Why the Federal Reserve Needs To Go Beyond Interest Rate Policy
Why the Federal Reserve Needs To Go Beyond Interest Rate Policy
KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. Im Kim Brown in Baltimore. Interests rates will remain unchanged....
KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. Im Kim Brown in Baltimore.
Interests rates will remain unchanged. That coming out of this weeks meeting of the Federal Reserve in DC. The official word from the feds, per their own statement, was that job gains have been solid, that household spending has been growing strongly, and inflation is running below expectations. But does this mean that the economy is actually doing well or are we still in a recession dressed up to appear better than what it actually is?
Joining us today from New York City is Jerald Epstein. Jerald is the co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. Hes also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald welcome back.
JERALD EPSTEIN: Thanks a lot Kim.
BROWN: Jerald lets start with the basics and then we can delve a little bit deeper. If the economy is showing the signs of strength as the Fed has indicated, then why didnt they raise interest rates now and do you think that they are likely to do so at all this year?
EPSTEIN: Well I think Janet Yellen whos the chair of the Fed, is aware that even though its been showing strength and the economy has been growing moderately for several years now, that theres still much more room to go. That is that wage growth has gone up a tiny bit more than inflation recently, its still pretty stagnant, pretty flat line and she knows theres still a number of workers out that who are so discouraged that they havent joined the labor force. So Janet Yellen is concerned about the labor force and the growth of wages but the problem is twofold. First of all, its always dangerous to raise interest rates around election time. So traditionally the federal reserve, theyll try not to do that, move interest rates right around an election. So thats one factor leading them not to do anything.
The second factor leading them not to do anything is that keeping inflation under control is one of their main mandates. They have two. Maintaining inflation at a low rate and they have a 2% target, and reaching high employment. Inflation is still below 2%. Theres really no signs of inflation going up. So theres no compelling reason from the point of view of the macro economy to raise interest rates.
BROWN: Its funny that you mention that the Fed is less likely to raise interest rates or even mess with the interest rate around election time because the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump has already accused Chairwoman Yellen of keeping the interest rates unchanged in order to appease the Obama administration. She of course has denied this. What are your thoughts?
EPSTEIN: Well I dont think she did it for Clinton or Obama. But it is I think a tradition and its common for Federal Reserves not to raise and certainly change interest rates right before an election. So she is in sort of a tradition of what the Federal Reserve typically does. And its also typical especially recently for politicians to make the Federal Reserve the whipping boy or girl for political reasons. Sometimes theres good reasons. For that.
But there was something kind of unusual for this meeting. In the recent meetings its been unanimous to keep interest rates the same or to mostly do what the Federal Reserve has done. But this time it was quite contentious. There were actually 3 people on the federal open market committee, the ones who make this decision who voted to raise interest rates.
This is kind of challenge to Janet Yellens leadership in this regard and it also shows what kind of pressure the Federal Reserve is under, particularly from the banks and the mutual fund industry, the insurance industry because with interest rates being so low, its very difficult for them to eek out much of a profit. And is typically the case when interest rates are very low for a very long period of time. Some sectors and very powerful important sectors of the financial industry push very hard for interest rates to be raised and they usually get a pretty good hearing at the Federal Reserve [be]cause the Federal Reserve has traditionally done pretty much what the banks have wanted them to do.
BROWN: Jerald it seems as if theres not enough agreement between the Federal Reserve and among every day Americans on how well this economic recovery is going. So lets unpack some of the elements of this. Starting with Chairwoman Janet Yellens comments on labor markets.
JANET YELLEN: Were generally pleased with the progress of the economy and the decision not to raise rates today and to wait for some further evidence that were continuing on this course is largely based on the judgement that were not seeing evidence that the economy is overheating and that we are seeing evidence that people are being drawn in in larger numbers than what I wouldve expected into the labor market and that thats healthy to continue.
BROWN: So the unemployment rate was under 5% in August and the caveat to that is more Americans are working part-time jobs. Plus, the gig economy is one way that people are surviving and supplementing their income. So is unemployment published monthly by the Bureau of Labor statistics, giving us an accurate figure on the number of Americans who are out of the labor force?
EPSTEIN: They dont have an accurate number. They have estimates and I think its true that theres still quite a few so called discouraged workers who are out of the labor force. Its also the case like we said in the beginning that wage growth has been stagnant. Look, the Federal Reserve has a real dilemma here. On the one hand and this is typically the case with Janet Yellen who I think does want to indicate that their policies have had some effect, otherwise nobody will want them to continue these policies. And she thinks that they have had some positive effect on employment and I think they have.
But on the other hand their policies cannot turn around the long run decline of our economy. We need much different kinds, much bigger, much more radical policies in terms of public investment to generate jobs, hiking the minimum wage to a living wage, providing much more in a way of a safety net for workers, protecting pensions and other investments. So the list is very, very broad and very deep. And the Federal Reserve has been pretty reluctant to go further down that list.
The Federal Reserve could do more. They could use different tools to invest directly in the economy. Theres a group called Fed Up which has proposed that they do this. But Janet Yellen and her committee want to stay pretty close to their broader toolkit that theyve developed and are really afraid to, I think take more radical action which they plausibly could take.
But in the end it really raises questions of the Federal Reserves legitimacy. Can they take some kind of really radical action without the broader government saying go ahead and do it? And until the political stalemate we have is resolved, Im afraid the Federal Reserve cant do much more and that means this kind of stagnation in wages and so forth is going to continue.
BROWN: Jerald you raise an excellent point about wage stagnation and how wages have largely remained flat going back 20, 30, and even 40 years depending on who you ask. But new census data this month says that household income jumped over 5% which is the largest such gain in decades but that top 1% of Americans saw an increase of around 7% rise in their income. If most of the economic recovery gained since the great recession of 2007, 2008--if most of these gains have gone to the top1%, does it still count as a recovery if its not being felt by the majority of Americans?
EPSTEIN: No it does and this has been a very lopsided so called recovery and yes there have been some modest gains for the middle class and some working class people. So the Federal Reserve actions have had some positive effect. But until you really change the structure, change the tax policies so that the wealthy have to pay more of their taxes so the multinational corporations cant park their earnings overseas and not pay any taxes like Apple and other corporations have been doing until you have much more aggressive jobs programs to bring about a Green transition and many other things. Were not going to have a real recovery. These kind of very small sorts of gains which are gains but arent enough are going to be the best were going to see.
BROWN: Jerald whats keeping inflation in check right now? Is it cheap oil prices?
EPSTEIN: Its several things. First of all, cheap oil prices and other commodity prices are one thing. But theyre also partially related to the headwinds in the global economy against economic growth. Chinas not growing as much so theyre not demanding as much oil and other commodities. Many other developing countries arent growing so fast. Europe isnt growing hardly at all.
So this really dampens the demand for all of these commodities and with these prices going down that does keep inflation in check. The other thing is, all of the forces that are keeping wages in check. That is, imports from China, the union busting thats been going on, the threat of multinational corporations to move abroad. All of these factors plus more are making it very difficult for workers to have their wages go up. Wages are a cost so that to some extent keep inflation in check as well.
And finally you have the retail industry thats subject to loss of competition that just keeps squeezing and squeezing and squeezing workers more and more. Until we get big increase in the minimum wage, until we get policies to put workers back to work at well-paying jobs, were not going to see real wages go up and were also not going to see prices go up very much at all.
BROWN: And lastly Jerald, the wealthiest Americans, the top 1% of Americans are fairing very well and we are experiencing income inequality probably at the largest gap since the Gilded Age. We have seen so many sickle economic bubble burst over the past 20 years with the tech bubble bursting in the late 90s and the housing bubble bursting in the mid 00s. Are we at risk of another such economic bubble burst on the horizon any time soon.
EPSTEIN: Yes, were always at that kind of risk. Its hard to see where exactly the bubble would come from. There are little bubblets going on all over the place that dont seem so broad and connected up with debt and the financial system that it seems as so were going to have a kind of bubble burst the way we saw in 2007, 2008 but we might have bubblets burst in the high tech industry and so forth. Whats more likely is this slow burn of stagnation and increases in distress effecting so many people in the United States except for the wealthy who will continue to do very well. Not only income inequality at all-time highs, wealth inequality, how much assets people own has grown and grow and grow and grown. If you look for example, if the net wealth, that is assets minus liabilities, minus debt of African Americans in this country. A report recently came out that said, the median net wealth of African Americans is zero. Theres no net wealth. So this system cannot continue to go in this form. It helps to explain a lot of the political disorder that were seeing. The political fighting up were seeing and its just going to keep going unless we have some fundamental changes in the economy.
BROWN: Indeed. Weve been speaking with Jerald Epstein. Jerald is a co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. Hes also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald as always, we appreciate you joining us here on the Real News.
EPSTEIN: Thank you very much Kim.
BROWN: And thank you for tuning in to the Real News Network.
End
DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a
recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
Source
“These Disasters Aren’t Natural Anymore”: A Dispatch from Puerto Rico After Maria
“These Disasters Aren’t Natural Anymore”: A Dispatch from Puerto Rico After Maria
Several weeks ago, Puerto Rico avoided a direct hit from Hurricane Irma, which shifted north at the last minute. But...
Several weeks ago, Puerto Rico avoided a direct hit from Hurricane Irma, which shifted north at the last minute. But Hurricane Maria hit head on, and has left a humanitarian crisis in its wake. Power on the island could be out for as long as six months, and many parts of the island have yet to be contacted.
Read the full article here.
Fed Draws on Academia, Goldman for Recent Appointees
Fed Draws on Academia, Goldman for Recent Appointees
When the Federal Reserve was established, Congress called for its policy makers to have “fair representation of the...
When the Federal Reserve was established, Congress called for its policy makers to have “fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests, and geographical divisions of the country.”
But Fed officials have recently been drawn from just two backgrounds—academics, either at universities or Fed research departments, and alumni of the financial services firmGoldman Sachs & Co.
The announcement Tuesday that Neel Kashkari would become president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis marked the third Goldman Sachs alumnus in a row to be picked to become a Fed bank president. The other two—Dallas’s Robert Steven Kaplan andPhiladelphia’s Patrick Harker —took office earlier this year.
Mr. Kashkari is a former investment banker at Goldman Sachs and a former Treasury official who ran the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) during the financial crisis. He takes the helm of the Minneapolis Fed Jan. 1, 2016.
Of the 17 Fed officials in office next year—five members of the Board of Governors and 12 regional bank presidents—all but three will have professional backgrounds as academics or with Goldman Sachs. The exceptions will be Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhartand Fed governor Jerome Powell, who worked at other banking institutions, and Kansas City Fed President Esther George, who was primarily a bank supervisor.
“The obvious downside of this is there’s more of a groupthink within the Fed,” said George Selgin, the director of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank, referring to the shift toward a narrow range of backgrounds at the central bank. “That can be very dangerous if the groupthink is based on ways of thinking about the economy that are not necessarily sound.”
Mr. Kaplan, a former Harvard Business School professor, had worked as a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., leading investment banking activities. Mr. Harker, the former president of the University of Delaware, served as a trustee of Goldman Sachs Trust and its Variable Insurance Trust.
New York Fed President William Dudley also spent most of his career at Goldman, ultimately serving as its chief economist.
Since the central bank’s founding a century ago, the background of Fed officials has undergone a dramatic shift.
In the early days after the Fed began in 1913, the people selected to run the nation’s central bank were primarily small bankers, reflecting that in the early days, the Fed’s key function was providing banking services to a highly fragmented banking industry. The notion of using Fed policies to steer the broader economy had not yet taken hold.
Through the Fed’s first 40 years, the backgrounds of officials grew increasingly diverse. In the late 1940s, for example, Fed officials included Chester Davis, a former agriculture commissioner and grain marketer; Laurence Whittemore, of the Boston and Maine Railroad and H. Gavin Leedy, a private practice attorney.
The central bank’s leadership also contained many functionaries who rose through the ranks as Fed administrators, such as Robert Gilbert, who in his 20s become one of the first 14 employees of the Dallas Fed. He worked as a loan and discount clerk and in the war loan department, before becoming manger of the Dallas Fed’s El Paso branch and eventually the Dallas Fed President.
Such quaint backgrounds were common among officials in the central bank’s early days but were beginning to dwindle by the 1960s. Today Fed officials who rose through the ranks are almost entirely Ph.D. economists who headed the regional banks’ research departments; the lone exception is Ms. George, who worked as a bank supervisor and Kansas City Fed administrator. Ms. George holds an M.B.A.
Gradually backgrounds in industry, law, and other aspects of government or administration fell out of favor.
“Keep in mind, for much of the Fed’s first half, the focus was really on financial stability,” said Sarah Binder, a George Washington University professor who is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “There wasn’t a well-worked out body of knowledge about monetary policy.”
As it became apparent that Fed policy held vast sway over the economic fortunes of the country, presidents and regional Fed boards increasingly turned to Ph.D. economists to guide the central bank and to be effective participants during the debates of the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee.
Ms. Binder thinks the narrow range of backgrounds among Fed officials may lead to a central bank that is thin on expertise when it comes to “the responsibilities that are laid on top of the board, in particular, that extend beyond monetary policy.”
The central bank is tasked, for example, with regulating much of the financial system, not only the giant Wall Street banks, but also community banks, insurers and other financial institutions. The Fed retains some responsibilities for consumer protection and community development, is responsible for the nation’s payment systems and continues to operate the discount window and other low-profile back-office banking functions.
Liberal activist groups, led by the Center for Popular Democracy, have pushed for diversity in the appointment of new Fed officials, pressing for representatives of workers and consumers or labor and community leaders. They have had no luck, and with the filling of the Minneapolis Fed presidency and inaction in Congress over two current nominees to the Fed board, there are no looming vacancies for the central bank’s composition to begin a shift.
Source: The Wall Street Journal
Communities Demand End to HUD Distressed Loan Sales
US Finance Post - September 10, 2014, by Christine Layton - Community groups and homeowners in 10 cities have started...
US Finance Post - September 10, 2014, by Christine Layton - Community groups and homeowners in 10 cities have started to rally at local offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), calling for an end to a program that sells off delinquent loans to investors, HousingWire reports.
The groups are protesting the HUD Distressed Asset Stabilization Program, which was created two years ago to auction delinquent loans to the highest bidders. In 2010, the government began selling delinquent mortgages that are at least 90 days past due to the highest bidder in an attempt to help the FHA rebuild cash reserves that were hit hard by loan defaults during the recession.
In the first 2 years, the FHA sold 2,000 loans in six auctions. In September 2012, when the loan pools were expanded under the new DASP program, it sold over 3,000 loans during the first auction.
The community groups claims these sales harm stabilization goals in neighborhoods, including affordable housng and homeownership.
“We’re seeing an unprecedented rise of the corporate landlord, and HUD’s DASP is just facilitating the process,” said Rachest Laforest, executive director of the Right To The City Alliance. She argues that HUD should instead use a system to favor nonprofit bidders whose mission is to invest in the community with greater requirements for winning bidders to preserve homeownership and offer affordable housing options to homeowners.
In a report released earlier this month, HUD said it sold $15.8 billion in nonperforming loans since 2010, which reduces losses to its insurance fund and saves homeowners from foreclosure. New reports claim the program helps the FHA avoid having to get more money from taxpayers, although it is questioned whether there are any efforts to protect neighborhoods that are hit hard by foreclosures.
About 97% of loans sold have gone to for-profit, private investors, such as private equity firms, hedge funds and mutual funds. Just 11% of the loans sold under DASP are considered “re-performing,” according to a report released by the Center for American Progress, while 22% were allowed to short sale or the property was surrendered for loan forgiveness. One-third were turned around and re-sold, while another one-third went into foreclosure.
“These are companies that put the financial gains of their shareholders first and community stabilization second — or I would say it’s not even necessarily a priority for them,” said Connie Razza, co-author of a report released by the Center for Popular Democracy and the Right To The City Alliance.
The group has sent a petition to Julian Castro, who took over HUD, which houses the FHA, asking that he stop selling loans under DASP until the program an be strengthened and refocused on improving neighborhoods.
During the housing crash, the share of FHA loans skyrocketed as homeowners could not get private loans, increasing from 2% of mortgages in 2006 to almost one-third by 2009. A wave of defaults put the FHA’s mortgage insurance fund into the red, and it took its first $1.7 billion taxpayer bailout in 2013. So far, almost 100,000 non-performing loans have been sold under DASP, giving the FHA a net of $8.8 billion.
Source: US Finance Post
Here's Why The Movement For Black Lives' Demands Came At The Perfect Time
Here's Why The Movement For Black Lives' Demands Came At The Perfect Time
Last week, the DNC took over Philadelphia, television sets, and social media platforms around the country. Viewers...
Last week, the DNC took over Philadelphia, television sets, and social media platforms around the country. Viewers tweeted quotes and zingers from prominent elected officials, and celebrity actors alike. For the most part, it was a vibrant convention with many celebratory acknowledgements for Hillary Clinton becoming the first woman major-party presidential nominee. But here's why The Movement For Black Lives demands, released on Monday, actually came at the perfect time. There's still a long road ahead for full equality, and every political party should continue to be challenged – even during the "glass ceiling"-shattering historic moments.
Many supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green Party candidate Jill Stein (or those simply anti-establishment) exercised their right to protest at the DNC, but even still, the underlying message last week was clear: Unite to stop Donald Trump. The Republican presidential nominee poses a real threat to already-marginalized communities in America should he be elected President – but he's not the only threat. For black lives particularly, police violence, and economic freedom are some of the lingering systemic issues that have long oppressed black communities. And it's a deep-rooted problem that continues to need attention – especially as candidates in the general election are eagerly vying for the trust of American citizens from now until November.
The Movement For Black Lives is a collective of more than 50 organizations that represent Black people across the United States, including Black Lives Matter. The collective released a comprehensive platform of demands that aim to combat the systemic marginalization of black communities:
“Black humanity and dignity requires Black political will and power. Despite constant exploitation and perpetual oppression, Black people have bravely and brilliantly been the driving force pushing the U.S. towards the ideals it articulates but has never achieved. In recent years we have taken to the streets, launched massive campaigns, and impacted elections, but our elected leaders have failed to address the legitimate demands of our Movement. We can no longer wait.”
The process to create the demands took one year – beginning last year when 2,000 people gathered in Cleveland to discuss ideas for the movement, the site read. In a breakdown of one the platform demands for political power, the collective called for an end to super PACs, and "unchecked corporate donations" that influence political elections, along with ensuring voting rights, and an increase in funding for HBCUs.
What's especially interesting about the platform, is that some of the demands, like, reparations, are often viewed unfavorably and do not make the conversation in major-party platform settings like the DNC. But some polls suggest that significant percentages of black Americans support reparations – therefore making it an important conversation, at the very least, for all political candidates.
In an interview with The New York Times, Marbre Stahly-Butts, a leader in the Movement for Black Lives Policy Table, explained why the demands "go beyond individual candidates."
"On both sides of aisle, the candidates have really failed to address the demands and the concerns of our people," she said.
And as police violence continues to disproportionately affect Black lives, among other systemic issues, it continues to be important to push for justice, during and after the general election.
By KIMBERLEY RICHARDS
Source
Charter Schools Fail: New Reports Call Their ‘Magic’ Into Question
Education Opportunity Network - May 7, 2014, by Jeff Bryant - When members of the U.S. House of Representatives...
Education Opportunity Network - May 7, 2014, by Jeff Bryant - When members of the U.S. House of Representatives consider, beginning today, a bill to incentivize the expansion of charter schools, you can expect there to be a lot of heat but not very much light in their discussion of the need for more of these institutions.
The bipartisan bill, HR 10, is “likely to pass,” according to the experienced observers at Education Week. And “amid lots of cross-aisle fist-bumping,” there is apt to be “a much glitzier rollout, with lots of floor speeches about the power of charters to help disadvantaged kids. Debate is also expected to begin Thursday and final passage could happen Friday.”
In today’s climate of trumped up political truisms (remember “deficit hysteria?”), the supposed necessity of charter schools is just the latest one to hit The Hill.
In even the most casual treatments of education, charter schools are now regarded by many as a given “improvement.” New York Times columnists David Leonhardt illustrated this intellectual nonchalance the other day, writing for the paper’s magazine, that our nation’s “once-large international lead in educational attainment has vanished,” but “there are some reasons for optimism in education” – principally, “charter schools” that “offer some lessons about what works and doesn’t in K-12.”
Echoing Leonhardt in the halls of Congress, Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) recently harangued U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan during a Senate committee meeting for not giving enough federal financial support to charter schools. According to the report from Education Week, she “chided Duncan for proposing level funding for the federal charter program.” Said Landrieu, “We gave you billions of dollars for traditional public schools. You’ve given a very small amount of money for public high performing charters. The evidence is in, they work.”
Even the President himself declared this week National Charter School Week in a proclamation claiming charter schools “show what is possible.”
The fact that the House vote on the HR 10 coincides with the president’s designation of a special week for charters tells you the marketing campaign for these schools has been very carefully orchestrated.
But upsetting the ad campaign are a number of recent revelations showing that among “what is possible” from charter schools is a lot of bad education, ridiculous hype, wasted resources, and widespread corruption.
For sure – and let’s get this straight from the get go – there are always a few “charter school success stories” that can be cherry picked from the tree, but that’s not the point. After all, imagine an advocate for traditional public schools pleading his case saying, “But look at this great public school over here.” He’d be mocked in the media and shamed by politicians. The point is that after years of studies about charter schools, there is not really any definitive proof of any “charter magic” they bring to the field.
In the meantime, look at what’s being introduced . . .
Spreading Bad Education
Opening the truth telling about charter schools was a recent study from the Economic Policy Institute on a call for public schools to be replaced by charter schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Milwaukee, you should note, is the city that has experienced the nation’s longest running experiment, more than 20 years, with charter schools and vouchers as replacements for traditional public schools. The consensus view is that charter schools in Milwaukee do no better than the public schools they replace, and many of the charter schools that perform the worst are never held accountable and continue to remain open after years of failure.
Despite this humble track record for charters in Milwaukee, the EPI report “Do Poor Kids Deserve Lower-Quality Education Than Rich Kids? Evaluating School Privatization Proposals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” explores the latest demand from state officials who are for “enamored with a new type of charter school represented by the Rocketship chain of schools.”
The study’s author, Gordon Lafer, looked closely at Rocketship’s practices and found “everything is built around the tests.” However, tests scores for students in the Rocketship programs – as measured by California’s Academic Performance Index (where Rocketship is primarily based) – have declined by just over 10 percent from 2008–2009 to 2012–2013. “Indeed, in 2012–2013, all seven of the Rocketship schools failed to make adequate yearly progress according to federal standards.”
Despite this poor performance, Rocketship executives are bent on an “unshakeable pursuit of large-scale growth.” But instead of good education practice, what drives the Rocketship model is profit. As the report explained, along with a test-driven instructional method, the Rocketship model relies heavily on substituting extensive online instruction for personal instruction from teachers. However, this model leads to clear conflicts of interest when the charter network partners with its own for-profit providers of curricula, and two leaders of the charter venture both sit on Rocketship’s Board and are primary investors in a for-profit company that provides the math curriculum used by Rocketship.
Thus, as Lafer concluded in his report, “Rocketship promotes itself as a dynamic learning organization, and indeed the company is continually experimenting. However, its innovation appears to be restricted within specific boundaries: It seems that it will not adopt education reforms that have no potential to make money for investors.”
This profit over pedagogy mentality “would likely be prohibited as illegal conflicts of interest if they took place in a public school system,” but, “Rocketship is not bound to uphold the same standard of ethics demanded of public officials.”
Is this really a model of schooling we want spread across America?
Engaging In Marketing Hype
Another outcome of the push for charter schools is the circulation of unfounded and unwarranted rhetoric to support them. Demands for more charter schools, and more money for charter schools, are often justified by suspect information masquerading as “research” and inflated arguments about their financial needs.
Two recent examples of the hype machine behind charter schools were, first, a new report arguing for more money for charter schools and, second, the annual ritual of circulating figures representing a charter school “waitlist.”
The report calling for more funds for charter schools found that in 2011, charter schools received $3,059 less per student than traditional public schools. “Shocking,” wrote one of the report authors on his personal blog.
But as education journalist Joy Rosmovits noted at The Huffington Post, the report came from a University of Arkansas endeavor “funded by the Walton Foundation, a group associated with Walmart that aggressively uses its philanthropy to spur the creation of new charter schools. (The foundation also funded the report, which contains a disclaimer that its findings “[do] not necessarily reflect” the group’s views.)”
Further, as charter schools expert and Western Michigan University professor Gary Miron explained to a blogger for Education Week, “This is not research that’s helping draw good policies.” As it turns out, based on the data, charter schools often get less money because they don’t provide many of the services traditional public schools do, in particular, special education services, student support services such as counseling and health, vocational education, and transportation.
In fact, according to the writer, “Miron found that charters have a cost advantage,” especially when there is a thorough accounting of “considerable money that comes into charters from private sources.”
And about that extensive charter school wait list? Like clockwork, the numbers were indeed released, showing, supposedly, over a million students champing at the bit to get into charter schools. Fortunately, just prior to the release, a report from the National Education Policy Center warned, “While there are undoubtedly many students who wish to enroll in popular charter schools and are unable, the overall waitlist numbers are almost certainly much lower than the estimates.”
The report, ” Wait, Wait. Don’t Mislead Me! Nine Reasons to Be Skeptical About Charter Waitlist Numbers,” caution that the methods for obtaining the waitlist data are not transparent, there’s no means of verifying the results, and waitlist record-keeping is chronically unreliable – for instance, charters often count as “waiting” applicants who apply to enter into grade levels for which charters provide no entry. Also, a small number of very popular charters disproportionately account for the charter waitlists, while traditional public schools – which are not allowed to turn away applicants or, as with popular magnet schools, offer selective enrollment – are not given a “meaningful comparison” in the charter school data.
So as charter proponents continue to inflate their cause, the facts continue to deflate it. Maybe we’ve had enough of this shameless hype?
Wasting Resources, Spreading Corruption
Last but hardly least, a blockbuster report released by Integrity in Education and the Center for Popular Democracy revealed, “Fraudulent charter operators in 15 states are responsible for losing, misusing or wasting over $100 million in taxpayer money.”
The report, “Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud And Abuse,” combed through news stories, criminal records, and other documents to find hundreds of cases of charter school operators embezzling funds, using tax dollars to illegally support other, non-educational businesses, taking public dollars for services they didn’t provide, inflating their enrollment numbers to boost revenues, and putting children in potential danger by foregoing safety regulations or withholding services.
“Despite rapid growth in the charter school industry,” the report contended, “no agency, federal or state, has been given the resources to properly oversee it. Given this inadequate oversight, we worry that the fraud and mismanagement that has been uncovered thus far might be just the tip of the iceberg.”
In a write up of the report at Bill Moyers and Company, Joshua Holland wrote, “The report looks at problems … with dozens of case studies. In some instances, charter operators used tax dollars to prop up side businesses like restaurants and health food stores — even a failing apartment complex.”
At her blog at The Washington Post, Valerie Strauss cited some of the most egregious examples including a Washington, DC-based charter that used public tax dollars to cover travel-related expenses, membership dues and dinner tabs at an exclusive club, and slew of bills from sources as diverse as wine and liquor stores, Victoria’s Secret, and a shop in France frequented by the charter school operator and his wife.
A state auditor in Ohio found nearly $3 million in unsubstantiated expenses amassed by a charter in that state. Another operator in Milwaukee “spent about $200,000 on personal expenses, including cars, funeral arrangements and home improvement.” And yet another in California pleaded guilty to “stealing more than $7.2 million worth of computers from a government program.”
The report concluded with recommendations for policy makers to adopt to curb these abuses, including
Rigorous oversight from officials solely dedicated to charters and an annual auditing process. Increased transparency through public access to records, meetings, and documents and required disclosure of finances and vendor relationships. Stricter governance from board members who live in reasonable proximity of where charter schools operate and who are accountable to the public.Given the situation, these recommendations seem all too reasonable.
Time For This Truism To Die
Despite these urgent and well-founded calls for a change in direction on charter schools, public officials still seem intent on pursuing bad policy.
In New York, new changes in state laws allowing an unfettered charter industry to expand are leading to a “charter school gold rush.”
In Pennsylvania, credit-rating agency Moody’s has warned that charter expansions promoted by the state endanger the financial livelihood of Philadelphia Public Schools, the state’s largest school district.
And inside the Beltway, Members of Congress, U.S. Senators, and state governors are feted by the well-financed backers of charter schools as being “champions” of good education.
But with these recent disclosures, and others that are sure to come, about the reality of charter schools, there’s every reason to believe that a tipping point in the debate over their fate is drawing nigh.
Source
The charter school movement needs greater accountability
A recent study published by the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and the Center for Popular Democracy, entitled “...
A recent study published by the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and the Center for Popular Democracy, entitled “The Tip of the Iceberg,” found $203 million lost to fraud, corruption and mismanagement in charter schools, with a projected $1.4 billion in losses in 2015 alone. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is concerned as well: It has investigated schools in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Connecticut, Arizona, Ohio, Massachusetts, Indiana and Illinois.
Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform released a report detailing the standards that should be required to raise the charter sector to the level of equity and transparency that public schools must meet. Such reforms are popular: A 2015 poll showed that 89 percent of respondents favored making charter board meetings publicly accessible, 88 percent supported routine audits of their finances and 86 percent desired transparent budgets.
Whether or not one thinks that charter schools are a good thing, we should be able to agree that greater accountability strengthens our school system. However, many charter advocates have stood in the way of reform.
In California, four long-overdue bills that would bring a higher level of accountability to the state’s 1,100 charter schools were introduced last March. A 2015 report from the Center for Popular Democracy documented how charter schools in California have lost $81 million in public funds to fraud and abuse. Over the last 10 years California’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team revealed multi-million dollar scams in Los Angeles, Oakland and Santa Ana, to name a few cities, as well as rampant abuse in what was the state’s largest charter operator.
Instead of supporting common-sense reform, the state’s charter industry, represented by the California Charter School Association, has fiercely opposed the bills. “We believe current laws address these concerns and these proposals are unnecessary,” the lobbying group wrote in a press release.
California, the state with the largest number of charter schools, should lead the way for reform. But progress is slow going: There is little indication that any of the bills will make progress in Sacramento this year.
In Connecticut, it took a scandal to spur this kind of reform. A 2014 study from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers ranked Connecticut as the seventh-lowest state with regard to charter accountability. In response, the state passed a law in July that makes all charter school records a matter of public record subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It also requires charter schools to have anti-nepotism and conflict of interest policies, and it empowers the state’s Department of Education to post each school’s certified audit statement on its website.
The reform was spurred by a massive scandal around a prominent charter school figure named Michael Sharpe. For years Sharpe led a chain of schools called the Jumoke Academy and advocated for unfettered charter expansion. Yet, in early 2015, in the midst of an FBI investigation and after more than six months of relentless investigative reporting by the Hartford Courant, Connecticut’s Department of Education found Sharpe’s network riddled with “rampant nepotism.” Its report also revealed that Sharpe had ordered “expensive and ornate modifications” to an apartment owned by his company, which he then rented for his own use.
In the aftermath of these revelations, Connecticut’s reform law was approved in May by a 35 to 1 vote in the state Senate and 142 to 3 in the state Assembly. While this is a positive development, other states should not have to wait for a scandal of this magnitude before demanding greater accountability.
Charter reform can be a bipartisan cause. In Ohio, Republican State Senator Peggy Lehner began pushing for laws to require greater disclosure of how public funds are spent after, she says, seeing “story after story” about charter school scandals. A recent investigation by the Akron Beacon Journal found that of the 300 charter schools reporters contacted, only a fourth provided basic information like board members’ names. Meanwhile, 87 percent of charters got Ds or Fs on the most recent state report cards.
Major charter advocates spoke to the need for reform. “Charter schools are public schools, and there should not be a veil of secrecy,” said Chad Aldis, vice president for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which sponsors 11 charter schools in the state. “We need to have transparency.”
In June, a bill that passed the state Senate that would require Ohio to annually audit all charter school operators to monitor the use of public funds. Charter schools would also have to obey open records laws and other transparency standards that are already the norm in public schools.
Such changes should be no-brainers. And yet the bill has stalled in the General Assembly. With much of the debate going on behind closed doors, the public has thus far not been able to get a clear sense for the cause of the delay.
Sunshine advocates fear that the inaction of the Ohio House bodes ill for the bill’s future. “It appears that the poor-performing charter school sector has again won the day,” argues Stephen Dyer, former legislator and Education Policy Fellow at the progressive think tank Innovation Ohio.
Rather than standing in the way of greater accountability, lawmakers should view the current bill as a first step. Not only should the measures be passed, they should be strengthened. Communications and overhead costs would not have to be disclosed under the state Senate’s bill, casualties of the charter industry’s lobbying.
Moreover, Ohio’s bizarre system of charter approval would remain largely unchanged under the bill. Instead of having a few authorizing agencies to approve charter schools, Ohio allows dozens of groups, including non-profits, to sponsor and approve charter schools. These authorizers receive payments from the schools and rarely close them as a result.
The public deserves better — in Ohio and beyond. If charter schools are to become a permanent and respected part of public education in America, their champions will need to clean up their sector and let the sunshine in.
Source: Al Jazeera America
Open Letter to the Governor of Puerto Rico Ricardo Roselló
Sign-On Letter Condemning the Actions of the Puerto Rican Government on May Day and Demanding Justice for the Puerto...
May 3, 2018
We, the undersigned organizations, stand in solidarity with the Puerto Rican people and organizations that came together on May 1, 2018 to march against inhumane austerity measures that continue to drive a massive exodus of families in search of a better life. We stand with the millions of Puerto Ricans who remain on the island and fight every day to sustain their families and improve their collective quality of life. We write today to condemn the inhumane and violent police actions of the government of Ricardo Rosselló.
On May 1, 2018, thousands of Puerto Rican people, including elderly adults and children, who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest were met with state violence through the use of tear gas and violence at the hands of the police. Images captured at the event, corroborated by first-hand accounts, show crowds of people fighting to catch their breath as they ran away from police in riot gear. This type of scene has no place in a democratic society. The right to assemble and express frustration at the government is essential to the practice of democracy. We are deeply disturbed by Governor Roselló’s defense of the police brutality and demand that the local government take the appropriate actions to prosecute those who gave and executed the orders for these actions to take place.
On May 1, 2018, thousands of Puerto Ricans came out to protest the measures that the governor and the fiscal control board have put forward over the last two years. These measures adversely affect working class Puerto Ricans, and include:
Privatizing of the public school system and the power company; Doubling the tuition costs in Puerto Rico's public university; Closing over 300 schools; Slashing labor rights; Raising taxes; and Cutting pensions.This dire situation is forcing families to flee the island en masse. The Center for Puerto Rican Studies estimates that Puerto Rico could lose 14% of its population, 470,000 people, by 2019.
On May Day, the people of Puerto Rico came out with clear demands for their government. Today we stand with them and echo their demands in solidarity, and we commit to advocate for them in the United States.
We further demand immediate accountability for the May Day violence. Our demands are as follows:
Stop austerity: The Government of Puerto Rico should stop all austerity measures and invest in the working people of Puerto Rico by strengthening labor rights, raising the minimum wage, and promoting other policies that allow families in the island to live with dignity. Living with dignity includes rebuilding Puerto Rico’s power grid with 100% clean and renewable energy and keeping the power grid and power generation in public hands under community control, so as to mitigate the climate crisis and adapt for future extreme weather. Cancel the debt: The Government of Puerto Rico should not make, and the U.S. government should stop promoting, any more debt payments to billionaire bondholders. Instead, all government efforts should focus on securing payments to pension holders. The Puerto Rican government should also prosecute any individual that has profited from the debt crisis. Prosecute: The Government of Puerto Rico should conduct a full, transparent and impartial investigation into the police violence during the May Day actions and prosecute every police officer and civil servant who instructed and executed these acts of violence against the Puerto Rican people. We also encourage human right organizations to conduct their own independent investigations and oversight to guarantee that this process is done with full transparency.We, the undersigned organizations, stand in solidarity with the Puerto Rican people and their demands, condemn the actions of the Puerto Rican government, and demand that the local government take the appropriate actions to prosecute those who instructed and executed these actions.
Sincerely,
215 People Alliance 32BJ SEIU About Face: Veterans Against the War Action Center for Race and the Economy Action NC Alliance for Puerto Rico-Massachusetts Alliance for Quality Education American Family Voices Americas for Conservation Arkansas United Community Coalition Black Voters Matter Fund Blue Future CASA Center for Popular Democracy Chicago Boricua Resistance! Climate Hawks Vote Coalition for Education Justice Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) Courage Campaign CT PR Agenda Delaware Alliance for Community Advancement DiaspoRicans DiaspoRiqueños Florida Immigrant Rights Coalition- FLIC HANA Center Harry Potter Alliance Hedge Clippers Institute for Policy Studies, New Internationalism Project Journey for Justice Alliance Korean Resource Center (KRC) Lil Sis Maine People’s Alliance Make the Road CT Make the Road NJ Make the Road NV Make the Road NY Make the Road PA Maryland Communities United Massachusets Jobs with Justice Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition- MIRA Mi Familia Vota Movement Voter Project NAKASEC - Virginia National Economic and Social Rights Initiative National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC) New Haven Association of Legal Services Attorneys NYCC OLÉ in Albuquerque, NM One America Organize Florida Pennsylvania Student Power Network PICC Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) Presente Action Progressive Caucus Action Fund Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) Promise Arizona (PAZ) Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts Refund America Proyect Resource Generation Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN) SPACEs Student Power Networks Sunrise Movement TakeAction Minnesota The Bully Project The Shalom Center United Action CT United for a New Economy United We DREAM VAMOS4PR WeChoose Coalition Womens March Youth Progressive Action Catalyst
www.populardemocracy.org
###
Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
Media Contact: Samy Nemir, (929) 285-9623, solivares@populardemocracy.org
The Fed’s Big Mistake: Rate Hikes Hurt US Workers
Protesters rallied in Washington, New York City and Philadelphia yesterday against an imminent government action that...
Protesters rallied in Washington, New York City and Philadelphia yesterday against an imminent government action that would damage the financial prospects of ordinary workers. And no, it had nothing to do with Donald Trump.
The Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign wants the Federal Reserve to break with expectations and hold interest rates steady rather than hiking them this week. They believe minority communities have yet to recover from the ravages of the financial crisis, and are still experiencing high unemployment and stagnant wages.
Read the full article here.
What should — and should not — be written into a new U.S. education law
Both the U.S. House and Senate are now — eight years late — debating this week how to rewrite the Elementary and...
Both the U.S. House and Senate are now — eight years late — debating this week how to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known in its current form as No Child Left Behind. Signed into law in 2002, NCLB was supposed to have been rewritten by Congress in 2007, but sheer negligence and an inability among lawmakers to agree meant that America’s public schools were forced to live under a law that was fatally flawed.
Here is a letter that was sent to every senator about what the signatories believe should — and should not — be in any new education law. Addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the letter was sent by the Journey for Justice Alliance, a coalition of nearly 40 organizations of parents and students of color in 23 states, as well as from 175 other national and local civil rights, youth and community organizations.
Dear Senators McConnell and Reid,
The Journey for Justice Alliance, an alliance of 38 organizations of Black and Brown parents and students in 23 states, joins with the 175 other national and local grassroots community, youth and civil rights organizations signed on below, to call on the U.S. Congress to pass an ESEA reauthorization without requiring the regime of oppressive, high stakes, standardized testing and sanctions that have recently been promoted as civil rights provisions within ESEA.
We respectfully disagree that the proliferation of high stakes assessments and top-down interventions are needed in order to improve our schools. We live in the communities where these schools exist. What, from our vantage point, happens because of these tests is not improvement. It’s destruction.
Black and Latino families want world class public schools for our children, just as white and affluent families do. We want quality and stability. We want a varied and rich curriculum in our schools. We don’t want them closed or privatized. We want to spend our days learning, creating and debating, not preparing for test after test.
In the Chicago Public Schools, for example, children in kindergarten through 8th grade are administered anywhere between 8 and 25 standardized tests per year. By the time they graduate from 8th grade, they have taken an average of 180 standardized tests! We are not opposed to state mandated testing as a component of a well-rounded system of evaluating student needs. But enough is enough.
We want balanced assessments, such as oral exams, portfolios, daily check-ins and teacher created assessment tools—all of which are used at the University of Chicago Lab School, where President Barack Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have sent their children to be educated. For us, civil rights are about access to schools all our children deserve. Are our children less worthy?
High stakes standardized tests have been proven to harm Black and Brown children, adults, schools and communities. Curriculum is narrowed. Their results purport to show that our children are failures. They also claim to show that our schools are failures, leading to closures or wholesale dismissal of staff. Children in low income communities lose important relationships with caring adults when this happens. Other good schools are destabilized as they receive hundreds of children from closed schools. Large proportions of Black teachers lose their jobs in this process, because it is Black teachers who are often drawn to commit their skills and energies to Black children. Standardized testing, whether intentionally or not, has negatively impacted the Black middle class, because they are the teachers, lunchroom workers, teacher aides, counselors, security staff and custodians who are fired when schools close.
Standardized tests are used as the reason why voting rights are removed from Black and Brown voters—a civil right every bit as important as education. Our schools and school districts are regularly judged to be failures—and then stripped of local control through the appointment of state takeover authorities that eliminate democratic process and our local voice—and have yet so far largely failed to actually improve the quality of education our children receive.
Throughout the course of the debate on the reauthorization of ESEA, way too much attention has focused on testing and sanctions, and not on the much more critical solutions to educational inequality.
In March, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools issued a letter to the House and Senate leadership, with four recommendations for ESEA Reauthorization.:
First, there are 5000 community schools in America today, providing an array of wrap around services and after school programs to children and their families. These community schools serve over 5 million children, and we want to double that number and intensify the effort. We are calling for a significant investment in creating thousands moresustainable community schools. They provide a curriculum that is engaging, relevant and challenging, supports for quality teaching and not standardized testing, wrap-around supports for every child, a student centered culture and finally, transformative parent and community engagement.We call on the federal government to provide $1 billion toward that goal, and we are asking our local governments to decrease the high stakes standardized testing with its expensive test prep programs and divert those funds into resourcing more sustainable community schools. Second, we want to include restorative justice and positive approaches to discipline in all of our sustainable community schools, so we are calling on the federal government to provide $500 million for restorative justice coordinators and training in all of our sustainable community schools. Third, to finally move toward fully resourcing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we call on the federal government to provide $20 billion this year for the schools that serve the most low income students, and more in future years until we finally reach the 40% increase in funding for poor schools that the Act originally envisioned. Finally, we ask for a moratorium on the federal Charter Schools Program, which has pumped over $3 billion into new charter schools, many of which have already closed, or have failed the students drawn to them by the illusive promise of quality. We want the resources that all our schools deserve – we don’t need more schools. We need better ones.So now we are prepared to say, clearly, that we will take nothing less than the schools our children deserve. It will cost some money to support them, but that’s okay, because we have billionaires and hedge funders in this country who have neverpaid the tax rates that the rest of us pay. We are a rich country, and we can afford some world class community schools.
As we continue to organize for educational justice, it is that tradition of struggle that will guide J4J, AROS and the scores of organizations who have signed on to this letter. We are the people directly impacted and will continue to organize in the memory of the great institution builder Ella Baker who said, “Oppressed people, whatever their level of formal education, have the ability to understand and interpret the world around them, to see the world for what it is, and move to transform it.” Our voices matter.
In Anticipation,Jitu BrownJourney for Justice Alliance
Along with…
ACTION of Greater Lansing, Lansing, MIAction NCWashington, DCAction UnitedAdvocates Building Lasting Equality (ABLE), NHAdvocating, Mobilizing, and Organizing in Solidarity (AMOS), La Crosse, WIAFT Local 2115, Birmingham, ALAlliance AFT DallasAlliance for Congregational Transformation Influencing Our Neighborhoods (ACTION), Youngstown, OHAlliance for Educational Justice (AEJ)The Alliance for Newark Public SchoolsAlliance for Public Schools, FLAlliance for Quality Education (AQE), New YorkAlliance of Communities Transforming Syracuse (ACTS),Syracuse, NYAlliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS)American Federation of Teachers (AFT)Arkansas Community OrganizationAROS HoustonAsamblea de Derechos Civiles, Twin Cities/St. Cloud, MNAtlantans Building Leadership for Empowerment (ABLE), Atlanta, GAAustin Voices for Education and Youth, TXBadAss Teachers Association (BATs)Baltimore Algebra ProjectBaltimore Teachers UnionBoston Area Youth Organizing ProjectBYOP/Community Labor United, Boston, MABrighton Park Neighborhood Council, Chicago, ILBoston Education Justice AllianceCalifornians for JusticeCamden Parent Union, NJCamden Student Union, NJCapital Region Organizing Project (CROP), Sacramento, CACenter for Popular Democracy (CPD)Change the Stakes, NYCChicago Teachers UnionChicago PEACECincinnati Federation of TeachersCitizen Action of New YorkCitizens for Better Schools & Sustainable Communities, Birmingham, ALCitizens for Education AwarenessCoalition of Black Trade UnionistsCoalition for Community Schools, New Orleans, LACoalition for Effective Newark Public Schools, NJColeman Advocates for Children & Youth, San Francisco, CACommunity Coalition, CACommunity Voices for Public Education, Houston, TXCommunities UnitedConcerned Citizen’s CoalitionConcerned Citizens of New Orleans, LACongregations United to Serve Humanity (CUSH), Kenosha, WIDetroit LIFE Coalition, MIDRUM, NYCEducation AustinEmpower DCEmpower DC Youth Organizing ProjectEmpower Hampton Roads, Norfolk, VAEquality, Solidarity, Truth, Hope, Empowerment, Reform (ESTHER), Neenah, WIThe Ezekiel Project, Saginaw, MIFairTest (National Center for Fair & Open Testing)Faith Action for Community Equity (FACE), Oahu/Maui, HIFaith Coalition for the Common Good, Springfield, ILFannie Lou Hamer Center for Change, MIFlorida Institute for Reform and Empowerment (FIRE)482Forward, Detroit, MIFuture of Tomorrow, Cypress Hills Local Development Corp, Brooklyn, NYGamalielGamaliel of Metro Chicago, Chicago, ILGenesis, Alameda County, CAThe Grassroots Collaborative, Chicago, ILGrassroots Education Movement, Chicago, ILGreat Public Schools (GPS) Pittsburgh, PAHouston Federation of Teachers, Local 2415, TXIndiana Organizing Project, South Bend, INInnerCity Struggle, LAInterfaith Strategy for Advocacy and Action in the Community (ISAAC), Kalamazoo, MIJoining Our Neighbors, Advancing Hope (JONAH), Eau Claire, WIJoint-Religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH), Battle Creek, MIJustice Organization Sharing Hope and United for Action (JOSHUA), Green Bay, WIJustice Overcoming Boundaries (JOB), San Diego, CAKansas Justice AdvocatesKeep the Vote/No Takeover Coalition, DetroitKenwood Oakland Community Organization (KOCO), Chicago, ILLabor Council for Latin American Advancement, AFL-CIO (LCLAA)Long Island Organizing Network (LION), Riverhead, NYMake the Road, New York, NYMaryland Communities UnitedMassachusetts Jobs with JusticeMedia Mobilizing Project, Philadelphia, PAMetro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity (MORE2), Kansas City, MO/KSMetropolitan Congregations United (MCU), St. Louis, MOMetropolitan Organizing Strategy for Enabling Strength (MOSES), Detroit, MIMilwaukee Inner-city Congregations Allied for Hope (MICAH), Milwaukee, WIMinnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change (MN NOC)Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE)More than A Score, Chicago, ILMOSES, Chicago, ILMOSES, Madison, WINAACP, ArkansasNAACP OregonNAACP Washington StateNAOMI, Wausau, WINC Heat/ Youth Organizing Institute, Durham/RaleighNehemiah, Petersburg, VANeighborhood Networks, Philadelphia, PANetwork for Public EducationNewark Student Union, NJNew Jersey Communities United (NJCU)The New York A. Phillip Randolph InstituteNew York City Coalition for Educational Justice (CEJ)New York City Opt OutNew York Communities for Change (NYCC)New York State United Teachers (NYSUT)Niagara Organizing Alliance for Hope (NOAH), Niagara Falls, NYNOLA Village, LANorth Bay Organizing Project (NBOP), Sonoma County, CANorthside Action For Justice, Chicago, ILOrganizers in the Land of Enchantment (OLE), NMOrganize Now, FLOur Community, Our Schools, Dallas, TXPadres Y Jovenes Unidos, Denver, COParents Across AmericaParents Across America, Roanoke Valley, VAParents for Public Schools of Greater Cincinnati, OHParents 4 Teachers,Chicago, ILParents on the MoveParents Unified for Local School Education (PULSE),Newark, NJPartnership for Renewal in Southern and Central Maryland (PRISCM),Prince George’s County, MDPaterson Education Fund, NJPatterson Education Organizing Committee, NJPennsylvania Interfaith Impact Network (PIIN), Pittsburgh, PAPIIN-Northwest, Erie, PAPilsen Alliance, Chicago, ILPhiladelphia Coalition Advocating for Public Schools (PCAPS), PAThe Philadelphia Council AFL-CIOPhiladelphia Federation of Teachers, PAPhiladelphia MoveOn.org, PAPhiladelphia Student Union, PAPittsburgh Federation of Teachers, PAPower U, Miami, FLPride at WorkProject SouthQuad Cities Interfaith (QCI), Davenport, IARacine Interfaith Coalition (RIC), Racine, WIRaise Your Voice, Chicago, ILRise Up GeorgiaRochester ACTS, Rochester, NYSave Our SchoolsSave Our Schools NJSchools and Communities UnitedSchott Foundation for Public EducationSEEK, COSistas & Brothas United, New York, NYStay Together Appalachian YouthSunflower Action, Wichita, KSSupport Our Students, Birmingham, ALStewards of Prophetic, Hopeful, Intentional, Action (SOPHIA), Waukesha, WITeachers for Social Justice, Chicago, ILTeaching for ChangeTexas Organizing Project (TOP), TXUnited Congregations Metro East (UCM), E. St. Louis, ILUnited Opt Out of NJUnited Federation of Teachers, NYCUnited Teachers of Los Angeles, CAUrban Youth Collaborative, NYVAYLA, New Orleans, LAVOICE, Buffalo, NYVoices for Education, AZWisconsin Jobs NowWISDOM (Gamaliel statewide), WIYinzercation, Pittsburgh, PAYouth Empowered in the StruggleYouth Justice Coalition, LAYouth On The Move, Bronx, NYYouth Together, Oakland, CAYouth United for Change, Philadelphia, PA
Source: Washington Post
2 days ago
2 days ago