After taking most of the summer off, and now that I am a couple of weeks into my 5th semester of law school, I decided it might be time to start blogging again. Specifically, I simply cannot stay quiet any longer on this "controversy" regarding the President's upcoming speech before public school children. Seriously, there is the President's failed economic policy, his ill-advised health care plan, and any other number of policy issue for which the President should be criticized. An yet, people are focusing on this speech. Really?
I was drawn into a long discussion yesterday, on Facebook, regarding the President's right to give this address. I must admit, I was a little shocked by the question. In my mind, he is the President, he can talk to whomever he wishes. However, to a certain extent, I can understand some parent's reluctance. However, it becomes an issue of censorship, as far as I am concerned. I completely understand if you do not agree with the President or his policies. I have never made any attempt to disguise my own contempt for this Administration. However, he is the President, and he deserves all the respect the office entitles him to. If a man was able to come from somewhat meager beginnings, succeed academically, and eventually become President, why shouldn't he be able to encourage today's students to proceed with the same focus?
Obviously, the issue is not over him speaking to students, but the content of his speech. So long as he confines his address to encouraging young people to succeed in school, I really do not see the harm. Even if he does put a little bit of policy into his speech, what is the harm? At this point, it becomes an issue of effective parenting. If you don;t want your child to be taken in by the eloquent President, it is YOUR job to discuss the issues with your young one. They are going to spend a lifetime being bombarded with different ideas, perspectives, faiths, beliefs, etc..., so why try to shelter them from a few words from the leader of our nation?
It's nothing but pure laziness and fear. Rather than step up as a parent and discuss real issue with your children, you would rather just keep them from hearing something that one of our elected leaders has to say. I would rather encourage my child to explore all possible ideas then try and keep him locked in a bubble. When did parenting become more about sheltering children rather than teaching them?
Now, on the other hand, I am willing to accept arguments that deal specifically with the U.S. Department of Education's letter to schools, encouraging certain "lesson plans" in conjunction with the speech. Education is a local issue, and the federal government has no Constitutional authority to mandate curriculum. However, encouraging teachers to have student think about how the President "inspires" them is a far, far cry from mandating curriculum. In the end, my biggest concern is that people need to pick their battles. When you waste so much effort opposing something as insignificant as this, it takes away from your credibility on the issues that really matter. Or at least that's my two cents.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Friday, September 04, 2009
Thursday, June 04, 2009
They Can't Learn Because You Won't Let Them!
Today, I watched the House Education & Labor Committee hold a hearing to discuss charter school education, discussing best practices and what more can be done. The hearing was progressing very nicely, with the various panelists describing the programs they support and the charter schools they work with. Eventually, some Democratic members began barraging the panelists with accusatory questions.
Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and others began questioning the panelists as to why they have chosen to implement these innovative practices in institutions that serve 2%-6% of the student population, rather than implementing the same policies in the public school system. Many panelists did what they could to try and explain the situations, noting that they have more freedom and more room to move free of the bureaucratic nonsense that accompanies the public education system here in the United States. Finally, Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) made it clear that these members of the Committee were simply not interested in anything the witnesses had to say.
Tierney called out every member of the panel by acknowledging the good they have done, but accusing them of abandoning public school children by limiting their work to charter schools. Tierney claimed that these witnesses were taking the easy way out by refusing to work in public schools. My general outrage of the hypocrisy involved in his statements began to boil. He kept asking that if these policies worked in charter schools, why weren't the panelists working to implement them in the public schools? Finally, logic and reason entered into the equation from the least likely source.
Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) finally stood up for the panel, telling Tierney and the others that to assume that individuals could cut through the bureaucratic red tape that plagues public school systems, and implement these practices in a timely manner only went to show the members' lack of understanding about our public education system. Any attempt to implement these policies would take years of debate and nonsense, with no guarantee of success. If the U.S. Congress wants to see these kinds of practices in public schools, they have to give those schools the freedom to embrace innovative tendencies. With the rigid guidelines and requirements of federal education law, such as No Child Left Behind, public schools cannot afford to take risks and try new ideas, for fear of failing to meet the arbitrary benchmarks set by Congress.
Congress needs to pull itself out of the classroom, and give teachers and administrators the freedom to decide what works best for their students. It is the teacher in the classroom that can best decide what works when it comes to teaching her students, not a politician in Washington. So, Rep. Tierney and his colleagues in Congress will have to get out of the way before public schools can even hope to move forward. Just another example of how Politicians in Washington spend too much time pointing fingers, and not enough time helping to solve the problem.
Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and others began questioning the panelists as to why they have chosen to implement these innovative practices in institutions that serve 2%-6% of the student population, rather than implementing the same policies in the public school system. Many panelists did what they could to try and explain the situations, noting that they have more freedom and more room to move free of the bureaucratic nonsense that accompanies the public education system here in the United States. Finally, Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) made it clear that these members of the Committee were simply not interested in anything the witnesses had to say.
Tierney called out every member of the panel by acknowledging the good they have done, but accusing them of abandoning public school children by limiting their work to charter schools. Tierney claimed that these witnesses were taking the easy way out by refusing to work in public schools. My general outrage of the hypocrisy involved in his statements began to boil. He kept asking that if these policies worked in charter schools, why weren't the panelists working to implement them in the public schools? Finally, logic and reason entered into the equation from the least likely source.
Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) finally stood up for the panel, telling Tierney and the others that to assume that individuals could cut through the bureaucratic red tape that plagues public school systems, and implement these practices in a timely manner only went to show the members' lack of understanding about our public education system. Any attempt to implement these policies would take years of debate and nonsense, with no guarantee of success. If the U.S. Congress wants to see these kinds of practices in public schools, they have to give those schools the freedom to embrace innovative tendencies. With the rigid guidelines and requirements of federal education law, such as No Child Left Behind, public schools cannot afford to take risks and try new ideas, for fear of failing to meet the arbitrary benchmarks set by Congress.
Congress needs to pull itself out of the classroom, and give teachers and administrators the freedom to decide what works best for their students. It is the teacher in the classroom that can best decide what works when it comes to teaching her students, not a politician in Washington. So, Rep. Tierney and his colleagues in Congress will have to get out of the way before public schools can even hope to move forward. Just another example of how Politicians in Washington spend too much time pointing fingers, and not enough time helping to solve the problem.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama's First Address to Congress
I have very mixed feelings regarding Obama's first address to a joint session of Congress last night. However, when you factor in the realities we face with his political rhetoric, I am left with no real positive outlook on his Presidency. While I, like most of those present at the speech, agreed with certain priorities that the President listed, I am afraid we do not see eye to eye on how to get there.
A few points that the President brought up that I agree with in principle: lowering the deficit, cutting wasteful government spending, tax cuts, and education, health care, and energy reform. Above all else, the federal government's top priority should be paying down the national debt. The Republicans showed a complete lack of fiscal restraint when they held the majority. As the supposed party of "change," the Democrats should reign in government spending, and work at bringing down the national debt. If President Obama can pull that off without raising taxes, then I can almost promise that he will get my vote in 2012.
One way to help bring down spending is to eliminate inefficient, wasteful government programs. The President has appointed a federal official to oversee the investigation into program effectiveness. I wish her the greatest possible success. However, President Bush tried for 8 consecutive years to cut dozens of wasteful programs. His proposals would have increased federal funding for programs that were proven successes, without raising the overall bottom line, by redirecting funds from inefficient and unsuccessful programs. He could not get the Republican Congress to agree to eliminate these programs, and he could not get the Democratic Congress on board either. Hopefully, Obama can trade on his currently un-earned popularity and maybe get Congress to fall in line.
Finally, Obama mentioned a strong deisre to reform our nation's education, health care, and energy systems. I am all for reform, I just don;t believe the President and I agree on what kind of reform is necessary. I believe the only government involvement in these areas is to deregulate. That's right, I said the very unpopular phrase "deregulate." I think local educators have a much better idea of what their students need than a bureaucrat in Washington. I think that companies should be encouraged (though tax breaks) to provide health care plans for employees that are affordable and effective. I believe that the government should promote new research and production of alternative fuel sources, mainly through R&D grants and additional tax incentives. The key to success is getting government out of the way, not giving them more chains to tie down those in the field.
On other issues, such as pulling troops out of Iraq, I still have mixed feelings. Americans have been fighting and dying in an area of the country that seems less and less to appreciate what we have done. The cost of the ongoing conflict has brought out deficit up to unbelievable levels. The cost, both fiscal and human, is too high. However, we are over there, we have been involved, and therefore, we cannot just bailout and leave the region in a war-torn mess. We have to find a way to transfer authority gradually, helping to give the ungrateful bastards the best chance at a lasting peace.
In regards to taxes, I applaud an effort to give 95% of American tax breaks. However, that number is based on some very "fuzzy" math. The fact is, the so called wealthiest 1% of Americans are the ones paying the majority of our taxes. They are already shouldering the largest portion of taxes, and should not be subject to additional burden. Rather than taking more money from those who have it, lets focus on more efficient ways to spend the money they are already giving us. Besides, any increased costs are almost always passed down to the average consumer. that mean taxes on corporation eventually gets passed on to those consumers, who end up paying higher prices.
Speaking of corporate taxes, the President mentioned ending tax breaks for businesses that "ship jobs overseas." I agree, in general, with the premise that companies that outsource jobs should not be rewarded for doing so. however, increased taxes means those companies are more likely to ship all of their operations overseas. Rather than focusing on how to punish those companies, we need to work on ways to encourage domestic businesses to keep jobs in the country, as well as ways to entice foreign companies to bring their operations into the U.S.
In the end, I believe his speech was well written and delivered very well. however, it lacked in substance, and it points in a direction that will only further complicate things. We need reform, and we need change, but it needs to be the right kind of change. Instead of "Change We Can Believe In," how about "Change We Can Depend On," or "Change We Can Follow to Prosperity." I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the President does turn around the country. I am simply not convinces. My advice to the President and his supporters is to be very careful in how you chose to proceed, because the fate of the nation depends on the choices you make now.
A few points that the President brought up that I agree with in principle: lowering the deficit, cutting wasteful government spending, tax cuts, and education, health care, and energy reform. Above all else, the federal government's top priority should be paying down the national debt. The Republicans showed a complete lack of fiscal restraint when they held the majority. As the supposed party of "change," the Democrats should reign in government spending, and work at bringing down the national debt. If President Obama can pull that off without raising taxes, then I can almost promise that he will get my vote in 2012.
One way to help bring down spending is to eliminate inefficient, wasteful government programs. The President has appointed a federal official to oversee the investigation into program effectiveness. I wish her the greatest possible success. However, President Bush tried for 8 consecutive years to cut dozens of wasteful programs. His proposals would have increased federal funding for programs that were proven successes, without raising the overall bottom line, by redirecting funds from inefficient and unsuccessful programs. He could not get the Republican Congress to agree to eliminate these programs, and he could not get the Democratic Congress on board either. Hopefully, Obama can trade on his currently un-earned popularity and maybe get Congress to fall in line.
Finally, Obama mentioned a strong deisre to reform our nation's education, health care, and energy systems. I am all for reform, I just don;t believe the President and I agree on what kind of reform is necessary. I believe the only government involvement in these areas is to deregulate. That's right, I said the very unpopular phrase "deregulate." I think local educators have a much better idea of what their students need than a bureaucrat in Washington. I think that companies should be encouraged (though tax breaks) to provide health care plans for employees that are affordable and effective. I believe that the government should promote new research and production of alternative fuel sources, mainly through R&D grants and additional tax incentives. The key to success is getting government out of the way, not giving them more chains to tie down those in the field.
On other issues, such as pulling troops out of Iraq, I still have mixed feelings. Americans have been fighting and dying in an area of the country that seems less and less to appreciate what we have done. The cost of the ongoing conflict has brought out deficit up to unbelievable levels. The cost, both fiscal and human, is too high. However, we are over there, we have been involved, and therefore, we cannot just bailout and leave the region in a war-torn mess. We have to find a way to transfer authority gradually, helping to give the ungrateful bastards the best chance at a lasting peace.
In regards to taxes, I applaud an effort to give 95% of American tax breaks. However, that number is based on some very "fuzzy" math. The fact is, the so called wealthiest 1% of Americans are the ones paying the majority of our taxes. They are already shouldering the largest portion of taxes, and should not be subject to additional burden. Rather than taking more money from those who have it, lets focus on more efficient ways to spend the money they are already giving us. Besides, any increased costs are almost always passed down to the average consumer. that mean taxes on corporation eventually gets passed on to those consumers, who end up paying higher prices.
Speaking of corporate taxes, the President mentioned ending tax breaks for businesses that "ship jobs overseas." I agree, in general, with the premise that companies that outsource jobs should not be rewarded for doing so. however, increased taxes means those companies are more likely to ship all of their operations overseas. Rather than focusing on how to punish those companies, we need to work on ways to encourage domestic businesses to keep jobs in the country, as well as ways to entice foreign companies to bring their operations into the U.S.
In the end, I believe his speech was well written and delivered very well. however, it lacked in substance, and it points in a direction that will only further complicate things. We need reform, and we need change, but it needs to be the right kind of change. Instead of "Change We Can Believe In," how about "Change We Can Depend On," or "Change We Can Follow to Prosperity." I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the President does turn around the country. I am simply not convinces. My advice to the President and his supporters is to be very careful in how you chose to proceed, because the fate of the nation depends on the choices you make now.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
McCain Better Fit For Teachers Unions?
The top goal of both teachers’ unions is driving a stake into the federal No Child Left Behind Act. That stake, however, is far more likely to get pounded in by John McCain than by Barack Obama, who won the overwhelming endorsement of both unions.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/08/45read.h27.html
Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer for USA Today, makes a fairly novel point in that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Senator Obama for President, despite the fact that McCain may actually serve their interests on No Child Left Behind better than Barack. Whitmire looks at Obama's speeches on NCLB, noting that he does not actually address anything in the law, instead relying on useless rhetoric to gain support from the leftist unions.
When you break down the issues, McCain and Obama are both useless in the areas of federal education spending, school choice, and performance pay for teachers. While McCain would not raise spending, the Democratically controlled Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President. On school choice, there are too few optimal choices for public school swapping, leaving Charter Schools as the only viable option. Obama is a strong supporter of charter schools, so that would put him at odds with the unions, along with McCain. Both candidates have come out in favor of performance pay for teachers, so that just leaves NCLB.
This is just another case of political entities (which is all the NEA and AFT are) following the status quo of supporting a Democrat, regardless of his policies.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/08/45read.h27.html
Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer for USA Today, makes a fairly novel point in that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed Senator Obama for President, despite the fact that McCain may actually serve their interests on No Child Left Behind better than Barack. Whitmire looks at Obama's speeches on NCLB, noting that he does not actually address anything in the law, instead relying on useless rhetoric to gain support from the leftist unions.
When you break down the issues, McCain and Obama are both useless in the areas of federal education spending, school choice, and performance pay for teachers. While McCain would not raise spending, the Democratically controlled Congress holds the power of the purse, not the President. On school choice, there are too few optimal choices for public school swapping, leaving Charter Schools as the only viable option. Obama is a strong supporter of charter schools, so that would put him at odds with the unions, along with McCain. Both candidates have come out in favor of performance pay for teachers, so that just leaves NCLB.
This is just another case of political entities (which is all the NEA and AFT are) following the status quo of supporting a Democrat, regardless of his policies.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Candidates' Views on Education
Although both Obama and McCain have criticized the No Child Left Behind Act, neither proposes scrapping it altogether. While Obama regularly bashes the landmark education law for being underfunded, he is not planning to drop the measure's reliance on standardized tests, which is its most controversial provision.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93004032
Education often gets overlooked in the polls. NPR has a very good layout for each candidate's views on a variety of education issues. I recommend reading through it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93004032
Education often gets overlooked in the polls. NPR has a very good layout for each candidate's views on a variety of education issues. I recommend reading through it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
