June 2009

CPS Instituting Assessment Tools at the Principal Level *UPDATED*

ArchPundit June 17, 2009 0 Comment

Huberman is announcing the introduction of new assessment tools at the school level to be led by principals:

“You’re given the freedom, but you can’t make those decisions based on hunches,” Huberman explained at an editorial board meeting at the Sun-Times before the principals’ meeting Tuesday. “You have to make them based on the analytical framework we’re providing.”
Huberman emphasized that the assessments, now in development, are not “tests” that students will be graded on, but a way to find out what students need. He said he wants to create a “data-driven culture,” so the schools can know “how every student is doing, how is every teacher doing, and how is every school doing, with the goal of constantly improving.”
The assessments will be taken by students online to allow for quick results. Huberman plans a large technology investment for the coming school year.
The assessments would not be like the big annual tests of student progress, like the ISATs, and would be short — 30 minutes to an hour. Some assessments would be universal and given quarterly. Others would be geared to specific curricula, recognizing that schools teach math or science in different ways.

I’m generally for this sort of innovation, but the real question is are the principals going to have the time and training to use the assessments effectively.  Too often, pressured principals under current NCLB regulations use these tools to beat faculty over the head leading to faculty viewing them as penalties and not tools to assess students’ abilities.  Changing that sort of usage and ensuring principals can effectively use the tools is a huge challenge of leadership.  It’ll be quite a test for Huberman.

Update:  Catalyst has more on the initiative which does include data analysist being available to crunch the numbers. A very good sign.

Professionalism

ArchPundit June 17, 2009 0 Comment

Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Schmidt has been incredible in not making a public spectacle of his perjury investigation of Roland Burris. Sometimes we just complain about the bad, but the good deserve credit as well.

On Another Bond Note

ArchPundit June 17, 2009 0 Comment

Metra is whining that he forced them to accept credit cards.

Metra customers will be able to buy their monthly passes or ten-ride tickets online and pay with a credit card starting in September, Metra officials announced today.
Customers will be able to use credit cards at stations with ticket agents and at machines at 14 Metra Electric stations starting in February of next year.
The move to credit cards came after state Sen. Michael Bond (D-Grayslake) introduced legislation in March that would require Metra to start accepting plastic.
The move comes at a high price for Metra — the cost of operating the system and transaction fees is expected to be $3 million to $5 million a year, assuming a 75 percent participation rate, along with $2.2 million in up-front capital costs for Metra to accept credit cards online and install credit card machines and other equipment. Metra had resisted credit cards in the past because of the cost.
“I assume the state legislature didn’t look at what the costs might be,” noted Metra Board member Michael K. Smith.

People don’t carry cash much anymore and yes there are fees, but that should be a part of the overall fee structure.  Metra could certainly give a small discount to those not using credit/debit cards (or petition for the right to do so), but whining that your agency has to enter the 21st Century almost 10 years late is one of many reasons why people get annoyed with mass transit agencies.

Daily Dolt: Team America

ArchPundit June 17, 2009 0 Comment

Team America in comments:

# 2 Team America Says:
June 17th, 2009 at e
Gents, here’s the bottom line. The FEC complaint gudiance says the following:
“Receipt of Complaint
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) reviews each complaint to determine whether it states a violation within the jurisdiction of the Commission and satisfies the above criteria for a proper complaint. If the complaint does not meet these requirements, OGC notifies the complainant of the deficiencies.
Once a complaint is deemed sufficient, OGC assigns it a Matter Under Review (MUR) number, acknowledges receipt of the complaint and informs the complainant that the Commission will notify him or her when the entire case is resolved. Until then, the Commission is required by law to keep its actions regarding the MUR confidential.”
Apparently, the FEC thought the complaint was good enough to assign it a MUR number (and not return it to Venturi for deficiences), and force Michael Bond to respond.
Let’s see how Bond tries to weasel out of it.
Cheers, TA

Of course right above that is:

Any person may file a complaint if he or she believes a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Laws or Commission regulations has occurred or is about to occur. The complaint must be made in writing and sent to the Office of General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. The original must be submitted along with three copies, if possible. Facsimile or e-mail transmissions are not acceptable. A complaint must comply with certain requirements. It must:
* Provide the full name and address of the person filing the complaint (called the complainant); and
* Be signed, sworn to and notarized. This means that the notary public’s certificate must say “…signed and sworn to before me…,” or words that connote the complaint was affirmed by the complainant, (such as “under penalty of perjury”).
Furthermore, in order for a complaint to be considered complete and proper, it should:
* Clearly recite the facts that show specific violations under the Commission’s jurisdiction (citations to the law and regulations are not necessary);
* Clearly identify each person, committee or group that is alleged to have committed a violation (called the respondent);
* Include any documentation supporting the allegations, if available; and
* Differentiate between statements based on the complainant’s (the person who files the complaint) personal knowledge and those based on information and belief. Statements not based on personal knowledge should identify the source of the information.

Essentially, the requirement to be assigned a MUR number by the FEC is providing the full information of the person, notarizing the complaint, and providing some claim that would fall under FEC jurisdiction.  Anyone who has ever dealt with FEC complaints knows they assign numbers and then routinely dismiss complaints for no violation or lack of any evidence after issuing an MUR number.

So let’s review.  The Chairman of the Lake County Republicans has filed a complaint against Michael Bond for not forming a campaign committee in a timely fashion, but nothing in the complaint addresses the $5,000 raised by the candidate that sets the 15 day clock.

Dutifully, reporters will cover this and treat it as serious.  That’s too bad because it’s a good story about a fool issuing a complaint to an overworked agency for purely political reasons and that complaint has no basis in the law.  Whether that is due to stupidity or malice is impossible to tell, but it’s an interesting story.  What’s most troubling is that Team America jumps on the story with no regard for the facts. It’s one thing to post a story because someone you know gives you a story that seems reasonable and then find out that some important elements are missing.  That happens pretty often.  However, compounding the error by continuing to push the story is what gives blogs a bad name.

Michael Bond’s 15 Days….

ArchPundit June 16, 2009 0 Comment

Team America again screws up the facts with his breathless attack on Michael Bond for not forming a campaign committee within 15 days of announcing and links to two different links that are accurate, but not complete.

The full context must be understood in with 100.72 (a)

(a) General exemption. Funds received solely for the purpose of determining whether an individual should become a candidate are not contributions. Examples of activities permissible under this exemption if they are conducted to determine whether an individual should become a candidate include, but are not limited to, conducting a poll, telephone calls, and travel. Only funds permissible under the Act may be used for such activities. The individual shall keep records of all such funds received. See 11 CFR 101.3. If the individual subsequently becomes a candidate, the funds received are contributions subject to the reporting requirements of the Act. Such contributions must be reported with the first report filed by the principal campaign committee of the candidate, regardless of the date the funds were received.

And 100.131

(a) Definition. Candidate means an individual who seeks nomination for election, or election, to federal office. An individual becomes a candidate for Federal office whenever any of the following events occur:
(1) The individual has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000.
(2) The individual has given his or her consent to another person to receive contributions or make expenditures on behalf of that individual and such person has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000.
(3) After written notification by the Commission that any other person has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000 on the individual’s behalf, the individual fails to disavow such activity by letter to the Commission within 30 days of receipt of the notification.
(4) The aggregate of contributions received under 11 CFR 100.3(a) (1), (2), and (3), in any combination thereof, exceeds $5,000, or the aggregate of expenditures made under 11 CFR 100.3(a) (1), (2), and (3), in any combination thereof, exceeds $5,000.

In fact, if you don’t spend $5,000 and run you don’t have to file at all.  Obviously you aren’t going to win, but there are minor candidates who often don’t file for this very reason.

If you haven’t raised $5,000 yet, you don’t have to file. When you reach that threshold you have 15 days to file from that date.  There is nothing in the complaint that alleges Bond raised more than $5,000 before May 16, 2009 so the Lake County Republican Chairman Dan Venturi is wasting FEC time and money with nothing other than a harassment technique while the FEC can barely keep up with legit complaints.

Read the regulations before you file a complaint. Or even the handy candidate guide the FEC provides that tells you the same information.

Small Update:  Actually the Statement of Organization was postmarked May 26, 2009, meaning that Bond could have reached the $5,000 threshold as early as May 11, 2009 and be in full compliance.

Dolt while Away

ArchPundit June 15, 2009 0 Comment

Mark Kirk with his don’t trust US Budget projections. 

Alexi responded:

“In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Mark Kirk is essentially telling China, which holds more U.S. debt than any nation on earth, not to trust the American government, and by extension, the American people. This puts the full faith and credit of the United States at risk and threatens to permanently wreak havoc on the credit markets that are essential to our recovery and our economic future.
“Congressman Kirk’s reckless actions demonstrate a terrible lapse in judgment and should be immediately retracted,” said Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.

More than that, this President finally put the wars back in the budget instead of funding them ‘off the books’–something Kirk supported over and over again.  Yet now he’s upset about the honesty of the budgeting numbers?  We are working with the first honest budget numbers in 8 years.  Are they perfect? No, all economic models make assumptions and those are likely not perfect, but the underlying numbers are far better than any year the Bush administration produced.

Because People Smoking Dope are Dangerous

ArchPundit June 15, 2009 0 Comment

You’ll notice I don’t jump into the medical marijuana debate much. I generally think if pot helps someone feel better who is sick, it’s a lot less dangerous than other choices and let’s face it–stoned people aren’t exactly the biggest threat to anything other than a bag of cheetos.

On the other hand, I tend to find the loudest proponents people who think hemp will save the world and are generally trying to justify using dope a lot.

That said, we don’t need to be populating our federal prisons with people selling dope whether it is supposedly super pot or not. While this is obviously meant to target suburban voters–women especially who are worried about their kids–it’s stupid policy.  It increases the number of people in prison for non-violent crime and it’s not going to stop anyone from getting high.

Drugs are a health care problem more than anything else.  Treat them that way–especially things like dope, and we’ll reduce usage far faster.

Nothing About Coal Is Clean

ArchPundit June 15, 2009 0 Comment

Mike Quigley will not be running statewide soon, but he’s telling the truth:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIGaBpSP0s[/youtube]

Hat Tip Progress Illinois

Daily Dolt: Illinois Democratic Leadership

ArchPundit June 15, 2009 0 Comment

Primarily I’m looking at you Mike Madigan.  What good is a majority if you cannot use it for anything worthwhile like ensuring the fiscal well being of the state and ensuring reasonable services for the citizens of Illinois?

Even in the sheltered House this sort of refusal to take on a financial disaster is appalling.  Someone, preferably a very powerful Speaker, needs to sit down with House Dems and tell them straight out that either they pass a tax increase or the consequences are going to be far worse than passing a tax increase.

The state is broke and there is no way out of this that doesn’t involve a tax increase–a significant tax increase.  That is going to take Members taking a risk and no amount of shielding by the Speaker is going to change that.  Blagojevich was a convenient excuse–and a legitimate one when it came to not dealing with the long terms problems of the Illinois budget. Thankfully he’s gone, but there is no more time to put off a long term solution that involves significant tax increases, though it can be combined with tax reform–especially property taxes.

But what is Andy McKenna worried about?  Whether Madigan is using Twitter. Can anyone play this game?

Roland’s Consistency

ArchPundit June 15, 2009 0 Comment

Is how Illinois voters don’t like him:

5* Should Roland Burris run for re-election to the Senate in 2010?
13% Yes
74% No
13% Not sure

6* How likely is it that Roland Burris will be reelected as senator if he runs for re-election?
7% Very likely
14% Somewhat likely
35% Not very likely
40% Not at all likely
3% Not sure

7* If Burris runs for re-election to the United States Senate, would you definitely vote for him, definitely vote against him, or would it depend upon who was running against him?
6% Definitely vote for him
61% Definitely vote against him
32% It would depend on who was running against him
1% Not sure

11* To win his appointment to the United States Senate, how likely is it that Roland Burris was involved in unethical pay to play politics?
50% Very likely
27% Somewhat likely
9% Not very likely
2% Not at all likely
12% Not sure

Progress Illinois has the funniest quote in a while:

From the department of dubious claims … On Ray Hanania’s WJJG radio show this morning, Delmarie Cobb, adviser to Sen. Roland Burris, said that she “jokes with Roland that he has made Dick Durbin a better senator than he ever was.” She also asserted that Durbin “is so busy trying to show Roland up that he is suddenly running all over town at ribbon-cuttings and groundbreakings.” Hanania asked in response, “Is it really him leveraging Roland’s problems to make himself look better?” “Oh, that’s exactly what it is,” Cobb responded. Listen (full audio here):

Roland Burris has never been known for a strong work ethic.  He was ambitious and such, but his actual work at governance has been mediocre at best.  If this is Roland’s primary advisor, he really will make a fool of himself and try to run for election.