Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post reviews the Network for Public Education report on for-profit charters, which explains how such money-grabbers function in states where they are supposedly illegal. Arizona is the only state where for-profit charters are legal, yet the report says they operate in 26 states and D.C. In Florida and Michigan, the majority of charters are run by for-profit companies.
Strauss points out that Joe Biden promised to cut off federal funding to for-profit charters. Here is a road map he can use to keep his promise.
She writes:
Now a new report, titled “Chartered For Profit: The Hidden World of Charter Schools Operated for Financial Gain,” details how many for-profit management companies (referred to as EMOs) evade state laws banning for-profit charters.
They set up nonprofit schools and then direct the schools’ business operations to related corporations. For example, it says, one of the largest EMOs, National Heritage Academies, “locks schools in with a ‘sweeps contract’ where virtually all revenue is passed to the for-profit management corporation, NHA, that runs the school.”
“In other cases, the EMO recommends their own related companies for services that include leasing, personnel services, and curriculum,” it says.
The report was produced by the Network for Public Education, an education advocacy group that opposes charter schools. It was written by Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education and a former award-winning New York principal, and Darcie Cimarusti, the network’s communications director.
The authors wrote that despite “strict regulations against the disbursement of funds from the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) to charter schools operated by for-profit entities,” they identified more than 440 charter schools operated for profit that received grants totaling approximately $158 million between 2006 and 2017.
They also found that fewer disadvantaged students, proportionally, attend charters run for profit than at traditional public schools.
“Comparing the five cities with the most for-profit charter schools (by the proportion of students attending these schools) revealed that in all but one city — Detroit — for-profit run charters served far fewer students who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch,” the report says. “In all cities, for-profit-run schools serve fewer students who receive services” under the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
Charters schools are publicly financed but privately operated. About 6 percent of U.S. schoolchildren attend charter schools, with 44 states plus the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico having laws permitting them.
Charter advocates say that these schools offer choices to families who want alternatives to troubled schools in traditional public school districts. Critics say that charter schools take money from public districts that educate most American children and are part of a movement to privatize public education. This report is the third on federal funding of charter schools that the Network for Public Education has published since 2019. The earlier reports chronicle the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on charter schools that did not open or were shut down — and revealed that the U.S. Education Department failed to adequately monitor federal grants to these schools. You can learn about the first two reports here and here.
For years, charter schools enjoyed bipartisan support — and were backed by the administrations of presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. But more recently, many Democrats have become skeptical of the charter movement, especially those schools that are operated or managed by for-profit entities — and Biden has vowed to stop federal funding for-profit charters.
But what is a for-profit charter? “The term ‘for-profit charter school,’ while commonly used, does not accurately describe the vast majority of charters designed to create private profit,” the new report says.
While only one state — Arizona — legally allows for-profit entities to be licensed to operate charter schools, for-profit entities find ways to set up schools in states that only allow nonprofits to operate, it says. The new report explains that typically, an EMO would find individuals interested in operating a charter school and then help “them create a nonprofit organization and apply for a charter license.”
Then, the board of the nonprofit group “enters into a contract with the for-profit EMO to run the school,” the report says. For-profit owners “maximize their revenue through self-dealing, excessive fees, real estate transactions, and under-serving students who need the most expensive services,” the Network for Public Education says.
Between September 2020 and February 2021, the authors said they identified more than 1,100 charter schools that have contracts with one of 138 for-profit organizations to control the schools’ key — or total — operations, including management, personnel and curriculum...
The report’s authors make recommendations to the U.S. Education Department and states regarding charters that are operated for profit, including:
• The Education Department “should conduct an extensive audit of present and former grantees to ascertain compliance with all regulations that define the for-profit relationship.”
• The federal government “should define a for-profit charter school as a school in which more than 30 percent of all revenue flows directly or indirectly to for-profit vendors.”
• All states should “follow the lead of Ohio by listing the management providers and posting their contracts with charter schools. To that information, the profit status of the EMO should be added.”
• Sweeps contracts should “be outlawed in every state.”• Related corporations of for-profit and nonprofit management companies should “be prohibited from doing business with their managed charter schools.”
• All charters should “be held by the school or campus itself, and not by a nonprofit subsidiary.”• A national database should “be developed that lists all charter EMOs and their corporate status (for-profit or nonprofit), along with their address and the name(s) of the private corporation’s owner(s).”
I just wonder how Biden squares the aggressively anti-union stance of the ed reform “movement” with his support of collective bargaining and workplace rights.
They’re opposed to unions and it doesn’t matter if it’s a private sector union or a public sector union- ed reformers work against it.
Maybe it can be explained, I don’t know. But it certainly seems counterproductive for the Biden Administration to work to expand and strengthen unions while also eagerly funding the ed reform lobby, who work against unions.
I think it raises questions too about ed reformer’s efforts to design apprenticeship programs and run them thru charter companies. Shouldn’t young people be told that they’re signing on to an apprenticeship that will disallow collective bargaining and employee rights in the workplace? It’s an ideological stance. At the very least a 17 year who signs onto an ed reform designed apprenticeship should be told ed reformers have an ideological objection to labor unions and work to eradicate them.
Most of the existing skilled trades apprenticeships are run using a cooperative model, employers and labor unions. Are ed reformers working to expel labor unions from apprenticeships? Will wages fall if ed reformers are permitted to use their race to the bottom economic ideology when designing programs for working class people?
Great opening question: HOW does Biden square this glaring discrepancy?
One of my sons took an apprenticeship thru a labor union. It’s worked out really well for him. I would encourage any 17 year old to do it- it’s a good deal for the student. Five years of skilled trades training and a decent wage and benefit package after the first 90 days. That’s the labor union demand, and they secured real benefits for apprentices.
If ed reformers capture apprenticeship policy like they’ve captured K-12 policy will we have low wage, low quality “apprenticeships” that are a rip off for high school students with no role or voice for the students? Because that’s the ideology in the “movement”. Should we invest public funds in what will amount to federal subsidies of low wage employers?
Many of the trade unions sponsor apprenticeship programs. Students can work while they learn. When the student becomes a journeyman, the salary increases. At the end young people can be electricians, plumbers or carpenters and a card carrying union member.
This is the ed reform echo chamber proposal for apprenticeships:
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/543379-to-build-back-better-biden-must-invest-in-a-modern-apprenticeship-system#.YFT7pq0PO-w.twitter
It’s an unregulated subsidy to employers and “pass thru” private companies who will provide the “training”.
It literally has no role at all for the apprentice other than guaranteeing “minimum wage”
It’s a LOUSY deal for apprentices. They’ve sold these kids down the river before the programs even start. 17 year olds are naive. What if they fall for this garbage and invest 5 years in it? At the end they get a minimum wage job?
This stuff is just shameless. It seems designed to exploit working class young people. Why would the federal government be funding that?
I’m not sure I completely follow your reasoning on this. Where does it say program would be unregulated? It says incentivize them to pay apprentices min wage or better and place them in the field when completed. When my kids were in college 10-15 yrs ago the air was rife with dead-end no-pay gofer-job “apprenticeships.”
Where I agree with you wholeheartedly is here: let’s take a close look at what kind of jobs are at the end of the program. Housebuilding/ reno trades, check. Non-nursing health jobs, child-care? No way. It’s a dead end without unions. Cart before horse.
I laughed out loud when I saw ed reformers were “guaranteeing” minimum wages to apprentices. That’s the benefit these fierce advocates for young people secured- “benefit” that is ALREADY guaranteed under federal law.
I mean, come on. Can we at least TRY to not screw young people? Is it necessary to trick them?
Ed reformers have generously offered to pay the rock bottom federal minimum to employees. Wendys does that. They have to.
I suppose we should be grateful they’ve agreed to pay people at all. Their tutoring proposal relies completely on unpaid labor. Arne Duncan gets paid! John King gets paid! Why shouldn’t tutors get paid?