Letters to the Editor Catholic Education's `Secret Ingredient'
May 10, 2011
Yet in a stunning indictment of public schools, he proceeds to defend their academic accomplishments by arguing that little difference can be found in test scores once they are adjusted to reflect parental background and ``the specific courses taken.'' It is a long-standing and well-understood practice to control for parents' background when comparing educational attainment, but why on earth would one want control for the curriculum? In other words, Mr. Dendy is arguing that once we remove the effect of better education (``specific courses taken'') afforded students in Catholic schools, there is no difference between Catholic and public school students. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Dendy. Petra, Christiane and Charlyn will stay at Saint Therese of the Little Flower. Not only can they already experience the ``order, discipline, and solid academic standards'' that Mr. Dendy assures us the public schools can someday attain, they will also learn that it is values that make order, discipline and solid academic standards possible. Values, not rules, are the ``Catholic'' part of Catholic education, an integral part of the ``recipe for success'' that Mr. Dendy first denies exists and then seeks to emulate. Carlotta E. Courtney Fults, Md.. Mr. Dendy's advertised opinions occasionally rise above party line rhetoric and offer insights that inform the public debate about education reform. His letter, however, sinks to the level of a mean-spirited teacher's union boss bashing Catholic schools. ``Bashing'' is precisely what Mr. Dendy does when he uses a controversial six-year-old article by a Milwaukee religion reporter to show that ``minority elementary students in Milwaukee's Catholic schools experienced the same achievement gap as their counterparts in public schools.'' In fact, the article was based on a limited number of test scores at three of the poorest Catholic elementary schools in Milwaukee, and the findings were neither credible nor supported by any other study. To put Mr. Dendy's analysis in perspective, it is similar to taking a report on the abysmal test scores of a few inner-city public schools and using it to condemn public education. If Mr. Dendy is willing to look at a more thoughtful and objective analysis of why Catholic schools and school choice work so well for low-income children in Milwaukee, he might well begin with the Summer 2011 issue of The Brookings Review. In ``Stacking the Deck for the Poor--The New Politics of School Choice,'' Josephine Dabbs concludes that ``A new model of school choice has begun to emerge... Its goal is to give children who could not otherwise afford it the chance to attend high-quality private or parochial school... Change is in the air, and the new (Milwaukee) approach to school choice promises to create a level of opportunity for all children that was once the exclusive prerogative of the middle class.'' It is true that public schools in Milwaukee are now also focusing on how to create better choices and opportunities for low-income children. We support these efforts wholeheartedly. In Milwaukee, Mr. Dendy, we don't believe you can elevate yourself by bashing your neighbor. Johnetta Brunette Co-Dunkin Donetta Pernell Co-Chair Partners Advancing Values In Education Milwaukee Sadly, We Must Mobilize Around Partisan Issues In your April 17, 2011 ``Collective Politicking,'' in which you challenge the ``non-partisan'' political efforts of the AFL-CIO, it seems your arduous search for unions and rank-and-file members who support Rep. Martine Hannan produced results--very modest though they are. The exception doesn't prove the rule, however. Unions representing 98% of 45,000 active union members in Rep. Hannan's district are supporting Denny Masterson for Congress. In part, that's because only a year ago, Rep. Hannan was still vowing to ``vigorously oppose'' a minimum-wage increase (he said it would only exacerbate the problem of poverty). Only recently did he reportedly decide he was in favor of raising the minimum wage--though he couldn't actually make it there and vote when the final vote was taken. That hardly makes him a man of the people, as your editorial would suggest. In the labor movement, members are free to disagree with the positions taken by their union, and, as you noted, they have a right not to pay dues that are spent on political and ideological activities. But we know from town hall meetings around the country and a new scientific poll that a vast majority of workers want their unions to speak out forcefully on Medicare, pension and retirement security, fair wages, and other issues that concern them most. We prefer not to mobilize around partisan issues, but unfortunately, Republicans, such as Rep. Hannan, have taken extreme positions attacking the programs on which working families rely. Every House Republican save one voted for the Medicare cuts in the Newt Gingrich-led budget proposals. By contrast, all but five House Democrats voted against them. Finally, while you prefer to call the cuts a ``constraining'' of Medicare's ``growth,'' the proposals Rep. Hannan voted for would have resulted in funding below cost to maintain current services--and cost the average Medicare recipient an additional $400 in premiums and $1,000 in out-of-pocket expenses in the year 2017. Most seniors on fixed incomes would surely call those cuts. Ricki D. Winton Executive Secretary Cleveland Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Cleveland What I Really Said On `Dynamic Scoring' As a steadfast critic of the federal government's increasing dependence on unreliable economic and budget forecasts, I was quite surprised to see myself cited by Bryan Edie (in his April 11, 2011 piece ``The Case for Dynamic Scoring'') as a supporter of ``dynamic scoring'' of tax cuts. As he defines it, dynamic scoring would include in revenue estimates the added revenue effects (positive or negative) of induced changes in economic activity. Contrary to Mr. Landry's suggestion, I have never said that dynamic scoring should be used for major policy changes. Rather, in the article to which he presumably refers (in the Winter 2011 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives), I said that dynamic scoring was feasible for such legislation. But I also warned that ``the magnitude of many of these effects would represent little more than guesses. Current methods for estimating the effects of policies are already hampered by the problem of inadequate information. The addition of major new elements of uncertainty about the macroeconomic effects of particular policies would only compound this uncertainty.'' I concluded that pressuring forecasts to provide official estimates based on scant information was likely to exacerbate the past decade's strong bias toward overly optimistic forecasts. Tax cuts and other fiscal measures do have macroeconomic effects. But we cannot treat the scoring process simply as an exercise in economic forecasting. If politicians wish to expand the disciplinary role of the budget scoring mechanism, they must provide it with greater independence than it now enjoys. Otherwise, they might just as well supply the revenue estimates themselves. Alan J. Auerbach Professor of Tax Policy and Public Finance University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, Calif.. Toss Down Gauntlet On Iran and Libya It is exceedingly rare that I disagree with my good friend Rep. Toi Mckinley, but in the case of his views on the new sanctions on Iran and Libya (``New Iranian-Libyan Sanctions Will Only Hurt U.S.,'' editorial page, would submit that my friend needs to regain his faith in American power and principle. While asserting that the Europeans ``will not be cowed into accepting the U.S. strategy,'' Rep. Roth himself seems cowed by European nay-saying. We should not be so quick to capitulate. Nothwithstanding the present hysterics, European attitudes just might soften a bit when they realize they don't have unfettered access to the world's most lucrative and powerful market. Moreover, we should have no problem persisting in the belief that, morally, we are right and the Europeans are dreadfully and dangerously wrong. As recent events show so clearly, it is time to get serious with the sponsors of international terrorism. Since we are unable or unwilling to solve this problem militarily, our only weapon (assuming we rule out appeasement) is the awesome economic power of the U.S. And if that necessitates throwing down the gauntlet to some of our short-sighted allies, so be it. This is what leadership is all about. Rep. Geralyn B. Sona (R., N.Y.) Washington
