The federal Charter Schools Program was launched in 1994 with a few million dollars, when the Clinton administration decided to offer funding for start-ups. At the time, there were few charter schools. In the early, idealistic days, charter enthusiasts asserted that charters would set lofty goals and close their doors if they didn’t meet them. They were sure that charters would be far better than public schools because they were free to hire and fire teachers.
Right-wingers jumped on the charter bandwagon as a way to undermine public schools and to bust teachers’ unions. In short order, a gaggle of billionaires decided that charter schools would succeed because they operated with minimal or no regulation, like a business.
What no one knew back in 1994 was that the charter industry would grow to be politically powerful, with its own lobbyists. No one knew that the “most successful” charter schools were those that excluded the students who might pull down their test scores. No one knew that for-profit entrepreneurs would set up or manage charter chains and make huge profits, mainly by their real estate deals. No one knew that one of the largest charter chains would be run by a Turkish imam. No one knew that charter schools would develop a very old-fashioned militaristic discipline that prescribed every detail of a student’s life in school. No one knew that the little program of 1994 would grow to $440 million a year, with much of it bestowed on deep-pocketed chains that had no need of federal money to expand. No one knew that charter schools would become a favorite recipient of big money from Wall Street hedge-fund managers and billionaires like Bill Gates, the Walton family, Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, John Arnold, Betsy DeVos, Reed Hastings, and many other billionaires and multi-millionaires. No one anticipated that by 2022, there would be 3.3 million students in more than 7,400 charter schools.
Perhaps most important, no one expected that charter schools, on average, would perform no better than public schools. And in many districts and states, such as Ohio, Nevada, and Texas, charter schools perform far worse than the public schools.
School choice has been a segregationist goal ever since the Brown Decision of 1954, when southern states created segregation academies and voucher plans to help white students escape from racial integration. It should be no surprise, then, to see that the same states that are passing laws to restrict discussion of racism, to ban teaching about sexuality and gender, and to censor books abut these topics are the same states that demand more charter schools. Coincidence? Not likely. These are culture war issues that rile the Republican base.
How strange then, given this background, that the Washington Post published an editorial opposing the Department of Education’s sensible and modest effort to impose new regulations on new charter schools that seek federal funding. The education editorial writer Jo-Ann Armao very likely wrote this editorial, since she has that beat. Armao was a cheerleader for Michelle Rhee when she was chancellor of the D.C. schools and imposed a reign of terror on the district’s professional staff, based on flawed theories of reform and leadership.
In the following editorial, she makes no effort to offer two sides of the charter issue (yes, there are two, maybe three or four sides). She writes a polemic that might have been cribbed from the press releases of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the amply endowed lobbyist for the industry. She gives no evidence that she has ever heard of the high closure rate (nearly 40%) of the charters that received federal funds from the Charter Schools Program. She seems unaware of the scores of scandals associated with the charter industry, or the number of charter founders who have been convicted of embezzlement. She doesn’t care about banning for-profit management from future grants. She thinks it’s just fine to set up new charters in communities where they are not needed or wanted. She seems unaware that the new regulations will not affect the 7,000 charters now in existence. Charters can still get start-up funding from Michael Bloomberg, the Waltons, or other privatizers. New charters can still be opened by for-profit entrepreneurs like Academica, but not with federal funds.
Here is the editorial, an echo of press releases written by Nina Rees of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (Rees previously worked at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, served as education advisor to Vice-President Dick Cheney, and worked for financier Michael Milken).
The editorial’s title is: “The Biden Administration’s Sneak Attack on Charter Schools.”
Advocates for public charter schools breathed easier last month when Congress approved $440 million for a program that helps pay for charter school start-up expenses. Unfortunately, their relief was short-lived. The Biden administration the next day proposed new rules for the program that discourage charter schools from applying for grants, a move that seems designed to squelch charter growth.
On March 11, a day after the funding passed, the Education Department issued 13 pages of proposed rules governing the 28-year-old federal Charter Schools Program, which funnels funds through state agencies to help charters with start-up expenses such as staff and technology. “Not a charter school fan” was Mr. Biden’s comment about these independent public schools during his 2020 presidential campaign, and the proposed requirements clearly reflect that antipathy.
The Biden administration claims that the proposed rules would ensure fiscal oversight and encourage collaboration between traditional public schools and charter schools. But the overwhelming view within the diverse charter school community is that the proposed rules would add onerous requirements that would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet and would scare off would-be applicants. Those most hurt would be single-site schools and schools led by rural, Black and Latino educators.
Consider, for example, the requirement that would-be applicants provide proof of community demand for charters, which hinged on whether there is over-enrollment in existing traditional public schools. Enrollment is down in many big-city school districts, which would mean likely rejection for any nonprofit seeking to open up a charter. “Traditional schools may be under-enrolled, but parents are looking for more than just a seat for their child. They want high quality seats,” said Nina Rees, president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.Hence the long waiting lists for charter school spots in cities with empty classrooms in traditional schools. Also problematic is the requirement that charters get a commitment of collaboration from a traditional public school. That’s like getting Walmart to promise to partner with the five-and-dime down the street.
The Biden administration surprised the charter school community by what charter advocates called a sneak attack. There was no consultation — as is generally the case with stakeholders when regulations are being drafted — and the public comment period before the rules become final ends April 14.The norm is generally at least two months.
The proposed changes, according to a spokesperson for the Education Department, are intended to better align the Charter Schools Program with the Biden-Harris administration’s priorities. “Not a charter fan,” Mr. Biden said, and so bureaucratic rulemaking is being used to sabotage a valuable program that has helped charters give parents school choice.
If you disagree with this editorial, as I do, please send a comment thanking the Department of Education for proposing to regulate a program that has spun out of control and urging them to approve the regulations. Give your reasons.
If you think that charter schools have no need for federal funding when so many billionaires open their wallets for them, if you think that your community has enough charter schools, if you think that public schools must be strengthened and improved, if you want to stop federal funding of for-profit entrepreneurs, if you are tired of funding schools that never open, please write to support the U.S. Department of Education’s reasonable proposal to regulate the federal Charter Schools Program.
The hypocrisy of Charter Schools ….. this should be the title.
Go Biden.
Also, don’t forget the “hamster running inside a wheel” effect. Bezos has those reporters at WaPo working on timers (and probably the editorial writers, too), just like the workers at Amazon plants. So basically, there’s not much time for deep thought.
Brian, you are missing the point. The education editorialist, in the linked article, says she has no obligation to be fair to both sides. She has been an enthusiastic supporter of Michelle Rhee and the corporate reform efforts for more than a decade, well before Bezos bought the Washington Post. The fact that all of the Rhee-style “reforms” have failed matters not to her.
Yes, I didn’t mean to excuse her in any way, but meant to say that on top of all of what you say, she’s probably writing under a timer.
The pretense that the paper doesn’t shill for corporations and billionaires, obliterated in one column.
exactly
Pity that the editorial writers don’t seem to have read any of the Washington Post coverage of Gulen charter school issues.
Also, thank you to Dan Mihalopoulos of WBEZ radio and the Chicago Sun Times for covering the $4.5 million fine for the Gulen midwestern chain (Concept) chain fron the Federal government. Missouri press has not covered that scandal. Missouri has Gulen Concept charter schools.
Thanks for your honest overview on the privatization of public education. Any non-biased writer would have a reasonable opinion about the need for change in the federal charter schools program which has been plagued by endless profiteering, waste, fraud and schools that never open or close shortly after opening. This program is a corporate slush fund that is supported by profiteers that hide behind private ownership. The federal government should strive to be better stewards of public dollars, and this program is no longer needed as charter schools are largely supported by billionaires that are more than capable of paying for a program that has failed to live up to expectations. In several cities unneeded charter expansion threatens the well-being of already under funded public schools that serve the neediest students. It is time to regulate or eliminate the federal charter school program that fleeces taxpayers and increases segregation.
Please write a comment and say these things to the US Department of Education! The charter lobbyists are working overtime to force the DOE to back down.
I already did just that.
The problem with OpEds and Editorials that are not news and are often based on cherry picked facts designed to mislead, too many MAGA Fascist Americans do not know the difference between Opinion’s and News
MAGA Fascist Americans think Opinions are the news and the real news is fake.
“That’s like getting Walmart to promise to partner with the five-and-dime down the street.”
-from the editorial, complaining about the suggestion that Charters partner with public schools to make sure children are served.
That is a really good idea. I think Wal-mart should have to partner with the local 5 and dime. No business should get to act as a competitor of government without having to serve the public the way government serves the public.
We need to quit the differentiations over public and private. If you serve the public as a private entity, you share the service idea with what most people call “g’umnt”. All have an obligation to behave a certain way toward people in a community. If a government behaves in a way that exploits people, almost everyone is horrified. Why are we not horrified when private business exploits people? We are all community.
Good points!
I responded favorably to the proposed regulations.
I left a comment in support. I have seen here in Atlanta region that charter schools effectively act as a brain drain, where students who could really use a peer mentor or role model lose them in them droves. As soon as the charter school shows up, requires a parent to fill out a form, many kids – even gifted, motivated ones – are left out through no fault of their own. If mom/dad/parent/group home/guardian/foster parent isn’t motivated enough, or does not have the resources (transportation, technological, etc.) to go to the school, jump on a zoom call, etc. to sign the stupid form, those kids always lose out.
Thank you!
“There was no consultation — as is generally the case with stakeholders when regulations are being drafted,” whined Armao. Funny, I don’t remember public school teachers being consulted about anything. The worst example, Common Core. Do corporate reformers practice what they preach — ever? No, not, never, nopety-nope!
I will never understand how fiscal conservatives allow so much cash to flap in the wind without regulation.
It is almost as if – what they really oppose is that it does not land in their own pockets. Even as they spread propaganda about failing public schools, choice, and promote segregation.
I misunderstood “fiscal conservatism” until a Republican clarified it for me. She, individually meant the government should not be wasteful with tax dollars. She thought her son receiving $100,000 a year in tax dollars as a disabled person was not what the GOP objected to.
(1) More than one-half of Republican voters see what they want to see and (2) 90% are takers and their empathy only extends to their own situations when it comes to providing the collective spending of a society to ameliorate problems.
Thanks for calling this to our attention and for the link; I’d missed the editorial. I have submitted a comment in support of these proposals.
In Missouri we’d missed much of worst of the charter school movement, but no longer. If taken up, these regulations may begin to mitigate some of excesses.
WaPo’s editorial proves the Board is anti-American and worse than Putin. Putin was selective in taking assets from the Russian citizens which he then gave to oligarchs. WaPo promotes the taking of local institutional community assets across the nation to fill the coffers of education oligarchs. Russia’s billionaires pilfer and spend lavishly in other countries. That is the situation WaPo wants to create in the U.S. It works hand and glove with corrupted government, where no elected or appointed official is immune.
WaPo and the SCOTUS majority are enemies of the Republic.
“Also problematic is the requirement that charters get a commitment of collaboration from a traditional public school. That’s like getting Walmart to promise to partner with the five-and-dime down the street.”
Glad to see the ed reform echo chamber have finally dropped the fiction that charters will “work with” public schools.
They see public schools as straight competitors – a purely adversarial relationship. Zero sum. No ed reformer can rest until the last public school is privatized.
“Rah rah charters! Boo hiss public schools!” That’s about the extent of the “analysis”.
Walmart drives the mom-and-pop stores out of business. Then mom and pop work as greeter s at Walmart.
Maybe we can go about this the other way. What regulations WOULD ed reform accept on the privatized school systems they promote and market and hope to replace public systems with?
Or does the ideology dictate they oppose all regulations, as they now do?
It’s amusing to me that ed reformers spend most of their days piling faddish and gimmicky regulations on public schools yet refuse all regulation of publicly funded charter and private schools.
Why should public schools be stuck with ed reform authored regulation regimes if they don’t impose any on their own schools?
As a taxpayer I do not support tax dollars going to charter schools. They do not have to follow the same rules as public schools. We should not be giving charters start up funds or selling them the physical buildings when they fail and close their doors. Charters drain our public schools of funds and resources.