A10

R

FGHIJ

Jog to the top?

an independent newspaper

EDITORIALS

Mixed messages from round one of President Obama’s school reform competition

E

DUCATION SECRETARY Arne Dun- can was true to his word that Race to the Top dollars would not, as too often happens with federal aid to education, be doled out indiscriminately. Only

two states — Delaware and Tennessee — emerged as winners from the first round of com- petition for the coveted dollars. Both have solid, comprehensive plans to reform education. But other states with even more ambitious plans lost out, at least partly because they couldn’t get unions and other stakeholders to support their goals. Delaware will receive $100 million and Ten- nessee $500 million in Race to the Top grants announced this week. They beat out 14 other fi- nalists in a complicated process that used inde- pendent reviewers to grade plans on a 500-point scale in more than a dozen categories. Delaware ranked first with 454 and Tennessee garnered 444. Both states were strong on having sophisti- cated data systems and linking teacher evalua- tions to student gains. Both were able to garner strong support from teachers unions and local school boards. That wasn’t the case in states such as Florida

or Louisiana. Both had been handicapped as early favorites to win Race to the Top dollars be- cause of the boldness and breadth of their re- forms. Neither could get sufficient buy-in from local stakeholders; Florida fell to fourth place, Louisiana to a surprisingly low 11th. Administration officials argue that lack of

support from union and local school boards can’t be blamed for knocking these states out, because getting local buy-in accounted for only 45 points. But reviewers’ comments show that lack of local support, particularly from teachers

unions, influenced grades in other categories. One Florida reviewer, for example, conceded that the state met all the criteria for effective teacher evaluations but still deducted points in that category because the union hadn’t signed on. And what was the real worry of the reviewer who considered the District’s application “too ambitious”? Overall, the Race to the Top has had a galva- nizing and beneficial effect on reform efforts in many states. And we don’t minimize the aims of Tennessee and Delaware or their accomplish- ments in forging consensus behind impressive reform plans. Lawmakers in both states enacted meaningful reforms — moves that should set an example for places, such as Maryland, that are still dithering over proposals to strengthen teacher effectiveness and promote student achievement. Collaboration is always desirable. But should it be required? Should the federal government be granting unions and local boards effective veto power over school reforms? Florida, Louisiana and the District face a di- lemma as they contemplate the next round of Race to the Top competition. Officials in all three places are fighting the good fight to change a sta- tus quo that does little to help students. Unions for the most part have cast themselves as de- fenders of that indefensible status quo. Alas, the lesson that officials may take from the first round is that perhaps it’s better to lower your sights sufficiently to achieve buy-in from the education establishment. The bulk of the $4 billion in Race to the Top funds is yet to be distributed. Mr. Duncan should adjust the ranking process to encourage states to strive for what’s really needed, not just what’s politically comfortable.

The recess mess

A president shouldn’t be forced to make appointments when Congress isn’t in session.

R

ECESS APPOINTMENTS are one of Washington’s most flagrant illustrations of situational ethics. When a Republican president bypasses the objections of

Democratic senators to install a nominee, Demo- crats cry foul, while Republicans claim the presi- dent’s hand was forced by the opposition’s ob- structionism. When the situation is reversed — a Democrat in the White House and Republicans bottling up nominations — so, too, are the duel- ing protestations of outrage and necessity. Thus, five years ago, Arizona Sen. John Mc- Cain (R) was describing President Bush’s choice to install John Bolton as the United Nations am- bassador as “the president’s prerogative.” Last weekend, after President Obama issued his first batch of recess appointments, Mr. McCain dis- played less solicitude for presidential authority: “This administration chose to ignore the ques- tions and concerns and instead forced their will on the American people,” he said. Of course, the that-was-then approach to recess appointments is bipartisan. When Vice President Biden was Sen. Biden, and one of Mr. Bolton’s chief critics, he termed that recess appointment “an abuse of power.” When President Obama was Sen. Oba- ma, he said the move made Mr. Bolton “damaged goods.” We are no fans of recess appointments, but Mr.

Obama’s decision to resort to the maneuver is understandable. It’s probably no coincidence

that, by this point in his term, Mr. Bush had named 15 recess appointees — precisely the same number Mr. Obama named last Saturday. The difference is that at this point Mr. Bush had five nominees awaiting action on the Senate floor; Mr. Obama had 77. The 15 recess appoint- ees had been waiting an average of 214 days for confirmation; the shortest time was 144 days. These sorts of delays are intolerable. As we have said during both Democratic and Republican ad- ministrations, presidents should have broad lee- way in choosing how to staff their administra- tions. Holding up nominees for reasons entirely unrelated to their qualifications is particularly odious. So is leaving important boards without a quorum and key posts unfilled. The administration bears its own responsibili-

ty for the fact that some key posts remain un- filled. Its handling of the nominees to head the Transportation Security Administration has been particularly bumbling. And it chose to wait out the legislative fight over health care before announcing a nominee for the critical position of director of the Centers for Medicare & Medic- aid Services. Despite this dawdling, its eventual choice, Dr. Donald Berwick, a highly regarded Harvard University health policy expert, de- serves swift consideration. Supporters and op- ponents of the new health-care legislation ought to be able to agree that leaving the agency with- out a confirmed head is not healthy.

A sound approach on guns

A judge supports the District’s unique landscape.

But how far government could go in regulating this Second Amendment right was left largely unanswered. It’s encouraging then that the Dis- trict’s effort to balance the rights of gun owners against the need to safeguard public safety has survived its first legal test. We hope that higher courts will concur with this reasoned ruling. U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ruled last week that laws enacted by the District after the landmark D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008 are constitutional. In dismissing the lawsuit, whose plaintiffs include Dick Heller, who successfully challenged the city’s gun ban, the judge ruled as permissible the city’s firearms registration pro- cedures and its prohibition of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devic-

E

VEN AS the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on hand- gun possession, it recognized that the right to bear arms was not unlimited.

es. Such regulations are allowed, he wrote, be- cause they serve the District’s “important gov- ernmental interest” in public safety. Particularly noteworthy is the judge’s finding

that the District’s laws, while perhaps more re- strictive than those in other jurisdictions, are not unusual or unreasonable. Other jurisdic- tions have licensing and registration require- ments, and the District faces a unique set of threats because of its urban locale and role as nation’s capital. It is simple logic that the District’s reg-

ulations for firearms should be different than those of a rural community that doesn’t play daily host to the nation’s leaders and foreign dignitaries. Careful thought went into the draft- ing of the law, subject to both exhaustive public hearings and congressional review. We hope Judge Urbina’s sensible affirmation of the result will stand.

ABCDE

News pages:

BOISFEUILLET JONES JR., Chairman • KATHARINE WEYMOUTH, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer

Vice Presidents

MARCUS W. BRAUCHLI Executive Editor

RAJU NARISETTI, Managing Editor ELIZABETH SPAYD, Managing Editor

SHIRLEY CARSWELL Deputy Managing Editor

STEPHEN P. HILLS, President and General Manager

1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000

The Washington Post Company:

DONALD E. GRAHAM, Chairman of the Board

Business and advertising:

Editorial and opinion pages:

FRED HIATT

Editorial Page Editor JACKSON DIEHL

Deputy Editorial Page Editor

ROGER ANDELIN ......................................................................................... Technology KENNETH R. BABBY .................................................................................... Advertising BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE .................................................................................... At Large USHA CHAUDHARY..................................................................... Finance & Admin/CFO JAMES W. COLEY JR. ......................................................................................Production L. WAYNE CONNELL ......................................................................... Human Resources LEONARD DOWNIE JR. ...................................................................................... At Large GREGG J. FERNANDES .................................................................................Circulation JOHN B. KENNEDY ............................................................................................... Labor ERIC N. LIEBERMAN ......................................................................................... Counsel CHRISTOPHER MA ................................................................................... Development GOLI SHEIKHOLESLAMI ...................................................................................... Digital STEVE STUP ..................................................................................... Digital Advertising

EUGENE MEYER, 1875-1959 • PHILIP L. GRAHAM, 1915-1963 • KATHARINE GRAHAM, 1917-2001 ——————

KLMNO

Life Sciences Center: A boon for the region

As a professional plan-

ner, longtime resident of Montgomery County and student of the bioscience community, I want to commend The Post’s edi- torial staff for its thought- ful insight on and support for the proposed expan- sion of the Montgomery County Life Sciences Cen- ter [“Science and the sub- urban future,” editorial, March 28]. The proposed Gaithers- burg West Master Plan, based on best practices in contemporary communi- ty planning, provides for long-term development of a world-class, mixed-use and transit-oriented Life Sciences Center. This plan is about science and health, providing jobs, ex- panding the county’s tax base and creating great places to live and work. What was missing from the editorial was a strong recognition of Montgomery County’s important op-

SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 2010

dletters@washpost.com

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

A Johns Hopkins University building near the proposed Life Sciences Building.

portunity and responsibili- ty to advance the health sci- ences from the center of one of the richest concentra- tions of medical and scien- tific research in the world. Montgomery County has the unique opportunity to expand its bioscience foot- print close to the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administra- tion, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Univer- sity of Maryland Medical Center and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, among others. And with Johns Hopkins University as a strong community partner, this region should continue to place in the highest ranks of medical re- search. The Montgomery County

Council should take the bold step to advance the county, the region and world science by approving the Life Sciences Center Master Plan.

JEFFREY E. FRANK, Potomac

What George Will got wrong about citizenship

George Will argued that Congress can deny birth- right citizenship to the children of unauthorized im- migrant parents [“A citizenship birthright? Maybe not,” op-ed, March 28]. Yet the 14th Amendment’s plain language, legislative history and judicial prec- edence undermine this claim. The amendment over- turned the Dred Scott decision, restoring citizenship to “all persons” born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Children with unauthorized immigrant parents are “persons” under the amendment and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, meaning subject to the nation’s au- thority and required to obey its laws. Unlike diplo- mats, unauthorized immigrants do not enjoy immu- nity from U.S. laws. They would not be unauthorized if they did. The congressional debate over the amendment included a dispute about whether citi- zenship should be extended to the children of for- eigners but assumed that the amendment would do

Cartoon on abuse was spot-on

Regarding the ire expressed by so many readers

[letters, April 1] in response to Tom Toles’s cartoon on the sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic Church: First of all, political or editorial cartoons are not necessarily meant to be humorous. They are wry, ironic, satirical statements usually on some current event.

Second, the cartoon was not meant to “demon-

ize” all Catholic priests. It implicated those Catholic priests guilty of the abuse of children. Third, a reader pointed out that the Catholic

Church has had child protection policies since 1986. No number of protective policies are worth the paper they are printed on if the leader of an or- ganization continues to ignore the issue. And last, yes, we are all sinners, even Catholic priests. But there must be a special place in hell re- served for those who take advantage of innocents placed in their pastoral care.

KIMBAYER, Silver Spring

so. In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that the 14th Amendment applied to the children of immigrant parents. In its 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, the court held that states cannot deny public education to unauthor- ized immigrant children, finding that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause covered “any person” within a state’s “jurisdiction” and thus ap- plied to these children. Mr. Will’s proposal would require a constitutional amendment. It also raises significant public policy concerns. The creation of a hereditary underclass of denizens — without rights, prospects or status — would not serve the rule of law or the good of the na- tion. Nobody likes illegal immigration, but children born in the United States belong here.

DONALDKERWIN, Alexandria

The writer is vice president for programs at the Migration Policy Institute.

Tax credits for extremist schools?

Regarding the March 30Metro story “Tax credit sought to aid private schools”: Don’t Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and members of the General Assembly realize that this legislation could allow funding for private schools that inculcate children with views hostile to Amer- icans of other faiths, such as fundamentalist Mus- lim madrassas and extreme Christian schools? How can they think of channeling part of the pub- lic treasury to religious and other private-school interests when our public institutions are caught in a financial bind? We did not elect our governor and lawmakers to cave in to private sectarian in- terests.

KENNETH A. STEVENS, Columbia

History redo will hurt children

Residents of Madisonville, Tex. — and of other communities throughout that state — are fighting for the right to teach their version of history in their public schools [“On schools, town has a mes- sage: Don’t mess with Texas,” news story, April 1]. I wonder if those folks have considered how their ef- forts will harm their children. Young people who believe and spout faux his-

tory will have a difficult time in college and gradu- ate school, and they will lose out on job opportuni- ties, research grants and more. Filling children’s heads with phony “facts” that are based on wishful thinking is a surefire way to stunt the mental growth of those children and limit their ability to enjoy the American dream.

ROBERT TILLER, Silver Spring

The real deal on oil drilling

There is good and bad news in President Oba-

ma’s decision to open new areas to offshore oil and natural gas development [“In drilling decision, a political maneuver,” front page, April 1]. The good news is that this decision implicitly

AHN YOUNG-JOON/ASSOCIATED PRESS

An anti-whaling rally last month in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.

A whale of a proposal? No.

A U.S. whaling official’s characterization of a proposal that would restart commercial whaling as the best way to control whale hunting is not only devoid of logic but politically naive and scien- tifically unsound [“A crossroads for whales,” news story, March 29]. It is precisely the policies of hunt- ing whales under the auspices of the International Whaling Commission’s supposed oversight that have brought whale populations to their en- dangered status. The United States’ IWC delegation should in- stead subscribe to the broad American conserva- tion ethic and work to save whales through less Or- wellian maneuvers by strongly opposing any deal that would restart commercial whaling. To do any- thing less is a breach of public trust.

PHILKLINE, Washington

The writer is senior oceans campaigner at Greenpeace U.S.A.

Better services? Not at D.C.’s DMV.

The Post’s March 31 editorial on D.C. Council

Chairman Vincent C. Gray’s entry into the mayoral race [“Another choice for the District”] was of some interest to me as I was sitting in the District’s Department of Motor Vehicles. The editorial noted that Mayor Adrian M. Fenty “has a record of undis- puted accomplishments . . . [G]overnment services are better managed.” I was still sitting at the DMV three hours after I arrived.

LAURENTROSS, Washington

and explicitly recognizes the critical role fossil fuels will continue to play in the nation’s energy mix even as we turn the national bow toward more sustainable energy technologies. The bad news is that the president only opened up areas of limited interest and controversy. The Pacific coastline is not on his list, even though dril- ling experts believe this area has enormous poten- tial. He also left out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, potentially the biggest oil and gas reser- voir on this continent. As time goes by, I pray the president will make the right decisions for American oil, natural gas and jobs.

DAVID LUKEN, Kensington

Good news for mountains, rivers

American Rivers applauds the Environmental

Protection Agency for announcing new restric- tions on mountaintop removal mining [“Environ- mental regulations aim to curb mountaining top mining,” news story, April 2]. These much-needed guidelines, which set water-quality standards for Clean Water Act permits for mining operations in Appalachian states, will help protect the region’s rivers at their source. Mountaintop removal mining causes irrepara- ble damage to the environment and communities. It endangers public health by creating unstable ponds of toxic waste, contaminating drinking wa- ter sources and polluting recreational waters with toxins. It also permanently alters the natural to- pography of mountains, leaving landscapes sus- ceptible to flooding, while burying headwater streams vital to ecosystem and community well- being with mining waste.

REBECCAWODDER, Washington

The writer is president of the advocacy group American Rivers. Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36