Education Thoughts

Education Thoughts

The State of the Union is generally seen as the most important speech a president makes each year. And this year, amid a faltering economy, an increasingly polarized political climate and in the post-event storm following the shooting in Arizona, President Obama delivered a speech that appealed to America for a renewed sense of respect for education.
In the speech, Obama had an urgent message for America’s students: become teachers. Get educated, he said, and then pass it on to other American children. Help renew a sense of reverence toward teachers. Respect the institution of public education. This generation has to compete with students in Asia who have been selected to receive a world-class education and with European students whose education values math and science more so than its American equivalent, Obama reminded the country, so help them do it.
President Obama is right. Simply put, America cannot compete on a global scale with countries that treat teaching as a widely respected career and pour funding into education. How can American schools expect to retain excellent teachers if they do not approach teaching as the most important career in terms of ensuring American excellence?
Some people worry that America’s days as the world’s superpower are dwindling. America’s great contribution to the world is its support of innovation. The best and perhaps the only way for America to sustain innovation continually is to further education. Unfortunately, some voices in politics continue to undermine this path to a renewed place for America.
Some of the more popular political figures in America got to where they did by being patently anti-intellectual. Take Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, who continually denied even the most basic of recent scientific research. Some Democratic politicians, Obama included, have been accused of being Ivy-league educated or being overly intellectual by conservative radio and television personalities. Suddenly, being smart and well educated is a bad thing in politics.
And attitudes like these undermine the very way that America can, as Obama called it, "win the future." American innovation cannot prosper and future American pioneers cannot succeed in economics, management, entrepreneurship or even simple world leadership without strong educations. Strong educations are impossible without a new sense of respect in America for teaching and a new place in the national budget for it.

Read more »

Friday Feature: Spiderman (Spectacular, Spectacular)

Friday Feature: Spiderman (Spectacular, Spectacular)

The setting: the most expensive Broadway play of all time. The draw: in the technical feat of a lifetime, Spiderman and company will soar over the heads of audiences. Enter, stage left: director Julie Taymor, of “Lion King” fame, whose artistic vision of unprecedented technical achievement has left actors in the hospital and leads threatening to quit.
Spiderman: the Musical, based on the comic series, employs the use of never-before seen technology wherein the heroes and villains of the series will fly over the theatre (not just the stage, the entire theatre) using automatic rigs for the actors. Usually, in a show that requires actors to fly, a union technician manually operates the machine. This ensures that actors who get stuck or caught on the rope can be lowered quickly and safely, hopefully without interrupting the performance. However, in the case of Spiderman, the actors who get stuck on the electric path either must be rescued while the entire show is stopped or, if they are unlucky, they fall.
Spiderman: the Musical continues a long tradition of Broadway showstoppers where the main draw is the spectacular spectacle and the sheer drama, not the acting or the play’s theatrical value. This style (a supposed audience-magnet, though the dwindling ticket sales do not exactly confirm this) is not new to the theatre world or even to Broadway, for, after all, most audiences want to get some literal bang for their buck. Miss Saigon, for instance, employed a fully operating helicopter for its Broadway run. The Blue Man Group relies on pounds of toilet paper that fly out the ceiling at the audience as strobe lights run wild.
Let lavish sets and over-the-top (and potentially dangerous) technical feats not be the legacy of Broadway. There is so much more to an excellent performance than just the spectacle. In traditional theatre, a set could be something as minimal as a few seats and a makeshift wall: the focus was on the performance.
If Spiderman is really causing people to go see theatre, then that is fantastic. Mass consumption of theatrical art is always a good thing. However, the returns are not really coming in for Broadway shows in general- the same shows that are trying to pull in audiences with huge spectacles.
It is unfortunate that extreme excess has become the norm in Broadway instead of truly great performances. Especially in this economically rough time, Broadway has the responsibility to ticketholders to produce its best work, rather than a capitalistic explosion of sets and technical extravaganzas.
This post originally appeared in the Rank & File, rank-n-file.com.

Read more »

Violence

Violence

When volatile political rhetoric inspired the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the country's only late-term abortion doctors, nothing changed. Sure, Fox News stopped referring to him as "Dr. Tiller the baby killer," but nothing really changed. When political extremism led to the Oklahoma City bombings carried out by Timothy McVeigh, nothing changed. Commentary television and radio programs continued to feature divisive, polarizing voices. Now that six innocent Arizonians (including a nine year-old girl and a federal judge) are dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, as well as a handful of others, are severely injured after a politically-charged shooting, will anything change? The past record indicates no.
The volatile nature of political rhetoric today is incredible. With subtly violent undertones, political speech- whether that be from commentators of politicians themselves- has inspired acts of violence before and probably will continue to.
Too often in America, commentators don't understand the repercussions when they insinuate that politicians ought to be physically targeted or promote "second amendment remedies" to "take out" an opponent. Some people, like Jared Loughner, the man charged with the Arizona crimes, are bound to take that rhetoric literally.
But even with this consideration, a real change in political speech is unlikely. American violence metaphors are simply rooted too deeply in the political system. Mainstream politicians like Sharon Angle and Sarah Palin use hunt-like and attack-based language too casually and without real consequence. Conservatives, of course, do not own the territory of violent rhetoric nor of mentally deranged extremists, but it is undeniable that the most recent and controversial examples of these can be traced back to ultra-extreme conservatives. Anti-Obama Americans who attended 2009 town halls with the president were seen on several occasions with guns strapped to their person and wearing shirts with slogans like "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants," which has its own bloody past in the history of political assassinations.
Unfortunately, these sort of actions and speech aren't going to change anytime soon. But if the rhetoric can't change, then maybe the policies can. Loughner passed the federal background check to buy his automatic weapon with flying colors, and purchased a 30+ round magazine without a problem. These are not weapons of self-defense or of hunters. A magazine with that many rounds should be exclusive to the military and to the police force, just like it was through the 90s.
Six innocent people died last weekend in a violent attack in a time of politically charged speech. This attack could not have happened if Loughner did not have access to the weaponry he used.
It is horrendous that this attack occurred. It is even more so that it could have been prevented by regulations to gun control (to which, sadly, Congresswoman Giffords was opposed) or by a conscious realization by commentators that their rhetorically violent flourishes are not always as level-headedly received as they may think. But what is most unfortunate is that these commentators may never have this realization or make a change.

Read more »

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 »

The UK: Doing What We Should Have Done

The UK: Doing What We Should Have Done

In a somewhat surprising turn of events, Britain has agreed to financially compensate former Gitmo prison at Guantanamo Bay detainees who alleged that the British intelligence agency M16 was involved in their torture and detainment. Just recently, the head of the M16 confirmed that its operatives were not involved in the collusion or enactment of illegal acts of torture. Yet, a statement from Prime Minister David Cameron's office asserted that a multi-million dollar settlement had been reached with formerly detained British residents who sued in a civil case over illegal acts of torture committed against them while at the American prison.
It is great that these former detainees- who were obviously considered not to be guilty since they were released by American officials- are being compensated for the crimes that intelligence-gatherers committed against them. But why is it that the British have to fix the United States' problem? President Obama signed a memorandum just after taking office to close Gitmo. One would expect that, nearly two years later, something would have been done about the controversy lightning-rod that is Guantanamo Bay.
Just this week, the first detainee was tried in the American judicial system, an action that was the result of an Obama Administration decision to move prosecution from the military tribunal system to the US criminal courts. The detainee in question was charged with over 240 crimes, and he was acquitted on all but one case of conspiracy, for which he faces a minimum of 20 years in prison. His acquittal reignited the controversy over the Obama decision to try the detainees in the American courts.
But here's the thing: this reaction to the use of the courts doesn't make any sense. If one has a problem with legally charging these detainees, then the issue is with the century-old right to due process. If one has a problem with this man being acquitted, then the implication is that men and women should be locked up for crimes they didn't commit. Thinking that the man should be jailed for the other 240-odd charges goes against the foundation of the American judicial system and is the same as saying that the burden of evidence should lie with the charged and that people should be presumed guilty, not innocent.
There is a legitimate reason as to why the federal government will face difficulties in federal criminal courts, though it is not a reason to return to tribunals. Intelligence-gatherers' actions that were internationally illegal and face serious repercussions as acts of torture will annul some real charges against detainees. These court cases will force the executive government to own up to its actions and face the consequences for them. Unfortunately, some of the consequences may be severe, especially in removing real charges against detainees.

Read more »