The Elephants in our Schools

by Ruth A. Sheets

This morning, I heard a story on “Weekend Edition” regarding the Kansas City School District.  The District is receiving a failing grade from the state government.  It has not met standards on most of the 14 state assessments.

I teach in a district very much like Kansas City’s.  I am concerned with the comments made about the children of Kansas City and how parents could possibly want their children to remain in such a terrible district.  That is, of course, making the false assumption that all students in KC are failing and that someone coming in “must” know what is best for those poor children.

That is pretty arrogant and the residents of KC should feel the insult that such comments were MEANT TO inflict. 

Have any of the folks condemning the district done the legwork necessary to find out why children are dropping out?  Could it be that the lack of resources and support has made staying in school irrelevant?  Could those young people have family responsibilities that make staying in school impossible?  Could parents’ low-paying jobs leave them too exhausted to motivate their children to do what is necessary to feel and be successful?

Then, there are the test scores.  Do the tests in any way reflect the experiences of the city’s students or are they directed toward the upper middle-class children in the suburbs?  One can say that it shouldn’t matter, but it does.  So, the poorest children are failing on reading and math tests, making the children failures by third grade even though there is research to indicate that some children aren’t fully ready to excel in reading until they are a bit older.  Too bad for them. 

It is interesting how easy it is to blame schools for not meeting particular standards set up by well-paid folks who have no clue of the challenges faced by children in poor, mostly rural or urban districts.  For example, in my district, 80-90% of our students are on free or supported lunch. Many other families do not complete the required forms because they are too embarrassed to admit their poverty.  In Pennsylvania and other states, property taxes pay for the schools.  When property taxes pay, how do communities with such high levels of poverty manage?  The truth is, they often don’t. Then, often, they have to pay huge sums to private firms to tell them what they should be doing and get no refunds when that shiny new program doesn’t work.

A possible “solution” for the KC schools was presented in the NPR piece, splitting up the district among suburban schools.  Why would parents want that for their children?  Would more resources become available to the city schools or will those children just be the poor branch of those other districts?  Who wants their child to be second-class citizens in a district that knows and cares nothing for the challenges of the city kids? 

If the suburban districts are so anxious to help out by taking on the KC schools, why don’t they help out now, sharing some of their surplus with their neighbors? 

I suspect that the state of Missouri will just have to help out in the transition, so lots of money will flow to these “generous” districts.  Why not make that money available NOW to the folks in KC who have some innovative ideas for improving the district? 

There are two elephants in the room that governments are doing their best to exploit or ignore.  The first is a hatred and distrust of cities and the second, the larger is poverty.  How often have we been told in the past few years that “Real Americans” are small town people.  derision is directed to anyone who would live in a city.  And, of course, WE ARE REMINDED OFTEN THAT poor people are poor by choice and deserve what they get.  They’re a serious drain on the rest of society, you know the lines.  Many Americans believe BOTH. 

How do we direct more positive attention toward removing the elephants from the room?  First, we challenge the negative comments about cities and the automatic assumptions that people who live there are somehow less than the rest of America. Cities are here to stay and families with kids live there just as they do everywhere else. 

Second, we make sure that city schools have the same quality and quantity of resources that everyone else has.  Condemning schools for not being as good as schools that have access to the very latest of everything is unfair and unacceptable. 

Third, we have to work harder to encourage more businesses to start up in cities, using facilities that have been vacant or abandoned.  Tax breaks could be offered for those businesses that employ residents of the city.

I suspect that smarter people than I, including our young people have better ideas.  We just have to find ways to listen to them and try the ones that seem doable.

Our Government and Your Reproductive Health, or This Won't Hurt A Bit

This post is for women. All you fellas do us a favor and go find a blog about big screen TVs or football or something. This won't take long.

Ladies, imagine if you will a perfect world where a Congressional committee convenes to discuss men's reproductive health. It would, of course, be chaired by a woman. Only women would be allowed to testify.

The media would only interview women on the subject. No one in these news outlets would ever mention that drugs like Viagra are prescribed for actual, sometimes serious, medical disorders. Reporters would seek out Catholic nuns and the ex-wives of political candidates to ask if we shouldn't simply go with God's will on the subject.

Men? Are you still reading this? Hmm. You're worried that such a committee's recommendations might make you hold your knees together in the manner approved by the Santorum campaign for birth control? Perhaps you're worried that aspirin might not be an adequate pain killer?

Nonsense. After all, women know what's best for you.

muon

COMPROMISE CAN WORK?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Well, it’s happened again, or has it?  President Obama seems to have “folded” in the face of the PR campaign by the Roman Catholic bishops.  They whined and complained that their religious freedom would be limited if Catholic employers had to cover contraception services for women working for them. 

In reality, President Obama decided to let them have their way requiring only that insurance companies cover the services for any woman in religion-related organizations who want contraception.  Before I realized this was a true compromise,  I thought President Obama had collapsed again under the Right’s onslaught.

On “The News Hour,” I heard Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services explain the decision.  She said that insurance companies are willing to cover contraception services because for women who use these services, the total cost of medical care decreases significantly, up to 15%. 

This sounds like a good deal for everyone involved.  All women who want coverage even if they work for a church-based organization which employs folks of other faiths can get it, a “good” compromise!

However, hints of rejection on the part of the Roman Catholic command are spreading.  It seems that unless they get exactly what they want, they will keep fighting.  It makes no sense unless one realizes that the Roman Catholic battle is really against women who might want to make their own decisions about life and birth.  It is presented under the guise of “Religious Freedom.”

The bishops and their Right-Wing supporters cry “Religious freedom!” yet, they can’t seem to imagine that others’ desire for that same religious freedom is just as valid. 

For example, a majority of  Americans have come to understand that same sex marriage will not destroy marriage or even impact their own lives in any way.  Many believe that people’s gender preferences are God’s will or gift.  However, right-wing religious groups still pour resources into fighting the right of gay couples to marry.  What about the religious freedom of gay Americans and their supporters?

For another example, many people, like me, believe that life begins when a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb with a minimum of technological support.  We believe that God has given women their own bodies for which they   are responsible.  Choosing abortion is an option for women who cannot bear a child, do not want to have a child at the time of their pregnancy, or need to terminate the pregnancy due to rape, incest, the woman’s health, or severe disability of the fetus.

The Religious Right is doing everything to limit the religious freedom of the people who believe as I do.  They are making abortion very difficult to get and for poor women, almost impossible to afford. 

The hypocrisy is highly evident, yet, the media covers the bishops’ cry for religious freedom as though it has more validity than the religious argument for abortion or same-sex marriage.  The only way this makes sense is if this is not a religious freedom issue at all, but a way of establishing religion in America, )which as the Right so often tells us, is against the Constitution).

Maybe instead of continuing to fight contraception, the best thing for the Roman Catholic bishops and their followers to do would  be to spend their time and resources on taking care of their flock.  They could better use their money to keep more Catholic schools open in poor neighborhoods, provide more services for the children who are “rescued” from abortion.  They could spend pulpit time helping their members to be more loving and accepting of people whose beliefs and opinions are different from their own.

I know, I know!  Dream on!  As I mentioned earlier, this is not really about  religion.  It is about women getting too uppity and it’s about power and what the power of the Church can do to influence life in America.  President Obama needs to be aware that no matter what compromise he makes with the Roman bishops, he cannot win unless he tows the line with them and knuckles under to their demands, all the time on every issue.

Since he cannot do that, he should make a reasonable attempt to meet them on ground that won’t put non-Catholics at risk, then stand firm.  On this issue, he has done the former.  Now we’ll see if he can do the latter and remain strong.

The Wealth Factor

by Ruth A. Sheets

The “New York Times” columnist David Brooks’ piece published on January 20, 2012 is entitled “Wealth Issue.”  In it he contends that “money didn’t make Mitt Romney.”  He asks if Romney’s character was formed by his wealth.  He answers the question with a no and says that thinking money has spoiled or in any way corrupted him is “preposterous.”

Mr. Brooks then proceeds to say that Mitt Romney has been an exceedingly hard worker “all his life.”  He earned two degrees at Harvard and built a business.  The implication is that if a wealthy person works hard and earns degrees at a prestigious university that his wealth didn’t shape his character in any meaningful way.

Readers are informed that families have a story and that one’s character is actually shaped by the family’s story.  Romney’s story is a series of advancements and setbacks over time by his grandfather and great grandfather, often dramatic changes of fortune, but always with the good fortune winning out.

I find Romney’s story fascinating and I suspect that one can’t help but be influenced by losing everything, then getting it all back again several times as Mr. Romney’s forebearers did, .  However, I suspect that the “money” factor is at least as important in Mitt Romney’s life.  Even Romney’s great grandfather came from money.

I work in one of the poorest communities in Pennsylvania.   I teach “Mentally Gifted” students.  I know that I have students at least as bright as Mr. Romney with as much potential as he had, but my students will not be earning any degrees at Harvard.  The chance that they will get the opportunity to build a business is quite small.  My terrific students didn’t go to the prominent school that leads directly to Harvard because they would never be able to afford either institution.  Their families will not have the funds to help them get set up in business and to help cover their expenses while the going is a bit rough.

My students will have to be concerned about being hired and fired and as most of them are African-American or Hispanic, or a combination of the two, they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the preconceptions of those who might hire them or back their enterprises.

Their family stories are as intriguing and inspiring as Mr. Romney’s yet theirs will not even be recognized because wealth and its acquisition are not part of any of them, and in our society, wealth is what counts.  Wealth determines who is worthy of our homage.  It leads to power and more wealth. 

To be poor means that you have not worked hard enough or taken advantage of the crumbs that have slipped from the table of the wealthy.  Poverty is your fault and if you weren’t so lazy, you’d be rich too.  Anyone who is not a “have” is a “soon to have” if they have the right stuff. ”

Does wealth automatically corrupt those who have it?  Possibly not, but it does mean that the wealthy have the cards stacked in the favor.  They receive its advantages from birth, probably even before birth. 

I can’t help but wonder if Mitt Romney’s arrogance, disconnectedness, expedience would have served him as well had his family been poor or even, middle class. 

Everyone who has succeeded likes to think they did it all by themselves, but that’s not how it works.  Wealth allows its beneficiaries  to start off near the top of the heap, and unless they are really foolish or have other problems, they will not sink below that point. 

The wealthy have every incentive to work hard and strive because they know that even the smallest effort will provide security and yield a level of power that most people, no matter how motivated, will never attain.  Those who are in poverty can only hope that their family story will inspire succeeding generations who, with a lot of luck and support, may be able to rise.

Dear Men in Government and the Catholic Church, Grow Up

by muon

Frankly, I'm getting fed up with the whole Contraception vs. the Catholic Church issue.

On one side, I saw one of the letters read in Catholic churches across the nation. The letter repeatedly used the  phrase "almost all employers" when talking about the mandate for contraception benefits, but never stated that all churches who wanted to be were exempt. The Catholic churches in my town don't have schools or hospitals attached to them, yet they implied to their parishioners that this would apply to Catholic workers in the employ of these churches, which wasn't true. The letter also said "abortion services" were mandated. I read the bill and couldn't find any reference to mandated "abortion services" benefits, in fact, it stated that abortive drugs would definitely NOT be covered. Possibly the church is referring to contraceptives as "abortion services." I suspect the phrase was simply thrown in to push people's emotional buttons. Whatever the case, I hope the American bishops all went to confession this week about the half truths in that letter.

On the other side, seriously, what a stupid thing for the President to do in an election year. Why all of a sudden start dictating to employers what they can and can't do, especially on a divisive issue like this, when the administration's been pushing for compromise and bipartisanship for the last 4 years? I don't kid myself that the Executive Branch suddenly woke up last week all concerned about the health of women receiving healthcare benefits from Catholic institutions. No, this decision had to be political in some way. I just don't get the angle.

Then there's the media, who ALWAYS finds Catholic men to explain the church's side. PBS interviewed a prof at Catholic University. They showed him teaching a class made up almost entirely of men. Every time they talked about women getting benefits from the university, they showed female students, not employees of the school. They interviewed a graduate student, asking if she'd like free contraceptives, but again, as far as I could tell, she didn't work for the school. What, they couldn't go into the dining hall and ask a cafeteria lady? Or someone on the cleaning crew? (or are they outsourced jobs? Anyone know?)

The bottom line here is, how much will this mandate help get contraceptives into the hands of women who can't afford them? It's not going to cover the unemployed, self-employed, part-time employed, or those with sporadic employment. It won't help the millions of Americans without healthcare coverage. If the Federal government is so convinced this is important for the health of women, families, and the country, then make it a government program so it benefits everyone, and so employers don't have to have meltdowns about their hypocritical ethics.

Meantime, let Catholic institutions be exempt. Like any set of employer benefits, workers ought to be considering what they need and don't need when interviewing for jobs. If Catholic hospitals and schools lose good workers because of their decision, if they then lose patients and students because their work force is substandard, hey, that's the American way.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This past week, the Obama administration took a bold step, not as common an occurrence as I would like, but certainly welcome at this time. All private insurance companies will be required to cover contraception for women, no co-pays, no denials of service. This includes religion-based institutions who serve and employ people not of that particular faith.

Most people, when polled, thought that women should have access to free contraception.  As of August, even working-class women will be able to plan their family size and decide when and whether they will become pregnant.  An added bonus is that the number of abortions and unwanted children will decrease significantly.

This sounds like a win-win scenario, don’t you think!  Even the right-wing conservatives should find something here to love.

Not so fast!  The Roman Catholic clergy are vowing to stop this service from being implemented in all facilities that are in any way associated with the Church.  It doesn’t matter if the person to be covered by the insurance is not herself Roman Catholic.  The Bishops’ argument is that this is a matter of freedom of religion. 

This is fascinating!  The Roman Catholic Bishops don’t seem to have a problem interfering with everyone else’s freedom of religion as they campaign against abortion and contraception despite the fact that many religious people do not agree with their stance.  They even want to criminalize it, calling women murderers.  In Pennsylvania, the bishops support the bill that is before the Assembly that forces women to have an ultrasound which they must watch, before they can have an abortion.

I guess that religious freedom only counts when the clergy get to force women to follow their archaic world view.  If one’s faith allows for a more progressive understanding, too bad. 

Does President Obama’s position on this matter mean he “hates” the Roman Catholic Church as implied by some commentators?  No, of course not, but the bishops are highly skilled at using inflammatory rhetoric.  They will vilify the current administration in the Church’s campaign against women, a centuries old effort. 

In the Roman Catholic scheme, women cannot win.  They are to submit to their husbands and the Church.  If they get pregnant, that must be God’s will.  If they are too poor to raise a child, that’s their fault.  According to the Church hierarchy, all male, of course, pregnancy is perfection for women and choosing not to be pregnant is a sin, unless a women has chosen a chaste life.

What I don’t get is the number of women who go along with this  nonsense.  Is it their penance for some imagined sin?  If the women left the Church en masse until some real changes on behalf of women were made, it wouldn’t take too long.  Women hold the Roman Catholic Church  together, just as they do most denominations, no matter what those in charge think.

I hope President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services will stand their ground.  Maybe that will keep the bishops distracted long enough to allow progressives to reverse the Medieval abortion laws springing up all over the country.

A catastrophe? Really?

by Ruth Sheets

This evening on “the News Hour,” on PBS, a commentator, Mark Shields, whom I usually find to be lucid and thoughtful, made a comment that really got me thinking.  He said that the current administration’s decision to require insurance companies to fully cover contraception is a catastrophe for President Obama.  He said it was a blow to Catholics everywhere and that they might withdraw their support for Obama in the upcoming election.

I do understand that the Powers that be in the Catholic Church are expected to be outraged about offering women the ability to plan the size of their families and whether or not they will become pregnant.  That’s, of course, supposed to be God’s job, or something like that.  However, I do not see how this should negatively impact rank and file Catholics, regular church goers or not.  Survey after survey finds that Catholic women use contraception at nearly the rates of other women.  This has been true since the late 1960’s.  What is the problem?

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to use contraception yourself, then deny the service to someone else, someone not even of your own faith the right to have it covered by their insurance? What about the concept that just because it is covered doesn’t mean you have to use it?

Catholics and their Fundamentalist Christian friends hate abortion and want to do everything they can to stamp it out in America.   One of the best ways to do that, it would seem,   is contraception.   But, this is also to be prohibited.  So what is it they actually want?  It seems that they want only married people to have sex.  . 

If you don’t stick to this lifestyle, your punishment is having a baby that you must raise or give up for adoption, even if either choice is unacceptable.  What is more, you have to do it alone with as little support as possible.  “What about the child?” you say.  “The sins of the parents are visited upon the children even to the fourth generation,” or so the Bible says. 

I am so glad that this time, the president and his administration have stood up to the Republican/Conservative bullying.  Just as bullying harms our children, and we must help them stand against it, political bullying harms our country and our people and we must stand against it.  Making more options available for women is not a catastrophe.

I hope the president and his Secretary of Health and Human Services do not back down on this one.  If those Catholics Mr. Shields evokes can’t see that the world needs some new broader thinking in the 21st Century if they and the rest of us are to survive, it is unlikely that neither Obama or any other thoughtful person will be able to reach them.  We may just have to leave them to the Romney’s and Gingrich’s of the country.  Those guys don’t have any vision or concern for the needs and rights of women either.