In an interview from earlier this month Tony Dungy was asked a question about Michael Sam, who is most widely known for being the first openly gay player in any major sport. The quote attributed to Dungy refers to the NFL draft in which Sam was selected by the St. Louis Rams in the 7th and final round - “I wouldn’t have taken him, not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”
By in large comments like this from athletes and others in the sporting world should be taken with a grain of salt since for most socio political topics are not their area of expertise. Tony Dungy however has proven to a astute advocate for acceptance in a way that makes these comments seem out of step. This stature along with the perceived hypocrisy of his statement has caused a greater interest from sports writer than most sports figures would typically elicit.
A good example of the analysis of Tony Dungy's comments comes from cover32.com writer Jeremy Mackinder who covers the Detroit Lions and discusses how out of character these remarks are while also addressing the importance of Michael Sam. The article also includes a link to a statement released by Dungy attempting to clarify his original words.
While there seems to be no ill intent there is an inherent issue with Dungy's position that is pervasive in politics and political commentary today. Given that Tony Dungy is not gay and doesn't appear to have any connection to the LGBT community his comments suggest he doesn't fully appreciate their fight or the gravity of Michael Sam's situation.
It seems unlikely that Tony Dungy would have had such a casual response were the question "should the Brooklyn Dodgers sign Jackie Robinson". Was Jackie Robinson a distraction to the team? Absolutely. Did he deserve a chance to play for a MLB team? Absolutely. Tony Dungy also indicated that he would draft Tim Tebow with a top 10 pick in the NFL draft. Apparently media attention and the distraction the comes with it wasn't a concern when it came to Tim Tebow.
As Dungy's own clarification comments state "playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit." Most publications had Michael Sam as a solid mid round prospect before his announcement which suggests regardless of the potential distraction Sam was worth drafting or at the very least getting shot to make a team.
It is also possible that Tony Dungy's faith played a small part in his thought process since the religious community have been laggards when it comes to gay rights. Unfortunately Dungy's position, intentional or not, is one that we have seen multiple times in the political arena. History shows that, as a party, Republicans have been far less accepting on issues like same sex marriage however top Republicans like Dick Cheney and Rob Portman were some of the first Republican political advocates for increased equality for the LGBT community. Not surprisingly both men also happen to have gay children.
The problem is that for many people it is easy to believe the worst about a group of people you don't know or understand. However once faced with the reality that being gay doesn't make a person any less human, it doesn't make a person a deviant, it doesn't make a person a sinner, and it doesn't make a person less deserving of love most people recognize the error of their previously uninformed position.
In the end being gay is just another part of who Michael Sam is and in the grand scheme of things it is only relevant in a small portion of the decisions he makes on a daily basis. The fact that our society is at a place in time where a seemingly accepting man like Tony Dungy would consider who one of his players chooses to love based on how the media would react to it says a lot about how much further we have to go.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Education reform is awful and supporters know it.
With the 2014 election cycle fast approaching, politicians hoping to win re-elected are going to be spending a considerable amount of time defending legislation they have supported over the past few years. For many Republican legislators this includes discussion about expanded government involvement in public education which runs counter to their "small government" and "local control" arguments they claim are part of their core ideology. Of course when it comes to education reform, the double standards don't stop there.
For example consider the case of two historically conservative Michigan public school districts - Grosse Pointe and Birmingham. Both public school districts have schools that rank in the top 1% of performance based on the Michigan "top-to-bottom list" that ranks schools according to "student performance in mathematics, reading, writing, science and social studies and graduation rate data".
At the top of many education reformers wish list is expanding charter schools to give students a choice. The total number of charter schools currently competing with Grosse Pointe and Birmingham public schools - zero.
Of course charter schools aren't the only way to provide students a choice. Michigan also offers "school of choice" which allows students from failing schools the opportunity to attend a top rated school. Grosse Pointe currently does not participate in school of choice while Birmingham only recently opted in to the program by offering six, 11th grade slots for a school system with over 8,000 students. This move netted Birmingham public schools an additional $430,000 in state funding.
Another education reform idea that has been sweeping the nation is the belief that more money for education doesn't improve results and that teachers are overpaid. Recent data shows that both Gosse Pointe and Birmingham public schools have some of the highest per pupil spending rates in the state while ranking number 4 and 1 respectively when it comes to teacher pay in Michigan.
Some reformers blame the lagging US test scores on teachers unions yet teachers in both Grosse Pointe and Birmingham have union representation. The same is also true of some of the world leaders in education like Korea, Finland and Singapore where the vast majority of teachers are unionized.
So the question for these conservative communities that have some of the highest per capita income in Michigan, some of the lowest poverty rates and at 93% white have just enough minorities to feel good about their community's ethnic diversity while still being white enough to "feel safe" is if the Republican education reform efforts are such an improvement why do these communities not take advantage of them?
The new Educational Achievement Authority (EAA) which took control of 15 Detroit public schools and handed them over to a privately owned Charter school operator is not far from either community. Have any Grosse Pointe or Birmingham parents chosen to move their students out of the "broken" public education system into an EAA charter school? Do these cities hold rallies asking the school district to consider accepting underprivileged students outside of their borders? Are parents from these communities arguing for sweeping cuts to teacher pay and education spending?
The answer to these is a resounding no. As with many politically motivated ideas these "solutions" really only apply to the poor because the rich already purchase and restrict access to the best education money can buy.
Data shows that while most countries spend more on the most needy students the US is the worst of a small handful of countries that actually commit less funds to poor schools than to rich schools. The US also values teachers less than most other OECD nations. Relative to the wages for full time employees with a college degree the US ranks 22 out of 27 countries for teacher pay. In many nations they attempt to attract their best and brightest to a career in education by making teachers one of the highest paid professions. The US however ranks near the bottom of the list in terms of pay as a percentage of a country's GDP per capita. This means a US teacher has a lower local purchasing power than teachers in most other countries.
When you consider the fact that US teachers also work more hours per year than every other OECD country it makes this already dismal pay seem worse.
While not solely to blame, low wages is one of the reason often given by the nearly 50% of US teachers who leave the profession in the first five years. This higher than average turn over rate costs the US over $2 billion a year. Rather than constantly cycling through new teachers - a pattern which has been shown to be detrimental to educational outcomes - countries like Korea, Finland, and Singapore, who have turn over rates of 1%, 2% and 3% respectively, all invest more on the front end which not only saves money in the long run but also improves educational outcomes.
Of course even if you throw out all of the data showing how other successful countries run their educational system the biggest problem with the so called solutions conservatives offer for education is the fact that none of these are good enough for their own kids. It's not like there are zero successful public schools that can act as a model for struggling schools.
If rich communities are paying teachers more than any other school district and getting good results perhaps low performing schools should do the same.
If rich communities succeed without the aid of charter schools perhaps poor districts don't need them either.
If rich communities get results with union teachers perhaps eliminating unions in impoverished areas won't be the panacea some believe it to be.
If rich communities use higher per pupil funding than most to provide a complete education perhaps underprivileged districts could use more not less funds.
If rich communities achieve high scores with few students living in poverty perhaps addressing the massive poverty rate for the most indigent areas should be the top concern.
Cynics say that conservatives push for these changes because they are well aware that they don't work and keeping poor people trapped in failing schools removes competition for their children down the road. This may or may not be true but one thing is for certain, if any of these reform ideas worked the rich communities would be the first places to implement these changes. The fact that they go out of their way to keep such modifications out of their school districts tells you all you need to know about the real value of Republican education reform efforts.
For example consider the case of two historically conservative Michigan public school districts - Grosse Pointe and Birmingham. Both public school districts have schools that rank in the top 1% of performance based on the Michigan "top-to-bottom list" that ranks schools according to "student performance in mathematics, reading, writing, science and social studies and graduation rate data".
At the top of many education reformers wish list is expanding charter schools to give students a choice. The total number of charter schools currently competing with Grosse Pointe and Birmingham public schools - zero.
Of course charter schools aren't the only way to provide students a choice. Michigan also offers "school of choice" which allows students from failing schools the opportunity to attend a top rated school. Grosse Pointe currently does not participate in school of choice while Birmingham only recently opted in to the program by offering six, 11th grade slots for a school system with over 8,000 students. This move netted Birmingham public schools an additional $430,000 in state funding.
Another education reform idea that has been sweeping the nation is the belief that more money for education doesn't improve results and that teachers are overpaid. Recent data shows that both Gosse Pointe and Birmingham public schools have some of the highest per pupil spending rates in the state while ranking number 4 and 1 respectively when it comes to teacher pay in Michigan.
Some reformers blame the lagging US test scores on teachers unions yet teachers in both Grosse Pointe and Birmingham have union representation. The same is also true of some of the world leaders in education like Korea, Finland and Singapore where the vast majority of teachers are unionized.
So the question for these conservative communities that have some of the highest per capita income in Michigan, some of the lowest poverty rates and at 93% white have just enough minorities to feel good about their community's ethnic diversity while still being white enough to "feel safe" is if the Republican education reform efforts are such an improvement why do these communities not take advantage of them?
The new Educational Achievement Authority (EAA) which took control of 15 Detroit public schools and handed them over to a privately owned Charter school operator is not far from either community. Have any Grosse Pointe or Birmingham parents chosen to move their students out of the "broken" public education system into an EAA charter school? Do these cities hold rallies asking the school district to consider accepting underprivileged students outside of their borders? Are parents from these communities arguing for sweeping cuts to teacher pay and education spending?
The answer to these is a resounding no. As with many politically motivated ideas these "solutions" really only apply to the poor because the rich already purchase and restrict access to the best education money can buy.
Data shows that while most countries spend more on the most needy students the US is the worst of a small handful of countries that actually commit less funds to poor schools than to rich schools. The US also values teachers less than most other OECD nations. Relative to the wages for full time employees with a college degree the US ranks 22 out of 27 countries for teacher pay. In many nations they attempt to attract their best and brightest to a career in education by making teachers one of the highest paid professions. The US however ranks near the bottom of the list in terms of pay as a percentage of a country's GDP per capita. This means a US teacher has a lower local purchasing power than teachers in most other countries.
When you consider the fact that US teachers also work more hours per year than every other OECD country it makes this already dismal pay seem worse.
While not solely to blame, low wages is one of the reason often given by the nearly 50% of US teachers who leave the profession in the first five years. This higher than average turn over rate costs the US over $2 billion a year. Rather than constantly cycling through new teachers - a pattern which has been shown to be detrimental to educational outcomes - countries like Korea, Finland, and Singapore, who have turn over rates of 1%, 2% and 3% respectively, all invest more on the front end which not only saves money in the long run but also improves educational outcomes.
Of course even if you throw out all of the data showing how other successful countries run their educational system the biggest problem with the so called solutions conservatives offer for education is the fact that none of these are good enough for their own kids. It's not like there are zero successful public schools that can act as a model for struggling schools.
If rich communities are paying teachers more than any other school district and getting good results perhaps low performing schools should do the same.
If rich communities succeed without the aid of charter schools perhaps poor districts don't need them either.
If rich communities get results with union teachers perhaps eliminating unions in impoverished areas won't be the panacea some believe it to be.
If rich communities use higher per pupil funding than most to provide a complete education perhaps underprivileged districts could use more not less funds.
If rich communities achieve high scores with few students living in poverty perhaps addressing the massive poverty rate for the most indigent areas should be the top concern.
Cynics say that conservatives push for these changes because they are well aware that they don't work and keeping poor people trapped in failing schools removes competition for their children down the road. This may or may not be true but one thing is for certain, if any of these reform ideas worked the rich communities would be the first places to implement these changes. The fact that they go out of their way to keep such modifications out of their school districts tells you all you need to know about the real value of Republican education reform efforts.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Republican's minimum wage class warfare
Over the past year there has been a lot of public discourse and media coverage regarding potential changes in the federal and state minimum wage rates. Advocates for an increase argue that this will pull millions of American out of poverty and give them more purchasing power. Opponents insist an increase will cost jobs.
A CBO report on the topic gave credence to both sides of the debate. Unfortunately rather than having any meaningful discussions about what rate would maximize earnings for low income workers while limiting job losses, we are stuck with highly rhetorical political talking points designed to manipulate low information voters.
For instance my colleagues at the Detroit News have written multiple articles over the past few months implying that those who support a increase in the minimum wage would live to regret their decision. The examples cited most often suggests that were it not for minimum wage increases over the years millions more Americans would have been gainfully employed as gas station attendants and bank tellers.
The problem is that while this may sound true there is no evidence that the minimum wage was responsible for the demise of these professions.
The first self service gas station in the US began operating in 1947 - a full 9 years after the first minimum wage. It then took another thirty years for self service gas stations to take over the majority of the market. The loss of full service fuel stations correlates far more with the sharp rise in fuel prices in the 70's than any of the 11 increases in minimum wage over these three decades.
Thirty years after the first Automatic teller machine (ATM) there are still over half a million bank tellers with the number expected to increase over the next decade. Additionally the trend doesn't show ATM's cutting into teller employment in any meaningful fashion.
These attempts to scare low wage earners into supporting a policy that is against their own best interests in nothing new. The main rallying cry for the pretend "War on Coal" is that it will cost jobs. Never mind that the real threat to coal jobs comes from other energy sources and not government regulations - this is a meme coal corporations and conservative media sources continue to push.
This also requires that people believe that there is a finite number of jobs - an idea which has been proven a fallacy. The automobile may have put horse carriage makers out of work but it created a litany of new jobs. Portable GPS units may have put many map makers out of business but that doesn't mean their was a net loss of jobs. The internet certainly has had a negative impact on traditional newspapers however few would argue that in the end the internet means fewer US jobs.
The rise of the US was very much tied to innovation and creation. This conservative propensity of arguing for antiquated occupations to save menial jobs instead of embracing the sort of change that made the US the world power it is today is a dangerous precedent.
Our infatuation with coal jobs has put us a distant second behind China when it comes renewable energy products. Data shows that from 2012 to 2013 renewable energy added nearly 1 million jobs while coal only employs around 80,000 workers and saw a drop of 8.3%.
Of course innovation in renewables isn't the only area where the US is falling behind the rest of the world. The US has the worlds 8th fastest internet speeds behind countries like South Korea, Latvia, and the Czech Republic. The US also trails more than 20 other countries when it comes to the percentage of the population with internet access. This mediocre performance is detrimental to American companies and costs jobs.
It is also true that over the past 60 years the number of patents awarded to foreign inventors rose from 10% to over 50%. Unfortunately pressure to reduce government spending forced a drop in federal funding for research and development which has pushed the development of these job creating innovations overseas.
One imagines most Americans would prefer to lead the world in the jobs of the future instead of the jobs of the past.
But the real issue here is that discussing job losses completely misses the goal of those who advocate for an increase. The idea is to make sure that everyone that has a job can survive on what they make so replacing low wage, low skill jobs with a technology and the higher skill, higher wage jobs required to manufacturer and maintain that technology is a good thing.
Corporate profits are at an all time high as are the wages of the top 1%. All advocates are asking is that the employees who are producing at record levels get a share of the additional profits they are creating. If companies are too greedy to spread the wealth they shouldn't be surprised when employees use the power of the people to force a change.
Ironically the tax cuts which Republicans have championed for years are based on the same principle as increases in the minimum wage. The idea behind both of these policies is to put more money in the hands of the people who earn it because they will spend it - creating economic activity and more jobs. Republicans certainly had no qualms with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of their tax cuts so their sudden concern over the potential outcome of any minimum wage increase seems disingenuous.
The reality is that opponents of minimum wage are not looking to give poor Americans an opportunity to work their way up the corporate ladder. They are trying to protect the per share earnings of stockholders and the greed of the Supreme Court sanctioned corporate "people" by locking less privileged Americans in to dead end jobs. Because that is the best way to win elections and turn the US into the conservative Utopia that the founding father clearly envisioned.
A CBO report on the topic gave credence to both sides of the debate. Unfortunately rather than having any meaningful discussions about what rate would maximize earnings for low income workers while limiting job losses, we are stuck with highly rhetorical political talking points designed to manipulate low information voters.
For instance my colleagues at the Detroit News have written multiple articles over the past few months implying that those who support a increase in the minimum wage would live to regret their decision. The examples cited most often suggests that were it not for minimum wage increases over the years millions more Americans would have been gainfully employed as gas station attendants and bank tellers.
The problem is that while this may sound true there is no evidence that the minimum wage was responsible for the demise of these professions.
The first self service gas station in the US began operating in 1947 - a full 9 years after the first minimum wage. It then took another thirty years for self service gas stations to take over the majority of the market. The loss of full service fuel stations correlates far more with the sharp rise in fuel prices in the 70's than any of the 11 increases in minimum wage over these three decades.
Thirty years after the first Automatic teller machine (ATM) there are still over half a million bank tellers with the number expected to increase over the next decade. Additionally the trend doesn't show ATM's cutting into teller employment in any meaningful fashion.
These attempts to scare low wage earners into supporting a policy that is against their own best interests in nothing new. The main rallying cry for the pretend "War on Coal" is that it will cost jobs. Never mind that the real threat to coal jobs comes from other energy sources and not government regulations - this is a meme coal corporations and conservative media sources continue to push.
This also requires that people believe that there is a finite number of jobs - an idea which has been proven a fallacy. The automobile may have put horse carriage makers out of work but it created a litany of new jobs. Portable GPS units may have put many map makers out of business but that doesn't mean their was a net loss of jobs. The internet certainly has had a negative impact on traditional newspapers however few would argue that in the end the internet means fewer US jobs.
The rise of the US was very much tied to innovation and creation. This conservative propensity of arguing for antiquated occupations to save menial jobs instead of embracing the sort of change that made the US the world power it is today is a dangerous precedent.
Our infatuation with coal jobs has put us a distant second behind China when it comes renewable energy products. Data shows that from 2012 to 2013 renewable energy added nearly 1 million jobs while coal only employs around 80,000 workers and saw a drop of 8.3%.
Of course innovation in renewables isn't the only area where the US is falling behind the rest of the world. The US has the worlds 8th fastest internet speeds behind countries like South Korea, Latvia, and the Czech Republic. The US also trails more than 20 other countries when it comes to the percentage of the population with internet access. This mediocre performance is detrimental to American companies and costs jobs.
It is also true that over the past 60 years the number of patents awarded to foreign inventors rose from 10% to over 50%. Unfortunately pressure to reduce government spending forced a drop in federal funding for research and development which has pushed the development of these job creating innovations overseas.
One imagines most Americans would prefer to lead the world in the jobs of the future instead of the jobs of the past.
But the real issue here is that discussing job losses completely misses the goal of those who advocate for an increase. The idea is to make sure that everyone that has a job can survive on what they make so replacing low wage, low skill jobs with a technology and the higher skill, higher wage jobs required to manufacturer and maintain that technology is a good thing.
Corporate profits are at an all time high as are the wages of the top 1%. All advocates are asking is that the employees who are producing at record levels get a share of the additional profits they are creating. If companies are too greedy to spread the wealth they shouldn't be surprised when employees use the power of the people to force a change.
Ironically the tax cuts which Republicans have championed for years are based on the same principle as increases in the minimum wage. The idea behind both of these policies is to put more money in the hands of the people who earn it because they will spend it - creating economic activity and more jobs. Republicans certainly had no qualms with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of their tax cuts so their sudden concern over the potential outcome of any minimum wage increase seems disingenuous.
The reality is that opponents of minimum wage are not looking to give poor Americans an opportunity to work their way up the corporate ladder. They are trying to protect the per share earnings of stockholders and the greed of the Supreme Court sanctioned corporate "people" by locking less privileged Americans in to dead end jobs. Because that is the best way to win elections and turn the US into the conservative Utopia that the founding father clearly envisioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
