In her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, Ravitch details the ways NCLB has failed our students and our communities. It is refreshing that while many school superintendents, mayors, governors, and even a president, have spoken highly of many of NCLB’s policies and outcomes, such as last week’s mass firing of the Central Falls High School teaching and support staff, Ravitch is looking at the actual data, and concluding that in fact NCLB has not worked, that its policies are unrealistic, and that in fact it discourages improvement altogether.

In an interview Tuesday with NPR, Ravitch cited one of the major components of NCLB, standardized testing, and said it “lowered the standards” in schools across the nation. While certainly setting a standard for student achievement is important, Ravitch says NCLB’s strategy has encouraged cheating, “It turns out as a result of putting so much emphasis on the test scores, there’s a lot of cheating going on, there’s a lot of gaming the system. Instead of raising standards it’s actually lowered standards because many states have ‘dumbed down’ their tests or changed the scoring of their tests to say that more kids are passing than actually are.” The pressure put on everyone from the states to the superintendents to the teachers fosters this kind of result, and while standards are certainly crucial, the fact that students cannot graduate and teachers and administrators can be fired has not fostered the kind of change lawmakers expected when NCLB was signed into law. Using test scores as an indicator of needed attention and then providing necessary funding, aid, and additional staff may be a better way to go.

I have to make a small side note, as I worked as a public school teacher in a school that was declared under performing and I saw many of the effects that Ravitch speaks of firsthand. While standardized testing without a doubt affected the content of every instructor’s lessons, another factor that affected the climate of the school was a district goal that would decrease the number of suspensions handed out to students. Certainly decreasing suspensions ensures both that students are in the classroom learning instead of at home or in internal suspension and that behavior problems in general are decreased and not able to affect the overall quality of education; however, merely saying “cut down on suspensions” can have an adverse affect. Again the pressure is handed down from the top and suddenly school principals are simply not suspending students. This does not necessarily mean that behavior has gotten better; in fact, it often got worse because students saw other students stay in the classroom after their outlandish behavior. And teachers were criticized for sending disruptive students to the principal. If those in charge do not make changing the behavior that causes suspension a priority, then decreasing suspensions as a goal becomes ineffective and counterproductive. Similarly, putting teachers’ jobs on the line because of test scores may improve test scores, but may not improve learning.

Ravitch also criticizes school-choice, and points to statistics that show encouraging states and districts to embrace it did not yield the anticipated results. Under NCLB, less than 5% of eligible students in low performing schools have transferred to better schools.  She says that some parents in particular were reluctant to transfer their children, “The parents of English-language learners tended to prefer their neighborhood school, which was familiar to them, even if the federal government said it was failing.” Additionally, some schools were labeled under performing because their special needs students’ test scores failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (a baseline that measures progress based on student test scores), so many parents of students who were not in that subgroup did not see a reason to transfer their children. In the end, school choice did little to improve education for those who mattered most.

President Obama and many other lawmakers have praised charter schools, and have developed directives to encourage and require communities to open them, setting aside billions in stimulus funds with strings attached like getting rid of limits on charter schools. Ravitch slams this idea, saying, “The only national study that’s been done said that 17% [of charter schools] did better than the public schools with which they were matched, and 83% did no better or worse.” The issue of privatizing our schools has most certainly been a partisan issue, and if democrats can’t support privatization, how can they support charter schools? Again, this issue comes down to a clear misuse of funds, which is an outrage, because these funds could be used to fix legitimate sources of the problem.

In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Ravitch cuts to the chase on her views, which are all the more relevant after the events in Central Falls:

“Imagine that you are a teacher in a high school in a high-poverty district. Many of your students don’t speak English. Some don’t attend school regularly because they have to earn money or babysit with their siblings while their parents are looking for work. Some come to school unprepared because they didn’t do their homework. But you are idealistic and dedicated, you work with each of the students, you do your best to teach them reading, writing, science, math, history, whatever your subject. But despite your best efforts, many of your students can’t read very well (they are struggling to learn English), and many of them don’t graduate. If your school eliminated all its standards, you could easily push up the graduation rate. About 45 minutes away is another high school in a much better neighborhood. Its statistics are far better than yours. The children are almost all born in the U.S., and their parents are almost all college graduates with good jobs. Their kids don’t go to school hungry, they have their own room and their own computer, and they have stellar test scores to boot. Their graduation rate is very impressive, and most of their graduates go to college.”

While no one can argue that bad teachers should be fired, just like bad cops or bad governors, the issue here is that teachers are considered “bad” when they are teaching under challenging circumstances. Take the high-poverty district above. These districts exist all over the country, and the teachers who work there and have worked there for years have shown more fortitude and more concern for their students than any lawmaker. It is time to praise them, not fire them.

Ravitch continues, “Since we can’t fire poverty, we can’t fire students, and we can’t fire parents, all that is left is to fire teachers.” The politicians we criticize are already aware of this conundrum, and they have clearly made a choice, because certainly someone needs to get fired. In the world we live in, there is no progress if there is no blame. Perhaps the real question for these politicians is not why are they firing teachers, but why aren’t they doing more to decrease poverty? Perhaps it is time to take some of that money back from NCLB and put it into social services and programs that will foster education and empower people in poor communities to better themselves and their children. Because it seems to me that right now there’s a lot of blame, but there is not a whole lot of progress.

Also by Caty DiDonato Anderson:

Rhode Island Teachers Take the Blame

The Wrong Way: What No Child Left Behind

Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America

Last Tuesday, the Rhode Island Commissioner of Education approved a school district’s plan to fire all 88 teachers at Central Falls High School.  This move reflects what has been going around in cities across the country as school administrators aim to improve academic performance in some of the poorest communities in the nation. Even though this past school year saw multitudes more teachers fired in other cities – 229 in DC, for example – the firing of all 88 CFHS teachers promises to spark more attention and controversy as it is a blatant declaration by the school board and the RI Department of Education that teachers are the major contributor to low performance among students.

Central Falls Superintendent, Fran Gallo, blames the teachers union’s inability to settle a contract dispute that would require Central Falls teachers to work longer school days and take on added responsibilities with little or no compensation, and many people in the blogosphere seem to have sided with the superintendent. However, if she intends for this issue to highlight the problems with unions, she has another thing coming. It would be a lot more effective to keep the really good teachers than to start at square one. It would certainly be useful to have some strong veterans around in building a new school.  Anyone who has secretly wished he or she could quit a job to see how the boss handles things on his or her own might be interested to see how this one plays out. To be clear, the district has the right to hire back no more than 50% of the teachers it fired, but it’s possible the damage has already been done.

And while teachers are already arguably the most underpaid and undervalued of any profession, it is indeed possible to take advantage of them further, and this union dispute is a great example. Requiring teachers to work longer hours and provide students with extra help seems reasonable, except that teachers are already required to work long hours. No school district in the country allows its teachers to leave school when the bell rings every single day of the school year.  At the end of the school day, teachers attend faculty and departmental meetings and provide office hours. These things are par for the course in a teacher’s contract. Additionally, many are strongly encouraged by their administration to take part in task forces, after school programs, and additional workshops. Let’s not forget that teachers must take a certain number of credits and in many states are required to earn a master’s degree within a few years of entering the profession.

Gallo and Rhode Island Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist can blame the union, but the fact remains that in one broad stroke, they eliminated every employee of the high school, strongly suggesting that the move is the answer to the school’s educational woes. If we follow their logic, we’d have to assume that they are planning on replacing these teachers with more competent ones, and possibly hiring teachers who are willing to take the job without the support of a union. I’d like to know what expertise these two are going to find, or better yet, what are they looking for? Many teachers will say they feel like a subject matter expert, a therapist, parent, and police officer, all rolled into one. It’s likely the people most qualified for the job are the ones who have been teaching at CFHS for the bulk of their careers.

So clearly everyone from the President of the United States to the lowly school superintendent is in favor of holding teachers accountable. But what about that other piece of the puzzle – what about the parents? What is the administration doing to hold them accountable? That was part of the original plan, after all.

The problem with holding parents accountable is that no one knows how to do it. It is a lot harder to educate a community of adults than it is to require more from a group of teachers. This is where politicians can get a little shady. They know it is going to be really, really difficult to truly change a community and bring a group of people out of poverty (in fact, doing just that might anger a lot of their constituents, who might actually discourage empowering a poor and uneducated community –  but we can open that can of worms another time). So since this effort would be so monumentally complex, politicians need to find a way to appease the public, who has noticed the schools’ deterioration. Teachers turn out to be a decent scapegoat – it of course makes sense to blame the ones who are at the front of the classroom. But failure to attack our education problem at its core is going to yield more problems.

It’s doubtful that next year’s staff at CFHS will be able to make miraculous gains in student performance, especially since the current staff has been making consistent gains, but just not at the rate that the state of Rhode Island projected. And if miraculous gains are reached, we had all better take a really close look at the other changes the district has implemented.

The biggest problem with this political farce of blaming teachers is the misuse of tax dollars and its inevitable effect on any chance of true reform in the future. Lawmakers are paying a hefty sum to give the appearance they are taking action, and while they spend our money to maintain their images for the next election, the real problem gets neglected. Eventually someday someone will realize that communities need to change if schools are going to change, but until then, more money will go down the drain.

What many are calling “No Teacher Left Behind” has sparked an outcry in the education community. In some ways, it could end up being a good thing for teachers that the state of Rhode Island had enough guts to cut to the point of the issue that many districts have been skirting around for years, because it is drawing attention to the issue of education reform.  The idea they are putting forth shouldn’t sit well with any of us, and hopefully the dramatic move will enrage enough people to create a platform that studies the real issues that affect education in our country. For now, if the President’s administration wants to round up a bunch of teachers and call that improvement, I’ll be looking for a different kind of change.

Related Articles:

The Wrong Way: What No Child Left Behind

Will Today’s Youth Matter? A Look Ahead

Hire me?

If you’ve ever stared blankly at your “status update” window, wondering what you could possibly write that would be both clever and appropriate for all of your 267 friends, including Mom, you are not alone. Many sites, like Facebook, which began as a way for college-age kids to keep in touch and post photos of themselves holding keg cups, have become so popular that nearly everyone is using them. Your mom, your mom’s friends, your aunts, uncles, younger cousins, coworkers, your boss. Suddenly the thought of “sharing” your genuine thoughts and activities on your favorite social networking site doesn’t quite seem right.

By the time we reach adulthood, many of us have learned how to censor ourselves depending on our company. We’ve learned not only that our coworkers may not want to know about our raucous reunion with our college buddies, but that they shouldn’t know; well, most of them anyway. At the same time, we may present a different self to our parents, one of reassuring persistence to be a contributing member of society, and to our friends, one of unmet coolness and wit. It’s only natural that we would have a hard time presenting ourselves in our entirety to virtually everyone we’ve ever known in any aspect of life.

Two young women from Los Angeles, Erika Brooks Adickman and Jeanne Leitenberg, have received some attention for launching a website called MyParentsJoinedFacebook.com, which they frequently update with apt FB interactions between parents and children, or parents and their children’s friends, or between two friends who may have forgotten that Dad will be checking out their profiles. Adickman and Leitenberg say this page exists to help people learn how to balance their Facebook audience, not to dissuade parents from joining, but its entertainment value is what appeals to many. From moms introducing themselves via Facebook to their daughter’s new boyfriend, to an uncle whose status update details his romantic plans for his girlfriend, which include massage oil (which the girlfriend “liked”), MyParentsJoinedFacebook.com makes it easy to see why one may be reluctant to share information.

Perhaps this kind of information would be better left unshared. Can’t the uncle just text his girlfriend?

What it comes down to is that not everyone wants to project their pursuits and beliefs onto everyone he knows. While many people hope to avoid accepting a friend request from Mom or Dad, or their prospective boss, the truth is Facebook can be pretty helpful. Many companies use it to check out prospective employees, and also expect their employees to “friend” their company to increase branding recognition among the employees’ friends and their friends’ friends. And anyone with kids knows that Facebook is a great way to update family with photos and videos. It’s not a bad way to reconnect with those people who were a huge part of your life at one time, and who you always wonder about. It’s a place to seek refuge when you’ve just gotten home after being sprayed with a snowplow (your friends will post both sympathetic and hilarious comments), or when your baby is teething and won’t stop screaming (women you hardly talk to will commiserate and tell you that everything will be okay).

But should you join the 1,000,000 Strong for Supporting Gay Marriage group when you’re worried you’ll isolate your Republican coworker? And do you really want your little cousin to know that one of your favorite movies is Saw IV? Obviously, not really. But there is a problem when you don’t. Denying your true self to be known to one and all? Well, yeah, but sometimes that’s a good thing (Uncle Massage Oil, this is directed at you). The truth is the world of social networking would be extremely boring if we were afraid to be truthful about who we are. That’s what makes my profile different than yours. So what does one do about these conflicts – just throw them to the wind?

Perhaps the natural progression to the social networking engine would be a steady decline after it peaks. Once everyone is on Facebook, what is really the point? Is it any different than stepping outside your front door and declaring, “Saw IV is my favorite movie!!!”? Maybe a little in that the people who see that, while they may not be people you want to see it, still do have some sort of meaning in your life, whether it’s your friend from kindergarten or your boss. At any rate, if people can’t put it all out there for fear of who may see it, maybe social networking sites will lose their appeal.

In actuality, Facebook took a small dip in usership about two years ago and has been on the steep incline ever since. It’s more popular than ever. If usership continues to increase, how will activity react? It is probable that some will indeed throw caution to the wind and keep putting everything out there and that some will just grow tired of the monotony they have to project and eventually stop their activity. Most members will continue using Facebook, but at a censored, less exciting level. Me, I think I’ll probably still have a couple beers before baseball games, but maybe keep the photos to myself.  As for this article, in case anyone’s interested, I’ll be posting it on my Facebook wall.

Also by Caty DiDonato Anderson:

Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America

Will Today’s Youth Matter? A Look Ahead

The Wrong Way: What No Child Left Behind

There are currently six NFL teams without cheerleaders, and while it may be no surprise that teams like the Detriot Lions can’t round up a special cheering section after recent seasons, there are some pretty competitive teams without cheerleaders. The Lions are not one of them; still, their owner, William Clay Ford, purposely keeps cheerleaders off the field because today’s NFL cheerleading squads don’t exactly put forth an image that is considered “family friendly,” which is the aim of his franchise (we can save the debate on whether or not grown men crushing each other for 60 minutes of regulation is family friendly for another time). And while I strongly agree that the objectification of women is neither family friendly nor something to support, I do have a problem with keeping cheerleaders off the field, and I also have a problem with the way the NFL treats the ones who are on it.

To be an NFL cheerleader is not easy. Women often have to beat out hundreds of others to get a much sought out spot on the roster. And while the competition is fierce, the payoff is pretty weak. Cheerleaders get paid about $75 per game. With 2 pre-season and 8 regular season home games, that is $750 per year. Clearly being an NFL cheerleader is not a full-time gig, and to those who suspect that many are feeding off their NFL-player boyfriends, there is a strict rule against fraternizing with any players. Most cheerleaders in the NFL have full-time careers or go to school. Many have families. On top of that, cheerleaders must attend two unpaid practices a week, which include weigh-ins that are a determining factor in which ladies will appear in that Sunday’s game.

The cheerleading debate has sparked some controversy in the blogosphere and world of sports commentating; Steve Czaban, a host of ESPN sports talk radio, thinks that NFL cheerleaders get paid what they deserve, “NFL cheerleaders are paid exactly what they are worth. They may even be over-paid. How do I know this? Because the NFL has had no problem filling their cheer squads for this price. Ergo: the price is right. The market has spoken.” This argument seems logical, but let’s not forget we are talking about a multi-billion dollar industry. While no one would expect cheerleaders’ salaries to even begin to approach that of an NFL player, there is no denying that the cheerleaders are indeed talent and entertainment. Perhaps they could be compared more fairly to a team mascot. NFL mascots make anywhere from $23,000 per year plus benefits to upwards of $65,000. They also receive a $10,000 bonus if their team makes it to the Superbowl. For many, the position includes a full-time marketing gig in the team office. If the average cheerleader makes $750 a season, and there are 30 cheerleaders on a squad, the average NFL team spends more on its mascot than its entire cheering squad.

Czaban’s argument that the “market has spoken” may be true. In the world of publishing, for example, there are often so many applicants that publishers are able to hire college educated individuals, some with master’s degrees, for $25,000 to $35,000 a year for an entry level position. The same holds true for broadcasting and teaching at the university level – they are highly competitive fields, but offer low starting salaries. The difference between $25,000 a year and $750 a year is laughable. Even if cheering is intended to be a part time job, it warrants more than its current payout.

If the salary of an NFL cheerleader is not enough argument alone to prove exploitation, perhaps the NFL’s use of their images without compensation can change a few minds. ESPN.com columnist Gregg Easterbrook cites a commercial for DirecTV with Peyton Manning in the foreground and a number of NFL cheerleaders in the background. To be sure, Manning collected a large endorsement fee for such an ad, yet the cheerleaders were paid nothing for the use of their images. Easterbrook asked DirecTV about this and they responded that the “company’s licensing agreement with the NFL includes the right to use cheerleader images in promotion,” yet, the images of other employees of the NFL do require payment. Easterbrook continues, “In almost all cases that an NFL player or coach’s image is used in advertising, even if the image is from stock footage, he gets a fee. The legal presumption is usually that any person whose identity can be determined must be paid to have his or her image used in advertising, since use of a person’s image implies endorsement of the product. Recently Woody Allen sued a company that used his likeness in an ad without conferring a fee; the company settled with Allen for $5 million.” So not only is the NFL underpaying cheerleaders, they are using their images to earn more money, without compensating them.

So what is a person to do? What do others do to maintain job stability and to ensure fairness in the workplace? Many unionize. While there have been rumblings of individual cheering teams starting their own unions, these ladies would certainly benefit from a league-wide union. Or perhaps a lawsuit is what’s needed to initiate change. Surely the misdeeds of one of the largest and most profitable institutions in the United States against a group of cheerleaders would be enough to cause a few headlines. Either way, many teams depend on their cheerleaders to kick off chants which will eventually spread around the entire stadium, and as opposed to many others heard in the rowdiest sections, these chants are indeed family friendly. To be sure, skimpy outfits aside, one of the main attributes to any cheering squad is its ability to play by the rules, to keep, or at least encourage, the peace. So while the cheerleaders are certainly playing by the rules, the NFL needs a new gameplan.

Also by Caty DiDonato Anderson:

Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America

Will Today’s Youth Matter? A Look Ahead

The Wrong Way: What No Child Left Behind

A new Washington, DC initiative sponsored by DC Public Libraries aims to foster awareness between teens and the homeless community of DC. Crime against homeless people is a serious issue, and one that has sparked many states to call such offenses hate crimes. In 2008, 106 violent crimes were committed against homeless people by “housed” individuals, a statistic that squashes many people’s assumption that crime against the homeless is a “homeless on homeless” issue. This new initiative helps to draw attention to the homeless issue, and suggests an underlying theme that homeless people are second class citizens.

The National Coalition for the Homeless lists several motives behind attacks against the homeless, including ‘mission offenders,’ those who believe that by killing or maiming homeless people, they are doing a service to the general population.  Other motives include ‘scapegoat offenders,’ those with misdirected anger about the economic success  of a certain group, and ‘thrill seekers,’ those who do not see the harm in hurting a homeless individual because of his or her perceived anonymity, and who would also like to get a rise out of committing a crime. The bottom line is the homeless community is considered expendable in many ways by many groups in society. Nationally, 43% of crimes committed against the homeless in the past eight years have been committed by teens (and 73% are committed by people under the age of 25). These perpetrators are typically thrill seekers. It is likely that many of these crimes could be avoided if the issue of homelessness were more personal to more people.

DC Public Libraries aims to help create better understanding between the two groups that primarily use the library, students and members of the homeless population. Students are working to create exhibits for the libraries’ displays which will feature stories and photos of many of the libraries’ homeless patrons. They interview and spend time with some of the city’s homeless population, attempting to restore some dignity to a group who often goes without.  Miranta Clark, a 12th grader, says of the project, “after doing this project and learning some things, I actually found out that it’s not always their fault.” With an economy in turmoil, our nation is home to many for whom the issue of homelessness is literally hitting home, and so this project is extremely relevant.

It is interesting that as students undertake such an impactful project, some members of an upscale DC community are working towards reducing the number of homeless in their library. West End Library Friends conducted a survey that had three relevant conclusions: “West End Library users are older, wealthier, better educated and less racially diverse than the general population of DC…West End Library services need to be tailored to the population it serves…the homeless are a large deterrent for greater use.” West End Library Friends is of the mind, as are many library users, that their tax dollars fund their library, and in accord, their library should be catered toward those who fund it, not to a group that they perceive as dangerous, poorly kept, and an overall nuisance. But is there a greater responsibility here?

Sheila Ayers, a library science scholar, studied the homeless population and cites several reasons for a sudden increase in homelessness in the 1980’s (between 1950 and 1980 it was almost unheard of), ”The Reagan administration’s policy on deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and its funding cuts for subsidized housing contributed to the increase in numbers. Another factor was the breakdown of marriages. Many people divorced and that thrust many women and children into poverty. The nation’s illegal drug problem also contributed to the rise in homelessness.” Over 40% of the homeless population suffers from mental illness;  38% suffer from alcoholism, 26% from drug use. Many homeless women and men struggle not only to take care of themselves, but have a family to support as well.

Ayers says that libraries hold the key to improving one’s situation in countless ways, and these resources are extremely important because they are all free to those who can take advantage of them. Patrons can find information about community and social services, employment, education, healthcare, even tax forms and drivers license applications. For libraries, encouraging such use comes at little or no cost. Additionally, if libraries continue to adopt programs that serve homeless people (and other patrons as well, such as children’s programs, adult literacy, and English language programs), then we can create a trend of upward mobility.

Helping our nation’s homeless population may not be a civic duty, but as the number of jobless increases, it may be a necessity. And while the debate over the homeless population’s use of the library may be difficult to bring to an end, it is clear that libraries are a powerful resource for the homeless population.  Federal courts have protected the rights of homeless people in libraries, so although the West End Library Friends may not like it, the homeless patrons are not going anywhere. The key to ending this debate in the West End and other communities may be facilitating programs like the DC students’ project, which will be displayed this summer. We can infer that the very existence of libraries demonstrates a great value in learning and providing information, and that these things are critical in creating progress. For that to happen, it makes sense that everyone, especially those with less, should be invited in.

Also by Caty DiDonato Anderson:

Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America

Will Today’s Youth Matter? A Look Ahead

The Wrong Way: What No Child Left Behind

Last week Mexico City took progressive action, legalizing same sex marriage and adoption.  Our southern neighbor’s controversial ruling is giving new fuel to both sides in the debate over same-sex rights in the U.S.  In many states, same-sex marriage advocates hit a roadblock in changing the rhetoric that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This issue, it turns out, is much more serious than a quick edit that would allow a union between two women or two men to also be called a marriage. And while initially the law did not put limitations on the right to adopt, as other gay rights issues such as marriage started to spark controversy, the right to adopt was also called into question.

The issue of gay marriage is understandably a huge issue among those waiting for that right and the people who support them. The enormity of this issue is considered by many one of the most important civil rights issues of our time. For this issue to be resolved, legislation needs to be put through (and has been put through in 5 states, with New Hampshire and the District of Columbia on track to follow suit in Jan. 2010) to change the language in our laws.

Adoption, for the most part, is a right that nearly everyone possessed by law. Unlike the issue of gay marriage, which is a right many states have yet to grant (except for in the case of California, Arizona, and Florida, where the constitutions have been changed in order to exclude gay marriage), adoption by same sex couples or single gay people is a right that is being taken away. To regulate the rights of individuals seems to encroach on sacred ground when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, which states in the 14th Amendment that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Infringing on one’s rights to marry as well as to adopt has implications that could jeopardize the Constitution in this aspect and others, and the issue of adoption in particular seems to already have been used in contradiction with the Constitution. Many opponents to same-sex marriage argue that same-sex couples should have the right to have a civil union, but should not call it marriage. The problem with this discrepancy is that giving individuals different rights in any regard could result in more rights being taken away, in an effort to achieve equality for all in different ways. The last time I checked, “separate but equal” was overturned in the 1950’s; yet today, equal rights is still a topic of debate.  The issue of adoption is not a matter of having equal but different rights, like marriage; it is a difference between those who can and those who can’t.

Among rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens is the right to have a child. A natural right, no doubt, without limitations. In the U.S., the state does not have the right to choose who can and cannot give birth. Although child abuse and neglect are certainly present in our country, the state does not have the right to deem someone unfit to bear children. Since this is the case, is it fair to limit one’s right to adopt? Certainly there is a necessary screening process for prospective adoptive parents.  The adoptive family must prove they can provide a safe and stable environment for a child; it would of course make sense to ensure that children coming from unstable and unsafe environments are indeed going to see their situations improve. But to make a distinction between certain groups of people and their right to adopt and care for children is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

If the law as defined by the U.S. Constitution appears to defend gay adoption, the foster care crisis may just seal the deal. Every year between 2002 and 2008 there were over 748,000 U.S. children in the foster care system. Over 123,000 children per year were waiting to be adopted, and only about 50,000 per year found an adoptive family.  Every year over 20,000 children age out of the foster care system and are left with the responsibility of finding shelter, healthcare, and education. 46% will not graduate from high school and 98% will not go to college. Many of these young people, unprepared for their independence, will resort to criminal behavior. In a nation with so many children left uncared for, it seems counterproductive to decrease the number of adults who are eligible to adopt.

In 2008, Arkansas passed Act 1, which prohibits single people, gay and straight, from adopting or serving as foster parents. Many gay rights advocates feel this ruling targets gays in particular, since lawmakers attempted to pass a law that prohibited gays and lesbians from adopting two years prior, but such a proposal was ruled discriminatory by the Arkansas Supreme Court.  Act 1 passed in Arkansas with 57% of the vote, and it is not the only state to prohibit gay adoption in some form. Many states will allow single but not joint adoption by gays and lesbians. Florida is the only state that exclusively outlaws adoption in any form by gays and lesbians.

Eleven states and the District of Columbia assert that sexual orientation cannot be grounds to deny anyone the right to adopt, and while opposition continues to gain steam, there are signs that supporters of gay singles and couples in their pursuit to adopt have a fighting chance. Florida’s leading democratic candidate for the 2010 governor race, Alex Sink, supports any adoption that serves the best interest of the child, and has committed to working with FL state senator, Nan Rich, who has been working to repeal the adoption ban on gays and lesbians. Sink has been raising funds at two times the rate of the republican candidate, Bill McCollum. On a national level, Congressman Pete Stark of California has introduced a bill to congress that would outlaw any legislation that puts limitations on adoption due to sexual orientation or marital status.

The issue of gay adoption comes down to people’s core values, and these values cannot be swayed easily. As is often the case, the deciding factor could be those who sit at the sidelines. A serious look at the proposals and the candidates at hand, combined with more voters at the polls, is sure to have an effect on outcomes. Gay marriage is an issue on the forefront for gay rights advocates, reaching the homes of many through media coverage of protests and rallies; the issue of gay adoption has the potential to reach just as many if advocates for gay rights commit to making gay adoption a visible issue. While activists, lawmakers, and voters scramble to pass the bill that best represents their ideals, hundreds of thousands of American children await their decisions. Every year tens of thousands reach the age of 18 and miss out on the right to have a family. As they lose this right it is ironic that they gain another, one of the most powerful allowed to any U.S. citizen, and one that can effectively change the future for many like them – the right to vote.

Related Articles

The Narrative of International Adoption

Transnational Adoption and the “Financialization of Everything”

EDITORIAL International Adoption and the Fight for Human Rights

Eco-Schools is a program designed to help foster environmental awareness and action in schools worldwide. NPR’s Rob Gifford investigated Poplar Elementary School, a participant in Eco-Schools, and he noted the program’s imprint, “If you take my generation, for instance, you know, you can almost hear my brain working after I’ve drunk a can of Coke or had a beer – I must put beer in recycling bin. I have to force myself to think like that. These kids are growing up thinking like that. It’s in their DNA.”

Eco-Schools teaches students about sustainable development through eight “Pathways,” which help schools choose a focus on subjects such as water, climate change, and transportation. The staff at Eco-Schools believes that they are giving students the tools in order to change an entire generation. The idea is that by the time today’s students are leaders of nations, there will be no need for a global summit on Climate change, even if today’s leaders aren’t able to pave the way. The hope is that programs like Eco-Schools can change the consciousness of a generation. Not only will they recycle and use less gas and energy with much less effort than Mr. Gifford and his can of beer, they will elect leaders whose eco-values are akin to their own.

If we are to believe that a program like Eco-Schools will work – and after all, why wouldn’t it? Haven’t studies shown that many good habits, like healthy eating and saving, start young? – then to get from point a (teaching kids to be green) to point b (a healthier, longer lasting planet), we need to be sure of one thing – that there is enough time.

It’s difficult to say exactly when today’s generation of grade schoolers will become the most influential. Data of voters between 2000 and 2004 shows that a much higher percentage of people in their 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s voted than people in their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s; however, there weren’t nearly as many people in their 50’s and 60’s, and 70’s, so who had the most impact? And what about the additional 5 million voters in the 2008 election? The biggest increase was among 18 to 24 year olds, although the older voters still had a higher turnout.  Taking population into account, people over 58 made up about 29% of voters in elections between 2000 and 2008. 18-29 year olds? A mere 16%. Let’s be generous and say that it will take about 40 years for today’s eight year olds to rule the polls.

Scientists cannot give an exact timeline for the decline we’ll see in our planet in the next 100 or so years, but changes are imminent. For instance, some believe that “Hubbert’s Peak,” the worldwide peak in oil production, will occur by 2018.  The Hirsch Report, published by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2005, predicts the peak and consequent decline in oil production and discusses the effects this could have on the American and ultimately the world economy. A sudden decline in oil production would result in no alternatives for many forms of transportation – auto, plane, train, ships. Such changes would drastically affect travel, trade, and many lifestyles. The Hirsch Report also concludes that such events would deem the dwelling place of the majority of Americans, the suburbs, “an unsustainable living arrangement,” forcing suburbanites to relocate to cities or rural areas.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) predicts several other changes in the next 40 years, including a marked increase in natural disasters, droughts, shortage of drinking water, and rising sea level necessitating the relocation of tens of millions of people from the coastline per year.

Clearly, we cannot wait 40 years for the students of Poplar Elementary School and many other Eco-Schools across the globe to make changes. It is vital that our leaders work together to start making changes now, and while 2018 doesn’t seem like a long way off, we are armed with information and with a history of innovators; no doubt we have the capabilities to make changes if we act now. And thanks to programs like Eco-Schools, the heirs of our legacy will be ready and waiting.

Also by Caty DiDonato Anderson:

Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America

Will Today’s Youth Matter? A Look Ahead

The Wrong Way: What No Child Left Behind

I have to admit, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has its moments. Setting a nationwide standard for students at every age and holding teachers and schools accountable for student progress are sensible foundations on which to build our school reform. Giving students and families more rights to choose the best school for them is also an effective way to ensure that opportunity is waiting for those who would like to indulge. There is no denying the validity of these ideals, nor that they are critical in our nation’s pursuit toward quality education for all children and young people; yet, NCLB’s very existence sidesteps the true issue, leaving it nearly impossible to achieve quality education.

There is a huge gap in achievement between poor and affluent communities in every state in the nation. This gap can be attributed to many things, but the most important factors in a student’s success include parents’ education level and socioeconomic status. NCLB devotes an entire section to “Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged.” The academic achievement of the disadvantaged boils down to 12 bullet points that will see our students through to success. These bullet points repeatedly address accountability on the part of teachers and schools, and are fairly unspecific. Here’s an example, “[Improving the achievement of the disadvantaged] can be accomplished by closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers.” This section of the Act does not go into specifics on how closing the achievement gap can be carried out, leading me to conclude that the answer must be found in some of the funding that NCLB promises. More on that in a few.

So tracking this gap is rather important. Let’s see how they do it.

Testing. Testing is an indicator of progress, but in itself is not a solution. Taken to the next level, it is used to dole out consequences: dictating whether a student can graduate, whether a school gets extra funding, whether a teacher is up to par. The term accountability is mentioned several hundred times in NCLB, and while it relates to the responsibility of the state, superintendent, and principal, accountability ultimately rests on the shoulders of the teachers.  “Bad teachers” are the ones making the headlines when we talk about our underperforming schools. You don’t hear much about bad principals or governors (at least as far as education is concerned). Teachers are considered the true measure of a student’s progress. This assertion seems to make sense; after all, teachers are the most direct link to a student’s education and achievement. But let’s take a moment to rewind. If low-income students, many in inner cities, are achieving at a much lower rate than students in more affluent communities (53% graduate from high school, compared to 71% in the suburbs), perhaps a student’s environment also has a large impact on achievement. Why focus all of our attention on the teachers? Perhaps poorer communities just have a harder time getting good teachers. That certainly could be true.

In low-income school districts, many students arrive to school on the first day 2 or more grade levels behind. Let’s say you’re a 6^th grade English teacher and about half of your students are reading at a 4^th grade level, or lower. You have a list of books you have to teach, and more than half of your students struggle to read a single sentence from these books. While you’re not allowed to take any class time to teach struggling students the basics, you invite them to meet you after school. Few show up. At the end of the year, when the students’ test scores come back, your students are expected to be at grade level. If not, your job is in jeopardy, and thanks to you, the state department of education’s poor assessment of your school, your students, and your abilities won’t be adjusted this year. In fact, keep it up and the state will completely take over your school, rendering all of that expertise they demanded of you (passing a test, earning your Master’s degree, attending hours of workshops), pretty much useless.  While undoubtedly bad teachers do exist, using test scores to decide the fate of teachers is a great way to fast track them very willingly into their next careers. Although many teachers leave the profession after just a few years, there are huge numbers of great teachers in low-income schools who stick it out through their entire careers. This is not to say that high turnover among the faculty could not be a contributor to poor achievement. But it certainly can’t be the only contributor. And in order to judge “bad” teachers, we need to start looking at realistic data.

The problem with NCLB is that it ultimately holds only teachers accountable for students’ low achievement. The lagging performance of our lower income schools demanded this reform, but the reformers didn’t look at the heart of the problem. Our schools’ need to be reformed is just an indicator of a much larger scale problem – the need for reform in our communities, where crime and poverty run rampant and survival is more important than academic success. While NCLB has dominated education, it has failed to yield results. Test scores of 4^th graders have not made any gains since 2002 and test scores of 8^th graders have actually dropped.  While we continue to let a failing piece of legislation rule our schools, we ignore the many factors outside of the classroom that affect student achievement. The amount of funding and time spent enforcing NCLB in underperforming schools is excessive in comparison to the results. If our lawmakers would instead put their efforts behind a program to improve our communities, our schools would most likely fix themselves.

Also by Caty DiDonato Anderson:

Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America

Will Today’s Youth Matter? A Look Ahead

The Wrong Way: What No Child Left Behind