Archives for category: Privatization

Governor Josh Shapiro promised Democrats that if they passed the state budget, he would veto the voucher legislation so beloved by Republicans. Gov. Shapiro had previously declared his support for vouchers. Thursday, the governor kept his promise. He signed the state budget and vetoed vouchers.

Carly Sitrin of Chalkbeat Philadelphia wrote:

As promised, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro signed the $45.5 billion state budget without a state-funded private school voucher program on Thursday, ending weeks of drama about the proposal.

Budget negotiations had been stalled for nearly a month over the dispute about whether to create a $100 million statewide voucher program. With a one-vote majority in the House, Democrats refused to approve any spending plan that included vouchers — even one supported by Shapiro, a fellow Democrat.

In the end, Shapiro cut a deal to sign the budget and strike the voucher provision, much to the chagrin of Republicans who claimed the governor was turning his back on his own campaign promise.

“The people of Pennsylvania have entrusted me with the responsibility to bring people together in a divided legislature and to get things done for them – and with this commonsense budget, that’s exactly what we’ve done,” Shapiro said in a statement announcing the signing.

In his message announcing that he would use a line-item veto to eliminate vouchers from the budget, Shapiro said the proposal — called the Pennsylvania Award for Student Success Scholarship Program, or PASS — remains “unfinished business.”

“This budget is a first step towards a comprehensive solution that makes progress for our children over the long term, and I look forward to continuing this work with both chambers as we discuss additional programs to help our children including PASS,” Shapiro wrote.

PASS would have expanded the state’s school choice offerings, which currently include the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit and Education Improvement Tax Credit.

Critics in Philadelphia claimed that an earlier version of the program could have upended the city’s public school system.

Nathan Benefield, senior vice president of the conservative Commonwealth Foundation that has backed voucher programs, said in a statement Shapiro’s veto “while not unexpected, is disappointing and unnecessary.”

Benefield said his organization will continue to push for vouchers and cast the program as Shapiro’s “chance to redeem himself, fulfill his campaign promises, and offer a genuine opportunity to thousands of low-income kids who deserve a better future.”

Advocates opposing vouchers celebrated Shapiro’s voucher veto, but also expressed disappointment that the Republican-led Senate has yet to approve some education funding.

Among the programs in the budget Shapiro signed Thursday that will still require Senate approval is so-called Level Up funding for the 100 school districts with the lowest spending per pupil, including Philadelphia. Level Up funding is in addition to the Basic Education funding that schools receive from the state and is included in the $45.5 billion budget Shapiro signed.

“It is disappointing that Senate leadership is standing in the way of releasing needed funds for programs included in their own budget, including Level Up dollars that benefit students in the most underfunded school districts,” the PA Schools Work Campaign said in a statement.

The advocates called it “ironic” that Senate Republicans are still holding up “funding for our students in the most underfunded schools specifically because they were unsuccessful in an attempt to institute a new private school voucher program that purports to help … these very same students.”

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers President Jerry Jordan said in a statement that the union is “pleased” that Shapiro signed the budget without the voucher program.

”The misguided push to divert public dollars into private institutions was a distraction that diverts us from our collective responsibility to truly invest in public education,” Jordan said.

The Arizona Republic reported an increase in new private schools that opened in response to the state’s expanded voucher program. All children, regardless of family income, can now get vouchers to spend for religious schools, private schools, online schools, or home schooling. The voucher funding will decrease funding for public schools, which enroll the vast majority of students in the state. The voucher program in Arizona was expanded despite a state referendum in 2018 in which 65% of voters opposed voucher expansion.

The story focuses on Majestic Grace Christian Academy, which opened with an enrollment of 10 or 12 students. It hopes to double its enrollment next year. Christian values infuse the teaching in every subject.

As a small private school that sprang up just this past school year, Majestic Grace exemplifies the private school revolution stemming from the universal expansion of school vouchers. It is one of many recently launched private schools taking advantage of newly available public money. But while Majestic Grace and other private schools accept public funds in the form of school vouchers, there is little public oversight of what students are learning, whether they are achieving at their grade level and the training their instructors receive…

All the students attending Majestic Grace last year were school voucher recipients, said school founder Jed Harris, the retired banker. Majestic Grace is not the first school Harris has helped open in Arizona. He also worked to launch Tipping Point Academy, a private school in Scottsdale that promises to integrate a Biblical worldview into every lesson….

Grand Canyon Private Academy, an online school for students in grades K-10 that opened this past school year, notes prominently on its website that the Arizona school voucher program will cover all of the school’s tuition, which is up to $6,500 for the full year. …

Before the 2022-23 school year began, the Empowerment Scholarship Account program served about 12,000 students. Now, more than 60,000 students receive funding through the program for private school tuition, tutors or educational materials.

While it is unclear how many of those students receive funding for private school tuition rather than special therapies or at-home learning supplies, the voucher vendor list includes many private schools.

As the school voucher program has grown so have concerns about public money supporting private schools that are poorly understood beyond their physical or virtual walls. Gov. Katie Hobbs’ office released a memo in July estimating the school voucher program will cost more than $950 million in the current budget year, leading to a budget shortfall of nearly $320 million.

Voucher opponent Beth Lewis, who heads the public school advocacy group Save Our Schools, wonders whether private schools serve students better or are just shielded from the scrutiny of public schools, which are legally bound to provide information for accountability’s sake.

“Arizona’s ESA program is the least accountable in the entire country,” said Lewis. “Public dollars are going to strip mall private schools, popping up with zero accreditation and no requirements that they adhere to curriculum or state standards. In a public school, you need to have all of those things.”

State law requires the Arizona Department of Education to give every public school — district and charter — an A through F letter grade. It is based on factors including statewide assessment tests and graduation rate.

In contrast, Arizona law’s academic requirement for a family’s acceptance of a school voucher is that “a portion of the ESA must be used in at least the subjects of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies and science,” according to the 2023-24 school voucher parent handbook. Those subjects must also be taught in private schools under Arizona law.

Those demands do little to alleviate Lewis’ concerns about academic accountability for private schools accepting taxpayer dollars.

“If you spend five minutes writing a sentence about grammar, that is not putting together a robust education,” Lewis said.

Furthermore, students lose legal protections when they leave public schools to accept a school voucher. For instance, private school students are not protected under a federal law that governs special education, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, like public school students.

Private schools also have less rigorous legal requirements for staff.

Most public school employees are required by law to undergo a form of background check to ensure they don’t have a criminal history that would disqualify them from working with children. That’s not required for private schools or vendors accepting voucher dollars.

In addition, full-time, permanent classroom teachers in public schools must have at least a bachelor’s degree. There’s no similar requirement for private schools, and the voucher program only requires vendors, like tutors, to have a high school diploma when it’s related to the service they’re providing.

With school vouchers, private schools and other educational vendors are answerable to the parents, according to the head of the program, who recently resigned. While the state provides a list of vendors and schools approved to receive voucher money, it is the parent’s responsibility to ensure a provider has satisfactory credentials and provides adequate services.

The voucher schools are exempt from state testing requirements. They are not accountable to the state.

Teachers College Press released this description of recent research on school choice.

Does School Choice Mean Parents or Schools Do the Choosing?

Dr. Barbara Ferguson
Research on Reforms, Inc.


In their book on school choice, the authors ponder the question: “Does School Choice Mean Parents or Schools Do the Choosing?”

The book is published by Teachers College Press at Columbia University* and its authors, Wagma Mommandi and Kevin Welner, begin by citing the driving force behind school choice, which is to remove the “government monopoly on schools and let families choose the school for their children.”

But, through their decades of research, the authors conclude that “charter schools often play an outsize role in shaping enrollment.” They cite an assortment of practices that charter schools have implemented to deter the enrollment of certain groups of students. And they conclude, “even when parents are able to enroll their child in their preferred school of choice, academic requirements and disciplinary policies may prevent enrollment in subsequent years.”

These same conclusions were reached by Dr. Barbara Ferguson and published in her book: “Outcomes of the State Takeover of the New Orleans Schools” (2018). Dr. Ferguson uses the term “selective admission” for charter schools with enrollment practices that deter the enrollment of certain groups of students. The term “selective retention” is used for charter schools that have policies that prevent continued enrollment.

Charter schools are public schools, and they are supposed to be distinguished from the traditional public schools only by the governance structure. Charter schools are governed by private boards and traditional schools are governed by public boards. Yet, in New Orleans, the charter schools are allowed to enact admission and retention rules like those enacted by private schools..

“Selective Admission” allows charter schools to select the best and the brightest, and the wealthiest. Lycée Français charter school, in 2011-12, had a paid preschool program with a tuition of $4,570 and those preschool students gained automatic entry into the elementary charter school. They bypassed the lottery, which is required by federal law to be used when there are more applicants than spaces available in the school.

Benjamin Franklin, Lusher and Warren Easton were three successful magnet high schools that became charter schools and were allowed to keep their selective criteria for admission.“Selective Retention” allows charter schools to selectively remove underachieving and disruptive students:
• To continue their enrollment at Franklin and Lusher, students had to earn an overall 2.0 grade point average, and at Warren Easton an overall 1.5.

• At Hynes charter school: “Students with chronic attendance/tardy issues or with three or more suspensions will be ineligible to re-register.”

• At Mays charter school: “A student who misses ten or more consecutive days of school without notifying Mays Prep …is subject to being unenrolled at Mays Prep.”

• At Priestley charter school: “Students must maintain a 2.5 grade point average during the school year. Failure to do so will result in academic probation…and/or an invitation not to return the following year.”


• At Lake Forest Elementary charter school: “Failure to complete volunteer hours or participate in the mandatory fund raisers may result in loss of placement for your child.”This list can go on and on. The above information is taken from each school’s handbook and cited in Dr. Ferguson’s book.Perhaps the most egregious “Selective Retention” charter school scheme is expelling students for offenses for which they previously could not be expelled. Charter schools are allowed to develop their own rules for expulsion.


• At Miller-McCoy charter school, students can be expelled for “not attending tutoring, homework center…, misbehaving on the school bus, disrupting class….”


• At Arise Academy charter school, students can be expelled for “offenses, such as, disrespect, out of uniform, chewing gum…”


• At New Orleans College Prep charter school, students can be expelled “for repeated and fundamental disregard of school policies and procedures.”


• At Lafayette Academy charter school, students can be expelled for “unexcused or excessive absenteeism; cheating; failure to report to detention.”The list can go on and on. The above information is taken from each school’s handbook and cited in Dr. Ferguson’s book.

Charter schools not only developed their own rules for expulsion, but they could expel directly from the site level. Thus, a more tragic outcome was the aftermath of the expulsion. Previously, schools had to make a recommendation for expulsion to the district level. If the district office expelled the student, the district was then required to reassign the expelled student to another school. But charter schools were allowed to expel directly from the site level with no obligation to ensure that the student was re-enrolled in another school. Thus, the parents of the expelled student had to find another school which was almost impossible since charter schools can cap enrollment.

Constitutionally, each state has an obligation to educate all students to a given age which is established by the state. But that obligation is circumvented when no entity has the responsibility to ensure that a student expelled from a charter school is re-enrolled into another school. When the New Orleans School Board regained some control of the charter schools, they reversed the charter school site-level expulsion mandate, now requiring charter schools to recommend students for expulsion to the district office. If expelled, the district office then places the student into another school. However, two New Orleans high schools still retain language in their handbooks which state that they expel from the site level.

“Does school choice mean parents or schools do the choosing?” The Louisiana charter school law was intended for parents, especially parents of “at-risk” children and youth, to remove their students from “failing” schools and to choose a school with a higher rating. But the written law has not become the implemented law. New Orleans “at-risk” children and youth remain in the poorest performing schools.


________________________________Endnote:


*School’s Choice: How Charter Schools Control Access and Shape Their Enrollment (Teachers College Press, 2021) Authors: Wagma Mommandi and Kevin Welner.

Comments to bferguson@researchonreforms.orgResearch On Reforms Website

Despite the public’s overwhelming rejection of vouchers in a state referendum in 2018 (by a margin of 65-35%), the Republican Legislature and then-Governor Doug Ducey ignored the vote and passed a program of universal vouchers. This meant that the state would pay for every student, regardless of family income, to attend a private or religious school or homeschool or whatever the family considered an educational expense.

The claim that vouchers would “save poor kids from failing public schools” was exposed as phony, since most students who claimed vouchers never attended public schools. Quite simply, the voucher program was a transfer of public money from public schools to students in non-public schools.

The cost of the voucher program soared to nearly $1 billion. It’s two top administrators resigned. The new Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, said that the voucher program was unsustainable.

Two of the top administrators in charge of a controversial school program in Arizona that has seen cost estimates swell to well beyond expectations have abruptly resigned, leading to more questions about the program and how it is being operated.

The program, known at the ESA Program, was expanded last year by the Republican-backed legislature and has seen its costs swell to enormous heights as students around the state quickly applied for the $7,000 vouchers made available by the program.

ESA Leaders Abruptly Resign

Two of the top administrators with the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program in Arizona abruptly resigned on Monday, with the remaining members of the program giving few details as to why the two may have left.

An Arizona Department of Education spokesman acknowledged Tuesday that Empowerment Scholarship Account Director Christine Accurso and operations director Linda Rizzo had resigned from the ESA program, according to KPNX-TV.

“Christine Accurso has explained to the department that she took the ESA position to clean up the program and having successfully done that she has chosen to move on,” according to the statement…

ESA Causing Huge Deficit to State Budget

The ESA program has now cost the State of Arizona approximately $943 million, prompting what Governor Katie Hobbs says will be a $319 million budget deficit for the state, largely caused by the bloated spending of the program.

“This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters”.

Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat summarized recent polls about public schools and noticed a sharp contrast between parents of public school students and non-parents.

Parents who have children in public schools are satisfied with them, based on their experience. But the general public swallows the negative narrative spewed by the mainstream media and rightwing politicians and thus has a sour view of public schools. This gap in perception has persisted for many years but seems to be increasing as Republican politicians like Texas’s Greg Abbott and Florida’s Ron DeSantis amp up their attacks on public schools.

Since it is not newsworthy to report that most parents are satisfied with their children’s public schools, the media loves to publish stories about crises and failure. Eventually, it becomes the conventional wisdom.

We have heard scare stories about the public schools with great intensity since the publication of the ominous “A Nation at Risk” report in 1983. That report, we now know, was purposely distorted to make public schools look bad. The commission that released that hand-wringing report had cooked the books to generate a sense of crisis. And they succeeded. The Reagan administration was alarmed, the nation’s governors were alarmed, the media stoked their fears. And for 40 years, the nation bought the lie.

But one group did not buy the lie: public school parents.

Barnum wrote:

The polling company Gallup has been asking American parents the same question since 1999: Are you satisfied with your oldest child’s education? Every year though January 2020, between two-thirds and 80% said yes.

The pandemic upended many things about American schooling, but not this long-standing trend. In Gallup’s most recent poll, conducted late last year, 80% of parents said they were somewhat or completely satisfied with their child’s school, which in most cases was a public school. This was actually a bit higher than in most years before the pandemic. A string of other polls, conducted throughout the pandemic, have shown similar results.

“Contrary to elite or policy wonk opinion, which often is critical of schools, there have been years and years worth of data saying that families in general like their local public schools,” said Andy Smarick, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Historian and retired teacher John Thompson describes the confusion and chaos generated in Oklahoma as MAGA Governor Kevin Stitt and the bumbling State Superintendent Ryan Walters continue on their path of privatization and religiosity.

Thompson writes:

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt and his ally, State School Superintendent Ryan Walters, have histories of double-barreled shotgun-style assaults on both public education and other state government agencies. For instance, Stitt previously pushed out “three highly-regarded leaders” of the Corrections, the Health Care Authority, and the Transportation departments. Recently, as Arnold Hamilton of the Oklahoma Observer protests, “Stitt took aim at another experienced state leader, trying to stampede longtime higher education Chancellor Glen Johnson into retirement. And he hasn’t backed off from his other barrel – demeaning rhetoric to advance privatization.

Similarly, Walters has pushed out many of his staff who administer competitive federal grants. The Oklahoman reported that the lead grant writer, Terri Grissom, who had “secured more than $101.5 million in competitive grants over five years,” resigned and “blew the whistle that Walters’ administration had brought the process of competitive grant applications to a halt. These funds supported a variety of initiatives, but many focused on student mental health and behavioral services.”

Grissom said Walters “blocked her from applying to a student wellness grant,” and Matt Langston, his chief policy advisor “forbade her from seeking any programs with elements of diversity and inclusion, LGBTQ initiatives, social-emotional learning or trauma-informed practices.” Moreover, Oklahoma Watch reported, “Langston emailed employees of the agency, threatening any employee ‘found leaking information to the press’ with immediate termination.” Two other managers were fired and filed lawsuits against Walters and Langston.

In May and June, as Walters’ rhetoric and behavior became even more unhinged, I was told that many Republicans decided to not push back against him because his antics drew attention to him, and away from more silent Republicans. But as Grissom, and Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd, revealed the losses of tens of millions of federal funds for schools and Covid responses (for which the governor shared responsibility,) and as school system leaders voiced concerns about not receiving timely notification about larger amounts of federal funding, it seemed more likely (or not impossible) that more Republican legislators would listen to their adult Republican colleagues and hold Walters accountable.

For instance, Auditor and Inspector Byrd, a Republican, “released an audit of how the state handled federal pandemic relief money, specifically expenditures made during fiscal year 2021.” The audit found $12.2 million in CARES costs and about $29 million in the state’s spending of federal COVID-19 relief funds were questionable. And Republican Attorney General Gentnor Drummond is investigating Walters and, perhaps, the Stitt administration regarding misspent federal money.

In response, however, Walters has doubled down on both his assaults on public education services and extremist rhetoric. As the Tulsa World reported, “Walters has been critical of federal funding opportunities that come with strings attached and directed the State Department of Education to pass on grant opportunities that don’t align with ‘Oklahoma values.’” Then, speaking to the Moms for Liberty in Philadelphia, Walters proclaimed, “You are the most patriotic, pro-American group in the country right now.”

And chaos has increased. Shouting and physical contact involving Moms for Liberty and other rightwingers have disrupted district school board and State board meetings, resulting in charges being filed.

Walters has continued to weaponize his calls for censoring curriculum and educators. For instance, the Tulsa Public Schools “was penalized for an August 2021 professional development session on implicit bias for teachers — not students — offered through a third-party vendor.” A year later, its “state accreditation was downgraded in July 2022 over an allegation that it violated a state law commonly referred to as House Bill 1775, which limits classroom discussion on race and gender.”

And as the World now reports, Walters’ latest attack on the Tulsa schools for “assaults” on religious liberty, became a shouting match where Walters pledged to further investigate Tulsa’s accreditation.

This controversy started when a board member, E’Lena Ashley, spoke at a high school graduation ceremony, and asked the audience to join her in prayer:

I pray in the name of Jesus Christ that each one of you would walk forward from this moment in the excellence and love of God, that he would guide you, direct you and draw you to your ultimate goal. In the name of Jesus.

The schools’ students and staff “voiced their concerns [about Ashley] during the citizens’ comment portions” at two Tulsa school board meetings. The Tulsa Board and Superintendent Deborah Gist sent an email “saying that the prayer Ashley made is not allowed under the U.S. Constitution and rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Walters replied that the email “fundamentally misunderstands religious liberty and religious freedom and attack a duly elected board member for saying a prayer. … It’s outrageous, and we’re not going to stand for that.” And World reported that he “vowed to make an issue of the matter when the school district’s accreditation is up for renewal next week by the Oklahoma State Board of Education.”

Who knows if these extremists’ rhetoric will lead to greater chaos, vituperation and, perhaps, serious violence? Who knows whether such behavior will undermine Walters politically to the point where enough Republicans take action. It must be remembered, however, that Walters’ and Stitt’s words and actions are parts of a national campaign to undermine our governmental institutions. And, most likely, it will take public servants, legal actions, and the public to defend our democracy.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott wants vouchers. He claims that polls show parents want vouchers. But they don’t, as this article shows. He says he wants “education not indoctrination,” yet advocates public money to fund schools that explicitly indoctrinate students.

He’s annoyed that he has not yet been able to twist enough arms in the Legislature to get them. He even visited private and religious schools to spread the message that parents would get tuition help from the state. But a strong coalition of Democrats and Republicans has returned him down repeatedly.

Two Texas scholars, David DeMatthews and David S. Knight, wrote an opinion piece in The Houston Chronicle explaining that the public wants better-funded public schools, not tuition for kids in private and religious schools.

They wrote:

Governor Abbott will likely call a special session on school vouchers after House Bill 100 failed to pass during the regular legislative session. But we believe a special session should instead be called to improve school safety and teacher retention, not a voucher scheme that runs counter to what Texas families want for their children.

Texas families want safe schools with a stable teacher workforce, especially following the mass shooting in Uvalde and the fact that roughly 50,000 teachers left their positions last year. In a recent statewide poll, 73 percent of Texans identified school safety, teacher pay, curriculum content and public school financing as top priorities.

In the same poll, few Texans viewed vouchers as a priority, although stark differences in opinion emerged between Democrats and Republicans. Only eight percent of Texans prioritized vouchers.

Historically, Americans with children report strong support for public schools when polled. In 2022, 80 percent of parents across the nation were completely or somewhat satisfied with the quality of education their oldest child was receiving, with little change over 20 years.

Unfortunately, some state policymakers continue to push vouchers by attacking public schools. Abbott has overseen the state’s public education system since he took office in 2015, yet only recently has he begun to claim that schools are sites of “indoctrination.”

These attacks likely contribute to Americans’ loss of confidence in public schools. In January 2019, Gallup reported that 50 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans were satisfied with public schools. By January 2022, Republican support dropped sharply to 30 percent. Democratic support remained stable.

With that background, it’s easy to believe that Texans have grown interested in vouchers. But polls showing that, we believe, are misleading.
For example, a University of Houston poll asked a sample of 1,200 Texans about their support of vouchers. The researchers concluded that 53 percent of respondents supported the policy. Yet a close examination of the data shows that the statistic leaves out approximately 12 percent of respondents — the ones who said that they “don’t know” enough to express an opinion. When the “don’t know” group is added back in, voucher supporters are in the minority.

Polls asking Texans whether they support vouchers are of little value if Texans are unfamiliar with the policy. And to make matters worse, advocacy groups have invested significant resources to mislead the public.

Texans would not support vouchers if they knew the truth. Ask yourself the following questions. What Texan would support vouchers if they knew recent studies found students using vouchers underperformed on standardized tests relative to their public school peers?

What Texan would support vouchers after learning that the cost of Arizona’s voucher program ballooned from $65 million to a projected $900 million in a few years? And that vouchers disproportionately benefited families who were already sending their children to private schools?

State policymakers pushing vouchers are not asking the right questions or presenting adequate evidence. They are being disingenuous.
A special session should focus on school safety and teacher retention, not vouchers. As more families become aware of the harm vouchers cause students, we can’t imagine that most Texans will support them.

David DeMatthews is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Texas.

David S. Knight is an associate professor of education finance and policy at the University of Washington.

Republicans in North Carolina hold a supermajority in the state’s General Assembly after a renegade Democrat announced she was switching parties. That legislator, Tricia Cotham, betrayed the people who voted for her, thinking she supported abortion rights and opposed vouchers. After switching sides, she voted to ban abortion and to support vouchers. With a supermajority, Republicans can and do override Democratic Governor Roy Cooper’s vetoes.

In their hatred for everything public, the Republicans voted to fund capital expenses of charter schools (even though they also are passing legislation by declaring that charter schools are not public schools). Notably, they also voted to allow low-performing charters to expand! Nothing equals funding failure!! Republicans want more kids in failing charters!

Democratic North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper on Friday vetoed a Republican-backed bill that seeks to enable big changes to the state’s charter school system, likely setting up another override battle with the GOP-led General Assembly.

House Bill 219, the “Charter Schools Omnibus,” would remove a cap on enrollment growth at low-performing charter schools and allow charter schools to automatically add enrollment and grade levels over time without state approval.

It would also allow the schools to give preference to students in certain preschools. The law currently requires admissions to be done by lottery, not by preference. And it would allow charters to enroll and charge tuition for out-of-state and foreign exchange students.

The biggest change in the bill would allow charter schools to seek taxpayer money for capital expenses, such as construction, renovation or building purchases.

Currently, charter schools must secure and finance their own buildings. State and local taxes pay for the operating costs of charters, but not for their capital needs.

Counties would be authorized to raise taxes to generate the needed funds for charters but wouldn’t be required to do so.

Supporters of the bill say it would even the playing field between charters and traditional public schools, which are already fully funded by taxpayers.

But critics say there’s not enough funding available for traditional public school capital needs as it stands.

“This bill allowing more students to attend failing charter schools risks their education and their future,” Cooper said in a statement Friday.

He said the State Board of Education should maintain oversight of charter schools’ enrollment growth.

“Diverting local resources to build charter schools without clear authority on who owns them risks financial loss to county taxpayers who have no recourse,” Cooper said.

The measure passed both General Assembly chambers with full Republican support and at least one Democratic vote, so it’s a likely candidate for a veto override when lawmakers return to business in Raleigh on Aug. 7, along with five other veto overrides on their calendars.

It’s the 14th veto of the year for Cooper. Six are awaiting override votes. The previous eight have been overridden already.

Republican legislators don’t give a hoot about students or education. They keep their eyes on what matters: profit.

https://www.expressnews.com/politics/article/laws-Texas-charter-school-profits-DRAW-Horizon-17723803.php

Just over two years ago, Universal Academy, a Texas charter school with two campuses in the Dallas area, made a surprising move.

In November 2020, a nonprofit foundation formed to support the school bought a luxury horse ranch and equestrian center from former ExxonMobil Chairman Rex Tillerson. The 12-building complex features a show barn “designed with Normandy-style cathedral ceilings,” a 120,000 square foot climate-controlled riding arena and a viewing pavilion with kitchen and bathrooms.

DRAW Academy, center, photographed Thursday, Jan. 19, 2023, in Houston.

RELATED: IDEA Public Schools signed $15M lease for luxury jet despite being under state investigation

Last summer the Texas Education Agency granted Universal Academy permission to create a new elementary campus on the horse property’s manicured grounds. It will offer students riding lessons, according to a brochure, for $9,500.

Sales prices aren’t public in Texas, but the 100-acre property had been listed for $12 million when Tillerson, who also served as secretary of state under former President Donald Trump, bought it in 2009. Because of the foundation’s nonprofit status and its plans to offer equine therapy, the parcel has been removed from the tax rolls.

School board President Janice Blackmon said Universal hopes to use the facility to start a 4H chapter and Western-style horsemanship training, among other programs that take advantage of its rural location. “We’re trying to broaden the students and connect them to their Texas roots,” she said.

Splashy purchases like the horse arena are receiving increasing public scrutiny as charter schools continue to expand aggressively across Texas. Under state law, charter schools are public schools — just owned and managed privately, unlike traditional school districts. 

An analysis by Hearst Newspapers found cases in which charter schools collected valuable real estate at great cost to taxpayers but with a tenuous connection to student learning. In others, administrators own the school facilities and have collected millions from charging rent to the same schools they run.

In Houston, the superintendent and founder of Diversity, Roots and Wings Academy,  or DRAW, owns or controls four facilities used by the school, allowing him to bill millions to schools he oversees. DRAW’s most recent financial report shows signed lease agreements to pay Fernando Donatti, the superintendent, and his companies more than $6.5 million through 2031.

In an email, superintendent Donetti at DRAW said the property transactions were ethical, in the best interest of DRAW’s students and properly reported to state regulators. He said his school was “lucky” he was able to purchase the property because of challenges charters can face finding proper facilities. DRAW Academy, center, photographed Thursday, Jan. 19, 2023, in Houston.Jon Shapley/Staff photographer

Also in the Houston area, at ComQuest Academy Charter High School, the superintendent and her husband also own the company to which the school pays rent.

And Accelerated Learning Academy, a charter school based in Houston, is still trying to get a tax exemption on one of the two condominiums it bought just over a decade ago in upscale neighborhoods in Houston and Dallas. The school claims it has used the condos for storage, despite a nearby 9,600 square foot facility.

The battles between school districts and charter networks have become increasingly pitched, as they are locked in a zero-sum battle for public dollars. 

Last year in Houston, about 45,000 students transferred from the ISD to charter schools, resulting in a loss to the district of a minimum of $276 million. That figure includes only the basic allotment received by the districts, excluding special education funding or other allotments.

In San Antonio, the two largest school districts are Northside ISD and North East ISD. More than 12,000 Northside students transferred to charter schools in the 2021-2022 school year, as did just under 8,000 from North East ISD. That means Northside lost at least $75 million, while North East lost $50 million, using the same basic allotment figures.

Each side cries foul about the other’s perceived advantages: charters are able to operate with less government and public scrutiny, while school districts benefit from zoning boards and can lean on a local tax base for financing. 

Georgina Perez, who served on the State Board of Education from 2017 until this year, noted arrangements such as these would never be permitted at traditional school districts.

“If it can’t be done in (school districts), they probably had a good reason to disallow it,” she said. “So why can it be done with privately managed charter franchises?” 

Lawmaker: ‘Sunshine’ is best cure

The largest charter network in Texas was a catalyst for the increased public scrutiny of charter school spending.

IDEA Public Schools faces state investigation for its spending habits, including purchases of luxury boxes at San Antonio Spurs games, lavish travel expenditures for executives, the acquisition of a boutique hotel in Cameron County for more than $1 million, plans to buy a $15 million private jet and other allegations of irresponsible or improper use of funds. The allegations date back to 2015 and led to the departure of top executives — including CEO and founder Tom Torkelson, who received a $900,000 severance payment.

Over the years lawmakers have steadily tightened rules for charter governance. A 2013 bill included provisions to strengthen nepotism rules; a 2021 law outlawed large severance payments. That bill was sponsored by Rep. Terry Canales, a South Texas Democrat whose district has some of the highest rates of charter school enrollment in the state. 

“There’s a lot of work to be done for the people of Texas when it comes to charter schools,” Canales said. “Sunshine is the best cure for corruption. And the reality is it seems to be sanctioned corruption in charter schools.”

Considering the increased scrutiny, “It’s a myth that charter schools today are unregulated,” said Joe Hoffer, a San Antonio attorney who works on behalf of many charter schools. “Every session, more and more laws get passed.” If anything, he said, charter schools often have to jump through more regulatory hoops than local schools.

Yet acquiring property remains a gray area.

Steve Nelson is a retired educator. In this post, he contrasts the demands of the fake “parental rights” folk with a genuine agenda for the rights of parents and children:

As is true in many aspects of current American politics, the right wing conservatives dominate the discourse on education. As is also true in other aspects of current American politics, it seems not to matter that they are wrong – terribly wrong – and are gradually unraveling the critically important institution of public education.

The assault is on two broad fronts:

*The persistent efforts to privatize education through charter and voucher schemes, accompanied by defunding traditional public schools and diverting support to all manner of incompetent opportunists.

*An overlapping campaign to bring more Christianity into publicly-funded education and remove any and all references to race, gender, sexuality and normal functions of the human body.

In service of these goals they have successfully captured the PR realm, with groups like the attractively named Moms for Liberty. Who wouldn’t love moms or liberty?

The most damage is being done with legislation at the local and state level. Right-wingers have taken control of school boards and many gerrymandered state legislatures. Once again, these zealots have seized the PR reins by using the inarguably appealing mantra of “parental rights.” What parents want their rights taken away? So, the significant body of laws and policies that already protect the rights of parents is being absurdly enhanced with laws and policies that give parents the “right” to dictate what books children can read, what bathrooms children can use, and what public health measures can be exercised. They also claim the right to micromanage curricula, thereby ensuring that a white, Eurocentric, Christian, heteronormative experience is enjoyed by all. Ozzie and Harriet are applauding from the grave.

We liberals and progressives have done a piss poor job of responding in kind. Lots of folks (like me!) opine passionately to minuscule effect, given that our readers are in the hundreds or, rarely, thousands. There are politicians and pundits who argue against the nefarious work of this loud, conservative minority, but we are seldom, if ever, on the offensive.

We too need slogans and initiatives with catchy names that capture the imagination.

Perhaps:

*Moms for Keeping Crazy Moms Out of Our Schools and Libraries.

*Parents for the Rights of Teachers to Teach Without Nut-bag Interference

*Citizens for Keeping God Safe in Our Churches and Out of Our Politics

*Parents of Black and LGBTQ Students Who Won’t Take This Shit Anymore

Nelson then lists an educational bill of rights that the overwhelming majority of parents and teachers would likely endorse:

Then, if and when we can get the crazies under control, the parents in the majority can address the actual needs of children. What might happen if a grassroots effort gathered momentum and demanded that schools and school systems adopt this Bill of Rights?

Bill of Educational Rights

The undersigned insist that our school(s) and all teachers:

Open the link to read Steve Nelson’s Bill of Educational Rights.

Would you endorse these principles?