PISA

PISA

The Race to Nowhere, a film that has resonated so well with American parents, caused so much contention that the New York Times recently hosted an online debate with a spew of academics about the validity of the movie’s argument. Both the movie and the debate follow the same basic premise, one that high school students probably contemplate themselves on those longest working nights: do American high school students get pushed too hard to be the best- if so, how can this be mitigated?
Yes, says psychologist Harris Cooper, in his article submitted for the debate. Too much homework is, well, too much. And while the other five intellectual contributors look at different aspects of the problem, they all are in general agreement with Cooper. That is, no one is contesting the idea the high school students are overworked.
But the comments on the series tell a different story, which is best framed by a reader going by ‘Russell Long’.
“I appreciate [the author’s] views, but am also concerned about the fact that the United States has fallen far behind other nations in global literacy, math and science scores,” he said. “The Times recently reported that the US is 26th in the new PISA scoring, with scores of countries better preparing their kids to compete in the global economy. How do we reduce the educational burdens upon our kids while also improving our languishing performance?”
And therein lies the problem. On the recent international testing, the US scores are an average of just over 90 points below the scores from Shanghai on a 600 point scale. Clearly, the Shanghai numbers are not representative of all of China or even necessarily the average for the city, but they are still astonishing.
Few high-achieving high school students would disagree that they are overworked, and, in all likelihood, they probably are. American society has an overwhelming obsession with being the best, and this focus bleeds into students’ already mounting stress. So the problem is not that top students are not working hard enough, it is that low achieving students are not getting the help they need.
American schools have too many failing students who get lost in the shuffle. Some of them just need a little extra attention, some have serious learning problems. But no matter what the solution is, it is the responsibility of the schools to help them to their best ability.
Reducing the stress of overworked, top-achieving students is a noble task. The student-stress reduction plans- reduce homework, strengthen homeschooling programs, etc- proposed by the New York Times contributors will certainly help. But the more pressing issue is that of American under-achievement. When all American students are achieving at a consistent level (and not on standardized tests like the ‘No Child Left Behind’ system, as it has been proven that teaching to the test actually lowers student learning and knowledge retention), only then will American world standing will improve. It cannot be improved, as the Times commentators seem to think, by forcing a small group of top students to work harder and harder.

Read more »

Finding Our Way Out

Finding Our Way Out

It is not inconceivable to think that the American military is struggling to define its aims in Afghanistan. After all, neither public releases nor media coverage has clarified military goals for the American people. There are three basic questions that apply to the US presence in Afghanistan: why did we enter? Have we achieved what we hoped we would? Why are we still there?
On September 11, 2001, the act of a concentrated group of religious extremist terrorists changed America forever. On a basic level, this attack is why the US enter Afghanistan and was the cause of the first of its goals there: to seek out and kill members of Al-Qaeda, especially leaders like Osama Bin Ladin and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The 9/11 attack set defense facilities on high alert and sent panic through the nation. The repercussions of that day are still affecting daily life (like the new TSA body scanner). And in that respect, the terrorists achieved their goal: they spread terror. They caused American lifestyle to change based simply on random acts of violence. However, they also achieved something they probably didn't expect or want. They caused the United States forces to enter Afghanistan.
Of course, Al-Qaeda's actions on 9/11, while responsible for the US entering Afghanistan, were not entirely so. The US also had an active interest in ensuring that the Taliban were not the ruling party in the country for a few reasons. Firstly, any nation whose values and policies mirror those of the US is more likely to act as an ally of America, for the same reason that the US and the UK are support each other whereas the US and Iran do not. The US and the UK share government forms and policies, unlike the US and Iran. Therefore, a democratic Afghanistan not under Taliban rule is the most beneficial to US diplomacy both in the US and across the Middle East. Additionally, Afghanistan could not be guaranteed as a stable opponent to extremist terrorism nor a safe neighbor to nuclear power Pakistan. So, US motivation for entering Afghanistan was twofold, and American goals were equally as divided.
Originally, US forces entered Afghanistan to eliminate Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this didn't quite work as planned. Though some high-level Al-Qaeda and Taliban members were brought under custody of the United States, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, there is still an existing and active terrorist network in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well in other lowly regulated countries across the Middle East. These terrorist networks have generally fled for Pakistan, where they face less government and military opposition and no retaliation from the US. Once it became unsustainable for the US to continue on its trajectory in Afghanistan and once President Obama took office, the aim in Afghanistan changed from the total elimination of terrorism (President Bush's "war on terror") to counter-insurgency. On June 28, we said of counter-insurgency:

Counter-insurgency, the policy McChrystal strongly advocated for as a tactical plan in Afganistan, is a system in which the military, in addition to normal behaviors, endeavors for the completion of traditionally non-military activities, like nation building or education of the public. These strategies are not normally military duty, so counter-insurgency relies heavily on the participation of civilian military leaders, like the President and his cabinet

The Obama Administration has found counter-insurgency to be, certainly, more effective than the old blanket goal of a "war on terror." Still, Afghanistan is ridden with social problems and crumbling systems. At the end of the day, there's only so much American troops can do, especially when they are not welcome to be interfering in local communities. So counter-insurgency had worked- to a point. It is clear that if social and political stability and Western-ness has become the goal of American leaders, they will not achieve what they wish to by the rapidly approaching date to leave Afghanistan.
In the end, Afghanistan's long-term political instability cannot be blamed on the United States. However, its current status can be, and the US has still an active interest in maintaining a stable ally in the Middle East. So, when it comes down to it, this is why we're still there. American troops remain in Afghanistan to bring it to stability and ensure human-rights protections. While the political leaders of the war may still hope that combat troops can eliminate terrorist threats while there, it is incredibly unlikely at this point. The viable American goal is to improve political and social stability. Though even this is too broad and, consequently, will probably not lead to fruition, it at least presents a scenario in which America can seriously impact Afghan stability if not solve all the sociopolitical problems.

Read more »

Don't Ask Don't Tell [Part One]

Don't Ask Don't Tell [Part One]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain said he would support the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the military's ban on gay soldiers serving openly in the armed forces, when the Department of Defense said it was important to repeal the policy. Soon after, the Department of Defense announced that the policy was doing more harm than good but McCain, who has a lot of pull in the Senate Armed Services Committee as the ranking Republican member, continued to support the policy. McCain's rhetoric then changed and he began to say he would support the policy after the Pentagon produced an internal troop study gauging troop opinion, and only if the study came out against Don't Ask Don't Tell. Well, the Pentagon study has been released, and its results are incredibly in favor of repealing the decades-old policy. Troops overwhelmingly supported overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell with the singular and notable, though unsurprising exception of the Marines. And yet, John McCain's stance is yet to change.

It is the time to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. The fact that the military continues to enforce a policy that stops active and knowledgeable soldiers from serving their country simply because of their sexual orientation is not just reprehensible; it is unconscionable. More importantly, is tells something truly important about the leadership in this country: that they cling to old religious and cultural biases, that they are unable to let go of their own prejudices when doing so would help the nation, and that they, on some level at least, subscribe to the misled and dangerous philosophy that 'gay is wrong'.

[Photo credit: cvt.ca]

Read more »