Caleb’s Choice

During the last weekend in April, West Point cadet Caleb Campbell was drafted to serve in a different Army. He was selected in the seventh and final round of the National Football League (NFL) draft.

 

It is unknown whether Campbell will make the final roster of the Detroit Lions, the team that drafted him. While the Lions have conducted their off-season training activities (OTAs) in May mini-camp, the cut-down process doesn’t happen until late July or early August. The chances that a seventh round pick will make the roster and remain on the team through the end of the season are less than 40 percent.

 

Campbell will enter the NFL through an Army policy that allows highly regarded athletes to turn pro after their graduation from West Point. This policy, enacted in 2005, a year after Campbell entered the academy as a plebe, allows the athlete to serve a portion of his military service obligation as a recruiter. Cadets who do not play intercollegiate revenue sports, by comparison, have a five year service obligation in the branch they selected at graduation; the higher your rank, the more likely you get the branch you want.

 

I don’t blame Campbell for taking advantage of his opportunity. It’s not like he chose West Point expecting it to fall in his lap. If anything, Campbell chose a more difficult path to the NFL than any player in his draft class. Every West Point cadet, regardless of major, takes a rigorous engineering curriculum along with the drills and hands-on military training during the summer. Football practice, based on a great book, John Feinstein’s A Civil War, is actually a welcome break from the school routine.  

 

I understand the objections to Campbell’s decision, especially since our country is at war, but the Army has historically made special considerations for the top professional athletes. Professional baseball stars, like Joe DiMaggio served their hitches as barnstormers and fitness instructors during World War II. West Point fielded the best football teams in the nation in 1944 and 1945; back then, there was the attractive lure of being an officer versus a draftee. However, pro football did not begin to mature as a sport until after the war was over; today, its popularity is second only to NASCAR. 

 

But the Army and the NFL have to be fair to Campbell; neither wants his decision to become an embarrassment to the man or their organization.

 

If the Army wishes to use Campbell as a recruiter, they should use him to help recruit athletes to West Point; he has first-hand experience with the process that makes him invaluable to the academy and especially Army’s coaching staff.

 

The academy would not have invested alumni money—alumni fundraising pays the head coach’s salary since the federal government would not want him to earn more than the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary of Defense—if it didn’t believe success on the gridiron was important to its image.  If Campbell succeeds as a rookie, then the NFL also has a feather in its cap: a citizen soldier who is also a fine athlete.  No doubt his team and the league will use that to full advantage.

 

But if Campbell does not make the Lions, or catch on with another team before the start of the NFL season, he should begin his service in the Army Air Defense Artillery, the branch in which he will be commissioned, but serve stateside in reserve duty until the season is over. If an NFL team calls him up that season, then good for him, he should play on.

 

However, if he is not on a roster at the start of next season, he should be placed on active duty and get on with his military career, wherever it takes him. I’m positive that the Army policy was never intended to allow an athlete to limp along on a two or three year search to find a team while being exempt from active duty. That would be unfair to the Army and those who have served.

 

 

The NFL is not like major league baseball, where a player can go down to the minors to perfect their craft; they must prove they belong in the upper echelon from the first day of camp—just as West Pointers must do from the first day of plebe year.

We the Citizens Owe Our Soldiers a New G.I Bill

I have a novel in editing, a story of a college administration in the aftermath of the murder of a U.S. Army recruiting officer. I chose as my venue a privately supported engineering school, historically friendly to the military that had relied on receiving a considerable amount of tuition revenues through ROTC and the G.I Bill. My fictional school is in trouble: its image has been compromised by the murder, and the military benefits can’t cover the full freight anymore.

 

In researching my story, I had to understand military recruiting as well as the G.I Bill. I found myself surprised that the college education benefits under the G.I Bill today are not as expansive as they were after World War II. World War II veterans received full tuition, fees, books, a monthly stipend and reimbursements for training expenses. The original legislation signed by President Roosevelt enabled 7.8 million World War II veterans to go to college, more than half of those who served. It also invigorated the growth of higher education in our country.

 

Since the original legislation passed in 1944, there have been subsequent G.I Bills, however, according the Senator James Webb (D-Virginia) their benefits were more appropriate to a military in peacetime, not an armed forces at war. I agree, because a better benefits package will only help to recruit and retain a strong military. It will be a much easier sell for the recruiters too.

 

Webb, an ex-Marine and former Secretary of the Navy under the first President Bush, is the primary sponsor of the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act to increase educational benefits to all members of the military who have served on active duty since 9/11. Webb, a former Republican who served under President Reagan as well as the first President Bush, is a beneficiary of the G.I Bill and a more than credible leader on this issue.

 

Webb’s proposed legislation will enable eligible veterans to receive 100 percent of the tuition and fees charged by the most expensive state university in their home state. While this is not a total return to the intentions of the original post-World War II G.I Bill, it is an extremely reasonable start, and an appropriate reward to those who have served with honor. Yet, the Bush Administration opposes the bill, even though the current president’s father was himself a beneficiary of the original G.I Bill. They, along with the Defense Department, believe that it will hinder military recruitment and retention, though the bill is meant to do the opposite.

 

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support Webb’s bill. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is not a co-sponsor, although he has announced plans to introduce his own legislation.

 

The major obstacle to a new GI Bill is cost and the addition a new entitlement raises the federal budget deficit at wartime. However, I’d like to offer one suggestion that may make a new GI Bill more palatable: prioritize recipients by time at combat. Those who have been stop-lossed would receive priority, followed by those who have been deployed into a combat zone at least once. It’s only fair that the soldiers who have taken the greatest risk receive the greatest rewards.

 

I hope there will be a final piece of legislation that will pass with a bi-partisan, veto-proof majority—and you should too.  It’s only right that we help those who risked their lives on the way to getting their postwar lives started on the road from soldier to citizen.

Memorial for Mothers

Yesterday, May 11, 2008, marked the 100^th anniversary of the first celebration of Mother’s Day. Although Mother’s Day officially became a national holiday in 1914, it was first celebrated as memorial service in a Methodist church in Grafton, West Virginia, Anna Jarvis, credited as the founder of Mother’s Day, proposed the service as a dedication to her late mother, who had believed that it would be a nice idea to have a memorial to mothers.

 

Americans honor motherhood in other ways; we call this our mother country. I realize that we might have taken that idea from Great Britian and the Queen Mother during the late 18^th century, but our nation has kept the phrase alive, despite the fact that the United States has never been a monarchy. The Statue of Liberty, our most important symbol of freedom is also a mother figure. The interior of the statue’s pedestal is inscribed with a poem, Emma Lazarus’ New Colossus, calling the proud lady the Mother of Exiles. Our soldiers at war and our athletic gladiators on their fields have always for motherhood, although now they simply shout “Hi Mom!” to get the message across on camera.

 

The church where the first Mother’s Day service took place is considered an official shrine to motherhood, and according to Cyndi Mason, its director, it reminds us “of the issues that mothers still deal with today, trying to do the balancing act of being everything to everyone.” She expressed the perfect sentiment: mothers are our real heroes and sometimes, they have their own adventures to share. I’ve become friends with several single moms through the Internet, and I sometimes swear I don’t know how they do it all. I’ve never been a father myself, but I’d feel overwhelmed balancing work and family. My home state legislature recently passed a paid family leave bill, over the objections of the business community. Any one who has any respect for motherhood should not object to such a bill; they should look at their support as an expression of empathy.

 

I know this a little, firsthand. My father was raised through most of child life by a single mom who immigrated to the United States from Romania in search of a better life. She passed by our Mother of Exiles as she entered the country through Ellis Island. My mother entered the United States from German-occupied Austria in 1940, just before America entered World War II. Rumor was that my mother was allowed to leave Austria because her mother had red hair, a more Germanic characteristic of the day; she didn’t “look Jewish.” It’s very safe for me to say that I living in a free country because of my mom, and for that I dedicated my first novel to her. I’m sure that I also speak for some of you who are reading this post, and that you have your own stories to tell. If nothing else, share them with your family. 

 

I realize that a West Virginia church is where Mother’s Day was first observed and I don’t dare suggest that the church’s importance be diminished in any way.

 

But I wonder if we need a more prominent memorial to mothers in our nation’s capital, something each and every member of Congress, and others who help govern our country, could see on their way to work.

 

It would remind each and every of one of them about who they’re really working for.

Starting May 12, Reading is Fun

Reading Is Fundamental (RIF), the nation’s oldest and largest children and families’ literacy nonprofit organization, encourages parents to celebrate Reading Is Fun Week with their children May 12–18.

 Reading Is Fun Week, started in 1979, is a time to recognize the pleasures found in books and to mark the start of summer reading. With an Olympic summer just around the corner, RIF has put together The World’s Most Athletic Booklist for children of all ages. The list contains books representing Olympic sports, and is available for free at RIF.org.

 “Experts agree that children who read during the summer gain reading skills, while those who do not often experience learning losses,” said Carol H. Rasco, president and CEO of RIF. “Reading Is Fun Week is the perfect time for parents and educators to encourage children to read for fun during their summer vacation.”

The website RIF.org provides free resources to encourage summer reading and help families celebrate Reading Is Fun Week, including a day-by-day children’s activity calendar for each day of the week. Visitors to the website can also send a children’s art e-card to spread the joy of reading, and explore RIF’s literacy activities, like Reading Is Fun bingo. RIF also provides parents with reading tips, including how to:

·         Help children start a reading journal

·         Find a fun book series for children to read

·         Relate what you are reading to outdoor activities

·         Be a reading role-model and talk about books

A Student Government Election Made for TV-The Sequel

This day, May 6, 2008, I spot a front page headline in my local New Jersey paper, The Trenton Times that reads: Ewing H.S vote is void a second time.  I had previously commented on my hometown high school’s senior class elections in a prior post, so I read on.

 

Seven students, one black and Hispanic, five black and one white, were barred from running in their senior class elections on April 23. The reason given was that the students had missed too many meetings for school activities and had not sufficiently participated in school fundraisers.

 

In a previous post, I commented that such requirements were unreasonable for a student election; we do not require adults to show prior experience in politics to run for public office. I added that a school should have the right to deny students a right to vote if there are serious blots on their records: academic probation, repeat suspensions and criminal activity being examples. But neither faculty nor administrators in Ewing stated that any of the candidates who were denied the right to run was in any academic or behavioral difficulty.

 

I stepped back after writing that post and asked myself: was it possible that some of those students were in some difficulty, but the faculty and administrators said nothing, in order to protect the privacy of the students? It would have been inappropriate, not to mention embarrassing to the students’ families to mention academic or behavioral difficulties to the media.

 

However, if this had been the case, then a responsible teacher or principal would have sent a personal letter to the student and their parents. But, based on reading the Times coverage, I have to believe the students were good standing or that the school didn’t bother to inform them that they were not. All we have from the school system is a string of “no comments.”

 

At the end of last week, Ewing High School’s principal and faculty advisors declared their senior class election a mulligan.

 

They called for a do-over; a new election where candidates who were denied an opportunity to run the first time were allowed to run for office, although they had little time to campaign. Those placed on the ballot for the first time might have achieved some recognition from the local news coverage that would have helped, but I do not know enough to say that students who could vote in this school election read the paper.

 

Then today’s Times reports that the do-over was botched; the vote was disallowed after the principal and the faculty advisors realized that approximately 60 students were not eligible to vote because they owed fines. I’d guess these were fines for overdue books, failure to return school property, or to pay for damages to school property. I can not imagine other reasons for a high school to fine students.

 

But if this was a serious concern, why didn’t the principal and faculty advisors stop these students from voting in the first election?  If they were serious about assessing fines, they should have been equally serious about collecting them. It’s not an unusual practice for a school to hold your diploma until you pay back unpaid fines and parking tickets, though I’ve never heard of a case where students in arrears were denied a right to vote in a student government election. I must add that had no one protested the first election, the votes of voters with outstanding fines would have counted.

 

I apologize, readers, if you believe that I might be beating this story to death, but it’s too amusing to ignore. This is the first time, I’m aware of an election where people who owed fines were not eligible to vote. As adults we have the opportunity to vote in all sorts of elections: local, state and presidential, and we retain the right to vote if we owe back taxes, parking tickets, and of course, library fines.

 

Now there will be a third senior class election this week. I wonder if that should be put on hold a little longer to allow the principal and faculty advisors more time to consider the meaning of free elections before they set the rules for a new contest.

Do Graduation Reporting Standards Mean Anything?

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings introduced new proposed regulations to help clarify how schools, districts and states implement policies and business practices under No Child Left Behind.

 

Among these proposals, Secretary Spellings has asked that high schools be required to use graduation rates that track cohorts of students as they progress through high school. Schools would be required to publish graduation rates for their total student population as well as every group tracked under No Child Left Behind: minority students, economically disadvantaged students, English as Second Language students, and students with disabilities.  

 

Tracking a cohort group means that you take one group, for example ninth graders who entered high school in 2004, and track where the people in that group went: those who stayed on to graduate, moved away, dropped out, graduated in more or less than four years and so on. This sounds easier than it looks; you have to track those who left your school, as well as those who stayed.

 

Unless the Secretary is prepared to put money behind this proposal, it’s more of a hindrance that a help to anyone. Tracking a cohort requires research and reporting the good, bad and the neutral.

 

Colleges track graduation rates; the most promoted are six year rates, the reasons being that students withdraw, but later return to school. They use a six year rate because a six year rate is needed to get complete information about a cohort group. College students may drop out for academic, family, military service or personal financial reasons.

 

High schools will need to use a six year rate as well. A cohort of ninth graders will not all graduate together from the same school four years later for many legitimate reasons. A school located in an economically depressed area will fare poorly under such reporting: parents move away for employment, students have to work to supplement a family’s income, and health is generally poorer in poorer places. Furthermore, people leave a depressed community for a nicer one when their financial situation gets better; why shouldn’t they move to places with better schools?

 

Looking at my list of reasons, I see two things: one, they have little to nothing to do with the quality of education at a particular school and two; they are family decisions over which a school had no control. It might be useful to track if a student at school A who transferred to school B graduated from school B, but is that an effective use of school A’s human resources? I don’t think so, especially in this economy.

 

If the federal government is willing to fund the data collection and tracking as they fund the Census, then fine. Parents could fill out an enrollment form and send it to the Department of Education, without involving the schools, and the schools could sort the data for their needs.

 

The primary intentions for No Child Left Behind are to close achievement gaps and achieve 100 percent proficiency in language arts and math by 2014, not to give the Department of Education a mandate to play big brother or sister—and force districts, schools and states to pay the bill for their oversight.