Using Scale and Reach to Battle Inequality
The Hill - November 19, 2013, by Ana Maria Archila - Across the country, it’s become increasingly...
The Hill - November 19, 2013, by Ana Maria Archila - Across the country, it’s become increasingly evident that problems stemming from inequality have reached a level that can only be characterized as a crisis. With the wealth gap between the top .01 percent of households and the rest of us greater than it was in 1928 before the onset of the Great Depression, opportunities for too many Americans are disappearing.
At her confirmation hearing last week to become the next chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen characterized income inequality as an “extremely difficult and to my mind very worrisome problem.” And while the recent race for Mayor in New York City focused plenty on the wealth gap, it remains to be seen how far a local politician can go to implement the type of policies the nation’s largest city desperately needs.
Of course, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to restore our democracy to a system that truly gives everyone a chance to thrive. But a large part of the solution will come from dedicated community members partnering with organizations with policy expertise, strategy insights, and coalition coordination experience to achieve meaningful reforms. That’s why this week, the Center for Popular Democracy and the Leadership Center for the Common Good announced a plan to merge on Jan. 1, 2014.
The new organization will be called The Center for Popular Democracy with a sister c4 organization called Action for the Common Good. Together, we will work at the center of emerging new politics, working to build the capacity and resilience of rooted, democratic community organizing institutions. We will share organizing models and strategies with a vast partner network to replicate campaigns and tactics that work to confront racial and economic inequality.
Already,we’ve seen examples of the types of changes motivated, coordinated community efforts can produce. And as new partnerships and increased collaboration online help movement leaders to share best practices – there’s plenty of reason to believe communities can implement changes that make a difference.
In New York, coalitions of community groups, progressive unions, and faith networks cametogether this year to secure a raft of impressive victories, from a raise in the state’s minimum wage, to the adoption of paid sick days’ legislation in New York City to the passage of pro-immigrant language access initiatives in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. And, in the face of fierce opposition from outgoing Mayor Bloomberg, the Center for Popular Democracy and our allies secured passage of new laws to stop the discriminatory policing tactics of the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk.”
With real roots in the African-American, Latino and immigrant communities, and connections across faith and labor organizations, the Center for Popular Democracy is poised to provide expanded reach and scale on issues from education policy to immigrant and racial justice, voting rights and homeownership.
As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently said, “The new CPD fills animportant void - aggressively innovating and replicating public policies that expand rights and opportunities for workers, for immigrants, and for people of color." That’s part of our belief that just as our communities are stronger together, so are organizers. It’s time to put our strength, scale and reach to work.
Ana Maria Archila is the co-executive director of the new Center for Popular Democracy.
Source
Risking Public Money: Illinois Charter School Fraud
Best Practices to Protect Public Dollars & Prevent Financial Mismanagement...
Download the full report
Executive Summary
In 2010, fourteen years after Illinois passed its charter school law, the U.S. Department of Education raised a red flag about the state’s oversight of fiscal controls at its charter schools, finding that the state “has no system in place for monitoring [charter schools].” Four years later, this problem continues. To date, $13.1 million in fraud by charter school officials has been uncovered in Illinois. Because of the lack of transparency and necessary oversight, total fraud is estimated at $27.7 million in 2014 alone. Our research uncovered three fundamental flaws with the state’s oversight of charter schools:
Oversight depends heavily on self-reporting by charter schools, or by whistleblowers. Illinois oversight agencies rely almost entirely on complaints from whistleblowers and audits paid for by charter operators. Both methods are important to uncover fraud; however, neither is a systematic approach to fraud detection, nor are they effective in fraud prevention. General auditing techniques alone do not uncover fraud. The audits commissioned by the charters and provided to Illinois oversight agencies use general auditing techniques, not those specifically designed to uncover fraud. The current processes may expose inaccuracies or inefficiencies; however, without audits targeted at uncovering financial fraud, state and local agencies will rarely be able to detect fraud without a whistleblower. Adequate staffing is necessary to detect and eliminate fraud. We found evidence that the government agencies tasked with investigating fraud are severely understaffed, which is prohibitive to conducting high quality, time-intensive audits of any type.We propose the following targeted reforms of the existing oversight structure to remedy these flaws:Mandate Audits Designed to Detect and Prevent Fraud
Charter schools should institute an internal fraud risk management program, including an annual fraud risk assessment and audits that specifically investigate high-risk areas; Charter schools should commission audits of internal controls over financial reporting that are integrated with an audit of financial statements; Existing oversight bodies should perform targeted fraud audits focused on areas of risk or weakness through the annual fraud risk assessments; and Auditing teams should include members certified in Financial Forensics trained to detect fraud.Increase Transparency & Accountability
All annual audits and fraud risk assessments should be posted on the websites of charter school authorizers, typically the local school system; Charter authorizers should create a system to categorize and rank charter audits by fraud risk levels to facilitate transparency and public engagement; Charter schools should voluntarily make the findings of their internal assessments public; Charter school authorizers should perform comprehensive reviews once every three years; The Attorney General’s office should conduct a review of all charter schools in Illinois to identify inadequate school oversight by boards of directors or executives and publicize the findings; and The state should impose a moratorium on new charter schools until the state oversight system is adequately reformed.Despite the possibility of almost $30 million lost to fraud in the last year alone, charter schools continue to experience unprecedented growth. Since 2003, charter school enrollment in Illinois has grown by 680 percent. Illinois students, their families, and taxpayers cannot afford to lose a dollar more in public funds as a result of fraud, misspending, or misdirection within the charter school system. The reforms proposed herein require a smart investment and a commitment to the future of Illinois’ youth and all its communities.
Download the full report
'Freedom city'? Going beyond 'sanctuary,' Austin, Texas, vows to curtail arrests
'Freedom city'? Going beyond 'sanctuary,' Austin, Texas, vows to curtail arrests
While Austin is among the country’s first so-called freedom cities, it’s part of a wider movement around...
While Austin is among the country’s first so-called freedom cities, it’s part of a wider movement around decriminalizing low-level offenses and decreasing arrests. According to Local Progress, a national network of progressive city officials, some council members in El Paso and Dallas are also considering “freedom city” proposals.
Read the full article here.
300+ Arrested in Mass Civil Disobedience Protests at the Nation's Capitol
300+ Arrested in Mass Civil Disobedience Protests at the Nation's Capitol
By Greenpeace In the final day of a record-setting week of civil disobedience at the Capitol, more than 300 people were...
By Greenpeace
In the final day of a record-setting week of civil disobedience at the Capitol, more than 300 people were arrested Monday as they demanded democracy reforms.
Yesterday's arrests came on the third and final day of Democracy Awakening. Combined with arrests made during the recent Democracy Spring, the protests constituted what organizers believe is a record for civil disobedience over democracy issues during this century.
The message: On voting rights, money in politics and the recent vacancy on U.S. Supreme Court, Congress is failing to do its job and ignoring the will of the people. Democracy Awakening isn't the end of something, but the beginning of a new phase in the movement for democracy, organizers said.
Those who planned to risk arrest included NAACP president and CEO Cornell William Brooks; the Rev. William Barber II, pastor and Moral Monday architect; radio commentator Jim Hightower; Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben and Jerry's; Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard; and Sierra Club President Aaron Mair.
Here's what they had to say about why they risked arrest at our nation's Capitol:
"I'm willing to risk arrest, arm in arm with partners from the civil rights and the labor movements, in order to help fix our democracy," Leonard said. "We will never get the kind of political progress needed to challenge climate change and systemic racism if corporate cash continues to mean more to politicians than the voices of the people."
"Democracy is supposed to be for all of us, but right now we have an out-of-balance system favoring the interests of big money," Cohen said. "This can't go on. I'm prepared to risk arrest to send a message that democracy should truly be of, by, and for the people."
"At a certain point, you have to say enough is enough," Greenfield said. "I have decided to risk arrest because we can't continue to have a political system where ordinary people are shut out of the process. It's not what our founders envisioned, and it's not what democracy is supposed to be about."
"We cannot sit by and watch obstructionists push an agenda of inequity, injustice and inaction -- and I'm willing to risk being arrested in order to make my voice heard in in the fight to ensure that every voice can be heard in our democracy," Mair said. "All too often, the costs of these assaults on our democracy fall on low-income communities and communities of color that already face disproportionate effects from pollution and the climate crisis. A zip code should never dictate the destiny of any American citizen."
Thousands of activists from around the country streamed into the nation's capital April 16-18 for Democracy Awakening, which featured teach-ins, a rally, a march and lobbying as well as the civil disobedience. The aim: to fight back against business as usual in Washington, DC.
More than 300 organizations endorsed Democracy Awakening. Democracy Awakening is part of a broad movement aimed at advancing democracy reforms. The mobilization began April 2, with Democracy Spring, an event that featured a march from Philadelphia to Washington D.C., followed by six days of sit-ins at the Capitol.
Others who planned to risk arrest included top leaders of the AFL-CIO, All Souls Unitarian Church, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Postal Workers Union, Campaign for America's Future, Democracy Initiative, Center for Popular Democracy, Communications Workers of America, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Every Voice, Food & Water Watch, Franciscan Action Network, Free Speech for People, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Jobs With Justice, the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church; the NAACP, Oil Change International, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, the United Church of Christ, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, We Are Casa, the Yes Men and 350.org.
Source
Echen a los codiciosos buitres residenciales
Para los estadounidenses y, en particular, las personas de color, la propiedad de vivienda es una fuerza económica...
Para los estadounidenses y, en particular, las personas de color, la propiedad de vivienda es una fuerza económica estabilizadora y esencial desde hace tiempo. Ofrece la oportunidad de que las familias aumenten su seguridad económica en el trascurso de las décadas.
Por eso la crisis de ejecuciones hipotecarias fue tan difícil, en especial para los latinos y las personas de raza negra. Significó que su patrimonio, en ocasiones acumulado por varias generaciones, desapareció casi instantáneamente.
Ambos recordamos claramente las difíciles conversaciones que tuvimos con vecinos que pasaban apuros durante el caos. Aquí en Nueva York, como en todas partes, a pesar de que las personas de color no constituían la mayoría de los propietarios de vivienda, se veían afectadas por las ejecuciones hipotecarias con mayor frecuencia. Eso significó que al perder su patrimonio, más y más de ellos se fueron de la ciudad y nuestros vecindarios cambiaron.
Desafortunadamente, aún estamos viendo los efectos. Una purga lenta que se viene produciendo desde hace años a medida que la ciudad se aburguesa se ha facilitado por las ejecuciones hipotecarias y alquileres cada vez más altos, con los que más familias han dejado de ser propietarias para pasar a ser inquilinas. Muchas familias trabajadoras que han perdido su vivienda ahora además tienen dificultad para alquilar, debido al costo en aumento en el mercado.
Wall Street ha encontrado un socio inverosímil en estos desalojos: el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de Estados Unidos (HUD por su sigla en inglés). En todo el país, cientos de miles enfrentan ejecuciones hipotecarias. A pesar de la misión de HUD de “crear comunidades sólidas y sostenibles que incluyan a todos, con viviendas económicas y de calidad”, el departamento ha operado un programa que vende decenas de miles de hogares muy descontados a especuladores de Wall Street.
Cuando los fondos de especulación y firmas inversionistas privadas adquieren estos préstamos, por lo general fuerzan a los propietarios a dejar su vivienda —por medio de ejecuciones hipotecarias o ventas al descubierto (que no cubren las obligaciones hipotecarias) — y luego convierten las residencias en caras propiedades para alquilar, lo que hace que aumenten los precios en todo el vecindario.
En un extraño vuelco del destino, Blackstone Group, una de las más grandes firmas privadas de inversión en el mundo, ahora también es el mayor propietario de casas unifamiliares en alquiler en Estados Unidos. Entonces, Blackstone no solo está desalojando a familias de sus casas; también está sacando a familias trabajadoras de sus vecindarios.
Sin embargo, la práctica continúa. En tan solo los últimos seis meses, HUD ha vendido más de 7,000 préstamos a fondos de especulación y firmas privadas de inversión.
HUD ha programado otra venta masiva de hipotecas afectadas para el 18 de mayo.
HUD, dirigido por el secretario Julián Castro, debe revertir su curso antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Debe poner un alto a esta venta en subasta de viviendas a Wall Street. En vez, debe colaborar con el gobierno de la ciudad de Nueva York y partes interesadas en la comunidad para poner estos préstamos afectados en manos de entidades sin fines de lucro u otros compradores impulsados por una misión, quienes ayudarán a las familias a conservar sus casas.
No se trata simplemente de ilusas propuestas por liberales. Cada vez hay más instituciones financieras dedicadas al desarrollo comunitario que han conseguido capital y están listas y dispuestas a adquirir estos préstamos hipotecarios en mora y colaborar con familias en apuros.
Usan la reducción del monto principal debido para ayudar a modificar los préstamos afectados y hacer que los pagos sean más costeables. Cuando es realmente imposible evitar las ejecuciones hipotecarias, estas entidades sin fines de lucro formulan planes para la disposición de las propiedades que toman en cuenta las necesidades de vivienda económica de la comunidad que las rodea.
Estos préstamos hipotecarios en mora están vinculados con los propietarios y las viviendas en apuros en nuestros vecindarios. Vender nuestro inventario residencial a los propios depredadores que los pusieron en esta situación no solo demuestra poca visión de futuro, sino que daña nuestras comunidades irreparablemente.
Los especuladores de Wall Street se enriquecieron creando la crisis de vivienda que causó estragos en nuestras comunidades. No se debe permitir que vuelvan a enriquecerse aprovechándose de los restos de los vecindarios que ya han destrozado.
By Ana Maria Archila Y Jonathan Westin
Source
Fed Raises Key Interest Rate, Citing Strengthening Economy
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate Wednesday for just the second time since the...
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate Wednesday for just the second time since the financial crisis of 2008, saying the American economy is expanding at a healthy pace and setting itself up as a counterweight to President-elect Donald J. Trump’s push for considerably faster growth.
The Fed cited the steady growth of employment and other economic measures, and signaled that it expects to raise rates more quickly next year to prevent the economy from growing too quickly.
“My colleagues and I are recognizing the considerable progress the economy has made,” Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s chairwoman, said at a news conference after the announcement. “We expect the economy will continue to perform well.”
The widely expected decision moves the Fed’s benchmark rate to a range of 0.5 percent to 0.75 percent, still very low by historical standards. Low rates support economic growth by encouraging borrowing and risk-taking.
The American economy has expanded by about 2 percent a year over the last six years, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.6 percent. The Fed’s assessment that the economy is growing at a healthy pace — not too hot, not too cold — is starkly at odds with Mr. Trump, who has promised 4 percent growth and has described job creation as “terrible” and economic growth as anemic.
Already on Wednesday, one Republican member of the House Financial Services Committee, Representative Roger Williams of Texas, criticized the Fed’s move.
“Today’s decision by the Fed to raise the interest rate is entirely premature and will be burdensome to a nation already struggling to pull itself out of this slow-growth Obama economy,” Mr. Williams said in a statement. “By making rates even higher, the Fed is effectively making our hardships even harder.”
Mr. Williams did not object when the Fed raised rates last December.
In announcing the decision after a two-day meeting of the Fed’s policy-making committee, the central bank gave little indication that Mr. Trump’s election had altered its economic outlook. The Fed said it still expected a slow economic expansion and a steady march toward higher rates. In separate forecasts also published Wednesday, Fed officials predicted three rate increases in 2017.
Rising Rate
The Federal Reserve raised its target rate for only the second time in more than a decade.
Note: Graphic shows the Federal Funds Target Rate previous to the December 2008 rate change; since then it is the upper limit of the Federal Funds Target Range.
By The New York Times | Source: Federal Reserve
For the first time in recent years, however, there is a real possibility of significant changes in fiscal policy. Republicans will control the White House and both chambers of Congress, and Mr. Trump has promised to increase economic growth and job creation through tax cuts and infrastructure spending.
Those measures could spur faster growth after a presidential campaign in which Mr. Trump regularly disparaged the economy’s performance under President Obama. But the Fed reiterated Wednesday that the economy is already expanding at roughly the maximum sustainable pace.
Fed officials also see evidence that the labor market is tightening. Several Fed districts reported labor shortages in the central bank’s most recent compilation of economic reports. In the Philadelphia district, construction workers are hard to find. Atlanta reported a shortage of nurses; Kansas City, truck drivers; Dallas, tech workers.
Faster growth, in the Fed’s judgment, would probably lead to higher inflation. As a result, if Republicans succeed in invigorating growth, the Fed is likely to raise rates more quickly. The greater the stimulus, the faster interest rates are likely to rise.
“Your expectation should depend very little on what you think that the F.O.M.C. is thinking and very much on your view of Trump policies and their macro effects,” said Jon Faust, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former adviser to Ms. Yellen, referring to the Federal Open Market Committee. “Don’t focus on the Fed. As James Carville regularly reminded the other Clinton on the campaign trail: It’s the economy, stupid.”
Ms. Yellen emphasized that the Fed was not prejudging the likely course of events. She declined several times to comment on the merits of Mr. Trump’s plans or to predict their consequences for the economy.
“We’re operating under a cloud of uncertainty at the moment,” Ms. Yellen said.
Fed officials predicted that they would raise the Fed’s benchmark rate a little more quickly in the coming years, reaching 2.1 percent by the end of 2018. In September, they had predicted that it would reach 1.9 percent by the end of 2018. The new projections, however, reflect a significantly slower pace of increase than last December, when they expected the rate to reach 3.3 percent by 2018.
The combination of steady growth and faster rate increases indicates that some Fed officials expect the central bank to end up offsetting a modest increase in fiscal stimulus. But Ms. Yellen said most Fed officials were reserving judgment.
“Changes in fiscal policy or other economic policies could affect the economic outlook,” she said. “Of course, it is far too early to know how those changes will unfold.”
What Happens When the Fed Raises Rates, in One Rube Goldberg Machine
Exactly seven years ago, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to almost zero in order to nurse the ailing economy back to health. Recently it changed direction. This is how it works.
The tensions between monetary and fiscal policy will develop slowly. Legislation takes time to write, and any economic impact would generally be felt in coming years. Political pressures, however, may build more quickly.
Mr. Trump has made clear in the past that he likes low interest rates — and some of his plans, like infrastructure investment, will be much easier to fund if rates remain low.
“The Fed is in a tricky place,” said Michael Feroli, chief United States economist at JPMorgan Chase. “They’re trying not to prejudge how Congress and the administration duke it out, but once they see that, I think they will respond.”
There is also uncertainty about the Fed’s leadership. Ms. Yellen’s term as chairwoman ends in February 2018, and Mr. Trump has said he would prefer a Republican.
Ms. Yellen could remain on the board, a possibility she said Wednesday she had not ruled out. But the Fed, under different leadership, might well choose a different path forward. Some conservative economists, notably John Taylor of Stanford University, argue that the bank should already have raised rates above 1 percent.
The economy, for now, keeps plodding along. Steady job growth has reduced the unemployment rate to a level the Fed considers healthy. A little unemployment is natural as people change jobs and businesses close. Ms. Yellen and other Fed officials have said they see some signs of stronger wage growth. Inflation, too, has picked up a little in recent months, although both wages and inflation continue to rise more slowly than the Fed would like to see.
Ms. Yellen described the rate increase as “a vote of confidence in the economy.”
The decision was made by a unanimous vote of the 10 members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the first time in recent months the Fed has acted by consensus.
Some economists argue that the Fed should wait until inflation strengthens before raising rates, to test whether a stronger economy would persuade some people sidelined during the downturn to start looking for jobs. That would expand the labor force. Unemployment remains particularly high among minorities.
That view, however, has found little support among Fed officials, who worry that interest rates will have to be raised more quickly if they wait too long, increasing the chances of pushing the economy into recession.
“Apparently, Fed officials think the economy is growing too quickly,” said Ady Barkan, the director of Fed Up, a coalition of liberal groups that has pressed the Fed to continue its stimulus campaign. “I doubt you can find many other Americans who share that opinion. And it’s a strange conclusion to draw in the wake of an election that was so heavily impacted by voters’ economic discontent.”
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
Source
Black Students in Milwaukee Are Demanding Change to Racist Discipline In Public Schools
Black Students in Milwaukee Are Demanding Change to Racist Discipline In Public Schools
A report released Tuesday by the Center for Popular Democracy and the Milwaukee youth group Leaders Igniting...
A report released Tuesday by the Center for Popular Democracy and the Milwaukee youth group Leaders Igniting Transformation paints a much more troubling picture.According to the report, in the 2016-2017 school year, Milwaukee Public Schools suspended 10,267 students, including one of every three ninth-graders. The Milwaukee Police Department has 12 dedicated officers assigned to public schools and another six deployed on the streets to take truant students into custody. That’s in addition to 269 school safety assistants, the city’s version of school resource officers. That deployment costs Milwaukee taxpayers more than $15 million a year, but it comes at an even greater social cost.
Read the full article here.
Community activists and others file legal opposition to NYPD body cam policy
Community activists and others file legal opposition to NYPD body cam policy
The New York Police Department’s body camera program launched this week, but not without a fight from activists. Last...
The New York Police Department’s body camera program launched this week, but not without a fight from activists.
Last week, Communities United for Police Reform and other community groups filed a legal opposition to the NYPD’s then-proposed policy. Submitted to Judge Analisa Torres, they wanted to halt the program’s rollout. The community groups, along with entities like The Center for Constitutional Rights, believe the language of the program renders the concept of body cameras for cops meaningless.
Read the full article here.
Was the ‘Original Bargain’ with Charter Schools a Raw Deal?
The Washington Post - October 5, 2014, by Valerie Strauss - Charter school advocates didn’t like it recently when Brown...
The Washington Post - October 5, 2014, by Valerie Strauss - Charter school advocates didn’t like it recently when Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform issued a report calling for the strengthening of charter oversight and authorization. While noting that many charters work hard to “meet the needs of their students,” the report said that “the lack of effective oversight means too many cases of fraud and abuse, too little attention to equity, and no guarantee of academic innovation or excellence.” It provided some common-sense recommendations, including an innocuous call for the establishment of minimum qualifications for charter school treasurers. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, not surprisingly, bashed the report.
Meanwhile, a new report was just issued by three groups — the Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education and ACTION United — that found major fraud and mismanagement in Pennsylvania’s charter schools. It found:
Charter school officials have defrauded at least $30 million intended for Pennsylvania school children since 1997. Yet every year virtually all of the state’s charter schools are found to be financially sound. While the state has complex, multi-layered systems of oversight of the charter system, this history of financial fraud makes it clear that these systems are not effectively detecting or preventing fraud. Indeed, the vast majority of fraud was uncovered by whistleblowers and media exposés, not by the state’s oversight agencies.
The great New York Times writer Michael Powell recently wrote a column detailing what can go wrong with a charter school when there is little or no oversight; in this case, he explores the sickening mess surrounding Prime Time Prep in Texas, created by Deion Sanders, a Hall of Fame cornerback and National Football League commentator.
Yes, there are many fine charter schools. But seriously bad news about many others keeps coming, and concerns are rising as the number of charters overall is increasing. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools says that in 2013-2014, 2.57 million students were enrolled in more than 6,000 public charter schools nationwide, with nearly 2,000 new charter schools opening in the past five years.
Here’s a piece about what’s going on in the charter world by Jeff Bryant, who is the director of the Education Opportunity Network, a partnership effort of the Institute for America’s Future and the Opportunity to Learn Campaign. He owns a marketing and communications consultancy in Chapel Hill, N.C., and has written extensively about public education policy. A version of this appeared in Salon.
By Jeff Bryant
When former President Bill Clinton recently meandered onto the topic of charter schools, he mentioned something about an “original bargain” that charters were, according to the reporter for The Huffington Post, “supposed to do a better job of educating students.”
A writer at Salon called the remark “stunning” because it brought to light the fact that the overwhelming majority of charter schools do no better than traditional public schools. Yet, as the Huffington reporter reminded us, charter schools are rarely shuttered for low academic performance. But what’s most remarkable about what Clinton said is how little his statement resembles the truth about how charters have become a reality in so many American communities.
In a real “bargaining process,” those who bear the consequences of the deal have some say-so on the terms, the deal-makers have to represent themselves honestly (or the deal is off and the negotiating ends), and there are measures in place to ensure everyone involved is held accountable after the deal has been struck.
But that’s not what’s happening in the great charter industry rollout transpiring across the country. Rather than a negotiation over terms, charters are being imposed on communities – either by legislative fiat or well-engineered public policy campaigns. Many charter school operators keep their practices hidden or have been found to be blatantly corrupt. And no one seems to be doing anything to ensure real accountability for these rapidly expanding school operations.
Instead of the “bargain” political leaders may have thought they struck with seemingly well-intentioned charter entrepreneurs, what has transpired instead looks more like a raw deal for many students, their families, and their communities.
Charter Schools As Takeover Operations
The “100 percent charter schools” education system in New Orleans that Clinton praised was never presented to the citizens of New Orleans in a negotiation. It was surreptitiously engineered.
After Katrina, as NPR recently reported, “an ad hoc coalition of elected leaders and nationally known charter advocates formed,” and in “a series of quick decisions,” all school employees were fired and the vast majority of the city’s schools were handed over to a state entity called the “Recovery School District” which is governed by unelected officials. Only a “few elite schools were … allowed to maintain their selective admissions.”
In other words, any bargaining that was done was behind closed doors and at tables where most of the people who were being affected had no seat.
Further, any evidence of the improvement of the educational attainment of students in the New Orleans Recovery all-charter Recovery District is obtainable only by “jukin the stats” or, as the NPR reporter put it, through “a distortion of the curriculum and teaching practice.” As Andrea Gabor wrote for Newsweek a year ago, “the current reality of the city’s schools should be enough to give pause to even the most passionate charter supporters.”
Yet now political leaders tout this model for the rest of the country. Education Secretary Arne Duncan once even said that he thinks “the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina” because it wrecked the previous low-functioning school system and brought about the rise of charter schools in the Recovery District. So some school districts that have not had a Katrina are having charter schools imposed on them in blatant power plays. An obvious example is what’s currently happening in the York, Pennsylvania.
School districts across the state of Pennsylvania are financially troubled due to chronic state underfunding – only 36 percent of K-12 revenue comes from the state, way below national averages – and massive budget cuts imposed by Republican Governor Tom Corbett (the state funds education less than it did in 2008).
The state cuts seemed to have been intentionally targeted to hit high-poverty school districts like York City the hardest. After combing through state financial records, a report from the state’s school employee union found, “State funding cuts to the most impoverished school districts averaged more than three times the size of the cuts for districts with the lowest average child poverty.” The unsurprising results of these cuts has been that in school districts serving low income kids, like York, instruction was cut and scores on state student assessments declined.
The York City district was exceptionally strapped, having been hit by $8.4 million in cuts, which prompted class size increases and teacher furloughs. Due to financial difficulties, which the state legislature and Governor Corbett had by-and-large engineered, York was targeted in 2012, along with three other districts, for state takeover by an unelected “recovery official,” eerily similar to New Orleans post-Katrina.
The “recovery” process for York schools also entailed a “transformation model” with challenging financial and academic targets the district had little chance in reaching, and charter school conversion as a consequence of failure. Now the local school board is being forced to pick a charter provider and make their district the first in the state to hand over the education of all its children to a corporation that will call all the shots and give York’s citizens very little say in how their children’s schools are run.
None of this is happening with the negotiated consent of the citizens of York. The voices of York citizens that have been absent from the bargaining tables are being heard in the streets and in school board meetings. According to a local news outlet, at a recent protest before the city’s school board, “a district teacher and father of three students … presented the board with more than 3,700 signatures of people opposed to a possible conversion of district schools to charter schools,” and “a student at the high school also presented the board with a petition signed by more than 260 students opposed to charter conversion.” Yet the state official demanding charter takeover remains completely unaltered in his view that this action is “what’s bets for our kids.”
What’s important to note is York schools are not necessarily failures academically, as New Jersey-based music teacher and education blogger going by the name Jersey Jazzman stated on his personal blog. Looking at how the districts’ students perform on state assessments, he found that academic performance levels were “pretty much where you’d expect them to be” based on the fact that “most of York’s schools have student populations where 80 percent or more of the children are in economic disadvantage,” and variations in student test score performance almost always correlate strongly with students’ financial conditions. He concluded that what was happening to York schools more represents a “long con” in which tax cuts and claims of “budgetary poverty” have prompted a rapacious state government to “declare an educational emergency, and then let edu-vultures … pick at the bones of a decimated school system.”
The attack on York City schools is not unique. As an official with the National Education Association recently pointed out on the blog Living in Dialogue, “It’s the same story that played out in Detroit, Flint, and Philadelphia where these ‘chief recovery officers’ or ‘emergency managers’ have all made the same recommendation: to hand over the cities’ public schools to the highest private bidder.”
Then, hiding behind pledges to do “what’s best for kids,” these operators too often do anything but.
Charter Schools Takeover, Corruption Ensues
York teachers and parents have good reasons to be wary of charter school takeover. As a new report discloses, charter school officials in their state have defrauded at least $30 million intended for school children since 1997.
The report, “Fraud and Financial Mismanagement in Pennsylvania’s Charter Schools,” was released by three groups, the Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education, and ACTION United.
Startling examples of charter school financial malfeasance revealed by the authors –just in Pennsylvania – include an administrator who diverted $2.6 million in school funds to a church property he also operated. Another charter school chief was caught spending millions in school funds to bail out other nonprofits associated with the school. A pair of charter school operators stole more than $900,000 from the school by using fraudulent invoices, and a cyber school entrepreneur diverted $8 million of school funds for houses, a Florida condominium, and an airplane.
What’s even more alarming is that none of these crimes were detected by state agencies overseeing the schools. As the report clearly documents, every year virtually all of the state’s charter schools are found to be financially sound. The vast majority of fraud was uncovered by whistleblowers and media coverage and not by state auditors who have a history of not effectively detecting or preventing fraud.
Pennsylvania spends over a billion dollars a year on charter schools, and the $30 million lost to fraud documented in this study is likely the minimum possible amount. The report authors recommend a moratorium on new charter schools in the state and call on the Attorney General to launch an investigation.
The report is a continuation of a study earlier this year that exposed $100 million in taxpayer funds meant for children instead lost to fraud, waste, and abuse by charter schools in 15 states. Now the authors of the study are going state-by-state, beginning with Pennsylvania, to investigate how charter school fraud is spreading.
What’s happening to York City is not going to help. The two charter operators being considered for that takeover – Mosaica Education, Inc., and Charter Schools USA – have particularly troubling track records.
According to a report from Politico, after Mosaica took over the Muskegon Heights, Michigan school system in 2012, “complications soon followed.” After massive layoffs, about a quarter of the newly hired teachers quit, and when Mosaica realized they weren’t making a profit within two years, they pulled up stakes and went in search of other targets.
As for the other candidate in the running, Charter Schools USA, a report from the Florida League of Women Voters produced earlier this year found that charter operation running a real estate racket that diverts taxpayer money for education to private pockets. In Hillsborough County alone, schools owned by Charter Schools USA collaborated with a construction company in Minneapolis, M.N. and a real estate partner called Red Apple Development Company in a scheme to lock in big profits for their operations and saddle county taxpayers with millions of dollars in lease fees every year.
In one example, cited by education historian Diane Ravitch, Charter USA’s construction company bought a former Verizon call center for $3,750,000, made no discernible exterior changes except removal of the front door and adding a $7,000 canopy, and sold the building as Woodmont Charter School to Red Apple Development for $9,700,000 six months later. Lease fees for the last two years were $1,009,800 and $1,029,996.
No wonder York citizens are concerned.
What Happened To Charter School Accountability?
Charter schools that were supposedly intended to be more “accountable” to the public are turning out to be anything but.
As an article for The Nation recently observed, “Charters were supposed to be laboratories for innovation. Instead, they are stunningly opaque.”
The article, written by author and university professor Pedro Noguera, explained, “Charter schools are frequently not accountable. Indeed, they are stunningly opaque, more black boxes than transparent laboratories for education.”
Rather than having to show their books, as public schools do, Noguera contended, “Most charters lack financial transparency.” As an example, he offered a study of KIPP charter schools, which found that they receive “‘an estimated $6,500 more per pupil in revenues from public or private sources’ compared to local school districts.” But only a scant portion of that disproportionate funding – just $457 in spending per pupil – could accurately be accounted for “because KIPP does not disclose how it uses money received from private sources.
In addition to the difficulties in following the money,” Noguero continued, “there is evidence that many charters seek to accept only the least difficult (and therefore the least expensive) students. Even though charter schools are required by law to admit students through lotteries, in many cities, the charters under-enroll the most disadvantaged children.”
This tendency of charter schools operations provides a double bonus as their student test scores get pushed to higher levels and the public schools surrounding them have to take on disproportionate percentages of high needs students who push their test score results lower. Noguera cited a study showing that traditional schools serving the largest percentages of high-needs students are frequently the first to be branded with the “failure” label.
If charter schools are going to have any legitimacy at all, what’s required, Noguera concluded is “greater transparency and collaboration with public schools.”
Fortunately, yet another new report points us in the right direction.
This report, “Public Accountability for Charter Schools,” published by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, “recommends changes to state charter legislation and charter authorizer standards that would reduce student inequities and achieve complete transparency and accountability to the communities served,” according to the organization’s press release.
According to the report, these recommendations are the product of “a working group of grassroots organizers and leaders” from Chicago, Philadelphia, Newark, New York, and other cities, who have “first-hand experience and years of working directly with impacted communities and families, rather than relying only on limited measures such as standardized test scores to assess impact.”
These new guidelines are intended to address numerous examples of charter school failure to disclose essential information about their operations, including financial information, school discipline policies, student enrollment processes, and efforts to collaborate with public schools.
For instance, the report notes that the director of the state Office of Open Records in Pennsylvania, “testified that her office had received 239 appeals in cases where charter schools either rejected or failed to answer requests from the public for information on budgets, payrolls, or student rosters.” In Ohio, a charter chain operated by for-profit White Hat Management Company, “takes in more than $60 million in public funding annually … yet has refused to comply with requests from the governing boards of its own schools for detailed financial reports.” In Philadelphia, the report authors found a charter school that made applications for enrollment available “only one day a year, and only to families who attend an open house at a golf club in the Philadelphia suburbs.” In New York City, where charter schools are co-located in public school buildings, “public school parents have complained that their students have shorter recess, fewer library hours, and earlier lunch schedules to better accommodate students enrolled at the co-located charter school.” The report quotes a lawsuit filed by the NAACP, which documented public school classrooms “with peeling paint and insufficient resources” made to co-locate with charters that have “new computers, brand-new desks, and up-to-date textbooks.”
The Annenberg report’s policy prescriptions fall into seven categories of “standards:”
Traditional school districts and charter schools should collaborate to ensure a coordinated approach that serves all children.
School governance should be representative and transparent.
Charter schools should ensure equal access to interested students and prohibit practices that discourage enrollment or disproportionately push-out enrolled students.
Charter school discipline policy should be fair and transparent.
All students deserve equitable and adequate school facilities. Districts and charter schools should collaborate to ensure facility arrangements do not disadvantage students in either sector.
Online charter schools should be better regulated for quality, transparency and the protection of student data.
Monitoring and oversight of charter schools are critical to protect the public interest; they should be strong and fully state funded.
Unsurprisingly, the report got an immediate response from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. That organization’s response cites “remarkable results” as an excuse for why charters should continue to be allowed to skirt public accountability despite the fact they get public money. However, whenever there is close scrutiny of the remarkable results the charter industry loves to crow about, the facts are those results really aren’t there.
Charter Accountability Now
Of course, now that the truth about charter schools is starting to leak out of the corners of the “black box” the industry uses to protect itself, the charter school PR machine is doing everything it can to cover up reality.
Beginning with the new school year, the charter school industry has been on a publicity terror with a national campaign claiming to tell “The Truth About Charters” and high dollar promotional appeals in Philadelphia and New York City.
But the word is out, and resistance to charter takeovers is stiffening in more places than York. In school systems such as Philadelphia, Bridgeport, Pittsburgh, and Chicago, where charter schools are major providers, parents and local officials have increasingly opposed charter takeovers of their neighborhood schools. A recent poll in Michigan, where the majority of charter operations are for-profit, found that 73 percent of voters want a moratorium on opening any new charter schools until the state department of education and the state legislature conduct a full review of the charter school system.
There’s little doubt now that the grand bargain Bill Clinton and other leaders thought they were making with charter schools proponents was a raw deal. The deal is off.
Source
Fed Leaves Interest Rates Unchanged
WASHINGTON — One of the longest economic expansions in American history remains so fragile that the ...
WASHINGTON — One of the longest economic expansions in American history remains so fragile that the Federal Reserve said on Thursday it would postpone any retreat from its stimulus campaign.
Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s chairwoman, described the decision as a close call and said the central bank still expected to raise interest rates later this year. The Fed has kept its benchmark interest rate close to zero since late 2008, when the nation’s economy was at the depths of crisis.
“The recovery from the Great Recession has advanced sufficiently far and domestic spending has been sufficiently robust that an argument can be made for a rise in interest rates at this time,” Ms. Yellen said at a news conference.
But, she said, “heightened uncertainties abroad,” including the Chinese economy’s weakness, had persuaded the bank to wait at least a few more weeks for fresh data that might “bolster its confidence” in continued growth.
The Fed’s decision, announced after a two-day meeting of its policy-making committee, had been widely expected by investors in recent weeks.
Fed officials spent most of the summer suggesting that they wanted to raise rates in September, only to lose confidence as signs of slowing global growth weighed on markets.
The 10-year Treasury note yield fell 0.11 percentage points to 2.189 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index dropped 0.26 percent to 1,990.20.
There were signs, however, that the Fed might hesitate only briefly. It separately released economic projections showing 13 of the 17 officials on the Federal Open Market Committee still expected to raise the benchmark rate this year.
The Fed has said it is moving toward raising rates because it expects economic growth to continue, reducing unemployment and eventually raising inflation; on Thursday, Ms. Yellen said that outlook had not changed.
“There’s a tendency among some to think that they’re always going to get cold feet, and I thought Yellen really as much as possible discouraged that kind of thinking,” said John L. Bellows, a portfolio manager at Western Asset Management.
The policy-making committee still has scheduled meetings in October and December, and Ms. Yellen said a rate increase was possible at either meeting.
One official, Jeffrey M. Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, in Virginia, voted to raise rates at the September meeting, the first dissent this year. The economic projections suggest that Ms. Yellen faces more disagreements at the Fed’s October meeting, given that six officials predicted the Fed would raise rates at least two times this year, while four said that they expected no increases.
The latest postponement was welcomed by liberal activists and economists who argue that the recovery remains incomplete. Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, introduced legislation on Thursday directing the Fed to push the unemployment rate below 4 percent. While the bill has no chance of winning approval in the Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Conyers addressed a rally organized by the Center for Popular Democracy outside an office building where Ms. Yellen spoke, joining in a chant of “Don’t raise interest rates.”
Critics expressed concern that the Fed has adopted increasingly ambitious goals for its stimulus campaign. “There is always a reason to chicken out,” said Dean Croushore, a professor of economics at the University of Richmond. “The Fed will lose credibility over time, as it fails to follow its own prior announcements about when it will increase rates.”
Ms. Yellen, asked about the efforts to put public pressure on the Fed, which have mounted in recent months, dryly observed, “We have been receiving advice from a large number of economists and interested groups.”
She denied that outside pressure had influenced the Fed’s decision. She also said it had not been influenced by concerns about a potential government shutdown, which could disrupt growth, though she said that it “would be more than unfortunate.”
The Fed’s decision is probably a “mixed blessing” for the global economy,” Eswar S. Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell, said in an email. Instead of new pressures, investors must deal with continued uncertainty.
A Fed increase, for example, might have prompted investors to pull money out of countries like Turkey or Brazil, damaging their economies, and reduced demand for imports from Europe and other developed countries. But the decision to stand pat also could weigh on Europe in the short term if it causes the euro to rise against the dollar, making things harder for exporters.
The American economy is outpacing the rest of the world, and Ms. Yellen said on Thursday that the Fed did not yet see evidence that growth was slowing.
Fed officials say they believe that labor market conditions have nearly returned to normal. In the new round of economic projections, officials estimated unemployment would stabilize next year at 4.8 percent, just below the August level of 5.1 percent.
Officials also remain confident that inflation will rebound, although perhaps a little slowly because of the recent downturn in the prices of oil and other commodities. Since the financial crisis, inflation has remained consistently below the central bank’s 2 percent annual target, lately rising just 0.3 percent over the previous year.
Fed officials argue that a tighter labor market will lead to higher inflation as employers are finally prodded to pay higher wages. But, Ms. Yellen said on Thursday, that will happen more slowly than the unemployment rate might suggest, because people not counted among the unemployed — like those who have stopped looking for work or have taken part-time jobs — may start looking again as conditions improve.
James A. Wilcox, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it was difficult to find evidence for a strong connection between inflation and employment, particularly over the last decade. Inflation fell less than expected during the recession, and it has increased less than expected in the aftermath.
“The events of the last 10 years have caused a lot of rethinking and stomach acid within the Federal Reserve and the research community,” Dr. Wilcox said.
Recent history has reinforced the more basic point that it takes a lot to change the underlying pace of inflation. That stability has allowed the Fed to press its stimulus campaign, but Dr. Wilcox said it also provided a good reason for the Fed to be wary of allowing inflation to climb, because reversing the trend could be very painful.
“If the heat builds slowly, and it can only be turned down slowly, then you have to move ahead of time,” he said. “That’s why there’s sympathy for the idea of starting to raise rates relatively soon.”
Given the weakness of economic growth, however, Ms. Yellen reiterated on Thursday that the Fed planned to raise rates more slowly than its past practice. Fed officials expect the benchmark rate to reach 2.6 percent by the end of 2017.
In June, they predicted the rate would reach 2.9 percent. Officials also expect the rate to reach a new plateau of about 3.5 percent, less than the June prediction of 3.8 percent and significantly below the level once regarded as normal. Such a low plateau would limit the Fed’s ability to respond to economic downturns.
The Fed has already held its benchmark rate near zero much longer than it once expected. It announced in 2012 that it would keep rates near zero at least until the unemployment rate fell below 6.5 percent. That threshold was crossed in April 2014.
Last winter, when the Fed ended its bond-buying campaign, officials pointed to June as the most likely moment for “liftoff” from the so-called zero bound.
Some officials have made clear they are not inclined to wait much longer.
Stanley Fischer, vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned in late August that officials would not be able to postpone a decision until all doubts were resolved. “When the case is overwhelming,” he said, “if you wait that long, then you’ve waited too long.”
Ms. Yellen echoed that warning on Thursday. “We don’t want to wait until we’ve fully met both of our objectives to tighten monetary policy,” she said.
The Fed’s hesitation on Thursday echoed events of two years ago, when investors expected the central bank to announce at its September 2013 meeting that it was tapering its bond purchases. The Fed demurred, citing uncertainty about economic conditions.
Instead of September, it acted in December.
Source: New York Times
2 days ago
2 days ago