New York City parents charge that Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academies are underenrolled and should be placed on probation instead of awarded 14 new charters.
Here is the parents’ press release:
PRESS RELEASE
EMBARGOED UNTIL 12:30 PM, WEDS OCT 8, 2014
CONTACTS:
Brooke Dunn Parker
646 543 4492 brookedunnparker@gmail.com
Noah E. Gotbaum
917 658 3213 ngotbaum@cec3.org
Empty Seats, Phony “Waitlists,” and a Shocking Lack of Oversight: Newly Uncovered Charter Enrollment Data Sparks Parent Leaders to Demand Moratorium on ALL Charter Approvals Until SUNY & Charters Are Audited; Insist on Immediate Probation for Out-of-Compliance Success Academies
Data Shows Failure to Meet Mandated Enrollment Targets at More Than Two Thirds of Success Academy Charter Schools—and No Consequences from the SUNY Charter Institute and Trustees Charged with Charter School Oversight
Local public school parents have unearthed evidence that more than two-thirds of Success Academy charter schools were under-enrolled in 2013-14, rendering the charter chain’s oft touted claims of “high demand” and “waitlists” demonstrably false. Four of the schools were so profoundly under-enrolled that SUNY, which in its role as overseer of the state’s charter schools is charged with closing schools that fall below 80% of their targeted enrollment, would have been legally obliged to take action. Yet none of the under-enrolled Success Academies were even placed on probation—a clear dereliction of duty on SUNY’s part.
This revelation is particularly egregious as it coincides with today’s expected rubberstamp vote by the SUNY Trustees to approve 17 more charter schools, 14 of which are new Success Academies.
In the face of this evidence of massive under-enrollment and of SUNY’s lack of accountability, elected parent leaders from the city’s Community Education Councils are gathering on the steps of Tweed Courthouse together with fellow public school parent activists*, City Council Education Chair Daniel Dromm, and additional City Council members to publicly address the SUNY Charter Institute and Trustees with an important question:
Why are you authorizing the opening of more charter schools, and in particular Success Academies, when the evidence shows that Success cannot even fill seats in its existing schools?
The parents assembled are calling for:
· a full and independent investigation of SUNY to ascertain that the charter authorizer is adhering to the law
· an independent audit by the NYC Comptroller of the enrollment, attrition, suspension and expulsion rates, particularly for high-needs students, at all charter schools to determine how widespread missed (legally mandated) targets are
· a moratorium on all new charter approvals, renewals, and expansions until the above investigation and audits are completed
· immediate probation for the four Success Academies under-enrolled by more than 20% (as is mandated by their charter agreements and by State law).
Kari Steeves, who self identifies as “Class Parent for Rm. 308,” described what drove parents to undertake the research, write a letter to the trustees and comptroller, and spend days organizing to get the word out: “We are real parents, on our own time and impetus, speaking for what NYC public school parents really want. We don’t want seats at a charter school, and these numbers show neither do the vast majority of parents. Charters are being foisted upon us without community input or request, and their low enrollment, especially as compared with the overcrowding of our schools, shows that we want the resources devoted to making room for all kids at public schools.”
Public school parent Brooke Parker, whose research through the School Construction Authority’s “Blue Book” brought the enrollment data to light, remarked, “This is just the tip of the iceberg. SUNY has knowingly withheld enrollment data for charter schools from the taxpaying public—even though taxpayer dollars bankroll charters. If we had open access to enrollment information, I am convinced that we would find that even more charter schools have been allowed to open, remain open, and even expand despite their inability to meet enrollment targets. That’s outrageous. And illegal.”
Naila Rosario, president of Brooklyn’s Community Education Council 15, added, “I was already concerned that marketing might be what was creating so-called charter ‘demand.’ After all, our bus stops and subway stations are plastered with ads for charters; our mailboxes overflow with their glossy brochures. Now it seems that even with all that marketing, Success couldn’t fill its seats. By contrast, the waitlist for my child’s school, like those of many other district public schools, is ridiculously long and REAL.”
The discovery that SUNY has concealed important enrollment data and authorized out-of-compliance charter management organizations to open still more schools is the latest in a string of abuses of the public trust. Just last week, a Daily News reporter revealed that the charter authorizers had allowed a Michigan-based charter operator to overcharge the city by $250K for rent for a single Brooklyn school. And there has long been evidence that charters do not serve the students they are required to by law, particularly English language learners and special needs students.
Miriam Farer, who serves on Upper Manhattan’s Community Education Council 6, declared, “I applaud the parents who dug up this information, but let’s get real. It is not the job of parents and reporters to keep SUNY honest. I join with other public school parents and community leaders to demand that Comptroller Scott Stringer investigate the SUNY charter school authorizers, whom we believe to have violated the public trust by failing to safeguard precious education tax dollars. We also demand a moratorium on new charter school approvals, renewals, and expansions until SUNY has proven that it is not breaking the law and all schools are equitably funded.”
Some highlights from the research (sources on attached Fact Sheet):
• Of the 18 Success Academy charter schools open in the 2013-14 school year, more than two thirds (13) were under-enrolled.
• On average, schools in the SA network were under-enrolled by 7.6%
• In 2013-14 school year, 4 of SA’s 18 schools were severely under-enrolled—by 22%-33%:
Success Academy Charter School – Ft. Greene: -29%
Success Academy Charter School – Crown Heights: -22%
Success Academy Charter School – Hell’s Kitchen: -27%
Success Academy Charter School – Union Square: -33%
*including representatives from WAGPOPS!, Make The Road, and NYCpublic
###
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Is there a link to the “attached fact sheet”? The four schools that are alleged to be severely under enrolled are in either their second or third year of operation. It is NYC DOE / NYC charter custom to open brand-new elementary schools with just K-1 and build from there.
It appears as a condition of receiving this latest batch of charters, Success is changing its admissions policies for older children. The devil is in the details, of course.
If they’re such a Success then they should be at or over capacity. Not under.
And those devilish details should see the light of day.
I suspect these are just the target utilization rates reported in the Blue Book.
Probably. I think the easiest way to keep everything on the straight and narrow, space- and backfilling-wise, is to follow what my favorite charter network, Icahn, does. They plan for their schools to have a uniform number of kids in every grade in all of their schools (36, I believe). It takes all the mystery out of everything.
Tim, the other possibility is to simply keep far more of the original students who win your lottery! Yes, backfilling is important, but not if you are using “high academic standards” as a way to encourage at-risk students who don’t meet those standards to leave. An even better way is to teach them, even if it means a kid struggling academically may never be an average student. Does that mean you give up on him? Fail him year after year until his family finally pulls him out? Many charter schools don’t do that, but those charter schools aren’t achieving the miraculous results that Success Academy does. Icahn Charter schools look terrible when compared to Success Academy. Is that because their teachers are much worse, or is it just that they use a mediocre curriculum? Unfair, right? That’s what public schools have been hearing from Eva Moskowitz for years.
If the Comptroller doesn’t investigate, then Mayor Bill DiBlasio needs to appoint a Schools IG. A dozen or more years ago this would have been front page news on NYC’s papers and a lead TV and/or radio story. No more. Today we rely on parents to dig this up. Officials and others are asleep at the wheel. I wonder what other things they have missed.
The authorizer issue is really hard to unravel, or has been in OH and MI. Authorizers in those two state receive a piece of each charter student’s funding (a percentage). It’s led to crazy incentives in Michigan, where the more charter schools public universities open the more money they receive in fees.
cross posted at
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/NYC-Parents-Charge-Success-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch_Education_Enrollment_Evidence-141008-500.html#comment515118
with this comment
Yes, this is NYC but if you are following my series “15,880/50” you will discover that the same boldface lies that point to failure of our public schools, are promoting the magic elixir of charter schools in a district near you.
They count on th public not seeing what is ongoing in almost 16,ooo districts. It is so easy to bamboozle our people because they do not even have to DIVIDE TO CONQUER.
They count on people busy watching Isis and Ebola and football, and not seeing how they are ending democracy by ending public education and they are LIKE MOSKOVITZ calling it reform…HOLY ORWELL. READ THE TRUTH ABOUT REFORM BY Mercedes Schneider WHO has put together the pieces and figured out what lies behind “reform.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mercedes-schneider/remarkable-idiocy-economi_b_5910888.html?utm_hp_ref=education&ir=Education
Or read Jack Hassard, a retired professor of science education at Georgia State University, here
http://www.artofteachingscience.org/web-of-influence-peddling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+artofteachingscience%2FABWH+%28The+Art+of+Teaching+Science+Blog%29
nails the corporate and political assault on public education. He calls it “the web of influence peddling.”
Other stories that I post, show how curricula is being re-written so our future citizens will not know the literature, the stories or the history that made us who we are.
I’m confused….People are mad because the school has a favorable student to teacher ratio?!?
If you read the release, the parents are upset over funding being shifted from their own schools, now overcrowded, to the Moscowitz schools, under enrolled. With Moscowitz now wanting more funding, it is fair to audit the Success academies. The problem with the Reformers is the gaming of numbers when reality rears its head.
Eva, is that you?
Anyone who follows Success Academy and Eva Moskowitz knows that Moskowitz/Success doesn’t believe in a low student/teacher ratio. What this shows is that SUNY is allowing schools to one and remain open even when they do not meet their legal enrollment targets per their charter. This data is from 2013-14, not the current year. SUNY opened 10 more Success Academies were under-enrolled and are now opening 14 more without the public having any idea if the schools that opened this year are under-enrolled. SUNY is responsible for overseeing hundreds of millions of tax dollars. This is big news and shows that opening new schools has nothing to do with demand (as reflected by enrollment) or smart city planning. Tax payers have a right to know and weigh in!
wagpops, thanks for doing this research. Is there a link to the numbers you gathered?
Never mind – just saw it below. Thank you.
“….shocking lack of oversight” Why would anyone be shocked? Oversight is not visited upon the politically correct. They are the exception to every rule.
Free the Fact Sheet!
The SUNY Charter Schools Institute review process and timeline is seriously flawed and ridiculously short, about four months from application submission to final approval by the SUNY Board of Trustees. That is hardly enough time for those who are opposed to research the proposal, gather information, and send comments to SUNY CSI. Furthermore, only one public hearing is required, and it’s the public school’s responsibility to hold it, not that of the charter school applicant.
FYI to those outside NYS, the New York State Education Department can also authorize charter schools. Local school boards also can authorize them, but I am not aware of any many that have done so, at least in my neck of the woods.
Only NYSED and SUNY can authorize charter schools in New York. For many years the NYC DOE was also able to authorize schools, but that is no longer the case, although the charters it granted are still operational.
Not according to current NYS law as I read it. The SUNY Trustees, the Board of Regents (under NYSED), and local districts can authorize charters. See under NYS laws, Education, Title 2, Article 56, section 2851, paragraphs 1-3. Nothing there specifically forbids the NYC DOE from authorizing. Was that a local decision to stop then?
I am not a lawyer and I don’t know if this is the answer, but do you see those references to “a city of one million persons or more” in the paragraphs you cited, as well as paragraph 9 in section 2852? I believe that NYC was the only district given the power to authorize charters. (It stands to reason that if other districts had such power, one of them–Rochester? Yonkers? Mount Vernon?–would have exercised it by now.
Don’t quote me on this one, either, but I think the DOE simply hit the cap on however many charters they were authorized to open.
If these numbers are true, it is shocking and also speaks to what I have been saying over and over again. Success Academy is now interested in educating the students of educated and mostly affluent parents, with a few well-behaved and smart “at-risk” kids in the mix. I doubt it is a coincidence that every single one of those schools is in a neighborhood where the current cost to buy a family size apartment (2 bedrooms) is well out of reach of many families, even in Crown Heights, where it isn’t easy to find a 2 bedroom for under $500,000. The fact that Success Academy wants to locate even more of their schools in those neighborhoods, instead of in the truly disadvantaged districts where most students would be low-income, speaks volumes. While Success Academy is happy to give lip service to low-income students, they apparently don’t want too many of them in their newest schools. And why SUNY condones such practices is beyond me.
There are already some Success schools in District 2 and District 13. Do their enrollment stats support the theory that Success seeks to enroll mainly affluent students in these districts?
So SA started in low income areas, but they’re fanning out for a reason: it’s not just family income that contributes to higher test scores; it’s also parent educational level that strongly promotes academic success, so it should be requested that data on the educational levels of students’ parents is provided in the audit, as well as family income.
Most states don’t publicize parent educational levels, but California does, so you can see how high performing charters like KIPP are enrolling students of parents with much higher educational levels than neighborhood schools.
For example, see the educational levels of parents at KIPP Empower Academy on Raymond Ave in LA: http://school-ratings.com/school_details/19647330121699.html compared to those at Raymond Ave Elementary, where KIPP is co-located in a separate building on the same campus: http://school-ratings.com/school_details/19647336018840.html
HUGE difference!
The Success Academy school in Union Square (District 2) is 25% free lunch. It also does not have nearly the wait list of the Success Academy schools in much poorer districts where some of those “thousands” could be accommodated if more Success Academy schools were located there. Although I am certain there are plenty of low-income students from those poor districts on that very wait list but of course, they don’t have a chance at the District 2 Success Academy school period. That is because when Eva Moskowitz started opening up schools in affluent school districts, she purposely went to SUNY and asked permission from them to change her lottery preferences so that low-income students zoned for failing public schools did NOT have priority anymore! So naturally, why shouldn’t Eva Moskowitz open another school in District 2 where she can continue NOT to give priority to those low-income students that she expresses faux concern for. All she has to do to help them is to give them lottery priority as many other charter schools do. Or locate her schools in the districts where most of the students on her wait list reside!! She most pointedly does not. In fact, she expressly dropped any lottery priority for low-income students zoned for failing public schools in early 2012, after Bloomberg gave her space in affluent districts where her base would be far more wealthy students.
I do not believe in Charter Schools / I think children learn more than just reading, writing and arithmetic by being with children of different cultures and those who come from less affluent homes / that is what our society is comprised of and children can learn from each other that not all of our society is like theirs / I also think teachers should be very carefully chosen before they are permitted into a classroom of impressionable students. I come from a family of teachers and I have produced several families of teachers. I think teachers are grossly underpaid and under valued – and should be very, very carefully chosen since they spend many hours with the children and should always be aware of the impact they make on their students
Tobie Castelbaum
Apparently the under enrollment at Success Academy schools is true. From the NY Post today: “Success Academy spokesman Whit Clay did not dispute that there were empty seats in some of its schools, blaming an enrollment “glitch” that he said typically gets sorted out the following year.” I can’t imagine what kind of “glitch” would leave “thousands” of students on a wait list while 1/5 of the seats go unfilled. My suspicion is that a real investigation would show that this is all about not allowing low-income families from out of district into those schools, when there was plenty of space to accommodate them. And I’m certain that the following year, Success Academy recruits enough new affluent families from inside the district to fill those spots that should have rightly gone to out of district families the previous year. But since those out of district families are more than likely the same families on the wait lists at the older Success Academy schools that are primarily low-income, I am not surprised that an enrollment “glitch” would prevent them from taking those spots since it is obvious from their actions that they do not want too many low-income students when they locate their schools in wealthy districts. (That is why they chose to drop any preference for low-income students.) The SUNY Charter Institute should be investigated for granting so many new Success Academy schools today in wealthy and middle class neighborhoods when their mission is supposed to be serving at-risk students. Today’s information that seats in these wealthy neighborhood Success Academy schools are going unfilled and yet SUNY granted another charter school in that wealthy neighborhood instead of forcing Success Academy to open them where their wait lists were longest is truly appalling.
The info referenced in Diane’s post is very interesting, but I’d be a lot more comfortable drawing your conclusions if there were some way for me to kick the tires on this. Certainly there’s a difference between (1) not disputing that there are “empty seats in some of” SA’s schools and (2) SA’s schools being “so profoundly under-enrolled that SUNY” has been violating the law by not placing them on probation. Maybe the latter’s true, but I need more than a forwarded press release and a vague comment by a SA flack to reach that conclusion as unreservedly as you seem to have done.
Separately, you seem to be pretty close to these issues. Were you involved in the preparation and/or release of this information in any way? If so, do you know if this press release has been issued anywhere else than on this blog, and whether the referenced “fact sheet” will be released with any kind of commentary?
As a matter of fact I am not close to these issues and have no idea whether this press release is accurate. However, what is most interesting is that the Success Academy spokesman did not deny that seats were unfilled! And the reports say they are in schools in Union Square and Hell’s Kitchen. Is that true? I have no idea, and most likely we won’t find out since auditing a Success Academy is apparently not allowed anymore. But it certainly seems more than likely, given Success Academy’s modus operandi and obvious dislike of allowing too many low-income students into their schools locating in affluent school districts.
I only know what I read in the press and what I see with my own eyes. I saw Eva Moskowitz go to the SUNY Charter Board in early 2012, right after Mayor Bloomberg began giving her valuable real estate in affluent school districts, and insist that she needed to change her lottery preference. She would no longer give any priority to at-risk students zoned for failing public schools. Because she got exactly what she asked for, it is not surprising that her schools in District 2 and District 15 and the Upper West Side of Manhattan have a minority of students who qualify for free lunch. And yet, amazingly, she wants to put MORE schools in those very same districts! Despite the need being far greater elsewhere. And despite SUNY’s mandate supposedly being for charter schools that serve at-risk students.
So FLERP, let me ask YOU something? Why are ANY of the seats at Success Academy schools going unfilled? Does it matter whether the final number is 10% or 20% and if they get a pass from SUNY for their obviously reluctance to do the job they claim they want to do? Again, why wouldn’t they want to fill each and every seat? Since, as Success Academy claims over and over again, there is no lack of demand, the obvious answer is that there is no interest in filling seats if the students who fill them aren’t the ones that Success Academy wants. And that is very, very sad.
The only other possibility is that there IS a lack of demand, and that Success Academy is misleading the public about this. But the notion that a “glitch” would leave 10% or 20% of seats unfilled for an entire year is something only the most gullible of reporters would leave unquestioned.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable that a small number of seats might be empty due to logistical problems or screw ups. But there’s certainly a point at which logistics and glitches wouldn’t be a reasonable explanation. I’ve looked at appears to be the mysterious “fact sheet,” and I have some questions about the data. But I’m neither well-positioned nor particularly inclined to take on the burden of making Success’s rebuttal. Success is the logical choice for that job.
“I’ve looked at what [appears] to be the mysterious ‘fact sheet,'” that is.
FLERP, I would like to look at the fact sheet myself. Do you have a link? And I agree that it might be remotely possible that a “glitch” would leave one or two unfilled seats. But that’s it. This isn’t brain surgery. If a child leaves, a seat is open and you have a huge wait list of supposedly desperate parents to choose from. There is no way that 10 or 20% of a class being MIA is due to any glitch. But I have never seen Success Academy being asked to answer for any of its actions. For one thing, Eva Moskowitz has yet to go on record as to why she appeared at a rally for the “students in failing public schools” and yet refuses to give any of them priority in her schools. Especially when she claims she is locating more schools in District 2 and District 15 because there are at-risk students there who don’t have good schools! So I will be surprised if we ever get answers. I have no idea if that pleases you or not, but for those of us who believe in honest debates, it is certainly a sad time.
Here’s the data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-USzb3NUxAu_Y8xvahbjiXzXtcLdxJ6B0RpUMk3D_tw/edit#gid=1036079298
We gathered it by comparing the enrollment targets set in their charters with the actual enrollment data. SUNY is charged with closing or putting on probation any charter that enrolls below 20% of their enrollment targets. They didn’t.
Thanks. Can you post the charters?
wagpops, thanks for the link. This is great research.
Your group seems able to get some media attention, so I wonder if someone can put together similar numbers culled from this website: http://www.nycschoolsblog.com/stateresults/index.aspx
(The DOE website also has these numbers.)
It is fascinating to look at the earliest Success Academy schools in Harlem and the Bronx that have a high % of low-income students and see the tremendous shrinkage in how many students take the 3rd grade test one year, and the 4th grade test the next year at the same school. Sometimes as many as 14% of the students in a grade disappear in a single year, and by the time they test 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, some of those classes are very small. (And of course, we don’t even have the numbers of how many students were lost between K and 3rd grade.) Success Academy keeps comparing itself to the failing public schools when it justifies its extremely high attrition rate, as if parents pulling their kids from a supposedly successful school would happen nearly as often as pulling them from a failing school. The attrition rate at other good charter schools, and good public schools, is not nearly that high, and most good schools, including other charter schools, gain students instead of losing so many in one year.
I have always been suspicious that Eva Moskowitz’ desperate desire to open most of her schools in wealthy neighborhoods and attract affluent students is a way to hide these high attrition rates in her early schools, because she can use “averages” to disguise how many students left the first schools. If you don’t serve many high-need students, you will have lower attrition rates, and that is obviously their intention when they insist they need yet another school in District 2 when their first school has a very low % of low-income students and apparently, is not even full! No wonder most of her new schools aren’t located in the very poor neighborhoods that most need better schools. If your vaunted curriculum and teachers can only cope with the best and brightest of the kids in failing schools, you need to find a way to keep the rest of them out. And thanks to SUNY allowing them to open schools where very few of those low-income student live, I’m sure Success Academy will continue to brag about their “results”.
Success Academy sued to prevent an audit, but they can’t stop people from looking at the ever shrinking numbers of students who take the state exams in their schools from year to year. Where do all those students go?
NYC public school parent: I much appreciate your contributions today, especially re Success Academy and its change of mind about giving “priority to at-risk students zoned for failing public schools.”
Keep writing. I’ll keep reading.
😎
Thanks KrazyTA. It shocks me that the press doesn’t report on that — just as I was shocked when Eva Moskowitz opened schools in wealthy neighborhoods after claiming there were some poor students who resided there, and then promptly turned around and got permission from SUNY to drop priority for those same low-income students she claimed she wanted to help! Why the press doesn’t address this hypocrisy with her is beyond my understanding. Truly lousy reporting by the NY Times, especially. It reminds me of Judith Miller’s reporting during the run up to the Iraq War, when she was the stenographer for the Bush administration’s claims and anyone who called them out on their misleading statements was simply dismissed as an anti-war peacenik. I await a true investigative piece about Success Academy and how they fill their seats in wealthy neighborhoods (and empty their older grade seats in the schools that serve primarily low-income students.)
By the way, Eva Moskowitz’ new watchword is “diversity” because she is obviously concerned about being questioned about her policy of dropping priority for the students who need it most. So she makes the claim that it is more important to have “diverse” schools (meaning keeping the number of free lunch students small) than it is to serve the low-income students who most need her schools. It is perhaps the most absurd statement she has ever said, although it goes unquestioned by the press. Somehow I suspect the “thousands” of low-income parents on her wait lists, most of whom do NOT live in the wealthy neighborhoods where Success Academy is locating most of their new schools, would be happy to attend Success Academy even if it wasn’t “diverse”. But it’s obvious Success Academy does not care. So when I see them spending tens of thousands of dollars to close down their schools and bus students, teachers, and parents to a rally that is supposed to support those very parents whom they refuse to give lottery priority to, I am amazed her hypocrisy goes unmentioned.
What of those 143,000 students in failing schools? Why not swoop in and pluck them from the mire, and ensconce them in the storied and gloried seats of golden opportunity which Eva so altruistically provides with my tax money? You know, this morning I saw the latest heartstring-pulling commercial: showing cute kids talking about what they want to be when they grow up, and how what is “possible” is being thwarted by failing schools. The first kid wants to be a princess when she grows up. Hmmm: a publicly supported figurehead who goes around spouting populist/little people causes, strutting in front of the camera and lobbying lawmakers to help the less fortunate, but whose financial security is wrapped up in public funds. Sounds like the kid wants to be a charter school operator . . .
Obama Administration just announced tens of millions to build brand new charter schools.
Looks like Success Academies gets 2.2 million out of about 40 million.
“The U.S. Department of Education announced 27 new grants today totaling $39.7 million under the Charter Schools Program (CSP) to expand high quality charter schools, and open new charter schools across the nation. These grants will support charter schools’ efforts to increase high-need students’ success, especially in underserved areas, in 12 states.”
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-397-million-grants-expand-high-quality-charter-sc
If charter schools can apply for federal funding dedicated to public schools, can public schools apply for federal funding dedicated to charter schools?
If not, why not? I was told the Obama Administration were “agnostics”. Why the preferential funding? Obviously there are many, many needy public schools, and there are many more since Arne Duncan took over! 32 states have lost public school funding under national and state ed reform leadership and advocacy.
Why can’t Philadelphia public schools apply for a share of the new federal charter building fund?
charter schools ARE public schools, even if some choose not to accept that reality.
Schools that take public money but go to court to fight public audits are NOT public schools. Charter schools are exempted from most state laws. They can discriminate against children with disabilities and children who don’t speak English. Charter schools can close for the day to hold political protests. When they are subject to state laws, they can be called public schools. They are schools run by private contractors. They are NOT public schools. If getting public money makes you a public school, then Harvard, Yale and Princeton are public universities, and Boeing is a public company.
The Obama Administration is NOT agnostic about charter schools. That’s why charter caps were supposed to be lifted to make way for charter school expansion according to RttT:
” ‘States that do not have public charter laws or put artificial caps on the growth of charter schools will jeopardize their applications under the Race to the Top Fund,’ Secretary Duncan said.”
http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/06/06082009a.html
It’s vouchers they’re agnostic about, and they do nothing to prevent them, nor do they say anything about tax dollars going to religious schools and the lack of separation between church and state. We got a president who specialized in Constitutional Law and who has pulled every trick in the book to circumvent the Constitution.
Since the funding for new charter schools is to support charter schools’ efforts to “increase high-need students’ success”, does that mean that any school built with those funds would have to give priority to high need students? Or does Success Academy get a waiver from the Obama administration not to prioritize them, just like we just saw the SUNY Charter Institute rewarding a charter chain that outright refuses to give any priority to low-income students, and, not coincidentally, insists on opening even more charter schools in neighborhoods where most of them don’t live and thus can’t attend! Is it more talk professing concern for the “143,000 students in failing public schools” while pointedly refusing every opportunity to make sure they can benefit from your charter school? Meanwhile, I suppose all those failing schools where those low-income students attend school will see their budgets continue to be cut.