"Non-Profit" Charter Schools

 

 

Does this sound right to you? Suppose a state allows charter schools but only those that are non-profit. This sounds OK. These schools attract students and the school receives tuition money for each student enrolled, just as public schools do. Teachers are usually paid less than public school teachers, many of them from Teach for America, so personnel costs are low. But suppose the state also reimburses, with public money, the charter school for annual lease reimbursements paid for their 'school' buildings in which they operate their school. Suppose further that the rental company to which a non-profit charter school pays these rental costs has no employees, perhaps run by a part-time consultant and volunteers. Suppose the rental company is owned by the same person who owns and operates the non-profit charter school. Can we imagine where this is headed? Yes, you are correct. The owner of the charter school, perhaps also owns other charter schools as well. This owner of several charter schools "pays" lease fees to the "rental company" for all of the charter schools s/he owns.

 

Wouldn't you say this owner is inappropriately benefitting from this type of arrangement? I would. This is exactly what happens in Pennsylvania (and other states) whose laws require charter schools to be non-profit. If you are interested, you can check out the details of School Facilities Development, Inc. which rents school buildings to Propel charter schools in Pennsylvania, both owned by the same person. Propel's 11 school building locations collect from the state about $3 million each year for lease payments then turns it over to the School Facilities Development, Inc. Public education money diverted to private individuals whose purpose is to make money.

 

So, maybe charter schools are really about real estate and money-making schemes and not about education? As Maine's experience with charter schools is just beginning, I hope our legislators take notice of what happens in other states.