Seeing A Charter School Proposal As A Redevelopment Scheme: The Case of Capital Prep School, Inc.

Over the last few months, there has been debate about proposals for new semi-private charter schools in Connecticut. Recently, the State Board of Education pushed forward two new charter school proposals in Connecticut.

We must revisit the merits and rethink what is behind these proposals. Analyzing the proposed Capital Prep, Inc. charter school in Middletown helps show a regressive process. As other scholars note, semi-private charter schools are not always about education policy, but can be fronts for land redevelopment to make private profit.

So let’s take the case of Capital Prep, Inc. proposed in Middletown. Despite State Department of Education calls to slow the proposal, the Governor-appointed State Board of Education approved this proposal. Now the proposal is in the hands of the Governor and Legislature to fund or not a new charter school.

The proposed new charter school would be overseen by Capital Prep, Inc., a private charter management company that takes a fee of 10% of any public funds that would go to the charter school. As I’ve stated before, it’s unclear where this money goes and is transferred into a private company with few rules. It is a murky space of public-private organizational interaction.

The proposed charter school would eventually have 900 students. Not only would state funds be shifted to this new school, but funds from Middletown Public Schools (with only 4000 students) would have to cover transportation and special education for resident students that attend the new semi-private charter school. This shift of public funds to a new, semi-private school comes as advocates struggle for better access and funds for public education, healthcare, progressive income taxes, and other social safety net support.

So what is Capital Prep, Inc.’s record on education? For charter schools, there are a few goals in state law to keep in mind: achievement, innovation, and reducing racial and ethnic isolation.

In terms of achievement, Dr. Daniel Long, a quantitative scholar of education policy, has questioned Capital Prep’s achievement results compared to other charter schools. Relatedly, the current Capital Prep charter in Bridgeport has fewer students with disabilities and emerging bilingual students than the Bridgeport Public School average.

In terms of innovation, Capital Prep, Inc. advertises as an early college and social justice program. Both those school themes exist in various public schools now. These educational concepts can be replicated in Middletown Public Schools.

Finally, Capital Prep, Inc. in Bridgeport has a higher proportion of Black students and smaller proportion of White students and Latinx students than the average Bridgeport Public Schools. There could be many reasons for that including location, lottery, and enrollment practices. Numerically, it is more racially isolated and would not meet any desegregation standard in the State of CT (it’s currently not required, but I note as a reference). Potentially not meeting these goals was also an issue with Capital Prep interdistrict magnet school in Hartford, an early version of this school (a story for another day).

Capital Prep does not meet any particular State goals for charter schools and there are real financial needs in other key areas in the state to support children and families. Indeed, there already two Capital Prep schools (a semi-private charter and public, not affiliated magnet school) in Connecticut with students, educators, and families that likely need support now. Making an entirely new Capital Prep charter school raises questions about policy and shifting funding from already existing schools.

So why did the State Board of Education approve this school that pulls funds away from public schools and will have a negative impact on the Middletown Public Schools? Why didn’t the State board work with Middletown Public Schools towards educational improvement as a first step? The Board should have the ability and capacity to help districts improve and meet the need of racially diverse groups of children? Or maybe it does not? So why push this new proposed school if it has questionable promise in improving public education?

Land redevelopment.

In terms of facilities to hold a new school, the proposed Capital Prep, Inc. school in Middletown proposal is a land redevelopment scheme. In its proposal, the proposed charter school has two options: redevelop a youth prison or buy land from two churches to make a new school building. Let’s look at these two options.

First, the proposed redevelopment of a youth prison in Middletown is problematic. This facility plan would use a prison for a school. As proposed, new public funds would not only go to Capital Prep, Inc. for fees, but a new lease would get kicked back into the State coffers to rent a prison. Groups such as Katal Center have raised red flags over this plan. They’ve proposed demolishing the troubled facility. And there’s more.

According to the proposal, talks began between Capital Prep, Inc. and the Commissioner of the Dept. of Children and Families – a former parent of a Capital Prep student – to rent prison buildings for a new charter school. This happened before the proposal was submitted. In other words, there are behind the scenes talks between state officials and potential private renter of space to make a new charter school. This raises questions about process, ethics, and public policy. Did these talks include Middletown, State Board of Ed., or other officials? Is there public record of these discussions? Does this discussion follow the code of ethics for public officials about awarding contracts for particular renters or buyers of state property?

The second proposal to make a new facility for this charter school would be another proposed land deal. The proposal gives another option of the private Capital Prep Schools, Inc – Charter Management Organization (CMO) to buy land from two nearby churches in Middletown. Then a building would somehow be funded and built on that land.

But here’s the catch. The land is owned by two churches in Middletown. And two leaders of the two churches are on the proposed new charter school board, or “founding team” as noted in the proposal. This raises questions about self-dealing, which is a common problem of semi-private charter school policy. In other words, the public funds for the charter school would be redirected to benefit not the school, per se, but people and their organizations that manage the charter school and related companies. Indeed, top scholars on charter school policy and law have suggested that these actions happen because of loopholes that allow for self-dealing. In the future, the loopholes must be closed at minimum. For now, this is a blatant proposal that includes the possibility of self-dealing.

There is more to be interrogated here. Below you can see the proposed facility deals from page 112 of the new charter school proposal. As we move forward, we need to examine this charter school proposal as a land redevelopment scheme. The proposal does not offer a clear improvement to educational opportunities for children and families in Middletown and the State of Connecticut. This proposal should not move forward.