. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Alcohol, Athletics and the Inevitability of the Avoidance of Responsibility (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
We have a serious problem right here in River City, and I've finally and reluctantly come to the conclusion that nothing effective will ever be done about it. I'm referring to the consequences that flow from alcohol abuse by college students, athletes and non-athletes alike -- as well as non-college, and older, individuals.
Nor is the situation getting any better, as the Press-Citizen reports,
Despite efforts to change it, the issue of binge drinking and the scene on Thursday night is pretty normal for Iowa City. A new report indicates heavy drinking, drunken driving and alcohol-related deaths among U.S. college students is getting worse.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports alcohol-related deaths rose from 1,440 in 1998 to 1,825 in 2005 among 18-to-24-year-old students . . ..
Sarah Hansen, associate director for education at UI Student Health Service, has been working on the alcohol and drug assistance program for the past nine years. UI has long reported higher than national averages in drinking use among students, she said.
Hansen said 67 percent of UI students reported binge drinking, according to survey results released in April.
Bear in mind that we are talking here about what is, by any conceivable measure, the nation's number one hard drug problem. It is involved in roughly half of all crimes (give or take, depending on the category of crime). It causes more economic loss than any other drug (e.g., property damage, absenteeism at work). It can cause far more serious, and permanent, medical/physical harm than most other drugs. Among college students it is a contributing cause to poor academic performance and dropouts, injury from accidents (including drunk driving), rape and other unwanted sexual contact and pregnancies, fights. The list goes on and on.
So why is so little done about it? Here is the brief comment I posted on the Press-Citizen's Web site for Morelli's story:
The problem is that there is no political will in this town to do anything but wring hands. The bar owners have the money and the students have the votes. The University doesn't want to upset the local bar owners and City Council, and the City doesn't want to unnecessarily embarrass the University. Some adults recommend 18-year-old drinking; others were problem drinkers as college students and don't think it's a big deal now for their kids. So we go on spending foundation money "to curb binge drinking" while watching the numbers hold steady or rise -- and collecting tuition from the binge drinkers (before they drop out).
On re-reading that sounds a little more harsh than I'd put it now. I just think it's a description of the political reality. The stark fact is that there is no organized special interest group to take on these issues. There are special interest groups quite prepared to defend themselves against such a campaign.
That being the case, I just think it's very unlikely that anything meaningful will ever be done in this town by the City or University to curb what is a major public safety and public health disaster. (Certainly, the City Council's recent efforts to limit the creation of additional bars within walking distance of the campus -- is it true there are now already 50?! -- will do little more than lock in the profits of the resulting oligopoly of bar owners and protect them from additional competition while in no way limiting the illegal student access to alcohol.)
Nor do things look a whole lot better on the football field. As Scott Dochterman reports,
Since mid-April 2007, 26 Iowa football players have been arrested or issued citations. Twenty of the players had charges or citations related to alcohol or drug use/possession.
Nine players were arrested for public intoxication, five for drunken driving and five were cited for underage possession of alcohol. Two were charged with drug possession. One player was charged for underage possession and public intoxication in another incident.
After an 11-month stretch from April 2007 through March 2008 that included 14 arrests or citations, Iowa Coach Kirk Ferentz changed some team policies. Ferentz declined to explain publicly what those changes were, but among them was hiring a life skills adviser to help players transition to college life.
“The bottom line of that is we have taken the approach as a team back in March, the beginning or prior to spring ball, with this roster we have now and it took shape, I think March 1 is when that happened ... we have talked to our team to draw a line of demarcation at that point,” Ferentz said in July 2008. “I would hope people would be fair enough to judge us from what happens from then on.”
Since Ferentz’s line of demarcation, the alcohol-related tickets and arrests have continued. Not counting sexual assault charges filed against two former football players for an October 2007 incident, 10 Iowa football players have been arrested or cited. All but one included an alcohol-related charge."
In fairness to the football program, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that, at a minimum, the coaches would like to be able to avoid the adverse local (and national) publicity that comes with the criminal records of their players. Beyond that, my sense is that -- however inadequate -- they are probably doing more with their student athletes than the University is doing with the rest of the student population, and that the coaches would be the first to acknowledge it has not been enough.
As I've suggested before, it's possible that it would be worthwhile for them to put even more emphasis on knowing more about the criminal or anti-social records of the recruits before they are brought to Iowa City. There are obvious limits to what any athletic program can do to reverse behavior patterns, attitudes and an "I'm so special the rules don't apply to me" sense of entitlement already firmly ingrained in a 17-or-18-year-old. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Ever wonder where and how the opponents of universal-single-payer health care are able to come up with their outrageous assertions?
Here's a video that reveals the answer:
This video of a "Late Night Brainstorming Session" by what appears to be four ad agency executives for HAARM (Healthy Americans Against Reform of Medicine) is a work of parody by SEIU's Change That Works campaign. What's scary is how close it tracks what does seem to be the strategy of those who oppose meaningful health care for all Americans -- especially given the insertions into this video of actual video from opponents' talking points on television.
_______________
"John Barleykorn" has been a constructive critic of this blog since it began three years ago, a sort of "loyal opposition." His comments have often caused me to do a double-take on my own thinking.
How is a single payer system going to stop someone from eating a Big Mac everyday and getting heart disease?
What is the responsibility of the individual?
It raises a serious range of categories of questions (e.g., medical, economic, philosophical, administrative/managerial, political, theological/moral/ethical) that could support a very lengthy discussion -- or master's thesis.
If you're among those who haven't been following just how far the fast food epidemic has spread you will want to watch this report from the Onion News Network regarding a new innovation that simultaneously increases calorie intake while reducing the amount of exercise formerly associated with eating:
To cut to the chase, and remove any question about my own position, I'm siding with one of my favorite theology doctors: "Let he who has no bad health habits cast the first bed pan."
If what I mean by that is ambiguous, let me try again.
I recall years ago reading about a British doctor who simply refused to treat patients' self-induced medical conditions -- the impact of smoking on a cough or bronchial condition, the consumption of excessive salt on elevated blood pressure or excessive animal fats on cholesterol levels. In effect, if the patient was unwilling to make any effort whatsoever to improve their condition by altering their own behavior, the doctor's sense of the most appropriate triage of his own time and talent was to spend them with the patients who would. (Of course, other doctors were available to serve those patients, so it is not a perfect analogy to leaving Americans with no option for receiving health care.)
It's theoretically consistent, I guess, to take the positions that (a) "I don't want the government controlling what people can smoke, drink and eat," (b) "so long as those engaging in risky health behaviors are willing personally to pay for the medical care they require I have no problem with their doing whatever they want," but (c) "I don't think I should have to pay any part, however small (in increased taxes or insurance premiums) of their medical bills."
We're talking here about issues of "paternalism." An example: some motorcyclists want to ride without helmets. Do we have a right to care about their safety? Do we have a right to pass laws mandating that they wear helmets? One can argue that the safety of all is a concern of all -- certainly with regard to children, but with adults as well. But a major issue, directly related to health care costs, is who should pay when a motorcycle accident results in a need for neurosurgery, or a lifetime of care for someone who's paralyzed -- at least in part as a result of their own action (refusal to wear a helmet)?
Similar analyses can be applied to smoking, excessive use of alcohol, quantity and quality of calories/nutrition, aerobic and weights exercise, stress, sleep, etc.
I guess my initial reaction to that approach is four-fold.
(1) To the extent we all benefit from an improvement in the health of all Americans (as we all benefit from providing a quality K-12 education -- which I'd urge ought now be K-16 -- to all Americans) that means all Americans. Providing health care only to those who don't need it is like a bank loan department that will only provide loans to customers who don't need them. Healthy students learn better. Healthy workers are more efficient on the job, and have fewer sick days.
(2) I guess I think there's a moral and ethical issue here as well; that at least some minimal level of health care needs be considered a basic human right, not a privilege provided only to those sufficiently affluent to pay for it.
(3) My initial guess is that the complexities of designing a universal single-payer health care delivery system would pale by comparison with the complexities of the procedures for (a) finding out the necessary basic data for every single American, and (b) the formulas for determining the relationship between self-induced conditions, by levels of seriousness, and the impact they should have on [1] charging for, or [2] denying, the medical services to treat the resulting conditions. For example, I would be healthier if I were to lose an additional 15 pounds and rode my bike an extra 5-10 miles a day. How could we calculate what my punishment should be for my failure to do that?
(4) By bringing all Americans into the system it substantially increases the opportunities for proactive, preventative counseling and programs for behavior modification of those who would benefit by it.
So what can we do to respond to John Barleykorn's concern?
I haven't thought this one through. But I note that there has been a concerted effort to reduce tobacco use, especially by the "replacement smokers" (replacing those killed by tobacco) in their teens. There has been an increase in the percentage of drivers/passengers using seat belts -- as well as added safety features in cars, such as air bags. My sense is that there's been an increase in the use of bicycle and motorcycle helmets. There has been some effort to at least list and publicize the calories and ingredients of "fast food" places, e.g., Subway. And even McDonalds introduced salads years ago. And my sense is that there is fairly widespread agreement, certainly within the "public health" profession (and beyond) on the value of such efforts to motivate healthier behaviors.
Obviously, such programs won't cut our health care costs as decisively as what may be Barleykorn's suggestion that we simply drop them from the rolls (or Jonathan Swift's suggestion that we just eat them). But it's considerably less draconian.
Although initially prepared for this fall's undergraduate "First Year Seminar" on general semantics at the University of Iowa, it should appeal to a general audience as well.
"We are the only species able to talk ourselves into difficulties that would not otherwise exist, from divorce to war. Here's a book full of practical suggestions on how to use our language to improve our lives."
With the sickness industry's "insurance premium profiteering bill of 2009" debate now underway in Congress you might also be interested in taking a look at the blog entry from two days ago on that subject: "Universal Single-Payer a Necessity Now," June 19, 2009.
"Summertime Blogging," May 23, 2009, provides a list of 12 still current categories of recent blogs and the link to a chronological listing of the 650 blog entries from the last three years.
There's also the subsequent "Air Cars and Constituent Anger," May 30, 2009, "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?" June 3, 2009, an Iowa City Press-Citizen op ed column, "District Needs Cluster Schools," also available from the paper's online site -- along with the follow-up in the form of a letter to the editor ("Many Past Board Members Tried," June 15, 2009), also available there. Both the column and the letter have produced very active discussions at the Press-Citizen's online site.
And here's the information about Virtualosity now available from Lulu Press -- with credits to 8 creative Cyberspace Law Seminar students this past spring semester, and graphics designer Gregory Johnson.
"Nicholas Johnson and eight law students in the University of Iowa Cyberspace Law Seminar, Spring 2009, investigate everything from property rights in virtual worlds to domestic cyber attacks to K-12 students' rights with their online, off-campus speech."
Now that the books are on their way, and we've had the car carefully checked over, once I get at least one good night's sleep, we'll probably be heading off for our usual summer vacation trip to Coralville. And after resting up from that afternoon of high living there may actually be some time for blogging again.
And check out "Virtualosity," June 16, 2009, and its links to prior entries.
Why Universal Single-Payer Health Care is Essential for America
A month ago in this blog I came out strongly in support of what has come to be called in our health care debate the "public option." "Public Option vs. Private Greed," May 18, 2009.
My analysis was, simply put, that as President Obama has acknowledged single-payer would make the most sense were we starting fresh. But strategically, in 2009, given all the inaccurate mud that opponents would throw at single-payer, we'd be more likely to end up with at least the public option if we lowered our sights to that. That analysis may or may not have been sound a month ago.
It is no longer sound now, in my judgment.
Everything else in that May 18th blog entry I would still stand by -- just not the strategic conclusion. Like the response to a law student's recitation attributed to a law professor, "I follow you all but the 'therefore.'"
What's changed my mind is the behavior of the special interests and the senators and members of congress they fund, along with the President's only new-found interest in even the public option.
As Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett wrote Obama, "Mr. President, please give us a specific meaningful goal and then go the American public and tell us, 'Now make me do it.' I urge you to publicly advocate single payer, real reform. The insurance industry has had 16 years to fix the problem and they have done nothing but block real reform. Your outspoken leadership is necessary to do something about the problem. Please don't start the negotiations by throwing in the towel. There are more than 46 million reasons to do this."
Read the "Public Option vs. Private Greed" lengthy list of arguments. We're paying twice what other countries pay and we're getting less -- in terms of infant mortality, life expectancy and other measures. I'm not going to repeat all of that here.
Bottom line is that the continuously rising costs of health insurance (well beyond our overall rates of inflation), the for-profit administrative costs (some 10 times those of Medicare and Medicaid), and the multi-million-dollar packages for insurance and hospital executives are simply unsustainable.
We are operating with a dysfunctional, for-profit sickness insurance system that fails to deliver the health care the American people need -- while over-charging us for what we're not even getting.
Are there problems with government-run systems? Sure; there are problems with programs run by any large institutions. What I am now convinced of, however, based on the experience of other countries, our own experience with the public health programs we have, and the behavior of the special interest obstructionists over the past month is that the problems with government-run systems, elsewhere and here, are far, far fewer than the problem we now have.
Will it cost money? Of course. But how dare a President and Congress that have willingly handed over trillions of our dollars to their major campaign contributors in the banking, insurance and finance industries have the nerve to now tell us that "we can't afford" the kind of health care that all of the world's major industrial countries provide for their citizens!
They talk of a trillion-dollar cost -- and then whisper softly, "over ten years." That's $100 billion a year -- less than they gave in a matter of days to one company! Less than a couple months of our bloated Defense Department budget. Let's get real. Put aside humanitarian considerations; the economic return alone from every American being in better health is a far higher return than we get for almost any other investment we could make -- especially those that involve handing over hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to multi-million-dollar CEOs.
The special interests' behavior over the past month is what's tipped the scales for me. They have made very clear their willingness to fight true health care -- and that they have no more meaningful proposals for reform than, as Slockett notes, they have come up with over the last 16 years.
But in fairness to those special interests, they have made something else clear. Their excessive profits, their failure to control costs, their refusal to pay legitimate claims is, in one sense, not entirely their fault.
The primary fault lies in the system. It is systemic. It is simply impossible for a for-profit insurance system to deliver acceptable levels of health care for an entire nation's population.
It's like the old, rusty Honda I once drove. I would scrape off the rust and paint over the spots. The rust would always return. Why? A mechanic finally explained it to me: the rust is coming from inside not outside.
That's the problem with our sickness insurance and big pharma system: it's rusting from the inside out. It will continue to do so until the costs it hands us spiral so far out of control that they bring our entire economy down, like a third world country in bankruptcy.
The purpose of a for-profit anything, including a sickness insurance company, as the term "for-profit" suggests, is to make a profit -- and not just "a profit" but the "ever-increasing profit" that Wall Street demands. How can a sickness insurance company make an ever-increasing profit? Basically two ways: (1) increase revenue by increasing premiums, and (2) reduce costs by dropping (or refusing to insure) those with the largest claims, and fighting the payment of any claims when the company will have a possibility of prevailing. They have, and will continue to, do both.
Such a system cannot be fixed. It is folly to try and disingenuous to suggest it will ever work.
We have to join the rest of the civilized world and insist on a universal, single-payer system. It is the only way to reduce costs to manageable levels, and increase the health care of the American people to acceptable levels -- not to mention the only way American business can compete in the global economy with businesses that do not have to assume sickness insurance costs, and can still benefit from a healthier workforce than American businesses.
The transition will take time. We could begin by granting everyone a defined level of basic care, leaving some variety of "major medical" insurance to cover the other costs. There are undoubtedly a wide variety of possible transitional steps that those who've thought longer and harder than I have know about.
But the current road the President and Congress are walking is simply wrong and will lead us only deeper and deeper into the swamp we're already in.
What can you do?
For a quick and painless way to express your support for a single-payer Medicare-for-all program, click on this link to co-sign Senator Bernie Sanders' petition to Congress, and then share this link with others who care.
Just approved for publication today (June 16) and now available from Lulu Press -- with credits to 8 creative Cyberspace Law Seminar students this past spring semester, and graphics designer Gregory Johnson. Virtualosity: Eight Students in Search of Cyberlaw (click for preview).
"Nicholas Johnson and eight law students in the University of Iowa Cyberspace Law Seminar, Spring 2009, investigate everything from property rights in virtual worlds to domestic cyber attacks to K-12 students' rights with their online, off-campus speech."
It, and the next book, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know? (prepared for a UI "First Year Seminar" on general semantics this fall semester), about to go to the publisher and scheduled for August availability, are a part of the reason the blog has been relatively inactive the past month or so.
Meanwhile, check out "Summertime Blogging," May 23, 2009, for a list of 12 still current categories of recent blogs and the link to a chronological listing of the 650 blog entries from the last three years.
There's also the subsequent "Air Cars and Constituent Anger," May 30, 2009, "Cluster Schools: Potential for IC District?" June 3, 2009, an Iowa City Press-Citizen op ed column, "District Needs Cluster Schools," also available from the paper's online site -- along with the follow-up in the form of a letter to the editor ("Many Past Board Members Tried," June 15, 2009), also available there. Both the column and the letter have produced very active discussions at the Press-Citizen's online site.
June 3, 2009, 6:55 a.m.; June 5, 2009, 11:15 a.m. (addition of comments from Press-Citizen's online version)
From this morning's [June 3] Press-Citizen . . .
Majority or plurality, an Iowa City community consensus is emerging that we need to re-think and re-draw our entire District's elementary school boundaries. That's an opportunity. Will we seize it? That remains to be seen. But if we -- citizens and Board members -- do so, what are some of the creative concepts we might consider? The following op ed column describes one, not as the answer but as one approach to think about, pick apart, modify, draw the best from, and contribute to our community dialogue. Let me know what it inspires you to think about, in your comment on this blog entry, or following the Press-Citizen's online version of the column, linked below. . -- Nicholas Johnson
Do we need a do-over, a district-wide rethinking of our elementary schools' boundaries?
Based on citizens' organizations, talk at meetings, this newspaper's editorials, columns and readers' online comments, that seems to be the community consensus.
What might be helpful now are conceptual ideas that attempt to make the most of this opportunity, while taking into account the desires of students, parents, teachers, school board members, central administrators, taxpayers, developers and realtors.
Here are some approaches that, with community input and modification, might have potential.
They could:
• Be politically feasible, minimize family disruption, and maximize developers' and realtors' advance notice, by implementing them gradually over, say, three to six years.
• Reduce busing costs.
• Cut administrative costs by two-thirds.
• Equalize grades' class size.
• Reduce overcrowding and equalize percentage occupancy of schools.
• Provide central administration flexibility in assigning students to schools.
• Maintain present schools while minimizing taxpayers' burden for costly new ones.
• More nearly equalize each school's percentage of free-and-reduced-lunch students.
Obviously, all features and details would be subject to stakeholders' input and tweaking, but here are the basic concepts:
We could have "clusters" of, usually three, contiguous schools.
There could be three categories of boundaries: each school's, each cluster's and the areas outside clusters (like the present flex areas).
Student populations within schools and clusters could be small enough to allow, say, 10 years' projected growth and flexibility.
Those within a given cluster, but outside each of its three schools' boundaries, might attend any of the cluster's schools.
Because each cluster would have more, say third-graders, than would an individual school, we could more nearly equalize individual schools' third-grade class size throughout the clusters and district.
Those students within the district, but outside all individual clusters, could be assigned to any cluster -- usually the nearest one.
Once assigned to a cluster, a student could stay there from kindergarten through sixth grade.
The number of students projected to be within each cluster could be designed to provide all district schools with more nearly equivalent percentage occupancy. For example, if all schools needed to be at 90 percent occupancy to accommodate all district students, a school that can hold 200 would have 180; a school that holds 400 would have 360. None need be overcrowded.
Presumably something like this approach would reduce both the number of students, distance, time and cost involved in busing. More students could walk or bike to school.
With all schools even more equal in quality than they are now, there would be even less reason for increased urban sprawl, creating a more vibrant downtown.
Cluster schools make other creative innovations possible.
If desired, schools could be selected for clusters, boundaries drawn and students outside clusters assigned, so as to more nearly equalize the percentages of free-and-reduced-lunch students in each cluster and school.
Each school could have a "lead teacher" to assist colleagues with curriculum and staff development (rather than a "principal"). With only one administrator-principal per cluster, administrative costs would be cut two-thirds. (Reassignments and attrition could avoid layoffs of principals.)
A cluster might devote one school to K-3 students, another to grades four and five and a separate school for sixth graders -- or other combinations.
A cluster's schools might want to share resources, or develop magnet programs in science, math or music open to all that cluster's students.
But those are issues for the future.
For now, the issue is whether the community -- the district's stakeholders, including board members -- want to seize this opportunity. Are we willing to consider creative approaches, whether cluster schools or others? Or would we rather continue to patch and mend?
"Local control of schools" means it really is our choice -- and our children's future. __________ Nicholas Johnson, a former member of the Iowa City School Board, teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains the Web sites http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com and www.nicholasjohnson.org.
__________ Comment on the Press-Citizen's Web Site Regarding this Op Ed Column (in addition to the comments added to this blog entry, below)
heuchera wrote: 6/3/2009 9:31:06 AM I'm not sure exactly how a lead teacher would function in a school...would they step in when the part time principal was not there?
I'm the parent of two elementary children..who wants to cut costs when feasible. Based on what I have seen, I don't really think having a part time principal would be beneficial to the school environment. I prefer having a full time principal.
NickIowa wrote: 6/3/2009 11:09:42 AM heuchera [6/3/2009 9:31 a.m.]:
Good question. And thanks for your perspective. One of the many details that would need to be thought and talked through.
My notion is that the "lead teacher" would teach and work with faculty (something like the role of a university's provost), not do principals' administrative tasks. What proportion of what principals do has to be done in the school building? I don't know, but I suspect not all, all the time.
But you're right, there would need to be someone to greet, and deal with the problems of, the kids -- and the parents. Teachers and custodians play some of that role with the students. Maybe there could still be an "assistant principal" at each school.
My favorite K-12 adviser suggests: "Tell heuchera you don't need principals. Everyone knows the secretaries are capable of running the school. They'd probably do a better job -- and sure cost less." -- Nick
SurrenderDorothy wrote: 6/3/2009 12:57:58 PM Most people reading this column are gonna say to themselves, "What the heck is this guy talking about?"
sparkymalone wrote: 6/3/2009 4:08:10 PM Nick, the principal at my daughter's school holds that place together. The secretaries may run the show from the inside, but community relations people they are not. My daughter's principal makes a point of getting to know all the parents and kids she can; her office door is always open; and I know from talking to other parents that she deals personally with mainstreaming, effects of divorce on the kids, personal problems the kids are having with other kids and teachers, transportation, housing, after-school care, building issues, curriculum issues -- all the things that can stand in the way of the kids and the parents doing well at the school. She's an amazingly energetic woman, but I can't imagine that she'd be able to do all that for two schools at once. sparkymalone
yogatime wrote: 6/3/2009 4:11:36 PM Good way to get us to "think out of the box". I know people in this city are willing to at least think about creative ways to solve a problem like boundries. It might be that some East and West schools could be in a cluster together. I don't think it has to be painful...at least not too much so. I know citiens have been put in the position of reacting.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/3/2009 4:11:48 PM Also, Nick, consider that the provost does not usually teach. If a lead teacher is indeed teaching, it's going to quickly lead to a sense that her subject, her grade, or her clique is favored inside the school. I don't think you want a first-among-equals setup here, esp. since the teachers aren't trained for it and there's no institutional setup to keep them from favoritism or its appearance.
yogatime wrote: 6/3/2009 4:47:12 PM Here are just a couple of links about what a lead teacher does. It is fairly widespread practice and my own experience with lead teachers was positive. It is possible to take turns as a lead teacher. I haven't found that teachers are petty enough to have favorites. Working in teams and having a say in how things are done helps.
To remove any possible ambiguity, "I don't have a dog in this fight." I'm no longer on the Board, don't have kids in school, and have nothing to gain (or lose) in terms of what happens to these ideas. I'm just trying to encourage some creative community thinking beyond what I call "patch and mend."
What I've put out there are concepts -- all of which are flexible -- not a detailed plan. The details are but illustrations of concepts, to aid understanding. That's the beauty of these ideas. You think the job descriptions of principals shouldn't change? OK, don't change them. Keep a principal in every school. You don't want to balance the free-and-reduced lunch kids more than now? If a majority's with you they'll stay as they are. Think some clusters should have 4 or 2 schools? OK.
On the other hand, if you're not only open to change, to trying to do better, or if you insist on change, here's a model in which many creative flowers can bloom.
marigolds wrote: 6/4/2009 7:48:09 AM One issue that does not come up often, but is important, is ensuring that chain of command stays intact at schools. From my experience, most schools have 2 emergency contacts assigned, generally the principal and an assistant principal. Removiing either of these people from the school premises 2/3s of the time is going to increase the risk of having neither available in a short time emergency scenario. (The most common one we exercise for here is a toxic release upwind of a school.) Emergency scenarios are rare, but incident command structure for such an emergency needs to be taken into account when planning clusters. It could be as simple as principal-lead-previous lead; but then you cannot update leads more than once a year, or whatever the critical facitlities update cycle is for the local emergency office (it might be longer). Or, positioning schools so that the principal and their second can react to all three schools on a short timeframe. Just some more thoughts to consider.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 9:36:38 AM Nick, says: "…and (I) have nothing to gain (or lose) in terms of what happens to these ideas."
We will all lose if boundaries are not redrawn. East side home owners and businesses will lose home values and customers if City High, SEJH and the elementary schools are allowed to keep shrinking in size (and losing teachers and course offerings), while poverty numbers increase (as we watch the growth of students and wealth continue on the west side, and as those students are treated to nicer, newer, state of the art schools). In this two-high school town, there will become a "good" side of town and a "bad" side of town over the next decade. We will continue to see elementary schools that are not filled (and therefore not adequately maintained), while new schools are built to meet growth elsewhere.
Redraw the lines. The river is not sacred. Taxpayers, stand up against new schools while others have space. Protect your property values and more importantly, quality education for all.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 9:57:48 AM By the way Nick - I realize you support boundary changes. I just wanted to use this platform to reiterate how important this issue is, district-wide.
On another (somewhat unrelated) note -- I think taxpayers should keep an eye on boundary changes and the impacts thereof, and possible correlations between donors to the ICCSD Foundation (and which schools and parent groups donate the most money).
sparkymalone wrote: 6/4/2009 3:53:39 PM Nick, I get your point. I just think that we're playing the same kind of game banks were playing in shuffling bad debt in with good, and that in the end this comes down to housing policies. You'll notice we had none of these problems before we had a serious buildup in low-income housing and an incentivization of that construction. There were tiffs over who had better music programs, smaller classes, etc., but you didn't hear about good and bad schools, good and bad sides of town.
If the housing policies don't change, this will all be moot; parents who value ed will do just as such parents do across the country. They'll build and pay for pvt schools, & they'll move to a suburban ring.
I'd vote for holding things as stable as possible so families don't wind up screwed on prop. values. Fams will do what they must to get their kids to good schools, but if they mortgage to hilt, buy houses in "good" zones, and then have the rug pulled out, you've taken a sledgehammer to them.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 4:39:12 PM Generally speaking, overall concerns about property values and "bad" vs. "good" zones (with regard to schools) are not real issues in this town -- YET. Let's not let it get to that.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/4/2009 5:04:20 PM Replying to Eastsideparent:
Generally speaking, overall concerns about property values and "bad" vs. "good" zones (with regard to schools) are not real issues in this town -- YET. Let's not let it get to that.
We're already there. Ask people trying to sell on the east side; ask realtors who list some schools but not others when advertising properties; ask parents shopping for houses. There's a fat premium on houses in the Longfellow, Horn, Weber, Shimek, Lincoln, and Wickham areas. Harder to shift much cheaper houses in the Twain and Grant Wood area. And I guarantee that as soon as ICCSD redraws boundaries for west-side elementaries, property values will change, esp. in Galway and the current Horn area.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 5:17:39 PM I don't disagree with you Sparky, though it's not just an east side problem. There are elementary schools on both sides of town where real estate is cheap -- Grant Wood, Mark Twain on the east side; Kirkwood and Roosevelt on the west side. There's a strong correlation between poverty and test scores / home prices there. But you are talking about people being mortgaged "to the hilt" because of building big new homes. Not many people have mortgaged big new homes near Mark Twain or Kirkwood Elementary. I'm not particularly worried about kids in the Galway neighborhood - Lane Plugge and Jerry Arganbright both live there so they are probably well protected. ;) Seriously, children from that area are no more entitled to a fabulous, problem-free school than your kids or mine -- not in a public school system where we all pay the same taxes. I hope you aren't suggesting we protect home values at the expense of educational equity.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 5:22:02 PM And by the way -- yes, Shimek is a great school. Tell me then - why are kids bussed past Shimek to Lincoln -- when Shimek is closer for many of the Knolls students and is under capacity -- while mobile trailers sit outside Lincoln, for that school's overflow? Had I been in charge of decisions, I may have shifted some Roosevelt kids to Lincoln, shifted some Lincoln kids to Shimek, and possibly been able to change the socioeconomic makeup of Roosevelt to a more favorable mix (which was one of the reasons for closing Roosevelt).
;)
We need creativity and change. We don't need to hand onto boundaries for fear of angry mobs (whose kids will be out of the system in a few short years anyway) and overstated concerns about property values.
I am frustrated because so much of this discussion boils down to fear, ignorance and silent racism -- in a town where so many profess to be educated and open minded.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/4/2009 9:09:09 PM ESP - it isn't racism. Half my daughter's class last year -- in a "good" school -- was nonwhite; not all were rich, though many were. But the parents were nearly all professionals & well-educated, with ed as a high priority. No problems, no clamor for change. The problem in the "bad" schools is not race or even income; it's the chronic problems of the underclass, which IC hasn't had much of before. Brutal violence, drugs, incorrigibility, zombie parents, total lack of regard for ed, criminality, jail as a way of life.
Hang on, because I want to address the property value question.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/4/2009 9:19:10 PM Don't dismiss property value so lightly. For most people, that's their biggest investment and their biggest exposure, and they count on the money. I'm a single mother. If my house drops in value the way SE IC houses have dropped, I'm in trouble. It means I can't move my kid to a house away from the crime that brought on the drop; I can't sell my house and use the proceeds to help send her to college so she doesn't walk out into a life of indentured servitude. It means much of my emergency fund is gone.
Unlike most people, I have rental property. So I have a backup home. If you have no backup home, city/ICCSD experimentation kneecaps the value of your home, and you're forced to take a bath on selling your home, you may not get back into a decent place before your kids are grown. Or ever. Think how many grown children rely on their parents' owning a saleable home for the parents' care.
If you think those things don't have a serious effect on a family, think again.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/4/2009 9:28:25 PM Now, if you tell people who have worked themselves silly to provide their family with a modest but safe home, a good school, and other middle-class basics that they're supposed to throw it all away for "educational equity" -- when that equity means that their kids are suddenly going to schools disrupted by violence, drugs, out-of-control behavior, and lack of interest in or respect for education, I can promise you that they're not going to embrace it and say, "Why, of course."
We're not dumb; we know that there's a big problem on the other side of these unfortunate kids in the shape of parents who are, one way or another, not there. Not picking up. Do we want to throw away $30-$60K apiece in home equity to make up for these parents' abandoning responsibility, especially when there's no evidence that it does much lasting good? I know I don't. Are you ready to contribute that kind of money, personally?
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 10:18:37 PM I understand your points Sparky but I think you are overreacting a bit. Changes can be made via fairly minor tweaks to the boundaries. There is no reason to ship poor kids past Horn (to Roosevelt) when they live closer to Horn, or to bus Lincoln kids past Shimek when they are closer to Lincoln. Changes like that can have a great impact (and are more fair) and they aren't going to suck $60K off your property value. I'm not suggesting the Galway kids be gerrymandered to Twain or anything draconian like that.
"Do we want to throw away $30-$60K apiece .. Are you ready to contribute that kind of money, personally?"
No I am not - that's why I want boundaries changed now. You are concerned about preserving property values, but whose, exactly? If the two high schools (in particular) are not kept equal in quality and SES, someone's property values will surely suffer. You and I are both interested in preserving property values so let's preserve parity now, before it's too late.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 10:19:24 PM Sorry, correction: " or to bus Lincoln kids past Shimek when they are closer to Shimek "
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/4/2009 10:47:28 PM "ICCSD experimentation" is an interesting phrase to use, especially since that’s exactly what has been going on for several decades now in the form of some pretty serious injustices – such as poor kids being bused past Horn (as stated earlier) to Roosevelt (even when Horn has room), west side trailer park kids being shipped to east side elementary schools, etc. So what you see as “experimentation” may be (in my eyes) more of a correction to the system and an elimination of gerrymandering to benefit the wealthier schools (intentional or not).
yogatime wrote: 6/5/2009 6:54:36 AM I am confused. THe comments don't seem to be about the cluster idea or about a creative way to address some of the ICCSD's school population challenges. There is frustration but it seems like we don't go any farther than compaining.
Do we keep building new schools? Do we change boundries or do we come up with some creative, innovative ideas. It doesn't have to be clusters although I think that is a good way to begin.
NickIowa wrote: 6/5/2009 8:52:33 AM Reply to marigolds [6/4/2009 7:48 a.m.; possible need for always-in-school emergency responders; "thoughts to consider"]:
No one wants increased risk of harm to children. How best to provide their safety are indeed, "thoughts to consider."
But we also should give SOME attention to cost.
We want safety for every building and person in Iowa City -- not just children.
Our benefit-cost resolution is groups of police, fire and paramedics on call, serving the entire community.
The Gazette's editorial, "The Right Number for Managing I.C.," June 5, p. A4, notes Iowa City's Council is evaluating whether the City needs both a City Manager and Assistant City Manager.
I haven't studied that one and have no opinion. But it's an example of commendably creative thinking by the Council.
All I'm suggesting is that the School Board/Administration (and we) do as much -- rather than refusing to consider alternatives because "this is how we've always done it."
NickIowa wrote: 6/5/2009 9:11:05 AM Reply to Eastsideparent [6/4/2009 9:36, 9:57 a.m.; "We will all lose if boundaries are not redrawn"]:
We basically agree.
You picked up on my "I have nothing to gain (or lose) in terms of what happens to these ideas."
We all have a stake in the quality of our schools -- mechanics who can read manuals, cashiers who know math.
As the old bumper sticker puts it, "If you think education's expensive just wait 'til you start paying for ignorance."
All I meant was that I have no personal stake beyond that in terms of serving on the School Board, having children in school, being in the real estate business, hoping to be hired as a Board consultant (I've never received a dime for my Board service or columns), being concerned about the sale price of my home, etc.
My views may not be sound. They need be evaluated on their merits. But at least they are not driven by a desire for personal benefit beyond that of a citizen in this community -- not that I'm suggesting anyone else's are either.
NickIowa wrote: 6/5/2009 9:50:38 AM Reply to 6/4/2009 sparkymalone 3:53, 5:04, 9:09, 9:19, 9:28 p.m.; and Eastsideparent 4:39, 5:17, 5:22, 10:19 (2), 10:47 p.m.; the impact of boundaries on home values:
As my column urged, "[We must take] into account the desires of . . . developers and realtors." I'm not ignoring home values.
But we're talking about PUBLIC schools.
Disparities in children's abilities are more a matter of SES (class) than race.
But when our free-and-reduced lunch disparities range from something like 12% to 60% we are dangerously close to a constitutional violation (Brown v. Board).
When we deliberately try to create, or maintain, a District with separate and unequal schools, we're not even meeting the Court's "separate but equal" standard in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case.
We all gain from diversity, the overprivileged most of all.
But this is not really about the Constitution and law. It should be about our moral and humanitarian values, and the educational and economic needs of our area.
NickIowa wrote: 6/5/2009 10:10:32 AM More from Nick on home values:
I'm not blessed with either data or sparkymalone's experience in real estate, but my instinct is that redrawing District boundaries could be a win-win for all homeowners, the "rising tide that lifts all boats."
To the extent schools affect home values, and I doubt it's as much as sparky thinks, closing the gaps between schools would (a) reduce the impact of schools on prices (if schools really are equal why limit your choice of homes?), and (b) increase prices and open up more neighborhoods for sale.
Richard Florida says openness to diversity and creativity makes communities more prosperous.
There are many privileged parents who don't want their children sheltered from the experiences and understandings demanded by a globalized economy -- the education they get from kids from other countries and classes.
Private schools are available for those who do.
But public schools have no alternative.
Diversity. "It's not just a good idea, it's the law."
contrarymom wrote: Replying to NickIowa: 6/5/2009 11:03:47 AM Yes. And I'm afraid that Superintendent Plugge's current push for larger, more "efficient" schools will cost us in the long run. If our test scores continue to decline, then we will pay a huge price for that.
Reply to Eastsideparent [6/4/2009 9:36, 9:57 a.m.; As the old bumper sticker puts it, "If you think education's expensive just wait 'til you start paying for ignorance."
contrarymom wrote: 6/5/2009 11:41:13 AM Replying to NickIowa:
Reply to 6/4/2009 sparkymalone 3:53, 5:04, 9:09, 9:19, 9:28 p.m.; and Eastsideparent 4:39, 5:17, 5:22, 10:19 (2), 10:47 p.m.;
But we're talking about PUBLIC schools.
Disparities in children's abilities are more a matter of SES (class) than race.
But when our free-and-reduced lunch disparities range from something like 12% to 60% we are dangerously close to a constitutional violation (Brown v. Board).
When we deliberately try to create, or maintain, a District with separate and unequal schools, we're not even meeting the Court's "separate but equal" standard in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case.
We all gain from diversity, the overprivileged most of all.
But this is not really about the Constitution and law. It should be about our moral and humanitarian values, and the educational and economic needs of our area.
I bet Roosevelt parents would love your legal advice/assistance on the matter!
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 1:35:55 PM Thanks for following up Nick.
Can I convince you to run for school board this fall? :)
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 1:49:41 PM Nick: "Disparities in children's abilities are more a matter of SES (class) than race. We all gain from diversity, the overprivileged most of all."
Nick, I agree with these statements (though not your Plessy & Brown remarks). And I agree that we gain from diversity -- right up to the point where we have to send our kids to class with children who are chronically violent and disruptive, delayed to the point of needing massive (and often ineffectual) interventions, and whose families have abandoned the responsibility of raising them.
And that's why you see liberal parents in this town moving their kids from school to school. It's a great idea, diversity. I love it in my kid's school, which is full of polite, ed-pushing parents. But when it means your child is sitting by watching fights, being attacked, watching the teacher struggle to maintain order, and waiting, waiting, waiting while the teacher helps kids who can barely read...no, I don't think this is a benefit.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 1:55:20 PM "To the extent schools affect home values, and I doubt it's as much as sparky thinks, closing the gaps between schools would (a) reduce the impact of schools on prices (if schools really are equal why limit your choice of homes?), and (b) increase prices and open up more neighborhoods for sale"
If IC were the only place in the universe, yes. However, the effect of weakening all the schools will be a blossoming of high-end suburban developments just outside of town. All that'll happen is that instead of seeing well-off people move to the west side, they'll move to Bluebird Pointe (or whatever). The ones you'll kick in the groin are the ones who do care about the ed, but can't afford to get out; they'll spur the development of more private schools in town, though, and the growth of homeschooling, until we grow a magnet school. The magnet school will collect the bright kids of poor, well-educated parents, plus a few bright poor kids of uneducated parents.
hang on --
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 1:57:56 PM (con't) Which is kind of like we used to be, but because the magnet school will have enrollment limits, we'll see the same fights over entitlement and privilege in brains and parental ed as we now see wrt income.
I'm sure you're familiar with the story from the DC area, Nick. It's not a new one, and it repeats across the country because people have their children's interests in mind.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 2:00:41 PM "But when it means your child is sitting by watching fights, being attacked, watching the teacher struggle to maintain order, and waiting, waiting, waiting while the teacher helps kids who can barely read...no, I don't think this is a benefit."
I think this is a perception that some parents have, but I would like to know if it's a reality. I have had kids in four different east side schools -- two different elementary schools, junior high and high school -- and this is not a reality in our experiences. Sparky Malone seems overly fixated on chronic, brutal violence, and I'm not seeing it. Unless you refer to the incident recently in which a West student was injured on the bus because another student threw something through the window, and the girl got glass in her eyes / went to the hospital. Do you have specifics other than that, Sparky?
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 2:04:57 PM In fact, this "violence" issue came up recently in a discussion in which a helicopter parent was worried about "violence" at SEJH. Another mom piped up and said, "My son has seen exactly one fight -- in the after-school chess club."
I couldn't help but laugh out loud.
Soon the school district will release statistics on police calls made to all the schools. This will be interesting. But again - it is something to take with a grain of salt, knowing that different building administrators use different criteria regarding when they should involve police. Some principals are not reluctant at all; others avoid police involvement for fear of the perception created. These are important and critical caveats to consider. Would you prefer a school where things are swept under the rug so parents aren't upset that police responded to a fight? Or would you (like me) feel safer with kids at a school where police are called in to help restore order?
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 2:17:48 PM Anyway...I'm sorry, Nick, I'm trying to be more positive, but in the end it comes down to housing. We continue to encourage the migration of families of extremely low SES -- the underclass, it used to be called. Families where chronic unemployment, violence, substance abuse, jail, etc. are part of everyday life. You can shuffle that all around, and it's certainly not the kids' fault, but I hear no conversation about how much, as a district, we can absorb. It's a conversation we avoid, and I fear we'll avoid it right into the impoverishment of the city, as well-off families leave for suburbs and good schools.
I do understand the moral issue, too. But this is a small town, and easily overwhelmed by serious social problems from much larger places. So I think this is not essentially a school-boundary question, but a low income housing policy question, given that building more has the effect of bringing more families with significant problems.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 2:22:41 PM Replying to Eastsideparent:
Sparky Malone seems overly fixated on chronic, brutal violence, and I'm not seeing it. Unless you refer to the incident recently in which a West student was injured on the bus because another student threw something through the window, and the girl got glass in her eyes / went to the hospital. Do you have specifics other than that, Sparky?
See other threads on this very site where posters' kids are being attacked. Yes, there are chronic fights at City, and we have kids with problems with violence and behavior down to kindergarten level now. Talk with ICCSD admin about that. You may be familiar with our BD rooms -- "behavioral disorder", I think that stands for -- and the recent meetings held because black community leaders fear the cops get called to SEJH and City too often, leaving fighting kids with records. You may also recall the conversation we had last year about whether the new security cops at West should have guns.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 2:27:32 PM But Sparky, it IS a school boundary issue when the types of people you describe are gerrymandered around Horn and sent to Roosevelt, or gerrymandered around West and sent to City. You keep failing to avoid the gerrymandering of the past and I’m not sure why. Is it because it benefits you personally, and you want the status quo? You seem oblivious to much of the history of this school district and boundary decisions in particular.
Boundaries are also necessary for wise use of resources. It makes no sense to build new schools when slight modifications to existing boundaries may eliminate that need.
Please don’t play softball with Nick and feign interest in morals and character. You post on these blogs with great frequency. Daily, you show nothing but contempt and scorn for people who you consider “problematic” in our society and you show the same attitude toward any – ANY -- efforts to improve the situation.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 2:29:33 PM Replying to Eastsideparent:
Would you prefer a school where things are swept under the rug so parents aren't upset that police responded to a fight? Or would you (like me) feel safer with kids at a school where police are called in to help restore order?
I would prefer a school in an area where healthily repressed, civically-responsible parents teach their children how to behave and how to handle problems without becoming violent. We had this throughout IC until fairly recently.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 2:35:34 PM "See other threads on this very site where posters' kids are being attacked." -- Can you refer me to those, please? Which schools?
"Yes, there are chronic fights at City." -- And are you somehow fooled into believe that is not the case at West?
" and we have kids with problems with violence and behavior down to kindergarten level now." -- Can you provide some factual information on that please? Also - which schools do you refer to?
"And the recent meetings held because black community leaders fear the cops get called to SEJH and City too often, leaving fighting kids with records." --- Interesting – I was recently told by a West high parent that the principal at West gives this very reason for NOT calling the cops – that it will hurt the kids involved and mar their records. Either way, would you prefer that cops NOT be called in these situations for fear of the image? Because I repeatedly hear that this is the case at West.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 2:37:35 PM (cont)
“I would prefer a school in an area where healthily repressed, civically-responsible parents teach their children how to behave and how to handle problems without becoming violent. We had this throughout IC until fairly recently.” --- Indeed -- who wouldn’t?
My kids go to City. I know the cops have been there for fights on occasion. I also know they have been to West for fights – including the very serious recent situation in which a student was injured by glass to the eye. (I cannot think of a single City High fight that resulted in such serious injury.) But as I said earlier, I also hear many people suggest that cops are NOT called to West when, in fact, they should be.
I would appreciate if you could separate your perception from reality, please.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 2:37:39 PM Replying to Eastsideparent:
But Sparky, it IS a school boundary issue when the types of people you describe are gerrymandered around Horn and sent to Roosevelt, or gerrymandered around West and sent to City.>
If we do as Nick proposes, then without housing policy changes, it won't matter; all the schools will struggle as the concentration of very low SES kids rises. And the parents who can will get their kids out. And yes, I'm aware of the history.
Why do I want to protect my daughter's school? Because my first responsibility is to her, not to the unfortunate kids of people who abandoned their responsibilities as parents. Because I'm not rich enough to absorb a $40K blow and make it up from somewhere. Because I can't keep her up late, making up for what the teachers don't have time to get to after maintaining discipline. Because I don't want her sitting by ignored because she's not a problem.
That's why.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 2:39:05 PM We all want to protect our kids' education. You are not unique, nor is your daughter. That's why we are having this discussion. At least we have the same laudable goal.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 2:42:13 PM "If we do as Nick proposes, then without housing policy changes, it won't matter; all the schools will struggle as the concentration of very low SES kids rises."
Not if you spread the wealth or spread the misery -- however you want to view it. If schools are as equitable as possible, all will have (ideally) the same resources and the same struggles. Which is basically the underlying concept of public education. You can say it until you are blue in the face, but you and your daughter are no more entitled than any other parent or child in this entire district.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 3:03:37 PM ESP, you're only making my point. The violence is a growing problem all over, and it's of recent vintage. Unless we get a handle on that -- and by "that" I mean encouraging seriously troubled, extremely poor families to move here without stopping to think about what it'll mean, how we will handle their problems, our ability to do so, and the cost -- the boundaries won't matter. The schools will all be overwhelmed, the professional/high-SES parents will move, and we'll have classic urban school problems as across the country.
If I thought that stirring Pheasant Ridge kids in with Galway kids who've been overprogrammed since before birth actually had a snowball's chance in hell of magically, osmotically helping the former, I'd be for it. We all have a long-term interest in seeing all the kids do well, be smart, etc. However, it doesn't work. The kids self-segregate, socially and academically. Why? Because of what goes on at home.
You cannot fix home with school boundaries.
Eastsideparent wrote: 6/5/2009 3:07:59 PM Thanks for at least admitting that you are clinging to misperception and that the violence with which you are fixated is not just an east side problem.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 6:34:05 PM Replying to Eastsideparent:
You can say it until you are blue in the face, but you and your daughter are no more entitled than any other parent or child in this entire district.
Nowhere did I say we are. But if the City insists on making us attractive to very low SES families from elsewhere, then you can bet I'm going to try to protect my daughter's education in the face of it. I don't agree that we have the duty to step aside and simply cede our schools to severe social problems that our govt invites here -- despite the fact that we don't know how to handle them.
I don't believe that this is a matter of "we are all in this together", you see. The parents of the kids who have these problems are not "in it". Your rhetoric and viewpoint are lovely in a society in which we are indeed all pulling together. But I think you'll find that as the proportion of VLSES families grows, your kind and generous impulse will be overwhelmed by the scale of the problems.
It's not a new story.
sparkymalone wrote: 6/5/2009 6:37:26 PM Replying to Eastsideparent:
"If we do as Nick proposes, then without housing policy changes, it won't matter; all the schools will struggle as the concentration of very low SES kids rises."
Not if you spread the wealth or spread the misery -- however you want to view it.
But it isn't that simple. When you spread the misery, the wealth picks up and moves away from it, taking its tax money and its well-prepared children. The result is that the schools left behind are poorer and more troubled. You can see a vivid demonstration of that in Iowa City right now.
heuchera wrote: 6/5/2009 7:11:31 PM " But when it means your child is sitting by watching fights, being attacked, watching the teacher struggle to maintain order, and waiting, waiting, waiting while the teacher helps kids who can barely read...no, I don't think this is a benefit."
Sparky, what schools are you talking about? Do you have a source for what schools this is occurring/not occurring in. I think you tend to overgeneralize.
Abacus wrote: 6/6/2009 12:59:03 AM I don't think Sparky *knows* what school she's referring to. But I bet it's the one where the toilets are fixed by plumbers who are writing future best-seller novels, bus drivers who are PhDs, janitors who are in the Writer's Workshop, and lunch ladies who are studying for their MCATs.
L M A O.
contrarymom wrote: 6/6/2009 8:49:41 AM Replying to Eastsideparent:
Thanks for at least admitting that you are clinging to misperception and that the violence with which you are fixated is not just an east side problem.
I'm a westside parent. My children are young, so I'm not seeing much violence at their school yet. But I'm seeing the crime and apathy in our neighborhood, and I'm seeing young children who are headed for crime and violence in their adult lives unless we intervene.
ICEastTeacher wrote: 6/6/2009 10:19:14 AM Replying to heuchera:
" But when it means your child is sitting by watching fights, being attacked, watching the teacher struggle to maintain order, and waiting, waiting, waiting while the teacher helps kids who can barely read...no, I don't think this is a benefit."
Sparky, what schools are you talking about? Do you have a source for what schools this is occurring/not occurring in. I think you tend to overgeneralize.
I would like to know these schools too! My children attend an east side SINA school - what you are describing is NOT happening in their school. As a teacher, I can tell you, I get frustrated by the CONCENTRATION of needy children at some schools - it is not their EXISTENCE that is a problem! If there was more equity between the schools, we would be just fine! You are incorrect, if you think "high" readers cannot learn by being peer tutors to their classmates! Please go visit some buildings that you THINK you understand next year!
NickIowa wrote: 6/6/2009 2:45:15 PM Reply of sorts for sparkymalone [6/5/2009 1:49, 1:55, 1:57, 2:37, 3:03, 6:34, 6:37 p.m.]; Eastsideparent [6/5/2009 2:00, 2:04, 2:37, 2:39, 2:42, 3:07 p.m.]; heuchera [6/5/2009 7:11 p.m.,]; and today's [6/6/2009] from Abacus 12:59 a.m.; contrarymom 6/6 8:49 a.m.; and ICEastTeacher 6/6 10:19 a.m.:
(1) Because there is no comment among the 52 so far that addresses the central subject matter of the op ed column, I want to return to that in a moment.
(2) sparkymalone is concerned about the adverse impact of underprivileged children on the education of the advantaged, and the decline in housing prices, should they be integrated more equally into the classrooms. I disagree, believing the benefits outweigh any perceived burdens, citing the benefits to every child's education, local economic development, basic human decency and morality, the constitution and law. Since this is not central to the column, it's probably best we just "agree to disagree," put this one aside, and move on.
NickIowa wrote: 6/6/2009 3:00:17 PM Comment regarding heuchera [6/5/2009 7:11 p.m.,]; and today's [6/6/2009] from Abacus 12:59 a.m.; contrarymom 6/6 8:49 a.m.; ICEastTeacher 6/6 10:19 a.m., and many of Eastsideparent's entries:
(3) Anecdotes and third-hand information are common, and not always inappropriate, in daily conversation. But as the four of you are saying, each in your own way, when it comes to the formulation of significant public policy we need something more. It's called "data."
The two most powerful questions, when formulating public policy or scientific hypotheses and theories (or evaluating what comes from talk show hosts, or any other source of an assertion you care about) are: "What do you mean? And "How do you know?" They need not be uttered in a confrontational way. But they do have a great way of unraveling what Mark Twain once described as our greatest challenge: Not what we don't know, "but what we know that ain't so."
Lest I be misunderstood, I am, of course, as guilty as anyone, try as I may.
(1) Does anyone have improvements to make in the cluster schools idea? It's totally flexible as to the details: principals in schools, the 4th high school, West & City, where boundaries are drawn, allocation of free-reduced-lunch kids. It's not about, and dictates nothing, on those and other issues.
Its purpose is to give Board, administrators and teachers more flexibility than they now have to deliver the highest quality education possible, within the constraints imposed by budget, parents and other political forces.
I believe they are now undesirably, and unnecessarily, restrained by the present boundary drawing SYSTEM (as distinguished from specific boundaries) . By drawing lines around each SCHOOL, and limiting enrollment to that area, there is more disparity in class sizes from school to school than there need be. As intra-boundary population increases, or shifts, some schools become overcrowded, others have empty classrooms. MORE
NickIowa wrote: 6/6/2009 3:28:59 PM Con't from 3:14, above:
What we've been doing in these comments is analogous to an office addressing a worker's proposal that productivity could be improved if only they had a word processing program -- whereupon the discussion goes off on disagreements about, if they had one, where would they set the margins, and never returns to the original proposal.
What I had suggested the District might consider (for which the column itself is the best source) is (a) establishing sub-units ("clusters") of, say, 3 schools each, (b) calculate the total optimum occupancy of all elementary schools combined, and the District's total of K-6 students, and then equalize the percentage occupancy of each school (not equal numbers of students) necessary to accommodate the District's total number of students, (c) assign to each cluster such fraction of that number as to allow for, say, 10 years' growth (or decline) in that area's student population. MORE
ICEastTeacher wrote: 6/6/2009 3:35:44 PM Reply to Nick: I will be the FIRST to admit, that I do not fully understand how cluster schools might work, but I definitely think that the idea is worth exploring. Have you considered sending your ideas out to all district staff? There are probably many people with interesting and innovative suggestions! Thanks for trying to "think outside the box" for us Nick!
NickIowa wrote: 6/6/2009 3:44:31 PM Con't from 3:28, above:
By restricting the numbers in each cluster, there would be some District areas/students outside all clusters who subsequently could be assigned to keep inter-cluster numbers balanced as populations shift over time.
The same principle would apply inside each cluster; that is, each of its three schools would be assigned fewer than its maximum, with the difference being made up with flexible assignments of students inside the cluster, but outside each school's boundary.
The column explains some of the POTENTIAL (not required) benefits this would make possible. Included among those possible options would be the ability to address Eastsideteacher's comment that she is "frustrated by the CONCENTRATION of needy children at some schools - it is not their EXISTENCE that is a problem! If there was more equity between the schools . . .."
What is difficult to impossible with the present boundary SYSTEM could easily be built into a cluster school approach.
