Kay and I drove on Thursday from our home in Durham to a funeral in Charlotte, the funeral of an amazing woman I had known for forty-five years (though I didn't realize fully how amazing she was until I heard the testimonials at the funeral).
Here's how I got to know Sarah Tucker:
In the mid-sixties I spent four years as the program director for an ambitious project in a low-income school in Charlotte. The mandate of the program was to select the most promising seventh-graders in six successive classes, work with them in a variety of ways, and prepare them for college. (I've written in more detail about this elsewhere.)
Carlene was one of that first group, and I soon got to know her mother, Sarah. I learned that Sarah was young (just six years older than I) and had been widowed for several years. She had seven small children and no job skills, not even a high school diploma. She was working as a domestic. Realizing that she could not earn enough to provide adequately for her children, she completed her GED and took a secretarial course, which prepared her for a higher-paying job. Then, a couple of years later, having somehow discovered what she really wanted to do, she went back to school again for nursing training, and got into the field she worked in for the rest of her working career. And of course she had to get all this schooling evenings and whenever she wasn't out earning a living.
This was potentially a recipe for disaster for her children -- seven kids at home, no adult supervision, all kinds of attractive trouble outside the home.
But it didn't happen. In a community where half the kids dropped out of school and many got in trouble with the law, every one of her children graduated. Why? She was both loving and firm. She let her kids know that she loved them and had confidence in their worth and their ability. And she laid down the law: "You will go to school every day. You will do your best in school. And you will graduate from high school." I'm not sure if she ever spelled out what she would do if any of the kids broke any of these rules, but I'm sure none of them ever wanted to find out.
So all seven graduated. Most went to college. Two became ministers. One completed a doctorate and became a clinical psychologist. And in later years -- as I learned at the funeral -- when several grandchildren were in danger of getting themselves into serious trouble and ruining their futures, they at various times came to stay with Grandma for a number of months. And they responded to her mix of praise ande support and confidence-boosting, and they turned their lives around -- as they emphatically and emotionally told the two hundred mourners at the funeral.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Restore the Economy by Jobs and Education
All predictions say that even though the recession is technically over, unemployment will decline only slowly and over several years. Since -- as has been pointed out -- 10% of the population controls some 90% of the investment market, that 10% may be quite comfortable with the status quo, but for the other 90% of us the situation is at least worrisome and, for the 10% who are jobless, the outlook is just plain bleak.
It may be necessary to continue to pump money into Wall Street and big corporations and the like, but none of this has much immediate effect on the jobless.
There has been talk about job creation, but I have heard little emanating from Washington that sounds as though it will do much anytime soon, and what I've heard doesn't sound like a comprehensive coherent plan.
Here's my proposal:
First, some self-evident facts:
1) We are going to have to subsidize the unemployed for a long time.
2) The unemployed, for the most part, have lots of available time.
3) There is much work that needs doing in this country, including a) building/repairing/ upgrading facilities in national, state, and local parks and other public facilities; improving streets, highways, and bridges; building mass-transit (train, streetcar, and bus) roadbeds and rolling stock; c) upgrading the electric grid and transmission facilities; d) developing, manufacturing, and installing alternative power equipment -- solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
4) We are going to need more, and more highly trained, workers for a vast range of technologically advanced fields in the future: alternative power, medical technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and many others.
I would put all these indisputable facts together in this way:
Instead of just providing unemployment checks, let's offer most recipients two alternatives:
1) You can go back to school to learn some advanced skills. Government will put lots more money into paying stipends to those who want to improve their skills -- and perhaps the stipends will be bigger than the unemployment schecks. And while several million unemployed ate back in school, hundreds of thousands of teachers (who might be unemployed scientists and engineers) will also be given employment. And when the recession is truly over, and jobs are again plentiful, there will be a large workforce available of people with new high-tech skills.
2) Or you can move into any of a range of WPA or CCC type jobs: The government will pay wages for people who are available for relatively low-skill jobs improving the nation's infrastructure and public facilities. Many state and local governments have lists of "shovel-ready" jobs, some of which are already being done with stimulus finds. (Or if private companies need a boost to do many of the tasks suggested in (3) above, government might supplement wages, sort of like older OJT -- on-the-job-training -- programs.)
The advantages of this approach to the unemployment situation should be clear. Roughly the same amount of money would be spent, but this way it would produce improvements to the nation's infrastructure and facilities, and it would train a workforce for future jobs.
It may be necessary to continue to pump money into Wall Street and big corporations and the like, but none of this has much immediate effect on the jobless.
There has been talk about job creation, but I have heard little emanating from Washington that sounds as though it will do much anytime soon, and what I've heard doesn't sound like a comprehensive coherent plan.
Here's my proposal:
First, some self-evident facts:
1) We are going to have to subsidize the unemployed for a long time.
2) The unemployed, for the most part, have lots of available time.
3) There is much work that needs doing in this country, including a) building/repairing/ upgrading facilities in national, state, and local parks and other public facilities; improving streets, highways, and bridges; building mass-transit (train, streetcar, and bus) roadbeds and rolling stock; c) upgrading the electric grid and transmission facilities; d) developing, manufacturing, and installing alternative power equipment -- solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
4) We are going to need more, and more highly trained, workers for a vast range of technologically advanced fields in the future: alternative power, medical technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and many others.
I would put all these indisputable facts together in this way:
Instead of just providing unemployment checks, let's offer most recipients two alternatives:
1) You can go back to school to learn some advanced skills. Government will put lots more money into paying stipends to those who want to improve their skills -- and perhaps the stipends will be bigger than the unemployment schecks. And while several million unemployed ate back in school, hundreds of thousands of teachers (who might be unemployed scientists and engineers) will also be given employment. And when the recession is truly over, and jobs are again plentiful, there will be a large workforce available of people with new high-tech skills.
2) Or you can move into any of a range of WPA or CCC type jobs: The government will pay wages for people who are available for relatively low-skill jobs improving the nation's infrastructure and public facilities. Many state and local governments have lists of "shovel-ready" jobs, some of which are already being done with stimulus finds. (Or if private companies need a boost to do many of the tasks suggested in (3) above, government might supplement wages, sort of like older OJT -- on-the-job-training -- programs.)
The advantages of this approach to the unemployment situation should be clear. Roughly the same amount of money would be spent, but this way it would produce improvements to the nation's infrastructure and facilities, and it would train a workforce for future jobs.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Bill O'Reilly -- Secrets of Success
I've just read most of a new book, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," by right-wing commentator Bill O'Reilly (I hope that's the right way to characterize him). The book was given to me by my very right-wing father-in-law, perhaps with the hope that it would help to straighten out my thinking.
Interestingly, I agreed with many of Bill's beliefs -- in justice and fair play, for instance.
But as I read on (and on and on), I realized what Bill's blind spot was. His implicit (and sometimes explicit) argument throughout this childhood-memoir-as-polemic is: "I didn't start out with any advantages, and I made it, so anyone can." He often compares himself with his classmates at various educational levels, classmates who came from wealthy and socially prominent families. He harps on the fact that he had none of their advantages going for him.
Ergo, he's saying, any kid from the slums, any kid from a broken family, any abused child of alcoholic or drug-using parents, has no excuse for not striving and becoming a success.
So where's the blind spot? Right here: Again and again, Bill tells of his somewhat cold and unsympathetic father, who, when Bill came crying to him about some mistreatment at the hands of other kids, would tell him, "Don't come crying to me. Get out there and fix it yourself." And he talks about the nuns at the parochial schools where he got his early education -- they were tough, and their educational and disciplinary techniques may have been questionable, but they set tough standards and demanded that kids live up to them.
(It's a little ironic that as Bill talks about his first teaching job in Florida, he criticizes most of his fellow teachers for failing to set up the sorts of expectations he sets up for his students; he feels that most of the faculty disliked him as much as he disliked them, because he was willing to be tough and they weren't. But he fails to recognize that the majority of students have missed out on something he had and which he as a teacher was trying to instill.)
So Bill, even if he lacked material advantages, had the indispensable advantages of self-reliance, self-confidence, discipline, and high standards. And, though he can claim credit for retaining and using these characteristics, he cannot claim to have invented or discovered them on his own. In his life were some powerful influences -- without which he would almost certainly have amounted to nothing.
The moral: It's not, as Bill accuses liberals of, to coddle criminals and bums because they didn't have the advantages. It's not to overlook criminality and laziness. No. But our moral obligation is to do everything in our power -- as individuals and and as a society -- to create learning environments (and to improve parenting) so that every young person acquires values -- and motivation -- similar to that which inspired Bill O'Reilly to strive, to compete, and to succeed in life.
Interestingly, I agreed with many of Bill's beliefs -- in justice and fair play, for instance.
But as I read on (and on and on), I realized what Bill's blind spot was. His implicit (and sometimes explicit) argument throughout this childhood-memoir-as-polemic is: "I didn't start out with any advantages, and I made it, so anyone can." He often compares himself with his classmates at various educational levels, classmates who came from wealthy and socially prominent families. He harps on the fact that he had none of their advantages going for him.
Ergo, he's saying, any kid from the slums, any kid from a broken family, any abused child of alcoholic or drug-using parents, has no excuse for not striving and becoming a success.
So where's the blind spot? Right here: Again and again, Bill tells of his somewhat cold and unsympathetic father, who, when Bill came crying to him about some mistreatment at the hands of other kids, would tell him, "Don't come crying to me. Get out there and fix it yourself." And he talks about the nuns at the parochial schools where he got his early education -- they were tough, and their educational and disciplinary techniques may have been questionable, but they set tough standards and demanded that kids live up to them.
(It's a little ironic that as Bill talks about his first teaching job in Florida, he criticizes most of his fellow teachers for failing to set up the sorts of expectations he sets up for his students; he feels that most of the faculty disliked him as much as he disliked them, because he was willing to be tough and they weren't. But he fails to recognize that the majority of students have missed out on something he had and which he as a teacher was trying to instill.)
So Bill, even if he lacked material advantages, had the indispensable advantages of self-reliance, self-confidence, discipline, and high standards. And, though he can claim credit for retaining and using these characteristics, he cannot claim to have invented or discovered them on his own. In his life were some powerful influences -- without which he would almost certainly have amounted to nothing.
The moral: It's not, as Bill accuses liberals of, to coddle criminals and bums because they didn't have the advantages. It's not to overlook criminality and laziness. No. But our moral obligation is to do everything in our power -- as individuals and and as a society -- to create learning environments (and to improve parenting) so that every young person acquires values -- and motivation -- similar to that which inspired Bill O'Reilly to strive, to compete, and to succeed in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)