As with every other public agency privatized over these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA local pols pretend they are including citizens in these privatizations throwing out patronage of a few million for small business startups that disappear as global corporations take over....we already know to where these privatized K-12 policies go and yet the same 5% to the 1% global Wall Street players jump on board with the privatization policies told you have to be quick to change direction----it never occurs to people they are breaking down every avenue to freedom, liberty, climbing an economic ladder---being a CITIZEN----while they jump through hoops for startup patronage.
As we saw yesterday there are tons of global education corporations of all kinds created by the global 1% and their 2% coming to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones so there will be no small business education companies.
Below we see Obama's University of Chicago home of global neo-liberal economics showing WE THE PEOPLE just that----global Wall Street are calling what will become PRIVATE CORPORATIONS our university campuses as ANCHORS FOR DEVELOPMENT----and these US city centers will be filled with foreign education corporations partnered with global IVY LEAGUE research and development hedge fund corporations.
This is the goal of Race to the Top and all the technology tracking, lesson construction called INDIVIDUALIZED FOR EACH CONSUMER-----the consumer is a global corporate campus buying that education product to track and train human capital to do each job on its campus from pre-K -workplace placement.
THAT WILL BE SCHOOL FOR 99% OF AMERICANS, BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS.
PLEASE STOP CHASING PRETEND LEFT POLICY BONES!
In Maryland global Wall Street players hawk these JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, EDUCATION FOR POOR, EDUCATION FOR POOR without end-----they will go under the bus hawking bad public policy.
This article is not for beginners in public policy but please glance through to recognize these global education corporations and policies have been building these few decades-----they are nothing new and have nothing to do with TRUMP.
Transnational Corporations as Educational Institutions for National Development: The Contrasting Cases of Mexico and South Korea
Comparative Education Review
Vol. 50, No. 4 (November 2006), pp. 625-650
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International Education Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/507058
Page Count: 26
This paper explores the rising presence of transnational corporations (TNCs) in education and their mobilisation of global corporate social discourses to legitimise their private authority in education. The rising presence of TNCs is explored in the paper in two parts. First, through a taxonomy of global corporate social engagement (GCSE) activities and second, through a case study of the World Economic Forum’s corporate citizenship initiatives as a new form of ‘market’ multilateralism in education. Lastly, I critique the GCSE efforts of TNCs working in education and discuss the implications of their seemingly ‘to do good’ activities.
Keywords: corporate social engagement, education, global governance, globalisation, market multilateralism, transnational corporations
The importance of global corporate social engagement (GCSE) referring to the varying terminology used by transnational corporations (TNCs) to set their normative terrain in social policy issues is increasing given the scale and scope of transnational corporations (TNCs) in international business activity and their significant effects on the global economy. TNCs are defined by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2004 UNCTAD. Development and globalization: statistics and figures. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York. ) as:
An enterprise that controls assets of other entities in economies other than its home economy, usually by owning a certain equity capital stake. An equity capital stake of 10% or more of the ordinary shares or voting power for an incorporated enterprise, or the equivalent for an unincorporated enterprise, is normally considered a threshold for the control of assets. (UNCTAD 2004 UNCTAD. Development and globalization: statistics and figures. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York. , 40)
TNCs now comprise of roughly 64,000 firms, with more than 866,000 affiliates including subsidiaries and millions of suppliers and distributors connected through global value chains (UNCTAD 2004 UNCTAD. Development and globalization: statistics and figures.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York. ). Of the 100 largest economies in the world, only 49 are countries – the majority are TNCs (Love and Love 2003 Love, R. and Love, M.C. 2003. “Multinational corporations – power and responsibility”. In Beyond sovereignty – issues for a global agenda, Edited by: Love, M.C. 95–118. Louiseville, Quebec: Wadsworth. [Google Scholar]). In 2003, combined revenues of the global 500 companies was over $14 trillion and those companies employed over 47 million people (Segaar 2005 Segaar, D. 2005. ‘New dimensions of multilateralism’ corporate power and democratic responsiveness www.cic.nyu.edu [Google Scholar]). The sheer scope of these entities represents a rise in private, non‐state power across the world. How are TNCs entering the education sector – a territory that has been regarded as highly contested and viewed as state or national responsibility? In the field of education, corporations have traditionally sold their services or products directly to governments (e.g., the textbook industry) or have donated products directly or through corporate foundations in support of schools (Colvin 2005 Colvin, R. 2005. The new philanthropists. Education Next, 5(4): 34–41. [Google Scholar]). This is changing. New forms of private authority (Cutler, Haufler and Porter 1999 Cutler, C., Haufler, V. and Porter, T. 1999. “The contours and significance of private authority in international affairs”. In Private authority and international affairs, Edited by: Cutler, C., Haufler, V. and Porter, T. 333–76. Albany: State University of New York. [Google Scholar]) in education are emerging as a result of globalisation that differ from previous forms of private sector engagement in education (Ball 1998 Ball, S. 1998. Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2): 119–30. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [CSA], [Google Scholar]; Bloom 2004 Bloom, D. 2004
. “Globalization and education: an economic perspective”. In Globalization: culture and education in the new millennium, Edited by: Sudrez‐Orozco, M. and Qin‐Hillard, D. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]; Dale 1999 Dale, R. 1999. Specifying globalization effects on national policy: a focus on the mechanisms. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1): 1–17. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Lauder 1991 Lauder, H. 1991. Education, democracy, and the economy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 12: 417–31. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [CSA], [Google Scholar]).
These new forms of private authority are transnational in scope and mobilise GCSE norms to legitimise their influence over the broad frame and direction of their activities in education. They require the extra‐economic benefits of engaging in social sectors like education in order to reproduce themselves globally. In recent years, TNCs are operating within and through mass systems of education in developing countries through new social engagement mechanisms. These new developments raise many questions about the motivations, processes and implications of TNC participation in education systems around the world.
I use a social constructivist (Barnet and Finnemore 2004 Barnet, M. and Finnemore, M. 2004. Rules for the world – international organizations in global politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]) perspective from the international relations discipline to critically consider how TNCs develop new norms about what is appropriate and legitimate action in a public policy arena like education. Within international organisations, it is the shared ideas in and about the international structure that shape the organisational interests and preferences of an organisation (Finnemore 1996 Finnemore, M. 1996. National interests in international society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]; Finnemore and Sikkink 2001 Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. 2001. Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4: 391–416. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA], [Google Scholar]; Ruggie 1998a). New beliefs about what is acceptable provide the reasons for actors to intervene in ways that may not have been previously acceptable. I build on several previous studies in international relations using a constructivist lens (Barnet and Finnemore 2004 Barnet, M. and Finnemore, M. 2004. Rules for the world – international organizations in global politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]; Finnemore 1996 Finnemore, M. 1996. National interests in international society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]; Lumsdaine 1993 Lumsdaine, D. 1993. Moral vision in international politics: the foreign aid regime, 1949–1989, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[Google Scholar]; Ruggie 1998a). This paper addresses the standard constructivist question about ‘what makes the world hang together?’ (Ruggie 1998a) and studies ‘new social realities’ (Finnemore 1996 Finnemore, M. 1996. National interests in international society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]), in this case referring to how GCSE norms are shaping the behaviour of TNCs and legitimising their entry into the education sector. In the paper, I provide a taxonomy of GCSE norms used by TNCs to channel their entry and engagement in the education sector and offer a variety of examples of the rising presence of TNCs working in education in developing countries. Next, a new form of ‘market’ multilateralism is presented through a case study of the World Economic Forum’s corporate citizenship activities globally. Lastly, I critique the corporate social engagement efforts of TNCs working in education and discuss the implications of their seemingly ‘to do good’ activities.
Embedded liberalism and new global corporate social engagement norms
Capitalist countries have realised after the two World Wars and the 1930s depression that economic liberalisation must be embedded in social communities if they are to survive. The notion of embedded liberalism was inspired by Karl Polanyi’s classic 1944 account in The Great Transformation and was:
Each state will have its own 5% to the 1% global Wall Street players this time in education and Maryland's is tied to NANCY GRASMICK------who is an extension of JOHNS HOPKINS. It is our state education commissions who are appointed by governors who decide which universities will get funding to provide which degree programs and in this case we are talking about UNIVERSITY DEGREE PROGRAMS FOR EDUCATION.
We were listening to the debate as to which university would get that degree program----Morgan State University ---a Historically Black College ----was mad because they thought they should have that opportunity when the education degree program went to JOHNS HOPKINS AND TOWSON UNIVERSITY. The problem for 99% of citizens in Maryland and Baltimore is this----
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH UNIVERSITY RECEIVED THE FUNDING FOR AN EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND DEGREE PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY ALL TEACH THE SAME CURRICULA FOR DEGREE CONTENT.
Rather than have a University of Baltimore have an education degree program that taught teachers a left social democratic stance in classroom education and allow a Johns Hopkins teach a global Wall Street enslaving education degree program-----all universities getting this education funding teach the same GLOBAL ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION CORPORATE COMMONER CORE for our teachers. This has gone on now these several years of Bush then Obama.
Below we see a national media outlet BALTIMORE SUN allowing a NANCY GRASMICK openly lie about goals of SCHOOL CHOICE.
Make no mistake ---this is deliberate mis-information and it is directed at right wing conservative citizens thinking this is the school choice and community charters that give parents and student control of their schools when SCHOOL CHOICE IS REALLY THE GLOBAL EDUCATION CORPORATION CHOOSES THE STUDENT. THE STUDENT HAS NO CHOICE.
A primer on school choice
Nancy S. Grasmick
Maryland's experience with school choice might provide a primer for the rest of the nation.One education issue, school choice, took a prominent place during this election year debate. But what exactly is school choice, and can it be implemented in a way that is beneficial to all students, educators and communities? Maryland is often called "America in Miniature." Maryland's experience with school choice might provide a primer for the rest of the nation.
Maryland has had a long history with holding schools accountable for student achievement. Over two decades ago, Maryland, and then the federal government, began mandating school options for students in low performing schools. For example, under certain circumstances, parents were given the choice to transfer their children to higher performing schools. While one might think this would be an attractive opportunity for parents, very few transfers were requested. The reality was that parents sought to keep their children in their neighborhood school, often the same school where the parents attended. Parents were unwilling to have their children, especially elementary school-aged children, transported to other neighborhoods. Safety was a main concern. In Maryland's urban districts, parents have supported strengthening community schools and opening charter schools as better choice options.
In Maryland, charter schools are public schools that are typically operated by third parties. Charter schools are given authority to implement innovative programs and teaching methods. Most charter schools are open to all students, often through a lottery system. The most successful charter schools are those that have grass-roots parent involvement, are able to instill a strong school culture that is embraced by students, teachers, families and partners, and provide expanded learning opportunities. Maryland has over 50 charter schools, the majority of which are elementary/middle schools.
Charter schools at the high school level face challenges. Across the nation, charter high schools are often less attractive to students because they are less likely to be able to provide the variety of academic programs and extracurricular athletic and fine arts programs available in most large comprehensive public high schools. For high school students, magnet programs show greater promise. Magnet schools are public schools that have specialized programs emphasizing a consistent theme, curriculum or method of teaching. Magnet schools provide students with choice beyond their zoned schools. In Maryland, the most successful magnet programs have been those that set high admission standards and require competition for enrollment. Schools for the arts and the International Baccalaureate programs are perhaps the best known, and most successful type of these magnet programs. However, these programs are not available to every student.
With purposeful design, breakthrough efficiency and state-of-the-art technology, the all-new Prius Prime is more than the most advanced Prius yet. It’s the new possible.
Another type of magnet school is the "themed" high school. These schools attract students with interests in a particular content area such as health sciences, STEM, law and law enforcement, or the design arts. These schools are smaller public high schools, or a school within a school, that serve interested students on a first come, first served basis. Because these schools provide students with opportunities to explore their interests, themed schools report increased attendance and graduation rates, and decreased disciplinary instances. However, student achievement results are mixed. The most successful themed schools infuse their theme into every academic course. When teachers are content rich in the theme and able to adapt to a non-traditional curriculum, student achievement rises.
In recent years, states have also begun to administer opportunity scholarship tax credit programs. These programs allow individuals and corporations to allocate a portion of their owed state taxes to private nonprofit organizations that issue scholarships to K-12 students. The scholarship allows a student to choose among a list of non-public schools, and sometimes public schools outside of the district. Maryland administers a "BOOST" program that works with an advisory board to allocate up to $5 million to provide scholarships for economically disadvantaged students to attend non-public schools. In its first year, it is too early to determine whether this program will have a positive impact on student achievement.
Several states have adopted voucher programs. These programs allow economically disadvantaged families to have a portion of a non-public school's tuition covered by state funds. These programs are not open to all students and are limited by the number of seats available in the non-public schools. Maryland does not fund typical school vouchers.
As you can see, school choice covers much ground. Instead of mandating a "one size fits all approach," students are best served when states and local school districts work collaboratively to select and implement the choice options that work best for their students, teachers and communities. I hope Maryland will continue to take this thoughtful approach.
Nancy S. Grasmick is a presidential scholar at Towson University and a former Maryland superintendent of schools. Her email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Whether school choice or charter schools ---these policies developed decades ago once held a right wing conservative stance---or a left social democratic stance----each sharing goals and also having opposing goals. The right wing liked charters for segregating and allowing communities to choose how they educated----the left wing liked the idea of charters for developing new education ideas that if successful could be integrated into our STRONG PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. Right wing wanted charters to privatize public schools----left wing wanted charters and school choice to innovate and integrate education policies into public schools.
Then comes along CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and their merry team of DARK AGES ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION GLOBAL EDUCATION CORPORATIONS having nothing to do with right wing or left wing charter and school choice policies---these global 1% simply CO--OPTED each to sell what neither Republicans or Democrats wanted-----
When one educates on public policy we know these tricks by who was selling these Clinton era education policies and what foundations and universities were pushing them. We showed last post how University of Chicago was ground zero for global education corporations as was Harvard, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins none of which care less about WE THE PEOPLE AS CITIZENS.
Below we see how our American media deliberately mis-informs because Baltimore Sun---ABC/NBC/CBS and its local media outlets KNOW this is not to where school choice and charter policies are going.
Baltimore Holds Annual School Choice Fair
December 6, 2014 1:08 PM
Filed Under: Baltimore School, Choosing A School, Choosing Schools, School, School Choice Fair
BALTIMORE (WJZ) — School search. While many students are waiting for the holiday break, others are selecting new schools to attend next year. This weekend, Baltimore schools hosted a School Choice Fair.
As Gigi Barnett reports, this year, the event featured four new schools.
Eager and interested students swarm the Baltimore Convention Center looking for a new school. This is the City School Choice Fair where students can learn about middle and high schools that offer programs on everything from robotics to music programs.
“We’re looking at choice as an option for these kids to really think about and invest in their education. What are you interested in? What do you want to do in the future?” said Lara O’Hanian, Enrollment Choice Director.
Students have 55 schools to check out at the fair, including four new schools opening up next year.
“It can be quite difficult picking your school because you don’t know which is where and you can’t really get a perspective from what someone tells you,” said Javontay Briggs, who’s currently a student at Frederick Douglass High School.
That’s why Briggs and Di’Mond Thompson are school ambassadors from Frederick Douglass High School.
“Actually meeting the students here is much better and it gives you an opportunity to see `Hey, yeah.’ I know I can tell you from student to student that this is what it is and it makes it a lot easier,” Briggs said.
Zoned neighborhood schools still exist in the city but thousands of students choose which school they want to attend. The choice fair targets fifth graders rising to middle school and eighth graders looking to enroll in high school next year. School leaders say by the time students get through this school fair, they are better able to handle college fairs.
“Our kids have an advantage because they are thinking about choice as early as fifth grade so they are used to taking ownership of what they want to do with their lives,” said O’Hanian.
Baltimore City has nearly 12,000 fifth and eighth graders eligible to enroll in a choice school next year.
School choice pushed by global Wall Street is this-----that global corporate campus school chooses its human capital by looking at pre-K testing and evaluation to decide what skills that child may have then tracks that child into a vocational pathway tied to industry having that need. A global UnderArmour has need of GLOBAL FACTORY WORKERS TIED TO GARMENT, DYE AND FABRIC, SPORTS EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING, SALES AND MARKETING----so those pre-K tests taken by human capital will then be shared with corporations wanting to choose that person to be tracked into its SCHOOL STRUCTURE.
Then global UnderArmour ---THE CONSUMER OF GLOBAL CORPORATE EDUCATION PRODUCTS---not citizens----will purchase that online lesson and education platform that trains K-career for that specific job category----no need to educate more than needed for global factory jobs---for sales and marketing jobs----and each job category has INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION-----having nothing to do with the needs or wants of that student or their parents......
IT IS ALL GEARED TOWARDS THAT GLOBAL CORPORATION BEING THE CONSUMER -----AND BEING THE PLATFORM FOR INSTRUCTION.
Global Wall Street pols are not going to use words like VOUCHER-----the Federal, state, and local education funding is simply allocated directly to global corporate campuses-----
ASK MAGGIE MCINTOSH AS CHAIR OF STATE ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS---SHE KNOWS----AS DO ALL OUR BALTIMORE POLS AND PLAYERS.
Top 10 Reasons School Choice is No Choice
January 27, 2016 stevenmsinger #BlackLivesMatter, Budget, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Corporate Education "Reform", Education, Local Control, Parents, Politics, Poverty, Prejudice, privatization, Propaganda, Racism, School Choice, school closings, School Funding, school segregation, school vouchers, Schools, segregation#blacklivesmatter, #LetTeachersTeach, #StandUpForPublicSchools, Budget, charter schools, corporate, Corporate Education Reform, education, education reform, Politics, public schools, racism, School Choice, school vouchers
On the surface of it, school choice sounds like a great idea.
Parents will get to shop for schools and pick the one that best suits their children.
Oh! Look, Honey! This one has an exceptional music program! That one excels in math and science! The drama program at this one is first in the state!
But that’s not at all what school choice actually is.
In reality, it’s just a scam to make private schools cheaper for rich people, further erode the public school system and allow for-profit corporations to gobble up education dollars meant to help children succeed.
1) Voucher programs almost never provide students with full tuition.
Voucher programs are all the rage especially among conservatives. Legislation has been proposed throughout the country taking a portion of tax dollars that would normally go to a public school and allowing parents to put it toward tuition at a private or parochial school. However, the cost of going to these schools is much higher than going to public schools. So even with your tax dollars in hand, you don’t have the money to go to these schools. For the majority of impoverished students attending public schools, vouchers don’t help. Parents still have to find more money somewhere to make this happen. Poor folks just can’t afford it. But rich folks can so let’s reduce their bill!? They thank you for letting them buy another Ferrari with money that should have gone to give poor and middle class kids get an education.
2) Charter and voucher schools don’t have to accept everyone
When you choose to go to one of these schools, they don’t have to choose to accept you. In fact, the choice is really all up to them. Does your child make good grades? Is he or she well-behaved, in the special education program, learning disabled, etc.? If they don’t like your answers, they won’t accept you. They have all the power. It has nothing to do with providing a good education for your child. It’s all about whether your child will make them look good. By contrast, public schools take everyone and often achieve amazing results with the resources they have.
3) Charter Schools are notorious for kicking out hard to teach students
Charter schools like to tout how well they help kids learn. But they also like to brag that they accept diverse students. So they end up accepting lots of children with special needs at the beginning of the year and then giving them the boot before standardized test season. That way, these students’ low scores won’t count against the charter school’s record. They can keep bragging about their high test scores without actually having to expend all the time and energy of actually teaching difficult students. Only public schools take everyone and give everyone their all.
4) Voucher and charter schools actually give parents less choice than traditional public schools
Public schools are governed by different rules than charter and voucher schools. Most public schools are run by a school board made up of duly-elected members from the community. The school board is accountable to that community. Residents have the right to be present at votes and debates, have a right to access public documents about how tax money is being spent, etc. None of this is true at most charter or voucher schools. They are run by executive boards or committees that are not accountable to parents. If you don’t like what your public school is doing, you can organize, vote for new leadership or even take a leadership role, yourself. If you don’t like what your charter or voucher school is doing, your only choice is to withdraw your child. See ya.
5) Charter Schools do no better and often much worse than traditional public schools
Pundits and profiteers love to spout euphoric about how well charter schools teach kids. But there is zero evidence behind it. That is nothing but a marketing ploy. It’s like when you’re in a bad neighborhood and walk past a dive that claims to have the best cup of coffee in the city. Yuck. Surely, some charter schools do exceptionally well. However, most charters and almost all cyber charters do worse than their public school counterparts. Fact.
6) Charters and voucher schools increase segregation
Since the 1950s and ’60s, we used to understand there was no such thing as separate but equal education. Before then we had Cadillac schools for white kids and broken down schools for black kids. The Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional. But today we have Cadillac schools for rich and middle class kids (most of whom are white) and broken down schools for the poor (most of whom are black or brown.) After making tremendous strides to integrate schools and provide an excellent education for everyone, our public schools have been resegregated. Charter and voucher schools only make this problem worse. They either aid in white flight or leach away minority students. This just makes it easier to give some kids a leg up while keeping others down.
7) Charter and voucher schools take away funding at traditional public schools
It costs almost the same amount of money to run a school building of a given size regardless of the number of kids in it. When students leave the public schools for charter or voucher schools, the public school loses valuable resources. It now has less revenue but the same overhead. So even if you found an excellent charter or voucher school to send your child, you would be hurting the chances of every other student in the public school of having their own excellent education. This is what happens when you make schools compete for resources. Someone ends up losing out on an education.
8) Properly funding parallel school systems would be incredibly wasteful and expensive
We could fix this problem by providing adequate funding for all levels of the school system – traditional public schools, charters, voucher schools, etc. However, this would be exorbitantly expensive. We don’t adequately fund our schools now. Adding additional layers like this would mean increasing national spending exponentially – maybe by three or four times the current level. And much of that money would go to waste. Why have three fully stocked school buildings in one community when one fully stocked building would do the job? I don’t imagine residents would relish the tax hike this would require.
9) School choice takes away attention from the real problems in our public schools – poverty and funding equity
We have real problems. More than half of public school students live below the poverty line. They are already several grade levels behind their non-impoverished peers before they even enter kindergarten. They need help – tutoring, counseling, wraparound services, nutrition, etc. The predicament is even more complicated by the way we fund our schools. Throughout the country, poor districts get less money than wealthy or middle class ones. The students who go to these schools are systematically being cheated out of resources and opportunities. And instead of helping them, we’re playing a shell game with charter and voucher schools. The problem isn’t that parents don’t have several excellent choices. If they’re poor, they often don’t have one.
10) School choice is not supported by a grass roots movement. It is supported by billionaires.
The proponents of school choice will tell you that they are only doing the will of the people. This is what parents want, they say. Baloney. While there are individuals who support school choice, the overwhelming majority of money behind this movement comes from conservative billionaires actively trying to dismantle the public education system. They want to steal the public system and replace it with a private one. They don’t care about your child. They just want to steal the hundreds of billions of tax dollars we pay to educate our children. This is not philanthropy. It is a business transaction meant to screw you and your child out of your rights.
If we really want to ensure every child in this country gets an excellent education, the answer isn’t school choice. Instead, we need to commit to supporting our public school system. We all need to be in this together. Yes, our schools should look at the needs of each child and tailor education to fit appropriately. But that shouldn’t be done in parallel school systems. It should be done under the same umbrella. That way, you can’t defund and defraud one without hurting all. It can’t just be about your child. It has to be about all children.
That’s the only choice worth making.
Here is our once decent source of journalism New York Times but as with WASHINGTON POST it is now owned by global corporations and billionaires and not local publishing magnates. Our US news media was always controlled by a 1%----our 1% simply used to be local or regional wealthy having some sense of wanting America to be sovereign and economically healthy-----these few decades have seen all American media taken by the global 1% who are working hard to COLONIZE AND BREAK APART American governance and economic structures so they LIE ALL THE TIME----THIS IS WHAT WE CALL FAKE NEWS.
What national media is trying to sell US citizens now is this---they are pretending that VOUCHERS is the problem with privatization whether in health care or education when in fact all Federal, state, and local funding is now tied to BOND DEBT OWNED DIRECTLY BY GLOBAL WALL STREET AND HEDGE FUNDS---so all revenue that would come to our cities and counties as VOUCHERS will no longer come in that package. This is why we are shouting that 5% to the 1% patronage players WILL NO LONGER GET those few millions thrown to create temporary small business startups---global Wall Street no longer needs to pretend to include locals----
Below we see how Detroit and Chicago as in Baltimore all this privatization is being received by these same third world cutthroat naked capitalism -----colonialism.
'Ms. Devos will also be hamstrung by the fact that her deregulated school choice philosophy has not been considered a resounding success. In her home state, Detroit’s laissez-faire choice policies have led to a wild west of cutthroat competition and poor academic results'.
DEVOS AND TRUMP are billionaires not needing to pretend to include WE THE PEOPLE----Clinton/Obama worked for global billionaires with no intentions of including WE THE PEOPLE. SAME THING FOLKS----
So, whether with health care or education ---it is not PUBLIC WHEN ALL OUR REVENUE IS DIRECTED STRAIGHT TO GLOBAL CORPORATIONS. It is colonialism.
It is much easier to be CITIZENS standing up for our rights then human capital scratching, undermining one another for a bone.
You see Maryland is again selling itself as a model ----this time for education ---earlier it was for health care-----Maryland is that ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE extreme wealth extreme poverty old world MERCHANT OF VENICE with media that allows it to PRETEND TO BE LEFT SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC when it is far-right wing global Wall Street!
Global Wall Street calls these PARTNERSHIPS where global corporations control all taxpayer revenue and public policy PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS when in fact they are the same third world structures WORLD BANK AND IMF tie to developing nations having no official governing structure---they are replacing our developed nation governance structure and constitution.
Why Betsy DeVos Won’t Be Able to Privatize U.S. Education
Kevin Carey NOV. 23, 2016
Donald J. Trump and Betsy DeVos after their meeting on Saturday in Bedminster Township, N.J. He selected her to be education secretary on Wednesday.
We’re resurfacing this article after the narrow confirmation of Betsy DeVos as education secretary on Tuesday. As we noted in November, she will be highly constrained in trying to voucherize American K-12 education.
Betsy DeVos, a wealthy Republican philanthropist, whom Donald J. Trump selected on Wednesday as the next secretary of education, has spent her career promoting a market-based, privatized vision of public education. If she pursues that agenda in her new role, she is quite likely to face disappointment and frustration.
Market-based school reforms generally come in two flavors: vouchers and charter schools. They differ in both structure and political orientation. Charter schools are public schools, open to all, accountable in varying degrees to public authorities, and usually run by nonprofit organizations. Vouchers, by contrast, allow students to attend any school, public or private, including those run by religious organizations and for-profit companies.
While charters enjoy support from most Republicans and some Democrats, vouchers have a narrower political base, those who tend to favor free markets to replace many government responsibilities.
Working primarily in Michigan, Ms. DeVos has been a strong advocate of vouchers, and her charter work has often focused on making charter schools as private as possible. The large majority of Michigan charters are run by for-profit companies, in contrast with most states. The DeVos family donated more than $1 million to Republican lawmakers earlier this year during a successful effort to oppose new oversight of charters.
That support made Ms. Devos a natural choice for Mr. Trump, who proposed a $20 billion federal voucher program on the campaign trail, and has likened the public school system to a monopoly business that needs to be broken up.
But any effort to promote vouchers from Washington will run up against the basic structures of American education.
The United States spends over $600 billion a year on public K-12 schools. Less than 9 percent of that money comes from the federal government, and it is almost exclusively dedicated to specific populations of children, most notably students with disabilities and students in low-income communities. There are no existing federal funds that can easily be turned into vouchers large enough to pay for school tuition on the open market.
Mr. Trump’s $20 billion proposal would be, by itself, very expensive. It may be hard to fit into a budget passed by a Republican Congress that has pledged to enact large tax cuts for corporations and citizens, expand the military and eliminate the budget deficit, all at the same time. Yet $20 billion isn’t nearly enough to finance vouchers nationwide, which is why Mr. Trump’s proposal assumes that states will kick in another $110 billion.
States don’t have that kind of money lying around. The only plausible source is existing school funding. But even if Ms. DeVos were to find a willing governor and state legislature, it’s not that easy. Roughly half of all nonfederal education funding comes from local property taxes raised by over 13,000 local school districts. They and their elected representatives will have a say, too.
This is where the intersection of geography and politics makes any national voucher plan much more difficult to enact. The practicality of school choice is highly related to population density. Children need to be able to get from home to school and back again every day. In a large metropolis with public transportation, there could be dozens of schools within reasonable travel distance of most families. In a small city, town or rural area, there will be few or none.
And population density, as Americans saw in the last election, is increasingly the dividing line of the nation’s politics. A significant number of Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters live in sparsely populated areas where school choice is logistically unlikely. At the same time, many of the municipalities where market reforms are theoretically much easier to put in voted overwhelmingly against the president-elect.
On Election Day, voters in liberal Massachusetts rejected a ballot measure by a 62-38 margin that would have increased the number of charter schools in the state, despite strong evidence that the state’s well-supervised charters produce superior results for low-income and minority schoolchildren.
In theory, information technology offers a way around the population density problem. Virtual schools can be attended from anywhere with an internet connection. For-profit colleges that have pocketed billions of dollars by offering low-quality online courses are poised to make a comeback under the Trump administration, which is likely to roll back President Obama’s efforts to regulate them.
But the federal government is a much larger financial contributor to colleges and universities than to K-12 schools, and college students don’t need an adult looking after them all day. Ms. DeVos will probably be a boon to the relatively small, growing population of families that home-school their children. But most parents will still want their children in a school building during the day, taught by a teacher, not by a computer.
Ms. Devos will also be hamstrung by the fact that her deregulated school choice philosophy has not been considered a resounding success. In her home state, Detroit’s laissez-faire choice policies have led to a wild west of cutthroat competition and poor academic results. While there is substantial academic literature on school vouchers and while debates continue between opposing camps of researchers, it’s safe to say that vouchers have not produced the kind of large improvements in academic achievement that market-oriented reformers originally promised.
We knew here in Baltimore in 2013 when our school building bonds were pushed that they were FRAUD-----yet no talk of that----no movement to recover taxpayer losses and send revenue for school construction for 99% of city citizens----they will MOVE FORWARD ALL THAT EDUCATION FRAUD UNTIL THE END---that is what rigged elections with global Wall Street players installed as pols and a city filled with global Wall Street 'labor and justice' NGOs pretending all these policies help the poor--the old-----the young---black citizens---brown citizens---white citizens---when it kills 99% of all global citizens.
'In early 2008, residents of Placentia and Yorba Linda approved a $200 million school construction bond after reading those fliers and being assured repeatedly that "their money will be spent wisely."'
When we see a Maryland Governor O'Malley or a Chicago Rahm Emmanuel with all kinds of LABOR AND JUSTICE organizations shouting these global Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are LEFT SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC----these are 5% to the 1% players being thrown a few million in a captured patronage economy
WHEN WE NEED HEALTHY, FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMIES---SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURING BY GETTING RID OF US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE DESIGNATION.
This article written in 2013 when Baltimore was taking on $1 billion in school building bond debt-----see where the article calls our bond market back then PAYDAY LOANS FULL OF FRAUD.
The bank, the school and the 38-year loan
Feb. 17, 2013
Updated April 8, 2015 10:39 p.m.
Borrowing through capital-appreciation bonds is helping to pay for a 600-seat performing arts center at El Dorado High School in Placentia. The expensive bonds, which delay payments for decades, were sold by Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified officials after voters approved Measure A in 2008.JEBB HARRIS, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
By Melody Petersen / ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
FINDINGS OF THIS INVESTIGATION:
- Dozens of California school districts signed up for all-inclusive bond programs that circumvented state law and government best practices. Many of them paid underwriting fees twice the national average.
- The schools hired George K. Baum with the understanding that its political consultants would help pass a bond measure in upcoming elections. This violates state law.
- The bank did not disclose the value of its political consultants’ time as a donation in election reports, as required by the state Political Reform Act.
- Most of the schools neither sold bonds through public auctions nor employed independent financial advisers.
- To avoid debt restrictions, the bank designed complex bonds that delayed payments for as long as 40 years.
- The schools sold some of the costliest bonds ever issued by the state’s public agencies. San Bernardino County’s Rim of the World district will pay $23 for each $1 it borrowed.
The fliers touted new ballfields, science labs and modern classrooms. They didn't mention the crushing debt or the investment bank that stood to make millions.
In early 2008, residents of Placentia and Yorba Linda approved a $200 million school construction bond after reading those fliers and being assured repeatedly that "their money will be spent wisely."
What happened instead was that Measure A led to a debt so large and long lasting that it has mortgaged the future of their children's children.
With no public discussion, the school board had hired George K. Baum & Co. and its staff of political strategists to help push the measure through so the district could continue an ambitious building spree.
After the election, the board allowed the bank to sell some of the costliest bonds ever issued by a California public agency. Just one $22 million borrowing from 2011 will cost taxpayers nearly 13 times that amount – $280 million – to repay.
Those bonds, known to Wall Street traders as capital appreciation bonds, are like a loan for which no principal or interest payments are made for 35 years. Interest is charged on a growing pile of unpaid interest, causing the balance to balloon.
"It's another method of pushing debt to future generations," said state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who compares the bonds to "payday loans."
"I just don't understand how these board members got away with this," said Alexandria Coronado, a former member of the Orange County Board of Education. "These people need to be recalled."
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified is hardly alone. Bankers from Stone & Youngberg, Piper Jaffray and other firms have traveled all over California in recent years, pushing capital appreciation bonds as a tool to vault over legal debt limits. Hundreds of school districts, including 14 in Orange County, signed up.
But Baum's deals stand out. According to an analysis of data from the state treasurer's office, Baum has issued more than 60 capital appreciation bonds for California school districts since 2007, including the single most expensive such loan. That debt – $283,612 borrowed by San Bernardino County's Rim of the World – will cost future taxpayers 23 times the principal.
Compare that with a 30-year home mortgage with a 5 percent interest rate, which requires payments of about twice the amount borrowed.
"Who borrows money thinking you don't have to even begin to pay interest for 20 years?" asked Kevin Graves of Lake Arrowhead, whose two children graduated from Rim of the World. "The board members knew what they were doing. They did it because there were no consequences."
The story of how Baum pushed California schools into complex bond deals that charged payments to future taxpayers is one of naïve public officials, sophisticated financiers, and laws, rules and guidelines ignored:
•It is illegal for California school officials to hire political consultants with public funds to help pass bond measures. Using the bank's political consultants is not a legal way around that law, according to the state Office of Legislative Counsel.
•Finance experts advise school districts to sell bonds through public auctions to get the lowest interest rate and to employ independent financial advisers to review the details. Placentia-Yorba Linda, like most of Baum's California school clients, did neither.
•State law requires that donated consulting work on an election be reported as an in-kind, or non-cash, political contribution. Baum did not disclose its consulting role on state campaign filings in three elections the Orange County Register reviewed.
Placentia-Yorba Linda Superintendent Doug Domene and all five board members declined repeated requests for an interview. Carol Downey, the board's president, sent a written response prepared by Domene. That statement said the district issued the capital appreciation bonds because it wanted to continue building but did not want to raise taxes. The district's construction effort, which began in 2002, has included four new schools, a football stadium and a 600-seat performing arts center.
Domene added that the district also wanted to take advantage of matching construction funds provided by the state, as well as special financing that is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers.
"It is our belief that our community benefits from these improvements now and into the future," he wrote.
Robert Dalton, vice chairman of George K. Baum & Co., said in a written statement that the bank has followed "the letter and spirit of the many federal and state laws and regulations that govern our business."
"As underwriters, we have a clear obligation to deal fairly at all times with issuers and we have a duty to purchase bonds from the issuer at a fair and reasonable price," he wrote. "In the extremely competitive market of California school finance, underwriters who do not treat their clients fairly and honestly, quickly lose clients."
Placentia-Yorba Linda was four years into a district-wide building plan in 2006 when officials realized they did not have enough money for the classrooms, athletic fields and administrative offices they hoped to build.
They turned to bankers at Baum, a Kansas City, Mo., firm named for the man that founded it in 1928. The executives had already helped the district pass a $102 million bond measure in 2002. This time, school officials wanted to ask voters for even more.
The board rehired Baum, approving the firm's two-page agreement with no discussion.
One word in particular in that agreement put taxpayers at risk.
That word – negotiated – was part of all agreements between the bank and five California school districts that the Register reviewed. With that word, the bank ensured it would be allowed to set the terms of all bonds authorized by voters with the desires of its investor clients in mind.
As an underwriter, the bank buys bonds from the school and then has its traders sell them on Wall Street to mutual funds, hedge funds, insurance companies and individuals. Wealthy Americans have long invested in tax-free bonds as a tax shelter.
Municipal finance experts say school officials often don't realize that the underwriter has investor clients aiming to profit from school bonds.
"A school wants to pay the lowest possible interest rate," said Joy Howard, a government financial adviser in St. Louis. "But if you're an investor, you want the highest rate, and that is a conflict of interest."
In a handbook for school finance officers, the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors advises school officials to avoid negotiated bond deals. Most studies have found that they cost schools higher interest and underwriting fees. The handbook advises schools to sell bonds in an auction where banks compete by written bids. Schools then can select the bank offering the lowest interest rate the market has to offer.
Michael Bishop, deputy superintendent at Santa Ana Unified, said the district's financial adviser urged it to avoid negotiated bond sales. But Santa Ana had already signed a comprehensive agreement with Baum that included campaign management services and a specification that all bond sales be negotiated. The district could not get out of that requirement, Bishop said, until all bonds authorized by Santa Ana voters in 2008 were sold.
The treasurers' handbook counsels school districts that go ahead with a negotiated sale to hire a financial adviser who is independent from the bank and doesn't have investors to please.
Placentia-Yorba Linda did not do that either.
CREATING A CONSTRUCTION PLAN
A bank that underwrites school debt is paid as bonds are sold. Baum's business model includes a service that keeps schools' construction contractors busy and underwriting fees flowing. The bank helps schools create a construction proposal called a "capital facilities plan." School officials determine what they would like to build in the coming years, and the bank designs a package of debt to fund it.
"When your students count on you," the bank's brochure states, "you can count on George K. Baum & Company."
By early 2011, Placentia-Yorba Linda had spent all but $40 million of the $200 million in bonds that voters had authorized in 2008. But Baum executives had overestimated a key factor – real estate appreciation – that goes into the calculation of tax rates that homeowners pay to support the bonds.
The bank had estimated in 2008, just as home prices were plummeting in Orange County, that property in the district would increase in value by more than 4 percent a year for 25 years. Instead, total assessed values fell by 2 percent between 2008 and 2009, were flat the next year, and rose by about 3 percent in 2011 and 2012.
By 2011, taxes per $100,000 of property value were already above what officials had promised would be the highest rate taxpayers would ever pay for the Measure A bonds. Issuing the rest of the bonds to finish construction would push the tax rate further over that line.
The bankers offered a solution. They designed capital appreciation bonds so the district could receive funds but pay nothing until 2031. Most of the money – both principal and interest – is not due until the six-year period ending in 2049 – 38 years after the bonds were sold.
Capital appreciation bonds, or CABs, have been used in government financing for decades. Experts say they can be useful in cases where a government expects sharply higher revenues in the future, but needs money upfront to build a project. For example, a school district in a fast-growing community where large tracts of homes are planned might use such debt to build a school.
But recently, investment banks have promoted these delayed-payment bonds to California schools that do not expect such a homebuilding boom. Executives have told school officials that they need not worry about the higher debt payments in the future. They predict that real estate values will appreciate faster in the future, keeping tax rates from escalating.
"Long-term CABs help a school district better manage its annual tax by shifting debt payments to future years when assessed values are likely to be higher," advises Stone & Youngberg, a San Francisco investment bank, in an online guide for California schools.
At the same time, Wall Street analysts have been promoting these bonds to investors.
In June 2011, Vikram Rai, an analyst at Citigroup, advised the bank's clients to invest in capital appreciation bonds issued by California schools because of their high interest rate. Rai said last fall that the bonds were so attractive that even foreign investors were buying them.
The result of Wall Street's promotion: an increasing demand and supply of the bonds that have benefited banks and investors while costing future Californians billions.
On the afternoon of Feb. 8, 2011, the Placentia-Yorba Linda board unanimously authorized the superintendent to issue bonds that shifted the schools' funding problem three decades into the future.
A copy of the resolution shows that the amount of capital appreciation bonds to be sold was blank.
Inside the bond market, a private place where traders still make bids over the phone, it was quickly apparent that the Placentia-Yorba Linda bonds favored Wall Street investors.
First, the bonds were not callable. That means the district can't ever buy them back to get a better deal.
Second, the bank priced them with interest rates as high as 7.8 percent.
Market indexes of interest rates on March 30, 2011, the day the bonds were sold, show that governments were paying less than 5.5 percent for 40-year bonds that required regular payments of interest. Investors demand a higher rate for capital appreciation bonds, however, because they must wait decades for their money. But experts said the rates that Baum negotiated on most of the bonds – 7.5 percent to 7.8 percent – still appear high. A rate even a quarter of a percent lower would have saved the district millions.
Trading records from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board show that some investors who bought the bonds quickly resold them at a profit. One speculator bought $347,500 in bonds from the bank and resold them five days later at a 4 percent profit, more than $14,000.
Tim Schaefer, founder of Magis Advisors, a Newport Beach firm that advises governments on financial deals, said these flips by speculators are "a very strong indicator that the bonds have been mispriced."
One mutual fund company, Franklin Templeton Investments, bought two-thirds of the bonds a few months after they were issued. The fund paid less than $30 million for bonds that will pay out $200 million from 2043 to 2049.
Dalton, Baum's vice chairman, said that the interest rate on Placentia's bonds was similar to what other California schools paid for capital appreciation bonds at that time. He said school officials had decided to make the bonds non-callable to avoid an even higher rate.
"We are very proud of our ability to achieve market interest rate levels for our clients," he said.
Superintendent Domene said that the public should view the cost of all $200 million in bonds issued under Measure A, and not just the capital appreciation bonds, which require future taxpayers to pay nearly $13 for each $1 borrowed. When the other bonds are included, he said, taxpayers will pay $3.45 for each $1 received.
For its work, Baum received a fee of 1.1 percent of the bonds' principal amount, about $2 million for Measure A's $200 million in bonds.
The national average for an underwriting fee on education bonds in 2011, according to a survey by the Bond Buyer, was about half that amount or 0.613 percent. An analysis by state officials found that underwriters in California were paid an average fee of 0.95 percent from 2009 to 2011 on bond issues of the same size that Placentia sold.
"Our fees are in line with California rates," Dalton said in his statement.
California law is clear: It is illegal for school officials to use public money to hire political consultants to pass bond measures.
You wouldn't know that if you followed Baum executives around the state.
In dozens of presentations, the executives have explained how schools get far more than a bank with decades of experience in bond underwriting. The schools also get step-by-step instructions on putting a bond measure on the ballot, the bankers explain, as well as aid from its political strategists.
If the measure fails, the bank assures schools, they owe nothing.
For dozens of districts, this was too good to pass up.
The bank has "a full-service, in-house election team comprised of a campaign specialist, a pollster, copywriters, graphic designers and database professionals," according to its website.
Its executive team in Sacramento includes Ann Marie Nock, manager of its Bond Election Group. Executives told Fountain Valley school officials in a proposal last year that Nock was "a veteran of over 200 successful elections." Another executive, according to the proposal, is Alan Gafford, a vice president "responsible for developing strategy and executing tactics for school bond elections."
Nock told the Fountain Valley board that its political campaign would be "aggressive" and include phoning voters and walking precincts. In a presentation at Burbank Unified in 2009, Nock said the bank won elections by "marketing the right message" and "creating a sense of urgency" that schools needed money, according to the meeting's minutes.
Downey, the board's president, insisted that Baum's work for Placentia-Yorba Linda did not include political consulting. She said no school funds were paid to Baum for political work.
But documents and interviews show that the bank was deeply involved in the election.
According to a 52-page campaign report the bank's political strategists prepared for Placentia-Yorba Linda officials in 2006, their pollsters surveyed 400 residents by phone to determine their likelihood of voting for the bonds and what political messages worked to persuade them.
The pollsters determined that residents responded more favorably to the message that the bonds were needed to "prepare students for vocational employment as well as college" than to one saying the district needed a "second bond" to "continue upgrading" facilities.
The bank's strategists urged the district to get those residents that its strategists found to be most likely to support the bonds – renters, Democrats, women and parents with young children – to the polls.
Former Baum vice president Gafford confirmed in an interview that he had worked on Placentia's political campaign, including organizing volunteers, recommending designs and messages for signs and literature, and writing the script for phone bank volunteers.
In addition to the political consulting, the bank gave $25,000 to the campaign. Its donation was quickly followed by other large contributions from law firms, architects, construction contractors and other companies hoping to profit from the bonds and building projects. In all, companies from outside the community gave more than 90 percent of the $150,000 collected by the political committee.
A company paying employees to work on a campaign in California must report the value of those services as a contribution, according to the state Political Reform Act. Breaking the law can result in fines of up to $5,000 per violation.
But Baum did not report any in-kind donations for political consulting for the time spent by Nock, Gafford or its pollsters in the elections in Placentia, Santa Ana and Fountain Valley – all campaigns where executives provided many hours of services.
Dalton said the bank began reporting in-kind donations to the federal securities board after it adopted a new requirement in 2010. Asked why no state disclosures were filed, he said, "We have relied on a law firm with expertise in local and federal election law to file our disclosure forms."
Gafford said executives did not try to hide their involvement. "If they wanted technical and professional help, I was there to do that," he said. "There was no secret."
Local volunteers had the final say in the activities, he added: "Parents are the momentum behind these efforts."
Under state law, it is not illegal for a bank to work as a political consultant in a bond election. But school boards are banned from hiring political consultants to push bond measures.
In 2003 and again in 2010, the state's Office of Legislative Counsel was asked whether it was legal for a school district to hire an underwriter based on an oral or written understanding that it would also provide political consulting.
In both cases, the lawyers gave the same answer: such a deal violates the law.
There has been a growing furor over capital appreciation bonds issued by California schools since a Michigan blogger, Joel Thurtell, revealed last year that a district in San Diego County had issued $105 million in bonds that would cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion to repay. In relative terms, Placentia's bonds are even more expensive than those sold by Poway Unified, which require repayments of $9 for each $1 borrowed.
Last month, state treasurer Lockyer and Tom Torlakson, state superintendant of public instruction, urged schools to stop issuing such bonds until the Legislature considers a bill to limit their use.
"The people running school districts are educators and not generally finance experts," Lockyer said. "I don't think they knew what they were getting themselves into."
Michigan outlawed the bonds after Thurtell wrote about their cost in 1993 for the Detroit Free Press.
Underwriters are also facing more scrutiny.
Federal law has long required underwriters to "deal fairly" with governments that hire them and to not use deceptive practices. Because of questions about whether some banks were ignoring the law, the securities board in August issued new requirements for negotiated bond deals. Banks must now disclose any conflict of interest that could sway them from giving schools a fair deal. For example, the bank must disclose whether it has profit-sharing agreements with investors who buy bonds.
The securities board also said banks must tell school officials about the risks of complicated bond deals. A bank that promises schools it will get them the best deal, but fails to do that, the board said, is breaking federal law.
In a recent presentation to Rim of the World's board, Baum offered a new disclosure. At the end of a slide presentation, the bank's executives said they were not the district's "financial advisor or fiduciary... We have certain financial and other interests that differ from those of the issuer."
INCREASED CLASS SIZES
Since Measure A passed in 2008, Placentia-Yorba Linda officials have struggled to find enough money to operate classrooms.
Later that year, the district eliminated some elementary music programs. It has repeatedly forced teachers to take days off without pay. And it has increased class sizes. Before the election, there were enough teachers to have 20 students in each first- and second-grade class, according to budget documents. Now those teachers have 30 students.
The district made those cuts to cope with reduced state funding even as construction firms continued with what officials call a "massive modernization program."
The district has built four new schools since 2008. Still under construction is a $12 million concert hall that will feature a glass lobby and stage large enough for a 230-member choir.
Daily costs are eating up the district's general fund balance, its reserve for operations. In December, the district told the state it may not meet its bills in the next two years.
No bond money can pay for teacher salaries and other operating costs.
In June, Moody's, the rating agency, placed "a negative outlook" on the district's credit worthiness because its debt burden was higher than similar districts. The agency did not reduce the district's bond credit rating – Aa2 – which is just two notches below the top rating. Moody's analysts warned they may lower the rating if the district continues to borrow and spend its cash reserves.
The district is negotiating contracts with two labor unions, Domene said, and hopes to reverse its expected budget shortfalls. "Residents should not be concerned with the financial condition of the district," he wrote in a statement.
A bigger problem may come in the future, long after current school officials have retired or stepped down from the board. If property values do not appreciate fast enough to keep up with escalating bond payments, tax rates will have to go up to pay for 35-year-old classrooms. Future administrations may find it hard to borrow money for new construction.
"How are they going to build schools for children in the future?" asked Schaefer, the financial adviser.
Meanwhile here in Baltimore NO MENTION OF THIS MASSIVE MUNICIPAL BOND FRAUD and the same groups coming out to support all these bad education policies and this fraudulent school building bond deal are those now shouting against all these cuts and losses to public schools.
We are told we simply have to ABSORB these losses-----Santelises is Alonzo---is MAYOR BLOOMBERG K-12 CORPORATE EDUCATION PRIVATIZATION.
These are criminal elements ---those 5% to the 1%----just get rid of them and VOILA----WE HAVE ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS FUNDED WITH PARENTS, STUDENTS, TEACHERS BACK IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT.
Global Wall Street PRETEND BLACK LIVES MATTERS grassroots leader MCKESSON is partnered with Santelises in MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE COMMONER CORE AND GLOBAL CORPORATE EDUCATION.....please know these players to know when they support a Wall Street candidate!
Those pushing against teacher seniority as we see global Wall Street player MARY PAT CLARKE say here are trying to push old-school public teachers out while the new hires are almost all private corporate teachers like TEACH FOR AMERICA--------
"The money is there to help us avoid this," Clarke said. She also expressed concern that layoffs would cause the newest teachers to lose their jobs. "We can't lay off the youngest new cadre of educators — the last in, first off — and deprive our children and those talented people of their future together," Clarke said'.
Here we have our Baltimore City Council leader Jack Young pretending to be mad as heck as he is top gun for global Wall Street Baltimore Development and soaking the city in municipal bond debt---------------------
'City Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young also called for "additional support from Governor Hogan and legislators in Annapolis."'
Baltimore City schools CEO looks to deep staff cuts to close $130 million budget gap
Baltimore City schools CEO Sonja Santelises is prepared to lay off more than 1,000 employees, from classroom teachers to custodians, in order to close a $130 million budget gap. (Emma Patti Harris/Baltimore Sun video)
Tim Prudente and Erica L. GreenContact Reporters
The Baltimore Sun
Baltimore city schools CEO Sonja Santelises said Friday that she is prepared to lay off more than 1,000 people — from classroom teachers to custodians — to close a $130 million gap.
Meeting with the city's legislative delegation in Annapolis, she said the layoffs — as well as furloughs and cuts to art classes and other enrichment programs— are part of a far-reaching plan to close a budget shortfall that amounts to 10 percent of the school system's $1.3 billion budget.
She said some schools would see class sizes increase by as many as 10 students.
The lawmakers made clear they found such sweeping cuts troubling, but they did not suggest that there might be state money to prevent them. Maryland is dealing with its own $544 million budget gap, and both state and city officials suggested that the school district will have to make tough decisions.
With purposeful design, breakthrough efficiency and state-of-the-art technology, the all-new Prius Prime is more than the most advanced Prius yet. It’s the new possible.
"I knew it would be drastic," said. Sen. Bill Ferguson, a Baltimore Democrat. "It's devastating and a product of real fiscal challenges city schools are facing."
Mayor Catherine Pugh declined through a spokesman to respond to questions for this article, but issued a written statement acknowledging the district's deep-rooted budget problems.
Maryland casinos are pumping out billions for education. So why are there school budget deficits? "Unfortunately the Baltimore City Public School System is forced to address a structural deficit, and I know that Dr. Santelises is using every resource available to her to address this situation," Pugh said.
Santelises, in her first year on the job, revealed last month the shortfall for the budget year that begins July 1. It's the largest budget gap the district has faced in recent history. Declining enrollment, rising teacher salaries and an ambitious school construction program have been cited as contributors to the problem.
"I'm not saying this is it, but I am saying that when push comes to shove, it's my job as the head of the school system to have a plan," Santelises said in outlining her cost-cutting proposals to The Baltimore Sun. "And this is the best plan I can give. Based on the trajectory we are on now, Baltimore city public schools will look drastically different on July 2."
Baltimore schools face $129 million budget deficit The Baltimore Teachers Union demanded that state and city leaders take action.
"Our children cannot get the education they deserve with 1,000 fewer people working in the schools," union president Marietta English said in a statement Friday.
Baltimore City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, a former teacher, suggested state officials look to casino revenue to shore up the schools budget. Maryland casinos have pumped $1.7 billion into the state's Education Trust Fund, but state officials are allowed to redirect other money that once went to schools.
"The money is there to help us avoid this," Clarke said. She also expressed concern that layoffs would cause the newest teachers to lose their jobs. "We can't lay off the youngest new cadre of educators — the last in, first off — and deprive our children and those talented people of their future together," Clarke said.
City Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young also called for "additional support from Governor Hogan and legislators in Annapolis."
Gov. Larry Hogan's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Outlining broadly her budget-cutting plan, Santelises said $80 million of the cuts would fall on individual schools. These schools will see a "dramatic increase in class size," she said, while others will have to sacrifice programs like career technology courses.
"This is going to hit everything kids love about coming to school," Santelises said. "We're talking about severe impact to school programming, which then impacts all of our efforts to try to recruit new families."
Most schools will have to lose staff, Santelises said, and some schools will have to target the highest earners for layoffs in order to recoup a significant amount of money.
In past years, when school officials announced a gap half this size, they avoided including teachers in staff cuts, which mostly affected non-classroom positions. Santelises said firmly that teachers will have to be included this time.
Furlough days and salary freezes would have to be negotiated with union employees, such as teachers and principals. Santelises said she is exploring freezing salaries and imposing up to five furlough days to capture up to $20 million.
Still, at neighborhood schools with fewer than 350 students, Santelises said, "it would be hard to operate."
The news was a blow to city educators.
Athanasia Kyriakakos, an art teacher at the Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High School, broke down when she heard of Santelises' plan.
"My class size is already at capacity, at 30 and 36 kids. What are they going to make it, 46 kids?" said Kyriakakos, who was named Maryland's teacher of the year. "I want my kids to succeed. I just had another student die the other day. I don't want them in the streets."
Baltimore City College principal Cindy Harcum was stoic. The school, with 1,300 students, has weathered past budget cuts and will endure this one, too, she said. "We've been able to roll through these punches before. It may mean there are some adjustments we have to make."
Santelises said she would look to the school system's central office for $10 million in savings by cutting each department by 10 percent to 15 percent.
That would mean decreased services to schools, such as cutting trash pickup from five times a week to two times a week and delaying maintenance projects.
The central office has been significantly reduced in the last decade as the district moved to decentralize services and give principals more autonomy. Santelises said there is a misperception that the central office is "bloated." She said that the roughly 1,000-person staff is below average compared to the district's urban peers.
Another $20 million would come from dipping into the district's reserve fund, which would require a waiver from the school board, and a hiring and spending freeze.
Meanwhile, the district will continue looking for ways to restructure at a time when the school system's population is declining by the hundreds, Santelises said. The city lost roughly $42 million in state funding this year, in part due to its declining enrollment. Enrollment stands at about 82,000 students.
Other financial pressures come from investments the city has made, such as expensive union contracts to increase the quality of educators, providing full-day pre-kindergarten — the state requires only half-day — and renovating dilapidated buildings, estimated at $38 million next year alone.
The system is renegotiating union contracts, closing small schools, working to attract new families and advocating for a new state funding formula that would allocate more funding for city schools.
Santelises said that tactics used to close budget gaps half this size in prior years, such as superficial funding cuts and paying for reoccurring expenses with one-time funding sources, did not work because they were not financially sustainable.
"This is a community conversation," Santelises said. "We have to decide collectively to what level we are going to educate the next generation of leaders in the city."
This is what keeps our US teacher's unions quiet as teachers are under attack-----in Maryland pols passed legislation allowing TEACH FOR AMERICA and other corporate teaching staff join our teachers' unions. This was promoted as left social progressive when in fact its goal was to implode our teachers' union and their power to fight corporate K-12 privatization. If the majority of teachers in Baltimore are not public employees but corporate then a teacher's union leader like ENGLISH will cater to global Wall Street Clinton/Obama RACE TO THE TOP.
Our elections on local and state level are candidates financed by corporate education foundations----and media will promote those candidates and not public education backers.
How is it Maryland is promoted as #1 in education in journalism like EDUCATION WEEK----US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT? These are Bill Gate global education privatization journals----US NEWS has always ranked according to how corporate and global a university is----
Monday, Jan 13, 2014 12:33 PM EST
Teach For America’s pro-corporate, union-busting agenda
How TFA uses its vast political influence to boost charter schools and drive down teacher pay
(UPDATED) Chad Sommer, EduShyster.com
This piece originally appeared on EduShyster.com.When I joined Teach For America in the spring of 2011 I had no idea that my belief in social and economic justice was about to be cynically exploited by the corporate class. As a former development manager for a nonprofit that serves low-income Chicago public school students, TFA’s claims that its corps members and alumni are helping lead an educational revolution in low-income communities across the country spoke to me. Naively seduced by TFA’s do-gooder marketing pitch, I charged ahead on a mission to close the academic “ achievement gap” that TFA blames on incompetent (read unionized) teachers.
Today, having completed the two-year program and seeing how it operates from the inside, I’m convinced that TFA now serves as a critical component of the all-out-effort by corporate elites to privatize one of the last remaining public institutions of our country: our public schools.
Adored By the Corporate Class
TFA and the privately managed, non-union charter schools that its corps members often staff are adored by the corporate class. Elites shower both TFA and charter schools with private contributions from their own tax-exempt foundations, as well as taxpayer dollars funneled by their courtiers in Washington and statehouses across the country. Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, The Walton Foundation (Walmart), The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Eli Broad Foundation, and a small army of billionaire hedge fund managers are just a few representatives of the corporate class that bankrolls TFA and the various networks of privately managed (but taxpayer funded) charter schools. Wendy Kopp, founder of TFA is even married to the president of KIPP, one of the country’s largest networks of charter schools.
In Chicago, where I participated in TFA, the organization maintains its own extremely close partnerships with privately managed charter schools. Their relationships are so close, in fact, that earlier this year, after the Chicago Public School system closed forty-nine traditional, unionized public schools, claiming the schools were “underutilized,” it was revealed that TFA was working behind the scenes with a number of privately-managed, non-union charter school operators to open fifty-two new charter schools in Chicago over the next five years.
The alliance between TFA and charter schools is cemented by an arrangement that few people know about outside of the organization. The teacher placement policy of TFA explicitly states in bold letters, “It is our policy that corps members accept the first position offered to them.” The effective result of this policy means that corps members have no bargaining position to negotiate wages or benefits, meaning that whatever offer a school makes, the corps member must accept it. TFA provides a rather benign explanation for this arrangement, claiming that it allows for the quick and efficient placement of hundreds of corps members into teaching positions in each market. However, in practice, this mandate is a lynchpin of the corporate class’ privatization plan for education.
The “First Placement” Policy
Each spring, local TFA offices in each market dedicate an entire team of staff to arranging interviews between corps members and hiring schools. The “first placement” policy means that TFA can guarantee charter schools a constant supply of new teachers each year who have no choice but to work for wages and benefits far below those negotiated by the local teachers union at traditional public schools in the same area. While a first year salary for a teacher at a traditional unionized school in Chicago is approximately $45,000, the starting salary at many of TFA’s partner charter schools is nearly 30 percent less at $32,000. And because teachers at charter schools are not protected by the due process policies the union has in place at traditional public schools, TFA corps members at charter schools can be fired at any time, for any reason.
A fellow TFA corps member in Chicago who worked at a charter school told me that she met with her principal each Friday to find out if she should bother coming back to work the following Monday. Another told me that his principal explicitly told him that she knew he would only be with her school for two years, so she was going to work him to death. And when he left after his TFA commitment, she would just replace him with a new TFA recruit. Churn and burn is the business model for these schools, and TFA provides a continuous supply of naively idealistic workers who have no choice but to accept their lot. Furthermore, this constant churn of teachers who possess zero or one year of experience can’t possibly be good for the academic or social-emotional development of students who often have little stability in their lives.
By driving down teacher salaries and weakening workplace protections, TFA has a corrosive effect on the teaching profession. But behind TFA’s role as a feeder system for charter schools is a hypocrisy that’s especially galling.
A Rigged Game
Corporate education reformers are constantly hailing “market-based solutions” as the remedy for poor academic performance among low-income students. TFA, charter schools and their corporate benefactors espouse the notion that if low-income students just had more choices in schools, the resulting competition would drive all schools to deliver a higher quality education. Students and parents must be free to vote with their feet and find alternatives; the Darwinian principal of survival of the fittest is what makes a “free market” so effective, claim its corporate proponents. And yet TFA’s rigging of the teacher hiring process in favor of charter school operators demonstrates a complete and utter contempt for local labor markets. When corps members aren’t allowed the freedom to turn down a job because the pay or benefits are inadequate, or because a charter school has a terrible reputation for abusing teachers, there is no “free market” at work.
TFA: An Inverted Labor Union?