Reforming Juvenile Justice Laws

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Reforming Juvenile Justice Laws

Recently, Diane Rehm devoted an hour of her show to discussing efforts to reform juvenile justice and penal system. It is worth a download for anyone interested in juvenile justice. 

Here is a description of the podcast: 

Over the last decade, 23 states have enacted laws that aim to keep juveniles out of adult prisons and court systems. The shift is a reversal of the tough-on-crime legislation of the 1980s and 1990s. The new laws stem from concerns about teenage suicides in adult jails and new research showing that young people held in adult courts are more likely to be repeat offenders than juveniles not held in adult jails. But some state attorneys are against the change. They say the legislation adds unnecessary delays to prosecution and are an insult to victims. Join Diane and a panel of guests for a discussion on these new laws that aim to keep youths out of adult prisons and courts.

 

Guests 

John Schwartz,  national correspondent, The New York Times.

Liz Ryan, president, Campaign for Youth Justice.

Dan May, district attorney, Colorado Springs, Colo.

 

Reforming Juvenile Justice Laws

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Reforming Juvenile Justice Laws

Recently, Diane Rehm devoted an hour of her show to discussing efforts to reform juvenile justice and penal system. It is worth a download for anyone interested in juvenile justice. 

Here is a description of the podcast: 

Over the last decade, 23 states have enacted laws that aim to keep juveniles out of adult prisons and court systems. The shift is a reversal of the tough-on-crime legislation of the 1980s and 1990s. The new laws stem from concerns about teenage suicides in adult jails and new research showing that young people held in adult courts are more likely to be repeat offenders than juveniles not held in adult jails. But some state attorneys are against the change. They say the legislation adds unnecessary delays to prosecution and are an insult to victims. Join Diane and a panel of guests for a discussion on these new laws that aim to keep youths out of adult prisons and courts.

 

Guests 

John Schwartz,  national correspondent, The New York Times.

Liz Ryan, president, Campaign for Youth Justice.

Dan May, district attorney, Colorado Springs, Colo.

 

Extreme Swiss Inequality Reforms

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Extreme Swiss Inequality Reforms

President Obama recently stated that inequality is a “defining challenge” for the United States. Meanwhile, Fareed Zakaria reported that Switzerland, a country with significantly less inequality than the US, considered radical reforms to reduce inequality, including capping executive compensation.  

Here is the beginning of the segment from Fareed Zarakia GPS: 

If there’s one country in the world that looks like a utopia, its name must be Switzerland. This is a country that has it all. The average income is $82,000 a year – 65 percent more than the average American income. Everyone has great healthcare, childcare, and education. The unemployment rate is 3 percent. There is almost no corruption. According to the OECD, of 34 developed countries surveyed, the Swiss have the greatest degree of trust in their government. And, of course, it is a spectacular country with great traditions of skiing, cheese, chocolate, and wine.

 

What could possibly go wrong? Well, quite a lot, actually.

The Swiss are furious about income inequality. The story is a familiar one. According to Reuters, in 1984 top earners in Swiss firms made 6 times as much as the bottom earners. Today, they make 43-times what bottom earners make. At some banks and firms, CEOs make 200-times the salary of the lowest-paid employee.

 

Now, before you assume things about Europe and European attitudes towards capitalism, remember that Switzerland is one of the most business-friendly countries in the world. The conservative Heritage Foundation has an “Index of Economic Freedom.” Switzerland ranks 5th in the world, well ahead of the United States of America.

 

But in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Swiss have become far more concerned about the nature of today’s free market system. So, some Swiss political groups came up with a plan. It’s called the 1 is to 12 initiative. The highest-paid company executive should make a maximum of 12 times what the lowest-paid employee makes. In other words, no one should earn more in one month than someone else makes in a year.

Last week’s Shields and Brooks segment of PBS Newshour discussed, among other things, the Pope’s recent comments critiquing “excessive capitalism.”

Here is a description of the segement:

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s top news, including the short-term Iran nuclear agreement, the pope’s writings on capitalism, proposed changes to campaign finance rules and things to be grateful for.

Shields and Brooks on the Papal Critique of Capitalism

/ Matthew Clemente / 1 Comment

Common Core Experiencing Delays

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

The big discussion recently, among those who follow education policy around the United States, surrounds the “Common Core”. Dating back to 2010, the Common Core State Standards is a plan adopted by almost every state (there are five holdouts) which creates a common set of standards in the core areas of K-12 education; math, english, social studies, and science.

Here is a brief history of the motivations most won’t take the time to fill you in on the background information: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal education policy which enforces strict accountability measures on schools that “underperform,” does not actually set the standards schools/districts/states have to meet. That’s right, states set the standards for their schools. As long as those standards are ‘reasonable’ the federal government is satisfied and accountability measures function as written. As you can imagine, states began to develop different standards to make it appear their students were “proficient.” Well, when funding is tied to proficiency, you better believe proficiency increases. But did proficiency actually increase? Probably not. In states like Texas where STATE “proficiency” increased, those same students did not improve on NATIONAL tests (which did not change meaningfully, if at all.) If you ever heard the phrase “Race to the Bottom,” it is likely this was the situation they were talking about. There was an incentive to feign improvement.

Common Core standards were developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to “ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce.” Sounds pretty good, right? Especially considering how everything was devolving at the state level. But now, everyone is up in arms about Common Core. Teachers unions are upset. Those on the Religious Right are upset. And states and governors have become upset about Common Core. All of this right when Common Core is finally being implemented (for reasons about the delay, see my note below). Why?

If you follow any of those links, you’ll find out what the stated complaints are. The teacher unions are upset they weren’t prepared properly. Conservatives think the federal government is just trying to take over more of public education. And states? State say they need time to evaluate, so they’re delaying implementation left and right.

I have a different theory about the reasons for the revolt about Common Core; the standards are too rigorous! Teachers and states have a lot to lose once they commit to higher standards, because NCLB still has strict accountability measures tied to performance on standardized tests. Everyone approves of accountability in principle (AFT- yes, the national teachers union– publicly endorses accountability and standards and testing). When asked, of course no public servant would say they don’t want to raise standards to ensure the children are educated properly. But those same people despise accountability in practice. (Conservatives hate it simply because it takes away power from states.)

Two things are going on which I think help explain the revolt against Common Core. First, everyone who endorsed it is finally getting to see the fruit of their labor. Second, NCLB hasn’t changed, so that same fruit has caught them with their pants down; in fact, there were new (and increased) financial incentives to adopt common standards. Now they’re all stuck with this new set of standards which they believe are too difficult to meet. Because NCLB has such strict punitive measures for those who cannot meet “proficiency” levels, there is a strong incentive to reject any standard of proficiency which is difficult, resource intensive, and (most importantly) takes a long time to reach.

I don’t blame the teachers, or the governors, or Obama, or even NCLB specifically. The entire idea of school accountability based upon standardized testing has “problem” written all over it. This is not to say public education cannot be improved through government policy. But I think it’s been just about long enough that we can call standardized testing a failed metric of keeping schools accountable.

Those familiar with the topics will recognize that I’ve just made some pretty bold claims. Those less familiar can still probably see some strong assumptions. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Note: So if the Common Core was developed two years ago, why are we talking about it now? Well, it takes a long time to develop what will actually go into the Common Core, and even longer to create a standardized test to measure achievement of the new standards.