The Danger of Protecting the "Endangered Species"

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places."  -- Warren Buffet

Just as the mega-rich enjoy having political friends (i.e. the decreasing tax rates) -- I think the more advantageous friendship is the reversal. Some may say the relationship is symbiotic, but it my opinion -- there is an aspect of commensalism. For instance, it seems as though the politicians benefit more so from "having friends in high places", whereas the rich are not deeply affected by the relationship. While some politicians were essentially born wealthy...others depend on the wealthy to support their campaigns, projects, and ideologies. While the extremely wealthy make up only about 1% of the population (hence Occupy’s slogan -- 'We are the 99%'), they seemingly control the opposite. When a small group of individuals control such a large portion of our world's wealth-- they, in turn, control a similar amount in terms of power. In reality, the whole relationship is unhealthy and dangerous. It reinforces the ideal that money can be used to buy power. As politicians treat the mega-rich as "endangered species" -- they are doing so to protect their motives from going extinct. Let's put an end to the protection of the "endangered species" not to cause harm to the rich, but to challenge our politicians in a way where they are forced to make decisions based upon morality and values and not on 'saving face'.

Higher Education...Where is the debate?

In effortless terms, the current debate argues this....

Public Primary Education = Much Worse
Private Primary Education = Much Better

Public Secondary Education =Much Worse
Private Secondary Education = Much Better

Public Higher Education =?
Private Higher Education =?
For-profit Higher Education = Basically EVIL

So, while this trivial outline looks at this debate in the most simple of terms -- does it hold any truth? Are the messages that we are receiving leading to simplified labeling -- are these labels generally true or does it depend on location and tax bracket? The vast majority of time spent debating public vs. private is found in the primary and secondary levels, but what do people say about the institutions of higher education? Do they say "it depends on the school". Is the fact that students feel like they have more control over choosing their institution take the heated discussion off such institutions. But wait...what about those For Profit institutions of Higher Ed, oh -- that's right, they’re basically evil -- so we hear.

Are these for-profit schools taking all the heat away from the private vs. public discussion? Such institutions are accused of taking advantage of specific audiences; veterans will GI bills, single parents, and those coming from low income homes. Why do such businesses seek out these audiences -- because they assume that they are "easy targets". There are different types of accreditation, regional and national. While being "nationally-accredited" may sound more prestigious, it is quite the opposite. Schools that have regional accreditation also go by the names of Duke, Yale, and Harvard. While the accreditation debate is one that is on the forefront -- can this be something that is applied to primary and secondary schools. Accreditation is a process that evaluates all aspects of an institution -- in lieu of test scores. Are higher education institutions on to something, or will it just reinforce competition with winners and losers among primary and secondary education schools? Or, will accreditation continue to emphasize third-parties in the marketplace, such as those that grant national accreditation. The real concern in my opinion is viewing education as a business, for now, that is probably where the debate will stay.

One Puzzle Piece doesn't FIT for ALL

Bad schools. Bad teachers. Bad students. Really, the finger-pointing could go on forever -- but is this getting us anywhere? As mentioned in CJ's blog, http://cjhmls590.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-education-really-priority-response.html, the two presidential canidates have spent an unbelievable amount on finger-pointing in this presidential race and what has this accomplished. As Guggenheim honestly reflects in "The Making of Waiting for "Superman","You've found a great school for your kids--but is that enough? You've pulled your kids from the system and turned your back on the problem. Your kids will be okay, but what about other people's children?" In my opinion, this final question should be ringing in everyone's ears, especially those in a position to make policy changes. But, to take this idea further -- I don't think this question of other people's children should only be limited to education...

All across the country and around the world, the basic needs of children are not being met. If we use Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, we realize EVERY CHILD WILL BE LEFT BEHIND if they do not have their basic needs fufilled. They cannot advance to the highest stage of self-actualization without proper nutrition, sleep, and feeling safe. In my opinion, maybe the question of the "Great Divergence" is really the area for concern.

Sure, a Benet Academy for all sounds ideal, but this is a suburban perspective. Would this sort of school work in the inner cities or in the rural areas...only people that live in those areas would know.  Just like standardized tests are criticized for being written by wealthy whites for wealthy whites; wouldn't putting a "Benet Academy" in place of every public school also be reinforcing the "white man's ideal". Before we go about assuming that we know what is best for everyone; let's first get a diverse group of people together to find out what the children's real needs are and not what we assume them to be. Only then, can we work towards a solution that is not a “ONE PUZZLE PIECE FOR ALL” -- our needs are much more diverse than that.

Is Common Sense really Sensible?

What is a good teacher...a bad teacher...we have all claimed it sometime in our life, so it must be easy to define, or is it?  So often, we depend on common sense to steer our thoughts, actions, and arguments -- but as @alyssagaudio says http://mls590leadership.blogspot.com/2012/10/bad-teacher-bad-common-sense.html, "more research needs to be put into defining the problem". One problem that is brought up in Bad Teacher is "professional preparation", or lack thereof. Specifically, the institution of higher education is criticized for being hypocrites. While professors are advocating for more intensive "teacher" training -- they, themselves teach without needing any specific training in the area of teaching. In actuality, a negative correlation exists; as the level of education increases, you will find a decrease in the requirements for "professional preparation".

Example: Illinois
Primary Education = Major in Elementary Education
Secondary Education = Major in subject, minor in Secondary Education
Higher Education = Be considered an "expert" in the field, no teaching qualifications necessary

While common sense tells me that I am comfortable with this set-up due to developmental differences in students who range in age from 5 to 22 -- I can't help but wonder if our "common sense" is failing us. Is higher education contributing to a vicious cycle? Aspiring teachers spend time in both major and non-major courses where they encounter professors with potentially no "professional preparation", in terms of teaching. So, it is okay to assume a person's credentials in a field automatically make them qualified to teach the future teachers how to teach. Was the field of teaching necessarily created, and if so, why are we not embodying its very essence in institutions of higher education...That's right, because it is HIGHER education and we are above that?!

Six Degrees of Separation...?

"It is a small world" is a statement that we may hear on a daily basis, but this cliché seems to be one that is growing in truth with the passing of time. Due to technology, social media, and overall globalization -- our world is becoming more and more connected and thus "smaller" in a metaphorical sense. Middle-eastern countries that use to seem so mystical and out of this world now seem to be in the center of international debate. A day does not go by that we do not hear about some tragedy or misfortune in the middle-east. This is not to say that only tragedy and misfortune exist, but it seems to be all we hear about.

A recent tragedy that hit home was the shooting of the 14 year old Pakistani girl who was known for her work on women's rights, specifically in regards to education. In this case, the "six degrees of separation" rule was shortened to two...

Through my work, I have the opportunity to meet people from around the world, particularly students from underserved and underrepresented areas. With that, I work very closely with three men from Pakistan who are all here studying in areas that will enable them to return home and implement systems of education. In particular, one student has a strong interest in women's educational rights. At first, I was a little intrigued by his interest in this subject, but after talking to him and hearing where he comes from I can better understand. In fact, he comes from a village so close to the 14 year old Pakistani girl, that he actually knows her. He came in to the office once the news broke and he was obviously affected emotionally. He too has horror stories of the Taliban as he and his family were displaced for a prolonged period of time.  Something tells me too that something happened to spark his interest in the need for implementing women's education. Please take a moment to read the following story about the young girl and as I read...I appreciated my very right to blog freely.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/taliban-says-it-shot-infidel-pakistani-teen-for-advocating-girls-rights/2012/10/09/29715632-1214-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story_1.html

"My Muslim Faith"

Many of us may remember the story around Barack Obama's slip on national television when he said, "My Muslim faith"...in case you don't, watch it here.

As I read Deepa Kumar's book, I could not help remember the hype around this story and the sense of 'Ismamophobia' in so many people. In reflecting, it seems like a simple human error; he looked like he was formulating his previous thought before he finished his current one. He defends this slip in religious identification by claiming this is what the McCain campaign would say. I cannot help but wonder if the same defense would have been necessary if he would have said, "My Jewish faith". With that aside, what I find most interesting about this story is people's obsession what he "dare didn't say" and later on how he chose to defend himself. (Below)

“Let’s make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I’m presiding,”

While I think it was entirely appropriate to clear up his religious identification as a Christian to defend his slip of tongue, what I think demonstrates Kumar's claim of Islamophobia is in the latter part of his quote. Did he need to go as far to say that he pledges allegiance to the American flag. For the people in our country that have this fear  (i.e. Islamophobia)-- he probably did, but isn't he only reinforcing the negative connotation around the world Muslim by doing so. For instance, there is no Muslim that would also pledge allegiance to the flag. The final question is... If it was any other religion that he said, would the 'story' have been so big? Unfortunately, Islamophobia "shines" once again as the headliner.

"That is EXACTLY what I was thinking...right?"!

In response to the first presidential debate, I could not help from critiquing both candidates throughout -- not so much on substance, but on delivery. I was thinking Mitt Romney really came prepared with information and poise and the president came across less articulate than I have seen him in the past. I had these thoughts, but literally seconds after the debate concluded there were commentaries supporting what I thought I was thinking. I think I went from personally thinking that Romney did well, to seconds later knowing that he definitely "won" the debate. As I reflect on this in real time, I see how I can be easily persuaded by the media and their commentaries. Granted, I did think Romney's performance was more polished, but I now sit here thinking that the presidential race just got a bit tighter. I almost wished I would have paused the commentary to allow myself the couple minutes I needed to formulate my opinion through reflection -- something that I will definitely do next time so I am not left asking myself..."That is EXACTLY what I was thinking, right?!