Archives for category: Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a bill to “reform” charter schools, but it still allows charters to drain resources from public schools without reimbursement, and it still preserves the low-performing cybercharters that milk resources from public schools with providing a decent education to any students.

Many grassroots groups oppose this bill, and the Haverford School Board just voted 7-1 against it.

The board of school directors recently joined Education Voters of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Education Law Center and other school districts around the state that have voiced opposition to provisions for charter school reform in House Bill 97.

School directors voted 7-1 to adopt a resolution opposing the bill, which they allege “fails to establish meaningful change” from the state’s 20-year-old Charter School Law.

Approved by the state House in April, HB 97 is currently in the Senate Education Committee where amendments are under consideration, said school director and chair of the Delaware County School Boards Legislative Council Larry Feinberg, the resolution’s sponsor.

The resolution states that charter schools that are “publicly funded and privately operated institutions governed by non-elected boards …not accountable to taxpayers, yet paid for with local school district funds….”

Larry Feinberg said that while Haverford has no brick and mortar charter schools, the district has spent $2.4 million since 2012 on historically underperforming cybercharters, with $90.9 million spent county wide for “something that doesn’t work.”

And, “I have grave concerns about accountability,” Feinberg said, recalling Pennsylvania Cyber Charter founder Nick Trombetta’s diversion of funds to make lavish purchases for himself, his girlfriend and family members.

For many years, the public schools of Philadelphia have been drastically underfunded by the state of Pennsylvania. This created a series of fiscal crises, which should have produced equitable funding, but instead gave cause for a state takeover, thus blaming the city for the state’s failures. The state established the appointed School Reform Commission in 2001. The SRC appointed Paul Vallas to run the district, and he launched the nation’s largest experiment (to that date) in privatized schooling, handing over some 40 schools to private, for-profit, and university management. The experiment was an expensive failure, and he left the city with a large deficit, bound for New Orleans to push an even bigger experiment in school privatization.

The SRC has continued the Vallas tradition, closing public schools, opening charter schools, and leaving public schools in desperate straits.

To sum it up, state control has been a disaster for the children of Philadelphia.

Lisa Haver wrote an article in the Philadelphia Daily News outlining the secrecy that surrounds the deliberations of the School Reform Commission. Even the budget is hidden from public view until the SRC has made all its decisions, without considering the voices of parents or teachers.

She asks and answers questions about the role and lack of transparency of the SRC.

She concludes like this:

“Should the SRC schedule a meeting in which it plans to decide on renewals of 23 charter schools with less than a week’s notice?

“The district’s budget shows that it will spend $894 million — about one-third of the budget — on charters next year. Shouldn’t the SRC allow enough time for those paying the tab to read the reports? They may want to ask why schools that have met none of the standards are being recommended for renewal.

“Should the SRC publicly deliberate before voting on significant financial, academic and policy resolutions?

“The SRC approved contracts totaling $149.2 million at its February meeting; it spent $173.1 million in March. Resolutions are voted on in batches of 10 or 15, with little explanation of why.

“How do we reform the School Reform Commission? By abolishing it. Philadelphians have the right, as all other Pennsylvanians do, to decide who will represent them on an elected school board.”

I don’t begin to understand the complexities of Pennsylvania’s formula for allocating dollars to public schools and charter schools, but this article explains how the formula cripples public schools.

Chester Upland School District keeps raising taxes to overcome its deficit but it can’t keep up.

Chester Upland spends about $16,000 a year on average for each special ed student in its traditional district schools. But the state’s formula has forced it to pay more than $40,000 per student to charters, regardless of the child’s level of disability.

Those payments crippled Chester Upland so badly that Gov. Tom Wolf and the courts stepped in.

But this is far from just an issue in Chester Upland. Newly analyzed state data show that a combination of quirks in the charter law have caused a statewide problem, because charters across Pennsylvania are enrolling a greater share of the least needy, least costly special ed students.

The special ed funding formula’s intricacies are infamous. But the problem in a nutshell is this: when the neediest students concentrate in district schools, that drives up the per-pupil payments that districts must pay charters.

It’s a paradox that can drain the budgets of traditional school districts while infusing charters with cash. And it creates incentives for districts like Chester Upland to do what they can to keep special ed students from migrating to charters and cyber-charters.

Lawrence Feinberg of the Keystone State Education Coalition writes about HB 97, which is being considered today:

HB97 is on the House calendar for today.

Instead of insisting on an omnibus charter reform bill, the legislature should consider a stand-alone, separate bill creating a charter school funding commission modelled after the successful Basic Education Funding Commission and Special Education Funding Commission, with a task of work limited to charter school funding issues and comprised solely of legislators and executive branch members.

This would be a significant first step in untying the Gordian knot that PA charter reform has become.

HB97 would stack the state’s Charter Appeals Board in favor of charter proponents.

HB97 would increase the terms of charter authorizations and renewals; shouldn’t taxpayer’s elected officials be able to review and approve the expenditure of tax dollars annually?

HB97 does virtually nothing to address the total lack of transparency for public tax dollars spent by charter management companies.

Pennsylvania’s 500 school districts never authorized the 13 chronically underperforming cyber charters and many districts offer cyber programs at significant savings to taxpayers yet all 500 districts are required to send tax dollars to cyber charters.

The legislature should consider a separate piece of legislation dealing solely with cyber charter issues.

#HB97 None of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman .@SenatorBrowne’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter.

In 2015-16 they had to pay over $19.5 million in cyber charter tuition.

Not one of Pennsylvania’s 13 cyber charter schools has ever achieved a passing score of 70 on the School Performance Profile.

Many school districts have in-house cyber programs that are able to serve students at considerable savings over cyber charter costs.

#HB97 None of House Appropriations Committee Chairman .@RepStanSaylor’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter. In 2015-16 they had to pay over $3.8 million in cyber charter tuition.

#HB97 None of gubernatorial candidate .@SenScottWagner’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter. In 2015-16 they had to pay over $11.9 million in cyber charter tuition.

#HB97 None of Senate Education Committee Minority Chairman @SenatorDinniman’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter. In 2015-16 they had to pay over $13.4 million in cyber charter tuition.

#HB97 None of House Education Committee Chairman Eichelberger’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter. In 2015-16 they had to pay over $11.6 million in cyber charter tuition.

#HB97 Neither of House Speaker .@RepTurzai’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter. In 2015-16 they had to pay over $1.8 million in cyber charter tuition.

#HB97 None of Senate President .@senatorscarnati’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter. In 2015-16 they had to pay over $9.4 million in cyber charter tuition.

#HB97 None of Senate Majority Leader .@JakeCorman’s school districts ever authorized a cyber charter. In 2015-16 they had to pay over $5.1 million in cyber charter tuition.

Pennsylvania’s state auditor said not long ago that the state has the worst charter legislation in the nation.

It is about to get worse if HB97 passes. Public school advocates at the Keystone State Education Coalition say the bill is in trouble and can be defeated. If you live in Pennsylvania, get on the phone at once and contact your legislator.

EdVotersPA: PA House Poised to Ram Through Horrible Charter Bill

Education Voters PA

We need your help to stop HB 97…

We had hoped that the PA House would work toward charter reform that would protect taxpayers and students and improve PA’s system of public education.

Our hopes were misplaced.

On Tuesday this week, members of the House Education Committee passed HB 97 out of committee on a vote of 17 to 10. Before they voted, lawmakers were assured that HB 97 was a work in progress and would be amended to address many significant problems and deficiencies in the bill.

That didn’t happen.

During the House session on Wednesday, Republican leadership and most Republican lawmakers opposed nearly every substantial amendment that was introduced to fix HB 97.

Tell your state representative to oppose HB 97. The House will be in session next week and is poised to ram through HB 97 without any further improvements.

· HB 97 does not address the $100 million profit (and growing) that charters reap off students with disabilities each year from the broken special education funding system.

· HB 97 does nothing to address the continued abysmal academic performance of the state’s cyber charter schools — none of which have met the minimum proficiency standard on the state’s school performance profile.

· HB 97 creates separate performance standards by which to evaluate charter/cyber charter schools and district schools, making a comparison of education quality between the two sectors impossible. Cyber charter performance won’t look as bad if cyber charters are compared only to other charter schools, many of which are also very low-performing.

· HB 97 strips local control from school boards. If HB 97 becomes law, local school boards would be prohibited from requesting any information from charter applicants beyond the information in a state-created application form; local school boards would be subjected to the whim of charter operators to amend their charter; and local school board decisions regarding charter applications and renewals would be at the mercy of the state’s Charter Appeal Board, which would be stacked with charter school supporters.

HB 97 improves ethics and transparency standards for charters and temporarily makes very small reductions in school district payments to cyber charters. In exchange for these modest modifications to the current law, legislators are handing charter lobbyists their wish list with a bow on top.

Making charters play by similar rules as other publicly funded entities should not earn the PA legislature high praise. These are necessary and important changes to the PA legislature’s broken law that should have been made years ago.

The Auditor General of the state of Pennsylvania once declared that Pennsylvania has”the worst charter school law in the nation.”

Mark Miller shows how hard it is to fix that law. Operators of charter schools and cyber charters are reaping huge profits. One cyber charter founder was found guilty of tax evasion on his huge profits. A charter owner built a massive mansion in Palm Beach.

Yet the legislature can’t rein them in. Every dollar they collect means a dollar less for public schools.

http://www.markbmiller.com/2017/04/20/charter-deform-made-its-way-to-pa-house-floor-today/

From a correspondent in Pennsylvania:

“The latest charter reform farce is on its way to the House floor in Pennsylvania before lunch.

“Among all the poor elements, tied for the dumbest are:

“1. Families with multiple children enrolled in a cyber-charter may now opt not to receive a second or third computer. I mean really, what wouldthey do with them. They don’t really devote any time to learning. This saves money for the cyber charter. Two or three full state tuitions, and the corporations gives out only one computer.

“2. Charter Schools will now be compared to each other instead of public schools, thus assuring at least half will automatically be performing “above average,” instead of all PA Charters constantly being ranked as
“failing.”

Joseph Batory, a retired superintendent in Pennsylvania, has been speaking out loud and clear about the deliberate defunding of public schools in Pennsylvania and other issues.

In this post, he describes the betrayal of the public schools by the Legislature:


The betrayal of Pennsylvania public schools by the State legislature began in the early 1990’s when Pennsylvania government consciously destroyed its Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education (ESBE) formula. That method of State funding had been successfully used to bridge the wide gaps between poorer and more affluent school districts. The ESBE formula each year had utilized factors of community wealth and pupil population to drive out annual subsidies to school systems that distributed State money equitably based on each school district’s affluence and pupil population. Unfortunately, the growing costs of this ESBE formula to the State budget, despite its positive impacts, caused cowardly politicians fearing necessary tax increases to eliminate the ESBE funding formula. This result has been that over two decades, billions of dollars in State subsidies have been denied to school districts across the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania now has the widest disparities in the nation in spending among its wealthiest and poorest districts with pupils who live in poverty and need the most getting the least, while students in wealthier districts live with all sorts of educational and school enhancements. This legislative incompetence has created a system where the gaps of per-pupil spending among Pennsylvania’s 500 school districts are now enormous, ranging from $9,800 to $28,400.

In September of 2016, attorneys representing seven school districts appeared before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking judicial intervention in education funding in Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court had dismissed this case last year.

The lawsuit contends that the State is not fulfilling its Constitutional duty as specified: “to provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education,” and that the resulting inequalities violate “equal rights protections.”

Pennsylvania courts have previously dismissed challenges to the legislature’s inadequate funding of public education using the argument that legislative matters are beyond review by the courts. However, NB—in 27 other states, the courts have intervened in similar circumstances and forced responsible behavior from state legislatures.

Incredibly, a representative of the Commonwealth made this outrageous argument before the Supreme Court in September: “No individual child has any specific right to an education at all. The Constitution requires the State only to set up a system…” According to this State representative, Pennsylvania has no responsibility to give children an adequate education or a quality education, but just to make sure schools exist.

City Councilperson Helen Gym termed this State position as “a deplorable argument that should shock the sensibilities of every Pennsylvanian. … One, that education is not a right – (It is in fact!) – and, Two, that inequity is not only inevitable, it is unfixable…”

Helen Gym could not be more on point: The Pennsylvania Constitution’s wording clearly stipulates “maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education” as a State responsibility.

Yet children in some Pennsylvania school districts have lavish swimming pools, while others graduate from schools without ever having used a computer or seen a library, attorney Brad Elias, representing several school districts, parents and civil rights groups, told the Supreme Court.

While states on average contribute a 45% share of public education funding, Pennsylvania’s share is at about 36%, ranking the Commonwealth 45th in the USA in terms of State support for education.

The Commonwealth’s political betrayal of its own public schools is a national disgrace. It remains to be seen if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the political will to correct this malfeasance.

Peter Greene describes the leading foe of public education and teachers in Pennsylvania. He is John Eichelberger. He is chair of the Senate Education Committee. Everything he proposes is toxic to public schools.

“In 2011, when Betsy and Richard DeVos were looking to finance a push for vouchers in Pennsylvania, Eichelberger was just the man to take point. Taking point included pushing the narrative that Pennsylvania’s schools were a terrible, failing mess. (It’s also worth noting that the DeVos push for vouchers included allies who were explicitly in favor of shutting down “government schools” entirely.)”

Recently, Eichelberger proposed an end to sick days for teachers. He thinks that they should get sick during their summer break. If they get sick during the school year, tough.

“Eichelberger also revealed that he would like to look at getting rid of some state universities, with Clarion and Cheney likely targets for “the chopping block.” Why does he think they are unnecessary? Because now we have lots of community colleges, and those should be good enough. Besides, enrollments down. When asked if he saw any correlation between lowered enrollment, slashed state support for the university system, and increased tuition to make up the difference, he said no, that didn’t look like a meaningful connection to him.

“Oh, but it gets even better,

“Eichelberger also took the occasion to complain about “inner city” education programs that were trying to get minority students into colleges where they just failed anyway, so let’s just put them in a nice vocational program instead and be done with it. Yes, that’s right. In 2017 an elected state senator is suggesting that there’s no point in trying to get black and brown kids to succeed in college, because you know how Those People are.”

Eichelberger must have majored in Neanderthal Studies.

He should be voted out of office. At the next election.

It is baffling that there is a sector of the Democratic Party that aligns with far-right Republicans on education issues. The Republicans want nothing more than to turn education into a free market, a strategy that has no evidence behind it.

Steven Singer bemoans the fact that a group of Democratic legislators in his state of Pennsylvania are supporting the Republican push against public schools.

He writes:

“Democrats are supposed to be liberals, progressives.

“That means upholding the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State.

“So why are so many Pennsylvania Democrats sponsoring an expansion of the state’s de facto school voucher bill?

“A total of 11 out of 84 sponsors of HB 250 are Democrats. The bill would expand the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC) programs.

“The Commonwealth already diverts $200 million of business taxes to private and parochial schools. That’s money that should be going to support our struggling public school system.

“The new bill would add $50 million to each program for a total of $100 million more flushed down the drain.

“Pennsylvania has a budget deficit. We’ve cut almost $1 billion a year from public schools. We can’t afford to burn an additional $300 million on private and church schools.

“We expect Republicans to support this regressive nonsense. Especially in gerrymandered Pennsylvania, they’ve gone further and further right to please their Tea Party base and avoid being primaried.

“But the few Democrats left in the House and Senate are likewise in districts that would never vote Republican. You’d expect them to get more and more progressive. Instead, even here we see them taking steps to the right!

“Democratic sponsors of the bill are almost exclusively from the state’s urban centers – Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.”

He lists the Democrats who support corporate giveaways.

Don’t vote for them.