Monthly Archives: March 2018

March Comments 3/26/18

Successful “Build and Support” Efforts

Diane Ravitch quotes a beautiful statement about the importance and purpose of public schools by Joanne Yatvin who is president of the National Council of Teachers of English.

Far too many politicians and ordinary citizens have forgotten that the purpose of American education is as much to support a democratic society, as it is to prepare students to be active citizens, in charge of themselves and their communities. They have also forgotten that the proof of the pudding is not how well our students’ test scores compare with those of other countries but the proportion of American citizens who are leading intelligent, productive, and caring lives.

Full text here. https://dianeravitch.net/2018/03/18/joanne-yatvin-the-purpose-of-public-schools/

Mathew DiCarlo argues for the importance of building social capital in schools as key to improving educational performance. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/social-side-capability-improving-educational-performance-attending-teachers’-and-school-leaders

Massachusetts leads the way for career/tech education. https://edexcellence.net/articles/massachusetts-sets-the-bar-again-this-time-in-cte?utm_source=National+Education+Gadfly+Weekly&utm_campaign=dfcb88f77e-20160918_LateLateBell9_16_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ef00e8f50e-dfcb88f77e-71635837&mc_cid=dfcb88f77e&mc_eid=ebbe04a807

A large study reported in Scientific American demonstrates long-term benefits from pre-school education. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pre-k-programs-lead-to-higher-education-later-in-life/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciam%2Fmind-and-brain+%28Topic%3A+Mind+%26+Brain%29

Some of the best ways to attract minority teachers.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/03/20/can-money-attract-more-minorities-into-the-teaching-profession/

83% of America’s top science students are children of immigrant parents—another reason why Trump’s immigration policy is harmful to the US. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2017/03/11/83-of-americas-top-high-school-science-students-are-the-children-of-immigrants/#7f2df5b22200

Jeff Bryant on why the schools have become the epicenter of resistance. http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/why-public-schools-have-become-the-epicenter-of-rebellion/?link_id=1&can_id=cea050dcef20333abf235c3ba9bc6d51&source=email-why-public-schools-have-become-the-epicenter-of-rebellion&email_referrer=email_318320&email_subject=why-public-schools-have-become-the-epicenter-of-rebellion

Ten principles of effective assessments. http://deeperlearning4all.org/10-principles-building-high-quality-system-assessments/

Michael Petrilli proposes changes in high-school graduation pathways to avoid gaming the system and short-changing many students. https://edexcellence.net/articles/to-fix-the-gaming-of-graduation-requirements-we-need-to-overhaul-high-schools-and-our?utm_source=National+Education+Gadfly+Weekly&utm_campaign=6b92c19967-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ef00e8f50e-6b92c19967-71635837&mc_cid=6b92c19967&mc_eid=ebbe04a807

Diane Ravitch’s blog hosts Parents Across America on the dangers of too much screen time http://parentsacrossamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Documentation6-29-16JW.pdf  and media professor Douglas Rushkoff on a sane social media policy for schools. https://dianeravitch.net/2018/02/27/douglas-rushkoff-a-sane-social-media-policy-for-americas-classrooms/

 

Charter, Voucher, and On-line Travails

An important article by Johann Neem author of a history of public education in the US, Democracy’s Schools: The Rise of Public Education in America, reminds us of the broader purposes of public education and questions whether extensive charter expansion subverts those purposes. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/03/07/a-time-for-school-choice-if-so-lets-make-sure-we-ask-the-right-questions/

New study shows charter schools hurt public school funding. https://thejournal.com/articles/2018/01/30/yes-charters-do-hurt-public-school-funding.aspx?m=1

For example, the largest district in the study had charter enrollment of about 15 percent of the student population. The fiscal impact there was “in excess of $700 per public school student,” about $25 million total. The other five had lower charter enrollments, varying from 3 percent to 14 percent. While the impact was lower, it was still “significant.” In a couple of the districts, for example, the loss was between $200 and $500 per student.

A major report summarizing voucher research finds that on average vouchers cause a one-third of a year drop in performance. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2018/03/20/446699/highly-negative-impacts-vouchers/

A cost-benefit analysis of vouchers in Indiana shows large negative results. http://www.journalgazette.net/opinion/editorials/20180311/cost-benefit-stats-show-failures-of-voucher-plan

After charter advocates claimed that low test scores justified closing public schools and expanding charters, react to findings that charters on the whole don’t increase test scores, by now saying that test scores don’t matter. http://www.aei.org/publication/do-impacts-on-test-scores-even-matter-lessons-from-long-run-outcomes-in-school-choice-research/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mcshane&utm_content=new-research

A heartfelt plea to avoid neglecting neighborhood schools to promote charters. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-hopkinson-school-choice_us_5aa2cd35e4b01b9b0a3b2133

A teacher’s account of a horrible year spent teaching in a respected charter school. https://www.shondaland.com/act/a19449580/charter-schools/

Prof. Julian Heilig testifies before the California Senate Education Committee to support accountability for all charters and prohibiting for-profit charters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djXUwPp1U4w&t=4s and provides a blueprint for compromise. https://cloakinginequity.com/2018/03/14/a-chance-for-charter-school-critics-and-supporters-to-agree/

Five reasons not to charterize Puerto Rico’s public schools. https://medium.com/in-the-public-interest/5-reasons-why-charter-schools-in-puerto-rico-is-a-bad-idea-c35b84828548

The Network for Public Education has just released a guide for parents on the issues with on-line learning. https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Online-Learning-What-Every-Parent-Should-Know.pdf

A teacher calls for a ban on online schools. He calls them a sham and a fraud. https://renegadeteacher.blog/2018/03/07/a-call-to-end-online-charter-schools/

A plea for improved accountability for California’s charter schools. https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/report-fraud-and-waste-in-californias-charter-schools/

A powerful critique of Arizona’s charter schools policies. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2018/02/10/charter-schools-bilk-you-dump-kids-and-lawmakers-dont-care/324359002/

Another  Arizona charter school scandal. https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/phoenix-starshine-academy-charter-school-under-fraud-investigation

Success Academy’s claims of success in “re-inventing high school” are based on huge attrition rates of students. https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/success-academies-reinventing-high-school-for-the-few-who-remain/

Diane Ravitch reports on a highly touted charter chain school in San Antonio featuring “personalized learning” and use of technology, which failed https://dianeravitch.net/2018/03/21/san-antonio-carpe-diem-charter-school-will-close-in-june/ and a similar abrupt closing in Sacramento. https://dianeravitch.net/2018/03/20/sacramento-charter-school-closes-abruptly-leaving-students-in-the-lurch/

Another Ravitch column on an EdTrust report on unaccountable charter schools in Michigan and the failure to fix the situation supported by Devos’s  political contributions. https://dianeravitch.net/2018/03/20/michigans-unaccountable-failing-charter-schools/

Tom Ultican on how Betsy Devos and her  allies ruined Detroit’s public schools. https://tultican.com/2018/03/09/devos-damages-detroit-schools/

A classic New York times article on how the proliferation of charter schools in Detroit hurt public school children. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/for-detroits-children-more-school-choice-but-not-better-schools.html

 

“Reform” Foibles

Let’s never forget who wants to decimate public education. http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/betsy-devos-wants-to-cut-public-education-to-the-bone/?link_id=1&can_id=cea050dcef20333abf235c3ba9bc6d51&source=email-betsy-devos-wants-to-cut-public-education-to-the-bone&email_referrer=email_322263&email_subject=betsy-devos-wants-to-cut-public-education-to-the-bone

Cutting back on education cost North Carolina a large auto plant.  An article in the New Republic argues that education investment is much more important than tax breaks in attracting new businesses. https://newrepublic.com/article/147426/forget-tax-breaks-education-key-attracting-businesses

The legislature in Arizona allows corporations to donate to vouchers and deduct the amount from their state taxes without a cap decimating funds for public schools. http://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-senators-can-t-agree-on-how-to-cap-corporate/article_a168c8e2-de96-552d-8157-8b0fc46cf2d5.html

Max Eden writing in the Fordham Institute blog pleads with “reformers” to heal themselves before causing  further damage. https://edexcellence.net/articles/reformer-heal-thyself-youve-ruined-high-school?utm_source=National+Education+Gadfly+Weekly&utm_campaign=0a890894f8-20160918_LateLateBell9_16_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ef00e8f50e-0a890894f8-71635837&mc_cid=0a890894f8&mc_eid=ebbe04a807

Julian Heilig reviews the failure of “reform” efforts. https://cloakinginequity.com/2018/03/05/what-instead-reframing-the-debate-about-charter-schools-teach-for-america-and-high-stakes-testing/

An article in the Conversation blog explains how big bets on “reforms” have failed to produce results and caused major collateral damage. https://theconversation.com/why-big-bets-on-educational-reform-havent-fixed-the-us-school-system-92327

Matt DiCarlo comments on the CREDO report on school closures finding little benefit from closing schools.http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/theory-and-practice-school-closures

Overall, then, this study illustrates the fact, which is obvious but still important to emphasize, that closing schools is very risky and not even close to the guarantee that a few diehard advocates sometimes imply. Certainly, there are at least some schools that, despite adequate time and resources to try and improve, remain dysfunctional enough that they should be closed for performance-related reasons. It would be absurd to argue otherwise (though there may be far fewer than some think). The problem is identifying them in a fair and rigorous manner. And we have done a very poor job of that so far.

Diane Ravitch reports on parents in Florida pushing back against privatization efforts https://dianeravitch.net/2018/03/10/florida-parents-push-back-against-privatization/ and the huge exodus of teachers from Tulsa public schools due to lack of engaging “build and support” efforts and low salaries. https://dianeravitch.net/2018/03/05/tulsa-teacher-turnover-spiked-to-35-in-last-two-years/

Tom Ultican offers a powerful warning on the destructive effects of  “privatization” of public schools. https://tultican.com/2018/02/22/destroy-public-education-dpe-for-dummies/

A Daniel Koretz article in American Educator about the problems with test-driven accountability and what to do about it. https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2017-2018/koretz   The article is drawn from his book The Testing Charade.

Jay Greene provides evidence on the disconnect between test results and later life outcomes. https://jaypgreene.com/2016/11/05/evidence-for-the-disconnect-between-changing-test-scores-and-changing-later-life-outcomes/

Diane Ravitch reports on an achievement district in North Carolina that failed before it started. https://dianeravitch.net/2018/03/26/north-carolina-opportunity-school-district-fails-before-it-begins/

The effects of teacher evaluation schemes have been overwhelmingly negative. http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2018/03/teacher-evaluation-plus-or-minus.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FORjvzd+%28CURMUDGUCATION%29

Article questions whether “personalized learning” works. https://www.marketplace.org/2018/03/12/education/does-tech-designed-personalized-learning-benefit-students

Proficiency based learning a bust in Maine. http://www.themainewire.com/2018/03/proficiency-based-education-failing-maine-students/

Brookings report asks, Why is accountability primarily about teachers? https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-is-accountability-always-about-teachers/

A humorous aside—Steven Colbert demolishes Betsy DeVos’s interview on 60 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKPIae1_LYw&feature=youtu.be

While there is research that SAT and ACT tests predict success in colleges https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-truth-about-the-sat-and-act-1520521861 a report by Achieve argues that there are major problems using them for high school accountability. https://www.achieve.org/college-admissions-tests-accountability

Fact Sheet and Talking Points on the GOP/Trump Tax Bill 2.0 March 6th, 2018

 

Most current arguments against the bill characterize it as a $1.5 trillion tax cut. The tax bill is a much more massive shift than $1.5 trillion–that’s just what is being borrowed (and more recent government analysis now pegs that number at $2.3 trillion) and doesn’t include the net taxes of approximately $1 trillion on middle and working class families in the bill. These taxes are necessary to pay for the approximately $2.8 trillion which under EPI’s analysis is what the top 1% and corporations receive over the decade.

 

The argument that the country borrowed $1.5 trillion (now 50% more) which  primarily benefits the wealthy—is not a bad argument and is somewhat resonating with the public. A more powerful indictment of the bill is that in addition to increasing the debt by $1.5 trillion to pay for a huge unneeded tax cut for the wealthiest families and corporations,  the remaining 99% in the aggregate not only eventually lose any initial tax relief but are then forced to kick in another $1 trillion by having their taxes raised to pay for that windfall. Add to that point, the trillions of dollars in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, infrastructure, scientific and medical research, and support programs cuts proposed in Trump’s budget and by Republican leadership to offset the borrowing and you have a 1, 2, 3 knockout punch.

 

Below is a more detailed analysis on how these amounts were figured.

Here is a typical comment from Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute. The reason that Donald Trump is going back on a key campaign promise―to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid―is that he wants to pay for his $1.5 trillion tax handout, which mostly benefits the richest 1% and wealthy corporations.  The tax bill is a much more massive shift than $1.5 trillion–that’s just what is being borrowed (and that has since been increased to $2.3 trillion of borrowing) and doesn’t include the net taxes of estimated $1 trillion on middle and working class families in the bill which are necessary to pay for the approximately $2.8 trillion which under EPI’s analysis is what the top 1% and corporations receive over the decade. 

Over the next decade the bill cuts taxes by $3.9 trillion, $2.8 of it going to the wealthiest 1% and corporations paid for by borrowing $1.5 trillion and  raising $1 trillion of taxes from working and middle class families. According to the CBO there are $5.2 trillion cuts during the next decade. Corporate loophole closings of $1.3 leaves a net $3.9 trillion of tax relief.  Extrapolating from EPI’s institutes findings  approximately $2.8 trillion of that is split between the top 1% and corporations (initially 60% goes to the top 1% and by the end of the decade 83% is for our wealthiest families and corporations for an average of 71%). That leaves $1.1 trillion for individual cuts.

The $3.9 trillion in total cuts are paid for, according to the CBO, by borrowing $1.5 trillion (now 50% higher), raising individual taxes or eliminating individual deductions for $2.2 trillion (by eliminating the personal deduction, changing the inflation rate, eliminating state and local tax deduction—mainly hitting upper-middle class voters–, and eliminating miscellaneous deductions) and cutting Obamacare by $314 billion. If your subtract the $1.1 trillion cuts going to individuals from their increased taxes, that leaves a net increase in taxes to individuals (the 99%) of $1 trillion over the decade. In short, to pay for most of the $2.8 trillion tax cuts to our wealthiest families and corporations the country needs to borrow a trillion and a half dollars to $2.3 trillion and tax the 99% of families another trillion.

 

The use of the  $1.5 trillion which represents only the borrowing part of the bill to describe the magnitude of the cuts is highly misleading and masks the much more extensive cuts and the large shift in who pays. It should be obvious that the using the $1.5 trillion borrowing is not enough to pay for the $2.8 trillion cuts for the wealthiest 1% and necessitates an additional net $1 trillion subsidies over the decade from those lower on the income spectrum. This analysis does not include the additional cuts of trillions of dollars in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, infrastructure, scientific and medical research, and support programs proposed in Trump’s budget and by Republican leadership which the EPI newsletter chronicles.

Most of the present arguments against the GOP/Trump tax bill characterize it as a $1.5 trillion tax cut which was borrowed and which  primarily benefits the wealthy—not a bad argument. A more powerful indictment of the bill is that in addition to increasing the debt by $1.5 trillion to pay for a huge unneeded tax cut for the wealthiest families and corporations,  the remaining 99% in the aggregate not only eventually lose any initial tax relief but are  then  forced to kick in another $1 trillion by having their taxes raised to pay for that windfall.

Below is an email to Seth Hanlon of the Center for American Progress as part of an on-going discussion on this issue. Somebody has to step up and clarify this point. I’ve also attached and included a set of talking points  and would appreciate your feedback on their accuracy. If you have some time to call, please contact me at 415-383-8680. Bill Honig

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:38 PM

To: shanlon@americanprogress.org

Subject: Rationale for not using the figure of $1.5 trillion for the cost of the tax cut

Why the GOP/Trump tax should not be described as a $1.5 trillion tax cut.

Seth, you are right that some of the tax cuts are neutralized by offsetting tax increases. But the net amount of $1.5 trillion for the decade which people are using which is equal to what is borrowed will not by itself pay for the large cuts to the extremely wealthy and thus will require an additional net $1 trillion subsidies from those lower on the income spectrum.

Using CBO figures there are $5.2 trillion of cuts for the next decade. In the corporate sector there is an off-setting $1.3 trillion of tax increases and loophole closings etc. so that leaves $3.9 trillion of cuts. It is legitimate to use the total net corporate figure because, even though some companies benefit and some lose, the corporate sector’s relief is lowered by $1.3 trillion. It is not fair to use the same logic for the individual sector because the benefits for individuals are highly skewed to rich families while the tax increases primarily hit the middle and working classes. This results in a pronounced shift of the tax burden from lower and middle income families to pay for the large amount of high income and corporate cuts which are substantially more than the $1.5 being borrowed.

Here is how I figured it. CBO figures state that the $3.9 trillion dollars in cuts are paid for by borrowing $1.5 trillion, raising individual taxes or eliminating individual deductions for $2.2 trillion (by eliminating the personal deduction, changing the inflation rate, eliminating state and local tax deduction—mainly hitting upper-middle class voters–, and eliminating miscellaneous deductions) and cutting Obamacare by $314 billion.

EPI finds that initially 60%  of the cuts  go to the top 1% (individual and corporate ownership) which grows to 83% by the end of a decade. For purposes of argument let’s assume that we average those percentages so that over the decade 71% of the relief goes to the top wealthy families. 71% of  $3.9 trillion is about $2.8 trillion for the top families and corporations (the remaining 99% of families receive $1.1 trillion) So, even after borrowing $1.5 trillion by increasing the debt to pay for a part of the $2.8 trillion provided to the wealthy, that still leaves a shortfall of $1.3 trillion which ends up being almost all paid for by the tax increases on working and middle class families.  While $1.1 trillion of the $2.1 trillion tax increases on individuals can be legitimately netted out because that is the amount of cuts going to individuals ($3.9T total cuts minus $2.8 to the 1%), the remaining $1 trillion of tax increases is used to pay for most of the outstanding amount of the super-wealthy’s large tax cuts. This means that during the decade any tax relief for the 99% gets wiped out by these tax increases and in aggregate those families are in the hole for an additional $1 trillion dollars.

Since there were some assumptions, the actual numbers may be off a little but Isn’t this analysis substantially correct? Most of the present arguments against the GOP/Trump tax bill characterize it as a $1.5 trillion tax cut which was borrowed and which  primarily benefits the wealthy—not a bad argument. A more powerful indictment of the bill is that in addition to increasing the debt by $1.5 trillion to pay for a huge unneeded tax cut for the wealthiest families and corporations,  the remaining 99% in the aggregate not only eventually lose any initial tax relief but are  then  forced to kick in another $1 trillion by having their taxes raised to pay for that windfall.

GOP/Trump Bill Talking Points

The GOP/Trump tax bill is a ten-year $3.9 trillion tax cut which overwhelmingly benefits the top 1% of families and corporations. It is paid for by borrowing $1.5 trillion indebting your children, raising taxes on middle and working class families by $2.1 trillion and cutting medical services under Obamacare by $314 billion.

(The net tax increase to the bottom 99% of families is about $1 trillion over the decade after deducting what the EPI estimates is $1.1 trillion in tax cuts to those families during the same period—the top 1% get $2.8 trillion in tax cuts. Of course, some families in the 99% get more relief and some get more taxes. At the end of the decade the individual relief is phased out, the corporate cuts are permanent and most of the tax increases on individuals stay.)

Republicans argue that theirs is a “middle class” tax bill. Don’t believe it. For every dollar you get from the GOP/Trump tax bill, the super-wealthy (the top 1%) initially get $150 which grows to over $500 after a decade while over half of everyone else’s taxes go up. That’s not fair. It’s not right. Or to put it another way, the average tax cut for the top 1% is $150,000, the average cut for everyone else is around $900 skewed to richer families so that a family making between $40-50,000 receives just over $400.

Those that passed the tax bill made a choice to provide almost all the tax breaks to the super-wealthy. They could have cut your payroll taxes, not raised taxes on the middle and working classes, or invested in rebuilding America creating jobs, improving safety, and producing economic growth. Eliminating the tax breaks for the top 1% would have doubled your tax cuts.

The GOP/Trump tax cut bill is a much more massive shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-class and low income families than reported–essentially borrowing from the future, taxing the working classes, and cutting needed services to finance an unnecessary tax cut for the wealthy who are already living high on the hog and receiving an unprecedented share of post-tax income. Republicans in congress are already planning to drastically cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, medical and support services, rebuilding roads and bridges,and medical and scientific research to pay for their giveaway to the rich.

Donald Trump’s budget would cut more than a trillion dollars from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and trillions more from education, food stamps, infrastructure spending and more. Tell Congress to reject a budget that hurts working families just to pay for tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

Supporters of the tax bill’s huge windfall to corporations claimed that the companies would share with their workers. They haven’t. Estimates are that so far $6 billion has gone to workers (mostly in the form on one-time bonuses which often replace normal wage increases) and $171 billion has gone to shareholders and buybacks—a mere 3% for workers and 97% for stockholders and executives. Two-thirds of stocks are owned by the top 1%; and 35% of shareholders are foreigners.

Don’t’ fall for the transparent “bait and switch” of the GOP/Trump tax bill. They threw you a bone of some initial tax cuts as a distraction to mask the huge windfall going to the ultra-wealthy and corporations. After ten years your cuts disappear, most of you will experience tax increases, while the corporate tax breaks are permanent.

Do the wealthy really need such a large tax break so that they can buy another mansion, a bigger yacht or jet, throw another party, buy another designer outfit, or pad their bank accounts while tens of millions of families living paycheck to paycheck receive a pittance or get taxed? Republican mega-rich donors must think so because they drove the whole perverted process by which the tax bill was passed.

Designed and Developed by Pointline.net