CPD IN THE NEWS

Dive Brief:

Twenty-seven new charter schools have opened in Denver in the last five years with six more set to open this summer, but critics point to data about underwhelming performance and examples of forced choice that parents don’t want.

An Alternet article reposted by Salon reports some of the charters that have replaced traditional school options practice harsh discipline disproportionately levied against students of color, and opponents argue a small, powerful circle of local leaders have pushed a charter agenda with the support of big money from outside of the city that has bought electoral support.

A report from the Center for Popular Democracy identified 38% of Denver’s charters as performing “significantly below expectations,” and some parents say they’d prefer more funding and support for neighborhood schools over new expenditures on charters.

Dive Insight:

Charter school performance across the country is mixed. There are high-performing charter schools that have impressive student outcomes that proponents can point to as evidence the charter sector should be expanded. At the same time, there are mediocre or low-performing charter schools that critics can point to as saying the sector does nothing more than siphon funding from traditional schools.

While the CPD study found 38% of Denver’s charters to be significantly underperforming, another found six out of eight of the city’s top schools to be charters. A report to the Colorado General Assembly based on data from the 2011-12 school year found similarly mixed results, where charters perform better on some metrics but not on others. Denver is not the only city engaging in this debate, which has become familiar in virtually every major urban area in the country.

By Tara García Mathewson

Source

Dive Brief:

New York City Mayor DeBlasio and several advocate groups gathered recently to show support for the introduction of “Fair Workweek” legislation, designed to ensure that 65,000 hourly employees in the fast food industry receive fair notification on work hours.

Currently, employers nationwide aren’t required to provide their hourly employees with advance notice of upcoming shifts. As a result, too many families can't budget in advance, plan for education or family care, or secure a necessary second job, according to advocates.

The New York City event echoes the demands of coalition of New York-based advocates who launched a national campaign on Sept. 6. The groups — the Center for Popular Democracy, the Rockefeller Foundation and the online organization Purpose — are asking for scheduling at least two weeks in advance, eliminating on-call assignments that leave employees "scrambling for child care and unable to hold second jobs with uncertain paychecks."

Dive Insight:

Employers do realize that predictability and fairness are reasonable demands, but more often than not, labor cost (and in some cases, labor shortage) creates problems when trying to create better schedules. Frontline managers are expected to create the schedules while also trying to keep costs down, and balancing the two expectations isn't always successful.

What it will take is better workforce planning, with some technology solutions already available to help make that happen, say experts. Also, there are potential negative legal and compliance outcomes for employers who don't follow state and local laws that already require "reporting pay" time be allowed.

By Tom Starner

Source

The Federal Reserve has long faced fierce scrutiny from members of Congress, community leaders, and the press for its lack of transparency. Fed Chair Janet Yellen, still early in her term, has signaled an intention to improve transparency and hold the Fed accountable to the public interest, and she’ll face an important test this month as she starts deciding whom to appoint to the newly formed Community Advisory Council.

In the most recent example of Fed’s insular system of governance, Bloomberg Business revealed concerning news about the recent appointment of Patrick Harker as president of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve. Harker had served on the bank’s Board of Directors prior to his appointment, and was even on the search committee interviewing candidates for the presidential slot. Then, in a behind-the-scenes maneuver reminiscent of Dick Cheney’s infamous self-selection as George W. Bush’s running mate, Harker became a candidate for the job himself, and was swiftly chosen by his Board colleagues. Harker’s shadowy appointment process was par for the course at the Fed. In Dallas, the presidential appointment process has been downright dynastic: the outgoing president, Richard Fisher, appointed an advisory committee made up of the people who appointed him to help select his successor. 

Chair Yellen has an immediate opportunity to reverse course and change the face of the Fed. This year, the Fed announced the creation of a Community Advisory Council, intended to offer Fed leaders “diverse perspectives” on the economy, “with a particular focus on the concerns of low- and moderate-income populations.” Applications for the Community Advisory Council were due last week. The question facing Fed officials is whether they will appoint individuals to the Council who represent low- and moderate-income voices, or whether the Council will be another elite echo chamber (one earlier predecessor to the Council was heavy on members from for-profit lenders like Capital One and Citigroup—hardly organizations representing the interests of working families).

The announcement of the CAC was a direct response to growing demand for greater public representation at the Fed, and it’s not hard to see why. Of the 108 members of the 12 banks’ boards of directors (which select and oversee those 12 presidents), only 15 come from the nonprofit sector, academia, or labor organizations. The other 93 come from corporations or banks, even though the law requires that two-thirds represent a “diverse” set of interests, including those of labor and consumers. Fed officials lack diversity in other ways, too: among governors and presidents, all but one are white, and the vast majority are men.

Fed officials have huge power over the American economy: They vote on crucial monetary policy decisions, determining whether we reach full employment with rising wages for all or whether the economy continues toward stagnation and inequality. As long as Fed bodies are dominated by the financial sector, their decisions will reflect the perspectives of the very entities the Fed is meant to oversee, rather than the working families across the country who need higher wages and more equitable economic growth.

So, who will lead the Fed in the years to come? Next February, the terms of all 12 regional Fed presidents expire. Their respective Boards of Directors will decide whether to reappoint the presidents or replace them. A coalition of community-based organizations, faith leaders, policy advocates, and labor unions are calling for the Federal Reserve to make this process more transparent. At a bare minimum, the banks should publicize the schedule for the decision-making, the names and roles of the decision-makers, the criteria that will govern the process, and the names of candidates under consideration. A more public process would involve the opportunity for members of the public to serve on the search committees, mechanisms for the public to submit questions and receive answers from prospective candidates, and public forums where Fed officials actually engage in dialogue with the people whom they are supposed to represent. Chair Yellen and officials at the Fed have the power to implement such reforms, and their decisions will speak volumes about their commitment to building an independent central bank with democratic legitimacy.

Janet Yellen’s appointment as the first woman to lead the Fed signaled that change might be coming to a historically opaque institution. But to truly transform the Fed, Yellen and her fellow governors must ensure that the voices of working families aren’t drowned out by wealthy financial interests. The first step is ensuring that the new CAC lives up to its mission by including women, people of color, and representatives of organizations with low- and moderate-income members. It could even directly install some low- and moderate-income individuals on the Council. That would indeed bring new perspective to an institution that has, for too long, been dominated by the voices of America’s elite.

Source: The American Prospect

Right now, there are key vacancies at a vital government institution. President Barack Obama has fulfilled his duty and put forward eminently qualified nominees to fill the vacancies. Yet despite the nominees' strong credentials, Republicans in the Senate have dragged their feet, and the chair of the committee whose job it is to consider the nominees has refused to even schedule hearings.

No, this isn't the high-profile battle to fill the seat of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. While the fight over Scalia's replacement may be stealing headlines, Republican obstructionism is actually preventing another important government body from functioning as it should: the Federal Reserve. Two vacant spots on the seven-person Federal Reserve Board of Governors have sat unfilled since 2014.

Obama nominated former community banking CEO Allan Landon to be a Federal Reserve governor in January 2015, yet Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby has let Landon's appointment languish for over a year. Last summer, Obama nominated Kathryn Dominguez, an economist at the University of Michigan, to fill the second open spot. But Shelby has reiterated that he will not schedule hearings for Landon or Dominguez.

Shelby's inaction has real consequences for working people. The Fed, like the Supreme Court, functions best when there are no vacancies. Fed governors hold permanent voting positions on the Federal Open Market Committee, the body that sets interest rates and makes crucial decisions that affect unemployment and wages for millions of Americans. When Fed governorships are allowed to sit vacant, some of the most important decisions about our economy are left to a smaller group of people, usually individuals who are more concerned with banking interests than with the interests of workers.

Five seats on the committee are held by regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents. Unlike Fed Chair Janet Yellen and the Board of Governors, regional bank presidents are not accountable to the public. Instead, they are chosen by the boards of directors at each regional bank, which are dominated by representatives from banks and major corporations.

Regional banks' boards tend to fill their presidencies with people who look and think like them; in fact, one-third of the current regional bank presidents have strong ties to a single firm, Goldman Sachs. Research shows that Federal Reserve Banks have historically held more conservative views about the economy. And when the Federal Open Market Committee voted to intentionally slow down the economy in December, it was mostly due to pressure from regional bank presidents who (mistakenly) believed the economy was close to full employment. At the last committee meeting, regional bank presidents, led by Kansas City Fed President Esther George, continued to advocate an aggressive path of rate hikes.

The Senate's failure to act on Obama's appointees means that the committee is dominated by more conservative, bank-friendly voices. And congressional intransigence has meant that this has been true for most of Obama's presidency. As Stanford scholar Peter Conti-Brown wrote last year, "private bankers effectively held a majority on the [Federal Open Market Committee] 58% of the time [during the Obama administration]."

Shelby says he will not consider the nominees because Obama has not appointed a vice chair for supervision at the Federal Reserve, a new Fed position that was created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Though the Obama administration has not appointed anybody to this position, the Federal Reserve says Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo is currently filling that role.

At a post-Federal Open Market Committee press conference last month, Yellen was asked about the Senate's inaction. "Congress intended for the Federal Reserve Board to have seven members," Yellen said, "and that tends to bring on board people with a wide spectrum of views and experience and perspectives. I think that’s valuable, and I would like to see the Senate move forward and consider these nominees so we could operate with a full complement.”

Yellen's point about a wider spectrum of views is a salient one. If confirmed, Dominguez would join Yellen as only the fifth woman serving on the Federal Open Market Committee, an historically male-dominated institution. And as the former leader of a community bank, Landon comes from the very sector that Republicans are constantly complaining lacks representation at the Fed.

Over 5,000 members of Fed Up, a coalition of community and labor-based organizations that works to bring the voices of low-income communities of color into decisions on monetary policy, agree with Yellen that Shelby must act, and have joined the 10 Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee in urging him to schedule hearings for Dominguez and Landon.

Yellen's call for the Senate to do its job echoes the sentiments of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who, it was reported last month, presciently warned against a dysfunctional confirmation process in a speech given just days before Scalia's death.

To ensure that some of the most important institutions in the country function for the people precisely as Congress intended, the heads of those institutions are imploring the Senate to do its job. For the sake of millions of working Americans, it is time for the Senate to listen.

By Djuan Wash

Source