Schools First - Can't We Agree on Anything?

The level of discourse among the chattering class of Kansas City is sometimes astounding. Occasionally, though, a conversation with someone removed from the political sphere casts a shaft of light into the room, and the ugly reality of political gamesmanship is revealed in all its sordid detail.

A friend this weekend asked me what I thought about Funkhouser's Schools First initiative. I started to discuss the challenges it will face, and whether Jan Marcason and a couple others will do their best to sink it, and what the ramifications of the bonds would be, etc.. My friend looked at me with something near disgust, and shut me up with a few simple words. "It's a good idea, isn't it?"

Wow.

Lost in all the maneuvering, all the intrigue, all the paybacks is that simple question. "It's a good idea, isn't it?"

It IS a good idea. The Schools First initiative would direct some of the city's resources toward one of its most troubled areas of public service, perfectly timed to build upon the spirit of change and opportunity developing in the Kansas City Metropolitan School District. Each of the 5 facets of the initiative would have a positive impact on the lives of children and families in our city.

Only in the oxygen-starved rooms of Council Chambers and Star Editorial cubicles can that be a bad thing. When all is said and done, the Schools First initiative is about helping children and families. Can't we at least agree on that?

What's wrong with using $100 million in general obligation bonds to improve infrastructure around the schools? The need to upgrade the city's infrastructure is universally acknowledged - the only question is where to start. Why not start where it will help the lives of children and families?

What's wrong with renewing the public safety sales tax and using it to support security around schools? Jefferson City stands ready and willing to make the necessary changes to the law so that we can spend our money on people instead of buildings.

What's wrong with prioritizing schools in city services? Why wouldn't we want to clean up graffiti around our schools first, and clear weeds from where school children walk?

What's wrong with seeking grant funding in partnerships with schools?

What's wrong with putting someone in City Hall in charge of making all this work smoothly?

Only in the misguided power world of politicos and editorialists is there anything wrong with helping children, families and schools. I hope that those members of the City Council who are "struggling" with this simple decision will come to their senses and work to improve the lives of children and families.

If we can't agree on that, voters will have a clear direction on whom to vote for in 2011. A lot of voters will agree on that.

Who to Vote for in the School Board Elections - Crispin Rea and Kyleen Carroll

I wrote a column at KCFreePress.com about the challenges of choosing candidates in the 6 person, 2 winner at large elections. Even if you try to get informed, it's tough to tell one candidate from another. They all say nice, inspiring things and don't talk much about policy differences.

Enough of that analytical even-handedness!

Vote for Crispin Rea and Kyleen Carroll. If you live in his district, vote for Joseph Jackson.

The fundamental question is whether to support the Superintendent's "Right Sizing" Plan. Short answer, it's not perfect, but it's pretty darned well-thought-out and it is the only hope for transformative change in the District. I think it's the right thing to do.

That knocks Cokethea Hill and Kenneth Hughlon off the list of candidates. They do not support the superintendent or the plan; the superintendent will be gone in a few months if those two win seats.

Here's where the politics gets a little difficult. All of the other four candidates are good people, and will support necessary change. It's tempting to take a "pick 'em" stance and advise voting for whichever one you happen to prefer.

VOTE FOR CRISPIN REA AND KYLEEN CARROLL!

Do the math. It's not that a vote for Robert Peterson or Rose Marie Bell is a vote for a bad person or even someone who will serve ineffectively. It's just that if the people stuck in the status quo unite behind their two candidates, and the people who support change spread their votes among four, change loses.

Kansas Citians United for Educational Achievement - the only organization worth listening to on school board matters, in my opinion - has endorsed Crispin Rea and Kyleen Carroll. (They have also endorsed Joseph Jackson, who is running for the 4th subdistrict, which is the east part of midtown - if you live in subdistrict 4, memorize his name, too!)

It is really important that voters get out and vote on April 6. If you want an absentee ballot, get it here and return it before 5:00 on March 31. You can be sure that the people who are profiting from mismanagement and the entrenched status quo in the School District will be getting out and voting on April 6.

April 6 is an opportunity to move the district past constant turmoil and forward to a new vision. If you fail to vote, you may be abandoning thousands of children and families whose hope lies in change.

The Kids are Alright

One of the inalienable rights - no, essential duties - of teenagers is to annoy authority figures.

In Massachusetts, a prinicipal has banned the word "meep". It seems that students at Danvers High began using the meaningless word coined by Beaker, the Muppet lab assistant, to add a little levity to their daily grind.

Nothing bothers administrators quite as much as young people engaging in levity. To put a stop to their levicity, the principal sent out an automated phone call to all the parents warning them that if their levicious offspring dared to use the word "meep", s/he would be SUSPENDED.

My hat is off to the students of Danvers High School. They got under the skin of their principal, and caused him to issue a red-faced warning that made him look like a sputtering twit. Bravo.

Outrage Addicts and Zero Tolerance

"Outrage Addicts" are a peculiar set of amateur commenters, quick to express their shock and dismay about the latest offense against "common sense", and eager to decry the bureaucrats or activists who wander into their crossfire. They thrive on disgruntlement and tend to view themselves as homespun geniuses of horse sense - if only the world would check in with them before acting, it would be a better, if less outrageous, place.

(As an aside, this group tends to be the absolute worst at fact-checking, though the very outrages they speak against tend to be those that cry out for suspicion. Thus, they send out their OMG via emails and blog posts on "controversies" that are almost always fictional or exaggerated. Thus, a suit about a religious symbol on public land mysteriously becomes an attempt to remove the crosses from Arlington Cemetery, and a product liability lawsuit filed becomes a multi-million dollar award for a misspelled word in a warning label. Snopes is their buzz-kill.)

All of which is a lengthy introduction to the latest "outrage" circulating through the community of Outrage Addicts, and their long-suffering email companions. A 6 year-old Cub Scout in Delaware brought a camp eating utensil to school, and was suspended under a post-Columbine zero-tolerance policy against bringing weapons to school. Under the policy, he could conceivably be sent to the District's reform school for 45 days, and so that is the exaggerated threat being reported by the Outrage Addicts.

In this instance, the Outrage Addicts have the facts mostly right, partially because they are relying on a report by the New York Times. (More commonly, the outrage of the week comes from less credible sources, like AM radio or World Net Daily.) Of course, the threat is exaggerated and the slanted facts are picked like ripe red cherries, and the fact that the School District has already resolved the problem in favor of the little boy has not caught up (and never will catch up) to the exaggerated story of his peril, but that's part and parcel of stories like this one.

While this particular anecdote is being circulated as an attack on zero tolerance policies, the same facts could be used as an instance of outrage if the official response had been to ignore the tiny knife-wielder.

"Troubled child from a broken home, in defiance of well-publicized policy to protect his tiny classmates from injury and death, brandishes a knife in the classroom. Upon being stopped before the blade 'accidentally' removed some little girl's eye, he claimed he only brought it to use on his lunch. His irresponsible single mother, who sent her child to school armed with a knife even though she knew of the policy, is seeking to get the policy changed so that 6 year-olds can carry weapons to school when they or their parents see fit."

Outrageous, isn't it? If the story had included a few other facts, such as a child being accidentally hurt or, God forbid, if the child had been poor and a minority, these same circumstances could be circulated among the Outrage Addicts as a shining example of why common sense requires that we need a strong policy of zero-tolerance to protect our children from these knife-wielding barbarians.

So, in that context, what does the outrage du jour teach us about the impact of zero-tolerance policies? Sadly, it teaches us almost nothing, except for the fact that they can, in some instances, result in penalties for those who choose to ignore them. But acts portrayed as outrageous can have a disproportionate impact on public policy.

Long before the Delaware Dagger case made headlines in the Times, serious people have been struggling with the issue of the impact of zero-tolerance policies. Some argue that they over-criminalize, and others argue that more discretionary policies result in discrimination against minorities and ignoring dangerous behavior. A quick search can turn up dozens of studies supporting either view.

Honestly, I have no spectacular wisdom on the subject of zero-tolerance policies (surprised, aren't you?). Having glanced at a few of the studies and given it a bit of thought, I probably lean against them, and certainly acknowledge that, for them to be fair and effective, they need to be drafted with incredible care and forethought - more of both than one typically finds in policy manuals.

But I insist that my knowingly-uninformed indecisiveness is superior to the knee-jerk "common sense" being spread by the Outrage Addicts. I know what I don't know, and I would not want to form public policy on the basis of a cherubic 6 year-old Cub Scout who wanted to eat lunch with his new toy. My critical faculties make me realize that I could just as easily be forming public policy on the basis of a thuggish 6 year-old crack baby sent to school with a blade by an unemployed drug-dealing mom.

Reaction to outrageous anecdotes is a poor substitute for careful thought. If we're going to engage in a rational discussion of zero-tolerance - and I think that's a great discussion to have - then let's be careful to look at both the angels and the demons.

How Should I Vote on School Secession?

Believe it or not, I don't have a fully formed opinion on how to vote on the secession of portions of the Kansas City Metropolitan School District. At the moment, I'm leaning against it, but I would welcome input from those with better rationales than my own.

Here's why I'm leaning against it. First off, the effort smacks of racism and segregationist thought. Why is it only the white schools that are the subject of this effort? If the Independence School District is so wonderful and high-achieving, why aren't we discussing merging the KCMSD into it?

Second, I think Victor Callahan is a pandering idiot. The legislation he shoved through the General Assembly is a horribly sloppy botched effort, raising far more questions than it resolves. The only thing it really, truly accomplishes is establishing Victor Callahan's bona fides as a hero of the redneck vote. His legislation doesn't provide any guidance as to how this secession will be accomplished, or who will pay for the land acquisition, or any of the particulars of how this complicated transaction will work out. Victor Callahan was far more interested in pandering to the racist segregationists than anything else.

Third, the Kansas City Metropolitan School District Board opposes the move, and, since I helped elect them, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, there are three reasons I'm leaning toward voting against the secession.

Did you notice what's missing?

None of my reasons is built upon what's best for the children of Kansas City. Ideally, that would be my starting and finishing point, but I really don't know what is best here. Would the KCMSD do better with a smaller scope? Would the decline in diversity damage the district further?

So, commenters, I welcome your thoughtful input. I'm leaning toward voting against it, but I'm not pleased with my rationale. Help me.