jump to navigation

Nomenclature (by Coral Ruppert) March 27, 2009

Posted by Suzanne Robinson in love, poetry.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

for Scott

The sum of

you

in my mouth

I find impossible.

Your greatness

does not belong

to any word.

 

Now, us

this naming of you and me

that in spite of faith or fear

will evolve or dissolve

without us.

 

Before you, 
the us, 
was me, plus one, 
engaged 
in mere intercourse.

 

Now I find 
this common pronoun

erotic:

 

Us.

 

You tease me

with substitution:
“How about… you and I…”

Confuse me 
with avoidance:
“That would be fun for… two people.”

Deny me
with contractions:
“Let’s go there next time.”

 

I have to ignore my education

which tells me

this rediscovery

in simple pronouns

must be cliche,

too easy to conjure, 

not so different

from “love” or “boyfriend” or even

that common name of yours.

 

Besides, to Google for poems

about the significance of “us”

would turn up millions…

Who has the time,

for such self sabotage?

 

There is little in this world

to be made new again.

Naming begins

contamination–

lets comparison, 

lets regimen,

lets ownership, 

all those evils in. 

 

Let us remove

how we arrived here.

Let us be anonymous.

Let us remain 

this free-form

stream of

consciousness,

me with you,

aimless, and

undefined.

Advertisements

Education Reform: Part II of ??? March 27, 2009

Posted by Suzanne Robinson in Education, Obama, politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

I sat down today (now, as I post,  yesterday) to edit what I intended to be the second of a two part post on education reform.  I needed only, I thought, flesh out a couple of ideas, add a few sentences to tie the sections together, make final edits, and call it a day and a project – one close to my heart – finished.  The first half of part II was to be entitled INNOVATION and would look at new teaching models – or rather a renewal of innovative teaching models of days past.  The first sub-section was to be entitled ‘Social Justice as a Learning Tool.’

I first encountered the Social Justice Teaching Method when I read about a Chicago high school called the Little Village Lawndale High School.  The school consists of four small schools on one campus, one of which is called the Social Justice School.  The Social Justice School teaches students through the lens of the struggle for justice and the hope for peace.  I was drawn to the methodology because it offers a means through which to teach poor and minority students in a way that speaks to their lives, and I thought that, given that the school was built in Chicago during Arne Duncan’s tenure,  it would also provide a lens through which to view his work.

The Social Justice Methodology aims to provide a a place where students can learn the basic and crucial skills that all our schools aim to teach, but in a different way.  For example, teachers teach critical thinking skills through projects centered around race, gender and economic equality – the things that touch these students, 98% of whom are minority students from low income families,  lives everyday.  Advocates tell stories of once alienated students becoming enthusiastic about learning, excited by the opportunity to explore concepts like their own identity, racial stereotypes, how advertising influences societal views about different groups, and what it is that makes a community.  Adam Doster tells this part of this story in his article ‘The Conscious Classroom’ in The Nation.   He tells that this concept of marrying learning to social justice and activism is being adopted by a growing number of educators across the country.  Where other reform efforts have failed, a growing number of educators and reformers say, this methodology, which grows from previous alternative methodologies of the 1960s, is engaging urban students who were previously alienated by mainstream teaching methods.  According to Stan Karp, an English teacher and editor of the Milwaukee-based education reform magazine Rethinking Schools, “Taking kids’ lives as a point of departure and bringing the world into the classroom really does seem to give a context and a purpose that is very motivating.”

While some conservatives denounce the movement as indoctrinating students with left wing ideology, advocates insist that teachers teach the same basic skills taught in mainstream schools, but do so in a way that helps students appreciate the need to learn.  Take math.  How many times have you heard students say that they don’t NEED TO KNOW MATH, that is has no impact on them. And while parents and teachers tell middle-class students that math is important in today’s technology economy, the Social Justice teachers can make clear math’s relevance to their student’s lives and do so in a way that makes the subject interesting.  One example Doster uses to illustrate the increased learning fostered by this method is that, “a math teacher can run probability simulations using real data to understand the dynamics behind income inequality or racial profiling.”  Now that brings the power of math home to students who know these evils all too well.

And the method is spreading.  Since 1992 the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) has run modern freedom schools in cities nationwide, with a model curriculum focused on five components: high-quality academic enrichment; parent and family involvement; civic engagement and social action; intergenerational leadership development; and nutrition, physical and mental health.  More than 64,000 children (and their families) have been taken part in this program in the roughly the last decade.  

Frustrated teachers of poor and minority students across the country are coming together to discuss ways to bring social justice issues to their classrooms, drawing on the works of those who have long studied the problems of urban schools, such as Johnathan Kozol, author of Savage Inequalities and Amazing Grace – books that bring the realities of these schools to life in a way that breaks the heart and frustrates the mind.  Teachers who are terribly frustrated with the reform efforts of the Bush years, which many believe have only heightened the inequalities in public education, feel it is necessary to ‘speak frankly’ with their students about fairness, about justice, about the hope of a peaceful life.  And these students, who see injustice and violence before them every day, appreciate that this new way of learning is relevant to them, that it takes them into account.

It all makes sense to me.  And while there remains a lack of research on the benefits of this methodology because it is so new, studies that have been conducted do show a significant increase in learning in relation to students, particularly low income students, who have not had the benefit of this new way of engaging students in real life learning.  But this methodology, while it is making inroads in several cities, hasn’t yet made its way into mainstream conversations about school reform.  And so I was excited to read about this new school in a poor Latino neighborhood in Chicago.

Then tonight, because I didn’t have a clear view of Secretary Duncan’s thoughts on this new way of teaching some of the students under his charge who need the most help,  I did a bit more research.  And the story, I think, is worth telling.  It is a provocative story that demonstrates well some – but only some – of the challenges we face in education today.

This story began when a group of Latino mothers on the west side of Chicago came together to demand a better school for their children.  Studies illustrate time and again that given school’s educational quality often reflects the socioeconomic makeup of its district.  That unfortunate circumstance is the catalyst for this story.  Educators call for parents’ involvement in their children’s education.  This is a story of dedicated involvement.  It is also a story of racial and socio-economic discrimination – on the part not just of the powerful, but of some of the folks in every faction involved in this saga.  It is a story of a continuing struggle, an intransigent bureaucracy, an allegedly racist CEO on his way out, a story of hope even in the face of overwhelming resistance, of vision, and of a new CEO who gets the school opened.  It is a story of strong advocates, poor administration and a dishonest principal with good intentions, of symbolism and determination and belonging and not belonging and gang violence and hope and despair.  And this story all takes place before the school at the story’s center graduates its first class of students.  The school remains a place of hope, as it should, and – as much as anything – it demonstrates well the vast difference between a theoretical vision and real life implementation because, like life, it is nothing if not messy.

In 1998, parents in the Little Village neighborhood on the west side of Chicago – mostly first generation Mexican immigrants who live in the most densely populated part of the city –  came together and petitioned the local government to build a school in their neighborhood because their big city high school was overcrowded, underperforming, rife with gang violence and the accompanying metal detectors and police, a drop-out rate of nearly 40%, and students, perhaps the lucky ones, being bused all over the city.  And these parents didn’t just want any old school, rather they wanted a school that taught the students about about the struggle for justice so relevant to their lives (including the struggle that the parents had to undertake to get the school built).  The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) agreed to build the Little Village Lawndale High School.  But the school did not come into existence easily.  CPS promised to begin work on three new schools, two  ‘selective enrollment’ magnet schools in the more affluent north side of the city and the Little Village school.  Work began on the two North side schools, but CPS did not begin work on the school promised to this neighborhood, rather district representatives told the parents, when they went back to ask why their school wasn’t being built though the others had been,  that there was no longer any money to build their school.  Rather than take any responsibility, CPS advised the advocates to lobby their state legislators.

The parents didn’t give up.  After two years of struggle and broken promises, a group of community organizers, parents, grandparents, teachers and students went on a 19 day hunger strike to force the issue.  They set up a tent city, which they referred to as ‘Camp Chavez,’ on the school site and waited for Paul Vallas, then the CEO of the CPS to take them seriously. According to Jaime de Leon, one of the hunger strike organizers, when the strike began, Vallas refused to come to the site or acknowledge the strikers.  In fact, he allegedly said that he did not want to come to Little Village ‘to meet with a few women who are refusing to eat.’  But the media began telling the story and, within a few days more than 500 people were living at Camp Chavez.  CEO Vallas buckled under the scrutiny and pressure and, on the sixth day of the strike, he made a visit, but he did not commit to building the school.  The strike ended out of concerns for the strikers’s health.  Just a few months later, in August 2001, CEO Vallas resigned, Mayor Daly appointed Arne Duncan to fill the post, and Duncan pledged to fulfill CPS’s promise to build the school.  According to an article written to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education on Education Week‘s website, Duncan says he would have made sure Little Village got a new high school even if there hadn’t been a hunger strike.  “It was the right thing to do,” Duncan said. “It’s a community with a growing population. I saw tremendous need.”  Duncan said, too though, that prevalent view in Little Village that the school system has discriminated against Latinos is wrong. Rather, he said, “the district constantly faces the challenge of providing new schools in areas of the city where there is overcrowding, and “that is frequently in the Latino community.”  But this doesn’t explain the building, without need for community action, of the two schools built in more affluent areas while the Latino community was shut out.  Still, he lived up to his promise and the Little Village school was built at a cost of $61 million, more than has been spent to build any other school in Chicago’s history.  The school was so expensive to build because it houses more than just a high school.  The campus is open at nights and on the weekends and offers many resources for the community, such as a health clinic, an adult education program, and a distance learning facility.  And the cost was not born solely by Chicago tax payers.  La Raza and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed generously to its construction.

As David Stovall, Assistant Professor of Policy Studies in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a member of the design team for Little Village,  writes in an article on the ‘Rethinking Schools’ website, CPS under Duncan’s leadership included parents in the planning process (though they, of course, fought hard for this inclusion every step of the way).  The result of their collaboration is one campus containing four distinct schools, with each school operating autonomously, while sharing after-school programs and other services vital to their community.  There is a school of math, science, and technology;  a visual and performing arts school; a world languages school; and the social justice school. 

But, at the time the school was being planned and built, the then CEO of the Chicago Schools had instituted what he termed ‘Chicago High School Redesign Initiative (CHSRI) guidelines, which required that all proposals from the community go through another ‘bureaucratic maze,’ the Transitional Advisory Council (TAC), which, in turn, would make recommendations to CPS.  Matters were made more complicated, he notes, as CHSRI (the redesign initiative) was incorporated into a new Renaissance 2010 Project, a project implemented by Arne Duncan that aims to close 60 Chicago public schools and reopen them as 100 new ‘performance schools,’ which are public charter schools, though many will be privately operated and will lack union representation.  As Stovall, who has been involved in the school project from the beginning, explains it,  

“Performance schools are managed and funded by the district under a five-year ‘performance agreement’ that provides ‘greater autonomy’ in exchange for meeting certain performance targets like test scores.  Under Renaissance 2010, ‘performance schools’ are funded under a different formula than the CHSRI small schools, resulting in a significant decrease in funding for programming and institutional support.”

 Pauline Lipman, Professor of Policy Studies in the College of Education, University of Illinois-Chicago, asserts that the goal of Ren10 is to “reshape the educational geography of Chicago by aiding the gentrification of particular neighborhoods and, in effect, increasing educational inequality.”  And many in Chicago agree.  The community insisted that theirs was not a Ren 10 school, that its genesis preceded the implementation of Ren10, and that their school grew out of community efforts.  CPS resisted.  The parents fought back.  Finally, concerned about the demands and funding cuts as well as a fear of gentrification, the advocates requested a meeting with the new Chicago Schools CEO, Arne Duncan.  Stovall reports that Duncan told them they were ‘misinformed about Renaissance 2010’s relationship to gentrification.’  Displeased with the meeting’s outcome, the Little Village community organized public hearings to express their concerns.  In the face of strong community opposition to their status as a Ren 10 school, CPS reinstated the Little Village school’s status as a ‘neighborhood small school,’ but the school is still listed on the CPS website and in its ‘new schools development directory’ as a Ren 10 project. 

Stovall maintains that under Duncan’s leadership, CPS continued to say one thing while doing another and, in 2005 – the year the school opened its doors, he wrote the battle on the ground is far from over. “This struggle, he said, to maintain our vision for a neighborhood school demonstrates the importance of using community action to hold school authorities accountable in the battle for quality, inclusive education.”  

Because CPS required that the school be at least 30% African American, black students from the neighboring North Lawndale neighborhood joined their Latino neighbors in the school.  Stovall argues that this inclusion will serve a catalyst for much needed cultural, ethnic and racial collaboration, but there is a darker side to the story.  Though 30% of the students come from the predominately African American North Lawndale neighborhood and the school is officially called Little Village Lawndale High School, the sign in front of the school reads simply Little Village High School, and admission controversies have changed the school’s meaning for residents of both communities.   “To those who are denied access, the impressive spire and $61 million campus represent what their children are not able to receive,” writes  Joanie Friedman in her informative essay Contested Space:  The Struggle for the Little Village Lawndale High School, which appears on the website Area Chicago: Art/Research/Education/Research, and was originally published in the summer 2007 issue of Critical Planning, the UCLA Journal of Urban Planning.  Where racial collaboration was the goal, the scarcity of educational resources has driven, instead, more racial tension.  But the goal remains, as students from the two communities come together in their new school.  

So how are things going at Little Village Lawndale High School?  Surprisingly, this information is the hardest to find.  The city’s Office of New Schools holds the school out as a shining example of success.  Student attendance and achievement are up, but I am having a hard time finding numbers.  The Social Justice School recently won an award for its work in developing a strong sense of  ‘civic engagement’  in its students, topping all the other schools in the city.  And, it seems to offer a good amount of transparency, with a website that even includes the day’s assigned homework.  

Unfortunately it has not escaped the problem of gang violence that is too prevalent in Chicago’s schools, particularly in the Lawndale community.  The new year brings bad news of more gang violence, which in February required that the police be brought in, the school be shut down for a week, after school activities cancelled, and talks will soon be underway about heightened security on campus.   There is good news, here, too, though.  The students at the Social Justice School hosted a forum attended by nearly 500 Chicago students, mostly African American students, on how to decrease gang violence in their neighborhoods.  There were few adults in attendance, and their leadership is impressive, suggesting that the Social Justice school really is training leaders.  The decision to have four separate administrations and four separate principles, though, leaves four different approaches to student discipline, which, as the recent outbursts make clear, must be addressed.  

The worst news comes from the adults in the school.  There is already too little continuity, though I have yet to find how teacher turn-over rates there compare with other schools city wide.  The principal of the Math and Science school is leaving at the end of the year to join Secretary Duncan in Washington. And Rito Martinez, the principal of  The Social Justice School is being fired because he lives outside the district, which the Inspector General’s office evidently discovered by hiring a private detective to follow him for three months (he claimed to live in the Little Village neighborhood).   

I am struggling at the moment with websites that I can’t get to load, and am frustrated because this is critical information that I want to know and to share. The CPS website offers little information about any of its schools, and I am experiencing problems with the State Department of Education’s website.   I will keep at it today and update this post this information as I find it.  It looks, though, as if the students are doing well.  

This story and others I’ve read about about Chicago schools under his leadership, leave me with a mixed opinion of Secretary Duncan.  He did uphold the school district’s promise to the Little Village community.  And he does talk of supporting social justice in learning.  But talk is just talk, and it is also clear that he favors a corporate model of schooling, preferring, among other things, private charter schools free from teacher’s unions.  He argues, first, that the role of schools is to provide employees for America’s corporations, and works hard to bring corporate methodologies into our schools.  This is at odds with my vision of excellent education that brings, in addition to business skills, a breadth of knowledge to its students and an informed citizenry to the public arena.  And I am confused by the president’s choice to surround himself with so many corporate types.  It wasn’t so long ago that, in the story I’ve tried to tell here, he would have played the role of the community organizer, fighting for the right of parents to have a school that embraced their values.  Arne Duncan is not that man and, I think, does not fully share that man’s vision.  And I question how much of what President Obama cites as Duncan success stories are really stories of success.  For example, while President Obama cites as one example of Duncan’s stellar leadership the declining drop-out rates that occurred every year Duncan ran Chicago’s schools, he does not indicate whether graduation rates rose correspondingly.  My fear is that they did not.  Many criticize Duncan for simply kicking ‘difficult’ students out of the schools,  leaving them no opportunity to quit on their own.  In a scathing article on the Truth Out website, Kenneth Saltman, Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Research at DePaul University in Chicago and author, most recently, of “Capitalizing on Disaster: Taking and Breaking Public Schools,”  who is certainly not alone in his criticism, writes that,

“Under Duncan, Chicago took the lead in creating public schools run as military academies, vastly expanded draconian student expulsions, instituted sweeping surveillance practices, (and) advocated a growing police presence in the schools….  A recent report, “Education on Lockdown,” claimed that partly under Duncan’s leadership “Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has become infamous for its harsh zero tolerance policies. Although there is no verified positive impact on safety, these policies have resulted in tens of thousands of student suspensions and an exorbitant number of expulsions.”

I have so much hope for our president that it colors my vision.  Had President Bush appointed Secretary Duncan, I have no doubts that I would have quickly ripped him to shreds for abandoning our children, gotten a good night’s rest, posted my blog on time and be out shopping for a new bicycle right now. Yet, time and again I find myself searching for ways President Obama the benefit of the doubt.  The choice of Duncan is another that I do not like, yet I find myself restrained in my criticism, actively searching for indications that he will do well by our children.  President Obama is a deliberative man who does not speak in particulars until he is sure of what he wants to say.  He is undoubtedly familiar with the criticisms voiced by many Chicago residents who disdain Arne Duncan as a neoliberal reformer who will destroy our public schools as he moves toward the privitization and corporitization of schools.  Yet he chose Duncan to lead the nation’s schools.  The choice, like others he has made, leave me feeling confused and saddened.  I never thought for a moment, that as president,  Barack Obama would adopt an ultra-progressive stance.  He cannot.  He is restrained as the leader of all Americans.  But neither did I think he would embrace a capitalist model of education.  I am deeply disappointed and skeptical as I write today.  But I will be back next week, looking at other issues that we face in our efforts to improve education and educational opportunity.  And I will have looked more closely at some of the criticisms about Secretary Duncan as well at the writings of some who praise his efforts.  I hope that I have some good news to report.

Restraining Your Inner Fourth Grader! (by Elizabeth Burke) March 19, 2009

Posted by Suzanne Robinson in politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6 comments

I am a grown woman, but I have to admit that as soon as I read an article last week on Politico.com about the website,  ImSorryRush.com,  I could not on it click fast enough. It was as if my inner Fourth Grader was busting to get out and poke fun of the perceived “loser” in the class. The website is set up like the old Mad Lib game where you fill in a silly word or phrase for each Mad Lib indicated – and the topic is the recent rush (pardon the pun) of Republicans apologizing to Limbaugh for negative comments made about him in other arenas.  Now you too can crawl on your knees to the Altar of Rush.  

It seems that in the past few weeks, the most astonishing thing has been happening. The otherwise calm, cool and collected GOP seems to be eating themselves alive. First there is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s disastrous response to President Obama’s speech and the collective impulse to shove him under the bus. Then there is the daily iteration from the far Right in the visage of Rush Limbaugh, repeating his desire to see this Administration fail; the multiple verbal Michael Steele gaffes; Senator David Vitter (R-LA) (of the caught-with-a-prostitute fame) once again caught acting out, this time at an airport berating the airline staff for not letting him thru a security door to board a plane about to take off. Up North, the continuing morality play of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston just went pfft and turned into a trash-talking “he-said-she-said” cat fight straight out of People magazine! 

And of course, drug-addicted, obese, thrice-divorced, arrested-for-prescription-drug-fraud, currently-living-in-sin, malcontent conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, (yes 2 mentions!) being anointed the titular head of the Republican Party. There is more, but I think you get my point.

Common sense says that the Democrats should Leave Well Enough Alone. We have the White House, most of Congress and sadly soon, one more seat on the Supreme Court. We should be gracious and thoughtful.  We should QUIETLY – with focus – take the high road.

Quite frankly, the GOP is doing an excellent job of self-immolation. All the Dems need to do is pull up a log and toast some marshmallows over their fire. The latest attempts by the Left, to smugly point fingers and laugh through cupped palms at the auto-cannibalism of the GOP, needs to be stopped. It reeks of pettiness and bad sportsmanship and undermines the actual progress the Democrats have made in uniting the country in a time of economic crisis. 

But as a barely restrained Fourth Grader at heart, I know how easy it is to poke fun at the weak!  Let’s take the case of the brand new Chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele. Just one day after he publicly decried Rush as ‘incendiary” and “ugly” he had to get on his knees and grovel for the big guy’s forgiveness.  He then made, what I believe to be truthful, comments on his belief in a women’s right to choose, and his assertion that homosexuality is how one is born and not a choice (comparing it to being born Black, imagine that!) And before you can say “Please Rush don’t hurt me” Steele is backpedaling so fast, I got whiplash just reading about it! In just over 2 months, the GOP knives are sharpened and there is already infighting about his possible impeachment. Impeachment!! Even Conservative David Frum said he was sickened by the attacks on Michael Steele for saying abortion was an ‘individual’ choice. The Right eating the Right is wrong.

Indeed, there are rumblings within the GOP to have Wisconsin’s Norm Coleman replace Steele. But, well, it seems Coleman is currently under FBI investigation. Word leaked only a few months ago that the FBI was looking into allegations that the former Senator’s family received $75,000 in secret payments from a longtime friend and benefactor. Those payments went unreported on Coleman’s financial disclosure form, leading some congressional ethicist to draw parallels to the corruption case that ultimately took down former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. Oh for God’s sake.

Now for an example of a GOP rising star totally missing the point, let’s talk about Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC.) Just last week in response to a comment by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Sanford warned that the recently-signed stimulus bill could spur a Zimbabwe-style economic collapse:

“What you’re doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don’t have, send it to different states – we’ll create jobs… If that’s the case why isn’t Zimbabwe a rich place?”…”why isn’t Zimbabwe just an incredibly prosperous place?” 

Sanford has said that he will reject a portion of the stimulus money that would expand unemployment benefits, which now hovers at about 10.4% in SC. He has also promised to turn down $700 million meant in large part for education programs if he is not granted a waiver to instead use the money to pay down his state’s debts. If your house is burning, do you take the buckets of water, put them aside and save them in case this happens again, or do you take the water and PUT THE DAMN FIRE OUT?! 

A conservative South Carolina newspaper, The State, penned an editorial on Sunday blasting, (ripping to shreds) Gov. Mark Sanford for his political grandstanding. The best part? Republicans in the South Carolina State Senate are currently laying the groundwork to accept the stimulus funds Gov. Mark Sanford is promising to reject. Defying their own on their own! “Without the stimulus funds, teachers would lose jobs, prisons would be closed, and inmates released early,” Dan Cooper, a Republican state representative, told the Associated Press. 

Even totally inconsequential Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) went to the Altar to seek His forgiveness for daring to criticize His Holy Loud Mouthed One. All he said was this: “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party.”  Of course within days he was tripping over himself to say “As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so-called ‘stimulus.’ And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh.”  So sad. I assume his constituency all have jobs, homes, health care and didn’t need any of that money.

And of course, amidst all the outrage (!) this week focused at the AIG psychopaths, a pitchfork wielding Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) suggested that these hookers-without-a-heart-of-gold commit suicide in the honorable old tradition of Japanese Hari Kari. Of course barely minutes later, scrambling to explain his comments, he inadvertently had a verbal malfunction “From my standpoint, it’s irresponsible for corporations to give bonuses at this time when they’re sucking the tit of the taxpayer,” Grassley explained.  Look, when they make it this easy, what’s a girl to do?

That said, as a self-described Lefty McLiberal, lover of all things green, pursuer of clean energy, hugger of those less fortunate and crier at State sponsored torture, I find it embarrassing that there are some in the White House that are actively working to tie the GOP to Limbaugh and his ilk.

What works in a guest blog post does not necessarily fly as party policy. 

Formalizing these behind-the-hand whisperings and deep-in-the-tubal-interweb musings is really adolescent and amateurish, a “distraction” as the President was so fond of saying in the days of his campaign, when he spoke of a new kind of politics that would transcend partisan pettiness.  And while it appeals to everyone’s inner 4th grader, I’m still an idealist who believes that Obama’s promise to be better than this is something we all can and must strive towards.

I don’t believe the Democratic National Committee should be spending one dime to hold a contest to find a new theme in their ongoing campaign to portray Rush Limbaugh as the true leader of the Republican Party. The slogan, “Americans didn’t vote for a Rush to failure,” will be splashed across a billboard in Limbaugh’s hometown of West Palm Beach, Florida, and printed on T-shirts, a Democratic National Committee official told CNN. My Fourth Grade self inwardly laughed and clapped her hands with glee while my rational adult side sighed deeply and shook her head. 

It’s easy to attack the GOP while is at it’s weakest in over 40 years, as they struggle to fight its way out of political inconsequence, searching for a message that doesn’t encompass the ugliness that we have seen through festering mouthpieces like Ann Coulter, Hannity, Rush and the entire Fox news channel.  

 

It makes for a stronger statement for us, the Democratic, to show restraint. Both parties have made huge errors recently, most notably taking out the legislation requiring Executive pay limits from the stimulus bill.  

This image of high ranking Dems hunched over, rubbing their hands in glee, jumping on the bash-wagon like rats jumping on a well-stocked-ship needs to stop. We need to let the Republicans find their own way, make their own mistakes, fall all over themselves trying to out-conservative each other, threaten each other, and destroy their party all by themselves.

These are scary and uncertain times for the rest of us. I want a rational hand steering the ship, and we have that, and the crew better stop acting like 4th Graders and focus on getting the country back on it’s feet or they will be out on their asses in less than 4 years, with little left to crow about.

President Obama Calls For Education Reform, Part I March 19, 2009

Posted by Suzanne Robinson in Education, politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

President Obama this week announced his plans for education reform, which many in the MSM hailed as courageous, as calling for sweeping change….  Wait a minute.  I think I missed something.  While he called for some reform, like lengthening the school day and/or the school year (but maybe only for those students who ‘need’ it) and doing more to support early childhood education (for which I applaud him) his message fell well short of a transformative vision.  He wants to hold teachers accountable, link pay to performance (as measured by student testing), close failing schools, and promote charter schools.  All of this sounds like President Bush were still in office.  

He wants the ‘best and brightest’ teachers, yet he did not call for paying teachers as though they are professionals.  Average teachers’ salaries range from the mid $20s to the upper $40s, depending on regional differences in the cost of living.  That is not the pay that will attract the ‘best and brightest.’ That’s not to say that many of our teachers are not the best and brightest, but the best and brightest who choose to teach in the public school system must also be something more.  They must be strongly dedicated to giving back to their community.  The best and brightest can find their first jobs, straight out of college, that pay beyond the median American income, in the mid $50s (and even more in expensive parts of the country).  And those with advanced degrees, as many of the best and brightest teachers have, can find jobs that pay far more (or at least they could before this economic crisis was brought upon us).  In addition to the low salaries teachers receive, they are under-appreciated, and are too often blamed for every failure in education, though so many problems in our educational system are far beyond their control.  

Teachers are expected to teach classes of 25 – 30+ students, even though, as I will flesh out in more detail below, most researchers believe that providing classrooms with 20 or fewer students is the single most important reform we can make to enhance learning.  Yet President Obama uttered not one word about decreasing classroom sizes.  

The best teachers are filled with innovative ideas, but are strapped by the testing requirements of No Child Left Behind, which should be scrapped, but which he will keep.  To his credit, he did say that he wants to replace NCLB’s rigid multiple choice exams with tests that measure real learning – analytical ability, problem solving and the like.  While this will be a vast improvement, it alone is not enough.  Children must be provided with the resources they need to learn in order to score well on any test.  And too many of them aren’t.  

President Obama was elected on a platform of change, and he claims a strong commitment to education, but he failed to provide a transformative agenda about which progressive educators and advocates of reform can get excited.  

President Obama Announces Secretary of Education Pick, Arne Duncan

President Obama selected Arne Duncan as his Secretary of Education, a controversial choice.  Hailing his great success in Chicago, the president said,

“For Arne, school reform isn’t just a theory in a book – it’s the cause of his life. And the results aren’t just about test scores or statistics, but about whether our children are developing the skills they need to compete with any worker in the world for any job…. In just seven years, he’s boosted elementary test scores here in Chicago from 38 percent of students meeting the standards to 67 percent. The dropout rate has gone down every year he’s been in charge…. He’s worked tirelessly to improve teacher quality, increasing the number of master teachers who’ve completed a rigorous national certification process from 11 to just shy of 1,200, and rewarding school leaders and teachers for gains in student achievement. He’s championed good charter schools – even when it was controversial. He’s shut down failing schools and replaced their entire staffs – even when it was unpopular. 

And Duncan said, in accepting the post, 

“Whether it’s fighting poverty, strengthening the economy or promoting opportunity, education is the common thread. It is the civil rights issue of our generation and it is the one sure path to a more equal, fair and just society. 

But neither the president nor the education secretary addressed the vast inequalities that exist in our educational system.

Duncan, of course, has his fans and his critics.  Rod Paigs, President Bush’s Education Secretary, whose Texas reforms were the model for the hated NCLB,  called him a “budding hero in the education business.”  Is public education a business?  I suppose it makes sense, then, that Duncan was the ‘Chief Executive Officer’ of the Chicago public school system.  

But others, like Chicago education activist Michael Klonsky think that under Duncan we will see “more standardized testing, closing neighborhood schools, militarization, and the privatization of school management.”  

On the other hand, according to MSNBC’s report, Obama Education Pick Sparks Conflict, some teacher’s unions like him, saying he is willing to reach out to teachers in collaboration.

So, the jury is out.  President Obama did credit him with providing teacher training and certification on a grand scale, and he has lowered the drop out rate in Chicago schools, but I wish I’d heard more about his ideas for decreasing class sizes and ‘advancing educational opportunities in economically disadvantaged areas.’  I am skeptical, and I will keep a close watch, but for now I will try to be hopeful.

Class Size Matters.  As I mentioned above, most researchers agree that class size is an important factor in education.  Studies show that, while small reductions in class size have little effect,  students benefit substantially when class sizes are cut to around 20 students per classroom, particularly in the early grades, but also in grades 8-12.   Yet NCLB removed funding for cutting the size of classrooms. 

A consensus of research indicates that for K-3 education, class size reduction to a point somewhere between 15 and 20 students leads to higher student achievement that many believe lasts throughout the child’s education.  The Public School Parent’s Network, a resource and information website for parents, reports that the research data from The US Dept of Education’s publication Reducing Class Size, What Do We Know?,  indicate that if class size is reduced from substantially more than 20 students to below 20 students, the average student moves from the 50th percentile to above the 60th percentile.  And, for disadvantaged and minority students the effects are even larger.

A study commissioned by the US Department of Education analyzed the achievement levels of students in 2,561 schools, as measured by their performance on the national NAEP exams.  The sample included at least 50 schools in each state, including large and small, urban and rural, affluent and poor areas.  After controlling for student background, the only objective factor found to be correlated with higher student success as measured by test scores was class size. (Class Size Matters.org)  

A study from the Public Policy Institute of California shows significant improvements in test scores for all groups of students in smaller classes (with no changes in curriculum or instruction).  In California’s six largest school districts (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and Fresno), class size reduction substantially raised the proportion of students  who exceeded the national median, after controlling for all other factors.  

                                                    Math        Reading        Language    

Los Angeles                            13.9%            9.5%            14.5%

Next 5 Largest Districts        10.5%           8.4%

LA High Needs Students        27%             19%               28%

100% Black Population         14.7%          18.4%

 

Also note that:

(1) This study looked only at 3rd graders who spent just one year in a smaller class;

(2) Gains improved the longer students remained in small classrooms;

(3) Even larger gains were found in schools with a higher percentage of poor students; and

(4) Studies show that parents are more involved in schools where their children are in small classrooms.

(Relationships Between Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement, Research Brief, Public Policy Institute of California)

These findings are consistent across states.  Studies from Tennessee, Wisconsin, and elsewhere show that students in smaller classes from grades K-3 do better in every way that can be measured: they score higher on tests, receive better grades, and improve their attendance.  And, again, students who need the most help show the most improvement.   Indeed, Alan Krueger of Princeton estimates that reducing class size in early grades shrinks the achievement gap by about 38%.

Class size reduction changes many features of the classroom which lead to higher student achievement.  Perhaps most importantly, the teacher has more time to give each student individualized attention, allowing the teacher to know each of their students better, to know how they learn, and to keep track of how each student is progressing.  As such, the teacher can intervene more rapidly and effectively to help  each student.  Furthermore, the research shows that students develop better relationships with their teacher and classmates in small class settings.  We all know that learning is enhanced by classroom participation, and in smaller classes, each student has more time to – and is more likely to – speak while others listen.  There are also fewer students to distract each other, and researchers report fewer disciplinary problems.  These findings are significant and should be a part of meaningful school reform. 

In 2007, the average class size in California (not including independent study and other self-contained courses) was 20 students in K-3 and 28 in grades 4-12.  Class sizes in Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and many others were similar in 2006 and 2007, especially in grades 4-12, while K-3 classes were generally somewhat larger. Georgia law allows for 32 – 35 students in grades 9-12, depending on the subject matter.  

So it is unfortunate that in February, the NY Education Department issued a report that found the average number of children per class increased in nearly every grade this school year.  And now comes new that, in New York and California at least, there will soon be even more students in each classroom due to state budget gaps.  In one California district, budget shortfalls have already increased the size of kindergarten classes to 33 students per teacher.   Unless class size is made a priority and funded as such, given today’s state of affairs, the outlook here is bleak and the impact on student achievement is too great.  

 

School Financing Matters.  President Obama did not address the widespread disparity in spending among school districts and states.  Underprivileged children often attend the worst school, though they are generally the students who need the most help.

The US Department of Education reports that current expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools will be about $519 billion for the 2008-09 school year. According to the its website, he national average current expenditure per student is around $10,418, but this provides little information.  Rather, they simply tally up spending, divide it by the number of students, and voila, there you have average spending.  But this information is close to useless because we know that is not the way spending occurs.  We do not spend the same amount to educate every child.  Rather, as I outline below, there remain vast differences in spending.  The information they provide does not even tell us the mean or the median.  It doesn’t tell us how much is spent on instruction, how much on administration (we know some districts have bloated administrations, wasting taxpayer money).  It does not tell how much disparity there is among school districts.  Over the past couple of decades, many states have made gains in funding schools more equitably, but sizeable differences remain.  Yet it is difficult to find data that will allow us to be informed consumers of education.  To take an example for their reporting on class sizes, the US Department of Education website tells us that classes are much smaller than reported by the Departments of Educations in the individual states.  This lack of transparency is inexcusable, and often the information they do provide is misleading.

It is difficult to ascertain how funding is apportioned among school districts across the nation.  The data provided by the Department of Education is too broad to be useful, other available data is too old to be useful and, where financing per district is available, it is not coupled with the average income per district, leaving one only to speculate how money is apportioned among wealthy, middle class, and low income communities.  For example, according to South Carolina’s General Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2008-2009South Carolina spends an average of  $11,480 per student, but spending among districts ranges from $8,659 to $18,081.  

And according to SF Gate, the San Francisco Chronicle’s websitein 2006 funding per pupil in California schools ranged from $4,806 to 34,279.  These are vast differences that must be addressed if we are to make a commitment to all our children.  Yet neither President Obama nor Education Secretary Duncan spoke to this issue.

New York spends the most money per pupil of all the states except Alaska, but we know that many inner-city schools have crumbling infrastructure and lack basic resources.  

The Washington Post reports that while the number most widely stated as per pupil spending in the Washington D.C. is $8,322, total spending is actually closer to  $25,000, about the same as the cost of an education at Sidwell Friends, where the Obama children attend school.  It asks, then, “So why force most D.C. children into often dilapidated and underperforming public schools when we could easily offer them a choice of private schools?”  My question is, if D.C. public school districts receive equal funding as some of the most expensive private schools, why do they have dilapidated school buildings?  Where does the money go?  We know that teachers at prestigious private schools earn more than their colleagues in the public sector, that private schools offer a broader cirriculum, including art programs and physical education that have been cut at many public schools, and have more resources for the students, such as science labs and computers, so this data is hard to reconcile.  

But it gets more complicated.  The Census Bureau reports that per public spending for D.C. students is $13,446, but adds that funding per pupil from local sources is $16,195 (it adds this information to clarify that local funding is high relative to other school districts across the nation because other districts, unlike those in D.C. also receive state funding).  Add to this that D.C. schools also receive about $81 million in federal funds, and the picture is pure confusion.  How much does Washington D.C. spend per pupil?  I can’t say with any certainty.  But it is clear that transparency in public school funding and expenditures is necessary if parents are to make informed choices about where to send their children.

Making matters worse, as some states were just beginning to make gains in a more equitable distribution of funding, school budgets are now being slashed as a result of our present economy.  While, as many argue, ‘throwing money at the problem’ isn’t the entire solution, all schools must be sufficiently funded to provide the basic necessities for learning.  It is a disgrace that some students do not have text books, that some go to school in unsafe buildings, that many do not have adequate facilities to learn science.  President Obama must call for equitable funding for our public schools or we will continue to leave far too many students with enormous potential behind, depriving them of the promise of opportunity and us of the benefit of their knowledge, both as citizens and as participants in our economy.

Conclusion, Part I.  Linda Darling-Hammond, a former teacher, expert on teacher quality and professor of education at Stanford and an Obama advisor writes in  The Nation   that the US should adopt some of the practices that higher-achieving countries have been using over the past twenty years “as they have left us further and further behind educationally.”  She reports that the US ranks twenty-eighth of forty countries in mathematics and graduates only about 75% of students, though other top performing countries graduate more than 95% of their students.  She tells us that most high-achieving countries fund their schools centrally and equally, then provide additional funds to the neediest schools.  They also have  better-prepared teachers whom they pay competitive salaries and provide with high-quality teacher education, mentoring and ongoing professional development. These are exactly the reforms we need if we are to recruit and keep the best and brightest teachers.  President Obama should heed her advice if we are to build and maintain an educational system that provides a world-class education for our students, all our students, even the disadvantaged who we too easily leave behind.

Education Reform, Part II.  In the second part of this piece, next week, I will discuss many other issues surrounding education, including student testing, merit pay, charter schools, innovative teaching methods, single-sex classrooms, and the US Supreme Court’s ruling on what right to education is guaranteed us by the education and the importance of that ruling’s being reexamined in light of the requirements of today’s world.  I hope it will shed even more light on what is going on in our classrooms, including the vastly different approaches some pioneers in teaching are taking.

Is The Gun Lobby Stronger Than American Democracy? March 6, 2009

Posted by Suzanne Robinson in politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

The Constitution of the United States, in Article I, Section 2 states, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states…. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union.” In the country’s early days, there were several states, and each state’s male citizens of some means were permitted to vote, and there were territories – not yet states, to whom the right to vote was not extended. And today we still have territories, Peurto Rico and Guam. They, like D.C. residents are entitled to an at-large member in the House, but that member cannot vote. The difference is that D.C. is neither a state nor a territory, and while residents of Puerto Rico and Guam are not subjected to Federal Taxes, D.C. residents pay all U.S. Federal Taxes, which in 2007 totaled $20.4 billion, the highest per capita taxes in the country. So, while the Constitution does limit the right to vote to state residents, it also requires that only those with representation pay taxes to the Federal Government. Thus, D.C.’s unofficial motto, ‘taxation without representation,’ a concept that, at the time, was held to be of the utmost importance. Remember the Boston Tea Party? The Stamp Act of 1765? American Colonialists rebelled because the British Government sought, in violation of it’s Constitution to tax them without the tax being approved by their legislators, which was not possible as they had no representation in Parliament. This denial of the the franchise was an important factor leading to the American Revolution and to the founding of our nation.

The withholdnig of the franchise has long reflected a hesitancy on the part of those in power to expand democracy’s reach – our founding fathers denied the right to vote to white mean without means, to women, to Native Americans, to African Americans. Our government has long denied an entire city the right of self rule of any form, rather subjecting them to the rule of a Congress in which they had no representation whatsoever. Some vision of restoring to D.C. residents their right to vote in federal elections was evidenced in 1801 when the Federal Government formally took land from VA and MD to form the Dictrict of Columbia, for they allowed residents of the newly formed Capitol to continue to vote in their former states for 11 years. This course of action suggests that it was a stop gap measure until some other solution that would reinstate these citizens’ voting rights. Proposals were made, though many failed, to give VA and MD back their land, and D.C. residents have protested their loss of representation ever since, though the government did, in the mid 1840s, return much of the land previously belonging to VA amidst concerns over the slave trade in the Capitol, thus restoring the voting rights of those who lived in this part of the District. Over time, as the city’s residents lobbied for the vote, while the overall population hovered around 150,000 residents, the African American population grew such that, by the 1860s, free blacks made up 88% of D.C.’s residents. Given our Country’s history in this era, it is no surprise that the right to vote was denied to D.C. citizens.

Residents were given some governmental representation when, in 1873, President Grant appointed a Governor to oversee Washington, but he did away with his office just one year later after the Governor bankrupted the city.

For nearly the next 100 years, until the passage of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1961, did D.C. residents have a hand in electing a single governmental official; they had no say even in the election of our President and Vice President. And the number of those denied the franchise grew substantially as D.C.’s population exploded to around 850,000 during World War II. The amendment granted to them the right to electors on a scale on par with those of the states. These electors would be considered ‘to be electors appointed by a State’ though no State appointed them. A nice fiction by Congress to overcome Constitutional concerns.

A dozen years later, in 1973 Congress passed the Home Rule Act, allowing D.C. residents to elect a Mayor and a City Council, though, amid evidence of poor management, Congress retook control of the District’s purse. No further extension of voting rights have been granted since that time, making ours the only democracy that denies resitdents of its Capitol city the right to federal representation. This was the state of affairs this week, as Congress again debated whether D.C. residents will, in 2009, receive the right of representation in their government. The time for change has come. But there was a glitch.

That our country is so divided around all the issues surrounding gun ownership is terribly unfortunate. We are so much stronger when we are united, and we should not be divided by this issue. The concern among gun owners that the left wants to take away the guns of law abiding citizens seems to me a myth created and fostered up by the NRA. I’m sure there are some who would like to see all guns banned in the US. I’ve heard the arguments, but I have never met a single person who holds that view.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitutional guarantees a right to bear arms, and that right should be respected. The First Amendment, which by virtue of being first suggests its relative importance, guarantees the freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Yet, despite the fact that the right to free speech and a free press are vital to our form of government, those rights are not absolute. Rather we must abide by, among other things, time, place and manner restrictions on our speech. Likewise, I would argue, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment may be Constitutionally regulated.

I do not want to take guns away from hunters and sportsmen. Some of my fondest memories of are my Grandfather teaching me to shoot a rifle. As a young girl, I was shooting tin cans off the top of fence posts. My grandparents regularly welcomed hunters onto their land. It’s a part of the culture of many Americans, and they should be allowed to choose their way of life so long they abide by sensible regulation. We must be trained to drive and we must register our cars; we should require appropriate firing and safety training, and should register our guns. We should lock them safely away from children. The aim here is not to place an undue burden on gun owners, but to recognize that a right can be limited to protect the safety of others, and guns, like cars, can harm unintended victims. As for guns in urban areas, I wish they weren’t there, but I realize that many people believe that they are safer with a gun in their home. And they should be able to make that decision for themselves. They need only be responsible in their ownership.

It is most likely that the real sticking points center around the issue of what guns, if any, should be banned. We call weapons capable of killing many people weapons of mass destruction. Our foreign policy centers around trying to keep the most dangerous of these weapons out of the hands of many. I think we, too, should aim to keep automatic weapons out of public circulation. Some criminals will still get them, this we know. But others will have a harder time of it, and that could save lives. This restriction, though, requires that the police in urban areas are vigilant about keeping unregistered guns off the streets and regularly patrolling dangerous neighborhoods. I think reasonable people can disagree here. But I also think that this limited disagreement has too much of an impact on our politics because the NRA and its supporters paint an exaggerated picture of our differences. We are not at polar opposite points on this issue, though to hear Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and far too many others to name tell it, gun owners are in serious danger from we communists who want to take their guns. And this week, the the NRA, through Senator John Ensign (R-NV), fanned these flames when the Senator attached an amendment that would overturn gun control laws in the District AND would strip D.C. of the right to enact gun control legislation of any kind. The amendment remove gun registration requirements and would not even allow D.C. to set an age requirement for gun ownership. Sixty-one Senators voted for this amendment, including 22 Democrats.

One NRA representative actually said that he would prefer to see D.C. residents freed from gun control laws than to see them get the vote. He thinks that unfettered right to own guns is more important than a democratic form of government. Does he really want to live in a dictatorship where everybody’s packing? This is the rhetoric that divides, and this week, as before, its affects were far more serious. While it looked that D.C.’s residents would finally get the right to elect one member to the House of Representatives, the legislation is now stalled because of the gun control amendment.

The larger point, in this instance, is that this was all beside the point. This amendment had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation to which it was attached and should never have been part of the discussion. This is the politics we’re all tired of. Each issue that is important enough to the American people to come before Congress should be voted on with votes based solely on the merits of that bill. We’ve had enough of politicians placing considerations of their political futures before the concerns of the country, and here of democracy itself. The NRA ostensibly threatened to make this vote one that it would use as a gauge in its annual candidate ratings, which are based on the number of times the legislator supports their organization’s interests. And Democrats, too, voted for the bill with the amendment attached. Again, we read that it would likely removed in the House. But, just like the tax cuts that were added to the stimulus bill that every one said would be limited in conference, the lets give guns at christenings amendment wasn’t removed and a clean bill passed. Rather, it sits, amendment still intact, stalled in the House.

President Obama should take a stand. This is not a spending bill, it is not ‘last year’s business.’ This is important legislation that would, setting Constitutional concerns asides for now (suffice it to say there is a vibrant debate), finally enfranchise all American citizens. It is about time. Dedicated and serious minded Americans have worked since the beginning to fully expand the franchise, and politics as usual is again getting in the way. President Obama’s promise was to bring a new kind of politics. So let it be. We are beyond ready. Americans should call, write, email their representatives in Congress and their President to demand a clean bill granting the right to vote to our citizens who live in our nation’s Capitol.

Our leaders in Congress need to be called out, as the president would say, on their weak support for the expansion of democracy. Not only did they allow the insertion of the gun amendment, Senators bickered over the fact that giving D.C. the vote would be a gain for the Democratic Party, and thus Republicans demanded that another Republican State be given a new Representative to bring ‘balance.’ Truly democratic leaders do not let an advantage to the opposition party, particularly one so small, stand in the way of the spread of democracy itself. This country’s leaders have always been stingy with the vote. Every advancement has come through great struggle. Neither blacks nor women gained the franchise through the spontaneous passage of legislation by enlightened leaders seeking to expand democracy at home. Rather, we have paid dearly to enfranchise (almost) all of our people. Thus, the hailing of ours as the world’s finest democracy (as our leaders love to do) by leaders who prefer that only those who agree with them (and who are, in their minds, their equal) be able to vote is a sad smudge of hypocrisy worn by far too many American leaders throughout our history.

Acting in Hard Times: Off and Off Off Broadway (By Elizabeth Burke) March 6, 2009

Posted by Suzanne Robinson in politics, Theater.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12 comments

Get Off Off Broadway!

The recession of 2008 (Depression of 2009?) has crippled many industries, put millions of people out of work and turned a harsh light on the nefarious workings of the Big Banks, the Auto Industry, Wall Street and their overpaid “Pasha” like leaders. Leaders, who even when they fail, leave with enough money to possibly buy Spain, which they will soon enough destroy. Now, during a recession, most people, smart people, start to cinch their belts, cut out luxuries such as dining out, vacations they cannot get to by car, and, at least in NYC, they stop going to the Theater.
During the Great Depression, the government created the Federal Theater Project, part of the brilliant and highly successful “Big Government” created Works Progress Administration (WPA.) This program sought to put non-working actors to work (are you listening Equity???.) It was so successful, within 3 years, 25 million people attended a live theater performance all over the country. For many, it was the first time. It created a whole generation of theater goers, who then took their kids and grandkids.
But by the Twenty First century we have all but sent live theater packing. It’s Movietime baby! If there are no car chases, sexy sex scenes, or severe decapitations of a few rude Americans on holiday, why bother watching? Broadway, that divine stretch of Disney related musicals, is still trying to lure you and your money into their jeweled lobbies with fantasy, old favorites and occasionally a really great story. (STOP reading and go immediately to see August: Osage County.) But now, going to the theater is considered l luxury and why not? Most Broadway tickets start at $100 for a crappy little seat up in the mezzanine in the back. But with a family of four, dinner, parking/train/bus, this just became your mortgage payment. Unless you are in foreclosure.
Now, New York is a big theater city. Broadway is synonymous with bright lights, big stars, lavish musicals, and lately, Disney. A place to go to forget your daily troubles and simply enjoy a great show, sing along to the songs and have some fun with family and friends. But the recession has taken its toll. In January alone, over a dozen shows have pulled their curtain for the last time. Blockbusters such as Hairspray, Spring Awakening, Gypsy, Young Frankenstein, and Spamalot (damn, even Clay Aiken couldn’t save it.) Broadway is looking a little like Main Steet with shuttered storefronts and empty stages, and greasepaint gathering dust.
But there is a world of theater that can boom in tough economic times. That is the Off and especially Off Off Broadway productions. While Off Broadway theaters are housed all over the city, 48% of Off Off Broadway can be found below 14th Street. Active since the 1960’s when the Greenwich Village’s Café Cino first spewed forth the works of Tony and Pulitzer winning playwrights such as Doric Wilson, John Guare, Sam Shepard, Robert Heide, and Lanford Wilson. This stepsister of Broadway has been ruling downtown theater for over 50 years, and currently has about 500 active theater companies producing approximately 1700 shows annually. Huh! Who would have thought!!
Off and Off Off Broadway now has a chance to gain some of these uptown audiences and box office receipts are showing that is exactly what is happening.
In a bold move last month, NYC & Company, the city’s tourism marketing agency, implemented a Two for One promotion called “On the House”, which strived to re-direct typical theater goers to over 30 Off Broadway productions. While it did not do anything directly for Off Off Broadway, it reasons that once you get a theater lover to go Off, it’s only a matter of time before they take one more step to Off Off. Now I would love for NYC & Co. to acknowledge Off Off productions, but I am pragmatic by nature. I think this is a great start and by riding the coattails of such great theater as Uncle Vanya, Blue Man Group, and the classic Naked Men Singing, Off Off has a chance to gain a whole new audience. And honestly, I think they like going home and bragging about their adventures below 14th Street, it makes them look tough, cool, and artsy. Watch them start to wear more black!
These are the “little shows that could” Here you can find ticket prices topping out at $50 for a front row seat, or any seat as this is an egalitarian, every ticket is equal kinda world. That’s right, we are the liberal left leaning equality theater! This is where you can find stars of the future, because, eventually everyone comes up through these ranks. Well, except those in Hollywood who ran straight to the movie studio, forgetting to actually learn their craft. I’m talking to you Julia Roberts and Jeremy Piven.
The New York Innovative Theater Awards recently completed a survey of Off-Off Broadway theatre companies and found that 22% of their budgets are under $5000. HYPERLINK “http://www.nyitawards.com/survey” http://www.nyitawards.com/survey. They show in smaller (sometimes hard to find) theaters, the production staff usually works for credit and actors rarely get paid, unless they are union and even then, their pay may a subway card! (I remember getting paid $100 for a full run and thinking, I’m finally a paid actor!) So these shows are built to be lean and mean. They are able to withstand hard economic times as they do not rely on ticket sales to keep the show afloat. They can take the dramatic risks that Broadway cannot afford, therefore continuing the tradition of being the place to experiment with new work, make political statements, and where you see subject matters Broadway wouldn’t dare go near. We can offend with immunity! Or even enlighten with laughter.
As we enter into the second decade of this new century, Off and Off-Off Broadway continues to provide the much-needed alternative to boom-or-bust Broadway. As many of the regular theater goers are starting to realize there is vital and, at times better, theater going on downtown. The hope in our bright, shining, and underpaid actor eyes is that they will remember the performance and appreciate that they can see a show and even have enough left for a nice dinner out. While I do not believe there is anything like the Federal Theater Project in President Obama’s Stimulus Bill (OK, I have only gotten to page 798, I may find it yet,) a micro-Stimulus plan such as what NYC & Company have created is a great start. So the next time you are thinking of going the theater, please consider the gems of the city down below that invisible barrier of 14th St. Hell, I’ll even stay to chat after the show! (I bet Julia didn’t.)

Spiritual Environmental Sustainability (By Katie Silberman) March 6, 2009

Posted by Suzanne Robinson in politics.
1 comment so far

THIS POST WAS WRITTEN BY KATIE SILBERMAN. IT FIRST APPEARED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK, FOR WHOM KATIE SERVES AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

As Chanukah approached last year, I wondered why Jewish people in particular should care about living more sustainably upon the Earth. What can we do to create a healthier world for ourselves and our children? What is Jewish about going green?

Survivors in a World Under Siege
The Jewish people are survivors. We know how to adapt to changing circumstances, and we also know how to hold onto our values, our ethical core, as we adapt.
As we look around at the turn of 2009, our first-born sons are literally in danger again, as well as all of our other children. A mother called me recently because she had learned about toxic chemicals in carpets, and she was worried because her son was working in a carpet store.
So the threats to our children might look different than they did at other times in our community’s history. They’re often not visible at all, but when we see early puberty, cancer, and learning disabilities in young people, we know we must pay attention.
Besides knowing how to survive, Jews know how to look within ourselves and search our souls. Every year during the high holidays we are invited, commanded even, to think about whether we are living the lives we want. I heard a Rabbi on the radio just before the high holidays last year, and she explained it this way: “We are able to ask ourselves: am I being the wife I want to be? Am I being the mother I want to be? Am I being the friend I want to be?”
We have reached a point in our relationship with the Earth where it’s time to ask ourselves: Are we being the Earthlings we want to be? Are we taking care of our only home? And if not, what could we do differently in the year ahead to bring honor, joy, and health to ourselves and to God’s creation?
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, says there is an opposing energy between hope and fear, and it only takes a few people to tip the balance to one side or the other. He says the only way people are going to change their actions and live a life that’s more sustainable for the earth and for themselves is to see that new way as something appealing, something that they want.
It’s not going to work to shame, fear, or guilt people into “going green.” Instead, we can show people this yellow brick road – or green brick road – to a life that is more satisfying, more enriching, more soulful. A life with clean air, clean water, healthy food, and healthy kids. Neighbors sharing resources, living a life of abundance and generosity.
Once we can imagine what we want, we are able to say no to behaviors that don’t serve us, just as we do during the high holidays. Even better, we can say yes to a vision of the world we want to live in. As Gandhi said, we must be the change we wish to see in the world.
An environmental day of atonement
What might it look like if we, as a community, could have an environmental day of atonement? What might we reject from last year, and what might we choose for the year ahead?
We could say no to practices that are not serving us:
• No more exposure to thousands of chemicals without our consent. No more babies born with chemicals already in their umbilical cord blood, and their mother’s milk. I say this with a heavy heart because I am nursing my own baby right now, but our breastmilk could not be sold in grocery stores in this country, because it would not pass FDA standards for chemical contamination.
• No more using jet fuel to send another city’s water across the country in plastic bottles. We throw away 2 million plastic water bottles every 5 minutes in this country, most of which are not recycled.
• No more lead and other poisons in our children’s toys, lunch boxes, or jewelry. We’ve known for decades that lead causes lower IQs and violent behavior in children– there is no reason it should be used in commerce in any country.
• No more everyday cleaning products that cause respiratory problems, or body care products with harmful chemicals. I want to know that my shampoo, soap, lotion, makeup and my baby’s bubble bath don’t contain anything that can harm us.
• No more breast cancer as a public health epidemic. Why are there so many chemicals in products we use every day that can mimic estrogen in the body? October was breast cancer awareness month, but we are already aware of breast cancer. What we need now is to do something about it besides buying pink things and putting them in pink plastic bags. We’re done racing for the cure. What we need now is to race for the cause.
And we need to move beyond saying no. As during the high holidays, we always have a chance to choose behavior that makes us proud and righteous. We can create the kind of society we want.
We can say yes:
• Yes to real communities, where neighbors support each other, share with each other, reuse, recycle, and spend time on the front porch instead of in front of the TV.
• Yes to a society in which preventable childhood diseases are almost unheard of– childhood cancer, asthma, and learning disabilities.
• Yes to being able to buy ordinary products without worrying about harm–to our kids, the people who made it, or the people who live near the place where it was made.
• Yes to a food system that values real, healthy food, grown in ways that doesn’t hurt other people or the Earth–food that comes in its own packaging, doesn’t fit in a cupholder, and doesn’t need a chemist to read the ingredient list.
• Yes to families, friends, and neighbors who take the time to sit down and enjoy that food together.
• Yes to an economic system where progress is not measured by ever-expanding growth at the expense of our health and environment, but by the gross national health and happiness index.
• Yes to synagogues and congregations that contribute health and well-being to the local and global community. Communities whose bottom line is kindness, generosity and equity; communties who are living Tikkun Olam – to repair the Earth.
The Jewish people have always believed deeply in justice and fairness. It’s interesting to me that Wangari Maathai in 2004 and Al Gore in 2007 won the Nobel Peace Prize. It is obvious now that environmental work is peace work. Scarcity of resources causes war and suffering. Preventing environmental degradation is a way to bring peace, shalom, among our friends.
Hurricane Katrina, wildfires in Southern California, the drinking water shortage in Atlanta – these are no longer environmental issues, and they are no longer political issues. It doesn’t matter what party is on your voter registration if you have no water or your home has burned down. These are basic human rights issues and therefore of concern for the Jewish people and for all our allies of good faith. These are our deepest ethical values as a people.

Eight Simple Things You can Do At Home
Here are a few simple, affordable steps to going green.
1. Use tap water instead of bottled water.
2. Don’t use pesticides on your home or lawn.
3. Switch to compact flourescent lightbulbs and do an energy audit of your home. Turn off lights and electronics that aren’t in use, and turn down the heat even two or three degrees.
4. Wash your clothes in cold water.
5. Use green cleaners like baking soda and vinegar instead of commercial cleaners.
6. Eat lower on the food chain, and buy organic.
7. Reuse bags, and use less plastic in general. Never microwave in plastic. Try to avoid vinyl, often marked with a number 3 in a triangle.
8. Take off your shoes and wash your hands every time you come in the house.

Green The Synagogue
You don’t need prior knowledge about environmental health to green your synagogue; you only need to bring your heart, spirit, and intention. Lots of people can help you figure out how to do it. You will save your congregation money and protect God’s creation and your sacred house of worship at the same time.
1. Form a Tikkun Olam committee and use the resources of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. See below for COEJL and other faith-based resources.
2. Look at the building itself. Perform an energy audit. One large Christian church saved half a million dollars a year by turning off lights in rooms they weren’t using. Use sustainable building materials in building and remodeling.
3. Look at what’s happening inside the building. How much paper does the congregation use? Are you recycling? Where can you substitute permanent, reusable materials such as silverware and dishes for disposables?
4. Educate your members about sustainable living at home, and teach it to your children.
We hear a great deal about “going green” in the media these days. Sometimes knowing where to start can feel overwhelming. But every step can set you on the path. As a Rabbi wrote in the Mishnah almost 2000 years ago, “it is not upon you to complete the task — but neither are you free to desist from it.”
We can also gain wisdom from a Chinese proverb: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”

  Some Resources on Religion and the Environment
A huge amount of environmental work is going on in religious communities around the country. It might not go by the name “environmental.” You might hear it called “creation care” or respecting God’s Earth. Recently, 86 evangelical leaders signed a pledge to fight global warming. Christians have come out with a new green bible, made of sustainably harvested paper.
An organization called HYPERLINK “http://www.theregenerationproject.org/” Interfaith Power and Light works with faith communities around the country to cut energy use and switch to cleaner sources of power. An Illinois organization, HYPERLINK “http://www.faithinplace.org/” Faith in Place, has worked with dozens of congregations of every faith in that state, helping them to green their houses of worship. Some others:
HYPERLINK “http://www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr/resources/environment.html” Harvard Divinity School’s Center for the Study of World Religions has an online section on religions of the world and ecology–with many books, lectures, and publications on each of the major religions’ environmental philosophy and practice. See also HYPERLINK “http://environment.harvard.edu/religion/religion/index.html” http://environment.harvard.edu/religion/ for resources and engaged projects related to each faith.
HYPERLINK “http://www.coejl.org/” Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) is a national coalition of Jewish environmental organizations seeking to expand the contemporary understanding of such Jewish values as tikkun olam (repairing the world) and tzedek (justice) to include the protection of both people and other species from environmental degradation. COEJL’s Greening Synagogues Resources: HYPERLINK “http://www.coejl.org/~coejlor/greensyn/gstoc.php” http://www.coejl.org/~coejlor/greensyn/gstoc.php Many Christian environmental organizations are listed in the HYPERLINK “http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Christianity/Organizations/Environmental/” Yahoo directory.
For a newsletter of ongoing developments in religion and ecology email HYPERLINK “mailto:whitneybauman@religionandecology.org” whitneybauman@religionandecology.org and write subscribe in the subject line.
HYPERLINK “http://www.earthsangha.org/” Earth Sangha is a Buddhist environmental nonprofit committed to practical environmental action including restoration projects.
The HYPERLINK “http://www.envirolink.org/external.html?www=http%3A//www.ifees.org&itemid=200309280759460.469879” Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences produces information, research, and training and articulates Muslim positions on the environment.
For a Hindu faith statement on ecology see HYPERLINK “http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=77” http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=77.

(NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: UNFORTUNATELY, WORDPRESS DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE HYPERLINKS PROPERLY. I WILL MANUALLY ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM SHORTLY. MY APOLOGIES FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE.)