Campaign News

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

New York Daily News - June 27, 2013, by Tina Moore & Erin Durkin - The City Council overrode Mayor Bloomberg’s veto Thursday and made New York the largest city in the country to require paid sick leave for workers.

The council also approved the city's new $70 billion budget, held Madison Square Garden at a 10-year operating permit and abolished a ban on brunch before noon at outdoor cafes.

The veto override came after a protracted battle over the paid sick-leave legislation that was first proposed in 2009.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn brought the bill to the floor for a vote in May under intense pressure from political opponents and labor unions. Bloomberg then vetoed the measure, saying it would damage businesses.

The legislation forces tens of thousands of city businesses with at least 20 employees to offer five paid sick days a year beginning in April 2014.

The following year, the mandate would extend to businesses with at least 15 workers.

One million workers eventually will be covered by the bill, which also prevents companies from firing employees for taking unpaid sick days.

Before the vote, bill sponsor Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan) led a rally on City Hall’s steps in support of the override, boasting that “nobody will be fired if they are ill."

Union Local 32BJ President Hector Figueroa said New York started a movement that would sweep across the country.

“We are going to take this legislation now to other states and other cities,” he said. “People don’t need to be worried anymore about losing their job because they have to take care of a loved one.”

The $70 billion budget passed by the Council does not include tax increases and provides $58 million for the New York City Housing Authority to avoid most of 500 threatened layoffs.

The plan also saves 20 fire companies that Bloomberg’s budget had proposed shutting, keeps city pools open and restores $144 million for thousands of child care and after-school seats that were at risk.

The Council also voted to give Madison Square Garden a 10-year permit to continue operating at its current location over Pennsylvania Station.

The Garden had requested permission to operate at the site in perpetuity. Last month, the city planning commission approved a 15-year extension.

But Quinn said finding a new home for the arena was the only way to build a new Penn Station and called for a commission to find a new location in Manhattan. A representative for the Garden declined to comment.

The council also voted to abolish a law that prevented cafes from serving brunch outdoors before noon, changing the start time to the a.m.

The old restriction was “silly and it’s outdated and deserves to be changed,” Councilman Dan Garodnick (D-Manhattan) said. “We have found that that rule is not really serving anybody. It is a burden on small business and it is an obstacle to the many brunch loving New Yorkers out there.”

Source

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is taking its time picking a new president, leaving the position vacant for more than four months and leaving the institution without a strong public voice at a time of intense debate over when the central bank should start raising interest rates.

Former president Richard Fisher stepped down March 19, leaving the bank’s first vice president Helen Holcomb to serve as interim president. His exit was long anticipated: he faced mandatory retirement due to his age. The bank formally announced Mr. Fisher’s impending exit in November. Executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles was tapped to find a successor.

Other regional Fed banks, in contrast, have filled their top vacancies more briskly in recent years. For instance, Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser retired March 1 and his replacement, Patrick Harker, was announced the next day.

The duration of the Dallas vacancy has surprised many central bank watchers. Some of them say the bank’s board of directors appears to want a clone of Mr. Fisher—a strong voice on major issues with deep ties to the Lone Star state.

“It’s beyond bizarre” a new president hasn’t been named yet, said Danielle DiMartino Booth, who served as a close adviser to Mr. Fisher when they were both at the bank. Ms. Booth, who left the Dallas Fed in June and is now a strategist with the Liscio Report, said what the bank appears to want is a rare commodity.

“Richard Fisher rose to the status of being a deity in Texas,” Ms. Booth said. “People associate the success of the state” with him, and it is “very difficult” to find a new leader who can maintain that sort of profile, she said.

The Dallas Fed responded to questions about the search process by producing a description of what the bank seeks in a new leader. It said candidates should have “recognized stature” in economics and finance and preferably hold a Ph.D. The “ideal candidate will exhibit a strong combination of economic/market/policy expertise, integrity (and willingness to satisfy financial interest and disclosure requirements), leadership, communication skills, interpersonal skills, and community involvement,” it said.

Before joining the Dallas Fed, Mr. Fisher was a wealthy hedge-fund operator and diplomat. He was known for a brash public style as president. He made his case against the Fed’s easy money policies in speeches invoking high and pop culture, warning repeatedly about frothy financial markets and arguing in vain for higher interest rates.

His predecessor Robert McTeer, operating under the nickname of the “Lonesome Dove,” was known for opposing rate rises—sometimes via haiku.

The Dallas Fed has “a tradition of having an outspoken leader,” said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of American Merrill Lynch.

Those with knowledge of the process say the Dallas Fed is seeking a replacement who will carry on that tradition.

Heidrick & Struggles didn’t respond to questions about the search process.

The Dallas Fed president is chosen by the bank’s board of directors, subject to approval by the Federal Reserve’s Washington-based board of governors. The Dallas board members drawn from the financial industry are prohibited by law from participating in the search. The other Dallas board members who are involved declined to comment.

In recent years, regional Fed bank presidents have tended to be insiders. For example, San Francisco Fed President John Williams was previously the bank’s research director. Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester was previously research director at the Philadelphia Fed. Mr. Harker served on the Philadelphia Fed’s board before taking the top job. Now, only current Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart had no formal connection to the central bank before joining. Mr. Fisher was the rare bird who came in cold.

“Recent history has shown that the regional banks conduct a thorough and broad review of candidates that almost exclusively ends with the insider being selected,” said Aaron Klein, director of the financial regulatory reform initiative with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Mr. Harris said central bank insiders, shaped by a Fed culture that often rewards a gray public persona, tend to lack the dramatic flair of the past two Dallas Fed chiefs.

Some critics from labor unions and local community groups say they are disappointed by the lack of openness surrounding the selection process given that the regional Fed bank presidents are government officials who participate in important central bank policy decisions.

“We are very disappointed in what we’ve run into” trying to have a voice in the process, said Mark York, secretary-treasurer of the Dallas AFL-CIO. He said a letter from the union and other local groups asked for names under consideration to be made public in a bid to allow the public to weigh in, among other requests.

That said, not all think the bright light of transparency is a cure all. Lou Crandall, chief economist for Wrightson ICAP, said wanting to know more about the process is a “fair point.” But he warned “you don’t want a lot of public jockeying over this.”

Source: The Wall Street Journal

The state government provides New Yorkers with a multitude of services and benefits necessary for their survival and success: nutritional supports, health benefits, unemployment insurance and driver’s licenses, to name but a few. In order for these services to be equally accessible to all of the diverse residents of the state, it is essential that government agencies be linguistically accessible, providing interpretation and translation services for the over 2 million individuals in New York State who are limited English proficient (LEP). This report assesses the state of language access in New York, particularly access to state benefits that are critically important to low-income New Yorkers, such as public benefits, unemployment, police protection, etc. It examines the degree to which government agencies that administer state benefits programs and services are providing LEP New Yorkers with language assistance services required under a patchwork of federal, state and county-level policies. 

Read the full report here.

The state government provides New Yorkers with a multitude of services and benefits necessary for their survival and success: nutritional supports, health benefits, unemployment insurance and driver’s licenses, to name but a few. In order for these services to be equally accessible to all of the diverse residents of the state, it is essential that government agencies be linguistically accessible, providing interpretation and translation services for the over 2 million individuals in New York State who are limited English proficient (LEP). This report assesses the state of language access in New York, particularly access to state benefits that are critically important to low-income New Yorkers, such as public benefits, unemployment, police protection, etc. It examines the degree to which government agencies that administer state benefits programs and services are providing LEP New Yorkers with language assistance services required under a patchwork of federal, state and county-level policies.

This report is the outgrowth of years of advocacy and months of research and analysis conducted by Make the Road NY (MRNY), the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and three additional partner organizations across the state: the Center for the Elimination of Health Disparities (CEMHD) at SUNY Albany, Multicultural Association of Medical Interpreters (MAMI) in Central New York and the International Institute of Buffalo.

This study also grows from the experiences of the thousands of LEP New Yorkers with whom CPD, MRNY and our partners have worked in recent years.  Their consistent reports concerning the barriers created by the lack of competent, consistent interpretation and translation have informed this research, and their continuing efforts to overcome and eliminate these obstacles have inspired this work.  In recent years, CPD, MRNY and other members of the broader New York State Language Access Coalition have advocated for policy changes that guarantee language assistance for LEP New Yorkers in private and public settings.  At the local level, the Language Access Coalition has successfully advocated for Executive Order 120 in New York City and Executive Order 10 in Suffolk County, which require local agencies to provide language assistance services to the LEP community members they serve.

In 2011, these efforts culminated with Governor Cuomo signing Executive Order 26, a statewide order which requires all state agencies with direct public contact to translate vital documents into the top six languages spoken by LEP individuals in New York State, provide interpretation services for all New Yorkers in their primary language, develop a language access plan and designate a language access coordinator.

With Executive Order 26, the Cuomo administration not only took a tremendously important step towards guaranteeing access to government services for LEP New Yorkers, it also demonstrated national leadership on this issue.  New York State’s language access policy is the first of its kind.  And at a time when other states across the nation were implementing regressive, anti-immigrant measures, New York demonstrated a better way forward.  The administration’s commitment to language access, demonstrated by its consistent engagement with advocates in the years preceding the issuance of the Executive Order and in the months since its enactment, stands as a compelling example of how public policy can support the immigrant communities that have been powerful drivers of local economies across the state and strengthen New York as a whole.

However, the ultimate measure of the success of government and advocacy efforts is whether all LEP New Yorkers who interact with government agencies are provided with the interpretation and translation services to which they are entitled.   Our findings, outlined below, suggest that this is not the case and that there is still much to be done to ensure that such New Yorkers receive competent, consistent language assistance services. In particular, during the course of our research, we have learned that many state benefits programs and services are administered by county- or locally-run entities that may not fall within the ambit of the Governor’s Executive Order 26, and may not be in jurisdictions with a county or local executive order. Access to language services and, thus, to the essential public services and benefits to which they are linked remains patchy and work must continue to be done with all levels of government—state and local—to ensure equity.