Preliminary Look at Transfer of Money to ?

 

 

 

     Let's recall the push to 'improve' public schools by focusing on measurement of student achievement via testing. The testing movement has been rife with problem, with schools being closed and transferred to private entities to run. Recall the punitive measures for public schools whose student achievement scores did meet 'expectations' of ever increasing scores. Now, let's recall the ever-increasing number of charter schools who operate under the guise of being 'public' schools, receiving public tax dollars, but having the luxury of being free of many of the mandates that public schools must adhere to. Similar to the public schools, some charter schools' (and private schools) achievement test scores meet unreasonable political expectations and some do not. The only federal voucher school program is located in DC. Their student test scores indicate that after a year in private school, voucher recipients' achievement test scores were worse when compared to scores of student who continued enrollment in the DC public schools. I have written previous posts about how research shows time after time, that student achievement scores are related to socioeconomic conditions, ie students from low income backgrounds USUALLY have lower achievement test scores regardless of the kind of school they are in and students from middle and upper income backgrounds USUALLY have higher achievement test scores. The political cry to improve public education has been an attempt to rewrite the story of public schools as Republicans have tried for years to ruin them to accomplish their goal of segregating schools along lines of income and race.

     Enter 2017 with a new president and education secretary. Trump has vowed to reduce the federal government's role in public education. DeVos has repeatedly favored private and charter schools, ignoring the research showing they offer little difference in benefit to children, with some research showing their is actually a regression in achievement. The difference, however,  does lie in choice. Together, it appears, Trump and DeVos will attempt to shift significant dollars away from public schools and transfer it to private and charter schools, through the use of vouchers to parents. The story goes like this: parents choose the school they would like their child to attend; the public school relinquishes the federal, state and local dollars per child for each child who chooses to attend a private or charter school. All in the name of school choice. Here is Maine public schools have been besieged with continuous budget reductions/cost shifting which will only be exacerbated by further reductions of federal, state, and local dollars per child times however many children claim a voucher.

     In reality, that number of dollars in the form of a voucher hardly covers the cost of tuition to a private school. Here in Maine a sampling of private schools show a tuition range from $58,000 to $57,500 to $30,555 to $38,000 to $28,000 per year for a high school student. There are fees in addition to tuition. A voucher will not cover the cost of a private school tuition and fees. Who will be able to supplement the voucher amount to make up the difference? Most families will be hard pressed to do so and some families will just not be able to achieve that. The end result will be students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds will populate private schools. Foreign students whose families will pay a higher tuition to attend American private schools will also populate the private schools. And a few students whose families are able to 'borrow' money for tuition and fees and/or qualify for financial aid from the private school. End result:  private schools whose student population is segregated along social class (higher income) and public schools whose student population is segregated along social class (lower income).  The exact goal the Republicans have been trying to push through for years.

     A second Republican goal has been to reduce the size of the federal government and specifically reduce/eliminate the role of the federal government in education. Republicans have also said education should be locally controlled and that states have a role in setting education policy for their states. Question: will the public education of children from wealthy communities be equal to the public education of children from less wealthy communities? I think we all the know the answer.

     So Trump and DeVos now embark on presenting their proposed education budget to Congress. Their budget that slashes $9.2 BILLION in funds for higher education (ex. funding for college work-study programs would be cut in half) and public schools K-12 (ex. transfer to private and charter schools from public schools about $400 MILLION plus another $1 BILLION to require public schools to have policies that favor choice programs). Let's hope that Congress is much more responsible to the American public. This amount of transfer of public funds will result in schools segregated along income and racial lines and will continue the erosion of public schools.

 

Where Will the Money Come From?

 

 

     The fourth wealthiest man in the world, Warren Buffet, has added his voice to the healthcare debate in this country. He commented that healthcare costs have risen much faster in the US than the rest of the world and will increase much more if the Republican plan approved this week is allowed to take effect. He also said that his own federal income taxes would have been 17% less had this law been in effect. "It's a huge tax cut for guys for me. And when there's a tax cut, either the deficit goes up or they get the taxes from somebody else."  We all know the deficit is loathed by Republicans and they spew garbage about reducing it every chance they get. So, where does that leave the Republicans to find the money to cover the loss as they repeal most of the taxes that paid for the Affordable Care Act?  Millions of Americans will lose their insurance because the subsidies will no longer be available to them and they will not be able to afford the predicted sky rocketing cost of insurance. Hospitals will lose millions of dollars (and perhaps continue to go out of business) as their unreimbursed costs of charity care increases. These unreimbursed charity costs will drive up insurance rates for the rest of us. More hospitals will merge and/or close, making access to hospital care harder to access just as more people will delay healthcare until a health crisis sends them to hospital emergency rooms for the most expensive care.

 

So, Trump, and other wealthy individuals, will benefit by seeing their taxes decrease. They will be able to afford health insurance. (Along with members of Congress who exempted their insurance plans from the proposed revision of the health plans they say will be so good for the rest of the American public.) Most insurance companies will continue to earn billions in profits. All for me, none for you. What a pitiful model of selfishness. And here is the latest GOP quote that echoes this selfishness as well as stupidity and greed and other narcissistic traits all too common today:

 

          At a recent town meeting style constituent meeting, Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador, a                        

Republican, had the stupid audacity and selfishness to say, "Nobody dies because

they don't have access to health care."

 

Well, a 2009 study published by the American Journal of Public Health prior to when the Affordable Care Act became law, found that 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance.

 

 

 





 Wise Words From A Woman

 

 

     Janet Yellen, the Federal Reserve Chairwoman, recently offered advice for improving our economy. Will President Trump listen? Will Governor LePage listen? She said women entering the workforce in the mid-20th century were "a major factor in America's prosperity." She went on to say, "Evidence suggests that many women remain unable to achieve their goals.  If these obstacles persist, we will squander the potential of many of our citizens and incur a substantial loss to the productive capacity of our economy at a time when the aging of our population and weak productivity growth are already weighing on economic growth." Recently, she said, women are less likely to hold paying jobs than men. She asserted that to bring more women into the workforce, policies would need to shift to include increasing paid leave, affordable childcare, and flexible work schedules. (New York Times, May 6, 2017: "To Lift Growth, Help Women Go to Work, Fed Chief Says")

     Let's go further and advocate for a livable wage. Equal pay for equal work. Just having a job in a workplace with owners/supervisors who understand the social need for good paying jobs should be part of this discussion. We have all heard these justifications. Let's also highlight that when women work outside the home in minimum paying, less than full-time jobs it is often not enough to support a family. How does this affect children?

     Public schools know all too well how poverty affects children. Most arrive at the threshold of their school years in kindergarten already academically and socially behind their peers. It is difficult for them to 'catch up' with peers who are making strides, growing physically, socially, and cognitively. Not only do they need to catch up, but they fall further behind even as they are working hard to catch up! These same children usually come to school hungry, requiring schools to build nutrition programs that ensure hungry children get fed so they can then pay attention and learn. These same children are likely to require cohesive well developed student support services and either extended school day and/or school year programming to address their learning and social gaps.

     Many schools also offer pre-K programs as a regular part of their K-12 education. Some states encourage pre-K programming.  The Maine Department of Education has encouraged our communities to include pre-K programming in their public schools. Towns and cities who do include pre-K programming receive reimbursement from the state. These schools receive a per pupil reimbursement for each pre-K child enrolled. Some schools understand that early intervention is the best prevention for school dropouts, truancy, and later criminal activity.  The research is abundantly clear that children from low socioeconomic backgrounds benefit from these pre-K programs. These pre-K school programs located within community schools with highly qualified staff close the academic and social gaps experienced by these children. The children arrive in kindergarten prepared to learn and socialize. They are familiar with the school buildings and school staff. School staff are familiar with them. This familiarity is important to very young children. Highly qualified staff and access to learning and social support specialists make a difference in addressing the variety of learning and social needs children have. 

     Speaking of prevention - let's listen to the Federal Reserve Chairwoman and all advocate for workplaces that recognize the need for progressive policies that enable woman to work (AND earn a livable minimum wage).  Our economy will not recover with the continuation of 'trickle down economic' policies and practices.  When more families climb out of poverty, then there will be fewer children living in poverty. Then there will be more children who can happily attend school, well fed and able to learn.





Shameful Politics

 

 

     While many of us held our breath during the first round of Republican calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it became apparent that many Americans have come to rely on this program for affordable and accessible health care coverage. Additionally, even many of whom initially opposed the ACA are now voicing their opposition to the legislation that was passed in the Legislature this week. One must ask what deals were made that persuaded those politicians who opposed it before and why now they think it is good enough to vote for it? Let's hope that more rational heads are at work in the Senate as they offer their proposals.

 

     While I have not read the bill, I have heard that the health plan that has been proposed for us citizens is not the health plan that members of Congress and their staff will enjoy. Why, buried within this bill (if reporting is accurate), is there an exemption for the health plan of Congress and their staff? Why are they privileged to be able to be immune from the substantial risks the rest of Americans face? I don't know how they can show their faces in public. Shameful!