Debating Myself

Vindication through coursework is a rare part of the college experience, but this past week has really been a rewarding one for me. Having recently completed my senior thesis in political science–a study of the effects of No Child Left Behind on school governance and rural schools–I was more than pleasantly surprised to see that the Reading First Initiative, the focus of the case studies in my research, was in the news. Both the Washington Post and the Economist carried stories on the program that can be found here and here respectively.

My thesis is largely critical of the way in which the Reading First program is administrated. Federal grant money is distributed to states, who then subgrant the money out to local school districts. For rural school districts the grant process by itself proves problematic enough, but further complicating matters are the stipulations that the aid comes with, often conditioning the types of reading instruction to occur in the classroom. Decentralization and localization have long been hallmarks of the American education system, and No Child Left Behind purported to continue those traditions, but clearly the Reading First program is an exception–the Washington Post gets it right:

A 2006 report from the Education Department’s inspector general, John P. Higgins Jr., said some program officials steered states to certain tests and textbooks.

Mix in a little classic Bush cronyism just for good measure:

Congressional testimony last year also revealed that some of those people benefited financially…

This was bad enough, but the pattern of unfair benefits was distributed unequally along ideological lines as well–essentially deciding a long standing debate about how reading should be taught:

Critics say that Reading First officials have promoted intensive phonics instruction, in which children focus on learning to sound out words, and that schools have been discouraged from using the whole language approach, which emphasizes teaching reading through literature.

In the case study I used for my thesis, a rural Pennsylvania school district was forced to abandon a highly successful whole language approach due to lack of funding, apply several times for a Reading First grant, and only after a change in party (from elephant to donkey) was a grant for a new type of reading program approved. Rural schools thrive on the whole language model and can be highly successful, because, by their very nature, these schools afford their students considerable individual attention from teachers. Under the Reading First program whole language instruction funding is now highly inconsistent and politicized. The Reading First program unfairly squashes this and tramples on the ability of local school districts to resist federal and state mandates about instructional programs and be classroom innovators.

That said, Reading First has for the most part been a success for non-rural schools, and the phonics method of reading instruction is an acceptable and worthwhile practice. Unlike many aspects of NCLB, Reading First seems to be getting results (again WP):

The Center on Education Policy, based in the District, reported in October that officials in 37 states said the curriculum and assessments helped boost achievement.

So I guess it doesn’t make sense to me why Democrats would cut the funding of this program by more than 60 percent. But that is just what it did. The Washington Post searched for the best answer they could:

“We all agree that the goal of the Reading First program — to help all children learn to read — is incredibly important,” said Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)… “We must have every assurance that Reading First funding is being used as intended — to benefit our nation’s schoolchildren, not to line the pockets of Bush’s cronies.”

Wait what? It is benefiting our nation’s schoolchildren as is–even if it was conceived in an improper way. Children are learning to read from this program. It doesn’t get any clearer! (I’m a critic, and even I can’t disagree that it works.) File this under further evidence that representatives from really big states are generally up to no good and/or certifiably crazy. But, more importantly, Mr. Miller has completely missed the point.

1. The program is currently under administrative review for the transgressions involving yet another case of Bush cronyism. Those involved will be punished, reports will be issued, etc.
2. In the meantime, the program borne out of cronyism appears to be one of the few bright spots in this administration–it is actually helping impoverished American children learn to read.
3. Cutting funding to the program will not kill the benefit to textbook manufacturers or those who sell reading curricula–schools know these programs work and will now secure outside funds to continue these government programs. Unfortunately, it is only better off schools who have the resources to do this, while poor, rural or underfunded schools who need these programs most will actually just cut back reading instruction.
4. The Democrats have proposed no alternative or amendments to the Reading First program to allow reading instruction to continue, while rolling back Bush cronyism.

So instead of taking a stand against President Bush in the Iraq War, around which a public consensus now exists, Democrats have opted to take a much bolder position… punishing children for alleged Bush cronyism. Those Democratic Senators and Representatives are much braver than me; I would have meekly pushed an alternative policy through fixing the improprieties of the program and making it more flexible, while the program continued to quietly improve reading scores across America . Instead the Democrats hope to convince American children learning to read that they need to sacrifice their extra reading education in the name of slapping a few textbook manufacturers on the wrist for allegedly earning an extra 5% in profits. Oh, and the opportunity to stick a finger in President Bush’s eye.

This is just a sickening example of partisan politics at its absolute worst; in this case on the part of a Democratic Congress seeking to exact retribution from a Republican executive at any price. Is a policy that has widely benefited millions of poor and disadvantaged American children really the policy the Democrats want to choose to punish President Bush on? Shouldn’t they take their rage out on him in a more benign and sensible policy area–choosing randomly of course–like the Iraq War, the nuclear deal with India, etc ad infininum?

The Washington Post piece ends on a sober note that readers should be left with:

“Reading First has made so much of a difference in the lives of so many people,” said James Herman, the program’s director in Tennessee. “We’re going to punish the children. I don’t understand that at all.”

I don’t either Mr. Herman.

To kill is not to be a geek, but to be a geek is to kill. This Washington Post story discusses an Oakland, CA trial that has to rank as one of the more bizarre murder trials in recent memory. Some major figures in this drama:

• A mail-order bride gone missing
• An extremely successful asocial computer programmer indicted for homicide (Mr. Hans Reiser)
• Family von-Weirdo
  • The brother contends that he and his brother drive without front seats
  • The parents make obscure references to their son’s undergraduate thesis on reality and perception
• A cross-dressing/bondage enthusiast best friend (Sean Sturgeon… really, that’s his name)
  • Who also proclaimed he killed several people years ago
  • Who had an affair with the mail-order bride
  • Who was the “maid of honor” in the wedding
• And of course, Dungeons and Dragons

If all of this seems weird, that is because it is. You have to read the whole story to believe it, but here are a few choice quotes summing up the legal defense that the attorney for the alleged murder, a Mr. Hans Reiser, has developed:

“Being too intelligent can be a sort of curse,” defense counsel William Du Bois said. “All this weird conduct can be explained by him, but he’s the only one who can do it. People who are commonly known as computer geeks are so into the field.”

Of course it can! Computer geeks are silent killers waiting to be unleashed. Every one of them. It is definitely not more likely that sociopaths come from all walks of life (though perhaps disproportionately from Berkley, like Mr. Reiser), and it was only a matter of time that a computer program joined their ranks…

At least the judge in the trial seems reasonable:

The thesis [Han’s undergraduate thesis at Berkley] might apply to the evidence, which the judge in the preliminary hearing termed thin.

I guess I should be careful what I put in my undergraduate thesis as well. Seems to be a trend… (more…)

Benjamin Lovell went to the bank attempting to add to the $800 in his Commerce Bank checking account only to discover something pleasantly surprising–$5 million + dollars. Some guys have all the luck. Apparently Commerce Bank is really trying to live up to its slogan “America’s Most Convenient Bank.”

Naturally, Mr. Lovell did what any sane human being would do on discovering his new found wealth–he withdrew over $2 million over the next few days. For his part he made a series of sound investments, including some expensive jewelry for his girlfriend.

Unfortunately for Mr. Lovell this story does not have a happy end. The bank, noticing this unusual activity, realized that an error had been made–involving a mix-up with the account of another more fortunate and much richer Benjamin Lovell–and contacted the authorities. Mr. Lovell was promptly arrested and is being held on charges of grand larceny with bail set at $3 million, which Mr. Lovell unfortunately cannot use his accidental millions to pay. But, here is the kicker–Mr. Lovell faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. New York is supposed to be tough on crime, but come on! People convicted of accidental homicide (though that case is another story) face less time than Mr. Lovell.

The penal code is a reflection of the values of our society, and apparently our society has chosen to really protect big corporate banks from their own mistakes. Just don’t expect the same treatment from the bank when you make a banking error. Bank of America apparently doesn’t seem keen on helping customers who make costly typos while conducting online banking. Wells Fargo is notorious for signing customers up for extra account features (and their subsequent monthly charges) without notice–meaning the consumer has to go through the time-wasting effort of getting those charges refunded and removing the extra account features by telephone. In fact, according the Ripoff Report, banks make a lot of mistakes, and often leave their consumers with the bill.

Do I think Mr. Lovell should go to prison? Not particularly. Should he give the money back, now that he knows it isn’t his? Absolutely. The burden should be on the bank to fix their own mistake. There is no reason Mr. Lovell should be held responsible. Once he was notified by the bank that an error occurred, he became responsible, but until then it is the bank’s job to figure out where the money went.

I don’t see any jury in their right mind convicting Mr. Lovell, and rightfully so. People learn from their financial mistakes the hard way, and a multi-billion dollar bank should too. And Mr. Lovell should probably do his banking elsewhere.