Sarah Lahm writes about education in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis.
In this post, she says that Democratic candidates should speak out against nonprofit charters.
Charter schools, once the darling of politicians on the right and left, have become a hot potato in the Democratic Party 2020 presidential primary with nearly every candidate voicing some level of disapproval of the industry. A common refrain among the candidates is to express opposition to “for-profit charter schools.” Charter school proponents counter these pronouncements by pointing to industry data indicating only 12 percent of charter schools are run by overtly profit-minded entities, and that most charter schools are overseen by outfits that have a nonprofit, tax-exempt status.
But the singling out of for-profit charter schools is somewhat beside the point as residents of a St. Paul, Minnesota, neighborhood learned this summer when a treasured local landmark was threatened by an expanding charter school. The charter was decidedly nonprofit, but as families and preservation advocates would learn from their tenacious, but ultimately unsuccessful, battle to save a beloved, historic church, charter schools, regardless of their tax status, have become powerful players in a lucrative real estate market in urban areas where land values are high and empty lots or school-ready buildings are hard to find.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
All of those who believe in separation of church and state should be speaking out against
vouchers. Pseudo libertarians promoting vouchers or religious zealots doing the same employ propaganda instead of truth. The OntheIssues.org site, which appears near the top in search results, dispenses with objectivity in favor of ideology.
The following is the distorted addition to an entry about the education viewpoint of a politician who voted AGAINST vouchers.
“Vouchers transformed parents into customers with the power to exercise choice. Parents shopped around…exercised choice. It worked. Kids who failed in public schools succeeded in private and charter schools at less than 1/3 the cost.”
Fordham-funded research at Northwestern by Dr, Figlio disproves the statement.
An attempt to destroy democracy with lies.
Many Democratic candidates are woefully uninformed about the shady, lucrative private charter school sector. There is little distinction in practice between the non-profit and for profit charter industry. Of course, non-profit charter schools is a much more politically correct term to tax payers. Few people understand the network of self dealing opportunities available in the charter sector.
This post describes in detail how a non-profit school can yield big returns to investors. While the story focuses on Minneapolis, the financial dealings of real estate and charter management companies like Ten Square can assist in providing a generous return to investors anywhere in the country. Using tax credits from the federal government and getting cities to float bonds to pay for facilities and then selling off the debt, there are multiple opportunities to profitize private education paid for by public money. All of these financial manipulations do not come without risk. The risk is held by the public, and the profit goes into private pockets. This house of cards is similar to what lenders were doing that brought about the 2008 meltdown of the economy.
When Democrats say they support non-profit charter schools, they are woefully naive. That does not even take into consideration that there is little academic benefit to students, and a great deal of unnecessary disruption to students and communities. These risky financial deals have the potential of destabilizing the finances of both cities and states. I am surprised Warren is not sounding the alarm.
Profit or non-profit, the critical issues (1) who owns the assets (2) is governance a representative democracy (3) are administrative records available to the public (4) do Sunshine laws apply (5) are the schools required to follow the same rules for admission, retention and graduation (6) are legal punishments for misappropriation of funds and violation of civil rights the same as those for public school employees
(7) does employee hiring follow Equal Employment Opportunity guidelines.
Sigh. No, they’re not uninformed. They’re simply bought off. That’s why they can’t make a simple statement opposing privatization in all forms. All they can do is mumble something about being opposed to for-profit charters. Politicians are not stupid people, at least not in a canny/savvy sort of sense (they may very well be anti-intellectual). They know what’s going on and how the system works – they’re the ones who design it.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has not come out opposing all non-profit charters and I have looked all over for a quote where she condemned charters as something that must be stopped. There is nothing but the same vague platitudes that you insist are signs that a politician is “bought off”. Bernie Sanders was not “bought off” for the last decade when he supported non-profit charters and the fact that Bernie now has come out asking for more oversight for non-profit charters and a temporary moratorium on expansion is not something he is faking because the people who have been buying him off for the last decade or so know that he’s lying to voters and really is on their side. It is entirely possible for a politician to 1. change his mind (as Bernie did) and 2. not want to condemn all non-profit charters as something that must be shut down (as AOC is unwilling to do).
Elizabeth Warren is not “bought off” on charters. She is misinformed that there should be any role for charters, but knew enough to oppose the expansion of non-profit charters in Massachusetts. Her positions are not because she takes her marching orders from someone who is buying her off.
You have such a nihilistic view of Democrats, always looking to turn any position into some kind of evil sign that they are all fake and just waiting to do the bidding of the rich. And yet you always give Trump the benefit of the doubt on his corrupt dealings despite copious evidence to the contrary. I don’t get it.
I’m not going to spend time searching for the backup info. because your mind is closed, NYC.
But, for other readers, AOC definitely spoke against charter schools in the announcement of a progressive candidate that Justice Democrats plan to run in a primary against an establishment Dem.
Linda,
I LIKE Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I think she is a strong supporter of public schools. But if you can find somewhere that she goes on record speaking out against non-profit charters as something that are bad things that need to be opposed, I’d like to see it.
I believe that if she had really come out strongly speaking out against non-profit charters, you should have been able to find a quote. I spent the time to search for the reference you mention, and as far as i could find, the only thing AOC said was that parents were being “incentivized” to enroll in charters instead of public schools.
That isn’t being critical of charters nor is it doing what Sarah Lahm is suggesting and simply speaking out against charters (the way that de Blasio did when he said they should not exist, period).
I don’t know why my expecting people to be honest in their criticisms instead of rushing to condemn the entire Democratic party as corrupt bothers you so much. It is not true.
Elizabeth Warren is not corrupt. She is not “bought off”. She happens to be wrong in her belief that there is a role for non-profit charters when we all wish she would simply speak out against them, period. We are all glad that she did not support the expansion of non-profit charters in Massachusetts. But whatever her position on this particular issue is, it is simply her position. Smearing Warren as some corrupt politician who takes her marching orders from somewhere else is a lie that should stop now. She can be wrong just like Bernie is often wrong on issues and then sometimes changes his mind to be right. And sometimes doesn’t change his mind. That is okay. What isn’t okay is smearing Bernie because you disagree with him on a position and repeating a blatant lie that he takes that position because he takes his marching orders from someone corrupt telling him what to do and say. I suspect you understand that when it comes to Bernie. It is time to extend that courtesy to politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, too.
Your comment speaks to something that has bothered me for a long time. Government works because people are willing to compromise. Bernie himself said it when he said he has found some common ground with Lamar Alexander. He didn’t demonize his politics. As I remember he just said, “He’s a conservative guy.” Kind of like ,”What’s the big deal?” Democrats are their own worst enemies now. If I didn’t know better, I would say that we have adopted La Donald’s “smear and jeer” tactics. Heck, I couldn’t get my whole family to eat pork and beans! Why we should demand that we all follow one politically correct path or be considered the enemy is beyond me.
speduktr,
Thank you. In fact, I absolutely believe that people should point out that Elizabeth Warren’s policies on education are far more pro-charter than Bernie Sanders and anyone who wants a very strong anti-charter position to be the litmus test should vote for Sanders in the primary.
But what they shouldn’t do is to make the fact that Warren still seems to believe there is a role for non-profit charters into a character attack on her. It is simply a position she has that they disagree with and should vote accordingly.
Bernie has positions I don’t 100% agree with. But he also has many that I do. Since we all have different priorities, no politician can possibly stand lockstep with all the people who support him on every single issue.
We all have neighbors or relatives who support charters. Who is paying them to do so? We all have neighbors or relatives who don’t want to lose their company provided health insurance and don’t want a candidate who is saying they will have no choice but to trade it in for medicare for all. Who is paying them? We all have neighbors who think the US should stop free trade and start protectionist policies and neighbors who think free trade is important and many people will suffer. Who is paying them?
People can have legitimate disagreements on policy. It doesn’t mean that they are “bought off”. That is the kind of dishonest trashing of Democrats that the far right wants. The right way to do it is to encourage public debate on these issues.
That’s why I’m sorry that de Blasio isn’t in the debates anymore since there needs to be a serious discussion among Democrats about non-profit charters and he had the potential to start that. Now I doubt it will be mentioned for the next year.
Warren just came out in support of two Justice Democrats who are running against DINO’s Henry Cueller and Dan Lipinski.
Thanks to Warren. Thanks to Bernie for starting the debate and forcing it to be front and center because his “revolution” coalesced a power base of millions of progressives who he steers to the Democratic Party.
sped-
It would be helpful if you provided an example of a few policies enacted that reflected a “compromise” that didn’t look most like a win for the GOP.
The GOP overturns whatever compromises it does make. Obama didn’t even get a hearing for his moderate Supreme Court nominee.
The definition of insanity- doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
Have you not heard reps talking about coming up with a compromise only to have it shut down by Trump? I believe the last time that still sticks imn my memory was a compromise plan on integration. Bernie or Elizabeth Warren would probably better sources of examples sincle they both serve in Congress.
No one would claim that compromise is the rule of the day now or that Trump encourages civility. Gingrich was the beginning of “my way or the highway” governance. It did not use to be that way and it was rare that questioning the integrity of your opponent was normal operating procedure. That is the key. We can disagree without feeling the Trumpian need to denigrate the character of those we disagree with.
“Warren just came out in support of two Justice Democrats who are running against DINO’s Henry Cueller and Dan Lipinski.”
That is my point. Warren is good on many issues but she still is NOT particularly good when it comes to non-profit charters. However, she is also not awful on that issue. It is just that she could and should be better.
We have to stop trashing Democratic politicians and attacking their character and working hard to convince voters that these politicians are not to be trusted. Corey Booker can be trusted — trusted to continue his support of school reform and charters. Booker can also be trusted when he agrees with Bernie’s position on other issues like co-sponsoring his Medicare for all bill.
We should absolutely be pointing out what candidates’ positions are and voting for the ones who we are most closely aligned with in the primary. But trashing the others with lies about how they just do what their donors demand is simply repeating right wing propaganda and those who do that have a different agenda.
retired teacher,
Your words ring true:
“Many Democratic candidates are woefully uninformed about the shady, lucrative private charter school sector. There is little distinction in practice between the non-profit and for profit charter industry. Of course, non-profit charter schools is a much more politically correct term to tax payers. Few people understand the network of self dealing opportunities available in the charter sector.”
There are NO NOT-for-Profit charter schools. It’s a BIG SCAM and SHAM. The deformers put Not-for-Profit Charters to DECEIVE.
Politicians learn how to use the tribalism that facilitates oligarchy in sessions at the Kennedy School of Government (harvard). AOC called out harvard for its grooming of elected officials for use by the rich.
Influential institutions like harvard shun the 99% and the common good- as examples, Fryer, founders of Gates’ investment, BIA, and Larry Summers.
I think Dem. Senator, Sherrod Brown, who asked for and rec’d $71,000,000 for charters in his state, attended harvard. His education adviser, a dilettante TFA’er went to GWU, a $70,000 a year private college.
Chester Finn went to harvard.
The 74 million website shows that presidential hopeful Cory Booker is all in for charter schools and if you follow his logic, problems are solved if you just close down the schools that are not high quality.
He is trying very hard to defend is education record.
https://www.the74million.org/article/exclusive-presidential-candidate-cory-booker-reflects-on-the-school-reforms-he-brought-to-newark-as-mayor-and-the-education-legacy-hes-left-behind/?
https://www.the74million.org/article/exclusive-senator-cory-booker-speaks-out-about-newark-school-reform/
Booker has NO CLUE. He’s drank the KOOK-AID.
Booker has more than a clue. Tech filled his bank account.
But the key word here is that Booker has to DEFEND his pro-charter positions from the past!
It wasn’t so long ago that a politician had to defend not being pro-charter and would proudly proclaim how wonderful charters were and how we needed a lot more of them. Now they have to defend their rabid support of charters.
And the reason for that is voters. Voters used to be very supportive of charters and liked when politicians supported them (as long as they weren’t messing up their own suburban public schools). But now they are getting savvier.
In the end, who cares whether they are truly non-profit or not? What and whose purpose does it serve to subvert the democratic process associated with public institutions?
Public Schools and Public School Teachers are two of America’s TREASURES.
The “so-called” improvements the DEFORMERS want is just another SCAM … ONLINE everything … to DRILL and KILL.
The Plantation Model is well and alive.
Agreed, and as you’ve reported many times before we also need to be highly skeptical of Walmart influence in education. However they came up with a new plan for their own employees about a year ago, which hasn’t been reviewed by many people at all, to the best of my knowledge including you.
It’s their dollar a day program for their employees to graduate from college online. You’ve reporters on K-12 & how terrible it is, so I find it hard to imagine this an be much better especially from Walmart.
This is the most recent article I found on the subject:
https://www.1011now.com/content/news/Walmart-employees-taking-advantage-of-1-a-day-college-program-559887571.html
The only thing I found that criticizes it is this from Vox, outside of that it’s almost all positive propaganda about this program:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17413326/walmart-college-tuition-worker-pay-unemployment
Thanks for the info.
Did the Walton heirs get their educations online?
It would explain a lot.
I doubt it; they only push online college or Charters for Working Class to keep them in their place.
“You’ve reporters on K-12 & how terrible it is, so I find it hard to imagine this an be much better especially from Walmart.”
I’m sorry, Zack. This sentence stymied me. I am not trying to be the proof reading police. I am far too often in the same boat, but I ended up not knowing if you were impressed or skeptical of their college program. The Vox article took the shine off it for me. While it’s nice for those who strive to move up in Walmart (and Walmart, as well), I seriously wonder how useful it is otherwise. Obviously, it is of no use at all to those who are not in a position to take advantage of it.
Oopps, sorry, I guess I’m taking lessons from Covfefe on spelling, let me try again.
It’s their dollar a day program for their employees to graduate from college online. You’ve reported on K-12 & how terrible it is, so I find it hard to imagine this to be much better especially from Walmart.
I knew what you meant, Zack.
Thanks, Zach. I just could not figure it out. More my problem than yours.