CPD IN THE NEWS

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

San Jose labor advocates, religious leaders and hourly workers on Tuesday submitted to city officials a proposed ballot measure that would force large and mid-size companies to offer their part-time employees more hours before hiring additional temps.

Organizers submitted more than 34,700 signatures to place the Opportunity to Work Initiative on the city’s November ballot, city officials said. At least 18,852 valid signatures, as verified by the county’s Registrar of Voters, are required.

If approved by voters, the initiative would apply to all companies with more than 35 employees.

The initiative is the latest effort of the Silicon Valley Rising movement, which is trying to address the region’s growing affordability crisis for low-wage earners. Community leaders and coalition members have also campaigned for affordable housing and minimum wage increases.

“This is another step toward framing more properly the questions of the wage gap and wealth gap in Silicon Valley,” said the Rev. Jon Pedigo, board member of the Silicon Valley Rising coalition and pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in East San Jose. “We see this as a moral issue, and we see this as a unifying issue where everyone will win.”

Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple, some of the biggest names in tech, have proudly touted the fact that they have done aways with gender pay gap. But that doesn't mean the tech industry overall is suddenly paying men and women equally across the board. Hired

One-third of San Jose workers earn less than the average annual rent for a one-bedroom home in the city, and families are increasingly struggling to make ends meet, according to an April report by the Center for Popular Democracy, Working Partnerships USA and the Fair Workweek Initiative.

“We’ve reached a crisis point,” Pedigo said. “There are so many people every day that are displaced.”

More than 40 percent of the estimated 162,000 people who work hourly jobs in San Jose rely on part-time work or variable schedules for their income, the report said.

Variable work schedules cause workers' incomes to fluctuate monthly, making it harder for earners to consistently support their families and pay rent. The burden falls hardest on women and minorities. More than 60 percent of hourly workers are women, according to the report. Almost 70 percent are people of color.

Alejandra Mejia, 29, makes $12 an hour as a part-time manager at a McDonald’s in San Jose. A single mother of three, Mejia depends on her monthly income to feed her kids.

The four of them live in a single room in a friend’s house. She can’t afford her own place, and she can’t depend on receiving a consistent monthly income. Over the past eight years, her weekly shifts have fluctuated — usually between 20 and 30 hours per week.

Mejia asked her boss for more work hours. Last week, the restaurant hired new people and gave Mejia only eight hours. Mejia will make $400 this month, almost $200 less than the average monthly income she depends on.

“I’m assuming I’m going to get money to support my kids, to feed my kids and to pay my rent,” Mejia said. “I don’t know what I’m going to do this month.”

Large companies consistently fail to treat employees like Mejia as people, as opposed to “cogs in a wheel,” Pedigo said. He called their choice to spread wages among part-time employees instead of hiring full-time workers “reprehensible.”

“We have a choice we have to make about how we move forward,” Pedigo said. “Do we move forward together based on the common good, or do we move forward based on the bottom line and the profit margin?”

By Jessica Floum

Source

The Huffington Post - July 15, 2013, by Brittny Saunders - Two weeks ago, the U.S. Senate approved historic federal immigration reform legislation in a 68-32 vote. Observers have linked the bill's relatively rapid movement -- perhaps unimaginable only a few years ago -- to the growing numbers of Latino and Asian voters and their overwhelming support for President Obama in the 2012 presidential election. The progress of federal immigration reform is just one signal that as the country undergoes sweeping demographic changes that will make the U.S. a majority people of color nation within 30 years, traditional understandings of what the machinery of public policy can produce and for whom will also shift.

Changes in the racial and ethnic makeup of the nation's population demand policies that account for the needs of communities of color as well as the increasingly central role such communities will play in driving economic growth in coming years. As experts have noted, the continuing viability of entitlements like Medicare and Social Security will soon depend on the Latino, Asian and Black workers who will constitute a growing portion of American workers.

These shifts are also altering constituencies and causing some elected leaders to revisit old positions. While much attention has been focused on the implications of these demographic changes for national elections and policymaking, this is not only a national trend. In state houses and city halls across the country, a historic moment has been taking shape. People of color, immigrants and workers are fighting for and winning state and local legislation that demonstrates the growing influence of the emerging new majority. In Connecticut, for example, communities fought for and won a statewide policy that makes it clear that local governments need only comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests under limited circumstances, helping to restore trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. The legislation, called the TRUST Act, was passed only weeks after Connecticut legislators voted to grant driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, joining a growing list of states -- including Washington, New Mexico, Utah, Maryland, Illinois and Oregon -- that have already enacted similar measures.

The demographic shifts that are underway also create increased opportunities for immigrant communities to unite with others that have long been targeted by discriminatory state and local policies and practices. Growing efforts to challenge tactics like racial and ethnic profiling and disparate enforcement are evidence of this. These tactics have grave consequences for immigrant Americans, for whom an unjustified street or vehicle stop can lead to detention, deportation and permanent separation from loved ones. And even for those for whom immigration status is not an issue, such targeting can lead to costly, long-term engagement with the criminal justice system with implications for housing and employment opportunities. But across the country, in urban, suburban and rural settings, immigrant and African-American communities are working together to win policies designed to end police targeting of their communities.

In New York, such efforts led recently to a victory that promises to set a new standard for what state and local governments can do to tackle the problem of discriminatory policing. At the end of June the New York City Council passed two historic bills that will enhance NYPD accountability. The measures -- which passed with support from a supermajority of the Council -- will establish external oversight of the Department, expand protection against profiling to a broader cross-section of New Yorkers, and give City residents new tools for challenging discriminatory practices. The bills' passage is due to tireless advocacy by Communities United for Police Reform, a coalition including groups representing not only immigrants and communities of color in the City, but also LGBTQ New Yorkers, homeless New Yorkers and others. While the Council must still override a promised mayoral veto, its leadership in this area is significant. With this legislation, New York City has an opportunity to move to the forefront of state and local public safety policy, demonstrating that there are alternatives to the discriminatory, outdated and ineffective policing strategies that have been in place in far too many communities for far too long.

Of course, success is not inevitable. And these and other attempts to change policy at the state and local levels have faced organized and passionate opposition. But each of these efforts suggests a tantalizing possibility: that in the decades to come we may actually succeed in breaking with the entrenched patterns of old and building power among communities that for much of our nation's history have been marginalized.

Source

The Federal Reserve‘s looming attempt to shrink its mammoth portfolio of bonds comes with an ugly track record: Virtually every time the central bank has tried it in the past, recessions have followed.

Over the past several months, the Fed has prepared markets for the upcoming effort to reduce the $4.5 trillion it currently holds of mostly Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities. The balance sheet ballooned as the Fed sought to stimulate the economy out of its financial crisis morass.

Read the full article here.