Archives for category: Funding

 

Clint Smith writes in The Atlantic that the underlying cause of educational inequality is unequal funding of children who are poor. Instead of getting more funding and smaller classes, their schools are  systematically underfunded as compared to the schools attended by the wealthiest children.

The GOP tax plan will worsen this inequality. It creates pathways to enrich rich families and take from the public schools that serve the neediest children.

It is a reverse Robin Hood plan: steal from the poor, give to the rich.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/02/the-new-tax-laws-subtle-subversion-of-public-schools/552356/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-weekly-newsletter&utm_content=20180209&silverid=MzM0NTY0NzMyNzIyS0

 

Economist Eric Hanushek of Hoover at Stanford frequently testifies that how money is spent matters far more than how much is spent. Actually both matter. In Ohio, for example, the $2 Billion spent on low-performing online virtual charter school ECOT was a waste of money. California and Florida and other states have wasted billions on low performing charter schools and charters that close in mid-year.

Bill Phillis, former deputy Commissioner of Education in Ohio responds here:

“Eric Hanushek, Stanford University Economist: “How money is spent is more important than how much is spent.”

“Dr. Hanushek was at the Statehouse January 31 participating with a group of experts assembled to discuss how to improve Ohio’s education system. The participants agreed that Ohio’s prosperity is tied to education attainment.

“Most states that have had to defend a constitutional challenge to the school funding system have involved Eric Hanushek one way or another. Dr. Hanushek can be counted on to support inadequate, inequitable school funding systems. His deal-how money is spent is important-is a no brainer. Of course, how money is spent is consequential. (The Ohio charter industry with its poster child ECOT has demonstrated the importance of how money is spent.) But the total amount of funds available is extremely significant.

“Unfortunately, many boards of education, particularly in low wealth districts, have the task of determining which valuable programs and services to put on the chopping block.

“Dr. Hanushek can and does produce data sets that show an increase in funding may not produce a commensurate increase in student achievement. But test scores are not the only measure of the benefits students accrue from the public common school.

“One sure way to diminish education attainment is to adopt Dr. Hanshek’s philosophy that higher levels of funding are not consequential. Ohio continues to operate an inadequate, inequitable, unconstitutional system.”

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

Ann Cronin, a retired educator in Connecticut, is outraged that Governor Dannell Malloy, who pretends to be a Democrat and was even chair of the Democratic Governors Association, has presented a tax plan to benefit his rich campaign contributors. He is a big charter supporter, because his supporters–like opiod king Jonathan Sackler–love charters. (Wouldn’t it be nice if the Sackler family were held personally responsible for the thousands of deaths caused by their deadly but profitable opioids?)

Malloy’s tax plan sounds surprisingly like Donald Trump’s. Maybe he would consider changing parties?

Cronin writes:

 

SAYING NO TO A TAX BREAK FOR THE RICH IN CONNECTICUT

Governor Malloy’s proposed budget gives a tax break to the rich.

Here’s what it is:

He advocates extending the 529 college savings plans, called CHET (Connecticut Higher Education Trust), to savings plans that can be used for K-12 education as well as college. As reported in the well-researched and comprehensive article in The CT Mirror by Jacqueline Rabe Thomas on January 16, 2018, the state currently allows parents to avoid paying state income taxes each year on up to $10,000 that they put into a college savings account. In addition, they don’t have to pay taxes on the earned income when the money is withdrawn to pay for college

 

Using 529 accounts to fund K-12 education in addition to college is part of the new Republican/Trump tax plan. States can go along with that tax plan or become decoupled from it. Governor Malloy has chosen to keep the state and federal tax plans coupled and go along with Donald Trump. The Connecticut General assembly will decide whether or not to go along with Dan Malloy.

Here’s how it will work:

According to figures compiled for The CT Mirror by the financial services company Vanguard, this is the picture for Connecticut families:

 

  1. Family A has a baby and, as soon as the baby is born, puts $200,000 into a 529 savings account for the future education of that baby. The family then withdraws $10,000 a year to pay for the child’s K-12 private school education. The family avoids paying $49,800 in federal taxes over the 13 years. At the end of the high school years, the family will have $382,000 in the account to pay for the child’s college education.

 

  1. Family B has a baby and, as soon as the baby is born, puts $66,000 into a 529 savings account for the future education of the baby. The family withdraws $10,000 a year to pay for the child’s private school K-12 education. The family avoids paying $18,200 in federal taxes over the 13 years. But the family will have no money left in the account to pay for college.

 

  1. Family C has a baby and does not have any money to deposit in a chunk to a 529 savings account at the baby’s birth but saves what it can over the following 18 years for college expenses. All savings are needed for college; there is no money available for private K-12 education. There, probably, is not enough to fully fund college education.

 

  1. Family D has a baby and has no ability to save in any way for college.

 

 

So the only people who will profit from the plan that Governor Malloy is proposing are the very wealthy, only those who qualify as Family A. Donald Trump’s tax plan and Dan Malloy’s budget proposal have no benefit for Family B, Family C, and Family D.

The gap between the haves and the have-nots widens. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor – and the middle class struggles.

And here’s the real kicker: The rest of us will pay for that tax break for the rich. The Governor’s Office of Policy and Management estimates that 529 plans for K-12 education will cost the state $39 million per year.

Here’s why the Governor’s proposal is wrong:

  1. We barely have enough money to keep the lights on in the state, yet the Governor is asking all of the citizens in Connecticut to fund this substantial tax break for its wealthiest citizens.

 

  1. There will be less money available to fund public schools, especially those in high poverty areas that depend on state funding because of the added strain on the state budget caused by the state supporting the extension of the 529 savings plans for K-12 education.

 

  1. The access to private school will not be extended to middle income families. In Connecticut, private high schools cost day students between $43,600 and $48,080 for tuition alone. Catholic high school tuition is between $14,300 and $19,800 per year. Private elementary schools cost over $40,000 per year, and Catholic elementary schools charge about $8,000 for tuition.    

      

Middle-income families cannot fund a private K-12 education; it is clearly an option for only the wealthy. The total cost of a private K-12 education in Connecticut is between $260,000 and $570.000. Even an education at a local K-8 parochial school and a regional Catholic high school costs between $130,000 and $150,000. Paying for any of these schools is out of reach for middle-income families who are saving for college. So those who claims that Donald Trump’s tax plan and Governor Malloy’s proposal is extending school choice to anyone other than the incredibly affluent are not realistic. In fact, they are wrong.

 

  1. Lastly, there are questions about exclusion of students based on sexual orientation and learning disabilities in non-public schools. Some religious schools have been found to be discriminatory concerning the sexual orientation and life style of their employees.  A case about that kind of discrimination in a Connecticut school is currently in the courts. State funds should not support schools that do not meet state standards for anti-discrimination.

  

  1. Connecticut has excellent public schools. Connecticut also has a problem with poverty. State funds are best directed to address the underlying causes of poverty which inhibit the learning potential of children mired in poverty.

 

Here’s what you can do:

Call or email your state legislator (https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/cgafindleg.asp) and tell him or her to reject the Trump and Malloy proposal. Tell your state legislator to reject the extension of the 529 college savings accounts to 529 savings accounts for K-12 education. Tell your legislator that having 529 savings accounts for K-12 education is unfair, undemocratic, and fiscally irresponsible. Resist!

 

If you were a billionaire and you wanted to make the  American people totally gullible, you would dream up ways to keep them far removed from schools and teachers that teach them how to think critically.

You would embrace “education savings accounts,” which are vouchers by another name, which remove from the state any responsibility to educate any child. Just give every student a debit card, to be used at will.

Carol Burris explains the hoax here.

Parents pledge not to enroll their son or daughter in a public school or a charter school. In exchange, they get nearly all of what the school would have spent (usually 90 percent) placed on a debit card or in an account. The remaining 10 percent is used to fund program administration.

Parents can use the money for private or religious school tuition, online learning, books, hippotherapy (horseback riding for therapeutic purposes) and home schooling — or they can choose to spend minimal dollars on K-12 education and save for college.

There is no obligation that the curriculum that is used to teach students who use ESAs to attend private schools be developmentally appropriate, challenging or even accurate. Although a few states require parents to promise that their children receive instruction in reading, grammar, mathematics, science and social studies, what content is taught and what is learned is immaterial.

If at this point you are thinking that most taxpayers would view such an unaccountable and unregulated system as one in which families could easily be victimized by misinformation, false claims, profiteering and fraud, you would be right. This is not lost on the proponents of ESAs. That is why they have developed all kinds of language to make ESAs seem hip and cutting edge, when they are really advocating a return to a time before the 1830s when schooling was a haphazard event for all but the wealthy.

See how cool it is? Parents pledge not to enroll their children in a public school or a charter school. The family gets a debit card and goes shopping. Destroy public education. Just like Uber or Amazon, except this is education. This is our future. These are our children.

The people behind this are the super-rich. What do you think they have in mind? They send their own children to elite private schools. The ESA won’t cover that. Are they mad? Are they stupid? Are they vicious? What gives?

 

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, explains here how Mike Pence expanded and deregulated Indiana’s voucher program, with substantial cash infusions from Betsy DeVos and Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com.

Despite state law, failing voucher schools were renewed. Failing charter schools converted to voucher schools to evade accountability. The voucher program has subsidized churches and paid tuition for students who never attended public schools and thus were not “escaping” to better schools. Many of the religious schools teach fraudulent science and history.

School choice is a big step backward for education in Indiana

This article by Carol Burris was published in January but it remains as pertinent as ever.

Tell this to your friends and neighbors:

It is time we have an honest discussion about the true cost of school choice. It is a policy with steep fiscal consequences for our communities and our nation. Here is what every taxpayer should know:

Billions of federal tax dollars have poured into charter school promotion, without regard for success and with insufficient oversight.

By 2015, the federal government spent more than $3.7 billion to boost the charter sector — with millions wasted on financing “ghost schools” that never opened. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, Michigan spent $3.7 million of its federal dollars on 25 “ghost” schools. In California, more than $4.7 million federal dollars went to charter schools that shut down in a few years. And the flow has not stopped. In 2016, the federal government poured another $333 million to push charter schools, yet put forth no reforms to prevent waste. The same year the Department of Education’s own Inspector General warned of “the current and emerging risk” that is posed by charter management organizations for fraud and abuse.

Some charter schools spend more tax dollars on administration and less on teaching.

Most taxpayers want their tax dollars to go to the classroom for teaching and learning. Yet time and again, some charters spent far more than public schools on administration. In 2014-2015, Arizona charter schools spent over $128 million more than Arizona public schools on management costs. One charter chain, Basis, spent nearly $12 million on administrative costs in one year, for fewer than 9000 students — all hidden from public review.

When the latest federal study of D.C. voucher schools showed that students who take a voucher go backwards, not forward, Betsy DeVos responded that it didn’t matter. She said that when choice is fully implemented, all sectors–public, charter, and voucher–will get the same results.

Some investment! Divide up the money, undermine public schools (that take the neediest kids), and get the same results in all sectors.

 

The Michigan House passed a bill to let the charter sector—including for-profit charters and cyber charters—share in millage revenues. Voters no doubt think they are underwriting their local community public schools, but they will be paying for the privately managed charters if the State Senate agrees.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2018/01/18/michigan-legislation-millage-charter-schools/1045504001/

Michigan charters are unusual in that they operate with little accountability. Some 80% of the state’s charters operate for profit.

In recent years, with the spread of charters, Michigan’s ranking on NAEP has fallen from the middle of the national rankings to near the bottom.

Michigan believes in investing in failure. Results don’t matter.

 

 

Why are children in Baltimore sitting in frigid classrooms?

Republican Governor Larry Hogan says the public schools are mismanaged.

Jess Gartner, a former teacher and current analyst of education finance, fact checks Governor Hogan and says he is wrong/lying, to evade responsibility for inequitable funding.

 

 

Donald Cohen, executive director of the anti-privatization organization “In the Public Interest” calls for audits of charter school finances in California, especially the charter chain run by Ref Rodriguez, former president of the Los Angeles Unfied School District Board and still a member of the board, even though he is under indictment for financial crimes.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/los-angeles-deserves-to-know-more-about-ref-rodriguezs_us_5a53e7e2e4b0f9b24bf319ed

Millions of public dollars have been allocated to privately run charter schools with little or no oversight.

 

 

Richard Brodsky, a former Democratic legislator in New York, warns that Trump Tax Plan will be a disaster for New York. 

Of course, Republicans have boasted about the devastation that their tax law will cause to New York, New Jersey, and California, the big blue states. It is a partisan hit job, unlike the 1986 tax reform, where the parties worked together.

He writes:

 

“That loud rumbling sound New Yorkers are hearing is the ground shifting beneath their feet.

“The recently enacted federal package of tax cuts and increases does much more than increase the state’s outsized contribution to the federal treasury. It will fundamentally transform New York’s government and politics by undermining support for current school funding arrangements.

“To provide a quality education to a population with many high-needs students, New York spends more per pupil than any other state – an average of more than $22,000 a year. This figure varies throughout the state and there is a lot of attention paid to disparities in school spending. Many school districts don’t have sufficient local resources and need state funds to pay for teachers, physical space and supplies.

“Most education money comes from two separate taxes. The local share is usually paid mostly by property taxes, a particularly regressive tax that does not consider the taxpayers’ income or ability to pay. In most of the state outside New York City – which has low property taxes and an income tax – school property taxes are an enormous social and political problem.

“The state steps in with its own funding on top of the local share, getting its money from the income tax, and distributing it through a formula that sends most of the money to poorer districts. A wealthier suburban district can get as little as 5-7 percent of its budget from the state. Poorer districts, most of them upstate, get 70-75 percent of their budgets from the state. New York City gets 40-50 percent of its budget from the state, largely because it is a wealthy district when compared to the statewide average.

“It’s not as complicated as it seems. The state redistributes income tax revenue to make up for disparities in wealth. Schools across the state function under the system. Taxpayers everywhere complain, but it has been a stable system. The regional impacts are clear. Generally speaking, New York City gets back in state dollars a little less than it sends to Albany in tax payments. Upstate gets an enormous subsidy provided by suburban taxpayers.

“President Donald Trump has blown up that delicate balance. Measured across all state programs – not just education – New York City and the suburbs send billions of dollars to upstate communities. That system has been tolerated partially because it’s fair: State dollars are directed at communities that need the money for basic services, including schools, and partially because political leaders bargained their way into a sustainable compromise.

“Enter Donald Trump. His tax reform legislation unravels a central economic premise of New York’s school funding system. Suburban taxpayers pay both high property taxes and high state income taxes, but they could deduct from their federal income taxes what they paid in state and local taxes. That deduction is now capped at $10,000, far less than the state and local taxes paid by many middle-class and affluent homeowners in New York City and its suburbs. So now many of those New Yorkers will see their total tax liability increase by thousands of dollars a year. New York, already the largest net donor among the states, will be sending an additional $14 billion per year to Washington.

“This will undo the political bargain that has kept the current system afloat. Suburban taxpayers might be willing to absorb an additional burden if those dollars flowed to their home districts. Instead, slowly but surely, they will learn that their money is heading out of town and they won’t like it. That will inevitably erode public support for regional subsidies. A taxpayer revolt is coming.”

Read on. It is ironic that the president from New York is wreaking maximum damage on his home state.