Bad Students, Not Bad Schools???

In his book Bad Students Not Bad Schools, professor emeritus of the University of Illinois at Chicago, Dr. Robert Weissberg sharply departs from educational orthodoxy and poses some troubling questions about the state of American Education and the persistent achievement gap. His thesis that systemic failures in academic achievement are less reflective of substandard schools and more indicative of the motivation and ability of students themselves has been written off as "pessimistic" and even as "racist," but few have been willing to seriously explore the most important question: to what extent does evidence and experience validate or invalidate his thesis? In no way am I endorsing his vision, rather I am declaring that by allowing intellectual taboos to narrow this debate, we are limiting our ability to successfully address what all sides agree is a serious national problem. Given the forty years of failed progressive and (to a lesser extent) conservative reforms, alternative explanations and solutions must be considered, because as Albert Einstein best put it, the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Here is a brief summary of the contents of the book:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Introduction: A Nation at Risk or a Nation in Denial?

Academic achievement requires intelligence and motivation. School resources, pedagogy and instructional quality are important but secondary. Unfortunately, both liberal and conservative reformers have ignored brains and work ethic and concentrate on secondary factors. It is possible to attract smarter, more motivated students if the high political price will be paid. Politicians, parents and reformers instead prefer mediocrity since it is easier.

Chapter 2 Bad Students, Not Bad Schools

“Bad schools” are not created “bad.” Indifferent, anti-intellectual often violent students make schools bad, and pouring in more resources will fix nothing unless the students themselves change. Chairs and desks do not fail exams; students fail, and to assert that the physical facilities bring inadequacy allows parents and students to escape responsibility. Shipping slackers to a “good school” solves nothing; worse, this misguided policy will ruin the “good school.”

Chapter 3 Motivating Students Or You Can Take a Horse to Water And Make a Dehydrated Equine Feel Better About Herself ? Academic achievement requires motivation, and today’s educators foolishly believe in making learning fun and “relevant”—the Sesame St. model. This approach is doomed. Learning inescapably involves pain, and without a struggle, personal advancement is impossible. Substituting cheap self-esteem to avoid agony is particularly harmful to the intellectually less able.

Chapter 4 Closing the Racial Gap in Academic Achievement

American educators have long obsessed over closing racial gaps in learning and every attempt, regardless of the billions spent or tactics, has come up short. More important, trying to close these gaps undermines learning for both whites and blacks. The futile effort will only dumb-down education so as to provide the illusion of progress.

Chapter 5 The “War” on Academic Excellence

Recent efforts to uplift the least able students have harmed smart kids. Programs for the intellectually gifted have been decimated under No Child Left Behind. This is the opposite of what occurred in the late 1950s and early 60s when the US responded to Sputnik by concentrating on bright students. What rescues America from self-imposed education collapse is importing smart youngsters plus scientists born overseas. This may not last forever.

Chapter 6 The Museum of Failed Educational Reforms

The parade of “guaranteed-to-succeed” reform fiascos resembles comets--they keep returning despite past disasters. This applies to both liberal and conservative panaceas. Disappointment is predictable: few reformers suffer personally from dismal outcomes, research assessments are often shoddy, advocating futile gimmicks can be career boosting and reform-minded foundations are unaccountable for their iffy schemes. Americans are addicted to low-effort magic bullets.

Chapter 7 Business-like Solutions to Academic Insufficiency


Reformers often insist that education should be treated as a business with clear standards and strict accountability to insure progress. Total nonsense. The parallel is inappropriate—you can’t “fire” non-performing students no matter how rotten or disruptive. The business-like infatuation on test scores and accountability almost inevitably subverts quality education and promotes cheating.

Chapter 8 The Alluring Choice Solution

School choice—vouchers and charter schools—infatuates “conservative” educators. This approach has seldom succeeded. More important, it falsely assumes that if students and parents were given ample choice, they would crave academic excellence. More likely, they prefer sports and country club-like facilities, not tough academics.

Chapter 9 Reforming Education is Now the New Great Society and Why Fixing Schools Will Subvert the Social Peace


Education spending has sky-rocketed with little to show for these billions. Reformers misunderstand what today’s fixes are about. Schooling has become the reincarnation of the 1960s Great Society, a cornucopia of social welfare jobs and contracts. It is less about boosting learning than securing the social peace by preventing urban unrest.

Chapter 10 Hope?

American education struggles as the intellectual abilities of students declines. Conceivably, educators may be performing admirably given this down turn. Nor may modern society require universal stellar academic achievement—tasks can often be mechanized or outsourced to smarter foreigners. Our most formidable obstacle to progress is denying the obvious—it’s the students, not the schools that bedevil American education.

Multicultural Education by Thomas Sowell

Enjoy this cogent analysis and critique of multicultural education by the great Thomas Sowell. Although progressives pride themselves on their critical thinking and rationality, like religious conservatives, many hold a pantheon of views supported by faith and not evidence. For example, we are told that increasing diversity and promoting multiculturalism will create a more peaceful, tolerant and democratic society, but the proponents of this article of faith have yet to present us with any evidence or examples that support this belief.

"MULTICULTURAL" EDUCATION


by Thomas Sowell
Most of the arguments for so-called "multicultural" education are so flimsy, inconsistent, and downright silly that it is hard to imagine that they would have been taken seriously if they were not backed up by shrill rhetoric, character assassination, and the implied or open threat of organized disruption and violence on campus.Let us examine the multiculturalists' questions, one by one:

Why do we study Western civilization, to the neglect of other civilizations?

Why is that question asked in English, rather than in some non-Western language? Because English is what we speak. Why do we concern ourselves with the Earth, which is an infinitesimal part of the known universe? Because that is where we live. If we want to understand the cultural and institutional world in which we carry on our daily lives, we need to understand the underlying rationale and the historical evolution of the way of life we have been born into.

None of this has anything to do with whether English is a better language than some other languages. English is in fact more inconsistent and less melodic than French, for example. But we speak English for the same practical reasons that cause people in China to speak Chinese. Attempts to turn this into an invidious comparisons issue miss the fundamental point that (1) languages exist to serve practical purposes and (2) they serve those purposes better, the more people in the same society speak the same language.

Why don't we study other civilizations equally? The most obvious answer is the 24-hour day and the limited number of days we spend in college. It is stretching things very thin to try to cover Western civilization in two semesters. Throw in a couple of other civilizations and you are just kidding yourself that you are educating anybody, when all that you are really doing is teaching them to accept superficiality. Those whose real agenda is propaganda are of course untroubled by such considerations.

Any suggestion that any aspect of Western civilization has been admirable, or better in any way than the corresponding aspect of any other civilization, will of course be loudly denounced as showing bias instead of being "non-judgmental." However, the one thing that no civilization has ever been is non-judgmental. Much of the advancement of the human race has occurred because people made the judgment that some things were not simply different from others, but better. Often this judgment was followed by abandoning one cultural feature and using the other instead.

We use Arabic numerals today, instead of Roman numerals, even though our civilization derived from Rome, and the Arabs themselves got these numerals from India. Arabic numerals (or Indian numerals) have displaced other numbering systems around the world because they are better-- not just different. Paper, printing, and books are today essential aspects of Western civilization, but all three came out of China-- and they have displaced parchment, scrolls, and other forms of preserving writings all around the world. Books are not just different, they are better-- not just in my opinion, or in the opinion of Western civilization, but in the practice of people around the world who have had an opportunity to make the comparison. Firearms have likewise displaced bows and arrows wherever the two have come into competition.

Many of those who talk "non-judgmental" rhetoric out of one side of their mouths are quick to condemn the evils of "our society" out of the other side. Worse, they condemn American society or Western civilization for sins that are the curse of the human race all across the planet. Indeed, they condemn the West for sins that are worse in many non-Western societies.

Perhaps the classic case is slavery. The widespread revulsion which this hideous institution inspires today was largely confined to Western civilization a century ago, and a century before that was largely confined to a portion of British society. No one seems interested in the epic story of how this curse that covered the globe and endured for thousands of years was finally gotten rid of. It was gotten rid of by the West-- not only in Western societies but in other societies conquered, controlled, or pressured by the West.

The resistance put up by Africans, Asians, and Arabs was monumental in defense of slavery, and lasted for more than a century. Only the overwhelming military power of the West enabled it to prevail on this issue, and only the moral outrage of Western peoples kept their governments' feet to the fire politically to maintain the pressure against slavery around the world. Of course, this is not the kind of story that appeals to the multiculturalists. If it had been the other way around-- if Asian or African imperialists had stamped out slavery in Europe-- it would still be celebrated, in story and song, on campuses across America.
Why are the traditional classics of Western civilization written by dead white males?

Take it a step at a time. They are written by dead people for two reasons: First, there are more dead people than living people. Second, a classic is not something that is hot at the moment but something that survives the test of time. There may be things written today that will survive to become classics, but we won't be here when that happens. The things we know are classics were almost by definition written by dead people.

Why were they white? Do we ask why the great classics of China were written by people who were Chinese? If we found that the great classics of China were written by Swedes, wouldn't we wonder what the hell was going on?

Should there be any mystery as to why they were written by males? Is anyone so utterly ignorant of history that they do not know that females had more than enough work to keep them busy for most of the history of the human race? Maybe men should have shared some of that work. But history is what happened, not what we wish had happened. If most of the people who were educated were male-- as they have been throughout history, and even are today in some societies-- then most of the people who leave the kind of written material left by educated people will be men. You don't get great mathematical discoveries from people who were never taught algebra.

Much the same reasoning applies to other groups considered to be (1) oppressed and (2) "under-represented" among those whose historic achievements and contributions are recognized. But how can a people's achievements be unaffected by their oppression? One of the many reasons to be against oppression is that it keeps people from achieving all that they could have achieved if they had been treated more decently. To proclaim oppression and still expect to find the oppressed equally represented among those with historic achievements and contributions is almost a contradiction in terms.

The past is many things, but one thing it is, is irrevocable. A past to your liking is not an entitlement.

Don't we need multiculturalism to get people to understand each other and get along with each other?

Since this is an empirical question, you would expect people to seek an empirical answer, yet most of those who talk this way seem content to treat the matter as axiomatic. But is there any evidence that colleges that have gone whole hog into multiculturalism have better relations among the various groups on campus? Or is it precisely on such campuses that separatism and hostility are worse than on campuses that have not gone in for the multicultural craze?

You want to see multiculturalism in action? Look at Yugoslavia, at Lebanon, at Sri Lanka, at Northern Ireland, at Azerbaijan, or wherever else group "identity" has been hyped. There is no point in the multiculturalists' saying that this is not what they have in mind. You might as well open the floodgates and then say that you don't mean for people to drown. Once you have opened the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to do.

How are we to be part of the global economy, or engage in all sorts of other international activities, without being multicultural?

Ask the Japanese. They are one of the most insular and self-complacent peoples on Earth today. Yet they dominate international markets, international finance, international scientific and technological advances, and send armies of tourists around the world. This is not a defense of insularity or of the Japanese. It is simply a plain statement of fact that contradicts one of the many lofty and arbitrary dogmas of multiculturalism.

Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother

A thought provoking and controversial book came out that reflects on the undeniable connection between East Asian parenting styles and the high levels of academic achievement among Asian-American students. Those who believe that this is a stereotype should take five minutes and look up statistics on high school graduation, college attendance, income, incarceration and out-of-wedlock birth rates among Asian Americans. I believe it's obvious that these values are also major factors in the stellar economic rise of East Asian nations. The author, Amy Chua attributes this success to the focus on discipline, learning and achievement. On a deeper level, this represents what Mrs. Chua calls the "virtuous cycle," discipline leads to achievement, which creates a true sense of satisfaction. The idea that learning must be "entertaining" and "relevant,: which is endemic in the world of American education, is alien to this worldview.

In contrast, over the last 40 years, large segments of western society have simultaneously elevated self esteem to religious heights, while disconnecting it from real achievement. Predictably, academic and economic achievement in the west have stagnated, narcissism has flourished and I believe on a deeper level, self esteem is no more the better.

In no way am I idealizing East Asian Culture and depreciating modern, Western Culture; all cultures have their strengths and weaknesses, positive aspects and pathologies. I am merely stating that if we as a nation are serious about addressing our lackluster educational achievement, we should explore the successes and yes, the failures of other cultures.

Perhaps more interesting than the actual article were the public responses. Some responses were quite positive, but I was surprised by the visceral hostility, rather than thoughtful debate that Mrs. Chua's book provoked. In fact Rolling Stone Magazine published an article in which a court of public opinion charged her with being an "asshole." I suspect that this largely stems from the fact that Mrs. Chua has indirectly challenged major elements of the "progressive revolution" in culture, education and parenting that has reshaped American Society over the last forty years. More specifically, she has brought its failings to light. I say "failings" rather than "failure," because some of the changes have indeed been positive. For whatever benefits eroding parental and teacher authority and elevating self esteem may have brought, improved academic performance was not one of them. The mere success of Asian Americans is a challenge to the world view off progressives, who believe that the academic and economic output of different groups is merely a product of "racism" and "white privilege" and accordingly must be remedied by massive state intervention.

Those well read on American history will know that Chinese and Japan Americans faced appalling racism, legal restrictions and in some cases even lynchings. But, in the matter of a few decades they, by every indicator of health, social and economic welfare, have surpassed whites. On a deeper level, this must cause distress to the army of government bureaucrats and progressives whose very livelihood and sense of purpose depends on the notion that only through their intervention and activism can poor and marginalized populations survive, yet alone advance. The notion that values, choices and behaviors of individuals and groups are major factors in their welfare are anathema to this world view. But, amazingly the same progressives who (wisely) exercise skepticism when reading environmental research funded by oil companies, do not consider the possibility that research conducted by "public servants" and "activists" may also be tainted with self interest. I do not expect everyone to agree with this book, however I am hoping that it will spark self reflection and honest debate amont parents, teachers and politicians.

Tiger Mothers: Raising Children The Chinese Way

by Maureen Corrigan January 11, 2011 Amy Chua may well be nuts. What kind of a mother hauls her then-7-year-old daughter's dollhouse out to the car and tells the kid that the dollhouse is going to be donated to the Salvation Army piece by piece if the daughter doesn't master a difficult piano composition by the next day? What kind of a mother informs her daughter that she's "garbage"? And what kind of mother believes, as Chua tells readers she does, that: "an A- is a bad grade; ... the only activities your children should be permitted to do are those in which they can eventually win a medal; and ... that medal must be gold"? What kind of a mother? Why, a mother who's raising her kids the Chinese, rather than the Western, way. In her new memoir, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Chua recounts her adventures in Chinese parenting, and — nuts though she may be — she's also mesmerizing. Chua's voice is that of a jovial, erudite serial killer — think Hannibal Lecter — who's explaining how he's going to fillet his next victim, as though it's the most self-evidently normal behavior. That's the other gripping aspect of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother: There's method to Chua's madness — enough method to stir up self-doubt in readers who subscribe to more nurturing parenting styles. Trust me, Battle Hymn is going to be a book club and parenting blog phenomenon; there will be fevered debate over Chua's tough love strategies, which include ironclad bans on such Western indulgences as sleepovers, play dates, and any extracurricular activities except practicing musical instruments ... which must be the violin or piano. Hear An Interview With Amy Chua On 'Tell Me More' January 13, 2011 Battle Hymn Of The Tiger Mother

Add to Playlist Download The back story to Chua's memoir is this: She is the daughter of Chinese immigrants and is now a professor at Yale Law School and the author of two best-selling "big-think" books on free-market democracy and the fall of empires. When Chua married her husband, fellow Yale law professor and novelist Jed Rubenfeld, they agreed that their children would be raised Jewish and reared "the Chinese way," in which punishingly hard work — enforced by parents — yields excellence; excellence, in turn, yields satisfaction in what Chua calls a "virtuous circle." The success of this strategy is hard to dispute. Older daughter Sophia is a piano prodigy who played Carnegie Hall when she was 14 or so. The second, more rebellious daughter, Lulu, is a gifted violinist. Chua rode the girls hard, making sure they practiced at least three hours a day even on vacations, when she would call ahead to arrange access to pianos for Sophia in hotel lobby bars and basement storage rooms. Chua also rarely refrained from criticizing her daughters, and in one of the many provocative passages that fill her book, she explains: Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable — even legally actionable — to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, "Hey fatty — lose some weight." By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of "health" and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. ... Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently. As Chua admits, though, the Chinese model doesn't dwell on happiness, nor does it deal well with failure. (Some of the most hilarious parts of her memoir deal with her attempts to apply Chinese parenting methods to the family's two dopey Samoyed puppies.) I was on my living room couch, reading the end of Chua's memoir, when my 12-year-old daughter came downstairs and announced that she had "done enough reading" for one day and that since she had also practiced flute (for 15 minutes) she was going to kick back and watch TV — in this case, a made-for-TV Disney movie. Chua tartly sums up the stereotypically "Western" Disney plot this way: "In Disney movies," she says, the [studious kid] always has to have a breakdown and realize that life is not all about following rules and winning prizes, and then take off her clothes and run into the ocean or something like that. But that's just Disney's way of appealing to all the people who never win any prizes. Winning prizes gives you opportunities, and that's freedom — not running into the ocean." I looked over at my daughter and had mixed feelings about her just chillin' in front of the TV, rather than plugging away in that virtuous circle of enforced practice. I guess we won't be sending out the invitations for Carnegie Hall anytime soon. This is a story about a mother, two daughters, and two dogs. It's also about Mozart and Mendelssohn, the piano and the violin, and how we made it to Carnegie Hall. This was supposed to be a story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones. But instead, it's about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen-year-old. Part One The Tiger, the living symbol of strength and power, generally inspires fear and respect. The Chinese Mother A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do: - attend a sleepover - have a playdate - be in a school play - complain about not being in a school play - watch TV or play computer games - choose their own extracurricular activities - get any grade less than an A - not be the #1 student in every subject except gym and drama - play any instrument other than the piano or violin - not play the piano or violin. I'm using the term "Chinese mother" loosely. I recently met a super-successful white guy from South Dakota (you've seen him on television), and after comparing notes we decided that his working-class father had definitely been a Chinese mother. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish, and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are notChinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I'm also using the term "Western parents" loosely. Western parents come in all varieties. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that Westerners are far more diverse in their parenting styles than the Chinese. Some Western parents are strict; others are lax. There are same-sex parents, Orthodox Jewish parents, single parents, ex-hippie parents, investment banker parents, and military parents. None of these "Western" parents necessarily see eye to eye, so when I use the term "Western parents," of course I'm not referring to all Western parents — just as "Chinese mother" doesn't refer to all Chinese mothers. All the same, even when Western parents think they're being strict, they usually don't come close to being Chinese mothers. For example, my Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments thirty minutes every day. An hour at most. For a Chinese mother, the first hour is the easy part. It's hours two and three that get tough. Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately ten times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams. This brings me to my final point. Some might think that the American sports parent is an analog to the Chinese mother. This is so wrong. Unlike your typical Western over-scheduling soccer mom, the Chinese mother believes that (1) schoolwork always comes first; (2) an A-minus is a bad grade; (3) your children must be two years ahead of their classmates in math; (4) you must never compliment your children in public; (5) if your child ever disagrees with a teacher or coach, you must always take the side of the teacher or coach; (6) the only activities your children should be permitted to do are those in which they can eventually win a medal; and (7) that medal must be gold. Excerpted from Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua. Copyright 2010 by Amy Chua. Excerpted by permission of The Penguin Press. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/11/132833376/tiger-mothers-raising-children-the-chinese-way http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-people-vs-tiger-mom-amy-chua-20110318

Government Fundamentalists III

Government fundamentalism is most apparent in discussion of education, with the most common refrain being "thou must direct more and more resources and control to the federal department of education if thy want education to improve." A quick glance at the numbers will show that this belief is no more empirically sound than a belief in creationism or leprechauns.* Federal spending on education has steadily increased and surged under the (so called) conservative administration of GW Bush, with nothing to show for it.

*No offense should be taken by my religious readers. I do not consider a belief in the Judeo-Christian G-d to be unreasonable, rather I merely question the literal interpretation of the creation accounts present in religious texts.

Does Culture = Educational Destiny?

Every three years, the Paris-based Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation& Development (OECD) holds its Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests of the reading, math and science skills of 15-year-olds in developing and developed countries. Interestingly, 4 out of 5 of the top performing countries were East Asian, with the Chinese Students of Shanghai receiving the highest rank (556). In contrast, America's performance (500) was mediocre, prompting Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to declare:

"We have to see this as a wakeup call...I know skeptics will want to argue with the results, but we consider them to be accurate and reliable, and we have to see them as a challenge to get better,” he added. “The United States came in 23rd or 24th in most subjects. We can quibble, or we can face the brutal truth that we’re being out-educated.”


The story becomes much more fascinating and relevant, when you analyze the performance of American students based on their race and ethnicity. To more clearly view the rankings, click on the graph provided. American students of Asian descent received the second highest international rank (541). American students of European descent outperformed (525) the students of every European nation except Finland (536). American students of Hispanic descent outperformed (466) the students of the 8 Latin American nations that were tested, yet scored substantially lower than the American average (500). On average, African-American students outperformed (441) the students of each African and Afro-Caribbean nation. In other words, there is a huge correlation between academic performance and ethnic origin, regardless of the nation that a student resides in. And we also see that for all its faults, the American educational system has augmented the academic performance of students relative to their ethnic compatriots. Granted, the quality of a school certainly influence academic performance, but in the same schools, where each student enjoyed the same level of resources, the relative achievement of ethnic groups held steady.

During my time as a Spanish and History teacher, in my classroom, working class Chinese immigrants outperformed White, Hispanic and African-American students, even though they barely spoke English, let alone Spanish! I presume that this will elicit protests or nervous silence from progressives, but the conclusions are clear as day: in matters of education, culture is destiny. Clearly some cultures encourage education, discipline and investment more than others. This leads me to believe that a huge component in the educational challenges that the United States faces are cultural. The larger and more controversial challenge will be to factor this data into the generation of public policy that will increase our international educational and economic competitiveness. In the long run, school reform that is not accompanied by shifts in culture and behavior, will fail. But, such changes cannot simply be legislated into existence, they must "organically" occur overtime via the aggregate effect of the choices that individuals, families and communities make. It took decades for educational "experts" and cultural figures to erode discipline, competition and achievement-orientation via a focus on self esteem, cultural relativism and a host of other questionable pedagogic theories and it will take decades to repair the damage.

While there is little that the government can do to effect immediate cultural changes, policies can alter demographic trajectories in a manner which will impact future educational and economic outcomes. To put it simply, the surest way to raise the mean educational level of a nation is by increasing the number of educated oriented individuals and families. A good starting point would be to realign immigration policies away from chain migration towards one that focuses on bringing in highly educated, highly skilled workers and their families, regardless of race or national origin. The implications of such a shift cannot be overstated, because of the strong correlation that exists between the educational and economic output of 1st generation immigrants and that of their 2nd, 3rd and even 4th generation descendants. Unfortunately any serious discussion of culture and ethnic origin will crash head long into a wall of taboos and intellectual dishonesty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?_r=2

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/101219_pisa.htm

Excellence & Equality In Evanston

I was very pleased when President Obama spoke about the need for a "Sputnik Moment," calling on the United States to focus its energy on improving educational outcomes. The President is correct, our economic competitiveness and creativity is inseparable from the level of achievement of our students. Unfortunately, excellence does not seem to figure prominently in the hierarchy of progressive values. Of course, most liberals value achievement, however excellence is almost always eclipsed by their focus on perceived social goods, such as achieving equality of outcomes. This was apparent when Evanston Township High School eliminated an honors English class for freshman, because African-Americans were underrepresented in the said class. Administrators responded to outraged parents with the dubious claim that "high achievement students will profit from experiencing multiple perspective and diversity in their classes to gain cultural capital..."

This is not an isolated incident; in the Masters in Education Program at Loyola University, my professors were virtually unanimous in their opposition to academic tracking and levels. They believed that "solidarity," "diversity" and "equity" trumped the need to maximize achievement. This may have been feasible when the United States towered over the world, but now that we are competing against rapidly rising powers like China, India and South Korea, we do not have this luxury. We must do all that is possible to foment achievement and excellence. And while the administrators are correct that we must bridge the achievement gaps that exist between different ethnic groups, stifling our best and brightest, committed and capable students is not the way to achieve this.

Evanston High School Drops Honors Course

Jim Breeling

12.17.10

By Jim Breeling

Being an elected member of a public school board must be one of the toughest jobs in a democratic society. Unless committed to some political or educational creed that puts ideology first and students as an afterthought, the board member seeks to do "what's best" for students when it is often not at all clear what "best" may be.

Constraints on good decision-making are mines in a mapless minefield: budgetary allocations, teacher hiring/firing/retention, selection and purchase of educational materials (hard- and software)), objective measurement of academic achievement by the student bodies, how to improve academic performanc if that becomes an issue (as it almost always does), security and student safety, quality of foods if the school has a school breakfast ot lunch program, and etc., etc., etc.

An etc. that can be a very explosive constraint on objective decision-making is social/cultural/racial diversity of the student body, with related issues of equity in access to highest quality education, and fairness in assessment of academic performance.

Dealing with these "diversity" issues opens questions as broad as any in a democratic society--e.g., what are the pruposes of public education in a democratic society? What roles should public education fill in addressing social/cultural/racial inequities? Are these questions that need to be addressed by the elected board of an individual public school?

A question that has nefarious connotations but one that a board member must ask is whether standards of academic performance should be altered to accomodate more "fairness" in access to education. What is "best" for students? Would "best" be most harmoniously achieved by some form of compromise?

Evanston Township High School District 202 board members spent agonizing weeks in addressing just such issues, and ended up with a compromise (Chicago Tribune December 12, 2010). The board ended up voting unanimously to eliminate an honors English course for entering freshmen who have records as high academic achievers. The ratio of white to "minority" students in the high-achieving freshmen has usually been heavily skewed to whites. This statistic prompted the question for the school board to address: Did this honors course for entering freshmen begin a process of differentiating high-achieving white students from "other", a process that could influence how students are perceived academically all the way through high school? According to the Tribune story, data collected by the school show that white students are far more likely to qualify for honors and Advanced Placement courses with high academic standards and "stepping stones" to continuation in education after high school.

Did the board make the "best" decision for all students? Many parents of students thought not, and made their views known at board meetings and by petitions. In the end, however, the board voted to do away with the freshman honors course that selected students based on test scores--a method felt unfair to minorities. The decision is seen as a move toward opening academically advanced courses to a broader range of students.

It may be that the decision was the best that the board could make, given all constraints on decision-making. The decision does not affect me personally because I do not live in Evanston and know no students who attend this school. I do, however, regret the board's decision. I regret a decision that fails to encourage intellectual achievement--no matter if achievement is assessed by test scores.

There is a powerful current of anti-intellectualism in American culture and students of high intellectual achievement should be encouraged to swim against it. Among sub-teen and teen-age students there is often powerful peer pressure to be a low academic achiever, to be "cool" or whatever sobriquet is current for putting a high value on low academic performance. Students need all the help they can get to resist such peer pressure.

It is unfortunate that in order to be broadly equitable in opening educational opportunity, a school board must close its eyes to the presence of intellectually exceptional students and let them find their own way to a properly stimulating education.

The effect of anti-intellectualism in American life is now on display in the publication of 2009 data by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), administered by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. PISA compares academic performance of 15-year-olds from 60 countries in science, mathemetics and reading. An average score is 500. The 5,233 U.S. students from 165 schools scored 487 in mathematics (31st place in rankings), 502 in science (23rd place in rankings), and 500 in reading (15th place in rankings. Not too many years ago, U.S. students were at or near the top in academic performance. In 2009 PISA ranking, students in Shanghai outperformed all others in all categories. Students in China, Japan, Korea and Singapore were high performers in all categories.
Tagged Evanston township high school district 202 decision--oh my


Read more: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/the-spectator/2010/12/evanston-high-school-drops-honors-course.html#ixzz1EYV4DuOo

http://evanstonnow.com/story/news/charles-bartling/2010-11-30/experts-at-eths-forum-decry-tracking

Implied Progressive Racism? (part I)

During a discussion led by David Horowitz, he asked a Muslim American college student if she was for or against Hezbollah's stated goal that all Jews should gather in Israel so that he wouldn't have to hunt them down globally. In other words, Mr. Horowitz sought to determine if she supported the genocide of Jews. To this she responded she was "for it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n91ih3_Yy5Y

Can you imagine the protests, condemnations and calls for action if a Christian student called for the genocide of Jews or Muslims? Campus progressives would demand that the university reprimand the individual, make them attend diversity seminars and then investigate the "right wing Christian student groups" that incited them. Clearly not all individuals and communities are held to the same standards.

This hearkens me back to the Los Angeles Riots when mostly African-American and Hispanic mobs plundered predominantly Korean owned shops. Rather than condemn the (small minority of) individuals who chose to steal, a litany of socio-economic explanations were used to absolve them of their crimes. The first problem that we encounter with this narrative is that it fails to take into account the vast majority of African-Americans and Hispanics who chose to address their grievances in an intelligent, constructive fashion. And if one individual is responsible for their wise decisions, is not the other equally responsible for their foolish ones?

In the past when white mobs terrorized African-Americans and other groups, progressives correctly reproached them as individuals who were morally responsible for their abhorrent behavior. So, why then do most progressive narratives present minorities as passive groups, rather than as morally engaged individuals?

I believe that the problem is that many progressive can only conceptualize minorities as victims rather than perpetrators. And when they do acknowledge examples of hate and violence, usually it is explained away a response to socio-economic injustice. Of course I do not deny the existence of racism and injustice, but such explanations fundamentally reduce individuals to passive agents, products of their environment. By failing to treat individuals as active, intelligent moral agents who are responsible for their actions, we negate their individuality and treat them like children, an endeavor which is implicitly racist and demeaning.

(Un)civil Servants?

In 2007, Michelle Rhee was appointed superintendent of Washington D.C.'s dismal public school system. It's per pupil expenditures ($14,594) was the 4th highest in the nation, yet its students scored at the bottom among the 11 major city school systems. This was not simply a reflection of the socio-economic status of its student body, because "even when poor children are compared only with other poor children. Thirty-three percent of poor fourth-graders across the nation lacked basic skills in math, but in the District, the figure was 62 percent. It was 74 percent for D.C. eighth-graders, compared with 49 percent nationally."

In her three years at the post, student achievement significantly improved. Secondary schools raised the test pass rates in standardized tests by 14% in reading and 17% in math, while elementary school pass rates have improved 6% in reading and 15% in math. System wide graduation rates also improved by 3%, up to 72%. Rhee's reform program involved a 20% pay raise for high performing teachers. And perhaps more importantly, the regimen of teacher tenure was weakened, allowing Rhee to fire 241 teachers for poor evaluations and grant other low performing teachers a year to improve their performance. These much needed reforms outraged D.C.'s power teacher unions and their allies, which led to her resignation.

This demonstrates a flaw in the progressive narrative that tends to present public sector workers and their unions in a favorable manner. Such groups are said to pursue broad, public interests, in contrast to the private sector which pursues their "narrow self interests." While there are many outstanding teachers and civil servants, as a whole public sector unions guard their self interest and defend the status quo, even to the detriment of the public. And only the most uncivil of civil servants can deny the need to grant schools greater leeway in firing incompetent teachers, especially in schools that are miserably failing underprivileged students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130567612

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/District_of_Columbia_school_system

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901415.html

Subprime School Loans?

Although I am generally reserved about government subsidies, education is so vital for the economic and cultural health of a nation, that in principle I support subsidies towards higher education. Without a doubt, federal guarantees of student loans have provided countless opportunities for students of limited means to pursue a higher education, which in turn has helped facilitate greater social mobility. However, federal subsidies, in their present form have increasingly generated negative unintended consequences,the gravest being the interrelated phenomena of "sub-prime" school loans, an increase in debt and unsustainable price inflation.

In my line of work I have encountered countless students who have amassed considerable debt via their student loans. In many cases, this was an economically rational investment, because the degree that the student obtained dramatically increased their earning potential. For example,
one individual amassed $100,000 in student loans in the pursuit of his medical degree, however as a high paid surgeon he would be able to pay this off in a relatively short time. However, I also encountered individuals who amassed similar levels of debt in the pursuit of a fine arts or liberal arts degree. Unfortunately, far too many of these individuals were only able to low paying
service sector jobs. This means that the most probably outcomes that they faced were two decades of crushing debt or a default that would damage their credit and future opportunities such as a home or small business loan.

Having gone through the gruelling process of obtaining private sector loans, I am quite certain that had more students been forced to seek financing in the private sector, the number of disastrous school loans would have been significantly reduced. In contrast to the federal government, the vast majority of private banks would carefully assess the long term sustainability of a student loan. For example, a semi-competent loan officer would have analyzed the median earning opportunities for art of literature students and would have determined that a $100,000 loan would pose an undue risk to the bank, as well as the student. The bank would have factored in the credit of the student and / or their family to determine the risk of default. In contrast the federal government is generally careless with tax payer money.

Many progressives would respond "that may be true, but if the private bank denies the individual a student loan you cut them off from all opportunities for a higher education..." This is clearly a half truth, because the said student would still have other viable options. First, they could pursue an area of study that offers a higher return for their investment, which would greatly increase their chances of obtaining a loan. For example, they could pursue a practical major in architecture and a fulfilling minor in art or literature. The second option would be to pursue their education or at least their core requirements in a more affordable state or local school. The third would be to determine that their most probably option is a lower paying service sector job and forgo a formal higher education, instead treating art and literature as non-monetary cultural pursuits. Either way, the pursuit of financing through the private sector would encourage more students to pursue more economically sustainable paths.

Federal subsidies have indirectly allowed for unsustainable price inflation; in other words, student loans are a major factor in the rapid increase in the cost of tuition. Without widespread federal loans, a surge in costs would have quickly prompted a drop in demand. And when any private institution or industry faces declining demand their two options are two go out of business or restructure to drop costs. But, student loans have temporarily spared schools the
need to pursue painful but necessary cost cutting measures.

Especially with increasing needs for an educated workforce I cannot support the termination of all federal subsidies to higher education. However, we clearly the system of federal student loans needs to be reformed. But, unfortunately the Obama Administration's efforts to "cut out the middle man" and have the federal government directly issue student loans will not bring us closer to a more economically rational system. And like the federal government, students will continue to amass unsustainable levels of debt with no end in sight.

A Teachable Moment, Forever Lost.

Fearing that their attire would be provocative to students of Mexican descent during Cinco de Mayo (May 5th), the principal of Live Oaks High School in Morgan Hill, California demanded that five students turn their shirts inside out. When they refused, they were sent home with an unexcused absence. What offensive image or message did their attire convey? The flag of the United States of America!

As you can imagine this stirred up quite a bit of controversy and groups ranging from the ACLU to the Tea Party came to the aid of the students and the principal was quickly forced to apologize. During interviews the students, two of which were of partial Hispanic descent, emphasized that they fully respected their classmates' rights to celebrate Cinco de Mayo and present the Mexican Flag, they merely wished that their classmates and the administration would respect their first amendment rights.

What followed this incident was even more telling. The following day approximately 200 Hispanic students walked out of class to (apparently) protest the decision of the administration. During the march, they chanted "We want respect" and "Si se puede (Yes We Can)" When asked for her opinion, one of the protesters stated"

"It's kind of disrespectful that they (the students who wore Americans flags ) would do that on this day I mean we don't go around on the 4th of July wearing red, white and green saying "Viva Mexico" because that's disrespectful..."

This was followed by a Tea Party rally in which four of the students received a standing ovation. And much to my pleasant surprise, some thoughtful words and placards were presented by the participants. Jeanine Croft, a graduate of Live Oaks High School stated:

"This is a catalyst for some good discussion," Croft said. "It's an opportunity to discuss this and refocus." Croft said students need to be taught in school to be proud Americans like she was, saluting in the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. "And the Hispanic children should be proud to be Hispanic every day not just on May 5 - but don't ever expect us to put the American flag away."

Indeed Croft is correct, this incident should have served as a catalyst for a much needed discussion or in progressive parlance "a teachable moment." Here are but a few of the many concepts and questions that should have been presented to the students, teachers and general public:

1. If indeed there was a risk that the presentation of the American Flag, or for that matter any cultural symbol could provoke some students to conflict, why didn't the administration
confront the intolerance of those students, rather than curtail the free expression of the five students? Why didn't they emphasize that just as we respect your right to proudly wave the Mexican Flag, you must respect the right of other students to wave any flag of their choosing? The administration could have used this incident to promote the merits of tolerance, pluralism and freedom of expression.

2. Would the same school administrators dared to have asked students to hide symbols of their Mexican Heritage, out of the fear that it may have offended some students? If not, why did they not extend the same courtesy to students wishing to present symbols of the United States? What does this say about the ideology and political culture of the school administrators and academia in general? Is this a product of a worldview that encourages the expression and celebration of all cultures, except shared American culture?

3. Why didn't the school administration confront the 200 students who walked out and ask they what they found so offensive about the American Flag and (presumably) American identity? They should have boldly emphasized that just as the students should be proud of their Mexican heritage, so should they be proud of their American identity.

4. Is their anything in the curriculum or broader academic culture that has encouraged these (or any other) students to be be resentful towards the United States? Is this the end product of educational and political elites who eschew assimilation in favor of diversity? Is this the product of teachers who foment a sense of victimization rather than appreciation for the unparalleled liberty and prosperity that the United States offers their students? To those who say that the school should teach diverse students about their culture and traditions, my response is: parents, religious and community organizations are more than welcome to teach children what it means to be (for example) Jewish, Mexican or Korean, but it's the job of schools to teach students what it means to be American.

5. Why should the school sponsor the celebration of a holiday that pertains to a single segment of the student body? The school administration should treat ethnic holidays, the same way it treats religious celebrations. Even if a segment of the student body is demographically dominant, the school should only officially promote the celebration of holidays that are shared by all students. This does not mean that student clubs should not be allowed to use school facilities to celebrate and educate their fellow students about their holidays, traditions and culture. In other words, it would be inappropriate to have the school promote the celebration of Christmas, Hanukkah or Cinco de Mayo, but it would be perfectly appropriate to allow the Christian, Jewish or Mexican club use the gym or field to host a celebration during lunch time or after school hours.


6. Is this an isolated incident or does it reveal that millions of individuals are not assimilating to American culture. First, keep in mind that assimilation does not mean that they have to reject their ethnic and religious heritage. And second, keep in mind that just because these students speak English and enjoy popular culture, does not mean that they are truly assimilated. When one is assimilated they feel an affection for their nation and it's shared culture and symbols. Clearly the 200 students who walked out of class did not hold great affection for the United States. If educational and political institutions are failing to fully assimilate millions of citizens, what social and political implications does this hold in our increasingly diverse nation?

7. No incidents of white students protesting the celebration of Cinco de Mayo were reported. Is this because anti-racism curricula are based on a vision in which whites are the perpetrators and diverse populations are the sole recipients of racism and intolerance?

Alas, the school administrators tried to sweep this under the rug as quickly as possible and a teachable moment was lost forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpqfoOwQtk&feature=PlayList&p=79059CB4AC2BC91C&playnext_from=PL&index=185

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ib5FlgdwKs&feature=PlayList&p=79059CB4AC2BC91C&playnext_from=PL&index=183


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/california-principal-apologizes-forbidding-flag-shirts-mexican-holiday/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/tensions-high-california-high-school-following-flag-flap/

http://cbs5.com/education/rally.american.flag.2.1680060.html

http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/265549-live-oak-high-school-flag-feud-entices-tea-party-rally

The Hazards of Student Loan Reform

Obama's student loan program is an example of government policies that provide short term relief at the cost of long term economic health. While loan subsidies and debt relief may benefit their recipients, the long term hazard is that they provide perverse incentives for systemic increases in debt and economically unsound behavior. Here are a break down of the policies and their unintended consequences:

1. Eliminating the middleman: Obama claims that by having the federal government directly directly handle student loans (rather than subsidize private sector loans) he will save the tax payers billions of dollars. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume that there will be short term savings, based on the general track record of federal programs we can assume that over the long run the public sector has little if any incentives to allocate loans with even a modicum of economic logic. A private financial institution that does not enjoy lavish government subsidies is far more likely to factor in a student's capacity to repay the loan in their decision making criteria. Why? Because, the market would castigate them through decreased profits and eventually dissolution. On the other hand, when faced with systemic losses, the federal government's first impulse is to increase funding, which leads to a greater tax and debt burden.

2. Increase Pell Grants (and other subsidies): In the short run this will increase access to college, however in the long run this will contribute to the very serious issue of continued cost inflation in higher education. Economic laws dictate that when high demand is artificially sustained by government subsidies, incentives to control cost inflation are diminished. What this means is that universities will avoid taking necessary steps to control costs. The dangers of loose financing can be seen in the housing market; when housing finance was plentiful, demand soared, driving up prices and increasing debt. The same phenomena applies to the student loan market.

3.Increased Funding for Minority-Serving Institutions: The new legislation includes $2.55 billion in support for schools that primarily serve minorities. I question the constitutionality and economic logic of racial preferences in the allocation of federal funds.

4.Lower Income-Based Payments: After 2014, those who struggle to make loan payments will be able to take advantage of income-based repayment plans. Under the new rules, loan payments cannot exceed 10% of the borrower's discretionary income. This policy sound positive, however the question to ask is: will it encourage more people to take out loans that are beyond their means? And by lowering monthly payments (regardless of the size of the loan), many students will see the terms of their loan lengthened, which leads us to the 5th element of Obama's program:

5.More Forgiveness Opportunities: This part of the law also takes effect in 2014. Borrowers who stick with their income-based payment plan for 20 years will then no longer owe a balance, even if they haven't yet paid back all of their loans. Borrowers employed in public service will see their balances wiped out in 10 years.

Although this sounds appealing, coupled with longer term loans (see point 4) this will clearly provide perverse incentives to not pay back their loans at the cost to tax payers. This will also provide incentives for more individuals to opt for an already bloated public sector, rather than the private sector.

In many ways the sharp recession that we are facing was a market correction of more than a decade of unsound economic behavior, most notably the excessive debt and malinvestment that millions of individuals and enterprises undertook. Even in the face of higher unemployment and declining incomes, the American public began paying down their debt and undertaking wiser investments. And costs fell for most goods and services, except for sectors that are largely shielded from market forces: health care and education. And well meaning government intervention, such as Obama's student loan reforms, provides perverse incentives for Americans to return to the economically unsustainable behaviors of the past.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/08/investopedia43354.DTL#ixzz0lQaTaoA6

Nearly Billion Dollar CPS Deficit!

The Chicago Public Schools are facing a nearly billions dollar deficit. The decline in revenue ($138 million) that the district experienced only accounts for 14.15% of this deficit, whereas a jump in salaries and pensions ($348 million) accounts for 35.69% of this deficit. What makes this all the more odious is that there is little or no connection between Chicago's generous per-pupil spending($11,300) and educational outcomes. So, we can assume that a large portion of the budget goes towards patronage laden administrative jobs and maintaining a hemorrhaging pension system.

Negotiations between private sector unions and businesses is generally dynamic, because they are directly negotiating with their own money. And union demands generally are bound to economic reality because of the simple realization that if the company is not economically viable it will go under and all will lose their jobs. On the other hand the CPS negotiates with teacher's unions with the tax payer's money, not their own. And all parties know that historically they could cover inflated salaries by raising revenues by increasing property taxes with little consequences, given the democratic machine's firm hold on Chicago.

Social programs should not so much be conceived as a transference of wealth from wealthy and middle class tax producers to the poor and working class tax consumers, but as a transference to a growing class of bureaucrats that administer the programs.

We have been promised school reform by teacher's unions and "experts" for 30 years with very little to show for it other than a rising deficit. It's time to try something different and give parents and students real choice. And perhaps more importantly, the $8,350 tuition (at St. Patrick's High School in Chicago) equals a per student saving of nearly $3,000 for tax payers.

More CPS job cuts as $975 million deficit looms

'INCREDIBLY SERIOUS' Teachers reject call for givebacks

February 26, 2010

BY ROSALIND ROSSI Education Reporter

To get ahead of what could be a whopping $975 million deficit next school year, Chicago Public Schools officials Thursday announced 500 mostly non-teaching job cuts -- and three weeks of furloughs for nonunion workers still left on the job.

Schools CEO Ron Huberman predicted an "incredibly serious'' fiscal year ahead and said he would need help from teachers and other unions to avoid "devastating effects'' on students.

Already, to make ends meet this year, the district is cutting back some spring non-varsity sports and eliminating lacrosse and water polo, officials revealed Thursday. A highly touted freshman orientation program is also being shortened.

With no new funding from Springfield, CPS officials projected a $700 million deficit next year. That gap could balloon to $975 million if Gov. Quinn wins a proposed 15 percent cut in state education funding, they said.

Fueling the dire projections:

• A $279 million jump -- a 91 percent hike -- in teacher pension payments.

• A $169 million increase in Chicago Teachers Union compensation, tied to 4 percent CTU raises.

• A $138 million drop in local tax revenues.

Without union concessions, more money from Springfield and pension relief, Huberman said, a "last case ... worst case scenario" would be bigger class sizes and teacher layoffs.

Increasing class sizes by one student, to a districtwide average of 31, would save $40 million and cost up to 600 teacher jobs, Huberman said. Boosting class sizes to 45 would save $270 million, but Huberman conceded many classrooms couldn't hold that many kids.

The teachers union would have to sign off on a pay freeze or furlough days, but increasing class size is an option CPS could exercise on its own. A relief value that would require legislative but not union approval would be a $300 million reduction in next fiscal year's pension payment -- a move Huberman insisted would still leave pensions adequately funded.

However, CTU President Marilyn Stewart, who faces re-election in May, quickly threw cold water on any idea of union givebacks.

"We will not agree to any proposal that either destroys our contract or fails to maintain the integrity of our pension system. Nor will we tolerate implied threats by Mr. Huberman that he may have to cut programs and services for our students or lay off teachers,'' Stewart said in a statement.

The looming deficit comes after CPS cut 557 central office and citywide jobs before the school year started and another 30 jobs and 132 vacant positions at midyear to balance this year's budget.

The newly announced job cuts and furloughs due in mid-March follow six furlough days and a pay freeze among most central office staff.

Abolish the Federal Department of Education?

This may sound radical, but the more I analyze the facts, the more reasons I see for abolishing the Federal Department of Education. I have provided some questions and answers that lead me to this conclusion. If you can come up with answers that prove that the benefits outweigh the costs of the Department of Education outweigh th I encourage you to post them.

Question 1: Is the the existence of the Federal Department of Education constitutional?

Answer 1: The federal role in education is a violation of the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to regulate or fund elementary or secondary education.

Question 2: But isn't the promotion of education a historic role of the federal government?

Answer 2: No, it was founded in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, douchebag extraordinaire.

Question 3: Has the American public received a good return on its investment?

Answer 3: Between 2000 - 2008, under the "conservative" George W Bush, the Department of Education's budget increased from $37,524, 346 to $68,574,594, a whopping 54.72%. This represents a large increase in per-capita spending, coupled with little or no improvements in the academic performance of American students.

Question 4: Are there any good examples of federal government mandates improving the quality of public education at state and local levels?

Answer 4: I do not know of a good example. But, federal programs like"No Child Left Behind" have by most indications burdened cities and states with additional bureaucracy and hindered their autonomy, while offering few if any real improvements in the performance of students.

Question 5: What are some other possible consequences of the federalization of education?

Answer 5: Increased federal control of any activity usually leads to less local involvement of parents and teachers in addressing the educational ills that face their communities.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000063.asp

Clash of Goods: Diversity & Economic Equality (part II)

A More Appropriate Sign Would Be: Adios Middle Class


Interesting article that documents the growing educational and economical inequality in California, which is well above the national average in post doctorates, as well as high school dropouts. Needless to say the educational bifurcation is strongly connected to growing economic inequality. The growing economic inequality has a strong ethnic component, because:

1) Approximately 65% of California's Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, which means that the large growth in the said population has swelled the number of low skill, low income workers.

2) A disproportionate number of California's Asian immigrants are high skill, high income workers.

3) And as California has greatly raised taxes and spending to expand costly entitlement programs to address this growing economic inequality, which has accelerated the exodus of middle class, mostly white Californians.

The end result is that California is becoming an increasingly diverse and unequal state. And surely this phenomena has increased since the publication of the article in 2001. But, unfortunately few progressives are willing to reconcile, yet alone acknowledge this clash between two social goods: diversity & economic equality.

2001

Analysis: California's new education gap

By STEVE SAILER,

http://www.vny.com/cf/news/upidetail.cfm?QID=210220

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 9 (UPI) -- New Census Bureau figures show that California,traditionally America's trendsetter, is pioneering a new kind of class structure, one somewhat reminiscent of highly unequal Latin American countries such as Brazil or Mexico.

Although California was long viewed as the promised land of the American middle class, it is slowly developing a novel U-shaped social system featuring relatively large numbers of both the well-educated and the badly educated sandwiching a shrinking middle.

Although this trend toward greater inequality would seem to be at odds with the ideals of the Democratic Party, it might bode well for Democrats' success in the voting booth, if results from 2000 prove an adequate guide to the future. California, the state that bequeathed Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to the Republican Party, gave Al Gore an impressive 54 percent to 41 percent victory over George W. Bush last November.

According to a Census Bureau Supplementary Survey of 700,000 households across the country, California boasts 2 million recipients of graduate degrees (master's or Ph.D. or professional diplomas such as M.D. or J.D.).Yet this sophisticated state also is home to 2.2 million adults who never even attended high school. Their ranks are up 7 percent from 1990. By contrast, in the rest of America, the number of adults who had never seen the inside of a high school dropped by 30 percent over the past decade.

In California, 10.7 percent of grownups have no more than elementary schooling, compared to only 6.4 percent in the other 49 states. Of all the states in the Union, California now has the lowest percentage of its population with a midle level education consisting of at least a high school diploma or some college, but not a bachelor's degree from a four-year college. Further, the Golden State is now one of only three states with above average percentages of people who never got past elementary school and of holders of graduate degrees. The other two are New Mexico and Rhode Island.

California's educational inequality is driven by both foreign immigration and domestic migration. The state has attracted the top and the bottom of the schooling pyramid, while repelling the middle.Silicon Valley and other technology centers attract the highly educated from Asia and across America. More surprisingly, a prestigious degree is now often expected in Hollywood.A veteran sitcom writer who worked for years on "Married with Children"complained privately about the "Harvard mafia" that she feels increasingly has controlled TV joke writing ever since the Harvard Lampoon-laden screenwriting staff of "The Simpsons" emerged in 1990.

California's upper-middle-class newcomers tend to be liberal, especially on cultural issues. In contrast, Mexican immigrants comprise much of California's huge number of less-educated people. According to a 2000 Census Bureau survey, 65 percent of America's Mexican immigrants never finished high school versus only 9.6 percent of natives. According to the Voter News Service exit poll, California's Hispanics voted 68 percent to 29 percent for Gore.Meanwhile, as immigrants move in, native-born Americans leave California.

From 1990 to 1999, according to University of Michigan demographer William H. Frey, 2.2 million more California residents moved to other states than other Americans moved to California. Frey, who is also with the Milken Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., pointed out, "Another cause of the rise of the California Democrats is selective out-migration of the more rock-ribbed Republicans. The folks who have been leaving California's suburbs for other states have the white, middle-class demographic profiles of Republican voters. California's middle-class families are being squeezed out by real estate prices. And Republicans are heading for whiter states where they won't have to pay taxes for so many social programs for the poor.

"What's at work in New Mexico and Rhode Island, the other two states that are above average in both graduate degrees and adults who've never been to high school? Ever since the Manhattan Project built the atomic bomb during World War II,New Mexico has had a social chasm with Los Alamos physicists and Santa Feglitterati on one side, and poor Mexican-Americans and American Indians on the other. Rhode Island is demographically split between the workers in New England's intellectual-industrial complex and the state's many blue-collar immigrants from the Portuguese-speaking world, most notably the very poor Cape Verde Islands off the coast of West Africa.

California's "education gap" also shows up in income statistics. In California, 6.8 percent of all households make more than $150,000 per year versus 4.1 percent elsewhere. In contrast, 14 percent of California households are poor compared to only12.3 percent of households in the other 49 states. And this measure actually underestimates California's poverty problem, because the federal government uses the same poverty level nationwide, despite California having a higher cost of living. For example, the state's median rent is 30 percent greater than elsewhere.

The evidence from the 2000 election suggests that inequality might be good for the Democratic Party. Gore carried California, New Mexico and Rhode Island. In fact, New Mexico was one of only two states that Gore carried west of the Mississippi River and east of the Pacific Coast states.A plausible consensus has emerged that the 2000 election offers abundant insights into long-term political trends. That's because both parties ran fairly generic candidates and no major crises or issues roiled the race. This allowed underlying regional and class differences to emerge in sharp relief.The Voter News Service exit poll showed Gore carrying the educational extremes.
Nationally, the former vice president won 59 percent to 39 percent among voters without high school degrees. Similarly, he beat Bush 52 per cent to 44 percent among those with postgraduate degrees. In contrast, Bush carried the middle. He beat Gore 49 percent to 48 percent among high school graduates and 51 percent to 45 percent among both those with only some college and those with a bachelor's degree. Strikingly, the percentage of residents with graduate degrees proved one of the strongest predictors of whether a state would vote Republican or Democrat. Gore won only three of the 25 states with the fewest graduate degree holders, but 17 of the 25 highest states. Utah, the destination of so many disgruntled ex-Californians, is emerging as the anti-California. It leads the country with only 2.4 percent of its residents never having attended high school.Paradoxically, this staunchly Republican state, where Gore won only 25 percent of the vote, exemplifies some of the traditional egalitarian ideals of the Democratic Party. A 2000 study by the Economic Policy Institute found Utah to have the most equal income distribution of any state. Still, Utah is more likely to be the anomaly and California the harbinger of the United States' future. If so, this suggests that the Democratic Party's politicians will be better served than the party's ideals of educational and economic equality.


-- Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved. --

Three Stages of Understanding

Most people believe that knowledge and understanding are linear phenomena. As our knowledge of any given social or economic phenomena increases we move further in one direction. For example, in the Masters in Education program at Loyola, there was an underlying belief that the more educated and enlightened we became, the more we would come to see that all cultures were equal. Also we were fed implicit messages that we would come to understand the injustice of capitalism and the need for an interventionist state that pursued "social justice."

But, the more I explored issues, I came to see that often the acquisition of knowledge and understanding is more circular. For example, when questioned about Islam, an American without a university education is likely to inelegantly state "dem der Moslems are purty violent!" This of course would invoke shock and horror in a college freshman who learned in his diversity seminar that "Islam is a religion of peace." If they studied a little more they would probably add "Islam is tolerant religion; the Moors in Spain and the Ottoman Turks were extremely tolerant to Jews and Christians..." But, if that college freshman were to further study Islamic history they would learn about the violent history of Muhammad, the massacres, expulsions and forced conversions of Jews and Christians in Almohad Spain and that Islamic law imposed humiliating restrictions on Dhimmis (non-Moslems) in the Ottoman Empire and other lands ruled by Shariah. And if they compared the Koran to the New Testament they would learn that in spite of extended periods of fanaticism and intolerance, within Christianity there exists a textual foundation for tolerance and the gradual separation of church and state. In other words, a little bit of knowledge allowed the student to formulate noble, but deeply flawed narratives of social phenomena and ultimately greater knowledge brought them closer to their original, "unsophisticated" position. I believe that the circular path of knowledge applies to quite a few other phenomena; from welfare, to warfare, from education to immigration and beyond.

If you spoke with an uneducated American in the 1960's about international politics, you would be likely hear something along the lines of "those blood thirsty reds must be stopped. The American way has made this the greatest country on earth..." After receiving a liberal arts education in Berkley his son would probably respond "Oh father, you are so backwards and bourgeois! The works of Marx and Mao speak about equality and an end to poverty, whereas capitalism is oppressive..." If this young man would have taken the time to study the history of Communist regimes he would have learned that more people were murdered in the Soviet Union and Red China than even in Nazi Germany. And if he embarked upon a serious study of history and economics he would see that there was much truth to what his father said: America's traditions of limited government and (comparatively) free markets led to prosperity and freedom unparalleled in the history of mankind.

The point is not to glorify the uneducated or discourage individuals from pursuing a higher education, but to demonstrate that too often a liberal arts education endows one with the rhetorical skills to embrace and argue for ideals that are not always grounded in reality. Before one arrives at exalted principles and eloquent theories, they must travel down an empirical path founded in data and experience. To argue about how businesses and industries should be regulated, restructured and run without ever having worked in a productive enterprise is an absurd undertaking that may land you a job as a Czar in the Obama Administration.

Lowering the Bar Again...

In order to increase the diversity of its student body, the California University system have lowered objective academic standards and shifted its focus to subjective factors. While I too am troubled by the large academic gap between African-Americans and Latino students and their white and Asian counterparts, I am deeply troubled by the means in which progressives seek to address this social ill. Rather than seek to raise the human capital by improving the lackluster schools that many African-Americans and Latinos languish in their first impulse is to lower standards. The end result of this approach is a lower level of human capital, which inevitably erodes the economic and social health of a society.

Defining Diversity Down

January 9, 2008

The world gets more competitive every day, so why would California's education elites want to dumb down their public university admissions standards? The answer is to serve the modern liberal piety known as "diversity" while potentially thwarting the will of the voters.

The University of California Board of Admissions is proposing to lower to 2.8 from 3.0 the minimum grade point average for admission to a UC school. That 3.0 GPA standard has been in place for 40 years. Students would also no longer be required to take the SAT exams that test for knowledge of specific subjects, such as history and science.

UC Board of Admissions Chairman Mark Rashid says that, under this new system of "comprehensive review," the schools "can make a better and more fair determination of academic merit by looking at all the students' achievements." And it is true that test scores and grades do not take full account of the special talents of certain students. But the current system already leaves slots for students with specific skills, so if you think this change is about admitting more linebackers or piccolo players, you don't understand modern academic politics.

The plan would grant admissions officers more discretion to evade the ban on race and gender preferences imposed by California voters. Those limits became law when voters approved Proposition 209 in 1996, and state officials have been looking for ways around them ever since. "This appears to be a blatant attempt to subvert the law," says Ward Connerly, a former member of the University of California Board of Regents, who led the drive for 209. "Subjective admissions standards allow schools to substitute race and diversity for academic achievement."

One loser here would be the principle of merit-based college admissions. That principle has served the state well over the decades, helping to make some of its universities among the world's finest. Since 209, Asian-American students have done especially well, with students of Asian ethnicity at UCLA nearly doubling to 42% from 22%. Immigrants and the children of immigrants now outnumber native-born whites in most UC schools, so being a member of an ethnic minority is clearly not an inherent admissions handicap. Ironically, objective testing criteria were first introduced in many university systems, including California's, precisely to weed out discrimination favoring children of affluent alumni ahead of higher performing students.

The other big losers would be the overall level of achievement demanded in California public elementary and high schools. A recent study by the left-leaning Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at UCLA, the "California Educational Opportunity Report 2007," finds that "California lags behind most other states in providing fundamental learning conditions as well as in student outcomes." In 2005 California ranked 48th among states in the percentage of high-school kids who attend college. Only Mississippi and Arizona rated worse.

The UCLA study documents that the educational achievement gap between black and Latino children and whites and Asians is increasing in California at a troubling pace. Graduation rates are falling fastest for blacks and Latinos, as many of them are stuck in the state's worst public schools. The way to close that gap is by introducing more accountability and choice to raise achievement standards -- admittedly hard work, especially because it means taking on the teachers unions.

Instead, the UC Board of Admissions proposal sounds like a declaration of academic surrender. It's one more depressing signal that liberal elites have all but given up on poor black and Hispanic kids. Because they don't think closing the achievement gap is possible, their alternative is to reduce standards for everyone. Diversity so trumps merit in the hierarchy of modern liberal values that they're willing to dumb down the entire university system to guarantee what they consider a proper mix of skin tones on campus.

A decade ago, California voters spoke clearly that they prefer admissions standards rooted in the American tradition of achievement. In the months ahead, the UC Board of Regents will have to decide which principle to endorse, and their choice will tell us a great deal about the future path of American society.

URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984049867076451.html

A Bad Vein in Academia

Within higher education there most definitely exists an anti-democratic vein. Rather than foster an environment of open intellectual exploration and debate, some professors and administrators
aggressively seek to foster their ideology on their students. In the past the left was synonymous with freedom of thought and freedom of expression, sadly that in many instances that is not longer the case. Thankfully there are individuals and organizations that remain vigilant in the defense of intellectual freedom.

Victory at University of Delaware

University President Ends Mandatory Ideological Reeducation Program

November 2, 2007

FIRE Press Release


NEWARK, Del., November 2, 2007—After an intense campaign led by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the University of Delaware has dropped an ideological reeducation program that was referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The program’s stated goal was for the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on politics, race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. Following FIRE’s campaign, which called the attention of the national media and the blogosphere to the Orwellian program, university President Patrick Harker terminated the program, effective immediately.

“FIRE applauds President Harker for recognizing the chilling nature of this program and ending it,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Under the First Amendment, state institutions have no right to impose mandatory ideological training on their students. We are thrilled that this unconscionable and invasive program is gone, but we will be keeping an eye on the University of Delaware to make sure future programs respect the individual right of conscience of its students.”

Under the program, students were required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and “one-on-one” meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The university also instructed RAs to ask intrusive personal questions during one-on-one sessions, including “When did you discover your sexual identity?” A student who responded, “That is none of your damn business,” was, according to the university’s own materials, written up—along with the student’s name and room number—as having one of the “wors[t] one-on-one” sessions.

The program’s materials stated that the goal of the residence life education program was for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These “competencies” included: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.” And in the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, the program was described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation, including referring to the program as “treatment” and defining “learning” as “specific attitudinal or behavioral changes.”

Following FIRE’s initial press release, the university’s administration first chose to defend its invasive and unconstitutional residence life education program. However, in a statement released late yesterday, President Harker stated, “I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.” Harker also called for a “full and broad-based review” of the program’s practices and purposes.

While FIRE commends Harker’s decision, concerns remain about some aspects of life in the residence halls. For example, FIRE would like to know if RAs are still required to immediately report “[a]ny instance that is perceived by those involved as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive.”

The assistance of the Delaware Association of Scholars was critical in the effort to eliminate the program, as was the willingness of Delaware students and RAs to attest to their experiences under this “treatment” program. The case also drew vast attention from the blogosphere, dramatically increasing the pressure on the university to either justify or abandon its thought reform program.

“Universities often cannot defend in public what they try to do in private, and the situation at Delaware was no exception,” Lukianoff said. “While we are pleased that this program is over, it is stunning that it ever existed at a public university in the United States. FIRE will continue to monitor the situation at Delaware and to fight against other ideological reeducation programs at schools across the nation.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting http://www.thefire.org/.

CONTACT:
Greg Lukianoff, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg_lukianoff@thefire.org
Samantha Harris, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; samantha@thefire.org

Patrick Harker, President, University of Delaware: 302-831-2111; president@udel.edu
Kathleen G. Kerr, Director of Residence Life, University of Delaware: 302-831-1201; kkerr@udel.edu