What High School Players Suspended Over Support for Police, Firefighters Can Teach the NFL

The story is at first aggravating to hear but the more we learn about it the better the outlook for this country becomes. A pair of high school football players in Morrow, Ohio, ran out on the field before a game holding a Blue Lives Matter and Red Lives Matter flag. They were later suspended over the display, for introducing a political message to the game. It was a sign of pregame social signaling, and as we have come to learn there is a glaring set of double standards on such issues.

For years we have been lectured that Colin Kaepernick and numerous other players who express themselves by protesting the national anthem deserve respect, but if fans express themselves saying they will protest by no longer watching the NFL they are called intolerant or racist. We should applaud a player like Kaepernick for his political views but if former player Herschel Walker lends support to Donald Trump he is called an “Uncle Tom” and told to pipe down. Kneeling for the anthem is praised, but Tim Tebow kneeling to pray in the end zone after a touchdown was bothersome.

The issue at the Little Miami High School gets more complex with the details, and it is more encouraging as well. Part of the suspension the two received was due to their having asked permission ahead of the game to carry the flags, but they had been told they could not do so. So yes, a violation can be pointed at as a cause. They were told that carrying the flags could lead to accountability. When asked about the suspensions the school superintendent Gregory Power explained the decision.

“We can’t have students who decide to do something anyway after they’ve been told that they shouldn’t be doing it,” said Power, noting that he saw the flags as symbols of a political point of view and didn’t want to set a precedent. “We did not want to place ourselves in a circumstance where another family might want a different flag to come out of the tunnel, one that may be [one that] many other families may not agree with from a political perspective,” Power explained.

The details make this more of a milquetoast response. The two players were not randomly choosing to bring the flags out — they did so on September 11, in remembrance of the many lives lost on that fateful date. This calls back to the year when the NFL schedule fell on a September 11 Sunday. While there was praise and support from commissioner Roger Goodell for players kneeling in protest on that day there had been another display that drew a rebuke from the league.

The commissioner, when asked about the anthem protests on the 9/11 anniversary, had declared that he did not think there was a problem with players kneeling. However, he did see a problem when a number of players announced they were going to lace up footwear commemorating the anniversary. It was announced they would be fined over a nebulous violation of the uniform policy. (Bear in mind, weeks later every team violated this policy by donning pink cleats and other clothing for breast cancer awareness month.) The players elected to wear the cleats anyway, willing to pay any fine which the league eventually relented from imposing after the rightful bad publicity it delivered.

This jolt of strong character was reflected in Little Miami, as the on-field flag gesture becomes more significant for each player. Brady Williams is the son of a police officer, and Jared Bently’s father is a firefighter. When both were asked about the politicized accusation they stated they saw this as honoring Americans who had lost lives.

This is how twisted the priorities in some areas of this country have become. Had Brady and Jared been seen taking a knee to express a political point of view there is little doubt this would have been acceptable, if not even drawing praise and support. But showing respect and remembrance of the thousands who had lost lives is somehow unacceptably “political.”

To their credit, both players understood the ramifications of their gesture and chose to go ahead and display their flags. “Listen,” Williams said. “I don’t care what my consequences are. As long as my message gets across, I’ll be happy.”

When high schoolers show more strength of conviction and character than a school district or professional sports league we need to start questioning where things are headed as a nation.

SOURCE

Washington, D.C., Public Schools Spend $30K Per Student; 23% of 8th Graders Proficient in Reading

The public elementary and secondary schools in the District of Columbia spent $30,115 per pupil during the 2016-2017 school year, according to Table 236.75 in the Department of Education’s “Digest of Education Statistics.”

But only 23% of the eighth graders in the district’s public schools were proficient or better in reading in 2019, according to the department’s National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, tests.

Similarly, only 23% of eighth graders in the district’s public schools were proficient or better in mathematics.

Clearly, the government-run schools in our nation’s capital did not give taxpayers their money’s worth.

Yet, the District of Columbia was not the only jurisdiction where public schools cost taxpayers significant money and gave little in return.

The eight states that followed the District of Columbia with the nation’s worst eighth-grade reading scores in 2019 were Alaska, New Mexico, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

The public schools in Alaska spent $19,396 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 23% of the eighth graders in Alaska’s public schools were proficient or better in reading in 2019, and only 29% were proficient or better in math.

The public schools in New Mexico spent $11,596 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 23% of the eighth graders in New Mexico’s public schools were proficient or better in reading, and only 21% were proficient or better in math.

The public schools in Alabama spent $10,615 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 24% of the eighth graders in Alabama’s public schools were proficient or better in reading, and only 21% were proficient or better in math.

The public schools in Texas spent $11,985 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 25% of the eighth graders in Texas public schools were proficient or better in reading, and only 30% were proficient or better in math.

The public schools in Mississippi spent $9,661 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 25% of eighth graders in Mississippi public schools were proficient or better in reading, and only 24% were proficient or better in math.

The public schools in West Virginia spent $12,566 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 25% of eighth graders in West Virginia public schools were proficient or better in reading, and only 24% were proficient or better in math.

The public schools in Oklahoma spent $8,935 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 26% of eighth graders in Oklahoma public schools were proficient or better in reading, and only 26% were proficient or better in math.

The public schools in Louisiana spent $12,502 per pupil in 2016-2017. But only 27% of eighth graders in Louisiana public schools were proficient or better in reading, and only 23% were proficient or better in math.

Students taking the NAEP reading and math tests can reach three different grade-specific “achievement levels.” The first is “NAEP Basic,” which is described as “denoting partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade level assessed.” The second is “NAEP Proficient,” which is described as demonstrating “competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.” The third is “NAEP Advanced,” which is described as “denoting superior performance at each grade assessed.”

In the District of Columbia public schools in 2019, 42% of the eighth graders did not reach any of these achievement levels in reading. They scored below NAEP Basic. That means they did not have even a “partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work” at that grade level.

Another 35% of the district’s eighth graders managed to reach only NAEP Basic in reading.

Similarly, 45% of the district’s eighth graders scored below NAEP Basic in math, and 32% scored at NAEP Basic.

Nationwide in 2019, only 32% of eighth graders in public schools scored at or above proficient in reading, and only 33% scored at or above proficient in math.

Does that make you want to send your child to a public school?

Does it give you confidence this nation’s government-run schools are teaching young Americans to be thoughtful and well-informed citizens?

American Catholic schools, according to the NAEP results, do far better than government-run schools in teaching students reading and math.

In 2019, while only 32% of public school eighth graders were proficient or better in reading, 48% of Catholic school eighth graders were proficient or better in reading.

While only 33% of public school eighth graders were proficient or better in math, 44% of Catholic school eighth graders were proficient or better in math.

There is an obvious solution to the widespread inferiority of American public schools: Give every parent a voucher worth the amount of money the local public school district spends per pupil, and let that parent use that voucher to send their child to the school of their choice.

If that means many public schools will shrivel and die, so be it.

SOURCE

The Left’s Vicious Attacks on Nick Sandmann Follow Him to College

Nicholas Sandmann, the Catholic high school student who recently settled defamation lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post, is again in the crosshairs of the Left as he prepares to enter college.

In a vivid display of the degree to which the Left — this time those embedded in academia — will mercilessly hound anyone they do not like (particularly someone who has successfully challenged them), members and alumni of Kentucky’s Transylvania University, a school which has admitted Sandmann, publicly are talking about him as if he were a Manchurian Candidate on a mission to destroy the university. He is being called a dangerous “provocateur in training” and a troublemaker because he likely will disrupt classes by daring to question their teachings.

Avery Tompkins, a professor at Transylvania and one of its “diversity scholars,” criticized Sandmann for belonging to groups that hold “anti-intellectualist views.” Media reports quoting the professor did not clarify which groups she considers to be “anti-intellectualist” or what she believes the term means. Her dislike for Sandmann was echoed by Samuel Crankshaw who is an alumnus of the University and a communications official with the ACLU. Crankshaw labeled Transylvania’s decision to admit the young “provocateur” a “stain” on the institution.

Compare the manner by which the media and academia are treating Sandmann with the fawning praise they lavished on another high school student who found himself in the media spotlight — David Hogg, one of the students who survived the 2018 mass shooting at his high school in Parkland, Florida.

Unlike Sandmann, who comports himself publicly with quiet reserve, Hogg became the Left’s foul-mouthed poster child for gun control immediately following his ordeal. He has relished his role as a belligerent gun control activist — a committed “provocateur” if you will — and was accepted at Harvard University.

The contrasting way these two young men have been treated by academia illustrates with disturbing clarity the distance by which America’s higher education system has strayed from how it was considered by our Founders.

When founding the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson highlighted the institution’s purpose as one “based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind” because its students would be “not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead.” Jefferson’s vision reflects the fundamental purpose of classical, higher education as a free and unfettered exploration of knowledge, ideas, and human interaction. Yet, as any conservative student like Sandmann can attest today, this ideal is no longer to be found on many, if not most college campuses from New England to the Pacific Northwest. Such institutions now are but a hollow shell of Jefferson’s ideal.

As the so-called educators at Transylvania demonstrate, higher education today is less about intellectual exploration bound only by the “illimitable freedom of the human mind,” than it is forcing students into an environment rigidly confined by speech codes, social behavior standards, and reeducation programs. Fear of truth, not the courage to search for it, has become the guiding principle in America’s once prestigious collegiate institutions.

The institutional bias against students like Sandmann represents the heightened challenges conservative students face today, both in applying to and attending many universities and colleges. By contrast, students either devoid of clear philosophical or political leanings, or whose views are in accord with leftwing campus orthodoxy, have nothing to fear by voicing their opinions, no matter how absurd or extreme.

Conservative students and faculty, however, often find themselves needing help from organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in order to fight back against punitive and even illegal viewpoint discrimination by left-wing tenured professors and university administrators. These so-called “educators” genuinely fear incoming students like Sandmann, because such “provocateurs” might actually challenge their leftist philosophy and force them to articulate a meaningful defense.

For decades, the Left has been working to transform college campuses from places where actual ideas are openly debated and truth genuinely sought, into reeducation camps where debate is hollow (if allowed at all) and the search for truth assiduously avoided. For the sake of Thomas Jefferson’s noble ideals, and for Nick Sandmann’s personal and intellectual survival, this drive to intellectual idiocy must be resisted.

SOURCE

Eliminate or Radically Restructure Federal Student Loans

A recent defense of student loans by Jason Delisle of the American Enterprise Institute is, uncharacteristically for him, off-base. He defends the federal student loan program, which he correctly notes is criticized by those on the left (“college should be free”) as well as on the right (“student loan programs have raised the price of education”).

Delisle cites research showing that students borrowing aggressively tend to get better grades, graduate more successfully from college, and get better jobs, promoting not only their own well-being, but that of society.

While in a longer essay I probably would disagree somewhat as to the reliability of the research that Delisle cites, my much more important point is that Delisle does not see the forest for the trees.

Specifically, he ignores a fundamental problem that student loans have helped create: Too many people are getting overly expensive college degrees, while many others drop out before degree completion or end up underemployed, doing jobs historically done quite competently by high school graduates.

Do you really need a college degree to drive a taxi or be a bartender? Many doing those things today have degrees. Are taxi rides faster and safer, or drinks tastier because they are mixed by college graduates? I think not.

A student taking a solid course in the principles of economics by the third or fourth week, if not earlier, should be able to manipulate demand curves to discover that federal student loan programs serve to increase college attendance, one of their goals.

When federal student loans are readily available, the number of students wanting to go to college rises (demand for higher education increases), pushing up both price (college tuition fees) and attendance. If the demand increase induces a supply response, that would increase enrollments even more. The proportion of adult Americans with bachelor’s degrees has more than tripled since 1970, when federal student loan programs were in their infancy.

The Impact of Federal Student Loan Expansion

Six facts seem relevant to the half-century of rapid student loan expansion:

First, as just stated, a much larger proportion of adults have degrees in 2020 than in 1970, although the cost of them has soared dramatically.

Second, the proportion of recent graduates from the bottom quartile of the income distribution (“the poor”) has declined somewhat over time.

Third, despite having a much larger proportion of college graduates, the rate of American economic growth has fallen substantially. Having more college graduates has not enhanced human enrichment.

Fourth, income inequality in the U.S. has risen, perhaps enhancing the popularity of the Sanders/Warren brand of politician that arguably is a threat to the capitalistic foundations of the nation that has provided so much prosperity.

Fifth, partly financed by higher tuition fees made possible because of student loans, American universities have become profoundly more ideologically uniform, disdainful of intellectual diversity, and dismissive of free expression.

Sixth, loan-induced enrollment expansion has led to more genuinely unqualified students attending college, leading to declining academic standards and grade inflation that has led to reduced student work effort and performance.

The simultaneous occurrence of a number of things does not necessarily mean they are causally related, but my reading of statistical evidence suggests they are.

To cite one example, in modern times the American states spending the largest portion of personal income to finance public higher education have had, other factors held constant, relatively lower rates of economic growth. Similarly, I think it is no coincidence that states like California that support public higher education generously often have relatively high levels of income inequality, while ones like New Hampshire with lesser support tend to have lower levels (some empirical evidence is consistent with this observation).

Indeed, American taxpayers arguably have created an anti-egalitarian academic aristocracy concentrated in elite private schools dependent on the federal government’s student loan program and other largess, including special tax benefits and outsized federal research grants.

And while Delisle seems eager to cite in some detail a few studies showing how student loans benefited recipients academically, he basically ignores discussing an impressive literature published by respected organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

That literature suggests that a majority of per-student federal loan assistance (probably about 60-65 percent) does not result in net additional financial support of college students. Instead, it increases the resources of colleges through higher tuition fees. Those fees have materially funded academic perversities such as vast administrative bureaucracies and, occasionally, large subsidies for ball-throwing competitions. The student gets a dollar more in student loans, but ends up paying 65 cents of that back to the university in higher fees.

Why Does the Student Loan Program Endure Despite Its Many Faults?

In spite of all the dysfunctional dimensions of federal student financial aid and attacks on the system from both the left and the right, why does the system persist with only minor modifications? Why is a system with so many deficiencies so popular politically?

Several concepts from public choice economics are relevant here—I will touch on four of them.

Concentrated Benefits and Disbursed Costs

Currently, perhaps 12 million Americans are either receiving student loan assistance or are college employees benefiting from the high tuition fees the programs permitted. However, another 320 million Americans are not direct beneficiaries and, indeed, shoulder some of the costs. But it is worse: The government usually claims the student loan program finances itself (and maybe even makes a profit). Recently, however, fiscal watchdogs like the Government Accountability Office have revealed that these programs impose real financial costs. A relatively small community of beneficiaries have powerful lobbies like the American Council of Education to pressure Congress to continue and expand these loan programs.

Rational Ignorance

Most Americans are simply ignorant of the costs of the student loan programs, but for good, rational reasons: the per-capita costs are not overwhelmingly large. Moreover, because of dishonesty in federal accounting (if it occurred in the private sector, it would lead to jail sentences for the perpetrators), those costs, such as those for loan “forbearance” and “forgiveness” programs, are largely hidden from the public.

The Short-Sightedness Effect

The policymakers creating student loan policies are politicians whose job security depends on getting re-elected—typically months or a few years in the future. They tend to favor policies that have short-run visible payoffs even if they impose greater long-run costs. Moreover, these costs are largely disguised.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Sometimes, actions have quite different effects than intended, and that is particularly true of student loans. The student loan programs were created in the 1960s and 1970s to expand access to higher education, especially for lower-income students. In reality, however, these programs led to much higher tuition fees. Since lower-income persons are more sensitive to the price of college, higher fees made college relatively less attractive to lower-income applicants, leading to the decline in their degree completion.

I think a strong case can made that the federal student loan program has led to unproductive overinvestment in higher education, lower academic standards, an explosion in costs, and a decline in low-income Americans on college campuses. Changing the system to make it work better will be extremely difficult.

In general, alternative modes of financing, such as privately funded income-share agreements, need to replace federal programs. Yet, given the important lobbying groups supporting the status quo, such change will be difficult to make. A gradual reduction in student loan eligibility, tightening lending standards, and raising academic standards could lead to improvements. But the chances of that happening appear relatively slim at the present.

SOURCE