June 2001

Single-parent poverty
Black poverty isn't about race, says a Heritage Foundation study based on federal data. There's no difference in child poverty between black and white children in similar families and with similar levels of welfare use.

The most striking stat deals with the percentage of children who end up on welfare. Family structure is closely linked to welfare dependency.

Children of never-married mother -- 44.5 percent
Born out of wedlock to mother who later married -- 20.4 percent
Born to married parents who later divorced -- 10.7 percent
Born to married parents who stayed married -- 2.5 percent

In 1999, 68.8 percent of black children were born out of wedlock compared to 26.7 percent of white children. -- 6/4

Demographic stupidity
Ding, dong, the nuclear family is dead, claims Amy Benfer in Salon. The Census reports that only 25 percent of U.S. families include two married parents and children. Benfer declares gleefully: "The nuclear family, according to the numbers, is fast becoming a demographic oddity.'' So conservatives should stop arguing that the married-with-children family is ideal, she concludes.

Actually, most families with children are headed by married parents. Single-parent families are growing more rapidly because they're growing from a much smaller base; they are still demographically odder than two-parent families. Furthermore, most people would argue that a married couple whose children have grown up and moved out is still a nuclear family. And if the husband dies, that doesn't turn the widow into an "alternative family.''

There's no question that more children are growing up with a single parent than in the past. However common this becomes, it is not ideal. -- 6/7

Good reads
Writing in the Village Voice, Nat Hentoff eloquently makes the case that colleges should defend free expression of ideas, even if it hurts someone's feelings. Too bad the argument has to be made.

Richard Rothstein explains in the New York Times why the education bill should require matrix testing via the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and leave it to the states to decide what other tests they wish to give. It's a complex subject, lucidly explained. -- 6/7

How low can you go?
With passing scores set very low -- 60 percent for English and 55 for math -- only 45 percent of ninth graders passed California's high school graduation exam on their first try. Latinos and blacks did much worse.

Big deal. They're ninth graders. They have three years to improve their reading, writing and math skills. They can take the test eight more times before the end of senior year. The point of a high school exit exam is to give students a reason to raise their performance. And to give schools an incentive to teach kids who've been sliding through without learning enough to succeed in the real world.

The test questions are supposed to cover 9th and 10th grade skills. But many are very basic: "The box of cookies --- on the table.'' The choices are: is, are, his or its.

Math, which includes basic algebra and some geometry and statistics, is tougher. While 30 percent of students with limited English fluency passed the English test only 17 percent passed in math.

A committee made up mostly of high school teachers had recommended 70 percent as the minimum passing score; The state board of education instead took Superintendent Delaine Eastin's recommendation of 60 and 55 percent. With a 70 percent cutoff, three fourths of ninth graders would have flunked the math exam. In short, the board wimped out.

Some students will need a lot of extra help to pass the test, even with the bar set low. So let's give it to them. The alternative -- graduating students who can't read, write or calculate -- will cost a lot more. -- 6/8

Good reads
In U.S. News, John Leo demolishes the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's majority report on the Florida vote-counting. Leo concludes: "Most of what went wrong in Florida's balloting was the result of voter error, well-intentioned mistakes (like the butterfly ballot layout), and stress on the system–so many people showed up that officials had little time to advise confused voters. Trying to depict this as a conspiracy or a massive civil rights violation is a sad and dishonest business."

I loved Merle Rubin's Wall Street Journal piece on popular cliches such as "getting on with my life.'' She translates this as: "Yes, I've been selfish and cruel, and I've certainly screwed up the lives of a lot of people around me, but I'm not going to think about that. I'm going to act as if everything is OK."

"Judgmental: The bad judgment that leads to, say, overindulging in drink or drugs or cheating on a test is regularly 'contextualized' or treated with 'compassion' and 'understanding.' Meanwhile, the act of being 'judgmental' is ruthlessly condemned, judged to be nearly always unacceptable."

In my judgment, Rubin is right on. -- 6/9

Two is trendy
Just in time for Father's Day, there's good news for fans of the two-parent family. From 1995-2000, the number of children living with a single mother went down, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number living with married parents went up.

Data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey shows an especially significant change for black children: The proportion living with married parents increased from 34.8 percent to 38.9 percent; the proportion living with a single mother declined from 47.1 to 43.1 percent.

In lower-income families, Dad is making a modest comeback. Unwed mothers are more likely to live with a non-related adult -- often, but not always, with their children's father -- and single-dad families are slightly more common.

In USA Today, Wendell Primus, co-author of the report, says: "Good economic times mean that families are under less stress. Also the low teen birth rates have something to do with it. And I think there's a story connected to welfare reform. We've made benefits harder to access and made it less attractive to be a single parent."

Mickey Kaus points out that Primus "was one of three Clinton administration officials who quit when Clinton signed the welfare bill'' in 1996. John Leo agrees with Kaus that the press is reluctant to admit that welfare reform might be working or that marriage is good.

The press eagerly hyped rise-of-the-single-mom stories after a recent Census report. CBPP says the Census report looked at the whole decade of the '90s; the trend didn't turn around till 1995. In addition, the Census looked at the number of households in various categories; CBPP analyzed changes in the proportion of children in families of various types and included some kids that the Census didn't count.

Here's hoping the new trend continues. Dad matters. -- 6/16

Good reads
Michelle Cottle explains in New Republic why special education needs to be reformed -- and why Sen. Jim Jeffords' defection means reform is unlikely.

Cottle lists special ed's fatal flaws as "an expanding definition of what legally qualifies as 'disabled,' perverse incentives for schools and parents to categorize students as such, and a focus on process rather than progress (schools are judged on herding needy kids into special ed rather than seeing to it that they learn something). Worst of all, the system is rank with racial and economic bias. More money without massive reform will just make things worse.''

See also Richard Colvin's Los Angeles Times story, which explains why Head Start has done little to help disadvantaged students succeed in school. Many Head Start teachers are trained not to teach letters and numbers. The prevalent philosophy is that pre-schoolers can't learn abstract concepts, like the sound of "s.'' So the curriculum is all play and no teach. Meanwhile, of course, middle-class parents are singing the alphabet song with their toddlers and pre-schoolers, showing them how to sound out simple words and playing counting games.

In a Brookings interview, Terry Moe gives a thoughtful analysis of the public's take on school choice and voucher proposals. Moe, a Stanford political scientist and Hoover fellow, has a new book, "Schools, Vouchers and the American Public.''-- 6/18

Good reads
I never thought I'd be pro-dodgeball, but I was persuaded by Matt Labash's hilarious attack on "The New Phys Ed and the Wussification of America" in the Weekly Standard.

Any game that involves competition is now considered child abuse, Labash reports. That includes Duck, Duck, Goose and Musical Chairs as well as Kickball, which puts "the batter on display for embarrassment in front of all of the rest of the class," according to Neil Williams, an apostle of the new phys ed. Simon Says is out too. It employs "teacher deception."

This is the future, writes Labash. "For no longer is it sufficient for our mollycoddled children, raised like hothouse orchids, to attend school for mere academic instruction. They must also learn how to salve their self-esteem, to stay with the group in cooperative learning, to set the bar low, then throw themselves a party for clearing it. Nowhere will they learn this more effectively than in the New P.E."

I also recommend Gina Dalfanzo's "Where Has Jane Eyre Gone?", also in the Standard, which takes on a new book that claims beloved girls' books are instruments of patriarchal oppression. In "Good Girl Messages: How Young Women Were Misled by Their Favorite Books,'' Deborah O'Keefe argues that female readers learned from their favorite books to sit still, look good, be nice.

Dalfanzo blows the argument out of the water. "The great girls' books of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (many of them further popularized in film, television, and stage versions) are filled with active, vibrant young women notable for their moral strength. These novels celebrate character in girls and women in a way that their contemporary counterparts, filled with characters brooding over nasty boys and weight problems, seldom do."

While O'Keefe disapproves of Sara Crewe's stoicism in "The Little Princess'' -- and of her love of her father -- Dalfanzo sees Sara's character and courage. And then there's Anne Shirley, Heidi, Caddie Woodlawn, Laura Ingalls, not to mention Jane Eyre. Not a wimp in the bunch. -- 6/20

Liar, liar
David Brock built his first career by calling Anita Hill nutty and slutty. He's building his second career by calling himself a big, fat liar. In his new book, New Brock says Old Brock lied to smear Hill. He denied that Thomas had rented porn videos when an aide had revealed otherwise. The same aide also provided damaging information from Thomas about a pro-Hill witness, which Old Brock used to get her to recant, says the new man.

The aide denies he said Thomas was a porn fan and that Thomas told him to leak nasty divorce details about the witness. I don't know about the witness, but a horde of journalists tried to find evidence that Thomas had rented X-rated videos. If he was a frequent ogler, why did they fail?

Timothy Noah points up the dilemma in Slate: "The more Brock insists that he has lied, and lied, and then lied again, the more one begins to suspect Brock of being, well, a liar."

Mickey Kaus sums it up with an alleged ancient Chinese proverb:"Man who lies once for money and fame may lie again for money and fame." -- 6/27

Bad read
"Edison’s Report Card" in the July 2 Newsweek is a great example of false objectivity. The story on the for-profit school management company is subheaded: "In San Francisco, some say this experiment has failed. But its founder insists high scores are still ahead."

"Some'' means the ideologues on the San Francisco school board and a few left-wing activists, who are determined to find fault with the way Edison Schools, Inc. has turned a dirty, dangerous, dumping ground into clean, safe, academically enriched Edison Charter Academy. Higher scores are here already, especially for black and Latino students, who make up 80 percent of enrollment.

Writers Karen Breslau and Nadine Joseph take the board's line by quoting only one parent, a district employee who claims the charter's former principal "hinted" her child would be better off elsewhere after the "rambunctious'' African-American second grader was suspended repeatedly for fighting with students and with the teacher. "Rambunctious" appears to be a synonym for "violent." Before the charter, the school was considered one of the worst in the city -- in part because of student violence against classmates and staff.

Newsweek doesn't quote the school's principal or teachers, all but one of whom signed a pro-Edison petition, or current parents, more than 80 percent of whom signed the petition. The writers seem to have missed the Parents To Save Edison Charter web site and Joan Walsh's impassioned Salon article, "The Shame of San Francisco.''

Newsweek reports that Edison claims scores are rising. Others agree. A Pacific Research Institute report found "dramatic improvements in test scores.'' From1999 to 2000, "Edison Charter Academy's Academic Performance Index scores improved at a greater rate than all but two of San Francisco Unified's 73 elementary schools." African-American students improved their scores by 32 percent, the highest increase of any city school with significant black enrollment.

All the issues raised by the school district's "investigation'' refer to the former principal, an energetic but tactless woman originally assigned by the district. Edison fired her -- she returned to the district office -- and brought in Vince Matthews, a black man, who's proved very popular with teachers, parents and even the school board. Matthews solved the teacher turnover problem; nearly all will return in the fall. Complaints of bias against black students ceased.

Under Edison management, enrollment is soaring as parents choose the school -- once nearly half empty -- for its longer school day, schoolwide reading program, frequent meetings with teachers and extras like music, art and phys ed. Black enrollment has held steady, even as neighboring schools saw sharp declines. Latino enrollment is way up; the school is next to the heavily Latino Mission district. Some 80 percent of students are Latino and black; only 3 percent are white.

Despite all this, the school board trumped up phony charges from the charter's first year and tried to revoke Edison's charter. Public outcry was so strong that the board had to back down, agreeing on Monday to let Edison continue running the school under a state charter.

Edison may fail as a for-profit company. Its school design -- the longer school day and year, extensive teacher training and free computers -- is costly. So far, it's losing money. But it hasn't failed to improve education for black and Latino students in San Francisco. -- 6/28