Divest From Prisons, Invest in People—What Justice for Black Lives Really Looks Like
Divest From Prisons, Invest in People—What Justice for Black Lives Really Looks Like
This article is the second part of a series of conversations with contributors to the demands of the Movement for Black...
This article is the second part of a series of conversations with contributors to the demands of the Movement for Black Lives. Part One was on reparations.
In July 2015, more than 2,000 members of The Movement for Black Lives—a group composed of more than 50 racial justice organizations—convened in Cleveland to recognize the violence committed against Black people in this country and around the world. At the assembly, participants decided the Movement needed to form a coalition that articulated concrete ways to build a more equitable society. Six legislative platforms emerged that covered issues like economic justice, reparations, political empowerment, and divestment from policing and incarceration. In their Invest-Divest platform, the authors called instead for investment in programming, like restorative justice initiatives, that would decrease incarceration and strengthen communities.
We’ve come to accept policing and incarceration as catch-all solutions.
According to the Brookings Institution, White Americans are equally likely to use and more likely to deal drugs, while African Americans are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced harshly. For U.S. residents born in 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics predicts that 1 in 111 White women will go to prison in her lifetime, while 1 in 18 Black women will. For White men, the likelihood is 1 in 17; for Black men, 1 in 3.
“At the heart of the Invest-Divest demand is the recognition that our city, state, and federal budgets reflect the dehumanization, and the degradation of Black life through lack of investment in anything besides Black incarceration or surveillance,” says Marbre Stahly-Butts, co-author of demands from the Invest-Divest platform that call for reallocating government funds from law enforcement to long-term safety, and decriminalizing drug and prostitution crimes.
Stahly-Butts, a facilitator of the Cleveland convening and deputy director of racial justice at the Center for Popular Democracy, explains that our current criminal justice system is based on a premise of comfort, rather than of safety: Instead of addressing the roots of uncomfortable issues such as drug addiction, mental illness, and poverty, we’ve come to accept policing and incarceration as catch-all solutions. This disproportionally affects African Americans.
Here she discusses why divestment from the prison and military industries is as critical to a just future as investment in public institutions.
The following interview has been lightly edited.
Liza Bayless: How does the Invest-Divest platform play into the Movement for Black Lives?
Marbre Stahly-Butts: The call for Invest-Divest has been at the center of organizing and activism work for at least the last decade, if not more. Since slavery, but especially in the age of mass incarceration in the last 30 or so years, [there has been an] incredible increase in the amount of spending that goes to police departments—to cages, prisons and jails, corrections offices, military equipment, and surveillance equipment. At the same time, [there has been] divestment from the social safety net, from social services and education to affordable housing.
What makes our communities safe is not more guns, more police, or more cages.
What makes our communities safe is not more guns, more police, or more cages, but employment opportunities, safe housing, jobs, education, restorative justice. To live in the world we’re envisioning requires a real investment—both by private parties, but also by public dollars.
Bayless: In August, the Department of Justice announced it would end use of private prisons. How significant is this step?
Stahly-Butts: It’s an important step and in many ways a symbolic step, but I think it’s essential that states follow suit. The caging of our people actually happens on a local level, and so the same week that the Department of Justice made that announcement, I believe in Florida they decided to continue contracts with local prisons and, in fact, expand them.
Most of our people are kept in public facilities, so there’s a real need to decarcerate and not just de-profitize. It would matter a lot if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did it, because that’s, in fact, where most of the [prison] beds are.
A month [after the announcement], the Department of Justice released guidelines around its increased funding of police officers and officers in schools. So it’s important to realize that the criminalization—and the incarceration—of our people really is something that the government has not divested from, and in some ways has actively continued.
There’s a lot of work to be done, but I was pleased about implications of ending those contracts.
Bayless: Usually we hear from organizations about investment more than divestment. What makes the concept of divestment so important to this platform?
Stahly-Butts: I think that we see a general narrative on the left around the need to increase infrastructure and investment. Obama, Clinton, and other progressives constantly affirm their commitment to investment strategies, whether it’s health care, job programs, or educational funding. But the divestment piece is essential to a conversation around the livelihood, wealth, health, and survival of Black, brown, and poor communities.
There has to be a conversation about real solutions to incarceration.
If we continue to lock up and put one of every three Black men under police control; if we continue to incarcerate Black women at the highest-growing rates; and continue surveillance and denying people [driver’s] licenses and housing opportunities when they are out of incarceration, [then] we’re undermining our investments if we’re not also divesting from these systems that have led to this mass criminalization of folks for behaviors that often have nothing to do with public safety.
Bayless: The topic of mass incarceration has been at the forefront of the country’s conversations about racial injustice. Is there something missing from that discussion?
Stahly-Butts: It’s essential that we talk about the entire purview of things that don’t belong under the criminal code, from the way poverty is criminalized to the ways homelessness is criminalized. Even in Florida, wearing saggy pants [has been criminalized].
There has to be a conversation about real solutions to incarceration, and not just changing the practices of putting people in cages, but also changing the entire orientation for communities that criminalize them en masse, that have police in schools, that believe that the only answer to mental health and other issues is cages and handcuffs. There’s a real need for cultural change and a social conversation about the roots of the system, and other ways to deal with these issues that is not state violence.
Bayless: By focusing on decriminalization of certain crimes—in this case, nonviolent ones such as drug and prostitution crimes—as fundamentally different from “violent” crimes, is there a risk people convicted of the latter could end up with harsher sentences?
Stahly-Butts: There’s a false dichotomy between violent and nonviolent crimes. We often talk about it as if there’s some fine line, but in fact every state, every city defines that differently. Whether we’re talking about crimes that hurt people or impact property, or crimes that are about mental health or drug addiction, the idea of investment is key to all of them.
Folks are working locally to realize what it means to build alternative structures to criminal justice.
If we use the money that we’re currently using to cage people, and take the literally trillions of dollars to invest in the well-being of our people—in jobs, education, trauma-informed services, restorative justice—we would see a real addressing of all sorts of social issues, including the ones that make people less safe.
Bayless: Anything else you’d like to add about this platform?
Stahly-Butts: Folks are working locally to realize what it means to build alternative structures to criminal justice, to divest from policing and invest in communities. Despite the past two years—where we’ve seen literally dozens of Black folks be killed on video, and uprisings in communities from Baltimore to Ferguson—we’ve seen incredible movement and energy.
By Liza Bayless
Source
Our Fight for Health Care During Recess and Beyond
It’s time to ramp up our resistance to the Trump-Ryan agenda on health care. We scored our biggest legislative victory...
It’s time to ramp up our resistance to the Trump-Ryan agenda on health care. We scored our biggest legislative victory so far on March 24, when Speaker Paul Ryan called off his bid to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because he didn’t have the votes. This was an inspiring, hard-fought win for everyone who believes health care is for all...
Read full article here.
Letter: No point putting faith in GOP lawmakers
Anyone who buys the GOP story that they are going to give us better health care is a sucker. We will get hosed by the...
Anyone who buys the GOP story that they are going to give us better health care is a sucker. We will get hosed by the lying GOP. Anyone who votes for this garbage of a health care proposal should be voted out of office. If this becomes law, every working man and woman should change their dependents, then let us see how these leeches get by with no salary. We do that and the federal government has no income.
Read the full letter here.
Fed Up group claims Fed behind loss of reservation
A group critical of Federal Reserve policy is crying foul after their reservations for an upcoming meeting of central...
A group critical of Federal Reserve policy is crying foul after their reservations for an upcoming meeting of central bankers at the Jackson Lake Lodge were revoked.
The hotel is claiming a booking error is responsible. The group of labor unions and community organizations isn’t buying it.
The annual Economic Policy Symposium hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, held in Grand Teton National Park, is one of the most high-profile meetings of the country’s central bankers. This year, they are set to discuss frameworks for raising and lowering interest rates. Rates are currently low, and the debate in the Fed is how soon they should rise.
Fed Up is a coalition which argues that Federal Reserve interest rate policy is geared toward corporate and banking interests, leaving out the interests of workers and minorities.
“The impact of higher interest rates is to slow the economy down,” said Jordan Haedtler, Fed Up’s campaign manager. Raising rates pushes down inflation, which is good for lenders, but it does that by increasing unemployment and making it harder for workers to get raises, he said.
At the last two conferences in Jackson Hole, Fed Up has staged protests and an alternative conference focused on the impact that Federal Reserve policy has on wages and unemployment. The group plans a similar event at the meeting this year, despite the loss of their reservations, Haedtler said.
The lodge, which has 385 rooms, revoked 18 reservations in July. Those included all 13 rooms the Fed Up coalition had booked.
The Grand Teton Lodge Company is the National Park Service-authorized concessionaire which operates the Jackson Lake Lodge. Vice president and general manager Alex Klein said in a statement: “This summer we encountered an error with our booking system that resulted in our Jackson Lake Lodge property being oversold by 18 rooms for three peak nights in August.”
Klein said the company worked to move those who lost rooms to Flagg Ranch, 20 miles to the north.
Haedtler thinks his group was specifically targeted.
“We think that the computer glitch strains credulity,” he said “It’s pretty well known that the Kansas City Fed in particular doesn’t welcome our presence, but we think it’s important for the voices of working families and communities of color … to be included.”
Haedtler said his group made its reservations in May, and he was told by hotel officials that some guests who had made their reservations later in the year hadn’t lost their rooms. He said because the lodge is owned by the National Park Service, it has an obligation to protect free speech.
“The National Park Service, more than any other institution, is supposed to be a place of public accommodation,” he said. “We have secured a free speech permit, and we will be at the lodge during the Fed summit.”
The group filed an official complaint with the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice on Tuesday.
“What happened here is that, once again, the voices and faces of working class people of color have been marginalized; they have been treated disrespectfully; their opportunity to enjoy our country’s national parks has been subordinated to that of wealthy white guests,” the group wrote.
By Bryan Clark
Source
"Give Them Hell": Exposing the Corporate Backers of Anti-Immigrant Hate
"Give Them Hell": Exposing the Corporate Backers of Anti-Immigrant Hate
Since election night 2016, the streets of the US have rung with resistance. People all over the country have woken up...
Since election night 2016, the streets of the US have rung with resistance. People all over the country have woken up with the conviction that they must do something to fight inequality in all its forms. But many are wondering what it is they can do. In this ongoing "Interviews for Resistance" series, experienced organizers, troublemakers and thinkers share their insights on what works, what doesn't, what has changed and what is still the same. Today's interview is the 61st in the series.
Today we bring you a conversation with José Lopez, one of the co-organizing directors at Make the Road New York, and Daniel Altschuler, the director of civic engagement and research at Make the Road New York.
Read the full article here.
Over 100 Progressive Local Elected Officials Gather in Los Angeles
Over 100 Progressive Local Elected Officials Gather in Los Angeles
(LOS ANGELES – Oct. 26) More than 100 progressive elected officials from across the United States are gathering in Los...
(LOS ANGELES – Oct. 26) More than 100 progressive elected officials from across the United States are gathering in Los Angeles today through Wednesday for a three-day convention to discuss key planks of the progressive agenda like workers’ rights, racial justice, and public education.
Council members, school board members, and mayors flew in from around the country for the Fourth Annual Convening of Local Progress, the network of progressive elected officials. Los Angeles First Lady Amy Elaine Wakeland opened the convening, which Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is co-hosting with Local Progress, with a welcome address.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a member of the network, sent a video message to the attendees encouraging them to continue their good work fighting for progressive policy that improves the lives of their cities’ residents.
Elected officials will join the nation’s leading policy experts, organizers, and advocates to learn about and share best practices on a range of policy areas including police reform, the fight for $15, and equitable development and affordable housing. The full agenda is here.
Sarah Johnson, Co-Director of Local Progress, released the following statement: “Today, cities are the great hope for the progressive movement. In order to achieve transformative victories at the local level, we need elected officials who are integrated into our movement, strategizing and working with the organizations who are fighting for a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda. Local Progress is building spaces for creating those collaborations and relationships, and for driving trans-local victories. By collaborating across cities – like we’ve done on paid sick days and the minimum wage – we can transform the national dialogue and build towards a country in which everybody is able to live a dignified life.”
San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos, Chair of the Board of Directors of Local Progress, released the following statement: “Across the country, the elected official members of Local Progress are passing crucial legislation to create a more just and equitable society. From $15 minimum wages to fighting climate change to laws reforming police practices, from programs to create affordable housing to policies that protect immigrant families from the destructive force of deportation, cities are leading the way forward. Our convening this week was a special opportunity to bring together these leaders from around the country to share best practices, build solidarity with one another, and plan for the important fights ahead in 2016.”
Mary Kay Henry, President of the Service Employees International Union, released the following statement: “SEIU’s members recognize the need to build a broad progressive movement for social justice. We are fighting to build a country where every family is able to give their children a dignified life. SEIU members across the country are proud to partner with their local elected officials to advance crucial public policies that promote economic and racial justice. We helped found Local Progress because we know that our movement needs sustainable, long-term infrastructure so that cities can innovate important policies that lift up working families and, like the Fight for $15 campaign led by courageous fast food workers, change the national political dialogue. We are excited by the growth of the network and eager to build, hand-in-hand with community-based organizations and elected officials, for our movement’s collective long-term success.”
Tefere Gebre, Executive Vice President of the AFL-CIO, released the following statement: “If we are going to raise wages in America, we need cities to lead the way. Local elected officials must stand side-by-side with the workers who are fighting for dignity on the job. The AFL-CIO and our affiliates are proud to partner with local elected officials from around the country who are advancing a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda. Together, we know that we can build a society where everybody who wants to can find a living wage job, and where families can raise their children in economic security and dignity.“
For interview opportunities with Sarah Johnson, John Avalos, Mary Kay Henry, or Tefere Gebre, or any of the elected officials attending the Local Progress convening, please contact Anita Jain at ajain@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761 or Sofie Tholl at stholl@populardemocracy.org, 646-509-5558.
###
www.populardemocracy.org
The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
Fed more upbeat on economy, unclear on timing of rate hike
The Federal Reserve offered a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy but provided little insight into when it...
The Federal Reserve offered a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy but provided little insight into when it will raise its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade.
Fed officials voted unanimously to keep the target rate at zero for now, after wrapping up their regular two-day policy-setting meeting in Washington on Wednesday afternoon. In a carefully worded statement, the central bank noted that the economy has expanded “moderately.” It pointed to solid job gains and lower unemployment as signs that the labor market has improved, adding that underemployment has also diminished.
Perhaps most important, the Fed characterized the risks to its outlook for the economy as “nearly balanced” — the same description it used after its previous meeting. Some analysts believe that the Fed will move once the risks are weighted more evenly.
U.S. stock markets spiked after the release of the Fed statement but quickly settled back down. Both the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average and the broader Standard & Poor's 500 average were up about half a percentage point in mid-afternoon trading.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said several times that she expects the central bank will raise its benchmark federal funds rate before the end of the year, a move that would herald the end of the central bank’s unconventional — and controversial — efforts to resuscitate the American economy.
Many investors and economists believe the moment will come during the Fed’s meeting in September, which would be followed by a news conference allowing Yellen to explain the central bank’s decision more fully. But a vocal minority think the Fed will wait to move in December, the next meeting with a scheduled news conference. A few economists — including two officials within the central bank — believe the Fed should hold off until 2016 to be sure the recovery is solid.
Fed officials have debated how strong of a signal to send as the moment of liftoff nears. But the central bank has repeatedly emphasized that its decision will depend on the evolution of economic data — and so investors should look to the numbers for the green light for action.
A key figure will be the government’s estimate of second quarter economic growth slated for release Thursday. Falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a sharp slowdown in the growth of consumer spending helped drive an unexpected contraction in the economy over the winter. Fed officials are hoping that second quarter GDP growth will prove the dip was merely temporary.
A stronger reading would also align with the pickup in hiring over the past two months. Unemployment is nearing its lowest sustainable level, making some officials antsy for the Fed to start tapping the brakes on the economy.
But others have argued that exceptionally low inflation means the Fed has plenty of time to act. Price growth remains well below the central bank’s 2 percent target, and officials have said they want to be “reasonably confident” it is moving up before tightening policy. In June, the central bank had stated that energy prices “appear to have stabilized.” But on Wednesday, it cited further declines in energy prices, along with the falling price of imports, as reasons inflation has remained low.
The Fed slashed its target interest rate to zero when the country was in the grips of the financial crisis in 2008, and it has stayed there ever since. In addition, it pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in an effort to lower longer-term rates and spur borrowing among consumers and investment among businesses. Unwinding those policies will likely take years.
Meanwhile, the Fed is facing renewed scrutiny in Congress. The House Financial Services committee on Wednesday passed a bill that would require the central bank to explain when it deviates from certain monetary policy models, disclose more information on salaries and allow for audits of the Fed's decision-making process. Another bill sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady would create a commission to examine the Fed, which recently celebrated its centennial.
“The Fed is trying to do too much,” Brady said in an interview. “It can be the right tool, but not for everything and everybody.”
The central bank is also facing pressure from the other end of the political spectrum. A coalition of community activists and labor groups is urging the Fed to leave its target rate unchanged amid elevated unemployment rates among minorities.
“Until we reach genuine full employment, there is no reason for the Fed to contemplate putting people out of work and slowing down our economy via interest rate hikes,” the Fed Up campaign said in a statement.
Source: The Washington Post
Charter Schools Fail: New Reports Call Their ‘Magic’ Into Question
Education Opportunity Network - May 7, 2014, by Jeff Bryant - When members of the U.S. House of Representatives...
Education Opportunity Network - May 7, 2014, by Jeff Bryant - When members of the U.S. House of Representatives consider, beginning today, a bill to incentivize the expansion of charter schools, you can expect there to be a lot of heat but not very much light in their discussion of the need for more of these institutions.
The bipartisan bill, HR 10, is “likely to pass,” according to the experienced observers at Education Week. And “amid lots of cross-aisle fist-bumping,” there is apt to be “a much glitzier rollout, with lots of floor speeches about the power of charters to help disadvantaged kids. Debate is also expected to begin Thursday and final passage could happen Friday.”
In today’s climate of trumped up political truisms (remember “deficit hysteria?”), the supposed necessity of charter schools is just the latest one to hit The Hill.
In even the most casual treatments of education, charter schools are now regarded by many as a given “improvement.” New York Times columnists David Leonhardt illustrated this intellectual nonchalance the other day, writing for the paper’s magazine, that our nation’s “once-large international lead in educational attainment has vanished,” but “there are some reasons for optimism in education” – principally, “charter schools” that “offer some lessons about what works and doesn’t in K-12.”
Echoing Leonhardt in the halls of Congress, Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) recently harangued U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan during a Senate committee meeting for not giving enough federal financial support to charter schools. According to the report from Education Week, she “chided Duncan for proposing level funding for the federal charter program.” Said Landrieu, “We gave you billions of dollars for traditional public schools. You’ve given a very small amount of money for public high performing charters. The evidence is in, they work.”
Even the President himself declared this week National Charter School Week in a proclamation claiming charter schools “show what is possible.”
The fact that the House vote on the HR 10 coincides with the president’s designation of a special week for charters tells you the marketing campaign for these schools has been very carefully orchestrated.
But upsetting the ad campaign are a number of recent revelations showing that among “what is possible” from charter schools is a lot of bad education, ridiculous hype, wasted resources, and widespread corruption.
For sure – and let’s get this straight from the get go – there are always a few “charter school success stories” that can be cherry picked from the tree, but that’s not the point. After all, imagine an advocate for traditional public schools pleading his case saying, “But look at this great public school over here.” He’d be mocked in the media and shamed by politicians. The point is that after years of studies about charter schools, there is not really any definitive proof of any “charter magic” they bring to the field.
In the meantime, look at what’s being introduced . . .
Spreading Bad Education
Opening the truth telling about charter schools was a recent study from the Economic Policy Institute on a call for public schools to be replaced by charter schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Milwaukee, you should note, is the city that has experienced the nation’s longest running experiment, more than 20 years, with charter schools and vouchers as replacements for traditional public schools. The consensus view is that charter schools in Milwaukee do no better than the public schools they replace, and many of the charter schools that perform the worst are never held accountable and continue to remain open after years of failure.
Despite this humble track record for charters in Milwaukee, the EPI report “Do Poor Kids Deserve Lower-Quality Education Than Rich Kids? Evaluating School Privatization Proposals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” explores the latest demand from state officials who are for “enamored with a new type of charter school represented by the Rocketship chain of schools.”
The study’s author, Gordon Lafer, looked closely at Rocketship’s practices and found “everything is built around the tests.” However, tests scores for students in the Rocketship programs – as measured by California’s Academic Performance Index (where Rocketship is primarily based) – have declined by just over 10 percent from 2008–2009 to 2012–2013. “Indeed, in 2012–2013, all seven of the Rocketship schools failed to make adequate yearly progress according to federal standards.”
Despite this poor performance, Rocketship executives are bent on an “unshakeable pursuit of large-scale growth.” But instead of good education practice, what drives the Rocketship model is profit. As the report explained, along with a test-driven instructional method, the Rocketship model relies heavily on substituting extensive online instruction for personal instruction from teachers. However, this model leads to clear conflicts of interest when the charter network partners with its own for-profit providers of curricula, and two leaders of the charter venture both sit on Rocketship’s Board and are primary investors in a for-profit company that provides the math curriculum used by Rocketship.
Thus, as Lafer concluded in his report, “Rocketship promotes itself as a dynamic learning organization, and indeed the company is continually experimenting. However, its innovation appears to be restricted within specific boundaries: It seems that it will not adopt education reforms that have no potential to make money for investors.”
This profit over pedagogy mentality “would likely be prohibited as illegal conflicts of interest if they took place in a public school system,” but, “Rocketship is not bound to uphold the same standard of ethics demanded of public officials.”
Is this really a model of schooling we want spread across America?
Engaging In Marketing Hype
Another outcome of the push for charter schools is the circulation of unfounded and unwarranted rhetoric to support them. Demands for more charter schools, and more money for charter schools, are often justified by suspect information masquerading as “research” and inflated arguments about their financial needs.
Two recent examples of the hype machine behind charter schools were, first, a new report arguing for more money for charter schools and, second, the annual ritual of circulating figures representing a charter school “waitlist.”
The report calling for more funds for charter schools found that in 2011, charter schools received $3,059 less per student than traditional public schools. “Shocking,” wrote one of the report authors on his personal blog.
But as education journalist Joy Rosmovits noted at The Huffington Post, the report came from a University of Arkansas endeavor “funded by the Walton Foundation, a group associated with Walmart that aggressively uses its philanthropy to spur the creation of new charter schools. (The foundation also funded the report, which contains a disclaimer that its findings “[do] not necessarily reflect” the group’s views.)”
Further, as charter schools expert and Western Michigan University professor Gary Miron explained to a blogger for Education Week, “This is not research that’s helping draw good policies.” As it turns out, based on the data, charter schools often get less money because they don’t provide many of the services traditional public schools do, in particular, special education services, student support services such as counseling and health, vocational education, and transportation.
In fact, according to the writer, “Miron found that charters have a cost advantage,” especially when there is a thorough accounting of “considerable money that comes into charters from private sources.”
And about that extensive charter school wait list? Like clockwork, the numbers were indeed released, showing, supposedly, over a million students champing at the bit to get into charter schools. Fortunately, just prior to the release, a report from the National Education Policy Center warned, “While there are undoubtedly many students who wish to enroll in popular charter schools and are unable, the overall waitlist numbers are almost certainly much lower than the estimates.”
The report, ” Wait, Wait. Don’t Mislead Me! Nine Reasons to Be Skeptical About Charter Waitlist Numbers,” caution that the methods for obtaining the waitlist data are not transparent, there’s no means of verifying the results, and waitlist record-keeping is chronically unreliable – for instance, charters often count as “waiting” applicants who apply to enter into grade levels for which charters provide no entry. Also, a small number of very popular charters disproportionately account for the charter waitlists, while traditional public schools – which are not allowed to turn away applicants or, as with popular magnet schools, offer selective enrollment – are not given a “meaningful comparison” in the charter school data.
So as charter proponents continue to inflate their cause, the facts continue to deflate it. Maybe we’ve had enough of this shameless hype?
Wasting Resources, Spreading Corruption
Last but hardly least, a blockbuster report released by Integrity in Education and the Center for Popular Democracy revealed, “Fraudulent charter operators in 15 states are responsible for losing, misusing or wasting over $100 million in taxpayer money.”
The report, “Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud And Abuse,” combed through news stories, criminal records, and other documents to find hundreds of cases of charter school operators embezzling funds, using tax dollars to illegally support other, non-educational businesses, taking public dollars for services they didn’t provide, inflating their enrollment numbers to boost revenues, and putting children in potential danger by foregoing safety regulations or withholding services.
“Despite rapid growth in the charter school industry,” the report contended, “no agency, federal or state, has been given the resources to properly oversee it. Given this inadequate oversight, we worry that the fraud and mismanagement that has been uncovered thus far might be just the tip of the iceberg.”
In a write up of the report at Bill Moyers and Company, Joshua Holland wrote, “The report looks at problems … with dozens of case studies. In some instances, charter operators used tax dollars to prop up side businesses like restaurants and health food stores — even a failing apartment complex.”
At her blog at The Washington Post, Valerie Strauss cited some of the most egregious examples including a Washington, DC-based charter that used public tax dollars to cover travel-related expenses, membership dues and dinner tabs at an exclusive club, and slew of bills from sources as diverse as wine and liquor stores, Victoria’s Secret, and a shop in France frequented by the charter school operator and his wife.
A state auditor in Ohio found nearly $3 million in unsubstantiated expenses amassed by a charter in that state. Another operator in Milwaukee “spent about $200,000 on personal expenses, including cars, funeral arrangements and home improvement.” And yet another in California pleaded guilty to “stealing more than $7.2 million worth of computers from a government program.”
The report concluded with recommendations for policy makers to adopt to curb these abuses, including
Rigorous oversight from officials solely dedicated to charters and an annual auditing process. Increased transparency through public access to records, meetings, and documents and required disclosure of finances and vendor relationships. Stricter governance from board members who live in reasonable proximity of where charter schools operate and who are accountable to the public.Given the situation, these recommendations seem all too reasonable.
Time For This Truism To Die
Despite these urgent and well-founded calls for a change in direction on charter schools, public officials still seem intent on pursuing bad policy.
In New York, new changes in state laws allowing an unfettered charter industry to expand are leading to a “charter school gold rush.”
In Pennsylvania, credit-rating agency Moody’s has warned that charter expansions promoted by the state endanger the financial livelihood of Philadelphia Public Schools, the state’s largest school district.
And inside the Beltway, Members of Congress, U.S. Senators, and state governors are feted by the well-financed backers of charter schools as being “champions” of good education.
But with these recent disclosures, and others that are sure to come, about the reality of charter schools, there’s every reason to believe that a tipping point in the debate over their fate is drawing nigh.
Source
The ugly charter school scandal Arne Duncan is leaving behind
US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s surprise announcement to leave his position in December is making headlines and...
US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s surprise announcement to leave his position in December is making headlines and driving lots of commentary, but an important story lost in the media clutter happened three days before he gave notice.
On that day, Duncan rattled the education policy world with news of a controversial grant of $249 million ($157 the first year) to the charter school industry. This announcement was controversial because, as The Washington Post reports, an auditby his department’s own inspector general found “that the agency has done a poor job of overseeing federal dollars sent to charter schools.”
Post reporter Lynsey Layton notes, “The agency’s inspector general issued a scathing report in 2012 that found deficiencies in how the department handled federal grants to charter schools between 2008 and 2011″ – in other words, during Duncan’s watch.
Even more perplexing is that the largest grant of $71 million ($32.5 the first year) is going to Ohio, the state that has the worst reputation for allowing low-performing charter schools to divert tax money away from educational purposes and do little to raise the achievement of students.
A number of Ohio officials were shocked by the news.
As a different article from The Post reports, Democratic Party Representative Tim Ryan “was alarmed” by the Education Department’s decision. Ryan called his state’s charter school sector “broken and dysfunctional.”
Ted Strickland, an ex-Governor and now Democratic candidate for a US Senate seat in Ohio, wrote Duncan a letter telling him to reconsider the Ohio grant. “Too many of Ohio’s charter schools are an embarrassment,” he states. Strickland quotes from a recent study showing charters in his state perform significantly worse than public schools. He points to a recent scandal in which the person in the state’s department of education responsible for oversight of charters had to resign because he was caught “rigging the books.”
Even Ohio Republicans are disturbed about Secretary Duncan’s generosity to charter schools in the Buckeye State. Like a parent who sees a visiting relative doling out chocolate bars to an already stimulated child, State Auditor Dave Yost quickly stated his concerns about the new charter school largesse to the media and his intention to track how the money is spent. Yost should know. An audit he conducted earlier this year found charter schools in the state misspend millions of tax dollars.
“Why is the Department rewarding this unacceptable behavior,” Strickland asked in his letter.
Money For What?
Certainly throwing unaccounted for federal tax money at charter schools is nothing new.
A recent report from the Center for Media and Democracy found that over the past 20 years the federal government has sent over $3.3 billion to the charter school industry with virtually no accountability. That report notes “the federal government maintains no comprehensive list of the charter schools that have received and spent these funds or even a full list of the private or quasi-public entities that have been approved by states to ‘authorize’ charters that receive federal funds.”
But Secretary Duncan has been particularly generous to charter schools. One of the conditions states had to meet to win a Race to the Top grant, his signature program, was to raise any caps they may have had on the number of charter schools allowed to operate in the state. His department warned states receiving waivers to the onerous provisions of No child Left Behind not to do enact any new policies that would undermine charter schools’ “autonomy.”
Congress has done its part too, raising the amount of federal money going to charter schools through the Charter School Grants program.
The CMD report cited above calculated that the feds are expected to increase charter school funding by 48 percent in FY 2016, which would have been Duncan’s last year on the job. That’s about $375 million more for charters estimates journalist Juan Gonzalez.
Yet at the same time federal support for charter schools continues to grow, revelations increasingly show the results of that spending are frequently disastrous.
Dollars For Disaster
A recent report from the Center for Popular Democracy and the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS) uncovered over $200 million in “alleged and confirmed financial fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement” committed by charter schools around the country.
The report follows a similar report released a year ago by the same groups that detailed $136 million in fraud and waste and mismanagement in 15 of the 42 states that operate charter schools. The 2015 report cites $203 million, including the 2014 total plus $23 million in new cases, and $44 million in earlier cases not included in the previous year’s report.
Authors of the report called $200-plus million the “tip of the iceberg,” because much of the fraud “will go undetected because the federal government, the states, and local charter authorizers lack the oversight necessary to detect the fraud.”
Adding to concerns over how federal funds for charter schools are used, state audits, like the one conducted in Ohio, have also found widespread financial fraud and abuse committed by these schools.
Although the CPD-AROS report made policy recommendations for mandatory audits of charters and increased transparency and accountability for these schools, none of those recommendations seem to have gotten any attention, much less action, from Duncan and his staff.
A Process Cloaked In Mystery
Both the ends and the means of federal grants to charter schools remain mostly a mystery. Not only do we not know what happens to most of the money; we don’t know how recipients for the money are chosen.
As CMD’s Jonas Persson writes on that organization’s PR Watch blog, “The public is being kept in the dark about which states have applied for the lucrative grants, and what their actual track records are when it comes to preventing fraud and misuse … The U.S Department of Education has repeatedly refused to honor a CMD request under the Freedom of Information Act for the grant applications, even though public information about which states have applied would not chill deliberation and might even help better assess which applicants should receive federal money.”
Also unknown are the names of the “peers” who review applications for the grant money.
How Ohio became chosen for more charter school money is especially enigmatic, not only because of the bad reputation of the state’s charter schools, but also because of the circumstances of how the state’s application was pitched to Duncan and his staff.
Soon after the announcement of the grant, the Akron Beacon reported a Ohio Department of Education official who helped obtain the $71 million in federal money was the very same official who resigned in July “after manipulating data to boost charter schools.” The official resigned a mere two days after filing the grant application.
What’s also interesting about the new federal grant money for Ohio charters is its timing.
Was Money Timed For Youngstown Takeover?
As the Beacon report notes, “The additional federal dollars come as the Ohio Department of Education decides how to distribute $25 million set aside by state lawmakers to help charter schools pay rent, purchase property, or renovate buildings. The money is yet one more assist to charter-school proponents in need of a building. Rent and building acquisition are two of the biggest deterrents to start-ups.”
The grant to Ohio also seems especially well timed to the targeted takeover of one of the most troubled school districts in the state, Youngstown.
As a recent report in Belt Magazine explains, “The Youngstown City Schools, which could lay claim to the title of the worst school district in the state … had been under academic distress for the past five years. Enrollment had dropped 21 percent since 2010.”
This summer, a House education bill with bipartisan support was about to sail through the legislature when State Senator Peggy Lehner, the chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, suddenly introduced an amendment.
“The amendment,” Belt reporter Vince Guerrieri recounts, “informally dubbed ‘the Youngstown Plan,’ allows for the dissolution of the academic distress commission of any district that’s gotten an F grade for three years in a row or has been under academic distress for at least four years. Youngstown is the only school district that meets that qualification.”
“Within 12 hours of the introduction of the amendment, it had passed the legislature,” Guerrieri writes.
The fast-tracked legislation sets up, according to an NPR outlet in the state, “a five member Academic Distress Commission with a three member majority chosen by the state school superintendent. That group then appoints a CEO with extraordinary powers. He could not only change the collective bargaining agreement with teachers but also create or contract with charter schools.
State school board member Patricia Bruns – a Democrat – says bypassing local elected officials including the school board is unconstitutional. ‘Their idea is to take over the schools, dismantle what’s there, and dole them out to private, for-profit charters.’
So was the federal grant to Ohio timed to pay for the take over of Youngstown schools?
That’s the question Ohio edu-blogger and public school advocate Jan Resseger wants answered. She points to an article by Akron Beacon education reporter Doug Livingston who alleges the new funding for charter schools in Ohio is “designed specifically to pay for the fast-tracked state takeover of the Youngstown schools.” Livingston backs up his claim with a quote from Arne Duncan’s press secretary Elaine Quesinberry who confirmed, “that the Ohio education officials filled out the grant application with the intent to direct money to charter school startups in academic distressed areas. Only two, Youngstown and Lorain, currently fit that description.”
What ‘Reform?’
Meanwhile, as the House bill containing the Youngstown Plan passed with extraordinary haste, another bill to make charter schools more transparent and accountable remained mired in contentious through the summer recess. That bill now seems likely to get approved by the legislature, based on reports received at press time. But “there’s no clear magic bullet” in the bill, according to a Cleveland news outlet, at least in terms of reforming charter schools in the state.
“The bill makes several small changes,” the reporter contends. “Private and for-profit charter school operators will have to provide more information to the public about how they spend tax dollars they are paid to run the schools.” But “the books won’t be anywhere near as open as a public school district’s.”
Also, what amounts to accountability for charters seems especially weak under the provisions of the new law. “The Ohio Department of Education will start to publicize which operators run each school and give information to the public about the academic performance of the schools that each operator runs. That will let families know the track record of the people running a school.” It will? How many families will dig into state reports to make decisions about where to send their kids to school?
A Hands-Off Policy For Charter Schools?
For his part, Secretary Duncan seems little interested in how new federal grants to charter schools will be spent, saying it’s “largely up to states and the public agencies that approve charter schools,” according to the Post article cited above. “At the federal level, we don’t have a whole lot of leverage,” he mused.
This seems an oddly resigned comment from an education secretary whose department has made the minute scrutiny of state policy governing nearly everything having to do with public education – from standards, to teacher evaluations, totutoring requirements.
Why would a secretary so often accused of leading an unprecedented overreach of federal intrusion in state education policy suddenly become so nonchalant about oversight of charter schools?
It certainly doesn’t help dampen suspicion that Duncan’s replacement as acting secretary will be John King, the controversial former New York State Education Commissioner, who has deep ties to the charter school industry.
Before becoming New York Commissioner, King helped to found and operate a charter school management organization with schools in New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
Because King will be acting secretary, no nomination process or Congressional hearings will be needed to approve the leadership change.
Source: Salon
Pittsburgh police, community absorb news of Dallas shootings
Pittsburgh police, community absorb news of Dallas shootings
Though far from Dallas, Minnesota or Louisiana, leaders here recognized on Friday the historic nature of a chain...
Though far from Dallas, Minnesota or Louisiana, leaders here recognized on Friday the historic nature of a chain reaction of police-community tragedies and sought to minimize the risk of more violence.
A shooting such as the one in Dallas “knocks us out of our complacency,” said Howard Burton, chief of the Penn Hills police department. Although most people support officers and appreciate their protection, he said, “We know there’s a group of people out there that move in that direction, that move [aggressively] toward law enforcement.”
Such concerns led Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald and Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto to call for a peace gathering next week of law enforcement, church, activist, foundation, labor, corporate and government leaders.
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 1 president Robert Swartzwelder, who is a city officer, said he has authorized the lodge’s three-member funeral detail to go to Dallas. Normally, the lodge would be represented at funerals in Pennsylvania and adjoining states, but the extent of the tragedy in Dallas warrants a presence, he said, adding that it’s “extremely important to the law enforcement community and the family of the police officers” that they see support.
He added that the ambush will be “in the mind of very police officer that’s working” for some time.
Five law enforcement officers were fatally shot Thursday night in Dallas, with seven others injured. That was broadly interpreted as a deranged reaction to the deaths of Louisiana’s Alton Sterling and Minnesotan Philando Castile in encounters with police.
Leaders of both political parties decried all three tragedies.
“We have to ask ourselves, is this the type of country we want? I believe the answer is no,” said Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat. “When incidents like those in Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas happen, it raises concerns and questions, and we must demand change and action.”
Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, a Republican, wrote in a statement that the “disgusting attack has no possible justification.”
He also cited a Dallas police spokesman’s account that the violence there “was motivated by recent police shootings. Such incidents — including the shocking and disturbing videos from Minnesota and Louisiana — must be investigated thoroughly, and if any official is found to have violated the law, he should be severely punished.”
At a police accountability protest Downtown, officers escorting the marchers seemed “nervous, and that’s understandable, but they were very helpful and cooperative,” said Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, which organized the demonstration. “They’ve allowed us to do the march we envisioned, and we appreciate that.”
Pittsburgh police Chief Cameron McLay noted that concerns for lives of police officers and black citizens “are not mutually exclusive at all.”
Some suburban Allegheny County chiefs said they were running their departments as usual, and others declined to say whether they had made changes. None of those contacted by the Post-Gazette reported any threats to their officers.
Voices of the civil rights community said they want intensified attention to police-community problems — but not through violence.
“This is not going to happen in Allegheny County, because we’re going to be meeting with the young folks,” said Constance Parker, president of the Pittsburgh chapter of the NAACP. The message: “Before you get angry, think, because there’s costs you pay when you get very angry. If you don’t pay it with the law, you pay it with your body.”
By Rich Lord
Source
5 days ago
5 days ago