Monday Miscellany and Open Thread

   

"Chicago" - Sufjan Stevens

(I generally find Stevens a little precious for my tastes -- and actually this song is a little precious too -- but I like it in spite of myself.) 

- Well tomorrow is the big day in Wisconsin.  It is horribly cliched, but it seems to be all coming down to turnout.  The pollsters have Walker leading, but the question is whether or not they have correctly guessed the makeup of the electorate. 

- "Still waiting for our first black president" - Articles like this, slamming Obama for being insufficiently zealous in pursuing the interests of black Americans, make me despair.  First, the author seems elusive in terms of what legislative remedy he wants the President to pursue, although he seems to come down on the side of some sort of criminal justice reform.  Great.  So the first black president takes office in the midst of the worst economic crisis in generations, in a country beset by mammoth problems with its financial industry, its auto industry, and its health care system, and Professor Harris suggests that criminal justice reform -- with an explicitly racial emphasis -- should have been at or near the top of his list.  Because let's face it, as we've discussed here over and over, a president has only so many things he can realistically push through any congress, even where he enjoys large majorities.  Had Obama done here what Harris suggests, I suspect that people across American would have been scratching their heads wondering at the new President's priorities.  Obama's triumph electorally was in not being perceived as a candidate who was explicitly a protest kind of candidate in the way that Shirley Chisolm, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton all were.  He was a breakthrough candidate who won in the whitest of white states by speaking to the common interests that bind us.  If he followed Harris's advice, we would not be fretting over whether he will wina second term, because he would have been crushed.

- Speaking of second terms, I haven't posted since the jobs numbers came out.  These were really discouraging, not simply because they suggest a much more difficult electoral environment than hoped for, but because they seem to show an economy with a real absence of momentum, one which just cannot seem to overcome the continued series of problems left unresolved over the last several years, from bad mortgages to public sector layoffs to the European financial crisis.  The question remains if, and at what point, the political leadership of the West is going to decide that putting people to work should be a priority.  I confess I remain discouraged.          

- I saw this reference to the College Board's practice American history test at the Edge of the American West.  Am pleased to report I got 27 out of 29 after missing two of the first four.

Alright, work beckons.  I will be spending an anxious evening tomorrow night flipping between the Wisconisn results and the Celtics.  I don't have a good feeling about either venture, but hope to be pleasantly surprised.

What's going on with you? 

Comments

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I'm going to get to the jobs issue later, as expected DB has some nice points, but one bit of news a friend just sent me.

Target has learned its lesson. Some of you may remember the flap that Target got into when its contribution to Bradlee Dean's homophobic ministry and support for the equally homophobic Tom Emmer for Governor of Minnesota caused a backlash across the nation.

This is an improvement. (But them there has never been any -- business -- reason for even the most obnoxious corporations to support homophobia. The ones that do are either run by ideologues whose homophobia is more important to them than their business, or groups who are willing to use such support as a way of making allies for their own noxious ideas.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And I'm bringing this forward from a comment on the Thursday thread:

Maybe not in this open, but any chance we can get a discussion going on education? Currently Republicns and religious conservatives are attacking education on at least six separate fronts -- a couple of which have superficial plausibility given admitted problems in the system as it currently exists, but which prove to have 'hidden jokers in the deck':

a:) the attack on Public Service Employees, which tends to focus in on teachers and the Teachers' Union;

b:) the continuing push for 'school vouchers' that may -- and usually must -- be used on religious schools ('must' because, despite the selling points, they don't provide enough money to pay for most good secular private schools);

c:) the push for charter schools ('b,' 'c,' and 'd' are all intertwined but they are actually slightly separate) despite the history of lack of achievement and frequent reports of 'manipulating the numbers' to the point of absolute cheating;

d:) the 'privatization push' that even goes beyond charter schools;

e:) the curriculum battles, particularly in Texas -- which is a major factor in shaping most states' textbooks -- and the attempt to introduce creationism and to turn the 'social studies' curriculum into a celebration of Republicanism -- and, in passing, to write civil rights and civil rights leaders out of history.

f:) the religious home schooling phenomena, which is creating a whole generation of fact and evidence averse, isolated, propagandized young people who do not even have the possibility of hearing other viewpoints from students with different backgrounds and interpretations -- because there are no other students or the other students are equally indoctrinated. (Frequently these students don't even have the opportunity to 'find the real world' through television, music, or the Internet because their parents supervise those as well -- and again, there's no 'bad kid in class' to tip the kid off what's out there or to show him the sites his folks don't want him to know about.)

There are other topics as well. If we are going to fight off these challenges, we have to admit and work on the problems schools already face -- money will be a major help in fixing some of them, but others require rethinking and not just more spending. And one side topic we will -- and should -- get to discussing is the question of sexual education. (Not just 'sex eduxation' but including education about LGBT issues, about sexual attitudes that usually get papered over in standard sex ed, etc.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And another carry over from the last thread, here's Joanna Brooks' report on the actual Salt Lake City Pride Parade.

Apparently the group of supportive Mormons was 3-4 times larger than expected.

[kathy a.]

SC had a comment on the earlier post, responding to prup's re-posted comment about education. i'm responding (kinda) to prup's suggestion that he and SC have opposing views of the attacks on teacher unions.

jim and SC -- your separate focuses about attacks on teacher unions are not mutually exclusive. republicans are anti-union, they will do what they can to defeat democratic funding sources, they do not believe in basic governmental functions, and in particular they do not care for solid public education of the masses.

higher public education is in a terrible state, in large part because of the steady loss of public funding over many years. it is not a whole lot better for K-12 education, which is also burdened by issues around NCLB, teaching to the test, the need for teachers to accomodate the very different needs of children in too-large classes without adequate support, disparities in district funding and the abilities of parents to contribute extra, etc.

my local school district entered bankruptcy about 20 years ago; it recently was able to pay off the state bailout loan, but that cost $19 million in interest on a $28.5 million loan. this is insane. it is all public money, but what this means is that the district has cut things the local kids need in order to pay off the state. for basically an entire generation of kids.

we do not have problems with vouchers or the kinds of curriculum battles you mention here. there are charter schools, and some of them have been complete boondoggles, but my impression is that they can sometimes provide a smaller and more supportive learning environment. don't have much to say about home schooling, except: not all of it is for religious reasons; and kids in my state still have to meet state standards when they are home schooled. there is oversight.

[MR Bill]

Just a short wave, as Neil Boortz is gonna stop polluting the Atlanta (and other markets) airwaves. Making it even sweeter, he's passing the baton to Spermin' Herman Cain. And Herman got what he was actually running for: a radio syndication deal...
Boortz's spewings (it' not unsafe to say) have been a part of Georgia's dangerously conservative turn. He claimed to be a Libertarian but somehow Republican talking points always worked their way into his mean, angry rantings. No Democrat did anything good, the Government was evil(except the Military), poor and black merely shiftless and losers.
And when the former boyfriend became infatuated with this spectacularly dishonest and fact challenged hack, it presaged his turn into entrenched jerkhood.

[nancy]

It's an open thread but as we wait for the other shoe to drop in Wisconsin tomorrow, feels to me like too much chatter might bring bad luck. Other than 'Wisconsin, don't forget to vote -- we're counting on you. Go cheeseheads.'

Meanwhile, from the front page of the Seattle Times today comes this remarkable and probably predictable announcement. Could we really be so lucky as to draw this straw woman as GOP VP candidate? One can hope.

Also -- what I've learned about gun laws in my blue state since last week's violence in Seattle; we're not blue -- surprise -- we're libertarians. State legislators talk big, do nothing. Even the House Democratic leadership. Gun show loophole here is a chasm and unlikely to be closed, and concealed carry request is practically a mere bureaucratic formality. Dangerously ridiculous and now set in stone, no matter what's zinging around and killing on the streets.

[nancy]

Sir C -- My score on the history test was 26 of 29 but I am mortified to say that it took me three tries to get the Emancipation Proclamation question right. Well, having studied French and English, I was pleased with my score. But. The Emancipation Proclamation?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

No time for an elaborate comment now. Sir Charles' position and mine are complementary, not opposed, but I still feel that we will get much more attention and support of we concentrate on the 'war on schools' and treat the 'war on teachers' unions' as secondary. The days of "Solidarity Forever' are over with, and I don't see out-of-state union members rushing to the defense of public emplyee unions in Maine, Ohip, or Michigan. Scott Walker is the most public and egregious example, yet the Democratic Party and our 'Democratic' President has hardly been leading the fight. In fact, the DNC had to be 'shamed' into sending money.

Other of your points I'll try and get back to, but I have to ask about "kids in my state still have to meet state standards when they are home schooled. there is oversight."

What does that mean in practice? (And while I am asking kathy about California, anyone who knows how or if it works in other states is requested to join in.) If a home-schooled kid -- and I'm speaking specifically of the religious ones, why I added the adjective -- fails the tests, what sanctions does he or the parent receive? Is he forced to attend public school, or just to 'try again.' Are the tests strictlty multiple choice, yes or no, or matching types, or do they include essays? How are the religious sensitivities of the groups acounted for? Are the kids tested in a central location, where provisions can be made against 'parental assistance' or are they merely mailed to the homes? How exactly does this oversight work, in theory, and do you know of any examples of it being applied in practice.

Enough, the tv and some chicken and carrots are calling me. Later.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oh, and here's why I wanted to discuss vouchers. One brief quote about just one of the schools, but read the whole piece:

New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition....

New Living Word now has 122 students and plans to use the vouchers to expand to 315, without the needed classrooms or teachers.

[C]onstruction will begin this summer on a metal school building though [Jerry Baldwin, the school’s principal and pastor of New Living Word Ministries] isn’t sure when it will be done. Current students now attend class in rooms used by the church’s Sunday school. If the new building is finished by the fall, he said, new students can hold class in the church gym.

[Sir Charles]

Yeah, I didn't get the sense that Jim and I differed much on these issues at all. I think we have to present this first and foremost as an attack on the public schools and to point out the absolutely crucial role such schools have played in making the U.S. economy so historically successful.

I also think that support for teachers unions is more effective when couched in terms of as support for teachers -- who are by and large, pretty well liked and respected by most Americans.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Agreed, no conflict at all, and if we'd use different emphases and strategies, all to the good. Only I have to insist that one thing should be stressed. We have to nationalize the problem. We have got to treat a Scott walker like an isolated incident, but instead to tie him to the LePages, the Kasichs, the Snyders and the other governors and Republican legislatures that have attacked unions, teachers, etc.

In fact, one example of the benefit of different approaches; I might prefer to tie everything together as an 'assault on education; but also want to see the story tied, as well, as 'things Republicans are doing'; others might concentrate on the 'teacher' aspect or even the 'union' aspect.

But to say it in a third way, we have to insist whatever we are opposing is inherent in the philosophy of today's Republican party, not just the work of 'isolated individuals.' This has the advantages of being both true and demonstrable.

But my original question went beyond that. Granted the Republicans have screwed up education -- and so have we to a lesser extent -- how do we fix it, and what do we mean by 'fix.'

I'll have comments on this in the morning.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Err, I'll admit, I was kinda hopin' someone else would get the ball rolling on education. It's hard to even figure out the right questions to ask. One problem s that most 'innovative theories' work at first, for a while, in some cases. But then they become the latest fad, and get adopted by a lot of principals, school boards, administrators, and even teachers who 'know the words but can't hear the music.' And what were, originally, distillates of one teacher's experience, backed by -- almost always -- later research, and which were specifically shaped for the sets of students he had to deal with, become instead -- and sometimes over the protests of the originally writer -- a set of rules to be applied by rote.

But that's just the beginning. Every 'obvious generalization' turns out to be a two-pointed stick. "The most important factor in improving education is parental involvement in their childrens' education." We've all heard that, and, from one angle, it's an obvious cliche. But, at te same time and not negating the truth of the statement in other situations

a;) most schools that try and teach creationism and doubt evoluion are reflecting the parents' wishes -- I know of no case where the schools introduced creationism over the objections of a majority or even a large minority of parents. And the Bartonized social studies curriculum that Texas keeps trying to introduce probably would be agreed to by the majority of Texas parents, and an even larger majority of those who take an active role in school affairs.

b;) "Help me teach my kids how to study, let me know his or her weaknesses, and we'll work on the together' is one type of parental involvement, and the type the cliche is aimed at. But so is "How DARE you flunk my kid? Don't you know that one single F will keep him out of the school we've been preparing him for since Kindergarten? You just take him side and give him a new test and give him another chance, or that gym I've been talking about donating to..."

c;) parents helping their school by supplying things there's no money in the budget for is great -- except that it widens even further the gap between schools in middle-class neighborhoods and schools in poor neighborhoods, which have to depend strictly on what the budget provides.

Then there are the conflicts between equally important goals. Starting from the first question, every one seems to have many answers. That first question is 'what do I want my child to get from school?' Do I want him or her to understand the subjects, or get high marks on tests on them by focusing on details and losing track of the overall picture? Is it more important for him or her to get a well-rounded education, or to focus his aim on the profession or occupation he is aiming for? How important is the 'socialization' of interacting with all types of fellow students, and even the (ex curriculum) learning of dating and sexual interactions?

Then you get the real stumpers, when the 'right answer' depends on whether you are looking at your own child, the school as a whole, the teachers, your overall ideas about educational policy, but you have to sum all these up and come up with a 'yes or no' answer.

For example, if you have a smart kid, you probably want him to be in classes with other honors students, so the teacher can move at a faster rate. But if your kid is average or a little above, you want him to have the advantage of having more intelligent students around him to learn (how to study more than specific facts) from. And if your child is a little below average, you don't want him 'stigmatized' by being put into a class designed for slow learners. (Then the extra questions of the students who are slow in every subject except the one or two they have become personally interested in, and, of course, the accuracy of the test that would choose and sort them.)

But there are even more wrinkles to the question of 'heterogenous vs homogenous classes.' Naturally, you'd want the 'better' teachers teaching the more advanced students -- but that further handicaps the lower levels. A heterogenous-aimed school (I'm not talking about a specialized or 'magnet' school but how classes are designed in an 'average' school) will turn out more award winners, but a case can be made that the overall average of the students on tests would be a little lower (arguing that students may be tempted to 'live down to expectations'). Which is preferable? And I can also argue that well-off parents might be more likely to donate to schools who give extra effort to those already pre-prepared to succeed, the kids who grew up with books, good computers and, in extreme cases, even tutors.

And that's just one angle. I want this discussion, but will someone else please find a place for us to start?

(This was written before any posts went up this morning, btw, so maybe someone already has.) [Addendum: nope! Grrrrrrr.]

[low-tech cyclist]

I saw this reference to the College Board's practice American history test at the Edge of the American West. Am pleased to report I got 27 out of 29 after missing two of the first four.

I got 27 of 29 on the first try, and the right answer was my second choice for the remaining two. Not bad for a math geek. :)

[oddjob]

9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declines to rehear California Prop. 8 case en banc.

On to SCOTUS.

(Hat tip, Sully.)

[Bill H]

Probably not going to invoke much conflict today, because IMHO the issue of race is one area that Obama has handle with something very clse to perfection.

I grew up in a Southern culture. My maternal grandmother was from Louisiana and my paternal grandmother from Arkansas. What my father drummed into us was not that we should not notice the color of a person's skin, that idea is ridiculous, but that we should recognize it, even honor it, and that it should make no difference. I think that is much of what Obama has done, with dignity and grace.

The idea that he should "advance the cause of people of color" is nonsensical. No one suggested that Kennedy should advance the cause of Irish Catholics, etc.

I also respect that he has not courted the votes of blacks to any degree greater than he has done with any other voting block.

[nancy]

Here's your chance guys. Their last tour was nine years ago. A November post-election bash, one way or another. :)

As for tonight, not so sanguine. I fully expect recount shenanigans squared. Rumors of robocall vote suppression seem entirely too believable. On Wisconsin.

Prup, I can discuss the 'home schooling' phenomenon as I've witnessed it, but not until later, time willing. Short story though -- the home schoolers in these parts fell roughly into the types of 'back to the land' and idealistic 'enrichment' parenting model I remember from twenty-five or so years back, to the xenophobic insular usually fundamentalist folks who want to keep their kids 'uncontaminated.' Think Randy Weaver and the tragic Ruby Ridge shootout. My observation is that the earlier phenomenon has given way to what I'd call 'cottage schooling', and that the second is now in a new, maybe third wave, results yet to be determined. But each region of the country has its own flavor and product.

Cottage-schooled kids seem on the whole to do quite well and given the flexibility of their school day are likely to develop special talents at a rapid pace. The family-schooled kids mowing lawns together every day as a small Christian business? I'd guess their formal educations are getting shorted, but something else is underway. I just hope they get taken to the library a lot.

[nancy]

Back a bit to Prup's home schooling question --

Here's one kind of problem we've invited with widespread acceptance of home-based schooling over recent years -- I rather imagine that a visit to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky is part of the curriculum for home-schoolers in a multi-state area there. A special organized trip would be considered appropriate field-trip 'enrichment.'

I grew up with the George Washington-and-the-cherry-tree, 'I cannot tell a lie' celebratory version of American History, from which one recovers. But Creation Museum religio-prop history-science seems more likely to leave the kind of permanent imprint on kids that may not fade over time. I mean, Sarah Palin VP candidate believed that man walked with dinosaurs -- I don't remember where Michelle Bachman or Perry stood on the *issue*. But I believe it's Jefferson they plan to write out of textbooks, no? And at the same time adding creationism chapters along with lesson plans.

[nancy]

Should have mentioned that that link is to a Guardian correspondent's report on his visit to this 'natural history' museum -- 'We don't have to be afraid of the real evidence'.

It's as though the modern American fundamentalist theme is 'delivering a safe and fact-free future to our grandchildren' along with 'In God We Trust." I think this kind of disturbing stuff is not getting enough attention. GOP will rely and build on it, cynically, and the rest of us scoff, maybe at our peril. This museum does a Disneyland number on creationism. I fully expect a theme-park and concessionaire expansion in the future. Seriously.