Have you ever silently inquired as to the cognitive ramblings of the author of this fine blog? Well silently inquire no more! Coming soon: Observing Life. A new blog by me, aimed at telling you all sorts of stuff you should know!
More or less, I have much more to say that just doesn't fit the boundaries of this venue. So I've decided to start another blog (did you know 50,000 are started a day?) so that I could delve more into thoughts I have on other subjects. This one will be decidedly more of a personal weblog, rather than the issues-based blog here.
I will let you know when this blog comes online.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Speaking of the new Secretary of Education...
After writing my last post, I came across this article. This article, entitled "Meet the New Story, Same as the Old Story" encapsulates, at least in part, my feelings toward the pick of Duncan as Ed. Sec. Though our guiding assumptions about the Obama Administration may not be the same, we both agree that this was not the best pick out there for the position which so dearly impacts the nation as a whole. To quote the author of this post, Will Richardson: "But more than anything, why this choice depresses me so was articulated in an Ira Socol post from a couple of days ago that just resonated deeply with what I’ve been witnessing the last few years: we generally seem to have lost our imagination when we think about education." How sad is this problem?
Education is both an art and a science, or so professors would have us believe. It consumes one's ability to use scientific practices of data analysis (something I have witnessed far too little of in my observations), and creative ingenuity to find solutions to classroom problems. Now, in my brief time as a student of education, and soon a student teacher, I have witnessed supposed creative expression on the part of teachers. But it lacked substance. This creativity was not linked to data. It wasn't linked to results either.
When will a movement gain steam which truly teaches teachers to both foster creativity, in student-centered lessons, as well as create meaningful, measurable gains? This can only be done purposefully. It can only be done through meticulous planning, analysis, reflection and re-planning. Does anyone see any of this happening under this guy?
Education is both an art and a science, or so professors would have us believe. It consumes one's ability to use scientific practices of data analysis (something I have witnessed far too little of in my observations), and creative ingenuity to find solutions to classroom problems. Now, in my brief time as a student of education, and soon a student teacher, I have witnessed supposed creative expression on the part of teachers. But it lacked substance. This creativity was not linked to data. It wasn't linked to results either.
When will a movement gain steam which truly teaches teachers to both foster creativity, in student-centered lessons, as well as create meaningful, measurable gains? This can only be done purposefully. It can only be done through meticulous planning, analysis, reflection and re-planning. Does anyone see any of this happening under this guy?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
There's a new Chief in town
As we all watch the latest to come out of the Obama Administration, a [fairly] new announcement is sure to impact the focus of this particular publication.
Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, hails from Chicago schools where he sat as the superintendent. While there, he worked to hold schools accountable while still keeping people concerned with the schools happy. Hailed by news agencies far and wide, his reputation proceeds him. In Chicago, he worked hard in the 3rd largest school district in the Nation to raise student achievement and close schools which were not improving, usually to measurable gains. The New York Times reported on his nomination here.
My interest in this news break is not that he has been nominated, but the message paraded with his nomination, that he is in fact one who could mediate between the two main camps of education minds in America: those who believe in teacher's unions, such as the NEA, the nation's largest, and those who believe in quick school reform. The differences between these two groups could not be larger.
On one side, teacher's unions believe that teachers should be sheltered and protected from the sweeping hand of reform. These believe in automatic teacher tenure, and rights of the teacher over the administration. While unions have their advantages, they also create problems
in turning schools around, touted as America's answer by others.
This other side, represented by people like Joel I. Klein, of NYC Public Schools, and Michelle Rhee, of D.C. schools, and groups such as Teach For America. This camp, usually to the opposition of teacher's unions, pushes for reform in sweeping fashions. They dismay the unions because their sweeping reform usually targets teachers who have become too comfortable in their jobs.
Duncan's role in the Obama Administration stands to bridge the gap between these two groups, and move education in a positive direction despite the ongoing debate between these two camps. How is this possible? These two groups are so opposed and so backward that they have very little in common. They constantly fight to push their platforms, which may or may not be the best goals for the students. While this candidate might be the best Obama had to bridge this gap, does that mean he is better than Klein or Rhee, or any number of other reform candidates? It appears that in the quest to find the perfect mix, we might just get a washout. It is far too early to tell, true. But we must keep striving to find answers. We must all pay attention to the growing debate between these two camps, and the movement on behalf of Duncan to bridge this gap. After all, isn't it the children which should be the focus of America's education system?
Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, hails from Chicago schools where he sat as the superintendent. While there, he worked to hold schools accountable while still keeping people concerned with the schools happy. Hailed by news agencies far and wide, his reputation proceeds him. In Chicago, he worked hard in the 3rd largest school district in the Nation to raise student achievement and close schools which were not improving, usually to measurable gains. The New York Times reported on his nomination here.
My interest in this news break is not that he has been nominated, but the message paraded with his nomination, that he is in fact one who could mediate between the two main camps of education minds in America: those who believe in teacher's unions, such as the NEA, the nation's largest, and those who believe in quick school reform. The differences between these two groups could not be larger.
On one side, teacher's unions believe that teachers should be sheltered and protected from the sweeping hand of reform. These believe in automatic teacher tenure, and rights of the teacher over the administration. While unions have their advantages, they also create problems
in turning schools around, touted as America's answer by others.
This other side, represented by people like Joel I. Klein, of NYC Public Schools, and Michelle Rhee, of D.C. schools, and groups such as Teach For America. This camp, usually to the opposition of teacher's unions, pushes for reform in sweeping fashions. They dismay the unions because their sweeping reform usually targets teachers who have become too comfortable in their jobs.
Duncan's role in the Obama Administration stands to bridge the gap between these two groups, and move education in a positive direction despite the ongoing debate between these two camps. How is this possible? These two groups are so opposed and so backward that they have very little in common. They constantly fight to push their platforms, which may or may not be the best goals for the students. While this candidate might be the best Obama had to bridge this gap, does that mean he is better than Klein or Rhee, or any number of other reform candidates? It appears that in the quest to find the perfect mix, we might just get a washout. It is far too early to tell, true. But we must keep striving to find answers. We must all pay attention to the growing debate between these two camps, and the movement on behalf of Duncan to bridge this gap. After all, isn't it the children which should be the focus of America's education system?
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Refocusing
It has been a very long time since a post has been made on this site, but hopefully soon it will pick back up. This blog will now take a more focused look at education, since it is closer to the career and research interests of the author. So stick around, new posts will follow soon.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Dynamic Politics
In this day and age, the face of politics is changing dramatically. So much that even in a single campaign, one cannot completely nail down the policy of oneself yet alone one’s opponent. This election season, nothing could be more murky than the politicians’ understanding of their opponents. Nothing could be more clear than the changing nature of political engineering and political thought in the US. This leaves us, the voting public, to think critically about the party platforms of both candidates, and think critically about them.
This current presidential campaign has been a campaign which will be analyzed through out history. It is a situation where history has already been made, and will continue to be made throughout the next presidency. The candidacy of Barack Obama as the official Democratic Presidential nominee, and the presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in Sarah Palin give us a chance to re-evaluate our conception of the office of the President. Although this is an important aspect of American history, what does it mean practically in this era, in 21st Century American politics?
This situation of having two brand-new types of candidates means a changing nature of the race we have seen so far this election season. Sen. McCain can no longer attack Sen. Obama on the basis of experience because he has a VP is much more inexperienced. Obama cannot attack McCain for being too old and out of touch quite as easily as he did before Palin came onboard. Similarly, it is hard for Obama to attack McCain as too much institution, when he himself has Biden, who is more senior in the Senate than McCain. The platforms have shifted. The status quo has shifted.
The platform of “change” became real to Democrats and everyone else in tune to Sen. Obama’s acceptance speech Friday night (estimated at 38 Million viewers). He unveiled the grand master-plan that his constituents and on-the-fence voters were waiting. Among his many propositions were a plan for energy independence in 10 years, heavy research in renewable energy, social security reform, education reform, and more. In contrast to his platform of “change”, he pointed out that his opponent, Sen. McCain, though wishing he was a maverick, wasn’t all that different from his party. With endorsements from a despised President, a voting record of Republican ideology and a lack of foresight on energy and foreign issues, Sen. McCain has towed the line 90% of the time. He put the ball in the Republican’s court. With McCain’s selection of a Vice-President nomination, McCain seems to be responding, however feebly.
Sen. McCain’s claim that he is a maverick would have been much more solidified had he gone with a better VP pick. Had he chosen Sen. Lieberman, he would have sent the message that he plays well with others (across the isle that is), and that he wanted to play the change game too. The problem with such a pick would have obviously been that of his own party. If he had picked some one on the moderate side of his party, such as Mitt Romney, or in Lieberman’s case, an Independent, he would have proven to the “evangelical” voting base that he did not at all have their interests in mind. He was struggling with that from the get-go, being far from the portrait of the model Christian Republican that George W. Bush painted in 2000. By selecting this much more right-wing Republican as a running mate, he appealed to that base.
If by some misguided illusion he thought he could bring a few Clinton sympathizers with his flashy new VP, he failed. The voters who supported her throughout her candidacy would have been much more inclined to switch parties for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, not a pro-drilling, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-environment platform. Sidling up to a woman in the White House is only a very small part of the Clinton equation. Palin’s lack of feminist qualities and feminist appeal will repel those voters much more than a more moderate ticket would have.
The details of the McCain-Palin ticket won’t be completely articulated until later this next week, when the Republican National Convention kicks off in St. Paul. A word to the wise: don’t anticipate a shockingly-new platform. In fact, if you want to get a bit of a preview, just get a hold of some footage of the 2004 RNC.
Though this campaign season will become much more complex and heated as the season progresses, we can already see where it is going. It is a competition over who can be the most change appealing without contradicting themselves more than the other. There will be mud-slinging. There already has been. There will be promises of reform; there already has been. There will be one winner, in the end.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Foundation: Ideology
This blog seeks to comment on current events, both here and abroad. In order to do this, it is essential to understand some basic language in which to communicate. In this post, this author will address the topic of ideology. This is important to any discussion of current events, history, or international affairs because no event, no communication between parties, nothing dealing at all with politics happens apart from ideology.
Ideology, along with politics as we know them, emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution changed the face of Europe, and one hundred years later, the States. The Revolution create extreme social and economic upheaval, with many moving into the cities, and living in conditions most would not cherish. The influx of economic capital gave new material wealth to European (and later the U.S.) powers. This created a need. People who trusted their leaders were living in conditions deplorable by any standards. The leaders were not feeling the same pinch, and not reacting to these conditions, instead they were helping to create them. This created an alienating feeling, and a need for new thought on politics.
The emerging thinking, called ideology, or political philosophy, can be seen as a response to the social upheaval and economic disproportion created by the industrial revolution. Within this we find many different strategies, from complete upheaval of the institution, to a reversion to the ways of old. It is in this context we find the most common ideological language, that of the political spectrum.
The political spectrum centers around the status quo, meaning current conditions in society and politics. Closest to the status quo we find the conservative, who thinks society would be well off with only minor tweaking to the establishment. To the right of the conservative we find the reactionary, the furthest right on the spectrum. The reactionary is the only position in ideology which sits on the right side of status quo. It is the reactionary who wishes to move society further backwards, to the point it reverts back to “the way things used to be”. This is very different than the rest of the system, which could be seen in various phases of progression.
To the left of conservative sits the moderate. The moderate overall is satisfied with government institutions, but thinks that it needs slight tweaking. They feel as though the political institution and powers that be can be successfully fixed to provide sufficient welfare for society. This of course, is more progressive than the conservative, who is satisfied with the status quo, but not near as progressive as the liberal. The liberal would feel as though the current make-up of the political system is ineffective. The only way to make it right is complete overhaul. It then seeks to do this either internally or externally to create a more beneficial political system. The liberal would call for immediate change, but not in the manner of revolution and armed coup.
On the far left, then, sits the radical, the only political position which says the current system of politics and government is so corrupt, that the only manner of fixing it is violent and immediate revolution: systematic, forced overhaul. This takes its most noticeable form in forced military coup de et’at carried out to depose a tyrant, or unpopular head of state.
There are many different figure heads associated with each of these positions, both contemporary and from history. These are not important now. What is important is the knowledge that there are standardized definitions to politics, to the extent that scholars and commoners alike know what they are. It is with this language that posts from here on will use, and these definitions which will be held.
Information for this post has come from:
Baradat, L.P. (2008) Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. 9th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ideology, along with politics as we know them, emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution changed the face of Europe, and one hundred years later, the States. The Revolution create extreme social and economic upheaval, with many moving into the cities, and living in conditions most would not cherish. The influx of economic capital gave new material wealth to European (and later the U.S.) powers. This created a need. People who trusted their leaders were living in conditions deplorable by any standards. The leaders were not feeling the same pinch, and not reacting to these conditions, instead they were helping to create them. This created an alienating feeling, and a need for new thought on politics.
The emerging thinking, called ideology, or political philosophy, can be seen as a response to the social upheaval and economic disproportion created by the industrial revolution. Within this we find many different strategies, from complete upheaval of the institution, to a reversion to the ways of old. It is in this context we find the most common ideological language, that of the political spectrum.
The political spectrum centers around the status quo, meaning current conditions in society and politics. Closest to the status quo we find the conservative, who thinks society would be well off with only minor tweaking to the establishment. To the right of the conservative we find the reactionary, the furthest right on the spectrum. The reactionary is the only position in ideology which sits on the right side of status quo. It is the reactionary who wishes to move society further backwards, to the point it reverts back to “the way things used to be”. This is very different than the rest of the system, which could be seen in various phases of progression.
To the left of conservative sits the moderate. The moderate overall is satisfied with government institutions, but thinks that it needs slight tweaking. They feel as though the political institution and powers that be can be successfully fixed to provide sufficient welfare for society. This of course, is more progressive than the conservative, who is satisfied with the status quo, but not near as progressive as the liberal. The liberal would feel as though the current make-up of the political system is ineffective. The only way to make it right is complete overhaul. It then seeks to do this either internally or externally to create a more beneficial political system. The liberal would call for immediate change, but not in the manner of revolution and armed coup.
On the far left, then, sits the radical, the only political position which says the current system of politics and government is so corrupt, that the only manner of fixing it is violent and immediate revolution: systematic, forced overhaul. This takes its most noticeable form in forced military coup de et’at carried out to depose a tyrant, or unpopular head of state.
There are many different figure heads associated with each of these positions, both contemporary and from history. These are not important now. What is important is the knowledge that there are standardized definitions to politics, to the extent that scholars and commoners alike know what they are. It is with this language that posts from here on will use, and these definitions which will be held.
Information for this post has come from:
Baradat, L.P. (2008) Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. 9th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
