To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Left-leaning people who want the charter cap lifted, many who come from outside the state, don the mantle of "reformer" and consider the supposed success of charters, particularly those labeled "high-performing," as a settled matter.
Those folks would no doubt nod in emphatic approval with an op-ed from Times columnist David Leonhardt this weekend who argues that lifting the cap on charters in Massachusetts "would have enormous benefits." More specifically, Leonhardt points to evidence of the positive benefits of a certain type of charter, which he classifies as "high expectations" schools.
Leonhardt's "evidence" of the supposed superiority of these charters is based on a very selective and haphazard reading of the research. For instance, if you bothered to click through to the links he provides to studies from other cities (very few people will), you'll see the studies aren't terribly relevant to his central case that a certain type of charter school has the special sauce to advance the education attainment of chronically low-performing students.
One of the chains he lauds, Match, gets outstanding results for sure, but some of that success is likely due to the school's tendency to cull the ranks of its students every year to whittle each grade level cohort down to ensure only the the best and brightest remain by graduation time.
At least that's the conclusion Mark Weber draws in his analysis. Weber, an experienced classroom teacher and PhD candidate, writes on his personal blog "the "successes" of Boston's charter sector could not fairly be compared to the "failures" of the public schools because the two sectors are educating fundamentally different students. "One indicator of this is the cohort attrition rate: the shrinkage in the size of a cohort that occurs because students leave a school, but are not replaced with new students entering."
Because many of the Boston charters Leonhardt likes don't have to "backfill" seats when students leave because they can't meet the "high expectations" of the school, grade cohorts get distilled down to the best performing students from year to year.
Match is a particularly adept practitioner of the this style of student sorting, Weber finds, where grade cohorts can decline so steeply that in some grade 9 classes, fewer than 20 percent of students remain in grade 12.
But more fundamentally, there are substantial flaws with the basis of Leonhardt's argument for more charters that go beyond an analysis of the statistical data, which all too often are confined to overly narrow metrics of standardized test scores.
First, it's very easy to frame the issue, as he does, from the perspective of how the charter option benefited a single student or family. At some point there has to be some consideration of what expanding supply of charters has on the whole system. How will expanding charters ensure better results for all students? This is where the argument for expanding charters is weakest.
Leonhardt assumes that if the number of charters is allowed to expand, the new charters will replicate the type of Boston charter schools he likes. There's absolutely nothing in the referendum or in existing Massachusetts policy to assure this.
Further, that's a very flawed basis for education policy to begin with. There's not a strong research base to support the idea that improving an entire education system is simply a matter of just taking "what works" in one school and duplicating that over and over.
For instance, the "high expectations" type of charters Leonhardt likes tends to have ultra strict behavior codes and overly prescriptive pedagogy. The percentage of parents who want that form of schooling for their children is likely very low.
It's also overly simplistic to believe the outcomes Match and other high-performing charters are able to obtain can be reduced to something as general as "high expectations." The education process is just way more complicated than that. As Weber writes in another of his posts, "Simply showing that charter school students in Boston get better test scores than similar students in the Boston Public Schools is not, I'm afraid, nearly enough evidence to support lifting the cap."
Second, Leonhardt doesn't take into account the financial impact of expanding charters. The creation of a parallel school system of charters comes at substantial cost and risk to the entire public. That's why credit rating agency Moody's has warned that should Question 2 pass, there is very real danger it will have a negative impact on municipal bond ratings throughout the state. Also, numerous studies show that the growth of charters in a community has significant negative financial consequences to existing public schools. That's why over 30 Massachusetts mayors and over 200 local school committees in the state oppose the referendum.
Finally, like so many folks who ardently promote charter schools, Leonhardt comes at this argument from an elitist point of view that believes one can become an expert on a topic simply by scanning some statistical data and perusing a few studies. That's why his writing drips with contempt for teachers unions, that by the way, are comprised of school teachers who overwhelmingly believe charters, at least as they are currently conceived, endanger not only their profession but also the solvency of public education and the education destinies of our children and communities.
Charter schools fans who are annoyed with those who express concern that charters likely introduce new harms into local school systems and fail at bettering the education attainment of all students have poured almost $22 million into the effort to pass Question 2, according to the Times.
Despite that investment, the Times reporter finds the most recent poll of Massachusetts likely and registered voters showed that 39 percent supported lifting the cap on charters, while 52 percent opposed it.
As my colleague Bill Scher, a Massachusetts resident and voter, observed in an email to me, "If the polls hold up, it will an interesting case study of grassroots organizing beating outside money."
"We all know that our economy is broken. We have seen that elected officials are just failing to do anything about it," said Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of The Fairness Project. "The best way for us to make the changes that impact working Americans immediately is not to wait for politicians to figure this out but for us to support ballot measures that allow voters to speak out."
Thus far, polls in all four states show that voters believe a wage increase is "long overdue and desperately needed," added Schleifer, whose organization helped launch and finance the ballot measures.
"We are confident that when working Americans see raises in their paychecks even before the next President is inaugurated," he said, "the success of these measures will inspire even more ballot initiatives in the coming years."
Arizona Proposition 206
A "yes" vote on Proposition 206, known as the Fair Wages and Healthy Families Initiative, would raise the state's minimum wage from $8.05 to $10 in 2017, and then incrementally to $12 by 2020. It also establishes the right to paid sick time off from employment.
Recent polling by Arizona Republic/Morrison/Cronkite News found that roughly 58 percent of voters support the measure, with 31 opposed, and another 10 percent still undecided.
"Enthusiasm for Proposition 206 has only gotten stronger over the course of this election season," Bill Scheel, campaign manager of Arizona Healthy Families, the organization behind Proposition 206, said in a Wednesday press call. "Over the past three months, we have registered 150,000 new voters. Already, early vote numbers are showing that these Arizonans are crucial to raising wages for nearly a million workers in our state."
The initiative has the support of a number of labor unions, family support groups, as well as the state Democratic party.
"No one who works 40 hours a week should have to live in poverty and decide between buying groceries, medicine, or paying the bills. Raising the minimum wage offers hardworking families the opportunity to put food on the table, care for their children, and creates a better future for our state," said U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-1), who is running against incumbent Sen. John McCain (R) for his seat in the U.S. Senate.
McCain opposes the measure, as do corporate lobby groups and the Chamber of Commerce.
Colorado Amendment 70
Colorado's Amendment 70, an initiated constitutional amendment, would raise the minimum wage from $8.31 to $9.30 per hour in 2017 and then increase it 90 cents each year until it reaches $12.00 in 2020.
September polling found that roughly 58 percent of voters are in support of the measure, while 36 percent are opposed. "We've known all along that Colorado voters support raising the wage to $12 by 2020 and that for many of them, especially lower income voters and women, they are more enthusiastic voters in this election because of our measure," said Patty Kupfer, campaign manager for Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, the organization supporting Amendment 70.
As Kupfer notes, the initiative's primary opponents are industry groups and "large restaurant chains who have an interest in keeping wages low."
Amendment 70 is one of many Colorado ballot measures this year that progressives nationwide are watching, in addition to a measure calling for a single payer healthcare system as well as one that would stiffen requirements for amending the state's constitution, which, as Common Dreams previously reported, "would transfer power away from voters, making the state more vulnerable to powerful interests."
Maine Question 4
Question 4 on the Maine ballot asks voters if they "want to raise the minimum hourly wage of $7.50 to $9 in 2017, with annual $1 increases up to $12 in 2020, and annual cost-of-living increases thereafter?"
A poll conducted between Oct. 20 and Oct. 25 found that 57 percent of Mainers support the wage increase, while just 35 percent oppose it, and eight percent remain undecided. Proponents attribute its wide support to two years of organizing to build grassroots support and "establish a narrative of an economy that can work for everyone, as Mike Tipping, communications director with Mainers for Fair Wages, the organization supporting Question 4, put it in a recent press call.
Noting that the measure has strong support "across every demographic," including among small businesses and restaurants, Tipping said he's "proud to see this enthusiasm translate into more young people voting and more Mainers voting early to raise the minimum wage."
Washington Initiative 1433
The most ambitious of the 2016 ballot efforts, Washington State's Initiative 1433 supports incrementally raising the state's minimum wage from $9.47 to $13.50 by 2020 and mandates that employers offer paid sick leave.
The most recent survey from pollster Stuart Elway found that I-1433 is leading 58 to 31 percent, with 11 percent undecided. The initiative has wide support, and has been endorsed by numerous publications, advocacy organizations, labor groups, and public officials, including Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who last spring tweeted:
In 2014, Seattle became the first major city to approve a $15 minimum wage.