Category: Uncategorized

New Eastern Europe: Interview with Tamar Jacoby

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

“Nations that do things out of self-interest are much stronger allies than nations that act out of sympathy”

Interview with Tamar Jacoby, the director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s New Ukraine Project. Interviewer: Iwona Reichardt.

IWONA REICHARDT: Looking at the near future regarding US politics and policy towards Ukraine, what can we expect in your view?

TAMAR JACOBY: I am still modestly hopeful that the US Congress will pass the aid package that has been pending since last October, although they might not pass the whole package. It has already passed the Senate by a resounding margin, bigger than anyone expected. But the House of Representatives is going to be a much tougher setting. The current belief in Washington is that military aid for Ukraine could pass but not economic aid. This might not be what Ukraine wants, but it will still be important – what Kyiv needs most from the US right now is military aid. At the same time, I fear that even if it passes, this will be the last American package for Ukraine. American support for Ukraine has been eroding for two years, since the full-scale invasion. It used to be 60, 70 or even 80 per cent; but we are now down to the 50 or 60 per cent support. If Donald Trump is re-elected, I fear that American aid will be cut off entirely. But even without a President Trump, I fear that American interest and concern and attention for the war is flagging. The good news is that Europe is stepping up to fill this gap, so the timing could be okay. We have also recently been alarmed by news about Russian nuclear weapons in space, so maybe some Americans will wake up.

For the full interview, read more here. 

PPI Statement on the FTC’s Lawsuit to Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Washington, D.C. — Today, Diana Moss, Vice President and Director of Competition Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) lawsuit to block the Kroger-Albertsons merger.

“PPI applauds the Commission for moving to block the merger of two of the largest grocery chains in the U.S. The FTC’s enforcement action protects consumers and workers from a colossal loss of head-to-head competition that would hit them directly in their wallets and paychecks.

“The Kroger-Albertsons merger follows years of systematic consolidation in grocery markets that has been overseen by the FTC. Higher grocery prices, lower wages and benefits, a loss of quality and service, and food ‘deserts,’ have added to the burden of high inflation and loss of worker bargaining power. The FTC’s complaint to block the Kroger-Albertsons merger advances the importance of antitrust enforcement that recognizes harms in both labor and consumer markets.

“Additionally, the FTC explains its decision to decline Kroger’s and Albertsons’ inadequate divestiture proposal. It calls out the failed divestitures that followed in the wake of the 2015 merger of Safeway and Albertsons, making clear that the Kroger-Albertsons merger is ‘too big to fix.’ The most effective remedy for restoring lost competition in a merger that is ‘too big to fix’ is to block it.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Amelia Fox – afox@ppionline.org

Odd Remarks by the U.S. Trade Representative

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

During the “Big Tech” era, the US economy has substantially outperformed major European countries, and that advantage only widened in the pandemic years. Since 2007, U.S. productivity growth has averaged 1.2% per year, compared to only  0.1% annually for France and Germany (Table 1). And real wage growth in the U.S. averaged 1.1% annually, compared to 0.7% for France and 0.8% for Germany. (Table 2)

Drilling down, it’s clear that much of that difference between U.S. and Europe is due to the strong gains in the American tech and ecommerce sector.  For example, real wage gains in the U.S. tech and ecommerce/retail sectors have averaged 1.6% per year since 2007, double the overall real wage gains in France and Germany.

Against this backdrop of strong wage and productivity growth, recent remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai have an odd ring to them. At a January 31 competition conference in Europe, Tai argued that:

 “I think for a long time we’ve pursued this assumption that well, these are iconic American companies. They are brand names that we’re very proud of. Therefore, anything that is good for them will be good for us. That benefiting the companies will create that trickle down benefit to the company’s workers and the communities where those workers live.  And we’ve seen over time, that just isn’t happening.”

In fact, the data shows that U.S. workers, and tech/ecommerce/retail workers in particular, have done better than workers in major European countries.

Tai went down a similar route when she spoke at a February 12 event at the Council for Foreign Relations, and called into question the nationality of America’s leading tech companies.

“A question that I’ve been asking is: ……what is an American company? …..Because from a tax perspective, ……how many of our big tech companies are actually, for tax purposes, headquartered in other places and actually paying taxes there as opposed to paying taxes here. If that’s the definition of an American company, I’ll have to ask you and others, how many of these American companies are actually really American companies?”

That’s a strange take for the country’s lead trade negotiator. Certainly, there’s a vigorous debate about how best to regulate and tax the most successful tech companies. But there’s little doubt that they are American companies, investing in America, benefiting American workers, and paying American taxes. Tai should be supporting them, not undercutting them.

 

Table 1: Comparative Productivity Growth
(Real GDP per employed worker, annual growth rate)
2007-2023 2019-2023
U.S. 1.2% 1.4%
France 0.1% -1.2%
Germany 0.1% -0.2%
Italy -0.2% 0.3%
Spain 0.6% -0.4%
UK 0.3% 0.5%
Data: OECD

 

 

Table 2: Comparative Real Wage Growth
(Real wages, annual growth rate)
2007-2022 2019-2022
U.S. 1.1% 1.9%
France 0.7% -0.3%
Germany 0.8% -1.0%
Italy -0.3% -1.1%
Spain 0.0% -1.2%
UK 0.0% -0.4%
Data: OECD

 

 

Marshall for The Hill: Palestinian leadership and dangerous illusions breed endless war

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Will Marshall

In purely military terms, Israel is winning its war against Hamas. Its forces have driven Hamas fighters out of much of north and central Gaza, killing at least 10,000 while losing fewer than 300 Israeli troops.

But the war is taking a horrendous toll on civilians. It has killed more than 29,000 Palestinians, wounded nearly 70,000 and reduced much of northern Gaza to rubble. These figures come from Hamas-controlled public health officials and do not distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Over the protests of President Biden and European leaders, Israeli forces are preparing to assault Rafah, a city on Gaza’s southern border. Following Israel’s orders to evacuate, more than 1.4 million displaced civilians have fled there to escape the fighting in the north.

The plight of Palestinian civilians is eclipsing the global outrage that followed Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the taking of more than 250 hostages. This incenses many Israelis, who believe with reason that many Palestinians regard  Hamas’s orgy of murder, rape and kidnapping as a legitimate response to Israeli “occupation.”

Hamas uses civilians as human shields and profits politically from their deaths. The more Palestinian “martyrs” it feeds into the maw of war, the louder the international clamor for cease-fires and false accusations by Hamas apologists that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Valentine for Real Clear Education: Are HBCUs the Key to the Future?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Curtis Valentine

“The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.”

This Black History Month, teachers and students of all colors will study this famous quote from martyred leader and speaker Malcolm X and hopefully reflect on its meaning. For so many, the future is more uncertain than ever. As we grapple with issues ranging from Artificial Intelligence to post-COVID learning loss, chronic absenteeism, the science of reading, teacher diversity, and the future of higher education, there is a greater need for a transformative solution to longstanding racial disparities in educational outcomes.

The recent National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), commonly referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card,” underscores the persistent disparities between races. For example, white fourth graders continue to outscore their Black counterparts by a margin that has only marginally improved since 1992. The imperative for change is clear and waiting is simply not an option.

In the realm of educational innovation, where is the visionary idea that will instill accountability, grant autonomy to educational leaders, and expand school choice for low-income parents, thereby fostering the most significant gains for Black and Brown students?

Read more in Real Clear Education.

Marshall in The New York Times: Does Biden Have to Cede the White Working Class to Trump?

Posted on by Alex Terr

John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira have made this case repeatedly in recent years, most exhaustively in their 2023 book, “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?”

They are not alone.

“For Victory in 2024, Democrats Must Win Back the Working Class,” Will Marshall, the founder and president of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote in October 2023. “Can Democrats Win Back the Working Class?” Jared Abbott and Fred DeVeaux of the Center for Working-Class Politics asked in June 2023; “Democrats Need Biden to Appeal to Working-Class Voters” is how David Byler, the former Washington Post data columnist, put it the same month.

However persuasive they are, these arguments raise a series of questions.

Read more in The New York Times.

Trade Fact of the Week: American steel output lower in 2023 than in 2017; aluminum about the same as 2017.

Posted on by Max Sherrill

FACT: American steel output lower in 2023 than in 2017; aluminum about the same as 2017.

THE NUMBERS: U.S. steel use* –
2023:   93 million tons
2022:   96.9 million tons
2021:   98.9 million tons
2012-2017 average: 100 million tons

* U.S. Geological Survey, annual ‘apparent consumption’’

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Six years later, how have Trump-era metals tariffs worked out? Did the U.S. wind up making more steel or aluminum? If so, did the tariffs damage metal-users like auto companies or machinery makers? And if so, how did they respond?  Some perspectives on these questions, drawn from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s modeling estimates along with recent data on metal output and consumption:

The Basics: In the first week of March 2018, the Trump administration decided to impose tariffs of 25% on most imported steel products, and of 10% on most imported aluminum. These were added on top of pre-existing tariffs, mostly in the range of 2% to 5.7% for aluminum and 0% to 3% for steel. (Note: The pre-2018 rates oversimplify, as many steel and some aluminum products also have additional “anti-dumping” and “countervailing duty” tariffs. See below for a bit more.) The legal basis was a little-used U.S. trade law clause — “Section 232” — dating to 1962, which authorizes presidents to indefinitely “adjust” imports on grounds of national security. The Department of Commerce, which administers this law, argued for limiting imports in two Jan. 2018 reports on the grounds that ready access to these metals has security implications and rising imports had cut U.S. output. The resulting tariffs have mostly stayed in place since, with changes such as the substitution of quotas for tariffs for Korea and the EU and exemptions for Canada and Mexico.

What has happened since? Abstract economic logic suggests that a large new tariff should create a four-phase chain of events something like this:

(i)    Tariffs raise prices for the relevant imported good, in this case the two metals.
(ii)    U.S. buyers — in this case, industries such as machinery and auto factories, construction firms, and canning industries — shift purchasing to local varieties.  Imports therefore fall and the “domestic” share rises.
(iii)    As “consumer” industries pay more for the good, they lose some competitiveness vis-à-vis imports at home and in export competition abroad, and therefore risk also losing some production and employment.
(iv)    They respond by trying, to the extent possible, to use less.

The Commerce Department’s 2018 reports admitted that phase (iv) was theoretically possible, but said it probably wouldn’t materialize in reality because strong GDP growth and higher federal spending on metal-using products would offset higher prices. Thus capacity utilization would rise, and U.S. mills and smelters would grow more stable and profitable. Here’s their steel prediction:

“By reducing import penetration rates to approximately 21 percent, U.S. industry would be able to operate at 80 percent of their capacity utilization. Achieving this level of capacity utilization based on the projected 2017 import levels will require reducing imports from 36 million metric tons to about 23 million metric tons. If a reduction in imports can be combined with an increase in domestic steel demand, as can be reasonably expected [with] rising economic growth rates combined with the increased military spending and infrastructure proposals that the Trump Administration has planned, then U.S. steel mills can be expected to reach a capacity utilization level of 80 percent or greater. This increase in U.S. capacity utilization will enable U.S. steel mills to increase operations significantly in the short-term and improve the financial viability of the industry over the long-term.

In sum, the administration’s hope and prediction was that the U.S. would be producing more metals, since the policy “would enable U.S. steel producers to operate at an 80 percent or better average annual capacity utilization rate based on available capacity in 2017.” The analogous goal for primary aluminum was a rise in production to 1.45 million tons, and of smelter capacity utilization to 80%.

Phase i: Imports Fall, 2018-2019: U.S. statistical agencies such as the Census and the U.S. Geological Survey publish regular data on metal trade, use, and production. The trade figures show that after the tariffs went on in early 2018, imports of metals did in fact drop. Steel imports fell from the 36 million tons mentioned in the Commerce report to 25 million tons in 2019, quite close to their 23-million-ton goal. Aluminum imports went down from 6.2 million tons in 2017 to 5.3 million tons in 2019. Both declines seem to have lasted, though with some volatility and fluctuation; 2023 imports were 25 million tons for steel and 4.8 million tons for aluminum.

Phases ii & ii: Metal Output Up But “Downstream” Industries Contract, 2020-2021: The U.S. International Trade Commission’s formal five-year report last March estimated that in 2020 and 2021, the tariffs had raised U.S. steel and aluminum output by about $2.2 billion, as compared with a hypothetical case in which the administration did not impose tariffs. Meanwhile, they cut the output of U.S. metal-using manufacturers (mainly machinery, auto parts, and tools and cutlery) by about $3.5 billion. So overall, ITC’s estimate was that between 2017 and 2021, the tariffs had increased the metals production relative to a no-tariff scenario, but left the overall U.S. manufacturing sector a bit smaller.

Phase iv?: Output and Metal Use/2023: No such formal estimate yet exists for 2022 and 2023. However, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s annual “Mineral Commodity Surveys”, by 2023 Americans were using less steel and aluminum than they had before 2018. These reports show that from 2012 to 2017, the U.S. economy used an average of 100 million tons of steel and 5.23 million tons of aluminum per year. (Using USGS’ “apparent consumption” metric.) The 2023 U.S. economy, though about 10% bigger in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars than that of 2017, used only 93 million tons of steel and 4 million tons of aluminum — respectively 7% less and 20% less than before. Put another way, where in 2017 the U.S.’ $20.2 trillion GDP used on average 5100 tons of steel and 290 tons of aluminum per real $1 billion in output, the $22.4 trillion 2023 economy needed only 4,156 tons of steel and 179 tons of aluminum per $1 billion.

Thus, though imports remain close to the levels the Commerce Department’s 2018 reports envisioned, U.S. metal production has fallen back to pre-tariff levels. According to USGS, steel mills poured out 81.6 million tons of metal in pre-tariff 2017, and got up to 87.8 million tons in 2019.  In 2022, though, they were back to 80.5 million tons; in 2023, a slightly lower 80.0 million.  Primary aluminum smelters likewise, having raised output from 741,000 tons in 2017 to 1.09 million tons in 2019, had fallen back down to 750,000 tons in 2023. Nor did the Department’s prediction of higher capacity utilization prove realistic. The Federal Reserve’s “FRED” statistical service reports 74.2% in 2023, statistically about the same as 2017’s 73.6%. And actual capacity is down from 111 million to 104 million tons in steel, and from 2 million to 1.36 million tons in aluminum.

Analysis of this should be a little cautious, as metal use (especially in aluminum) can be volatile. But it’s unusual to see a sustained decline in use during periods of strong economic growth like that of 2021-2023. And it may be that (setting aside international reactions and retaliations, and impacts on metal users like the auto parts and machinery factories) we are now in Phase (iv), and the tariffs’ main current effect is “lower use of metals.” Not really what the DoC was advertising six years ago.

FURTHER READING

Analysis:

USITC analysis and estimates of the ‘232’ tariffs (see pp. 124-133).

Academics Kadee Russ & Lydia Cox forecast in February 2018 that metals tariffs could raise metal output, but likely at the cost of jobs and production in other manufacturing industries.

… and they look back from 2021.

Data: 

FRED (“Federal Reserve Economic Data”) has steel capacity utilization trends from 1970 forward.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s mineral commodity statistics have annual reports on steel and aluminum output,  imports and exports, capacity, and employment back to the early 1990s.

… and for real enthusiasts, a spreadsheet with data back to 1900.

And references:

The “Section 232” site for the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, with links to the 2018 reports on steel and aluminum.

… or direct to the 2018 steel report.

… and the 2018 aluminum report.

And some tariff explanation:

Steel and aluminum typically have “MFN” tariffs in ranges from 2% to 5.7% for aluminum and from 0% to 3% for steel. Real-world policy is complex, though, as steel in particular is often also covered by “anti-dumping” and “countervailing duty” tariff penalties outside the regular tariff schedule. The Commerce Department reports that of the 685 AD and CVD “orders” currently in place, 309 cover steel and steel products, and a more modest 32 cover aluminum.

Here’s the U.S. tariff schedule, with steel in Chapters 72 and 73, and aluminum in Chapter 76.

And the Department of Commerce’s tally of AD and CVD “orders” by country, industry, date, and product.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Ryan for The Wall Street Journal: LNG Export Ban Is Atrocious Politics

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tim Ryan

Many climate activists are celebrating the Biden administration’s decision to curtail exports of liquefied natural gas. The policy, however, is a political misstep and not only for the reasons most critics give. For a moment, set aside the national-security implications—that limiting American exports will punish our allies around the world—and the concern that this decision may spur European and Asian countries to burn more coal. By picking at a cultural scab some of us in the Democratic Party have worked to heal, the policy also risks alienating key voting blocs from Joe Biden’s campaign and climate policy writ large.

This is a political challenge I know personally. When I used to make my weekly journey from Youngstown, Ohio, to Pittsburgh on my way to Washington, I passed an enormous “cracker plant” being constructed off the expressway—a facility that processed ethane and other components of the natural gas being extracted from Appalachian shale formations. As a Democratic congressman, I looked on with hope and pride: Our region was creating well-paying union jobs in an industry that was fighting climate change by retiring coal in favor of cleaner gas.

What those celebrating the LNG export pause don’t understand is that the people working in that cracker plant, as well as the voters who thrived in the fracking boom, aren’t all climate-change deniers, which I discovered through conversations with constituents. Though they once resisted the idea that the climate is changing, many told me that they now believe in climate change and agree that extractive and energy-producing industries do need to change and become cleaner. The employees at that cracker plant rightly saw their work as their contribution to progress. The natural gas they were pulling out of the ground was supposed to replace dirty coal and nurture clean-energy businesses in the region. They had gone from being labeled as part of the problem to part of the solution—and they were proud.

Keep reading in The Wall Street Journal.

Navigating the Winds of Change: Asset Managers’ Strategic Shifts in Climate Initiatives

Posted on by Max Sherrill

The finance industry has, until recently, taken a collective approach to climate change, showing a united front in addressing one of the great challenges of our time. But that groupthink approach is evolving, as seen by recent third-party engagement modifications made by top asset managers such as BlackRock, JPMorgan Asset Management, and State Street Global Advisors. These coalition changes, especially in how they interact with Climate Action 100+, a climate-focused, investor-led program that was introduced in 2017 that recently announced an evolution in focus known as “phase 2,” (described by the organization as “markedly shifting the focus from corporate climate-related disclosure to the implementation of climate transition plans”), indicate a subtle recalibration as opposed to a retreat from environmental commitments.

The decision of State Street and JPMorgan to reallocate resources elsewhere, together with BlackRock’s decision to transfer its involvement to its overseas arm, demonstrate the difficult balancing act these multinational behemoths face.  They find themselves at a crossroads where they must continue to carry out their fiduciary responsibilities in the face of shifting market and regulatory environments while attempting to pilot the maiden voyage toward environmental sustainability. This shift demonstrates a wider trend in the financial sector: the path to a low-carbon, sustainable future is complex and calls for a flexible multimodal strategy that respects global decarbonization targets while navigating a patchwork of regulatory frameworks and client preferences.

In its announcement, BlackRock previewed the launch of a new stewardship option that will provide clients additional decarbonization engagement and proxy voting options. Furthermore, the introduction of programs such as Decarbonization Partners by Temasek and BlackRock highlights a consistent commitment to creative solutions to climate-related problems. This pledge to make strategic investments in next-generation businesses that are necessary to achieve a net-zero global economy by 2050 is an example of how the investment landscape is changing in terms of how it approaches climate action, and- to be blunt- a more efficient use of institutional resources and expertise being applied to climate efforts. (and yes, potentially profitable.)

The shift towards proactive participation is also shown by JPMorgan Chase’s Center for Carbon Transition (CCT), which offers bespoke assistance and in-house expertise to worldwide clients as they navigate the low-carbon transition. This project, which aims to match the company’s finance portfolio with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, demonstrates an understanding and actionable willingness to address the challenges associated with making the transition to a sustainable energy future.

State Street Global Advisors has demonstrated its active involvement in influencing policy directions that promote sustainable investment practices by continuing to invest in research and content platforms to interact with policymakers on decarbonization and the clean energy transition. This proactive approach to innovation and policy formation shows a dedication to the ultimate objective of realizing a path to a low-carbon economy.

These calculated realignments show the extent to which the financial industry understands the challenges and opportunities associated with the shift to more sustainable energy sources. (It is also a tacit acknowledgement that a “one size fits all” approach itself, isn’t sustainable.)  Rather than indicating a turnback, these organizations are improving their tactics to more effectively advance the decarbonization of the world economy. This sophisticated approach highlights the value of flexibility, client autonomy, and active participation in the dynamic field of climate action.

Ultimately, these tactical changes, however, continue to underscore a collective, if changing, commitment to helping the global energy transformation as the financial world continues to work through the great unknown of the energy transition. This journey, characterized by thoughtful analysis, demonstrates the industry’s willingness to make the tough decisions posed by a sustainable, environmentally conscious future.

Moss in Bloomberg Law: Disney-Fox-Warner Streaming Deal Faces DOJ Antitrust Review

Posted on by Alex Terr

When Disney bought assets from Fox in 2018, the Justice Department agreed to allow the deal to move forward except for the assets related to sports, calling them “two of the country’s most valuable cable sports properties.”

The same year, the Justice Department lost its effort to block AT&T Inc.’s merger with Time Warner, arguing the deal would let the telecom giant threaten to withhold programming to maximize its profits. Antitrust enforcers argued that the combination of AT&T’s TV-distribution network with Time Warner’s programming would lead to higher prices for consumers. A judge rejected that argument, and an appeals court upheld his decision.

But within a few years, AT&T spun off the business to Discovery Inc. The Justice Department reviewed the deal and ultimately opted against a challenge, though antitrust enforcers warned the companies they could reopen a probe later if warranted.

The Biden administration has been particularly critical of joint ventures in some markets, breaking up a partnership between American Airlines Group Inc. and JetBlue Airways Corp. last year, according to Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute.

“They’ve made it look very consumer-friendly in terms of the access issue,” she said. “But as always, the devil is going to be in the details in terms of how hard they compete with each other.”

Read more in Bloomberg Law. 

Untapped Expertise: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as Charter School Authorizers

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Washington, D.C. — For generations, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been a catalyst for education progress in America, including transforming K-12 education through a combination of initiatives and programs designed to meet the aspirations of students who often lack opportunities. And yet, when parents demand new and better schools for their children, HBCUs continue to represent an under-utilized source of expertise that can help redesign the 21st-century public education system.

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) released a report titled “Untapped Expertise: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as Charter School Authorizers,” which makes the case for expanded partnerships between charter schools and HBCUs to become charter school authorizers. Authorizers are governmentally approved and supervised entities that oversee academic, financial, and operational expectations and school performance. Quality authorizing is a catalyst for expanding access to quality educational opportunities for students and families, especially communities of color.

Report authors Curtis Valentine, Co-Director of PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, and Karega Rausch, President and CEO of NACSA, argue that HBCUs are natural partners for charter schools due to their long history in education reform and pre-existing relationships. To speed up the pace of school improvement and modernization, America needs more quality charter school authorizers. Currently, the states with the most HBCUs do not allow for higher education authorizers, and the report’s authors call on policymakers to create pathways for capable HBCUs to become strong charter school authorizers.

“HBCUs have played a powerful role in our nation’s education system for generations. As an alumnus of an HBCU, I know firsthand the untapped expertise HBCUs can have on our K-12 education, especially for charter schools — which play a vital role in lowering systemic barriers to high-quality education,” said Curtis Valentine. “HBCUs becoming charter school authorizers is a new and transformative way of achieving that end.”

“Excellent schools built from the aspirations of families remain the north star and high-quality authorizing is key in achieving that end,” said Karega Rausch. “Authorizing well is hard work and we look forward to working with policymakers to create thoughtful pathways for willing HBCUs to be outstanding authorizers.”

The report outlines the steps that state policymakers should take to empower our nation’s HBCUs to become strong charter school authorizers. Charter schools have proven to be a powerful tool for boosting student achievement, especially among low-income families and families of color. By becoming charter school authorizers, HBCUs can build on their historical legacy of transforming K-12 education by strengthening ties between K-12 and higher education and creating strong community institutions that provide opportunities for economic growth.

Read and download the report here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) advances and strengthens the ideas and practices of authorizing so students and communities—especially those who are historically under-resourced—thrive. NACSA believes that quality authorizing is essential and must balance access, autonomy, and accountability in overseeing the overall performance of their portfolios of schools. Find out more about authorizing and NACSA at qualitycharters.org.

###

Media Contact:

Amelia Fox – afox@ppionline.org, Courtney Hughley – courtneyh@qualitycharters.org

Untapped Expertise: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as Charter School Authorizers

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For generations, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been a catalyst for transformation in K-12 through initiatives, including diversifying teaching pipelines, starting new schools, and establishing programs designed to meet the aspirations of students far away from quality opportunities.

And yet, in many ways, we have not yet realized the full potential for how HBCUs can drive educational opportunities for all K-12 students. At a time when parents across the country are demanding new and better schools for their children, HBCUs represent an under-tapped source of expertise. This is especially relevant for Black families because of the disproportionate impact that unfinished learning has on them and the systemic barriers to high-quality education that this community has historically faced. HBCUs have a unique history, legacy, and record of advancing Black achievement and wellness, which makes them ideal partners in redesigning public education for the 21st century.

Elevating HBCUs’ Role in K-12 Education

HBCUs and their alumni have played powerful roles in K-12 public education, including charter schools. Alumni are leading outstanding charter learning institutions with exceptional student outcomes, and some HBCUs have partnered with charter schools in effective ways including integrating charter schools on their campuses. This arrangement provides students with a unique experience in which they are introduced to the promise and prestige of higher education earlier in their educational journey. And we believe it is merely the start of a partnership that can have a profound difference in the lives of underserved communities.

Charter schools have proven to be a powerful tool for boosting student achievement, especially among low-income families and families of color. Charter schools are public schools, free and open to all students. They currently serve nearly four million students across 7,700 schools in 45 states and the District of Columbia. When permitted to thrive, charter schools offer families a variety of educational options from which to choose the best fit for their child. They are the opposite of one-size-fits-all schooling. Their unique blend of parental choice, school autonomy, personalized learning, and strict accountability for results illuminates the way toward higher-performing schools for all U.S. students, regardless of their zip code. They create a healthy mix of different types of public schools that helps improve all of public education.

What makes public charter schools innovative and nimble is how they are governed and overseen. The key is charter school authorizers — governmentally approved and supervised entities that decide who is qualified to start a charter school and receive public funding. They determine each school’s academic, financial, and operational expectations; oversee school performance; enforce contractual performance and compliance expectations; and decide which schools should be given the privilege of continuing to educate students.

A practical barrier to quality public school options is the shortage of effective governance and oversight provided by charter school authorizers.

When done well, authorizing is a catalyst for expanding access to quality educational opportunities for students, families, and communities, especially those that have been overlooked, undervalued, and ignored.

But when done poorly — due to overregulation, insufficient institutional commitment, micromanagement, sheer incompetence, or inherent conflicts of interest — weak authorizing contributes to educational failure.

Authorizing charter schools is a relatively new way of making transformative change in K-12 governance and oversight. HBCUs as authorizers is a means to a critical end and one HBCUs have been doing since their inception: better educational opportunities for all students.

To speed the pace of school improvement and modernization, America needs more strong charter school authorizers. Given their capacities and expertise, the nation’s HBCUs are natural candidates to assume this role.

Recommendations for Policymakers:

NACSA and PPI urge state policymakers to take the following steps to start empowering willing HBCUs to become strong charter school authorizers:

• Query college leaders to determine if there is at least one HBCU interested in becoming a high-quality charter school authorizer (HBCUs can contact state policymakers directly to express interest);

• Examine national best practices on quality authorizing and how other states have structured authoring infrastructures to determine the best fit for your state;

• Determine the scope of HBCU authorizing (e.g. one institution or multiple institutions) and any other limitations (e.g. only HBCUs of a certain size);

• Enact legislation allowing for one or more HBCUs to be authorizers;

• Ensure there is sufficient funding and resources for authorizing functions.

A Stronger Future for Education

By becoming charter school authorizers, HBCUs can build on their historical legacy of transforming K-12 education in at least four ways:

1. Redesigning Public Education: Overseeing and expanding quality public school options to improve the outcomes of all students.

2. Building on educational legacies: Overseeing high-quality and effective K-12 schools can help HBCUs build on their rich legacy by deepening connections with local communities.

3. Strengthening ties between K-12 and higher education: HBCU authorizers can develop unique partnerships with schools they oversee, providing access to higher education campuses, creating pipelines of new students, opportunities for dual enrollment, mentorship programs between schools and students, and research opportunities between faculty and schools.

4. Creating strong community institutions and wealth: New charter schools create new facilities and jobs, with opportunities for economic growth in communities, such as Black vendors who can provide new charter schools with products and services.

Our country needs stronger educational opportunities that advance the learning of all students, Black students in particular. HBCUs as charter school authorizers is a transformative way of achieving this goal. For HBCUs looking to expand their impact and strengthen their own institutions, becoming a charter school authorizer is an idea whose time has come.

Read the full report. 

Ainsley in The New York Times: The U.K. Labour Party’s Worst Enemy Might Be Itself

Posted on by Alex Terr

The drama over the green policy allowed the Conservatives to paint Labour as a party of U-turns and flip-flops. But Labour allies said that was a reasonable price to pay to avoid being tarred as fiscally irresponsible. Mr. Starmer and Ms. Reeves are determined to reassure voters that taxes will not rise under Labour and that the party can be trusted with the public finances.

“There are some really serious considerations about the country’s fiscal position, Labour’s policy priorities, and how they match what they want to do in government with the reality they are going to face,” said Claire Ainsley, a former policy director for Mr. Starmer.

“I am not surprised if that took some weeks, if not months, for there to be proper conversations,” said Ms. Ainsley, who now works in Britain for the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington-based research institute.

Read more in The New York Times. 

Jacoby for Capital Tonight NC with Tim Boyum

Posted on by Max Sherrill

We’re now just 10 days out from the next Republican presidential primary. A new poll from Winthrop University is taking a look at the race.

The director of Winthrop’s Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research, Dr. Scott Huffmon, joins with more.

Meanwhile, Congress continues to face roadblocks in passing an aid package for Ukraine.

Tamar Jacoby is the director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s New Ukraine Project and currently lives in Kyiv. She joins virtually with more.

Watch the interview here.