Archives for category: Funding
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Bernie Sanders Vigorously Criticizes Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
June 7, 2019 //
27

 

Despite the outrage of the privatization movement, which attacked Bernie Sanders for his position on charters, Sanders doubled down by publishing an article in the San Jose Mercury News reiterating his views. 

Here is an excerpt, where he accurately cites the study by Gordon Lafer on how charters drain money from public schools and the NPE study showing the waste of federal money spent on charters that never opened or closed almost immediately.

My education plan calls for rescinding Donald Trump’s tax breaks and using those resources to triple funding for low-income school districts. We will also institute a national per-pupil funding standard, so that the quality of a child’s education is not contingent on her zip code. Education should be a human right, not a privilege.

In addition, my plan also calls for restrictions on charter school initiatives that siphon resources out of the public education system and resegregating schools.

When parents enroll their children in charter schools, the public funding allocated to those students goes with them. In the Oakland Unified School District, for example, charter schools were costing the district more than $57 million per year. This amount would easily cover the budget shortfall of $56 million over two years that Oakland officials have projected.

Charters are publicly-funded, but they are privately managed — meaning, they are not accountable to taxpayers. As a result, billionaires like Eli Broad, the DeVos family, and the Walton family are able to bankroll destructive charter school experiments to enrich investors and real-estate developers with taxpayer resources.

Between 2002-2017, California charter schools received more than $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings. In one example, the Alliance Ready Public Schools network of charter schools used public funds to build a $200 million private real estate empire in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, a report from the Network for Public Education found 38 percent of California charter schools that received federal funds between 2006 and 2014 “had either never opened or shut their doors by 2019.”

Advocates argue that charters deliver good outcomes — but the overall results are mixed at best.

 

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Reform, Funding

Steve Lopez: Why Measure EE Lost and What It Means for the City’s Future—And America’s Future

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2019 //
16

 

Steve Lopez, a columnist for the L.A. Times, is outraged by the low and negative vote on Measure EE. He wrote that city gave a collective shrug.

On this, the last week of school before summer break in the Los Angeles Unified School District, voters have sent a loud and clear message to roughly 600,000 students:

Your schools may be crumbling, your libraries may be closed, your class sizes may be unmanageably large, about 90% of you live in poverty and thousands of you are homeless, but who cares?

The Measure EE parcel tax on Tuesday’s ballot needed two-thirds approval and didn’t even get 50%. It would have cost the average homeowner about 75 cents a day. As supporters pointed out, California is in the bottom tier of funding per pupil nationally, and New York City schools spend about $8,000 more per student than L.A. Unified spends.

The response from Los Angeles was a shrug…

As hopes for EE’s passage faded Tuesday night, an East L.A. grandmother told me she had voted yes, partly because she wants a nurse at her granddaughter’s school more than just once a week.

“This is a crisis,” said Maria Leon.

The principal of Telfair Elementary School in Pacoima, where nearly a quarter of the students were recently classified as homeless, told me he tried his best to counter social media attacks on Measure EE.

“Do I want to see my taxes go up? No,” said Jose Razo. “But I want to invest in the future of our kids, and $220 for me is a small price to pay to make class sizes smaller and bring back the things we so desperately need. I get it. It’s supposed to be the state that takes care of us. But until they get their act together, we have to do what we can for our kids.”

Glenn Sacks, a social studies teacher at James Monroe High School in North Hills, expressed his frustrated exhaustion as he watched the election news Tuesday night.

“I think as LAUSD has become so heavily minority, so heavily poor … the public feels it doesn’t have a stake in public education anymore, and they’re willing to let conditions deteriorate,” said Sacks, whose class sizes are as high as 41 students.

“People say don’t complain about class sizes, deport the illegals, you’re lousy teachers turning out a lousy product, and a lot of this is just nonsense. The kids I teach, I love them, and they learn, and I wouldn’t want to teach anyone else. But they start out so far behind the white middle-class kids they’re being compared to, inevitably they’re going to look like they’re not succeeding and we’re not succeeding, and I’m amazed that people can’t see through that.”

Sacks is framing the dark narrative here, the one that says a great deal about race and class in Los Angeles, and about practical and psychic distance between haves and have-nots. Most voters don’t send their kids to L.A. Unified schools, don’t venture into neighborhoods where the challenge for educators is greatest and never see firsthand the promise and possibility in the faces of those 600,000 children, 90% of whom are minorities.

Absent that connection, cynicism comes easily, and it’s more convenient to complain about the wording or burden of a ballot measure than to stand with children who could use a little more help.

It’s easier to shrug, to vote no, to skip the election altogether and say sorry, kids, have a nice summer.

My friends, we see the same phenomenon in district after district, state after state. The kids are black and brown, the legislators are white. They don’t want to pay to educate those kids.

Guess what? They are our kids. They are our future.

 

Categories California, Funding, Los Angeles

UTLA Reacts to Loss on Measure EE

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2019 //
5

Measure EE went down to defeat in Los Angeles yesterday. It was an effort to raise taxes mostly on commercial real estate to raise $500 million a year for the schools—to reduce class sizes, hire librarians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists and to expand classes in art and music. An election this important should appear during a general election, when most people vote.

 

For immediate release

CONTACT: Anna Bakalis
UTLA Communications Director
(213) 305-9654 (c)
(213) 368-6247 (o)
Abakalis@UTLA.net<mailto:Abakalis@UTLA.net>

To watch the live 1:30 PM press conference, click here<https://www.facebook.com/UTLAnow/videos/2390124311212283/>.

UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl on Measure EE

We are proud of the work we poured into the Measure EE campaign. Our members participated in precinct walks, community events, and phone banks, talking to voters across the city. We know the community fundamentally trusts educators and supports the demands we are making for our schools, with UTLA’s strike in January being the historic case in point.

We faced a scorched-earth opposition, led by the LA Chamber of Commerce and aided by the Howard Jarvis Association and key Trump allies like Geoffrey Palmer. They had one purpose: to defend corporate profits at the expense of the students of our city.

The No on EE forces created lies about how the tax would work and fanned the flames of economic insecurity. They attacked not just LAUSD but the civic institution of public education and the educators who serve our students. They drove a destructive individualistic message that encouraged voters not to think about the needs of our students or the broader city.

Measure EE was just the beginning of the fight for funding sparked by our strike. It’s simply unsustainable for the richest state in the nation to rank 44th out of 50 in per-pupil funding. We are resolved to keep organizing for measures like Schools and Communities First on the November 2020 ballot, which would close commercial property tax loopholes and restore $11 billion for schools and community services.

There were ground-breaking elements to the Measure EE campaign that make us stronger for the work ahead. The City of LA is talking about the chronic underfunding of public schools in a way it never has. We partnered with community organizations focused on increasing voter participation in working-class communities and communities of color. In a district with 85% low-income students and 90% students of color, this is both righteous and necessary. We built a broad community/labor/elected coalition around addressing school funding that has not existed before in LA. That coalition, which includes some unlikely partners, has decidedly landed on the side of progressive taxation — taxation of business and corporations — as the pathway to improved school funding.

The agenda to starve our public schools will not win as long as we continue to build our movement.

Today is hard — but educators face and overcome obstacles every day. There is no other option. Like we do every day, we will continue to fight for our students.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Class size, Funding, Librarians, Los Angeles

News from Pastors for Texas Children

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2019 //
1

There is no more effective advocate for Texas children and public schools than Pastors for Texas Children. Through their dedication and hard work, they have played an important role in blocking vouchers and encouraging the passage of a new state budget that adds billions of dollars for public schools.

 

Dear Friend of Pastors for Texas Children,

My name is John Noble. I’m currently a ministerial student at Brite Divinity School at TCU in Fort Worth, and I serve as the ministry intern for PTC. In this role, I work to connect our network of faith leaders, educators, and community partners to our sacred work: ministry to and advocacy for Texas’ public school system.

This ministry has been one of my life’s greatest blessings. Through this work, I’ve had the opportunity to see the community gather at our many Celebrations for Public Education, where we come together to celebrate the common blessing of Texas public schools. I’ve rallied at the Capitol with pastors, teachers, parents, and community leaders advocating a pro-public education budget, and I’ve met with legislators to discuss the moral urgency of fairly funding our schools through a clean HB3.

I love PTC because we minister to the needs of to all Texas children and educators in our work. But this ministry is only possible with community support. 

As a PTC partner, you are part of a network of 2000 faith leaders across the state that makes our work possible. You are part of a bipartisan consensus in Texas, declaring that public education is a sacred good and a constitutional right. Acting together, unified across lines of difference, our pastors, faith leaders, educators, and community partners have laid the groundwork for a Texas that puts the needs of our kids first.

Another reason I’m proud to work with PTC? We’re 100% independent. We’re not beholden to any political or special interest group. Our faith-driven mission is guided by one question: what’s best for the children of our state and nation? That independence also means we depend on the generous financial support of our network. Right now, there are two ways that you can continue to support PTC in our pro-public education ministry:

  1. Be a part of our Benefit Luncheon. On Tuesday, June 18, we’re hosting our annual fundraiser luncheon, honoring rural education hero Dr. Don Rogers. If you’re a part of an organization that supports our ministry, consider sponsoring a table at the event. Registration closes next Monday, June 10, so check out our website and contact Brandon Grebe to make your reservation today!
  2. Give a Gift to PTC: Want to support PTC as an individual? Sustain our work with a financial contribution on our website. Grassroots donors are the backbone of our organization (our average online donation is $46).

I know that the church, in its social witness and diverse denominations, is called first and foremost to serve the poor and the vulnerable, especially poor and vulnerable children. I don’t know anyone living that mission and doing that work better than Texas public educators. Your gift to PTC helps us serve them.

In Christ,
John Noble
Copyright © 2019 Pastors for Texas Children, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you have signed up as a partner on our website.Our mailing address is:

Pastors for Texas Children

PO Box 100502

Fort Worth, Tx 76185

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Education Reform, Funding, Privatization, Separation of church and state, Supporting public schools, Texas, Vouchers

Bad News from L.A.: Landlords Win, Students Lose

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2019 //
6

 

Voters in Los Angeles yesterday turned down Measure EE, which would have raised $500 million yearly for schools. The measure required a 2/3 yes vote, but didn’t win a majority. It would have been funded mostly by taxes on commercial properties, and the LA Chamber of Commerce mounted a campaign to defeat it.

It would have funded smaller classes, nurses, social workers, librarians, arts and music.

What a crying shame.

If you care about the kids, you have to do right by them.

Categories Budget Cuts, Education Reform, Funding, Los Angeles

Jeff Bryant: Democrats Must Choose Between Raising Teacher Pay and Funding Charters

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2019 //
19

 

Jeff Bryant explains here why Democratic candidates will have to make a choice between raising teacher pay and funding  charter schools.

Up until recently, candidates spoke only about pre-K and postsecondary education.

But the time has come to set forth their ideas for K-12.

In Florida, the choice is stark.

Voters pass tax increases dedicated solely to funding their local public schools, but the Legislature wants to compel them to share any tax increases with charter schools, whether they want to or not.

He writes:

A recent law passed by the majority Republican Florida state legislature and signed by newly elected Republican Governor Ron DeSantis will force local school districts to share portions of their locally appropriated tax money with charter schools, even if those funds are raised for the express purpose of increasing teacher salaries in district-operated public schools. (Charter schools in Florida, as in many states, do not receive funds that are raised through bond referendums, mill levies, or other forms of local funding initiatives.)

Florida teachers have openly opposed the new law, and local school districts have taken it to court to have it overthrown. But given this new law, it’s not at all hard to imagine a scenario, even at the national level, where Democrats pushing to increase funds for teacher pay will have to confront an expanding charter school industry—and now voucher programs—that would claim their portion of that money to use as private institutions for whatever purposes they wish.

“The problem with charter schools isn’t that they’re competing with public schools; it’s that they’re supplanting public schools,” says Justin Katz in a phone call. Katz, who is president of the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, recently helped organize a rally in West Palm Beach where more than 200 teachers and public school advocates showed up to voice their opposition to distributing funds raised by local tax increases to charter schools.

The protest “was very specific, local, and personal,” Katz explains, because voters in the county had approved $200 million in funding for their schools in a measure that specified increases could be used for teacher raises in traditional public schools and not for funding charter schools.

The referendum was overwhelmingly approved by more than 72 percent of voters. But under the proposed new law, a proportional share of 10 percent, or about $20 million a year, would have gone to the county’s 49 charters. Only a final hour amendment in the state’s Senate averted the loss, when the bill was altered to apply to future bond referendums only.

The language of the referendum that was passed was “crystal clear,” Katz says, that money raised by the bond efforts would not go to charter schools. But the loophole being used to argue for charters to get their share is the use of the term “public schools.”

The new law is “an effort to redefine what are public schools,” he says, in order to give charter schools a right to claim a portion of any publicly raised education funds, regardless of the intent for raising the money. He fears that once charters claim that right, private schools in the state’s school voucher programs will claim it too.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Florida, Funding, Privatization

Los Angeles: Vote for Measure EE on June 4! Vote for Students! Vote for the Future!

By dianeravitch
June 3, 2019 //
1

Resident of Los Angeles: Vote for Measure EE on June 4.

 

Measure EE is not “just another tax.” It will bring in $500 million every year in ongoing funds, and is what the teachers and the community fought so hard to get through the strike. LA, don’t leave the job you started on the picket lines unfinished!

Measure EE is desperately needed to give local neighborhood schools the resources to educate children and reduce class sizes. Measure EE will bring the funding we need locally to recruit and retain quality staff and offer our students a well-rounded education, including:

—Lower class sizes

—More arts and music classes

—Cleaner, safer schools

—School nurses and librarians

—Guidance counselors and mental health services for students

—Support for students with disabilities and special needs

Supported by UTLA, Mayor Eric Garcetti, SEIU 99 and others (full list here https://www.yesonee.org), the measure needs 66.7% to pass on June 4. Every vote will count in what is expected to be a low turnout election.

This is common sense. Businesses and corporate landlords will pay more than 70% of this tax. Homeowners would pay only 18%. The owner of a 1,200-square-foot home would pay $208 annually, and the owner of the 73-story US Bank Tower would pay $229,206 annually.

Because the cost will be carried by those who can most afford it, those same corporations are pushing an aggressive, vitriolic NO campaign, led by the LA Chamber of Commerce. Joined by corporate lobbyists and landlords who have funneled more than $1.5 million to get Measure EE to fail. The No campaign’s chief organizers, LA Area Chamber of Commerce CEO Maria Salinas, stated publicly at the February 28, 2019 LAUSD Board Meeting that the Chamber would have supported Measure EE if it were drafted as a regressive tax, meaning that that the owner of a 1 million square foot skyscraper would be assessed the same amount as the owner of a 1,500 square foot house. Measure EE is applied per square foot — so that skyscraper-owners pay more than homeowners.

Decades of chronic underfunding of LAUSD schools have come at a steep price, especially for the students LA schools serve, who are overwhelmingly children of color from low-income families. Schools should not be forced to choose between keeping the library open, funding arts and music classes, or having a school psychologist every day. Even though California is the wealthiest state in the nation, it ranks 44th in the country in per-pupil funding.

The choice is simple: Either LA residents step up and vote yes on Measure EE on Tuesday, June 4, or they sit this out, and students suffer.

Call the Chamber today and tell them to stop the vicious attacks on Measure EE!

Chamber of Commerce 213-580-7500

https://www.yesonee.org

Categories Funding, Los Angeles

To Understand Teach for America, See Who Funds The Organization

By dianeravitch
June 2, 2019 //
27

Follow the money is a basic principle.

To understand an organization, see who funds it.

Take Teach for America.

It presents itself to the public as a noble charity.

Unfortunately, it promotes the bad idea that anyone with five weeks of training can teach. That has the effect of undermining teaching as a profession.

Does anyone believe that five weeks of training is adequate to become a doctor or lawyer or architect or engineer?

TFA supplies the workforce for a large proportion of charter schools, 90% of which are non-union.

TFA simultaneously undermines the teaching profession and teacher unionism, which assures that teachers have rights and voice in the workplace.

Who would promote these goals? .

Who funds  Teach for America? 

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Funding, Privatization, Teach for America, Teaching, Unions

The Bronx, New York: You Are Invited to a Free Screening of “Backpack Full of Cash,” June 11

By dianeravitch
June 1, 2019 //
1

This is a terrific documentary, created by professional filmmakers at Stone Lantern Films. It will be shown in Spanish and in English. If you want to show the documentary in your community, contact the filmmakers by email, listed below.

MEDIA ALERT

____________________________________________________________________________________

THE UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HOSTS SPECIAL SCREENING OF THE ACCLAIMED DOCUMENTARY “BACKPACK FULL OF CASH”

EXPLORING THE REAL COST OF PRIVATIZING AMERICA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Narrated by Academy Award-winning actor, Matt Damon

BACKPACK has screened over 360 times in 39 states and nine countries

— including nine film festivals

WHO: Sarah Mondale and Vera Aronow, BACKPACK filmmakers; Nicholas Cruz, United Federation of Teachers; James Rodriguez, College Goal New York Coordinator; NYC teachers; parents of NYC students; NYC students; members of the community

WHAT:  The United Federation of Teachers will host a special screening, in English and Spanish, of the acclaimed documentary BACKPACK FULL OF CASH.  As the next election season kicks into high gear, education is at the forefront and BACKPACK is serving as a powerful tool to inform parents, teachers and community members about the reality of market-based education “reform,” and its impact on American public schools and the 50 million students who rely on them.  BACKPACK was made by the team that produced the award-winning PBS series, SCHOOL: The Story of American Public Education.  The Bronx event will be free for members of the community.  

Public RSVP at: https://uft.wufoo.com/forms/qqwn5z81x5qcqo/

WHERE: ​​UFT Bronx Learning Center, 2500 Halsey Street, The Bronx, NY 10461

WHEN: ​​Tuesday, June 11, 2019

             ​​Press Call: 4:00

PRESS RSVP:  ​Natalie Maniscalco / Retro Media

                           ​Natalie@retromedianyc.com / 845.659.6506

For more information about the film, upcoming screenings, downloadable photos, trailer and other resources, please visit http://www.BackpackFullofCash.com

Official Website: http://www.BackpackFullofCash.com

Email: info@backpackfullofcash.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/backpackfullofcash/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/backpackthefilm

Instagram: @backpackthefilm\

To Register for screening:

https://uft.wufoo.com/forms/qqwn5z81x5qcqo/

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Funding, Philadelphia, Privatization, School Choice

National Education Policy Center Reviews Claims about Fiscal Impact of Charters and Finds Them Shallow and Misleading

By dianeravitch
June 1, 2019 //
12

Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed three policy briefs produced by the pro-charter, pro-choice Center for Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington and found them to be “generally superficial and misleading.” The apparent intent of these briefs was to influence the policy debate in California, in which Governor Newsom and the Legislature are considering whether to take into account the fiscal impact of charters on public schools. Baker’s review was sponsored by the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado.

 

Reviewed by:

Bruce D. Baker University of Colorado Boulder

May 2019

Executive Summary

The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), based at the University of Washington, Bothell, recently released a series of three policy briefs on the financial impact of charter schools on nearby school districts in California. The briefs arrive at a time when a Task Force convened by California Gov. Gavin Newsom is deliberating on these exact matters. CRPE’s founder, Paul Hill, was a key source of testimony to the task force, serving as an expert viewed as “sympathetic to charter schools.”

The three briefs make note of the task force in their introduction and are seemingly intended to inform these ongoing debates over charter school financing and expansion in the state of California. The briefs are as follows.

  • The first brief, Charter Schools and District Enrollment Loss, posits that charter school enrollment growth is not a significant factor in large district enrollment decline in California.
  • The second brief, Do Charter Schools Cause Fiscal Distress in School Districts?, argues that charter school expansion is not a significant contributor to fiscal distress (fiscal stress and/or fiscal impact) in California school districts.
  • The final brief, Do the Costs of California Charter Schools Outweigh the Benefits?, contends that there are “tangible benefits” and “few quantifiable costs” to charter schooling in California, though it does concede that a more thorough cost-benefit analysis is warranted.

 

The first brief acknowledges that over the long run, California charter school expansion has resulted in some district enrollment decline. But the brief contends that this decline has been modest and in recent years is no longer occurring. Further, the report asserts that whether charter schools expand or not, many districts will face continuing enrollment decline and “the financial challenges it brings” (p. 10).

The second brief lays out a set of figures showing charter school enrollment shares and comparing this to county-assigned classifications of district fiscal distress. It concludes boldly that (a) there is no relationship between charter enrollment share and host district fiscal distress; (b) instead, fiscal distress is most often caused by financial mismanagement; and (c) fiscal distress is too important to get wrong.

The third brief first asserts that there are benefits to, but few if any tangible costs associated with, charter schooling in California. Those benefits are illustrated by reports of differences in test score gains for children in some urban California charter schools versus matched peers in host districts. The brief also cites a handful of studies to support its contention that charter expansion also benefits, or at least does not harm, children in host district schools. Finally, it notes other potential benefits for children enrolled in charter schools, for which quantifiable values are more difficult to assign, including: “The option to choose” (p. 4).

On the potential-costs side of charter expansion, the third brief provides a short list, including, (a) lacking/losing economies of scale, (b) transfers/fiscal impact, (c) capital costs, (d) educating high-cost students, and (e) social cohesion and societal concerns. The authors then dismiss these five concerns, offering the conclusion that there are “few quantifiable costs to charter schooling” in California (p. 6). Yet they provide little analysis or reference to any valid, rigorous analysis by any other researchers.

Robin Lake, Ashley Jochim, Paul Hill, and Sivan Tuchman wrote these briefs and qualify their work with identical wording: “Given the time constraints for informing the commis- sion’s and legislator’s questions, we were limited to data available from earlier studies and from federal, state, and local databases, as cited in the three briefs” (p. 2 of each brief).

These limitations did impair the usefulness of the briefs, but other problems are also evi- dent. The first brief is misleading in its assertion that charter enrollment growth is not to blame for district enrollment decline. It is, and has been for some time, whether in districts with declining, stable or growing overall student enrollments. The brief also attempts to minimize the import of the considerable role played by charters in districts’ enrollment loss, offering up the non sequitur that enrollment loss can arise from other sources as well. The second brief relies on overly simplistic comparisons of charter enrollments and county-assigned “fiscal distress” classifications to conclude that there is no association between charter enrollments and fiscal distress. The contention here is that there can’t be an illness if the patient isn’t dead. In order to rely on this problematic approach, the brief erroneously dismisses a significant, more rigorous, detailed, peer-reviewed and published body of research that illustrates the fiscal impact of charter schools on host districts, and how those fiscal impacts may lead to fiscal stress. The third brief, which presents itself as an analysis of costs and benefits, merely touts the benefits of charter schooling as tangible while being entirely dismissive of numerous known and often measurable costs. Taken together, the briefs are useful only in pointing to some important issues that policymakers should consider; their analyses of those issues are, however, generally superficial and misleading.

 

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Funding, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »