WTF Is Wrong With America?

Education: The Civil Rights Issue Of....Wait A Minute!

Reformers love to tell us that education is the civil rights issue of our time. But they don't tell you they are scamming the shit out of you. The following is a comment left at Diane's blog that explains how the privatizers are using the civil rights meme to scam us.

The reality is that privatization of inelastic demand services, such as electricity, prisons, and education, will never lead to a decrease in cost or an increase in quality. This is fairly easy to understand for many economists, but I’ll try to break it down here.

In every market, the supply and demand curves respond to the necessity of the service being sold. The necessity of the service determines the demand curves “elasticity.” As a service becomes more necessary, the demand curve is seen to be inflexibly vertical, or “inelastic.” If the customers can decide the quantity of service purchased as the price increases, the demand curve is seen to be increasingly horizontal, or “elastic.”

My examples were electricity, prisons, and education. Electricity is a necessity because we have people in our nation who live in extreme temperatures which requires electricity to make habitable. Prisons are a necessity because certain criminals need to be removed from society. Education is a necessity because it is increasingly difficult to make ends meet on minimum wage (and it is determined by law to be a right in many states).

When the demand curve for a service is inelastic, any change in price yields little or no change in demand. When for-profit companies are allowed to enter these markets, they have no need to keep prices low. The purpose of every for-profit company to maximize revenues while minimizing costs to create the maximum profit for its shareholders. It is the inelasticity of demand that these companies wish to capitalize from. They can charge as much as they want and the demand remains the same. To cut costs, they decrease their salaries expense by hiring less qualified teachers. Online schools increase the number of students per teacher and eliminate any hands-on learning.

The truth of the privatization push that no politician will tell you is that they have conflated competition in an elastic demand market with competition in an inelastic demand market. They have two completely different results, and those who wish to make a fortune off of education are very aware.

Keep up the good work, Mrs. Ravitch.

Michael

Loving husband of a 3rd grade teacher

Tuesday Cartoon Fun: Human Anatomy Edition

The School On The Hill; Yes, It's Mine

This is scary for me, but here we go:

Some of you may have already figured it out; The School On The Hill is the big project I have been working on.

I have resisted exposing my true identity for years and years. It started because I was writing about the district I had worked in and was worried about getting in trouble for being critical.

Well, I don't work there anymore and haven't for a few years, so who cares?

Anyway, in my travails as a teacher and then edu-blogger and edu-activist I became so frustrated with the state of affairs regarding low SES students that I decided to do something about it.

It started with staff meeting frustration and then on to blogging here. It then moved to Facebook where I put pressure on Students First and Education Nation. I then started the TFT Radio show which still happens fairly regularly. And, of course, I tweet.

I have come to realize that social media can't do it all. Maybe it can't even do much, though I will still try.

But I chose to something more direct, more impactfullish, more meaningful, more important, more satisfying and more real; I chose to open a non-profit preschool. And plant some seeds, literally and figuratively.

I had no idea it would require so much work. First, in order to get 501(c)3 status I had to get a fiscal sponsor. This required sending the prospectus around to a few and seeing if anyone would bite (First I had to write the thing, which is not what I was trained to do.). Well, a couple bit and one chose to sponsor The School On The Hill. Thanks, ISI. The sponsor gets 5% of all donations received. Boo. So I am in the process of incorporating as my own 501(c)3 so ALL the donations can be used by the school, not just 95% of them. This will take a few months.

TSOTH's non-profit status has opened the door to tax-deductible donations, especially from foundations that require they donate to non-profits. The School On The Hill is non-profit, making donations of any size tax-deductible (hint, hint).

Another reason I chose to open the school is because a certain foundation liked the idea and pledged a significant donation if we could get it together, which we did, so the donation is on its way. We need a bit more though.

I have worked with children my entire adult life--I am nearly 50 years old. I have degrees and certifications and all the useless nonsense that comes with decades of successful work in a particular field. None of it means much--the kids are the meaningful part. I care about the kids, not the accolades. Besides, nobody else cares about the accolades either!

The School On The Hill is sort of a dream I have had forever. Running a small school --on my property!-- means I can dedicate all I have to the kids. And that makes me happy and enriches them. Perfect.

Now all I need to make the school run the way I want it to run --as a subsidized school for low SES families-- are more donations; actual cash as well as in-kind.

Please, consider making a tax-deductible donation to this awesome school that will focus on broadening the background knowledge of Richmond's children, preparing them for school and life success by providing an awesome farm-based preschool in the heart of the concrete jungle known as Richmond, California.

The School On The Hill is one great way to help ameliorate the stifling effects poverty has on small children. That is the goal of The School On The Hill; to engage with children and help make connections. To guide them. To teach them. To love them.

It takes a village. I need you, villagers! The kids need you!

Thanks,

Rich Sugerman, aka The Frustrated Teacher, aka TFT, aka Teacher Rich

Mario Nguyen Would Like To "Support The Needs Of Standardized Tests"

I get unsolicited emails pretty frequently. This one takes the cake, though.

Good morning Frustrated Teachers,

My name is Mario Nguyen and I represent Applied Practice, an education company. In a few weeks we will launch our blog, which will cover various topics concerning K-12 academia. Applied Practice is a company, founded by two teachers, whose goal is to support educators in developing curriculum designed to meet the needs of standardized tests.

I noticed that your blog, The Frustrated Teacher, is already very active in this sphere. So, I just wanted to say, “Hello!” and possibly establish a relationship. I appreciate your perspective and the work you’re doing in the education system. We firmly believe that communications channels like yours and ours are the best way to spread new and innovative practices, and we’re committed to helping promote your ideas. I plan to interact with your posts, share them, and follow you on all social media channels. I hope you can do the same for Applied Practice on Facebook and Twitter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

-- Mario Nguyen

How thoughtful of Mario. I responded to his kind offer:

Mario,

Thanks for your email.

You are the enemy of children and public schools if your goal is to teach people how to "meet the needs of standardized tests." Tests don't have needs; animate things do, like children have needs, and birds have needs, as well a viruses, which have needs. Tests? They don't have needs, nor do paper clips.

I will do all I can to destroy you, legally.

Go away. Shut down. Close up shop.

I am going to publish this email exchange on my blog for all to read.

--TFT

Friday Cartoon Fun: Who Bought The Election? Edition

Monday Cartoon Fun: Political Capital Edition

Thursday Cartoon Fun: If Only Edition

Sunday Cartoon Fun: Scapegoats Edition

Friday Cartoon Fun: What About The Post Born? Edition

Sharon Higgins (The Perimeter Primate) Explains Oaktown Poverty -- It's Not Due To Shitty Teachers

One Response to Nextset

Nextset is the screen name of a frequent commenter on the Oakland Tribune’s education blog. You can read his postings after almost any entry at http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/. This is a modified version of my response to him on April 8, 2008.


Nextset: I will admit that I agree with a few of the things you have said over time. I am interested in the history of Oakland and its demographic changes and would like to get your perspective on something.

I have learned that a few Blacks (some free, some enslaved) came to the Bay Area for the Gold Rush and in the years that followed. After the First Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869, more Blacks settled in Oakland because it was the terminus for the railroad. A substantial number of Black residents were connected to train work especially via the Pullman Company (the biggest single employer of African Americans in post-Civil War America). This was high status work for African Americans at that time.

In 1940, Oakland’s African American population was 8,462. Things changed during WW II.

Henry J. Kaiser needed laborers for his shipyards so he recruited many of them from Texas,Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. For instance, I have heard that a large number of Black folk in Oakland have family ties to Monroe, Louisiana. I have also been told that these laborers were some of the Deep South's poorest sharecroppers. Like most immigrants and migrants, they came to California seeking better opportunities.

By 1950, Oakland’s African American population had soared to 47,562.

When WW II was over, ships were no longer needed so the shipyards began to close down. Like most big American cities, Oakland had other industries for a time, such as food processing and auto manufacturing (we were called the “Detroit of the West”). Most of those blue-collar jobs had evaporated by the early 1960’s. Oakland then ended up as home to thousands of Black folk, with few familial accumulated assets (materially or educationally), who could not find work because there were just not enough jobs available.

From what you have written, your “…parents, grandparents and great grandparents were educators going back into the 19th century.” In fact, your relatives “…were among the 1st black teachers in the East Bay public schools.” You have also said that your parents “…had professional degrees for over 2 generations.” Your family assets also included living in a home in El Cerrito that was “nicer and more expensive” and higher on the hill than those of the blue collar whites living nearby. It also sounds like you have a successful extended family since you have revealed that you have “several relatives working in the banking & medical industries.”

Undoubtedly, those many generational and familial assets contributed to your success. How might that contrast with the experiences of the descendants of African Americans who arrived in the Bay Area later than yours, who were poor and uneducated and had few assets, or none at all? Are you saying that their current predicament is simply because of their low IQ’s?

A 14-year-old boy today may have had intelligent and hard-working great-grandparents (b. circa 1919) who moved to Oakland in 1943 from Louisiana to work in the shipyards. Unfortunately, their son, the boy’s grandfather (b. circa 1944), would have had a much more difficult time finding work upon graduating from high school in 1962. Despite difficulties finding regular, adequate employment, he might have still produced a son (b. circa 1969).

That son would have been 18 years old in 1987 at the height of the Crack Epidemic which lasted from about 1984 to 1990. Having experienced weak mentoring from his father and with few prospects for legitimate employment in sight, we can speculate how that young man may have been tempted to make money, or to feel better for a time. And when he was 25 years old, he may have produced a son of his own – thus the existence of the 14 year old boy of today.

So, by the time the great-grandson of a couple from Louisiana was born in Oakland in 1994, no male in his family had been steadily employed for at least three generations. Because the unemployment has been so widespread for so many years, it’s very likely that few men in his neighborhood have ever held a legitimate job, either.

This situation is why a "street" culture developed and has taken hold. It is also why the Underground Economy, simply an alternative system of producing income, thrives so vigorously in these neighborhoods. Guns are just a tool of the trade for the men who work in this non-mainstream economy.

It took about four decades of societal neglect for life skills that have been traditionally transmitted by fathers to sons — about being a steady mate and a good provider — to float away from these family groups. Those vestiges of a bygone era that were perpetuated for many generations are now nearly absent from the bodies of knowledge held by families today.

As for the traditional family unit, the short term effect of long-term unemployment on a marriage is always intense stress for the family. Eventually, the idea of marriage would be rendered completely irrelevant for a social group experiencing multi-generational unemployment. Isn't this exactly what has happened? 

Despite their dabbling in the Underground Economy, I would also imagine that today's men who have little knowledge about how to go about being productive members of mainstream society may feel a level of despair and lack of purpose that contributes to substance abuse, pathological levels of anger, carelessness about life, etc. These feelings provide nourishment to the “street” culture.

During the ten years of the Great Depression, unemployment climbed from 3.2% at the beginning of 1930 to 24.9% in 1933. It only took four years for our nation to muster the political will to create the Public Works Administration and other programs. What would have happened to mainstream American society if high, widespread unemployment had been sustained for over fifty years?

According to a 2006 New York Times article, “The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless — that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.”*

With one subgroup suffering from such high levels of unemployment for decades, and with such incredibly disastrous social consequences affecting us all, why has there been such meager Federal response? And how realistic is it to now expect our public schools to bear the burden of rectifying the effects of such immense damage to this current generation?

*Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn, Erik Eckholm, March 20, 2006,

Wednesday Bonus Cartoon Fun: Too Big To Fail, Too Small To Succeed

Wednesday Cartoon Fun: Red Or Blue? Edition: Updated

TFT Interviews Jersey Jazzman Sunday!

Tuesday Cartoon Fun: Keep It Up Edition