Are Money and Profit Behind the Charter School Fever?

The hyperbolic excitement on a recent episode of Oprah wasn't because of a trip to Australia, or one of Oprah's favorite things, but her interview with Waiting for "Superman" director Davis Guggenheim.

Guggenheim, also director of An Inconvenient Truth, gushed about how he hoped his movie would spark a national conversation on education much like the one we're still having on global warming. First, we had a national conversation on race, then global warming, and now we're being urged to embark on a national conversation about our crumbling education system. I am exhausted of conversations.

My exhaustion notwithstanding, I managed to trudge along and watch the Oprah episode in its entirety. What struck me most about the conversation between Oprah and her guests was the way they all went on and on about the success of charter schools.

It is true that some charter schools have displayed innovative approaches to education that resulted in increased test scores and graduation rates. There are, however, an equal number of charter schools that have either run out of funding or shown less achievement than their public counterparts. Had you watched the Oprah show on Monday, you wouldn't have known that such disparities existed.

So why the race to bless charter schools and anoint them as the saving grace of our public school system?

The answer: Money.

Policy analyst and former charter school advocate Dr. Diane Ravitch recently reversed her position on charter schools because of what she describes as an "effort to upend American public education and replace it with something market-based." In the end, Ravitch concluded that charter schools "were proving to be no better on average than regular schools, but in many cities were bleeding resources from the public system."

Many advocates of charter schools see dollar signs, not the despondent faces of sweet little urban and minority youth who are trapped in failing schools. There are millions of dollars in public education, and charter schools are one way of redirecting those federal funds to private institutions.

Over the past 10 years, we've seen a variety of tasks -- normally reserved for the federal government -- outsourced to private corporations. The Internal Revenue Service now hires private debt collection firms to supplement their own agents, the U.S. Military hires Haliburton to protect U.S. diplomats, and very soon charter schools will be hiring teachers and administrators to the job that underfunded public schools can no longer manage.

And the push back against charter schools isn't at all aided by Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children's Zone, one of charter school's biggest advocates, who hustles American Express credit cards in television ads. The advertisement only highlights charter school's connection to free market principles. Like it or not, it is the job of public schools to educate America's youth. If lawmakers and education advocates were truly serious about renewing our education system, they would do as Ravitch advises and follow the lead of other nations. As Ravitch points out, "nations like Finland and Japan seek out the best college graduates for teaching positions, prepare them well, pay them well and treat them with respect." To look toward charter schools as the savior of our public school system is absolutely absurd.

Yvette Carnell is a political analyst for the African-American business and politics new site, atlantapost.com.

 

Comments

[Alton Delmote]

08:11 AM on 10/08/2010

Among the verity of the blog your blog is unique one. Thanks for the sharing.

[rdsathene]

01:20 PM on 10/02/2010

This marriage of discredited free market principals and charter-voucher schools is so intertwined, charters indoctrinate students with market ideology. While rich kids are taught critical thinking skills, inner city children are taught to "work hard and be nice." As Freire says, "Problem posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor." It's no wonder the Broad, Gates, Ducan, Guggenheim, and Walton cabal are pushing charters so hard.

For example Green Dot Public [sic] Schools' original Alain Leroy Locke Charter High School petition contained language requiring students "demonstrate a belief in the value of capitalism." This was until Professor Ralph Shaffer wrote LAUSD demandeding the disgusting language be addressed. Rather reluctantly LAUSD asked corporate behemoth Green Dot to remove their propagandistic and indoctrinatory language. After much resistance (AIG bailout recipient Eli Broad is their secondary funder) Green Dots' Daniel Chang, wrote a high handed screed to LAUSD and Prof. Shaffer with an official letter petitioning for the corporate charter capitalism love-fest language to be changed.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24665283/Green-Dot-Public-sic-Schools-original-Alain-Leroy-Locke-Charter-High-School-petition

Even more offensive are the extreme right wing reactionaries running American Indian Model Schools in Oakland. This school, which takes public funds, forces students to take a pledge to capitalism including the phrase "productive members in a free-market capitalist society."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-19/opinion/18838566_1_traditional-schools-charter-schools-two-charters

[hawkseye]

08:50 PM on 09/30/2010

Charters are touted for being free of red tape and teacher contracts. What they are driving at, in my opinion, is reducing teacher salaries and eliminating tenure. If they don't have tenured teachers, they can fire all the teachers who make high salaries and hire all new teachers every couple of years.That way, administrators can give themselves raises.

[floyd1976]

02:43 PM on 10/01/2010

It's kind of shocking that after Enron and the sub-prime loan crisis, both of which happened due to government deregulation in the name of free market economics, people want to take the government out of education and deregulate the use of public money (tax dollars) to private industry (charter schools) who do not need to be transparent in how they spend the money, and, on average are doing worse than public.

[am10]

09:53 AM on 09/30/2010

Good article.

Charter schools are just publicly funded private schools who can choose their students and enforce rules that regular public schools cannot. It gets me that Michelle Rhee, Steve Perry and all these people in public education do not see the "public" in public education. Michelle Rhee says parents can't get their kids into a good school. Well, you choose where you live and if you can't live in your dream school district, you work to make your school a good one. That's what you pay taxes for. Sorry if you have to be inconvenienced by voting, attending board meetings, and volunteering your time - but that's how public schools work.

[TJ1776]

02:17 PM on 09/30/2010

Sorry, you're wrong on this account. Charter schools in Arizona do not get to select students. We have to take anyone who enrolls....IEP's included.

Many charter schools in Arizona choose to exceed all state standards(because those are so low) and the students are better for it.

Really? People always choose where they live? Not sure how to react to that one, almost like a joke where no one gets the punchline....

[am10]

10:20 PM on 09/30/2010

"Really? People always choose where they live? Not sure how to react to that one, almost like a joke where no one gets the punchline…."

Even if they didn't choose where they live (and if you really want out of a place, you can get out somehow), what's stopping them from getting involved in their neighborhood school?

[floyd1976]

08:29 AM on 10/01/2010

That's true in a way, but, not really. For example, the Basis school that is very well known does have a test students take when they are entering (although, I clearly understand it is not an entrance exam) and will hold students back a grade upon entrance and/or counsel them out of the school if they get a low grade. It is true that they can indeed come to the school, but, some are discouraged from doing so, and, many choose not to. I am not sure of the precise policy at that school, but, there are some charters that also require two hours of homework a night and force the students and parents to sign a contract.
As you brag in a previous comment that you are a teacher at a strong academic school & mention you're advanced degree, I would hope that means you are intelligent enough to realize that, yes, this may indeed not be an official selection process, but, having the ability to strongly welcome stronger students and strongly discourage weaker students from attending a school is a form of selection that public schools do not have. Not only that, these weaker students then go to the public system. If charters are so effective, why are they counselling out such a disproportionately large number of students compared to similar high schools?
I'll expect the usual stream of excuses, half truths, and denials any moment now.

[cjaco]

11:10 PM on 09/29/2010

Spot on post. Thank you.
Here's some research to back her up. Actually, you do the research on one of the Leonie Haimson blogs - Charter School Scandals http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

but let me add this from Truth Out: https://www.truthout.org/neoliberalism-and-for-profit-predatory-educational-industry-you-cant-regulate-a-criminal-enterprise6
And lest we forget NOLA that Duncan espouses we all should emulate - as he said, "Katrina was the best thing that happened to New Orleans schools." http://www.theroot.com/views/myth-charter-schools-have-saved-new-orleans

[TJ1776]

02:22 PM on 09/30/2010

There isn't enough bandwidth out there for a site about district school scandals....but I guess all these teachers bedding down students are filling the void.

Spot on? Could the post have been more one sided? Could she have used more ambiguous words..."many, most, some, nearly " Not terribly good composition...

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

08:39 PM on 09/29/2010

Is this author asserting that public education is something "normally reserved for the federal government"? Since when? Even though the feds have been intruding more and more (I believe they are responsible for somewhere between 10 an 20%), education has historically been reserved for the states.

And charter schools by no means represent the free market. They are simply a break from the standard one-size fits all state curriculum. Although depending on how students are allocated, they represent some transfer of funds (the DC scholarship program Mr. Obama unceremoniously ended was much more free market).

And if you want to know how well charter schools do compared to other schools, why don't you ask the parents? As the movie shows (based on the previews and reviews I've seen), parents invest a lot of time and energy trying to get there kids in (even though it comes down to a lottery at the end). Are the parents just wrong? Should they not be so upset? It reminds me of describing communist defectors as "trying to escape paradise". Sometimes (I believe almost always) the people being served have a much better grasp of the correct path.

[Akla]

07:41 PM on 09/29/2010

I would like to see the actual school performance and student test data from BASIS--I cannot find it online, just the hype about how well they are improving and how 100 percent were accepted to colleges. Follow up is needed to see how well they actually do there.

As for having degrees in education, not in Indiana--all teachers in high schools and middle schools have a degree in the content area-math, chemistry, etc. You will find this is true in many other states as well. Charters have not panned out, most are barely as good as the public school from which the students came. And they usually do not cost less to operate-look at the share of operating and non-classroom expenses they have as compared to public schools. In Indiana they get the exact same amount of funds that the public schools get per student-including their share of federal dollars. Many have very few special education students, or, if they do as in Indianapolis, the special ed students are sent back to the public school for provision of education services.

[Willow-the-Witch]

08:05 PM on 09/29/2010

But in Indiana, we still have to have a minimum number of classes in education. From what I've seen, having gone to college in both Indiana & Kentucky, whether the degree is in education or the content area, there's little difference in which classes are actually required. To have a primary content area in Chemistry (in Indiana), I had to have just as many hours in Chem as if I was a Chem major. Lucky for me, when I was considering HS certification, I already had my Chem degree and was just looking for the education classes.

The only distinct thing that I saw from charters in other states was that there were some that hired people who had experience in their field, but not necessarily teaching certification. But then, in fields like math & science, the need for teachers has led some schools to consider hiring professionals while they complete education classes. I'm much more impressed with magnet schools than charter schools.

[TJ1776]

06:58 PM on 09/29/2010

I want all the unionized teachers to bash me....

Non-certified teacher working at a charter high school in Arizona. The school has the highest academic standards(ranked 3rd in the state) and my degrees are in the field I teach, not in education....

Let the screaming begin !

Bottom line is that charter schools can work if they are not tied up in bureaucratic red tape. Arizona's school choice laws should be the national model.

[zombie fairy]

06:15 PM on 09/29/2010

What this post conveniently ignores is the wide variety of approaches to education taken by charter schools. There isn't one type. Some have problems, others have been very successful. US New & World Reports and Newsweek put out their yearly list of the country's best schools, and for the past few years, a school called BASIS Tucson has been on that list in the top ten. The school also has a 100% college acceptance rate. So yes, traditional public schools should see a school like BASIS as a threat to their existence. Because it is.

Also, one of the reasons some charters show less achievement is because they're not exactly working with the best possible student body. Charters get a lot of kids who failed in the traditional school districts, were pushed out by the district, or have special needs. Every charter I've ever worked at, 20% of the student body had IEPs. They certainly make strides and improvements in their achievements like an 8th grader improving from a 3rd grade reading level to a 5th, but those aren't often recognized in grade level state tests.

[cjaco]

11:23 PM on 09/29/2010

Yes, and when the Washington Post still owned Newsweek (just sold in August 2010 to Sidney Harmon for one dollar with the deal he would assume the 71 million liability) they ran these articles bashing public schools, teachers unions, etc. The Washington Post is owned by Kaplan - one of the largest for profit universities and major charter school operators. Definite biased reporting disguised as fact. The statistics you state in reading improvement are not exclusive to charters either. In fact, charters like KIPP have a documented push out rate of 40% to 60% of their students between 5th and 8th grade - worse than the drop out rates of regular public schools, and when those kids get pushed out for behaviors, IEPs, low test scores, it's right back to the regular public schools they go http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2010/06/new-kipp-study-flawed.html and http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2010/09/why-does-kipp-not-look-like-sidwell_01.html. If the charters you've worked for are so great, then why have you worked at many? Community building is obviously not as important as a test score.

[Apov]

06:10 PM on 09/29/2010

PRIVATIZING.

So there's more money for the 2%ers.

F the rest of us.

[carolina919]

05:55 PM on 09/29/2010

Not all charters are bad. Some provide excellent "laboratories for learning" that can serve to test out approaches. The real challenge is expecting and requiring excellence in all of our schools based upon content and student mastery. "teaching to the test" is rampant in some public schools too. Too many systems seem content to dumb down the content. And it's little wonder that teachers flee high poverty schools when teacher bonuses are linked to the average "yearly progress" of students. It's much easier for many teachers to coast in some schools. And even in schools that seem to have things "working" it is amazing how many high school graduates come out without real knowledge about science, math, or literature. Too many American high school students to cannot compose a thoughtful essay. Perhaps it's past time for us to take a look at the Scandinavian countries and Germany.

[Skeptical Patriot]

05:54 PM on 09/29/2010

Really sad and inaccurate analysis. First, there are no for-profit charters. There are some for-profit charter servicing companies. As investments, they have been terrible. Only K12, a virtual charter operator is public and they are barely making money with low margins. The other major public company was Edison, which collapsed half a dozen years ago. The huge majority of charters are run by not-for-profits and operating by incredibly dedicated people who are trying (against political and union pressures) to renew our schools.

[traceydouglas]

11:58 PM on 09/29/2010

When an administrator at a "non-profit" charter is paid $400,000 to run one school, well I call that a huge profit! This article is spot on.

[Skeptical Patriot]

09:23 AM on 09/30/2010

This is like saying there is a city manager in CA that pulls in $800K/year therefore every public servant is a crook. There are ~3,000 charter schools in the US and the average size is less than 1/2 that of a traditional public ~240 students. Because of local political dissent, charters are only funded at 61% of the funding of their public school brethren or approximately $6100/student vs $10K+ for an average public. This is not the way to make money. In fact, it is articles like this that are put out by opponents to obscure the facts to try and kill a movement that promises public schools with more choices and a far higher degree of accountability.

[cjaco]

03:43 AM on 10/02/2010

Philadelphia for-profit charter schools: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/08/philadelphias-for-profit-managed.html
New York for-profit charter schools: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-york-flex-charter-high-school.html
For-profit charter operator White Hat mgmt: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/05/white-hat-management.html
For-profit Imagine Schools charter chain: http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2010/05/imagine-schools-death-spiral.html , http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/09/bronx-academy-of-promise-charter-school.html , http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/05/imagine-schools-inc.html

And one of the largest and scariest - the Gulen Schools http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/2010/06/gulen-charter-school-network-update.html Lot's of these schools in AZ, too.
One example: Civil lawsuits.Jul. 3, 2008 12:00 AM ; Case number: CV08-12817 ; Plaintiff: Arizona Department of Health Services. Defendant: Daisy Education Corp., dba Sonoran Science Academy - Phoenix. Nature of complaint: Unlicensed child care facility. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/abg/articles/2008/07/03/20080703abg-civilsuits0703.html#ixzz0thf4nYE0

To understand the Gulen Movement requires an understanding of Turkish history, politics, and current events. Here are three new important and concerning articles about the GM's influence in Turkey:
1. "Istanbul: Press Freedom Alla Turca", September 2010, Standpoint.
2. "The craziness in Turkey reaches new heights", September 28, 2010, Dani Rodrik's weblog
3. "Turkey arrests ex-police chief over militant charge", September 29, 2010, World Bulletin

The litany can go on. Get educated.

[FoonTheElder]

05:36 PM on 09/29/2010

The goal is to kill off the public employee unions just like happened with the private company unions, and enrichen a bunch of top managements at charter schools by cutting teacher salaries.  Corporate politicians love outsourcing government work because privatized companies make political contributions, while governments do not.

An example of Charter School problems:
"Day after day they prepped my son on taking tests.  I’d inquire nightly, “Hey, did you get a schedule for your classes yet?” Have you gotten to go the library and actually been able to pick out some sort of “book”?  Do you have any homework, yet?” Which he would reply, “Nope, Mom, just more learning to take tests”.   I bet you my kid can take a test with both hands tied behind his back, blind folded at this juncture. I felt as if my son was being taught to become a star on Broadway, being taught to do rote memorization of his lines, rather than participate in any type of critical thinking.

It is also becoming more evident that the Charter Schools across our country are not doing any better than traditional public schools and sometimes are actually doing worse at achieving their test scores,some say they are even worse."

"It seemed like every time I turned around the school was bombarding their students with fund raising projects. They had my son hawking candles, cookie dough, selling hot chocolate and coffee, to the parents sitting in line, in the parking lot.  All this while the for-profit management company, National Heritage reaped huge profits for their investors and CEOs and laughed all the way to the bank.

In one of the more creative scams, the management company had the students actually each pay a dollar, if they wanted to be able to have the privilege to wear  ”jeans” to school .  They had Friday popcorn sales.  They had pizza, juice and cookies for sale on Fridays. (In addition to the regular school lunch provided).  They had snacks for sale.   I wanted my son to learn at this school, not sell.  I felt as if he was being trained to work at Wal-Mart or start an Amway distributorship.  Like most schools today, this school needed cash.  This was WAY more selling than any Public School subjects their student body to. It seemed that this school would rather have the students out soliciting and shaking down my community for cash than get the management company to cough up any funds.  That would hurt corporate profits."

http://dailycensored.com/2010/09/02/testimony-of-a-charter-school-mom-michigan-and-the-national-heritage-educational-management-organization/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Dailycensored+%28Daily+Censored%29

[VBSail]

05:35 PM on 09/29/2010

Yes, some charter schools do not perform as well. But, because they are attended by choice, parents can choose to not have their kids attend a school that do not perform well.

Another part of the debate caused by money (and sometimes power) is coming from the public school employees. The administrators and teachers at public schools are worried about the consequences to their jobs if a charter schools opens in their area. Compare the amount of money that for-profit schools in a few areas have compared to the nation wide teacher's union.

[am10]

09:57 AM on 09/30/2010

You do realize that if we became a country of primarily charter schools, that they would all have to start abiding by the same rules regular public schools do? They'd have to accept special education students, tolerate problem and underperforming students, etc. We'll just be back where we are right now.

[VBSail]

05:03 PM on 09/30/2010

Actually, I realize that many charter school programs require charter schools to take all students. In fact, for many, special needs students and underperforming students are their strengths. It makes sense too because they do not provide the same failing, homogeneous education that public schools provide.

[Takebackourmoney]

05:01 PM on 09/29/2010

There is a feverish drive to privatize education. Starve the state government, kill the department of education and create more class warfare. As long as their is money to be made by the private sector all government programs are going to come under attack.