Exactly How We Planned
4 years ago
22 October 2008
19 October 2008
Powell A+
Despite a heartbreaking loss by my hometown team tonight, I can still manage to crack a smile.
I was beyond thrilled to see Colin Powell endorse Senator Obama this morning. The former Secretary of State echoed one question I often present to friends - which candidate is the President that we need now?
To his credit, McCain has been willing to stand up against his party and its principles over the years (i.e. torture, global warming, immigration, campaign finance). Granted I do appreciate Senator McCain and that decent commitment to reform, but it seems that the atmosphere is less conducive to a conservative in the White House. It's obvious that even longtime friends (i.e. Powell) can't find any of that maverick in this campaign. I suppose it's impossible for McCain to win as the Republican candidate with this persona, but he should at least clean things up in the GOP (and in his campaign).
Powell pointed out a particularly troubling element within his own party:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.
But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.."
My biggest problem with the GOP is exactly this. Intolerance. For this, they should not be the ruling party in the Executive Branch.
18 October 2008
Yes on 5
Considering the abysmal condition of budgets and prisons in California, let’s encourage a plan that provides the state (not the criminals) with its own “get-out-of-jail-free” card. By supporting Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender and Rehabilitation Act of 2008 (NORA), California voters will see an effective follow up to previous ballot efforts to reform the state’s prisons. By emphasizing treatment over incarceration, this proposition establishes fundamental change in California. It calls for dropping prison populations by committing to rehabilitation and reducing sentences for non-violent offenders. Most importantly, non-partisan sources expect this measure to save the taxpayers from the billions necessary for future prison construction.
It’s about time for the state with the highest recidivism rate (70%) and second highest prison population to commit to the biggest prison reform in US history. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger seemed ready to act by rebranding the Department of Corrections as the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Years later, however, the California penal system is still in shambles.
On average, California state prisons operate at double capacity as the Golden State incarcerates a higher number of people than the entire Northeast region of the United States. A soaring prison population, however, strains the resources required for the successful and safe operation of the state system. While the population crisis first and foremost affects the well being of inmates, it also threatens state prison employees, worries legislators, and expenses the California public.
Proposition 5 confronts this pressing state issue and forces a revaluation for policymakers. Currently, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) operates 33 facilities, ranging from minimum to maximum security, with optimum total capacity near 100,000. Despite this threshold, the CDCR recently reported a state prison population over 172,000.
With an excess of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the CDCR, every prison in the state is operating over capacity pushing the population crisis to the front of the agenda. As a result of overcrowding, normal prison issues intensify. Inadequate care plagues a system responsible for rehabilitative services. Prison facilities are challenged to find sufficient space to house incoming inmates so they shuffle beds through gyms, hallways, libraries, classrooms and vocational workshops.
It’s impossible to expect rehabilitative and medical programs to keep pace with the overpopulation if accommodation is the main concern. Although some prisons still offer educational and vocational services, the majority of prisoners sit idle brewing a more hostile environment that accentuates the pains of imprisonment. Prisoners must wait longer to use facilities such as showers and recreation spaces, and without individual cells they lack much privacy. In addition, the number of prison staff fails to meet the expected ratio for so many inmates.
With this laundry list intensifying by the day, Proposition 5 serves an essential purpose. Overcrowding is addressed by reducing criminal consequences for non-violent offenders and recidivism is addressed by increasing treatment behind bars. Although such programs will initially cost California, the State could save $1 billion on reduced prison and parole operating costs.
Fierce opponents, powerful voices of reason such as US Senator Diane Feinstein, the Los Angeles Times and Attorney General Jerry Brown overlook the positive effect of Proposition 36. This measure emphasized the importance of treatment and since 2000 it has graduated 84,000 and saved California almost $2 billion. Support for the NORA campaign spreads across hundreds of medical, mental health, youth, labor, faith, and community organizations. Supporters include political activist George Soros (who committed the $1 million to get this proposition on the ballot) and include the California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation and the League of Women Voters.
Since California often takes the lead in confronting American policy dilemmas (i.e. global warming), voters should again recognize the unique opportunity presented by this measure. It’s time for a mix up in the system – that’s why Proposition 5 deserves a YES from California voters on November 4.
Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama
15 October 2008
American Joe
Maybe a few years down the line, Presidential candidates will focus on "Jacob the Plumber" or "Michael Six Pack" or maybe even..."Emily the Executive."
At least in 2007, "Joseph" was only the 13th most popular baby name according to the Social Security Administration.
At least in 2007, "Joseph" was only the 13th most popular baby name according to the Social Security Administration.
04 October 2008
Children Left Behind
Amidst Americans’ explicit concerns with the economy and foreign policy, our nation must also concentrate on a weakening public education system. Even with 49.8 million young people attending public elementary and secondary schools this season, a great discrepancy in achievement is growing amongst these students. Millions of them underperform — failing to meet benchmarks, graduate, pursue higher education and find professional success.
Average Americans, education specialists, and politicians differ, however, on the way to deliver a better system. A revaluation of current policy along with stronger connection between government and education will positively influence American education. Yet, with any more neglect, this system will negatively impact the growth that is critical to America’s global competition with regards to domestic and foreign affairs.
The context behind current circumstances is better understood with background in modern education reform and the role of the federal government. The Progressive Era of the early twentieth century laid the philosophical and administrative foundation for current education policy. Progressive reformers such as John Dewey believed in the connection between education and good democracy.
“Dewey's vision for the school was inextricably tied to his larger vision of the good society, wherein education–as a deliberately conducted practice of investigation, of problem solving, and of both personal and community growth–was the wellspring of democracy itself.”
This movement (in contrast to nineteenth century classical education) concentrated on practical, less formal education for the overall benefit of society. Critics argued, however, that students preferred learning more rational information as opposed to general principle. A subset of this movement, administrative progressive education, envisioned a more bureaucratic and centralized system to conduct mass testing. Although the entire progressive movement eventually lost momentum, it raised questions such as “What is the relationship between education and democratic citizenship, between teachers and students? To what extent is the school responsible for the emotional as well as intellectual development of its pupils? Do achievement tests provide valid and reliable measures of student learning?” All these questions pertain to the condition of present day education.
Decades later, the Civil Rights movement stirred education activists who promoted equal opportunity for students of all races. The role of the federal government was imperative in enforcing the ruling behind Brown vs. Board of Education. The decision read:
“It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.”
In 1964, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act program increased federal financial involvement in schools, especially in inner-city areas with disadvantaged social and economic conditions. In addition, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 required individualized instructional programs for students with disabilities. Finally, equal (free) access to education was least ensured in theory to all young people (regardless of race, gender, economic background etc.) Despite outcries from Republicans, President Jimmy Carter expanded the government in 1979 to include the Department of Education. Its purpose today is to:
1. Establish(ing) policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
2. Collect(ing) data on America's schools and disseminating research.
3. Focus(ing) national attention on key educational issues.
4. Prohibit(ing) discrimination and ensuring equal access to education
In 1983, the Reagan administration released a Nation At Risk, a highly publicized report outlining the relationship between the problems with the education system and fading American status in the world. “Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. The report permanently added education to the national political agenda. As Edward Fiske describes in a 2008 NY Times piece, “the last 25 years have seen a succession of projects and movements aimed at increasing the quality of American primary and secondary schools: standards-based reform, the 1989 “education summit” that set six “national goals” for education, the push for school choice and, most recently, the No Child Left Behind legislation.” A Nation At Rick cited students’ inadequacies with regards to literacy, testing, math, science and general intellectual skills. Yet, on the other hand, the report asked for America’s help with:
1. The commitment of the Nation to high retention rates in schools and colleges and to full access to education for all
2. The persistent and authentic American dream that superior performance can raise one's state in life and shape one's own future;
3. The dedication, against all odds, that keeps teachers serving in schools and colleges, even as the rewards diminish
4. The voluntary efforts of individuals, businesses, and parent and civic groups to cooperate in strengthening educational programs
During the last two decades, the government narrowed down policy to outcome based and standards based education. Both reforms highlighted the importance of measuring results to ensure school accountability. By end of the twentieth century, nearly every state had implemented a system of testing to compare achievement and understand the widening gaps. In 2001, President Bush signed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requiring each state to establish measurable goals for students. The objective remains for every student to read and do math at or above grade level by 2014. Both parties agreed, however, that “strengthening the nation's schools is essential for preparing our citizens to compete and win in the global economy,” as Senator Ted Kennedy said in the Washington Post. Senator Kennedy, a co-sponsor on NCLB, also agreed that his legislation has not met full expectations and still needs change.
Even with the results from NCLB, the current American education system falls short of saving the public education system. According to the Center for Education Reform, 30 percent of U.S. high school students will not graduate in 2008. The results of the last three Nation's Report Cards in reading, math and history show that barely a third of 4th graders and 8th graders are proficient. Also, American students scored lower than 23 other industrialized countries in mathematics and lower than 16 others in scientific literacy on a 2006 assessment. Although most politicians believe in some of the general principles behind NCLB, others understand the need for more reform.
Considering the relevance of the subject, I am most interested in how future policy makers plan to improve the problem. Even though the issue will not decide the November election, increased competition across the globe requires a higher quality of American education. Fundamentally, Democrats and Republicans disagree on the role and size of the federal government. Despite bipartisan agreement for NCLB, differences still exist between the right and the left sides of the aisle. The Republicans typically offer a more fundamental approach to education, emphasizing the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Conversely, the left manages education with a more experimental approach, focusing less on tradition. For example, Democrats currently seeks greater funding for special education, easier access to pre kindergarten and college education, while Republicans seek more school choices and more accountability through testing.
In the first Presidential Debate, Senator Obama thrust education into the conversation on three occasions compared with zero mentions from Senator McCain. Obama said issue of education was one example “of how we're going to keep America safe. [By] sending a message to the world that we are going to invest in issues like education, we are going to invest in issues that -- that relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.” (In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Senator McCain said, “the education level in America has to provide the workforce, especially in the information technology sector, [with enough so] that we can maintain out lead over the rest of the world." Obama and McCain both support NCLB, while Obama seeks greater overhaul and more funding from the government to schools. Still, traditional Democratic Party loyalists challenge Obama’s NCLB support. Teachers unions, especially the National Education Association (NEA) disagree with the law’s rigid structure and merit pay plans. New Mexico Chapter President Eduard Holguin argues that:
“parents, teachers, and other school employees know very well that each child learns in their own way and on their own pace. We also know that schools in need of assistance won’t improve if they’re made to use scarce resources on things that won’t better their instruction AND if they’re shortchanged of the funds promised them at the onset of the law.”
In addition, civil rights groups disagree with the policy’s different treatment of children from urban and suburban schools. Harvard Civil Rights Project research has shown that the NCLB “has actually done more to shortchange schools and students that need the most help.” Interestingly, academics argued that the policy discourages students to excel to their limit, forcing schools to subsidizing the education of the least gifted and gifted programs have suffered.
With a new president and a new Congress, policy makers must weigh a wide variety of additions or reinforcements to education legislation. Thomas Toch and Douglas Harris of Education Week argued that NCLB cannot hold schools accountable for factors they cannot control (such as family income and parental education) in national ratings. As schools continue to fail the standards, the next president must increase incentives for teachers, include parents in the process, and pay attention to education from bottom to top, pre-school to college. John McCain suggested offering tax credit to teachers to create incentive, while both Senators agree on merit pay. In general, however, policy must motivate our students to be excited to learn. The good of the democracy rests on the ability for our young people to think and act with intelligence. Testing may not be the best measure of intelligence, as the “American mystery” of the 1960s was incredible performance (sound economic growth) but low test scores. Interestingly, Newsweek International's Fareed Zakaria noted Singapore's success on international math and science exams, but asked Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam why Singapore produced so few top-ranked professionals. "We both have meritocracies," he replied. America's "is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well -- like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition.
Although NCLB concentrates on merits, it should also encourage additional funding for vocational and charter schools, great scholarship from private schools and additional technology outlets in all classrooms. Despite economic fears, the government should be maintaining a critical role in the education system. The recent bailout legislation actually included funding for struggling rural school. According to a recent Gallup Poll, fewer than 2 of 10 Americans believe that NCLB legislation should be continued without change. With this in mind, education reform must be a priority for federal government.
Average Americans, education specialists, and politicians differ, however, on the way to deliver a better system. A revaluation of current policy along with stronger connection between government and education will positively influence American education. Yet, with any more neglect, this system will negatively impact the growth that is critical to America’s global competition with regards to domestic and foreign affairs.
The context behind current circumstances is better understood with background in modern education reform and the role of the federal government. The Progressive Era of the early twentieth century laid the philosophical and administrative foundation for current education policy. Progressive reformers such as John Dewey believed in the connection between education and good democracy.
“Dewey's vision for the school was inextricably tied to his larger vision of the good society, wherein education–as a deliberately conducted practice of investigation, of problem solving, and of both personal and community growth–was the wellspring of democracy itself.”
This movement (in contrast to nineteenth century classical education) concentrated on practical, less formal education for the overall benefit of society. Critics argued, however, that students preferred learning more rational information as opposed to general principle. A subset of this movement, administrative progressive education, envisioned a more bureaucratic and centralized system to conduct mass testing. Although the entire progressive movement eventually lost momentum, it raised questions such as “What is the relationship between education and democratic citizenship, between teachers and students? To what extent is the school responsible for the emotional as well as intellectual development of its pupils? Do achievement tests provide valid and reliable measures of student learning?” All these questions pertain to the condition of present day education.
Decades later, the Civil Rights movement stirred education activists who promoted equal opportunity for students of all races. The role of the federal government was imperative in enforcing the ruling behind Brown vs. Board of Education. The decision read:
“It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.”
In 1964, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act program increased federal financial involvement in schools, especially in inner-city areas with disadvantaged social and economic conditions. In addition, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 required individualized instructional programs for students with disabilities. Finally, equal (free) access to education was least ensured in theory to all young people (regardless of race, gender, economic background etc.) Despite outcries from Republicans, President Jimmy Carter expanded the government in 1979 to include the Department of Education. Its purpose today is to:
1. Establish(ing) policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
2. Collect(ing) data on America's schools and disseminating research.
3. Focus(ing) national attention on key educational issues.
4. Prohibit(ing) discrimination and ensuring equal access to education
In 1983, the Reagan administration released a Nation At Risk, a highly publicized report outlining the relationship between the problems with the education system and fading American status in the world. “Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. The report permanently added education to the national political agenda. As Edward Fiske describes in a 2008 NY Times piece, “the last 25 years have seen a succession of projects and movements aimed at increasing the quality of American primary and secondary schools: standards-based reform, the 1989 “education summit” that set six “national goals” for education, the push for school choice and, most recently, the No Child Left Behind legislation.” A Nation At Rick cited students’ inadequacies with regards to literacy, testing, math, science and general intellectual skills. Yet, on the other hand, the report asked for America’s help with:
1. The commitment of the Nation to high retention rates in schools and colleges and to full access to education for all
2. The persistent and authentic American dream that superior performance can raise one's state in life and shape one's own future;
3. The dedication, against all odds, that keeps teachers serving in schools and colleges, even as the rewards diminish
4. The voluntary efforts of individuals, businesses, and parent and civic groups to cooperate in strengthening educational programs
During the last two decades, the government narrowed down policy to outcome based and standards based education. Both reforms highlighted the importance of measuring results to ensure school accountability. By end of the twentieth century, nearly every state had implemented a system of testing to compare achievement and understand the widening gaps. In 2001, President Bush signed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requiring each state to establish measurable goals for students. The objective remains for every student to read and do math at or above grade level by 2014. Both parties agreed, however, that “strengthening the nation's schools is essential for preparing our citizens to compete and win in the global economy,” as Senator Ted Kennedy said in the Washington Post. Senator Kennedy, a co-sponsor on NCLB, also agreed that his legislation has not met full expectations and still needs change.
Even with the results from NCLB, the current American education system falls short of saving the public education system. According to the Center for Education Reform, 30 percent of U.S. high school students will not graduate in 2008. The results of the last three Nation's Report Cards in reading, math and history show that barely a third of 4th graders and 8th graders are proficient. Also, American students scored lower than 23 other industrialized countries in mathematics and lower than 16 others in scientific literacy on a 2006 assessment. Although most politicians believe in some of the general principles behind NCLB, others understand the need for more reform.
Considering the relevance of the subject, I am most interested in how future policy makers plan to improve the problem. Even though the issue will not decide the November election, increased competition across the globe requires a higher quality of American education. Fundamentally, Democrats and Republicans disagree on the role and size of the federal government. Despite bipartisan agreement for NCLB, differences still exist between the right and the left sides of the aisle. The Republicans typically offer a more fundamental approach to education, emphasizing the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. Conversely, the left manages education with a more experimental approach, focusing less on tradition. For example, Democrats currently seeks greater funding for special education, easier access to pre kindergarten and college education, while Republicans seek more school choices and more accountability through testing.
In the first Presidential Debate, Senator Obama thrust education into the conversation on three occasions compared with zero mentions from Senator McCain. Obama said issue of education was one example “of how we're going to keep America safe. [By] sending a message to the world that we are going to invest in issues like education, we are going to invest in issues that -- that relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.” (In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Senator McCain said, “the education level in America has to provide the workforce, especially in the information technology sector, [with enough so] that we can maintain out lead over the rest of the world." Obama and McCain both support NCLB, while Obama seeks greater overhaul and more funding from the government to schools. Still, traditional Democratic Party loyalists challenge Obama’s NCLB support. Teachers unions, especially the National Education Association (NEA) disagree with the law’s rigid structure and merit pay plans. New Mexico Chapter President Eduard Holguin argues that:
“parents, teachers, and other school employees know very well that each child learns in their own way and on their own pace. We also know that schools in need of assistance won’t improve if they’re made to use scarce resources on things that won’t better their instruction AND if they’re shortchanged of the funds promised them at the onset of the law.”
In addition, civil rights groups disagree with the policy’s different treatment of children from urban and suburban schools. Harvard Civil Rights Project research has shown that the NCLB “has actually done more to shortchange schools and students that need the most help.” Interestingly, academics argued that the policy discourages students to excel to their limit, forcing schools to subsidizing the education of the least gifted and gifted programs have suffered.
With a new president and a new Congress, policy makers must weigh a wide variety of additions or reinforcements to education legislation. Thomas Toch and Douglas Harris of Education Week argued that NCLB cannot hold schools accountable for factors they cannot control (such as family income and parental education) in national ratings. As schools continue to fail the standards, the next president must increase incentives for teachers, include parents in the process, and pay attention to education from bottom to top, pre-school to college. John McCain suggested offering tax credit to teachers to create incentive, while both Senators agree on merit pay. In general, however, policy must motivate our students to be excited to learn. The good of the democracy rests on the ability for our young people to think and act with intelligence. Testing may not be the best measure of intelligence, as the “American mystery” of the 1960s was incredible performance (sound economic growth) but low test scores. Interestingly, Newsweek International's Fareed Zakaria noted Singapore's success on international math and science exams, but asked Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam why Singapore produced so few top-ranked professionals. "We both have meritocracies," he replied. America's "is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well -- like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition.
Although NCLB concentrates on merits, it should also encourage additional funding for vocational and charter schools, great scholarship from private schools and additional technology outlets in all classrooms. Despite economic fears, the government should be maintaining a critical role in the education system. The recent bailout legislation actually included funding for struggling rural school. According to a recent Gallup Poll, fewer than 2 of 10 Americans believe that NCLB legislation should be continued without change. With this in mind, education reform must be a priority for federal government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
