President Obama’s Shrewd Educational Move

                On Saturday (Spetember24, 2011) President Obama in his weekly Saturday address to the nation discussed making changes to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy and spending billions of dollars to upgrade schools and keep teachers on their jobs[i]

                As part of his $447 billion jobs bill that was proposed to Congress, President Obama argues that investing in education is vital to the country’s future economic viability.  According to President Obama :

                                “If we are serious about building an economy that lasts, an

                                economy in which hard work pays off with the opportunity

                                for solid middle-class jobs, we had better be serious about

                                education[ii].

This proposal is a deliberate act by President Obama to force Congress to vote on his jobs bill and educational agenda.  This is a shrewd move on the President’s part because with all the financial problems plaguing public education, placing education as a key component to the jobs bill will force Congress to pass parts of the bill that is favorable to President Obama’s educational agenda.

A second part of President Obama’s shrewd plan was to authorize states to opt out of the proficiency standards of NCLB legislation.  If states have developed their own standards for preparing students for college and careers and developed evaluation standards for teachers and principals, they will be allowed to opt out[iii].  In doing this, President Obama begins dismantling the unpopular NCLB Act that stifled innovation in the classroom, frustrated administrators, teachers, and parents, and led to a number of cheating scandals.

The final part of President Obama’s shrewd plan was to include in the jobs bill funds to repair and upgrade school infrastructure and to rehire teachers.  Understanding that our country’s economic future is being jeopardized by our public educational system, the jobs bill will provide school districts with the necessary funds to build or upgrade schools with wireless technology, Smart Board technology, and modern science labs.  Since our students have fallen behind other countries in math and science and our college graduation rate has dropped significantly, providing students with appropriate school facilities could reverse these trends.

                President Obama’s shrewd educational plan will hopefully get people back to work and help to get students back on track to leading the world in math and science.  By providing students with access to first class facilities, it is hoped that academic achievement will increase and lead to graduates who can compete in the global economy.

With the toxic environment in Congress, President Obama understood that in order to gets his educational plan moving without a lengthy fight with Congress, he would have to propose a bill that would force Congress to approve.

---

[i] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44652388/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-education-agenda-helps-students-jobless/from/toolbar

[ii] ibid

[iii] Ibid

The Educational Cost of The War on Terror

                  Last week, there was an article by Chris Wragge entitled: “The Financial and Emotional Costs of 9/11.”  According to the article, the US has spent approximately 2.3 trillion dollars on the war on terror since 9/11 with 1.3 trillion being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan[i].

                The article’s premise was to provide the reader with a snapshot of the monetary, human, and individual costs of the war on terror.  With over 6,000 US troops lost, trillions of dollars spent, and changes to our lifestyle, Wragge attempted to remind the reader the of the sacrifices that have been made in the war on terror.  While, Wragge’s article failed to discuss the costs the war on terror has on the economy, equally absent from his discussion is the costs to our countries most precious resource:  the education of our children.

 

                The educational costs due to the war on terror is something that is not discussed because it would be difficult to estimate the continuous affect the war has on the delivery of education to children.  The trillions of dollars the government has spent on the war on terror diverted funding away from education (and social services).  The loss of funds over the past 10 years slowly deteriorated an already fragile educational system.  We are now beginning to witness the effects of the diverted funds which are responsible for a majority of the large budget deficits in urban and suburban districts.

                When the war on terror began after 9/11, the country became singularly focused on the prevention of future occurrences (i.e.: Homeland Security) and retaliation for the horrific attack on US soil.  Because of this singular focus, education (and the economy) was neglected.  The money diverted for the war, ended government funded programs aimed at improving core subjects such as reading, math and science.  Programs that funded afterschool programs, paid for tutoring services, and small grants to teachers and students for academic enrichment projects are just some of the things that were lost over the years to diverted funds for the war on terror.  Also lost were school to work programs that focused on connecting academic content to workforce expectations.  Prior to 9/11, there was a national focus on developing a smarter workforce by equipping students with the skills needed to compete in a global economy.  The funding for school to work programs was diverted as the national attention turned to the war on terror and the students were left ill repaired to compete in the global economy. Finally, the massive layoffs of school staff, the closing of school buildings and cuts to extracurricular activities to districts around the country are a culmination of 10 years of lost funds. 

                Wragge’s attempt to portray the financial and emotional costs of the war on terror should remind us of the unexpected costs to the education of our children.  While we may never know how the loss of enrichment and remedial programs, the loss of extra-curricular activities, and the loss of staff may impact the education of our children, we may eventually end up winning the war on terror, but we will lose the educational advantage and ability to compete in the global market.

---

[i] www.cbsnews.com/2102-500202_162-20103906

The Missing Intangibles

            Across the country, a new school year begins under a dark cloud of testing scandals, steep budget cuts and an unprecedented economic recession.  Parents and critics will bemoan the loss of teachers and non core academic programs such as Art and Music, and complain about the fear of punishment which was the impetus behind the testing scandals.  While it is too early to determine the impact these factors will have on the students what will immediately impact the students are the loss of teachers and support staff. 

            For those who perceive teachers and support staff as being solely responsible for providing academic instruction to students.  The intangibles a teacher, classroom assistant, and non-teaching assistants (NTA) provide help students cope with personal, social and non-academic challenges.  Intangibles such as greeting students in the morning and providing support and encouragement for academic, non-academic, and personal challenges are supports students need to thrive in school. 

As confidants and mentors too many students, the loss of teachers and support staff may cause some students to lose confidence in themselves or abilities.  As confidants and mentors, teachers and support staff provide advice that allows students’ to make informed decisions concerning which classes to take, decide to try out for a school sport, music or art group, or submit a project for state or national competition. 

The loss of teachers and support staff can affect students’ post-high school decisions.  With the economy in a deep recession, many high school students are fearful of taking on large college debt and are questioning if they will be able to obtain a job after graduating from high school.  Younger students seeing older siblings moving back home from college, unable to find a job and their parents struggling to keep their jobs.

As the new school year begins, and students do not see the familiar faces of teachers and support staff that provided the intangibles in the classrooms and hallways, they will notice the difference and wonder who will provide the intangibles.

The Unschooling Movement?

            Are you familiar with “Unschooling?” A recent article in CNN.com discussed this little known alternative educational philosophy where “the child is in control of his/her learning and they are free to decide what they want to study, when they want to study[i].”

            Unschooling began as a response by its founder, John Holt who authored the book “How Children Fail” in 1964.  Holt believed:

“that living is learning…children should follow their

innate curiosity and passions rather than being forced

to learn hordes of information they will never use[ii].”

Holt’s philosophy is largely based on the principals of John Dewey’s (1910) Education & Experience.  From Dewey, Holt believed that learning could occur within the confines of a non-traditional school structure with an observant teacher who guided students to naturally learn curricular concepts through their natural curiosity and exploration.  Holt divergence from Dewey occurs when Holt places primary responsibility on the child while Dewey believed the teacher and student equally share responsibility for learning.

            Currently there are 20 private schools called Sudbury that follow the unschooling philosophy.  The schools are democratically run with each student and adult receive 1 vote. Only students set the rules and the rules can only be changed by a majority vote of the student body.  Classes are offered, but not mandatory and “staff members” do not have to have a teaching background since their purpose is to guide students in their individual pursuits[iii].  Children as young as 6 years old attend the Sudbury schools where there is no age or grade segregation. However, the Sudbury schools boasts a 90% college acceptance rate, with alumni who are mathematicians, geologists, and doctors.

            Critics of unschooling argue that to place the responsibility for formal learning on children as young as 6 years old without structure and without a trained/certified adult is poor child development practice.  They further argue that while a child can learn naturally, they need a trained/certified adult to help them make them make the leap to higher functioning and reasoning. 

            Critics of unschooling also argue that students will have a difficult time adjusting from the unschooling environment to the traditional, structured academic environment of college and the structure of the real world.  In college, there is a prescribed curriculum, deadlines for assignments and exams, attendance and participation requirements, and graduation requirements.  In the real world there are expectations about punctuality, work deadlines and a rigid structure.

            Finally, a glaring omission concerning unschooling is the cultural capital its students bring prior to entering the Sudbury.  An underling theme from the examples cited in the article is that Sudbury students came from affluent backgrounds that afforded them greater cultural capital to handle such an open and unstructured program.  It would be interesting to learn how students with little cultural capital would do in the unschooling environment.  Would these students eventually find their way in an unstructured academic environment and thrive?

---

[i] www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/03/unschooling.subury.education/index

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.