Our friend Michael McShane had a recent op-ed in the Kansas City Star that dishes out some tough McLovin to the Kansas City School District for fudging their dropout rates in order to make them look better. 

KC School District’s dropout rate doesn’t add up

As a parent, I’ve never been a huge Santa fan.  I do a lot of research and make a lot of  exhausting trips to the stores during Christmas to track down the items that will make my children happy come Christmas morning, and it’s always annoyed me that the guy in the red suit gets all the credit.

But the whole Santa enterprise got a lot more annoying this year.  During a trip to the Northwest Arkansas Mall, I discovered that parents are no longer allowed to take their own pictures of their kids sitting on Santa’s lap.

Obviously the mall and the guy in the red suit deserve to be compensated.  But, in the past, that compensation has always been indirect: The mall provides a Santa, I visit the mall as a result, and I inevitably spend some money while I am there.  I thought that was the deal.  And, if I want to snap a picture with my own little point-and-shoot camera that fits into my pocket, so what?  The lunch I bought my whole family at the food court should cover the 30 seconds my son spent with Santa.

Given how long this Christmas-time transaction has been implicit at malls, I was mildly annoyed (though not as annoyed as most of the parents I encountered) when I found that the Northwest Arkansas Mall was prohibiting parents from taking their own photos of their children with Santa.

I might have easily dismissed this act as yet another sign of the struggling economy and respected the tough decision the mall managers had to make.  That is, if myself and every other shopper hadn’t been insulted in the process.  Here is the sign the Santa Plus company had posted at the Santa Line:

Now, I would have had no problem with a straightforward sign that spelled out the policy.  Heck, I would have admired a brutally honest sign that said something like “your kids have snot noses and we’re trying to make a living here, so no personal cameras are allowed, Bub.”  But to cite safety?! If you’ve ever doubted how stupid some retailers think we are, you should make a mental note to never doubt again.  That is, unless you think a bit of Allspark might be loose in your local mall and could turn your camera into a killing machine.

And, in case you’re wondering how much they were charging for photos:  The cheapest item a parent could buy was a single 5×7 for $14.99, and the prices went up from there.  At these prices, you’d be better off buying your own Santa suit.

This is probably the last year Santa will be a part of my Christmas, simply because my kids are getting too old.  But I expect annoying policies like this one will cause a lot of other parents to reconsider whether or not this whole Santa business is even worth it.  I also think that retailers at the mall will eventually suffer as a result.

I would advise other parents to do what I did this year.  If the people who wrote that sign truly think that people are that stupid, then oblige them and play along.  I acted like I couldn’t even read when I pulled out my own camera and took my own picture of my son sitting on Santa’s lap.

We don’t actually have technical difficulties, but we’ll be taking a break from the interweb to enjoy the holidays.  You should quit wasting your time reading silly blogs and do the same! In the meantime, here’s a fun holiday video.

I’m glad the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers won the right to have their solstice exhibit displayed on the grounds of the state capitol. We are all fond of expressing our love for freedom, but sometimes we forget that freedom can be messy.  It can lead to dissonance and it can make people uncomfortable.  But the cost of removing that dissonance far outweighs the benefit.

If there’s one thing that’s clear about the bickering down in Little Rock, it’s that the reactions of people against the Freethinkers validate the actions of the Freethinkers.  The mere fact that people can get so bent out of shape when their monopoly on public space is threatened  is reason enough to threaten it.  I doubt that the Freethinkers would care to erect their own monument if they weren’t so appalled that so many forces were opposed to them exercising their right.

Disputes over public displays of religion are usually resolved in two ways.  Public displays can become areas where any form of expression is excluded, or areas where anything can be included.  Either nobody wins, or everybody wins.  The Freethinkers chose the latter approach, and it’s the right approach.  They didn’t attempt to remove any acts of expression, they simply insisted that they be given the same opportunity to be included.  It would be nice if their opponents extended them the same courtesy.

Nobody who is confident in their beliefs should be afraid to let their views freely compete in the marketplace of ideas.  The history of free ideas exemplifies the greatest example of a meritocracy that humans have ever achieved.  Good ideas  grow and flourish, and bad ideas whither and die.  And if you’re as right as you think you are, there’s nothing to worry about.

Of course, inclusion can have it’s drawbacks.  In an article where The Economist reported on the display in Little Rock, they accounted a similar chain of events:

The Arkansas Freethinkers do not want the Little Rock Nativity scene removed. They simply want the state to set up a “free-speech zone” and let them be part of it, along with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. “The holiday is big enough to accommodate everyone,” says Tod Billings, a Freethinker.

Some say that this will lead to chaos. In Olympia, Washington, the capitol’s all-inclusive free-speech zone became hopelessly overcrowded. Even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster mounted a display. This year the state has banned the lot. The only evidence of the holidays? An evergreen tree in the capitol’s rotunda. It’s definitely not a Christmas tree, mind.

Too bad.  I would’ve liked to have seen that Spaghetti Monster display.

On a related note, in an attempt to make fun of the Freethinkers, Arkansas blogger Jason Tolbert requested and got permission to add a Festivus display to the mix.  Word is, however, that he is chickening out and doesn’t plan on delivering the Festivus pole after all.

Come on, Jason, we all want to see you and the Freethinkers engage in a good old fashioned airing of grievances before one of you is pinned in the annual feats of strength!

UPDATE: The Dem-Gaz reported some good and bad developments about this issue today.  The bad: Rep. John Lowery, D-El Dorado, who is against the Freethinker’s display, called for the Arkansas Legislative Council to denounce the federal court’s ruling.  Lowery says he is “fearful,” and that “History tells us when this is allowed to happen in high places by people in authority this is what happens: Societies become chaotic, economies collapse and nations are taken over by other nations.” He added that lawmakers would be “cursed” if they didn’t voice their objections.  Too bad he didn’t provide any examples of the chaos and collapse he is referring to, because history seems to tell us the opposite.  There are many examples of societies that have collapsed when the state has the sole power to dictate one version of state sponsored truth.  On the other hand, governments that allow for greater economic and social freedom have flourished.  Someone should get Rep. Lowery a history book for Christmas.

The good:  Rep. Nancy Blount, D- Marianna, voted “no” on the resolution.  Blount said she was a Christian who believed in free speech: ” I think people ought to have the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in. The Constitution says we are allowed to do that.  We say we will uphold the Constitution when we are sworn in.  We would be double-talking to then turn around and say we were against the Constitution.”  Well said, Ms. Blount.

I know we’ve been talking a lot ( too much) about charter schools and the situation in Little Rock lately, but the editorial in Monday’s Dem-Gaz packed such a punch that it deserves a mention, especially because I don’t think it ran in the Northwest edition.  Here are some excerpts:

Imagine that. A group of private citizens in Southwest Little Rock wants to open a college prep school for young men. How dare they! Who do these people think they are-Americans? Concerned citizens and parents who want their sons to have the best education they can get? Maybe they’re just school patrons who believe there ought to be a school dedicated to making men of boys. And well-educated,courteous, hard-working, decent men at that.

What nerve. These people don’t know how things are done ’round heah. Why can’t they be content with their failed schools? Like so many other families in America’s inner cities. Don’t they know their place?…

…The upwardly mobile in these latitudes once had to contend only with police dogs and water hoses; now they’re up against a far more formidable force: a plague of pettifogging lawyers who’ve made a highly successful career of thwarting any kind of progress or justice in public education…

…The lawyers also want the state to tell the proposed charter school it can accept only low-income students. That way, the regular public schools could hope to keep the better-off students captive. What does it say about the quality of a school district if the only way it can keep its most prized students is to fence them in? Nothing good.

Maybe the lawyers could ask the state to put barbed wire around the school and barricades at the front doors. Also, in back. In case some kid tries try to sneak off the reservation in hopes of a better education…

…What this country needs is a clear, simple amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would grant the equal protection of the laws to all, including families who ask for nothing more than a chance for their kid to attend a good charter school.

Oh. You say we already have such an amendment, the Fourteenth? And even a Civil Rights Act that forbids such discrimination on the grounds of race?

Then how come those laws aren’t being enforced? Because, as the lawyers and judges and other intellectuals all agree, those laws don’t mean what they say.

Wouldn’t it be grand if they did? Wouldn’t it be something if this country had a new birth of freedom, even in Little Rock, Arkansas?

Our friend Jay Greene has an interesting review of Marjorie Rosen’s book “Boom Town” in The Wall Street Journal.  You can read it here.  Professor Greene takes on the book’s assertion that our community’s reaction to increasing diversity has been “cold stark fear—at least among a segment of the white Christian majority, which sees its comfortable, all-white way of life fading.”  He correctly asserts that business acts as an “engine of diversity,” and religion is a driver of acceptance, not discrimination.

(Ms. Rosen) finds that people of faith have an easy time understanding and accepting one another, including people who belong to different religious traditions, because they share a respect for religious belief. This type of tolerance is common in semi-rural northwest Arkansas but is not so common, one suspects, in the media and political centers that dot the coasts.

If Ms. Rosen had wanted to identify resistance from white, rural Christians to diverse newcomers, she should have distinguished between Arkansas’s politics and its business and social life. Businesses like Wal-Mart and Tyson are progressive engines of diversity because they will recruit and hire able workers of any color or religion. The only color they see is green. Social integration has gone smoothly because local residents, assisted by religiously backed norms of politeness, have been generally welcoming. Unlike business, politics is a zero-sum game. Good-old-boy politicians in Arkansas (or anywhere else) are more likely to think that if they share power with newly arrived groups, they will lose some of their own.

Professor Greene’s main thesis is summed up in this second paragraph.  He claims that while Arkansans are accepting in both business and social life, the opposite is true in politics.  “Politics is a zero-sum game”, meaning there is only so much political power, and Arkansas good-ole-boys aren’t likely to share theirs with newcomers anytime soon.

I would take this thesis a step further.  In addition to an entrenched good-ole-boy network, we have a group of political elites that feel they know best, and are willing to dictate to others what is best for them and their families.  We also have a populace that is too accepting of this arrangement.

The Arkansas State Board of Education approved the Little Rock Urban Collegiate Public Charter School for Young Men(LRUCP) on Monday making it the only new charter to gain board approval this year. The school will aim to serve underperforming children who are in danger of or have already dropped out.

While the State Board unanimously (7-0) passed the charter, it was not without conditions.  Heeding the advice of the Little Rock School District (I blogged about their recommendations here) the Board placed two stipulations on the new charter.

1. The school must undergo a 1-year review
2. The school must serve a student body that is 80% poor and 80% who score Basic or below on the State’s Benchmark tests

Board members Brenda Gullett and Ben Mays were the two most vocal opponents of the charter.  Clinton veterinarian Ben Mays raised questions about the completeness of the applicant’s paperwork.  Ms. Gullett seemed to be reading from the LRSD playbook, raising questions about the charter’s effect on desegregation.

I would be interested to hear how a school which hopes to have an enrollment of a few hundred would affect the desegregation efforts of a district with an enrollment of 25k plus.  But that is beside the point.

The real point here is that it sets a bad precedent to create schools which are legally mandated to be segregated, in this case by poverty status and achievement. The State already has a charter approval and review process which provides the State Board with rather broad powers.  If the school does not fulfill their mission, the State Board can revoke their charter.  Any further charter restrictions are unnecessary, and imposing them may lead to legal challenges.

In this specific case, I question the legality of creating a public school which is required to serve only poor, low achieving kids.  Throughout this debate, the District and their lawyer have continually conflated poverty and low performance with race.  This practice is extremely disappointing, and it is even more of a disappointment to see our State Board of Education tacitly endorse this backward way of thinking.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Dem Gaz editorial staff agrees with us.  Check out their opinion piece here.

Here is the Dem Gaz article about the State Board’s action yesterday.  Looks like several people share my concerns about the legality of the conditions placed on the new charter.

A story in today’s Northwest Arkansas Times reports that Arkansas’ charter school law is weak relative to other states.  The Center for Education Reform gave the state’s charter law a “D.”  The only states to receive “A”s were California and Minnesota. Here is an excerpt from the NWA Times article:

Arkansas’ charter school law doesn’t fare well in national reports — at least two such reports in recent months — which comes as no surprise to several who follow charter school development in the state and around the country.

Jay Greene, who heads the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, wasn’t surprised by the “D” letter grade given to the charter school law by the Center for Education Reform, a national nonprofit organization that promotes charter schools and school choice.

Arkansas is one of 13 states to receive Ds from the Center for Education Reform. The state ranked 31st among the 40 states which allow charter schools.

“Arkansas has a very weak law,” Greene said Wednesday, citing the level of funding, the low number of charters operating in the state and the fact that Arkansas has only a single authorizer — the Arkansas Board of Education — that can approve charter schools.”

The good news? We are still ahead of Mississippi, who ranked weakest in the nation.

We have been critical of the law and the State Board’s implementation of it.  You can check out our Op-Ed in the Dem-Gaz here and a couple of our previous blog posts  here and here.  It seems we have been driving the charter school conversation inside Arkansas as of late.

After losses to Morgan State, East Tennessee State, and South Alabama, and having to go into overtime to squeak by Appalachian State (all home games!), it’s likely that John Pelphrey will have to pull off a miracle to save his job this year.  I’m not saying I’ve given up on Razorback basketball, but all signs suggest this could  be one of the worst seasons in history.

So, while I hope Pelphrey turns things around, it’s realistic to start thinking about a replacement.  I think that replacement should be Mike Anderson, former assistant coach under Nolan Richardson and current coach at Mizzou.

It’s hard to say if Anderson would be interested in the job.  Arkansas had their chance at claiming Anderson, back in 2002 when Frank Broyles ran Nolan Richardson off.  Anderson had been at Arkansas with Nolan for 17 years, and he deserved a shot at the job.  But Broyles thumbed his nose at Anderson, who instead went to The University of Alabama at Birmingham where he coached the Blazers to 3 NCAA appearances and made it to the sweet sixteen in 2004 by upsetting #1 seed Kentucky.  Now he’s at Missouri. The Tigers went 31-7 last year (Arkansas was 14-16).   

With Anderson, Mizzou has won 22 in a row at home and hasn’t lost a home non-conference game since the 2005 home opener.  The Tigers are now 33-0 in home non-conference games.  They recently beat Oregon 106-69.

The symptoms of Pelphrey’s problem have become obvious: He can’t recruit and retain quality players.  The cause of those symptoms is less clear.  How does one explain that out of six of last year’s highly touted recruits, only Rotnei Clarke currently plays for the Razorbacks?  Gone are Montrell McDonald, Andre Clark, Brandon Moore, Jason Henry, and, for the moment, Courtney Fortson.

With that many failures, it’s hard not to question Pelphrey’s abilities to manage young athletes.  For whatever reason, he can’t seem to keep players from bailing on him.  Some would argue that it is simply because he is a tough no-nonsense disciplinarian, but so are plenty of other coaches.  Maybe his disciplinary methods fail to address problems in a constructive way.  Perhaps he fails to gain the necessary respect of his players.  From the outside, it seems like his main source of doling out discipline is simply to suspend players from playing.  Surely there is a better way to help these young players grow and learn.

At any rate, if we end up in a coaching search come spring (and I think we will), we can only hope that Mike Anderson will still give us the time of day.  Hopefully it means something to him that Frank Broyles is no longer in charge, and that the vast majority of Arkansans never wanted him or Nolan to leave. 

Besides, can you think of a better way to put Frank Broyles in his place than to bring ”the hell” back to Bud Walton? 

I can’t.

Ok, just one more charter school post, and then we’ll put this topic aside for a while.

Little Rock School District lawyer Chris Heller has apparently secured the services of a promoter.  Or at least that’s the way it appears when every time Heller says or does anything it is immediately picked up and praised by the folks over at the Arkansas Times.  Max and his crew love this guy, and Heller keeps the information flowing.

And yes, the irony of our also posting about Heller’s every move is not lost on me, but here I go anyway.

Max’s most recently fulfilled his role by posting a document written by Heller providing recommendations to the State Board of Education with regard to a proposed Little Rock charter school.  The school in question, the Little Rock Urban Collegiate Public Charter School for Young Men (LRUCP), would aim to serve males who are at risk of dropping out of school.

In section eight (pg. 23) of this document Mr. Heller proposes nine conditions he feels the State Board of Education should place on the LRUCP charter. See four of the nine below.

1. Student recruitment efforts must be directed toward low-achievement students.
2. During the student registration process, the school must provide LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD with weekly updates of their students who have applied for admission to the school.
3. At least 80 percent of new enrollees each year must qualify for free or reduced-price lunch and/or be performing at the basic level or below on the Arkansas Benchmark Exam.
4. The school must require parents to sign a “contract” agreeing that the student remain at the school for the entire school year.

I find these recommendations a little odd given the district’s previous claims about charter schools.  LRSD has routinely made two arguments against charter schools.  First they claim that charters increase segregation, or at the very least impede LRSDs desegregation efforts.  We have questioned their evidence of this claim, or lack there of, in this space many times before.  And second, in a related claim they say that charters dump their bad kids back on the district.  Charter schools cream the best and leave the rest.

Now, in a surprising about-face, LRSD and Heller have reversed their stance on both segregation and dumping with the four conditions listed above.  LRSD indicate they are all for charter schools as long as they are only used as a dumping ground for the district’s unwanted students.  Heller’s proposal would create a school that would be nearly completely segregated by income and achievement, and not only that, but he would also have the parents of these kids sign a “contract” to make sure they don’t come back to LRSD.  It must be strange for a lawyer who has built a career on civil rights issues to find himself first arguing against providing educational opportunities for black urban kids and then to make recommendations which would in essence create a segregated school.

I do not know if the proposed charter school will be able to deliver on the promises of their proposal, but shouldn’t they be allowed to try and serve students LRSD has failed without preconditions?  If the school does not serve their students well or violates their charter in some way, the State Board already has the power to revoke the charter.  Why complicate the situation with further, utterly unnecessary, conditions?

UPDATE:  Edited for clarity.