CPD IN THE NEWS

Weekly Press - December 17, 2014, by Nicole Contosta - Charter Schools have become a divisive issue in Philadelphia. Supporters swear to their effectiveness. Critics argue that they lack accountability.

Both sides of the charter school debate were heard last Tuesday, December 9th. That’s when the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), hosted the Philly Charter School Forum: Who’s Minding the Store?

Panelists included Feather Houstoun from the Philadelphia School Reform Commission (SRC); Jurate Krokys, founding principal of the Independence Charter School, Kyle Serette of the Center for Popular Democracy and author of Fraud and Financial Mismanagement in PA’s Charter Schools; and Barbara Dowdall, retired public school teacher and former ADA board member.

Solomon Leach, Philadelphia Daily News Education Reporter, moderated. Leach began the evening’s discourse by asking Houstoun to comment on the evolution of charter schools in Philadelphia.

Houstoun, who spent most of her career in managing care, transit and welfare problems, cited her experience with "good oversight." But when Houstoun joined the SRC three and half years ago, "I was really surprised […] about the incredibly precarious situation the school district was in. Now," Houstoun continued, "we’re living within our means, but we’re horrifically under-resourced."

And with regard to charter schools, Houstoun said, "I was really dumbfounded by how badly over the course of time the [Philadelphia School] District had organized itself to assure that we were getting good value for children in charter schools."

To Houstoun, getting good value for the city’s children proves relevant given the fact that "40 percent of our children are being educated at charter schools that are separate from the district apparatus."

But, Houstoun continued, "We must accept responsibility for these things." And in Houstoun’s opinion, part of the problem resulted from the fact that "the District did not set up standards for academic performances. There were no systematic annual check-ups about what they were doing in terms of finance, corporate or academic measures."

Houstoun cited the fact that the SRC only renews charter schools on a five-year basis as contributing to the lack of oversight. However, at the same time, Houstoun expressed optimism when it comes to moving forward with the city’s charter schools. Over the past year, the SRC performed an overhaul of the charter school office, placing Julian Thompson at the helm. "We’re operating within charter school law that gives us the obligation to monitor and review charter schools," Houstoun emphasized.

From the charter school perspective, Krokys said that she hasn’t always had the best experience working with the SRC.

"I’ve been in the charter world for about 14 years," Krokys said, "In the past and sometimes the not so recent past—what it was—the relationship and the process of authorization and renewal were secret, haphazard, and hostile. And I’m not exaggerating. It was always up for grabs."

In answering Leach’s question about what she’s learned from really effective charter schools, Krokys said, "Community partners and stakeholders are one of the things that can be done with all schools—but it’s especially important for charter schools. Site admission selection for parents and staff—there’s nothing like feeling that you have chosen something and were not defaulted to it," Krokys stressed. "That makes a big difference in partnership.

The same thing," Krokys continued, "goes for staff. The staff is not assigned; they’re not grazing until they get their retirement. Staff is selected to work in a specific school."

Serette discussed the history and evolution of charter schools. That began on March 31, 1988. "That’s when our chamber got in front of the press club in DC and announced a new type of school, something that would help figure out the most complicated problems in our education system. And it was the charter school."

As Serette explained it, the charter school concept was designed as a "calculated risk to figure out if we could figure out something that could then be exported into the public system. And," Serette continued, "This makes sense because you don’t want to take a calculated risk and export it into the whole system. I think we forgot that lesson as we were expanding throughout the nation.

We have a situation where we have the largest charter school system in the country-K12 Inc.," Serette continued, "It’s fully funded by public dollars but it’s traded on the stock exchange. The goal of being on the exchange is to make money. So we have slightly diverged from the original mission of charters."

With regard to the effectiveness of charter schools, "they have had a meaningful impact," Serette said, adding, "They have taught us some really smart things to figure out and export to our system. The first charter school started in 1992. And now we have 43 states with charter school laws."

But, Serette noted, citing an investigation of 15 states, his office found, "about 136 million in charter school funding that was abused, that was used for fraud. To us, that was an alarming number."

In PA, Serette explained that he didn’t think the state government "did a great job of regulating the system. So we have here, two auditors looking after a system that has revenue of 700 million, auditing 86 charter schools.

Dowdall, in answering Leach’s question about academic accountability for charter schools said, "Rather than start with the charter school in the quest of academic accountability, we might journey back to the government entities that established, regulates and monitors them namely the PA State Legislature the Governor of PA, the State Department of Education and the SRC.

While the public schools whose assumed inadequacies sparked the takeover," Dowdall continued, "they were more or less placed in a giant petri dish; we more or less organized a dizzying away of name changes, administrative changes, etc. Test prep came to rule and push out libraries, librarians, music, art and other extra curricular activities. Funding cuts led to the disappearance of nurses, counselors, teaching assistants, custodial help and the financial oversight provided by operations personnel.

Twenty three neighborhood schools," Dowdall continued, "were shuttered. And 40 new charters are supposed to open. Since the SRC has the authority to approve schools," Dowdall said, "maybe they should do so based on the actual needs of the district rather than the whims and desires in some highly funded charters."

As the discussion continued, Leach asked Houstoun "how has the introduction [of reversing] no-charter re-imbursement in PA influence the SRC assessment when it comes to renewing charters?"

Leach’s question references the fact that Government Corbett eliminated the $100 million for charter school re-imbursement to the Philadelphia School District in 2011.

Houston cited the cancellation of the re-imbursement as painful. "For every child that’s added to charter school system, we can’t take off $10,000 for expenses. If," Houstoun explained, "we can restore the charter re-imbursement that was in place, it would alleviate the first level of pain that we’re suffering in the district right now."

Leach asked Krokys to comment on how to rectify the public perception of charter schools when taking into account those that are underperforming or fraudulent.

Krokys began her answering by stressing, "There are thousands and thousands of children who would not have had one chance in their neighborhood school. And a lot of them came through my doors and are now graduating from college."

When it comes to addressing inadequacies in Philadelphia charter schools, Krokys said, "It took a while for the charter school community to finally say, ‘yes. There are some charters that need be closed.’ Yes," Krokys said, "we are weary of the few bad apples because that’s what ends up in the papers. And that’s what ends up tainting everything else."

With regard to K12 Inc., "Who the hell gave permission for a for-profit to run a charter school?" Krokys asked. "Whose fault was that?"

To Serette, Leach asked, "One of the original aims of charter schools was to be a model for public schools. But that got lost in the shuffle over time. How do you think we can go back so that public schools can benefit from the successful roles of charters?"

According to Serette, "The narrative in the US is that the public school system is broken, right? And you can’t just get a good education so you have to be saved by a lot of other systems. But the truth is," Serette continued. "We have a good public school system in upper class and upper middle class neighborhoods. Those tend to be wonderful. And then you have the struggling sectors where people can’t make ends meet and we’re trying to figure that out."

Leach then asked Dowdall how charter and public schools could reach a middle ground.

To Dowdall, "It’s about equity. It’s about resources. Whether it’s traditional or charter, it can be defined. It’s about small classes with libraries where the students can be guided."

And in Dowdall’s opinion, "There needs to be an agreement between those on the board that authorization renewal for charter schools should be set at three years as opposed to five."

For more information on the ADA, visit Youth http://www.phillyada.org.

Source

Our economy has long been out of balance. Workers' efforts across the country create wealth, but the profits don't get to the working people who produce them. Correcting that so that workers are paid enough to sustain their families and make ends meet, is not easy. It requires changing rules that unfairly favor the rich and are written by politicians beholden to the wealthy. That's why the recent move by Los Angeles to raise the minimum wage to $15 is so meaningful. 

Conceived and fought for by workers and grassroots organizations, the $15 minimum wage is a people-powered victory that will improve the lives of Angelenos for generations. More importantly, this victory signals an irreversible change in the broader fight for a decent wage in cities around the country. It inspires hope that we can finally make work pay enough to live on. 

The brave families that fought for change include people like Sandra Arzu, a single mother who works for Health Care Agency at $9 per hour - barely enough to survive in Los Angeles. It is people like Sandra and their families who power the country's second-largest city.

Just like Sandra, other mothers, brothers, sales representatives and servers around the country deserve the opportunity to sustain their families. Everyone who works hard should be able to make ends meet.

We came together in Los Angeles for our families, but also to join something bigger than us. We saw what was done in other cities - San Francisco, Chicago and Seattle have all raised their minimum wage recently - and we picked up on that momentum.

Through organizing and hard work, our communities stood together and demanded change. Organizations like Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, the Center for Popular Democracy, and our partners and allies brought workers to the forefront and helped make history.

The result speaks for itself: an increase in the minimum wage in yearly increments, reaching $15 by 2020 for large employers. Businesses with 25 or fewer employees will have more time, until 2021. A recent study with comparable figures shows that almost 800,000 people stand to benefit. That's more than 40 percent of LA's workforce. And there will be further increases to the minimum wage with rising consumer prices, meaning that minimum wage workers won't fall further behind. It's not hyperbole; this is a victory for generations of Angelenos to come.

In New York, there is a vibrant Fight for $15 movement that has already led to Gov. Andrew Cuomo taking initial steps in favor of an increase in wages for tipped workers. Organizers in Oregon and Washington, DC are gearing up to make minimum wage fights a big part of their agendas next year. Other cities looking at increases include Portland, Maine, Olympia; Tacoma, Washington; and Sacramento and Davis, California.

Here is some of what this could mean across the country. No one will get rich off a $15 minimum wage; it adds up to just over $31,000 per year for a full-time worker. But there will be enormous benefit for local economies and household budgets. Poverty will be reduced.

According to the National Employment Law Project, a full 42 percent of U.S. workers make less than $15 per hour. People of color are overrepresented in jobs paying less than $15 an hour, and female workers make up 54.7 percent of those making less than $15 per hour, even though they make up less than half of the overall U.S. workforce. African-American workers make up about are about 12 percent of the total workforce, but they account for 15 percent of the sub-$15-wage workforce. Latinos constitute 16.5 percent of the workforce, but account for almost 23 percent of workers making less than $15 per hour. Inequality is never acceptable, and a $15 minimum wage would mean enormous progress in fighting it.

Ultimately, the fight in LA and around the country is about determining what kind of country we want to live in. In LA, we did it, and we continue the fight across the country until everyone who works can make ends meet and have a say in their future. The future for the fight for $15, our households and children looks a little brighter thanks to the victory here. We can't wait to see what our friends in other cities will do to take this fight further.

Source: Truthout

LA Weekly - September 18, 2014, by Dennis Romero - Most Californians are on-board with federal legislation that would create a path to citizenship for the undocumented.

Maybe we're just being selfish. It turns out that naturalization, the process of going from immigrant to citizen, puts cash in our pockets, concludes a new report from the Center for Popular Democracy, the National Partnership for New Americans, and the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration at USC Dornsife.

If we naturalized folks who are eligible but who are dragging their feet, L.A. would see as much as a $3.3 billion economic impact and as much as $320 million in additional tax revenues over a 10-year span, the report's authors say. Holy frijole.

The researchers say that naturalization makes immigrants eligible to get better jobs and better pay, which in turn helps them spend more money in their communities: "These increased earnings will lead to additional economic activity," the report says.

L.A. immigrants can earn as much as an extra $3,659 a year, more than in New York or Chicago, by starting the citizenship process, the academics say in the paper:

Clearly, naturalization benefits immigrants: it provides full civil and political rights, protects against deportation, eases travel abroad, and provides full access to government jobs and assistance.

While opponents of a pathway to citizenship often paint south-of-the-border immigrants as a burden on taxpayer resources, the paper argues that folks who fully legalize their allegiance to the United States actually contribute to our tax base.

Of course, what they're talking about is "increased naturalization" "over the status quo," according to the report. It's all about potential.

Getting immigrants to naturalize would require some heavy lifting, though.

One barrier to naturalization is the cost, the authors say, which has risen from  $225 in 2000 to $680 in 2008. The cheaper U.S. Green Card ($450) "sets up an incentive to continue to defer naturalization," the study says.

The authors say more encouragement in cities like L.A. could go a long way toward seeing more folks naturalize. This week City Hall joined an effort, "Cities for Citizenship," to do just that. 

Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy:

Cutting through the administrative and financial red tape of the naturalization process is an outgrowth of that leadership and will benefit millions of American families who have been excluded from the privileges of citizenship. We ask both city leadership and the immigrant community to join us in this initiative.

Source

Christine Knapp had been on maternity leave for nearly three months, but on Wednesday the director of the mayor’s Office of Sustainability hoisted a diaper bag on her shoulder, packed her 11-week-old daughter, Sabine, into a stroller, maneuvered into a creaky elevator in City Hall, and rode up to the mayor’s reception room. This was just too important to miss.

Read the full article here.