Failing the Test: Searching for Accountability in Charter Schools
Failing the Test: Searching for Accountability in Charter Schools
The original concept of charter schools emerged nationally more than two decades ago and was intended to support community efforts to open up education. Albert Shanker, then president of the...
The original concept of charter schools emerged nationally more than two decades ago and was intended to support community efforts to open up education. Albert Shanker, then president of the American Federation of Teachers union, lauded the charter idea in 1988 as way to propel social mobility for working class kids and to give teachers more decision-making power.
“There was a sense from the start that they would develop models for the broader system,” John Rogers tells Capital & Main. Rogers, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles’ Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, is director of UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. He adds that charter schools were to be laboratories where parents and educators would work together to craft the best possible learning environment and to serve as engines of innovation and social equity.
But critics of today’s market-based charter movement say monied interests have turned those learning labs into models for capital capture in the Golden State and beyond–“the charter school gravy train,” as Forbes describes it. Charters are publicly funded but privately managed and, like most privately run businesses, the schools prefer to avoid transparency in their operations. This often has brought negative publicity to the schools – last month the Los Angeles Daily News reported that the principal of El Camino Real Charter High School charged more than $100,000 in expenses to his school-issued credit card, many of them for personal use.
See More Stories in Capital & Main’s Charter School Series
“Information belongs to the public,” says Daniel Losen, who conducts law and policy research on education equality issues. “To the extent that you think choice should benefit parents—good choices are made with good information.” Losen co-authored a March, 2016 report about charter schools’ disciplinary policies, produced by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.
Billions of taxpayer dollars have flowed into expanding America’s privately-run charter school system over the past two decades, including $3.3 billion in federal funds alone, reports an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy. California has the nation’s largest number of charter schools, with most of them located in Los Angeles County. But in an age when words like “accountability” and “transparency” dominate political discourse, the financial mechanics of charters receive less oversight and scrutiny than the average public school bake sale.
Charter schools were originally intended to support community efforts to open up education.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools candidly spells out the Golden State’s laissez faire rules of the game on its website: “California law provides that charter schools are automatically exempt from most laws governing school districts.”
The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) has explicitly opposed state legislation that would clearly define the existing transparency laws and codes for charter schools — standards charters can now avoid despite their use of public funds.
“Charters don’t have to disclose budgets,” says Jackie Goldberg, a long-time Los Angeles school teacher and former Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) board president, who also served in the California State Assembly. “Once a charter is written, it’s not subject to the Brown or the Public Records acts.”
The CCSA opposes several bills currently progressing through the state legislature that would bring charter school transparency requirements into line with those expected of public schools. One measure spells out the expectation that charters would follow the same standards as public schools when it comes to the Public Records Act that guarantees access to public records; CCSA argues that most charter schools already voluntarily comply—so the law is therefore unnecessary.
Below are several of areas of concern often cited by charter school critics.
Open Meetings
California public schools are required to follow the Ralph M. Brown Act that requires regular meetings with notices posted in advance, along with public testimony and the availability of agendas and minutes. Open meetings guarantee the right of local parents, teachers and taxpayers to participate in discussions about policy, funding, disciplinary standards—all the heated issues that arise in local schools or that go before school boards.
The finances of charter schools receive less oversight than the average public school bake sale.
But a group called the Charter Schools Development Center provides advice and wiggle room to attorneys representing charter schools on Brown Act requirements. Charters are frequently run by a nonprofit whose board members are chosen and named by previous board members. The CSDC’s Guide to the Brown Act pointedly raises the question of whether governing structures fit the profile of “local legislative bodies” required to comply with the Brown Act and recommends charter school boards “cover their bases” and follow at least the spirit, if not the precise requirements, of the Brown Act.
Disciplinary Protocols and “Counseling Out”
The California Education Code stipulates that a public school student undergoing the drastic disciplinary measure of expulsion is entitled to a due process hearing that includes district administrators and the principal, and allows the student and parents to present arguments and information.
That doesn’t apply to California charter schools, according to a 2013 state Court of Appeals ruling that holds charters can “dismiss” a student without due process. The ruling differentiates between expulsion and dismissal. Following a dismissal, a student is then sent back to the public school system. (The UCLA report that Daniel Losen co-authored found national suspension rates at charter schools were 16 percent higher than those of public schools.)
Charter schools depend on their reputations for teaching students who hit high test-score marks. The practice known as “counseling out” is used to winnow out difficult students, and extends beyond California—the New York Times has detailed incidents in a high-achieving charter school in Brooklyn.
Counseling out can happen for a variety of reasons, not just disciplinary. Jackie Goldberg says she personally witnessed a counseling out session at a South Los Angeles charter, where a student’s mother was simply told by a school staff member that her son was better off finding “a school that meets his needs.”
Public schools, on the other hand, cannot “counsel out” challenging students.
Conflicts of interest
Public school governments are required to follow California Government Code 1090, which states that officials can’t vote on issues or contracts wherein they have a vested interest. Charter decision-makers are not subject to the conflict-of-interest code.
Veteran educators and administrators interviewed by Capital & Main have expressed deep concern about the disparities between transparency requirements for public schools and publicly funded charter schools.
Most California charters are run by educational management organizations (EMOs), which are described by the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado as “private entities [that] may not be subject to the same financial or other document/records disclosure laws that apply to state-operated entities and public officials.”
Steve Zimmer, the current LAUSD school board president and a former high school teacher and counselor, has been critical of the lack of oversight of charter funding.
“You don’t have to go through a procurement process, you don’t have to follow labor standards,” he says. “This is playing out on a multiplicity of levels.”
Audits are not routinely required in the California charter system. It was only in 2006—some 14 years after California became the second state in the nation to pass legislation to create charter schools—that the state Charter Schools Act was amended to allow local school officials to request a state audit of a charter school’s financial transactions when they suspect something is amiss.
It took a state audit—triggered by a request from the Los Angeles County Office of Education—to uncover $2.6 million in payments that went to Kendra Okonkwo, the founder of Wisdom Academy for Young Scientists charter school, and to her close family members—with no oversight from the governing board of the nonprofit running the South Los Angeles school.
Another audit uncovered an Oakland charter school founder directing $3.8 million to companies he owned. American Indian Model Schools founder Ben Chavis is presently under IRS and FBI investigations related to his dealings with the school district.
More recently, a San Jose Mercury News investigation of California Virtual Academies, an online charter school chain run by the Virginia-based, publicly traded company K12 Inc., found that not even half of its enrollees graduated with a high school diploma and even fewer—almost none—were qualified to attend a California state university. The online chain, launched by former Goldman Sachs banker Ronald Packard, with seed money from Larry Ellison, cofounder of tech giant Oracle, and former junk bond purveyor Michael Milken, has collected more than $310 million in state funds over a dozen years. (An April 12 statement from K12 Inc. criticized the investigation as incomplete.)
A study commissioned by the Center for Popular Democracy calculates the lack of oversight has cost California $81 million.
Jason Mandell, Director of Advocacy Communications at the California Charter Schools Association, says that charter school opacity is changing. “There’s an increasingly thorough review process. If a charter school isn’t meeting standards, the charter can be shut down. When you know you’re going to be scrutinized and people are watching, you better perform. [Charters] have more autonomy in exchange for greater accountability.”
Last year, however, Governor Jerry Brown, himself a charter school founder, passed on a chance to tighten that accountability. He vetoed a bill approved by both houses of the legislature that would have made it explicit that schools should be subject to the Brown and Public Records acts.
David Tokofsky, a former member of the LAUSD Board of Education who has also worked for a charter school operator, cautions that the push for charter schools has been framed in terms of “education reform,” although the movement behind these schools, he says, is really one for deregulation of financial oversight and management.
“Deregulation was supposed to be about curriculum,” Tokofsky says, allowing teachers and parents more freedom to craft education and programs to fit the students. “It has become deregulation about every aspect of the school.”
“We know,” he adds, “when deregulated banks fail; we know when deregulated airplane doors fail. Do we know when deregulated schools are hurting your kids?”
By Bobbi Murray
Source
U.S. Department of Education Launches Crackdown on Ohio Charters
Charter Schools are defined by their freedom from regulation and oversight, but that freedom has been so regularly abused by unscrupulous operators that it seems the U.S. Department of Education...
Charter Schools are defined by their freedom from regulation and oversight, but that freedom has been so regularly abused by unscrupulous operators that it seems the U.S. Department of Education is finally deciding to crack down, under pressure in this case from Ohio’s U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown.
Three months ago, on June 20, 2016, Senator Brown wrote a letter to John King, now U.S. Secretary of Education, demanding increased oversight of a large grant—$71 million—the federal Department of Education made to Ohio on September 28, 2015 to expand charter schools. The grant application had been written by David Hansen, who, by September, had already been fired by the Ohio Department of Education for hiding the abysmal academic record of the state’s so-called “dropout recovery schools” and omitting their scores from a system he was creating as the Ohio Department prepared to begin holding charter schools more accountable. Hansen had also bragged in his federal grant application that Ohio had already begun more aggressively regulating charters. After the U.S. Department of Education awarded Ohio the $71 million grant at the end of September 2015, however, it was pointed out that the Ohio legislature had not yet passed the regulations for which Hansen (in July) had given the state credit. (The Ohio Legislature later adopted the most basic and minimal charter school oversight when it passed Ohio House Bill 2 on October 7, 2015).
When Ohio Senator Brown wrote to U.S. Secretary John King in June, 2016, the $71 million Ohio grant had been put on hold for months, as the U.S. Department of Education investigated Ohio’s dealings with charter schools. In his June 20 letter, Senator Brown wrote:
“In your November 2015 response letter to the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, you outlined a number of steps ED has taken and will continue to take to verify the accuracy and completeness of ODE’s grant application. I appreciate these steps, but more must be done to provide order to the state’s chaotic charter school sector. In light of this report, I ask that you examine the performance of Ohio charter schools who have received CSP (federal Charter Schools Program) grants to determine whether grant recipients are failing or closing at a higher rate than those in other states and how the academic performance of CSP grant recipients in Ohio compares to CSP grant recipients nationwide. I further ask that when Ohio has satisfied all necessary conditions for this grant money to be released that you appoint a special monitor to review every expenditure made pursuant to this grant in order to ensure that all funds are being spent for their intended purpose. Ohio’s current lack of oversight wastes taxpayer’s money and undermines the ostensible goal of charters: providing more high-quality educational opportunities for children. There exists a pattern of waste, fraud, and abuse that is far too common and requires extra scrutiny.”
Last Wednesday, September 14, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education finally released the $71 million grant, but, as Patrick O’Donnell reports for the Plain Dealer, there are now many conditions:
“In a letter to the Ohio Department of Education today, the grant was declared ‘high risk’ because of the poor academic performance of the state’s charters and the struggles the state has had in implementing portions of House Bill 2, the state’s charter reform bill passed last fall by the state legislature… The letter states: ‘As part of this high-risk designation, we are imposing certain High-Risk Special Conditions on ODE’s CSP (Charter Schools Program) SEA (State Education Agency) grant that will help ODE and the Department more clearly determine ODE’s ongoing compliance with applicable requirements’ so that it will be more transparent and so that any issues can be identified and fixed quickly.”
Here are the conditions as reported by O’Donnell:
“(T)he state cannot give out grants to schools as it has in the past. It must have prior approval from the U.S. Department of Education before transferring any money.
“The department must evaluate dropout recovery schools better.
“The state must report its progress four times each year.
“ODE must hire an independent monitor of the grant program.
“The state must create a Grant Implementation Advisory Committee.
“And it must do demanding ratings of the oversight agencies known as ‘sponsors’ in Ohio, but as ‘authorizers’ in most other states.”
Ohio’s problems with the controversial $71 million Charter Schools Program grant are not the first time anyone has noticed the federal Department of Education’s failure to oversee the Charter Schools Program. A year ago in June, 2015, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools—a coalition of national organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, Alliance for Educational Justice, Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, Center for Popular Democracy, Gamaliel, Journey for Justice Alliance, National Education Association, National Opportunity to Learn Campaign, and Service Employees International Union—sent a letter to then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan complaining that while the Department had granted $1.7 billion to states for expansion of charter schools since 2009, the Department of Education’s own Inspector General had been raising alarms about the Department’s own lack of any kind of quality control.
The Alliance’s letter to Arne Duncan cited formal audits from 2010 and 2012 in which the Department of Education’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG), “raised concerns about transparency and competency in the administration of the federal Charter Schools Program.” The OIG’s 2012 audit, the members of the Alliance explain, discovered that the Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, which administers the Charter Schools Program, and the State Education Agencies, which disburse the majority of the federal funds, are ill equipped to keep adequate records or put in place even minimal oversight. The State Education Agencies that lack capacity to manage the programs are the 50 state departments of education.
In the June 2015 letter to Arne Duncan, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools enumerates the problems discovered by the Department of Education’s own Office of Inspector General: that the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) did not maintain records of the charter schools funded through grants to states, that OII “lacked internal controls and adequate training in fiscal and program monitoring,” that none of the three states selected as samples for investigation by the Office of Inspector General—Arizona, California, and Florida—sufficiently monitored the charter schools funded through the Department of Education’s State Education Agency grants, that 26 charter schools in these three states were shown by the Office of Inspector General to have closed after being awarded $7 million, and that even when the schools closed, nobody tracked “what happened to assets that had been purchased with federal funds.”
Thank you, Senator Sherrod Brown for doggedly demanding that the U.S. Department of Education improve oversight of the federal Charter Schools Program. Please keep on keeping on.
By Jan Resseger
Source
Bill to offer state citizenship for undocumented immigrants
NY Daily News - June 16, 2014, by Erin Durkin - Undocumented immigrants in New York could become “state citizens” with a slew of benefits from driver’s licenses under a new bill to be introduced...
NY Daily News - June 16, 2014, by Erin Durkin - Undocumented immigrants in New York could become “state citizens” with a slew of benefits from driver’s licenses under a new bill to be introduced Monday.
Advocates are set to announce a bill that would allow immigrants who aren’t U.S. citizens to become New York state citizens if they can prove they’ve lived and paid taxes in the state for three years and pledge to uphold New York laws, regardless of whether they’re in the country legally.
“The path to achieving opportunity and equity and dignity for immigrants through Washington seems blocked by Washington’s general dysfunction,” said Andrew Friedman, executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy and a founder of Make the Road New York. “States should push for full equality and inclusion.”
The bill will face long odds in Albany, where even more modest immigration reforms have failed to get through the legislature.
The bill would apply to about 2.7 million New Yorkers who lack citizenship, including those in the country legally and illegally.
People who secured state citizenship under the bill would be able to vote in state and local elections, and run for state office.
They could get a driver’s license, a professional license issued by the state, and Medicaid and other benefits controlled by the state.
Immigrants would also be eligible for in-state tuition and financial aid, and would be protected from discrimination based on their status. And the bill would sharply limit state authorities’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The legislation would not grant legal authorization to work or change any other regulations governed by federal law.
It’s destined to be a longshot in Albany, where the DREAM Act, which would help undocumented students afford college, and efforts to offer driver’s licenses have failed so far.
But backers say it will prompt similar efforts in other states, similar to how states led the way on gay marriage, with talks on bills already underway in Illinois, Oregon, and Maryland.
“Obviously this is not something that’s going to pass immediately, but nothing as broad as this or as bold as this passes immediately,” said Sen. Gustavo Rivera (D-Bronx), the sponsor in the Senate.
The bill is estimated to cost taxpayers $106 to 173 million a year, while generating $145 million in new economic activity and saving drivers $100 million in insurance premiums, advocates say.
Source'I was demanding a connection': Ana Maria Archila reflects on confronting Jeff Flake
'I was demanding a connection': Ana Maria Archila reflects on confronting Jeff Flake
Ana Maria Archila had never told her father that she was sexually abused as a child.
But after she confronted a U.S. senator about President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the video...
Ana Maria Archila had never told her father that she was sexually abused as a child.
But after she confronted a U.S. senator about President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the video started going viral, she thought it was time to share her story.
“I always carried the fear that my parents would feel that they had failed in taking care of me if I told them,” Archila said Friday night in a phone interview with The Washington Post.
Read the full article here.
First meeting of Trump’s voting commission makes clear that suppression is the goal
First meeting of Trump’s voting commission makes clear that suppression is the goal
Vice President Mike Pence claimed during the first meeting on Wednesday of the White House’s Commission on Election Integrity that the group will go about its work with “no preconceived notions.”...
Vice President Mike Pence claimed during the first meeting on Wednesday of the White House’s Commission on Election Integrity that the group will go about its work with “no preconceived notions.” Just minutes later, commissioners took turns insisting there is mass fraud across the country that could influence elections.
Kansas Secretary of State and commission co-chair Kris Kobach claimed in his introduction that as many as 18,000 non-citizens could be registered to vote in Kansas, without mentioning the shady math and questionable studieshe used to arrive at that number. The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky insisted that massive fraud is occurring across the country. And even New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Garder, a Democratic commissioner, argued against making voting easier, saying it doesn’t require a massive amount of fraud to influence elections.
Read the full article here.
City to help immigrants seeking deportation reprieves
New York Times - July 17, 2013, by Kirk Semple - New York City plans to spend $18 million over the next two years to help young unauthorized immigrants qualify for a federal program that grants a...
New York Times - July 17, 2013, by Kirk Semple - New York City plans to spend $18 million over the next two years to help young unauthorized immigrants qualify for a federal program that grants a temporary reprieve from deportation, officials announced on Wednesday.
The money will add 16,000 seats to adult education classes throughout the city, and priority for those slots will be given to immigrants who might qualify for the reprieve.
While more than 20,500 immigrants in New York State have already been granted the reprieve, known as deferred action, city officials have estimated that about 16,000 others in New York City alone would satisfy all the conditions save for the requirement that they have a high school diploma or General Educational Development certificate, or be currently enrolled in school.
The project — the largest investment made by any municipality in the nation to help immigrants obtain the deferral, city officials said — is one of two new immigrant-assistance initiatives that will receive significant injections of public money in the current fiscal year, which began July 1.
The other budget allocation, which the city plans to announce formally on Friday, will pay for a pilot program that will create what immigrants’ advocates say will be the nation’s first public defender system for immigrants facing deportation.
Together, the two programs further cement New York’s reputation as one of the most immigrant-friendly cities in the nation. They also come at a time when a push for comprehensive immigration reform that would include a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants has met stiff resistance among Republicans in the House of Representatives.
In a news conference in City Hall on Wednesday, Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, seemed to allude to sclerotic politics on Capitol Hill, saying the Council’s budget decisions send a message to the rest of the nation “that local government can take action while we wait for comprehensive immigration reform.”
The federal deportation reprieve was announced by the Obama administration in June 2012. To qualify, an applicant must have arrived in the United States before reaching his or her 16th birthday and been younger than 31 as of June 15, 2012, among other requirements. Recipients of the reprieve, which is subject to renewal after two years, are legally allowed to work and, in many states, obtain a driver’s license.
More than 400,500 people across the nation have been granted the deferral; for many others, the educational requirement has been a major hurdle.
For years, adult education programs in the city have been swamped by huge demand yet been hamstrung by financial shortfalls.
Of the $18 million allocation, $13.7 million will be provided to community-based organizations through the Youth and Community Development Department and used for outreach and the increase in seats. The remaining $4.3 million will help expand related education programs offered through the City University of New York, like English for Speakers of Other Languages and General Educational Development.
In recent days, immigrants’ advocates have also been celebrating the City Council’s decision to help pay for another initiative: the allocation of $500,000 in its current budget for a network of legal service providers to represent immigrants facing deportation.
Defendants in immigration court, unlike those in criminal court, have no constitutional right to a court-appointed lawyer. Hampered by language barriers, lack of money or ignorance, most end up trying to fight their deportation alone — almost always with poor outcomes.
According to a recent study, 60 percent of detained immigrants in the New York region did not have counsel at the time their cases were completed. Of those without counsel, only 3 percent won their cases, compared with 18 percent of those with counsel.
Proponents of the program, called the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, said it would cost about $8.7 million to provide legal representation for the 2,800 or so immigrants living in New York State who are detained and face deportation every year. The city allocation, however, will help cover the cost of a pilot program to represent just 135 immigrants. Advocates said that despite its limited reach, the pilot program would give them a chance to test their theories and demonstrate the potential impact of a broader plan.
The program will not only help keep families together, argued Andrew Friedman, executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, an advocacy group that helped to lobby for the financing, but will also create “an innovative model program” for other municipalities to replicate.
Source
Over 100 Progressive Local Elected Officials Gather in Los Angeles
Over 100 Progressive Local Elected Officials Gather in Los Angeles
(LOS ANGELES – Oct. 26) More than 100 progressive elected officials from across the United States are gathering in Los Angeles today through Wednesday for a three-day convention to...
(LOS ANGELES – Oct. 26) More than 100 progressive elected officials from across the United States are gathering in Los Angeles today through Wednesday for a three-day convention to discuss key planks of the progressive agenda like workers’ rights, racial justice, and public education.
Council members, school board members, and mayors flew in from around the country for the Fourth Annual Convening of Local Progress, the network of progressive elected officials. Los Angeles First Lady Amy Elaine Wakeland opened the convening, which Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is co-hosting with Local Progress, with a welcome address.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a member of the network, sent a video message to the attendees encouraging them to continue their good work fighting for progressive policy that improves the lives of their cities’ residents.
Elected officials will join the nation’s leading policy experts, organizers, and advocates to learn about and share best practices on a range of policy areas including police reform, the fight for $15, and equitable development and affordable housing. The full agenda is here.
Sarah Johnson, Co-Director of Local Progress, released the following statement: “Today, cities are the great hope for the progressive movement. In order to achieve transformative victories at the local level, we need elected officials who are integrated into our movement, strategizing and working with the organizations who are fighting for a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda. Local Progress is building spaces for creating those collaborations and relationships, and for driving trans-local victories. By collaborating across cities – like we’ve done on paid sick days and the minimum wage – we can transform the national dialogue and build towards a country in which everybody is able to live a dignified life.”
San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos, Chair of the Board of Directors of Local Progress, released the following statement: “Across the country, the elected official members of Local Progress are passing crucial legislation to create a more just and equitable society. From $15 minimum wages to fighting climate change to laws reforming police practices, from programs to create affordable housing to policies that protect immigrant families from the destructive force of deportation, cities are leading the way forward. Our convening this week was a special opportunity to bring together these leaders from around the country to share best practices, build solidarity with one another, and plan for the important fights ahead in 2016.”
Mary Kay Henry, President of the Service Employees International Union, released the following statement: “SEIU’s members recognize the need to build a broad progressive movement for social justice. We are fighting to build a country where every family is able to give their children a dignified life. SEIU members across the country are proud to partner with their local elected officials to advance crucial public policies that promote economic and racial justice. We helped found Local Progress because we know that our movement needs sustainable, long-term infrastructure so that cities can innovate important policies that lift up working families and, like the Fight for $15 campaign led by courageous fast food workers, change the national political dialogue. We are excited by the growth of the network and eager to build, hand-in-hand with community-based organizations and elected officials, for our movement’s collective long-term success.”
Tefere Gebre, Executive Vice President of the AFL-CIO, released the following statement: “If we are going to raise wages in America, we need cities to lead the way. Local elected officials must stand side-by-side with the workers who are fighting for dignity on the job. The AFL-CIO and our affiliates are proud to partner with local elected officials from around the country who are advancing a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda. Together, we know that we can build a society where everybody who wants to can find a living wage job, and where families can raise their children in economic security and dignity.“
For interview opportunities with Sarah Johnson, John Avalos, Mary Kay Henry, or Tefere Gebre, or any of the elected officials attending the Local Progress convening, please contact Anita Jain at ajain@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761 or Sofie Tholl at stholl@populardemocracy.org, 646-509-5558.
###
www.populardemocracy.org
The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
Statement on McDonald’s Pay Increase
For Immediate Release: April 1, 2015
Contact: Ricardo A. Ramírez, rramirez@populardemocracy.org, 202-905-1738
Statement on...
For Immediate Release: April 1, 2015 Contact: Ricardo A. Ramírez, rramirez@populardemocracy.org, 202-905-1738
Statement on McDonald’s Pay Increase
Ana María Archila, Co-executive Director of the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) released the following statement after McDonald’s announced a pay increase for some of its workers:
“McDonald’s move on salary is a testament to the power of organized workers at the grassroots level: When workers come together to denounce injustice, change happens. But this is not nearly enough – not by a longshot. With the new wages set to average only $9.90 and limited to company-owned stores, and only five days of paid leave, the change is small in both heft and scope.
“While we congratulate workers for moving the ball forward, at the Center for Popular Democracy we pledge to continue the vigorous fight alongside fast food workers for a $15 minimum wage and a fair workweek that gives them a chance at a balanced and dignified life.”
###
Why Texans Are Fighting Anti-Immigrant Legislation
Austin, Tex. — I’m a member of the Austin City Council, and this month Texas State Troopers arrested me for refusing to leave Gov. Greg Abbott’s office during a protest against the anti-immigrant...
Austin, Tex. — I’m a member of the Austin City Council, and this month Texas State Troopers arrested me for refusing to leave Gov. Greg Abbott’s office during a protest against the anti-immigrant Senate Bill 4.
The bill, which Mr. Abbott signed May 6, represents the most dangerous type of legislative threat facing immigrants in our country. It has been called a “show me your papers” bill because it allows police officers — including those on college campuses — to question the immigration status of anyone they arrest, or even simply detain, including during traffic stops.
Read the full article here.
Charter School Issues Discussed
WBGZ Radio - February 1, 2015, by Dave Dahl - Charter schools in Illinois are in the cross hairs of a new report alleging a lack of accountability leading to between $13 million and $27 million in...
WBGZ Radio - February 1, 2015, by Dave Dahl - Charter schools in Illinois are in the cross hairs of a new report alleging a lack of accountability leading to between $13 million and $27 million in fraud.
“At a time when (Chicago Public Schools are) crying broke, and public schools are grossly under-resourced, and there’s a public demand for transparency and accountability around every corner,” says Action Now executive director Katelyn Johnson, “it seems unconscionable that CPS and the state of Illinois would not invest in rigid financial oversight of charter schools.”
Johnson’s group is supporting the Center for Popular Democracy in the report, “Risking Public Money.”
Andrew Broy has a differing viewpoint. He’s the president of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools and dismisses the other two groups as union-funded and anti-charter to begin with.
“The question” about accountability, he says, “is if there are challenges with an internal governing board, how do we uncover that and make sure it’s taken care of, and the current law equips districts with all the tools they need to make sure that happens.”
Source
1 day ago
1 day ago