After endless announcements, interviews and headlines, the Republican race finally starts to move towards something of significance as we reach the FIRST official GOP Debate of the 2016 Presidential cycle 9:00 P,M. Thursday on FOX News.
This one has garnered particular attention not only because it's the first and that it's on FOX News but because it is cut off the candidate pool to only the top ten. They even went the extra step of placing the top ten based on their national polling. The podium position is important not just for TV time but it usually correlates with how many questions you will be asked.
So here are some key things to think about it heading into the debate.
CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST TO LOSE THIS DEBATE Donald Trump Let's be honest, there really is nowhere else to go but down for the most surprising front-runner since..Herman Cain? We all know that to most people this is going to be the Donald Trump show and so he will be under intense scrutiny to legitimize his claims that he actually has what it takes to be POTUS. Rest assured that the other candidates, who typically refrain from taking punches at each other this early on, will break that rule when it comes to "The Donald". He will have to handle these criticisms properly. For a man who has never debated once in his life Trump is certainly taking a big risk. Yet no candidate has looked calmer under political pressure so far than Trump. Runner-up: Jeb Bush Unlike most Republicans, Bush must be happy Trump is in the race. Everyone's supposed pick for the Republican nominee has been stumbling a bit the past few months, not looking nearly as polished as many expected. Bush actually reminds me quite a bit of Obama before the 2012 Presidential debate against Romney. The Massachusetts Governor had been in a tough political fight for months and was more than ready while Obama was rusty and it showed. This is the first real national spotlight test for Bush and he needs to be everything Trump is not: stoic, civilized and experienced. If not, expect his numbers to plummet. CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST TO GAIN IN THIS DEBATE John Kasich I know this isn't much of a stretch considering he just made the cut off but Kasich is actually a very good speaker and good at countering criticisms about himself and his time as Governor of Ohio (a key swing state). Kasich may not have the natural charisma of others but that might actually help him considering some of the people on this stage. I was impressed with his FOX Sunday interview with Chris Wallace (embedded below). In many ways, Kasich reminds me of Bill Richardson in 2008 for the Democrats. He is someone that may be better in the general election than in the partisan primaries. When people ask for a good compromise of all the different strains of the Republican party, this guy could be it. Runner-up: Rand Paul By declaring so early on that he was running for President, Paul has gotten a bit lost in the crowd lately. Not being able to reap in the money like he had hoped is also hurting his ability to get his message out there. This is a chance for Paul to get out there and bring his message out to a national stage. He is more than capable of doing it and his ideas will definitely have a chance to stand out from the crowd. He has to steal back the headlines...and try not to shh people.
P.S. Hopefully no one brings up Aqua Buddha.
CANDIDATE MOST HURT BY NOT BEING IN DEBATE
Rick Santorum Let's not forget that Santorum actually won the 2012 caucus in Iowa and came in 2nd to the eventual nominee Mitt Romney. Yet Santorum has been a complete after thought in the 2016 cycle. Not being in this debate will certainly not help change his perception that this could be the time. Santorum would be entertaining, considering how much he has gone after front-runner Donald Trump and his social conservative background mixed with actual political experience makes him an intriguing candidate. Unfortunately for him, failure to make the cut also makes him a dead man walking. Runner-up: Rick Perry I know what you're thinking...shouldn't Rick Perry be glad he's avoiding one of these moments again?
That's the problem. Without a chance to redeem himself, Perry will always be the "oops" guy.
This time four years ago he was leading the polls and now he is a footnote. A footnote with cool hipster glasses though... Anyways, not being in the debate definitely hurts any chance he has at selling the "new" Rick Perry to a nation-wide audience. Oops. PART TWO TOMORROW!
0 Comments
I love my job as a teacher, don't get me wrong, but whenever I have felt frustrated or disappointed by things I have often seen college as a panacea to educational woes.
The grass is always greener in the Ivy Leagues after all. Well, one thing I was really struck by from this book "The End of College" by Kevin Carey is that many of the difficult things we find in secondary education are also present in college education. Not to mention some other problems I had never deeply considered. Carey spends a tremendous amount of time writing about the history of college, going all the way back to what is referred to as the first university in Bologna, Italy centuries ago. The most pertinent point to our modern age is that during the Gilded Age there was a tremendous deal of debate over the future of college education. The Morrill Act was creating land-grant universities that focused on practical skills solely intended to help provide its student body with jobs, specifically in manufacturing. In other words, who needs Latin and the Classics when you have a starving kid at home and little usefulness to society? However, there was a competing strain in Germany during this time period that believed that professors could stretch our knowledge and understanding of the world. Their job was to pursue that passions and interests intensely. The Human Genome Project could be an example of this. The idea is that being around these great minds would help inspire and uplift the students towards greatness. A third ideology was the embracing of the "liberal arts" education. Learning from great minds and great works to be more cultured and to train our brains for intellectual thoughts. The key difference between idea 2 and 3 is that liberal arts believes in sort of a basis of knowledge and the fine-tuning of argument, logic and rhetoric. The second theory is much more specialized and individualized. Carey's main problem with the current college landscape is that virtually all of them have gone from trying to achieve one of these goals to all three. Not only is it impractical but somewhat contradictory to be all these things. These so-called "hybrid" universities in America can claim to be all but in Carey's opinion and some research he casually mentions (minus major citations) is rather unsuccessful in all three categories. I think it's important for high schoolers to think about what they want out of college. I admit that I never really thought deeply about college when I was in high school. My thought was, if I got into the University of Virginia that whatever road I'd choose they would more than likely have a good program for it. While the odds were in my favor, that sort of gamble is dangerous in our bleak economic climate. Do you want college to be a place where you learn a practical skill to be employed? Do you want it to be a place to re-examine your views of the world and question your pre-conceived notions? Do you want to embrace the great products of humanity over time? Do you want it to be a place where you are in an environment of exploration and learning? Do you want to be around intellectuals that challenge and inspire you? American universities have things to offer and they are not all equal. Reading a ranking is one thing but I think you really have to experience this as much as you possibly can. Go to these campuses, try to sit in on a class. Read up and study colleges! In a world of hybrids, find the path that best fits you and your passion. I know there are barriers and money is a huge one. Next time I will talk about the biggest part of Carey's book, a free online education with a growing credentialing system vs. the exorbitant fees of America's universities. One of the things my non-teacher friends love to say is "Oh yeah, you get summers off...that must be nice".
Well, yes, of course it is but let's not act like it is all glitz and glamour. Summer is a necessary time for reflection. In the grind of the educational year, it is hard to sort of sit back and have true perspective on how things are going. In fact, I think about teaching quite a bit...why else would I make this website that a handful of you read. This week I checked out a book entitled "The End of College" by think-tank and Washington D.C. denizen Kevin Carey. You have to admit the title is catchy and as a high school educator it clearly resonated with me. It's about 260-pages and I did my due diligence on this one. Though, like most college texts, the first chapter tells you everything you need to know. The main crux of his argument is: College is going to go the way of the VHS tape, the rotary phone and CD players. Technology allows all anyone with an internet connection to access more information than people could have dreamt of before the world wide web. People will be able to guide their own learning at their own pace. Yes, Coursera may not have the same reputation as Harvard, even though it does have some of their classes. Carey believes we will reach a public change of heart though and begin to question the legitimacy of some of these college degrees and their "Gentlemen C's". Online education provides concrete data about not just what people learned but how they learned. One part wave of the future, one part 1984. Yes, Carey spends quite a bit of time disparaging the current state of college education and their effectiveness. His tone does tend to relish this destruction, even comparing computers to Godzilla destroying the ivory tower. Melodramatic when he means more to be a revolutionary. Such bold claims have also garnered some harsh criticism like here and here. I have thoughts, as I always do, but I want to see if a. anyone reads this and b. if he or she has opinions. So please give me your feedback since college education is either a reality for you or soon to be on the horizon. As the fury over the Confederate flag rages, now the fight has extended towards the people who fought in it.
I mentioned in my previous post about the awkwardness of having Arthur Ashe on the same Monument Avenue with Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. The Capitol Building in DC has several noteworthy Confederate leaders in Statuary Hall, figures selected by the individual states to help represent them. Now people wonder about their right to be there. Has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction? Why is it okay to drop the flag but keep the statues standing tall? The easiest answer would be that a person is not a flag. Individuals are much more complicated and nuanced, it's easier to venerate and easier to disparage. Look no further than potential Presidential candidate Jim Webb. Virginia politicians have always had to deal with the issue of "hero worship". The land of Jefferson, Madison and Washington lead so many modern-day politicians to take time in their speeches to quote their forefathers and worship at the altar of heritage. The problem is that those other heroes are not quite so embraceable on the national stage. Let's not forget how deeply their legacy runs, Virginia infamously tried to combine several key January holidays into the ill-fated "Lee-Jackson-King" day. As you might imagine, it did not last. So when Webb defended the Confederate flag he was quickly eviscerated nationally, but I thought it important to read what he said and not just a pithy headline or quote taken out of context. So read it here. So the first thing that sticks out to me is the idiocy of the statement "The Confederate Battle Flag has wrongly been used for racist and other purposes in recent decades. It should not be used in any way as a political symbol that divides us." Yeah...the Civil War was kind of divisive. So yes it's presence is going to do that whether you want it to or not. That's why they had to make a flag in the first place! Then Webb starts to bring up a very salient point. As much as we talk about the war being about slavery, four slave-holding states never joined the Confederacy. They stayed loyal to America. Imagine if slave state Maryland had joined and surrounded Washington D.C.? He also correctly mentions that most Southern soldiers never owned slaves. In fact, 75% of Southern families owned zero slaves. So it was not their economic institution, per se, at stake. The real reason the South has such high participation rates stem from two important facts. 1. They were on defense. The phrase "war of Northern aggression" may be hyperbole but the vast majority of fighting takes place in the South (and namely Virginia). Their land is being destroyed and the only perceivable solution is to defend themselves. These common people had no sway in their government's decision to go to war, or at least a minimal one. Yet they neared the brunt of horrific fighting. Sure, they ultimately were preserving a corrupt and evil practice but that was not the only factor in their decisions. Webb is right to point that out but it is hard to overlook the underlying problem, no matter how bravely they fought or how morally good they may have otherwise been. 2. Slavery benefitted non-slave holders in the South too Poor whites endured a pretty brutal life. Their economic potential were minimal, socially they were outcasts and politically they barely had a voice at all compared to the Virginia elites. So why did they not fight back? Well because there was another group lower on the social ladder. Southern cultures had very rigid social structures, much more so than in the North or the West and slavery was the cause. The "Lost Cause" has elements of bemoaning a day where "people knew their place and reveled in it". Poor whites quickly learned after the Civil War what this new world order meant when a black middle class emerged and martial law was benefitting the newly freed African Americans. It was the poor white contingent that formed the Redeemers and ultimately the KKK. They were fighting against the social upheaval and that did not require a huge plantation to be part of the anger. ****************************** So this gets us back to the ultimate point of this prompt. Banning people is dangerous, even terrible ones or people that did terrible things. After all, few Americans saw Jackson's Trail of Tears as terrible at the time. Just because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and had sexual relations with Sally Hemmings does not change the positive good he did as a Founding Father. I understand the revering people that did bad things may seem incomprehensible but we cannot fully disregard people either. Putting them up as one-dimensional characters in a melodrama just cheapens history. People are complicated and we grow from having discussions about their reasonings, their actions and the consequences. We have to understand why these things happened or at least explore them. Just saying someone is a racist is not productive. Why would you rebel against your own country to keep a group of people enslaved in the land of the free? Why would you not defend your family against a group of blue-coated warriors that are burning down your homeland? The Civil War has had more books written about it than the number of days since its conclusion. It's complicated, just like the problems we face today. That's why we talk about them, we discuss them and we speak constructively. That's how you solve problems. Considering all the recent attention given to Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew's announcement that the ten-dollar bill is undergoing some major shifting, it seems fit that we really study our American currency. These faces we have taken for granted but our money has evolved over time and so should the people that represent America. Getting on currency is no easy task, not only must you be deserving because of great deeds but you must also be palatable to a large cross-section of the American populace. It's a popularity contest mixed in with a time-capsule aspect. So in thinking about what woman could soon be emblazoned on the ten-spot alongside our first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, I compiled a list of the people most deserving and most likely to be portrayed on currency some time soon. 6. Rosa Parks One of the most popular candidates to be the new woman on money is Rosa Parks, in large part due to this website's online campaign. Rosa Parks is a great Civil Rights figure, she is more than just the woman who refused to get up from her bus seat in December 1955. She was secretary of the local chapter of the NAACP, she helped rebuild Detroit after the deadly riots in 1967, spoke out against police abuse, discrimination in housing and even worked to help abused women and political prisoners. She used her celebrity from that fateful day to try and change America politically, socially and economically for decades. All of this underscores the fact that she may never have become the face of the movement if it had not been for 16-year old Claudette Colvin. Colvin was arrested on March 2, 1955 for the same thing but lost favor with the NAACP as their test case when it was learned she was pregnant. No longer the "paragon of virtue" they found a pillar of the community like Parks to be their rallying point and both of their legacies were set into motion. 5. Mark Twain Who says only political figures get to be on money? Most countries dedicate space in their currency towards cultural icons and no one really defines American culture like Mark Twain. Every high schooler comes across Twain's work from Huckleberry Finn to Tom Sawyer. His other works like A Yankee in King Arthur's Court and The Prince and the Pauper help show the satirization of the "Gilded Age", a phrase he coined by the way. He also has views that can make Americans of 2015 proud. For a man born in a slave state like Missouri, Twain was ardently anti-slavery and anti-imperial. He represents the things in America that we hold so dear. His biggest problem might just be that too many uninformed Americans would think he was Albert Einstein based on the picture. 4. Eleanor Roosevelt No one helped redefine the position of first lady quite like Eleanor Roosevelt. Outspoken on many issues in a time period where that was not always acceptable, Eleanor Roosevelt became a symbol for progressivism, race reform, women and just about everything else along the way. Roosevelt's support of African Americans was unparalleled in Washington at this time. She forced her husband to meet with NAACP leaders to try and pass an anti-lynching bill. She resigned from the Daughters of the American Revolution when they refused to let African American singer Marian Anderson perform at Constitution Hall and then arranged for her to sing in front of the Lincoln Memorial. She even sat in the "colored section" of segregated concert halls in the South! She used her platform for good and helped shift the role of the First Lady forever. After her husband's death, she became the face of the Democratic party and used her stature to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights and helped work on the Declaration of Human Rights. In a word, she is awesome. 3. Ronald Reagan The Great Communicator has only become more canonized since his death in 2004. Reagan completely shifted the political landscape of America, so much so that even College Board has used his election in 1980 as a generational marker in its nine time periods. His famous quip "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem" from his inaugural has become the cornerstone phrase of American politics ever since. Even Democrats have modified the phrase over time including both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. His tough nature with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union hastened the end of the Cold War and helped Americans regain their confidence after a previous decade that was bleak and uninspired. He successfully created a new coalition of conservatives, a mission that was started by Barry Goldwater in 1964. Reagan's articulate style and natural charisma allowed him to win two elections by a combined electoral score of 1014-62. Scoreboard. So while some might complain about the economic recession in his early years, the crack down on unions like NATCA or the Iran-Contra Affair, Reagan's influence in politics is truly unmatched in the past 50 years. This will happen sooner rather than later. 2. Martin Luther King Jr. Finally getting his own monument in Washington D.C., King is undoubtedly the face of the Civil Rights Movement and one of the greatest Americans of all-time. Was he a perfect human being? Of course not. Does that mean he cannot represent some of the best things about America? Of course not. King's speeches have captivated generations of Americans from all backgrounds, all social classes and all political views. He set a blueprint that all marginalized groups in America have used ever since in their fight towards equality. He also encapsulates two key themes of American history: patriotism and religion. I would not be shocked to see King's face on Mt. Rushmore one day but for now we can focus on putting him in our American currency. 1. Teddy Roosevelt To me this is really a no brainer.
Teddy Roosevelt fought in the Spanish-American War, secured the Panama Canal, busted trusts, helped create the FDA and Meat Inspection Act, formed national parks and won a Nobel Peace Prize for helping to end the Russo-Japanese War. He is on Mt. Rushmore for goodness sake and while the other three men that adorn that mountain or on both coins and paper money (don't forget about the 2-dollar bill), Teddy is nowhere to be seen. Even his fifth cousin FDR can make money but not Mr. "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick". Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most popular figures of the 20th century and to think he would be left out of our currency is kind of ridiculous. He has the war hero background of Grant, he has the "common man" appeal of Andrew Jackson without the Indian genocide and he has the charisma of Ben Franklin. Give this man a break, or more specifically, some paper money! The situation in Charleston is truly horrifying. The idea of a man coming into a church, praying in their Bible study and then opening fire on these parishioners because they are black simply boggles the mind.
The media has done a good job creating a narrative. 1. This Dylann Roof kid is crazy. 2. Racism is not innate it is learned. 3. This may or may not be about guns (depending on what news outlet you listen to). I'm not disputing the veracity of those claims but my mind is focused on one image. The Confederate flag. Just like the flag that flies high at the South Carolina state capitol building. I remember the first time hearing about this from Nick News with Linda Ellerbee when they were discussing this issue in the 1990s. The Confederate flag had once been atop the building, just like it had in the 1860s, but after increased scrutiny that flag was replaced with a smaller version and was put on a pole down at ground level. The price, as the linked article above mentions, is that 2/3rds of law-makers would have to vote to remove it at this point. Well...it might be time. Senator and Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham got into a fair amount of controversy defending the flag saying that "it works here" since people legislated that way. I'm not sure if you can count what happened this week as "working". I know you can look at this event in isolation, but this is a systemic problem. Remember, these attitudes are cultivated and when we have a symbol like that in front of a political institution, it is going to be seen as justification for those extreme views by those perpetrators. I understand that things are up for interpretation as Graham notes, but why keep something that represents something so terrifying and disgusting to a significant section of humanity? Why indeed, let's explore that for a second. Heritage Not Hate This is rather common expression when used to defend the Confederate flag. The flag represents more than just a bunch of rebels that broke off from the United States, it represents a culture and a way of life that was destroyed by the wave of industrialization and scientific management. The Confederate flag to these defenders does not mean slave whippings and rape (although that was endemic in the culture), it's more like hoop skirts, sweet tea and chivalry. Don't get me wrong, industrialization brought in a slue of different problems that had to be dealt with in American history, but cherry picking memories from a symbolic piece of cloth is dangerous if not impossible. As much as historians and politicians want to downgrade the role of slavery in the Civil War discourse (state rights', fiscal policies, etc.). These arguments always inevitably have slavery as part of their argument, it is weaved into every fabric of Antebellum Society and consequently in that flag. Trying to remove that element will inevitably destroy it in the process. A similar outrage recently has been the ire over the Washington Redskins' logo and name. It follows a similar line of logic, if it's not racist to me, it's not racist. While this is not the first time the Redskins have been under fire, this particular protest has had more staying power. Sports commentators refusing to name the team in their commentary and this powerful ad really strikes a nerve. "But it's always been that way", which is one of the weakest arguments one can make. Just because something lasts does not make it right. Coincidentally, both of these controversies remind me of my home, Virginia. I know the Redskins are not technically Virginia's team, but they are. The players mostly live in Virginia, their practice facility is in Virginia and the Governor of Virginia has been much more accommodating about this name controversy than Maryland's Governor or the DC Council for that matter. Virginia was also the "Capital of the Confederacy", specifically Richmond, as Oldies 107.3 used to famously quip on their radio broadcasts before backlash forced them to rename it to "Capitol of the South". Richmond also has Monument Avenue where famous Virginians Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis and other Confederate luminaries stand tall. Forever encapsulated to commemorate...their braveness? Their toughness? Their dedication to fight for "The Lost Cause"? Arthur Ashe is there too, by the way. The outspoken, politically active, tennis player who broke the color barrier and was famously referred to as "The Shadow". Well now these statues cast a shadow on our country. What do we make of this spectacle? An African American who had to play on segregated courts growing up in Richmond, surrounded by vestiges and visages associated with racism and terrorism? His reward for overcoming all these barriers and difficulties? A spot amongst these demi-gods. Northern Virginia is not immune to this either. Stonewall Jackson High School. John Mosby Highway, aka Rt 50, which was named for a Confederate guerrilla fighter who stole uniforms and attacked people in the most under-handed way possible. The Civil War was a terrible event and everyone paid a dear price. We often focus on the plight of African Americans for good reason, but the experience was devastating for white Southerners as well. Their land was destroyed, their money worthless, their entire culture had either been stripped away or burned to the ground. Now you may argue rightfully so but such a purge leaves deep, deep scars. How else do you explain the world we live in today? White Southerners experienced a complete shift in their lives politically, economically and socially. The North did very little in Reconstruction to fix some of these legitimate concerns and that anger and betrayal is just as significant as all the other well-documented consequences of the Civil War. It explains, though not justifies, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, whose founder Nathan Forrest had a high school named after him just until last school year when it was finally renamed after a continual uproar. Pain is an emotion we all must deal with and everyone experiences it much more than he or she would like. The point is to recognize that your grieving cannot bring pain to others and that is where we are today. It's time South Carolina. So I just came back from an amazing faculty talent show at Freedom.
We had musicians, poets, lip sync artists and everything in between. I was legitimately impressed with how much talent I saw and I think people really enjoyed it. It also helped me reflect on a rather important issue, the idea of complexity. I remember that it was a complicated notion for me to fathom that my teachers had lives outside of me. Don't they just sleep in the school? What are they doing at the mall? This is not your natural habitat. We are so quick to label people: German teacher, nerd, jock, leader, follower, whatever. The danger with labels is that we use them to end discussion. That is who this person is. Period. The End. If we say someone's crazy then we no longer have to entertain their ideas or beliefs. Who cares if they may actually be right because...they're crazy. Individuals are multi-faceted and sometimes we never get to see them. I'm sure the student version of you is different from the version your parents see or your employer sees. Teachers are guilty of this too. Labeling students into simple sorting categories like the hat in Harry Potter. We need to be careful when we try to end discussion on a person. If Mr. Nuf were "just a world history teacher", I never would have seen the stanky leg. Coincidentally, something that cannot be unseen. Embrace the complexity kiddos, it makes life more interesting.
I came across this video over the weekend. With it being the anniversary of D-Day, it makes sense that such a video would be making the rounds. It does an incredible job describing the totality of war and the significant loss it creates.
I always thought that technology would be a welcome reprieve from this. After all, thanks to drone warfare we do not have to put soldiers' lives at risk in the same way we did during World War II. Compare the losses of the War on Terror to that of D-Day for example.
Robot armies may sound like a page from Star Wars but such a world may not be science fiction for much longer. This would, of course, leave our brave countrymen at home with their loved ones. Good news, right? However, VICE News brought up a salient point in their latest "Business of Life" series. The more removed we are from the cost of war, the more likely we are to use it as a weapon. War is hell and we must always remember that. Otherwise, we could slip into a permanent war state. Perpetual war is simply not sustainable as this video points out and yet there is evil on Earth. The destruction in the wake of ISIS would make anyone's stomach churn. Dealing with conflict is one of the biggest issues of our time and one that history has constantly struggled with across the globe and across generations. What are your thoughts watching these videos? I've been thinking about this idea of credentialing.
Teachers often bemoan how students care more about their degree than they do the love of learning. Don't believe me, read Professor Parson's take on it. It is not a warm and fuzzy feeling for educators to realize that they are seen as barriers towards success for our students. Even if that view seems misplaced. Well I think Parson's position is easy to take when you are the professor but I thought about how I would feel as that student. We have created a system where credentialing has been given over-valued weight. After all, what purpose does this credential a.k.a. diploma serve? It shows potential employers that this candidate is competent. They are a smart human being (ideally) who has been educated in the core areas and can perform the basic skills of the task you require of them. So really credentials allow employers to be lazy and not have to discover for themselves the relative qualifications of a candidate. Now some go that extra mile but this credential is a shortcut, it's a statement you can make towards proving your merit. I always wanted to teach a class when I was applying for teaching positions. I thought, I can tell you about teaching but I'd rather show you. Employers are moving more and more towards that and it makes me wonder if we need to reimagine this idea of credentialing? Would people be motivated to learn without the credential? What is the true value of credentials? How can people succeed without prerequisite credentials? If we are going to reimagine history and reimagine education, then I think we also have to reimagine the reward. If we live in a world of problem-solving, what does the diploma tell us about our ability to deal with pertinent issues? Educational reformers have derided report cards because a simple letter grade does not help students or parents draw any conclusions, it lacks context. Does my child have a B because he struggles on tests, he does not turn in homework assignments on time, he had a bad day etc.? That letter is descriptive but not prescriptive, what is the solution? That is why schools have tried to give a more comprehensive, data-driven look at student achievement. Trying to diagnose problems in learning and areas of growth would make lots of sense for an educator. Maybe diplomas need that same sort of depth and less of a "one-size-fits-all" mentality? Since we are all in this together...the real question becomes, what topic or topics would you like to discuss?
What are the events that are shaping your reality? College tuition? The environment? Education? 2016 Presidential race? Racial tensions? Poverty? The forum is open and I can't wait to hear your suggestions. |
Mr. GibsonModerator Archives
August 2015
Categories |