Charter School Federal Regulation Response April 2022

Page Overview

Sample Responses for Charter School Regulations Comments

Sample 1: NC-focused short response from an individual
Sample 2: NC-focused, long letter from an individual

Background Information

NC data from an examination of one year (2018) of funding from CSP
Fact Sheet on Charter Schools in NC
Links to Reports and Articles on NC Charter Schools

Sample Responses

Sample 1: NC-focused short response from an individual

I fully support the proposed regulation that “the community impact analysis must describe how the plan for the proposed charter school takes into account the student demographics of the schools from which students are, or would be, drawn to attend the charter school.” The reporting of need based on enrollment patterns as well as impact on local desegregation efforts is most welcome.

In my state of North Carolina, charter schools have been used as white and affluent flight schools. I was appalled by the schools that recently received CSP subgrants to expand. One was a former private school segregation academy (founded in 1969) that converted to a charter school in 2019 and then got a CSP grant.

The inclusion of an impact statement will help reviewers make the best decisions regarding which schools should or should not get awards. I suggest that the impact analysis requirements include a profile of the students with disabilities and English language learners in the community along with an assurance that the applicant will provide the full range of services that meet the needs of all students. Too often, the neediest students are left behind in our districts, while funding leaves the schools along with students who require fewer services

I also support the proposed rules that disallow charters run by for-profits from applying. Another North Carolina grantee was a for-profit run school called Torchlight Academy, which was just shut down. It was a piggy bank for one family.

I fully support priorities one and two. They will help us get back to the original purpose of charter schools—innovative places run by teachers and families in cooperation with our local schools.

Sample 2: NC-focused, letter from an individual (can be adapted for an organization)

Comments Regarding Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)-Grants

Docket ID Number: ED-2022-OESE-0006

DATE, 2022

{One or two sentences about you}

I am writing in response to the invitation to submit comments regarding “Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)-Grants to State Entities (SE Grants); Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer Grants).

I support the proposed priorities and requirements of the Department for the reasons that follow.

Restrictions on CSP Grants to Charter Schools Operated by For-Profit Organizations

I strongly support the Department’s attempt to ensure that charter schools operated by for-profit management corporations do not receive CSP grants, specifically this language:

(a) Each charter school receiving CSP funding must provide an assurance that it has not and will not enter into a contract with a for-profit management organization, including a non-profit management organization operated by or on behalf of a for-profit entity, under which the management organization exercises full or substantial administrative control over the charter school and, thereby, the CSP project.

Charter schools that are run in part or whole to create profit should not benefit from federal expansion or start-up funds.

The Torchlight Academy Charter School was a recipient of a State Entities sub-grant. Not only was that school operated with a sweeps contract, the CEO of the school was the owner of the for-profit corporation that ran the school. He also owned the building. His wife and daughter were employed by the school. That CSP award winner was recently shut down[i].

The relationship between a for-profit management organization is quite different from the relationship between our district vendors who provide a single service. A public school can sever a bus contract and still have a building, desks, curriculum, and teachers. However, in cases where charter schools have attempted to fire their for-profit operator, they find it impossible to do without destroying the schools in the process. In addition, the spending of the for-profit is hidden from public inspection and is not subject to FOIA requests.

The Importance of the Inclusion of an Impact Analysis

I strongly support the proposed regulations that seek to bring greater transparency and assess the impact of a new charter school on the community. I especially support the inclusion of a community impact analysis “to inform the need, number, and types of charter schools to be created in a given community.” I am pleased that “the community impact analysis must describe how the plan for the proposed charter school takes into account the student demographics of the schools from which students are, or would be, drawn to attend the charter school.”

I strongly support the inclusion of language that requires the applicant to report on all enrollment patterns for public and charter schools and report “the steps the applicant has taken or will take to ensure that the proposed charter school would not increase racial or socio-economic segregation or isolation in those schools.”

As noted in a letter to Secretary Cardona[ii], signed by 67 education and civil rights advocacy groups, “the majority – of North Carolina’s sub-grantee charter schools are not committed to increasing the proportion of educationally disadvantaged students to levels commensurate with the local public school district. Instead, in many cases, these schools have served and still serve as white-flight alternatives to the local public schools.” That letter provided extensive documentation that subgrantees who received expansion grants increased segregation in district public schools, misrepresented the percentage of economically disadvantaged students they served, and served fewer students with disabilities.

This would be a good place to add your own thoughts regarding segregation and charter schools

The inclusion of an impact statement will help reviewers make the best decisions regarding which schools should or should not get awards. I suggest that the impact analysis requirements include a profile of the students with disabilities and English Language Learners in the community along with an assurance that the applicant will provide the full range of services that meet the needs of all students with disabilities and English Language Learners. Too often, the neediest students are left behind in our districts, while funding leaves the schools along with students who require fewer services. I also believe that applicants include a signed affidavit provided by district or state education department officials attesting to the accuracy of the information provided.

Planning Grants to Unauthorized Charter Schools

According to a 2019 response to Representative Raul Grijalva by then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, 12% of all CSP grants between 2001 and 2019 were awarded to schools that never opened and were not expected to open.[iii] In most cases, these schools had never achieved authorization. Whether unauthorized schools can receive funding for planning purposes and how much can be awarded has been left up to the states. This has resulted in large amounts of federal CSP money in the pockets of people who provided no service to the public.

I recommend that a school’s planning amount before an authorization be limited to $10,000. If justifiable expenses exceed that amount, they should only be compensated following authorization.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit comments. And thank you for proposing much-needed reforms.

ENDNOTES

[i] DeWitt, Dave and Joe Journey. (2022, March 4). “State school board votes to strip Raleigh’s Torchlight Academy of its charter.” North Carolina Public Radio. Retrieved on March 26, 2022, from https://www.wunc.org/news/2022-03-04/state-school-board-votes-to-strip-raleighs-torchlight-academy-of-its-charter

[ii] Letter to Secretary Cardona from 67 education and civil rights advocacy organizations. (2021, June 16). Retrieved on March 23, 2022, from https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Letter-to-Secretary-Cardona-re_-North-Carolina-grant-6.16.pdf.

[iii] U.S. Secretary of Education letter to Representative Raul M. Grijalva. (2019, June 28). Retrieved on March 25, 2022 from https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Sec-DeVos-CSP-Response-6-28-19.pdf

Background Information

Below are resources to better inform you about the impact of charter schools on traditional public schools in NC. The US Department of Education placing rules on Charter School Grants is a common-sense approach to ensuring that Charter schools are indeed meeting their expressed purposes.

The U.S. Department of Education (USED) must update its priorities and its requirements to address loopholes and flaws in the program that have resulted in for-profit run schools receiving grants, 12% of all CSP grants going to charter schools that never open, grants received by schools and charter management organizations that provide false and misleading information, and sub-grants issued to charter schools with a history of exacerbating racial segregation and that exclude, by policy or practice, students with disabilities and students who are English Language Learners.

We support not allowing for-profit organizations to receive federal taxpayer-funded grants. We also strongly support regulations that require those charters seeking a federally taxpayer-funded grant to show greater transparency by requiring them to submit a community impact analysis. Undermining an existing public school is wasting taxpayer-funded public schooling efforts and further exacerbates segregation and the undeserving of children with disabilities and English language learners.

NC data from an examination of one year (2018) of funding from CSP

The NCDPI was awarded a $26,633,025 grant through the U.S. Department of Education’s CSP to support “high-quality schools focused on meeting the needs of educationally disadvantaged students.”

Forty-two NC charters were awarded grants but only 35 opened. Seven schools received funding and served no students.
Examination of demographic data (29 of the 35 have demographic data available on the NCDPI website) shows clear evidence that some charter grant recipients increased segregation and do not have a focus on meeting the needs of educationally disadvantaged students..
- A number of the grant recipients have demographic characteristics markedly different from the local school district and serve as “white flight” schools
- One grant recipient, Hobgood Charter School in Halifax County, was formerly a private school serving as a “white flight” academy. Now, as a charter school, its student population is made up of more than 70% white students compared to just 3% in the local school district.
- Nearly half (43%) of the grantees had gaps or more than 40% between the proportion of economically disadvantaged students served by the charter school and the local school district.
- Seventy-one percent served a lower proportion of exceptional children (students with disabilities) than the local district.
- Almost 70% of the grantees do not participate in the National Lunch Program but stated that they have an alternative program to serve the needs of economically disadvantaged students. However, the alternatives included a “food closet” in one school and in another, giving left-behind food from catered (to the paying students) lunches to the students who did not have lunches.

Under the current CSP program, all of these schools were awarded federal funds. The proposed regulations would require more oversight and transparency, would require an impact evaluation, and would ensure that public funds are spent to benefit students and communities.