Dear Colleague,
The ongoing discussion about whether or not we really
need to spend more money on education has taken an interesting turn here in
California. As an editorial in The Mercury News explains,
It’s been six years since California lawmakers
revamped the state funding formula for local schools.
It was heralded by then-Gov. Jerry Brown as a way to
simplify K-12 education spending and close the state’s achievement gap by
giving more money to districts that disproportionately serve needy kids.
Since then, state spending on schools has increased
about 50%. But, as state Auditor Elaine Howle explained in a troubling report
last month, there is no way to track whether money is being spent as it should.
School officials across California have co-mingled
billions of dollars of state money that was supposed to be used for children
who fall into one of three categories: English learners, low-income or in
foster care.
Howle’s findings confirm what critics have been saying
for years: Rather than specifically helping needy kids, the money has simply
been used to boost general spending.
To learn more, go here.
And on the subject of money, American Enterprise
Institute scholar Andrew Biggs has some thoughts on teacher pay – specifically
the gap between the salaries of teachers in the public v. private sector.
On top of public-school teachers’ salary advantage,
Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate that public-school teachers receive
more than twice as much in benefits as those in private schools, with
private-school teachers getting less-generous health coverage and 401(k)-type
retirement accounts rather than traditional pensions, whose rising costs are
squeezing public-school districts nationwide.
The question is why parents with money to spend on
education aren’t spending it on their children’s teachers. If higher teacher
pay produced significantly better educational outcomes, private schools would
pay teachers much more than public schools, rather than much less. These are
the same parents who pay for tutors, after-school enrichment programs, and
summer internships, but better-paid — and presumably better-qualified —
teachers don’t seem to be a priority.
To continue reading this provocative piece, go here.
Senate Bill 673 is still alive in California. The bill
would make it easier for parents to access the sex ed curriculum and give them
the opportunity to opt their child out of lessons they find objectionable. The
bill has two main provisions:
It requires school districts that teach
elementary-age comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention to put that
curriculum online for parental review.
It restores the right of parents of
elementary-age students (TK-6th grade) to opt their children into comprehensive
sexual health and HIV prevention education courses, rather than passively opt
their children out.
SB 673 next has to clear the Senate
Education Committee, which will hear the bill in January.
To learn more, go here.
On the political front, the Democratic candidates
continue to align their education positions with the teachers unions. After trashing
charter schools, Elizabeth Warren went after vouchers, but got caught in a lie.
She maintained that her own kids went to a public schools, but an exposé by Cato Institute scholar Corey
DeAngelis revealed that Warren sent her son Alex to an expensive private school in
the 1980s. Warren also used to
be ardently pro-school choice. “Fully funded vouchers would relieve parents
from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting
themselves to escape those schools,” Warren wrote in her 2004 book, “The Two
Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke.”
Cory Booker is no different. As a sop
to the unions, he began hedging on charters in May, and railed against vouchers
in an interview with The Washington Post in September. In fact,
as Newark mayor, Booker was famously pro-charter. Moreover, he once served on
the board of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s pro-voucher group, the
American Federation for Children, which he deemed an “incredible organization.”
So maybe he evolved, right? Well, not
exactly. He is currently a co-sponsor of a Senate bill to reauthorize
Washington D.C.’s school voucher program, legislation he signed onto in
February after announcing his bid for president.
To learn more, go here.
Also, on school choice, a new
poll by Real Clear Opinion Research posed the question:
School choice gives parents the right
to use the tax dollars designated for their child’s education to send their
child to the public or private school which best serves their needs. Generally
speaking, would you say you support or oppose the concept of school choice?
A whopping 68% said they support school
choice and just 22% were against. Importantly, the numbers varied little across
sub-groups: 69% of 18-24 year-olds were in favor as were 68% of 55-64
year-olds; 68% of whites were in favor, while 71% of blacks supported the
concept.
A survey conducted by Beck Research, a
Democratic polling firm, found very similar results. Released in January, the
poll reveals that nationally 73% of Latinos and 67% of
African-Americans back “the broad concept of school choice,” as do 75% of
millennials.
To see all the results of the poll, go here.
On the union front, Mike Antonucci asks if the recent
strike in Chicago really benefitted teachers. He compares the union demands
with what was offered by the school district, and then looks at the language in
the new contract.
CTU ultimately accepted the fact-finder’s recommendation.
Health insurance. The district had unilaterally raised premiums by 0.8 percent earlier this year, but the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint. Under the agreement, the district rescinded the increase and the union rescinded the complaint. Otherwise, the fact-finder’s recommendation for premiums was accepted by both sides: no increases for the first three years, a quarter-percent increase in the fourth year and a half-percent increase in the fifth year.
To read on, go here.
Also, concerning unions, the so-called “clawback” cases
continue to be filed. Perhaps the highest profile litigation comes via Mark
Janus, lead plaintiff in the 2018 case that outlawed mandatory union fees for
all public employees.
Janus is still locked in a legal battle, seeking to
recover the thousands of dollars that the union forcefully collected from his
paychecks before the 2018 decision. A panel of judges on the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals recently ruled that unions don't have to refund dues collected
in compliance with the pre-Janus legal statutes. Janus has appealed that
judgment, asking for an en banc review to be carried out from every judge on
the circuit.
"The Supreme Court agrees with me—the union was
wrong to take money out of my paycheck without my permission," Janus said
in a statement. "The union knew what it was doing was wrong. The union
shouldn't get to profit from behavior that the Court recognized as
unconstitutional."
The union did not return request for comment about the
case.
Janus's current court battle could have significant
ramifications on the bottom lines of unions. If AFSCME Council 31 is forced to
retroactively return money it took from Janus's paychecks, it would strengthen
the cases of dozens of class-action lawsuits filed by workers across the
country, according to Patrick Semmens, a spokesperson for the National Right to
Work Foundation. The foundation is representing employees in more than a dozen
lawsuits that could force labor groups to refund $120 million of past dues and
fees to workers. Workers in several other states and cities across the country
filed similar suits.
To learn more, go here.
Anyone wishing to make a year-end
donation to CTEN can do so very simply through a personal check or PayPal. As a non-profit, we exist and operate
only through the generosity and support of people like you. (And to those of
you who already regularly donate – our heartfelt thanks!)
It has been another
exciting year for CTEN, and we look forward to an even more vigorous 2020. We
are grateful for your interest and involvement, and wish you and your families
the happiest of holidays. See you next year!
Sincerely,
Larry Sand
CTEN President