Archives for category: Funding

For the past dozen years or so, the New York Times has been a cheerleader for corporate education reform, especially testing. Its editorials have faithfully repeated the talking points of the corporate reformers who slam “failing public schools” because they have low test scores.

 

But something miraculous happened today: The New York Times has a strong editorial reflecting reality. Let’s be grateful for sound logic, based on fact and evidence.

 

The editorial gives advice to Governor Cuomo, who has recently adopted the idea of charter schools as his version of reform, while threatening teachers with punitive evaluations based on junk science and threatening their pensions:

 

If he is serious about the issue [education], he will have to move beyond peripheral concerns and political score-settling with the state teachers’ union, which did not support his re-election, and go to the heart of the matter. And that means confronting and proposing remedies for the racial and economic segregation that has gripped the state’s schools, as well as the inequality in school funding that prevents many poor districts from lifting their children up to state standards.

 

These shameful inequities were fully brought to light in 2006, when the state’s highest court ruled in Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York that the state had not met its constitutional responsibility to ensure adequate school funding and in particular had shortchanged New York City.

 

A year later, the Legislature and Gov. Eliot Spitzer adopted a new formula that promised more help for poor districts and eventually $7 billion per year in added funding. That promise evaporated in the recession, spawning two lawsuits aimed at forcing the state to honor it.

 

A lawsuit by a group called New Yorkers for Students’ Educational Rights estimates that, despite increases in recent years, the state is still about $5.6 billion a year short of its commitment under that formula.

 

A second lawsuit was filed on behalf of students in several small cities in the state, including Jamestown, Port Jervis, Mount Vernon and Newburgh. It says that per pupil funding in the cities, which have an average 72 percent student poverty rate, is $2,500 to $6,300 less than called for in the 2007 formula, making it impossible to provide the instruction other services needed to meet the State Constitution’s definition of a “sound basic education.”

 

These communities and others like them are further disadvantaged by having low property values and by a statewide cap enacted in 2011 that limits what money they are able to raise through property taxes. And last year the New York State United Teachers union said that the cap had been particularly harmful to poorer districts.

 

These inequalities are compounded by the fact that New York State, which regards itself as a bastion of liberalism, has the most racially and economically segregated schools in the nation. A scathing 2014 study of this problem by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, charged that New York had essentially given up on this problem. It said, “The children who most depend on the public schools for any chance in life are concentrated in schools struggling with all the dimensions of family and neighborhood poverty and isolation.”

 

Any serious effort to improve education must direct more resources to districts that need them and must address the racial segregation in New York’s schools.

Last week, a judge handed the schools of York City, Pennsylvania, to a receiver, David Meckley, a businessman, to do with as he pleases. He has said he will turn the district over to a for-profit charter chain, Charter Schools, USA. There is still a glimmer of hope, as the school board is appealing the decision. 

 

The local newspaper published a terrific editorial. It asks questions that the judge never considered: What are the for-profit corporations plans for the children with special needs? How can anyone justify diverting money to “profit,” when the district is in dire financial need? Does the for-profit corporation actually have a plan for improvement? My questions: why isn’t the state responsible to assist districts whose property tax base cannot support public schools? How many more districts will be handed over to entrepreneurs? What is the purpose of public education? Does the voice of the community matter? Whatever happened to democracy?

 

This is what the local newspaper said:

 

Meckley, a Spring Garden Township businessman who has led the district’s financial recovery process for two years now, intends to convert all eight schools to charters operated by a for-profit company, Charter Schools USA.

Such a conversion has never been tried in Pennsylvania, and the company’s plan for York City appears half-baked.

For instance, in response to questions submitted by The York Dispatch, a company representative showed limited knowledge of the district’s student population and couldn’t even describe plans for the 21 percent of students with special needs.

The community clearly opposes the plan. Yet while they have no say in the matter, city property owners’ tax dollars now will be used not only for education but to boost the profits of Charter Schools USA.

Since the district is struggling financially, how can anyone justify diverting even a penny away from the students?

Unfortunately, Linebaugh, York County’s president judge, was not allowed to consider these or any other aspects of the charter conversions.

Chris Fitzsimon describes what happened to the public schools in State Senator Phil Berger’s home district because of the budget cuts he pushed. Some schools can’t pay for textbooks, some can’t afford copy paper or toilet paper. Inspired by Republican and Tea Party rhetoric, voters rejected a quarter-cent increase in the sales tax.

Who cares about the children?

Lloyd Lofthouse comments on a post about the decision by the State Attorney General to divert dedicated public school funds to the building of a new hockey stadium:

 

Lloyd writes:

 

 

More examples of what the corporate reformers bring to the table of teaching children.

 

1. In Los Angeles, money that was designated by the voters to repair and improve schools, was spend on iPads boosting profits for Apple and software developers.

 

2. In Michigan, the reformers take money meant to support public schools and built an arena to host ice hockey for a private-sector owned team.

 

This is an example of what will happen as the fake Pub-Ed reformers get the upper hand in cities and states across the country.

 

Who do we thank for this mess?

 

A. Bill Gates
B. the Walton family
C. The Koch brothers.
D. All of the above and a few more

 

Mike Ilitch, The owner of the Red Wings, has an estimated net worth of $1.7 billion. Who else does he own? Does he own the governor of Michigan? Does he own the majority of the state legislature?

 

The team value of the Detroit Red Wings is $570 million with annual revenue of $134 million.

 

http://www.forbes.com/teams/detroit-red-wings/

The Attorney General of Michigan ruled that it was appropriate to use school funding to build a new hockey arena for the Red Wings.

“Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette quietly issued an opinion that said state taxes for schools can legally be used to fund the arena’s construction. The opinion came in response to a request in October from state Rep. Rose Mary Robinson (D-Detroit), who asked if it was a constitutional use of the funds.

“In her request, Robinson pointed to a section of the Michigan Constitution, which says that money from the state School Aid Fund is to be used “exclusively” for public schools and colleges in Michigan.

“Some quick background: Robinson’s request stems from the structure of how the Red Wings arena will be financed. An estimated 58 percent of the cost to construct the arena will funded by public tax dollars, about $261 million….”

“Whether you agree that public tax dollars should be used for the project, or decry the idea of subsidizing a billionaire’s arena, the fact is that schools in Michigan could use all the help they can get. Even if it is only $15 million.

“For example, this past May, Michigan officials lowered revenue projections for state school taxes over the next year by nearly $80 million. This was seen as a big deal when the revised projections were released. And if facets of a recent state House plan to support road funding — by phasing out the sales tax on gasoline and replace it with an increase to fuel taxes — gains traction when lawmakers hash out a compromise this week, that could cost deplete school taxes of “hundreds of millions of dollars,” according to one study.

“And while Robinson hasn’t said this outright, her point speaks to a larger concern about the current revitalization in downtown Detroit: No one questions the fact that it’s a positive sign to see young millennials moving into the city. But what will those transplants do when they have children later in life and want to send them to school — in Detroit?

“I represent Detroit, and I represent the center of Detroit, the core,” Robinson told MLive. “And our priorities are our children, schools, police protection, basic essential city services. Give us that. Take your arena … it’s just not fair.”

Recently the Education Justice Center named Nevada as one of the states where funding was most inequitable and inadequate. Teacher Angie Sullivan in Nevada sends out the following news:

 

Just to be clear . . .

There were one billion in cuts to education under Democratic leadership and the Governor of Reno. We have not restored that money.

Our schools are starving.

No one has the guts to fund public schools in Nevada. Our scores have declined as our funding has declined.

Our schools are starving.

Now the state is going to participate in wholesale union-busting which affects how many under-funded schools? And how many under-supplied professionals? Take Over?

Our schools are starving.

Nice to see some failing charters that further siphon tax payer money on the list too – but what did you think would happen without regulation and oversight. Twice the cost and not able to produce.

Our schools are starving.

The state is going to “take us over”. Who is that? The state will love my at risk students more than I do?

Our schools are starving.

Does that mean sell us to a corporation – like Edison? Remember that Edison Corpirate experiment on kids? $10 million later there was no improvement. What a failure – sad to think we might do that again.

Our schools are starving.

This state can blame teachers who are on the front line all it wants. Go on a witch-hunt again. Waste time and money without addressing the community issues of poverty and racism and disenfranchisement.

Our schools are starving.

You get what you pay for and you wanted to starve the schools – and look what happened.

Our schools are starving.

Tell me this is not union-busting plain and simple. Tell me this is not about punishing women who teach kids to read. Tell me it’s not the already impoverished schools with at-risk populations that will be sold to the highest bidder.

Our schools are starving.

If you keep looking for solutions from a CEO who refuses to acknowledge the real issues – you will continue to fail. Public schools are not about return on investment – they are investment in community, democracy, and opportunity.

Our schools are starving.

O God hold your children in your hand. Where will kids go to school if they privatize them all. Please do not allow experiments without research to kill our schools and hurt our most vulnerable children.

Angie

 

 

 

 

 

http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/education/nevada-mulling-dramatic-crackdown-low-performing-schools

NEVADA MULLING DRAMATIC CRACKDOWN ON LOW-PERFORMING SCHOOLS

 

 

By TREVON MILLIARD
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

 
Nevada’s underperforming public schools are about to feel the squeeze from state education officials who have long identified the chronic strugglers but have done little more than watch them.

 

Plans are in the works at the Nevada Department of Education in Carson City to tighten the state’s grip on struggling schools that receive extra support, taking action if they fail to improve, say state Deputy Superintendent for Student Achievement Steve Canavero and members of the State Board of Education.

 

“We would all like to make nice, and we would all like to have the grownups get along,” President Elaine Wynn told her fellow state board members Nov. 6. “But I would remind you of the mood we had at our last meeting, when we were horrified at the results.”

 

Those results: 51 public schools labeled low-performers, with few making substantial improvements often requiring urgent and disruptive changes instead of the small, incremental steps commonly seen in Nevada education, Canavero said.

 

Of the 51 low performers, 29 schools are in Clark County.

 

The state has identified nine “priority schools” on the 51-school list. All but one shared in $34 million in federal School Improvement Grants over the past three years, but none improved their standing in the state’s one-to-five-star accountability system ratings.

 

“We obviously can’t go back and fix the past,” said board member Allison Serafin, calling for an accounting of how the grant money was spent and any effect it had.

 

Wynn asked the board to “send a very clear signal” that it won’t passively accept the status quo.

 

“We’re here not to have meetings once every six weeks. We’re here to make a difference in how our kids learn and achieve,” said Wynn. “What is the evolving role of the state board?”

 

The state department and board have never used their power to regularly monitor underperforming schools and mandate improvement plans, which can include choosing principals and other school leaders and prescribing curriculum.

 

Canavero said he doesn’t see the state choosing a curriculum for schools, which harkens to the concern of board member Alexis Gonzales-Black. She said the state needs to be careful to not micromanage schools.

 

The state also can turn chronically underperforming schools over to management organizations, which usually run charter schools, or close them and send students elsewhere.

 

That far-reaching power came to the state board in 2012, when the federal government offered states a chance to opt out of certain provisions of No Child Left Behind, the federal accountability system implemented under the George W. Bush administration in 2002.

 

The state submitted an alternative accountability plan to the U.S. Department of Education, creating the school star-rating system and granting more autonomy to high-performing schools while setting in place more state power over underperforming schools.

 

In that waiver from No Child Left Behind, Nevada defined low-performing as schools that fit in one of three designations: focus, priority and those schools earning one star.

 

Focus schools are those with the largest achievement gaps for certain groups of students, such as poor or minority students who lag far behind their peers.

 

Priority schools are the bottom 5 percent in terms of student achievement, as determined by annual state test scores.

 

But an impending extension to the three-year waiver may increase that number from nine to about 38 priority schools, due largely to the inclusion of high schools with graduation rates below 60 percent, Canavero said.

 

“I think we have plenty of accountability,” said Canavero, referencing the powers granted by the waiver. “What we have yet to do is build the system to exercise that accountability.”

 

He advocated a more prescriptive process for spending, especially at priority schools. That would entail a memorandum of understanding between the state and local schools laying out improvement needed to be removed from the underperformers list, as well as what the state will do if nothing changes.

 

“It’s a very thick, muddy place that we’re in,” said Wynn, re-emphasizing her question to the state board. “Are we ready to assume more responsibility for what’s happening in our state’s schools? I am very supportive of putting the pieces in place.”

 

Canavero and department staff have continued to draft the tighter controls and is expected to detail its next step later this month.

 

 

Contact Trevon Milliard attmilliard@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0279. Find him on Twitter: @TrevonMilliard.

 

 

 

UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS

(* Clark County schools)

NEVADA PRIORITY SCHOOLS

Canyon Springs High School*

Chaparral High School*

Del Sol High School*

Desert Pines High School*

Mojave High School*

Valley High School*

Western High School*

Amargosa Valley Elementary School

Washoe Innovations Academy High School

NEVADA FOCUS SCHOOLS

Numa Elementary School

Craig Elementary School*

Diaz Elementary School*

Fitzgerald Elementary School*

Kelly Elementary School*

Lowman Elementary School*

One Hundred Academy*

Paradise Elementary School*

Petersen Elementary School*

Reed Elementary School*

Roundy Elementary School*

Squires Elementary School*

West Preparatory Academy Secondary*

Tom Williams Elementary School*

Owyhee Elementary School

Owyhee Middle School

McDermitt Elementary School

Caliente Elementary School

Lovelock Elementary School

Pershing Middle School

Corbett Elementary School

Hug High School

Robert Mitchell Elementary School

McGill Elementary School

As the previous post shows, the Education Justice Center declared that Nevada has one of the worst funded and most inequitable school systems in the nation. However, the new Republican majority in the State Legislature has a new agenda that does not involve funding:

School prayer. The right to carry weapons on college campuses. End collective bargaining. Vouchers. Merit pay. Firing “bad” teachers. The new majority doesn’t like unions because teachers get too much money and that causes budget problems. Probably the legislators figure if they pay teachers less, they can recruit better teachers. The Governor wants vouchers, but he would have to get the voters’ approval to change the state constitution. Voters have never approved vouchers in any state, so legislators will probably come up with “opportunity scholarships” to subsidize private school tuition.

 

 

Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, R-Minden, said that without question improving public education is the top priority of the caucus.

“We will see what the governor wants to do,” he said. “He leads our party and our state. Parental choice is the biggest issue but not the only one. We need to reward good teachers and get rid of bad teachers. We need to see if we can streamline school district administration.

“Obviously throwing money at it isn’t working,” Wheeler said. “We need parental involvement.”

Wheeler has requested a school prayer bill, and said the motivation is to ensure that students are not punished for engaging in prayer, such as making the sign of the cross after a touchdown in a high school football game.

If you guessed Nevada, you are right!

 

According to the Education Justice Center, Nevada ranks among the very worst state in supporting the education of its children adequately and equitably.

 

Because the state distributes aid unfairly and fails to use a reasonable amount of its economic capacity to support its public schools, Nevada’s funding system ranks among the worst in the U.S.

 

The State needs to design and implement a new school funding system that provides the opportunity to learn to all students.

 

On the National Report Card, the state receives an “F” in funding distribution, which measures the extent to which the state’s funding system is structured so that higher poverty districts receive more aid than lower poverty districts. In Nevada, the pattern is actually regressive with higher poverty districts receiving, on average, only about 69 cents for each dollar their wealthier counterparts receive. Such a skewed funding system thwarts efforts to improve achievement and close achievement gaps.

 

Nevada receives another “F” for state fiscal effort, measured as the proportion of the state’s economic productivity that is spent on education. Nevada’s ranking dropped this year. Furthermore, the state’s overall funding levels are below average compared to other states, when adjusted for regional wages, economies of scale, and other factors.

 

Nevada will need to increase “effort” if it is to improve funding distribution and raise the overall funding level enough to support student achievement. For example, the state funds only a few small pilot programs for students learning English, even though 19% of Nevada students are English learners.

 

Legislators recently voted a $1.3 billion subsidy to lure a Tesla battery factory to the state. But nothing for the children.

 

 

“Reformers,” as we all know, want to raise standards and improve education. Or so they say. To reach their goals, they say our schools are failing, our economy and national security are at risk, and our educators are rotten apples. their propaganda war against public education is relentless and has the financial support of the U. S. Department of Education, the Gates Foundation, the far-right Walton Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Dell Foundation, the Arnold Foundation, the Helmsley Foundation, the Fisher Foundation, and many more.

“Reformers” close community public schools, fire teachers and principals, insist on tests that most students fail, and create constant disruption. Eventually the public realizes that they must choose a charter school or voucher school because there is no neighborhood school or its best students have been lured away by charters.

What’s going on?

Brett Dickerson explains that there is a carefully orchestrated plan to liquidate public education.

He writes:

“Plans are under way for investment corporations to execute the biggest conversion – some call it theft – of public schools property in U.S. history.

“That is not hyperbole. Investment bankers themselves estimate that their taking over public schools is going to result in hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, if they can pull it off….

“There are very clear plans being made for just such a thing.

“The plan has been and still is to execute the complete conversion or liquidation of public schools property built up at taxpayer expense for generations.

“It involves raiding pensions that have been hard-won from years of legislative work by teachers and their unions. I reported on ideas being floated in Oklahoma along these lines in this piece that I did for Red Dirt Report earlier this year.

“It will all be done through the control of legislatures that have been mostly compliant with lobbying efforts due to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that allowed huge corporate money, mostly unidentified, to flow into elections. The Andre Agassi Foundation is just one of many who have worked this angle for their own return on investment….

“Offer to buy out a profitable company that has little or no debt.

“Silence the work force by tricking them into thinking life will be better with the new owners.

“Once the purchase is complete, fire the workforce.

“Liquidate the pension fund.

“Liquidate the company for the cash value of its paid-for property.

“Leave the host community in financial ruins.”

Twenty five years ago, when charters were a brand-new idea, advocates said they would cost less and get better results than public schools. Now, however, charter schools are suing for equal funding. The Arizona appellate court just ruled that the state is not obliged to provide equal funding to charter schools and public schools.

The Education Law Center reports:

AZ COURT RULES STATE CAN FUND CHARTER SCHOOLS LOWER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

At the beginning of the charter school experiment, charter school advocates touted their ability to provide a superior education at a lower cost than traditional public schools. Now, we are seeing the charter lobby abandon that claim and turn to the courts to demand equal funding for charter schools. In Texas, charter school advocates recently lost their claim for equal funding. In New York, charter school advocates have sued for equal facilities funding. In a ruling that may have wide ramifications, last week an Arizona appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the differential funding systems for public and charter schools do not violate Arizona’s constitution.

In Craven v. Huppenthal, parents of children in Arizona charter schools sued the state, claiming that Arizona’s school funding scheme was unconstitutional because it caused “gross disparities between charter public schools and other public schools.” The lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and defendant-intervenors the Arizona School Boards Association and Creighton Elementary School District No. 14. The plaintiff-parents appealed.

The appellate court first noted that charter schools are free from many of the regulations governing public schools. For example, Arizona charters are exempt from statutes governing teacher hiring, firing and management. Arizona charter schools may limit enrollment to a certain age group or grade levels. Their curriculum may emphasize a certain philosophy, style or subject area. The court also pointed out that charter schools are funded differently than public schools as well. Unlike public schools, charters receive additional state funding, and may accept grants and donations to supplement their funding. Charter schools owned by non-profits may receive funds obtained through certain facility bonds. Charter schools are also entitled to stimulus funds for start-up and certain facility costs.

The plaintiffs contended that the different funding schemes of charters and public schools violated both the general and uniform education clause of Arizona’s constitution and its equal protection clause. The court, affirming the lower court’s decision, rejected both claims.

Prior rulings of Arizona’s Supreme Court interpreted the general and uniform clause to require that the state provide a public school system that is adequate. The plaintiff-parents in this case admitted that their children were receiving an adequate education at the charter schools. In fact, parents testified that the charter schools had “quality academics” and an “exceptional education.” Thus, the court concluded that the state did not violate the general and uniform clause.

The court also rejected the equal protection claim, noting with approval the reasoning of a New Jersey appellate court, in J.D. ex rel. Scipio-Derrick v. Davy, 2 A.3d 387, 397-98 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010), in a similar equal protection case brought by charter school parents. In that case, the New Jersey court pointed out that children’s attendance at a charter school is purely voluntary. They could withdraw at any time and enroll in their local public school; the school they claimed was funded adequately. Consequently, the court ruled that “the voluntariness of the program vitiates any asserted deprivation of a right to receive an education at a school that is fully funded to the same extent as other Newark public schools,” because the children in the charter school have the “unabridged option” to attend their district public school. The Arizona court applied this reasoning to this case, ruling that since the charter school students can at any time attend their district public school, they are not being treated differently than other students.

In a footnote, the Arizona court noted that the plaintiffs conceded that charter and public schools are not similarly situated, but claimed that those distinctions are irrelevant because the plaintiffs were attempting to focus on the treatment of the children in the charter schools. However, the court pointed out that it was the schools that received the different funding, not the students. Because the students themselves were free to attend their district public schools, their equal protection rights were not violated.

This ruling makes clear that the very nature of charters, as voluntary alternatives to public schools and free from some of the regulations constraining public schools, permits the state to treat charters differently than public schools in matters of funding. The reasoning of the Arizona court can and may very well be applied in future cases as we see charter school advocates across the country appealing to courts to force states to fund them on par with public schools.

Education Justice Press Contact:
Wendy Lecker, Esq.
Senior Attorney, Education Law Center
email: wlecker@edlawcenter.org
voice: (203) 329-8041
http://www.edlawcenter.org
http://www.educationjustice.org

Copyright © 2014 Education Law Center. All Rights Reserved.

Education Justice Initiative | c/o 60 Park Place, Suite 300 | Newark | NJ | 07102