In 2013, the Success Network requested and received a raise in management fees to 15 percent of the per-pupil funding it receives from the state and city. The total amount of management fees charged by just four of the city’s charter chains in 2011-12 — Success, Uncommon, Achievement First, and KIPP — was over $12 million.
Charter Schools: A UFT Research Report
BY UFT RESEARCH STAFF | PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 4, 2014
As charter
school proponents go to Albany this week to plead their case, let’s
examine the realities behind their claims of stretched resources, unique
student demand and stellar academic results.
How
poor are charter schools?
While
charters maintain they have very thin budgets, and some smaller charters in
fact operate close to the margin, others are extremely well-funded.
A review of
the most recently available public documents showed that as of 2011-12, the
schools in six of the city’s most prominent charter chains had a
total of more than $65 million in net assets, including nearly $16 million
for the charters which are part of the Uncommon Schools Network and more
than $13 million for the Success Academy Network.
What’s
more, this supposed poverty doesn’t prevent some charters from paying
very large salaries to their executives, as the Daily News recently
reported. The two Harlem Village Academies run by Deborah Kenny pay her
a total of half a million dollars a year; Eva Moskowitz of Success
Academies reported a salary only a few thousand less, while David Levin of
KIPP got just under $400,000. All these salaries are dramatically
more than those of the city’s mayor and chancellor, who supervise
roughly 1,700 schools.
Charters’
opaque bookkeeping methods make it difficult to figure out how much many
schools spend on their vendors, but tax filings by the Success Academy
schools suggest that management fees charged by that network totaled $3.5
million of their schools’ per-pupil funds in 2011-12. In 2013, the
Success Network requested and received a raise in management fees to 15
percent of the per-pupil funding it receives from the state and city.
The total
amount of management fees charged by just four of the city’s charter
chains in 2011-12 — Success, Uncommon, Achievement First, and
KIPP — was over $12 million. (see table below)
Charter Chain Financial Data, 2011-12
|
|
|
||
Network Name
|
Number of NYC Schools with
Audits
|
Total Net Assets of Schools
|
Total Management Fees
|
Top Executive Compensation
2010-11
|
Achievement First
|
2
|
$3,585,931
|
$2,363,205
|
$224,200
|
Success Charter Network
|
4
|
$13,563,661
|
$3,516,362
|
$475,244
|
Uncommon Schools
|
7
|
$16,820,767
|
$5,054,626
|
$252,941
|
KIPP
|
1
|
$1,911,010
|
$1,089,475
|
$395,350
|
Village Academies Network
|
2
|
$3,236,767
|
Not Listed on Audit
|
$499,146
|
Icahn Charters
|
4
|
$26,110,338
|
$2,236
|
$280,323
|
Total
|
20
|
$65,228,474
|
$12,023,668
|
$2,127,204
|
All of these
figures are based on the schools’ own filings; the lack of
publicly available audits for many other chains limits information about
what other networks are charging. Meanwhile, charter proponents led
by Success Academy have launched a court fight to prevent an independent
expert — the State Comptroller — from auditing
charters’ and charter management companies’ books.
A study
based on 2010-11 by the city’s Independent Budget Office calculated
that as of 2009-10, co-locating a charter school in a public school
building in effect gave the charter about $650 per student more in public
funding than district schools spend. Their calculations were based on
earlier, lower levels of charter per-pupil funding, however; at current
rates, that disparity may now be over $2,000 per student.
Charters
also get foundation grants — including from right-wing
organizations like the Walton Family Foundation, which has given more than
$1 million to Achievement First in recent years. In addition, a look at
official filings by many charters — in particular the Success
Academy network — show that the schools or chains have boards
dominated by hedge funders and other financial interests whose contributions
could theoretically absorb any reasonable rent charged for public school
space; at a gala in 2013, for example, the Success Network raised more than
$7 million in one evening.
How
unique are charter waiting lists?
Charters
make much of the length of their student waiting lists. But the
reality of New York City schools is that tens of thousands of students at
all levels end up on waiting lists or completely frozen out of the schools
they would like to attend.
More than
half of the city’s nearly 64,000 eighth graders did not get into
their first choice for high school last year and 7,200 — more
than 10 percent of the total — did not get into a single school
they applied to. Approximately 20,000 students who take the test each
year for the specialized high schools do not get into one of these schools.
The same is
true for thousands of elementary school students who apply for slots in
competitive middle schools, and for thousands more families who cannot find
space in gifted programs or whose kids end up waitlisted for kindergarten
in their neighborhood schools.
Students can
and do get off waiting lists in district schools, which generally backfill
empty spaces in higher grades if and when students transfer out; most
charters, in contrast, almost never accept transfer students off their
“waitlists” beyond their early grades.
Does
admission to a charter guarantee academic success?
Student
scores plummeted across the city last year when the state introduced new
tests based on the Common Core standards. But in reading, charters schools
as a whole scored under the citywide average (26.4 citywide average,
charters 25.1).
Even highly
touted charters had classes with significant problems. Democracy
Prep’s Harlem charter had fewer than 4 percent of 6th-graders
proficient in reading and fewer than 12 percent passing math. Fewer
than 12 percent of 5th-graders at KIPP Star College Prep were proficient in
math and just 16 percent passed the reading test, while 11 percent of their
7th-graders scored proficient in language arts and 14 percent in math.
These
results come despite the fact that, as a group, charter schools serve a
smaller proportion of the city’s neediest students, including special
ed and English language learners. A 2012 report by the charters’
own association — the New York City Charter School
Center — showed that on average, charter schools had only 6
percent English language learners, compared with 15 percent in district
schools.
A recent IBO
study showed that an astonishing 80 percent of special education students
who start in charter schools in kindergarten are gone by the third grade.
Student
attrition is a particular issue for the Success network, whose schools tend
to have far higher student suspension rates than their neighborhood
schools; they also see their class cohorts shrink as many poor-performing
students leave or are counseled out and not replaced.
How
can we level the playing field?
If charter
schools are serious about playing an important role in New York City
education, they should take four immediate steps to level the playing field
between them and district schools, as outlined by UFT President Michael
Mulgrew below in an article reprinted from the New York Daily News:
For the past 12 years, the Bloomberg administration has singled out charter schools for special treatment, a strategy that embittered many ordinary New York City public school parents and children. Here are four steps charter schools should take now to end that divisive relationship:Serve the neediest kidsState law requires that charters serve the same percentage of poor and special-needs children, along with English-language learners, as their local district schools do. Unfortunately, many charter schools ignore this requirement. Meanwhile, parents complain that special-needs children and students who struggle academically have been “counseled out” of charters, most of them ending up in local district schools while the charters hold onto students with better scores. A recent report by the city’s Independent Budget Office found that a shocking 80% of special-needs kids who enroll in city charter schools as kindergartners leave their schools by the third grade.Be good neighborsThe Bloomberg administration often shoehorned charters into public schools. Because some charters didn’t want their children interacting with public school kids, gymnasiums and cafeterias would be limited to charter students at certain hours. Worst of all, students in dilapidated classrooms with outmoded equipment and few supplies watched with envy as the incoming charters spent small fortunes on renovations, paint jobs, new desks and equipment, books and supplies. If they want to be good neighbors, charters should share the wealth — and make sure all students sharing one school building have the same opportunities and environment.Open their booksIf charter operators truly want a new start, they need to abandon the lawsuit they have filed against the state controller seeking to block his ability to audit their books. Parents and taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going.Stop treating children as profit centersCharters receive taxpayer dollars. In addition, many get donations from major hedge funders, have millions of dollars in bank accounts and pay their chief executives — who typically oversee a small group of schools — as much as half a million dollars a year, along with lavish benefits. Charters with such resources need to pay rent, as Mayor de Blasio has suggested. And charters should set realistic salary caps for their executives and appropriate limits on payments to consultants.
Data
Sources
Other
sources:
How
poor are charter schools?
How
unique are charter waiting lists?
Does
admission to a charter guarantee academic success?
No comments:
Post a Comment