The Northern Solano Democratic Club has posted five resolutions on their web site that will be submitted for approval at the state convention next month.

They are:

A Resolution for Improving Higher Education Accreditation Practices

A Resolution for Relief from No Child Left Behind Expenditures

A Resolution Opposing the Open Primary in 2010

A Resolution for majority Rule Initiative Reducing the Threshold for Passing a State Budget

A Resolution on Contesting Elections

The full text of each is below the fold and can be adopted by local clubs by inserting your club name in the “Resolved” clauses at the appropriate place.  

A Resolution for Improving Higher Education Accreditation Practices

WHEREAS, under the previous administration, the Department of Education has asserted that the accrediting agencies for higher education have failed in their duties and has consequently demanded that accrediting agencies assert themselves and take action against our community colleges, and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the fact that real and important issues do exist for our community colleges and those issues need to be resolved, it is a fact that the accrediting agency in California has acted capriciously and has issued negative findings that too often are not related to educational issues but to trivial matters that lack sufficient import to be cited as a reasons for withdrawing accreditation, and

WHEREAS the negative findings of the accreditation agency in California seem to follow a pattern that gives the appearance of selective findings repeatedly invoked in support of a predetermined outcome rather than the findings of an honest inquiry,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] proposes that the accreditation agencies for higher education be instructed that the time frame for compliance, currently set at two years, be defined as commencing when the educational institution receives a set of clearly stated accreditation issues to be resolved along with clearly defined criteria for the resolution of those issues,

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon the California Democratic Delegations to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to bring their combined influence to bear on the higher education accreditation process so that it might function in a proper manner.

A Resolution for Relief from No Child Left Behind Expenditures

WHEREAS, the California State budget reduces education funding by 7.4 Billion dollars this year and the Federal Stimulus money allotted to California to stabilize educational funding amounts to only 6 Billion dollars, leaving a deficit of 1.4 Billion dollars , and

WHEREAS the common consensus is that the sanctions imposed by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have failed to produce positive results, and

WHEREAS it is well known that NCLB imposes requirements on schools districts and demands actions from those districts while providing no funding for those mandates, there has been no public focus on the fact that the cost to implement programs designed to bring under performing groups up to NCLB compliant standards have been estimated to be Thousands of Dollars Per Student and would require massive increases in funding,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in these financially difficult times, with our public schools in dreadful financial straits, the [insert the name of your club here] recognizes that it is unconscionable to require our schools to continue funding NCLB compliance activities, and, for this reason, [insert the name of your club here] proposes that public schools be given relief from the mandates of NCLB for the period of one year, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the [insert the name of your club here] calls upon the California Democratic Delegations to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to introduce and to work for the passage of legislation that will suspend, for one year, all NCLB compliance activities that require the expenditure of local school or district funds.

A Resolution Opposing the Open Primary in 2010

WHEREAS passage of Senate Constitutional Amendment 4, not only lacks legitimacy, but also encourages the minority party to commit acts of political blackmail and extortion in the future, and

WHEREAS it is a fundamental right of political parties to choose their nominees for office in accordance with the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Association, and further, the open primary clearly violates that right by forcing political parties to admit nonmembers into the nominating process and thus enabling the election of candidates who do not support their party’s philosophy or platform, and

WHEREAS the proposed open primary will increase campaign spending, strengthen the influence of special interests, weaken party cohesiveness, and expand the opportunity for manipulative and deceitful electoral practices such as concealing party affiliation, the running of stalking horse candidates, and the gaming of results through organized crossover voting,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] opposes approval of Senate Constitutional Amendment Four, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon all members of the California Democratic Party, especially our elected officials, to campaign to defeat the measure at the polls.

A Resolution for Majority Rule Initiative Reducing the Threshold for Passing a State Budget

WHEREAS the State of California has adopted a budget that neither fulfills the needs of the people of California nor reflects the values of a majority of the people and their representatives in the state legislature and,

WHEREAS the approval of the state budget was inexcusably delayed in the State Senate for more than seven months by a few members who chose loyalty to ideology over a commitment to common sense, the good of the State, and the needs of their constituents, and

WHEREAS this inexcusable travesty was due solely to the current state constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the members of the state legislature are required to approve a budget,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] supports lowering the threshold for passing the state budget to 50-percent-plus-one, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon all members of the California Democratic Party, especially our elected officials, to campaign actively for the adoption of the 50-percent-plus-one threshold for budget passage.

A Resolution on Contesting Elections

WHEREAS State Senator Abel Maldonado, the leading hold-out in the budget impasse, was reelected without a Democratic opponent in 2008, and his seat was one of six Congressional, State Senate, and Assembly district seats that were uncontested by Democratic candidates, and

WHEREAS it gives the appearance of “back room deal making” when Republican held districts remain unchallenged, as has occurred on more than one occasion, and

WHEREAS it is un-American to discourage any qualified citizen from seeking elected office and irresponsible of Democratic leaders to let any seat go uncontested,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] strongly condemns any and all efforts, past, present, or future, to discourage Democratic candidates from challenging Republican incumbents, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] demands that no Democratic Party member or elected official ever discourage a qualified Democrat from seeking elected office and insists that the California Democratic Party vigorously contest every office by recruiting and supporting qualified Democratic candidates.

After the 80th AD caucus in San Jose, which vacated the CDP endorsement of Manuel Perez‘s chief rival for the nomination, one of the delegates in support of Greg Pettis treated me to their latest talking point on Manuel Perez, namely that his only elected experience so far was that of a board member of a “failed school district.”  This is a bit shortsighted, as Perez’s experience is that of a teacher, healthcare access provider, grassroots youth organizer, researcher, and a successful advocate for millions of dollars for local schools and local jobs in Coachella.  The recent David Binder poll has, after positives and negatives are weighed in, both Pettis and Perez running even in the primary, with Perez winning in the general against (R) Jeandron, and Pettis losing.

But let’s address the fallacy of Democrats adopting GOP talking points on NCLB to attack the those who are in the direct line of fire from Bush’s policy:

(Hat tip to Dale Wissman, labor relations representative with California School Employees Association, who listed the following observations on this subject, with my minor edits.)

Coachella serves some of the poorest students in the entire United States, yet manages to create some of the most powerful tools to improve student achievement.  It is an amazing, activist, innovative school district dealing with massive budget and social issues, but somehow just found a way to pass a two hundred and fifty million dollar bond, which will be matched by state and federal funds, for the construction of state-of-the-art schools.  There might not be three other school districts in the U.S. that serve the population CVUSD serves:  64 percent English learners, 90 percent on free or reduced lunch.

That’s a massive amount of money to bring to bear on one of the poorest communities in the U.S. and Manuel Perez helped shepherd that through.   Nothing like that had ever been done before in Coachella, poorest area of one of the poorest states as far as education spending goes.  California is now 48th out of 50 in terms of state education funding.  If anyone knows intimately what that kind of funding problem looks like on the ground and how it affects achievement, especially in a poor area with lots “of second language speakers, it would be Manuel Perez.  Pettis and Gonzales have no comparable experience in education.  Incidentally, Perez graduated from local schools and he went on to Harvard Graduate School of Education, so it must be doing something right.  .  CVUSD has more than tripled its API score (a California measurement) in the past eight years.

Perez is against No Child Left Behind, perhaps the worst education law ever passed, which is soundly hated by Democrats.  NCLB provides the mechanism to take schools over from local communities, no matter their funding or challenges with poverty or second language learners.  Coachella is an example of a striving school district doing amazing things that nevertheless is punished because of NCLB.  The fact that Pettis campaign wants to use this as an issue says loads about Pettis’ inexperience in education.   Tacitly supporting NCLB because it hurts your opponent is very bad form for a Democrat, and indicates a disturbing and self-defeating opportunism.  Rather than one who parrots Republican NCLB talking points, the 80th AD deserves a representative who doesn’t buy into NCLB, advocates for appropriate funding and accountability for public schools, and can succeed in securing that funding, as Perez has.

Because of his work on behalf of students, parents, teachers and the community, and because of opposition to No Child Left Behind, the education community is endorsing Perez in droves, including the California Teachers Association, with strong local support from the 80th’s school districts.   Neither Pettis nor Gonzales have anyone from the education community endorsing them as yet.

Education spending is more than half the state budget, and Manuel Perez is the only candidate in the primary and general with direct experience here. Education combined with healthcare (another of Perez’s areas of expertise) make up the vast, vast majority of the state budget.  These are also the areas most in danger of being reduced and cut, simply because that’s where most the money is.  

Addendum:

(The other talking point is that noting Perez has a far stronger base than Pettis among crucial East Coachella Valley and Imperial County voters amounts to racism and homophobia, which is bizarre and desperate at worst, and at best misinformed.  The “Crashing the Gates” new Democratic delegates from the 80th AD who voted to endorse Manuel Perez included an openly gay man, an openly gay woman, the (Latino) County Chair of the Imperial County Democratic Central Committee, one Jewish woman, and a Coachella-raised union organizer.)  Manuel’s passion for and experience in providing healthcare, education, and labor reform in the 80th AD and statewide unites a diverse progressive support base.  

There’s a parallel to the Clinton/Obama dynamic here in the 80th-  The heir apparent veteran politician vs. the grassroots organizer.  Pettis had every expectation of sewing this nomination up by the pre-endorsement caucus, as he had the warchest, the connections, and the longtime familiarity of the local Dem clubs.  Manuel was not supposed to pose a real threat, but instead he has the endorsement of

*United Domestic  Workers

*California Teachers Association

*SEIU State Council

*Laborers (LIUNA)

*California Nurses Association

*AFSCME

and just today, the California Labor Federation voted for a dual endorsement of Perez and Pettis, overturning the local Central Labor Councils (both San Diego/Imperial and Riverside/San Bernardino) which had previously endorsed Pettis.  

“Manuel Perez knows first hand the struggles of working families and will be a champion of healthcare, education and creating new jobs in the State Assembly,” proclaimed Art Pulaski, Executive Secretary of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

Greg was supposed to be the default Dem here, but a grassroots challenger is upsetting the status quo.

This is my first time facing the wrath of those who got their gate crashed.  It’s a bit unsettling, as we were all in the same camp for Roth in the CA-45th, and now we’re at odds.  But we’ll be together after the primary, when we can send another people-powered representative to the California Assembly.  

Crossposted at dKos

Today’s LA Times picks up where I left off on Sunday, showing how the proposed budget cuts are sending school districts scrambling to get layoff notices out by the March 15 deadline. Although these notices may not always lead to an actual firing, they do have a destructive effect on teacher morale. Already several of my family and friends who teach K-12 in Orange County have begun dusting off their resumes in anticipation of losing their jobs.

In my post  on Sunday I argued that the cuts, if allowed to happen, would have a reckless and destructive impact on California’s economy. The LA Times article points out that there is another potential catastrophe that these cuts might cause. If teachers are fired and class sizes increase, it is going to be more difficult than ever to meet the unreasonable mandates of the odious No Child Left Behind law.

Rialto Unified has made some recent academic gains, and its superintendent worries that deep cuts could stall progress. The district scored a 661 on California’s latest Academic Performance Index, below the state’s target of 800; the API measures schools and districts on student scores in math, English and other subjects.

While the state API is a different metric than NCLB, if a district is having trouble meeting the API target, it is likely to have trouble meeting the much more onerous NCLB targets. As most educators – and anyone who has been a student – knows, the larger the classes, the more difficult it becomes to learn and achieve.

Among the penalties for missing NCLB targets include “replacing staff” or a takeover by “a private education firm.” Either outcome involves less schools, less local control, less parental involvement, and an even deeper economic hit to thousands of working Californians.

Arnold’s proposed budget cuts could therefore touch off a cascade of events that delivers a crippling blow to our public education system. The always excellent California Budget Project has put together a detailed list of the impact of those cuts, including a district-by-district list of cuts. Most district will lose at minimum $500 per student, with some rural districts going well above $1,000 per student. Those are staggering numbers.

This was supposed to be the year of education. Perhaps it still can be – it can either be the year we saved education, or the year we destroyed it. Sometimes our choices really are that stark.

(full-disclosure: CTA has hired me to do blog outreach on NCLB)

Remember the uproar from parents when NCLB was first passed and they discovered that the law would automatically pass on their children’s contact information to military recruiters?  They made it an opt-in policy, rather than an opt-out, leaving it up to already incredibly busy parents to make sure recruiters could not hound their kids without their permission.  And it’s not like the military actually paid attention to those forms.  They often kept pressuring students to join the military, even once the opt-out form was signed and turned in.

The current version of the NCLB re-authorization by Miller/Pelosi has left in that regulation, forcing schools to choose between federal funding and letting the military recruit high school students without the prior permission of their parents.

The following was published in the California Educator back in 2004 (sorry no links):

Victor Banuelos was surprised when military recruiters called him at home repeatedly, telling him that the “only way out of the ghetto” was to join the military. The teenager’s name, address and phone number were provided courtesy of Los Angeles High School before Banuelos’ graduation last June.

“I told a recruiter that I was planning to go to college. He told me that I couldn’t pay for it, and that the only way out of the ghetto was through the military,” recalls Banuelos, now a freshman at UC Santa Cruz. “I told him I would get financial aid or student loans. He said I wouldn’t be able to pay for it and that I should go through the Army and get the GI Bill.” [snip]

The NCLB law gives students and their families the right to have personal information withheld from recruiters if they sign a written form. But even those who have signed these forms may find that their wishes are ignored.

“I got the form from a teacher and signed it,” recalls Banuelos. “But I still got contacted. I think it’s horrible to say that it’s important for no child to be left behind when, in reality, you are telling them they have no options but the military. I know my family is not the richest in the world, but I found a way to pay for college.”

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.  Plenty of other Californian high school students have had to deal with the same problems:

Frances Martin, a senior at Crenshaw High School in Los Angeles, also signed the form to have her personal information withheld. Recruiters, however, call her cell phone on a regular basis. “I signed the paper to opt myself out and it didn’t mean anything, because they still got the information,” says Martin. “When I asked them how this happened, they said I fell through the cracks. And they keep calling.”

Rep. Mike Honda sponsored a bill, the Student Privacy Protection Act earlier this year to change the rule.  However, this is something that could be easily changed in the current draft of the NCLB re-authorization bill by George Miller and Nancy Pelosi.  It isn’t.  The problematic opt-out policy still remains.

Remember that this policy was put in to place, because there was a fear that some college campuses were banning the military from accessing their campus due to their Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.  About 15% of high schools were doing the same.  However, federal law already requires every male who is a U.S. resident (regardless of citizenship) to register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Failure to register could result in five years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.  The military just wanted easier access to these kids before they turned 18, thus the provision in NCLB.

For good reason the military has been having a difficult time recruiting, but the Democrats in Congress should not allow them to contact these kids without the express authorization of their parents.  This needs to be fixed and is just one more reason Miller and Pelosi are getting it wrong on NCLB.

For more information see the CTA’s page on NCLB.

(full disclosure: CTA has hired me to do blog outreach on NCLB)  cross-posted on DailyKos

Teachers, lawmakers and San Francisco labor leaders came together today to present House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a garage door-sized CTA postcard about the current NCLB re-authorization draft.  The 8-foot by 12-foot postcard was signed by nearly 1,000 teachers.  Since the big one would not fit in the door, they dropped off a off a poster-sized picture of the big postcard to her 14th floor office.  Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi was not in her office to receive her visitors and their gift.

(sorry for the size, but wanted people to be able to read the text)

CTA Vice President Dean Vogel:

The Miller-Pelosi NCLB reauthorization plan will make it harder to attract and retain quality teachers in California classrooms. It continues to rely on testing as the measurement of student and school success. It creates a new federal mandate to pay and evaluate teachers based on student test scores. Test scores don’t fairly measure student achievement and cannot be used to accurately evaluate and pay teachers.

Here is Dean at the press conference.  He is the sweetest man, the kind of guy I wish I had as a teacher.

A few state politicians joined the teachers in speaking out against this NCLB draft.  Sen. Leland Yee, with his unique credentials said:

Tying a student test score to a teacher evaluation or merit pay is an improper use of student assessment.  As a child psychologist, I understand that there are many factors that contribute to a student’s performance. I support the efforts of CTA to stop this latest version of NCLB, which only makes a bad law even worse.

There is a letter circulating the state capitol that many Democrats in the legislature have signed on to, calling on Pelosi to oppose the merit pay and other harmful one-size fits all education proposals in the reauthorization plan.  Here is an excerpt:

We urge you instead to help reshape this measure into one that would empower districts and local associations,” the letter states, in part. “Together, teachers and district administrators can develop proposals that include workable and productive means for recognizing teachers while improving the professional development of all teachers.

The event today is getting notice in the education community.  David Hoff over at the excellent NCLB blog at Education Weekly said:

In San Francisco today, the California Teachers Association will hold a news conference outside the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The NEA affiliate will unveil a postcard opposing the House draft that 1,000 California teachers signed. The news advisory, which is not online, says the postcard is the size of a garage door. The CTA has its own legislative alert.
This is quite a public display of the union’s power, and it’s over a discussion draft. What’s going to be next?

The answer is whatever it takes to get this thing right.  It is too important not to be pulling out all the stops.  California’s children are counting on us to make sure that NCLB is fixed.  The quality of their education is at stake.  That is why you see the blog ads, state politicians speaking out, and postcards signed by a thousand teachers.

Find out more on the CTA NCLB website.

——

6th in a series.  See earlier posts:

Nancy Pelosi and George Miller are getting it wrong: NO on NCLB

Getting George Miller’s Attention and the Bad Miller/Pelosi NCLB Bill

Merit Pay and NCLB: George Miller Still Getting it Wrong

School Progress Assessment: George Miller and NCLB

More Reasons to Oppose the George Miller/Pelosi NCLB Proposal

(full disclosure, I have been hired by CTA to do blog outreach on NCLB)

One of the dirty little secrets, at least for most people is the exact price tag of the massive underfunding of NCLB.  Conservatively, it is now at $56 billion, an astronomical sum.  That is the amount of money promised states and schools for reimbursement for the costs of implementing NCLB.  This includes money to actually run the test, and for states to actually put together the data tracking systems so that schools can be evaluated.

Here in California, our underfunding is now over $7.3 billion.  This chart shows the amount that was authorized and the actual amount California received (click the link for a larger version).  The cumulative NCLB funding gap just kept on growing over seven years, thus the $7.3 billion total.  It is not like the state is going to step up and cover for the federal government.  The feds are the ones who placed these demands/mandates on the schools.  Thus, NCLB implementation has been cutting directly into actual education funding for learning.  It is a bad situation that only gets worse each year.

One would think that the current draft for re-authorizing NCLB by Rep. George Miller would include a way to start paying that back.  But no, it does not even guarantee that there will be money for all of the new demands they have placed on our schools that they added to the new bill, let alone cover the $56 billion.  It is just one of many reasons why California’s teachers are saying to to the Miller/Pelosi proposal.

For more information on NCLB see the CTA website.

(full disclosure CTA has hired me do to online outreach on NCLB)

It is well known that the current focus of NCLB on testing forces teachers to teach to the test. In fact, according to a recent national study by the Center on Education Policy, a majority of the nation’s school districts report that while increasing time for test preparation they have decreased class time for science, social studies, art, music, and physical education. In some elementary schools time for student lunches has also been cut to spend more time to prepare for the standardized tests mandated by the feds.  How depressing is that, kids forced to eat quickly and lose out on valuable social time to cram for a test.

The Miller/Pelosi reauthorization proposal continues to punish lower-performing schools, rather than providing assistance and resources to help all students and schools succeed. Their proposal creates four new levels of sanctions for struggling schools. This year NCLB labeled one out of every four California public schools as failing.  As an example of how ridiculous NCLB’s school rating system is, a California distinguished school, after successfully passing 45 of the 46 components of the NCLB rating system, was labeled a failure because ten English language learners did not score high enough on one test.

This relates directly to what I wrote about on Friday on the problematic usage of benchmarks rather than progress to assess school’s performance.  By California standards they were achieving, but missing just one benchmark, in this case 10 kids just learning English did not score high enough on one test taken on one day.

Remember that the Miller/Pelosi reauthorization proposal creates a new federal mandate to pay and evaluate teachers based on student test scores.

We know that test scores by themselves don’t fairly measure student achievement and they certainly will not be able to accurately evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness.  At a time when California will need more than 100,000 new teachers in the next 10 years, this proposal will discourage the quality teachers our schools so desperately need from ever entering the profession.

Call, write and fax your Congresscritter.  Plus contact Pelosi and George Miller.  Find out more at CTA’s NCLB page.

(full disclosure CTA has hired me to do blog outreach on NCLB) (also in orange: Miller and NCLB)

One of the many problems with the current Miller/Pelosi draft of the re-authorization of NCLB is how it assesses schools.  The feds require schools get assessed with an Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) report.  It sets benchmarks.  If you do not meet them, you fail.  It is a very rigid system.  They mandated this program, yet never provided the money for states to actually track schools and students. Thus states have had to cough up the money on their own for data programs.

Here in California we already have a great assessment program called the Academic Performance Index (API).  (Get that AYP (feds) API (Cali)).  The API sets goals based on progress over time.  So if a school is way behind, but they show significant percentage improvement (say 20% or so gains), they don’t get on the failing list and get punished.  Many schools who were really far behind under NCLB were classified as failing and punished, even though they were showing dramatic gains under API.  It was a vicious and disheartening cycle.

California really likes its system.  It still puts a heavy emphasis on improvement, but schools that start out severely underperforming don’t get punished while they are making huge improvements. 

Since NCLB passed, California has put a lot of money into a system to track students under the AYP.  We still are not there yet, years later.  One of the many fixes to NCLB that education advocates both here in CA and across the country have been pushing for is for states to be able to assess students on the API model.  Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Schools, wrote a letter to George Miller, where he addressed this problem (sorry no cite, came via email):

After reviewing the discussion draft, I am pleased to see that the Committee recognizes the limitations of the current law’s status model for measuring AYP.  However, I am disappointed to not that the draft does not allow states to use valid improvement measures to hold districts and schools accountable. [snip]

Provisions in the draft would increase technical complexity while reducing academic accountability at the cost of existing, proven and reliable state systems.

Got that.  They are putting more mandates on the schools, thus making the reporting mechanisms even more complicated.  That costs money.  And they are not increasing flexibility so schools can be assessed using other, superior models like the API.

As noted in the reauthorization recommendations I issued earlier this year, the API has been a successful agent of change for our schools and districts.  It is a publicly recognized and understood tool for holding schools accountable for improvement.  Using the notion of “earned autonomy,” the reauthorized law should recognize the authority of states to measure AYP with their own state system, so long as that system meets conditions of peer-reviewed rigor, demonstrated progress and approval by the ED (Education Department).  The federal government would retain the authority to hold states accountable for their results according to an agreed metric.  Our shared focus should be on the academic objectives and not the restricted methodology.

I know it is a bit weird for progressives to be arguing for states rights, but in this case we really do have a better, fairer system and the federal government is forcing us to use a rigid inferior one.

Fourth in a series.
Previous posts:

Nancy Pelosi and George Miller are getting it wrong: NO on NCLB

Getting George Miller’s Attention and the Bad Miller/Pelosi NCLB Bill

Merit Pay and NCLB: George Miller Still Getting it Wrong
—————-

Take Action, contact Miller and Pelosi.  More information on the CTA website.

This diary is part of the candidate series on MyDD for Bill Richardson.  I am Californian supporter of Richardson.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

Richardson has been called a “force of nature.” When he served in Congress, he was regarded as one of the hardest working members, respected for his intelligence and detailed knowledge of the issues. In a profile earlier this year, Democratic state Senator Mary Jane Garcia stated, “It just never stops; it’s busy, busy, busy. He’s got an agenda like you can’t believe.”  New Mexican Republican Representative Dan Foley added, “People shouldn’t count him out. You won’t find a person who works harder.”

Richardson fights for the principals he believes in. I offer two of many examples:

First, while Secretary of Energy, against opposition in Congress and even criticism from within the Clinton Administration, Richardson acknowledged the Energy Department’s long history of denying responsibility for workers’ injuries at the nation’s nuclear weapons plants. He stated, “We need to right this wrong.”

Richardson successfully lobbied Congress to enact legislation providing payments and medical benefits to the workers that developed cancer and other serious diseases.

Second, in April 2007, Richardson spoke at Rally to Save the People of Darfur in San Francisco. He was the only Presidential candidate that attended, even though they were all in California that weekend for the California Democratic Party Convention.  Prior to speaking, a reporter asked Richardson why he was there. Richardson’s response was an inspiration to all fighting for social change: “You have to be part of the causes you believe in.”

Richardson has been to Sudan three times visiting refugee camps and negotiating the release of American aid workers and journalists. He has never given up on Africa.

Richardson has had an outstanding record as Governor of New Mexico.  He increased school funding, expanded health care coverage, extended civil rights protections to include sexual orientation, made New Mexico a model for the rest of nation in promoting clean energy and fighting global warming, while cutting taxes to promote sustainable growth and balancing the state budget. For his commitment to protecting the state’s environment, the Conversation Voters of New Mexico gave Richardson “a solid A.”

Richardson understands that the Democratic Party must be the party of economic progress.  He has assisted the private sector in New Mexico in creating new, high paying jobs. He calls on Democrats to “stand for policies that encourage innovation and expand economic opportunity.”

On education policy, Richardson understands that No Child Left Behind sets up our public schools for failure.  Unlike the other major candidates that want to somehow fix and preserve NCLB, Richardson’s approach is simple and clear:  scrap it.  Richardson writes::

NCLB has failed. It has failed our schools, it has failed our teachers and it has failed our children. The Bush administration claims victories, but upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that the White House is simply dressing up ugly data with fancy political spin. Far from leaving no child behind, President Bush seems to have left reality behind. 

On global warming and energy policy, Richardson has set forth the most detailed and aggressive plan of all candidates – calling for a 90% decrease in greenhouse emissions by 2050.  Dave Hamilton, the Sierra Club’s Director of Energy and Global Warming program, stated Richardson’s “18-page energy policy is much more aggressive than anything we’ve seen so far from the candidates.  It is also significantly better-elaborated in theory with regard to where we end up.” 

Richardson is the product of two nations, Mexico and the United States. His childhood friends included many of the poor in the neighborhood where his family lived in Mexico City.  He saw first hand the devastating impact of poverty on families and children. His bi-national upbringing necessitated understanding and then bridging two cultures. This laid the foundation for Richardson as an adult to become a peacemaker among nations and an expert in the art of diplomacy.

Richardson has articulated a new foreign policy for America which starts by recognizing the new challenges we face in the 21st century:

Jihadists and environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats, and globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies-not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels.

Richardson calls on the U.S. to foster “the cooperation needed to solve the issues that face the modern world. The U.S. government needs to see the world as it really is – so that the United States can lead others to make it a better, safer place.”

On Iraq, Richardson has eloquently stated:

The War in Iraq is not the disease. Iraq is a symptom. The disease is arrogance. The next President must be able to repair the damage that’s been done to our country’s reputation over the last six years. It’s why experience in foreign affairs has never been more important.

Richardson has the best plan for ending the war in Iraq. He is only major candidate that has repeatedly and unequivocally called for the complete withdrawal of ALL American forces from Iraq.

The others candidates lack the confidence to stand up to the military and political establishment and follow the will of the American people.  They accept the argument that a complete withdrawal of all American forces would be “irresponsible.”  As Richardson wrote wrote in a recent Op Ed, “On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and effective course of action.”

The fundamental difference between Obama, Edwards and HRC verse Richardson on Iraq is that Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war.  Our troops have become the targets in a civil war.  The Iraqi government has become dependent on the U.S. for security the Iraqis should provide.  Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”

Likewise, without the direct and committed action by the President of the United States, Iraq will remain in chaos. Richardson is the only candidate with a track record of foreign policy success.  Richardson will lead a diplomatic offensive to bring peace and stability to the region.

That we must exit Iraq now is a message Richardson constantly delivers to voters.  He doesn’t tailor his message to the audience. Yesterday, Richardson spoke on ending the war at two town halls in Iowa.  The first was at the National Guard Armory in Council Bluffs and second at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Sioux City.

In closing, with Richardson we get two for the price of one: an energetic, can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat on foreign affairs.

(full disclosure: California Teacher’s Association has hired me to do online outreach on NCLB)

x-posted on dkos

There are a lot of things wrong with NCLB, so why are George Miller and Nancy Pelosi insisting on adding new problems.  More specifically, adding a federal merit pay program for teachers.  First of all, studies have shown that merit pay just does not work.  It leads to divisiveness in the teaching ranks, makes hiring more difficult and tends to go to teachers in affluent school districts, despite promises to the contrary.  Just about every school that implements merit pay repeals it down the road.

This is not an isolated problem:

Merit pay comes in many forms and flavors — including extra bonuses for student achievement gains, satisfactory evaluations by principals or committees, acquiring additional duties, gaining new skills and knowledge, and serving in hard-to-staff schools. We’ve looked at dozens of plans in North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Guess what? None of them, past and present, has ever had a successful track record. None has ever produced its intended results. Any gains have been minimal, short-lived, and expensive to achieve.

That was from an article in the Boston Globe by two education experts.  Yet, still Miller persists on pushing this federal program.

Take for example what is going on in Florida.  They passed a merit pay program and promised that there would be no imbalances along racial or income lines.  That was the problem with a now defunct earlier problem and the problems are still the same with this new program.

At Palm Lake Elementary, two out of three teachers earned a bonus through Orange County Public Schools’ merit-pay plan.

At Richmond Heights Elementary, the number was zero.

Palm Lake is a predominantly white school in the affluent Dr. Phillips area.

Richmond Heights is a predominantly black school in a poverty-stricken pocket of Orlando.

The two schools illustrate a marked disparity in the distribution of merit bonuses to 3,911 Orange County teachers and administrators uncovered in an Orlando Sentinel analysis of the program.

The Sentinel’s review showed that teachers at predominantly white and affluent schools were twice as likely to get a bonus as teachers from schools that are predominantly black and poor.

The merit pay program in the Miller/Pelosi program was the topic of some controversy during Monday’s hearing.  Miller accused teachers, in specific NEA, of reversing themselves on merit pay.  At issue was an earlier bill, which NEA reluctantly supported back in 2005 called the TEACH Act.

Toward the end of the almost seven-hour session, NEA President Reg Weaver and AFT Executive Vice President Antonia Cortese objected to proposed alternative pay programs for teachers, which are included in the section addressing teacher quality.

In the Q&A that followed, Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., reminded the union reps that that the pay proposals came from the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act, which the unions endorsed after extensive talks with Rep. Miller and a host of education groups.

“This language was mutually arrived at by various parties,” Rep. Miller said.

In response NEA President Reg Weaver sent a letter to the members of the Education Committe, Nancy Pelosi and George Miller.  This is an excerpt from the Miller letter:

In May 2005, prior to the introduction of the TEACH Act, we expressed our concerns in writing to your staff about performance-pay provisions contained in the draft bill, calling for them to be subject to collective bargaining or a 75 percent majority support vote of teachers where bargaining does not exist. Ultimately, the introduced bill did include some labor protections. However, as we stated in our letter of June 2005, we looked forward to continued work with you on making improvements to the bill. We offered your TEACH Act legislation general support because the bulk of the bill was aimed at providing teachers with the kinds of supports they need to be successful, such as high quality professional development, mentoring and induction programs, and incentives to become certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. You are an experienced legislator who understands that “general support” does not translate to support for each and every provision of a particular bill. If that were the case, we would never see passage of most pieces of legislation and legislators would never receive letters of support from interested parties.

They supported the bill at the time, with reservations, with the understanding that they would work on improvements because the larger goals were important.  That does not mean that they endorsed the concept of merit pay, particularly as laid out in the current Miller/Pelosi proposal.

After that initial support and earlier this year when Miller’s staff informed them that they would be re-introducing the TEACH act and making it the basis for the re-authorization of NCLB/ESEA, NEA re-informed Miller of their opposition in discussions with his staff.  They sent letters and continued discussions.  More from the letter:

On August 8 and again on August 16, NEA sent letters (attached) to convey very clearly our position about performance pay plans. At the end of August and over the Labor Day weekend, NEA staff submitted additional legislative language to remedy the serious problems in your draft language; however, those proposals were rejected. Your discussion draft released on September 6 reflects neither the specifications set forth in our letters, nor the legislative language suggestions we have proposed to protect educators’ rights. Furthermore, the Title II discussion draft now contains additional performance pay provisions that were not a part of the TEACH Act (such as in the Teacher Corps program).

Miller knew full well that they opposed the merit pay provisions.  Any suggestions to the contrary are just silly.  Did they need to take out ads to make it clearer?

To reiterate, we do not support mandating any evaluation or compensation term as an element of a federal program, voluntary or not. We are particularly opposed to any provisions that would require that student test scores be a mandatory element. Therefore, we are simply asking again for labor protections to ensure that a school district cannot impose on teachers without their consent the use of test scores or student learning gains as part of any evaluation or compensation system. As several of your witnesses testified yesterday, educator buy-in is essential to the success of any compensation plan.

We are determined to obtain clear and comprehensive protections in ESEA concerning any aspect of teacher compensation, evaluation, or other employment terms. As I indicated yesterday, our members are hired by school districts, not the federal government. As such, employment contracts must be negotiated and agreed to at the local-not federal-level. This issue, more broadly, is about protecting public employees’ collective bargaining rights under federal law. We will not support any legislation that undermines those rights and sets a dangerous precedent for our colleagues in the labor community.

It is not that teachers oppose any and all pay-for-performance legislation.  The crux of it is that it doesn’t happen with out their approval, it should be one of several options for using federal funding and it does not undermine local bargaining agreements. 

New federally mandated programs, especially those that are proven not to work are not what we want from the new NCLB bill.  We need to fix the problems that currently exist, not create new ones, especially ones that are based on test scores.  George Miller needs to stop playing dumb on this one.  Teachers do not support this merit pay program, they never have.  They have not reversed themselves.  It was always a bad idea and it will always continue to be a bad one.

Take Action, contact Miller and Pelosi.  More information on the CTA website.