Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Editorial: Block back-door charter cap tactic

Detroit News
December 1, 2011

Democrat senators are using the for-profit scare tactic to try to limit school choice in Michigan
The Detroit News

As state lawmakers take the correct course toward lifting the cap on charter schools, some Democrats are trying to block the move by raising the boogeyman of “profits.” Their proposal to ban for-profit charters should be taken for what it is — a backdoor tactic to limit charters and preserve the teacher union’s monopoly on school children.

Democratic Sens. Rebekah Warren of Ann Arbor and Hoon-Yung Hopgood of Taylor claim Michigan has one of the highest rates of for-profit charter companies in the country. They say about 80 percent of charter schools are run by these organizations.

So what? Many charter school boards (charters are public schools just as are traditional schools) choose to contract with education management organizations to oversee various school functions, from basic operations to instructional services. Some of these companies are nonprofit; some are for-profit.

Michigan has a higher number largely because the state was at the forefront of the charter school movement in the 1990s, and the for-profit model is older. That doesn’t mean it’s a scary conspiracy.

Think about it: Michigan spends more than $12 billion each year on K-12 public education. That’s a lot of money, and plenty of people are profiting from educating young people — including the teacher unions.

But Robert McCann, communications director for the Michigan Senate Democrats, says Warren and Hopgood think charter schools should be performing better.

And because many charters work with for-profit companies, they feel the management organizations are to blame for some lackluster performance.

But it doesn’t matter what the company’s business model is as long as it provides strong academic results — at a competitive price.

Robin Lake, associate director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington, says accountability is the bottom line for all management organizations and that oversight comes from the school boards and authorizers.

Lake says there isn’t much information comparing performance of for-profit and nonprofit charter companies.

Some of the newer nonprofits have an excellent focus on quality, but Lake warns of a “huge variation” in how these companies perform. She expects the same of for-profit charters.

National Heritage Academies is a good example of a successful for-profit management organization that got its start in Michigan and has expanded nationally. It’s one of the largest charter companies in the country, with 44,000 students.

But that’s just two-thirds the size of Detroit Public Schools. Most management companies are much smaller and only operate within this state.

So claims of large, national companies scouring for ways to profit from Michigan’s children are unfounded.

If Democrats are concerned about the current state of charters, they should get behind the charter school bill that’s passed the Senate and is moving through the House.

If Michigan removes its cap on charters, it will become more attractive to a wider range of management organizations, including established, nonprofit groups such as KIPP.

KIPP has avoided the state so far because it likes to build a regional cluster of schools; the current cap is a deterrent.

Charter school boards and authorizers are tasked with finding the best management organization for their schools. The senators should stay out of it.