CPD IN THE NEWS

Capitolwire - October 1, by Christen Smith - A report released Wednesday insists meager state oversight has allowed charter school officials to defraud taxpayers out of $30 million over the last 17 years.

And “that's just scratching the surface of the problem,” says Ted Kirsch, president of the American Federation of Teachers' Pennsylvania chapter.

“It's only talking about what's being reported and there are other things that haven't gotten to the surface yet and they are still being investigated,” he said during an interview Wednesday. “The (fraud) problem is a lot more widespread.”

The Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education and Action United authored the 15-page report last month in which it calls for a moratorium on new charters while the state Attorney General's office investigates all 174 charter schools for potential fraud. The report also pushes the General Assembly to mandate annual fraud risk assessments capable of detecting and preventing waste and abuse.

“While the state has complex, multi-layered systems of oversight in the charter system, this history of financial fraud makes it clear that these systems are not effectively detecting or preventing fraud,” the report reads. “Indeed, the vast majority of fraud was uncovered by whistle-blowers and media exposes, not by the state's oversight agencies.”

The report's index details allegations of fraud against 11 separate charter schools across the state. At least nine of the charter school officials mentioned in the report have pleaded guilty and received prison sentences.

“It’s time for lawmakers to stop providing charter industry players a blank check with little oversight and no accountability,” said Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association, the parent organization of the Pennsylvania State Education Association. “...For students in all types of schools—traditional, charter or magnet—the key is having a sound structure for oversight and accountability, while providing educators with autonomy to create great learning environments for their students. Let’s work with families, educators and community members to make sure all students can attend great schools that meet their needs.”

“What's lacking here is a process to hold the charter operators accountable,” Kirsch said. “We need some laws that govern the accounting procedures and how money is handled by charter operators. These people are making a lot of money. It's a cash cow.”

Tim Eller, spokesman for the Department of Education, criticized the report Wednesday for “failing to mention” the state uses the same accounting practices for both public schools and charter schools.

“All public schools, including charter schools, are subject to audits by the state Auditor General,” he said. “The Auditor General is charged with ensuring that public entities are using taxpayer dollars for their intended purpose.”

Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said he couldn't confirm the report's $30 million figure, but said “we have found waste in the system,” particularly related to the issues of lease reimbursement and special education funding.

The auditor general uncovered “$1.2 million in improper lease reimbursements” in an August 2013 audit of Chester Community Charter School — Pennsylvania's largest. He said Wednesday lease reimbursement fraud represents about half of the charter cases his office has uncovered.

The audit found that Chester Community Charter School's founders sold the original building to a non-profit organization for $50.7 million, then created a for-profit management company to run the charter school, all the while collecting illegal reimbursement payments from the state for the buildings.

When asked about the report’s proposals regarding more oversight, DePasquale said: “If we had more resources, certainly we could audit more schools. That's absolutely true. But we need partners at the Department of Education to respond when we do find issues.”

DePasquale also suggested the General Assembly pass charter school reform that would address fraud involving lease reimbursements.

Two separate pieces of legislation — House Bill 6188 and Senate Bill 1085 — included measures to improve transparency and accountability in charter schools, but both bills have been stalled in the opposing chambers since budget negotiations wrapped up in July.

“House Bill 618 which passed the House in September of 2013 was basically loaded with accountability measures related to governing audits and academic performance,” said Steve Miskin, spokesperson for House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny. “We are hoping the Senate passes it.”

Senate leadership did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

“If the widespread allegations mentioned in the report prove to be true, then those guilty should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” said Bob Fayfich, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools, in a statement released Wednesday. “However, the report draws sweeping conclusions about the entire charter sector based on only 11 cited incidents in the course of almost 20 years, while ignoring numerous alleged and actual fraud and fiscal mismanagement in the districts over that same time period, which dwarf the charter school allegations in terms of alleged misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

Fayfich says the coalition supports mandating more stringent audits in the name of accountability, but doesn't think the public sector should be exempt.

“If the authors’ recommendations are to conduct a fraud audit of every charter school based on the actual and alleged misdeeds of a few, and initiate a moratorium on all charter schools until those audits are complete, then, in the name of intellectual integrity, the same recommendations should apply to traditional public school districts,” he said. “Fraud and fiscal mismanagement are wrong and cannot be tolerated, but to highlight them in one sector and ignore them in another indicates a motivation to target one type of public school for a political agenda.”

Renee Martin, acting communications director for the Attorney General Kathleen Kane, said Wednesday a copy of the report “has been shared with our attorneys.”

The Federal Reserve on Thursday voted to maintain its unprecedented support for the U.S. recovery, leaving a key interest rate unchanged amid gathering clouds over the global economy.

In an official statement, the nation’s central bank said the job market is recovering and hiring is “solid.” But it expressed concern that inflation remains too low and exports have weakened. Meanwhile, the risk is building that turmoil overseas will drag down growth in America.

"Recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term," the central bank's official statement read.

The decision to keep the Fed’s benchmark interest rate at zero amounts to a recognition that the robust recovery central bank officials had hoped for when they launched into an uncharted era of easy money during the throes of the 2008 financial crisis has yet to materialize. The Fed has repeatedly pushed back the goal line as the economy failed to deliver. Seven years after the central bank cut its target rate to zero, Fed officials believe the recovery is not yet ready to stand on its own.

At the press conference that followed the rate announcement Thursday afternoon, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said that a rate hike was still likely by the end of the year. But she reiterated that though “domestic developments have been strong, we want to see continued improvement in the labor market," and the central bank would like "to bolster our confidence that inflation will move toward" the Fed’s 2 percent target before a rate hike.

“We have very large drags from energy prices and import prices," Yellen said, adding that the central bank views those as transitory. As the labor market heals, "we will see further upward pressure on inflation," she said. “We expect to achieve our 2 percent goal over the medium term.”

Markets grew volatile immediately after news of the rate hold, going flat by the end of Yellen's press conference. The Dow Jones Industrial average closed down 0.4 percent and the Standard & Poor’s index closed down about 0.3 percent on Thursday.

Documents released by the Fed show most of the Fed's top brass now anticipate increasing rates only once this year, instead of twice. A growing minority think the central bank should not raise its benchmark rate this year at all, and one suggested it should stimulate the economy even more by taking the rate negative.

Three officials are advocating a 2016 liftoff, while one person pinned 2017 as the date -- longer than anyone has suggested so far.

“Even though the summer stresses in financial markets have abated, the impact of the intense market volatility on domestic economic activity is yet to fully play out,” Millan Mulraine, deputy chief U.S. macro strategist at TD Securities, wrote in a research note.

The Fed lowers its target rate when it wants to stimulate the economy by encouraging businesses and consumers to spend. It hikes when the economy begins to grow too quickly and inflation picks up, making saving money more attractive.

Timing, however, is crucial. If the Fed moves too soon, it risks undercutting the recovery’s momentum. Waiting too long could stock dangerous financial bubbles.

Yellen made reference to that risk at the press conference Thursday when asked whether the Fed should be moving sooner rather than later to raise the rates. "I don't think it's good policy to then have to slam on the brakes," she said.

The Fed modestly upgraded Thursday its expectation for economic growth this year from 1.9 percent to 2.1 percent, but the forecast is still lower than the robust expansion enjoyed a decade ago. The jobless rate has already fallen below the central bank's June estimate of 5.3 percent. The Fed adjusted its forecast to 5 percent. It also nudged up its estimate of core inflation from 1.3 percent to 1.4 percent.

In May, Yellen said speech that she expected the economy would be strong enough to raise the target rate by the end of the year. Other top Fed officials had signaled the long-awaited move could come during its meeting this month.

But that was before the jaw-dropping swings in financial markets over the past few weeks, including a 1,000-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average. Evidence is mounting that China’s breakneck economic growth is fizzling out faster than previously thought.

In the meantime, the strong U.S. dollar and low oil prices are weighing on inflation, which has run below the Fed’s target of 2 percent for years. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Nobel-laureate Joseph Stiglitz and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers have all called on the central bank to hold off on a rate hike, at least for now.

“Now is the time for the Fed to do what is often hardest for policymakers,” Summers wrote in The Washington Post recently. “Stand still.”

The calls for delay are also coming from a populist campaign known as Fed Up, which protested outside of the central bank’s buildings Thursday. Several lawmakers joined the demonstration, including Michigan Rep. John Conyers, who is sponsoring a bill that would require the Fed to target a 4 percent unemployment rate.

Not everyone agrees the Fed should wait, however. Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker dissented from the central bank’s vote on Thursday. In aspeech earlier this month, he pointed to strong consumer spending, the sharp decline in unemployment and a pickup in inflation measured since the beginning of the year as reasons a rate hike is warranted.

“I am not arguing that the economy is perfect, but nor is it on the ropes, requiring zero interest rates to get it back into the ring,” he said. “It’s time to align our monetary policy with the significant progress we have made.”

In its official statement, the Fed attempted to assure investors and the public that after the first rate hike, it expects to make subsequent hikes only gradually. Though most officials predicted the Fed would raise its target rate several times next year, they also forecast it would remain below its historic norm of about 4 percent for several years. Fed documents released Thursday show the long-run median estimate at  just 3.5 percent.

Each hike will also likely be small, analysts expect just one quarter of one percent. That would allow the central bank to assess how an economy grown accustomed to easy money operates under a new regime.

“One should never discount the importance of an interest rate change by a central bank merely because it looks small,” said Scott Sumner, an economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “Some pretty big avalanches have started from a small pebble being dislodged.”

Source: Washington Post

The answer should clearly be "no." The preponderance of economic data indicates that the predictable costs of premature tightening — slower job and wage growth — far outweigh the risk of accelerating inflation.

Six years into a lackluster U.S. expansion, price growth for personal consumption expenditures — excluding food and energy — has averaged less than 1.5% annually in the recovery, well below the Fed's unofficial 2% inflation target. It slowed to 1.3% so far in 2015.

Global economic forces are poised to drive inflation still lower. Last week, oil prices fell to $42, a low not seen since February 2009. Europe's growth remains anemic and is likely to remain so: The IMF forecast for 2015 is just 1.5%. And while it is difficult to piece together a precise picture of what is happening in China, most experts see growth slowing markedly, with effects in other emerging markets.

With a weaker euro and yuan, our exports will decrease and our imports increase. Together, this will put pressure on domestic businesses and the job market, which is hardly robust.

Despite a headline unemployment rate of 5.3%, the true labor market situation faced by working families in the United States remains dire. Millions remain trapped in disguised unemployment and part-time employment. As of July, the nation faced a jobs gap of 3.3 million — the number needed to reach pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who entered the potential labor force. The true unemployment rate, including those working part time involuntarily and marginally attached, is more than 10.4%.

Poor labor market conditions are also reflected in wages and incomes. So far this year, wages for production non-supervisory workers, which tracks closely to the median wage, fell by 0.5%. Median household income — a better indicator of how well the economy is doing as seen by the typical American than GDP — at last measure was lower than it was a quarter-century ago.

It is hard to see why the Fed would choose slower job and wage growth for most Americans just to protect against the theoretical risk of moderately higher inflation. But, then again, it's often hard to understand the Fed's policy choices, which tend to contribute to widening inequality in the United States.

Too often, after the end of one recession, the Fed, fearing inflation, has used monetary policy to dampen the economic expansion. Its maneuvers keep inflation low but unemployment higher than it otherwise would be, negatively affecting all workers, not just those out of a job. Workers in jobs face greater stresses, downward pressure on wages and diminished opportunities for upward career mobility. The costs of higher unemployment are borne disproportionately by people in lower-income jobs, who also tend to be disproportionately people of color and women.

After the 2008 crisis, the Fed tried to stimulate the economy by buying bank debt, mortgage-backed securities and Treasury assets directly from the market — so-called quantitative easing — which disproportionately benefited the rich. Data on wealth ownership show clearly that the portfolios of the rich are weighed more toward equity, and one of the main channels through which quantitative easing helped the economy was to increase equity prices.

So quantitative easing was yet another instance of failed trickle-down economics — by giving more to the rich, the Fed hoped that everyone would benefit. But so far, these policies have enriched the few without returning the economy to full employment or broadly shared income growth.

The Fed has been forthright in pointing out the limits of monetary policy to help the economy. Fiscal policy could lead to stronger and more equitable growth, but the Republican-led Congress has demanded austerity.

Still, there is more the Fed could do. It could do more to curb excessive debit card fees and the anti-competitive charges that credit and debit cards impose on merchants. These fees lead to higher prices and lower real incomes of workers. It could also do more to encourage lending to small and medium-sized businesses.

Easiest of all, it could choose not to raise interest rates. All policy is made under uncertainty. In this case, however, the risks are one-sided: Ordinary Americans in particular will be hurt by a premature rate rise, as the economy slows, unemployment increases and there is even more downward pressure on wages.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute.

Source: The Los Angeles Times

Mira el video aquí.