Interesting new details here about charter schools in Los Angeles. Contrary to the claims of their boosters, the great majority of charters have vacancies (82% do, according to board member Scott Schmerelson) and 8 ofthe 10 worst performing schools in L.A. are charter schools.
AFT President Randi Weingarten on Los Angeles School Board Charter School Moratorium Vote |
|
WASHINGTON—The Los Angeles school board voted 5-1 yesterday to place an eight- to 10-month local moratorium on the opening of new charter schools, which would allow for the completion of a state study on the impact charter schools have on traditional schools. The vote comes after members of the United Teachers Los Angeles settled a contract with the Los Angeles Unified School District last week; one of the major issues in negotiations was how the exponential growth of charter schools has drained resources from the city’s public schools. UTLA is an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers. AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement: “In the wake of tax caps, the lack of appropriate investment has been a challenge for public education in Los Angeles for decades. Add to that the unregulated growth of charter schools that siphoned off more funding, and the result was the scarcity that led to the L.A. teachers’ strike. While charters were sold as a response to the demand for better schools, they too have a mixed record. More than 80 percent of charter schools cannot meet their projected enrollment numbers, and 8 of the 10 worst-performing schools in L.A., including one that has already been closed, are charter schools. So a moratorium is a good idea to bring equity and sustainability back to LAUSD, and with this vote, the school board made good on its promise to help do it. “Now, we work to rebalance the city’s school system so every student has access to a well-funded school with normal class sizes, school nurses and counselors, and the same transparency and accountability measures to make sure kids’ needs are being put before anything else. This resolution allows everyone who cares about education in Los Angeles to take a step back and make sure those needs are being met.” |
Diane Ravitch's blog 
When a parasite resides on a host, rebalancing is not a solution.
YES. And when that parasite has blindly killed off its previously life-giving host, it must seek new ways to nourish itself.
Who exactly are the parasite and host here? Please clarify, if I may ask.
The Va. governor signed a 5% raise for teachers.The Senate has to vote next.
The Black Caucus will be making a decision between Corey Booker and Kamala Harris. Kamala beats Corey in a landslide. Gina Raimondo’s friend, Corey Booker, is a darling of hedge funds and school privatizers just like Gina.
Call the Black Caucus 202-225-7084 and tell them two things (1) No, to Corey Booker
and (2) remove Raimondo as chair of the Democratic Governor’s Association. She’s toxic to all but DINO’s.
Linda,
I agree that Harris is better than Booker. However, why is the ‘Black Caucus’ so set on skin color when it considers endorsement? Why don’t they consider who promotes the best policies for the ‘median’ Black, instead?
The ‘caucus’ supported Clinton, and probably had some effect in the Southern primaries. Clinton was making noises at the time pretending to suddenly ‘see the light’ in her effort to ‘out Bernie’ Bernie.
Then came the strategic pivot to the right after Clinton won(?) the nomination in order to pull in ‘centrist’ voters (are there any left?). In the general election, Black turnout was far lower than expected. It seems that more than a few ‘woke’ to the discovery that they had been played, and were not happy about it.
Harris was a key Clinton advisor. Suddenly, she now sounds like a newborn Democratic Socialist. Hmmmm…..
By ignoring policy the Black caucus is playing into the hands of those who play the race card, like Trump. It may have worked well in the aftermath of the Civil Rights revolt, but not so well today.
Daedalus
I presumed the original decision was limited to Black candidates, which I understand. It’s standard practice to initially support the candidate from our own community or state. At the next step, the field of candidates expands and we winnow down to find the best.
Hillary’s campaign denied Our Revolution’s Nina Turner her speaking time at the convention and gave time to megalomaniac Bloomberg. Hillary deserved to lose based on her campaign but, the country didn’t deserve Trump.
I’m opposed to all centrist Dems. They are judged by their records.
At this point Bernie’s record far surpasses Kamala’s.
Even excluding politics, Harris is far more qualified. Tho Booker has 3 more yrs’ senatorial experience, Harris’ pre-senatorial background is much broader & deeper than Booker’s. His experience is limited to 11 yrs in one major city; her 25 yrs includes major cities, county, and statewide responsibility. Should be a no-brainer.
It’s impossible to tell but here is an indication that the wait list numbers may be inflated by as much as 4X:
“Nearly 30,000 students submitted more than 120,000 applications for Philadelphia charter schools this year through a new website that allowed families to apply to multiple city charter schools at once.
More than half of the applications — 54 percent — came from the Lower and Far Northeast sections of Philadelphia, according to Philadelphia School Partnership, the nonprofit that ran Apply Philly Charter. The application process through the website closed Monday.
Philadelphia School Partnership spokesperson David Saenz said the concentration of applications from the Northeast wasn’t surprising, because more than 35 percent of the city’s school-age children live there and some neighborhood schools are overcrowded. He also said the “biggest and best-known” charters that participated in the new website were in the Northeast — including MaST’s three schools, which got more than 27,000 applications.”
It’s unclear in the article (and apparently no one knows how this is calculated) but the charter promoting org describes the applications themselves as a “wait list”, so if you extrapolate that then a single student applying to a charter means the charter has a “wait list”. “Apply” = “wait list”?
http://www.philly.com/news/philadelphia-charter-school-applications-waitlist-20190129.html?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
Good article on pay in the charter sector:
“Summary statistics aside, the sector is replete with examples of steep salaries and quick raises. Allison Kokkoros, the head of Carlos Rosario International Public Charter School and the highest-paid charter official in D.C., received a 24 percent salary increase between 2015 and 2016, from $248,000 to $307,000. Then, in 2017, she received another 76 percent increase, bumping her compensation to $541,000. Patricia Brantley, head of Friendship Public Charter School, received a 33 percent raise between 2016 and 2017, increasing her pay from $231,000 to $308,000.
Outside of school heads, other high-ranking charter administrators also claimed significant salaries. In 2017, KIPP DC had four administrators making approximately $200,000 annually, and its president earned $257,000. The chair of Friendship, Donald Hense, earned over $355,000 annually between 2015 and 2017, and its CFO earned between $171,000 and $197,000 in each of those years. DC Prep’s Chief Academic Officer earned $203,000 in 2015, and $223,000 one year later. The board chair of AppleTree Early Learning earned over $231,000 annually each year since 2015, reaching $245,000 in 2017. 990 tax forms list another 110 charter administrators earning between $100,000 and $200,000 annually, although this list is likely not comprehensive, as schools are only required to disclose their top five highest-paid employees. 2018 figures are not yet available.
In one remarkable instance, Sonia Gutierrez, the founder and former CEO of Carlos Rosario, who now sits on the school’s board, earned $1,890,000 between 2015 and 2017. Board chair Patricia Sosa, when contacted about this large sum, says much of that had been awarded as deferred compensation from Gutierrez’s time working between July 2010 and December 2015. However, according to tax records, she was also paid an average of $326,000 annually during that period.”
The TEACHERS, however, are paid about 15% less than teachers in public schools.
Very “empowering” 🙂
https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/article/21045319/dc-charter-administrators-have-some-of-the-highest-school-salaries-in-town-their-teachers-some-of-the-lowest
Thanks, Chiara, for that info.
Obama’s strategy to collaborate with the GOP had anticipated winners- the bipartisan organizations that influence political decisions. Organizations were formed for that purpose. Those associated with Democrats, by virtue of their founders, can be identified as the Podesta Group and BiPartisan Policy Center.
In contrast to those organizations, Third Way and CAP, the two most prominent think tanks are partisan and associated with Democrats. IMO, there is a conflict when the same people steer advocacy for the left and, bi-partisan organizations. John Podesta founded CAP and Tom Daschle, who is Chair of the CAP Board, founded BPC. A prominent “education expert” for BPC is formerly from Third Way. Third Way’s prescription for the education sector is, “embracing ambitious new ideas fit for the digital age”. Bill Gates and John Arnold sponsored BPC’s Sept. panel about the changing landscape for higher ed that listed only one panelist from a university – the former Kaplan, now Purdue Global.
My guess is that the quiet collaboration on K-12 school privatization was fostered by John Podesta. And, the privatization and corporatization of higher ed is being fostered by BPC.
Third Way, BPC and, the Bill Gates-funded CAP are not going to morph into some other identity, which means the 99% must make NPE, Our Revolution, the Campaign for America’s Future ,… the only acknowledged voice of Democrats- the opposition party to the GOP.
Democracy’s erosion-
A nation has advertising firms that make money promoting soft drinks. The public decides to support a ban on sale of soft drinks in opposition to soft drink manufacturers. The ad firm’s owners, recognizing there’s no money for an advertising campaign to ban soft drinks, step forward presenting themselves as spokespersons for the public and steer the messaging in favor of soft drink sales.