Response to "Blog Stage 7"

A Better Government's Commentary

Great post! I just love how you express your thoughts about the change that we desperately need. I like yourself feel like I have learned so much and actually care now for things that I had no clue about just months ago. I'm just glad now this class is a requirement because it can really open your mind into thinking more about our government and leads us into thinking about the importance of being informed and involved in what we can to make a difference one voice at a time. All in all I agree with every bit that you say. Our government truly needs a change, because their decisions affect more closely than what we imagine.

Education Reforms

Recently, many Education Reforms have been taking place in different states. After NCLB’s attempt to raise standards by requiring more testing many legislatures are now heading in the opposite direction. Lawmakers have been looking into reducing the amount of standardized tests that are required to graduate from high school. Some states will have new graduation requirements that do not require that students take four years of math science, social studies and English. Students will have more time for “technical training” leading to high-paying industrial jobs.

Of course like any current issue in our Nation there are those who favor the change and those who entirely oppose it. Some say the change will be great because it will reduce the amount of high-school dropouts caused by the great amount of students who do poorly in the standardized exams. It will also help students be better prepared to join the workforce without needing to graduate from a four year college that come along with a lot of debt. Others however are not in favor of the change and believe there should be more time and thought put into it before making a decision. Many believe the proposed curriculum changes will create mediocrity. They do favor a change, but fear that schools will shift from testing to not testing at all while many school districts will only offer enough courses to meet the new minimum requirements.

In Texas, the House has approved 145-2, HB 5 that allows students to graduate with out having to take Algebra II or other advanced math and science classes. The number of high-school standardized test in core subjects has been reduced to five from the original fifteen tests that were required. I’m sure students will be pleased to know about this, but I also fear that Texas may be moving a bit too fast with its changes. Washington class of 2015 currently requires students to pass five high school exit exams. North Carolina has minimized the number of tests along with the number of days that students spend taking them. Oklahoma worries after finding that many of their students do not graduate because of their scores on the states high school exit exam.

As a future teacher I am glad to hear that there are reforms going on although it does worry me a bit. I do believe a change is needed regarding existing testing policies. However, I do not believe that nearly eliminating testing is the solution. Every school should aim to have high standards, but not every standard should be required to graduate. Legislatures need to be careful not to head in a complete opposite direction that may not have the outcome desired. It’s true that there are probably many students who do better in life without even attending college, but there are also many who would do better in life if they did attend college. Every student in high school has a distinct and unique future. We should encourage to continue with there education, but at the same time we should offer them real life standards that will help them experience their future life in the best possible manner. 

Response to "Paying for School"

Politically Incorrect's Commentary

I can really see your disagreement on the way school funding is distributed. I am not so clear though if you believe that the Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) should change their policies or whether individual colleges and universities should provide more scholarship opportunities for honor students. I think that the governments FAFSA funding may not be distributed in the greatest manner, but I do think it’s reaching out to many students who truly want an education though cannot afford one.

Government should work on academically raising the bar higher for those wanting to receive financial aid. Currently they have a required minimum of a 2.0 GPA (which is extremely low). There is also a minimum of hours that the student must be enrolled and they have a maximum time frame pointing out a time in which the student should finish his or her degree.  Raising the bar may reduce the amount of money distributed to students who honestly do just take advantage of the system. Government should also expand their funding to reach middle class students who much like yourself and I seem to have “too much money” when in reality we do not and truly do need financial aid.

Like I said, our Government may not have the greatest system to distribute financial aid, but they do reach many who use the money wisely for their education. I agree with you as you state that those who have shown, time and time again, that they can excel, truly deserve the money. My personal opinion is that there should be more scholarship opportunities available with much higher standards than those that government aid sets. This will allow honor students to receive financial aid based upon their excellence level in school. We all deserve education regardless of how well we do in school, but it would be great if more financial rewards were available for those who move above and beyond standard expectations.

Universal Pre-K

President Obama’s proposal for providing a Universal Pre-K program may not be as effective as is expected to be. Obama urges for an early education initiative, relying on studies that show the sooner children begin learning, the better they do down the road. However, studies made have not demonstrated to provide lasting benefits for children who attend early childhood programs compared to those who do not. In theory, Obamas early education initiative is good, but if it is actually followed through, it may have counterproductive effects on education in general. As Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia said in an interview, “President Obama’s call is a great idea, but the government must find a way to pay for the program that would not add to the deficit or force taxpayers to foot the bill” (Gentile).

First of all, we should first look into the programs that states currently have such as Head start. We should look at what has been and has not been working in such programs.  Early education intervention is important, but creating new programs on top of those existing may weaken what we already have. There is also no guarantee or evidence to verify that a new program will actually provide lifetime benefits to those who participate in them. A new program may have the possibility of being successful if it actually had the funds to launch for itself. Educations current position within the economy cannot afford to add additional costs that will produce cutbacks on top of the numerous budget cuts education is already facing. Isakson also stated. “You can’t just hope the payback comes in dollars. The payback comes in a better life for those children, better quality of their health, and better quality for their education” (Gentile).

Government should invest on our current educational system at all grade levels. The quality of education will provide brighter futures rather than the quantity of a few extra number of years spent in school. I am not at all against early childhood education, but why give up on the initiatives we already have. We should improve Head start programs and look for ways to make such programs available to more children without affecting the quality of their future education. Education nationwide is suffering many budget cuts and adding new unproven effective programs may actually contribute to its negative outcomes rather than contribute to an overall improvement. Obamas initiative is honest and positive if it was actually guaranteed to work, which unfortunately is not. Our Nation’s current economic status is already affecting education. Education in general truly cannot afford any more budget cuts that may be caused by the creation of new programs.

Works Cited

Gentile, Sal. "GOP Senator Calls Universal Pre-K a 'Great Idea,' but Questions Funding." MSNBC. NBC

     Universal, 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2013. <http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/16/

     gop-senator-calls-universal-pre-k-a-great-idea-but-questions-funding/>.

Is TSA serious about letting people carry knives?

Tiffany Hawk, former flight attendant wrote a Special to CNN titled “Is TSA serious about letting people carry knives?” Apparently the Transportation Security Administration will soon permit passengers to carry small knives on airplanes. 

Tiffany Hawk critiques this change as being absurd and completely inappropriate. Her arguments are made from a very personal point of view, giving that she was a former flight attendant with United Airlines and Virginia America. One of her main arguments is against what TSA chief Kip Hawley told CNN about sharp objects no longer being able to bring down an aircraft. She notes that he used the word “aircraft“ rather than “people” which is what should really matter. 

She also argues that the 9/11 Commission found that terrorist used knives such as Leatherman tools to overtake the crew, but even if small knives were no longer a threat, what is really the point of allowing them again. TSA claims that the new policy will benefit all passengers who currently carry a small knife with them and must give it up because they are not permitted on board. That will help lower the amount of banned goods that are surrendered each month, which is currently about 850 pounds. I believe this argument made by TSA is very weak, because those 850 pounds are not composed of only small knives. 

Tiffany Hawks also argues that people who continue to bring small knives should be fined rather than changing the policy just to “benefit” those who “forget” to leave their pocket knives at home. Her last argument states that we need faster and easier checkpoints, but it seems as if TSA’s approach is going backwards. 

I believe Tiffany’s arguments were acceptable and personal, but I would have liked her to include more details on what TSA finds as “beneficial” in this change. There may not be any more reasons other than the one mentioned, but I find it hard to believe that, that may be the only one. But all in all, I do agree with her standing point and am also concerned of what may happen if this change really does occur. 

Newborns vs. Elders

James Dobson, child development specialist and founder of Family Talk radio broadcasts wrote an article on February 19, 2013 titled, “Lowerbirth rate threatens America’s future: Column”. He begins his article by stating that for the for time in history there are fewer American babies being born while the number of senior citizens is growing (Dobson).  He also mentions the drastic measures or consequences that other nations are dealing with regarding their populations decline.

Russia for example now offers incentives for women who choose to have babies (Dobson). China has a dramatic disproportion because they do not have enough females to marry the large amount of males due to their one-child policy, which is just now recently changing (Dobson). And a funny yet preoccupying fact for Japan is that more diapers were bought and used for elderly people than for babies (Dobson).

The problem is not that people are living longer, but rather that the number of births is declining significantly. Many could disagree saying that our cities are in fact overflowing. Others may believe that most families now a day are not able to provide for the economic well being that a child requires throughout their childhood and beyond. America is a nation of immigrants after all and if were not for the families that migrate, Americas population would probably be substantially lower.

I believe there is a fine line between having many children to contribute to the population in numbers with the chance of decreasing the quality of their education because of economic restraints while on the other hand having less children with higher chances of educational progress, but contributing to the nations decline in population. Every family is different with different reasons for having or not having children.

I believe we should provide the best we can for our current generation so that they may be successful leaders when the time comes. It is concerning to think about births declining, but we should target the reasons people have for choosing not to have children rather than encouraging or discouraging them from doing so.  “It's not too late for politicians to begin cherishing and nourishing our families and treating them as our greatest natural resource” (Dobson). I completely agree with this statement because whether we have many or few children in our society, our government leaders should look for the well being of families regardless of the amount.