Showing posts with label #keepthecap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #keepthecap. Show all posts

Thursday, November 10, 2016

No On 2: Activism in Public Education and Beyond

“Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet.”
Alice Walker

As we sift through the election data from Massachusetts Ballot Question 2 and begin to draw conclusions to inform future directions, I felt compelled to write a personal reaction to the seismic shift in the political landscape this week, both on the national level and within the education reform movement.

A few weeks ago, I went to Wellesley College with BPS student Michael Jones from Boston Youth Organizing Project and Jessica Tang from the Boston Teachers Union to speak at an event called “The People Take Over the Election.” Because of our work on the No On 2 campaign, we were invited to talk about how grassroots movements can affect change on the local, state and national level.

Our story is one that you will not hear about in the mainstream press that continues to promote a false narrative that teachers unions alone opposed and defeated Question 2. The success of the No On 2 campaign was built on a sturdy statewide coalition made up of political leaders, organizers, school committees, teachers, parents, but most importantly, our students who are in under-resourced schools that are being crushed by budget cuts.

For students in Boston and other urban districts, adding MORE schools to an educational landscape in which librarians, AP classes, and Spanish classes have recently been cut; opening MORE schools when 5 students are already sharing ONE textbook due to a lack of resources; opening MORE schools when some of our leaders are telling us they may need to close some, none of this made any sense to them.

No On 2 was successful because our students brought a level of authenticity and unvarnished reality into a polarized political battle that was being fueled by millions of dollars of Dark Money and fed on longstanding racial and class divisions in Boston and beyond. Our students, along with Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson and other community leaders, parents, teachers and organizers, participated in debates, rallies, door-knocking, phone-banking, and conversations with our friends and neighbors. We wrote blog posts, created videos, and leveraged social media to spread our message across the state.

The No On 2 movement was natural and organic to us because we were speaking from the heart about the things we value the most in our lives: our children, our schools and our communities.

At the same event at Wellesley College, Karen Narefsky, a community organizer focused on affordable housing, brought up something that really struck a chord with me. She talked about how activism is not just something you do in isolation; it becomes a rewarding part of the collective human experience. I read a similar sentiment from BPS student Erik Lazo in this wonderful piece by teacher Emily Kaplan about the BPS Walkout and its natural segway into the No On 2 movement:

“With activism, you notice that you’re never too weak. If someone’s going to step on your toes, you don’t have to be okay with it. You can change your society. And being more connected with your community, you no longer need this isolated mentality...Not only do you experience whatever’s going on in your school, you experience what’s going on in other people’s lives. And then these experiences kind of intertwine with your own.”

Your collaborators in activism are your everything. They are your friends, your family, your community, your lifeline, and it becomes difficult to ever imagine a life before you were an activist.

For us, Question 2 had a happy ending. We defeated a reckless ballot question that would have destroyed our urban public schools in Massachusetts. We changed the narrative that charter schools are the preferred educational solution of the black and Latino communities. We defeated a 24 million dollar missile aimed at our privatizing our schools with grassroots collaboration.

There will be much more for us to write on this subject this in the future, but in the present there is a much more immediate cause.

We need to recruit a nation of activists to push back on the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic tide that is rising faster than any of us can fathom. We need to organize, strategize, rally, write, create art, do whatever it takes to defend our vulnerable neighbors and preserve the future of our democracy. We need to be nimble, reflexive, creative, proactive, tough and compassionate all at once. We all need to become the best activists we can be, and FAST.

The task at hand will feel daunting at times, but the really good news is that this will be the most fulfilling, worthwhile and essential undertaking of all of our lifetimes.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Question 2: The Big Short of Public Education

“Facts are stubborn things, and whatever be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts or evidence”
John Adams

For the past year, there’s been much discussion among education journalists about the possibility of a “bubble” in the charter school sector after University of Connecticut Professor Preston Green III and his co-authors published a piece in University of Richmond Law Review, "Are We Heading Toward a Charter School 'Bubble'?: Lessons from the Subprime Mortgage Crisis." 

Professor Green presents some troubling parallels between the subprime mortgage crisis; a lack of government oversight, federal regulators allowing the expansion of a parallel system, multiple authorizers leading to new charter schools without proper screening, and predatory targeting of low income and African American communities. 

Many of Preston Green’s concerns were confirmed in a recent sweeping Federal Audit of charter schools that found:

“The Department’s internal controls were insufficient to mitigate the significant financial, lack of accountability and performance risks that charter school relationships with CMOs (Charter Management Organizations) pose to Department program objectives.”

These same concerns were reflected in the NAACP’s recent passage of a resolution calling for a moratorium on the further expansion charter schools until significant issues of accountability and transparency are addressed.
 
"We are calling for a moratorium on the expansion of the charter schools at least until such time as:
(1) Charter schools are subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public schools
(2) Public funds are not diverted to charter schools at the expense of the public school system
(3) Charter schools cease expelling students that public schools have a duty to educate and
(4) Cease to perpetuate de facto segregation of the highest performing children from those whose aspirations may be high but whose talents are not yet as obvious.”

As the contentious battle of Ballot Question 2 continues here in Massachusetts, there is one area of concern that we haven’t heard discussed. Many of our most successful charter schools are highly dependent on philanthropic giving to thrive. In this post we’ll explore how MUCH they are dependent on philanthropy and how Question 2 might impact the financial stability of existing and future charter schools.

Let’s start with current philanthropic intake of charter schools. We examined the FY15 revenue for each Commonwealth Charter School and the results are surprising:

  • Commonwealth Charters statewide took in over $81 MILLION in Private Grants and Philanthropy.
  • Boston Commonwealth Charters took in over $35 MILLION in Private Grants and Philanthropy.
  • Boston's Commonwealth Charters were supported by an average 18.3% Private Grants and Philanthropy, and an average of 64.9% Tuition revenue.
  • Statewide charters do not do as well with philanthropy; some took in none at all, but the statewide average was 11.2% in Private Grants and Philanthropy and 76.5% Tuition revenue.

The wide variability in the amounts of Private Grants and Philanthropy to charter schools is of particular concern to us; all public schools should be equitably funded and that’s simply not the case. For example, the Sizer School in Fitchburg took in a whopping $6.2 million
in private money in FY15, making up 57.3% of their total revenue. Tuition payments made up only 38.3% of their income. On the other end of the spectrum, Collegiate Charter School of Lowell did not report ANY Private Grants or Philanthropic donations in FY15, resulting in tuition payments accounting for 86.6% of their total income. 
View high resolution figure HERE. View all of our collected data from DESE HERE. View raw data from DESE HERE.
We found this wide discrepancy in private funding intriguing and decided to examine the student populations that were being served at the two schools on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

The Sizer School is located in Fitchburg. By state law, charter schools should be recruiting and retaining a demographic similar to the sending district, but Sizer enrolls a much more affluent demographic than the home district.

Fitchburg Public Schools has 53.2% Economically Disadvantaged students, while Sizer Charter enrolls only 28.5%. Additionally, Sizer enrolls lower numbers of ELLs, Students with Disabilities, High Needs, and Hispanics. The Sizer Charter School has 76.6% white students compared to 33.4% white students in the home district. 
Data collected from DESE
How is the Massachusetts charter school that has the LEAST philanthropic support doing with the mission of serving at-risk populations? Pretty well, actually. They're serving higher numbers of African Americans, Hispanics and English Language Learners than the sending district. The Collegiate Charter of Lowell serves 39.1% Economically Disadvantaged students while the home district serves 50.4%.
Data collected from DESE
We examined Boston Commonwealth Charter Schools as a group and also found a tremendous amount of private money, as well as wide variability in the data. Boston Charters benefit from 18.3% private money on average, while statewide the average is 11.2%.
View high resolution figure HERE. View all of our collected data from DESE HERE. View raw data from DESE HERE.
The award for the highest percentage went to Boston Preparatory Charter School, with Private income of nearly $7 MILLION, representing 49.5% of their FY15 revenue, while their tuitions made up only 44.8%. With only 415 students, that’s about $16,794 per pupil in private money.

These staggering numbers and wide variability raised a lot of questions for us:
  • In the event of another recession, will our public charters schools succumb to market volatility? Does this reliance on private money add to the possibility of a “charter bubble”?
  • If Question 2 passes and we add 12 more charters PER YEAR, will foundations and private donors be able to maintain this level of giving? Where is the ceiling for philanthropic giving in the education sector?
  • How can we ensure equity for all children with such wide discrepancies in charter school incomes and per pupil expenditures?
  • Is DESE or anyone else monitoring this? Could increased statewide monitoring of funding composition be used to distribute grants more equitably?
Let’s take a look at how our current Education Secretary Jim Peyser described charter sector philanthropic giving back in 2014, when he was still the Managing Director at New Schools Venture Fund, and implementing a 5 year “investment” in Charter Schools in eastern Massachusetts. The quote below comes from a 10 page “pre-reading” for participants in Philanthropy Roundtable’s May 6 Evening Discussion of Boston’s Charter Sector, led by Jim Peyser and Stig Leschly:

Exhibit 7: Growth Costs and Philanthropic Need
The figures below (chart omitted) include the (projected) budgets of five CMOs in the NewSchools Venture Fund Boston charters portfolio.  This includes Edward Brooke, Excel, KIPP, MATCH, and Roxbury Prep.

The average school in this portfolio reaches a breakeven point after 3 years of operation. These CMOs do not achieve breakeven during the 5-year time frame, however, because they are continuing to grow.  If we assume that the Boston CMOs stop growing at 18 schools and that in the aggregate the breakeven in FY2017, the all-in cumulative net operating deficit they incur to create 134 new schools is ~ $18.5m.

Wow! Just in case you missed it, our current Education Secretary told investors that in order for Boston’s CMOs (Charter Management Organizations) to expand they will need an additional $18.5 million in philanthropic giving over 5 years just to break even.

By the way, these same Boston CMOs already took in $26.2 MILLION in contributions from Boston’s philanthropic community in 2014 alone (data compiled from HERE).

Let’s stop and take in a couple of key points that Secretary Peyser’s presentation gives us:

  1. When a CMO launches a school or expands, it costs significantly more than the funds it receives from state tuition dollars - a.k.a IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ITS EXISTING PUBLIC SCHOOL COUNTERPART.
  2. Charter schools ARE DEPENDENT UPON PRIVATE FUNDRAISING IN ORDER OPERATE, LET ALONE TO COMPLY WITH MA REGULATIONS CONCERNING THEIR FINANCIAL HEALTH AND STABILITY.

Are you starting to wonder how the passage of Question 2 would increase Charters’ demand for philanthropic funds here in MA? Well, it’s funny that you should ask! According to documents we have recently acquired from KIPP Charter Schools in Massachusetts, the demand would be far more so than even Secretary Peyser’s 2014 calculations would suggest. Below is a figure from KIPPs expansion plan if Question 2 passes. They hope to have a total of 10 schools in Lynn and Boston, with philanthropic needs of $62.1 – $74.8 million.
 

How “public” will our schools be if they’ve been established with millions of dollars from private investors? How sustainable is this model of expansion? Please vote NO on Question 2 until we can consider the answers to many of these questions.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Why #NoOn2: A School Privatization Primer

We’re the first ones to admit that the learning curve to understanding certain elements of public education reform is steep. Massachusetts voters, parents or not, must catch up quickly to understand the financial motivations and potential devastating implications of ballot Question Number 2. 

We’ve been thinking, talking and writing about this subject for years, so for voters short on time, here’s some background about why this ballot question is shaping up to be the most contentious and expensive ballot fight in Massachusetts history.

Voting NO on Question 2 is vital for the future of public education in Massachusetts. 




Links to articles on school privatization from the video:

Ballot Question Number 2 is About Money

Schools are Not a Marketplace

Children are Not Commodities 

Schools are Not Tax Shelters

Charter Schools Make Profits (also don't miss our post on this)

Education is Their Bi-product

Market Volatility Will Destroy Education

Money is Their Megaphone 

Dark Money Dictates our Democracy

Charter Schools Cannot Fix Poverty and Racism

The Failure of Public Schools is Part of Their Plan 

Suspension is Not a Teaching Tool 

Ballot Question 2 is a Bad Idea

Monday, September 19, 2016

What IS and ISN'T in the Text of Ballot Question 2?

Here’s how Question 2 will appear on the ballot and here's how it appears in the Massachusetts Information for Voters:

“QUESTION 2. Charter school expansion. The question, if approved, would let state education officials approve up to 12 new charter schools a year.”

The state education officials referenced in the question are the members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), who have the power to approve or withdraw a charter school application under Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 89. There has been much discussion about the Board’s role after
we reported that Paul Sagan, the Chair of BESE, gave $100,000 to a fundraising committee supporting Yes On 2’s efforts.

As mentioned previously on this blog, we are firmly NO on Question 2 and explained our reasons in our last post. But let’s break down what is actually IN the Initiative Petition (linked here and pasted below) that would become part of Massachusetts State Law if passed on November 8th.

What’s IN ballot Question Number 2:
  • The board may authorize up to 12 new charters or charter school expansions per year (or a combination of the two).
  • These new authorizations cannot exceed 1% of the total enrollment of the student population in Massachusetts, which was 953,429 in 2016, so new charter authorizations cannot exceed more than ~9,530 seats per year. Obviously this number will go up with population growth.
  • If the board receives more than 12 applications, BESE will “give priority to proposed charter schools or enrollment expansions in districts where student performance on statewide assessments is in the bottom 25% of all districts in the previous two years and where demonstrated parent demand for additional public school options is greatest.” A mystery to us: What method would BESE use to determine parent demand?
  • The approved new charter schools must comply with the student recruitment and retention policies already in place and will be subject to annual performance reviews by BESE. 

What ISN’T in Ballot Question Number 2:
  • There isn’t one word in Question 2 about how 12 new public schools will be funded. I’ll use my own shoe collection here as a metaphor: If I add 12 new shoes to my already full shoe rack each year, they will (a) cost me money and (b) I will have to toss out 12 pairs of shoes to put all my shoes away. If Question 2 passes, existing public schools in your town and mine will lose money and may have to close.
  • There is no mechanism to stop the expansion of charter schools. This ballot question will remove from State Law the language that caps charter schools at 18% of a district’s total spending. We’ve written about how profitable charter schools can be, so the initial interest by investors will be high. But the unchecked proliferation of charter schools will weaken ALL schools, because the amount of money available and the number of students is finite. 
  • Charter schools will be able to open anywhere in Massachusetts. Anywhere. While the ballot question states the Board will give preference to charter applications in lower performing districts if there’s more than 12 applications, there is absolutely no language stopping charter schools from opening in any city or any town in Massachusetts. As we mentioned in our last post, charter school applications are NOT subject to the approval of your local school committee or your local government.
  • While we’re relieved that new charter schools would be subject to the existing recruitment and retention policies that were included in the 2010 Act Relative to the Achievement Gap, we've written how the Department of Secondary and Elementary education is not only not enforcing these policies, but has modified the metrics of measure to lower the standards for charter schools. 

Please vote NO on Question 2 and ask your friends, family and neighbors to do the same.
Link to file on mass.gov