OlsonOnline

It's tough to be a kid in the U.S. --or the U.K., for that matter

A recent study by UNICEF of developed countries names the United States and the United Kingdom --the former coalition of the willing in Iraq-- as "the worst places to be a child."

Ironically, the U.S. earned its highest ranking  in the six categories measured --12th-- in education, which means if you're a kid in America, you're better off in school.  Or Sweden. 

The director of the study explained the disparity between the relative wealth of a nation, like the United States, and the welfare of its children, by pointing out that the poorer countries achieved their higher rankings with

"...a more equitable distribution of wealth and higher relative investment in education and public health."

Should that surprise anyone?

Educational researcher Gerald Bracey links that study with two others to argue that American public schools, despite what you read in the newspapers, are actually overachieving given what they they have to work with.  The second of those studies shows convincingly that test scores --NAEP assessments, specifically-- correlate perfectly state by state with poverty rates.  The higher the state's poverty, the lower the scores. 

Bracey concludes that because American students in low poverty schools "outperform the top nations in international comparisons of reading, mathematics and science", as he has pointed out repeatedly, then it follows that it's the conditions associated with poverty --poor health, poor vision, lead poisoning-- that we as a nation must deal with first in order to improve educational outcomes.

We could start by spending less money on war and the military, and more on domestic programs.  Like healthcare.

What about the Israeli nuclear threat?

No presidential candidate is perfect, but of the three leading Democrats, John Edwards may come the closest. 

There's still the nagging issue of his support for Israel and his demonization of Iran.  But Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are no better.  Clinton has raised millions from AIPAC.  And Obama, like Edwards, has called Iran a "genuine threat" to Israel.  Like Edwards, he refuses to rule out the "use of force" in Iran. 

I call it a nagging issue, but it may well be insurmountable for an anti-war progressive like me.  All three candidates, if elected, may well continue the war policies of the Bush Administration in the Middle East, or at least pursue the "muscular" and militarized foreign policy that led us into the Iraq War.  In that sense, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the three Democrats and the Republican opposition.

More troubling yet is the reluctance of the three --and the United States-- to acknowledge openly that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.  The "forthright" Edwards refused to answer a question about Israel's nukes posed by Sam Husseini.  Moreover, despite the fact that Israel is

"...the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and an array of medium-range missiles that could deliver them,"

the United States never lists Israel as a country possessing weapons of mass destruction, as it does Iran and North Korea.

Joseph Cirincione suggests that it may be time for the the U.S. to put "...muscle behind long-standing U.S. policy of seeking a nuclear-free Middle East region."  That includes Israel. Israel, he says, has never been safer from external threats.  And what dangers it does face from terrorist attacks won't be solved by the use of nuclear weapons.

It's clear, at least to me, that the U.S. must alter its alliance with Israel to resolve the turmoil in the Middle East.  And for that, we need new leadership.  Unfortunately, such leadership probably won't come in the persons of Edwards, Obama, or Clinton.

John Edwards? Maybe

Although it's nearly a year before the first presidential primaries, John Edwards may be the man to lead the Democrats in 2008.

Why?  He's decisive, he's forthright, he rarely ducks or squirms when asked to clarify his stance on contentious issues, issues like Iraq (he admits his vote was a mistake), gays in the military (he'll  do away with don't ask, don't tell), national healthcare (The Nation calls his plan, while not perfect, the most detailed of all the Democratic contenders), and global warming (like Al Gore, he'd require all new coal plants to capture their carbon emissions.)

Beyond that, he's electable.  He's a Southerner.  He's capable of raising the money it takes to get through the primaries.  He's attractive and articulate.  He'd run well against any of the potential Republican nominees, and he'd make mincemeat of them in the presidential debates.

So why do I say maybe?  Simple.  It comes down to the one contentious issue where Edwards has been less than forthright --American support for Israel and all that augurs for resolving the turmoil in the Middle East, and, more ominously, avoiding war with Iran.

In January, 2007, Edwards traveled to Israel and spoke to a gathering in Herzliya.  In his speech, Edwards

• "hinted at possible military action" against Iran.
• criticized the Syrians for not negotiating seriously for the return of the Golan Heights.
• criticized the Palestinians for electing the Hamas government.

In a similar speech to the AIPAC Policy Conference in March of 2006, Edwards was quite explicit:

"Keeping nuclear weapons – keeping nuclear weapons out of Tehran’s hands is a strategic imperative for the security of the United States, for Israel and for the world, and we need to do what we can to help encourage democratic change in Iran.  Iran is the greatest external threat facing Israel, but just as alarming – just as alarming is the threat on its doorstep. A Palestinian leadership led by Hamas."

Such sentiments place Edwards far to the right of the current Democratic Congressional leadership, and, as Michael Cunningham suggested in his Baltimore Chronicle op-ed piece, makes Edwards

"...the official candidate of the Israel Lobby for the Democratic presidential nomination."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum suggests that Edwards, who significantly modulated his views in an interview with the American Prospect, is merely playing politics by

"...telling different audiences what they each want to hear. When he's talking to an Israeli conference, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he's talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency."

Maybe so, but it's reminiscent of John McCain falling off the "straight talk express" in his dash rightward for the Republican nomination.  If Edwards wants to retain his "forthrightness", he probably should refrain from talking out of both sides of his mouth on contentious issues like unconditional support for Israel and the possible use of military force against Iran.

That's why Edwards remains a "maybe" for me.

Ruth Adkins on school choice and school size

Back in December, before my medical hiatus from blogging, I wrote a piece on Vicki Phillips' decision to move Winterhaven, the math science magnet in the inner Southeast Brooklyn neighborhood, to Clark Elementary in outer Southeast.

I wrote then that Phillips' decision (since postponed for a year) managed to anger both sides in the often contentious school choice debate.  I bring this up again because, rather ironically, those two sides --comprehensive neighborhood schools versus the proliferation of option programs-- are represented in the two challengers for the school board --Ruth Adkins of the Neighborhood Schools Alliance, and Winterhaven's PTSA chair, Michele Schultz.

Ruth responded both to my post and with one of her own on the Neighborhood Schools Alliance site.  In the  latter, she reacted strongly to Vicki Phillips' claim that "...the district has a clear mandate that all schools must reach a certain size."  Ruth asked:

"When was this 'clear mandate' developed, and by whom? At what point was there a public process to discuss this 'mandate' that is changing our entire system of neighborhood schools and thus our city?

"Like the sudden, seismic shift last spring to a world in which K-8 is the 'preferred' model, this 'mandate' lacked any meaningful public input or Board deliberation."

Moreover, in a long comment to my post, Ruth directly questioned the wisdom of  "cannibalizing" established neighborhood schools with niche options stuffed into the neighborhood buildings:

"I am beginning to think the only way out of the 'choice'/focus option mess in this town is to create a 'special focus' program integrated into EVERY neighborhood school. Not a special program alongside and cannibalizing from the neighborhood, as PPS has disastrously imposed at so many schools (Brooklyn, Richmond, Hayhurst, etc) but a neighborhood-based focus option (as at Buckman)."

You won't read any of this on Ruth's campaign website beyond her call for a "strong school" in every neighborhood.  But it's clear that she clearly differs with Phillips --and her opponent, Doug Morgan-- on school choice and school size.  It's also clear that this particular race is about changing the direction of the board and the district on a whole host of issues, including whether Vicki Phillips, with her top down decrees,  is suited to continue to serve as superintendent the Portland Public School District.

Amanda Fritz has generated a lively discussion of just those issues on her blog with her endorsement of Ruth Adkins' candidacy.

As for Michele Schultz, who lives in St John's and drives her son clear across town to Winterhaven, she's certainly an advocate for choice.  I wrote about her testimony to the board about the proposed Winterhaven move here, and it's clear to me that she has little use for neighborhood schools, at least for her own child.

CORRECTION:  Michele Schultz was NOT the woman who testified to the board,  does NOT live in St. Johns, and is the chair of Winterhaven's PTSA, not its site council.  I apologize for the error.  I can only assume that Ms Schultz, as a Winterhaven parent, is an advocate for school choice.  I wish her the best in her campaign for the board.

 

Again I ask, who's running the educational show in this country?

Not educators, unfortunately.

The people with increasing educational clout today are politicians, businessmen, people affiliated with foundations, and various other  demagogues who know little about what transpires in the classroom beyond what they read in the newspapers --excluding George W. Bush who, by his own admission, doesn't read newspapers. 

Here's the latest.

An organization called Tapping America's Potential, essentially a front for the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and fourteen other business related groups, is pushing to double the number of students with math, science, and technology degrees by 2015.   Their American Innovation Proclamation, made to look like the Declaration of Independence and signed by a bunch of corporate CEO's, demands that the U.S. revise its visa policies to allow entry into the American workforce of "highly educated foreign professionals." 

Well, it's a flat world, isn't it?

One of the signers, Harold McGraw III, chair of the Business Roundtable, recently testified before Congress, saying in essence that if American education doesn't shape up, our economic future is in jeopardy.   He claims, for example, that American students need to improve their achievement in science and math, and that technological jobs are growing five times faster than non-technological jobs.

But Dennis Redovich of the Center for the Study of Jobs and Education in Wisconsin projects that fewer than 5% of jobs in that state will require a "higher level of math and science education" in 2014. 

So who you gonna believe?  Redovich the educator --he has an Ed.D from Marquette and extensive classroom experience-- or McGraw III of McGraw Hill, who has an MBA from Wharton and made $15 million last year?

Then there's Bill Gates --again.  His $40 billion foundation just kicked in $10 million to help provide Houston --the original axis of educational evil-- with 42 more KIPP charter schools.  A consortium of well-heeled foundations, including the Walton Family Foundation, raised $65 million to get the darlings of the charter school movement up and running.

I remember the day when tax dollars from ordinary citizens like you and me supported our common public schools.  You remember. 

It's quite likely that you attended one of those schools. 

 

Pink Martini

During my recovery from surgery, it's become my habit, while hooked up to my morning infusion of ProBalance, to listen to one or other of the two CD's issued by Portland's own Pink Martini.

Over and over.

Why?  Frankly, I find it therapeutic.  Not because Pink Martini's music can be characterized as easy listening or as --God forbid-- 'new age'.  No.  Pink Martini's compositions and arrangements are complex, yet accessible, beautifully melodic and lyrically clever, fascinating, compelling, international, and suffused with Latin beats.  I have lots of CD's around, from classical to jazz to rock to Broadway musicals, but it's Pink Martini that I listen to every morning.

What's Pink Martini?  It's a nine member-plus "little orchestra" founded by Thomas M. Lauderdale, a classically trained pianist and former Grant High School student body president and Harvard graduate in literature and history.  Cum laude.  Of some "indeterminate" Asian descent, Thomas Lauderdale is adopted.  And he's gay. 

China Forbes, Lauderdale's collaborator and Pink Martini's exotic and sultry lead vocalist, is also a cum laude Harvard graduate.  On their second CD, Hang On Little Tomato, most of the songs, in French, Spanish, Italian, and English were written by Forbes and Lauderdale.  They're all lovely, but the arrangements and orchestrations of the cover pieces, especially on the initial CD, Sympathique, from Ravel's Bolero to Que Sera Sera are especially intriguing, at least to my ear. 

Thomas Lauderdale says of his music:

“I think our music allows people to dance and sing again with its beautiful melodies and beautiful lyrics. It is entirely romantic and expresses hope and eternal optimism, all the while recognizing that there is a great amount of sadness in the world.”

It's been rumored that Lauderdale, the Portland Public Schools product, wants to be Mayor of Portland some day (he interned for Mayor Bud Clark after college.)   What a wonderful idea! 

But maybe, in a few years when his performance schedule does not demand so much travel, he ought to consider a stint on the school board.  He'd be sure to work hard to restore the music to our schools.

And wouldn't that be a good thing.

Myth as truth in education

Perhaps the biggest myth circulating today is that in the highly competitive "global economy", education is the key to American prosperity.

In fact, I heard a Winterhaven parent in the January 8 public hearing laud the school for its role in preparing students for the 21st century, implying that other schools were stuck in the benighted 20th century.  The underlying message was that Winterhaven's beefed-up math and science programs were a model for the district to follow to ensure that Portland's public school students are able to compete in the global marketplace. 

That notion raises a fundamental question about the purpose of education, especially K-12 public education:  Who is it supposed to benefit?  The individual?  Society at large?  Or is it merely a vehicle for churning out drones for the workplace?  The latter notion, I fear, is in vogue today, especially among the market-oriented, neoliberal voices heard most loudly among educational leaders.

Call it the Bill Gates syndrome.   Gates, as you probably know, controls billions in dollars of "foundation" money, much of which goes to reshape schools in his own image.  Last June in the Los Angeles Times, Diane Ravitch called Gates the nation's superintendent of schools:

"With the ability to hand out more than $1 billion or more every year to U.S. educators without any external review, the Gates Foundation looms larger in the eyes of school leaders than even the U.S. Department of Education... ."

Gates through his philanthropy perpetuates common myths about the state of public education that have dogged schools for much of the last century, especially since the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk.  Sponsored by the Reagan Department of Education, A Nation at Risk warned:

"If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war... ."

A recent article in the Washington Post attempted to debunk the "five myths" underlying the notion that our schools are no good, and that No Child Left Behind is a long overdue effort to "improve the performance" of our failing educational system.  Two of the myths speak directly to the notion that poor educational outcomes are somehow undermining the U.S. economy:

• U.S. students won't be well prepared for the modern workforce.  This myth has been bandied around since at least the turn of the century -- the 19th century -- by business leaders who blame schools for inadequately preparing workers.
• Bad schooling has undermined America's competitiveness.  This canard -- perhaps the biggest of them all -- was given a boost by the recent World Economic Forum survey of international economies. Typically this annual survey ranks the U.S. economy as the most competitive in the world, but last year it put the United States in sixth place. However, the drop had nothing to do with test scores or school performance. Rather, the forum cited U.S. trade and budget deficits, a low savings rate, tax cuts and the federal government's increased spending on defense and homeland security.

"Flat world" apostle Thomas Friedman has probably done more than anyone with his free trade mantra to convince educational leaders that a good education will protect American workers in the "global marketplace."  But what do educational leaders know about free trade economics?  Probably less than Friedman himself.

The truth is that jobs flow to low wage economies.  Jobs in a free trade  world have little to do with the quality of one's education.  Sheldon Steinbach of the American Council of Education put it this way:

" 'One could be educationally competitive and easily lose out in the global economic marketplace,' he told the Los Angeles Times. Why? 'Because of significantly lower wages being paid elsewhere.' "

American schools shouldn't be in the business of training kids for the workforce.  Schools should be preparing them for participation in a democratic society.  And expanding their horizons.

That's what education is about.

How I became a big fan of Ruth Adkins!

It all started with this blog post written back in December of 2005 in which I encouraged both Ruth and Blue Oregon's Leslie Carlson to run for the school board, even though I had never met either of them.

Why?  Well, read the post.  Or let me summarize.

Leslie wrote a couple of really good posts on neighborhood schools for Blue Oregon.  Meanwhile, Ruth was mentioned prominently in the media coverage over Vicki Phillips' crackpot ideas for the reconfiguration of the Jefferson High School cluster.  You remember --school uniforms and single sex academies, plus a back door attempt to locate a church-based Academy of Character and Ethics in the Jefferson building. 

Ruth was livid.  Here's what she said about the school uniform proposal:

“I don’t think it’s equitable to apply it to students only at one school. To me, that’s racist to say that sagging pants and tight tops are not OK for the kids at Jefferson, but every other kid in town can wear them.”

I don't speak for Ruth nor am I affiliated with her school board campaign (other than supporting her candidacy.)  As a candidate, Ruth doesn't use the term racist to characterize those she disagrees with, either on the board or in the district administration.  I don't think she believes that either Vicki Phillips or Doug Morgan are racists. 

But many in the Jefferson community, sad to say, do.  Why else would the Jefferson cluster have been treated so shabbily, so inequitably, so disrespectfully?  Why was Jeff, the only majority African-American high school in the state, singled out for school uniforms? 

The deeper issue is one that Ruth highlights on her campaign website, and that's treating all public school students, regardless of class or race, fairly and equitably.  Here's what Ruth says about equal opportunity:

"Lower-income families and students of color must have access to the same great education that my own three children have received in Portland Public Schools. If any child in Portland gets short-changed of a quality education, then we all lose."

She also notes the built-in inequities of Portland's school choice and open transfer policies:

"However, the opportunity to transfer to a 'better' school across town doesn’t necessarily help students’ achievement, and it certainly doesn’t help strengthen neighborhood schools. Bottom line: low-income children shouldn't have to travel across town to get a decent public education." 

Does Doug Morgan agree?  I get the sense that he doesn't.  During the course of the campaign, perhaps in an endorsement interview, someone ought to ask him.

 

Vote Ruth Adkins for School Board!

Come this May, you --the voters-- have the opportunity to inject some genuine democracy into local educational politics. 

How?  By replacing PPS Board member Doug Morgan with schools activist and Neighborhood Schools Alliance stalwart Ruth Adkins. 

What do I mean by democracy?  Simply this:  Morgan is a product of the backroom moving and shaking which has manipulated, with money and endorsements, the last two board elections in Portland, effectively hand-picking all seven current board members.  That exercise in "democracy" has given us the heavy-handed rule of Superintendent Vicki Phillips.

Stand for Children --the local chapter-- has been particularly effective with its endorsements and money, allowing all seven current board members to flood Portland households with direct mail glossy flyers in the weeks before the last two elections.

During the Willamette Week endorsement interview in 2003, editor Mark Zusman asked Morgan directly if he were part of a "slate" cobbled together by former school board members and other influential Portland citizens.  Morgan denied knowledge of such a slate, but the four candidates apparently recruited to run by the likes of lobbyist and ex-board member Stephen Kafoury, and subsequently endorsed by Stand --Morgan, David Wynde, Bobbi Regan, and Dilafruz Williams-- all won handily.

In 2007, they're all running for re-election.  And expect all four to again garner the support of Stand for Children and various affiliates of the Portland Schools Foundation and Community and Parents for Public Schools.   Just like last time.

If Ruth Adkins has any chance of knocking off Doug Morgan and breaking up the Vicki Phillips' board cabal, she'll have to do it the old-fashioned way --by persuading voters that she truly represents their interests, not by merely piling up endorsements.  And because there are a lot of people in the community who are fed up with the Phillips' regime --and the Board majority that routinely rubber stamps Phillips' proposals-- I believe Ruth has a better than even chance of pulling it off. 

She's got my vote already. 

Check out Ruth's website.  Note the use of the term grassroots.  I'll have more on the differences between Ruth and Doug Morgan in subsequent posts.

(This is my first blog post in nearly a month following radical --and I mean radical!-- oral surgery for invasive squamous cell carcinoma.  I'm proud that the first is in support of Ruth Adkins' school board candidacy.)