Posts Tagged ‘funding equity’

The Consequences of Opting Out MAY be the Loss of Federal Funds

April 23, 2015 Leave a comment

In what could have national ramifications, a post in Politico suggests that the STATE may have the power to withhold FEDERAL funds from districts who fail to participate in the testing.

Here’s the context for this story:

Last year, parents across NYS launched a campaign to opt out of the state tests because they feel that the emphasis on test results is undermining the curriculum in their districts, placing inordinate and inappropriate pressure on their children, and providing them with no information whatsoever about their child’s mastery of the information tested. Teachers unions tacitly supported this movement for the same reasons, emphasizing the flaws in using value added measures for evaluating them and the lack of useful information made available following the testing.

Sensing the growing opposition to the testing regimen, Governor Cuomo included a provision that 50% of the teacher evaluation be used on test results in his budget proposal. When this proviso didn’t fly in the legislature, he accepted a compromise that would allow the Regents to determine the extent to which testing would be the basis for evaluations. As noted in earlier posts, this effectively gave Cuomo a green lift to proceed with VAM since the majority of the Regents and the Regents chair are supporters of the testing regimen Cuomo wants to put in place.

Last year the opt-out campaign was marginal… but this year nearly 200,000 parents have opted out of the testing program, teachers unions have explicitly supported the opt-out movement, and some school boards and superintendents have formally and publicly endorsed the movement. As it became evident that parents were not in support of the movement, Tisch and Cuomo both made claims that they their hands were tied win it came to withholding of federal funds… but as Politico notes that may not be the case:

State officials had previously suggested that the matter was out of their hands. Representatives for the U.S. Department of Education and the state Education Department have said the federal government could withhold Title I funds—grants for schools that serve low-income students—if fewer than 95 percent of students in an individual school or district take the tests, and Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday also said the federal government holds the power to decide whether to withhold funding.

But public statements and regulatory guidance from both the U.S. and state education departments suggest the decision is not totally up to the feds.

“They [federal officials] seem to indicate—I’m hearing that we have discretion, but we will find out how much discretion we have,” state Board of Regents chancellor Merryl Tisch told Capital on Tuesday. “If we do have discretion, we intend to use it.”

Duncan has put Tisch and Cuomo in a bind! Here’s why. Affluent districts with high opt-out percentages and low Title One allocations have less to lose than districts serving children raised in poverty that have high opt-out percentages and high Title One allocations. Thus, if Tisch and Cuomo use the withholding of Federal Title One funds as a penalty they will be hurting children raised in poverty more than those in affluent districts.

And Tisch may have put herself in a bind with her assertion that the Regents intend to use any discretion they have because if they DO assert themselves by withholding the marginal funds from affluent districts they will unleash a massive protest. IF the Regents intend to withhold funds they need to do so quickly because local budgets will be adopted in May and presumably Boards will be advised of their State funding in advance of those budget votes.

Finally, Duncan’s position in NYS may have created a problem for himself: If NY State can withhold federal funds as a penalty, why couldn’t ANY state do the same? And does this ability to withhold funds mean that States have the authority to re-allocate the federal dollars they receive?

It seems to me that a can or worms has just been opened in NYS and conceivably across the country. We may see some interesting fireworks in the coming weeks!

The Seemingly Intractable Conundrum of School Boundaries

April 18, 2015 Leave a comment

My daughter in Brooklyn sent me a link to an article from The Brownstoner, an on-line newsletter for borough residents, titled “How To Research Schools Before Making Your Real Estate Decision”. She insightfully indicated in the email that the the inability of some parents to afford houses in the neighborhoods with good schools contributes to the allure of charter schools.

I’ve written several posts in the past on this issue and am writing again because I’ve believed for decades that economic heterogeneity should be an important element in public education. The schools I attended growing up in West Chester PA and Tulsa OK included children of parents who came from all walks of life. As a result the little league team I played on in OK had the sons of presidents of banks and oil companies as well as kids from single parent homes who needed to have their gloves donated. In PA the high school served the children of farmers, factory workers, college professors, and white-collar workers like my father who commuted to work in Delaware and, in some cases, Philadelphia for work. The classes were homogeneously grouped, but the buses, athletic teams, and extra-curricular activities included a demographic cross section. My sense is that school demographics have changed since the time I grew up as demographic divisions between communities increased and hardened, in large measure because of zoning regulations in the suburbs and red-lining practices in urban areas.

How do we get out of the spiral we’re in whereby homeowners pay a premium to acquire houses in the best school districts which increases their property tax-base and property values in one town or neighborhood while diminishing the tax-base and property values in another town or neighborhood. The answer is relatively simple IF we believe all children should have the same opportunity to succeed in school. We should provide the schools in low income neighborhoods with the same resources available in high income neighborhoods… and one of those resources is the chance to be in classes, on sports teams, and in clubs with children from different economic backgrounds. While we like to claim a desire to provide an equal opportunity for all children, our inaction on this topic speaks much louder than our words.


Sin Tax Bonanza! Pot Proceeds Provide Colorado Public Schools With Avalanche of Revenue

March 29, 2015 Leave a comment

The moral debates over the legalization of marijuana are quickly disappearing as legislators look at the results of excise taxes in Colorado. As reported in Britain’s Daily Mail tabloid and the US magazine The Week, Colorado’s taxes on marijuana have increased tenfold bringing in $2.3 million in revenues. Most states I’ve worked in dedicate gambling revenues and/or alcohol revenues to schools and when it is necessary to find new revenues the solution invariably is to raise “sin taxes”. Given that there is diminishing evidence that marijuana in and of itself is a “gateway drug” and given the lack of political courage on the part of many legislators as evidenced by their unwillingness to raise broad based taxes to fund schools, it seems likely that more and more states will look at the revenues garnered by Colorado and follow suit.

I am in favor of legalization for four major reasons. First, it will end the real gateway element of marijuana use, which is breaking the law. Marijuana use requires the buyer to break the law in order to make a purchase and, consequently, the widespread use of marijuana makes lawlessness acceptable.   Secondly, given the fact that lawless people are dealing the drug, it increases the probability that the “sales personnel” will market higher potency drugs that are for more dangerous and addictive than the lower grade marijuana that a regulated marketplace would make available. It is the sale of drugs by lawless marketeers that makes marijuana into a “gateway drug”, not the drug itself. This leads to the third reason I am in support of legalization: doing so would ensure that the THC dosages are lower and less addictive. Fourth, and of greatest interest to legislators, it would bring new revenues to state coffers while arguably diminishing costs for law enforcement and prisons. The additional revenues could be earmarked for schools, drug treatment, early childhood education, or the general coffers. Legal marijuana will feed legislators’ addictions to quick and painless fixes to revenue gaps… expect to see it spread rapidly in the coming decade.

This Just In: Takeovers Don’t Pan Out!

March 21, 2015 Leave a comment

In the latest item to add to the “failed assumptions of reform” file, add this report from Detroit where Detroit News op ed writer Nolan Finley laments the failure of three “emergency managers” to rectify the financial problems with Detroit’s school system and the likely failures of the fourth one, Darnell Early, who has just taken over. But here’s the kicker: Finley mentions in passing that Governor Snyder has a plan for fixing the schools… and it’s one that will work very well from the Koch Brothers standpoint:

There’s talk of placing all schools, traditional and charter, under a new education czar, who may or may not be (Detroit) Mayor Mike Duggan. Where that leaves Earley and his plan, who knows?

Well I’ve got a wild guess as to where it leaves Darnell Early: on the outside looking in! And where does it leave Detroit school children? The same place. And where does it leave the privatizers who are likely the ones who are promoting the “talk of placing all schools, traditional and charter, under a new education czar”… laughing all the way to the bank. Welcome to the 21st century version of for-profit public schools.

George Orwell Would Have a Field Day with “Reform” Movement’s Expropriation of Civil Rights Language

March 17, 2015 Leave a comment

Late last month Empower blogger Denish Jones posted an essay describing how conservatives, neoliberals, and even Glenn Beck have expropriated the language of the civil rights movement to suit their own ends. One sentence in particular flagged the way the ideas of civil rights leaders of the 1960s have been twisted by politicians today:

King’s famous line “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” has led some to claim that King was promoting a color-blind society that ignores race and that he would not have supported Affirmative Action policies.

While King’s support for Affirmative Action may be arguable to some, Denish Jones is very confident that Dr. Martin Luther King would roll over in his grave if he knew that corporate education advocates were using his language to “sell” their product. She identifies three areas where “…the corporate education reform movement undermines the struggle for educational equality for all”: privatization; school choice; and alternative paths to teaching like TFA. A summary of each of the undermining that is taking place:

  • Privatization: Based on the premise that in a capitalist system the best products thrive and the worst ones fail, the collateral damage in this movement is not just a failure of a particular business, it is the failure of a particular group of students: those who are raised in poverty. To quote Jones directly: “…when the business model of winners and losers is applied to public education, the losers tend to be children who struggle academically and families without the social capital needed to advocate for their children. The winners are CEO’s and stock holders who earn high salaries with public money but can use their private status to shield themselves from public accountability.”
  • School Choice: Jones cites studies and provides links to relevant articles illustrating that school choice fails to deliver on its promise to offer a high quality education for ALL students and instead skims the highest performing group and dismisses those students who fail to pass muster in classwork and behavior. Despite this skimming, only 17% of the charter school students did better than their public school counterparts. Meanwhile charter operators and their shareholders did VERY well.
  • Alternative Certification: Jones singles out Teach For America (TFA) for particular criticism because TFA has made the most blatant use of civil rights metaphors… As Jones notes: “…hidden behind these nice quotes is the assumption that other people’s children deserve underprepared “saviors” as their teacher… If the model of TFA is what is needed to improve teaching and learning, why are TFA recruits not sent to suburban schools or wealthy public school districts? Could it be that those parents would never allow someone with five weeks of training to experiment on their child? What the richest and most educated parent wants for their own child should be what we aspire to give all children.”

Jones conclusion: privatization, school choice, and programs like TFA are dis-equalizing… and the only ones who benefit from these purported “civil rights” issues are shareholders.

Grassroots Parent Movement Disrupting Education In a GOOD Way: They are Opting Out of Tests

March 13, 2015 Leave a comment

What happens if a standardized test is given and not enough students are present to make its results valid? Will the testing movement be brought to a halt? Will the parents who keep their children home be fined or penalized? Will the children who stay home be held back? Will the administrators and/or political leaders make examples of the opt-out movement?

Based on reports from schools across NYC and NYS it appears that we might get the answer to the question soon! Based on reports my daughter is feeding me from Facebook posts from schools in Brooklyn and countless articles that are arriving daily in RSS feeds, it appears that a REAL grassroots movement is occurring among public school parents who are dismayed over the time their children are losing to tests and their sense that schools will become test preparation factories instead of centers of inquiry. One of the best articles I’ve read on this topic was Jake Dobkins’, “Public School Kids to Cuomo: Don’t Destroy Our Schools” which appeared in today’s Gothamist. In the article Dobkins describes the rally in his neighborhood school in Brooklyn, PS 10, a rally that featured AFT leaders, local politicians, and a small cadre of media. The article stood out, though, because Dobkins captured the essence of everything that is wrong with the testing in a paragraph full of tough questions that “reformers” are not addressing:

Who would want to work a job where half your yearly evaluation was based on something you had very little control over? What would happen if we fired all the teachers with low-scoring classes, since most of those teachers work in schools in the poorest neighborhoods? How would you replace all those teachers? What would New York look like if all the schools were charters, free to curate their classes with high-performing kids? Where would all the other kids go?

He then describes HIS experience as a teacher, how the test-centric curriculum is affecting his twin sister who teaches in a NYC elementary school. He gives readers a behind the scenes picture of how difficult and challenging it is to be a teacher.

My concern about Dobkins coverage and that of the mainstream media is the emphasis on the union’s participation in these protests. I fear that every time the media coverage includes the name of the union president or of the teachers union’s building representative it will lead readers to the wrongheaded conclusion that these protests are being orchestrated by the unions. The coverage will also lend credence to Cuomo’s allies who will inevitably wave the press coverage and claim the union is behind this movement.

Based on my daughter’s experience as a member of the parent’s organization’s political action team at her son’s school in Brooklyn the unions are NOT directing this movement! Indeed, based on many email exchanges I’ve had with her on the issue I sense that the movement to oppose over-testing is organic to a fault. The parents in her school write their own public relations releases, compose their own letters to city, state, and federal officials, and develop strategies for changing the direction they see their school headed if Governor Cuomo’s package passes. And while the parent group’s written materials include links to information provided on teachers union websites and/or to organizations that the unions sponsor, most of their links are to other parent organizations and to articles and written material they’ve prepared reporting the economic and educational impact to their school should Governor Cuomo’s “reforms” pass. After working for 37+ years in public schools, 35+ as an administrator, I know the difference between a union led movement and a parent-led movement and what is happening in NYC and— from what I’ve read— across the state is being driven by parents and it could be formidable and viral if it succeeds…. and it gives me hope…. and as Dobkins writes in his article’s concluding paragraphs, if hope is combined with action it is possible to stop Cuomo’s “reforms” in their tracks:

The only real hope is that if enough people come out for protests like these, perhaps his political calculus will change slightly- although that seems like a long shot. As a parent with a kid in public school, though, and another one starting soon, that’s what I’m hoping for- the alternative, which is a dystopian future where all the public school kids are packed into classes with 40 kids while their buildings are given away to charter schools and their teachers flee for less stressful careers, is just too depressing to contemplate.

If you agree, consider sending the Governor a polite email, asking him to reconsider this position. The budget isn’t done yet, and there’s still time for him to change his mind.

Getting Governor Cuomo to change his mind about his “reform” initiative is an extremely long shot… but it IS possible to get parents across the state to understand the impact of Cuomo’s “reform” package on their child’s school and if parents across the state continue communicating their opposition with their Assemblymen and State Senators there is a better than 50-50 chance their voices will be heard. There is hope if action is taken now.

Painful Lessons Lead to Moynihan’s Rehabilitation

March 12, 2015 Leave a comment

Nick Kristoff’s NYTimes column, “When Liberals Blew It“, marks the nearly complete rehabilitation of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a sub-Cabinet member of the Johnson administration who later became a member of Nixon’s cabinet and ultimately was a three term senator in New York. Moynihan was a persona non grata to the liberal wing of the Democrat party in the 60s based on a report he wrote describing the adverse impact of both slavery and single parent households on the upbringing of young blacks. At the time he issued his report, he was excoriated by many on the left and many black activists for their perception he was “blaming the victim” for their station in life. Kristof selected one quote that captured the antipathy Moynihan generated at the time:

“My major criticism of the report is that it assumes that middle-class American values are the correct values for everyone in America,” protested Floyd McKissick, then a prominent African-American civil rights leader.

When I was a graduate student at University of Pennsylvania in the early 1970s I wrote a report advocating early intervention for children being raised in poverty, recommending more funds for structured preschool education programs like the ones in Ann Arbor Michigan. Many of my classmates at the time echoed McKissick’s criticism, and others, who privately agreed with my proposals later, were quiet— as were other moderate liberals at the time.

The government’s role in mitigating against family dysfunction is not easy to define. We tend to favor keeping children with biological parents for as long as possible even if those parents have limited resources and/or limited parenting skills. We tend to impose economic penalties on wives who want to move out of abusive relationships even though remaining in those relationships exposes their children to violent and aggressive behavior. And, as Kristof notes, we tend to imprison the fathers of too many children reinforcing the vicious cycle of crime and poverty in impoverished neighborhoods. Here’s Kristoff’s analysis of the conservatives’ fundamental error in the fight against poverty:

Conservatives shouldn’t chortle at the evidence that liberals blew it, for they did as well. Conservatives say all the right things about honoring families, but they led the disastrous American experiment in mass incarceration; incarceration rates have quintupled since the 1970s. That devastated families, leading countless boys to grow up without dads.

The conservative’s belief that “government is the problem” also damaged any hope of meaningful early childhood intervention and their ongoing objections to “government schools” makes any expansion of preschool to help needy children highly unlikely. And many of today’s liberals, like their predecessors, are likely to push back at any effort to have the government impose “middle class American values”, especially if those “middle class American values” involved funding any religious organizations or advocating mindless consumption.

One thing IS clear: continuing what we’ve done for the past 50 years will get us nowhere… and one thing we HAVEN’T been doing is spending too much money on this issue. My thought: if we want to break the cycle of dysfunction that has existed for decades and is getting worse, we need to be willing to spend more on early intervention and one unarguable need is access to medical and mental health services for all children, not just those fortunate to have been born in the right zip code. Maybe a latter day Moynihan will emerge— perhaps someone like Robert Putnam— and call for something along these lines so that we can move the debate away from moral issues related to single parent households and toward ameliorating the physical and psychological pain their children struggle with on a daily basis.