Archives for category: Privatization

Rachel M. Cohen has the scoop on the Elizabeth Warren K-12 education plan, just released. 

Warren would quadruple federal funding for Title 1 schools.

She would eliminate the federal Charter Schools Program, which has been a colossal failure and which Betsy DeVos has turned into a slush fund for corporate charter chains.

Cohen writes:

ELIZABETH WARREN RELEASED a wide-ranging education plan Monday, pledging to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into public schools if she wins the presidency, paid in part through her proposed two-cent tax on wealth over $50 million. Sen. Warren’s plan is infused with her broader campaign themes of reducing corruption and fraud; she backs measures like new taxes on education lobbying, limiting the profiteering of tech companies that sell digital products to schools, and curbing self-dealing within charter schools.

And it builds on some of her earlier campaign proposals, like pledging to appoint aformer public school teacher as Education Secretary, supporting schools in teaching Native American history and culture, and expanding early learning opportunities for infants and toddlers.

In May, fellow Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders’s own education plan sent shockwaves when he endorsed the NAACP’s call for banning for-profit charter schools and holding nonprofit charters to the same transparency and accountability standards as traditional public schools. In her new plan, Warren joins Sanders in embracing these positions.

Warren goes further than Sanders in calling not only for a for-profit charter school ban, but also extending the ban to any non-profit charter that “actually serve[s] for-profit interests.” Warren said she would even direct the IRS to investigate non-profit charters for potential tax status abuse and recommends referring “cases to the Tax Fraud Division of the Department of Justice when appropriate.”

This is great news for all of us awaiting the K-12 plan of the candidate who has a plan for every other issue. This is a strong plan.

Supporting privatization lite (charter schools) is no longer a bipartisan issue. Republicans support charter schools.

I am especially pleased to see that her plan proposes elimination of federal support for charters, which now stands at $440 million a year and is used to grow KIPP, IDEA, Success Academy, and other big chains as they replace democratically controlled public schools.

NPE’s Report “Asleep at the Wheel” demonstrates that 1/3 of federally funded charters either never open or close soon after opening. Carol Burris has updated that report and is in Washington, D.C. today reporting to members of Congress on the waste of at least $1 billion on failed charters.

Bill Phillis reposts here an article by Denis Smith, who offers sound advice about the questions you should ask if you visit a charter school.

Denis Smith on Ron Rice of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
In a recent column in the Columbus Dispatch, Ron Rice of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools opened his piece with this statement. “The early stage of the 2020 presidential campaign has featured a lot of rhetoric about charter schools. Too much of it has been divorced from the reality of what charter schools are. So I have a special request of all the candidates: Go visit a charter school.”
Denis Smith, who used to work in the Ohio Department of Education’s charter school office, thinks that Ohio citizens should take Rice up on his offer to visit and learn more about schools that call themselves public entities but hide their private dimension. He offers suggestions when visiting a charter.
__________
 The recent Op-Ed by Ron Rice Jr. of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools about the need for candidates to pay attention to charter schools contains an interesting – and inviting – sub-headline:
Cut through the rhetoric and go visit charter schools.
What a wonderful idea! I certainly hope that my fellow citizens will take Mr. Rice up on his request to see what they can find out about these peculiar institutions which are privately managed but publicly funded. If anyone should visit one of these schools, here are some questions visitors should ask to better understand the DNA of charters.
How is the school governed? How are the board members chosen? Since they are not democratically elected by registered voters, like public school board members, whom do they represent? Are the board members American citizens? Do the board members live in the school attendance area? How many other charter school boards might the board members be serving on at the same time?
What about the company that manages the school? Do they own the building in which the school is housed and use operating profits diverted from classroom costs to buy real estate? How much of the school budget is applied to rental costs? Does the management company also own the property where the school is housed? Has the company or school leader populated the board with individuals who may be conflicted with regard to whose interests, rather than the students, come first? 
While we’re at it, folks who might visit charters need to find out about the school leader. A lot of charters use imposing titles such as CEO and Superintendent in their listings. But does the school leader have a professional educator license and graduate training in teaching and school administration? A previous background in the classroom? What percentage of the total school budget goes to administration?
There aren’t as many questions to ask about the teachers inasmuch as state law requires the classroom-level staff to be licensed. However, how many of the teaching staff are completing their first year at the school? How many have worked at the school more than two years? 
These are but a few of a list of sample questions that should be posed to any charter school advocate. The reason for the choice of these particular questions is simple. Ohio law exempts charters from about 150 sections of the state code that apply to public schools. There is no requirement for a charter school board member to be a qualified voter, viz., citizen, nor is there any minimum educational requirement or professional license required to administer a charter school. In spite of Mr. Rice’s advocacy of charters, these are two of many fatal design flaws for these under-regulated schools that have been the subject of so many scandals over the years.
Ohio residents should visit some area charter schools and ask these and other questions. It’s time for voters to inform themselves about charter schools, critically examine their nature and purpose, and cut through the rhetoric offered by Mr. Rice and those who wish to privatize one of key elements of every community. Public education is about democracy and the investment citizens make in their schools, not about enabling private companies to convert public assets into profit and acquire private property that otherwise should belong to the taxpayers.
For these reasons, the term “public charter school” is in fact an oxymoron. The very use of that term is a fitting example of the kind of rhetoric Mr. Rice has encouraged us to avoid. Let us help him to cut through the rhetoric in this election season and take him up on the suggestion of visiting these privately operated schools which convert public funds for their own purposes. 
William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| www.ohiocoalition.org

Back in the early days of school choice advocacy, it was often claimed that school choice would “force” the public schools to compete and they would get better because of the magic of the market.

Now we know that was a selling point, and it was not true.

Deborah Gordon Klehr, executive director of the civil rights group Education Law Center-PA, writes about the negative effects of “school choice” on the public schools of Philadelphia. 

The publics schools in that city have long been severely underfunded, and school choice has stripped them of both students and funding, leaving them even worse off.

Klehr writes:

A study of charter schools in Philadelphia published by the Education Law Center earlier this year is a stark reminder that many parents don’t get to choose and that ultimately it may be the school and not the parent doing the choosing. More charters and more slots haven’t cured an ailing school system.

This is not to discount the successes we know exist for students in many city charters. But Philadelphia’s 22-year history of rapid charter expansion coupled with inadequate oversight is entrenching new inequities in an already unequal landscape.

Sometimes the problem is blatant discrimination: For instance, a recurring pattern we see among families who contact us is charters telling students with disabilities, after they have been accepted, “We cannot serve you.” As public schools, charters are prohibited from discriminating against students with disabilities. And yet, we see this pattern persist.

Sometimes the obstacles to enrollment are more subtle; for example, enrollment documents may only be available in English. The results, however, are clear. The population of economically disadvantaged students is 14 percentage points lower in the traditional charter sector (56%) vs. the district sector (70%). And, the percentage of English learners in district schools (11%) is nearly three times higher than in traditional charters (4%), with nearly a third of traditional charters serving no English learners.

Few of the special education students in traditional charters are from the disability categories that typically are most expensive to serve. And, the vast majority of traditional charter schools serve student populations that are two-thirds or more of one racial group – a significantly higher degree of segregation than in district schools.

In short, the city’s traditional charter schools (excluding “Renaissance” charters charged with serving all students from a catchment area) disproportionately enroll a student population that is more advantaged than the students in district-run schools; as a sector, charters are shirking their responsibility of educating all students.

No independent observer could look at the Philadelphia schools—public, charters, and vouchers—and say that any problems have been solved by privatization.

 

 

When a new Secretary of State (aDemocrat in a Koch-owned State) was elected in November 2018 in Arizona, she discovered that her predecessor had signed a long-term contract with a private company to store public records.

The state’s storage facility sat empty while the private company collects millions.

One former state official described the warehouses as something out of “Indiana Jones,” with stack after stack of boxes.

A few years ago, the hulking facility just down the street from the Arizona Capitol was filled with government records, from the files of prison inmates to old meeting minutes.

Today, its three warehouses sit mostly empty.

Instead of storing records here, the state agreed in 2017 to ship each box to the warehouses of a storage and information management company, Iron Mountain.

Then-Secretary of State Michele Reagan, a Republican, touted the deal in a news release as saving money.

But her Democratic successor, Katie Hobbs, says the financial implications of the decision have been staggering. And the state appears stuck with the deal for years under a contract awarded without competition.

Hobbs published a proposed budget Thursday that calls for an infusion of funds into her office for 2020, the coming election year. She pointed to the Iron Mountain contract as a major drain on the office’s finances, describing the deal as part of what she called “severe mismanagement and irresponsible oversight of public resources” under Reagan’s administration.

Under the contract with Boston-based Iron Mountain, the price for each box is only going up. The Secretary of State’s Office says the costs of storing government records has nearly doubled from the year before the contract took effect.

At the same time, the state is paying to maintain its mostly vacant complex of warehouses, which remain government property.

The contract runs for 10 years.

In all, the records management program will cost the Secretary of State’s Office about $1.6 million this fiscal year, even considering that the state slashed the number of staff positions in records management from 11 to three after initially implementing the contract.

Meanwhile, the fees from other government agencies are expected to total $900,000.

In addition, the state pays $400,000 a year for its own empty storage facilities.

Under the contract, the price for storing each carton of documents will increase annually starting next year.

Not only do the fee schedules in the contract call for higher prices year after year, Iron Mountain could add a surcharge on the cost of each trip it makes to pick up government records if fuel prices rise over a certain level. And if the state wants to transfer the records to another company or to its own warehouses for storage, the government will have to pay for the move, too.

Do the math. The state is paying about $3 million a year to store its records. That cost is expected to rise in each year of a ten-year contract. The state saves by cutting the jobs of eight employees, who were probably making less than $100,000 a year, probably $60,000 a year, filing records.

In Arizona, this is a public-private partnership.

Guess who benefits?

 

Valerie Strauss writes here about an important new book about the Koch Empire and its desire to eliminate and privatize public schools. The book is “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by Christopher Leonard.

Strauss writes:

Early this year, the Koch network committed to starting an effort to transform public education. What would that look like?

The author of a new book on the billionaire Charles Koch and his late brother, David, says it would amount to the destruction of public education as we know it.

The Koch network is the influential assemblage of groups funded by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch and more than 600 wealthy individuals who share his pro-business, anti-regulation view of economics and positions on social policy, such as climate change denial.

The focus on K-12 education follows long involvement by the Koch brothers in higher education. As leaders of a conservative movement that believes U.S. higher education is controlled by liberals who indoctrinate young people, they spent as much as an estimated $100 million on programs at hundreds of colleges and universities that support their views…

In June, two Koch-related education initiatives were announced. One is a group called “Yes Every Kid,” which, its creators say, will bring together partisans in the education labor and funding debates to try to find solutions. The other is a project called 4.0 that commits the Charles Koch Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation to pledge $5 million each — along with $5 million from other donors — to support, according to a statement, “600 education entrepreneurs in incubating, testing and launching innovative approaches to education.” (The Walton foundation has long supported charter schools and other parts of the school choice movement.)

one thing is certain: the efforts of the Koch Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation are not doing it “for the kids.” By now, it a fact that kids in charters do not outperform their peers in public schools, and kidsin voucher schools get worse scores than their peers in public schools.

What do the billionaires want? Lower taxes. No unions. Powerless teachers. A free market where government has no role, and families compete for resources. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, just like the economy. What we know about the market is that it produces a few winners and many losers. It does not produce equal educational opportunity.

 

Max Brantley, the editor of the Arkansas Times, is a journalist who fearlessly stands up to the all-powerful Walton Family in the state they think they own. Brantley is a hero of the Resistance in my forthcoming book SLAYING GOLIATH.

In this post, Brantley describes the Waltons’ efforts to destroy the Little Rock School District and to crush the Little Rock Education Association.

He writes:

They are doing to Little Rock schools what the foundation of the family fortune did to small towns all across America — hollowing them out. It’s a years-long, billion-dollar effort that favors “choice” — privately run charter schools, vouchers for private schools, taxpayer support for homeschoolers and a diminishment of the role of elected school boards.  Parents know best, the Walton acolytes assert, even when the studies show little proof that the various choices beat conventional public schools. They are still searching for the magic bullet for the grinding reality of the impact of poverty on standardized test scores, the misleading standard by which “failure” is determined…

Little Rock teachers are…complaining of a mass e-mail from the anti-union Arkansas State Teachers Association last night warning teachers against striking. This group had a $362,000 startup grant from the Walton Family Foundation, no surprise given how notoriously anti-union Walmart has always been. ASTA also has ties to a national anti-union organization founded by like-minded billionaires.  Teachers weren’t too happy to be spammed by the group. ASTA also has been peppering state newspapers with op-eds touting their anti-union views. Its leader, Michele Linch, was the lone public voice on the other side of an outpouring of public opposition to the attack on the LRSD and its union by the state Board of Education.

Teachers in Little Rock ARE talking strike. I confess misgivings. There’s not a readily attainable goal as seen in other states, such as a pay increase. Nor is there any realistic hope for a change of heart in the Asa Hutchinson- (and thus Walton-) controlled education hierarchy. As Ernie Dumas wrote this week, racial discrimination and union hatred (tied historically with racist thinking) have always been with us in Arkansas. The recent LRSD takeover was nothing more than a combination of both by the white male business ruling class, with the primary immediate goal of union wreckage.

The Waltons collectively have a fortune in excess of $100 billion. They buy people, they create organizations to implement their evil schemes, they think they can squelch democracy by the power of money.

Those with the courage to stand up to them—journalists like Max Brantley, the teachers of the Little Rock Education Association, the parents and activists of Grassroots Arkansas—are the heroes of our time. They oppose autocracy, plutocracy, and a vast conspiracy to destroy democracy.

 

 

Maurice Cunningham is the ghostbuster of Dark Money in education. He is a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts. He is a hero of the Resistance in my forthcoming book SLAYING GOLIATH.

In this post, he details the efforts of the Walton Family of Arkansas to block the Massachusetts’ legislators who are trying to increase funding for the public schools of their state.

He writes:

The three interest groups pushing to undermine the Massachusetts senate’s education funding bill are all Walton funded, two of them essentially full-time agents of the Waltons. They have to solve a problem for the right-wing Wal-Mart heirs: not that funding public education might fail, but that it will succeed.

The Waltons, who contributed over $2 million in dark and gray money to the pro-charters side in 2016 through mechanisms set up by Democrats for Education Reform Massachusetts, would prefer to promote charter schools and charge toward a fully privatized system with employee relations mimicking those of Wal-Mart itself. But the political momentum now is all in the direction of a vast increase in public funding, and the Waltons’ best hope is to throw sand into the implementation gears.

He quotes from two books that explain the Walton ideology. This is one:

This is the ideological mind set of the Waltons, as explained by historian Nelson Lichtenstein in The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business. Of The Walton family’s interest in education, Lichtenstein writes:

Because so much of Walton and Wal-Mart philanthropy is crudely self-interested, critics are tempted to find a pecuniary motive for the Walton family’s interest in education. But their support for competition and privatization is an entirely ideological project, based on a desire to enhance the social and cultural value of a free market in which government is weak while public goods like hurricane relief, education, and health care are the fodder for entrepreneurial transformation. Since public schools are by far the most pervasive of public institutions, and highly unionized to boot, this “$700-plus-billion-a-year industry”—John Walton’s phrase—has been a good place to start.

If you think all this sounds somewhat Koch-like, Charles and the late David Koch committed to K-12 education reform too –by which they also mean to destroy public education. The Kochs and Waltons have kicked in $5 million each as partners in a project called 4.0 that will be an ideas factory for privatization. Also, never untangle the Kochs or Waltons ideology with their fervor for low taxes on themselves.

 

Jeff Bryant writes here about the billionaires who corrupted the school leadership pipeline. Chief among them, of course, is billionaire Eli Broad, who created an unaccredited training program as a fast track for urban superintendents.

Bryant has collected stories about how superintendents who passed through the Broad program hire other graduates of the program and do business with others who are part of their network. The ethical breaches are numerous. The self-dealing and the stench of corruption is powerful.

Bryant begins with the story of a phone call from Eli Broad to one of his graduates:

It’s rare when goings-on in Kansas City schools make national headlines, but in 2011 the New York Times reported on the sudden departure of the district’s superintendent John Covington, who resigned unexpectedly with only a 30-day notice. Covington, who had promised to “transform” the long-troubled district, “looked like a silver bullet” for all the district’s woes, according to the Los Angeles Times. He had, in a little more than two years, quickly set about remaking the district’s administrative staff, closing nearly half the schools, revamping curriculum, and firing teachers while hiring Teach for America recruits.

The story of Covington’s sudden departure caught the attention of coastal papers no doubt because it perpetuated a common media narrative about hard-charging school leaders becoming victims of school districts’ supposed resistance to change and the notoriously short tenures of superintendents.

Although there may be some truth to that narrative, the main reason Covington left Kansas City was not because he was pushed out by job stress or an obstinate resistance. He left because a rich man offered him a job.

Following the reporting by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times about Covington’s unexpected resignation, news emerged from the Kansas City Star that days after he resigned, he took a position as the first chancellor of the Education Achievement Authority of Michigan, a new state agency that, according to Michigan Radio, sought “radical” leadership to oversee low-performing schools in Detroit.

But at the time of Covington’s departure, it seemed no outlet could have described the exact circumstances under which he was lured away. That would come out years later in the Kansas City Star where reporter Joe Robertson described a conversation with Covington in which he admitted that squabbles with board members “had nothing to do” with his departure. What caused Covington’s exit, Robertson reported, was “a phone call from Spain.”

That call, Covington told Robertson, was what led to Covington’s departure from Kansas City—because it brought a message from billionaire philanthropist and major charter school booster Eli Broad. “John,” Broad reportedly said, “I need you to go to Detroit.”

It wasn’t the first time Covington, who was a 2008 graduate of a prestigious training academy funded through Broad’s foundation (the Broad Center), had come into contact with the billionaire’s name and clout. Broad was also the most significant private funder of the new Michigan program he summoned Covington to oversee, providing more than $6 million in funding from 2011 to 2013, according to the Detroit Free Press.

But Covington’s story is more than a single instance of a school leader doing a billionaire’s bidding. It sheds light on how decades of a school reform movement, financed by Broad and other philanthropists and embraced by politicians and policymakers of all political stripes, have shaped school leadership nationwide.

Charter advocates and funders—such as Broad, Bill Gates, some members of the Walton Family Foundation, John Chubb, and others who fought strongly for schools to adopt the management practices of private businesses—helped put into place a school leadership network whose members are very accomplished in advancing their own careers and the interests of private businesses while they rankle school boards, parents, and teachers.

Covington’s tenure at the Education Achievement Authority in Michigan was a disaster, and the EAA itself was a disaster that has been closed down.

Bryant compares the Broad superintendents to a cartel.

The actions of these leaders are often disruptive to communities, as school board members chafe at having their work undermined, teachers feel increasingly removed from decision making, and local citizens grow anxious at seeing their taxpayer dollars increasingly redirected out of schools and classrooms and into businesses whose products and services are of questionable value.

In fact, Broad superintendents have a very poor track record. They excel at disruption and alienating parents and teachers by their autocratic style. Despite their boasts, they don’t know how to improve education. They are not even skilled at management.

What they do best is advance themselves and make lucrative connections with related businesses owned by Broadie cronies.

Andrea Gabor is a professional journalist who has the skill to tell the story that readers of this blog know very well and bring it to a larger audience. The public needs to understand the squalid theft of our public goods that is being carried out in broad daylight by so-called philanthropists.

This article by Gabor was published by Harper’s, where it will reach a large public audience that does not read this blog.

Gabor begins:

Last May, the families of students at Cypress Academy, an independent charter school in New Orleans, received an email announcing that the school would close when classes ended the following week and that all its students would be transferred to another nearby charter for the upcoming year. Parents would have the option of entering their children in the city’s charter-enrollment lottery, but the lottery’s first round had already taken place, and the most desirable spots for the fall were filled.

Founded in 2015, a decade after New Orleans became the nation’s first city to begin replacing all its public schools with charters, Cypress was something of a rarity. Like about nine in ten of the city’s charter schools, it filled spaces by lottery rather than by selective admission. But while most of the nonselective schools in New Orleans had majority populations of low-income African-American students, Cypress mirrored the city’s demographics, drawing the children of professionals—African-American and white alike—as well as poorer students. Cypress reserved 20 percent of its seats for children with reading difficulties, and it offered a progressive education model, including “learning by doing,” rather than the strict conduct codes that dominated the city’s nonselective schools. In just three years, the school had outperformed many established charters—a particular feat given that one in four Cypress students had a disability, double the New Orleans average. Families flocked to Cypress, especially ones with children who had disabilities.

Faced with a sizable deficit, Cypress had to cut costs. The district did not offer help. Although it was academically successful, Cypress closed.

Big Philanthropy first embraced school privatization in the mid-Eighties, when Milwaukee’s Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation underwrote John Chubb and Terry Moe’s Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, which became the bible of the privatization movement. Founded in 1942 by brothers in factory automation, the Bradley Foundation had long supported right-wing causes, including dismantling unions, and its wide-ranging support of market-based education reform went hand in hand with this goal. Among other efforts, the foundation helped to finance Milwaukee’s 1990 school voucher law, the nation’s first—and to defend it against legal challenges. As far back as the 1950s, the University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman had advocated for a system of government-funded school vouchers that would allow parents to use tax dollars to pay for private schools; however, vouchers had an ignominious history in the South, where they were used as a way to circumvent court-ordered desegregation.

When vouchers made no headway, the education privatizers took up charter schools as the best way  to eliminate public schools and bust the teachers’ unions. The charter cause was led by the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation.

In the past, big foundations funded the ideas presented to them by grantees. In the new era of philanthrocapitalism, the big foundations gave money to grantees who agreed to carry out their plans.

New Orleans gave the philanthrocapitalists a virtually clean slate on which to play with their ideas.

Gabor writes:

The system operated on a bottom-line approach known as the portfolio model, which seeks to manage schools like stocks in a Wall Street portfolio; the model rewards high performers (as measured primarily by test scores) with further investment and punishes poor performers by cutting off funding or by shuttering them. The promise of this model was that idealistic technocrats would run schools like businesses, emphasizing competition, financial incentives, and accountability. Freed from bureaucracy and union rules, schools would blossom and adapt to meet the needs of children. Families could vote with their feet; if they didn’t like a school, they could choose another anywhere in the city. Schools that did not meet the grade would be closed, but new and better schools would open in their places. To realize these benefits, the New Orleans reformers stripped the locally elected school board of much of its authority and ceded control to nonelected charter-management organizations and non-profit groups. For the next decade, democratic oversight of the vast majority of New Orleans schools effectively ceased to exist. Instead, education policy was largely dictated by the charter establishment and a handful of its wealthy donors.

Gabor goes on to describe how the chartering process was “designed to deny input by community groups.” National corporate charter chains were encouraged to open new charters.

Gabor details how philanthropists are invading district after district, pouring millions into front groups intended to usurp democratic control and replace it with corporate control.

This is the future imagined by major philanthropists. One in which public schools have been replaced by corporate chains, where unions have been abolished, where the voice of the community is minimized or ignored.

Betsy DeVos just dropped $36 million on North Carolina to lure children out of their public schools and into charter schools. The state is not sure it can spend the money.

North Carolina will now have more than $36 million in federal funding to help increase enrollment in charter schools, particularly for children from low-income groups.

The N.C. Department of Public Instruction announced Tuesday that the U.S. Department of Education is awarding the state an additional $10 million to support a statewide initiative to use charter schoolsto help meet the needs of educationally disadvantaged students. This comes on top of the $26.6 million federal grant awarded last year to increase the number of charter schools across the state.

It’s a financial windfall that has caused charter school leaders across the state to apply for a share of the federal funding.

“The reality is — let the elephant out here — that we’re going to have difficulty spending this money perhaps,” Joseph Maimone, a member of the N.C. Charter Schools Advisory Board, said at Tuesday’s meeting. “We’ve got to really think about how difficult it’s going to be to use up the entire grant.”

State officials say they’re confident that they can spend the $36.6 million.

Charter schools are taxpayer-funded schools that are exempt from some of the rules that traditional public schools must follow, such as providing school meals and bus service. Charter schools have a lower percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches than traditional public schools.

There are 198 charter schools open in North Carolina serving more than 100,000 students. Enrollment has surged since state lawmakers voted in 2011 to eliminate the state limit of 100 charter schools.

Supporters say charter schools provide families with more education options. But critics say charters siphon money away from traditional public schools and increase school segregation.