MAY 18, 2009 POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS
Preparing for the legislative session, state Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek concluded that the biggest problem facing public schools was parish school boards. Its members served too long, were paid too much and meddled in day-to-day matters that should be left to parish superintendents.
To change all that, he got behind a package of legislative bills to impose term limits on school board members, to restrict their pay to $50 per meeting and to prohibit them from trying to influence administrators' hiring and firing decisions.
A couple of North Louisiana legislators had a different view of the most pressing problem with education, the same that has plagued Louisiana for decades: that nearly 40 percent of high schoolers drop out or fail to graduate within four years.
Rep. Jim Fannin, D-Jonesboro, and Sen. Bob Kostelka, R-Monroe, came up with a not-so-new solution, an alternative curriculum track that would focus more on vocational training instead of college preparatory courses and thus would encourage struggling students to stay in school.
But the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education at first opposed the career track plan because it relaxed promotion requirements and watered down course work so as to not meaningfully prepare students for work or life.
Supporters of both approaches, one to crack down on school boards and the other to ease up on potential dropouts, set off to the Capitol to make their cases.
There, not so surprisingly, the Pastorek plan quickly ran into trouble. The term-limits bill was squashed in committee and the pay-cut proposal was deemed dead on arrival. The so-called micromanagement bill has had trouble getting a full hearing and faces stout opposition from school boards.
Meanwhile, identical House and Senate anti-dropout bills have struck a chord with lawmakers and are breezing through both bodies. They even gained the qualified support of BESE and Pastorek by requiring four years of both English and math.
But the big sticking point remains that the bills lower the LEAP test threshold for eighth graders to advance to the ninth grade and to enter the career diploma track. Instead of meeting the current promotion requirement of scoring "basic" in either English or math and "approaching basic" on the other, career track students would only have to achieve "approaching basic" on either. That means, as ninth graders, they could almost read or almost do math.
BESE members fear, rightly so, that the relaxed eighth-grade standard would wreck the hard-won accountability system by taking pressure off of students, teachers and parents after the fourth-grade LEAP test. In effect, remediation of many struggling students would end and the informal career-tracking of them would begin in the fifth grade. That's way too early to give up on the prospects of kids going to college.
If an acceptable compromise can be reached on standards for promotion, most BESE members could support the legislators' plan for reducing dropouts. Especially since it would not be that different from anti-dropout policies that the state has in place today.
There is a law on the books, largely ignored, requiring local school districts to develop a five-year curriculum plan, whether career-based or college prep, for every student.
The state also has developed a highly successful dropout prevention program called Jobs for America's Graduates, which is heavy on remediation and which partners with businesses to give students work experience while completing high school. JAG has a 90 percent graduation rate, but only 13 of 70 school districts offer it throughout the high school grades.
The state can develop anti-dropout and career option programs and make some funds available, but it is up to local school boards to make them happen.
"If every district were doing what they should be doing for the last ten years, we wouldn't be here," says BESE member Penny Dastugue. Even the Kostelka-Fannin bills allow school boards to opt out of the career diploma plan.
If school boards don't put the effort and resources into dropout intervention, there is not a lot BESE and the Legislature can do. So perhaps instead of the Legislature setting education policy, it should let BESE do that, while--coming full circle--it should also insist that local school boards do their jobs and not meddle with those of their superintendents.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
What Payback? Jindal Gets His Way
MAY 11, 2009 POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS
Oh, the world of hurt Bobby Jindal was supposed to be in by now.
A month ago, his constant coast-to-coast fundraising was straining the patience of even his friends, who wished aloud that he were spending more time at home dealing with the state's problems. And there were plenty of those, mostly linked to a gaping budget deficit, which promised to make his first legislative fiscal session a miserable one. Add to that, lawmakers, still harboring grudges for his vetoes of their pay raise and scores of local projects last year, were said to be lying in wait for payback.
It looked like an ominous session indeed for the governor, until it began, when the scene at the Capitol snapped back to the old reality. In the first two weeks, the governor's staff efficiently snuffed out or sidetracked bills the administration opposed, advanced ones it liked and easily fended off legislators' initial budget raids on his economic development mega fund.
He also demonstrated a grasp for the art of the deal by proposing creative terms for a new long-term contract with the New Orleans Saints while at the same time pushing approval of spending $50 million to save a chicken processing plant in Northeast Louisiana. The two are not connected, but politically they are wed, with regional support for each neutralizing opposition to the other. The unspoken linkage of the two makes for a pretty slick deal, worthy of Edwin Edwards, and it's even legal.
What did Jindal do to reassert his influence and authority over a resentful Legislature? Why, he showed up, which is pretty much all that's needed in a political system that affords so much power to a governor when he acts like one.
Democrats outnumber his Republicans, especially in the Senate, but partisanship has yet to come into play in this session. The most direct challenge to Gov. Jindal's fiscal policy, the proposed cigarette tax to restore healthcare cuts, has not unified Democrats.
They will band together more to challenge his refusal to accept $98 million in added unemployment benefits from the federal stimulus package, but supporters concede it won't be enough to overcome his promised veto.
The issue that is causing Jindal the most trouble, at least in the public prints, comes at the hands of two Republicans. He has strongly opposed identical bills by Rep. Wayne Waddell of Shreveport and Sen. Robert Adley of Benton to make public more records in the governor's office, which is currently rated among the least transparent in the nation.
The governor's broad exemption from the public records act predates Jindal, but it perfectly suits his control personality that is reflected in his protective, insular staff.
Legislators and his contributors learned quickly not to expect return phone calls from the governor. He talks to people when he needs them, not the other way around.
Formalizing any more access to his office is not in his interest. The legal contortions New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is going through fighting the release of his schedule and e-mail probably makes the governor all the more careful to not let down his public records shield.
Now if legislators were truly seeking revenge for Jindal's veto of their payraise, they would pass a public records law opening up his office like a sardine can.
That they haven't suggests the notion of veto payback is vastly overstated. Legislators may still resent his nixing their raises, but some concede he did them a favor. What if they were pulling down $50,000+ in total compensation while considering big budget cuts that would force layoffs in higher education and healthcare? Half of them would be facing recall petitions and harboring little hope of re-election. The mistake he and they both made was in forming their secret pact, which intense public anger, acting as a force majeure, nullified.
Lawmakers might still pass a public records bill Jindal doesn't like, or find some other vote on which to stick him. But most of them, when it gets right down to it, want to stay in the governor's good graces, even if he ignores them most of the time.
Oh, the world of hurt Bobby Jindal was supposed to be in by now.
A month ago, his constant coast-to-coast fundraising was straining the patience of even his friends, who wished aloud that he were spending more time at home dealing with the state's problems. And there were plenty of those, mostly linked to a gaping budget deficit, which promised to make his first legislative fiscal session a miserable one. Add to that, lawmakers, still harboring grudges for his vetoes of their pay raise and scores of local projects last year, were said to be lying in wait for payback.
It looked like an ominous session indeed for the governor, until it began, when the scene at the Capitol snapped back to the old reality. In the first two weeks, the governor's staff efficiently snuffed out or sidetracked bills the administration opposed, advanced ones it liked and easily fended off legislators' initial budget raids on his economic development mega fund.
He also demonstrated a grasp for the art of the deal by proposing creative terms for a new long-term contract with the New Orleans Saints while at the same time pushing approval of spending $50 million to save a chicken processing plant in Northeast Louisiana. The two are not connected, but politically they are wed, with regional support for each neutralizing opposition to the other. The unspoken linkage of the two makes for a pretty slick deal, worthy of Edwin Edwards, and it's even legal.
What did Jindal do to reassert his influence and authority over a resentful Legislature? Why, he showed up, which is pretty much all that's needed in a political system that affords so much power to a governor when he acts like one.
Democrats outnumber his Republicans, especially in the Senate, but partisanship has yet to come into play in this session. The most direct challenge to Gov. Jindal's fiscal policy, the proposed cigarette tax to restore healthcare cuts, has not unified Democrats.
They will band together more to challenge his refusal to accept $98 million in added unemployment benefits from the federal stimulus package, but supporters concede it won't be enough to overcome his promised veto.
The issue that is causing Jindal the most trouble, at least in the public prints, comes at the hands of two Republicans. He has strongly opposed identical bills by Rep. Wayne Waddell of Shreveport and Sen. Robert Adley of Benton to make public more records in the governor's office, which is currently rated among the least transparent in the nation.
The governor's broad exemption from the public records act predates Jindal, but it perfectly suits his control personality that is reflected in his protective, insular staff.
Legislators and his contributors learned quickly not to expect return phone calls from the governor. He talks to people when he needs them, not the other way around.
Formalizing any more access to his office is not in his interest. The legal contortions New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is going through fighting the release of his schedule and e-mail probably makes the governor all the more careful to not let down his public records shield.
Now if legislators were truly seeking revenge for Jindal's veto of their payraise, they would pass a public records law opening up his office like a sardine can.
That they haven't suggests the notion of veto payback is vastly overstated. Legislators may still resent his nixing their raises, but some concede he did them a favor. What if they were pulling down $50,000+ in total compensation while considering big budget cuts that would force layoffs in higher education and healthcare? Half of them would be facing recall petitions and harboring little hope of re-election. The mistake he and they both made was in forming their secret pact, which intense public anger, acting as a force majeure, nullified.
Lawmakers might still pass a public records bill Jindal doesn't like, or find some other vote on which to stick him. But most of them, when it gets right down to it, want to stay in the governor's good graces, even if he ignores them most of the time.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Proposed Laws to Touch Everyday Lives
MAY 4, 2009 POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS
When lawmakers meet in fiscal session every other year, they are supposed to focus almost entirely on budgetary matters. But this year that picture is so bleak and their chances of improving it much are so small that it's understandable there are an unusually high number of non-fiscal bills on a variety of subjects, including a batch that would touch everyday lives.
It bothers some that a government having trouble running its own business should be messing with anybody else's. Yet we all daily see people behaving in ways that are dangerous to themselves and others, and who could use Big Brother, if not their mama, keeping a closer eye on them.
This would include those who insist on the right to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, which was granted in a 1996 bill and then repealed in 2004. Rep. Jim Morris, R-Oil City, is back with legislation to allow motorcyclists 21 or older to ride with heads free in the wind. Opponents point out that drivers not very well insured would become a burden on society should they bust those heads open.
Beyond the financial responsibility question, the larger problem for the bill is that it flies in the face of good common sense. Such can be suspended by legislators if it is very important to the governor, as it was during Mike Foster's eight years without helmets. Gov. Bobby Jindal supports the bill to lift the ban again, but he doesn't seem to be leaning on legislators too hard to pass it, and so it probably won't be.
Not using a cell phone while driving also makes good common sense, but it will take passage of a bill by Rep. Austin Badon, D-New Orleans, to change that daily bad habit of hundreds of thousands of drivers. Last year, Badon's bill narrowly passed the House but failed in the Senate, and its prospects look no better this time.
It still ought to be law, even though any such ban would be spottily enforced at best. Law-abiding drivers would gravitate toward hands-free devices, or simply refrain, making them better able to watch out for those who aren't going to let some statute make them hang up.
Lawmakers did take a small step in the right direction last year by banning the sending or reading of text messages or e-mails while at the wheel. This would now include the new rage of twittering, the obsession of a growing number to post on-line the details of their lives every five minutes. That's not stopping more and more people from tweating in traffic--Going to the dentist!--but at least they are helpfully offering self-incriminating evidence.
Smoking while driving is not illegal, yet. Paranoid puffers might wonder, though, given government's relentless march to stamp out the practice in all public places. Now a bill by Rep. Gary Smith, D-Norco, seeks to take away one of the last refuges of smokers: the barroom. Yet, judging by key supporters of this bill, the concern is not about public health, but, rather, competition.
The restaurant industry complains that the 2006 law to make eating establishments smoke-free has put them at a competitive disadvantage to bars that serve some food, which were exempted. An alternative bill would allow smoking only in bars that serve no food, not even those scary-looking pickled eggs. But our liquor laws are confusing enough that it might be time to clear the air and tell the smokers to take it outside.
Probably no law enforcement device has modified public behavior more than cameras at traffic intersections that catch drivers running red lights. Most citizens wholeheartedly approve of the cameras, until they get caught, at which point many become civil libertarians, complaining about due process. Taking up their cause is Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans, who has filed a bill to make cities and parishes turn off the cameras.
This bill has some vocal supporters, but likely not enough to make legislators empathize with lawbreakers caught in the act. Camera technology and the legal process might be improved, but driving behavior already has been, as I can self-attest. Traffic cameras might be the most effective law enforcement technology since fingerprinting, which is why legislators should keep their hands off.
When lawmakers meet in fiscal session every other year, they are supposed to focus almost entirely on budgetary matters. But this year that picture is so bleak and their chances of improving it much are so small that it's understandable there are an unusually high number of non-fiscal bills on a variety of subjects, including a batch that would touch everyday lives.
It bothers some that a government having trouble running its own business should be messing with anybody else's. Yet we all daily see people behaving in ways that are dangerous to themselves and others, and who could use Big Brother, if not their mama, keeping a closer eye on them.
This would include those who insist on the right to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, which was granted in a 1996 bill and then repealed in 2004. Rep. Jim Morris, R-Oil City, is back with legislation to allow motorcyclists 21 or older to ride with heads free in the wind. Opponents point out that drivers not very well insured would become a burden on society should they bust those heads open.
Beyond the financial responsibility question, the larger problem for the bill is that it flies in the face of good common sense. Such can be suspended by legislators if it is very important to the governor, as it was during Mike Foster's eight years without helmets. Gov. Bobby Jindal supports the bill to lift the ban again, but he doesn't seem to be leaning on legislators too hard to pass it, and so it probably won't be.
Not using a cell phone while driving also makes good common sense, but it will take passage of a bill by Rep. Austin Badon, D-New Orleans, to change that daily bad habit of hundreds of thousands of drivers. Last year, Badon's bill narrowly passed the House but failed in the Senate, and its prospects look no better this time.
It still ought to be law, even though any such ban would be spottily enforced at best. Law-abiding drivers would gravitate toward hands-free devices, or simply refrain, making them better able to watch out for those who aren't going to let some statute make them hang up.
Lawmakers did take a small step in the right direction last year by banning the sending or reading of text messages or e-mails while at the wheel. This would now include the new rage of twittering, the obsession of a growing number to post on-line the details of their lives every five minutes. That's not stopping more and more people from tweating in traffic--Going to the dentist!--but at least they are helpfully offering self-incriminating evidence.
Smoking while driving is not illegal, yet. Paranoid puffers might wonder, though, given government's relentless march to stamp out the practice in all public places. Now a bill by Rep. Gary Smith, D-Norco, seeks to take away one of the last refuges of smokers: the barroom. Yet, judging by key supporters of this bill, the concern is not about public health, but, rather, competition.
The restaurant industry complains that the 2006 law to make eating establishments smoke-free has put them at a competitive disadvantage to bars that serve some food, which were exempted. An alternative bill would allow smoking only in bars that serve no food, not even those scary-looking pickled eggs. But our liquor laws are confusing enough that it might be time to clear the air and tell the smokers to take it outside.
Probably no law enforcement device has modified public behavior more than cameras at traffic intersections that catch drivers running red lights. Most citizens wholeheartedly approve of the cameras, until they get caught, at which point many become civil libertarians, complaining about due process. Taking up their cause is Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans, who has filed a bill to make cities and parishes turn off the cameras.
This bill has some vocal supporters, but likely not enough to make legislators empathize with lawbreakers caught in the act. Camera technology and the legal process might be improved, but driving behavior already has been, as I can self-attest. Traffic cameras might be the most effective law enforcement technology since fingerprinting, which is why legislators should keep their hands off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
