The National Education Policy Center, headed by scholar Kevin Welner, wonders why the charter lobby has been so intransigent in fighting the reasonable regulations proposed by the Biden administration. The lobbyists have falsely characterized the regulations as an attempt to “destroy” or “eliminate” charter schools, but the regulations would apply only to new charters that seek federal funding. Most charters have been funded by foundations and billionaires, not the federal government. The proposed regulations would improve the new charters.
NEPC writes:
Why is the Charter Lobby So Upset About Biden’s Proposed Regulations?
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been observing the conspicuous hand-wringing among prominent charter school advocates. They’re expressing outrage that the Biden Administration is trying to rein in some past abuses and problems within the charter sector. This aggrieved reaction might make sense if the regulations were designed to harm the sector, but the proposals are in fact quite modest and will even help charters thrive in the future.
Understanding the outrage is difficult. This is in part because the Biden Administration already sided with charter advocates by resisting calls to eliminate the federal Charter School Program (CSP) or decrease its funding. I will not here rehash the arguments against charter sector expansion, but those arguments tend to focus on segregation, fraud and waste, self-dealing and private enrichment, harm to local public school districts, exaggerated claims about performance, under-enrollment of students with special needs, and other access and push-out issues.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the Administration’s budget request keeps CSP funding at its historic high of $440 million. This means that the same level of federal taxpayer dollars will continue to promote the expansion of charter schooling, which is already dominant in many metropolitan areas.
But the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed regulations do attempt to address some of these concerns, even while fully funding the program. One key proposal, for example, attempts to fulfill a Biden campaign promise to crack down on CSP funding for charters being operated by for-profit corporations.
The proposed regulations also provide additional points for applications that feature “community school” elements and for those that provide evidence of cooperation or collaborations with the local school district(s).
I
Notwithstanding some false claims to the contrary, these are all priorities—not requirements. We can anticipate that plenty of charter schools without these elements will still get CSP funding.
The above-mentioned attempt to keep CSP money away from for-profit EMOs has raised some hackles among charter school advocates, but the pushback has been relatively muted. Perhaps the advocates are feeling sanguine in trusting the ingenuity of attorneys to find loopholes and work-arounds. One more layer of shell companies or sister corporations or real estate schemes may do the trick. Or perhaps charter advocates know that these for-profits are awful poster children for their cause, so an overt public campaign might be counterproductive.
I
This is nonsense. Yes, the Community Impact statement is required, but even if the statement shows zero benefits of the proposed school to the community, the consequence is merely a loss of potential points in the scoring of the application. The provisions being attacked by the charter advocates are priorities, not requirements. They would change how a given proposal is scored and thus prioritized or ranked among different applications for CSP funding. All other things being equal, a proposal that shows how a charter school will broadly serve—and not harm—a local community will be scored higher than one that cannot make that showing. So our federal tax dollars would be more likely to support the opening of schools that are beneficial to local communities.
Yet the same $440 million would still be disbursed. The same number of new charter schools would presumably still be opened. That’s (one would assume) what the charter lobby most cares about. For the rest of us, there’s good news as well; if the Community Impact process works, the charter schools that do open will be more consistent with the long-time rhetoric of charter school advocates about how charters are a beneficial part of the overall public school system.
So why the objections? What’s the real reason the charter lobby is upset about President Biden’s proposed regulations?
My hunch is that it’s a matter of principle—the principle that they should never give an inch.
For decades, charter schools have occupied a political sweet spot, enjoying the affections of politicians from both major parties. In that position, charter advocates were fully appeased. Compromise was not needed, so it was rebuffed. Like pampered royalty who never learn to listen and empathize, the charter lobby used its political capital to shut down discussions about addressing the sorts of ongoing problems listed earlier.
Over the years, little has changed—except perhaps the effectiveness of these tactics that resist any reform of the status quo for charter policy. For many outside the charter bubble, the sense of entitlement has grown old.
That entitlement was on full display last week. The charter school lobby organized a twitter campaign against the proposed regulations. It choose to use the hashtag #BackOff. If we had a “No Whining” jar, we could have funded next year’s CSP. The advocates’ tweets repeatedly asserted that the “overregulation” would “make it nearly impossible to open new charter schools.” This was accompanied by a newspaper commentary alleging that the proposed regulations were written by “Bureaucratic Gremlins” who had “burrowed” into the federal bureaucracy—rather than just a follow-through on candidate Biden’s campaign promises.
On Fox News, a school choice advocate contended that, through the regulations, the Biden Administration was “waging war on charter schools” in order to protect “unionized government schools.” Meanwhile, two editorial boards that have long pushed for charter school growth—The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post—continued to misrepresent the regulation’s proposed priorities as requirements, labeling the regulations as “charter school sabotage” (the WSJ) and “a sneak attack on charter schools” (the Post).
The charter lobby’s never-give-an-inch strategy has long been successful in forestalling policies that might mitigate existing problems. But assuming the strategy ever was wise, it no longer is. Potential allies have become frustrated enemies. A once diverse coalition has withered away to expose a core group that appears to be the same anti-public-education and privatizing interests that have long pushed school vouchers.
This obstinacy, even when successful in its immediate aims, is counterproductive. The charter lobby is wrong to see thoughtful regulations as existential threats—or even as anything but beneficial. Reasonable public policy concerns about access, stratification and fiscal impact on students in other schools should never have been minimized or dismissed. The charter lobby should have been in the forefront in efforts to rein in fraud and abuse.
The charter sector still includes many schools that we can and should celebrate. The NEPC’s own Schools of Opportunity program has recognized several charter schools that exemplify how high schools can close opportunity gaps. For the charter approach to have a bright future, these are the sort of schools the CSP should prioritize—and the proposed regulations are a step in that direction.
For now, unfortunately, the charter sector as a whole continues to be under-regulated and often harmful. The Biden Administration’s proposals can help change this. They can help charter schools become a beneficial part of public school systems—a role that can be broadly embraced.
I personally decided to submit a “formal” comment. The process is easy—just fill out the quick form and include your comment. The comment window is currently scheduled to close next Monday, April 18th. NEPC Resources on Charter Schools ->
This newsletter is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu
Copyright 2022 National Education Policy Center. All rights reserved.
The National Education Policy Center
School of Education, University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
View this email in your browser
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Diane Ravitch's blog 
When is the Charter Lobby not upset? Ugh.
Because the Charter Lobby is a Corporate Interest and Corporatists think they Are the Government. Who is a mere President representing the People to tell them how to Rule?
frighteningly on the mark: to a degree they have become governmental educational policy
“Notwithstanding these concerns, the Administration’s budget request keeps CSP funding at its historic high of $440 million. This means that the same level of federal taxpayer dollars will continue to promote the expansion of charter schooling, which is already dominant in many metropolitan areas.”
This is the bottom line and it’s elided or ignored in all the charter commentary- they’re not objecting to fewer charter schools opening- that won’t happen- they’re objecting to the federal government setting priorities for WHICH charter schools open.
So the same people who brought us NCLB and RttT, huge federal schemes that set ed reform priorities for every public school in the country, are now claiming that the federal government can’t set priorities for funding charter schools.
Incoherent as always.
If charter operators don’t believe in rules, they should do their own fundraising and open their own private schools free of any government influence.
If thieves could create the goods they need, they wouldn’t have to be thieves.
The federal government under RttT MAY make grants contingent on opening charter schools and putting in elaborate measurement schemes, but the federal government MAY NOT prioritize non profit charters over for profit charters.
This is the ed reform position. Completely incoherent, but always incoherent in the same way- a way that operates to the benefit of their preferred schools (charters and private schools) and operates to the detriment of the schools they disfavor (public schools).
Charter schools should be subject to oversight and regulation. Why should public schools be the only schools that are accountable for the public dollars they receive? In fact, since charters appeared on the education landscape, public schools have been strangled by mind numbing testing and school closures. When charter school fail with vulnerable students, many of them stumble on with low scores because so-called accountability only applies to public schools.
The federal government should stop writing blank checks to schools that cherry pick students and enhance segregation. If the public is paying for these private schools, they should not be able to hire lobbyists. Public schools cannot hire lobbyists so why should charter schools? The attraction of students to charters should be based on a school’s merits, not politics and money.
The recommended changes are modest and reasonable. I have never seen any federal grants that did not require a statement of need, an action plan and an evaluation of the results. It is time for the federal government to be effective stewards of public dollars. CMO and EMOs have squandered the public trust.
“My hunch is that it’s a matter of principle—the principle that they should never give an inch.”
This is exactly it. Why wouldn’t they oppose it? They are concerned about the slippery slope. I totally get it. And it’s about time that their concerns were justified. For too long, many, myself included, have walked the fence, thinking that only some charters should be disallowed, and that others with transparency, democratic norms, and without for-profit-ties should be OK….
I’m past that now. Just like I’m against any and all forms of the BS Test (thank you, Peter Greene). Give me better funded neighborhood schools, more well-rounded curriculum, and lower class sizes. If you don’t like that, go private, go parochial, or go home! Public choice is the enemy here, and I include Magnets, I’m not sorry to say. We can’t have our cake and eat it, too. We won’t have the schools we deserve until we make stronger arguments as to what we want, and stop signalling that some choice is OK. The “choice” we have now is to me just a distraction from doing the real work to solve the deep educational divides we have in the USA.
I’m here in LAUSD. Super Carvalho is a choice guy. All the way to Cardona, they play the same game, with choice, with the BS Test.
Until we draw hard lines on these issues, and until we tell the political establishment squarely what we want, they will continue to play footsie with those who stand for different educational principles.
And not much will change.
Watching the ed reform echo chamber lockstep lobby against regulation of charter schools should really alarm people, given that the goal of ed reform is to replace all public school systems with private contractors.
The privatized systems will NOT be regulated. They’ll roll out the big guns – former senators, former Bush and Obama and Trump employees, former House members and governors- and lobby against all regulation, just like they’re doing now.
This is an ideologiocally anti-regulatory movement and it will only get worse when they succeed in privatizing all systems. They’ll fight all regulation of any kind, just like they do now.
The public should understand what they’re getting with the ed reform “movement”- they’re not just getting the destruction and abolition of existing public systems- they’re getting unregulated (but publicly funded) private systems to replace them.
Non profit, for profit, anything goes. They have no earthly idea what kind of schools or systems they’ll end up, because they’re unwilling to regulate any aspect of it.
If WaPo isn’t falsely spinning when it presents the Center for American Progress as working for the interests of the left (not those of billionaires and/or grifters targeting tax money), we’d expect the CAP site and twitter feed to support Biden’s charter school proposals.
In a recent tweet from CAP’s education twitter feed, “K-12, higher ed and industry must stop functioning in silos.”
Hmmm, I’m sure Gates likes the sound of that, as does the Koch’s ALEC.