Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez Picked to Lead Massachusetts Schools
This article was originally published in Chalkbeat.
Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez is one step closer to becoming the top education official in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted during a public meeting on Tuesday to recommend Martinez to be the next commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Nine of 11 members of the Massachusetts board voted for Martinez. The other two abstained. Both said earlier in the meeting that they supported candidate Lily Laux, the former deputy commissioner of school programs at the Texas Education Agency.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The board will now send its recommendation to the Massachusetts Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler, who must give final approval and is also currently serving as the department's interim commissioner. However, Tutwiler, who also sits on the board, said he supports Martinez and voted yes for him.
Martinez, who was fired from CPS without cause in December, was one of three finalists for the Massachusetts job and one of 42 people who had applied. If he takes the job, he will be responsible for overseeing and providing state support for Massachusetts' roughly 400 school districts. He would also become the first Latino to have the job, according to a press release from Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
'This is someone who has had progressive experience in increasingly larger and more complex organizations with significantly increased, let's say, political situations that they have to balance,' said Matt Hills, the board's vice chair, during the meeting. 'But at the end of the day, this is someone who has been able to lead large organizations to get pretty significantly positive results in key education priorities that we have.'
Several board members said they were impressed by Martinez's leadership experience — with some generally noting controversy he's faced — as well as his interest in students from low-income households and those learning English as a new language. Another noted she was impressed that he was able to raise teacher salaries in Chicago, which most recently came after a tense, yearlong bargaining process with the Chicago Teachers Union.
Martinez's firing was fueled in part by a tense disagreement with Mayor Brandon Johnson over how to pay for labor contracts and a pension contribution.
Board member Martin West said he was concerned about Martinez's lack of state experience relative to Laux, but he found through Martinez's interview that district leadership is 'in some ways more similar to the state role in terms of the levers available for driving change.'
Board member Ericka Fisher said she felt Martinez was the sort of candidate who 'can stay standing and continue fighting the good fight' in the face of the education climate both in Massachusetts and under the Trump administration.
The board's decision comes after it interviewed Martinez and two other finalists at an hourslong public meeting last week. Martinez attended that meeting in person and spoke about a variety of topics, including serving English learners, students with disabilities and efforts to expose students to early college programs.
In a statement, Martinez said he is 'honored' to be selected for the job and that Chicago and CPS will 'always hold a special place in my heart.'
'I am committed to finishing the school year strong here and will leave CPS in mid-June with a deep sense of pride and optimism for its future, knowing the district is in strong hands and moving in the right direction,' Martinez said.
Once the education secretary finalizes the board's recommendation, Martinez plans to accept the job after negotiating terms of his contract, according to a source close to the CEO.
The Massachusetts board chair previously said she hoped to have a commissioner in place by July 1, according to Jackie Reis, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Per his CPS contract, a firing without cause allows Martinez to stay at the district through June.
Before CPS, Martinez was the superintendent of the San Antonio Independent School District and held various education roles in Nevada.
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
34 minutes ago
Emissions fell when firms reported them—EPA may end rule
LEOPOLD, Ind. -- On the ceiling of Abbie Brockman's middle school English classroom in Perry County, the fluorescent lights are covered with images of a bright blue sky, a few clouds floating by. Outside, the real sky isn't always blue. Sometimes it's hazy, with pollution drifting from coal-fired power plants in this part of southwest Indiana. Knowing exactly how much, and what it may be doing to the people who live there, is why Brockman got involved with a local environmental organization that's installing air and water quality monitors in her community. 'Industry and government is very, very, very powerful. It's more powerful than me. I'm just an English teacher,' Brockman said. But she wants to feel she can make a difference. In a way, Brockman's monitoring echoes the reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency began requiring from large polluters more than a decade ago. Emissions from four coal-fired plants in southwest Indiana have dropped 60% since 2010, when the rule took effect. That rule is now on the chopping block, one of many that President Donald Trump's EPA argues is costly and burdensome for industry. But experts say dropping the requirement risks a big increase in emissions if companies are no longer publicly accountable for what they put in the air. And they say losing the data — at the same time the EPA is cutting air quality monitoring elsewhere — would make it tougher to fight climate change. At stake is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, a 2009 rule from President Barack Obama's administration that affects large carbon polluters like refineries, power plants, wells and landfills. In the years since, they've collectively reported a 20% drop in emissions, mostly driven by the closure of coal plants. And what happens at these big emitters makes a difference. Their declining emissions account for more than three-quarters of the overall, if modest, decline in all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 2010. The registry includes places not usually thought of as big polluters but that have notable greenhouse gas emissions, such as college campuses, breweries and cereal factories. Even Walt Disney World in Florida, where pollution dropped 62% since 2010, has to report along with nearly 10,600 other places. "We can't solve climate change without knowing how much pollution major facilities are emitting and how that's changing over time," said Jeremy Symons, a former EPA senior climate adviser now at Environmental Protection Network, an organization of ex-EPA officials that monitors environmental policies. The group provided calculations as a part of The Associated Press' analysis of impacts from proposed rule rollbacks. Symons said some companies would welcome the end of the registry because it would make it easier to pollute. It's not clear how much the registry itself has contributed to declining emissions. More targeted regulations on smokestack emissions, as well as coal being crowded out by cheaper and less polluting natural gas, are bigger factors. But the registry 'does put pressure on companies to ... document what they've done or at least to provide a baseline for what they've done,' said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who heads Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tally national carbon emissions yearly. Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under Obama, said the registry makes clear how power plants are doing against each other, and that's an inducement to lower emissions. "It is money for those companies. It's costs. It's reputation. It's been, I think, a wonderful success story and I hope it continues.' The potential end of the reporting requirement comes as experts say much of the country's air goes unmonitored. Nelson Arley Roque, a Penn State professor who co-authored a study in April on these 'monitoring deserts,' said about 40% of U.S. lands are unmonitored. That often includes poor and rural neighborhoods. "The air matters to all of us, but apparently 50 million people can't know or will never know'' how bad the air is, Roque said. The EPA is also trying to claw back money that had been earmarked for air monitoring, part of the termination of grants that it has labeled as targeting diversity, equity and inclusion. That includes $500,000 that would have funded 40 air monitors in a low-income and minority community in the Charlotte, North Carolina, area. CleaneAIRE NC, a nonprofit that works to improve air quality across the state that was awarded the grant, is suing. 'It's not diversity, equity and inclusion. It's human rights,' said Daisha Wall, the group's community science program manager. 'We all deserve a right to clean air.' Research strongly links poor air quality to diseases like asthma and heart disease, with a slightly less established link to cancer. Near polluting industries, experts say what's often lacking is either enough data in specific locations or the will to investigate the health toll. Indiana says it 'maintains a robust statewide monitoring and assessment program for air, land and water,' but Brockman and others in this part of the state aren't satisfied. She and other members of local advocacy groups Southwestern Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life and Valley Watch install and maintain their own air and water quality monitors. It's a full-time job to keep the network of monitors up and running, fighting spotty Wi-Fi and connectivity issues. Fighting industry is a sensitive subject, Brockman added. Many families depend on jobs at coal-fired power plants, and poverty is real. She keeps snacks in her desk for the kids who haven't eaten breakfast. 'But you also don't want to hear of another student that has a rare cancer,' she said. ___ ___
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
A simple statement that can help cops win people's trust
Advertisement As researchers, we've spent more than 500 hours observing, interviewing, and riding along with police officers. We've found that this disconnect is common. Officers feel they're being respectful and polite, while community members — especially people of color, unhoused people, and members of other groups that are disproportionately stopped by or otherwise involved with law enforcement — interpret the interaction as a Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But Advertisement Police officers start their conversations with a trust deficit, and strategies that usually put people at ease in regular social situations — like joking around — can backfire in situations where there's a power imbalance. Even a friendly 'How are you? Can I talk to you for a minute?' can put people on edge when the officer's intentions are unclear. Enter the transparency statement. It's a simple sentence an officer can give at the start of a wide range of interactions with community members — from traffic stops to meet and greets to simply stopping to check on someone who looks cold. The statement quickly and clearly explains why they've initiated the interaction. While it sounds simple, our studies with real people and police officers show that a transparency statement can make a difference. A transparency statement is not an exact script. Officers can and should word their transparency statements in a way that captures their true goal for the interaction. For example, one officer's statement was: 'Hi, I'm Officer [Name], how's it going? I'm out here walking around just trying to get to know my beat and my community. Is it OK if I talk to you for a minute?' In this opening statement, the officer states that their intent is to get to know the community, not take the person to task for wrongdoing. Another officer's statement was similar but more casual in tone: 'I'm just walking around getting to know everybody that's hanging out in the area to introduce myself and make sure you're doing OK.' Again, this officer makes clear their benevolent intent from the start. Advertisement Some officers make such statements naturally. On another ride-along, we observed an interaction between two Latino officers and two Latino middle-aged men who were sitting on the curb of a busy street. The officers opened with 'Cuidado!,', or 'Be careful!' in Spanish, and then suggested the men move, explaining that where they were sitting was dangerous for both them and the cars whizzing by. With clear information about the officers' intentions, the two men understood and packed up immediately. These officers hit each of the four key elements that we've pinpointed for effective transparency statements. The first is timing. The statement should be made as soon as possible, to set the tone for the interaction from the outset. Next is benevolence. Officers should communicate an honest reason for the interaction that is ideally motivated by helping the community and specific individuals. This works only if the intention feels genuine — the third characteristic of a good transparency statement. Last, the statement needs to be personal. Officers should speak in the first person (e.g.., 'I'm worried about your safety') and refer to the situation at hand. Generic statements about department-wide efforts to engage the community don't work as well (e.g., 'Our department has a new initiative to get to know community residents'). In our field studies, transparency statements have a simple but powerful effect. In one experiment, we measured electrical signals given off by participants' skin, which indicate stress, during interactions with police officers. We also analyzed the language spoken during the exchanges and surveyed participants after the interactions. Advertisement When officers implemented transparency statements, community members were more likely to respond using language associated with positive rapport and trust-building. They spoke more words during the conversation, suggesting a greater level of engagement. Our skin measurements also indicated they were calmer and more open to the interaction. In tests where an officer did not open a conversation with a transparency statement, skin results showed that stress levels continued to rise over the course of the conversation. In surveys after the interaction, community members were less likely to report feeling threatened: 40 percent said they felt the threat posed by the officer was low versus 29 percent without a transparency statement. And more people reported that they trusted the police officer and his or her investment in their well-being (55 percent versus 46 percent). Around one in five adults in the United States has Teaching the method takes mere minutes, though making it second nature takes practice. After the promising results from our initial experiment, we've begun training officers in one city and will be testing outcomes across the department and the community over the next year. Transparency statements are a simple concept, and that's part of their beauty. Law enforcement officers face a Advertisement
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded
LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded What started as a small protest against immigrant arrests escalated over a few days, after President Trump called in the National Guard. Show Caption Hide Caption National Guard and protesters clashed over ICE protests Hundreds of demonstrators fought back with the National Guard as ICE protests escalated. The tensions in Los Angeles started small and intensified over the course of the weekend, with both protesters and federal officials blaming each other for the escalation. Though details are still emerging, here's what we know now about how the situation unfolded. Immigration raids in Los Angeles on the afternoon of June 6 sparked a small protest. The next day, larger protests began in the town of Paramount, south of Los Angeles, linked to rumors of a possible immigration raid. Towards evening on June 7, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard members to the area. That night, protesters threw rocks, bottles, and fireworks at officers. Later that same night, local police declared a small part of downtown Los Angeles an unlawful assembly area, and large numbers of protesters were cleared from the site. Here's a timeline of the events. Friday, June 6 Homeland Security agents detained several people outside a Home Depot just west of downtown Los Angeles on Friday morning. A little later in the morning, another raid took place at an Ambiance clothing store in LA's Fashion District in downtown. During that operation, people gathered around to photograph and video the officers. A few protesters also arrived. All told, four different search warrants were executed in Los Angeles on Friday by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a spokesperson for Homeland Security told the Los Angeles Times. At least 44 people were arrested. At one of the sites, the president of the Service Employees International Union, David Huerta, was arrested for allegedly interfering with federal officers. The union said Huerta was exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity. By around 6:30 p.m. local time on Friday night, more than 100 people gathered at the immigration services building and detention center in downtown Los Angeles to protest the raids, according to Reuters. At around 7 p.m. local time, the Los Angeles Police Department declared it an unlawful assembly and ordered the crowd to disperse. About half an hour later, multiple police vehicles and at least 50 police officers in riot gear arrived. Some protesters threw pieces of broken concrete at the officers, who responded by firing tear gas and pepper spray. They also used flash-bang concussion rounds to disperse the crowd. Saturday, June 7 Around 9 a.m., Border Patrol agents gathered in a gated industrial office park in Paramount, a Latino suburb south of downtown Los Angeles, according to the Los Angeles Times. Word spread on social media that raids were planned at a nearby Home Depot, and protesters began to gather, though it does not appear that officials engaged with immigrants at the store. Police and Los Angeles Sheriff's officers arrived, and a very localized protest began, centered in the area around the Home Depot. About 350 to 400 protesters gathered. Some threw objects at the agents. According to Los Angeles Times reporters who were on the scene, each time protesters threw anything at the agents or the police, tear gas and flash-bang rounds were fired back by federal agents. One video on X showed protesters blocking a bus, which the Los Angeles Times identified as a U.S. Marshals bus. Another showed a car that had been vandalized. By 4 p.m., social media posts showed Los Angeles police and sheriffs declaring the gathering an unlawful assembly and using loudspeakers to tell protesters that anyone who remained would be arrested. Over the next few hours, the clash continued with protesters throwing things at officers, setting off fireworks, and burning at least one garbage can. By midnight, the demonstrators began to leave the area. Multiple people had been arrested. Another protest also broke out in the nearby city of Compton, where a car was set on fire. Compton Mayor Emma Sharif called for calm, posting online that "we urge everyone to remain peaceful. Violence and the destruction of property are not the solution." The Los Angeles Police Department issued a statement commending "all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly." But it went on to say, "while today's events concluded without incident, the Los Angeles Police Department remains fully prepared to respond swiftly and appropriately to any potential acts of civil unrest. Our commitment to safeguarding the rights, safety, and well-being of all Angelenos continues – day and night." According to Homeland Security, on Saturday night, rioters surrounded the immigration services building and detention center, "assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer-funded property. " In response, Trump signed a presidential memorandum deploying "at least" 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles. In a statement, the White House said that "violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California," making the deployment necessary. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller on Saturday condemned protests, posting on X: "This is a violent insurrection." U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X: "Federal law enforcement operations are proceeding as planned this weekend in Los Angeles County. I urge the public to refrain from interfering with these lawful actions. Anyone who obstructs federal agents will face arrest and prosecution." At 5:15 p.m. local time, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X that deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles "is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." He said there was "currently no unmet need" in the city. "This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust." Sunday, June 8 Early in the morning of June 8, several dozen National Guard troops arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center three blocks from Los Angeles City Hall. By 10:30 a.m., as many as 300 members of the California National Guard had been deployed in three separate parts of the city. Crowds of protesters began arriving in the area around the federal complex – which is mostly made up of city, state, and federal building – around noon. The protests were not widespread, and most of the city was quiet. The situation began to escalate as the afternoon wore on. Many protesters waved Mexican flags or hybrid Mexican-American flags and chanted anti-ICE slogans. Some were also seen throwing water bottles and other objects at officers and law enforcement vehicles. Videos shared on social media and footage from local television stations showed officers in riot gear, with the sound of flash-bangs in the background. At least five Waymo self-driving taxis were vandalized by protesters who spray-painted them with anti-Trump and anti-ICE slogans. At least two were set on fire. At one point, a crowd of protesters walked onto the 101 Freeway, blocking traffic in both directions. They were confronted by officers in riot gear, and by 5 p.m. local time the freeway was cleared. LAPD said on X that it had placed officers across the city on "tactical alert." The police department later declared an 'unlawful assembly' for the Civic Center area and the historic Olvera Street in downtown Los Angeles, an area covering a small portion of the sprawling city of 500 square miles. It authorized the 'use of less lethal munitions." The department issued a dispersal order and said arrests were being made. In an emailed letter released on Sunday afternoon, Governor Newsom formally asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to rescind Trump's order to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles. National Guard troops and armored cars were stationed in a business park that contains a Department of Homeland Security office in the city of Paramount, the Los Angeles Times reported. By 6:30, Los Angeles police said a 'number of people have been arrested' at the Civic Center area. At 8 p.m., authorities moved in aggressively with flash-bangs and tear gas grenades, sending hundreds of people running, their eyes streaming with tears. Helicopters clattered overhead as protesters fled the area to the honking of car horns and periodic cheers. Contributed: Trevor Hughes
