The crisis culture of common core standards

There has been a lot of discussion recently surrounding the new standards for education known as common core. The goal of the common core state standards initiative is "to bring diverse state curricula into alignment with each other by following the principles of standards-based education reform".

President Obama and his Secretary of Education Arne Duncan support this is initiative so it should come as a surprise to no one that Republicans hate it. But while the president has made common core part of what is a truly disappointing education reform effort, it was the brain child of the bi-partisan National Governors Association. It is not some liberal union designed government takeover of education. As a matter of fact there are plenty of people in the education community that have concerns about these standards while others flatly oppose them.

The problem is that educators have heard this all before. There is always a new set of standards or a new method of teaching or a new model of instruction that will fix the crisis of education. Unfortunately as noted economist and mustache aficionado Friedrich Hayek said "'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded". This is especially true of education reform in Michigan where government has taken over school districts, changed tenure laws, created new state controlled districts, weakened unions, added teacher evaluation requirements, attempted to revive vouchers, and expanded charter schools all under the guise of a crisis in education.

But the reality is that there is no crisis in education. The only emergency in public education is the one drummed up by the corporations that are offering their books, their methods, and their publicly funded corporate schools as the solution. To gain access to the public piggy bank these corporations and the media, push a myth that the US was once number one in education and years of mismanagement have ruined a once proud institution. The truth is that since international testing started the US has always been in the middle of the pack.

And this fact is perhaps the single greatest indictment of the standardized tests that the common core relies on. After all, if for the past half century the US has had average results on these tests while becoming the greatest country in the world, isn't it possible that how we rank on some standardized test doesn't actually mean much? Isn't it possible that our failure to churn out the best test takers in the world says more about societal issues than the education system? Isn't it possible that teaching to the test drowns out the very creativity and innovation that makes America great?

The goal of our education system should be to prepare students for the real world. While that includes rote learning that standardized tests can measure it also includes creative problem solving and critical thinking skills that are not nearly as easily measured. Making students into experts at test taking will not prepare them for a job market that according to a survey by the American Management Association values "critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity" in an employee

The reality is that common core is just the latest in a wave of corporate sponsored solutions to a completely manufactured "emergency of public education". In a vacuum, making sure that all students have a basic level of comprehension may seem paramount however in practice standards like the ones present in common core force a teaching to the test methodology that often ignores the type of varied education students truly need to be prepared for the ever changing job market. Because regardless of how well prepared students may be if their test scores don't meet a certain standard - the teachers, the administrators and the school systems will be branded as failures and politicians will again use the results a flawed standardized testing system as justification of further malinformed government intervention.

"Black on black crime": Conservative ethnocentrism

Recently I penned an article discussing the Bizarro World the conservative media has created where racism no longer exists in the US except in the case of black racism against whites. This was based on the conservative media response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman regarding the murder of Trayvon Martin. I started this post by stating "If there’s one thing conservatives hate, it’s when they are called out for being racist" and boy did the commenter's prove me right.

The tone was varied but the vitriol was obvious. My personal favorites were the suggestion that I "become an expat" and another calling me a "lying sack of (expletive)". While these are both eloquently stated solid arguments, they leave little in the way of substantive conversation. Having said that there were two points that did merit further discussion - Cherry picking data and "black on black crime".

First it should be noted that contrary to the conservative media spin on this case the national interest resulted from a young man being murdered and no one being charged for his death even though the murderer was still on the scene and admitted to pulling the trigger. If Trayvon Martin were your son or daughter wouldn't you want someone to be arrested for their death? Wouldn't you want a trial to determine if a jury believed the "stand your ground" defense holds up in court?

The attention for this case was not based on a "white" guy killing a "black" kid as many would have you believe. It was a commentary on the failure of the justice system and in particular how African Americans are often on the receiving end of these injustices.

Still some commenters took issue with my statistics. While true, they felt my application was insincere because I didn't present additional information - as though the conservative media they parrot is known for their thorough analysis of data.

For example in response to this case Ann Coulter stated "half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks" and then goes on to talk about how George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because of burglaries in the area. By using the statistics for Murders and Robberies Ann is attempting to paint African Americans as inherently criminal because if she used the statistics regarding burglaries she would have had to state that whites not blacks commit the vast majority of burglaries.

But rather than question her manipulation of data the conservative media runs with the story and we get a new conservative talking point - "black on black crime".

Bill O'Reilly for example stated that 91% of homicides against African Americans were committed by other African Americans. He went on to say this number was "astronomical" and compared these killings to a "Holocaust". Of course it should also be noted that 85% of homicides against whites were committed by other whites. Odd that 91% is tantamount to genocide yet 85% isn't worth talking about.

The reality is the "black on black crime" is just a way for some people to justify their racism. If preventing murders had a singular universally accepted solution then murder rates would be a relevant stat. Unfortunately the murder rate is the result of a litany of circumstances which means improvements in this statistic will require an array of changes. For instance;

- According to a study by the Ohio State University "The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities."

- Blacks are the victims of nonfatal violent crime at nearly the same rate as whites.

- African Americans represent half of those falsely convicted of a crime.

- Blacks were more likely to report a non fatal violent crime to police than whites.

- Large cities experience twice as much crime as rural areas - 52% of the black population resides in inner cities as opposed to 21% of whites.

- Higher income inequality leads to more crime - whites have 22 times more wealth than black.

- According to a study by Cal Berkley, "schooling significantly reduces criminal activity." - blacks are 2.2 times more likely to drop out of high school.

- The Heritage Foundation reports that higher instances of single parent homes lead to higher juvenile crime rates - blacks are 2.7 times more likely to be brought up in a single parent household.

So while conservatives sit around and whine that black leaders aren't addressing the "black on black crime" issue the reality is that black leaders have been pounding the pavement for years talking to anyone who will listen about improving the circumstances for the African American community which would ameliorate the crime statistics conservatives claim black leaders are ignoring.

If conservative America truly wants to put claims of racism in the rear view mirror they have to stop having conversations that begin with "I'm not racist, but blacks are criminals" and start considering the plight of African Americans even when whites aren't involved.

Detroit: Rick Snyder's greatest failure

In the run up to the 2010 elections Michigan voters were led to believe that Rick Snyder could fix our problems because as one of his campaign ads stated "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing". In light of the chapter 9 bankruptcy filing by Detroit yesterday many have to be wondering where was all this business wisdom two and a half years ago when "one tough nerd" took office.

Shortly after his election Rick Snyder said "Michigan cannot be a great state until Detroit is on the path to being a great city". Such language suggests that Rick Snyder's number one priority would be fixing the financial issues with Detroit because in his own words anything less means, making Michigan a great state, was not his primary goal. Yet when listing his accomplishments for the past two years none of them address the obvious problems that according to the governor he was uniquely qualified to solve.

2011 Rick Snyder list of accomplishments.

1. Eliminated the Michigan Business Tax.
2. Taxed some pensions and cut personal income tax credits and deductions.
3. Signed a balanced budget three months ahead of the deadline.
4. Strengthened the position of emergency financial managers.
5. Required additional cost-sharing by public employees for health care and other benefits.
6. Revamped teacher tenure and linked evaluations partly to student performance.
7. Developed financial incentives for schools and communities to adopt cost-cutting "best practices."
8. Threw out Michigan's tax-credit strategy for economic development.
9. Lifted the cap on charter schools authorized by state universities.
10. Eliminated the state law requiring every item on a store shelf be individually marked.
11. Traveled to Asia to build relationships in hopes of attracting investment.

2012 Rick Snyder list of accomplishments.

1. Moving forward with the New International Trade Crossing, which will bring more and better jobs to Michigan.
2. Personal Property Tax reform
3. Eliminating regulations - 13 rules eliminated for every new rule we added
4. Pathways to Potential, a new initiative that puts social workers directly in schools. The program is in over 20 schools today with a focus on Flint, Pontiac, Saginaw and Detroit, and is expected to reach 120 schools by springtime
5. A conference on infant mortality, a conference on helping the disabled, and new legislation to assist families coping with autism
6. Efforts to revitalize cities across Michigan
7. Improving public safety, with one new trooper school graduated and another on the way
8. Efforts to revitalize Detroit, including a new authority to restore Detroit lighting
9. The creation of a Regional Transit Authority for southeast Michigan, an effort which took 40 years to achieve
10. The creation of Virtual Cities, which allows municipalities like Grand Rapids and Livonia to collaborate in order to save money
11. Blight removal, including tearing down blighted properties and improving others
12. Reform of the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System in order to ensure it's on a sustainable path for the future. Thanks to pension reform efforts, Michigan now has a plan to pay down $20 billion in liabilities.
13. Education reforms including dual enrollment, performance metrics for schools, and the creation of the Education Achievement Authority, which is helping 15 schools in Detroit
14. Pure Michigan's continued success
15. A series of “good government" initiatives to help strengthen communities and protect taxpayers
16. Improving state government with Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley's work on the Bureaucracy Busters program, a social media initiative that calls on state of Michigan employees to offer innovative ideas for enhancing efficiency, customer service and the workplace.

While improvements in public education and lighting in Detroit were nice window dressing, this is a man who ran and was conceivably elected on his business acumen. Neither of these "accomplishments" does anything to address the financial situation that brought down Detroit. But rather than lead the resurrection of the town that Rick Snyder himself designated as the key to Michigan's success the governor said "Right now, my role is to be a resource. When people say, ‘We need help,’ we are ready to assist.”

Where was this passive - "will of the people" - Rick Snyder when voters said no to emergency manager laws, or when the public and his own party opposed the new bridge to Canada? Where was the contact your representative passion the governor has exhibited for Medicare expansion when it came to the most important city in his state? And since when does leadership include watching people fail when you have the knowledge and the power to help.

Rick Snyder may not be to blame for Detroit's fall from grace but standing idly by while his greatest asset imploded is not the work of a great businessman or a great governor. It is the action of man who is out of his depth. And this failure to act could take decades for the state to recover from.

Race baiting from the right

If there's one thing conservatives hate it's when they are called out for being racist. But rather than accepting that everyone exhibits prejudice and trying to correct this irrational intolerance conservatives have created a world where whites are unfairly targeted. The recent trial of George Zimmerman offers a prime example of this phenomenon.

Across the board conservative media outlets have seized on the acquittal of Zimmerman to proclaim that the whole thing was a liberal media manufactured race bating witch hunt. Of course this clever misdirection really misses the point. The outrage that led to the media attention revolved around the fact that a young man was shot dead by another man and the shooter was never arrested. From the outside it seemed like the police had acted as judge and jury and acquitted George Zimmerman. Guilty or not, Trayvon Martin deserved his day in court.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ignorance surrounding this and other racially charged cases. In isolation the racial claims may seem overblown when considering the information available but the US has a history of racial discrimination in the justice system. The audible cheers from the OJ Simpson verdict were a direct result of the perceived injustice of the acquittal of officers in the Rodney King trial. The actions of black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are public displays meant to force fair treatment of African Americans in the face of a system fraught with blatant discrimination.

The job of these activists is to draw attention to unfair practices affecting their community. Ironically, condemning these leaders for doing their job while simultaneously holding up leaders from the NRA, the coal industry or the tea party as "fighting the good fight", smacks of the very racism that forces Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to speak out in the first place.

This line of thinking also completely ignores how cases like this benefit the conservative media outlets as well. Fox News was not forced to report on the Trayvon Martin murder. The reality is that once this became a racial story it allowed them to push the new white conservative meme that the deck is stacked against whites.

And while they are quick to point out cases where whites were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion this obsession with playing the victim ignores instances such as Shirley Sherrod and ACORN where the conservative media fell all over themselves to prove their "black racism" talking point correct before all the facts were known.

The reality is that outside of a few anecdotal stories, African Americans face a stiff head wind in their fight for equal justice.

- According to FBI data burglaries, like the one George Zimmerman assumed Trayvon Martin was about to commit, are twice as likely to be perpetrated by whites as blacks.
- Whites were also found to be three times as likely to commit a "hate crime".
- 62% of those falsely convicted and exonerated by DNA evidence are African American.
- Nationwide, a white person shooting a black person was 10 times more likely to be deemed "justifiable" than when the roles were reversed.
- In LA when stopped on the street or ordered out of their car blacks were arrested 166% more than whites, 127% more likely to be frisked and subject to nonconsensual search 81% more often.
- White youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
- Black youth were also twice as likely to be arrested on weapons charges and three times as likely to be arrested for assault despite reporting similar rates of fights and weapon possession as their white counterparts.
- Additionally studies show that blacks were overrepresented in media reports as suspects while being underrepresented as victims - perpetuating a stereotype that leads to whites falsely accusing blacks of committing crimes such as in the cases of Susan Smith, Bonnie Sweeten, Amanda Knox, Bethany Storro, and Ashley Todd.

And while these statistics represent a portion of the inherent bias of the justice system, racial inequality is certainly not limited to law enforcement. There is also great disparity on things like education, wages, job opportunities, and home ownership.

In the end if whites want to eliminate the "epidemic" of race baiting, getting into a pissing match over which race is more racist and whining that system favors blacks when the data clearly suggests the opposite, is the exact wrong way to go about fixing the problem. In actuality the problem is not Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or the mainstream media. They are the symptoms. The real problem is we have a system that forces minorities to examine every instance for inequality and a majority that is blissfully unaware of how oppressive the system can really be. Once you eliminate the disparity in the system, the activists will happily disappear.

Sincerely held religious belief or discrimination?

In an effort to legitimize their religious bigotry aimed at homosexuals, also known as "religious freedom", some legislators have introduced bills that allow an individual to refuse service to someone based on "a sincerely held religious belief".

Outside of the obvious ambiguity of such a law there are a number of other issues with this line of thinking. First it is not religious freedom to arbitrarily exclude an entire group of people. As John 8:7 states "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her". Homosexuality is no more a sin than lust, greed, envy or pride. If we are going to refuse service for those in the LGBT community because of the bible then we must do the same of all sinners. Anything less does not show strict adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ but selective intolerance.

There is also a belief that somehow upholding the rights of the gay populace will lead to the government forcing all sorts of religious groups to do things that are against their beliefs. Examples of this include government forcing churches to marry gay couples or forcing a Muslim food service company to offer pork. Neither of these examples represents the case the LGBT is arguing in the numerous lawsuits across the country.

When talking about marriage equality no one is asking the florist or baker to provide a service that they don't already provide. They are asking them to provide that service to all customers equally. The product and the people are not the same. You can't require a vegan baker to provide a cake with eggs. It's not a product they serve. But you can require a vegan baker to provide their vegan cakes to all customers. Huge difference.

As far as church services are concerned there are a couple precedents that suggest fears over churches being forced to provide service are vastly overblown. First, most churches require one to be a member to receive services. Like many other organizations churches are allowed to deny membership often times regardless of discrimination laws such as the church that voted to refuse marriage services to interracial couples. Second a Supreme Court decision last year established "ministerial exception" which exempts churches from some anti-discrimination laws.

Having said that if these legislators are successful in cementing additional protections into law they should be prepared for the unintended consequences. What many of these people arguing for "religious freedom" fail to realize is that this freedom is a two way street. At some point a non-Christian will be in a position to deny service to a Christian customer because they have "a sincerely held religious belief" that is incompatible with that of a Christian. Once the shoe is on the other foot maybe these Christians will appreciate how one man's religious freedom can be another man's religious persecution.

Regulating the rhetoric on job creation

Creating jobs is a major concern for all politicians. Subsequently, discussions regarding how to improve the job market are often a topic among those who follow politics. My colleague Charles Owens the director of the Michigan Branch of the National Federation for Independent Business (NFIB) recently penned an article discussing how the Federal regulatory environment affects small business.

To support his stance Charles supplies a number of statistics. Unfortunately many of those statistics are in error or are inconsistent. For example he states that small business creates two thirds of all new jobs - a claim that Mitt Romney made during his run for president. The reality is that small business actually only account for around 26% of new jobs.

Next Charles argues that the regulatory burden on small business is more than that of large companies. While this number is backed with actual data it is disingenuous to suggest that two-thirds of all jobs are created by small business and then imply that those companies incur more costs. The two-third claim is based on companies with 50 or less employees while the data surrounding the extra costs of regulations only includes companies with 20 or fewer employees. Perhaps the burden is equal among these two groups but the data set is different and implies a conclusion not stated by the report Charles quotes.

The final piece of data Charles uses to make is point is not surprisingly a poll conducted by the organization of which he is a ranking member. The claim is that "unreasonable government regulations" ranks as the fifth most concerning issue for small business. The real surprise is that the number is not higher after all who supports "unreasonable" regulations? Ask any of the supposed regulation loving Democrats you know if the regulations they support are "unreasonable" and the response will universally be no.

But even beyond this stacking the deck tactic this data is highly suspect given that the nearly 100% of the NFIB's political contributions in 2011-2012 went to support Republicans or attack Democrats. Additionally the NFIB represents around 350,000 businesses while the US currently contains 23 million small businesses. This means this poll represents a tiny portion of the overall small businesses and they're oversampling Republican lead companies.

Of course it should be noted that the NFIB isn't the only organization to poll small businesses. A Gallup poll found that small businesses number one reason for not hiring new employees was because they "Didn't need any additional employees at this time". For these companies it wouldn't matter how much regulations affected their business. They won't hire any way. As a matter of fact government regulations are sixth out of seven categories on why companies aren't hiring.

The reality is that business supports plenty of regulations. What one company may see as a burden another may see as leveling the playing field. If the goal is to remove regulations because the public and companies agree the regulation is unreasonable, most would support such a plan. But to attack regulations as some ubiquitous evil in the name of jobs is a massive oversimplification of the issue.

Gay rights vs. religious freedom

With marriage equality being decided at the Federal level by the Supreme Court the focus of this debate now shifts to the states. And while it may be some time before the legal challenges to state laws banning marriage equality start making headlines, the battle for equal rights for the LGBT community is already underway.

Across the country a number of private businesses, mainly those associated with the wedding industry, contend they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This is not true in cases covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which includes discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, but the line is less clear when it comes to sexual preference. A number of states have already addressed this ambiguity with state laws against any arbitrary discrimination but many other states will have such decisions made for them through the court system.

In many of these cases religious beliefs are the justification for the discrimination. In the state of Washington, for example, a florist has refused to provide service to a gay couple stating "I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ". The florist also stated that this was the first time she had refused service in 37 years of business.

These two claims together are a giant red flag. The "sin" of homosexuality is no worse than any other sin discussed in the bible so the fact that this florist had never been compelled to refuse service to an obese person who could be suffering from the sin of gluttony or a person who is on their second or third marriage who may have been guilty of coveting thy neighbor's wife suggests that this is not a person with strong moral convictions but a person who arbitrarily hides behind their faith to discriminate.

No one is arguing that these business owners are not entitled to their religious freedom. The point is that as a business operating with the general public there must be a business case for denying service and the owners religious beliefs are not one of them.