Archives for category: Education Reform


Angie Sullivan teaches first grade children in Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas). Most of her students are low-income and Hispanic. She regularly writes letters to her legislators.

She writes:

Close it down we need to walk out. We all need to fight for money together. We can only dance if everyone is wearing shoes.

No more lectures about teachers improving. You do not have many teachers left. For good reason. Lecturing us – does not work – hasn’t for two decades.

Try something new. Follow the law.

Clean up the central office money.

Clean up the central office financial quagmire.

It is the law.

85-15

You just purchased the $17 million financial software? What has been the issue for two years? Who is going to answer for that mismanagement?

No numbers for the legislative session?

You will soon ask School Building SOTS to cut $50 million?

It’s your turn Central Office.

Cut that $50 million from that marble area.

Time to dismantle everything downtown except the skeleton and central office folks find a home in a vacant classroom. Meets the law and cleans up the corruption. Kids need a teacher not a marble office building.

No more downtown kingdoms.

How are you going to ask the legislature for the $500 million you need to meet contracts?

No one will give it to you. No one throws good money after bad.

Cannot see anything that is not in schools. Even those numbers are questionable since the central office “charges” schools for things schools do not have – like teachers.

The whole state will fight for $300 million this session. This is heavy lift and nothing real has happened in the central office yet.

The listening tour is nice.

Get ready for the session please.

Hard to dance with a partner who doesn’t have sense enough to wear shoes.

Clean up your money mess.

Newsflash: Folks love their teachers. They do NOT like the central office or the Trustees. For good reason.

Next time you address your army – make sure your financial house is clean.

Put your shoes on.

Keep the lecture. And give it to your friends. It is offensive to the team working for kids.

We are fully dressed and ready to march.

You are barefoot.

I am mad.

All I can do is weep.

We are ready for leadership. Leadership is not a lecture about data – that is not going to raise money.

Make moves to get money.

Do what you can to get money.

We need $2 Billion. Telling us to get data is not going to get money.

The heavy lift is money.

Rally your team.

It is about money.

Get your shoes on.

Close it down. We need to walk out. You need to come with us. Clean it up. Shut it down.

The Teacher

Angie

CCSD Central Office needs to be dismantled and reorganized to meet the law.

We need new educational leadership at the highest levels who will improve neighborhood public schools instead of promote charters.

No more business deals and/or tax credits that rob the DSA (Dedicated School Account).

No more cuts at the school level.

Pay your own bills. Raise the funds to cover the bills.

We want adequate total funding for CCSD programs to open equitably – like preschools

Attrition money needs to be returned to the individual schools. If a vacancy is not filled – the school needs the money saved to support kids.

We want the reorganization law to be followed and all of the 85 to be pushed to school level.

We want the pot money.

We want the room tax money

We want our fair share of the education money 80%.

We want ability to raise money locally.

We want money to get to kids

We want weighted funding.

We want our fair share of mining proceeds.

We want the southern caucus to fight for our kids. Quit allowing everyone else in the state to grab our student money.

We need additional money for each and every “great idea”.

We have significant needs.

Teachers being silenced has not worked.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCEAFOS

 

Michael Hiltzik, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, writes that America is tiring of its selfish, greedy billionaires.

The billionaires are upset that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez wants to raise taxes on incomes over $10 million a year and that Elizabeth Warren is proposing a wealth tax for the fabulously wealthy. How terrifying!

Bit Anericans are not frightened by these proposals. Billionaires are.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-billionaires-20190201-story.html

What do you think about a man who spent $100 million on a 305-foot yacht, who already owns a 220-foot yacht? That’s Daniel Snyder, owner of the NFL Redskins.

”At the same moment, hedge fund owner Ken Griffin was disclosed as the buyer of the most expensive home in America, a $238-million Manhattan penthouse. According to Bloomberg, he already owns two floors of the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Chicago ($30 million), a Miami Beach penthouse ($60 million), another Chicago penthouse ($58.75 million) and another apartment in Manhattan ($40 million).”

How many homes does one man need?

Hiltzik writes:

Our emerging political debate over taxing the rich seems to be getting bogged down in details — how high a tax rate, should we tax income or wealth, etc., etc. But this fixation on nuts and bolts is obscuring what may be the most important aspect of the discussion: America is becoming fed up with its billionaires.

That sentiment is long overdue. It has begun to surface in the suggestion by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that the top marginal rate on high incomes shift back to what it was in the 1950s or 1960s, and in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for a wealth taxon those with high net worth.

Since the Reagan administration, the political establishment has strived to convince Americans that extreme wealth in the hands of a small number of plutocrats is good for everyone. We’ve had the “trickle-down” theory, the rechristening of the wealthy as “job creators” and their categorization invariably as “self-made.” We’ve been told, via the simplistic Laffer Curve, that if you raise the tax rate you get less revenue.

There are three main subtexts of these arguments, all of which show up in the email in-box whenever I write about wealth and taxation. First: The extreme wealth of the few creates wealth all along the income scale, for the masses. Second: It’s immoral — confiscatory — to soak the rich via taxation, at least above a certain level that never seems to be precisely defined. And third: If we torment the wealthy with taxes, they’ll pack up their wealth and leave us, whether for some more accommodating nation on Earth or some Ayn Randian paradise.

Experience has shown us that the first argument is simply untrue — extreme wealth begets only more inequality. The second argument begs the question of where reasonable taxation turns into confiscation, although the level of taxation of high incomes today is nowhere near as high as it was in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, when economic gains were shared much more equally with the working class. As for the third, Warren’s answers to capital flight include stepping up IRS enforcement resources, which have been eviscerated by political agents of the wealthy, and imposing an “exit tax” on any plutocrat renouncing his or her U.S. citizenship to evade U.S. taxes.

Why are billionaires beginning to be treated so skeptically?

One reason surely is the evidence that extreme wealth has a corrosive effect on the economy. Wealth inequality places immense resources in the hands of people unable to spend it productively, and keeps it out of the hands of those who would put it to use instantly, whether on staples or creature comforts that should be within the reach of everyone living in the richest country on earth.

Multimillionaires and billionaires love to describe themselves as “self-made,” but the truth is that every fortune is the product of other people’s labor — the minimum-wage workers overseas who assemble Michael Dell’s computers or the low-wage baristas in Howard Schultz’s Starbuck stores, or the taxpayers who fund the roads, bridges and airports that help keep their businesses profitable….

The issue of how many billions are too many billions has been placed in high relief by the presidential campaign of Schultz, the ultimate billionaire vanity project. Schultz condemns calls for higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy and, typically for his species, portrays himself as a man who has gotten where he is today by taking advantage of America as the land of opportunity — so what’s keeping you layabouts from doing the same. But he also mentions, in passing, that he grew up in federally subsidized housing in New York. So someone, somehow, gave him a leg up using tax revenue.

It’s proper to question why people like Schultz and Dell feel so strongly about a marginally higher tax on their marginal income.

People like Schultz “live what is, for almost all practical purposes, a post-scarcity existence,” Paul Campos observes aptly at the Lawyers, Guns & Money blog. “If you have three billion dollars, then you can buy almost anything without even bothering to consider what it costs, since what it costs is, to you, practically indistinguishable from ‘nothing.’ Given that everything is for you already basically free, why would you even care if your tax bill goes up? Especially given that you live in a society in which, despite what is by a historical standards an almost inconceivable amount of total social wealth, lots of people still have to worry about getting enough to eat, not freezing to death in the next polar vortex, etc?”

 

Legislation introduced by an influential Republican state senator would require charter schools to disclose more about their finances. But the bill contains a large loophole that would allow the state’s biggest chains like Basis Charter Schools and Great Hearts Academies to avoid revealing how they spend their money.

State Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, said Senate Bill 1394 would accomplish the biggest reform to charter schools since they were created by the Arizona Legislature in 1994.

“It’s an enormous amount of progress, and this is not my last stop,” she said.

She said there’s bipartisan support for the measure, which follows a yearlong investigation by The Arizona Republic that revealed how charter operators have exploited the state’s lax charter regulations to become wealthy from the taxpayer-funded schools.

Brophy McGee acknowledged, however, that her bill would not prevent charter chains from giving large, no-bid management or construction contracts to their founders. Nor would it prevent charter CEOs from paying themselves exorbitant amounts, as Primavera online charter Chief Executive Damian Creamer did by receiving $10.1 million from the school over the past two years.

Democrats, whose past efforts to more tightly regulate charter schools have failed, and Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s Office both said the bill is a step in the right direction. But they said it needs additional work.

Arizona’s 500-plus charter schools are largely privately owned and the choice of more than 200,000 students, or 17 percent of public school students. The state spends $1.2 billion a year funding them.

State law doesn’t prohibit conflicts of interest in charter-school contracts or impose the strict reporting of expenses as it does for district schools. Charter school boards can also be staffed with the friends and relatives of school executives. And there’s no limit on how much money charter schools can spend outside the classroom.

Brophy McGee’s bill, which has not been scheduled for a hearing, could change some of that. It would:

  • Require every charter school to have at least a three-member governing board, with no more than two immediate family members serving. Family members cannot constitute a majority of the board.
  • Prohibit in, certain instances, buying goods or services from a charter owner or family member, governing board member or a related business.
  • Require that any purchase of more than $50,000 be in the “best interest” of the charter school and follow generally accepted accounting principles.
  • Prohibit charter schools from retaliating against an employee who reports violations. Currently, nearly all charter employees can be fired at any time for any reason.

The new procurement regulations, however, would not apply to management contracts between a charter holder and a management company. Charter management companies, popular with major charter chains like Basis and Great Hearts, also would be exempt from the procurement regulations.

Loopholes in the bill

That loophole for charter management companies gives Democrats heartburn, said Rep. Reginald Bolding, D-Phoenix.

Charter operators could avoid the new requirements by simply transferring all or nearly all of their state funding to a management company that runs their schools, he said.

Ryan Anderson, a spokesman for Brnovich, said the attorney general also has concerns about the exemption, as well as language that would require prosecutors to get permission from a charter sponsor in order to investigate wrongdoing.

“We still have a lot of questions,” Anderson said, adding that this is a work in progress.

Brophy McGee said it was not her intent to allow charter operators to avoid procurement restrictions, and she would consider fixing the language. She declined to say whether the Charter Schools Association, which has blocked past reform efforts, or major charter operators with powerful allies in the Republican establishment had inserted the exemption language in her bill.

She said the legislation is a work in progress that ultimately won’t make everyone happy. But, she said, the charter school industry needs more oversight.

Matt Benson, a spokesman for the Charter Schools Association, said the intent of the exemption was “to protect the school brand so that the founder of a charter school doesn’t risk losing control of his/her creation.”

Benson acknowledged the bill may be too broadly worded and that the association will work with Brophy McGee to refine the language. He said the association would oppose any law that requires charter operators to accept open bids for management contracts, as school districts are required to do.

Bolding said the loopholes will allow charter operators to continue self-dealing and enriching themselves. The bill also won’t stop charter operators from using Arizona tax dollars to expand outside the state, he said.

Basis, which has some of the top-ranked high schools in the country, transfers nearly all of its state funds to a management company owned by its founders, Michael and Olga Block.

Basis officials have stated because a closely tied private company, Basis.ed, runs the schools it isn’t required to disclose how much the Blocks or other executives are paid.

Basis has used its Arizona schools as collateral to fund operation of its schools in Texas and Washington, D.C.

The Attorney General’s Office also has expressed concerns that the legislation does not give its office enough additional power to investigate charter schools.

Brnovich wants subpoena power over charters and broader authority for the auditor general to investigate charter finances. Further, Brnovich wants charter schools to segregate public funding from private dollars in businesses related to the charter school.

“The big question is what happens with the public’s money,” said Anderson, the AG spokesman. “The bill does not appear to deal with that issue…We now have difficulty on the civil (enforcement) side on investigating misuse of public money when all money is commingled together.”

Benson said the legislation allows the Attorney General’s Office to investigate procurement related complaints. However, that would not occur for private management companies.

More disclosure?

Bolding said he likes that Brophy McGee’s bill requires charter schools to disclose more information about their finances and governance.

The bill would require charter operators to post on a public website the names of voting members of the governing body, the number of independent voting members, total annual state revenue, as well as expenses, assets and liabilities.

Charter schools already are required by state law to disclose much of that information to the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools. That information is available on the Charter Board’s website.

The bill also would require charter operators to adopt a conflict-of-interest policy and to provide a written statement that describes the services provided by a management company and the cost.

The bill, however, does not require a charter operator to release the actual contract or precise financial expenditures of its private management company. Further, the bill does not require the private management company to disclose how much its executives are paid with public tax dollars.

School districts, which receive less in per-pupil state funding than charter schools, have to abide by much stricter procurement and disclosure laws.

Brophy McGee said she will not seek to have charter management companies disclose financial information, stating that they are private companies and should not be subject to that level of transparency. Republicans in past years have blocked Democrats’ efforts to force charter management companies to comply with state public records law.

The bill also requires the state Charter Board to provide training courses on the state open meetings law, public records requirements, enrollment laws and regulations, applicable procurement rules and discipline.

Charter schools already are required by law to follow the open meeting law and public records requirements. The Republic has found some schools refuse to comply with those laws.

Reach the reporter at craig.harris@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8478 or on Twitter @charrisazrep.

 

 

News from Chicago Teachers Union:

 

Charter operator CICS would rather spend public dollars on scabs than on student needs.
That’s wrong – and we can do something about it.

We learned this weekend that the management of CICS – Chicago International Charter Schools – has made arrangements to hire in scabs to break a planned Tuesday strike for smaller classes and no cuts to student programs, social workers or counselors. CICS bosses are currently sitting on $36 million in hoarded public dollars – more than half ‘invested’ with a company owned by its co-founder. Yet it says it doesn’t have a penny to provide to classrooms or student needs.

This is wrong, and you can help stop it!

This is wrong, and you can help stop it!

We’ve been bargaining for months with this greedy operator for living wages for our paraprofessionals – some of whom have masters degrees yet earn barely $30,000/year. Management has offered low-wage teachers an 8% raise for the first year of a new contract, but only if we agree to cuts in social workers, counselors and student programs – and throw paras under the bus by agreeing to a 1% ‘raise’ that doesn’t even keep pace with the inflation rate.

CICS siphons off close to 30% of public dollars it collects for top management costs and ‘reserve’ funds. CICS’ CEO Elizabeth Shaw earns more than $230,000 a year to run 14 schools – almost as much as CPS CEO Janice Jackson earns to run more than 500 schools. This is naked management greed, and it comes at the expense of students, their families and our school communities. Take action, join us and say no to CICS’ scheme to put management greed ahead of student needs.

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that people in some states areimprisoned because they can’t afford to pay fees and fines. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that this practice is unconstitutional. It continues.

SPLC writes:

The people incarcerated in Corinth, Mississippi, have a phrase for it: “sitting it out.” We have another name for it: “debtors’ prison.”

Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has been clear that it’s unconstitutional to jail people simply because they can’t afford to pay fines and fees.

But in states across the South — and across the country — that’s exactly what cash-strapped municipalities are doing.

Take Glenn Chastain. He owed $1,200 to the city of Corinth for expired vehicle tags. Because he missed a hearing, he was denied the chance to pay a partial fine. He spent 48 days in jail.

Jamie Tillman, without a lawyer, admitted to a public intoxication charge punishable by a $100 fine. She didn’t even have $10 — and had no family member she could call for help. But a judge told her $25 would be knocked off her fine for every day she stayed in jail, so that’s what she did until her balance was down to $0.

“I thought, ‘Because we’re poor, because we’re of a lower class, we aren’t allowed real freedom,’” Tillman recalled to Matthew Shaer for The New York Times. “And it was the worst feeling in the world.”

We opened an investigation into Corinth’s practice of jailing of low-income defendants in 2017. Micah West and Sara Wood, lawyers in our economic justice practice group, told The New York Times about court sessions “where defendants were permitted to use a landline phone to make a final plea for the cash that would set them free.” As Shaer describes:

The space amounted to an earthly purgatory: Secure the money, and you were saved. Fail, and you’d be sent to jail. “All around us, people would be crying or yelling, getting more and more desperate,” Wood recalled.

That October, she watched a 59-year-old man named Kenneth Lindsey enter the office, his lean arms hanging lank by his side, his face gaunt and pale. Lindsey had been in court for driving with an expired registration, but he hadn’t been able to afford the fines: He was suffering from hepatitis C and liver cancer, and he had spent the very last of his savings on travel to Tupelo for a round of chemotherapy. Until his next state disability check arrived, he was broke. “Can you help?” Lindsey whispered into the phone. 

A few seconds of silence passed. “All right, then. Thanks anyway.”

Finally, around 1:45 p.m., Lindsey managed to get through to his sister. She barely had $100 herself, but she promised to drive it over after her shift was through.

Wood caught up with Lindsey in the parking lot later that day, and after identifying herself, asked if he would consider being interviewed by the S.P.L.C. “I don’t know,” Lindsey said, studying the ground. But soon enough, he called Wood to say he had changed his mind. “I’ve been paying these sons of bitches all my life,” he told her. “It’s time someone did something about it.”

We sued Corinth with the MacArthur Justice Center in 2017. A month later, Corinth ordered its jail emptied of anyone incarcerated for nonpayment of fines.

And last year, after we lobbied Mississippi, both houses of the state Legislature unanimously passed a bill prohibiting any resident from being jailed for a failure to pay court costs or fines. It went into effect in July.

But wealth-based detention is far from solved.

“This is a massive problem, and it’s not confined to the South. It’s national,” the SPLC’s Economic Justice Project Deputy Legal Director Sam Brooke told Shaer.

Even in Corinth, Lindsey is still trapped in a web of arrests and court fees, nearly all of which he can trace back to his vehicle. His registration and driver’s license are expired, but to pay off those expiration fees, he needs to drive to work.

“I would estimate that I’ve spent a quarter of the last year behind bars,” he told Shaer. Could he calculate exactly what he owed? “$10,000?” he responded. “$11,000?” The way he said it, it might as well have been a million dollars. “I ain’t never going to pay it down,” he said. “Never, ever. I’m going to be paying it down until I die.”

The Editors

 

In the Public Interest, a nonpartisan organization that fights privatization of public assets, reports good news from Louisiana:

 

ExxonMobil is the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas corporation, often cutting deals with authoritarian leaders in countries like Angola and Equatorial Guinea. Its fourth-quarter profit last year nearly quintupled to $8.38 billion after President Trump’s tax cuts.

Louisiana’s East Baton Rouge Parish School Board has a $30 million budget deficit and teacher shortage. Its school buildings and buses are crumbling. Ninety-seven percent of its students, the majority of which are black or brown, qualify for free or reduced lunch. Teachers and school employees haven’t had an across-the-board pay raise since 2008.

Yet, ExxonMobil has received $700 million in local property tax exemptions from the parish over the last 20 years.

Not anymore.

Earlier this month, the school board narrowly voted against giving ExxonMobil two property tax breaks totaling about $2.9 million over a decade, one for a refinery and one for a chemical plant. Both facilities have already been built, which left some school board members scratching their heads.

“I would be a lot more receptive for a new project, something that’s going to bring in new business, new jobs,” one board member said.

But this isn’t just a story of elected officials making a rational decision based on the facts. It’s also one about democracy— and one that rings out even louder after striking teachers in Los Angeles, California, just won more resources and support for their students.

A teacher walkout threat set the stage in Baton Rouge. Last October, teachers and school support staff voted overwhelmingly to hold a one-day school shutdown to demand that the school board reject ExxonMobil’s request. Within hours, the requests were taken off the agenda for a forthcoming board meeting. Then, after last week’s board vote, ExxonMobil dropped the bids for good.

A company representative says that losing the tax breaks could make them hesitate to invest in the local plants because of a “lack of predictability” and “confusion.”

But the teachers know something much bigger than one corporation’s future is on the line. “The survival of public education is at stake,” said the president of the East Baton Rouge Parish Association of Educators back in October.

She’s right. The idea that taxes should be perpetually cut on corporations and the wealthy — known as “trickle-down economics” — is gutting public education nationwide, falling the hardest on poor, black, and brown communities.

Total state and local K-12 funding per student is still well below what it was before the 2008 recession. Seventeen states actually send more education dollars to wealthier districts than to high-poverty ones. Over 1.5 million students attend a school that has a law enforcement officer, but no school counselor. Spending on prisons and jails has increased at triple the rate of public education funding in the last three decades.

Until we get real about how out of whack our tax system is, more and more students are going to go to schools with no heat, aging pipes, few supplies, and few adults other than police officers and underpaid teachers.

And the quickest path to getting real is more democracy, teachers fighting and making their voices heard alongside parents and communities for what’s best for all public school students.
 

Please help us share this story on social media.
 


Thanks for reading,

Jeremy Mohler
In the Public Interest

 

 

State Senator Janet Cruz introduced a bill to ban for-profit charters in Florida. Nearly half the charters in the state operate for profit. They give campaign contributions to key legislators. They are related to legislators. Senator Cruz is a brave woman.

The League of Women Voters supports her bill.

So does government watchdog Integrity Florida.

Itwill beipposed by Academica, Charter Schools USA, and Imagine, the big for-profit chains. It will be opposed by Jeb Bush, Governor DeSantis, and Betsy DeVos. It will beopposed by profiteers and grifters.

 

 

This article by Nathan Robinson, editor of “Current Affairs,” brilliantly explains why Race to the Top was not only a failure but a disaster.  

Schools in Detroit were crumbling, but Detroit got not a penny of the windfall.

Here is a sample:

“There is something deeply objectionable about nearly every part of Race To The Top. First, the very idea of having states scramble to compete for federal funds means that children are given additional support based on how good their state legislatures are at pleasing the president, rather than how much those children need support. Michigan got no Race to the Top money, and Detroit’s schools didn’t see a penny of this $4.2 billion, because it didn’t win the “race.” This “fight to the death” approach (come to think of it, a better name for the program) was novel, since “historically, most federal education funds have been distributed through categorical grant programs that allocate money to districts on the basis of need-based formulas.” Here, though, one can see how Obama’s neoliberal politics differed in its approach from the New Deal liberalism of old: Once upon a time, liberals talking about how to fix schools would talk about making sure all teachers had the resources they needed to give students a quality education. Now, they were importing the competitive capitalist model into government: Show results or find yourself financially starved.

“The focus on “innovation,” data, and technology is misguided, too. Innovation is not necessarily improvement—it’s easy to make something new that isn’t actually any better. The poor learning outcomes of online courses are evidence that sometimes the old methods are best. An Obama administration report on how schools innovated in response to RTT is mostly waffle about “partnering with stakeholders” but also contains descriptions of “21st century” measures like the following:

The majority of Race to the Top states reported to the RSN that they are using or expanding their use of social media communication to keep stakeholders engaged and informed. Ohio, for example, embraced Twitter to communicate with teachers, principals and district leaders during its annual state conference in 2012. “One of the keys to success on Twitter is tweeting a lot — five to seven times a day — morning, noon and at night,” said Michael Sponhour, executive director of communications and outreach for the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). Ohio measures its success on Twitter by the number of tweets that are “retweeted” by its followers; about 70 percent of ODE’s tweets are retweeted, he said.

“So people at state departments of education are being paid to tweet morning, noon, and night, with nearly ⅓ of the tweets not getting so much as a single retweet, while St. Louis’ beautiful old public school buildings are closed, abandoned, and auctioned off. Delaware “was able to use RTT funds to place data coaches in every school,” even as the steam pipe kept leaking onto that playground in Detroit.

“The pro-RTT literature promotes the education reform line of Bill Gates and charter advocates, stressing the need for “accountability” and “evaluation.” There is a mistrust of teachers: The premise here is that unless teachers have the right incentives, they will perform badly. There is an underlying acceptance here of the free market principle that government services do not perform well because they lack the kind of economic rewards and punishments that exist in the private sector. So we should introduce competitive marketplaces in schools (i.e., charterize the system) and do constant assessments of teacher job performance to weed out the Bad Teachers. Race To The Top literature talks about “turning around failing schools,” not “fixing inequality in schools,” and some civil rights activists criticized the program for failing to consider school segregation and inequality in its picture of the country’s educational woes. …

”RTT was wrong in a thousand ways. It prioritized data collection for its own sake, and in spite of its focus on “achievement” and evidence-based policy, didn’t actually boost achievement and wasn’t based on evidence. It was just free market ideology. Instead of talking about adding yet more assessments of teacher performance, we should be talking about the fact that teachers across the country have to buy their own school supplies, and the profession offers too much work for too little pay to attract good candidates who will stay for the long term. No more races to the top. What we need is a race to make sure every school has a music teacher, every building is safe and beautiful and well-maintained, every child is well-fed, every classroom is full of books and supplies, and every teacher has what they need in order to help children discover the world of knowledge.“

 

 

 

 

Bill Raden, the investigative journalist at Capital & Main, unearthed a surprising deal behind Austin Beutner’s decision to settle with the UTLA.

L.A. School District’s Hire Under Fire as Ridley-Thomas Questions Mount

it involved hiring the son of a key politician.

Raden writes:

One political winner of last week’s Los Angeles teachers strike settlement was L.A. Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner. The former investment banker has made no secret of his desire to one day land the top job at L.A. City Hall, and signing a deal became his first real test of public leadership. Test Two may be more daunting — namely, explaining why he put a scandal-plagued and #MeToo-accused former State Assemblymember on the district payroll as a lobbyist.

The existence of the four-week lobbying contractbetween LAUSD and Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (SRT), whose father is the powerful L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas (MRT), came to light January 16, when the Assembly released findings that SRT likely sexually harassed staffers before resigning from the legislature in December 2017. The L.A. Times noted that SRT had accompanied Beutner and LAUSD school board president Mónica García to Sacramento on January 9 to help them drum up lawmaker opposition to the teachers strike. But it is the timing of Beutner’s January 11 bargaining offer two days later — sweetened by a $10 million pledgeof county mental health money for school nurses by MRT — that is now raising eyebrows.

Not to worry, former Center for Governmental Studies president Robert Stern assured Learning Curves: “The only way [SRT’s hiring] would have been illegal is if [Mark] Ridley-Thomas had gone to Beutner and said, ‘You want $10 million? Hire my son.’ But is it unethical? Absolutely!”

 

Steven Singer says that 10 of Pennsylvania’s 15 cybercharters are operating without acharter. They have expired. This is a scandal-ridden sector that makes big profits but supplies a 9th-rate education for gullible children and families. None has ever met state standards. They should all be closed down.

They get full tuition and supply a computer and online instruction.

Scam. Rip-off.

The founder of Pennsylvania’s largest cybercharter was convicted of tax evasion for failing to report the $8 million he embezzled.

Too much money and no accountability.

Close them all.

Rhese fraudulent “schools” drain money from public schools in the state:

 

Cyber charter drain on Pa districts

Cyber Charter Name 2016-17 Enrollment 2016-17 Revenue from other LEAs
Central PA Digital Learning Foundation CS 199 $2,593,901
Commonwealth Charter Academy CS 9,008 $116,686,603
PA Distance Learning CS 681 $8,751,302
Reach Cyber CS 714 $10,000,219
Susq-Cyber CS 97 $1,064,230
Pennsylvania Virtual CS 2,299 $27,814,441
21st Century Cyber CS 964 $12,683,880
PA Leadership CS 2,361 $34,051,813
Achievement House CS 458 $7,157,951
Agora Cyber CS 5,883 $91,689,396
Esperanza Cyber CS 174 $2,215,660
ACT Academy Cyber CS 146 $1,584,130
Pennsylvania Cyber CS 9,723 $134,280,454
ASPIRA Bilingual Cyber CS 261 $4,178,502
Statewide Totals 32,968 $454,752,482