Archives for category: Funding

The pro-charter Philadelphia School Partnership has offered the School Reform Commission $35 million to expand the number of charters in the cash-strapped district.

“The one-time gift, to be given over three years, would consist of up to $25 million for charters and a separate $10 million offer to expand strong district schools.

“It is not clear is whether the School Reform Commission will approve any new charters or accept the stunning sum, which was offered late Wednesday, and came as news to many and proved immediately polarizing.

“Applications for 39 new charter schools now await an SRC vote, which could come as early as next week. District officials have said that approving more charters would mean taking money away from traditional public schools, and no new stand-alone charters have been approved for seven years….

“Behind closed doors, Gov. Wolf has said he wants the SRC to approve zero new charters because the district can’t afford them, sources have said, adding that both sides have threatened the SRC’s existence if things do not go their way.”

Parent activists for public schools are furious at the offer.

“Lisa Haver, cofounder of the Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools, was aghast.

“PSP is a very influential in this school district, but it doesn’t look out for the best interests of all the students,” Haver said. “It’s shocking to see they have $35 million while schools are hanging by their fingernails to survive – schools that don’t have staff, full-time nurses and full-time librarians. And now, out of the blue, this nonprofit group says, ‘Guess what? We have $35 million.'”

“Haver, a retired district teacher, said the SRC “should reject their offer because one small group of people who are not elected officials and meet in private should not be making that decision based on how much money they have.”

It is curious that business and civic leaders remain starry-eyed about charters when there have been numerous charter scandals in Philadelphia. See here and here and here and here and here.

The Néw York Times posted a blog debate about how to “fix” NCLB.

I was one of the contributors. My view is that the best way to fix the law is to remove its testing and punishment mandates. Testing is a state function.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress tests national and state samples of students. It reports state-to-state comparisons. It disaggregates data by race, English language learners, gender, disability status. It reports on achievement gaps. In effect, it audits learning in every state.

Restore ESEA (aka NCLB) to its original purpose: Equity. Sending money to poor kids’ schools. Helping the neediest children.

Peter Greene reports on an audit in Ohio about phantom students in charter schools. Charters are paid by headcount, and some charters have seen the advantage of inflating their enrollment, although it is illegal.

 

He writes:

 

On October 1, the auditors walked into The Academy for Urban Scholars Youngstown with a stated enrollment of ninety-five. Actual students that the auditors found in the building?

 

Zero.

 

The explanation wasn’t exactly encouraging. Students had been sent home at 12:30 because they had spent the morning prepping for the state exam. So it’s not that the Academy was lying about students in school– they just weren’t actually teaching any.

 

A Youngstown tv station reported that the auditors made a follow-up visit in November. On that occasion, they found thirty-seven students in attendance.

 

Capital High School in Columbus claims 298 students. Auditors found 142 in the building.

Bill Phillis of the Ohio Equity and Adequacy Coalition writes that charters have been inflating enrollments for years, without accountability or consequences, because the charter operators make campaign contributions.

He writes:

State Auditor: Charter school head count much less than students reported for payment

Why are charter school operators and charter school sponsors not being prosecuted for collecting money on phantom students? A recent State Auditor’s report-Report on Community School Students Attendance Counts-documents that many charter schools are collecting funds for students they are not serving. These charter operators and their sponsors should be charged with dereliction of duty and fraud.

These spurious maneuvers have been ongoing. Nearly ten years ago, the Scripps Howard News Service conducted a head count in several Ohio charter schools. The Scripps report-Ghost Schools— revealed that absentee rates in charter schools were as high as 64 percent. The investigators that did the Scripps Howard News Service study sent the report to Ohio officials, including the Attorney General. They thought someone would be sent to prison for fraud, but state officials seemed to ignore the report.

The State Auditor found current student attendance compared to the number of students reported in July 2014 as low as zero percent. Other egregious rates of attendance found by the Auditor were 17%, 18%, 23%, 25%, 48% and 66%. This theft from taxpayers must stop.

The worst offenders in this scandal are among the largest political contributors in Ohio. Don’t expect any remedy to this corruption in charterland unless a grassroots outrage emerges.

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

Ohio E & A | 100 S. 3rd Street | Columbus | OH | 43215

David Sirota reports that billionaire Stephen Schwarzman told a high-level audience of business and government leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that schools don’t need more money. He suggested that they could improve by enlisting unpaid labor, like retirees, to tutor children.

“DAVOS, Switzerland — Private equity investor Stephen Schwarzmann is generally a believer in the power of money, a trait that has netted him billions of dollars worth of that useful commodity. But when it comes to education, Schwarzman says more money is not necessarily a fix for ailing American public schools.”

He added:

““I’ve always wondered, what you do in a society with people who just retire,” he told conference attendees. “If you could get those people, like a board, [to be an] unpaid workforce, pay them next to nothing or nothing, and have them go into the school system to be mentors to kids, and be an example of a certain type of success that you would get dramatically different outcomes. If you can get unemployed people that cost nothing, that can have this dramatic difference, that costs nothing. I love things that cost nothing that have great results. Imagine if you laid on technology and other types of things, you could really set the world on fire with this type of stuff.”

And more:

“Schwarzman’s firm recently touted its investment in an expanding private education company. Yet, more than a third of Blackstone’s entire investment pool is comprised of money from public pension plans — that is, the retirement money of government employees like public school teachers.”

Moody’s Investors Servicrs paints a gloomy picture of the effects of charter schools on public schools in Pennsylvania.

 

Moody’s writes:

 

“Some fiscally stressed Pennsylvania public school districts have come up with new approaches for combating a primary pressure point: competition from charter schools, Moody’s Investor Service says in a new report. Some of the plans would be transformative, such as a proposal to send all students to other school districts and pay tuition, or to operate a public school district as all-charter.

 

“Some financially stressed districts have offered recovery proposals that fundamentally alter the nature of their public school district operations,” says Moody’s Assistant Vice President — Analyst, Dan Seymour. “The bold plans face near-term execution challenges, but are positive in the long run as some of these districts would continue to deteriorate without significant structural changes. The strong measures are more likely to lead to long-term financial and operational soundness than continuing on the existing course.”

 

While charter advocates assert that competition will cause public schools to improve, this is not what is happening in Pennsylvania. Charters make alluring promises and drain away students and funding. The public schools, with less resources, goes into a tailspin, soon finding that it must cut programs and services, making it less able to compete with charters.

 

The Legislature passed a law in 2012 allowing the Governor to appoint an emergency manager to take over the district, suspending local control. Four districts currently are in receivership: York City, Duquesne, Harrisburg, and Chester-Upland.

 

The Moody’s report sees the state takeover as a plus because it overrides local opposition to strong remedies. One of those strong remedies, as we have seen in York City, is to turn the children and schools over to an out-of-state for-profit charter chain.

 

Do you hear the canary in the mine? The competition with charters, which have an inexperienced and low-wage staff, increases the financial pressure on districts. The more students leave for charters, the less able is the district to compete because of fixed costs and experienced teachers who are paid as professionals, not temps. The business answer: shut down the district, turn all the schools into charters, or send the students to other districts.

 

The end result is the same: the replacement of community public schools by privately managed charters staffed by temps. If the chain can’t make a profit, it will close its doors and leave. What happens then?

 

Is this a way to “improve” education? Not for students. Not for communities.

A new report released by UNICEF at the World Economic Forum in Davos says that inequitable funding is an obstacle to educational equity. Rich kids in poor countries get more funding from the government than poor kids. You may know that the United States is one of the few countries where more public money is spent on affluent students than on poor students. In most other advanced nations, more money is spent on the neediest children. David Sirota wrote about the report for the International Business Times.

 

Sirota writes:

 

The trend documented by the report shows poor, developing-world countries mimicking a trend in the United States, which stands out as one of the only industrialized countries that devotes less public money to educating students from low-income families than on educating students from high-income families.

 

According to a recent analysis by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it is one of the few economically developed nations that tends to spend more public resources to educate wealthy students than to educate low-income students. A 2011 U.S. Department of Education report found that in the United States “many high-poverty schools receive less than their fair share of state and local funding, leaving students in high-poverty schools with fewer resources than schools attended by their wealthier peers.”

 

Sirota points out that one of the cosponsors of the report is the Gates Foundation, which “has been criticized for using its partnerships with other organizations to promote a particular education ideology.”

 

And he adds:

 

In the United States, the foundation has specifically championed privately run charter schools, which often siphon resources from traditional public schools. The foundation has also promoted the Common Core curriculum, which has been criticized as a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to education content. Both the curriculum and the larger shift to technology focused charter schools could have commercial benefits for Microsoft, the firm founded by Bill Gates.

 

When asked whether Unicef is prescribing a similar approach to international education aid for low-income countries, meaning charter schools, Common Core-style curriculum and a focus on technology, Brown first touted “the right of individual countries to make their own decisions about how they shape their own education system according to their needs and their economic policies and economic objectives.”

 

However, he seemed to echo some of the core themes of the Gates Foundation, touting what he called “international best practices … which learn from the experience of charter schools.”

 

He said lawmakers should be looking at “how we can disseminate the best practices that exist in some countries and persuade other countries that they are worth looking at.”

 

“We are learning that the quality of teachers, which is what the Gates Foundation has emphasized matters, the quality of head teachers and leadership in schools matters, the curriculum itself is an issue that has to be debated at all times because you’ve got to learn from what works and what doesn’t work … and how you apply technology and use it most effectively,” he said.

 

Curious that the spokesman for the report said that charter schools exemplify “international best practices.” One wonders if he was thinking of “no excuses” charters, or Gulen charters, or for-profit charters.

Jersey Jazzman reviews the funding of Hoboken’s charters and finds that they have outside funders who give them additional aid, sometimes very substantial aid. Suburban schools, he acknowledges, raise money through their PTA and parent volunteers (but not many get large gifts from Goldman Sachs and Barclay’s, for example).

 

He writes:

 

– See more at: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2015/01/in-hoboken-charter-schools-rule-part-ii.html#sthash.CRkQlgNL.dpufMy point here is that I would never say that what the parents of Hoboken’s charter schools are doing is in any way wrong; in fact, I would be shocked if these organizations didn’t exist. Of course parents hold fundraisers for their kids’ schools; of course they leverage their connections to benefit programs that serve their children. Any parent who loves their child and has the means does this. There is nothing wrong with this.

 

But here’s the thing:

 

I don’t see anyone rational making the claim that suburban schools “do more with less” when their communities spend so much on their children’s entire education — yet that is the precise claim of Hoboken’s charter sector.

 

One of the myths of charter school funding in New Jersey — often perpetuated by groups with little understanding of how school financing works — is that charters get less funding than they should because they are denied access to state aid and debt service available to public school districts.

 

Leaving aside the point that charters shouldn’t get much of this aid (why should a charter school get transportation aid if it doesn’t pay for transportation costs?), the truth is that charter school funding “gaps” are much more the product of differences in student population characteristics, which the state uses to calculate aid shares. This is a big topic and I’m working now on some pieces to bring this issue into focus.

 

If a school has fewer of the high-needs students, it gets less state aid. That’s elementary.

 

 

According to a fine article in “The Hechinger Report” by Jackie Mader, many schools in Mississippi lack the basics to provide equal opportunity or even a minimally decent education. Some districts have decrepit facilities and can’t afford textbooks or technology. Pay for educators is low, and class sizes are large.

“Nearly 200,000 voters signed a petition to amend Mississippi’s constitution, adding to it language that would require the state “legislature to fund an adequate and efficient school system of free public schools.” Known as Amendment 42, its advocates consider it the best hope for holding the state accountable for fully funding persistently failing schools.”

However, a majority of the legislature passed a competing amendment.

“But Republican legislators introduced an alternative amendment that was passed by the Mississippi House of Representatives in a 64-57 vote on Tuesday. It deleted any reference to making the state responsible for providing funding to schools. Pending approval from the Senate, both initiatives will go on the ballot this November, making voters choose between these two similar-sounding yet antithetical amendments.”

Mississippi has very low scores. Higher standards won’t help. Adequate resources would.

Ira Shor, a professor at the City University of New York, read that the state has an unexpected surplus of $5 billion. What should be done with this windfall?

 

He writes:

 

 

“Here’s a scary thought: New York State’s politicians suddenly have an extra $5 billion to spend,” began a NY TImes editorial January 15. “Albany’s treasury is fat with the state’s share of fines paid by financial institutions for past misconduct.” The Times’ editors warn against wasting this windfall from crooked banks and insurance companies on “politicians’ pet projects.” With NY’s government long-designated by the Times as one of the most corrupt state governments around, the Times proposes some good places for the feckless politicians to spend the cash. Sadly but not surprisingly, public education does NOT show up on this newspaper’s list for worthy investments of the windfall.

 

The Times’ good uses for the money include drinking-water and waste-water infrastructure, capital infusion into New York City’s mass transit used by 8.7 million daily, long-overdue road and bridge repairs, and buying up farmland to protect against commercial development, but the great need for higher public education funding is ignored. This is especially outrageous given that NY State was ordered in 2006 by Appellate and Supreme Courts to supplement habitually under-funded NY City schools by several billion dollars a year, following a 13-year lawsuit finally won by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, only to be tossed aside when the State claimed fiscal distress after the Wall St. collapse of 2008.

 

How could public education use this sudden windfall? Smaller class size for starters, ably argued for years by a hero of public schools, Leonie Haimson. Small classes especially enable close teacher-mentoring important for closing the racial gap. Moreso, the windfall could finance teachers’ aides in every classroom who enhance teaching and learning. The $5 billion could also go for wrap-around social services which our poorest students much need— winter-coats and eyeglasses, as well as school-based nurses, social workers, psychologists, guidance staff, and college counselors. If the windfall was used simply and finally to house our record number of homeless families and children, that too would be a benefit to our public schools where most of these children attend.

 

Instead, NY Gov. Cuomo has imposed hardships on public schooling, especially on NY City, thanks to a State law compelling the City to finance buildings for all privatized charter schools, in a City where real estate is astronomical. In recent years, the State as well as the City found hundreds of millions to subsidize private sports arenas but not for investing in public education or in homeless housing. The Times should be the first to remind the Governor and the State legislature of these needs and of prejudicial policies against public education. The teachers’ unions should have been already protesting the failure to include education in the windfall agenda.

 

This dismissal of public education continues the long-term hollowing-out of the public sector, undermining the capacity of our public schools, directly enhancing the position of even weak private charters, which in today’s policy climate are lavishly over-funded and startlingly under-regulated.

 

 

Ohio’s most expensive failing school is ECOT, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow. It has theoqesthfaduation rate of any school in the state, yet is never held accountable. It is financed by taking funds away from much more successful schools and districts.

“The Columbus Dispatch wrote recently of the academic failures of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) where the graduation rate of 38% is among the worst of any school in the state. Among Ohio’s 613 traditional public school districts , the lowest graduation rate is 60.9%. In addition, ECOT received all Fs and one D on the state’s most recent report card.

“Despite its abysmal performance record, ECOT continues to expand. More than 14,500 children are currently enrolled, making ECOT the equivalent of the 10th largest school district in the state. The Dispatch story noted that ECOT founder William Lager has donated more than $1 million to Ohio politicians in the last five years as his school has grown exponentially.

“Information at KnowYourCharter.com helps clarify the burden that local public schools must bear to cover the costs of students who chose to attend ECOT. Kids in all 88 Ohio counties are impacted. More than 95% of school districts – 586 of 613 districts – have students and money being transferred to ECOT. As one of the state’s 9 statewide e-schools and one of the country’s largest for-profit K-12 schools, ECOT’s poor performance is exacerbated by its extraordinary financial impact on children throughout the state.”