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

PITTSBURGH (AP) - Pittsburgh police say they're using uniformed and plainclothes officers and "extreme caution" to safeguard police and the public at an activists march on Friday.

The march opening the People's Convention at the city's convention center is billed as protesting "growing inequality and a toxic atmosphere of hate." Organizers expect 1,500 activists to march through downtown protesting what they believe are various social ills.

Pittsburgh's Public Safety Department is working with the FBI and other law enforcement in the wake of sniper shootings that killed five police officers and wounded seven others at a protest march in Dallas on Thursday.

Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik also planned a noon Mass to pray for "peace and reconciliation."

And Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput (SHAP'-yoo) says the Dallas murders "only discredit" such protesters' "legitimate anger."

Source

If Americans needed any further proof that voting itself has become a partisan battleground, look no further than proposals calling for automatic voter registration.

California this month enacted a law that will automatically register people to vote when they get or renew a driver's license or state identification card from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), following the example set by Oregon several months ago. Over time, this could bring most of the 6.6 million Californians who are eligible but not yet registered onto the voting rolls. Alex Padilla, California's secretary of state and sponsor of the measure, calls it potentially the largest voter registration drive in U.S. history.

Other states could soon follow.

Legislators have introduced automatic voter registration bills in 16 additional states, including Hawaii, Illinois and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia. New Jersey lawmakers approved a package that includes automatic voter registration in June. Republican Gov. Chris Christie hasn't acted on it, but he's made his opposition clear.

"The current process creates an unnecessary barrier for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote," said state Sen. Andy Manar, a sponsor of the Illinois measure. "And it's an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars."

The states where bills have seen real movement, however, are all blue states. In states where Republicans control the legislature  -- including Georgia, South Carolina and Texas -- measures have mostly languished in committee.

Supporters argue that the real reason for  Republican opposition is the party's worry that automatic registration would boost the number of poor and young voters -- groups that favor Democrats. But Republicans complain that automatically registering people to vote based on their DMV status will result in more fraud because, for example, teens still too young to vote and undocumented immigrants get driver's licenses.

In New Jersey, more than 85 percent of eligible citizens are already registered to vote. During a radio appearance in June, Gov. Christie said that, "there's no question in my mind that there are some advocates of this who are looking to increase the opportunities for voter fraud. That's not democracy either."

Studies have shown, however, that voter fraud seldom happens. Proponents of automatic voter registration say that governments have a responsibility to ensure eligible citizens have the opportunity to exercise the franchise, without unnecessary hurdles.

Supporters of the idea are currently collecting signatures in Alaska to put it on the ballot next year. If Christie ultimately vetoes the New Jersey package, a ballot measure may be likely there as well.

"It's not just an election modernization reform, it's a shifting of responsibilty for who populates the rolls," said Katrina Gamble, director of civic engagement and politics at the Center for Popular Democracy. "Even before Oregon, people saw automatic voter registration as the most tranformative reform that we can move that would bring a huge number of people onto the rolls."

Huge numbers of eligible citizens aren't registered to vote. In addition to the nearly 7 million Californians, there are 2.3 million such people in Illinois and there were 300,000 in Oregon.

"If you look across the country, there are at least 50 million people who are eligible but not registered to vote," said Jonathan Brater, counsel for the democracy program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. "We see year after year that registration is one of the biggest obstacles to participation."

Other states might explore other models, like using agencies other than the DMV to find potential voters. If the Alaska initiative passes next year, the state will find potential voters through its Permanent Fund, which pays dividends to residents based on oil revenues.

Regardless of the database that's used, automatic registration has the potential to be more accurate than the current approach, which in many places still means relying on paper forms. It should also save money. When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, only Arizona and Washington offered online registration. Earlier this month, Vermont became the 26th state to allow voters to register online. Going paper-free saves states at least 50 cents on every registration.

It's in part for that reason that Republican legislators in states including Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma have supported online registration. Supporters of automatic voter registration hope that promises of savings might bring GOP lawmakers around to supporting things like registration through the DMV, too.

So far, that's not happening.

In fact, the way that high-profile Democrats running for president have embraced the idea seems to be driving Republicans away. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an automatic voter registration bill in Congress, and Hillary Clinton supported the idea during a speech earlier this year in which she castigated the GOP for trying to "disempower and disenfranchise young people, poor people, people with disabilities and people of color," through voter ID requirements and attacks on early voting.

Clinton's speech, according to polling, cost automatic voter registration support among Republican voters. A majority of Republicans (53 percent) supported the idea when Oregon passed its law in March, but after Clinton gave her speech in June, GOP support dropped to 38 percent. When survey respondents were told Clinton backed the idea, their support plummeted further, to 28 percent.

Source: Governing

Lawmakers should strip banks’ influence from the Federal Reserve’s leadership, make its regional banks publicly owned corporations and increase transparency in selecting its top leaders, according to a report released Monday by the Fed Up Coalition, a campaign led by the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy.

The 17-page report — co-authored by Fed Up Coalition Campaign Manager Jordan Haedtler, economist Valerie Wilson of the Economic Policy Institute and Dartmouth College economist Andrew Levin — is a more detailed version of a Fed overhaul framework proposed in April by Levin, a former Fed staffer, and urges members of Congress to make the central bank a “fully public institution” and scrub the influence of banks from its top echelons.

The report also proposes establishing annual audits of the Fed by the Government Accountability Office, reworking the selection process of Fed regional presidents and directors, returning capital shares to commercial banks invested in the regional Fed branches and opening the 12 regional banks to the Freedom of Information Act.

“We have really strived to make a proposal that we see as sensible and pragmatic and nonpartisan,” Levin said Monday in a conference call with reporters. “Over the years, both progressives and conservatives have felt strongly that big banks should not have an undue influence in the governance and the decision-making process of the Federal Reserve, and making the Fed fully public is an important way to do that.”

The proposal differs from previous “audit the Fed” measures, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)’s legislation that failed to garner the 60 votes needed to advance during a procedural vote in January, because it would prevent “political interference” in the central bank by establishing an annual schedule for GAO audits and giving the reviews a comprehensive focus rather than allowing members of Congress or congressional committees to single out monetary policy decisions, Levin said.

The report calls for greater diversity at the Fed’s top levels — both in terms of increasing racial and ethnic diversity and limiting the influence of financial sector power-brokers. It also said policymakers should be limited to a single seven-year term. Currently, the Fed chair is appointed to a four-yeart term that can be renewed. Members of the central bank’s Board of Governors are appointed to staggered 14-year terms, but their tenures average about four years. Regional Fed presidents have renewable five-year terms, and they typically hold office for at least two decades, according to today’s report.

The authors said that refunding shares to commercial banks with stakes in the regional Fed branches would save taxpayers about $3 billion over the next 10 years.

Members of the Fed Up Coalition are scheduled to meet later this week with Fed officials, including Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Esther George, at the central bank’s annual policy symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo. The meeting with George won’t center on today’s report, but instead will focus on “presenting stories of communities that still have not recovered from the Great Recession,” Haedtler said.

By TARA JEFFRIES  

Source