Hugh Bailey argues that fighting democracy is a losing battle.
He refers to the struggle over the future of the public schools of Bridgeport, Connecticut, which has involved an ongoing battle by the mayor to gain control of the schools (he lost a referendum when the public said no) and now involves a court battle to keep Paul Vallas as superintendent. He was hired, Bailey says, by an illegitimate board and given a contract to lock him into place. Now a court has ruled that he is not legally qualified to serve under state law.
Bailey points out:
“Like it or not, our system of laws is the one we have, and making exceptions for celebrity superintendents or anyone else is only going to bring trouble.
Speaking of Vallas, he needs to go. He’s leaving anyway. He’s had one foot out the door from the day he arrived. The notion that he — that anyone — can swoop in, make some changes, lock them into place and get out of town is farcical.
One judge has ruled against him already, and the state Supreme Court has proven it doesn’t look kindly on the whole “the rules don’t apply to us” routine when it comes to Bridgeport education.
That’s the peril of this strategy. The mayor of Bridgeport might believe democracy doesn’t work. He might even convince the governor. Clearly the state education commissioner is on board.
But those judges — they’re tougher to bring around. And without them on your side, all that hard work that went into enacting anti-democratic reforms takes you right back where you started.”
Public education is part of the fabric of democracy. It cannot be reformed by undemocratic means. When elites believe that they know best, and that their ideas are so good that they need not consult parents and teachers, they are doomed from the start.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Yes we can!
Insert your reformy or political shyster name at 00:29 because these edufrauds/carpet baggers are going down.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I3tKLD615DQ
The message that DEMOCRACY MATTERS needs to be heard by those most responsible for the fiasco of eduform that Vallas brought to Bridgeport: Governor Malloy and Education Commissioner Pryor. Yet, they are turning a deaf ear.
Indeed on the agenda for Monday’s agenda of the CT State BOE under Executive session is the following–Pending Litigation: Considering Action regarding Carmen L. Lopez et al v. Paul Vallas.
Every effort has been made by the city to obscure the FACT that the court case was a personal action against Vallas, the individual who needed to earn credentials (even when the process had been specially tailored for him as Malloy wrote a new law, which the governor now seems to have forgotten that he signed). Proclaiming that they will take the case as “high” as they need to in order to keep Vallas, the city is unjustly charging the taxpayers for litigation that seems unfounded as certification is a personal matter.
And, now the State wants to “get into the act”? Malloy must be held accountable for the law that he wrote. I would welcome ideas for how this can be done because it is clear that he and Pryor do not want Vallas to go.
I sincerely hope that Hugh Bailey is correct about the courts, and in the meantime wonder what more can be done.
You confuse democracy with the rule of law. A government of laws, not of men constrains arbitrary administrators. Sometimes it constrains out of control demagogues voted in by fools. If you support this ruling, do you support rulings at the federal level that have constrained President Obama? I thought not.
HU,
Allow me to correct your statement a tad.
“Sometimes it constrains out of control demagogues SUCH AS TEA PARTY POLITICIANS voted in by THE fools KNOWN AS TEA PARTIERS.” A sword can cut with two edges not just one.
Be that as it may, why do you not support the ruling?
Duane
Duane, I don’t think HU said he did not support the ruling.
I do support the ruling. Vallas should be out for ignoring the law. Likewise, Obama should be out for ignoring the Constitution. Suits on specific issues are pending. He’s ignoring the Supreme Court on the NLRB ruling.
Tea Partiers are for law and democracy, both. What’s your beef with them, anyway? All they want is honest government.
HU,
TE was correct and I was wrong for inferring/reading between the lines of what you wrote. My apologies. And I agree with you about Obama (I find it so hard to type that and not Obomber) except he should be impeach for trashing the constitution not just ignoring it. How many other presidents have the blood of a sixteen year old American (sic) citizen on their hands for personally ordering the “hit”/murder without any judicial proceedings? But then again Georgie the Least also should have been impeached for also trashing the constitution. Between the two they’ve pretty much destroyed the constitution and congress and the courts have been accomplices.
My beefs with the Tea Party are: Its pseudo “grass roots” origins and the ensuing narrative espousing that origin. Some of its platform (see http://www.teaparty-platform.com/), of which there are some good thoughts but the total libertarian/randian aspect denies that man is a social creature through and through, specifically #2 of eliminating the national debt and it’s co-relative, #3 eliminating deficit spending as it can be appropriate for the government at times to borrow to complete necessary functions; #4 protecting free markets because that is a bankrupt concept, there is no such thing as a “free market”-by definition the government sets the conditions under which all monied transactions takes place; #6 promote civic responsibility, whatever that means, as I need no one to tell me, a free thinker what my civic duties are. Does that include mandatory voting?; #9 avoiding the pitfalls of politics unless that means overturning Citizens United and I’ve not heard the tea partiers pushing for that.
My comment was meant to show that, depending on your choice of “demagogue”, you’re statement could easily be turned against you and the tea partiers you so greatly triumph.
Here’s the dilemma: we passed a dreadful law, NCLB, that included “state takeovers” and “school closures” as a remedy for “school failures”. As part of NCLB we effectively agreed that we would use standardized test scores to determine which schools “failed”. Most educators and politicians should have seen this coming: low standardized test scores correlated with poverty for decades before NCLB. The “silver bullet” that would rescue the children in poverty was going to be state managed deregulated schools. This brings us to the major flaw of NCLB: there was no state department of education in 2001 or no state department of education NOW who is capable of taking over a “failing school” and turning it around. This gave the ALEC crowd a golden opportunity to introduce privatization under the guise of civil rights.
An excellent synopsis of the consequences of NCLB!
Yes, and I would like to know more about any, if any, debate that surrounded that legislation passing. Did anyone stop and think about it? I do not remember any talk of pending legislation around that time–only remember hearing about it and seeing it in action. Did any elected official stand up amd day this is a bad idea? Yet another hole in my own understanding of this landscape that I will try to fill by reading. Such madness, all of this!!
I remember watching that movie about 9/11 by Robert Moore and a livid Iraqi woman screaming curses on George Bush and America. I guess those curses are coming to fruition, like Mercutio’s “a plague ‘o both your houses”–
However, a little Polyanna keeps me going and motivates me to keep on teaching and hoping for the best.
and say (not amd day)
“. . . we passed a dreadful law, NCLB, that included “state takeovers” and “school closures” as a remedy for “school failures”. As part of NCLB we effectively agreed that we. . . . ”
No, WE didn’t. And some of us have been fighting this crap since before NCLB.
Unfortunately in a democracy the majority rules… so I’ve used “we” even though I disagree completely with NCLB
Sometimes I have a hard time when I hear the term “we” used as you did. Thanks for the clarification. At the same time even if the majority rules that would exclude using the term “we” as the majority is not “all”, therefore no “we”.
Oops… I meant FORTUNATELY in a democracy the majority rules… and fortunately we can try to inform those who vote in congress that they are on the wrong track…
Tell me more about fighting this crap since before NCLB, please. I am very eager to know about that.
Well, here in the Show Me State, DESE started talking about “data driven decision making” in the late 90’s and one could see the writing on the wall what that meant-standards and more testing and crunching data. I spoke out against it then, and continued to fight it as our PLC days (weren’t called that back in the very early 00s) were starting to be consumed by PD based on making common assessments and crunching data. I tried to show the folks how it was a waste of the, the other teachers knew but most “went along to get along” and the administrators would politely tell me I was right but that I had to participate or else. Even after being named FL department chair I did my best to oppose and fight it to the point that the principal tried to have an underling falsely accuse me of sexual harassment. Forturnately for me, the underling was a strong and principled enough person to refuse. I left to come to my current district the next year.
The obvious next step is — ACCOUNTABILITY for judges! Why, those guys have a JOB FOR LIFE! On the taxpayer’s dollar! The newly formed “Justice First” group advocates new laws that force the dismissal of any judge if enough citizens within their district sign a petition demanding it! THAT’S democracy!
The role of the judiciary in a democracy has always been controversial. I’m just finishing Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court by Jeff Shesol. It is an interesting book.