Category Archives: Civic Issues

Got Books?

Posted on by
3

St. John’s College is a tiny university situated in the center of Downtown Annapolis, Maryland with a second campus in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Not many have heard of it, and although it is a private institution, their philosophy is an interesting approach on education. The university focuses on books as a main mechanism of learning. Every subject that is taught requires students to read several books to gain a better understanding of the topic. It is interesting because this approach is even utilized for subjects such as math and science as well. Working through problem sets with complex calculations is something that the students and “tutors,” that is the what professors are called, never approach and solve. Instead, they focus on the theory behind these subjects, trying to understand concepts from a philosophical point of view. Classes are entirely discussion based, and instead of having written tests students have a chance to be evaluated verbally by their tutors, as well as write a final report. It is an overwhelmingly liberal arts focused school that still produces bright students that get accepted into prestigious professional education programs.

Now I am not saying we should all chuck our calculators out the windows and say goodbye to solving partial derivatives and balancing chemical equations, but I do think that it is an interesting approach to education that deserves a proper analysis. Often the liberal arts program gets overlooked by many, not without plenty of complaints, as many see their techniques of learning as lesser, or ineffective, especially in the growing world of aspiring engineers and scientists. I do think that the people who work hard to perfect these programs do deserve a little credit though. Sometimes the plug and chug method of learning may not be the best way to go about things. I have found that some of my most productive classes where I have solidly learned the material consist of ones where the professor narrowed down into the theory behind how the mechanisms work. It is interesting to think that maybe this way of learning might be a beneficial supplement to the traditional methods of teaching and learning.

The method of collaboration is another characteristic of the classes at St. John’s, which I think has the power to change education as a whole. Typically a class consists of one professor standing at the front of a class droning on about some sort of topic in a never ending lecture of boring. Students have to try to focus their attention on the voice of the teacher and maybe the occasional drawing or notes that are written on the board. This may be an extremely unconventional method of learning for people who are more visual and kinesthetic based learners and that is why I think that interactive and group based learning may truly benefit the masses. Students have the opportunity to bounce ideas of each other and think out loud, working through problems together. Not only does it help them reach conclusions more efficiently, but it also increases social and group skills which are qualities extremely important in every day life.

They say that you should always study in the same manner and environment as how you will be taking the test. I think that this should apply to the learning portion as well. It is important to consider how active learning can increase our chances of picking up on new material. The human race, and many animals alike, are known for their ability to mimic the actions of others in order to grasp new concepts. The very basis of learning your first language is through understanding social cues and copying the words of others. Collaborating and working together with others to discuss the problems at hand allows us to physically become involved in the situation. Plus group discussion mimics real life situations and prepares us for what we may encounter in the future, and isn’t that the real point of school?

St. John’s seems to take these ideas to the extreme. I think application of theory is just as important as the theory itself, but it does have some great underlying ideas that I think should be incorporated into schools across the board. So maybe we won’t all rely on books to teach us the secrets of the world, but theory and collaboration may become an integral part of our education system in the future.

“No Child Left Behind”: But Where is Forward?

Posted on by
3

In a perfect world every child could reap the benefits of a proper education and learn all the material to the fullest potential. That is what the No Child Left Behind policy was trying to accomplish when it was passed in 2002. It seems though that this dream of the government was far from a reality and more of a “utopia” according to President Obama. It sounds nice in theory, trying to help the underprivileged schools by standardizing the qualifications of teachers and providing additional assistance to those children who do not meet the standard “proficiencies” set by the state. In reality though it seems to have caused more problems than it solved.

In order to track the percent of students who reach the mandated proficiency in a school, standardized tests have been created. The problem with that is now teachers are “teaching to the test.” This means that they don’t really have the freedom to share what they deem is important about a subject to their students, but rather teach them what they know will appear on the tests so they “look good” as a teacher. This places more emphasis on the teaching and less on the learning, and what is the point of school? To learn, so why is the education system so focused on the teaching aspect? Is it really helping kids to learn more efficiently? It all depends on the quality of the standards and whether they are in the best interest of the students. It seems as the years progress, standards have been lowered though in order to ensure the maximum number of students reach proficiency. Its all about the numbers. But I thought school was supposed to be about knowledge and achievement?

It seems that instead of improving the quality of what is learned in each individual class, the focus has been shifted to Math and English resulting in funding cuts for the sciences and arts. So basically schools are sacrificing one subject to improve the scores in another. How is that in any way beneficial to the students? Moreover, No Child Left Behind says that money will be provided to help states create and implement the proficiency tests. This estimates to be a whopping $1 billion dollars per year. We are already trillions of dollars in debt as a nation, why create more of a debt if the cons outweigh the pros?

Yes, No Child Left Behind does give parents the opportunity to send their child to the best ranked school to ensure maximum benefits, and it does provide supplemental academic services to aid struggling children as well as options like Charter and Magnet school a reality, but how can we truly say one school is going to provide a better education over the other? Now more than ever a solid education is crucial for a successful life, and parents are worried about how to provide what is best for their child. They want them to have the opportunity to compete with the best when applying to post secondary education, but is the No Child Left Behind policy really they best way to provide rankings?

Personally, I think that it limits what students have the opportunity to learn in school especially when many of the proficiency test scores are not even incorporated into a student’s final grade. I remember my teachers telling me that we had to prepare for one standardized test or another and just to “do your best,” but it would only be counted as a participation grade. I saw first hand the “teach to the test” method and often I felt like I received nothing out of those required county tests, especially since what we were tested on for an actual grade differed so much from the material that appeared on the proficiency tests. It almost seemed like a chore that was a waste of our time. I am slightly biased though because I come from a blue ribbon school that was highly accredited for its outstanding academics, so maybe this whole No Child Left Behind was truly only meant for schools in impoverished areas and it really is beneficial to them. I feel like as a whole the procedure does need to be reviewed so as to encourage learning rather than teaching as that is the prime goal of education. Obama is currently working on steps to modify the bill and maybe sometime in the future we will have a better way to address and better public education for all.

Deliberation Evaluation

Posted on by
3

The art of discussion opened our minds to have a better understanding of controversial topics that are popular on our campus and throughout the American society. Attending another deliberation provided a comparison to the deliberation conducted by my super team. I attended “How Do We Prevent Sexual Assault At Penn State” because this was a topic I felt was extremely relevant considering the vast number of PSU Alerts we have gotten in the past year alone regarding sexual assault on campus. The team devised some solid approaches that were definitely things that required consideration, but the method with which they approached the conversation was a bit too controlling and slightly opinionated.

The first approach focused on heightened security and surveillance on campus. The group proposed adding more video cameras, lighting, and auxiliary police or security guards. The second approach proposed increased education and awareness with actions like a mandatory class for freshmen, more structured discussion at New Student Orientation, and an ACT Now week. The third approach centered around grassroots campaigns and community initiative that included actions like the creation of a student organization dedicated to raising awareness for sexual assault, “party patrols,” and using social media to raise awareness. The comments of the group were as a whole thoughtful and understanding of different perspectives. People discussed the concerns with money, punishing the majority of the population of PSU who do not commit these crimes, difficulty of getting students involved, immediate vs long-term benefits, sensitivity to the word mandatory, the awkwardness associated with discussion of sexual assault, and the fact that sexual assault usually occurs within dorm rooms so these added benefits would not really prevent the issue from occurring.

There was an almost constant flow of conversation, but the moderators successfully kept the conversation on track and clarified any hazy comments. The thing that I found most strange was the discussion was broken up into each of the possible actions that could be taken for this approach, which I thought disrupted the flow of conversation. Also at the end of each action the moderators asked if the group could come to a “consensus” about whether or not this action should be taken. This seemed slightly uncalled for in my opinion because people are not supposed to have to pick a side and by doing so it influenced further conversation in one direction or another.

I continued to play devil’s advocate throughout the deliberation pointing our that many sexual offenders on campus are not people intending to commit the crimes and so it is difficult to prevent them. The mini-teams definitely took this concern into consideration, but it seemed that they favored the opinions that were in favor of the actions they proposed for each approach.

Any concern that was raised by a member of the discussion was addressed by the mini-teams as a valid point so no one had the feeling that their voice was not heard. The final mini-team did a much better job of wrapping up the conversation and addressing all of the topics that we touched on as a group without asking us to come to a “consensus” about anything. The more structured approach that this group took limited the conversation somewhat because people were not able to go back and compare approaches because they felt as if we were done discussing that singular idea and we could not go back to it. Overall, the discussion did bring greater understanding to everyone of how difficult this issue is to solve and many great points were raised as a result.

 

Money, Money, Money

Posted on by
3

I am about to talk about something that will probably hit close to home for all of us. It is something that students and faculty alike may not even be aware. According to an article written July 1, 2014 in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, University of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania State University rank at the top of the list for highest in-state tuition. This unfortunately is due to the fact that the state of Pennsylvania is slacking in the financial support department. Every state has appropriations set aside to help pay for the public education of its citizens; however, Pennsylvania is stuck in 1995 pre-recession and pre-inflation. Apparently the funding that Penn State receives specifically is the same as it was in 1996 when the total population of students was about 20,000 fewer. That’s actually amazing. To think that 19 years later, my whole entire lifetime I might add, the university is still receiving the same support when everything around them has increased price-wise. It is a shame to see this fact come to light because the university has to turn to families for financial support and you know what that means: an increase in tuition. And that, ladies and gentlemen, are exactly the words that nobody wants to ever hear.

Public education was supposed to be a gift of sorts provided as a service to the population of states. Yes the money comes from our taxes, but at least education for future generations is something that seems worthwhile and at probably personally beneficial too (the older folks know they need an educated population to take care of them in the future and carry the world forward as much they do not want to admit it). With the way our economy has been shaping up lately it has become less of a gift and more of a major investment, and it’s a sad day when in-state tuition at your local state school costs more or less the same as some small private university in the middle of nowhere. It’s actually amazing that now some public universities are receiving more of their funding from the tuition their students pay than the money granted from the state. Tuition revenue used to be as low as 23% in 1988 and now it’s at least a 2-to-1 ratio of tuition to state revenue. This cost shift has influenced a major change in enrollment at universities. Families can no longer afford the outrageous costs that come with attending these higher institutions and the students have to pay the price, both literally and figuratively.

The rising cost of education means more student loans. In 2013, students were $1.08 trillion in debt. That number is monumental and the peak just keeps getting higher. Many aren’t interested in being in debt for the remainder of their lives so they choose the alternative of not attending college. How is this fair to these students? They deserve a higher education just as much as the next person, but they can’t live in the shadow of the cost, and the most unfortunate part about this is that the ones who are most dissuaded are those in low income families who probably wish they could break free of the life they know and make something of themselves. It’s also interesting to note that if people from these financial backgrounds do happen to make it to college they typically choose schools that are less selective and usually less expensive. High -achieving students who are forced to attend lower quality schools will be limited in their job choices in the future. It’s unfortunate to think that purely because a public education costs too much these students may not be able to accomplish their goals and desires and get the dream job that they always hoped for as a child. Money really has a way with changing someone’s future. So how do we fix this situation?

It seems like the best way around the issue would be to raise the state funding for public universities, but as it’s probably been said before, that is much easier said than done. The tax money collected by the state is constantly getting pulled in a million different directions and government officials have to work extremely hard to budget in just the right way. This being said, I believe that education is of utmost importance and should be a priority on the list for funding. When a generation’s future is on the line, I think the state has the civic duty to step up and provide for it’s people? Maybe I’m the only one, but my hopes for the future of making college more affordable still stand strong.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4135

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2014/07/01/Pitt-Penn-State-remain-highest-in-tuition-nationally-for-public-universities/stories/201406300178

Education: What’s the Point?

Posted on by
3

Today it is mandated that all children in the United States attend some form of education from Kindergarten to twelfth grade or about age 5 to age 18. People everywhere follow this rule whether they send their children to public or private primary and secondary schools, or whether they prefer the method of homeschooling. It is interesting though because aside from the fact that it is the law, getting an education is important for a variety of reasons for each family.

In 1647, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was the first to decree that every town of a certain population density should have a public elementary school, and if the population was great enough a latin school. The reasoning behind this was for the benefit of the church because children could learn how to read the bible and the basics about the Calvinist religion. In the  the seventeenth century, large industries weren’t yet a thing and many people just became farmers within their families or carried on their small-town family businesses like town blacksmith or baker. These occupations didn’t require anything more than a simple skill set that could easily be handed down from family member to family member. Calculus and Organic Chemistry weren’t useful or necessary for their lifestyles and so when public education was established it simply was to teach people how to read so they could be active participants in their local church.

Eventually, the purpose for education evolved slightly to encompass the ideas of obedience and discipline. Like in Mark Twain’s novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck says,

“The Widow Douglas she took me for her son, and allowed she would sivilize me.”

Instead of having tutors or a governess, families began to rely on public school systems that were slowly being set in place. The Land Ordinance of 1785 set aside a small portion of land for a local school. Eventually these “land grants” gave way to “land grant universities,” or public state universities like Penn State. Industry still hadn’t become a major portion of the economy just yet, so at this time the focus of these public schools was simply to build an educated general public. The United States had just been born and with it a form of government that was essentially the first of its kind, putting control in the hands of the people. Major officials knew that the people voting and supporting laws had to be able to read and understand policies and laws in order to effectively help the government flourish and expand.

At the turn of the century and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution a massive change in the role of education occurred. Competition for jobs other than farming and technical positions required some form of institutionalized teaching. It was no longer just about religion or civilization or even about producing a semi-knowledgable group of citizens that could help make useful decisions in the government, but now it was about getting an occupation in order to make a living and support a family. New laws opened up many of these jobs to all races including immigrants creating even more competition and a greater need for not only a secondary education, but also high forms of education like university, which was a brand new idea for the general public.

Typically forms of higher education were reserved for scholars who desired to learn because they desired to do so. They were people destined to be academia for the rest of their lives. These people weren’t trying to get a degree so that they could get a decent job like the majority of students at universities today, but rather they were attending college because they desired to learn about the philosophies and theorems floating around in the world.

Today, education has evolved into a necessity. The competition to be more and more knowledgable is growing and higher education is becoming ever-pricier, and now we are faced with a new issue as a nation. A solid education is the only way people will be able to obtain a job, but this creates a conundrum for several hundreds of families. A vicious circle is created where lower class families cannot afford college for their children and so their children aren’t able to get a decent job, and in their future they will not be able to afford college for their children. The circle just keeps going unless someone is willing to be in debt for the remainder of their lives with student loans. This is a problem because now people have lost the opportunity to attend college for the purpose of learning because there is so  much pressure riding on the students due to the fact that this is their only opportunity to be successful in the future and because of how large of an investment education has become. At this point in time it is necessary for the government to deduce the most important reasons for why citizens should get a decent education. Should people stick to the idea that it is a way for them to ensure a profitable job, or should it return to one of it’s original purposes of gaining knowledge purely for desire?