Parents in New Bedford, Massachusetts, managed to stop an outrageous charter money-grab.
Here is a report from
Local activist Ricardo Rosa writes:
An unprecedented charter school model was introduced in the city of New Bedford, MA. Alma Del Mar charter school sought to expand by 1,188 seats, which would have meant the syphoning of $15 million dollars from the city’s public school system and likely a major hit to city’s budget more broadly. The school’s expansion was legal under the current charter cap. The school sought just about all of the seats undermining the very premise of the charter industry, namely, that competition is a positive value in educational reform.
The state’s commissioner of education, the charter operator, the Mayor and the superintendent crafted a deal behind closed doors and attempted to implement it very hurriedly to evade public scrutiny. The deal allowed the charter 450 seats, a closed public school and its land at no cost, and the crafting of a new public school zone allowing for a structure that bypasses the lottery system and where students in the zone would be automatically enrolled in the charter school instead of their local public schools as of fall 2019. Families could fill out a change of assignment form so as to stay in they public schools, but there was no guarantee that the superintendent (in consultation with the charter operator) would honor it.
Furthermore, the charter could, in three years time, seek additional seats if they so choose. Worse, the public school system had to agree to pay for a pre-determined enrollment figure regardless of how many of those seats are actually filled. Should the deal not work out, the commissioner structured a “Plan B” (an extortion plan really), which would allow the school to proceed with its lottery and expand to 594 seats.
The state’s Board of Education applauded the deal as a model that could be implemented in other working class and low income cities in Massachusetts. The model was dangerous in that it could have circumvented the charter cap through a complex “home rule petition” that had to be signed off on my the local school committee, the city council, and then move on to the state legislature for the introduction of a bill.
Massachusetts voters voted, overwhelmingly, in 2016 to not expand the charter cap despite large amounts of corporate money that poured in to support the initiative. This was clearly not a deal that would have affected just the city, but the state.
The New Bedford Coalition to Save Our Schools (NBCSOS), a grassroots organization of parents and grandparents of New Bedford Public School children, community activists, educators and youths, went to work at every stage of this proposal. The Coalition worked in solidarity with the local teachers union, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Citizens for Public Schools.
Members spoke to residents in a door to door campaign, hosted forums and film screenings to educate the public, spoke to parents at pick up and drop lines in local public schools, wrote Op-Eds, organized rallies, spoke to local and state officials, and wrote a policy analysis report they circulated with state legislators. The Commissioner of Education was forced to pull the deal. There is some indication that legislators are making an attempt to have a hearing of the full body of the legislature, despite the deal being pulled and multiple news reports citing that the deal is dead.
He explained there:
This is an effort to destabilize labor, capitalize on real estate wheeling and dealing in the city, and continue the pursuit of gentrification as an economic strategy. This property handover and automatic enrollment into the charter school is untested and unproven, contrary to the former state education secretary’s claim that it is “effective education policy and innovation.” This deal, however, really amounts to a form of corporate experimentation on New Bedford children that is immoral….
What is being introduced to families is a complex system and paperwork in the hope that parents and guardians will simply go with the flow. This approach is similar to filling out a mail-in rebate. Some will not fill it out due to various reasons. Others will fill it out incorrectly and will never receive the rebate. Even worse, the decision maker here can arbitrarily decide whether to honor the “rebate.”
This is a very dangerous proposal in the sense that it treats people as consumers rather than as citizens deserving all of the rights, information, and privileges of the common good. Automatically extracting a student from the public school that she or he is entitled to attend is antithetical to the values of the community.
These “third way” approaches are not unique if we look across the United States. It’s very naïve to think that this is a “better way to do charter schools.” The charter industry has come under fire across this country. In our own state we voted against expansion in 2016.
The Alma del Mar proposal is a politically devious and opportunistic way to skirt citizen resistance to charter expansion and to seek a new approach to doing business so as to survive. The mayor, the majority of the school committee and city council, and some of the state legislators who have stated that this proposal is the “lesser of two evils” need to be reminded that “the lesser of two evils” is still evil. This “pragmatic” lesser of two evils tactic may work for the short term, but it will just embolden establishment politics and undermine future chances for real progressive change.
Here’s further explanation in the Boston Globe:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/06/05/the-teachers-union-sad-anti-charter-zealotry/1ePvit5sG0iAwhRCWaLakL/story.html
Oh good grief, I don’t even need to read the article – you can tell by the title it’s garbage. Any opposition to charters must be “sad teachers union ant-charter zealotry”. Because no parent could possibly object to funding being pulled from their children’s PUBLIC schools.
BTW, your article is written by a columnist – it’s opinion.
Yes, of course, “it’s the unions!”
“Concerned parents, teachers and other community members” are simply standins for the unions.
I know because I have gone to the “save our schools” rallies and seen all the cardboard cutouts of “community members” (with the ” union made” sticker on the back.)
In fact, I brought one home to hang on my wall!
Ha ha ha ha!
Okay, I read it and you owe me the breakfast I just regurgitated. What an ignorant, biased, selectively-sourced putrid piece of garbage. And I even read his pugnacious responses to the commenters who pointed out the many holes in his argument. The best he’s got seems to be calling people “anti-charter types”. Whoa, devastating argument! BTW, most of his “sources” are just links to … wait for it … HIS OWN OPINION PIECES!
The Boston globe actually prefers people like Lehigh as columnists. The outlandish stuff they write sells subscriptions.
dienne77: “who pointed out the many holes in his argument.”
Please identify several holes you find in his argument.
Ignoring the will of the public expressed in a referendum in 2016 is a very big hole in the pro-charter argument.
Keep in mind, Dr. Diane, that the slide to success of the opposition campaign was greased by multitudinous factual inexactitudes.
As you can guess, I would be amenable to start listing some of ’em if you wished to be reminded.
Stephen,
The 2016 referendum is over.
The Walton funded campaign had the Governor on its side and the state’s major newspaper.
The people voted.
Charters lost.
The organization leading the Yes on 2 campaign was bankrupted by the Mass Office in charge of political ethics for trying to hide the names of Dark Money donors.
Elections should have consequences.
Even for billionaires.
Diane: “Elections should have consequences.”
But of course. They do. In that particular case, the diminished capacity of schools like this to expand and be replicated:
https://www.baystatebanner.com/2018/10/31/a-proven-model-of-success/
If such a consequence makes you happy, I’m sorry to hear it.
And if the recent failed attempt to persuade voters to increase funding for L.A. schools puts the brakes on your support for any such measures out of deference for voter infallibility or immutability, I’d be surprised.
Stephen,
Public money for public schools.
Billionaires should support private charters and religious schools.
dienne77: “the breakfast I just regurgitated”
Have a good, healthy lunch and then settle down with the full editorial board’s opinion:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2019/05/30/political-courage-beacon-hill/HDUnyOWlvtS0DeaMfIINRI/story.html
The Boston Globe is gung-ho for charters.
So what?
When the people of Massachusetts were asked whether to expand the number of charters in the state by 12 a year, the people voted overwhelmingly NO! 62-38%. This, despite the fact that the usual Walton-led billionaires spent about $40 million to persuade voters to support charters.
What part of NO do you, the Boston Globe, and Scott Lehigh not understand?
Stephen, if you’re wondering why the public is increasingly turning against charters, you might what to check your arrogance (and that of people like Lehigh whom you promote).
What I especially love about the school privatization echo chamber is that parents who support public schools never have any agency. Public school support only comes from greedy public school teachers and in the rare instance that public school parents are acknowledged it’s as racist dupes of public school teachers.
OTOH, charter parents are heroic, rugged, pioneers and charter workers and lobbyists are noble saints just “doing it for the kids” without a scintilla of self-interest.
The Glob has been in the tank for privatization for years with Leigh being one of the most biased Pom Pom wavers on their staff.
“A deal behind closed doors”- Mass. is stealing Ohio’s playbook.
Does Mass. have an ALEC legislature and a state Dept. of Ed. with links to Fordham Institute?
Mass has a Republican Governor who appoints State Board
“Mass has a Republican Governor who appoints State Board” which includes Ed Doherty of the AFT and meets with open doors. Gov. Baker maintains the top spot on this list:
https://morningconsult.com/2019/01/10/americas-most-and-least-popular-governors-q4-2018/
And, of course, the widely publicly discussed plan was promoted by New Bedford’s also very popular long-term Democrat Mayor Jon Mitchell.
The plan was created by elites and opposed by the people. What an arrogant undemocratic Plan, literally forcing kids into a private charter, with no choice!
and therein lies the assumption which can answer Linda’s question: yes.
“Plan, literally forcing kids into a private charter, with no choice!”
Liking it Diane, liking it!
Mass has 3 Walton connected members of the state board of education, appointed by the governor, who was formerly the executive director of The Pioneer Institute. The Pioneers are funded by the Kochs and State Policy Network (worth checking out, as they like to fly under the radar). The Pioneers are affiliated with ALEC. The secretary of education, Jim Peyser, formerly ran Pioneer and in between serving Republican administrations in MA, he also ran Education Next, which posted this bio:
“Jim Peyser is Managing Partner for City Funds at NewSchools Venture Fund, a non-profit grant-making firm that seeks to transform public education by supporting innovative education entrepreneurs. In this role, Jim leads NewSchools investment activity in Boston, Newark and Washington, DC. From 1999 through 2006, Jim served as Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education. Prior to joining NewSchools, Jim was Education Advisor to two Massachusetts Governors, where he helped shape state policy regarding standards and assessments, school accountability, and charter schools. In 1995, he served as Under Secretary of Education and Special Assistant to the Governor for Charter Schools. He spent more than seven years as Executive Director of Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, where he helped to launch the Massachusetts Charter School Resource Center, which supported the development of the state’s first charter schools. Prior to joining Pioneer Institute, Jim held various positions at Teradyne, Inc. in Boston, an electronic test equipment manufacturer. In his role with NewSchools, Jim currently serves on the board of directors for Achievement First, New Schools for New Orleans, Success Charter Network, and Uncommon Schools. He is also chairman of the board of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). In June 2011, Jim was inducted into the Hall of Fame by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Jim holds a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy from the Fletcher School (Tufts University) and a Bachelor of Arts from Colgate University.”
Of course, they all play nice guys on television.
Extra-parliamentary opposition defeated crony legislators allied with corporate looters and gentrifiers, very encouraging. Institutional power is in the hands of corporate looters at all levels which makes legislative and electoral opposition high-risk and low-return compared to grass roots opposition, strikes, boycotts, occupations, etc. Shows us that teachers and public school advocates already have the power in our hands to stop the looting.
These privatizers are slippery eels. They will try to gain access to public money by hook or crook. A common practice is moving decisions about charters out of communities and into the hands of state pawns or hand picked crony committees. There is no end to the schemes and manipulations. The third way is NO way for a democracy to function. Luckily, the New Bedford parents were on guard duty.
Remember folks to always refer to private charter schools as private charter schools as Diane does above.
Maybe we should call them “charger” schools.
They are like private toll booths on a public road paid for with public money.
The New Bedford School Committee by a vote of 5-2 approved the agreement proposed by the Commissioner, with the support of the Mayor.
The New Bedford City Council approved the agreement by a vote of 8-2.
While a private 501(c)(5) corporation influential in our State House opposed it. And we all should side with that private corporation in opposition to the Mayor, School Committee and City Council?
Because we’re against privatization and for local control? Eh?
Because, despite our humility, we have to concede that we’re right and most of New Bedford’s elected officials are wrong? If those benighted individuals had only, like us, grasped the profound threat to democracy itself…
Get over it, Stephen. The Waltons and other billionaires don’t care about democracy. They hate it. Why do you defend them?
Because the officials quavered when Commissioner Riley told them they could accept his proposal to remove the right of the children of a given New Bedford neighborhood to attend a public school, or that MA DESE would site a much larger of number of charter seats in their city, sucking even more funds from a desperately poor city.
A choice like a ransom note that reads we will kill your mother and your father, or we’ll kill just your mother. What’s your choice?
And before you get all faily-schooly on me, Stephen, remember that the state collects lots of data points, but the only one they want to use for New Bedford is test scores. Here’s some of the other data:
Teachers under age 32 66 % 25% 21%
Licensed teachers 63% 94% 97%
Teacher retention rate 58% 81% 87%
Student suspension rate
overall 15.1 % 6.2 % 4.7%
out of school 9.1% .8% 1.8%
in school 6 % 5.4% 2.9%
Administrators experienced
w high poverty groups 0% 58% 78%
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu
Churn, inexperience, uncertified teachers administrators without competence, and high suspension rates are bad for all children and much worse for highly vulnerable populations, such as immigrant communities, and kids who speak a language other than English at home. It’s clear Alma del Mar has little to offer that is better than New Bedford’s public schools.
And test scores? Do the comparison of 3-8th grade MCAS for Alma del Mar and New Bedford. They’re not all that different, especially when adjusted for New Bedford’s lower level ELL kids and more complex special needs.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/mcas/achievement_level.aspx?linkid=32&orgcode=04090000&orgtypecode=5&
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/mcas/achievement_level.aspx?linkid=32&orgcode=02010000&orgtypecode=5&
The Horatio A. Kempton Elementary School was closed, not because it was failing, or that the building was falling apart, but because it was small,112 students, and New Bedford didn’t have the money to keep it open. In 2019, New Bedford Public Schools paid charters schools $16,000,000!
Alma del Mar Charter School original request to DESE was for two K-8 schools with 1,188 seats. For a charter school to be financially sustainable you need around 1,200 seats. More importantly, to game DESE’s accountability levels you need between 500-700 seats in an urban school district with a high ELL and SPED population. Not that Alma Del Mar educates that population. That said, Alma Del Mar’s agreement to reduce its request to 450 seats, if New Bedford agrees to throw in a public school building, certainly gave me pause. Especially, when Commissioner Riley would have the City of New Bedford pay Alma Del Mar for 450 seats whether they were filled or not!
This idea of a neighborhood charter school is not new and it is not Commissioner Riley’s. The move to make “neighborhood charter schools” in New Bedford is Commissioner Riley’s precursor to bringing neighborhood charter schools to Boston where he originally hailed from. By Massachusetts law, commonwealth charter schools are citywide. In an attempt to reduce transportation costs, Boston Public Schools has been, with the support of the Gates-Funded “Boston Compact,” jumping on the “unified enrollment” bandwagon and tried to close “underperforming” public schools and replace them with “neighborhood charter schools.” Then Boston Public Schools would not be responsible for keeping schools desegregated because commonwealth charter schools are considered to be their own district. It is a backdoor way for Boston to create walk-to segregated neighborhood schools as most of Boston’s 28 commonwealth charter schools are located in “circle of promise” neighborhoods of color.
Jon Shore: You write: “Boston Public Schools has… tried to close “underperforming” public schools and replace them with “neighborhood charter schools.”
I had not yet heard anything about such a move to have “neighborhood charter schools” in the parts of Boston that most lack schools that are rated as being most successful. Can you suggest any sources for how to learn more about that intent?
Do you, yourself, see a serious problem in respect to equitable access to schools in Boston, in the circumstances described below by Meira Levinson, and if so what would be your recommended solution for addressing it?
“This article analyzes Boston Public Schools’ (BPS) new school assignment plan in light of these criteria. It shows that BPS’ plan violates equal opportunity by giving middle-class families privileged access to existing high-quality schools.”
[…]
“On average, therefore, low-income children of color are facing significantly stiffer competition for high-quality school seats than are middle- and upper-income white children in Boston.
“If there were significantly more high-quality schools in low-income neighborhoods than in middle-class neighborhoods, then the greater availability of seats might offset this competition disparity. But as in virtually all U.S. cities, high-quality elementary schools in Boston tend to be clustered disproportionately in wealthier neighborhoods, not poorer ones. Fifteen high-quality schools and approximately 15,800 children ages 0-9, for example, reside in the nine neighborhoods in Boston that have a child poverty rate below 20%. By contrast, the twelve Boston neighborhoods with a child poverty rate over 20% host a total of 22 high-quality schools—and 43,500 children aged nine and under. In the higher poverty neighborhoods, in other words, nearly three times as many children are competing for spots in only 1.5 as many high quality schools.”
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12991704/Levinson%20Ethics%20of%20Pandering%20TRE%20FINAL%202%20.pdf?sequence=1