Archives for category: Massachusetts
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Moody’s Warns that a “Yes” Vote for Charters May Hurt Credit Ratings of Boston and Other Massachusetts Cities

By dianeravitch
November 5, 2016 //
9

Moody’s Investors Service released a warning earlier this week warning that if Massachusetts voters pass Question 2 to expand the number of charter schools in the state, it may have a negative impact on the credit ratings of Boston and three other cities in the state.

The story appeared in the Boston Globe, which earlier urged voters to pass the controversial referendum, even though it will drain millions of dollars from the state’s public schools and likely harm the nation’s most successful state system of public schools.

The credit-rating agency Moody’s Investors Service is warning Boston and three other Massachusetts cities that passage of a ballot measure to expand charter schools could weaken the municipalities’ financial standing and ultimately threaten their bond ratings.

In e-mails sent Monday, Nicholas Lehman, an assistant vice president at Moody’s, warned that passage of the referendum would be “credit negative” for the cities.

“Depending on the Nov. 8 vote, the general credit view is the following: A vote of ‘No’ is credit positive for urban cities. A vote of ‘Yes’ is credit negative for urban cities,” Lehman wrote.

Lehman told the cities he would provide a draft analysis of the referendum’s impact on Wednesday and solicit their comment, publishing a full report after the election.

The other three cities in Massachusetts are Lawrence, Fall River, and Springfield. A spokesman for the Boston Municipal Research Bureau said a “yes” vote might cause fiscal hardship, but would likely be offset by closing public schools with empty seats (as new charters open) and concessions from teachers.

So a “yes” vote would mean closing more public schools and reducing salaries or pensions or other benefits from teachers. Why does the corporate reform industry want to destabilize the most successful state school system in the nation?

Why are so many in the financial industry pouring millions into a campaign that will obviously undermine the fiscal stability of urban districts in the state? If Moody’s understands it, why don’t the equity investors and hedge fund managers? Maybe it is because so few of the donors to Question 2 live in Massachusetts or have ever set foot in a public school. They have no skin in the game. For them, it is a hobby, not a financial decision.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

Andrea Gabor: Dark Money Floods into Massachusetts to Expand Charters

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2016 //
5

Andrea Gabor, who is a professor of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York, explores the influx of millions of dollars into Massachusetts to influence the referendum on charter schools.

https://andreagabor.com/2016/10/24/how-leading-charter-funders-are-upping-the-ante-in-their-bid-to-blow-the-bay-states-charter-school-cap/

Many of the donors are unknown, but the $33 million spent on this referendum is historic.

Most of the money to support public schools comes from teachers and their unions.

Twice as much comes from financiers, Wall Street, and corporate interests that favor privatization and non-union schools.

The corporate interests know that a victory in the nation’s top-performing state will lay the groundwork for busting the teachers’ union and for privatizing public schools in many other states. If they can win in Massachusetts, with its strong history of local school committees and excellent public schools, they can win anywhere.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Massachusetts, Privatization

A Map of the School Committees Against Question 2 in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2016 //
7

This map shows the school committees that oppose Question 2, which would add a dozen charter schools a year forever, located anywhere in Massachusetts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SOPublicSchools/status/794242861273350144

The school committees know that creating a dual school system will leech resources from the public schools of their communities. They will have fewer teachers and programs. Charters have not “closed the achievement gap” in any other state or district? Why expand charter schools in the nation’s highest performing state school system?

The vote on November 8 will test whether out-of-state billionaires can persuade citizens to abandon their public schools. Will voters be smart enough to ignore the lies and propaganda pushing privatization of their community public schools? Will they resist the temptation to create a dual school system?

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

Jonathan Kozol: Vote NO on Question 2 in Massachusetts!

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2016 //
5

Jonathan Kozol wrote an article in the Boston Globe explaining why voters should reject Question 2, the referendum on adding a dozen new charters every year until the end of time.

Slice it any way you want. Argue, as we must, that every family ought to have the right to make whatever choice they like in the interests of their child, no matter what damage it may do to other people’s children. As an individual decision, it’s absolutely human; but setting up this kind of competition, in which parents with the greatest social capital are encouraged to abandon their most vulnerable neighbors, is rotten social policy. What this represents is a state-supported shriveling of civic virtue, a narrowing of moral obligation to the smallest possible parameters. It isn’t good for Massachusetts, and it’s not good for democracy.

This commonwealth has been an exemplar of democratic public education ever since the incubation of the common school idea at the midpoint of the 19th century. For all its imperfections and constant need of diligent repair, it remains a vision worth preserving. The privatizing forces from outside of this state have wisely recognized the powerful symbolic victory they’d gain by turning Massachusetts against its own historic legacy. I urge my friends not to let this happen. Vote “no” on Question 2.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

Bernie Sanders Opposes Mass. Question 2

By dianeravitch
November 1, 2016 //
25

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont just posted a letter, now circulating on Twitter, stating his opposition to Question 2 in Massachusetts, which would add 12 privately-managed charter schools a year forever.

He wrote “Wall Street must not be allowed to hijack public education in Massachusetts. We must defeat Massachusetts Ballot Question 2. This is Wall Street’s attempt to line their own pockets while draining resources away from public education at the expense of low-income, special education students, and English-language learners.”

He writes that charter schools already siphon away $450 million from public schools. If Question 2 passes, the hedge fund managers and corporations will take away another $1 billion from public schools.

The statement by Bernie Sanders and the earlier statement by Senator Elizabeth Warren will certainly put an obstacle in the path of the billionaires supporting privatization and pretending to be progressives.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

Troy LaRaviere Warns Boston Teachers About Charters

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2016 //
4

Troy LaRaviere, award-winning principal in Chicago who was dismissed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel for what was probably political reasons (he supported Senator Sanders in the primaries and he is an outspoken critic of Rahm) recently spoke to the Boston Teachers Union. He came to warn them to fight hard against Question 2, which would expand charters. He explained the havoc that charters have wreaked in Chicago, the damage they have done to public schools, even though public schools outperform the charters.

His talk was “Why Public Schools Are Far Better than Charter Schools.”

Although Rahm fired him, LaRaviere was elected by his colleagues as president of the Chicago Principals’ and Administrators’ Association.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Chicago, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Massachusetts, Privatization

What Kind of a School Fines a Departing Teacher $6,087 for “Liquidated Damages”?

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2016 //
25

EduShyster knows the answer: A popular suburban charter school in Massachusetts called the Mystic Valley Regional Charter School. This is a school that was created by a group of friends and families that wanted the equivalent of a private school at public school prices. It makes up its own rules. It has very high test scores. And the state has received scores of complaints about the school.

She writes:

So what were parents complaining about?

Special education services, denial of;

English Language Learners, complete lack of;

Teachers, high turnover of;

Property all over Malden, snapping up of (in cash, which seems, um, kind of strange);

Open meeting laws, ignoring of;

Friends and family of founders, hiring of/preferential treatment of;

Admissions lottery, odds-defying nature of, especially when concerning founders, friends and family of;

Communication with board, difficulty of;

Spending priorities, nature of (see $12 million athletic facility, building of)

Student club and athletic team fees, high cost of;

Day-to-day management of the school, interference in

Parents and students who complained, repercussions against, nudging towards door of

In which we pause briefly to consider one downside of the charter model

Let’s pause here briefly to consider why these parents have been deluging state officials with their complaints. You see, because charter schools are autonomous, overseen by their hand-picked boards, parents who have issues with the school and its management have no choice but to bring their complaints to the friends-and-family-esque Board of Directors. Which can be *awkward,* not to mention difficult, because of the board’s penchant for conducting much of its business out of view of the public. The state, meanwhile, doesn’t have much leverage either. While it can step in when the law is being broken or non-complied with, there is no statutory penalty for what might best be described as *dick-ish-ness.* Add in the fact that Mystic Valley is awash in the very treasure that the state most treasures these days—high MCAS scores and a long wait list—and, well, you see where this is not going. As for those unhappy parents, they have a choice: suck it up or *vote with their feet.*

The founders treat the school as their private school, funded by taxpayers. No one cares about the complaints of parents or teachers. The state provides no supervision. What will happen if the charter cap is lifted and more such publically funded, unaccountable, elite charters pop up?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Funding, Massachusetts, Privatization

Massachusetts Teachers Association Calls for SEC Investigation of Possible “Pay to Play” Scheme

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2016 //
15

The Massachusetts Teachers Association released this bulletin just now:

​For Immediate Release
​October 27, 2016

Contact: Steve Crawford, Crawford Strategies, 857-753-4132, steve@crawfordstrategies.com​
Teachers Call for SEC Investigation into Possible Pay-to-Play Scheme

BOSTON – Deeply troubled by campaign contributions from investment firms overseeing millions of dollars in teacher pension funds, the presidents of the two Massachusetts educators’ unions today are calling for an investigation by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and state authorities into a possible pay-to-play scheme involving large donors supporting Question 2, the charter school expansion question that will be on the November ballot in Massachusetts.

A report published today by the International Business Times reveals that management of eight financial firms has contributed more than $778,000 to groups backing Question 2. Together, these financial firms manage over $1.275 billion in state money.

“This is about the integrity of our pension investments and the integrity of our elections,” said Massachusetts Teachers Association President Barbara Madeloni. “We need an investigation to find out whether these firms are wielding inappropriate influence in state government.”

​
“These disclosures are an indication of the degree to which forces seeking to undermine our public schools are spending huge sums to promote Question 2,” Madeloni added.

The IBT report details the ways in which the investment industry circumvents federal rules designed to restrict financial executives from giving campaign cash to governors with the power to influence state pension business. Governor Charlie Baker is a leading proponent of Question 2. Earlier this week, he held a series of private meetings in New York with financial industry executives whose names remain undisclosed.

Although federal law does not cover money donated to the governor’s policy initiatives, executives whose firms are prohibited from donating directly to Baker are still able to give to the dark money groups backing Question 2. But questions need to be answered about the propriety of these donations.

Baker appoints three members of the state pension board.

“Retirees need to know that investment decisions are being made based on their financial security, not to curry favor with Governor Baker and his pension board appointees,” said Tom Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.

On Monday, Governor Baker addressed the members of the conservative, pro-charter Manhattan Institute about his work on Question 2. Paul Singer, chair of the Manhattan Institute’s Board of Trustees, is a major financial backer of charter school expansion around the nation. Singer also owns Elliott Capital Advisors, one of the hedge fund companies in which the state pension board invests its money.

###

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

David Sirota: Scandal in Massachusetts!

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2016 //
13

David Sirota and a team of investigative reporters have discovered that the pension funds of teachers in Massachusetts are being tapped by Wall Street financiers to underwrite Question 2, which will authorize an expansion of non-union charter schools. Unions are spending millions of dollars to defend the public schools of Massachusetts against privatization. Meanwhile, their own pension funds are financing the campaign to increase privatization.

“When Massachusetts public school teachers pay into their pension fund each month, they may not realize where the money goes. Wall Street titans are using some of the profits from managing that money to finance an education ballot initiative that many teachers say will harm traditional public schools.

“An International Business Times/MapLight investigation has found that executives at eight financial firms with contracts to manage Massachusetts state pension assets have bypassed anti-corruption rules and funneled at least $778,000 to groups backing Question 2, which would expand the number of charter schools in the state. Millions more dollars have flowed from the executives to nonprofit groups supporting the charter school movement in the lead-up to the November vote. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, himself a former financial executive, is leading the fight to increase the number of publicly funded, privately run charter schools in Massachusetts — and he appoints trustees to the board that directs state pension investments….

“This report is the latest in an IBT/MapLight series examining how anti-corruption laws are circumvented or unenforced. The cash flowing to the Massachusetts school initiative spotlights more than just a fight over education policy: It exemplifies one of the ways in which the securities and investment industry can get around a federal rule that was designed to restrict financial executives from giving campaign cash to governors with the power to influence state pension business.

“In the case of Massachusetts, since the federal rule does not cover money donated to governors’ policy initiatives, executives banned from donating directly to Gov. Baker are able to give to a constellation of groups that are pushing his pet cause — and that in some cases are advised by Baker’s political associates. Meanwhile, Baker’s appointees at the state pension board are permitted to continue delivering investment deals and fees to those same donors’ firms.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Pensions, Privatization, Unions

Schott Foundation: If You Care About a Better Education for All, Vote NO on Question 2 in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
October 26, 2016 //
2

Dr. John H. Jackson of the Schott Foundation (Cambridge, Massachusetts) and Josie Greene, a director of another foundation (writing for herself, not her foundation), penned a powerful opinion piece about “a better education for all.”

As it happens, the purpose of this blog is to advocate on behalf of “a better education for all.” Not a better education for a few, or for some, but for all. That means better public schools for all children. That is why I oppose charter schools, school choice, and competition. As Jackson and Green post out, competition means winners and losers, and equality of educational opportunity will never be produced by competition but by a commitment great public schools in every district.

This is the letter that was posted by the Schott Foundation (I made two insertions of “bold” format):

A Question of Better Education for All

Dear Education Advocates,

Question 2, which will appear on Massachusetts voters’ ballots on Nov. 8, claims that it will increase educational choice and improve educational standards across the state. In fact, it would do the opposite.

For the past decade, Massachusetts has led the nation in academic achievement. Our students have even been top ranked internationally in a time when the country’s educational outcomes have slid year by year. Massachusetts accomplished this by taking bold steps that impact all students, most importantly changing the state’s school funding system to invest more in schools in high need, low-income areas so that all students have a better opportunity to achieve. There is still critical work to be done to close persistent opportunity gaps in the system, but we won’t get there if we go in completely the wrong direction. This would be to allow state officials to give up on investing in improving a system that serves all students in need.

Saying “yes” to Question 2 would move the Commonwealth off the path towards great public schools for all students. Question 2 proposes to use taxpayer resources to increase, by 12 per year, the number of charter schools that can only be attended by a few in the state.

When charter schools, which now serve only 4% of the state’s public school students, were added to the Massachusetts model, they were never intended to be a comprehensive “education plan” for a state or locality, but rather an experiment that might provide sparks of innovation whose best practices would be integrated into the main system. It is in that system that the great majority—a full 96%—of Massachusetts students are educated. While it’s true that, like any educational system, we have a mixed record on innovation as well as achievement—there are exemplary as well as troubled charter schools—the bigger issues we need to examine go to the heart of our commitment to high quality public education for all children in the Commonwealth.

Public schools and an equal commitment to all children are pillars of our democratic system. Accountability has been rooted in local control ever since Massachusetts pioneered the first statewide system focused on all children when it instituted compulsory K-12 education in 1852.

Charters run directly counter to this democratic value. The state can approve a charter school in a community over the strong objection of the school committee and all the other locally elected officials who are accountable to the voters in that town. Only the state, not any local officials, can examine the finances or exercise oversight over charter schools. As for their private boards, the Annenberg Institute for School Reform’s study of Massachusetts charter schools revealed that many board members do not even live in the district where the charter is located; 31% are financial or corporate executives, while only 14% are parents; 60% of charters in our state have no parent representation at all.

When the corporate concept of “competition” is used to justify the argument for increasing the number of charter schools (and student enrollment in them), we need only remind ourselves that competition means winners and losers.

When the corporate concept of “competition” is used to justify the argument for increasing the number of charter schools (and student enrollment in them), we need only remind ourselves that competition means winners and losers. Why would voters ever want to substitute that value for a commitment to ensuring a high quality education for every child? We should focus our attention and resources on what has been the most successful in proven outcomes in our state: Constantly improving our public education system. Charter schools draw funding away from public schools that educate the great majority of state students, ranging from accelerated learners to special education, and including English language learners, children with learning disabilities, and homeless children who register mid-year.

Expanding the number of charter schools reinforces a caste system of private, charter and public schools. This is not visionary leadership or the bold leap needed to keep all Massachusetts students advancing as leaders in the nation. There are social justice reasons for ensuring any changes to our current system are designed to improve the opportunity to learn for all students.

And there are compelling economic reasons as well. Equal education for all breaks the cycle of intergenerational poverty; it is the path to economic opportunity. Investing in a great education for all children in the Commonwealth is the only way to create a broad-based, diverse, well-educated workforce that is a magnet for employers and can fuel economic growth across the state. It also ensures full participation in our democratic society.

Voting “NO” on Question 2 will keep policymakers, educators, parents and students focused on the right question: What steps should we be taking to advance as the best public education system in the country for all Commonwealth students?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Corporate Reformers, Equity, Massachusetts, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »