This is the Fight of Our Lives

  1. http://www.inequality.org/
    This is the Fight of Our Lives
    by Bill Moyers
    Keynote speech
    Inequality Matters Forum
    New York University
    June 3, 2004

    "The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand.' This is a lie. What's happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us."
    -- Bill Moyers, Keynote speech, June 3, 2004

    It is important from time to time to remember that some things are worth getting mad about.

    Here's one: On March 10 of this year, on page B8, with a headline that stretched across all six columns, The New York Times reported that tuition in the city's elite private schools would hit $26,000 for the coming school year -- for kindergarten as well as high school. On the same page, under a two-column headline, Michael Wineraub wrote about a school in nearby Mount Vernon, the first stop out of the Bronx, with a student body that is 97 percent black. It is the poorest school in the town: nine out of ten children qualify for free lunches; one out of 10 lives in a homeless shelter. During black history month this past February, a sixth grader wanted to write a report on Langston Hughes. There were no books on Langston Hughes in the library -- no books about the great poet, nor any of his poems. There is only one book in the library on Frederick Douglass. None on Rosa Parks, Josephine Baker, Leontyne Price, or other giants like them in the modern era. In fact, except for a few Newberry Award books the librarian bought with her own money, the library is mostly old books -- largely from the 1950s and 60s when the school was all white. A 1960 child's primer on work begins with a youngster learning how to be a telegraph delivery boy. All the workers in the book -- the dry cleaner, the deliveryman, the cleaning lady -- are white. There's a 1967 book about telephones which says: "when you phone you usually dial the number. But on some new phones you can push buttons." The newest encyclopedia dates from l991, with two volumes -- "b" and "r" -- missing. There is no card catalog in the library -- no index cards or computer.

    Something to get mad about.
    Here's something else: Caroline Payne's face and gums are distorted because her Medicaid-financed dentures don't fit. Because they don't fit, she is continuously turned down for jobs on account of her appearance. Caroline Payne is one of the people in David Shipler's new book,' The Working Poor: Invisible in America'. She was born poor, and in spite of having once owned her own home and having earned a two-year college degree, Caroline Payne has bounced from one poverty-wage job to another all her life, equipped with the will to move up, but not the resources to deal with unexpected and overlapping problems like a mentally handicapped daughter, a broken marriage, a sudden layoff crisis that forced her to sell her few assets, pull up roots and move on. "In the house of the poor," Shipler writes "...the walls are thin and fragile and troubles seep into one another."

    Here's something else to get mad about. Two weeks ago, the House of Representatives, the body of Congress owned and operated by the corporate, political, and religious right, approved new tax credits for children. Not for poor children, mind you. But for families earning as much as $309,000 a year -- families that already enjoy significant benefits from earlier tax cuts. The editorial page of The Washington Post called this "bad social policy, bad tax policy, and bad fiscal policy. You'd think they'd be embarrassed," said the Post, "but they're not."

    And this, too, is something to get mad about. Nothing seems to embarrass the political class in Washington today. Not the fact that more children are growing up in poverty in America than in any other industrial nation; not the fact that millions of workers are actually making less money today in real dollars than they did twenty years ago; not the fact that working people are putting in longer and longer hours and still falling behind; not the fact that while we have the most advanced medical care in the world, nearly 44 million Americans -- eight out of ten of them in working families -- are uninsured and cannot get the basic care they need.

    Astonishing as it seems, no one in official Washington seems embarrassed by the fact that the gap between rich and poor is greater than it's been in 50 years -- the worst inequality among all western nations. Or that we are experiencing a shift in poverty. For years it was said those people down there at the bottom were single, jobless mothers. For years they were told work, education, and marriage is how they move up the economic ladder. But poverty is showing up where we didn't expect it -- among families that include two parents, a worker, and a head of the household with more than a high school education. These are the newly poor. Our political, financial and business class expects them to climb out of poverty on an escalator moving downward.

    Let me tell you about the Stanleys and the Neumanns. During the last decade, I produced a series of documentaries for PBS called "Surviving the Good Times." The title refers to the boom time of the '90s when the country achieved the longest period of economic growth in its entire history. Some good things happened then, but not everyone shared equally in the benefits. To the contrary. The decade began with a sustained period of downsizing by corporations moving jobs out of America and many of those people never recovered what was taken from them. We decided early on to tell the stories of two families in Milwaukee -- one black, one white -- whose breadwinners were laid off in the first wave of layoffs in 1991. We reported on how they were coping with the wrenching changes in their lives, and we stayed with them over the next ten years as they tried to find a place in the new global economy. They're the kind of Americans my mother would have called "the salt of the earth." They love their kids, care about their communities, go to church every Sunday, and work hard all week -- both mothers have had to take full-time jobs.

    During our time with them, the fathers in both families became seriously ill. One had to stay in the hospital two months, putting his family $30,000 in debt because they didn't have adequate health insurance. We were there with our camera when the bank started to foreclose on the modest home of the other family because they couldn't meet the mortgage payments after dad lost his good-paying manufacturing job. Like millions of Americans, the Stanleys and the Neumanns were playing by the rules and still getting stiffed. By the end of the decade they were running harder but slipping behind, and the gap between them and prosperous America was widening.

    What turns their personal tragedy into a political travesty is that they are patriotic. They love this country. But they no longer believe they matter to the people who run the country. When our film opens, both families are watching the inauguration of Bill Clinton on television in 1992. By the end of the decade they were no longer paying attention to politics. They don't see it connecting to their lives. They don't think their concerns will ever be addressed by the political, corporate, and media elites who make up our dominant class. They are not cynical, because they are deeply religious people with no capacity for cynicism, but they know the system is rigged against them. They know this, and we know this. For years now a small fraction of American households have been garnering an extreme concentration of wealth and income while large corporations and financial institutions have obtained unprecedented levels of economic and political power over daily life. In 1960, the gap in terms of wealth between the top 20% and the bottom 20% was 30 fold. Four decades later it is more than 75 fold.

    Such concentrations of wealth would be far less of an issue if the rest of society were benefiting proportionately. But that's not the case. As the economist Jeff Madrick reminds us, the pressures of inequality on middle and working class Americans are now quite severe. "The strain on working people and on family life, as spouses have gone to work in dramatic numbers, has become significant. VCRs and television sets are cheap, but higher education, health care, public transportation, drugs, housing and cars have risen faster in price than typical family incomes. And life has grown neither calm nor secure for most Americans, by any means." You can find many sources to support this conclusion. I like the language of a small outfit here in New York called the Commonwealth Foundation/Center for the Renewal of American Democracy. They conclude that working families and the poor "are losing ground under economic pressures that deeply affect household stability, family dynamics, social mobility, political participation, and civic life."

    Household economics is not the only area where inequality is growing in America. Equality doesn't mean equal incomes, but a fair and decent society where money is not the sole arbiter of status or comfort. In a fair and just society, the commonwealth will be valued even as individual wealth is encouraged.

    Let me make something clear here. I wasn't born yesterday. I'm old enough to know that the tension between haves and have-nots are built into human psychology, it is a constant in human history, and it has been a factor in every society. But I also know America was going to be different. I know that because I read Mr. Jefferson's writings, Mr. Lincoln's speeches and other documents in the growing American creed. I presumptuously disagreed with Thomas Jefferson about human equality being self-evident. Where I lived, neither talent, nor opportunity, nor outcomes were equal. Life is rarely fair and never equal. So what could he possibly have meant by that ringing but ambiguous declaration: "All men are created equal"? Two things, possibly. One, although none of us are good, all of us are sacred (Glenn Tinder), that's the basis for thinking we are by nature kin.

    Second, he may have come to see the meaning of those words through the experience of the slave who was his mistress. As is now widely acknowledged, the hands that wrote "all men are created equal" also stroked the breasts and caressed the thighs of a black woman named Sally Hennings. She bore him six children whom he never acknowledged as his own, but who were the only slaves freed by his will when he died -- the one request we think Sally Hennings made of her master. Thomas Jefferson could not have been insensitive to the flesh-and-blood woman in his arms. He had to know she was his equal in her desire for life, her longing for liberty, her passion for happiness.

    In his book on the Declaration, my late friend Mortimer Adler said Jefferson realized that whatever things are really good for any human being are really good for all other human beings. The happy or good life is essentially the same for all: a satisfaction of the same needs inherent in human nature. A just society is grounded in that recognition. So Jefferson kept as a slave a woman whose nature he knew was equal to his. All Sally Hennings got from her long sufferance -- perhaps it was all she sought from what may have grown into a secret and unacknowledged love -- was that he let her children go. "Let my children go" -- one of the oldest of all petitions. It has long been the promise of America -- a broken promise, to be sure. But the idea took hold that we could fix what was broken so that our children would live a bountiful life. We could prevent the polarization between the very rich and the very poor that poisoned other societies. We could provide that each and every citizen would enjoy the basic necessities of life, a voice in the system of self-government, and a better chance for their children. We could preclude the vast divides that produced the turmoil and tyranny of the very countries from which so many of our families had fled.

    We were going to do these things because we understood our dark side -- none of us is good -- but we also understood the other side -- all of us are sacred. From Jefferson forward we have grappled with these two notions in our collective head -- that we are worthy of the creator but that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Believing the one and knowing the other, we created a country where the winners didn't take all. Through a system of checks and balances we were going to maintain a safe, if shifting, equilibrium between wealth and commonwealth. We believed equitable access to public resources is the lifeblood of any democracy. So early on [in Jeff Madrick's description,] primary schooling was made free to all. States changed laws to protect debtors, often the relatively poor, against their rich creditors. Charters to establish corporations were open to most, if not all, white comers, rather than held for the elite. The government encouraged Americans to own their own piece of land, and even supported squatters' rights. The court challenged monopoly -- all in the name of we the people.

    In my time we went to public schools. My brother made it to college on the GI bill. When I bought my first car for $450 I drove to a subsidized university on free public highways and stopped to rest in state-maintained public parks. This is what I mean by the commonwealth. Rudely recognized in its formative years, always subject to struggle, constantly vulnerable to reactionary counterattacks, the notion of America as a shared project has been the central engine of our national experience.

    Until now. I don't have to tell you that a profound transformation is occurring in America: the balance between wealth and the commonwealth is being upended. By design. Deliberately. We have been subjected to what the Commonwealth Foundation calls "a fanatical drive to dismantle the political institutions, the legal and statutory canons, and the intellectual and cultural frameworks that have shaped public responsibility for social harms arising from the excesses of private power." From land, water and other natural resources, to media and the broadcast and digital spectrums, to scientific discovery and medical breakthroughs, and to politics itself, a broad range of the American commons is undergoing a powerful shift toward private and corporate control. And with little public debate. Indeed, what passes for 'political debate' in this country has become a cynical charade behind which the real business goes on -- the not-so-scrupulous business of getting and keeping power in order to divide up the spoils.

    We could have seen this coming if we had followed the money. The veteran Washington reporter, Elizabeth Drew, says "the greatest change in Washington over the past 25 years -- in its culture, in the way it does business and the ever-burgeoning amount of business transactions that go on here -- has been in the preoccupation with money." Jeffrey Birnbaum, who covered Washington for nearly twenty years for the Wall Street Journal, put it more strongly: "[campaign cash] has flooded over the gunwales of the ship of state and threatens to sink the entire vessel. Political donations determine the course and speed of many government actions that deeply affect our daily lives." Politics is suffocating from the stranglehold of money. During his brief campaign in 2000, before he was ambushed by the dirty tricks of the religious right in South Carolina and big money from George W. Bush's wealthy elites, John McCain said elections today are nothing less than an "influence peddling scheme in which both parties compete to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder."

    Small wonder that with the exception of people like John McCain and Russ Feingold, official Washington no longer finds anything wrong with a democracy dominated by the people with money. Hit the pause button here, and recall Roger Tamraz. He's the wealthy oilman who paid $300,000 to get a private meeting in the White House with President Clinton; he wanted help in securing a big pipeline in central Asia. This got him called before congressional hearings on the financial excesses of the 1996 campaign. If you watched the hearings on C-Span you heard him say he didn't think he had done anything out of the ordinary. When they pressed him he told the senators: "Look, when it comes to money and politics, you make the rules. I'm just playing by your rules." One senator then asked if Tamraz had registered and voted. And he was blunt in his reply: "No, senator, I think money's a bit more (important) than the vote."

    So what does this come down to, practically?

    Here is one accounting:

    "When powerful interests shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they often get what they want. But it's ordinary citizens and firms that pay the price and most of them never see it coming. This is what happens if you don't contribute to their campaigns or spend generously on lobbying. You pick up a disproportionate share of America's tax bill. You pay higher prices for a broad range of products from peanuts to prescriptions. You pay taxes that others in a similar situation have been excused from paying. You're compelled to abide by laws while others are granted immunity from them. You must pay debts that you incur while others do not. You're barred from writing off on your tax returns some of the money spent on necessities while others deduct the cost of their entertainment. You must run your business by one set of rules, while the government creates another set for your competitors. In contrast, the fortunate few who contribute to the right politicians and hire the right lobbyists enjoy all the benefits of their special status. Make a bad business deal; the government bails them out. If they want to hire workers at below market wages, the government provides the means to do so. If they want more time to pay their debts, the government gives them an extension. If they want immunity from certain laws, the government gives it. If they want to ignore rules their competition must comply with, the government gives its approval. If they want to kill legislation that is intended for the public, it gets killed."

    I'm not quoting from Karl Marx's Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book. I'm quoting Time magazine. Time's premier investigative journalists -- Donald Bartlett and James Steele -- concluded in a series last year that America now has "government for the few at the expense of the many." Economic inequality begets political inequality, and vice versa.

    That's why the Stanleys and the Neumanns were turned off by politics. It's why we're losing the balance between wealth and the commonwealth. It's why we can't put things right. And it is the single most destructive force tearing at the soul of democracy. Hear the great justice Learned Hand on this: "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: 'Thou shalt not ration justice.' " Learned Hand was a prophet of democracy. The rich have the right to buy more homes than anyone else. They have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more gizmos than anyone else, more clothes and vacations than anyone else. But they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else.

    I know, I know: this sounds very much like a call for class war. But the class war was declared a generation ago, in a powerful paperback polemic by William Simon, who was soon to be Secretary of the Treasury. He called on the financial and business class, in effect, to take back the power and privileges they had lost in the depression and new deal. They got the message, and soon they began a stealthy class war against the rest of society and the principles of our democracy. They set out to trash the social contract, to cut their workforces and wages, to scour the globe in search of cheap labor, and to shred the social safety net that was supposed to protect people from hardships beyond their control. Business Week put it bluntly at the time: "Some people will obviously have to do with less....it will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more."

    The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." This is a lie. What's happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us.

    To create the intellectual framework for this takeover of public policy they funded conservative think tanks -- The Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute -- that churned out study after study advocating their agenda.

    To put political muscle behind these ideas they created a formidable political machine. One of the few journalists to cover the issues of class -- Thomas Edsall of The Washington Post -- wrote: "During the 1970s, business refined its ability to act as a class, submerging competitive instincts in favor of joint, cooperate action in the legislative area." Big business political action committees flooded the political arena with a deluge of dollars. And they built alliances with the religious right -- Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition -- who mounted a cultural war providing a smokescreen for the class war, hiding the economic plunder of the very people who were enlisted as foot soldiers in the cause of privilege.

    In a book to be published this summer, Daniel Altman describes what he calls the "neo-economy -- a place without taxes, without a social safety net, where rich and poor live in different financial worlds -- and [said Altman] it's coming to America." He's a little late. It's here. Says Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of them all: "My class won."

    Look at the spoils of victory:

    Over the past three years, they've pushed through $2 trillion dollars in tax cuts -- almost all tilted towards the wealthiest people in the country.

    Cuts in taxes on the largest incomes.
    Cuts in taxes on investment income.

    And cuts in taxes on huge inheritances.

    More than half of the benefits are going to the wealthiest one percent. You could call it trickle-down economics, except that the only thing that trickled down was a sea of red ink in our state and local governments, forcing them to cut services for and raise taxes on middle class working America.

    Now the Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits totaling $2.75 trillion over the next ten years.

    These deficits have been part of their strategy. Some of you will remember that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to warn us 20 years ago, when he predicted that President Ronald Reagan's real strategy was to force the government to cut domestic social programs by fostering federal deficits of historic dimensions. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted as such. Now the leading rightwing political strategist, Grover Norquist, says the goal is to "starve the beast" -- with trillions of dollars in deficits resulting from trillions of dollars in tax cuts, until the United States Government is so anemic and anorexic it can be drowned in the bathtub.

    There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.

    And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society. If instead of practicing journalism I was writing for Saturday Night Live, I couldn't have made up the things that this crew have been saying. The president's chief economic adviser says shipping technical and professional jobs overseas is good for the economy. The president's Council of Economic Advisers report that hamburger chefs in fast food restaurants can be considered manufacturing workers. The president's Federal Reserve Chairman says that the tax cuts may force cutbacks in social security - but hey, we should make the tax cuts permanent anyway. The president's Labor Secretary says it doesn't matter if job growth has stalled because "the stock market is the ultimate arbiter."

    You just can't make this stuff up. You have to hear it to believe it. This may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing.

    But what they are doing to middle class and working Americans -- and to the workings of American democracy -- is no laughing matter. Go online and read the transcripts of Enron traders in the energy crisis four years ago, discussing how they were manipulating the California power market in telephone calls in which they gloat about ripping off "those poor grandmothers." Read how they talk about political contributions to politicians like "Kenny Boy" Lay's best friend George W. Bush. Go on line and read how Citigroup has been fined $70 Million for abuses in loans to low-income, high risk borrowers - the largest penalty ever imposed by the Federal Reserve. A few clicks later, you can find the story of how a subsidiary of the corporate computer giant NEC has been fined over $20 million after pleading guilty to corruption in a federal plan to bring Internet access to poor schools and libraries. And this, the story says, is just one piece of a nationwide scheme to rip off the government and the poor.

    Let's face the reality: If ripping off the public trust; if distributing tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor; if driving the country into deficits deliberately to starve social benefits; if requiring states to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor; if squeezing the wages of workers until the labor force resembles a nation of serfs -- if this isn't class war, what is?

    It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it's wrong.

    But I don't need to tell you this. You wouldn't be here if you didn't know it. Your presence at this gathering confirms that while an America with liberty and justice for all is a broken promise, it is not a lost cause. Once upon a time I thought the mass media -- my industry -- would help mend this broken promise and save this cause. After all, the sight of police dogs attacking peaceful demonstrators forced America to recognize the reality of racial injustice. The sight of carnage in Vietnam forced us to recognize the war was unwinnable. The sight of terrorists striking the World Trade Center woke us from a long slumber of denial and distraction. I thought the mass media might awaken Americans to the reality that this ideology of winner-take-all is working against them and not for them. I was wrong. With honorable exceptions, we can't count on the mass media.

    What we need is a mass movement of people like you. Get mad, yes -- there's plenty to be mad about. Then get organized and get busy. This is the fight of our lives.
    •  
  2. 41 Comments

  3. by   nekhismom
    Interesting. But who is going to DO anything about our current situation???
  4. by   gwenith
    Trouble is everyone has a tendency to think the problem is beyond them. I doubt it is a worse situation than Cherbourg and yet here is someone who is doing something. I knew everyone kept throwing the education of Aboriginal children into the "too hard basket" until everyone believed that it WAS too hard. Then I saw Chris Sarra, our latest Queenslander of the Year interviewed.

    http://www.abc.net.au/message/news/s...ws_1126446.htm
    Monday, 7 June 2004, 16:01:50 AEST
    Queenslanders of the Year honoured for achievements

    A school principal and a biochemist have been named the Queenslander and Young Queenslander of the Year.

    The honours were announced in Brisbane this morning.

    Chris Sarra has been recognised for his work at the Cherbourg State School in south-east Queensland were he has turned around poor school attendances and literacy rates amongst Aboriginal students.

    "The strong and smart stuff that we talk about is not a pipe dream for Aboriginal children, it's a reality, it's something that comes from deep down inside of us and we just have to let it out," he said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegrap...es/s568040.htm

    Bush Telegraph Thursday, 30 May 2002



    Bush Telegraph Home * Country Viewpoint Story Archives

    Chris Sarra, QLD
    Sadly, many Indigenous children perform quite poorly in our schools.

    A prominent MP in our region, who should have more sense, suggests that "Indigenous people are not inclined to education".

    And of course she could probably produce, a whole range of statistics...to justify her assertions.

    But to me, the very same statistics say just as loudly that Indigenous children have NOT failed the system but that the system has dramatically failed them.

    The issue of Indigenous underachievement in schools is tremendously complex, due to a myriad of variables:-

    - student expectations versus teacher expectations versus family expectations;
    - language differences;
    - cultural differences;
    - home values versus school values;

    and the list goes on and on and on.

    When I reflect on the positive progress of the children of Cherbourg State School though, I think to myself, "Man, does it really have to be so complex?"

    I have spoken to literally hundreds of teachers about ways to get the best out of Indigenous children in the classroom. And sadly it seems that Indigenous children are seen as something of a mystery.

    And sadly this results in unacceptably poor levels of achievement.

    This tale is made even more tragic because nobody seems to care or it is explained away, cultural differences, home values, social complexity of the community etc etc.

    But notice that in our efforts as educators to explain the situation away it is mostly the child or the family and community that gets the blame.

    Very rarely do we have the guts to accept that maybe we are contributing to such unacceptably poor educational outcomes.

    So what is it that makes a great teacher of Indigenous children?

    Well guess what??

    There is no special formula AND you don't have to be an expert on Indigenous cultural matters AND this may shock you, you don't have to be an Indigenous person.

    YOU JUST HAVE TO BE A GREAT TEACHER.

    A great teacher will be totally committed and have high expectations of ALL of the children in their class regardless of their background.

    A great teacher will ask themselves "What is it that I am doing to contribute to the underachievement of the children in my classroom?"

    Sometimes I think we forget that Indigenous children are exactly that - just children!!

    Hungry to learn, eager to please, exciting to watch and just beautiful to be with.

    And finally, they are MORE than capable and ready to learn!
    Last edit by gwenith on Jun 18, '04
  5. by   pickledpepperRN
    I remember a "study" done with third graders. Children were picked at random as "high IQ". Teachers were told one or two of the students in the oncoming class was expected to make extraordinary gains in math and other learning. 100% of those kids actually did so. Those children had actually been chosen as closer to average than others.

    As my Grandma said, "Get the reputation for rising early and you can lie in bed all day."

    Unfortunately it works to other way too.
  6. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from spacenurse
    I remember a "study" done with third graders. Children were picked at random as "high IQ". Teachers were told one or two of the students in the oncoming class was expected to make extraordinary gains in math and other learning. 100% of those kids actually did so. Those children had actually been chosen as closer to average than others.

    As my Grandma said, "Get the reputation for rising early and you can lie in bed all day."

    Unfortunately it works to other way too.
    The board of Education is no different than any other group of people. If they see no return on the investment, they will quite investing. A school that notoriously does not produce what is expected will be forgotten, the teachers will give up. Everything rolls downhill so the end result is the situation you "see" in the original post. Yes, it is very sad but the only way to improve on the situation is from inside the homes of each of those kids. The kids must come to school and behave in a way that gives the teachers renewed hope
    and therefore renewed vigor.
    No amount of money poured into that library will improve the overall performance of the kids. "Stuff" does not produce a child interested in learning. Parents produce children interested in learning. Teachers can not do it, well equiped librairies can not do it, society can not do it.
    We have to find a way to turn parenting around before money (for anything) will make any difference.
    Besides, if the rare child with the desire to learn is enrolled in that school his parents need only put him in a private school. I do not believe any parent who really wants their child to go to a private can not come up with the money. My 4 sisters and I all went to private school. Both of my parents worked. My dad worked 7 days a week for years to pay for it. When he wasn't at work he was busy painting or roofing or repairing a neighbors car. He found the money to send us. It can be done if the desire is there. What am I saying? It must start with the parent/s, it can not start in the school. And the parent must want it badly enough to get up off their arse and do something about it other than protest. They can go to public libraries and beg for extra books to build the library up, they can go door to door to collect money to buy PCs and supplies to create a card catalog, they can do as my dad did to pay for private school.
    I do not believe economics holds anyone back, it may slow you down; but lack of desire holds you back. Yes, there are predudices and there always will be. People must learn to step around them without even paying attention to them and keep on going. Keep on going until you find the route that will provide the result you are looking for.
  7. by   elkpark
    The board of Education is no different than any other group of people. If they see no return on the investment, they will quite investing. A school that notoriously does not produce what is expected will be forgotten, the teachers will give up. Everything rolls downhill so the end result is the situation you "see" in the original post. Yes, it is very sad but the only way to improve on the situation is from inside the homes of each of those kids. The kids must come to school and behave in a way that gives the teachers renewed hope and therefore renewed vigor.
    No amount of money poured into that library will improve the overall performance of the kids. "Stuff" does not produce a child interested in learning. Parents produce children interested in learning. Teachers can not do it, well equiped librairies can not do it, society can not do it.
    We have to find a way to turn parenting around before money (for anything) will make any difference.
    Besides, if the rare child with the desire to learn is enrolled in that school his parents need only put him in a private school. I do not believe any parent who really wants their child to go to a private can not come up with the money. My 4 sisters and I all went to private school. Both of my parents worked. My dad worked 7 days a week for years to pay for it. When he wasn't at work he was busy painting or roofing or repairing a neighbors car. He found the money to send us. It can be done if the desire is there. What am I saying? It must start with the parent/s, it can not start in the school. And the parent must want it badly enough to get up off their arse and do something about it other than protest. They can go to public libraries and beg for extra books to build the library up, they can go door to door to collect money to buy PCs and supplies to create a card catalog, they can do as my dad did to pay for private school.
    I do not believe economics holds anyone back, it may slow you down; but lack of desire holds you back. Yes, there are predudices and there always will be. People must learn to step around them without even paying attention to them and keep on going. Keep on going until you find the route that will provide the result you are looking for.
    So you're saying that it's the kids' job to motivate the teachers? And you think that it is right and fair that these kids at Mount Vernon school, who haven't done anything wrong except be born to the "wrong" (by your standards) parents, something over which they had no control, are not being provided with a decent education by the state? It's their own fault that they're being screwed? Sheesh ...
  8. by   Hellllllo Nurse
    Quote from nekhismom
    Interesting. But who is going to DO anything about our current situation???
    I plan to vote for Kerry. That's one small thing I can do to improve the situation!
  9. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from elkpark
    So you're saying that it's the kids' job to motivate the teachers? And you think that it is right and fair that these kids at Mount Vernon school, who haven't done anything wrong except be born to the "wrong" (by your standards) parents, something over which they had no control, are not being provided with a decent education by the state? It's their own fault that they're being screwed? Sheesh ...
    That is not what I said. What I said is, yes, these poor kids were born the the "wrong" parents (if you want to degrade these parents this way, I did't.)
    Teachers are humans to and if they go to work day after day and get only poor response from the kids, they WILL and DO loose their desire to excel as educators.
    I am saying pouring money into the school will not give those kids what they need. If the kids don't have the desire to learn, the teachers will not have the desire to teach. The first step to fixing the whole problem is in the home. We must find a way to motivate the parents to do something other than complain and protest.
    I hear almost nightly on the news that this activist group or the other is at a city council meeting demanding this or that and when they get it they go back home, open a bag of potato chips and sit on the couch until they find another reason to demand something. This kind of behavior does not teach the children anything useful. If the parents want better/more books in the library, then yes, patition city council but also go to every book store, library, and business in the area to get the books! Then when it's time to be heard at the city council meeting go in and say "look, we have done this "..." and now we are asking for the resources to do this "...". Now what have they taught their children?
  10. by   fergus51
    I think parents are really important, but a good school environment CAN change kids and improve them even if they are from bad families. Children will rise to the level of expectation.
  11. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from fergus51
    I think parents are really important, but a good school environment CAN change kids and improve them even if they are from bad families. Children will rise to the level of expectation.
    Not enough of them will "rise to the level of expectation" to make it a wise investment. Remeber the first line of my first post? The board of education is like any other group of people....
    I agree it is sad, but that's the way it is. Money, which is not growing on trees, must be invested where the potential return is the greatest; if not, that money is wasted.
  12. by   fergus51
    Quote from Dixiedi
    Not enough of them will "rise to the level of expectation" to make it a wise investment. Remeber the first line of my first post? The board of education is like any other group of people....
    I agree it is sad, but that's the way it is. Money, which is not growing on trees, must be invested where the potential return is the greatest; if not, that money is wasted.
    I just don't agree with that. I came from a not too big city and we had the same problems with socioeconomic status influencing educational achievement. There was one school that was an exception. It was in an affluent neighbourhood and most of the kids came from affluent families, but there was a small supplemented housing project in the neighbourhood as well. The poor kids there did as well as their affluent classmates, despite having all those social problems (single parent families, financial instability, etc). They did a big study about it and found that poor kids just seemed to get absorbed in when the majority were wealthy and perfomed just as well. I just don't believe we are incapable of educating the children of this country to a decent level.
  13. by   VivaLasViejas
    Okay, so what are you saying.......are we to just ignore those kids and pour what limited resources we have into educating those who are fortunate enough to be born into "good" families?

    The kids who aren't educated properly today, will end up costing us big bucks tomorrow in the form of more prisons and jails, more welfare, and more expensive health problems. As the saying goes: If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. :stone
  14. by   Hellllllo Nurse
    Quote from Dixiedi
    The board of Education is no different than any other group of people. No amount of money poured into that library will improve the overall performance of the kids. "Stuff" does not produce a child interested in learning. .
    I disagree. Money is directed to where the rich and powerful want it to go, for their own benefit- not where it would serve to produce the greatest change or improvement.

    I have never heard of a case where money spend on improving a learning environment was not money well spent.

    Saying that no amount of "stuff" would make a difference in student performance is akin to saying that a nurse without syringes, medicines, dressings, etc can be can provide the same level of care as a nurse with abundent quality supplies and equipment. All she needs to do is "want" to be just as effective.

    If this were the case, surgeons could perform surgery in a parking lot, and with mechanics tools just as well as they could in a properly equiped, modern OR.

    The only requirement is that they want to do well, and that they had good, responsible parents, right?


    A nurse's job is to care for pts, and a student's job is to learn.

    Neither can do their jobs effectively without the proper environment and tools.



    "You can't make bricks without straw."

close