Archives for the month of: September, 2018

Unlike most readers, I remember the origins of the charter movement. We were promised that charter schools would cost less, deliver better results, and if they failed, be held accountable.

None of these promises were kept. Charters demand the same amount of funding as public schools. Few, other than those that choose students carefully and exclude low-performing students, get better results than public schools. Many fail, some close because of academic or financial failure.

Some fail yet never close.

That’s the case in Nevada.

Clark County teacher Angie Sullivan writes here about the lack of any accountability for charters:

Choice.

Extreme waste.

Market forces versus Acccountability.

30 years and zero failing charters have been closed.

The Teacher’s Union does support choice. It does NOT support extreme waste.

Teachers union embraces Question 3 to give consumers choices regarding energy providers

NPRI continues to support extreme waste.

The adherence to school choice as a concept when it has primarily produced expensive low-performing alternatives like failing Nevada charters is ridiculous.

NVDOE and the Charter Authority needs to close these extreme failures.

Folks mislead by for-profit ads enter into market created classrooms or on-lines which claim to educate but fail to graduate is an abuse of tax payer funds.

When half Nevada’s charters are floundering is academic disfunction and bankruptcy – it is time to close them down.

NPRI needs to stop being the chief proponent of educational waste, while also publishing the Nevada Charter disfunction on their website. Evidence is collected by NPRI of extreme choice waste. The irony does not escape anyone.

$350 million in waste.

Get a grip on your choice.

No one wants to flush $350 Million down the drain.

Extremists who cling to alt-right rhetoric while ignoring the market fails to correct waste or create viable innovation – are a threat to us all and our pockets.

NPRI unintentionally makes a case for regulation. It publishes criticism of Nevada’s charters on its own website. Who do you think will get that waste under control? Advocating for charter monopoly is not choice.

The teacher’s union supports regulation to prevent waste – for both educational choice and energy.

We do not believe in extreme on-going draining waste.

Close down the 40 Nevada Charter Campuses which are extreme failures and I will believe in NPRI is a conservative group again.

Also, Teachers do not support discrimination on any level. That is a sad Nevada Charter Story for another day. White flight is the main achievement of Nevada Charters.

Get a grip on that too.

The Teacher

Nancy Bailey opened her mail and saw that Angela Duckworth was on the cover of the handout for Costco Connection, touting the virtues of grit and why every child needs it.

I had somehow hoped we had passed through the “grit” phase and moved on to something else. Probably, the fact that it is featured on the cover of the Costco flyer means that it is already passé.

Duckworth has has list:

Her grit goals for children include the following:

I am a hard worker.
Setbacks don’t discourage me.
I finish whatever I begin.
I don’t give up easily.
I am diligent.
I will never give up.
Numbers 3 and 6 might especially give us pause.

Nancy rightly notes that teachers have been instilling “grit” since time immemorial.

For starters, grit is a repackaged idea. If you’ve read “The Little Engine Who Could” by Watty Piper to your child, you’ve taught them to try their best. Many children’s books incorporate the idea of endurance. It’s a timeless virtue.

Teaching character traits like perseverance through children’s literature seems more meaningful, and enjoyable, than browbeating students to carry through on every task to prove their stamina.

Lots of good ideas here. Nancy warns about the “strictness” imposed by KIPP-style no-excuses.

It’s important to remember, that with grit and high-stakes standards, including Common Core, children are not always setting their own goals. They aren’t dreaming of passing tests. They want to do well on them, or they fear them, because it’s what adults tell them to do. They’re being set up to please adults.

That’s a huge problem with grit and what makes it disingenuous.

We all remember the beautiful young woman, Mollie Tibbetts, who was brutally murdered while jogging in her hometown in Iowa. Various politicians seized upon her death at the hands of an immigrant to reinforce their political arguments for a ban on immigration or a wall.

Mollie’s father wrote this article for the Des Moines Register.

He wrote, in part:

Make no mistake, Mollie was my daughter and my best friend. At her eulogy, I said Mollie was nobody’s victim. Nor is she a pawn in others’ debate. She may not be able to speak for herself, but I can and will. Please leave us out of your debate. Allow us to grieve in privacy and with dignity. At long last, show some decency. On behalf of my family and Mollie’s memory, I’m imploring you to stop.

Throughout this ordeal I’ve asked myself, “What would Mollie do?” As I write this, I am watching Sen. John McCain lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda and know that evil will succeed only if good people do nothing. Both Mollie and Senator McCain were good people. I know that both would stand up now and do something.

The person who is accused of taking Mollie’s life is no more a reflection of the Hispanic community as white supremacists are of all white people. To suggest otherwise is a lie. Justice in my America is blind. This person will receive a fair trial, as it should be. If convicted, he will face the consequences society has set. Beyond that, he deserves no more attention.

To the Hispanic community, my family stands with you and offers its heartfelt apology. That you’ve been beset by the circumstances of Mollie’s death is wrong. We treasure the contribution you bring to the American tapestry in all its color and melody. And yes, we love your food.

My stepdaughter, whom Mollie loved so dearly, is Latina. Her sons — Mollie’s cherished nephews and my grandchildren — are Latino. That means I am Hispanic. I am African. I am Asian. I am European. My blood runs from every corner of the Earth because I am American. As an American, I have one tenet: to respect every citizen of the world and actively engage in the ongoing pursuit to form a more perfect union.

Given that, to knowingly foment discord among races is a disgrace to our flag. It incites fear in innocent communities and lends legitimacy to the darkest, most hate-filled corners of the American soul. It is the opposite of leadership. It is the opposite of humanity. It is heartless. It is despicable. It is shameful.

We have the opportunity now to take heed of the lessons that Mollie, John McCain and Aretha Franklin taught — humanity, fairness and courage. For most of the summer, the search for Mollie brought this nation together like no other pursuit. There was a common national will that did transcend opinion, race, gender and geography. Let’s not lose sight of that miracle. Let’s not lose sight of Mollie.

Instead, let’s turn against racism in all its ugly manifestations both subtle and overt. Let’s turn toward each other with all the compassion we gave Mollie. Let’s listen, not shout. Let’s build bridges, not walls. Let’s celebrate our diversity rather than argue over our differences. I can tell you, when you’ve lost your best friend, differences are petty and meaningless.

Students protested at Sacramento Charter High School, operated by St. Hope’s Charter chain, led by former mayor Kevin Johnson and his wife Michelle Rhee. They were angry about Teacher firings over the summer and arbitrary rules, like requiring students to wear long pants when the temperature reached 100.

Charter operators can’t push high school students around as easily as little kids.

Here’s some history about Sacramento Charter High School.

“Founded in 1856, Sacramento High School moved several times. In 1922, construction began at its current location on 34th Street. It opened at this location in 1924 and continuously served the growing neighborhoods of Downtown Sacramento, Midtown, East Sacramento, River Park, College Greens, Tahoe Park and Oak Park until 2003.

“The school was closed by the SCUSD School Board in June 2003, over the objections of many students, parents and teachers. The new charter high school, which opened in September 2003, kept the same school colors, purple and white, and the dragon mascot but not the Visual and Performing Arts Center (VAPAC) which had been one of the school’s unique features for many years. Sacramento Charter High School is governed by a private Board of Directors from St. Hope Public Schools.”

The Grand Canyon Institute of Arizona audits the use of tax dollars that are spent for public and private schools. Under Governor Douglas Ducey, the state has been very generous to private, religious, and charter schools, but not with public schools.

Here is its latest report:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dave Wells, Research Director
dwells@azgci.org, (602) 595-1025 Ext. 2
Amy Pedotto, Communications Manager
apedotto@azgci.org, 602-595-1025, Ext. 3

State pays $10,700 subsidy for private school students;
75 percent more than their public school peers

Phoenix — According to a new policy paper, Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs cost the state $10,700* on average per regular education student who would not otherwise have enrolled in private school. This imposes an additional $62 million expense on the state’s General Fund.

Published by the non-partisan think tank the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI), the policy paper $10,700 Per Student: The Estimated Cost of Arizona’s Private School Subsidy Programs looks at how the state’s two private school subsidy programs — private school tuition tax credit scholarships and Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) vouchers — have impacted private school enrollment and then estimated a per student cost to taxpayers. The paper looks at regular education students; it does not include students with disabilities because of the significant cost differences in providing their education.

The study’s findings also include that:

The estimated cost per subsidized private school student has increased $700 in the two years since GCI first analyzed the cost of the subsidy programs in Arizona.

On average, taxpayer-funded private school subsidies cost an additional $4,700 or 75 percent more per student than the $6,000 the state pays to educate a regular education public school student when paid entirely from state funds.

In 2015-16, private school subsidies cost Arizona’s General Fund a total of $141 million, nearly a 50-fold increase from $3 million in 1999-2000.

In 2015-16, GCI estimates that 13,170 students who used the taxpayer-subsidized program would have attended public school if the scholarships and vouchers were not available.

Private school as a percentage of total student enrollment has declined from 5.9 percent to 4 percent since Arizona first introduced a private school subsidy in the late nineties. An increase in the percentage of private school enrollment would have occurred if the programs were more effective.

“GCI’s research of academic studies found that lower income families using similar subsidy programs in other states frequently had negative academic impacts compared to public school peers,” Wells says. “The study raises questions about the efficacy of private school subsidy programs as voters are asked to expand Arizona’s ESA voucher program with Prop. 305 this November.”

George Cunningham, GCI’s board chair and former state legislator, commented, “Arizona can’t afford fiscally irresponsible private school subsidies that siphon money away from its public education system. These subsidy programs are placing an increasing burden on the state’s General Fund meanwhile research shows they provide no academic benefit when comparing demographically similar students attending public and private schools.

“Given these facts, it is appropriate to ask why our state government would continue tuition tax credit scholarships and seek to expand ESA vouchers to the general education population. At a minimum, it is strongly recommended that the total amount in tuition tax credit scholarships a student can receive be limited to the amount paid by the state for regular education public school students similar to ESA vouchers.”

What are Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs?

Tuition tax credit scholarships were introduced two decades ago. They divert individual and corporate taxpayer dollars from the state’s General Fund, providing donors a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes owed while decreasing the state’s revenue. GCI’s research found that in many cases students are receiving more than one tax credit scholarship by applying for funding from multiple School Tuition Organizations (STOs), the private organizations that accept tuition tax credit donations and distribute them to students.

ESA vouchers were introduced in 2011. Distributed by the state’s Department of Education and financed from the General Fund, ESA vouchers allow certain categories of students to attend private schools such as those with disabilities, students from D and F rated public schools, foster children and children of veterans. GCI’s paper did not include vouchers used by students with disabilities in its analysis due to the significant cost differences in meeting their needs. In November 2018, Prop. 305 will give Arizona’s voters the opportunity to decide whether ESA vouchers should be made available to all students, a significant expansion to the program.

Click here to read the full report.

*Methodology:

First, GCI’s analysis estimated that 13,710 out of 46,252 regular education students attending private school in Arizona did so because of the state’s private school subsidies. The ratio of Arizona to US private school enrollment as a portion of all students (0.45) was the dependent variable used in the regression analysis to control for any factors outside of Arizona that impacts private school enrollment such as recessions or economic growth. All of these factors impact private schools generally and would not have a separate impact on Arizona’s private schools. The analysis’ independent variables were the state’s enrollment growth of charter schools and private school subsidies because in both cases Arizona far exceeds the national average.

Next, GCI determined the cost of private school subsidies to the state, for those regular education students that chose private school because of the subsidy programs. This amount was calculated based on the total value of subsidies allocated for regular education students ($140,874,776) divided by the number of students that opted for private school due to the subsidies (13,710). GCI determined that subsidies cost the state an average of $10,700 per regular education private school student for those that would have attended public school if the private school subsidy programs weren’t available.

Finally, Arizona’s private school subsidies cost $140,874,776 for regular education students who would not have otherwise attended a private school. For this analysis, GCI uses the cost of educating a charter school student ($6,000) for comparison because the state government uses this amount to determine the value of ESA vouchers for a regular education student. The cost of educating a charter school student is used in GCI’s analysis because they are completely state funded, whereas the cost of educating a public district school student varies per district based on a state and local funding. (This provides a more conservative comparison because the average cost of educating a regular education student in a district school is less than a charter school.) Arizona would have spent $82,260,000 to educate taxpayer-subsidized private school students if they had attended a charter school instead. Therefore, Arizona’s private school subsidies increased the cost of educating these regular education students by $4,700 each or $62 million in total.

If information like this matters to you, please consider a tax deductible donation to the Grand Canyon Institute to support our continuing work.

Tom Ultican, a retired teacher of physics and advanced mathematics in California, has been piecing together the story of the Destroy Public Education Movement. This is his most comprehensive overview yet. It names the leaders of the movement and describes their methods, with the goal of undercutting democracy and privatizing public schools.

He creates a typology of the motives behind the movement.

He describes their game plan, which varies from district to district yet aims for the same result: The dismantling of democratic control of public schools.

He concludes:

“The DPE Movement is Real, Well Financed and Determined

“While growing up in America, I had a great belief in democracy instilled in me. Almost all of the education reform initiatives coming from the DPE forces are bunkum, but their hostility to democracy convinces me they prefer a plutocracy or even an oligarchy to democracy. The idea that America’s education system was ever a failure is and always has been an illusion. It is by far the best education system in the world plus it is the foundation of American democracy. If you believe in American ideals, protect our public schools.”

Pete Tucker, a freelance journalist in D.C., is puzzled by the Washington Post’s spin on the Maryland Governor’s Race.

He amply documents the Post’s friendly coverage of Republican Governor Larry Hogan, and its consistently unfriendly treatment of his Democratic opponent, Ben Jealous.

Hogan supports school choice. Hogan appointed Checker Finn and Andy Smarick, two hard-line advocates of school choice, to the State Board of Education. Ben Jealous supports public schools and was endorsed by the Network for Public Education Action Fund.

Tucker writes:

“In 1966 Ann Todd and Fred Jealous couldn’t get married in their home state of Maryland because they were an interracial couple. Five decades later their son Ben Jealous is the Democratic nominee for Maryland governor.

“If Jealous wins in November he will become Maryland’s first African-American governor, and the nation’s third-ever elected black governor. (Jealous hopes to share this latter distinction with two fellow Democrats also endorsed by Bernie Sanders: Andrew Gillum of Florida and Stacey Abrams of Georgia, who would also be the first-ever black woman governor.) There are presently no black governors in office.

“Jealous, the former and youngest-ever head of the NAACP, faces stiff competition, and not just from incumbent Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. The Washington Post – which dominates D.C.’s media landscape, including vote-rich Maryland suburbs in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties – has set its sights on defeating Jealous.

“This may seem bizarre. Why would the Post throw its weight behind a Republican instead of an historic candidate like Jealous? Especially when the Post’s aggressive reporting on President Trump has led to record-breaking readership and heaps of praise from Democrats.

“But the Post’s resistance to Trump is a mirage, and the paper’s politics remain far from progressive.

“Once Trump isn’t around, what will be left for the Post to resist? Surely not war, the Post supports all of them. Not climate change, where the paper’s record is mixed at best and includes support for both fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline. And not inequality, as the Post is owned by the richest man alive, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Like Amazon, the Post is anti-union – that is, against workers collectively organizing to improve their lot, an essential tool in addressing inequality.

“It’s these stances – along with the Post’s record of targeting candidates with strong African-American and progressive support – that help explain the paper’s backing of Hogan and over-the-top opposition to Jealous (who I am supporting). Still, the extent to which the Post is willing to go to sway the election is surprising.”

The Post coverage emphasizes how “popular” Hogan is.

Tucker says,

“Maryland has twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, so Hogan needs strong Democratic support to win reelection; and the Post is determined to see that he gets it.

“Hogan, the Post explains, is widely admired for his “winning personality” and “personal appeal.” He’s just a regular guy who is “real down-to-earth,” “follows his gut” and “knows his way around a barroom.”

LWith fawning coverage like this it’s unsurprising that Hogan is “astonishingly,” “stunningly” and “hugely” popular, as the Post tells it. (The word “popular” is used so much one reader asked if the Post had exchanged it for Hogan’s first name.)”

But when the Post covers Jealous, it paints him as a leftist who wants to “soak the rich” to pay for his expensive ideas.

Tucker writes:

“Ben Jealous’s platform – which includes a $15 an hour minimum wage, single-payer health care and free state college tuition – is liked by Marylanders. So the Post downplays these policies (which it opposes), and paints Jealous as a “coup leader” who is too radical to vote for.

“Jealous’s “left-wing advance” is “irresponsible” and “anything but… centrist,” the Post tells readers. His “craven,” “reckless” “left-wing platform” will “blow a Chesapeake Bay-sized hole in the state budget.””

All the more reason for the voters of Maryland to ignore the Post and vote for Ben Jealous and begin to repair the state.

John Thompson, retire teacher and historian in Oklahoma, cites the testimony of his fellow Oklahoman before the Senate Judiciary Committee:


To grasp the threat that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh represents to our constitutional democracy, read Emily Bazelon’s “Red Dawn” in the New York Times Magazine. To understand Kavanaugh’s threat to public education and our kids, check out the testimony of Oklahoma City’s high school teacher Melissa Smith to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Click to access Smith%20Testimony.pdf

Bazelon explains how Kavanaugh was “preapproved by the Federalist Society,” and “groomed” as an advocate for the rightwing’s social and economic policies. She explains how Federalist ideologues, who were dismayed that Chief Justice John Roberts hasn’t been conservative enough, have pushed for jurists like Kavanaugh, who could make it “increasingly difficult to believe the court is doing law, not politics.” The possible result is a court that is out of step with the public to the point where it could “strain the constitutional order – and the country – to the breaking point.”

In short, the Federalist Society would like to do to the United States of America what they and their allies, the Koch brothers, ALEC, and other corporate funders, have done to Oklahoma. That makes the testimony of Ms. Smith even more pertinent.

Smith teaches at Grant High School, where “almost 90 percent of our families are considered to be economically disadvantaged, 35 percent are English language learners, and 15 percent are disabled or have special needs.” Since senators can’t be in our schools every day, she shared some of our students’ experiences which they should consider before confirming a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Due to corporate-funded lobbying (further weaponized by Citizens United) and extreme political gerrymandering (defended by the Federalists), budget cuts have resulted in cuts of 50 percent in Grant’s fine arts program and the elimination of the library media budget. Grant serves 2/3rds more students than what it was designed for, and it has classes of 40 students or more; last week, students were still sweltering in 90 degree heat in Ms. Smith’s room.

Kavanaugh’s support for private school voucher programs, with little oversight and accountability, would siphon even more funding away from public education. Moreover, his support for anti-union rulings like Janus v. AFSCME could do to the rest of the nation what Right to Work has done to Oklahoma in the last 20 years.

Ms. Smith explained:

Judge Kavanaugh has a strong history of siding with big business over the needs, rights and safety of individual employees. His record shows that he sides with employers who do not adhere to their collective bargaining agreement, does not believe in union representation in employee meetings, and in one decision, would allow the employer to “abolish collective bargaining all together.”

Kavanaugh’s sponsors presented him as a caring father and coach, but what experience does he have caring for poor students? The suffering of Grant kids is ameliorated somewhat by dental vans in the school’s parking lot offering free services. But does he understand the reasons why Ms. Smith paid the senior dues of a student so that the kid’s family could pay their rent?

Ms. Smith has personally experienced some of the ways that Kavanaugh’s agenda has damaged children. She has had to respond to a Saturday night call to intervene with a suicidal student, and also carry another sobbing, suicidal student in the hallway to a counselor who, fortunately, was in the building that day, not traveling to other overextended schools.

Similarly, Kavanaugh might be more open to considering the welfare of kids beyond his experience if he understood what it was like for Ms. Smith to comfort a transgender student. The nominee might question the National Rifle Association’s agenda had he sat in her classroom on lockdown after a student brought a loaded .380 gun to school. Above all, Kavanaugh might reach different legal judgments if he could empathize with Grant’s Hispanic majority, including undocumented kids who must worry about ICE agents empowered by Trumpism.

Ms. Smith explained:

Just last week, the teacher in the classroom next to mine wrote a reference letter for a student and his family to take with them to their hearing to determine whether they could remain in this country. She stressed about it for days because she needed it to be perfect. Her student has never known anything but his life in Oklahoma, and he is terrified of being sent to a place that is not home, regardless of what anyone tells him.

Of course, the Federalist Society and corporate interests have had the right over the last few decades to secretly plan and implement their collective plan. But who would have believed they would have become so successful in undermining collective action by the rest of us?

And that is why we face the prospect of a Justice Kavanaugh, who “has sided with the powerful and their institutions, rather than with the voiceless and the vulnerable—be they immigrants, individuals with disabilities, or workers—who need protections from the courts.”

Kavanaugh has the right to remain oblivious to the realities that teachers and students face. But maybe at least two Republican senators will listen to Ms. Smith. As she says, “I teach my students about justice and equality, but I worry that we live in a country where these rules no longer apply.” Maybe they will listen to a teacher who concluded her testimony the same way she ends every Friday at school with her students: “Be the example, have a good weekend and make good choices.”

Gary Stern of the Lohud newspaper in the Lower Hudson Valley, a region where parents are passionate about their public schools, describes New York’s intention to punish students and schools if the opt rate is high.

The state insists that every child take the tests, no matter how invalid and unreliable they are. The children must be measured and labeled!

Stern writes:

“The school year just opened, so the annual state tests in math and ELA seem like a long way off. Testing for grades 3-8 begins in early April, when the Yanks and Mets will be starting next season.

“And yet, the state Board of Regents may soon pass new rules for holding school districts and individual schools accountable if too many families “opt out” of tests. One such rule would allow the state education commissioner to direct a district to spend a portion of its federal Title I funds on “activities” to increase student participation on state tests.

“This is a terrible idea. The Regents should balk.

“Schools use Title I funds on staff and programs to help disadvantaged students — targeting everything from math and reading intervention to supports for homeless children. Taking money away from such efforts for a parent-targeted p.r. campaign? Hardly smart education funding.”

This is a very mean-spirited, stupid idea. Why would the state take money away from the neediest kids to re-educate parents?

Note to the Regents and Commissioner Elia: The children belong to their parents, not to you. Read the Pierce decision (1925).

I listened to former President Barack Obama as he spoke at the University of Illinois yesterday. He was wonderful.

If you didn’t hear it or watch it, here it is.