In LAUSD… As Much As Things Change, They Stay the Same

I’m a fan of The Who, and have always felt the need to turn up the volume for Won’t Get Fooled Again. When I read the Howard Blume article, L.A. mayor, new schools chief on the same page in the Times today I felt the urge to pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday… Well, you get the idea.

Howard Blume reports in the article that recently hired LAUSD Superintendent David Brewer and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa held a press conference after the first of their regularly scheduled weekly meetings – a good idea (the meetings, not the press conference) that could have been accomplished without the Mayor’s LAUSD “takeover” bill, (bearing the lofty title:) The Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006. Reportedly, the Superintendent and the Mayor are simpatico on their education agenda which includes (long pause for affect) more taxpayer funds for LAUSD, oh yeah… and more accountability for the district (which in California means additional taxpayer funds and the horrible experience of being labeled a “high priority” school).

Will there be any real accountability? According to Howard Blume, Superintendent Brewer tipped his hand on this front by continuing to “soft-pedal earlier remarks about his willingness to fire bad teachers.” In fact, according to the Times reporter the Superintendent, “talked of "embracing" teachers by giving them necessary training, due process and even rewards and community sponsored incentives, such as coupons and free classroom supplies. When pressed several times on how long ineffective teachers would be given to improve, he declined to say.”

I’m not one for firing people for the sake of firing, but there needs to be less coddling and more cajoling if LAUSD is going to change its culture from one of continued failure to one of success. At some point the district will need to use student test data to determine where academic success is occurring and where it isn’t. Where academic failure is systemic, teachers either need to learn how to teach or find a career for which they are better suited. The same level of professional and personal accountability needs to be applied to principals and other administrators. If things do not change, there needs to be accountability for the entire district. Perhaps better options should be explored like breaking LAUSD into smaller more manageable (and more accountable) districts; or better yet, providing parents and students the option to attend better schools by allowing them the choice to escape from the failing government schools.

The modicum of improvement LAUSD has enjoyed in recent years has been most prominently influenced by the adoption of statewide academic standards and standards-aligned testing. Superintendent Romer did a yeoman’s job of implementing policies to improve the delivery of standards-based curriculum, and I suppose Admiral Brewer will do at least as good a job (after all, he is an Admiral). But, anyone who was hoping for a revolution led by Mayor Villaraigosa through the Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006 – well... just crank up The Who, that rockin’ band who emphatically belted out the lyrics, “I'll tip my hat to the new constitution. Take a bow for the new revolution. Smile and grin at the change all around. Pick up my guitar and play. Just like yesterday. Then I'll get on my knees and pray. We don't get fooled again.”

Honoring a Hero and a Friend

Pacific Research Institute's Lance Izumi suggests How Arnold can honor Milton Friedman. Dr. Friedman wrote eloquently in favor of school choice, and Lance Izumi makes a case for the Governor to honor his self-proclaimed mentor by offering California's students a choice. I could not have said it better.

Unfortunately, I am confident that the Governor will not follow Mr. Izumi's sound advice; it would not comport with Mr. Schwarzenegger's 2006 brand of bipartisanship (i.e. all the Democrats and him). Why wouldn't Democrats favor school choice for students trapped in the state's lowest performing schools? Because unions - specifically the teachers union (the CTA) - abhor school choice. The California Teachers Assocation instead favors propping up the government school monopoly rather than helping students learn. I sincerely hope Governor Schwarzenegger proves my assumption wrong, it would be a wonderful surprise and an incredible opportunity for students stuck in failing government schools.

Declining Enrollment – Government Schools Need to Adjust Accordingly

Government School Monopolies – Insulated from the Marketplace
Today, the Sacramento Bee carried a story by Peter Hecht about declining enrollment in California schools. The way public schools deal with declining enrollment demonstrates just how insulated the government school monopolies are from the reality of the marketplace. Most businesses, when faced with declining customers, adjust and do so quickly or face the reality of going out of business. Government schools, on the other hand, are given a year of “cushion” and then seek other ways to avoid dealing with market realities.

For the uninitiated, to fully understand the year of “cushion;” a quick “primer” in funding might be useful. School districts receive funding based upon average daily attendance (ADA). Their revenue limit (basic funding) is based upon the number of students who actually show up for school each year (some may remember the days before ADA when schools were funded based upon enrollment rather than attendance and they were not nearly so concerned about whether your child actually showed up for school each day). School districts that experience declining enrollment are provided a one year “cushion” by allowing them to choose to accept their revenue limit calculated on the current year ADA or the previous year ADA; this allows the school district one full year to make needed programmatic changes to adjust serving fewer customers.

The declining enrollment “cushion” was originally designed to accommodate school districts that suffered sudden and unanticipated enrollment losses caused, for example, by the closing of a military base in the area served by the school district. When declining enrollment is caused by changing demographics in a community it is supposed to be recognized by the district, anticipated and addressed in long-term planning. Some school districts have done this well, others (like San Juan Unified School District) have instead operated with their proverbial head in a hole. When a business makes such a dramatic error in planning it either makes drastic changes or it goes out of business. When government school monopolies make such errors they declare a “crisis” and appeal to lawmakers for a bailout.

An Opportunity Missed - Or... An Opportunity Enhanced?
This year the Legislature passed SB 1133 (Torlakson) which was the “settlement” of the lawsuit filed by the California Teachers Association (CTA) against Governor Schwarzenegger to “recover” $2.9 billion the CTA argued was owed to schools (based upon an agreement between the CTA and the Governor in 2004). SB 1133 was written by the CTA and spends the entire $2.9 billion on an experiment called the “Quality Education Investment Act of 2006” – in short, the $2.9 billion (ostensibly "taken" from all schools) will be spent over seven years in approximately 600 schools to reduce class sizes and provide professional development. To accommodate the class size reduction approximately 2,500 teachers must be hired – when the one-time funding runs out in seven years there will once again be a “crisis” that requires more money.

It would have been wiser and more equitable to use the $2.9 billion in “settlement” funds to address issues like declining enrollment in all schools rather than establish ongoing, expensive programs for 600 (out of nearly 10,000 schools) with one-time funds. Ironically, SB 1133 creates a need to hire more teachers at a time when overall enrollment is declining – could the government schools have enjoyed a less market-driven reality?

[An aside, SB 1133 represents the “dream child” of the CTA – establishing new jobs through class size reduction which means more dues payers which allows more funding for the CTA to play in political campaigns. The ability of the CTA to be an influential financier of political campaigns ensures that more money will be doled out to mitigate the ravages of declining enrollment and other marketplace inconveniences. While this does not help taxpayers, it is a boon to government school monopolies.]

Questions to Ask
When your school district declares it is a “district in crisis” because it is losing funding based upon declining enrollment ask a couple of questions. First, what caused the declining enrollment? Was it a sudden change or was it due to changing demographics? If the latter is the case, what has the school district done in anticipation of the declining enrollment? How many new schools were built in the district despite projections of declining enrollment? Is the school district acting rationally to anticipate future enrollment growth (for example, leasing out closed facilities rather than selling them)? Ultimately, if the marketplace demands reduced operations; why should the school district be insulated from making needed adjustments?

The Story by Peter Hecht can be read here.

Good Advice from Mr. Speaker

An Open Memorandum to House Republicans
November 16 2006
Newt Gingrich

As we think about the 2006 election and where House Republicans go from here, I want to suggest a few principles and actions that might be helpful.

When I was first elected in 1978, House Republicans had been in the minority for 24 years. Despite our best efforts to win enough seats to gain the majority, it took us 16 more years. If we do not want to return to a possible 40 years in the minority, it is essential that we spend time now thinking about the lessons of 2006 and what has to be done. If we do this, we can accept 2006 as a corrective but necessary interruption in our pursuit of a governing majoritarian party.

In 1946 and 1952, the Democrats found themselves in the minority. On both occasions it only lasted two years. They found the methods to recover, even though in the second case they were operating under a very popular Republican President Eisenhower.

When the Republicans lost their brief majority status in 1954, they could not recover it two years later, despite the fact that Eisenhower was winning a massive re-election. Similarly, they could not regain the majority even in the landslides of 1972 and 1984.

There are some key questions and key principles to keep in mind as we work through the process of earning back the majority.

1. Republicans lost the 2006 election. Do not hide from this. Do not shrug it off. Our team lost. Why did we lose? What do we have to do differently?

2. Are House Republicans electing a leadership team to be an effective minority or a leadership team to regain the majority? These are very different roles and require very different considerations, very different strategies and very different leaders.

3. To regain majority status, we have to focus on the country first and on Washington and the Congress second. If we are responsive to the country, they will support us and return us to power. If we are focused on action in Washington (whether White House action, legislative action or lobbyist and PAC action), we are probably entering a long period in minority status.

4. Are House Republicans electing leaders to represent House Republican values and strategies to the White House or leaders to represent the White House to House Republicans? Over the next two years, House Republicans and the White House will have very different institutional interests and very different time horizons. If we want to regain majority status, we have to focus on the building of a grassroots coalition which supports real change in Washington.

5. From a House Republican standpoint, the center of gravity should be the 54 Blue Dog Democrats. If we and the Blue Dogs can find a handful of key things to work on together, we can almost certainly create a majority on the floor just as the Reagan Republicans and conservative Democrats did in 1981. Bipartisanship can be conservative and back bench rather than liberal and establishment leadership defined. What did the Blue Dogs promise to get elected? What was the nature of their coalition back home? They give us the best opportunity to create grassroots efforts to pass solid legislation. Remember, the liberals will find it very hard to write a budget acceptable to the grassroots that elected the Blue Dogs. We have real opportunities if we are creative.

6. House Republicans should establish new principles for appointing people to the Appropriations Committee. Nothing infuriated the Republican base more than the continued process of earmarks, set asides and incumbent-protection pork. There is no reason for the House Republican conference to reappoint a single appropriator unless they agree to be part of the Republican team. First establish the principles of representing Republican values on appropriations and then ask each appropriator to commit themselves to living by those principles or accept appointment to another committee. There is a legitimate role for set asides in the legislative-executive branch process, but there is no reason to give the executive branch a blank check. There has to be some limits, and those limits should be set by the Conference and not by the committee members.

7. All of this will take time. As rapidly as possible there should be a three-day member-only retreat to discuss issues like this and to set strategies for the next two years. These kinds of decisions should be a key part of thinking through who should lead House Republicans for the next Congress and how they should lead.

One Last Note

Do not underestimate Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and her team. She and Rahm Emmanuel finally put together a disciplined recruiting system that allowed a lot of Democrats to run as conservatives, even while they were planning to elect the most liberal Speaker in history. Pelosi is a tough, smart, disciplined professional. She is not going to be easy to beat, and she and her team are going to work hard to keep you in the minority for a decade or more.

This is going to be hard work and will require a lot of dedication and a lot of thought.

With best wishes for a return to majority status as quickly as possible.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Getting it right… and wrong

The Saturday San Diego Union Tribune editorial (below) indicating that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was betrayed by the UTLA, the local California Teachers Association affiliate, gets it both right and wrong all at once.

Getting it Right
The Tribune editorial writers are correct in recognizing that the teachers union is just that - a union. Notwithstanding all of the prognostication and consternation about what is “right for the kids” and notwithstanding the grandmotherly radio ads by union boss Barbara Kerr at the beginning of the school year advocating wholesome approaches to preparing children for school – the union is just that a union – a labor union. What is the union all about? Working conditions. How does the union define better working conditions? More pay and less work. There is nothing shocking about this, it’s all about promoting self interest.

A digression
I was reminded of this mentality recently when a colleague who retired several years ago from a long career in public education told me she would no longer encourage young people to enter a career in teaching. She said that she could no longer recommend the career because it is, “no longer fun.” Hmmm, no longer fun? What changed during her tenure? That’s right, the state tired of graduating functional illiterates from high school and the Legislature (in a rare moment of clarity) passed laws to require the adoption of standards, standards aligned testing and even a high school exit exam. Finally, a system of education that relies upon research-based curriculum that is based upon high standards and measures outcomes through aligned testing; a system that produces educated children; a system that returns to taxpayers what they expect when they make their investment. That is precisely the system she declares is “no fun.” Well, I am sorry if educating children is not fun for her… perhaps a different career would have been a better choice in the first place.

Getting it Wrong
Where the Tribune editorialists error is in their assessment of whether the Mayor was duped. Mayor Villaraigosa was a union organizer, the Speaker of the Assembly (the author of the Mayor’s LAUSD bill) worked for UTLA – they knew who and what they were dealing with. It is foolish to think they were duped; they ultimately got exactly what the Mayor wanted: control of over $19 billion in construction contracts and over $9 billion in annual funds / service contracts. The LAUSD legislation affecting district operations grants the Mayor “veto” power over the hiring of the district superintendent; the legislation grants the superintendent the power to negotiate and execute all contracts without any oversight by the elected Board of Education. The Chair of the Assembly Education Committee understood the folly in such an arrangement and during the committee hearing on the bill stated that she hoped the next superintendent was a person of incredible integrity (perhaps that is why she was a candidate for the job).

The Mayor made concessions to the union (concessions he would have voted for as a member of the Assembly). One of those “concessions” the union demanded is that contracts be negotiated with the Board of Education not the Council of Mayors. This allows the Mayor to blame breakdowns in contract negotiations on the Board of Education and appear to be “above it all.” Meanwhile, the ability to influence contracts for construction and services remains in the power of the Mayor’s superintendent. In the end, the union is stronger and the Mayor gets to dole out contracts.

Is it possible that the Mayor was not duped at all, but instead got exactly what he wanted?

Los Angeles lesson
Teachers union betrays ally Villaraigosa

UNION-TRIBUNE
November 18, 2006

California is usually seen as a national trendsetter. But the California Teachers Association's ability to persuade voters each election that it and its favored candidates are devoted to kids couldn't be more retro.

Elsewhere, it long since has been accepted that teachers unions are like other unions: driven by self-interest. This was reflected in a joke for New Yorkers that Woody Allen included in his post-apocalypse 1973 comedy “Sleeper”: The war that destroyed civilization began when “a man by the name of Albert Shanker got hold of a nuclear warhead.” Shanker was a famously contentious New York teachers union leader.

But what's going on in the Los Angeles Unified School District might finally wake up Californians. With the seeming support of United Teachers Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa persuaded the Legislature this summer to give him considerable authority in running the district. There was a brief sense of excitement – perhaps a new model for reform had emerged, one in which a teachers union would be a willing partner.

No more. It now appears the UTLA was engaged in a ruse to increase its leverage in contract negotiations and will sandbag Villaraigosa's agenda unless teachers are given a 9 percent, one-year raise. Meanwhile, the union is fielding school board candidates dedicated to thwarting any reform that might cost one bad teacher his or her job.

In other words, Villaraigosa – a former union organizer – was betrayed. And so, indirectly, were the millions of Californians who defend teachers unions as positive forces. As L.A. Unified's saga confirms, they are anything but.

Veterans: Thank you!

This is a "re-post" of a previous post on OAF Blog, I thought it appropriate on Veterans Day. I especially want to extend a thank you to my father and my brother - both combat veterans who have served our nation with honor. I hold both men in the highest esteem; and wish to express my love and respect. Thank you!


Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

- Senator Zell Miller

Take a moment and thank a soldier today.

The Myth of "Cetrism" Debunked

Steve Wiegand debunks the myth of "cetrism" in the Sacramento Bee today, and I couldn't agree more with Mr. Wiegand. Centrism is a misunderstood idea - people believe that centrism is the solution to complex problems - it is not. The "fever swamps" of the political left and the political right tend to be the incubators of ideas - solutions to complex problems. Given the profuound difference in philosophical approaches, the ideas often clash. The clash of ideas is a good thing, it provokes (what should be) a healthy debate; and, as Mr. Wiegand recognizes, when people negotiate in good faith problems get solved. What has been lacking is a civility in the debate - a commitment to integrity in the negotiation. What needs to be changed is not the philosophical beliefs of our representatives; it is the way they behave. We need more statesmen and fewer partisan self-promoters.

The following contains excerpts from Mr. Wiegand's article; I highly recommend reading the entire article here.

Centrism is highly overrated
By Steve Wiegand - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, November 11, 2006

There have been a lot of warm and fuzzy self-congratulations since Tuesday's election about how California voters and candidates -- particularly Arnold Schwarzenegger -- have met in the middle of the political spectrum.

…But before we all join hands and sing 10 or 12 verses of "Kumbaya," let's peer a little harder at reality.

Schwarzenegger won big, and he's a Reep. Whoop-de-do. Six of the last 10 California governors have been Republican. In fact, since 1899, we've had exactly four -- count 'em, four -- Democratic governors.

Plus, let's face it, Skippy the Wonder Possum could have whupped Phil Angelides.

It's true that through "bipartisan cooperation," the Legislature and governor enacted bills that raise the minimum wage, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make some prescription drugs cheaper for Californians without medical insurance.

That is if you define "bipartisan cooperation" as the governor cutting deals with Democratic lawmakers. And if you ignore the fact that of the 138 Republican legislative votes that could have been cast for those three bills, exactly six were.

Instead of a true centrist "bipartisan" core, what we had was a governor willing to bend to get re-elected, and a majority of Democrats willing to help him to further their own agendas. But the guv becomes a lame duck about five seconds into his inaugural address. And he's bound to be out stumping for the GOP presidential hopeful in 2008.

...The let's-all-be-friends-in-the-middle sentiment notwithstanding, there's nothing wrong with conflicting political ideologies in state politics. In fact, the idea of approaching problems from different perspectives can increase the number and quality of the solutions for them, as long as the parties are willing to negotiate in good faith.

…Besides, centrism is overrated. As the Texas philosopher Jim Hightower once observed, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

I'll take civility and independent thinking over that.

Proof Positive

Carla Marinucci's Spin Cycle: Schwarzenegger praises "new blood" in Congress
posted November 9, 2006

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, emerging from a meeting with Mexican president Vicente Fox, made his first comments about the U.S. midterm elections this week, saying that "this is good that we have new blood coming to Washington."

The governor was asked by Mexican reporters about his reaction to the election in which Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He said that it was a good thing that "we have new people and new ideas coming to Washington."

"Washington was stuck ... they could not move forward," he said. "Not much was accomplished ... it was terrible." But with the outcome of the election "the people has spoken all over the United States, and I thought they sent a very clear message," he said.
"They want bipartisanship ... what we've done in California."

Schwarzenegger said that he was "very happy" that Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, the next Speaker of the House, has been "talking about working together with both parties."

"That's where the future is," he said. The governor's comments set off a flurry, as aides sought to clarify that Schwarzenegger was not specifically praising a Democratic takeover of Congress, but was commenting on the overall call for change he said voters wanted.

Schwarzenegger himself even called a reporter after the event, stressing his comments were not political in nature. The governor's office said he has put in a call to Pelosi, but they have not yet spoken.

OAF: Yeah, the Governor didn't really mean it in a "political way"and he didn't really mean that he's happy about the Democrat takeover of Congress... and John Kerry really meant to tell a joke about the President.

Where's the party?
By Anthony York
posted 11/9/06 - Capitol Weekly

[California GOP State Chairman] Sundheim said that in this Democratic year, it just didn't make sense for Schwarzenegger to embrace other Republicans. "What we saw and felt is that this is not the year you get a bunch of Republicans holding hands on the stage saying, vote for us, we're Republicans, we're a team. Part of Gov. Schwarzenegger's appeal is that he's not part of that team."

As previously stated, proof positive!

Wayward Republicans Need to Return to Core Principles

Philip Klein published a must read for those who are trying to make sense of yesterday's election. Klein identifies what went wrong with Republicans, and why (after losing their way)they lost the House. I argued last year that Democrats could not win becuase they did not have a positive agenda for America - I was wrong on one account and right on another. Democrats never developed much of an agenda, but they didn't need to. Republicans, the party in power, chose to abandon any sense of an agenda at all! Republicans utter lack of any major accomplishment and their lack of articluating a positive agenda left the door wide open - Democrats walked through that door. Democrats successfully positioned themselves as being more fiscally responsible (an easy charge to make given the spending habits of the Republican Congress) and more ethcial (again, with four Republicans resigning due to scandal on the eve of the mid-term elections, an easy case to make). I recommend reading the Klein article, which sheds some light and makes much sense.

Political Hay
Renewing the Contract
By Philip Klein
Published 11/8/2006 12:09:29 AM

... In assessing last night's results it is important to note that it was not a defeat for conservatism; it was a defeat for Republicanism, or at least, what Republicanism has come to represent. In the past 12 years, Republicans went from the party that promised "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money" to the party of the Bridge to Nowhere; it took control of Congress on a pledge to "end its cycle of scandal and disgrace" and went down in defeat as the party of Tom DeLay and Mark Foley.

Having abandoned its core principles, the Republican Party had nothing to run on this year, so its campaign strategy centered on attacking Nancy Pelosi -- a questionable tactic given that, according to some polls, more than half of the country had never even heard of her. Republican strategists who projected optimism over the past few months cited as reasons for their confidence: fundraising, incumbency advantage, gerrymandering and new innovations such as "microtargeting." But as this election made perfectly clear, none of this can bail out a party that is bereft of ideas. ... (Read the full article here.)

Addendum: The best reform for Congress would be to limit the size and scope of the federal government! I commented on this in February of 2006, you can read the post here.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is no party leader

When Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized Tom McClintock on Thursday it wasn’t the policy disagreement that bothered this conservative (although the Governor is wrong on a policy basis); it was the timing of his proclamation.

OAKLAND — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appreciates the Republican lieutenant governor nominee's opinion that the infrastructure bonds on next week's ballot are a mistake but believes he's "totally wrong."

"If you went with his way of thinking, you would never rebuild California," the governor said Thursday of state Sen. Tom McClintock as he visited the Port of Oakland to stump for the $37 billion bond package." (Read the full story here.)

The Governor does little without thorough review and scripting through his handlers, it is not likely that he took a shot at Tom McClintock on the eve of the election without realizing that it would hurt Senator McClintock’s chances of besting his liberal Democrat opponent on Tuesday. Such calculated attacks on GOP candidates are a clear indicator that this Governor is all about “this Governor;” he's not a team player, and certainly he's not a GOP leader.

A party leader would not stifle the electoral hopes of a leading GOP candidate who will be in position to carry the GOP standard as a gubernatorial candidate in 2010.

The Sounds of Silence

That other deafening sound you hear out on the campaign trail is the utter lack of any support for GOP Attorney General candidate Chuck Poochigian by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The importance of the office of the Attorney General is without question. This year in particular, there is no other race for statewide office more important. The election for AG garners the title of “most important” for two reasons. First, the election of Jerry Brown to this office is going to be disastrous for the California business climate – Chuck Poochigian is far better suited for this post. Second, the election of Chuck Poochigian provides Republicans and California a thoughtful and responsible conservative for consideration as Governor in 2010. Despite the need to build the GOP’s bench, Governor Schwarzenegger has done nothing to visibly help Senator Poochigian in his campaign.

What about Coat-Tails?

Perhaps one could argue that Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaign for re-election has provided coat-tails, and that despite his lack of Party-building those coat-tails qualify him to be California’s GOP leader. Not so; if beating one of the mighty Lilliputians by a wide margin somehow translates into GOP victories in California on the down ticket races it will be a nice byproduct of the Schwarzenegger victory, but it will not be the result of anything Governor Schwarzenegger has done to assist those candidates. Party leadership requires that the leader engages affirmatively not just to promote his own self interest, but to also develop and build the bench for the future.

The Governor’s attack on Tom McClintock and his silence on Chuck Poochigian are clear evidence that he is not a leader; he is merely a self-promoter.