Call it a zombie school, one more piece of predictable detritus washed up on the wave of voucher laws. Here’s an instructive tale.
ARCHES Academy was a charter school operating in Apache Junction, Arizona. But in March of 2024, the state board that oversees Arizona charters voted unanimously to shut the place down. Mind you, the board in Arizona is pretty charter friendly, but ARCHES had so many problems. Under 50 students were left at a K-8 school dinged for soooo many problems.
Chartered in 2020, promising a “holistic” approach that grouped students by ability rather than age, then put on an Assessment Consent Agreement in 2023. Financial mismanagement. Poor record-keeping. IRS violations. Violations of state and federal law. Academic results in the basement. State rating of D. Founder and principal Michelle Edwards told the board “Mistakes were made and compounded over time.” So, general incompetence rather than active fraudster work.
So ARCHES the charter school was shut down, because charters still have to answer to the state for their performance and competence.
But you know who doesn’t have any oversight at all in Arizona?
Private schools that accept taxpayer-funded vouchers.
So Edwards simply re-launched her school as the Title of Liberty (a name taken from a verse in the Book of Mormon). Some of her pitch was visible in a piece in The Arizona Beehive, a Mormon-flavored newsmagazine, in the summer of 2024.
As changes happen in the public education system, many families who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have become more concerned about the potential influence of conflicting ideologies expressed in their children’s classrooms.
In the article, Edwards addresses her own concerns.
Principal Michelle Edwards, an early childhood specialist, has been in the education system for many years. The academy is a culmination of a dream of hers. “I recently had one student who was really struggling,” says Michelle, “and I couldn’t tell her about her divine abilities, that she’s a child of God, or who her father in heaven is.”
The article promises a Personal Learning Plan and notes that if tuition is an issue, the school will help parents apply for the Arizona ESA voucher to cover costs.
What the article doesn’t mention is that Edwards just had the school, under another name and as a charter, shut down by the state. But then, nobody, not even the state itself, told anyone.
Edwards’s new school went heavily with the religious pitch, with the website announcing “Christ-centered, constitutionally-based, education for all….”
Why doesn’t Arizona have anything in place to help apparently well-meaning folks like Edwards get into the education biz? Why doesn’t it exert even the slightest bit of oversight of the vendors cashing in on taxpayer-funded vouchers? I suspect it hints at what programs like Arizona’s voucher extravaganza are really about– and it’s not about a robust, choice-filled education environment. It’s about defunding and dismantling public education (and the tax burdens that go with it). But you can’t just tell folks, “We’re going to end public education.” So instead, hand them a pittance of a voucher and announce that you’re giving them freedom! And after that, you’ve washed your hands of them. The wealthy can still afford a top-notch education for their kids, and if Those People end up wasting their kids time in sub-prime, fraudulent, or incompetent pop up schools, well, that’s their problem.
If folks like the Arizona voucher crowd were serious about choice, they would provide transparency and oversight, rather than letting any shmoe rent a storefront and call it a school. But Arizona isn’t serious about choice. It’s serious about dismantling public education. It’s serious about getting public tax dollars into private hands and funding religious groups. And people like the families at Title of Liberty and even Edwards herself will just keep paying the price.
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 holds up Arizona as a shining exemplar of what education should be in every state. Vouchers for all, rich and poor alike. Everyone choosing the kind of school or home school they like. Happiness reigns. Or so they claim.
The reality is ugly. Arizona does have universal vouchers, but most are used by well-to-do families whose children were already enrolled in private schools. About 60,000 of Arizona’s 1.3 million students use vouchers. Clearly, the vast majority of the state’s students attend public schools. Meanwhile, Arizona’s state budget has exploded because of the added cost of paying everyone’s tuition at private schools. And the public schools are underfunded, ranked 48th in the nation for per-pupil spending.
One afternoon in September, parents started arriving for pickup at Title of Liberty Academy, a private Mormon K-8 school in Mesa, Arizona, on the eastern outskirts of Phoenix.
Individually, the moms and dads were called in to speak to the principal. That’s when they were told that the school, still just a few months old, was closing due to financial problems.
There would be no more school at Title of Liberty.
Over the course of that week, more parents were given the news, as well as their options for the remainder of the school year: They could transfer their children to another private or charter school, or they could put them in a microschool that the principal said she’d soon be setting up in her living room. Or there was always homeschooling. Or even public school.
These families had, until this moment, embodied Arizona’s “school choice” ideal. Many of them had been disappointed by their local public schools, which some felt were indoctrinating kids in subjects like race and sex and, of course, were lacking in religious instruction. So they’d shopped for other educational options on the free market, eventually leading them to Title of Liberty.
One mom had even discovered the school by window shopping: It was in the same strip mall as her orthodontist’s office, next to a ChinaPalace, and she’d noticed the flags outside with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints imagery. (The school was not formally affiliated with the church.)
An LDS member herself, she was soon ready to start paying tuition to the school from her son’s Empowerment Scholarship Account — a type of school voucher pioneered in Arizona and now spreading in various forms to more than a dozen other states. ESAs give parents an average of over $7,000 a year in taxpayer funds, per child, to spend on any private school, tutoring service or other educational expense of their choice.
Yet Arizona’s ESA program provides zero transparency as to private schools’ financial sustainability or academic performance to help parents make informed school choices.
For instance, the state never informed parents who were new to Title of Liberty and were planning to spend their voucher money there that it had previously been a charter school called ARCHES Academy — which had had its charter revoked last school year due to severe financial issues. Nor that, as a charter, it had a record of dismal academic performance, with just 13% of its students proficient in English and 0% in math in 2023.
When it was a charter (which is a type of public school), these things could be known. There was some oversight. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools had monitored the school’s finances and academics, unanimously coming to the conclusion that it should be shut down.
Yet just a month after the board’s decision, ARCHES was re-creating itself as a renamed, newly religious private school, simply by pivoting to accept voucher dollars.
In other words, it was closed down by a public governing body but found a way to keep existing and being funded by the public anyway, just without the standards and accountability that would normally come with taxpayer money.
Arizona does no vetting of new voucher schools. Not even if the school or the online school “provider” has already failed, or was founded yesterday, or is operating out of a strip mall or a living room or a garage, or offers just a half hour of instruction per morning. (If you’re an individual tutor in Arizona, all you need in order to register to start accepting voucher cash is a high school diploma.)
There is “nothing” required, said Michelle Edwards, the founder and principal of ARCHES and then of Title of Liberty, in an interview with ProPublica. It was “shocking how little oversight” the state was going to provide of her ESA-funded private school, Edwards said.
According to charter board members as well as parents and family members of her former students, Edwards is a well-intentioned career educator who cares deeply about children. But she has repeatedly struggled to effectively or sustainably run a school.
She said that when she first transformed her charter school into a private school, she and her team called up “every agency under the sun” asking what standards the new school would have to meet, including in order to accept voucher funds. For example, what about special education students and other vulnerable children — would there be any oversight of how her school taught those kids? Or instructional time — any required number of minutes to spend on reading, writing, math, science?
State agencies, she said, each responded with versions of a question: “Why are you asking us? We don’t do that for private schools.”
“If you’re gonna call yourself a school,” Edwards told ProPublica, “there should be at least some reporting that has to be done about your numbers, about how you’re achieving. … You love the freedom of it, but it was scary.”
This school year, ProPublica has been examining Arizona’s first-of-its-kind “universal” education savings account program. We are doing so both because other states have been modeling their own new ESA initiatives after this one, and also because President-elect Donald Trump has prioritized the issue, most recently by nominating for secretary of education someone whose top priority appears to be expanding school choice efforts nationwide. (And Betsy DeVos, his first education secretary, was and remains a leading school voucher proponent.)
These programs are where the U.S. education system is headed.
But the lack of any transparency or accountability measures in Arizona’s ESA model is perhaps the most important issue for other states to consider as they follow this one’s path, even some school choice supporters say.
Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, writes in The Progressive about the hidden purpose of “school choice.” It’s not to educate children better; it’s not to save money. It’s to destroy your child’s right to a free public education.
She begins:
In 2017, PBS released School Inc., a rightwing billionaire-funded documentary created by the late Andrew Coulson, a conservative author and former director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. School Inc. showcased Coulson’s theory that for-profit schooling, funded by parents without government involvement, is the best delivery model for education. In a review for the long-running Answer Sheet blog in The Washington Post, the education historian Diane Ravitch and I criticized Coulson’s romanticization of the era of American schooling before public education, during which children were homeschooled, church-schooled, or taught by private tutors—except for the poor, who, if they were lucky, were trained in charity schools.
The “school choice movement,” which Coulson’s documentary promoted, has always been a classic bait-and-switch swindle: Charter schools were the bait for vouchers, and vouchers the lure for public acceptance of market-based schooling. While narrow debates about accountability, taxpayer costs, and the public funding of religious schools raise important concerns, the gravest threat posed by the school choice movement is its ultimate objective: putting an end to public responsibility for education.
This goal is not a secret. The libertarian right has openly dreamed of ending public education for the past seventy years—the economist Milton Friedman advocated for school choice as early as 1955, and his acolytes have continued to do so ever since.
And they have made extraordinary progress. During the past few years, the traditional voucher model championed by the right has morphed into the Education Savings Account (ESA). In exchange for promising not to enroll their child in public schools, parents receive funds to “shop” for services, including private school tuition, tutoring, and luxury purchases, including trips to Disney World, televisions, and waterskiing lessons. Nearly all recent state ESA programs have either no or high-income caps, and few have sensible protections.
The libertarian right embraces this flagrant waste because it helps them achieve their ultimate objective of shifting all of the responsibility and costs to families. By approving universal ESA programs, they are creating a vested interest among middle and upper-income families in pay-as-you-go education. Frivolous spending is tolerated because it aligns with Friedman and Coulson’s objective of putting parents in charge of education without government responsibility or concern.
The America First Policy Institute, where Trump’s Secretary of Education nominee Linda McMahonserves as board chair, states in its recent policy agenda that “the authority for educating children rests with parents.” As public responsibility for schooling shifts to parents, educational subsidies will be gradually reduced until Friedman and Coulson’s dream of a fully for-profit marketplace that competes for students is achieved.
Please open the link to finish reading this important article.
This article was written by Dr. Cassandra Ulrich, who served as president of the Michigan State Board of Education, and now is a member of the board of the Network for Public Education.
Dr. Casandra Ulbrich is a former Michigan State Board of Education president (2014 – 2023). She is a member of the Network for Public Education Board of Directors Ulbrich has spent most of her career in higher education administration, currently serving as the Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Ulbrich began her career as a press secretary to the former U.S. House Democratic Whip David Bonior, acting as the official spokesperson for the Congressman. She has been recognized as one of Michigan’s 40 under 40 by Crain’s Detroit Business.
At the end of the 2023-2024 session, the House and Senate of Michigan took up bills to increase charter school transparency in a state where 70% of the schools are run by for-profits. Ultimately, the bills did not pass, but the problems persist. Below is the testimony given by Dr. Casandra Ulbrich, the former President of the Michigan Board of Education.
As the former President of the State Board of Education, I would like to commend the State Senate for taking the issue of financial transparency seriously. The bills before you today level the playing field by requiring charter schools, education management companies, and authorizers to demonstrate that they are responsible stewards of public dollars, just as traditional public schools are currently required to do.
Financial transparency is an essential element of accountability for all publicly funded institutions and a necessary component for an engaged citizenry. Absent timely and accurate financial data in a manner that is easily accessible and understood by the public, citizens lack the resources necessary to make informed decisions. Missing or misleading financial information removes a citizen’s ability to adequately determine the value of their public investments. Similarly, a charter school board that is denied this information cannot fulfill its oversight duty and its commitment to the citizens it serves.
This is particularly true for the K-12 public schools that educate approximately 1.3 million students in the State of Michigan, nearly 10 percent of whom attend a charter school. In 2022 – that year will be relevant during my testimony – Michigan Charter schools received roughly $1.4 billion in taxpayer funding. How this money is spent is often hidden from taxpayer view behind a wall of secrecy. One reason is that Michigan law allows charter school boards to contract out all the school’s services to a for-profit education management company that also assumes control of the school’s budget. This arrangement is known as a ‘sweeps’ contract in the charter school sector. Its name comes from the fact that nearly all of the school’s public dollars – anywhere from 95 percent to 100 percent – is ‘swept’ into a charter management company. Once that happens, that money is no longer reportable to the taxpayers who funded those dollars.
While the schools themselves must adhere to Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) laws, private, for-profit management companies themselves are not subject to FOIA. Therefore, when a management company assumes the vast majority, if not all, of the school’s budget, how that money is spent is legally hidden from public view.
For years, the charter lobby has argued that charter schools adhere to all applicable transparency laws. In most cases, they are correct. But, those laws fall far short of allowing taxpayers adequate oversight over the schools for which they fund.
In 2022, the State Board of Education used the Freedom of Information Act to identify and disclose the similarities and differences in financial reporting between traditional and charter school districts.
We sent FOIA requests to all school districts, both traditional and charter, in five Michigan counties. Of those districts, 112 were traditional school districts, representing over 551,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) student counts, and 166 were charter school districts, representing nearly 80,000 FTE student counts. For the charter districts, 117 (71%) used for-profit management companies, 19% used non-profit management companies, and 11% were self-managed. Individual district student counts ranged from a low of 71 to a high of more than 55,000 FTEs.
On January 5, 2022, each district received a FOIA from me as the President of the SBE. A second letter was sent to those who did not respond, and in some cases, a third letter was also sent. The FOIA request included five items:
Contracts for rental or lease of facilities.
Contracts for food service management or vended meals.
Contracts with custodial service vendors.
Contracts with lawn and grounds service vendors.
Contracts with educational service providers or education management companies.
The results demonstrated what we had assumed all along.
Following the third letter, 100% of traditional school districts responded to the FOIA request, while only 93% of charter districts responded. Seven percent of charter school districts didn’t even bother to respond to three Freedom of Information Requests from the State Board of Education.
When it came to facility contracts, Charter school districts were more likelyto submit facility rental or lease contracts. Sixty-eight percent, or 105, of charter districts submitted these contracts. Many charter districts lease their buildings from entities related to the management companies overseeing the schools.
A management company that also subleases its own facilities to the schools they manage raises obvious questions about conflicts of interest. It also allows the management company/facility owner to set lease terms that may be excessive. The State Board of Education FOIA did not address the market rates of each lease, but other states have identified this as an issue. For example, in 2012, the New York State Comptroller issued a report detailing how a Brooklyn charter school managed by National Heritage Academies approved a lease from a “related business” at a rate nearly $800,000 above market value, or $3.96 million more over the term of the five-year lease. The report also indicated that NHA refused to divulge financial records supporting expenses that it charged to the charter school. A 2019 Ohio Auditor report found similar examples in that state.
Another issue is that many charter management contracts also include a provision that allows the management company to own all property in the school, even though that property was most likely funded by taxpayers.
Food Service, Custodial, and Lawn Contracts
Charter school districts, particularly those managed by for-profit companies, were far less likely to share food, custodial or lawn contracts. In fact, these charter districts indicated they were not responsible for these contracts. This reflects the fact that many charter districts engage in “sweeps contracts.” Therefore, a common response among for-profit managed companies was to deny the State Board’s FOIA request related to these three contracts. The FOIA coordinator responded, “Your request for information contained in bullets 2 through 4 is denied because the Academy does not (i) contract for food service management or vended meals, (ii) contract with custodial service vendors, or (iii) contract with lawn and grounds service vendors. Instead, the Academy contracts for the above services through a third-party management company by way of an educational management agreement and, thus, the Academy is not a party to the service contracts.” (S. Wilson, personal communication, January 14, 2022).
Financial Disclosures
One thing that became evident through the FOIA process was the vast differences in detailed financial disclosures. All districts, regardless of charter or traditional, are required by statute to submit annual comprehensive financial data (MCL 388.1618(5) and a financial audit report (MCL 388.1618(4). While the reports tend to be detailed for traditional school districts, this is not the case for charter districts. Most PSAs report most of their current operating expenditures as“purchased services” through their management company. The management companies, themselves, are not required to report detailed information. As a private vendor, there is no statutory requirement for management companies to submit financial reports to the state.
It’s important to note that, with limited exceptions, traditional school districts are not permitted by law to contract for instructional services. On the other hand, many charter school districts contract with a management company for all or most of these services. According to a state board of education resolution, in FY21, 90.4% of charter schools reported that more than 50% of the school’s current operating expenditures were spent on purchased services (totaling $1.3 billion in purchased services), resulting in those expenditures not being reported and audited with the same level of detail provided for expenditures of traditional school districts, and not subject to public disclosure under FOIA” (MI State Board of Education, 2022).
Financial Reporting
Michigan school districts provide financial information to the state via the Financial Information Database (FID). Data submitted to the FID includes financial reports, revenues, and expenditures. However, what is reported looks very different depending on the type of district and their management contracts, leading to greater disparity between traditional and charter school districts. Under current reporting requirements, the costs for services provided to charter districts under a management agreement are often aggregated under “purchased services” and therefore lack any detailed information.
As a result of this method of reporting, it is nearly impossible to make any kind of accurate comparisons of financial spending. And, since management companies are not subject to the same financial reporting and audit requirements as districts, taxpayers have no way of knowing if their investments are being spent appropriately or if those dollars are being spent in an illegal or inappropriate manner. In my role on the State Board of Education, I have heard many anecdotal examples of this happening, but absent real transparency laws, there is no way of holding bad actors accountable for their actions. Not only is this inappropriate for a public entity, but it also serves as a stain on all charter schools, including those that are acting in good faith and are truly interested in providing quality education for children.
The bills before you today alleviate many of the concerns that the State Board of Education has been raising over the last twenty years. Specifically, financial information will be available to the Boards that are charged with overseeing these schools, allowing them to do their jobs effectively. Financial information will also be not only FOIA-able for the public but in many cases available on the school’s website. It will bring to light related party transactions and taxpayer overspending.
If we are truly interested in parents making choices for their children, they should have access to this information, as should taxpayers who are funding these schools.
For these reasons, the Charter School lobby should be the first in line tosupport these financial transparency laws that could demonstrate what they have been saying…that the vast majority of charter school operators are conducting themselves appropriately and to send a message to those who may not be.
Absent that, I would ask yourself, what do they have to hide?
Dr. Casandra Ulbrich is a former Michigan State Board of Education president (2014 – 2023). She is a member of the Network for Public Education Board of Directors Ulbrich has spent most of her career in higher education administration, currently serving as the Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Ulbrich began her career as a press secretary to the former U.S. House Democratic Whip David Bonior, acting as the official spokesperson for the Congressman. She has been recognized as one of Michigan’s 40 under 40 by Crain’s Detroit Business.
Carol Burris, executive director of the Betwork for Public Education, describes the devastating advance of privatization in West Virginia. In 2019, the teachers of West Virginia banded together and went on strike, closing down every school in the state.
Burris writes:
West Virginia is closing its public schools. Seven schools will close in the next few years due to declining enrollment. These schools will join the 53 that closed in the past five years, and there are an additional 25 that counties have proposed or approved to close.
These numbers are not small in the context of West Virginia. The National Center for Education Statistics reported only 643 public schools with enrollment in the state in 2023-2024.
West Virginia’s population and student enrollment were in decline. In 2015, there were 277,452 students in West Virginia public schools. By 2020, enrollment was down to 253,930. In 2021, however, the drop seemed to level off—the public schools lost only 1,100 students the next year.
And then school privatization began.
In 2019, the legislature passed a charter law. It was cautious. Three charter schools were allowed to open as pilot schools under the control of districts, but none opened.
And then greed kicked in. The for-profit operators wanted to open schools in the state. In 2021, the legislature expanded the number of charters to ten a year, not including online schools, which they then approved. The authority to approve them was given to a politically appointed state board.
Six charter schools were rapidly approved, five of which are open.
Three of those five are run by for-profit corporations. In 2023-2024, those three for-profit-run charters enrolled 87% of the charter school students in the state.
Charter schools in West Virginia operate on the “money follows the child” system, depleting school district budgets. That money accounts for a whopping 99% of state per-pupil funding, even though most charter students (70%) attend low-cost, low-quality online schools run by for-profits.
To add insult to injury to the state’s public schools, the U.S. Department of Education, under Secretary Cardona, awarded $12.2 million to the state’s charter board to open new charter schools or expand existing ones in West Virginia.
Over $905,000 was given to open a “classical” academy run by the notorious for-profit ACCEL. ACCEL already operates two of the state’s five charter schools. The new school will be operated on a sweeps contract, violating 2022 CSP regulations. Three of the existing five charter schools would be given funds to expand.
I registered a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education regarding West Virginia’s violation of its own regulations. I have not received a response.
In 2022, the same year that the law to expand charter schools was enacted, the state passed a voucher law called the Hope Scholarship, heralded by Ed Choice as one of the most expansive voucher laws in the country. That law gives vouchers to fund homeschooling, private schooling, tutoring, and “enrichment” activities for students who do not attend a public or charter school.
The scholarship is worth 100% of the average per-pupil state funding. There are no income limits. Beginning in 2026, any student, including a private school student or home-schooled student who has never attended public school, can apply.
In 2023-2024, West Virginians used a voucher. In 2024-2025, the number jumped to 10,000.
Let’s do the math.
During the 2021-2022 school year, there were 252,830 students in public schools. That was the year before charters and the voucher law. In 2023-2024, that number dropped to 243,560.
Just when West Virginia enrollment had begun to stabilize, 2,277 students were siphoned off along with funding to charter schools, and 6,000 students received vouchers. In West Virginia, privatization through charter schools and vouchers is now the primary source of public school enrollment and funding decline.
As charter schools continue to expand, thanks in part to the federal Charter School Program, and vouchers become accessible to 100% of students in the state, school closings will accelerate.
For the right-wing Libertarians who run education policy for the Republican Party, this is not a bug; this is the main feature.
Tom Ultican is a retired teacher of advanced mathematics and physics. Before joining the teaching profession, he worked in the corporate sector.
He writes here about a shoddy piece of research on charter schools in Denver.
Ultican writes:
Another education study financed by Arnold Ventures and the Walton Family Foundation blurs education reality. Their 2022 model did not pass the laugh test so “researchers” from the University of Colorado Denver tried again. Unfortunately their claims still confuse correlation with causation. This error seems purposeful.
The study of school reform in Denver was conducted by the Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA). They state, “For the past three years CEPA has partnered with the Center on Reinventing Public Education to consider a paradigm-shifting approach to family and community engagement efforts in school districts.” It is a study apparently to justify and promote the portfolio model of school management, a system first proposed in 2009 by the founder of the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), Paul Hill.
In their 2022 study, this same team also used state testing data from years 2004/5 through 2018/19. They explained that the first 4-years of the research employed pre-reform data and the final 10-years were from the portfolio model reform period. The authors reported, “During the study period, the district opened 65 new schools, and closed, replaced, and restarted over 35 others.” (Page 7)
The National Education Policy Center contracted with Robert Shand to review the 2022 Denver study. Dr. Shand is Assistant Professor of Education Policy and Leadership at American University and an affiliated researcher with the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Shand also did a review of the new 2024 study.
In his 2022 review, Shand agreed that the test scores for Denver Public Schools had gone up but he noted a few reasons why claiming these gains were because of the portfolio model was unreasonable:
Demographics shifting to a larger percentage of white students in Denver coincided with the reforms.
Per-student revenues increased in Denver by 22% but only 13% across Colorado.
Student-to-teacher ratio in Denver dropped from 17.9 to 14.9.
DPS was already showing academic improvement before implementation of the portfolio reforms.
Black and Hispanic/Latinx students were growing at approximately 0.06 standard deviations per year pre-reform and 0.03-0.04 standard deviations per year post-reform. (Page 7)
“While the new report does convincingly demonstrate that the gains are not significantly due to changing demographics, it fails to address other critiques of the prior study, including (1) that the portfolio model was undertheorized, with unclear mechanisms of action and insufficient attention to potential drawbacks; and (2) that circumstances, events, and resources besides the portfolio reform and student demographics were changing concurrently with the reform. Additionally, the report’s sweeping conclusion—that Denver’s reform is the most effective in U.S. history—is unsupported. The improved outcomes in Denver during this time period are impressive, but the authors seem overly determined to cite a package of favored reforms as the cause.” (Page 3)
While Shand agrees that demographic changes are not the whole reason for the improved test scores, they are a significant input. The chart above from USAFacts.org shows the typically higher scoring groups Asians and Whites going from 54.2% of the population to 58.9% in the 14 years from 2005 to 2019. During the same period, the Hispanic and Black population shrunk from 42.9% to 38.1% which resulted in a 9.5% shift in the population from a lower scoring to a higher scoring racial mix.
An even bigger impact on the scoring in Denver was the change in economic circumstances. Standardized testing is useless because the results are dependent on one variable, family wealth. Statisticians assign r values between -1 and +1 to results tested. Plus 1 signifies certainty, zero shows no influence and -1 indicates certainty in the opposite direction of expectations. The only input ever found with more than 0.3 r-value is family wealth at 0.9 r-value. The median family income in Denver is up significantly.
Two sources show how strongly Denver’s family income has grown. Neilsberg research shares that between 2010 and 2020 the median income grew from $61,394 to $82,335, a 25% growth. City-Data states:
“The median household income in Denver, CO in 2022 was $88,213, which was about the same as the median annual income of $89,302 across the entire state of Colorado. Compared to the median income of $39,500 in 2000 this represents an increase of 55.2%”
This kind of wealth growth over the 14 years the Denver researchers studied was bound to have a significant impact on testing results, but they ignored it. Add this to the 9% greater revenue for Denver schools and three less students per teacher compared to the rest of the state and of course Denver’s student made comparative testing gains.
Professor Shand mentions the damage caused by school turnaround efforts and closing schools noting the research indicates these are especially harmful events for students in low income or marginalized neighborhoods. (Page 6 and 7) Shand concluded:
“In sum, this report provides some additional supporting evidence in favor of the tentative conclusion that Denver’s portfolio reform was positive. Importantly, the report also grossly exaggerates both the magnitude of the success and certainty behind the evidence for it. The findings should thus be interpreted with extreme caution. (Page 8)
He is being nice. He should have concluded that this report is school choice propaganda.
About the Report Authors
The lead author, Parker Baxter, is Director of the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University Of Colorado Denver School Of Public Affairs. He previously was Director of Knowledge at the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Parker is also a Senior Research Affiliate at the CRPE, where he worked on the District-Charter Collaboration Compact Project and the Portfolio School District Project. He is a former alumnus of Teach for America.
Anna Nicotera is a Senior Researcher at Basis Policy Research specializing in quantitative and qualitative applied research methods. She worked six years as Senior Director, Research and Evaluation for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Nicotera was a Graduate Research Assistant at the National Center on School Choice, Vanderbilt University for four years.
David Stuit holds a Ph.D. in Leadership and Policy Studies from Vanderbilt University. He is a former Emerging Education Policy Scholar at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, fellow at the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice (Rebranded EdChoice), and member of the American Enterprise Institute’s K–12 working group. He began his career as a classroom teacher in Denver, Colorado.
Expecting an unbiased piece of research from this group is like learning about the dangers of smoking from Phillip-Morris.
Jan Resseger lives in Ohio. Before retiring, Jan staffed advocacy and programming to support public education justice in the national setting of the United Church of Christ—working to improve the public schools that serve 50 million of our children; reduce standardized testing; ensure attention to vast opportunity gaps; advocate for schools that welcome all children; and speak for the public role of public education. Jan chaired the National Council of Churches Committee on Public Education for a dozen of those years.
I suppose many of us think about the classes we wish we had signed up for in college. Right now, as somebody who believes public schools are among our nation’s most important and most threatened public institutions, I wish that in addition to enrolling in The Philosophy of Education, I had also taken a class in political philosophy—or at least Political Science 101. How have groups like the Heritage Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Betsy DeVos’s American Federation of Children and their proxies like Moms for Liberty managed to discredit public schooling and at the same time spawn an explosion of vouchers, which, according to the editors of last year’s excellent analysis, The School Voucher Illusion: Exposing the Pretense of Equity, are failing to serve our society’s poorest children even as they are destroying the institution of public schooling?
Here are that book’s conclusions: “As currently structured, voucher policies in the United States are unlikely to help the students they claim to support. Instead, these policies have often served as a facade for the far less popular reality of funding relatively advantaged (and largely White) families, many of whom already attended—or would attend—private schools without subsidies. Although vouchers are presented as helping parents choose schools, often the arrangements permit the private schools to do the choosing… Advocacy that began with a focus on equity must not become a justification for increasing inequity. Today’s voucher policies have, by design, created growing financial commitments of taxpayer money to serve a constituency of the relatively advantaged that is redefining their subsidies as rights—often in jurisdictions where neighborhood public schools do not have the resources they need.” (The School Voucher Illusion: Exposing the Pretense of Equity, p. 290)
As I watch the wave of school privatization washing across conservative states and read about universal school choice as one of the priorities of presidential candidate Donald Trump as well as a goal of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, I find myself wishing I had a better grasp of how our society has gone off the rails. I wonder what I would have learned about the difference between democracy and extreme individualism in that political theory class I missed, and I find myself trying to catch up by reading—for example—on the difference between a society defined by individualist consumerism and a society defined by citizenship.
Back in 1984, the late political theorist Benjamin Barber published Strong Democracy, a book defining the principles our federal and state constitutions and laws are presumed to protect: “Strong democracy … rests on the idea of a self-governing community of citizens who are united less by homogeneous interests than by civic education and who are made capable of common purpose and mutual action by virtue of their civic attitudes and participatory institutions rather than their altruism or their good nature. Strong democracy is consonant with—indeed depends upon—the politics of conflict, the sociology of pluralism, and the separation of private and public realms of action… The theory of strong democracy… envisions… politics as… the way that human beings with variable but malleable natures and with competing but overlapping interests can contrive to live together communally not only to their mutual advantage but also to the advantage of their mutuality… It seeks to create a public language that will help reformulate private interests in terms susceptible to public accommodation… and it aims at understanding individuals not as abstract persons but as citizens, so that commonality and equality rather than separateness are the defining traits of human society.” (Strong Democracy, pp 117-119)
In that same book, Barber describes the consumer as a representative of extreme individualism—the opposite of the public citizen: “The modern consumer is the… last in a long train of models that depict man as a greedy, self-interested, acquisitive survivor who is capable nonetheless of the most self-denying deferrals of gratification for the sake of ultimate material satisfaction. The consumer is a creature of great reason devoted to small ends… He uses the gift of choice to multiply his options in and to transform the material conditions of the world, but never to transform himself or to create a world of mutuality with his fellow humans.” (Strong Democracy, p. 22)
Two decades later, Barber published Consumed, in which he explores in far more detail the danger of a society defined by consumerism rather than strong democracy. As his case study he contrasts parent-consumers who prioritize personal choice to shape their children’s education and parent-citizens: “Through vouchers we are able as individuals, through private choosing, to shape institutions and policies that are useful to our own interests but corrupting to the public goods that give private choosing its meaning. I want a school system where my kid gets the very best; you want a school system where your kid is not slowed down by those less gifted or less adequately prepared; she wants a school system where children whose ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’ (often kids of color) won’t stand in the way of her daughter’s learning; he (a person of color) wants a school system where he has the maximum choice to move his kid out of ‘failing schools’ and into successful ones. What do we get? The incomplete satisfaction of those private wants through a fragmented system in which individuals secede from the public realm, undermining the public system to which we can subscribe in common. Of course no one really wants a country defined by deep educational injustice and the surrender of a public and civic pedagogy whose absence will ultimately impact even our own private choices… Yet aggregating our private choices as educational consumers in fact yields an inegalitarian and highly segmented society in which the least advantaged are further disadvantaged as the wealthy retreat ever further from the public sector. As citizens, we would never consciously select such an outcome, but in practice what is good for ‘me,’ the educational consumer, turns out to be a disaster for ‘us’ as citizens and civic educators—and thus for me the denizen of an American commons (or what’s left of it).” (Consumed, p. 132)
Barber concludes: “It is the peculiar toxicity of privatization ideology that it rationalizes corrosive private choosing as a surrogate for the public good. It enthuses about consumers as the new citizens who can do more with their dollars… than they ever did with their votes. It associates the privileged market sector with liberty as private choice while it condemns democratic government as coercive.” (Consumed, p. 143) “The consumer’s republic is quite simply an oxymoron… Public liberty demands public institutions that permit citizens to address the public consequences of private market choices… Asking what “I want’ and asking what ‘we as a community to which I belong need’ are two different questions, though neither is altruistic and both involve ‘my’ interests: the first is ideally answered by the market; the second must be answered by democratic politics.” “Citizens cannot be understood as mere consumers because individual desire is not the same thing as common ground and public goods are always something more than an aggregation of private wants…. (W)hat is public cannot be determined by consulting or aggregating private desires.” (Consumed, p. 126)
So that is today’s lesson from the political philosophy class I was never able to fit into my schedule in college: “Freedom is not just about standing alone and saying no. As a usable ideal, it turns out to be a public rather than a private notion… (N)owadays, the idea that only private persons are free, and that only personal choices of the kind consumers make count as autonomous, turns out to be an assault not on tyranny but on democracy. It challenges not the illegitimate power by which tyrants once ruled us but the legitimate power by which we try to rule ourselves in common. Where once this notion of liberty challenged corrupt power, today it undermines legitimate power… It forgets the very meaning of the social contract, a covenant in which individuals agree to give up unsecured private liberty in exchange for the blessings of public liberty and common security.” (Consumed, pp.119-123)
Before the election of 2020, Joe Biden made some exciting promises to educators. He said publicly at a televised event in Pittsburgh that he would get rid of the onerous federal testing mandate. And he pledged to stop funding charter schools. The U.S. Department of Education hands out $440 million every year to create new charter schools or to expand existing charter schools. The Network for Public Education has published studies that document the wastefulness of the federal Charter Schools Program’s’ extravant funding but it survives nonetheless, because of Democratic choice fans like Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, Senator Michael Bennett, and Senator Corey Booker.
President Biden did not keep his promises. He didn’t even try.
He could have chosen a leader for the U.S. Department of Education who would fight to fulfill his promises. He didn’t.
Cardona did not take aim at the onerous federal testing program that is a remnant of George W. Bush’s failed No Child Left Behind law. NCLB was enacted in 2002. Twenty-two years ago. Does anyone believe that “no child was left behind”? Did the billions of dollars spent on annual testing of every single student in grades 3-8 has lift achievement to new heights and close achievement gaps? No. Dr
Instead, he chose Miguel Cardona, the State Commissioner of Connecticut, an amiable man who never says or does anything controversial. He did not repeat any of Biden’s promises.
Did Secretary Cardona propose any revision of the law? True, it went from NCLB to the equally ludicrous “Every Student Succeeds Act” in 2015. But has every student succeeded just because the law got a new name? No. What did Secretary Cardona propose? Nothing.
During Secretary Cardona’s tenure, there was an explosion in manufactured hostility towards public schools and their teachers, led by rightwing groups like “Moms for Liberty.” And these groups loudly demanded censorship of books in school libraries. Under the guise of “parental rights,” small numbers of very aggressive people made absurd claims about public schools: that teachers were “grooming” children to be gay or transgender; that school nurses were performing surgery in their offices to change boys into girls; that schools kept litter boxes for students who identified as cats; that public schools were “indoctrinating” students into radical views about race, gender, and American history. Teachers were fired for daring to teach “banned books” or accurate history about racism.
All of this was crazy stuff, spun out of whole cloth. Just plain nuts.
While our public schools were reeling from the barrage of lies about them, who were their defenders? The unions, for sure. PEN International. The American Library Association. Publishers. But where was the U.S. Department of Education? I honestly don’t know. It was a time when a strong and forceful voice was needed to stand up to the censors and bullies. I didn’t hear it. Did anyone else?
President Biden pledged to support public schools and to end federal favoritism for privately-managed charter schools. That didn’t happen. Rather than challenging the powerful charter school lobby, Secretary Cardona accepted its invitation to be the keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the National Association of Public Charter Schools in 2021.
The federal Charter Schools Program gets $440 million every year to open new charter schools or to fund the expansion of charter chains. The Biden administration didn’t try to kill the appropriation, but it did enact regulations for CSP, a striking achievement. But it then ignored its own regulations, funding segregated charter schools that the regulations forbade.
Probably the worst example of a charter school that received a large federal grant despite its failure to comply with the Department’s regulations was the Cincinnati Classical Academy.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Education gave $2 million to the Cincinnati Classical Academy, a charter school created by Hillsdale College, the far-right institution closely aligned with former (and future) President Trump. The school claimed in its application that it intended to provide quality education for needy minority students, but in fact the school serves an overwhelmingly white, affluent population.
The Network for Public Education was all over this $2 million grant because it was such a flagrant violation of the Department’s own regulations.
Carol Burris, the executive director of NPE, wrote a letter that was cosigned by more than a dozen local education and civil rights groups in Cincinnati. The letter was sent a year ago, with hopes that the Departnent would recall the grant because of false and misleading information in its grant application.
The Department did nothing. No action was taken.
Please read the letter:
December 4, 2023
The Honorable Miguel Cardona Secretary
U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20202
Dear Secretary Cardona:
We write to express our deep concern regarding the two Charter School Programs awards given to Cincinnati Classical Academy (CCA), a Hillsdale member charter school. CCA received a $100,000 planning grant from Ohio’s State Entities grant in 2021-2022, and in 2023, a Developer grant directly from your Department in the amount of $1,991,846. This letter provides evidence that the application submitted to your Department contained false and misleading information on which the award was based.
Further, after reading the three application reviewers’ notes, it is apparent that no attempt was made to fact check the application. Instead, the reviewers ignored what should have been obvious redflags, as we explain below.
A detailed summary of the false and misleading information presented in the application is also provided. We ask you to investigate the awardee Cincinnati Classical Academy’s application and claims and terminate the grant based on that review.
Evidence of the Intent to Mislead the Department Regarding the Purpose of the Grant
Throughout the application, the charter school repeats that it is worthy of the grant because CCA exists to provide a high-quality alternative for disadvantaged students in Cincinnati’s public schools. The first two objectives, as stated in the application, are as follows: (1) help to close the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students in southwestern Ohio; (2) continue to provide a proven and tuition- free charter school option to underserved children and families in an area where limited options for quality schools exist.
To make its case, the application cites demographic information for the city of Cincinnati, which, according to the application, is 41.37% African American/Black, 53.3% white, and has a high poverty rate. Helping students escape poverty and serving underserved students continue as themes throughout the application, justifying the grant.
However, as the table below shows, the school is not serving the underserved students of the area but rather a population that is dramatically whiter and wealthier than not only the city of Cincinnati but the entire County of Hamilton.
The table below provides the 2022-2023 school year demographic distribution of students in the Cincinnati School District public schools, all Hamilton County Schools, all charter schools in Hamilton County, and the applicant—Cincinnati Classical Academy. School enrollment was 452. The demographics of CCA do not reflect either Cincinnati School District public schools or the schools of Hamilton County, which the charter school purports to serve.
Yet, it never provided a demographic breakdown of its students for its first or second year; it only gave a demographic breakdown of the population of Cincinnati. Nor did it acknowledge the under-enrollment of disadvantaged students or put forth a plan to address it. None of its goals and objectives address the lack of diversity and under-enrollment of underserved students. Even more concerning is that the three reviewers never noted the absence of demographic information and instead parroted the application’s assertion that the school was in a high-needs area.
The applicant certainly knew the disproportionate enrollment of wealthier white students in the charter school when it submitted its application in July of 2023. According to the application, 98.2% of the 2022- 23 students were returning in 2023-2024; therefore, the applicant also knew that the school’s demographics would remain stable. It was merely adding a grade level to accommodate its present sixth- grade class.
In summary, although the applicant stated its mission to be closing the achievement gap and serving disadvantaged students, the applicant knew that its student body made the serious fulfillmentof that mission impossible. We also believe this disproportionality in enrollment is by design, as explained below.
Location of Cincinnati Classical Academy
The applicant states the following regarding the location of the charter school: “The location within a diverse neighborhood with access to direct route highways to all areas of the city has allowed CCA to provide a high-quality tuition-free classical education model to adiverse student population, including student’s [sic] representative of urban intergenerational poverty and those experiencing social and economic deprivation during childhood and adolescence.”
Although the school’s mailing address gives the impression that the school is located in Cincinnati, the school is located in Reading, Ohio, a city that is an inner suburb of the Cincinnati metropolitan area.
According to the latest census, 84.8% of Reading residents are white,7.7% are Black, and 10.6% live in poverty5. The village of Evendale that abuts the school property is also predominantly white and has a poverty rate of 2.8%,6 significantly below the Cincinnati rate of 24.7%7, which is nearly twice the national rate.
The location of the school was a deliberate choice. According to theschool’s website, the charter school had sought to locate the school in the former Catholic school facility since 2020.
From the website:
The new school has had interest in the property since 2020, but at that time Ohio law allowed public community schools [charter schools] to locate only in“challenged” school districts. That did not include Reading. In a surprise turn of events, Ohio H.B. 110 removed this restriction starting July 1, 2021.
“We were elated. We contacted the parish immediately to explore their interest,” Hartings said. “We were so fortunate to find a community that shares our values and goals, and that embraced the kind of school we are offering. The campus means a lot to the community, which has several generations of memories there.”8
According to the submitted application, the charter school gives preference to resident children of the Reading Community School District, as required by Ohio State law. Therefore, the placement of the charter school in a “non-challenged “school district would likely result in a student population that was whiter and wealthier than the population described in the application.
Forward Face of the Cincinnati Classical Charter Academy
The forward face of a charter school is its website. From a school’s website, parents glean its philosophy and culture. What is featured on CCA’s website provides insight into the families the school wishes to attract. The applicant claims it seeks a “diverse student population,including student’s [sic] representative of urban intergenerational poverty and those experiencing social and economic deprivation during childhood and adolescence.”
The CCA website, however, describes the school as providing “a tuition-free, classical liberal arts education” in “partnership with Hillsdale College,” a private Christian college, with no forward mention that the school is a charter school. The featured slide deck zooms in on the Christian cross on the school building. Although there is information on the school’s catered lunch program, it does not mention any provision for free or reduced-price lunches. Nowhere on the website does the school provide information in Spanish or other languages or indicate that it is inviting either socio-economically or racially diverse students.
In pictures of classrooms and hallways, the student body shows few students of color and no faculty of color. An image of the gymnasium shows a crucifix displayed on the wall, which we have been advised violates the law and the terms of the grant. A review of the school’svirtual tour features white students and a white faculty and administration.
Inaccuracies in the Application
Throughout the application, the applicant touts the first-year achievement results on state tests provided on page 759 of the application in Appendix G15. The applicant claims, “These results were achieved with
The Department reviewers never questioned why the school never included demographic information. Instead, reviewers parroted back what the applicant said as if it were fact. A simple visit to the school website would have revealed the school for what it is. The lack of fact-checking by reviewers solicited from the charter community has been an ongoing concern.
a diverse student population that evidences the appeal of the Hillsdale K-12 classical education model to families from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds,” a claim which is clearly an over- exaggeration.
The school’s proficiency rates on page 759 do not match those listedon the state website.9 For example, the Ohio Education Department lists CCA’s 6th grade proficiency for the 2022-23 year as 76.9% and mathematics as 43.4%. These same rates are included in the school’s annual report.
Yet, the application lists the rates of the same grade level as 92% and70%, respectively. Inflated rates are given in the application for every grade level in the school.
To further make its case, it compares the school’s ratings to those of what it refers to as underperforming public schools in an underserved target area. It begins with the performance of the Cincinnati Public Schools and continues with schools in a five-mile radius. None of the schools listed in that five-mile radius are part of the Cincinnati Public School system. It should also be noted that the names of the schools it lists for the Reading School District are incorrect, and there are three, not four, schools in that district.
Conclusion
To be blunt, CCA is designed to attract an elite student body whose families seek a private school experience paid for by taxpayers. Its videos, website, and literature, which include showcasing the cross on the top of the building and a crucifix in the gymnasium, are designed to attract white Christian middle- class families from the diverse districts in the area.
The application does not report or explain its lack of diversity. Instead, it masquerades as an equity initiative. The application does not present a plan to become more diverse but instead funding to expand a grade level each year.
While it is true the charter school’s proficiency rates exceed the state, that is hardly surprising given that nearly half of all Ohio publicschool students are economically disadvantaged compared to less than17% of CCA.
Therefore, we ask that the grant to CCA be terminated and, based on the false and misleading information that the school provided, that allmoney be returned to the Department and no further money bedisbursed.
Respectfully submitted,
The Network for Public Education
With:
Greg Landsman, Ohio Congressional District 1
Catherine Ingram, Ohio Senator District 9
Child Wellness Fund, Inc.
Cleveland Heights Teachers Union
Erase the Space
Public Education Partners- Ohio
Cincinnati Federationof Teachers
Cincinnati Mennonite Fellowship
Bold New Democracy
Dani Isaacsohn, Ohio State Representative District 24
Cecil Thomas, Ohio Representative District 25
Sedrick Denson, OhioState Representative District 26
Rachel Baker, Ohio State Representative District 27
JessicaMiranda, Ohio State RepresentativeDistrict 28
Ohio PTA
Ohio Education Association
Ohio Federation of Teachers
Cincinnati NAACP
Heights Coalition for Public Education
Honesty for Ohio Education
Northeast Democratic Club
Northeast Ohio Friends of Public Education
Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding
Thirteen years ago, Republican Governor Scott Walker and the legislature of Wisconsin enacted Act 10, which banned collective bargaining for public employees, except for public safety employees. Teachers, social workers, and other public employees were outraged. They encircled the State Capitol for days. Walker became a star, and his sponsors, the Koch brothers, were happy.
A Dane County judge on Monday sent ripples through Wisconsin’s political landscape, overturning a 13-year-old law that banned most collective bargaining among public employees, consequently decimating the size and power of employee unions and turning then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker into a nationally known political figure.
But there’s been a revival of hope in Wisconsin:
The effort to overturn Act 10 began in November 2023 when several unions representing public employees filed the lawsuit, citing a “dire situation” in workplaces with issues including low pay, staffing shortages and poor working conditions.
In July, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost ruled provisions of Act 10 unconstitutional and denied a motion filed by the Republican-controlled Legislature to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit argued the 2011 law violated equal protection guarantees in the Wisconsin Constitution by dividing public employees into two classes: “general” and “public safety” employees. Public safety employees are exempt from the collective bargaining limitations imposed on “general” public employees.
Diane Ravitch's blog 