You could see the gates in the background as President Obama spoke at Buchenwald last week.
The gates read Jedem das Seine. Literally, it means, "To each his own"; figuratively, it means, "Everybody gets what he deserves." At Dachau, near München, the gates read Arbeit Machts Frei, or "Work makes one free." Messages steeped in irony.
It was with a mixture of pride and sadness that I watched the President make that speech, in a place where unspeakable horrors took place. It was significant that he stood there, making it clear that his administration does support Israel, does support the plight of the Jews. And he reiterated that he could not tolerate the views of those who would deny the Holocaust:
"We are here today because we know this work is not yet finished. To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened—a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful. This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts; a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history."
My pride was mingled with sadness, as it often is, when I am reminded of the atrocities that took place some 70 years ago. And the sadness returned yesterday, when an 84-year-old white supremacist opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, killing Stephen Johns, an African-American security guard, the man who opened the door to allow the gunman in.
Here we are, 64 years after the end of World War II, more than 40 years after the Civil Rights movement. And still, we have people filled with such hate. People who hate indiscriminately, with a bias against those of another race, religion, or sexual orientation - to name a few.
Where does it end?
Did we not learn from the Nazis, and their needless hate and fear of another religion? Why the hatred against those of another race? Why the need to judge people based on what they look like, or what religion they practice, or whom they love? Why not judge people on, to quote the great Dr. Martin Luther King, the content of their character?
Jedem das Seine. Everyone gets what he deserves. Do we not all deserve the same thing? The "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as outlined in the Declaration of Independence?
The shooter in the Holocaust Museum was in his 80s. With luck, the hatred, the divisiveness belongs to a different generation. I can only hope that with my own children, such prejudices will fade away, and that truly we will see people as we should: as equals.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me. - Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
No Child Left Behind?
It's official: We have a failing school in our midst.
Not that this is a secret, by any means. I've followed the news reports, and I've received my official notice from the school corporation: Miller Elementary has failed to achieve the mandated Annual Yearly Progress as outlined by No Child Left Behind. I've also received notice that the school my child attends has been identified for improvement.
Miller Elementary is our neighborhood school. According to data compiled by the Lafayette School Corporation, Miller has higher numbers of students who receive free/reduced lunch, are minority, have limited English proficiency, and are in special education. Because of these statistics, and with such a high number of at-risk students, it is no surprise to anyone that Miller has failed to meet the AYP guidelines.
I should back up a bit. Miller School is located at the juncture of several neighborhoods. There is the neighborhood where we live, older homes, mostly owner-occupied, some rental. Housing prices range from $150,000-600,000; annual incomes include everything from hourly employees to physicians and attorneys. The neighborhood just south of Miller is also mostly owner-occupied houses; it is a more modest, working-class neighborhood with property values ranging from $60,000-100,000. A third distinct area feeds into Miller, with the houses that are west and north of the school. Many of these are rental; many are much more modest. This area tends to be a bit more transient.
Up until 2005, Miller's district comprised primarily these three areas. In the fall of 2005, students from nearby Washington Elementary, a school further north of downtown Lafayette, were sent to Miller when LSC made the decision to close Washington. This move placed more of these at-risk, lower-income students at Miller.
Four years later, and Miller is still struggling to reach these children. The result? The school corporation, under the guidelines set forth by No Child Left Behind, must decide how to deal with Miller School, its principal, and its staff and their combined failure to improve test scores. The options include replacing the staff at Miller (which implies that the staff is wholely responsible for the students' failure), closing the school and reopening it as a charter school, or hiring a professional management company to come in and help turn the school around.
All the responsibility for the failure of these students - more than 80 percent of whom are eligible for free/reduced lunch - is being placed on the staff. Yet I had a very good experience with this same group of teachers. I knew them as a dedicated group of professionals, teachers who were entirely vested in not only the success of their students, but in the school as a whole. My own children attended Miller from 2000-2006. All three of them passed the ISTEP every time they took it; all three of my children have gone on to be placed in gifted/talented programs.
Who is responsible for the success of my children? Did their grades and test scores come about because of the teachers they had? Or did they succeed because of encouragement they got at home? If the latter is the case - which is likely a major factor - then conversely, wouldn't the failure of some students also be in direct proportion to the help they get at home?
It seems like such an easy conclusion - and it's one I know the school corporation understands. I've heard superintendent Dr. Ed Eiler give a talk about how schools are measured and what students bring into the school; already, by age 5, children bring in habits and background from their home life that affects their school performance. Given the transient circumstances in which many of these students live, their income level, and the general lifestyle to which they are exposed, it's no wonder many of them find success in school to be a challenge.
I should note here that while it's easy to blame parents, the socio-econcomic status of these students makes the entire equation very complex. These are not all parents who do not care about their children, but often parents who are too overworked or underwhelmed or simply ignorant of what their role as a parent should be. If proper parenting has not been modeled, how do these adults know how to do what is best for their children? If no one read to them as children, how do they know that's what they should be doing for their children?
Bottom line? The No. 1 factor in a child's success in school is involvement of the parents. Which is why home-schooled children typically do well - they have the undivided attention of an adult who is completely vested in their success.
In short, the problem here is not the staff at Miller School. The problem is with this law, the fact that legislators, and not educators, have taken it upon themselves to come up with the matrix by which we determine a student's success. It's a categorical flaw in our social stratification, in which the divide between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen.
I don't claim to have all the answers. But one thing I do know? Closing Miller School will not change a thing.
Not that this is a secret, by any means. I've followed the news reports, and I've received my official notice from the school corporation: Miller Elementary has failed to achieve the mandated Annual Yearly Progress as outlined by No Child Left Behind. I've also received notice that the school my child attends has been identified for improvement.
Miller Elementary is our neighborhood school. According to data compiled by the Lafayette School Corporation, Miller has higher numbers of students who receive free/reduced lunch, are minority, have limited English proficiency, and are in special education. Because of these statistics, and with such a high number of at-risk students, it is no surprise to anyone that Miller has failed to meet the AYP guidelines.
I should back up a bit. Miller School is located at the juncture of several neighborhoods. There is the neighborhood where we live, older homes, mostly owner-occupied, some rental. Housing prices range from $150,000-600,000; annual incomes include everything from hourly employees to physicians and attorneys. The neighborhood just south of Miller is also mostly owner-occupied houses; it is a more modest, working-class neighborhood with property values ranging from $60,000-100,000. A third distinct area feeds into Miller, with the houses that are west and north of the school. Many of these are rental; many are much more modest. This area tends to be a bit more transient.
Up until 2005, Miller's district comprised primarily these three areas. In the fall of 2005, students from nearby Washington Elementary, a school further north of downtown Lafayette, were sent to Miller when LSC made the decision to close Washington. This move placed more of these at-risk, lower-income students at Miller.
Four years later, and Miller is still struggling to reach these children. The result? The school corporation, under the guidelines set forth by No Child Left Behind, must decide how to deal with Miller School, its principal, and its staff and their combined failure to improve test scores. The options include replacing the staff at Miller (which implies that the staff is wholely responsible for the students' failure), closing the school and reopening it as a charter school, or hiring a professional management company to come in and help turn the school around.
All the responsibility for the failure of these students - more than 80 percent of whom are eligible for free/reduced lunch - is being placed on the staff. Yet I had a very good experience with this same group of teachers. I knew them as a dedicated group of professionals, teachers who were entirely vested in not only the success of their students, but in the school as a whole. My own children attended Miller from 2000-2006. All three of them passed the ISTEP every time they took it; all three of my children have gone on to be placed in gifted/talented programs.
Who is responsible for the success of my children? Did their grades and test scores come about because of the teachers they had? Or did they succeed because of encouragement they got at home? If the latter is the case - which is likely a major factor - then conversely, wouldn't the failure of some students also be in direct proportion to the help they get at home?
It seems like such an easy conclusion - and it's one I know the school corporation understands. I've heard superintendent Dr. Ed Eiler give a talk about how schools are measured and what students bring into the school; already, by age 5, children bring in habits and background from their home life that affects their school performance. Given the transient circumstances in which many of these students live, their income level, and the general lifestyle to which they are exposed, it's no wonder many of them find success in school to be a challenge.
I should note here that while it's easy to blame parents, the socio-econcomic status of these students makes the entire equation very complex. These are not all parents who do not care about their children, but often parents who are too overworked or underwhelmed or simply ignorant of what their role as a parent should be. If proper parenting has not been modeled, how do these adults know how to do what is best for their children? If no one read to them as children, how do they know that's what they should be doing for their children?
Bottom line? The No. 1 factor in a child's success in school is involvement of the parents. Which is why home-schooled children typically do well - they have the undivided attention of an adult who is completely vested in their success.
In short, the problem here is not the staff at Miller School. The problem is with this law, the fact that legislators, and not educators, have taken it upon themselves to come up with the matrix by which we determine a student's success. It's a categorical flaw in our social stratification, in which the divide between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen.
I don't claim to have all the answers. But one thing I do know? Closing Miller School will not change a thing.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
And what's so wrong with the Midwest?
I'm from the Midwest.
This isn't something I say with braggadocio in my voice, nor something I confess with shame. It's a mere fact.
I was born in Nebraska, grew up and went to university in Missouri. As an adult I've lived in Illinois and Indiana.
For the record, I have been out of the Midwest. I've lived in Texas, and I've even lived out of the country, in England in Germany. I have traveled - a lot - and have visited 35 of the 50 states.
And when you get right down to it, life here in the middle United States is not all that different than life anywhere else. People have careers and families, friends and houses, hobbies and vacations. People here are educated, or not; they are cultured, or not. And they are nice. Or not so much.
Which is why I get irked when I get the impression other Americans are looking down their down nose at we Midwesterners. Or when I read a piece like this one from Chris Erskine with the Los Angeles Times.
(It was at a wedding reception in Chicago. As if somehow the mere fact that your drivers license says "Chicago" - or one of the surrounding suburbs - makes you superior in some way. Dropping into the conversation that we had just moved back from a two-year stint in Europe earned us some points. But is that really necessary in order to garner some modicum of respect?)
Erskine's piece details his trip to West Lafayette for his daughter to check out the Purdue campus. It was probably intended to be tongue-in-cheek as he made little observations about the town, the campus, the wholesome, friendly, farm-grown folks he encountered on his sojourn through the farmland. His less-sophisticated counterparts.
He meant to be funny. To entertain. But you know? I can do without those on the coast, the elitists from New York and California, who seem to feel a need to poke fun at people who live in those "big, square states" or the "flyover states."
I mean, really. Cracks about a waitress and her "corn-fed" smile, or about the lack of designer jeans on campus - what is that about? Does he really for one minute think that everyone here works in agriculture? Or that no one here can afford designer jeans?
Maybe there were brands his little darling had never seen before. Ever think of that?
I could also do without the comment about "prairie princesses" in Ohio. Is all of Ohio a giant prairie? How did he know those girls were even from Ohio?
It doesn't do much good to be too thin-skinned and get all worked every time someone ignorantly bunches all residents of a single state into one category. Nor does it serve any purpose to be the one doing the lumping.
I'll just need to remember to note the diversity I see around me - people from various ethnic groups, from differing backgrounds and income levels.
And be glad I have the sense to know that not all writers from Los Angeles are superficial.
This isn't something I say with braggadocio in my voice, nor something I confess with shame. It's a mere fact.
I was born in Nebraska, grew up and went to university in Missouri. As an adult I've lived in Illinois and Indiana.
For the record, I have been out of the Midwest. I've lived in Texas, and I've even lived out of the country, in England in Germany. I have traveled - a lot - and have visited 35 of the 50 states.
And when you get right down to it, life here in the middle United States is not all that different than life anywhere else. People have careers and families, friends and houses, hobbies and vacations. People here are educated, or not; they are cultured, or not. And they are nice. Or not so much.
Which is why I get irked when I get the impression other Americans are looking down their down nose at we Midwesterners. Or when I read a piece like this one from Chris Erskine with the Los Angeles Times.
(It was at a wedding reception in Chicago. As if somehow the mere fact that your drivers license says "Chicago" - or one of the surrounding suburbs - makes you superior in some way. Dropping into the conversation that we had just moved back from a two-year stint in Europe earned us some points. But is that really necessary in order to garner some modicum of respect?)
Erskine's piece details his trip to West Lafayette for his daughter to check out the Purdue campus. It was probably intended to be tongue-in-cheek as he made little observations about the town, the campus, the wholesome, friendly, farm-grown folks he encountered on his sojourn through the farmland. His less-sophisticated counterparts.
He meant to be funny. To entertain. But you know? I can do without those on the coast, the elitists from New York and California, who seem to feel a need to poke fun at people who live in those "big, square states" or the "flyover states."
I mean, really. Cracks about a waitress and her "corn-fed" smile, or about the lack of designer jeans on campus - what is that about? Does he really for one minute think that everyone here works in agriculture? Or that no one here can afford designer jeans?
Maybe there were brands his little darling had never seen before. Ever think of that?
I could also do without the comment about "prairie princesses" in Ohio. Is all of Ohio a giant prairie? How did he know those girls were even from Ohio?
It doesn't do much good to be too thin-skinned and get all worked every time someone ignorantly bunches all residents of a single state into one category. Nor does it serve any purpose to be the one doing the lumping.
I'll just need to remember to note the diversity I see around me - people from various ethnic groups, from differing backgrounds and income levels.
And be glad I have the sense to know that not all writers from Los Angeles are superficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
