Camden State Superintendent Confirms: There's ALWAYS Money for Charter Schools

Earlier this week, Stephen Danley posted a remarkable piece of video. Camden's State Superintendent, Paymon Rouhanifard, met with parents to discuss the fate of McGraw Elementary School, one of five schools scheduled to be either closed or turned over to charter school operators under Rouhanifard's plan.

For nearly 40 minutes, Rouhanifard is intensely cross-examined by parents who are against the conversion of McGraw into a charter school run by the Philadelphia-based charter chain, Mastery. Understand that these parents had absolutely no say whatsoever in the takeover of their neighborhood school: Rouhanifard is free to do whatever he wants in Camden, including abdicating his responsibility to the district's schools.

Rouhanifard, like the superintendents in Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson, serves entirely at the pleasure of Governor Chris Christie. He has no need to answer to the parents, students, and taxpayers of Camden, as they have no ability to remove him through the political process if he ignores their wishes. In New Jersey, local accountability through democratic action is reserved for the suburbs; people of color in the large cities do not enjoy the same privileges:

As you can imagine, the parents in this video are clearly fed up with this state of affairs. What follows is a passionate yet ultimately unsurprising confrontation between people who are frustrated with their continuing disenfranchisement, and a man who apparently couldn't care less.



Before I get to the substance of Rouhanifard's answers, let's acknowledge something quite important: Governor Chris Christie said he chose Paymon Rouhanifard to run Camden's schools because of his "track record." It's clear, after watching this video, that this record has nothing to do with Rouhandifard's very limited experienced in education; no, the "track record" that so impressed Christie is Rouhanifard's uncanny ability to stoically ignore the complaints of parents.

Of course, Rouhanifard was trained to do just this under the tutelage of the master of parental disdain, New York City's former Chancellor of Schools, Joel Klein.



That's Paymon back in 2012 when he worked in New York City, passively taking a verbal beatdown from the intrepid Leonie Haimson, NYC's foremost parent advocate. When I found out Rouhanifard was coming to Camden, I asked Leonie about his tenure in Gotham; she told me his job was to basically push through charter school colocations over the objections of local parents, all while barely pretending to heed their concerns.

What's interesting is that even as Paymon was thickening up his skin in Brooklyn, the NJDOE, with the generous support of the Broad Foundation, was already hatching "secret" plans to take over Camden's schools and dismantle the local district. Given that then-ACTING Education Commissioner Chris Cerf had just come from Klein's NYCDOE, it's no surprise Rouhanifard got the job. The last thing Cerf and Christie ever wanted for Camden was an experienced educator; all they required was someone who would follow orders and wouldn't mind being yelled at.

Give Rouhanifard credit: he may not know anything about actually running schools, but he is a master of phony solicitude. Dig a little deeper into his words, however, and you'll find he can't help but give away the real game:

(3:50) Guys, I want to respond to your questions and concerns; it's hard to do that when everyone's shouting over me. And I'm happy to let you all shout over me for 90 minutes straight if that's what you want to do.  

What I'm trying to communicate to you is that these are not easy decisions to make. And we're doing this because the district and their finances can't renovate this building the same way one of our partners can. And that's a financial decision.  

Now that is very interesting. And it's not a fluke, because Rouhanifard says the same thing just a few minutes later:

(7:52) I'd love to be able to properly address some of the parents' questions here. I want to be helpful. Look, I get that there are anxieties. Guys, for the last three decades, our buildings in this city are falling apart. We haven't had the money to fix them. We don't have the district finances to fix them. Through this partnership, this is our opportunity to do it.  

And academic performance has been falling every year for the last 30 years. So this is our opportunity to do something different. To do something different that we believe will fundamentally improve the quality of education in Camden, and I want to have a conversation about that.  

If you all want to throw rocks at me, by all means. By all means. Not literally. By all means.

A little background is in order:

When Chris Christie fully took over the administration of the Camden City School District in 2013, there was a misperception in some quarters that the district had autonomous up until that point. Nothing could be further from the truth: since 2006, CCSD had been overseen by a state-appointed monitor, who had broad discretion over all aspects of the district's management. The governor actually had veto power over the school board as early as 2002, and several seats on the board were appointees of the governor.

So if there hasn't been any money to renovate CCSD schools, let alone properly maintain them, that's due at least in part to the management of the state itself -- the same state that now employs Rouhanifard. 

The same state that sets the funding for schools, then refuses to follow through on providing money for its own formula. The same state that promised the parents and students of Camden a new district school at Lanning Square, then reneged on that promise and turned over the property to a charter operator that had already failed in Camden.

Of course, there always seems to be enough money for the charter schools in Camden. LEAP Academy, for example opened a brand new facility in 2012, financed with bonds that were never available to the district. Chris Cerf proudly cut the ribbon at the dedication of the building.

That's Gloria Bonilla-Santiago, founder of LEAP, to Cerf's left. I wonder if her overpriced boyfriend took time off from making the students lunch to provide all the dignitaries with refreshments...

LEAP recently got yet another round of funding for capital improvements, no doubt taking advantage of all kinds of tax goodies that, again, are not available to the district schools. The leaders of Camden's charter schools are good at working out these kinds of deals for themselves; Vahan Gureghian, founder of Camden Community Charter School, has had a great deal in Chester, PA for years.

And now here come the so-called "Renaissance Schools," charter schools by another name. TEAM Academy gets to take over the land at Lanning Square and set its own pace in serving the district's students; object, and you will be promptly removed from your office by the South Jersey Democratic machine. Uncommon Schools gets similar support from this same machine, despite its atrocious record on student attrition in Newark. And Mastery gets to take over McGraw, where it will undoubtedly install its controversial discipline practices.

As Rouhanifard says: there's plenty of financing available to help set up these charter operators. But somehow, he can't convince the state to step up and provide funds for renovating Camden's own district schools. And that's hardly the district's fault, as it has been under varying forms of state control for the last 13 years.

Rouhanifard digs his hands in his pockets and shrugs his shoulders: what can he do? He is convinced that he has no choice but to turn over the schools for which he is responsible to outside forces. It's not his place, apparently, to point out that the gobs of money and land available to the charter operators ought to also be made available to the district.

No, Paymon's sad task is to instead tell you "guys"* in Camden that the only way he can come up with the money to fix things is to force you to give up your rights and put your children into privately managed schools. Hey, you can always "vote with your feet" -- just don't expect to vote with your vote, and don't expect to get the same sources of financing for your kids' schools if you choose to keep them in the district.

Strangely, Rouhanifard didn't always feel this way:

"We don't have a lack of resources here. We have an improper allocation of those resources," the district's state-appointed superintendent, Paymon Rouhanifard, has said.

The most divisive expenditure in the district's budget - and one of the most costly - is the $72 million it would transfer to charter and renaissance (district-charter hybrid) schools next year, contributing to per-pupil costs.

The transfer funds increased $17 million to make way for three additional renaissance schools expected to open in the fall. Two are still waiting for state approval.

"There is this perception we're taking resources out of district schools, and it couldn't be further from the truth," Rouhanifard said. "Our per-pupil goes up when families go to charter schools. We think of it as an investment. It's a very fair formula here." [emphasis mine]

That was almost exactly a year ago; back then, Rouhanifard said the shifting of funds to charters was "very fair." Now, he cries poverty as an excuse for charter school expansion. Funny how things changed so quickly...

Again: this is all going according to a plan that was drawn up by the proteges of a California billionaire years ago. Camden, like New Orleans, Newark, and other struggling cities, is an experiment in urban school privatization: an experiment conducted on other people's children.

And Paymon Rouhanifard's job is to conduct this experiment while telling parents, teachers, and students that he has no choice but to do so. That's no surprise: Rouhanifard was never qualified to actually run a school system. If, however, you want to dismantle a district, Paymon is clearly your guy.

Chris Christie: "Paymon has a proven track record..."

ADDING: Owen Davis reminds us that ALL of the federal money disbursed so far for school construction financing in New Jersey has gone to charter schools:

When a charter school moves into a new building, it's not unusual to see millions of dollars poured into renovations ranging from structural repairs to slick paint jobs. In the case of a school like Hawthorne [Newark Public Schools], plugging the leaky ceilings and safeguarding against mold would likely be top priorities.

The 2009 federal stimulus authorized states to allocate $22 billion in qualified school construction bonds (QSCBs), which allow cash-strapped schools to secure interest-free bond financing. Banks that finance school construction receive subsidies from the feds equivalent to some benchmark interest rate around 5 percent. Banks can pull in a tidy profit, as can the motley cast of counsels and intermediaries who ink the deals.

Of the $440 million in QSCBs New Jersey received, nearly three-quarters have been approved - and so far, every penny has gone to charters. TEAM Academy alone gobbled up $138 million. This exclusive allocation of QSCBs to charter schools is highly unusual. California and Texas, for comparison, each allocated less than one-fifth of their QSCBs to charter schools. 

To be sure, QSCBs aren't free money. Moreover, New Jersey charters "receive no facilities aid whatsoever," says Rick Pressler of the New Jersey Charter Schools Association. Accordingly, they have to be "very creative about how they're going to finance their facilities."

And creative they've been. Newark charters have become "infamous for being able to leverage their bonds to flip buildings," says Wyatt, and some of the city's most contested charter projects have been buoyed by QSCBs. When NPS sold 18th Avenue School, a district school it had just closed, to TEAM Academy, the charter used $40 million in QSCBs to finance it. [emphasis mine]

Rouhanifard is right: CCSD can't finance school reconstruction the way charters can -- because the game is rigged in the charters' favor.

ADDING MORE: One more note from the past:

The intervention proposal, which was obtained by the Courier-Post, was written by Department of Education employee Bing Howell. 

He did not respond to a phone call and email seeking comment. 

Howell serves as a liaison to Camden for the creation of four Urban Hope Act charter schools. He reports directly to the deputy commissioner of education, Andy Smerick [sic].

Howell’s proposal suggests that he oversee the intervention through portfolio management — providing a range of school options with the state, not the district, overseeing the options. He would be assisted by Rochelle Sinclair, another DOE employee. Both Howell and Sinclair are fellows of the Los Angeles-based Broad Foundation. [emphasis mine]

Andy is a big proponent of "relinquishment," a fancy word meaning "destroying local school systems run by democratically elected school boards."

He's also one of the few people to ever block me on Twitter. Golly, wonder why...


* Maybe I'm just an old fart, but it really bugs me that the state-appointed superintendent of one of the largest districts in New Jersey thinks it's perfectly fine to address the parents of his city like he's a waiter at Applebee's. Calling parents "guys" is exactly the sort of amateurish and unintentionally (?) disrespectful language that makes me think Rouhanifard is way out of his depth.

New York's Absurd Debate About Teacher Evaluations & Test Scores

From this side of the Hudson, the controversy in New York this week over test scores and teacher evaluations makes New Jersey's education policy debates look relatively sane.

And that's no small trick.

Of course, there was already plenty to hate about New York's teacher evaluation system, APPR (Annual Professional Performance Review) before Angry Andy Cuomo got his way and imposed changes that make a bad system even worse.

APPR, like New Jersey's AchieveNJ, is predicated on the idea that the educator -- and only the educator -- is responsible for the "growth" of his or her students. It ignores the impacts of funding inequities or district-level curriculum decisions or inadequate facilities or non-random assignment of students or any of the many factors that impact student learning that are completely out of the control of teachers and/or principals.

In New Jersey, the test-based components of AchieveNJ also ignore student characteristics, even though SGPs -- Student Growth Percentiles, the test-based measures of student achievement used in teacher evaluations -- are clearly biased against teachers who work in high-poverty, low-resourced schools.

New York's growth model at least attempts to account for differences in student characteristics. According to the state's Technical Report, the bias against teachers and schools serving high-needs students has been significantly reduced compared to earlier versions of the model.

But that doesn't make New York's growth measures any less statistically noisy or invalid. According to the Technical Report, one-third of New York's teachers changed ratings from 2012-13 to 2013-14 (p. 43). The report crows that this is relatively stable compared to other growth measures, but in reality, it only means that the measures are merely the best of the worst.

Think about it: does it make any sense whatsoever that a full one-third of New York's teachers significantly changed in their "effectiveness" within the span of a year? Should a high-stakes decision be compelled by a measure that is this unstable?

Furthermore:

Here are the Technical Report's growth ratings for teachers in "tested grades" over the last two years. If we add together all of the teachers who had at least two consecutive "Developing" or "Ineffective" ratings, we are only dealing with the bottom 5 percent of the teaching corps.

I know that the reformy line is these 5 percent are keeping us from competing with Singapore and Finland, but let's get real: this small number is not worth Angry Andy's disproportionate response. Yes, we need to remove bad teachers from classrooms, but does anyone really think the vast majority of these teachers couldn't be identified through their classroom practices?

Angry Andy doesn't think so; he is convinced that large numbers of administrators are, for reasons known only to Andy, fudging their observations so they can retain poor teachers. That's why Andy wants to impose a huge unfunded mandate on school districts and require them to bring in outside observers to evaluate teachers.

It never occurs to Angry Andy that it may be possible administrators retain less-than-optimal teachers simply because there are not enough qualified candidates standing ready to replace them. Angry Andy has actually helped to create this situation in his own state, imposing "financially crippling" exams on teacher candidates (more on this later).

Even more foolishly, Angry Andy Cuomo thinks his demonization of teachers won't have an effect on the number of bright young people willing to enter the profession. He believes his own inability to properly fund New York's schools has no effect on the quality of teachers; no, it must be all these deceitful, lazy administrators, handing out phony high marks to lazy, ineffective teachers.

The outside observer policy and the increase in importance of test-based measures are both indications of how little faith Cuomo has in the teaching profession to regulate itself. The "proof" he puts forward to justify this claim is that too many children don't show proficiency on standardized tests. Of course, the game is rigged in New York (and everywhere else), and the number of children who are "proficient" is determined by a largely arbitrary process that has been manipulated time and again in Angry Andy's state.

But even if we leave that aside: where is Angry Andy's own accountability in the performance of New York's children on state tests? The state itself has enshrined in law the amount of resources necessary for students to achieve proficiency. This law was the result of a carefully researched process, years in the making, which determined how much money schools need to be able to provide their students with an adequate education.

But, as Bruce Baker says:

The 2007 foundation aid formula was adopted by the state specifically to achievecompliance with the high court’s order in Campaign for Fiscal Equity. The state argued that this new formula was built on sound empirical analysis of the spending behavior of districts that achieved adequate outcomes on state assessments. The state argued that the foundation formula applied this evidence, coupled with additional evidence-based adjustments to address student needs and regional cost variation, in order to identify a specific target level of per pupil spending for each district statewide, which would provide comparable opportunities to achieve adequate educational outcomes. The state determined the share of that target funding to be raised through local tax revenues and estimated the amount to be paid by the state toward achieving each districts’ sound basic funding target.

Then, they simply failed to fund it. [emphasis mine]

As the Education Law Center notes, New York State is now approaching an $8 billion cumulative shortfall in the funding the state itself says is necessary to provide an adequate education for New York's students. But Angry Andy does not care: he demands that teachers step up and educate all of New York's students, even if they don't have the money the state itself says is needed to do their jobs.

It is cynical beyond belief for Angry Andy Cuomo to hold teachers solely accountable for the progress of New York's deserving students when he won't do his damn job and give schools the money the state itself says they need to be effective.

This state of affairs, however, is the last thing Angry Andy -- or his Wall Street patrons -- want to talk about. New York, consequently, is now engaged in an absurd debate about what percentage of a teacher's evaluation should be based on test scores -- as if this is the central issue in the state's education policies, and not the lack of funding the state itself says is needed for its schools.

We had this same debate over percentages in New Jersey last year. Chris Christie, on the basis of nothing more than his feelings, decided that tests will account for 10 percent of a teacher's evaluation this year, and 20 percent next year. There is absolutely no evidence to support these percentages; they are completely arbitrary. But at least Christie's percentages have an effect on how the evaluations turn out (even if the evaluation system itself is unforgivably innumerate).

In New York, however, any debate about the percentages is pointless. As Carol Burris, America's Principal™, points out, the new APPR system compels decisions based on tests that have nothing to do with percentages:

If a teacher is "Highly Effective" on their observation but "Ineffective" on their growth measure, they get an overall rating of "Developing." Percentages have nothing to do with it; it is what it is. You could say that tests account for 1 percent of a teacher's evaluation or 99 percent -- it doesn't matter.

Now, Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch is trying to make the case that there is flexibility in weighting the test scores. But if that's true, it completely negates the point of the table above. Cuomo himself said that he wants 50 percent, which is, de facto, what the table proposes. But you can't have it both ways: either there is flexibility in the weighing, or the table above stands. There's no middle ground here.

What's truly disappointing is watching UFT President Mike Mulgrew's apparent acquiescence to all this. "Punchy" Mike swears the NYC Teachers Union has "won":

“It’s not 50 percent test scores,” Mulgrew said. “It’s not a victory for [Cuomo] at all.”

Please. This is a huge victory for Angry Andy, if only because he has turned the conversation away from his own failures and toward a meaningless debate about how test-based measures should be weighted in a teachers evaluation. Mulgrew has played right into Cuomo's hands by arguing about percentages; NYC's teachers will pay the price.

The better response is that of NYSUT's (the statewide teachers union) president, Karen Magee:

“New York State United Teachers president Karen Magee hinted on Monday that the powerful statewide union would launch a campaign to further encourage parents to have their children “opt out” of state-administered, Common Core-aligned exams in order to undermine the use of test scores as a component of teacher evaluations.

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, Magee said the union has posted information on its website instructing parents on how to have their children refuse the third through eighth grade English and math exams, which are required by the federal government and will be administered next month.

“I’m a parent,” said Magee, who lives in Westchester. “My child is in 11th grade at this point in time. Had he been a third to eighth grader, he would not be taking the test. The tests are not valid indicators. The American Statistical Association has said there is no direct link to tie these tests to student performance or teacher evaluation. Let’s look at tests that are diagnostic in nature, that actually inform practice in the classroom, that actually work to serve students who are directly sitting in front of the teacher for the year as opposed to what we have in place right now.

“At this point in time, yes, we are encouraging parents to opt out,” she said. “We will be taking further steps to make parents aware of this…..”

“Magee admitted that some level of opt outs could hurt teachers in this way, but said, “Statistically, if you take out enough, it has no merit or value whatsoever.”

“When asked whether it was her goal to impact the validity of the exams, the union president responded: “At this point in time it’s the best way to go.” [emphasis mine]

Let's be clear: the New York State growth measures are already invalid, because they measure changes in student test scores, and not teacher effectiveness. Opting out will certainly affect the tests' validity as measures of student growth; however, that growth was never a valid measure of a teacher's abilities to begin with. We should never forget that the entire premise of test-based teacher evaluations is fundamentally flawed.

Still, Magee is right to start bringing the teachers unions directly into the opt out movement. The more monkey wrenches that are thrown into the machine, the better -- and not just for teachers.

I saw some preliminary research this week at Rutgers Graduate School of Education on how test-based accountability is affecting instruction. It confirms what we already know: high-stakes testing is changing how schools educate children, and not for the better. Teachers and their unions have an ethical obligation to stand up to increasingly expansive testing regimes, imposed for purely political reasons, to protect not just themselves but also their students.

Angry Andy Cuomo is not charging ahead with the expansion of high-stakes testing because he is the one true advocate for children in New York. His motive is transparently obvious: he does not want to be held accountable for his own failure to fully fund New York's schools. Teachers and their unions -- along with parents, students, lawmakers, and all stakeholders in New York's school system -- shouldn't go along with his destructive plans.

Furthermore, New York's teachers unions shouldn't play Andy's game and engage in a meaningless debate about percentages.  There are much bigger concerns here than whether UFT can claim a pyrrhic victory about how much tests count toward a teacher's evaluation.

Forest from the trees, fellas...

America's Angriest Governor

Five Years of Jersey Jazzman! Thursday Throwback: The New Segregation in the New Newark

Celebrating five years of blogging this week. This isn't my best written piece, nor the most followed, nor the most insightful. But it remains one of my personal favorites.

*****

(Welcome Ravitch readers! Stay a bit, look around, leave a comment - no big whoop...)

This is a very important post; not because it's in response to me, but because it comes from a Newark parent - someone with his child's future on the line:   

Jersey Jazzman: Newark Will NEVER Have Control Of Its Schools

Thoughtful and angry counterpoint on state-appointed superintendent Cami Anderson’soverriding the locally elected school board’s vote against leasing school buildings to charter schools.

[...]

It’s true that there are a lot of mediocre and even ineffective charter schools in Newark. A search on GreatSchools.org, which evaluates schools on a one-to-ten scale based on standardized testing results, shows that there are, indeed, many charters that don’t do better than their public school counterparts. There are also public schools that are great—Ann Street school in the Ironbound has been a Blue-Ribbon winner in years past.

The challenge is to figure out how the effective models are scaled up across the city and the problem schools are either fixed or dissolved quickly. [emphasis mine]

Let's leave aside the closure paradigm for now (you know who deals with this with his typical perspicacity) and focus instead on this notion of "scalability." This is the reason I like this post so much: it cuts right to the heart of the problem in a way that so many reformyists don't understand (or pretend not to):

If we can't replicate the "success" of a "successful" charter school, what good does it do for everyone? Sure, we might "save" the kids who attend the charter... but what if the kids themselves are the independent variable in the equation? In other words: if "successful" charters are "successful" because they weed out the kids who can't be "successful," what good does that do for all of our kids?

This is the central question in the entire debate about charters and vouchers and "choice": are these market-driven reforms changing the practices of schools in a way that makes them better for all children? Or are we simply segregating the children who, because of the circumstances of their lives, can't keep up with children who are already primed to be "successful"?

Over and over again, I've shown how those who make the case that their charter/voucher/magnet school is "beating the odds" are doing nothing of the sort. What they are really doing are creating segregated schools: segregated by socio-econimic status, or learning disability, or parental involvement, or ability to follow a particular discipline code, or even by race.

Now it is true that some charters do seem to "beat the odds": they do better than expected given their student populations. But are the odds any better for charters - as a whole - than public schools? And can those high-flying charters scale their success to all students? Increasingly, the answer seems to be: "No."

In the case of Newark, I'm afraid the evidence is quite clear: "successful" charters are "successful" because they serve different student populations than the public schools surrounding them. TEAM has a different student population. North Star has a different student population. Robert Treat has a different student population. These are the charters we hear about; the ones our politicians and pundits love to brag on:

TEAM and North Star are two of the schools that Cami Anderson proposed Newark make room for after closing down "failing" neighborhood schools.

This is not a knock on those charters, their dedicated staffs, or the deserving children who are their students. It is a look at the facts. And the facts tell us that "successful" charters are often "successful" because they serve students who speak English at home, don't have as many special education needs, and don't live in severe poverty.

What's worse is that the schools that take the most difficult children - the ones we said we wouldn't "leave behind" - turn out to be the objects of derision and scorn. Some of those schools have been targeted for closure when the primary difference between them and "successful" charters is the amount of poverty among their students:

Closure elementary schools are indicated in Red, and charter schools in Green. District average (labeled Total – sorry) is in Black. In short, these are high poverty schools, with two of them – Dayton and Miller St having among the highest concentrations of low income children.

Is anyone prepared to deny that what I'm describing is exactly what is happening in Newark right now?

Which brings us back to our Newark parent:

As a Newark parent, I have skin in the game in this decision, something that most of the Star Ledger Editorial Board and, I suspect, Jersey Jazzman don’t have. My oldest is about to enter kindergarden, and it took us some time to evaluate the options and come to a decision—one I’ll detail in another post.

Newark schools need leadership that will make hard decisions, study successful trends, be willing to experiment, and use resources carefully. In those terms, I think Anderson’s decision trumps that of the board.

There may be something to the idea that prevention of returning control of the schools to Newark would be better for Newark kids.  But using this vote to make that argument is misguided.

Now we're having an adult conversation - good. It's damn well about time. And since we're putting all of our cards on the table, let's be clear about what is happening in Newark and, for that matter, the rest of the state (and, arguably, the nation):

We have a governor who has explicitly said that New Jersey's public schools spend too much money. He mocks Newark for spending what it spends to educate some of the poorest children in the state, despite the fact that there is a massive amount of evidence that New Jersey's commitment to school funding equity has produced real results for these very children.

This governor has mistakenly - deceptively? - insisted that the problems in New Jersey's schools should be laid at the feet of teachers:

Q. And is tenure reform the most important part of that?

A. I see tenure, merit pay and OSA as a bundle. I’d like to see them all go together. By repairing the tenure system, we’ll be able to get rid of some ineffective teachers, but then we’ve got to get effective ones in there and it’s going to be years and years. So that’s why I think OSA is such an important part, and increasing charter schools in urban areas, so that those kids don’t get lost while the fixes of tenure and merit pay are fixing the system in a 10-year horizon.

It doesn't seem to occur to the governor that Millburn, right down the road from Newark and one of the best districts in the state, has tenure and a unionized teaching staff and no vouchers and fought tooth-and-nail against charter schools. Are the teachers really that much better in Millburn? Is that the primary difference between the two school systems?

But rather than acknowledge the most obvious thing in the world, Chris Christie has hired an ACTING Commissioner of Education and a superintendent for Newark who share his vision: the dissolution of public, neighborhood schools in favor of a system of charters. This plan is being implemented with funds provided by Eli Broad, a California billionaire who serves as Cerf's patron and shares his vision. Mark Zuckerberg's grant is abetting their schemes.

I've not said that Zuckerberg or Broad have a personal financial stake in the privatization of Newark's schools; I don't believe they do. They have, however, drawn quite a few edu-preneurs into their worlds, people who stand to make a good buck off of the conversion of Newark's schools. And there are ancillary plans - Teachers Village stands out - that are contingent on Newark adopting a charter-based school system.

But I believe Zuckerberg and Broad's motivation is ultimately ideological. They really do believe that a "market-based" approach to education will magically wipe away the economic decay and lack of opportunity and racism that Newark suffers under every day.

The question, however, is not whether they are correct in their assumptions and prescriptions (it's obvious to me and others that they are not). The real question is: Who gets to make the decisions? Billionaires dumping small pieces of their vast fortunes on a community that they have no ties to? Or the people of that community themselves?

If the Advisory Board in Newark had acquiesced to Anderson's plans, they would, in effect, be endorsing the destruction of a system of neighborhood public schools, run by the citizens of their community. They would be agreeing that Newark's children cannot be educated unless they are segregated; again, not necessarily by race (although that is certainly part of it), but also by ability, or parental involvement, or educational need, or language, or socio-economic status.

They would be agreeing that it is acceptable to have some children enroll in charter schools that receive additional financial support, operate under a different set of rules, do not allow for meaningful parental or community input, and have different student populations.

But what's worse, they would be agreeing to live in the same state of denial as all the other reformyists: people who will not acknowledge the truth that the primary effect of an expansive charter system is to isolate different populations of children from each other.

Now, here's the thing: if we could get past this denial, we could have a serious conversation that's long overdue. Because we have big, big problems with segregated schools in New Jersey - problems only a few people seem to want to talk about.

Millburn is in the same county as Newark, but, for all intents and purposes, it may as well be on Mars. There is little to no interaction between the students or the parents in both communities. The funding systems are completely separate. Parents in Millburn pay a fortune to live there; I'm sure the houses are very nice and they've got that great downtown and a Whole Foods, but what they are really paying for is the school system.

That school system has great teachers and big athletic fields and lots of science labs and great music and art programs... but it is also filled with students whose parents can and do pay a large premium to get them into that district. Millburn is full of families who have segregated themselves by virtue of their means - and that contributes to their children's educational "success" far more than any other factor.

Is this "fair"? Were I a parent in Newark, with real "skin in the game," I wouldn't think so. Why should  my child be denied the chance to enjoy a peer effect of children raised in like-minded families? Peer effect is real and substantial; why should the benefits of it be granted only to those who can afford to move to communities with great school systems?

This is a hard question, and our current political environment has made it dangerous to discuss, for both sides. If reformyists agree that charters and "choice" are not bringing about substantial instructional change, but mostly just segregating children, they are admitting the problems go far deeper than anything that happens in our schools.

If, however, anti-reformyists like me believe that charters and "choice" are merely segregating kids, we have to face an uncomfortable truth: that segregation is already occurring on a large scale throughout the state and the country. We are already educating some of our kids at the expense of others.

New Jersey has attempted to ameliorate this disparity through the Abbott decision and the later SFRA law. Again, we've seen real progress. Is it enough? No. What should we do? I wish I had a perfect answer, but...

I'll tell you what we shouldn't do. We shouldn't strip power from communities to have a say in their schools. We shouldn't go backwards by taking away funding that's made a real difference in the lives of children. We shouldn't pretend that "choice" is often nothing more than segregation. And we shouldn't say, "Poverty is an excuse not to reform!" when the truth is that reform is the excuse we use to not deal with poverty.

Newark has a decision to make: is it going to divide up its kids into groups that are more easily educable and groups that are not? Is the city, in effect, going to track its kids, starting at the earliest grades? That's the real issue, as much as some will vehemently deny it. And it's an issue that should be - that must be - resolved by the people of Newark. Not by billionaires, not by bureaucrats, not by consultants - but by the people of the community.

In the end, all of this is academic for the parent of a child in a Newark school. No one should ever criticize any parent for doing what is ultimately in their child's best interest. If you think Robert Treat or North Star is the best possible choice for your kid, by all means, try to get them in. No child should ever be used to make a political point.

But we owe it to all of the children to be honest about what is going on in Newark and the rest of the country. We shouldn't pretend that this last vote was all about replacing bad schools with "remarkable" ones; it wasn't.

One last thing: you're right, I don't have a child in Newark's schools. But I am a New Jersey public school teacher, and the reformy arguments have real consequences for my work and my students. Every teacher and every parent should be aware of what's going on right now, because, like it or not, it affects us all.

ADDING: Just rereading; yeah, I went on a bit, didn't I? But I still want to add one thing:

I have relied heavily on the research of Dr. Bruce Baker of Rutgers here, as I do in many of my posts. I and many others are very grateful for what he does, but I want to be clear: these conclusions are solely my own. I encourage everyone to go to SchoolFinance101 and read for yourself what Baker has to say about these issues; you may arrive at a different place than I do.

If you do, come here and let's talk. That's how it should be.

Five Years of Jersey Jazzman! Wednesday Throwback: How the NJ Press Failed Us on Christie & Pensions

One of the most important functions of bloggers is to keep the mainstream press on their toes. Unfortunately, while there are good reporters working the education beat, both in New Jersey and around the nation, too often the narrative about education policy features "experts" who have no idea what they are talking about.

I've been particularly frustrated over the years with the pundits, opinion makers, and news reporters who have given Chris Christie a free ride (and, for their efforts, managed to procure literal free rides for themselves). One of the most egregious examples -- and one that is particularly relevant today -- is how the press let Christie get away with claiming he "saved" New Jersey's public employee pensions.

Of course, he did no such thing. Some of us pointed this out in real time; however, during the last election, when it mattered, it was clear that the press had no interest whatsoever in holding Christie accountable on this critical issue.

This post from May of 2014 recalls the New Jersey news media's utter failure to serve the public by simply demanding to know how Chris Christie was going to pay for his pension plans. Ladies and gentlemen of the press, you have got to start doing better.

*****

If you are at all shocked by this, you just haven't been paying attention:

In a stunning reversal, Gov. Chris Christie today announced plans to grab, over two years, $2.43 billion meant for public workers' pensions to balance New Jersey's ailing state budget. 

The plan threatens to derail one of Christie's signature accomplishments in Trenton — a series of reforms to replenish New Jersey's strained pension fund over the long term — but it would solve an immediate crisis for the governor, who has to find $2 billion somewhere to cover budget shortfalls for the current and incoming fiscal years. 

At a Statehouse news conference today, the Republican governor said his plan is to take $2.43 billion budgeted for the pension fund during this fiscal year and the next one. He ruled out alternatives such as raising the state income tax or cutting funds for schools and Medicaid. 

A payment to the pension fund scheduled to be made before June 30 will be reduced — from $1.6 billion to $696 million — via executive order, Christie said. 

To all my fellow public employees who voted for Chris Christie: I hope you're happy. This clown broke an explicit promise to you, and now he wants to take money out of your pocket and put your pension at risk. But, hey, he was such a straight shooter back in 2013, dontchaknow! And you just loved his no-nonsense style! Plus, he was with you on marriage equity/guns/abortion/insert-your-favorite-conservative-social-wedge-issue-here...

Honest people can debate any of those social issues. But I've never understood how a public employee could think any of them are more important than being able to take care of yourself and your family.

Of course, back in 2011, when Christie - abetted by his Democratic allies in the legislature -- forced us to pay more into our pensions on the promise the state would start meeting its obligations, he told us that he was "fixing these systems in order to save them." Plenty of suckers appeared to believe this; only snarky teacher-bloggers, it seemed, bothered to point out that Christie had never put forth a plan to raise the revenue his legislation required. Over and over, the warning signs were there: without additional revenue, the payments required by Christie's law -- the one he constantly touted across the country -- would not be made.

Flash forward to 2013 and the gubernatorial race: Christie still had not told us how he was going to come up with in excess of $5 billion by 2018. He refused to raise taxes on corporations or the wealthy, both of whom had making out like bandits under New Jersey's regressive tax regime:

This was Christie's signature legislation; his shining, bipartisan moment... but he still hadn't let us in on the plan. You would think someone -- anyone -- would ask him about this.

No one did.

Don't believe me? Here are the two debates from 2013 between Christie and his challenger, Barbara Buono. Number one:

And number two:



There were lots of serious questions about serious issues asked in the debates: marriage equity, minimum wage, gun control, property taxes, etc. There were also plenty of questions about issues that I think are far less important: Christie's political ambitions, the Christiecrats who endorsed the incumbent over Buono, Wawa vs. 7-11 (seriously), etc.

But pension underfunding cuts right to the heart of the fiscal health of New Jersey. If anyone cared one whit about whether New Jersey would weather its budget crisis, they had to be concerned about the pensions. Why didn't anyone bother to ask about the pension payments?

To be fair: Barbara Buono, who I like and respect, never bothered to ask Christie about this either. I suppose she avoided the question because she figured she'd have to admit that she would have to raise taxes to make the payments. From my perspective, she would have been better off doing just that... but that is, admittedly, Monday morning quarterbacking.

In any case, the press didn't need for Buono to bring up pensions; they could have addressed the issue themselves. Unfortunately, the editorial boards of the state's newspapers utterly failed in their obligation to get an answer from Christie on this most basic of questions.

For example: when Tom Moran, chief of the Star-Ledger's editorial board, famously published his mea culpa for the paper's endorsement of Christie, he couldn't bring himself to address the problem of the pension payments:

But there is more to it. Christie has made good progress on education with a focus on struggling cities, especially Newark and Camden. His pension and health reforms helped contain public costs that were spiraling out of control. [emphasis mine]

Dear lord, what an obtuse statement. There is no cost containment without the state making its payments -- and Christie never told us how he would make them. The S-L's original endorsement worried that Christie hadn't come up with the funds to pay for open space purchase and transit projects. But any worry about the pension payments? Nope: the pension bill was "important." Unfounded, but "important."

Let's be fair: the Ledger wasn't alone. The Philadelphia Inquirer said Christie put "pension funding on a better track." The Asbury Park Press editorial board said: "Public employee pension and health benefits have been reined in, with the largest impact on taxpayers still to be felt." The Bergen Record editorial board didn't even mention pension payments in their endorsement.

The Atlantic City Press, in their endorsement of Christie, proclaimed: "Whether those reforms succeed in shoring up the pension system will depend on the huge payments they require in future budgets, but this legislation, pushed strenuously by Christie, is a step in the right direction." But how could there be a "step" without a payment plan? Did it occur to the paper's editorial board to ask what the plan was?

Please.

Pension payments are the central fiscal issue in New Jersey, but not one editorial board in the state bothered to address it in the last gubernatorial election.

And so now here we are: Chris Christie has reneged on his promises, the state's bond rating is now in free fall, and we are no closer to pension"reform" than we were four years ago.

I want to be clear: there are some very good reporters in the state doing some very good work. But on pension payments, the punditocracy of New Jersey utterly failed their readers and viewers. What happens next is as much on their heads as anyone else's.

NJ's Editorial Boards take a stand on pension payments...

Five Years of Jersey Jazzman! Tuesday's Throwback: "Won't Back Down II - The Sequel"

I'm celebrating five years of blogging this week with a look back at some favorite posts (here's Monday's). I'll admit: the "funny" pieces don't always work; however, this one remains one of the most popular I've ever published.

It's not an exaggeration to say that Won't Back Down, the fictional movie that lionized the charter school movement, had many of us in the "real" reform camp worried. The premise was clearly ridiculous, but films like this are truthy enough that they can change public perception. That it was backed by the deep-pocketed and homophobic Philip Anschutz didn't help.

Luckily, Won't Back Down went on to have arguably the worst opening of any major commercial film in history. But that didn't stop me from imagining a sequel...

*****

Won't Back Down II: The Sequel

After credits roll, fade up on school office. A worker is taking down a sign that says "Adams Elementary" and putting up one that says "KKIP Super Success Academy." In walk Jamie Fitzpatrick (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Nona Alberts (Viola Davis), smiling and chatting, clearly excited by changes in the school. 

They enter the principal's office, where they are greeted by the new school leader, Geoffrey Barth-Moskowitz (Anthony Hopkins). He stands and shakes their hands.

Geoffrey: Jamie, Nona, how good of you to come. Welcome to the KKIP Super Success Academy!

Jamie: Thank you so much, Mr. Barth-Moskowitz!

Geoffrey: Oh, please, no need to be formal; call me Geoff.

Jamie: The school looks wonderful, Geoff! I can't believe how many new computers you have!

Geoffrey: Well, that's all part of the generous funding we receive from the KKIP Foundation; we are able to spend more per pupil than Adams Elementary was.

Nona: Really? Why couldn't we get that money before when we were a public school?

Geoffrey: Oh, I think you'll find our funders are far more amenable to giving money if the schools match their ideological predilections. Now that you ladies have pulled the "parent trigger" and brought us in to take over this school, you'll find there are many changes coming.

Nona: Yes, well, that's one thing I wanted to ask you about. I figured that we would have a few computers in every classroom, but it looks like there are enough so that every child will have his or her own. Isn't that a little excessive?

Geofrey: Oh, not at all. You see, KSSA is now a "blended learning" school. We'll be delivering content to our customers... uh, sorry, "the children"... digitally, using software developed by K9 Inc. In fact, K9 Inc. will be running the entire school from now on.

Jamie: Wait a minute; this school is supposed to be non-profit. K9 is a for-profit company.

Geoffrey: True, but that was easy enough to get around. We merely set up a non-profit shell, with a board of directors sympathetic to our point of view. And the state and city politicians are all in our pocket... uh, I mean "on our side"... anyway.

Jamie: But that's not what we wanted at all! When we used the parent trigger, we thought we were getting a community-run school!

Geoffrey: Oh, Jamie, I'm sorry to tell you this, but all you did with the trigger was force a change. No one said you would have any say in what that change would be. No one made clear who would make the decisions about how the school would be structured or who would run it. No one had a procedure to appoint a board of directors. I'm sorry Jamie, but when you allowed this school to be converted to a charter, you gave up many of your rights as both a taxpayer and as a parent.

Jamie: Well, I'll go the local school board! They'll force this charter school to have parental involvement!

Geoffrey: My dear Jamie, you didn't think this through, did you? Charter schools offer you "choice"; they do NOT offer you "involvement." If you don't like the way we do things at KSSA, you can "choose" to leave; that's what school "choice" is all about. But your local district, even though it must give us money to run the school, has no say in how we run the school. We are, in effect, our own district now.

Jamie: Well, I don't like it, but it must be better than what we had before at Adams Elementary. So I'll just enroll my daughter and see how it goes...

Geoffrey: Ah, about that. I'm afraid I have some bad news: I've asked you here to help "counsel out" your daughter.

Jamie: WHAT?!

Geoffrey: Yes, unfortunately, your daughter has a learning disability, isn't that correct?

Jamie: Of course; she's dyslexic. That's the whole reason I organized the "Parenttroopers," because her needs weren't being served by those awful unionized teachers!

Geoffrey: Yes, it's funny that. Unions, like those in Chicago, have demanded that districts hire more special education teachers to serve students like your daughter. But they've been criticized for protecting those teachers from layoffs and evaluation systems that could penalize special education teachers. [Update: more here.] Ironic, no?

Jamie: Whatever. All I want to know is why you think my daughter won't do well here!

Geoffrey: Well, Jamie, we here at KSSA base our school on best practices. We look at the best charter schools: after all, Education Secretary Duncan himself has said we should close poor performing charters and emulate the best ones. New Jersey is leading the way with this line of thinking; look at this:

You see how the "successful" schools - the ones Governor Christie touts as exemplary - have fewer children with special needs? And fewer children who are in deep poverty? And fewer children who don't speak English at home? That's our plan as well; "counseling out" the children who keep our test scores low.

Jamie: But you can't keep my child out! The law says you have to accept every child!

Geoffrey: Every child who applies at the right time and right place, you mean. We've made that considerably more difficult.

Jamie: I don't care! I won't back down! I'll get her in this school, you'll see!

Geoffrey: And what then, Jamie? What happens if she doesn't fit in? If she isn't compliant with our strict disciplinary policies? If you can't contribute the significant "voluntary" parent contribution, or pay your child's discipline fines?

Jamie: But my child has an Individualized Education Program! You have to follow that!

Geoffrey: Yes - but we get to decide how to implement it. And if that means your child gets more suspensions than the other students, well...

Nona: Don't worry, Jamie, we'll work this out. After all, I'm the principal now...

Geoffrey: Yes, about that; I'm afraid there's been a change, Ms. Alberts. KSSA will not be requiring your services as an administrator.

Nona: WHAT?! 

Geoffrey: Yes, well, I'm afraid that when K9 Inc. was given the contract to become the school's charter management organization, all personnel matters fell to them. We have decided we need a truly transformational leader, so we are bringing in a young graduate of our KKIP Leadership Academy. Don't worry, he has nearly two years of experience in the classroom...

Nona: But I was going to run this school! The parents love me! I'm the best teacher at the school!

Geoffrey: That may be true, Ms. Albert, but I'm afraid their voices are irrelevant here. In any case, a blended learning environment keeps costs low by cutting staff; someone had to go. Now, if you'd like to reapply for your job as a teacher here, we'll see what we can do. Of course, you'll have to take a pay cut...

Nona: A pay cut?! I just got a divorce; I can't afford a pay cut!

Geoffrey: Ms. Albert, you're asking me to put your interests above the students; even worse, you're asking me to put your interests above the interests of K9 Inc.! If you're not prepared to work longer hours for less money, I don't see how you will fit in here.

Nona: But I have years of experience! You need people like me on the staff!

Geoffrey: Actually, experienced, overpaid teachers are the last thing we need. Churn-and-burn is now how we roll. We need teachers who can put in long days and longer school years.

Nona: But I have a son with a brain injury at home! I can't work longer hours than I already am!

Geoffrey: My word, what a selfish attitude. I can see you don't have the proper love of children it takes to work at this type of successful school.

Jamie: "Successful"?! You're counseling out students who are difficult to teach, burning out your staff, putting resources into corporate profits instead of the classroom, disempowering the community - and you dare to say you're "successful"?!

Geoffrey: I think our test scores will speak for themselves - especially after we have the students drill-and-kill on them...

Nona: Well, we're not standing for this! This isn't what we wanted when we pulled the trigger!

Geoffrey pushes red button on his desk.

Jamie: We won't back down! We're going to take back our school, again!

Two very large men enter.

Geoffrey: These ladies were just leaving; escort them off the premises. If they attempt to reenter the grounds, call the police.

Nona: You can't do this! This is our school!

Geoffrey: Not any more. 

Jamie and Nona are dragged out, yelling. Barth-Moskowitz turns and looks at camera...

Fade to black.

ADDING: Darcie reviews the original. It ain't pretty.

ADDING MORE: I was all excited to get my $19 million check for this script from anti-gay, environment-raping, Won't Back Down producer Philip Anschutz. Then the box office figures started coming out for the weekend; it looks like WBD is on track to have one of the worst openings in Hollywood history.

Damn. I guess I better cancel that order at the Maserati dealer. Well, babe, that's showbiz...