Monday, February 23, 2009

Bertosa the Brave

By John Bertosa

So, there I was perusing the Internet last week trying to pin down what I would blog about for Monday. I had some ideas but nothing that was really stirring the passion or anything that seemed pressing.

And then Eric Holder spoke.

For those who don't know who Holder is, he's the new Attorney General, and therefore a member of the "Hope and Change" Administration. And on Wednesday he declared the United States was "a Nation of Cowards." (I'll give President Obama credit for keeping one campaign pledge, he is changing the tone in Washington.)

Now Holder believes we are cowards because we don't candidly talk about race, and we don't go home and hang out with people differing skin color.

Now, I was shocked at these words at first since I thought there was no need to have a discussion. I thought we should simply say what whites have done wrong and what whites need to do to fix things. And that wouldn't be considered a discussion.

But I will take up Mr. Holder's challenge and start a frank discussion on race.

I believe that the best way to combat racism and such prejudice is to be colorblind in our thoughts as well as actions. To treat every one the same despite their skin color and more importantly to react to people in ways that have nothing to do with their skin color.

Think back to the last three strangers you saw at the grocery store, or the bar or the movie theater. Can you recall if they were right or left-handed? Or if their ear lobes were attached or detached?

We don't notice those physical attributes because we don't think about them, and I believe conditioning society to think about skin color in this way is the only way that we can truly eradicate racism.

Others will counter that a lot of horrible things were done to people because of their skin color, things that were never done to the left-handed or those with detached earlobes. Skin color was used to separate people in society and put some in a very much worse situation while others benefited.

And those who say this are absolutely right. That has been going on in our modern day society since the Dutch first discovered Africa.

They also will say that since our society looks at skin color, the best solutions are ones that take skin color into account. But in this they are absolutely wrong.

Because by using such methods (i.e. affirmative action and quotas) it sends the message that it is OK to take skin color into account if it is beneficial to a group. And in a society that is taught two wrongs do not make a right,that becomes a conflicting message.

It also creates a resentment among some whites, not necessarily the college-educated ones who have access to quality jobs, but the poorer ones whose families never owned slaves or owned a southern restaurant with segregated bathrooms.

These poor whites ask why should the government set up beneficial programs specifically for poor blacks when they are in the same financial situation?

So, setting up programs like the one in Ohio where a certain percentage of government contracts have to go to minority firms treats the symptoms of racism but it merely masks the true disease -- defining people based on the color of their skin. And when you don't treat the disease, it will spread.

Yes, I know getting more than 300 million people to stop seeing skin color as a defining characteristic is a tall order and will take generations. But that time will come sooner if government stops endorsing race-based policies out of the goodness of its heart.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Money -- the root of all good?

By John Bertosa

WARNING:FACTS WILL BE REVEALED IN 50 SECONDS THAT WILL MAKE LIBERALS QUESTION EVERYTHING THEY THOUGHT THEY KNEW.
In Northeast Ohio, just like in other parts of the country, there are school districts that are the envy of parents everywhere and are just miles away from districts that are pitied by parents everywhere.
Two of those top-rated districts are Chagrin Falls, to the east of Cleveland and Bay to the west. And in between is the woeful Cleveland school district.
Liberals look at the situation -- affluent households supporting districts in which kids go to newer buildings and do excellent on test scores while poorer household have to go to crumbling buildings and are given educations that result in low test scores.
And these liberals cry unfair and demand an equal amount of funding goes to the poorer districts. Because, as was perfectly illustrated in the quote chosen by Dan, they believe the key is government money, aka redistribution of wealth, aka making people do the right thing.
WARNING:FACTS WILL NOW BE REVEALED THAT WILL MAKE LIBERALS QUESTION EVERYTHING THEY THOUGHT THEY KNEW.
Standard & Poors School Evaluation Services, with its Web site schoolmatters.com, has culled state and federal reports and created a database covering every school district. It found that Chagrin Falls spent $12,594 per student in 2006 while Bay averaged $11,215 per student, both way above the state average of $10,561.
And as for Cleveland, are you ready for this? The Cleveland School District spent $13,390 per student!!
How can this be so? Well because the industrial base in Cleveland, as deteriorating as it is, still has a higher tax base than mostly residential Chagrin and Bay.Chagrin took in an average of $12,590 per student and Bay took in $11,533 per student while Cleveland brought in $15,270.
There is not a direct correlation between districts spending more money and students learning more. Despite what Aaron Sorkin believes.
Still in shock, well lets look at some other numbers.
WARNING: LIBERALS MAY NOT UNDERSTAND OR EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES SINCE THEY DO NOT INVOLVE TAX MONEY OR GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
In Chagrin Falls, the number of single-parent households is 8.3 percent, in Bay it's 8.4 percent. And Cleveland again tops these numbers (only not in a good way) with 20.5 percent.
Having two people in a home increases the chance of supervision after school so that kids will be compelled to study instead of play Playstation 3 or just hang out.It also improves the odds that there is a parent who appreciates a good education.
But, the number that I think is most compelling is this, the number of households in which an adult has at least a bachelor's degree is 64.5 percent in Chagrin and 53.2 percent in Bay while in Cleveland it's 15.7 percent.
Parents or older siblings who have navigated the course to the finish line know how to get there but even more importantly they know what it takes to get there. They can tell the child this is how much you have to study and this is why this certain school subject is important.
It's family and hard work that offer the best chance to giving a child a good education, not a bright new building or high-priced teachers.
So, my solution to the education situation is to emphasize the charter schools so that kids in tougher situations can earn that degree and then serve as a beacon for others in their neighborhoods who might not have that good example at home. Boost scholarship opportunities for the same types of kids who have blindly scratched and crawled their way to great grades. Get them to college so they too can be a good example in their community.
It needs to be targeted since the numbers show throwing money at a school district does not have the desired effect.
As for the argument about getting the best teachers, that is irrelevant as long as the belief holds that "every child learns in different ways" and that "some students just aren't good test-takers." Because that means you can't create a true standardized test and if you don't have a test to compare the learning of students you will never gauge the teaching of students.
After all, if there was a way to gauge a teacher's abilities, (put sarcasm here) don't you think the teachers' union would have unveiled it already?

Monday, February 2, 2009

The Silver Bullet

By D.T. Holt

“Mallory, education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. School should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That’s my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.”

Actor Rob Lowe as Sam Seaborn in the West Wing episode “Six Meetings Before Lunch,” written by Aaron Sorkin.

It feels a little odd to start off a piece on education with a quote from a television show, but I’ve never run across a statement that comes closer to my own beliefs. For as long as I can remember, politicians, education professionals and ordinary citizens have talked of the dreadful state of our education system but we have never made it a national priority to improve the sad state of our schools. Politicians from the local level to the Presidency regularly give lip service to the idea of improving our schools but I have never seen a concerted effort to address the problem of a “separate but equal” system for funding education which insures that the schools that are in trouble will have little or no chance to improve.

I use the phrase “separate but equal” in reference to the landmark civil rights decision Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools were, in fact, not equal and that the black students in racially segregated schools were not being given the same opportunity as their counterparts in the white schools. While our schools are no longer segregated along racial lines, the common practice of funding education through local property taxes has effectively created a scenario in which a child born in a lower income community does not have the same opportunities as one born in a more affluent district. Although the two school systems are required to adhere to the same standards and are therefore, in theory, “equal,” the difficulty in improving schools which are perpetually under funded due to low property values and a community unable to afford even the smallest of increases on their property taxes creates an educational experience which is far from apples to apples.

Some would say that this problem is best addressed with a voucher system, which gives parents the opportunity to send their children to the best of the available schools in their community, and in same cases even private or parochial schools. While this system is probably a good option for the parent of the child going to the better school, it does nothing to address the problem of the failing school. It sets up what is basically a competition, funds are awarded to the school that is performing better which punishes the children still attending the poorly performing school by withholding necessary funds that could help to turn the tide of a worsening situation. The No Child Left Behind act of 2001 sets up a similar situation by awarding federal funds to the schools with the best test scores while leaving the underachieving schools and more importantly the students who attend them to continue to fall behind.

I am not suggesting that there is no place for accountability in our schools or that we should withhold money from those that are performing successfully. However, funding that is based on this accountability gives students who are lucky enough to be born in a community with strong schools access to the greater level of opportunity that a good education provides while doing nothing to help the child who is unlucky enough to be born in a lower income, chronically under funded inner city school district.

The only way to insure that all of our children have access the same opportunities is to insure that all schools have an equal access to funds. Obviously, this is far easier said than done and, much like the Sam Seaborn character in the West Wing, I am not sure exactly how to do it. I believe that the answer may lie in education that is funded on a national level and be paid for by a progressive income tax. We are currently paying for schools based on the property values in our communities which is in effect a progressive tax system - those who’s home are of higher value are paying more for education. Collecting funds on a national level instead of locally, gives greater opportunity to disperse the funds proportional to all school systems based on the number of students in a given community.

Am I certain that this idea will work? Absolutely not. However, I am certain that good schools equal strong communities, lower unemployment, lower crime rates and greater opportunities all of which make solving this problem of equal importance to all of us. Only a willingness to make education a national priority on the level of national defense will give us the chance to achieve the “silver bullet” of a well educated populace.
____________________________

Check back on Monday February 9 for John Bertosa's rebuttal to "The Silver Bullet."