Charter schools
More oversight is needed to prevent people from manipulating for personal gain.
Freedom to innovate is the beauty of the charter school concept.
But we should always be mindful of the ugly side. Here in Houston, a public charter school superintendent’s greed went unchecked to the point that she was able to achieve a luxury lifestyle the typical public school schmucks could only dream of: She and her husband owned a 7,000-square-foot Houston mansion, traveled in a private jet, and donned high-end clothing and jewelry.
A federal judge on Friday compared the couple to villains from a Charles Dickens novel who steal from the poor. Varnett charter school founders Marian Annette Cluff and Alsie Cluff Jr. were sentenced to 10 years and 3 years, in prison, respectively, for running an embezzlement and tax scheme that bilked low-income parents, as reported by Chronicle reporter Jacob Carpenter.
This isn’t an isolated incident. In January, the head of a South Dallas charter was accused of taking a kickback to steer business to a telecommunications system.
To reassure the public that regulators are doing what they can to ensure that charter school operators aren’t using public funds for private gain, Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath should do more to determine how the misuse of tax dollars happens and if any regulatory loopholes should be closed to prevent future malfeasance.
An extravagant salary structure is a common red flag for problem charters, and the Cluffs were no exception. The couple made soaring salaries while working at Varnett — Marian, 70, served as superintendent, while Alsie, 69, managed business operations — and made millions off business dealings tied to the schools. During an eight-year period, they reported about $12 million in income related to Varnett at three campuses.
Under state law, the Texas Education Agency can intervene if a charter school’s spending and governance fails to “satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management.” But the definition of proper fiscal management is subject to interpretation. At a minimum, the TEA could adopt a policy whereby an exorbitant salary or excessive income from school-related business triggers closer scrutiny. Last year, this editorial board called for TEA to investigate Accelerated Intermediate Academy for various reasons, including Superintendent Kevin Hicks’ salary, which was far higher than other superintendents of comparably sized districts.
TEA officials maintain that a charter school superintendent’s salary is a “local-level decision.” This type of regulatory latitude for charters lays the groundwork for managerial misdeeds.
While traditional independent public school districts are governed by an elected board, boards for public charter schools are appointed. Since charters operate without the additional layer of scrutiny of an elected board, it’s crucial for the state education agency to keep a close eye on potential conflicts of interest.
If the superintendent of Houston Independent School District and her husband had siphoned $2.6 million from the district — over half of which came from taxpayers and the rest from parents — state leadership would already be calling for tighter oversight.
For public charter school operators, there’s a double standard. Elected officials who like to promote charters as the answer to lagging performance in traditional public schools don’t like to draw attention to charters that fail. Many elected officials remain eerily silent about ways to prevent future charter operator self-dealing even though failure to respond more aggressively could end up tarnishing the reputations of charters that are working as intended.
Texas has many high-performing charter campuses that use their regulatory latitude to provide a quality education to children who need it. Enhanced accountability won’t derail those efforts. It will only help.
Charters were started to innovate in the field of education. Now, it’s Texas lawmakers and the folks at TEA who need to get innovative in rooting out self-dealing in the charter system, and ensuring the egregious abuse of public and parent funds like we saw at Varnett doesn’t happen again.