Archives for category: Funding

The Biden and Sanders campaigns created a “Unity Task Force” to make recommendations on important issues.

Here is their report with recommendations. It is 110 pages.

There is much to like in the report, proposing an agenda to reverse four years of savage attacks by Trump on the environment, on the rule of law, on government itself.

The education portion aPears on pp. 22-27.

It contains welcome pledges of increased funding, more equitable funding, universal early childhood education, a commitment to racial integration of schools, a commitment to making higher education affordable (including tuition-free community colleges), debt relief for college graduates, and other worthy goals and policies.

On the two issues where Democrats found themselves committed to Republican strategies, the panel has a mixed record.

It took a clear stand against the high-stakes standardized testing that is a legacy of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law of 2001-2002:

The evidence from nearly two decades of education reforms that hinge on standardized test scores shows clearly that high-stakes annual testing has not led to enough improvement in outcomes for students or for schools, and can lead to discrimination against students, particularly students with disabilities, students of color, low-income students, and English language learners. Democrats will work to end the use of such high-stakes tests and encourage states to develop evidence-based approaches to student assessment that rely on multiple and holistic measures that better represent student achievement.

That’s a step forward, especially since so many high-profile DemocratIc Senators voted to retain high-stakes testing when NCLB turned into the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. So, we can celebrate the fact that the Unity Task Force is prepared to discard the Bush policy based on the non-existent “Texas Miracle.”

The other issue that has been a huge burden for public schools is the Republican claim that competition improves public schools. This faulty idea has spurred the development of privately managed charter schools and vouchers. Charters have a flimsy record. Those that get high test scores are known for their low enrollments of students with disabilities and English language learners, as well as their harsh discipline policies (no excuses). Many Republicans love charters because they are a stepping stone to vouchers. They wean people away from public schools and encourage parents to think of themselves as consumers, not citizens. Thanks to private management, charters have been plagued by multiple scandals involving waste, fraud abuse, and bloated administrative overhead. The teacher turnover rate at charters is very large in some high-performing charters, as much as 50% every year. The virtual charter industry is a disaster that has been associated with multimillion dollar embezzlement.

The Network for Public Education published two reports documenting the failure of the federal Charter Schools Program, which hands out $440 million every year to open new charters and expand existing ones. I have referred to the CSP as Betsy DeVos’s personal slush fund because she has given huge grants to corporate charter chains like KIPP and IDEA. THE NPE reports (Asleep at the Wheel and Still Asleep at the Wheel) demonstrate that nearly 40% of the charters funded by the CSP either never opened or closed soon after opening. During the campaign, Senator Sanders called for elimination of the federal a Charter Schools Program.

Five facts stand out about charter schools:

1. On average, they don’t get better results than public schools.
2. They drain resources and the students they choose from public schools that take everyone, including the kids the charters don’t want.
3. About 90% of charters are non-union, by design.
4. Charters are amply funded by billionaires like the Walton family, Betsy DeVos, Charles Koch, Reed Hastings, and Michael Bloomberg.
5. If charters helped solve the problems of American education, then Detroit would be one of the outstanding districts in the nation, instead it is one of the nation’s lowest performing districts.

Why should the federal government spend $440 million every year on new charters and on expanding corporate charter chains?

Given that background, you can understand why I think the Unity Task Force statement on charters is watery pablum.

Here it is in its entirety:

Charter schools were originally intended to be publicly funded schools with increased flexibility in program design and operations. Democrats believe that education is a public good and should not be saddled with a private profit motive, which is why we will ban for-profit private charter businesses from receiving federal funding. And we recognize the need for more stringent guardrails to ensure charter schools are good stewards of federal education funds. We support measures to increase accountability for charter schools, including by requiring all charter schools to meet the same standards of transparency as traditional public schools, including with regard to civil rights protections, racial equity, admissions practices, disciplinary procedures, and school finances. We will call for conditioning federal funding for new, expanded charter schools or for charter school renewals on a district’s review of whether the charter will systematically underserve the neediest students. And Democrats oppose private school vouchers and other policies that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from the public school system.

Nothing is said here that would displease the hedge fund managers and billionaires who support charters. Even Betsy DeVos must be smiling to see the Biden-Sanders task force endorse school choice, which was birthed by southern governors resisting the Brown decision. It’s very sad to see a task force of Democratic leaders giving their blessing to the southern strategy. (Read Steve Suitts’ new book on that sordid history: “Overturning Brown: The Segregationist Legacy of the Modern School Choice Legacy.”)

Taking a stand against “for-profit charters” is piffle. Arizona is the only state that allows for-profit charters. Nothing is said in this statement about banning for-profit management corporations, which manage large numbers of “nonprofit” charters all over the country.

And notice that the task force says nothing about terminating the federal Charter Schools Program, as Sanders recommended, guaranteeing that the government will continue to spend $440 million (or more) to open more non-union charters to compete with public schools. Excluding “for-profit charters” from the federal CSP is good news for KIPP, IDEA, and other “nonprofit” corporate charter chains that are bankrupting local public schools. This recommendation was made with full knowledge of the long-run failure of this program.

Of course, I will vote for Joe Biden, despite this weak-kneed capitulation to the Republican-dominated charter lobbyists. But I won’t hide my disappointment.

The failure of the task force to challenge the charter industry and stand up for public schools as the foundation stone of our democracy is troubling and is an embarrassment to the Biden campaign.

Leading Democrats in the House control the federal government’s appropriations. They have the power of the purse, given to the House of Representatives by the Constitution (do Donald and Betsy know that?). They have a message for Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos: Bo bullying.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 9, 2020

CONTACT
Katelynn Thorpe (DeLauro), 202-225-1599
Bob Schwalbach (Sablan), 202-309-5787

Chairs DeLauro and Sablan Respond to Trump Administration’s Threats to Defund Public Education

WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), Chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (CNMI), Chair of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education and Labor Subcommittee released the following statement on the Trump Administration’s threats to defund public education if schools do not fully reopen:

“The Trump administration attempting to utilize desperately needed relief aid to bully schools into prematurely opening is shameful and reckless. Once again, this administration is prioritizing its political agenda over the health and safety of our nation’s children. Congress has not and will not grant the administration the authority to withhold federal funds from local school districts that are following the advice of health experts to safely reopen. Any forthcoming relief package will require the administration promptly and faithfully deliver this aid to public schools.

“We refuse to allow the president or Secretary DeVos to take advantage of a global pandemic to dismantle public education. Parents, teachers, and health experts want schools to reopen safely, and House Democrats are working to invest the resources needed to do just that.”

Call on Congress and Governors to supply the funding to reopen our schools safely!

Don’t open schools where the pandemic is raging.

Protect the lives of students and staff!

Trump has made clear that he wants federal funds to flow to private and religious schools if any new aid is approved to help public schools reopen. DeVos and Trump will use any opportunity to push federal money to religious schools.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Espinoza case, which ruled that any state that aided private schools had to provide aid to religious schools, has encouraged Trump and DeVos to push harder for federal funding of religious schools.

Thus far, the Democrat-controlled Appropriations Committee in the House has blocked all such requests by DeVos and Trump.

President Donald Trump will ask for a “one-time, emergency appropriation” for a new grant proposal, according to an outline of the plan obtained by McClatchy. The grants would be provided to states to distribute to nonprofit institutions that disburse scholarships to qualified students who want to attend non-public schools.

“I have never heard a single, compelling persuasive reason as to why somebody is against Education Freedom Scholarships, opportunity scholarships, school choice, charter schools. And the reason is this: we’re trying to give these kids just another opportunity and provide their parents with another option,” Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, told McClatchy.

The White House is seeking to have 10% of the amount that Congress approves for state and local educational agencies set aside for the grants. Trump will also seek approval of $5 billion in federal tax credits for businesses and individuals who donate to the scholarship programs.

The Trump administration has been promoting school choice initiatives for weeks as a way to provide educational opportunities to children in underserved communities and get money to help financially struggling private and Catholic schools before the new school year.

Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article243956302.html#storylink=cpy

Jeff Bryant noticed and documented a worrisome new trend: Charter operators are taking advantage of the pandemic to open new charter schools in suburban districts with good public schools.

Public school parents have spoken out, as he shows, because they understand that new charters will drain money from their good public schools and weaken them.

Because reopening public schools in the coming school year will be fraught with unprecedented challenges, experts say, and education budgets may get cut to the bone, news of charter school startups and expansions will undoubtedly spark heated opposition from public school parents and teachers, even in well-to-do suburban communities, like Wake County, that may have been insulated from the financial costs of school choice in the past.

“[These parents and public school advocates] should expect charter schools to drain financial resources from their communities’ public schools,” Preston Green told me in a phone call.

Green, a University of Connecticut professor, is the author of numerous critical studies of charter schools, including one in which he argued that the charter industry’s operations resemble the business practices of Enron, the mammoth energy corporation that collapsed under a weight of debt and scandal.

As evidence, Green sent me an email citing a 2018 study of five non-urban, North Carolina school districts. The study determined that these non-urban districts lost about $4,000 to $6,000 for every student enrolled in a charter school.

Green said that because controversial charter schools have so far been less widespread in the suburbs compared to inner-city communities such as Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit, it’s likely that many suburban parents who previously were unfamiliar with the fiscal impacts of charter schools will increasingly express concerns about seeing new charter schools popping up in their communities.

“This fiscal impact is concerning,” Green explained, “because public schools have fixed costs, such as facilities and administration, that cannot be cut very easily.”

I have posted reports of individual charter schools that received hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, from the federal Paycheck Protection Program. These charters claimed to be small businesses, not public schools, which were not eligible to get PPP money. Until two days ago, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin refused to release the names of those who asked for PPP money.

Now the list is out, and it will take a long time to analyze it because 650,000 applicants received federal funding from this program.

Some charters and charter advocates have already been identified on the PPP list. The grants awarded are not exact. They are in a range. I present here the upper limit of the range. I don’t know why the exact amount was not reported. That’s not like the federal government.

KIPP: 19 different KIPP applicants received up to a total of $58 million

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools received an amount in a range up to $1 million.

The California Charter Schools Association received an amount in a range up to $2 million.

The pro-charter, pro-voucher Center for Education Reform received up to $350,000.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers collected up to $1 million

The handsomely funded Thomas B Fordham Foundation collected up to $1 million (when I was on the board in 2009, the TBF Institute had about $40 million in assets and has since received many grants from Gates and other foundations to promote privatization and Common Core).

It may take weeks to produce a full accounting of the coronavirus funds collected by the charter industry, its lobbyists, its advocacy groups, and its schools.

However, we do have a report for one state, Arizona.

Educator and author Curtis Cardine reviewed the PPP grants to private schools in Arizona and produced this list:

Charter Schools
1. Sonoran Schools, $1 to $2 million.
2. Success Schools, $1 to $2 million.
3. Acorn Montessori Charter School $350,000 to $1 million.
4. Arizona Autism Charter Schools, $350,000 to $1 million.
5. Arizona Montessori Charter School at Anthem, $350,000 to $1 million.
6. Ball Charter Schools (Dobson), $350,000 to $1 million.
7. Ball Charter Schools (Hearn), $350,000 to $1 million.
8. Candeo Schools, Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
9. Career Success Schools, $350,000 to $1 million.
10. Challenge School, Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
11. Desert Garden Montessori School Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
12. FitKids Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
13. Franklin Phonetic Primary School, $350,000 to $1 million.
14. International Commerce Secondary Schools Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
15. International School of Arizona Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
16. Keystone Montessori Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
17. LEAD Charter Schools, $350,000 to $1 million.
18. Legacy Traditional School, Peoria, $350,000 to $1 million.
19. Legacy Traditional School, East Mesa, $350,000 to $1 million.
20. Legacy Traditional School, Gilbert, $350,000 to $1 million.
21. Legacy Traditional School, North Chandler, $350,000 to $1 million.
22. Legacy Traditional School, Laveen, $350,000 to $1 million.
23. Legacy Traditional School, Goodyear, $150,000 to $350,000.
24. Liberty Traditional Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
25. Liberty Traditional Charter School, Inc, $350,000 to $1 million.
26. Legacy Traditional Schools – Nevada Inc., $2 to $5 million. This is the same company that runs Legacy in Arizona.
27. Mohave Accelerated Elementary School Inc, $350,000 to $1 million.
28. Noah Webster Schools – Pima, $350,000 to $1 million.
29. Noah Webster Schools-Mesa, $350,000 to $1 million.
30. Paradise Valley Christian School, $350,000 to $1 million.
31. Prescott Valley Charter School, $350,000 to $1 million.
32. Verde Valley School, $350,000 to $1 million.
33. Ball Charter Schools (Val Vista), $150,000 to $350,000.
34. Bright Beginnings School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
35. CAFA Charter School, Lp, $150,000 to $350,000.
36. Concordia Charter School Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
37. Crown Charter School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
38. Desert Star Community School, $150,000 to $350,000.
39. E-Institute Charter High School, $150,000 to $350,000.
40. Eastpointe High School Inc. $150,000 to $350,000.
41. Incito Schools, $150,000 to $350,000.
42. Midtown Primary School, $150,000 to $350,000.
43. Milestones Charter School, $150,000 to $350,000.
44. Montessori Day School, Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
45. Montessori International School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
46. Mountain School, Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
47. New Horizon School for The Performing Arts, $150,000 to $350,000.
48. North Star Charter School Inc, $150,000 to $350,000.
49. Park View School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
50. Phoenix Advantage Charter School, $150,000 to $350,000.
51. Sedona Charter School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
52. Synergy Public School, $150,000 to $350,000.
53. The Edge School Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
54. The Excalibur Charter School, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
55. Tucson International School Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
56. Twenty First Century Charter Schools Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.

Religiously Affiliated
1. Gilbert Christian Schools, $1 to $2 million.
2. Northwest Christian School, $1 to $2 million.
3. Notre Dame Preparatory Roman Catholic High School, $1 to $2 million.
4. Valley Christian Schools, $1 to $2 million.
5. Bourgade Roman Catholic High School Phoenix, $350,000 to $1 million.
6. Desert Christian Schools Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
7. Joy Christian School, $350,000 to $1 million.
8. Phoenix Christian Unified Schools, Inc., $350,000 to $1 million.
9. Seton Roman Catholic High School Chandler, $350,000 to $1 million.
10. St Augustine Catholic High School, $350,000 to $1 million.
11. St Mary’s Roman Catholic High School, $350,000 to $1 million.
12. The Gregory School, $350,000 to $1 million.
13. Trinity Lutheran Church And School, $350,000 to $1 million.
14. Ascension Lutheran Church And School, $150,000 to $350,000.
15. Valley Lutheran High School Association, $350,000 to $1 million
16. Yuma Catholic High School, $350,000 to $1 million.
17. El Dorado Private School, $150,000 to $350,000.
18. Imago Dei Middle School, $150,000 to $350,000.
19. Lourdes Catholic School, $150,000 to $350,000.
20. Phoenix Christian School Society, Inc., $150,000 to $350,000.
21. Salpointe Catholic High School, $1 to $2 million.

Private Schools
1. The Orme School, $350,000 to $1 million.
2. Arizona School Of Integrative Studies llc, $150,000 to $350,000.
3. A Castlehill Management, Llc. Dba Castlehill Country Day School, $150,000 to $350,000.
4. Kriskat Investments, Llc Dba Primrose School Of Ahwatukee, $150,000 to $350,000. https://start.cortera.com/company/research/k9q8pxn1m/kriskat-investments-llc/
5. Lake Pleasant School 2 Llc, $150,000 to $350,000.
6. Lake Pleasant School Llc, $150,000 to $350,000
7. Lexis Preparatory School Llc, $150,000 to $350,000
8. Bayer Private School, $150,000 to $350,000.
9. Summit School of Ahwatukee, $350,000 to $1 million.

Perhaps you could do the same for your state.

The Paycheck Protection Program was indeed a bonanza for charters and other private schools. Charters had the advantage of collecting public funds as “public schools” and then collecting again as “small businesses.”

Remember how Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin fought to keep private the names of those who received federal coronavirus funds intended for small businesses? The trillion or so was meant to keep people employed by small businesses at risk of bankruptcy.

Now we know why Mnuchin wanted to seal the books. The recipients included the politically powerful and members of the Kushner and Trump families. And many more with political connections.

Here’s one review by ProPublica.

Here’s a Daily Beast list of the politically connected who cashed in.

Thirty-five top law firms collected $169 million, including the firm of Daid Boies and Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz.

Wall Street investment firms and insurance companies received billions of dollars.P

Trump supporter Kanye West collected millions for his business although he claims to be a billionaire.

CNBC has more details, including a link to the full list of recipients.

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao’s family’s business, Foremost Maritime, got a loan valued at between $350,000 and $1 million. Chao is the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Perdue Inc., a trucking company co-founded by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, was approved for $150,000 to $350,000 in loan money.

The Americans for Tax Reform, which opposes federal spending, and the Ayn Rand Institute, founded by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, received between $350,000-$1 million. Norquist opposes wasteful government spending unless he gets some.

The Paycheck Protection Program was a free-money party for those in the know.

Carl J. Petersen, writer and public school parent in Los Angeles, writes here about a Los Angeles charter schools that took millions from the federal Paycheck Protection Plan, then laid off employees anyway.

The purpose of PPP was to help small businesses and to ensure that they did not fire employees because they couldn’t afford to pay them. But charter schools, which had suffered no economic harm, cashed in on the program…because they could.

Petersen writes:

With unemployment rates reaching levels unseen since the Great Depression due to the problems caused by the failed response to COVID-19, every dollar from the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) should be going towards helping small businesses survive. Unfortunately, the charter school industry found a way to double-dip into the government trough to supplement the money they are diverting from public schools with funds from this program.

Despite acknowledging that they could be taking money away from small businesses that needed it to survive the crisis, the governing board of Palisades Charter High School voted last month to accept a $4.606 million dollar loan from the PPP. They admitted at the time that they did not have an immediate need for the money and they failed to articulate a plan to spend the money or to pay it back. They simply felt that it was important to “get the money while the getting’s good.” Discussion of the moral and financial costs of receiving this money was swept aside.

Ignoring the reason for their $4,606,000 windfall, the governing board of Pali voted this month to lay off five members of their staff and reduce the hours for 18 other employees. Even as students throughout the country struggle to transition to distance learning, these cuts included an IT Tech assigned to helping parents, students and teachers navigate the technology needed in this new learning environment. They also eliminated a Tutoring Center Coordinator whom a member of the public and a board member credited with “helping hundreds of kids pass classes and graduate from Pali during e-learning”. A Library Media Technician, Copy Clerk, and Office Assistant will also join the unemployment line in 60 days.

The federal government should “claw back” the wasted $4.6 million.

Peter Goodman is a long-time observer of education politics in New York State and New York City.

In this post, he asks a reasonable question: Why, at a time of fiscal stringency and uncertainty, is the Board of Regents of New York State rubber-stamping the expansion of charter schools?

Charter schools, as he shows, cherry-pick their students to inflate their test scores. Despite state law, their doors are not open to all.

He writes:

If you look at charter school data virtually every charter school enrolls fewer than the “comparable” percentages required in the law. The reason is abundantly clear, students with disabilities and English language learners frequently have lower standardized test scores, impact the charter renewal process and are more costly to educate, i.e., lower class size = more teachers.

The Buffalo charter was out of compliance with state law. Why did the Board of Regents approve a five-year renewal of a charter in Buffalo when the Regent from Buffalo proposed a three-year renewal? Buffalo schools face a large deficit, but its charters are on track to take $108 million out of the city’s public budget.

Why did the Board of Regents approve the renewal of a low-performing charter school in the Bronx?

Goodman writes:

Later in the [Regents’] meeting three New York City charter schools were on the agenda, one of the schools wanted to add high school grades; although there is a moratorium on the creation of new charter schools State Ed staff interpreted the law as allowing grade expansion, in my opinion, an attempt to circumvent the law and should have not been allowed by the state.

The math scores in the school were in the “far below standard” category, ninety percent of teachers were “teaching out of their certification area,” the state average is eleven percent and the register in the sixth, seventh and eighth grade, was sharply reduced, from 71 (6th grade), to 46 (7th grade) and 29 (8th grade): what happened to the kids? In addition the school SWD and ELL students are far below the district averages.

Why did the NYC Department of Education approve the application? Why did the SED approve the application?

The school has a lobbyist who was a college roommate of Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. I’m sure that’s only a coincidence. btw, who paid the lobbyist?

In spite of objections from some Regents members the SED lawyer bundled all three schools together instead of decoupling and voting separately.

Regent Cashin made a motion: a moratorium on approval of new charters and the grade expansion of existing charter schools for the remainder of the COVID emergency. She explained that with sharp cuts in district budgets, with districts facing layoffs and disruptions, to transfer money from public schools budgets to charter school budgets was unconscionable. The SED lawyer ruled her motion was “out of order.”

Any member of the Board can make a motion at any time. The Board should vote on whether to place the motion on the agenda. The Board “owns” the motion, not the lawyer, who is not a Board member.

If the lawyer meant the motion was not “germane” he was still wrong. If he was serving as a parliamentarian he gives advice to the chair, he does not participate in the debate, or make determinate decisions.

The whole business had what Goodman called “a noxious aroma,” a polite way of saying that the Regents’ rush to approve charters of dubious quality in the midst of a fiscal crisis stinks to high heaven.

Why incentivize privately run charters to divert funding and the students of their choice from the public schools.

Why are the Regents betraying the state’s public schools?

That noxious aroma is the smell that is released when politics seeps into decisions about school funding. Someone’s friends are being taken care of, at the expense of the public schools.

This post will propose a GRAND BARGAIN for reopening the schools.

There is a great demand to reopen the schools for the sake of the economy, and there is great resistance to reopening the schools due to fears about the safety of children and staff.

Parents and teachers are worried that if schools open too soon, they won’t be safe. Students won’t be safe if classrooms are crowded. If students don’t wear masks, they will be in constant confrontations with teachers. How do you keep very young children six feet apart? What about safety measures to protect the staff? These are all genuine problems.

What makes this entire discussion surreal is that Congress and the Trump administration have thus far refused to pass legislation that would send the aid needed to help schools reopen safely and help local and state governments cope with drastic reductions in revenues due to the shutdown of the economy.

Some states are planning to cut school funding by large amounts. They are willing to lay off teachers and support staff, including nurses. Under these conditions, schools cannot possibly reopen safely and should not.

A few states, like California, plan to hold the school budget where it is, with no cuts.

But to reopen, schools need MORE funding. They must reduce class sizes drastically to have safe social distancing. Depending on room sizes, classrooms should have no more than 10-15 students. To do that means hiring MORE teachers.

The Council of Chief State School Officers has estimated that it will require up to $244 billion in additional federal aid to reopen schools safely. It might be even more. If that is the cost of reopening schools and reopening the economy, it is a price worth paying.

Since the federal government has failed to take the lead in controlling the pandemic, the number of cases of coronavirus continues to rise, unlike the EU or Canada or many other nations. Where the virus is still rising, as in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and other states, schools cannot open safely.

But where the virus has been contained, schools can act on reopening plans only if they are adequately funded.

The only way to reopen schools safely, whether in the fall or months later, is by a dramatic increase in the budget so that there will be enough staff to protect the health and safety of the children, the teachers, and other staff.

Schools will need to hire additional nurses and health aides to monitor the temperature and health of everyone in the school as well as psychologists and social workers to aid students who have suffered trauma in recent months.

Some advocates of distance learning think it should become “the new normal,” but the past few months has demonstrated that not much learning is going on, that students are bored and long to be with their friends and teachers, and that distance learning is at best only a temporary fix.

Parents, business leaders, and everyone concerned about reopening the schools and the economy should together demand that the federal government provide whatever funds are needed to reopen schools safely so parents can return to work knowing that their children are safe. It may or may not happen in September, and there will be regional and local variations, depending on whether the coronavirus has been controlled.

But whenever it happens, the highest priority must be the safety and well-being of children and school staff.

It will not happen safely without a massive increase in funding from the federal government.

It should not happen until that funding has been approved.