Jeff Bryant argues cogently in this article that Democrats should unite on behalf of a charter school moratorium.
If the Democratic party wants to revive its base–labor and civil rights–it should heed Jeff’s sound advice.
Charters and school choice were never a natural fit with the public philosophy of the Denocratic party, which recognized the power of government to advance the common good, because charters are typically non-union, typically more segregated than the district they are in, and are aligned with the privatizing philosophy of the Republican Party.
It is passing strange to see any Democrat lending support to a policy championed by Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, the Walton family, the Koch brothers, and every Republican governor.
Read the entire article. Here is an excerpt:
“Democrats know that success for their party relies on bringing labor and civil rights advocates together on key issues.
“Faced with disastrous Donald Trump, labor and civil rights advocates are rallying in common cause behind health care for all, a living wage for every worker, a tax system where the wealthy pay their fair share, tuition-free college, and an end to senseless, never-ending wars.
“Here’s another rallying point labor and civil rights agree on: A moratorium on charter schools.
“This week, the nation’s largest labor union, the National Education Association, broke from its cautious regard of charter schools to pass a new policy statement that declares charter schools are a “failed experiment” that has led to a “separate and unequal” sector of schools that are not subject to the same “safeguards and standards” of public schools.
“To limit the further expansion of these schools, the NEA wants a moratorium on new charters that aren’t subject to democratic governance and aren’t supportive of the common good in local communities.
“The NEA’s action echoes a resolution passed earlier this year by the national NAACP calling for a moratorium on the expansion of charters and for stronger oversight of these schools. These declarations also align with a policy statement issued last year by the Movement for Black Lives, a network Black Lives Matter organizers, calling for a moratorium on charter schools.
“Now that labor and civil rights groups have come together in a unified call for a moratorium on these unregulated, privately-operated schools, prominent leaders in the Democratic party can champion this issue knowing they have a grassroots constituency that supports them.
“Democrats in states where charters have been the most controversial – such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and California – should be especially interested in leading on this issue for a number of reasons.
“A Shared Concern For Basic Rights
“First, in most communities, unregulated charters are segregating students and undermining democratically governed public institutions.
“In their calls for a charter school moratorium, NEA, NAACP, and the Movement for Black Lives express a basic concern that these privately-operated schools are not subject to the same legal constraints as other public institutions, including federal and state laws and protections for students with disabilities, minorities, and school employees.
“The statements share a belief that charter schools have become counter-productive to a school system intent on serving the needs and interests of all students, and they argue that charters are reversing the progress achieved by civil rights milestones like the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision.
“All three organizations maintain that charter schools, as currently conceived, undermine local public schools, particularly those that are in communities that are already marginalized by racial prejudice and economic inequities. These organizations insist that charters must not be financially supported at the expense of local schools.
“Each statement shares the concern that charter schools are not subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public schools, and they argue that making charters subject to a democratically elected local authority is the way to bring these schools back in line with responsible governance.
“Charters: An Idea Gone Awry
“In a press release announcing its new charter school policy, the NEA declares that charter schools have evolved far from their original intent to serve local communities as “incubators of innovation” and have instead become a force undermining local schools “without producing any overall increase in student learning and growth.”
“NEA’s contention that charter schools are an idea gone awry has widely held support.”
“The original vision of charter schools as laboratory schools, where teachers would have a stronger voice, has evolved to a more politically conservative vision that views charters as competitors of public schools in a market where only the schools with greater advantages can survive.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“the zwalton family”
I think the z stands for Zombie. That was not a typo.
Yes on the zwalton. That must be a habit with me.
Not a habit, but a revelation.
It’s about time that the organizations on the look out for their constituents should recognize the damage being done in the name of progress.
This is just the first step – but it’s a significant one.
Moratorium is temporary but a ban is permanent. What is needed is a ban on charter schools.
Thank you to NAACP, NEA, NPE, and Diane for getting this discussion in the main stream.
It is an important start to the elimination of these racist schools. My hope is that local public schools will see what need was believed to be filled by these charter schools, how the charter schools failed to meet that need, and then respond by making public schools better by successfully meeting the need.
WE CAN DO THIS. I just hope I see it turned around in my lifetime.
#DoNoHarm
The need that charter schools feed: skimming off the best-behaved, most likely to succeed students from public schools and the money that goes with them.
The need that charter schools feed for Wall Street and the 1%: they change the conversation from funding schools equitably, which would mean raising taxes on the 1%, to providing choice, which doesn’t require higher taxes.
So true – so true – but I was alson thinking a long the lines of what need the parents believed was being filled when they sent their child to the school.
What has been disappointing is all the white liberals that do not think they are racist that enroll their children in charters with white neighborhood boundaries. In urban districts, white middle classstudents in”regular public neighborhood schools are rare.
They are not rare in New York City
Unfortunately most of what is presented above is patently false. Yes, in some states like Ohio or Michigan or Nevada you have poor authorizing and poor regulation. But that is not the case in the Northeast. In Connecticut, we follow the same transparency and accountability rules as traditional district schools. Our meetings are open to the public, we post our board meeting agenda on our website prior to the meeting just like district schools, we take the same tests and have to follow the same reporting requirements. We file our audited report with the state and post it on our website along with our Federal Form 990. We are subject to Freedom of Information Act laws. We have to adhere to the same federal and state laws regarding discrimination and the rights of disabled, special ed and ELL students. Charters are usually more minority and poorer students but many times state law requires you to serve disadvantaged students – you don’t like that change the law but I think that is a bad idea. And charters may be more segregated than the district as whole but not when compared to neighboring district schools. Let’s be honest, there has not been a huge desire of the white population in our cities to embrace integration! Yes there can be fiscal impacts on local district schools – that’s a function of the funding formula so change the formula. In Connecticut charters are significantly under-funded as compared to district schools so you can’t say we are taking dollars away from district schools. Yes, charters are generally non-union but we have to compete for the same labor pool and have to offer competitive wages and benefits. As employees at will you can be terminated more easily but you can’t be capricious about it or your school culture will suffer, you won’t be able to hire good people and then children suffer. Local control is bogus – only 6-10% of registered voters vote in school elections. And in Connecticut, the school board doesn’t control the budget, city government does. In Ct we report to SDE and our charter is up for renewal every 5 years. You don’t like the policies of SDE, vote your representatives and governor out! In CT the local school board must review, hold public hearings and ultimately approve a charter as part of the state chartering process. Do I think things can be improved – absolutely! Can district schools be improved – absolutely!. Should states provide fair, equitable and adequate funding so that our urban schools have the same resources, or more, than wealthier suburban districts – absolutely. Should the school system be organized for the benefit of adults and unions – that’s where we differ. I fervently believe that charter schools are public schools. Supporting charters is not the same as supporting vouchers or tax credits. Good charter states make charters just as accountable for the welfare of children as district schools which is good. That’s not the case for vouchers or tax credits. So let’s get the facts straight and have an honest discussion and put the interests of children first.
I highly recommend reading the entire Jeff Bryant article Diane linked. Very clearly, concisely written, irrefutable evidence against Democrats failing to support a moratorium.
So if Connecticut charters are the same in every way as Connecticut public schools, what is the benefit of having them? What’s the point? Aren’t collective bargaining for better wages and collective action for better resources public goods that are obliterated by those charter hires who feel no personal responsibility to contribute? What, if charters are the same, is different about them that makes them worth dividing and conquering teachers and communities? What, specifically, is the charter innovation in Connecticut that makes segregation and the marginalization of collective voices anything other than a social and economic drag on Connecticut? Why have them?
I didn’t mean to suggest that all charter illuminators (see Puff Daddy’s charter) — ok, charter teachers do not feel personal responsibility to contribute to unions or to make teaching their lifelong profession. Sometimes, teachers have to pay the rent and put food on the table, and charters are the only option when the district has to make cuts to pay for the loss of per pupil funding to charters and can’t hire. Charters, for teachers and students, drain the better choices.
Andy, the charter school industry is a for-profit industry. Corporate charter schools are autocratic. If these charter schools are so great, why isn’t the rest of the world doing it. I do not care how transparent they are, these schools are unnecessary and dangerous. The very existence of these publicly funded, private sector schools is an assault on our Republic and its U.S. Constitution; a foot in the door for some fascist, dictator loving fool like Donald Trump.
I will always be against public money flowing to private-sector schools. There is no evidence or justification for what is happening to the community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit, professional teachers in the traditional public schools in the United States.
This happened in Chili and decades later the people rose up and demanded a return to the traditional public school system.
It happened in Sweden and was such a disaster, that country returned to the old, tried and true methods that have worked for centuries.
It is a LIE that innovation cannot take place in the traditional public schools. The public schools in the 20th century proved that as they changed drastically and evolved from the corporate model assembly line schools of the 19th century that many corporate characters are returning to.
The corporate charter school industry should have never happened. Vouchers should have never happened.
“In Connecticut charters are significantly under-funded as compared to district schools so you can’t say we are taking dollars away from district schools.”
Where is the evidence. I hear this from every charter school supporter.
“In Connecticut charters are significantly under-funded as compared to district schools so you can’t say we are taking dollars away from district schools.”
The above quote makes no logical sense unless the funding that supports Connecticut’s corporate charters does not come from public funds.
That means the corporate charters get no money from the public. If the money comes from public sources like taxes and fees that once funded the community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit public schools where the teachers belong to unions and are professionals, even if they aren’t treated like professionals, that means those schools lost money to the corporate charters. It doesn’t matter if the corporate charter was paid less per student than a traditional public school.
Every public dollar that ends up going to a corporate and/or private sector charter/school is a dollar that will not make it to the traditional public schools. That is legalized robbery and cannot be defined any other way.
That quote sounds like the kind of flawed logic that is cooked up to mislead easily to fool people who want believe it because it fits their bias, what they want to think.
Keep in mind, schools with large populations of special needs students require more services and cost the district more.
Therefore, schools which limit the amount of students with special needs, don’t require as much funding.
For example, people point out how much money the Buffalo Public School receives per student, more than the average suburban school. What they fail to notice is that this number is an average and Buffalo has an absurd amount of students who require services above and beyond the regular classroom. I don’t want to get into all the reasons for this, but a high poverty rate is at the top of the list.
In reality, the average student receives a lot less of the amenities found in those suburban schools. Things such as staffed computer labs, full time librarians, enrichment classes, electives, after school programs, a full range of sports including intramurals, assemblies, field trips, full time teacher assistants in the early years, small class sizes, adequate numbers of guidance counsellors, social workers, and school psychologists, an opportunity to be in band, chorus, orchestra, clubs, etc.
Removing funding directly impacts an already financially stressed system.
How nice that your school has more to offer your students, but only at a sacrifice to the rest of the children in the region.
“Should the school system be organized for the benefit of adults and unions?”
I taught in public schools in two different states for close to forty years, and I have never seen a public school district organized to benefit adults and unions. That is a falsehood. Just because employees are members of a union does not mean the district is organized for employees. It simply means that the union and district have mutually agreed on a contract by which both parties must abide. It entitles employees to due process rights. Having a contract is to the benefit of both parties as it allows for future planning, staffing needs and stability. If unions are so dreadful, why are some charter school teachers trying to join a union too?
andy
“Should the school system be organized for the benefit of adults and unions. ”
That’s where we differ . The students attending your charter will one day be adults . There is one undeniable fact, the entire working class thrived when unions were strong . You pick where you want to draw the line . Pick what percentile of wage workers that encompasses .Do not forget to reclassify those contract workers who would not be contractors , if it was not cheaper for their ’employers’ than wages.. .
Of the students you serve, being that a Black college grad makes on average what a White HS. grad is making. My bet is at least 95% stand to benefit from a strong unions.
But in addition ,if you think the staff at your charters would not unionize if there were no threats of retribution from firings to closing facilities altogether. I have a few bridges to sell you in exchange for whatever you have been taking.
“The so called laboratories of innovation” have lost their way. They have contributed nothing of value to education. The forces behind charters and vouchers are looking to destroy unions, deprofessionalize teaching, and produce profit for wealthy people at the expense of public school students, Charters have failed to deliver, and a whole cottage industry of crooked leasing real estate deals and fraudulent practices has evolved around the charter industry. The charter lobby peddles influence from elected representatives in order to grease the wheels of ever expanding charters. Government funds should never be used to enhance segregation or suppress democracy. Charters have become so politicized they are a curse rather than a cure.
Above is mostly the consequence of privatization of public education by passing charter school laws in different states wherein the state law is lax in oversight of charters, as is the case in my state of California.
Above you argue Andy that in your state of Connecticut charter is not lax. Maybe. But, Andy you seem to be saying that charters are privately managed but you believe privately managed charter schools are public schools.
I’m a charter school abolitionist. And, if I succeed in Connecticut, and end all Connecticut charter schools, I will not have ended public schools in Connecticut. In fact, I will make Connecticut public schools great again.
I want charter schools not to be considered by the public public schools: because they are privately managed!
And, you Andy, want charters to be considered by the public “public schools”. Privately managed charters have a private interest and public schools have a public interest; and that remains true no matter your belief Andy that charters are public schools.
Actually, we are managed by the state rather than by a local school board. Our governing board is composed of private citizens but we follow the same accountability requirements of every school in CT and we report to SDE. And we are a public school as state law specifically defines us as a public school.
We are a nonprofit so there is no profiteering going on and nobody on our staff is getting rich. And I would say our interests are the same as district schools – to give our best to our children so they can get a great education, lead meaningful and productive lives and be contributors to their community – the very definition of the common good.
Are you saying those charters follow the original concept and are part of community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit public school districts and all the teachers belong to the same union that all the other public school teachers belong to and that the teachers are in charge, not some CEO or manager that heads a for-profit or non-profit private sector organization?
If your answer is NOT yes, then those charters do not fit the original concept, and they must be closed and everyone that works there will just have to apply for jobs in the traditional public schools if they want to stay in teaching.
The Democratic Party won’t join the ACLU call for a charter moratorium because the Democratic Party feeds on the money from billionaires like those behind the Democrats for Educational Reform who want all schools converted into financially unaccountable charter schools from which they can skim mountains of public tax money.
So much taxpayer money is being skimmed away by charter school operators that the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education reports that “Charter schools and their management organizations pose a potential risk to federal funds even as they threaten to fall short of meeting goals” because of financial fraud and their hidden ways for skimming of tax money into private pockets. Charter schools bill themselves as “public schools”, but Supreme Courts in states like New York, Washington and elsewhere are catching on to the scam and have ruled that charter schools are really private schools because they aren’t accountable to the public because they are run by private boards that aren’t elected by voters and don’t even have to file detailed reports to the public about what they’re doing with the public’s tax money.
Even the staunchly pro-charter school Los Angeles Times (which acknowledges that its favorable 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 dollars that are intended to be spent on educating the public’s children is being siphoned away into private pockets and to the bottom lines of hedge funds.
In addition to the siphoning away of money from needy schools, reports from the NAACP and ACLU have revealed facts about just how charter schools are resegregating our nation’s schools, as well as discriminating racially and socioeconomically against American children of color; and, very detailed nationwide research by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLA shows in clear terms that private charter schools suspend extraordinary numbers of black students. Based on these and other findings of racial discrimination in charter schools, the NAACP Board of Directors has passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on charter school expansion and for the strengthening of oversight in governance and practice. Because of the racism in charter schools the ACLU has called for a complete moratorium on charter schools.
In order to assure that tax dollars are being spent wisely and that there is no racism in charter schools, charter schools should minimally (1) be required by law to be governed by school boards elected by the voters so that the charter schools are accountable to the public; (2) be a subdivision of a publicly-elected governmental body; (3) be required to file the same detailed public-domain audited annual financial reports under penalty of perjury that genuine public schools file; and, (4) be required to operate so that anything a charter school buys with the public’s money should be the public’s property.
Those aren’t unreasonable requirements. In fact, they are common sense to taxpayers and to anyone who seeks to assure that America’s children — especially her neediest children — are optimally benefiting from public tax dollars intended for their education. But, after the internal scams of charter schools become exposed to taxpayers through routine public reporting, the charter school industry will dry up and disappear, and the money that the charter school industry has been draining away from America’s neediest children will again flow to those in need.
If charter schools were required to file the same financial statements that public schools file, the skimming of tax money would stop and hedge funds would move on to their next target, leaving the charter school “movement” to dry up.
NO PUBLIC TAX MONEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT FAIL TO MEET THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.
But there are still hundreds of charters that still live up to that original vision and deserve our support. A moratorium won’t hurt them But we might do some far thinking about how we can use the good –democratically-run charters to show case good ideas, to be pilots. Also we need strategies that avoid making enemies of families whose children attend the chains and their teachers too. If it’s doable.
Sent from my iPhone
>
I know this blog may not be the best place to advocate for charters, but if there are charters out there that meet the same criteria under which public schools work, it would be wise of them to form an association. They can then advocate for themselves and speak out against the abuses of the charter industry at large.
“Democrats know that success for their party relies on bringing labor and civil rights advocates together on key issues.”
They do? You certainly can’t tell that from the way they run the party. Thumbing their noses at labor and presenting school choice as “the civil rights issue of our time” does not convince me that the Democrats understand either labor or civil rights. And until they do, I will not vote for them.
“Democrats know that success for their party relies on bringing labor and civil rights advocates together on key issues.”
They do? You certainly can’t tell that from the way they run the party. Thumbing their noses at labor and presenting school choice as “the civil rights issue of our time” does not convince me that the Democrats understand either labor or civil rights. And until they do, I will not vote for them.
Ms. Meier: Long time reader of your blog and big time fan, it hurts me to say I disagree with your position of saving the good charters. If the first principal of an education system is do no harm, why support a policy of separating the wheat from the chaff?
Why it is understandable that one should not unnecessarily make enemies of families that “attend the chains”, there is not a reasonable way to continue an institution that is harmful to public education. The choice is fight like one’s hair is on fire against charters as a harmful competitor of public education or continue half-hearted stance of NEA that we must save the “good” charters and not make charter families angry.
Charters are privatized management funded by the taxpayers. The public needs to decide if it wants to fund public schools or privately managed charter schools or some hybrid between the publicly managed and privately managed charters.
The bottom line is who is managing the school? Is it managed by the public or the private sector. 25 years of the charter experiment shows competition with the private sector has not improved public schools but weakened them.
How many more years before this failed experiment is dumped on the ash heap of history?
Jim,
There are a variety of charter schools and charter laws in the country. In at least one state, all charter schools must be chartered and managed by the local school board. In another state a large percentage of the charter schools are instruments of the locally elected school board and all the people working at the charter are employed by and responsible to the locally elected school board.
If you object is to private management of public funds, perhaps you should be in favor of charter schools where there is public management and opposed to charter schools where there is private management of public funds (and you might think about how being against private management of public funds would impact programs like Pell grants which support post secondary education at private schools like Harvard, Williams, or Stanford)
So far as I know, Harvard, Williams, and Stanford do not call themselves “public universities.” If charter schools would acknowledge they are private schools that receive public subsidy, that would make sense. Public schools they are not.
Dr. Ravith,
When Jim said “The public needs to decide if it wants to fund public schools or privately managed charter schools” I thought he was making a deeper point than simply the label we place on schools. Stanford alone got $1.6 billion dollars in public funds to do privately managed research (source: http://facts.stanford.edu/research/), and of course, additional public funds for students.
Should we stop giving these public funds to post secondary schools that are managed privately? If not, why should we stop giving public funds to secondary schools that are managed privately?
The fact that a University receives public funds does not turn the University into a public university. You are making my argument.
Harvard, MIT, Stanford, NYU, Columbia, and many other universities receive federal funding for research and student aid, but they are private universities.
Lockheed Martin and Boeing receive billions in federal funding, but they are private corporations, privately managed. They are not public services, like fire, Police, and public schools.
Charter schools receive public funding, but they are privately managed and run by private boards. Most are not subject to the same laws as public schools. Most do not have public meetings. Most do not open their books to public inspection. None is directly controlled by an elected board. That is why the highest court in Washington State ruled that charter schools are private schools, not public schools. That is why the NLRB ruled that charter schools are NOT state actors. That is why two federal courts of appeal have ruled that charter schools are not state actors. They are private contractors. They say so themselves when challenged in court. They can’t be expected to follow state labor laws because they are not state actors.
Dr. Ravitch,
Surely your opposition to all charter schools goes deeper than the schools labeling themselves as public schools. Perhaps you could elaborate on your argument.
In any case, poster Jim objects to schools that are privately managed but receive public funds. I hope that you would agree that Harvard, Williams, Stanford, and even NYU are private managed schools that receive public funds, so poster Jim must be equally concerned about those institutions. I hope that he will respond to agree with my assessment or explain why I am wrong.
TE,
I have written two books with chapters on charter schools. Read them. Charters are private schools receiving public funds without accountability. That is an invitation to corruption and fraud. Many charter leaders have accepted the invitation to enrich themselves at the expense of children and taxpayers.
Dr. Ravitch,
Harvard, Williams, Stanford, Columbia, and NYU are all private schools receiving public funds without accountability. I hope you will, as a mater of principal, resign from NYU and join me and teach at a public university.
I am a lifelong adjunct, TE. Do you think KU would take me?
What TE left out (no surprise there):
Research at Stanford
Stanford research is remarkable in both its breadth and depth. Stanford research programs reflect the expertise, creativity and initiative of the faculty who set the research agenda. Stanford faculty have a long tradition of engaging with their colleagues and students within Stanford’s seven schools and working across disciplines.
There are more than 6,009 externally sponsored projects throughout the university, with the total budget for sponsored projects at $1.6 billion during 2016-17, including the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC). Of these projects, the federal government sponsors approximately 81 percent, including SLAC. In addition, nearly $277 million in support comes from non-federal funding sources.
http://facts.stanford.edu/research/
The keywords: “RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES”
Background
The enduring and successful partnership between the U.S. government and the country’s research universities has produced tremendous returns on investment through improvements in human health, transformative technologies, new industries, and the development of the world’s best research workforce. …
As part of this partnership, the federal government agreed to provide universities with competitively awarded grants to support the people, tools, and physical and operational infrastructure necessary to conduct the highest quality of research for the nation in a safe, efficient and responsible manner.
https://doresearch.stanford.edu/costs-conducting-research
Is TE suggesting that public funds taken from community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit public schools to support autocratic, secretive, often inferior and child abusing K-12 corporate charter schools are for research? Does that mean the children are lab rats?
“Does Stanford “make money” on these sponsored research projects?
“No. Sponsors seldom cover the full costs of conducting the research that they support. The unfunded costs are subsidized through university, school, department and faculty contributions. Stanford subsidizes the gap in facilities and administrative costs for all sponsored projects.”
“But there are still hundreds of charters that still live up to that original vision and deserve our support.”
The new lobby with the growing influence in state and national legislatures of the NRA lobby is the Charter School Lobby growing in influence with taxpayer money provided to charter schools.
Lobby money knows no good or bad only power and influence in pursuit of the private interest of charter school sector.
That wonderful charter can do harm to public education because it is in that wonderful charter’s management to join an association that promotes its interest in competing for laws and money in legislatures and even presidential office holders.
ChartersThe Democratic Party: an idea gone awry”Charter and Democrat: ideas purchased and turned into brands devoid of ideas. Eli Broad, Whitney Tillson, Reed Hastings, and the rest of the investment and tech oligarchs bought the ideas, and now they use the empty brands to benefit themselves. We will never get back the brands, but we can recover the ideas…
Charters in Ct are not corporate – they are nonprofit – let’s get the facts straight and dispense with the “fake news”
The fake idea is that non-profits do not profit the administration and the charter founder. I think it was $3.6 million a report showed that the American Indian Model Charter school operator in Oakland reported drained from the charters he controlled. It took the FBI years but he is finally having to face criminal charges for his management manipulations.
Every non-profit in California takes out papers of corporation. Many are one school and not connected to other charters like say KIPP, ASPIRE, or Imam Gulen’s followers over 140 charters in 26 states. But, it is not whether charters are singular charters or charter chains, all privately managed charters present an existential threat to public schools because they have a private interest and not a public interest in the common good.
It is the privatization of public schools that is the harm not so much how they are organized for tax purposes.
All charters are poisoning the public education system.
Even the private sector owners of so-called non-profit charters are clever about how they make money off public dollars.
“Now he manages Connecticut investment company Palm Ventures. One of the major focuses of the firm involves funneling individual investments into for-profit charter-school related companies. As a former finance lawyer for Citigroup, Kaplan and Saloman Brothers, Levy is quite the expert on getting rich this way.”
http://www.alternet.org/education/who-profiting-charters-big-bucks-behind-charter-school-secrecy-financial-scandal-and
“It is conducting a wide-ranging look at such relationships. In the last year alone, the FBI sent out subpoenas as part of an investigation into a Connecticut-based charter-management company and raided schools that are part of a New Mexico chain and a large network of charter schools spanning Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/charter-school-power-broker-turns-public-education-into-private-profits
Achievement First, the New Haven, Conn. nonprofit that operates Brownsville Elementary and 16 other schools in Connecticut and New York, is more like an information-driven company than an old-fashioned school district. “We’re obsessed with using data on an ongoing basis,” says Douglas McCurry, Achievement First’s co-chief executive and a frequent presence in school halls. “Schools are fundamentally undermanaged.”
“Compensation for leaders of the state’s (Connecticut) largest network of charter schools, Achievement First, has increased by $100,000 since 2009 – and now rivals the pay of superintendents in the state’s wealthiest or largest districts.” …
“Dacia Toll and Doug McCurry, the chief executive officers of Achievement First Public Charter Schools each made just over $260,000 in 2014, the nonprofit’s most recent tax filings show. Michael Duggan, the executive director of Domus, which oversees two charter schools in Stamford, was paid $325,000 in 2014.”
https://ctmirror.org/2017/01/13/pay-for-charter-school-leaders-fuels-funding-debate/
FUSE was created in 2012 as a management company that used public and private money to take over failing, inner-city public schools and operate them as public charter schools. FUSE’s management agreements with public school systems gave it wide discretion over spending on salaries, rents, curriculum, equipment and other items.
A series of embarrassing disclosures in the past month appears to have crippled FUSE, costing the organization all its management business, worth more than $1 million a year. The closely affiliated Jumoke Academy fired FUSE as manager of its three Hartford charter schools. Schools in Bridgeport and New Haven severed ties with FUSE, and educators in Louisiana, concerned about events in Connecticut, pulled FUSE from a charter school set to open in Baton Rouge next month.
http://jonathanpelto.com/2014/07/22/beginning-end-charter-school-industry-connecticut/
Andy, you are spending too much time following Fake President Donald Trump’s lying tweets.
“Fake News” has become a euphemism used to support confirmation bias where individuals look for anything that supports their own biases even if it means ignoring facts and following the same hate-filled Alt-Right media conspiracy theory sites Fake President Donald Trump follows.
My advice, take your “fake news” and stuff it away where the sun doesn’t shine.
You are exhibiting the same sort of confirmation bias – and for the record I despise Trump and all that he represents and believes a
Everyone is biased to one point or another but confirmation bias is based on fake news. I don’t base what I think on fake news. I base it on verifiable facts and spend a lot of time doing that, and when I can, I will use primary sources to support what I think.
CT charters are not public schools. They are owned and operated by — who the heck cares who — owned and operated by not the public. They’re owned and operated by people who oppose unions and uplifting the working class, people who wink at discrimination and segregation.
Not to get too personal, but that’s real cool, Andy, the way you call everything you don’t like fake news, just like President Twitter! And the way you tell everyone that privatization puts “students first” just like child abuser Michelle Rhee, very slick.
non profit
“Dacia Toll and Doug McCurry, the chief executive officers of Achievement First Public Charter Schools each made just over $260,000 in 2014, the nonprofit’s most recent tax filings show. Michael Duggan, the executive director of Domus, which oversees two charter schools in Stamford, was paid $325,000 in 2014.
Toll – whose nonprofit charter management organization, oversees schools in Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford that enroll 4,000 students – said during an interview that her pay has leveled off since 2014, after the $100,000 increase between 2009 and 2014. ”
https://ctmirror.org/2017/01/13/pay-for-charter-school-leaders-fuels-funding-debate/
For now compare that to the table of superintendent wages. Scams we will discus another time.
Thank you Ms. Meier for at least recognizing that there are indeed charter schools across the country that are truly pubic, and doing good/innovative work. In MN charter schools are defined as public schools because they are public. There is no private ownership, schools are authorized by a non-profit, most often a university or a community agency. The authorizer acts as the liaison between the publicly elected school board and the MN Department of Education. In MN most of school boards have a teacher majority and the rest of the board consists of members from the schools community including parents. In MN charters are not allowed to be selective, any student who applies is admitted as long as there is space. A large percentage of charter schools serve higher populations of students on IEPs (mine is currently 45%). All of our teachers are licensed and our turnover is rare. As far as being non-union, our staff have no interest in unionizing, because we are a teacher lead school – there is no traditional hierarchy everyone has an equal place at the table. Many of the arguments against charter schools is that they are not necessary, but we have to be honest – not every school is the right fit for every student – students and parents should have the right to choose the school that best fits their needs.
“…–not every school is the right fit for every student– …” That’s why school districts form consortia to provide programs to support special interests/needs. “…–students and parents should have the right to choose the school that best fits their needs.” Just what does that mean? Just what is public education supposed to do? Hey, Minnesota may be getting it close to right. I don’t know although I have heard the feeling expressed that the public schools must compete against charter schools? What!? No! We cannot afford to fund 50 flavors like a fancy ice cream parlor.. It sounds a little like a three year old’s tantrum, “But I want it!”
Peter,
Minnesota is an exception. The charter industry is dominated by corporate chains. Few charters are teacher led.
Teacher led charters are not benign if they are privately managed. Don’t forget teachers the charter they create can be infiltrated and seized by the private sector.
In Oakland, California American Indian Charter school was established by, and for, Native Americans. Under threat of being closed for low test scores the school hired a CEO that raised scores while diverting millions to his private businesses. The school had been community and teacher lead but those attributes didn’t last.
The same story played out with at another Oakland charter school with a community established private sector charter being infiltrated and taken over by its CEO.
Its the private structure not the individuals of charter schools that is the enemy of public education. Unite in the struggle against privatization of public education and demand a ban–not a moratorium–on charter schools that would only be temporary.
Friends don’t let their public school friends start charter schools.
Peter: Your school is how charters were originally conceived to operate. I am glad you work in an idyllic charter. Most charters have morphed into a marketplace nightmare represented by big money and the 1%. They are designed to generate profit. They often exploit the teachers while they pay the CEO and top administrators six figure salaries. “Choice” often means the schools do the choosing, and the leftovers attend impoverished public schools. This is highly undemocratic and unfair for a so called democracy.
Retired Teacher, I am acutely aware of the issues with corporate charters and strongly oppose them, as well as supporting forums such as this and others, however, as Deborah Meiers states there are hundreds of independent charter schools do very good work, helping students navigate their educational journey when their traditional high school was not working for them. These schools should not be lumped in with “all” charters simply because they share the same category, charters are as different state by state as each state is different with regards to its traditional public schools.
No matter how good the charter school or how altruistic the intentions of its founders, the fact remains that the funding comes out of the pockets of the public schools to benefit a select few in the charter.
By raiding the tax coffers to provide for this alternative education, public schools are forced to reduce services, enlarge class sizes, and limit opportunities for the majority of the children in the district. Not only does this adversely effect the urban schools, but also the rural and even the suburban schools, since there is only so much money designated for schools in the state budgets.
Adding to this indignity is the fact that some parents choose charters to keep their children away from the “riff raff”, in essence getting what they consider a private school education on the public dime.
What amazes me is that even with all the “skimming” of the student population as well as the easing out of those who don’t “fit in”, the results don’t appear to be any different than if the children had attended their local school.
The taxpayer would be better served taking that money and adding programming to the public schools instead of offering this two tier approach which pits one school against another.
Retired,
Could you give some support to your claim that most charters have morphed into a marketplace nightmare represented by big money and the 1%? NCES estimated there were 6,750 charter schools in the US in 2014 (the most recent year I could easily find). Dr. Ravitch, in 2012, stated that the Gulen network was the largest chain with 135 schools, giving the largest chain a market share of .02%
You might be interested in this 2015 Slate article about the rapid decline in for profit charter schools: http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/2015/12/17/for_profit_charter_schools_are_failing_and_fading_here_s_why.html
In Michigan, DeVos’s home state, 80% of charters operate for-profit.
In Kansas, 100% of the charter schools are chartered and run by the local school board.
TE,
There are more than 6,000 charters in the US. How many in Kansas?
Out of the 6,000 publicly funded U.S. charter schools amend state laws to ban the private management of charter schools. It is the privately managed charter schools that are the existential threat to public schools and should be banned. Nice charters, bad charters, all privately managed charters are an existential threat to public schools.
Jim,
You seem to have a problem with a dual system of publicly funded schools. So do I.
Flos56,
In MN parents have open enrollment options, and the dollars flow with the student so the same argument could be made that funding is flowing out of the pocket of one traditional public district and into another one if parents chose to move their student out of their home district and into another one. Do you see any difference between this and they dollars flowing to a public charter school?
My school is made up almost exclusively of your so called “riff raff”. If not for the option we provide many of them would not graduate – that comes directly from those same “riff raff”. I agree it would be great if schools would provide additional options for students who don’t fit into the traditional school model, but unfortunately that isn’t happening in my area, and students can’t wait until large slow moving districts put together options.
Peter,
Michigan has gone all-in for intradistrict choice. No one is required to go to their district schools. A group of superintendents in Michigan representing half the students in the state told me they each spend about $100,000 a year trying to poach students from neighboring districts because the money follows the district. That was 80 districts wasting millions that should be spent on instruction.
Michigan’s NAEP scores have fallen since Choice was introduced.
“Riff Raff” doesn’t automatically refer to people of color. Parents want to send their children to a “special” school where their kids can get what they perceive as a better education away from the trouble makers who are disrupting the class at the old school. (Ironically, it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s their child who is causing the problem and are surprised when the charter school gives their darling the boot.)
There are quite a few charter schools in Buffalo of various varieties (we even have a Gulan). What I’ve noticed is that they are either 99-100% minority or have an overly high number of white students (vs the population in the public schools).
I’m not judging the quality of these schools, but surely you don’t believe that the chosen charter is the only school where that particular child can succeed? I’ve worked in all sorts of schools, and I’ve never been in one which ultimately did not have the best interests of the students in mind. Success depends on a series of factors – not least of which is the attitude of the child. Perhaps some charters do well because they make the student feel “chosen” or “better” than their public school children counterparts so they try a little harder.
This is a complex issue, but I stand by my original statement. Charter schools drain the resources of public schools. And if schools crossing district lines are doing the same, then that funding methodology is also faulty.
Thanks Diane!
Thanks to Jeff and, to the Campaign for America’s Future.
Peter: I disagree with your statement “charters are as different state by state as each state is different with regards to its traditional public schools.”
All charters, in all states that are privately managed are an existential threat to public schools because they as privately managed have a private interest instead of the public interest of public schools. Competition between privately managed charters and is a zero sum game for market share of education dollar with one side winning always at the expense of the other side.
Systemic conflict between the public and private is the reason to ban and abolish all charter schools funded by the taxpayers’ education dollars.
Jim,
See my comment above. It is simply not true that all charter schools in all states are private managed.
I am curious about the point of view that public schools represent the public interest. Could you elaborate?
TE,
Public schools are accountable to elected school boards–95% of them. They are controlled by the public.
Charter schools are private corporations. They have no public accountability. That is why the NAACP passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on charters until they abide by the same standards of transparency and accountability as public schools.
The only State in which charter schools are publicly managed is Virginia, which has 9 charters.
Dr. Raviitch,
Your statement that Virginia is the only state where charter schools are publicly managed is simply false. All charter schools in Kansas are run by the elected school board, the entire staff of many charter schools in Wisconsin are employees of the local school board.
TE,
If I’m wrong, I’m willing to be corrected. Would you say that elected boards control a few charters, most charters? None of the corporate charters are controlled by local school boards. No EMO or CMO is controlled by a local board. There are more than 6,000 charters. What % would you guess are locally controlled, overseen by elected school boards? None in New York State; none in California, which has the most charters of any state; none in Florida, which has more than 600 charters; none in Texas. How many charters are you talking about?
In saying that the only publicly managed charter schools are 9 charter schools in Virginia you are certainly wrong. Perhaps this lake of knowledge about the range of charter schools explains your blanket opposition to charter schools.
You name 4 of the fifty states. I understand that those of you on the coasts do not really care about states that do not touch salt water, yet those of us in those states do think we matter.
TE,
As I just posted in the comment thread, Kansas has a grand total of 10 charter schools. Out of 6,000 in the nation. California has more than 1,000, Florida has more than 600 (they open and close with such frequency that it is hard to keep count), and New York State has 400.
Kansas’s 10 charters include for-profit schools. Which school districts operate for-profit charters?
There are about 120 charter schools in 18 states that are actually run by teachers just like the public schools in Finland are – instead of autocratic, corporate management with a primary goal to make money even when labeled a non-profit.
120 vs 6,000 in more than 18 states.