Writing in The Progressive, Carol Burris explains why the charter lobby is worried about how the Supreme Court will rule on the case of a religious charter school. They don’t want religious schools to be identified as charter schools. Burris, who is executive director of the Network for Public Education, explains their concern.
She writes:
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools never met a charter school it did not like—until it met St. Isidore of Seville in Oklahoma City. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is the proposed Oklahoma charter school whose fate is currently being consideredby the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its decision before summer’s end.
The Alliance’s objection to St. Isidore being allowed to open what would be the nation’s first religious charter is not because the school would be religious—an argument the Alliance’s CEO Starlee Coleman characterizes as an “ivory tower” question—but because, should the Court rule in favor of the religious charter, the decision could jeopardize charter schools having access to public funding, something all charter schools currently depend on. According to the Alliance, every state with charter school laws mandates that charter schools operate as public schools, and the federal Charter School Program, which finances charter expansion, can only fund public charter schools by law. But St. Isidore argues that it should be allowed to open a religious charter because it is a private organization.
So to settle the question of whether St. Isidore can open a religious school, the Supreme Court must decide whether charter schools are public actors, like district schools, or private contractors that provide educational services. Those arguing in favor of St. Isidore claim that, at least in the state of Oklahoma, charter schools are not truly public schools, despite the public label assigned to them by the legislature. But a Court ruling in favor of that argument could set a legal precedent going forward that the public status—and therefore the public funding—of charter schools everywhere is in question.
Oklahoma is one of thirty-four states that require all charter schools to have a private charter school operator—some entity that enters into the agreement to open the school and has a board which governs its operations. Most of these states require the operator to be an incorporated nonprofit, except for Arizona and Delaware, which also permit for-profit charter school governance. In the case of St. Isidore, the nonprofit operator is St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School, Inc.
However, in five states—Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, and Virginia—the charter school operator is the public school district in which the school is located and the charter school is part of the public school district. In these states, charter schools exist as they were originally intended—as innovative schools largely free of restrictions so they’re better able to serve a purpose the local public school cannot. Alaska’s charter schools, rated by the pro-charter EdNext as the number one charter state for student performance, include Ayaprun Elitnaurvik, a Yugtun immersion charter school. These schools are part of the school district and their teachers enjoy all the rights and protections of being a public school employee.
Seven other states—Arkansas, California, Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin—allow both district-run and independent charters. School districts govern 75 percent of all Wisconsin charter schools. Twenty-one percent of California charter schools are dependent charter schools, meaning they are part of a public school district.
Because district-run charter schools are operated directly by the state without a private operator standing in between, these charter schools are government-run entities and would continue to receive public funding no matter the fate of St. Isidore.
An advantage of having charter schools run by public school districts is that they are less apt to be plagued by the fraud and mismanagement issues that are regular occurrences in the charter school sector operated by private entities, such asinsider deals, related party transactions, for-profit operations, and outright financial misappropriation. That’s because, unlike with private operators, school operations—such as procurement, employee compensation, and contracting—are as transparent as in any public school in the district. Teachers are professionally prepared and certified, and can claim the rights and protections of district employees. Parents and voters can voice complaints or concerns to an elected school board that governs all district-run schools, including charter schools.
And yet any suggestion to have charter schools governed exclusively by public school districts so they can continue to operate transparently and receive federal and state funding seems to be the Alliance’s worst nightmare. According to The 74,should the Supreme Court rule in favor of St. Isidore and prompt states to reevaluate the public/private status of charters, the Alliance fears “school districts could just absorb existing charter schools to keep them public, or at least add more government oversight.”
It is difficult to understand why profiteering, a lack of transparency, and the ability to commit fraud would be needed for school innovation. The states that operate charter schools publicly have developed stable and innovative schools responsive to the needs of their community. But the charter lobby will likely fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.
The powerful charter chains—with their high-salaried executives, for-profit operator owners, and the real estate empires that have emerged—have enormous sway over charter schools proponents like the Alliance. Within the first five years after the opening of the original charter schools in 1992, four for-profit chains emerged: Leona, Charter Schools U.S.A, National Heritage Academies, and Academica, soon followed by the giant for-profit online charter chains, K12/Stride and Connections Academy. And they, along with corporate nonprofit chains, will work around the clock to protect their interests if the Supreme Court rules in St. Isidore’s favor.
But there may be hope for those who fight for charter school accountability, transparency, and reform. As we contemplate the possibility of a ruling in favor of St. Isidore, we should think deeply about reforms that will restore charter schools to their original mission as places where educators and parents have the freedom to create new learning models in which public schooling is a reality, not just a label.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Here in California, the charter school lobbying org, now the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), defended all charter schools no matter how bad their behavior until some point, I think in the late ‘00s, when it apparently decided that was self-defeating and actually issued a press release calling for shutting down some specific problem charter schools. It also changed its name (it was CANEC and I forget what that stood for) and I wondered if those things were connected, so as to confuse people using search engines.
So at least in CCSA’s case, it was aware of its public image and changed its policy (and name) to avoid damning publicity. Along the same lines, the much-gushed-over “miracle” charter chain KIPP changed some of its policies in an effort to ward off the well-deserved criticism that it was teaching low-income children of color, through humiliation, to become servile, docile and unquestioningly obedient.
I’ve always questioned whether charters were actually innovating. Here in San Francisco, the district operates a number of successful language schools, so why does one in Alaska need to be a charter? Once at a charter school forum I asked a charter maven, Caprice Young, what innovations she could cite, and she stammered a bit before hesitantly suggesting language programs — a weak answer anywhere, and especially in a school district that operates successful language schools. So I would still challenge that notion.
LikeLike
Here in California, the charter school lobbying org, now the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), defended all charter schools no matter how bad their behavior until some point, I think in the late ‘00s, when it apparently decided that was self-defeating and actually issued a press release calling for shutting down some specific problem charter schools. It also changed its name (it was CANEC and I forget what that stood for) and I wondered if those things were connected, so as to confuse people using search engines.
So at least in CCSA’s case, it was aware of its public image and changed its policy (and name) to avoid damning publicity. Along the same lines, the much-gushed-over “miracle” charter chain KIPP changed some of its policies in an effort to ward off the well-deserved criticism that it was teaching low-income children of color, through humiliation, to become servile, docile and unquestioningly obedient.
I’ve always questioned whether charters were actually innovating. Here in San Francisco, the district operates a number of successful language schools, so why does one in Alaska need to be a charter? Once at a charter school forum I asked a charter maven, Caprice Young, what innovations she could cite, and she stammered a bit before hesitantly suggesting language programs — a weak answer anywhere, and especially in a school district that operates successful language schools. So I would still challenge that notion.
LikeLike
Charter schools have always tried to appear as public or private depending on which determination provided them the most benefit. During the pandemic charter schools received lots of PPP loans based on their private status. In Florida charter schools are presented as being public, and, in some cases, under the DeSantis’ leadership charter schools receive better treatment from the state than the despised public schools. Given the number of religious zealots on the Supreme Court, it should be interesting to see how they rule. Anything that could stop the flow of unaccountable public dollars from flowing into private pockets would be helpful.
LikeLike
Motivation: Money, and the power to control the curriculum according to a list of ideologies.
This already translates into anti-democratic at it’s core at the least of it, for its not so subtle shift of control over selection of students using Orwellian gaslighting and propaganda to promote their nefarious intents. And they can “talk the talk” while “walking” in a whole different way.
And as a result, it reveals the real value of public education where the only ideology that drives public schools is not an ideology at all but to develop children’s minds and ability to live well in and to be a part of a democracy where the power is in the people, and to provide a free education to everyone who lives here.
It’s not rocket science–but rather the systematic gutting of humanity from those who are involved in what is worst about it. CBK
LikeLike
K-12 teaching and learning outcomes have shown time and time again that, on average, charter schools perform no better nor worse than public schools. The reason is quite simple, really. Given we understand it is impossible for the structure of charter schools to be fundamentally different from the structure of public schools, then we might also understand qualitative and quantitative results charter schools produce will, on average, never be fundamentally better nor worse than qualitative and quantitative results public schools produce. And that charter schools cannot be any more “innovative” than public schools can be. The underlying systems thinking principle is that “structure generates behavior.”
The same structure is pretty much guaranteed to generate much the same behavior. Community schools are no exception; they shift responsibility for internal school behavior to outside actors and do not change school structure in any fundamental ways. It’s simply best to work continually at improving the “behavior” of public schools to become and stay capable enough, and resilient enough, to absorb myriad positive and negative environmental constraints impacting them, such as when some students show up NOT ready to learn.
“The children aren’t ready for kindergarten,” some public school leaders are known to contend.” But, in reality, it’s kindergarten not being ready for the children. We must stop blaming the children at such an early age—or at any age, actually. “The problem is management!” (Deming), not the children.
LikeLike