Crusading against evil since ...
2651 stories
·
1 follower

'Twas the Shutdown Before Christmas

1 Comment

‘Twas the night before shutdown, when all through the House

Not a member was stirring, not even a mouse

The funding bill was hung around everyone’s neck with care,

In hopes that a solution would soon be there;

Republicans were nestled all snug under Trump’s wing

While visions of cutting kids lunch money they all did all sing;

And Trump in his comb-over and Musk with his rocket

Had just settled in for tax cuts on the docket

When over the Capitol steps there rose a full moon

Under it were Democrats singing a different tune

Away to his X Musk flew like a flash

To list government programs he wanted to trash

Trump soon joined in with a post on Truth Social

Lies flying everywhere, boy was he boastful

When what to his lying eyes did appear

But Nancy Pelosi ready to interfere

Trump posted quickly without a glitch

I thought you broke your hip, you old commie witch

I made a special trip, Nancy called, my vote is in need

To ensure your raid on democracy will not succeed

And she whistled and shouted and called them by name

Now Jeffries, now Lieu, now Clark and Judy Chu!

Come Gallego, come Swalwell, come Lee and Eshoo!

Here Loftgren, here Shiff, and Sherman and Stanton

On Moulton, on Omar, on Davis, and Landsman!

To the House floor! To stand up and stand tall!

Now dash away, dash away, dash away all!

And then in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

Tiny hooves of Republicans, every one a frightened goof

They were awaiting instructions from Johnson or Musk

Or from Trump something more threatening and brusque

Vote with me, vote with me, vote with me now!

Trump thundered as before him Republicans did cowe

But not Nancy or Eric or Zoe or Tony

Or Adam or Maxine or Debbie or Nikki

Not Jared or Glenn or Steny or Kweisi

Or Debbie or Rashida or Ilhan or Shiri

Not Benny or Andy or Josh or Jerrold

Not Alexandria or Ritchie or Dan or Jamaal

Democrats stood together, their hearts full of merry

They looked upon Donald as not at all scary

And about Elon they were very contrary

We will stand against you forever, the Dems all did shout

That’s not what our party or our country is about

So bring on your scare tactics and bring on your fear

We have principles and a Constitution that we hold dear

Billionaires, millionaires, scoundrels and thieves

We’ll pass over your rooftops and under your eaves

You’ll not get our votes or our respect or our help

Not with Trump and with Musk continuing to yelp

Sounding like Orban and Putin and worse

Oh, how those men and their fascism we do curse!

Away from our democracy we refuse to veer

So be gone with you, it’s Christmas, a time of good cheer

And I heard Hakeem exclaim, as Dems flew out of sight

We’ll be back in January with all our might

To work for democracy and all that is right

And for this year and next, to all a good night!

It’s the holiday season! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber or giving a gift sub to a relative or friend. Your support would be a nice present under our tree!

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share

Read the whole story
DGA51
17 hours ago
reply
Not great poetry but a reasonable intent.
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

PA: Why Commonwealth Charter Academy Is Bad News

1 Comment
The following post is addressed directly to my friends and neighbors in Venango County.

You may have heard over the last month that Commonwealth Charter Academy is planning to put up a building near Home Depot, and more recently, Cranberry Area School District officials expressing some concern over that development. Their concern is well-placed; CCA is bad news.

What is Commonwealth Charter Academy?

A charter school is a school that is privately owned and operated but which is funded by taxpayer dollars. CCA is a cyber charter (sometimes called a virtual charter) which means there is no actually school building; students attend school by logging on to their computer and getting their instruction on line.

With over 20,000 students, CCA is the largest cyber-school in Pennsylvania, the state with the largest number of cyber-students in the nation.

Pennsylvania and cyber charters

One might imagine that a school that has no physical building, that has no expenses like transportation and books, and which can assign hundreds of students to a single teacher would be able to operate for less money than a bricks-and-mortar school, thereby saving taxpayers money, and in some states that is true (sort of).

But Pennsylvania funds cyber charters differently than any other state in the nation. In any state, when a student switches from public school to a charter school, their public school is required to send the per-pupil cost to the charter. In all other cyber states, the formula is different for cyber charters than physical charters. But not in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania school districts pay the full per pupil amount to cyber schools. One study from California found the cyber charters would be profitable if they charged as little as $5,000 per student. In 2022, the superintendent of Wattsburg schools said they were providing cyber school at a cost of about $3,000. Our local districts pay about $13K per student. 

And the smaller the district, the bigger the hit. Forest, because it spreads its costs over fewer students pays cyber charters over $22K per student. Yes, because of the way the law works, students from different districts are charged wildly different amounts to attend exact same school. 

Local taxpayers take a double hit. In theory, when a district loses a student, they lose the expenses associated with that student. In practice, the district carries "stranded costs." Cranberry sends 42 students to cyber-school, spread over K-12. Can they cut teaching positions, bus routes, building maintenance, or administrators for that small number of students? No--but last year they lost $676,425 of taxpayer dollars, which means they either cut services or get more taxpayer dollars to make up the difference.

(There is also a crazy wrinkle with special ed funding. If you want more info, here's the link)

Just how wealthy is CCA?

Cyber charters are hitting Pennsylvania taxpayers with a huge mark-up for services. What are they doing with all that money?

CCA HQ-- What does your district's main office look like
A report from Education Voters of Pennsylvania shows that in 2022, the largest four cyber charters in the state had net assets and fund balances of $485.5 million. (Unlike public school districts, charter schools do not have a legal limit on how much unreserved fund balance they can sit on,) The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School Association estimates the current price tag for all cybers in PA is $1.4 billion

CCA was founded in 2003 (right after PA passed its charter school law) and owned by a group of investors. It was owned for a while by Pearson, the education book publisher that wanted to get into digital education. Nowadays, CCA is its own thing. 

Cyber charters spend a great deal of money on marketing. In the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years, CCA spent almost $19 million on marketing and advertising. That includes not just the ubiquitous online advertising, but items like a Jerold the Bookworm float in Philly's Thanksgiving parade, sponsorship of the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton hockey team, and gift cards that families can use at places like Dave and Busters and Kennywood. 

CCA has amassed a huge real estate empire. In the past six years, CCA has paid a total of $88.7 million for properties; those properties have an assessed value of $43.1 million, according to the Ed Voters report. 

In 2020, CCA purchased a redeveloped office complex that used to be the Macy’s at The Waterfront near Pittsburgh. CCA had previously leased the first floor of the complex (about 70,000 square feet); now they own the whole building, while the same company they previously leased from manages it for them.

That same month, they spent $15 million on a the former headquarters of Ricoh in the Greater Philly area. Back in 2016, CCA bought the former PA State Employees Credit Union headquarters in Harrisburg for $5 million to replace several leased offices. 

In Johnstown, CCA purchased an office building and several nearby vacant lots. In Moosic, CCA purchased the former Cigna building for $17,788,381 (the previous owners had the assessed value dropped to under $300K). In Dubois, CCA is planning to build an office complex on the vacant lot they purchased. In Erie, CCA bought the former Erie Business Center. In West Manchester, CCA spent $4.4 million on a building with an assessed value of $314K.

All of this is paid for with taxpayer dollars--specifically taxpayer dollars that would have been used to fund local public schools. If a Venango County School District was buying up buildings, stockpiling hundreds of millions of dollars, sponsoring a minor league team, and handing out gift cards to parents, what do you suppose taxpayers would say about that. But county taxpayers are funding exactly those things--just for cyber charters instead of local schools.

If CCA is doing a good job, who cares about this other stuff.

It is important to note that for some students, cyber charters are an absolute life-saver, and it would be a mistake to outlaw them entirely. 

However, the results for cybers are, overall, lousy. 

Students typically average about two years in cyber charters. The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University (a group that supports charter schools in general) found that cybers have an “overwhelmingly negative impact” and that a year at a cyber charter left students a half year behind in English, and a full year behind in math. The Thomas Fordham Institute, a group that promotes charter schools, issued a report highly critical of Ohio cyber charters. Pennsylvania’s cyber charters have not outperformed other schools in the state — not public schools, not brick and mortar charter schools, not even high poverty schools

The report “The PA Disconnect in Cyber Charter Oversight and Funding” from the PA Charter Performance Center of Children First shows our oversight compares poorly to that of other states. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania charters may go years without a state audit. In 2019, Maddie Hanna at the Philadelphia Inquirer found that many cybers were operating years after their charter had expired. The cyber charter graduation rate is about 65%. 

When it comes to proficiency scores on the PSSA and Keystone exams, cyber charters have never met the state averages. The wrinkle there is that cyber students aren't required to take those tests. Only about 20% of CCA students took the test (despite CCA's many field offices). But if the state only counted the CCA students who tested, the proficiency rate would still be below state average. 

Cyber schools will argue that they are dealing mostly with students who have trouble with the whole school thing. That may or may not be true, but even if it is, if their business model is to deal with those challenging students, after over twenty years, shouldn't they be better at it?

It's not hard to see where some problems originate. Cyber teachers are asked to handle hundreds and hundreds of students at a time. Student attendance is a matter of occasional log-ins to the computer platform. Their CEO, Thomas Longenecker, is a business guy; his second-in-command is a lawyer. Longenecker makes a $268,000 salary

So why is this still going on?

There has been little real revision of the charter law passed in 2002. There have been proposals to bring our charter funding in line with what other states do; most recently, Governor Tom Wolf proposed that cyber charters be reimbursed at a flat rate of $8,000. In 2019, a lawmaker proposed a bill saying that if a district had its own inhouse cyber school (as many do, including our local districts), the district didn't have to pay for an outside charter. 

But cyber charters have money to spend lobbying, and any time someone proposes a funding system more in line with what other states do, cyber charter advocates complain that it will be a hardship and limit student choices. And so simple reforms, reforms that would require the same accountability for charter schools as for public schools, and which would create some sensible funding policies--none of the gets adopted.

Meanwhile, more than 450 of Pennsylvania's 500 school boards-- boards representing a full political spectrum--have passed resolutions calling for funding reform, and that includes Venango County districts. Legislators have continued to ignore them.

Local consequences

This year, Oil City has 84 cyber charter students, and that costs the taxpayers of the district $1.4 million dollars. Franklin has 106 cyber students, costing taxpayers of the district more than $2.1 million. Cranberry has a modest 42 cyber students, costing over $626,000. 

You can argue that the school district should try to hold onto those students or win them back, but experience and the data tell us that many of those students will be back--and they will be academically behind when they return. 

So Venango County taxpayers are sending millions of dollars to companies that do a poor job of providing education, but make enough money to hand out gift cards and buy up millions of dollars' worth of real estate. 

Cranberry Superintendent Bill Vonada told his board, "They are ion our community to take our students and teachers." That's not exactly true-- what CCA is here to take is local taxpayer money. 

What can be done?

Cyber charters are approved or not approved in Harrisburg; local taxpayers have no say. Regulations are also set in Harrisburg. So if anything is going to be done, it will need to be done by legislators who have, for twenty years, refused to take any action. School boards have been begging for action for years to no avail. There's not much left to do except for taxpayers to call or write their elected representatives

What's the ask? 

Accountability and oversight. Ed Voters of Pennsylvania had to drag CCA to court to get it to honor Right To Know requests that any taxpayer-funded school should honor. Cyber charters can never be as transparent as public schools, because they have no elected board and you will never be able to attend meetings by their operators. But at least they can approach a public school's level of transparency.

Fair funding. A flat fee would make far more sense than the current system. Right now every school in the region pays a different amount to send students to the exact same cyber charter. Cranberry pays $12K per regular student; Forest pays $22K. Oil City pays $28K per special ed student; Forst pays $45K. With flat fee of $8K per regular student and $12K per special ed, taxpayers would save and hold on to $308K in Cranberry, $359K in Forest, $676K in Oil City, and $1.1 million in Franklin. 

Bottom line

CCA was already in Cranberry and the rest of Venango County already. A physical presence just means more opportunity to recruit and market. But local taxpayers should remember that every brick of that building, every chirpy as they see, every salary for someone working in that building represents taxpayer money that didn't make it to their own local public school. When you are complaining that your school board doesn't do a good enough job shepherding your tax dollars, that new CCA building should be a reminder that your school board never had a say in what happened to those dollars which were hoovered up by an organization that can afford to build in county after county across the state while your own district has to struggle over how much to spend n playgrounds and has to ask parents to send in boxes of tissue just to make it through the year. 
Read the whole story
DGA51
17 hours ago
reply
It's almost as if they want citizens who are not well-educated.
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

More Police, Fewer Prisons, and Other Ways to Reduce Crime

1 Share

What does the existing research evidence say about how to reduce crime? Jennifer Doleac offers and over overview in “Why Crime Matters, and What to Do About It.” It appear as an essay in a book published by the Aspen Economic Strategy Group, Strengthening America’s Economic Dynamism, edited by Melissa Kearney and Luke Pardue. You can download individual chapters or the book as a whole.

Doleac emphasizes that the costs of crime are considerably higher than the direct effects on the victims, severe as those can be. She writes:

Crime affects community members even when they are not directly victimized. For example, fear of crime can affect foot traffic, property values, and school attendance (if parents think it’s not safe to walk to school, they might keep their children at home). In general, high levels of crime reduce residents’ quality of life and have detrimental effects on neighborhoods (Lacoe, Bostic, and Acolin 2018). Dustmann and Fasani (2016) found that crime causes “considerable mental distress for residents.” Effects are driven by property crime, are larger for women, and manifest mostly as depression and anxiety. They estimate that an increase in local crime causes two to four times as much mental distress as an equivalent decrease in local employment. Cornaglia, Feldman, and Leigh (2014) estimate that, in terms of effects on mental well-being, the “society-wide impact of increasing the crime rate by one victim is about 80 times more than the direct impact on the victim.” … Combining tangible and intangible costs, Anderson (2021) estimates that the aggregate cost of crime in the United States is $4.7–5.8 trillion each year …

What practical and cost-effective steps might be taken to reduce crime? I can’t do justice to the full range of Doleac’s essay, but here are some thoughts that caught my eye.

  1. More Police.

The most traditional approach to increasing the probability that perpetrators are caught is to put more police on the street. Indeed, a long literature shows that hiring more police officers and increasing police presence in communities both have large deterrent effects on crime—especially violent crime like homicide. Based on the fiscal costs of police and the estimated crime-reduction benefits of additional police, most US cities are substantially under-policed …

2) Better use of technology could include surveillance cameras, DNA databases of known offenders, and requiring blood-alcohol monitors in cars for those previously convicted of drunk driving. Another step is electronic monitoring rather than incarceration for nonviolent first offenders, or as a substitute for pretrial detention in some cases, or as an intermediate condition for being released from incarceration:

Outside the US, electronic monitoring (EM) is widely used as an alternative to incarceration—either in place of short prison sentences or as a means of early release from prison. People placed on EM are typically confined to their homes with limited opportunities to leave only for court-approved purposes such as work, school, and medical appointments. A GPS monitor tracks their whereabouts. This kind of monitoring provides much of the public-safety benefit of incarceration (incapacitation), while minimizing incarceration’s negative effects (being locked up with other high-risk people, disrupting work or schooling).

3) A certain amount of crime involves young adults with nothing in particular to do. Thus, summer jobs or training programs can be a useful step.

4) Reducing air pollution and lead exposure have a variety of positive health effects, and also seem connected to reducing crime rates.

5) My own sense is that having fewer people locked up can pay for these programs. Electronic monitoring is a lot cheaper than incarceration. Sure, longer prison terms for violent and/or repeat offenders are probably needed. On the other side, many offenders “age out” of crime as they leave their 20s. Also, a shorter sentence that you are actually likely to serve is probably a bigger deterrent to crime than longer sentences that relatively few offenders end up serving. Doleac points out: “A primary takeaway from this literature is that increasing the probability that perpetrators are caught and face consequences has a much bigger deterrent effect on crime than does making the punishment longer or harsher …”

What are some programs that promise to reduce crime but don’t have much support in the research evidence? Among these, Doleac mentions: programs that offer a job to those just leaving prison, programs that offer “wraparound” services to those leaving prison, “truth-in-sentencing” rules that require an offender to serve almost their full term before being eligible for parole (because such rules reduce incentives for good behavior in prison), and widespread use of long prison sentences (because criminal behavior tends to peak for those in their 20s).

The post More Police, Fewer Prisons, and Other Ways to Reduce Crime first appeared on Conversable Economist.

Read the whole story
DGA51
17 hours ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Friday Toons

1 Share

 

Read the whole story
DGA51
20 hours ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Random Samples with Katie Hinde

1 Share
From: NatCen4ScienceEd
Duration: 41:48
Views: 21

Every year, March Mammal Madness asks "Who would win?" between two animals in "an absurdly complex and wonderfully nerdy way." NCSE talks to Katie Hinde, the founder of March Mammal Madness and associate professor of evolutionary biology and the Senior Sustainability Scientist at Arizona State University. Hinde, interviewed by NCSE Executive Director Amanda L. Townley, discusses the origins of the incredibly popular, worldwide phenomenon, why so many people — including thousands of educators and their students — love it, and the importance of science communication and outreach.

Read the whole story
DGA51
1 day ago
reply
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete

Elon Musk and Donald Trump have just given us a dark glimpse of our future

1 Comment

In short order, it seems, we will learn what kind of country we’re going to have for the next four years. Within the short span of 24 hours, Elon Musk has shown us how he and Donald Trump see the future of our government. Trump didn’t really have an opinion of the bipartisan bill Speaker Mike Johnson and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries pushed through to fund the government until March 14 by Continuing Resolution until Musk popped-off on X yesterday. At 1:17 p.m., Musk Xeeted, “Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!” At 2:13 p.m. Musk was back with this: “No bills should be passed Congress until Jan 20, when @realDonaldTrump takes office. None. Zero.”

At that point, not-yet-president Trump jumped on board, screaming, “Republicans must GET SMART and TOUGH. If Democrats threaten to shut down the government unless we give them everything they want, then CALL THEIR BLUFF. It is Schumer and Biden who are holding up aid to our farmers and disaster relief.” Then, out of the blue, came this: “The most foolish and inept thing ever done by Congressional Republicans was allowing our country to hit the debt ceiling in 2025. It was a mistake and is now something that must be addressed.

Debt ceiling? Huh? Every congressperson walking around the Capitol at least half-vertically thought until that moment the issue was funding the government until Trump gets in office and will tell them what to think and do.

But not Trump. He already has his eye on his monciferous tax cuts and knows they’ll be a budget-buster and need a double-monciferous jump in the debt ceiling if they’re ever going to pass. So what does he do?

After doubling down and calling the funding bill “unacceptable” and “a Democrat trap,” Trump called the richest man in the world, the one who paid $250 million to get him elected, and this is what he says he said to him: “I told him that if he agrees with me, that he could put out a statement," Trump said.

This seems like an unnecessary point to make, but I’m going to say it anyway: This is two men, two billionaires, one real and one self-professed, one of them an immigrant from South Africa, telling the United States Congress what to do about how it funds the government. Trump even threatened Speaker Johnson, telling him on Fox News that he will “easily remain speaker” if he “acts decisively and tough” and gets rid of “all of the traps being set by Democrats” in the bill to temporarily fund the government for the next three months.

For his part, Musk went further, telling House Republicans and members of the Senate that he thinks it would be a good idea to shut the government down completely until January 20, when presumably, he and newly-inaugurated President Trump can sit down and decide what kind of government we will have.

This has never before happened in this country. We have never, since our founding nearly 250 years ago, had a situation whereby two men who do not hold elective office are telling those who have been elected what to do, and threatening to oust them from their elected positions in the Congress in two years if they do not follow orders.

Donald Trump is not rich enough to make this threat and follow through on it, but Elon Musk is. Every member of Congress and the Senate saw what Musk did when he spent $250 million of his own money to elect Donald Trump. Every member of Congress and the Senate knows that Musk could have just as easily spent those same millions to defeat Trump.

To have that sword of Damocles hanging over your head is apparently more than the Republicans in Congress can handle, because as we speak today, the bill to fund the government lies in limbo as Speaker Johnson tries to figure out a way to please his masters, Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

This is not what the Constitution says about how our government is supposed to work. The Constitution sets forth a system by which voters – that would be us – elect people from the 50 states to go to Washington, where paying at least some attention to what the voters want, pass laws that delineate the government and fund its work. The Constitution establishes the executive branch, overseen by the president, also elected by a vote of the people, to run the government the Congress has established and funded.

This is generally the way governments are established and run all the way down the line in this country, from states, to counties, to cities, to townships, even down in small towns like the one I live in that has less than 1,000 adult residents.

Nowhere in our nation, through the state constitutions and the documents which establish county and city and town governments, is there a single clause that says, in effect, everything works this way, with elections and votes by Congress and state legislatures and county boards of supervisors and town councils, except when two unelected billionaires say differently.

I attended a meeting of our town council earlier this year to speak on behalf of a resolution establishing gay pride month for the town of Milford. The members of the council sat at tables formed in a semi-circle, and they heard speakers on both sides of the issue of the gay pride resolution, and then they voted. The council does the same thing when it considers how money should be spent to fix the town’s roads, how many trash cans each house may put out on the street to be collected and what size they must be, and a hundred other issues.

At no meeting of our town council has Elon Musk or any other billionaire stepped in and told the members of the council how to vote and threatened that if they don’t vote his way, he will see to it that they are not reelected when they run for office again. That’s not the way the democratically elected town council of Milford, Pennsylvania works, and it should not be the way the elected Congress of the United States works.

Because if this is the way Donald Trump and Elon Musk plan on running the government of the United States starting on January 20, then we won’t have a democracy. What we will have is some hybrid of a dictatorship and plutocracy, whereby the elected representatives of the people forfeit their powers and duties to the whims of two people: one who gives the orders, and the other who pays the money that will ensure his orders are carried out.

This is serious business. I think we are lucky that the issue of the passage of a continuing resolution to fund the government has arisen with a very short deadline, because that fact has presented the country with the example of how Trump and his henchman Musk intend to run things when Trump takes power in January.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk are essentially ordering the Congress of the United States to suspend the Constitution and obey them. Until this moment, we did not have a my-way-or-the-highway government in this country. I suggest that we should pay very close attention to how the issues of the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling are resolved, because in the next 36 hours or so, we will learn what kind of country we will live in for the next four years and perhaps for many years after that.

I’m going to be right here watching these monsters every single day, and I’m going to report on every single undemocratic thing they do. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share

Read the whole story
DGA51
1 day ago
reply
Donald Trump is not rich enough to make this threat and follow through on it, but Elon Musk is. 
Central Pennsyltucky
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories