New Mexico LWV Urges Moratorium on Charters

by Meredith Machen

New MexicoThe President of the New Mexico League of Women Voters calls for a moratorium on new charter schools.  She cites the Center for Public Education:  “46 State Education Agencies are cutting back on charter school funding because of their fiscal difficulties, the challenges of delivering adequate special education services, and the lack of staff available to provide proper oversight. We hope that NM will follow suit and impose a moratorium until the data demonstrates the need.”

Meredith supports her position with data.

Continue reading

Charter School Real Estate Bubble Soon to Crash?

cash-burningHow much charter school debt is too much?  We may find out.

Most of us are not aware of how management companies finance charter facilities.  These companies form their own real estate companies from which they lease facilities.  These charter school buildings are privately owned, and if the charter closes, the buildings remain with the management companies.

Many of these charter facilities are financed through long term revenue and other types of bonds.  Funds  from the charter operating budget, financed by state tax dollars, is used to make principal and interest payments on these loans.  Building loans may be several million dollars, and lease payments are kept relatively small for several years.  Then, as the bonds become due, the schools face large balloon payments.  Where the money will come from is unclear.  It may be another form of  the construction bubble that burst in 2007.

These facility loan practices occur in many ways.  In School Finance 101, Bruce Baker provides graphs showing how this debt is mounting on purchases of public buildings by private firms that were initially paid for by tax dollars and in other startling ways.  However the financing occurs, the buildings are owned by private firms.  The public pays for them.  Some states have funding and financing guidelines.  Florida does not.

 

New Mexico Cites Inequity in Funding for Charters

New Mexico

by Meredith Machen

New Mexico’s League has become alarmed at the shift in funding from traditional public schools to charters.  Too much charter funding is misused according to the National Education Policy Center.

Please see the chart below from the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee which shows that from FY08 to FY15 charter schools received 46 percent of the change in funding while educating only 6.6% percent of all students.  Over the last 7 years there has been a steady increase in funding for public education.  School districts received about $114 million in additional funding while charter schools received about $98 million.

 

Table xx: Change in Funding from FY08 to FY15 for Charter Schools and School Districts
FY08 Funding FY15 Funding Number of Students, FY15 Change Funding
Charter Schools $92,723,831 $190,656,486 22,008 $97,932,655
School Districts $2,234,708,899 $2,348,700,663 309,178 $113,991,764
Statewide $2,327,432,730 $2,539,357,150 331,187 $211,924,420
Source: PED

For the larger context, please see the report from the National Policy Education Center below.

The Business of Charter Schooling: Understanding the Policies that Charter Operators Use for Financial Benefit

Four major policy concerns are identified in the report:

  1. A substantial share of public expenditure intended for the delivery of direct educational services to children is being extracted inadvertently or intentionally for personal or business financial gain, creating substantial inefficiencies;
  2. Public assets are being unnecessarily transferred to private hands, at public expense, risking the future provision of “public” education;
  3. Charter school operators are growing highly endogenous, self-serving private entities built on funds derived from lucrative management fees and rent extraction which further compromise the future provision of “public” education; and
  4. Current disclosure requirements make it unlikely that any related legal violations, ethical concerns, or merely bad policies and practices are not realized until clever investigative reporting, whistleblowers or litigation brings them to light.

Recommendations to address these concerns are listed in the NEPC report.  Charters should be public in more than name only.  They financial data should be transparent, their facilities should be publically owned, oversight should be improved to include major contracts between EMOs and charters.  More attention must be paid to open meetings, independence of boards and other agents involved in the charter schools, and funding oversight based on tracking the movement of students from school to school or for students with special needs must be improved to reduce gaming incentives.

 

Making Informed Decisions About Charters: Apples are not oranges

fruit-424182_1280Comparisons between traditional public and charter schools have little meaning.  In an article entitled: Making School Choice Easier in today’s New York Times, charter school operators made concrete proposals to improve charter school achievement data.

Representatives of New Visions for Public Schools offer four ways to help parents make more informed decisions about the effectiveness of charter schools.  New Visions are charter schools located in New York.  They are non-profit.

Continue reading

New Florida Charter School Bill: CIS 16-01

PClegislation1B-CIS 16-01 School Choice

This is a rework of prior bills to create the Florida Charter School Institute which is designed to reduce local district charter authorizing authority.  In addition, it creates a high impact charter district and changes charter board requirements.  This is a bill that revives state vs. district control concern over charter school authorization.

Continue reading

Charter ‘Got to Go’ Lists in New York Success Schools

http://www.prwatch.org/files/new_charter_school_black_hole_report_oct_21_2015.pdf

Since expelling students is difficult in New York City, Success charters drive parents to withdraw their children.  The suspension rates are reported to be between 4 and 23 percent at least once.  Most schools suspend at least ten percent while public schools have a three percent suspension rate within a school year.  Suspensions start as early as kindergarten.

The charters use other strategies to encourage some parents to withdraw children who find it difficult to adapt to rigid rules.  Schools repeatedly call parents  to pick up their children early.  They may be counseled that the school is not a ‘good fit’ for their child.  Staff may tell parents that students needed special education that the school could not provide.  Some schools use 911 calls as a threat for children who misbehaves.  One mother whose child was on the list said she did not know about it.  She said, “He doesn’t hit kids, he doesn’t  knock kids over, he doesn’t scream, he just talks too much.”

This whole notion that parents should be able to choose schools that ‘fit their children’ has serious consequences.  The whole idea of a school where some children do not belong does not sound like a ‘public’ school.  When schools become exclusionary communities, the sense of community is lost.  With that loss, the problem is not contained just in a school.

 

Ohio Citizens Fight Back Against Charter Corruption

money-40603_1280The exploitation by charter school management companies in Ohio makes Florida  look not quite so bad.  Understanding the problems and the difficulty of correcting them is essential.  Ohio citizens got the message and acted.  Their legislature finally approved a strongly opposed measure to hold charter management companies more accountable.  For one thing, they now have to disclose how they spend all the money that is transferred to them from the charter schools.

Many of use do not realize that school boards transfer money to a charter school non-profit organization.  The non-profit is audited, but only on how they spend money.  The boards of the non-profit often subcontract (between 90 to 95% of their money) to a for-profit management company to run the school.  They run everything including hiring teachers, managing money, building or leasing facilities, and most often providing curriculum materials.   The management company is private, so they do not have to reveal where they spend the money or how much profit they earn.  For example, the for-profit company may charge the school twenty to thirty percent of its budget for facilities that actually cost much less.

How and why these management arrangements exist is complicated.  One of the better explanations I have read lately is one from Jan Resseger’s blog.  She explains the change in Ohio law to improve oversight  of charter management companies.  She also reports the latest school district take over by charters in Youngston, Ohio.  Granted Youngston has problems.  Equally true is that other take over efforts in inner cities have done little to improve achievement in poverty stricken areas.  There is much hype, big investments, and wrenching of control from local communities.  The federal government has a target list of these cities.  The intention may be good; the implementation is fraught with controversy and devoid of meaningful results.  There has to be a better way.

Read Jan’s account here.  Do a self test.  Can you fill in the names of the corresponding players in Florida?

 

Charter School Without Teachers? What is our Legislature Thinking?

Where is our teacher?

Where is our teacher?

Local 10 News reported yet another charter school fiasco.  Broward County School District’s hands are tied even though Paramount Charter School has students without teachers.  They have quit or been fired.  Children draw pictures.

Imagine 270 children caught in such a place.  Over and over again, we have argued that school districts need stronger authority to oversee charter schools.  Legislators are reluctant to act.  What will it take?

Continue reading

Blow Up the System or Think Ahead? Someone Is.

critical-thinking (2)Once in awhile good accidents happen.  A school reformer actually stops and thinks.  A panel discussion sponsored by the American Federation for Children was reported in Curmudgucation.  The discussion was predictable and too irritating to repeat–until the end.

Panelist Andy Smarick, a long time reform advocate with an impressive resume, was asked a question:  What lives and what dies in a system of choice schools?  More importantly, why should anything live” in the transition to a disperse governance driven by parental choice?. ”  

Smarick’s response is thoughtful, and gives a glimmer of hope that reason is not totally lost.  I include the summary from the Curmudgucation blog below.  My comments are in parentheses.  This post made me think!

Continue reading