Jersey Jazzman notes that charters in his state are on the horns of a dilemma: on one hand, public school advocates are suing to block charter expansion, because they drain away public school funding: on the other hand, charters want to join a lawsuit that would allow them to share in a settlement intended to provide equity for public schools in impoverished districts. JJ is a very smart guy but he doesn’t seem to understand that what matters most is not consistency but being in the right place when the money spigot is turned on. Charters are public when that’s where the money is; charters are not public when it suits them to avoid mandates.
He writes:
This was a long time coming: the Christie administration happily encouraged the expansion of charter schools without seriously thinking about appropriate oversight, regulation, and funding of the sector. Now the state has to contend with a system that imposes fiscal burdens on school districts that host charter schools, even as those districts have no meaningful say on charter school proliferation.
The fact – which I have validated empirically – is that charter school expansion is not a revenue-neutral policy. As school districts lose students to charters, they are unable to adjust immediately to enrollment declines, because districts have fixed costs like buildings and personnel that can’t be quickly scaled back.
But charter operators appear to be unconcerned with this reality; repeatedly, they have demanded they get everything they think they are owed, even when school districts are facing serious financial pressures. During Christie’s time, this meant charter budgets weren’t touched, even as host districts’ were slashed…
As Bruce Baker and Gary Miron pointed out years ago, charter school regulations like New Jersey’s lead to an absurd situation: the public pays for school buildings that many times used to be owned by a school district – in other words, the public – but wind up in private hands. Sometimes those hands are nonprofits aligned with the charter school; sometimes they are for-profit companies, paying off their mortgages with funds the charters receive in per pupil payments from hosting school districts.
In either case, the public is paying for a building that the public will never own. And in most cases, these are buildings that are paid for, at least in part, with local funds, even though the state is the entity that gets to decide whether charters will be granted or renewed.
This lunacy is at the heart of the serious conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and just generally bad policymaking that surrounds New Jersey’s charter school facilities…
The legal status of charter schools has always been open to debate, but it’s clear at this point that they are not government actors. As such, they can claim immunity from oversight regulations that other governmental entities, such as school boards, must abide by. Why, then, should the taxpayers simply turn over revenues for charter facilities when they won’t even know who, if anyone, is profiting off of this system?
There are a lot of aspects of charter school policy we can debate, but this one if clear: If the public pays for a school building — including a charter school building — the public should own the building. If New Jersey’s charter schools want more funding for their facilities, the price to be paid is that those facilities stay in public hands, with public oversight and complete transparency.
If you think I’m wrong, I’d love to hear your argument. But it seems clear to me that New Jersey’s charter schools can’t have it both ways: if you want public funding, you can’t have privately owned buildings.
In many states when charters were growing, there was very little consideration of the impact of charters on public school budgets. There was little information presented to the public on how charters would impact taxes in areas where charters expanded. The knitty gritty specifics of the arrangement were deliberately ignored. With little to no oversight and accountability, paying for private charters is like tossing public money into a black hole. The whole complex issue of real estate was never presented fully to the tax paying public. Since many charters in New Jersey and other states are often backed by savvy, manipulative hedge fund managers that take advantage of the state’s failure to be an effective steward of public money.
Real estate is often the crown jewel to charter grifters. CMOs have been buying and leasing properties at above market rates for years. Sometimes, as in the case of New Jersey property is simply moved from being a public asset to being a private one. The public that is paying the bill is largely kept in the dark. To add insult to injury, the local public schools often suffer from permanent deferred maintenance syndrome since public school budgets are drained to serve private interests. As Jersey Jazzman notes, the public has no say in where the money goes. That is why many charter operators buy state representatives to prohibit local communities from having control of their tax dollars. As Jersey Jazzman points out, buildings paid for by public money should be public, not private, assets. The opaque funding system is crooked and unfair to taxpayers.
a KEY factor often bypassed in our city’s local fights over “reform” — it is land value which is now running policy. “Real estate is often the crown jewel to charter grifters.”
Every time I see Chris Christie appear on CNN, I change the channel. He attacked public schools and teachers. He was such a crude, vulgar bully. He is no expert in my opinion. He is another opportunistic liar like his pal, #45.
Try things the Indiana way: public schools are supposed to sell unused schools to charters for $1.00. Charter schools were given more money in this year’s budget than public schools.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
School District Sue State, Argues $1 Charter Law Is Unconstitutional
By ERIC WEDDLE
Posted September 13, 2019
West Lafayette School leaders hope the lawsuit makes it to the Indiana Supreme Court. (Some schools will fare better than others under the new state budget. (Steve Burns/WFIU))
An Indiana school district says a law that allows charter schools to buy unused school buildings from districts for $1 is unconstitutional.
West Lafayette Community Schools is suing Gov. Eric Holcomb over the eight-year-old law. Superintendent Rocky Killion says local homeowners invest in community school buildings with their property taxes. Yet they don’t get a say in if a school is sold or leased for $1.
“I think this is a question for every school district community to answer,” Killion says. “And to think that legislation could be passed in Indianapolis, bypassing those local taxpayers, bypassing any due process or input, I think it is unfair.”
West Lafayette School leaders hope the lawsuit makes it to the Indiana Supreme Court.
In 2011, state lawmakers passed the law that lets charter schools buy or lease empty school buildings for a dollar if the building was vacant for two years. Lawmakers shortened that window to just 30 days earlier this year and made additional requirements for charter organizers that want buildings of more than 200,000 gross square feet.
The 11-page lawsuit filed in Tippecanoe Circuit Court argues the law should be struck down because it violates both the 5th Amendment of the Constitution and the Indiana Constitution by taking property without just compensation.
Killion, a vocal critic of school voucher and charter school legislation, says the law creates a “stacked deck” against traditional public schools.
Concern over the law has been around for years, Killion says, but school leaders became more worried after it stopped using Happy Hollow Elementary earlier this year. The program moved to another school.
City of West Lafayette is renting the building but that agreement is expected to end in a few years. The lawsuit, Killion says, would protect the building for future community use…