Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels To Be The Next President of Purdue University

 

Picture from Thinq

Something about this seems a little odd.  One might say, ass backwards.  From Balloon Juice, here's why:

Purdue University’s Board of Trustees has just voted unanimously to install Governor Mitch Daniels as the new president. As a doctoral student at the university, there’s a lot to say about this, and I intend to, but for now it’s enough to point out that while in office Governor Daniels pushed to cut funding to Indiana’s public universities again and again. I simply cannot fathom extending an invitation to lead an organization to a man who had worked tirelessly to defund that organization; it simply would not be countenanced in other contexts. In addition, Governor Daniels’s administration has repeatedly attacked public education and public teachers,  pushing for privatization schemes like private school vouchers and ascribing broad educational failures to Indiana’s schoolteachers, without providing responsible evidence. The man is an enemy of public education in Indiana who has now been selected to run one of our public universities. Internal opposition to that selection is the purest, more rational self-interest regardless of the political views of the individuals so opposed. Our media, of course, will regard any protest as a sign of liberal bias, no matter what kinds of complaints are voiced against Daniels.

This reminds me of when George W. Bush appointed John Bolton to be the American Ambassador to the United Nation.  Another thing to keep an eye out for, although I am sure almost no one in the mainstream media will pick it up, is when Freddie deBour is saying about students taking pictures outside the Board of Trustees meeting:

Today, I’ve heard repeated stories of intimidation by security at the Board of Trustees meeting, including signs that forbid protests that were not in keeping with “accepted social behavior” and the like. I’m also hearing that students who took pictures of that signage and of security were followed and searched by security, unlike other attendees. Many described the meeting as unlike any event they had ever attended at Purdue in terms of the amount and aggression of security. I’m still trying to get all the facts, but as soon as I know enough and have pictures to share, I will report back to you guys.

 Also, is there not a law in Indiana that says active Governors cannot be appointed to the Board of Trustees of a state college; let alone, become the President of a state college?  I guess not.

Parenting, Poverty and Academic Success

Photo from Cool Health Tips  

"How About Better Parents?"  That is what Thomas Friedman suggests in one of his most recent editorials in the New York Times.

In recent years, we’ve been treated to reams of op-ed articles about how we need better teachers in our public schools and, if only the teachers’ unions would go away, our kids would score like Singapore’s on the big international tests. There’s no question that a great teacher can make a huge difference in a student’s achievement, and we need to recruit, train and reward more such teachers. But here’s what some new studies are also showing: We need better parents. Parents more focused on their children’s education can also make a huge difference in a student’s achievement.

He uses research from the often-cited Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which decided to look at factors from outside of the classroom to see what made successful students.  There were three major findings they found:

• Fifteen-year-old students whose parents often read books with them during their first year of primary school show markedly higher scores in PISA 2009 than students whose parents read with them infrequently or not at all.


• The performance advantage among students whose parents read to them in their early school years is evident regardless of the family’s socio-economic background.


• Parents’ engagement with their 15-year-olds is strongly associated with better performance in PISA.

Friedman also cites a study by the Center for Public Education, and the Center's Director, Patte Barth, to support this.

“Monitoring homework; making sure children get to school; rewarding their efforts and talking up the idea of going to college. These parent actions are linked to better attendance, grades, test scores, and preparation for college,” Barth wrote. “The study found that getting parents involved with their children’s learning at home is a more powerful driver of achievement than parents attending P.T.A. and school board meetings, volunteering in classrooms, participating in fund-raising, and showing up at back-to-school nights.”

To say that good parenting is important in the academic quality of a young person may seem blatantly obvious to some.  But the reality is that it is probably the most important component in a young person's success.

This simple truth often get's overshadowed in our current national education debate by issues of teacher quality, and how those evil teacher unions want to keep bad teachers in our schools.  That is not to say that good teachers, or good schools for that matter, can't make a difference.  I would even argue that there are probably some things we could do to improve the way teachers are assessed, and there are reforms that can be made to the way schools manage tenure.

But that quote about how "there is no substitute for a good teacher" can be applied tenfold to a good parent.  All teachers know this to be true.  That doesn't mean they give up on student's who struggle or refuse to work.  Often times, they will make extra efforts to reach out to those students.  This isn't to suggest that there aren't good parents who have children that perform poorly in school, or vice versa.  But that general correlation between good parenting and academic quality becomes blatantly obvious whenever a teacher makes a phone call home to a parent, or when parent-teacher conferences come around (if the parent even picks up the phone or shows up to conferences at all). 

Going back to the editorial, something that Friedman barely touches on is the issue of poverty.

Yes, students from more well-to-do households are more likely to have more involved parents. “However,” the PISA team found, “even when comparing students of similar socioeconomic backgrounds, those students whose parents regularly read books to them when they were in the first year of primary school score 14 points higher, on average, than students whose parents did not.”

I won't say that Friedman was wrong to gloss over poverty in his editorial, because the point of the piece was about good parenting.  Yes, good parenting is a more important factor in a student's academic success than what type of socioeconomic background that student comes from.  But what type of parent a person can be to their child is highly influences by their socioeconomic status.

 

Image from The Affordable Housing Institute

 
There are numerous factors that play into this: Do the children live in a one-parent or two parent household?  Is one or both of the parents working multiple jobs with late hours?  Do they have time to read to their children (or taken them to a museums or get them involved in other enrichment and supplemental activities)?  Are the parents homeless (thus putting the emphasis of their time on finding food and shelter rather than what book are they going to read)?

None of this is to suggest that an adult living in a lower-socioeconomic background can't be an excellent parent, or a child from a lower-socioeconomic background can't be an excellent student.  But the conditions of poverty make parental and academic success a lot harder to achieve.  This cannot be underestimated.  I would like to close this post by citing a post I wrote back in February on the issue of poverty and academic success of students in American schools:

 The truth of the matter is that, all things considered, American schools are no worse than most countries around the world.  If anything, our schools as they exist in many neighborhoods are just as capable of outperforming schools in Finland, China, or any other industrialized nation.  There certainly are things that our country can do better to improve the quality of schools and education as a whole.  But the main reason that a school district usually struggles to begin with is poverty.  The reason that inner-city school districts struggles with lower test scores, higher drop-out rates, violence, increased teen pregnancy, and so on is because of the poverty that most of the students and their parents live in.  Everyone knows this is the case, and has known it for years.  For all of the well-being and economic success our country has had compared to the rest of the world, poverty (and all of the societal problems that are linked to it) is the great albatross around America's neck.

Video for Sunday

Recently, I have been watching episodes of The Cosby Show.  In addition to being a comedic and artistic genius, Bill Cosby is also freaking smart (he has a education doctorate).  Here is perhaps the most famous scene from his show, when he is talking to his son Theo about the importance of going to college.



In addition to learning lessons from my own parents, I know I will be borrowing parenting strategies from Dr. Cosby whenever I become a Dad.

On This Day 10 Years Ago (Part 1 of 9/11 essays)

Image from Sacred Monkeys

I was a college student in the middle of Missouri.  I had just come back from eating breakfast at the dining hall, and I had some time to kill before I needed to go to class, so I turned the TV on.  The first thing that came on the TV were live images of both World Trade Center Towers on fire.  Kate Couric was on TV explaining that not just one, but two planes flew into the towers in New York City. My roommate, who was also at the dining hall, walked in a few minutes later and asked "what the hell is going on in New York?  All of the cafeteria staff are gathered around the TV."  I told him what I knew so far.  News reports started coming out that a plane had hit the Pentagon.  At this point, it was more than clear that the United States was under attack.

As I was getting ready for class, the South Tower collapsed.  At this point, I figured my professor would cancel class so everyone could go back to their dorms and watch what was going on.  I decided to go to the classroom and at least find out what my next assignment would be, thinking that is all that would happen.  But when he came into the classroom, made a comment about how crazy the events are, and proceeded with his lesson.

I couldn't believe he wanted to continue class.  I remember thinking that our nation was in the middle of being under attacked, planes were being hijacked all around the country and flown into landmarks, and this guy wanted to do was continue his statistical probability lecture.  Needless to say, my mind was not on statistical probability.  On September 10, 2001, if you had told me such attacks would take place, I would have called you crazy.  I though these things could only happened in movies. I started asking myself various questions. "How many more hijacked planes would be crashed?" "Are we going to be hit with a chemical or nuclear weapon?" 

I got back to my dorm room, where my roommate informed me the North Tower had collapsed, and that a fourth plane had crashed in Pennsylvania.  For the next several hours, I watched as the news and images continued to be broadcast from New York and Washington, D.C.  Like everyone else in American, and around the world that day, I was shocked by the unfolding events.  My roommate and others in our dorm were wondering who did it, and what would happen now.  The government and terrorism experts were pretty sure Osama Bin Laden were behind these attacks, but no one knew for sure yet.  If it wasn't this Bin Laden guy, then who would have done such a thing?  Was it spies from another country?  Was it right-wing extremists like the Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City?  Were we going to invade another country?  Would there be a draft?  Who the hell were we going to have to kill because of this?

Everyone on campus (like the rest of America) was scared.  We didn't know if there would be more attacks after this or not.  Lots of students went to the college chapel for an impromptu memorial service.  I was still a Christian then, but even some nonbelievers attended so they could be with others in this time of tragedy.   The president of the college, a former military man, gave a speech on overcoming fear.  It became a cliche later, but emphasized the need to stay strong and not to hastily look for retribution, or the terrorists would win.  I remember finding that very comforting, and tried to take his words to heart in the days and weeks to come.  I wish more people in our country could have done the same.

My roommate and I were glued to the news on TV for the next couple of days.  We barely left the dorm except to go to class and eat.  I did not let fear overcome me as it did so many others, but I do remember feeling an immense amount of grief.  I would especially choke up whenever I saw the images of people walking around New York with pictures of their missing loved ones, asking to be contact if someone saw them.  I knew, and I think most other people knew that they would probably never see their loved ones again.  And no one knew what the number of casualties would end up being?  No one would know for another year, that it would be a little bit over 3,000 lives lost.  But at the time, people were speculating as high as tens of thousands of dead.



Part 2 , which will emphasize the aftermath of 9/11, will come either tonight or tomorrow. In the meantime, here is a video I found on Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish.  It is a video that features John Vigiano Sr. who lost both of his sons in the 9/11 attacks.  One was a firefighter, one was a police officer.

Why Do I Give A Shit About Sports?

Photo from Fantasy Knuckleheads

This question was posed by The Punk Patriot on a video he made for his blog.  He doesn't understand how any normal human being could care about sports because, essentially, what happens in the game doesn't really effect anyone's life.  I have never been asked this question before, but I thought this was a great question to ask.  As both a progressive activist, as well as a sports fan, I felt some obligation to answer.  First, here is the video he made:

I wrote my response in the comment section of his post, but I've decided to also put my answer on this blog post.  Here it is:

Why do I give a shit about sports? Great question, and one I am trying to wrap my head around because I've never been asked before. I just grew up loving sports (and everyone else around me loved sports) and I never really thought about it (kind of like religion for a lot of people in that regard). I will try my best to answer it.

Part of it is a connection a fan can develop and feel with a team, teams, or individual players. Does that connection matter in the grander scheme of things? No, but it's fun and feels good to have that connection (although for some, that connection can get unhealthy).

Part of it is that sports is a form of entertainment, similar to a movie, TV, book, etc. It has amazing moments of excellence, devastating moments of defeat and failure, suspense, twists and turns, and all of that other good shit.

And sports is something that, at the end of the day, usually doesn't really matter. It is something that a person can take interest in outside of the hardships of everyday life. It's insignificant fun and 99% of the time, someone's life in doesn't change when they watch sports (that can be reassuring).

As someone who cares about activism and real-world issues, I can understand how that could be frustrating to understand. But there is something refreshing about being able to get together with a friend or relative who you have almost nothing in common (politics, religion, etc.) and be able to root for the same team together. All the other major issues of life don't matter for a little bit. Does that come off as corny? I'm sure it does, but it is the best answer I've got.

Also, while sports is greatly dominated by corporate interests (which I do hate) there are athletes and sports writers who care greatly about progressive politics. I recommend you read some of David Zirin's stuff. He writes about Sports for The Nation.

By the way, despite an solid season of play, I am disappointed that my St. Louis Cardinals could not keep up with the Brewers in the NL Central.  At least I have the Kansas City Chiefs and, more importantly, Missouri Tiger football to look forward to.  M-I-Z . . .Z-O-U!!!