Beware the Roadbuilders Redux: Education Reform Wars Fail Race, Again | the becoming radical

Beware the Roadbuilders Redux: Education Reform Wars Fail Race, Again | the becoming radical:

Beware the Roadbuilders Redux: Education Reform Wars Fail Race, Again

A classic analogy is Mothra vs. Godzilla, but a more contemporary comparison—and one to be highlighted in upcoming Marvel superhero films—is Marvel’s Civil Wars.

First, the larger situation involves two powerful forces, both of which are driven by themissionary zeal of being on the right side, that wage war against each other while those who both sides claim to serve is trampled beneath them as collateral, and mostly ignored, damage.

More specifically, Marvel’s Civil War involves two legions of superheroes (and villains) who side with either Iron Man or Captain America (the two powerful forces characterized by missionary zeal and reckless disregard for citizens), but notable in this war is that the X-Men are neutral, as is Black Panther—serving as embodiments in the comic book universe of theOther (identified groups marginalized by status: race, sexual/gender identities, poverty).

Finally, what does this template represent? I recommend reading carefully Andre Perry’s Education reform is working in New Orleans – just like white privilege—notably:

White critics of education reform should especially include themselves in the power structure. Yes, the neo-liberal, market-driven, corporate anti-reform critique isn’t the only frame that robs black people of their voice.

I wish white folk would hear me when I say the pro-/anti-reform frame doesn’t work for black folk. If anything, our position in the social world makes us reformers. Black folk never had the luxury of defending status quo. New Orleans needed to make radical changes in education as part of larger hurricane preparedness plan. Getting a college degree is the kind of protection black people need. Cynicism isn’t protection.

Perry confronts that the rise of education reformers dedicated to bureaucratic and technocratic reform as well as the concurrent reaction to that reform agenda among those championing an idealized faith in public education have in common their willingness to bothBeware the Roadbuilders Redux: Education Reform Wars Fail Race, Again | the becoming radical: 

Trial of Steve Conn on Members’ Charges - Detroit Federation of Teachers | Stateweb

Detroit Federation of Teachers | Stateweb:

Trial Decision [8.12.15]

In re:  Trial of Steve Conn on Members’ Charges

Decision

 

The Bylaws of the Detroit Federation of Teachers provide at Article XV, Section 1(a) that:

 

The Union shall have the power to suspend or expel any member, or remove from office any officer who violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Constitution of the American Federation of Teachers, or of the Constitution or By-Laws of the local union; or who engages in any activity or course of conduct which is contrary or detrimental to the welfare or best interest of the AFT or the local union.  

 

Article XV, Section 2 provides that charges may be made by members, who submit the charges to the Union President, unless he/she is the person charged, in which case the charges are submitted to the Executive Vice President (EVP).  The Executive Vice President is required to notify the President of the charges and arrange for a meeting between the members and the officer, in order to seek an informal resolution of the matter.

 

Charges against Detroit Federation of Teachers President Steve Conn were submitted by a number of members, including the three elected Union Trustees, Elena Brantley-Phillips, Lisa Card and Rahjina Johnson, by Patti McCoin and Emma Howland-Bolton, and by teachers at Clark School.  EVP Ivy Bailey notified President Conn of the charges by letter dated June 23, 2015, and scheduled reconciliation conferences.  President Conn refused to attend. If charges are not resolved informally, the Executive Board is required by the Bylaws to decide whether or not to proceed to trial on the charges.  The Executive Board considered the unresolved charges against President Conn and decided to proceed to trial on the charges, notifying him of that decision by letter dated July 13, 1015.    

 

The trial was held on August 3 and 4, 2015, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the bylaws at Article XV, Section 3(b), which state that the Executive Board shall sit as the jury and that the ranking officer, in this case the Executive Vice President, shall preside. The bylaws require that the trial be held in Executive Session (closed session). The Charging Parties and President Conn were allowed to be represented by counsel, to call witnesses and present evidence, and to submit written closing arguments.

 

The Jury’s Conclusions.  We, the jury, reach the following conclusions.

Unauthorized affiliation with BAMN.  Patti McCoin charged that President Conn violated the bylaws and acted in a manner detrimental to the best interests of the DFT by essentially affiliating the DFT with BAMN (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary.)

 

Witnesses credibly testified that BAMN members (sometimes referred to as “BAMN kids,” and sometimes as “BAMN youth”), who are not DFT members, were allowed and encouraged by President Conn to be involved in the affairs of the DFT.  There was testimony that they came to DFT meetings.  There was testimony that BAMN members attended and participated in the January 25 special membership meeting and were abusive to DFT members. At the February regular membership meeting the members voted to exclude them from the meeting.  President Conn then failed and refused to preside over the next three regular membership meetings and instead held three more special membership meetings. There was testimony that the BAMN members attended and participated at the March 29 special membership meeting, referred to by witnesses as the Palm Sunday meeting. There was credible testimony that the BAMN youths solicited signatures on petitions to call these special meetings that they accompanied President Conn to schools and to rallies sometimes identifying themselves as the DFT, and helped in the planning of such rallies.  

There was credible testimony that the BAMN members accompanied President Conn to the Executive Board Meetings, that the Executive Board voted at several meetings to exclude them, that President Conn resisted excluding them, that they were disruptive in the meetings and abusive to the Executive Board members and other DFT members, and that as a result of their disruptive behavior the Union was advised that it could no longer use the conference room in the building where it is a tenant.

 

Witnesses testified, and it is undisputed, that the National Director of BAMN, Shanta Driver, sat with President Conn on the dais at the first special meeting following his election, consulting with him on all matters, that she conducted building representative training, that Conn took her, rather than the Union’s counsel, to a meeting with the emergency manager, while denying the Executive Vice President or other officers the opportunity to participate in the meeting, and that Conn sought to have Driver hired as the union’s attorney. President Conn permitted Driver to be represented as the DFT attorney to media outlets and others, necessitating the Executive Board to communicate with her and with media to clarify the misperception, which Conn and Driver had allowed.  

 

We conclude that Patti McCoin’s charge regarding the affiliation of the DFT with BAMN has been proven by the evidence and that President Conn has violated Article V, Section 1 of the bylaws by allowing and encouraging this to happen, and Article XV, Section 1(a) of the bylaws by engaging in a course of conduct which is contrary or detrimental to the welfare or best interest of the DFT.  

Membership Meetings.  Patti McCoin charged that President Conn had illegally cancelled regular membership meetings, illegally attempted to convene special membership meetings, and failed to preside over meetings in accordance with the bylaws.

 

Regular Membership Meetings.  Article IV, Section 1(a) of the bylaws provides that regular meetings open to the entire membership shall be held monthly at a time and place determined by the Executive Board.  At the beginning of the school year the Executive Board scheduled regular meetings for the second Thursday of each month at the IBEW Hall on Porter Street in Detroit.  

Article VII, Section 1(a) of the Bylaws says that the President shall act as Chairman of the Executive Board, special and general Membership meetings, and prepare the agenda for the meetings.

 

The evidence regarding the regular membership meetings is largely undisputed. President Conn was sworn into office on January 20, 2015.  He presided as chair of the February 12, 2015, regular membership meeting.  Without a motion or a vote, he adjourned the March 16 regular membership meeting five minutes after it was scheduled to begin and left the building.  The meeting was called back to order and presided over by the Executive Vice President in President Conn’s absence. There was un-rebutted testimony that he said that he had adjourned the meeting because he did not see his supporters there.

 

President Conn appeared outside of the IBEW hall on the date of the April 16 regular membership meeting, passing out flyers saying that the meeting would be held at a different location.  He refused to preside over the meeting because the IBEW had notified the Union that Patrick Burton, who had been videotaped by a surveillance camera assaulting another union member, would not be allowed in the building. The Executive Vice President presided over the meeting in President Conn’s absence.  

 

President Conn attempted to cancel the May 14 regular membership meeting, again because Patrick Burton was not permitted in the IBEW hall.  The Executive Board refused to permit the cancellation because it was not in compliance with Article IV, Section 1(h) of the bylaws, which allow for cancellation of a meeting only in the event of an emergency and by vote of the Executive Board. The Executive Vice President presided over the meeting in President Conn’s absence.

 

In sum, we conclude that President Conn illegally attempted to cancel meetings in violation of Article IV, Section 1(h), and failed to preside over three of the four regular meetings held during his first four months in office, thus failing to carry out his responsibilities as president, as set forth in Article VII, Section 1 (a).  

Special Membership Meetings.  Article IV, Section 1(c) of the bylaws provides that special meetings may be called by the Executive Board or upon the written request of 500 members in good standing, representing at least 10% of the schools and work locations.  The subject mentioned in the call is to constitute the agenda for the meeting.

 

In response to the June 23, 2015, letter notifying him of the members’ charges, President Conn posted a letter on the Union’s website.  In it he stated that all four special meetings, held on four Sundays; January 25, March 29, May 3 and May 31; had been convened in compliance with the bylaws provision.  He said he had received more than 500 signatures by members from more than 10% of the schools and worksites and that the agenda for those meetings was contained in the language of the signed petitions.  He further stated that he had given those petitions to the election committee for verification.

 

He also wrote that only the election committee could review and verify the petitions, relying upon Articles V and VI of the bylaws, and that the election committee could certify the legitimacy of the meetings but would not show the petitions to anyone, in order to protect the confidentiality of the petition signers.

Article V, cited by President Conn, identifies the elective offices and is totally

- See more at: http://dft231.mi.aft.org/trial-decision-81215#sthash.gSmJBc8x.dpuf

Our Public Education Crisis: A White Parent’s Perspective - Badass Teachers Association

Badass Teachers Association:

Our Public Education Crisis: A White Parent’s Perspective

By Barclay Key

August 11, 2015



 From the chaos of initial desegregation efforts to the white flight of the past few decades, Little Rock’s hopes for strong public schools have consistently been sacrificed on the altar of white supremacy. As a historian, I knew the general contours of this story before my family and I moved here in 2012. The story differs only in its details as one travels the country.

 

With two school-aged children, we immediately took an interest in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), determined to do our part to help. New hopes for our public schools arose in 2013. My board member stood for reelection, and I decided to get involved. The incumbent was unacceptable. He never replied to any of my e-mails and exhibited little engagement. One opponent had previously served on the board and, to my mind at least, we needed a fresh start. A third candidate, Tara Shephard, agreed to meet with me one Sunday afternoon. She was a parent and committed educator. She worked with “at-risk girls,” a phrase that one quickly learns not to use around Ms. Shephard. She prefers “at-promise.” In addition to her strong commitment to equal educational opportunities, what I liked most about Ms. Shephard was her willingness to answer “I don’t know but will find out.” She got my support. I placed a sign in my yard, donated money to her campaign, and organized door-knocking in my neighborhood. The incumbent finished third, and Ms. Shephard won the runoff. A new board member was also elected in another zone, C. E. McAdoo, a longtime pastor with an excellent reputation.

 

There is a steep learning curve for new board members, and it is an important task that literally pays nothing in Arkansas. The educational jargon and acronyms are mind-numbing. Budgets are complicated. And, of course, gossip knows no end in local politics. But these two board members were outstanding.

At the same time, board members can only do so much, so in February 2014 Jim Ross and I decided that we should seek out more ways to help. Jim and I are colleagues in the UALR Department of History. He was once employed by the LRSD and has three school-aged children. One Sunday afternoon, we assembled a few people who were interested in helping our public schools and at that meeting, we determined that we would approach teachers at Henderson Middle School about how we might help. None of our middle schools have strong academic reputations. (Few middle schools anywhere do!) But HMS was conveniently located for anyone who might want to volunteer, and Ms. Shephard had connected me to one teacher. I met with her and soon began coordinating a few volunteers in sixth grade classes for the rest of the semester. We didn’t do much, but another adult presence always helps. We connected with a few students and started a book club during the next school year. I hope to return again in a few weeks.

By the summer of 2014, however, Jim decided that substantive, sustainable change would require a more assertive school board. Two seats would be contested in 2014, including the one for his zone, so he decided to run. I served as his campaign manager. We spent countless hours studying maps, organizing volunteers, and walking door-to-door in the sweltering Arkansas summer. In addition to the long hours, I will always remember the people we encountered. Several explained how integration was a mistake or how they wished none of their money went to public schools. Others were more supportive, succumbing to that sliver of hope that new ideas provided. Most were apathetic. Apathy remains our biggest enemy. Another memory I will have is the stark differences between rich and poor in this city. We knocked on the doors of opulent mansions and dilapidated duplexes.

Jim defeated the incumbent by a two to one margin and Joy Springer, a longtime observer for the federal court of the LRSD’s desegregation efforts, defeated the incumbent in the other race even more soundly. In a span of thirteen months, voters elected four new board members and defeated three incumbents. (One incumbent did not stand for reelection.) The seven-member board now had four black representatives and a strong white ally in Jim. Democracy was working for people who were committed to improving our schools, and the newest members took their seats in October.

The superintendent, Dexter Suggs, was adversarial with the board, especially its newest members. When he arrived in the summer of 2013, he cozied up to Little Rock’s white elites, the same people who helped perpetuate residential segregation and pockets of extreme poverty in our city. But now Mr. Suggs was confronted by four new board members whose priorities differed markedly from those elites.

As soon as the newest members were seated they learned that a state takeover was a real possibility, although no one knew exactly what a Badass Teachers Association:

Education’s Merchant of Doubt & The Plight of State School Finance Systems | School Finance 101

Education’s Merchant of Doubt & The Plight of State School Finance Systems | School Finance 101:

Education’s Merchant of Doubt & The Plight of State School Finance Systems

Back in 2012, I opined: “It is hard to imagine a time in the history of American public education when there has been such a widespread political effort to argue that improving the quality of schools has little or nothing to do with the amount of money spent on public education. That is, that money simply doesn’t matter.”[1] It seemed as though at some point, discourse might begin to turn the corner on this question. That it might become more publicly acceptable and even acceptable in some political circles to acknowledge the relevance of money for improving the quality of schooling, and creating more equitable and adequate schools for achieving modern outcome goals.

But that rhetoric persists as strong as ever both in political circles and in the pseudo-academic policy research which informs that rhetoric. Further, even as the economy has begun to rebound state school finance systems have continued to lag, perhaps in part due to the persistent rhetoric regarding the irrelevance of school funding, and preferences for not merely revenue neutral, but revenue negative reforms.

In reference to a legal challenge brought against New York State, by small city school districts, New York’s Governor Cuomo opined:

“We spend more than any other state in the country,”

“It ain’t about the money. It’s about how you spend it – and the results.” [2]

In conversations regarding Federal education spending priorities, Virginia Congressman Dave Brat proclaimed:

“Socrates trained Plato in on a rock and then Plato trained in Aristotle roughly speaking on a rock. So, huge funding is not necessary to achieve the greatest minds and the greatest intellects in history.” [sic][3]

And so it is: we need only provide sufficient collection of rocks to ensure educational adequacy. That is, setting aside the modern-day competitive wage required to recruit and retain philosophy instructors of the quality of Socrates and provide them 1:1 student/teacher ratios.

In recently published analysis, I found that during the recession, state school finance systems took a substantial hit, both in terms of total state and local revenue and in terms of equity between districts serving lower and higher poverty student populations:

The recent recession yielded an unprecedented decline in public school funding fairness. Thirty-six states had a three year average reduction in current spending fairness between 2008-09 and 2010-11 and 32 states had a three year average reduction in state and local revenue fairness over that same time period. Over the entire 19-year period, only 15 states saw an overall decline in spending fairness. In years prior to 2008 (starting in 1993) only 11 states saw an overall decline in spending fairness. [4]

A more recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that through 2014-15, most Education’s Merchant of Doubt & The Plight of State School Finance Systems | School Finance 101:

New York’s Common Core test scores flop yet again — with 20 percent of students opting out - The Washington Post

New York’s Common Core test scores flop yet again — with 20 percent of students opting out - The Washington Post:

New York’s Common Core test scores flop yet again — with 20 percent of students opting out

New York just released student scores on the 2015 state-mandated Common Core standardized tests in math and English Language Arts and the results were interesting. The scores — the third year for Common Core testing — edged up slightly from last year, but a comparison with last year is not especially useful, given that some 20 percent of students opted out of the tests this past spring, far more than last year.  So what do the test scores mean?  Carol Burris, the executive director of the nonprofit Network for Public Education Fund, explains in this post. Burris retired in June as an award-winning principal at a New York high school, and she is the author of numerous articles, books and blog posts (including on The Answer Sheet) about the botched school reform efforts in her state.

By Carol Burris

Once again, New York State Common Core test scores are a flop. Theproficiency needle barely budged.

The percentage of students scoring proficient in English Language Arts rose less than 1 point, to 31.3 percent. The percentage of students who met math proficiency rose less than 2 points, to 38.1 percent. At this rate of increase, it will take about 70 years for all New York students to meet both New York Common Core proficiency cut scores.

There was no closing of the gap—in fact when it comes to proficiency rates, the gap between white students and black students and white students and Latino students widened in both ELA and math. The math proficiency gap increased by more than 3 percentage points. Both black and Latino student math proficiency rates rose about 1 percent–gains by white students were largely responsible for most of the increase in state math scores.

Only 4.4 percent of all English language learners and 5.7 percent of students with disabilities were proficient in English Language Arts, and their math proficiency gains were respectively 0.6 percent and 1 percent. Economically disadvantaged students’ proficiency rates were not part of the released results.

What was reported this year was data on opt outs. Over 200,000 students opted out of the tests. Remarkably, opt outs helped fuel the small overall increases. If the 20 percent of potential test takers had opted in, the tiny increases in proficiency rates would have likely been smaller still. Opt outs were disproportionately students who had scored at levels 1 or 2 (below proficiency) during the prior year. Regrettably, state EducationCommissioner MaryEllen Elia used the release of the scores as an opportunity to threaten school districts that had high opt outs with loss of funding.   She New York’s Common Core test scores flop yet again — with 20 percent of students opting out - The Washington Post:

Indiana’s got a problem: Too many teachers don’t want to work there anymore - The Washington Post

Indiana’s got a problem: Too many teachers don’t want to work there anymore - The Washington Post:

Indiana’s got a problem: Too many teachers don’t want to work there anymore

Indiana’s got a problem: Teachers increasingly don’t want to work in the state anymore. The problem has become so acute that some school districts have have had a hard time finding enough teachers to cover classes for the new school year — and some lawmakers want a legislative committee to discuss the shortage.

The percentage of all teachers getting a teaching license — including veterans — fell by more than 50 percent from 2009-10 to 2013-14 — and there was an 18.5 percent decline in the number of licenses issued to new teachers during the same period, according to Indiana Department of Education figures.

[Teacher: Why ‘I just can’t work in public education anymore’]

And, the Greensburg Daily News reported in a story in early July,  that fewer students are enrolling in teacher preparation programs at Indiana universities. It said:

At Indiana State University, enrollment in the elementary education program has remained steady, but other areas, especially sciences, are seeing fewer students, said Judy Sheese, assistant dean for teacher education at the university’s Bayh College of Education.

She said she gets weekly — if not daily — calls from principals asking whether the university has any seniors who will soon graduate with a degree in math or English.

“We don’t have any,” she said.

The Muncie Star-Press reported in December 2014 that enrollment in the program to train kindergarten and elementary school teachers fell by 45 percent over the previous decade.

What’s going on? Pretty much the same thing as in Arizona, Kansas and other states where teachers are fleeing: a combination of under-resourced schools, the loss of job protections, unfair teacher evaluation methods, an increase in the amount of mandated standardized testing and the loss of professional autonomy.

[Why teachers can’t hotfoot it out of Kansas fast enough]

The teacher shortage in Indiana is becoming such a problem that some  state lawmakers want a legislative committee to study the issue and come up with solutions. According to the Indianapolis Star, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate education committees have asked General Assembly leaders to approve having the legislative education study committee review what is causing the drop and how the state could respond.

For one thing, they can look in the mirror. The Republican leadership of the state — including Gov. Mike Pence — showed their respect for teachers by working very hard this year to strip power from Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz, a veteran educator who won election to the post in 2012 (by defeating Tony Bennett, the incumbent who was a protege of former Florida governor Jeb Bush). Oh, by the way, she is a Democrat.  David Long, the Republican president of the Indiana Senate, said while explaining why the legislature would want to remove Ritz as chairman of the state Board of Education: “In all fairness, Superintendent Ritz was a librarian, okay?”

No, not okay. Ritz worked as an educator and media specialist who won Indiana’s got a problem: Too many teachers don’t want to work there anymore - The Washington Post:

Get Hoosier School Heist in Paperback

Hoosier School Heist On FaceBook

Chicago Public Schools may pressure teachers union on pensions - Government News - Crain's Chicago Business

Chicago Public Schools may pressure teachers union on pensions - Government News - Crain's Chicago Business:

Can CPS force pension concessions on teachers?

Chicago Public Schools officials have found a legal weapon that could force pension concessions from the Chicago Teachers Union—or blow up in their faces.

The device is an untested clause in the teachers' contract that could allow CPS to unilaterally require union employees to contribute more to their retirement plans, eventually saving the district $140 million a year. Or it could provoke the second teachers strike under Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

The contract expired June 30, and the two sides are in negotiations over a new agreement. Without a contract in place, CPS is not planning to pay for individual increases in compensation based on experience and education. It did the same thing in 2012, when stalled talks led to a seven-day strike.

The new battle is over the "pension pickup," an agreement by CPS to cover 7 percentage points of the 9 percent of salary that workers are supposed to contribute toward their pensions. The payments began in 1981 and have been incorporated in every contract since then. CPS CEO Forrest Claypool announced today that he is phasing out the pension pickup fornonunion, administrative employees, a move expected to save $2.9 million in fiscal 2016.

In negotiations with the teachers, CPS is seeking to phase out the pension pickup over an unspecified period. That effectively would be a 7 percent pay cut, according to union President Karen Lewis, who has called the demand a "strike-worthy issue."

Labor law prohibits employers from unilaterally changing the material terms of an expired contract that are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, such as compensation. But a clause in the expired contract creates a “sunset provision” on the pension pickup, giving CPS officials the right to start phasing it out right away, according to a source.

CONTRACT LANGUAGE

The provision says: "This pension pickup will not constitute a continuing element of compensation or benefit beyond fiscal year 2015."

Robert Bloch, the general counsel of the teachers union, says CPS hasn't discussed Chicago Public Schools may pressure teachers union on pensions - Government News - Crain's Chicago Business:

City, state teachers' unions take different tacks on exam scores | POLITICO

City, state teachers' unions take different tacks on exam scores | POLITICO:

City, state teachers' unions take different tacks on exam scores

New York's city and state teachers' unions had starkly different responses Wednesday to the release of state exam scores, highlighting the divergent opinions on the Common Core academic standards and the opt out movement the unions have adopted.

Just moments after the results were released Wednesday morning, New York State United Teachers president Karen Magee sent out a statement through a spokesman condemning the exams without addressing the scores. 

"It would be a huge mistake to read anything into these test results," Magee said. "Whether they're up or down, they tell us virtually nothing meaningful about students or their teachers. Student test scores based on poorly written, developmentally inappropriate Pearson tests, in a year in which record numbers of parents repudiated the state’s standardized testing program by ‘opting out,’ aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.” 

Magee has been perhaps the state's strongest high-level voice in favor of the opt out movement. Earlier this year, she directly encouraged parents to have their children boycott the state exams, drawing criticism from city and state education officials, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

MORE ON POLITICO

• City Hall Pro: ‘Opt out’ numbers surge in Brownstone Brooklyn; De Blasio’s ‘Latino kitchen cabinet’
• Median rents reach an all-time high in Brooklyn
• De Blasio praises state exam scores, plays down opt out

Magee's invocation may have been one of the factors that led to the state's staggering 20-percent opt out rate, a new record. 

The city United Federation of Teachers, led by Michael Mulgrew, has taken a wholly different approach, which was reflected in a statement he issued Wednesday.

Mulgrew has not asked parents to opt out of exams, saying instead that every parent should decide what is right for their individual child.

He did not address the opt out movement, and instead praised New York City students' modest gains on the exams.

"We’re seeing progress, particularly in reading, thanks to a city administration that really cares about student learning, increased availability of appropriate curriculum and training, and hard work by teachers and students," Mulgrew said. 

New York City's opt out rate was tiny—just under 2 percent—compared to the state's.

The two unions are operating in vastly different political climates.

Magee's default local government is the Cuomo administration, which has all but declared war on the unions with proposals that would increase the importance of standardized tests in teacher evaluations and create more charter schools. 

Magee and Mulgrew spent the winter and spring fighting Cuomo's education proposals—some diluted versions of which were ultimately passed in the state budget. 

But Mulgrew is in a more nuanced political situation downstate. He and Mayor Bill de Blasio often tout their close partnership, which Mulgrew frequently contrasts to the City, state teachers' unions take different tacks on exam scores | POLITICO:

Kevin Johnson and Co. could face ethics test in 2016 - Sacramento News & Review

Sacramento News & Review - Kevin Johnson and Co. could face ethics test in 2016 - Beats - Local Stories - August 13, 2015:
Kevin Johnson and Co. could face ethics test in 2016
Embrace external reform or risk losing party endorsement, says Democratic Party affiliate

Sacramento City Council members who don't embrace true ethics reform may be in trouble next election, according to the chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Sacramento County.

Kerri Asbury said the topic will be on the questionnaires the political group uses to evaluate potential candidates for endorsement, and that each council member's position “will be taken into consideration.”

There have been grumblings about the need for an independent city ethics commission for some time now. But it appears near-monthly allegations of elected chicanery—regarding both sexual impropriety and a lack of distinction between public and private emails—compelled the local affiliate of the California Democratic Party to call for an independent commission last week, just two days after a former staff aide filed a sexual harassment claim against Vice Mayor Allen Warren.

Councilman Steve Hansen recently joined the chorus, by asking for a probe into the city's stale sexual harassment policies and calling on Warren and Mayor Pro Tem Angelique Ashby to step down from a “Good Governance” ad hoc committee the mayor formed last year, The Sacramento Bee reported.

Hansen, Warren and Mayor Kevin Johnson, who endured his own sexual harassment claim earlier this year, are all up for reelection next year.

The Sacramento Integrity Project, a nonpartisan political reform group, last week released ethics reform guidelines that specifically call for indefinite retention of digital records, public access to all written or electronic records and for a clear separation of public and private communication via emails and cell phones, among other proposals.

Thus far, the council has pursued softer internal reforms. Johnson's Good Governance committee has come under criticism for being a less-than-sincere attempt at its namesake. For example, the panel meets privately and is not subject to government transparency laws.

What few measures are in place don’t go anywhere, said Asbury, because all the workings are internal.

At the August 6 council meeting, Johnson asked Ashby to take charge during what he called the final stretch of the ad hoc committee, calling ethics reform a “hot topic.” Ironically, Warren had been the committee's chair since it formed in November.Sacramento News & Review - Kevin Johnson and Co. could face ethics test in 2016 - Beats - Local Stories - August 13, 2015:

$240 Million Education Contract Illustrates State Lobbying Loopholes | Political Muscle | The California Report | KQED News

$240 Million Education Contract Illustrates State Lobbying Loopholes | Political Muscle | The California Report | KQED News:

$240 Million Education Contract Illustrates State Lobbying Loopholes

When California education officials awarded a $240 million, three-year contract to conduct Common Core testing for millions of school children this spring, they said it was an open and competitive process — and that Educational Testing Service, the winning company, simply had the best proposal.

Not everyone agrees the process was so open, nor do they agree that ETS was the clear choice. And several weeks of KQED News questions about the contracting process ended without a full set of answers.

California’s murky disclosure laws make it nearly impossible to know exactly what kinds of work private companies do to influence how thousands of state government contracts are awarded, including whether those same companies seek advantages at every step of the process with behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Existing state law generally limits the disclosure of influence to anyone being paid to advocate for changes in state law or regulations, the traditional kind of lobbying that’s largely focused around the work of the California Legislature and the executive branch. But a private company looking to influence the awarding of a state contract by one of dozens of state agencies and departments isn’t held to the same standards.

That means conversations between advocates and key decision-makers about the roughly 100,000 state contracts handed out each year — worth some $12 billion in taxpayer funds in 2014 and an average of $34 billion a year since 2010 — remain in the shadows, far from public scrutiny. The totals were culled from a state Department of General Services database that does not include contracts worth less than $5,000.

These numbers were culled from a California Deptartment of General Services database. The totals may be incomplete as DGS depends on departments and agencies to self-report their own totals and doesn’t request information on state contracts worth less than $5,000. The numbers represent the total amounts awarded, not paid out, in a calendar year.

These kinds of conversations are common knowledge among Sacramento insiders. And while many prominent lobbying firms in the capital city even advertise their expertise in helping to secure lucrative contracts, they are nonetheless allowed to keep that part of their business a secret.

Gary Winuk, the former chief enforcement officer for California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, said more than two dozen states and the federal government require disclosure of lobbying efforts to win government contracts. So do nearly all of California’s big cities and counties — including San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

“To me it always seemed like a common sense idea,” Winuk said. “The same reason you want it for bills, you want it for (contracts), because $240 Million Education Contract Illustrates State Lobbying Loopholes | Political Muscle | The California Report | KQED News:

Parent Power Can Crush the Testocracy – and the Government is Scared Witless | gadflyonthewallblog

Parent Power Can Crush the Testocracy – and the Government is Scared Witless | gadflyonthewallblog:

Parent Power Can Crush the Testocracy – and the Government is Scared Witless

“We need to change accountability for schools to be more holistic. My greatest frustration is that I can’t do it fast enough.”
–Pedro Rivera, Pennsylvania’s Education Secretary

Parents, you can.

It doesn’t matter where you live. It doesn’t matter what laws are on the books. It doesn’t matter if your state is controlled by Democrats, Republicans or some combination thereof.

No government – not federal, state or local – can trample your parental rights. If you don’t want your child to be evaluated based on standardized tests, your child doesn’t have to be. And if a majority of parents nationwide make this decision, the era of standardized testing comes to an end. Period.

It has already begun.

Across the nation last school year, parents decided to opt their children out of standardized testing in historic numbers. The government noticed and functionaries from New York to California and all places in between are scrambling to deal with it.

In the Empire State one in five students didn’t take federally mandated standardized tests. State education commissioner Mary Ellen Elia responded yesterday by threatening sanctions against schools this year with high opt out numbers. In short, if in the coming year too many kids don’t take the test in a given school, the state will withhold funding.

It’s a desperate move. If the public doesn’t like what its duly elected officials and their functionaries are doing, those same officials and functionaries are vowing to punish the public. But wait. Don’t those people work for the public? Isn’t it their job to do our will? It’s not our job to do theirs.

The message was received a bit better in U.S. Congress where the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is being reauthorized. Two drafts of the law that governs K-12 public schools were approved – one in the House and one in the Senate. And both specifically allow parents to opt their children out of standardized testing. But can schools be punished for it?

The House version says no. The Senate version says it’s up to each state legislature.

These bills are being combined before being presented to President Obama for his Parent Power Can Crush the Testocracy – and the Government is Scared Witless | gadflyonthewallblog: