Should state be allowed to take over chronically failing schools?
Should state be allowed to take over chronically failing schools?
Georgia voters are being asked to approve a new and controversial way to improve public education. The proposal would empower the state to take over chronically failing schools or convert them to...
Georgia voters are being asked to approve a new and controversial way to improve public education. The proposal would empower the state to take over chronically failing schools or convert them to charters or even close them.
It’s called Amendment 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot, and it’s called the Opportunity School District in the legislation that authorized it. The Georgia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 133 during this year’s session with the required two-thirds majority in both chambers. The referendum now needs a simple majority from voters to become law.
Then it asks voters this question:
“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the state to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance?”
Gov. Nathan Deal’s OSD proposal, based on similar initiatives in Louisiana and Tennessee, would allow Georgia’s governor to appoint an OSD superintendent, separate from the Georgia Department of Education superintendent, who is elected by voters. The OSD superintendent could take over as many as 20 eligible schools each year and control no more than 100 such schools at any time. The OSD superintendent could waive Georgia Board of Education rules, reorganize or fire staff and change school budgets and curriculum. The state also could convert OSD schools to nonprofit or for-profit charter schools or close them if they don’t have full enrollment.
The state would use the College and Career Ready Performance Index to determine which schools are eligible for takeover. Schools that score below 60 on the 100-point CCRPI for three straight years could be included in the OSD. Those schools would stay in the OSD for no less than five years (or, if they are an OSD charter school, for the length of the initial charter’s term) and no more than 10 years before returning to local control. Opportunity Schools could be removed from the OSD whenever they are graded above an F in the state’s accountability system for three straight years.
Muscogee County had 10 of the 141 schools on the state’s original list of chronically failing schools released last year. Georgetown and Rigdon Road elementary schools, however, improved enough with other schools in the state on the 2015 CCRPI to move off the list. That leaves 127 schools in Georgia and these eight in Muscogee on the current list: Baker Middle School and Davis, Dawson, Forrest Road, Fox, Lonnie Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr. and South Columbus elementary schools.
The case for Yes
OSD proponents cite the number of chronically failing schools as the most obvious reason to try something drastically new. They also note the reduction in the number of chronically failing schools since the threat of state takeover became possible after Senate Bill 133 passed.
Deal says on his proposal’s website, “While Georgia boasts many schools that achieve academic excellence every year, we still have too many schools where students have little hope of attaining the skills they need to succeed in the workforce or in higher education. We have a moral duty to do everything we can to help these children. Failing schools keep the cycle of poverty spinning from one generation to the next. Education provides the only chance for breaking that cycle. When we talk about helping failing schools, we’re talking about rescuing children. I stand firm on the principle that every child can learn, and I stand equally firm in the belief that the status quo isn’t working.”
Alyssa Botts, spokewoman for the pro-Amendment 1 campaign committee Opportunity for All Georgia Students noted, “The graduation rate for students attending failing schools is an abysmal 55.7 percent,” compared to the most recent statewide figure of 78.8 percent in the class of 2015.
“A school that fails to properly educate its students perpetuates cycles of poverty and increases the likelihood of incarceration,” Botts said in an email to the Ledger-Enquirer. “For many students, educational opportunities provide the best chance to break out of these cycles. … Voting ‘yes’ for the Opportunity School District amendment is a vote to ensure that future generations of Georgians will have the best opportunities available. No child in Georgia should be forced by law to attend a failing school.”
The governor-appointed Georgia Board of Education and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce have endorsed the OSD referendum.
Michael O’Sullivan, executive director of the Georgia Campaign for Achievement Now, part of the 50-state CAN nonprofit organization advocating “a high-quality education for all kids, regardless of their address,” has successfully fought a similar political battle, helping to convince voters to approve the 2012 Georgia charter school amendment. And the OSD is the next logical step, he figures.
“What this has done is create a sense of urgency for districts to act,” O’Sullivan said in an interview with the Ledger-Enquirer. “Voters should be asking what’s being done now? What plans are in place to improve our schools? That’s the ultimate goal. How can we ensure that every student in the state has access to quality education? Right now, 68,000 students attend a school that has failed at least three years or more.”
The opposition is based on being “afraid of loss of control,” O’Sullivan said. “… It’s my hope that opponents would be putting as much effort into fixing their schools so they aren’t eligible for the OSD. I can tell you which option will be best for schools.”
O’Sullivan emphasized that state takeover is only one option for intervention in the OSD.
“There is the ability for the state to assist schools that are failing for one year or two years, and then, after three years, there is a multiple intervention model,” he said. “One is a joint governance structure, with the OSD and the local school district working together to turn around the school.”
Addressing concerns that OSD schools would receive less funding, O’Sullivan said, “Whatever amount that would have been dedicated to that school remains in that school.”
Louisiana enacted the Recovery School District in 2003. The RSD comprises 62 autonomous charter schools in Orleans, East Baton Rouge and Caddo parishes with a total enrollment of more than 32,000 students, according to the RSD’s 2015 annual report. The percentage of RSD schools considered to be failing has been reduced from 44 percent in 2011 to 19 percent in 2015, the report says.
According to the RSD’s 2014 annual report, the percentage of students performing at the basic level or above increased 29 percentage points from 2008 to 2014, while the state average increased 9 percentage points.
In New Orleans, 63 percent of the public school students are in the RSD. According to a June 2015 study by Patrick Sims and Vincent Rossmeier of the Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives at Tulane University, “the percentage of (New Orleans) students at the basic level or above has increased 15 percentage points over the past six years. That growth has largely come from the RSD, which has improved by 20 percentage points.”
In Tennessee, as of the 2015-16 school, there were 29 schools in the Achievement School District, enacted in 2010 with the goal of moving the state’s bottom 5 percent of school into the top 25 percent of student achievement. The ASD has made progress, according to its July 2015 report.
“Over a three-year period, ASD students have earned double-digit gains in math and science proficiency and have grown faster than their state peers,” the report says.
The ASD reading scores, however, declined along with the state average.
“We know from national research and our own experience that reading growth tends to lag behind other subjects in a school turnaround setting,” Malika Anderson, then the ASD deputy superintendent and now its superintendent, says in the report.
The case for No
Georgia Federation of Teachers president Verdaillia Turner, a retired Atlanta educator, has seen the statistics that indicate state takeovers improved student achievement, but her organization touts evidence that argues otherwise.
The federation says in its campaign literature that the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against the state-created school district in New Orleans on behalf of 4,500 students for denying appropriate services. A July 2015 SPLC fact sheet notes that, while an average of 19.4 percent of students with disabilities graduated high school in Louisiana, only 6.8 percent of them graduated in the Recovery School District.
A February 2016 report titled “State Takeovers of Low-Performing Schools: A Record of Academic Failure, Financial Mismanagement and Student Harm” from the Center for Popular Democracy, a liberal-leaning nonprofit advocacy group, found that state takeovers of schools in Louisiana, Michigan and Tennessee produced:
▪ “Negligible improvement — or even dramatic setbacks — in their educational performance.”
▪ “A breeding ground for fraud and mismanagement at the public’s expense.”
▪ “High turnover and instability” among staff, “creating a disrupted learning environment for children.”
▪ “Harsh disciplinary measures and discriminatory practices” for students of color and those with special needs.
Turner fears too much of the motivation for the OSD proposal is about creating profit opportunities in public schools for private charter school companies.
“The bottom line here is that this is a new business at the public’s expense,” Turner said in an interview with the Ledger-Enquirer. “The only thing public about these schools is our tax dollars.”
The federation notes the OSD may retain 3 percent of state funds for administrative operations, reducing the amount of money available for instruction.
“I love my state, and I respect the office of the governor and all of government,” Turner said. “However, this is still a democracy, and we believe that educators and the public need not be misled by what’s about to happen.”
That includes the OSD superintendent’s authority to “get rid of people at will” at any OSD school, Turner said. “The law says, the last line in Senate Bill 133 says, all laws in conflict with this act are repealed.”
Turner noted the state’s standardized testing system has changed the past five consecutive years. “Therefore, we know it’s not reliable,” she said.
In many chronically failing schools, Turner said, “children end up going to jail. But in many of these same schools, children go to Yale. So we need to have a real conversation about what makes schools work.”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported that a political group called the Committee to Keep Georgia Schools Local has a TV ad campaign opposing the OSD referendum. The group includes the Georgia Association of Educators, Georgia AFL-CIO, the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, Georgia Stand-Up, the Coalition for the People’s Agenda, Public Education Matters, Southern Education Foundation, Working America, Pro Georgia, Better Georgia, Georgia Federation of Teachers and Concerned Black Clergy of Metro Atlanta, according to the AJC.
The Georgia School Boards Association’s board of directors voted to oppose the amendment. School boards representing the counties of Bibb, Chatham, Cherokee, Clayton, Fayette, Henry, Richmond and Troup have expressed opposition.
The Muscogee County School Board was scheduled to join them last month, but the proposed resolution was deleted from the agenda between the Sept. 12 work session and the Sept. 20 meeting. Neither superintendent David Lewis nor board chairman Rob Varner has responded to the Ledger-Enquirer’s requests for an explanation.
Responding on their behalf, MCSD communications director Valerie Fuller also didn’t explain the sudden change in thinking, who proposed the resolution, who rescinded it and why. Here is her statement in an email to the Ledger-Enquirer:
“The Muscogee County School District is a public school system, which is supported by taxpayer money. All of our stakeholders (taxpayers, students, parents, teachers administrators and staff) have different opinions on this proposal. Although we believe, and the results indicate, that we are making progress with our challenged schools, to take a side could anger supporters, who might say the BOE is opposed to helping ‘failing’ schools.
“We don’t think it would be wise for a publicly elected body to pass a resolution in opposition of this amendment that might result in controversy, causing unnecessary distractions from the work being done on behalf of these schools. Because this could result in a change to Georgia’s Constitution, we do believe it is important for voters to read and be fully informed about the amendment and its implications.”
In a letter Tuesday to school district superintendents and Regional Education Service Agency directors, Georgia Department of Education deputy superintendent for external affairs and policy Garry McGiboney reminded public school officials that the Georgia Office of the Attorney General advised the GaDOE in 2012, “Local school boards do not have the legal authority to expend funds or other resources to advocate or oppose the ratification of a constitutional amendment by the voters.”
Regardless of whether the proposed OSD is good for Georgia, the referendum’s wording doesn’t accurately explain it, some folks insist. The Georgia PTA called it “deceptive.”
“If the governor and state legislators believe the best way to fix struggling schools is to put them under state control and either close them or turn them over to charter schools, then let the language on the ballot reflect this initiative,” Georgia PTA president Lisa-Marie Haygood said in a news release. “As it stands, the preamble, and indeed, the entire amendment question, is intentionally misleading and disguises the true intentions of the OSD legislation.”
To that end, a class-action lawsuit was filed Sept. 27 against the governor, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. The three lead plaintiffs, all from metro Atlanta — parent Kimberly Brooks, First Iconium Baptist Church senior pastor Timothy McDonald III and Coweta County teacher Melissa Ladd — allege in the complaint that the wording is “so misleading and deceptive that it violates the due process and voting rights of all Georgia voters.”
Gerry Weber, an Atlanta lawyer representing the three lead plaintiffs, told the Ledger-Enquirer in an interview the Georgia Supreme Court ruled about 10 years ago that a challenge to the wording of ballot measures must be decided after the vote because the lawsuit would be moot if the proposal fails.
The Ledger-Enquirer asked Deal spokeswoman Jen Talaber Ryan for the governor’s response to the allegation about the referendum’s wording. Ryan replied in an email, “The opposition didn’t attend the publicly announced constitutional amendment meeting where the language was discussed and approved. Why don’t you ask them why? And the preamble and question say exactly what the OSD will do — provide a lifeline for children forced by law to attend a failing school. The only thing misleading here is the fact that national, outside special interest groups are spending money instead of local groups. After all, their go to line is about ‘local control.’ Hypocritical, don’t you think?”
Keep Georgia Schools Local campaign manager Louis Elrod told the Ledger-Enquirer in an email from media relations manager Michelle Davis, “It’s unbelievable that pro-school takeover advocates would make this charge. They are grasping at straws because they’re desperate and losing this fight.
“They know full well that many members of our bipartisan coalition of parents, teachers and public school advocates actively petitioned for changes to both the amendment and the ballot question at multiple hearings. The even more deceptive preamble language was drafted at a separate meeting in Deal’s office. Janet Kishbaugh of Public Education Matters Georgia says she and other opponents called and searched online daily to find an announcement of this meeting. It was later revealed that the preamble was written in Deal’s office in a meeting attended only by the three men who drafted the words.
“The pro-takeover campaign’s political maneuvering just confirms what we know about their intentions — this amendment is designed to silence parents and strip away local control.”
Do your homework and vote
The Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education has taken a neutral position on the OSD referendum, but the partnership’s president, Steve Dolinger, is advocating this:
“The important thing is Georgia voters do their own homework on this issue and make their decision based on solid research and fact-finding, not emotion,” Dolinger, who was superintendent of Fulton County Schools (1995-2002), said in an email to the Ledger-Enquirer from Bill Maddox, the partnership’s communications director. “Both sides make compelling arguments, but it should always come down to what the voter feels is right for the children of our state.”
BY MARK RICE
Source
Activists from around the country to march, hold workshops in Pittsburgh
Activists from around the country to march, hold workshops in Pittsburgh
An estimated 1,500 demonstrators will hit the streets of Downtown Pittsburgh this afternoon — and both geographically and politically, they expect to cover a lot of ground.
The “Still We...
An estimated 1,500 demonstrators will hit the streets of Downtown Pittsburgh this afternoon — and both geographically and politically, they expect to cover a lot of ground.
The “Still We Rise” March, which kicks off a two-day gathering of activists from around the country, begins at 2:30 and will feature stops including the Pittsburgh branch of the Federal Reserve, the headquarters of UPMC and the Station Square office of Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey.
Ana Maria Archila, co-director of the Center for Popular Democracy, which is organizing the gathering, said the activists are turning out to put the spotlight on issues communities face such as economic inequality, racism and xenophobia.
“… We will win our rights,” she said, adding that the event “is really the launch of a national grassroots community.”
In fact, the “People’s Convention” at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center expects to attract over 40 progressive groups from 30 states, focusing on issues ranging from immigrant rights and racial equity to environmental concerns and public schools advocacy. A parallel program will involve policy discussions among progressive elected officials: Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and City Councilor Daniel Lavelle are among those participating.
The event “reflects what we’re trying to do in Pittsburgh, on a national level,” said Erin Kramer, executive director of activist group One Pittsburgh.
Here as elsewhere, organizers have pressed fast-food employers to raise minimum wages to at least $15 an hour, and fought for a city ordinance requiring employers to grant paid sick leave to workers. Other cities are weighing “fair scheduling” ordinances that require giving workers earlier notice about, and input on, their work schedules.
Immigration issues, which have become a critical issue in this year’s presidential race, also will be a key topic. While Ms. Kramer said the convention is about more than electoral politics, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump “is really a threat for a lot of participants. He’s literally talking about building walls and sending people home. You may see a Trump puppet in the parade, more as a rodeo clown than anything else.”
The agenda may seem sprawling. “It is hard to weave these things together,” Ms. Archila admitted. One goal of the convention is for participants to craft a “statement of unity” outlining a vision to guide future activism.
But “all of our issues are interconnected,” said Pittsburgh education activist Pam Harbin, who will attend the convention to discuss tactics and lessons with organizers from elsewhere. “A $15 minimum wage is deeply connected to the fight for quality schools, because if you have parents working three jobs, you really can’t ask, ‘Why aren’t these parents more involved in their kids’ education?’”
Campaigns for higher wages or better worker protections often concentrate on the federal level. But with Washington in a partisan deadlock, activists are increasingly pressing for change locally.
“In some ways, people became more reliant on the federal government, and that took some of the wind out of the sails of local activism,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy. “But seeing the federal government crippled is an opportunity to reinvigorate local democracy.”
There are perils to the approach, as Pittsburgh has learned. Here as elsewhere, while progressives may control city hall, conservatives often rule state capitals.
State law has barred enforcing a Pittsburgh law to require the reporting of lost-and-stolen firearms, for example. And last December, an Allegheny County judge struck down ordinances requiring paid sick leave for employers, and special training for building security guards. A 2009 Supreme Court ruling barred municipalities for setting such rules for employers, Judge Joseph James ruled.
“It’s a growing trend to see these special interests using their access at the state level to preempt local democracy,” Ms. Graves said. This weekend will feature discussions of the challenge, but because states can limit local authority, “It’s extremely difficult to overcome.”
And a local ordinance may not help struggling families across the city line — at least not immediately.
Still, said Ms. Kramer, “If you lift the minimum wage in one place, people say, ‘Why not me?’ You have to start by painting an alternative picture.”
By Chris Potter
Source
La incertidumbre de los puertorriqueños de Nueva York que no han podido comunicarse con sus familiares en la isla
La incertidumbre de los puertorriqueños de Nueva York que no han podido comunicarse con sus familiares en la isla
Por otro lado, el Center for Popular Democracy lanzó un fondo de emergencia para asistir a organizaciones que trabajan con comunidades de bajos ingresos, que son más vulnerables a los daños de...
Por otro lado, el Center for Popular Democracy lanzó un fondo de emergencia para asistir a organizaciones que trabajan con comunidades de bajos ingresos, que son más vulnerables a los daños de María.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
Women Have a Voice: Watch 2 Protestors Confront Senator Jeff Flake to Call for an FBI Investigation
Women Have a Voice: Watch 2 Protestors Confront Senator Jeff Flake to Call for an FBI Investigation
Before Senator Jeff Flake shocked the world by requesting an FBI investigation into sexual assault claims made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Friday...
Before Senator Jeff Flake shocked the world by requesting an FBI investigation into sexual assault claims made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Friday, the Arizona Republican was confronted in an elevator by two protestors who attempted to convince him to call for the probe. The scene was caught on video by people in the hallway, and may have ultimately tipped the scales in Flake’s determining whether to make his pitch to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Read the full article here.
Fed Should Study Higher Inflation Target, Liberal Economists Say
Fed Should Study Higher Inflation Target, Liberal Economists Say
A group of 22 progressive economists including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz urged the Federal Reserve to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to consider raising its 2 percent inflation target...
A group of 22 progressive economists including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz urged the Federal Reserve to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to consider raising its 2 percent inflation target.
In a letter to Chair Janet Yellen and the rest of the Fed board released on Friday, the economists argued that a higher objective would give the central bank more room to combat downturns in the economy without unduly hurting Americans’ living standards.
Read the full article here.
Critics of Fed on Left and Right Prepare to Head to Jackson Hole
At least two groups—one on the right and one from the left—are expected to show up in some fashion to press the Fed to change its policies.
The conference, ...
At least two groups—one on the right and one from the left—are expected to show up in some fashion to press the Fed to change its policies.
The conference, Aug. 27-29, will draw Fed officials, foreign central bankers, academic economists, reporters and others to talk about inflation and monetary policy in view of Grand Teton mountain range.
Just a short-drive away from the conference, the conservative American Principles Project has scheduled another conference to discuss how the group believes the Fed has failed to defend the dollar and promote prosperity. This gathering is titled, “Central Banks: The Problem or the Solution?”
Liberal-leaning activists from the Fed Up Coalition–representing unions, community activists and policy advocates–are also expected to gather in Jackson Hole, much as they did last year, to urge the Fed to change its structure to become more open and democratic.
The group opposes raising short-term interest rates from near zero now. The members want the Fed to maintain its ultra-easy policy to spur the economy and lift more of the nation’s workers out of troubled economic conditions. Members of the group have been meeting with Fed officials lately to voice their concerns.
The Kansas City Fed conference in Jackson Hole gives central bank officials a chance to socialize, hike, debate major issues facing the global economy and occasionally make major policy speeches. Attendance is strictly by invitation-only.
APP monetary-policy director Steven Lonegan said the aim of his event is to refocus the Fed on defending the dollar. “We are really challenging the Fed toe to toe on their own turf” by coming to Jackson Hole, he said.
The broader mission of the conference, Mr. Lonegan said, was to engage the nation’s political candidates to speak about the Fed. He said all known candidates have been asked to appear at the event, although none have so far accepted.
The APP event includes representatives from the Heritage Foundation, economists, Fox Business Network personality John Stossel, and a member of the British Parliament, according to the conference program.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Elizabeth Warren and more than 100 House Democrats blast lack of diversity at the Fed
Elizabeth Warren and more than 100 House Democrats blast lack of diversity at the Fed
The Federal Reserve System is one of the most important institutions in the entire American government. Its composition is also almost shockingly non-diverse, with zero African Americans or...
The Federal Reserve System is one of the most important institutions in the entire American government. Its composition is also almost shockingly non-diverse, with zero African Americans or Latinos serving on the key panel whose decisions impact job creation and the pace of economic growth, despite fairly overwhelming evidence that Fed decisions impact racial groups differently.
What's more, the bodies that choose which people sit on that non-diverse committee are themselves extremely non-diverse — locking into place a system in which the interests of African Americans, Latinos, and lower-income people more generally may be underconsidered in making decisions about unemployment, inflation, and interest rates.
All this is the subject of a letter released at noon today by a group of 111 members of the House of Representatives plus 11 senators, headlined by Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Al Franken, demanding that the Fed pay more attention to diversity in its ranks.
The key graf:
According to a study by the Center for Popular Democracy released in early February, 2016, 83 percent of Federal Reserve head office board members are white, and men occupy nearly three-fourths of all regional bank directorships. The lack of public representation on regional Banks’ boards is even more distressing in light of the lack of diversity among regional Bank presidents and the resulting lack of diversity on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Currently, 92 percent of regional Bank presidents are white, and not a single president is either African-American or Latino. Moreover, at present 100 percent of voting FOMC participants are white, while 83 percent of regional Bank presidents and 60 percent of voting FOMC members are men.
Progressives interested in monetary policy issues have long struggled to engage the public, activist groups, or elected officials in the topic. The focus on diversity from the left-wing Center for Popular Democracy's "Fed Up" campaign that inspired this letter represents a new tactical effort to change that.
Diversity among decision-makers is not, of course, directly a monetary policy issue. But as the letter points out, monetary policy does have significant consequences for racial disparities in employment. They cite research from the Economic Policy Institute "demonstrating that for every .91 percent reduction in unemployment for whites, black unemployment drops 1.7 percent" meaning that African Americans have more to gain from monetary policy that is more pro-growth and less inflation-averse.
Michigan Representative John Conyers who was one of the main driving forces behind the letter issued a statement observing that "Detroit and cities across the country with high minority populations have some of the highest unemployment rates and will be harmed if the Federal Reserve does not consider our needs when they make key policy decisions."
How the Federal Reserve is organized
The specifics of the letter hinge on the structure of the Federal Reserve system, which is, in a word, confusing.
The main hub of the Fed is the Board of Governors in Washington, DC, which consists of a chair, a vice chair, and five other board members. Currently there are two vacancies on the board, and all five board members are white.
In addition to the Board of Governors, there are 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, each of which has its own president and its own board of directors. Each bank's president is selected by its board, with the choice subject to confirmation by the main board. Each regional bank board itself is composed in part of members selected by the private banks of the region and in part of members selected by the central board.
Monetary policy decisions are made by what's known as the Open Market Committee. The committee is composed of the seven members of the Board of Governors (at present, again, there are two vacancies) plus the president of the New York Fed, plus four other regional bank presidents serving on a rotating basis.
The point of the letter is that all these various groups underrepresent women and massively underrepresent African Americans and Latinos.
Today's Fed neglects race
Diversity of membership is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure that a broad range of interests is represented. But there is considerable evidence that the current not-so-diverse group of monetary policymakers is not considering the full range of interests in American society.
Narayana Kocherlakota, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, was the only nonwhite FOMC member during his term and offered this observation back in January:
However, there is one key source of economic difference in American life that is likely underemphasized in FOMC deliberations: race. Let’s look, for example, at the most recently released transcripts for FOMC meetings, which cover the year 2010 (my first full year on the Committee). It was a challenging year for the US economy as a whole, as the unemployment rate was above 9 1/4% in every month. But it was especially challenging for African-Americans: In every month of 2010, the unemployment rate among African-Americans was at least 15 1/2%. I did a search of the hundreds of pages of the meeting transcripts. Based on that search, my conclusion is that there was no reference in the meetings to labor market conditions among African-Americans (or Black Americans).
Monetary policymakers, with their needed independence, always risk being (or at least being seen as) insufficiently empathetic to the lives of their nations’ citizens. The Federal Reserve Act has mitigated this risk in the US by ensuring that an appreciation for economic diversity is at the heart of the FOMC’s deliberations.
The details of monetary policy get pretty complicated, and there's rarely been much sign of normal people being interested in them. But issues about who is represented and whose interests get discussed are easier to understand, so you can see why this particular angle is gaining momentum in Congress.
After the release of the letter, Hillary Clinton also weighed-in on the issue via spokesman Jesse Ferguson who offered a statement:
The Federal Reserve is a vital institution for our economy and the wellbeing of our middle class, and the American people should have no doubt that the Fed is serving the public interest. That's why Secretary Clinton believes that the Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole as well as that commonsense reforms — like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks — are long overdue. Secretary Clinton will also defend the Fed's so-called dual mandate — the legal requirement that it focus on full employment as well as inflation — and will appoint Fed governors who share this commitment and who will carry out unwavering oversight of the financial industry
By Matthew Yglesias
Source
Its Integrity Questioned, SUNY Institute Retreats From Politically Tinged Study
The Chronicle of Higher Education - April 28, 2014, by Paul Basken - The State University of New York’s Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government is backing away from a politically divisive...
The Chronicle of Higher Education - April 28, 2014, by Paul Basken - The State University of New York’s Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government is backing away from a politically divisive report critical of a worker’s-rights law, admitting that the industry-financed analysis has multiple major flaws that undermine its central finding.
The report, published in February, criticizes New York State’s so-called Scaffold Law, which holds contractors and property owners legally liable for on-site injuries and accidents. The analysis suffers from "really big weaknesses," said the institute’s director, Thomas L. Gais, who added that he considers the report as not officially a product of his institute. The key analytical section of the report "is just really awful," he said.
The Rockefeller Institute prides itself as a provider of unbiased and empirical policy analysis. Defenders of the Scaffold Law, however, have complained that the institute tainted itself by accepting an $82,000 payment from a business group with construction-industry supporters to produce the report.
The report is "junk" and "fundamentally biased," said the Center for Popular Democracy and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, two groups representing unionized workers and immigrants.
The case has shined a spotlight on the question of whether universities and their research institutes, as declining public financing leaves them increasingly reliant on private-sector support, are able to provide policy makers with objective technical advice.
There are hundreds of such institutes at universities around the country, and it’s often possible to "predict the policy outcomes from where their support comes from," said Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University who writes about bias in research.
A ‘Quality-Control Issue’
Mr. Gais, a social scientist who has led the Rockefeller Institute for four years, adamantly denied there was any bias in the report on behalf of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. The alliance has long opposed the Scaffold Law, but Mr. Gais said he never expected to get any repeat business from the industry-affiliated group. "We got the money no matter what we wrote," he said.
The report instead suffered from what Mr. Gais called a "quality-control issue," in which a relatively new institute researcher, Michael R. Hattery, delivered it to the Lawsuit Reform Alliance without its being thoroughly reviewed at the institute.
Another major problem with the 89-page report, Mr. Gais said, lies with a section that uses a flawed statistical analysis to make the "counterintuitive" argument that New York’s worker-safety law actually leaves workers less safe.
That section’s author, R. Richard Geddes, an associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, also has drawn criticism within his own institution. At least two members of the labor-studies department at Cornell wrote newspaper op-eds criticizing Mr. Geddes’s work.
One, Richard W. Hurd, a professor of industrial and labor relations, wrote that Mr. Geddes had "misused sophisticated statistical techniques and produced inaccurate results." Lee H. Adler, an instructor of labor and employment law at Cornell, wrote that the episode reflects more than a century of attempts by business leaders to deprive workers of the fundamental right to sue.
Mr. Geddes emotionally denounced the criticism in an interview with The Chronicle, saying he had absolutely not been influenced by the source of money and describing his work as a state-of-the-art analysis of who actually gets injured on construction sites in New York State.
"I find that offensive, I find that deeply offensive, that they said my work is biased, after we spent hours and hours collecting the best data we could find," Mr. Geddes said.
A Valid Concern
Among its arguments, the report compares worker-injury records in New York and Illinois, which repealed a similar worker-protection law in 1995. The study found that both accident rates and costs declined in Illinois after repeal.
The labor groups said the study’s shortfalls included a failure to take into account situations where higher union-membership rates would encourage workers to report accidents, and workplaces where greater percentages of immigrants might depress reporting statistics.
Mr. Geddes said the critics bore the responsibility of showing how such factors would substantially have affected the report’s conclusions. Mr. Hattery said he also stood by the report but recognized that the possible effect of those omissions was a valid concern that should be assessed in future studies.
Mr. Geddes said he recognized some drawbacks in a system where academic institutes rely more heavily on private supporters. "It has made it harder because people without any evidence at all, any support, are attacking, are saying you’re biased," he said. "I find that profoundly offensive."
Mr. Hattery, however, said he welcomed the process now unfolding. "I don’t at all resent or have a problem with these kinds of questions’ being asked," he said. "When you think you have integrity and are humble and a good conscience, you’re probably in trouble."
Source
Arrests Made At Protest Outside UES Home Of JPMorgan Chase Exec
Arrests Made At Protest Outside UES Home Of JPMorgan Chase Exec
Hundreds of people picketed outside of 1185 Park Ave. around 8 a.m. to deliver more than 100,000 petition signatures demanding that JPMorgan Chase stop financing immigrant detention centers and...
Hundreds of people picketed outside of 1185 Park Ave. around 8 a.m. to deliver more than 100,000 petition signatures demanding that JPMorgan Chase stop financing immigrant detention centers and private prisons, protest organizers said. The demonstration was organized by groups such as Make the Road New York, New York Communities for Change and the Center for Popular Democracy.
Read the full article here.
Group Blasts Fed for Lack of Diversity in Leadership
Source: Wall Street Journal
Federal Reserve leadership is overly...
Source: Wall Street Journal
Federal Reserve leadership is overly male, almost entirely white and drawn too frequently from the banking community, according to a group critical of the central bank.
A new report from the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign analyzes the types of people populating the Fed’s Washington-based board of governors, the regional bank presidencies and the regional bank boards of directors.
The report notes that all voting members of the central bank’s rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee and nearly all the regional bank presidents are white. Just two of the 12 presidents and two of the five governors are women.
“These key decision-making bodies remain dramatically unbalanced and unrepresentative of the vast majority of people who participate in the economy,” said the group, which has called for more public input into the selection of regional bank presidents and their performance evaluations.
The center said the composition of the Fed’s leadership bodies violates the spirit of the law that created the central bank, which calls for membership drawn from many different industries and interests.
A Fed spokesman responded to the criticism about the regional bank boards by saying the central bank has “focused considerable attention” to finding directors “with diverse backgrounds and experiences” that represent agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers, as the law requires.
“We also are striving to increase ethnic and gender diversity,” the spokesman said, noting a rise in minority representation on the boards from 16% in 2010 to 24% today. Female representation has risen from 23% to 30% over the same period, and all told, 46% of regional directors now are either a woman or a member of a racial minority, the spokesman added.
Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen is the central bank’s first female leader.
The Fed Up group, with a membership drawing heavily from labor unions and community organizations, is a regular critic of the central bank. It has argued in recent months that the Fed shouldn’t raise short-term interest rates and has pressed its case in private meetings with Fed officials. Several of its members appeared outside the central bank’s research conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo., last year to call attention to their views.
The group’s concern about a dearth of diversity at the Fed has been echoed by former Minneapolis Fed chief Narayana Kocherlakota. He argued in a blog post last month the central bank has appeared to give short shrift to racial concerns in part because there have been almost no African-Americans in its policy-making ranks. He wrote that the concerns of racial minorities have been “underemphasized” at the Fed.
The last African-American to serve on the Fed board was Roger W. Ferguson Jr., who served as a governor between 1997 and 2006 and as vice chairman from 1999 to 2006. The first African-American to serve as a Fed governor was Andrew Brimmer, from 1966 to 1974.
The report showed particular concern about the directors on the regional Fed bank boards, which are drawn from the private sector. It said 83% are white, compared with around two-thirds of the total U.S. population.
“The diversity of regional board members is meant to inform the bank presidents, who in turn, participate in discussions and vote at the FOMC,” the report said. “However, the boards, the presidents, and the FOMC fail to represent their region’s racial diversity.”
The report also said its analysis found that representatives of banking and what it calls commercial interests have increased their share of regional Fed board seats in recent years. Representatives of community groups and labor unions account for fewer than 5% of the available board seats, according to the center.
Among the regional Fed bank boards’ most high-profile roles is selecting their bank presidents. Recent regulatory changes now bar directors from participating in that process if their firms are regulated by the bank.
The directors also provide information to bank officials about local economic conditions and give advice on running the banks.
9 hours ago
2 days ago