truthout--2020-12-11--Organized Debtors Are Preparing to Strike If Biden Doesn’t Cancel Student Debt

Donald Trump has finally said that he will leave the White House , but troubles in the United States will be far from over when Joe Biden is sworn in as president on 20 January 2021 .
Facing a global economic crisis and with half a million deaths from Covid-19 projected by 1 April , Biden ’ s administration will have to act quickly and decisively to provide relief to the American people .
What the administration is able to accomplish in 2021 largely depends upon which party controls the US Senate .
Unless Democrats win both seats up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 January , Republicans will be able to block Congress from passing federal aid for the foreseeable future — but not student debt cancellation .
On the first day of his administration , Biden can issue an executive order to immediately cancel 92 % of student debt , even if Republicans retain control of the Senate .
At a time when Americans desperately need help , Biden has the legal authority to liberate 42 million people and their families from the burden of student debt with the stroke of a pen .
Nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt cancellation may not be the most urgently needed relief , but it is one of the most effective and immediate economic stimuli Biden ’ s administration can deliver .
If he chooses not to enact it , or cancels only an insignificant amount , student debtors are getting organized to go on strike .
The “ Dark Winter ” Ahead for the U.S. As Americans enter the holiday season , the US is experiencing high unemployment rates , widespread food insecurity , and the uncontrolled spread of Covid-19 in nearly all fifty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control and Prevention has forecast that some 60,000 people may die from the virus before Christmas .
Despite the ongoing hardships of the accelerating pandemic , important federal assistance passed by Congress during the first wave of the pandemic is set to expire at the end of this year .
Millions will lose extended unemployment benefits , and a massive wave of evictions may force many out of their homes .
If Congress does not act swiftly to pass additional relief before the end of this session , help may not arrive until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be disastrous .
Congress must pass a bill to fund the government before 11 December to avoid a shutdown and some aid may be tied to these negotiations , but the Republican-controlled Senate is not expected to pass anything nearly as substantial as the aid passed in March .
For years , the Debt Collective union has advocated for the president to cancel all federal student debt by executive order , circumventing Congress .
Of the $ 1.7 trillion of outstanding student debt , $ 1.54 trillion ( about 92 % ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 131 billion is from private student loans .
The secretary of education , Betsy DeVos , has extended President Trump ’ s executive order pausing payments , collections and interest on federal student loans until 31 January , giving debtors much-needed protection and Biden ’ s administration plenty of time to act .
According to research by the Project on Predatory Student Lending in collaboration with the Debt Collective , Biden can issue an executive order on his first day in office instructing the Department of Education to suspend collection of the debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waive , or release ” its claims over student debtors , which was granted to the Department by Congress in the Higher Education Act of 1965 .
Student debt cancellation has gone from being a demand of activists at Occupy Wall Street ( some of whom went on to form the Debt Collective ) , to the political mainstream in 2020 , as evidenced by support from Senators Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren and a recent open letter signed by more than 235 organizations , Joe Biden has said he supports legislation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student debt through legislation , but not by executive order .
Even if Biden does not pursue debt cancellation , he will almost certainly extend the suspension by executive order before the end of January .
However , given that the damage from Covid-19 may last years or even decades , it is possible that the suspension could continue for most of 2021 .
One expert has concluded that only 11 % of federal borrowers are currently repaying their loans , and until the economic impacts of the pandemic are mitigated , defaults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the suspension ends .
Continuing the suspension would certainly help the vast majority of borrowers keep their heads above water , but it would not change their overall financial situations , and thus provide little in the way of economic stimulus .
The authors of research by the Levy Institute concluded that cancelling all federal and private student debt could “ boost real GDP by an average of $ 86 billion to $ 108 billion per year ” and create “ roughly 1.2 million to 1.5 million new jobs per year.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scenario in which all federal student debt is cancelled but private student debt remains , the authors acknowledge that federal debt constitutes “ the vast majority of student loans outstanding , ” and it is reasonable to expect that liberating all federal student borrowers from their debts would produce significant economic stimulus .
In the event that Democrats do control the Senate in 2021 , legislation to cancel all student debt and make public college tuition-free , such as the College For All Act introduced last year by Representative Ilhan Omar and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden ’ s desk .
But would he sign it ?
Biden seems unlikely to support total cancellation ; his role in creating the student debt crisis stretches back to the 1970s , culminating in his infamous 2005 bankruptcy legislation that virtually ended bankruptcy protections for student loans .
Since that legislation , nearly $ 1.4 trillion has been loaned out to student borrowers , the vast majority of which is unlikely to ever be paid off , and unable to be discharged in bankruptcy .
If Congress can ’ t or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt , and if Joe Biden does not pause or cancel federal student debt by executive order , conditions for borrowers will only get worse as the pandemic continues to ravage the country , and organized student debtors are getting ready to strike with their debts .
If Biden ’ s Administration Won ’ t Take Action , Organized Student Debtors Will If Biden opts not to cancel student debt , or only cancels an insignificant portion of it , his administration may be confronted by more active resistance from debtors .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Can ’ t Pay , Won ’ t Pay , ’ “ the fact that a simple mechanism exists to erase debts is not enough .
It will take a movement to push public officials to actually use the authority they possess.
” And accordingly , The Debt Collective is organizing a student debt strike .
‘ Can ’ t Pay , Won ’ t Pay ’ is a quick , accessible read that not only provides a contemporary framework for understanding debt in our society ( particularly in the context of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the case for economic disobedience and debt abolition.
” Their idea of debt resistance takes the form of a debtors ’ union .
“ Mass indebtedness presents an opening for a new form of resistance to capitalist exploitation.
” One notable advantage of debtor organizing is that , unlike labor union organizing , “ there have not been decades of class war aimed to suppress the tactic.
” Connecting the struggles of student debt strikers such as Pamela Hunt , a single mother who owes over $ 200,000 in student loans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monetary Fund and the World Bank , this book lays the groundwork for a truly global revolution in which the bonds of debt can become the basis for solidarity .
The aim of such a revolution ?
“ Rewrite the social contract ” to imagine a world in which all people have what the Debt Collective calls “ reparative public goods ” : “ By prioritizing redress and repair , we can win free and universal education , housing , and healthcare .
No one should have to go into debt to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worsens , the Debt Collective ’ s ideas are becoming more relevant as they break into the political mainstream .
Covid-19 has laid bare both how precarious the conditions of the indebted working class are , but also how easily and arbitrarily financial burdens like debts or rent can be paused or cancelled entirely , if those in power are motivated to do so .
The conditions for a mass student debt strike are here : repayment is suspended for now , but sooner or later Biden ’ s administration will be forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt , or bringing on a massive wave of defaults .
If Biden refuses to cancel their debts before repayment resumes , millions of debtors may reach the conclusion in the title of the Debt Collective ’ s book — that they can not repay their student loans , so they might as well not .

President-elect Biden will be able to cancel nearly all student debt without congressional approval, if he chooses to.
Donald Trump has finally said that he will leave the White House, but troubles in the United States will be far from over when Joe Biden is sworn in as president on 20 January 2021. Facing a global economic crisis and with half a million deaths from Covid-19 projected by 1 April, Biden’s administration will have to act quickly and decisively to provide relief to the American people.
What the administration is able to accomplish in 2021 largely depends upon which party controls the US Senate. Unless Democrats win both seats up for grabs in the Georgia runoff elections on 5 January, Republicans will be able to block Congress from passing federal aid for the foreseeable future — but not student debt cancellation.
On the first day of his administration, Biden can issue an executive order to immediately cancel 92% of student debt, even if Republicans retain control of the Senate. At a time when Americans desperately need help, Biden has the legal authority to liberate 42 million people and their families from the burden of student debt with the stroke of a pen.
Nearly a year into the pandemic, student debt cancellation may not be the most urgently needed relief, but it is one of the most effective and immediate economic stimuli Biden’s administration can deliver. If he chooses not to enact it, or cancels only an insignificant amount, student debtors are getting organized to go on strike.
The “Dark Winter” Ahead for the U.S.
As Americans enter the holiday season, the US is experiencing high unemployment rates, widespread food insecurity, and the uncontrolled spread of Covid-19 in nearly all fifty states. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has forecast that some 60,000 people may die from the virus before Christmas.
Despite the ongoing hardships of the accelerating pandemic, important federal assistance passed by Congress during the first wave of the pandemic is set to expire at the end of this year. Millions will lose extended unemployment benefits, and a massive wave of evictions may force many out of their homes. If Congress does not act swiftly to pass additional relief before the end of this session, help may not arrive until early next year and the consequences will be disastrous.
Congress must pass a bill to fund the government before 11 December to avoid a shutdown and some aid may be tied to these negotiations, but the Republican-controlled Senate is not expected to pass anything nearly as substantial as the aid passed in March.
What Joe Biden Owes to Student Debtors
For years, the Debt Collective union has advocated for the president to cancel all federal student debt by executive order, circumventing Congress. Of the $1.7 trillion of outstanding student debt, $1.54 trillion (about 92%) is from federal student loans, and $131 billion is from private student loans. The secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, has extended President Trump’s executive order pausing payments, collections and interest on federal student loans until 31 January, giving debtors much-needed protection and Biden’s administration plenty of time to act.
According to research by the Project on Predatory Student Lending in collaboration with the Debt Collective, Biden can issue an executive order on his first day in office instructing the Department of Education to suspend collection of the debt using its authority to “compromise, waive, or release” its claims over student debtors, which was granted to the Department by Congress in the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Student debt cancellation has gone from being a demand of activists at Occupy Wall Street (some of whom went on to form the Debt Collective), to the political mainstream in 2020, as evidenced by support from Senators Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren and a recent open letter signed by more than 235 organizations, Joe Biden has said he supports legislation to cancel some (but not all) student debt through legislation, but not by executive order.
Even if Biden does not pursue debt cancellation, he will almost certainly extend the suspension by executive order before the end of January. However, given that the damage from Covid-19 may last years or even decades, it is possible that the suspension could continue for most of 2021. One expert has concluded that only 11% of federal borrowers are currently repaying their loans, and until the economic impacts of the pandemic are mitigated, defaults could increase by 10% or more when the suspension ends. Continuing the suspension would certainly help the vast majority of borrowers keep their heads above water, but it would not change their overall financial situations, and thus provide little in the way of economic stimulus.
The authors of research by the Levy Institute concluded that cancelling all federal and private student debt could “boost real GDP by an average of $86 billion to $108 billion per year” and create “roughly 1.2 million to 1.5 million new jobs per year.” Though this research does not explicitly address the scenario in which all federal student debt is cancelled but private student debt remains, the authors acknowledge that federal debt constitutes “the vast majority of student loans outstanding,” and it is reasonable to expect that liberating all federal student borrowers from their debts would produce significant economic stimulus.
In the event that Democrats do control the Senate in 2021, legislation to cancel all student debt and make public college tuition-free, such as the College For All Act introduced last year by Representative Ilhan Omar and Senator Bernie Sanders, could potentially reach Joe Biden’s desk. But would he sign it?
Biden seems unlikely to support total cancellation; his role in creating the student debt crisis stretches back to the 1970s, culminating in his infamous 2005 bankruptcy legislation that virtually ended bankruptcy protections for student loans. Since that legislation, nearly $1.4 trillion has been loaned out to student borrowers, the vast majority of which is unlikely to ever be paid off, and unable to be discharged in bankruptcy.
If Congress can’t or won’t pass legislation cancelling student debt, and if Joe Biden does not pause or cancel federal student debt by executive order, conditions for borrowers will only get worse as the pandemic continues to ravage the country, and organized student debtors are getting ready to strike with their debts.
If Biden’s Administration Won’t Take Action, Organized Student Debtors Will
If Biden opts not to cancel student debt, or only cancels an insignificant portion of it, his administration may be confronted by more active resistance from debtors. The Debt Collective writes in its new book ‘Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay,’ “the fact that a simple mechanism exists to erase debts is not enough. It will take a movement to push public officials to actually use the authority they possess.” And accordingly, The Debt Collective is organizing a student debt strike.
‘Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay’ is a quick, accessible read that not only provides a contemporary framework for understanding debt in our society (particularly in the context of the pandemic), but also presents “the case for economic disobedience and debt abolition.” Their idea of debt resistance takes the form of a debtors’ union. “Mass indebtedness presents an opening for a new form of resistance to capitalist exploitation.” One notable advantage of debtor organizing is that, unlike labor union organizing, “there have not been decades of class war aimed to suppress the tactic.”
Connecting the struggles of student debt strikers such as Pamela Hunt, a single mother who owes over $200,000 in student loans, to international debt resistance against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, this book lays the groundwork for a truly global revolution in which the bonds of debt can become the basis for solidarity. The aim of such a revolution? “Rewrite the social contract” to imagine a world in which all people have what the Debt Collective calls “reparative public goods”: “By prioritizing redress and repair, we can win free and universal education, housing, and healthcare. No one should have to go into debt to meet their basic needs.”
As the pandemic worsens, the Debt Collective’s ideas are becoming more relevant as they break into the political mainstream. Covid-19 has laid bare both how precarious the conditions of the indebted working class are, but also how easily and arbitrarily financial burdens like debts or rent can be paused or cancelled entirely, if those in power are motivated to do so.
The conditions for a mass student debt strike are here: repayment is suspended for now, but sooner or later Biden’s administration will be forced to make the choice between cancelling student debt, or bringing on a massive wave of defaults. If Biden refuses to cancel their debts before repayment resumes, millions of debtors may reach the conclusion in the title of the Debt Collective’s book — that they cannot repay their student loans, so they might as well not.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-12--Many Workers at Largest Corporations in US Depend on Federal Benefits to Survive

Millions of Americans employed at some of the country ’ s largest companies have had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid , with giants like Walmart and McDonald ’ s employing the most workers whose income is subsidized by taxpayers , according to a new study .
The Government Accountability Office , a nonpartisan congressional watchdog , released a study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , last month based on data provided by 11 states .
The report found that , in every state studied , Walmart was one of the top four employers whose workers rely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s is among the most subsidized employers in at least nine states .
Walmart employs about 14,500 workers in Arkansas , Georgia , Indiana , Maine , Massachusetts , Nebraska , North Carolina , Tennessee and Washington who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP ) benefits , the study showed , while McDonald ’ s employs about 8,780 SNAP recipients in those states .
More than 2 % of the Walmart workforce in states like Georgia and Oklahoma have had to rely on Medicaid benefits , a number that rises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the company is based .
Other corporate giants who have a large number of workers relying on federal benefits included Amazon , Dollar Tree , Dollar General , Burger King , Wendy ’ s , Taco Bell , Subway , Uber , FedEx , Target , Dunkin ’ Donuts , CVS , Home Depot , and Lowe ’ s .
The report cited data taken before the coronavirus pandemic hit , noting that the issues have likely grown worse .
“ The economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic have further exacerbated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of federal and state safety net programs to help them meet their basic needs , ” the report said .
Sanders said the report showed that America ’ s largest companies are relying on “ corporate welfare from the federal government by paying their workers starvation wages.
” “ That is morally obscene , ” he said in a statement .
“ U.S .
taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America.
” Sanders noted that the companies have reaped “ billions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of dollars a year ” while failing to pay workers a “ living wage.
” Walmart reported more than $ 5 billion in net income in the last quarter while McDonald ’ s reported more than $ 1.7 billion during that time frame .
Walmart spokeswoman Anne Hatfield said the company helps many workers get off government assistance .
“ If not for the employment access Walmart and other companies provide , many more people would be dependent on government assistance , ” she told The Washington Post , which first reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our workforce comes to us on public assistance , and we remove employment barriers and create opportunities for individuals that too many overlook .
Walmart has invested more than $ 5 billion in increased pay , expanded health benefits , and a debt-free college program over the past five years and our starting rate is more than 50 % higher than the federal minimum wage , which Washington hasn ’ t changed in more than a decade.
” McDonald ’ s spokeswoman Morgan O ’ Marra argued that the data was misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. corporate-owned restaurants is over $ 10 per hour and exceeds the federal minimum wage , ” she said in a statement .
“ McDonald ’ s believes elected leaders have a responsibility to set , debate and change mandated minimum wages and does not lobby against or participate in any activities opposing raising the minimum wage.
” The company had long opposed increases to the minimum wage but said last year that it would stop lobbying against such measures .
The GAO report shows that 70 % of the 21 million SNAP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A 2013 study from researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that 73 % of people receiving government benefits were from “ working families ” but had “ jobs that pay wages so low that their paychecks do not generate enough income to provide for life ’ s basic necessities.
” The study found that the average frontline fast-food worker earns just $ 8.69 per hour and that about 87 % of them did not receive health benefits , leaving them to “ rely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends meet.
” The researchers released another report in 2015 showing that more than half of all fast-food workers were in families where at least one member relies on public benefits , costing taxpayers more than $ 150 billion each year .
Part of the problem is that wages have not kept up with growth in productivity and corporate profits for decades , researchers say .
Another key issue is that the federal minimum wage , which is far below the rate it was for decades when adjusted for inflation , has stayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been increased just once in the last two decades .
“ Wages at the bottom and middle of the income spectrum have been essentially flat since the late 1970s , ” Ken Jacobs , the chairman of U.C .
Berkeley ’ s Labor Center and a co-author of the earlier reports , told the Post .
“ As productivity has increased , pay has stayed very low , and again , our federal minimum wage is well below where it would have been if it kept up with inflation and very far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept up with productivity growth .
So many families earn too little to get by on what they earn from their jobs.
” There has been growing support to raise the minimum wage to $ 15 .
President-elect Joe Biden has called for a $ 15 federal minimum wage .
The House of Representatives voted last year to increase the federal minimum wage to $ 15 by 2025 but the proposal was shot down by Senate Republicans .
Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to raise the state ’ s minimum wage to $ 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Amazon and Target raised their minimum pay to $ 15 earlier this year .
Seattle lawmakers voted to raise the minimum wage to $ 15 by 2017 five years ago .
Despite concerns that businesses would leave the city and workers would see their hours cut , the results have largely been positive .
There has been no great business exodus from the Emerald City and while there was a rise in workers who had their hours cut , their salaries largely stayed the same while the vast majority of workers “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” according to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2018 .
Another study from Berkeley looked at minimum wage increases in Seattle , San Francisco , Oakland , San Jose , Chicago , and Washington D.C. , which ranged from $ 10 to $ 13 in 2016 , found that the increases did not result in widespread job losses .
“ We find that they are working just as the policymakers and voters who enacted these policies intended , ” Sylvia Allegretto , the co-author of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics , told the Seattle Times .
“ So far they are raising the earnings of low-wage workers without causing significant employment losses.
” An analysis of 138 state-level minimum wage increases between 1979 and 2016 published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics last year found that the loss of jobs that paid below minimum wage was offset by new higher-paying jobs .
Betsey Stevenson , an economist at the University of Michigan who served on President Obama ’ s Council of Economic Advisers , argued that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hike amid the coronavirus pandemic was to couple it with targeted aid for struggling small businesses .
“ The federal minimum wage is currently set way too low , ” she told the Post .
“ We really don ’ t want workers to be bearing the increases of those costs .
As a society we should be sharing that .
”

Walmart and McDonald’s depend on taxpayers to subsidize the income of many workers because their wages are so low.
Millions of Americans employed at some of the country’s largest companies have had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid, with giants like Walmart and McDonald’s employing the most workers whose income is subsidized by taxpayers, according to a new study.
The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, released a study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last month based on data provided by 11 states.
The report found that, in every state studied, Walmart was one of the top four employers whose workers rely on food stamps and Medicaid. McDonald’s is among the most subsidized employers in at least nine states.
Walmart employs about 14,500 workers in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee and Washington who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the study showed, while McDonald’s employs about 8,780 SNAP recipients in those states.
More than 2% of the Walmart workforce in states like Georgia and Oklahoma have had to rely on Medicaid benefits, a number that rises to more than 3% in Arkansas, where the company is based.
Other corporate giants who have a large number of workers relying on federal benefits included Amazon, Dollar Tree, Dollar General, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Subway, Uber, FedEx, Target, Dunkin’ Donuts, CVS, Home Depot, and Lowe’s.
The report cited data taken before the coronavirus pandemic hit, noting that the issues have likely grown worse.
“The economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic have further exacerbated conditions for these workers, increasing the importance of federal and state safety net programs to help them meet their basic needs,” the report said.
Sanders said the report showed that America’s largest companies are relying on “corporate welfare from the federal government by paying their workers starvation wages.”
“That is morally obscene,” he said in a statement. “U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America.”
Sanders noted that the companies have reaped “billions in profits and giving their CEOs tens of millions of dollars a year” while failing to pay workers a “living wage.”
Walmart reported more than $5 billion in net income in the last quarter while McDonald’s reported more than $1.7 billion during that time frame.
Walmart spokeswoman Anne Hatfield said the company helps many workers get off government assistance.
“If not for the employment access Walmart and other companies provide, many more people would be dependent on government assistance,” she told The Washington Post, which first reported the study. “A small percentage of our workforce comes to us on public assistance, and we remove employment barriers and create opportunities for individuals that too many overlook. Walmart has invested more than $5 billion in increased pay, expanded health benefits, and a debt-free college program over the past five years and our starting rate is more than 50% higher than the federal minimum wage, which Washington hasn’t changed in more than a decade.”
McDonald’s spokeswoman Morgan O’Marra argued that the data was misleading.
“The average starting wage at U.S. corporate-owned restaurants is over $10 per hour and exceeds the federal minimum wage,” she said in a statement. “McDonald’s believes elected leaders have a responsibility to set, debate and change mandated minimum wages and does not lobby against or participate in any activities opposing raising the minimum wage.”
The company had long opposed increases to the minimum wage but said last year that it would stop lobbying against such measures.
The GAO report shows that 70% of the 21 million SNAP or Medicaid recipients work full time.
The data dovetails with previous research.
A 2013 study from researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that 73% of people receiving government benefits were from “working families” but had “jobs that pay wages so low that their paychecks do not generate enough income to provide for life’s basic necessities.”
The study found that the average frontline fast-food worker earns just $8.69 per hour and that about 87% of them did not receive health benefits, leaving them to “rely on taxpayer-funded safety net programs to make ends meet.”
The researchers released another report in 2015 showing that more than half of all fast-food workers were in families where at least one member relies on public benefits, costing taxpayers more than $150 billion each year.
Part of the problem is that wages have not kept up with growth in productivity and corporate profits for decades, researchers say. Another key issue is that the federal minimum wage, which is far below the rate it was for decades when adjusted for inflation, has stayed the same for over a decade and has been increased just once in the last two decades.
“Wages at the bottom and middle of the income spectrum have been essentially flat since the late 1970s,” Ken Jacobs, the chairman of U.C. Berkeley’s Labor Center and a co-author of the earlier reports, told the Post. “As productivity has increased, pay has stayed very low, and again, our federal minimum wage is well below where it would have been if it kept up with inflation and very far where it would have been if it kept up with productivity growth. So many families earn too little to get by on what they earn from their jobs.”
There has been growing support to raise the minimum wage to $15. President-elect Joe Biden has called for a $15 federal minimum wage. The House of Representatives voted last year to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 but the proposal was shot down by Senate Republicans. Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 over the next six years. Companies like Amazon and Target raised their minimum pay to $15 earlier this year.
Seattle lawmakers voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2017 five years ago. Despite concerns that businesses would leave the city and workers would see their hours cut, the results have largely been positive. There has been no great business exodus from the Emerald City and while there was a rise in workers who had their hours cut, their salaries largely stayed the same while the vast majority of workers “enjoyed significantly more rapid hourly wage growth,” according to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2018.
Another study from Berkeley looked at minimum wage increases in Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Chicago, and Washington D.C., which ranged from $10 to $13 in 2016, found that the increases did not result in widespread job losses.
“We find that they are working just as the policymakers and voters who enacted these policies intended,” Sylvia Allegretto, the co-author of the study and co-chair of Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, told the Seattle Times. “So far they are raising the earnings of low-wage workers without causing significant employment losses.”
An analysis of 138 state-level minimum wage increases between 1979 and 2016 published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics last year found that the loss of jobs that paid below minimum wage was offset by new higher-paying jobs.
Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the University of Michigan who served on President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued that the best way to approach a minimum wage hike amid the coronavirus pandemic was to couple it with targeted aid for struggling small businesses.
“The federal minimum wage is currently set way too low,” she told the Post. “We really don’t want workers to be bearing the increases of those costs. As a society we should be sharing that.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-12--DeVos Is on Her Way Out, But Public Education Is Still Very Much Under Attack

When a Biden victory in the 2020 presidential election became certain , supporters of public education gleefully took to social media to say good riddance to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos .
DeVos came into office with an agenda to further the privatization of public education by expanding charter schools and by encouraging families to opt out of public schools by any means possible .
During her tenure , she effectively used her bully pulpit to cheer on efforts by Republican state lawmakers to expand various forms of voucher programs that give parents public money to homeschool their children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She awarded many of the nation ’ s largest charter school chains with millions in federal funding , and she used the pandemic as an opportunity to redirect emergency funds for public schools to private schools and internet-based instruction — all the while refusing to even visit struggling public schools .
Biden is expected to oppose voucher programs and limit the growth of the charter school industry .
But despite the promising prospect of a transition from DeVos to a Biden administration , progressive public school advocates can ’ t afford to overlook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preceded DeVos and will continue when she is long gone .
In midsized metropolitan areas like Indianapolis and Stockton , California , parents , teachers , and public school advocates warn of huge sums of money coming from outside their communities to influence local politics and bankroll school board candidates who support school privatization .
In phone conversations , emails , and texts , they point to a national agenda , backed by deep-pocketed organizations and individuals who intend to disrupt local school governance in order to impose forms of schools that operate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — an agenda not dissimilar from that of DeVos .
In the 2020 school board election in Indianapolis , local teachers and grassroots groups the Indiana Coalition for Public Education and the IPS Community Coalition backed four candidates against a slate of opponents whom locals accuse of representing outside interests .
At stake , according to WFYI , was “ an ideological tilt ” over whether the district would continue to “ collaborate with outside groups and charter organizations ” or “ return to more traditional methods of improving struggling schools.
” Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggling schools , ” but locals say what ’ s really at stake is whether voters retain democratic control of their public schools or see them turned over to private , unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders .
Similarly , in Stockton , the clash between opposing slates of candidates in the 2020 school board election included controversies over charter school expansion and the influence of outside money in the district .
The controversy broke into public view in July 2020 when 209 Times reported that “ [ p ] aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outgoing mayor Michael Tubbs and three school board members were engaged in “ a coordinated campaign of undue influence from outside of the city whose aim is… charter school expansion ” into the district .
In both elections , candidates backed by outside organizations and individuals massively outspent candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates .
In Indianapolis , WFYI reported that political action committees supporting the candidates aligned with charter school interests had contributed more than $ 200,000 into the election by October 9 , while the “ [ f @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Community Coalition… [ had by then ] raised less than $ 20,000 in total.
” In Stockton , 209 Politics reported independent expenditure committees supporting candidates favoring charter school expansion outspent their opponents 25 to 1 .
While the language used by these outside organizations and their benefactors is different from the rhetoric DeVos wields — substituting a message of rescuing struggling schools for DeVos ’ s calls for libertarian autonomy — the result is much the same : local citizens see democratic governance of their schools being swept aside as private actors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want .
The fear , as Indianapolis teacher and community activist Dountonia Batts described to me , is that the influence of outsider money will “ further remove public voices from public education.
” Who Are the ‘ Outsiders ’ ?
“ Indianapolis school board races have become no longer a local phenomenon , but an event caught up in a national agenda to privatize and corporatize public education , ” says John Loflin , a longtime Indianapolis public school advocate with Parent Power , the Indianapolis affiliate of Parents Across America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a few local charters has grown [ over the last decade ] .
Now , Indianapolis is home of America ’ s second-most privatized public school system , ” he observes , citing an analysis by retired teacher and blogger Thomas Ultican , who has meticulously tracked the influence of national groups disrupting local school politics .
Ultican explains the “ major role ” played by local organization the Mind Trust and the substantial financial backing the Mind Trust receives from philanthropists and foundations outside of the district , including the Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Family Foundation , of Walmart fame ; Arnold Ventures , the private foundation of former hedge fund manager and Enron trader John Arnold ; and the City Fund , a nationwide organization providing financial support for city-level charter school expansions .
Another outside big spender in Indianapolis is Stand for Children , an Oregon-based education 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) recruited by the Mind Trust in 2011 to advocate for “ education reforms ” that eventually entailed the creation of “ autonomous ” schools , including charter schools .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local columnist Amos Brown posed the possibility that the outsized spending by Stand for Children meant it was “ buying ” the school board .
Brown criticized the group for not divulging its total spending in the district , which experts estimated at around $ 500,000 , Brown stated .
By 2016 , six of the seven Indianapolis school board members had “ been elected with the support of Stand for Children… which has poured undisclosed amounts of money into the IPS elections since 2012 , ” reported IndyStar .
In the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flowed to four candidates : four-term incumbent Diane Arnold ; Will Pritchard , who had barely missed out on being appointed to an open seat in 2015 ; one-term incumbent Venita Moore ; and challenger Kenneth Allen , who was taking on incumbent Elizabeth Gore , the only candidate to win in 2016 without the support of Stand for Children .
In 2020 , campaign contributions also came from a new PAC aligned with Stand for Children , RISE Indy , whose major contributors , WFYI reports , include $ 200,000 from Alice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sam Walton , and $ 100,000 from former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg .
RISE Indy ’ s leadership also has personal ties to the charter industry .
Its founder has a sister who started a charter school and another sister who worked for the Mind Trust before becoming a partner at the City Fund , Chalkbeat reports .
As Ultican reports , another pro-charter actor wielding outside money to influence Indianapolis schools is Hoosiers for Great Public Schools , an organization founded by former Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson , whose administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The organization has drawn donations from charter school promoters , including $ 200,000 from Netflix founder Reed Hastings .
Four candidates endorsed by the Indiana teachers ’ union ( Indiana Political Action Committee for Education , or I-PACE , the political action division of the Indiana State Teachers Association , or ISTA ) and the IPS Community Coalition were the incumbent Gore and first-time candidates Christina Smith , Daqavise Winston , and Brandon Randall .
According to Ultican ’ s calculations of the money that has been disclosed so far , total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the teachers ’ union by more than 11 to 1 .
Stockton has drawn a similar cast of outsiders to its local school politics scene , according to 209 Politics , with large donations coming from Bloomberg and the Campaign for Great Public Schools , the “ political arm ” of the City Fund .
The candidates who benefited from the largesse were first-time candidates Viola Shackelford and Valentino Silva as well as incumbent Lange Luntao .
Opposing these candidates were candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates : Alicia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and incumbent Cecilia Mendez .
“ There ’ s a lot of division in our community caused by big money coming into the district , ” Zulueta told me in a phone call .
“ Mayor Tubbs and some current members of the school board don ’ t want to admit this… or communicate what ’ s really going on.
” Although Zulueta did not mention names , the current board members whom he might have been referring to were AngelAnn Flores , who “ is a current employee of Aspire Charter Schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 209 Times ; Candelaria Vargas , who 209 Times reports is married to Max Vargas , senior policy adviser to Mayor Tubbs ; and Luntao , Zulueta ’ s opponent , who has been under a conflict of interest investigation for approving a board resolution to add charter schools to the district despite having been an employee of Aspire , one of the charter organizations considered for the district , as the Stockton Record reports .
Zulueta said that Stockton ’ s current political leadership is generally out of touch with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re an agricultural and small-business and trades community , ” he explained .
“ This current group doesn ’ t understand this and looks to ideas from big cities… like corporatization with charter schools.
” The presence of the City Fund in these elections is particularly noteworthy .
Chalkbeat reporter Matt Barnum describes the City Fund as a “ major player ” in using its considerable financial clout to promote the growth of “ charter and charter-like schools ” in local politics and school board races .
The organization has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Indianapolis and Stockton , with large sums of money they pass through “ city-based organizations and charter networks ” that can add to the illusion that their support is local rather than national .
Barnum has previously reported how the success of the Mind Trust ’ s efforts in Indianapolis inspired the creation of an advocacy network in 2017 called Education Cities and then , in 2018 , the formation of the City Fund , with a $ 200 million grant from Arnold and Hastings .
The idea behind all these organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a network of groups across the country intent on advancing an idea known as a “ portfolio model ” for schools .
The portfolio approach uses a Wall Street metaphor as a philosophy for governing schools .
The basic idea is that school boards should treat their schools as if they were a stock portfolio , and board members should be agnostic about who runs individual schools .
Private contractors , such as charter schools , are brought into the district in order to diversify the investments in the portfolio , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about tracking the performance of each school , based on test scores , and selling off ( closing ) schools at the bottom or turning them over to other private contractors .
Another organization that was nurtured by this well-funded free-market ideology is School Board Partners , which announced its debut in 2018 , Barnum reported .
According to Barnum ’ s reporting , School Board Partners seeks to “ form a network of [ current ] school board members in at least 10 cities ” who have an interest in “ coaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the portfolio model .
Current Stockton board members Luntao , Flores , and Vargas appear to be partners in the organization , according to 209 Times .
The “ national scope ” of these organizations “ has gone mostly unexamined , ” Barnum writes , “ even as their influence is arguably far more likely to affect schools in the average American city than a Betsy DeVos-inspired voucher program.
” In addition to emphasizing charter schools , the portfolio model also often calls for creating so-called innovation schools — charter-like schools that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much less accountable to locally elected public officials .
The idea originated in the policy workshop of the American Legislative Executive Council , a collaborative of big businesses and right-wing organizations to influence state legislation through the creation of model bills .
The concept , says Loflin , “ is another way to wrestle away the voters ’ direct democratic control of their public schools and turn them over to private , unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders.
” Batts calls innovation schools “ charter schools without the charter , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charter school and its authorizer .
But does the portfolio approach actually benefit the communities where they operate ?
The City Fund ’ s website cites research that has shown some positive results from charter schools in urban communities , but the studies do not appear to be about results that can be attributed to the work of the City Fund or adopting the portfolio model .
In a 2016 policy brief on the portfolio schools model issued by the National Education Policy Center , William Mathis and Kevin Welner write that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally accepted research ” on the benefits of the model , and they note that “ the private management of a community ’ s schools eliminates democratic accountability.
” Looking solely at innovation schools , a 2020 analysis Terrenda White and Anna Noble did for the National Education Policy Center cautions , “ Districts should temper their calls for ‘ unrestricted autonomy ’ of public schools .
This suggestion to exercise caution is due not only to evidence of the varied and short-lived nature of academic gains among autonomous schools , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts.
” White and Noble warn that further reliance on autonomous schools like charters and innovation schools risks “ [ d ] istrict responsibility for equity ” being “ displaced , or too broadly diffused across schools.
” And rather than importing ideas from distant think tanks and advocacy groups , the authors ’ recommendation is for “ [ s ] chool improvement strategies ” to be “ tied to regional and community-based approaches.
” In their 2019 book Outside Money in School Board Elections : The Nationalization of Education Politics , Jeffrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reckhow examine the injection of external funding into local elections in five urban districts , including Indianapolis .
They find a dramatic escalation in money spent in school board races , especially by outside donors who “ hope that local education reform efforts ” they backed in some communities “ [ become ] national models for other school districts to follow.
” The authors contend that financial support from teachers ’ unions can sometimes counterbalance the influence of outside donors and their associated organizations .
However , it seems clear from the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stockton that there are many communities in which unions simply can ’ t match the financial clout of outside money .
The authors ’ research finds very few examples of nationally prominent progressive political groups and individuals who have consistently allied with local teachers and public school activists to oppose the influence of outside money .
A notable exception , the authors find , is the Working Families Party , which has organized for teacher-backed candidates in school board races in Bridgeport , Connecticut .
Since the book ’ s publication , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ally to public schools in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , too .
While Henig , Jacobsen , and Reckhow find the consequences of outside money in local school politics can be “ neither wholly good nor wholly bad , ” one conclusion they reach is that the media attention that increased outsider money brings to school board elections often leads to “ a narrower policy agenda focused on nationalized issues , sometimes at the expense of more localized issues that may be of more immediate concern of the local citizenry.
” Narrowing the conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether it ’ s DeVos ’ s libertarian belief in “ school choice ” or the emphasis on free-market ideals favored by advocates for the portfolio model — risks crowding out more research-based approaches to school improvement , such as adequate funding , high-quality teaching , and equity of learning opportunity regardless of students ’ race , income , or language .
This certainly was the case in the 2020 school board elections in Indianapolis and Stockton .
Yet , while these races had much in common , they had starkly different results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charters and school choice claimed a sweeping victory , ” Chalkbeat reported , “ winning all four seats.
” In Stockton , teacher- and community-backed candidates Mendez , Rico , and Zulueta all won , the Record reported .
The results in Indianapolis prompted John Loflin to reflect , “ U.S .
citizens want the right to control public education by electing school boards .
People went to jail and others died for our right to vote for those who represent them .
Allowing boards of charters and innovation schools to be selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a power grab to transfer control of public education and its funding to private interests.
” In Stockton , Ray Zulueta ’ s comments are understandably more upbeat .
“ There is no higher civic duty than community coming together to make decisions on their locality as one , ” he said .
“ We have resoundingly rejected the influence of outside interests in Stockton , and [ we ] look forward to returning the decision-making power back to our community members .
”

When a Biden victory in the 2020 presidential election became certain, supporters of public education gleefully took to social media to say good riddance to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. DeVos came into office with an agenda to further the privatization of public education by expanding charter schools and by encouraging families to opt out of public schools by any means possible. During her tenure, she effectively used her bully pulpit to cheer on efforts by Republican state lawmakers to expand various forms of voucher programs that give parents public money to homeschool their children or send them to private schools. She awarded many of the nation’s largest charter school chains with millions in federal funding, and she used the pandemic as an opportunity to redirect emergency funds for public schools to private schools and internet-based instruction — all the while refusing to even visit struggling public schools.
Biden is expected to oppose voucher programs and limit the growth of the charter school industry. But despite the promising prospect of a transition from DeVos to a Biden administration, progressive public school advocates can’t afford to overlook a threat to democratically governed schools that preceded DeVos and will continue when she is long gone.
In midsized metropolitan areas like Indianapolis and Stockton, California, parents, teachers, and public school advocates warn of huge sums of money coming from outside their communities to influence local politics and bankroll school board candidates who support school privatization. In phone conversations, emails, and texts, they point to a national agenda, backed by deep-pocketed organizations and individuals who intend to disrupt local school governance in order to impose forms of schools that operate like private contractors rather than public agencies — an agenda not dissimilar from that of DeVos.
In the 2020 school board election in Indianapolis, local teachers and grassroots groups the Indiana Coalition for Public Education and the IPS Community Coalition backed four candidates against a slate of opponents whom locals accuse of representing outside interests. At stake, according to WFYI, was “an ideological tilt” over whether the district would continue to “collaborate with outside groups and charter organizations” or “return to more traditional methods of improving struggling schools.”
Both sides raise the banner of “improving struggling schools,” but locals say what’s really at stake is whether voters retain democratic control of their public schools or see them turned over to private, unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders.
Similarly, in Stockton, the clash between opposing slates of candidates in the 2020 school board election included controversies over charter school expansion and the influence of outside money in the district.
The controversy broke into public view in July 2020 when 209 Times reported that “[p]aid operatives” connected to Stockton’s outgoing mayor Michael Tubbs and three school board members were engaged in “a coordinated campaign of undue influence from outside of the city whose aim is… charter school expansion” into the district.
In both elections, candidates backed by outside organizations and individuals massively outspent candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates.
In Indianapolis, WFYI reported that political action committees supporting the candidates aligned with charter school interests had contributed more than $200,000 into the election by October 9, while the “[f]our candidates backed by the IPS Community Coalition… [had by then] raised less than $20,000 in total.”
In Stockton, 209 Politics reported independent expenditure committees supporting candidates favoring charter school expansion outspent their opponents 25 to 1.
While the language used by these outside organizations and their benefactors is different from the rhetoric DeVos wields — substituting a message of rescuing struggling schools for DeVos’s calls for libertarian autonomy — the result is much the same: local citizens see democratic governance of their schools being swept aside as private actors get more control to do what they want.
The fear, as Indianapolis teacher and community activist Dountonia Batts described to me, is that the influence of outsider money will “further remove public voices from public education.”
Who Are the ‘Outsiders’?
“Indianapolis school board races have become no longer a local phenomenon, but an event caught up in a national agenda to privatize and corporatize public education,” says John Loflin, a longtime Indianapolis public school advocate with Parent Power, the Indianapolis affiliate of Parents Across America. “What started out as a push for a few local charters has grown [over the last decade]. Now, Indianapolis is home of America’s second-most privatized public school system,” he observes, citing an analysis by retired teacher and blogger Thomas Ultican, who has meticulously tracked the influence of national groups disrupting local school politics.
Ultican explains the “major role” played by local organization the Mind Trust and the substantial financial backing the Mind Trust receives from philanthropists and foundations outside of the district, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Walton Family Foundation, of Walmart fame; Arnold Ventures, the private foundation of former hedge fund manager and Enron trader John Arnold; and the City Fund, a nationwide organization providing financial support for city-level charter school expansions.
Another outside big spender in Indianapolis is Stand for Children, an Oregon-based education 501(c)(4) recruited by the Mind Trust in 2011 to advocate for “education reforms” that eventually entailed the creation of “autonomous” schools, including charter schools.
In a 2014 op-ed for the Indianapolis Recorder, local columnist Amos Brown posed the possibility that the outsized spending by Stand for Children meant it was “buying” the school board. Brown criticized the group for not divulging its total spending in the district, which experts estimated at around $500,000, Brown stated.
By 2016, six of the seven Indianapolis school board members had “been elected with the support of Stand for Children… which has poured undisclosed amounts of money into the IPS elections since 2012,” reported IndyStar.
In the 2020 election, Ultican reports, outside money flowed to four candidates: four-term incumbent Diane Arnold; Will Pritchard, who had barely missed out on being appointed to an open seat in 2015; one-term incumbent Venita Moore; and challenger Kenneth Allen, who was taking on incumbent Elizabeth Gore, the only candidate to win in 2016 without the support of Stand for Children.
In 2020, campaign contributions also came from a new PAC aligned with Stand for Children, RISE Indy, whose major contributors, WFYI reports, include $200,000 from Alice Walton, a daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton, and $100,000 from former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
RISE Indy’s leadership also has personal ties to the charter industry. Its founder has a sister who started a charter school and another sister who worked for the Mind Trust before becoming a partner at the City Fund, Chalkbeat reports.
As Ultican reports, another pro-charter actor wielding outside money to influence Indianapolis schools is Hoosiers for Great Public Schools, an organization founded by former Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson, whose administration brought the first charters to the district. The organization has drawn donations from charter school promoters, including $200,000 from Netflix founder Reed Hastings.
Four candidates endorsed by the Indiana teachers’ union (Indiana Political Action Committee for Education, or I-PACE, the political action division of the Indiana State Teachers Association, or ISTA) and the IPS Community Coalition were the incumbent Gore and first-time candidates Christina Smith, Daqavise Winston, and Brandon Randall.
According to Ultican’s calculations of the money that has been disclosed so far, total campaign contributions from pro-charter PACs dwarfed contributions from the teachers’ union by more than 11 to 1.
Stockton has drawn a similar cast of outsiders to its local school politics scene, according to 209 Politics, with large donations coming from Bloomberg and the Campaign for Great Public Schools, the “political arm” of the City Fund.
The candidates who benefited from the largesse were first-time candidates Viola Shackelford and Valentino Silva as well as incumbent Lange Luntao. Opposing these candidates were candidates supported by local teachers and public school advocates: Alicia Rico, first-time candidate Ray Zulueta, and incumbent Cecilia Mendez.
“There’s a lot of division in our community caused by big money coming into the district,” Zulueta told me in a phone call. “Mayor Tubbs and some current members of the school board don’t want to admit this… or communicate what’s really going on.”
Although Zulueta did not mention names, the current board members whom he might have been referring to were AngelAnn Flores, who “is a current employee of Aspire Charter Schools,” according to a July report by 209 Times; Candelaria Vargas, who 209 Times reports is married to Max Vargas, senior policy adviser to Mayor Tubbs; and Luntao, Zulueta’s opponent, who has been under a conflict of interest investigation for approving a board resolution to add charter schools to the district despite having been an employee of Aspire, one of the charter organizations considered for the district, as the Stockton Record reports.
Zulueta said that Stockton’s current political leadership is generally out of touch with the character and needs of the community. “We’re an agricultural and small-business and trades community,” he explained. “This current group doesn’t understand this and looks to ideas from big cities… like corporatization with charter schools.”
A Big Business-Right-Wing Agenda
The presence of the City Fund in these elections is particularly noteworthy.
Chalkbeat reporter Matt Barnum describes the City Fund as a “major player” in using its considerable financial clout to promote the growth of “charter and charter-like schools” in local politics and school board races. The organization has targeted more than a dozen cities, including Indianapolis and Stockton, with large sums of money they pass through “city-based organizations and charter networks” that can add to the illusion that their support is local rather than national.
Barnum has previously reported how the success of the Mind Trust’s efforts in Indianapolis inspired the creation of an advocacy network in 2017 called Education Cities and then, in 2018, the formation of the City Fund, with a $200 million grant from Arnold and Hastings.
The idea behind all these organizations, Barnum explained, was to form a network of groups across the country intent on advancing an idea known as a “portfolio model” for schools.
The portfolio approach uses a Wall Street metaphor as a philosophy for governing schools. The basic idea is that school boards should treat their schools as if they were a stock portfolio, and board members should be agnostic about who runs individual schools. Private contractors, such as charter schools, are brought into the district in order to diversify the investments in the portfolio, and the role of the elected board becomes more about tracking the performance of each school, based on test scores, and selling off (closing) schools at the bottom or turning them over to other private contractors.
Another organization that was nurtured by this well-funded free-market ideology is School Board Partners, which announced its debut in 2018, Barnum reported.
According to Barnum’s reporting, School Board Partners seeks to “form a network of [current] school board members in at least 10 cities” who have an interest in “coaching and consulting services” related to adopting the portfolio model. Current Stockton board members Luntao, Flores, and Vargas appear to be partners in the organization, according to 209 Times.
The “national scope” of these organizations “has gone mostly unexamined,” Barnum writes, “even as their influence is arguably far more likely to affect schools in the average American city than a Betsy DeVos-inspired voucher program.”
In addition to emphasizing charter schools, the portfolio model also often calls for creating so-called innovation schools — charter-like schools that are led by private boards and therefore are much less accountable to locally elected public officials. The idea originated in the policy workshop of the American Legislative Executive Council, a collaborative of big businesses and right-wing organizations to influence state legislation through the creation of model bills.
The concept, says Loflin, “is another way to wrestle away the voters’ direct democratic control of their public schools and turn them over to private, unelected boards and their corporate supporters and funders.”
Batts calls innovation schools “charter schools without the charter,” i.e., the contract document between a charter school and its authorizer.
But does the portfolio approach actually benefit the communities where they operate?
The City Fund’s website cites research that has shown some positive results from charter schools in urban communities, but the studies do not appear to be about results that can be attributed to the work of the City Fund or adopting the portfolio model.
In a 2016 policy brief on the portfolio schools model issued by the National Education Policy Center, William Mathis and Kevin Welner write that there is “a very limited body of generally accepted research” on the benefits of the model, and they note that “the private management of a community’s schools eliminates democratic accountability.”
Looking solely at innovation schools, a 2020 analysis Terrenda White and Anna Noble did for the National Education Policy Center cautions, “Districts should temper their calls for ‘unrestricted autonomy’ of public schools. This suggestion to exercise caution is due not only to evidence of the varied and short-lived nature of academic gains among autonomous schools, but also because of unequal geographies of opportunity within districts.”
White and Noble warn that further reliance on autonomous schools like charters and innovation schools risks “[d]istrict responsibility for equity” being “displaced, or too broadly diffused across schools.” And rather than importing ideas from distant think tanks and advocacy groups, the authors’ recommendation is for “[s]chool improvement strategies” to be “tied to regional and community-based approaches.”
‘Selected Not Elected’
In their 2019 book Outside Money in School Board Elections: The Nationalization of Education Politics, Jeffrey Henig, Rebecca Jacobsen, and Sarah Reckhow examine the injection of external funding into local elections in five urban districts, including Indianapolis. They find a dramatic escalation in money spent in school board races, especially by outside donors who “hope that local education reform efforts” they backed in some communities “[become] national models for other school districts to follow.”
The authors contend that financial support from teachers’ unions can sometimes counterbalance the influence of outside donors and their associated organizations. However, it seems clear from the 2020 school board election campaigns in Indianapolis and Stockton that there are many communities in which unions simply can’t match the financial clout of outside money.
The authors’ research finds very few examples of nationally prominent progressive political groups and individuals who have consistently allied with local teachers and public school activists to oppose the influence of outside money.
A notable exception, the authors find, is the Working Families Party, which has organized for teacher-backed candidates in school board races in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Since the book’s publication, the Working Families Party has emerged as an ally to public schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, too.
While Henig, Jacobsen, and Reckhow find the consequences of outside money in local school politics can be “neither wholly good nor wholly bad,” one conclusion they reach is that the media attention that increased outsider money brings to school board elections often leads to “a narrower policy agenda focused on nationalized issues, sometimes at the expense of more localized issues that may be of more immediate concern of the local citizenry.”
Narrowing the conversation to ideological issues backed by outsiders — whether it’s DeVos’s libertarian belief in “school choice” or the emphasis on free-market ideals favored by advocates for the portfolio model — risks crowding out more research-based approaches to school improvement, such as adequate funding, high-quality teaching, and equity of learning opportunity regardless of students’ race, income, or language. This certainly was the case in the 2020 school board elections in Indianapolis and Stockton. Yet, while these races had much in common, they had starkly different results.
In Indianapolis, “Candidates favoring charters and school choice claimed a sweeping victory,” Chalkbeat reported, “winning all four seats.”
In Stockton, teacher- and community-backed candidates Mendez, Rico, and Zulueta all won, the Record reported.
The results in Indianapolis prompted John Loflin to reflect, “U.S. citizens want the right to control public education by electing school boards. People went to jail and others died for our right to vote for those who represent them. Allowing boards of charters and innovation schools to be selected, not elected, is nothing more than a power grab to transfer control of public education and its funding to private interests.”
In Stockton, Ray Zulueta’s comments are understandably more upbeat. “There is no higher civic duty than community coming together to make decisions on their locality as one,” he said. “We have resoundingly rejected the influence of outside interests in Stockton, and [we] look forward to returning the decision-making power back to our community members.”