Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Lots of dark money
Not to mention the old Swift Boat folks are buying air time. Yes, teachers' unions have an obvious stake in this, as do local communities who value some modicum of oversight in their schools. What stake do the anonymous big money interests in the Yes camp have?
I wondered that too...
I also wondered what stake investment bankers would possibly have in funding charter schools. My suspicion is that it's an anti-science/anti-teaching-climate-change motivation. The Koch brothers types have a vested interest in denying climate change and their role in it - accepting science would mean admitting their shared responsibility and likely losing money. Decreasing accountability in schools seems like the perfect way to sneak in anti-science curricula. Of course, dark money means we won't know unless the charter school initiative passes. And I'm not usually imaginative enough to catch on to their dastardly plans until they're public...so maybe it's something beyond whatever shred of optimism in humanity I have left.
It's because of
New Market Tax Credits, 39% tax credit for investors over a 7 year period. For more info on how charter investors make money, read https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-big-business-...
It ain't because of altruism, believe me.
People keep mentioning this
But I don't think Mass charters offer this benefit because of how they are structured. And lily, I'm not a hedge funder but i work in the finance industry. Most hedgies I know are Democratically inclined, not Koch types. Think about it. Most of them live in CT, NY and Mass. Not exactly Koch head country.
NMTC for charters already in
NMTC for charters already in play in MA. There is tremendous money to be made in privatizing education, access to some $500 billion, conservatively, per Rupert Murdoch. DFER (Democrats for Ed Reform) founded by "hedges". In light of such profits, greed seems to make any political leadings fly out the window.
link to one local org that has allocated NMTX to many charter schools:
http://54.85.171.157/impact/impact-story-boston-collegiate-charter-school
hmm wonder who owns that building built with tax payer funds? an LLC that is behind the school? who's the CEO? is the CEO on the board of the charter? how much is the non profit school paying in rent to this LLC? and so on and so on....
Investment Bankers investment in charter schools
I mentioned investment bankers in my comment, Stevil, because the original linked article listed them as being behind several of the PAC's...Did you read the article? Since investment funds seem to be behind pro-charter school ads, I think we voters should be looking into their motivations.
I can tell you their motivation
Money. No nefarious motives. Just money. WAAAAAAYYYY too competitive buz to be trying to make political points. I know people like to think rich people are all evil, but based on my personal experience most are beyond kind and generous-not all- but almost all.
As for these NMTX, nobody's making a killing from offering kids an education on $15k a year. Blame your congressperson and senators for the tax credits (which have zero to less to do with what happens in the school). This may be an argument against your local pols, but pretty feable reason to oppose charters.
Why yes, investment bankers are synonymous with Mother Teresa
You're so right, Stevil, investment bankers are known to universally have hearts of gold. How could I forget that I'm supposed to pray at the altar of money every moment of my life?
Money is not the clean motive you imply it is. There are people - I am one of them - not motivated by only money. I am paid for my job, but not very well, and I continue at it because of my passion for my chosen career, and because I think it enriches the world. (It's not teaching. It's also not banking.) Money is not my sole motivating factor, and I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Perhaps the people funding the charter school campaigns are truly in it to make themselves rich - off public schools, and children, which isn't exactly a point in favor of their morality - but we don't know because of the dark money involved.
[Here's the thing: I don't have strong emotions about this whole thread. But I think your arguments are specious, so I'm having trouble leaving well enough alone.]
How many hedge fund managers do you know?
You don't have to be a martyr or poor to be a good person. You make a lot of assumptions about a group of people you've never met. In my experience that makes you a worse person than the hedge fund managers i know personally. It makes you judgmental AND poor.
The money doesn't concern me. If people are helping kids as the charter, i don't care if they make a few bucks along the way. And tbe volume on this stuff is so miniscule, nobody is exactly buying a private island with the proceeds. Maybe in other states, not here.
It's not a rich person's fault if they take advantage of a tax benefit. Vote your congressperson out of office if you don't like the rule.
"You make a lot of
"You make a lot of assumptions about a group of people you've never met."
Hahahaha. Talk about making assumptions. Thanks for giving us a look into a world we could only dream of.
Tax Credits fund the
Tax Credits fund the buildings.
The link I posted is to a page about the allocation to Dorchester Collegiate Charter School, now closed and bought by Conservatory Lab CS. Boy would I love to see the board minutes regarding the sale of the building, but I have no right even though my taxes fund the school and the tax credits used to fund the building.
Real estate is one of the primary ways that profits are reaped by charter school boards and charter management organizations, not only through NMTC but rent payments, etc.
Are the kids learning?
And doing better than they might in the alternative?
That's seems to be the case and that's all I care about. If there's some stupid tax loophole involved attack that, not the opportunity for these kids to move forward. This crap is a giant pile of red herring. Go after the problem, not the solution.
No insight to the board
No insight to the board minutes but I do know CLCS is a 503c and all 990's are available online, It does offer a good insight into the financials of a charter and where the money goes, so it puzzles me why so many Charter opponents claim there is no financial oversight or transparency. CLCS happens to consist of an all-volunteer board except for the ED. This is information that is all readily available online.
The property was purchased by the non-profit for $3.3M. Previous to purchasing the property CLCS spent a boatload on rent in an office building in Brighton and the old Laboure College not owned by CLCS (I forget the figure, but it was made public to any parent who attended the numerous meetings they had about the sale).
This may be a naive question but where the 503c owns the building, how is there profit to be made? Having been a board member at two non-profits I can't for the life of me figure out how unpaid directors benefit unless they are not disclosing in their 990 any conflict of interest.
Charter Schools may be non
Charter Schools may be non profits in MA, but there is money to be made by those who run the individual schools or companies behind a group of schools. Also, money to be made by the for profit companies brought in to manage the schools. This in addition to hedge fund investors who receive huge tax credits by investing in charter education. Doesn't anyone find it odd companies like Baupost, Bain and Goldman Sachs are so invested (literally and figuratively) in charters and the cap? If you think it's because of their strong morals and commitment to children, you're fooling yourself.
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-is-helping-hedge-funds-make-money...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5093883
See above
About the feablest of the feable arguments against charters.
One of many reasons
It is not the only reason, by far.
- Charters enroll far fewer newcomer/level 1-3 ELLs; and low incidence special needs populations who are the costliest students to educate, but federal law requires (FAPE). I challenge you to show me any charter in MA that has substantially separate classrooms to support multihandicapped and severely intellectually impaired children. I have heard first hand from charter founder and compact cofounder Kevin McAndrews that these children are out placed at specialized schools. Wrong. I work with them every day in their district schools with educators committed to providing quality specialized instruction.
- Charters are not required to hire highly qualified teachers. Stop and consider that for a moment. As a parent, I want my children taught by someone who has a degree in education, along with the teaching experience and passion for teaching. I have seen postings by charter schools seeking special educators who do not even list the job qualities one would expect to see at a minimum. For example, hiring a vision teacher, but never mentioning the need to know Braille, or magnification technology. It has happened and the children often return to traditional schools.
-Public disclosure. Although charters are technicallypublic schools and receive public funding, many do not dicslose their financials, minutes or salaries of teachers/admins or budgets.
-Discipline. MANY charters in MA have been found to suspend students of color and those with disabilities at a disproportionate rate compared to public schools.
-Parent input- Parents are underrepresented in charter schools boards, and in many cases there is no parental representation at all on charter boards. Parent input should be the norm, not the exception. There are no provisions to require it in the laws.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/30/executives-outnumber-parent...
-Teachers. Demographics on DESE show there is a notable lack of diversity in the classroom, in terms of people of color, and experience. Having a diverse staff and a balance of experienced teachers to mentor and guide younger teachers is important to student success.
-Funding. There is no plan by Baker on how to fund 12 charters a year. Schools across the state are underfunded as it is. It is careless and reckless to propose growth when there is no means of paying for it. Additionally, it is not feasible to just shut schools down. For instance DESE approved 1100 more charter seats last spring, those 1100 kids don't come from 5 schools of 220 kids each. There are 128 schools in Boston, you may lose 5 here or 3 there. If a BPS school is single strand (one class per grade) and they lose 5 kids, the class is now "losing money." What do you do? It will be a slow death to a school system.
- There are still openings for 40 charter schools in the state (120 max currently) and there are hundreds (possibly into thousands) of empty seats because most charters do not backfill.
-Oversight of charters. Each charter is its own district. There is not proper oversight currently and to expand when there is currently questionable oversight is careless. There is no way DESE can over see 12 new "districts" each year.
You can recognize charters have a place, but disagree on a proposal that will decimate school for 96% of kids.
I could go on and on (obviously).
Guess what?
Boston has 3 schools (4 if you count Fenway Arts) that are far more restrictive than that. You have to pass a test just to get in. Get back to me with that argument after they close those schools. .
That's what you focus on?
So you want to criticize a district of 56000 students who turns away NO ONE by saying 3 out of its 128 schools have criteria for admission. The difference is BPS has a seat for everyone. If a student is not offered a seat, there are seats in the other 30 schools that serve high school students. Are you one of those people who only thinks Boston had 3 or 4 good high schools? Then you must not have met students from the many other high schools who are receiving a quality education and spoke at the walk out/ budget meetings/school committee meetings/city council meetings. So while not everyone is attending exam schools, there are other strong schools. Those 33 schools range from exam schools to BCLA to Boston Newcomers Academy (serving students newly arrived to the US- part of Boston International High School) to Horace Mann School for the Deaf to New Mission to Diploma Plus to Carter Center (students with severe special needs). Take some time to learn about these incredible schools who serve students across the range of abilities. Show me where the students are in charters who are newcomers/Level 1-3 ELLs, severe special needs, multihandicapped in addition to the gen Ed students/learning disabilities, because no one can find them in charters, but they are in traditional public schools.
I'll just say this
It's a quote from Upton Sinclair that i open with in a book on the corrupt practices of the retail brokerage biz:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Fenway Arts
Do you mean Boston Arts Academy? It's a pilot school and you do not need to take a test. You do, however, need to "audition" as it is an arts school.
Two Sides to Every Story
One side of the charter question is funded by the teachers unions. Their War Chest is hefty, certainly in the millions of dollars. That enables them to tell their side of the story. In an argument, often times, the loudest, longest talker wins. Right or wrong can become irrelevant. That could easily happen here.
So, who funds the case on BEHALF OF STUDENTS? Certainly not the unions; they speak on behalf of their membership (as they should). When there's a conflict between the interests of the union members and the students, they go with their membership, *as they should*.
Enter, civic-minded rich folks. They have put up their own money to tell the other side of the story. The side that many feel provides parents with a choice and has the potential to change the life of a student. That's a very good contribution to society.
Would it be preferable that their names be public? For a good government perspective, yes. But it would also unleash the trolls, haters and boycotters. Maybe they would like to avoid that, for themselves and their families. Maybe they have other business that they want to keep out of this issue.
They are well within the law by keeping their names out of the discussion. I can't blame them for doing so.
Pheh
Yeah, we know the teachers unions are involved. I'm sure you could find out how to contact Stutman easily enough and send him nasty e-mails. We don't know who is funding the other side, or why - are they really deeply concerned about the Future of Our State (which already has the best schools in the country) or are they just looking for a new investment opportunity of the sort they've plundered in other states?
Email me anytime
I'd be glad to talk. I do believe we speak for parents and students, as well as teachers. Certainly we have more of a stake in improving our schools than do those wealthy ideologues who seek only to privatize public education. Our schools aren't perfect, but they welcome all students. That's more than we can say for the cherry-picking charters, who educate selectively. And on the waiting list....the BPS had a wait list last year that exceeded 21,000 double that of the Boston charters.
Within the law, yes
However I think that aiming a little sunshine toward an otherwise opaque force in this referendum -- as the Globe and Cunningham did -- is very helpful for many people in their decision-making process.
And really, if you simply feel passionate about a cause enough to give large sums of money and effort toward it, you don't hide in the shadows. AstroTurf vs grass-roots, as exemplified by the canvassers I have seen.
Why are these "civic minded rich folks" anonymous?
I do not, at all, buy that it's about fear of trolls.
Teachers suck it up and put up with the criticism, and keep up their voices. People opposed to the teachers union should have the balls to do the same.
If this is motivated by civic love, these hidden lobbyists need to step up and show that they have a personal desire to improve the city, even if I do not agree with their definition of improvement. By hiding, they look like corporate sockpuppets.
(edited bc of computer problem)
"Civic-minded rich folks"
Well, that's an angle I've never seen taken before. Sure, let's chalk it up to the high-minded civic virtues of the anonymous people donating millions of dollars to break the teacher's unions.
I hope you got paid by the word for this, anon.
If they're out of state
how can politicians accept "lobbying" from them?
Is the shaky legal justification for "lobbying" even shakier, when the bribery is coming from a non-constituent?
Koch Brothers have been funding charter schools
My primary guess is the Koch Brothers. They have been working to eliminate public schools since the Nixon administration. Their contempt for government providing any service and want the free market (which means only them) to provide education (nothing for those that can't afford it). They have established more than 250 non profit organizations that we know of to advance their agenda, what's a few more.
So Great Schools is run by a
So Great Schools is run by a real estate investor, hmm why doesn't shock me? Oh and please start over with the "this or that" argument about the needs of unions and students, they are not mutually exclusive, a teacher who enjoys career satisfaction is a teacher who can focus on their students and do great things. I don't think my dental plan or fair wage in any way conflicts with my drive to do great things in my classroom. Do you find at your workplace that a livable salary creates problems? If so please explain how.
when you hire someone to do
when you hire someone to do work on your house, do you insist on hiring a union tradesman?
Union or self-employed
Yes. I do.
lol, sure you do.
lol, sure you do.
I've NEVER known a UNION person to actually hire union help. never happens. the union members love to gloat how great unions are for everyone but when it comes to your own choices in how you spend your money you use NON-UNION labor!
that tells me unions benefit UNION member ONLY.
Because you don't know any
That's why.
But, please, do tell me more about myself and all that. Like, how who I am married to and how that has something to do with hiring union workers.
http://www.greatschools.org
http://www.greatschools.org/gk/supporters/
there is a big list of supporters right on their web site. the globe always sides with the unions. it's amazing how they don't even discuss the issue in the article and just fear monger that because THEY can't find out who supported the ad then everyone should back the union. As if unions are transparent! you MUST join the teacher union and pay dues but you don't get to vote on how the money is spent. and then the union leaders, who are NOT TEACHERS, fund attack ads. that's dark money.
Mack,
Mack,
1. You seem to have misunderstood what the Globe wrote.
As you can see, the Globe specifically explained that Great Schools has revealed its' donors and why.
2. The Globe then names 5 groups that are donating money to lift the charter cap and increase charter funding in Massachusetts. These are the groups that have not revealed their donors.
The donor organizations:
Families for Excellent Schools Advocacy,
Education Reform Now Advocacy
Strong Economy for Growth
Great Schools for Massachusetts (note difference)
Expanding Educational Opportunities.
Only the last of these is required to reveal its donors, and it has not done so yet. The others do not, have not, and were unresponsive when the public officer of each was contacted.
what remains CLEAR to me is
what remains CLEAR to me is that the pro-charter people all donated VOLUNTARILY while the union forces its members to give the union a portion of their government funded paycheck to teach in Mass.then, even if it against the employee's wishes, the teacher's fees can supported political action.
it's grossly misleading to think that every teacher supports this position just because the union decided to donate their money for advertising. it's hard to believe this is even a legal practice!
every time i see how much money the mass teachers spend on political advertising it makes me think they don't need anymore tax dollars.
How the unions decide
Mack, here's how we decide. We announce a meeting, we attend, we debate, we vote, and majority rules. Anyone can speak, lobby, and we alternate pro and con speakers. No one says that all deep preachers support the outcome, but 99% support the process and agree to abide by it. That's how we decide.
Auto correct, ouch!
'deep preachers' should read 'teachers.'
when did the vote happen on
when did the vote happen on THIS issue?
is there a list of which teachers support the issue? of course not. it's dark money.
you could say the shy rich union people don't want credit for the anti-charter campaign.
March
And the vote was unanimous, at a meeting attended by 300 to 400. The vote was advertised and debated.
3 or 400 people voted for it
3 or 400 people voted for it out of 110,000+ members! what a joke. that's not even 1%.
it's should be a crime force public employees to pay union dues and another crime to let mandatory union dues pay for political advertising.
the Mass teacher union usurps $40 million of the taxpayer's money! it's out of control and in no way the voice of a democratic society.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/05/are-teacher-unions-gou...
given how the teacher unions bilk the taxpayer I find it comical that you critique the pro-charter school source of funds.
Possibly all just a moot point anyway
Millennials, which were a massive population on par with the Baby Boomers, are pretty much almost done aging out of the k-12 scene. The next generation of kids is a lot smaller, and the Millennials themselves aren't having kids at nearly the rate needed to sustain all these schools they pushed to the limits. District size will drop in the next few years.
Hmm
Those are a lot of assumptions. Being on the cusp of that generation, I think another thing to note is how many "millennials" place a premium on living in the city vs. suburbs. When they have kids (and they will have kids) we need to make sure that our truly public schools are available and adequately funded.
...what?
"The next generation of kids" doesn't exist yet. We snake people are at most 35, and median age of childbearing around here is in the low to mid 30's. Most of the small-people-who-aren't-yet-school-aged are the kids of the tail end of Gen X'ers. And they are as numerous as they were ten years ago. Plus, as has been pointed out elsewhere, demographic trends are causing urban populations to grow relative to the 'burbs. BPS ain't going anywhere.
While we're having this out...
If you've seen this week's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver", he covered the performance and failures of Charter Schools.
So, how many of his critiques about schools closing mid-year and grift are happening in MA Charter Schools? Do we have any late night clubs being run out of the cafeterias?
I imagine we're not the same as Ohio or Pennsylvania, but I can't imagine our Charters are squeaky clean.