I was preparing to give testimony at the annual RI House abortion / choice exercise (hearing) last week when two facts or arguments occurred to me that happen to support my pro-choice position. The first is that a potential-father’s contribution to the mass of a fetus just before birth is miniscule, so he has no say in what the woman decides to do. The second is that forcing a woman to give birth is a form of rape.

Hear me out.

To my first point, we can see that the man’s contribution to a potential birth is about nil by looking at the science. A sperm cell weighs about 4.9 x 10^-14 lbs (mass = 22 picograms). The weight of a just pre-birth fetus averages about 7.5 lbs. So the father’s ‘part’ of the fetus versus the Mother’s part is about one in 155 trillion. Put another way, about 99.999999999999% of the fetus is from the mother. Therefore it only makes sense that the man should have little to say about anything having to do with the fetus. Note: spousal consent is no longer required nationally, but a Rhode Island state law to that effect is still on the books. Should the national ruling be overturned by the US Supreme Court, the RI law would take affect.

To my second point, that forcing a woman to give birth is a form of rape, what else can we call it? The state would be forcing a woman to create human tissue against her will. And then forcing her to expel it via the vagina. The state would force something through a woman’s vagina? Doesn’t sound too good to me; sounds like rape. Either the creation-of-tissue aspect or the expulsion part is anathema to the nation’s fundamental sense of personal freedom.

Similarly, any attempt to aid in a forced birth makes someone an accessory to rape or guilty of attempted rape. This means that any regulation or law aiding or abetting forced birth makes the state complicit in rape. For example any law requiring “informed consent” before an abortion falls into this category.

No, it really wasn’t all that funny.

Uhtime No. 3

For some reason, this year I thought I must do something special on Martin Luther King, Jr. day. I decided to read something he had written. But today I found the video of his “Free at Last” speech and decided to watch and most importantly to listen to the great man deliver his most celebrated speech.

As I watched tears developed in my eyes. At the climactic end, one forlorn tear from each eye rolled down my cheeks. As I watched I remembered that what MLK had looked forward to had not yet come to pass in this great, yes great, nation of ours.

Black Lives Matter.

How many deaths must we watch before we come to grips with our own insidious built-in racism? How many Black families must grieve for their lost sons and daughters? How many children must we raise who are still de facto segregated into black schools and white schools, poor schools and rich schools, ghettos and fields of plenty?

I am certain the day will come when we will truly be equal, but it will not come by itself. It may not come in my lifetime, but it will come. And, I believe, without violence.

But we must never forget that “the price of liberty” for all “is eternal vigilance” by all. That vigilance is here today. White brothers and sisters are opening their eyes. Yes, it has taken a lot of pushing and faces severe resistance, but it is happening. Efforts are underway to end the injustices. But efforts are not enough, we must succeed. We cannot take our eyes off of the end goals, and we must do what is necessary to peacefully achieve them, and to keep them. We must be vigilant.

When were my eyes open to the continuing injustices faced by persons of color? It actually wasn’t anyone’s death, it wasn’t anyone’s wrongful incarceration. It was earlier but is current, it was something seemingly innocuous yet revealing. It was when I first heard the term: “DWB: Driving While Black.”

We have a ways to go. But the spirit of MLK will lead us there.

I knew there was a reason.

Legislation heard last night would raise the sub-minimum wage to be equal the minimum wage over four years, so that in 2020 the sub-minimum wage would effectively be eliminated for servers.

Some of the Big Issues

How does one live on $2.89/hr.? They don’t. The idea is that tips make up the difference between $2.89 and $9.00, and current law in fact states that owners must add to servers’ income whatever is necessary to bring $2.89+tips up to $9.00. For that matter, how does anyone live on $9.00/hr.? Again, they don’t. That’s way below the poverty line. But that’s another story.

Note that tips are supposed to reward good work, above and beyond what is required of the server. At least, that was the original intent, but now they are formally part of ‘regular’ wages. I’ll bet most patrons do not know that. I didn’t.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? Like, what about all of the slow nights when there are hardly any tips? Even including the good nights the typical server’s income is nothing to write home about.

Many numbers for the actual average server wage, including tips, were tossed around last night. About $8.50/hr. seems to be the most believable. But wait: weren’t servers guaranteed to get $9.00/hr.? Unfortunately some wage theft and other unscrupulous practices occur in some restaurants. But, again, I digress.

Another problem: in order to get decent tips, a server has to suck up to her patrons. The servers that look the best, smiles the most, and doesn’t complain, make the most. If you don’t want to fit this picture, tough. Like it or get another job. Several restaurant owners at the hearing actually said things like this.

There is a LOT more to this, which others have or will addressed.

Observations on Dubious Observations

1) One of the senators on the committee hearing the bill asked: If there are thousand(s) of servers in RI, and they support the bill, why aren’t they all here testifying tonight?

• Comment: (We ignore the ludicrousness of this question in the first place.) As a testifier pointed out, most servers have to be at work by 4 PM (that was about when the hearing started). But OK, putting that to one side, by the same reasoning, there are hundreds of restaurant owners in RI, why weren’t all of them there last night? After all, they don’t have to start at 4 PM, the servers (and others) are handling the work at their restaurants.

2) Many of the owners took personal offense at the testimony of the supporters of the bill. Many talked of their staff and themselves as “family.” I have no doubt that the vast majority of the owners in that room are sincere, good people with good intentions. I told a couple of them that. They are also small-business owners, and they do have a tough life. My father was self-employed, I know.

• Comment: But there are many owners out there who are not good people, and the state needs to protect all workers.

3) Many of the owners testified that their servers like the status quo. The owners know this because they asked their servers about it directly.

• Comment: Anyone NOT see a problem with this? If your boss thinks that A is better than B, and (his) money is involved, and asks you, his worker, if you think the same, and you don’t want to risk losing your job or making less, and you do want to feed your family, and you don’t have a contract or tenure and are not married to the owner’s sister, what are you going to tell him?

4) One of the owners told me that he didn’t think that sexual harassment had anything to do with the bill and, implicitly, should not have been brought up by the bill’s supporters.

• Comment: Sexual harassment by the patrons is one of the things servers have to put up with to get decent tips. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, but many servers also have to put up with it from their bosses or managers. If a server resists or complains, the offending party can assign her to the low-tipping work in the restaurant, like assigning her to a small section (fewer tables, etc.).

That’s It

Remember: tip high, tip often.

The situation remained highly fluid throughout the afternoon. I was able to talk to staffers of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. James Langevin, and leave a synopsis of my/RIPDA’s position with Sen. Jack Reed’s office. All of the RI Congressional delegation’s offices were very accommodating with their time, very professional and very competent.

Things changed while going from office to office over the span of about three hours. Be that as it may, I think Rep. Langevin’s assistant effectively spoke for all of the RI delegation, indeed probably most all Congressmen, when at the end of the afternoon he said that there was nothing Rep. Langevin had to vote for or against any more, with the UN Security Council still hotly formulating a resolution suiting all.

While this was a bit of a cop-out (Rep. Langevin still might have come out against military action regardless of the final resolution), it certainly had a lot of truth to it, and not much time had passed for the Rep. to determine a new position. Indeed, supposedly the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on Syria earlier in the day didn’t have a chance to focus much on anything, with the developments occurring as fast as they did.

The overall sentiment here seems to be to conditionally support the Russian proposal, but the international monitoring of Syria’s chemical weapons and the latter’s destruction would have to be quick and verifiable. There is also the sticking point that Russia wants no threat of military action in the resolution, while the US does. Hopefully a compromise will occur.

In other action, Codepink was across the street from the Cannon House Office Building demonstrating against military action (see the picture; that’s Ellen on the  right, yours truly on the left, and a stand-in in the center). They have been there for several days now, nonstop. They have a rally planned for later in the evening, 7 PM, outside the White House. That may have changed, I don’t know, since the President’s address is not due to start until 9 PM ET.

Well, the news will likely still stay interesting over the next few days.

I had the good fortune to talk to Rep. Cicilline staff members in his DC office today about his position on such a strike. The staffers indicated that the Representative is listening to his constituents carefully and intently. This was borne out by their careful consideration of our anti-war thoughts on the Syrian situation. The Representative has yet to make a final decision on a possible US response.

However, Rep. Cicilline’s current thinking is that all possibilities should be explored before any military action is taken, and that such a decision be made with great care and deliberation. Note that in his capacity as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee he has current knowledge on the deliberations in the House, as well as influence on the outcome.

I say “current thinking” with a grain of salt. The situation is quite fluid. Things were developing as we talked. Due to no fault of their own,  and understandably so, I seemed to have more current info than the staffers did, the latest New York Times posting having occurred 4 minutes before our 11:30 AM meeting.

More and more nations and diplomats are lining up behind Russia’s Sec’y Kerry-derived proposal for international monitoring and destruction of Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons. This includes a high-ranking Syrian official; according to an earlier New York Times post:

Another Syrian Official Backs Chemical-Weapons Proposal

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Syrian prime minister, Wael al-Halki, said Tuesday that his country supported a Russian proposal for the Syrian government to give up chemical weapons to avoid a possible military strike by the United States.

Syrian state television quoted Mr. Halki as saying that the government backed the initiative “to spare Syrian blood.”

(Emphasis is mine.)

Right now, 1:30 PM, diplomatic developments are still happening fast and furiously, at the UN, the Congress, and the White House.

I’ll post again later today, as I am able to.

Gus Uht

This year was different.

In total, 20 representatives voted against the budget, almost enough to defeat it (the vote was 52Y-20N-3NotVoting; 2/3 are needed for passage). Reps. Chippendale, MacBeth, O’Grady, Tanzi, Tomasso, Valencia and many others voted ‘nay’; look here for the complete voting record. [Disclosure: I ran against Rep. MacBeth in 2012.]  Possible backlash from the leadership includes the sinking of Valencia’s voter ID bill.

Also on the less-than-inspiring side there was still significant back-room horse-trading going on. It looked like there were enough votes to kill the budget two days before debate began. However, things then started to change. Leadership started to throw goodies to representatives in exchange for their votes.

In particular, note that tolling on the new Sakonnet bridge is now supposed to be postponed for months, mainly at the behest of East Bay and Northern Aquidneck representatives. The toll for a typical commuter was to be $0.75 one-way; this is much less than a $2.00 RIPTA bus ticket on any route. And for this alleged-deal a bad budget for the whole state passed the House. (There are other arguments both for and against the tolling.)

There were good speeches on both sides of the most-discussed issue, 38 Studios bonds repayment; most of the well-known pros and cons were discussed, and then some. There were other good reasons given for ‘nay’ votes, including built in structural deficits in succeeding budgets and inadequate contributions to the state pension fund in the case of lower than projected investment returns.

Other problems with this and other recent budgets: cuts are made on the backs of those voters least able to absorb them; RIPTA is inadequately funded; and little is provided to fix and maintain the state’s decrepit infrastructure. Rhode Island needs more revenue, spelled: “t-a-x-e-s.” There were two bills this year which would have partially-reversed the tax reductions for the wealthy that were granted over the last 15 years; the reductions hurt our economy, they didn’t help it.

While this year’s budget got some serious attention at the very end of the session, the public and most of the House still had little to say about it; it was business as usual. The House budget proposal should really be presented weeks if not months before the session’s end.

Probably the worst characteristic of the budget this year has little to do with 38 Studios or tolling: Rhode Island still does not have a credible policy to fix its economy.

The 38 Studios’ bond repayment debacle seems to be the catalyst for the public’s and much of the House membership’s revulsion at the proposed FY2014 budget. But it’s not the only stinker in the budget. Among others, there is also the lack of an extension of family planning services to all low-income women. But the problem is much bigger than just the monetary impacts of the budget.

The House leadership has conducted a widespread pattern of bait-and-switching of many important bills put forward in good faith by the rank-and-file of the House. This is true even of bills that the leadership purported to support during the 2012 campaign. In particular the gun control bills that had widespread support have been gutted to the point of worthlessness. The NRA won. (Which reminds me: did you know that Speaker Fox received $2,200 from the NRA in political contributions during 2010-2012? Other House members also profited.)

The repeal of the Voter ID act was also sculpted behind the scenes by the leadership to be worse than what was in effect for the 2012 elections, a far cry from a repeal.

Now, despite what your feelings are about the above bills, pro or con, I think we can all safely agree on the farcical nature of the budget process in the House. From this year’s hit parade of what would otherwise be laughable elements of the process, we have the following[1]:

1. The Governor’s budget of January was revised behind closed doors by just two or three legislators.
2. The House Finance Committee only received an overview of the budget literally a few hours before the Committee met to vote on it.
3. Even more ludicrous was that the Committee did not see the actual budget, with the all-important details, until just before the relevant part of the budget was discussed during the meeting. The poor staff were running continuously between the meeting room and the copier and back to keep up.
4. At one point, for the final Section considered, the Appropriations’ section, which was also the longest (over a hundred pages), the staff couldn’t handle the volume and Chairman Melo had to pause the proceedings for some time until the Committee members got their copies.
5. The fiscal staff spent about 5 minutes, plus-or-minus, of the two-hour-long meeting describing the Appropriations’ section and its changes.
6. The main negative point brought up by committee members, especially Reps. Newberry and Ferri, was the presence of the 38 Studios bonds repayment in the budget.
7. After all that, the clout of the House leadership truly became apparent. The vote was to pass the budget 12-0-2: all Democrats in favor, no committee member opposed, and two abstentions, both from Republicans (even they couldn’t say an outright ‘NO’).

The Speaker wants, and so far is, controlling everything that goes on in the House. But he cannot be trusted. See yesterday’s Nesi’s Notes for evidence of Speaker Fox’s lying about 38 Studios and what the House knew, or rather didn’t know, before voting for the relevant approval bill in 2010.

It’s time for Rhode Islanders to say “Enough is enough! Vote ‘NO’ on the budget!” Put yourselves back in charge. I’m making a Call for Action to anyone and everyone who has some time today. Come to the State House at about 1 PM and talk to your Representative before the debate and vote on the budget that starts at 2 PM. For those who’ve never been there, you first go through security on the side of the statehouse farthest from Providence Place, then go up the rotunda stairs (or the elevator) to the second floor. The House entrance is there. There are also visitor galleys on the third floor. Lastly, all House sessions are televised and shown in both real-time both on the web and on cable, and later-on on the web.

I know that’s a bad time for many of us, and perhaps that’s why it was scheduled then, two hours early, but this is a rare perhaps even once-in-a-lifetime moment when your voice can truly be heard and recognized.

If you can’t come in person, see if you can find time to call your Representative in the morning/afternoon/evening (they’ll probably be there for a while). See here to determine who your Representative is, and here to look up her/his phone number. Don’t know what they look like? Go here and click his/her name. Still need help? I’ll be around and do my best. I’ll be the guy with a sign on his back.

I hope to see you at the Capitol.

Keep the faith.

—-Gus Uht

However, future payments are not guaranteed, so quite possibly this might be the last payment made by Rhode Island. Perhaps the Assembly could even de-appropriate the May, 2014 payment earlier in next year’s session.

The proposed budget also includes $50K for a study of the consequences of non-repayment. This is both wise and affordable.

While many will lament Rhode Island paying anything, on the bright side  making the payment and conducting an in-depth study gives everyone a chance to think long and hard about what is best to do, and not to make a hasty decision. The committee’s actions should also help to assuage Moodys a bit; we’ll find out soon.

In a nutshell, my opinion is unchanged: Rhode Island should not repay the bonds. We should also outlaw such bonds. They have a shady origin (complete with a Watergate character!) and have gone downhill since then. We should use the 38 Studios debacle to clean up state finances.

Background:
There are two basic types of bonds. General Obligation bonds are fully backed by the state, including the use of its taxing authority to cover the bonds, hence the risk of non-repayment is low. In Rhode Island’s case the voters have to approve the bonds via a referendum.

The second type are Revenue bonds, issued by non-state authorities. These bonds are not guaranteed by the state. Voter approval is not needed. They are higher risk.

The 38 Studios bonds are a hybrid of General Obligation and Revenue bonds: so-called “Moral Obligation” bonds. This category of bond was devised by John Mitchell (of Watergate infamy) specifically to avoid the need for voter approval. These bonds are Revenue bonds with an ill-defined unwritten assurance by the state that it will repay the bonds in the case of the borrowers default. The state is not legally required to cover the bonds, but is expected to. Voter approval is not needed, so they are easy to issue. The risk is low, but at the same time the interest rates and hence profits for the bondholders are high. This is a win-win situation for the bondholders and the bond insurer but a burden on the issuer.

Review and comments….
The following are paraphrased versions of some of what was said at both the hearing and the debate, not necessarily in time-order. There were no common participants. Text within brackets ([  ]) are my own comments.

 ….on the hearing….
The House Finance committee heard testimony on the 38 Studios’ bonds repayment issue from (only) Matt Fabian and Lisa Washburn, both of Municipal Market Advisors. Only the committee and experts were allowed to participate. Overall the expert testimony was detailed but inconclusive.  Rhode Island’s situation is unique.  Fabian himself advised repayment, but concurred with a committee member that 20 experts would provide 20 different opinions. Actually Fabian had already talked to many experts; their opinions of the consequences of non-repayment went from: “little impact” to “catastrophic.”

Rhode Island’s market reputation and ability to sell bonds at competitive interest rates are currently good and have been getting better. Fabian’s main concern was that non-repayment would reverse these characteristics and the cost of future credit to the state would be substantially higher; these effects might last for many years. Fabian emphasized that the market and ratings agencies would consider anything other than full repayment a default. Another possible outcome of non-repayment, though unlikely, is that the market would make an example of Rhode Island, punish it, and severely reduce its ability to borrow.

The effect of non-repayment on future Rhode Island borrowing varies on the type of the bond to be issued. The interest rates of new moral obligation bonds are likely to be extremely high, possibly even making them unsellable. [To me, the latter is a plus.] However, the effect on the state’s general obligation bonds would be much less, perhaps an increase of 0.5% to 1% in interest for many years. [It also might be possible to refinance the bonds at a lower interest rate after their issue, reducing the negative fiscal impact of non-repayment.]

Fabian recommended that Rhode Island make its repayment decision carefully and slowly. This would reduce any negative results if it decides against full repayment. Also, an in-depth market study might help Rhode Island make its decision to repay or not. However, just conducting a study might make the market nervous; thus, negative repercussions could occur even before a study is completed and a repayment decision made.

When the 38 Studios’ bonds were issued an insurance policy was purchased providing for full payment of both the principal and interest by the insurer to the bondholders in the case of default. Many Rhode Islanders say that the insurance pay-out will keep Rhode Island from having to repay anything and the bondholders will lose nothing. However, the insurer will likely use all available means to keep from paying, including legal, political and media attacks. It might be messy, last a long time and result in a significant decline in Rhode Island’s reputation in the bond market. One way to avoid this mess would be to make a compromise with the insurer and only make a partial repayment. The insurer would likely be willing to work with the state to do so, and Rhode Island would suffer less.

….and on the debate.
The debate was moderated. The panel included academics, bond market experts, an independent policy advisor, and a citizen advocate who might be directly affected by the outcome. The audience was allowed to participate. On the whole, predictions of what would happen upon a non-repayment were less dire than at the hearing.

The debate covered a lot of the same ground as the hearing, but not all. An expert at the debate said that it is a strong possibility that future Rhode Island general obligation bonds’ costs (higher interest rates) would be much less than feared [including much less than those suggested at the hearing].  One additional point made was that although a partial repayment would be viewed as a default by the bond market, it would be viewed more favorably by the market than a full non-repayment, so could be viewed as a reasonable option for Rhode Island.

There was a consensus by the panel that what needs to be done is an in-depth study, including a solid cost/benefit, pros/cons analysis of the alternatives in order to make an informed decision. It was suggested that as part of the study the major bond market players should be asked what they would do if the bonds are repaid by the state or not. [This may be difficult. Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, the bond raters, have so far declined to do so.][Note that such a study may be inconclusive, too, since there are so many factors involved, even some not yet even contemplated.]

Analysis:
After the hearing I knew more but was less certain what the result of any particular course of action would be. The debate helped, but not much more.

There is no history to guide us. The bond market is irrational, volatile and unpredictable, though traditionally less so than the stock market. Even the experts don’t know the likely consequences. All crystal balls are out of order.

“Moral Obligation” bonds are a fabrication of Wall Street, created to satisfy its greed. The Economic Development Corporation, not the state, issued such bonds for 38 Studios.  There was the usual kind-of-sort-of implication by EDC, the Assembly, and the governor (at that time), that the state would pay if 38 Studios defaulted, but with no actual obligation.  The only clearly stated legal obligation of the state is that the Governor must put a request for repayment into the proposed budget each year.  That’s it.  The state legislature is under absolutely no obligation to actually include it in the final budget.  Here is the key:  38 Studios was not described as a sound investment to either the prospective investors or the insurer, yet they signed on anyway. They gambled and lost. This is not Rhode Island’s responsibility, but in the vague, smoky-back-room fashion of “moral obligation” bonds, it might hurt our reputation for being a good bond issuer if we don’t obligingly, voluntarily make it our responsibility.

An issue that did not receive enough attention at either the hearing or the debate concerns the effects on low- or no- income Rhode Islanders of non-repayment. Both Rep. Ferri, a committee member at the hearing, and Ms. Heebner, citizen advocate at the debate, said that the General Assembly might not raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but instead would reduce human services. Those lowest on the economic ladder would suffer the consequences of the higher-ups’ bad decisions. While dumping on those least able to afford it is dishonorable, it is likely to happen, judging from the recent past.

Conclusions:
By all means, conduct an in-depth study, it might help. But don’t spend a lot on it.

No one can tell what the consequences of non-repayment would be. Even if we know the monetary consequences for certain, our decision could still go either way since it will (should) be based on more than what can be quantified by such a study. Let’s not base a decision solely on Wall Street or $$$, for a change. There is more to life. So let’s do the right things:

• Don’t repay the 38-Studio bonds.  We aren’t obligated to and we have other, real, obligations like human services, education and infrastructure that need the funds. The “sky-is-falling” predictions are overblown.
• Make moral obligation bonds illegal. Only allow pure general obligation and revenue bonds having clear language and unambiguous responsibilities of the parties involved. This change in state debt funding would be a silver lining to the ugly situation of the 38 Studios debacle.

We might even start a positive national trend: Fabian said that nationally moral-obligation bonds would cease to be issued if Rhode Island doesn’t repay.

PostScript: I have heard that the political reality is that the first payment ($2.5 million) will absolutely stay in the FY2014 budget. However, from my perspective, nothing is final until the Assembly session is actually adjourned for the year. Further, a final decision on one or more of the much larger remaining payments ($12.5 million) might be postponed until the 2014 Assembly session; there isn’t enough time to either conduct a deeper study and/or make a reasoned decision before the end of this session. This would also leave enough time in the off-session for such a study.

Neither Dr. Gist nor the education reform movement came off very well at the Board of Education meeting earlier tonight. She only had one supporter among those who gave testimony. I was unable to speak, time ran out, so later in this post I’ll write what I was planning to say. Before I get to that, a few notes about the meeting.

Important: the BoE is accepting written comments on the Gist renewal up until June 1. No vote was to be taken tonight.  Submit early, submit often.

For those of you who want a blow-by-blow account of the early part of the meeting, look at my Tweets: @gusuht

Those who did get to speak were outstanding. The vast majority of the speakers were teachers with lots to say. Chairman Mancuso, noticing the lack of time, bumped up parents and students to the front of the line. By far the most telling and moving testimony was given by a student who graduated from a RI High School a year ago, and has since been in college. Roughly, he said that in high school, with all of the testing and teaching to the test and test practice he had lost his love for learning. Once in college he was freed from the dehumanizing testing regime and regained this love. The Gist reforms had hindered his learning, not helped it. It had emptied his spirit, not nurtured it. I hope Bob caught his name. Interestingly, he was the only one who came without a prepared text, but I think he had the most impact. Or I hope so.

OK, my almost-testimony. Actually, the major part of it was a Letter to the Editor, by someone else,  in a New Yorker issue late last year. The Letter was in response to an article in an earlier issue (“Public Defender,” by David Denby, the New Yorker, November 19, 2012). That article was about the famous reformed education-reformer Dr. Diane Ravitch. Briefly, up until ten years ago she was a leader of the education reform movement, pushing testing, charter schools, etc. What happened? Ten years ago she looked at the results and they stank. So she switched 180 degrees and is now speaking out around the country against the education reform movement.

Here’s the Letter; it’s from the December 24 & 31, 2012 issue of the New Yorker, in the Mail section, page 8. I have not modified it in any way.

 As Ravitch argues, reform strategies based on extensive reading and math tests, followed by rewards and punishments for teachers and schools based on those test scores, along with the encouragement of vast charter-school expansion, have not brought about significant improvements in student performance. Tellingly, no nation,  state, or district that has gone from mediocre to world-class in the past twenty years — including Ontario, Canada; Massachusetts; Finland; Singapore; and even the Aspire charter schools — has followed this strategy. Successful schools and districts have supported the development of professional teamwork, and have completely revamped how they attract, train, and support teachers. Building the teaching profession around what is known about quality teaching, and allowing teachers the time and giving them the support to continually get better at what they do, has been the secret of educational success around the world.

Bill Honig, Chair, Instructional Quality Commission,  California Department of Education, Mill Valley, Calif.

On an historical note, the New York Times columnist Gail Collins has written in her recent book ( “As Texas Goes….,” Liveright Publishing, 2012) about the origins and history of “No Child Left Behind.” That is/was former President George W. Bush’s signature education reform program that is the major source of all of the fuss today. Bush actually started an equivalent program  in Texas when he was governor there, before becoming president. Going on to Washington he foisted his miracle cure onto the entire nation. Unfortunately, back in Texas they discovered that the program didn’t work. Somehow that never visibly appeared in the national conversation. And the bad idea spread throughout the land.