Carol Burris concludes here her fourth installment of the sad story of the charter school movement in California. What once was a movement intended to help and collaborate with public schools has been taken over by the power-hungry and the greedy, intent on displacing and destroying public education.
California is now the “wild west of charter schools” because of the state’s refusal to oversee the operations of these schools. Public money is handed out to almost anyone who wants it, and supervision is almost non-existent.
Burris writes:
The shine is off the charter school movement. Freedom from regulation, the sine qua non of the charter world, has resulted too often in troubled schools, taxpayer fleecing and outright fraud. Charters have become material for late-night comedians. That is never a good sign; just ask the proponents of the Common Core.
The greatest blow to charter momentum, however, was delivered by the NAACP. When delegates’ voted for a moratorium on new charters, it unleashed the fury of the charterphiles. A piece on the pro-reform website Education Post was titled, “The NAACP Was Founded by White People and It Still Isn’t Looking Out for Black Families,” accusing the premier civil rights organization of being “morally anemic.” And yet, despite the vitriol and critique, the NAACP board of directors stood fast, supported its delegates, and issued a strong statement calling for charter reform.
The passage of Question 2 on the November ballot in Massachusetts, which would lift the cap on charter schools, once seemed a sure thing. Now support has plummeted. The ballot measure is down by 11 points, having lost support among Democrats, especially from the progressive wing.
The problems with loosely regulated charters can no longer be brushed aside.
In the past three posts of my series on California charters (here, here and here), I highlighted some of the serious problems that exist in a state with weak governing laws, a powerful lobby propped up by billionaires, and a governor who consistently vetoes bills aimed at charter reform. California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat who is usually progressive, has a blind spot when it comes to charters. The governor’s enthusiastic fundraising efforts on behalf of the two charters he started in Oakland came under scrutiny in the Los Angeles Times.
As a result, the problems with charters in the state bear an eerie resemblance to the those found in far more conservative states. As I spoke with Californians, I often felt quite depressed. The story line became clear—a state that generally holds progressive values financially abandoned its public schools with the passage of Proposition 13, thus crippling school funding. That was followed by a scramble to a charter solution to compensate for years of underfunding and neglect. That, in turn, opened the door to profit making schemes, corporate reformers hell-bent on destroying unions, and frankly, a lot of irresponsible educational models, such as storefront charters, boutique schools and “academies” linked to for-profits like K12.
There is hope, however, that California can alter its course. Despite all of the obstacles that stand in the way, there are Californians who want charter reform. They are exposing corruption, illegality, profit-making schemes and schools that are clearly not in the best interest of children. In this final piece, I will highlight some of their work.
Open the piece to see the links and to learn more about Burris’s reasons for optimism.

is it possible to add the links to the other three parts at the end of each of the 4 posts in this series?
LikeLike
All the links are in the article
But I will post all 4
LikeLike
Diane…we in California have Prop.55 on the ballot offered as “not costing anyone anything in taxation”. This is a lie.
This tax extension was originally sold by Jerry Brown 4 years ago in Prop.30 as a ONE TIME tax on those earning $250K and up. It was sold as imperative school funding and Brown threatened that he would shut down all accoutrements to public ed such as cafeterias and school busses. Many of the wealthier voters joined with the rest of us and voted for Prop.30 as a one time tax.
It has now been resurrected as Prop.55, but no one is reading the small print showing that some of this tax money will be used for charter schools.
Also it extends the taxation for 12 years, not four. In twelve years it will be assumed, by lazy voters and false sound bites, to be permanent.
I do believe that those whose total gross incomes are over $1 Million should have a tax increase to be commensurate with the Middle Class hit of 38%, and they should not only pay 15% on their investment income. However, the lower income taxpayers, those earning $250K are not in the same ball park as those Millionaires and Billionaires in California. They do not have sheltered bank accounts and vast investment wealth. We have enough super rich multi millionaires and billionaires in this state to keep the school budget viable forever…if they pay their fair share.
I am voting NO on 55 for these reasons, plus the fact that we now have a budget surplus due to Brown, and we have less students in LAUSD, down from 2012 enrollment of near 950K to about 650K and we have empty schools that charters can use. However, the sleazy charter operators want to own their school buildings so they can charge themselves over market rents in their profiteering. They also want to buy up the LAUSD buildings at pennies on the dollar. This is all very complex book keeping and is FAR from transparent.
Please California voters, reexamine Prop. 55, and the lies to vote for it told every ten seconds in sound bites. It is a sham that is being pushed by the privatizers and the uninformed. Vote NO on 55.
LikeLike
This is the model charter school law they want every state to adopt.
Click to access 2016ModelCharterSchoolLaw.pdf
I genuinely believe they will run into trouble collecting local tax dollars with no local elected representation. I guess the goal is to have all schools funded through state tax collections, eventually, so all schools could then be part of a STATE privatized system? The “backpack voucher” idea?
I don’t see how it works otherwise. People here are not going to pass a levy to build a new charter school if they have no elected representatives on the board and no ownership interest in the facility they’re paying for.
LikeLike
So interesting how incriminating this document is. Notice how they are focused on charters being allowed to offer pre-k to students? Where did that come from? The charter movement has spent untold millions and millions hiring “researchers” to prove how wonderful their charter schools are serving kids, and now they are saying “but we are very willing to stop serving as many 5 year olds so we can accommodate 4 year olds in pre-k classes?” It’s all about serving the needs of the richest charter chains and doing whatever works to keep the high performing charters from educating the low-performing students.
I also saw nothing here demanding that charter schools should be free to hold back (retain) students to repeat grades as many years as necessary. Why is that “best practice” never mentioned by any charter school advocates who claim they are just trying to help all public schools by showing them good ways of achieving so-called “excellence”. Why, it is almost like those charter schools are ashamed to mention their “fail a kid over and over again if he isn’t meeting standards” policy. They think this policy is the best thing since sliced bread but they will never talk about it. Proof once again that their concern for kids is secondary to their desire to undermine public schools. And where those 2 desires clash, it is always the children who must be thrown under the bus. When it comes to honesty, charters would rather characterize a small child as violent than to admit that their system isn’t working nearly as well as they claim it is. Because what’s the life of some at-risk children when a charter advocate’s nice salary is at stake?
LikeLike
I have just scanned some of the model legislation. I hope you and Carol Busrris and other legal eagles can devote some time to the most outrageous parts of the model.
It seems to call for charter occupancy in any facility such as a public library or arts center in addition to public school facilities and others at below-market rates. The model legislation calls for inclusion of charter schools in levys for public schools BUT of course no oversight of the charter schools that benefit from the funds. The really outrageous passages need to be culled and the “appointed/self-annointed” architecture of the whole apparatus exposed to view. The push for vouchers and the equivalent of these is what the charter industry really wants, and exemptions from all policies and rules that apply to public schools.
By the way here is part of a “model” privacy law at the state level from ExcelinEd, created by Jeb Bush and friends to promote online education, including online charter schools.
Here are some passages that create big loop holes http://www.excelined. org/wp-content/uploads/Student-Data-Privacy-Accessibility-and-Transparency-Act-Model-Legisla- tion-03.2015.pdf
(12) “K-12 school purposes” means purposes that take place at the direction of the K-12 school, teacher, or local education agency or aid in the administration of school activities, including, but not limited to, instruction in the classroom or at home, administrative activities, preparing for postsecondary education or employment opportunities, and collaboration between students, school personnel, or parents, or are for the use and benefit of the school;
(13) “Operator” means any entity other than the department, local education agency, or school to the extent that the entity:
(a) Operates an Internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the website, service, or application is used for K-12 school purposes and was designed and marketed for K-12 school purposes to the extent that it is operating in that capacity; and
(b) Collects, maintains, or uses student personally identifiable information in a digital or electronic format; and
(14) “Targeted advertising” means presenting advertisements to a student where the advertisement is selected based on information obtained or inferred from that student’s online behavior, usage of applications, or student data.
‘Targeted advertising’ does not include advertising to a student at an online location based upon that student’s current visit to that location or single search query without collection and retention of a student’s online activities over time. ….
Much more is there if you have an interest.
There are many, many topics and examples of model legislation in circulation from this website,outstripping in sheer quantity and focus those from ALEC
http://www.excelined.org/?s=model+legislation&x=0&y=0
LikeLike
not Busrris, sorry Burris
LikeLike
“The model legislation calls for inclusion of charter schools in levys for public schools BUT of course no oversight of the charter schools that benefit from the funds.”
It does, and that would be a really dramatic change to existing law. Ohio has “taxing entities” – entities that may levy local taxes- and there are requirements- one of the requirements is LOCAL representation.
This wasn’t just a random decision to require that there be local representation to collect local taxes- it’s really bedrock democratic governance.
This is why I think ed reform will end up with wholly privatized systems- a universal voucher- because as the charter systems get bigger and bigger people will demand some representation on their boards.
The end run around that will be vouchers. No “voice” but instead “choice”.
LikeLike
Yes, charter schools are about siphoning public tax money into private pockets and not about helping children. See my letter to the editor in today’s Los Angeles Times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Congrats on yet another letter today in the LA Times, Linda. You hit it on the head again, and this one is ‘boxed’ as the lead letter. Great job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Ellen. While I do think charters are here to stay I think the public will demand much more oversight. My hope is that eventually they will be like magnet schools: selective but still under the thumb of the citizens who pay for them.
LikeLike
I was very impressed with the wording of the charter school regulatory demands recently adopted by the NAACP. A clearcut demand for specific regulations could help expose what HASN’T been regulated, and where the most invasive profiteering lies.
LikeLike
The “shine” will be reapplied to charters very soon, have no worries. Clinton will be adopting most if not all of the same education policies and positions of the Obama administration. As Diane recently posted right here:
“If Clinton is to have an intelligent policy about public and charter schools, she must be better informed than she is now, and she can’t rely solely on charter advocates for her information about the way charters are systematically eroding public education in America.”
Her deficit of information on charters IS a position. HRC will create space for charters. Make no mistake. Our obligation as sentient beings to vote for HRC must be done with the absolute knowledge that we are also voting for a continuation of the reform movement and all that comes with it and all it means. Have to vote for her, absolutely, but we have to be clear that we are adding nails to the coffin for our careers, etc. For us its the state of the country/world .vs education/our jobs. We can’t put ourselves in the indefensible and irrational position of the coal miners here. Gotta vote for her.
Regardless, lets stop it with the while “charters are dying” whatnot. They aren’t. Reform isn’t dying. Privatization isn’t dying. We’ve written those obituaries prematurely before. The charter industry is experiencing some “social adoption challenges,” much like every other industry has faced. With the help of the vast majority of elected officials, and an electorate that is, well, not too engaged on the topic (outside of us here), I’d bet that charters will expand.
LikeLike
As long as there is money to be made and our laws incentivize them, more charters will continue to “enter the market.” Only outraged taxpayers and parents have the power to say enough is enough. Perhaps then, we can slow the tide.
LikeLike
One of the mailers for the Massachusetts charter expansion uses President Obama’s support of charters to promote more charters.
Is there an example of the Obama Administration lobbying for a local or state PUBLIC school expansion/funding issue?
Why is the Obama Administration so eager to jump into local charter promotion, but so reluctant to advocate on behalf of public schools?
LikeLike
IT’S UP TO EACH OF US NOW AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO SPREAD THE WORD to our state and local lawmakers and social media friends everywhere because they need to know right now that the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education has issued a warning that charter schools posed a risk to the Department of Education’s own goals. The report says: “Charter schools and their management organizations pose a potential risk to federal funds even as they threaten to fall short of meeting the goals.”
The report documents multiple cases of financial risk, waste, fraud, abuse, lack of accountability of federal funds, and lack of proof that the schools were implementing federal programs in accordance with federal requirements.
Throughout our nation, private charter schools backed by billionaire hedge funds are being allowed to divert hundreds of millions of public school tax dollars away from educating America’s children and into private corporate pockets. Any thoughtful person should pause a moment and ask: “Why are hedge funds the biggest promoters of charter schools?” Hedge funds aren’t altruistic — there’s got to be big profit in “non-profit” charter schools in order for hedge fund managers to be involved in backing them.
And even the staunchly pro-charter school Los Angeles Times (which acknowledges that its “reporting” on charter schools is paid for by a billionaire charter school advocate) complained in an editorial that “the only serious scrutiny that charter operators typically get is when they are issued their right to operate, and then five years later when they apply for renewal.” Without needed oversight of what charter schools are actually doing with the public’s tax dollars, hundreds of millions of tax money that is supposed to be spent on educating the public’s children is being siphoned away into private pockets.
One typical practice of charter schools is to pay exorbitant rates to rent buildings that are owned by the charter school board members or by their proxy companies which then pocket the public’s tax money as profit. Another profitable practice is that although charter schools use public tax money to purchase millions of dollars of such things as computers, the things they buy with public tax money become their private property and can be sold by them for profit…and then use public tax money to buy more, and sell again, and again, and again, pocketing profit after profit.
The Washington State and New York State supreme courts and the National Labor Relations Board have ruled that charter schools are not public schools because they aren’t accountable to the public since they aren’t governed by publicly-elected boards and aren’t subdivisions of public government entities, in spite of the fact that some state laws enabling charter schools say they are government subdivisions.
Charter schools are clearly private schools, owned and operated by private entities. Nevertheless, they get public tax money. Moreover, as the NAACP and ACLU have reported, charter schools are often engaged in racial and economic-class discrimination.
Charter schools should (1) be required by law to be governed by school boards elected by the voters so that they are accountable to the public; (2) a charter school entity must legally be a subdivision of a publicly-elected governmental body; (3) charter schools should be required to file the same detailed public-domain audited annual financial reports under penalty of perjury that genuine public schools file; and, (4) anything a charter school buys with the public’s money should be the public’s property.
NO FEDERAL MONEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT FAIL TO MEET THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC. Hillary Clinton could, if elected President, on day one in office issue an Executive Order to the Department of Education to do just that. Tell her today to do that! Send her the above information to make certain she knows about the Inspector General’s findings and about the abuses being committed by charter schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with most of what you say, Scisne, but feel that NO STATE MONEY SHOULD BE USED FOR CHARTERS either. Please see my statement on the phony Prop.55 posted above. Once again the forces of evil seek to scam us.
Californians please…Vote NO on 55, and YES on 61.
As a public policy educator, each election year I think these self serving ballot measures could not get worse…but they do. If a ballot measure is hawked for months before the election, and on every TV station every two minutes, look to find who is paying for it…55 is supported by CCSA, and 61 is paid for by Big Pharma, Pfizer (which pays no US taxes, but hides profits overseas, and Merck).
LikeLike
Dear Diane,
I am writing to tell you about what has been going on in the Sausalito Marin City School District in CA. You might remember this tiny district, as you wrote about it in relation to Steve Van Zant, who was the superintendent from the summer of 2013 until he resigned in 2016 after being indicted on a felony conflict of interest charge related to charter school authorizations outside his previous district’s boundaries (Mountain Empire and San Diego).
SMCSD is a tiny district, consisting of only one public school and one independent charter school, and it has become a microcosm of what is occurring all over the country. I have learned this from reading your blog posts every day since I found your reference to Mr. Van Zant’s indictment on the internet.
There is a lot to say about what has been happening since the public school board was taken over by a founder and parents of the charter school, Willow Creek Academy, in 2009.
The most recent happening, just this morning, is a newspaper article in the Marin Independent Journal about the fact that the CA Attorney General is going to be looking into the school board. You can find this article at marinij.com, “State Schools Superintendent Asks Attorney General to Look at Sausalito Marin City Schools District.”
I can send you further information about what has been happening if you would be interested. Please let me know.
Thank you…
LikeLike