Who would have thought that health care would charge the conservative base as much as it has?  Did Sen. DeMint's comments that this issue would be "Obama's Waterloo" mark a line in the sand for conservatives?  A rallying cry to action?  

I've been bothered consistently by the misinformation and hostility (on both sides) of individuals heralding the debate.  Health care reform, like immigration reform, is a complex issue that requires exhaustive debate and consideration.  There's no one silver bullet, and a comprehensive approach is required for meaningful restructuring.  The debate, however, is polarized and closed to informed discussion as of late.

I watched the Glen Beck show on Fox News this morning.  Beck took the audacious approach of insinuating that a comparison exists between Obama's health care reform efforts and the Nazi eugenics plan of the1930s & 1940s.  Of course, he couched his comments with a disclaimer, "I'm not calling Obama, Hitler."  But, that's similar to saying on one hand that all children deserve an opportunity to acquire a great education while on the other hand forbidding certain populations from attending great schools.  Showing pictures of Nazi Germany in the context of Obama's advisers leads to clear insinuations- insinuations that are demeaning, disrespectful, and dangerous.

One of the guests on Beck's show was a law professor who currently teaches at Notre Dame's law school.  Beck attempted to explain that an  “emergency situation based on devalued currency" would cause Obama's health care plan to ration care to 15-40 year olds, thereby excluding coverage for the handicapped, elderly, and infants.  The show was premised on the problems associated with discriminatory health care coverage.  My question: isn't that the exact thing that private health insurance companies do to people with pre-existing diseases? 

I wanted to know how an intellectual, such as Glen Beck guest O.C. Snead, could feel comfortable ignoring this critical point.  Doesn't Beck's argument against discriminatory coverage, in fact, support Obama's plan?  Providing a public option so that all may have access to basic levels of health care avoids the very problem created by our privately-dominated health insurance market.

So, I decided to write Mr. Snead an email to see what he had to say.  I'll update if I hear a response.  Here's what I asked:

SUBJECT: Please Explain Private Health Insurance Actuaries

Mr. Snead:

I am a rising 3L at Maryland Law School.  I recently watched your appearance on the Glen Beck show.  I wonder, as a member of the legal profession, as a law professor, and as a rational person, how do health insurance companies not ration?  Isn't it because private insurance companies do ration coverage that a public plan would cover a certain constituency?  

I am sure that your are an incredibly intelligent person, but I desperately wonder why you didn't bring up this point on the air?  The entire show was based on rationing... exactly what private insurance companies do (e.g., failure to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions).  Where is the intellectual rigor to engage in informed debate?  Do you sincerely agree with the scare tactics and misdirection that Glen Beck employed?

I would genuinely appreciate your response.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Bill Ferguson 

 

Wrote this yesterday to the President of the Canton Community Association.  He had handed me a flier about a faction of the community association's opposition to the above-ground portion of the Red Line in Canton.  I decided to look more into the issue, and here is my final conclusion.

Hi Darryl:
 
I hope you're well.  After reading the pamphlet you gave me last Thursday, I started to really consider the Red Line issue.  I was generally leaning in favor of it, but I didn't consider it all that much.  Your passion about the issue suggested that I should become more knowledgable.  I wanted to write this to you because I deeply respect your opinion and thoughts.
 
First, I absolutely see and understand your fundamental issues.  My problem - though, as it often is now that I've spent too many years in law school - is that I didn't feel equipped with sufficient facts to "pick a side," so to speak.  I genuinely believe that emotional decisions tend to result in irrational outcomes, and positions grounded in facts often yield more productive conclusions.  Namely, I read on the sheet: (1) RL will increase traffic, (2) cut off communities, (3) block waterfront access, (4) only other example is Howard St., (5) hurt businesses, (6) lower property values.  These are serious accusations. 
 
But, my instinct led me to think that the claims were unsubstantiated.  From personal experience, I found myself thinking: (1) the purpose of mass transit is to decrease traffic b/c people will ride into downtown w/ a reliable system = less cars = less traffic; (2) how would a two-car light rail car cut off community access any more than rush hour traffic does so now on Boston St. - couldn't there be a foot bridge like other major cities, if needed at all?; (3) we're talking about a two-car train here, not some massive wall, so how would access to waterfront get cut off?; (4) Howard St. is a terrible example - I've been to Houston and seen other LRT systems and they're incredible - the Howard St one is old and doesn't adopt new technologies; (5) I think I would explore more businesses with a light-rail system, especially one above-ground because I could view places I hadn't noticed before while driving and wouldn't have to find parking; (6) I'd personally pay more for a house near mass transit, not less - additionally, growing up in Montgomery County, I saw developments skyrocket near above-ground metro stations (as exist near where I grew up past the Montrose area).  Ultimately, though, these were all hunches, and they were not based on facts.  So, I decided to investigate and become more knowledgable about the subject.
 
My conclusion: I think you're on the wrong side of this issue.  Honestly, nearly every single scholarly article and newspaper article I could find discussed the ultimate benefits to new mass transit systems, particularly those built above-ground.  I couldn't believe it.  Nearly every study essentially presented solid evidence that led to opposite conclusions as portrayed on the sheet you provided on Thursday.  While I completely understand your sentiment, I don't think the objective facts weigh heavily on the side pushing against the red line.  I've always been a general mass transit supporter, and I've generally supported Mayor Dixon's initiatives, but this conclusion is completely independent (and maybe self-interested because of the property value issue).  I've posted some quotations from some of the scholarly and less-scholarly reports I came across so that you can see where I'm getting this opinion.
 
Overall, I truly respect your efforts and your beliefs.  After doing some intense research, though, I cannot support your cause.  I wanted to be as up front and honest with you as possible so that you'd understand where I'm coming from.  I'd love to hear your thoughts about this when you have a moment.  Thanks for reading this, Darryl.
 
--Bill Ferguson
 
Light-rail can turn into money train - Margaret Jackson, The Denver Post (October 30, 2008)

• "Homes near light-rail stations along the southeast line [in Denver], which opened in November 2006, have increased by an average of nearly 4 percent over the past two years, according to an analysis by Your Castle Real Estate. But the rest of the Denver market declined an average of 7.5 percent."
• "The closer a home is to the station, the more its value increases, according to the Your Castle analysis. Homes less than a half-mile from a station increased an average of 17.6 percent, while those 1 1/2 to 2 miles away increased just 0.1 percent on average."
• "In other markets with rail lines, single-family home values have increased anywhere from 2 percent in San Diego to 32 percent in St. Louis, according to data gathered by the Regional Transit District."

New Rail Lines Spur Urban Revival - Amy Cortese, New York Times (June 13, 2009)

• "Many cities are inspired by the success of Denver; Charlotte, N.C.; Portland, Ore.; Salt Lake City and others in combining transit and development to revitalize downtowns and suburbs."
• "Along the rail line [of Denver's above-ground light rail transit system], mixed-use communities have sprouted, such as Stapleton, a $5 billion development on the site of the former Stapleton International Airport, which closed in 1995. Shops and restaurants in downtown Denver are lively long after the workday has ended, and neighborhoods like Central Platte Valley, just northwest of downtown, are still being developed."
• "[Shelley Poticha, the president of Reconnecting America] said proximity to public transit could raise property values significantly."
• "[C]ity participation [in transit development] may help developers raise funds in a tight market, while the investment can both raise tax revenue for the city and attract employers and young professionals."

Transportation, housing costs go together - Arizona Daily Star (June 7, 2009)

• "[Scott] Bernstein [president of Center for Neighborhood Technology] said CNT has observed that, without fail, when new public transit is built, then both households and jobs relocate along the spine of the route. Property values improve, as well, he said."

Public Transit Ridership Up, Investing in Upgrades Could Create Over 300,000 Jobs - Environmental & Energy Study Institute (June 2009)

• "A 2004 study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) found that every $1.25 billion spent on public transit creates approximately 51,300 jobs, while the same expenditure on roads and bridges would create 43,200 jobs."

Reunifying the Wharf - Rick Laubscher, Market Street Railway (June 20, 2009)

• "Bottom line, though, the F-line [San Francisco's above-ground transit system] has made it easier and more attractive for people to reach the Wharf. At least part of it."
• "Now, wharf merchants [along the above-ground transit system's route] unanimously support the F-line and are calling for additional service to handle the demand, which at 23,000 daily riders is way beyond Muni predictions."

Found myself feeling rather defensive about posters comments re: Teach for America.  Sat for 25 minutes and threw out a defense - found on InsideEd posting about Baltimore City's increase in Teach for America teachers in 2010:

I know I shouldn't engage here, but I feel obligated to address a few points. You do clearly have a perspective about TFA, but I think you may be over-simplifying the organization. Would it be fair to say that every teacher at X school is ineffective because many of them are? Is it fair to say that a non-profit in 32 (I think) cities operates the exact same way even though each one has a different executive director and program staff? Is it fair to think that a 5-week professional development program has the capability of completely breaking down individuality for individuals who have demonstrated an ability lead in their undergrad careers? If your answer is yes to all of these questions, then I understand your premise. If not, I think it's a bit too generalized to make such bold claims about a huge cohort of individuals, each of whom have their own styles, hopes, career paths, callings, etc.

Many take on TFA careers afterwards? There are 4-5 program director positions, and maybe 4 TFA career jobs after the 2-year commitment. Of a class of 95, assuming that every job gets filled by a post-two-year corps member from a city, that means about 8.4% go on to a TFA career track. I think it's difficult to say that's "most."

In your comments you make it seem as though each corps member has intimate knowledge about the inner-workings of the organization. I don't think this is true, this coming from a corps member who has no idea how TFA operates on a national scale.

I can't tell you how many TFA emails I get as an alumnus that urge us to consider opportunities in school leadership (as a teacher-leader, assistant principal, counselor, or principal). The alumni magazine is completely filled with advertisements of schools trying to attract alumni to teach , not to oversee other TFA teachers. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.

Looking at TFA in the teaching-only realm completely misses the point of the organization. I've written this before, so sorry for the duplication, but TFA admits (1) it's not the solution, (2) teacher retention is critical to sustainable ed reform, and (3) the educational achievement gap is too significant for educators to address it in a silo. The only way that major school reform will take place will be if many, many sectors turn their attention to education to make it a national priority. This takes policy makers, lawyers, doctors, community activists, non-profit operators, construction developers, scientists, etc to accomplish. The mission is not, "Every school will have great teachers." Rather (and unfortunately I know this phrase all too well), the mission is, "One day all children will have the opportunity to have an excellent education." That takes great teachers, but it also takes money, political will, great facilities, good health care, technological integration and development, and many other advancements. A person limits TFA's mission by evaluating the two-year teaching commitment alone.

What evidence do you have that TFA manipulates data? Individual teachers? The WHOLE ENTIRE organization fabricates data? Independent researchers not funded in any way by TFA sources are collectively involved in this conspiracy to only provide good numbers?

Data is important for all teachers, first year and beyond. Sometimes it is overwhelming, and TFA's mission pushes corps members to adopt the need to motivate/engage students to achieve at least 1.5 grade levels in one year, assuming that the majority of students being taught are at least 2 years behind their more affluent peers. To know whether this is happening, data is critical. Challenge the process and the data-collection methods, but challenging the need for data seems a bit misguided if we're willing to admit that students in rural and urban districts are generally in fact at least 2 years behind their peers who attend public schools in more affluent zip codes.

I really think it's a shame that you think TFA degrades the profession. TFA is failing if that's the message embraced by the majority of those not affiliated with the organization. However, given endorsements by the newly elected President, the U.S. Secretary of Education, many superintendents, and significant numbers of principals in Baltimore, I think that impression is not widely held. There's no question, I could be completely wrong. And if I am, TFA and it's corps members are failing.

TFA's mission/curriculum goes to great lengths to challenge assumptions corps members may have coming into the organization about race, diversity, poverty, generational gaps, etc. No question, it could do better, but it absolutely does not "teach[] members to believe that veteran teachers [] don't care about children." In fact, corps members are strongly encouraged to engage veteran teachers to learn from them and their more rich experiences. Because a few corps members may choose not to do so does not mean that the organization as a whole subscribes to the ideas you've conveyed (sorry for the double-negative).

Quick fact addressing the race issue: TFA was the single biggest employer of Spelman College graduates this year. Similar was the case for a number of other HBCUs in 2009. Say what you will about the racial diversity of the organization, but this fact alone should lead credence to the idea that the organization relentlessly pursues a diverse corps.

Should TFA not empower its members to believe that they can have a part of a mission to affect educational reform? What would you rather the organization do? Tell them education is a lost cause, do what you can for 2 years, and get out? The fact that the organization does empower corps members, and keeps tack of them after the two year commitment, I believe, is evidence that the organization hopes to keep focus on a problem that can be addressed (and, I don't think it requires a revolution - it just requires an incredible amount of attention, dedication, and major shift in national priorities).

TFA is not at all perfect, and it's not the end-all. It's a lever that's helping to nudge public attention to major educational problems in our country. It won't be the remedy, but it will be a powerful force in influencing reform agendas.

Could it be more effective? Yes. Does it constantly reform itself as an institution to strive to do so? Absolutely. The data isn't used merely to increase corp members' placement locations, it's used to change the organizational structure and mechanisms - for instance, from what I hear institute this upcoming summer is significantly different (and better) than it was for me in 2005 (this knowledge comes from a friend/alumnus who taught at Calverton for 2 years and KIPP one year and who's using the Baltimore experiences he acquired to revise the national institute curriculum to address some of the issues you've mentioned).

It's a shame that you don't like the organization (I don't want to put words in your mouth), but I hope a few things I've written slightly broaden your perspective as to the purpose of the organization.

I wrote way too much, sorry. Clearly, I think TFA has a place in ed reform, even if I agree that externalities to its expansion may result.

My take on InsideEd regarding the Sun's recent procedure to terminate journalists:

I hate to use this positive forum as a speaking point, but I figure people are looking at this thread. I stumbled across this link (http://bit.ly/dXl0g) about the inappropriate management decisions/procedures by The Sun's operators, and I wanted to share it with InsideEd readers.

The economy is a mess, and tough decisions are necessary. But there's a way to handle corporate decisions, and this operating procedure falls significantly below any imaginable duty of care owed to dedicated journalists.

The Sun's writers are instrumental in keeping citizens of this community aware of critical issues and local news. We rely on their professionalism and tireless efforts to enable an informed populace. Their efforts are necessary to sustain a healthy and stable democracy. They have accepted this responsibilty and bare it with each daily contribution to the news cycle.

The Sun owes their journalists more than a phone call while on assignment when deciding to terminate an employee. I am appalled by the sheer audacity of the lack of professionalism.

Again, I want to reiterate, I understand that businesses need to make tough decisions, but the blind adherence to the bottom line does not justify the procedure used to square the balance sheet.

I'm sure there may be some here that want to respond that this comment may seem hypocritical after the City Schools let many people go. The difference, I believe, is the process. Of course I don't know how it worked for school employees, but I hope beyond all hopes that the organization I work for was more respectful to personal hurt that accompanies a termination decision. Regardless, this is about The Sun, not the City Schools.

I have heard that Sun journalists are going on a byline strike tomorrow - withholding their names from articles and not communicating on Sun forums for which their names would be displayed. I think this is a commendable decision, and I pray that the same Sun managers who operated in such a negligent fashion during the last round of cuts recognize their employees' clear dissatisfaction with the lack of business professionalism. Should The Sun's management chose to retaliate against The Sun's writers who participate, I promise that this paying subscriber will no longer continue to be one, and I will urge my friends in Baltimore to do the same. Here's to David against Goliath.

Today was the first full-day of interviews for the Network candidates for the City Schools.  I'm not exactly sure of the total number, but it was a fair amount.  The experience was incredibly motivating - there are some absolutely awesome people that are interested in serving in leadership roles.  The City Schools absolutely will benefit from these individuals' expertise, motivation, diversity, and willingness to be a part of this new process for the district.

With that said, there were a few discouraging moments at the end of the day.  The central office has a clear divide among those who are new and those who are less new.  I imagine this is the state of bureaucracy in most government offices.  However, in the City Schools, the gap is wide, and the constituencies' desires and priorities are very different.  The discussion of potential candidates couldn't have made that more clear.  Ultimately, I desperately hope that we get all of the great individuals into the system.  If a balance is necessary, then fine, but this is an important opportunity to nudge the ship in the right direction.

Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake met tonight with TFA alums to discuss her views on education and the future of the Teach for America movement in Baltimore City.  TFA sponsored the evening to springboard into its new plan to encourage more social and political activism amongst its corps in the City.  TFA clearly wants alums to start running for office, and this was the first big push to make the request overtly public (in Baltimore at least).  Overall, pretty decent event with a large turnout.  We'll see what comes of it.

Starting this new site.  We'll see how it goes.

Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.