A couple of weeks ago, Bill Phillis and I had a public dialogue in Columbus, Ohio. Bill has devoted his life to improving public education for all children. He has fought for equitable and adequate funding. Someone asked him, he said, when he would retire. He said, “When I’m finished. The job is not yet done.” Like me, he believes that the recent and current efforts to privatize public schools is floundering and will fail.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Most of us pay our taxes. Most of us are amazed to learn that some very profitable corporations pay no federal taxes. Some corporations move to states where they pay little or no state taxes. Their tax avoidance strategies starve our schools and other vital public services.
This article from the New York Times lists major corporations that make large profits and pay no federal taxes.
It’s a topic that several presidential candidates, led by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have hammered recently as they travel the campaign trail, spurred by a report that 60 Fortune 500 companies paid no federal taxes on $79 billion in corporate income last year. Amazon, which is reported to be opening a center in an abandoned Akron mall that will employ 500 people, has become the poster child for corporate tax avoidance; last year it had an effective tax rate of below zero — receiving a rebate — on income of $10.8 billion.
For decades, profitable companies have been able to avoid corporate taxes. But the list of those paying zero roughly doubled last year as a result of provisions in President Trump’s 2017 tax bill that expanded corporate tax breaks and reduced the tax rate on corporate income.
“Amazon, Netflix and dozens of major corporations, as a result of Trump’s tax bill, pay nothing in federal taxes,” Mr. Sanders said this month during a Fox News town hall-style event. “I think that’s a disgrace.”
These are the 30 most profitable companies that paid no federal income taxes in 2018. In many cases, the companies also received tax rebates that could be used to reduce their tax burdens in other years.
Corporations’ ability to whittle down their tax bills has long been a target of criticism by Democrats, and this presidential campaign is no exception, particularly among left-wing candidates who argue that corporations should be accountable for wage inequality and its impact on low- and middle-income workers.
Capitol & Main reports that the Healdsburg school district in Sonoma County in wine country was worried about white flight, so it opened a charter school and put it in the same building with the public school. That’s called co-location.
However, the two schools in the same building have very different demographics.
Taking advantage of California’s co-location rules regarding charters, 266 charter school students share the same campus with the public elementary school’s 323 kids. The two student bodies aren’t exactly similar, however. The public school is 89 percent Latino, while Latinos only account for 36 percent of the charter’s enrollment. The divide vividly extends to learning achievement…
Last year only 23 percent of the public elementary school’s students in grades three to five met or exceeded state math standards, while the figure was 55 percent for Healdsburg Charter kids in the same grades. A full 88.5 percent of the public school students were socioeconomically disadvantaged, compared to just 33.5 percent of the charter school students. And 70.6 percent of public school students were English-language learners, while only 13.7 percent of charter school students were ELLs.
One school mostly for white kids, another mostly for Latino kids. One for the middle-class and affluent, the other for the farmworkers’ children.
The Wall Street Journal is a fierce, unrelenting advocate of privatization. It loves vouchers and charters. It despises public schools and teachers’ unions. It is contemptuous of teachers. It recently published an editorial claiming that members of the NAACP were “in revolt” against the national organization, which has called for a moratorium on charters. The resolution, passed in 2016, was not passed frivolously. It was preceded by the work of a task force that held hearings in seven cities, listening to parents.
Black Lives Matter Organization also called for a charter moratorium at the same time as the NAACP. I mention this because a charter advocate on Twitter belittled the NAACP by saying its members were aging and out of touch. He could not say the same about BLM. Frankly, the fact that the far-right libertarian Wall Street Journal supports charters is reason enough to question the motives behind the charter “movement.” Unlike the civil rights movement, which had a broad base among people of color, the drive for charters is financed by hedge fund managers, equity investors, entrepreneurs, and major corporations. These are not bastions of progressivism. Nor is Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal.
Derrick Johnson, president of the National NAACP, answered the editorial.
He wrote:
Regarding your May 7 editorial “An NAACP Revolt on Charters”: Let us be clear—a quality education should be provided to all children. As we commemorate the 65th anniversary of the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision, we continue to face a legacy problem that can only be fixed if our nation commits to prioritizing education and reforming inadequate and unequal operations that only continue to harm students.
In 2016 the NAACP called for a moratorium on charter-school expansion and for the strengthening of oversight in governance and practice. The charter-school system lacks necessary transparencies and clear accountability, as it siphons off funds from already underresourced school districts. As for public schools, they lack the required support from policy makers to acquire well-paid, quality teachers for students who are most in need, without unnecessary bureaucracy and over-testing.
The NAACP has been a strong supporter of public education and has denounced movements toward privatization that divert public funds to support nonpublic school choices. We have demanded that children and teachers in charter schools have the same civil rights and protections as children and teachers in traditional public schools. We have also demanded that levels of oversight and transparency in charter schools, at a minimum, be comparable to traditional public schools.
Because of this, it is clear that the information in your editorial is not representative of the findings of the LA School Report and policy decisions agreed upon during our annual convention in 2016. The unit resolutions were considered by our national committee and did not pass, therefore our national position is the only position of the association.
It is unconscionable to have children attend any schools—public or private charter—that are inadequately and inequitably equipped to prepare them for the innovative and competitive environment they will face as adults. The U.S. has one of the most unequal school-funding systems of any country in the industrialized world, and education funding has been inadequate and unequal for students of color for decades.
As our nation continues to struggle to fully invest in the quality education, we must remember that this fight is far from over because separate can never be equal.
Derrick Johnson
President, NAACP
Baltimore
I recommend that you get on the email list of the Keystone State Education Coalition if you want to know what is happening in Pennsylvania. Lawrence Feinberg posts informative articles about the schools of that state. You can contact him at lawrenceafeinberg@gmail.com.
One ongoing scandal in Pennsylvania is the story of cyber charters. Pennsylvania has 14 cyber charter schools, and 13 of them are on the state’s list of the lowest performing schools in the state. Cyber charters have low graduation rates, high attrition, and low scores. While Pennsylvania has many underfunded districts, the state is very generous with its failing cyber charters. From the years 2013-2016–four years–the state paid $1.6 Billion to these “schools.” In 2016 alone, the state handed out $454.7 million to cyber charters. All of that money is extracted from the budgets of public schools because the money follows the student, from good public schools to low-performing cyber charters. Most cyber charters are operated for profit. And they are very profitable! But not for their students.
Understand that the cyber charters receive full tuition for every student they enroll, even though they have none of the expenses of brick-and-mortar schools. No maintenance of grounds, no heating or cooling, no nurses, no library, no gym, no lunch room, no meals, etc. Yet they collect the same tuition as real schools. Their owners are rolling in dough. The creator of the first cyber charter, The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, is now in prison, after having been convicted of tax evasion on $8 million that he diverted from the school. Think of it. Ten thousand students were enrolled, bringing in tuition of $10,000-11,000 (more if they were special education) each. That is a minimum of $100 million to run a online program that offers nothing but computers, textbooks, and online lessons. What a profitable business! Trombetta was not convicted of theft or embezzlement, but of tax evasion. Curious.
There is one hopeful piece of legislation under consideration. Senate Bill 34 and House Bill 526 would end public school district payments to cyber charters if the school district offered online schooling for free. The State College District supports these bills because it is currently paying $14,000 for each student in its district who enrolls in a cyber charter and $29,000 per year for each student with special needs. The irony is that the cyber charter does nothing additional for students with special needs and is not required to spend the additional money it receives on them.
School districts across the state are facing higher taxes and underfunded schools, while the failing cyber charters are flooded with cash. Will the Republican-dominated legislature take action to save public schools or will they devote their time to adding new money to the state’s charters and its voucher program?
Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat reports that the Chan-Zuckerberg tech-based schools called Summit have been underreporting the percent of schools that quit their program every year.
After multiple news reports of high school students walking out in protest against the Summit tech platform, Summit responded by saying that only 10% of schools leave every year. That figure, writes Barnum, was widely reported.
Summit has led the “movement” for “personalized learning,” which is in fact “depersonalized learning.” To be personalized, there must be interaction between at least two persons, not interaction between a computer and a student.
Barnum writes:
When nearly 100 students walked out of their Brooklyn high school in protest last year, saying they were spending too much of their days in front of a computer, the story took off.
The students were complaining about their school’s use of Summit Learning, a curriculum and online learning system backed byFacebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. But the organizations behind Summit pushed back, saying the issues raised by the Brooklyn students weren’t representative of what was happening at the nearly 400 schools using the program.
One piece of evidence they offered: just 10% of schools quit using the platform each year, a number that ended up in multiple newsstories.
New data obtained by Chalkbeat — from Summit itself, in response to a public records request — shows that figure is misleading. Since the platform was made available, 18% of schools using it in a given year had quit using it a year later.
Asked about the discrepancy, a Summit spokesperson explained that its 10% figure comes from averaging the dropoff rates for each of the first three years. The number of schools adopting the platform was 19 in the first year and 338 in the third year, so Summit’s approach is skewed heavily in favor of the first year’s low attrition number.
Looking just at schools that signed on to the platform last school year, a quarter of them are no longer using Summit this year.
The Brooklyn walkout was one among many and a bellwether for the future. Students want human teachers.
Samuel Abrams, director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, writes here about the likely effects of the influx of charter schools in Puerto Rico.
This is the abstract.
With the passage of the Education Reform Act in March 2018, Puerto Rico joined states across the mainland in authorizing charter schools as privately managed government-funded alternatives to conventional public schools. In this article, Samuel E. Abrams describes the origins of charter schools, their formal introduction with legislation in Minnesota in 1991 and evolution since, and their probable impact in Puerto Rico. While conceding that charter schools may diversify the educational landscape and serve many students well, Abrams cautions that charter schools can generate untoward division, as they tend to enroll fewer children with academic and behavioral challenges and more children of engaged parents. The exit of such parents from conventional public schools, he writes, compounds this division, as they take with them their voice to advocate for better schooling for all children. Abrams contends this problem of exit stands to have an especially strong effect in Puerto Rico given that 25% of K-12 students on the island already attend private schools compared to 10% across the mainland.
Citation: Samuel E. Abrams, Exit, Voice, and Charter Schools, 88 Rev. Jur. UPR 894 (2019).
Here is the full article.
Last year, In the Public Interest, a nonpartisan advocacy group in California published Professor Gordon Lafer’s seminal study of the fiscal impact of charters on three school districts in California. Oakland alone lost $67 million in “stranded costs” because of the flooding of the district with charter schools. Stranded costs are the costs beyond the per-pupil tuition that leaves the district, like heating, cooling, transportation, and other fixed costs.
ITPI has released a new report that demonstrates the fiscal impact of charters in one other district. The report is timely, since the Legislature is currently considering four bills to regulate charters so that they stop damaging the public schools that enroll the most students.
Jeremy Mohler of In the Public Interest writes:
Been wondering what’s causing all the hoopla about charter schools? You’re not alone — it’s a complicated issue.
I’m going to explain one aspect of the issue, in as simple terms as possible, to try to convince you that charter schools are worth paying attention to.
This morning, we released a new report on the cost that charter schools create for just one school district, West Contra Costa Unified (WCCUSD) in California’s Bay Area.
What do I mean by “cost?” I mean that, because some students that would’ve otherwise attended WCCUSD’s traditional public schools instead attend charter schools in the area, the district has $27.9 million less in funding to work with each year. That comes out to $978 less for each traditional public school student the district serves.
Here’s why. When a student transfers to a charter school, public funding for their education follows — but costs remain. Because charter schools pull students from multiple schools and grade levels, it’s rare that individual traditional public schools can reduce expenses enough to make up for the lost revenue.
Say a district loses 14 percent of its students to charter schools in the area. Its schools can‘t adjust expenses by, for example, cutting 14 percent of their principal, heating bill, parking lot paving, internet service, or building maintenance. The district also can’t proportionately cut administrative tasks such as bus route planning, teacher training, grant writing, and budget development.
This forces districts to cut services provided to traditional public school students.
WCCUSD recently did just that. Faced with a budget deficit, its board approved $12.5 million in budget cuts in December 2018 eliminating 82 positions, closing an academic tutoring program, and cutting services for English learners.
We found the same dynamic last year when we studied districts in Oakland, San Diego, and San Jose.
Keep in mind, we’re making conservative estimates here. Our totals don’t even include the often inequitable proportion of state funding districts receive for educating high-needs students.
Long story short: California’s traditional public school students are bearing the cost of the state allowing charter schools to grow in number at a rapid clip.
Of course, charter schools aren’t the only financial pressure that districts are facing. Regressive taxation, declining birth rates, and other forces are impacting districts from Los Angeles to Sacramento.
But, so far, the cost of charter schools has gone unmeasured and ignored in California educational planning. That can’t go on — students are paying the price.
Can anyone explain the rationale of public funding of two different school systems? Seventy years ago, we had public funding of two different systems in 17 states. That was called a dual school system, one for whites, one for blacks. What’s the rationale now for a dual system?
The elected School Board of Pittsburgh unanimously rejected a charter school called Catalyst Academy because of concern about its proposed disciplinary policy and its ability to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The School Board’s decision was overturned by the state’s Charter Appeals Board, which was appointed by the former Republican Governor. The members of the CAB have ties to the charter industry.
This is NOT how democracy should work.
Why should a highly conflicted board appointed by a former Governor have the authority to override the decision of a democratically elected community school board?
Education Week reported that Betsy DeVos visited a public school in Poway, California, and the school was asked to keep the visit a secret so that the Secretary would not encounter hostile crowds of protesters, which might endanger the lives of students or staff or DeVos herself. Of course, DeVos was well guarded. She came with her special retinue of U.S. Marshals to protect her. NBC has estimated that her security team will have cost $20 million by September of 2019.
Parents and members of the public didn’t learn of the secretary’s two-hour visit to the district’s Design 39 Campus until after, when Kim-Phelps shared photos taken by Poway Unified communications staff on her Facebook page. A stream of critical comments followed, many slamming DeVos’ support of private school choice.
The big news here is that DeVos actually visited a public school, not a charter school or a religious school.
I don’t think that’s a hopeful sign because she never modifies her views.
But next time she is interviewed, she can say that she has visited a public school and there were no protestors.
Diane Ravitch's blog 