holder to Cathy Slater)
(this started out at $400,000 and got bumped up to $1,100,000, of which the first $700,000 was awarded May 15,2000 in what AHPP staff referred to as a “dog and pony”.)
There are (curiously) two nearly identical pages:
AHPP Preservation Education Grant Application
Phillips Community College, University of Arkansas
Page – 1- Item 3. (AHPP) A) 1)
In one instance, AHPP is tasked with paying rent on a temporary classroom/shop for the first year, rent on a permanent facility for the second year.
In the other instance, there is no mention of AHPP renting or purchasing any building.
AHPP also agrees to provide $400,000 per year for the first two years, which will cover at least $75,000 per year in salaries.
So far, AHPP has sunk $1,076,044 into Project Preserve. (I would like to know what that money bought)
Now (1999) they are embarking on an education partnership with PCCC/UA, which is going to cost DAH another $1,100,000.
There’s an unsigned page with those numbers, and the cryptic notation: $2,176,044…gave to cathy 7.15.99
All this to create a program which (if it were performing optimally) would produce less than $30,000 per year.
I’m basing this on Simon’s assessment that optimum student enrollment would be 12-15 full-time students.
15 @$864/semester =$25,920. That wouldn’t pay the carpentry instructor’s salary.
Meanwhile, even though the original proposal called for a starting date of August 2002, the program was rushed into starting in August 2000, over the objections of Simon and Alan. And, when the building which had been offered for rent (Cherry Street) became unavailable, DAH appropriated $300,000 to purchase an old hardware store/seed warehouse for $50,000, and then dumped approximately $236,000 into a partial rehabilitation. That’s an initial purchase price of >$2.50/sq. ft. (this screams “money pit”, or severely depressed economy), and @$35.00/sq. ft. for the repairs. The building is a long-term investment, but the work wasn’t completed. Where was the budget for that, and why was it necessary to buy PCCC/UA a building anyway? There were other viable options on the table.
So, the extra $300,000 should have covered the building expense, leaving the original $400,000/year for the school unencumbered.
In all of this, Simon Herbert shows himself to be competent, articulate, and quite capable of defending himself and his program from the criticism of PCCC/UA administration. Which criticism was almost immediate, particularly from Dr. “call me Steve” Jones; who, for his part, promised much and delivered little. In fact he appears to have treated the program rather shabbily from the beginning, complaining of “low enrollment”.
(“-General impression is that AIBPT is the unwanted stepchild of PCCC/UA…[ironically] PCCC/UA sought to establish the program.”
–Simon Herbert)
So, to wrap up my impressions:
By April 2002, four months before the program was originally intended to start, it was thrown under the bus by PCCC/UA, because the AHPP money wasn’t renewed and PCCC/UA had failed to secure external funding. They also used the excuse of “low enrollment”, but this program was never designed to be supported by tuition.
I don’t know what DAH expected to accomplish at Helena, but I do have a copy of Historic Preservation, July-September 1977, that describes (p. 3) how the “Restoration Workshop in Tarrytown, NY, provides a limited on-the-job training program for persons wishing to acquire the skills of a restoration artisan. Since 1974 the workshop has carried out a series of carefully planned capital development and major maintenance projects at Trust properties.”
Two final observations:
(1) Evan, who is helping me, and learning some carpentry skills, would be a good candidate for this type of education. Ben, who worked with me two years ago, is working as a carpenter in Little Rock. They are both mid-twenties, disillusioned with formal education, tech-savvy, mechanically competent, and willing to work. To me, they represent an entire generation, and this “school” that should have lasted 20+ years, and should be available to them, has been permanently sabotaged by a bunch of short-sighted bureaucrats and self-serving academics.
(2) The address at 415 Ohio, Helena is now home to KIPP Delta. I have to wonder if that was the original intent.
You were there, Melissa. There’s an e-mail (Jan. 5, 01) from you about marketing, which indicates the DAH paid @$7500, and PCCC/UA spent an additional $5600 on bulk mailings. That’s @3% of $400k, in any event, marketing was neither adequate, timely, nor effective. Simon and Alan’s salaries were @18%. Where was the business plan?
If you can rouse yourself to look at the advertising pages of Fine Woodworking or Wooden Boat magazines (not the press releases, not the classifieds) there are numerous schools offering classes in woodworking. They aren’t in Arkansas, and they aren’t inexpensive. The need still exists, the market exists, there is an entire generation out there willing to learn. M
But, Diane, charging rent to charter operations will cut into sacred profits or administrative salaries–a fudiciary duty to such operators…
They also claim to the Comptroller that they are free from audit with the publics money, which he is not buying.