The federal government has been a strong funder of privately managed charter schools since the Presidency of Bill Clinton. The charter movement got a solid boost from his support of what were supposed to be laboratories of innovation, collaborating with public schools.
Until the past decade, the role of the United States Secretary of Education was to improve public education. Since the Presidency of George W. Bush, the federal government has put its massive political and financial weight on the side of privatization. The Bush revisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act–renamed “No Child Left Behind”–created a series of steps that were ruinous to the nation’s public schools. Given the unrealistic mandate that every students in every school must be proficient in reading and math by 2014—a goal met by no state and by no other nation–the public schools were set up for failure. The sanctions for failing to meet this impossible goal were all punitive, no help: firing the staff, closing the school, turning the school into a charter school, state takeover of the school. Not one of the sanctions had any evidence to support its efficacy. Yet both parties went along with a bill whose goal was to undermine, weaken, close, and stigmatize the nation’s public schools. Of course, matters got even worse when Barack Obama was elected and chose Arne Duncan as his Secretary of Education. Duncan hired his key staff from groups (e.g., the Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation) that actively promoted privatization and high-stakes testing (that led to privatization). Duncan never lost a chance to bemoan the “mediocrity” and “low expectations” of public schools, or to praise the success of privately managed charters.
In this toxic climate, Congress and the U.S. Department of Education have created numerous financial rewards for those who with to open or expand charter school, thus encouraging the advance of privatization. Make no mistake. This is a historic turn of events in our nation’s education system, away from a public responsibility to a market-based approach to opening and closing schools, with test scores as the only gauge of quality, with indifference to desegregation, and with lessened accountability for charter schools whose owners are politically connected.
Our frequent commentator Laura Chapman has gathered a summary of federal programs that encourage privatization; these grants are enhanced by hundreds of millions of dollars from private foundations, including the Walton (Walmart) Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Dell Foundation, the Arnold Foundation, the Helmsley Foundation, the Fisher Family (the Gap) Foundation, and many more.
Chapman writes:
Corruption in charters is aided and abetted by U.S. Department of Education, directly and indirectly by your taxes and mine.
Investments available in 2014 from USDE, and note that much of this money was authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act.
The USDE 2014 Funding for Charter School Programs (ESEA, Title V, Part B, Subpart 1) Total = $248.1 Million.
1. State Education Agency (SEA) Grants and Non-SEA Grants: (ESEA,Title V, Part B, Subpart 1) $153.9 Million. These Grants are awarded on a competitive basis to SEAs, who in turn, make subgrants to charter schools. But, when SEAs do not apply for or they are denied funding, individual charter schools can apply directly to the USDE. Funding is used to help cover charter school start-up costs.
2. Replication & Expansion Grant. $60.1 Million. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis to non-profit charter management organizations (CMOs) that have demonstrated success, including improved academic achievement.
3. National Leadership Activities Grant (ESEA,Title V, Part B, Subpart 1) $11 Million. Competitive grants fund projects of national significance to improve charter school quality, as well as money to disseminate information about the projects.
4. State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant (ESEA,Title V, Part B, Subpart 1) $11 Million. Competitive grants to states to help cover charter school facilities costs.
5. Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program (ESEA, Title V, Part B, Subpart 2) $11.9 Million. Competitive grants to public and non-profit entities that enhance the ability of public charter schools to raise private capital to acquire, construct, renovate, or lease academic facilities.
In October,2014 USDE announced grants to 27 charter organizations in 12 states worth $39.7 million.
For Replication and Expansion. Here is one sure to insult New Yorkers: the fabulous Success Academy Charter Schools, for $2,234,500. The biggest overall winner is KIPP for $13,789,074 worth of expansion, and the biggest winner by state is California $26,780,502 followed by Tennessee, $3,112,402
For Planning, Program Design, and Implementation Grants, the biggest winner at $308,270 is the Chesapeake Lighthouse Foundation, operator of Gulen charters with issues with scandal documented at .http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/07/chesapeake-science-point-charter-school.html
The big winner by state for start-ups is Washington, with four new charters funded at $1,122,606, about $250.000 per school. Next is Oregon, with three new schools, $692,427 total, Illinois with three, including expansion of the Nobel network already in 12 states and saturating greater Chicago. Total for Illinois-based operations $575,705.
information sources: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-397-million-grants-expand-high-quality-charter-sc///are the following and http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FundingFlowChartFY14.pdf/////////
Diane Ravitch's blog 
We have in place the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS system in place…and who gets the brass ring on the Merry-Go-Round? Answer: the HAVES.
LikeLike
You might want to total up the billions that went to various programs serving students from low income families, students with special needs, American Indian students, migrant students, early childhood, child care, aid for students from low income families going to colleges & universities, etc. etc.
Click to access gtep2012.pdf
LikeLike
In Obama’s press conference the other day, I watch as the president quoted some metrics, then insisted his education policies have been a great success. How can someone so learned and intelligent truly believe in those conclusions? Certainly Democrats have lost their way and no longer support teachers and students. The Republicans have sunk into far right extremism. The Democrats are caught in the undertow and now list center right. Who represents teachers, students, and parents? A good question for 2016.
LikeLike
I think it’s a good question, too. What does Clinton say in Ohio? “I support slightly better- regulated privatized schools than the Republican does?”
Wow! Thanks for your enthusiastic support! I’d crawl over broken glass to vote for that!
Obama was interviewed on FOX and the single reason he gave for not supporting vouchers was “they don’t work”. He sees NO value in public schools other than test scores? If private and religious schools “worked” we could just scrap the public education system altogether? That’s not just Right wing, it’s far Right. He’s well past Friedman and on his way to Ayn Rand 🙂
LikeLike
Agree MathVale…..and the I find it an oxymoron to delineate states awarded the most funding by (#5.ESEA) this failed government program (RttT) as “winners,” with California listed as the “biggest winner.” This State, with the largest and most diverse population in the Nation, and the most pubic school students living in poverty, has NOT WON ANYTHING. The millions sent are a pittance compared to the budget of LAUSD, 7 Billion dollars, paid for by the public through taxes.
KIPP is pushing for 6 more charters in LA. Gulen has about 7 Magnolia Charters in LA and about 13 in the state. All of these glean students from the poor areas of the city and county. Gulen’s Magnolia Charters are being investigated by the FBI nationwide for financial shenanigans, but there is no news available to the public on the investigation, and judges keep allowing them to operate by ruling for them.
The Atlantic has an excellent article on the Gulen Movement and Fettulah Gulen’s plethora of charters in the US. The comments at the end of the article by Turkish citizens who paint a dark picture of this dangerous movement are Important to digest. This billionaire rapes the American taxpayer while fomenting Sharia rule throughout the Middle East. Why has every President since Bill Clinton allowed this? Why is it so difficult to get info on this Turkish Imam?
How “learned and intelligent” can Obama and his appointments be if they let all this come to pass? Or is that they are bought by Wall Street? Follow the Money? What a portent for us if the next election pits two money hungry Wall Street leeches against each other, with Billary and Bush?
Also, please extend your question of who represents teachers, students, and parents, to include the deep pockets of the American taxpayer. It would seem that elections do not matter since we see every President, certainly since Reagan, both Dem and Repub, not acting in the best interest of their electors.
LikeLike
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/08/120-american-charter-schools-and-one-secretive-turkish-cleric/375923/?single_page=true
This is the link to the Atlantic article on Gulen.
And thanks Diane, and Laura, for all this information.
LikeLike
Winner was an intended oxymoron.
LikeLike
“learned and intelligent?”
Glib and clever is a better description for this political chameleon.
LikeLike
You beat me to the punch on that one, Michael.
The Obomber es poco sincero y de mucha labia.
LikeLike
This is a great article about following the money directly to the Feds. No other nation has abandoned its public schools the way we have. No other country has turned away from its responsibility to prepare its future citizens for the demands of citizenship. Our federal government is enabling segregation, and they are promoting a system that is
wholly punitive to public education by leaving many public schools with inadequate funds to serve the neediest students. With government funds, the federal government is allowing some charter school students to receive a curriculum of indoctrination offering various levels of revisionist history, creationism as well as other religious perspectives. Most of these students receive a narrowed curriculum focused on test prep.math and reading. They do not get to experience the benefits of a comprehensive education including the arts as well as science. All of this disruption is harmful to students while we allow a few individuals to profit from American children. I have always looked at a democratic education with three guiding principles: equity, access and excellence. The privatization movement fails on all three.
LikeLike
“No other nation has abandoned its public schools the way we have.”
Correct in a sense in that we haven’t reached the total depravity of privatization that Chile has since the CIA helped overthrow Allende in the original 9/11-1973 that is and had the Chicago boys institute Friedmanesque economics for the schooling secotor Ask the Chilean students how that has gone.
LikeLike
If we don’t wake up, it could happen here. Our protests could turn into riots.
LikeLike
History repeating… the alleged involvement between the CIA and Gulen?
On domestic soil, more covert?
With corporate ownership of judges and politicians, more insidious?
LikeLike
I myself believe ed reformers are vulnerable on the issue they run on, which is not setting up a new school system but improving public schools. Not charter schools, they excel at opening charter schools, but PUBLIC schools. Remember them? The unfashionable “traditionalist” schools that most children attend?
None of them run on privatizing public schools. That’s because they know most kids attend public schools, and they wouldn’t get elected in a state like Ohio if they ran on privatizing public schools. Instead, they run on “improving public education”.
Because they run on that, no one should let them move the goalposts to “opening charter schools”. They should be held accountable on the original promise.
They’ve done a lousy job as advocates for funding public schools, so that “data” is in. They get an “F” on funding. Is there some other measure they can point to as an “improvement” for PUBLIC schools after two consecutive two-term Presidents who followed this same agenda?
LikeLike
Chiara, as I have written many times, the current movement to defund and privatize public schools is not “reform.” Reform suggests improvement, not demolition. The self-styled “reformers” have pulled off their biggest coup in capturing the language of reform when they long ago gave up on public education.
LikeLike
No, many people involved in improving public schools believe in the value of empowering educators, whether district or charter. They believe that schools can make a positive difference. They believe we should work simultaneously on problems outside and inside schools.
They believe in a positive, hopeful message.
LikeLike
Having decimated public schools, they are now focusing on our universities and colleges. TRAGIC. Political hacks usurping the role of professional educators, child psychologists, scholarly research.
The efficacy of democratic principles is supplanted by autocratic no nothing political hacks.
Our colleges and universities staffed primarily by professors educated in our public school system have been the envy of the world. Have been seems to be the operative words. After the politicians mess them up also, what will they look like?
LikeLike
This week, a local school superintendent described the roll-out of a regional private/public partnership for preschool education. The wording echoed the style of Chamber of Commerce promotion. Already in place, is the neoliberal defense-objections portrayed as the rants of fringe, right-wingers, Obama haters. It’s a repeat of the Common Core strategy.
The distraction takes the focus off of the Wall Street backers, with questionable risks on the social impact bonds that fund the preschool initiative. It distracts from the “7%, 10%, 20% or 80% returns”, for the financiers.
Rick Cohen, who has written several articles at Nonprofit Quarterly on the subject, recently wrote, “Cast a Skeptical Eye on Goldman Sachs’ Preschool SIB Program in Chicago.”
LikeLike
Social Impact Bonds (SIBS), also called Pay-for-Success bonds (PFS), are being marketed by The Obama administration, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harvard Kennedy School Social Impact Bond Technical Assistance Lab, among others.
These financial deals are not really bonds. They are complex contracts designed to pour money into the already deep pockets of investors like Goldman Sachs and others with surplus money …along with a need to look as if they are “doing good” while cashing in.
Deals are made so private investors foot the bill for scaling up a low-risk social service program. The contract states the expected return on this investment–in the neighborhood of 5% interest plus a payment for the money the government has “saved” by letting the investors in the door to choose efficient, effective, scalable programs with low risk. The loan pays for scaling up. Government is off the hook for program support.
Promoters advertise this kind of outsourcing as a more efficient and effective financing scheme than typical government grants and contracts. Why? Because the investors will: a) demand results, b) impose market discipline on which programs deserve to be backed (evidence based), and c) closely monitor the outcomes of the programs (achievements, results), not just the outputs (activities, methods).
These contracts seem to invite the same kind of gaming of the system that created the housing bubble and tanked the economy. In the case of education, investors seem to think that scaling up is easy if there is ample money to hire and train staff, keep the program on track with data, and so on. Costs increase because many intermediaries are needed to forge and manage these contacts (e.g., lawyers, evaluators, consultants, accountants).
SIBS and PFS are not superior to more conventional grants and loans, especially since most of these now come with demands for evidence-based interventions and elaborate reports on outcomes, not just outputs.
There is a lot of silver bullet thinking in this “innovative, disruptive” approach to financing social services. The promoters want federal and state legislation that will offer the “full faith and credit” of the government as a bailout if the SIB or PFS loan and project do not produce the scheduled and measurable outcomes.
The White House is pushing “pay-for-success” bonds…outsourcing with comments that look like boilerplate from other marketers. The 2012 Budget allows for up to $100 million to fund Pay-for-Success initiatives including workforce development, education, juvenile justice and care of children with disabilities. More at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet/paying-for-success
Goldman Sachs in involved in financing the Utah High Quality Preschool Program— a curriculum and services for 3 and 4 year olds intended to increase their readiness for school and academic performance prior to kindergarten. The predicated outcome is that fewer children will use special education and remedial services in kindergarten through 12th grade because they have entered kindergarten well-prepared, meaning that the pre-school has addressed mild learning disabilities and behavioral problems.
The evaluation and rationale for the Utah program appears to be coming from special education researchers at the University of Utah.
In any case, studies conducted by United Way and others in Utah indicate that 95% of students enrolled in this program will NOT need more costly special education or remedial programs when they are in the third grade.
The expected cost savings for special education services, about $2,600 per student per year, are said to be a benefit for school districts, the State of Utah, and other government entities. Goldman Sachs lends the money to United Way to hire more teachers and scale up the program. The Pritzker Foundation puts money in the pot to guarantee that Goldman Sachs doesn’t lose money if the program fails.
Goldman Sachs and the investors in this Utah deal expect to earn $2,600 per student per year for every student who does NOT need special education services by grade 3, with a different schedule of payouts through grade 6. Source: http://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-do/investing-and-lending/urban-investments/case-studies/impact-bond-slc-multimedia/fact-sheet-pdf.pdf
For an account of a similar program in Chicago go to http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/mayor-rahm-preschool-expansion-investment-bank-profits/Content?oid=15790297 This commentary is from an alderman who shows the underbelly of the preschool SIB, how the needs of the investors trumped good public and educational policy, and will pour money into the pockets of Goldman Sachs, with some backup against possible loss from the Pritzker Foundation. Find the actual contract as a pdf download from https://chicago.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1939527&GUID=3BEE6740-99AE-4E59-A6A5-B7A447D99617&Options=Advanced&Search=
The Chicago contract relies on evidence from James J. Heckman, a Nobel Laureate in Economics at the University of Chicago. His work (supported by Pritzker and other foundations) examines returns on investment for preschool education.
A summary of Heckman’s work (advertised as the Heckman Equation) can be found in Schools, Skills, and Synapses—a paper that discusses:
(a) the role of cognitive and noncognitive ability (especially Duckworth and persistence or grit) in shaping adult outcomes,
(b) the early emergence of differentials in abilities between children of advantaged families and children of disadvantaged families (not much new, just well documented),
(c) the role of families in creating these abilities (abilities are better if families serve as good teachers),
(d) adverse trends in American families, and
(e) the effectiveness of early interventions in offsetting these trends. For the latter, this economist returns to the Perry Preschool Program (1960s) and the Abecedarian Program (1970s) for evidence of the lasting effects of those programs. The paper is at http://www.heckmanequation.org/sites/default/files/Schools_Skills_Synapsis.pdf
If you have read Diane Ravitch two books on what is needed to improve American education, you will not find much that is new in Heckman’s paper.
LikeLike
Thanks for the thorough explanation, Laura. Organizations within the cities of Dayton and Cincinnati, are exploring the contracts/bonds. In other Ohio cities, there may be efforts to convince the public to welcome financial firms, like Goldman Sachs to education, as well.
Learn to Earn, a trademarked entity, which has a website, has a person from the University of Dayton and some local public school superintendents administering, promoting and/or participating in “Preschool Promise.” The Dayton Daily News gave space for the program’s description, without identifying its funders or seeking critical opinion. (It’s disappointing that the paper’s coverage of the OEA’s, Knowyourcharter.com, didn’t get the same favored treatment.)
Learn to Earn looks like the usual, foundation-funded, business collaboration that David Kirp described, earlier, in media reports.
“We want to help the poor”, is the messaging. One funder, the Dayton Foundation looks to me, like one of the new philanthropic contrivances that affix the city’s name, for branding. When I read the FAQ page, at the Dayton Foundation site, what I see is an attempt to lessen taxes for contributors and, to provide anonymity.
Another Learn to Earn funder listed, is the Fordham Institute, which receives funding from the Walton Foundation.
IMO, the same plutocrats, who have impoverished our communities, in part by reducing their fair share of taxes, develop and promote profit-making stuff, and expect us to buy it as a solution to the problems that they create.
LikeLike
RE: Fulen Charters: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30552148
LikeLike
Turkey issues Fethullah Gulen arrest warrant – see above
LikeLike
“The School Not Taken” (with apologies to Robert Frost)
Two schools diverged in a neighborhood,
And sorry I could not fund them both
And be one Secretary, long I stood
And put down public as far as I could
Until it bent from the blunder-growth;
Then took the charter, as much more fair,
And having no doubt the better claim,
Because it was classy and vaunted “career”;
(Though as for that, the passing there
Had ranked them really about the same)
And both that morning unequally lay
(For first, “No Child” had trodden black.)
Oh, I swept the first for a charter way!
And knowing how pay leads on to pay,
I doubted if we should ever come back.
I shall be taking much of the blame
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two schools diverged in a hood, and shame—
I chose the one with charter name,
And that has made all the difference.
LikeLike
Concerned citizens are being given the opportunity to comment on the regs governing ED’s State Education Agency block grants. The comment period was announced in the Federal Register the week before Thanksgiving and the period ends on first Monday back after holidays Jan 5, 2014.
See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-11-19/html/2014-27264.htm
Intro
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria–Charter Schools Program Grants to State Educational Agencies
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
———————————————————————–
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State educational agencies (SEAs). The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this
action in order to support the development of high-quality charter schools throughout the Nation by strengthening several components of this program, including grantee accountability; accountability and oversight for authorized public chartering agencies; and support to educationally disadvantaged students.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 5, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “Are you new to the site?”
LikeLike
How about the money for early childhood education, or child care, or libraries, or students with special needs, or federal student aid for college students, migrant education, or grants for gifted/talented education or rural public schools, or adult education, to reduce abuse of chemicals, or Promise Neighborhoods or….
Click to access gtep2012.pdf
Might Ms. Chapman total that up?
LikeLike
You have missed the point of this post Or prefer to ignore it. I gather that you are a fan of the charter industry and other efforts to privatize education.
LikeLike
Laura, aren’t the two key points of your post that
a. the federal government is providing startup and other funds to help people start charter public schools and
b.You don’t think spending $ in this way is a good idea?
I’m a fan of expanding opportunity, especially for people who can’t afford to send their children to expensive private schools or to exclusive suburban “public” school systems where the price of admission the the schools is the ability to purchase a very expensive home.
That’s why over 40 years I have helped obtain support for Head Start and other strong early childhood programs, helped start innovative district public schools, written hundreds of newspaper columns describing outstanding public schools and people who work in them, and yes, helped create and work for the charter approach. It’s about the empowerment of low income families and educators who have dreams of different approaches that will help some youngsters do considerably better than the traditional approaches.
Please say more about your work. Are you an educator, parent, other? Are you working with a district or legislators to carry out what you think makes sense? (Not a criticism, I’m interested).
Thanks and happy holidays to you and others who post here.
LikeLike
Laura – is this you? http://www.arteducators.org/learning/learning-in-a-visual-age/summit-participants/laura-chapman
LikeLike
This is for Linda who is tracking SIBS and PFS marketing in Ohio. “Local foundations” are players in the effort to drum up a market for investments, but they are viewed primarily as managers and monitors of programs earing fees for services any only as a pass-through for money from donor advised funds if they wish to join the bandwagon.
LikeLike
Laura, agree. Foundations and wealthy individuals can avoid the villainthropy title, if they shun the well-known impoverishers of our communities (Waltons and Arnolds) and, the destroyers of our democracy (Kochs).
If education noblesse oblige didn’t come with profits for Wall Street, it wouldn’t be viewed with warranted disdain.
The trademark, “Learn to Earn”, puts money front and center. If the goal for children is to make money, the foundations should fund, “Learn to Inherit Money”.
Children flourish in a community of people who care about them. Their education is too important to limit it, to working to make a wage. For the past 30 years, American work has overwhelmingly benefitted holders of capital.
LikeLike