Blogger Red Queen in LA (Sara Roos) has combed through tax filings to reveal the exorbitant salaries paid to charter school execitives, demonstrating that the ban of for-profit charter corporations has not limited the raid on taxpayers’ dollarsby charter profiteers. At the same time that charters executives are pulling down hefty salaries, charter enrollments are declining.
She writes:
“Overall, enrollment in LAUSD’s 37 CMO/Gs dropped 16.5% between 2016-17 and 2017-18, from a total of 93,842 to 78,315.”
But executive salaries are staggeringly high.
Dan Katzir, formerly Eli Broad’s Foundation Leader, now brings in more than half a million dollars a year in salary, although he was never a teacher or principal.
The CEO of Green Dot rakes in a tidy $386,000 per annum.
These are private-sector salaries, yet charters have the gall to dub themselves “public schools.”
If they really want to be considered public schools, they should be paid the same as their counterparts in the public sector.
But that might lead to executive flight that exceeded the declines in pupils choosing charter schools.
Next time you hear about those fabled “wait lists” for charter schools, recall that 80% of charters in Los Angeles have vacancies, a fact released to the public by LAUSD board member Scott Schmerelson.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They actually are waiting lists.
The charters are waiting for people to sign up.
This report is thorough and clear. Many CEOs and CFOs are paid disproportionately high. “The corrupting and radical influence of charter school excess” are exposed for all to see. This is the same industry that often lies about enrollments and pays those that actually work with students considerably less than counterparts in most public schools. At least California has accurate records that can actually be analyzed which is more than we can say about some other states like Arizona or Florida.
I am not really sure why this is characterized as a “private sector” salary.
The superintendent of LA Public has an annual salary of $350,000 (see http://laschoolreport.com/austin-beutner-is-named-superintendent-as-board-members-choose-strong-leadership-to-tackle-lausds-deep-academic-and-fiscal-challenges/) and in 2013 the superintendent of the Centinela Valley Union High School District earned $655,000 in total compensation (see https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/26/lawndale-superintendents-663k-salary-sparks-call-for-recall-of-school-board-criminal-investigation/).
Seven public school superintendents on Long Island have a total compensation over $400,000 in 2018 (Anna F. Hunderfund, Locust Valley CSD was the highest at $451,534. See https://patch.com/new-york/greatneck/long-island-school-superintendents-salaries-ranked)
Because they claim they require private sector salaries.
Charter schools are not public schools.
They are private contractors.
That’s what two different federal courts have ruled.
So said the NLRB.
So said the charters themselves when protesting the application of state law to charter embezzlers.
My point is that $386,000 is less than what some public school district superintendents earn, even in very small districts. Locus Valley CSD where Anna Hunderfund’s total compensation is $451,534, for example, is a school district with a total of 2,056 students and 6 schools.
Getting paid the same amount to run a handful of charter schools as a superintendent charged with running scores or hundreds of public schools is a waste of taxpayer money. It’s inefficient management. If the practice were to become pervasive enough, it would break the bank.
In the case of LAUSD’s Austin Beutner, any amount is too much…
Ooh. Good one.
To underscore LCT’s point, for example NYC Schools Chancellor’s salary is $350k to run a system of 1million students; Success Academy’s CEO Moskowitz makes over $1/2million to run a system of 17k students. And where data is available to make detailed studies of charters vs tradl publics– Mark Weber’s of Newark SD is one among several I’ve seen– charters spend a significantly higher proportion of revenue on admin than tradls– and that’s before profit, another cost not borne by tradl publics. Why does it matter? Because charters are funded by the public, and they educate a chunk of public enrollment w/a top-heavy, worker-bee-light model. This can pass under radar where charters educate 5-6%. But look at Detroit, where 44% attend charters. The district spends 8th-highest per pupil among the nation’s 100 largest districts, and gets the lowest reading scores for low-income pupils.
Several studies, including one by Gary Miron of Western Michigan U., have found that charters spend more on administration than public schools. This is inevitable since they rely on teacher churn and a large proportion of their teachers are inexperienced TFA or other newcomers.
Thanks Diane for that practical insight. I had thought of charter’s admin spending in terms of sponging the public for excess highly-paid admins, sales etc. But your point goes straight to the basic structural problem with charters. They are competing w/tradl publics for static, limited revenue. Which means they are selling a product, adding marketing/ sales and profit needs that have to be carved out of “production.” Low-paid [less qualified] teachers are baked in, which necessitates yet another layer of admin: close supervision. Untenable. The structure doesn’t fit the “product.”
Deplorable! More motivation to save public education! JD
Sent from my iPhone
>
I grow more impressed with Sara Roos every time I read from or about her.
Robin Hayes, the head of the N.C. GOP state party, was indicted this week.
The FBI has reason to think he was involved in brazen bribery and corruption related to the insurance industry.
What will we think if Congressman Mark Walker is, as speculated, Individual A in the documents?
Walker introduced legislation to reauthorize school choice.