Archives for category: Funding

 

State Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond appointed an 11-member task force to study the fiscal impact of charter schools on public schools.

He did so at the request of Governor Newsom.

Four members of the task force are part of the charter industry.

Thurmond is amazingly evenhanded. In the race for the office last fall, the charter industry outspent him 2-1 and smeared him with negative advertising.

Ten percent of the state’s students are in charter schools.

The task force should be sure to read University of Oregon Professor Gordon Lafer’s Study of the fiscal impact of charters on three districts, called “Breaking Point.”

In the two recent teachers’ strikes, in Los Angeles and Oakland, teachers called for a moratorium on new charters until such a study was completed. Governor Newsom has been noncommittal on that demand.

The charter sector has operated with minimal or no oversight. To see how bad things are, read “Charters and Consequences.” There are storefront charters where students meet their teacher only once every three weeks. There are charters with graduation rates under 10%. Charters are allowed to open wherever they want. Charters can appeal a district rejection to the county, then appeal the county rejection to the state, where they usually got a rubber stamp. Charters may be run like chain stores, without oversight, just to make money. Until Newsom signed a bill recently, there were no laws profiting conflicts of interest or nepotism. The charter industry vigorously opposed any regulation or accountability.

One charter executive called the ban on conflicts and nepotism a “scorched earth policy.”

 

 

Jan Resseger explains here why Ohio should not give more money to charter schools and their sponsors (in Ohio, the authorizers of charter schools get a 3% commission for every student enrolled in their charters). Charter authorizers have a financial incentive to keep their charters open, regardless of their performance.

One reason to reject the increase is the charters’ poor performance.

But the most important and persuasive reason to say no is that their funding is money deducted from the public schools, which serve far more students and serve them better than charters.

“Usually arguments about the quality of public investment in charters are about whether charters do a good job as measured by test scores.  Proponents of charter schools typically want the public to evaluate charter schools and traditional public schools by comparing their test scores—despite considerable research over the years demonstrating that the results are, at best, relatively comparable.  Steve Dyer uses the test score yardstick in a recent blog post: “Not only have Ohio charter schools not gotten appreciably better on the report card since… 2015, but since the 2012-2013 school year, charter schools overall have received more Fs than all other grades combined on state report cards.” Dyer doesn’t think these schools are performing well enough to deserve additional tax support….

“Here is an example—this time from Sunday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer—of how reporting on charter school accountability and funding often goes.   As he describes the request for more money from the legislature, reporter Patrick O’Donnell considers the academic record of Ohio charter schools and whether state regulation has improved enough.  O’Donnell begins: “Charter schools in Ohio have long wanted more money from the state, but a history of well-publicized scandals, mismanagement and poor report card grades have made it hard to justify giving them any more tax dollars.  Have they cleaned up their act enough now?”

“Charter schools in Ohio actually want a lot more money per-pupil in the next state budget. O’Donnell reports: “Some charter officials are pressing the state for another $2,000 per student a year for most charter schools in the upcoming state budget. Leading the charge are the Breakthrough Schools, the Cleveland based chain that has the strongest results out of all charters in Ohio. Joining them are the growing Accel Schools chain, which has grown to 40 schools in the state over the last three years.”  Accel Schools is the charter network run by former K-12 Inc., CEO Ron Packard, who expanded his Accel network by buying up Cleveland’s I Can charters along with many of the schools formerly operated by David Brennan, who died last autumn.

“How should Ohio’s policy makers evaluate whether spending tax dollars on charter schools is a good investment?  And particularly in these times when charter schools are asking for a huge bump of $2,000 extra per-pupil? Measured by test scores, and evaluated by their record of conflicts of interest, fraud. and outlandish financial mismanagement, Ohio should not increase public funding for its charter school sector.  But I believe there is a more important—and usually ignored—reason for denying more funding to the privatized charter school sector in our state. Policy makers must begin examining charter schools’ enormous, persistent drain on local school district budgets.

“In Ohio, California, and many other states, charter schools get their funding through a “school district deduction.” Here is how the Ohio Department of Education describes the process of funding (When you read the following language, remember that charter schools in Ohio are formally called “community schools” instead of charter schools.): “Payments to community schools take the form of deductions from the state foundation funding of the school districts in which the community school students are entitled to attend school. Community schools students are counted as part of the enrollment base of the resident school district to generate funding.” The amount taken from the school district budget by every Ohio student who leaves for a charter school is $6,020.  This is known as a “district deduction” system of funding.”

Charter schools want more money but no accountability. They want to harm public schools.

The Ohio legislature should just say no.

 

Jan Resseger writes one astonishingly smart post after another. We can all learn from her. Having dedicated her career to social justice and especially to education justice, she is steeped in the issues. But she has a way of putting together information from different sources that brings new light on old discussions.

This post about our national underinvestment in education is exemplary.

She begins like this:

For nearly two decades the preferred spin of policymakers at federal and state levels has been that financial investments (inputs) are far less important than evidence of academic achievement (outcomes as measured by standardized tests). And the outcomes were supposed to be achieved by pressuring teachers to work harder and smarter. Somehow teachers have been expected to deliver a miracle at the same time classes got bigger; nurses, counselors and librarians were cut; and teacher turnover increased as salaries lagged.

Statements of justice in public education have always been a little vague about the most direct path to get there.  One of my favorite definitions of public education’s purpose is from Benjamin Barber’s 1992 book, An Aristocracy of Everyone: “(T)he object of public schools is not to credential the educated but to educate the uncredentialed; that is, to change and transform pupils, not merely to exploit their strengths. The challenge in a democracy is to transform every child into an apt pupil, and give every pupil the chance to become an autonomous, thinking person and a deliberative, self-governing citizen: that is to say, to achieve excellence… Education need not begin with equally adept students, because education is itself the equalizer. Equality is achieved not by handicapping the swiftest, but by assuring the less advantaged a comparable opportunity. ‘Comparable’ here does not mean identical… Schooling is what allows math washouts to appreciate the contributions of math whizzes—and may one day help persuade them to allocate tax revenues for basic scientific research, which math illiterates would reject. Schooling allows those born poor to compete with those born rich; allows immigrants to feel as American as the self-proclaimed daughters and sons of the American Revolution; allows African-Americans, whose ancestors were brought here in bondage, to fight for the substance (rather than just the legal forms) of their freedom.”  (An Aristocracy of Everyone, pp. 12-13)

There are many reasons to consider Barber’s principles carefully in Trump’s America. In the specific case of the provision of education, however, we ought to consider this question: Can these words—“Education need not begin with equally adept students, because education is itself the equalizer”— be achieved without our society’s investing in tangible inputs like class size and numbers of counselors and the presence of school music programs?  For a year now—in walkouts and strikes—schoolteachers have been telling us that policymakers are naive to believe inputs don’t matter.  In a new report, K-12 School Funding Up in Most 2018 Teacher-Protest States, But Still Well Below Decade Ago, the Center on Budget and Priorities (CBPP) confirms teachers’ outrage about the collapse of financial investment in their schools.

CBPP’s new report summarizes school funding in several of the states where striking teachers have called attention to their states’ long collapse of funding for K-12 public education: “Protests by teachers and others last year helped lead to substantial increases in school funding in Arizona, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and West Virginia, four of the 12 states that had cut school ‘formula’ funding—the primary state revenue source for schools—most deeply over the last decade. Despite last year’s improvements, however, formula funding remains well below 2008 levels in these states.”

CBPP explains further that to end teachers’ strikes, legislators too frequently went for a quick fix instead of a stable solution: “Three of the four teacher-protest states that increased formula funding last year used revenue sources that may prove unsustainable…. Arizona teachers ended their strike after Governor Doug Ducey signed a budget giving them a 20 percent salary increase over three years.  But the budget doesn’t include the new revenue required to finance the planned spending…. North Carolina’s legislature increased funding for schools without raising new revenue to do so, even though the state faces a revenue shortfall next year for covering ongoing needs, primarily due to unsustainable income tax cuts that began to take effect in 2014… Oklahoma funded pay increases for teachers and other public employees that included a hike in cigarette taxes, a boost in gasoline taxes, and an increase in the tax rate on oil extraction.  While these revenue sources were adequate to cover the pay hikes, they may not be in the future.”

Even the emergency increases after teachers’ strikes are not enough: “Most of the teacher-protest states had cut their formula funding so deeply over the last decade that even last year’s sizeable funding boosts weren’t enough to restore funding to pre-recession levels.  For example, in Oklahoma, per-student formula funding remains 15 percent below 2008 levels, including inflation adjustments.  And per-student formula funding in Arizona, North Carolina, and West Virginia, as well, is still well below pre-recession levels.”

Angie Sullivan is a firebrand on behalf of children in Nevada. She is a first grade teachers in Las Vegas (Clark County), which most people think of in terms of glitz and glamour. But the children she teaches are poor and many barely speak any English. Her school is underfunded. Angie writes frequent email blasts to every legislator and she does not mince words. On April 27, thousands of teachers, parents, and supporters of schools will rally in the streets for more funding for Clark County Schools.

She writes:

 

Teachers and every person who cares about kids will be in the streets on April 27th.  ❤
And we will let the nation know we are here and have had enough.  ❤
You “Education Experts” who do not believe we have a money problem – stay home. You created this problem   You are the problem  🦠
You are slime.  🦠
Listen up millionaires and billionaires and politicians they have bought.  🦠
Nevada Democrats Susie Lee and Elaine Wynn specifically.    🦠
You are slimy reformers bought to union bust. 🦠
Agassi Hedgefund, Academica, Educate Now, HOPE, Guinn Center, Community in Schools, Nevada Succeeds, TFA, Charter Groups, United Way, Public Education Foundation, TeachPlus, 36 paid lobbyists, choice trash disguise as parent groups, and any other business oriented privatizers I have missed.  🦠
Plus Senators Joyce Woodhouse and Mo Denis.  🦠
All of you have participated in teacher hate and union busting. 🦠
You are terrible and most took money to hurt kids 🦠
What you have done to disenfranchised Vegas kids is horrible.  🦠
What you do with “education reform” is tragic.  🦠
You have purposefully hurt the most vulnerable Vegas students with your sick experiments. 🦠
No one should listen you or anyone like you ever again.  🦠
You have zero real data; just sick experimental invalid research.  🦠
You are a hate driven think tank business promoting machine. 🦠
You are hateful and cruel and inept.  🦠
You have segregated by race, money, and religion.    It is enough.  🦠
The most important person in education is the classroom teacher, folks at the school level, someone working with kids.  ❤
Education is about the teacher. ❤
Every student needs a teacher. ❤
The teacher is there every day.   It is folks in schools who make the magic happen.  ❤
Students do not need a sage on the stage policy maker in snowy Carson City passing out cash to friends.  Spending all the kid money to further their careers. 🦠
We are not your cash cow.  🦠
Yes I’m looking you Aaron Ford and Maggie Carleton. 🦠
The teachers will fix the Nevada schools.   It will NEVER be “reformers” brought in to disrupt.  ❤
It is not you because you do not work or care. 🦠
It will never be you – because you are cheap and cannot find money. 🦠
You hurt us on purpose.  🦠
This is a money problem.   🦠 Vegas Students not had an increase since 2008.  🦠
And teachers and the community will stand up to you now.   ❤
You are the problem.   You are the problem.  🦠
And money buying or taking or giving influence and power is the problem too.  🦠
Everyone is on the take.  🦠
Plenty of money to buy public relations spin but you are not the focal point this time.  🦠
Folks who love kids will demand more.  And we demand it NOW.  ❤

#Solidarity Oakland

#Solidarity Los Angeles

#Solidarity Arizona

#Solidarity West Virginia x 2

#Solidarity Oklahoma

#Solidarity Denver

#Solidarity Illinois

#Solidarity Kentucky

Next up.  #Vegas @JoyceWoodhouse @MoDenisNV @GovSisolak @SuptJaraCCSD #NVleg #Nved #Nvteach

Plenty of cash to print promises which you never keep on campaign flyers.  🦠
Go get your tax break someplace else business folks🦠
And take all your dark “reform money” with you. 🦠
There is not one thing noble about eduphilantrophy which harms at-risk kids 🦠
And shame shame shame on your corruption and horrible policies.  🦠
You have ruined Nevada Education. 🦠
And it stops now.  🦠
Our public schools are underfunded because of you. 🦠
Everyone should be in the streets because you are garbage. 🦠
We have had enough.    You are slime.  🦠
Tell everyone you know . . . these groups are slime and hurt kids.  🦠
Just part of a teacher hating reform machine that hurts the poorest and least among us.  Damaging young people for life so they can declare a corporate profit on a spreadsheet someplace.   🦠
You are sick. 🦠
Nevada Democrats will break every promise they made.  They hate teachers.   They hate kids. That is their record and that is the work of their hands – sand.   🦠
What have they set in motion to fix the gargantuan financial issues we have?   Nothing. 🙄
They give us a penny if we beg for ten years?   🦠
No stage for privatizers, dark money non-profits, and teacher haters.  🦠
Do.   Not.   Ask.   🦠
Tell me to cut from kids one more time.   See what happens.  🦠
No one should put up with any of you ever again.  🦠
Every parent in the valley should demand their child have a fully licensed and prepared teacher, a textbook, a class size of 25 and a safe campus.  🦠
You sickos need to all be removed.  🦠
I am.  Furious.  🦠
#FundOurSchoolsNow ❤
Angie

From the Los Angeles Times:

 

The Los Angeles Board of Education has voted unanimously to place a parcel tax on the June 4 ballot in hopes of capitalizing on a recent teachers’ strike that attracted broad support for local schools.

If approved, the tax is projected to raise about $500 million a year, enough to close all or most of the gap between what the district is spending and the revenue it receives from state and federal sources.

By the way, this is a good opportunity for Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, and Richard Riordan, among others, to show how much they care about the kids. Support higher taxes.

 

John Thompson writes from Oklahoma:

The Tulsa World’s headline nailed the big picture, “‘Staggering’: 30,000 Oklahoma Teachers Have Left Profession in the Past Six Years, Report Shows.” The World’s Michael Dekker cites State Superintendent Joy Hofmeister who explained, “The loss of 30,000 educators over the past six years is staggering — and proof that our schools must have the resources to support a growing number of students with an increasing number of needs.”

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/education/staggering-oklahoma-teachers-have-left-profession-in-the-past-years/article_32479aa7-9877-55c9-959c-76f7332a7e7d.html

These huge losses occurred in a state which employed only 50,598 teachers in 2017-18.

Hofmeister addressed the immediate problem, “Steep budget cuts over the last decade have made the teaching profession in Oklahoma less attractive, resulting in a severe teacher shortage crisis and negative consequences for our schoolchildren.” The analysis, 2018 Oklahoma Educator Supply and Demand Report, by Naneida Lazarte Alcala, also touched on the ways that the lack of respect and the decline of teachers’ professional autonomy contributed to the massive exodus from the classroom.

https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Oklahoma%20Teacher%20Supply%20and%20Demand%20Report%202018%20February%20Update.pdf

The report showed that Oklahoma’s annual attrition rate has been 10 percent during the last 6 years, which was 30 percent more than the national average. This prompted an increase from 32 emergency certifications in 2012 to 2,915 in 2018-19. As a result, the median experience of state teachers declined by 1/5th in this short period.

Given the challenges faced by the Oklahoma City Public School System, it is noteworthy that the highest turnover rate in 2017-18 (almost 25 percent) occurred in central Oklahoma. Over 11 percent of teachers in the central region are new hires.

It should also be noted that charter schools have the highest turnover rate (almost 42 percent), even higher than that of middle schools. 

I kid my colleagues in middle school. But there is a serious point. Choice advocates have had success in their political campaign to defeat traditional public schools, but their turnover rate is another sign that the oversupply of charters shows that privatization isn’t a viable, educational alternative to neighborhood schools. 

But the financial cutbacks were not the only cause of the crisis. Alcala cites a survey of teachers who have left Oklahoma schools; 2/3rds said that increased compensation would not be enough to bring them back to the classroom.  Citing reasons that were beyond the scope of the report, 78 percent said that the quality of the work environment had declined, and nearly half said it had deteriorated a great deal.

On the other hand, the report suggested aspects of teaching conditions that merit further examination. It cited research on the negative effects of teacher turnover on student achievement, especially for low-income students. This stands in contrast with research cited by accountability-driven, competition-driven school reformers who argue that turnover isn’t necessarily bad. After all, they invested heavily in trying to identify and dismiss low-performing teachers.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228248764_Who_Leaves_Teacher_Attrition_and_Student_Achievement

The SDE study cited the value of low student-teacher ratios in terms of raising student achievement, especially for low-income students. It also noted the national pattern where education degrees have “notoriously” declined, as well as the drop in graduates in Oklahoma teacher preparation programs.

And that brings us to the unintended results of features, as opposed to bugs, in the corporate school reform movement which peaked during this era. Reformers who lacked knowledge of realities in schools misinterpreted research on California schools which supposedly said that class size reductions don’t work, and then ignored the preponderance of evidence on why class size matters. Reformers often blamed university education departments for poor student test scores, and experimented with teacher preparation shortcuts. Some reformers even said what many others felt about wanting to undermine the institution of career teaching.

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research/featured/the-class-size-debate-what-the-evidence-means-for-education-policy

https://www.classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Summary-of-US-Class-Size-Reduction-Research.pdf

https://aacte.org/news-room/aacte-in-the-news/312-education-depts-reform-plan-for-teacher-training-gets-mixed-reviews

To understand the decline of working conditions for teachers, the teacher strike in Denver, as well as those in Oklahoma and other states, must be considered. Senator Michael Bennet, the former superintendent of the Denver schools, called for incentives in urban schools by twenty-somethings who would work for 7 to 9 years.  His hugely expensive and complicated incentive system provoked the recent strike.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/01/sotu.01.html

It should have been obvious that teacher churn is bad for students, who need trusting relationships with educators who love them. A decade ago, however, edu-philanthropists and the federal government essentially imposed a rushed and risky experiment on schools in Oklahoma and across the nation. These noneducators praised the gambles as “disruptive innovation.” But they incentivized primitive teach-to-the-test malpractice and drove much of the joy of teaching and learning out of schools.

Evidence that excellent teachers were being “exited” by a flawed statistical model used in these teacher evaluation systems was ignored.  Since these policies incentivized the removal of highly paid veteran teachers during the budget crisis prompted by the Great Recession, Baby Boomers were often targeted.  This resulted in schools such as Upper Greystone, an elementary school with 24 certified staff,  which had 21 teacher vacancies at the beginning of the 2014-15 school year.   

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-teacher-churn-undermining-real-education-reform-in-dc/2012/06/15/gJQAigWcfV_story.html?utm_term=.fa0c4f7e5a2c

http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2015/04/05/cognitive-dissonance-and-segregated-oklahoma-schools/

During the 1990s, education experts frequently warned that Baby Boomers would soon be retiring, and sought ways for veteran teachers to pass on their wisdom. During the last decade, however, corporate reform made the staggeringly serious mistake of undermining teachers’ autonomy in order to force educators to comply with their technocratic mandates. Veteran teachers were rightly seen as opponents to their teach-to-the-test regimes, and often they were pushed out of the profession so they wouldn’t undercut the socializing of young teachers into opposing bubble-in accountability. 

Even if we had not made another unforced error and dramatically cut education spending, failed reforms would have wasted educators’ time and energy, damaged teachers’ professionalism, and sucked much of the joy of teaching and learning out of classrooms. When the retirement and the pushing out of Baby Boomers, funding cuts, and drill-and-kill pedagogy came together during and after the Great Recession, this staggering exodus of teachers was triggered.

 

Recently elected Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has proposed freezing voucher enrollments and charter expansion. 

Neither charters nor vouchers have been more successful than public schools. Milwaukee, which has both, is one of the nation’s lowest performing school districts on the NAEP.

Republicans in the legislature have vowed to protect privatization of public funding. They are determined to eliminate local control of public schools, whichused to be a bedrock tenet of Republican thinking.

The Journal-Sentinel reports:

MADISON – Gov. Tony Evers in his first state budget is seeking to undo expansions of private voucher schools and independent charter schools passed by Republicans over the last decade.

Aides say the proposals are an attempt to reduce property taxes and stabilize what the Democratic governor sees as two parallel systems of education in Wisconsin.

But Republicans who control the Legislature are likely to block many, if not all, of the measures Evers wants.

Evers, the former chief of the state’s education agency, is seeking to freeze the number of students who may enroll in private voucher schools across the state, including in Milwaukee where the nation’s first voucher program began nearly 30 years ago.

The governor’s budget also proposes to suspend the creation of new independent charter schools until 2023 and eliminates a program aimed at Milwaukee that requires county officials to turn persistently poor-performing schools into charter schools without district officials’ approval.

“I’ve said all along that addressing the pressing issues facing our state starts with education,” Evers said in a statement Sunday. “We have to fully fund our public schools, and we have to make sure voucher schools are accountable and transparent, not just for kids and parents, but for Wisconsin taxpayers, too.”

Advocates for private school vouchers see the proposals much differently:

“Evers’ budget would end school choice as Wisconsin knows it,” said C.J. Szafir, executive vice president of the conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

Aides to Evers provided the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel with an overview of proposed changes to the state’s four private voucher programs and its charter schools, some of which were proposed by Evers in September through the Department of Public Instruction’s budget request.

Evers as state schools superintendent oversaw the state’s 422 school districts and its private schools from 2009 until being sworn in as governor earlier this year.

In that time, Evers repeatedly argued the state could not properly fund its public schools while also expanding taxpayer-funded private voucher and charter school options without a funding increase for public schools.

Republicans under former Gov. Scott Walker backed aggressive growth in taxpayer-funded subsidies for students living in middle and low-income households who want to attend private schools, arguing students who lack the financial means to move to a higher-performing school should be able to enroll in them anyway.

Walker and Republicans also implemented new ways to create independent charter schools in liberal-leaning school districts that have long blocked them — like Madison and Milwaukee.

Democrats, teachers unions and public school advocates have opposed the expansions of alternatives to traditional public schools, which coincided with budget proposals that for the most part either cut funding or held funding flat for public schools.

Evers’ budget proposal seeks to pump the brakes on those expansions, following heavy criticism of the statewide voucher programs subsidizing large groups of students already attending private schools without taxpayer-funded help.

 

A school district in Santa Barbara County may go bankrupt because of the charter chain absorbing revenues from its schools.

https://ksby.com/news/local-news/2019/02/11/syvuhsd-says-charter-school-funding-could-bankrupt-the-district?fbclid=IwAR0V9u7V4jluBv5yN7vbzFuOc905hAhxnS0hJHorW-7tuia6DctW-nbgN20

“One Santa Barbara County school district says keeping a local charter school open could cause them to go bankrupt.

“California’s Department of Education recently decided the Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District has to help fund Olive Grove Charter School, a public school with six different locations.

“Olive Grove Charter Schools have been in Santa Barbara County since 2000, originally chartered by the Los Olivos School District. In 2014, Los Olivos decided it no longer wanted to oversee the schools.

“The only district willing to speak with us was New Cuyama so we did get authorized with the state board and New Cuyama paid us in-lieu funds at that point,” explained Laura Mudge, Executive Director of Olive Grover Charter School.

“Then the laws changed, and they were back at the drawing board.

“So the California Department of Education was hoping everyone would be able to get to an agreement, especially since Olive Grove had been authorized and in the county since 2000. It didn’t go that way, so we went back to the districts, back to the county and back to the state and then got authorized,” Mudge said.

“Now, the Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District is stuck footing the bill – one that’s so high, they say it could lead to bankruptcy.

“We received notification from the Department of Education in December that we’re going to owe $696,000 to help fund Olive Grove Charter. That was just based off the beginning of the year attendance. If you listen to projections coming from the executive director of Olive Grove, that number will be closer to $1-1.2 million come the end of this school year,” said Scott Corey, superintendent of the Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District.”

Wesley Null, vice provost for undergraduate education at Baylor University, and I wrote this piece for the Dallas Morning News.

Texas legislators are revising the state’s school finance laws. We wanted to put before the public the importance of paying teachers well.

Some legislators are enthusiastic about what they call “outcomes-based funding,” which would send more money to affluent districts and less money to needy districts. This would be a huge mistake for obvious reasons. It’s reverse Robin Hood.

Long ago, Texas had visionaries in the legislature who understood that the future of the state relied on having a strong public education system. Current legislators think they can use charters as a substitute for adequate funding.

In 1948, those visionaries proposed a dramatic increase in state funding and equalization. Gilmer and Aiken persuaded their colleagues to raise the state share of funding to 75-80% of costs. This year, the state share will fall to 39%, shifting the burden of financing schools to localities, which favors the richest districts.

We wrote:

The heart of any school is the teacher. The only way to ensure that every Texas child receives a quality education is to place a well-educated, well-prepared teacher in every classroom. That truth will never change.

The attractiveness of teaching, however, continues to decline. The results are tragic. Labor Department statistics reveal that public educators are leaving the profession at the highest rate in 20 years. Low pay and disrespect are key factors in this alarming decline.

The Texas Legislature this session will have the job of remedying the state’s public school finance system. As historians of education, we think some background is helpful.

The last time Texas overhauled public school finance was immediately following World War II. The need for change was great. Many young Texans had been denied the opportunity to serve during the war because of their poor level of education. Such news was embarrassing to Texas leadership. 

Compulsory attendance laws existed, but they had many loopholes. Only 65 percent of school-aged children attended school. Only 40 percent of adults had a high school education. Many school buildings were dilapidated and dangerous. 

School finance was based on a census count of how many school-aged kids lived in a county regardless of whether those students attended school. Consequently, funds were commonly distributed but no education took place. Pay for teachers was embarrassingly low, leading to difficulties with recruitment and retention.

Fortunately, Texas had leaders who were driven by foresight and determination. Named in honor of legislators Claud Gilmer and A.M. Aikin, the Gilmer-Aikin Laws modernized Texas education. They revolutionized school finance, substantially increased pay for teachers, rebuilt dilapidated buildings, and redesigned teacher education and certification.

Please read it all!

 

 

 

Statement by John Affeldt on Governor Newsom’s State of the State Education Priorities

 

On the occasion of Governor Gavin Newsom’s first State of the State address, Public Advocates is issuing the following statement commenting on the Governor’s remarks on public education. Quotes from the statement are to be attributed to John Affeldt, Public Advocates Managing Attorney for Education.

On funding for California’s public schools:

We are thrilled to have a governor finally willing to have the long overdue conversation about sufficient funding for our public schools. The Local Control Funding Formula has made school funding much more equitable but did not address funding adequacy. Despite being the world’s fifth largest economy, California drags along the bottom of states in per pupil expenditures and has fewer adults per student ratios than all but two other states. From Los Angeles to Oakland to Sacramento, our schools are having to choose unfairly between paying teachers living wages, or delivering core services like reasonable class sizes, nurses, counselors and librarians or paying extra attention to students with the greatest needs. These are necessities our public schools must provide to close persistent opportunity and achievement gaps, and which can be met by using the resources our wealthy state possesses. We have offered thoughts for reaching funding adequacy over the years, most recently in an October EdSource op-ed, and we look forward to being part of the urgent conversation on how to fully and fairly fund our schools.

 

On the appointment of Linda Darling-Hammond to the State Board of Education:

Governor Newsom could not have made a better appointment to the State Board of Education than Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond. Dr. Darling-Hammond is the foremost authority on equity and teacher quality in our public schools in the country. More than a brilliant academic she also has shown herself an astute policymaker and public administrator in her time advising the Obama Campaign, Governor Brown and serving as Chair of the state’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing for the past six years. We look forward to working with Dr. Darling-Hammond on the State Board and to seeing her influence that body to make even greater strides to improve the educational system for all California students.

 

On plans to increase accountability and transparency in public education, including charter schools:

We also applaud Governor Newsom’s proposal to increase accountability and transparency in public education. For starters, we need a much clearer picture of how $6 billion in supplemental and concentration dollars for high-need students are being spent by districts and schools. Murkiness in charter spending is even worse. In August 2018, Public Advocates published the first study of how well charter schools are performing in terms of being transparent and accountable for public dollars in their required Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP). We found a shocking lack of public accountability for hundreds of millions of dollars reviewed in the sample. A third of charters failed to even present an LCAP at all. Of those that did, only $15.8 million out of $48.6 million dollars supposed to be dedicated to low-income, English learner and foster students were identified as having been expended and none of those dollars were actually properly justified as having been lawfully spent to serve high need students. We look forward to working with the Administration to further strengthen charter school accountability.

 

###

 

Public Advocates Inc. is a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing, transportation equity, and climate justice. www.publicadvocates.org