Embracing cultural diversity for the people of Europe will undoubtedly be a challenging undertaking for many reasons, not the least of which is each individual nation’s long nationalist history and struggles against both the Church and foreign oppressors along with internal class conflict. Present day France illustrates the issue with their current attempts to grapple with immigration. The “French republican ideal posits a single French identity without subgroups.” (Roskin, 2011, p. 159). And yet, subgroups exist. According to Roskin, immigration is not new. Between “1880 and 1960 some 7 million Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Poles and Russians were integrated into French Society. But starting in 1960, many Muslims arrived and fueled major racial tensions. Now numbering between 5 and 6 million, perhaps 9 percent of France’s population, are from former French colonies in West and North Africa—such as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal and Mali.” (Roskin, 2011, p. 157). Today, even second generation Muslims and Africans who were born in France still face difficulty in being considered French by the French because of their cultural differences and skin color. So they are discriminated against. (Roskin, 2011). If France cannot accept minorities in their own country and consider them French, what is the hope of the creation of a supranational state made up of not just France and its many minority populations, but all the member nations of the EU and all of the minority people that exist within each separate nation with their own cultures and belief systems? With the breakup of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia into smaller states based on ethnicity and culture, the trend might very well be that of the formation of smaller nation states rather than the creation of a far larger supranational one.

Another major challenge to the creation of a European identity and culture arises from the need to reconcile the differences among the myriad languages that exist in EU member nations, as language is an integral part of culture. Estonia is illustrative of the importance of a common language in a nation. After Estonia regained statehood in the post-Soviet era, Estonia discovered it had a problem regarding the status of a third of its citizens. During the Soviet era, many Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians immigrated to Estonia and lived in that country and raised families for decades. However, they retained their own cultural heritages and continued to speak Russian. Following the restoration of Estonia’s statehood, it was determined that Soviet annexation of Estonia was a violation of international law. As such, those who had immigrated to Estonia or were born of parents who had immigrated to Estonia during the Soviet era were declared non-citizens. Estonia took the stance that the laws concerning immigration to Estonia prior to the Soviet era were the only legal basis to rule on citizenship, and since these immigration steps had not been followed, claims of citizenship among the ethnic groups who had immigrated to Estonia were null and void. Post Soviet Estonia provided a remedy in terms of allowing residence for those ethnic groups within the country, but they had to go through the immigration process which included a waiting period of five years along with the adoption of Estonian culture and learning of the Estonian language. (Feldman, 2005). Language helps define cultural groups. Most nations designate an official language or languages. A supranational European federal state, if created today, would include dozens of official languages. But while this approach would not work for the people of Estonia, India, with its eighteen official languages (Roskin, 2011), may provide an example of how a supranational state with dozens of official languages could function. And if discussion ensued regarding standardization of the cultural elements and/or language proficiencies immigrants to any of the EU member nation states should demonstrate as minimum requirements for immigration to any of the EU member nations, then a framework of commonality could begin to be constructed from which a European identity might emerge.

Citizenship is an issue that will delay European Union or a supranational European State sovereignty as well as sovereignty is still a function of nation states and the assignment of which creates state legitimacy. Feldman explains: “citizenship remains firmly in the competence of EU member states. Relinquishing this prerogative would deprive the state of the legitimacy to speak in the name of the nation for which it exists. This legitimacy depends upon the state’s ability to control the distinction between ‘national’ and ‘non-national.’ International migrants—justly or unjustly—intrude upon the intimate relationship between the citizen and the nation state. Even if they are welcome, immigrants always leave the state vulnerable to the charge that it is failing to prioritize its own nationals. Second, and closely related, within this logical frame immigrants constitute an inherent national security risk insofar as they wedge themselves between the nation and the state…national security is no longer conceived only in explicit military terms but rather in vaguer, softer ‘cultural’ terms.” (Feldman, 2005, pp. 214-215). Perhaps this is one of the reasons why immigrants are really unwelcome in France and why second generation immigrants still have difficulty assimilating into French culture. Immigrants, whether the attribution is fair or not or accurate or not, threaten existing national cultures. To get beyond this perception or reality, nations must embrace the diversity within their national culture along with the distinctiveness that immigrants bring with them. Historically, embracing the pluralism of the societies within Europe has been a characteristic of all Europeans and may be a key component of a truly European identity.

“All Europeans are proud to hail from a part of the world where Montaigne and Michelangelo, Shakespeare and Cervantes, Mozart and Goethe were all born, and to adhere to the social and political principles commonly referred to as human rights….Shortly after the First World War, the poet and essayist Paul Valery thus propounded an interpretation that enjoyed a certain influence. I call European, Valery argued, those peoples who over the course of their history have let themselves be shaped by three major influences, those symbolized by Rome, Jerusalem, and Athens. From Rome comes the empire, with the organized power of a state, law and political institutions, and citizenship. From Jerusalem, or rather from Christianity, Europeans inherited subjective morality, self examination, and universal justice. Finally, Athens gave Europe the love of knowledge and of rational argumentation, the ideal of harmony, and the idea of humans as the measure of all things. Valery concluded that whoever claimed this threefold heritage could justly be considered as Europeans.” (Todorov and Bracher, 2008, pp. 3-4).

Further, Todorov and Bracher argue that the “unity of European culture resides in its manner of handling the different regional, national, religious, and cultural identities that comprise it by granting them a new status and taking advantage of this very plurality. The cultural identity of Europe does not lead to wiping out particular cultures and local memories. It consists not in a list of proper names nor in a repertory of general ideals, but in the adoption of one common attitude in the face of diversity.” (Todorov and Bracher, 2008, p. 7). Similarly, the thirteen newly independent states that composed the United States under the Articles of Confederation adopted a common attitude of the need for stronger federal control or uniformity in the face of the diversity of laws, policies and approaches to various issues and quickly determined that the Articles of Confederation were not adequate to meet the needs of the young nation. The United States, however, was a fairly cultural homogenous group at the time, if no longer, and the United States may be beginning to experience some of the fragmentation and conflict from increasing cultural diversity that the EU nation states have been wrestling with for centuries on their own continent. Nevertheless, if the EU member states were to unite together to work towards a common goal or to solve a common problem, the framework could be established to forge a supranational identity among Europeans. But what issue would be large enough to motivate all EU member nations and their people to come together and work on a common issue? It might very well be mass migration from displaced peoples due to climatic change.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that ‘there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming’. Climate change has impacts on the environment. The number of recorded natural disasters has doubled from approximately 200 to over 400 per year over the past two decades. Nine out of ten could be climate-related, and this may be the new normal. The overwhelming evidence of human induced climate change has renewed the interest in, and relevance of, the environmental displacement debate. Disasters and gradual degradation can serve as a direct cause of displacement, or as an indirect cause of displacement through conflicts over scarce resources or response measures such as biofuel-projects. As a result of climate change, as many as 200 million people can be displaced by 2050 according to Norman Meyers, British environmentalist and biodiversity expert. While one may question the precision and validity of such estimates and caution against the determinism in the dominating discourse on climate change and displacement, there can be no doubt that the impact of climate change on the environment and displacement is likely to be of such a serious nature that it demands urgent action by the international community.” (Kolmannskog and Myrstad, 2009, pp. 313-314).

Because immigration is such a heated issue in EU nations, and since those that are likely to be displaced will come from developing countries and coastal areas subject to sea level rise, Europe will be an attractive destination to the displaced because of its first world status and its many access points to the displaced from Turkey in the East to Spain in the South. (Kolmannskog and Myrstad, 2009). Therefore, Europe must determine a policy of how to absorb an influx of at least tens of millions of people in the coming decades, if not more, perhaps through the institution of a preemptive migration scheme.

“The ‘Pacific Access Category’ of the Government of New Zealand, which is an immigration scheme for the population of pacific islands threatened by rising sea level, offers opportunities for ‘would be’ environmentally displaced persons. Each year a fixed number of people are granted work and permanent resident permits. People living in the Carteret Islands of Papua New Guinea were in 2008 preparing to evacuate their homes for Bougainville as a result of changing climatic conditions.” (Kolmannskog and Myrstad, 2009, p. 325). But even with a preemptive migration scheme in place, on a far larger scale than what has been initiated for the people of Papua New Guinea by New Zealand, national security is now perceived in cultural terms. How do you overcome the feeling that your national security is at risk in terms of having your culture overrun or eliminated? If EU member nations are concerned about immigration at all, and they are, certainly fragmented approaches to immigration issues by EU member nations may become a source of conflict as lax and uncoordinated responses to displacement issues by individual EU member nations may cause issues in other member nations because of the ease of travel within the EU. Clearly, a proactive approach and coordination among all EU member nations is not only desirable, but required if the EU member nations are to control their borders and avoid being overrun; and yet, the current EU is not in a position to coordinate efforts as it has yet to evolve into a supranational state, or even a political one.

“Finally, the European countries and the EU should also be proactive in raising and seeking to address humanitarian concerns, including displacement, in the ongoing global climate change negotiations…a comprehensive EU approach to climate change and environmental displacement [is needed]. External measures such as supporting adaptation are crucial since most of the displaced persons in the world today and in the near future are of course outside EU borders.” (Kolmannskog and Myrstad, 2009, pp. 315-316).

It might just be possible that the need to address displacement and climatic change issues might be the lynchpin issue EU member nations need to define their collective identity and to rally around the creation of a supranational Euro-federal state. There are examples within Europe where cultural revolutions have taken place that have led to multi-nation state cooperation, specifically in terms of the pollution of the Elbe River.

During the Cold War period, the Elbe River became one of the most polluted in Europe. While this was recognized by the Czech and East German governments, there was little cooperation on the issue between Czechoslovakia, East Germany and West Germany. But the cultural revolution following the end of the Cold War eliminated the barriers necessary for environmental action, remediation and restoration of the Elbe River. As the Czech Republic also sought accession to the EU, it had a further incentive to cooperate with Germany. “Without the economic, political and cultural revolution of 1989, the Elbe water regime would have been difficult, if not impossible to achieve. While there was no substantial cooperation between 1949 and 1989, the post Cold War period has seen the rapid development of a comprehensive water regime. The subsequent process of progressive regional integration in the context of EU enlargement has provided an enabling environment and facilitated the development of ‘issue-linkage’ strategies. (Lindemann, 2008, p. 136).

The context of EU enlargement and issue linkage may be the deciding factor in the Turkish accession debate. “Turkey’s Islamic religious and cultural identity can, for example, be viewed as a reason to either accept or reject Turkey’s EU membership application. This mirrors the lack of consensus on how to deal with religion in the debate over a common European identity. Advocates of multiculturalism and supranationalism, who argue that the EU identity should be based on liberal democratic values and cultural diversity, firmly support Turkey’s membership….The admission of a Muslim country into the European Union would constitute the most effective guarantee of its secular, inclusive, and multicultural character and provide a powerful example for the rest of the world….On the other hand, Turkey’s Islamic character becomes the most powerful argument against the country’s membership, especially for many European conservatives who focus on the religious and cultural aspects of European identity. In their view, further European integration is possible only if the European Union forges an identity based on its Judeo-Christian religious and Greco-Roman political heritage. As Turkey lacks this heritage it is unsuitable for EU membership.” (Grigoriadis, 2006, p. 152).

Grigoriadis explains the crux of the debate regarding Turkish accession to the EU: “Turkey’s EU membership debate also has been a proxy for debates on what the European Union is or should become. Differing approaches to prospective Turkish membership highlight divergent visions of the present and future of the European Union project. Supporters and opponents of Turkey’s EU membership also have been internally divided, basing their position on different grounds. As different definitions of European identity and visions of Europe coexist, the same arguments may be used for and against Turkey’s EU membership, thus making the picture even more complex. (Grigoriadis, 2006, p. 152).

However, with the issue of climatic change displacement and potential mass migration on the horizon, the sticking points over Turkey seem to be almost insignificant in light of what the EU may not be able to control. Thus an issue linkage may exist or the time may be ripe for a comprehensive policy to address future mass migration along with the need to come to terms with and define a European identity that reflects the multicultural characteristics and pluralism of the people who reside within the EU member nations, if only to avoid chaos by controlling the flow of immigration and migration should Meyers’ projections of the numbers of climatic displaced persons prove accurate. As the debate over Turkish accession takes place in the context of discussions of larger issues and trends affecting the EU member nations and the world it may become easier to reconcile the differences of the two main groups on opposite sides on the question of a supranationalist Euro-federalist state.

The question Europeans must answer is: “what does it mean to be European?” Turkey’s accession to the EU is the crucible where that all-important answer might be forged. Perhaps the reason that a United States of Europe has not yet evolved might be that individuals and nations really haven’t thought about the question, let alone spent the time and effort to propose a credible answer. As individual nations, the EU member states are looking inward to their own affairs and needs first, perhaps without considering the larger picture and benefits of what a supranational Euro-federal state might provide for all Europeans. Certainly, in terms of addressing global issues, a supranational state would be more influential speaking for all of Europe than a myriad of smaller voices advocating individual positions on their own. But to forge a supranational European identity, the people of the European Union nation states must embrace their cultural diversity. Perhaps then they wouldn’t have to make a decision about what they want Europe to be, for by working together to iron out these issues, their actions will bring their vision of a European identity, and a United Europe into being.

As Americans, we might begin to ask ourselves the same questions as to what it means to be American and citizens of the United States. Our society is becoming increasingly diverse. As immigrants arrive at our borders, whether legally or illegally, they bring their own cultures and languages with them. Additionally, the United States will not be immune to the pressures to provide a haven for the world’s climatically displaced. The United States is already severely divided along many social cleavages. Not to oversimplify, but the blue state/red state divide is illustrative of the many types of issues that divide America. The United States has been able to stay together as a nation, however. But as we approach 250 years of existence as a nation in 2026 and deal with greater natural disasters than even 2011 has inflicted and the struggle with increasing immigration and cultural diversity, what national will will keep us united as a nation? Will increasing diversity fracture this nation the way European nations have splintered over ethnic lines? Or will our diversity finally be regarded as a true strength not just in principle and provide the glue that holds the United States together? What transpires in the European Union and the implications of those events are worthy of American attention and thought as we continually define who and what we want to be as a people and as a nation.

Thanks for reading.
 
References
Feldman, G. (2005). Essential crises: A performative approach to migrants, minorities, and the European nation-state. Anthropological Quarterly, 78 (1), 213-246.

Grigoriadis, I. N. (2006). Turkey’s accession to the European Union: Debating the most difficult enlargement ever. SAIS Review, 26 (1), 147-160.

Kolmannskog, V. and Myrstad, F. (2009). Environmental Displacement in European Asylum Law. European Journal of Migration and Law, 1 (1), 313-326.

Lindemann, S. (2008). Understanding water regime formation–a research framework with lessons from Europe. Global Environmental Politics, 8 (4), 117-140.

Roskin, M. (2011). Countries and concepts: Politics, geography, culture (Eleventh ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson: Longman.

Todorov, T. and Bracher, N. (2008). European Identity. South Central Review, 25 (3), 3-15.

No related posts.

Removing the breathing tube was the first step in my recovery. The next step was the banana popsicle, which was the only food I could keep down for the first two days before I was forced to eat solid food again—just a couple small bites of jello or turkey of the blandest kind. But on the second day, I started walking again three times a day. It was very painful at first, especially being connected to all the tubes, monitoring devices, and I.V.s. But by day four I was walking a couple hundred feet with relative ease and no support or assistance. On day five I went home, driven by my father to the Walmart for meds, and then home.

I spent the next two weeks lying on the couch in front of the television set, watching Pawn Stars and Man vs. Food marathons because despite popular belief, there really isn’t anything on 200 channels of cable television.

Slowly, my appetite returned, my movement got better, sneezing wasn’t the worst imaginable pain pulling every chest muscle out of wack anymore. 24 days after my surgery, 19 days after I left the hospital, I returned to work.

Having gone through the experience of a heart attack, bypass surgery and recovery I am at once profoundly changed and at the same time incredibly lucky. There was less than 5% damage to my heart and my heart is functioning absolutely normally. I have zero physical restrictions and am on minimal medications. Other than the scars running down the middle of my chest and on my left leg, no one would ever be able to tell I had bypass surgery. It could have been a lot worse.

In cardiac rehab, I met men both younger and older than myself. Every single one of them struggled with the most basic physical tasks. They had trouble lifting five-pound weights, trouble walking on the treadmill, trouble stretching, trouble breathing. One man, Floyd, even had to be taken to the ER twice during the three months of rehab sessions. In contrast, I was maxing out the treadmill and exercise bikes effortlessly and would have been running full out if it were allowed. The other men looked at me with obvious longing for a heart that was still young and strong, and perhaps with some regret for some of the choices they had made in life. While it would seem that I’ve been given a do-over, I regret those same choices.

Some days, I look in the mirror and wonder about the choices I have made and the path I took to get to where I am now. The poor choices I have made are so obvious now, but they are by no means atypical of choices most Americans make every single day when they grab that Coke from the vending machine down the hall, stop at a McDonald’s drive thru while running lunchtime errands, stopping at Krispy Kreme when they flash their “Hot Donuts” neon sign or ordering that Dominos pizza for dinner because it’s already 7:30 when you get home from work or the gym and you don’t have time or the energy to cook, especially with the game starting in fifteen minutes.

As long as my bypassed arteries stay clear of plaque buildup, I’m in great shape. But I’m still angry with myself that I didn’t pay more attention to my health. My mother had a massive heart attack eight years ago that almost ended her life at the age of 63. My father has had issues with blood pressure, cholesterol, and has had stents. Both my grandfathers had heart attacks, and my father’s father died immediately from his.

But as of one year prior to my heart attack and bypass surgery, my EKG was normal so because of my relatively young age, 44, at the time of the EKG, no doctor had ever ordered a stress test. The crazy thing though is that you can have an 80% blockage in a coronary artery and still have a normal EKG. And what is even crazier is that my cardiologist found that my heart attack last year was NOT my first heart attack. Apparently I had suffered a really minor one at some point in the past and I never even knew it happened. Talk about a wake-up call.

Unfortunately, it’s still a struggle every single day to eat healthy, to get the right exercise, to get the right amount of sleep and rest. Even with what I know. Fast food, fried food, soft drinks, most candy are now gone from my diet, and as of this week I’m back in the gym working out again. But most Americans keep doing what they’ve always done, oblivious to or disregarding the risks of their behaviors to their own health.

Our government is doing every American a great disservice by not doing a far better job in working to promote better health. We all know cigarette smoking is harmful, so cigarette advertising and warning labels are strictly regulated. Why isn’t McDonald’s under the same scrutiny when we all know Big Macs are not among the healthiest food options out there? And why are Coke and Pepsi products allowed to be sold in school vending machines? Even Gatorade contains excess sodium that no one needs in their diet unless they are an extreme athlete. Water really does suffice.

On this, my first anniversary since my heart stopped beating and started beating again, I strongly encourage all my friends, coworkers and everyone I know to make an appointment with a cardiologist. Assess your heart health and know the risk factors and what you can do to prevent a heart attack and bypass surgery.

They say out of sight, out of mind, and in terms of our heart, it is usually out of sight and out of mind—until it decides to demand your attention. When that happens, time has run out. Emergency intervention is needed to survive. And then, your life becomes a conscious decision every single hour—do what’s right for your heart, or suffer the consequences. I urge all of you, on this Memorial Day, to think about your heart health. In addition to taking time to remember and honor our fallen heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice, remember those other fallen heroes in our lives: parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, children and friends whose lives were cut short because of choices that were made in disregard to their own heart health.

Thanks for reading.

No related posts.

No related posts.

No related posts.

Alan Abramowitz is the Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory, and a renowned expert on national politics and elections. His expertise includes election forecasting models, party realignment in the United States, congressional elections and the effects of political campaigns on the electorate. His latest book is “The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy.”

What do you think? Does Professor Abramowitz have the right of it? Or is the polarization simply a reaction to what it takes to get elected, reelected, and maintain a privileged political elite?

No related posts.

Articulating a uniform purpose with specific outcomes through standards-based accountability is just one small step in instituting successful high school reform. In this article, Matthew S. Urdan examines prominent research on the topic and finds that when different aspects of issues that persist are examined and looked at from a holistic perspective, patterns emerge that indicate that the adoption of a coherent core curriculum, a reduction in school size, and the use of varying subject specific instruction methods would synergistically improve academic achievement across the socioeconomic status spectrum. To be effective, however, these reform initiatives would need to be components of a very specific, three-layered, detailed plan of implementation to overcome fragmented policies and the greatest impediment to reform: teacher inertia and a reluctance to embrace change and proven instructional techniques. This is a two-part article. Please continue reading High School Reform: The Three “R”s Part II after reading Part I below.

The Purpose of High School

As high school attendance has become nearly universal since the beginning of the 20th century, two major schools of thought regarding what the primary purpose of high school should be have emerged: to prepare students for a college education, as articulated by Charles Eliot and his Committee of Ten; and the National Education Association’s Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education’s idea that coursework should prepare students for their future occupational needs. The existence of these two competing major schools of thought as to what the purpose of high school should be has resulted in seemingly endless reform attempts to improve education and the rise of the comprehensive high school which tries to be all things to all students. (Lee and Ready, 2009). Up until 1970, the comprehensive high school had achieved a steady increase in graduation rates; but since 1970, graduate rates have remained static at seventy-five percent. (Stern, 2009). With the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, which slammed high schools for their poor results and which sparked a flurry of calls for reform, much debate and research has taken place regarding what is broken in the educational system. Many solutions have been suggested, some have even been implemented and achieved moderate success. A major result has been the standards-based reform movement, perhaps capped by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and an increasing trend towards the reinstitution of original Committee of Ten core curriculums designed to prepare students for college. However results within and between states have been fragmented and it is clear that a standards-based approach alone is not enough. While independent researchers at the nation’s top academic institutions address many component parts of the educational system, not a lot of synthesis is taking place, nor is a comprehensive plan being offered by any school district, state, or the federal government as to what and how school reform can be implemented that would result in an increase in standards, equity, and performance of all. Clash, debate and research continue, but in all the literature, very few are asking what may be the most important question: what is the purpose of high school?

While this question remains unanswered, it is impossible to achieve the results the standards-based movement is demanding. Perhaps the nation’s researchers and policymakers have forgotten basic algebra: when confronted with variables a, b, and c; a, b, and c need to be defined before x can be solved for. Of course, in this case, there are many more variables than a, b, and c, so perhaps researchers and policymakers will need the help of Algebra II as well, but whatever is necessary, x needs to be solved for. This article will search for a, b, and c and try to solve for x, but it will also illustrate that articulating a uniform purpose with specific outcomes through standards-based accountability is just one small step in instituting successful high school reform.

Defining Purpose is the Necessary First Step

A clear understanding of the purpose of the high school with specific designated outcomes is critical to the institution of successful high school reform. If a comprehensive high school has to be all things to all students, the complexity and variety of necessary instructional resources and the many variations of reform to be tailored to the needs of all students would be impossible to achieve. The standards-based movement has begun to address this reality by aiming for excellence for everyone. By focusing on higher standards, NCLB attempts to focus the purpose of high school on academic achievement to some degree, but while competing purposes exist that include the major function of preparing students for success in their careers as well as the additional purposes of preparing all students for citizenship and economic self-sufficiency, is it reasonable to expect success, and even excellence, in so many different roles? (Stern , 2009). Lee and Ready (2009) agree:

“For well over a century, practitioners and policy makers have grappled over the fundamental purposes of secondary education. At the center of these discussions lies the fact that as adolescents move through the educational system, the focus of schooling typically shifts from developing individual children toward preparing students to be future workers and citizens. This acknowledgement of students’ imminent adult roles raises serious questions about the appropriate content of secondary education. All children should learn to read, but do all employees need trigonometry?” (Lee and Ready, 2009, p. 136).

Whether or not employees need trigonometry is a key question at the heart of defining what the purpose of high school should be.

Literature Review

The literature of high school reform is vast and a review of even a small fraction of it is beyond the scope of this article. Most of the literature reviewed actually encapsulates the findings from many studies, some of which synthesizes over fifty separate studies. Since the publication of Sizer’s Horace’s Compromise and A Nation at Risk, many high school reforms have taken place in the last twenty-five to thirty years. This section will provide an overview of the state of high school performance that has led to the institution of various high school reforms. Most of the literature examines the state of high school educational achievement and the factors which affect it in terms of past or present reform efforts, with a focus on underachieving schools with the lowest graduation rates. These schools tend to be composed overwhelmingly of minorities and located in inner cities with lower access to necessary resources. But because of the ethnic makeup of the student bodies of lower achieving schools, an erroneous assumption has been made regarding minority student abilities to learn and to achieve, resulting in separate but definitely unequal educational opportunities and educational results.

Collectively, the articles take the form of surveys or arguments for a particular strategy, but none propose specific programs with any kind of detail that are readily actionable and they all leave many blanks, or variables undefined, that need to be filled in for teachers, principles, superintendents, school boards and local and state educational agencies. But all illuminate a piece of the puzzle in what is necessary for reform to work as well as illustrating what doesn’t work. When these seven journal articles and opinion pieces are looked at from a thirty-thousand foot level without getting caught up in specific detail, coherence and a sense of what is true in terms of high school reform emerges.

First, Hirsch (2005) provides a baseline with Project Follow Through, showing how direct instruction through the use of a core knowledge curriculum can achieve success in those students that come from lower socioeconomic statuses by laying a groundwork in the basics and creating an accumulation of knowledge until a threshold is met that would allow for advanced learning and academic success. But until a threshold vocabulary is reached, it is important for a curriculum to be centered around core knowledge subjects because switching from subject to subject and other educational purposes beyond college preparation exposes students to many separate discipline vocabularies so that understanding of any one does not become cemented. Michael Apple, (2005), in his critique of Hirsch, poses the question of who is it that has the power to decide what constitutes core knowledge? While this is an important question, Hirsch cites a University of Virginia study where the concatenation of core knowledge subjects results in academic success and higher achievement than those students that do not participate in consistent core knowledge curriculums as students progress through K-12 grades.

Hamann, (2005) describes the introduction of statewide curriculums in Maine and Vermont that illustrate great early success in Maine with limited success in Vermont, although with the caveat that Vermont’s system was introduced at a later time when Vermont could not take advantage of federal funding for implementation. The state by state comparison of similar programs is illustrative of the effectiveness of uniformity, or a variation on what Hirsch, Ravitch, and others call coherence. The state by state comparison also illustrates variables beyond the control of the schools in student success, namely: family structure and stability and influence and living conditions, socioeconomic status, student desire to learn, career aspirations, peer group pressure, personal interests, health, diet, and a myriad of other variables that influence students’ abilities to learn at any given time. What Hamann also makes painfully clear is that most school reform changes are temporary in nature. As direction changes every time a teacher retires and a new teacher is hired, an administrator transfers to a different school, someone new gets elected to a school board, or a new reform or practice is adopted by a district or a state, teachers have to adapt and implement change but most don’t as they realize there is little point in changing to maximize the effectiveness of the reform adoption because whatever the flavor of the month is, it will be changed in the next election cycle or when the next administrator or even the current administrator changes direction again. This is a major inherent barrier to the institution of successful school reform. When a reform is adopted, it needs to be adopted for a long enough time period to establish buy-in and achieve results.

Darling-Hammond, Ross, and Milliken (2006/2007) examine the size of schools and their effectiveness, and note that the trend towards decreasing the size of high schools to a standard of 400-600 total students has actually become a reform movement in its own right. Citing example after example, the school size issue is detailed and thorough. Darling-Hammond, Ross and Milliken clearly show that surveys of school size and correlations with academic performance have been mixed because there is an arbitrary understanding of what constitutes size descriptors within cities or states and certainly between states. In rural communities, a student body of 500 might be considered a very large school In cities such as New York or Los Angeles, a student body of 6000 might be considered a large school. Because there is a lack of consistency in terminology, studies that have attempted to compare large school reform and achievement with other large schools with the same reform but differing results have confounded researchers, but Darling-Hammond et. al clearly show these studies are not apples-apples comparisons. This is exceptionally important as it speaks to the importance of smaller school size and their effectiveness in contributing to student success and the current trend of school consolidation mostly for cost considerations instead of an educational rationale, even though smaller schools do not necessarily incur greater costs.

In a series of articles from a dedicated issue of The Future of Children, Stern (2009), Corcoran and Silander (2009), Balfanz (2009) and Lee and Ready (2009) examine different aspects of high school reform to date and go in-depth, separately, of the major areas of reform. Stern (2009) examines the policy options for educating teenagers, and here the purpose of the high school is explored in depth from competing points of view. Corcoran and Silander (2009) examine subject appropriate instruction techniques in terms of a standards-based movement and argue convincingly that different types of instruction are more effective in different subjects, and that teachers and schools need to become more savvy in methods to increase effectiveness, particularly in the utilization of group instruction methods. Balfanz (2009) confronts the purpose of the high school head on by asking the question “how well [are] high schools succeeding in the mission to ensure that all adolescents graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary schooling and training” and examining the question of whether high schools can ultimately fulfill that mission. Balfanz (2009, p. 17). Finally, Lee and Ready (2009) examine the three phases of research and high school reform over the last thirty years by examining achievement results and their impact on both college and the workplace. They explore the findings, results and disconnects of the Chicago Study in depth along with other studies and conclude that the school systems are not succeeding in either role of preparation of students for college or for the workplace as colleges quickly discover they must provide freshmen with remedial education classes to bring student knowledge and work up to a college level, and employers are discovering that high school graduates have few skills necessary for business success and that more and more employers have to develop extensive internal training programs to develop basic and essential competencies of their new hires. However, Lee and Ready have discovered a startling convergence in one type of curriculum that prepares students for both success in college and success in the workforce which provides a capstone argument for this article: the purpose of high school should be declared to prepare students for college success. That declaration is the first step in instituting truly successful high school reform.

Continue reading this article in High School Reform: The Three “R”s Part II.

Annotated Bibliography

Balfanz, R. (2009). Can the American high school become an avenue of advancement for all? The Future of Children, 19 (1), 17-36.

Balfanz argues that a consensus is developing in the United States that the American high school “should ensure that all adolescents graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary schooling and training,” and yet there is a long way to go to accomplish this goal. Enumerating the reforms that have taken place in the last twenty-five years and itemizing their various levels of effectiveness, Balfanz makes the argument that schools are still separate and unequal, despite the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Research suggests that student teacher ratios of 15:1 are critical to support state-of-the-art high school reform, and funding disparities between school districts are a major barrier to successful reform. If the primary purpose of high school is to prepare students for college, then solving financial disparity issues is key to achieving success from high school reform.

Corcoran, T. and Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the challenge. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 157-183.

Corcoran and Silander argue that high schools are faced with a new challenge: ensuring that all students achieve at a high level, which is something they have never been asked to do in the past, as a result of standards-based reforms and accountability. Examining how high school subject-based organizational structures affect instruction, Corcoran and Silander suggest that teachers adapt their methods of instruction to the needs of specific students while monitoring student learning and progress. While research suggests that less than half of American high schools utilize group learning techniques, different grouping strategies should be utilized to maximize student interaction and learning. Corcoran and Silander conclude that utilization of adaptive instruction has the greatest potential for success in “today’s standards-based policy environment with its twin values of equity and excellence.”

Darling-Hammond, L., Ross, P., and Milliken, M. (2006/2007). High school size, organization and content: What matters for student success? Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 163-2003.

Darling-Hammond, Ross and Milliken examine the findings of the effects of smaller schools for different groups over the last thirty years. Citing research that large, factory schools do not promote student achievement for all the way smaller schools can, and questioning the contention that small schools cannot be cost effective, the author’s review suggests that “in addition to student backgrounds, important variables influencing high school outcomes for different groups of students include organizational structures that create more coherence and communal orientation, reduce curriculum differentiation, increase instructional authenticity and rigor, and enhance personalization.” The authors conclude that smaller high schools tend to achieve these goals and result in higher rates of achievement among the student bodies of smaller high schools.

Hamann, E. T. (2005). Systemic high school reform in two states: The serendipity of state-level action. The High School Journal, 89 (1), 1-17.

Hamann examines two case studies of state-wide high school reform in Maine and Vermont. If all students are to be educated to high standards, then it becomes necessary to scale up lower-performing schools to the practices of high-performing schools. Hamann examines the independent attempts of Maine and Vermont to do just that with programs based on local state educator recommendations and proposals without outside involvement by national education consultants. Hamann concludes that great progress in transforming schools in Maine was occurring as of 2005, with slower progress being made in Vermont as a result of uniform statewide efforts. The differing levels of progress are illuminating in that they highlight that statewide uniformity is not enough to promote increases in academic achievement.

Hirsch Jr., E. D. (2005). Education reform and content: the long view. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 186-204.

Hirsch examines one of the major reasons why students fail in school: a lack in development of basic skills and competencies. Citing the study “Project Follow Through” as a basis for his argument, Hirsch convincingly argues that curriculums that emphasize systematic teaching of basic skills are far more effective than those with a variety of teaching methods, and that a concentration on core knowledge allows focus and the ability of students to continually build on what they have learned so that they may reach a threshold level knowledge base that is critical for success in both high school and college.

Lee, V. E. and Ready, Douglas D. (2009). U.S. high school curriculum: Three phases of contemporary research and reform. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 135-156.

Lee and Ready explore the effects of the high school curriculum on student learning by race and socioeconomic status. Tracing the curriculums offered by high schools from the beginning of the twentieth century through the middle of the century when schools began to offer choice of subjects with varying degrees of content and “academic rigor,” through the return to standards-based curriculum, Lee and Ready hypothesize that a “selection bias” may explain divergent conclusions in the Chicago study and other research. As earlier studies often failed to consider the unmeasured characteristics of “students who completed college-prep courses—characteristics such as motivation, access to academic supports and better teachers,” the Chicago study raises the possibility that a “college-prep for all” approach might not result in the improvements in academic achievement that the researchers and policy makers behind the standards-based education initiatives had hoped for.

Stern, D. (2009). Expanding policy options for educating teenagers. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 211-239.

Despite repeated waves of school reform, Stern notes that the National Assessment of Educational Progress found no improvement in reading or math for high school seniors between 1971 and 2004. Consequently, Stern argues that some of the basic features of the American high school need to be altered if the high school is to successfully meet the needs of all students. Proposing new strategies to meet the traditional goals of preparing students for college and for a financially successful career, Stern suggests that creativity is needed to help the 25% of U.S. high school students who do not graduate from high school. Such strategies, such as utilizing an internet-based curriculum with “internships and civic engagement projects might produce better results” for those who do not succeed in conventional classroom environments and who face additional challenges stemming from moving from place to place and school district to school district. Stern concludes by arguing that an expansion of educational settings and involving more adults in the education process through mentoring, academic advising, and other methods would be worth trying to fill the gaps in success of the traditional high school.

No related posts.

Articulating a uniform purpose with specific outcomes through standards-based accountability is just one small step in instituting successful high school reform. In this article, Matthew S. Urdan examines prominent research on the topic and finds that when different aspects of issues that persist are examined and looked at from a holistic perspective, patterns emerge that indicate that the adoption of a coherent core curriculum, a reduction in school size, and the use of varying subject specific instruction methods would synergistically improve academic achievement across the socioeconomic status spectrum. To be effective, however, these reform initiatives would need to be components of a very specific, three-layered, detailed plan of implementation to overcome fragmented policies and the greatest impediment to reform: teacher inertia and a reluctance to embrace change and proven instructional techniques. This is a two-part article. Please read High School Reform: The Three “R”s Part I before continuing with Part II below.

Conditions of Successful High School Reform

While any one student can succeed admirably in any given school setting in any location in the country, three conditions for success have emerged as critical in the literature for achieving educational success. These three conditions, or components, should be incorporated into any new high school reform. They are the adoption of a standardized and coherent core knowledge curriculum, a reduction in size of high schools, and the utilization of proven and evidenced-based instructional practices.

Core Knowledge is Paramount

At the heart of successful high school reform is actually the current standards-based movement. By making the bold requirement that everyone achieve excellence in the schools under NCLB, schools have been forced to up their graduation requirements—demanding more credits earned, more credits in college preparatory subjects, and specific courses within subject disciplines, such as Algebra II and Geometry instead of Advanced Business Math. The Three “R”s—reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic—are now back in vogue. However, this development is not anything new. “A very influential 1894 report by the Committee of Ten, headed by Harvard President Charles W. Eliot and composed mainly of university professors, argued unambiguously that all students should take the same rigorous academic curriculum, whether or not they intended to go to college.” Stern (2009, p. 217).
E. D. Hirsch agrees.

In study after study in the reviewed literature, students perform well above national standards at the 4th grade level. At the 8th grade level, there is a noticeable decrease in student performance. And at the 12th grade level, national standards are not being met by a large number of students. This is because students do not need course variety, instead, they need to build increasing competencies in core subjects.

While the progressive movement has introduced variety in curriculum to meet the needs of students who are not necessarily college-bound or who are more interested in vocational education instead, the effect has not been to retain and engage students but rather it has increased student dropout rates. Darling-Hammond (2006/2007) explains:

“Among other things, all of these schools offer a college preparatory curriculum to their students. Whereas the diverse course selection available to students in larger schools was once commonly thought to prevent dropping out by accommodating students’ interests and abilities, some studies have found the increases in course variety associated with larger schools tend to be associated with an increase, rather than a decrease, in dropout rates.” Darling-Hammond (2006/2007, p. 170).

In addition to school size issues, which is the focus of Darling-Hammond’s article, this result of a diverse course selection likely stems from a dilution of learning that takes place when many courses are studied, but only superficially, so that course subjects seem like throw-a-ways instead of carrying an importance that develops from studying the same subject in greater detail year after year. Additionally, it takes a great deal of time to master subject jargon, principles and theories—in short, to develop vocabularies that make learning and achievement in any given subject discipline possible. Hirsch explains that:

“regarding the more recalcitrant skill of reading comprehension, some additional principles have recently been learned that are useful for improving performance in later grades: reading ability is knowledge dependent; it is not a completely transferable skill that ensures effortless comprehension of any text, no matter its subject. Reading ability is vocabulary dependent. Yet vocabulary growth is subtle, slow, and complicated, dependent upon both knowledge of subject matter and language experience. Reading ability is cumulative and is dependent upon both general knowledge and broad experience of language. Significant improvement in reading ability cannot be gained by practicing ‘comprehension strategies’. These four are the most important principles of long-range educational reform because they explain why significant reading achievement requires a long time on task, measured in multiples of years, not semesters.” Hirsch (2005, p. 178-179).

This explains why core knowledge and coherence in curriculum is not only important, but paramount. Firstly, as students acquire greater vocabulary, their understanding of the subject matter increases. Secondly, as students acquire a greater knowledge base, their understanding of the subject matter increases. Thirdly, as students acquire greater knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, further study of the subject matter allows for greater understanding of implications and ramifications of the subject. Schoolhouse Rock provides an example that most of us can probably relate to.

In 1975-1976, I had learned from Schoolhouse Rock, all about the “Shot Heard Round the World,” the Boston Tea Party, and Paul Revere’s Ride. In Middle school, I learned a little more about those events. In high school I studied them in depth and learned all the facts. But it wasn’t until my first college run in the 1980s that I understood implications and the why and how and origins of all these events beyond the simplistic explanations from a two-minute cartoon jingle on television or from a high school American History textbook. And now, more than twenty years later, after having in-depth discussions while learning about the work of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and the Founding Fathers, I have a much better understanding of mindsets, and the nuances of political intrigue, and all the layers that I had no idea existed back in 1976. And most significantly, as my understanding of history has improved, so has my understanding of education, and science and politics. It takes a knowledge base and a vocabulary, built from layers and layers of study to progress in education and learning. Hirsch demonstrates that a core knowledge curriculum can have an immediate impact in under-performing schools across socioeconomic statuses, even in inner cities with very limited resources, and this provides the transition to the discussion on school size.

As already noted, in terms of school size, there is much confusion in the literature about what constitutes a “large” school or a “small” school. Darling-Hammond et. al. (2006/2007) have weeded through all the research and made the important finding that school size matters, but it is not the only factor. Core knowledge and a rigorous and coherent curriculum are critical components of the success of smaller schools.

“Finally, there are questions about what smaller means and about what school size may be optimum, since comparative studies have examined different size ranges. For example, research looking at data from different systems in different eras has resulted in recommended maximum high school enrollments ranging from 500 to 1000. Some analysts suggest that optimum size varies with socioeconomic status of the community, with 1000 probably the upper limit for schools serving affluent students and substantially smaller sizes for schools serving low-income students. Our review of the available evidence suggests that, in addition to student backgrounds, important variables influencing high school outcomes for different groups of students include organizational structures that create more coherence and ‘communal’ orientation, reduce curriculum differentiation, increase instructional authenticity and rigor, and enhance personalization (that is, the extent to which students are well known by adults). Darling-Hammond et al (2006/2007, p. 164).

Major reasons not yet mentioned why smaller schools are critical has to do with the communal orientation referred to above. In smaller schools, Darling-Hammond et. al. found, students know each other better, share more classes, live in the same neighborhoods and so they have greater ties to one another. Since classes are smaller, teachers know students better and are more available and accessible due to having only sixty students instead of one-hundred fifty each day. Darling-Hammond et. al. also found that in smaller schools, there is greater extra-curricular participation where students come into contact with their teachers more often as coaches or activity advisors. While students do not feel forced to participate, due to smaller student bodies, more students feel obligated to play on a sports team so that the school had enough players to field a team, or to participate in the school play and student government and other school activities. Because students not only interact more with each other in class, but they also play together on team sports and work together to organize and put on school activities, they build stronger and closer bonds and provide positive examples to each other. These bonds also result in the reduction of school drop-out rates and greater academic performance as students work together and help each other succeed. Add these dynamics to a coherent core curriculum and there is far greater achievement in smaller schools, even in inner cities and among minority populations with lower socioeconomic statuses, than large schools of several thousand students where students are more a number and can slip through the cracks more easily.

Lastly, Corcoran and Silander (2009) argue that schools need to improve their core technology—instruction, to make a difference in student achievement and in terms of meeting the new standards-based criteria performance levels. Corcoran and Silander agree with Darling-Hammond e.t al. that smaller schools equal better levels of instruction because they encourage adaptive instruction techniques suitable to the subject matter. They argue that different subjects require different methods of teaching. Corcoran and Silander define instruction as “the interactions between teachers, students, and content directed toward helping students achieve learning goals.” Corcoran and Silander (2009, p. 158). They further support Darling-Hammond et. al. in their call for the reorganization of the comprehensive high school into smaller schools with “new organizational structures that will affect the relationships among teachers and between teachers and students and that these new relationships will alter the ways in which high school teachers teach and students learn.” Corcoran and Silander (2009, p. 160). They call into question the fragmentation of teacher styles and emphasize the need for group learning.

“Numerous research reviews have concluded that using various forms of group learning or teaming has improved pupil achievement, social attitudes such as tolerance and acceptance of differences, and classroom climates…the evidence shows that using structured groups is a promising instructional approach. Many independent reviews show that student teams improve student achievement. The effects are so large and so consistent across subjects that group learning would be normative in an evidenced-based environment.” Corcoran and Silander, (2009, p. 166-167).

However, group learning environments are difficult to organize, and they become increasingly more difficult the larger the class size, thus Corcoran and Silander’s research supports Darling-Hammond eT. al.’s that smaller school size would also have benefits not just because of the size of the school and the interaction among the students, but that smaller class size allows for greater flexibility in the utilization of instructional methods that are most effective for a given subject in general, and in the organization of group learning specifically. And yet, despite the evidence and research into effective techniques for instruction, the need for smaller schools, and the benefits of core knowledge curriculums that were identified over a century ago by the Committee of Ten, Corcoran and Silander painfully point out that “in spite of decades of professional development and introduction of more constructivist curricula, [existing] patterns of teacher-student interaction prevails.” Corcoran and Silander (2009, p. 168). Further,

“it seems clear even from this unsystematic review of the evidence that the instructional approach teachers choose matters for student learning. And interesting commonalities in the evidence across disciplines suggest the power of well-designed grouping strategies of classroom discourse that allows students to express their ideas and questions, and of offering students challenging tasks. Some evidence also suggests that inquiry approaches may add value. But although researchers look for routines in classroom practice that are linked to achievement, teachers, who have great discretion in their choice of instructional strategies, appear to pay little heed to the evidence that researchers amass. As a consequence, less than half of American high school students report working groups. An even smaller share reports being engaged in inquiry.” Corcoran and Silander (2009, p. 173).

In the seven articles referenced for this article, each author goes into far greater detail than what I have been able to cover here. While there are many more nuances worthy of discussion, the major implication is that there has been more than enough research compiled to effect successful high school reform, but of the existing inherent barriers that prevent effective reform, the largest one seems to stem from teacher inertia in instituting change and a lack of will to adopt instructional methods proven by research. By themselves, a coherent core knowledge curriculum, a transition to smaller schools, and the adoption of adaptive instruction methods can make major inroads in improving academic success across the socioeconomic status spectrum. Adopting them all together would create synergies that would show significant academic achievement gains. But the research strongly suggests that something more is needed, and that something is what I call the “Three ‘M’s”. At some point, it’s important to stop spending time studying the issue and it becomes time to take decisive action and put a permanent program in place and allow it to run its course so that results can be achieved. What has been missing in school reform proposals, and certainly in the NCLB, are the Three “M”s, which refer to a comprehensive reform policy with detailed Macro, Mezzo, and Micro levels. The policy does not have to be uniform across states, but it would be beneficial in helping to create uniform standards and levels of achievement if it were. The policy does have to be uniform within states, however, and it should include detailed descriptions of the theory involved (Macro Level) that includes the adoption of a coherent core knowledge curriculum, the specific implementation plan (Mezzo Level) with detailed articulation of goals, direction on how to achieve the goals, criteria for progress and results measurement along with a plan to reduce school size; and finally the adoption of consistent instructional standards, methods, and practices (Micro Level) that are course and content specific, utilizing group instruction and other instruction methods that are consistent within and between schools. Any plan for reform has to include Macro, Mezzo and Micro implementation plans to be effective and ultimately successful.

Conclusion: High Schools Should Be Focused on College Preparation

Lee and Ready bring us full circle to the question of what the purpose of the high school should be.

“Worldwide, demands for greater investments in human capital development are raising once again the broad historical question of the relationship between students’ academic experiences in high school and their future economic roles. Changes in the U.S. and world economies, increased demand for college, and a set of relatively consistent findings from research about the high school curriculum have led policy makers and informed citizens in the past decade or so to call for even more rigor in what all American students should learn in high school to prepare students for the workforce of the new economy. There is general agreement that too few students, especially those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, graduate from high school. Even among students who graduate, many do so without the high-level skills needed for college and for the contemporary workforce. Increasingly, policy makers have come to recognize that the skills students need to succeed in the workforce are no different from the competencies needed to succeed in college and that undemanding coursework is insufficient to prepare students for a successful life after high school.” Lee and Ready (2009, p. 144-145).

So what should be the purpose of high school? In a phrase, to prepare students for college. The Committee of Ten had it right more than a century ago.

Maybe it’s not the coursework that matters. It’s hard to imagine that the basics of curriculum from ancient Greek society are still so relevant and impactful today. Maybe it’s not the curriculum, maybe it’s the rigorous development of the mind, in all its aspects, and developing the language, or vocabulary, needed to interact in the world effectively as adults in a society. Maybe what is missing in the literature of school reform is a detailed study of how the brain works and how it develops. Perhaps a rigorous core knowledge curriculum with plenty of one-on-one time in a small school setting in a variety of learning situations by a teacher skilled in many methods of teaching is the textbook blueprint for mind development.

In any case, now that the argument has been made for the declaration of a uniform purpose of high school to be college preparation, it can be articulated. Combine this step with the Three “M”s, and successful high school reform can be instituted.

Thanks for reading.

 
Annotated Bibliography

Balfanz, R. (2009). Can the American high school become an avenue of advancement for all? The Future of Children, 19 (1), 17-36.

Balfanz argues that a consensus is developing in the United States that the American high school “should ensure that all adolescents graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary schooling and training,” and yet there is a long way to go to accomplish this goal. Enumerating the reforms that have taken place in the last twenty-five years and itemizing their various levels of effectiveness, Balfanz makes the argument that schools are still separate and unequal, despite the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Research suggests that student teacher ratios of 15:1 are critical to support state-of-the-art high school reform, and funding disparities between school districts are a major barrier to successful reform. If the primary purpose of high school is to prepare students for college, then solving financial disparity issues is key to achieving success from high school reform.

Corcoran, T. and Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the challenge. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 157-183.

Corcoran and Silander argue that high schools are faced with a new challenge: ensuring that all students achieve at a high level, which is something they have never been asked to do in the past, as a result of standards-based reforms and accountability. Examining how high school subject-based organizational structures affect instruction, Corcoran and Silander suggest that teachers adapt their methods of instruction to the needs of specific students while monitoring student learning and progress. While research suggests that less than half of American high schools utilize group learning techniques, different grouping strategies should be utilized to maximize student interaction and learning. Corcoran and Silander conclude that utilization of adaptive instruction has the greatest potential for success in “today’s standards-based policy environment with its twin values of equity and excellence.”

Darling-Hammond, L., Ross, P., and Milliken, M. (2006/2007). High school size, organization and content: What matters for student success? Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 163-2003.

Darling-Hammond, Ross and Milliken examine the findings of the effects of smaller schools for different groups over the last thirty years. Citing research that large, factory schools do not promote student achievement for all the way smaller schools can, and questioning the contention that small schools cannot be cost effective, the author’s review suggests that “in addition to student backgrounds, important variables influencing high school outcomes for different groups of students include organizational structures that create more coherence and communal orientation, reduce curriculum differentiation, increase instructional authenticity and rigor, and enhance personalization.” The authors conclude that smaller high schools tend to achieve these goals and result in higher rates of achievement among the student bodies of smaller high schools.

Hamann, E. T. (2005). Systemic high school reform in two states: The serendipity of state-level action. The High School Journal, 89 (1), 1-17.

Hamann examines two case studies of state-wide high school reform in Maine and Vermont. If all students are to be educated to high standards, then it becomes necessary to scale up lower-performing schools to the practices of high-performing schools. Hamann examines the independent attempts of Maine and Vermont to do just that with programs based on local state educator recommendations and proposals without outside involvement by national education consultants. Hamann concludes that great progress in transforming schools in Maine was occurring as of 2005, with slower progress being made in Vermont as a result of uniform statewide efforts. The differing levels of progress are illuminating in that they highlight that statewide uniformity is not enough to promote increases in academic achievement.

Hirsch Jr., E. D. (2005). Education reform and content: the long view. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 186-204.

Hirsch examines one of the major reasons why students fail in school: a lack in development of basic skills and competencies. Citing the study “Project Follow Through” as a basis for his argument, Hirsch convincingly argues that curriculums that emphasize systematic teaching of basic skills are far more effective than those with a variety of teaching methods, and that a concentration on core knowledge allows focus and the ability of students to continually build on what they have learned so that they may reach a threshold level knowledge base that is critical for success in both high school and college.

Lee, V. E. and Ready, Douglas D. (2009). U.S. high school curriculum: Three phases of contemporary research and reform. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 135-156.

Lee and Ready explore the effects of the high school curriculum on student learning by race and socioeconomic status. Tracing the curriculums offered by high schools from the beginning of the twentieth century through the middle of the century when schools began to offer choice of subjects with varying degrees of content and “academic rigor,” through the return to standards-based curriculum, Lee and Ready hypothesize that a “selection bias” may explain divergent conclusions in the Chicago study and other research. As earlier studies often failed to consider the unmeasured characteristics of “students who completed college-prep courses—characteristics such as motivation, access to academic supports and better teachers,” the Chicago study raises the possibility that a “college-prep for all” approach might not result in the improvements in academic achievement that the researchers and policy makers behind the standards-based education initiatives had hoped for.

Stern, D. (2009). Expanding policy options for educating teenagers. The Future of Children, 19 (1), 211-239.

Despite repeated waves of school reform, Stern notes that the National Assessment of Educational Progress found no improvement in reading or math for high school seniors between 1971 and 2004. Consequently, Stern argues that some of the basic features of the American high school need to be altered if the high school is to successfully meet the needs of all students. Proposing new strategies to meet the traditional goals of preparing students for college and for a financially successful career, Stern suggests that creativity is needed to help the 25% of U.S. high school students who do not graduate from high school. Such strategies, such as utilizing an internet-based curriculum with “internships and civic engagement projects might produce better results” for those who do not succeed in conventional classroom environments and who face additional challenges stemming from moving from place to place and school district to school district. Stern concludes by arguing that an expansion of educational settings and involving more adults in the education process through mentoring, academic advising, and other methods would be worth trying to fill the gaps in success of the traditional high school.

No related posts.

In many ways, our response to gay marriage is a microcosm of these larger questions. Paradoxically, while we condemn nations like China for their human rights violations, we still embrace racist practices here at home and give hate a forum. The Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a step in the right direction to end one of our nation’s last great frontiers of hate and denial of dignity and respect to a significant segment of our nation’s citizens. It is probably the best decision of Obama’s presidency to date, no matter what your politics and views regarding gay marriage are if for no other reason than the decision recognizes the humanity of gay men and women and that they are entitled to equal protection under our laws as citizens of the United States.

At the end of the day, gay marriage is not about you or me or what we think is right and wrong. Gay marriage is about the dignity and respect our fellow Americans deserve as citizens of the United States and equality under the law exactly like the way we have extended dignity and respect, under the law at least, to African Americans, Jewish Americans, Asian Americans, women and the disabled.

In terms of gay marriage issues, the United States is behind other nations of the world. “At a time when the legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships has been proceeding apace in advanced industrial nations around the world (most notably, in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada, Germany, and Hungary and partially or locally in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), the efforts of U.S. legislators to prohibit legal recognition demand explanation.” (Adam, 2003).

The campaign for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the United States is a young one, but very reflective of modern society in the United States and the culture war that exists between liberal and traditional or conservative values. Over the last two decades, various state and federal court decisions have called attention to the issue of same-sex marriage. These decisions have been reported in the media, but they have had minimal impact on the nation’s public psyche—much like the notice most Californians pay to numerous minor earthquakes that occasionally remind them that the ground they walk on is actually a geologically active planet.

But in late 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court–-in a landmark ruling as earth-shattering as an 8.0 magnitude earthquake–-decided that laws prohibiting gay marriage were unconstitutional, thus opening the door for gay men and women to legally marry for the first time in the United States. This ruling drew immediate attacks from those opposed to gay marriage and resulted in an attempt to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution that would restrict marriage in all states to be between a man and a woman. The issue polarized America and became a major campaign issue in the 2004 election cycle. (Brandzel, Amy L. 2005). George W. Bush used the same-sex marriage issue to eke out a narrow re-election to the Presidency over Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts.

With California’s Proposition 8 (see Beyond Proposition 8: The U.S. Gay Marriage Ban Amendment) and the constitutional status of same-sex marriage in California along with the recent repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, a review of DOMA and First Amendment hate speech protection currently making headlines as they progress through various court systems, issues regarding the status of homosexual men and women as citizens of the United States and the rights and privileges that they are entitled to along with the dignity the rest of the United States citizenry accords them will remain in flux until these issues are ultimately resolved by the United States Supreme Court.

In many ways, the issues that homosexuals and same-sex couples are facing now are the same civil rights issues resolved by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. While domestic partnerships and civil unions convey some of the rights to marriage heterosexual couples enjoy, they are widely viewed as a contractual expedience rather than the state-sanctioned institution connoted by the word “marriage.” (Nussbaum, 2009.) This relegates the emotional bond and love that committed same-sex couples share to second-class status in a nation where the traditional family unit of man, woman, and children reigns supreme. (Garlinger, 2004.) In Brown, the Supreme Court ruled that separate, but equal in terms of racial segregation, was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. A tsunami of civil rights legislation and reform followed the Brown decision. The question now, is, will the Supreme Court ultimately decide that heterosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions are another unconstitutional instance of separateness and inequality. When they do, without a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting it, same-sex marriage will likely be found constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is generally the keystone to any civil rights argument. Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to end segregation and legalize abortion. The relevant portion of the amendment reads: “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.” (O’Connor and Sabato, 2009).

Both the clauses: “equal protection of the laws,” and “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property;” are in play in regards to the issue of same-sex marriage. In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Commonwealth of Virginia’s “Racial Integrity Act,” which required a citizen’s race to be recorded and made it a felony to marry outside one’s race, was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing the opinion for the court, chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed on by the State.”

In 1992, voters in Colorado saw what the Loving v. Virginia ruling might imply for same-sex marriages, so they attempted to amend the Colorado Constitution in a way that would ban same-sex marriage if gays and lesbians were indeed categorized as a minority. Amendment 2 stated that:

“Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, or any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.”

The Amendment was never enacted as a District Court judge approved an injunction against the law, and the Colorado Supreme Court overruled it on the grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment when “strict scrutiny” was applied.

The State of Colorado appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, and the Court voted 6-3 that the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment supersedes the Colorado Constitution and that Amendment 2 was so broadly hostile to a minority group that there was no compelling state interest to enact it. (Nussbaum, 2009).

Two excerpts from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in the Romer decision, writing for the majority, are highly relevant:

“It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.’” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. “The guaranty of `equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.’ ” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).”

And further:

“A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. “[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973).

In these two excerpts, Kennedy invokes the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause specifically. Additionally, while he refers to homosexuals as a “certain class,” and as a “group of citizens,” he stops short in Romer, of labeling homosexuals as a “suspect class.” In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Kennedy again stop short of labeling homosexuals a “suspect class.” This is significant for what is not said. For at the same time the court recognizes that homosexuals are entitled to equal protection under the law, they choose to be very careful that their opinions will be worded so that they do not specifically construe a right to marriage. For if homosexuals are regarded as a suspect class under the Fourteenth Amendment, then any legal decisions regarding due process of law and equal protection under the law would have to be applied with a “strict scrutiny” standard instead of a “rational scrutiny” standard. It was through the application of “strict scrutiny” that the court unanimously ruled that separate but equal was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown. (Brandzel, 2005).

But Lawrence was significant for another reason in that the court ruled that morality cannot override civil liberties. Lori Watson, in her essay “Constituting Politics: Power, Reciprocity, and Identity,” explains that homosexuals, and women, constitute what can be described as “dominated groups” under John Rawls’ theory of social justice and political liberalism. Her essay examines the struggles of dominated groups in forming identities when political structures place these groups at disadvantages. Watson explains that membership in a socially dominated group transforms one’s status as citizen, as evidenced by Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Watson concludes that for citizens to be free and equal, political structures in place that dominate other groups based on gender, race and sexual orientation need to be dismantled. (Watson, 2007).

In Lawrence the Supreme Court ruled that consensual sex acts within the home are protected by a right to privacy. Many states have laws on the books outlawing sodomy and even fornication outside of marriage under any circumstances. However, in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision to have children was fundamental and immune to government intrusion. Previously, in Bowers v. Hardwick the Court upheld a Georgia law banning sodomy between two consenting males, citing America’s aversion to homosexuality as a reasonable basis for not extending protection to homosexual sex. In deciding Lawrence however, the Court overruled their previous decision in Bowers and held that the Texas law did not contain a compelling state interest that justified the intrusion into Mr. Lawrence’s home. (Watson, 2007).

Given the above Supreme Court decisions, it would appear that the Supreme Court believes that the definition of marriage as one man married to one woman may be needlessly discriminatory, and if so, a legal argument for same-sex marriage may be emerging; and yet, the court is very carefully navigating the legal minefield so that their decisions cannot be construed to articulate a constitutional right to same-sex marriage:

• In Loving the Supreme Court ruled that the decision to marry is a fundamental right that resides with the individual, not the state.
• In Romer, the Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot discriminate against homosexuals.
• In Lawrence the Supreme Court held that morality could not be the factor that overrides one’s civil liberties.

Loving, Romer, and Lawrence set the stage for Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage under the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state’s constitution “affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens,” that the state had no “constitutionally adequate reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples,” and “the right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference.” (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. 440 Mass. 309. 2003; Watson, 2007; and Nussbaum, 2009).

Patrick Garlinger, in his 2004 essay “In All But Name: Marriage and the Meaning of Homosexuality” explains that the common thread running through all of these court decisions is a concern for basic human dignity:

“The same concern with dignity runs throughout Lawrence, but the majority did not address the key question: is dignity achievable by some sort of legal recognition or only if that recognition is the same for gays and lesbians as for heterosexuals? Goodridge essentially declared the latter when it argued that gays and lesbians had the right to marry. Massachusetts legislators conceded that gay and lesbian relationships would not destroy the fabric of society when they raised the possibility of civil unions instead of marriages. They were willing to offer the rights and benefits that accompany the word, but not the word itself. In so doing, they attempted to maintain control over the symbolic benefit that accompanies marriage—the affirmation that one type of relationship is valued by the state more than other relationships. The Court recognized, and reiterated in their response to the legislature, that the word marriage was being manipulated to confer a symbolic difference between heterosexual and same-sex relationships that genital configuration and procreation alone do not. The selective use of the word seeks to establish a fixed and immutable line between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Furthermore, the word secures the difference between them not as a difference in sexual object choice but as a difference in the inherent value of the relationship. The intangible benefit of the word ‘‘marriage’’ reflects some intangible element of value unique to heterosexuals. It maintains that, whatever heterosexuals do, their relationship is worth something more: it is a status that exceeds its conduct, a sum greater than its parts. The Massachusetts Court thus claimed that any other name would not satisfy the need for dignity since it would create a second-class status. This argument is not to deny that some form of legal recognition is vastly superior to the criminalization of same-sex practices. But in our search for equal treatment by the law, we should not remain blind to the ways in which stigma may attach itself to the very forms of legal recognition designed to further our emancipation .”

Again, the issue turns on equality and equal protection. “What the cases consistently hold is that when the state does offer a status that has both civil benefits and expressive dignity, it must offer it with an even hand. Marriage has, first, a civil rights aspect. Married people get a lot of government benefits that the unmarried usually do not get: favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, and insurance status; immigration rights; rights in adoption and custody; decisional and visitation rights in health care and burial; the spousal privilege exemption when giving testimony in court; and yet others.” (Nussbaum, 2009.)

Another major factor in any ultimate decision by the United States Supreme Court in ruling same-sex marriage constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment is the role of federalism in practice by the states. Federalism is a double-edged sword. According to Gary Gerstle, professor of American history at Vanderbilt University, “many gay marriage and marijuana legalization advocates now believe that they can accomplish more in state rather than national arenas.” His essay, “Federalism in America: Beyond the Tea Partiers“ suggests that the true power of federalism is in the use of the states as laboratories for public policy to find more nimble solutions to pressing social issues than the United States central government is capable of.

The states are indeed a laboratory for public policy. As of February 2011, there are 41 states with explicit bans on gay marriage, most passed within the past four years. Same-sex marriage is legal in three states as a result of court rulings and in two others—as well as the District of Columbia—through votes in their respective legislatures. As of February 2011, same-sex marriages were granted in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., along with the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon. Same-sex marriage licenses were available in California between June 16, 2008, and November 4, 2008. Civil unions are legally recognized in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois and Washington. Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Maine have domestic partnership laws granting gay couples varying degrees of spousal rights. Arkansas gays and unmarried straight couples are banned from adopting or fostering children.

As each state adopts its own policies and imposes its own bans or grants privileges, different issues will arise that will certainly generate legal action. Perhaps there is no better example of the tangled web quagmire than what has resulted with Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had allowed same-sex marriages in California. As predicted, Proposition 8 was quickly challenged in and overturned in federal court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and is pending. The Circuit Court decision is sure to be appealed to the Supreme Court. When the appeal is made, the Roberts Court, with three female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, will have an opportunity to make a landmark decision.

It’s possible that marriage will be seen as a fundamental individual right and that the state cannot remove that right without showing a compelling state interest that is not solely based on concepts of morality. Unless opponents of same-sex marriage can provide a new and compelling argument opposing same-sex marriage, they are only left with the popular-majority argument (which was overruled in Loving) and the morality argument (which was overruled in Lawrence). With no legal argument left, the Supreme Court would ultimately conclude that same-sex marriage bans are needlessly discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Such a ruling is well within the realm of possibility. At the end of the last Supreme Court session in 2010, The New York Times reported on an apparently innocent statement from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Martinez revolved around “whether a public law school could deny recognition to a student group that excluded gay men and lesbians.” Ginsburg said: “Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.” But the context is what mattered. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, was talking about laws affecting gay men and lesbians. Columbia Law Professor Suzanne B. Goldberg believes that Ginsburg’s statement is reflective of the much larger issue of suspect class status. Goldberg believes that “the court is talking about gay people, not homosexuals, and about people who have a social identity rather than a class of people who engage in particular sex acts,” which is really at the heart of the dignity and citizen status of homosexuals and behind the heterosexual need to keep the linguistic term “marriage” to themselves. If this is indeed the case, then equal protection and due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment would most definitely apply to homosexuals and same-sex marriage the same way it does in Brown and Loving. But until the negative moral perceptions of perceived homosexual acts meliorates and becomes more widely accepted, any Supreme Court decision of the magnitude Goldberg suggests will be severely criticized by the traditional and conservative segments of United States citizenry. (Garlinger, 2004).

At the end of the day, a separate but equal way of looking at same-sex marriage unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth. What the Constitution dictates is that whatever

“the state decides to do in this area will be done on a basis of equality. Government cannot exclude any group of citizens from the civil benefits or the expressive dignities of marriage without a compelling public interest. The full inclusion of same-sex couples is in one sense a large change, just as official recognition of interracial marriage (in Loving) was a large change, and just as the full inclusion of women and African Americans as voters and citizens was a large change (after Brown). The politics of humanity asks us to stop viewing same-sex marriage as a source of taint or defilement to traditional marriage but, instead, to understand the human purposes of those who seek marriage and the similarity of what they seek to that which straight people seek. When we think this way, the issue ought to look like the miscegenation issue: as an exclusion we can no longer tolerate in a society pursuing equal respect and justice for all.” (Nussbaum, 2009 ).

While defining issues and outcomes through the court system can be a very long and winding process, recent decisions in the state and federal court systems indicate that an ultimate showdown before the Supreme Court is inevitable. When that day comes, homosexuals and same-sex couples will likely achieve full status as citizens, and same-sex marriage will likely be found constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. When that day comes we will take a giant step forward as a civil society that respects the rights and dignities of not only our fellow Americans, but of all humanity.

Thanks for reading.

References:

Adam, B. D. (2003). The defense of marriage act and American exceptionalism: The “gay marriage” panic in the United States. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 259-276.

Brandzel, Amy L. (2005). Queering Citizenship? Same-Sex Marriage and the State. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 11(2), 171-204.

Ferguson, Ann (2007). Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma. Hypatia, 22(1), 39-57.

Garlinger, Patrick Paul. (2004). “In All But Name”: Marriage and the Meaning of Homosexuality. Discourse, 26(3), 41-72.

Gerstle, Gary. (2010). Federalism in America: Beyond the Tea Partiers. Dissent, 57(4), 29-36.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. 440 Mass. 309. (2003).

Johnson, Kevin R., Burrows, Kristina L. (2003). Struck by Lightning? Interracial Intimacy and Racial Justice. Human Rights Quarterly 25(2), 528-562.

Liptak, Adam. (July 20, 2010). “Looking for Time Bombs and Tea Leaves on Gay Marriage,” The New York Times, p. A.11.

Nussbaum, Martha (2009). A right to marry? Same-Sex Marriage and Constitutional Law. Dissent, 56(3), 43-55.

The Oyez Project, Brown v. Board of Education (I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Retrieved November 4, 2010 from: http://oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1952/1952_1.

The Oyez Project, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Retrieved November 4, 2010 from: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102).

The Oyez Project, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395.

Perez v. Sharp (Oct. 1, 1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17, Retrieved November 5, 2010 from http://www.multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al. (94-1039), 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html.

Sabato, L. J. & O’Connor, K. (2009). American Government: Roots and Reform. New York: Longman.

The Supreme Court of the State of California. (2007). Coordination Proceeding, Special Title [Rule I550(b)] In re MARRIAGE CASES. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/04State_of_Cal_Reply_to_Supplemental_Briefs.pdf.

Urdan, Matthew S. (2008). Beyond Proposition 8: The U.S. gay marriage ban amendment. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.insidegov.org/?p=167.

Watson, Lori (2007). Constituting Politics: Power, Reciprocity, and Identity. Hypatia, 22(4), 96-112. Retrieved October 25, 2010 from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hyp/summary/v022/22.4watson.html.

No related posts.

The Wisconsin State Assembly will take up the issue tomorrow morning at 11:00 am CST, as reported by the Wisconsin State Journal. Should Governor Walker’s collective bargaining bill pass, adjustments of the citizenry will be painful and most likely herald more to come in other areas, but Wisconsin will achieve a major success in learning how to live within its means—something our federal government hasn’t yet figured out how to do or realize the impending necessity.

Last Saturday, President Obama stated in his weekly address that: “We need to come together around a budget that cuts spending without slowing our economic momentum. We need a government that lives within its means without sacrificing job-creating investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure. The budget I sent to Congress makes these investments, but it also includes a 5-year spending freeze, and it will reduce our deficits by $1 trillion over the next decade. In fact, the cuts I’ve proposed would bring annual domestic spending to its lowest share of the economy under any president in more than 50 years. Over the last few weeks, members of Congress have been debating their own proposals. And I was pleased that Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together a few days ago and passed a plan to cut spending and keep the government running for two more weeks. Still, we can’t do business two weeks at a time. It’s not responsible, and it threatens the progress our economy has been making. We’ve got to keep that momentum going. We need to come together, Democrats and Republicans, around a long-term budget that sacrifices wasteful spending without sacrificing the job-creating investment in our future.”

Explaining $1 Trillion: Remember how Unfathomable Carl Sagan’s “Billions and Billions” Was?

Obama is a great speechmaker. The twenty-ton elephant in the room however is Obama’s use of the word “investment” as a euphemism for “spending.” He argues that our spending level is the lowest level it’s been under any president in the last fifty years, but what he doesn’t explain in his statistical manipulation is that the economy has swollen to the highest level it’s been under any president in the last fifty years, so as a percentage of the economy, he is correct. But his rhetoric can’t hide the fact that his spending is increasing an unfathomable deficit of over $14 trillion, which climbs by the billions every single day. That deficit needs to be reduced and eliminated, not expanded.

Obama can’t hide the fact that his spending is going to require each of us to pay more taxes in one form or another: either through an increased income tax, a national sales tax, a higher fee structure through usage fees on everything from telecommunications to national parks, highway fees hidden in gas taxes or a reduction in other benefits and services we currently enjoy. As for Obama’s deficit reduction of a trillion dollars over the next decade? Can he be serious? Every sixth grader should be able to tell us that Obama will be out of office in five years (assuming he gets elected again in 2012). How can our President promise a deficit reduction over a decade when he will have no control over any spending for half that time? Especially when skyrocketing gas prices seem to dictate yet another American intervention in the Middle East of some sort and the enormous expenditures such interventions always incur?

A focus on the peas and not the steak.

Recent reporting in the media focuses on trimming the fat out of our federal budget. Eliminating federal funding of Public Television and National Public Radio along with Planned Parenthood is receiving a disproportionate share of attention and it’s really distracting Americans from the larger issue of deficit reduction. USA Today reports that Title X contributes $317 million to family planning, and the federal funds budgeted this year for public television and radio amount to about $100 million more. Together, these programs represent less than $1 billion of spending, or less than 0.05% of this year’s $1.6 trillion deficit. And yet, by focusing on these two “liberal” programs, opponents of true deficit reduction distract Americans from the larger issues that must be tackled if we are to eliminate our deficit and “live within our means.” Those issues are our military spending, our sacred cow entitlement benefits—which no one expects to see when they reach retirement age—our foreign aid, our large governmental bureaucracy, and yes, health care and federal support of education. Politicians, both Republican and Democrat, talk a big game. But both Republicans and Democrats understand that there is major political risk in balancing our budget and true deficit reduction because it will require major cuts in major programs that affect every single American. No one wants to be scrutinized for voting to cut medicare or eliminating social security.

House Republicans talk a big game as well. I commend Speaker John Boehner for what he is attempting to accomplish. But the $61 billion in spending cuts being sought by House Republicans and resisted by Democrats represents only 3.7% of this year’s deficit and 1.6% of federal spending according to USA Today.

Downsizing is Necessary. Seriously.

That is why Governor Walker and the Wisconsin Senate Republicans should be applauded. Yes, their budget bill and provisions restricting collective bargaining are extremely painful, but they are attempting to do what is really right for the economic health of the State of Wisconsin. President Obama is correct in that we have to live within our means. This is what our parents and grandparents taught us, and yet, we as a people demonstrate we have forgotten this basic concept every time we pull out a plastic card from our wallets, or our representatives in Washington tack on another earmark to any piece of important legislation.

The debate that needs to take place across this country concerns what we must have and what we think we need versus what we can afford. The truth is that the American people cannot afford most of what we think we need any longer. As gas prices are increasing daily, many of us are reconsidering how much we need that daily Starbucks Iced Carmel Macchiato. At $5 a day, that drink will cost $1825 a year, plus fuel costs of another $2 or $730 annually for half a gallon of gas round trip to drive to the Starbucks. For an individual with an annual income of $50,000, that daily Macchiato represents almost 4% of that person’s annual income. So if I cut out my daily Macchiato, I have done more for my personal budget than the House Republicans are doing for the Federal Budget by eliminating $61 billion in spending, which only reflects 3.7% of this year’s deficit. And if I put that $1825 a year into an IRA or 401(k), I will have done more for my retirement than social security ever will. I hope this simple, but accurate illustration, makes your jaw drop.

It is time to downsize. Hard choices need to be made, and this is what we elect individuals to office to do. Let’s not get lost in partisan, moral, and religious issues such as family planning, abortion and funding of public television and radio which reflect a miniscule percentage of the annual federal budget. Let’s cut into the steak and debate real deficit reduction in the 2012 election season, which is soon to begin in earnest.

Thanks for reading.

References:
Schouten, F. (2011, March 7). Shutdown dodged; battles rage on. USA Today, p. 4A.

Spicuzza, M. (2011, March 9). Collective bargaining bill passes Senate, vote scheduled for Thursday in Assembly. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from Wisconsin State Journal: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8747fa04-4a74-11e0-8e6b-001cc4c03286.html

States get serious about budget cuts; Washington, not so much. (2011, March 7). USA Today, p. 8A.

No related posts.

Anyone has the right to date and to enter into a relationship and to meet people by whatever manner they choose. However, we expect people to conduct themselves and live their lives with integrity, and most especially our elected officials.

Be who you are, be authentic, do what you say and have some self respect. If you are going to represent Americans, act in the best interests of the American people. If you are elected to Congress and you lie about your marriage status and age online to have an affair, how can the American people trust you to act in our best interests? Especially when your decisions affect our lives in countless ways and you control how our tax dollars are spent?

More importantly, when our elected leaders act such as Representative Lee, they send the message to all of us, young and old alike, that lying, cheating, misrepresentation in any form is acceptable conduct. If our country is to continue to be great, our elected leaders must demonstrate behaviors that are above reproach. They have to set the example. If they are not willing to do so, they should not run for office. Plain and simple.

Representative Lee is not the first elected official to have an affair. He will not be the last. But one would hope his resignation and the internet publicity he has already received will serve as a lesson for all of us on the importance of integrity.

Thanks for reading.

No related posts.