Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 7/30/2006
Last year I bought a kayak. Call it my third mid-life crisis. Since May, I’ve paddled about 150 miles. Last week I paddled my hundredth mile on the Wabash River. Despite warnings from many, I haven’t grown an extra arm or lost my hair and my kayak hasn’t melted.
Last week while paddling from Clinton to Tecumseh, I saw two bald eagles. These were the first I’ve seen on the Wabash this year. I’ve seen other bald eagles; in the last month I paddled the White River and Sugar Creek and saw several bald eagles there, but in over 100 miles of paddling on the Wabash, I hadn’t seen any, until last week.
I’ll admit it. I get more excited about birds than most people do. Take a trip down the Wabash today and I can practically guarantee multiple sightings of great blue herons, spotted sandpipers, kingfishers, several different kinds of swallows, jays, red-winged blackbirds and many, many others. Few will get excited at sighting the first spotted sandpiper, never mind the umpteenth, but everyone feels exhilarated at sighting a bald eagle. Even the most dispassionate teenager couldn’t suppress an “awesome” at the sight of a wild bald eagle.
I caught sight of the eagle as it flew overhead and followed it to a perch in a sycamore tree about a quarter mile down river. I searched the trees with my binoculars but couldn’t find it. I paddled closer hoping to get a better view but the eagle flew out the back side of the tree and winged further down river and around the bend. I continued down river and as I floated just under the tree that the eagle flew into, lo and behold, there was another one sitting there. It cooperated and let me ogle it for a few minutes with my binoculars, until my strange yellow kayak made it nervous and it took wing and headed off down river.
I had two more sightings. A few minutes later an eagle flew up river searching the water for a meal. I wondered if it might pick up the struggling carp I saw up river. It would be a large fish for the eagle to fly with, but I’ve seen eagles catch and fly off with fish that must have outweighed the bird itself. Thirty minutes later another sighting; an eagle veered off the river and flew over a stretch of bottom land.
It will come as no great revelation to anyone that the Wabash isn’t the healthiest body of water. I don’t know what is in the water but I know what isn’t. There aren’t enough turtles sunning themselves on the many logs in the water and too few fish on the shoals. But nature is an amazing thing. The Wabash doesn’t need so much to be cleaned up as much as it needs to be treated right. Stop trashing it and in a short time the Wabash will begin to recover.
The 10 miles of river between Clinton and Tecumseh is beautiful and interesting. Brouillets Creek and Otter Creek both empty into the Wabash in that 10-mile stretch. Just downriver of Brouillets Creek are two islands. These seem to be attractive to primitive campers. The possibilities are obvious for outdoor recreation along the Wabash despite a century of mistreatment.
As easy to see the possibilities along the Wabash, unfortunately it is just as easy to see ongoing mistreatment. There are dumpsites along the Wabash, many drainage pipes, draining both agricultural fields and runoff from streets and nearby towns. After a strong rain, the Wabash suds up from the phosphate runoff. But unlike your washing machine, these suds don’t clean anything. Especially troubling is to see someone enjoying the environs of the river (camping) but dumping their trash into the river instead of properly disposing of it.
Recently, there has been some talk about developing the Wabash River along Terre Haute’s waterfront. Wetlands restoration would do much to help the Wabash recover. So would fixing municipal sewage systems that permit storm water and human waste to combine and wash into the Wabash.
I have a suggestion about any discussion involving riverfront development. The guiding principle of riverfront development should be: do nothing that will reduce the Wabash’s attractiveness to bald eagles and do everything that will increase it. What is good for the eagles is also good for us.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Torture in any form is not the American way
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/22/2007
TERRE HAUTE — Today the news is: U.S. military uncovers al-Qaida-in-Iraq torture chamber and mass graves. Reading the story prompted the usual emotional response: outrage at al-Qaida, sympathy for the victims and their families, and a sense of we are better than they.
However, given the revelations about U.S. use of torture and our highest officials unwilling to even discuss whether “waterboarding” is torture, how different is it really? We admit to waterboarding one bad guy while our enemy tortures more? They have mass graves? How many have died in U.S. secret detention centers? I have no evidence, but given we already have engaged in the previously unthinkable, then thinking it, asking about it is neither out of the question nor out of bounds.
Where is the outrage? Would there be outrage if today’s headline instead read, “mass graves and torture chamber discovered linked to U.S. military/intelligence operations”?
Today there is also news about congressional hearings on possible lawlessness of U.S. contractors in Iraq toward our own people, not even the enemy! Blackwater is one thing, they killed “them,” but raping one of “us” and then covering it up? Thank goodness her congressman is a Republican, otherwise there undoubtedly would be a cry of anti-American, anti-war Democrats just making stuff up.
The revelation of U.S. personnel torturing Zubaydah, regardless of who he is or what he might know, sickens me. If, as has been suggested, that members of the Senate and Congress knew about these practices and let it go on without sharing with the American people what was happening, for me, regardless of party stripe, is an offense, a revelation of character, that disqualifies any of them from my vote.
I hope that Richard Lugar, my senator, for whom I have voted three times, did not know. I hope that Evan Bayh, my senator for whom I have voted twice, did not know. I hope that Brad Ellsworth, whom I voted for, did not know. If there is evidence they did, and did nothing but shut up about it, they have lost my vote. Although I understand that an elected official privy to such sensitive information could not, with honor, whistleblow, they could do the patriotic thing and resign from the committee, which would bring attention to something amiss.
Most U.S. citizens are ignorant of what is going on the U.S. and the world. More people know that Brittany Spears’ 16 year old sister is pregnant than who Gen. Petraeus is. But, during elections, more people get a bit informed about what is going on and elect people to be in the know, to act better than the general populace. We elect people to defend the Constitution, not succumb to the winds of uninformed public opinion.
In a dictatorship, you can absolve the people of responsibility for the policies of the dictator. But in a democracy, public opinion, informed or not, is a force. We, individual citizens, share in the responsibility of what our government does in our name. If government officials break our laws and we ignore it, then we share in it.
Oh, I know some are thinking, “just another liberal, idealist wimp.” I am far from it. I am a realist, something that there are far too few of, I am afraid.
Here is my position on torture and I dare, yes, dare anyone to argue against it. Torture should be illegal and the practice of it by U.S. personnel should be harshly punished, meted out in our courts by a jury of one’s peers. The only argument used against this position is apparently the one that justified the waterboarding of Zubaydah, that he had crucial information that if extracted could save lives. This is a variation of the ethical dilemma of if you have the bomber who has just started the timer on a nuclear weapon in a major American city, would you torture to get the information? If one is going to use an end-to-justify-the-means argument, so be it. Torture the suspect. If torture delivers the information that saves the day, then let a jury decide if the torturers should be punished; and if torture gets nothing from the suspect, then let a jury decide if the torturers should be punished.
This is the AMERICAN way and I am directing this at those who chest thump, Bible thump, and flag wave in justifying an “anything goes” mentality in the global war on terrorism.
TERRE HAUTE — Today the news is: U.S. military uncovers al-Qaida-in-Iraq torture chamber and mass graves. Reading the story prompted the usual emotional response: outrage at al-Qaida, sympathy for the victims and their families, and a sense of we are better than they.
However, given the revelations about U.S. use of torture and our highest officials unwilling to even discuss whether “waterboarding” is torture, how different is it really? We admit to waterboarding one bad guy while our enemy tortures more? They have mass graves? How many have died in U.S. secret detention centers? I have no evidence, but given we already have engaged in the previously unthinkable, then thinking it, asking about it is neither out of the question nor out of bounds.
Where is the outrage? Would there be outrage if today’s headline instead read, “mass graves and torture chamber discovered linked to U.S. military/intelligence operations”?
Today there is also news about congressional hearings on possible lawlessness of U.S. contractors in Iraq toward our own people, not even the enemy! Blackwater is one thing, they killed “them,” but raping one of “us” and then covering it up? Thank goodness her congressman is a Republican, otherwise there undoubtedly would be a cry of anti-American, anti-war Democrats just making stuff up.
The revelation of U.S. personnel torturing Zubaydah, regardless of who he is or what he might know, sickens me. If, as has been suggested, that members of the Senate and Congress knew about these practices and let it go on without sharing with the American people what was happening, for me, regardless of party stripe, is an offense, a revelation of character, that disqualifies any of them from my vote.
I hope that Richard Lugar, my senator, for whom I have voted three times, did not know. I hope that Evan Bayh, my senator for whom I have voted twice, did not know. I hope that Brad Ellsworth, whom I voted for, did not know. If there is evidence they did, and did nothing but shut up about it, they have lost my vote. Although I understand that an elected official privy to such sensitive information could not, with honor, whistleblow, they could do the patriotic thing and resign from the committee, which would bring attention to something amiss.
Most U.S. citizens are ignorant of what is going on the U.S. and the world. More people know that Brittany Spears’ 16 year old sister is pregnant than who Gen. Petraeus is. But, during elections, more people get a bit informed about what is going on and elect people to be in the know, to act better than the general populace. We elect people to defend the Constitution, not succumb to the winds of uninformed public opinion.
In a dictatorship, you can absolve the people of responsibility for the policies of the dictator. But in a democracy, public opinion, informed or not, is a force. We, individual citizens, share in the responsibility of what our government does in our name. If government officials break our laws and we ignore it, then we share in it.
Oh, I know some are thinking, “just another liberal, idealist wimp.” I am far from it. I am a realist, something that there are far too few of, I am afraid.
Here is my position on torture and I dare, yes, dare anyone to argue against it. Torture should be illegal and the practice of it by U.S. personnel should be harshly punished, meted out in our courts by a jury of one’s peers. The only argument used against this position is apparently the one that justified the waterboarding of Zubaydah, that he had crucial information that if extracted could save lives. This is a variation of the ethical dilemma of if you have the bomber who has just started the timer on a nuclear weapon in a major American city, would you torture to get the information? If one is going to use an end-to-justify-the-means argument, so be it. Torture the suspect. If torture delivers the information that saves the day, then let a jury decide if the torturers should be punished; and if torture gets nothing from the suspect, then let a jury decide if the torturers should be punished.
This is the AMERICAN way and I am directing this at those who chest thump, Bible thump, and flag wave in justifying an “anything goes” mentality in the global war on terrorism.
What is it that we celebrate on Mother's Day?
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 5/17/2007
TERRE HAUTE — Officially, today is the 93rd Mother’s Day. Unofficially, this is perhaps the 150th Mother’s Day in America. Based on my 15 minutes of Internet research, celebrations of mothers can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome. Both sound to me like fertility rites. Ancient Christians began to celebrate the fourth Sunday in May to honor Mary, Jesus’ Mother.
The origin of Mother’s Day in the United States is credited to Anna Jarvis, who organized a day to raise awareness of poor health conditions in her Appalachian community. She thought mothers would be natural advocates. Fifteen years later, Juliet Ward Howe, a poet and activist, organized a day for mothers to rally for peace (today’s celebration won’t carry any political overtones I’m sure).
Then in 1905, the daughter of Anna Jarvis, began organizing a memorial to her mother’s work. Many of today’s symbols of Mother’s Day originated in the memorial to Anna Jarvis. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson signed a bill to recognize Mother’s Day as a national holiday on the second Sunday in May. I thought it was a “Hallmark Holiday.”
Early on, Mother’s Day was celebrated by going to church. Pretty quickly gift-giving and more secular activities began. Anna Jarvis’ daughter, the founder of our Mother’s Day, didn’t care for the materialistic turn of Mother’s Day and actually sued to try to stop a Mother’s Day festival. Before her death in 1948, she expressed regret at what the holiday had become.
I found some statistics related to Mother’s Day. According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are more than 80 million mothers in the U.S. According to Hallmark, about 96 percent of consumers take part somehow in celebrating Mother’s Day. Cards are popular. So are telephone calls as it is a peak day for long distance service. I know that on more than one occasion over the years I have gotten the recording telling me “all circuits are busy.” Mother’s Day is the busiest day of the year for many restaurants. After Christmas, Mother’s Day is the biggest gift-giving holiday of the year. I didn’t see any statistics for church attendance on Mother’s Day. Perhaps it follows Christmas and Easter.
Now what I am going to write next will seem just downright odd, but give me to the end of the paragraph. What exactly are we celebrating? Are we celebrating fertility like the ancient Greeks and Romans? Or are we celebrating the work of mothering children? I wonder because as an adopted child, I have a “birth mother” and my mother, the one who raised me. All these years, I’ve never given any thought on Mother’s Day to my birth mother. Have I been disrespecting her all these years?
As a kid, other kids used to give me grief about not living with my “real” mother. I thought that was nonsense then and still do. I only know one mother. Yet, what if the telephone rings today and the voice says, “I gave you life nearly 49 years ago.” Should I buy that woman a card and invite her out to dinner?
About now, my mother is probably beginning to shake because she thinks this has actually happened. “No Mom, I’m just writing an essay. Nothing like that happened.”
What about kids who are conceived using donor eggs, dad’s sperm, but implanted in mom’s uterus? One mom or two on Mother’s Day? I know a young woman who gave up her son for adoption, but it is an open adoption and she knows the family and gets regular updates on her “birth son”(?). Does he buy two Mother’s Day cards? I should check more closely the card selections to see if they have cards that differentiate the birthing from the raising portions of motherhood. Maybe they are color-coded.
What about those folks walking around with a donor heart, lung, liver, or kidney from someone other than a sibling? Without another mom, they’d not have life now. Does one send a card to the mother of the donor? How about moms who abandon their kids? Do they still get an invite to Olive Garden today?
I take for granted my entry into this world. As I suspect most do. What I celebrate today is not the giving of life but the sustaining of it, not the biological role of reproduction but the social role of mothering, not the genetic material but the support, the guidance, the love, and never ending parenting.
Thanks, Mom, and happy Mother’s Day.
TERRE HAUTE — Officially, today is the 93rd Mother’s Day. Unofficially, this is perhaps the 150th Mother’s Day in America. Based on my 15 minutes of Internet research, celebrations of mothers can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome. Both sound to me like fertility rites. Ancient Christians began to celebrate the fourth Sunday in May to honor Mary, Jesus’ Mother.
The origin of Mother’s Day in the United States is credited to Anna Jarvis, who organized a day to raise awareness of poor health conditions in her Appalachian community. She thought mothers would be natural advocates. Fifteen years later, Juliet Ward Howe, a poet and activist, organized a day for mothers to rally for peace (today’s celebration won’t carry any political overtones I’m sure).
Then in 1905, the daughter of Anna Jarvis, began organizing a memorial to her mother’s work. Many of today’s symbols of Mother’s Day originated in the memorial to Anna Jarvis. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson signed a bill to recognize Mother’s Day as a national holiday on the second Sunday in May. I thought it was a “Hallmark Holiday.”
Early on, Mother’s Day was celebrated by going to church. Pretty quickly gift-giving and more secular activities began. Anna Jarvis’ daughter, the founder of our Mother’s Day, didn’t care for the materialistic turn of Mother’s Day and actually sued to try to stop a Mother’s Day festival. Before her death in 1948, she expressed regret at what the holiday had become.
I found some statistics related to Mother’s Day. According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are more than 80 million mothers in the U.S. According to Hallmark, about 96 percent of consumers take part somehow in celebrating Mother’s Day. Cards are popular. So are telephone calls as it is a peak day for long distance service. I know that on more than one occasion over the years I have gotten the recording telling me “all circuits are busy.” Mother’s Day is the busiest day of the year for many restaurants. After Christmas, Mother’s Day is the biggest gift-giving holiday of the year. I didn’t see any statistics for church attendance on Mother’s Day. Perhaps it follows Christmas and Easter.
Now what I am going to write next will seem just downright odd, but give me to the end of the paragraph. What exactly are we celebrating? Are we celebrating fertility like the ancient Greeks and Romans? Or are we celebrating the work of mothering children? I wonder because as an adopted child, I have a “birth mother” and my mother, the one who raised me. All these years, I’ve never given any thought on Mother’s Day to my birth mother. Have I been disrespecting her all these years?
As a kid, other kids used to give me grief about not living with my “real” mother. I thought that was nonsense then and still do. I only know one mother. Yet, what if the telephone rings today and the voice says, “I gave you life nearly 49 years ago.” Should I buy that woman a card and invite her out to dinner?
About now, my mother is probably beginning to shake because she thinks this has actually happened. “No Mom, I’m just writing an essay. Nothing like that happened.”
What about kids who are conceived using donor eggs, dad’s sperm, but implanted in mom’s uterus? One mom or two on Mother’s Day? I know a young woman who gave up her son for adoption, but it is an open adoption and she knows the family and gets regular updates on her “birth son”(?). Does he buy two Mother’s Day cards? I should check more closely the card selections to see if they have cards that differentiate the birthing from the raising portions of motherhood. Maybe they are color-coded.
What about those folks walking around with a donor heart, lung, liver, or kidney from someone other than a sibling? Without another mom, they’d not have life now. Does one send a card to the mother of the donor? How about moms who abandon their kids? Do they still get an invite to Olive Garden today?
I take for granted my entry into this world. As I suspect most do. What I celebrate today is not the giving of life but the sustaining of it, not the biological role of reproduction but the social role of mothering, not the genetic material but the support, the guidance, the love, and never ending parenting.
Thanks, Mom, and happy Mother’s Day.
Obama encounters a strange double standard
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 2/26/2007
Barack Obama is running for president of the United States. His is a remarkable story. He is hard working, idealistic and intelligent. Many pundits say he represents a different kind of Democrat. Obama is also “lucky” in that Jack Ryan’s Republican candidacy for senator from Illinois fell apart because of his wife’s accusations about their marriage. If only Obama’s father didn’t have black skin. Because of that, we get questions about whether Obama “is black enough.”
The ongoing discussion of Obama’s “blackness” is insulting. The premise of this discussion is that a black (enough) candidate is going to automatically receive all the black votes. In other words, he could stand for anything, and black voters will dutifully line up and vote for him. To suggest that Obama would not have to earn the black vote just as a white candidate would is to suggest that African-Americans can’t discern how their interests are furthered by the positions and values of different candidates. They can only see the color of skin.
Let’s turn this question around. Is George “Dubya” Bush white enough? My experience as a “white” person I doubt is much like Dubya’s. Dubya was born rich, had a legacy admit to one of the finest universities in the country, is known to disparage science, battled personal demons and I doubt ever worried about paying the bills. I worked very hard in high school to be admitted to a state university, love science, have no background battling personal demons and still worry about paying the bills. Dubya is privileged and I am not, except if Obama and I were walking down the street from my middle school during times of racial tension. As a white kid, I got away with everything (except sassing the white cops) because the white cops in my all-white town were protecting me and hassling and arresting the “Obamas.”
So, Dubya and I are the same because we aren’t members of a minority race. Woo-hoo. Dubya and every other white politician has to morph themselves into a regular guy to get most of the white vote. So, again I ask, are Bush, Giuliani, Richardson, Vilsack, Clinton, or any of the other announced presidential wannabes white enough?
To be fair, these questions about Obama’s “blackness” are not originating from white opposition to Obama. A few black writers and leaders are raising the question: Is Barack black enough? Put him in a three-year-old Toyota and send him driving in an all white upper-middle-class neighborhood and see how long it takes before he is pulled over by the police. Or let’s put him out front of the Indy airport among similarly dressed white guys and see if it takes him longer to get a cab. Let’s change his name to George Jefferson, and have him apply for a mortgage on a $100,000 home in a predominantly black neighborhood and see if he has any problems getting the loan. In those situations, I’ll bet he is black enough.
The question of Obama’s blackness has nothing to do with skin color. It has to with whether his black family can be traced to American slavery. The historical experience of slavery on American society is profound and remains so today. Many whites would like to just forget about it. But culture is real, as we are learning in Iraq. It isn’t created over night and its effects are not vanquished because of civil rights laws or elections.
Obama’s biography is different. He is of the immigrant experience (well, aren’t we all?) whereas other African-American politicians are more likely to have a biography including resistance to the system that once enslaved them and continues to discriminate against them. The elite and privileged members of society never like an organized resistance.
When you look at Hillary, Vilsack, Giuliani, McCain, Dubya and other white politicians, do you see a leader of white people trying to be president? With Obama, however, some people have to test whether he leads African-American people first. We can see the double standard already being set up. If he is an African-American leader, then he has to convince white folks he can be more. And if he isn’t a leader of African-Americans, then he isn’t “authentic” enough.
Last I checked, Illinois is a multi-racial state. And why doesn’t anyone ask if Bill Richardson is Latino enough?
Barack Obama is running for president of the United States. His is a remarkable story. He is hard working, idealistic and intelligent. Many pundits say he represents a different kind of Democrat. Obama is also “lucky” in that Jack Ryan’s Republican candidacy for senator from Illinois fell apart because of his wife’s accusations about their marriage. If only Obama’s father didn’t have black skin. Because of that, we get questions about whether Obama “is black enough.”
The ongoing discussion of Obama’s “blackness” is insulting. The premise of this discussion is that a black (enough) candidate is going to automatically receive all the black votes. In other words, he could stand for anything, and black voters will dutifully line up and vote for him. To suggest that Obama would not have to earn the black vote just as a white candidate would is to suggest that African-Americans can’t discern how their interests are furthered by the positions and values of different candidates. They can only see the color of skin.
Let’s turn this question around. Is George “Dubya” Bush white enough? My experience as a “white” person I doubt is much like Dubya’s. Dubya was born rich, had a legacy admit to one of the finest universities in the country, is known to disparage science, battled personal demons and I doubt ever worried about paying the bills. I worked very hard in high school to be admitted to a state university, love science, have no background battling personal demons and still worry about paying the bills. Dubya is privileged and I am not, except if Obama and I were walking down the street from my middle school during times of racial tension. As a white kid, I got away with everything (except sassing the white cops) because the white cops in my all-white town were protecting me and hassling and arresting the “Obamas.”
So, Dubya and I are the same because we aren’t members of a minority race. Woo-hoo. Dubya and every other white politician has to morph themselves into a regular guy to get most of the white vote. So, again I ask, are Bush, Giuliani, Richardson, Vilsack, Clinton, or any of the other announced presidential wannabes white enough?
To be fair, these questions about Obama’s “blackness” are not originating from white opposition to Obama. A few black writers and leaders are raising the question: Is Barack black enough? Put him in a three-year-old Toyota and send him driving in an all white upper-middle-class neighborhood and see how long it takes before he is pulled over by the police. Or let’s put him out front of the Indy airport among similarly dressed white guys and see if it takes him longer to get a cab. Let’s change his name to George Jefferson, and have him apply for a mortgage on a $100,000 home in a predominantly black neighborhood and see if he has any problems getting the loan. In those situations, I’ll bet he is black enough.
The question of Obama’s blackness has nothing to do with skin color. It has to with whether his black family can be traced to American slavery. The historical experience of slavery on American society is profound and remains so today. Many whites would like to just forget about it. But culture is real, as we are learning in Iraq. It isn’t created over night and its effects are not vanquished because of civil rights laws or elections.
Obama’s biography is different. He is of the immigrant experience (well, aren’t we all?) whereas other African-American politicians are more likely to have a biography including resistance to the system that once enslaved them and continues to discriminate against them. The elite and privileged members of society never like an organized resistance.
When you look at Hillary, Vilsack, Giuliani, McCain, Dubya and other white politicians, do you see a leader of white people trying to be president? With Obama, however, some people have to test whether he leads African-American people first. We can see the double standard already being set up. If he is an African-American leader, then he has to convince white folks he can be more. And if he isn’t a leader of African-Americans, then he isn’t “authentic” enough.
Last I checked, Illinois is a multi-racial state. And why doesn’t anyone ask if Bill Richardson is Latino enough?
More "old" essays
I found some more essays I wrote for the Trib-Star before I began posting them here. They follow.....Iwe'll they will actually be above...
Thursday, March 17, 2011
STEIGER REPORT: Nothing extraordinary about charter schools’ formula for success
(Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 17 March 2011)
TERRE HAUTE — Charter schools are different. I’ve been reading the websites of the 30 charter schools listed on the Indiana Department of Education’s website. I’ve also been reading the websites of a selection of conventional public schools. I wanted to see if I could sense the charters’ freedom from bureaucratic and regulatory restraint, the aspect of charters that is supposed to make them better than conventional schools.
What I found is irony. Apparently, sometimes more regulation is less regulation, as in the current Indiana Senate Bill 1. According to Dale Chu, Indiana’s assistant superintendent for policy, charter schools have not lived up to their potential, in part, because they are still required to follow too many rules but also because of a lack of accountability. SB1 will correct those shortcomings. More accountability means more regulation, doesn’t it?
What I found in my examination of the Indiana charter schools is a lot of rules and regulations. The student (and parent) handbooks are about 50 pages long, listing all the laws the charters must comply with. The handbooks from conventional schools were similar. Is part of regulatory relief freedom from laws and regulations that constrain schools from imposing stricter (more rigorous?) requirements on students and parents?
Both conventional schools and charters have dress codes. Many charters require uniforms, specifying acceptable colors, styles, and list stores from which to purchase them. Anderson Preparatory Academy, a “military-style academy” complete with a commandant instead of a principal, requires students to wear Air Force Academy-style uniforms. Uniforms could impose some “order” in schools (a common goal in charter schools). Order is needed when so many kids live in chaotic homes. So, why not? Why not free conventional schools from regulatory barriers to uniforms?
Many charter schools have longer school days and longer school years than conventional schools. KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory requires students to arrive at 7:15 a.m. and remain at school until 5 p.m., Monday-Thursday, and until 2:30 p.m. on Fridays. There is school on some Saturdays, 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. KIPP summer school is also required. That is remarkable. The results? Fifty-two percent of their students passed the English and language arts ISTEP and 49 percent the Math section. So, why not? Why not fund conventional schools for full-day kindergarten, year-round school, 10-hour school days, or Saturday school?
Charter schools don’t just involve parents through volunteer opportunities, parent teacher conferences, newsletters, and serving on committees; they require commitment(s) from parents. Indeed, what I like most about Indiana’s charter schools is the up-front, in-your-face admission that the most important factor in a child’s education is parents. So parents sign a contract with some teeth.
At Andrew J. Brown Academy in Indianapolis, parents sign a “Commitment to Excellence” contract in which, among other things, they “will attend parent-teacher conferences, volunteer for school activities, and complete parent satisfaction surveys.” They will also “read school correspondence, check my child’s homework, and promptly notify the school if he/she will be absent.” There is also a homework commitment. Grades K-3 can expect homework four days a week, and grades 5 -8, five days a week. Expected time spent on homework per night varies from 15-30 minutes for kindergartners to 90-120 minutes for eighth-graders. “Tiger Moms” would approve!
At Galileo Charter School in Richmond, parents commit to providing 50 hours of family service to the school each year. BASIS Schools, Inc., manages charter schools (one organization Indiana hopes to attract to Indiana through SB 1). Their website is so littered with accolades it is hard to find any information about them, but I did find the “Master Teacher Campaign” which is how BASIS, in part, pays its teachers. BASIS asks “that families commit to contributing or raising $1,500 annually (or $125 a month over 12 months), to help support their child at BASIS.”
What kind of teeth do these contracts have? At Charter School of the Dunes in Gary, the line in bold above the parents’ signature line reads: “Returning this signed form to CSD is mandatory. Failure to do so by August 23, 2010, may result in expulsion of the student.” At KIPP Indy, this statement is just above the parent’s signature line: “Failure to adhere to these commitments can cause my child to lose various KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory privileges and can lead to my child returning to his/her home school.” Wow! So if parents don’t do their part, their kids may not be able to continue. That has to help the school’s test scores, if they can get rid of students (and parents) who don’t follow rules. So, why not? What regulations stop conventional schools from holding students accountable for their lame parents?
Charter schools are not just involved in the three Rs, some include additional curricula, such as morals education (Andrew J. Brown Academy) or character education (Charter School of the Dunes). Disciplinary infractions of school behavior codes “may deem public service a necessary component of the disciplinary action” which “include, but is not limited to: repairing or cleaning property damaged as a result of the offense(s); participating in landscaping, gardening and/or other projects aimed at beautifying school property or the community; and/or providing services that improve the quality of life for community members.”
These schools require more than grades and test scores, they require students to be decent human beings. So, why not? What regulations stop conventional schools from forcing students to do community service for infractions of dress codes, tardiness, having a cell phone or not doing their homework?
Charter schools are smaller than conventional schools. They limit class size to 18 or 19. Conventional school classrooms may be as much as a third or more larger. So, why not? Why not budget enough money so conventional schools can limit class sizes, too?
Some charter schools feel like a local eatery — a lack of polish maybe, in an old building, but with a lot of local color. Indeed, emphasizing locality is what is unique about the Rural Community Academy in Graysville. But others seem “corporate,” like visiting the website of a chain restaurant. Several Indiana charters are “managed” by nonprofit charter school companies who offer “franchises.” BASIS Inc. is one; so are American Quality Schools and National Heritage Academies. I wonder how free the local schools are to vary from the “franchise agreement?” After all, “local control” is a cornerstone of the current push for education reform. Why not free conventional schools of “state control” and return them to the local control that has characterized American public education throughout its history, until recently?
I think charter schools have hit on the recipe for a good education: keep class sizes small, hold students and parents accountable for their actions, and get rid of those students who are problems. What could be simpler?
So, why not give the same freedom to conventional schools? Give conventional schools the same regulatory and bureaucratic freedom given to charter schools so they can create more enforceable expectations for student and parent behavior. Why not?
Ironic, isn’t it?
TERRE HAUTE — Charter schools are different. I’ve been reading the websites of the 30 charter schools listed on the Indiana Department of Education’s website. I’ve also been reading the websites of a selection of conventional public schools. I wanted to see if I could sense the charters’ freedom from bureaucratic and regulatory restraint, the aspect of charters that is supposed to make them better than conventional schools.
What I found is irony. Apparently, sometimes more regulation is less regulation, as in the current Indiana Senate Bill 1. According to Dale Chu, Indiana’s assistant superintendent for policy, charter schools have not lived up to their potential, in part, because they are still required to follow too many rules but also because of a lack of accountability. SB1 will correct those shortcomings. More accountability means more regulation, doesn’t it?
What I found in my examination of the Indiana charter schools is a lot of rules and regulations. The student (and parent) handbooks are about 50 pages long, listing all the laws the charters must comply with. The handbooks from conventional schools were similar. Is part of regulatory relief freedom from laws and regulations that constrain schools from imposing stricter (more rigorous?) requirements on students and parents?
Both conventional schools and charters have dress codes. Many charters require uniforms, specifying acceptable colors, styles, and list stores from which to purchase them. Anderson Preparatory Academy, a “military-style academy” complete with a commandant instead of a principal, requires students to wear Air Force Academy-style uniforms. Uniforms could impose some “order” in schools (a common goal in charter schools). Order is needed when so many kids live in chaotic homes. So, why not? Why not free conventional schools from regulatory barriers to uniforms?
Many charter schools have longer school days and longer school years than conventional schools. KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory requires students to arrive at 7:15 a.m. and remain at school until 5 p.m., Monday-Thursday, and until 2:30 p.m. on Fridays. There is school on some Saturdays, 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. KIPP summer school is also required. That is remarkable. The results? Fifty-two percent of their students passed the English and language arts ISTEP and 49 percent the Math section. So, why not? Why not fund conventional schools for full-day kindergarten, year-round school, 10-hour school days, or Saturday school?
Charter schools don’t just involve parents through volunteer opportunities, parent teacher conferences, newsletters, and serving on committees; they require commitment(s) from parents. Indeed, what I like most about Indiana’s charter schools is the up-front, in-your-face admission that the most important factor in a child’s education is parents. So parents sign a contract with some teeth.
At Andrew J. Brown Academy in Indianapolis, parents sign a “Commitment to Excellence” contract in which, among other things, they “will attend parent-teacher conferences, volunteer for school activities, and complete parent satisfaction surveys.” They will also “read school correspondence, check my child’s homework, and promptly notify the school if he/she will be absent.” There is also a homework commitment. Grades K-3 can expect homework four days a week, and grades 5 -8, five days a week. Expected time spent on homework per night varies from 15-30 minutes for kindergartners to 90-120 minutes for eighth-graders. “Tiger Moms” would approve!
At Galileo Charter School in Richmond, parents commit to providing 50 hours of family service to the school each year. BASIS Schools, Inc., manages charter schools (one organization Indiana hopes to attract to Indiana through SB 1). Their website is so littered with accolades it is hard to find any information about them, but I did find the “Master Teacher Campaign” which is how BASIS, in part, pays its teachers. BASIS asks “that families commit to contributing or raising $1,500 annually (or $125 a month over 12 months), to help support their child at BASIS.”
What kind of teeth do these contracts have? At Charter School of the Dunes in Gary, the line in bold above the parents’ signature line reads: “Returning this signed form to CSD is mandatory. Failure to do so by August 23, 2010, may result in expulsion of the student.” At KIPP Indy, this statement is just above the parent’s signature line: “Failure to adhere to these commitments can cause my child to lose various KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory privileges and can lead to my child returning to his/her home school.” Wow! So if parents don’t do their part, their kids may not be able to continue. That has to help the school’s test scores, if they can get rid of students (and parents) who don’t follow rules. So, why not? What regulations stop conventional schools from holding students accountable for their lame parents?
Charter schools are not just involved in the three Rs, some include additional curricula, such as morals education (Andrew J. Brown Academy) or character education (Charter School of the Dunes). Disciplinary infractions of school behavior codes “may deem public service a necessary component of the disciplinary action” which “include, but is not limited to: repairing or cleaning property damaged as a result of the offense(s); participating in landscaping, gardening and/or other projects aimed at beautifying school property or the community; and/or providing services that improve the quality of life for community members.”
These schools require more than grades and test scores, they require students to be decent human beings. So, why not? What regulations stop conventional schools from forcing students to do community service for infractions of dress codes, tardiness, having a cell phone or not doing their homework?
Charter schools are smaller than conventional schools. They limit class size to 18 or 19. Conventional school classrooms may be as much as a third or more larger. So, why not? Why not budget enough money so conventional schools can limit class sizes, too?
Some charter schools feel like a local eatery — a lack of polish maybe, in an old building, but with a lot of local color. Indeed, emphasizing locality is what is unique about the Rural Community Academy in Graysville. But others seem “corporate,” like visiting the website of a chain restaurant. Several Indiana charters are “managed” by nonprofit charter school companies who offer “franchises.” BASIS Inc. is one; so are American Quality Schools and National Heritage Academies. I wonder how free the local schools are to vary from the “franchise agreement?” After all, “local control” is a cornerstone of the current push for education reform. Why not free conventional schools of “state control” and return them to the local control that has characterized American public education throughout its history, until recently?
I think charter schools have hit on the recipe for a good education: keep class sizes small, hold students and parents accountable for their actions, and get rid of those students who are problems. What could be simpler?
So, why not give the same freedom to conventional schools? Give conventional schools the same regulatory and bureaucratic freedom given to charter schools so they can create more enforceable expectations for student and parent behavior. Why not?
Ironic, isn’t it?
Sunday, February 6, 2011
'Tiger Mom' sparks debate over parenting style
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 2/6/11
Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” has caused a “cat fight” among American mothers. I’ve not read the book, but given how anxious American mothers are about parenting styles and choices, I’m sure the publishers knew they had a gold mine, especially one that so harshly critiques American middle class working moms.
I’m not going to comment on Professor Chua’s parenting decisions. I think that evaluation is best left for her daughters. Nor will I enter the fray as to whether “Chinese” parenting is better, worse, or the same, as “Western” parenting because it is ridiculous. It wasn’t that long ago that our hyperventilating talk show hosts and the Internet echo chambers were eviscerating an Asian parenting style in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, Seung-Hui.
More thoughtful observers have opined that the passionate discussions following the publication of “Tiger Mother” is just a reflection of Americans’ growing anxiety about the rising Chinese economic tiger, its role in financing our government, and its recent military flexing. Leave it to jingoism to obscure the more obvious underlying tensions of social class, ethnicity, and gender.
Professor Chua’s parenting decisions reflect an upper middle class background and aspiration for her children. The examples of what her children were permitted to do and not do draw pretty distinct class boundaries every bit as effective as private schools and gated communities.
One reason for American parents’ anxiety is the many cultures found in the United States. Few societies are as diverse as ours. Some cultures’ parenting is very strict and demanding, like the Chinese, especially for their girls. Others are looser, like the straw dog that Professor Chua compares her style to. When parents agree on how to parent and then engage in similar practices, a sense that “everyone does it this way,” produces confidence in those practices. But America is culturally diverse and given our culture of individualism, we think we make up parenting all on our own ignoring the cultural foundations of our individual choices.
Are there any Tiger Dads? Apparently so, but they sound distant and judgmental in Professor Chua’s description. Do Tiger Dads change diapers? Do they read to their kids? Or is there a distinct gendered separation in raising the kids? In the U.S. we see that style of parenting, but we also see dads involved in the daily care of their children. Are dads as anxious about what Professor Chua suggests? They seem to get a pass.
Why do different styles arise? Parents raise their kids to be “successful” in their society, as they define it. They pass on “survival skills.” In a caste-like society, where rulers hold entire families responsible for the acts of sons and daughters, parents raise their kids to conform to authority, especially to parental authority, lest a free-spirited offspring leads to a pogrom of the village. In societies with relatively little social mobility, parents are going to raise their kids to be successful at their station in life. In a society where a mixed-race boy of a single parent can grow up to be president, kids are going to be encouraged to be whatever they want, to “dream,” thus parents encourage a vast array of activities, with a goal of a well-rounded, popular, well-adjusted child. America emphasizes “me” over “we”; authentic self-expression over the party line.
Parenting styles also emerge from emulating high status groups. China is an ancient society. Despite its communist revolution in the 1940s, the basic social structure and culture of the society has not significantly changed. “Scholar-officials” have ruled China for millennia, not entrepreneurs, hucksters, or talented people. The academic emphasis in Chinese parenting is not an accident, it is the primary (perhaps only) means to advance in society. Academic achievement is important in the U.S., too. But there are too many examples of people who are rich, successful, and respected, who dropped out of the most prestigious educational institutions. Such an outcome would shame Professor Chua’s family but not the William Henry Gates Jr. family.
School is not the only place to learn self-discipline, which is the core of the Tiger Mom style. In the U.S., there are many avenues to learning self-discipline: academics, the arts, religious devotion, sports, household chores, and combinations of them. Kids need structure and stability, which is a parent’s responsibility. Not all parents discharge that responsibility, but there are many paths to achieving structure and stability for kids, not just by grabbing the Tiger’s tale.
Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” has caused a “cat fight” among American mothers. I’ve not read the book, but given how anxious American mothers are about parenting styles and choices, I’m sure the publishers knew they had a gold mine, especially one that so harshly critiques American middle class working moms.
I’m not going to comment on Professor Chua’s parenting decisions. I think that evaluation is best left for her daughters. Nor will I enter the fray as to whether “Chinese” parenting is better, worse, or the same, as “Western” parenting because it is ridiculous. It wasn’t that long ago that our hyperventilating talk show hosts and the Internet echo chambers were eviscerating an Asian parenting style in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, Seung-Hui.
More thoughtful observers have opined that the passionate discussions following the publication of “Tiger Mother” is just a reflection of Americans’ growing anxiety about the rising Chinese economic tiger, its role in financing our government, and its recent military flexing. Leave it to jingoism to obscure the more obvious underlying tensions of social class, ethnicity, and gender.
Professor Chua’s parenting decisions reflect an upper middle class background and aspiration for her children. The examples of what her children were permitted to do and not do draw pretty distinct class boundaries every bit as effective as private schools and gated communities.
One reason for American parents’ anxiety is the many cultures found in the United States. Few societies are as diverse as ours. Some cultures’ parenting is very strict and demanding, like the Chinese, especially for their girls. Others are looser, like the straw dog that Professor Chua compares her style to. When parents agree on how to parent and then engage in similar practices, a sense that “everyone does it this way,” produces confidence in those practices. But America is culturally diverse and given our culture of individualism, we think we make up parenting all on our own ignoring the cultural foundations of our individual choices.
Are there any Tiger Dads? Apparently so, but they sound distant and judgmental in Professor Chua’s description. Do Tiger Dads change diapers? Do they read to their kids? Or is there a distinct gendered separation in raising the kids? In the U.S. we see that style of parenting, but we also see dads involved in the daily care of their children. Are dads as anxious about what Professor Chua suggests? They seem to get a pass.
Why do different styles arise? Parents raise their kids to be “successful” in their society, as they define it. They pass on “survival skills.” In a caste-like society, where rulers hold entire families responsible for the acts of sons and daughters, parents raise their kids to conform to authority, especially to parental authority, lest a free-spirited offspring leads to a pogrom of the village. In societies with relatively little social mobility, parents are going to raise their kids to be successful at their station in life. In a society where a mixed-race boy of a single parent can grow up to be president, kids are going to be encouraged to be whatever they want, to “dream,” thus parents encourage a vast array of activities, with a goal of a well-rounded, popular, well-adjusted child. America emphasizes “me” over “we”; authentic self-expression over the party line.
Parenting styles also emerge from emulating high status groups. China is an ancient society. Despite its communist revolution in the 1940s, the basic social structure and culture of the society has not significantly changed. “Scholar-officials” have ruled China for millennia, not entrepreneurs, hucksters, or talented people. The academic emphasis in Chinese parenting is not an accident, it is the primary (perhaps only) means to advance in society. Academic achievement is important in the U.S., too. But there are too many examples of people who are rich, successful, and respected, who dropped out of the most prestigious educational institutions. Such an outcome would shame Professor Chua’s family but not the William Henry Gates Jr. family.
School is not the only place to learn self-discipline, which is the core of the Tiger Mom style. In the U.S., there are many avenues to learning self-discipline: academics, the arts, religious devotion, sports, household chores, and combinations of them. Kids need structure and stability, which is a parent’s responsibility. Not all parents discharge that responsibility, but there are many paths to achieving structure and stability for kids, not just by grabbing the Tiger’s tale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
