The $2.2 trillion Corona Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities (CARES) Act appropriated $30.75 billion for education—almost half of which will flow to “Local Education Agencies.” These LEAs include both school districts and many charter schools or networks. But charter laws differ from state to state, and many charter schools authorized by school districts do not have legal status as LEAs.

Will these charters—more than a quarter of all charter schools, according to the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) —get a piece of the federal relief money? Or will some districts, which may feel hostile toward charters, keep the money for their own schools? And will governors hand out their share fairly?

Governors will distribute $3 billion to K-12 schools and institutions of higher education, as they see fit. State education departments will distribute $13.5 billion to LEAs, based on the relative share of federal Title 1 funding (for low-income children) they received last year. So LEAs with higher percentages of poor children will get more money.

School districts and charters that are LEAs can use the money for a variety of purposes, including buying devices for schools and children so they can continue their learning online and making up for lost time with summer school. 

The U.S. Department of Education should immediately issue guidance to governors, state education departments, and school districts requiring that CARES Act funding flow to all charter schools at the same rate and using the same formula as the traditional public schools within a district. (Online charter schools could be exempted, since they have suffered far less disruption than brick-and-mortar schools.)

The CARES Act funds will be distributed to states within 30 days of enactment, based on applications to the U.S. Department of Education. The department has 30 days from the date of receiving a state’s application to respond. If approved, states will be responsible for disbursing the funds within a year of receipt. 

Amy Wilkins, senior vice president for advocacy with NAPCS, is optimistic about how CARES Act funding will be disbursed. When asked about whether NAPCS believed charter school families could be punished for the choice they made, Wilkins said, “In this time in which we are all acting together against common challenges and threats, we are confident that school districts will rise to the occasion to ensure that all students benefit from the education funds contained in the CARES Act.  It’s almost beyond thinking that anyone would try to undercut charter school students in this moment.”

As the Department of Education finalizes the application states will use, it must include guidance to ensure that charter school students and their families are not penalized for exercising choice in public education.

Lest anyone still thinks the teachers union in Los Angeles cares a whit about school children, its president, Alex Caputo-Pearl, has again demanded that L.A. Unified School District block any expansion of charter schools. These schools educate almost a quarter of Los Angeles County’s public school students—and do it far more effectively than district-operated schools.

In a letter to Superintendent Austin Beutner and the school board, Caputo-Pearl used the COVID-19 health crisis as his excuse this time. He demanded that the board not approve any new charter schools this spring, since board meetings will probably take place by audio or video conference. Conveniently, he seems to believe the public could not submit comments in such a format. 

Caputo-Pearl also said the board should not make any new decisions to allow charters to share space with district-operated schools—something charters have a right to do under state law. Any new sharing would not begin until next fall, but Caputo-Pearl apparently believes the health crisis will still be underway then.

Or perhaps Caputo-Pearl just wants to make life as difficult as possible for the thousands of children on charter school waiting lists.

Charters are free public schools, operated by nonprofit organizations, that cannot select their students. In today’s world, the majority of publicly funded services are delivered by private organizations—in health care, in transportation, in almost everything the public sector does. Charter schools are the manifestation of this trend in education. 

Because they have freedom from most bureaucratic rules and are closed if they perform poorly, they produce better results than schools operated by district bureaucracies. In Los Angeles they produce higher test scores, graduation rates, and college preparedness than district-operated schools. 

The most detailed study of test scores was done by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, an organization embraced by the teachers unions after its first charter school report, more than a decade ago.  Its 2014 report on Los Angeles found that charter students in L.A. gained months of learning every year, compared to demographically similar students with similar past test scores in district schools.

But the teachers unions hate charters, because most of their teachers choose not to unionize. Hence as the number of charter school children grows, the unions shrink. 

During a strike last year, Caputo-Pearl and UTLA demanded a moratorium on charters and broadcast the false claim that charters were responsible for the district’s financial woes. 

Clearly, Caputo-Pearl and United Teachers of Los Angeles don’t care about students’ test scores, graduation rates, or preparation for college or careers. If they did, they would support the expansion of charter schools. They care only about keeping their coffers full of union dues.

While we all do our parts to flatten the coronavirus curve, is it asking too much for teachers unions to flatten the curve on their anti-charter lies? Our crisis today calls for truth and unity, not propaganda and division.

#

David Osborne, author of Reinventing America’s Schools: Creating a 21st Century Education System, directs the education work of the Progressive Policy Institute.

For parents struggling with the uncertainty of employment while also dealing with a global pandemic, paying for an internet connection may be the last thing on their minds. But with the closure of nearly every public and private school in America, many school systems are relying on the internet to make sure their students can keep learning. 

Even in the days before COVID 19, a strong and reliable internet connection was integral to functioning in our information age. During this time of social distancing and self-quarantine, a strong internet connection is essential. 

Unfortunately, far too many students lack access to a reliable internet connection. According to a Pew Research Study, 44% of households with incomes below $30,000 don’t have broadband. And while many Americans rely on smartphones for internet access, 29% of lower-income people don’t even have smartphones. 

For parents struggling to make ends meet, the costs of groceries could take precedent overpaying for the internet.

In a time like this, school system leaders cannot shy away from the mission of providing equitable access to education for all students. Fortunately, corporate citizens like Comcast, Charter Communications, and AT&T are stepping up to help school systems provide internet access. For Comcast President Dave Watson, “It is vital that as many Americans as possible stay connected to the Internet – for education, work, and personal health reasons.” 

On March 12th, as school closures began, Comcast announced a number of initiatives to help our nation’s students:

• All Xfinity Wifi hotspots in businesses and outdoor locations are available to anyone for free.
• All Comcast customers receive unlimited data for 60 days for no additional charge.
• Internet Essentials, a service for low-income households that normally costs $9.95 a month, is free for new customers for 60 days.
• New educational content for all grade levels is available to customers, in partnership with Common Sense Media.

Charter Communications announced that its Spectrum service would install both broadband and Wifi for K-12 and college students for free for 60 days, while also opening its Wifi hotspots to the public.

Comcast’s and Charter’s response came in advance of the Federal Communication Commission’s March 24th challenge to providers to take the “Keep America Connected Pledge.” The pledge is for the next 60 days to (1) not terminate service to any residential or business customer unable to pay, (2) waive late fees for any residential or business customer, and (3) open Wifi hotspots to any American who needs them. 

On March 24, AT&T announced that it would offer schools activating new lines free wireless data service for 60 days and expand access to its $10/month Access from AT&T service to any household receiving free or reduced-price lunch or Head Start, beginning with two months of free service.

And smaller, regional internet providers have announced similar initiatives.

For large school districts like Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) in Maryland, ensuring that 135,000 students continue their education is a top priority. With over 60% qualifying for free or reduced lunch, reliable, low-cost, internet is essential.

When asked about the impact of Comcast’s support, PGCPS CEO Dr. Monica Goldson said, “For some of our students, lack of equal access to Wi-Fi hotspots, connected devices, and mobile broadband internet will make continuing their education nearly impossible. It is not because they are unwilling, but these students simply are unable to get online at a time when they have no choice. Public spaces are closed and the economy is sputtering, leaving many to cut back on expenses.”

Schools in many states will likely be closed for at least another month. As parents around the country try to create a sense of normalcy for their kids, it is reassuring to know corporate citizens such as Comcast, Charter, and AT&T are stepping up in a major way. 

All the Distance Learning Tools in the World Don’t Matter if Kids Can’t Get Online

Now that distance learning is virtually the only learning happening, all levels of government must shift into high gear to ensure that every child in America who needs Internet connectivity has it.

School districts and charter schools across the country are doing their best to distribute laptops and Chromebooks to millions of students forced out of class by the coronavirus. But 14 percent of children have no internet access at home, including nearly 20 percent of black and Latinxstudents and 37 percent of Native American students.

A recent Microsoft survey found that three-quarters of a million Montana households lack Internet access. On American Indian reservations or tribal lands, just over half of Native Americans have access to high-speed internet service–compared to 82 percent of households nationally.

Census data shows that 29 percent of Cleveland households have no internet access. Pew Researchers found in a 2018 survey of 13- to 17-year-olds, one in fiveteens said they often or sometimes can’t complete assignments because they don’t have reliable access to the internet or a computer.

Predictably, some school districts are holding back from providing any distance learning because they can’t ensure that every child has access to it—a decision the New York Post has already labeled “progressive lunacy.”

For instance, Philadelphia’s superintendent told his teachers they could not require students to log on and could not grade work done online or by phone because they “cannot ensure students equal access to technology.” One wonders what this means for high school students who need course credits and GPA scores for college admission.

An affluent suburban Seattle district invested in Wi-Fi “hotspots” to loan to students without internet at home, then halted the effort for similar reasons.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, a public elementary school foundation planned to give money to every family at its school and a neighboring school that needed it for Wi-Fi access, a laptop, or food. The school district would not allow it.

We have to agree with the Post: This is lunacy. We should be rolling out connectivity for all as we begin distance learning, not giving up.

The federal and state departments of education need to make clear to every district in America that they don’t have to deny education to every child just because they can’t provide it equally to all. Then they should start funding a massive effort tomake it universal. After urging from Democratic Senators Michael Bennet, Edward Markey, Brian Schatz and others, the Federal Communications Commissionon Wednesday announced a waiver of federal E-rate rules. Under the E-rate program, until September 30th service providers can give free equipment and services—such as mobile hotspots, improved connections, and connected devices—to schools.

In addition, Comcast–and other providers–are giving free Wi-Fi and the modems and routers needed to access it to low-income families in its service areas for the next 60 days.

​Congress and the states should add more funding. Districts are scrambling to design and deploy distance learning programs, while simultaneously ensuringthat children who depend on school for nutrition don’t go hungry.

​With state and federal aid, they should go into overdrive to ensure that every child can log on, at adequate speed.

For those outside of areas where free Wi-Fi is on offer, it is time to get creative. As far back as 2014, one district outfitted school buses with Wi-Fi routers and deployed them after hours to park in remote neighborhoods. In this way, California’s Coachella Valley Unified School District–one of the nation’s poorest, spanning 1,200 miles of mountains and valleys–was able to get all of its students online outside of school.

Some rural districts, like Santa Fe, already have Wi-Fi on school buses that make long drives to transport rural students, so the kids can do homework while making the long commute. The U.S. currently has about 480,000 school buses–more than enough to bring Wi-Fi to all 21.3 million offline Americans. And it has almost as many bus drivers—now sitting home with little to do— who could help.

In 2014, the driver of one of Coachella’s buses, Darryl Adams told the Hechinger Report, “Come on! We can do better than this as a nation, especially for our low-income families and our disadvantaged families.’’ 

Surely, in this most extraordinary of times, we not only can do better–we must.

Tressa Pankovits is Associate director at Reinventing America’s Schools project at Progressive Policy Institute

Many advocates of school choice have slammed Senator Elizabeth Warren for her new education plan, released last week. We have joined them, on Twitter. But few have pointed out the inconsistency between Warren’s embrace of competition in the rest of her plan—and in many of her economic plans—and her embrace of district monopolies in public education. We thought it would be worth adding this note to what has been a full-throated and well-deserved chorus of derision for her abject capitulation to the teachers unions.

A Response to Elizabeth Warren’s Education Plan

On July 16, 2018, progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren reassured the New England Council, “I am capitalist to my bones.” Capitalism.org defines capitalism as “an economic process where men do not compete to forcibly put down others, but to raise themselves up by creating values which are potentially unlimited.” The education plan Warren released last week, “A Great Public School Education for Every Student,” dangles huge federal grants to encourage values-driven competition. Unfortunately, she does not extend this rational to public charter schools, where such leverage could be enormously constructive for low income families—the constituency she repeatedly claims she is running to represent. 

In positioning herself as the most aggressive anti-charter Democrat, Warren has declared outright war with her pledge to eliminate the federal Charter School Program (CSP), created by President Clinton, then greatly expanded by President Obama. Because most public education policy is determined at the state and local level, completely eliminating this federal program is the most drastic anti-charter statement she could make. Warren claims it necessary to stop the expansion of charters because states do not ensure that they “are subject to the same transparency requirements and safeguards as traditional public schools,” amongst other complaints. She could’ve avoided harming poor families of color—the greatest beneficiaries of charter schools—and alienating that key constituency if she had only applied the competitive methods she suggested throughout other parts of her plan. 

For example, Warren proposes awarding $100 billion in competitive “Excellence Grants” to individual schools to restore arts programs and school-based mentoring. This would create competition between schools and reward those making the best efforts. She promises to award states generous additional Title I funding−a windfall few states could resist− if they implement fairer allocation formulas at the local level and more progressive funding policies at the state level. Again, competition designed to “raise up.” She also seeks to address school segregation with a $10 billion competitive grant for states that eliminate restrictive zoning laws that lead to residential segregation—which, of course, drives school segregation.  

So, why not—unless pandering to the anti-charter teachers unions—take the same approach with the federal CSP? Why not use it to strengthen charter schooling, which fills a desperate need for low income and minority families who otherwise do not have access to quality public education? Of the nearly 3.2 million public charter school students, 68 percent are minorities, 26 percent African Americans. More than a million children are on waiting lists nationwide. In many cases, low-income parents say charter schools are their only hope to break their children out of intergenerational poverty and the high crime, high unemployment, blighted neighborhoods in which they would otherwise be trapped. When they enroll in charters, those children learn far more than if they had stayed in district schools.

Of course, not all charter schools are great schools, and those that are not can be and should be closed. On average 3.7 percent of all charter schools have been shut down each year for the past 10 years, compared to just 0.2 percent of all traditional Title I (low-income) district schools during the entire nine years that the No Child Left Behind legislation was in effect. 

The charter school model is now too woven into the fabric of the American public education system, and the demand is for seats in them is too great, for them to be eliminated, regardless of any political promises Elizabeth Warren makes. More important, as the Washington Post editorialized, “There’s nothing progressive about strangling charter schools.” So why not use competition to find solutions to the ills of which Warren complains? Create conditions for awarding federal charter school dollars. Require transparency. Tighten up the charter authorization process, so if authorizes are not closing failing schools, no school they might authorize is eligible for federal grants. Don’t handing the approval process solely to school boards, as Warren suggests; districts are among the worst authorizers, because they are too busy operating schools to oversee charters carefully. (They are also too beholden to teachers unions, who help elect their boards, to make objective decisions about opening or closing charters.) 

According to the American Center for Progress, in a rare show of bipartisan cooperation, Congress has approved increased funds for the CSP as requested by each presidential administration since 1994, topping out at $440 million in fiscal year 2019. Senator Warren, use those capitalist bones to improve the system, not kill it while it is laying golden eggs of opportunity where none existed before. You seem to recognize the value of competition. Well-regulated charter schools create competition by their very existence.