Charter Privatization Debate At WCCUSD Board Meeting& Beller's Caliber Charter School

WCCUSD Trustee Liz Block took $4k directly from Beller/Moses for her campaign. Also, Block took $15K directly from John Scully of Making Waves.

This website contains links to those transactions: http://www.publiccore.net/2014-money.html

Charter schools are not private. They are public schools and have a legal right to the use of District facilities. The Bellers and others who are helping to build and fund charter schools are not speculators. They are philanthropists who have dedicated their efforts and their wealth to providing a quality educational alternative to Richmond families and thousands of Richmond families have responded favorably. Thousands more are on the wait lists. New Leaders is not linked to the Charter schools. New Leaders has raised outside money to provide support for aspiring District teachers and principals with the aim of helping to improve leadership at the school level.

The billionaire hustlers and union busters who run and fund the California Charter School Association CCSA have used the deregulation of education to desegregate and destroy public education. Their privately run school boards have no accountability to the public that fund them through taxes and that is why the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that they were not public schools.

Washington Supreme Court expels charter schools from state public school system
Charter school proponents are reeling in the wake of the court's landmark ruling
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/10/washington_charters_partner/
THURSDAY, SEP 10, 2015 01:30 PM PDT
Washington Supreme Court expels charter schools from state public school system
Charter school proponents are reeling in the wake of the court's landmark ruling
STEVE ROSENFELD, ALTERNET


(Credit: fernandogarciaesteban via iStock/Salon)
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
The charter school movement has been expelled from Washington state’s public education system, with a Supreme Court ruling late Friday that the privately run schools are not public schools under the state’s constitution. Meanwhile, the quick fix for that sizable hurdle sought by the state’s charter school proponents—a special legislative session—does not appear likely because Washington’s public education sector is embroiled in more controversial and larger battles.

As public schools open across Washington this week, teachers in the largest school district, Seattle, might strike for the first time in 30 years because of an unsettled contract. Other districts across Washington have been striking and settling recently. Also, since mid-August, Washington’s legislature has been fined $100,000 a day by the state Supreme Court for not producing a new school-funding plan. It had been held in contempt of court for missing prior deadlines.

“It is not practical to call a special session on a whim,” said Lisa Harper, a deputy spokesman for Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, referring to the charter community’s demands. Inslee opposed the 2012 ballot initiative creating charters and their looser regulatory framework that the Court cited, ruling they were not public schools because they were run by private boards.

There are 1 million public school students who deserve a more equitable funding formula, said Harper, highlighting the state’s biggest education issue. In contrast, 1,200 students have enrolled in Washington state’s charters, she said, even though charter supporters are a “vocal community.”

Charter school proponents have three options, all of them “long shots,” said Bill Keim, executive director of the Washington Association of School Administrators. The first would be asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling. The parties have until September 24 to final that motion, before the court ruling becomes final.

The second option was a special legislative session. Third was asking local billionaire Bill Gates, one of the nation’s top charter school benefactors—spending at least $440 million—to write a check to keep the charters open until the legislature acts. “The downside is that would re-enforce that they are private schools,” Keim said.

For all these reasons, Washington’s charter schools face an uncertain future. That is not just because the state’s Supreme Court found they did not fit the constitutional definition of public schools, but because it also rejected the charter lobby’s top talking points: that they represent an evolution in public education, and that tax dollars should follow students regardless of their academic setting.

Devastating Ruling for Charters

The ruling, written by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, begins by saying it is “not concerned with the merits or demerits of charter schools.” However, it is difficult to separate some of these issues from the court’s analysis of whether charters can be considered public schools under the state constitution and previous court precedents where the core issue is what is a public school.

The case goes back to a 2012 statewide ballot initiative, I-1240, that allowed 40 charter schools to be created across the state. It narrowly passed, 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent, in an election with 3 million votes cast. The outcome prompted a coalition of public school supporters to sue, saying the first charters should not get public school construction funds. A lower court ruled partly in their favor, prompting both sides to appeal to the state Supreme Court. The public school advocates argued that charters operated like private schools and therefore were not entitled to taxpayer funds under the state constitution and related legal precedents. The charter proponents argued the opposite; that they wwre a new form of public school entitled to public funding.

“The [2012] Act was intended to provide parents with ‘more options’ regarding the schooling of their children,” the court’s ruling said, summarizing this history. “But the new schools came with a trade-off: the loss of local control and local accountability… Under the Act, charter schools are devoid of local control from their inception to their daily operation.” The court explained this was the case because they were not run by locally elected school boards, and were exempted from much state regulation and oversight.

“Our inquiry is not concerned with the merits or demerits of charter schools….The issue for this court is what are the requirements of the constitution,” the ruling held. Washington’s Constitution establishes a system of “common schools” and says taxpayer funds can only be used “exclusively” for these schools. “The entire revenue derived from the common school fund and the state tax for common schools shall be exclusively applied to the support of the common schools,” the constitution said.

“In sum, because charter schools under 1-1240 are run by an appointed board or nonprofit organization and thus are not subject to local voter control, they cannot qualify as ‘common schools’ within the meaning of article IX,” the court concluded, affirming prior legal precedents that are more than a century old.

It also rejected arguments that charters are part of an evolving public school system—one of the movement’s lobbying points. “This court has repeatedly struck down laws diverting common school funds to any other purpose,” it held. It also said the Constitution’s exclusivity provision means that charters cannot be subsidized by other taxpayer funds. “We also disagree with the State’s view that the Act’s remaining provisions are saved because funding ‘follows the student’ and in any event charter schools could be funded out of the state general fund.”

In concluding, the court slammed the charter movement’s tactic of using the ballot initiative process to create a parallel charter school system that ignores constitutional precedents. “The Charter School Act violates article IX, section 2, because charter schools are not common schools despite the Act’s attempt to so designate them.”

Predictable Reaction by Charter Proponents

Washington’s fight over charter schools is hardly unique. Like many locales where public school defenders face off with charter school proponents who slam public education, but want to run alternative schools with public dollars, there are many longtime activists tracking the fine print of these battles.

In Washington, activist and blogger Melissa Westbrook has long opposed charters and chaired the campaign against the 2012 ballot initiative. Writing on her blog this past Saturday, she replied to the outrage and criticism the pro-charter side expressed. “I understand the concern and sadness for students, parents and staffs at these schools but it is not like they are long-time schools closing,” she said. “They can continue on, just without state dollars.”

Westbrook cited and rebutted the charter movement’s main reactions to the Supreme Court ruling:

Here’s what the hyperventilating folks at Stand for Children Washington had to say: “We are deeply disappointed by the Washington State Supreme Court ruling public charter schools unconstitutional in our state. Whether or not the Court’s decision has legal merit, there is no doubt that the result is morally wrong. It is an affront to our most vulnerable students.”

Whether or not there is legal merit? It’s a Supreme Court decision, for crying out loud. As the Court said, it had nothing to do with the merit of charter schools themselves but to the legal issues of funding them with Washington state tax dollars.

Stand for Children Washington said, “Nearly 1,200 Washington families have made the careful choice to send their children to high-quality public charter schools in pursuit of a better education for their children. Nine of the ten charter schools in the state have already started class for this school year. This ruling makes the future of those students uncertain.”

Westbrook’s reply, “Actually, their future is secure in the knowledge that, no matter what, they will always have a place at a regular public school.”

Stand for Children Washington: “The privilege of choosing a quality school for your child is one commonly exercised by those with means. This voter-approved law was designed to give that choice to the many families in Washington without alternatives.”

Westbrook: “Having choice for schooling also means following the law.”

Stand for Children Washington: “It is for this reason that in nearly every part of the state with dense populations of people of color and high poverty rates, voters heavily favored public charter schools at the ballot in 2012.”

Westbook: “Heavily favored? An out and out lie, the measure barely passed and failed in Seattle, about 60-40%.”

Stand for Children Washington: “The Washington State Charter Law was designed to ensure the highest quality public charter schools open in our state and has been recognized by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools as one of the best in the country.”


Westbrook: “Again, disingenuous as the issue is not about quality of charter schools. And that ‘quality law’? It’s illegal under the state constitution. As well the ‘National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ is a Gates-funded mouthpiece org.”

Stand for Children Washington: “The court’s decision must not prevent the 1,200 students already enrolled in public charter schools from attending their chosen school. We call on the court to allow existing public charter schools to serve their children this year… Furthermore, we call on the Governor and the legislature to take whatever action is necessary to enable Washington children to have high-quality charter schools, give families options, and fulfill the will of the people.”

Westbrook: “The Governor and the Legislature MUST support the state constitution and not heart-tugging. And ‘whatever action is necessary?’ For charter schools? Why not McCleary? [court-ordered equitable school funding plan] Why not I-1351 for class size?”

Taking Stock

As people on both sides of this issue return to work after Labor Day and assess their legal options, the only thing that’s clear is that this fight is not over. There’s tremendous emotion on the pro-charter side—the latest blog on Stand for Children Washington’s website featured a teenager who found the Chief Justice’s home phone and left her a strong message.

At Gov. Jay Inslee’s office, spokeswoman Lisa Harper said they were getting “a lot of calls” and studying the issues, but “not rushing anything to submit [to the legislature].” The Seattle Times reported that one issue the state is looking at is the prospect of shutting down the charters, even if there is a waiting list at the newest schools.

Meanwhile, at the Washington Association of School Administrators, as executive director Bill Keim was involved in meetings to discuss what might happen next, he also wondered to what extent the pro-charter lobby brought this legal controversy to their doorstep.

“Clearly, there is a national charter school effort and my guess is they drafted language for the WA initiative very similar to what has worked in other states without fully considering the unique aspects of the WA constitution and related case law,” he wrote in a followup email. “The fact that they saw a need in their argument before the Supreme Court to ask for the 1906 Supreme Court ruling defining common schools to be vacated seems to indicate someone didn’t do their homework with the initiative. But that isn’t unique to the Charter School effort. The Court has overturned several initiatives as unconstitutional.”

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of “Count My Vote: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting” (AlterNet Books, 2008).

The Truth About Charter Schools

MORE STEVE ROSENFELD.
COMMENTS

A perfect education storm in Washington state
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/10/a-perfect-education-storm-in-washington-state/
By Valerie Strauss September 10, 2015

Striking Seattle School District teachers and other educators walk a picket line, Thursday, Sept. 10, 2015, near Franklin High School in Seattle. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
Washington state is in the center of a perfect storm over education.

Seattle public school teachers are on strike over issues including evaluations, pay and the length of the school day. The strike, called by the 5,000-member teachers’ union, started on Wednesday, Sept. 9, the day the 2015-16 school year was supposed to start.

The state legislature is racking up fines of $100,000 a day since the Washington State Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 13, 2015, that lawmakers have not been adequately funding public schools. Lawmakers were ordered in 2012 to fully fund education but have failed to do so, and the justices got tired of it, ordering up the hefty fines. As the The Seattle Times reported:

Answer Sheet newsletter
Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.
Sign up
Despite a record-setting 176-day session and a two-year budget agreement that pushed substantial new money into the K-12 system, the court said lawmakers had again failed to live up to what the state constitution calls the state’s “paramount” duty — amply funding schools.

And there is the court’s ruling on Sept. 4, 2015, declaring the state’s charter school law unconstitutional. The law was passed by voters in 2012 — after three earlier attempts failed — with the help of significant financial support from wealthy philanthropists, including Bill Gates. The Supreme Court justices decided that state education funding could not be used for charter schools because charter schools are not operated by elected boards and, therefore, not “common schools.”

ADVERTISING


[Charter school law funded by Bill Gates in Washington state ruled unconstitutional]

Here is a post on what is going on in Washington state by Wayne Au, an associate professor at the University of Washington Bothell and an editor for the social justice education magazine, Rethinking Schools. He was also a plaintiff in the charter school legal challenge, along with organizations including the Washington Education Association and the League of Women Voters.



By Wayne Au

Friday, Sept. 4, 2015, was a good day for me. Late that afternoon the Washington State Supreme Court issued an earth-shattering ruling for corporate education reformers: By a 6-3 decision, they determined that Washington State’s charter school law was unconstitutional. This felt like a personal victory because I was heavily involved in the fight against charter schools in Washington State. In the lead up to the 2012 election season, where Washington voters would decide on the legality of charter schools here through popular vote on Initiative 1240 (I-1240), I was a very vocal opponent of the initiative and voiced my concerns about charter schools in newspaper editorials, policy analyses, educational research, and public forums.

Washington State citizens narrowly passed I-1240 by a 50.69 percent majority vote (winning by roughly 41,000 of the over 3,000,000 votes cast), making charter schools law here. In response to the new charter law, I was asked to join a group of individuals and organizations as plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of I-1240, where, in addition to lending my name to the suit, I provided expert advice and research in support of the legal arguments.

When the Washington State Supreme Court announced its decision overturning I-1240 as unconstitutional, I was elated. As an educational scholar-activist trying to defend public education from the forces of privatization, rarely have I felt like my personal efforts have contributed so concretely to such an important victory.

At the heart of the Washington State’s Supreme Court ruling was the idea that charter schools, as defined by the law, were not actually “public schools.” The key issue is this: Washington State’s constitution has a provision that only “common schools” receive tax dollars allocated for public education. The law in Washington State is structured so that charter schools are governed at both the school level and state level by an appointed board, not an elected one. As such, charter schools in Washington State would receive public monies without any guarantee of accountability to any democratically elected, public body. The Washington State Supreme Court decided that this lack of public oversight of charter schools meant that did not meet the definition of “common schools” and therefore are not eligible to receive public monies made available for public schools.

Conservative and free-market education reformers are furious about this decision. The Washington Policy Center (whose tagline is “Improving Lives Through Market Solutions”), the CEOs of both the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the Washington State Charter Schools Association, and several politicians have called on the Washington State Legislature to “correct” the law by changing the funding structure so charter schools would receive tax dollars through a specific fund not associated with public schools.

These calls to shift the charter school funding in Washington State as the solution to making charter schools constitutional here point to a key issue in the agenda of charter supporters and free-market education reformers. Rather than change the governance structures of the charter schools to have publicly elected oversight of public tax dollars, as teacher Peter Greene has suggested at his Curmudgucation blog, charter supporters seek to redefine “public schools” as schools that have public money but without public accountability and regulation.

Calls to redefine what counts as “public schools” from charter supporters in Washington State should come as no surprise, considering that a good portion of the language regarding charter governance comes directly from model legislation provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.


ALEC is perhaps more widely known for promoting a broad privatization agenda, “stand-your-ground” gun laws, and anti-democratic voter registration laws, amongst others. ALEC also has a privatization agenda for public education, including the promotion of charter schools generally, promotion of corporate charters and virtual schools specifically, private school vouchers, anti-union measures, “parent trigger” laws to flip public schools into privately managed charter schools, increasing testing, reducing (or eliminating when possible) the power of democratically elected local school boards, and limiting the power of public school districts.

ALEC’s influence on Washington State’s charter law is unmistakable. Most immediately visible is the inclusion of its own “trigger” provision, allowing a small majority of teachers or parents to sign a petition and flip a regular public school into a charter school.

Additionally, and more pertinent to the Washington State Supreme Court ruling, ALEC’s fingerprints are all over the charter school governance structure outlined in I-1240. Consider the similarities between the language contained in both I-1240 and ALEC’s “Charter School Growth with Quality Act” model legislation, marked in bold, italics.

Regarding the state-level commission governing charters in Washington State, I-1240, Section 208, Subsection 2:

“(2) The commission shall consist of nine members, no more than five of whom shall be members of the same political party. Three members shall be appointed by the governor; three members shall be appointed by the president of the senate; and three members shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives. The appointing authorities shall assure diversity among commission members, including representation from various geographic areas of the state and shall assure that at least one member is a parent of a Washington public school student.”

But here is what the ALEC “Charter School Growth with Quality Act” model legislation Section 3, Subsection C, Number 1 regarding state level charter commissions:

“(1) Nine members, no more than five of whom shall be members of the same political party. Three members shall be appointed by the Governor; three members shall be appointed by the President of the Senate; and three members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In making the appointments, the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall ensure statewide geographic diversity among Commission members.”

And in I-1240, Section 208, Subsection 3:

“(3) Members appointed to the commission shall collectively possess strong experience and expertise in public and nonprofit governance; management and finance; public school leadership, assessment, curriculum, and instruction; and public education law. All members shall have demonstrated an understanding of and commitment to charter schooling as a strategy for strengthening public education.”

Compared to ALEC’s “Charter School Growth with Quality Act” model legislation Section 3, Subsection C, Number 2:

“(2) Members appointed to the Commission shall collectively possess strong experience and expertise in public and nonprofit governance, management and finance, public school leadership, assessment, and curriculum and instruction, and public education law. All members of the Commission shall have demonstrated understanding of and commitment to charter schooling as a strategy for strengthening public education.”

These comparisons may seem nitpicky, but I-1240’s plagiarism of ALEC’s model charter school legislation is critical to understanding the privatization agenda for public schools. ALEC advocates that charter schools be governed by appointed boards with little-to-no accountability or oversight by the public because this establishes a chain of logic central to privatization: Once we agree that public tax dollars can follow the child into educational institutions not governed by the public, then we have accepted the basic premise for voucher programs that use our tax dollars to pay for private schools. This has been a major goal of ALEC and other free-market conservatives who seek to dismantle public education and profit off of our kids.

Washington State’s charter school law has other issues, such as the fact that it was promoted by a few wealthy individuals and their affiliated philanthropies. However, in this moment, what’s most important is that the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision is a major rebuke of the privatization agenda. Overturning I-1240 establishes that here in Washington state (and in the backyard of the charter-promoting Gates Foundation, no less), without public oversight, charter schools are not “common schools” and hence are not really “public schools” eligible for public funding—an argument many of us made from the beginning.


Calls by charter supporters to save charter schools in Washington State fall particularly flat in our specific context. Not only has our state legislature failed to fund the class-size reduction initiative passed by voters, but the Washington State Supreme Court has found our state legislature is in contempt of court for not fully funding public education here. In this context the hypocrisy of demanding the state legislature convene a special session to save Washington’s charter schools is glaring. There are fewer than 10 charter schools serving a total of almost 1,300 children in Washington state. While the timing of the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision is terrible for those families and children enrolled in our charter schools, our state has yet to meet their legal obligations to fully fund the education of 1 million children currently enrolled in our actual public schools.

Just as supporters of publicly financed charter schools understand the profound implications of the Washington State Supreme Court ruling, public school supporters also need to pay close attention. As Washington State’s Supreme Court has said: If a school is not controlled by a public body, then it should not have access to public funds. The logic is simple and compelling, and opponents of public school privatization in this country need to spread that message far and wide.


NAACP Approves Resolution Calling For Moratorium On Charter School Expansion-No new charter schools. That’s the request from the NAACP.
"Charter schools have contributed to the increased segregation rather than diverse integration of our public school system," the resolution reads in par
http://newsone.com/3497545/naacp-calls-for-charter-school-moratorium/

The historic and iconic civil rights organization has approved a resolution calling for a moratorium on the expansion of Charter Schools in America.

The resolution states in part:

“Charter schools have contributed to the increased segregation rather than diverse integration of our public school system…

“Weak oversight of charter schools puts students and communities at risk of harm, public funds at risk of being wasted, and further erodes local control of public education.”

This controversial resolution reaffirms a 2014 resolution that “the NAACP opposes the privatization of public schools and/or public subsidizing or funding of for-profit or charter schools.”

It will not become official policy until the NAACP’s national board meeting later on this year, but many of the charter schools they seem to have maligned by approving the “no new charter schools” resolution are actually doing well.

This leads us to the question and the ongoing debate revolving around school choice: Should parents be able to choose other options to enhance their children’s education?

On Tuesday’s edition of NewsOne Now, the school choice debate turned into a highly contested dialogue between Dr. Steve Perry and Hilary Shelton, Bureau Director of the Washington, D.C. Chapter of the NAACP.

Shelton stated 18 years ago the NAACP issued their initial stance on charter schools. At that time, they believed“charter schools should at least meet the minimum standard of any public school.”

He continued in many instances since then, “charter schools have been put in places to undercut many of the policies and protections civil rights has provided.”

According to Shelton, teachers should have a degree and be certified before they teach. He continued, “Many charter schools went around that and even hired teachers without degrees at all, creating all kinds of other problems.”

Shelton added, “We have charter schools that were carpetbaggers. They come in and before they can figure out the charter school was not prepared to provide the services, the charter school was gone.”

The NAACP Washington Bureau Director also stated in some instances, charter schools were being used as “tools to maintain segregation.” He continued, “So, in essence, that is why we are calling for a moratorium.”

As you can imagine, none of this sat well with Dr. Steve Perry, Founder and Head of Schools for Capital Preparatory.

Perry responded to the NAACP’s resolution and Shelton’s comments by saying, “They couldn’t be more out of touch if they ran full speed in the other direction.”

“Americans are deciding with their feet that they want to go to better schools.” Perry continued his rebuttal and said the national office of the NAACP is “out of touch even with their own chapters.”

Dr. Perry explained through travels around the United States, he found the biggest proponents of school choice are NAACP local chapters.

“This is more proof that the NAACP has been mortgaged by the teachers union and they keep paying y’all to say what they want to say,” said Perry.

Later during his blistering refutation, Perry told Mr. Shelton, “The group that has most benefited from school choice in general and charters in specific are African-American males.”

“You want to stop the school-to-prison pipeline? Then stop sending Black boys to failed schools that keep funding the NAACP through teachers union dues.”

Watch Roland Martin, Dr. Steve Perry, Hilary Shelton, Shavar Jeffries, and the NewsOne Now discussion on the NAACP resolution to stop charter school expansion in the video clip above.

NAACP Approves Resolution Calling For Moratorium On Charter School Expansion-No new charter schools. That’s the request from the NAACP.
"Charter schools have contributed to the increased segregation rather than diverse integration of our public school system," the resolution reads in par
http://newsone.com/3497545/naacp-calls-for-charter-school-moratorium/

The historic and iconic civil rights organization has approved a resolution calling for a moratorium on the expansion of Charter Schools in America.

The resolution states in part:

“Charter schools have contributed to the increased segregation rather than diverse integration of our public school system…

“Weak oversight of charter schools puts students and communities at risk of harm, public funds at risk of being wasted, and further erodes local control of public education.”

This controversial resolution reaffirms a 2014 resolution that “the NAACP opposes the privatization of public schools and/or public subsidizing or funding of for-profit or charter schools.”

It will not become official policy until the NAACP’s national board meeting later on this year, but many of the charter schools they seem to have maligned by approving the “no new charter schools” resolution are actually doing well.

This leads us to the question and the ongoing debate revolving around school choice: Should parents be able to choose other options to enhance their children’s education?

On Tuesday’s edition of NewsOne Now, the school choice debate turned into a highly contested dialogue between Dr. Steve Perry and Hilary Shelton, Bureau Director of the Washington, D.C. Chapter of the NAACP.

Shelton stated 18 years ago the NAACP issued their initial stance on charter schools. At that time, they believed“charter schools should at least meet the minimum standard of any public school.”

He continued in many instances since then, “charter schools have been put in places to undercut many of the policies and protections civil rights has provided.”

According to Shelton, teachers should have a degree and be certified before they teach. He continued, “Many charter schools went around that and even hired teachers without degrees at all, creating all kinds of other problems.”

Shelton added, “We have charter schools that were carpetbaggers. They come in and before they can figure out the charter school was not prepared to provide the services, the charter school was gone.”

The NAACP Washington Bureau Director also stated in some instances, charter schools were being used as “tools to maintain segregation.” He continued, “So, in essence, that is why we are calling for a moratorium.”

As you can imagine, none of this sat well with Dr. Steve Perry, Founder and Head of Schools for Capital Preparatory.

Perry responded to the NAACP’s resolution and Shelton’s comments by saying, “They couldn’t be more out of touch if they ran full speed in the other direction.”

“Americans are deciding with their feet that they want to go to better schools.” Perry continued his rebuttal and said the national office of the NAACP is “out of touch even with their own chapters.”

Dr. Perry explained through travels around the United States, he found the biggest proponents of school choice are NAACP local chapters.

“This is more proof that the NAACP has been mortgaged by the teachers union and they keep paying y’all to say what they want to say,” said Perry.

Later during his blistering refutation, Perry told Mr. Shelton, “The group that has most benefited from school choice in general and charters in specific are African-American males.”

“You want to stop the school-to-prison pipeline? Then stop sending Black boys to failed schools that keep funding the NAACP through teachers union dues.”

Watch Roland Martin, Dr. Steve Perry, Hilary Shelton, Shavar Jeffries, and the NewsOne Now discussion on the NAACP resolution to stop charter school expansion in the video clip above.

The issue at hand is whether to do something unprecedented--selling 8 acres of public land for a tiny fraction of market value to a private entity.

The county would never have the use of that land again for publically-run public schools. The idea that the county could buy the land back is not realistic, especially if there is debt on the property.

It would favor Caliber over other schools. There is no requirement to give a charter school better facilities than existing schools have.

The county would likely still be liable for problems, including violations of the law by a charter school. And Caliber's waiver of the requirement for the county to rebuild the structures would not stop them from suing for that same purpose, as has happened in Southern CA.

A public school? Technically, as written into law. But lower safety standards, no accountability or transparency, not supportling the local economy (sub-par wages, non-local labor).

Philanthropy? If so, that is at complete odds with Beller's history, so one can't help but be skeptical. His bankruptcy in the UK was spectacular and had worldwide economic consequences.