Local ethicist implies that Representative Jehan Gordon is unethical

When I heard about Representative Jehan Gordon sitting on the Senate's Special Committee on Education Reform, I posted this piece about “Illinois upcoming Education Reform fight”. At that time I mentioned Gordon’s being involved with Stand for Children.

I felt Gordon was an excellent candidate for the Committee on Education Reform, because I knew that she had already been working on reaching out to those in the education community for input since 2009 (see invitation above - click to enlarge). I find it interesting that Bradley McMillan, our local ethicist, is implying that Gordon may have been unethical now that the education reforms are begining to see the light of day.

From what I know, I would agree with Gordon, that her support for reforms predates the campaign contributions.

Education reform linked to donation?
Rep. Jehan Gordon insists her support of bill predates $100,000 campaign donation

How much did campaign donations smooth the way for education reforms? The head of an out-of-state group that helped craft the education reform package Illinois lawmakers passed nearly unanimously this spring put a focus on that question with some unguarded comments at a conference at Colorado's Aspen Institute early this month.

And because she was one of the biggest recipients of campaign cash from Jonah Edelman's Stand For Children organization - some $100,000 in 2010 out of about $444,000 in donations she raised in the last six months of her successful re-election campaign - state Rep. Jehan Gordon, D-Peoria, is caught up in the controversy. She insists her support for reform predates those campaign contributions.

Legislature who had supported pension reforms during 2010, Edelman said during his Aspen remarks. But his organization stepped in with campaign donations targeted at several key races - six Democratic candidates including Gordon, and three Republicans.


After the election, the group crafted a series of proposed reforms that "tied tenure and layoffs to performance . . . streamlined dismissal of ineffective tenured teachers substantially" among other things and discussed it with Madigan, Edelman said. "He said he was supportive. The next day he created an Educational Reform (Committee), and his political director called to ask for our suggestions who should be on it."

Gordon was among those who were quickly appointed to the committee, as was the only other incumbent House member to receive donations from Stand for Children and win re-election. That move, said McMillan, highlights the ease with which money can appear to buy access to politicians.

Gordon was blunt in her reaction to the controversy: "You don't buy my vote." She turned the question on itself, arguing she'd also received donations in the past from union groups that were wary of Stand for Children's aims.

"Having taken support from education groups before does not make me beholden to anybody (either)," she said.

In fact, she said, she worked with all interested parties, from Edelman's group to state teachers unions. She touted her frequent contact with the latter group - including District 150's teachers union - while working on the reform package.

Most of the changes had been discussed for years, Gordon said, without lawmakers having a grasp of "how do you tackle this third-rail issue?" That included taking on such touchy union-related issues as teacher tenure.

When she heard what Stand for Children was supporting, "I felt it was an excellent platform, it was something I could support," Gordon said. And she did, after also giving local educators a heads up that she would be backing the measures and soliciting their input.

Because of that, Gordon said that "I absolutely don't regret" taking the $100,000 contribution. "I stayed true to what I've always said. I've always said we need to be doing more in education."

Gordon said she worries that Edelman's remarks "could potentially set us back" from any further education reforms. "This was a first step. There are a lot of things we can be doing to ensure that kids are receiving the best quality education." Source

Illinois' upcoming Education Reform fight

Representative Jehan Gordon has earned a reputation for listening to her constituents. In April of 2009, Rep. Gordon invited several people (teachers, parents, etc...) who are involved in the Peoria educational community to become part of her Education Advisory Committee.

The group had an opportunity to meet with Rep. Gordon for an update on legislative developments in Springfield and share their thoughts about issues affecting the education community.

In the coming weeks, Rep. Gordon, who is a member of the Senate's Special Committee on Education Reform, will be taking part in hearings on the Peformance Counts Act.

The Performance Counts Act of 2010 (PCA) is a draft of proposed legislation, commissioned by Stand for Children Illinois (based in Oregon) and Advance Illinois. On December 16th and 17th, it was the central point of discussion at Education Reform Hearings at the Illinois Math and Science Academy in Aurora. The PCA appears to be extremely fast moving legislation that many believe will be voted on by the General Assembly in very early January 2011. It is a sweeping proposal addressing tenure, evaluations, dismissal, collective bargaining, and strikes.

Reportedly, Rep. Gordon received some campaign contributions from Stand for Children and on their website, she is vaguely referred to as one of nine "champions of education". Rep. Gordon, is in position to play an integral part in moving Stand for Children's agenda through the legislature.

Editorial: Illinois school reform proposals
The best way to improve education in Illinois dramatically is to attract and keep the best teachers in the classroom and more quickly and efficiently fire the worst.

That's the aim of a draft proposal — dubbed the Performance Counts Act — introduced to a special Illinois House committee last week.

The reforms would:
•Make teacher performance the main factor in layoff decisions. In many districts, teachers are laid off by seniority — last in, first out. That means good young teachers are fired instead of less effective teachers who are protected by seniority.

•Make it easier to fire ineffective teachers. Right now, the process to fire a teacher is so cumbersome that many principals don't try. This would streamline the process significantly and spare kids from the worst teachers.

•Ensure that only the best-performing teachers earn tenure. Instead of a virtually automatic tenure award after four years of service, teachers would be granted tenure only if they've been rated "proficient" or "excellent" in evaluations. That's a smart step. But it also depends on far more honest teacher evaluations, tied strongly to student performance and classroom observation.

The most controversial part of this package: curbing teachers' right to strike. The proposal would hand more power to school boards to resolve contract disputes.

Right now, teachers can strike after negotiations and mediation fail. This proposal would create a new step. If mediation fails, a three-member panel would be created — one member picked by the school board, one by the union and one by the other two members. The panel would hammer out a settlement. If either side rejected that settlement, the details of it would be made public.

But the final decision would rest with the school board. It could accept the panel's settlement or the union's offer, or impose its own settlement. The union could strike only if the school board failed to act.

That's a powerful proposal. It would invite public scrutiny of negotiations and protect teachers from dysfunctional school boards. But it would, essentially, end teacher strikes.

The House committee wrapped up hearings on these ideas last week. An Illinois Senate committee will consider them early next year. Read entire editorial here.