Mission Impossible: Keep up with General Assembly

Last summer I kicked myself for paying too little attention to the legislative session.  Like many others, I struggled to figure out changes to tenure,  teacher pay,  charter school rules and other developments in public education after lawmakers had gone home and everything was a done deal.

This year I vowed to make sure readers knew about education proposals in time to react.  But I'm no longer sure that's possible.

I set out with good intentions,  dutifully trying to keep up with the education bills being introduced.

In June I spent a week in Raleigh covering the General Assembly.  Mostly I learned that not being there isn't as big a disadvantage as I'd thought.  The legislative web site has a lot of great information,  including audio links to key discussions.  After scurrying around to grab a seat in the chambers,  I discovered that the more experienced political reporters often stayed in the press room following the discussions on audio.

So it's great that we can do that from Charlotte.  But I've concluded that the volume and complexity of this system makes it nearly impossible to keep up,  even in this ostensibly short and simple off-year session.

A search for education bills in the 2013-14 session gets 532 results.  I'm pretty sure that only those in the lighter typeface are active in 2014,  but that's still a long list.

Sometimes the content changes dramatically as it moves through the system.  House Bill 1224,  for instance,  began life in May as  "an act to modify the job maintenance and capital development fund provisions."  But when it went to the Senate Finance Committee last week it morphed into a bill that could kill the Mecklenburg County commissioners' plan to hold a referendum on a sales-tax hike to boost Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools salaries.

I've paid especially close attention to Senate Bill 793,  which has been through five versions, 11 proposed amendments and 39 actions since it was introduced in May.  It's the one that,  depending on the day,  either ensures that charter schools will follow the same personnel disclosure and privacy laws as other public schools,  removes all references to said topic or blocks disclosure of charter school employees' names.  (Meanwhile,  the Observer finally completed the database of Charlotte-area salaries last week,  when Lincoln Charter provided its information.)

Because I was dogging that bill,  Rep. Charles Jeter, R-Mecklenburg,  realized that his protect-the-names amendment has consequences far beyond his intentions.  He says he asked the conference committee to delete the amendment he got the House to pass.  Best I can tell,  there's been no action since that committee was created July 1.  What will emerge is anyone's guess.  Meanwhile,  a search for charter school bills turns up 47 other options to keep track of.

In my efforts to serve as a better watchdog,  I've ended up feeling like a mutt trying to chase a forest full of squirrels.  Even with the state's press corps doing their best,  I can't help wondering what  surprises may emerge after the last gavel bangs.  (Public Schools First NC is doing the best job I've seen of tracking education proposals.  Last week's summary filled nine pages.)

I voiced my frustration to Tom Tate,  the CMS board's senior member,  when we were talking about something else.

"I don't know how anyone is keeping up with it at this point,"  Tate sympathized.  "Even the legislators themselves."

Sugar Creek Charter salaries posted

We've updated the charter school salary database to include employees of Sugar Creek Charter School, leaving Lincoln Charter School as the only school that hasn't provided names  (Chief Administrator Dave Machado has said his school is working on that list).

The Observer requested salary information from 22 Charlotte-area charter schools in March,  sparking a prolonged debate over disclosure that continues to work its way through the General Assembly.

Sugar Creek students at school choice rally with Gov. McCrory

I don't think the Sugar Creek names are  "stop the press"  news.  The school had already provided details for its top administrators,  withholding names of lower-ranking employees.

But I do think full disclosure is important.  As Rep. Charles Jeter learned when he introduced an amendment designed to block the Observer and other media from publishing salary lists for charter schools  --  the same kind of lists that have been published for employees of school districts and other public bodies for years  --  when you start trying to pull some information from public scrutiny you can create more problems than you solve.

If a broader discussion of salary discussion loops around in the coming year,  as Jeter has suggested,  I hope the people who want to limit public access to personnel data will be challenged to provide specific,  first-hand information on the harm that disclosure causes.  We heard dire predictions when we first posted Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools salaries in 2008.  I'm well aware that many individuals don't like seeing their salaries posted,  but I have gotten no reports that it disrupted public education.

Likewise,  some charter school officials and advocates said disclosure of merit-based salaries would lead to such turmoil on the faculty that students would suffer.  But since we posted the salaries in May,  along with articles analyzing teacher pay and administrator salaries in charters and CMS,  no one has contacted me or Observer editors to say their school fell apart.  Some charter directors have told me the articles helped dispel public myths about extravagant pay at their schools.

I hope any discussion will be precise about terms, too.  During debate over Jeter's amendment,  which the House approved,  he referred to the need to prevent disclosure of merit pay.  As I've noted before,  merit pay,  which is used in some charter and traditional public schools,  should make sense,  even if there's room to debate the results.  Market pay can be random. As one of my professors used to say,  the market is amoral.  The teacher in the next classroom may earn significantly more for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with fairness or ability.  That may be disturbing for teachers to discover,  but I suspect the real discomfort falls on the administrators who have to explain it.

Jeter's charter-bill quotes attributed to wrong man

I owe Rep. David Lewis, R-Hartnett, an apology.

My recent front-page article on a charter-bill amendment introduced by Rep. Charles Jeter and a follow-up blog post  (now revised)  indicated that Lewis had spoken in favor of that amendment. I just learned from the Associated Press that the comments attributed to Lewis referring to a hostile work environment were in fact made by Jeter, a Mecklenburg Republican.

Lewis

Lewis emailed me to say the quotes were wrong.

"While I,  along with 64 other members,  did vote for the Amendment, I have never commented publicly on the subject,"  he wrote.  "I do agree largely with Rep. Jeter's argument that the public is not harmed by withholding the charter teacher's name while fully disclosing everything else.  I only bring this to your attention because I am proud of my efforts to increase transparency whenever possible and this article, which has been picked up by periodicals statewide, implies I vocally supported and helped carry the amendment which seems to be contrary to that effort."

I've been covering issues related to charter school salaries and compliance with the state's Public Records Law since March.  When political reporter Jim Morrill told me about the amendment,  I checked the legislative records,  did a phone interview with Jeter and wrote the story.  I added quotes from the AP article,  believing they had a second voice speaking strongly to the issue.  After I forwarded Lewis'  email to the AP, they confirmed that Jeter's remarks had been erroneously attributed to Lewis,  who did not take part in the debate.

Lewis forwarded a 17-minute audio clip of the debate,  which provided some interesting details.  Several representatives,  including Jeter and Rep. Rob Bryan,  R-Mecklenburg,  said they'd like to see future discussion of removing even more personnel information from public view,  either for charter employees and/or for teachers in traditional public schools.  Jeter's argument is that salary rosters such as the Observer publishes for employees of school districts,  public universities,  city,  state and county governments create strife when the same is done for charter schools because charter teachers are not on the state pay scale.  In charter schools  --  and in many Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools that are involved in merit pay programs  --  teachers with similar experience and credentials may earn different salaries.

In introducing the amendment,  which simply states that names of charter school employees are not subject to public disclosure,  Jeter said that  "Charter school teachers are not state employees.  Charter school teachers do not get to participate in the state pension plan."

Two legislators noted that charter boards actually decide whether their employees participate.  One of them suggested  "displacing"  the amendment to get clarification,  but Jeter declined,  saying the pension issue is not critical.  "Teachers' names should not have to be published for ridicule,"  he said.

Cunningham

Two Democratic women,  Rep. Carla Cunningham of Mecklenburg and Rep. Verla Insko of Orange,  suggested that disclosing pay by name reveals whether female teachers are being paid equally for equal work.  Jeter responded that names are not always gender-specific.  Bryan added that  "just like in private business,  people bring discrimination claims all the time and that information can be discovered,  so I think that's really a non-issue." 

It's now up to the Senate and House to reconcile their different versions of the charter bill,  which addresses several issues other than disclosure of names.  Gov. Pat McCrory has threatened to veto the whole bill if the amendment shielding names remains.

However it's resolved,  it looks like we can expect more efforts next year to scale back the amount of public information that's subject to public review.

Charter name ban: Think it through

A parent recently emailed me with concerns about a soon-to-open charter school in Charlotte.  She's considering enrolling her child,  she said,  so she has been asking questions about staffing,  attending board meetings and researching the new director.  Material she found from the two charter schools where that director worked previously led her to doubt whether the new school's board had made a wise hire and accurately represented the director's experience.

I'm not including specifics because I haven't had time to verify this information.  But my first step was obvious:  Email the two N.C. charter schools where the director worked and ask for details of her work history,  including her titles, dates of employment and whether she resigned or was dismissed.

Under a charter bill passed by the state Senate on June 17,  that information would be indisputably a matter of public record.

Under the amended version the House passed last week,  that's far less clear.

Jeter

There's no indication that Rep. Charles Jeter,  the Mecklenburg Republican and charter school parent who introduced the amendment,  and the 64 other House members who voted for the amendment want to block parents and reporters from getting this kind of information.  Instead,  Jeter said he wants to stop newspapers from requesting and publishing names and salaries of charter school administrators,  teachers and other staff,  as the Observer and at least one other N.C. newspaper have done recently.

But the amendment doesn't limit itself to certain types of requests or certain categories of employees.  It simply says that names of charter school employees  "shall not be open to inspection,"  apparently putting names into the same category of confidentiality as job evaluations.

I asked public records and personnel experts at the UNC Chapel Hill School of Government how this might play out.

"It appears to prohibit the release of the name of an employee,  presumably for any purpose. That seems to be a broader limitation than what might have been intended,"  said Professor and Associate Dean Freyda Bluestein,  after reading the amendment and consulting with a colleague.

Most charter schools name their administrators on their web sites,  and some name their full faculty.  Employees often make presentations or are included in announcements at charter school board meetings,  which are public and whose minutes become public records.  Would this kind of disclosure be forbidden?

"It seems to me that it might prohibit the release of the name for any purpose, as I mention in my email,"  Bluestein responded.

The bill that passed the Senate on three readings and the House on the first two puts charter school employees under the same personnel privacy protections and disclosure requirements as other public schools.  That spells out 11 personnel items that must be made public for each employee,  including name, employment date, terms of contract, current position, salary  (including benefits,  incentives and bonuses) and information about promotions, demotions, transfers and disciplinary actions.

The amended version that passed the House on third reading removes names from that list.

That creates another puzzler:  If someone  --  whether a journalist,  parent or prospective employer   --  requests the public information for an individual employee by name,  can the school release it?  And if so,  are they required to do so?

"I suppose technically,  if you somehow had the list of names already and asked for their salaries, (or any other type of information that is public under that statute),  they might be required to provide the salaries and other information since this would not involve the school actually making the names open to inspection (since they were provided in the request),"  said Bluestein.  "I'm not sure exactly how this would work as a practical matter,  if enacted."

Bear in mind that this legislation came about because of confusion about what the law requires.  Even charter leaders who said they thought public disclosure was appropriate hesitated to release information in the face of mixed messages from state staff.  If something as basic as publicly naming the director of your school is potentially breaking the law,  I predict some of the public money going to charter schools is going to be spent on legal advice.

Here's hoping that as the Senate and House reconcile the two versions of the bill,  they think this through carefully.

Talking with and about teachers

With the 2014 legislative session less than three months away,  State Rep. Tricia Cotham is launching a series of forums to talk with teachers about supporting schools and shaping state policy.  The first will be at 2 p.m. Saturday,   Feb. 22,  at the Plaza-Midwood library branch,  1623 Central Ave.

Cotham

She'll hold another session for teachers at 6:30 p.m. March 11 at the Matthews library,  230 Matthews Station St.,  and a third for students and teachers on March 16 at the Independence library,  6000 Conference Drive.  That session starts at 1:30 p.m. for students and 2:30 for teachers,  according to Cotham's web site.

Cotham,  a Mecklenburg Democrat,  was a teacher and administrator in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools before joining the General Assembly in 2007.  She notes that the sessions are not limited to CMS employees;  all teachers are welcome.

Jeter

At 8 a.m. March 6,  MeckEd will host a community conversation on  "Valuing N.C. Teachers,"  with Cotham,  state Rep. Charlie Jeter,  a Huntersville Republican,  and Eric Davis,  an unaffiliated Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board member.  Click here for details and to RSVP.

And while you've got your calendars out,  here are a couple more education-related events coming up.  You can be one of the first to catch the CMS 2014-15 budget overview from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Feb. 26 at West Charlotte High,  2219 Senior Drive.  More sessions around the county will be held through April;  click here for the schedule.  You can also take the CMS online budget survey through Friday.

And for those with an interest in services for students with disabilities,  the N.C. Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing on proposed changes to state policies from 5:30 to 7 p.m. March 19 in Davidson.  Click here for details.

Why sue? Just tweet

The frontiers of social media expanded just a little during Tuesday's school board meeting,  when three public officials tweeted plans to solve a problem that was still under discussion.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board was getting a staff briefing on the challenges of the state's  "Read to Achieve"  mandate.  A flood of new testing for third-graders and rules that give charter schools more flexibility than traditional public schools drew strong criticism from board members.

I was tweeting from that discussion.  State Rep. Tricia Cotham,  a Democrat and former CMS educator,  and state Rep. Charles Jeter,  a Republican who serves on the House education committee,  were following from a distance.  So was school board member Rhonda Lennon,  from her computer at the dais.

At one point,  board member Ericka Ellis-Stewart asked if the board was willing to sue to block the most onerous portions of the law.

I tweeted Superintendent Heath Morrison's response: Morrison on legal action: Better to work with legislators, who seem receptive to revising #ReadtoAchieve. Lawsuits are last resort.

Jeter

Jeter responded: Absolutely willing to work together to resolve these issues. If something needs fixing, let's do it together.

Lennon

Lennon: Charlie let fix this ... Read to Achieve creating chaos for traditional LEAs, charters not burdened by same laws

Jeter: Rhonda, I'm in, let's fix it.

Cotham

Lennon: @triciacotham will you join us to fix this #readtoachieve?

Cotham: Of course!!

Lest someone think that Lennon should have been voting instead of tweeting, let me note that there was no action required. In fact, a reasonable person might conclude that staff reports about controversial state mandates, such as Read to Achieve and teacher tenure changes, are more of a public performance than a chance for the board to get up to speed. Members get the details in advance, and the staff presentations tend to be followed by board members' remarks about hardship to CMS and the importance of mobilizing the public to weigh in.

I'm not naive enough to think Tuesday night's Twitter flitter will solve a very complex problem. But I am hopeful enough to think there are officials on both sides of the aisle, at the state and local level, who want to work past the significant snarls in last summer's state mandates to tease out the valuable goals.

Before our lawmakers return to Raleigh in May, it's a smart time for parents, teachers and others who care to get up to speed on the issues and let their representatives know what they want. It's easy to look up contact info at the N.C. General Assembly web site (if you aren't sure which district you're in, look up your voter registration).

I'd suggest you also check out the CMS presentation on Read to Achieve, but oddly, the version posted online eliminates six crucial pages on testing and other "challenging points" from the version that was presented to the board and reporters that night. (Update: A full version has been posted.) Even more perplexing: The video of the meeting starts well into the session, with one of deleted pages on screen and Chief Learning Services Officer Valerie Truesdale reviewing summer school requirements.