Archives for category: California

Martin Levine has become one of my favorite writers on education. He writes for NonProfit Quarterly (free online) and other publications. He really understands that privatization is about “me first, to hell with the rest of you.”

Here is his commentary on the recent Gordon Lafer study of the fiscal impact of charters on the public schools they leave behind.

Oakland is a textbook example of a district that is being systematically hollowed out by the proliferation of charter schools. Oakland has lurched from deficit to deficit, while controlled for years by Broadie superintendents, who encouraged the destruction of the district by charters.

He writes:

A recent look at public education in Oakland raises important questions about whether maximizing choice comes at the cost of equity.

Choice advocates have said all students would benefit from maximizing a parent’s ability to choose their child’s school. The introduction of independent charter schools, they believe, harnesses market forces to reward better schools and ultimately force poor schools to close. Following this logic, we will be left with better schools. But while charter schools can focus only on the students who choose their programs, traditional school districts remain responsible for all of the children in their districts. When funding follows each student to their school of choice, those choosing to remain in public schools are finding themselves resource-starved. Overall, educational equity and school choice may not be able to coexist.

Charter schools are about what is best for “me.” Public schools are about what is best for all.

In the age of Trump, individualism trumps the common good.

A close ally of Betsy DeVos just made a $2 million contribution to the campaign of Antonio Villarigosa for Governor of California.

The former Los Angeles Mayor is running solely on the charter issue, which is the source of his biggest campaign contributions.

Who knew that the California governor’s race would be determined by a single issue: Do you support public schools or charter schools?

The gubernatorial campaign of former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa got another big boost this week when William Oberndorf, a San Francisco philanthropist and ally of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, contributed $2 million to a committee set up by charter school advocates to promote the former Los Angeles mayor’s bid to be the next governor of California.

Oberndorf, a Republican and major GOP donor, replaced DeVos as chairperson of American Federation for Children in 2016 when she was named by Donald Trump to join his cabinet.

The goal of the organization which DeVos co-founded is to promote greater “school choice” for parents, especially low-income ones, by providing taxpayer supported subsidies to offset the cost of private school tuition. That could include vouchers, tax credits, education savings accounts and other strategies.

Oberndorf’s contribution went to Families and Teachers for Antonio Villaraigosa, an independent expenditure committee established by the Charter School Association of California Advocates. Under state law, the committee can promote a candidate but can not coordinate their activities with the candidate’s campaign.

Also this week former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg contributed another $1 million to the pro-Villaraigosa committee, to supplement the $1.5 million he had already contributed earlier this month.

Their contributions bring the total amount raised by the committee to just over $16 million over the past month, mostly contributed by a handful of high-wealth individuals. With these funds, the committee has been running television ads and sending out colorful materials to boost Villaraigosa’s odds in the June 5 primary.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the campaign of former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is funded almost entirely by billionaire charter supporters.

Reed Hastings, who once expressed his wish to see every local school board extinguished, has given the candidate $7 Million. Hastings want every school to be a charter.

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently gave the candidate $1.5 million.

If Villaraigosa is elected, the state board will greenlight every charter application. Oversight and accountability for charters is currently lax to minimal. Under Villaraigosa, they would disappear. The scams and frauds would have a picnic with taxpayers’ money. That’s what Hastings, Bloomberg, Broad, and Riordan are paying for.

Tom Ultican has been writing a series of posts about the “Destroy Public Education Movement,” a phrase coined by Professor Jim Scheurich of Indiana University, who has been documenting this vile effort to privatize public schools.

In this post, Ultican writes about current events in Oakland, where the school board seems to be cooperating with the demise of the district.

He writes:

“A “Systems of Schools” plan has been introduced by the destroy public education (DPE) forces in Oakland, California. The plan basically posits that with 30 percent of students in charter schools, the system has become inefficient. Therefore, the school board needs to review resources and close schools in areas with too many seats and overlapping programs.

“However, since Oakland’s school board has no authority over charter schools it is only public schools that can be closed or downsized unless charter schools voluntarily cooperate.”

Read on.

In case you don’t have time to read the full report released by “In the Public Interest” about the real costs of charter schools, Jan Resseger has done it for you.

Legislators pretend that charters are simply a “choice,” and pay no attention to the fiscal damage they impose on the public schools that educate the majority of children and lose revenue. Thus, the decision to have more charters reduces the quality of education for the majority of children in the district or the state.

She writes:

“What stands out in this report is the perfectly lucid explanation about exactly how charter school funding depletes the budgets of local school districts and what it means for the students left in the traditional public schools when some students carry their per-pupil funding away to a charter school: “To the casual observer, it may not be obvious why charter schools should create any net costs at all for their home districts. To grasp why they do, it is necessary to understand the structural differences between the challenge of operating a single school—or even a local chain of schools—and that of a district-wide system operating tens or hundreds of schools and charged with the legal responsibility to serve all students in the community. When a new charter school opens, it typically fills its classrooms by drawing students away from existing schools in the district. By California state law, school funding is based on student attendance; when a student moves from a traditional public school to a charter school, her pro-rated share of school funding follows her to the new school. Thus, the expansion of charter schools necessarily entails lost funding for traditional public schools and school districts. If schools and district offices could simply reduce their own expenses in proportion to the lost revenue, there would be no fiscal shortfall. Unfortunately this is not the case.”

“The report continues: “If, for instance, a given school loses five percent of its student body—and that loss is spread across multiple grade levels, the school may be unable to lay off even a single teacher… Plus, the costs of maintaining school buildings cannot be reduced…. Unless the enrollment falloff is so steep as to force school closures, the expense of heating and cooling schools, running cafeterias, maintaining digital and wireless technologies, and paving parking lots—all of this is unchanged by modest declines in enrollment. In addition, both individual schools and school districts bear significant administrative responsibilities that cannot be cut in response to falling enrollment. These include planning bus routes and operating transportation systems; developing and auditing budgets; managing teacher training and employee benefits; applying for grants and certifying compliance with federal and state regulations; and the everyday work of principals, librarians and guidance counselors.” As other studies have shown, the greatest fiscal burden for local school districts is for special education, because traditional public schools continue to serve the children with the most serious disabilities, the children who require expensive services most charters elect not to provide.

“What about the problems in school districts where the school population is already shrinking? In recent years charters have somehow been prescribed in places like Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland as a way to attract families to the district. But ITPI’s report explains why such thinking is flawed: “It is true that shrinking student populations cause a fiscal crisis for school districts. However, charter schools exacerbate this problem in unique ways. First, charter schools make it extremely difficult for districts to consolidate schools in the face of falling enrollment… When the creation of new schools is no longer tied to student population growth but rather is open to any number of entrepreneurs aimed at competing for market share, the inevitable result is an increased number of schools for the same population of students. In Albany, New York, over the course of a decade the district went from serving 10,380 students in 17 schools to serving just slightly more students—10,568—but in 24 schools…. And the New York Times reported that in the city of Detroit, ‘the unchecked growth of charters has created a glut of schools competing for some of the nation’s poorest students, enticing them to enroll with cash bonuses, laptops, raffle tickets for iPads and bicycles…’ The problem is particularly destructive in communities whose total school population is already shrinking…. In such districts school systems already struggling to meet student needs with diminishing resources are faced with additional dramatic cuts in funding.”

It makes perfect sense to everyone other than legislators and charter lobbyists.

“In the Public Interest” released a new report about the cost of charter schools, and the money they drain from public schools that educate most students.

Here is the press release, with a link to the full report by Gordon Lafer, author of The One Percent Solution.

Report: Charter Schools Remove Tens of Millions in Funding from
Neighborhood School Students in Three California Districts

$142.6 Million Net Loss in School Districts in San Diego, Oakland, and San Jose,
While Student Needs Go Unmet

WASHINGTON – In a first of its kind analysis of three California school districts, researchers found that public school students are bearing the cost of charter schools’ rapid expansion. The report calculates the net fiscal impact of charter schools on three representative California school districts: San Diego, Oakland, and San Jose’s East Side Union High School District.

The analysis, Breaking Point: The Cost of Charter Schools for Public School Districts, conducted by In the Public Interest, a California-based think tank, with Dr. Gordon Lafer, examines the cumulative effect of charter schools on California school districts, which rank 42nd nationwide in per pupil spending. The number of California charter schools increased by more than 900 percent to more than 1,200 schools over the last two decades.

“Our analysis shows that the continued expansion of charter schools has steadily drained money away from school districts and concentrated high needs students in neighborhood public schools,” said Dr. Gordon Lafer, political scientist and professor at the University of Oregon. “The high costs of charter schools have led to decreases in neighborhood public schools in counseling, libraries, music and art programs, lab sciences, field trips, reading tutors, special education funding, and even the most basic supplies like toilet paper.”

The California Charter Schools Act does not allow school boards to consider how a charter school may impact a district’s educational programs or fiscal health when weighing new charter applications. However, when a student leaves a neighborhood public school for a charter school, all the funding for that student leaves with them, while all of the costs do not. This leads to cuts in core services like counseling, libraries, and special education and increased class sizes at neighborhood public schools.

San Diego Unified is the second-largest district in the state, with a combined enrollment of more than 128,000 students, and a total of 51 charter schools. Oakland Unified has 50,000 students and has the highest concentration of charter schools in the state. East Side Union High School District has a total enrollment of 27,000 and is comprised solely of high schools. Although the districts face unique challenges and student populations, they share similar financial challenges from charter school expansion.

“Unlimited charter school expansion is pushing some of California’s school districts toward a financial tipping point, from which they will be unable to return,” Dr. Lafer said.

The report recommends that each school district create an annual economic impact report to assess the cost of charter school expansion in its community. With consideration of economic impact, school districts could more effectively balance the value of a new charter school with the needs of neighborhood public school students.

Key findings from the report include:

• Oakland Unified loses $5,643 a year per charter school student while San Diego Unified loses $4,913 a year and East Side Unified loses $6,000 a year.

● Charter schools cost Oakland Unified $57.3 million per year, a sum several times larger than the forced drastic cuts to Oakland’s neighborhood school system this year.

● In East Side Union High School District, the net impact of charter schools amount to a loss of $19.3 million per year.

● Charter schools cost the San Diego Unified $65.9 million in 2016-17, $6 million more than the most recent round of budget cuts in early 2018.

● In Oakland, nearly 78 percent of students come from low-income families, are English language learners, or are foster youth, while 63 percent of students in San Diego Unified and 52.7 percent of students in East Side High School Unified share those backgrounds.

The report builds on previous studies that used different methodologies but came to similar conclusions. In the smaller cities of Buffalo, New York, and Durham, North Carolina, the net impact of charter schools was estimated as a loss of $25 million per year to the school district. In Nashville, Tennessee, the loss is approaching $50 million per year. And in Los Angeles—the nation’s second-largest school district—the net loss is estimated at over $500 million per year.

In the Public Interest is a nonprofit resource center that studies public goods and services.

###

Read the report here.

I posted earlier today that the ACLU was defending a school board member against intimidation tactics by a charter school leader, who threatened to sue her for doing her job and asking questions.

The board member, Claudia Rossi, posted this comment on the blog:

“I am a Latina who won a seat on the Santa Clara County Board of Education despite the over 200k the California Charter School Association spent against my campaign. I will continue to fight for our children using my vote and my voice to protect them from profiteering CMOS. Children are not commodities! This threat to sue me and other tactics only expose the true motives of the privatization jaugernaut. Mi voz y mi voto no se venden! My voice and my vote are not for sale! Nuestros hijos tampoco! Neither are our children!”

In an editorial about the gubernatorial race in California, the Sacramento Bee endorsed former San Francisco MayorG avin Newsom and State Treasurer John Chiang. It specifically rejected former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa because of his alliance with the charter school industry.

What was crucial in its decision, says the editorial, was the charter school issue.

Gov. Jerry Brown is a hard act to follow. No California governor has served longer, or more consequentially.

In the past eight years alone – his second stint in the office – the state has gone from a $27 billion budget deficit to a $6 billion surplus. Unemployment has fallen from 12.2 percent to 4.3 percent, a record. Along the way, Brown has realigned the state’s criminal justice system, overhauled public school finance, licensed more than a million undocumented drivers, put the state at the forefront of addressing climate change and taught Californians a little Latin.

Whoever succeeds him will not only have to pick up where he left off on those issues, but also maintain his defense of California against Trump administration assaults on our environment, trade, diversity and tolerant values. Not to mention our many in-state challenges – affordable housing, health care, underfunded public employee pensions, higher education, water policy and so on. Oh, and the near-term likelihood of a downturn in the state economy.

So voters have their work cut out on June 5 in culling two candidates from a field of more than two dozen contenders. A few prospects are prepared, but let us stipulate: None are Jerry Brown.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom sat down with the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board to discuss affordable housing, the California economic divide and other key election issues ahead of the June 5 primary. Emily ZentnerSacramento Bee Editorial Board

The best-equipped candidate for the economy to come – state Treasurer John Chiang – is running an anemic campaign and is probably terminally underfunded. The best-financed and most experienced candidates – former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom – have, in their personal lives, made unnerving and public errors in judgment.

More immediately, there are the great gobs of money from billionaire charter school advocates going to independent expenditure campaigns backing Villaraigosa. Though Newsom, too, has his billionaires – hello, Silicon Valley – the charter movement has direct implications for public schools in California.

It is largely because of this latter development that our top two endorsements go to Newsom and Chiang.

Newsom, the 50-year-old frontrunner in the polls, has been running for governor for so long, and has put so much thought into the matter, that when he speaks, his positions manage to sound both glib and over-detailed. That’s too bad: His principles, hedged though they often seem, generally channel the liberal majority of this blue state.

Like Brown, he’s for strong climate policy, locally focused school finance and aggressive use of the courts to beat back the overreaches of the Trump administration. But he departs from the governor on some other popular but expensive points. He says higher education should get more state funding, as should universal preschool, and he advocates – rashly, given the cost – single-payer health care, a position that has endeared him to California progressives.

If he gets elected and the state economy dips, as experts expect, he will surely disappoint them.

Chiang, 55, may not have Newsom’s San Francisco charisma, but he does know economics. Call him a wonk, but so is Brown, and like Brown, he knows the value of deliberation and frugality.

Since his 1997 appointment to the state Board of Equalization, Chiang, a child of Taiwanese immigrants and a graduate of Georgetown law school, has served in a series of statewide offices with, as he puts it, “no drama.”

That hasn’t meant no guts: As controller, he withheld legislators’ paychecks after they blew a voter-approved deadline for passing the budget; some still haven’t forgiven him. During the recession, he also refused an order from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to slash state workers’ pay.

He downplays his personal story, though it is compelling; his sister was brutally murdered when he was a young man, and his family encountered blistering racism during his childhood in suburban Chicago. Like Newsom, he champions public schools, and his ideas to address the state housing crisis with a big housing bond have been both sensible and aggressive. It’s too bad his campaign is such a dud; he’s the best choice for fiscally conscious Californians – and for Republicans who might want to vote strategically and try to get a moderate in the November general election in this heavily Democratic state.

Villaraigosa, 65, would give Newsom the toughest runoff in November. He was Assembly Speaker and ran California’s largest and most complicated city during the worst of the recession; once an up-from-the-streets labor organizer, he has become more pragmatic with age.

But his alliance with rich charter school advocates in Los Angeles could backfire at the state level. Privately operated public charter schools have been an important alternative in low-income districts, but they also have pulled students – and enrollment-based state and federal funds – out of the regular school system.

In the L.A. schools, where the charter billionaires and Villaraigosa worked together with the best intentions, that trend, combined with soaring pension obligations, has spawned a financial disaster. Now comes a $12.5 million independent expenditure for Villaraigosa from charter philanthropists Eli Broad, Reed Hastings of Netflix and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The charter school issue is as important to get right as it is divisive. California has challenges enough without letting its factions hijack the governor’s race.

This is a remarkable turnaround for the Bee, because in the past it was an unabashed cheerleader for charter schools. When I visited Sacramento several years back, I met with the editorial board. It was cool to the point of being hostile because of my criticism of charters. At that time, Michelle Rhee was a star who had recently married the mayor of Sacramento. So, either the internal dynamics of the Bee editorial has changed, or the membership of the board changed, or the board learned more about the charter industry. Whatever the reason, this endorsement is great news. It demonstrates that the bloom is off the rose for charter schools, and the billionaires who back them.

The Network for Public Education Action Fund endorsed John Chiang because of his clarity about the negative fiscal impact on the state’s public schools. Hopefully, Gavin Newson will learn from the Bee editorial that it is safe to support traditional public schools, which enroll the vast majority of the students in California, instead of an aggressive industry that promises more than it delivers. At least, do no harm.

The times, they are a’ changing.

 

The Los Angeles Times endorses Tony Thurmond for State Superintendent. His opponent, Marshall Tuck, is closely aligned with the powerful charter lobby. But that’s not why the newspaper endorsed Thurmond. The editorial board was impressed by his proposals to help the neediest kids.

The Network for Public Education also endorsed Thurmond, so we are delighted to know that the Times evaluated both men and preferred Thurmond based on his ideas and his record.

 

 

Did you ever imagine that the passion for privatizing public schools would motivate two billionaires to dump a fat gift into Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign for governor?

Who else but Reed Hastings and Eli Broad would consider their love for school privatization to be the leading issue in the governor’s race?

“Netflix CEO Reed Hastings pledged $7 million and Los Angeles real estate entrepreneur Eli Broad promised $1.5 million to an independent expenditure organization called Families and Teachers for Antonio Villaraigosa for Governor 2018, which is run by the California Charter Schools Association Advocates.

“Antonio Villaraigosa will be a governor for all Californians, keeping the American dream possible in California with good schools, safe neighborhoods, affordable health care, and opportunities for everyone to succeed,” said Gary Borden, executive director of the charter schools group…

”[Gavin] Newsom is leading most polls, while his fellow Democrat Villaraigosa is fighting it out with Republican John Cox, a Rancho Santa Fe (San Diego County) businessman, for second place, according to a nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California survey this month. Only the top two finishers in the June 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the general election in November.

“Villaraigosa’s campaign had $5.9 million in the bank at the end of 2017, the most recent campaign finance disclosure period. Newsom had $19.5 million.

“You knew it was going to happen. Here you have entrenched political interests where there are billions of dollars at stake,” said state Treasurer John Chiang, who has been mired deep in the polls behind Newsom, Cox and Villaraigosa.

“Villaraigosa has long been an advocate for charter schools. The education platform on his campaign website says that “poor families also deserve the right to access high-quality schools and publicly chartered schools often provide that access. High-performing public charters playing by the same set of rules as other public schools are laboratories for innovation and creativity.”

“Steve Smith, spokesman for the 2.1 million-member California Labor Federation, which endorsed Newsom, said the cash infusion to the independent expenditure group “shows that the Villaraigosa campaign hasn’t gotten off the ground, so the billionaire charter school guys came to his rescue.”

The Network for Public Education Action Fund has endorsed State Treasurer John Chiang for Governor because of his unequivocal support for public schools. Perhaps the infusion of charter school money for Villaraigosa will help Newsom decide where he stands (he has already been endorsed by the California Teachers Association).