I am from Louisiana, and ethics in general in Louisiana has its tarnished reputation, for sure.  However, I have never witnessed anything quite like the Arizona legislature’s conflict of interest definition. The entire regulation hinges upon the distinction between a public officer’s having a “substantial interest” or a “remote interest” in some transaction that could benefit the public official.  Those with a “substantial interest” are to “refrain” from participating in transactions that benefit them.

“Substantial interest”: Refrain. Sounds good.

The Danger of “Remote Control”

The definition of “remote interest” is what makes Arizona’s conflict of interest guidelines virtually useless.  In short, if nine others stand to benefit in equal measure to the potential benefit gained by the public official, then the transaction is not restricted.

Go ahead and take a moment to read that last sentence one more time.

It gets better: There is no established agency to oversee, monitor, investigate, or otherwise determine whether a…

Texas is fed up with the testing obsession. The state has handed over nearly a billion dollars to Pearson in recent years, even as the Legislature cut $5.4 Billion from public education.

For an insiders’ view of the revolt against high-stakes testing in Texas, read Jason Stanford.

He says only two people in the state still defend the testing deluge, and one of them is paid to lobby for Pearson.

That would be Sandy Kress, the same man who is widely acknowledged as the architect of No Child Left Behind. In recent years, he has served on state advisory commissions, testified in favor of more and more testing, written opinion pieces in favor of testing.

But now the game is up. 86% of school boards across the state have said no to high-stakes testing. Moms have organized to fight it. The Legislature is listening. Texas is the place where…