Louisiana Voucher System Under Fire From the Department of Justice

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

For those who have not been following this lawsuit, the federal government is claiming students in Louisiana are being racially segregated because of the state’s voucher system. What appears to be happening in the lead-up to the actual hearing (later this month) is a lot of political maneuvering to shape the conversation. In addition to a debate over whether or not segregation is occurring, both camps are using the attention to debate whether or not voucher systems (and private schools, generally) are beneficial. It is out of the scope of this post to discuss the merits of private education and vouchers.

However, I think a conversation about school choice, and the potential segregation that occurs as a result, is worth bringing up. As with many perceived problems in education research the answers depend on who you ask, what the specific question you ask is, and where you look for answers. The case for integration is no different.

Syracuse’s own MPA professor Bifulco finds integration to be endemic to voucher programs in North Carolina. Many people, and the Department of Justice, are claiming the same effects are happening in Louisiana. Is this a horrifying problem that must be addressed and changed immediately? I am not so sure, and here is why.

Children and parents are voluntarily choosing the schools to attend. This is not just a case of white parents taking their kids out of schools because they don’t like the racial composition (a problem many believe to be larger than it is). The families who are using the vouchers, those exercising choice, are predominantly minorities. In many places where voucher programs are set up, those eligible to use them are students from poor families and students attending failing schools; this means the students are heavily skewed toward non-white. Indeed, those who are “suffering” from segregation are minorities voluntarily segregating themselves. I’m not saying this cannot still be considered a problem, or that measures should not be taken to rectify the situation. I’m merely pointing out that the issue is probably not as sinister as the DOJ may have us believe.

Moreover, this lawsuit appears politically motivated. No schools are the same. Never, in the history of public education, have schools been the same. The control of schools at the local level has always resulted in providing unequal education to students. It is no secret that rich towns have better schools than inner cities. And these “rich” schools rarely have the same racial composition as “poor” schools. It is not a school, district, or state policy to racially segregate students, but it happens. Why isn’t the DOJ and the Obama Administration going after the hundreds of neighboring cities with racial and economic disparities for lack of integration? Probably because the schools aren’t part of a ‘school choice’ system. This difference in income and racial composition between schools is only more extreme when comparing public vs. private schools. Fairlie finds racial sorting to be very high in this case. Why isn’t the DOJ calling for an end to private schooling? Probably because they know the American public would not allow such a removal of freedom of choice.

In my opinion, Democrats generally protest school choice for a whole host of valid, political reasons (as numerous as the valid reasons for supporting school choice). But in this case and many others, using loaded words and ideas like segregation and racism are tactics which are used to mislead the public. If they really cared about the racial composition of schools, they would have MUCH bigger fish to fry than vouchers. It just so happens that their current ‘fish’ pisses off a lot of their core voters, teachers.

Smart Takes on the NSA Scandal

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Smart Takes on the NSA Scandal

The first half of this last Sunday’s Fareed Zarakia GPS discussed the fall out from the NSA spying scandal. 

First, Fareed gave his “take” on the issue. 

Next, he interviewed Former German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg who made news by stating, “Well, everyone spies on each other.  That’s a fact.  And, at the moment, we hear interesting voices (inaudible) tries to deny that we don’t do it and they do it.  Everybody does it.”  This is essentially the point Dave Kailer made more than a week earlier on the SLACE Forum. 

Finally, Fareed spoke with Former NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden. Hayden also made news by stating, “If the president says he didn’t know, he didn’t know. I just take that at face value.”

Here is a description of the show: 

On GPS this Sunday: The revelations over alleged tapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone by the U.S. National Security Agency have strained relations between the two nations. But how serious are the current tensions? Fareed speaks with former German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.

Next, the American side of the story. Who would have given the NSA permission to spy on leaders of ally countries? Former NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden gives his take.

“[O]ccasionally, what you have is political guidance kind of being placed on top of your operational planning,” Hayden says. “I had political guidance while I was director of NSA.  I had targets. I had legitimate needs. But I was told, frankly, back off. That target is too sensitive. I don’t want you doing that at this time, for this purpose.”

 

Freakonomics on College, Fake Diplomas, and the Value of Real Ones

/ Matthew Clemente / 1 Comment

Freakonomics on College, Fake Diplomas, and the Value of Real Ones

The Freakonomics Radio Podcast, recently re-ran an episode titled, “Freakonomics Goes to College: Part 1.”  Here is description of the podcast:

The gist: what is the true value these days of a college education?

(You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen via the media player above, or read the transcript below.)

As you can tell from the title, this is the first episode of a two-parter. There is so much to say about college that we could have done ten episodes on the topic, but we held ourselves back to two.

The key guests in this first episode are, in order of appearance:

+ Allen Ezell, a former FBI agent who co-authored the book Degree Mills: The Billion-dollar Industry That Has Sold over a Million Fake Diplomas.

+ Karl Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff for President George W. Bush. Rove, it turns out, is not a college graduate. He is, however, a published author — of Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight.

+ David Card, an economist at Berkeley who has done a lot of research and writing on the value of education.

“Ban the Box” Movement

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

“Ban the Box” is a national movement striving to remove the “box” from job applications. Anyone who has filled out a job application in recent years will have noticed the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” or some derivation thereof, accompanied by a box to check, either yes or no. This question, to most, is not a source of stress or anxiety. But, for the large majority of the American population that has a criminal conviction, this question signals to job applicants that their application will not be considered.

Criminal convictions carry a heavy stigma that is difficult to overcome, especially in the context of employment. The purpose of the “Ban the Box” movement is to allow job applicants with criminal convictions the opportunity to be considered for a job without the stigma of their conviction inhibiting their chances. Banning the box allows applicants with criminal convictions the chance to get their foot in the door and have a better chance of getting an interview. The ban does not guarantee a job to an applicant with a conviction history. The ban also does not, depending on its specific language, prohibit an employer from asking about an applicant’s conviction history. The goal is to allow employers to consider applicants without their conviction status being the focus of the employer’s decision.

The logic of eliminating the initial question on job applications is simple; it is illogical to screen out hundreds of thousands of qualified job applicants from potential jobs due to their past criminal conviction. Time and time again, individuals that are qualified or over-qualified, are not considered or asked to interview because of their conviction.

According to an article by the NELP (National Employment Law Project), nine states, Colorado, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Minnesota and Hawaii along with 50 local municipalities have passed ordinances banning the box from job applications. Recently, Target announced their intentions to eliminate this dreaded question from their job application.

In today’s society, recidivism and the “revolving door” of the criminal justice system are ever growing problems. Banning the box is one measure that can begin to move us in the right direction of allowing applicants with convictions the opportunity to find jobs.

There is a local Syracuse, New York, and New York State movement to “Ban the Box,” but, both are still working to gain traction.

For more information on this topic, check out this informational PDF or any of the links below.

–Minnesota

–Maryland

–Target Corporation

Vocational Rehabilitation: Debunking Some of the Myths

/ Jason Niemetz / Leave a comment

The Department of Veteran’s Affairs does many things well, but disseminating information is not one of them.  Information pertaining to education benefits, other than the G.I. Bill, is very hard to come by and always surrounded in lore.  This became very apparent when I applied for vocational rehabilitation.

As a law school student, I am always looking for ways out of paying for my education.  As a veteran, I have grown accustom to having my education paid in full with a little extra to live on.  This was an excellent setup until I exhausted my Post 9/11 G.I. Bill benefits at the end of last semester.  You never realize how much you appreciate something until it is gone.  It was hard breakup, but we had a good run.  I used the Montgomery G.I. Bill to fund part of community college when out of the Marines in 2006.  I say part, because the Montgomery G.I. Bill would not cover my $2,400 annual tuition.  I graduated to the Post 9/11 when I enrolled at a four year school, which was more than adequate. It even took me through the first year of law school.  Those were good times.

In anticipation of exhausting the G.I. Bill, I called the VA to see if there were any other programs that I may qualify for.  They told me that if I have a service connected disability, I may qualify for vocational rehabilitation.  I am rated at 10%, so I figured I would give it a shot.  As I tried to research the specifics of “voc rehab” I found very little information on the VA website.  After a few phone calls to the VA, which provided even less information than the website, I turned to the internet for answers.  Among the many veteran’s chat rooms and discussion boards I found many answers, ranging from the greatly exaggerated to the obviously wrong.

With virtually no idea if I qualified for the program or what kind of benefits it offers, I decided to apply for vocational rehabilitation in he hopes that the Federal Government would pay for the rest of law school (or at least some of it).  After eventually finding and filling out the correct form on the VA’s website, I pressed submit and waited.  Roughly four short months later, I received a letter which told me to report to the vocational rehabilitation office for orientation. 

After watching a 15 minute video and shuffling the stack of pamphlets and papers that were handed out, I was scheduled to come back the next week to meet with a counselor who would determine my fate.  My original meeting was postponed due to the government shutdown, but few weeks later I found myself sitting in an office while a counselor looked through my transcripts, aptitude/vocational preference test results, and medical paperwork.

After a thorough examination of my qualifications, the counselor explained the purpose of the vocational rehabilitation program is to assist disabled veterans with finding a career that would suit them based on their aptitude, interest, and (most importantly) their medical limitations.   He also explained that although technically veterans with a 10% disability rating can apply for the program, 20% is usually the minimum rating needed to actually qualify for the program.  In addition, the VA looks for evidence, specifically work history, that shows a veteran’s disabilities have made it difficult to maintain employment.  Once they find a veteran who meets these criteria the VA will assist the veteran with pursuing the proper training to pursue a career that suits their needs and abilities.  This assistance can range from paying for college or graduate school to paying for a professional license and training.

Although I am slightly disappointed that I did not qualify for the program, I was more disappointed with the VA’s inability to provide veterans with basic information.  I understand that eligibility for programs like vocational rehabilitation are highly specific to the person applying, but it would have saved everyone time and money had someone told me what the scope of the program is and what the qualification are.  Instead, it took months for me to find this information through a counselor.  Had I known that this program was not designed for a person in my situation, I would not have applied.

Despite the frustration with the VA keeping tight lipped about their policies, it is good to know that this program exists and it is being reserved for those who are truly deserving.  Fortunately this experience was not a total loss; the counselor told me that he had heard a rumor that the VA will, on occasion, extend a veteran’s G.I. Bill benefits from 36 months to 42 or 48 months.  Hopefully I will be able to find out the truth before I graduate from law school.