If you’re a Republican running for governor in Montana (and other than Jeff Essmann, who’s not these days?) it seems that there are really only three things you need to talk about: restricting the right of women to make decisions about their bodies, reducing the tax burden on massive corporations, and decreasing regulations that “harm” the business climate in Montana.

In short, the GOP slogan for this election might well be 1896: Not the Worst Year Ever.

The narrative, however, just isn’t true.

The Laurel Outlook made it clear this week that corporations just don’t pay their taxes if they don’t feel like it, putting the operational budgets of schools in jeopardy:

The total amount of tax revenues under protest in Yellowstone County amounted to almost $30 million at the end of 2011, including $13.35 million for just this year. The mounting total has a significant impact on the districts and jurisdictions which would normally receive the tax revenues, not the least of which is the Laurel School District.
The Laurel School District is projected to be down a total of $5,427,571 by the end of this fiscal year, June 30, 2012.

There are two main industries which are protesting taxes — oil refineries and communication companies. Conoco protested 31 percent of its total tax bill in 2011 and CHS (Cenex) protested 63 percent. The communication companies are protesting about 85 percent of their total tax bills.

Perhaps instead of constantly fighting for reductions in the taxes businesses pay, Republicans ought to focus on making them actually pay what they owe.

The situation in Marysville is even more instructive as it relates to regulation. The Independent Record reports that the new mining operations there have been incredibly damaging to the community, with impacts including flooding, noise pollution, dangerous roads, and depleted wells.

It’s bad enough that Representative Mike Miller agreed that the residents had legitimate concerns.

What gives the people of Marysville a chance to maintain their homes and environment in decent condition? The very regulations that Republicans decry as destroying business, the very laws which ensure our state never again becomes a victim of the kinds of excesses visited upon us by the likes of William A. Clark and Standard Oil.

Republicans seem to believe that regulation is stopping business growth in Montana, all evidence to the contrary. But it’s not “stifling regulation” when it keeps your property values high; it’s not “bureaucratic red tape” when it keeps your water safe to drink, and it’s not “job-killing” when it keeps your kids’ schools adequately funded.

It’s common sense—and the recognition that Montana was not better off a century ago.It’s ensuring that Montana remain not only a place to work in, but a place we want to live in.

Jhwygirl has the news that Ken Miller will be announcing the selection of conservative education opponent activist and Republican House candidate Billie Orr as his running mate in his futile bid for the governor’s chair.   (Correction below)

Republican legislative candidate Billie Orr is certainly going to have some explaining to do when it comes to her views on education.

I can’t wait to hear Ms. Orr come out against the “education establishment,” given her record as someone who took millions of dollars from the federal government, enriching herself and misappropriating taxpayer dollars during the education reform racket that President Bush’s misguided No Child Left Behind legislation ushered in.

A lot of details below the fold.

Just how did Ms. Orr and her organization spend these federal dollars?Under the direction of Ms. Orr and another Arizona politician, the Education Leaders Council spent millions of tax dollars on alcohol, meals, and entertainment, as Education Week noted on February 15, 2006:

Between July 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2004, the ELC received more than $23 million in grants from the Education Department’s Fund for the Improvement of Education for the project. Congress appropriated an additional $9.6 million for the project in fiscal 2005, prompting critics to question the group’s spending habits and effectiveness. (See Education Week, Jan. 12, 2005.)
More than 28 percent of the grant costs reviewed in the audit, which covered calendar year 2004, were either questioned or unsupported, the report says. Among the $232,000 in questioned costs were expenditures for meals, entertainment, and travel that did not appear to be related to Following the Leaders. Also included were expenses that federal grants cannot be used for, such as alcoholic beverages, fund raising, and advertising. The organization spent $4,913 on ads that ran in Education Week, the audit says.
The report notes that “officials and employees responsible for incurring most of the questioned and unsupported costs were no longer employed by ELC” when the audit took place.

A perusal of the organization’s audit demonstrates how money was being spent, on expensive restaurants and luxury hotels. And let’s not forget flying John Boehner around the country.

In fact, it got so bad by 2005, that the federal government restricted money to the organization, as Education Week noted on September 28, 2005:

The U.S. Department of Education has placed restrictions on money approved by Congress for the nonprofit Education Leaders Council, which has been criticized by some of its own former board members for its financial practices. (See Education Week, Sept. 23, 2004.)
“They have been designated as a high-risk grantee, and so the drawing down of their funds has special conditions on it,” Chad Colby, an Education Department spokesman, said last week. “They have to show receipts and get approval before they receive any [more] money.”

Ms. Orr also enriched herself to the tune of $200,000 a year, as the Washington Times noted in 2004:

The group’s auditors questioned the propriety of Lisa Graham Keegan, working under a consultant contract as ELC’s $235,000-a-year chief executive officer, sitting on the corporation’s board and helping set policy.

The auditors, Draper & McGinley of Frederick, said the arrangement conflicted with federal regulations.

Billie Orr, who just resigned as ELC’s $200,000-a-year president, also had worked under a similar automatically renewable contract arrangement.

Mrs. Keegan said she arranged the consultant contracts for herself and Ms. Orr “for tax purposes” through their respective consulting firms in Arizona when she resigned as Arizona’s state superintendent of public instruction.

Education Week also noted on January 24, 2004 that Ms. Orr and Ms. Keegan took far more money than the work they were doing warranted.

But a memo of concerns attributed to the food-industry magnate by the ELC says the May audit raises a number of “red flag” issues. Among them were questions about the employment terms of Ms. Keegan and her second in command at the ELC, then-president Billie Orr. Ms. Orr, who had health problems, retired last month.
Both Ms. Keegan and Ms. Orr, also a former deputy of Ms. Keegan’s at the Arizona education department, served in their positions at the ELC as independent contractors. Ms. Keegan, who earned $85,000 a year as state chief, is paid $235,000 a year, plus travel expenses. She receives no other benefits.
Mr. Hume’s memo seemed to question their salaries and their ability to fully oversee the council, given that both women maintained their permanent residences in Arizona and kept apartments near the ELC’s headquarters in Washington.

And finally, as Education Week noted on January 12, 2005, even Republicans in Congress didn’t support the program, because it didn’t have any evidence of success:

Critics of the program, including several nationally known education leaders, claim that the ELC has not been able to account for all of the federal money spent on the program. They’re also concerned that Following the Leaders primarily consists of technology-based products and services operated by private companies that have provided financial support for the council.
To date, the program has not produced any evaluations to show whether it’s effective in the 600 schools in 11 states that have signed up to use it.
Former U.S. Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pa., who served on the ELC’S governing board and spent 26 years in the House of Representatives and six years as chairman of the education committee, called federal lawmakers’ decision to support the new round of funding “a terrible mistake.”

When Republicans talk about privatization of our schools and “school choice,” this is what they mean: individuals enriching themselves at the expense of our children. In this case, that sour dish is being served with a  heaping side of hypocrisy.

Correction: My apologies for the getting the initial post incorrect. In addition to the post mentioned at the top of the piece, another (so I thought) reliable source gave me the same information. Deliberate misinformation or a mistake, the error is on me.

Tomorrow, the Board of Regents is most likely going to vote former regent Clayton Christian in as the next Commissioner of Higher Education in Montana, offering a salary and benefits package worth over $80,000 more annually than the current Commissioner receives.

I have no reason to believe that Clayton Christian isn’t a decent person, good businessman and committed advocate for education. It’s possible that he may be the most qualified person in the United States to be the next Commissioner of Higher Education for Montana, but we’ll never know, because the Montana Board of Regents decided to retroactively offer Christian the over $300,000/year  position without a national search or job posting.

And that’s indefensible. Montana students, who are struggling with crippling tuition and fess, and Montana taxpayers, who are seeing increased tax bills, deserve the absolute best candidate for this position. The logic is simple: if the position is important enough to justify a salary that exorbitant, it’s worth the investment of time and money to find the best candidate.

And, somehow, I imagine that there may have been a few qualified people willing to apply for the position. Perhaps some who have been working in Montana higher education for decades.

The easiest way to see just how questionable this process has been is to compare the 2003 hiring of Commissioner Sheila Stearns and the 2011 hiring of Mr. Christian.

Consider this:

Stearns beat out 31 applicants in a nationwide search in 2003 to become the eighth commissioner of higher education in Montana.

Or these details from the process in 2003:

• On January 9, the Board meet to discuss candidates for Interim Commissioner.
• On March 3, the Board met for “Discussion and final approval of Higher Education Profile, Desired Qualities for Commissioner, and search calendar.”
• On May 29, the Board of Regents held a 6 1/2 hour meeting to review the applicants and interview the candidates for the job.
• On June 17, the Board met in Executive Session to discuss the merits of the candidates.

Now consider the process in 2011:

• Hey, we should raise this salary by $70,000.
• Hey, we like this guy who just retired from the Board and he seems like a decent fellow. Let’s hire him, without a competitive interview, national search, or public input.

Finally, Ms. Stearns has an incredibly impressive resume, including:

• a B.A. in English and History, an MA in History, and a doctorate in Educational Administration.
• a stint as the director of UM alumni relations and one as UM president of university relations.
• a tenure as chancellor at (then) Western College.
• four years as the President of Wayne State University.

In contrast, Mr. Christian

• is a successful business owner.
• has a B.A., a level of education that would make him ineligible to become a principal of a Montana high school.

And it was Stearns who had to compete against a field of 31 candidates for the position!

In the end, the Board of Regents has done a tremendous disservice to the University system, undermining faith in their hiring practices and judgment. They’ve also done a disservice to Mr. Christian, because even were he the best possible candidate, they’ve created a shadow of illegitimacy before he’s even begun the job.

Of course, the $300,000/year plus deferred compensation might cushion that blow.

You know, this one?

Oh, wait!

That’s it.

We’ve hashed around some debates about educational achievement before, but I wonder what people believe K-12 education should accomplish for students? What would define successfully having educated our kids mean?

In the New York Times, Gary Gutting offers this ideal vision:

Concretely, students graduating from high school should, to cite one plausible model, be able to read with understanding classic literature (from, say, Austen and Browning to Whitman and Hemingway) and write well-organized and grammatically sound essays; they should know the basic outlines of American and European history, have a good beginner’s grasp of at least two natural sciences as well as pre-calculus mathematics, along with a grounding in a foreign language.

Students with this sort of education would be excellent candidates for many satisfying and well-paying jobs in, for example, sales and service industries, except for those that require highly specialized skills. From the standpoint of employment, high school graduates would have no need of college unless they wanted to be accountants or engineers, pursue pre-professional programs leading to law or medical school or train for doctoral work in science or the humanities. Apart from this, the only good reason they would have for going to college would be for its intellectual culture.

It’s hard for me to argue with the premise of the first paragraph—and hard for me to argue that we’re accomplishing those aims. Are they worthy goals? How do we get there?

While I was teaching an exercise about paraphrasing in research papers today, I came across this quote from Adrienne Rich in her essay Taking Women Students Seriously:

"The undermining of self, of a woman’s sense of her right to occupy space and walk freely in the world, is deeply relevant to education. The capacity to think independently, to take intellectual risks, to assert ourselves mentally, is inseparable from our physical way of being in the world, our feelings of personal integrity. If it is dangerous for me to walk home late of an evening from the library, because I am a woman and can be raped, how self-possessed, how exuberant can I feel as I sit working in that library? how much of my working energy is drained by the subliminal knowledge that, as a woman, I test my physical right to exist each time I go out alone? Of this knowledge, Susan Griffin has written: ‘…more than rape itself, the fear of rape permeates our lives. And what does one do from day to day, with this experience, which says, without words and directly to the heart, your existence, your experience, may end at any moment. “

I certainly don’t mean to suggest that only women can be sexually assaulted, but outside of very specific contexts, women are far more likely to fear sexual assault in their daily lives than men.

One in five American women has either been raped or experienced attempted rape in her lifetime:

Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report.

Our university system and police must do a better job of making women feel safe. Safe to be in the community without fear of assault and safe in knowledge that if they report a crime, they will be treated with respect and care, not accusations.

The past few months in Missoula must become a call to action, for the community, the university, and the police to do more than deal with this as an isolated incident to be pushed from the front pages as soon as possible.

It became clear during the last legislative session that conservative talk about local control of schools was nothing more than talk, as they tried to impose their narrow view about curriculum on the entire state. Not content to leave the experience of conservative hypocrisy to the likes of  Representative Kris Hansen, gubernatorial candidates Ken Miller and Neil Livingstone recently let the North and South Valley Pachyderms in Victor know just how radical their views on education are.

As Ravalli Republic reporter Whitney Bermes notes both candidates made it clear they’re hostile to health education and local control of schools.

Miller opened up, claiming that public schools in Montana teach “pornographic education to kindergarteners” and that we need entirely reform education in Montana, focusing on charter schools.

Ignoring the fiscal irresponsibility of suggesting more schools when many are already struggling with declining enrollment and a concomitant lack of resources, Miller’s assertion that teachers are exposing children to pornography is the rhetoric of someone both ignorant about the work teachers do and profoundly disrespectful of their professionalism.

I’ll also suggest that Mr. Miller’s fixation on pornography and children says a great deal more about his psyche than it does about Montana’s teachers.

Not to be outdone, super-spy Neil Livingstone showed that he understands  democracy in Montana about as well as he does in Libya, claiming that teacher unions control school board elections in Helena, presumably so that they can teach sex ed instead of history:

While I know Mr. Livingstone hasn’t lived in Montana long enough to understand how school board elections work, they’re the same here as in the rest of the state: one person, one vote—and the people of Helena resoundingly rejected the anti-health argument Livingstone and other conservatives advanced.

Given that Mr. Livingstone has such a limited knowledge of how government works in Montana, I’d suggest that he, not the education system, needs to emphasize civics education.

Montana has a proud tradition of local control of schools. It’s enshrined in our Constitution for many reasons, not the least of which is the danger of ideologues trying to dictate their values from the governor’s chair.

Neither of these two has any chance of becoming Montana’s governor, but voters should be wary of a party determined to undermine the idea that local communities can provide the education that’s best for their kids.

The Helena Independent Record is reporting that the Helena School Board plans to address compensation for the next District Superintendent at Tuesday night’s meeting and I have a bit of advice: don’t increase the Superintendent’s compensation any more than you plan to increase compensation for every other employee group in the District.

By all accounts, Helena had an effective educational leader in former Superintendent Bruce Messinger, who received  compensation just under $145,000 when salary and benefits were combined.

If that salary was enough to retain an excellent Superintendent for fourteen years, surely it will be sufficient to attract qualified and energetic candidates to replace him. To argue that Helena needs to dramatically increase compensation for its next Superintendent will send the wrong message about our priorities as a district and community.

Being a Superintendent of a relatively large school district is certainly a challenging and time-consuming task, but so is teaching in our classrooms, cleaning our schools, driving our buses, and all the others tasks that go into educating children and preparing facilities for their work.

Missoula went through this recently, extending its Superintendent a ten per cent raise and increased benefits the same year teachers received a raise of less than one per cent. The Board justified the move, arguing that those at the top of the pay scale deserve larger raises than those in classrooms:

"We knew we were going to take heat for this," said board trustee Nancy Pickhardt. "But all I can say is that from our point of view, this is the trend in education. It’s performance-based pay and it starts at the top.

Let’s learn from Missoula’s move, which created animosity between employee groups and generated a great deal of negative publicity in the community. Now is certainly not the time to tell the people of Helena that $145,000 a year isn’t enough money.

Let’s compensate our next Superintendent well and let’s hire a dynamic, tireless advocate for schools and students, but do it within  a reasonable budget.

While some of the fires have probably died in Helena following last year’s heated discussion about health curriculum in the public schools, the importance of providing students helpful, frank information about health, including sexuality, has not diminished at all.

Laurie Abraham, in the New York Times Magazine, recently wrote an excellent, timely piece about a kind of health education likely to make some of the opponents of health curriculum in Helena recoil in fear: honest, sometimes explicit conversation about relationships, societal expectations, and sexuality.

It’s also exactly what students need.

While some of those opposed to the health curriculum (and in the former Bush Administration) believe that the only appropriate programs are based on abstinence-only education, such programs are demonstrably unsuccessful when it comes to promoting healthy choices by young people, who need to be treated with respect and honesty.

Abstinence-based programs are a fundamental betrayal of the needs of our students, as the article notes:

“The campaign for abstinence in the schools and communities may seem trivial, an ideological nuisance,” Michelle Fine and Sara McClelland wrote in a 2006 study in The Harvard Educational Review, “but at its core it is . . . a betrayal of our next generation, which is desperately in need of knowledge, conversation and resources to negotiate the delicious and treacherous terrain of sexuality in the 21st century.”

Young people will get information about sexuality, if not from parents and concerned adults in the schools. They’ll get it from popular culture, which will give them distorted ideas about gender roles and body image. They’ll get it from pornography, which often features depictions that are entirely demeaning to women. They’ll get it from friends, who as just as misinformed and confused as they are.

They’ll also get it from experience, which without knowledge, can be emotionally damaging, unhealthy, and even dangerous. This danger will only be compounded if students don’t have someone to talk to about their feelings and experiences.

While there are those who argue that discussions about sexuality should be limited to the home, to advance that argument is to ignore the fact that many parents are unwilling or unequipped to have these conversations. Even those with the closest relationships and most knowledge can easily struggle with a subject many parents never want to broach.

As a wise former student noted:

I sincerely hope that every young person has someone in their life that they can talk to about sex as candidly and openly as the educator in this article. The sad reality is that conversations like that are too few and far between.

The fight about helping students make healthy choices may have died down, but the dialogue must not.

Today seems to be another one of those days in which Representative Rehberg and his campaign staff are doing their best to define just what an ass the Congressman is. Confronted by a reporter in Esquire magazine about Rehberg’s repeated alcohol-related injuries, this was the best response the Rehberg team could muster:

He [Erik Iverson] added that the Rehberg campaign wouldn’t be engaging in such personal attacks, but then in almost the next breath tried to poke holes in “this carefully crafted image that Tester is somehow some sort of centrist conservative Democrat,” saying: “It just isn’t true. I mean, the guy is a liberal former music teacher.”

It seems quite appropriate that in the mind of Dennis Rehberg, calling someone a teacher is some kind of pejorative. Educating himself—or helping others to get an education—has never really been a priority for him.

Compare Senator Tester, who served his community as a teacher and then school board member (and who still manages to serve his constituents and harvest his crops) with Rehberg, who loves Washington more than his roots in Montana:

And the wimp-by-insinuation game can, of course, go both ways. Rehberg, it turns out, is a rancher who doesn’t really ranch anymore, having given up first on cattle and then on cashmere goats because, Iverson admitted, “he couldn’t manage the herd and going back and forth between Montana and D.C.”

One of the candidates for Senate talks about Montana values; the other one lives them.