Archives for the month of: April, 2017

In response to the report from “In the Public Interest” about waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars in California facilities funding, Laura Chapman responded that the state doesn’t care if it wastes money:

This shows why the state will do nothing about fraud, waste, abuse. This is current information about charter school financing in California.

Begin Quote:
Through the passage of Propositions 47, 55, and 1D, and most recently, Proposition 51, $1.4 billion has been made available to charter schools for construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities.

The state-funded Charter School Facilities Program (CSFP) is jointly administered by the California School Finance Authority (CSFA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). CSFA directs the financial soundness review process for the CSFP and provides certification of financial soundness for purposes of Preliminary, Advance, and Final Apportionments.

The Charter School Facilities Program (CSFP) provides fixed rate, long-term debt to schools at underwriting terms that are set by the state – not the capital markets.

A $1.4 billion program, CSFP provides low-cost financing for charter school facilities; 50% grant, 50% loan. This money is used to finance the construction of new, permanent school facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities for charter schools throughout the state.
End Quote.

Nobody cares about fraud waste and abuse.

A quick check at the Gates Foundation website shows $31 million invested in amping up charter school facilities in Los Angeles, 24 million in the state of Washington, and some recent funding to promote facilities financing in Boston–not much about $20,000–sent to Bellwether Education Partners , the go-to consultancy for all things for all charter schools.

From http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/charter.asp

What we have learned about Betsy DeVos is this.

She doesn’t like public schools, unless they are “great schools,” which they seldom are, because they are government schools, dead ends, and godless.

In this article, Emma Brown of the Washington Post describes the schools that DeVos loves: they are religious; they are Christian; they don’t have to be accountable to the state; their teachers don’t have to be certified; if they fail, they aren’t closed; if they teach creationism, that’s fine.

Florida has channeled billions of taxpayer dollars into scholarships for poor children to attend private schools over the past 15 years, using tax credits to build a laboratory for school choice that the Trump administration holds up as a model for the nation.


The voucherlike program, the largest of its kind in the country, helps pay tuition for nearly 100,000 students from low-income families.
But there is scant evidence that these students fare better academically than their peers in public schools.

And there is a perennial debate about whether the state should support private schools that are mostly religious, do not require teachers to hold credentials and are not required to meet minimal performance standards. Florida private schools must administer one of several standardized tests to scholarship recipients, but there are no consequences for consistently poor results.


“After the students leave us, the public loses any sense of accountability or scrutiny of the outcomes,” said Alberto Carvalho, the superintendent of Miami-Dade County public schools. He wonders what happens to the 25,000 students from the county who receive the scholarships. “It’s very difficult to gauge whether they’re hitting the mark.”


Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a longtime advocate for school choice, does not seem to be bothered by that complaint.




Students play chess during an enrichment class at Academy Prep, a private middle school in Tampa that includes students from low-income families who receive tax-credit scholarships to attend. Academy Prep students go to school 11 hours per day and nearly 11 months per year. She is driven instead by the faith that children need and deserve alternatives to traditional public schools. At a recent public forum, DeVos said her record in office should be graded on expansion of choice-friendly policies. She did not embrace a suggestion that she be judged on academic outcomes. “I’m not a numbers person,” she said.


In a nutshell, that explains how the Trump administration wants to change the terms of the debate over education policy in the United States.


In the past quarter-century, Republican and Democratic administrations focused on holding schools and educators accountable for student performance.


Now, President Trump and DeVos seem concerned less with measuring whether schools help students learn and more with whether parents have an opportunity to pick a school for their children. They have pledged billions of dollars to that end. And they have visited private schools in Florida to underline their support for funding private-school tuition through tax credits…


On Thursday, DeVos visited another Florida private school to highlight the program. Christian Academy for Reaching Excellence (CARE) Elementary is “an awesome example of the opportunities provided through the Florida tax-credit scholarship,” DeVos told reporters. She said that the administration is working on how to expand choice nationally and that there is a “possibility” its efforts might be patterned on Florida’s tax-credit program, according to Politico.


Florida’s program, created in 2001 with the full-throated support of then-Gov. Jeb Bush (R), was one of the first to harness corporate tax credits to help low-income families pay private school tuition. Sixteen other states have enacted variations on the idea.




In a speech on March 29, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said school choice will expand options for students like ride-sharing apps did for commuters.


Using tax credits to fund the scholarships, instead of direct payments from public treasuries, enabled lawmakers to work around state bans on the use of public funds to support religious institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that tax-credit programs are constitutional.


Taking the idea to the federal level is one of the clearest ways Trump could make good on his promise to supercharge private-school choice across the country. If embedded in a larger tax bill that the GOP-held Congress passes via the budget reconciliation process, it would be protected from a Senate filibuster and therefore would require only 51 votes instead of the 60 usually required to pass legislation.


Vouchers are popular with the Republican majority on Capitol Hill but anathema to most Democrats. The Republican-controlled Congress in 2004 approved a voucher program that provides direct federal funding to help poor children in the District of Columbia attend private schools.



In Florida’s tax-credit program, businesses receive a dollar-for-dollar credit when they donate to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations. A corporation that owes $50,000 in Florida taxes, for example, could donate $50,000 and pay nothing to the state. The nonprofit then dispenses money to students for tuition at participating private schools, although in some cases, the payment from the state does not cover the full cost of a private education.


Private schools do not need to be accredited to participate. They must show only that they’ve been in business for three years; that they comply with anti-discrimination and health and safety laws; and that they employ teachers who have gone through a background check and hold a bachelor’s degree, three years’ experience or “special skills.”


About 82 percent of scholarship recipients attend religious schools, according to state data. Many teach creationism instead of evolution and require students and parents to adhere to certain principles of religious doctrine.


The Family Life Academy in Archer, Fla., requires parents to subscribe to “corporal correction,” according to its handbook, and to sign a form giving the school permission to paddle their children. Colonial Christian School of Homestead, Fla., makes clear in its handbook that students will be expelled if they engage in homosexual conduct.


Critics say the public shouldn’t subsidize religious instruction, even indirectly. Supporters dismiss that argument.
“No one is coerced to go to a faith-based school. It’s a free decision,” said Doug Tuthill of Step Up for Students, which administers most Florida scholarships. “All the program does is provide the resources so they can exercise that freedom.”


The program is projected to receive more than half a billion dollars this year that otherwise would have gone to Florida’s treasury. But a 2010 analysis found it saves Florida money because each scholarship costs less than the state would spend to educate the same child in public school. The scholarship is now worth $5,886 per year.



In contrast, a federal tax credit would not save money for the federal government.


For more than 15 years, Florida has been out front in the movement to hold public schools accountable for academic results. It was one of the first states to use the results of standardized math and reading tests to grade every public school on an A to F scale, with rewards for the best-rated and sanctions for the worst. As in other states, annual report cards laid out how students at each school fared on the tests, with performance broken down by race and socioeconomic status.


But Florida exempts private schools from that accountability regime, even if they participate in the scholarship program.


Schools must give scholarship students standardized tests, but the outcomes are largely irrelevant. No matter how poorly a private school performs, it can continue receiving scholarship dollars.


The state commissions an annual report on the performance of scholarship students as a group, but their performance can’t be compared with that of poor children in public schools, who take a battery of different tests.


And parents seeking test data from a particular private school are likely to find none: Scores are reported separately only for private schools with at least 30 scholarship recipients. In the 2014-15 school year, just 198 of more than 1,600 participating schools met that threshold.


The stakes for parents are high: Although a disproportionate number of the state’s best schools are private, so are a disproportionate share of its worst, according to Northwestern University economist David Figlio, who has studied Florida’s tax-credit scholarships and produced the annual program report for six years.
“ There are some schools that, year in and year out, seemed to be adding considerable value, and other schools year in and year out that seemed to be leaving kids to fall further behind,” Figlio said.


Private-school results are translated into year-to-year changes in “national percentile rank,” a figure that offers insight into how students compare with others in the same grade nationwide. As a group, Florida scholarship students see no change in their percentile rank from one year to the next, which means that they’re learning at about the same pace as students nationwide.



But that average masks an enormous range.


At Lincoln-Marti Community Agency 23, a school of English-language learners in Miami, students on average scored 9 percentile points lower in math in 2015 than they had scored in 2014, and 5 percentile points lower in reading.


The school received $1.4 million from the tax-credit program this year to educate more than 250 students. Demetrio Perez, general counsel for Lincoln-Marti, said the test results offer an incomplete picture of performance. 
“The biggest measure of accountability is that parents have a meaningful choice,” Perez said. “If a parent is not satisfied with the educational program at a school, that parent can take his or her child to another school.”


At Okeechobee Christian Academy in Okeechobee, Fla., scores also show students losing ground. Principal Melissa King said the academy is constantly trying to improve. “Our core belief is to support these parents in raising up the next generation to advance the Kingdom of God,” King said.


Backers say the program forces public schools to improve. Figlio’s research found evidence for that idea: modest test-score increases at public schools facing the most intense competition.


Students who receive scholarships come from families with an average income of $24,000 per year. Many of those parents say the assistance has given their kids a shot at a better life.
“You only have one chance to either do well by your children or to ruin them, and I was trying to give them the best opportunity they could have,” said Linzi Morris, a mother of six scholarship recipients.
 All six have attended Academy Prep Center of Tampa, a middle school that she said provided top-notch academics as well as music, art, monthly weekend field trips, chess and other extracurriculars. Three are now in college, she said, and the other three are headed there.


Academy Prep students go to school 11 hours per day and nearly 11 months per year, far longer than the typical student. To pay for that, the school raises more than $1 million per year in donations to supplement the scholarships. In all, the program costs $17,000 per student.

 The investment appears to pay off: Students at the school learn faster than their peers nationwide, and 98 percent who finish eighth grade go on to graduate from high school, according to school officials. Eighty-four percent enroll in college.


Lincoln Tamayo, the school’s principal, said it doesn’t make sense to allow schools to continue receiving scholarship dollars if they fail to help children.
“Schools of all stripes, whether they be private or public charter or traditional public, are not immune from mediocrity,” he said. “The anvil’s got to drop somewhere.”


From California parent, Joan Davidson, about her visit with teacher Larry Lawrence to the offices of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, which received $180 million in federal funding when Arne Duncan was Secretary of Education, to write tests for the Common Core standards. SBAC was supposed to have 25 states, but it now has only 15. The other consortium is PARCC, which has shrunk from 25 states to only 6 states plus DC

Larry Lawrence and I visited the SBAC office last week before they move which is scheduled to happened by end of June.

It is most concerning. Please read the notes below and attached.

It was concerning that most people are working from remote locations, undisclosed locations, and that a young woman is mostly alone in a 3000 sq. ft. office that is mostly unfurnished and dark.

The SBAC organization is using public funds but refuses to make public their agendas, minutes, meeting locations, budgetary
decisions, etc.

Since the tests are secret as well, someone in one of the 15 states who contract with SBAC needs to explain to the public
how they are using public funds without any public information disclosable to the public.

I have not researched PARCC.

Is PARCC as secretive as SBAC?

Thanks
Joan Davidson

Larry Lawrence and I drove to the UCLA campus today to visit the SBAC office located at the Peter Uberroth building on Le Conte Ave in Westwood.

We were unsure if we would also visit the Graduate Education building office #300 as well known as the GSEIS Building – Graduate School of Education and Information Sciences.

We arrived at approximately 12pm to the building. SBAC office #1400 posted the SBAC name and room #on a paper sign and showed this sign telling visitors to use the door around the corner. The office could not be entered without punching a code.

We went around the corner to that office number that only posted the sign for the CRESST office. #1400 and #1355.

I rang the bell. The code system for entry was also in place.

A woman named Amulet opened the door. I asked if Paisha Allmendinger was in the office. She asked who we were and I said my name is Joan.

Paisha came to the door. It was dark behind Paisha with a very long hallway. She asked what we wanted. I explained that we were educators and we wanted some information regarding SBAC. Asked if she could spare a few minutes.

She invited us into the offices.

I was struck by the vast space approx. 3000 sq. ft. The only occupants that we saw were the woman Amulet and Paisha.

We followed Paisha to her office. She is listed as the director of finances for SBAC. She is approx. 30 years old.

Larry had printed up a SBAC employee list from online and there were 28 people on the list. I asked Paisha were they were. She explained that only 3 people were here in this office while 35 people worked as a virtual office across the Nation.

I said I heard that SBAC was moving. She said yes, there is an RFP currently due on April 6, 2017. This RFP is only open to public agencies that participate in the CA retirement system.

I asked why SBAC was bumped out of UCLA. She said that the contract with the grad school was not renewed.

She said that possibly the RFP would be responded to by Cal State Univ., a UC campus or 1 bidder is a County Office of Education.

The SBAC is concerned about retirement and other employee benefits so they are attempting to remain attached to another public institution associated with the CA benefits program.

I asked what happened to state of Washington as fiscal agent. Paisha said when UCLA signed the MOU with SBAC UCLA became the fiscal agent.

SBAC is aligned to the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Sciences

SBAC employees want to maintain the service credits of employment with a CA public agency.
I asked about Administrators and Paisha said there are 6-10 people acting as Administrators that work at home and come into the office 2 days a week.

She asked what our interest is in this? Larry answered that as a math teacher, he’s interested in the new tests. She pointed out the new test item site online.

The SBAC is matching up questions to the state standards. (CC standards I suppose)
People wanted SBAC to have actual sample questions.

She spoke about accommodations and accessibility and translations for test takers.

I asked if Agendas for meetings were available to public. No.

What about who are the Executive Board of Directors. It’s online according to her.

She stated that the CRESST center is their partner and now is consolidated at the Grad School of Ed offices.

CRESST provides psychometric work to SBAC and validity studies and research.

I asked where this can be found? On CRESST website she said.

We asked who was located across campus in the SBAC office next to CRESST?

No one, it’s just acting like a mailbox for their purposes.

We asked about the status of the SBAC employees who were listed as occupying office space in the GSEIS building across the campus.

Paisha told us that all these 12 people worked at remote locations and none of them were physically located on the UCLA campus. The address listed for them on the SBAC website (GSEIS Building 300) served as a post office box type function. The GSEIS Building is primarily the location of the CRESST staff while the main location of the Graduate School of Education and Information Sciences is Moore Hall, located in the central area of the UCLA campus.

My observations and unanswered questions:

The 3000 sq. ft. + office is empty except for Allmendinger’s office and a few partitioned stations. It was mostly dark and eerie.

Paisha’s office had 3 top to bottom bookshelves–all empty.

The only other person that was visible was Amulet who answered the door.

Paisha is titled the Financial Director that would put in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars. She does not seem qualified with prior experience to oversee this agency.

Who is really directing this center?

Strangers such as Larry and I have most likely never visited the SBAC offices.

It is a bizarre atmosphere and should have been bustling.

Where are all of the other 35 people located and who are they?

What are they paid?

What are there qualifications?

What do they do?

Paisha stated there are 6-10 administrators who work with SBAC and come into the office 2 days a week. It was not clarified whether it is 6, or 10.

Alan Singer writes here about the resistance to the DeVos-Trump miseducation agenda, which has no core idea other than to replace public schools with charters and vouchers.

If you see the photograph that accompanies his article, you will recognize the DeVos smirk. It is the smirk of an entitled billionaire who knows what is best for you and everyone else, and who takes instruction from no one.

The article focuses on the Network for Public Education’s “Toolkit,” an assembly of brief answers to thorny questions like, “Are charter schools truly public schools?”

It also contains an interactive state-by-state map that will be updated to show which states support their public schools and which have succumbed to various privatization schemes.

Here is the answer to the question above:

Are charter schools truly public schools? Charter schools are contractors that receive taxpayer money to operate privately controlled schools that do not have the same rules and responsibilities as public schools. Investigations of charter school operations in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, and elsewhere have found numerous cases where charters used taxpayer money to procure school buildings, supplies, and equipment that they retained ownership of, even if the school closed. In most states, charter schools are exempt from most state and local laws, rules, regulations, and policies governing public and private schools, including those related to personnel and students. Calling charter schools “public schools” because they receive public tax dollars is like calling defense contractors public companies. There are so many substantive differences between charter schools and traditional public schools that charters can’t be defined as public schools. Our communities deserve a school system that is truly public and democratically governed by the community they serve.

The Toolkit has footnotes for each response.

To defend your public schools, you must be informed and active. The Toolkit is a great resource to help you.

The nonpartisan group In the Public Interest has released a major new report on wasteful spending on charter schools in California. It is called Spending Blind: The Failure of Policy Planning in California’s Charter School Facility Funding.

The bottom line is that California spends on charter schools without planning, without supervision, and without accountability. Vast sums of public money have disappeared, as charters close or mismanage funds. Every attempt to impose accountability on the charter industry has been vetoed by Governor Brown. The State Board of Education, which the governor appoints, does not demand accountability. California thinks of itself as a blue state, but when it comes to education funding, it is a Trump/DeVos state.

The key findings:

The report’s key findings include:

Over the past 15 years, California charter schools have received more than $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings.

Nearly 450 charter schools have opened in places that already had enough classroom space for all students—and this overproduction of schools was made possible by generous public support, including $111 million in rent, lease, or mortgage payments picked up by taxpayers, $135 million in general obligation bonds, and $425 million in private investments subsidized with tax credits or tax exemptions.

For three-quarters of California charter schools, the quality of education on offer—based on state and charter industry standards—is worse than that of a nearby traditional public school that serves a demographically similar population. Taxpayers have provided these schools with an estimated three-quarters of a billion dollars in direct funding and an additional $1.1 billion in taxpayer-subsidized financing.

Even by the charter industry’s standards, the worst charter schools receive generous facility funding. The California Charter Schools Association identified 161 charter schools that ranked in the bottom 10% of schools serving comparable populations last year, but even these schools received more than $200 million in tax dollars and tax-subsidized funding.

At least 30% of charter schools were both opened in places that had no need for additional seats and also failed to provide an education superior to that available in nearby public schools. This number is almost certainly underestimated, but even at this rate, Californians provided these schools combined facilities funding of more than $750 million, at a net cost to taxpayers of nearly $400 million.

Public facilities funding has been disproportionately concentrated among the less than one-third of schools that are owned by Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) that operate chains of between three and 30 schools. An even more disproportionate share of funding has been taken by just four large CMO chains—Aspire, KIPP, Alliance, and Animo/Green Dot.

Since 2009, the 253 schools found by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to maintain discriminatory enrollment policies have been awarded a collective $75 million under the SB740 program, $120 million in general obligation bonds, and $150 million in conduit bond financing.

CMOs have used public tax dollars to buy private property. The Alliance College-Ready Public Schools network of charter schools, for instance, has benefited from more than $110 million in federal and state taxpayer support for its facilities, which are not owned by the public, but are part of a growing empire of privately owned Los Angeles-area real estate now worth in excess of $200 million.

This squandering of public funds is outrageous. Will the Legislature and the Governor demand accountability?

Robert Natelson, a retired constitutional law professor who is allied with the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute, writes in this opinion article that the Supreme Court may well strike down the state prohibitions on funding religious schools (known as “baby Blaine Amendments) because of their origins in anti-Catholic bias. If this happened, it would pave the way for government to divert public funding to the vouchers for religious schools that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos advocates for.

The Blaine Amendment was proposed by Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives James G. Blaine in 1875. Blaine was an ambitious politician from Maine who ran for president in 1876, 1880, and 1884. He was interested in a wide range of issues, including trade, monetary policy, and foreign affairs. He is remembered today for the Constitutional amendment he proposed, which passed the House but not the Senate:

“No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”

Although the Blaine Amendment was not adopted as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it was adopted by many states and incorporated into their state constitutions to prohibit spending public money on religious schools.

Natelson is right that the public schools of the nineteenth century were deeply imbued with Protestant teachings and practices. I wrote about the battle between Protestants and Catholics in my history of the New York City public schools (The Great School Wars). The arrival of large numbers of Irish immigrants in the 1840s, mostly Catholic, concurred with the beginnings of public school systems in urban areas.

In New York City, Bishop John Hughes (later Archbishop Hughes) fought the local school authorities over the content of the textbooks, which contained anti-Catholic selections, and the daily Protestant prayers and rituals in the schools. Hughes became politically active and demanded equal funding for Catholic schools, since the public schools–in reality, as he said–were Protestant schools. Even if they cleansed the textbooks of Protestant views of history, he said, the schools would still fail to meet the needs of Catholic children for a Catholic education. He did not want nonsectarian schools; he wanted Catholic schools. He proposed that the state fund both Catholic public schools and Protestant public schools. He ultimately lost the battle, but he determined to build an independent Catholic school system that was privately supported to make sure that Catholic children were not exposed to the Protestant teachings in the public schools. His example eventually persuaded the American Catholic Church to require all parishes to open their own schools, and to expect all Catholic children to attend them.

The Protestants who then ran the “public schools” in New York City tried to placate Bishop Hughes by expurgating textbook content that he found offensive. Their efforts did not satisfy Bishop Hughes because he did not want nonsectarian public schools. He wanted schools that taught the Catholic religion to Catholic children. He established such a system. I personally hope that it thrives, with the support of private dollars, but not with public dollars.

In the 1840s and 1850s, the Know-Nothing Party formed to advocate for white Anglo-Protestant nativism and to harass Catholics and immigrants. The popular press was rife with cartoons ridiculing Catholics and articles warning about the Catholic menace. Prejudice against Catholics and Irish immigrants occasionally turned violent, and churches and convents were burned to the ground.

The Blaine Amendment appealed to anti-Catholic sentiment among the dominant Protestant majority (Blaine’s mother was Irish-Catholic, and as Natelson points out, there is no evidence that he was prejudiced). Blaine was a member of the moderate faction of the Republican party and a strong supporter of black suffrage. (Ironically, Archbishop Hughes of New York was an opponent of abolitionism.)

Natelson maintains that the anti-Catholic origins of the Blaine amendment are reason to overturn them.

But it seems to me even more plausible to argue that the public schools today are not “Protestant schools,” that they are thoroughly nonsectarian in character, and that they fulfill the original promise of the Blaine Amendment, which is to serve all children on equal terms, regardless of their religion.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling Engel v. Vitale in 1962, forbidding state-sponsored prayer in the public schools, the public schools no longer impose any religious prayers or practices, as were common in most public schools well into the twentieth century.

The motives of James G. Blaine or Catherine Beecher Stowe or Horace Mann or Henry Bernard or any of the other nineteenth century founders of public schools are irrelevant today. They matter less than the reality and practices of public schools today that the Blaine Amendments permit and protect.

Because of the states’ Blaine Amendments, public schools across the nation welcome children who are of every religion or no religion, whether Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, atheist, or any other belief.

To rule against the Blaine Amendments would open the door to subsidizing religious schools with public dollars. On many occasions, voucher advocates have asked voters to repeal their state’s Blaine amendment to allow vouchers for religious schools, and in every state, voters said no. Betsy DeVos and her husband sponsored a referendum in Michigan in 2000 to roll back that state’s ban on vouchers, and voters rejected their proposal overwhelmingly. A proposal to permit vouchers was rejected by voters in Utah in 2007. Jeb Bush promoted a referendum to change the state constitution in Florida in 2012 (he called it the “Florida Religious Freedom Amendment”), and despite its deceptive name (who would vote “no” to “religious freedom”?), voters decisively said no.

The voucher programs that now exist were installed by state legislatures circumventing their own state constitution and the will of the voters. The pro-voucher legislators say that the money goes to the family to spend wherever it wants, including religious schools. They go out of their way to try to disguise these voucher programs by calling them something else, like “opportunity scholarships,” “tax credits,” “education savings accounts,” “empowerment savings accounts.”

The legislators know that the public opposes funding vouchers for religious schools. Thus they try to avoid calling them what they are or calling for a public vote. Voters have repeatedly made clear that they do not want to pay their taxes to underwrite religious schools.

The founders were wiser than we are. The First Amendment states clearly that Congress is not allowed to establish any religion. The founders were well aware of the centuries of religious rivalry and factionalism that had brought constant war and bloodshed to Europe, and they did not wish to encourage it in their new nation. The word “education” does not appear in the Constitution. It is a responsibility left to the states. That does not mean that the federal government has no obligation to fund education, in support of the general welfare; it does. That does not mean that the federal government does not have the power to protect the civil rights of students; it does.

If the High Court takes up the state Blaine Amendments, I hope it will recognize that the founders knowingly decided to avoid state entanglement with religious establishments. Let the states decide what belongs in their state constitutions, by popular vote. Our public schools are no longer the Protestant public schools that Bishop Hughes fought against. They are an integral part of our democratic society. They are a public good, like the services of police and firefighters, like public beaches, libraries, and parks. Separation of church and state is a valuable principle that protects the church schools from government intervention and mandates. Religious liberty is best protected by keeping it separate from government dollars and government control.

(This article also appears on the Huffington Post.)

Peter Greene understands that the choice debate gets muddied because there are so many different varieties of advocates for choice, and they don’t all agree.

Reporters ask, what’s behind the demand for school choice? what is the motivation of the billionaires and hedge fund managers? do they really want kids to go to religious schools that teach creationism?

It can indeed by very confusing. I usually say that people have different motivations for wanting to replace community public schools with privately run schools.

Peter has divided up the choice world into several very specific categories. Some overlap. Nonetheless, his guide should help to steer you through these confusing times.

Did he miss anything?

Joseph Batory, a retired superintendent in Pennsylvania, has been speaking out loud and clear about the deliberate defunding of public schools in Pennsylvania and other issues.

In this post, he describes the betrayal of the public schools by the Legislature:


The betrayal of Pennsylvania public schools by the State legislature began in the early 1990’s when Pennsylvania government consciously destroyed its Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education (ESBE) formula. That method of State funding had been successfully used to bridge the wide gaps between poorer and more affluent school districts. The ESBE formula each year had utilized factors of community wealth and pupil population to drive out annual subsidies to school systems that distributed State money equitably based on each school district’s affluence and pupil population. Unfortunately, the growing costs of this ESBE formula to the State budget, despite its positive impacts, caused cowardly politicians fearing necessary tax increases to eliminate the ESBE funding formula. This result has been that over two decades, billions of dollars in State subsidies have been denied to school districts across the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania now has the widest disparities in the nation in spending among its wealthiest and poorest districts with pupils who live in poverty and need the most getting the least, while students in wealthier districts live with all sorts of educational and school enhancements. This legislative incompetence has created a system where the gaps of per-pupil spending among Pennsylvania’s 500 school districts are now enormous, ranging from $9,800 to $28,400.

In September of 2016, attorneys representing seven school districts appeared before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking judicial intervention in education funding in Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court had dismissed this case last year.

The lawsuit contends that the State is not fulfilling its Constitutional duty as specified: “to provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education,” and that the resulting inequalities violate “equal rights protections.”

Pennsylvania courts have previously dismissed challenges to the legislature’s inadequate funding of public education using the argument that legislative matters are beyond review by the courts. However, NB—in 27 other states, the courts have intervened in similar circumstances and forced responsible behavior from state legislatures.

Incredibly, a representative of the Commonwealth made this outrageous argument before the Supreme Court in September: “No individual child has any specific right to an education at all. The Constitution requires the State only to set up a system…” According to this State representative, Pennsylvania has no responsibility to give children an adequate education or a quality education, but just to make sure schools exist.

City Councilperson Helen Gym termed this State position as “a deplorable argument that should shock the sensibilities of every Pennsylvanian. … One, that education is not a right – (It is in fact!) – and, Two, that inequity is not only inevitable, it is unfixable…”

Helen Gym could not be more on point: The Pennsylvania Constitution’s wording clearly stipulates “maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education” as a State responsibility.

Yet children in some Pennsylvania school districts have lavish swimming pools, while others graduate from schools without ever having used a computer or seen a library, attorney Brad Elias, representing several school districts, parents and civil rights groups, told the Supreme Court.

While states on average contribute a 45% share of public education funding, Pennsylvania’s share is at about 36%, ranking the Commonwealth 45th in the USA in terms of State support for education.

The Commonwealth’s political betrayal of its own public schools is a national disgrace. It remains to be seen if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the political will to correct this malfeasance.

Miles Kampf-Lassin writes in The Chicago Reader that Rahm Emanuel’s plan to deny high school diplomas to students who don’t have a definite commitment from a college, the military, or a trade school is a farce.

He writes:

On its face, this may seem like just the kind of bold, innovative, and results-driven solution Emanuel has often said is needed to address the city’s pressing problems. But viewed within the context of a school system struggling to stay afloat, in reality it comes off as more of a Swiftian proposal that threatens the very students it’s aimed at serving.

Emanuel and CPS are calling the proposal “Learn. Plan. Succeed.” They tout it as way to get students to focus on their continued education post-high school. “If you change expectations, it’s not hard for kids to adapt,” the mayor said at a press conference Wednesday morning.

What Emanuel left out was that it’s a bit more difficult to adapt when your school is chronically underfunded and under-resourced, as is the case for the more than half of CPS students who live in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods on the south and west sides. This disparity has helped create a massive, 37-point gap in student achievement between black and white students in the city’s public schools.

Nowhere in the new initiate is there a plan to tackle this disparity, or to increase funding for crumbling schools—many of which are in such decrepit shape that principals complain about rat infestations while teachers are forced to buy basic supplies such as text books, pencils, and toilet paper.

And if their schools being mired in poverty isn’t enough motivation for students, there’s also the fact that CPS is now threatening to cut the school year short by three weeks. This follows a continued increase in furlough days in 2016-2017.

For all of the mayor’s self-praise for extending the amount of time students spend in the classroom, he never followed through on adequately funding the added time, which contributed to the growing budget crisis facing CPS. Now the system could be on the brink of taking a huge step backwards by cutting the school year nearly a month short….

While the mayor claims this will serve as motivation, it could also easily drive up drop-out rates by students who don’t have the support system they require to plan for secondary education while still in high school. CPS already has already seen a rise in layoffs of counselors due to budget cuts. Why stay in school if you might not even get a diploma upon graduating anyway?…

The plan is all but sure to be approved by the mayor’s hand picked board, another reason it’s a good idea to push for an elected school board.

But if the mayor really wants to help students succeed, he’d drop this initiative in favor of one that actually strengthens the city’s public schools. That’s something teachers, parents and students could all get behind.

Fred LeBrun writes a column for the Albany Times-Union on politics. He is one of the most insightful journalists in the nation on the subject of education.

The New York state budget was late this year because of disagreement over a tax break for real estate developers, whether to raise the minimum age for criminal responsibility from 16 to 18, and how much money to throw to charter schools. The State Senate will vote on the budget deal tonight. The Republicans and Governor Cuomo are in love with the charter school lobby, despite the fact that charters in the state capitol of Albany–where the Legislature meets–have been a terrible disappointment. They can see the evidence before their eyes that charters open with grandiose promises and close without a whimper. That doesn’t matter.

LeBrun writes:

In the tentative budget deal announced Friday night, all three made it through. No great surprise there. Charters were enriched by about $50 million, according to the governor. Hardly enough to call it a budget deal breaker, though. Raise the Age will be done in steps, and that’s an excellent outcome. Kudos to the governor. Real estate moguls are smiling.

But what is amusing to consider is that two out of three issues, if you want to call them that, supposedly holding up budget passage have a commonality. Reviving the expired 421-a real estate development tax credit, which admittedly drives growth and affordable housing, is also an unabashed windfall to real estate developers, who themselves are among the most generous political donors to our governor and legislature. The political donors benefit directly from the legislation.

It’s not the charter schools I referenced above that hold the power, and certainly not the 122,000 or so young New Yorkers who attend them, predominantly in New York City. It’s the relative few billionaire hedge fund investors in charters looking for the return on their investment who would have the ability to hold up our budget until they get theirs. Because they in turn have become generous contributors to the governor and the Republican Senate. Again, the political donors benefit directly from the actions the governor and senators take on their behalf.

I can hear the charter crowd screaming that they are also public schools, because it says so in the legislation creating them. That’s a lot of hooey, as Albanians certainly well know. They are private schools masquerading as public schools. And until the day comes, if ever, that you the taxpayer vote on the boards running charters funded in your school district, and yearly vote where every dollar is to be spent, as happens across the state with real public schools, then charters are bogus public schools.

At its peak, Albany taxpayers, without representation on charter school boards or budgets, were shelling out $30 million a year on these bogus public schools. Yet please show me how the charter movement benefited public education in Albany appropriate to the extra money spent.

Charters are under the protection of certain politicians. Why is simple enough, and has not much to do with “ideological” considerations. Just follow the money.

In the last election cycle, according to New York State United Teachers, the state’s powerful teacher’s union, the governor and Senate majority received $4.5 million from the charter school-oriented political action committee, New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany, and more than $11 million since 2014. That’s private dollar contributions to politicians in exchange for directing taxpayer dollars their way.

And as investments go, you can’t beat it. New York taxpayers shell out $2 billion a year to these private charter school investors.

Republican Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan’s one-house revenue bill this year featured a half-billion dollars a year more for charters. Now, granted, there was no real expectation this bill would pass, but it does reveal intentions and a wish list. Flanagan wanted to reward charter contributors. So did the governor, whose “compromise” over charter funding was to throw an additional windfall at charters without lifting a tuition freeze that would lead to an even greater windfall. All of it is money that ought to be going to traditional, chronically underfunded public schools.

Enriching charters schools is not the direction a progressive state like New York should be following, no matter what new pressures in Washington suggest. The developing community school movement, a holistic approach to fighting under performing public schools primarily in impoverished urban districts, is a far more likely candidate. There’s only so much money for public education, and we as a state have to decide where we want to invest. Charters are nothing but an expensive distraction.

The last time state legislators got a pay raise was during Republican Gov. George Pataki’s first term. The raise was in exchange for welcoming charter schools to New York.

That was a black day that has haunted us since. What started as supposedly an “experiment,” that began as an annoyance, has graduated to a genuine irritation. Now charters are unquestionably imbedded across the country in our secondary education system and we have to learn to live with it. Do they have a place? Of course. But let those who want them pay for them, but not with my money.