Sign Up For Our Newsletter

By Moriah Costa
Watchdog.org
February 13, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Shawnee Jackson struggled to learn math in fourth grade, but her teachers at a D.C. public school wouldn’t give her the one-on-one attention she needed.

So her mother, Sheila Jackson, applied for a voucher through the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which helps low-income families in D.C. pay for private schools.

“I felt the D.C. public school system was failing her,” Sheila Jackson said. “And I just was not going to allow that to happen.”

Seven years later, Shawnee graduated valedictorian from the Preparatory School of D.C. and received a partial scholarship to study biology at St. Augustine College in Raleigh, North Carolina. Now a sophomore, she says the OSP is what helped her succeed.

“(Without the OSP) I wouldn’t have been able to afford to go to a better school so I would have had to just stay where I was … without my teachers caring whether or not I passed,” she said.

Jackson is one of 6,000 students who have benefited from the scholarship program since its inception in 2004. U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., hopes for more. He introduced the CHOICE Act to promote the OSP and provide additional scholarships.

Scott’s bill would also expand voucher options for military families and provide start-up funds for states to implement a choice program for children with special needs.

But President Barack Obama doesn’t want the program expanded — he wants it dead. The president’s proposed budget contains no money for the program, which relies on federal funding.

“The decision by this White House to defund the D.C. voucher program is a disgrace,” Stephen Moore, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote in a blog post.

Other school choice advocates agree.

Kara Kerwin, president of the Center for Education Reform, said in a statement the program should be expanded to help more families.

“Opportunity Scholarships are a lifeline for some of the neediest students in our nation’s capital,” she said. “The demand for this program is clear from the numbers alone.”

Data show the program is effective. Its participants had a 93 percent graduation rate, compared with 58 percent of D.C. public school students in 2012. About 90 percent of OSP students go on to a two- or four-year college.

Through a lottery, only 258 new students out of 1,700 applicants received the scholarships for the 2014-15 school year. Scholarships range from $12,572 for high school to $8,381 for elementary and middle school. Currently, about 1,500 students are enrolled in 48 schools across D.C.

Despite opposition from the White House, Scott is confident the program will continue. His bill, Senate Bill 1909, has nine Republican co-sponsors, including Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Alexander Lamar, R-Tenn.

“It has been so successful and it is undeniable,” he said. “We should want every child in the current generation to get the best education possible so that we can see the future America get wider and that footprint for success get broader.”

Shawnee Jackson agrees.

“They should continue to keep it going because it’s very helpful and gives the child a great opportunity,” she said.

By Jarreau Freeman
The Mercury News
February 16, 2015

Pennsylvania charter schools can be a sore topic for some, and the answer to repairing the public school system for others. Either way, it’s an issue that elicits fervent discussions in school districts across the commonwealth.

And a recent annual report released by The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranking Pennsylvania’s charter school law 25th out of 43 states is also generating some discussion.

The ranking was based on 20 criteria that examine whether the state charter school law is charter-school friendly based on things such as quality, equitable access to funding and no caps on charter school growth.

The report gave Pennsylvania high marks for being a state with a healthy public charter school movement, but made a few suggestions on ways the state could improve its law.

The Pennsylvania Charter School Law was established in June 1997 to allow for the creation of charter schools — publicly funded but independently operated schools — in the state, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Education. They were created to give parents another educational option within the public school system.

As of the 2014-15 school year, there are 173 charter schools operating in the state — 149 are brick and mortar schools, 14 are cyber and 10 are regional, according to the charter school listing on PDE’s website.

Out of the 173 schools, three are located in Montgomery County — Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School in King of Prussia and brick and mortar schools The Laboratory Charter School in Bala Cynwyd and the Souderton Charter School Collaborative in Souderton Borough.

According to the report, Pennsylvania earned 133 points out of 228 regarding its charter school law, but the report suggested a few tweaks such as prohibiting district-mandated restrictions on growth, allowing multi-school charter contracts or multi-contract governing boards, ensuring equitable operational funding and equitable access to capital funding and facilities and expanding who can authorize charter schools.

In Pennsylvania, school boards of directors authorize charter schools. By expanding who can authorize a charter school, it would allow entities independent from a school district such as a municipality, college and university, or a state board of education to approve charter schools, according to a 2011 policy update issued by The Center for Education Reform.

Thirteen states, some of which include New Mexico, New York, Arizona, Ohio and Texas, have allowed for multiple authorizing bodies that can approve charter schools, which was outlined in the National Alliance’s report.

Once a charter is running, authorizers typically monitor charters and make sure they are meeting state rules and regulations, according to The Center for Education Reform.

Some critics believe multiple authorizers would allow for charters to pop up more rapidly across the state and outside of the urban areas where they are mostly found.

However, Wendy Ormsby, co-founder and director of organizational development at SCSC, believes multiple authorizers are needed.

“Pennsylvania absolutely must move to multiple authorizers,” she said in an email. “It’s inexcusable that districts with deep pockets have the ability to block charter schools through endless legal maneuvering. This puts money in the pockets of lawyers rather than into our children’s classrooms.

“As long as the funding comes directly from districts and they are the sole authorizers of charters, the contentious and litigious atmosphere will continue to prevail and cost taxpayers money.”

The funding formula seems to be the center of much of the debate when it comes to charter schools. In fact, the National Alliance’s report dropped Pennsylvania down from 24th last year to the 25th spot this year due to data released in 2014 by the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas that showed increasing funding disparities between public charter schools and traditional public schools across the state, particularly outlining ways that charter schools are poorly funded.

But Souderton Area School Board President Scott Jelinski said that’s not necessarily the case.

Jelinski called the National Alliance’s report “poorly written” and said that charters and school districts aren’t on “the same playing field.”

Using Souderton Area School District as an example, Jelinski explained that Souderton has a higher number of economically disadvantaged students, deals with higher teacher-student ratios, while working to educate “everyone.” Charters, he said, don’t have to deal with the same challenges.

The Souderton Area School Board believes the state’s charter school law needs to change, but the changes it has proposed are different from changes suggested by the National Alliance.

The school board recently approved a resolution calling for charter school reform and urging legislators to change the charter school funding formula by altering tuition and pension costs, reinstating charter school reimbursements to school districts and passing legislation that will provide school districts the ability to negotiate the terms of the charter school renewal application, according to the resolution.

In December, SCSC had its school approved for another five years by the Souderton Area School Board, which appeared to be a difficult decision for several of the board members who expressed how torn they were about the vote.

About 260 students in the district are enrolled in some type of charter school, and last year the district spent $3.1 million on charter school education with $1.9 million of those funds going to SCSC. Charter school costs are estimated to increase by $200,000 next year, district officials had said.

Charter schools receive most of their funding from the resident school district of each enrolled student. Ormsby said 96 percent of SCSC is funded through school districts and about 2 percent comes from the state and federal government combined with donations.

In a 2012-13 PDE annual report, charter schools received approximately 85 percent from local sources that include school districts, 4.5 percent from state sources and 6.8 percent from federal sources, according to PDE.

Each resident school district pays a nonspecial or special education tuition rate to the enrolling charter school; special education tuition rates are higher than nonspecial rates.

For the 2015-14 school year, the expenditures per average daily membership for the North Penn School District were $11,405 for nonspecial education and $26,890 for special education; for the Pennridge School District, it was $10,006 for nonspecial and $21,677 for special; and for Souderton it was $9,897 for nonspecial and $23,898 for special, according to PDE.

Jelinski complimented SCSC for being a good school, but said the problem isn’t the school, but the charter school funding formula.

North Penn School District Assistant Superintendent Diane Holben shared similar sentiments, saying that she doesn’t believe the district has adopted a specific view on the state’s charter school law as a whole, but said school districts across the state seemed concerned about the charter school funding formula and if it accurately captures “what it costs to educate a child in a charter school, opposed to costs just being a percentage of a district’s per pupil spending.” She said some districts feel that it’s not a simple per pupil calculation.

North Penn School District is up against another charter school legal battle after rejecting a second charter school application from the SCSC.

Ormsby and co-founder Jennifer Arevalo have been working to establish a new charter school — the Collaborative North Penn Charter School — in the North Penn School District. They first submitted an application in 2012, which was denied by the North Penn School Board in 2013. They appealed the decision and are waiting for that case to be tried in county court. The pair decided to move forward and submit a second application, which the school board denied last February. They were able to collect the required 1,000 signatures, which have been certified, for a petition to appeal. They hope to go before the Charter Appeal Board in the spring, Ormsby said.

According to PDE, if a charter school application or application renewal is denied by a school district, the applicant can appeal the decision.

“Whether or not we like what the law says, we have to work with what the law says we need to (do),” Holben said.

By L.S. Hall
Inside Philanthropy
February 11, 2015

The commission overseeing Philadelphia’s public schools will soon have to decide whether to accept an offer of $35 million from the Philadelphia School Partnership, a local philanthropic group. For a district facing a projected $80 million budget shortfall, you might think this would be an easy decision to make. And you would be wrong.

The issue has opened a citywide debate, involving money, educational options, funder transparency, and political influence. It also once again raises the question of just how many strings funders can attach to the money they give. Actually, this episode raises even bigger questions—about the role of private money in public life, and how to balance philanthropy and democracy.

In exchange for $35 million, PSP wants the School Reform Commission (SRC) to authorize additional charter schools for up to 15,000 students. SRC has overseen the School District of Philadelphia since a 2001 state takeover subjected the financially troubled district to control from Harrisburg. In the years since then, the district has evolved into the kind of portfolio system—blending district-managed campuses and charter schools—that reform-minded funders have praised as part of a new K-12 public education landscape. Of the 300-plus campuses in the district, 86 are independent charter schools, authorized by and accountable to the SRC.

For the first time since 2007, SRC is poised to consider dozens of applications for new charters. However, the projected deficit means the commission may be unable to approve the applications because of the costs associated with opening new schools.

In walks PSP with its offer of $35 million, of which $25 million is intended to defray the costs of expanding the charter school program. The remaining $10 million will be allocated to district-managed campuses. PSP Executive Director Mark Gleason said the funder’s gift is designed to remove cost considerations and enable the SRC to “make decisions based solely on the merits of these applications—and given more students access to a high-quality education.”

PSP describes itself as dedicated to the startup, expansion, and transformation of public and private schools. The investors section of its website reveals that PSP has received support from a wide range of individuals and funders, some of whom will be familiar to IP readers. Top donors, who have given over $5 million to PSP include charter school champions the Walton Family Foundation and some Pennsylvania-based funders. The latter includes the Maguire Foundation, which supports area private schools; the William Penn Foundation; and Philadelphia investment executive Jeff Yass and his wife, Janine. Janine Yass, a PSP board member, is the founder of the Boys Latin Charter School in west Philadelphia and serves on the board of the pro-charter Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C. Other supporters of PSP include the Gates and Dell foundations.

Groups opposed to accepting the PSP gift say doing so could actually worsen the district’s financial condition. Whenever a Philadelphia child enrolls in a charter school, the district loses money. PSP estimates peg that figure at about $2,000 per child and based its gift on that estimate. The district, meanwhile, cites Boston Consulting Group estimates that charter schools cost the district about $7,000 per child. Considering not only the start-up costs that PSP’s gift is designed to offset, the district estimates opening additional charter schools to enroll 15,000 could cost $500 million in the coming years—more than 10 times the amount of PSP’s gift.

The identities of the persons behind the PSP gift are another source of concern for opponents. The actual donors are anonymous, and PSP does not plan to reveal their names unless and until the district accepts the money. This justifiably raises eyebrows among opponents, who fear the gift could give currently anonymous donors undue influence over Philadelphia education politics and policy, even influencing the upcoming election for Philadelphia’s mayor, who appoints two of the five SRC members (the governor appoints the other three).

This year’s mayoral election features a wide-open slate of candidates, as three-term incumbent Michael Nutter is prohibited from seeking another term. The majority of mayoral hopefuls have panned the PSP proposal, calling it a loaded ultimatum designed to enrich charter school operators at the expense of district schools, already strained by past budget cuts. SRC has no taxing authority, and the district relies on a combination of city, state, and federal funds for its operations.

PSP insists it does not wish to make Philadelphia an all-charter district and that its agenda is simply high-quality schools—charter or not. A look at the organization’s Form 990, however, shows that the funder has a clear preference. In 2013, PSP gave more than $10 million in grants, with 90 percent going to charter schools. One charter operator alone received $2.9 million, nearly triple the amount of grant funding PSP provided to the district in the same year.

This is not the first time PSP’s actions have generated opposition from public school proponents (see our 2013 report on a PSP grant to district schools). In times of financial stress, it is difficult to refuse such a large gift. However, SRC may have to do just that, absent successful negotiations over the size of the gift and greater flexibility in how the funds are used.

Of course, Philadelphia is not the only strapped school district where financial donors have ridden to rescue—and asked for things in return. Is this how public school systems are supposed to operate? Clearly, not. And whatever you may think of the substance of the issues in play, there is something disturbing about private money wielding so much power over education, which has often been seen as among the most democratic spheres of American life.

What’s more, this trend is likely to grow as governments struggle with tight budgets and more wealth pours into the philanthropic sector.

By Allen West
Washington Times
February 10, 2015

It is Black History Month, and as people reflect on the struggles and accomplishments of African-Americans over many decades, many agree that “more can be done” to ensure economic opportunity for all Americans.

But the demand that the “more” must be done by government through a stronger safety net, wealth redistribution and mandated equality measures overshadows the years of evidence that indicate more often than not, government programs fail. They disincentivize wise choices, diminish individual will, limit educational opportunities, and create burdensome regulations that hinder entrepreneurship and increase the cost of living for families embracing the notion that advancement is their responsibility.

Consider urban planning, for example. “Smart growth” measures implemented by cities that are designed to reduce urban sprawl, which prices lower- and middle-income families out of the housing market by limiting the quantity of housing, the land available for housing, and the types of housing that are allowed. Housing economist Wendell Cox finds that the white homeownership rate is 50 percent above the rates for Hispanic and African-American households, and he attributes much of this difference to prescriptive zoning, which drives up the cost of housing. Government-driven solutions declaring a right to own a home is not the answer. That philosophy led to the subprime mortgage crisis.

In the area of education, charter schools offer parents — particularly those in urban areas — educational options for their children where previously they were relegated to a failing public school. Charter schools are smaller than conventional public schools and serve a disproportionate and increasing number of poor and minority students. Despite some mayors’ attempts to restrict them, according to the Center for Education Reform, charter school students are more likely to be proficient in reading and math than students in neighboring conventional schools, achieving the greatest gains among African-American, Hispanic and low-income students. So why would the first African-American president cancel the District of Columbia’s school voucher program in April 2009 for deserving minority school children in one of America’s worse school districts?

Proponents of higher minimum wages say they will help the working poor, yet they often price the lowest-skilled workers out of the market so they essentially earn nothing. Black teenagers are at the greatest risk of being priced out of the labor market. From 1948 to 1955, unemployment of black and white teenage males was essentially the same — 11.3 percent and 11.6 percent, respectively. However, after the minimum wage was raised from 75 cents to $1 in 1956, unemployment rose significantly for both black and white teenage males, with blacks bearing more of the burden. By 1969, the unemployment rate was 22.7 percent for black teenage males and 14.6 percent for white teenage males. Today, the unemployment rate for black teenagers is close to 40 percent — and we wonder what is happening in our inner cities with rising criminal activity, especially with black males.

Occupational licensing is supposed to protect the public from unsafe and untrained operators, but in many professions, it is unnecessary and costly. A prime example of overreach is the licensing and training requirements for hair braiders. Hair braiding is a common service in the African-American community, but in some states, braiders must complete at least 300 hours of training, or have three years of experience and complete 150 hours of training, similar to requirements of cosmetologists. However, hair braiding does not involve handing potentially dangerous chemicals used on hair, so the thousands of dollars hair braiders must spend on licensing for the health and safety of the public makes no sense — and deters the entrepreneurial spirit.

When comparing lifetime benefits, the rate of return on Social Security is lower for blacks than for whites due to their shorter life expectancy. Among 20-year-old white men, almost 84 percent are expected to reach the normal retirement age. By contrast, fewer than 64 percent of 20-year-old black men are expected to live that long. Thus, although he pays the same payroll tax rate while he is working, the average 20-year-old black male can expect to draw fewer monthly retirement benefit checks. This is personal for me (Allen West), as my own dad and mom passed at the respective ages of 66 and 63 from stroke and liver cancer.

The structure of welfare benefits encourages single parenthood and family breakups, which exacerbates poverty. The poverty rate for female-headed households with children is 44.5 percent, compared to 7.8 percent for married couples with children. The poverty rate for married black Americans is only 11.4 percent, while the rate for black female-headed households is 53.9 percent.

Most welfare benefits are restricted to families with children. Thus, having a baby offers a gateway to a generous package of government benefits. However, if the mother marries a man who earns a significant income, the benefits are lost. Indeed, if the mother marries a man who is not working, but the government requires him to take available work before benefits are paid, then the benefits will be lost in any event, whether he refuses to work, or if he works and earns an income that eliminates them. Government is effectively paying women to have children out of wedlock, resulting in a 72 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in the black community. This is devastating and demeaning to the African-American community that was once the model of strong families.

I (Allen West) grew up in the inner-city Old Fourth Ward neighborhood of Atlanta. As a kid walking down Auburn Avenue to the historic Butler Street YMCA, I saw black businesses, churches, and doctors’ and lawyers’ offices — a panoply of role models. It has been 50 years since the advent of the Great Society anti-poverty programs. Clearly, they don’t work.

Allen West, a former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida, is a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. He is president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, where Pamela Villarreal is a senior fellow.

C-SPAN
February 9, 2015

CER president Kara Kerwin moderates a “Marketing Excellence” panel during a day-long forum on the freedom to choose academic excellence for every child.

The Choosing Excellence forum was hosted by Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), the American Federation for Children, and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

Watch the video here.

By Stephen Moore
Orange County Register
February 6, 2015

Barack Obama is a Washington, D.C., resident – and one with a high income. As he likes to openly admit, he’s one of the privileged 1 percent who he thinks can afford to pay more taxes.

Barack Obama also has all sorts of choices that many middle-class Americans don’t have, and almost all poor people are denied. The Obamas have opted out of the Washington, D.C., public schools and send their daughters to Sidwell Friends, a first-rate school with very high achievement standards. The Obama girls surely benefit from this enriching educational environment. What parent wouldn’t want that for his children?

Which brings me to, arguably, the most unconscionable policy choice hidden in President Obama’s $4 trillion budget. Mr. Obama proposed no funding next year for private school scholarship vouchers in the District of Columbia. The $20 million annual program, which began under George W. Bush, has proven extremely effective. Thousands of kids have benefited from these scholarships – which typically amount to about $8,000 to $10,000 a year.

That’s still about one-third lower than what it costs to “educate” students in the district’s public schools. Almost all students who get the money are blacks and Latinos.

The decision by this White House to defund the D.C. voucher program is a disgrace. Every year, four times as many D.C. minority children sign up for the voucher program than there are funded slots available.

Several years ago, when President Obama tried to shut down the program, black and Hispanic parents locked arms with Republicans in Congress who support the program and marched in front of the Capitol. That was an amazing optic. In the 1960s and 1970s, civil rights leaders and “community activists” fought against laws that prevent blacks from getting in to the public schools.

Now, liberals refuse to let them out.

Research by Patrick Wolf at the University of Arkansas tracked how well these kids did over time. Graduation rates of voucher students soared by 21 percentage points (from 70 percent to 91 percent). Mr. Obama likes to say that he puts science over ideology, but, in shutting down the scholarship program, he has clearly put ideology and political favoritism above reason.

He wants to shut down private-school choice for two reasons. First, teachers unions hate private-school choice because many private school teachers aren’t in the education union.

Second, the success of choice-based private schools in educating minorities and poor children gives public educators a big black eye because the kids do so much better with choice. How can these private and catholic schools outeducate the kids who go to second-rate schools? Maybe money for the classroom isn’t the cure-all it is advertised as.

So, in a $4 trillion budget, Mr. Obama couldn’t find $20 million for a program that indisputably works.

“The parents love the wide range of educational choices,” says Center for Education Reform President Kara Kerwin. “But President Obama just doesn’t support private school choice.” She adds that Barack Obama has tried to shut down this education program every year. The Left argues these programs hurt kids left in the public schools.

But private-school choice doesn’t make public schools weaker, as liberals fear. The money saved from kids attending private schools means more dollars per child for those who stay in public schools. This is a win-win. And competition always leads to higher, not lower, quality.

What is hopefully embarrassing to Mr. Obama is that some of the scholarship money goes to poor kids who want to go to Sidwell Friends. His girls sit in the same classrooms with these kids. If Mr. Obama succeeds, schools like this will be attended almost exclusively by kids of rich parents like Barack Obama. Remember this the next time the president gives a lecture on income inequality and fairness.

Republicans must go on the offensive on school choice. A quality education is the best anti-poverty program ever invented. This is the best path to reducing income inequality. Rich liberals would never condemn their kids to rotten and dangerous inner-city public schools. But they force these schools on the poor and minorities they pretend to care for. School choice, as Jack Kemp used to say, is the new civil rights issue in America.

Democrats are on the wrong side on this issue. They put unions ahead of kids. Let’s hope Republicans in Congress not only restore funding of this program but expand its budget so that every poor child in Washington, D.C., can get the education that Barack Obama’s daughters do.

Stephen Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation and a Fox News Channel contributor.