Why Are Chronically Low-performing Charter Schools Renewed?
The easy answer is greed, profit, and kickbacks. But how are such actions undertaken so frequently?
One of the most fundamental rationales put forward decades ago by charter school advocates for why charter schools should exist is the so-called “accountability-for-results” bargain. The basic “logic” here is that traditional public schools are “unaccountable failing monopolies” controlled by “self-serving unions” and, as such, families deserve “more accountable school options (charter schools) that deliver better results.” And, if a charter school fails to “deliver results” (i.e., high scores on standardized tests produced by corporations), then it should be shut down so that a smarter entrepreneur can open up a more successful charter school. This is why charter school proponents are obsessed with test scores, which are nothing more than a proxy for a family’s socio-economic status.
Given the staggering profits made by non-profit and for-profit charter schools, it should come as no surprise that charter school authorizing entities have frequently renewed contracts for charter schools across the country even when “results” are poor year after year. This is nothing new. The fact that this is done with great regularity and for the flimsiest reasons speaks to the economic and political power wielded by charter school promoters.
Over the past 35 years these forces have usurped significant state power in order to privilege private interests over the public interest. It is not every day that an entity can do an end-run around the law, reason, standards, and public. To operate with impunity against the general interests of society requires considerable state power.
In this connection, the creation of unelected charter school “Review Boards” or “Commissions” in many states is a crucial top-down mechanism to subordinate reason, standards, the law, and the public interest to narrow private interests. The majority of the appointed members of such boards are pro-privatization. They see students as commodities and have no patience for anything that contravenes their interests. At the end of the day, “results” do not matter that much to them because there is too much profit at stake.
It should be noted, however, that the creation of top-down mechanisms such as appointed boards is not always needed for private interests to override standards and the public interest. Oftentimes the political and economic connections charter school owners, operators, and trustees have is enough to supersede reason, standards, contract provisions, and public authority. They can even reverse decisions by elected officials that do not favor them and unduly influence the courts.
An illustrative example of a flawed charter school renewal process is provided in a January 13, 2026 article from the News & Observer, NC renews two low-performing virtual charter schools. See how long and why, from North Carolina. Before proceeding, it is important to appreciate that, while poor academic performance is widespread in brick-and-mortar charter schools, virtual charter schools nationwide are notorious for abysmal academic performance year after year. Online charter schools are well-known for being extra subpar.
The news article starts by openly admitting that, “North Carolina’s original two virtual charter schools will be allowed to stay open for another five years despite being among the lower academic performing schools in the state.” It further clarifies that, “The N.C. Charter Schools Review Board voted 7-3 on Monday to extend the charters for North Carolina Cyber Academy and the North Carolina Virtual Academy through June 2031.” The news article then claims that even though these privately-operated cyber charter schools have “been labelled by the state as continually low-performing since they opened in 2015,” they have supposedly “been popular with families.”
Does this make sense? “Popular” according to whom? What family wants their child in a deregulated virtual charter school that performs poorly year after year? Both schools have historically received a “D” grade and are classified as “continually low-performing.” Are there any thorough surveys or interviews with parents about what they really know and think about these privately-operated online schools? Can “popularity” be considered a compelling reason for renewing the contract of a chronically low-performing charter school, especially when charter school advocates insist that strong academic performance is critical to the operation of a high-quality charter school?
Rita Haire, a North Carolina Charter Schools Review Board member, stated, “We’re renewing two schools for five years that have been continually low performing for all 10 years and have not met growth, except one school for one year, and yet the enrollment is almost 2,500 in one and 4,000…. Do they not understand the quality of education that’s being delivered?”
Another Review Board member, Hilda Parlér, said, “Looking at these grades, that’s not acceptable.”
The News & Observer also informs us that both privately-operated schools have millions of public dollars saved in “rainy day funds,” a fact that prompted Todd Godbey, another Review Board member, to ask, “Their academic performance isn’t grand…. If they’ve truly got $16 million in the bank, why aren’t they using that to make academic performance better for their students?” Indeed, how can schools perform so poorly for so many years when they have lots of money? So much for accountability-for-results. Ten years of failure. If this were a traditional public school, charter school advocates would be howling their derision from the rooftop.
To add insult to injury it appears that virtual charter schools in North Carolina can only be approved or rejected for a five-year renewal, while brick-and-mortar charter schools may be renewed for 3-10 years or not renewed at all. Such a set-up alters decision-making dynamics for virtual charter schools.
Privatization can only live and expand by negating rights, democracy, reason, transparency, and the public interest, that is, by dragging society backward. In The Privatization of Everything (2021), Donald Cohen and Allen Mikaelian remind us that privatization “undermines the public’s civil rights and limits access to democratic institutions and policymaking” (p. 116). Private interests simply do not align with the public interest.
If the public had a real say in the affairs of education and society, harmful arrangements would be swiftly blocked. Financial waste, corruption, and profiteering would be reined in as well. Importantly, parents and students would be treated as humans with rights and not as commodities or consumers.
Without democratic renewal, private interests will seize even more state power and exercise greater police powers, resulting in more destruction of all the arrangements required by a modern society. Reject all forms of privatization. Defend public education and the public interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment