3332 My letter to Oprah
My husband suggested I turn on the Oprah show--she was doing a program on "class." I watched a few minutes (it was a rerun of an April show), but couldn't handle the twaddle of Robert Reich, Clinton's former Secretary of Labor. Her web site summarizes his thoughts:Reich "says that a family's ability to provide their children with a quality education, health care and access to other resources determines one's class. "A lot of kids who are poor or working class are not getting the schools that they need and are not having the connections and the models of success that they need."
He notes three indicators of class: "weight, teeth and dialect. In terms of appearance, people who are overweight or have poor teeth are generally regarded as lower class."
I didn’t see the part about teeth but did hear him saying they (lower class and poor) aren't getting good schools. That's been proven false by putting lower class district children into stunning new schools with incredible technology. New bricks don't turn out new scholars. Old values and concerned parents do. Poor families who take the initiative to get their kids into charter schools benefit in the long run. Immigrant Vietnamese and other Asians and even some immigrant Mexicans have managed to move their families into the middle class by hard work and strong family values, not good teeth and good schools.
Here’s my letter to Oprah.
I was disappointed in your "class" show because of the misinformation Robert Reich presented.
The growing gap is not between classes, but between families of married couples and unmarried women with children. Women can virtually eliminate poverty by 1) finishing high school, 2) not having babies as teen-agers, and 3) marrying the father of their children. If her husband takes a job, any job and keeps it, he will almost guarantee their success.
There is still plenty of opportunity in this country--illegals who flood over our borders seeking it is proof of that. But young women need to get smart and stop listening to musicians and boyfriends who call them "Ho" and "bitch" and get down to the business of saving their future children with some backbone and pride.
Maybe you could also open a school for girls here in the U.S.
Source update: William Galston, a Democratic strategist and former domestic affairs adviser to President Clinton is usually acknowledged as the source of the statistics on the relationship between poverty, education and marriage. See James Q. Wilson, City Journal, Why we don't marry. The original Galston source doesn’t seem to be on-line, but every one quotes him. You can look through his bibliography--may be co-authored with Kamarck.
Source update: Kansas City--money and school performance, Cato Policy Analysis . "The lessons of the Kansas City experiment should stand as a warning to those who would use massive funding and gold-plated buildings to encourage integration and improve education."
Robert Reich
Oprah show
poverty
marriage
Posts
6 comments:
I agree with you except for the last sentence. Did you hear Oprah's reasoning for opening a school in Africa, and not America? She said that when she went to American inner city schools and asked the kids what they needed to succeed, they told her ipods and named the latest high-dollar sneaker. When she asked that to kids in Africa, they wanted uniforms that would allow them to attend school. The kids in Africa just wanted a chance to go to school, whereas the American kids gave her a Santa's list of things they "needed" to succeed in American schools. Her tone of voice was one of disgust. I don't blame her for opening a school for kids who just want to go to school, any school.
Robert Reich has always been and will always be a moron. I don't care how many degrees the man has.
I didn't realize she had asked American students, but that doesn't mean you give them what they ask for, you give them what they need.
She did help the inner city kids here (somewhere in Chicago I believe). That's when they told her they want the ipods, designer clothes, etc. Some of the kids who tried to learn would go home and get beat up by other kids in the neighborhood or family members for turning their backs on their race, so they'd quit. She tried it here and it just didn't work. The kids felt entitled to more than just an education. And they wanted it all handed to them on a silver platter. Sad really, but that is how our society views things.
America is doomed. Doomed, doomed. :(
To help clarify your point of view, could you please reference some sources? I'm curious about the widespread building of new, high-tech schools for inner city youth that you described. That's certainly the first I've heard of it.
I'd also like to point out that the "women" to whom you refer (you say they simply need to graduate high school, stop having babies and (somehow also) marry the fathers of their children) are actually GIRLS. Children or teenagers. Kids whose parents probably aren't taking an active role in their lives due to the challenge of working two or three low-paying jobs.
I don't have any sweeping statistics, but I do know a couple of single mothers who, due to their middle and upper class roots, are highly educated and making a good living. I can't imagine there are too many rich families with kids who've dropped out of high school. It's just not considered an option for them. Do you think that if a teenage girl from a wealthy family gets pregnant, she ends up living in poverty? That is exactly what you are implying. And it's just plain off the mark.
Also, I think that Robert Reich is a compassionate genius who genuinely cares about people in need. In fact, he's dedicated his life to being their advocate. Why you'd carry such disdain for someone like that is really amazing to me.
Let's open a dialogue.
Amber
Amber--It's a huge mistake to ask a librarian to cite her sources--because we can do it. It's also a mistake to call me wrong, because I'll walk all over that one.
However, knowing this is an ideological difference, not a misreading of the facts, I will tell you that my original source is taken from a 1990s gov't report by a member of Clinton's cabinet. I cite it often here at this blog because the simplicity and common sense of it is just amazing. His research, done by staff I assume, was from sifting through reports on root causes of poverty done at our expense. Government has failed time and again where personal responsibility and dignity has succeeded.
As far as new bricks = not better students, those reports are out there too, but the one that comes to mind I think was in Kansas City--I watched a program about it on TV. Fabulous architecture, all the latest technology, swimming pool, gym, every imaginable perk a kid could want, and the test scores didn't budge. On the other hand, when inner city or poor parents care and are given vouchers to move their children to schools with high standards and strict discipline, the type of building makes no difference--the kids succeed. Parents who care + high standards in the school will win every time. Without parental involvement, it is terribly hard to make the educational system work. Teachers' unions are not going to let this happen (vouchers) because they'd have to admit their methods are failing.
Post a Comment