Archives for category: Funding
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Roxana Marachi: KIPP Refuses to Abide by Conflict of Interest Law, But Gets Approved Anyway

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2018 //
8

Roxana Marachi, professor at San Jose State University, writes here that KIPP refuses to abide by the state’s conflict of interest law (that’s for the little people in public schools) but won approval of new charters by the state board anyway to open two new charters, despite public opposition.

Her post contains a wealth of documents showing the failure of KIPP to enroll the same proportions of ELLs and students with disabilities as nearby public schools, as well as documents about the damage that charters are doing to public schools in California.

This is great news for Betsy DeVos!

But bad news for public schools in California, where the state board rubber-stamps every charter proposal that comes before them, regardless of the views of elected local boards.

 

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, California, Education Industry, Funding, KIPP Charter Schools, Privatization

Oklahoma: Teachers Edge Closer to Statewide Strike, With an Eye to West Virginia

By dianeravitch
March 6, 2018 //
2

 

Teachers in Oklahoma have been inspired by the teachers of West Virginia, and they are mulling their own statewide walkout. 

The budget for public schools is so bad that dozens of schools are open only four days a week

“Across Oklahoma, teachers, labor organizers, parents and school boards are taking steps to follow West Virginia in launching their first major strike since 1990 to demand higher pay from the state Legislature.
On Thursday, the Oklahoma Education Assn. teachers union plans to unveil a shutdown strategy and a proposed funding measure to pressure lawmakers to boost spending for education in the state. The union said 80% of more than 10,000 respondents to an online survey backed closing schools in support of a walkout.

“Association President Alicia Priest said the union was “working toward” bringing all districts on board with a possible walkout, as in West Virginia, though she said “not everyone is on board yet, and that’s OK.”

“The goal is not a walkout,” Priest said. “The goal is for us to have funding for public education to best meet the needs of our students.”

“Next week, teachers in Tulsa, one of the state’s biggest school districts, plan to engage in a work-to-rule protest — a labor slowdown in which workers do only the minimum amount of work required. They have the backing of top administrators, who said they plan to support a teacher walkout and school shutdowns “should they become necessary.”

Oklahoma is a right to work state.

“Talk of a possible walkout had been brewing for months, even before the West Virginia strike, as lawmakers struggled to pass funding measures that might raise teacher pay.

“The average salary of Oklahoma teachers in 2016 was $42,760, which falls several thousand dollars below the average salaries in neighboring states such as Texas ($51,890), Arkansas ($48,218) and Kansas ($47,755), according to the most recently available data from the National Education Assn. The highest-paid teachers in the NEA rankings are in New York, earning an average of $79,152. California teachers, at No. 2, earn an average of $77,179.

“The salary disparities have led Oklahoma educators to flee to higher-paying jobs in neighboring states. Oklahoma’s 2016 teacher of the year, Shawn Sheehan, moved to Texas, where he and his wife — also a teacher — expect to make a combined $40,000 more a year than they made in Oklahoma…

“In Bartlesville, population 36,647, administrators discussed the possibility of needing to plan for a walkout during a school meeting in September, and talks revived after the Legislature failed to pass a funding measure in February.

“Supt. Chuck McCauley emailed a survey to other superintendents around the state asking them whether their communities might support a walkout, and he found that there was interest.

“If somebody has a better idea, we’re all for it,” McCauley said. “The reason ‘right now’ is so drastic — we are hiring people that we would not have interviewed a few short years ago, and it’s impacting the level of instruction for our kids.”

“On Wednesday, McCauley plans to meet with other superintendents around the state to get a sense of the breadth of support for possible school closures to support a walkout.

“Every district, their boards may or may not choose to participate,” McCauley said. But in Bartlesville, “our board, our community, our teachers, our parents — they’re definitely urging us to consider this option.”

 

Categories Accountability, Funding, Teachers and Teaching

Arizona: No Cap on Corporate Tax Subsidy for Nonpublic Schools

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2018 //
12

 

Corporations in Arizona may soon pay no state taxes at all because the Senate cannot agree on a cap. 

Instead of paying taxes, the corporations can subsidize private and religious schools. This means the state will have less money for its underfundedpublic schools, which enroll nearly 90% of the state’s children.

“On a party-line vote, the Arizona Senate gave preliminary approval Wednesday to changes in laws that give corporations a dollar-for-dollar credit against their state taxes for money they give to “scholarship tuition organizations.” These STOs, in turn, provide funds parents can use to pay the tuition and fees for their children at private schools.

“But Senate Bill 1467 was missing the promise made earlier by Senate President Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, to eliminate a provision in the law that, if not capped, could eventually mean corporations would pay nothing into the state treasury.“Under the original STO law, the diversion of corporate taxes was limited to $10 million.

“But proponents, led by Yarbrough, put in an automatic escalator, allowing that cap to rise by 20 percent a year. This past year the diversions totaled $74 million.

“The law will allow corporations to divert more than “$89 million this year, $107 million next year and $128 million the year after that.

“There is no limit. And at that rate, corporations could owe the state nothing by 2027.”

Until last year, the president of the State Senate, Republican Steve Yarbrough ran one of the organizations funneling tax dollars to nonpublic schools. Yarbrough was both president of the State Senate and leader of the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization. Tuition organizations get to keep 10% of the tax money to pay for administrative services. His organization collected millions each year, and he was making about $150,000 a year to run the fund while writing laws to expand its funding. A sweet deal. For him. Not for public schools. 

The Arizona Republic described the program in 2015:

”It was pitched as a small tax-credit program to help poor and disabled students attend private school.

“Eighteen years later, $140 million is now being diverted from the state treasury, most of it to pay private-school tuition for non-poor, non-disabled students.

“It was pitched as a program that would expand school choice. But fewer students are attending private school now than when the tax-credit program began, yet more and more money is being siphoned from the state to pay the private school tuition tab.

“This, Senate Majority Leader. Steve Yarbrough calls a triumph.”

Yarbrough stepped down from his private sector job in December 2017.

The Arizona formula: More money for private and religious schools, less money for public schools.

 

Categories Arizona, Funding, School Choice

Ohio: Bill Phillis Blasts Education Trust for Praising Ohio’s Low Funding Levels as “Equitable”

By dianeravitch
March 3, 2018 //
7

 

Bill Phillis, founder of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy became outraged when he read that Education Trust praised Ohio for spending more in the neediest districts, because Phillis says the state is not spending enough on education. Equitable is not enough. Spending must also be adequate. Phillis is retired. He was Deputy Superintendent of the State Department of Education and probably knows more about the education budget than anyone else in the state.

He writes:

”Education Trust* report: Ohio provides more funds per student in districts with high concentrations of minorities and poverty-but what is the rest of the story?

A February 27 Columbus Dispatch article is headlined–Despite doubts Ohio gets high funding marks.

Education Trust gave Ohio high marks because, in contrast to many other states, high poverty districts receive more revenue per pupil than even the suburban districts. That should be no surprise. High poverty districts typically have greater concentrations of children with disabilities and other special needs such as English Language Learners.

This report provides no education policy implications for Ohio. It adds nothing to the school funding discussion. Ohio operates an unconstitutional system of public K-12 education. The school funding formula is plagued with caps and guarantees and other complicated nuances due to an unconstitutionally low level of state funding.

The funding formula is further bedeviled by charter school policy that drains funds from school districts.

With its robust largess, Education Trust may wish to become proactive and conduct a cost study to determine the level of funding that would satisfy Ohio’s constitutional provision to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools.

*Education Trust was involved in writing No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The Gates Foundation has given it over $30 million. High stakes testing is part of its DNA.
.

Categories Funding

The Topic That Reformers Forget: School Funding Is Not Fair

By dianeravitch
March 1, 2018 //
16

 

The latest report of the Education Law Center demonstrates the unfairness of funding in many states. When funding is unfair, equal educational opportunity is sacrificed. Somehow, this crucial topic never makes it onto the agenda of corporate education reformers. They want to cut costs, not assure that funding is both adequate and equitable.

“The nation’s continuing failure to sufficiently invest in public schools stands in stark contrast to a growing body of research demonstrating that increased funding leads to better outcomes for students. Studies show that school finance reforms that increase spending in low-income districts result in improved student achievement in those districts and a narrowing of achievement gaps. In fact, these benefits have been shown to last into adulthood in the form of greater educational attainment, higher earnings, and lower rates of adult poverty.

“The National Report Card (NRC) uses data from the 2015 Census fiscal survey, the most recent available. The NRC goes beyond raw per-pupil spending calculations by analyzing factors crucial to educational opportunity: whether states provide a sufficient level of school funding and then distribute that funding to address greater student need, as measured by student poverty.

“The latest NRC results confirm a disturbing trend: almost no improvement since the end of the Great Recession in those states that do not provide additional funding to districts with high student poverty. There is also no change in the vast disparities in levels of funding for K-12 education across the states, even after adjusting for cost. The states with the highest funding levels (New York and Alaska) spend more than two and a half times what states with the lowest funding levels spend (Arizona and Idaho).

“Key findings include:

*Funding levels show large disparities, ranging from a high of $18,719 per pupil in New York, to a low of $6,277 in Idaho.

*The ten states with the lowest funding levels – less than $8,000 per pupil — include Florida, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Three of those states, Arizona, Idaho, and North Carolina, provide less than $7,000 per pupil.

*Many low funding states invest a low percentage of their economic output to support public education. These “low effort” states include California, Utah, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

*Seventeen states, including Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, and Illinois, have “regressive” school funding. These states provide less funding to their higher poverty school districts, even though students in these districts require more resources to achieve.

*Students in the South and Southwest face a “double disadvantage” because their states provide low funding with no boost in funding for high poverty districts. States with flat or regressive funding include Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida in the Southeast, and, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico in the Southwest.

*Only a few states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wyoming, provide high levels of school funding and distribute more funding to their high poverty districts. Notably, New Jersey and Massachusetts are the top performing states on student outcomes.

*States with low or flat school funding have poor results on resource indicators crucial for students to succeed in school. In these states, access to early childhood education is limited; wages for teachers are not competitive with those of comparable professions; and teacher-to-pupil ratios in schools are unreasonably low.

“The NRC released today is a sobering reminder of why unfair school funding is the most significant obstacle to improving outcomes for our nation’s public school students,” said David Sciarra, ELC Executive Director and report co-author. “The stark reality is most states still fund their public schools based on pure politics, not on the cost of delivering quality education to all students.”

“School finance reform is long overdue,” said Bruce Baker, the Rutgers University Graduate School of Education Professor who developed the report’s methodology. “It’s long past time for states to develop, and then fund, finance formulas built on the costs of providing essential education resources, accounting for diverse student needs and local fiscal capacity.”

Categories Equity, Funding

“Yes, Charter Schools Do Take Money Away From Public Schools”

By dianeravitch
February 28, 2018 //
17

 

It is hard to understand why anyone thinks that charter schools have. O fiscal impact on public schools. There is only one pot of money for education, and not many (or any) states are expanding that pot. The Trump administration wants to cut the federal education budget and divert more money to charters and vouchers.

This is a post about a new study by Duke University economist Helen Ladd and John Singleton that nails down the fiscal Harm that charter schools do to public schools.

Here is the summary.

Here is the study.

Here is the abstract:

”A significant criticism of the charter school movement is that funding for charter schools diverts money away from traditional public schools. As shown in prior work by Bifulco and Reback (2014) for two urban districts in New York, the magnitude of such adverse fiscal externalities depends in part on the nature of state and local funding policies. In this paper, we build on their approach to examine the fiscal effects of charter schools on both urban and non-urban school districts in North Carolina. We base our analysis on detailed balance sheet information for a sample of school districts that experienced significant charter entry since the statewide cap on charters was raised in 2011. This detailed budgetary information permits us to estimate a range of fiscal impacts using a variety of different assumptions. We find a large and negative fiscal impact from $500-$700 per pupil in our one urban school district and somewhat smaller, but still significant, fiscal externalities on the non-urban districts in our sample.”

Public schools that are underfunded must cut their budgets so that a small minority of students can attend charter schools. It makes no sense.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Disruption, Funding

Clint Smith: GOP Tax Plan Hurts Poor Kids, Worsens Unequal School Funding

By dianeravitch
February 22, 2018 //
4

 

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

Categories Accountability, Funding, Inequality, Privatization, Republicans

Ohio: Eric Hanushek Assures Legislators That How Money is Spent Matters More Than How Much is Spent

By dianeravitch
February 18, 2018 //
30

 

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

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Funding

Connecticut: Say NO! to Governor Malloy’s Tax Break for the Rich

By dianeravitch
February 18, 2018 //
5

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!

 

Categories Accountability, Connecticut, Funding, Vouchers

Carol Burris on Education Savings Accounts: A Recipe for Dumbing Down America

By dianeravitch
February 13, 2018 //
12

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?

Categories Betsy DeVos, Bush, Jeb, Fraud, Funding, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »