Investigative journalists David Sirota and Matthew Cunningham discovered that an amendment attached to the Senate bill reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act contains a fat juicy plum for financial consultants.
The amendment will permit school districts to use federal school aid to hire financial advisors. This is money supposed to be targeted to the neediest children.
They write:
“As budget-strapped Chicago follows a mass school closure with a new plan to layoff more than 1,400 teachers, one set of transactions sticks out: the city’s moves to refinance $1 billion in debt through complex financial instruments called swaps. The deals were spearheaded over the last few years by financial advisory firms brought in by the city to help find money saving efficiencies. Instead of saving money, though, the Windy City took a big hit: The school system has lost more than $100 million on the transactions and has paid millions in fees to its financial consultants.
“Chicago is not alone. School districts across the country have been increasingly relying on high-priced consultants and Wall Street firms for financial and management advice. While proponents say many of the ensuing consultant-driven initiatives have resulted in cost savings, critics note that other initiatives have resulted in investment losses, layoffs and school closures. What is clear is that school districts’ reliance on outside advisers has created business opportunities for the financial industry. And now, thanks to an amendment to federal education legislation moving through Congress, that lucrative market for financial and consulting could become even more flush with cash — specifically, with federal money meant for impoverished children.”
“The legislation was tucked into the Senate version of a massive K-12 education funding bill currently up for congressional reauthorization. The amendment from Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, would allow local officials to divert money from the federal government’s multibillion-dollar fund for low-income school districts and use the cash to hire financial consulting firms. Both lawmakers are among the U.S. Senate’s top 10 recipients of campaign money from the financial industry, and Warner is a former venture capital executive…
“Public education advocates questioned the benefit of spending education dollars on consultants.
“Outside consultants rarely have their clients’ best interests at heart,” said Jeannie Kaplan, a former school board member in Denver, where outside consultants helped oversee an interest-rate swap deal that ended up costing the school system more than $177 million. “Their usual driving force is the bottom line. Let’s not forget that every dollar going to outside consultants is a dollar out of the classroom.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thank you David Sirota.
LikeLike
And yet yesterday we were told to support the passage of ECAA. Hmmm. Maybe those of us who were being skeptical weren’t so reactionary after all? At 800 pages I wonder what other Easter Eggs are hidden in this bill to make it easier for grifters to get their hands on education money?
LikeLike
Skepticism is fine. We still have to balance the costs of passing it vs. not passing it.
LikeLike
“”The model for this amendment, Virginia’s model, shows that outside consultants were effective in finding efficiencies, like reducing the cost of bus service or cafeteria service,” said Boser.
But when asked by IBTimes for evidence that financial consultants benefit public education systems, Boser acknowledged that “there is no academic evidence to support the idea that outside consultants help school districts.”
Yes, we MUST accept this spoiled gruel because otherwise we might get spoiled gruel instead.
I know the costs. I live them every day in my own home and in my classroom. I’ve heard the dire warnings again and again from the NEA, the AFT, and other professional organizations whose elites, like retirees and higher ed profs, will never have to suffer under the aegis of ECAA and the 50 different sets of anti-teacher laws that will spew forth from ALEC while the USDOE sits back helpless to intervene.
ECAA is shortsighted, not that much better than NCLB, and it is NOT the only way to do this. It’s been sitting unrenewed for 7 years. Why the sudden urgency?
Ignore those of us who will suffer its passage for the higher good, though, right? How many times do we need to be sold a bill of goods from the US Congress before we accept the fact that they are not our friends and they don’t have our best interests at heart?
LikeLike
They probably are in a hurry to secure the gravy train before the next election.
LikeLike
“ECAA is shortsighted, not that much better than NCLB, and it is NOT the only way to do this. It’s been sitting unrenewed for 7 years. Why the sudden urgency?
Ignore those of us who will suffer its passage for the higher good, though, right? How many times do we need to be sold a bill of goods from the US Congress before we accept the fact that they are not our friends and they don’t have our best interests at heart?”
I’m not informed of every nuance of this bill, few are. What I do know about it is that it revokes the federal government’s authority to command, with the force of the law, exactly what happens in every classroom. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
I am not expecting a perfect bill of educational policy, nor should anyone at this point. We have to weigh the damage and the potential constructive effects. Maybe we should support the bill at this point in time BECAUSE we are skeptical of congress. If we can take away the ability of the DOE to impose a standardized authority on every child, perhaps we should do it, even if there are other drawbacks to the policy. Chip it off a piece at a time. And if we get Bernie Sanders into office, we can reasonably hope for the business interests to erode. As a teacher, I don’t want Arne Duncan in my life — or my students lives — anymore. Greed will continue to persist, and it will take a much longer time for us to defeat.
That’s how I see it. As always, let me know if I missed something.
LikeLike
ED DETECTIVE, as I said below. I see this law as shortsighted because although it prevents the Sec. of Education from interfering as far as requiring VAM, testing, and CCSS, it may also prevent future secretaries from interfering if, say, a state like Indiana decides to shift all their money into religious school vouchers instead of funding IDEA and Title I.
It may sound good on paper but what are the longterm consequences? And if Bernie Sanders does get elected how will ECAA hobble and prevent any Sec. of Education he might choose from undoing the Arne Duncan/Obama damages?
Why does everyone assume that VAM, CCSS, and high-stakes testing will just vanish if ECAA is passed? State legislatures and governors of both parties around the country embraced the changes required by RTTT without a whimper. They follow the ALEC template without question.
I don’t see this as doing much good at all.
LikeLike
“I am not expecting a perfect bill of educational policy, nor should anyone at this point.”
I doubt that anyone expects perfect from the political process. But one can expect that the process produce something viable, which, obviously NCLB wasn’t.
My take on the political process is that anytime the politicians deem something “urgent” then we should be even on greater guard against the screw job that they are trying to foist on us.
LikeLike
“I doubt that anyone expects perfect from the political process. But one can expect that the process produce something viable, which, obviously NCLB wasn’t.
My take on the political process is that anytime the politicians deem something “urgent” then we should be even on greater guard against the screw job that they are trying to foist on us.”
I’m with you there. And so we keep returning to the question of whether this new bill is going to be beneficial overall.
We’ve been forced into a gambit. How long will it take to release the DoE’s reign on our schools, teachers, and students… if not now? How long can we (including our students) really wait for them to get things straight enough for us?
LikeLike
When you strip away all the politobabble, in the end you are left with the truth. ALL Washington, and the majority of state, politicians are unprincipled crony capitalists.
LikeLike
“The amendment will permit school districts to use federal school aid to hire financial advisors. This is money supposed to be targeted to the neediest children.”
School districts/school BOEs would have to approve this.
LikeLike
And every Broad-trained superintendent, every TFA grad member of a school board, every ASCD gullible leader, every ALEC lobbyist in every stae capital will be frothing at the mouth to be the first to do the dirty and hire financial consultants in the name of ‘saving money’ in those wasteful schools.
LikeLike
All those people who are not going into teaching, especially mathematicians, can now apply for these positions.
How many math teachers is the country short already?
LikeLike
The state sets up a list of “preferred providers” which will be seen as a state seal of approval for all the consultants on the list and no one will do any due diligence.
I don’t know how much federal money actually gets to classrooms now but they are doing their best to make sure everyone gets a cut, aren’t they?
I’m not sure how much of the white collar private sector the public school system can subsidize. The cupboard has to be getting bare at this point. They’ll be cutting into lunch money soon.
LikeLike
Chiara, it’s my understanding that this money will come from Title I funding, which has traditionally been tightly controlled. Schools, in the past, could only use Title I funding for certain items or certain needs, like hiring a reading teacher or purchasing materials for helping underachieving readers. We are audited every year to make sure that our money is spent within the guidelines and my district had to pay a hefty fine when some of the money was misspent.
Last year’s budget for Title I was $14.4 billion. That’s a lot of money for the grifter reformists to get ahold of, isn’t it?
LikeLike
What is preventing this from happening now? There is no anti-financial consultant law. Districts are already wasting millions on PD consultants that couldn’t teach their way out of a paper bag. This is an over-reaction if you ask me. None of this can happen without school board approval anyway.
LikeLike
There are many strictures on how Title I funds are spent and we are audited every year for compliance.
I don’t understand why you think school boards won’t want to adopt the latest and greatest business trend when they grab every single bottle of snake oil that is sold under the name of reform and promulgated by ASCD and every seminar they attend.
These consultants aren’t exactly cheap. That’s money that won’t go to extra teachers or supplies or books for kids to read.
I agree completely about the other money wasted on consultants and PD that is useless. We used to be able to put in a request to take a class or attend a seminar and have it paid for but that ended a few years ago. Now it is total top-down control and nonteachers decide which one size fits all ‘trainings’ we need to attend.
LikeLike
Title 1 money is a relatively small piece of the pie. Districts could spend local funds if they wanted to. I really don’t think many school boards would buy into financial consultants. So many of the costs are fixed and few districts I know of are flush with cash. But if I were to become a FC when I retire, the first thing I would cut would be teacher percs.
LikeLike
I would hardly call $14.4 billion a small piece of the pie. It dwarfs every other category of expenditure of the USDOE.
Since I said it I know you will challenge it but Title I money is big money and that’s why this amendment was added to the bill: to open up the big money to financial advisors and both of the sponsors are formerly employees of the financial industry that will benefit from this largesses before becoming senators.
I’m not sure why you want to ignore or dismiss this as unimportant. It’s a lot of money that won’t be going to teachers and students but to already rich financial people. That ticks me off.
LikeLike
I am not completely dismissing it, but I just don’t see it as a game changer. The alternative to this bill is much worse.
And yes $14 B is a small slice of the $600 B pie. Very little of that Title 1 money would ever wind up in the pockets of FCs. I could well be wrong but I’m just not “the sky is falling” type of person.
And why aren’t districts hiring FCs with general funds?
Once again, school budgets are pretty much straightforward expenditures with little wiggle room.
I know an FC who cuts costs in hospitals. He charges ungodly amounts; can’t imagine many school districts wasting big bucks to save pennies.
LikeLike
If you are against the re-writes, what are you for? Please keep it realistic as the current political climate is somewhat restraining.
LikeLike
In state run districts, superintendents do as they please. In Newark, consultants are tripping over each other.
LikeLike
NY Teacher, we are never going to agree about much, that’s clear to me and it’s OK.
I remember quite well when I opposed NCLB there were lots and lots of teachers like you who accused me of being paranoid, a conspiracy theorist, negative, etc. etc.
The truth was that I was following Susan Ohanian, Gerald Bracey, and lots of other Cassandras who tried to warn us about what was happening to public education but few would listen.
We were assured that NCLB would be the greatest thing since sliced bread, that poor children and children of color would finally get whatever they needed to succeed, that schools would be held accountable but they would receive extra money and help to do the job, etc. etc.
The passage of IDEA wasn’t much different. I complained about the lack of funding in the bill and I warned, along with those I respect, that Congress would never fully fund IDEA if they didn’t from the start. And they haven’t.
Look where we are now. Forgive me if I am cynical. It is born from long experience being told one thing and seeing something else transpire.
LikeLike
“In state run districts, superintendents do as they please. In Newark, consultants are tripping over each other.”
They didn’t need an ESEA re-write to loot the system. Didn’t a lot of that consultant money come from Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million?
LikeLike
Yes, as far as I can tell, a good portion (most? all?) of the $100 million from Mark Zuckerberg went to “consultants”. (They weren’t “financial consultants”, they were from the pro-privatization think tanks, by the way). But at least Newark’s “educorporate” politicians and their appointees couldn’t spend its’ Title I money on consultants. Now it can. I’m sure many people are celebrating, and few of them care one bit about poor students except to see how much of their education funding can find its way to their pockets.
LikeLike
Yes, schools should just use education as a front to capture 500 billion in public funds, slush it into a real estate and investing business, and see how it comes out the other side. Why didn’t I think of that?
LikeLike
“I am shocked..shocked to discover giveaways to special interests going on in Congress”
LikeLike
It has the magical fairy dust of “bipartisan” on it, and everyone knows that means it’s good and smart and not at all corrupt.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m not at all shocked by this, it’s what we have come to expect from a gov’t that’s of, by, and for the corporations and big business. The loophole that advantages schools here is that any contract is decided on by the district, even though “Unlike other sections of federal education law, which have detailed mandates for the types of data that schools must collect about their students and teachers, there is no mandate for any financial reporting by — or performance evaluation of — the private firms that will ultimately get the money.” That doesn’t mean that districts can’t demand this be a part of the contract, although watered down versions are sure to be passed off as the genuine article by the usual cronies involved. So, add in the lobbyists for the financial industry and I guess the idea of any real district control is all but dead in the water.
An interesting thing of tangential interest:
“Among the chief proponents of the congressional bill was the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington, D.C., think tank that is closely associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Bank of America, which made fees off of school district swap deals made in Chicago and Denver, has donated at least $50,000 to the Center for American Progress. Other major donors to the Center for American Progress include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has given at least $500,000, and the Walton Family Foundation (of the Walmart fortune), which has also given at least $500,000 to the think tank. Both the Walton and Gates foundations have partnered with the Boston Consulting Group.”
LikeLike
Fordham Institute’s 2013 tax filing (posted at their site) shows $45,000 to the Center for American Progress.
Fordham, funded by the Waltons, proclaimed in the media that the lack of charter school accountability, in Ohio, should be corrected. Apparently, their advocacy success does not correlate with good governance. Ohio waited 10 years for redress and once again, legislation failed this June.
LikeLike
“Outside consultants rarely have their clients’ best interests at heart,” said Jeannie Kaplan, a former school board member in Denver, where outside consultants helped oversee an interest-rate swap deal that ended up costing the school system more than $177 million. “Their usual driving force is the bottom line. Let’s not forget that every dollar going to outside consultants is a dollar out of the classroom.”
Good case in Denver. Others are abundant.
My question is this: Who audits the financial advisors? Why the presumption that low income districts need to have financial advisors?
This money will have the appearance of not costing the state or local community anything because it is federal money. But the money is going from the poor to the wealthy, and these advisors can and will cost big bucks. They can bring in their CPA’s, their appraisers of everything from technology to buildings and land, and so on. They will look at salaries, pensions, services, costs of programs for various subgroups and the cost of the curriculum components.
The incentive is there for “advisors” to get the maximum from any contract, and to by-pass local discussion and decisions about allocating funds. This is nothing more than a transfer of funds from the poor to subsizes and industry that has a seriously damaged reputation for participating in the process that tanked the economy in 2008.
And, you can bet there are outfits like GSV Advisors ready to put forward the idea that the low-income district should be dissolved, the buildings sold, the board of education dismantled, and everything cut to the bare bones and deregulated to install on-line learning.
If you doubt that prospect look at Diane’s post about GSV asset managers and advisors and scan their 301 page report. You can find it at gsvadvisors.com. Title is “How Education Innovation is is Going to Revitalize America and Transform the U.S. Economy,” also called Revolution 2.0.
Do not let this amendment pass.There is no evidence it is necessary or that it will help students.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
The Center for American Progress pushed this amendment:
https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement/2015/07/08/117010/statement-cap-applauds-senate-adoption-of-bipartisan-amendment-to-support-fiscal-assistance-teams-for-school-districts/
I can’t wait to meet the “fiscal assistance teams” the finance and lending industry sends out to public schools, and what we’re going to end up paying consultants.
No consultant left behind.
LikeLike
Chaira,
Thanks for this relevant info. Nothing surprises me anymore. It’s JUST BUSINESS, after all. Wall Street is rubbing lots of palms.
LikeLike
Here are the supporters of the Center for American Progress for 2014:
“Corporate funding comprises less than 3 percent of the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s budget. Corporate donors are not permitted to remain anonymous and corporate donations do not fund specific directed research.
$1,000,000 or more
Center for American Progress
$100,000 to $499,999
Anonymous
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
Service Employees International Union
$50,000 to $99,999
Anonymous
Nick and Leslie Hanauer
Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA
National Public Education Action Fund
$5,000 to $49,999
Anonymous (2)
Wendy and Jim Abrams
AFL-CIO
Ben Barnes
Blue Shield of California
Brotherhood Of Maintenance Of Way Employees
Google
Harold Ickes
Jack Marco
Will Robinson
Some suspects here include Nick and Leslie Hanauer, who are in Seattle and support Bill Gates’ education plans.
The $1M + from themselves sounds misleading and is probably carryover from their 2013 corporate donors, which include Walmart and can be seen at the very bottom of the page at “Click here for a list of our 2013 corporate supporters”
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/about/c4-our-supporters-2013/
LikeLike
I see this bill as follows:
“Here,” say Congress, “Let’s give those teachers a bone so that they quit complaining. Hey! We’ll forbid something that is already expressly forbidden, but that we were doing anyway. Then, we’ll tell them how much better things are! Then, we’ll funnel more money to corporations and our families!”
I fail to see any “good” in this bill.
LikeLike
This bill is not the final bill. The House and Senate must combine the two bills into one final package. An Obama veto looks like a coin flip.
What makes you think a better bill could happen?
No bill leaves in the mess we’re in.
LikeLike
Threatened Out West,
My sentiments exactly!
LikeLike
The fraud of Wall Street’s financial consultants is apparent. The top tier selling point from the capital markets and Silicon Valley was that “reform” would lead to an education that led to future good paying jobs for students. Based on job cuts at Microsoft and based on Wall Street’s record, the skill set stops with labor reduction, both wages and employment.
The major tech companies are facing charges that they colluded to suppress wages.
Snake oil salesmen should be run out of the country and forced to join their tax avoidance schemes, off-shore.
LikeLike
Does anyone know if there is an actual word to describe it when politicians sneak controversial new components into a bill at the last minute, as reportedly done here?
No wonder we have so many shady characters in both parties running our government. Business as usual appears to be just one trick after another orchestrated by shysters.
LikeLike
Not one word but a phrase:
Being duplicitous sneaky s…s!
LikeLike
Self-styled “education reform”—
An enormously profitable jobs program for a few adults at the expense of millions of young people writ large.
Shameless? Do they even know that such a word exists?
😱
LikeLike
So how many Wall Street lobbyists does it take in order to prostitute politicians and screw public school children??
Was excited about the no voucher position, but now I want to throw up. Klein and Bloomberg wasted NYC school dollars just on this alone. Now it’s law???? Just goes to prove that Education is a big money-making industry for everyone else but teachers. And why isn’t this story on the front page of the NYTimes and the lead of every news story in the country?
LikeLike
This is a helpful and needed conversation. Consider the following:
http://drrichswier.com/2015/07/10/about-the-warner-amendment-to-the-senate-esea-bill/
I think we have some knowledgeable people considering this amendment on this site. Therefore, to what degree is Mercedes correct? Again, this is an important discussion. Is the Warner amendment something about which we need to be wary? Personally, I must agree with Chris in Florida particularly regarding his skepticism about NCLB and those Casandras who were ignored. I am even more wary now that corporate ed. DEformers control both parties. Is this amendment something that is nothing more that a mere blip on the education reform radar as the article above indicates?
LikeLike
Any bill on education that is 800 hundred pages long can only benefit the powerful and lawyers.
LikeLike
Actually 601 pages on the pdf that I downloaded.
LikeLike
Duane,
NCLB was 1,000 pages.
LikeLike
From the bill:
“‘‘The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equitable, and significant opportunity to receive a high-quality education that prepares them for post-secondary education or the workforce, without the need for postsecondary remediation, and to close educational achievement gaps.’’
From my meager research into the fundamental purposes of public education as outlined in each state constitution, that certainly doesn’t jibe with those stated purposes. Since when does a federal bill override a state constitutional mandate?
So public education really is supposed to be college prep and/or a “jobs training program”??
The language of the purpose of the bill should be enough to reject it outright.
LikeLike
Not sure why you would object to this language as long as it was not being “measured” using a standardized test scores.
For any parent with a college bound child, this would be an important goal.
For any parent with a non-college child, they should embrace the potential of this wording as it would hopefully lead to a vocational track for students.
For any parent of color, why wouldn’t they want educational achievement gaps closed?
As far as enforcement? As long as the punitive elements of the NCLBW, including AYP, are removed, I don’t see an issue/
Respectfully, what wording would you prefer?
LikeLike
NY Teacher,
I object because it sets up public schools for two functions, both of which are quite esoteric, mundane and fit right into the edudeformers’ and privatizers’ discourse. If we use their discourse/vocabulary we will be trapped into their thinking. Those that control the discourse/vocabulary control not only the debate but actual policies and practices.
I would like to see something along the lines of what it says in the Show Me State Constitution (which as I mentioned is where the legal authorization for public education exists, not in federal law):
“A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.”
The purpose then is so that individuals can gain the “knowledge and intelligence” so as to guarantee that they may enjoy/preserve their “rights and liberties”. Notice it says nothing about the K-12 education purpose being to “prepare individuals for college and/or the workplace”.
There is a huge difference in purposes as stated in the bill and what state constitutions demand as the purpose of public education.
The language of the purpose of the bill is so overarchingly limiting that it boggles the mind that anyone would agree with it considering that the true purpose of public education is what each state’s constitution says it is.
LikeLike
For some reason not explained to me, NY Teacher seems to believe that once ECAA is passed that VAM, AYP, CCSS, school grades, high-stakes testing, and all the other punitive operations of NCLB and RTTT will magically vanish because the law prevents the USDOE from requiring these things.
State legislators and governors, not to mention their hand-picked education commissioners/state superintendents have a huge, ALEC-, Pearson-, Gates-, Broad-, Walton-, et al stake in maintaining all of these ‘reforms’, as do many higher education institutions like Harvard, who have supported and made money from the ‘reform’ movement.
Cuomo will still be governor. The NY State Assembly and Senate have made no indication that they will suddenly repeal Cuomo’s budget and vindictive anti-teacher/anti-public school requirements.
Where comes this, what I would call ‘false’, hope that suddenly things will revert back to pre-reformist times?
I see no reason nor any movement for states to abandon the very lucrative donations they are receiving and little danger in supporting the reformists agenda. They all fall upwards and if they lose the next election they will make exponentially more in the lobbying/think tank/lecturing/corporate board circuit so their fortunes are made.
ECAA is a sop to trick opponents into thinking that something big is changing but it does nothing to influence or change state laws which have been systematically following JEB! Bush’s blueprint for public school destruction like dominoes falling down, even in the vaunted
union-strong Northeastern states.
ECAA may prevent the next Arne Duncan from creating another federal program like RTTT that strong arms states into adopting reforms for big money but that won’t stop Gates, Broad, the Waltons, etc. They have more money than Fort Knox and millions a day is little more than pocket change to them. They own the state governments now.
LikeLike
Chris, one step at a time. It is progress to bar Arne Duncan from telling states what to do. It is already in the law, but this time the prohibition screams and shouts, “hands off.” If any of the Republican candidates are elected, you will be glad that his Secretary of Education can’t impose his will. Sure, we are left with governors like Scott Walker (unless, heaven forbid, he is elected), Rick Scott, Andrew Cuomo, Dan Malloy, and others who want to destroy public education. We have to fight them state-by-state. No federal law, no reauthorization, will give you what you want. Congress sat by idly while Arne was doing his damage. He got away with it because he is a Democrat, in name at least. The Republicans cheered him on as he pushed privatization on behalf of “civil rights.”
LikeLike
Diane, I appreciate your explanation. As I have said before, we had all the nasty components already in place here in FL before Arne Duncan ever entered his new office at the USDOE.
ECAA won’t change much here or in the vast majority of states that are under republican and/or ALEC controlled governors and legislatures.
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Ohio, Utah, Michigan, Indiana, Kansas, Tenessee, Illinois, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and more will still have high-stakes testing, VAM, school grades, low teacher pay, constricted collective bargaining, etc.etc.
Maybe the northeastern states will benefit but I don’t see Malloy, Christie, Cuomo, etc. abandoning the reformist wagon anytime soon.
And I put no faith in ECAA preventing a president Bush, Walker, Trump, Or any other from doing whatever they want, especially if we keep a republican congress.
Sory to be so pessimistic.
LikeLike
Chris in Florida,
This is a battle that we have to win. It won’t happen soon or fast, but it will happen because all their policies hurt children and ruin education. We have to take one election at a time, one seat at a time, one district at a time. All the money in the world can’t prop up their attack on public education and democracy.
LikeLike
And the amendment????? Wasn’t this strand about the Sirota/Cunningham article? So the amendment is no big deal? I guess those two were overreacting.
LikeLike
School districts have been wasting money on all sorts of snake oil salesmen (consultants) for way too long. No federal law was needed.
Allowing Title 1 money for FCs? Meh. Just not a game changer.
Still waiting for anyone to suggest a bill they would be in favor of that could not only get through Congress but that would also get signed by Obama.
And let’s not forget that this amendment still has to make it into the final bill.
LikeLike
The amendment permits states to use up to 5% of their ESEA funding on financial consultants. That’s millions for every state.
LikeLike
I do appreciate your insights. Based on this information, I think this is why the article by Sirota and Cunningham is so important. I think these two men, who I believe always provide important insights to consider, are doing a fine job in pointing out the past abuses and lack positive results when consultants are used in school districts. It seems that now there will be many more millions for these type folks! Personally, I agree with Sirota and Cunningham who see this as an amendment that can take money away from poor children and place this cash into hands of “high-priced consultants and Wall Street firms for financial and management advice.”
LikeLike
Regarding the Warner amendment:
1) It does not specifically name financial consultants, though it would allow them. In other words, the state could pay a nonprofit or even their own people employed in a different capacity as consultants;
2) the consultants themselves could already be hired and be paid using the state funding that must accompany ESEA dollars (that is, an ESEA amendment was not required to open the door for consultants to advise away any state or local ed funding, ESEA included– that door was already open), and
3) the ESEA funds that could be used to pay the consultants must come from the approx 1 to 5 percent of federal funds already allotted from each ESEA grant for administrative costs.
i wrote about the details of the Warner amendment here:
LikeLike