Children entering charter schools in Los Angeles already outperform peers who attend traditional public schools, then pull ahead even a bit more, especially those attending charter middle schools … .

 

Pupils who enter charter elementary or high schools displayed significantly higher test scores, relative to counterparts entering traditional public schools at the same grade levels, the report said. Elementary students in charter schools benefit from slightly steeper learning curves, relative to peers remaining in conventional schools, researchers said. Charter high schools were no more or less effective than traditional schools in boosting student performance.

 

Charter schools, while publicly funded, operate independently of many state requirements and the administration of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Some 274 charter schools operate in L.A. Unified this fall, more than any school district nationwide.

 

The four-year study of 66,000 students at charter schools in Los Angeles Unified — one of the largest research projects yet on charters — offers generally positive news about their quality of education.

The $490 million ‘Great Public Schools Now Initiative’

The study is sure to be invoked by Broad and others unhappy with the quality of education in the nation’s second-largest district. In September, the Los Angeles Times obtained a copy of a 44-page report prepared for Broad called “The Great Public Schools Now Initiative” that corroborated earlier stories that Broad hoped to increase from 16 percent to 50 percent the number of L.A. Unified students in charters, which would require the creation of an estimated 260 new schools. A key passage in the executive summary:

The opportunity is ripe for a significant expansion of high-quality charter schools in Los Angeles. Thanks to the strength of its charter leaders and teachers, as well as its widespread civic and philanthropic support, Los Angeles is uniquely positioned to create the largest, highest-performing charter sector in the nation. Such an exemplar would serve as a model for all large cities to follow.

According to the Times account, the report cited …

… numerous foundations and individuals who could be tapped to raise money, including the Bill and Melinda Gates, Bloomberg, Annenberg and Hewlett organizations. Among the individuals cited as potential targets for fundraising were Eli Broad, Irvine Co. head Donald Bren, former entertainment mogul David Geffen and Tesla’s Elon Musk.

 

It also suggested a strategy of grassroots organizing and civic engagement designed to generate more interest among parents in charter schools.

UTLA, CTA gear up for public-relations war

The California Teachers Association and its largest chapter, United Teachers Los Angeles, are ramping up for the challenge. The UTLA has already launched a picketing campaign against the plan. At a November rally, CTA President Eric Heins said, “We are here to say to Eli Broad and to Walmart that our schools are not for sale. … The 325,000 members of the California Teachers Association stand arm in arm with UTLA and with CFT to say no to Eli Broad, to say no to Walmart, and to help build the schools that all L.A. students deserve.”

The CTA has won support from Diana Ravitch, a high-profile education reformer and author who’s made an odyssey from harsh union critic to someone who agrees with the union claim that there is something unsavory, corporate and ominous about a school reform movement organized by billionaires. That’s how she characterized Broad’s effort on her website.

“Will the [LAUSD] board go along with Eli’s silent coup or will they choose someone to represent the public interest?” Ravitch wrote.

Broad’s defenders describe his school reform ideas as very comparable to President Obama and his push for school and teacher accountability. But the nation’s two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association (which counts the CTA as its biggest affiliate) and the American Federation of Teachers (the California Federation of Teachers is its biggest affiliate), reject that comparison.

Obama’s recent decision to sign the Every Student Succeeds Act, a national education framework replacing 2002’s No Child Left Behind law, would appear to back up the NEA’s and AFT’s view. It pulls back sharply from federal accountability requirements imposed on states and individual school districts.

The new law swept to bipartisan passage because of an unusual coalition of Democrats who joined teacher unions in saying too much class time was being spent on testing and Republicans who said Congress should not be a “national school board,” in the phrase of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a former secretary of education.

Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, has introduced a measure to ban online sales of all tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes. Dickinson says the bill, Assembly Bill 1500, would help state regulators combat teen smoking.

“Although great progress has been made to curb teen smoking, the use of e-cigarettes and the internet availability of tobacco products pose a serious risk,” Dickinson said in a press release. “AB1500 will make it impossible for young people to order e-cigarettes or other tobacco products online thereby safeguarding them from the dangers of smoking.”

Although Dickinson has made teen smoking central to his media pitch, the real battle over AB1500 is over the dollars and cents at stake in online cigarette sales. Unsurprisingly, state tax collectors are anxiously hoping new regulations will boost state coffers.

Online sales result in tax ‘breakage’

Dickinson’s bill, which blocks a segment of the online marketplace, is expected to generate $24 million in tax revenue for the state. At first blush, that might sound a bit counterintuitive: How could a bill that bans commerce generate more revenue for the state?

Smokers who buy tobacco products online won’t quit smoking. Consequently, the ban is expected to redirect online sales to brick and mortar stores. With online transactions, there’s more tax “breakage,” sales and use tax that is either never charged or collected.

“By requiring purchases at brick-and-mortar retailers, it will ensure that tax revenue is collected,” said Taryn Kinney, Dickinson’s communications director. “The purpose of the bill is aimed at limiting access to tobacco products for teenagers but the additional tax revenue is an added benefit.”

The state Board of Equalization, which administers the state’s sales and use tax laws, has yet to take a position on the bill but acknowledges the difficulty in tracking e-commerce.

“The BOE has no formal revenue estimate for eCigarette sales,” said Venus Stromberg, a spokeswoman for the Board of Equalization. “Since there is no excise tax on these products, and no licensing requirements, BOE does not track these purchases.”

Although the Board of Equalization doesn’t track online purchases, it has implemented a program, the Cigarette and Tobacco Product Internet Program, to pursue use tax from consumers that purchase tobacco products from out-of-state Internet retailers. Federal laws also assist the state with this program.

“Currently, federal laws such as the Jenkins Act and PACT Act assist with tax collection by requiring out-of-state sellers to submit reports to each state’s tax agency of their cigarette and certain tobacco sales made to residents,” Stromberg said.

State taxes on cigarettes are hefty

With nearly a dollar of taxes on each pack of cigarettes, state tax collectors have reason to track down online sales. Of the 87 cents in taxes per pack of cigarettes, the Board of Equalization says that 50 cents goes towards programs that  “encourage proper childhood  development, including the  development of professional and  parental education and training,  informed selection of childcare,  development and education of  childcare providers, and research  into the best practices and  standards for all programs and  services relating to early childhood  development.”

The remaining tax funds are distributed with 25 cents for tobacco-related health education programs and disease research; 10 cents for the state’s  General Fund; and two cents for the Breast Cancer Research Fund.

“With proper outreach to consumers, eCigarette purchases would be redirected to brick and mortar stores in CA where there is oversight with regard to compliance with the tax laws,” said Stromberg, a Board of Equalization spokeswoman.

Unique tax issues behind retailers vs. onlight fight

Online sales of tobacco products, just like all e-commerce, pose unique tax issues. Right now, the amount of taxes owed to the government is the same for online sales and brick and mortar transactions. The difference lies with the reporting and collection obligations. Retailers collect sales taxes at the point of sale, whereas with online sales, consumers are obliged to report use taxes.

Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.,  vowed to reintroduce legislation that would allow states to require online retailers to collect sales taxes. Known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, the bill would switch the tax obligation from consumers to online retailers. It is backed by some business groups that represent brick and mortar retailers.

Critics of the Marketplace Fairness Act say the legislation would force small online businesses to adhere to thousands of tax regulations.

“For the first time, online merchants would be forced to collect sales taxes for all of America’s estimated 9,600 state and local taxing authorities,” the Wall Street Journal cautioned in an editorial against the bill. “New Hampshire, for example, has no sales tax, but a Granite State Web merchant would be forced to collect and remit sales taxes to all the governments that do. Small online sellers will therefore have to comply with tax laws created by distant governments in which they have no representation, and in places where they consume no local services.”

In California, online retailers have largely given into the online tax push. In 2012, Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, cut a deal with Gov. Jerry Brown to begin collecting sales tax on transactions involving California residents.

Dickinson’s bill once again makes California a leader in the effort to restrict online commerce. His spokesperson says it’s justified to treat tobacco products differently from other products and impose an outright ban on online sales.

“Tobacco products should be treated differently because each day in the United States, nearly 4,000 under 18 smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become new daily cigarette smokers,” said Kinney, Dickinson’s communications director.  “The Internet is currently the only way a minor can purchase tobacco products in California that does not require age verification.”

Thus far, the industry isn’t weighing in on the issue. The Cigar Association of America, Inc. declined to comment for this story.