Do you remember the letter that a South Carolina eighth-grader sent to Congress about the dilapidated state of her school (government school, of course) a couple of months ago? President Obama read it to Congress when he first addressed them back in February. It seems that someone heard the student's plea, but it wasn't Congress or anyone else in our government. Darryl Rosser, CEO of a firm that supplies schools with classroom furniture, caught word of the school's condition and decided to have the firm he leads, Sagus International, donate $250,000 worth of new classroom furniture to the school. It's an incredible act of generosity that I read about here.
Quite a few thoughts run through my mind while reading it, the first of which relates to the title. While the title is accurate in a sense, it will undoubtedly cause most people to give sole credit to Obama and the government, even though they did very little to help in this situation. The headline should read something like this: CEO Leads Firm to Repair Dilapidated South Carolina School. The difference between the two headlines is vastly different as one credits the CEO and his private firm and the other gives credit to the government, which did next to nothing to assist the school. In fact, the government is most likely to be blamed for the demise of the school. This situation is all too typical, government screws it up, private corporations fix it and government comes back and takes the credit.
Another issue that I have with the situation is the quotes that now adorn the walls of the school, namely the kids' "favorite" quote by the President: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." These students are falsely being led to believe that Obama fixed their school. The truth is that Darryl Rousser, his company and local volunteers, not the government or any government employees (except teachers), fixed the school. Sure, Obama may have read this student's letter in front of Congress, which made Mr. Rousser aware of the situation, but President Obama was doing it for political show. Don't even try to tell me that it wasn't, because that argument is painfully easy to squash! Obama has the power to transform government education across the country, so if he really cared about the students then he wouldn't be eliminating initiatives such as the voucher program in Washington D.C. (which has been quite successful and the statistics show it!). Instead, he would be working to implement it nationwide. However, if he does then the kids will be less dependent on the government. The message that they are currently being sent is that the government will come to their aid and fix everything. It's scary.
Lastly, in an age where private corporations and CEOs are being vilified by the government and the media, it would be incredibly counter-productive to give credit to Darryl Rousser. This would make CEOs and private enterprise look good in the eyes of the public, and the powers that be just can't have that right now. Consistency is the one thing that the government actually sticks to...... they are consistent with screwing things up, consistent in their incessant search for more power and consistent in wasting our tax dollars. It's only natural that the demagogue that is our government would maintain consistency in it's agenda to vilify private enterprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Murph! Long time! Glad to visit the site and drop a few thoughts...
ReplyDeleteVouchers are a disaster, and the statistics show that. And based on your political leanings, it's rather odd that you'd be in favor of an expanded voucher program. Essentially, the top voucher is worth roughly $4,500 in DC. The private schools that are showing results with vouchers are the very few that subsidize voucher students and compensate for the tuition gap. Because the voucher program is small, this is possible.
For instance, my former high school takes one or two voucher students a year. Prep's yearly tuition is now somewhere around $20,500. The voucher pays for 1/5. This means that at most 10-20 (of the roughly 95,000 students in the DC public school system, of which roughly 20,000 are secondary students) will benefit from the voucher program by attending high quality private schools.
Now there are schools around DC where the $4,500 will cover all of the tuition. Those schools' results??? Miserable. Significantly worse than the charter schools (public). To say that you'd like to expand the voucher program means that you'd want more students to opt-in to the successful private schools. This means SIGNIFICANTLY more money would need to be allocated, which means that significantly more State (federal in DC) and local tax dollars would be needed to fund the program. How do you increase funding for public education? Property taxes. What do property taxes do? Drive middle-class citizens out of urban areas. What does that do? Places less middle-class families' children in the public schools. That? Makes public school districts significantly worse (see the public school achievement outcomes in urban school districts from 1968-1980 after white and middle-class black flight from urban centers). If you want the voucher program to expand, you logically must want to fund it, so you must want to increase taxes! Sounds like a tax & spend republican to me!
Instead, the better option is to increase awareness about the academic achievement gap, and motivate young, dynamic people to go into teaching. Who's doing that? Teach for America, New Teacher Project, New Leaders for New Schools, etc.. What government institution allowed these non-profits to grow to the point of success today? Americorps (a government program). How do they maintain their success? Private partnerships, such as the Wachovia foundation, which has said that it never would have invested in Teach for America had Americorps not allowed it to grow as it did. This solution, bringing awareness and promoting the importance of excellence in education, IS government's role. This is a less expensive, more efficient, and more productive way to ensure that all of DC's public school children have access to an excellent education, not the extreme few who receive a voucher and attend a top-tier school that will subsidize the tuition gap.
Furthermore, why didn't that CEO spend that $250,000 8 years ago? Probably because it wasn't on his radar. The President, who's most influential non-constitutional power is that of the speaking on the nation's soapbox, can leverage private industry to create opportunity. That's what has happened with Obama. He has made a promise to focus on education. Bush? Sure he passed NCLB in 2001 (that was great in theory), but quit after that. We didn't hear about education other than people whining about NCLB. Obama has made these important social issues that will affect our nation's long-term competitiveness in the global economy major focus points. Inspired by this shift in governmental focus, the CEO generously changed children's lives. Had Obama not read that letter, it's likely that the school would still be in its past condition. Democrats absolutely do not think government is the answer, they/we think it's the platform and foundation to allow individuals to flourish on their own.
Last point, no government employee helped? No school officials helped facilitate the transactions? No teachers assisted in the project? I find that to be a preposterous claim. I'm sure there were dedicated teachers who helped and school officials who worked to see that the CEO's generosity went to plan. Teachers & school officials - all government employees.
Ok, that's all for now. I know it was a lot. Public education means a lot to me (see http://www.site.bmorebill.com/Showcase.html). Couldn't bypass the chance to make a few clarifications, all in good political fun!
Hope you're well!
--Bill Ferguson
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response! I'm going to post it below and respond afterwards so that the exchange is visible, hope that's alright!
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely been a long time. Thanks for reading my blog, and I appreciate the comments. You definitely make some good points, and I'd like to fire back with some clarifications of my own (by the way, when did you become a Democrat? Last time we talked you were right-wing or die). The voucher program in D.C. isn't run like the voucher program that I support. The D.C. program only provides public school children the chance to go to a private school. The purpose of a voucher program (like the one I support) is to instigate competition amongst ALL schools. If you give every student their equivalent amount of tuition and give them the chance to spend it anywhere then schools won't have a choice but to improve. The schools have a choice... do everything they can to attract students or they don't get enough tuition money to stay open (or they make staff cuts). So, to your point, I absolutely do not support a D.C.-style voucher program, because it does involve huge government subsidies and would result in MUCH higher taxes (which I am not a fan of). I was really using the D.C. voucher program as an example of Obama's opposition to any type of voucher program. His interest is the teacher's unions, plain and simple.
The government gives schools absolutely nothing in terms of natural economic incentives (the power that drives us all) to improve (Federal money doesn't count as a natural economic incentive..... it's manipulation). They say "okay, you'll get this many students because we're going to force them to come to this one school." However, if there are only two 6th grade teachers and the school runs the risk (under a voucher program) of not having a big enough 6th grade class to warrant 2 teachers then you better believe that the 6th grade teachers are going to do everything they can to be the best 6th grade teacher possible so that the other one gets let go. They're also going to have a vested interest in the school's efforts to improve as a whole so as to attract more students. It will also attract better teachers, because you won't have the good teachers applying for the jobs in the best districts and the crappy teachers left with the crappy districts. You would no longer have a school trying to hire the best teacher from the small pool of applicants that applies to that school...... you'd have schools reaching out across the city to attract the best and brightest teachers so that other schools wouldn't have them. This gives ALL teachers incentive to better themselves.
As for private school options, not everyone is going to be able to afford to do to a D.C. private school or Marist or whatever. However, it will make it affordable for many families who can't afford to send their kid to private school on top of paying taxes for a local public school. You're still going to have families that can and families that can't but at least they're not trapped in one school district and their public schools will be improving anyway. None of this is going to happen overnight, but how can one expect it to given that the current system has been run into the ground over a period of decades.
I agree that Obama put the school on that CEO's radar, but that's ALL he did. Then you have the media turn around and act like he alone saved the school. His "soapbox" is incredibly powerful, and the school benefited from it. However, it's just the ONE school. He can transform education across the country, yet he chooses to take the money of the teachers unions rather than actually improve education. I knew someone would say something about the teachers being government employees, and I almost put that caveat in the post. What I meant was no one at a higher level other than that of the individual school was involved. I also never said anything about Bush doing a good job with the education system. No one at the federal level has done anything to improve our school system across the board, Republican or Democrat. I am no expert on NCLB, but from what I've heard from the teachers I know, it's not a good program.
If you could, I would like to hear you expand on how the Democrat platform is the "foundation to allow individuals to flourish on their own." I honestly don't see how that makes any sense, because all I have seen Democrats (and many Republicans) do is try to make people more dependent on the government. It seems to me that liberals are advocates of letting people "flourish" without the risk of any of the consequences normally associated with the risk taking and/or sacrifices that are required to flourish.
Okay, that's all I've got. Again, I appreciate you reading my blog, and I encourage you to send it around to anyone you know. I'll check out your site too.
So that was a great response. Just an FYI, I passed the comments along to Dete and Davidson friends to try and drive traffic and get them to add to the discussion. They often will have interesting thoughts about these types of issues.
ReplyDeleteSo the reason I switched parties - it's because we believe the same thing! I've become entirely disenchanted with the Republican party, and I believe that democrats are the only ones doing something about the expanding gap between rich and poor, the academic achievement gap, and the institutional/structural racism (or indirect bias) that pervades our society. Really, though, I came to the realization that I didn't actually believe in conservative principles while I was teaching in Baltimore. My Teach for America experience changed the way I perceive my community and the people around me.
Ultimately, I think that government doesn't really matter all that much to people like you and me in the middle class. It's most important to either ends of the spectrum - the rich & large multinationals and the poor. Whether the federal government does or does not do something really is immaterial to us (maybe other than roads and crime/grime). On the local level, I think it's a bit different, but Congressional and Presidential decisions tend to be rather unimportant to my daily life (other than Americorps, but I'll get to that). The people that really are affected by government decisions are either the poor (who have the least ability to influence policy-making in our democratic system) and the rich/corporations (who have plenty of influence). Yes, a few thousand dollars would make a bit of difference, but in all reality in the grand scheme of things, I have much more important things to worry about. Because I believe that the poor in America can significantly benefit from targeted, efficient government intervention, and because I believe they have the least ability to influence such policies, I affiliate with the party that I believe is helping to improve their ability to become as productive as possible (temporary reliance on government aid isn't a bad thing - see the GI Bill, some disaster relief funds, Americorps, reformed welfare under TANF, WIC programs, well-run state unemployment programs, etc.). People like you and I have much less risk in our lives. If we get fired, we can move in with parents, well-to-do friends, other relatives. We benefited from having excellent educations because our parents could afford to make that a priority. Nearly every one of my kids in Baltimore cannot say the same. Their parents get fired from one job one they're working two-hourly jobs to live paycheck-to-paycheck (no room for savings), and they're up the creek. That wouldn't be the case for us. Of course I don't rely on government. You and I don't need to because we have structures in place that will reduce the risks and costs associated to the bad things that happen. Let's take one of my favorite students, Emanuel (incredibly bright, now at an HBCU college because of federal Pell grant), as an example. He doesn't know his dad, and his mom has struggled with substance abuse his entire life. He lived in various public housing projects throughout his childhood, moving between impoverished relatives when his mom was off the wagon. His parents were not positively involved in his life, and although he's incredibly bright, no one was seeing that he got the best education possible. He ended up at my zone neighborhood school when he could have qualified for some of the best in the City. Let's say something happens next week and he has to take a semester off from school. He'll lose his Pell grant, and he's got nothing to fall back on. Literally, nothing. Emanuel is one of the brightest students I taught. There are many, many, many others who are just as great personally but who are not gifted with his intellectual ability. For these students, their chances are slim. The only thing they can possibly rely upon is government. No parents, there aren't nearly enough non-profits and charitable orgs out there to cover the thousands of kids who face this situation, and they have no where else to turn. Without temporary government assistance, they're screwed. It's these sort of interactions and realizations that made me realize that I had to break out of my past beliefs about "small government" and start recognizing the value that government has for the people that need it most.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "government is great" type of person. I think any government intervention must be carefully planned and implemented, with appropriate incentives built in, and I'm strongly against wasteful government spending. I'm very mindful of the crowd-out effect that occurs when governments subsidize bad programs.
So on to education. Why I said we agree is because you're definitely not talking about vouchers (at least in the terms of the education policy world). You're referring to "per pupil funding," i.e. dollar amounts are tied to children and schools must compete to keep their funding. This is very, very different from any voucher program. I make the distinction because I STRONGLY agree with per pupil funding. In fact, I work part-time for the CEO (aka Superintendent) of the Baltimore City Public Schools. He came from NYC, where he was second in charge of NYC public schools under Joel Klein. He has been trying to implement the exact program you mention - we call it Fair Student Funding, and schools that are unable meet student demand get closed. It's been highly dramatic and controversial, but I think it's absolutely the right way to reform public school districts (for more info, see a recent presentation I did for our year 2 update... doesn't look quite right in PDF form: http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/bcpss/Board.nsf/a9a1fd31ddc1a22e862574eb006507d4/d754b56f4a3f075b87257513004fb111/$FILE/120908%20FINAL%20FSF%20Follow%20Up%20Presentation%20for%20the%20Board%20103108%20(5).pdf). The reforms we implemented here are very much like the reforms that occurred in NYC, which is seeing incredible results in improved student achievement and the closing of the black-white-latino achievement gaps. This method, though, is all through the public system and is the type of government reform/intervention that I think is highly effective.
Furthermore, these are the types of reforms that the democrats (at least most - not the "unions are everything" ones, though) are fighting to see implemented. Arnie Duncan, US Dept of Ed appointed by Obama, is strongly pushing for these types of district-wide reform. They're also pushing for better technological database systems so that districts can more effectively analyze student-progress data, at some point hoping to track student progress to individual teachers. Eventually, this will lead to a "pay-for-performance" system so that districts may reward schools and teachers for improved progress. This is paramount to the democratic agenda, whereas I feel conservative politicians are more worried about appointing "strict constitutional judges" and fighting against gay rights. That's fine and well, but I just don't care about that stuff. It's not that important. What's more important to me are real changes that affect long-term growth in our country.
On the Obama intervention issue. The problem there is that of federalism and the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights. Public education is generally an issue left to the states. It's a "traditional state function" under constitutional law, and the federal government has been prohibited from intervening. NCLB was a HUGE advancement of the federal government influencing public education. I'm strongly in favor of that. Unfortunately, most proposals get stopped by republicans because of the blind adherence to states' rights. In fact, Obama tried to have the stimulus money include provisions that would have allowed school systems to use the money for school construction. The republicans blocked it. Now, the money can only be used for Title I programming (essentially programs for low-income students), but it cannot go towards construction. This isn't an issue of Obama not doing something, it's because he's constitutionally not permitted unless Congress will allow it, and tailor the statutory language such that it's non-binding on state government operations. Like NCLB, any federal program, would have to be voluntary (CT doesn't take federal money b/c it doesn't follow NCLB). Without conservative support, Obama's hands are tied, and influencing CEOs is the best that he can do to see that states make education a priority. Secretary Duncan is working tirelessly to develop programs to get around this bind, and we'll see how it plays out over then next few years. Republicans would much rather push a voucher program that essentially takes money from public school districts to benefit the very few top students who might have a better education at a private school. It's giving up on public education, and traditional voucher programs are an absolute disaster.
Ok, I've got to get to this take home exam, so that's all for now. Hope it provided some light into my party switch! Will look forward to more posts. BF
Sorry, the presentation link didn't come out. Here it is: http://bit.ly/u1G5b
ReplyDeleteForgot that I had this: click here or click this link - http://www.scribd.com/doc/15063240/Broad-Case-Study . Really great case study.
ReplyDelete