wordswortheditorial.com

Angst over “the future of marriage” is likely to rise in the next month as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 barring gay marriage. If the Court strikes down these measures as denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law (and many court-watchers predict it will), conservative voices are likely to counter with warnings that the institution of marriage is doomed.

How does allowing people who actually want to marry to do so threaten the institution of marriage? That’s a puzzling question. A more credible threat comes from the growing number who shun marriage entirely, choosing simply to cohabitate or to have children outside of matrimony. Just a generation ago, couples who lived together before marriage or who chose to remain unmarried were decidedly counterculture. Today, premarital cohabitation is a norm and widely accepted. Americans are choosing to marry later if at all, according to the Pew Research Center. In 1960, 93% of Americans ages 35 to 39 were married; in 2010, that number was 77%. For 20-somethings, the gap is wider: 84% of 25- to 29-year-olds were married in 1960, but only 42% in 2010. Overall nowadays, only about half of American adults are married, down from 72% in 1960.

Social scientists raise concerns about declining marriage rates based on several factors. Married couples tend to have more education, higher incomes, and create more wealth, which are good for the economy. But more important is the positive affect marriage has on children. Although plenty of singles, and certainly same-sex couples, raise healthy, well-adjusted kids, evidence tends to link two-parent families with better child outcomes. Of course, if married couples tend to have higher incomes and wealth, their children benefit from those resources. And anyone who has cared for children for even an hour knows the value of having another loving adult invested in the task.

Marriage is important to our social fabric because of these ties to children’s welfare. And if we want more marriage so children can reap the benefits, why would we spend time and resources “defending” marriage from those who want to make that commitment? In fact, University of Pennsylvania sociologist Frank Furstenberg suggests that saving marriage means investing in children. Writing in Dissent, Furstenburg said, “When we invest in children, we are not only likely to reap the direct benefits of increasing human capital, but also the indirect benefits that will help preserve union stability in the next generation . . . [and are] more likely to increase the odds of success for children when they grow up. It probably follows that direct investment in children and youth has a better prospect of strengthening marriage and marriage-like relationships in the next generation.”

Hear! Hear!

We lost a dedicated and outspoken children’s advocate today in Kelly Hogrefe. A consummate professional in early childhood education, Kelly was perhaps best known for her work with the Orange County Child Care and Development Planning Council. In the early 1990s, the California Legislature established child care planning councils in each of the 58 counties to set priorities for state and federal child care funding. Kelly served as staff for the council in Orange County.

As part of a public policy internship for early childhood professionals, I began to visit Orange County’s child care planning council meetings in the mid-1990s during the time when the councils were forming and ramping up. At the first meeting I attended, the council was holding a strategic planning meeting. There was Kelly, striding about the room, engaging everyone in discussion, and clearly advancing her cause with urgency: Orange County’s children need everyone’s dedication and support to get the early education and care they deserve. Kelly knew her stuff and had already set her mark on child care in our county. I wanted her as my mentor.

As the months and years evolved, my career path led me to work first with the local child care resource and referral agency and then with a privately-funded children’s initiative called Success By 6, which aimed to raise the quality of child care programs through NAEYC Accreditation. The Child Care and Development Planning Council was an important part of that work, and Kelly became an advisor, colleague, and friend. Generous with information and support, she never failed to help other professionals advance.

As a children’s advocate, Kelly was never content with the status quo. She probed constantly the issues surrounding child care quality, always pushing for practices and standards to reflect what was appropriate and best for young children’s optimal development. She realized that low wages and insufficient education levels for early childhood educators was a knotty problem standing in the way of quality improvement. She daringly and consistently lobbied the Children and Families Commission (Prop 10) for a stipend program that would reward early educators who worked in private child care centers if they returned to college for more education. Kelly helped administer such a stipend program that was available for educators working in state-funded programs, and she knew the benefits. (There now is such a program for private programs funded through the Commission.)

Before many other advocates in the county, Kelly became acquainted with Dr. Bruce Perry’s work on the detrimental effects of violence on young children’s brain development. She set about to champion the cause and to spread the word in the county among all who worked in violence prevention about how to intervene for young children and how to educate parents and professionals. She was one of the early promoters of the Safe from the Start program.

Being an outspoken children’s advocate is not easy when one works for public agencies or nonprofit agencies. Although those who work in these agencies often have the most vital information as well as strong passion for the cause, politics and funding restrictions sometimes stifle their voices. Employers are loath to allow individuals to voice their opinions freely, lest the public mistake individual views for official positions. Kelly struggled with this fine line, and more than once she told me that when she retired she wanted to become a “gadfly” and go about speaking her mind on behalf of children wherever and however she pleased. 

Unfortunately, illness struck Kelly late in her career when she was still in her prime. She had to resign her position with the planning council during her treatment. Undeterred, she returned for a time, not as staff but as an appointed member on the council representing the community, drawing a standing ovation when she entered the council meeting.

 A full-blown second career as an independent gadfly for children may not have materialized, but Kelly left a legacy in early childhood education in Orange County and around the state. Everyone who knew her caught a bit of her passion, a bit of her urgency, a bit of her single-minded focus on children’s needs. Her voice rings true in our ears, pressing us on. We hear you, Kelly.

More states are investing education dollars in early childhood education (preschool and prekindergarten) programs with the idea that these early investments will pay off in improved educational performance for low-income children. California is among nine states that are sharing $500 million in federal funds awarded through the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge. These investments have increased the stakes for the children enrolled, as early learning programs will have to show clear outcomes.

Does this mean high-stakes testing for three- and four-year-olds? Some early childhood experts worry that it does. Children develop rapidly and at their own individual pace during their first five years, and the types of direct testing or assessments that may be appropriate for school-age children are likely to miss the nuances and variety in young children’s development.

That’s why the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAYEC) recommends that children be assessed several times during the year as they engage in their daily activities; in other words, as they play and participate in classroom routines. Teachers observe how a child recognizes numbers and letters as she plays rather than sitting the child down with a worksheet and asking her to demonstrate her knowledge. Also, appropriate assessments should include information from families regarding their observations of children’s abilities. In addition, experts agree that when selecting ways to measure early learning and development, programs should be sure that an assessment tool is used for the purpose for which is was intended and that those administering the assessment are adequately trained in how to use it. Cultural and linguistic issues also are important considerations.

Greater investments in early education carry the promise of a better start for disadvantaged children and long-term improvements in education. But these investments also invite greater scrutiny from policymakers and the public in these times when budgets are tight. Therein lies the danger: uninformed policymakers may choose assessments that are ineffective in demonstrating program outcomes or even harmful to young children. Early childhood advocates, teachers, and parents must work hard to educate policymakers about how to measure young children’s learning appropriately.

My answer? Get serious, and hold candidates’ feet to the fire! Raise the issue, and make the expectation clear: The right to choose and the right of privacy in reproductive health issues is nonnegotiable.  Choice is about protecting women’s access to safe, legal abortion, but it also means reducing the need for abortion through access to birth control and sex education. Pro-choice also means women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term should get what they need to have healthy pregnancies. 

Here are seven ways to get serious about supporting pro-choice candidates:

1. Find out who your candidates are and review their stands on choice. Candidates for national and state office are the most important because officials at those levels have the most influence over the issue. But candidates are local levels are also important because they may one day run to higher office. You can start now to educate them on women's health issues. 
2. Press the issue with candidates through letters, phone calls, or public forums. Ask for a commitment that they will protect women’s access to reproductive health services—those who can afford private health insurance and those who cannot—and that they will block government intrusion in medical decisions between a woman and her doctor. 
3. Tell your pro-choice story and retell it. You can also pass on others' stories that are posted at NARAL Pro-Choice America. Make your appeal personal. Let candidates know that one-size-fits-all restrictions hurt women’s health and block constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. 
4. Pull out your checkbook and support pro-choice candidates wherever and however you can. You may be fortunate to have pro-choice officials in your state, but your sisters elsewhere may not. And the more pro-choice voices in Congress and in state legislatures, the better off all American women will be. 
5. Spread the word through your networks—churches, associations, social networks. Don't let any make you think you should be silent or that you are some nutcase: You are simply a citizen who is concerned that everyone is free to make personal health decisions that are best for herself and her family. 
6. Band together with other pro-choice advocates. There’s power in numbers, you’ll learn from each other, and you’ll make friends.
7. Never, never give up, and never take freedom for granted. 

In West African mythology, the Sankofa bird looks backward as it flies forward, sometimes carrying an egg in its mouth, the symbol of the future. The image is similar to a Native American view of human progress that I heard somewhere: an image of a person standing in the present, facing his past, and backing into the future.

Both images intrigue me because I am used to viewing my life a completely opposite way – facing the future and leaving the past behind. And yet, on second look, perhaps facing the future head on isn't very practical. After all, no one can rationally claim to know what the future holds. Any moment beyond the present is a mystery. Probabilities exist, of course, but not certainties. Standing in the present facing the future is rather like standing with one's nose to a blank wall. Not a very enlightening or even interesting view.

But to move forward while looking backward implies faith. If your car is accelerating forward while your eyes are locked in the rear-view mirror, you could be in trouble, unless someone else is steering the car. The image vividly reminds us of reality – we are not ultimately in charge.

The fact that the Sankofa bird looks backward so it can move forward implies that forward motion necessitates looking to the past. The image is unsettling – how can a person know where to take his next step if he is looking the other way! One possible way is that the person is aware on some spiritual level of his life's blueprint. Intuitively, the person must know what or who he is to become. That knowledge is the feeling of being "in sync," of answering a "call," the belief that all of one's life has been unfolding for this moment, this work, this mission, this challenge.

Recognizing the blueprint for one's life, however, often doesn't come easily. We were not created to live on autopilot. Like the Sankofa bird we must LOOK. And what is there to see? Patterns. Across the sweeping tapestry of one's life, whether long or short, are patterns made by interests and talents and choices; moments of "getting it right," successes, triumphs, compliments. Each pattern is unique, written on the heart, executed in the mind. Inevitably mistakes appear, nubs arise, threads are dropped, the pattern abandoned. But how can adjustments be made if we don't examine what is unfolding on the loom? Like the little girl who once observed: "How can I know what I think until I see what I say," this backward-facing view reveals what is needed – a little more courage here, more caring there, add some humor, answer that creative urge, try some discipline, spice things up with a flamboyant touch. And in the process the Sankofa bird takes flight.

Just turn around and look at the beauty you and God have wrought!

Beyond the hype, despite the criticism, it’s those sad little faces that will get you.  Director Davis Guggenheim’s film “Waiting for Superman” explores the state of public education in the United States through the life stories of five children from kindergarten to eighth grade who desperately want a good education and a shot at a better life.  I hoped they would all make it and win the lottery for a chance in the school of their dreams, but the results mirrored the odds that thousands of kids play every year.  More are turned down than accepted.

The disappointment and defeat weighing down their slight bodies are more than any young soul should have to bear.  And yet they do, as all the while we squabble about who bears the blame for the broken American education system and how to fix it.

Criticism of “Superman” seems to fall along these lines:

• Teachers’ unions are unfairly blamed for failing schools when, in fact, unions want the best for kids and have made countless improvements in the teaching profession and working conditions;
• Charter schools are touted but have no better track record than public schools, and sometimes a worse record;
• The many successful public schools and excellent teachers are overlooked;
• This movie is about privatizing the schools and reaping corporate profits.

I suspect that many of the critics have sounded off without seeing the movie, catching the fire that “Superman” is anti-union and corporation attention is suspect.  Sure, the film highlights the fact that union contracts may prevent dismissing poor teachers, but who would defend that practice?  School reformers and union leaders alike agree that teachers are key to effective schools.  And if there is a “Superman” in this movie, it is the classroom teacher.

To say that Guggenheim and company present charter schools as the panacea or that the film seeks to privatize the public schools is to miss the point.  A lot of children in this country are literally starving for a decent education, and surely innovative ways to deliver them that basic American right should be urgently explored.  Geoffrey Canada writes in the movie’s companion book of essays (by the same name): “So from the beginning, the charter school movement has been about innovation and experimentation.  Any scientist will tell you that not all experiments succeed.  The point is to learn from the ones that do, and to spread the benefits as quickly and widely as possible.  That some charter experiments have failed shouldn’t be used to short-circuit the entire process.” (“Bringing Change to Scale: The Next Big Reform Challenge,” Waiting for Superman, p. 193.)  Some charter schools are making a difference just as some public schools are excellent.  The film points out the tragedy that excellence is not the rule in every classroom in the land, and sounds a rally cry to examine success in all types of schools and replicate them everywhere.  The parents who subject their kids to a lottery with terrific odds for a spot in a charter school must believe that those schools are doing something right, if not that their assigned public schools are doing something terribly wrong.

As for someone getting rich off the school reform movement, where’s the evidence for that?  For fifteen years, I’ve worked on advocacy efforts for early childhood education and child care services, a sector that suffers from little public investment and overall under capitalization.  Early childhood education advocates are still waiting for the attention and commitment of a Bill Gates or an Oprah Winfrey.  Rather than fear the attention and scrutiny, public education should embrace it and step into the conversation.  The Gates Foundation is funding “ground breaking research in partnership with schools, teachers’ unions, and communities across the country to answer (the question of how to support teachers) … to discover what makes an effective teacher … and to support bold local plans to study and transform how teachers are recruited, rewarded, and retained.” (“Educating America’s Young People for the Global Economy,” Waiting for Superman,p. 206-207.)  That kind of private investment in the public welfare is surely not to be shunned. 

In the same vein as Michael Moore’s films, “Waiting for Superman” is meant to shock, tug at the heartstrings, and spur action.  And despite the weaknesses, one thing is for sure: the polarization of political and public policy discussions in this country are doing nothing for the sad little children dying on the vine of failing schools.  The time is now to save them. 

Laura A. Long is a child care advocate, writer, and editor in Irvine, Califorina. For the past twenty years, she has specialized in child care improvement initiatives, parent and provider training, and public policy. She now operates Wordsworth Editorial Services, a copy writing and copy editing business. Contact her at laura.a.long@cox.net