My discovery of "It Takes A Village"
A few weeks ago, we had our 4th Sunday lesson in priesthood meeting on Elder Christofferson’s talk “The Moral Force of Women” from last October’s conference. Although I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the lack of political talk in our new Ogden ward (compared with our old ward, where I would often come home from church with blood running down the corners of my mouth from biting my tongue), that particular lesson did contain the obligatory attacks from some of the older gentlemen on the “women libbers”. At one point, the teacher brought up Hillary Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village”, and resurrected that old Bob Dole snark: “No, maam, it takes a family.” Then the teacher proceeded to claim that Mrs. Clinton’s book denigrated the role of traditional families in her book.
Well, I knew he hadn’t read it and based his opinion on one smart-alecky sentence from a political opponent. I would have called him on it, until I realized: I hadn’t read it either!
Thanks to the miracle of technology, within an hour from arriving home from church, the 2006 second edition of “It Takes a Village” was on the Kindle reader on my smartphone. (I don’t know about you, but the ease of getting a new book from the Kindle Store sure makes it hard to keep on a reasonable book budget.) I’ve been reading it during lunch the last few weeks, and was left with one overriding impression: Not only was Bob Dole and our priesthood instructor dead wrong; I believe if you took the text from that book, put it in a different cover with a new name, and pasted the name of a General Authority on the front, it would be an instant best seller at Deseret Book. I’ve never read anything more supportive of the traditional family, or more sympathetic to our traditional LDS values.
The chapter on divorce was especially emotional for me. I think everyone knows about President Clinton’s troubled childhood. Mrs. Clinton had good, supportive parents, but her mother, Dorothy Rodham, came from a broken home. She tells the heartbreaking story of how her 8-year old mother and her 3-year old younger sister were put on a train in Chicago by their father for a three-day trip, all alone, to live with their grandparents in Los Angeles. Our little grandson Silas, who lives with us, turns eight in April. I just can’t imagine! I have never read more passionate arguments about the scourge of divorce on the lives of young children than those contained in that chapter, or a more clarion call for us to do better as a society. Suddenly, I had an epiphany about Mrs. Clinton’s own life. There have been all sorts of nefarious theories about why she stayed with her husband after his well-publicized problems with keeping his marriage covenants, but it became clear to me that she simply hated divorce, and loved Chelsea too much to allow their family to be split up. If conservative leaders in our country were as committed to keeping marriages together “for better or worse” as Hillary Clinton has been, our nation would be a much friendlier place for traditional families. The contrast between her and folks like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich is stark indeed. (Speaking of snark: I loved the one-liner from the late night comedian in early 2012 who said the only Republican presidential candidates that had only one wife were the two Mormons.)
Mrs. Clinton had extraordinary credentials for writing this book. During her years at Yale Law School, she participated in ground breaking research into childhood health and development, and her book is filled with both the passion for the importance of loving homes and the science supporting her passion.
The theme of “It Takes a Village” is simple: Hillary Clinton argues passionately that our communities need to do a much better job of supporting traditional families and the precious children than live in those homes. Bob Dole’s snarky remark couldn’t have been more wrong. It reinforces my anger at an LDS culture that automatically assumes that conservatives are pro-family and progressives are anti-family. I am embarrassed now that it took me this long to read this landmark book, and it makes me more dedicated than ever to the cause of speaking out against that falsehood. I gained a new appreciation for Mrs. Clinton and the strength of her character. Makes me even more proud to be a Democrat! You can count me in as one American who would be thrilled to see her become our first woman President.
Well, I knew he hadn’t read it and based his opinion on one smart-alecky sentence from a political opponent. I would have called him on it, until I realized: I hadn’t read it either!
Thanks to the miracle of technology, within an hour from arriving home from church, the 2006 second edition of “It Takes a Village” was on the Kindle reader on my smartphone. (I don’t know about you, but the ease of getting a new book from the Kindle Store sure makes it hard to keep on a reasonable book budget.) I’ve been reading it during lunch the last few weeks, and was left with one overriding impression: Not only was Bob Dole and our priesthood instructor dead wrong; I believe if you took the text from that book, put it in a different cover with a new name, and pasted the name of a General Authority on the front, it would be an instant best seller at Deseret Book. I’ve never read anything more supportive of the traditional family, or more sympathetic to our traditional LDS values.
The chapter on divorce was especially emotional for me. I think everyone knows about President Clinton’s troubled childhood. Mrs. Clinton had good, supportive parents, but her mother, Dorothy Rodham, came from a broken home. She tells the heartbreaking story of how her 8-year old mother and her 3-year old younger sister were put on a train in Chicago by their father for a three-day trip, all alone, to live with their grandparents in Los Angeles. Our little grandson Silas, who lives with us, turns eight in April. I just can’t imagine! I have never read more passionate arguments about the scourge of divorce on the lives of young children than those contained in that chapter, or a more clarion call for us to do better as a society. Suddenly, I had an epiphany about Mrs. Clinton’s own life. There have been all sorts of nefarious theories about why she stayed with her husband after his well-publicized problems with keeping his marriage covenants, but it became clear to me that she simply hated divorce, and loved Chelsea too much to allow their family to be split up. If conservative leaders in our country were as committed to keeping marriages together “for better or worse” as Hillary Clinton has been, our nation would be a much friendlier place for traditional families. The contrast between her and folks like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich is stark indeed. (Speaking of snark: I loved the one-liner from the late night comedian in early 2012 who said the only Republican presidential candidates that had only one wife were the two Mormons.)
Mrs. Clinton had extraordinary credentials for writing this book. During her years at Yale Law School, she participated in ground breaking research into childhood health and development, and her book is filled with both the passion for the importance of loving homes and the science supporting her passion.
The theme of “It Takes a Village” is simple: Hillary Clinton argues passionately that our communities need to do a much better job of supporting traditional families and the precious children than live in those homes. Bob Dole’s snarky remark couldn’t have been more wrong. It reinforces my anger at an LDS culture that automatically assumes that conservatives are pro-family and progressives are anti-family. I am embarrassed now that it took me this long to read this landmark book, and it makes me more dedicated than ever to the cause of speaking out against that falsehood. I gained a new appreciation for Mrs. Clinton and the strength of her character. Makes me even more proud to be a Democrat! You can count me in as one American who would be thrilled to see her become our first woman President.
A kinder, gentler Mike Lee?
A few weeks ago, just after the end of the shutdown, Senator Mike Lee gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation. The tone made me wonder, “Who are you and where is Mike Lee?” The partisan firebrand was nowhere to be seen, and in its place was this reasonable sounding man who claimed the GOP’s message wasn’t relevant to most of the country, that they’d lost their rich intellectual tradition from the Reagan era, and – finally! - said conservatives needed to come up with an alternative to health care reform rather than just throw rocks at Obamacare.
Now, we in Utah believe in repentance. If a kinder, gentler Mike Lee has arrived, it would be a great thing for our state. He does seem like a genuinely nice guy, if somewhat misguided, so I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt – even if the probable incentive for this possible change of heart is his cratering approval numbers.
But in the spirit of “bringing forth fruits meet for repentance”, I’d like to concentrate on one important aspect of his speech. Senator Lee admitted we need to do something about the broken ladder of upward mobility in America. The gap between rich and poor is greater than any time since the Great Depression, and studies show economic mobility in our nation is lower than any other developed country. If a child is born to a poor family, the barriers to her rising out of poverty in America are nearly insurmountable. Surely this must be considered one of the most pressing issues we face.
I’m wondering if Sen. Lee is ready to acknowledge that some dearly held Republican policies have contributed to this serious problem.
Take supply side economics. The admitted goal of these policies was to transfer more of the nation’s ongoing wealth to the “job creators”. Hence the huge cuts to upper income tax rates and investment and inheritance taxes, coupled with payroll tax increases and elimination of middle income tax exemptions and cuts to social programs for the poor. We now know from hindsight these policies also resulted in an explosion of “rent-seeking capitalists”, who make their fortunes not from creating new wealth but by transferring existing wealth into their own pockets. (Dylan Rattigan coined the colorful term “greedy b**tards” for this type of capitalist.)
The claim was that the benefits from these policies were supposed to “trickle down”. The evidence is indisputable: Instead, there was (using a term coined by Utah business tycoon and mid-20th century Federal Reserve chair Marriner Eccles) a “giant suction pump” pulling all the nation’s wealth into the hands of a few at the top.
Which of these policies is Senator Lee now willing to admit helped create today’s huge gap between rich and poor, and what changes would he support to reverse the trend?
Here’s another thought: Conservatives hold up the 1950’s as a time when everything was right in America, but one characteristic of that period was that almost 40% of American workers belonged to a union. It is no coincidence that the stagnation in middle class wages correlates to a huge drop in union membership.
Conservatives like to point to anecdotes that demonstrate union corruption (some of which are a half-century old), but occasional bad apples are found in every human endeavor. I didn’t see any Republicans calling for the end of corporations after Enron and Tyco. The fact is that large corporations will always have a power advantage over workers, and collective bargaining is one way to mitigate that imbalance. Large retailers like Costco and Starbucks have proven you can pay your employees a livable wage with benefits and remain profitable. As they have in the past, unions could help make these fair practices more universal.
Is Senator Lee willing to take the lead in ending the long-standing Republican animosity to organized labor?
Yes, there are non-political factors that have contributed to the wealth gap like the rise in technology and globalization, but the fact remains that other developed nations have done far better than we to ensure the fruits of economic growth are shared by everyone. Senator Lee is correct. America’s huge gap between rich and poor is a serious problem. I hope he will follow the example of Bill Clinton in the 1990’s in admitting the policy failures of his own party and take the lead in charting a new course.
Now, we in Utah believe in repentance. If a kinder, gentler Mike Lee has arrived, it would be a great thing for our state. He does seem like a genuinely nice guy, if somewhat misguided, so I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt – even if the probable incentive for this possible change of heart is his cratering approval numbers.
But in the spirit of “bringing forth fruits meet for repentance”, I’d like to concentrate on one important aspect of his speech. Senator Lee admitted we need to do something about the broken ladder of upward mobility in America. The gap between rich and poor is greater than any time since the Great Depression, and studies show economic mobility in our nation is lower than any other developed country. If a child is born to a poor family, the barriers to her rising out of poverty in America are nearly insurmountable. Surely this must be considered one of the most pressing issues we face.
I’m wondering if Sen. Lee is ready to acknowledge that some dearly held Republican policies have contributed to this serious problem.
Take supply side economics. The admitted goal of these policies was to transfer more of the nation’s ongoing wealth to the “job creators”. Hence the huge cuts to upper income tax rates and investment and inheritance taxes, coupled with payroll tax increases and elimination of middle income tax exemptions and cuts to social programs for the poor. We now know from hindsight these policies also resulted in an explosion of “rent-seeking capitalists”, who make their fortunes not from creating new wealth but by transferring existing wealth into their own pockets. (Dylan Rattigan coined the colorful term “greedy b**tards” for this type of capitalist.)
The claim was that the benefits from these policies were supposed to “trickle down”. The evidence is indisputable: Instead, there was (using a term coined by Utah business tycoon and mid-20th century Federal Reserve chair Marriner Eccles) a “giant suction pump” pulling all the nation’s wealth into the hands of a few at the top.
Which of these policies is Senator Lee now willing to admit helped create today’s huge gap between rich and poor, and what changes would he support to reverse the trend?
Here’s another thought: Conservatives hold up the 1950’s as a time when everything was right in America, but one characteristic of that period was that almost 40% of American workers belonged to a union. It is no coincidence that the stagnation in middle class wages correlates to a huge drop in union membership.
Conservatives like to point to anecdotes that demonstrate union corruption (some of which are a half-century old), but occasional bad apples are found in every human endeavor. I didn’t see any Republicans calling for the end of corporations after Enron and Tyco. The fact is that large corporations will always have a power advantage over workers, and collective bargaining is one way to mitigate that imbalance. Large retailers like Costco and Starbucks have proven you can pay your employees a livable wage with benefits and remain profitable. As they have in the past, unions could help make these fair practices more universal.
Is Senator Lee willing to take the lead in ending the long-standing Republican animosity to organized labor?
Yes, there are non-political factors that have contributed to the wealth gap like the rise in technology and globalization, but the fact remains that other developed nations have done far better than we to ensure the fruits of economic growth are shared by everyone. Senator Lee is correct. America’s huge gap between rich and poor is a serious problem. I hope he will follow the example of Bill Clinton in the 1990’s in admitting the policy failures of his own party and take the lead in charting a new course.
Healthcare.gov: Take a deep breath
Confession: I am not a professional computer programmer. However, in my job as a reliability engineer and someone who works with data, writing computer code is an interesting and challenging part of the job.
A recent project makes me somewhat sympathetic to the folks getting lambasted over the problems with the healthcare.gov website. I was tasked with creating a global website for my company where test data from prototype airbag inflators would be stored. This required code where several programs communicated with each other to create graphs and other output, where multiple inflator plants worldwide needed to be able to enter data, and where even more facilities needed to be able to access it in a straightforward, user-friendly manner.
You fellow programmers out there will be nodding in understanding at the following: I tested the beegeebers out of the thing before I rolled it out to others in the global organization for “beta testing”; a term for getting people working with it before implementation to help find and fix the bugs. Sure enough, flaws started to be discovered by real people using it that I hadn’t caught, and these problems continued to trickle in for about six weeks. Finally, at that point, we released the thing for general use.
I think everyone understands the concept that computers are stupid machines. They simply do exactly what you tell them to and have no skill at all in reading human minds. Computer code is extremely complex except for the simplest functions, and it’s understood that testing and de-bug can be challenging and take some time.
With this introduction, I have to shake my head in amusement over Republicans using the healthcare.gov problems as another excuse to tell us America is doomed to extinction because of Obamacare. I can’t believe those folks haven’t caught the hint that we are all sick and tired of this modern version of “Ninety Nine Bottles of Beer On The Wall”.
When I say “amused”, I’m referring to the fact that there are multiple sweet ironies in this story.
I’m amused when they use healtcare.gov to claim “the government can’t do anything right”, when it has been private contractors constructing the site from day one. There’s also the insinuation that these problems don’t happen in the business world. My response to that: Can you say “Microsoft Vista”?
I have to laugh also that one of their ideological cast-in-concrete axioms is absolutely true in this case: Individual states could do these websites much better than the federal government. And not because computer programmers automatically undergo a lobotomy when they take a check from the Treasury Department. A piece of software that has to accommodate the rules and regulations of 30 states and which insurance companies are offering what in which state will be orders of magnitude more complex. The authors of the Affordable Care Act assumed most states would manage their own insurance exchanges. This assumption didn’t factor in the intransigence of Republican governors who would do anything to hinder its success. From all accounts, state-run insurance exchanges seem to be working much better.
Which leads to the greatest irony of all. It appears the place where the Affordable Care Act exchange is working best of all is in deep-red Kentucky, home state of two of Obamacare’s fiercest critics, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. And unlike certain other red-state Democrats (who we know and love), Democratic Governor Steve Beshear has been an unabashed cheerleader for Obamacare. His administration created their own state exchange and has labored tirelessly to make it work – and unsurprisingly, it is working. Thousands of Kentuckians who have never been able to afford health insurance are signing up every day.
No doubt the rollout of healthcare.gov didn’t work as advertised, and could have been done better. One especially worrisome thing (for you fellow geeks out there who understand object-oriented programming) is the word that there are a lot more lines of code than required, meaning there’s been unnecessary duplication. That will complicate finding and fixing the bugs.
But at the end of the day, buggy computer software gets de-bugged every day of the week in our modern world. Of course they’ll fix it. And Republican governors who should have followed the example of Governor Beshear are as much to blame as anyone for the problems. Don’t complain when something doesn’t work when you’ve worked tirelessly to sabotage it.
When all is said and done, you will be able to add this to the “death panels” list as one of the hundreds of false “the sky is falling” claims made by Republicans about Obamacare.
A recent project makes me somewhat sympathetic to the folks getting lambasted over the problems with the healthcare.gov website. I was tasked with creating a global website for my company where test data from prototype airbag inflators would be stored. This required code where several programs communicated with each other to create graphs and other output, where multiple inflator plants worldwide needed to be able to enter data, and where even more facilities needed to be able to access it in a straightforward, user-friendly manner.
You fellow programmers out there will be nodding in understanding at the following: I tested the beegeebers out of the thing before I rolled it out to others in the global organization for “beta testing”; a term for getting people working with it before implementation to help find and fix the bugs. Sure enough, flaws started to be discovered by real people using it that I hadn’t caught, and these problems continued to trickle in for about six weeks. Finally, at that point, we released the thing for general use.
I think everyone understands the concept that computers are stupid machines. They simply do exactly what you tell them to and have no skill at all in reading human minds. Computer code is extremely complex except for the simplest functions, and it’s understood that testing and de-bug can be challenging and take some time.
With this introduction, I have to shake my head in amusement over Republicans using the healthcare.gov problems as another excuse to tell us America is doomed to extinction because of Obamacare. I can’t believe those folks haven’t caught the hint that we are all sick and tired of this modern version of “Ninety Nine Bottles of Beer On The Wall”.
When I say “amused”, I’m referring to the fact that there are multiple sweet ironies in this story.
I’m amused when they use healtcare.gov to claim “the government can’t do anything right”, when it has been private contractors constructing the site from day one. There’s also the insinuation that these problems don’t happen in the business world. My response to that: Can you say “Microsoft Vista”?
I have to laugh also that one of their ideological cast-in-concrete axioms is absolutely true in this case: Individual states could do these websites much better than the federal government. And not because computer programmers automatically undergo a lobotomy when they take a check from the Treasury Department. A piece of software that has to accommodate the rules and regulations of 30 states and which insurance companies are offering what in which state will be orders of magnitude more complex. The authors of the Affordable Care Act assumed most states would manage their own insurance exchanges. This assumption didn’t factor in the intransigence of Republican governors who would do anything to hinder its success. From all accounts, state-run insurance exchanges seem to be working much better.
Which leads to the greatest irony of all. It appears the place where the Affordable Care Act exchange is working best of all is in deep-red Kentucky, home state of two of Obamacare’s fiercest critics, Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. And unlike certain other red-state Democrats (who we know and love), Democratic Governor Steve Beshear has been an unabashed cheerleader for Obamacare. His administration created their own state exchange and has labored tirelessly to make it work – and unsurprisingly, it is working. Thousands of Kentuckians who have never been able to afford health insurance are signing up every day.
No doubt the rollout of healthcare.gov didn’t work as advertised, and could have been done better. One especially worrisome thing (for you fellow geeks out there who understand object-oriented programming) is the word that there are a lot more lines of code than required, meaning there’s been unnecessary duplication. That will complicate finding and fixing the bugs.
But at the end of the day, buggy computer software gets de-bugged every day of the week in our modern world. Of course they’ll fix it. And Republican governors who should have followed the example of Governor Beshear are as much to blame as anyone for the problems. Don’t complain when something doesn’t work when you’ve worked tirelessly to sabotage it.
When all is said and done, you will be able to add this to the “death panels” list as one of the hundreds of false “the sky is falling” claims made by Republicans about Obamacare.
Help us reach 3,000!
Help us reach 3,000 members!
At the beginning of this year, LDS Dems set a goal of reaching 3,000 members in 2013 and we are almost there!
Will you help us hit our goal?
By clicking on this link- http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50383/signup_page/joinus - you will receive our newsletter as well as important updates and events the caucus is working on.
We are only 250 away from our goal- easily reachable! Sign up now at http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50383/signup_page/joinus and get all the great information about what is happening in your area and across the country.
It has never been so important to stay informed, so let us send information directly to your inbox! Fill out our form at http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50383/signup_page/joinus and we will keep you up to date on issues, events, and other relevant goings-on in our progressive LDS world!
At the beginning of this year, LDS Dems set a goal of reaching 3,000 members in 2013 and we are almost there!
Will you help us hit our goal?
By clicking on this link- http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50383/signup_page/joinus - you will receive our newsletter as well as important updates and events the caucus is working on.
We are only 250 away from our goal- easily reachable! Sign up now at http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50383/signup_page/joinus and get all the great information about what is happening in your area and across the country.
It has never been so important to stay informed, so let us send information directly to your inbox! Fill out our form at http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50383/signup_page/joinus and we will keep you up to date on issues, events, and other relevant goings-on in our progressive LDS world!
Shutdown Governing: A No-Good Way to Run a Nation
Post by Rob Taber
Reading thetea Postum leaves, it looks we will have a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling by later today, though it may take a few days to wind a perilous path through the Hill.
Even if Congress passes the Reid-McConnell compromise, however, our problems aren't over.
A short-term continuing resolution and a four-month increase in the debt ceiling staves off default and gets some people back to work, but it doesn't solve the deeper problems we're facing that are hindering American innovation and the investments in human capital that we need for the coming century.
The Farm Bill, passed by the Senate, still languishes in the House, which is more focused on cutting SNAP and on continuing farm subsidies (but under a new program!) than on supporting beginning farmers and funding scientific research to make our farms more sustainable and productive in the long-run.
Immigration reform, passed by the Senate, has also faltered in the House. LDS Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), received favorable press from across the aisle earlier this year as "the new LDS face of immigration policy." However, he abandoned bipartisan talks in early June, citing the health care law. Although he promised that he would help the House pass piece-meal legislation that could then lead to a full bill, this hasn't happened, in part because of the shutdown pushed by Senators Cruz and Lee. The recent rule-change in the House making it so only Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) or his designee can bring legislation for a vote makes it much less likely immigration reform happens before the 2014 midterms. (And lest one be tempted to see immigration reform as a "Democrats-only" initiative, remember that the Senate bill won the support for LDS Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), no Democrats in any sense.)
The Farm Bill and immigration reform are just two items needed (in addition to raising the debt ceiling and funding basic government functions) to keep our country creaking along. To create solid middle-class jobs and support the next generation of innovators, our nation needs to be doing and building things. This includes restoring funding to scientific research hit hard by the sequester and shuttered during the current shutdown (we're losing important medical data from research mice as long as the government stays shut down). It also includes rolling back the cuts to HeadStart and better supporting early childhood education. And it includes continuing the nation's long investment in supporting entrepreneurs and businesses, which involves programs like the Small Business Administration's loan program.
When the government is shut down, we can't even fix what's obviously wrong, like the government's procurement procedures for information technology.
We need our nation open for research, for education, for business, so we can discover, learn, and innovate. When we focus on taking our country "back" we lose sight of what makes it great, of people working together, sharing ideas, and figuring out how to make it so the members of the next generation--all of them--can have equal opportunity to learn, to be healthy, to pursue happiness. Shutdown governing is a no-good way to run a country.
I am not a big fan of using scriptures in these kinds of discussions (it reminds me too much of the Bible-bashing green missionaries sometimes do), but considering this comes from a "declaration considering governments and laws in general," I found this apt:
We mortals are fallible and imperfect, so the laws we make will be fallible and imperfect. But we have a duty to study laws and their impact, to improve them so they better serve our sisters and brothers, our fellow citizens and residents, to "[regulate] our [respective] interests." Such is the stuff of life in a democratic republic. Re-opening offices and paying our bills, while crucial for staving off further economic turmoil, is the bare minimum of our duty, and the beginning of the work ahead of us.
(Image courtesy of Joe Heller at the Denver Post.)
Reading the
Even if Congress passes the Reid-McConnell compromise, however, our problems aren't over.
A short-term continuing resolution and a four-month increase in the debt ceiling staves off default and gets some people back to work, but it doesn't solve the deeper problems we're facing that are hindering American innovation and the investments in human capital that we need for the coming century.
The Farm Bill, passed by the Senate, still languishes in the House, which is more focused on cutting SNAP and on continuing farm subsidies (but under a new program!) than on supporting beginning farmers and funding scientific research to make our farms more sustainable and productive in the long-run.
Immigration reform, passed by the Senate, has also faltered in the House. LDS Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), received favorable press from across the aisle earlier this year as "the new LDS face of immigration policy." However, he abandoned bipartisan talks in early June, citing the health care law. Although he promised that he would help the House pass piece-meal legislation that could then lead to a full bill, this hasn't happened, in part because of the shutdown pushed by Senators Cruz and Lee. The recent rule-change in the House making it so only Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) or his designee can bring legislation for a vote makes it much less likely immigration reform happens before the 2014 midterms. (And lest one be tempted to see immigration reform as a "Democrats-only" initiative, remember that the Senate bill won the support for LDS Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), no Democrats in any sense.)
The Farm Bill and immigration reform are just two items needed (in addition to raising the debt ceiling and funding basic government functions) to keep our country creaking along. To create solid middle-class jobs and support the next generation of innovators, our nation needs to be doing and building things. This includes restoring funding to scientific research hit hard by the sequester and shuttered during the current shutdown (we're losing important medical data from research mice as long as the government stays shut down). It also includes rolling back the cuts to HeadStart and better supporting early childhood education. And it includes continuing the nation's long investment in supporting entrepreneurs and businesses, which involves programs like the Small Business Administration's loan program.
When the government is shut down, we can't even fix what's obviously wrong, like the government's procurement procedures for information technology.
We need our nation open for research, for education, for business, so we can discover, learn, and innovate. When we focus on taking our country "back" we lose sight of what makes it great, of people working together, sharing ideas, and figuring out how to make it so the members of the next generation--all of them--can have equal opportunity to learn, to be healthy, to pursue happiness. Shutdown governing is a no-good way to run a country.
I am not a big fan of using scriptures in these kinds of discussions (it reminds me too much of the Bible-bashing green missionaries sometimes do), but considering this comes from a "declaration considering governments and laws in general," I found this apt:
"We believe that every [person] should be honored in [their] station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all [persons] owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between [one] and [another]; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by [us] to [our] Maker."
We mortals are fallible and imperfect, so the laws we make will be fallible and imperfect. But we have a duty to study laws and their impact, to improve them so they better serve our sisters and brothers, our fellow citizens and residents, to "[regulate] our [respective] interests." Such is the stuff of life in a democratic republic. Re-opening offices and paying our bills, while crucial for staving off further economic turmoil, is the bare minimum of our duty, and the beginning of the work ahead of us.
(Image courtesy of Joe Heller at the Denver Post.)
The real reason Mike Lee fears Obamacare
I’m not sure if any of you were as annoying a child as I was, but one fun activity I used to engage in was to pick a short, irritating melody and play it on our piano repeatedly and loudly to see how long it would take for my mom to scream at me to knock it off. (Our grandson Silas seems to have picked up that particular genetic trait.)
The very obvious modern parallel to this little story is the Republican obsession with Obamacare, and I have long since passed the point where I wish they would just knock it off. Some adult Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree with me. For the previous three years up to November 2012, the main Republican campaign issue was Obamacare. We had an election, and the Democrats won the White House and the Senate. Not only that, only the blatant gerrymandering facilitated by the fluke Tea Party election of 2010 allowed Republicans to keep control of the House. (Over 1.4 million more Americans voted for a Democrat than a Republican for House of Representatives in 2012.) As Sen. McCain has stated so eloquently, we fought hard, we lost, elections have consequences. It’s the law of the land. After four years of arguing, why are Senator Lee and his fellow Tea Partiers risking serious damage to our nation to continue the fight against Obamacare, instead of coming to the table to help fix the flaws and make it work?
The answer is pretty clear. I’m certainly not the first to talk about this (read here and here). The truth can be gleaned from a subtle shift in talking points you are starting to hear from these warriors. They are starting to roll out old the “bread and circuses” argument. A recent Facebook debate with a conservative friend was a good example. He argued that the subsidies for the less affluent to buy insurance on the exchanges were de facto a bad thing, and worried people would become addicted to more government handouts. (He didn’t have an answer when I pointed out we’re already subsidizing poor folks who can’t pay, but in a system that is inefficient in the extreme.) It's basically the old "creeping socialism" song and dance, another irritating tune I'm really getting sick of.
Yes, although he won’t admit it, what Senator Lee and his fellow warriors really fear is that Obamacare will work and people will like it. And when I say “fear”, I mean dark, petrifying, wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night nightmarish terror. As well they should. The Republican Party history of opposing Obamacare gives “doubling down on a bad gamble” a whole new meaning. If this turns out to be the most egregious example of crying “wolf” in the history of the American Republic (and evidence is already starting to come in that it's working), if the American people conclude they’ve been deceived – it’s not an overstatement that the current balance of power in California may be the future of the Republican Party in America. No wonder they’re willing to take the nation down with them to prevent a fair trial of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The mission of the LDS Democrats is to convince our fellow Mormons that Republicans don’t have a monopoly on our most cherished values; that in many ways Democratic values are more consistent with what our religion teaches. I can think of no better example of that message than the obsessive, pathological drive of extremist ideologues to block an imperfect but pragmatic effort to rein in the exploding cost of health care in this country while providing access to hard working American families who cannot now afford it. Let’s close with that timeless quote by our first progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.”
No matter where you stand on the law, the above description certainly fits Barack Obama and his courageous, herculean efforts to fix our broken health care system.
The very obvious modern parallel to this little story is the Republican obsession with Obamacare, and I have long since passed the point where I wish they would just knock it off. Some adult Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree with me. For the previous three years up to November 2012, the main Republican campaign issue was Obamacare. We had an election, and the Democrats won the White House and the Senate. Not only that, only the blatant gerrymandering facilitated by the fluke Tea Party election of 2010 allowed Republicans to keep control of the House. (Over 1.4 million more Americans voted for a Democrat than a Republican for House of Representatives in 2012.) As Sen. McCain has stated so eloquently, we fought hard, we lost, elections have consequences. It’s the law of the land. After four years of arguing, why are Senator Lee and his fellow Tea Partiers risking serious damage to our nation to continue the fight against Obamacare, instead of coming to the table to help fix the flaws and make it work?
The answer is pretty clear. I’m certainly not the first to talk about this (read here and here). The truth can be gleaned from a subtle shift in talking points you are starting to hear from these warriors. They are starting to roll out old the “bread and circuses” argument. A recent Facebook debate with a conservative friend was a good example. He argued that the subsidies for the less affluent to buy insurance on the exchanges were de facto a bad thing, and worried people would become addicted to more government handouts. (He didn’t have an answer when I pointed out we’re already subsidizing poor folks who can’t pay, but in a system that is inefficient in the extreme.) It's basically the old "creeping socialism" song and dance, another irritating tune I'm really getting sick of.
Yes, although he won’t admit it, what Senator Lee and his fellow warriors really fear is that Obamacare will work and people will like it. And when I say “fear”, I mean dark, petrifying, wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night nightmarish terror. As well they should. The Republican Party history of opposing Obamacare gives “doubling down on a bad gamble” a whole new meaning. If this turns out to be the most egregious example of crying “wolf” in the history of the American Republic (and evidence is already starting to come in that it's working), if the American people conclude they’ve been deceived – it’s not an overstatement that the current balance of power in California may be the future of the Republican Party in America. No wonder they’re willing to take the nation down with them to prevent a fair trial of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The mission of the LDS Democrats is to convince our fellow Mormons that Republicans don’t have a monopoly on our most cherished values; that in many ways Democratic values are more consistent with what our religion teaches. I can think of no better example of that message than the obsessive, pathological drive of extremist ideologues to block an imperfect but pragmatic effort to rein in the exploding cost of health care in this country while providing access to hard working American families who cannot now afford it. Let’s close with that timeless quote by our first progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.”
No matter where you stand on the law, the above description certainly fits Barack Obama and his courageous, herculean efforts to fix our broken health care system.
Obamacare Wedding Tax? Not so much.
Post by Rob Taber
A common theme in the last Harry Potter book is how mystery can create terror. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are bad enough, but then not knowing when or how they're going to show up, what powers they have, or what, exactly, they're going to do, makes the good witches and wizards even more terrified.
Which brings us to the Affordable Care Act, and the latest (old) rumor to be circulating around: that Obamacare includes a massive wedding tax that's going to be levied against us Mormons and other upstanding people who are married or desire to be married, leading to a rash of divorce as people do whatever they can to avoid the tax, which will invade our communities and homes, leading to . . . well, I'll let you fill in the rest.
But it's just not so.
Here's what's going on:
1. As part of the marketplace, where insurance companies compete--in a market--for new customers (those of us without employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid), our nation is providing subsidies to those making less than 400% of the federal poverty line, so we can put in some of our money, taking responsibility for ourselves without breaking the bank.
2. Because our nation still holds to the traditional view that couples only start living together once they're married, it assumes that once two people are married, they save money by sharing housing and other durable goods. (What economists call economies of scale, just on a household level.) This economic situation is one reason church leaders teach against having children out of wedlock or getting divorced unless there are very serious reasons: it's much more expensive, on a per-person basis, to live as a single person than as a married couple.
3. In an effort to save taxpayer money, the designers of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) decided to take into account this reality of traditional marriage, and provide slightly higher subsidies to individuals than they would receive if they married one another and (presumably) started living together.
4. The Heritage Foundation, designers of the framework for the ACA, but now more of a partisan group rather than a (very conservative) policy shop, picks this effort to cut government spending and labels it a "federal wedding tax." (This is back in January of 2010.) This is the primary article that's circulating among my friends on Facebook. This gets picked up Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) almost two years later, though Rep. Issa, one of the senior Republicans in the house, is yet to champion a bill that would actually spend more taxpayer funds to increase the subsidies for married couples. (There's more on this from ThinkProgress here.)
5. Which brings us to today. With the roll-out of the marketplaces just days away, old bogeymen about the ACA are making the rounds again. It's absolutely fine to debate the proper level of subsidies for single and married adults, but whatever one's position: it's a gross stretch of things to call this a "federal wedding tax" or "Obamacare wedding tax." It's not a tax. It's just our nation trying to pinch pennies by assuming that married couples live together and benefit from this union.
When I was a full-time missionary, I quickly learned to ask people at the end of lessons, "What are your questions?" instead of "Do you have questions?" because everyone had questions but were often too shy to admit it. Whatever your questions about the Affordable Care Act, the marketplaces, no copays for preventative care, no more pre-existing condition denials, etc. go to Healthcare.gov, which was designed to answer them. (If you're just looking for a quick overview with cool graphics, you can go here.)
I'm a big believer in the idea that when folks are in good health, and find it economically feasible to visit a doctor for well and sick visits, they're better able to exercise their agency to the fullest. I think this is crucial for our community and our families. I welcome debate on the best way to reach this goal, with just one rule: don't make stuff up.
A common theme in the last Harry Potter book is how mystery can create terror. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are bad enough, but then not knowing when or how they're going to show up, what powers they have, or what, exactly, they're going to do, makes the good witches and wizards even more terrified.
Which brings us to the Affordable Care Act, and the latest (old) rumor to be circulating around: that Obamacare includes a massive wedding tax that's going to be levied against us Mormons and other upstanding people who are married or desire to be married, leading to a rash of divorce as people do whatever they can to avoid the tax, which will invade our communities and homes, leading to . . . well, I'll let you fill in the rest.
But it's just not so.
Here's what's going on:
1. As part of the marketplace, where insurance companies compete--in a market--for new customers (those of us without employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid), our nation is providing subsidies to those making less than 400% of the federal poverty line, so we can put in some of our money, taking responsibility for ourselves without breaking the bank.
2. Because our nation still holds to the traditional view that couples only start living together once they're married, it assumes that once two people are married, they save money by sharing housing and other durable goods. (What economists call economies of scale, just on a household level.) This economic situation is one reason church leaders teach against having children out of wedlock or getting divorced unless there are very serious reasons: it's much more expensive, on a per-person basis, to live as a single person than as a married couple.
3. In an effort to save taxpayer money, the designers of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) decided to take into account this reality of traditional marriage, and provide slightly higher subsidies to individuals than they would receive if they married one another and (presumably) started living together.
4. The Heritage Foundation, designers of the framework for the ACA, but now more of a partisan group rather than a (very conservative) policy shop, picks this effort to cut government spending and labels it a "federal wedding tax." (This is back in January of 2010.) This is the primary article that's circulating among my friends on Facebook. This gets picked up Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) almost two years later, though Rep. Issa, one of the senior Republicans in the house, is yet to champion a bill that would actually spend more taxpayer funds to increase the subsidies for married couples. (There's more on this from ThinkProgress here.)
5. Which brings us to today. With the roll-out of the marketplaces just days away, old bogeymen about the ACA are making the rounds again. It's absolutely fine to debate the proper level of subsidies for single and married adults, but whatever one's position: it's a gross stretch of things to call this a "federal wedding tax" or "Obamacare wedding tax." It's not a tax. It's just our nation trying to pinch pennies by assuming that married couples live together and benefit from this union.
When I was a full-time missionary, I quickly learned to ask people at the end of lessons, "What are your questions?" instead of "Do you have questions?" because everyone had questions but were often too shy to admit it. Whatever your questions about the Affordable Care Act, the marketplaces, no copays for preventative care, no more pre-existing condition denials, etc. go to Healthcare.gov, which was designed to answer them. (If you're just looking for a quick overview with cool graphics, you can go here.)
I'm a big believer in the idea that when folks are in good health, and find it economically feasible to visit a doctor for well and sick visits, they're better able to exercise their agency to the fullest. I think this is crucial for our community and our families. I welcome debate on the best way to reach this goal, with just one rule: don't make stuff up.
School grading - harm or help
by Kim R. 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.)
Recent Utah headlines focus on the turmoil of school grading—of interest to every parent, student, and educator. Although I strongly favor the careful use of measurement to help determine strengths, weaknesses, and improvement, I AM NOT A FAN OF GRADING SCHOOLS. In fact, I fear this system may do more harm than good.
In the 2011 session of the Utah Legislature a bill mandated letter grades be given to Utah schools. The Utah State Office of Education, as required by the law, worked to devise the best system of grading they could create: Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS). A representative of the Legislature and the sponsor of the bill attended the meetings where the process was carefully developed. Regrettably, the 2013 Legislature reaffirmed the mandate to grade schools but ignored much of the work of the interim committee.
As a result, school grades as stipulated by the Legislature were announced the first of September 2013. Another set of grades will be announced October 1; the second grades follow the plan created by the interim study committee (UCAS). I believe the UCAS system is preferable to the September 1 announcement.
My bottom line belief, however: the best system is one that measures skills and growth, but does not use a letter grade to label schools.
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS: A SYSTEM OF LABELING
Those who have advocated for grading schools believe by labeling schools A, B, C, D, or F, improvement will occur. They have insisted some schools should receive the high grade and some receive the failing grade. Somehow, they conjecture this labeling will incentivize growth.
I strongly doubt it. I believe the labels will simply reinforce weakness where weakness exists, and make the successful more proud. Is that useful?
The September announcement shows the effect. One local newspaper immediately published a list of the top 10 schools and the bottom 10 schools. (Deseret News, September 3, 2013)
The list of low-graded high schools included three schools where fewer than 95% of the students took the test. Beyond that, of the 10 low-graded schools, 8 were alternative schools for struggling students. The other two schools include: a charter school with primarily Native American students and a high school where students come overwhelmingly from economically disadvantaged homes. In this case the struggling students are labeled failures! I doubt the label will help.
High schools ranked best were led by schools which enroll only those with keen interest in science and math (e.g., Utah County Academy of Science and the Northern Utah Academy of Math, Engineering and Science.)
The lowest ranked elementary school was in San Juan County with mostly Native Americans students. The second lowest was a charter school developed for Pacific Islanders. These schools are working to help students with unique needs. How can labeling them as “F schools" help meet their challenges.
The second highest ranked elementary school is a school just a block from my home where the students mostly come from high income families with libraries of books at home and with educated parents. I congratulate that school. I am sure the teachers are doing a good job. But to deny the environment from which the students come as a main contributor to the high grade would be blindness.
What is school grading? It is a system of labeling which will primarily reinforce existing strengths and weaknesses of the students.
All schools need to be carefully measured, yes. But the challenged schools particularly do not need to be labeled with an “F.”
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS NOT: A SYSTEM WHICH WILL RESULT IN IMPROVED STUDENT PERFORMANCE
If we are interested in helping struggling schools do better, the better way is to provide them with additional resources, strong teachers, reduced class sizes, early learning.
Unfortunately, changes in these areas are not happening! The National Center for Education Statistics just released (September 4) their annual report. When it comes to resources, Utah is at the bottom of the list again. At $6,878, Utah has the lowest per-pupil spending in the country where the average is $10,029; Alaska is highest at $25,132; Tennessee next lowest at $7,571. Among the nation’s l00 largest school districts, four Utah districts (Granite, Davis, Alpine, and Jordan) have the lowest per-pupil spending.
Strangely, Florida is frequently cited by supporters of school grading as a positive example. True, Florida instigated grading of school over a decade ago. Floridians, however, had the wisdom to expend large sums of money to help support their school reform efforts. Funding for education in Florida as a whole increased 69% between 1999 and 2006 (the same time grading was implemented) or $7.7 billion dollars! Some of the increase can be attributed to inflation, but the figure is approximately 3 times the increased percentage of dollars going to education compared to Utah funding. In 2008, Utah’s per-pupil spending was at $5,765.00; Florida was at $9,035.00. (Tom Gallagher, Florida’s chief financial officer, “Governor Bush Rewards Academic Performance with $157.6 million to High-Performing Schools, August 28, 2006.)
Class size is another way Florida supported their school reform effort. Compare the average third grade class size in Utah of 24.5 students with Florida which limits class sizes to 18 in grades K-3. (Mark Peterson, correspondence regarding Florida’s program, January 11, 2011.)
Some advocates use Florida’s 4th grade reading scores as evidence of increased student achievement. True, Florida improved their 4th grade reading scores on the NAEP test. Importantly, however, scores in math and science do not reflect the same improvement. More likely, reading scores improved in that one grade because of another reform effort: 3rd grade students in Florida who could not read well were held back for a year in large numbers. In fact, between 14 and 23% of 3rd grade students (largely black and Hispanic) were held back for poor reading performance. (Madhabi Chatterji, “Review of Closing the Racial Achievement Gap,” Columbia University, November 2010.) Who could be surprised then that 4th grade scores increased, both because 1) those who scored lower did not participate that year, and 2) had an additional year of training before being tested again.
In short, the claim of Florida improvement (if it really exists) resulting from school grading is a bad case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning (one event caused another just because they happened at similar times). In the first place, the improvement is questionable, and where it may have occurred it more likely it occurred because of a different cause: the retention of many 3rd grade students.
Bottom line:
School grading is a system of labeling.
Such labeling alone cannot be shown to reap improvement.
Instead, improvement comes from other efforts.
And finally, labeling may be harmful.
I urge you to contact political leaders who believe that school grading may help education. When you do, suggest some other alternatives that you believe are more likely to strengthen the education of our children!
Kim R. 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.)
Recent Utah headlines focus on the turmoil of school grading—of interest to every parent, student, and educator. Although I strongly favor the careful use of measurement to help determine strengths, weaknesses, and improvement, I AM NOT A FAN OF GRADING SCHOOLS. In fact, I fear this system may do more harm than good.
In the 2011 session of the Utah Legislature a bill mandated letter grades be given to Utah schools. The Utah State Office of Education, as required by the law, worked to devise the best system of grading they could create: Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS). A representative of the Legislature and the sponsor of the bill attended the meetings where the process was carefully developed. Regrettably, the 2013 Legislature reaffirmed the mandate to grade schools but ignored much of the work of the interim committee.
As a result, school grades as stipulated by the Legislature were announced the first of September 2013. Another set of grades will be announced October 1; the second grades follow the plan created by the interim study committee (UCAS). I believe the UCAS system is preferable to the September 1 announcement.
My bottom line belief, however: the best system is one that measures skills and growth, but does not use a letter grade to label schools.
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS: A SYSTEM OF LABELING
Those who have advocated for grading schools believe by labeling schools A, B, C, D, or F, improvement will occur. They have insisted some schools should receive the high grade and some receive the failing grade. Somehow, they conjecture this labeling will incentivize growth.
I strongly doubt it. I believe the labels will simply reinforce weakness where weakness exists, and make the successful more proud. Is that useful?
The September announcement shows the effect. One local newspaper immediately published a list of the top 10 schools and the bottom 10 schools. (Deseret News, September 3, 2013)
The list of low-graded high schools included three schools where fewer than 95% of the students took the test. Beyond that, of the 10 low-graded schools, 8 were alternative schools for struggling students. The other two schools include: a charter school with primarily Native American students and a high school where students come overwhelmingly from economically disadvantaged homes. In this case the struggling students are labeled failures! I doubt the label will help.
High schools ranked best were led by schools which enroll only those with keen interest in science and math (e.g., Utah County Academy of Science and the Northern Utah Academy of Math, Engineering and Science.)
The lowest ranked elementary school was in San Juan County with mostly Native Americans students. The second lowest was a charter school developed for Pacific Islanders. These schools are working to help students with unique needs. How can labeling them as “F schools" help meet their challenges.
The second highest ranked elementary school is a school just a block from my home where the students mostly come from high income families with libraries of books at home and with educated parents. I congratulate that school. I am sure the teachers are doing a good job. But to deny the environment from which the students come as a main contributor to the high grade would be blindness.
What is school grading? It is a system of labeling which will primarily reinforce existing strengths and weaknesses of the students.
All schools need to be carefully measured, yes. But the challenged schools particularly do not need to be labeled with an “F.”
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS NOT: A SYSTEM WHICH WILL RESULT IN IMPROVED STUDENT PERFORMANCE
If we are interested in helping struggling schools do better, the better way is to provide them with additional resources, strong teachers, reduced class sizes, early learning.
Unfortunately, changes in these areas are not happening! The National Center for Education Statistics just released (September 4) their annual report. When it comes to resources, Utah is at the bottom of the list again. At $6,878, Utah has the lowest per-pupil spending in the country where the average is $10,029; Alaska is highest at $25,132; Tennessee next lowest at $7,571. Among the nation’s l00 largest school districts, four Utah districts (Granite, Davis, Alpine, and Jordan) have the lowest per-pupil spending.
Strangely, Florida is frequently cited by supporters of school grading as a positive example. True, Florida instigated grading of school over a decade ago. Floridians, however, had the wisdom to expend large sums of money to help support their school reform efforts. Funding for education in Florida as a whole increased 69% between 1999 and 2006 (the same time grading was implemented) or $7.7 billion dollars! Some of the increase can be attributed to inflation, but the figure is approximately 3 times the increased percentage of dollars going to education compared to Utah funding. In 2008, Utah’s per-pupil spending was at $5,765.00; Florida was at $9,035.00. (Tom Gallagher, Florida’s chief financial officer, “Governor Bush Rewards Academic Performance with $157.6 million to High-Performing Schools, August 28, 2006.)
Class size is another way Florida supported their school reform effort. Compare the average third grade class size in Utah of 24.5 students with Florida which limits class sizes to 18 in grades K-3. (Mark Peterson, correspondence regarding Florida’s program, January 11, 2011.)
Some advocates use Florida’s 4th grade reading scores as evidence of increased student achievement. True, Florida improved their 4th grade reading scores on the NAEP test. Importantly, however, scores in math and science do not reflect the same improvement. More likely, reading scores improved in that one grade because of another reform effort: 3rd grade students in Florida who could not read well were held back for a year in large numbers. In fact, between 14 and 23% of 3rd grade students (largely black and Hispanic) were held back for poor reading performance. (Madhabi Chatterji, “Review of Closing the Racial Achievement Gap,” Columbia University, November 2010.) Who could be surprised then that 4th grade scores increased, both because 1) those who scored lower did not participate that year, and 2) had an additional year of training before being tested again.
In short, the claim of Florida improvement (if it really exists) resulting from school grading is a bad case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning (one event caused another just because they happened at similar times). In the first place, the improvement is questionable, and where it may have occurred it more likely it occurred because of a different cause: the retention of many 3rd grade students.
Bottom line:
School grading is a system of labeling.
Such labeling alone cannot be shown to reap improvement.
Instead, improvement comes from other efforts.
And finally, labeling may be harmful.
I urge you to contact political leaders who believe that school grading may help education. When you do, suggest some other alternatives that you believe are more likely to strengthen the education of our children!
Kim R. Burningham
Training: The Role of Faith Leaders in Suicide Prevention
Post by Rob Taber
One of the great, unsung projects is Health & Human Services' Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In addition to working on responsible fatherhood and anti-obesity initiatives, it hosts trainings to provide faith leaders with evidence-based resources on public health issues, including mental health.
On September 17th, they're hosting a one-hour webinar for faith leaders on suicide prevention. From the release:
"The HHS Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s Faith Communities Task Force present this webinar for faith leaders who are often on the front line for people (and their families) dealing with spiritual, mental, or emotional distress or illness. Studies show that persons in need are more likely to go to a faith leader than a therapist, at least initially. Moreover, faith communities, through their traditions and teachings and also their commitment to care for one another, are resources for people (and their families) dealing with distress or illness. Local faith leaders are also often connected to wider community resources that can be of help. Therefore, faith leaders play an important role in addressing this preventable public health issue that affects the lives of millions of people each year. Over 38,000 suicides (2010) and one million suicide attempts (2009) create ripple effects among families, friends, co-workers, and communities.
"This webinar will provide information that faith leaders need to know in suicide prevention (e.g. warning signs, how to help). It will also offer ways faith leaders can help educate their communities about suicide and mental health issues and provide support for persons whose loved ones have completed or attempted suicide. In addition, it will help faith leaders understand and strengthen the resources they have in their own faith tradition that promote mental and spiritual health and/or can help in suicide prevention."
As we Latter-day Saints are all faith leaders of one sort or another, if you want to watch the training, sign up here, and please pass it along to anyone you think might be interested. These webinars tend to be excellent, evidence-based trainings, and sadly under-attended. So if you want to know more, sign up!
One of the great, unsung projects is Health & Human Services' Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In addition to working on responsible fatherhood and anti-obesity initiatives, it hosts trainings to provide faith leaders with evidence-based resources on public health issues, including mental health.
On September 17th, they're hosting a one-hour webinar for faith leaders on suicide prevention. From the release:
"The HHS Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s Faith Communities Task Force present this webinar for faith leaders who are often on the front line for people (and their families) dealing with spiritual, mental, or emotional distress or illness. Studies show that persons in need are more likely to go to a faith leader than a therapist, at least initially. Moreover, faith communities, through their traditions and teachings and also their commitment to care for one another, are resources for people (and their families) dealing with distress or illness. Local faith leaders are also often connected to wider community resources that can be of help. Therefore, faith leaders play an important role in addressing this preventable public health issue that affects the lives of millions of people each year. Over 38,000 suicides (2010) and one million suicide attempts (2009) create ripple effects among families, friends, co-workers, and communities.
"This webinar will provide information that faith leaders need to know in suicide prevention (e.g. warning signs, how to help). It will also offer ways faith leaders can help educate their communities about suicide and mental health issues and provide support for persons whose loved ones have completed or attempted suicide. In addition, it will help faith leaders understand and strengthen the resources they have in their own faith tradition that promote mental and spiritual health and/or can help in suicide prevention."
As we Latter-day Saints are all faith leaders of one sort or another, if you want to watch the training, sign up here, and please pass it along to anyone you think might be interested. These webinars tend to be excellent, evidence-based trainings, and sadly under-attended. So if you want to know more, sign up!
Higher Ed and the Obama and Romney Campaigns
Post by Rob Taber
This morning I read Thomas Frank's cri de coeur on the unraveling of the American university system: spiraling costs for students, loss of power for the faculty, budget cuts to state schools, universities more focused on pleasing donors/alumni than on educating students, and, to butcher Oscar Wilde, a "bureaucracy [that's] expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy." All in all, a familiar tale for those of us working in higher ed.
This year, I am employed by the University of Florida's Writing Program, teaching first year students the basics of college and professional writing. I see what I do in the classroom as very, very important. Also, because the Writing Program is housed in the same building as UF's central administration, I walk past the offices (some very modest) of the bureaucrats who support the work I do in the classroom. I depend on IT to make sure the computers and Internet work, HR to do the paperwork for my health insurance and pay, the Counseling Center to be there for students in need.
However, as I reflect on Frank's piece and the need for universities to reorganize themselves around their central mission and purpose (and not to shuffle things around to match up with the mush of a mission statement in an unread strategic plan), I can't help but think of the 2008 Obama campaign, compared to the camp from Romney's 2012 effort, and how organizational leadership sets the tone.
In chapter 2 of The Audacity to Win (1st edition), David Plouffe describes how early on in 2007, he and the rest of the top brass in the Obama campaign decided very early on that no one in the campaign would earn more than $12,000 a month, that they would focus on the individual elections in each primary state rather than national trends, that new media would be its own department, and no group was too small to organize. The result was a cost-conscious organization focused on delivering the field operations proven to make a difference.
Those who volunteered at an Obama field office in 2008 or 2012 might remember seeing a poster with the words "Respect, Empower, Include, Win." Those who volunteered a fair amount or found a paid position might also recall strict bounds on spending money or deviating too far from the mission. The organization had a purpose, and was happy to hear ideas on what you, personally, were going to do to achieve it, as long as it didn't involve spending much (if any) of the campaign's money.
Unfortunately, some higher ed initiatives, no matter how well-intentioned, and including some that claim to be about accountability, remind me of the Romney 2012 campaign. Part of Governor Romney's appeal was his experience as a technocratic businessman, who would be able to run things much better than the community organizer currently in the White House. However, even during the campaign, some journalists and conservative commentators questioned his dependence on high-priced consultants. After the election, this criticism grew into a chorus.
I recognize that some organizations' leaders need consultants to tell them things they should recognize within themselves or hear from the subordinates. But however tempting expensive solutions and programs may appear, web-based transformations in education (like flip teaching), just like the advanced door-knocking strategies generated by the Obama campaign, are tools available to help the people doing the work, not replacements for the people involved. The laborer is worthy of their hire. Respect. Empower. Include. Win.
This morning I read Thomas Frank's cri de coeur on the unraveling of the American university system: spiraling costs for students, loss of power for the faculty, budget cuts to state schools, universities more focused on pleasing donors/alumni than on educating students, and, to butcher Oscar Wilde, a "bureaucracy [that's] expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy." All in all, a familiar tale for those of us working in higher ed.
This year, I am employed by the University of Florida's Writing Program, teaching first year students the basics of college and professional writing. I see what I do in the classroom as very, very important. Also, because the Writing Program is housed in the same building as UF's central administration, I walk past the offices (some very modest) of the bureaucrats who support the work I do in the classroom. I depend on IT to make sure the computers and Internet work, HR to do the paperwork for my health insurance and pay, the Counseling Center to be there for students in need.
However, as I reflect on Frank's piece and the need for universities to reorganize themselves around their central mission and purpose (and not to shuffle things around to match up with the mush of a mission statement in an unread strategic plan), I can't help but think of the 2008 Obama campaign, compared to the camp from Romney's 2012 effort, and how organizational leadership sets the tone.
In chapter 2 of The Audacity to Win (1st edition), David Plouffe describes how early on in 2007, he and the rest of the top brass in the Obama campaign decided very early on that no one in the campaign would earn more than $12,000 a month, that they would focus on the individual elections in each primary state rather than national trends, that new media would be its own department, and no group was too small to organize. The result was a cost-conscious organization focused on delivering the field operations proven to make a difference.
Those who volunteered at an Obama field office in 2008 or 2012 might remember seeing a poster with the words "Respect, Empower, Include, Win." Those who volunteered a fair amount or found a paid position might also recall strict bounds on spending money or deviating too far from the mission. The organization had a purpose, and was happy to hear ideas on what you, personally, were going to do to achieve it, as long as it didn't involve spending much (if any) of the campaign's money.
Unfortunately, some higher ed initiatives, no matter how well-intentioned, and including some that claim to be about accountability, remind me of the Romney 2012 campaign. Part of Governor Romney's appeal was his experience as a technocratic businessman, who would be able to run things much better than the community organizer currently in the White House. However, even during the campaign, some journalists and conservative commentators questioned his dependence on high-priced consultants. After the election, this criticism grew into a chorus.
I recognize that some organizations' leaders need consultants to tell them things they should recognize within themselves or hear from the subordinates. But however tempting expensive solutions and programs may appear, web-based transformations in education (like flip teaching), just like the advanced door-knocking strategies generated by the Obama campaign, are tools available to help the people doing the work, not replacements for the people involved. The laborer is worthy of their hire. Respect. Empower. Include. Win.