How to feel great about yourself for $2.74

It's been over a year since I last wrote about the Prison Book Program.  In March 2010, the Prison Book Program ran a dictionary drive.  I sent in a donation to cover the cost of five dictionaries and was so impressed by the organization that I started volunteering with them.

In the past year I've worked to set up a blog featuring essays and artwork from inmates who write to the Prison Book Program.  I've donated books, sorted mail, packaged books for inmates and worked the organization's postage machine.  I've recruited a few friends who now volunteer on a regular basis, typing up essays from inmates and sorting through donated books.  In short, I've become involved in an organization doing good work and I'm glad to be a part of it.  

Now, the Prison Book Program is running another dictionary drive.  Inmates use dictionaries to improve their spelling and vocabulary.  They use them to check Scrabble words and to help solve crossword puzzles.  These prisoners are using dictionaries to improve their lives by making positive choices that focus on education. 

Please join me in donating to the Prison Book Program's dictionary drive.  $2.74 will buy you a large cup of iced coffee, or provide an inmate with a life-changing dictionary.  A mere $13.70 provides five prisoners with dictionaries (or it might buy you a movie ticket and—if you're lucky—a small popcorn).  You can change the life of 20 inmates by donating $54.80—the price of a dinner out. 

So, consider skipping one cup of coffee, a movie ticket, or a dinner out with your partner and change a life instead.  The warm fuzzies you'll receive will be worth it.

Parents worried about 'racy magazines' should worry about parenting instead

Actress Lea Michele, who plays Rachel Berry on the popular television show Glee, has come under fire for "racy" magazine photo shoots.

The newest cover of Cosmopolitan magazine (left) features Lea Michele in a dress with a plunging neckline. The photo, combined with a story where Lea Michele apparently discusses a "perfect night" that includes a glass of wine and chatting with her boyfriend, is too much for some conservative parents who think Lea Michele is sending the wrong message to children.

Fox News recently published an article claiming that "Lea Michele's Sexy Switch Has Moms Mad". One such mom, Kim Trefcer, mom of a 12-year-old boy, told the news outlet that she thinks Lea Michele "is sending the wrong message. She plays such a 'good girl' on Glee and a lot of kids look up to her persona. Then she poses very provocatively on two magazine covers which makes my almost-13-year-old son very confused and offended." She continued by saying, "I find it frustrating as a parent who is trying to teach right from wrong to their kids and then you have things like this happen which is showing middle schoolers things like sex sells and all that goes along with that."

Here's what I find confusing and offensive: letting your prepubescent son look at Cosmo magazine. Cosmopolitan is intended for adult women; nearly 60% of the magazine's readers are between the ages of 18 and 34. Besides, Cosmo doesn't exactly have a reputation for being squeaky-clean. Word on the street is that the magazine has long-attracted readers who want to read racier stories than those found in other women's magazines.

Lea Michele is 24 years old. Yes, she plays a teenager on television. Yes, many teenagers watch her show. Yes, her recent photos show some skin. But Lea Michele is a grown woman posing for a magazine aimed at grown women. And while a past shoot in GQ included some pretty provocative photos, the bottom line is that parents need to stop blaming actresses and magazines for "showing things like sex sells".

Of course sex sells! The question is to whom is it selling? Parents need to start parenting and stop blaming. If Kim Trefcer is concerned about her son looking at photos of Lea Michele in low-cut dresses, don't let the kid buy Cosmo! If the boy stumbles across a copy of the magazine in the checkout line, maybe his mother should try having a discussion with him rather than shelter him from the real world. How does Trefcer plan to "teach right from wrong" to her child if she's not capitalizing on the teachable moments in front of her?

Next time Trefcer and her son stumble across a racy magazine cover, she should start a conversation with him. Ask him some questions. Point out the difference between fantasy (magazine cover photo shoots, adults playing teenagers on TV) and reality (Lea Michele is 24 years old; she likes — and is allowed — to dress up in fancy clothes sometimes). If the boy wants to read magazines, offer him a subscription to Boys' Life or Sports Illustrated for Kids.

A person can't claim to "teach" something by standing idly by and hoping that a "lesson" is absorbed passively. It's the same reason that abstinence-only sex education does not work; by avoiding the topic, children don't receive any factual information. The only way to ensure that our children learn right from wrong is to teach them, and teaching requires frank discussions and conversations.

Lea Michele is a talented actress and singer. If she chooses to pose for magazine covers, good for her. If the photos show some skin, so be it. If the photos appeared in a kids' magazine, Trefcer and other angry parents would have a legitimate reason to cry foul, but the photos are intended for adult readers. Ultimately, parents need to take responsibility for teaching their children right from wrong and rely a little less on blaming the media.

Not surprisingly, the AP reports that college costs are rising

Earning the award for the least-shocking news of the day is today's AP story claiming that college tuition costs are rising.

According to the article,

At public four-year schools, many of them ravaged by state budget cuts, average in-state tuition and fees this fall rose 7.9 percent, or $555, to $7,605, according to the College Board's "Trends in College Pricing." The average sticker price at private nonprofit colleges increased 4.5 percent, or $1,164, to $27,293.

Though the news is far from unexpected, it is worrisome. While political bigwigs and financial experts (like the folks from the National Bureau of Economic Research) claim that the recession officially ended last summer, regular folks just aren't seeing it. Prices are still high, millions are out of work, and most people are still pinching pennies. When families are weighing whether to spend what little money they have left on house payments or food, they aren't thinking about college for their kids. The cost of college seems an enormous expense for many families, making a college degree an unattainable goal for their children.

While I believe that college is not for everyone, I do believe that everyone should have access to education. Anyone who wants to go to college should have the ability to do so without taking on catastrophic amounts of debt. The Project on Student Debt recently released information stating that the average college graduate has $24,000 in student loan debt. Of course, many students wind up with even greater debt. In addition, the statistic does not include the thousands of students who take on student loan debt and find themselves unable to finish college. In particular, it is those students who are pushed out of school due to rising costs that I most worry about. Those students end up with large amounts of debt and nothing to show for it.

Paying off student loans and trying to earn a decent wage becomes a vicious cycle for those who were unable to complete their degrees due to rising costs. When a student drops out of college, his or her loans soon go into repayment status. The student must then work to raise enough money to pay off the debts, but is unlikely to find a decent-paying job without a degree. Without a decent-paying job, the former student is less likely to repay the debt. The student may then try to take out more loans to obtain a degree, which will, theoretically, earn him enough money to pay off his student loans. The cycle then repeats itself.

The problem of students taking on debt without completing degrees is easiest to spot at our nation's community colleges. Though community college offers a more-affordable option for many students, their costs have also been steadily climbing. Combine higher costs with students who may be following a nontraditional path through college (night school, part-time classes, etc.), and you wind up with students who take on debt, but don't graduate. In fact, only 40% of community college students complete their programs, while many students take five or six years to complete two-year degrees. Regardless of whether or not a student completes his or her degree, any student loan debt must be paid off. In fact, most student loans are not forgiven even if the borrower files for bankruptcy.

These days, you need some form of higher education to get a decent-paying job. Whether that education comes from college, trade school, or an apprenticeship, it is becoming apparent that in order to make money you need an education. But in order to get an education, you need money. Quite frankly, fewer and fewer people are finding themselves able to keep up with the rising costs of college. Higher education was once a luxury for the rich, and if we're not careful, we'll be back to that model before we know it. The costs of higher education (even at public schools) are already edging out the poor and middle class folks. What will happen once only the richest can afford college?

With large amounts of debt and low rates of employment, students may start to believe that college is not worth the expense. When people become disillusioned with higher education, it affects the nation. Fewer people find decent-paying jobs, lower- and middle-class earners find themselves getting more and more frustrated, college costs rise because of a poor economy and fewer students, and we end up with a population that is angry, uneducated, and unable to do much about it.

The bottom line? We must put an end to the upward trajectory of college costs. Americans at all income brackets need access to college. By educating our students we are investing in the future of the nation. We need people from all socioeconomic statuses and a variety of backgrounds to run the country, with its schools, banks, public works, and companies in need of quality workers. A diverse workforce is a happy workforce, and to find a place in that workforce, people need to have access to higher education.

There must come a point where the cost of a college education does not overshadow the benefits of that education. We need to reach a place where people who earn college degrees can count on earning enough at work to pay off their student loans. The rising costs of college are doing nothing to convince the public that the recession is over, and the fastest way to wind up in another recession is to scare people into not spending, not investing.

Simply put, in order to inspire people to invest in the fiscal health of our nation, we must invest in the education of our people. To do so, we must cut the costs of college and make education affordable for everyone.

Important DREAM Act stalled by Republicans

Yesterday, Republican lawmakers stalled a Senate measure that would allow the children of undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (or, more commonly, the DREAM Act)

, would provide immigrant students who graduate from U.S. high schools, are "of good moral character", and arrived in the U.S. as minors to obtain temporary residency. During the six-year period of temporary residency, these students must complete at least 2 years of a college degree and be in good academic standing, or have served in the military and received an honorable discharge. After the six years, the students (or former military personnel) who have met the conditions of the Act can apply for legal permanent resident status.

Versions of the bill were circulating as early as 2001. Most recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced last week that the DREAM Act would be included as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. While the act would "give hope" to undocumented students, Republicans blocked the measure, claiming "the Obama administration of seeking amnesty for illegal immigrants through administrative changes within the Department of Homeland Security."

I have been a proponent of this bill since its first incarnation in 2001. Since minors cannot obtain permanent status without their parents, the DREAM Act would give undocumented students the chance to remain legally in the United States. Many of these students came to the U.S. at such a young age that they do not remember their home countries. These same students work hard to complete their high school education and many go on to college. Of those who don't go to college, a lack of financial aid, rather than a lack of motivation, is usually the reason. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal higher education grants, such as the Pell grant. The fact that children who grow up and succeed in U.S. elementary, middle, and high schools cannot apply for federal grants is another issue, entirely. (And one, quite frankly, that I hope to see addressed as soon as possible.)

I grew up in a low-income family. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to participate in a college-preparatory program for students who would be the first in their families to attend college. While in the program, I met a number of students who worked hard (some worked much harder than me) to excel in school. Many of those students were immigrants. Some came here legally, others illegally. Some had acheived residency or citizenship, others were undocumented. What shouldn't matter though, is the status of children.

Children have no choice about whether or not to accompany their parents who arrive in the United States illegally, and many of them are not even aware of their undocumented status. Even if they were, I find it hard to believe that people would deny them the right to financial aid in college, or a legal path to citizenship. Immigration isn't something that shady people do in the middle of the night to "stick it" to the United States. They aren't looking to get something for nothing; they're looking to provide better lives for their children. These are real people just trying to do what they can to raise their families in safety.

When thinking about immigration laws,

we must consider the real people who are involved. When Poland declared martial law in the 1980s, my friend Marta (then just a toddler) fled the country with her parents and arrived in the U.S. illegally. My friend Jorge left the Dominican Republic as an eight-year-old, after his family fled the violence of their neighborhood that resulted in his getting shot while playing in his own yard. Maria came to the country from Columbia when her family was threatened by corrupt government officials engaging in the drug trade.

Not only were these people my friends, they were hard-working students. They wanted to be hard-working Americans, but couldn't become citizens without their parents. Their parents, like many others, were too afraid of deportation to go through the process of applying for residency. We should not only provide a way for families to apply for citizenship without risking deportation, we should make sure that children have a way to apply as well. The DREAM Act is an important first step in investing in the future of our country. Any child who grew up in the United States and successfully completed his or her public education should be allowed to apply to and attend college. If that child also needs financial aid, he should be allowed to apply for and receive it. That same child should also have access to a clear path to citizenship.

I am saddened by the great numbers of people who oppose the DREAM Act and take a strong stance against immigration. I find it ironic that people want to "take back the country" when nearly all of them are immigrants themselves. Sure, many of them come from families that have been here for generations, but nearly everyone immigrated here at some point in their family history. Native Americans are so christened for a reason -- they were native to the Americas. The rest of us, when you get right down to it, are simply immigrants. Whether or not our families came here legally, we have benefited from all this country has to offer, and have blended our cultural histories to become one of the most diverse and beautiful nations in the world.

I simply want more children to be able to have access to what I had: a solid education and the ability to "make something" of myself. The DREAM Act will help children achieve their goals of becoming productive and active members of our society.

Is doing away with recess dumbing down our children?

A Rhode Island school district is doing away with recess this year. The district is taking away the 10-15 minutes before or after lunch during which students were formerly allowed time for free play.

Reports claim that the East Providence Elementary School will teach its teachers to recognize the need for stress-release and will facilitate in-class breaks, but will this in-class downtime replace the benefits of recess? Regardless, should school districts have the ability to remove children’s opportunity to play?

As an early childhood educator, I emphatically disagree with any district cutting recess. Not only do children need breaks (adults need them too – are you reading this post from work?), but children learn best through play. As the famous Fred Rogers of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood said, “Play gives children a chance to practice what they are learning.” With this in mind, I would advocate for the introduction of in-class breaks in addition to recess. In short, taking away recess (and other opportunities for free play) will lead to the dumbing down of our nation's children.

In addition to simply needing time to play, recess allows children to make much-needed social connections with their peers. Though students need be respectful of all children in their classrooms, true friendships develop during lunch breaks, recess, and after-school activities. Encouraging our children to develop social skills is critical to their success later in life; taking away recess limits children’s ability to develop those skills.

The world is becoming a scary place, where recess is being removed, politicians are considering abolishing summer vacation in favor of year-round school, and children are pushed into structured activity at every turn. When are kids allowed to be kids? If all of their time is scheduled and regimented, when will children invent their own games, write their own songs, and draw in the dirt? When will they build tree forts, hold tea parties for their dolls, and host impromptu talent shows with their friends? Scheduling every moment of a child’s day takes away the very meaning of what it means to be a child.

TIME Magazine's article The Case Against Summer Vacation outlines an argument for year-round school that emphasizes the "summer slide" -- the notion that children "slide backward" after not learning all summer. While the summer slide is a real phenomenon for many children, the solution isn't to have kids in school all year, but rather to offer opportunities to kids in the summer. Making camp and summer programs affordable and accessible to all children would prevent a loss of knowledge, while engaging children in things in which they are truly interested. It would also allow children to play -- a vitally important part of the learning process that is more and more often being pushed aside in favor of longer school days and more "academics." The same goes for recess; allowing children to make their own choices will ultimately enrich them further than teacher-mandated classroom breaks.

Ultimately, we need to let kids be kids, while also providing them solid opportunities for learning, growth, and development. Enriching the school day by making it more interesting (incorporating the arts, for example) will teach children valuable skills without overwhelming them. It's worth repeating that allowing children to learn through play is not only sensible, but absolutely necessary. Without the opportunity to play our children will, in fact, be less independent and creative than if they were simply given the opportunity to explore the world through play.

No recess? No, thank you.

Prom problems? You must be kidding.

File this one under You must be kidding me.

CNN reported today that an Alabama teenager was suspended from school because her prom dress violated the school dress code. While revealing, the dress is far from risque. What's even more shocking, however, is that the girl, Erica DeRamus, had a choice of punishments and chose to take a three-day suspension over a paddling.

Pardon? Paddling? There are schools that sanction the use of corporal punishment against their students? I assumed, wrongly it seems, that paddling was an archaic method of punishment that long-ago faded away in the school systems. According to one human rights group, however, over 200,000 children were paddled in school in 2008. And in the case of DeRamus's school, 17 potential prom-goers chose to be paddled, rather than face suspension from school.


So while I shake my head in disbelief that this girl was punished for the look of her dress, I'm outraged that missing the prom (or being asked to change dresses) wasn't consequence enough and that the chosen punishment was paddling. According to the school's principal, Trey Holloday, 18 students violated the prom's dress code; all but DeRamus chose paddling over suspension. The principal states that young people make mistakes, and that school officials are "very patient when those [mistakes] are made -- including this -- but we're not tolerant of bad behavior or defiance."

It seems to me that Principal Holloday has several problems on his hands. First, he says he's patient when students -- like DeRamus -- make mistakes, but that he won't tolerate bad behavior; simply stated, he acknowledges that DeRamus made a mistake, but punishes her anyway, as though she was purposefully defiant. Secondly, his opinion of inappropriate dress is out of line; while DeRamus's dress was short, it wasn't a miniskirt, and the top was just as cleavage-barring as most prom dresses on the market. Thirdly, having to change clothes or missing the prom should be "punishment" enough for students who violate the prom's dress code; no additional actions need be taken. And finally, the fact that corporal punishment was even an option (and a widely-chosen one at that!) is barbaric and archaic.

People like Principal Holloday shouldn't be educators, nor should the folks who canceled 18-year-old Constance McMillen's prom after she asked to wear a tuxedo and bring a same-sex date to the dance. What, exactly, are these adults afraid of? Are they so scared by the fact that Constance is a lesbian that they're willing to battle with the ACLU and deprive kids of a major rite of passage? Does principal Holloday enjoy being a bully or exerting his power? Randomly subjecting students to punitive actions doesn't teach them anything; it merely gives the impression that people in positions of power get to be bullies, creating and enforcing rules arbitrarily.

It would be nice if kids were allowed to be kids. Put basic safety rules in place and let kids go to the prom in tuxes or dresses and with whomever they choose. The world has bigger problems than whether two girls go to the dance together or whether a student arrives in a cleavage-baring gown. Only once educators start focusing on what's really important will they truly be impacting the character and moral fiber of their students.

Books for crooks? Why I donated to the Prison Book Program

Ten minutes ago I donated five American Century dictionaries to prisoners in Massachusetts.

The Prison Book Program is a grassroots organization that has been sending books to prisoners since 1972. Based in my own backyard (just outside of Boston), the organization sends free books to prisoners and is currently hoping to collect enough money to buy 1,000 college-level dictionaries for inmates.

Wondering why I donated five dictionaries to inmates?

• First and foremost, I believe in a right to education for all. The prison system in the United States focuses on a punitive form of justice, not a rehabilitative one, but an educated prisoner makes for a more useful member of society after his release. By providing books (and dictionaries) we are encouraging inmates to educate themselves and become more productive members of society after their releases.
  
  
• The majority of inmates currently incarcerated are reading at a sub-standard level. Not only are dictionaries are important to understand words in books read for pleasure, but they are important for inmates who are signing important legal documents. It is critical that people understand all the materials given to them and dictionaries allow prisoners to do that.
  
  
• Plenty of people make poor decisions that land them in prison, but many learn from their mistakes and should have an opportunity to better themselves. Other inmates are incarcerated due to a failure of the justice system. All prisoners should have access to books, but I feel especially passionate that those people who are unjustly locked up and those who have a desire to improve themselves through education should have access to all the books they can read.
  

There are, of course, half a dozen more reasons why this cause is important to me, but I think the inmates say it best. The Prison Book Program website publishes actual requests from inmates. One says,

"I have to have my room mate [sic] help me with the big words... I have only been reading now for about 21 months. I am 46 years old and when I get out of prison, my son will be 11 years old. And I would love to be able to read and write to my son. So please if you all could see to help me I will be able to help my son when I get home. The dictionary will help learne [sic] how to spell big words."

Like this inmate, many of people who end up in prison have the proverbial odds stacked against them. These are low-income people with little or no education, living in poor neighborhoods, and failing to see that there are any positive options. I only wish that the man quoted above had better opportunities for education in his youth; if he had, perhaps he wouldn't be in prison today. Since he is in prison, however, I'm glad that he's making an effort to improve his circumstances by learning to read and write. When he gets out of prison he'll be able to teach his son that it's never to late to learn.

If you're interested in donating dictionaries to inmates, know that the Prison Book Program is buying 1,000 dictionaries at the wholesale price of $2.47. By donating less than it costs to buy a latte at Starbucks, you'll send a much-needed and much-appreciated dictionary to an inmate. Give up fancy coffee for a single week and you can send 10 dictionaries to folks who really need them. Besides, you can donate online with the click of a button.

For more information on the Prison Book Program, visit their website: www.PrisonBookProgram.org.

Upward Bound needs your help: Why TRiO programs need to be fully-funded

Change.org recently posted a call to action, asking readers to contact their federal elected officials in support of TRiO programs.

TRiO programs are “federal outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.” In essence, these programs allow low-income and disabled students the opportunity and tools to become the first in their families to go to college.

According to Change.org, during the last grant cycle (in 2007) for TRiO’s Upward Bound (UB) program, nearly 200 Upward Bound programs lost their funding, including a disproportionate number of programs housed at historically black institutions. It is my understanding that in response to this loss, an amendment to the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (CCRAA) “provided $57 million each year for fiscal years 2008-2001” to fund UB programs that served approximately 12,000 students. Unfortunately, because the funds were put into effect immediately – and didn’t result in forward-funding like typical TRiO grants – there are no funds to account for these programs once the CCRAA’s money runs out.

Essentially, by not providing additional discretionary funds to cover the costs of these programs, the government has decided to cut the number of active Upward Bound programs from 964 to 788, serving 12,000 fewer students each year. This is in addition to the over 39,000 students who already lost services for fiscal year 2010, due to rising costs.

Why is Upward Bound so important?

For starters, Upward Bound evens the academic playing field for at-risk kids. The teenagers who participate in UB programs can be from low-income or minority families, the first in their families to go to college. Many are also homeless or living “doubled up” with friends or family. Most UB students are a combination of some or all of those things. They also live in economically-depressed areas, like rural communities with high rates of poverty and few social service programs or big cities with lots of crime and few jobs. These are kids who are unlikely to go on to college without the guidance of a program like Upward Bound.

As a former UB student, I urge you – the readers – to encourage your elected officials to support the expansion of TRiO programs and, consequently, funding for the 2011 fiscal year. Because of the Upward Bound program, I was encouraged to go to college and given the tools to do so.

I grew up in a rural, economically-depressed area, where less than half of my classmates made it through four-year college. With Upward Bound's guidance (and financial assistance) I applied to seven colleges and universities, was accepted at six, and graduated cum laude in four years with a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice and Psychology. I was the first in my family to go to and graduate from college. It was something no one else had ever been able to do. In fact, shortly after my graduation, I had to attend the funeral of a family member. At the service, my grandfather pulled me close to him and said to anyone who would listen, “That’s my granddaughter – she’s a college graduate!”

The fact that I went to and was able to graduate from college was no small feat. I didn’t know anything about college until Upward Bound came along and helped me through the process. I wouldn’t have known to take difficult courses and the SATs – kids who have college graduates for parents know those things, but why would it occur to the rest of us? That I was guided through the process and given the skills (academic and emotional) to cope with and excel in college, resulted in my becoming the first person in my family to go to college; I hope that future generations of my family will be able to pursue their dreams of higher education as well.

In addition to helping me as a high school student, Upward Bound was also able to provide me with an internship during the summer, in between semesters at college. That lead to offers of employment every summer thereafter and turned into a fulltime job upon graduation. I was eventually promoted from Office Manager to Academic Advisor, and I was given the opportunity to help guide hundreds of other kids through the college process. I also helped to educate parents, teaching them how to advocate for themselves and their children by requesting AP classes and extracurricular activities at their children’s schools. I helped raise funds to cover the gaps between a student’s financial aid packet and the cost of college. I took everything that Upward Bound taught me, turned around, and taught it to those kids coming up behind me. I know the value of what was given to me and am eager to pay my good fortune forward.

TRiO programs need to be fully-funded. The opportunity to grow up with Upward Bound and then work for the program made me who I am today. The government likes to count things, to prove that their programs are making a difference. I don’t know if you can count the individuals who went on to lead productive lives because of UB, but I’m afraid that you can count the number of people who didn’t – they’re the ones in dead-end service jobs, in prison, in rough neighborhoods, and in bad relationships, because they didn’t have access to someone who cared about them and guided them through high school and college. They didn’t have the support networks that UB students build with their classmates, teachers, and advisors. They didn’t know that anyone believed in them, and they didn’t get the chance to shine.

College should not be a privilege enjoyed only by the rich or the offspring of college graduates. TRiO programs (including Upward Bound) allow children of all backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, and ethnicities to achieve academic success. These students grow up to give back to their communities and become productive members of society. Eliminating or level-funding TRiO programming is irresponsible and will result in a greater discrepancy between the haves and have-nots in American society.

By not funding the Upward Bound program, we are denying our children the opportunity to take charge of their education and we are most certainly depriving ourselves of a brighter future filled with teachers, doctors, lawyers, writers, social workers, businesspeople, and entrepreneurs who knew what it was like to grow up poor. These are precisely the kind of people we need to make the world a better place. They are the people who give back to their communities by mentoring the next generation of at-risk kids so that the cycle of learning and giving back continues.

Please join the cause and write to your elected officials. You can find them online through the Change.org call to action and read more about the issue at the Council for Opportunity in Education.

Common sense overrules suspension of six-year-old

In a rare win for common sense, first grader Zachary Christie's suspension was lifted yesterday following a meeting of the school board.

It's about time that common sense won out over zero-tolerance policies that make zero sense. The Christina School District, where Zachary is a student, has dealt with similar cases, including the expulsion of a young girl last year after her grandmother sent her to school with a birthday cake and a knife with which to cut it. (She was, coincidentally, not reprimanded until after the teacher used the knife to cut the cake.) After the girl's case, a state law gave school districts flexibility on punishments that included possible expulsion (the girl's expulsion was eventually overturned), but failed to affect cases that led to suspensions instead of expulsions. Thankfully, Yahoo! News reports that the district may be working on more changes to the school's code of conduct.

I'm in good company on my quest for common sense. Yahoo! News reports that Kenneth S. Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services agrees with my sentiments. "When that common sense is missing, it sends a message of inconsistency to students, which actually creates a less safe environment," said Trump. "People have to understand that assessing on a case-by-case basis doesn't automatically equate to being soft or unsafe."

Today's score?
Common sense = 1
Ridiculousness = 0

Six-year-old suspended for eating with camping utensil at school

I used to teach at a high school with high rates of teenage pregnancy, drop-outs, and general misbehavior. The administration tried a variety of tactics to keep kids on the straight-and-narrow, including the introduction of ID badges, police officers in the hallways, and a number of other interventions. The school also had a very strict policy regarding threats to students or the school. A frustrated student muttering, Gosh, this is so boring I could kill myself, led to an automatic removal from class accompanied by a psych evaluation.

If a psych evaluation seems harsh, consider the "zero-tolerance" policies adopted at many schools across the nation. On Sunday, the New York Times reported that six-year-old Zachary Christie was suspended for bringing a Cub Scout camping utensil to school because the tool contained a fork, spoon, and a knife; the knife violated the school's zero-tolerance policy on weapons. In addition to the suspension, Zachary (who takes school so seriously that he often wears a suit and tie to his first grade classroom) faces 45 days in a reform school.

Watch the video here.

The New York Times reports that school officials argue that it is difficult for schools "to distinguish innocent pranks and mistakes from more serious threats, and that the policies must be strict to protect students." I disagree.

While basic policies must remain in place to keep children safe, basic common sense must take precedence when dealing with young children. Has anyone considered the harm being done to poor Zachary, who is without the benefit of formal education or social interactions with his peers for 45 days? Has it occurred to anyone that the children in his classroom might benefit from a lesson and an explanation, rather than seeing a well-behaved classmate suddenly removed from school? Did anyone think that young Zachary might be so excited about Cub Scouts that he just wanted to share his enthusiasm with friends? Be sensible! The poor child is six years old and hasn't shown any disciplinary problems. Treat him with respect and make sure that the punishment fits the crime (if indeed bringing a Cub Scout tool to school can be called a "crime").

There's no denying that some children bring weapons to school with the intention of causing trouble. There's also no denying that we all want to protect our children from violence and that we must be vigilant to ensure that no one slips through the cracks. Zachary, however, slipped through the cracks of common sense when school officials thought it appropriate to suspend a six-year-old for bringing his camping utensil to school. Perhaps next time the school will follow the Cub Scout Law of the Pack, and "give goodwill" to children who obviously meant no harm.

Sports for the soul

I love a news story that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Bonus points if it has to do with underdogs or kids doing amazing things.

Remember the story a few years back about the autistic boy who was allowed to play in the last game of the season and ended up scoring several points, including a just-before-the-buzzer three pointer? (Here's the video, if you need a refresher.)

Back then, the story made me teary. I was so glad that this kid got his chance to shine, doing something he loved so much. Everyone was genuinely excited to see Jason McElwain not only play the sport he loved, but succeed at it too. The community rallied around him and celebrated his achievements.

Today, I stumbled across a similar story. This one didn't make the mainstream media -- I found it on a website that covers Kansas City sports -- but the sentiment is every bit as heartwarming.

Matt Ziesel is a fifteen-year-old freshman at St. Joseph Benson High School. He is also five feet, three inches, 110 pounds, and (as of last week) had yet to play in a real game. But at last Monday's game, with the opposing team up 46-0, the Benson High coach, Dan McCamy, called a time out and sent Ziesel into the game.

KansasCity.com reports that Coach McCamy went over and spoke with the opposing team's coach, saying “I’ve got a special situation. I know you guys want to get a shutout. Most teams would want a shutout, but in this situation I want to know if maybe you can let one of my guys run in for a touchdown.”

The opposing team cooperated, allowing Ziesel to run 60 yards for a touchdown, but keeping pace with him the whole run so as to make the moment feel as realistic as possible. As a result, Ziesel was able to score his first touchdown, and two communities were able to share in the joy of seeing a boy accomplish his dreams.

Sports, like many organized activities, offer kids the chance to participate in something that makes them part of a team, makes them feel included. I'm a big fan of anyone who includes children with special needs in their activities. It may not always be easy, but it's always worth it. Just ask Matt or the basketball player if it was worth it. I'm sure they'd say it was.

Madam Librarian

Lately I can hear the sirens' song, and it's about books. The tune is forever in the back of my head, tempting me to read in much of my spare time and making me long for a job in which I'd be surrounded by writing.

I have loved books for as long as I can remember. My parents tell me I learned to read before I was three years old and I never stopped. Many days of my childhood were spent flipping through my books, my brother's books, my parents' books, library books... I spent dinners sneaking glances at novels and magazines, while my parents scolded me: No reading at the table!

As I got older, I read even more. In middle school we were required to read at least eight novels each year during our "silent reading" period; we then had to take tests to "prove" that we had read them. Some kids never finished. Most kids read eight to twelve books. I read 140.

Shortly thereafter, I got my first summer job as a librarian's assistant at the Carnegie Library in my hometown. Each day I'd get there early (some days before the other librarians), eager to get started. My working hours were filled with checking out and shelving books, updating the card catalog (which was still made up of cards and in triplicate, since our library had other branches) by pulling out the cards of books we no longer carried and replacing them with new cards. I spent my Friday mornings helping with the children's story hour, my afternoons helping patrons, and much of my time feeling blessed that I was fortunate enough to score the perfect summer employment.

The best part about working at the library was access to all the books. I read dozens of books that summer. I read lots of young adult fiction, worked my way through law novels of all stripes, and even managed to read all 1,000+ pages of Gone with the Wind, which smelled musty and had thin pages like a bible and felt weighty and substantial in my hands. During lunchtime, most of the librarians would go home to eat and I would stay at the library, sitting outside in the warm sun with my back pressed against the hot brick or snuggled inside on cloudy days, wedged underneath the giant moose head on the wall or tucked back in the stacks sitting on a footstool, my book in my lap and a sandwich in my hand.

While all this may seem to make me a bit of a nerd, I always maintained a social life and other interests. I don't suffer from the debilitating shyness that is sometimes linked with being bookish, and though I often prefer to get lost in a book, I enjoy parties and get-togethers a great deal.

I've always pondered what it would be like to be a librarian. Lately (since I'm finding less and less satisfaction with my work), I've been considering this whole librarian thing a bit more seriously. And when I read (in the New York Times, no less!) that being a librarian is suddenly cool, I began to think that maybe a career change is in order. After all, there's nothing I love more than a cardigan and a good book!

Good books aside, becoming a librarian will require more school. I'm not sure if I'm ready for more school. While I love to learn, I don't love being broke or being overbooked. Life as an undergraduate is relatively simple; you take out some loans, focus on nothing but school and extracurriculars, and spend your summers living at home, rent free. Graduate school is another animal entirely; you have to hold down a full-time job, take out even more astronomical loans, and pay for your own rent and groceries.

I haven't yet decided if I'm up for the challenge of library school, but it's certainly always nagging in the back of my mind. For now, I'll continue working my way through mystery series, memoirs, and non-fiction and will pepper my life with young adult novels (which I still love wholeheartedly). Maybe I can volunteer at my local library (which, alas, is not the library of my youth and does not feature a giant moose head on the wall) and live vicariously through a friend who just started library school.

And at the very least, I can keep reading. In fact, I think I might start right now...

Too cool for school? President Obama's plan to address students

Yahoo! News reported today that President Obama's national address to the students of America is under fire by conservatives who believe that the president is promoting a leftist agenda. The article goes as far to say that some conservatives are "calling the speech an excuse to brainwash American children."

At noon on September 8, the address will be broadcast live on the White House website and C-SPAN. According to the press release, President Obama intends to speak directly to students about succeeding in school. He will challenge them to "work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning."

Image courtesy of AP Photo/Charles Dharapak.

Oh no! The President of the United States of America (elected by a solid 53% of the population) is encouraging children to embrace education? What's next? Socialism? The brainwashing, good-for-nothing monster shouldn't be allowed near our children!

Seriously though, sparking a national conversation about education is exactly what this country needs, and America's young people could use a little encouragement to take their education seriously. Our nation's children are far from mindless. It is highly unlikely that President Obama (or any U.S. President, for that matter) would be able to "brainwash" any students or even sway them to unwillingly support a "leftist" agenda.

Just moments ago, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters, "I think we've reached a little bit of the silly season when the president of the United States can't tell kids in school to study hard and stay in school. I think both political parties agree that the dropout rate is something that threatens our long-term economic success."

My point exactly. Our children need encouragement to pursue an education, and they need to hear about the importance of education from a variety of sources, including parents, friends, teachers, and people in positions of authority. In addition, since many of our nation's failing students are from low-income or minority communities, hearing from successful men of color does nothing but good, in my opinion.

I even think that this speech is an opportunity to teach children critical thinking skills. If a teacher or parent doesn't agree with what President Obama says in the address, why not ask the students questions that require critical thinking skills? Why do you agree or disagree with the President? What improvements would you make to the education system as it is now? What is the most important factor contributing to your success in school? What is the hardest obstacle getting in the way of your education? Failing to allow our children to develop critical thinking skills is failing as parents and teachers.

We need to expose our kids to healthy, appropriate situations in which they will have the opportunity to think for themselves. We need to stop being a country full of helicopter parents and politicians who enjoy nothing more than standing on soapboxes. What we need, is to stop and listen to the President on Tuesday at noontime. Give the man a chance to say what he has to say; then, form your opinions and find a young person with whom to talk about your reactions.

Juvenile justice system in the news

The past month has been a busy one for the juvenile justice system in the United States. CNN reported that teen offenders in Missouri are "finding a future" through a juvenile justice program that focuses on therapy and education, while the New York Times reported that mentally ill juveniles are straining the system. In either case, it's a good sign that people are talking about the juvenile justice system, which is far from perfect -- and in some cases, far from functional.

In Missouri, teen offenders are housed in dormitory-like buildings that provide colorful, comfortable accommodations. Teens go through therapy and are given the opportunity to go to school and receive job training. Juvenile offenders are also assigned case workers and work closely in small groups, learning about self-control, teamwork, and other skills necessary to become productive members of society. Even violent offenders are given the chance to work toward rehabilitation in small groups, though they live in gated facilities.


While the federal rates of suicide and recidivism in youth offenders remain relatively high, officials in Missouri note that no juvenile offenders have committed suicide while in the program (which began in the 1970s) and only about 9 percent of juveniles in Missouri are back in trouble within three years of release. The low rate of recidivism, in turn, saves the state's justice system billions of dollars by lowering the number of repeat offenders and cutting down on the costs of building and maintaining more prisons.

Many of the young people who go through the Missouri system eventually go on to college and become productive members of their communities. CNN reported that one girl, who was incarcerated in 2005 for alcohol abuse and behavioral problems, said that she had always wanted to go to college, but didn't think it could actually happen. This year, she's graduating from college and applying to law school.

More states should follow the Missouri model for juvenile offenders, ensuring that youth get the attention and education they need to become productive members of society. It is a stark contrast with the Ohio system mentioned in the New York Times article. The system in question houses a juvenile population that includes many teens with mental illness. Nationwide, nearly two-thirds of juvenile inmates are dealing with psychiatric disorders. Housing juveniles with mental illness in correctional facilities fails to address the issue at hand, which is getting the youth access to medication, therapy, and other tools that will allow them to manage their illnesses and work their way toward becoming reintegrating into their communities.

The article in the New York Times also reports that juvenile correctional facilities are the usually the only option for teenagers who deal with serious mental illness and criminal records. Once they arrive, teenagers are usually kept on strong psychotropic drugs and receive limited access to therapists and behavior modification programs. The article also mentions that in 2001 over 9,000 families relinquished custody of their mentally ill children to the juvenile justice system so that the youth could get access to mental health services.

It is irresponsible not to allow children and teenagers access to the appropriate resources in any case, but it ought to be criminal to ignore the needs of the mentally ill. If we don't allow mentally ill teenagers some control over their bodies and minds through medication and therapy, how do we expect them to navigate the world in a safe and appropriate way? What do we expect mentally ill teenagers to learn in correctional facilities? By simply locking them up and throwing away the proverbial key, we're only teaching them that no one is looking out for their best interests, so they'll have to fend for themselves.

My hope is that more states will begin to follow the Missouri model. It's appropriate, intelligent, and ultimately better for society if we prepare juvenile offenders for a life outside prison walls. Prepared teens are functional teens, and functional teens become functional adults who stay out of the prison system. The investment with teenagers up front will pay for itself a dozen times over in the end; we just need to be willing to make the investment now to reap the rewards in the future.

Teaching old dogs new tricks: inmates train service dogs

What makes people do the things they do? What makes some people commit crimes, while others walk a straight and narrow path? How can we reform former law-breakers into law-abiding members of society?

To find the answers to my questions, I studied criminal justice and psychology in college. I was interested in the "human condition" and I wanted to find out as much as I could about what makes people behave a certain way. I focused a great deal on juveniles as well, trying to figure out what it takes to keep young people out of the criminal justice system and what could be done to help them find a place back in the community if they had already been part of the system.

Fast forward to a few things that I've learned:

1. Children do not misbehave, they make mistakes.
   When very young children act out they need something (such as attention) that they can't ask for outright. When adolescents act out, they're also seeking attention or gratification that they can't find elsewhere. Even if they "know better" they're still just kids without fully-formed brains; adolescents do not have very good impulse control and need to be taught how to deal with their feelings and needs in a productive way.
   
   
2. Nothing good can come from locking folks up and "throwing away the key."
   Very few offenders in the grand scheme find themselves behind bars forever. Because of this, our communities need to find a way to rehabilitate inmates so that they can rejoin society and become functional members of their communities. Teaching inmates about self-esteem along with technical skills will produce people who are ready to become part of the outside world again. Without this support and rehabilitation, many former inmates fall back into old patterns and wind up within the prison system once again.
   
   
3. People are inherently good.
   There are plenty of people in this world that don't get along with one another, but all of them have some good somewhere. Many inmates are poor and are dealing with mental illness or addiction. By bringing out the good in them, finding them the proper treatment for whatever illness or addiction they are battling, we can also showcase the good in people, allowing inmates to reintegrate into society after they've served their time.

It is obvious that I am a firm believer in a rehabilitative form of justice. I believe that inmates should have access to counseling services, education, and spiritual guidance. I also believe that there are many programs (or potential programs) that can benefit both inmate and society. One such program that I've been seeing more and more of lately is Puppies Behind Bars (and similar programs).

Puppies Behind Bars.
Photo courtesy of Radhika Chalasani/Redux.

Puppies Behind Bars is the brainchild of Gloria Gilbert Stoga. After adopting a Labrador Retriever who was trained as a guide dog but discharged from the program for medical reasons, Stoga began researching the process of training a guide dog. It commonly costs $25,000 to train one dog, who then goes on to be a service animal for a blind, deaf, or physically handicapped owner or assists law enforcement as a drug- or explosives-sniffing dog. When a friend of Stoga's commented that prisoners might make good dog trainers, and idea was born.

Puppies Behind Bars operates in a handful of prisons across the country. Dogs have been trained by both men and women inmates, and there are successful programs for juvenile offenders as well. Puppies live in cells with their trainers and receive weekend furloughs to outside homes to experience life outside prison walls (to get used to traffic, doorbells, telephones, elevators, and the like). Trainers attend weekly classes and train their dogs in obedience as well as the special skills required to be a guide dog or law enforcement dog.

I support the programming of Puppies Behind Bars one hundred percent. Research shows that dogs have a calming, positive affect on people (inmates included). It also shows that the inmate trainers who work with these dogs finish the program with higher self esteem, more compassion for other people, better impulse control, and a drop in selfishness. They've also learned valuable skills that can help them when they reintegrate into society. These inmates can find work with animals, or -- with their new-found patience -- can train for other types of work.

In addition to benefits for the inmates, training dogs behind bars has advantages for the dogs and the community as well. For starters, the dogs involved in the program find themselves with devoted care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Prisoners do not have demands on their time the way those outside the system do. Even the most devoted dog trainers in the "outside" world have the distractions of spouses, cell phones, children, dentist appointments, and the like. In prison, dogs have access to their trainers -- and undivided attention -- 24 hours a day. The community benefits as well, since training a dog through a program like Puppies Behind Bars costs less than it does in the "real" world. More dogs can be trained less expensively, which means that more service animals are out in the community, assisting people who need them.

For more information on Puppies Behind Bars, you may visit them online at: http://www.puppiesbehindbars.com/index.asp

Denied a diploma for blowing a kiss?

Earlier this month the ABC-affiliate from Portland, Maine reported that high school student Justin Denney was denied his diploma after "misbehaving" during his graduation ceremony. Denney's misbehavior? Blowing his family a kiss and bowing on stage.

The "proud gestures" were enough for superintendent Suzanne Lukas to deny Denney his diploma, saying that the boy's actions violated a code of conduct signed by the graduating students. After a public uproar over the situation, the school board met to discuss the decision. It is reported that the school board supported the superintendent's actions, though they did mail Denney his diploma.

According to ABC, Denney and his family have asked for an apology and for the superintendent to step down, but the superintendent defends her actions and states that "this is a closed issue" as far as she is concerned.



Having watched video of the graduation in question (not the video above), I understand why school officials instituted a policy to maintain order during the graduation ceremony. Students were batting around beach balls and acting up during various points during the ceremony, which was obviously distracting to families, as well as the students who were not participating in the shenanigans. School officials said that graduations had been quite rowdy in the past, which is why strict standards were implemented.

What concerns me is the obvious difference between disrespectful teenagers bashing each other with beach balls, and a student blowing his family a kiss after four years of hard work. Denney wasn't showboating. He didn't yell and do cartwheels on the stage; he merely showed excitement at his accomplishment. He wasn't misbehaving, he was being a kid!

The fact that a superintendent and school board would stand behind their misguided decision to deny a student his diploma is even more appalling. An apology is certainly called for. Denney was denied the opportunity to graduate with his class -- he'll never again have the opportunity to relive that moment. In addition, Superintendent Lukas was completely out of line. If she was worried about misbehavior, she should have paid more attention to the catcalls and beach balls in the audience and less attention to a student celebrating his achievement.

I was initially shocked when I heard this story, but the shock quickly wore off, since I hear stories like this far too often. We live in a society of excess. On one hand there are children being allowed to throw beach balls to interrupt a graduation ceremony, and on the other there are school officials punishing a minor offender (if it can be classified as offensive at all). Children shouldn't be allowed to throw beach balls during graduation, but who's to blame for that? Where are the parents teaching manners about social decorum? Where are the teachers who tell the kids how proud they are and explain how to act during the ceremony? Perhaps if we taught our children about socially-acceptable displays of exuberance and affection, we wouldn't be dealing with overly-excitable kids and an overly-uptight superintendent, with one boy singled out as an scapegoat.

Process vs. Product — Editorializing about children’s creativity

In many educational settings, we find adult-directed art projects for children that focus on a product, rather than the process.

Whether it’s a teacher creating egg-carton caterpillars with his class, a daycare provider making handprint turkeys with her charges, or a mom with a snowflake craft kit after school, the tendency is the same — adult-implemented art projects for children make the projects themselves the primary focus.

When planning art projects for children, we adults must consider what it is that makes art fun in the first place: creativity. We must also remember what we're creating — not handprint turkeys, but well-rounded people.

The theory

While older children may enjoy the structure of a craft kit or a coloring book, children in early childhood (ages 0-6), are learning rapidly and will get more out of open-ended activities. Childcare providers (including parents, teachers, and volunteers) help children learn through play and art activities are a great way to facilitate this learning. Giving children access to art materials helps them express themselves, work on fine motor skills (drawing with a crayon, writing with a pencil), learn important skills for the future (cutting with scissors, communicating with peers and adults). By allowing children to choose their own materials, children are given the opportunity not only to express their feelings but also to learn how to make choices and build plans. Once children choose and use their materials, adults can reinforce their choices with concrete praise. Saying “You were very careful cutting with scissors today!” or “I like the way you used crayons and paint on your paper” gives children a sense of accomplishment and self-confidence that is not earned by hearing an endless string of “good job” or “nice work.” Children who develop this sense of self-confidence are also more willing to take other risks such as trying out new skills like writing, shoe-tying, or hard puzzles.

Putting it into practice

The key to child-centered art isn’t letting the children have a free-for-all with art supplies, but rather building an environment where children feel comfortable creating art. Adults can facilitate art experiences by subtly structuring activities and leaving the participation to the children.

Here are some ways to guide art activities without running the whole process or letting things get too chaotic.

1) Set out a variety of materials. You don’t need to empty an entire supply closet — that would be overwhelming. Instead, try choosing three or four materials and allow the children to choose what they’d like to use and experiment with various methods (cutting and pasting, coloring, painting, etc.).

2) Choose a “theme” by talking to the children about it. Chatting about the weather and asking the kids to create a picture that represents their favorite kind of weather is an open-ended, process-focused way to create art. Giving children cut-outs of clouds and raindrops and telling them to glue them on blue paper is, however, a product-oriented activity.

3) Give the children unusual materials. By giving the kids access to supplies they haven’t used in art projects, you’re giving them the freedom to create. Bring in recycled materials such as paper towel tubes, empty thread spools, or milk cartons and tell the children that they may use the materials in an art project. Or, paint with sponges, pine needles, or toothbrushes. New materials will inspire new ideas for your kids!

4) Create a challenge. By creating a challenge to solve, kids are involved in the process of art, not worried about the final product. Ask the kids “how many shapes do you think we can we cut out and glue to this poster board?” or “What do you think will happen if we mix these different colored paints together?” You can even present a handful of odd supplies (try paper plates, paperclips, and paper cups or ribbon, toilet paper rolls, and empty yogurt containers) and ask the children how they would like to combine the materials in a group art project.

Conclusion

By focusing on the process of creating, learning, and artistic design, we allow children to be who they are and learn at their own pace. When we force kids to confine themselves to our expectations and focus only on a product as the end result we aren’t enabling the kids to be all that they can be. The next time you’re working with children try to brainstorm ways to let the kids go through the process of creation and worry less about the product they end up with.