exclusive

‘I think that’s blood money’: Arne Duncan pushed charters to reject funds from Trump admin if budget cuts approved

PHOTO: Kayleigh Skinner

For left-of-center education reformers, the proposed Trump budget amounted to a devil’s bargain.

They could support the budget plan, which would give hundreds of millions of dollars to charter schools. But they would have to do so knowing it slashed education spending across the board, including money meant for poor students.

Around 25 leaders talked over the dilemma at a previously unreported meeting on March 16 — coincidentally, the same day the initial budget plan was released. There, former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan made a provocative suggestion: charter leaders should refuse to accept federal money designated for charter schools if Trump’s cuts to education went through.

Duncan called those funds “blood money,” according to two attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was intended to be private.

The meeting, originally called to discuss the broader question of how progressive education reform should survive in the age of Trump and the new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, points to the widening fault lines within that movement.

The gathering included another former education secretary, John King, as well as leaders of groups such as Teach for America and Democrats for Education Reform and from the Achievement First and Uncommon charter networks.

Duncan declined to speak about the meeting, but he reiterated his view to Chalkbeat in an interview.

“If [DeVos] is cutting money for traditional public schools and putting money into charters … I’ve told them not to take the money,” said Duncan. “I think that’s blood money.”

“We all [have] got to be thinking about not just the kids we serve directly, but all kids,” he said.

The deep cuts proposed by the administration are not seen as likely to make it through Congress; a House budget bill released last month would reduce education spending by $2.4 billion, not by the Trump plan’s $9.2 billion. Duncan emphasized that the cuts — and thus a potential response from charter leaders — are still hypothetical.

Liz Hill, the Department of Education press secretary, sharply criticized Duncan’s suggestion to charter leaders.

“Make no mistake: following this approach would hurt students. It’s an insult to the millions of students and parents benefiting from charter schools, and the millions more on waiting lists trying to get into a school that better meets their needs,” she said in a statement. “It’s especially sad to see such a misguided effort advanced by a former Secretary of Education.”

‘It’s not just about accountability or school choice’

The left-of-center charter school advocates who held sway in the Obama administration have a complicated relationship with DeVos, who backs charter schools but also private-school vouchers and, as a member of the Trump administration, is viewed skeptically by many.

Some, including Success Academy Eva Moskowitz, a former Democratic New York City council member who was briefly considered for education secretary, have praised DeVos. (Moskowitz was not at the March meeting.) Other Democrats, such as Duncan, King and Shavar Jeffries, the president of Democrats For Education Reform, have been far more critical.

The overarching question at the March discussion, organized in part by Jeffries, was how education reformers should respond to the Trump and DeVos administration, including on issues beyond education. (Jeffries declined to comment, saying the meeting was private.)

“There was a broad consensus that we need to expand our view of what it is to be about kids,” said one person present. “It’s not just about accountability or school choice or things like that — it’s also about protecting the civil rights of our children and protecting our immigrant kids.”

This perspective was strongly articulated by John King. (A spokesperson for the Education Trust, where King is now president, declined to comment.)

“There was a sincere tension between people feeling like they’d be abandoning kids if they just joined the general political fight … and a sincere belief that this Trump administration is going to destroy the country and part of that, destroy the lives of many kids,” said the attendee.

There was some disagreement on the issue of school vouchers — DeVos’s signature idea — though few participants were strongly in favor of the policy.

Jonah Edelman, who runs the advocacy group Stand for Children and attended the meeting, would later pen an essay with American Federation for Teachers president Randi Weingarten calling vouchers “bad for kids, public education and our democracy.” (Edelman did not respond to a request for comment.)

‘This funding is vital’

Two attendees said Duncan’s idea of declining federal charter funds received mixed reactions, though most in the room were not charter leaders — that is, those who would have to make the difficult decision not to accept federal money.

“There are some people who wanted to take this more punchy, assertive approach and there were some people … who were less inclined to do that,” one said.

Duncan, for his part, said he had “had that conversation with some charter network leaders” — though he declined to get into specifics — and said the idea was not dismissed out of hand.

“Some people it really made them stop and think, and others I could tell were already thinking along those lines,” he said. “This is my best thinking; they are ultimately going to make their own decisions.”

None of the three high-profile charter networks contacted by Chalkbeat endorsed Duncan’s suggestion. Achievement First, KIPP, and Uncommon have all have previously received millions of dollars from the federal Charter School Program, which supports the expansion of existing charter operators.

Steve Mancini, a spokesperson for KIPP, said CEO Richard Barth was present for part of the March meeting but left before Duncan arrived.

Both Mancini and Barbara Martinez, the chief external officer of Uncommon Schools, emphasized their organizations’ strong opposition to the Trump budget, but declined to take a position on potentially refusing charter school funds.

In a statement, Dacia Toll, who is the president of Achievement First and was at the March meeting, sounded a skeptical note on declining federal dollars, while reiterating her “firm opposition to a federal budget that hurts our students, families, and communities.”

“We, like virtually every school district in this country, will accept federal funding because we depend on this money to provide our students, especially our highest-need students, with the services they need,” Toll said, noting that Achievement First won a multi-year federal grant in 2015. “This funding is vital.”

National charter school groups have tried to walk a careful line with the new administration. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools praised the additional money for charter schools requested by the Trump administration, though criticized other aspects of the budget.

Meanwhile, at the meeting, frustration with the Trump budget was palpable. Many present believed that there needed to be a firm and public denunciation of the proposal.

Two weeks after the meeting, on March 29, USA Today published an op-ed by the heads of Achievement First, KIPP and Uncommon Schools and endorsed by a number of other charter school leaders.

“We cannot support the president’s budget as proposed,” the op-ed read, “and we are determined to do everything in our power to work with Congress and the administration to protect the programs that are essential to the broader needs of our students, families and communities.”

the secretary speaks

In departure from Trump, Betsy DeVos calls out ‘racist bigots’ in Charlottesville

PHOTO: U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos condemned “white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other racist bigots” in an email to her staff Thursday — without mentioning President Trump, whose equivocal stance on the racist violence in Charlottesville last weekend has drawn widespread criticism.

“While we should be anticipating and celebrating students’ returns to campuses across the country, we are engaged in a national discussion that has stirred ugly, hate-filled conversations and reopened hurtful wounds from shameful portions of our nation’s past,” DeVos wrote.

The letter was more pointed — describing the racist views as “cowardly, hateful and just plain wrong” — than DeVos’ initial tweets on the events. She has been silent since those posts until now.

 

In her email to staff, she emphasized that individuals, and schools, had a part in combating hatred.

“We can all play a role. Mentor a student. Volunteer at a school. Lend a helping hand and offer a listening ear,” she wrote.

But DeVos did not specify what role, if any, the department’s policymaking would play. She has received persistent criticism from civil rights groups for proposed federal budget cuts, her stance on discrimination of LGBT students, and her appointment to head the Office of Civil Rights. (DeVos specifically notes that, “Our Department, and particularly the Office for Civil Rights, exists to ensure all students have equal access to a safe, nurturing, quality learning environment free from discrimination or intimidation.”)

Meanwhile, criticism of Trump and Devos from education advocates has intensified in recent days.

New York City charter school leader Eva Moskowitz — who was initially considered for the job DeVos now holds, and who led Ivanka Trump on a school tour — released a strongly worded letter condemning the Trump administration (though she did not mention DeVos). On Twitter, Kevin Huffman, the charter-friendly former Tennessee education commissioner, called on DeVos to resign, saying, “It is not viable to serve all kids under a POTUS who defends and encourages white supremacy.”

This is on top of persistent hostility from many left-of-center charter advocates, including one of DeVos’s predecessors, Arne Duncan, who called bumps in federal spending for charters “blood money” if they came alongside to Trump’s proposed cuts to education.

The note was sent to staff, rather than posted as a press release. DeVos has not been shy in the past about weighing in on topics beyond education — she quickly issued a statement praising Trump’s decision to leave the Paris climate change agreement, for example.

Here’s the text of her letter:

Team,

I write today with a heavy heart for our country. While we should be anticipating and celebrating students’ returns to campuses across the country, we are engaged in a national discussion that has stirred ugly, hate-filled conversations and reopened hurtful wounds from shameful portions of our nation’s past.

There is fear, pain, anger, disappointment, discouragement and embarrassment across America, and I know, too, here within the Department.

Last weekend’s tragic and unthinkable events in Charlottesville, which stole three innocent lives and injured many more, were wholly unacceptable. The views of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other racist bigots are totally abhorrent to the American ideal. We all have a role to play in rejecting views that pit one group of people against another. Such views are cowardly, hateful and just plain wrong.

This is what makes our work so important. Our Department, and particularly the Office for Civil Rights, exists to ensure all students have equal access to a safe, nurturing, quality learning environment free from discrimination or intimidation.

Our own difficult history reminds us that we must confront, head-on, problems when and where they exist with moral clarity and conviction. Our nation is greater than what it has shown in recent days.

Violence and hate will never be the answer. We must engage, debate and educate. We must remind all what it means to be an American, and while far from perfect, we must never lose sight that America still stands as the brightest beacon for freedom in the world.

My hope is that we will use this as an opportunity to show that what unites and holds America together is far stronger than what seeks to divide and draw us apart. We can all play a role. Mentor a student. Volunteer at a school. Lend a helping hand and offer a listening ear.

Our work is truly the bridge to a stronger future. Let’s recommit ourselves to ensuring the future is brighter for all.

Betsy

choice for most

Chalkbeat explains: When can private schools discriminate against students?

PHOTO: Julia Donheiser

Over $16 million of public funds went to Indiana private schools with anti-LGBT policies last year, a recent Chalkbeat investigation found.

You might be asking: Is it legal to discriminate against those students?

The answer is yes, and that’s become a focus of the national debate about school choice. (U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos fanned the flames on this one when she offered ambiguous answers about whether all students would be welcome in schools that participated in a potential national voucher program.)

But the rules are tricky when it comes to private schools, especially religious ones. Here’s your guide to understanding when, why and how private schools can say no to certain students.

Are there laws in place that prevent discrimination against LGBT students?

There is no federal legislation explicitly protecting LGBT students from discrimination in schools. That means when it comes to gender and sexuality, Title IX of the Civil Rights Act — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex — is the main piece of legislation in play.

Title IX applies to private schools that accept federal funds — and many private schools do, usually through school breakfast or lunch programs, grants, or funding for low-income students.

However, some schools qualify for exemptions. All-boys or all-girls schools are allowed to restrict their admissions accordingly, for example.

Most important to the discussion of LGBT students: Private schools run by religious organizations are exempt “to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization.” A majority of private schools in the U.S. are religious, which means that most private schools are free to discriminate against LGBT students on religious grounds.

In Indiana, Chalkbeat found that at least 27 schools that accept vouchers have policies that suggest or declare that LGBT students are unwelcome.

What about private schools that aren’t religious?

At non-religious private schools, Title IX’s nondiscrimination rules do apply. But a change in interpretation means the law offers fewer protections to transgender students than it has in the past.

Under the Obama administration, the ban on discriminating on the basis of sex was interpreted as related either to biological sex or to gender identity. However, the Trump administration rescinded guidance on that front — meaning the federal government considers Title IX to only bar discrimination based on a student’s biological sex.

Do any states have laws that prevent discrimination against LGBT students?

Many states have implemented their own nondiscrimination policies regarding sexual orientation and gender identity — in the world of public education. But no voucher programs have such policies in place, research shows.

As a result, private schools are free to turn away LGBT students while still receiving public funding for accepting vouchers.

What about other forms of discrimination?

Private schools can’t discriminate on the basis of race if they want tax-exempt status. The executive director of the Council for American Private Education, Joe McTighe, said he wasn’t “familiar with any nonprofit private schools that elect against tax-exempt status.”

If private schools accept federal funds, they are also bound to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.

When it comes to students with disabilities, private schools have more leeway to turn students away.

This is partly because students who choose to attend a private school — including through a voucher program — forfeit their right to a “free appropriate public education” that they are otherwise guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Another law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, bars discrimination on the basis of disability and requires private schools to accept students so long as only “minor adjustments” are needed to accommodate them. But it exempts religiously run private schools.

Under a third law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, those protections apply to religious schools, too — if the school receives federal funds.