Archives for the month of: August, 2019

 

What a payoff!

A principal in Florida doubled his salary when his public schools converted to a charter, which is what the rightwing governor and legislator want to happen.

Meanwhile teachers In the state are raising money to pay for basic school supplies for their students.

Lincoln Memorial Academy principal Eddie Hundley, the subject of a federal investigation, earned more than twice the average salary of middle school principals in Manatee last year.

Former Lincoln Memorial Academy principal Eddie Hundley, who is currently the subject of a federal investigation into fraud, bribery and embezzlement, earned roughly $204,000 last year, according to Manatee County School District general counsel Mitch Teitelbaum.

Hundley’s salary nearly doubled overnight when Lincoln converted from a traditional district middle school to a charter on June 30, 2018. Before the conversion, school district officials say Hundley was earning $105,560, but as of July 1, 2018, his base pay increased to $174,990 plus a supplement of $2,450 per month.

“This may not be the entire compensation received by Mr. Hundley,” Teitelbaum said in an email.

Hundley’s salary had been a mystery, as school district officials have sought more details about Lincoln’s finances. The school was declared in “dire financial condition” in May. Lincoln was found to have missed roughly $60,000 in payments to the Florida Retirement System, and the city of Palmetto has threatened to turn off the school’s water twice due to unpaid bills…

Hundley’s base salary and monthly supplement, not including benefits, puts his earnings well above middle school principals in Manatee, who on average earned $83,200 in 2018-19, according to the school district.

However, Hundley’s salary it is not out of the realm for charter school principals in the district. In 2017 the Herald Tribune compiled salaries of the highest paid employee at all charter schools in Sarasota and Manatee. At that point, Manatee School for the Arts principal Bill Jones earned roughly $184,000. Fred Spence, the founder of Bradenton’s Team Success, earned $237,000 in 2014, the last year of salary data available before management of the school was handed over to his management firm. The highest paid employee at a charter school in Sarasota in 2017 was Vickie Marble at the Student Leadership Academy, at $143,175.

Local officials said the school’s administrative costs had tripled beyond what was expected..

 

Julian Vasquez Heilig reports here on a new study about segregation and charter schools in which he is one of the authors. The other authors are Jameson Brewer and Yohuru Williams.

Here is an abstract of the study:

Abstract: We conduct descriptive and inferential analyses of publicly available Common Core of
Data (CCD) to examine segregation at the local, state, and national levels. Nationally, we find that
higher percentages of charter students of every race attend intensely segregated schools. The highest
levels of racial isolation are at the primary level for public and middle level for charters. We find
that double segregation by race and class is higher in charter schools. Charters are more likely to be
segregated, even when controlling for local ethnoracial demographics. A majority of states have at
least half of Blacks and a third of Latinx in intensely segregated charters. At the city level, we find
that higher percentages of urban charter students were attending intensely segregated schools.

Dr.Heilig writes:

We are honored today to release a new study entitled Choice without inclusion?: Comparing the intensity of racial segregation in charters and public schools at the local, state and national levels that examines segregation in the entire universe of US public and charter schools.

In its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 [1], the United States Supreme Court powerfully concluded that in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ had no place. Further, “separate educational facilities,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a unanimous court “are inherently unequal.” It has been over sixty years since the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Brown to abolish the separate-but-equal legal doctrine and Jim Crow segregation by race. Yet, since that time, courts have allowed de factosegregation to flourish [2]and, as a result, schools in the United States are more segregated than they were at the time of the Brown decision [3].

The resegregation of the United States, in contravention of Brown, has occurred as a result of judicial retrenchment, but also due to other factors such as lax executive enforcement and White flight [4]. Not incidentally, during the past two decades, schools in the United States have become increasingly segregated by race and class. According to the national data, nowhere is the problem more acute than in the nation’s charter schools [5]. While public schools have generally acknowledged the problem and have usually agreed to remedies to address segregation [6], some charter supporters have sought to downplay the issue, emphasizing the need to provide greater choice to low income and minority students as a means of achieving an educational equity in outcomes regardless of the racial composition of the school [7]. In fact, some charter advocates have suggested that racial segregation within schools is acceptable if that comes as a natural by-product of parental choice [8].

Steve Bullock, governor of Montana, entered the Democratic primaries late, and to most people he is a complete unknown.

At NPE Action, we have been watching Steve Bullock with admiration, because he has been a stand-up guy for public schools in his state.

He has been governor of the state since 2012.

He beat a pro-privatization billionaire in 2016. 

Montana is a red state. Bullock is a pro-public school Democrat.

His children attend public schools.

He graduated from Helena High School. His mother was a school board member; his father was a teacher and administrator.

Bullock has frozen tuition at state colleges for four years to keep college affordable.

He has expanded Medicaid, with bipartisan support.

Montana has two charter schools, and they are both run by school districts.

Bullock has said clearly that choice diverts money from public schools.

He is pro-union.

He vetoed a voucher bill (“Education Savings Account”).

In 2016, he ran against a pro-voucher, pro-charter candidate, and Bullock won. As he likes to point out, he won in a state that Trump won easily. He won by four points in a state where Trump won by 21 points.

Bullock connects with people.

He understands that Montana is a sprawling state that is largely rural. Its public schools are important to their communities. He doesn’t see any reason to have “choice” of charters or religious schools.

He has picked one of the most important issues in American politics–the malign influence of Big Money in elections–and is determined, if elected, to overturn Citizens United, which lets rich people buy elections.

I don’t know if he has much of a chance in the national elections, given the high profiles of other candidates, but I like his commonsense approach to issues, the way he translates them into terms that everyday people can understand.

And I like his support for students, public schools, and public colleges.

Maybe he will break through, or maybe he will be a good running mate.

I hope that he has a chance to talk about the need for strong public schools on a national platform.

The Network for Public Education Action is grading the presidential candidates.

If you want to keep track, read here.

“For an explanation of why the candidates received the grades they did, click on their names to the left.”

Ratings may change as candidates express their views.

If you attend a town hall and learn more about a candidate’s views, let us know.

Contact Darcie Cimarusti, Research Associate, NPE Action at darciecimarusti@gmail.com

Andrew Yang, now on the presidential candidates’ stage in the Democratic debates, made a bold promise: He would create 100,000 new jobs with startups, based on the model of Teach for America.

His program is called Venture for America. He failed.

So far, he has created 4,000 new jobs and still struggling.

This parallels TFA’s bold promise to “close the achievement gap” and change the trajectory of students’ lives, simply by placing a recent college graduate with five weeks of training in urban and rural classrooms for two years (in some cases, three).

The achievement gap on NAEP has not budged in the past decade. TFA has been at the job of closing it for 30 years.

This post originally appeared on March 3, 2018.

The United States has minimal requirements for buying a gun. Although some cities restrict gun ownership, guns are readily available in most states and at gun shows and on the Internet. A purchaser might buy a gun in less than an hour.

Other countries have established high barriers to gun ownership. It is possible to buy a gun but not easy.

Japan

1. Join a hunting or shooting club.

2. Take a firearm class and pass a written exam, which is held up to three times a year.

3. Get a doctor’s note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse.

4. Apply for a permit to take firing training, which may take up to a month.

5. Describe in a police interview why you need a gun.

6. Pass a review of your criminal history, gun possession record, employment, involvement with organized crime groups, personal debt and relationships with friends, family and neighbors.

7. Apply for a gunpowder permit.

8. Take a one-day training class and pass a firing test.

9. Obtain a certificate from a gun dealer describing the gun you want.

10. Buy a gun safe and an ammunition locker that meet safety regulations.

11. Allow the police to inspect your gun storage.

12. Pass an additional background review.

13. Buy a gun.

Japan has the lowest rate of gun homicides in the world.

Australia

After the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, where a man methodically killed 35 random people and injured many more at a popular tourist site, Australia made it more difficult to get a gun. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

1. Join and regularly attend a hunting or shooting club, or document that you’re a collector.

2. Complete a course on firearm safety and operation, and pass a written test and practical assessment.

3. Arrange firearm storage that meets safety regulations.

4. Pass a review that considers criminal history, domestic violence, restraining orders and arrest history. Authorities may also interview your family and community members.

5. Apply for a permit to acquire a specific type of weapon.

6. Wait at least 28 days.

7. Buy the specific type of gun you received a permit for.

The article in the New York Times describes the gun laws in 13 other countries.

Those who mistakenly claim that the Second Amendment protects their unlimited right to buy any kind of gun ignore the fact that Congress banned assault weapons from 1994-2004. Before the ban was passed, it was endorsed by former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter.

I posted this originally on March 2, 2018, after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a series of essays about the Supreme Court and its treatment of important issues like gun control. The Washington Post excerpted one of them here, in 2014.

“Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

“The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

“The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

“When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

“Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Got that? The conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, appointed by President Richard Nixon, said that the NRA had perpetrated a fraud on the American people by twisting the words of the Second Amendment to deregulate military weapons and put then in the hands of civilians.

Justice Stevens added:

”In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.”

 

 

Mark Funkhouser writes here about the educational value of showing what gun violence does. 

Publish the pictures.

The media usually censors disturbing images.

We need to be disturbed.

What can you say when the gun violence becomes a regular occurrence? What do you say when the politicians funded by the NRA offer their ritual “thoughts and prayers” while making clear that they have no intention of demanding new gun laws to stop the carnage? No ban on assault weapons. No background checks. No mandatory training. No limits on who can buy a weapon.

This is madness.

The killer posts a hate-filled manifesto. The talking heads on TV pontificate about “motive,” which is plain as daylight.

When does it end? Do you have any answers? One seems obvious. Gun control. Tight restrictions on who can get a gun. A complete ban on assault weapons.

How about an end to hate-mongering? How do we do that? I don’t know.

Any ideas?

This is becoming a dangerous country, where death looms in shopping malls, schools, movie theaters, festivals, anywhere  that people gather.

Trump spoke in his inaugural about “American carnage.”

Yes.

 

Peter Greene enjoyed reading the collection of my essays published by Garn Press.

He is a discerning reader and a no-nonsense critic.

To earn his approval is high praise indeed.

I am immensely flattered by his comments.