On charter schools
The following was written by Kim Burningham.
(Note: In this email, Mr. Burningham speaks in his own behalf; the point of view expressed in this blog does not necessarily represent any organization of which he is a part.)
In Utah, charter schools have been operating for 14 years. Over those years, many observers have asked my opinion of these schools. Some asking are vociferous opponents; others are supporters. My typical answer is: “Some charter schools are excellent; some are not good.” This opinion is based on my direct and long experience:
1. Charter Schools are public schools. Many observers misunderstand; they think charter schools are somehow not public. Incorrect. These schools do have more flexibility, but they are required to teach the basic curriculum, receive public monies, and (with some preferential treatment to the founders) are open to the public. The confusion continues because some charter schools appear to be only “private schools in waiting.” That is not true of others.
2. The quality of charter schools varies considerably; more, I believe, than the regular public neighborhood schools. Because charter schools have more flexibility in operation I have discovered although some of them are excellent, others may be deplorable. In fact, because regular neighborhood schools are more closely supervised, I have never seen a one as poor as one charter school I visited in Milwaukee.
3. National and local studies have shown on average, charter schools are not superior, and are in a significant number of cases, inferior to neighborhood schools. I wish to emphasize this is “average,” and I personally know some charter schools above the average. A 2010 report states, “Only 1 in 6 charter schools significantly outperforms their traditional counterpart. And more than a third underperform.” (Amanda Ripley, “A Call to Action for Public Schools,” Time, Sept. 20, 2010, p. 38.)
Although some improvement may be observable, a study released in the last weeks draws a similar conclusion. National researcher Devora Davis, explains that “in terms of what (Utah charter students) learn in year, it is less.” The Salt Lake Tribune reported, “Utah charter school students learn less than traditional district students over the course of a school year, losing the equivalent of 43 days of math and seven days of reading according to a national study.” (Ray Parker, “Study: Utah charter students learn less than traditional school students,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 25, 2013)
In 2012, Economics of Education Review printed a study by Yongmei Ni and Andrea K. Rorrer of the University of Utah. (“Twice considered: Charter schools and student achievement in Utah.”) They concluded “that charter schools on average perform slightly worse as compared to traditional public schools, a result that is primarily affected by the low effectiveness and high student mobility of newly opened charter schools.” However, they further concluded, “When charter schools gain more experience they become as effective as traditional public schools, and in some cases more effective than traditional public schools.”
The research varies somewhat, however, an assertion that on average charter schools are better than traditional schools is clearly false.
4. Some charter schools are in an excellent position to fill specific student needs. Some charter schools are uniquely fine--especially if the charter school in question has been created to fill a specific need. For example, if students have a particular interest in film, East Hollywood Charter High School in the Granite District may be able to better meet the needs of young people with interest in making movies than a neighborhood school. If the child is autistic, then Spectrum Academy in southern Davis County (another charter school) may provide answers. But if the charter school in question primarily duplicates services already provided in the neighborhood school, I am far less enthusiastic.
5. Advocates for the charter schools frequently assert charter schools introduce more competition into the education arena; they believe increased competition improves the overall system. For instance, Mike Martineau, Ph.D., (University of Utah) in his study released this year, The Competitive Effects of Charter Schools in Utah, provides data suggesting mostly positive competitive effects on traditional public schools when a charter school is opened in a geographically competitive area. To the degree that is true, charter schools deserve our careful consideration. However, in the first place, charter schools are not the only way to introduce competition; many public schools take advantage of competition in other ways. Secondly, other advocates believe quality is improved by more cooperation not competition. I suspect some compromise between those two principles is closer to the truth.
6. Parents considering enrolling their child in a charter school should do so carefully. The charter school may be able to fill a need for your child which is not available in the neighborhood school. If, however, the charter school is basically replicating the experience available in your local school, think twice. Remember, when you send your child to a charter school you may be required to take on additional responsibilities: transporting your child to the school not in your neighborhood may be costly.
7. For some, attendance at a charter school may be a decision to desert the local school and flee to some place where the students are more to the parent or student’s liking. I hope that this is not the motive of attendees. Across the country, however, we have seen some people abandon the common good, in favor of preferential treatment for their own. That, I believe, is a mistake and an embarrassment.
In summary, some charter schools provide outstanding alternatives and may deserve the parent’s and student’s consideration. In general, however, I believe the time and effort a parent may devote to a charter school may be better spent to support your neighborhood school.
I believe public neighborhood schools are one of the most remarkable achievements in our country’s history. The idea that every child will, in his or her own neighborhood, be able to receive an excellent education is utopian. As a society, we would be unwise to abandon that value to some temporary, elitist, or self-centered decision.
Today’s Founding Fathers
We all owe a debt of gratitude to our country’s Founding Fathers. Their drive and tenacity put into place the longest surviving constitutional republic in the world. The Constitution is nothing short of inspired; stitched together through compromise and collective experience. I do not believe it is chance that such an extraordinary group of individuals were able to set aside their vast differences and create a common document. I also believe that today’s presidents are equally inspired and have a deep commitment to the progress of our nation.
July 10, 2013
Arizona's Medicaid Expansion
Today brought a conversation that many of my fellow LDS Democrats hear on a regular basis. Midway into the morning I received a phone call from my wife who was clearly energized by her subject, and began to inform me of an organized petition that a church member asked her to sign. Here is our conversation:
Now, after researching the petition my wife politely declined her signature and explained the benefits of expanding Medicaid and the cost savings of lowering the number of uninsured. I am sure her friend was perturbed. I am sure she was surprised that any rational individual would not agree that Obamacare was a destructive force conjured up by a misguided man in order to decay our healthcare system. So to her, the members of the Greenfield-Gilbert Stake, my fellow Arizonans, and any state opting out of Medicaid expansion I write the following:
Rejecting the expansion of Medicaid in Arizona will hurt our residents and negatively impact our budget. In brokering Obamacare, the Federal Government has accepted the increased financial burden by covering 93% of the incremental state costs. We will see significant savings from uninsured liabilities which will offset our obligation to the Medicaid expansion. Even more importantly, we will be covering thousands of our uninsured, whose choice to work negates eligibility for Medicaid. We will create jobs in the healthcare industry and expand access to preventive services (tests for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol, cancer screenings, counseling to help people lose weight, quit smoking or reduce alcohol use, routine vaccinations, flu and pneumonia shots, etc).
Currently across the US, states rejecting Medicaid expansion will lose out on $8.4 billion in federal funding, exclude coverage for 3.6 million uninsured, and see $1 billion more in uncompensated spending. Obamacare will not raise taxes on 95% of Americans and will realize $18 billion a year in savings with less uninsured. Medicaid expansion also requires that doctors receive the same compensation as Medicare patients (currently Medicaid pays less). If all states participate twenty-one million Americans will see their rates decline. Obamacare is also completely paid for; it will not add a single dime to our national deficit.
Now my Arizonan friends, don't naively suggest that our state does not need federal money. Arizona is one of several states that receives more that it pays in taxes. Currently the federal government returns $1.20 for every $1 we pay. In fact, over the past 20 years Arizonans have paid $424 billion in taxes and received $629 billion in Federal benefits. We also took money from Obama's stimulus package when our budgets were in complete disarray saving police, fire, and teacher employment. With as much as our state has been given it appears borderline hypocritical to limit access to healthcare for the working poor needing help. The status quo is unacceptable and though not perfect, Obamacare is a step in the right direction for our great state and nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***I do not believe the Mormon Church is organizing opposition to Obamacare, but it is the isolated action of a few misguided members. The Mormon Church handbook is clear that "stake presidents and other local leaders should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate...Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate."
"Some people in the church are trying to stop Obamacare."
"Really? How is that possible?"
"I don't know, they want me to sign a petition, and if they get enough signatures, they can overturn Governor Jan Brewer."
"Who is arranging this? Did you ask what the petition does?"
"Somebody from the Stake (a large congregation in the Mormon church). I guess they are asking members to sign a petition which they are saying will stop the expansion of Obamacare."
"Ahhh. They are trying to stop the expansion of Medicaid. They want to overturn Governor Brewer's decision to accept federal funds for Medicaid. Go ahead and sign."
"What? I thought you would be upset. You want me to sign?!"
"Sure. If Arizona wants to cut off its nose to spite its face...well...it's not the first time."
Now, after researching the petition my wife politely declined her signature and explained the benefits of expanding Medicaid and the cost savings of lowering the number of uninsured. I am sure her friend was perturbed. I am sure she was surprised that any rational individual would not agree that Obamacare was a destructive force conjured up by a misguided man in order to decay our healthcare system. So to her, the members of the Greenfield-Gilbert Stake, my fellow Arizonans, and any state opting out of Medicaid expansion I write the following:
Rejecting the expansion of Medicaid in Arizona will hurt our residents and negatively impact our budget. In brokering Obamacare, the Federal Government has accepted the increased financial burden by covering 93% of the incremental state costs. We will see significant savings from uninsured liabilities which will offset our obligation to the Medicaid expansion. Even more importantly, we will be covering thousands of our uninsured, whose choice to work negates eligibility for Medicaid. We will create jobs in the healthcare industry and expand access to preventive services (tests for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol, cancer screenings, counseling to help people lose weight, quit smoking or reduce alcohol use, routine vaccinations, flu and pneumonia shots, etc).
Currently across the US, states rejecting Medicaid expansion will lose out on $8.4 billion in federal funding, exclude coverage for 3.6 million uninsured, and see $1 billion more in uncompensated spending. Obamacare will not raise taxes on 95% of Americans and will realize $18 billion a year in savings with less uninsured. Medicaid expansion also requires that doctors receive the same compensation as Medicare patients (currently Medicaid pays less). If all states participate twenty-one million Americans will see their rates decline. Obamacare is also completely paid for; it will not add a single dime to our national deficit.
Now my Arizonan friends, don't naively suggest that our state does not need federal money. Arizona is one of several states that receives more that it pays in taxes. Currently the federal government returns $1.20 for every $1 we pay. In fact, over the past 20 years Arizonans have paid $424 billion in taxes and received $629 billion in Federal benefits. We also took money from Obama's stimulus package when our budgets were in complete disarray saving police, fire, and teacher employment. With as much as our state has been given it appears borderline hypocritical to limit access to healthcare for the working poor needing help. The status quo is unacceptable and though not perfect, Obamacare is a step in the right direction for our great state and nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
***I do not believe the Mormon Church is organizing opposition to Obamacare, but it is the isolated action of a few misguided members. The Mormon Church handbook is clear that "stake presidents and other local leaders should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate...Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate."
July 09, 2013
The Supreme Court's Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage
The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and allowing lower court decisions to stand overturning Proposition 8 in California makes for a dramatic shift in American society. This brief analysis is to consider some of the possible ramifications of the decision. While not a full legal analysis, it does have a lawyer's insight in areas potentially impacting Mormon practices past, present, and future. The purpose of this post is not to advocate for gay marriage.
July 08, 2013
Anger is not patriotism
(The following is a reprint of a guest column in the Ogden Standard Examiner to be published the week of July 8.)
Everybody in America is angry these days. We’re mad the “gummit” is collecting all that metadata on our phone calls and emails. We’re mad at the IRS for giving some political groups extra scrutiny. We’re mad at Attorney General John Swallow and the weekly revelations about his past associations with persons of ill repute.
Not that we don’t have problems, but it seems as if anger is the new national sport. I wonder sometimes if we even care what we’re angry about. Put a little different twist on the above stories, and we might all be angry in the opposite direction. If we’d had another terrorist attack instead of Edward Snowden, we’d all be screaming about why wasn’t the government doing a better job collecting intelligence to prevent attacks (which is exactly what happened in 2001 and why the Patriot Act authorized the gathering of said metadata). Put a different spin on the IRS story, and we could all be yelling about wealthy political donors directing their minions in Washington to allow them to buy politicians with taxpayer-subsidized money.
I think many of us are confusing anger with patriotism; that somehow we’ve done our civic duty if we simply hate the government vehemently enough. I’m reminded of a quote from former Speaker Sam Rayburn: “A jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.” One obvious factor leading to this environment is the strategy of one of America’s major political parties to be anti-government. Anger for these guys means success at the ballot box. A clever political strategy, but one that doesn’t fix anything.
Two facts are important here. One is that we live in a complex, interconnected world, where technology allows non-state actors to do significant damage to our homeland, and where commerce is increasingly global. Comfortable, idealistic, simplistic solutions won’t work. The second is that at the very moment our duties as American citizens became more complex, we’re increasingly canceling our newspaper subscriptions, neglecting proper civic education for ourselves and our children, refusing to listen to facts that conflict with our pre-conceived notions, and spending way too much time following Honey Boo-Boo and the Kardashians.
One would think Utahns would be examples for the nation in bucking this trend. After all, the leaders of the state’s predominant religion constantly admonish us to carefully and prayerfully study the issues and candidates and be involved in civic affairs. The facts, however, are discouraging. In about two decades, we’ve gone from being among the highest to one of the lowest in voter participation. And during that same period, many of us who do vote don’t put nearly enough effort into this important task.
An example here is illustrative. Last year I did a Facebook post about Weber County Attorney Dee Smith and his qualifications to become Utah’s Attorney General. An old acquaintance replied that he was angry at Obama. What that had to do with who should be Utah’s chief law enforcement officer or the price of rice in China, he didn’t say. Many are angry that the revelations about John Swallow didn’t come out before the election, but I believe Gov. Herbert’s frank assessment that he would have been elected anyway. In Utah, Republicans are simply assumed to be people of high moral character. No need to waste time actually checking into their character or qualifications. If Republican Party delegates say a professional political fund raiser and back-room dealer is more qualified than one of Utah’s most respected criminal prosecutors, why should a humble average citizen like me second-guess them?
What’s discouraging about sitting here writing this is the fact that those who need the message aren’t getting it. You are a newspaper reader. I’m preaching to the choir.
We often hear the phrase “we need to run government like a business”. Good idea! Those involved in problem-solving activities in private industry know the last thing in the world you want is anger. Looking for someone to blame is anathema. In industry, we look at problems as an opportunity to improve the system, and those efforts must be based on facts and data rather than ideology. Differing opinions and real teamwork is valued.
What to do? Next time someone starts spouting off, challenge them. Make them look at all sides of the argument. Ask what they would do, and be ready to point out the contradictions. You may lose some friends, but who knows? Actual thinking may break out.
Everybody in America is angry these days. We’re mad the “gummit” is collecting all that metadata on our phone calls and emails. We’re mad at the IRS for giving some political groups extra scrutiny. We’re mad at Attorney General John Swallow and the weekly revelations about his past associations with persons of ill repute.
Not that we don’t have problems, but it seems as if anger is the new national sport. I wonder sometimes if we even care what we’re angry about. Put a little different twist on the above stories, and we might all be angry in the opposite direction. If we’d had another terrorist attack instead of Edward Snowden, we’d all be screaming about why wasn’t the government doing a better job collecting intelligence to prevent attacks (which is exactly what happened in 2001 and why the Patriot Act authorized the gathering of said metadata). Put a different spin on the IRS story, and we could all be yelling about wealthy political donors directing their minions in Washington to allow them to buy politicians with taxpayer-subsidized money.
I think many of us are confusing anger with patriotism; that somehow we’ve done our civic duty if we simply hate the government vehemently enough. I’m reminded of a quote from former Speaker Sam Rayburn: “A jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.” One obvious factor leading to this environment is the strategy of one of America’s major political parties to be anti-government. Anger for these guys means success at the ballot box. A clever political strategy, but one that doesn’t fix anything.
Two facts are important here. One is that we live in a complex, interconnected world, where technology allows non-state actors to do significant damage to our homeland, and where commerce is increasingly global. Comfortable, idealistic, simplistic solutions won’t work. The second is that at the very moment our duties as American citizens became more complex, we’re increasingly canceling our newspaper subscriptions, neglecting proper civic education for ourselves and our children, refusing to listen to facts that conflict with our pre-conceived notions, and spending way too much time following Honey Boo-Boo and the Kardashians.
One would think Utahns would be examples for the nation in bucking this trend. After all, the leaders of the state’s predominant religion constantly admonish us to carefully and prayerfully study the issues and candidates and be involved in civic affairs. The facts, however, are discouraging. In about two decades, we’ve gone from being among the highest to one of the lowest in voter participation. And during that same period, many of us who do vote don’t put nearly enough effort into this important task.
An example here is illustrative. Last year I did a Facebook post about Weber County Attorney Dee Smith and his qualifications to become Utah’s Attorney General. An old acquaintance replied that he was angry at Obama. What that had to do with who should be Utah’s chief law enforcement officer or the price of rice in China, he didn’t say. Many are angry that the revelations about John Swallow didn’t come out before the election, but I believe Gov. Herbert’s frank assessment that he would have been elected anyway. In Utah, Republicans are simply assumed to be people of high moral character. No need to waste time actually checking into their character or qualifications. If Republican Party delegates say a professional political fund raiser and back-room dealer is more qualified than one of Utah’s most respected criminal prosecutors, why should a humble average citizen like me second-guess them?
What’s discouraging about sitting here writing this is the fact that those who need the message aren’t getting it. You are a newspaper reader. I’m preaching to the choir.
We often hear the phrase “we need to run government like a business”. Good idea! Those involved in problem-solving activities in private industry know the last thing in the world you want is anger. Looking for someone to blame is anathema. In industry, we look at problems as an opportunity to improve the system, and those efforts must be based on facts and data rather than ideology. Differing opinions and real teamwork is valued.
What to do? Next time someone starts spouting off, challenge them. Make them look at all sides of the argument. Ask what they would do, and be ready to point out the contradictions. You may lose some friends, but who knows? Actual thinking may break out.
Wendy Davis: Democratic Hero
U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has recently staged a couple of old-fashioned filibusters and proposed others in the populist style of Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." However, it was a Texas State Senator who won the respect and love of Democrats throughout the country Tuesday night when her filibuster delayed the vote on a restrictive abortion bill.
Abortion is a very challenging issue of the culture wars. While MormonDems bloggers support the LDS teaching that abortion is a serious moral issue, we also support the Church's provision for rare but sometimes necessary exceptions. These include rape, incest, “serious jeopardy” to the “life or health of the mother” and when “the fetus has serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” These exceptions should only be considered after discussions with the woman's family, her doctor, and bishop or branch president. As this is a challenging personal and religious issue, the law should allow those consultations and decisions with the least amount of intrusion. It should be recognized that the Church takes no position with regard to any particular abortion legislation. You can find the Church's official statement at this link.
June 28, 2013
Mormons Should Support Same-Sex Marriages
Many Mormons reading this might be thinking the Mormon Church believes marriage is between a man and a woman (well it does now anyway. If you remember, it used to be a man and women). Certainly that appears to be the case if you look at canon and statements made by Church leadership in terms of what we as Mormons should practice.
That said, I don’t recall canon or Church leaders anywhere or anytime telling politicians how they should make law.
Read more
King Limhi, Socialist
It's interesting how after reading the Book of Mormon countless times over decades, new insights still come to light.
Our little family (myself, my wife Teri and our 7 year old grandson Silas) read a little in the special illustrated "Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families" every night. We're deep into the Book of Mosiah, and were reading about that difficult time in the land of Nephi between when King Noah suffered his well-earned turn at the stake and their delivery with the assistance of Ammon and his brethren.
After several battles with the Lamanites, there were many widows and fatherless children in the land. And here we have the verse that tells how King Limhi dealt with the problem. This is found in Mosiah 21:17. "Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore, king Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain."
The real meaning of this hit me for the first time last week. At the risk of being presumptuous, here's the same scripture, with a few clarifying modern terms, that summarizes what I got out of it:
"Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore, king Limhi (the government) commanded (passed a law) that every man should impart (pay taxes) to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain."
Darn socialist Book of Mormon kings.
Our little family (myself, my wife Teri and our 7 year old grandson Silas) read a little in the special illustrated "Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families" every night. We're deep into the Book of Mosiah, and were reading about that difficult time in the land of Nephi between when King Noah suffered his well-earned turn at the stake and their delivery with the assistance of Ammon and his brethren.
After several battles with the Lamanites, there were many widows and fatherless children in the land. And here we have the verse that tells how King Limhi dealt with the problem. This is found in Mosiah 21:17. "Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore, king Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain."
The real meaning of this hit me for the first time last week. At the risk of being presumptuous, here's the same scripture, with a few clarifying modern terms, that summarizes what I got out of it:
"Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore, king Limhi (the government) commanded (passed a law) that every man should impart (pay taxes) to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain."
Darn socialist Book of Mormon kings.
Boldly Going Nowhere: A Commitment to Learn More about Mental Health
Post by Rob Taber Cross-posted with Young Democrats of America, Faith & Values Initiative
I'm not ready to write this post.
I decided about a week ago that my next post would be about mental health because it needs to be talked about, because of all of the pledges to fix our nation's mental health system after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, because of its connection to Medicaid expansion, to the development of new healthcare plans over the next year.
As a historian, I felt drawn to the rise and decline of mental health institutions. As a Latter-day Saint, I wanted to talk about the image of Prozac-popping housewives, the rigors of missionary work, and the fallacy of the "read your scriptures & pray" approach to curing depression, anxiety, or PTSD.
I'm afraid that I'm not ready.
I have been thinking about mental health: the vast policy issues, the growing theological understanding, how its impacted my life and the lives of friends and family, the struggles and daily grind of those to whom I try to minister* in my volunteer church service.
On the way back from my one-night-a-week of ministry visits this week, I was behind a car with 3-4 bumper stickers. Due to the glare of my headlights, it took me a little while before I was sure I had deciphered the sticker in the middle.
"Boldly Going Nowhere."
It's possible the driver meant this sticker to speak of a special level of cynical nihilism, but thinking of mental health and ministering to others, I saw a commitment to stay in a screwed-up world and keep loving, because, after all, the commitment to love and work acts of love is what makes the difference. And then lyrics flashed in from my childhood:
If you don't walk as most people do / Some people walk away from you / But I won't! I won't! / If you don't talk as most people do / Some people talk and laugh at you / But I won't! I won't! / I'll walk with you / I'll talk with you / That's how I'll show my love for you.
I remember feeling rather uncomfortable as child of 9 or 10 at church singing Carol Lynn Pearson's "I'll Walk with You." I recognize now, as I suspect that I did then, that I struggled with the song's radical message and its implications for what I could be doing better, that I could do a better job of understanding, of loving, of talking, and walking.
The other night I re-watched Gentleman's Agreement, the Academy-award winning drama from 1947 in which Gregory Peck plays a Protestant reporter who spends 6 months pretending to be Jewish so he can better understand, and write about, anti-semitism. A major theme of the film is the stifling, festering power of silence among "nice people, good people" in continuing misunderstanding, discrimination, and bigotry.
The public policy issues mentioned above--Medicaid expansion, access to care, support for veterans, help for families--are all very real, but I know, at least for me, there's some education I have to undergo before I can understand what it is that we should do. Positive change depends on good information, just as charity (pure love) requires comprehension.
So instead of closing out with a political call to action, here's my pledge: I'm not going anywhere. Although there are always new discoveries about how the brain works and there are ongoing debate over the medicalization of all mental health treatment and the best way to reduce stigma for people who would benefit from help, whether that's a little counseling or a lifelong pattern of care, I'm going to find time to educate myself, at least some more, about mental health. I'm including some links here to introductory resources. If you have suggestions for further reading, please include them in the comments.
Mental Health - Centers for Disease Control
Topics - National Institute of Mental Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Families - NYU Child Study Center
Health Reform - Kaiser Family Foundation
Health Policy - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
----------------------------------------------
(George Albert Smith, 8th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, battled depression and anxiety for much of his life.)
I'm not ready to write this post.
I decided about a week ago that my next post would be about mental health because it needs to be talked about, because of all of the pledges to fix our nation's mental health system after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, because of its connection to Medicaid expansion, to the development of new healthcare plans over the next year.
As a historian, I felt drawn to the rise and decline of mental health institutions. As a Latter-day Saint, I wanted to talk about the image of Prozac-popping housewives, the rigors of missionary work, and the fallacy of the "read your scriptures & pray" approach to curing depression, anxiety, or PTSD.
I'm afraid that I'm not ready.
I have been thinking about mental health: the vast policy issues, the growing theological understanding, how its impacted my life and the lives of friends and family, the struggles and daily grind of those to whom I try to minister* in my volunteer church service.
On the way back from my one-night-a-week of ministry visits this week, I was behind a car with 3-4 bumper stickers. Due to the glare of my headlights, it took me a little while before I was sure I had deciphered the sticker in the middle.
"Boldly Going Nowhere."
It's possible the driver meant this sticker to speak of a special level of cynical nihilism, but thinking of mental health and ministering to others, I saw a commitment to stay in a screwed-up world and keep loving, because, after all, the commitment to love and work acts of love is what makes the difference. And then lyrics flashed in from my childhood:
If you don't walk as most people do / Some people walk away from you / But I won't! I won't! / If you don't talk as most people do / Some people talk and laugh at you / But I won't! I won't! / I'll walk with you / I'll talk with you / That's how I'll show my love for you.
I remember feeling rather uncomfortable as child of 9 or 10 at church singing Carol Lynn Pearson's "I'll Walk with You." I recognize now, as I suspect that I did then, that I struggled with the song's radical message and its implications for what I could be doing better, that I could do a better job of understanding, of loving, of talking, and walking.
The other night I re-watched Gentleman's Agreement, the Academy-award winning drama from 1947 in which Gregory Peck plays a Protestant reporter who spends 6 months pretending to be Jewish so he can better understand, and write about, anti-semitism. A major theme of the film is the stifling, festering power of silence among "nice people, good people" in continuing misunderstanding, discrimination, and bigotry.
The public policy issues mentioned above--Medicaid expansion, access to care, support for veterans, help for families--are all very real, but I know, at least for me, there's some education I have to undergo before I can understand what it is that we should do. Positive change depends on good information, just as charity (pure love) requires comprehension.
So instead of closing out with a political call to action, here's my pledge: I'm not going anywhere. Although there are always new discoveries about how the brain works and there are ongoing debate over the medicalization of all mental health treatment and the best way to reduce stigma for people who would benefit from help, whether that's a little counseling or a lifelong pattern of care, I'm going to find time to educate myself, at least some more, about mental health. I'm including some links here to introductory resources. If you have suggestions for further reading, please include them in the comments.
Mental Health - Centers for Disease Control
Topics - National Institute of Mental Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Families - NYU Child Study Center
Health Reform - Kaiser Family Foundation
Health Policy - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
----------------------------------------------
(George Albert Smith, 8th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, battled depression and anxiety for much of his life.)
A Supreme Precedent for Gun Laws
In the aftermath of any mass shooting in the U.S., an all-or-nothing rhetoric about guns typically infects the public discourse regarding what ought to be done to prevent such tragedies in the future. In many communities, inhabitants are warned that the government has a hidden agenda seeking to ban all future gun sales and intends to confiscate privately owned firearms. “Obama wants to take your guns away,” we are warned. Far too many Americans have accepted the all-or-nothing gun law paradigm, and believe that any attempt by government to place even the most modest of restrictions on how guns are acquired, what firearms can be sold publicly, and where they are carried, as an egregious intrusion on a supposedly inalienable right.