exclusive

‘I think that’s blood money’: Arne Duncan pushed charters to reject funds from Trump admin if budget cuts approved

PHOTO: Kayleigh Skinner

For left-of-center education reformers, the proposed Trump budget amounted to a devil’s bargain.

They could support the budget plan, which would give hundreds of millions of dollars to charter schools. But they would have to do so knowing it slashed education spending across the board, including money meant for poor students.

Around 25 leaders talked over the dilemma at a previously unreported meeting on March 16 — coincidentally, the same day the initial budget plan was released. There, former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan made a provocative suggestion: charter leaders should refuse to accept federal money designated for charter schools if Trump’s cuts to education went through.

Duncan called those funds “blood money,” according to two attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was intended to be private.

The meeting, originally called to discuss the broader question of how progressive education reform should survive in the age of Trump and the new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, points to the widening fault lines within that movement.

The gathering included another former education secretary, John King, as well as leaders of groups such as Teach for America and Democrats for Education Reform and from the Achievement First and Uncommon charter networks.

Duncan declined to speak about the meeting, but he reiterated his view to Chalkbeat in an interview.

“If [DeVos] is cutting money for traditional public schools and putting money into charters … I’ve told them not to take the money,” said Duncan. “I think that’s blood money.”

“We all [have] got to be thinking about not just the kids we serve directly, but all kids,” he said.

The deep cuts proposed by the administration are not seen as likely to make it through Congress; a House budget bill released last month would reduce education spending by $2.4 billion, not by the Trump plan’s $9.2 billion. Duncan emphasized that the cuts — and thus a potential response from charter leaders — are still hypothetical.

Liz Hill, the Department of Education press secretary, sharply criticized Duncan’s suggestion to charter leaders.

“Make no mistake: following this approach would hurt students. It’s an insult to the millions of students and parents benefiting from charter schools, and the millions more on waiting lists trying to get into a school that better meets their needs,” she said in a statement. “It’s especially sad to see such a misguided effort advanced by a former Secretary of Education.”

‘It’s not just about accountability or school choice’

The left-of-center charter school advocates who held sway in the Obama administration have a complicated relationship with DeVos, who backs charter schools but also private-school vouchers and, as a member of the Trump administration, is viewed skeptically by many.

Some, including Success Academy Eva Moskowitz, a former Democratic New York City council member who was briefly considered for education secretary, have praised DeVos. (Moskowitz was not at the March meeting.) Other Democrats, such as Duncan, King and Shavar Jeffries, the president of Democrats For Education Reform, have been far more critical.

The overarching question at the March discussion, organized in part by Jeffries, was how education reformers should respond to the Trump and DeVos administration, including on issues beyond education. (Jeffries declined to comment, saying the meeting was private.)

“There was a broad consensus that we need to expand our view of what it is to be about kids,” said one person present. “It’s not just about accountability or school choice or things like that — it’s also about protecting the civil rights of our children and protecting our immigrant kids.”

This perspective was strongly articulated by John King. (A spokesperson for the Education Trust, where King is now president, declined to comment.)

“There was a sincere tension between people feeling like they’d be abandoning kids if they just joined the general political fight … and a sincere belief that this Trump administration is going to destroy the country and part of that, destroy the lives of many kids,” said the attendee.

There was some disagreement on the issue of school vouchers — DeVos’s signature idea — though few participants were strongly in favor of the policy.

Jonah Edelman, who runs the advocacy group Stand for Children and attended the meeting, would later pen an essay with American Federation for Teachers president Randi Weingarten calling vouchers “bad for kids, public education and our democracy.” (Edelman did not respond to a request for comment.)

‘This funding is vital’

Two attendees said Duncan’s idea of declining federal charter funds received mixed reactions, though most in the room were not charter leaders — that is, those who would have to make the difficult decision not to accept federal money.

“There are some people who wanted to take this more punchy, assertive approach and there were some people … who were less inclined to do that,” one said.

Duncan, for his part, said he had “had that conversation with some charter network leaders” — though he declined to get into specifics — and said the idea was not dismissed out of hand.

“Some people it really made them stop and think, and others I could tell were already thinking along those lines,” he said. “This is my best thinking; they are ultimately going to make their own decisions.”

None of the three high-profile charter networks contacted by Chalkbeat endorsed Duncan’s suggestion. Achievement First, KIPP, and Uncommon have all have previously received millions of dollars from the federal Charter School Program, which supports the expansion of existing charter operators.

Steve Mancini, a spokesperson for KIPP, said CEO Richard Barth was present for part of the March meeting but left before Duncan arrived.

Both Mancini and Barbara Martinez, the chief external officer of Uncommon Schools, emphasized their organizations’ strong opposition to the Trump budget, but declined to take a position on potentially refusing charter school funds.

In a statement, Dacia Toll, who is the president of Achievement First and was at the March meeting, sounded a skeptical note on declining federal dollars, while reiterating her “firm opposition to a federal budget that hurts our students, families, and communities.”

“We, like virtually every school district in this country, will accept federal funding because we depend on this money to provide our students, especially our highest-need students, with the services they need,” Toll said, noting that Achievement First won a multi-year federal grant in 2015. “This funding is vital.”

National charter school groups have tried to walk a careful line with the new administration. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools praised the additional money for charter schools requested by the Trump administration, though criticized other aspects of the budget.

Meanwhile, at the meeting, frustration with the Trump budget was palpable. Many present believed that there needed to be a firm and public denunciation of the proposal.

Two weeks after the meeting, on March 29, USA Today published an op-ed by the heads of Achievement First, KIPP and Uncommon Schools and endorsed by a number of other charter school leaders.

“We cannot support the president’s budget as proposed,” the op-ed read, “and we are determined to do everything in our power to work with Congress and the administration to protect the programs that are essential to the broader needs of our students, families and communities.”

Gun Sense

A Colorado advocate for arming teachers thinks a new federal proposal is misplaced

Jerry Walker, a high school principal from Oklahoma, fires his handgun on a gun range during a training session at Flatrock Training Center. (Photo by Andy Cross/The Denver Post)

Should the federal government make money available for schools to arm teachers, it would be up to each district in Colorado to decide whether to take advantage.

“As a general rule, this would be a local control issue,” said Angelika Schroeder, a Boulder Democrat and the chair of the State Board of Education.

And at least one local advocate for arming teachers said Colorado doesn’t need federal policy for local districts to do what they think is right.

“Nobody is out there asking the federal government to buy me a gun,” said Laura Carno, who brought the FASTER training program, which is intended to prepare school personnel to respond to active shooter situations, to Colorado and supports allowing trained teachers to have firearms in school.

The New York Times on Wednesday reported that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was considering making federal money available for schools to buy firearms for teachers and train them to use them.

This would be a major departure from current policy. The school safety bill that Congress passed in March explicitly prohibited using the money for firearms.

According to the New York Times, the federal Department of Education is looking at using the Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant program, which contains no direct ban on using the money for weapons. The report cites “multiple people with knowledge of the plan.” The program’s stated purpose is to “provide all students with access to a well-rounded education, improve school conditions for student learning, and improve the use of technology in order to improve the academic achievement and digital literacy for all students.”

Large portions of the education community quickly condemned the idea, and an unnamed Trump administration official disputed the report on Thursday in comments to CNN. The official suggested that DeVos wants Congress to weigh in.

The official response from the Department of Education was vague and left the door open.

Liz Hill, a DOE spokesperson, told CNN that “the department is constantly considering and evaluating policy issues, particularly issues related to school safety. The secretary nor the department issues opinions on hypothetical scenarios.”

The Colorado Department of Education gets about $10.5 million each year in Title IV grant money and distributes it to school districts based on a formula. A department spokesperson said the state doesn’t have discretion over how districts use the money, so long as they comply with federal regulations.

It’s not clear yet whether those federal regulations will be interpreted or expanded to allow for the purchase of firearms.

Schroeder said she doesn’t anticipate the state board taking a position on something over which it doesn’t have discretion, but if it did, it would likely be a split vote. She declined to offer a personal opinion on the idea but referred to a tense discussion earlier this year as the state board approved standards for health and physical education.

Republican board members wanted the standards to include a reference to the benefits of gun ownership, though they ultimately ceded to their Democratic colleagues, who opposed the reference, without forcing a vote.

Schroeder said she doesn’t think a lot of districts would want to use grant money to buy firearms for teachers. She said that arming security guards or hiring more school resource officers would be more popular, though much more expensive and not envisioned in the proposal described by the New York Times.

Carno said the FASTER training, which originated in Ohio after the Sandy Hook shooting, has proved popular, and she’ll have offered four classes by the end of 2018. But she doesn’t like the suggestions that have come out of the Trump administration, including one earlier this year that teachers be offered bonuses for carrying weapons or this more recent idea of using federal money to pay for firearms.

The educators who go through training are generally people who already own and carry concealed weapons in their personal lives. They want to own their own weapon that fits their needs, and they don’t want extra money to carry their weapon in the classroom, she said.

Carno said grants to offset the cost of training programs would be useful, though she’d prefer that money to come from the state rather than the federal government. Tuition for the three-day FASTER training course costs $1,000, and the group raises money privately to cover the cost for many participants.

More broadly, she doesn’t think this is a situation where the federal government should be setting policy.

“I don’t want the federal government making curriculum decisions nationwide,” she said. “I don’t want them making policy about firearms in schools nationwide.”

Many Colorado school districts strongly oppose arming teachers and have supported student walkouts in protest of gun violence. Others have made the decision to arm staff members.

No one tracks how many Colorado school districts allow teachers to carry weapons. Earlier this year, The Denver Post found at least 30 school districts and charter schools that were willing to state publicly that they did so. Many of them are small, rural districts in communities where gun ownership is common and law enforcement is far away. There are no state standards for training teachers on using weapons.

The Peyton district in El Paso County is the most recent to take up the question of arming teachers, with a vote expected in September.

While Carno doesn’t think the ideas that have come out of the Trump administration are quite right, she does think they’ve shifted the conversation toward more guns in schools.

“Previously, the national conversation was about gun control rather than stopping bad guys,” she said.

 

color blind

The feds are discouraging districts from using race to integrate schools. A new study points to a potential downside

PHOTO: Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post
(Photo by Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post)

The Trump administration recently made waves by removing Obama-era guidance that offered ways for school districts to consider students’ race in order to diversify and integrate schools. The rollback could have harmful consequences for students, according to a new study.

The paper offers a test case of the rule, and it suggests that move — at least if it affects any districts’ policies — could hurt academic outcomes, including college enrollment, by making racial segregation worse, although the study only focuses on a single district.

“There’s a general sense that student outcomes are going down in these schools that are more racially segregated from these race-neutral admissions,” said Jason Cook, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh and author of the study.

The paper, which has not been formally peer reviewed, focuses on an anonymous urban school district that, after a federal investigation in the early 2000s, was forced to end race-conscious admissions to its coveted magnet middle schools. To maintain some diversity in its student body, the district ran separate lotteries for black and non-black (largely white) students. After the federal mandate, though, the district put all students in one lottery, and in turn the schools became notably more segregated — rising from about 77 percent to 85 percent black.

After the policy from 2003 to 2007, the research finds that the spike in segregation corresponded to a decrease in college enrollment for black students by a couple percentage points. There was also an indication of modest declines in test scores in sixth grade and in high school graduation rates, though these results weren’t statistically significant for black students. There was no clear impact on 10th-grade test scores.

These effects aren’t huge, but neither was the increase in segregation, and the results generally point in a negative direction.

Separately, the paper shows that in general magnet schools in that district were less effective when they were made up of predominantly black students, perhaps because they have a higher concentration of struggling students and recruit lower-quality teachers.

The paper also shows that as schools became more predominantly black, more of their white students left, creating a vicious cycle that intensified segregation. “Racial segregation is self-perpetuating,” concludes Cook.

The district in question did not attempt to use race-neutral measures, like poverty status, to promote integration. Research, though, has shown that such approaches are less effective for achieving racial integration than considering race directly.

There is one particularly important caveat to the results, though: The policy change meant that more black students had access to in-demand, high-performing magnet schools. That is, in changing the lottery to stop what amounted to preferences for non-black students, the shift increased segregation but it also meant that a small number of black students had access to top schools they otherwise might not have.

That remains a key point of contention in other cities debating integration. In Hartford, Connecticut, for instance, a longstanding court decision has prioritized the creation of integrated magnets — done in part by giving white students from the suburbs preference in admissions to magnet schools in the city. After a local newspaper series looked into this practice, critics said the system was effectively shutting out local students from the best schools; supporters contended that the rules are necessary to prevent resegregation of those schools.

The latest study can’t answer knotty philosophical questions about how to divvy up seats in coveted schools, but it does suggest each side has a point — admissions rules do, by definition, keep some kids out, but removing those rules can lead to unintended consequences, including making those schools less effective.

Rucker Johnson, a professor at the University of California Berkeley who has studied school segregation and is writing a book on the topic, pointed out that the latest study has limits. “That particular paper is focused on one specific district, so even if it’s done really well, you still would want to consider whether [it applies in] other districts,” he said.

But Johnson said the findings are largely consistent with past research including his own, which focused on school desegregation efforts in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s. “For African-Americans we saw significant impacts,” he said. “High school graduation rates increased, college attendance and college completion rates increased, the type of colleges they attended were more selective, …[there were] increases in earnings, reductions in annual incidence of poverty.”

More recent research has shown that the resegregation of districts led to dips in high school graduation rates among black and Hispanic students. A school integration program on the San Francisco Peninsula caused jumps in test scores and college enrollment (though also arrest rates for non-violent crimes).

In recent decades, as court-mandated integration orders have ended, race-based segregation has gotten worse or held steady, depending on how it’s measured; income-based stratification has consistently worsened. The recent move by the Trump administration is not legally binding, and only a small number of districts have voluntary race-conscious integration policies in place.

Johnson, for his part, fears that defeatism has overtaken the urgency to integrate schools. Some people, Johnson said, have the mindset that “we can’t socially engineer integration.”

“The reality is we did socially engineer segregation,” he said. “It would be natural to understand that we might have to re-engineer that through some intentional policy.”