Search This Blog

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Comments on NYC Department of Education CEO Dennis Walcott's Threats To All People Who Want To Change Bloomberg's Ed Deform Policies


It's always interesting to read the pandering by journalists given space in our nations newspapers to praise the disastrous education deform of the last 12 years put into place by Mike Bloomberg and his sidekick, Dennis Walcott. It is up to us, the general public, to say "I dont believe you" and, "no thanks".


Betsy Combier




In New York’s Schools Chief, a Knack for Quiet Conciliation


This article was reported by David M. Halbfinger, Javier C. Hernandez and Fernanda Santos and written by Mr. Halbfinger.
They called him “Dirt” — and said it with affection. Playing in a recreational football league in the 1970s, his teammates recall, Dennis M. Walcott was a walking laundry-detergent commercial, constantly making tackles.
During one game, as he pulled himself to his feet after sacking the quarterback, an opponent sucker-punched him in the jaw. The benches cleared, and Mr. Walcott’s buddies — the only all-black team in a nearly all-white league on Staten Island — looked to him for a signal. But he shook it off.
“We weren’t there to fight,” he said. “It could have been a race war.”
After early work mentoring children in Queens and a searing stint in Harlem finding homes for crack babies — he even adopted two children of an addict — Mr. Walcott rose to the presidency of the New York Urban League, one of the city’s premier civil rights groups. But in the racial turmoil of the Giuliani years, Mr. Walcott refrained from getting arrested alongside scores of politicians and other black leaders in demonstrations against police brutality. He chose to advise the embattled police commissioner behind the scenes, trusting that his subdued approach would be more likely to win results.
All along, his trademark has been forbearance, and in his new role as New York City’s schools chancellor, Mr. Walcott will test whether the nation’s full-tilt approach to urban education reform is ready for a different kind of leader. But for the past nine years as a deputy mayor whose main responsibility was to oversee the Department of Education, he has left only the faintest of fingerprints during a time of momentous changes to the schools.
In a lengthy interview, Mr. Walcott struggled to name any achievements for which he had been the driving force, finally citing the creation of an early-literacy program for children in public housing and a mayoral Office of Adult Education.
In a City Hall populated with visionary strategists, managerial wizards and publicity magnets, Mr. Walcott was none of these. Working between a strong-willed mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, and a tenacious chancellor, Joel I. Klein, he seemed more comfortable in a role as deputy mayor for mollification: mediating disputes, calming tensions and endlessly listening.
That, of course, may be precisely what is needed at this moment: Mr. Walcott is taking over the nation’s largest school system after a disastrous experiment with Cathleen P. Black, at a time of low mayoral approval ratings and with teacher layoffs and other retrenchments in the offing.
But Mr. Walcott, 59, concedes that despite his years in City Hall, there is little record on which to judge whether he is the right person to defend, advance and improve upon Mr. Bloomberg’s education agenda of test-based accountability, welcoming charter schools and closing failing ones.
“People will question spine,” Mr. Walcott said. “I’m very confident about decision-making and toughness. It will be my actions they have to take a look at over the next two and a half years to determine whether there is spine or not.”
In Two Worlds
Backyard baseball with a tree stump for home plate. Trombone in the school orchestra. Biking down the street under the watchful eyes of friendly neighbors.
It was “Leave It to Beaver,” but black, to hear Mr. Walcott describe his childhood in the Addisleigh Park section of southeast Queens, a destination for ambitious émigrés from Harlem and Brooklyn that was already dotted with celebrities like John ColtraneElla Fitzgerald, and W. E. B. Du Bois.
Dennis Malcolm Walcott was an only child, born in 1951 to Dennis C. and Eleanor Walcott. His father was an exterminator for the city’s Housing Authority who never finished high school, even-tempered and affable; his mother, a city social worker, the tough-minded family “enforcer.”
The couple wanted Dennis to succeed in a white world, so they sent him for three summers to Lincoln Farm Work Camp, in the Catskills, where teenagers labored on construction projects. The children of Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee were there, but nearly everyone else was white and wealthy, he said.
Mr. Walcott graduated from Francis Lewis High School and thought he might become a psychiatrist. He went to the University of Bridgeport, in Connecticut, a small seaside campus not too far from home. But neither of his parents saw him graduate. His father fell ill and died in 1971, at age 60. The next year, on spring break from his senior year, Mr. Walcott arrived home to find his mother, 48, dead on the living room floor. He did not want an autopsy, so the cause was never determined.
Her body was beneath a window looking out to the street. “The theory was that she was sitting on the chair, waiting for me to come in,” he said.
Mr. Walcott abruptly changed his diet, cutting out things he thought might bring on the diabetes that had stricken many of the men in his family. These days he avoids red meat and seldom eats anything but a salad for lunch. He once favored Old Grand-Dad and colas, but now rarely touches alcohol and does not smoke.
With a master’s in education, he found a job teaching kindergarten at a new church-run school in Queens. He was unenthusiastic about the work, a friend recalled. But he was moved by the longings of boys who had no fathers at home, and he created his own “Brother to Brother” program.
Mr. Walcott persuaded a television station to broadcast a free advertisement during “Soul Train,” he said, and the flood of interest from single mothers and male volunteers was more than he could handle. He ended the program.
In 1977, he married Denise St. Hill — they had met as young children and reconnected by chance at a party — just as he started working at a foster-care agency in Manhattan as part of a master’s program in social work. He later interned at the Greater New York Fund, the arm of the United Way that handed out grants to smaller nonprofits.
Friends and bosses marveled at his listening skills, calm and maturity. “He could always talk himself out of sticky situations or stay above the fray,” Nancy Gresham-Jones, a classmate and a co-worker, said.
The fund hired him full time, assigning him to work with recipient agencies to improve operations. One was Harlem-Dowling Children’s Services, the first black-run adoption agency in New York, whose finances were a mess after management changes and a bookkeeper’s conviction for embezzlement.
Mr. Walcott became its executive director in 1985, just in time for the crack epidemic. Staggering numbers of babies were being born with drug toxicity or H.I.V., or were being abandoned at birth. In one day alone, he found foster homes for 30 “boarder babies” left at Harlem Hospital.
He was a hands-on director: watching a child die of AIDS complications; helping a little girl born without a stomach; rushing to a woman’s home to talk her out of suicide. When a wealthy woman offered to do something nice one Christmas, Mr. Walcott said, he sent to her home two children who had never had a hot bath.
“Things like that were emotionally draining,” he said. “It was a trying period in time, and you’re right in the fulcrum of it.”
By the time he took over the New York Urban League in 1990, he had two daughters. But when he heard of a girl named Shatisha, 10, and her brother Timmy, 5, who needed a home, Mr. Walcott and his wife signed up to take them in as foster parents and soon adopted them. He later reconnected the two with their birth mother, who has been clean for a number of years.
A Challenging Decade
Mr. Walcott embraced the Urban League’s mission, even tattooing its logo, an apple with an equal sign, on his right arm. He worked particularly hard to expand city-financed programs aimed at reducing infant mortality, training welfare recipients for work and coaching parents to get involved in schools.
“Dennis moved the league into government contracts it never had before,” said Harvey Newman, then a board member. “I don’t know if it was a swimming success. But it changed the direction of the Urban League.” From 1993 to 1999, state records show, the league’s government financing grew by $2.2 million, or 54 percent.
In 1993, before he lost his re-election bid, Mayor David N. Dinkins appointed Mr. Walcott to the Board of Education, where he served for just over a year. Norman Steisel, a deputy mayor, recalled Mr. Walcott working on a model for mayoral control of the schools that would entail “extensive parental involvement,” but the plan went nowhere.
One of Mr. Walcott’s greatest victories as an advocate was his most fleeting one: a federal court ruling that briefly blocked a subway fare increase in 1995. Represented by a lawyer named Eric T. Schneiderman, now the state’s attorney general, the Urban League and the Straphangers Campaign argued that minorities were being hit harder than suburban whites, whose commuter fares were not rising as sharply.
The decision was overturned the next day. But Gene Russianoff, the Straphangers leader, said he believed it created a political problem for Gov. George E. Pataki that was solved a year later by the introduction of the unlimited-ride MetroCard.
As relations between Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s Police Department and minority communities deteriorated, Mr. Walcott retained his access to senior administration aides by rarely criticizing the mayor publicly, and never in harsh terms.
“That was a very activist period of time,” he said. “We had the Korean boycott; we had Crown Heights. My goal was to walk the line.”
Mr. Walcott helped Howard Safir, the police commissioner, come up with a strategy to push officers to use a kinder demeanor with the public, with sting operations intended to weed out surly officers. The slogan he helped devise — “Courtesy, Professionalism and Respect” — remains emblazoned on patrol cars, Mr. Walcott noted with some pride. “Yeah, that was me,” he said.
Yet his restraint earned Mr. Walcott catcalls from other civil rights leaders who said it was doing little good. “The inside road is a hard row to hoe,” said Michael Meyers, the president of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. “But at the same time, you’ve got to show me that you’re being effective.”
Mr. Walcott said his refusal to get arrested after the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo was one of the toughest decisions he ever made. It also raised questions about whether the Urban League’s reliance on government money for 75 percent of its budget had compromised his independence.
Mr. Walcott denied this. But he acknowledged trying to “protect the league,” and said that taking a more “strident” public stance could have caused “unnecessary pressure or strain on the organization.” Then again, he suggested, perhaps he was being held to an unfair standard.
“I provided services to communities and tried to deal with empowerment and equality, which was part of the mission of the Urban League,” he said. “But defining myself as a civil rights leader — I wouldn’t quite say that. I was in charge of a not-for-profit.”
The City Peacekeeper
In January 2002, Mr. Walcott arrived in City Hall as an odd man out: he was one of few minorities and barely knew Mr. Bloomberg. He wore his differences with pride, sometimes calling himself the “working-class deputy mayor.”
His chief responsibility was limited in part by Mr. Klein’s hands-on style and close relationship with the mayor. So Mr. Walcott became something of a go-between: an ambassador to far-flung corners of the city, a pair of eyes in the department for Mr. Bloomberg and a guardian of Mr. Klein, whose pugnacious style he defended repeatedly in City Hall. Mr. Walcott described his role as being “the glue between two very smart people who have very strong viewpoints.”
He popped in regularly at the department to eavesdrop on meetings or simply to chat. He saw his mission not as coming up with ideas or challenging Mr. Klein, but as working around the edges — reminding officials to call a Harlem politician before proposing a new charter school or pushing for more town hall meetings.
“His style was never to say, ‘No, we’re not going to let you do this,’ ” said Garth Harries, an education official from 2003 to 2009. “It was more like probing and testing to make sure we had done the work and understood the implications of what we were doing.”
When the department was considering closing the Alfred E. Smith Career and Technical Education High School in the Bronx, Mr. Walcott expressed concerns about community opposition. As a result, the department preserved a popular automotive program at the school and phased out other programs.
But when the department faced one of its most contentious decisions, whether to release teacher performance data to the public, Mr. Walcott was conflicted, expressing concerns about denigrating teachers.
Some have interpreted his restraint as excessive deference, even cowardice. Jill Levy, a former president of the principals’ union, grew frustrated with his reluctance to speak up in meetings and to weigh in on issues. “He never disagreed,” she said. “I didn’t see any overt leadership.”
But Dina Paul-Parks, a former aide, said Mr. Walcott was often misjudged. “Dennis is so laid-back that sometimes people tend to think that he is a bit of a wallflower,” she said. “He actually has very, very strong opinions and feels passionately about these issues.”
Still, Mr. Walcott’s knack for peacemaking and consensus-building in tense moments made him indispensable to Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Klein, who each had a habit of alienating other political players.
It was Mr. Walcott, not the blunter Mr. Klein, who was called upon to explain — gently but unapologetically — to parents and community leaders why their schools were being closed for poor performance. So, too, when the fury reached City Hall without warning from the Education Department, it was Mr. Walcott who briefed the mayor, covering for Mr. Klein.
The mayor sent Mr. Walcott to soothe tensions after several crises, including the fatal police shooting of Sean Bell in 2006 — the same year that Mr. Walcott’s son, Timmy Craig-Walcott, was shot in the leg after getting off a bus one night in Queens.
Mr. Walcott’s skills proved critical in 2002, when Mr. Bloomberg wanted the State Legislature to give him control of city schools, and in 2009, when some legislators were demurring over whether to renew that control. Steven Sanders, who was chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee in 2002, said Mr. Walcott approached the task with the discretion of an attorney guarding his client’s interests.
While Mr. Walcott and Mr. Bloomberg get along, they have never been particularly close, City Hall colleagues say. Mr. Bloomberg has invited him to Yankee games and to the inauguration of Barack Obama. Mr. Walcott devoted his vacation time in 2005 to the mayor’s re-election campaign.
But Mr. Walcott sometimes seemed to have trouble getting the mayor’s ear, telling colleagues he was “stalking” Mr. Bloomberg to sound him out on an issue when other officials had no trouble engaging the mayor in conversation.
Always, he was mindful of being the highest ranking African-American in the administration — even welling up with tears in an interview as he described how much he meant to younger minority staff members. At times, Mr. Walcott acted on that sensitivity, as when he cautioned against laying off cafeteria aides because it would disproportionately hit minority workers. But he disappointed some lower-level staff members who privately said they wished he had done more to help minorities land more senior jobs.
It was during the short tenure of Ms. Black that Mr. Walcott took a more commanding role. He was by her side, or behind a curtain, at tense public meetings, and rolled back her decision to take for the department half of any money saved by principals during the year. (The department is now taking back 30 percent.)
The appointment of Ms. Black was contentious, even inside City Hall. The mayor consulted with virtually no one in his administration before naming her, and Mr. Walcott declined to say whether his input had been sought.
But when Ms. Black seemed unable to grasp basic issues three months into her tenure, Mr. Walcott was part of a small circle of advisers who told Mr. Bloomberg that her chancellorship could not be salvaged, according to a person who spoke with the mayor.
True to form, Mr. Walcott refused to discuss what he told the mayor. “That’s between us,” he said.

Sharon Otterman, Mosi Secret and Rebecca White contributed reporting.

From Betsy Combier, below is the real story:
Walcott and 'Bloomy': We "know" what needs to be done - facts be damned - and you "better" do it our way, or get on the highway....

New York Schools Chief Warns Against Changes

MARK BONIFACIO/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

NYC Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott speaks at the Chancellor's Principal Conference at Brooklyn Technical High School.

Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott took a rare shot at the mayoral candidates’ education proposals in a robust speech Saturday that shows Mayor Bloomberg wants to aggressively cement his school reform legacy.
Walcott sharply criticized the candidates for their plans to stop closing failing schools, saying, “the fate of our schools is hanging in the balance” during this “critical juncture.”
“Many of the candidates want the Department of Education to halt its policy of replacing failing schools with successful and innovative new schools,” Walcott told nearly 2,000 principals and school administrators at Brooklyn Technical High School.
“They would have us consign the students who attend them to an awful status quo, and send their students into the world without the benefit of a good education.”
The mild-mannered schools boss, who said he would not endorse any candidate, also blasted some running for office for closely aligning themselves with labor interests.
“I’ve heard endless proposals that would benefit the teachers’ union, but not our students,” he said. “What these promises have in common is that they would hurt children in the service of political interests.”
Candidates Bill de Blasio, John Liu and Bill Thompson have said they would impose a moratorium on school closures and co-locations — and they didn’t shy away from using their own fighting words in response to Walcott’s speech.
“After nearly 12 years of boxing parents out of their kids’ education, the mayor and his commissioners have turned to scare tactics,” de Blasio said in a statement. “But the parents I talk to every day aren’t fearful of a new mayor — they can’t wait to finally have an ally in City Hall.”
Liu questioned why Walcott was defending the administration’s education reforms at this point in the campaigning process. “It would seem that our schools chancellor would have a lot on his plate other than delivering political speeches,” Liu told the News. “Why be so defensive when you’re so sure that everything is perfect?”

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Peter Bregman: What To Do When You've Made Someone Angry


What to Do When You've Made Someone Angry

I was running late. My wife Eleanor and I had agreed to meet at the restaurant at seven o'clock and it was already half past. I had a good excuse in the form of a client meeting that ran over and I wasted no time getting to the dinner as fast as possible.
When I arrived at the restaurant, I apologized and told her I didn't mean to be late.
She answered: "You never mean to be late." Uh oh, she was mad.
"Sorry," I retorted, "but it was unavoidable." I told her about the client meeting. Not only did my explanations not soothe her, they seemed to make things worse. That started to make me angry.
That dinner didn't turn out to be our best.
Several weeks later, when I was describing the situation to a friend of mine, Ken Hardy, a professor of family therapy, he smiled.
"You made a classic mistake," he told me.
"Me? I made the mistake?" I was only half joking.
"Yes. And you just made it again," he said. "You're stuck in your perspective: You didn't mean to be late. But that's not the point. The point is that you were late. The point — and what's important in your communication — is how your lateness impacted Eleanor."
In other words, I was focused on my intention while Eleanor was focused on the consequences. We were having two different conversations. In the end, we both felt unacknowledged, misunderstood, and angry.
The more I thought about what Ken said, the more I recognized that this battle — intention vs. consequences — was the root cause of so much interpersonal discord.
As it turns out, it's not the thought that counts or even the action that counts. That's because the other person doesn't experience your thought or your action. They experience the consequences of your action.
Here's another example: You send an email to a colleague telling him you think he could have spoken up more in a meeting.
He replies to the email, "Maybe if you spoke less, I would have had an opportunity to say something!"
That obviously rankles you. Still, you send off another email trying to clarify the first email: "I didn't mean to offend you, I was trying to help." And then maybe you add some dismay at the aggressiveness of his response.
But that doesn't make things better. He quotes the language of your first email back to you. "Don't you see how it reads?" He asks. "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" You write back, IN CAPS.
So how do you get out of this downward spiral?
It's stunningly simple, actually. When you've done something that upsets someone — no matter who's right — always start the conversation by acknowledging how your actions impacted the other person. Save the discussion about your intentions for later. Much later. Maybe never. Because, in the end, your intentions don't matter much.
What if you don't think the other person is right — or justified — in feeling the way they do? It doesn't matter. Because you're not striving for agreement. You're going for understanding.
What should I have said to Eleanor?
"I see you're angry. You've been sitting here for 30 minutes and that's got to be frustrating. And it's not the first time. Also, I can see how it seems like I think being with a client gives me permission to be late. I'm sorry you had to sit here waiting for so long."
All of that is true. Your job is to acknowledge their reality — which is critical to maintaining the relationship. As Ken described it to me: "If someone's reality, as they see it, is negated, what motivation do they have to stay in the relationship?"
In the email back and forth I described earlier, instead of clarifying what you meant, consider writing something like: "I could see how my criticizing your performance — especially via email — feels obnoxious to you. How it sounds critical and maybe dismissive of your efforts in the meeting."
I said this was simple but I didn't say it was easy.
The hardest part is our emotional resistance. We're so focused on our own challenges that it's often hard to acknowledge the challenges of others. Especially if we are their challenge and they are ours. Especially when they lash out at us in anger. Especially when we feel misunderstood. In that moment, when we empathize with them and their criticism of our behavior, it almost feels like we're betraying ourselves.
But we're not. We're just empathizing.
Here's a trick to make it easier. While they're getting angry at you, imagine, instead, that they're angry at someone else. Then react as you would in that situation. Probably you'd listen and let them know you see how angry they are.
And if you never get to explain your intentions? What I have found in practice — and this surprised me — is that once I've expressed my understanding of the consequences, my need to justify my intentions dissipates.
That's because the reason I'm explaining my intentions in the first place is to repair the relationship. But I've already accomplished that by empathizing with their experience. At that point, we're both usually ready to move on.
And if you do still feel the need? You'll still have the opportunity, once the other person feels seen, heard, and understood.
If we succeed in doing all this well, we'll often find that, along with our relationships, something else gets better: our behavior.
After that last conversation with Eleanor — after really understanding the consequences of my lateness on her — somehow, someway, I've managed to be on time a lot more frequently.
More blog posts by Peter Bregman

Friday, May 17, 2013

John Dean: Obama Will Not Be Tinged By Any Scandal


John Dean
John Dean served as Counsel to the President of the United States from July 1970 to April 1973.  Before becoming White House counsel at age thirty-one, he was the chief minority counsel to the…more.
Jeff Kinsey/Shutterstock.com
After a scandal-free first term, and only a few months into his second term, President Barrack Obama is suddenly faced with a series of burgeoning scandals.  It’s a trifecta: Benghazi, IRS, and the AP’s phone logs.  But a close look shows that these supposed scandals are all smoke and no real fire.  While Congressional Republicans, Fox News, and other anti-Obama wags will try to keep them smoking, no high-level officials in the Obama Administration are going to get burned.  And the broader public will tire of watching the smoke. There is nothing Nixonian or Watergate-like about any of these purported scandals, and those claiming otherwise are remarkably ignorant of history.
As I wrote in my 2004 book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, having experienced Watergate firsthand and having studied virtually every presidential scandal before and after Watergate (out of personal curiosity), I have some understanding of the nature and dynamics of scandals.  (Incidentally, I found the actions of Bush/Cheney to be worse than Watergate because their use of secrecy to take the United States to war in Iraq on the false pretense of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and their use of torture, a crime against humanity, were way beyond scandal.)
Notwithstanding the plentiful material that is available on American political scandals, few American scholars study our scandals.  Indeed, I may be as much of a “personally experienced” expert on political scandals as can be found, so I am offering a few of my thoughts on Obama’s growing problems, while also drawing upon the thoughts of a academics who have studied them.
Although all scandals have much in common, each has its own unique DNA, so they must be addressed separately.  But let me begin with an analysis of the common characteristics of all modern political scandals.
The Nature of Modern Political Scandals
UK academic Robert Williams (University of Durham) undertook a study for Political Scandals in the USA (1998) noting that “[a]ttempts to classify scandals have been fraught with difficulties” because they are difficult to define.  Yet this definitional problem is less of  a problem with “political” scandals, for such scandals, by their very name, involve those within the political process.
As Williams notes, political scandals “tend to involve the use of public office for private benefit and/or the abuse of power in the pursuit of policy goals.” In addition, many such scandals have involved election finance. More specifically, he notes: “although every political scandal is different, they all usually involve allegations of violation of the political process and the illegitimate exercise of power.” I would add that they frequently involve sex as well.
Another UK scholar, John B. Thompson (University of Cambridge), I believe has even more perceptively analyzed modern scandal in his work Political Scandals: Power and Visibility In the Media Age (2000).  In examining the etymology of the word scandal, Thompson comes up with a modern working definition: The modern scandal “refers to actions or events involving certain kinds of transgressions which become known to others and are sufficiently serious to elicit a public response.” More specifically, modern scandals provoke a response by the mainstream (non-partisan, as well as both right- and left-leaning) media.
Viewing scandal in these terms, Thompson found that they all had common characteristics: (1) the transgression violated widely held values, norms or moral code; (2) typically there is an element of secrecy; (3) non-participants are offended by the transgression; (4) and this disapproval is expressed publicly by denouncing the actions or events; and, in most cases but not all, (5) the disclosure and condemnation of the actions or events damages the reputation of those responsible.  Most importantly, however, Thompson found that modern political scandals are “mediated,” meaning that the news and other media take the disclosure of the transgression, and make it an issue for public discussion.  In fact, if the media ignores a reported transgression, it will not likely become a scandal.
With this background in mind, let’s look at the three scandals that have erupted to confront the Obama Administration, taking them in the order they have arisen: The Benghazi scandal, the scandal regarding the IRS’s targeting of conservative organizations, and the scandal over the Department of Justice’s subpoenaing the telephone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press.
The Benghazi Scandal
As readers will doubtless recall, on September 11, 2012, the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, Libya, was attacked, and ten people were injured, along with four who were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  Following the attack, on September 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the death of Ambassador Stevens, and President Obama, joined by Secretary Clinton, denounced the attack from the Rose Garden at the White House.  On September 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on virtually all of the Sunday TV talks shows in Washington, and provided the Obama Administration’s analysis of the situation.
For example, on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Rice responded to a question of whether the attack was preplanned as follows: “We’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions,” Rice began. “But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy . . . sparked by this hateful [anti-Muslin] video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that—in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent . . . .  We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
When Rice was asked whether or not al Qaeda was involved, she replied: “Well, we’ll have to find that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”
Republicans have taken exception to everything that happened in Benghazi by accusing Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton,, and President Obama each of lying, and the Obama Administration of failing to protect the Americans stationed at Benghazi. Republicans  sought initially to make this an issue in the 2012 election, with Mitt Romney accusing President Obama of refusing to describe it as a terrorist attack on September 12th, when, in fact, the President had done exactly that, which resulted in Romney’s eating crow for his false public accusation during the presidential debate.
Most recently, the Republicans have held hearings for Benghazi “whistleblowers“ before the House Oversight Committee chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA), who has been searching for years for Obama scandals.  The news media largely ignored the hearings, which were something of a non-event. Notwithstanding months of effort, accompanied by a full-throated chorus of conservative media outlets, to make this a major scandal, Bill Maher spoke for millions of Americans when he recently said, “I still don’t understand what the scandal is.” Understandably, President Obama recently called the GOP Benghazi focus “a sideshow.”
Viewing this situation analytically, Benghazi is a political scandal ONLY for Republicans. In truth, it is a scandal in search of an offending underlying transgression.  Actually, it is more like a GOP conspiracy theory, which keeps evolving as questions are answered by claiming new purported wrong, than it is like a scandal. The GOP motive appears to be to somehow muddy and seeks to harm Hillary Clinton since it happened on her watch as Secretary of State.  In fact, I think the GOP is doing Hillary a favor by taking the air out of this issue if she decides to run for president in 2016, because you cannot create a scandal when no one can figure out what the wrongdoing was, and simply inventing new alleged wrongdoings, which distort the truth and are based on the same basic facts, only works for a short time.
The legs on this so-called scandal have been buckling and wobbling for months.  I expect the Republicans to soon give it up, since they now have what they believe are better scandals with which to work, particularly the scandal regarding purported abuse of power by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an issue all Americans understand.
The Scandal Relating to IRS Targeting of Conservative Organizations
On May 17, 2013, the acting commissioner of IRS, Steve Miller, and the Inspector General of the Treasury Department, Russell George, who recently issued an investigative report,are/were scheduled to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee.  They will address the scandal that erupted a week earlier, when Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, let slip the fact that the IRS had targeted conservative organizations seeking 501(c)(4) exemption from the tax code as “social welfare” organizations.  Within hours, it exploded into a scandal.
Lois Lerner, a career federal employee and attorney, is not a person who would be cast as the catalyst of an IRS scandal.  She became the face of this scandal when she was answering questions at a meeting in Washington of the tax section of the American Bar Association (ABA).  It appears that she did not plan to create the outcry that has resulted, althoughsome have questioned if she made her comment in anticipation of the critical report that was being prepared by the Treasury Department’s Inspector General.
Given the disastrous conference call that followed her comments at the ABA meeting, I doubt that she planned to cause the stir that has resulted.  While she is an experienced and capable upper mid-level federal employee, she was over her head in dealing with the news media and the public alarm—and ensuing scandal—that her comments at the ABA provoked.
The IRS is an agency all Americans love to hate.  It has had a long history of scandals, although none of recent vintage. The underlying transgression of treating any taxpayer unfairly, and with political bias, is something that is widely understood and inherently offensive.  Not surprisingly, it is believed by many—though the facts are still unclear—that this activity was widespread and went beyond the Exempt Organizations Division operations in Cincinnati, Ohio, as some claim. This matter will be sorted out in the Congressional hearings.
This is not, however, as claimed by conservative commentators like George Will, the equivalent of the activities for which Richard Nixon was impeached, and the 1974 House impeachment inquiry did not know a fraction of what Nixon was doing. (For a book-in-progress, I am listening to Nixon’s once-secret recordings, hundreds of conversations relating to Watergate that no one has bothered to transcribe, or maybe even listen to.  Nixon’s demands to use the IRS against his perceived enemies were stunning, far beyond anything I even suspected when I was working for him.  He only spoke with his two top aides, H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman, on this subject—and he wanted to use the IRS as a weapon against those who caused him political problems.)
President Obama is actually fortunate that the Treasury Department’s Inspector General (these IG offices throughout government are post-Watergate reforms) had received complaints from Members of Congress about the granting of 501(c)(4) exemptions, and had undertaken an investigation, which partially leaked after Lois Lerner made her comments about targeting conservative organizations, but has now been released in full. That report indicates that the targeting of conservative groups was an internal IRS decision—mismanagement of the exemption procedure, according to the IG. It was  not a result of the Obama White House’s calling for it.
While Republicans will undoubtedly pound the scandal drum about this activity to make it seen to be more than, in fact, it was, this too will not be a significant scandal.  The underlying transgression does not appear to have been motivated by partisan politics or pressure, but rather by ineptitude by lower IRS employees, and by IRS management’s failing to correct a conspicuously bad practice.  And Attorney General Eric Holder’s FBI investigation of IRS, in which he has made clear that if any IRS officials gave Congress false information then they will be held responsible, along with the resignation of the Acting Commissioner, is taking the oxygen out of this scandal quickly.
The Scandal Relating to the Justice Department’s Subpoenaing AP Telephone Records
The fact that the U.S. Department of Justice secretly obtained the telephone toll records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press (AP) in connection with its investigation of a serious leak of national security information has angered both the left and right, and given the fact that this scandal involves the news media, they are outraged on both left and right.  Nonetheless, this is not really a scandal for there does not appear to be an underlying transgression by those in government.  Rather, the scandal simply illustrates that newspeople are very unhappy with the policy of the Obama Administration in prosecuting leakers.
This story broke when the AP reported that it had been informed by the Justice Department that it had secretly obtained AP phone records (listing incoming and outgoing calls) of several AP reporters and editors who were involved in a May 7, 2012 story about a CIA operation that thwarted a terror attack in Yemen.  The head of the AP sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder claiming that the government had sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation, and demanded the return of the phone records and the destruction of all copies.
Later reports have revealed that the records were obtained after a federal judge approved a subpoena, which was sought pursuant to Justice Department regulations that apply in such First Amendment-sensitive cases, and was approved by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, a seasoned career attorney who runs the day-to-day operations of the department.  There is no underlying transgression, no wrongdoing by those conducting the investigation. Rather, there is displeasure among the news media with Obama’s policy of going after those who leak national security information—which they only have access to because they have pledged that they will not provide it to unauthorized parties.
Ironically, many of the members of Congress who are now complaining about the subpoena had earlier called for the Justice Department to conduct an investigation of this leak—which made President Obama look good in breaking up an Al Qaeda plot to kill Americans before the elections—because they believed that the Obama White House was behind leaking the information before the election to help the president. Now they are complaining about that investigation, and an unhappy news media is delighted to cover them.
All presidents are troubled by national-security leaks.  No president can govern in a fishbowl, but there is a delicate balance to be struck in dealing with such leaks.  The underlying statute prohibiting leaks—the Espionage Act—was written in 1917, and while it is broad enough to cover news outlets that publish leaked information, no president has gone beyond those who leaked the classified information in the first place.  Congress hasclearly authorized all presidents to pursue leaks of classified information.   In seeking the records of the AP in the investigation that has caused the current outrage, the Obama Justice Department has not gone nearly as far as it might, and called the AP’s editors and reporters before the grand jury to demand that they reveal their source(s) or be jailed for contempt of court.  So using a court-approved subpoena is hardly an overreach.  In addition, every reporter in Washington who covers national security stories knows that you do not talk to leakers on the telephone, or in places where there are surveillance cameras.
In sum, this scandal is all mediation and no underlying transgression.
The Bottom Line on Obama’s Scandals
If these three purported scandals are handled properly, President Obama should have no problem with dispatching them.  How he proceeds from here will determine if he is even tinged by them at all.
Photo Credit: Jeff Kinsey/Shutterstock.com

John W. Dean, a Justia columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Susan Ohanian: The Common Core Debate


    Extreme Common Core rhetoric clouds serious debate
    LINK
    Ohanian Comment: The fact that Phyllis Schlaffley and I agree on opposing the Common Core doesn't scare me. . . or drive me into alignment with her other opinions. If you doubt her proposition about training students to be obedient servants of the government, think about the way teachers are being forced to become obedient servants of the government's Common Core. Remember: the Feds are pushing the Common Core States agreed to adopt the Common Core only because they didn't want to risk access to federal monies. Of course state departments of education are now rushing to push quite bizarre curriculum.

    I'm disappointed that Valerie Strauss chooses to give lots of ink to the "teachers need more time" approach a la Randi Weingarten. I commented on Weingarten's 'teachers need more time' strategy here.

    Teachers don't need more time to learn the Common Core. They need to stand up for their right make professional decisions. They need to learn how to say no. The outrage is that teachers have no union or professional organization to organize and bolster their professional independence.

    Who's doing more harm to public education? Glenn Beck or Randi Weingarten?

    It's a question worth discussing. 


    by Valerie Strauss 

    The Common Core State Standards initiative was started with bipartisan support. But new and often nonsensical criticism from right-wing Republicans is making it seem as if the Core is a partisan issue, and, further, is clouding important and serious-minded criticism about the standards and their implementation. 

    Far right-wing commentators, such as Glenn Beck, are shouting that the Core is essentially an effort by the federal government to rip children out of the control of their parents. Beck said recently: 

    You as a parent are going to be completely pushed out of the loop. The state is completely pushed out of the loop. They now have control of your children. 

    Conservative commentator Phyllis Schlaffley, calling the Common Core "Obama Core", said in a recent piece: 

    Obama Core is a comprehensive plan to dumb down schoolchildren so they will be obedient servants of the government and probably to indoctrinate them to accept the leftwing view of America and its history.


    Actually, probably not. 

    Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee recently approved a resolution calling the standards an "inappropriate overreach to standardize and control the education of our children." Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa is trying to eliminate U.S. Education Department funding for the effort. And a number of state legislatures have or are considering slowing down or stopping the Core, with Republicans dominating the opposition. 

    Such talk has opened the door for the pro-school reform organization Democrats For Education Reform to try to link anybody who criticizes the Core with the far right. The group sent out e-mails -- (I got a few)-- with the subject line: "Who's Been Courting You On Common Core?" 

    A series of e-mails came from DFER Indiana, with a link to a letter that says: 

    Dear Fellow Democrats:

    It's growing late and some of us have spent the night canoodling with far-right opponents of the Common Core State Standards. If that sounds like you, it's time you ask yourself this question: "Am I going to hate myself for this in the morning?"

    We can almost guarantee the answer will be yes.

    Before you decide to get into bed with extremist right-wing critics of the Common Core, we highly recommend that you get to know them better.

    Here's the first in a series of would-be, right-wing bedfellows you’d be smart to stay away from. Let’s start with State Sen. Scott Schneider of Indiana and Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President of the Eagle Forum. Click their names to find out more.

    -- Larry, DFER IN State Director 



    Somewhere in the middle of the extremes -- the Core is going to bring down America vs. the Core is going to save American education -- is serious and thoughtful concern from educators about how the standards were written and adopted, how they are being implemented and how Core-aligned assessments were designed. But this conversation is having a hard time breaking through the high-profile cheerleaders and doomsday predictors. 

    Critics are not identical. Some believe that national standards are a reasonable goal but say the Common Core standards are not based in research. Others like the standards themselves but believe the implementation has been lousy. Some think that standards have never and will never drive student achievement and all of this is much ado about very little. 

    While educators don't all agree on the quality of the standards, there seems to be broad consensus that the implementation in state after state has been dangerously rushed. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a speech on Tuesday that a survey of the members of the country's second largest teachers union found that 75 percent supported the Core but "a similarly overwhelming majority said they haven't had enough time to understand the standards, put them into practice, or share strategies with colleagues." 

    That hasn't stopped authorities in some places from giving students high-stakes assessments aligned with the Core. Last month's administration of new Core-aligned tests in New York sparked a great deal of criticism from educators who saw the Pearson-designed tests and said they had too many problems for the allotted time, were loaded with poorly drawn questions, and weren't even close to being in the same vicinity of the "next-generation" assessments Core supporters had hoped for. In fact, experts say that Core-aligned assessments now being developed by two consortia of states with some $350 million in federal funds won't be the game changer that Education Secretary Arne Duncan promised. 

    Unfortunately, educators and others who raise real problems with Core standards and implementation are wrongly accused by supporters of being against "accountability" and determined to maintain the "status quo." 

    Meet Jeanne Tribuzzi. Shei is the director of English Language Arts, English as a Second Language and second language in the West Seneca Central School District in West Seneca, New York. Tribuzzi, who has studied the standards in detail, said she does not oppose the Common Core, she said, and thinks they are largely "well written." But, she said, many school districts have not provided teachers with enough time for adequate study and collaboration to create aligned materials and lessons. 

    "Something the public doesn't understand," she said, "is that teachers have kids at their feet all day long, so to bring teachers together to do the work that needs to get done takes some intention .. and money. When those things are in short supply, teachers are not engaged in collaborative professional development, and that is what it is going to take to get them to understand the standards." 

    In New York state, she said, education officials have tried to do too much at once. They have tried to develop a new educator evaluation system at the same time they are implementing the Core in classrooms, and started giving students Core-aligned assessments before teachers had a chance to incorporate them fully into lesson plans. Teachers who were asked to score student-written responses to parts of the new assessments were doing so "without the context" they needed to understand whether the answers addressed the standards. 

    Because of all of this, Weingarten called Tuesday for a moratorium on the high stakes associated with the new Common Core assessments. She will likely be attacked for it by some doctrinaire school reformers, but the idea makes far more sense than continuing to unfairly assess students and teachers and principals on scores from questionable tests.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Mark Naison: School Reform Demonized Teachers, Then Parents


FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2013

In NY State, Those Who Once Attacked Teachers Have Parents in Their Crosshairs

LINK


Perhaps the most famous quote describing how most people looked the way during the rise of Nazism is the following

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

This statement has a chilling applicability to the top down, billionaire funded “School Reform” movement, especially in New York State. The movement began by demonizing teachers, blaming them for the failure of our public schools to prepare children for a global economy, and reduce racial disparities in educational achievement. In New York State, this campaign led to the Governor ramming through legislation requiring that teachers be rated on the basis of student test scores and removed if they had unsatisfactory ratings. Many principals and teachers warned that this legislation would result in a vast increase in testing in the state's public schools, and the institutionalization of "teaching to the test." Most parents in the state ignored these warnings, thinking that they were self serving and that greater "teacher accountability" would be in the interests of their children and families.

However, as this legislation began to be implemented, many parents began to discover that what teachers and principals warned about was occurring with breakneck speed. More and more, children were coming home bored and angry, telling parents they hated school because all that was going on was "test preparation," and that the activities they enjoyed most- art, music, recess, gym- were being cut to make room for it. Some were having anxiety attacks on the eve of the tests. Some had to be put under a doctor's care.

Small groups of parents in the state began organizing to protest what was happening. They discovered there was a national movement to "opt out" children from high stakes tests, and decided to create a version of this in New York State that could help their children. They approached school authorities and asked that their children be exempted from state ELA and Math exams.

The response to them, from New York State Education officials, was immediate and vicious. They were, and still are, told that Opting Out is illegal. Not only were they threatened with legal action by the State, their CHILDREN were threatened with everything from participation in extracurricular activities, access to special needs services, placement in magnet programs, even promotion to the next grade! These individual threats were coupled with an attack on the parental Opt Out movement in the media, describing it as a threat to the great progress the state has made in creating a great education for all children

The viciousness of the State's retaliation to parents and children who choose to "Opt Out" should be a warning that something profoundly undemocratic and destructive is happening in New York's public education system, and that the only way to do anything about it is for all stakeholders- principals, teachers, parents, students- to organize to dismantle the Test Machine being shoved down their throat

School Reform in New York State has become the smokescreen under which powerful interests, seeking profit or political gain, have launched one of the most far reaching attacks on popular democracy in recent memory. It is time to fight back before it is too late

Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan: Kissinger and Manning


WikiLeaks’ New Release: The Kissinger Cables and Bradley Manning

Amys_column_default
By Amy Goodman with Denis Moynihan
LINK
WikiLeaks has released a new trove of documents, more than 1.7 million U.S. State Department cables dating from 1973-1976, which they have dubbed “The Kissinger Cables,” after Henry Kissinger, who in those years served as secretary of state and assistant to the president for national security affairs.

One cable includes a transcribed conversation where Kissinger displays remarkable candor: “Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.’ [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that.”
While the illegal and the unconstitutional may be a laughing matter for Kissinger, who turns 90 next month, it is deadly serious for Pvt. Bradley Manning. After close to three years in prison, at least eight months of which in conditions described by U.N. special rapporteur on torture Juan Ernesto Mendez as “cruel, inhuman and degrading,” Manning recently addressed the court at Fort Meade: “I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general, as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.”
These words of Manning’s were released anonymously, in the form of an audio recording made clandestinely, that we broadcast on the “Democracy Now!” news hour. This was Bradley Manning, in his own voice, in his own words, explaining his actions.
He testified about the helicopter gunship video that he released to WikiLeaks, which was later made public under the title “Collateral Murder.” In stark, grainy black-and-white, it shows the gunship kill 12 men in Baghdad on July 12, 2007, with audio of the helicopter crew mocking the victims, celebrating the senseless murder of the people below, two of whom were employees of the Reuters news agency.
Manning said: “The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemingly delightful bloodlust the aerial weapons team. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as ‘dead bastards,’ and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers.”
Reuters had sought the video through a Freedom of Information request, but had been denied. So Manning delivered the video, along with hundreds of thousands of other classified electronic documents, through the anonymous, secure online submission procedure developed by WikiLeaks. Manning made the largest leak of classified documents in U.S. history, and changed the world.

The WikiLeaks team gathered at a rented house in Reykjavik, Iceland, to prepare the video for public release. Among those working was Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament. She told me: “When I saw the video in February 2010, I was profoundly moved. I was moved to tears, like many people that watch it. But at the same time, I understood its significance and how it might be able to change our world and make it better.”

Jonsdottir co-founded the Icelandic Pirate Party, a genuine political party springing up in many, mostly European countries. A lifelong activist, she calls herself a “pixel pirate.”

The “Collateral Murder” video created a firestorm of press attention when it was first released. One of the soldiers on the ground was Ethan McCord, who rushed to the scene of the slaughter and helped save two children who had been injured in the attack. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. He recently penned a letter of support for Bradley Manning, writing: “The video released by WikiLeaks belongs in the public record. Covering up this incident is a matter deserving of criminal inquiry. Whoever revealed it is an American hero in my book.”
In the three years since “Collateral Murder” was released in April 2010, WikiLeaks has come under tremendous pressure. Manning faces life in prison or possibly even the death penalty. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange spent a year and a half under house arrest in Britain, until he sought refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he has remained since June 2012, fighting extradition to Sweden. He fears Sweden could then extradite him to the United States, where a secret grand jury may have already issued a sealed indictment against him. Private details from Jonsdottir’s Twitter and four other online accounts have been handed over to U.S. authorities.

WikiLeaks’ latest release, which includes documents already declassified but very difficult to search and obtain, is a testament to the ongoing need for WikiLeaks and similar groups. The revealed documents have sparked controversies around the world, even though they relate to the 1970s. If we had a uniform standard of justice, Nobel laureate Henry Kissinger would be the one on trial, and Bradley Manning would win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,000 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.
© 2013 Amy Goodman