Sexualizing Children??

This entry is part of an ongoing conversation taking place from time to time at File770, among other locations.  As is frequently the case in passionate discussions, the topic tends to shift depending on the speaker.

For the most part, my interlocutors are aghast at the many legislative efforts to limit the books that are available in public libraries and public schools.  And honestly?  I share their concerns.  Many of the books that end up being impacted by these initiatives are things that I read decades ago.  Many of the newer titles are equally unworthy of attention either legislative or administrative.  

Reasonable people can disagree about the relative merit of a children's book that features a farting main character.  No reasonable person would suggest locking up a teacher or a librarian for including it in a school library.

The problem is that books featuring farting characters, or books by George Orwell (irony!) are not the subject matter that is driving the issue.  Focusing on farting characters or on "To Kill a Mockingbird" or any other largely inoffensive work is a purposeful attempt to deflect the discussion away from the core issue.

Sexualizing children.

What follows is very much my part of an adult discussion that involves adult materials.  If raw images of sexual body parts offend you, then please move on to something else.  I have some very nice book reviews to read.

For everyone else...

Paying The Bills

Having been following trends in education for some time, I was particularly surprised to find that the theoretic economic benefits of a college education that are sold to high school students fell so short.

We cannot continue subsidizing educations that do not make economic sense.  Students cannot continue to sign up for a lifetime of indebtedness.  Like every other economic bubble in the world, this one will break eventually.

Wouldn't we be better off by not having our government create them in the first place?

The obvious...to me....solution is to put colleges on the hook for the debt if students are not able to find fiscally rewarding employment within their field of study.  And to require colleges to advertise the benefits of what they are offering on a "by field of study" basis.

Most kids are smart enough to avoid a train wreck, if they can see it coming.

Double, Double, Boil, And Bubble

For those that have been following the news, we had the dot-com bubble, then the housing bubble, and now we have the education bubble.  The education bubble is the government subsidized debt that students (and their parents) acquire in pursuit of a college/university degree.  The primary problem is that we have too many former students carrying more debt than their incomes can support.

While there are a lot of issues in the education bubble to unpack and explore, one big issue is the type of degrees that colleges and universities are selling.  Altruistic issues aside, colleges and universities are businesses that get paid up front based on the theoretic economic benefits that their products can create throughout a person's life.

Unfortunately, some people graduate from college and still cannot get a job that is worth having.  One list of collegiate majors suggests ten careers where borrowing money to fund the necessary educations is foolish.

• Anthropology
• Fine Arts
• Film and Photography
• Philosophy and Religious Studies
• Graphic Design
• Studio Arts
• Liberal Arts
• Drama and Theater Arts
• Sociology
• English

I'm not sure of the best way to resolve the impending economic crash due to education related debt.  I do think that colleges are behaving in precisely the same manner as more traditional businesses; particularly businesses that specialize in investing such as Goldman Sachs or Countrywide.  They are most certainly not advising students about the logical conclusions of accumulating large amounts of debt while not simultaneously acquiring a degree that will enable the repayment of that debt.

Were we talking about any other industry, the howls of outrage would be deafening.

Now I can hear other howls right now.  I am not being "anti-education".  People should still go to college.

But they should be aware of their choices.  If you have a college fund and can afford to spend $200,000+ on an Ivy League BA in sociology, then have a great time!  But if you are borrowing money to get the same degree, then perhaps you ought to consider a local community college for the first two years before transferring to a more affordable four year school.

The flip side of that coin is that colleges and universities should be providing the sort of detailed counseling that will give accurate information to prospective students.  As of a few years ago, the standard collegiate sales technique was to say that possessing a level of education (associates, bachelors, masters, doctorate) was worth "X" amount of additional income over a person's lifetime...on average.  What they did not do was to break down the different fields of study so that the prospective student knew that the average BA in fine arts was using the phrase "would you like fries with that, sir" in their current employment while the average BS in engineering was earning three to four times (or more) what burger flippers earn.

I have felt less slimy after talking to certain used car salesmen.

This is not a problem that is solely limited to the "squishy" fields of study.  The Blogfather continues chronicle our nation's over-production of lawyers.  Law schools continue to heavily solicit students for their programs while knowing full well that a significant portion of those students will not be able to find jobs in their career field.

Again, the less slimy feeling and used car salesmen come into play.

Fixing the problem seems pretty straightforward.  Colleges and universities should be required to publish detailed and accurate average earnings information for their graduates broken down by field of study.  An accurate description of the jobs held by those graduates should be included.

And loans given to students should be conditional upon the college or university rebating a portion of the tuition received if a graduating student does not find work that pays enough for them to repay those loans.  Institutions of higher learning need to have "some skin in the game".

Spike Lee Or Bill Cosby

Words to heed, but Via Meadia wonders.  Will the people who mocked and scorned Bill Cosby for trying to help families and kids do better now turn on Spike Lee?

See what Mr. Lee had to say at the link.  Or the link at the link.  Or something.




The larger point being that the pursuit of education is the single most successful activity that one can perform.

Our New Religion

Environmentalism.

Via the National Review comes this story from the NYTimes about how schools "encourage" students and parents to use reusable lunch packing materials.

I am all for using reusable materials.  I am not so hot on recycling because it is a pain in the ass where I live.  We do use the reusable plastic/fiber shopping bags in lieu of the "plastic or paper" conundrum.

And schools do have a role to play when it comes to reinforcing morals.

However, morality begins and ends at home.  If mom and/or dad decide that plastic baggies and paper bags are what you get, then it is up to the schools to adapt.  Not the parents.

Perhaps they should consider having one bin for food, one for plastic, and one for paper so that little Timmy and Tammy can practice recycling at school and skip the sermons.

'Cause..yeah....it has become a religion in some corners of the country.

Education By Sound Reasoning.....Or Politics?

I bet you thought that President Obama's education policies were going to be based on fact, science, efficacy, a similar high minded ideals.  Ummmm......nope.

Krugman - Erroneous - But I Repeat Myself

In a recent column, Paul Krugman, the NYTimes' Nobel Laureate columnist, attempts to make the point that less government is a bad thing.  To illustrate his point, he suggests that Texas is in deep trouble as indicated by high school drop out rates and child poverty rates.

Mr. Krugman apparently lacks the nuance needed to evaluate exactly by Texas has a problem with childhood poverty as he neglects to discuss any factors beyond government spending...such as a porous border and a flood of illegal aliens...that might contribute to childhood poverty.

However, it is true that childhood poverty is a problem in Texas.

Trouble arises when one takes a closer look at the high school drop out data.  Bryan Preston of the PJ Tattler links to a couple of credible data sources to make the point that at least on the subject of high school drop outs, Texas isn't exactly in the worst of conditions.  Mr. Preston is careful to point out that the data is from adjacent years, so the comparison isn't perfect.

However, Mr. Krugman's argument is significantly undermined when you look at actual drop out rates and state spending per pupil.

What Media Bias? - New Jersey/NYTimes Edition

Regular readers will know about NJ Governator Chris Christie and his battles with the NJEA along with the NJ Democrats over general budgetary priorities.

How do those battles get reported?

Well it seems that New Jersey missed out on collecting federal "Race To The Top" education dollars.  They came in at 11th place.  Only the top ten got any money.  New Jersey missed by 3 points.  A paperwork error cost them 4.8 points.

However, they could have gotten 14 points if the NJEA had endorsed the NJ state application.  Why the imprimatur of the NJEA should be required is beyond me.  It seems that such a requirement grants too much power to a private special interest group.

How is the story reported in the NYTimes?  Is the headline about how an intransigent union put its ego ahead of the educational needs of the state's students?

Oh hell no.

Christie Helped Lose Grant for Schools, Ex-Official Says

The guy that made the paperwork error got canned so now he's singing as loudly as he can that Chris Christie caused the problem by irritating the NJEA.

No bias to be seen here.  Move along quietly while the NYTimes hopes that you haven't an independent thought left in your head.  Sheesh!

Setting The Record Straight....And Keeping It That Way

Gov. Chris Christie does it....again!

In Ruth's Honor....

I'm sure she'll love it.

A Fact Free Debate

Sadly, that seems to be what some folks want to have these days. The most recent evidence of that is this recent story in the Washington Post that suggests that the Texas state school board's curriculum changes are harbingers of the end of our Republic.

The WaPo editors and writers are apparently unconcerned about the lack of facts and outright errors in that article. Error number one occurs in paragraph number one:

The Texas state school board gave final approval Friday to controversial social studies standards that minimize the separation of church and state and say that America is not a democracy but a "constitutional republic."

We are a "constitutional republic". That is a very specific form of democracy that is designed to limit the size and scope of government. We are not a democracy and we would rue the day should we ever become one. The tyranny of the majority occurs in the 51st voting percentile.

Ann Althouse has a great run down on the other errors in the WaPo's hit piece.

I'm not wildly in favor of all of the changes to the Texas curriculum. But most of them do seem to be aimed at restoring some historical accuracy that has been lost over the years.

This hit piece of the Texas curriculum reforms is ridiculous:

"In this kind of world where knowledge is growing, we should be paying more attention to how to help students deal with knowledge, helping them understand it," he said. "There's nothing in the standards that would help someone Google search George Washington... how do I know which is the good one? That's the kind of skill I think we have the opportunity to teach and we're missing the opportunity."

Well, perhaps if schools taught enough factual information about George Washington, then students would be able to recognize a good search result as opposed to a bad one. But no, instead of History Class focusing on actual historical figures, lets have History Class be about the proper uses of Google.

Is it too much to ask that this sort of media criticism actually cite the offending passages? Is it too much to ask that they link to the entire document?

Or.....not unlike the recent imperfect immigration legislation passed in Arizona or the Citizens United Supreme Court decision....is it enough to simply "feel" that a decision is bad without actually bothering to read it? At what point did it become acceptable to launch into criticizing public policies without first reading, comprehending, and analyzing them?