Latest news with #KIPPAcademy
Boston Globe
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
The othering of a Lynn charter school
Advertisement You might think, then, that the state would be eager to let the academy expand. But think again. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In a The fractious debate leading up to the board's rejection provides a bracing study in the intransigence and sometimes pretzel logic of the state's education establishment toward public charter schools, even very good ones. In last month's board meeting, the Lynn teachers union asserted that the academy did not meet state standards for adding charter seats — even though the department and the state school commissioner had Other opponents testified that because KIPP Academy has a lower percentage of English language learners than the heavily immigrant Lynn Public Schools, it was effectively leaving the district with the more difficult and expensive task of educating recent immigrants. While this may be partly true, the suggestion that the academy is siphoning off only more proficient or privileged students is a stretch. Admission is by lottery. Nearly a third of the school's new students this year are English language learners, according to the academy. And its overall student body mirrors Lynn's population, as nearly 90 percent of its students are Advertisement 'It's really incredible to see the results that this school is having on low-income students,' the acting state school commissioner, Russell Johnston, So what was the real reason for the fierce opposition? Lynn Mayor Jared Nicholson laid it on the table: money. If the KIPP Academy expansion went forward, he testified, Lynn Public Schools would lose $8 million in state aid over some unspecified number of years. That is because state funding But there is much debate over just how much public districts actually 'lose' in these situations. They no longer have to educate that student, which means their costs theoretically would go down too. Plus, the state pays 'transitional aid' to districts over three years to help them adjust when students move to charters. In the first year, that reimbursement is 100 percent of the aid that has been redirected to the charter; it declines to 60 percent in the second year and ends with 40 percent in the third. Nicholson argued that despite that reimbursement, the district would be hurt over time because it has fixed costs for personnel and capital projects. Charter school advocates counter that three years should be enough time for districts to adjust. They also note that if a public school student were to go to a parochial school or move to another town, the district would get nothing. Advertisement Moreover, Lynn is actually gaining students because of immigration. So even if the KIPP Academy expanded, the district would almost certainly have still received more state aid in the coming years. To be sure, public schools, from working-class Lynn to affluent Brookline, are facing severe financial stresses. Despite the infusion of education aid provided by the Pandemic disruptions also hurt school districts in lasting ways. In Lynn, performance on standardized tests fell during the pandemic, as it did everywhere. Though state law sets strict caps on charter seats, it allows charters to expand when the local district falls into the lowest 10 percent in academic performance. This happened in Lynn, opening the door to the KIPP Academy's application to grow. Nicholson said in an interview that by next year the district could be doing well enough to prevent KIPP from applying again for new seats. That seemed to be a winning argument with Tutwiler, who told the education board last month after his no vote: 'I cannot ignore the context in which we are making this decision. And it is a pandemic recovery context.' But what Tutwiler did not mention was the possibility that even if Lynn's performance improves, KIPP Academy's waiting list might remain long — as it has for several years now. Indeed, according to the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, charter enrollment in the Commonwealth hit an all-time high this year at more than 46,000 students — even though enrollment is capped in many towns. At the same time, enrollment in public schools has Advertisement At last month's meeting, Tutwiler also voted against an uncontroversial expansion proposal from a Horace Mann Charter School in Boston, which passed despite his opposition, and another proposal from a high-performing math and science charter in Marlborough, even though it was for a mere 34-seat expansion. That one failed. His votes surprised some board members and raised concerns among charter advocates. Tutwiler has asserted that neither he nor the governor are dogmatically anti-charter. But if that is the case, the governor would do well to make her views clearer to the public. Beyond that gesture, the state and its more than 300 school districts should be having a more frank dialogue about containing costs and finding strategies to improve academic performance beyond spending more money. Many districts are facing the same problems; might there be statewide approaches to reducing the cost of busing students or educating new immigrants and students with learning disabilities? They should also be asking hard questions about why more families are searching for nontraditional alternatives — private, parochial, charter, and home schooling — to traditional public schools. So far, that discussion has too often 'othered' charter schools and their families, as Rhonda Barnes, executive director of the KIPP schools in Lynn and Boston, has described it. Indeed, Barnes felt she had to remind the board in February that her school is a public school and that her students are public school students too. Advertisement The state's acting school commissioner seemed to hear her plea, even if others on the board did not. The thousands of families on charter school waiting lists are asking for 'more public school options for their children,' Johnston told the board. 'We need to listen to our families.' Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats' hatred of Trump is destroying their party
Democrats did not just lose an election in 2024 — apparently, they lost their minds, too. Consider, for instance, how they kicked off Women's History Month — by voting against protecting women and girls in sports, against guaranteeing them a fair playing field. That's right: Every single Democrat voted down the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would prohibit federally funded schools from allowing male transgender athletes to participate in women's sports. It would prevent girls and women from being injured by bigger, stronger biological males. And, just as importantly, it would prevent girls who have worked like crazy to excel in sports from being humiliated by a men dressed like women. Take, for example, the basketball game that took place a year ago between two Massachusetts teams — the Collegiate Charter School of Lowell and KIPP Academy in Lynn. A transgender player for KIPP, at six feet tall and sporting facial hair, injured multiple opposing female players, eventually forcing Collegiate to forfeit the game. Or consider the gruesome injury sustained by Payton McNabb in a 2022 volleyball match, when a transgender opponent spiked the ball into her head and nearly killed her. Some 79 percent of Americans, including 67 percent of Democrats, favor keeping men out of women's sports and locker rooms, according to New York Times-Ipsos polling. So why fall on your sword by defeating a bill that so clearly aligns with the preferences of voters? This is not the only recent foolish move by Democrats. In anticipation of President Trump's speech to Congress on Tuesday, 22 senators in the Democratic caucus broadcast videos of themselves all reading the exact same script, which starts with the words, 'S— that ain't true,' mocking Trump's campaign pledge to bring down prices on Day 1. Conservatives on social media quickly roasted the copycat stunt, and rightly so. And then we have Democrats' embarrassing behavior during Trump's speech. Early on, one of their own, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), was booted from the chamber for trying to disrupt the president by shouting and waving his cane. Others were more restrained but equally undignified, raising little paddles to signal their disapproval, looking for all the world like spoiled children. More shameful, though, was their sullen refusal to applaud or celebrate a young black child who had overcome brain cancer and always wanted to be a cop; the return of Marc Fogel, formerly held hostage in Russia; and a steelworker who has been a foster parent to some 40 kids. These were moving stories, but Democrats could not find in their angry souls any compassion for them. Shame on them. Here's the problem for the 'Resistance,' as Democrats like to refer to themselves: The policies they are 'resisting' are popular with U.S. voters. Take their opposition to Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency? Is there anyone who does not think the federal government is too big and riddled with waste and fraud? A CBS poll taken after Trump's speech found that 76 percent of those surveyed approved of the address. Moreover, 77 percent approved of his efforts to cut government waste and spending; 77 percent favored his immigration and border policies; 73 percent backed his position on Russia and Ukraine; 68 percent thought he had a clear plan to tackle inflation; 68 percent say he is right on crime; and 63 percent say he is focused on issues they care about. Oh, and 74 percent thought his speech was 'presidential.' The audience definitely tilted toward the Republican but even so, that seems like a major thumbs-up for a president Democrats appear determined to oppose at every turn. Maybe Democrats need to rethink their game plan, which seemingly was crafted during Trump's first term, when the president was less popular than he is now. Perhaps the urge to demean and oppose every single thing he did eight years ago made sense, when his election was considered a fluke and his support was shaky. But Trump won the popular vote last November, along with every swing state. Moreover, he made great strides with constituents traditionally important to Democrats, including Hispanics and young people. Do they want to double down on the policies, like the open border, that turned those important voting groups against them? Part of Democrats' problem is that they are leaderless; Hakeem Jeffries is no Nancy Pelosi, who ruled her fractious House caucus (and her party) with an iron fist. Another issue is that they have ceded far too much influence to the progressive wing of the party. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is one of the few Democrats to abandon the progressive label and hew toward the center after his election. He has voted to confirm some of Trump's Cabinet nominees and has been supportive of Israel and of restricting immigration. The Pennsylvania senator called his party's behavior during Trump's speech a 'sad cavalcade of self-owns and unhinged petulance,' and characterized Democrats' protests against the Trump agenda as 'the metaphorical car alarms that nobody pays attention to — and it may not be the winning message.' Hatred of Donald Trump is neither a message nor a strategy. The question is whether Democrats can break loose of this affliction and begin to recover their footing. In the coming weeks, they face an important test: Democrats will have to decide whether to sign on to a Republican-sponsored continuing resolution to fund the government. In the past, the party standing in the way of keeping the federal government open has suffered political backlash. That risk may not dissuade House liberals. Here again, Fetterman emerges as the voice of reason, saying, 'I will never vote or withhold that support because we must never shut down our government. That's one of our core responsibilities, and I will never vote for chaos.' Will his colleagues come to their senses and work with Republicans to fund the government? Or will they continue down the path of political self-destruction? Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim and Company. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
07-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Democrats' hatred of Trump is destroying their party
Democrats did not just lose an election in 2024 — apparently, they lost their minds, too. Consider, for instance, how they kicked off Women's History Month — by voting against protecting women and girls in sports, against guaranteeing them a fair playing field. That's right: Every single Democrat voted down the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would prohibit federally funded schools from allowing male transgender athletes to participate in women's sports. It would prevent girls and women from being injured by bigger, stronger biological males. And, just as importantly, it would prevent girls who have worked like crazy to excel in sports from being humiliated by a men dressed like women. Take, for example, the basketball game that took place a year ago between two Massachusetts teams — the Collegiate Charter School of Lowell and KIPP Academy in Lynn. A transgender player for KIPP, at six feet tall and sporting facial hair, injured multiple opposing female players, eventually forcing Collegiate to forfeit the game. Or consider the gruesome injury sustained by Payton McNabb in a 2022 volleyball match, when a transgender opponent spiked the ball into her head and nearly killed her. Some 79 percent of Americans, including 67 percent of Democrats, favor keeping men out of women's sports and locker rooms, according to New York Times-Ipsos polling. So why fall on your sword by defeating a bill that so clearly aligns with the preferences of voters? This is not the only recent foolish move by Democrats. In anticipation of President Trump's speech to Congress on Tuesday, 22 senators in the Democratic caucus broadcast videos of themselves all reading the exact same script, which starts with the words, 'S— that ain't true,' mocking Trump's campaign pledge to bring down prices on Day 1. Conservatives on social media quickly roasted the copycat stunt, and rightly so. And then we have Democrats' embarrassing behavior during Trump's speech. Early on, one of their own, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), was booted from the chamber for trying to disrupt the president by shouting and waving his cane. Others were more restrained but equally undignified, raising little paddles to signal their disapproval, looking for all the world like spoiled children. More shameful, though, was their sullen refusal to applaud or celebrate a young black child who had overcome brain cancer and always wanted to be a cop; the return of Marc Fogel, formerly held hostage in Russia; and a steelworker who has been a foster parent to some 40 kids. These were moving stories, but Democrats could not find in their angry souls any compassion for them. Shame on them. Here's the problem for the 'Resistance,' as Democrats like to refer to themselves: The policies they are 'resisting' are popular with U.S. voters. Take their opposition to Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency? Is there anyone who does not think the federal government is too big and riddled with waste and fraud? A CBS poll taken after Trump's speech found that 76 percent of those surveyed approved of the address. Moreover, 77 percent approved of his efforts to cut government waste and spending; 77 percent favored his immigration and border policies; 73 percent backed his position on Russia and Ukraine; 68 percent thought he had a clear plan to tackle inflation; 68 percent say he is right on crime; and 63 percent say he is focused on issues they care about. Oh, and 74 percent thought his speech was 'presidential.' The audience definitely tilted toward the Republican but even so, that seems like a major thumbs-up for a president Democrats appear determined to oppose at every turn. Maybe Democrats need to rethink their game plan, which seemingly was crafted during Trump's first term, when the president was less popular than he is now. Perhaps the urge to demean and oppose every single thing he did eight years ago made sense, when his election was considered a fluke and his support was shaky. But Trump won the popular vote last November, along with every swing state. Moreover, he made great strides with constituents traditionally important to Democrats, including Hispanics and young people. Do they want to double down on the policies, like the open border, that turned those important voting groups against them? Part of Democrats' problem is that they are leaderless; Hakeem Jeffries is no Nancy Pelosi, who ruled her fractious House caucus (and her party) with an iron fist. Another issue is that they have ceded far too much influence to the progressive wing of the party. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is one of the few Democrats to abandon the progressive label and hew toward the center after his election. He has voted to confirm some of Trump's Cabinet nominees and has been supportive of Israel and of restricting immigration. The Pennsylvania senator called his party's behavior during Trump's speech a 'sad cavalcade of self-owns and unhinged petulance,' and characterized Democrats' protests against the Trump agenda as 'the metaphorical car alarms that nobody pays attention to — and it may not be the winning message.' Hatred of Donald Trump is neither a message nor a strategy. The question is whether Democrats can break loose of this affliction and begin to recover their footing. In the coming weeks, they face an important test: Democrats will have to decide whether to sign on to a Republican-sponsored continuing resolution to fund the government. In the past, the party standing in the way of keeping the federal government open has suffered political backlash. That risk may not dissuade House liberals. Here again, Fetterman emerges as the voice of reason, saying, 'I will never vote or withhold that support because we must never shut down our government. That's one of our core responsibilities, and I will never vote for chaos.' Will his colleagues come to their senses and work with Republicans to fund the government? Or will they continue down the path of political self-destruction?
