Campaign 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

U.S. lawmakers including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Thursday sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen urging more diversity at the U.S. central bank.

Ten of the Fed's 12 regional bank presidents are men; 11 of them are white, the letter noted.

"Given the critical linkage between monetary policy and the experiences of hardworking Americans, the importance of ensuring that such positions are filled by persons that reflect and represent the interests of our diverse country cannot be understated," said the letter, signed by 116 members of Congress and 11 Senators.

The Fed has come under fire in recent months from both Republicans and Democrats, including candidates for the 2016 presidential campaign, for a range of perceived failings, from its process to deciding monetary policy to its governance. Those calls have emboldened lawmakers who seek to limit the Fed's powers and are prompting some current and former Fed officials to call for steps to placate the bank's harshest critics.

A Federal Reserve Board spokesman said the U.S. central bank was committed to diversity and was already taking steps to bring more women and minorities into its leadership ranks.

Minorities now make up 24 percent of regional Fed bank boards, up from 16 percent in 2010; 46 percent of all directors are either non-white or a woman, the spokesman said, adding, "we are striving to continue that progress."

Reporting by Ann Saphir; Editing by James Dalgleish

Source

The shocking appearance of activists at the usually quiet retreat is a sign of a growing battle over when and whether the Fed should raise interest rates. That crucial decision is making the central bank even more of a political target for populist anger. With critics like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul taking sharper swipes at the Fed, protesters are becoming emboldened.

Both liberal and conservative critics of the bank have organized "counter conferences" on monetary policy held at the same time and place -- the first time in more than 30 years that anyone has scheduled events competing with the symposium hosted annually by the Kansas City Fed.

“The economy has not fully recovered and interest rates should not be raised when racial disparities exist,” said Shawn Sebastian, a policy advocate for the Fed Up Coalition of the Center for Popular Democracy, pointing to continued higher-than-average unemployment rates for black Americans.

And the crowded juxtaposition of the bankers and activists in a small resort area makes for some awkward encounters.

Sebastian spotted Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker at the check-in desk at the Jackson Lodge this week and went right up to him.

“I gave him our agenda and invited him, personally, to come to our conference,” Sebastian said. “He handed the agenda back to me and said he had seen it and was, ‘well prepared for this kind of thing.'”

As Fed officials hear from central bankers from Switzerland and Chile Friday, they are doing so practically next door to a workshop called “Do Black Lives Matter to the Fed?” sponsored by Sebastian's group, which wants rates to stay low until wage growth and unemployment improve, especially for minorities. Meanwhile, a conservative group, the American Principle Project, is holding a separate conference several miles away that includes speakers pushing for tighter monetary policy and higher interest rates, as well a return to the gold standard.

The atmosphere is very different than when the Kansas City Fed started holding the retreat in Jackson Hole in 1982, back when fly-fishing enthusiast Paul Volcker was in charge of the central bank. The symposium has always been held in late August and billed as an exclusive, invitation-only affair in the middle of a national park. Over the years, it's grown to be one of the more high-profile Fed events, even being called the Davos for central banks.

The head of the Fed usually attends, although Chair Janet Yellen is skipping this year. The event tends to be covered by the media because, in past years, Fed chiefs like Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan have used the occasion to broadcast significant monetary-policy shifts.

The event is fairly cloaked in secrecy. Its dates weren't announced until early this spring.

“When I first started asking about it, back in November, they were very secretive. I had to go and ask the lodge what weekends were available and from that, I was able to determine the right weekend,” said Steve Lonegan, policy director for the American Principle Project, which was prohibited by lodge staff from holding a conference at the same place as the Fed symposium. His group is down the road at the Hotel Terra and Diamond Cross Ranch.

“I was told by the lodge staff that the Fed had the whole building, because of security purposes," he said.

A spokesman for the Kansas City Fed acknowledged this was the first year their symposium was taking place alongside competing monetary conferences. But he declined to comment further about the other groups.

Both organizations confirmed they’ve had opportunities over the past several months to sit down and talk about their top priorities face-to-face with Yellen.

But they said holding a conference at the same time as the Jackson Hole event seemed like the ideal way to get even more attention to their cause, with the added bonus that their own conference-goers might also run into central bank policymakers at the park. Both groups had invited Fed officials to their conference and hoped to get crossover attendees.

At one point this week, a group of about 100 Fed Up conference-goers outside the Jackson Hole Lodge chanted: “Don’t raise interest rates! Don’t raise interest rates!”

Meanwhile, central bankers flying into the Jackson Hole Airport -- basically the main entry to the area for conference-goers -- may have passed the American Principle Project's table advertising its event highlighting the problems of loose monetary policy.

“The goal of our conference is to challenge the Fed’s monetary policy and educate the American people on the widening income gap driven by the failed policies of the Federal Reserve system,” said Lonegan, whose conference includes speakers like Rep. Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican, and the outspoken broker and Euro Pacific Capital CEO Peter Schiff. Schiff’s session is called, “Monetary Roach Motel — No Exit from the Fed’s Stimulus.” There’s a panel on international monetary reform, which includes members of British Parliament, and a few speakers who want a return to the gold standard.

The APP had originally signed on former Fed chief Alan Greenspan as their main speaker. Greenspan pulled out, Lonegan said, so now former Sen. Jim DeMint, president of the Heritage Foundation, is the keynote speaker.

“It’s not easy to put together a counter conference to the most powerful organization on the planet earth,” Lonegan said. “You have to have speakers who have the guts to put their names out there.”

Source: Politico

This week Newark, New Jersey, became the latest in a growing number of cities to adopt a municipal ID program. The IDs, available to all residents 14 and older, will be especially useful to undocumented immigrants, the homeless, formerly incarcerated people, and other populations who may not be able to present documents typically required for state-issued cards.

One notable addition to this list: transgender people. Unlike other forms of state and federal identification, Newark’s new card will not list the holder’s gender. The omission is expected to benefit those who do not identify with the gender listed on their birth certificate or other official documents.

Gender sensitivity is a relatively new development within the relatively newphenomenon of municipal IDs. In 2007, New Haven, Connecticut, became the first city in the U.S. to offer city IDs, followed by several cities in California (including San Francisco and Los Angeles), Washington, D.C., New York City, and a few others. In every case, undocumented immigrants were the main target group for the cards. But when San Francisco launched its ID program in 2007, the city made a point of omitting a gender marker (“male” or “female”) from the card, and in 2014 New York City became the first jurisdiction to allow local ID card holders to self-designate their gender.

Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, hopes that more cities will embrace self-designation on municipal IDs. “Since transgender people face so much discrimination based on sex, it’s important that they have ID that matches who they truly are and how they appear to the outside world,” he says. It’s a human rights issue, since IDs confer access to virtually every aspect of public life. When applying for jobs, public benefits, or other services that require identification, the option to affirm one’s gender identity (or omit it) can be significant. Sometimes, Silverman says, ID is the “only layer of support” for a person’s gender identity.

Gender markers are just one battleground in the struggle for gender-flexible documentation, however. Most states don’t allow people to change the gender on their birth certificates unless they undergo sex-reassignment surgery—difficult-to-define procedures that many transgender people either do not want or cannot afford. TLDEF has represented transgender people in West Virginiaand South Carolina who were asked to remove wigs, makeup, and other items associated with female gender expression before taking their driver’s license photos, and the ACLU recently sued the state of Michigan for requiring proof of reassignment surgery to change gender markers on state IDs.

But Silverman senses a sea change in public attitudes on gender identity, buoyed by the high-profile stories of Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner. In Newark, New York, and San Francisco, gender identity has become part of the conversation surrounding municipal IDs—one that has so far focused on the legal rights of undocumented immigrants. Silverman predicts that, moving forward, “municipalities will look to what other similar cities have done, and will take the concerns of the local transgender population into account when they plan these types of programs.”

In a 2013 report on municipal ID programs across the U.S., the Center for Popular Democracy wrote that “cities that offer ID to their residents regardless of immigration status are making a powerful statement of welcome and inclusion.” The same goes for cities who do so regardless of gender identity.

Source: The Atlantic's CityLab