Reporter Steve Lopez was dispatched to the scene to write up the various cutbacks for the Los Angeles Times.  Lopez is known for being the journalist whose articles on a schizophrenic musician inspired the Robert Downey Jr./Jaime Foxx film The Soloist.  Then all of a sudden, what had the makings of a compelling human interest piece on one of the handful of quintessentially Hollywood high schools quickly devolved into a sob story about how these poor teachers and students have been victimized by the dastardly Republicans and their resistance to tax hikes.

How did he do this?

First, Lopez paints a rosy picture of the school by glowingly describing a performance by the jazz band and cherry-picking quotes raving about teachers; his portrayal of Hamilton is a lot like Sean Penn’s depiction of Iraq in Team America:

As it happens, Hamilton is my local high school and I have family and friends who have graduated from the Music Magnet in recent years.  To put it bluntly, many of their experiences didn’t resemble the mythical land of incredible teachers and students anxious to learn that Lopez describes.  An anonymous Hamilton graduate told me she recalls students doing cocaine in the state-of the art auditorium (which was overhauled with a lavish grant to the Music Magnet)—in fact, the source recalled students showing up to class on an assortment of drugs.  Faculty members were seen “celebrating” with students at cast parties after plays.

And I thought programs like these were meant to keep kids off drugs.

The better students still spent a large portion of class time listening to their ipods.

Not surprisingly for an arts magnet–or any school, for that matter–there have been allegations of political propagandizing by the Music Magnet teachers, both within and out of the context of the course material. Among other examples, one of the choral teachers indtroduced the class to an ode to George W. Bush called “THE DOOFUS MARCHES ON: Battle Hymn of the Republicans.” The chorus:

Glory! Glory! How he’ll Screw Ya!

Glory! Glory! What’s It To Ya!

Glory! Glory! How he’ll Screw Ya!
T

This Doofus marches on.

I’m not sure what’s more on the nose: the indoctrination or the humor.

One of these spectacular teachers Lopez mentions in the article taught an acting class; an anonymous source sums up the class experience this way: “She taught me nothing about acting but a lot about AIDS.”  Another teacher mentioned in the article, according to an alum, “pushed an anti-Bush agenda” and openly discussed his alcohol abuse with the students during class time.

These examples are from the highly touted Music Magnet; I have even more frightening anecdotes from the main school.

But the stuff that doesn’t make Hamilton High seem awesomely awesome didn’t make it into Lopez’s piece.  What did slip past the editors, however, was a four paragraph tirade against Republicans:

But during tough times, even GOP hero Ronald Reagan and rock-solid conservative Gov. Pete Wilson temporarily raised taxes along with making tough cuts. Today, California’s Republican legislators have so far refused to support Gov. Brown’s plan to let voters decide whether they want to go that same route: to balance the budget half with cuts and half by temporarily extending tax increases.

Nor have the Republicans explained how they’d whack $26 billion without putting more teachers out of work and destroying schools in their own districts. And where, by the way, are the parents in those districts? Are they going to watch in silence as their kids get hammered?

At Hamilton, booster club president Chris Kenemuth told me she’s a Republican who doesn’t mind paying taxes to save great programs. She’s been trying to contact Republican legislators to let them know how she feels, but they’re not responding.

Of course not. What can they say that doesn’t shame them further? And how would they explain who wins when you fire teachers and demoralize students; when you take something that works and destroy it?

If this is Mr. Lopez’s honest analysis of what ails L.A. city schools, maybe he’s been spending too much time in the auditorium partaking in the aforementioned extracurricular activities with the jazz band… and various faculty members.

One of reasons we’re in this mess is because tax rates are already so damn high in this state (not to mention in the city of Los Angeles) that businesses are leaving in droves and taking their jobs, and potential tax revenue, with them.  So what should we do?  According to Lopez, raise ‘em up some more so that LAUSD, which boasts about a 40% graduation rate, can continue to phone it in for our kids.  What’s incredible about this number is that LAUSD wants to move students along; show up and complete most of the course work, and they’re good to go.  This is apparently a tall order for most families.  To be fair, the Hamilton Music Magnet has an exceptional graduation rate, but doesn’t that say more about the already motivated students and parents than it does about the effectiveness of the program?

The CATO Institute published a report last years estimating that each student in Los Angeles Unified cost tax payers over $25,000 per year for fiscal year 2008.  You read that right.  Given the graduation rate, that’s over $62,500 per year per graduate.  LAUSD itself only cops to shelling out about $10k, but even that’s still more than the average private school tuition for the L.A. area (here’s an article that explains the discrepancy between the reported and actual cost).  But again, if you’re a liberal, there is no price too high for our kids to have a public school environment to do drugs hate Bush learn jazz trumpet.

Lopez asks, “and as for those teachers who remain, will their class sizes shoot past the 40s and into the 50s?”  He should be asking, given all the money spent, why are they already in the 40s?

In the eyes of Lopez, the liberals and Democrats who have run California and the City of Angels for the last generation are free from blame, and same goes for the unions that have put America’s public school-going children at the mercy of a system without incentives that’s designed to protect the bad teachers at the expense of the students and good teacher… I mean teachers.

If any public school could be exemplary in Los Angeles, it’d be Hamilton, but not even the most talented kids, the “magnet” status, or the occasional generous donation could make this program a clear success.

Of the Hamilton High School alumni I know, many seemed to have a rich and educational experience, others had their time and your money wasted, and most fell somewhere in between.  Personally, I took music every year of school starting from sixth grade up until I received a minor in music from UC Berekely, so I am all for including music as part of formal education and Hamilton may well be the best we can do at this point in time. Still, many who have taken that journey through Hamilton High School Music Magnet and the people close to them know that it’s not at all the picture of perfection described in Steve Lopez’s one-sided report. And the GOP okaying a mid-recession tax hike isn’t going to change that.

But this is Hollywood and it’s the L.A. Times, and I do love a good fantasy.

Some of the activities observed in the video not only push the boundaries of the appropriate role of schools in facilitating religious understanding, but they introduce elements of blatant discrimination that could be especially challenging to the average ten or eleven year old. It’s an angle to this story that does not appear to have been discussed to date.

Before the prayers commenced, the field trip attendees were religiously segregated. As seen on the video, the parent describes that the women chaperons, female teachers and schoolgirls were asked to leave the prayer area, while the boys were invited to stay and participate in prayer with the men.

Such religious and gender discrimination arguably violates Title IX and Massachusetts state education codes, as reflected in the Wellesley Public School anti-discrimination policy:

Discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, national origin, religion, age, sex, gender identification, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, ability or disability in any form will not be tolerated. (Page 1, Intro Paragraph)

Any student or staff member who, after an investigation, has been found to have engaged in the discrimination or harassment of a student or staff member in any school setting or at any school-sponsored event will be subject to disciplinary action. (Page 2, Bullet H)

‘Discrimination’ for the purpose of this policy is conduct or speech which conveys discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identification, race, color, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, religion, national origin and/or disability in any educational programs, activities, or employment. (Page 3, Paragraph 6)

In response to complaints and public backlash to the video, Wellesley School Superintendent Bella Wong issued an apology letter to parents and community members which states, in part:

On the second scheduled day, a representative of the Mosque told students they were welcome to join in the prayer that was occurring. Five students chose to participate… The fact that any students were allowed to do so was an error.

…Students only participate in these events with parental permission.

The school’s superintendent and members of the school’s staff are required to know the policy & regulations governing discrimination. Ms. Wong seems to have successfully evaded this detail in her “apology” letter. Either that, or she simply is not concerned about the legal or psychological impacts to the gender discrimination in Islam having being forced on adolescent school children during school hours. Why doesn’t Ms. Wong’s letter include an apology for that?

In addition, the superintendent seems to place some of the blame on the parents who unsuspectingly allowed their children to participate in the experience, pursuant to the content of the parental permission slip for the field trip:

During our visit, we will get a chance to hear from Islam from members of the Cultural Center, learn about the architecture of the mosque and observe a midday prayer.

Parents who allowed their children to attend the event did so based on their understanding of the permission slip. Any activity that occurred outside of those boundaries should have warranted intervention from the teachers on behalf of the students in attendance. The field trip should have been ended as soon as the girls were segregated from the boys. The boys being allowed to pray with the men in the mosque should never have occurred because the teachers, who are rigorously trained in discrimination policy & practice, were responsible to end it there.

In contrast, parents are typically not trained in such policy. Therefore, Ms. Wong’s attempt to share blame with the parents via her “Parents Permission” ploy is inadequate and nothing short of despicable. The permission slip violation essentially abrogated In Loco Parentis (in short, this includes a teacher’s legal “parental” responsibility over children during school).

For this reason, it’s equally important not to let the superintendent and site principal and social studies chair off the hook. Just as we emphasized in this post from our “Academia-Gate” series, educators have enormous power over children. Unfortunately, the opportunity for negligence and abuse does exist.

What’s far more dangerous is that the ideological academic, in his capacity as a professor, actually possesses the power to control. The power to influence students’ minds, to mold the students’ way of thinking…this is a frightening weapon.

The same concerns apply to primary education in many aspects. Perhaps this incident was a completely unintentional act of negligence; in other settings, there have been circumstances where an over zealousness on the part of one or some school officials to develop religious tolerance has overstepped the boundaries of the school’s role. Parents therefore should be made aware of and offered training in the policies that affect them and their rights to not be discriminated against.

Many who support the superintendent’s decisions may be looking at this solely from the perspective of religious tolerance. For instance, the Boston Globe published a follow-up story titled, “Wellesley parents seem to support students’ mosque trip,” which described one such example among others:

Hind Rakin, a Muslim, is the mother of a Wellesley sixth grader. She said she plans to allow her daughter to attend interfaith field trips and had already allowed her to experience services at a Jewish temple.

‘If we don’t help kids learn to love each other despite their differences, how are we going to stop all the anger over religion?’ Rakin asked. ‘There needs to be more respect and love in the world.’

Most will agree that encouraging children to embrace one another’s differences, including religious differences, is a positive thing. However, unless we consider the overall experience in which these children are participating, this is merely a naively Utopian quest for respect and religious tolerance. The potential for unintended, long-lasting consequences is a reality. By utilizing the methods practiced in Wellesley’s religious curriculum, could educators and parents alike be overlooking or ignoring the more basic premise of protecting children against religious and gender discrimination?

Watch the above video again. Put yourself in the place of one of these 10 year old schoolgirls, as you are asked to leave the prayer area and separated with all of the other female attendees, excluded from prayer for no other reason than your gender. Imagine observing the males in the next room, as they participate in prayer together. At 10 years old, does a young adolescent girl comprehend the religious rationale behind their exclusion? And are there lasting consequences to such an exercise?

In a country that has taken such pride in advancing civil rights and equality for women, how do you reconcile these stark contrasts, as the parent of a 10 year old?

Ms. Wong invites questions in her letter. As a parent, I would ask a few questions of the school superintendent:

• Upon observing the video, did you and the school district’s counsel not see the girls being segregated from the boys?
• Is religious gender segregation during a school-sponsored event something that you accept as appropriate?
• Who is responsible for administering policy in the Wellesley School District, and who trained the staff?
• When drafting your apology letter, did you and the school district’s counsel discuss your district’s discrimination policy?

In the end, one important question remains for parents across the country who are concerned after seeing this video and the response from school officials. How did Wellesley school teachers allow this to happen?

In Loco Parentis entitles parents to their children’s protection while at school from discrimination of any kind, regardless of what any specific religion demands. Trading in that protection at the expense of non-discriminatory treatment under the guise of religious tolerance is not only unacceptable, it’s un-American. There are other ways to educate children on various religions, including Islam, without violating anti-discrimination policies. Parents in the Wellesley Public School District would be wise to demand that the superintendent reassess the school district’s educational approach to this program, as well as its policies.

If Islam and the mosques that preach its doctrine are fundamentally in conflict with religious and gender discrimination policies, then immersing young students in this environment is clearly not the most beneficial or appropriate method of teaching religious tolerance.

Unless of course the next time students from the Wellesley Public School District visit a mosque, the girls and women will be invited to pray with the boys and men.

—–

While the film delved into numerous issues, from bloated salaries to lack of oversight in spending, two of them were the most infuriating.  The first is the fact that the teachers’ union vehemently opposes any meaningful reform that it sees as a threat to its power.  While, as the film expresses, there are plenty of individual teachers who care about their students and put forth their best effort in the classroom, the NEA has become a bloated political organization that is interested only in protecting its power rather than in educating the students it pretends are its highest priority.  For instance, the NEA and its state chapters exert massive political influence over who is chosen to fill administrative posts that will negotiate contracts with them.  This enable them to keep policies in place such as the tenure system that manifests itself in a ridiculously unbelievable 99.97% teacher retention rate in New Jersey.  Watching Joyce Powell, head of the NJEA, try to spin her way around the facts presented to her is both laughable and maddening.  Until this mammoth self-serving organization can be dismantled, reforming public education will continue to be futile endeavor.

Equally vexing is the fact that New Jersey, like many states, continues to resist the successful introduction of voucher programs into its educational system.  While many charter schools such as North Star Academy and Hope Academy boasted better test scores than their public school equivalents, while spending less money, the Education Department of New Jersey approved only 1 of 22 applications to start new charter schools in the state.  Although there are many facts and figures that can be used to show why charter schools provide a superior education, the film made its most powerful argument by juxtaposing two pictures: one of mothers celebrating that their children now “have a chance” after they had won spots in the charter school lottery, and the other a heartbreaking visual of  a sobbing child who did not win that chance.  It is insane to think that we lack the political will to carry out such a simple solution, especially when there are so many who desire this change, and so many who are willing to implement it.

The political interests of the NEA, coupled with an educational bureaucracy that refuses to allow reform, enables this scenario to play out across our country again and again, as more and more students fall through the cracks of a severely corrupted school system.  It would seem obvious that the quality of our childrens’ educational experience would be our primary consideration when evaluating our educational system, but “The Cartel” unveils the corruption that allows our children to instead find themselves almost entirely ignored.  The film will begin playing in New York City and Los Angeles on April 16, and roll into other cities in the following weeks.  Check out the website for a detailed schedule of screenings and to find an action center where you can get more information on how to fight for the best possible education for your child.  If there is one thing we can all agree on, regardless of political background, our children deserve better.

In May of 2004 the New York Times published an article entitled “Health Care Leads Other Issues in Canadian Vote.” The substance of the article was that in the elections that were upcoming, the future of the Canadian health care system was the predominate issue. On the one side were liberals seeking to reverse the trend of privatizing diagnostic services and increase federal aid to provincial governments. On the other conservatives were trying to increase private sector involvement as a way to lower costs and increase service. In spite of the Canadians patriotic zeal for their system, the article makes it clear that there was a growing recognition among citizens and politicians that the system was in the words of the Times, “ailing.” The waiting times for care were growing longer not shorter, the availability of doctors and nurses was becoming sparse especially in rural areas, opinion polls during the previous decade indicated a rising dissatisfaction with medical services and most significantly the cost of delivering medical care had grown so expensive that many provinces were being forced to “trim their budgets for education and other vital services.” Mind you this information came not from the Heritage Foundation but the New Liberal paper of record: The New York Times.

I must remember to share this article with my friend Bryan. Bryan is a cancer survivor. I have had friends that have lost their battles with cancer so his continued presence on this earth is a great joy to me and a fact of which I am sure he is also no doubt ecstatic. Bryan is particularly interested in the current state of health care costs because his insurance paid for what he terms a “measly portion” of his treatment- he is currently burdened with the cost of what his insurance did not cover. He simply can’t afford the astronomical cost. His complaint is echoed by many clamoring for nationalized healthcare. What remains unclear is under what moral principle one man can demand that others pay for his healthcare and whether any policy not firmly grounded in a moral truth can be just.

Bryan’s story perfectly illustrates the truth that the rising cost of healthcare has coincided with the rising quality of healthcare. It is true that not too long ago he would have paid considerably less for his cancer treatment. The bad news is that he would not have been around long enough to spend his savings. New drugs and new technologies lengthened his life as it they have for hundreds of thousands of others. Progress comes with a price tag.

Bryan was not denied care. In fact no one in America is denied healthcare. He had insurance and he has an income with which to pay what the insurance didn’t cover. The fact is– he would much rather spend his money on something else other than hospital bills reaching into the thousands of dollars. What better solution than a system where cancer treatment is paid for by someone else? He may be interested to learn that the U.S. ranks first in the world in cancer survivor rates and that breast cancer survivors in Canada have filed a class action suit against several hospitals that forced them to wait 12 weeks for radiation therapy. Obviously neither Bryan nor other national healthcare advocates want to wait in lines or have others decide if they are to live or die. What they want is someone else to foot the bill even if children receiving a public education must suffer.

This brings me to a conversation I had about healthcare a few years ago on the corner of 8th avenue and 47th street in Manhattan. I was standing on the corner debating politics with my friend Nancy, or I should say my ex-friend Nancy. This conversation was one of the last I had with her and remains positive proof that good friends ought to avoid discussing politics. But I digress.

At one point Nancy decried the fact that poor people did not have access to the same care as those of better means. I responded rather incredulously that the wealthy would always have access to better care because they would always be able to pay for it. Nancy’s eyes grew narrow and she asked me, “Do you think that is fair?”

It was at that moment that I truly understood that for all the handwringing about rising costs and access for the 47 million uninsured what is really at issue is equality. Will America be a place where some have more and others have less? Because we can’t all be equal in our benefits will we struggle to “level the playing field” in order to ensure that we are all equal in our misery?

But even in Canada some folks are more equal than others. What we learn in the Times account is that the use of influence in order to jump waiting times is common and that those preaching the virtue of a nationalized system are frequently at pains to explain why they and their loved ones attend private clinics.

The Times article ends with the conservative Member of Parliament giving an emotional speech wherein he promises to expand federal drug benefits. Of course he neglects to explain where he will get the money to “pay for a program that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year.”

Politics in any language.