U.S. Department of Education Launches Crackdown on Ohio Charters
U.S. Department of Education Launches Crackdown on Ohio Charters
Charter Schools are defined by their freedom from regulation and oversight, but that freedom has been so regularly...
Charter Schools are defined by their freedom from regulation and oversight, but that freedom has been so regularly abused by unscrupulous operators that it seems the U.S. Department of Education is finally deciding to crack down, under pressure in this case from Ohio’s U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown.
Three months ago, on June 20, 2016, Senator Brown wrote a letter to John King, now U.S. Secretary of Education, demanding increased oversight of a large grant—$71 million—the federal Department of Education made to Ohio on September 28, 2015 to expand charter schools. The grant application had been written by David Hansen, who, by September, had already been fired by the Ohio Department of Education for hiding the abysmal academic record of the state’s so-called “dropout recovery schools” and omitting their scores from a system he was creating as the Ohio Department prepared to begin holding charter schools more accountable. Hansen had also bragged in his federal grant application that Ohio had already begun more aggressively regulating charters. After the U.S. Department of Education awarded Ohio the $71 million grant at the end of September 2015, however, it was pointed out that the Ohio legislature had not yet passed the regulations for which Hansen (in July) had given the state credit. (The Ohio Legislature later adopted the most basic and minimal charter school oversight when it passed Ohio House Bill 2 on October 7, 2015).
When Ohio Senator Brown wrote to U.S. Secretary John King in June, 2016, the $71 million Ohio grant had been put on hold for months, as the U.S. Department of Education investigated Ohio’s dealings with charter schools. In his June 20 letter, Senator Brown wrote:
“In your November 2015 response letter to the members of the Ohio Congressional delegation, you outlined a number of steps ED has taken and will continue to take to verify the accuracy and completeness of ODE’s grant application. I appreciate these steps, but more must be done to provide order to the state’s chaotic charter school sector. In light of this report, I ask that you examine the performance of Ohio charter schools who have received CSP (federal Charter Schools Program) grants to determine whether grant recipients are failing or closing at a higher rate than those in other states and how the academic performance of CSP grant recipients in Ohio compares to CSP grant recipients nationwide. I further ask that when Ohio has satisfied all necessary conditions for this grant money to be released that you appoint a special monitor to review every expenditure made pursuant to this grant in order to ensure that all funds are being spent for their intended purpose. Ohio’s current lack of oversight wastes taxpayer’s money and undermines the ostensible goal of charters: providing more high-quality educational opportunities for children. There exists a pattern of waste, fraud, and abuse that is far too common and requires extra scrutiny.”
Last Wednesday, September 14, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education finally released the $71 million grant, but, as Patrick O’Donnell reports for the Plain Dealer, there are now many conditions:
“In a letter to the Ohio Department of Education today, the grant was declared ‘high risk’ because of the poor academic performance of the state’s charters and the struggles the state has had in implementing portions of House Bill 2, the state’s charter reform bill passed last fall by the state legislature… The letter states: ‘As part of this high-risk designation, we are imposing certain High-Risk Special Conditions on ODE’s CSP (Charter Schools Program) SEA (State Education Agency) grant that will help ODE and the Department more clearly determine ODE’s ongoing compliance with applicable requirements’ so that it will be more transparent and so that any issues can be identified and fixed quickly.”
Here are the conditions as reported by O’Donnell:
• “(T)he state cannot give out grants to schools as it has in the past. It must have prior approval from the U.S. Department of Education before transferring any money.
• “The department must evaluate dropout recovery schools better.
• “The state must report its progress four times each year.
• “ODE must hire an independent monitor of the grant program.
• “The state must create a Grant Implementation Advisory Committee.
• “And it must do demanding ratings of the oversight agencies known as ‘sponsors’ in Ohio, but as ‘authorizers’ in most other states.”
Ohio’s problems with the controversial $71 million Charter Schools Program grant are not the first time anyone has noticed the federal Department of Education’s failure to oversee the Charter Schools Program. A year ago in June, 2015, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools—a coalition of national organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, Alliance for Educational Justice, Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, Center for Popular Democracy, Gamaliel, Journey for Justice Alliance, National Education Association, National Opportunity to Learn Campaign, and Service Employees International Union—sent a letter to then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan complaining that while the Department had granted $1.7 billion to states for expansion of charter schools since 2009, the Department of Education’s own Inspector General had been raising alarms about the Department’s own lack of any kind of quality control.
The Alliance’s letter to Arne Duncan cited formal audits from 2010 and 2012 in which the Department of Education’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG), “raised concerns about transparency and competency in the administration of the federal Charter Schools Program.” The OIG’s 2012 audit, the members of the Alliance explain, discovered that the Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, which administers the Charter Schools Program, and the State Education Agencies, which disburse the majority of the federal funds, are ill equipped to keep adequate records or put in place even minimal oversight. The State Education Agencies that lack capacity to manage the programs are the 50 state departments of education.
In the June 2015 letter to Arne Duncan, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools enumerates the problems discovered by the Department of Education’s own Office of Inspector General: that the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) did not maintain records of the charter schools funded through grants to states, that OII “lacked internal controls and adequate training in fiscal and program monitoring,” that none of the three states selected as samples for investigation by the Office of Inspector General—Arizona, California, and Florida—sufficiently monitored the charter schools funded through the Department of Education’s State Education Agency grants, that 26 charter schools in these three states were shown by the Office of Inspector General to have closed after being awarded $7 million, and that even when the schools closed, nobody tracked “what happened to assets that had been purchased with federal funds.”
Thank you, Senator Sherrod Brown for doggedly demanding that the U.S. Department of Education improve oversight of the federal Charter Schools Program. Please keep on keeping on.
By Jan Resseger
Source
Police arrest 155 health care protesters at U.S. Capitol
Police arrest 155 health care protesters at U.S. Capitol
U.S. Capitol Police officers arrested at least 155 demonstrators Wednesday at Senate office buildings, as health care...
U.S. Capitol Police officers arrested at least 155 demonstrators Wednesday at Senate office buildings, as health care advocates continued to pressure lawmakers two days after a Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act collapsed.
Police officials said in a statement that officers responded to “demonstration activity” at 45 separate locations in Senate office buildings beginning about 2:15 p.m. Authorities said demonstrators were warned “to cease and desist with their unlawful demonstration activities” before police made arrests, the statement said.
Read the full article here.
The Eugenicist Doctor and the Vast Fortune Behind Trump’s Immigration Regime
The Eugenicist Doctor and the Vast Fortune Behind Trump’s Immigration Regime
Since the 2016 election, according to a report from the Center for Popular Democracy, Wall Street behemoths JPMorgan...
Since the 2016 election, according to a report from the Center for Popular Democracy, Wall Street behemoths JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo, and BlackRock have all increased their shares in the nation’s two largest prison companies, CoreCivic and GEO Group, financing the growth of a $5 billion industry with gargantuan loans: the two companies are now carrying a total of $1.94 billion and $1.18 billion in debt, respectively.
Read the full article here.
ACTIVISM Big Corporations Are Openly Backing Trump's Hate Agenda—Let's Boycott Them
ACTIVISM Big Corporations Are Openly Backing Trump's Hate Agenda—Let's Boycott Them
"You must pick a side," Deborah Axt said of corporate America on a recent press call. "Either you stand with our...
"You must pick a side," Deborah Axt said of corporate America on a recent press call. "Either you stand with our communities or with hate."
Axt, who is the co-executive director of immigration advocacy organization Make The Road New York, was launching Corporate Backers of Hate, a new campaign from Make The Road New York and the Center for Popular Democracy in collaboration with a coalition of other immigrant and labor advocacy organizations. The new campaign targets nine companies—JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, IBM, Disney, Boeing, BlackRock, Uber, and Blackstone—that are close to the Trump administration and have a financial stake in his most abusive policies, particularly immigrant detention and attacks on workers' rights.
Read the full article here.
A Collaboration to Strengthen the United States Federal Reserve System
April 16, 2018 Alexander R. Mehran Chair of the Board Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Dear Mr. Mehran:...
April 16, 2018
Alexander R. Mehran
Chair of the Board
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Dear Mr. Mehran:
We are writing to offer you our view about the urgency of appointing an individual who deeply understands the economic realities facing working class Americans to serve as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
For all of the dynamism and strength of the US economy, it has come to be characterized most fundamentally by enormous disparities in wealth, income and opportunity that strongly correlate to race, ethnicity and geography. Failing to address significant disparities in income and net worth between major segments of our population, and particularly in segments that are driving our nation’s demographic growth, will result in a less globally competitive US economy. This is a significant economic risk for the 12th District and the United States.
The San Francisco Fed will be strengthened by having a President whose experience and expertise better reflect the large segments of our population that are not proportionally experiencing the benefits of our economy. Ensuring that this expertise and perspective is represented within the Fed is a critical way to prepare for the challenges and opportunities in our economic future. This will require considering candidates with more diverse experience including in the fields of community development and philanthropy. We submit that the San Francisco Fed has a historic opportunity to name the first Hispanic, East Asian American or Pacific Islander President of a Federal Reserve Bank.
We applaud Chairman Powell's insightful comments on the necessity for diversity in Federal Reserve System and the larger economics profession. In his testimony before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on November 28th, 2017, he stated, “We make better decisions when we have diverse voices around the table—both at the Board of Governors and at the Reserve Banks…We’ve seen what works. It’s about recruiting. It’s about going out of your way. It’s about bringing people in. Once they’re in, it’s about giving them paths for success. And it’s about having an overall culture and company that is very focused on diversity and sticks with that focus for a long period of time. That works.” This recognition must be coupled with bold leadership and action.
In order to decide the course of monetary policy through an informed assessment of different regional economic conditions from diverse points of view, the Federal Reserve System was designed to be decentralized, independent and include representatives of the public in its governance. The Fed’s mission is undermined when regional Reserve Banks fail to recruit leaders who live up to the mandate to “represent the public.” Selections that fail to allow meaningful opportunities for public input and engagement have tended to result in the elevation of Fed insiders. This insularity undermines the Fed’s public credibility and increases the likelihood that Congress will ultimately intervene to reform the process. The process for selecting the President of the New York Fed perpetuated the status quo. We urge the San Francisco Fed to avoid the same mistake. As a first step, we call on the San Francisco Fed to include the Chair of its own Community Advisory Board in the official selection committee for the next President.
Please accept this letter as an offer of support. We will do anything we can to help identify strong candidates as well as to publicly support actions that the San Francisco Fed takes to ensure progress on diversifying its Board of Directors and executive leadership.
Thank you for your service to the 12th District and our nation.
Respectfully submitted,
California Reinvestment Coalition Center for Popular Democracy Chicanos Por La Causa Community Council of Idaho Greenlining Institute NALCAB – National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development TELACU
cc: Jerome Powell, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Lael Brainard, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Randal Quarles, Vice Chairman for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
San Francisco Fed Board Chair Alexander Mehran's April 20 Response to Coalition Outreach re: Collaboration Surrounding San Francisco Fed Presidential Appointment
April 20, 2018
Noel Poyo Executive Director National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders 5404 Wurzbach Rd. San Antonio, TX 78238 Dear Mr. Poyo: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 2018, concerning the appointment of the next President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. We appreciate your taking the time to reach out and share your perspectives on this important undertaking. As Chair of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, I know that I speak for all of my board colleagues in saying that the appointment of a Federal Reserve Bank President is among our most important responsibilities and one that we take very seriously. We share your desire to find a qualified candidate to fill this important role that understands and is able to represent the varied needs and interests of the richly diverse people and business communities throughout the Twelfth District. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has a legacy of success with regard to recruiting, developing and promoting women and minorities into leadership positions within its senior ranks. As you are well aware, Janet Yellen served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank from 2004 to 2010 before going on to become Vice Chair and later Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Under President Williams' leadership, the Bank continued to strengthen its focus on diversity and inclusion at all employee levels but particularly an10ng its leadership ranks where women now occupy over 30 percent and minorities over 45 percent of seniorlevel roles. In addition, President Williams established the Bank's Community Advisory Council in 2017 to give even stronger voice to those representing the district's underserved communities and to contribute to his ongoing economic analyses and monetary policy views. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has set a high bar for its executive leadership that we fully intend to uphold. Our board has not yet publicly communicated about the selection committee, job specifications or the processes that we will undertake to gather a list of qualified candidates for this important role. We expect to do so in the near future and will keep you apprised of our progress. For now, please know that we are absolutely committed to gathering input from various community and business leaders like you and your colleagues regarding the appointment of the next President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. While I appreciate your suggestion to include Mr. Matsubayashi, who chairs the Bank's Community Advisory Council, as part of the official selection committee, the Federal Reserve Act stipulates that only the Class B and Class C directors (those not affiliated with banks or financial institutions) are eligible to participate in the appointment process. As such, Mr. Matsubayashi is unable to serve in this capacity. However, we recognize that he is doing an outstanding job leading the Community Advisory Council, and we would greatly value his input and suggestions, as well as input from you and your colleagues, regarding qualified candidates for this important role. I wish to thank you once again for reaching out and offering your support of this important undertaking. We look forward to continuing this open, constructive dialogue, and with your support, doing all that we can to find the absolute best person from a diverse candidate pool to lead the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Sincerely, Alexander R. Mehran Chair of the Board Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Federal Reserve Agent cc: Danielle Beavers, Diversity and Inclusion Director, The Greenlining Institute David Adame, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chicanos Por La Causa Irma Morin, Chief Executive Officer, Community Council of Idaho Jerome Powell, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Jordan Haedtler, Campaign Manager, Fed Up, Center for Popular Democracy Jose Villalobos, Senior Vice President, TELACU Lael Brainard, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Orson Aguilar, President, The Greenlining Institute Paulina Gonzalez, Executive Director, California Reinvestment Coalition Randal Quarles, Vice Chairman for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Seema Agnani, Executive Director, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development Coalition's Response to Chair Mehran's LetterMay 4, 2018
Alexander R. Mehran Chair of the Board Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Dear Mr. Mehran:
Thank you for your letter dated April 20 and for your commitment to finding a San Francisco Fed president who “understands and is able to represent the varied needs and interests of the richly diverse people and business communities throughout the Twelfth district.”
We appreciate that the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank has shown its commitment to public representation by strengthening diversity among Reserve Bank staff. Unfortunately, that commitment has not extended to the position of President. Similarly, diversity and public representation on the San Francisco Fed’s governing board remains lacking. The Twelfth District is one of the most demographically diverse districts in the country, yet a recent analysis by the Center for Popular Democracy found that the San Francisco Fed’s board of directors is the least diverse in the Federal Reserve System.
Your letter indicated that it would not be possible to include a Community Advisory Council member on the search committee because “only the Class B and C directors (those not affiliated with banks or financial institutions) are eligible to participate in the appointment process.” We would like to clarify our request regarding Mr. Matsubayashi’s inclusion. Following established precedent, Mr. Matsubayashi can play a critical advisory role on the search committee by suggesting, interviewing, and advising on candidates under consideration. We are not suggesting or expecting that he would have final decision-making authority over which candidate is ultimately chosen.
The Federal Reserve Act clearly designates Class B and C directors as the final arbiters of who serves as president of each Reserve Bank. We do not agree that inclusion of a member of the public on the search committee would in any way violate the law. We have consulted with legal experts on the Federal Reserve Act, and they concur. Whenever a regional Reserve Bank encounters a presidential vacancy, it is customary to hire an executive search firm to identify and vet candidates who can fill that vacancy. We posit that employees of those executive search firms are participating in the search process. In 2014, outgoing Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher solicited the participation of non-Class B/C directors when he reportedly convened an advisory committee consisting of former Dallas Fed chairmen to help choose his successor.2 Freedom of Information Act requests have also revealed that members of the Board of Governors have occasionally suggested candidates to fill Reserve Bank presidential vacancies, thereby going beyond the final approval role that the Federal Reserve Act prescribes for governors. We fail to see how the inclusion of Mr. Matsubayashi on the search committee in an advisory capacity is distinguished from these other examples of involvement by non- Class B and C directors in recent Reserve Bank presidential selections.
In your letter of April 20th, you identified the establishment of the Community Advisory Council as an important step toward giving an “even stronger voice to those representing underserved communities,” in the District. The Council includes individuals selected by the San Francisco Fed itself as credible representatives of diverse communities. If the San Francisco Fed is unwilling to find a way to meaningfully include a leading member of that advisory council in the selection process for the next President, it is difficult to understand how underserved communities are truly gaining a stronger voice.
It is also difficult to be assured that people of color will be given due consideration for the position of President when communities of color and other important segments of the District’s population are not adequately reflected in the selection process. Despite clear calls for consideration of diverse candidates from members of Congress and the public, the last two Reserve Bank presidential vacancies have resulted in the selection of white, male, longtime Fed insiders. Including the Chair of the San Francisco Fed’s Community Advisory Council on the search committee in San Francisco is an essential step to maintain the credibility of the selection process for the next President of the San Francisco Fed.
In light of this clarification, we respectfully request that you consider including the Chair of the San Francisco Fed’s Community Advisory Council in the search process in a manner consistent with the Federal Reserve Act. If the San Francisco Fed chooses not to accept this recommendation, we would appreciate an explanation as to why. Regardless of your decision, we look forward to your continued collaboration as you take on the important responsibility of finding a qualified candidate to fill a policymaking role of crucial importance to the public.
Thank you for your service to the 12th District and our nation.
Respectfully submitted,
California Reinvestment Coalition Greenlining Institute Center for Popular Democracy Community Council of Idaho Chicanos Por La Causa NALCAB – National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development TELACU
cc: Jerome Powell, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Lael Brainard, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Randal Quarles, Vice Chairman for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
Can Game-Changing "Community Schools" Model Survive Dallas ISD Politics?
Can Game-Changing "Community Schools" Model Survive Dallas ISD Politics?
On a sunny morning in early May, a wayward DART bus pulled to a stop in front of Paul Laurence Dunbar Learning Center...
On a sunny morning in early May, a wayward DART bus pulled to a stop in front of Paul Laurence Dunbar Learning Center in South Dallas. From the porches of tumbledown homes, neighbors glanced with mild curiosity as the school’s principal, Dionel Waters, stepped aboard. Waiting for him on the bus was an array of local dignitaries, including a city council member, a state representative, a U.S. Congressman, a Dallas County judge, and the guest of honor, Robert Kaplan, the president of the Dallas Fed. The riders had accepted an activist group's invitation to tour hardscrabble Dallas neighborhoods that remain untouched by the region’s booming economy.
Waters stood at the front of the idling bus with a microphone and described for Kaplan some of Dunbar’s challenges. The previous school year, all but two of the campus’ 594 students qualified as low-income. The median household income for the surrounding neighborhood, which borders the sprawling parking lots on Fair Park’s eastern edge, is around $10,000 per year. Broken families are the norm, as are parents with criminal records. Unemployment in the area is staggering, with only a third of working-age men and around 40 percent of working-age women with jobs, according to census data.
Then, Waters pivoted. Together with Hank Lawson, who works for the community development nonprofit Frazier Revitalization Inc., Waters described a vision for transformational change at Dunbar. With support from the Texas Organizing Project, which organized the bus tour, Dunbar would open the 2016-17 school year as Dallas ISD’s first ever “community school.”
Community schools are built on the idea that education doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Poverty levels, family structure, health and nutrition, emotional well-being, and all manner of other outside factors impact academic performance and school quality. Creating a better school, then, requires addressing not only what happens in the classroom but outside social and economic factors as well.
Exactly what a community school looks like depends on the specific needs of the individual school and the surrounding community. Generally speaking, though, the model emphasizes getting parents, community members and teachers greater input in campus decision-making; forging partnerships with local businesses and nonprofits to provide programming and services the school can’t; and finding non-punitive ways to address student behavior.
It is billed as a more humane alternative to No Child Left Behind-style school reform, which can punish poor and heavily minority schools for poor performance without doing much to address root causes.
Community schools are meant to be transformational. A report released in February by the Center for Popular Democracy profiled eight campuses and school districts across the country that have implemented the community schools model with tremendous success.
One of the more dramatic turnarounds took place in Austin. Webb Middle School, a perennially low-performing campus in a working class Hispanic neighborhood in northeast Austin, was on the brink of closure in 2007 when neighbors rallied and convinced the district to give them a final chance to save the school. They turned to the community schools model and crafted a detailed plan based on feedback from parents and neighbors.
The school restored music and art to the curriculum, adding band, orchestra and a dance troupe. The Boys and Girls Club began offering after-school programs. Another nonprofit provided college mentoring. A mobile clinic offered free immunizations and physicals. Other organizations provided parents help with employment, housing and health issues and offered them ESL classes.
Test scores climbed. So did enrollment. By 2015, Webb had gone from the worst middle school in the district to one of its best.
Waters and Lawson hoped something similar could happen at Dunbar, which had been placed on the state’s list of failing schools in the 2014-15 school year. So did Ed Turner, the Texas Organizing Project staffer who’d already spent months laying the groundwork and joined Waters and Lawson on the bus. And so, for that matter, did DISD administrators. Cynthia Wilson, Superintendent Michael Hinojosa’s chief of staff, told the Observer the following day that the district was supporting the community schools model in general and the Dunbar pilot in particular. “From our perspective, [it’s] a win-win,” she said.
On the bus, Kaplan nodded along as Waters spoke; turning Dunbar into a community school certainly seemed like a no-brainer.
But then, rather abruptly, DISD pulled the plug. Alendra Lyons, a community leader in the Dunbar neighborhood who both works at the school and serves on its site-based decision-making committee, was told at a committee meeting in June that the community schools pilot had been moved elsewhere.
Why, after months of planning and the showy presentation to the VIPs on the DART bus, the Dunbar project had been unceremoniously scrapped, Lyons couldn’t say, only that it definitely wasn’t happening.
DISD’s official explanation is, in a word, bureaucracy.
In a July 25 email, DISD spokesman Andre Riley said the community schools initiative had been moved from under Wilson and into the school leadership department.
Stephanie Elizalde, the chief of school leadership, said in a subsequent interview that she decided that John Neely Bryan Elementary in East Oak Cliff was a better fit for the pilot. Like Dunbar, John Neely Bryan is overwhelmingly low-income and has struggled academically, bouncing on and off the state’s list of failing schools. Last August, it received its second consecutive “improvement required” designation from the Texas Education Agency; a third would mean implementation of a “campus turnaround plan” and potentially drastic changes at the campus.
Unlike Dunbar, however, Bryan is part of DISD’s “Intensive Support Network,” two dozen struggling schools targeted by district administrators for special oversight. It also has a more seasoned principal. Elizalde describes Waters as “likeable, intelligent [but] also relatively inexperienced” – barely 30 with just two years as a principal under his belt. Elizalde felt that Bryan’s principal, DISD veteran Tonya Anderson, was better equipped to make the pilot a success.
For advocates of community schools, the stakes are high. A high-profile failure in the pilot could taint the model in DISD and cripple efforts to expand to other campuses. “That is what I don’t want to have happen,” Elizalde said. "I’ve got to think bigger picture."
But several people familiar with the discussions say Dunbar was the victim less of ordinary bureaucratic machinations but of DISD’s toxic internal politics. Specifically, they point to a long-simmering feud between the Texas Organizing Project and trustee Bernadette Nutall.
The rift dates back to efforts to rescue Dade Middle School, which, thanks to poor planning, sky-high turnover, and heavy-handed interventions by then-Superintendent Mike Miles, spun into chaos soon after it opened for the 2013-14 school year. The Texas Organizing Project was heavily involved in the turnaround effort, mobilizing parents and pushing DISD to make Dade the first of 20 community schools in the district. So, for that matter, was Nutall, who was famously removed from the campus following a confrontation with Miles.
By all accounts, the turnaround effort has been a success. There is much less agreement on whether Dade’s resurgence has more to do with the Texas Organizing Project’s community work, Nutall’s close oversight, or, alternately, a belatedly successful intervention by Miles, whose administration found a hyper-competent principal in Tracie Washington and offered the district’s best teachers a hefty salary bump to teach at Dade.
Nutall has bristled at the Texas Organizing Project’s credit-taking. In response to a KERA story this spring focused on the organization’s efforts to turn Dade and other campuses into community schools, Nutall sent an indignant email to trustee Miguel Solis, who was quoted in the piece broadly endorsing the community schools concept, and several DISD administrators saying Dade’s success had been “hijacked.”
Dade staff and community members had long been trying to have a meaningful role in the school, Nutall wrote, but they were consistently rebuffed by Miles and the previous campus administration.
“However, since the new administration has been in place, the staff, parents, students and community members have been able to implement the very same suggestions that were ignored before,” she wrote. “The results have been tremendous. Yet, they weren’t recognized for their efforts. Instead, they believe that their results have been hijacked in an effort to falsely attribute their success to a concept that had little to do with the results.”
In an interview, Nutall said she supports community schools but that there “has to be buy in from all parties.” That wasn’t present at Dade, and it wasn’t present at other campuses where Texas Organizing Project wanted to implement the model. “I understand them [the Texas Organizing Project] getting upset,” she said, adding that “they wanted the whole Lincoln-Madison feeder pattern.”
“I am not going to force something on principals and teachers,” Nutall said. “That is not good governance.”
At the same time, Nutall distanced herself from the decision to move the community schools pilot from Dunbar. The decision, Nutall said, was a judgment call by Elizalde and other DISD administrators.
Allison Brim, organizing director for the Texas Organizing Project, was also careful to downplay the friction between her group and Nutall.
“Essentially what happened, there had just been turnover in the administration,” Brim said.
In early 2016, former chief of school leadership Robert Bravo, with whom the Texas Organizing Project had been in discussions, was replaced by Elizalde. “She was very supportive of the community school concept but really wanted to reconsider where we were going to do the first pilot, which we were open to in some ways as well.”
John Neely Bryan, in everyone’s view, could benefit as much from the community schools model as Dunbar. Perhaps even more, given the comparative lack of outside resources directed at Bryan by churches and nonprofits.
“We were also interested in having full support from the trustee,” Brim said. She described Nutall as “supportive” of community schools but said that John Neely Bryan’s trustee, Lew Blackburn,”was pretty eager to find a school in his district” for a pilot.
In the end, for the Texas Organizing Project as well as for Elizalde, the most important thing “was really getting the opportunity to prove that this model was an effective, successful model for school turnaround,” Brim said.
All parties – Brim, Elizalde, and Nutall – were quick to say that the idea of turning Dunbar into a community school isn’t dead. Discussions are ongoing, and DISD and the Texas Organizing Project may well get around to implementing the model in the coming years.
Dunbar, after all, is still in sore need of a turnaround. State accountability ratings the Texas Education Agency will release in the coming days will show that Dunbar is on the state’s list of failing schools for the second consecutive year, which has made Elizalde rethink the decision to move the pilot.
“If I had a crystal ball and could have seen that Dunbar was going to wind up in [improvement required]-2 status," she said, "I would have left it there anyway.”
By ERIC NICHOLSON
Source
Fed Up on Nightly Business Report
Nightly Business Report - November 11, 2014 ...
Nightly Business Report - November 11, 2014
Source
New Report: Anti-Scaffold Law Research is Junk
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 17, 2014 Contact: TJ Helmstetter, Center for Popular Democracy (973...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 17, 2014
Contact: TJ Helmstetter, Center for Popular Democracy (973) 464-9224; tjhelm@populardemocracy.org
"FATALLY FLAWED": ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE REPORT IS DEAD WRONG, BIASED
NEW REPORT PROVIDES WINDOW INTO INDUSTRY FRONT GROUP AND EFFORT TO GUT SAFETY LAW
CPD, NYCOSH: Scaffold Law Saves Lives, Protects Workers; Industry-Funded Rockefeller Institute "Report" is Junk
(NEW YORK) -- Today, the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) released a paper entitled "Fatally Flawed: Why the Rockefeller Institute's Scaffold Law Report Doesn't Add Up." The report is in response to an earlier "report" funded by a construction industry-front group, that sought to gut worker protections known as the Scaffold Safety Law.
"The Cost of Labor Law 240 on New York’s Economy and Public Infrastructure" was released last month by the Rockefeller Institute at SUNY-Albany, commissioned by an $82,800 check from the "New York Civil Justice Institute,"* a front-group whose address is the same as the Lawsuit Reform Alliance, which has worked for years to weaken laws that make it possible for people to assert rights against abusive or negligent landlords, employers, and other business interests. The LRA itself has frequently been criticized as being a front group for the construction industry and other corporate interests.
*SOURCE: SUNY-Albany Division of Research, “Accent on Research,” Spring 2013 Newsletter, http://www.albany.edu/research/assets/springaccent2013.pdf (page 20)
"Industry front groups are putting construction profits first when they mislead the public to obscure the real stakes of this debate: workers' lives and safety on the job," said Josie Duffy, policy advocate at the Center for Popular Democracy. "The Scaffold Safety Law saves lives. Gutting it, as some are advocating, will harm workers and disproportionately put Latino and immigrant workers at risk. These groups should be ashamed of themselves for spending $82,000 on a junk report instead of making sure the workers who build our cities have the protection they need."
The Scaffold Safety Law is a critical safety protection for construction workers, who are increasingly Latino and immigrant. In fact, an earlier review of construction site accidents by the Center for Popular Democracy, published in an October 2013 report entitled "Fatal Inequality" starkly illustrated how important the Scaffold Law is because of the ongoing rates of injury in construction in New York, and notably, how the risks are disproportionately borne by immigrant workers and workers of color:
In 60% of those fatalities, the worker was Latino and/or immigrant, disproportionately high for their participation in construction work.
In New York City, 74% of fatal falls involved Latino and/or immigrant workers.
Today's report "Fatally Flawed" makes the following points, in detail:
The Rockefeller Institute’s report is fundamentally biased.
The Rockefeller Institute's report confuses correlation with causation.
The Rockefeller Institute's report ignores key facts about New York State & the construction industry.
The Rockefeller Institute's report compares apples & oranges to make a false point.
The Rockefeller Institute's report uses faulty math to claim rising rates & lost jobs.
The conclusion is simple: New York’s strong worker health and safety laws, such as the Scaffold Law, protect workers from unnecessary risk. And it is the inherently dangerous nature of construction at an elevation—not the laws designed to protect workers —that account for injuries on the job. Any attempt to water down key worker protections will simply expose more workers, and their families, to unnecessary risk of injury. New York cannot afford to turn back the clock on protecting our workers or our public safety.
Read the full report, "Fatally Flawed: Why the Rockefeller Institute's Scaffold Law Report Doesn't Add Up" for evidence and details.
NYCOSH & CPD also released a new one-pager explaining how the Scaffold Safety Law works, read it here.
The Center for Popular Democracy and the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health are proud partners in the newly launched Scaffold Safety Coalition. The Scaffold Safety Coalition is a diverse group of workers, advocates and organizations committed to protecting construction workers in New York State, creating a unified front in the fight to defend New York’s Scaffold Safety Law from industry-backed efforts to gut the law. On behalf of more than 1.5 million New Yorkers, the coalition has pledged to push for increased enforcement of New York’s construction safety standards. More information and a full list of partners in the Scaffold Safety Coalition is available at the coalition website: www.scaffoldsafetylaw.com.
ABOUT THE CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY: The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda.
ABOUT THE NEW YORK COMMITTEE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH: The New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NYCOSH) is a membership organization of workers, unions, community-based organizations, and workers’ rights activists. NYCOSH uses training, education, advocacy, and organizing to improve health and safety conditions in our workplaces, our communities, and our environment. Founded 35 years ago on the principle that workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths are preventable, NYCOSH works to extend and defend every person’s right to a safe and healthful workplace and community. Visit NYCOSH's website at: www.nycosh.org.
Watch protesters descend on 5-star resort where GOP plots against American workers
Watch protesters descend on 5-star resort where GOP plots against American workers
Scores of protesters, gathered for a march organized by the Center for Popular Democracy Action in partnership with Tax...
Scores of protesters, gathered for a march organized by the Center for Popular Democracy Action in partnership with Tax March, converged on West Virginia Thursday from ten different states.
Watch the video and read the article here.
Campaign regulatory board stymied by Legislature
Campaign regulatory board stymied by Legislature
Minnesota’s campaign finance regulatory board heads into election season with its slimmest possible board membership...
Minnesota’s campaign finance regulatory board heads into election season with its slimmest possible board membership for taking action after the Legislature failed to confirm two appointees before adjourning its session.
Two appointments before lawmakers got hung up over concerns raised by Senate Republicans about the DFL political background of Emma Greenman. Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board appointments require confirmation from the House and Senate on a three-fifths vote; the House supplied sufficient votes to confirm Greenman and former Republican state Rep. Margaret “Peggy” Leppik during the session’s final day.
Board chairman Christian Sande said Friday that it could be August before the board is back to full strength. That’s because of the legal steps Gov. Mark Dayton must take to fill the slots, by which time election contests will be in full swing and campaign finance complaints will be streaming in.
“It means for the board to take any action the votes have to be unanimous,” Sande said. “I don’t know that it handicaps us. But it certainly does indicate that where in the past with six active members of the board it might be easier to arrive at four votes to achieve something.”
Absence of a single member would deprive the board of the quorum it needs to even meet.
The remaining members would have to be in complete agreement to impose any penalties, issue any advisory opinions or take other substantive action because state law requires four votes in favor when the typically six-member board makes decisions.
Campaign finance board appointments always have come with more political sensitivity and scrutiny than most agencies. In fact, state law dictates a specific political makeup and that some members be former lawmakers.
Greenman and Leppik had been serving on the board pending confirmation but their appointments were considered null when the Legislature adjourned without positive votes.
A Dayton spokesman says the governor plans to resubmit their names once the openings are posted, which would allow them to serve again until the Legislature returns next year and takes another look. It’s not clear when that could happen.
Sen. Scott Newman of Hutchinson said he and his Republican colleagues weren’t willing to confirm Greenman because of past and present political activity.
“Is this someone who would be able to set aside partisan politics and render judgment as to violations of campaign finance laws? We really doubted it,” Newman said in a phone interview. “We were very concerned about it because of the degree of involvement in political partisanship.”
He added, “This is not a personal attack on her. It is simply a realization of her past activities. She was a very politically active person.”
Greenman, a 36-year-old Minneapolis lawyer, is director of voting rights and democracy for the Center for Popular Democracy. Past stints include work for the Wellstone Action organization formed after the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone and for a Minnesota unit of the Service Employees International Union. In her appointment materials, she lists her political affiliation as with the DFL.
Greenman didn’t immediately return a call or email inquiring about her intentions moving forward said in an email Friday that the lack of a vote was disappointing. She said she is considering reapplying and has been encouraged to do so.
“I have had the pleasure of of serving on the board since January and believe it plays an important role in supporting and protecting Minnesota’s democracy,” she wrote.
In a packet compiled in connection with her earlier appointment, Greenman disclosed details about her past political involvement and her present job, which she said posed no conflict with a campaign board role and didn’t encompass campaign finance matters.
“At this point in my career I am able to serve on the board without any direct conflicts of interest. I do not work for any candidates or any political campaign committees. I do not currently represent the Minnesota DFL or any party official or political candidate,” she wrote in a November letter to Dayton seeking the appointment.
By Brian Bakst
Source
2 hours ago
3 days ago