Please LIKE and SHARE to get the latest UPDATES

 

 

 

TEA WITH THE MAD HATTER

Musings on Politics, The Tea Party, and America's Rampant Electile Dysfunction

NOW ON SALE

AT AMAZON

and

BARNES AND NOBLE

 

 

 And don't forget to check out

Available as a Trade Paperback or e-Book at

 

Amazon

B&N

This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Technology, Ideology and One Ridiculous Idea...

     

    Search the Site
    Follow me on Twitter
    « Convention BINGO! RNC and DNC Versions! | Main | Isaac Storms Convention, No One Blames An Angry God! »
    Wednesday
    Aug292012

    Education: Why BOTH Parties Get Failing Grades

     “Education is much more than schooling. It is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions.”

    --Republican Platform, 2012

    Today, on the second day of the Republican National Convention, the local schools in Manchester, New Hampshire are opening their 2012-2013 school year.  Faced with an $8 million deficit, the district was forced to cut over 100 staff positions; one of the results is that the average class size will now approach forty students.

    The GOP, in its platform, rightfully points out that education is “much more than schooling,” But schooling is clearly a cornerstone, and only 4% of discretionary spending heads that way. Compare that number, for example, to the 59% of discretionary spending that goes to defense. Is that all our kids are worth at a time when teachers are over-burdened and underpaid, when facts and science are under attack, when our schools—the physical infrastructures in which our children spend a quarter of their lives—are falling apart? 4%?

    The GOP platform rightfully argues, though, that money doesn’t equal success.  According to a 2010 study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, we are second only to Switzerland in spending per student, yet lower-spending countries (Finland, for example, which spends a third less than we do) have better outcomes.  So in this the GOP is right: it’s not just about the money. Democratic programs—and Democratic educational expenditures—haven’t gotten us where we want to be any more than conservative approaches promoted by the GOP.

    Both parties have failed us, and will likely continue to unless someone has the courage to redefine what education means to this country.

    Recently I had a conversation with a couple of people who were waiting in line with me at our local postal center here in Bedford, a town which borders Manchester.  Bedford had recently become the center of a brouhaha because of a controversial program, the International Baccalaureate (IB), an initiative sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and available at our local high school.  (Not many months earlier we had also garnered national attention when our high school battled furiously with parents over the inclusion of Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, Nickel and Dimed, so I guess it’s no surprise that casual conversation in our town might turn to the subject.)  I was drawn by one man’s argument in particular: Since he didn’t have any kids in the school system, he said, he shouldn’t have to pay the portion of his property taxes that went to the schools.  In his mind, he received no benefits from the schools and was just being overtaxed for something he didn't want or need. 

    Being polite (yes... sometimes I am), and not wishing to cause a scene when I was merely trying to ship a pair of pants back to LL Bean, I let the comment slide. But it struck me as bizarre.  How is having an educated younger generation not in everyone’s best interest?  These are the next generation of leaders and business owners and scientists and educators.  Why would we not all see the benefit of educating them?

    Education, apparently, just isn’t all that important to most of us.  It's top of mind for a few weeks every fall (mostly, we must admit, because of back-to-school sales), or perhpas when teachers' unions tussle with public contracts, but then the subject quickly falls off the radar. And some—like the man in line at the postal center—don’t believe it should be any of his concern at all.

    And then it occurred to me: The GOP should completely change its position on education, completely reframe the argument.  How? Two words: National Defense.

    Want to destroy a way of life?  Easy.  Let the rest of the world get smarter than you and they’ll go and figure out how to grow their way of life faster than you grow yours. I don’t care how many WalMart, McDonald’s and Starbucks stores we scatter across the world, the people with the brains eventually become the people with the money and the power.  If we want to maintain and grow our way of life, we must educate the generations to come.  And that means changing the way we think about it.

    Historically, education has been topical ground for the Democrats, a narrative wrapped in the myth of success.  But what if the narrative changed?  Imagine if a small percentage of our defense budget were allocated to an expanded definition of "defense," to education, boosting its meager 4% of discretionary spending  to something higher, something that would give us room to pay our teachers more and repair our crumbling scholastic infrastructures…

    The GOP, of course, sees taking money out of traditional defense as anathema, making us soft, hurting the war on terror and, ultimately, weakening our place in the world.  But I’ll say it again: the true threat to our place in the world isn’t whether we have 10% fewer armaments than we do today. The true threat is losing our educational advantage. I don’t care how many bombs we have; if the next couple of generations are stupid, they’ll just use them to blow things up. 

    Still, as the Mercatus study shows, money isn’t the whole story.  Budget will help us reboot our educational system, but if we truly believe that education is one of the keys to defending our nation’s success, then we need to return to the kinds of thinking that spurred us in the past. We need to marry conventionally conservative rigor with creative methods of learning. We need to involve community and family and friends in ways that harken back to the involvement we saw in decades past. We need to involve businesses and promote entrepreneurship because that’s one of the ways in which our country can truly lead. We need to embrace the conservative notions of accountability with the progressive notions of academic freedom.  And we need to embrace curiosity and a quest for knowledge, wherever that may take us.

    Most importantly, none of us can any longer afford an attitude like that of the man in line at the postal center.  Education is about all of us.  Caring about our kids is part of caring about our country.  It’s something we used to do very well, and it’s time we did it again.

     

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend

    Reader Comments (4)

    I like your idea of expanding National Defense to include, by definition, education. I have argued for years the term should also include economic development support - you know funny Liberal Ideas like workforce training, improved and 24 hour childcare, improved and non-market driven healthcare. Being able to shoot people with more bullets then anyone else has yet to make us secure.

    August 29, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterPhilip H.

    Well put, Michael. However, your blog made me think of an article that Diane Ravitch penned just a couple weeks ago, that helps fill in some of the gaps. Ravitch's aim was to attack Michelle Rhee's strategies for improving schools, which is neither here nor there, the bottom line that Ravitch points out is how POVERTY in America coincides with our failing education system. It doesn't matter how much we spend per child, because if that child lives in poverty at home, he or she will bring all of his or her disadvantages into the classroom. I would be willing to bet that Finland spends little per child, but has very low poverty rates.

    Yes, federal spending can jump start education reform-- it can keep our teachers better compensated, keep our class sizes small and allow for the best resources to be on hand to our students. More important though, is that attitudinal shift you describe. We need to think of education as national defense or as a means of keeping our country great or as a way out of poverty. We also need to shift our attitudes towards the bigger picture to see how our failing education system interacts with all facets of American life and government policy-- federal, state and local. Once our policymakers adopt that point of view they will be able to see the real problem, and perhaps, provide sustainable solutions.

    http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/my-view-rhee-is-wrong-and-misinformed/?iref=allsearch

    August 29, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterAllison Smith

    Very interesting thoughts, Allison. There's a legitimate case that argues poverty and poor education go hand in hand. Hard to tell how many variables are at play, though we do know that things like, for example, good nutrition, make a difference in ability to learn. So there's definitely something there.

    I checked Finland's poverty rate: For 2010 it was 13.3% (as compared to 15.1% here). But that doesn't take into account the different definitions of "poverty" between the U.S. and the Eurozone. So, I compared the poverty LINE in the two countries: using end of 2010 exchange rates, the poverty line in Finland (for a single person) was $19,458, while here it was $11,139. A little quick assumptive math would tell me that if our poverty line were the same as Finland's, then our percentage "in poverty" would be much higher--a calculator I found on line says it would be 38%! So you're right: Finland has about 1/3 the poverty we do.... Interesting...

    August 29, 2012 | Registered CommenterMichael Charney

    Amen Sir! Just throwing money at education (or anything else for that matter) won't solve anything. Doing so is akin working "harder". Instead, we need to work "smarter" at education. Despite the efforts of progressives via No Child Left Behind (yes, Bush signed it and even tried to take credit for it, but Kennedy and company wrote it) and the current administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act, our educational system has failed to progress; to evolve. What we have is a 20th Century educational system ill-equipped to fulfill the demands of a 21st Century workplace. No one in the [public] educational world seems to have noticed that our economy has undergone a massive transformation in the past 35 years from an industrialized to a service-based economy. As such, it now demands a much different and much more targeted skill set from those entering the workforce. Yet despite this total makeover, students must still wait until college before receiving any real specialized education.

    According to Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, this then leads to an unfair advantage for the 1% wherein they are able to leverage their wealth to assure their children get the best possible [private] primary and secondary educations, leading to their entry into the best colleges (some get in because of who daddy is, not on their own merits), which then enables them to land the best jobs. This creates a closed, self-sustaining system of opportunity by the rich, for the rich.

    If we are ever to level the playing field, we need to effect change at the primary and secondary public educational level. That is why Party Recon advocates specialization in education beginning at a much younger age, (http://www.partyrecon.org/?p=419). The other issue that must be addressed is the need to create an out-of-school environment that encourages and promotes education as a privilege, not as a right. Too often, parents expect the school systems to be just that – substitute parents. This misguided mindset has forced schools to divert significant resources from children who come to school prepared to learn and willing to follow the rules. Stemming this tide will bring much needed relief, especially to school systems serving disadvantaged neighborhoods.

    Michael (and everyone else reading this), I salute your efforts in trying to make your party see reason. Please know that when you are ready to give up and join a movement that is already there, we’ll be waiting for you.

    August 30, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterDan Aronson

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Post:
     
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>