I was out of town Wednesday when the legislature feted the UNC Tar Heels for winning the NCAA men's basketball championship for the fifth time, and enjoyed reading Dome's account of the wording of a Senate resolution.
I suspect the fine hand of Sen. Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, UNC partisan extraordinaire, in the exquisitely-put language (at least to we Tar Heel fans) that zinged a certain school in Durham that the late columnist and editor Jim Shoemaker sometimes referred to as "Methodist Flats."
Dome reported these two paragraphs in particular:
"Whereas, the 89-72 Carolina win over Michigan State was a convincing and thorough victory but one that left intact Duke's record for the worst loss in Final Four history
and
Whereas, the senior players named above were undefeated in all away games played within a 12-mile radius of Chapel Hill;"
It's all in good fun, of course, but there may be a few Blue Devil fans who can be forgiven for having a little less fun than others. But just for the record: Go Heels!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Judge Manning: It's all about the children
Wake Superior Court Judge Howard Manning seems satisfied with what state proposes to do in a Leandro case intervention in Halifax County, but has not signed off on a consent order. That's because while the Halifax County school board approved and committed to the plan Monday night and state public schools CEO Bill Harrison backs it, the plan won't go before the State Board of Education until next week. Deputy NC Attorney General Tom Ziko said in court Wednesday that he will bring the proposed consent order to Manning for his signature after the board approves it.
The agreement compels the state to see to it that the main findings of the Leandro Supreme Court decision -- that every school have a competent principal, every classroom have an effective teacher and every school must have the resources it needs so that every child has the opportunity to get a sound basic education -- will be carried out in Halifax County. This would be the first time the state has directly intervened in a failing school district.
Halifax county has a high rate of poverty, with more than 80 percent of its students getting free or reduced-price lunches, and 60 percent of its students are low-performing.
The intervention plan calls for the state to intervene in the Halifax schools for three years, requiring teacher and principal training, new teacher effectiveness standards, and ongoing-coaching and monitoring by a team of 12 coaches who will help teachers keep their classroom skills up to par. The plan also includes accountability measures so that teachers or administrators who don't measure up "will have to exit the system," said schools intervention specialist Pat Ashley.
Manning pressed Ashley and Ziko to recognize that schools are not about adults. It's about children, he said, who are being deprived of the right to a sound education. Manning recounted his long experience with the Leandro lawsuit, working his way through his initial determination that high schools were failing, then that math preparation in middle schools was the problem, and finally his recognition that students in elementary school simply were not getting the fundamental training they need in reading and math. "If you don't get the third grade preparation to read or to do math," he said, those students would never be able to perform adequately. "This is the place we're failing these children," Manning said.
The agreement compels the state to see to it that the main findings of the Leandro Supreme Court decision -- that every school have a competent principal, every classroom have an effective teacher and every school must have the resources it needs so that every child has the opportunity to get a sound basic education -- will be carried out in Halifax County. This would be the first time the state has directly intervened in a failing school district.
Halifax county has a high rate of poverty, with more than 80 percent of its students getting free or reduced-price lunches, and 60 percent of its students are low-performing.
The intervention plan calls for the state to intervene in the Halifax schools for three years, requiring teacher and principal training, new teacher effectiveness standards, and ongoing-coaching and monitoring by a team of 12 coaches who will help teachers keep their classroom skills up to par. The plan also includes accountability measures so that teachers or administrators who don't measure up "will have to exit the system," said schools intervention specialist Pat Ashley.
Manning pressed Ashley and Ziko to recognize that schools are not about adults. It's about children, he said, who are being deprived of the right to a sound education. Manning recounted his long experience with the Leandro lawsuit, working his way through his initial determination that high schools were failing, then that math preparation in middle schools was the problem, and finally his recognition that students in elementary school simply were not getting the fundamental training they need in reading and math. "If you don't get the third grade preparation to read or to do math," he said, those students would never be able to perform adequately. "This is the place we're failing these children," Manning said.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Did clients under-report payments to top lobbyist?
Well, here's a bit of quirky irony: Don Beason, the former top-ranked lobbyist whom the N.C. Secretary of State's office is reported to be investigating to determine whether he asked his clients to under-report how much they were paying him, was a member of a 2004 study committee the same office named to come up with improvements to the state's lobbying laws.
Beason was one of the original members of Secretary of State Elaine Marshall's Advisory Council on Legislative Lobbying Policy and Regulation. She named the committee in early 2004 because she thought the state's lobbying laws were inadequate and ineffective. The council, chaired by then-UNC Law School Dean Gene Nichol, made a number of recommendations for beefing up lobbyist laws. Acting on those proposals and later revelations about lobbying practices, the legislature adopted a number of lobbyist regulation changes, including finally doing away with so-called "goodwill lobbying" of the sort that Beason and many other lobbyists used to pay for legislative dinners and other events not specifically related to a legislative proposal. Under the goodwill lobbying exception, lobbyists didn't have to report the names of all attendees.
(Full disclosure: Marshall asked me to serve on that council, but the Observer normally doesn't approve of employees serving on boards they're also likely to be writing about, for obvious reasons related to a conflict of interests.)
The N&O story Tuesday by Sarah Ovaska quotes a four-page sworn statement filed in Wake Superior Court by investigator John Lynch as saying, "I have discovered a pattern of under reporting of the lobbyist compensation," Lynch wrote. "This under reporting is often done at the instruction of the lobbyist without any written or substantial justification." Lynch believed Beason may have asked some of his 24 clients in 27 not to accurately report what they paid him in 2007.
Beason, you may recall, got out of the lobbying business entirely after news broke that he had once loaned then-House Speaker Jim Black, D-Mecklenburg, $500,000. Black is now serving time in federal prison on charges related to payments he made to another legislator to help him stay in power, among other things.
Beason was one of the original members of Secretary of State Elaine Marshall's Advisory Council on Legislative Lobbying Policy and Regulation. She named the committee in early 2004 because she thought the state's lobbying laws were inadequate and ineffective. The council, chaired by then-UNC Law School Dean Gene Nichol, made a number of recommendations for beefing up lobbyist laws. Acting on those proposals and later revelations about lobbying practices, the legislature adopted a number of lobbyist regulation changes, including finally doing away with so-called "goodwill lobbying" of the sort that Beason and many other lobbyists used to pay for legislative dinners and other events not specifically related to a legislative proposal. Under the goodwill lobbying exception, lobbyists didn't have to report the names of all attendees.
(Full disclosure: Marshall asked me to serve on that council, but the Observer normally doesn't approve of employees serving on boards they're also likely to be writing about, for obvious reasons related to a conflict of interests.)
The N&O story Tuesday by Sarah Ovaska quotes a four-page sworn statement filed in Wake Superior Court by investigator John Lynch as saying, "I have discovered a pattern of under reporting of the lobbyist compensation," Lynch wrote. "This under reporting is often done at the instruction of the lobbyist without any written or substantial justification." Lynch believed Beason may have asked some of his 24 clients in 27 not to accurately report what they paid him in 2007.
Beason, you may recall, got out of the lobbying business entirely after news broke that he had once loaned then-House Speaker Jim Black, D-Mecklenburg, $500,000. Black is now serving time in federal prison on charges related to payments he made to another legislator to help him stay in power, among other things.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Readers condemn, and hail, torture column
Sunday's column about waterboarding,torture and American values brought some warm responses, and some hot ones, too.
A Vietnam veteran from Lancaster, S.C. wrote:
Thank you for your column of 26 Apr. Some revelations and admissions are deeply painful and embarrassing yet need to be recognized to initiate the healing process.
As a Viet Nam combat vet, the last eight years have caused the worst rage, shame and heartbreak I have ever experienced over the way my country's honor has been sullied.
We will prevail.We always have, and always will.The rule of law,however frustrating and distasteful, MUST be followed. Only then can we regain the reputation of fairness we once held.
P.S. It saddens me to admit that I was fully prepared to scream at your article. (Conditioning,I hope you understand.) Sometimes,like right now, I truly enjoy being wrong.
A Charlotte reader wrote, in part:
After I read your “Torturing the rule of law” I thought how many readers who only look to the Observer for their news may actually believe and be swayed by your piece…..the source for which was one rogue former FBI supervisor who the N.Y. Times found and wrote their biased article around. That is the same NY Times whose new motto is “all the news that’s fit to print and if we don’t like the actual facts we’ll make them up.”
How many people would never know that our commander and chief narcissist Barak Obama’s own CIA Director Leon Panetta advised against releasing the details of our interrogation programs?
How many people would never know that Obama’s own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, advised against it because it would enhance recruitment of terrorists, cause a backlash against our own soldiers, and help the enemy prepare for our future interrogations and intelligence gathering efforts?
How many people would never know that George Tenant, CIA Director under George Bush and Bill Clinton, believed the enhanced interrogation techniques saved American lives. He said on 60 Minutes “I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”
How many people would never know that the events of the past week have already seriously demoralized the CIA and given fresh encouragement to our enemies?
How many people know these techniques were reviewed and approved after 9-11mastermind Sheik Khalid Mohammed bragged that more attacks were imminent?
How many people know these techniques were made transparent to the appropriate members of congress of both parties and that they were kept fully appraised of them?
Those Democratic members included Jay Rockefeller in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the house. How many people know these programs were approved and funded by votes of both parties?
…..Anyway, good job on keeping the whole, complete and balanced story secret. When the newspapers close up you can get a job with one of our intelligence agencies.
As the Wall Street Journal wrote over the weekend, “Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other anti-terrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.
Another reader thought:
I do not take issue with your condemnation of torture. It is barbaric and ineffective. I do take issue with your view of "what makes us different". These assertions are not only an abuse of history, they are dangerous. The U.S has been and is currently involved in some horrific crimes. How are we to stop these crimes if we cannot acknowledge them.
Contrary to your claims the U.S has always followed its own laws selectively. There are thousands of examples, it happens on a daily basis. But let me lay out three more egregious cases. The FBI in conjunction with local police assassinated a Black Panther activist in Chicago while he was sleeping, after he was drugged by an informant. U.S law states that U.S weapons can only be used for defensive purposes and any violation of this requires an immediate halt in arms transfer to the violator. When Indonesia invaded and then launched a genocide in East Timor it came with full American support. Most of the units involved in the genocide where armed and trained by the U.S. The invasion itself began just hours after the U.S President and Secretary of State visited Indonesia and its dictator. More recently the U.S has continued to supply Israel with weapons while American arms were being used to commit war crimes in an offensive operation in Gaza. Like I said, there are thousands of other examples, these are only three cases.
You portray the U.S in the international arena as a benevolent power, a policeman and a donor. What country's experience with the U.S where you thinking of when you wrote those words? Was it Hawaii where U.S business interests usurped the government from the native population, was it the Philippines where our dreams of empire manifested themselves in broken promises, repression, thousands of dead civilians, and yes mass torture, was it Haiti where the idealist Wilson sent a nation into the stone ages where it still languishes, was it Cuba where the U.S seized power from the independence movement and established a U.S protectorate, or was it more recently? Were you thinking of Iraq where we starved half a million children to death after we soured on the dictator we had armed, or elsewhere in the Arab world where we continue to prop up repressive dictators? Or perhaps you were thinking of Africa. Perhaps you were thinking of Ethiopia where the U.S backs a brutal tyrant, or maybe Equatorial Guinea where the man who declared himself President, as well as a cannibal and a god, has been declared a "good friend" by our Secretary of State…...
Another reader wrote:
Thank you for reminding us that we are a nation of laws and that those laws should be upheld.
I hope you do not pick and choose which laws you think are "Valid"
Immigration laws are commonly ignored and it seems most people think that is OK.
Speed limits are routinely ignored.
Drug usage is common.
We can not and should not demand that some laws be obeyed while ignoring others.
All the laws should be enforced.
(also, I hope you do not think that it is valid to prosecute a lawyer for giving an opinion as the Attorney General did- when a lawyer is asked to give an opinion, that is what he does)
In the case of torture, we should not allow the International community to dictate what we do in the USA unless we also insist that other nations are held to the identical standards - as in China, for example.
Another reader:
Enjoyed your op-editorial this week. I found two problems. 1) In paragraph five, the sentence beginning with "But we also understood..." has a parallel error, and 2) the article as a whole doesn't answer the real question: why would experienced public servants, at the highest level, torture in the first place?
Answer: to justify the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in our history. They needed something, anything, to connect Sadam and Osama, or Sadam and Al-Qaeda. As long as the discussion is about the need for torture, or whether or not torture violates the law, the torturers will literally get away with mass murder.
And finally:
Thank you for the well written article on waterboarding and "enhanced" techniques. This illegal, inhumane, and demonstratively ineffective behavior serves to make us all less safe--especially our troops abroad. As Americans, we must repudiate what has been encouraged by the Bush/Cheney regime and knock the smirks off of their smug faces. America has demeaned itself to the world and violated the very philosophies for which we stand.
A Vietnam veteran from Lancaster, S.C. wrote:
Thank you for your column of 26 Apr. Some revelations and admissions are deeply painful and embarrassing yet need to be recognized to initiate the healing process.
As a Viet Nam combat vet, the last eight years have caused the worst rage, shame and heartbreak I have ever experienced over the way my country's honor has been sullied.
We will prevail.We always have, and always will.The rule of law,however frustrating and distasteful, MUST be followed. Only then can we regain the reputation of fairness we once held.
P.S. It saddens me to admit that I was fully prepared to scream at your article. (Conditioning,I hope you understand.) Sometimes,like right now, I truly enjoy being wrong.
A Charlotte reader wrote, in part:
After I read your “Torturing the rule of law” I thought how many readers who only look to the Observer for their news may actually believe and be swayed by your piece…..the source for which was one rogue former FBI supervisor who the N.Y. Times found and wrote their biased article around. That is the same NY Times whose new motto is “all the news that’s fit to print and if we don’t like the actual facts we’ll make them up.”
How many people would never know that our commander and chief narcissist Barak Obama’s own CIA Director Leon Panetta advised against releasing the details of our interrogation programs?
How many people would never know that Obama’s own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, advised against it because it would enhance recruitment of terrorists, cause a backlash against our own soldiers, and help the enemy prepare for our future interrogations and intelligence gathering efforts?
How many people would never know that George Tenant, CIA Director under George Bush and Bill Clinton, believed the enhanced interrogation techniques saved American lives. He said on 60 Minutes “I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”
How many people would never know that the events of the past week have already seriously demoralized the CIA and given fresh encouragement to our enemies?
How many people know these techniques were reviewed and approved after 9-11mastermind Sheik Khalid Mohammed bragged that more attacks were imminent?
How many people know these techniques were made transparent to the appropriate members of congress of both parties and that they were kept fully appraised of them?
Those Democratic members included Jay Rockefeller in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the house. How many people know these programs were approved and funded by votes of both parties?
…..Anyway, good job on keeping the whole, complete and balanced story secret. When the newspapers close up you can get a job with one of our intelligence agencies.
As the Wall Street Journal wrote over the weekend, “Perhaps we need an investigation not of the enhanced interrogation program, but of what the Obama administration may be doing to endanger the security our nation has enjoyed because of interrogations and other anti-terrorism measures implemented since Sept. 12, 2001.
Another reader thought:
I do not take issue with your condemnation of torture. It is barbaric and ineffective. I do take issue with your view of "what makes us different". These assertions are not only an abuse of history, they are dangerous. The U.S has been and is currently involved in some horrific crimes. How are we to stop these crimes if we cannot acknowledge them.
Contrary to your claims the U.S has always followed its own laws selectively. There are thousands of examples, it happens on a daily basis. But let me lay out three more egregious cases. The FBI in conjunction with local police assassinated a Black Panther activist in Chicago while he was sleeping, after he was drugged by an informant. U.S law states that U.S weapons can only be used for defensive purposes and any violation of this requires an immediate halt in arms transfer to the violator. When Indonesia invaded and then launched a genocide in East Timor it came with full American support. Most of the units involved in the genocide where armed and trained by the U.S. The invasion itself began just hours after the U.S President and Secretary of State visited Indonesia and its dictator. More recently the U.S has continued to supply Israel with weapons while American arms were being used to commit war crimes in an offensive operation in Gaza. Like I said, there are thousands of other examples, these are only three cases.
You portray the U.S in the international arena as a benevolent power, a policeman and a donor. What country's experience with the U.S where you thinking of when you wrote those words? Was it Hawaii where U.S business interests usurped the government from the native population, was it the Philippines where our dreams of empire manifested themselves in broken promises, repression, thousands of dead civilians, and yes mass torture, was it Haiti where the idealist Wilson sent a nation into the stone ages where it still languishes, was it Cuba where the U.S seized power from the independence movement and established a U.S protectorate, or was it more recently? Were you thinking of Iraq where we starved half a million children to death after we soured on the dictator we had armed, or elsewhere in the Arab world where we continue to prop up repressive dictators? Or perhaps you were thinking of Africa. Perhaps you were thinking of Ethiopia where the U.S backs a brutal tyrant, or maybe Equatorial Guinea where the man who declared himself President, as well as a cannibal and a god, has been declared a "good friend" by our Secretary of State…...
Another reader wrote:
Thank you for reminding us that we are a nation of laws and that those laws should be upheld.
I hope you do not pick and choose which laws you think are "Valid"
Immigration laws are commonly ignored and it seems most people think that is OK.
Speed limits are routinely ignored.
Drug usage is common.
We can not and should not demand that some laws be obeyed while ignoring others.
All the laws should be enforced.
(also, I hope you do not think that it is valid to prosecute a lawyer for giving an opinion as the Attorney General did- when a lawyer is asked to give an opinion, that is what he does)
In the case of torture, we should not allow the International community to dictate what we do in the USA unless we also insist that other nations are held to the identical standards - as in China, for example.
Another reader:
Enjoyed your op-editorial this week. I found two problems. 1) In paragraph five, the sentence beginning with "But we also understood..." has a parallel error, and 2) the article as a whole doesn't answer the real question: why would experienced public servants, at the highest level, torture in the first place?
Answer: to justify the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in our history. They needed something, anything, to connect Sadam and Osama, or Sadam and Al-Qaeda. As long as the discussion is about the need for torture, or whether or not torture violates the law, the torturers will literally get away with mass murder.
And finally:
Thank you for the well written article on waterboarding and "enhanced" techniques. This illegal, inhumane, and demonstratively ineffective behavior serves to make us all less safe--especially our troops abroad. As Americans, we must repudiate what has been encouraged by the Bush/Cheney regime and knock the smirks off of their smug faces. America has demeaned itself to the world and violated the very philosophies for which we stand.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
So NOW the legislature is wary of an OLF
Just a few years ago, folks in Washington and Beaufort counties were desperately searching for political allies who would help them try to fight off the U.S. Navy's proposal to put an Outlying Landing Field to train aircraft carrier jet pilots on Super Hornet FA/18 jets. But it was rough going for a while trying to find high-ranking officials to get in the Navy's way -- especially at a time when the state of North Carolina was hoping to persuade the federal Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) not to close military bases in this state. Gov. Mike Easley, Lt. Gov Bev. Perdue, Sen. Elizabeth Dole and then-Sen. John Edwards all seemed lukewarm to the idea of crossing the Navy, although all of them expressed sympathy with the plight of residents of the affected area. (The Navy later withdrew its plan and looked for other areas.)
About the same time, Tom Earnhardt, a lawyer and former law professor who was doing a lot of research on the Navy's plans, discovered that the state of North Carolina had long ago waived any power to object to the federal government's acquiring land in this state for courthouses, customhouses, post offices, forts, arsenal and armories. It had done so by adopting G.S. 104.7. Why not, Earnhardt asked legislative leaders as well as top staff for Gov. Mike Easley and Attorney General Roy Cooper, adopt legislation revising that permission when it comes to an outlying landing field? It was a reasonable question, but perhaps because state and legislative officials were worried about the BRAC commission, his idea went nowhere.
How times change. This week, the Senate approved a House-passed bill entitled "An Act Providing That Consent Of The State Is Not Granted To The United States For Acquisition Of Land For An Outlying Landing Field In A County Or Counties Which Have No Existing Military Base At Which Aircraft Squadrons Are Stationed."
The bill, of course, is aimed at discouraging the Navy from putting its Outlying Landing Field anywhere else in North Carolina, including Camden and Gates Counties, which the Navy is now eyeing. The bill by itself won't and can't stop the Navy. But it does make a formal statement of opposition that the state was unwilling to make back when the Navy wanted to put the field in Washington and Beaufort counties.
About the same time, Tom Earnhardt, a lawyer and former law professor who was doing a lot of research on the Navy's plans, discovered that the state of North Carolina had long ago waived any power to object to the federal government's acquiring land in this state for courthouses, customhouses, post offices, forts, arsenal and armories. It had done so by adopting G.S. 104.7. Why not, Earnhardt asked legislative leaders as well as top staff for Gov. Mike Easley and Attorney General Roy Cooper, adopt legislation revising that permission when it comes to an outlying landing field? It was a reasonable question, but perhaps because state and legislative officials were worried about the BRAC commission, his idea went nowhere.
How times change. This week, the Senate approved a House-passed bill entitled "An Act Providing That Consent Of The State Is Not Granted To The United States For Acquisition Of Land For An Outlying Landing Field In A County Or Counties Which Have No Existing Military Base At Which Aircraft Squadrons Are Stationed."
The bill, of course, is aimed at discouraging the Navy from putting its Outlying Landing Field anywhere else in North Carolina, including Camden and Gates Counties, which the Navy is now eyeing. The bill by itself won't and can't stop the Navy. But it does make a formal statement of opposition that the state was unwilling to make back when the Navy wanted to put the field in Washington and Beaufort counties.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
After 15 years, Leandro case moves back into Halifax
The announcement by Gov. Bev Perdue Wednesday afternoon that state officials will make "an unprecedented intervention" in Halifax County Schools is the latest manifestation of what a long-running schools lawsuit is all about. And it reflects the reality that Wake Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, who has overseen the lawsuit for years, has been zeroing in on Halifax schools for a long time. If the state had not organized its intervention plans, which will be presented to Manning next week at a hearing on Wednesday, the judge might have ordered it up himself. He's been considering it for months. But state officials have been thinking about it a long time, too.
It's all part of the Leandro schools case, originally filed in Halifax County and four other counties in 1994 when Bill Harrison, now the chairman and CEO of the State Board of Education, was superintendent of Hoke County Schools and rounded up the family of Robb Leandro to be the lead plaintiff in what is now known as the Leandro case. Harrison, Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson and the Department of Public Instruction will be key players in the intervention, Perdue said.
Here's the press release her office put out this afternoon:
RALEIGH - Gov. Bev Perdue today announced that the State Board of Education Chair and CEO Bill Harrison, State Superintendent June Atkinson, the board and the N.C. Department of Public Instruction will begin an unprecedented intervention in Halifax County Schools, one of the low-performing school districts in the state. The plan will be presented to Judge Manning at an April 29th hearing.
“My goal is to improve public schools and student performance. Dr. Harrison, Superintendent Atkinson and I will act aggressively in Halifax County and all of North Carolina to make sure our schools have the support, direction and accountability that give our kids a chance to succeed,” said Gov. Perdue.
Under the intervention plan, NCDPI staff will provide intensive support and oversight to coach principals in effective instructional and school leadership, to provide tools to help central office personnel better guide the school district, and ensure that teachers get the necessary support and resources needed to improve student learning.
“Halifax Superintendent Geraldine Middleton has been receptive to us and we look forward to helping her and her team move forward,” said Harrison. “This intervention is a partnership with Halifax County Schools, and one in which the state board and education department will guide professional development and create a supportive framework with one goal: improved student learning and achievement.”
Activities already have already begun in Halifax but will intensify this summer and in the 2009-10 school year. Clear expectations and direction will be provided to local leadership, principals and teachers. Three weeks of professional development will be provided to all Halifax principals and central office personnel, and two weeks of professional development will be provided to teachers in the Halifax schools over the summer. This activity will kick off the 2009-10 school year and provide clear expectations and direction for educators in the district and schools.
The model for improving student learning in the district features:
• 3 weeks of professional development for principals and central office personnel
• 2 weeks of professional development to teachers
• 12 full-time master educators hired by Halifax County Schools to help classroom teachers improve instruction
• 3 school transformation coaches provided by the NCDPI and
• a district transformation coach provided by the NCDPI
• consultation with NCDPI regarding use of federal and state appropriations.
In addition, top leadership at the NCDPI will provide ongoing oversight to the work underway to assist Halifax County. Harrison, as well as Dr. Rebecca Garland, the state’s chief academic officer, and Dr. Pat Ashley, director of District and School Transformation, will be actively engaged to assure that the Halifax County Board of Education and administration will be accountable for pursuing and implementing reforms that improve education opportunities in all Halifax County public schools.
Superintendent June Atkinson said the framework guiding the intervention will focus on taking the department’s expertise in local school and district assistance to a more significant level of engagement. “We are leveraging federal resources and other tools to help guide this district to new levels of student performance and achievement,” Atkinson said. “The purpose is to create a structure for success that will increase the district’s bottom line: student proficiency and graduation.”
NCDPI has piloted a district transformation model for the last two years in six school districts, but the Halifax intervention will incorporate state education efforts more directly in the administration of the school district’s operations.
Halifax County Schools is one of 115 local school districts in North Carolina and serves approximately 4,400 students. The district, located in northeastern North Carolina, has 14 schools. Student achievement there is significantly lower than state average performance. Overall, for students in grades 3-8, 25.5 percent are proficient or better in reading and 39.7 percent are proficient or better in math as compared to state averages of 55.6 percent and 69.9 percent respectively. At the high school level, approximately one third of the students are considered proficient on end-of-course tests, as compared with 68 percent for the state overall. The school district is in federal District Improvement because it has not made Adequate Yearly Progress targets under No Child Left Behind.
It's all part of the Leandro schools case, originally filed in Halifax County and four other counties in 1994 when Bill Harrison, now the chairman and CEO of the State Board of Education, was superintendent of Hoke County Schools and rounded up the family of Robb Leandro to be the lead plaintiff in what is now known as the Leandro case. Harrison, Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson and the Department of Public Instruction will be key players in the intervention, Perdue said.
Here's the press release her office put out this afternoon:
RALEIGH - Gov. Bev Perdue today announced that the State Board of Education Chair and CEO Bill Harrison, State Superintendent June Atkinson, the board and the N.C. Department of Public Instruction will begin an unprecedented intervention in Halifax County Schools, one of the low-performing school districts in the state. The plan will be presented to Judge Manning at an April 29th hearing.
“My goal is to improve public schools and student performance. Dr. Harrison, Superintendent Atkinson and I will act aggressively in Halifax County and all of North Carolina to make sure our schools have the support, direction and accountability that give our kids a chance to succeed,” said Gov. Perdue.
Under the intervention plan, NCDPI staff will provide intensive support and oversight to coach principals in effective instructional and school leadership, to provide tools to help central office personnel better guide the school district, and ensure that teachers get the necessary support and resources needed to improve student learning.
“Halifax Superintendent Geraldine Middleton has been receptive to us and we look forward to helping her and her team move forward,” said Harrison. “This intervention is a partnership with Halifax County Schools, and one in which the state board and education department will guide professional development and create a supportive framework with one goal: improved student learning and achievement.”
Activities already have already begun in Halifax but will intensify this summer and in the 2009-10 school year. Clear expectations and direction will be provided to local leadership, principals and teachers. Three weeks of professional development will be provided to all Halifax principals and central office personnel, and two weeks of professional development will be provided to teachers in the Halifax schools over the summer. This activity will kick off the 2009-10 school year and provide clear expectations and direction for educators in the district and schools.
The model for improving student learning in the district features:
• 3 weeks of professional development for principals and central office personnel
• 2 weeks of professional development to teachers
• 12 full-time master educators hired by Halifax County Schools to help classroom teachers improve instruction
• 3 school transformation coaches provided by the NCDPI and
• a district transformation coach provided by the NCDPI
• consultation with NCDPI regarding use of federal and state appropriations.
In addition, top leadership at the NCDPI will provide ongoing oversight to the work underway to assist Halifax County. Harrison, as well as Dr. Rebecca Garland, the state’s chief academic officer, and Dr. Pat Ashley, director of District and School Transformation, will be actively engaged to assure that the Halifax County Board of Education and administration will be accountable for pursuing and implementing reforms that improve education opportunities in all Halifax County public schools.
Superintendent June Atkinson said the framework guiding the intervention will focus on taking the department’s expertise in local school and district assistance to a more significant level of engagement. “We are leveraging federal resources and other tools to help guide this district to new levels of student performance and achievement,” Atkinson said. “The purpose is to create a structure for success that will increase the district’s bottom line: student proficiency and graduation.”
NCDPI has piloted a district transformation model for the last two years in six school districts, but the Halifax intervention will incorporate state education efforts more directly in the administration of the school district’s operations.
Halifax County Schools is one of 115 local school districts in North Carolina and serves approximately 4,400 students. The district, located in northeastern North Carolina, has 14 schools. Student achievement there is significantly lower than state average performance. Overall, for students in grades 3-8, 25.5 percent are proficient or better in reading and 39.7 percent are proficient or better in math as compared to state averages of 55.6 percent and 69.9 percent respectively. At the high school level, approximately one third of the students are considered proficient on end-of-course tests, as compared with 68 percent for the state overall. The school district is in federal District Improvement because it has not made Adequate Yearly Progress targets under No Child Left Behind.
Senate leaders unveil tax reform proposal
A tax reform proposal finally has made it to committee, something of an accomplishment in itself. In recent years, a number of study commissions have labored over how to remake the state's revenue system, and many bills have been filed. But when state Sens. Dan Clodfelter of Mecklenburg, David Hoyle of Gaston and Clark Jenkins of Edgecombe brought out their proposal Wednesday for the first wholesale restructuring of state taxation since the Depression, every seat in the Finance Committee room was filled and it was standing room only. Clodfelter joked that if the committee charged an exit fee, the state's budget's $500 million hole for next year would be taken care of right then.
All those folks showed up to see what the committee was proposing. What they got was not a bill in the usual form, but a set of three documents -- an explanation of changes to the system, an example of how tax changes would affect different income groups, and a general list of how much money each change would involve. A couple of minor surprises: The proposal did not include elimination of the local sales tax on food; it was removed after a meeting with Senate leaders Wednesday morning. And the proposal did not eliminate the corporate income tax, but would reduce it sharply over two years, from one of the highest rates in the Southeast to 4.5 percent, one of the lowest in the country.
Clodfelter said the Senate Finance Committee co-chairs' proposal represented the first real tax reform since 1933, and asked legislators and the public to understand that past efforts to tinker with taxes simply didn't work. The state has been holding the tax system together "with string and baling wire," he said. "It just doesn't produce what we need" to pay for services in a growing state.
Among other things, he said, the proposal "reduces every major tax rate" on the state's books, broadens the sales tax base by applying it to a greater number of services, eliminates personal tax deductions and turns the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable deductions, children and medical expenses into tax credits. It directs that state personal income taxes be based on the federal formula for adjusted gross incomes, and reduces the three rates for personal income taxes from 7.75, 7 and 6 percent to 7.5 percent, 6.5 percent and 5.25 percent. It would lower the state sales tax rate from the current 4.75 percent to 4 percent (with the local sales tax of 2 percent, the combined rate would go from 6.75 to 6 percent). And it would make the franchise tax apply to all corporations and be based on retained equity. The proposal would produce enough new revenue to meet the $500 hole in the proposed 2009-10 budget as passed by the Senate.
The committee co-chairs asked the public to think about the proposals and, instead of only criticizing what's there, recommended changes they would prefer to the ones outlined by the committee. As Hoyle said following the meeting, there are only three approaches the committee can take: One, "Cut the hell out of the state budget and do some real damage to the state;" two, raise enough money from increased taxes such as the services tax to balance the budget, or three, "We and adopt this plan and have a modern revenue system" that will be less susceptible to changes in the economy.
The co-chairs said they know they'll get a lot of criticism, and they're right. Even before the committee met, Republicans were accusing the Democrats who run the Senate of running a "bait and switch" operation, promising tax reform with lower rates but in fact extending the tax system to cover items not previously taxed and coming up with $600 million in new revenue.
Linda Daves, N.C. Republican Party chair, had this to say:
North Carolina Democrats are trying to run a classic scam on N.C. taxpayers: the bait and switch. Pretend to be reducing taxes by slight increments while at the same time creating new taxes to raise more revenue than ever before. They hope that we will not notice as our overall tax burden is increased by $600 million.
Democrats want to use this crisis to raise taxes and avoid reducing the size of a bloated state government. A crisis is a time for government to cut back and for Democrat leaders to take responsibility for their past mistakes. As unemployment increases by the month and most workers are making less, it is not the time to ask our citizens to pay more. Democrats have poorly managed the tax money we gave them in years past resulting in the current budget crisis. Why would we trust them with a dime more?
All those folks showed up to see what the committee was proposing. What they got was not a bill in the usual form, but a set of three documents -- an explanation of changes to the system, an example of how tax changes would affect different income groups, and a general list of how much money each change would involve. A couple of minor surprises: The proposal did not include elimination of the local sales tax on food; it was removed after a meeting with Senate leaders Wednesday morning. And the proposal did not eliminate the corporate income tax, but would reduce it sharply over two years, from one of the highest rates in the Southeast to 4.5 percent, one of the lowest in the country.
Clodfelter said the Senate Finance Committee co-chairs' proposal represented the first real tax reform since 1933, and asked legislators and the public to understand that past efforts to tinker with taxes simply didn't work. The state has been holding the tax system together "with string and baling wire," he said. "It just doesn't produce what we need" to pay for services in a growing state.
Among other things, he said, the proposal "reduces every major tax rate" on the state's books, broadens the sales tax base by applying it to a greater number of services, eliminates personal tax deductions and turns the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable deductions, children and medical expenses into tax credits. It directs that state personal income taxes be based on the federal formula for adjusted gross incomes, and reduces the three rates for personal income taxes from 7.75, 7 and 6 percent to 7.5 percent, 6.5 percent and 5.25 percent. It would lower the state sales tax rate from the current 4.75 percent to 4 percent (with the local sales tax of 2 percent, the combined rate would go from 6.75 to 6 percent). And it would make the franchise tax apply to all corporations and be based on retained equity. The proposal would produce enough new revenue to meet the $500 hole in the proposed 2009-10 budget as passed by the Senate.
The committee co-chairs asked the public to think about the proposals and, instead of only criticizing what's there, recommended changes they would prefer to the ones outlined by the committee. As Hoyle said following the meeting, there are only three approaches the committee can take: One, "Cut the hell out of the state budget and do some real damage to the state;" two, raise enough money from increased taxes such as the services tax to balance the budget, or three, "We and adopt this plan and have a modern revenue system" that will be less susceptible to changes in the economy.
The co-chairs said they know they'll get a lot of criticism, and they're right. Even before the committee met, Republicans were accusing the Democrats who run the Senate of running a "bait and switch" operation, promising tax reform with lower rates but in fact extending the tax system to cover items not previously taxed and coming up with $600 million in new revenue.
Linda Daves, N.C. Republican Party chair, had this to say:
North Carolina Democrats are trying to run a classic scam on N.C. taxpayers: the bait and switch. Pretend to be reducing taxes by slight increments while at the same time creating new taxes to raise more revenue than ever before. They hope that we will not notice as our overall tax burden is increased by $600 million.
Democrats want to use this crisis to raise taxes and avoid reducing the size of a bloated state government. A crisis is a time for government to cut back and for Democrat leaders to take responsibility for their past mistakes. As unemployment increases by the month and most workers are making less, it is not the time to ask our citizens to pay more. Democrats have poorly managed the tax money we gave them in years past resulting in the current budget crisis. Why would we trust them with a dime more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
