I learned this morning that someone drew two swastikas and the n-word on an East Penn school bus yesterday. A passing motorist took a photograph and alerted authorities. The school district issued a press release this afternoon, saying it "denounces and prohibits this type of racial harassment and is in the process of conducting a full investigation." Our district thus joins others in the area confronting such displays in recent weeks. Southern Lehigh High School has been host to a number of openly racist and homophobic slurs this school year, including students using the Hitler salute. At Saucon Valley, a white student posted a video of a black classmate eating chicken which he narrates using the n-word and series of racist stereotypes. These are a part of a much longer list of incidents that have been reported throughout the Lehigh Valley, both in and outside of schools. Racism and anti-Semitism, of course, are nothing new. Nor is graffiti such as that witnessed on the East Penn bus. But over the last year these kinds of public expressions have become more common. The FBI reports that hate crimes were up 6% last year, with African-Americans and Jews being the most frequent targets. Anti-Muslim hate crimes were up 67%, the greatest increase in fifteen years. Regardless of who drew the graffiti on the school bus window or what their motivations were, incidents like this represent a real danger to our community. Words matter. And these kinds of incidents should not be accepted as normal. The swastika and n-word represent-- very directly-- the anti-Semitism and racism that have characterized some of the darkest moments in our history. I have heard some say that we should ignore these kinds of incidents, either because they are petty, or to avoid giving the perpetrators the attention they seek. I agree with this approach in many cases, but not in this one. Sometimes silence is dangerous. The rise of the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s was characterized by the appearance of similar (and also seemingly petty) graffiti. The n-word continues to be used today to incite violence against African-Americans, just as it was closely associated with lynching in the past. The need to confront, rather than ignore, this type of incident is particularly important in our district, where minority students represent only a small fraction of the population (4.2% are African-American) and are thus particularly vulnerable to racial and religious intimidation. So how can we use this incident to help our kids and our community do better? I'm no expert here, but I'll tell you what I'm going to do with my own kids: #1 Give them information: We might all be forgiven for wanting to shield our kids from the harsh and brutal truths behind these symbols. But I think kids need more information, not less. Kids lack much of the background and context needed to understand why such symbols are provocative or shocking or dangerous or scary. Simply telling them they are taboo is not enough; giving them knowledge helps both strip the symbols of their power and make sense of a complicated world. I'm going to explain to my kids the historical significance of these symbols, and what kinds of groups use them today. #2 Give them tools: I am going remind my kids that if you see something, say something. This is the phrase used by the Department of Homeland Security to encourage reporting evidence of terrorism. But the same idea applies in the far more common circumstance of witnessing acts of racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of hate. I will remind my kids that saying something can be hard, because calling out such ugliness can be socially awkward and invite retaliation. But it is precisely the silence that allows a wrong to continue and grow. I’ll highlight for my kids the good example set by Sonia Tapiarz, the woman who reported the East Penn bus incident to authorities. She could have easily just shook her head in disgust and went about her day. But instead she took the time and effort to document what she saw and alert us. As a result of her saying something, positive change can perhaps now come out of the incident. #3 Give them empowerment: I am going to ask my kids about their opinion of the graffiti incident. I'm going to encourage them to ask lots of questions, and help them them find answers on their own. I want them to know that they should not stand by passively as events in their community unfold. I want them to a part of those events, bringing their own values, perspectives, knowledge and skills to the table. #4 Give them examples: I am going to tell them about the steps I am taking in response to this issue. Step one is sharing this post with the larger community. Step two is writing the East Penn Superintendent, Dr. Mike Schilder, directly. I am going to share with him my belief that students in our district will learn important lessons from how he leads the district in its response to this incident. I am going to remind him of his responsibility as the most visible educational leader in our community. And I'm going to ask him to use his expertise as both an educator and leader to teach our students about what swastikas and the n-word represent, how they can be dangerous, why incidents like this are happening now, and what concrete steps the district is taking to confront them. #5 Give them resources: I am going to ask my kids to find a community organization devoted to addressing the issues of racism and anti-Semitism to which we can make a donation of our time or money. They will see how our family can work with others to make such incidents less likely in the future. I want my kids to gain experience advocating for some of the core values that serve as the bedrock of our community-- chief among them the fundamental humanity and dignity of us all. We should not put our heads in the sand when it comes to issues like this, or dismiss the significant concerns they raise as just “political correctness.” As the conservative philosopher Edmund Burke famously said, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I would add that evil doesn’t come all at once; it sneaks up on us, little by little, with many of those involved not even aware they are caught up in it.
8 Comments
The most frequent target of censorship attempts in 2015 was John Green’s Looking for Alaska. The year before it was another young adult novel, Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.
Censoring books, whether in the form of keeping them off library shelves, off reading lists, or outright bans, does not help us maintain our values or protect our children. Quite the opposite. Freedom of expression-- and the free exchange of ideas-- are at the foundation of our community’s strength. Young adult author Laurie Halse Anderson puts it this way: “Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance.” Like most people, there are many books whose content I find appalling; books I hope my children never read. But those books should be protected too. That is the very meaning of free speech. As the prolific Neil Gaimon has said, “The same laws cover the stuff you like and the stuff you find icky, wherever your icky line happens to be: the law is a big blunt instrument that makes no fine distinctions...you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of speech is the day you lose it.” “It’s not just the books under fire now that worry me,” says Judy Blume (you know, of Super Fudge fame), “it is the books that will never be written, the books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers.” I’ve written about the censorship issue in our own community before. I’m sharing these thoughts and quotes from famous children’s book authors today in support of the American Library Association’s “Banned Books Week,” which raises awareness of the continued problem of censorship in our bookstores, libraries and schools. You can find the top 10 list of most frequently challenged books in 2015, as well as lots of other information, at their website. So please, the next time you discover a book that is offensive, overly sexual, sacrilegious, racist, or otherwise objectionable-- don’t call for banning it. Trying to hide such ideas never works. Instead, just return it to the shelf and help your kid-- or yourself-- find something better. Here is John Green’s response to having written the most challenged book of last year. He is far more articulate than I in making the case that banning books just doesn't make sense-- a great 3 minutes:
Previous posts on the issue of book censorship:
Please consider applying for the open position on the East Penn School Board. Longtime board member Francee Fuller resigned at the last meeting, leaving an open seat on the board. A (short) application is due by October 3, and board members will appoint someone after public interviews on October 10. My chief focus in the selection process will be finding a volunteer who understands the critical role public schools play in our democracy. I hope we have applicants who can be both a strong advocate for our schools and a frank critic of policies and procedures that can be improved; someone who can make decisions transparently, based on facts and evidence rather than reactionary emotion or political ideology. It can be a tough gig, but also very rewarding! You can get more details by clicking here.
My post on the trumped up transgender bathroom controversy at Emmaus High School got a bigger response than anything I’ve ever put on this blog. If you're like me, you probably didn’t grow up around many people who were openly transgender and very well might not have friends or family who publicly identify as trans. One of the chief sources of uncertainty, fear, and controversy around transgender students in our school district stems from this lack of knowledge and familiarity. Here are the most helpful things others have sent me to help overcome such uncertainty and fear...
A short but moving description from a mother of a trans girl who makes clear that the issue is about the dignity and worth of our children, not political correctness:
A father-- Republican, National Rifle Association member, and military veteran-- discussing the difference between his twins, one of whom is trans:
An explanation by a trans girl helped me walk a few minutes in her shoes:
A more local perspective is provided by a recent feature story by the Morning Call, which profiles the journey of two Lehigh Valley trans students and offers some helpful definitions of different terms used in discussion of sexual identity.
One doesn’t have to agree with everything the speakers in these videos and article say to agree with the hope that all our children have the right to claim their own authentic identity and not have one forced on them by outside social norms or peer pressure. Okay, I’ll fess up and say that I don’t know if there are seven things to be learned here, or twenty things, or three. But if you’re like me, you certainly learned something. Related posts: The bathroom wars have sadly come to our schools here in the East Penn School District. A fight has been raging nationally for over a year now, as opponents of extending civil rights protections to transgender men and women have focused public attention on public bathroom use in places like Texas and North Carolina. An East Penn family has now made our schools a part of this national political debate by insisting that transgender students be excluded from the locker room their daughter uses at Emmaus High School. Regardless of your knowledge of our district’s transgender population or your views toward transgender civil rights, let me suggest that this is a manufactured controversy, for three reasons. Reason #1: Current district practice is the result of our own policy, not that of the Obama administration. The U.S Justice Department, under the Obama administration, issued a letter this past spring indicating that districts must not discriminate against transgender students in any school facilities, including bathrooms and locker rooms. The letter set off a firestorm of controversy nationally, with opponents of President Obama citing it as an example of legal misinterpretation and federal meddling in state and local affairs. The family here in East Penn have cited the letter as a chief motivating factor in bringing the controversy to our district. But here’s the thing: The practices of our district toward sexual minorities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students were in place long before the letter from the U.S. Justice Department. The district’s Nondiscrimination in School and Classroom Practices Policy (#103) was passed on February 23, 2015-- more than a year and a half ago. Moreover, the policy was developed after collecting input from local school administrators, local teachers, our own local school board, and local student groups. It was presented multiple times at local school board meetings, where it was available for public review and comment by the local community. This is not an Obama issue, a Republican vs. Democrat issue, a liberal vs. conservative issue, or a federal vs. local issue, and nobody in our community benefits from attempts to make it part of such battles. Reason #2: Our children should not be used as pawns in political battles. This leads to the second important reason. We should, of course, have vigorous debate over President Obama’s policy initiatives and legal interpretations. But we should not use the children in our schools as pawns in this debate. Through my own conversations with students, teachers, and administrators, I understand that students are almost always able to easily and amicably come to terms with transgender students and their full participation in school life, just as students have come to terms with women in schools, with racial minorities in schools, and with gay, lesbian, and bisexual students in schools. This does not mean that students don’t have questions and concerns, nor does it mean that they all agree with one another. But they are ready to respect one another and respect that we live in a diverse community that values equality between different people. The trouble arises when our kids return home and discuss these issues with the adults in their lives. Some adults too quickly hitch the many different student identities to larger political debates and battles. This is wrong, no matter what side of the debate you happen to be on. Don’t make children in our local community the foot soldiers in national partisan fights. Reason #3: ALL children at East Penn have access to accommodations And this brings me to the third and most important point. All our students-- including the student of the family who has ignited the controversy-- deserve to feel respected and feel safe in school. Nobody is forced to undress or shower under conditions that make them feel uncomfortable. Students routinely use bathroom stalls and other private areas. Students who are uncomfortable changing in the locker room or using restrooms are offered further options, from changing in a nurse’s bathroom to taking summer gym. So this is ultimately a manufactured controversy, fueled by a lack of knowledge of actual school policy, unfair in its use of students as pawns in a national political fight, and fueled by a desire for the public spotlight rather than easy, pragmatic accommodation of one family’s beliefs. Let’s get our focus out of the bathrooms and locker rooms, and on to ways we can improve our schools for everyone.
The East Penn School District will vote Monday on an important agreement with real estate developer David Jaindl over the future of land once known as the Romig farm in Lower Macungie Township. Overall I think it is the best among bad options for the district, and I tentatively plan to vote in favor of the agreement. You can read the agreement yourself here (Exhibit #8). In order to help community members understand what is happening, I’ve put together the following list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Why does the district need to make this agreement?
The short answer is that it is required to do so under a previous contract that was signed in 2007. The longer answer is that the 2007 contract was a kind of IOU the district gave to Jaindl. The deal put the district on the hook for a number of expensive things, including giving Jaindl 14 acres of land along Route 100, paying the cost of a new road for him, and providing him with the right to purchase additional property at a fixed rate if the district ever sells it. The new agreement to be voted on Monday represents the district settling that IOU.
What are the main elements of the deal?
The district will follow through on its existing legal obligation to give Jaindl 14 acres of land along Route 100, between Sauerkraut and Shoeneck roads. In addition, it will pay Jaindl $1.7 million to settle other terms of the original 2007 agreement, which he may only use for improvements to Sauerkraut Road. The district will also allow additional land-- approximately 8 acres-- to be used for storm water basins to handle runoff from a new Sauerkraut Road extension and redesigned Shoeneck Road intersection. In exchange, the district will have no other obligations to Jaindl or Lower Macungie Township, and Jaindl surrenders his current right to buy remaining parts of the Romig farm property at a below-market price in the future. The district retains ownership of approximately 80 acres in the area for future use, if needed.
What will it cost taxpayers?
The $1.7 million owed to Jaindl will be paid for using funds from its capital reserve, bolstered by proceeds from two recent sales of much smaller properties along Lower Macungie Road. The agreement should therefore have no direct effect on local property taxes or next year’s school district budget. More indirectly, the district will lose 22+ acres of land on this property. But this loss was already built into the 2007 contract that this new agreement replaces. That is, it was part of the IOU the district has owed Jaindl for almost a decade now; it doesn’t represent a new loss to the district or the public.
What does the community get out of the deal?
First and foremost, the community gets to lay to rest the contractual obligations the district has owed Jaindl since 2007. The $1.7 million payment is substantially lower than the district would likely have to pay to build the road required in the 2007 contract, a cost that would only rise in the future. Jaindl gives up future rights to the remaining property as well, making it possible for the district, and thus the community, to get the full value of the land if any more is sold in future years. This agreement also allows much-needed safety improvements to the intersection of Route 100 and Shoeneck Road, which has been the source of significant concerns over the last several years.
What is the history behind this piece of property?
The story of the most recent agreement can be traced back more than a quarter century, when the school district used its power of eminent domain in 1989 to purchase a 108-acre farm along Route 100 owned by the Romig family. The district planned to build a second high school on the property. Instead, the Romigs sued the district, and the resulting public outcry led a reconfigured school board to hastily reverse its decision and return the property to the Romigs-- at substantial cost. Fast forward to 2007. Seventeen years after the first controversy with the Romig farm, the district still faced uncontrolled growth of residential development on former farmland in Lower Macungie Township. Developers were building new housing much faster than the district could accommodate the influx of new students, with no end in sight. The school board was desperate to purchase property in the area large enough to handle several new schools they anticipated would soon be needed. It is in this context that they signed the 2007 contract with Jaindl that gave them ownership over the Romig farm. Jaindl served as a middleman between the school district and the Romig family. In negotiating this new agreement with Jaindl over the last two years, the current school board has insisted that all of the different issues surrounding the property be resolved in a single deal in order to avoid the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy that real estate developers, including Jaindl, have used in the past to work out the best deals for themselves. Doing so gave the district much more leverage in negotiations than they might have had otherwise.
What is the bottom line here?
All of this boils down to a basic question: Is the school district better off under the original 2007 contract with Mr. Jaindl or this new agreement? I currently believe the new agreement is the better one. I describe the deal as “the best of bad options” because I’m saddened to see the further destruction of beautiful farmland in Lower Macungie Township, and I would strongly prefer to use the $1.7 million to improve education rather than roads. At the same time, the original 2007 contract already requires the loss of the same farmland, would cost the district even more money, and allow Jaindl to have continued influence over the remainder of the property. This new agreement thus represents a substantial improvement for our district and our community. I therefore plan to vote in favor of this new agreement unless substantially new information comes to light at the meeting Monday night. I have been thinking a lot about the issues of school safety in recent weeks. I share some of my thoughts in a Morning Call editorial that was published today. Please check it out:
http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-school-safety-mesasures-munson-yv-0515-20160514-story.html The school district is drawing up its calendar for the 2016-207 school right now. And once again it plans on including only 2 snow days in the calendar. I must confess that I don’t understand this kind of planning. Over the last 7 years, we have needed anywhere between 3 and 11 snow days each year. Why, then, do we only plan for 2? Doing so makes the school calendar less realistic. It makes it harder for parents and teachers to plan family trips. It increases student absences because so many snow “make up” days need to be called at the last minute. The district made a significant improvement to the school year calendar last year by specifying in advance what holidays would be taken away to make up for excess snow days. Planning in advance for the number of snow days we are most likely to have, rather than pretending we will only have 2, would be a further improvement. Consider this analogy: What would you tell your kid if they planned for 20 minutes of homework each night, even though they had always needed at least 30 minutes, and sometimes as much as 110 minutes, to finish every other school night for the past several months? I would tell my kids they need to alter their plans! I was not able to convince district administrators or other school board members last year to increase the number of snow days to a more realistic number, but I will try again. I expect the board will set the 2016-2017 school calendar at its meeting next Monday (March 14). What do you think? Please consider sharing your views in the comments below, or with Assistant Superintendent Kristen Campbell ([email protected]) and the entire school board ([email protected]).
Did you know that the East Penn School District will spend $13.7 million this year on debt payments-- paying back money borrowed in the past? What’s worse, costs are even higher for the next two school years ($13.9 and $13.8 million). That’s the bad news.
The good news is that those debt costs will drop by more than 42%, to less than $8 million, starting in the 2018-2019 school year. Woo hoo! The problem is that the school district is under a great deal of financial stress right now. Last year’s budget included cuts to all school buildings, the use of reserve funds, yet still required a tax increase. The coming budget looks like more of the same: Employee retirement benefit costs are estimated to rise again by almost 15% -- an amount set by the state but borne by local taxpayers. The district is also required by law to hire two additional special education teachers because of rising enrollment in special education programs. This is all on top of the fact that the politicians in Harrisburg continue to hold up funding to local school districts, which makes up almost 20% of East Penn’s revenue. In order to at least partially address these issues, the district administration has put forward a proposal to restructure some of the district’s debt. The restructuring would provide immediate debt relief over the next couple of years, freeing up millions of dollars that could be used to cover these other costs. But alas, there is no such thing as free money. The restructuring would actually cost taxpayers more money in the long run -- to the tune of about $200,000. The current restructuring plan produces short terms savings but at greater overall cost in the long term. There are some very good reasons to adopt this restructuring plan:
On the other hand, there are also some very good reasons to reject the restructuring plan:
Let me say a little about this last point, because it’s important: In two years, the district will pay $5.8 million less in debt payments. That “extra” $5.8 million could be used for initiatives of importance to our community. A tax cut, for example. Or a program to ensure every child has access to a computer at home. Or all-day kindergarten. If we restructure the debt now, the district will only realize a debt savings of $2.7 million in 2019. That money, while significant, won’t stretch as far for community priorities.
Interested in the financial details? The chart above shows how the debt restructuring proposal would impact the district’s debt payments over the next several years. The yellow bars show the annual debt costs if the district does nothing to change its debt structure. As you can see, there is a BIG drop in debt payments for 2019. The green bars show annual debt payments under the restructuring plan. The debt payments in 2017 and 2018 are lower-- they are below the dotted line. The district would still enjoy a drop in its total debt costs in 2019 under the restructuring plan, but the drop would be less. Here is a breakdown of the numbers:
It certainly seems to me that this is an issue over which intelligent people can disagree. It is a tough call, with merit on both sides. What do you think? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, by email, or by attending and speaking at the board meeting tomorrow night (Monday, February 22, 7:30pm).
PS: There is an important distinction between this restructuring proposal and the debt refinancing the district has done several times over the last two years. The refinancing has lowered the interest rate the district has to pay on its debt, saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each time. These are real savings. By contrast, the restructuring plan gives us short term relief but at a greater overall expense. Samuel (Sandy) Rhodes closed the East Penn School Board meeting last week with the following remarks. It was his final meeting as a board member after serving our community for twelve years. His perspective is important enough that I wanted to share it beyond the handful of people who were at the meeting: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." -President Eisenhower Some related comments of my own that may be of interest: |
Details
Categories
All
Archives
December 2017
|