Joe Biden: "Cynical contempt for social-justice values."

As it stands, I'm still with Bernie Sanders for 2020, although Elizabeth Warren might do in a pinch. Joe Biden? Nope.

When Joe Biden Collaborated With Segregationists, by Jonathan Kozol (The Nation)

The candidate’s years as an anti-busing crusader cannot be forgotten—or readily forgiven.

Advocates for children and civil rights who have not yet given up entirely on the struggle to break down the walls of racial isolation in our public schools may want to take a good hard look at Joe Biden’s shameful record on school segregation. Despite his recent effort to allay concerns about that record, it cannot be expunged or easily forgiven.

Biden has made no apologies for his willingness to rip apart the final remnants of the legacy of Brown at a seminal moment in our nation’s history. As The Washington Post candidly surmised, his “decision to stand by his views on the issue illustrates what some of his supporters think would be his advantage in the 2020 field: his ability to appeal beyond his Democratic base to some white working-class voters who voted for Donald Trump in 2016.” This may seem smart strategy to some. But it reeks of cynical contempt for social-justice values, even if his strategists attempt to dress it up as nothing more than shrewd consensus building.

Like other careful centrists, Biden threads the needle on the subject of diversity by saying that he favors it in principle, even in the face of his decades-long resistance to letting children climb onto a bus in order to achieve it. This is simply doublespeak. In a nation where residential segregation and unabated patterns of redlining have guaranteed the seemingly eternal sequestration of black and Hispanic children in poorly funded schools within their communities, Biden’s many years of strident opposition to letting children ride the good old yellow bus represent a throwback to the age of Plessy v. Ferguson ...

At Strong Towns, Marohn says "I’m one person with one vote and, sadly, despite my strong desire to invest in our schools, I’m compelled to vote NO."

A reminder of rants past, this one from November 4, 2016.

ON THE AVENUES: It’s our big fat Hibbardendum, and Jeff Gahan is carrying the superintendent across the threshold as Metro United Way tosses rice and One Southern Indiana steals all the liquor.

Charles Marohn's testimony isn't a perfect analogy, but it's a reminder of how at times, voices raised in opposition to sacred cows are the most progressive ones of all.

MY "DISINGENUOUS" PUSH TO SAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, by Charles Marohn (Strong Towns)

... Without knowing what else to do to nudge the school district towards sanity, I started a Facebook page to save the historic school. My thought was that if I could raise the profile a little bit, I could get the school district to, perhaps, open up to the potential of repurposing that building.

Two things happened. First, the response of this community was overwhelming. As I write this, the page has over 500 supporters — enough to tip the vote in my small town. I’ve been inundated with people wanting to talk about these issues, find ways to improve our neighborhoods and, most importantly, save the school from the wrecking ball. I’m ashamed that I did not anticipate this, but it has been a heartwarming surprise.

The second thing that happened has somewhat offset those good feelings. Not only has the school district doubled-down on their off-street parking rhetoric (and I feel somewhat compelled to say, stretched the truth beyond what I think is friendly in a situation like this), but the collection of insider voices — the newspaper, the chamber, local dignitaries, even some personal friends — have joined to ridicule, when they weren’t outright condemning, any efforts to question the approach.

People I’m very close to have suggested that I’m hurting our area students, threatening the future of the community and basically being a “disingenuous” jerk for not getting on board with the official plan. The newspaper even rolled out the tired bully tactic common to small towns: you didn’t bring up the concern years ago, so shut up, because it’s not valid anymore. I’m a little sickened by it.

I look around and I’m starting to feel the momentum shifting in this place. A sleepy old railroad town that accepted decline and second-rate status is waking up to possibility. The people in charge are no longer aspiring to be a cheaper version of the big box strip in the (showing the early signs of failure) city next door. They are starting to embrace our strengths. So are my neighbors, some of who have put their time and money into fixing up buildings in our struggling downtown. The list of things we can change is growing.

I owe it to them, and I owe it to the future residents of this community — kids and adults alike — to not support a $200 million investment that would irreversibly turn large parts of their neighborhoods into parking lot. I can’t support any more scars to the fabric of these neglected places. I won’t approve of my tax dollars making student’s walks any more dangerous, let alone their parents and those who must walk to get to where they are going. I find these site plans disrespectful.

And I won’t pay for a perfectly good, historic building to be put in the landfill instead of being repurposed, just so we can have a few more parking spots within convenient distance of the front door. The suggestion feels shameful and I can’t imagine what my Depression-era ancestors would say.

We’re making a once-a-generation decision, borrowing money for 25 years in this proposal. With the people of this community finally standing up to push back on the long-accepted decline, I don't feel compelled to settle for a choice between neighborhood schools and neighborhoods. They go together, and I’m going to keep saying that until school district officials grasp it.

Tuesday Heresy Quartet 1 of 4: Validating American values by scrapping the Pledge of Allegiance.

At meetings, I'll stand for the pledge for only one reason: My father's military service, and by extension, the service of all others.

That's a matter of individual conscience, not mandated public compliance, and one's individual conscience extends to the wording of the pledge, which I don't repeat aloud.

That's because the addition of "Under God" is my personal deal-breaker; however, you're free to comply or dissent as you please. Just know that coercion as it pertains to the exercise of conscience has a tendency to negate the values purportedly being espoused.

The pledge of allegiance must go: A daily loyalty oath has become a toxic, nationalistic ritual, by David Niose (Salon)

We make students salute national greatness for 13 years. No wonder Trumpian anti-intellectuallism is on the march

The final straw came when a teacher accused Alicia, a high school sophomore, of treason.

Alicia (not her real name) hardly comes across as subversive. She’s not one of those kids who is intrigued by anti-American propaganda from ISIS, for example, nor is she one who has been duped by homegrown anti-government groups calling for a citizens’ rebellion. She’s pretty much an ordinary, intelligent teenager—interested in politics, current events and government, but hardly a fringe radical.

Her offense in the eyes of her homeroom teacher, however, was that she chose to sit out the Pledge of Allegiance. This act, for Alicia and countless other young Americans, has brought on the wrath of authority, with teachers and school administrators unleashing mean-spirited accusations and hostility toward students who dare to question the wisdom of a daily loyalty oath. We may be a free country, but any kid who chooses to sit out the collective exercise of exalting America runs a risk of official ostracization.

For refusing to say "Under God," his grades should have been raised.

If the principles of the founders have any meaning at all, then a "pledge of allegiance" to a piece of cloth, spoken aloud by rote, is in itself an entirely unnecessary act.

Inserting the words "under God" into it? That's just egregious, and offensive to anyone who sees the merits in separating church and state.

Placing one's hand on a Bible as part of a ritual to be "sworn" into office?

Ditto.

Making the whole process obligatory in a public, secular school system and placing a grade on it? That sounds like the sort of Tea Party goofiness about to be proposed by the likes of Lee Ann Wisehart.

I'll stand during the pledge as a token of esteem to my father and other veterans, but in this, as in these other considerations, shouldn't they be a matter of personal conscience, and not compulsion?

Student Omits ‘Under God’ From the Pledge of Allegiance, School Vindictively Lowers His Grades, by John Prager (AATTP.org)

A California High School student was punished for omitting “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Derek Giardina, 17, a student at Merrill F. West High School in Tracy, California, said the Pledge of Allegiance properly as instructed as part of the morning announcements. While he omitted only two words, which were added during the anti-Communist panic of the 1950’s.

Unfortunately, the school lacks the necessary knowledge of American history to appreciate the traditional manner of reciting the Pledge, arguing that if a student is going to lead the school, the pledge must promote one specific deity — or, the “traditional way,” as the school says.

Giardina says he was required to lead the school in the pledge as part of a debate class assignment, but that he would normally abstain because he is disillusioned with our country, and is not at all religious ... 

Our children is learning alright. It's what Bennett is teaching that's the problem.

As NAC and Morton Marcus pointed out earlier in the week, much of the state level "reform" being foisted on Hoosiers by officials in Indianapolis is nothing more than a centralized power grab by those who implausibly claim to support reduced government intrusion.

That's certainly true in the realm of education. As the Tribune reports, Indiana Public School Superintendent Tony Bennett is traveling the state stumping for Republican candidates in order to gain control of the Indiana House hoping that same-party representatives will just roll when he and Saint Daniels make their pitch, the details of which they refuse to reveal until after the elections.

When Bennett was superintendent of Greater Clark Schools and not busy campaigning for higher office, he negotiated a contract for himself at over $130K per year, championed a $99 million building project, and assured parents that each part of the project would go on even in the face of cost overruns. All the while, the school system for which he was responsible failed to make adequate yearly progress according to standardized tests.

Since the source of his paycheck has changed, Bennett now says that public school employees have too much negotiating power, we spend too much on school buildings, and that administrative salaries should be tied to yearly progress benchmarks.

If Bennett is the type of hypocritical nitwit you want making decisions for schools in New Albany and statewide, then send Ed Clere back to the state house so he can help them get it done.

Looks like children are being left behind ... by their parents?

Well, well. A legally elected President of the United States, Barack Obama, will give a "back to school" address to the nation’s youth, and this address is being denounced by our friends across the aisle as "brainwashing"?

Note: I suspect the following is not satire.

Grant Line Elementary Will NOT Broadcast Obama

I had the chance this evening to talk with Mr. Lang, the principal at Grant Line Elementary where I have three students attending. He assured me that the school will not be showing the attempted indoctrination of our youth (my words, not his) next Tuesday. This came as a great relief to me as I was prepared to take a day off of work and keep my children home so they would not be exposed to this thinly veiled attempt at brainwashing.

Have you contacted your children's elementary school? You can opt out of this ridiculous show. You can and should stand up for your sovereign rights as the ultimate educator of your children.

Again, I ask: When a right-wing fanatic begins foaming at the mouth over the impending threat of listening to the undisputed winner of a fair election, how much saliva can he lose before dehydration sets in – and who pays for the ambulance run?

What schools have to do with it

Assuming neighborhood streets are safe enough to accommodate them, any children Mrs. Bluegill and I may have will likely never need tax-supported transportation in order to complete their public education through grade 12. They’ll be able to walk or ride a bicycle. Save possible extra-curricular travel, they’ll require no buses, no bus driver salaries, no insurance, no maintenance, and no fuel.

Even though national trends have for several decades strongly favored costly new suburban and exurban school construction and multiple inner-city schools have been abandoned or threatened locally, we’ve made a conscious decision to live in such a way that saves the school system money that could be spent on teachers, staff, and equipment to further enhance educational opportunities, creates a daily exercise regimen to enhance children’s health during a time of alarming childhood obesity, and saves precious fossil fuels when even politicians with whom I normally disagree are rightfully touting energy independence as a major national security concern.

The same cannot necessarily be said for suburban and exurban dwellers. By choosing to live in outlying areas further from preexisiting schools, they necessitate, at least by local decision-making standards, the need for an extensive school transportation system. Tax dollars are siphoned from other educational concerns to provide it.

It seems a fairly straightforward premise, but what’s intriguing about this situation is that many times over the past few years, when I and others have suggested that government should create a system of incentives or disincentives to encourage living arrangement choices that would save the schools and other taxpayer-supported entities money by reducing costs, we’ve been branded socialists and radicals, mostly by more conservative suburban and exurban residents who insist that the free market, not the government, should dictate such things while actively using our tax dollars to subsidize their chosen lifestyles as part of a government sponsored scheme.

It’s an interesting conflict to say the least and school system decisions certainly influence its resolution, as well as many other development phenomena. The initial school transportation thoughts communicated here are only a small part of a larger equation. In fact, the reverse of the presented scenario is often true, when the schools rather than residents choose to move to previously undeveloped areas, creating sprawl rather than merely serving it.

The National Academy of Public Administration in 2004 published a good introductory article about the role schools play in wise development choices.

Billions For New Schools: How Well Spent?
by Neal Peirce

The article provides a link to a Michigan study on the topic, also published in 2004. The linked PDF seems troublesome, so here’s another link to an HTML version at the Michigan Land Use Institute’s site.

Also referenced is Edge-ucation: the compulsion to build schools in the middle of nowhere from Government Magazine

For even more information, visit the Smart Schools Initiative’s Links Page.

*Graphics Credit: Michigan Land Use Institute