The Observable Spectrum

Maybe it's a Philly thing I'll never understand, but what's with all the overwrought affection for The Spectrum? I know it was the setting for a lot of sports and music memories, but, really, the place itself was totally generic. Those experiences were about the games and the acts, not the edifice. I saw the Grateful Dead at the Spectrum and, on the inside with the lights down, it pretty much felt like seeing the Grateful Dead at Madison Square Garden. Sticky floors, cramped seats, asshole staff (at least I thought so then), poor acoustics. No great architectural achievement, and located in the middle of a sea of asphalt. We're not talking Winterland Ballroom here.

An article by Bill Lyon in last Sunday's paper, "Long goodbye to proud Spectrum nears end," left me shaking my head. Lyons talked about The Spectrum hosting everything from circuses to Frank Sinatra to indoor football. "Imagine that, all that, under one roof. What a concept. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant." Is it brilliant, really? Didn't every Spectrum-like venue in every city in America host the same line-up?

Speaking of the bleak setting, he thinks it's great that "to see the Eagles, the Phillies, the Flyers, and the 76ers you need do nothing more than simply walk across the street." That's an awful lot of games to see, one right after the other! Who cares that they're all next to each other if you're heading down to South Philly one event at a time? It would be better if this city had taken Jane Jacob's advice about spreading out cultural assets, rather than creating ghettos for entertainment and the arts.

The Spectrum will be replaced by Philly Live, planned as a way to turn the area into a mixed-use zone with retail, dining, etc. If it's ever built (it was recently announced that the grand plans have been scaled back), I won't be one of the visitors missing The Spectrum.

Are Parochial Schools Really Better?

Sent this into the Inquirer last week but I don't think they ever published it:

Re: B.J. Kelly’s column, “Religious Schools’ Quiet Successes.”

Without taking anything away from the quality of education at Philadelphia's parochial schools, I would argue that the superior performance of students attending these schools has little, if anything, to do with the fact that they are faith based. Nor should such results be used as an argument for school vouchers.

Students in parochial schools do better because someone in their lives cared enough to find a way to put them there, scrimping and saving to pay tuition or advocating for a scholarship. These students are thus very likely to come from home environments where education is valued and prioritized—this, rather than religion, teacher quality or a "values based" curriculum, is the key differential when comparing these students to the general student population. It also can't hurt that parochial schools have the option of expelling their worst-behaving students, while public schools do not.

Taken as a whole, if the student population in Philadelphia's public schools enjoyed the same rate of caregiver involvement that parochial school student populations do, it’s very likely they would, as a group, perform just as well or better than their parochial school counterpart. Parochial and independent schools in Philadelphia draw off thousands of potentially best-performing students in a self-reinforcing dynamic where each new generation of city parents, seeing the poor quality of public education, will, if they have the means and motivation, put their sons and daughters in schools full of students who enjoy a similar degree of home support. While understandable, this pattern leaves the public schools in progressively worse shape.

School vouchers only add to this problem. Unless we want to see our public schools finally degrade to the point where they are mere sinks for the most disenfranchised, alienated and neglected among us (we might as well just merge the schools with the prisons at that point), we should put the spotlight on what can be done to bolster the social and family environments from which young students come. This would certainly provide a better return on investment than doling out vouchers.

More on teen driving

Radio Times on WHYY this morning is covering teen driving dangers, the subject of my post on Dec. 14. Guest Katharine Watson, Bucks County Republican State Rep., calls distractions from passengers a much bigger problem even than electronic devices, though the latter gets much of the media attention. A bill she is sponsoring would address passenger limits, seat belt use, etc. Some of her esteemed colleagues in the famously progressive Pennsylvania legislature (note dripping sarcasm) have called her a "hysterical mom" for her efforts to make laws match the mountain of evidence on how to save teenage lives.

Note to quasi-libertarian (when it suits them) rural ignoramuses: driver safety laws affect everyone - not just the driver - by making our roads safer. If I had to choose I'd rather see an experienced driver flout the speed limit than an inexperienced, distracted driver creeping across a double yellow line.

Other guest Flaura Koplin-Winston, M.D., Ph.D., Founder and Co-Scientific Director of The Center for Injury Research and Prevention at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, is also on the show. The center's Web site (lots of useful info) is: http://www.research.chop.edu/programs/injury/our_research/ydri.php

Our post-journalistic world

I just read a fantastic article in The Atlantic by Mark Bowden, who was a beat reporter at the Philadelphia Inquirer for 25 years (he now writes a current affairs column for the paper). So many people are jaded and conspiratorial about nearly every issue these days (this passes for wise and worldly), and what is often wrongly referred to as "journalism" has a lot to do with it—or so Bowden argues in this cogent analysis of the controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Here's the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/media

The dominant media ethos, according to Bowden: "Nobody is actually right about anything, no matter how certain they pretend to be. The truth is something that emerges from the cauldron of debate. No, not the truth: victory, because winning is way more important than being right. Power is the highest achievement. There is nothing new about this. But we never used to mistake it for journalism."