Archives for category: Charter Schools

The credit rating agency Moody’s informed cities in Massachusetts that the recent vote not to add more charter schools was good for their credit ratings and will help key their borrowing costs lower. Voters defeated Question 2 by 62-38%. It won approval only in a few urban districts. The vote against the proposal was highest in districts with charters, where funding for public schools had decreased.

“The decision of Massachusetts voters to reject a ballot question expanding charter schools is “credit positive” for urban cities like Springfield and Boston, the rating agency Moody’s said Tuesday.

“The result is credit positive for urban local governments because it will allow those cities and towns to maintain current financial operations without having to adjust to increased financial pressure from charter school funding,” Moody’s wrote in a report.

“The ballot question would have allowed state officials to approve up to 12 new charter schools a year outside of an existing cap. The current cap ensures that school districts spend no more than 9 percent of their budgets, or 18 percent in low-performing districts, paying for student tuition to charter schools. That limits the number of charter schools that can grow or expand in urban areas like Boston and Springfield, resulting in waiting lists.

“A central part of the debate over charter school expansion was funding. When a child attends a charter school, the state money to educate that child goes to the charter school, although the district gets reimbursed for the first years to smooth over the transition costs. Opponents of charter school expansion say the funding formula took money from the traditional public schools, hurting struggling districts, even though the loss of students did not affect the schools’ fixed costs.

“Moody’s wrote in its report that since 2010, cities like Boston, Fall River, Lawrence and Springfield have seen charter school spending grow by 83 percent even as overall spending on public education in the state grew by only 15 percent.”

Mercedes Schneider updates the latest speculation about Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education.

Eva is out. Rhee is very controversial. Robinson is a Bush retread. DeVos is inside in the rail.

She adds a few more names to the list.

DFER, by the way, released a statement saying that no Democrat should serve in a Trump administration, even though his agenda of school choice and competition measures the one they have pushed for 10 years.

All, of course, are of one mind about the need to introduce more privatization and competition into education.

Eva Moskowitz may or may not have been invited to join the Trump administration as Secretary of Education, but she announced that she is staying in New York to run her charter chain. She is an avid fan of Common Core, and as reported yesterday, some Trump supporters oppose both her and Michelle Rhee because of their Common Core advocacy.

Meanwhile, a new name has surfaced. The Detroit News reports that billionaire Betsy DeVos, a school choice zealot, is in the pool of possible secretaries for Trump. DeVos is active in the Michigan Republican Party, and has funded the pro-voucher, pro-charter American Federation of Children.

Ed reformers like to pretend that they are liberals, as they advocate for school choice and privatization. Trump has brought their agenda to fruition. When you think of Trump’s education agenda, think charter schools, vouchers, school choice, privatization.

DFER can disband now. President-elect Trump is on their side.

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education Action Fund, reports here on our efforts to support public education in the election of 2016.

We don’t have money to offer candidates, unlike the hedge fund PACS and the billionaires, but we offer our endorsement so that voters know which candidates are the real deal, and which state referenda will strengthen or harm public schools.

Please open the letter for the full report:

The election of 2016 is over, and we must intensify the fight to save our community public schools. Based on campaign rhetoric, there is no doubt that the Trump/Pence administration will accelerate the movement to privatize our public school system under the guise of “choice.” We will continue to update you and ask you join in that fight.

Even in this dark election, however, there were points of lights found in victories for those of us who believe that public schools are, as Diane often says, the pillar of our democracy. NPE Action endorsed 12 candidates—five of whom were elected or re-elected.

Steve Bullock was re-elected as Governor of Montana. Governor Bullock’s strong, support for public education and democratically governed schools are well known throughout Montana. In 2016, The Network for Public Education’s State Report Card ranked Montana 4th in the nation. Under Governor Bullock’s leadership, the state received a rating of “A” for its resistance to privatization and for its resistance to high-stakes testing. Bullock’s re-election is a major blow to corporate reformers who ran a candidate who wanted to bring charters into the state.

Barbara Madsen was re-elected as Supreme Court Judge in the State of Washington. Madsen authored the court’s 6-3 decision that found that charter schools were not entitled to public monies because they were directed by private boards instead of representatives elected by the community. Stand for Children, Bill Gates, Reed Hastings and other proponents of charters contributed to the campaign to defeat Barbara and her Supreme Court colleagues who voted with her on the charter decision. All were re-elected.

There is more good news in Washington State because it looks like Chris Reykdal will be the new Superintendent of Instruction. Chris is adamant about supporting the Washington State Supreme Court decision that denies public funding to charters. He believes in less testing, smaller class sizes, due process rights for teachers, sufficient and equitable school funding and student data privacy. Although all of the votes are not counted, Chris holds a strong lead and is expected to be the winner.

We also are pleased that two other NPE Action endorsed candidates were victorious. Renitta Shannon won a seat in the Georgia House of Representatives, and Robert Garcia was elected to a California School Board in the Etiwanda District.

We also thank our endorsed candidates who were not successful for their hard fought campaigns: Hillary Clinton, Glenda Ritz, Zephyr Teachout, Larry Proffitt, Kwame Smith, Ardy Kassakhian, and Mandy Wright. We will bring the fight forward in 2018, and we ask for their continued support in the battle to save our public schools.

Ballot Initiatives

NPE Action strongly endorsed the defeat of two ballot initiatives that would have furthered the undermining of our community public schools. We are delighted to report that despite a huge influx of corporate reform dollars, both were defeated.

Voters in Massachusetts overwhelmingly defeated Question 2, 62%-38%. Question 2 would have lifted the cap off charter schools (a cap that still has not even been reached) and permitted the addition of 12 charter schools each year. A coalition of parents, teachers and students banded together and defeated its proponents who spent at least $22 million. Big out-of-state givers were billionaires and hedge fund managers.

The question was handily defeated in areas where charters have the greatest presence, busting the “charters are a civil rights” myth. “Ultimately, communities of color spoke loudly about our needs to protect public school funding while also expressing an urgency to deliver a quality education for all our students,” said Michael Curry, president of the Boston branch of the NAACP.

Voters in Georgia said, “keep your hands off our public schools.”

Democrats and Republicans joined to defeat Amendment 1, the governor’s plan to change the state constitution to allow him to take over schools with low-test scores and turn them into charters. Civil Rights icon and former mayor, Andrew Young, baseball legend, Hank Aaron, and Georgia PTA President Lisa-Marie Haywood encouraged voters to defeat this ALEC inspired initiative to undermine the democratic control of local schools. The voters of Georgia agreed.

Californians passed Proposition 55 that extended the 2012 personal income tax on incomes over $250,000 for 12 years in order to fund education and healthcare in the state. It overwhelmingly passed.

MORE THAN EVER, WE NEED YOUR HELP

During the election season, we were often asked why we did not endorse more candidates and ballot initiatives. The answer is a simple one—endorsements cost money. We need to do legal research to make sure we abide by state laws, and it costs modest funds to send emails and create memes.

NPE Action needs your financial support. Without that support, we cannot do the work that must be done when election time comes around. Unlike the charter industry, we do not have billionaire donors giving money to support political endorsements and candidates. We depend on you. Please donate to NPE Action today.

Make your donation here: http://npeaction.org/2016/02/19/donate/

Another way to support NPE Action is to attend our December 11 New York City dinner to honor Diane Ravitch. There are a few tickets left, which you can purchase here: http://npeaction.org/2016/09/13/6997/.

Thank you for all that you do. The 2016 election taught us a valuable lesson… we all need to do more.

Carol Burris

Executive Director

NPE Action

NPE Action is a 501 (c)(4). Therefore donations are not tax deductible.

Please share this post.

Mike Klonsky wonders whether Arne Duncan’s patronizing comments about parents and critics of high-stakes testing helped Donald Trump win the election.

When 20% of the parents in New York opted out of the state testing, he sneered at them and said they were white suburban parents who found out that their child wasn’t so bright after all. This was rank condescension.

When Duncan used Race to the Top billions to bribe states into adopting Common Core, he continued to insist that Common Core was a project of the states. He became the nation’s leading cheerleader for Common Core, and he ridiculed the critics. The critics were vociferous, especially in the Midwest.

Throughout his time in office, Duncan celebrated the successes of charter schools, wherever he could find them, and barely noticed public schools. Last month, before Massachusetts voted on Question 2, Duncan turned up in Boston to argue that expansion of charters was unquestionably a good thing. Despite his ringing endorsement, Question 2 was soundly defeated in almost every district in the state.

I don’t know whether Duncan helped Trump win by making public school parents angry, but he most certainly paved the way for the full-throated privatization that Trump is now pressing. Who would have thought that Arne Duncan and Donald Trump would be on the same team, cheering for more school choice, more charters, more privatization? Trump took it to the next level and threw in vouchers. Once you endorse school choice and launch an assault on the very principle of public education, it is hard to walk it back.

This book review just appeared in the New York Review of Books.

I wrote it before the election but was able to update it immediately after the election, before it went to print.

I review Samuel E. Abrams’ “Education and the Commercial Mindset” and Mercedes K. Schneider’s “School Choice: The End of Public Education?”

Both are worth reading.

I enjoy publishing in TNYRB because it has a large readership that reaches well beyond the educators and engaged parents who read the blog. It is probably our most distinguished literary/political journal, and I am honored to write there.

Politico reports on speculation that Eva Moskowitz is high up on the Trump list as a potential Secretary of Education.

Hedge fund manager John Paulson gave Moskowitz $8.5 million for her charter chain. He was also a major supporter of Trump.

Would she want to leave her charter empire, where she is paid handsomely? As Secretary of Education, she could spread the gospel of privatization far and wide.

While Moskowitz has found herself on the defensive at home, Success is still seen as a national charter model by many influential reform leaders. That’s based in large part on loyal, vocal support for her from the families of her student body, which is overwhelmingly poor, black and Latino — groups among whom opposition to Trump in the election was particularly strong.

(Success staff seemed to be mourning the results last week; the network’s social media staff posted a Langston Hughes poem about equality in America on its Twitter feed the morning after the election.)

Politics aside, Moskowitz might chafe at the constraints of the post, which is viewed among education observers largely as a bureaucratic position without all the power the title would suggest. This would be particularly true if a Trump administration set about relinquishing some federal power back to the states.

And while Trump has pledged to “get rid of” the Common Core, Moskowitz is a strong supporter of the set of standards introduced by President Obama. An enormous part of her schools’ renown is Success students’ high scores on Common Core-aligned exams.

We are well aware that charter schools open and close, sometimes for academic reasons, sometimes for financial reasons. Unfortunately, some of these schools are financed with municipal bonds, which makes them a risky endeavor. The story below is behind a pay wall. I subscribed to The Bond Buyer so I could read it in full. It shows why the NAACP and other organizations are calling for charter school accountability and transparency. It is not good for either municipal finance or for children to have schools that close in the middle of the year without warning.

Racently, the National Federation of Municipal Analysts urged charter schools “to provide detailed financial, academic, and staffing information in primary and secondary disclosure documents.” This is the first time that the NFMA has made disclosure recommendations for charter schools.

“The charter school sector has been very active in the last … four to five years [and] it traditionally has not had a lot of public rating coverage,” said Gilbert Southwell, vice president at Wells Capital Management and co-chair of the NFMA disclosure subcommittee that drafted the paper. “[The RBP] is both educational for our membership but also helps to establish our disclosure expectations when we’re looking at these deals.”

Dean Lewallen, vice president and senior analyst at AllianceBernstein L.P. and co-chair of the subcommittee with Southwell, said the RBP is the product of a year-long vetting process with a variety of market participants and thus reflects “an industry consensus.”

The document’s recommendations begin with key information that should be included in a primary offering statement (POS). According to the RBP, a charter school’s POS should disclose all material financial agreements, including the proposed indenture, loan agreement, capital leases, management agreements, and tax regulatory agreements. It should also include information from twelve other broader topics, like descriptions of facilities and their financing, pledged revenues, and projected cash flows. NFMA also wants descriptions of debt service, repair and replacement, operating and deficit, as well as insurance and property tax reserve funds.

The RBP lists disclosures in a successful charter school POS related to academic performance as well as school management and operations.

“A charter school’s academic performance has been identified as an especially important factor in charter school long-term stability and success,” NFMA said in its RBP. “Consequently, the POS should disclose all relevant aspects of the charter school academic performance.”

Such disclosures should include information covering regulatory authorities that have jurisdiction over the charter school, along with the school’s curriculum and education programs at varying grade levels and how those programs satisfy applicable educational standards, the RBP says. Information on how the school tests students to measure academic growth as well as how recent school data stacks up against historic measurements should be presented in an easily accessible way for investors, NFMA said.

In terms of school staff and management, an effective POS should provide detailed information in eight key areas, according to NFMA, including: charter board membership, compensation, and tenure; information available on the school’s website; management qualification, experience, and compensation; third-party manager control, compensation, and replacement; and charter school teaching faculty, classroom ratios, and teachers’ union affiliation. Additionally, the POS should have information regarding teacher and staff compensation, including retirement benefits, any complaints and claims the school is facing, as well as operating and funding information related to extracurricular activities.

Another important area for disclosure has to do with the school’s facilities, NFMA said. A POS should contain information about the size, capacity, and condition of facilities, including equipment, along with descriptions of future capital improvement needs, insurance support, and transportation and parking capabilities for students and staff, respectively.

On the financial side, charter schools should be taking seven areas of potential funding into account when creating their primary disclosures. Any POS should include discussion of audited financial statements and interim financials, current budgetary processes, financial covenant compliance and projections, and existing banking relationships, according to the RBP. State aid and other governmental support should also be listed along with information about planned future debt and reliance on endowments, fund drives, contributions, and gifts.

Disclosures that describe a school’s location, enrollment, potential competition from other schools in the area, and future projections on such topics are also important, NFMA said.

The organization included separate but related suggestions to consider credit risks and continuing disclosure.

“Credit risks involved in charter school acquisition financing are numerous and often the source of significant concerns,” the group said in the RBP.

Several credit risk areas the group recommended a school disclose in a POS are the: suitability and condition of a new facility and equipment; facility acquisition price; and facility construction costs.

NFMA said in its RBP that until fairly recently, most continuing disclosure agreements (CDAs) for charter school financings did not provide much more investor disclosure than a year-end audit.

“The NFMA believes that charter school continuing disclosure needs to be far more complete, robust, and timely to reflect credit characteristics and risks specific to the sector,” the group said….

NFMA also recommended what schools should disclose in its quarterly reports, which it said should be filed between 45 and 60 days after the end of each quarter. The group listed examples of special events and information that may not be produced on a routine schedule but should be made known “promptly” when available, such as mid-year cuts in state or local funding.

NFMA urges charter schools to hold at least one live conference call per year to discuss data and the school’s current status. It also lists a number of instances, like a charter non-renewal, that may not be considered material events under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 15c2-12 on disclosure, but should be promptly reported to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s EMMA system anyway.

The RBP makes five additional recommendations, such as that charter schools be aware that borrowers need to be educated on the importance of continuing disclosure and that all disclosure should be posted to EMMA.

Karen Wolfe is a parent activist in Los Angeles. She wrote the following plea to the school board of LAUSD, which will make a decision tomorrow:


Dear Board members,

I just learned that a proposal for a brand new LAUSD Playa Vista middle school is to be voted on at tomorrow’s board meeting.

Please vote No on Agenda Item 14, Establishment of the New Middle School Pathway in Collaboration with Loyola Marymount University.

· It was clear last December, when the board rejected this, and it is clear now. This is a segregated school for certain families to feel more comfortable being in LAUSD. The curriculum is STEM, which is already available at the curriculum at the existing middle school. If this becomes the well resourced, favored school, all nearby middle schools will experience an exodus.

If the only justifiable rationale for an additional middle school on the west side, where enrollment has dropped, is that these families prefer to segregate themselves from our LAUSD children, then it is morally imperative that the school district do everything in its power to make integration of our students a priority. Especially given the potentially horrifying impacts of last week’s world events, then Interim Superintendent, Ramon Cortines’ words from last December’s board meeting seem prophetic:

“There are some people in our schools that don’t want to go to school with ‘those children’ based on class.…Because there are people that feel that they are entitled because of where they live, and I am saying you can’t escape it anymore. Our children need to grow up in an education that deals with all levels of socio-economics, all levels of ethnic and cultural diversity. We cannot escape it anymore.
This district and this area needs to be a model for this.”

I am not saying that parents have racist intentions. But unintended bias is something that needs to be interrupted.

· The Board Informative erroneously states that the policy implications of this vote are “unknown at this time.” Since the School District creates policy through board action, the policy is well documented in the near unanimous vote recorded at the December, 2015 board meeting, and the policy rationale is well documented in the transcript and recording below. In fact, then Superintendent Cortines requested board approval for a plan that prioritized integration policy. The only opposing vote was because Ms. Ratliff perceived the associated charter school as getting special treatment in the facilities upgrade.

· The communities most heavily impacted by the establishment of this school should be provided an opportunity to give input for the board to consider. School board president Zimmer wisely stated in December, 2015, “it is absolutely clear to us now, and is the way we are going to move forward. All stakeholders together working together for a solution here that works for all families. For all families. I believe even in this difficult week, even as there’s been missteps and communication which I apologize for, I believe it is possible for us to get to answers that work for all families, all children and all schools by working together. All stakeholders together in this process.” That was a year ago. Last month, at a small meeting of the education committee of the Westchester/Playa neighborhood council, we were told that one group of stakeholders had worked to create this school. We were reassured though, that a community meeting would be held before the board voted. This new school would have wide reaching impacts, and the larger community including Westchester HS, Orville Wright MS, Marina Del Rey MS, and feeder elementary schools should have a fair opportunity to discuss them and propose mitigations for potential problems.

· I have heard two different district staff explain that this proposal is what Orville Wright teachers want because they did not want this school located on their campus. That is like telling a restaurant owner that a new restaurant is being built next door because he didn’t want one on his patio. The teachers and parents I have spoken to at Wright tell a different story. They would have felt differently if LMU had approached them in a collaborative manner, rather than simply to take Wright’s real estate for their own separate school, offering nothing to the teachers or children at Wright.

· The agreement calls for waivers from the UTLA and AALA contracts. Parents do not have contracts with the schools. We and our children have to live by the rules contained in those labor contracts, and we can look them up on the internet. If this school is going to have different rules, then those rules and the reasons for waivers should be part of the community’s consideration of this project.

· Loyola Marymount boasts the largest and longest running Teach for America corps. TFA is a drastically different organization than it was 20 years ago. Our board president is a rare exception to the well documented attrition rate of TFA. Over 70% of its temporary teachers leave after two years. Using a large number of TFA temps in one school would have a significant impact on a school. This should be part of the discussion.

· The further gentrification of the west side is bringing new families into LAUSD’s boundaries. This could become the future lifeblood of our neighborhood schools. Creating a new school for a wealthier, predominately white population will set a dangerous precedent. As new families continue to move into the west side, they will expect their own schools. These newer families could enroll their children in existing middle schools and prevent the closure or merger of existing schools. The possibility of such segregation, especially in such close proximity should be avoided.

· Adding schools and classrooms to the west side will increase the available Prop 39 space, creating more work for principals and more conflict in schools already beleaguered by charter co-locations.

Finally, please do not go down this path. After last week’s presidential election, the beautifully diverse and vibrant California made clear that it would lead the way in protecting the values we hold dear. Please do not let us down; raise us up.

Sincerely,

Karen Wolfe

TRANSCRIPT AND RECORDING OF DECEMBER, 2015 BOARD MEETING
http://lausd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=377&meta_id=25162

Superintendent Cortines said:

Wright has an opportunity to be an outstanding middle school for the feeder elementary schools. “I really see a seamless system” in Westchester. It shouldn’t be about those that can yell the loudest. It needs to address the issues of Wright that this district has neglected for years of it becoming a leading middle school on the west side of the City. That is the plan I am recommending…

3:44 Now, I’m going to say it the way it is. I’ve been to those schools. And there are some issues here, and you’re going to disagree with me, some of you. I’ve spent my life, my professional career, 60 years, dealing with the issues of integration. I want you to know that when I was superintendent in Pasadena, and they would say to me, well the African American community or the black community. And I would say which one of the communities? One of the issues that you as a community are going to have to face is the class issue. There are some people in our schools that don’t want to go to school with ‘those children’ based on class. Ma’am, I see you saying it’s not true. I’ve seen it and I’ve gotten the letters that it is true. So I’m saying you together, in working on an instructional plan for the elementary and for Wright are going to have to face that head on. Because there are people that feel that they are entitled because of where they live and I am saying you can’t escape it anymore. Our children need to grow up in an education that deals with all levels of socio-economics all levels of ethnic and cultural diversity. We cannot escape it anymore. This district and this area needs to be a model for this. My recommendation is very clear that under the direction of Dr. Gibson and Mrs. Hildreth, the superintendent and other that we should begin the study that should be in the middle school , not just in one elementary but in five elementaries. That’s my recommendation.

Board President Zimmer said: I understand this is a public meeting. The courage that you have shown all of those 60 years demands all of our respect and thanks. If this was not clear from the beginning, it is absolutely clear to us now. And is the way we are going to move forward. All stakeholders together working together for a solution here that works for all families. For all families. I believe even in this difficult week, even as there’s been missteps and communication which I apologize for, I believe it is possible for us to get to answers that work for all families, all children and all schools by working together. All stakeholders together in this process. We can’t do it if we don’t have the facilities investment. Very clearly, that I believe in Orville Wright Middle School. I believe in the efforts, driven by staff, not by this district, by staff, teachers and families It’s s transformation process that I will continue to invest in. Has to be about instruction. So when we make commitments about meaningful instructional pathways, we have to work out how we fulfill that commitment without injuring a commitment to others…Each of the elementary schools in the feeder pattern, as we see a reinvestment in each of our schools, again driven by instruction, driven by the quality and excellence that we demand for our children, and we should demand for all children

Karen Wolfe
310.823.4204
@kwolfepack on twitter
http://www.PSconnectNow.org
PS Connect – Friends to Schools

Myra Blackmon, veteran journalist, writes that people from all backgrounds in Georgia joined to defeat Amendment 1, the governor’s plan to change the state constitution to allow the state to take over low-scoring schools and turn them into charter schools. Whatever their race or their place, Georgians didn’t want to give up local control of their public schools.

Now that the ALEC plan for state takeover has gone down to defeat, Blackmon has some positive ideas for helping the 127 schools that were picked for state takeover.

First, we can use the same techniques to insist the Legislature fully fund the Quality Basic Education formula that promises equitable and sufficient funding for all schools. Changing the formula will do no good if we don’t know what would happen if we actually funded the one we have had in place for decades. We must also insist that money that would have been spent on the Opportunity School District be used to help those 127 schools on the original target list.

Second, we must advocate for allowing the state Department of Education to do its job. As state School Superintendent Richard Woods outlined in a recent piece, the state DOE has the knowledge and expertise to help struggling schools improve their performance. In recent years, however, the governor and the Legislature have regularly bypassed the DOE and its elected head, imposing new rules and ignoring any input from the one department of state government that has the personnel, experience and reach most likely to help solve our problems.

Third, we must insist on appropriate assessment of school performance. The College and Career Ready Performance Index is being misused to “grade schools” as passing or failing when it was designed to simply measure growth. Further, the CCRPI wrongly relies almost entirely on the results of the Georgia Milestones standardized tests.

Throwing money at schools doesn’t help them, but neither does starving them of resources they need. New funding should be used wisely to reduce class sizes, to hire experienced teachers, give them the supplies and support they need, and retain them, and to make sure that children have a full and rich curriculum, including the arts.

Getting the politicians out of the way of educators is a swell idea. For some reason, state legislators think they should tell educators how to do their job; they are wise enough not to do that to any other profession.

Blackmon points out that the Georgia tests have changed frequently and have never been useful for teachers or students.

Despite the hundreds of millions of our tax dollars invested in the Georgia Milestones, the tests have never been validated as reliable measures of education. That is, they have never been put through the statistical process that guarantees that the questions actually measure what they are intended to. For the last two years, at least portions of the test results have been completely unusable; the tests themselves have changed annually and the results provide no diagnostic information to help teachers zero in on what students need. The test is used punitively when a more effective use would be to provide individual data that would allow schools to tailor instruction to student needs.

Last, she suggests that all the energy that went into defeating Amendment 1 should now be channeled to help the schools and school boards do a better job for the children.

Such common sense is rare these days and much needed.