Archives for category: Accountability

 

The New York Times published a fascinating story about the heiress who became obsessed with stopping immigration and limiting population, especially in poor countries.

Reporters Nicholas Kulish and Mike McIntire rely on the personal letters and writings of Cordelia Scaife May, the most significant funder of anti-immigration groups, to examine her views.

Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon family’s banking and industrial fortune, was far and away the most important donor to the modern anti-immigration movement during her lifetime. Now, more than a decade after her death, her money still funds the leading organizations fighting to reduce migration.

Her Colcom Foundation has poured $180 million into groups that spent decades agitating for policies now pursued by President Trump: militarizing the border, capping legal immigration and prioritizing skills over family ties for entry. And language she used — about the threat of an “immigrant invasion,” for instance, and environmental strain — echoes in today’s anti-immigration rhetoric, most recently in the words of the killer in the El Paso mass shooting.

May funded not only anti-immigration groups but Planned Parenthood and other groups devoted to population control.

Mrs. May’s efforts on immigration grew out of a progressive interest in protecting the environment and reducing the population through birth control. Long before her views became more radical and took root in the Trump administration, Mrs. May was a nature-loving Roosevelt Republican, and a friend and admirer of the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

In time, however, she became a radical proponent of racist views and stopping immigration became her all-consuming passion. She advocated sealing the border with Mexico.

Mrs. May’s confidence in birth control would give way to abortion advocacy. And she would be among the first, and most financially influential, to set her sights on immigration as an alarming source of population growth in the United States…

In her writings, Mrs. May contended that the country was being “invaded on all fronts by immigrants.” Complaining about the Cubans who arrived in 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift, she cited their “criminal habits, radical political thought, exotic diseases, neighborhood disruption,” but said their “most dangerous contribution” was their high birthrate, “far higher than that of our native population.”

“They breed like hamsters,” she wrote…

The anti-immigration movement funded by Mrs. May’s money extends far beyond the three best-known groups, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies and NumbersUSA. Her fortune has nurtured an entire ecosystem, including more oblique efforts like a movement to make English the nation’s official language, and a publishing house and television productions that advocate limiting immigration.

The sheer number of these groups helped the anti-immigration movement succeed by giving it the appearance of broad-based support.

Since Mr. Trump’s election, former staff members from groups like FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies have assumed key roles in the administration’s immigration apparatus, working with Stephen Miller, the architect of the president’s immigration agenda…

 

 

Democratic State Senator Sam Bell called for the removal of Achievement First management after news spread about a pattern of abusive behavior towards students.

Achievement First is based in Connecticut and practices “no excuses” discipline.

“Dismantling the Achievement First Rhode Island network needs to begin with removal of the Achievement First Corporation from any managerial involvement with the schools. Closure would be too disruptive to the students, and converting the schools into public schools is a better approach,” Bell told GoLocal.

Bell sites a range of issues, including physical abuse of students. in Rhode Island, Achievement First operates under the names Achievement First Iluminar Mayoral Academy and Achievement First Providence Mayoral Academy.

Bell’s demand comes at the same time that the Mayor of Providence is trying to expand the Achievement First chain in his city.

In January of this year, the head of Achievement First Amistad High School in New Haven was caught on video shoving a student. This was one of a number of episodes linking faculty to physical contact with students.

The defenders of the chain say that Achievement First gets high test scores, and it appears that those scores matter more than abusive adults manhandling students.

New York City Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza has given fat salary hikes to members of his inner circle. Some are earning more than Superintendents in other districts. Some have never been teachers.

Some have odd job titles.

What does the “Deputy Chancellor for School Climate and Wellness” do?
What does the “Deputy Chancellor for Community Empowerment and Partnerships” do?
What does the “Deputy Chancellor for School Planning and Design” do?

Whatever they do, they are paid more than $200,000 a year to do it.

Blogger Ed in the Apple reports on education and politics in New York City and New York State.

In this post, he reviews Chancellor Richard Carranza’s tenure in the city.

This is the most startling insight to me:

The dominant education issue last year was the segregated nature of the admission process for the Specialized High Schools, and the entrance examination, the Specialized High School Admissions Test that is required by state law. Last year at Stuyvesant High School only nine Afro-American students passed the entrance exam out of over 900 students who received acceptance offers. A year later the legislature has taken no action to change the exam and the issue continues to dominate the education debate.

The mayor/chancellor has avoided another issue. There are over 200 middle and high schools with entrance requirements: test scores, interviews, portfolios, all under the discretion of the chancellor. The students are far whiter and more middle class than the school system. The schools are extremely popular with progressive voter parents. The chancellor has taken no action to alter/reduce/eliminate the screens.

Most of the screened admissions schools were created by Bloomberg and Klein, theoretically to increase “equity.” In fact, the selective admissions schools increased segregation and inequity.

In the latest Ohio state budget, there are big giveaways to religious and private schools. The Legislature expanded the state’s voucher programs. Originally, vouchers were supposed to “save poor kids from failing public schools,” but in the new expansion, vouchers are available to high school students who never attended a public school. That is, they subsidize students in religious and private schools. Period.

In the only evaluation of the Ohio voucher program, sponsored by the rightwing Thomas B. Fordham Institute, students who used vouchers fell behind students who stayed in the public schools.

These programs are simply a transfer of public dollars frompublic schools to private schools, with no benefit to students.

Jan Resseger writes here about the latest betrayal of the people of Ohio and the public schools that most children attend, despite the availability of many charters and vouchers.

She begins:

Ohio has five voucher programs. Two of them are for students with autism and other disabilities, and their enrollment depends on the incidence of these conditions and parents’ awareness of the availability of voucher funds to pay for private programs. A third voucher program—the Cleveland Scholarship Program—one of the oldest in the country—is for students in Cleveland.

This blog post will focus on the last two—EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion. They are statewide Ohio school voucher programs designed specifically, according to the Republican lawmakers who have designed and promoted these programs, to enable students to escape so-called “failing” schools. It is important to remember that those same legislators have failed adequately to fund the public schools in Ohio’s poorest school districts, and those same legislators have looked at state takeover as another “solution” (besides expanding vouchers and charter schools) for the students in those districts. Ohio education policy for school districts serving very poor children is defined by punishment, not support.

EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion vouchers rob the public schools of essential dollars needed to educate the majority of Ohio’s students who remain in public schools. And the vouchers are used primarily by students enrolled in religious schools. Through EdChoice and EdChoice Expansion vouchers, the state is sending millions of tax dollars out of the state’s public education budget and out of the coffers of local school districts to fund the religious education of students who would likely never have enrolled in public schools in the first place.

The problem just got worse this summer when the Ohio Legislature passed a two year budget which radically expands both programs. The Ohio Association of School Business Officials (OASBO) recently published an update on its website to inform school treasurers about what just happened. OASBO reports: “HB 166 (the new state budget) expanded the EdChoice Scholarship program in multiple ways.”

Changes in the EdChoice voucher program: Although legislators have always said the purpose of vouchers is to provide an “escape” from so-called failing schools, the new budget provides that high school students are no longer required to have been previously enrolled in a public school to qualify for the voucher. OASBO explains: “Generally, students wishing to claim a voucher under the original EdChoice voucher program must have attended a public school in the previous school year. However, HB 166 codifies in law… (that) students going into grades 9-12 need not first attend a public school. In other words, high school students already attending a private school can obtain a voucher.”

Ohio was one of the leading states in the 19th century “Common school movement,” which created the American public school as a guarantee of free public education for every child. It is now leading the movement to demolish that promise and renounce the state’s proud history. It should go without saying that the state’s Republican leaders have never put a referendum on the ballot to ask the people of Ohio whether they approve of this massive diversion of public funds to religious and private schools. They know it would be rejected.

The Ohio State Constitution, Article 6, Section 2 and 3

Text of Section 2:
School Funds

The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.

Text of Section 3:
Public School System, Boards of Education

Provision shall be made by law for the organization, administration and control of the public school system of the state supported by public funds: provided, that each school district embraced wholly or in part within any city shall have the power by referendum vote to determine for itself the number of members and the organization of the district board of education, and provision shall be made by law for the exercise of this power by such school districts.

Betsy DeVos has awarded more than $200 million to the IDEA charter chain to expand in Texas and beyond. IDEA plans to swamp San Antonio, El Paso, and other cities.

IDEA promises that all students will graduate and go to college, but it doesn’t promise that all students will make it to senior year, or that they will make it in college (earlier studies by Ed Fuller, then at the University of Texas, now at Penn State, found that IDEA graduates had high dropout rates from college).

Read this study of IDEA to learn more.

 

Texas Charter Schools – Perception May Not Be Real

IDEA Public Schools: Remove the “Rose–Colored Glasses” and Many RED FLAGS Appear

By:  William J. Gumbert

 

IDEA Public Schools (“IDEA”) is the fastest growing privately-operated charter school in Texas and its rapid expansion in local communities is funded and controlled by “special interests” that desire to “privatize” public education.  With promotions of a “100% College Acceptance Rate” and students being “Accepted to the College or University of Their Choice”, a full-time staff is employed to advocate for IDEA in local communities and to aggressively recruit “economically-disadvantaged” parents dreaming of a better life for their children.

Ann Landers said: “Rose-colored glasses are never made in bifocals.  Nobody wants to read the small print in dreams”.But with the education of children and millions of taxpayer dollars at stake, the small print is vitally important. Part 4 of this 5–part series removes the “rose-colored glasses” that are inherent in the promotions of IDEA Public Schools to provide parents, taxpayers and communities an opportunity to review the potential RED FLAGS that appear when the light is solely focused on the facts of the rapidly expanding, privately-operated charter school.

Overview, Growth, Taxpayer Funding and Financial Benefits: As a privately-operated charter, IDEA has been approved by the State to separately operate in community-based school districts with taxpayer funding.  Since opening with 150 students in 2000, IDEA has been consistentlyfocused on expanding its footprint. In this regard, IDEAstrategic growth plan states it will serve 100,000 students by 2022 as new campuses are opened in Austin, El Paso, Houston, Midland/Odessa, Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, Tarrant County, Louisiana and Florida. At 100,000 students, IDEA would be the 31st largest school system in the United States.

With an appointed board in the Rio Grande Valley, the expansion of IDEA is orchestrated without the involvement of local communities and taxpayers.  IDEA’s growth is solely controlled by its appointed board, the State and its private donors.  With the legislature supporting the expansion of privately-operated charter schools, the State recently approved IDEA to open 21 additional campuses across Texas.

IDEA Public Schools – Annual Taxpayer Funding

IDEA’s flexibility to expand has resulted in more and more taxpayer funding. Since its first graduating class of 25 students in 2007, IDEA’s taxpayer funding has increased from $14.9 million to approximately $440 million per year.  This represents an increase in taxpayer funding of 2,853% in only 13 years.  

 

IDEA’s growth has also proven to be lucrative for its leadership team.  As disclosed on its 2017 IRS Form 990, the Chief Executive Officer and Superintendent collectively received financial benefits totaling $968,208 in year 2017/18.  In addition, 8 other IDEA administrators received financial benefits totaling between $219,070 – $466,006.  On average, IDEA’s Central Office administrators have a salary of $200,249, while the statewide average salary for Central Office administrators in all Texas public schools is $102,300.

Other benefits for IDEA’s leadership team include free travel for family members to IDEA events and the potential use of IDEA’s private airplane secured through a long-term lease.  That’s right, a taxpayer-funded “charter” school targeting underserved communities uses a private plane for “charter” flights.

Special Interests are Controlling and Directing IDEA’s Expansion – Not Communities and Taxpayers: As a privately-operated public school, IDEA’s expansion is not subject to the approval of local communities. Rather, IDEA’s expansion is controlled, directed and funded by “special interests” that desire to “privatize” public education.  IDEA’s growth strategy proves this: “new regional expansions are the result of community supported education reform groups soliciting and inviting IDEA to open in their region and concurrently offering substantial startup and operational funding…”.  

As shown below, IDEA has received financial commitments totaling over $150 million from private donors to expand in various regions of the State. It is important to emphasize that these financial commitments are contingent upon IDEA following the criteria specified by the donor (not parents, communities or taxpayers), which includes the opening of a specified number of new IDEA campuses in each region.

Private Donor

Commitment to IDEA

Expansion Region

Permian Strategic Partners

(Scharbauer and Abell-Hanger Foundations)

$ 55,000,000

Midland/Odessa

Charter School Growth Fund

(Gates and Walton Family Foundations)

$  23,800,000

Rio Grande Valley

KLE Foundation

$  23,558,800

Austin

CREEED Foundation (Hunt Family Foundation)

$  17,000,000

El Paso

Laura and John Arnold Foundation

$    9,500,000

Houston

Sid W. Richardson Foundation

$    5,774,000

Tarrant County

Kleinheinz Family Foundation

$    5,774,000

Tarrant County

Ewing Halsell Foundation

$    5,500,000

San Antonio

Walton Family Foundation

$    5,417,800

Tarrant County

Choose to Succeed and City Education Partners

(George W. Brackenridge Foundation)

$   4,528,351

San Antonio

 

 

IDEA Reduces the Funding of Community-Based School Districts by an Estimated $350 Million Per Year:   IDEA’s expansions are typically promoted with much publicity and fanfare.  But such announcements routinely fail to mention the negative financial impact to local school districts that result from IDEA’s expansion. In this regard, Newton’s Third Law – “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”, applies to education funding. In most cases, there is not any additional funding provided for IDEA to operate in communities as local public education funding is finite. As IDEA enters a community, the available funding must be divided amongst IDEA and the existing community-based school districts.  In other words, the funding provided to IDEA will directly reduce the funding and ability of community-based school districts to simultaneously serve students. At this time, it is estimated that IDEA’s expansion in local communities has reduced the funding of community-based school districts by $350 million per year.

IDEA Has Lower Teacher and Principal Experience and Larger Class Sizes: Most parents likely prefer for their child to attend a school that deploys lower “student to teacher” ratios and smaller class sizes. Parents are also likely to prefer teachers and principals with more experience. But IDEA’s“education model” defies these logical preferences. According to Texas Academic Performance Reports (“TAPR”) published by the Texas Education Agency (“TEA”), IDEA’s average class size in the 3rd grade is 28.9 students or 9.9 more students than the statewide average. In addition, while IDEA publicly advertises that it has “Expert Teachers”, the average experience of IDEA’s teachers is only 1.9 years and 90.9% of IDEA’s teachers have 5 years of experience or less.   In comparison, the average teacher experience for all Texas public schools is significantly higher at 10.9 years.  Teacher turnover has also been historically high at IDEA with 22.1% of teachers leaving each year, which is 33.1% higher than statewide average. 

Maybe IDEA has figured out how to achieve its promoted results with larger class sizes, lower experienced staff and higher teacher turnover.  But if a child was needing to see a doctor, I think most parents would prefer a doctor with 10.9 years of experience, fewer patients and longevity within the community.

COMPARISON OF IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND STATE AVERAGE – TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Teacher and Principal Experience, Class Size and Turnover

 

 

 

State Average – Texas Public Schools

Description

IDEA

Public

Schools

19.0 Students

CLASS SIZE – GRADE 3

28.9 Students

18.7

NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER TEACHER

15.1

10.9 Years

AVERAGE TEACHER EXPERIENCE

1.9 Years

37.3%

TEACHERS WITH 5 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OR LESS

90.9%

6.3 Years

AVERAGE EXPERIENCE – SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

2.7 Years

16.6%

ANNUAL TEACHER TURNOVER

22.1%

 

 

IDEA’s Per Student Expenditures for Instruction and Student Services are Significantly Below Statewide Average:  Like a household or a business, the expenditures of a public school can provide insight into the priorities of the school. Once again, IDEA’s unique model defies the norm. In comparison to all Texas public schools, IDEA spends:

▪ 17.3% less per student on instruction;
▪ 91.2% less per student on career and technical training;
▪ 65.5% less per student on extra-curricular activities to supplement the education of students;
▪ 43.6% less per student on students with disabilities; and
▪ Zero dollars to educate students with a discipline history as such students are excluded from enrolling at IDEA.

COMPARISON OF IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND STATE AVERAGE

Per Student Expenditures

 

 

 

However, IDEA does spend 99.7% more per student on “School Leadership/General Administration”.  It is interesting to note that in comparison to the statewide per student average, the lower dollar amount that IDEA spends of “Instruction” is essentially equal to the higher dollar that IDEA spends on “School Leadership/General Administration”.

State Average – Texas Public Schools

Description

IDEA

Public

Schools

$ 5,492

INSTRUCTION

$ 4,543

 62.7%

INSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE RATIO

50.9% 

$    299

EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

$    103

$    296

CAREER AND TECHNICAL TRAINING

$     26

$     75

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION

$      0

$ 908

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP/GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

$ 1,813 

$ 174

SOCIAL WORK, HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

$     62

$ 1,157

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

$   652

 

IDEA Serves a Lower Percentage of “At Risk”, “Special Education” and “Disciplinary” Students: It is true that IDEA serves primarily “economically-disadvantaged” students.   But every “economically-disadvantaged” student is unique; and some students require more attention and resources. These include students that are categorized by the State as “At Risk” of dropping-out, “Special Education” due to a physical or learning disability and those with a “Disciplinary” history.   

IDEA Public Schools and Community-Based School Districts Targeted for Expansion

2017/18 Enollment Demographics

While IDEA publicly promotes that it is “Open to All Students”, IDEA’s enrollment eligibility criteria states that it may “exclude” students with a “Disciplinary” history.  In 2017/18, IDEA enrolled zero “Disciplinary” students and as such, IDEA is not really open to all students. In addition, data published by TEA demonstrates that IDEA serves a significantly lower percentage of “At Risk” and “Special Education” students than the community-based school districts from which they recruit students.  While there could be many reasons for this, it may be that IDEA is designed to only appeal to a certain segment of students in the communities they operate within.

Student Description

Austin ISD

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

El Paso ISD

Fort Worth ISD

Ector County ISD

Northside ISD – (San Antonio)

IDEA Public Schools

At Risk

51.3%

44.7%

56.3%

77.8%

57.4%

47.0%

45.9%

Special Education

10.9%

8.0%

10.7%

8.3%

8.4%

11.6%

5.2%

Disciplinary Placement

1,140

1,131

1,049

674

555

1,374

0

 

IDEA Has a Small Number of Graduates and an Alarming High School Student Attrition Rate:  While any high school graduate is to be celebrated, the actual number of IDEA graduates remains relatively small for a charter that has been approved by the State to expand to 83,000 students.  Based upon information published by TEA, in years 2015-2017 IDEA only averaged 571 graduates, which is comparable to the number of graduates at Coronado High School in El Paso ISD.   

IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Graduation Summary and High School Student Attrition – Classes of 2015-2017

 

 

Additionally, the high attrition rates of IDEA high schoolstudents indicate that its “educational model” may not be fulfilling the needs of all students.  As shown below, 24.8% of students enrolled in an IDEA high school during years 2015-2017 did not make it to graduation.  In each year, an average of 202 students left IDEA to attend another Texas public high school. In other words, only 3 of every 4 high school students graduate from IDEA as 1 of every 4 students leaves to enroll at a community-based school district or other Texas public high school.

Graduating

Class

Beginning 9thGraders

No. of Students – Transferring to Another Texas Public School

Actual Graduates

Change – 9thGraders Less Actual Graduates

Percentage Change – 9thGraders Less

Actual Graduates 

2015

747

224

539

–208

–27.8%

2016

670

181

500

–170

–25.4%

2017

865

200

675

–190

-22.0%

3-Year Average

761

202

571

–189

-24.8%

 

IDEA’S “100% College Acceptance Rate” is a False and Misleading Promotion:   IDEA’s promoted legacy is that “100% of (Students/Seniors/Graduates) are Accepted to College” and they have even promoted in formal documents that “100% of Graduates are Accepted to the College or University of Their Choice”.  But based upon the facts listed below, these promotions are simply not true and are “materially misleading” to prospective parents, many of which are “economically-disadvantaged”.

▪ First, IDEA does not disclose that its college acceptance rate is artificially manipulated by its graduation requirements, which REQUIRES students to be accepted to a 4-year college/university in order to graduate.

 

▪ Second, IDEA fails to disclose its high student attrition rate as 1 of every 4 students enrolled in an IDEA high school transfers to another Texas public high school prior to graduation.

 

▪ Third, IDEA does not disclose that its number of graduatesis relatively small, ranging from as few as 25 students to 571 students in 2017, and are not comparable to the community-based school districts it operates within. Statewide, over 300,000 students graduate from Texas high schools each year.

 

▪ Third and most importantly, 125 IDEA graduates applied to a 4-year Texas college/university in years 2012-2016and were not accepted according to latest data published by “tpeir-Texas Education Reports”,

 

▪ Fourth, the misleading nature of the statement that “students are accepted to the college or university of their choice” speaks for itself and such a statement raises thequestion of IDEA’s real motivations.

IDEA Graduates Have a Lower College Graduation Rate: In recent years, IDEA has attempted to broaden its appeal by promoting its unique model and curriculum is preparing students for success in college.  For example, IDEA’s Student Handbook and IMPACT Magazine that is prepared for students, parents and supporters includes the following statements:

▪ “IDEA has focused on raising the achievement levels and expectations of students who are underserved so they have the opportunity to attend and succeed in college”;

 

▪ “Since inception, IDEA has promised countless families that we will get their child to and through college”; and

 

▪ Vision: To ensure the state of Texas reaches its fullest potential, IDEA will become the region’s largest creator of college graduates.

Despite these statements, the college graduation rate of IDEA students is significantly lower than college bound students graduating from community-based school districts in the geographic areas it serves. According to “tpeir – Texas Education Reports”, only 36.9% of IDEA’s 2012 class of 122 students that enrolled in a 4-year Texas college/university had graduated by 2017.  In comparison, the college graduation rate for college-bound students in community-based school districts targeted by IDEA for expansion ranged from a minimum of 50.2% to a high of 84.1%.

 

IDEA Public Schools and Community-Based School Districts Targeted for Expansion

Class of 2012 Enrolling and Graduating From 4-Year Texas College/University by 2017

 

Description

Austin ISD

Cypress-Fairbanks

ISD

El Paso ISD

Fort Worth ISD

Ector CountyISD

Northside ISD (San Antonio)

IDEA Public Schools

Enrolled

872

1,409

1,129

525

190

1,120

122

Graduated

603

1,185

567

323

145

872

45

Graduation Percentage

69.1%

84.1%

50.2%

61.5%

76.3%

77.8%

36.9%

 

 

IDEA Graduates Have Lower Success During Initial Year of Attending a 4-Year Texas College/University:  There may be many contributing factors for the lower college graduation rate of IDEA students and unfortunately, poverty may be one.However, information published by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board indicates poverty is not the only one.

Of the 467 trackable graduates within IDEA’s class of 2018 that enrolled in a 4-year Texas public college/university, 37% had a GPA below 2.0 and an additional 21% had a GPA below 2.5 in their initial year.  In other words, despite IDEA’s promoted focus on preparing students to succeed in college, 58% of IDEA’s 2018 graduates had a GPA below 2.49 in their initial year of attending a 4-year Texas public college/university.

 

 

Closing: As IDEA Public Schools expands in your communityat the direction of privately funded “special interests” and your community relinquishes control of certain schools and taxpayer funding to the privately-operated charter, you deserve to know the facts.

To me, the facts do not support IDEA’s self-proclaimedsuccess as many RED FLAGS appear when the “rose-colored glasses” are removed from IDEA’s promotions.  In addition, the facts are very similar to the circumstances of previousattempts to “privatize” public services that failed to fulfill theirpromises.  In this regard, the factual similarities include the promotion by “special interests”, lower expenditures to deliver public services, fewer public services, deployment of lessexperienced staff, higher administrative costs, employment of full-time promotional staffs and misleading advertisements, targeting of prospective customers, high turnover and the denial of service to certain customers.  

But these are only my thoughts and with the future of children and communities at stake, I encourage you to do a little homework and form your own conclusions.  Afterall, it’s your students, your schools, your tax dollars and your community.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8bMZiGFYbRFTjZfYm5ZVnZFVmlFZUw4ZWRhOFYyZWFXaENJ/view

The Clark County Education Association (Las Vegas) announced that teachers will strike on September 10 if they can’t reach a settlement with the district before then.

Steve Bullock entered the Democratic primary race late, and he starts at the back of the pack.

He needs to have 130,000 individuals contributions in order to qualify for the next debate.

I am asking you to send Steve Bullock $1 to keep him on the stage and to encourage him to talk about what he has done to improve public schools in Montana.

What he has going for him is two things:

1) he is the only candidate in the stage who won re-election in a red state that went for Trump by 20 points. In other words, he knows how to connect to people as a problem-solver who listens. He proved that he can win in a red state.

2) he has a solid pro-public education record. Montana has only two charter schools and both are under the direct supervision of local school districts. They exist because the district needs them, not because an entrepreneur or a charter chain has decided to open a charter.

Steve Bullock is unabashedly pro-public education and pro-union. NPE Action examined his record and gave him high marks for his commitment to public schools.

I am not asking you to support Steve Bullock. I have not endorsed him or anyone else.

I encourage you to send him $1 so you can be counted as a contributor and help him earn a place in the next big debate.

When teachers in West Virginia launched the Education Spring of 2018, one of their demands was “no charter schools.” The state’s public schools are already underfunded, and public school teachers had low pay compared to nearby states. The teachers understood that the addition of charter schools would mean fewer resources for public schools. Given that West Virginia is a largely rural state, there was no need or demand for a parallel school system of private contractors.

The legislature and governor agreed to the teschers’ demands but proceeded to double cross them by passing a charter law.

Charter advocates were thrilled. Another conquest for privatization.

But now charter advocates are “perturbed.” In fact, they are truly dismayed and having a hissy fit. They are downright ticked off.

It seems West Virginia law allows only school districts to authorize charters.

That is very very bad in charter land because districts are unlikely to welcome entrepreneurs, amateurs, and corporate raiders to tap their resources and cherrypick the students they want.

The National Alliance for Public [sic] Charter Schools won’t provide any assistance because they are so displeased. Its crack TFA alum, Emily Schultz, expressed her displeasure with West Virginia law; she previously was in charge of charters for the state of Alabama (which has a grand total of two charter schools).

Imagine that! A local school district having the right to decide who can open on their turf and poach their students!

When then Governor Christie and then Mayor Cory Booker persuaded billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to give $100 million to impose corporate reform on Newark, performance pay for teachers was the heart of their plan. Pay the “best” teachers for getting high scores, eliminate “bad” teachers, and Newark schools would be transformed.

In a major blow to the corporate reform movement, the latest teacher contract in Newark just eliminated performance pay.

It didn’t work in Newark, and it hasn’t worked anywhere else. It is a zombie idea. Teachers aren’t holding back, waiting for a bonus to goad them on. They are doing the best they know how. With help and support, they can improve, but not because of rewards and threats.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/newark/2019/08/15/merit-pay-was-the-heart-of-a-revolutionary-teachers-contract-in-newark-now-the-cory-booker-era-policy-is-disappearing/

In 2012, Newark teachers agreed to a controversial new contract that linked their pay to student achievement — a stark departure from the way most teachers across the country are paid.

The idea was to reward teachers for excellent performance, rather than how many years they spent in the district or degrees they attained. Under the new contract, teachers could earn bonuses and raises only if they received satisfactory or better ratings, and advanced degrees would no longer elevate teachers to a higher pay scale.

The changes were considered a major victory for the so-called “education reform” movement, which sought to inject corporate-style accountability and compensation practices into public education. And they were championed by an unlikely trio: New Jersey’s Republican governor, the Democratic-aligned leader of the nation’s second-largest teachers union, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who had allocated half of his $100 million gift to Newark’s schools to fund a new teachers contract.

“In my heart, this is what I was hoping for: that Newark would lead a transformational change in education in America,” then-Gov. Chris Christie said in Nov. 2012 after the contract was ratified.

Seven years later, those changes have been erased.

Last week, negotiators for the Newark Teachers Union and the district struck a deal for a new contract that scraps the bonuses for top-rated teachers, allows low-rated teachers to earn raises, and gives teachers with advanced degrees more pay. It also eliminates other provisions of the 2012 contract, which were continued in a follow-up agreement in 2017, including longer hours for low-performing schools.

“All vestiges of corporate reform have been removed,” declared a union document describing the deal.