Archives for category: Budget Cuts

The Network for Public Education will watch what Betsy DeVos does and report it to you immediately.

We will keep you informed about what the privatizers are doing in your state and community.

We will help you connect with other people in your state who are mobilizing to stop privatization.

The fight to save public education will happen in communities and districts, at the grassroots level.

We ask you to join us, become active, send us action alerts about meetings, protests and demonstrations in your district or town or city so we can help you get the news out.

Here is information you can use:

Get everyone you can to join NPE. Sign them up

http://networkforpubliceducation.org/become-a-member/

Tell others on Facebook to join. We will be mobilizing in the months ahead.

Create a local group in support of public schools. Use Facebook or create a website. Then join our Grassroots Network.

http://networkforpubliceducation.org/grassroots-education-network-3/

Read our emails. We will be regularly launching campaigns at the national and state level.

Make a donation. If we are to fight this we will need funds. http://networkforpubliceducation.org/about-npe/donate/

Together, we will build a movement so powerful that we can beat Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, and all others who aim to privatize our public schools. Together we can keep the for-profit privateers and frauds out of our schools.

Work with us. We need your help.

It is baffling that there is a sector of the Democratic Party that aligns with far-right Republicans on education issues. The Republicans want nothing more than to turn education into a free market, a strategy that has no evidence behind it.

Steven Singer bemoans the fact that a group of Democratic legislators in his state of Pennsylvania are supporting the Republican push against public schools.

He writes:

“Democrats are supposed to be liberals, progressives.

“That means upholding the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State.

“So why are so many Pennsylvania Democrats sponsoring an expansion of the state’s de facto school voucher bill?

“A total of 11 out of 84 sponsors of HB 250 are Democrats. The bill would expand the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC) programs.

“The Commonwealth already diverts $200 million of business taxes to private and parochial schools. That’s money that should be going to support our struggling public school system.

“The new bill would add $50 million to each program for a total of $100 million more flushed down the drain.

“Pennsylvania has a budget deficit. We’ve cut almost $1 billion a year from public schools. We can’t afford to burn an additional $300 million on private and church schools.

“We expect Republicans to support this regressive nonsense. Especially in gerrymandered Pennsylvania, they’ve gone further and further right to please their Tea Party base and avoid being primaried.

“But the few Democrats left in the House and Senate are likewise in districts that would never vote Republican. You’d expect them to get more and more progressive. Instead, even here we see them taking steps to the right!

“Democratic sponsors of the bill are almost exclusively from the state’s urban centers – Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.”

He lists the Democrats who support corporate giveaways.

Don’t vote for them.

Phyllis Bush is a retired educator and a member of the board of the Network for Public Education who lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

She writes here about the hidden cost of vouchers, which are a gift of public dollars to private schools with no accountability.

Here is an excerpt:

Vouchers drain state tax dollars from the entire education funding pot. This often causes district budgeting deficits and/or the need for tax increases, referendums and the like. That loss of revenue to public schools increases class sizes and diminishes student resources such as counselors, support personnel, supplemental materials and buses.

From the vantage point of a traditional public school supporter, vouchers are a gift of taxpayer funds given to private schools without any accountability. Additionally, the expansion of choice is creating two separate school systems. In this parallel system, one pathway will be for those who can afford quality choices. The other pathway will be to an underfunded, separate-but-unequal road, marked by poverty and by zip codes. As most people know, public schools are required to accept all students while “choice schools” have the option of choosing the students who fit their agenda. Choice schools are allowed to reject students with behavior issues, students with low scores, students with disabilities, and students who don’t speak English.

The probable result of this further expansion of choice schools will be that the children with the most difficulties will be housed in the least well-financed schools. Sadly, many legislators have chosen to be willfully unaware of the consequences of “school choice.”

While the reformers and the takeover artists and the hedge fund managers talk and talk and talk about the miraculous results of school choice, research shows that these results are uneven at best. As thoughtful citizens and taxpayers, wouldn’t it be prudent if we asked ourselves what is best for our traditional public schools, our communities and our kids?

Perhaps the fundamental question is what does society stand to lose in the name of “school choice?” Whose choice is it, anyway?”

Steven Singer says it straight: “Donald Trump lies.”

 

In a throwaway line in his inaugural speech, Trump said that the nation’s schools are “flush with cash” but failing to teach anything to their students.

 

To put it bluntly, Donald Trump knows nothing about American education. And he has chosen a Secretary of Education who knows even less than he does.

 

Steven describes the severe lack of funds that afflict many school districts, especially those in urban areas. School budgets have not grown since the 2008 economic collapse, yet they are expected to subtract funds to pay for charters, vouchers, and cybercharters (most of which perform worse than public schools).

 

I recommend that Trump and DeVos read my book “Reign of Error,” which shows that test scores are the highest they have been since the early 1970s, when NAEP testing began; that graduation rates are the highest they have ever been in our history; and that dropout rates are the lowest ever, for every racial group. But I have no hope that they will. Trump doesn’t read books, and DeVos is an ideologue whose mind cannot be changed by facts or evidence.

 

 

 

 

Mike Klonsky tells the sad story of a school in Chicago that lost its librarian to budget cuts. Some parents want to staff the library with volunteers, but the union objects to replacing professionals with volunteers. The irony in this case is that the school is named for a Chicago billionaire.

 

“The state’s schools have been operating without a school budget for the past two years. Gov. Rauner has been holding the budget hostage, hoping to leverage his signature for a pound of flesh, meaning a cut in retiree pensions, the elimination of teacher collective-bargaining rights, and more privatization of school services.

 

“There are currently hundreds of Chicago public schools operating without properly-staffed libraries, school nurses, special-ed paras or school social workers. Librarians are vital to the functioning of any school. If wealthy, mainly-whte suburban schools did away with librarians, replacing them with untrained, unpaid volunteers, there would be a parent revolt.

 

“From DNAinfo:

 

“Rachel Lessem, a member of the local school council at Pritzker, said each student used to have an hour of library a week, where they learned how to research, how to use databases and how to access other sources of information. The students had homework and grades in library as well
In Chicago’s two-tier, racially re-segregated school system, libraries and librarians are considered fluff, wasteful add-ons that are the first to go in times of crisis….”

 

 

“Another bit of irony… The school is named after the late Chicago billionaire A.N. Pritzker. The Pritzker family, owners of the Hyatt Hotel chain, is one of the city’s most powerful families and notoriously anti-union. Penny Pritzker, now Obama’s Commerce Secretary, was previously hand-picked by Rahm to sit on the school board. She voted for the mass school closings.

 

“The irony is that if the Pritzkers and the other city oligarchs paid their fair share of taxes, Pritzker Elementary would still have its librarian and then some.”

 

 


For the past twenty years, the New York Times has fawned over charter schools. Not in its reporting but in its editorials.

 

In its editorial about the Senate’s rush to confirm Betsy DeVos, the Times acknowledges that charters are not a cure for education problems.

 

“Beyond erasing concerns about her many possible financial conflicts, Ms. DeVos also faces a big challenge in explaining the damage she’s done to public education in her home state, Michigan. She has poured money into charter schools advocacy, winning legislative changes that have reduced oversight and accountability. About 80 percent of the charter schools in Michigan are operated by for-profit companies, far higher than anywhere else. She has also argued for shutting down Detroit public schools, with the system turned over to charters or taxpayer money given out as vouchers for private schools. In that city, charter schools often perform no better than traditional schools, and sometimes worse.”

 

The Times has gone up a steep learning curve on this topic. Now if only the editorial writers can continue to understand that school choice is not a cure for low-performing students, not even a band-aid. As voters in Massachusetts showed last November, when they rejected a proposal to expand the number of charters, the main effect of charters is to drain resources from existing schools. Slicing up the education budget into multiple sectors impoverishes them all and enriches only the corporations that operate charters.

 

 

Rhode Island state officials gave their permission to triple the enrollment of politically connected no-excuses charter chain Achievement First.

 

As reported here previously, increasing the enrollment of these charters will drain students and millions of dollars from the public schools of Providence.

 

Thousands of children in the Providence public schools will suffer budget cuts so that a much smaller number may enroll in a dual system under private control.

 

The final decision is up to the mayor of Providence, who is also chair of the charter chainboard.

Mercedes Schneider reviews the ruination of public education in Detroit while under the thumb of Betsy DeVos. She relies on an article that appeared in Truthout by Joseph Natoli.

 

Natoli wrote:

 

“Privatization of all things public has slammed Detroit as gentrifying investors seek to put price tags on what was previously public domain. In predatory fashion, privatizers are targeting the city’s struggling students as a new frontier for profit.

 

“How weak and vulnerable is public education in Detroit? The Nation’s Report Card, published by an independent federal commission, named Detroit Public Schools the country’s “lowest-performing urban school district” in 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015. In 2011, a Republican state legislature and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder repealed a statewide cap on the number of Detroit charter schools. The floodgates were opened and privatizing predators rolled in.

 

“Bankruptcy following the collapse of the jobs that fueled the “Motor City” has exposed Detroit to the dynamics described by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine. A crisis, either arranged or accidental, precipitates a rush to recuperation. Lobbyists of wealthy investors petition a government that wealthy investors have put in place. A much-quoted “checks and balances” security shield for democratic governance is thus so easily disarmed.

 

“The more startling, dire and urgent the crisis, the greater the rush to a “saving” privatization. Low reading and math scores, shared by both charter and public schools, do not as dramatically make the case that crisis exists, as does a more observable infrastructure rot and decay. When statistics do not show charter schools to be better spaces for learning than public schools, privatizers instead focus on appearances. In the case of Detroit public schools, appearance alone makes the case of crisis and failure in the eyes of parents. And, similarly, coats and ties or uniforms in classrooms shiny with new computers make the case for achievement and success.

 

“Still, the state of physical decay of Detroit schools is alarming: “Black mold in school buildings. Classroom heating systems that fail during frigid Michigan winters. Leaky roofs, warped floors, and collapsed ceilings,” enumerates MLive.com writer Eli Savit. The crisis has, of course, been financially engineered. The collapse of physical infrastructure in Michigan schools is funded solely through property taxes, thus less revenue is garnered in Detroit, where the average home is $40,000. Meanwhile, the average home in nearby Bloomfield Hills is worth 10 times that.

 

“Weakening Strategies

 

“Weakening public education to the point that privatization looks like rescue is accomplished by funding that is decreased when tax funds are siphoned off to for-profit charter schools. It is also inequitably allocated within the wide divide between poverty and wealth that exists in the US. When you allocate based on property ownership, you are at once solidifying the gap between rich and poor and, most grievously, extending that gap into the future.”

 

 

Arizona spends less on schools than most states. The governor, Doug Ducey, is determined not to raise taxes. The public is willing to spend more to improve education but the governor wants to hold the line.

 

Robert Robb, an editorial columnist for the Arizona Republic has an idea: cut the schools loose from school boards and judge them by standardized tests. And hold everyone accountable for results.

 

Arizona currently spends, from all sources for all purposes, $9,500 per K-12 student. That’s low compared with other U.S. states. But it is in the range spent by countries in Western Europe.

 

For example, Finland spends roughly the same per pupil as does Arizona, and it has one of the highest performing school systems in the world, based on international test scores.

 

However, to have high performance with existing dollars would require blowing up the existing delivery system and substituting a new one built from scratch.

 

What would such a system look like?

 

It would be entirely financed and controlled at the state level. Funding for all purposes, operational and capital, would be folded into a single, lump-sum, per pupil grant. The grant would go to whatever public school the student attended.

 

The principal at that school would have control of the elements of educational success: money, personnel and curriculum. Local school boards and central school district business offices would be neutered or abolished.

 

That would put in place the infrastructure of educational success. But actual success would be ensured by a rigorous regimen of accountability through testing. Failing to achieve the educational benchmarks set by the state would have consequences for all — administrators, teachers and students.

 

Arizona has never had such an accountability- through-testing regimen.And the state Board of Education is fleeing in the opposite direction, bent on adopting a new school grading system even more meaningless and useless than the previous one.

 

This is a surprising proposal because it echoes the failed test-and-punish accountability regime of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Both efforts said that test scores should be used to measure success and to hold everyone accountable. Fifteen years later, what is there to show for these multi-billion dollar initiatives? They aimed to produce higher test scores, and by their own goals and measures, they failed.

 

Mr. Robb must have a lot of faith in standardized testing if he thinks, like Margaret Spellings, Sandy Kress, and Arne Duncan, that they are the best way to identify success.

 

Since he brought up Finland, he should look into that nation more closely. Start by reading Pasi Sahlberg’s wonderful book, Finnish Lessons, or Finnish Lessons 2.0. What he would learn is that students in Finland don’t begin formal academic instruction until they are 7. They never take a standardized test until the end of high school. Their teachers are carefully selected, well prepared in a five-year program (that is hard to get accepted into), and given substantial autonomy over how and what to teach. Children have recess after every class, rain or snow or shine. The arts and physical education are very important. Creativity and play matter.

 

Please, Mr. Robb, learn more about Finland, and compare what you see in Arizona to what the Finns do.

 

 

Sheila Resseger is a retired teacher in Rhode Island. She writes in response to an earlier post about the proposed expansion of the Achievement First charter chain in Rhode Island. The state commissioner, Kenneth Wagner, is enthusiastic about the increase in charter enrollment by 2,000, even though it will strip more than $30 million from the Providence public schools, which enrolls far more students. What is the logic of diverting funding to charter schools for 2,000 while underfunding the education of 12,000?

 

She writes:

 

Not only was [Governor Gina] Raimondo’s husband, Andy Moffit, a roommate of Cory Booker’s, but he is a (brief) TFA alum and has been employed by McKinsey for some time. He is the co-author with Sir Michael Barber of Deliverology 101. Now I think that’s enough to know about him.

 

My colleague Wendy Holmes and I wrote a piece about Wagner’s support for the expansion of Achievement First for RI Future. http://www.rifuture.org/achievement-first-education-deform/

 

There have been several fiscal analyses of the impact of an AF expansion on Providence public schools and students, and critiques of the Innovative Policy Lab “report” that Wagner relied on when promoting the expansion. Here are a few:

 

Sam Zurier’s “Report on Fiscal Impacts to Providence Public Schools From Proposed Achievement First Expansion” – http://samzurier.com/public/ upload/11-30-Electronic-Cover- letter-and-Report.pdf

 

“Pro-Achievement First Study is Challenged” from the Providence Journal: http://www. providencejournal.com/news/ 20161208/education-pro- achievement-first-study-is- challenged

 

Mark Santow’s public comments at the December 6 RI Board of Education hearing: http://www.rifuture. org/3-reasons-to-oppose- achievement-first-expansion/

 

Tom Hoffman’s analysis of the Achievement First Fiscal Impact Memo prepared by Brown University’s Rhode Island Innovative Policy Lab – http://www.tuttlesvc.org/2016/ 12/a-closer-look-at-browns- achievement.html

 

There is also a new petition from families of Providence public school students opposing the expansion.

https://www.change.org/p/families-supporting-the-providence-public-schools-and-opposing-achievement-first-expansion?recruiter=1251398&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-no_msg

 

I will say that these two particular Achievement First elementary schools do enroll a high number of students from Spanish-speaking homes. I heard many parents speak at a public forum praising the education that their children are getting there, compared to what they experienced in the Providence public schools. However, when the chief measure of high achievement as opposed to failing schools is the fatally flawed PARCC assessment, we need to be very wary. The bottom line is that 12,000 Providence students should not have to suffer severe cuts to their schools and programs so that an extra 2,000 students can go to a well-resourced school. All children in Providence and throughout the country need and are entitled to fully resourced neighborhood public schools. The emphasis on test prep in ELA and math is counter-productive and not the direction that we should be going.