Another Study Finds Unaccountable Charter Schools Dogged by Corruption
Moyers & Company - October 6, 2014, by Joshua Holland - In today’s Washington Post, Jeff Bryant, director of the...
Moyers & Company - October 6, 2014, by Joshua Holland - In today’s Washington Post, Jeff Bryant, director of the Education Opportunity Network, writes about the promises that were first offered by advocates of the charter school industry:
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… charter schools are rarely shuttered for low academic performance….
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.
But in May, BillMoyers.com looked at a report issued by Integrity in Education and the Center for Popular Democracy — two groups that oppose school privatization. The study examined charter schools’ performance in 15 states, and revealed $136 million in fraud, waste and abuse in those states. The authors of that study wrote that, “where there is little oversight, and lots of public dollars available, there are incentives for ethically challenged charter operators to charge for services that were never provided.”
Last week, they released a follow-up study of charter schools in Pennsylvania. It found that “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 authors found that while the auditing techniques used by Pennsylvania regulators could identify inefficiencies, oversight agencies don’t use tools “specifically designed to uncover fraud.” It also found that oversight agencies were understaffed and underfunded. “With too few qualified people on staff, and too little training, agencies are unable to uncover clues that might lead to fuller investigations and the discovery of fraud,” write the report’s authors.
They also noted that their findings weren’t unique:
Numerous government entities have raised the flag about the risk of fraud nationally and in Pennsylvania. Reporting in 2010 on the lack of charter-school oversight in states throughout the country, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Education raised concerns that state-level education departments were failing “to provide adequate oversight needed to ensure that Federal funds [were] properly used and accounted for.” Also in 2010 in Philadelphia (which educates 50 percent of all Pennsylvania charter-school students), the Office of the Controller performed a “fraud vulnerability assessment” of the city’s oversight of charter schools and reported that the Charter School Office… made the city’s more than $290 million paid to charter schools “extremely vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.” A 2014 follow-up report found that the School District of Philadelphia continues to provide “minimal oversight over charter schools except during the charter renewal process.”
You can download the entire report on Pennsylvania charter schools at The Center for Popular Democracy.
Lobbyists Know the Fed Has Political Power
Your editorial is exactly right about the lack of impartiality with “The Federal Reserve’s Politicians” (Aug. 29)....
Your editorial is exactly right about the lack of impartiality with “The Federal Reserve’s Politicians” (Aug. 29). While created by Congress, the Fed continues to act as though it is completely unaccountable to the people’s representatives.
As I pointed out to Chairwoman Janet Yellen during a congressional hearing last year, her own calendar reflects weekly meetings with political figures and partisan special-interest groups. Even more troubling, there is a long history of Fed chairs or governors serving as partisan figures in the Treasury or the White House before their appointment. So while the Fed is quick to decry any attempts at congressional oversight, it cannot credibly claim to be politically independent.
We need a rules-based monetary policy that doesn’t leave the Fed with the potential to push an ideologically driven agenda. To make the Fed truly free from politics, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act of 2015, which my colleagues and I have passed through the House, should be signed into law. The American people deserve transparency at the Fed and market-driven monetary policy that can finally restore confidence in our economy.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.)
Glen Rock, N.J.
Your editorial accuses Fed Up, a group representing low-income black and brown communities, of politicizing the Fed, when big banks have always had undue access and influence over the Fed’s policies.
In fact, commercial banks literally own the Federal Reserve. Unlike nearly every other central bank in the world, the Fed isn’t a public institution but instead operates as a joint venture with the banking sector. It is not true that as long as this status quo of Wall Street domination continues, then the Fed is “independent,” but when the Fed Up campaign’s low-income people of color dare to join the monetary-policy conversation, then the Fed’s “independence” has been compromised.
You mention that retirees living off their retirement plans are suffering from a decade of near-zero interest rates. Presumably this refers to retirees who might have a hundred thousand or two tucked away for retirement. This is already far more than the low-wage workers who have joined our campaign will be able to accrue over a lifetime of working.
But let’s take the argument at face value. Even if the Fed were to raise interest rates up to 2%, that’s a mere $2,000 on $100,000 savings over a year. That won’t make much of a difference to how well a middle-class retiree lives, but hiking rates to that level prematurely could cut off struggling families—who are disproportionately people of color—from the added jobs and higher wages they so desperately need.
Shawn Sebastian
Fed Up Campaign
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Lobbying the Federal Reserve as if it is a legislature began with the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation and the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977. The chair of the Fed became politicized and conflicted as the act included mandated congressional grilling of the Fed chair, who is now required to stabilize prices, moderate long-term interest rates, while at the same time delivering low unemployment. These lofty goals can’t necessarily be simultaneously executed, as Paul Volcker showed so well when he attacked inflation, effectively saying that employment would rise with a solid economy that had price stability.
Mr. Volcker had the courage to take the abuse and address his critics as he followed a logical path and publicly explained it, but successive chairs have gradually focused more on pleasing the president who appointed them.
Rep. Kevin Brady’s idea for a commission to rethink the idea of the Fed is a good start. We now have about 40 years of increasing monetary, fiscal and employment messes, with a paralyzed Fed, unsustainable deficits and underemployment because politics tramples economic common sense.
Larry Stewart
Vienna, Va.
Source
Clinton Joins Crowd Calling for an Overhaul of Fed Governance
Hillary Clinton is the latest voice calling for changes at the Federal Reserve. A spokesman for the front-...
Hillary Clinton is the latest voice calling for changes at the Federal Reserve.
A spokesman for the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination released a statement Thursday saying that the Fed “needs to be more representative of America as a whole” and arguing that “commonsense reforms -- like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks -- are long overdue.”
The statement, sent by Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson and first reported by the Washington Post, comes as Democrats unleash a volley of criticism against the central bank. Earlier on Thursday, lawmakers called for more consideration of African American, Latino and female candidates for top Fed posts in a letter to Chair Janet Yellen. The missive was signed by a majority of the Democratic members of Congress.
Clinton’s position garnered praise from the union-backed Fed Up coalition, which coordinated the congressional letter.
The campaign’s comment also partly echoed a proposal that Fed Up put out last week, in which former Fed economist Andrew Levin suggested structural reforms for the central bank. Levin argued that the Fed should be made a more public institution.
Currently, regional reserve bank boards have nine directors: six are elected by member banks, with three representing commercial banks and three representing the public. The final three directors are appointed by the Board of Governors in Washington, and are also meant to represent the public.
Bank Control
That means two-thirds of the board seats at the 12 regional Fed banks are controlled by commercial banks, Levin wrote, saying that the directors should instead be affiliated with small businesses and non-profit organizations and selected through a “process overseen by the Federal Reserve Board and involving the elected officials in each Fed district.”
“The process should ensure that directors are representative of the public in terms of racial/ethnic and gender diversity and educational background and professional experience,” Levin wrote.
Esther George, president of the Kansas City Fed, said Thursday that “diversity for the Federal Reserve is critical,” and that progress has been made both at the board of directors and at the staff level in making sure the Fed reflects the communities that it serves.
Preserving Independence
Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker pushed back against proposals to make the Fed more public in an article posted Thursday. He said the regional branches’ hybrid governance structure “has come to play an important role in the independence of monetary policy” and “independence allows monetary policy to place greater weight on the long-term benefits of low and stable inflation.”
“The current Fed governance structure may not be ideal,” Lacker wrote. “But until there is a proposal that preserves the monetary policy independence that is so vital to the Fed’s mandate, we should stick to what we have.”
While there have been various Congressional attempts at shaking up Fed structure in recent years, those have made little headway. For instance, Republican Senator Richard Shelby proposed a bill last year that would have tweaked the New York Fed, making its leader a presidential appointee, among other changes, but it never passed.
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has also weighed in on the Fed in recent days. On CNBC last week, Trump said that he’s a “low-interest” person and that he would replace Yellen when her term ends.
By Jeanna Smialek
Source
Shutting Down the School-to-Prison Pipeline
Working at The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), Kate has partnered with youth-led organizations on various policy...
Working at The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), Kate has partnered with youth-led organizations on various policy initiatives and community organizing campaigns, and has represented young people facing school suspensions. At Proskauer, she has conducted trainings and served as a mentor and supervisor, enabling our lawyers to make a real difference in school suspension hearings. Even when a suspension cannot be avoided, an attorney may be able to help reduce its duration or secure other benefits, such as help for a learning disability, or a transfer to a school that is better-suited to the student.
Read the full article here.
Congress to Consider Bill to Help Part-Timers
New York Post - July 22, 2014, by James Covert - Part-timers with increasingly unpredictable work schedules are taking...
New York Post - July 22, 2014, by James Covert - Part-timers with increasingly unpredictable work schedules are taking their beef to Washington.
A congressional bill is slated for introduction Tuesday that would give workers more control over their hourly schedules at big retailers like Walmart, Home Depot and JCPenney.
Led by Walmart, major chains increasingly are switching around workers’ shifts on short notice, making it difficult and often impossible for part-timers to work second jobs.
The practice — common in retail, restaurant, janitorial and housekeeping jobs — has hit working mothers especially hard, according to critics.
Unpredictable work hours make it difficult to schedule everything from babysitters to doctor’s appointments.
“I think it’s gotten to a crisis point,” said Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative, a new campaign by the Center for Popular Democracy, adding workers need “some amount of predictability and stability in our work hours so we can live and manage our lives.”
The bill, sponsored by US Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), would require employers to give an extra hour of pay to workers summoned less than 24 hours in advance.
The bill would also guarantee a minimum of four hours’ pay if an employee is sent home early — a frequent occurrence at restaurants.
Source
‘Inflation Dynamics’ With the Fed as Ringmaster
In the center ring, Federal Reserve brass will be gathering for the closed-door conference that is hosted annually by...
In the center ring, Federal Reserve brass will be gathering for the closed-door conference that is hosted annually by the Kansas City Fed. Janet Yellen is skipping the event, as chairs of the board of governors occasionally do. The town, though, will be full of her critics.
On the right, the American Principles Project will host a separate parley on the need to reform the monetary system by restoring the gold standard as the best route to full employment.
In the left ring, a third group, called Fed Up, will argue for placing a priority on job creation. The Washington Post reports that the organization’s “teach in” will cover “income inequality, efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and whether the Fed should invest in municipal bonds.”
The Fed and its critics will be gathering as a bill to establish a Centennial Monetary Commission goes to the floor of the House. The bill would establish a commission to examine the Fed as it begins its second century.
At the Fed’s conference—the theme is “Inflation Dynamics”— one speaker will be the Fed’s vice chairman, Stanley Fischer. Earlier this month, in an interview with Bloomberg News, he seemed to suggest that the dollar wasn’t losing value fast enough for the Fed’s taste.
MarketWatch headlined the interview as suggesting that a rate hike in September is “not a done deal.” The collapse of stock markets around the world in recent days, says USA Today, gives the Fed a “new excuse” not to raise interest rates.
No doubt Fed Up, part of the Center for Popular Democracy, will make the most of it. In addition to pressing for keeping interest rates near zero, the group is lobbying for more labor and consumer advocates on boards of regional Federal Reserve banks. Fed Up also wants easy money. “Fed policy has been too tight for the past 40 years,” Fed Up Director Ady Barkan emails me. “The commitment to keeping inflation low at all costs is what has led to the elevated levels of unemployment.”
The focus of the American Principles Project—with its gathering of economists, political leaders, bloggers and activists— will be less on what the Fed should do and more on whether central banks are the problem and how Congress should use its powers for reform.
I wonder whether there might be surprising convergence between the left and right camps. American Principles is also focusing on employment but sees as critical to job creation the return to a dollar that is an honest unit of account defined in law and backed by gold.
One of the group’s presenters, Marc Miles, is likely to report on a new study showing that higher interest rates correlate to job creation. Has the Fed pursued the wrong policies as it has used its mandate, legislated in 1978 with the passage of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, to boost employment?
When the law created the Fed’s so-called dual mandate by obliging the central bank to aim for full employment in addition to maintaining price stability, even the New York Times called the measure a “cruel hoax.” Considering whether to end the dual mandate is one of the questions that would be taken up by the Centennial Monetary Commission on which the House is preparing to vote.
So would the question of whether a rules-based system, such as that proposed by economics professor John Taylor, could solve the problem of fiat money that is not defined in law. Congress has already started looking at these matters.
Fed Chair Yellen has bridled at such ideas. Earlier this year she suggested that she would oppose any rule of monetary policy making. At Jackson Hole three years ago, then-Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress to, as the Drudge Report headlined it, “butt out” of interest-rate policy discussions.
The fear at the Fed is that Congress will politicize the formation of monetary policy. That strikes me as a weak line. The Constitution, which all Fed chairmen swear to support, grants monetary powers to Congress, precisely to the most political branch of the government.
We are approaching the end of a presidency that has been hobbled by an underperforming economy. No wonder the Fed’s most celebrated annual gathering is now bracketed by competing conferences that seek political reform of monetary policy. The big question is whether Congress and the presidential candidates are listening.
Source: Wall Street Journal Asia
NY Fed names Williams to top post amid political backlash
“Yet the drum beat of criticism in recent weeks, including a demonstration outside the New York Fed and letters from...
“Yet the drum beat of criticism in recent weeks, including a demonstration outside the New York Fed and letters from state and city lawmakers, is raising worries within the Fed about independence from political pressure. Some lawmakers have in the past said the New York Fed president should be a presidential appointment like Fed governors. On Tuesday, advocacy group Fed Up slammed the appointment of "yet another white man whose record on Wall Street regulation and full employment raises serious questions."
Read the full article here.
Seattle Officials Repeal Tax That Upset Amazon
“From coast to coast, people lose their homes and get displaced from their communities even as the biggest corporations...
“From coast to coast, people lose their homes and get displaced from their communities even as the biggest corporations earn record profits and development booms,” said Sarah Johnson, director of Local Progress, a national association of progressive elected municipal officials. “Elected officials across the country are paying close attention to how Amazon and other corporations have responded to Seattle’s efforts to confront their affordable housing and homelessness crisis.”
Mayor Signals New Future with Paid Sick Days Move
Gotham Gazette - January 23, 2014, by Amy Carroll & Javier Valdés - Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker...
Gotham Gazette - January 23, 2014, by Amy Carroll & Javier Valdés - Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito have announced an expansion of paid sick leave coverage for hundreds of thousands of additional workers.
Their decision is a concrete move to confront and alleviate inequality, and bodes well for all New Yorkers, especially low-income workers and their families who live paycheck to paycheck.
The new administration’s proposal will guarantee paid sick leave to manufacturing workers and those at businesses of five or more employees, as well as provide for more aggressive enforcement by city agencies. These are critical first steps that recognize the dignity of workers who drive our city’s economy.
Leonardo Fernando is one of those workers. A 47-year-old immigrant who’s lived in Queens for nine years, he works 12-hour shifts at a car wash, in the heat and in the cold, to support his four children. Previously without paid sick days, he’s gone to work with the flu because he couldn’t afford to risk losing his job or missing a day’s pay. He will now be protected.
Of course, there’s still more to do through the legislative process. We would like to see all workers in New York have the right to paid sick time, and for the administration to strengthen enforcement through increased fines and provide workers the right to go to court when their rights are violated. But this is a great start.
In expanding the earned sick days law, which was fought tooth and nail by the Bloomberg administration and its corporate allies, Mayor de Blasio is honoring a campaign promise and governing as a progressive. And Speaker Mark-Viverito has signaled a clear break from her predecessor, who delayed the enactment of this law for years.
The shift in public policy is a direct result of years of work by workers, progressive advocates, community organizers, labor unions, and the faith community, who banded together to identify and elect new leaders in response to a widening income gap and exclusionary policies that didn’t help middle and working class families.
New York City is now a place where no worker will lose a job for taking a sick day.
What’s next?
Imagine a New York that’s more affordable, more inclusive, more fair. Imagine a city where all children have access to pre-school, a city that eliminates discriminatory policing, a city that leverages wealth to fight inequality and keep families in their homes.
The possibilities are endless. It’s a new day in New York.
Amy Carroll is the Deputy Director of The Center for Popular Democracy. Javier Valdés is the Co-Executive Director of Make The Road New York.
Source
On-call Shifts String Retail Workers Along
The Boston Globe - April 19, 2015, by Dante Ramos - Because life-threatening crises arise at odd times, people in some...
The Boston Globe - April 19, 2015, by Dante Ramos - Because life-threatening crises arise at odd times, people in some fields have days when they’re on call. EMTs get called to accident scenes. Doctors have patients who might fall ill or go into labor at any moment. But do unforeseen variations in sweater sales, or in foot traffic in the housewares department, have the same urgency? Of course not.
Recently, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters demanding information from Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, Urban Outfitters, and 10 other major retail chains about their use of on-call shifts — periods for which an employee must keep an open schedule but might not end up working.
Instead of simply reporting for work, the employee has to check in with a supervisor a few hours in advance. If she gets called in, she may have to scramble for a babysitter. If she doesn’t get called in, she doesn’t get paid, and it’s too late to get a shift on a second job. “People will be scheduled for eight on-call shifts in a pay period and only get called in for one shift,” says attorney Rachel Deutsch of the Center for Popular Democracy, a labor advocacy group.
Some of the retailers Schneiderman targeted have written the practice into their employee handbooks. Others, such as JC Penney, told reporters last week they have policies against it. Still others have responded cryptically to reporters’ inquires; TJX, the Massachusetts-based discount giant, told CNN Money that its schedules “serve the needs” of workers and the chain. I contacted the company to clarify, but it didn’t respond.
On-call shifts are a new frontier: They’ve proliferated at big chains because of just-in-time scheduling software, which uses up-to-the-minute data to maximize sales while minimizing the number of employees on the clock at slower times. Statistics are hard to come by, although a 2011 survey by Retail Action Project, another advocacy group, found that 43 percent of New York City retail workers were assigned to on-call shifts sometimes or often. Until Schneiderman’s office started sending out letters, the practice had attracted little regulatory attention. (In Massachusetts, the attorney general’s office is watching what happens in New York, but hasn’t taken similar action.)
Despite their relative novelty in retail, on-call shifts speak to an age-old tension. Economic life is full of uncertainty. How much should employers bear, and how much should fall on workers? Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, argues that stores face stiff competition from e-commerce and survive at the mercy of the customer who, he says, “moves on a dime.” He adds, “If you choose to work in retailing, you have to live with the consumer.”
In other sectors, though, people who work on call are often paid salaries that presume some unpredictability, or they’re paid for the time they spend waiting around. Deutsch used to work as a union rep for hospitals in the Bay Area. One hospital, she says, had a handful of technicians on staff who performed echocardiograms during the workday. After hours, there was a technician on call, who was paid half-time for those shifts even when there was no work.
A key difference: Echocardiogram techs have a specialized skill. Entry-level retail workers don’t, and those averse to on-call shifts are easily replaced.
Businesses aren’t social-service agencies. To rely on employers as guarantors of health care and retirement security, as the US government did after World War II, is to assume they and their workers want to be bound together intimately, for decades on end. But at the other extreme, companies that treat employee relationships as fleeting and transactional — the workplace equivalent of a one-night stand — will end up with lots of churn in their ranks.
Or they’ll be subject to lots of government mandates. Responding to a variety of complaints about unpredictable schedules, San Francisco last year approved a far-reaching “retail worker bill of rights” that, among other things, requires employers to post schedules weeks in advance. A proposed Massachusetts law has similar provisions. Hurst points out that parts of the bill would have hamstrung local retailers in February, when sales plunged during a four-week Ice Age.
Retail chains can forestall such rules by changing their ways. When stores train workers to do more than scan tags and say “I can help who’s next,” those workers can improvise. They might tend to customers during a sudden rush while prioritizing other jobs, like restocking shelves, at slower moments. If employers still believe they need on-call shifts, they can simply guarantee employees some pay for those periods. Ideally, chains would do so voluntarily. In practice, some will need a regulatory nudge.
When retailers can claim free options on hourly workers’ time, they have no incentive to make firm decisions in advance. But no one likes being strung along, and no one’s life is infinitely flexible.
Soure
8 days ago
8 days ago