Zero Tolerance For Rights

You may have noticed the hubbub around some schools' zero tolerance weapons policy. Some described these rules as draconian and applaud those in authority who are working to bring "common sense" into the mix. Sounds good.

But...if you are blessed with only a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution (the legal document not the boat--that's U-S-S) you are or should be very concerned. Let's look at only one case as reported in the AJC:

[...]two Cobb County students were arrested within weeks of each other after police found knives in their cars parked on school grounds. [...] In one case, 17-year-old Cody Chitwood, an avid fisherman and senior at Lassiter High School, had filet knives in his fishing tackle box in the trunk of his car.

and continues with a quote from Mike Huckabee on the matter:

"He had it locked in a tackle box in a car."

That's the gist of it and since the article is primarily about the politics around zero tolerance it isn't surprising that a number of questions are left unasked and unanswered:

1. What EXACTLY initiated the questioning of students? We will assume these students were ASKED before their PARENT'S vehicles were searched.
2. What legal basis supports the search of a private vehicle? 
3. Was there probable cause? For what exactly?
4. Was the vehicle owner's permission obtained before the vehicle was searched?

We should all take note of what happens to constitutional rights and civil liberties when a government agency decides it knows what's best.

Obama Taps Hutmacher

Beltway Dramedy Central is churning out the juiciest rumour of the Obama not-so-leak-proof administration: Obama will tap our very own City Manager to repair the HealthCare.gov damage.

No shit. Really.

What put Hutmacher on Obama's radar screen was Dunwoody's CAD-to-CAD interface. Not that it works but more importantly that it probably never will. What impressed our Promiser-In-Chief was that Hutmacher has been able to royally bungle a simple operation with only two moving parts and has not only escaped personal accountability but is receiving a raise! And there has been no mention of the Mayor at all. You only need compare this with Sebelius' handling of the HealthCare.gov fuster cluck to understand Obama's keen interest. Folks want her fired and Obama's ratings are in the shitter.

And this epic fail doesn't even account for the fact that the underlying service--Chattcomm--will never deliver on its promise--thus foreshadowing Obamacare. But the harsh political reality is that when you have someone this adept at working the system it doesn't matter if the (other) system works.

Closer to home our local rumour mill has it that Obama himself reached out to Hutmacher as well as to key members of Council and the Mayor to ensure a smooth transition for our boy wonder. It is told that salary has been agreed upon with the only remaining hurdle being the number and value of deals that can be awarded to current and former sweethearts.

Not since Ryan Seacrest left has Dunwoody had something this big to be this proud of.

Science Fair Projects

Ever get tired of those papier mâché volcanoes masquerading as real science of some sort. Well some folks never do.

Seems we have yet another presentation of what to date is a non-existent report on the feasibility of a School System for Dunwoody. Same talker. Same alleged report. But now the numbers in the report need jiggering and since this is political jiggerers are not in short supply. Previously the delay had been because the City of Dunwoody funded the effort and it was therefore up to the City to publish. What is unexplained is just why a junior rep is large and in charge with Citizen of Dunwoody Tax Dollars and acting as gatekeeper to a report we're paying for.

While still beating the same "we can afford our own schools drum" the State Rep is now quoted as saying "I really did not want to deliver any report that was going to be picked apart." Given he'd surely prefer we simply take his word for it without any report whatsoever that statement is credible in the extreme.

And he has a good point.

The report will be picked apart based on minutia like grammar, minor contradictions and omissions because that is largely what will be made available in the report itself and that report is likely all we shall see for our money. The omissions are expected to be the largest and most egregious of the shortcomings and are all but guaranteed to include:

• lack of raw data sets
• lack of data analysis tools (spreadsheets, databases, etc.)
• lack of defined methodology adequate to validate the analysis
• lack of detailed research assumptions
• lack of editorial and research guidance--which areas require detailed analysis and which do not
• lack of meeting agenda and minutes
• lack of detailed meeting notes from researchers and other attendees

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to conclude that a report spearheaded by a politician will be lacking with regards to scientific rigor. If this report is published on paper then it may well be the case that it is best used as raw materials for yet another volcano.

And much like the CVI studies before it this one is also funded to a given conclusion--that Dunwoody deserves to break away from DCSD and set up its own schools. Given the reasonable assumption this effort is being done on behalf of the City (we are paying for it aren't we?) and that the Mayor has recently been quoted as saying

"One thing I've learned as mayor is to not trust experts. I've seen too much bad testimony in court by hired experts. As a result I have to go on my own observation."

we are again left to ponder whether this is not just a waste of paper but also a frivolous waste of our tax dollars. Seems all we really need to do is ask a politician.

Fair Tax

If there is one thing that is really hard to type it has to be "Fair Tax." It's even harder to get your head around. Nonetheless that or something very similar was blurted out by a spectator during the run up to Dunwoody's Council elections in the context of one of the candidates receiving an exemption from DeKalb County School taxes which is offered to qualifying senior citizens. Some observers questioned the candidate's eligibility while others suggested that a common tactic is to manipulate income timing in order to qualify for the exemption which once acquired is held forever. But the interesting whiner is the one who questioned the political viability of someone who doesn't "pay their fair share."

This notion of "fair share" especially in the context of "you should pay YOUR fair share for my kids' school" carries a lot of weight in the 'burbs which as we all know are dedicated to the worship of children. Fair enough. We all knew this when we moved here.

But what is the scope of this educational fair share principle? Our arbitrary geo-political borders make this a relevant and interesting question. What do we say to the retired couple who raised their kids in Michigan but now live as empty nesters in the Wold? No takee no payee? Hardly. Same for the single homeowner or the childless couple. You pay YOUR fair share. As determined by someone else.

But what about groups? You know: Dunwoody. Dunwoody is increasingly adept at separating itself and justifying these breakaways by observing that Dunwoody pays more out than it receives in services sort of like that single gentleman around the corner. This is now the talk in the Wold regarding schools--Dunwoody pays so much more in taxes than it would take to fund just OUR schools and consequently Dunwoody can easily justify the cost of its own school system.

But what about our social contract? You know, like the one that forces those childless retirees to pay for this or any other school system from which they receive no benefit? As a group does not the very same argument for that taxation apply to those living in Dunwoody--those collectively known as citizens of Dunwoody? Do we not have an obligation to fund the educations of children who simply happen not to live in Dunwoody just as those retirees pay for children who don't happen to live in their house? Are we as a community not party to the same social contract as that childless couple down the street?

Or are we just picking and choosing the rhetoric that supports our pre-ordained march to Dunwoody, Dunwoody, uber alles?

Consideration

From the legal section of the online Free Dictionary we get the definition of consideration:

Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances.

So what would be "consideration" in the context of our most popular social contract--public education? On the one hand taxpayers pony up cash that is converted into a public education. That part is simple.

But what of value do students or their parents offer? Is it a commitment to acquire the education paid for by others*? Is it mere words or are students and parents held accountable for meeting this commitment? To date it has been the former.

Maybe it's time to balance out this contractual equation. Since it is impractical to ensure that students and parents do not or cannot renege it is clear equity will only be delivered by addressing the other side of the equation. That we can fix.

* We'll not go into it here but if you start with a simple average of $10K per student per year you can do the math and figure out how long it will take for the average family with three children to pay back the cost of their children's education. We should all live so long.

TOD's Candidate Endorsements

Just kidding.

Juxtapose For A Moment...

When the Clean Sweepers made the public pronouncement of their collective candidacy at a Council meeting they immediately entered a quiet period. This caused much amusement in the blogosphere and they were roundly ridiculed for kicking off a campaign that started with refusal to disclose or discuss why they are running and what they intend to do if elected. As pointed out earlier Council cannot really do much of anything but folks in the Wold wanna hear the talk even if our elected officials are structurally crippled and can never actually walk the walk. We just love talk.

In fact we love it so much we'll gladly accept talk in lieu of facts. Recently we heard talk about a report resulting from a feasibility study that is claimed to show that Dunwoody can afford its very own school system. Isn't that special. And the report of the report comes from no less of an authority than our very own state rep who has reportedly read the report. Or so he says.

But that is only talk because mere schmucks like you can't have this alleged report--if it really exists. See, our public servant (to date unknown exactly which public he serves but it ain't anyone wantin' to read that report) has access to this alleged report that the public is denied. Why? Because public dollars, our tax dollars right here in the Wold were used to pay for this effort and the City allegedly hasn't seen the alleged report. If that doesn't make sense you haven't lived here long enough. In any event, at the time of this writing said alleged report remains unavailable. Some say unwritten.

Now this isn't just about a public servant lording it over the wee people of the Wold with his high and mighty "I know things you don't know--nanny nanny boo boo." No this is about juxtaposition and the missing outcry from the Wold's blogosphere. Where are the boo-birds who gleefully rained their intellectual droppings on the Quiet Candidates? Why are they not equally critical of the rep who claims to have read something you're not allowed to see? Are they fond of kowtowing to politicians who act like some medieval priest maintaining exclusive access to the scriptures? Apparently so.

Politi-FACT?

A recent PolitiFact Georgia in the AJC contains this nugget:

"Gov. Nathan Deal removed most of the school board for financial mismanagement and micromanaging that put the district at risk."

As they like to say at PolitiFact this intrigues us. Why? Because it simply is not true.

Gov. Deal gained legal authority to remove the board (it isn't clear if partial removal is supported by the law but that's not germane at this point) was granted by SACS when the school district was placed on probation by that accrediting corporation. It came down to direct testimony provided by Elgart to the State BOE. His stated opinion was that the district stood a better chance of regaining his approval without the board than with it and thereby granted Governor Deal not only legal authority but political cover. Since Elgart runs the accrediting corporation his opinion in this case is an adequate substitute for a threat.

Now a real politifacter might argue one degree of separation by contending that the district is on probation because of mismanagement and micromanaging. Does this pass the smell test?

Not really.

If actions speak louder than words then Elgart has clearly stated that this is not about financial mismanagement or micromanaging. After all we have Crawford Lewis who has admitted guilt in criminal actions as Superintendent while at the same time Elgart was awarding Crawford and his system (now under scrutiny for racketeering) accolades. But if all you can hear are words then Elgart's own statements attest to his understanding of decades long problems of mis and micro-managing that nonetheless garnered a gold star from Elgart's corporation.

No matter how you slice it, dice it or spin it Deal's removal of two thirds of the DeKalb County School Board wasn't because of financial mismanagement or micromanaging so we rate this Politifact as in-your-face-propaganda.

Man In The Mirror

I'm Gonna Make A Change,
For Once In My Life
It's Gonna Feel Real Good,
Gonna Make A Difference
Gonna Make It Right . . .

The upcoming City elections are expected to see low voter turnout. This has some folks in the Wold worried as they fear that the upstart Clean Sweepers may have enough enthusiastic backers to gain a majority when only a small minority of registered voters bother to go to the polls.

These worried Agents of  No-Change have good reason to fret and even better reason to know it. Many of those now sweating the upcoming exercise in democracy are the same ones who helped manipulate the system that brought us the landslide approval of the citihood referendum by scheduling the vote so as to intentionally depress voter turnout. Remember that we voted for citihood in July of the year that saw Obama win the November election and lord knows the Dunwoody Yes! crowd did not want Obama backers weighing in on their city. Still don't.

So these worry warts are painfully aware that folks aligned with or simply immune to the status quo tend to not be very energetic whilst those advancing change tend to be enthusiastic. This is especially true when the agents of change have enough backing to actually believe a run at an office has a chance. Now things have come full circle and CfD and DY! are facing opposition that tactically looks exactly like they do.

But perhaps all this worry is for naught. Perhaps the Smart People of the Wold will see the Clean Sweepers as the vocal minority of whiners that the Agents of  No-Change have branded them. But perhaps not.

In any event when one considers that the City is really run by the City Manager and his staff who for the most part don't even live here one realizes that Council and Mayor are mostly kept around for rubber stamping, photo ops and other entertainment. So ask yourself: which gaggle of bozos portends to yield the best entertainment value? Vote accordingly.

Size Matters

Putting aside all protests to the contrary in most cases size matters. Unless it is a tax bill or a cellphone most folks and in particular men are going to argue the bigger the better. You know: big hands--big gloves. And who doesn't want big gloves? But this is not about gloves.

This particular diatribe is about schools.

Most folks including teachers and such will argue that the smaller the class the better. Now teachers have a vested interest in this reasoning as smaller classes with a stable student population means more positions with less work and probably more pay. But they avoid the near occasion of the perfect class size of one as that is more commonly associated with home schools from which the teachers and admins see little revenue. As in none. No teachee no payee. But this is not about class size either.

This is about something a bit more subtle that rears its ugly head as a logical inconsistency in the Charter School movement. Perhaps it even rises to the level of a contradiction. It all starts with one of the foundational elements of establishing a Charter which seems intended to resonate with the hippocratic oath: first do no harm. The no-harm clause is basically this: the charter is established on the basis of meeting certain academic outcomes for the students and in return Charter Schools are given wide latitude regarding how those goals are achieved and if those goals are not met the charter is revoked. Hence no harm.

Sounds good. Even a bad charter does only a few years damage to a smaller set of students while district wide trial and error fad adoption hurts everyone. This appeals to the secondary justification of risk containment. Not mitigation per se but containment nonetheless.

And it is a very appealing concept. The charter succeeds and prospers if the students succeed and prosper. And isn't that what we taxpayers are paying for? What the charter aficionados describe is a pay for results scheme. This runs contrary to traditional public schools which have historically received more money for poor performance based on the totally unsubstantiated belief that more money will solve the problem. In the case of charters this is reversed and is not so smoothly gradated and becomes binary: succeed and survive; fail and disappear.

Here is where size comes in because this very appealing story begs a question: if it works for the charter school or system why doesn't it work for the classroom and specifically the classroom teacher?

Strangely teachers claim they have no autonomy though in the same conversation many will complain that they don't get the instructional support and classroom materials they need--instead they have to do it all themselves. Is that indistinguishable from autonomy? If you were to split another pitcher you would probably hear about how teachers today are reduced to presenting dramatic interpretations of canned scripts. Is that too much support?

The question remains: why do teachers retain their jobs while their students wallow in abject failure and when will teacher contracts be tied to outcomes just as the charter is?

Discuss amongst yourselves.