Wrestling with Inaction

According to Globalrichlist.org…

$1300.00 per year would place you in the top 50.11% of income earners in the world.

$13,000.00 would place you in the top 11.62%

$20,000.00 would place you in the top 3.65%

$75,000.00 would place you in the top .11% (only 6,645,708 people in the world are wealthier)

$150,000.00 top .06% (only 3,457.946 are wealthier)

$174,000.00 (Pay for one Congressmen)  0.05% (only 3,006,534 are wealthier)

$500,000.00 0.02% (only 1,111,734 are wealthier)

$900,000.00 0.01%  (only 638,859 are wealthier)

Finally, a minister who will confront our wealth!  In the Episcopal Church, the practice is for the priest to preach the sermon on the Old Testament, New Testament or Gospel reading for that particular day.   On this Sunday, October 11, 2015, Mark 10:17-31 is the tract from the Gospel.  In this reading, Jesus confronts what is perhaps the greatest challenge to Christians in the United States.  A rich man famously asks Jesus, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?" and Jesus eventually replies, “…go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor….” I have heard this story on numerous Sundays and usually left disappointed that the person giving the Sermon would take a timid approach to this lesson if he or she would talk about it at all. On this particular Sunday, 10/11/15, the Reverend Corky Carlisle points out that everyone in this congregation is wealthy.  One could feel a sense of unease in the congregation.  He cites globalrichlist.com where data on a citizen of the world who makes $1,300.00 reveals this person to be among the top 50.11% globally.   He goes on to state that $13,000.00 a year puts a global citizen in the top 12%.  The congregation, me included, squirms.  Fascinated, I go to this website later in the day and find that $20,000.00 a year would be in the top 4%.  An individual making $174,000.00, equal to that of a member of the US Congress, would be in the top 0.05%.  

The topic of individual wealth disturbs most of us in the US because our stubborn “pursuit of happiness” has financial ramifications that are at the core of our “exceptionalism.”  In this country, median household income as cited by the U.S. Census Bureau was $51,000.00 in 2014(in the top 0.29% in the world according to globalrichlist.com).  Yes, many would argue that the cost of living and life style expectations adjust the definition of poverty. Given the political focus on income inequality and the astronomical incomes of those in the “top 1%” in the United States, it seemingly makes annual global income more abstract and irrelevant to the economic circumstances in this country.   Such data also provides political fodder for those decrying “class warfare” when people dare question the salaries of executives or investment bankers as opposed to basic laborers.  “People are doing fine in the U.S.,” some might argue.  Most have cars, TVs, appliances etc. 

In his New York Times op-ed. piece,  “The Most Important Thing, and It’s Almost a Secret”, William Kristoff writes that the world has actually witnessed a dramatic fall in poverty and birth rates.  He uses data from http://iresearch.worldbank.org to argue that there is actually hope in a world where political factions use income inequality to divide us while presenting poverty as intractable.  However, Kristoff uses dramatic worldwide reductions in extreme poverty, those earning under $1.25 per day (That would be $456.25 per annum which, being so low, I could not get to register on the globalrichlist.com calculator), as his evidence that poverty is declining and income inequality is lessening.  Although Kristoff’s premise seems hopeful his treatise does not begin to address impoverished living conditions of those who make $1,300.00 per year or the stressors this places on the world at large.   According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an individual in this country under 65 who makes $12,316.00 is impoverished (the top 14% worldwide according to globalrichlist.com).  I would dare say that the vast majority of those sitting in the congregation on this Sunday could not comprehend living on $12,000.00 per year. $1300.00 per year would be unconscionable.  This simply illustrates that poverty is relative and despite Kristoff's claims, the reduction in extreme poverty might not indicate a potential eradication of financial want.

Some would use U.S. poverty statistics, when compared to the rest of the world, as proof that income inequality is merely a phrase to exaggerate the state of the poor in this country.  However, I would argue that the numbers cited above actually exacerbate the economic realities we face when addressing quality of life and global resource management.   While Kristoff acknowledges that things are tough for many in our world, he argues that the reduction in severe poverty is evidence that the condition of humankind is improving.  What he does not address is that those of us with wealth refuse to see the global ramifications of continued hoarding of resources. When just over 3,000,000 individuals around the world earn over $174,000.00 while 3.5 billion make less than $1300.00 per year the concept of inequality becomes a profound understatement. 

Jesus’ teaching about wealth challenges the current form of global capitalism at its core.  The Reverend Carlisle made this very clear.  Our ongoing self-denial in regard to obscene abundance in a world where millions of individuals die of starvation promotes a global socio-economic dystopia.   In this lesson from Mark Jesus makes two very profound points:  First, there are more important things in this world than individual wealth and two, God can forgive the human incapacity to let go of material possessions.  Moreover, the call for the rich man to let it all go might just mean that we have an obligation to take action before expecting God to forgive our materialistic insecurity.

Although statistics show me to be very wealthy, I allow the cultural mythology of American consumerism to make me feel financially insecure.  We have so much and we tell ourselves it is never enough.  It is in our cultural DNA to feel inadequate through a commercial narrative that hammers this home through every form of media.  This ironically causes us to retreat to ourselves while protecting our property from others.   This profoundly drives home Jesus’ claim that …”it is easier for a camel to move through the eye of a needle.”  I then take his statement that “in God all things are possible” as a salve to forgive my wanton materialism as a rationalization for my current economic state.  In other words I hope William Kristoff's reading of the global economic tea leaves is God pushing me through that needle's eye.

On my 8 mile journey to and from work I witness most socio-economic levels evident in our country, from homelessness to profound wealth, while my comfortable car keeps me apart from interaction.    Perhaps the greatest consequence of our economic strata is our profound isolation caused by misappropriated goods and resources.   Jesus calls the rich man to engage and Mark tells us he walked away.   Every day I drive to and from work Jesus calls me to engage and, too often, I walk away.

  

Schools Vs. Parenting

I recently attended a Principals’ seminar where the keynote speaker stated that educators are not the problem with public education, parents are.   I often cringe when I hear this from those who advocate for public education.  It is an easy ploy that casts blame over acting to serve.   This position also demonstrates the social divide that now threatens the public schools brought on by institutional indifference.

I have 5 siblings of which I am the fifth.  I was born 5 years after the fourth child and 14 years after the oldest.   The four older siblings would often grumble that my little sister and I did not have the same parents.  My father had a very patriarchal perspective and the older four would often share experiences that showed my parents to be strict disciplinarians.  By the time the last of us came along, my Mom was in her late thirties and my Dad his forties.  By the time I began to explore in many of the inappropriate ways of a child, Mom and Dad had taken on the philosophy of “but for the grace of God.”  My siblings and I, all college graduates, have all led successful lives by American standards, but it took tremendous effort, worry and expense on the part of my parents to help us get there.   They had to adapt to each of us and find ways to help us see the value of character, perseverance and humility.  The end result was similar, but each journey has been different.

My Mom was among the wisest people I have had the pleasure to know.  She was a “war bride” and had her first child at the age of 20.  She deftly navigated through the energy and personality of all six of us without benefit of an owner’s manual.  She came from a strong family with great parents of her own, but her daily experience was her greatest teacher.  By the time I was in high school my Mom was very well known for her public school advocacy.  She would later brag that she had participated in PTAs for 28 years; a daunting accomplishment.   My little sister and I grew up in the South at the offset of busing for integration and my mother threw all of her energy into supporting the public schools.  My little sister was bused to an inner city school.  This had a profound impact on my mother who frequently volunteered to serve breakfast for the underprivileged children in this school.  She began to witness the difficulty of parenting on the impoverished and how unprepared young teenagers were to be mothers.  She understood that these families did not have the parenting legacy she had and how difficult that was on poor working class families. Mom, as regional president of the PTA, began to use her position to advocate for parenting classes to the local school board.   Perhaps Mom’s greatest trait, empathy, gave her insight into the impact parenting deficits had on cyclical poverty.  What alarmed her even more was the disdain the educational institutions demonstrated toward families.  Regretfully her advocacy fell on deaf ears. 

            Perhaps the two most humbling experiences I continue to have are that of the teacher and parent.   As a young teacher I learned that reaching children does not result from bending students to your will, but meeting them where they are.  This means that I had to fully embrace my role as a servant if I was to convince students that what I teach is important.  It took me about five years to internalize this practice.  I have learned through the years that this may be the single most important attribute of successful teachers.   The teachers most desired by parents understand the importance of the parent toward the success of the child.  This does not mean that these teachers cater to the whims of parents, but they successfully employ parents as partners.  I have seen both strict, structured, teachers and more sensitive teachers succeed because they embrace the humanity of the parent. 

My understanding of the family dynamic did not begin to form until I became a father.   As single teacher I often judged parents of my students prior to becoming a parent myself.  The parent model that raised me did not automatically instill empathy toward parents.  When I heard more experienced teachers lament the contemporary state of parenting I simply took this as the reality faced by schools.  Once I encountered the challenges of family life my perspective evolved. I began to better understand the challenges that influenced parental decisions.  As a principal, I see young teachers too quick to judge the impertinence of students as a product of poor parenting.  They don’t understand the stressors that homework or extra-curricular activities place on family continuity or routine.  

            It astounds me that educators come across as so judgmental toward parents.  When a child does not complete homework, or assignments, some believe it is  because there is not enough discipline in the home.  A child is frequently tardy to school, the parent obviously doesn’t value education.  The institutional response to these problems has been to enforce more restrictions and rules.  The public schools frequently take a “no tolerance” tack in an attempt to force better parental behaviors.  This institutional practice has not worked.

My own experience as a father has been the ongoing revelation that parenting is very difficult.  I quickly discovered that my rules were too often negotiable when that was not my intent.  I would sometimes fall into the trap that I never challenged my Dad’s authority, when in fact I constantly searched for ways to do just that.  By the time we had our third child, I learned that they were all quite different.  What worked with one, did not work with the other.  As I got older I became more tired and my will would often succumb to fatigue. 

            As a culture we have done a very poor job supporting parenting.  Too often we have treated parenting as instinct and not modeled practice.  The public schools come out of a bias for academic language and thought.  If educators were honest, we would see that less than half of the high school graduates leave with any sense of educational fulfillment.  They often get through school in spite of themselves or their families.   As we have progressed through the 21^st century, education policy makers have moved further away from the social and civic experience and more toward the academic.  We in public education develop layers of rules that can only be navigated by the most prepared and determined of families.  When the U.S. adopted an information economy the families with successful educational legacies were able to change.  The families that typically depended on skilled and unskilled labor, often those who barely made it through high school or dropped out, began to lose economic ground.  The public schools did nothing to help young adults navigate the challenges of parenting.  We simply blamed single parent families or “the entitlement class.”

            Public schools have always acted as a tool to separate the wheat from the chaff.  High school was actually established to weed out students who were not college material.  As a K-12 education became more important for the citizenry, this model for high school should have changed.  Too often it has not.  The advent of technology has made it even more difficult for families to infiltrate the bureaucratic morass that is the institutional model for public schools.  School institutions have too often moved to force digital compliance with no effort to develop the infrastructure and experience necessary for parents to support their children.  Not only have we done a poor job preparing parents to raise their children, but we have made it more difficult for parents to get their children to meaningful citizenship. 

            So, no, parents are not the reason our public schools struggle.  The institutional devaluation of community as a tool to raise children by governments and bureaucratic entities has made purposeful child rearing more difficult.  It’s time that we as educators learn to embrace parents and show that we understand parenting is difficult through initiatives that encourage shared experience and create a forum of diverse parental experiences.  Schools should start offering programs that support parenting and quit acting as if good parenting is a character trait.