CPD IN THE NEWS

It is always amusing to be the subject of a John McClaughry jeremiad. While I don’t mind being labeled as the “foremost defender” of public education, he insists on giving me full personal credit for what is a state school board position.

In the instant case, John appears to be affronted by the suggestion that private (independent) schools that take public money must actually be held accountable for that money. This principle is at the core of the state board’s review of the independent school rules. Now this seems like a straightforward and fundamentally democratic concept that is generally accepted, but it has been a long-standing problem for some.

The law (16 VSA 166) provides a list of reporting requirements for independent schools if they want to chow down at the public trough. Unfortunately, as far back as the 1914 Carnegie Commission, we find evidence of the refusal of some independent schools to provide private school data even though it was the law of the land. (At that time, the Cubs were still basking in the glory of their World Series victory.)

The second paramount principle is that we have to educate all the children — regardless of needs and handicaps. That’s a necessity in a democracy. Denying a child admission on the basis of a handicap is, in most cases, illegal. Furthermore, it’s wrong. Public schools serve every child. The false fear John peddles is that the private school can’t afford to serve these children. That’s incorrect. It’s really quite simple. While great eruptions of umbrage are displayed, this problem has been solved for years. The private school contracts with (or hires) a specialist who bills the costs back to the public school. Approval in a given area requires that one sheet of paper be filed with the state. As simple as the solution actually is, some independent schools refuse to adopt an equal opportunity policy.

Instead, John proposes that Vermont “clone” Florida’s McKay Scholarship program where parents can choose the school for their handicapped child. That hasn’t worked out too well. If you think a “business management class” that sends students onto the street to panhandle is an acceptable education, then the McKay program may be just your thing. The Florida Department of Education has uncovered “substantial fraud,” including schools that don’t exist, non-existent students, and classes held in condemned buildings and public parks. And the state of Florida does not have the staff to adequately monitor the program. This is a recipe for abuse. Last May, the Center for Popular Democracy estimated that $216 million in charter school money went out the back door.

Finally, John raises the cost question and says private school scholarships would be “less expensive.” Yet he also criticizes the cost of the state’s excess public school capacity. Now let’s look at Vermont’s private independent school numbers. In 1998, there were 68 independent schools, and by 2016, the number had exploded to 93. In the decade 2004-14, independent school enrollments went down from 4,361 to 3,392. A 37 percent increase in schools with a 29 percent drop in students suggests somebody needs to revisit their business plan.

Taking it all together, (1) all who profit from the public treasury must be accountable for that money, (2) children have the right to be admitted to private schools, free of discrimination, on an equal opportunity basis, (3) private schools are a part of our system, (4) the public purse must be protected from fraud and abuse, and (5) directly or indirectly building and operating a parallel school system would be inordinately expensive and wasteful. Do these principles sound reasonable?

William J. Mathis is managing director of the National Education Policy Center and a member of the Vermont state Board of Education. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of any group with which he is associated.

Source

“Community and labor activists led by the Fed Up coalition demonstrate and call for the selection of a Federal Reserve Bank of New York president independent from Wall Street, outside the Fed bank in New York, March 12, 2018.”

Read the full article here.

A former top Federal Reserve staffer joined with activists on Monday to lay out the mechanics of a plan to overhaul the structure of the U.S. central bank.

Dartmouth College’s Andrew Levin, who was a top adviser to former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Jordan Haedtler of the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign and the Economic Policy Institute’s Valerie Wilson say in a paper that their proposals amount to an important modernization of the Fed.

“The Fed’s structure is simply outdated, and that makes it harder for its decisions to serve the public,” Ms. Wilson said in a press call. “We are well aware we can’t create a dramatic shake-up” of the Fed, she said, explaining what she and her colleagues are calling for is “pragmatic and nonpartisan.”

The linchpin of the overhaul is bringing the 12 quasi-private regional Fed banks fully into government. The paper’s authors also repeated calls for bankers to be removed from regional Fed bank boards of directors, while proposing nonrenewable terms for top central bank officials and greater government oversight over Fed actions.

The paper Monday fleshed out the specifics of how the overhaul would happen, building on ideas first made public in April. “We had a ‘why,’ and now we have a ‘how,’” Mr. Levin told reporters.

Mr. Levin and Fed Up have seen successes in their campaign to overhaul the central bank. Earlier this year, congressional Democrats and the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton endorsed their push to remove bankers from the boards overseeing the 12 regional Fed banks. Fed Up’s effort to promote diversity in a central bank that is still dominated largely by white males, not withstanding the current leadership of Chairwoman Janet Yellen, also has gained traction among Democrats.

The regional Fed banks are unique among major central banks for being owned by local banks. Some fear this structure gives financial institutions undue sway over policy decisions. Fed bank presidents have countered this isn’t the case.

Regional Fed officials have acknowledged that more diversity within the central bank system would be welcome, but they have been reluctant to tinker with the current structure. The paper also proposes auditing the Fed’s monetary-policy-making functions, and that has been something officials have fought hard against, believing it will lead to bad economic outcomes.

The authors say regional Fed banks can easily be made public by canceling the shares of the member banks and refunding the capital these banks were required to keep with the Fed.

The money to do this can be created by the Fed, and the paper says the fact that the central bank no longer would have to pay dividends to the banks would help it return more of its profit to the government. Over the next decade, that could mean the Fed might return as much as $3 billion more in excess profit, helping reducing the government’s budget deficit.

A number of regional Fed bank leaders have pushed back at being made fully public. In May, New York Fed President William Dudley said “the current arrangements are actually working quite well, both in terms of preserving the Federal Reserve’s independence with respect to the conduct of monetary policy and actually leading to pretty, you know, successful outcomes.”

The paper’s authors said making the Fed fully public also would allow it to remove bankers and other financial-sector members from the boards that oversee each regional Fed bank. The authors said directors should be nominated by either a member of Congress or a state governor, subject to approval by the Fed boards.

None of these directors should be from the financial sector, to prevent the conflict of interest created by a member of a regulated financial institution overseeing the operations of their own regulator.

This, too, has drawn pushback from some on the Fed. Philadelphia Fed leader Patrick Harker said in July that “the banker from a small town in Pennsylvania provides incredibly important insight,” and he wants people like that on his board.

New bank leaders should be selected by an open process in which candidates are named publicly, with a formal mechanism for public input. All Fed officials also should serve single staggered seven-year terms, which the paper says would help insulate central bankers from political interference. The selection process of regional Fed bank leaders has long been a secretive affair. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Dallas, Minneapolis and Philadelphia Fed banks, who all took their posts since 2015, have had connections to Goldman Sachs, which has drawn criticism from the Fed Up campaign. Mr. Dudley at the New York Fed was once that firm’s chief economist.

The authors also would like to subject Fed monetary policy decisions to Government Accountability Office audits. To ensure this oversight doesn’t interfere with Fed decision-making, the paper calls for the audits to be done annually and not at the request of a member of Congress, and the GAO shouldn’t be able to comment on any given interest-rate decision.

The paper calls for the Fed to release a quarterly monetary policy report that describes officials’ views on policy, the economy’s performance relative to the Fed’s official price and job mandates, forecasts and a description of risks, and a description of any models driving policy-making.

Any changes to the Fed are ultimately up to elected officials. In February, Ms. Yellen told legislators “the structure could be something different and it’s up to Congress to decide that—I certainly respect that.”

By Michael S. Derby

Source

This episode, we take a look at a campaign that focuses on the Federal Reserve System and its impact on working people and people of color. We take you to a rally in front of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where we spoke with two protesters about how the Fed impacts their communities. Then, we sit down with the Director of the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up! Campaign to hear about the fight to put working people and communities of color at the center of the Fed’s decision-making process.

Read the full article here.