Second Quiz + Suggested Answers -- Leaving Children Behind

.
Please also read the following essays that were prepared 14 months ago when our topic was "School Desegregation and The Jena Six" -- the following essays are contained in the 8 November 2007 section below entitled "The Controversy That Is Bill Cosby" --

Inner-City Kids and Public Education
Inner-City Measured IQ’s
Pushers Recruiting Third Graders as Runners
Perceptions of Inner-City 5-Year Olds!!!
Typical Inner-City Conditions and IHAD Results
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Second Quiz + Suggested Answers -- Leaving Children Behind

Post by johnkarls »

.
From: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
To: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
Cc:
Subject: Leaving Children Behind - Second Quiz Suggested Answers
Date: 3 January 2009
Time: 2054 > 2214 MST
Attachments: Flyer-Jan14


Dear Friends,

(Information about our January 14 meeting omitted -- it is posted above on this bulletin board.)

*****
SECOND QUIZ – SUGGESTED ANSWERS

Question 1

Why have K-12 public schools been financed locally - whereas public 4-year colleges and universities have typically been financed by the states (and by considerable research grants from the federal government)???

Answer 1

Local financing was a historical accident. Before states began requiring universal education, typically to 8th grade, it was up to each set of parents and/or local group of parents to decide what they would provide, if anything. When states finally got around to requiring universal education to 8th grade, public education was typically already provided at the local level.

Question 2

Is there any prohibition in the U.S. Constitution against the federal government building an elementary or secondary school that it will finance and control???

Answer 2

No.

Question 3

Since "identical twin testing" (studying inner-city identical twins orphaned before their first birthday where one is adopted by an inner-city family and the other by a suburban family) consistently shows that inner-city kids have IQ's identical to suburban kids, what is/are the missing ingredient(s) that would break the cycle of America's permanent apartheid under class???

Answer 3

The typical results of the 180 “I Have A Dream”® Programs in 50 American cities were 65% - 70% (VS. SINGLE DIGITS) rates for HS graduation and college entrance!!!

The results are even more impressive than this statistic suggests. Approximately 50% of the female Dreamers became pregnant and, as a practical matter, did not graduate from HS and proceed to college!!! Accordingly, the success rate was 65-70 percentage points out of 75 percentage points!!!

To assist with national fund-raising, John Karls as volunteer treasurer of IHAD-National requested several local IHAD projects to interview their female Dreamers who had become pregnant to ascertain what happened. Invariably, each was not motivated by considerations such as obtaining welfare and/or getting an apartment of one’s own, etc. INSTEAD, EACH HAD NEVER HAD ANYONE WHO CARED ABOUT THEM AND WAS FOCUSED ON CREATING SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LOVE THEM!!!

Following that discovery, John Karls requested several local IHAD projects to interview their female Dreamers who had not become pregnant and proceeded to college, to evaluate what happened. INVARIABLY, THERE WAS SOMEONE IN THE LIFE OF EACH WHO CARED ABOUT THEM (E.G., A TEACHER, CLERGY PERSON, OR ONE OF OUR TUTORS OR MENTORS) – AND WHO MADE IT CLEAR TO THE DREAMER THAT IF SHE DIDN’T BECOME PREGNANT SHE COULD, WITH THE HELP OF THE IHAD PROGRAM, MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF HERSELF AND THAT IT WOULD “BREAK THE HEART” OF THE PERSON WHO CARED IF THE DREAMER DIDN’T DO SO!!!

There are many good ideas that have been employed in school systems around the country – smaller class size, incentive pay for teachers, etc., etc.

BUT THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT WHICH IS USUALLY MISSING = SURROGATE PARENTS - E.G., A MENTOR, TUTOR, ETC. WHO CARES ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL STUDENT AND HAS BECOME A SURROGATE PARENT TO THAT STUDENT AND EXPRESSES HER/HIS LOVE AND HOPE TO THAT STUDENT THAT S/HE WILL MAKE THE MOST OF HER/HIS OPPORTUNITY!!!

Question 4

Jonothan Kozol reports (p. 25 of "The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America") that when Martin Luther King H.S. opened in 1975 less than a block from Lincoln Center in Manhattan, the N.Y. Times observed "it was seen as a promising effort to integrate white, black and Hispanic students in a thriving neighborhood that held one of the city's cultural gems" but became an abysmal failure in that regard. (A) Is the assessment of the N.Y. Times accurate??? (B) What implications does the MLK/NYC experience have for our proposed federal desegregated-school model???

Answer 4(A) – Accuracy of the N.Y. Times Assessment.

When the Rockefellers donated the land for Lincoln Center, it was part of a dismal slum (the same was true of the land the Rockefellers donated a decade earlier for the United Nations headquarters).

In addition to the Lincoln Center site and the neighborhoods to the north, east and south comprising desperate slums, the neighborhood to the west comprised some of the worst public housing projects in NYC. When Lincoln Center was built, it was built facing east so that no patron would ever realize that across Amsterdam Avenue in back of Lincoln Center was the public housing that extended several blocks north and south of Lincoln Center on the west side of Amsterdam Avenue and for several blocks westward from Amsterdam Avenue.

Martin Luther King H.S. was located on the west side of Amsterdam Avenue, behind Lincoln Center and inside the public-housing area.

The public housing behind Lincoln Center continues to exist.

However, the areas south, east and north of Lincoln Center have, since the establishment of Lincoln Center, seen built some of the swankiest high-rise living accommodations in Manhattan, as well as several corporate headquarters built including the AOL-Time-Warner “twin towers” following 9/11 and the national ABC-TV headquarters/studios.

Answer 4(B) – Implications

The MLK/NYC experience seems to indicate that even parents living in a slum aren’t willing to send their children to a public high school located inside one of the worst public-housing neighborhoods in NYC.

However, it would be interesting to ascertain what percentage of students at MLK/NYC came from those public-housing projects – both initially and over time.

Tentative Conclusion

The “think piece” we considered in November 2007 =

Supplementary federal-financing (and perhaps federal administration as well) of all inner-city schools that are judged to be "failing" under "No Child Left Behind" to pay for (1) a new first-class physical plant designed to house 200% of the student population of the school that is being replaced, and (2) raising the per-student operating budget to a sufficient multiple of the per-student operating budget for the commuting suburbs of that particular city – to turn the school into such an attractive "magnet school" that the new capacity is easily filled by applications from students living in the suburbs. Perhaps a feature of the admission (AND RETENTION FROM YEAR-TO-YEAR) decision FOR APPLICANTS FROM THE SUBURBS would be a "suburban brother/sister" program complete with an evaluation by the inner-city student of how well s/he was treated by her suburban "sibling" and the sibling's family the previous school year.

Additional thoughts for January 2009 =

The MLK/NYC experience might indicate that, instead of inner-city kids comprising 50% of the student body as in the Nov-2007 “think piece,” it may be advisable (at least at the outset) to have lower percentages that can be relaxed later if conditions warrant.

In line with the IHAD results that flowed from supplying “surrogate parents” (which was the reason for “noodling” the Nov-2007 idea of nurturing each inner-city kid by a suburban “sibling” and family of that suburban sibling), what about recruiting the help of the best colleges and universities in the following respect??? Most top-flight colleges and universities could fill their entering freshman class several times over with highly-qualified students, but usually discriminate among the highly-qualified applicants on the basis of an unusual experience or skill. What if most (if not all) of the top-flight colleges and universities announced that for admissions of non-minority applicants, the most important experience would be successful mentoring in one of our “magnet” high schools – taking into account the success (perhaps measured against ability) of the minority “sibling” together with heavy emphasis on a recommendation from the minority “sibling” accompanying the application. That “should light a fire” under some of the country’s most able parents who aspire to admittance for their own children to a top college or university!!!

*****
We hope each of you will bring along your ideas for our discussion on WEDNESday Jan. 14!!!

Your friend,

John K.

PS - To un-subscribe, please press "reply" and type "deletion requested."

PPS - To register for posting comments on our bulletin board (http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org), please press "reply" and type "registration requested" with a suggested user id and password.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Additional Thought Re Supreme Court's Equal-Protection Point

Post by johnkarls »

.
As noted in the amplification of the section of this bulletin board containing the text of Supreme Court's 2007 decision reversing school integration in public elementary and secondary schools, the Court held that considering race in assigning students to schools violated the Constitutional requirement of "equal protection of the laws."

The "Equal Protection" requirement is found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, one of three amendments resulting from the Civil War. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides in its entirety:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." (emphasis added)

Accordingly, it is clear that the "Equal Protection" requirement only applies to state governments and NOT the federal government. This would militate in favor of making our "magnet schools" federal schools -- rather than working through local school boards which, as creatures of state governments, would be subject to the "Equal Protection" requirement.

*****
HOWEVER, if in some cases it is considered desirable or essential to work through a local school board in creating one of our "magnet schools," then a practical solution is available.

It should be kept in mind that the Supreme Court is extremely political and would never take a position that is so unpopular that it would jeopardize its standing with the American people.

One example of this is its staunch refusal to consider any case that might involve the constitutionality of the greatest affirmative-action program at the college level that this country has ever seen!!! Athletic scholarships!!! Because it knows that if it ever attacked athletic scholarships as unconstitutional, there would be serious political repercussions for the Court itself!!!

Accordingly (and this is meant seriously, not facetiously), if the federal government considered it essential to work through a local school board in creating one of our "magnet schools," then it should require the magnet school (1) to provide a plethora of athletic teams, and (2) to award an "athletic scholarship" to each inner-city student.

However, "immunizing" the inner-city students in this way from Supreme Court attack should only be done as a last resort because of the stigmatizing involved.

Respectfully submitted,

John S. Karls

solutions
Site Admin
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Let's Ban "Tracking" in Our Federal "Magnet" Schools!

Post by solutions »

.
Quite a bit has been written about how most school integration mandated in the wake of the Supreme Court's 1954 "Brown v. Board" decision was a farce because of "tracking"! Yes, inner-city kids attended otherwise lilly-white schools, but they were confined to "Special Education" classes while the white kids attended only "college track" classes!

Segregated classes under an integrated roof!

Apparently, John Karls forgot one of the points he made in his November 2007 essays to the effect that the "Dreamers" in the IHAD Programs were invariably assigned to "Special Education" classes regardless of test scores and the first job when a new IHAD program was initiated was fighting to have the Dreamers transferred from "Special Education" to "College Track"!

Please note that my proposal is to ban "tracking" altogether! Yes, historically "Special Education" was the euphemism used for segregating inner-city kids into separate AND UNEQUAL classes! But if we merely ban "Special Education" and not "tracking" altogether, who knows what euphemisms clever administrators will use in the future to segregate the inner-city kids into separate AND UNEQUAL classes!

Post Reply

Return to “Background Mats + Participant Comments - Leaving Children Behind - Jan. 14”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests