Thinking about education

As I sit down to write this post, the polls have been closed for about 30 minutes. Soon we'll know if voters said yes or no to the Portland Public Schools' request for: 1) $548 million of bonding authority to replace or upgrade a select number of schools that are badly in need of repair; and 2) a new five-year levy to help fund day-to-day operations and prevent teacher layoffs.

I have no doubt that the need is there, especially with the capital expenses. Many, if not most, of Portland's schools were built in the 1920s and 1930s and need serious attention. The question is can we afford that big a repair bill in this still-fragile economy? Many of us who've managed to hang onto our jobs during the recession have seen pay and benefits diminish a bit through salary cuts or increased insurance premiums or both.

As a parent whose kids attended Portland schools, I want to be able to give today's and tomorrow's students the same opportunity, if not better, at a quality education. As a taxpayer, I look at how much the bond measure and levy would add to our property taxes, as well as trends that show Portland's school-age enrollment dropping as more empty-nesters stay put and young families look to the suburbs for less expensive housing. It's a conundrum for me, a champion of public school education, and a frequent source of frustration that we as a state can't figure out a better way of funding our schools.

I suppose much of the situation is tied to the public's perception (fueled by certain politicians) that the U.S. school system is mediocre at best and scandalously inferior at worst. Plus, there's no question that as a society, we pay lip service to the idea that we really, truly value education, especially math and science. These points were brought home powerfully in a CNN special that we watched Sunday  night: "Don't Fail Me: Education in America."

Correspondent Soledad O'Brien follows three students at high schools in Phoenix (Ariz.), eastern Tennessee and an affluent New Jersey suburb as the and their peers strive to qualify for a national robotics competition. It's a given that we see vast differences in cultural and community expectations of the kids, huge disparities in the schools' physical plants and financial resources, and in how students view themselves and their prospects.

Interviews with teachers, principals, a former Tennessee and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan all point to sagging achievement, education "reforms" that have resulted in puffed-up gains on standardized tests and, worst of all, an acknowledgment that we just don't encourage and celebrate smart kids in the same way we do student athletes. You can't help but root for the underdogs -- Maria from Phoenix and Bryan from Tennessee -- but you also can't lose sight of the larger issue. Namely, that 80 percent of American high school seniors aren't considered proficient in science knowledge.

With that sad statistic in mind, I try to wrap my mind around new survey results from the Pew Research Center comparing the general public with college presidents on the basic question, "Is college worth it?"

A majority of Americans (57%) say the higher education system in the United States fails to provide students with good value for the money they and their families spend. An even larger majority—75%—says college is too expensive for most Americans to afford. At the same time, however, an overwhelming majority of college graduates—86%—say that college has been a good investment for them personally.

 Meanwhile, Pew reports:

Six-in-ten college presidents say the system of higher education in this country is headed in the right direction, but a substantial minority—38%—say it is headed in the wrong direction. [And] a majority of college presidents (58%) say public high school students arrive at college less well prepared than their counterparts of a decade ago; just 6% say they are better prepared. Also, 52% of presidents say college students today study less than their predecessors did a decade ago; just 7% say they study more.

There's no doubt in mind that being able to attend an affordable state school, as a first-generation college student, opened opportunities that weren't there for so many of my cousins who came from similar backgrounds. Yet, as a parent and longtime recruiter on college campuses, I would join those who argue that college is not for everyone.

I think we do a disservice to students and families when the will or the ability simply are not there, and we'd do better to steer them into a vocational trade or apprenticeship. At the same time, I think state and federal governments, as well as nonprofits and college themselves, should work together to make a college education affordable for all.

But these are issues that surface at the back end of the K-12 continuum. I think the critical issue is one of making an investment in our children's educations in the early years -- including preschool -- when you have a better chance at compensating for differences in income, parental support and school-readiness. Who knows whether there's a kernel of truth in what I've just written? I've never taught anyone other than in a college classroom. If I were a veteran of a grade school or high school classroom, I might feel very differently.

And on that note, it's time to go find out if the Portland bond measure and operating levy passed.

P.S. on Wednesday morning: The bond measure failed. The operating levy passed.

"Seeing beyond the hijab"

Ramadan, the annual month of fasting observed in the Muslim world, got underway Saturday in North America, so I was pleased that we offered readers a timely essay by local writer Tom Krattenmaker titled "Seeing beyond the hijab."

Tom is a former journalist, with an interest in issues involving Christianity in public life, who is now an associate vice president at Lewis & Clark College here in Portland. He continues to write for USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and The Oregonian, among others, and has a book that's coming out in October on Christianity in professional sports.

Anyway, Tom wrote a thoughtful piece stemming from the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, a new law that ensures the rights of employees to practice their religion by wearing certain religious apparel at work and taking holy days off.

As he notes, however, the measure upholds an exception for school teachers that's been on the books since the 1920s. The exception was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court in the 1980s in a ruling that sought to make a distinction between religious apparel that merely expresses one's faith and clothing that has a more overt proselytizing effect.

"Because of the way the ban has been interpreted and enforced, its practical effect has mainly been felt by Sikhs, who wear turbans, and Muslim women, many of whom wear the hijab, or headscarf," Tom reported. Meanwhile, Christian teachers wear less-conspicuous cross necklaces or lapel pins and Jewish teachers wear yarmulkes, with no evident repercussion.

Tom concedes that the hijab and turban stand out, but raises a larger question by asking where is the line that separates legitimate religious expression from the unconstitutional promotion of religion. During an online chat Monday morning that I orchestrated for OregonLive.com, a handful of readers and I joined Tom in exploring some of the issues raised by that question:

1. If one favors the separation of church and state, why should we allow any religious apparel (including jewelry) of any kind in our public classrooms?
2. If one allows the hijab, do we also permit T-shirts that depict Jesus or quote a Bible verse? Do we allow a T-shirt that promotes the Wiccan religion?
3. Which carries more weight? The intent of the wearer (who knows what, if any, meaning is attached to the wearing of an article of clothing) or how it is perceived (and possibly misconstrued) by another party?
4. If we hope to encourage tolerance for the increasing diversity in our society, shouldn't we allow the hijab in the classroom, on the theory that the more familiar we become with it (whether in schools, airports, grocery stories or doctor's offices), the less mysterious or threatening it becomes?

After mulling Tom's article and participating in the half-hour chat, I'm still conflicted. Generally, I don't favor injecting religion in any form in public settings, whether the classroom or the workplace. Yet I'm sympathetic to an individual's freedom of self-expression as well as to the rights of religious or ethnic minorities to assert their beliefs.

If you pressed me, though, I think I would generally be permissive. allowing people to wear whatever they like, as long as the attire is not profane, does not intimidate and does not cause an undue distraction.

Thoughts, anyone?