Executive Summary

Voter registration is the number one barrier to the vote. An estimated 51 million eligible citizens, more than 24 percent of the electorate, could not cast a ballot on...

Executive Summary

Voter registration is the number one barrier to the vote. An estimated 51 million eligible citizens, more than 24 percent of the electorate, could not cast a ballot on Election Day in the 2012 presidential election solely because they had not been registered. Registration and voting rates are particularly low for families with annual incomes below $20,000, voters of color, naturalized citizens, and those with limited English proficiency. Civic engagement levels are even worse in New York State. Fewer New Yorkers registered to vote and cast a ballot in the November 2012 general election than the national average.

Download the report here.

One proven method of increasing voter participation, particularly among underrepresented citizens, is voter registration at public agencies (“agency-based registration”). Well-administered voter registration programs established at public assistance agencies pursuant to federal law have helped register 15 to 20 percent of agency applicants. In 2000, New York City sought to expand voter registration opportunities at municipal agencies by enacting Local Law 29 (“the Pro-Voter Law”), which required 18 city agencies and, under certain circumstances, their associated subcontractors, to offer voter registration forms to all persons submitting applications, renewals, or recertification for agency services, or notifying the agency of a change of address. The law included each of the City’s 59 community boards as well. The last and only evaluation of the Pro-Voter Law, undertaken by the New York City Council over a decade ago, found that agencies were failing to offer voter registration.

In 2014, the Center for Popular Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Citizens Union of the City of New York, and the New York Public Interest Research Group formed the Pro-Voter Law Coalition and launched a new initiative to assess the agencies’ compliance with the law and opportunities to enhance the law’s impact. The Pro-Voter Law Coalition submitted Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to each of the 18 city agencies; met with the Voter Assistance Advisory Committee at the New York City Campaign Finance Board; and, along with the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and Make the Road New York, launched field investigations at 14 city offices subject to the Pro-Voter Law to measure their compliance with the law.

The FOIL responses and field investigations revealed widespread agency failure to implement the Pro-Voter Law. Specifically, they found:

Inconsistent adherence. Documents provided by the 12 agencies that responded to FOIL requests indicated scattered and inconsistent attention to the Pro-Voter Law;
Noncompliance in a majority of interactions. In 84 percent of client interactions, agency officials failed to comply with the Pro-Voter Law’s requirement to offer voter registration application forms;
Failure to provide language access. Agency failures extended to bilingual voter registration mandates. Specifically, only 40 percent, or 2 out of 5 agency clients whose primary language was not English were given translated voter registration applications; and
No training of agency staff. All 11 of the agency employees who responded to training inquiries admitted that no agency staff receive regular training on voter registration procedures.

These findings are particularly significant given that over 30 percent, or 18 of 59 citizen clients interviewed at the agencies required to comply with the Pro-Voter Law’s mandates reported they were not registered to vote.

Agency failure to comply with the Pro-Voter Law marks a lost opportunity to increase New York City voter registration rates and, by extension, voter participation in the city. Expanding opportunities for New Yorkers to register to vote at municipal agencies will require a concerted commitment by the Mayor, City Council, and municipal agency heads. The Pro-Voter Law Coalition is joined by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of Women Voters of the City of New York, Common Cause New York, and Make the Road New York in issuing the following 12 recommendations to help ensure that every eligible city resident is registered to vote when interacting with city agencies subject to the Pro-Voter Law.

Report: City Agencies Noncompliant with Voter Registration Law in 84 Percent of Client Interactions

Voting rights coalition working with Mayor, City Council, and agency heads to improve compliance

October 21, 2014, New York, NY – City agencies are not doing enough to help New Yorkers register to vote found a new report released today by the Pro-Voter Law Coalition. The coalition of groups is led by Center for Popular Democracy, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), Citizens Union of the City of New York, and the New York Public Interest Research Group/NYPIRG.

Last summer, Mayor de Blasio issued his first Mayoral Directive aimed to improve city agency voter registration efforts. The City passed local Law 29, also known as the Pro-Voter Law, in 2000 to expand voter registration opportunities at municipal agencies. Information for the report, A Broken Promise: Agency-Based Voter Registration in New York City, was obtained through Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests and field investigations, and revealed a lack of compliance across city agencies with the Pro-Voter Law. Key findings included:

Widespread failure to comply with the Pro-Voter Law’s requirement to provide voter registration application forms. Specifically, city agencies failed to do so in 84 percent of client interactions;

Efforts ranged from the inconsistent administration of the Pro-Voter Law, to an almost complete lack of apparent attempts to fully administer the law at the city agencies that responded to FOIL requests;

Increased noncompliance for limited English proficient New Yorkers. Only 40 percent, or 2 out of 5, of agency clients whose primary language was not English were given translated voter registration applications as mandated by the law; and

Agency staff received no regular training on voter registration procedures mandated by the law.

“Under previous Mayoral administrations, New York City has broken its promise to city voters by failing to comply with the Pro-Voter Law, and failing to create an electorate that is truly representative of our city,” said Steven Carbó, Director of Voting Rights and Democracy Initiatives at the Center for Popular Democracy. “We are heartened by Mayor de Blasio’s recent Mayoral Directive and his strong commitment to voter registration—and we look forward to working closely with his administration to realize our shared objectives.”

“Fourteen years ago, the threat of a veto by Mayor Giuliani weakened key provisions of the Pro-Voter Law, and then Mayor Bloomberg failed to properly implement it for 12 long years,” said Neal Rosenstein, Government Reform Coordinator of NYPIRG. “It’s time for today’s Council to strengthen the law and for Mayor de Blasio to clearly break with his predecessors and make sure it’s effectively implemented. Potential city voters deserve to be able to register as easily as New Yorkers can at DMV offices across the state under the federal Motor Voter Law.”

“Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy and increasing civic engagement is essential in making sure all New Yorkers are fully represented in government,” said New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. “That’s why it’s essential that the Pro-Voter Law is fully enforced and I thank the Center for Popular Democracy, Citizens Union, NYPIRG, The Brennan Center for Justice, and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund for their recommendations to strengthen compliance and engage more citizens in elections.”

“Voter participation is essential to our democracy, and with plummeting voter turnout, we must ensure that New Yorkers have more convenient opportunities to register to vote,” said Dick Dadey, Executive Director of Citizens Union. “This report outlines a needed framework for a model agency voter registration program that will result in robust efforts to encourage more New Yorkers to register.”

“Nothing is more important to democracy than voter participation. These are smart strategies to break down barriers to registering to vote for those who may be least likely to do so,” said Council Member Brad Landers. “Our city is strongest when everyone’s voices are heard.”

“Long lines and Election Day chaos are potent symbols of our nation’s broken voter registration system, and our research show that the same is true here in New York City,” said DeNora Getachew, Campaign Manager and Legislative Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. “Our city needs to join the growing national movement to modernize elections by requiring agencies to electronically transmit voter registration information directly to the board of elections, instead of continuing to use outdated paper forms. This digital-age solution is win-win for voters and election officials. It will increase voter registration rates, save the city money, and make voter rolls more accurate.”

“We face a crisis of non-participation in New York City: Of the 8.5 million residents of New York City, only 4.3 million are registered to vote,” said Council Member Ben Kallos. “City law dictates that our government help register voters—but this report shows that, in the vast majority of cases, it simply isn't happening. City agencies must comply with the law to offer voter registration forms to New Yorkers. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, it is our democracy, if we can keep it. And the task of keeping it must involve immediate action to remedy the failures of implementation of our city’s Pro-Voter laws.”

“Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are the nation’s fastest growing racial group and comprise almost 14 percent of New York City’s population. Along with other communities of color and immigrant communities, these are important members of our city’s electorate who deserve to participate fully in the political process,” said Margaret Fung, Executive Director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. “Compliance with the law’s language access mandates, including translated voter registration forms and bilingual staff at city agencies, is a critical first step to ensure meaningful civic engagement from all of New York’s communities.”

“Voter registration is essential to ensuring a broad and inclusive electorate,” said Javier Valdes, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York. “The City should do absolutely everything it can to ensure that all eligible New Yorkers have the opportunity to participate in our democracy.”

The Pro-Voter Law requires 18 city agencies and, under certain circumstances, their associated subcontractors, to provide voter registration forms to all persons submitting applications, renewals, or recertification for agency services, or notifying the agency of a change of address. The law included each of the City’s 59 community boards as well.

In its report, the Pro-Voter Law Coalition made 12 recommendations including the following:

Establish comprehensive protocols by December 31, 2014 to ensure that all agencies provide voter registration applications to clients when they apply for services, renewal or recertification for services and change of address relating to such services and promptly transmit all completed voter registration applications to the NYC Board of Elections;

Require agencies to use coded voter registration forms specific to each agency. Solicit quarterly reports by the Board of Elections on the numbers of forms submitted by city agencies (a model protocol is proposed in City Council Intro 356 of 2014); and

Mandate that agency staff provide the same level of assistance in completing voter registration forms as is given to other agency transactions. This should include verbal assistance.

Members of the Pro-Voter Coalition are available for interviews with the media.

The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with 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 and economic justice agenda. Visit www.populardemocracy.org and www.twitter.com/popdemoc.

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism.

Citizens Union is a nonpartisan good government group dedicated to making democracy work for all New Yorkers. Citizens Union serves as a civic watchdog, combating corruption and fighting for political reform. We work to ensure fair and open elections, honest and efficient government, and a civically‐engaged public. Principled and pragmatic, Citizens Union is an independent force for constructive reform, driving policy and educating the public to achieve accountable government in the City and State of New York.

The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) is New York State's largest student-directed research and advocacy organization. NYPIRG is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit whose principal areas of concern are environmental protection, consumer rights, higher education, government reform, voter registration, mass transit and public health.

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), founded in 1974, is a national organization that protects and promotes the civil rights of Asian Americans. By combining litigation, advocacy, education, and organizing, AALDEF works with Asian American communities across the country to secure human rights for all.

Philly.com - October 15, 2014, by Kia Hinton - Recently, charter schools have made headlines nationwide. This summer, the FBI raided charter schools in Connecticut, Arizona and Ohio. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform released a report on dramatic shortcomings of charter schools, saying "the lack of effective oversight means too many cases of fraud and abuse, too little attention to equity, and no guarantee of academic innovation or excellence."

Pennsylvania has seen its share of charter headlines as well. Earlier this month, ACTION United, the statewide organization I serve on the board of, released a report that uncovered no less than $30 million in fraud by Pennsylvania charter operators since the passage of the 1997 Charter School Act. Philadelphia, which now feeds $800 million a year into charter schools, has simultaneously starved the traditional public school system for years now. Students lack critical services because of the layoffs of nurses, librarians and counselors. Teachers are paying for supplies and even toilet paper out of their own pockets. And after a six year moratorium on charter expansion in Philadelphia, we learned our school district was required to accept a flood of new charter applications as part of the cigarette tax deal.

When I hear about fraudulent charter operators who steal tax dollars from Philadelphia's working families, it's personal.

My family has lived in Southwest Philadelphia for generations, in the same two-story house I grew up in. My youngest child attends Longstreth Elementary, my alma mater. Another of my children attends a Mastery Charter School. All of my children deserve a quality education.

Fraud, waste and mismanagement threaten my children's access to a quality education. Public money is being invested in a massive, fast-growing industry that fundamentally lacks meaningful oversight. Here in Philadelphia, we have just two auditors for 85 charter schools. That lack of oversight enabled people like the founders of Agora Cyber Charter and New Media Technical School to prop up their personal businesses with more than $7 million that was meant for Philadelphia's children.

For these reasons, ACTION United is calling for a statewide moratorium on new charter schools until all charter schools can assure us that they have appropriate fraud-prevention measures in place. We are asking the School Reform Commission to mandate fraud prevention in the charter application process. We are approaching all charter schools to ask them to take our fraud prevention pledge and commit to implementing a fraud risk management program at their nonprofit.

Politicians are making a lot of promises this election season, so here's something they should keep in mind: As long as we continue to lack local control over our own schools in Philadelphia, we expect the governor and the SRC to ensure precious school dollars are spent on our children - not lost to fraud.

The Good Fight - October 15 2014, by Ben Wikler - Why haven't wages risen in 40 years? It's not just bad luck. The mostly invisible, ultra-powerful folks who run at the Federal Reserve have gone...

The Good Fight - October 15 2014, by Ben Wikler - Why haven't wages risen in 40 years? It's not just bad luck. The mostly invisible, ultra-powerful folks who run at the Federal Reserve have gone to great lengths to keep it that way. When too many people get jobs, when pay starts going up... wham! They knock things back down again.
But lately, things have been a little different. The financial crisis jolted the Fed into superhero mode—and Janet Yellen, the new boss, seems determined to make the economy work for regular people. Trouble is, the old guard's not happy about it. What's needed is another jolt, a fresh infusion of real-world voices. And now, an unlikely group of outsiders is stepping up to provide it.
Meet Action United's Kendra Brooks, the AFL CIO's Damon Silvers, and the Center for Popular Democracy's Ady Barkan—and go inside what might be the wonkiest and most important economic-justice fight of the year. Or the decade.

Source

10/15/2014 | Building a National Campaign for a Strong Economy: Fed Up

New York Times - October 13, 2014, by Minica Davey and Alan Blinder - After demonstrations that varied from choreographed marches to tense late-night encounters with law enforcement agents,...

New York Times - October 13, 2014, by Minica Davey and Alan Blinder - After demonstrations that varied from choreographed marches to tense late-night encounters with law enforcement agents, protesters said they expected a series of acts of civil disobedience around the region on Monday, the last of four days of organized protest that has drawn throngs of people to the St. Louis area over questions about police conduct.

Leaders for the protests provided few details of their plans, except to say they would be employing a strategy used by demonstrators in North Carolina, who last year began staging weekly protests known as “Moral Mondays” in response to actions by the state government, which was newly controlled by Republicans. Those protests in Raleigh, the state capital, resulted in hundreds of arrests and served as a template for similar, smaller demonstrations across the South. The website for what organizers here have called a “Weekend of Resistance” said simply, “We’ll be hosting a series of actions throughout the Ferguson and St. Louis area.”

It is an area on edge after more than two months of demonstrations that began in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb where an unarmed black teenager was fatally shot by a white police officer in August. In recent days, the displays of anger have spread to the city of St. Louis, where protesters have appeared at the symphony hall, outside playoff games for the St. Louis Cardinals and near the neighborhood where another black teenager was killed last week by a white off-duty police officer.

Early Sunday morning, tensions mounted between the police, dressed in riot gear, and a group of demonstrators who held a sit-in at the entrance of a St. Louis convenience store and refused to move. Seventeen people were arrested on accusations of unlawful assembly, pepper spray was used by some officers, and D. Samuel Dotson III, the city’s police chief, said he had seen a rock thrown at an officer and heard of other rocks being hurled.

Although some protesters spoke of plans for nonviolent demonstrations on Monday, organizers warned that frustrations had intensified because of the police response on Sunday morning. “Instead of de-escalating rising tensions in the city, Chief Dotson’s comments are inciting anger and making matters worse,” the organizers of many of the protests said in a statement early Sunday. The demonstrators, they said, “showed the best of our democracy, and the St. Louis police demonstrated the worst of their out-of-control law enforcement agency. The police brutalized peaceful people protesting their brutality.”

One question seemed to eclipse all other concerns here, among the protesters and the police alike: What will happen when a grand jury considering charges against Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown, 18, on Aug. 9, returns its decision, perhaps next month?

“It may clearly be a flash point,” the Rev. Osagyefo Sekou said of the possibility that Officer Wilson would not be prosecuted. “People are going to be angry. There are definitely going to be protests.” In an interview before he spoke at a rally Sunday night, he added, “But this is part of a long struggle. It is part of a long struggle against police brutality.”

Chief Dotson, who walked amid the crowd during some of the weekend demonstrations and defended the police handling of the standoff early Sunday, was unwilling to make predictions. “I don’t have a crystal ball,” he said in an interview on Sunday afternoon. “We hope that the community recognizes that the process works.”

Preparing for Monday’s events, several dozen demonstrators sat in a church sanctuary on Sunday morning for what amounted to a tutorial on tactics of civil disobedience. Lisa Fithian, an experienced activist from Austin, Tex., pressed audience members to call out the reasons they were there. She heard responses like “anger” and “solidarity” from a crowd that included people from the American Federation of Teachers and St. Louis’s Coalition of Artists for Peace.

In a parking lot outside the church, Ms. Fithian spoke about breathing deeply to stay calm, especially as the authorities close in on a demonstration. She talked of remaining aware of where the police officers were posted along nearby streets. She explained possible responses by the authorities to an array of actions by a protester being taken into custody. She demonstrated the mechanics of going limp.

“It’s really essential to practice it,” she said. The crowd eventually returned to the sanctuary, where journalists were asked to leave. The organizers said they would be planning specifics of the protests.

Huffington Post - October 9, 2014, by Richard Eskow - Progressives who are elected to executive office have a unique opportunity to highlight neglected issues and stimulate much-needed debate, by...

Huffington Post - October 9, 2014, by Richard Eskow - Progressives who are elected to executive office have a unique opportunity to highlight neglected issues and stimulate much-needed debate, by taking actions which challenge the "conventional wisdom." They can change the political landscape by employing a principle that might be called "leadership by example."

The mayor of New York City is uniquely positioned to play this role, thanks to that city's prominence, and so far Bill de Blasio has done exceptionally well at it. Two of his actions -- on education and assistance to the poor -- deserve particular commendation, because they challenge the "bipartisan" consensus that has too often strangled open debate and left the public's interests unrepresented.

Action for the Impoverished

1. "Welfare Reform's" Record of Failure

"Centrist" Democrats like Bill Clinton, together with Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, have long sung the praises of "welfare reform" -- a set of policies that promised to turn welfare recipients into "productive citizens" through a combination of educational programs, work requirements, and "tough love" that denied benefits to some of them.

Clinton signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" on August 22, 1996, saying it would "end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility, and families." That bill quickly became a symbol of "bipartisan consensus" and a much-touted piece of model legislation for the neoliberal economic agenda.

Unfortunately, we now know that it didn't work. In fact, it backfired. A report from the University of Michigan's National Poverty Center showed that extreme poverty increased in the United States by 130 percent between 1996 and 2013 -- and pinpointed "welfare reform" as the cause.

Despite its documented failure, the myth persists that "welfare reform" succeeded. This belief has so far proved resistant to the mounting evidence against it, perhaps because it serves the personal interests of wealthy individuals and corporations who don't care to be taxed for antipoverty programs.

This "reform" myth also serves to assuage their consciences. Politicians like Cuomo and Clinton are all too happy to help in that effort by assuring wealthy Americans that this policy is smart, even liberal, and that it only coincidentally happens to benefit them personally.

2. The End of Welfare As They Know It

The mayor of New York City cannot supersede a federal law, but a recent executive action will hopefully serve to re-open the debate on welfare "reform." De Blasio ended the policies of his GOP predecessors and eased requirements for welfare eligibility in New York City. New rules will give young people more time to complete their educations, and native speakers of foreign languages time to learn English. He also cut back on some "workfare" requirements (which in some cases amount to little more than ritual humiliation.)

For the first time, allowances will be made for parental duties, travel time, and other obstacles which are faced every day by the poor -- but which are little-understood by prosperous "bipartisans" from either party.

As a de Blasio official explained, "we have the data to show that toughness for the sake of toughness hasn't been effective."

3. Data Driven

Data. That word is anathema to "centrist" politicians and commentators who claim to be technocrats, but who are actually driven by ideology, donor cash, or both. When de Blasio issued his orders the hyperventilation was, predictably, all but instantaneous. "We don't need to guess how de Blasio's welfare philosophy will pan out," wrote Heather McDonald, who is "Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute."

Reihan Salam fulminated in Slate that welfare programs must "rest on a solid moral foundation. And that, ultimately, is what work requirements are all about."

But when the work isn't available, or people have no practical way of obtaining it, it's immoral to make them -- or their children -- suffer. By ending the inhumane but "bipartisan" policies of his predecessors, Bill de Blasio has potentially re-opened the debate on the draconian and failed "welfare reform" concept.

Action on Education

1. Charter Schools Are "Special Interests"

De Blasio's much-publicized struggle with charter school CEO Eva Moskowitz began when he overturned Bloomberg's decision to give her "Success Academy" free space in city buildings. That led her to make a series of false claims about her organization's accomplishments -- claims that were effectively debunked by Diane Ravitch and Avi Blaustein. Success Academy students aren't the best in the state, they aren't the most difficult students in the city -- and the program is so cost-inefficient that it spends over $2,000 per year more per student than other schools serving similar populations.

Bloomberg was generous to Moskowitz because her program suited his predilection for Wall Street-friendly, corporate-cozy ideas -- ideas which appeared on the surface to promote innovation or "reform," but which on further study reveal themselves as a wealth transfer from the many to the few, often at the expense of the public good.

That's exactly what the charter-school movement represents. Sure, it sounds like a good idea: Schools will "compete" for students, and those which offer the best "products" will succeed. As writer and education activist Jeff Bryant says: Everybody loves "choice," right?

But the concept is flawed at its core. Schools aren't failing because students and their parents don't have "choices" in schools. They're failing -- to the extent they are, because even that concept is overhyped -- because they don't have choices in jobs or housing. Schools are struggling because we don't pay teachers well enough, because we underfund our school districts, and because social factors (especially poverty) inhibit the learning process.

2. Rockets to Nowhere

For all the hype and all the money, there's still no evidence that charter schools work. Advocates love to claim that "school choice" offers lower-income children a way out of poverty. But Milwaukee, which the conservative American Enterprise Institute calls "one of the most 'choice-rich' environments in America," remains one of America's 10 most impoverished big cities.

And kids aren't any more educated in Milwaukee than they were before they were given all this "choice." Educator Diane Ravitch reviewed the data and found that, 22 years after the program was implemented, there was no evidence of improvement in students' test scores.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reviewed the "Rocketship" program, which has bid to take over Milwaukee's underperforming schools, and found that it isn't working. They observed that "in 2012-2013, all seven of the Rocketship schools failed to make adequate yearly progress according to federal standards."

Call it "failure to launch."

3. Follow the Money

The EPI also noted that "Blended-learning schools such as Rocketship are supported by investment banks, hedge funds, and venture capital firms that, in turn, aim to profit from both the construction and, especially, the digital software assigned to students."

That might help explain why wealthy Wall Street investors paid Moskowitz's $2,000-plus-per-student cost overruns out of their own pockets. The same hedge funders also happen to have donated at least $400,000 to Andrew Cuomo's reelection campaign. Perhaps coincidentally, Cuomo led the charge against de Blasio after he moved to end Moskowitz's taxpayer-funded privileges.

Charter schools are an ideological and investment opportunity, which explains why enormous sums of money have been expended promoting them. (The latest effort, funded by $12 million from the wealthiest families in the nation, is something called "The Education Post."

Not all charter schools are driven by the profit motive, and some may in fact do a good job. But there is no evidence to support their claims, their operating principles, or the broader "free market" ideology behind them -- an ideology that is founded on hostility to government itself.

4. Breeding Fraud

Ravitch also notes that Washington, D.C., whose "Opportunity Scholarship Program" launched at least one educational celebrity career, was equally unable to demonstrate results. Its final-year report notes that "There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement."

There is conclusive evidence, however, that the charter school movement has produced at least one fairly widespread outcome: fraud. A recent report from the Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education, and ACTION United told the story. The report, titled "Fraud and Financial Mismanagement in Pennsylvania's Charter Schools," showed that the state had failed to properly audit or review its publicly-funded charter schools.

It also uncovered a pattern of abuses so disturbing it makes charter schools look like petri dishes for fraud. The director of one charter school diverted $2.6 million in school funds to rebuild his church. Another stole $8 million for "houses, a Florida condominium, and an airplane." Yet another used taxpayer funds to finance "a restaurant, a health food store, and a private school." A couple stole nearly $1 million for their personal use.

There are more revelations in the report -- and it only covers one state.

And yet, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, charter schools continue to be talked up by Bill Clinton, whose recent boosterism was described by Salon's Luke Brinker as "stunning" in its variance with the facts. (Jeff Bryant has more on the reality behind Clinton's disingenuous remarks.)

5. The Ongoing Battle

De Blasio acted wisely in moving to end Bloomberg's gift of scarce New York City school resources to Moskowitz. He was ultimately forced to back down, at least in the short term, after her big-dollar backers won a victory in Albany.

That was no surprise, given the money behind the so-called "reformers." But it's not the end of the story, either. De Blasio's position on charter schools triggered a fierce response -- but it also triggered a long-overdue conversation.

By challenging the conventional wisdom on charter schools, Bill de Blasio has started something their backers didn't want: a genuine debate on their merits. He may have lost a battle, but if the debate continues he's likely to win the war.

Leadership Through Action

By taking actions which challenge the orthodoxy of his own party's corporate wing -- an orthodoxy shared and taken to extremes by the entire GOP -- Bill de Blasio is changing the political landscape. Although he is reportedly close to the Clintons (he managed Hillary's 2000 senatorial campaign), his executive decisions are offering a new political vision for progressives who have felt starved for representation in the two-party system of recent decades.

De Blasio's deeds haven't been limited to education and welfare, of course. As we've discussed elsewhere, he's taken on issues that range from the minimum wage to the environment, and to housing as a human right.

He's made mistakes, and he's all but certain to make more as he navigates difficult political waters. De Blasio's trying to effect change from within the political process, which is always a risky endeavor. But he's made great strides in a short time. His is the sort of leadership which can change the national political landscape even as it improves the quality of life for his constituents.

Bill de Blasio is using his position as mayor of New York to lead -- with action as well as words. And for that he's owed a debt of gratitude.

Amsterdam News - October 9, 2014, by Stephon Johnson - Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an executive order to increase and expand the living wage to benefit more New Yorkers....

Amsterdam News - October 9, 2014, by Stephon Johnson - Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an executive order to increase and expand the living wage to benefit more New Yorkers.

At City Hall, while announcing the signing of his executive order, De Blasio said “$13.13 for those without benefits, $11.50 for those who have health insurance and other benefits. This applies to employers, excuse me, employees, I should say, of large groups of employers who do business with the city. Meaning, there’s a lot of companies that do business with the city, that come to the city for subsidies. We think if you want a subsidy, you can prove the need for a subsidy. We want to help you achieve your goals, but we have a standard we hold.”

De Blasio continued, “We need to make sure people are paid a living wage. That’s a fair exchange for that subsidy. What it means—let me put this in real terms—what this means, is the difference between the $8-an-hour minimum wage right now, and the $13.13 that will take effect immediately for those employees of companies that get subsidies going forward. That is a difference of over $10,000 dollars in earnings a year. $10,000. Someone who would have made $16,000—not enough to get by—will now make over $27,000 a year. And that’s a difference maker.”

According to de Blasio, any project that gets more than a million dollars in city subsidies qualifies, stating that it will reach people in lines of work like retail, food services and construction.

Advocates for a raise in the minimum wage have said this action was a long time coming. Shantel Walker, a Papa John’s employee who makes $8.50 an hour and who is a member of Fast Food Forward, praised de Blasio’s actions.

“Nearly two years ago, 200 fast-food workers in New York City walked off our jobs, calling for $15 and union rights,” said Walker in a statement. “Our demand may have sounded crazy at the time, but more and more, $15 is becoming a reality for workers across the country. As we’ve gone on strike again and again and a movement that started here in New York has spread to 150 cities, $15 suddenly doesn’t seem so impossible. From Seattle to Los Angeles to San Francisco and now New York, cities are raising wages so we don’t have to rely on public assistance to support our families.”

Walker also stated that the recent developments are a sign, to her, that minimum wage advocates are on the right side of history.

“While he works with Gov. Cuomo to raise wages for all New Yorkers, Mayor de Blasio’s move today to put workers at city-subsidized projects on a path to $15 is a sign that we are winning,” Walker said. “It’s a step in the right direction and helps push us forward in our fight for $15 for workers across the entire country.”

While the city’s working class has achieved a major victory, the state’s working class is still making the push collectively. Andrew Friedman, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, pushed for Albany to follow suit in a statement.

“The Albany wage board should eliminate the tipped minimum wage to make this vision a reality and end the wage segregation that traps workers in poverty—workers who are overwhelmingly female and of color,” said Friedman. “Partnering with progressive local, state and federal leadership means we can work together to afford a dignified life for all residents, which means comprehensive policies that include a $15 minimum hourly wage, a predictable and fair workweek, paid sick days and a healthy macro-economy that nurtures equity, creates viable new jobs and protects us from risk-taking by financial institutions.”

Back in the five boroughs, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams praised de Blasio for the executive order, citing it as another example of New York City leading the pack. He said that de Blasio had “reaffirmed his commitment to civic innovation and our residents’ welfare by raising the living wage and furthering its reach to thousands more workers. This is a measure that recognizes the cost of living challenges that New Yorkers face and builds a meaningful bridge over the inequality gap we have sought to close across Brooklyn and the rest of the five boroughs.

Huffington Post - October 7, 2014, by Robin Hardman - One morning last week I joined a small gathering in a conference room at New York City's Baruch College to listen to a line-up of speakers and...

Huffington Post - October 7, 2014, by Robin Hardman - One morning last week I joined a small gathering in a conference room at New York City's Baruch College to listen to a line-up of speakers and panelists talk on the subject of "Families and Flexibility." The event was sponsored by Scott Stringer, our NYC Comptroller, who has been promoting city-wide "right to request" legislation. In case you've missed them, right to request laws, currently on the books in many countries around the world and very slowly gaining traction here in the U.S., provide employees with the simple right to request a flexible schedule. Details--including who can ask and for what reasons, and how much leeway employers have in responding-- vary, but laws are already in place in San Francisco and Vermont, and legislation is pending in many other places--including the U.S. Congress.

Hence this event, which gave Comptroller Stringer an opportunity to strut his stuff; featured a closing keynote by Anne-Marie Slaughter, President and CEO of the New America Foundation; and allowed a number of smart policy-makers, advocates, researchers, corporate work-life champions and workers to weigh in with their stories and data. But perhaps the most noticeable aspect of the morning was what I'll call the Great Divide between the two panels that made up the bulk of the agenda.

The first panel featured political scientist Janet Gornick; A Better Balance co-president Dina Bakst; Families and Work Institute's Kelly Sakai-O'Neill, and work-life/flex champions from two accounting firms: Marcee Harris Schwartz of BDO and Barbara Wankoff of KPMG. Moderated by New York Times reporter Rachel Swarns, the panelists conducted an interesting, data-driven discussion about why flexibility matters and the very real problems many professional men and women face achieving any kind of work-life "balance." The ideas and concerns they raised were the important stuff that is often stressed in our national work-life conversation: The business benefits of a more flexible workplace. The negative impact of overwork on both families and society at large. The dark-ages state of parental leave laws in this country, especially in comparison with pretty much every other country in the developed world.

We listened to and discussed these topics for a full hour, grabbed some more coffee, and moved on to the second panel. I wished I'd worn my sneakers: it was a dizzying leap across a conceptual chasm.

The second panel featured A Better Balance's other co-president, Sheery Leiwant, as well as sociologist Ruth Milkman and Carrie Gleason, Director of the Center for Popular Democracy's Fair Workweek Initiative. It also featured a woman named Deena Adams, a single parent who, shortly after receiving a service award for loyalty, lost her job because she couldn't find child care to accommodate a sudden requirement that she start taking on overnight shifts. (A fifth panelist, Carrie Nathan, is a union activist and hourly employee at Macy's, which apparently has an exceptionally supportive system for shift scheduling.)

At this panel, moderated by Times labor reporter, Steven Greenhouse, we heard about the other end of the spectrum. We heard about things not usually talked about in the context of work-life and not talked about enough in any context. In contrast to the (very real) problems of professional workers--so many of whom feel overworked and short on time--we now focused on the growing legions of workers who aspire, most of all, to have a full-time job. The exploitation of the underemployed has become something of a science in recent years, as technology provides elaborate algorithms that can tell employers on a day-to-day--sometimes hour-to-hour--basis exactly how many employees they need on site and how many they can just tell to stay home. Many employers use this hyper-efficiency to move workers about like pieces on a chessboard, expecting them to be on call for the next move, whenever it may come.

Please understand what this means: employees must be ready, sometimes forty hours a week, sometimes 24/7, to drop everything and show up for their minimum wage job. They have to have child care available; they can make no permanent social or vacation plans; they cannot take a class. Generally, all this readiness leads to far less than full-time work and yet by definition also makes it impossible to take a second job. One man quoted in an article by Greenhouse talked about being told in a job interview that he'd have to be on call full-time but would be able to work no more than 29 hours/week. When he objected, the interview was over. Another described asking his employer to schedule his "wildly fluctuating" 25 hours/week at the same time each day so could find a second job--and promptly had his weekly hours cut to 12. A woman commuted an hour to her scheduled shift only to be told to go home (with no pay)--she wasn't needed today.

The overworked, the underworked. The Great Divide. It's odd to wrap the phrase "work-life" around the situations of these two groups of people, yet it does apply to both. Each ultimately comes down to a lack of control over one's own time. Each apparently stems from employers' mistaken belief that providing a modicum of flexibility and predictability is bad for business (as if stressed-out employees and high turnover were good for the bottom line). Each affects more than just the people involved--it affects our families, our friends and our communities.

The good news is that some of the "right to request" existing and pending legislation around the country focuses not just on flexibility but also on predictability. The tools are at hand to make changes that affect men and women on both sides of the chasm. Did I mention that it's National Work and Family Month? Come on, people, let's get going.

Robin Hardman is a writer and work-life expert who works with companies to put together the best possible "great place to work" competition entries and creates compelling, easy-to-read benefits, HR, diversity and general-topic employee communications. Find her and follow her blog at www.robinhardman.com.

Source

10/7/2014 | Building a National Campaign for a Strong Economy: Fed Up, Restoring a Fair Workweek

Moyers & Company - October 6, 2014, by Joshua Holland - In today’s Washington Post, Jeff Bryant, director of the Education Opportunity Network, writes about the promises that were first offered by advocates of the charter school industry:

When former President Bill Clinton recently meandered onto the topic of charter schools, he mentioned something about an “original bargain” that charters were, according to the reporter for The Huffington Post, “supposed to do a better job of educating students.”

A writer at Salon called the remark “stunning” because it brought to light the fact that the overwhelming majority of charter schools do no better than traditional public schools. Yet… charter schools are rarely shuttered for low academic performance….

In a real “bargaining process,” those who bear the consequences of the deal have some say-so on the terms, the deal-makers have to represent themselves honestly (or the deal is off and the negotiating ends), and there are measures in place to ensure everyone involved is held accountable after the deal has been struck.

But that’s not what’s happening in the great charter industry rollout transpiring across the country. Rather than a negotiation over terms, charters are being imposed on communities – either by legislative fiat or well-engineered public policy campaigns. Many charter school operators keep their practices hidden or have been found to be blatantly corrupt. And no one seems to be doing anything to ensure real accountability for these rapidly expanding school operations.

But in May, BillMoyers.com looked at a report issued by Integrity in Education and the Center for Popular Democracy — two groups that oppose school privatization. The study examined charter schools’ performance in 15 states, and revealed $136 million in fraud, waste and abuse in those states. The authors of that study wrote that, “where there is little oversight, and lots of public dollars available, there are incentives for ethically challenged charter operators to charge for services that were never provided.”

Last week, they released a follow-up study of charter schools in Pennsylvania. It found that “charter school officials have defrauded at least $30 million intended for Pennsylvania school children since 1997.”

Yet every year virtually all of the state’s charter schools are found to be financially sound. While the state has complex, multi-layered systems of oversight of the charter system, this history of financial fraud makes it clear that these systems are not effectively detecting or preventing fraud. Indeed, the vast majority of fraud was uncovered by whistleblowers and media exposés, not by the state’s oversight agencies.

The authors found that while the auditing techniques used by Pennsylvania regulators could identify inefficiencies, oversight agencies don’t use tools “specifically designed to uncover fraud.” It also found that oversight agencies were understaffed and underfunded. “With too few qualified people on staff, and too little training, agencies are unable to uncover clues that might lead to fuller investigations and the discovery of fraud,” write the report’s authors.

They also noted that their findings weren’t unique:

Numerous government entities have raised the flag about the risk of fraud nationally and in Pennsylvania. Reporting in 2010 on the lack of charter-school oversight in states throughout the country, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Education raised concerns that state-level education departments were failing “to provide adequate oversight needed to ensure that Federal funds [were] properly used and accounted for.” Also in 2010 in Philadelphia (which educates 50 percent of all Pennsylvania charter-school students), the Office of the Controller performed a “fraud vulnerability assessment” of the city’s oversight of charter schools and reported that the Charter School Office… made the city’s more than $290 million paid to charter schools “extremely vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.” A 2014 follow-up report found that the School District of Philadelphia continues to provide “minimal oversight over charter schools except during the charter renewal process.”

You can download the entire report on Pennsylvania charter schools at The Center for Popular Democracy.

The Washington Post - October 5, 2014, by Valerie Strauss - Charter school advocates didn’t like it recently when Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform...

The Washington Post - October 5, 2014, by Valerie Strauss - Charter school advocates didn’t like it recently when Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform issued a report calling for the strengthening of charter oversight and authorization. While noting that many charters work hard to “meet the needs of their students,” the report said that “the lack of effective oversight means too many cases of fraud and abuse, too little attention to equity, and no guarantee of academic innovation or excellence.” It provided some common-sense recommendations, including an innocuous call for the establishment of minimum qualifications for charter school treasurers. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, not surprisingly, bashed the report.

Meanwhile, a new report was just issued by three groups — the Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education and ACTION United — that found major fraud and mismanagement in Pennsylvania’s charter schools. It found:

Charter school officials have defrauded at least $30 million intended for Pennsylvania school children since 1997. Yet every year virtually all of the state’s charter schools are found to be financially sound. While the state has complex, multi-layered systems of oversight of the charter system, this history of financial fraud makes it clear that these systems are not effectively detecting or preventing fraud. Indeed, the vast majority of fraud was uncovered by whistleblowers and media exposés, not by the state’s oversight agencies.

The great New York Times writer Michael Powell recently wrote a column detailing what can go wrong with a charter school when there is little or no oversight; in this case, he explores the sickening mess surrounding Prime Time Prep in Texas, created by Deion Sanders, a Hall of Fame cornerback and National Football League commentator.

Yes, there are many fine charter schools. But seriously bad news about many others keeps coming, and concerns are rising as the number of charters overall is increasing. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools says that in 2013-2014, 2.57 million students were enrolled in more than 6,000 public charter schools nationwide, with nearly 2,000 new charter schools opening in the past five years.

Here’s a piece about what’s going on in the charter world by Jeff Bryant, who is the director of the Education Opportunity Network, a partnership effort of the Institute for America’s Future and the Opportunity to Learn Campaign. He owns a marketing and communications consultancy in Chapel Hill, N.C., and has written extensively about public education policy. A version of this appeared in Salon.

By Jeff Bryant

When former President Bill Clinton recently meandered onto the topic of charter schools, he mentioned something about an “original bargain” that charters were, according to the reporter for The Huffington Post, “supposed to do a better job of educating students.”

A writer at Salon called the remark “stunning” because it brought to light the fact that the overwhelming majority of charter schools do no better than traditional public schools. Yet, as the Huffington reporter reminded us, charter schools are rarely shuttered for low academic performance. But what’s most remarkable about what Clinton said is how little his statement resembles the truth about how charters have become a reality in so many American communities.

In a real “bargaining process,” those who bear the consequences of the deal have some say-so on the terms, the deal-makers have to represent themselves honestly (or the deal is off and the negotiating ends), and there are measures in place to ensure everyone involved is held accountable after the deal has been struck.

But that’s not what’s happening in the great charter industry rollout transpiring across the country. Rather than a negotiation over terms, charters are being imposed on communities – either by legislative fiat or well-engineered public policy campaigns. Many charter school operators keep their practices hidden or have been found to be blatantly corrupt. And no one seems to be doing anything to ensure real accountability for these rapidly expanding school operations.

Instead of the “bargain” political leaders may have thought they struck with seemingly well-intentioned charter entrepreneurs, what has transpired instead looks more like a raw deal for many students, their families, and their communities.

Charter Schools As Takeover Operations

The “100 percent charter schools” education system in New Orleans that Clinton praised was never presented to the citizens of New Orleans in a negotiation. It was surreptitiously engineered.

After Katrina, as NPR recently reported, “an ad hoc coalition of elected leaders and nationally known charter advocates formed,” and in “a series of quick decisions,” all school employees were fired and the vast majority of the city’s schools were handed over to a state entity called the “Recovery School District” which is governed by unelected officials. Only a “few elite schools were … allowed to maintain their selective admissions.”

In other words, any bargaining that was done was behind closed doors and at tables where most of the people who were being affected had no seat.

Further, any evidence of the improvement of the educational attainment of students in the New Orleans Recovery all-charter Recovery District is obtainable only by “jukin the stats” or, as the NPR reporter put it, through “a distortion of the curriculum and teaching practice.” As Andrea Gabor wrote for Newsweek a year ago, “the current reality of the city’s schools should be enough to give pause to even the most passionate charter supporters.”

Yet now political leaders tout this model for the rest of the country. Education Secretary Arne Duncan once even said that he thinks “the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina” because it wrecked the previous low-functioning school system and brought about the rise of charter schools in the Recovery District. So some school districts that have not had a Katrina are having charter schools imposed on them in blatant power plays. An obvious example is what’s currently happening in the York, Pennsylvania.

School districts across the state of Pennsylvania are financially troubled due to chronic state underfunding – only 36 percent of K-12 revenue comes from the state, way below national averages – and massive budget cuts imposed by Republican Governor Tom Corbett (the state funds education less than it did in 2008).

The state cuts seemed to have been intentionally targeted to hit high-poverty school districts like York City the hardest. After combing through state financial records, a report from the state’s school employee union found, “State funding cuts to the most impoverished school districts averaged more than three times the size of the cuts for districts with the lowest average child poverty.” The unsurprising results of these cuts has been that in school districts serving low income kids, like York, instruction was cut and scores on state student assessments declined.

The York City district was exceptionally strapped, having been hit by $8.4 million in cuts, which prompted class size increases and teacher furloughs. Due to financial difficulties, which the state legislature and Governor Corbett had by-and-large engineered, York was targeted in 2012, along with three other districts, for state takeover by an unelected “recovery official,” eerily similar to New Orleans post-Katrina.

The “recovery” process for York schools also entailed a “transformation model” with challenging financial and academic targets the district had little chance in reaching, and charter school conversion as a consequence of failure. Now the local school board is being forced to pick a charter provider and make their district the first in the state to hand over the education of all its children to a corporation that will call all the shots and give York’s citizens very little say in how their children’s schools are run.

None of this is happening with the negotiated consent of the citizens of York. The voices of York citizens that have been absent from the bargaining tables are being heard in the streets and in school board meetings. According to a local news outlet, at a recent protest before the city’s school board, “a district teacher and father of three students … presented the board with more than 3,700 signatures of people opposed to a possible conversion of district schools to charter schools,” and “a student at the high school also presented the board with a petition signed by more than 260 students opposed to charter conversion.” Yet the state official demanding charter takeover remains completely unaltered in his view that this action is “what’s bets for our kids.”

What’s important to note is York schools are not necessarily failures academically, as New Jersey-based music teacher and education blogger going by the name Jersey Jazzman stated on his personal blog. Looking at how the districts’ students perform on state assessments, he found that academic performance levels were “pretty much where you’d expect them to be” based on the fact that “most of York’s schools have student populations where 80 percent or more of the children are in economic disadvantage,” and variations in student test score performance almost always correlate strongly with students’ financial conditions. He concluded that what was happening to York schools more represents a “long con” in which tax cuts and claims of “budgetary poverty” have prompted a rapacious state government to “declare an educational emergency, and then let edu-vultures … pick at the bones of a decimated school system.”

The attack on York City schools is not unique. As an official with the National Education Association recently pointed out on the blog Living in Dialogue, “It’s the same story that played out in Detroit, Flint, and Philadelphia where these ‘chief recovery officers’ or ‘emergency managers’ have all made the same recommendation: to hand over the cities’ public schools to the highest private bidder.”

Then, hiding behind pledges to do “what’s best for kids,” these operators too often do anything but.

Charter Schools Takeover, Corruption Ensues

York teachers and parents have good reasons to be wary of charter school takeover. As a new report discloses, charter school officials in their state have defrauded at least $30 million intended for school children since 1997.

The report, “Fraud and Financial Mismanagement in Pennsylvania’s Charter Schools,” was released by three groups, the Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education, and ACTION United.

Startling examples of charter school financial malfeasance revealed by the authors –just in Pennsylvania – include an administrator who diverted $2.6 million in school funds to a church property he also operated. Another charter school chief was caught spending millions in school funds to bail out other nonprofits associated with the school. A pair of charter school operators stole more than $900,000 from the school by using fraudulent invoices, and a cyber school entrepreneur diverted $8 million of school funds for houses, a Florida condominium, and an airplane.

What’s even more alarming is that none of these crimes were detected by state agencies overseeing the schools. As the report clearly documents, every year virtually all of the state’s charter schools are found to be financially sound. The vast majority of fraud was uncovered by whistleblowers and media coverage and not by state auditors who have a history of not effectively detecting or preventing fraud.

Pennsylvania spends over a billion dollars a year on charter schools, and the $30 million lost to fraud documented in this study is likely the minimum possible amount. The report authors recommend a moratorium on new charter schools in the state and call on the Attorney General to launch an investigation.

The report is a continuation of a study earlier this year that exposed $100 million in taxpayer funds meant for children instead lost to fraud, waste, and abuse by charter schools in 15 states. Now the authors of the study are going state-by-state, beginning with Pennsylvania, to investigate how charter school fraud is spreading.

What’s happening to York City is not going to help. The two charter operators being considered for that takeover – Mosaica Education, Inc., and Charter Schools USA – have particularly troubling track records.

According to a report from Politico, after Mosaica took over the Muskegon Heights, Michigan school system in 2012, “complications soon followed.” After massive layoffs, about a quarter of the newly hired teachers quit, and when Mosaica realized they weren’t making a profit within two years, they pulled up stakes and went in search of other targets.

As for the other candidate in the running, Charter Schools USA, a report from the Florida League of Women Voters produced earlier this year found that charter operation running a real estate racket that diverts taxpayer money for education to private pockets. In Hillsborough County alone, schools owned by Charter Schools USA collaborated with a construction company in Minneapolis, M.N. and a real estate partner called Red Apple Development Company in a scheme to lock in big profits for their operations and saddle county taxpayers with millions of dollars in lease fees every year.

In one example, cited by education historian Diane Ravitch, Charter USA’s construction company bought a former Verizon call center for $3,750,000, made no discernible exterior changes except removal of the front door and adding a $7,000 canopy, and sold the building as Woodmont Charter School to Red Apple Development for $9,700,000 six months later. Lease fees for the last two years were $1,009,800 and $1,029,996.

No wonder York citizens are concerned.

What Happened To Charter School Accountability?

Charter schools that were supposedly intended to be more “accountable” to the public are turning out to be anything but.

As an article for The Nation recently observed, “Charters were supposed to be laboratories for innovation. Instead, they are stunningly opaque.”

The article, written by author and university professor Pedro Noguera, explained, “Charter schools are frequently not accountable. Indeed, they are stunningly opaque, more black boxes than transparent laboratories for education.”

Rather than having to show their books, as public schools do, Noguera contended, “Most charters lack financial transparency.” As an example, he offered a study of KIPP charter schools, which found that they receive “‘an estimated $6,500 more per pupil in revenues from public or private sources’ compared to local school districts.” But only a scant portion of that disproportionate funding – just $457 in spending per pupil – could accurately be accounted for “because KIPP does not disclose how it uses money received from private sources.

In addition to the difficulties in following the money,” Noguero continued, “there is evidence that many charters seek to accept only the least difficult (and therefore the least expensive) students. Even though charter schools are required by law to admit students through lotteries, in many cities, the charters under-enroll the most disadvantaged children.”

This tendency of charter schools operations provides a double bonus as their student test scores get pushed to higher levels and the public schools surrounding them have to take on disproportionate percentages of high needs students who push their test score results lower. Noguera cited a study showing that traditional schools serving the largest percentages of high-needs students are frequently the first to be branded with the “failure” label.

If charter schools are going to have any legitimacy at all, what’s required, Noguera concluded is “greater transparency and collaboration with public schools.”

Fortunately, yet another new report points us in the right direction.

This report, “Public Accountability for Charter Schools,” published by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, “recommends changes to state charter legislation and charter authorizer standards that would reduce student inequities and achieve complete transparency and accountability to the communities served,” according to the organization’s press release.

According to the report, these recommendations are the product of “a working group of grassroots organizers and leaders” from Chicago, Philadelphia, Newark, New York, and other cities, who have “first-hand experience and years of working directly with impacted communities and families, rather than relying only on limited measures such as standardized test scores to assess impact.”

These new guidelines are intended to address numerous examples of charter school failure to disclose essential information about their operations, including financial information, school discipline policies, student enrollment processes, and efforts to collaborate with public schools.

For instance, the report notes that the director of the state Office of Open Records in Pennsylvania, “testified that her office had received 239 appeals in cases where charter schools either rejected or failed to answer requests from the public for information on budgets, payrolls, or student rosters.” In Ohio, a charter chain operated by for-profit White Hat Management Company, “takes in more than $60 million in public funding annually … yet has refused to comply with requests from the governing boards of its own schools for detailed financial reports.” In Philadelphia, the report authors found a charter school that made applications for enrollment available “only one day a year, and only to families who attend an open house at a golf club in the Philadelphia suburbs.” In New York City, where charter schools are co-located in public school buildings, “public school parents have complained that their students have shorter recess, fewer library hours, and earlier lunch schedules to better accommodate students enrolled at the co-located charter school.” The report quotes a lawsuit filed by the NAACP, which documented public school classrooms “with peeling paint and insufficient resources” made to co-locate with charters that have “new computers, brand-new desks, and up-to-date textbooks.”

Traditional school districts and charter schools should collaborate to ensure a coordinated approach that serves all children.

School governance should be representative and transparent.

Charter schools should ensure equal access to interested students and prohibit practices that discourage enrollment or disproportionately push-out enrolled students.

Charter school discipline policy should be fair and transparent.

All students deserve equitable and adequate school facilities. Districts and charter schools should collaborate to ensure facility arrangements do not disadvantage students in either sector.

Online charter schools should be better regulated for quality, transparency and the protection of student data.

Monitoring and oversight of charter schools are critical to protect the public interest; they should be strong and fully state funded.

Unsurprisingly, the report got an immediate response from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. That organization’s response cites “remarkable results” as an excuse for why charters should continue to be allowed to skirt public accountability despite the fact they get public money. However, whenever there is close scrutiny of the remarkable results the charter industry loves to crow about, the facts are those results really aren’t there.

Charter Accountability Now

Of course, now that the truth about charter schools is starting to leak out of the corners of the “black box” the industry uses to protect itself, the charter school PR machine is doing everything it can to cover up reality.

Beginning with the new school year, the charter school industry has been on a publicity terror with a national campaign claiming to tell “The Truth About Charters” and high dollar promotional appeals in Philadelphia and New York City.

But the word is out, and resistance to charter takeovers is stiffening in more places than York. In school systems such as Philadelphia, Bridgeport, Pittsburgh, and Chicago, where charter schools are major providers, parents and local officials have increasingly opposed charter takeovers of their neighborhood schools. A recent poll in Michigan, where the majority of charter operations are for-profit, found that 73 percent of voters want a moratorium on opening any new charter schools until the state department of education and the state legislature conduct a full review of the charter school system.

There’s little doubt now that the grand bargain Bill Clinton and other leaders thought they were making with charter schools proponents was a raw deal. The deal is off.