Monday, May 21, 2007

Two Interesting Comments and a Response

So, a while ago I asked that my name be removed from an article in the HPR written for the spring issue that concerned education funding. At the time, I felt that because my co-author (Margot) and I held too many different ideological beliefs to put together a coherent article, and I felt that I submitted for her opinion the best draft I could come up with, and I asked that my name be withdrawn so that she could have more latitude in determining which way the article should go. Needless to say, I was wrong, and she came up with an article that (although I disagree with parts of it) has such an inherently uncontroversial conclusion that I don't mind having my name attached to it. I like the fact that it presents facts, and raises more questions than answers, rather than editorializing.

With that said, we received two comments dated May 16, 2007 in which I feel I should respond to as a fellow blogger and as a co-author of the article:

Reader Comments (2)

This is an issue that has been waged for decades and will never be solved because the issue is not about inadequate funding--it's about culture. Schools in urban areas just a few decades ago produced far more graduates who were better educated than those today, with far, far less accessorized or accommodating classrooms.

What we have are kids who live in an environment that has no need for education beyond the rudiments. And, because it is a culture, anti-intellectualism is accepted as normal and intellectual pursuits are viewed as abhorrent. No amount of funding can change this generational malaise

This twisted sense of nobles oblige, guilt-as-policy garbage should stop.

May 16, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterM Smith
The spirit of M Smith's posting is appreciated; certainly, many of the ills facing underprivileged urban areas are the result of cultural values that do little if anything to lift these communities out of poverty. Progress is largely the responsibility of individuals and communities, and when this responsibility is shirked, the government does not have a responsibility to take up the burden.

However, education is a unique situation. If an able-bodied man refuses to commit to work and is therefore unable to support himself, he is his own victim. If he fails to buy books or take an interest in his child's school, his child is now the (helpless) victim. Government intervention is then no longer aid to the unworthy, but the defense of innocents. The culture of anti-intellectualism need not exist among children in poor areas. Like children in middle-class or affluent areas, first-graders in the inner city are thrilled to be called upon in class, thrilled to get the right answer. They will work hard to learn, if only it is expected of them, because wonder and a love of discovery are common to all children. Only as they mature will a defeatist, underachieving mindset take hold.

It is true that money will not solve any problems by itself. However, simply calling the problem one of culture is facile and fatalistic. This argument assumes that culture is immutable and that it is handed down in toto from generation to generation. The culture of a generation is certainly informed by that of its parents, but it is also given shape by the institutions which guide it to maturity. A child who comes from an underachieving home but attends a fantastic school has the chance to set high expectations for himself and to rise above his background. If even one community could give its children this chance, the culture of that community could change.

While adequate funding is only one of many concerns these community schools face - perhaps not even a primary concern - it is certainly one of importance. Egalitarianism need not be charity, guilt, or "nobles oblige" [sic]. In education, it is a simple commitment to the idea that a bright child with a strong work ethic should have options besides failure, mediocrity, and the slow poison of ever-diminishing expectations.
May 16, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterN Pyati

My response:
Thank you sincerely M Smith and N Pyati for your comments. I'd be interested in hearing what my co-author has to say in response, but for the time being I hoped to comment on your comments (she is also my ideological opposite on education, which we found out while working together, which really helped with our analysis).

I come from a school in San Francisco that is a specialized school (an arts school to be more specific), a small school, and yet still a public school. I was offered a fantastic education, yet at a mediocre price. When compared to the rest of the traditional comprehensive high schools of the district, School of the Arts falls smack dab in the middle in school funding, and the lowest performing schools tend to receive the most funds (in SFUSD).

In that manner, I think that M Smith has a point that money is not a cure-all for our problems in education, which N Pyati also noted. But I think N Pyati makes a great point in saying that students of all backgrounds need to be given a decent chance to flourish in an acceptable education environment.

I don't think that the basic funding formulas used by states and localities currently reflect those values (as described by N Pyati in the last sentence of that post) that we should all hold dear. Quite contrarily, schools that receive the most funds are usually characterized by: 1) whether or not the local school district is located in a current low-wealth/urban or high property value wealthy district, and 2) whether or not the school itself has high teacher turnover, or a high teacher retention rate. (More experienced teachers are paid more, and these differences add up quite dramatically)

While I am sympathetic to M Smith's view, and agree greatly with N Pyati's post, I feel that something drastic does need to change in state and local school funding models, in order to give students of all stripes and backgrounds an equal chance for success. And this is just one problem among many that needs to be addressed in public education, but equalizing school funding for me is an issue that can trump many other issues, in that funds can enable schools to provide better resources for greater learning.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Asian American Special, and Some Clever Test Answers

While you're checking out clever test answers from this blog, and are interested in procrastinating further, you may be interested in checking out: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/asian.american/index.html

CNN is doing a special on Asian Americans for Asian American month. It has articles concerning the model minority myth, some history and a timeline on Asian American immigration, notes some of the past challenges of Asian Americans and what challenges Asian Americans may face ahead, and even includes a video on what it's like to grow up a hapa, among other things.

Kudos to CNN for putting this on.

I was especially interested in the article on Heroes star Oka, given my background in theater. Being a fourth generation Asian American on one side, and first on the other, it definitely has been tough finding an identity and being comfortable with it, given that stereotypes on how asians should behave still perpetuate. It's interesting to think about. Thoughts?