PA: Budget Kicks Off Another Round Of Charter Battles

Governor Tom Wolf has released his budget proposal, and charter supporters are not happy.

This is not the first time Wolf has made the charter school industry sad. Back in the summer of 2019 he fired some shots across their bows with an aggressive agenda for fixing Pennsylvania's messed up charter funding system. In return, they've launched a variety of PR pushes; indications are they have something a little more potent in mind this time.

In his 2020 budget speech, tried to soothe the industry and thread the needle, saying that Pennsylvania students should get a great education "whether in a traditional public school or a charter school" an noting that "Pennsylvania has a history of school choice, which I support." But he also said that some charter schools are “little more than fronts for private management companies, and the only innovations they’re coming up with involve finding new ways to take money out of the pockets of property taxpayers.”

The 2021 budget has several features to tighten up Pennsylvania's exceptionally loose charter industry. 

Pennsylvania's 14 cyber charters will be audited. "Wait," you say. "the cyber charters aren't audited?" The answer is "barely;" six of the charters have never been audited at all, and the largest cyber charter in the state, Commonwealth Charter Academy, was last audited in 2012. 

The proposal also targets cyber charter funding, one of the deeply nonsensical features of the Pennsylvania charter landscape. Cybers get 100% of the same payment as a brick and mortar charter school--even though they have no bricks, no mortar, and none of the other expenses of an actual school building. Consequently, cyber schools in PA are making money hand over fist, and taxpayer dollars go to things like advertising ($1,000 per student recruited at one charter) and, no kidding, a cool robot dog. The governor proposes to set a statewide cyber tuition rate that is still mighty generous. The state's in-house online education program costs about $5,400 per student per year, and the governor proposes a set $9,500 tuition rate.

The proposal also looks to fix the charter reimbursement rate for special ed. Currently, a charter gets the same high payment rate for all special ed students, whether they need a full-time aid and extensive specialized supports, or they just need a few adaptations in a regular classroom. That has made students with special needs into cash cows in PA. This is extra nuts because PAS actually has a tiered system for rating special needs--it just isn't used when paying charters. The governor's proposal is that charters should be paid an amount in line with the actual costs of educating the students.

The governor also proposes more oversight and accountability for the Education Improvement Tax Credit and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit, Pennsylvania's two tax credit scholarship (aka voucher) programs.

Wolf also plans to address Pennsylvania's funding inequities, among the very worst in the nation, with a nearly $2 billion increase in school spending. So charters get less, and public schools get more (including getting to keep more of the public tax dollars they used to have to hand over to charters).

None of this is a hit with the school choice crowd. It's a little nuts, really, because the governor's proposal boils down to "Pay the charters what it actually costs to educate the students instead of paying them what it costs to educate the students PLUS a big fat taxpayer-funded bonus." It's an exceptionally not-very-radical proposal.

But the pushback is already coming, because GOP leaders in the House and Senate are already prepped and ready to join the national push for more choiciness. From the Center Square reporting:

Republican leaders in the House and Senate likewise panned the budget proposal as dead on arrival. Instead, President Pro Tempore Jake Corman, R-Bellefonte, Education Committee Majority Chairman Scott Martin, R-Lancaster, and Sen. John DiSanto, R-New Bloomfield, announced plans for their own school funding bill – the Excellence in Education for All Act.

The forthcoming bill’s priorities include expanding tax credit scholarship programs – of which the governor has sought to limit during his six years in office – and expanding other avenues of school choice, from charters to “education learning pods.”

Watch for well-organized special needs groups to push back on the charter cuts, because those special needs cash cow cuts will really hurt the charter bottom line. The thing to remember is that the "cuts" are just bringing payments in line with costs. Consider Chester Upland as an example.In Chester Upland, the charter schools were found to be receiving $40,000 per student with special needs; yet the court found that exactly none of their students with special needs fell outside of the $0 to $25,000 range for costs. So every special need student meant anywhere from $15,000 to $40,000 in extra income to the school. They might well cry (as some Philly advocates already are doing) that they are having their special ed budget cut in half--but that's because they're currently getting twice as much money as they actually need to do the job. 

This is going to be a budgetary adventure, with two different initiatives--one pro-public school and one anti--- going on against the backdrop of a pandemic in a state where, frankly, the vaccine rollout isn't going so well. Stay tuned.

NH: Full Neo Voucher Assault On Public Ed

You may have heard that there is a bad voucher proposal up in New Hampshire. How bad is it? Pretty bad. I'll give you the history, the long detailed read, and the short story here.

Attempts to gut public education in the granite state are not new. Back in 2017, the GOP made an attempt to push Education Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) through to, as always, dodge that troublesome church-state wall thingy.

How We Got Here

Those neo-vouchers were relatively small, a mere $4,400, but came with the usual idea that the money could be spent on any education-ish thing that parents wanted to spend them on. That bill also included virtually no oversight; taxpayers would have no idea how their tax dollars were being spent. 

That attempt ultimately failed, but it highlighted the forces arrayed against public education in New Hampshire, like the GOP bill sponsor and head of the Senate education committee John Reagan who claimed that the lack of voucher accountability was no big deal because they have no idea how public schools are spending money now, which is a sign of either astonishing mendacity or astonishing incompetence.

Frank Edelblut also made an appearance in that legislative adventure. Edelblut was a businessman, venture capitalist, and one-term NH state representative. He ran for governor in 2016, but got clobbered in the primary by Chris Sununu, son of former NH governor and Bush I White House Chief of Staff arch conservative John Sununu. Edelblut conceded gracefully and threw his support behind Sununu, who then appointed Edelblut to post of Commissioner of Education for the state, where he has agitated in favor of gutting public education ever since. And no, I didn't skip over some sort of education-related credentials in his past--he has none (though he claims to be an expert because he home schooled his kids).

In 2019, Edelblut was arguing for "Learn Everywhere" a variation on micro-credentialing where you can pick up course credits any-old-where, from any-old-one. Schools would not really be necessary, and Edelblut claimed it would promote equity because anyone could take any course anywhere--except that in his initial model families were paying for the course themselves. That would have been a real obstacle to equity, but it's not hard to imagine it as a foot in the door to be followed by "Hey, we could create voucher-style ESAs to help families pay for all their micro-credentials." It was a creative approach in that while most states were working on the financial side of neo-vouchers, Edelblut decided to try setting up the course delivery system first. But that didn't ultimately fly, either.

Late in 2019, the legislature turned down about $46 million from the federal Charter School Program, the grant program that has launched millions of dollars worth of failed charter schools nationally. Edelblut was unhappy, and tried to get them to reconsider. They didn't. 

He told the Union Leader:

Do I look like someone who gives up that easily? We'll be back."

That was early in 2020, and he wasn't kidding. Late in that year, the GOP flipped both the House and Senate in NH, and the opponents of public education cheered, "Game on" and became part of the nationwide push to kick off 2021 trying to further the privatization of education in states all across the country.

The Wonky Details (You can skip to the next header for the short form)

HB 20 is only 14 pages long, but it is one of the most brutal voucher bills in the country. The thirteen sponsors are looking to establish the Richard "Dick" Hinch education freedom account program, after a conservative speaker of the house who died on January 1, 2021 of Covid. If "education freedom account" sounds familiar, that's because it's the same name that Betsy DeVos used when trying to establish a similar program on the national scale. 

EFAs would be funded by the state, which would simply hand over whatever support would have gone to the public school district serving that the scholarship organization that will handle the dispersal of funds. Whole new growth industry there--they can keep up to 10% of the funds involved for administrative costs. Private and public entities can also kick in "any gifts, grants or donations" they like.

The money could be spent on private school tuition (good luck with that--tuition at Phillips Exeter Academy is about $50K); on-line learning programs; tutoring; services contracted from any school, public or private, such as classes etc; textbooks or instructional materials; computer hardware; internet connection; software; school uniforms; testing fees; summer school; tech school tuition and fees; any kind of therapies; college courses; transportation to and from service provider; and pretty much any other service the scholarship organization okays (if they don't okay it, they have to explain why).

Rebates and refunds go back into the EFA. Parents can supplement the EFA any way they wish, but they can't pay into it. The EFA funds won't be taxed. The money rolls over until the student leaves the program, is axed for shenanigans, or graduates from high school. 

And just in case you don't get the implications of this unbundled approach, the law specifies that nothing in it "shall be construed to require that an EFA student be enrolled, full- or part-time, in either a private school or nonpublic online school. 

One of the striking things about this bill is that there are no apparent limits on who can get an EFA. The usual playbook is to start small, with vouchers offered to students from low-income families, or with disabilities, and then to expand those limits later. But this bill just goes for it--every student in New Hampshire can apply for one of these.

The scholarship organizations get a to-do list. They have to keep parents informed. They have to provide a written form explaining the allowable uses of the funds. They have to come up with a "commercially viable" method for paying vendors (it can't rely on reimbursing parents for out-of-pocket expenses). They have to report annually on how many students, how much money, parent info.

But when it comes to oversight? The scholarship organization has to maintain a list of available vendors, but there's no screening process for getting on that list. They have to maintain some sort of parent rating system. But any parental shenanigans is to be dealt with after the fact and after any evidence is acquired. Vendor misbehavior consist of failing to deliver what it promised or kicking cash back to parents, so things like, say, violating discrimination laws or teaching that the earth is a disc on the back of a turtle--those are okee dokee. All a vendor has to do to be on the list is submit notice that it wants to be on the list, or a parent can ask. The scholarship organization "may approve education service providers on its own initiative," but there are no criteria provided for that decision.

And the scholarship organization may most definitely and specifically not "exclude, discriminate against, or otherwise disadvantage" an education provider because of their religious "character or affiliation, including religiously based or mission-based policies or practices." So the EFAs proposed will funnel state tax dollars directly to religious organizations. 

And while there's little about oversight in the bill, there is a whole section about "Independence of Education Service Providers." Nothing in the law can limit their "independence and autonomy," and they will be given "maximum freedom." Nothing in the law can be construed to "expand the regulatory authority of the state" and taking the state's money cannot make the provider an agent of the state. And no education service provider "shall be required to alter its creed, practices, admission policies or curriculum" in order to get EFA money.

There's a legislative oversight committee, but their job is to make sure the program is running smoothly from a nuts and volts point of view. And there's a whole section about future legal problems. If a provider sues the state for being kicked out, the burden of proof is on the state. If someone tries to point out that the law is unconstitutional, parents can get involved. 

There's also a crazy appendix that throws numbers around for various scenarios to estimate financial impact. My favorite is the one that admits that when a student leaves public schools, that school will lose revenue and experience no savings, but then goes on to assume that over a three year period, the school's finances will just be okay again. 

The Short Form ( for the tl;dr crowd)

The bill makes every student in New Hampshire eligible for a neo-voucher, which can be spent on pretty much anything selected from a list of edu-vendors that will include anyone who wants to be on it. Like other ESAs, it favors unbundling and ending any need for actual schools.

There almost no oversight at all. No regular audit of the program funds. And very specific language hammering home the fact that vendors must have all their freedom. In particular, they can't be disincluded because of religious content or practices, nor required to change those in order to cash in on the program. This is a voucher program explicitly and deliberately aimed at feeding public tax dollars to private religious schools. The Iowa Satanic Temple has been punking the Iowa legislature over similar rules; NH looks ripe for the same.

There are zero protections for students in this bill. Ditto for taxpayers. 

How's It Going?

The hearing about the bill drew about 3,800 people to speak, only 600 of whom wanted to speak in favor. It will continue next Thursday. Edelblut threw out some claims, like how the bill would reduce taxpayer costs and would close the performance gap. There isn't an iota of evidence that either of these things are true. Meanwhile, folks have noticed that the bill gives a green light to any and all discrimination by education providers, as long as they claim religion. Actually, technically it doesn't look like they even have to claim religion. Folks have come from way out of state to speak about the bill. The president of NEA-NH summed it up this way:

Public school funding is open and transparent. Voucher spending is private and shrouded in secrecy. Public schools are owned, operated, and managed by the public. Private voucher scholarship companies are designed to make a profit. There are no laws or limits that prevent parents from choosing to send their children to a private, religious, or home school. Every family is free to make that choice. But that choice should never diminish another child’s education or obligate any other family to help pay for their tuition.

This is a terrible bill, destructive to public education and irresponsible in its use of public funds. It is only "empowering" if you think it would be empowering families to be given "freedom" from the damned FDA always telling them which food is safe to eat. It is the ultimate in the voucher idea that the state can hand parents some money and wash its hands of any responsibility for them. It is really about "empowering" vendors to rake in some of that sweet, sweet public money while operating as they please. It is the vendors, not the families, that get to exercise choice in this system. Here's hoping folks in New Hampshire can squash it flat.

Pandemic Lesson #1: Trust Matters

There are many lessons to be learned from this mess, including lessons about the usefulness of government. Also, I'm sure, plenty of scientific disease stuff.

But I notice that, particularly in the education arena, we keep coming back to trust. Black and brown families are hesitant to return to school buildings because they aren't sure they can trust the institutions that have failed them so often before. Teachers are reluctant to return to the buildings in those districts where they don't believe they can trust their district to keep them safe and/or follow through with their promises to do so. Critics of teachers unions don't trust (or at least pretend not to) teachers to do their jobs, or to even want to do their jobs. And distance learning, lacking the immediacy of face-to-face gathering in the same room, suffers from students and teachers unsure of just how much they can trust each other.

Where trust is strong, these issues shrink to insignificance. And that provides a major--well, two really--lesson about trust.

Trust is a basic, absolutely essential part of the foundation of a functioning school (any workplace, really--go reread the works of W. Edwards Deming). It has been demonstrated time and time again (here's a source for examples). And yet so many leaders resort to the stick, to management based on fear and distrust. 

I've watched school administrators who approach every discussion with staff worried first and fore most that it might all be about the staff trying to trick him, to get something from him. We've all seen administrators and boards that assumed that teachers couldn't be trusted to even try to do their jobs. We've suffered through years of teacher evaluation policies predicated on the belief that a whole lot of teachers suck and those sucksters must be rooted out. We've suffered through years of education policy built on the assumption that teachers can't be trusted to teach. 

It makes a school run poorly, even filtering down into classrooms where teachers assume that students are always up to something, that if you don't keep them under your thumb, those little creeps will somehow get something from you they don't deserve. And the immediate effect of that is that students no longer trust you, will not believe they can trust you to have their best interests at heart. A classroom without trust is a nasty, stunted, sterile stretch of blasted land where little can grow. 

But the other part of our current pandemic lesson is that trust matters enormously in a moment of crisis. When the ship is listing far over and water is pouring in, it's bad news if you can't trust the people telling you that it's time to had for the lifeboats, and the lifeboats are right this way. 

Schools and students and teachers and entire communities are paying the price right now for the erosion, gutting, destruction, and in some cases full on case-of-tnt-blasting away of trust. The absence of trust turns challenging and difficult times into toxic conflicts, opening the door to bad-faith opportunists who want to egg on conflict for their own purposes. It keeps people from teaming up when they are on the same side. 

And when this is more or less over and the fog clears, we'll find that the schools and districts that were already trust-deficient will be in even worse shape. 

We talk a lot about the shape of schools in a post-pandemic country, talk about pedagogy and making up lost time and restructuring and addressing inequities that have become screamingly more obvious than ever. I think the list of rebuilds has to include trust. Many districts are getting to see how badly the decay and loss of trust interferes with doing the work, and that won't be any less true once covid has faded into the background. Building trust, creating trust, developing ways to nurture and maintain trust--all these should be essential to the plans of every district, because without trust, not only will the district function at sub-optimal levels in the easiest of time, but when the next major crisis hits, they will crash and burn just as they did over the last eleven months.

More Absurd Learning Loss Data

Pandemic education has featured a great deal of chicken littling about "learning loss" that is largely ridiculous. Test manufacturers and folks in test-adjacent edu-biz endeavors are selling the picture of students as buckets and education as water, and now the education is just leaking out at a rate so alarming that it's kind of amazing that people have not turned into drooling couch potatoes once they've been out of school for a decade.

NWEA's report from last April is oft-cited, along with its sexily simply assertion that students will learn days and months of learning. That's baloney, and what it really means is that the folks at NWEA are guessing that test scores will probably go down X points. And if that isn't enough evidence this was a nothingburger, note that in November NWEA announced that their guesstimate had turned out to be over-stated.

But the learning loss drama continues, with Hechinger Report this week emailing links to some research from Amplify (motto: "Trying to make a buck off education since 2000), launched by Rupert Murdoch, later sold to Joel Klein after the company failed to make a killing with their flawed school tablet program. Those guys.

Anyway, they want you to know that covid has damaged the DIBELS scores.

DIBELS (it should come with a little registered trademark sign, but I don't have that capability) is a special test in which the littles are asked to read a bunch of nonsense. Seriously--they are give small clumps of letters that are meaningless gibberish and then "sound them out" and pronounce them out loud. This is supposed to measure their skill with phonetics and not, say, their ability to comply with apparently senseless requests from adults. 

It is exactly the kind of performance task that would only ever be practiced, measured, or expected in a school setting, so the fact that scores dipped a bit between Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 is no surprise. Parents were probably not practicing nonsense syllable pronunciation often enough at home.

At the end of the report, in large, bold font, we're that Amplify's mCLASS "can provide you with valid, reliable data on your students." Never let a crisis go to waste. Ka-ching.

Third Grade Reading Retention: Still A Bad Idea

A former colleague of mine, a math teacher, used to say, "Don't even teach primary students math. Just teach them to read. By the time they get to me, if they can read well, I can teach them all the math you want."

That was many years ago, long before the rise of third grade reading retention laws. But those laws, while (usually) well-intentioned, are a terrible, rotten, no good, really bad idea.

Sixteen states require third graders to pass a standardized reading test in order to be promoted to fourth grade. Most of them allow for some exceptions, but not all, and not all the time.  It's long been conventional wisdom that fourth grade represents a new style of learning--that primary students learn to read, but once they hit fourth grade, they read to learn. But why turn that into a testing barrier.

Matt Barnum, the Chalkbeat reporter who occasionally decides to track down sources of conventional wisdom, traces the big push to some research from 2011. Authored by Donald J. Hernandez (Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and Foundation for Child Development) on behalf of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, "Double Jeopardy" ties third grade reading proficiency (more or less as defined by NAEP) to high school graduation as well as tying both to poverty. 

Without getting into too detail, the report finds that students who are not reading proficiently in third grade are more likely not to graduate, students who are poor for at least a year are less likely to graduate, and students who are both are even less likely to end up with a diploma. Black and Hispanic students who lagged in third grade reading skills were also less likely to graduate.

Hernandez notes that research had been suggesting a connection for quite a while (he offers an endnote to research from 1978). But his report (combined in some cases with NAEP results from 2015) seems to be the one that goosed many states along.

There are nits to be picked. Barnum noticed that the report says "3rd grade reading scores" when it is really lumping second, third and fourth grade scores together. When NAEP says "proficient," they mean "roughly A level" and not "on grade level." And let's not even get into the actual validity of these tests right now.

Mostly, the big fat log-sized nit here is that Hernandez has identified correlations, not causations. Research might well show that third grade shoe size is a good predictor of adult height, but it does not follow that making third graders wear bigger shoes, or making them stay in third grade until their feet are big enough, will lead individual students to grow taller, nor raise the average height of adults. 

And while it is traditional to shift fourth graders into "read to learn" mode, there does not seem to be any body of research that suggests that some developmental door slams shut when students are eight years old. 

Nor do the various discussions of third grade reading retention mention one other reason states might find erecting this artificial barrier useful; third grade marks the start of years of Big Standardized Testing, and letting bad readers rise through the grades is bad for the numbers. On the other hand, if the poor-testing third graders aren't allowed to take the fourth grade test, the state is going to look like it is accomplishing miracles with the teaching of reading. 

There are so many things wrong with these laws. Note that Hernandez identifies three factors, but nobody has suggested that students be retained in third grade until they are less poor or less Black. Of course not--because that would be absurd and abusive.

But these laws, like so much of the modern ed reform canon, are predicated on the theory that students and teachers are holding out on us, and only threats will shake loose those teaching and reading abilities that the little jerks are withholding. It is, once again, all stick and no carrot. Imagine if, instead, states had passed laws that said students who failed the BS Reading Test will be passed on to Grade 4+Reading Enrichment, and the state will pay tire hire one additional teacher for every six students who have to enter that program. But that would cost money, and it wouldn't put blame anywhere. 

Meanwhile, there is a mountain of research showing that retaining students is at best unhelpful and at worst, closely correlated with bad outcomes for students, including research from one of the most hard-core retention states--Florida. There's no real evidence that it actually works.

And there are side effects. See, again, Florida, where the law became a victim of Florida's demands for testing compliance and third graders who had demonstrated reading competence in other ways, but who refused to take the BS Test, were held back. I know of no research showing a connection between high school graduation and knuckling under to state testocratic demands.

These tests are going to be yet another battleground in this pandemic year, because a law is a law, even if it's a bad law and the year is a terrible year for standardized testing. If your state has one of these, take a moment to let your elected representatives that it's a bad law and in this year of all years, eight year olds don't need to be pummeled with anything else. Let them just learn to read.

Update: How Pandemic School Is Going In One Rural Area

I've been reporting periodically on how pandemic school is going in my own rural/small town county. Since nobody is doing any kind of systematic large-scale tracking of which schools are doing what and how it's going, I'm just throwing one more batch of data into the general big-city-dominated noise (here's the most recent post on the subject, from the beginning of November).

Numbers have continued to climb here, though deaths are still relatively low. The four local districts moved to save winter sports season, so basketball and even wrestling have been going on scholastically. In Pennsylvania we experienced a tightening of the rules around the holidays, but now they're loosened and restaurants are operated at limited capacity again. 

A couple of local school districts (there are four) mostly decided to go back to full face-to-face at the beginning of the second semester last week, while the others remained hybrid and anticipated going full face to face in a week or two. That plan lasted a couple of days, until it turned out that a cafeteria worker at my old high school had tested positive for covid. That triggered a two day shut down, but while that shutdown was happening, more positive cases turned up and now the school will be remote for a couple of weeks, then hybrid, then maybe full on again in March. That seems to have given some other districts pause about going back full on. 

The in and out, on and off is taxing; we have reached the point where a change in plan no longer makes it into the newspaper. It also raises the question of how many students are being sent to school with some suspicion of illness (it's safe to assume that's a non-zero number). 

Preparation and protocols are an ongoing issue. When heading back to full face-to-face, parents at one district had questions about ventilation. "Windows may be cracked open on the bus and in classrooms," was the response. If a student is out for testing for covid, it's unclear what the chain of notification actually is. Who should be told, and who will do the telling? Nobody really seems to know. 

Monday tested snow day response; it wasn't great. One district was already in distance learning mode. One district simply did an old fashioned snow day and cancelled everything. Another switched from hybrid to distance--they announced they were cancelling transportation--but required teachers to do their distance learning from the school building, no exceptions (triggering a big last-minute scramble for child care). School leaders are giving the impression that they are not so much planning as waiting to see what happens and then coming up with a reaction; that may be a result of poor planning or poor communication, but either way, after 11 months of this, it seems as if folks in leadership positions would be a bit further along in their learning curve.   

Local teacher unions have not been particularly vocal one way or another, but then, local unions are as divided as the general population on what best to do (at least one area teacher attended the insurrection rally in DC on January 6). As with all issues, ever, how well or easily the administration works with the staff during this crisis has lots to do with the reserves of trust that the administration has either built or squandered. Our school boards are mostly filled with regular folks and not politicians, trying to do the best they can with the same bunch of hard-to-parse information that everyone else is looking at.

There's a general sense in the community that the end is in sight. People are finally able to sign up for vaccination (if they are old or unhealthy--teachers still aren't to the front of the line). Organizations are planning to conduct events this year that were cancelled last year. It's unclear how much of this is just wishful thinking. There's still not a great deal of urgency around the pandemic here, though people are mostly following social distancing and masking guidelines. Folks are mostly trying to do the right thing, but there's a lot of disagreement about what that is. 

It's hard to overstate how much an area like this has been hurt by the deliberate lack of state and national leadership over the last year. And the bad thing is that even if leadership emerges now, it will not be effective because the previous leadership vacuum was filled with all manner of stuff that will not be easily driven out. 

But overall, we're mostly doing kind of okay here in that most of what we've got is chaos and disorder rather than a lot of disease and death. I'll let you know if that stays true.

Donors Choose Monday: Give This Book

Ms. Evans-Klopp is at Andrew T. Morrow in Central Islip, NY in a high-poverty neighborhood and trying to work through open-yet-restricted building work, and she'd like a class set of Give This Book aTitle by Jarrett Lerner to give her third graders some excitement and a little creative break.

You can help with even a small donation. And as always, I encourage you to lend a hand to someone, somewhere. I do these posts to make it easy, but if you know of a local need, now is the ntime to step up and help. Every little bit helps.