Reading for Treasure: January and College

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction! With college application results rolling in, here are some articles to put that good and bad news in perspective:

How To Avoid A Common Mistake When It Comes To Paying For Your Kid's College Tuition: This is quick, simple, and critical – especially if you have younger children. This NPR story debunks the notion that, if you save for your children’s college education, it will mean they will receive less financial aid. Wrong! Read it!

It Doesn’t Matter To Me Where My Kids Go to College: This wonderful Grown and Flown article offers a common-sense rebuttal to the Varsity Blues attitude that is so prevalent. Why is it so important that your child goes to college anyway?

The Cult of Rich-Kid Sports: Atlantic’s feed title for this article was “The FancyAthlete’s Special Pass Into Harvard.” Affluent White kids do have an advantage when applying to prestigious universities: they are more like to be involved in “water polo, squash, crew, lacrosse, and skiing.” Want your child to be admitted into an elite school? Read this.  

College Professor Advice: 16 Things You Should Never Do as a Student: These should be common sense, but as a teacher of teens, I know they are not. Some of these pieces of advice are applicable to high school as well. This Teen Vogue article should be required reading for all graduating high school seniors!

I Am Lady Macbeth, and your Facebook Post about your Kid’s Early Acceptance to Harvard Really Pisses Me Off: Finally, a little bit of humor on the college question from McSweeny’s. I laughed aloud at this mix of the snowplow parent and Shakespeare’s intense character!

I’m currently reading The Trove by Tobias Buckell

Education Finance Reform: Tip the Teachers

We are going about reforming the education system in entirely the wrong manner. Our focus on teacher accountability through standardized testing has clearly failed. The tenure system protects good teachers and bad. There must be a better way. All we need do is look to other forms of compensation for public servants to give us the clear solution to the problem.

What if teachers were paid a minimum wage and received most of their compensation through voluntary contributions from individuals and families? This would motivate teachers to be more responsive to specific students and their parents. In this manner, we could reduce property taxes so they only pay for the buildings themselves with a very modest base wage for the teachers.

Consider the benefits: Instead of teachers doing what was good for themselves, they would focus on keeping the contributing students and their parents engaged and happy. Families would voluntarily thank the teacher through monetary gifts. Poor teachers would not stay in the profession because they would not be able to make enough money.

Of course teachers are ethical people and all students would be treated equally. Some students would simply be more equal if their parents pay more. That should not be an issue in a free market system like America. If your child needs more attention in class, pay more. If your child wants to be a starter on the team or the star of the show, pay more. If your child wants better grades, less homework, a little help on the ACT, or a chance to go to the bathroom, it is only appropriate that you help the teacher since the teacher is helping your child.

A wonderful side effect would be that teachers would have to compete for parental dollars. Rather than the same dull curriculum in all classes, teachers would be forced to innovate and be creative! They would find new and interesting ways to get their students (and their parents) attention. Think of the motivation that money would provide! Instead of lectures and tests, we could have field trips, movies, and other fun educational experiences. If parents have resources that could help, I’ll bet they’d be quick to assist! Perhaps parents who own fast food franchises, publishing houses, educational services, and media sources would contribute to teachers so that teachers would use their products and services. What a fresh and new educational landscape would be born!

Think of how the dynamic among the faculty would change, too. Instead of just any teacher assuming leadership, the teachers who get the most contributions from family would have the resources to affect the building and district at large. Clearly, these will be the teachers who have most pleased parents and members of the community. These teachers’ success could breed a new and more fiscally responsive approach to learning.

If this model succeeds in education, perhaps we could use it in other areas. Tipping police and firefighters would motivate them to take better care of our communities. Tipping our public works departments would mean that the streets that really need plowing or repairing would get attention, as long as the residents make sure that those who are doing the repairing are well repaired!

This system has proven such a success with our elected officials that we should make voluntary contributions our primary way to fund everything! The success of Congress stands as shining lighthouse to the nation. It is time for us to set our country’s course directly to that beacon!

Schnorrer Syndrome

The Yiddish term schnorrer has come to mean many things. Urban dictionary lists synonyms as freeloader, beggar, sponger, moocher, and my favorite, “Someone that always shows up just in time for a free meal.”

We have all dealt with schnorrers. They are the people who want the benefits but are unwilling to pay for them. They are the folks who are pleased with getting away with something, going around the system, or paying less than their fair share.

My neighborhood has a voluntary homeowners association whose primary task is to maintain the common landscaping. I am always upset by the schnorrers who get good prices when they sell their homes, but won’t pay the $75 a year to help make the neighborhood look good, even though that good looking landscaping certainly assisted in the sale of their homes.  

And while these small schnorring annoyances may bother me, I wish I could see them as the exception rather than the rule. Of the 152 homes in our neighborhood, only about a dozen don’t pay. They are the unfortunate exception, not the rule.

Or are they?

I am worried that the schnorrers’ numbers are increasing. There are more and more people who want the good stuff, but don’t want to pay for it.

Politicians are now pandering to the schnorrer voters. Why should states like Illinois, which is deep in debt, increase income tax? We can do more with less! Except that we can’t. I want good schools, but I don’t want to pay teachers. I want police, fire, and public works services, but I don’t want to pay the taxes. I want healthcare at a reasonable cost, but only if others can’t access it. I want, I want, I want. And he debt mounts up!

We should be able to provide more, with less, they tell us. Under the guise of financial responsibility and efficiency, they find reasons why they shouldn’t have to pay, but they should still receive their free meals. My grandmother used to say, “You get what you pay for.” Yet, more and more people want to get what others pay for. Their version might be that a free lunch is worth is what someone else pays for it.

The schnorrer rejects the concepts of duty and obligation. The idea of social responsibility is a critical part of our social fabric. Schnorrers justify their miserliness by pointing out their own traits in others; if some entitlement programs have some schnorrers, does that mean no one should get assistance? Should each of us have to build our own roads, sewer systems, and schools?

I want my children to be generous. I want them to understand that their taxes take care of them by taking care of all of us. We are all better off when we are all better off! We have an obligation to pay for what we take or use. We have a duty to take care of those who take care of us. We have a responsibility to take care of our communities! Rather than being stingy schnorrers, I want them to the people who will help, give, and look out for those who struggle.

Does that make them suckers? Does that make me a sucker? I would prefer to be a sucker than be a schnorrer. I’ll be the nice guy, even if I finish last.

Fight the schnorrer syndrome. The Yiddish word that is the opposite of schnorrer is mensch. A mensch is a good person, the kind you’d like your children to find as partners and friends.

If some people are taking advantage of welfare, we should not cut welfare. If some bad teachers are protected by tenure, we should still protect the good ones. The system should not be focused on foiling the cheaters, whiners, and schnorrers.

There will always be schnorrers. Let’s make sure they remain the irritating exception rather than ruling the rest of us!

Treating the Symptoms and Hurting the Children

Our lawmakers struggle with many issues. On the news, there are debates about countless issues that are unarguably important.  In private conversations, on social media, and over coffee and drinks, we complain and play armchair president. If only they did this. How could they do that? The answer is so clear, why can’t others see it?

The more I listen, the more I come to one conclusion: underlying almost all of our country’s difficulties is one issue that we want to avoid. Perhaps because it is too large or it is so wrapped up with key American values, we are willing to focus on the symptoms and don’t face the disease.

Whether you love or hate the new affordable healthcare act, often called “Obamacare,” we will all agree that there were and still are issues with the way we structure healthcare. The cost is problematic for almost everyone. Access to healthcare is another piece of this problem. If many in our society do not get adequate healthcare, there are ramifications for all of us. Many will argue with the solution, but can you argue that there is a problem?

We are testing our students to death. Our means of solving a supposed crisis in education is to invent more achievement vehicles. We wring our hands about teacher accountability, tenure, standards, our world standing, and other issues. These are important concerns. However, consistently some schools succeed and others struggle. We know why. It is highly predictable.

We talk about guns, but only some of us face daily violence in our streets and neighborhoods. Tougher laws and penalties, but not stricter gun regulations, have negligible effects. We turn to our criminal justice system, pass unforgiving laws, and put more and more people in prison. In some places, everyone knows a person behind bars. In other places, it is merely a topic of theoretical speculation.

Why do we worry about illegal immigrants coming into our country? They certainly use our schools, jails, and appear in our emergency rooms and doctors’ offices. Is that the real reason? We employ them to do tasks that we either don’t want to do or which we can pay an illegal wage for them to do. They are second-class non-citizens.

An unwanted pregnancy is a difficult problem. However, it is not the same problem for everyone. For some, it is a medical issue. For others, it is a moral question. For some, it is a choice, and for others, it is another mouth to feed. We can argue about abortion rights or wrongs, but is there anyone who would want children to go hungry?

Should these children be blamed for their parents’ situations? What happens when they go to school? What happens when they get sick? Might they be angry at the cards they have been unfairly dealt? What opportunities will they have? Is the system rigged against them?

Underneath most of the problems that plague us is the same issue: poverty. It is the problem we refuse to face. Americans are all about self-reliance. We begrudge drowning people even a simple life preserver. For many, the poor live far away in both distance and mind. They are theoretical and hypothetical; a subject of debate and discussion more than real people struggling to take care of their children.

Yet, most of the items on our public agenda are closely connected to poverty. Why are avoiding that fact? By addressing poverty, we would also address healthcare, education, immigration, violence, abortion, and many other social issues. But we don’t do that.

It is not an easy task, but we need to stop the bickering, dickering, and delaying. We need to say to our legislators: Take care of the children, and end poverty.

That is the key: Take care of the children, and end poverty. The rest is commentary.

Yes is the Responsible Vote in 113

There is no convincing some people that our aging high schools need help. While we can debate the finer points of the plan, the key issues are simple: Are we willing to spend a little to make sure our kids can learn in a healthy and modern environment? Is it important that our community schools are technologically up-to-date?

Since the referendum of 2011, the district has involved hundreds of community members and held scores of meetings to discuss this plan. Developed through a highly inclusive and participatory process, this plan is a collaboration and a compromise. Those who do not like this plan might not like any plan. Click here to see an analysis of the “plan” the opposition thinks is better.

There are plenty of myths and misinformation about this referendum. It is very important that we look closely at the claims from those who say that they are putting education first. Here is an article that addresses some of these misconceptions.  

The infrastructure of our high school is like an old car. In my family, we try to keep our cars as long as possible. We take good care of them, and drive them as long as we can. However, there comes a point where the increasing frequency and cost of repairs and maintenance is not the best use of our money. When a car starts to need lots of expensive repairs, it is time to invest in a new one. When we purchase a new vehicle, we use a combination of savings and loaned funds.

This referendum is the most fiscally responsible way to address our aging buildings. We have taken very good care of these buildings for a long time. But it is not cost effective to keep repairing systems installed decades ago. The district is proposing a combination of reserve funds and bonds to pay these costs. We should not let our school district drain its reserves completely. Would you go bankrupt to buy your new car?

And, as both sides of the debate have noted, the issues won’t go away. What happens if you wait too long to replace that old car? Sometimes, you get stranded when the car breaks down. Do we want our kids in schools with broken heating and cooling systems? Sometimes, we have to spend money to repair old systems because we don’t have the funds to replace them. But that is not the best use of our funds. Do we want to throw away money putting band-aids on old equipment we should replace?  Do we pay more to maintain obsolete systems when we could equip our students with up-to-date computers and educational technology?   

For a small amount of money, we can make a significant improvement in the way our schools feel and function. My yearly tax increase will be about the same amount I pay for one month for cable television!

To deny the needs of Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools is to live in an irresponsible past. To oppose this referendum is to sacrifice the critical long-term needs of our children and communities in order to save a few bucks now and pay much more later.

I have lived in District 113 for over twenty-five years. I am the parent of a current Deerfield High School student and a recent graduate. This referendum is about the safety and well being of all of our children and the future of our community. This referendum is critical to maintaining an excellent educational experience and ensuring that everyone who uses our high schools is safe, healthy, and in the twenty first century! I urge you to vote YES! 

Centsless Lip Service

The teachers and school board of District 109 in Deerfield are still negotiating a contract, even though we are well into the school year. This process has become so contentious that they need a federal mediator. What has taken so long? Why have things become so adversarial?

Of course, in these difficult economic times, school boards are under pressure to cut costs and teachers want to increase salaries. That is certainly part of the issue here. According to newspaper reports, class size, special education, outdoor teacher responsibilities, and teacher benefits are also sticking points.

While all the parties would agree that the bottom line is doing what is good for kids, how each side achieves this goal reflects their values. Values are more than what they say. Real values are what we live. We spend our money on what is truly important; regardless of what we profess.

The larger question isn’t about District 109 or any particular contract point. The question is, why are we bickering over our children’s education? Almost everyone gives lip service to the value of education. How many times does someone say something like, “Teachers should be paid more.”? Does anyone really believe that? Is anyone one willing to put cents (or sense) to this lip service?

There may be a minority who would plunk down additional dollars (and their children may be in private education), but as recent referendums have shown, a majority of people would like to get as much as they can for as little as possible. And as my grandmother said, “you get what you pay for.”

Funding is at the heart of the issues in District 109 and thousands of districts across the country. We don’t have enough money for education. We aren’t willing to pay for what we say we want. We want education, healthcare, retirement benefits, and many other services, but we don’t want to pay for them. We say we value them. We say they are important, but we are unwilling to open our wallets.

We rationalize. Money is being wasted. We want a good value. Other people pay less. There are ways to cut costs. These are not arguments; these are excuses. Online learning, test scores, school days, unions, and other topics do not even come close to the real issues. We want a world-class education for our children, but we want other people to pay for it. Yes, the system is broken. In a perfect world, we’d pay people by the importance of their jobs to society. Blah, blah, blah, blah. This tired rhetoric leaves our children in the cold.

The solution isn’t simple. The fix is going to be difficult, expensive, and painful. And it will take a long time. Taxpayers and politicians (and school boards) don’t like that. They would prefer quick, cheap, and easy. I don’t want quick, cheap, and easy for our children.

Our actions belie our words. Our choices demonstrate our real values. Education isn’t important enough for us to spend additional money. We don’t value teachers, learning, or schools. We don’t think that what happens in schools is important, although we may say it frequently. Our every collective action screams that education is at the bottom of our list. Our system spells it out (although sometimes incorrectly). Our choices make our priorities clear. The education crisis in America is caused by the underlying belief that almost everything (certainly banks, guns, corporations, and the privileged few) is more important than our children’s education.

No wonder District 109 can’t come to an agreement.

Branded!

I have lost track of the number of emails I receive that end with, “Sent from my iPhone” or something similar. I see countless people each day wearing clothing with the name or logo of a company, team, or college in large letters. Why do people feel the need to brand themselves? Why would people turn themselves into free advertisements?

Is this about showing off? Is this really saying, “Hey, look. I have this cool toy,” or “I can afford this expensive piece of clothing” or “I don’t give a damn about the price of gas!” Perhaps it is bragging about being included in something exclusive. Some middle schools have banned the wearing of bar and bat mitzvah clothing because it is really about demonstrating who is “in” and who is “out.” Someday, I am going to set up a little stand in front of our middle school and sell shirts that say, “I went to Alan Shepard’s bar mitzvah – and you didn’t!”

Some of this branding might be about social status. Let’s face it, the cool kids in school were often those who could afford the good stuff, be it clothing, electronics, cars, vacations or other status symbols. Superficial popular trends frequently center around celebrities and personality. So by imitating the “rich and famous” (or perhaps the popular and wealthy), a little of their social capital rubs off on their little clones. When we buy these popular products, we are getting far more than a purse or a car.

This could also be about identity. I sometimes wonder if there are people who are so empty that it they need to be filled up with consumer products. Who am I? I am the sum of things I own. Identity (or status) is siphoned off from these brands. So I am a little bit Cadillac, Bulls, Harvard, and Hollister. Aren’t I special?

But to be branded is to be owned. Who owns whom here? You paid a premium for that purse or SUV or phone that advertises a brand. Are you now an agent of that brand? You are certainly a human billboard. Perhaps you could have paid less for a comparable item but you chose to spend more for the label. Mr. Barnum would love you! I’ll bet the brands love you too!

Of course there is the intangible, “feeling” quality of the product. The product just makes me feel better and that is why it is worth more money. I know that logically, the shirt without the logo is more practical, but I like the shirt with the logo more. What does that sound like? It sounds like marketing and advertising work! It sounds like a cop-out rationalization for wasting money. You might as well say, “I know I am being manipulated, but I am okay with that.” Why?

Identities built on conspicuous materialism are not real. You are NOT what you own. The clothes do not make the person. The desire to define oneself, to individuate and discover one’s unique qualities is a human trait. To purchase these characteristics off the shelf is cheating. Identity must be created individually and authentically. It is better to have an organic identity and be real than to have a pre-processed brand and be plastic.

Yes is Best in 113!

Although I have strong political beliefs, I am usually reluctant to share them. I avoid lawn signs and do not often advertise my support of candidates or causes. However, I have taught in the community for twenty-five years and lived here for almost as long, and the health and well being of our schools and community is very important to me. Recently, the question I receive almost everywhere I go is what do I think about the District 113 referendum.

Here is the very short answer: I support the referendum.

Here is the short reason why: Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools are light years behind all other area schools in both technology and physical education facilities. Our buildings are aging and need significant improvement. Our pools are becoming unsafe and, at times, unusable. And if we do not make these improvements now, we will have to address them later and it will be at a higher cost to both taxpayers and kids. And we can do all this without increasing taxes!

Here is the longer answer:

Deerfield and Highland Park’s athletic facilities are some of the worst in the area. Our track kids are running through the hallways after school. Our soccer, baseball, softball, football, lacrosse, and other teams are often unable to use their fields. We do not have enough gym space for classes or athletic practices. Why would someone purchase a home in our district when our neighbors have far superior facilities (especially if athletics or technology are very important to his/her child)?

Deerfield and Highland Park are far behind in technology. Our wireless system at DHS cannot keep up with the demand. There is not enough access to computer labs and our computer equipment is aging and out of date.

Classrooms at Deerfield are poorly heated and most are not air-conditioned. Classrooms can get into the 90s in the fall and spring. Teachers in various areas of the building are experiencing various forms of work place related illnesses. The building’s infrastructure needs significant improvement.

Although low interest rates are bad for our bank accounts, they are good for loans. The district is trying to take advantage of these rates to make these improvements at the lowest cost. Many of these issues will have to be addressed eventually. Where will that money come from? If the referendum does not pass, then many pressing needs will not be met and our students will have to live with leaky roofs, poor ventilation and out dated technology, not to mention inadequate athletic facilities. And if we are eventually able to address these needs, the costs of labor and materials will be significantly higher. We will leave it to the students to bear the burden if the referendum is not passed.

This referendum will not increase our taxes. The bond from the prior capital improvement is scheduled to expire and this referendum would replace it and taxes would remain the same. In other words, with no additional expense, the kids and communities benefit greatly!

Here is a link that will give you some more information and a video tour of both buildings:

http://dist113.org/community/fac_tech/Pages/default.aspx

Voting for this referendum is in everyone’s best interest. It is good for taxpayers, students, parents, and the community at large. If you are trying to sell your home, it will make it more attractive. If your children are coming to the high school, it will improve their experience. If we do this later, it will cost more. Please vote “yes” for the referendum on April 5th.

Rich Kids and Rich Parents

“Rich kids” are American archetypes. They are brash and entitled, spoiled, self-centered and concerned only with their own pleasure. They are materialistic, shallow, and believe that the world revolves around them. While I am describing a stereotype, I have taught long enough to know that these kids exist. I also know that they need not be the product of wealthy families, but wealthy families have an easier time producing them.

Often, when I am traveling, I observe older teenagers in the airport, on their way to exotic and expensive vacations. I don’t know these kids but I wonder about them. I see them playing with their toys, throwing teenage tantrums, being rude and unaware. I wonder if I was one of those kids. I worry that my children will become like them too.

As a child, I never thought of myself as wealthy. I think that the air I breathed was so “rich” that I didn’t know what a rich or “non-rich” kid was. I have never driven a fancy car. I didn’t wear expensive clothing or have the latest gadgets. My house was neither extravagant nor enormous. I never saw myself as snobby or entitled. Yet others noticed: I came from money.

When I was in middle school, a new family moved next door. They immediately built a pool in their backyard. That didn’t shock me; my family had a tennis court. What did shock me was the way their children left their toys around. Their toys were awesome. I would have loved these expensive, often electronic, toys when I was their age. I knew this because I frequently found their toys in my backyard. At first, I would return them. Then I set them aside and waited to see if anyone came to collect them. No one did. Finally, I left them where they fell. These kids didn’t value these toys. They didn’t miss them when they were gone.

Stereotypically, rich kids have an air (heir?) of entitlement. They expect expensive toys to reappear after they have lost them. As a teacher, I have worked with children like this. They expect the good grade and are flabbergasted when I expect them to earn it. Families with resources sometimes have the expectation that all problems can be solved easily, quickly, and without non-monetary costs – and money can buy a lot. Their children see that it only takes a checkbook to make challenges vanish. And without challenges and struggle, real learning doesn’t exist.

If your every desire appears when you wish it (or even appears before you had the chance to wish it), then you are in a perpetual childhood. Your happiness depends on your parents providing and you are ineffectual. You have no intrinsic power and are dependent on external things to keep you happy. It must be frightening for a child to think, “without all this money, I can’t do anything and neither can my parents – and our happiness depends on it.”

Money is only a piece of the happiness puzzle. Granted, it is an important piece, but there are other critical factors that shape our lives and our children. The great author, Robert Heinlein said, “Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.” Some well-to-do parents are concerned about “wealth poisoning:” that their money may rob their children of the motivation to achieve independently. My experience says that this concern should not be taken lightly. It has become a central piece of my parenting philosophy. I don’t want my children to fit any of that rich kid stereotype.

Providing our children the best of everything without any of the costs may be robbing them of real wealth. Good parenting requires a consciousness of how our need to provide for our kids will shape their outlooks on the world and thus their futures. We also need to look in the mirror and think about the lessons that our behavior teaches them.