Moody’s Investors Service released a warning earlier this week warning that if Massachusetts voters pass Question 2 to expand the number of charter schools in the state, it may have a negative impact on the credit ratings of Boston and three other cities in the state.
The story appeared in the Boston Globe, which earlier urged voters to pass the controversial referendum, even though it will drain millions of dollars from the state’s public schools and likely harm the nation’s most successful state system of public schools.
The credit-rating agency Moody’s Investors Service is warning Boston and three other Massachusetts cities that passage of a ballot measure to expand charter schools could weaken the municipalities’ financial standing and ultimately threaten their bond ratings.
In e-mails sent Monday, Nicholas Lehman, an assistant vice president at Moody’s, warned that passage of the referendum would be “credit negative” for the cities.
“Depending on the Nov. 8 vote, the general credit view is the following: A vote of ‘No’ is credit positive for urban cities. A vote of ‘Yes’ is credit negative for urban cities,” Lehman wrote.
Lehman told the cities he would provide a draft analysis of the referendum’s impact on Wednesday and solicit their comment, publishing a full report after the election.
The other three cities in Massachusetts are Lawrence, Fall River, and Springfield. A spokesman for the Boston Municipal Research Bureau said a “yes” vote might cause fiscal hardship, but would likely be offset by closing public schools with empty seats (as new charters open) and concessions from teachers.
So a “yes” vote would mean closing more public schools and reducing salaries or pensions or other benefits from teachers. Why does the corporate reform industry want to destabilize the most successful state school system in the nation?
Why are so many in the financial industry pouring millions into a campaign that will obviously undermine the fiscal stability of urban districts in the state? If Moody’s understands it, why don’t the equity investors and hedge fund managers? Maybe it is because so few of the donors to Question 2 live in Massachusetts or have ever set foot in a public school. They have no skin in the game. For them, it is a hobby, not a financial decision.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Seems not to have been mentioned here, but there’s also a bill in Nevada that deserves some attention–I believe it’s WC1, pro- public schools &, from what I’ve read in the Nevada papers, deserves a YES vote. If it doesn’t pass, more trouble for public schools.
Could a Nevada reader elaborate on this?
Also, I read that NV state politicians voted to use public funds (w/o consulting the public, of course) to build a stadium in Las Vegas in order to move the Oakland Raiders there. Sheldon Adelson & others are footing part of the bill (I believe Adelson’s share is $750 million), but an uber amount of taxpayer dollars will, indeed, be spent. Again, Nevada readers, please comment. From what I read in the papers (&, no, not the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review), people are pretty angry/making comments about crumbling, under-funded schools, & yet their money (w/o benefit of their voices) will be going towards this project (because, of course, the reason is “jobs creation & revenue”).
Again, would readers from Nevada please weigh in here? Thanks.
LikeLike
Putting jocks before Spocks . . . How sad.
LikeLike
American taxpayers can no longer afford to carry the cost of privatized schools that are privately owned while they destabilize the public schools most students attend. Charters are a form of corporate welfare that send local tax dollars out of the local community. Other cities’ Moody rates have declined due to reckless charter spending. Both Philadelphia and Los Angeles have seen a decline in the rating of their fiscal health due to charter expansion. Most charters have failed to deliver on promised academic achievement. They are inefficient and costly to operate while they drain funds from local schools.
LikeLike
The Big Short repeats with charter schools what happened with housing. No regulation and a house of cards built on financial lies will not end well.
LikeLike
YEP!
LikeLike
THIS IS A FREAK’IN BIG DEAL – HOLY COW! (isn’t it?)
originally from Boston Globe; see Diane Ravitch’s blog here below.
TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH (a synopsis):
and this is INCREDIBLE because this is the CLINCHER for ANY MUNICIPALITY or SCHOOL BOARD to JUSTIFY ON ITS OWN HALTING NEW Charter School Construction which means it should be SUPER-EASY to agree to the NAACP Charter Request to Do Just That But Using the Justification of Segregation and not Profit and Economic Growth Optimization as indicated by a Negative Credit Impact – now there are TWO reasons to make it so – Social and Economic BOTH, OKAY? Let’s make-it-so and go along with the NAACP at the very next Board and Council Committee Meeting, okay?
ADDITIONALLY…
A Negative Impact on the Credit Rating of all of the City’s in a County also has a Negative Impact on the BOND RATING – ISSUING BONDS for Charter Schools means that one is ISSUING BONDS THAT DEVALUE THEMSELVES, yes?
TWO REASONS TO STOP NEW CHARTER CONTRACTS – plus;
TWO REASONS TO OFFICIALLY NOTIFY ALL COUNTY SCHOOL BONDHOLDERS THAT CHARTER SCHOOLS in a community ironically DEVALUE THEIR BONDS and that THE NAACP HAS CALLED FOR A HALT ON NEW CHARTER SCHOOL CONTRACTS
Under the terms of the Bond Contract, the District Advisory Council, DAC, (I think it was them anyway) is to notify all Bondholders of any Significant Negative Impact on the Bonds Viability which means all school Bondholders anywhere should have received or soon be receiving OFFICIAL notice (even if they already know or knew, that isn’t the point) that a Judge in Washington State said that Charters aren’t Public schools making Bond issuances invalid. I don’t believe this was done and it already should have been.
Now here is a second instance – all Broward County Florida Bondholders, and including bondholders in Palm Beach and Miami/Dade that probably use the same boilerplate verbiage should be notified of the negative impact the schools the Bonds are constructing and supporting if ANY of the money goes to Charters may themselves be decreasing the economic viability of the bonds partially or even indirectly financing them. The Broward Bond agreement calls for any Negative Impact on the Ability of a Bond to be repaid to be made knowledgeable to the bondholders.
All Bondholders must OFFICIALLY be notified under the terms of their Bond Agreements that CHARTER Schools Negatively Impact their Bond Ratings and Credit Ratings (I think, yes?)
CHARTERS MAY HURT CREDIT RATINGS OF .AND OTHER MASSACHUSETTS CITIES – WOW!
AWESOME work from Diane Ravitch to find the GOLD in those far-off hills and mountains of newspaper articles and blogs and then craft it into something useful and beautiful like a jeweler – go find good prospecting in her blog where she concentrates her findings for us all to pan & sift-through and find for ourselves – thank you Diane for blogging this.
LikeLike
THIS IS A FREAK’IN BIG DEAL – HOLY COW! (isn’t it?)
originally from Boston Globe; see Diane Ravitch’s blog here below.
TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH (a synopsis):
There are now two reasons – SOCIAL and ECONOMIC for State and local school boards and county and city municipalities to agree to the NAACP’s request for a moratorium on new Charter schools. RIght?
This is INCREDIBLE News because this is the CLINCHER for ANY MUNICIPALITY or SCHOOL BOARD to JUSTIFY ON ITS OWN HALTING NEW Charter School Construction which means it should be SUPER-EASY to agree to the NAACP Charter Request to Do Just That But Using the Justification of Segregation and not Profit and Economic Growth Optimization as indicated by a Negative Credit Impact – now there are TWO reasons to make it so – Social and Economic BOTH, OKAY? Let’s make-it-so and go along with the NAACP at the very next Board and Council Committee Meeting, okay?
ADDITIONALLY…
A Negative Impact on the Credit Rating of all of the City’s in a County also has a Negative Impact on the BOND RATING – ISSUING BONDS for Charter Schools means that one is ISSUING BONDS THAT DEVALUE THEMSELVES, yes?
TWO REASONS TO STOP NEW CHARTER CONTRACTS – plus;
TWO REASONS TO OFFICIALLY NOTIFY ALL COUNTY SCHOOL BONDHOLDERS THAT CHARTER SCHOOLS in a community ironically DEVALUE THEIR BONDS and that THE NAACP HAS CALLED FOR A HALT ON NEW CHARTER SCHOOL CONTRACTS
Under the terms of the Bond Contract, the District Advisory Council, DAC, (I think it was them anyway) is to notify all Bondholders of any Significant Negative Impact on the Bonds Viability which means all school Bondholders anywhere should have received or soon be receiving OFFICIAL notice (even if they already know or knew, that isn’t the point) that a Judge in Washington State said that Charters aren’t Public schools making Bond issuances invalid. I don’t believe this was done and it already should have been.
Now here is a second instance – all Broward County Florida Bondholders, and including bondholders in Palm Beach and Miami/Dade that probably use the same boilerplate verbiage should be notified of the negative impact the schools the Bonds are constructing and supporting if ANY of the money goes to Charters may themselves be decreasing the economic viability of the bonds partially or even indirectly financing them. The Broward Bond agreement calls for any Negative Impact on the Ability of a Bond to be repaid to be made knowledgeable to the bondholders.
All Bondholders must OFFICIALLY be notified under the terms of their Bond Agreements that CHARTER Schools Negatively Impact their Bond Ratings and Credit Ratings (I think, yes?)
CHARTERS MAY HURT CREDIT RATINGS OF BOSTON AND OTHER MASSACHUSETTS CITIES – WOW!
AWESOME work from Diane Ravitch to find the GOLD in those far-off hills and mountains of newspaper articles and blogs and then craft it into something useful and beautiful like a jeweler – go find good prospecting in her blog where she concentrates her findings for us all to pan & sift-through and find for ourselves – thank you Diane for blogging this.
SEAD; SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVOCACY & DEVELOPMENT
We must replace Zero Tolerance with Zero Punishment.
If one can teach a Golden Retriever without corporal punishment or harsh words, then children can be taught HUMANELY too, yes?
Error must be seen as OPPORTUNITY to LEARN and to TEACH and not as an Opportunity to Punish or be Punished.
Think that teachers are professionals and should be treated that way more than they are? Me too. Here is one thing that professionals do and teachers don’t but very much should! Teachers should have a TEACHERS OATH similar to that of the Doctor’s oath and no court of law will look harshly upon anyone refusing to take and action or taking an action with or without approval if it breaks a teacher’s solemn oath.
Schools must be more Museum-like and less Prison-like and students more Curators than Prisoners.
Kids can be the Caretakers of public lands and help their cities by adding their own yards and lawns and living spaces to that overseen by an army of children out to protect the environment as their cradle and home.
Children must have not less, but MORE protections than adults.
To incarcerate a child is immoral, period.
To train the dog, horse, or child to war is immoral, period.
When these few simple things are all done then schools will be safe in a deep and fundamental way because they will culturally have become the last place anyone thinks of to go to do harm anyone. Yup!
LikeLike
This is potentially a very significant marker in the fight against charters and privatization.
The economics of charter schools have always been fundamentally unviable – just think of all that duplicated administration, at a minimum – requiring huge public and private subsidies. If the reality of that becomes part of the budgetary narrative, it’s a stronger headwind against privatization.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on horseofmanycolors and commented:
Wow!
LikeLike