Charter woes in Florida, Chicago

by David Safier

Online schools have taken a major hit from the media lately, most notably in the Arizona Republic (excellent series of articles), the New York Times (the most scathing analysis) and the Washington Post. Here's an overview of their findings. But brick-and-mortar charter schools have not escaped unscathed. The Miami Herald has a long, damning series of articles about the excesses of some Florida charters and, more specifically, the for profit management companies which run them. And two articles from Chicago conclude, charter schools in general are doing no better for Chicago kids than district schools, and in some cases, they're doing worse.

First, the Florida stories. Remember, Arizona wants to emulate the "Florida Education Miracle" which, in fact, is far from miraculous. If this is the direction our "education reformers" want our schools to be heading, woe be to us.

The story is titled, appropriately, Florida charter schools: big money, little oversight and is part of a larger series of articles under the heading, Cashing in on Kids. Here are some of the findings:

• "What started as an educational movement has turned into one of the region’s fastest-growing industries, backed by real-estate developers and promoted by politicians."
• "Charter schools have become a parallel school system unto themselves, a system controlled largely by for-profit management companies and private landlords—one and the same, in many cases—and rife with insider deals and potential conflicts of interest. In many instances, the educational mission of the school clashes with the profit-making mission of the management company."
• EMOs (Education Management Organizations) or CMOs (Charter Management Organizations) control a number of schools. An example: "The Life Skills Center of Miami-Dade County, for example, pays 97 percent of its income to a management company as a “continuing fee.” And when the governing board of two affiliated schools in Hollywood tried to eject its managers, the company refused to turn over school money it held—and threatened to press criminal charges against any school officials who attempted to access the money."
• "Many management companies also control the land and buildings used by the schools—sometimes collecting more than 25 percent of a school’s revenue in lease payments, in addition to management fees." . . . "For example, the Lincoln-Martí Charter School in Hialeah paid $744,000 in rent last year—about 25 percent of the school’s $3 million budget, even after the landlord reduced the rent by $153,000. The previous year, the school spent one-third of its income on rent, audit records show. Records show the landlord, D.P. Real Estate Holdings, and the management company are run by the same man: former Miami-Dade School Board member Demetrio Perez Jr."
• "[I]n many cases, the governing board includes members with ties to the management company or the landlord—creating a potential conflict. At the Academy of Arts and Minds in Coconut Grove, the school’s founder, Manuel Alonso-Poch, acts as the school’s landlord, its manager and the food-service vendor. For the first three years the school operated, Alonso-Poch also served on the governing board, school records show." (Another "board member" for the school lives in Peru and had no idea he was on the board, though he is listed as attending some board meetings.) . . . "Arts and Minds boosted its bank account for several years by charging student fees for basic classes like math and reading—a violation of state law, school district officials said."
• In Miami-Dade, charter schools have a lower percentage of black, poor and disabled students than the surrounding district schools, even though "serving the underserved" is often given as a primary reason for charters.

There's more, about, for instance, Academia, which runs a string of charter schools and also owns the schools' land and buildings — tax free — for which it collects sizable rents. The company is very well connected to the state's lawmakers.

The articles about Chicago charters are less information rich, but they're important, because Obama's Ed Superintendent, Arnie Duncan, was the Chicago Supe and is responsible for the city's "education reform," which included closing failing schools and encouraging charters. Obama's former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is Chicago's mayor. So Chicago's education successes and failures are tied to the current White House occupants and their approach to education, just as Texas' approach to education was the model used during the Bush years.

Chicago's charters, which were supposed to create a new beginning for their students, are not fulfilling the promise.

[N]ew research suggests many charters in Chicago are performing no better than traditional neighborhood schools and some are actually doing much worse.

[snip]

Andrew Broy, president of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools, acknowledged that maybe a dozen underperforming charter schools are in need of "substantial actions" that may include closing.

If the Pres. of the charter school cheerleading team says a dozen schools are in trouble, you can bet the number is quadruple that.

Charter supporters hide behind the fact that you can't compare schools' test scores directly, because the student bodies are different. Absolutely correct. But the mystery is, why haven't the Daddy Warbucks of the charter school movement — the Gates Foundation, the Walton Foundation (the Walmart family) and others — funded the straightforward research which can help answer the question of how well the charters are doing?

It's not tough to create a reasonable study. It's been done.

One method is, look at each student's test scores over a number of years, and see how well they are progressing. That "longitudinal" analysis can indicate whether students at the charters are making adequate progress. Another method is, figure out the socioeconomic status and racial makeup of students (you can get even more granular with the analysis of the students) at various charters and see how those kids compare with similar kids at district schools.

Studies like these take money, but that shouldn't be a problem. These foundations have plenty of money. If they really believe in the value of charters, they should spend some money on quality scholarly analysis, not just on funding the schools and the groups touting their successes.