As you may or may not recall, I posted Jeannie Kaplan’s assertion that reform in Denver is failing, has failed, and is unwilling to change its course.
In response to her post, Mike Petrilli wrote an email to challenge Jeannie’s claims. I included Jeannie in my response, and the ensuing conversation was interesting enough, I thought, to share with all of you. Of course, I asked for and received the permission of both Mike and Jeannie.
Jeannie here reports what she learned at a meeting of the League of Women Voters, which reinforced her views.
“Reformers” are hypocrites because they have developed an educational system most would never subject their own children to;
“Charter schools (and there is little difference between for profit charters and charters run by private charter management organizations which include most of Denver’s charters) are not public schools and “reformers” who keep saying that are naive or misinformed or worse.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Real “reformers” want to figure out how to educate ALL students, not privatize education so they can rid themselves of the toughest to educate kids with no oversight.
I haven’t seen any real reformers around for years. If they exist, they are far too cowed by the powerful privatization interests, or far to enamored of the big donations the right wing billionaires make, to speak out against the fake reformers who have no interest in educating ALL the students who are found in failing public schools.
LikeLike
The charter industry depends on the misleading language that charter schools are public schools.
They are free of public oversight, suck money from public schools, rant about being under funded, and are free to kick out any kid who does not comply, comply, comply with the rules. They can extract contracts from parents and other obligations.
They are now profit-centers for investors and the executives that run them. They have arranged for “executives” who are often ignorant about education to receive six-figure compensation packages while hiring teaching temps and other low wage or no wage content “providers” (e.g., online programs) to kids.
Many are test-prep schools with selective admissions and inflated egos and names, with “academy” a favorite adjective even if the “scholars” are in the equivalent of dog training programs that require students to look at the teacher-owner’s eyes always, sit and stay seated until commanded to …whatever.
Investors in the charter industry hopes to earn profits and deplete public support for public schools, especially in “economically depressed” communities where property is cheap.
LikeLike
Charters, both kinds, are or were at least “uncharted territory”.
Obviously – to us at least – they are for the very most part disasters.
Dr. Ravitch’s first book, The Rise and Fall …” should have alerted our politicians to the dangers inherent in following the course of action which it did.
Unfortunately, really disastrously, the results which were predictable followed a false philosophy which was based on a falsehood: “our schools were not as good as those of other countries first promoted by the “Nation at Risk” pronouncement in which ALL schools were failures, ALL teachers incompetent ad nauseum. Since then everything has gone downhill as we are all aware.
LikeLike
I think you’re referring to “The Death and Life . . . .” And I think you meant to say “Dr. Ravitch’s second-most recent book.”
LikeLike
Death and Life of … is correct . My memory is not now always impeccable. And I did mean her first book. That was the first salvo and was GREAT – as was of course her second book and all subsequent writings.
LikeLike
Her first book was the Great School Wars, I believe. A comprehensive history of NYC’s school system. “Death and Life” is perhaps her 10th or 20th, depending on how you count them.
LikeLike
Gordon – Diane had many books before Death and Life. That was just her first as an anti-reformster.
LikeLike
In California, legislation (AB 787) sent to Governor Brown for his signature would have made for-profit charter schools illegal and would have made it clear that charter school teachers and other employees are public employees, thereby making it easier for them to join a union. On October 11, Brown declined to sign the bill into law. Here’s his message to the State Assembly “explaining” why he refused to sign the bill:
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 787 without my signature.
Under this bill, beginning January 1, 2017, a charter school could not “operate as” or be “operated by” a for-profit corporation.
I don’t believe the case has been made to eliminate for-profit charter schools in California. Moreover, the somewhat ambiguous terms used in this bill could be interpreted to restrict the ability of non-profit charter schools to continue using for-profit vendors.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign AB 787.
Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Clearly, Brown doesn’t read Diane’s blog, or he would have had all the documentation required to show that for-profit charter schools are a disaster for children and for taxpayers.
LikeLike
The distinction between for-profit and so-called non-profit is really only that of tax liability. 501c3 charter schools are just as corrupt, if not more so, than their profitable counterparts. I would posit that charter schools in general, not just the for-profit ones, are, as you say, “a disaster…” See my comment infra (below) for how the U.S. Census Bureau frames the for-profit v. non-profit charter issue. In a word, they are both considered “private” from a legal standpoint.
LikeLike
Absolutely! They are both diverting astronomical amounts of public funds to private hands. And let’s not forget that every time a charter is sued, it claims its private stature because public entities would be required to actually serve the public and be transparent to the public.
LikeLike
The most fundamental distinction has to do with ownership rights. A for-profit corporation has equity owners. A non-profit doesn’t. This matters because equity owners are permitted to distribute a corporation’s income (and its assets, if they want to dissolve the corporation) to themselves (i.e. the shareholders). Equity owners can sell the thing they own to whomever they want at whatever price they like, subject of course to the rights of other shareholders.
Because a non-profit can’t be owned, it can’t be sold. And if a not-for-profit has income (or a “surplus,” as it’s generally called), it has to be pumped back into operations, and the operations must relate to the corporation’s mission. It’s true that operational spending can move money to third parties as payments for services, but I think that is meaningfully different from simply transferring money directly to owners.
LikeLike
The distinctions you mention are real, but they fade in importance and relevance when the symbiotic relationships and complexes between for-profits and non-profits – as in non-profit charters having cozy relationships with for-profit EMO’s or Board-related landlords – play out in the real world. The very term “venture philanthropy” recognizes the frequently hybridized relationship between the two, where they are two sides of the same coin.
LikeLike
Precisely.
LikeLike
In CA, can for-profits manage the schools?
Read the link about a situation where the person running the non profit schools is also the owner of the for-profit management company running the schools and is also the primary vendor.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article10095977.html
LikeLike
Someone here posted that they asked a US House member at an ed event about charter schools and he responded that he “loved charter schools”. All of them. categorically, apparently. I bet when he runs for office he tells people he’s an “agnostic”.
Can you imagine anyone in DC saying they “loved public schools”? They would have to resign immediately. Such a statement is unheard of, in the current anti-public school climate.
LikeLike
Federal and state courts, the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board, and a number of other institutions that depend on precise legal definitions have all unequivocally ruled that generally charter schools are *NOT* public schools. Only the marketing departments of charter trade industry groups (e.g. NAPCS, CCSA, etc.) continually engage in intentional misrepresentation of fact by inferring that charters are somehow public (a misrepresentation repeated by neoliberal corporate education reformers and the corporate media).
The assertion above that there is negligible difference between charters operated by for-profit entities or 501c3 “non-profits” is best stated by the United States Census Bureau: “A few “public charter schools” are run by public universities and municipalities. However, most charter schools are run by private nonprofit organizations and are therefore classified as private.” [US Census Bureau. (2011). Public Education Finances: 2009 (GO9-ASPEF). Washington, DC: US Government Printing O ce. Print. vi]. By definition whether a charter is run by a for-profit firm, or a (501c3) non-profit, then it is *NOT* public.
In law the exact definitions of words matter. When courts hold that charters are “not public agents,” “not public actors,” “not common schools, etc.,” this isn’t a matter of semantics. The rights of students, families, communities, workers, and taxpayers are all at issue here since public money is being handed over to the private sector with negligible oversight, accountability, and governance by the actual stakeholders. The fact that those marketing the charter industry still insist on using the word “public” when they know that legally they are not is testament to the amount of money and power behind the charter school project.
– RDS, Juris Doctor Candidate, 2018
LikeLiked by 1 person
So why is California–or any state–not following in Washington’s footsteps and pushing this issue in court. States are diverting huge sums to private pockets and pretending charters are public.
LikeLike
Thank you Robert for clarifying this…”public” and “private” are not interchangeable when it suits the reformers purposes.
LikeLike
Thanks. An important contribution. Hope you continue to work on this.
LikeLike
Thanks, Robert Skeels,for your precise explanation of why charter schools are not public schools. As you point out, charter schools always defend against legal action by claiming they are private corporations. Like Boeing? Like a construction company building a public facility?
LikeLike
Combine this posting and its thread with another on this blog of the same day and date—
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/16/daniel-katz-eva-moskowitz-is-out-of-control/
The question is settled. Charter schools are not public schools.
Except, of course, for the “thought leaders” of self-styled “education reform.”
For the mavens of 3DM [data-driven decision making], facts, logic, consistency and honesty don’t add up. Not just the important thing, but the only thing is: push the product.
Reality be damned. Because all that counts is $tudent $ucce$$.
Go figure…
😎
LikeLike
Correction: the posting on this blog that I provide a link for is from 10-16-2015, not 10-15-2015.
I apologize for the error.
😎
LikeLike
I think that all states being targeted by charters should check the state constitution or charter as well as supporting laws to see how the state defines “common schools,” as well as what the characteristics of those schools are. If you find that charters do not meet the criteria, contact the League of Women Voters or the Education Law Center. Sometimes offense has to be part of defense.
I don’t understand how any charter can be considered a public school. They are not managed by state employees, do not function democratically, and they are not subject to the same rules, regulations, and accountability as public schools. It seems to me calling charters public schools is a huge “bait and switch” scheme designed to assuage the concerns of parents and the community.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
The lack of transparency and accountability in my state is appalling. The newspaper will report a charter school closing or opening, and there won’t be a single individual named. It’s the name of an “authorizer”, an entity, if anyone is contacted at all.
That is followed by opinion commentary from a charter lobbying group- “Sam Smith from Fordham said…” or “Joe John from StudentsFirst said…”
It’s a complete and utter mystery who runs the school, who is responsible for it, anything. Often they don’t quote anyone in government at all. The principals at the schools are never heard from. There’s a person who is supposedly responsible for charter schools in the state department of education. I have seen her name once in a story about a charter school, and she said she has no authority over the school that was mentioned. She still works at the state ed department. I have no idea what she does there.
LikeLike
Misleading misdirection is a quality of many charter chains. The states are ill prepared to handle much of the slippery conduct of charters. Lots of states seem to write a check and hope for the best. We must do better to hold charters accountable.
LikeLike
I can’t figure this one out. Leading Democrat paid as CEO or leader of charter getting state money?
Maine Charter School Operator: Yes, We Fired Dem After LePage (R) Threatened Us http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/good-will-hinckley-confirms-lepage-threat
LikeLike
“The charter industry depends on the misleading language that charter schools are public schools.
They are free of public oversight, suck money from public schools…”
The “They”, in the equation, include the PUBLIC customers required for the chatters
to stay in the fray. The chatters, aren’t exactly free of public oversight. Their customers
are the PUBLIC. Considering the public foots the bill either way, is it easier to convince
the customers they are sucking money from themselves, or spliting hairs with the “club”
that has a monopoly on “legal” definitions and applications?
LikeLike
Yes! Trying to get folks in my state to listen and make that very point. Charters are startup businesses and the tax payers are the bank funding an unsecured loan that doesn’t have to be paid back. It’s nuts.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ex-teacher on a Crusade and commented:
“Public” schools come under the jurisdiction of a locally elected school board. Charters are not that in NC.
LikeLike