Cohen quotes yours truly several times in the piece on the basis of a series of posts I've written -- see here, here and here -- where I question the wisdom of using public monies to build facilities that are rented to both publicly-funded charter schools and the people who work in them. I especially wonder why Ron Beit, the developer of Teachers Village, and his investors should get all sorts of public largess when the project seems like it's designed to cater to renters who are likely not going to be career-long educators:
Beit's got himself one sweet deal, doesn't he? He uses $100 million in tax credits to finance a project in Newark, then lines up a group of charter schools as his business occupants, who will pay their rents with taxpayer funds.It turns out that Beit was not particularly happy with Cohen's piece (FWIW, I thought she was quite fair). He wrote a letter to TAP that they published last week:
Then, as if that isn't enough, he sets himself up to direct a steady flow of college-educated renters right into his residential units - through TFA [Teach For America]! In fact, TFA has a page where prospective "teachers" can figure out their expenses when they move to Newark. By default, rent is listed as $1150: right in the range for units at Teachers Village. There's also a happy-happy neighborhood description on the TFA-Newark website: I don't think a real estate agent could have written one better.
This is hardly a new idea: in Baltimore, 70 percent of Miller's Court's residents are TFAers. Again, the financing was helped by New Markets Tax Credits.
But I have to imagine that Beit's looking downstate at Camden (and, for that matter, other cities in New Jersey) and licking his chops. The whole place has been taken over by the state and stands poised to become as charterized as New Orleans. Tax credits, bond money, and other public funding has flooded into the area: the expansion of charters is part of that deluge. Land is cheap and the city needs an influx of yuppies to begin the gentrification its leaders so desperately crave. It's the perfect place to replicate Teachers Village.
There's been plenty written about how TFA has become a political organization. But I suspect it's also poised to become a power broker in the brave new world of 21st Century urban development. Cities used to have to put together marketing campaigns and development plans to start gentrifying neighborhoods. Now, they just have to give TFA a call, and the yuppies will come rolling in.
And it's all paid for with public monies. Everyone cool with that?
I find it interesting that Beit chides Cohen for her conclusions while simultaneously presuming to speak for the "most" who "celebrate" Teachers Village. But it's his use of statistics that really got me thinking: what do we actually know about who is living, working, and learning in Teachers Village?
I'm going to be exploring this question in a series of posts this week.
Let's start with Beit's data. "72 percent of all the residents in Teachers Village are minority..." is the sort of factesque data point that looks good at first glance, but could really mean anything. What's a "minority"? Are Asian residents part of that group? LGBT residents? The truth is that Newark is about one-quarter white, so it would be hard for Teachers Village not to have many non-white tenants That doesn't mean it won't be attracting residents with a different demographic profile than those in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Beit also says, "70 percent of all residents are educators," but he immediately qualifies that by noting that 44 percent of those are tutors working for Great Oaks Charter School, one of the three charters renting at Teachers Village. The tutors at Great Oaks are the core of the school's signature program, as described by its website:
You'll note the program specifically says that at least some of the Tutor Corps fellows do not want to become teachers. Teachers Village, then, is providing a good amount of temporary housing for people who are not career educators.
I'll talk more about the teachers at Teachers Village later in this series; for now, let's acknowledge that Beit's contention that his development is "...building a vibrant, affordable, 24-hour neighborhood around our city’s working professionals..." is quite a stretch. By most people's definition (hey, if Beit can generalize, why can't I?), a tutor with a one-year commitment is not a "professional."
Keep in mind that the tutors are not paying their own rent: housing is provided to them at taxpayer expense. This year, 20 Great Oaks tutors are subsidized through a $268,600 grant from the federal AmeriCorps program as administered through the state. The tutor program also received $300,000 of Mark Zuckerberg's famous (and tax-deductible) donation to Newark's schools. I don't know of any program assessment that's been done, but the comments of the tutors themselves on Glassdoor are quite interesting.
In any case, this is yet another stream of taxpayer-funded revenue flowing to Beit's group through Teachers Village. And there isn't a lot of evidence that Beit is giving the school a break on its leasing fees for putting up the tutors in his building. According to Great Oaks's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for 2013, it paid $280,177 in rental fees for the tutors (p. 48). That fee rose to $399,994 in 2014 (p. 47), the year Great Oaks moved into Teachers Village. Granted, the school's enrollment grew by about one-third, so maybe the number of tutors being put up grew as well; again, I can't find a program assessment, so who knows? But even if it did, there's no reason to believe, based on these numbers, that Great Oaks is getting an especially good deal compared to what it was paying previously.
Look, it's perfectly fine to have a program that brings tutors into a school (although why the students who benefit from those tutors should have to go to a school that is under private control escapes me). But Beit has created -- with a great deal of assistance from this state's taxpayers -- a development that is housing a large number of "educators" who have no obligation or incentive to stay in Newark or in teaching.
The tutors are temporary residents of the city. Granted, they are young and college-educated: exactly the sort of folks urban developers want to bring in to "revitalize" neighborhoods. But there is no reason to believe they are invested in the city in the same way homeowners and career professionals would be.
It's worth noting that Beit's company, RBH Group, boasts that it has, "...acquired through 30 transactions, over 79 properties in Newark’s downtown core." Who, then, benefits from bringing in a steady stream of college-educated youngsters in Newark? Certainly not career teachers, who might be offered incentives to buy housing in Newark and would see any gains in the value of their property then accrue to themselves. The money that might have provided those incentives is, instead, being channeled into properties that, if they increase in value, will benefit RBH Group.
Let me be clear: it's perfectly fine for Ron Beit and his group to make money developing properties in Newark and elsewhere. I don't even have a problem with providing some sort of incentive to help that process along. Newark needs investment if it's ever going to become a vibrant, thriving community. But let's get something straight:
Teachers Village is a very big investment of public dollars. It is not a philanthropic undertaking; it is a profit-making enterprise. As such, the public deserves a clear-eyed view of how its funds are being spent. It also deserves a serious analysis of whether that spending is a good investment in education, not just real estate development.
Let's take a look at that next.
Next: Part II -- Who Is Teaching At Teachers Village?
Teachers Village Ground Breaking, 2012.