Education Conspiracy Theory - Dumber by Design??

Watching this year's Presidential campaign it seems like is much more of a focus on the personalities, characteristics, and slip-ups of the candidates then there has been in years past.  After the last debate I read messages on the social media challenges and wasn't surprised to see that the messages reflected my initial observation.  While there were messages regarding issues, the majority of these comments were based on the appearance or personality of the candidates. People commented about Romney's bad spray tan while other's questioned President Obama's love for Chicago sports since he was debating during the Bears Monday Night Football game.  Although some of these were just meant to be funny, it was still a bit disappointing to see the lack of conversation about actual issues.  But can we blame them?   Very rarely do you see one of the news channels stop to provide in depth coverage of the issues facing this nation and what each candidate's plans are to fix them instead, as we saw last March, you see a 60 minute program of President Obama filling out NCAA Basketball bracket with his predictions.

I thought back to some of the readings/discussions in class about the media and the issues facing the American Education system and I put on my conspiracy theory hat and began to wonder if Americans are becoming less informed about politics and less educated in general according to the design of those with power. Many of our readings in class may not have come out and said it directly, but they certainly provided some supporting evidence.  Kumar, for example talked about how our Political leaders explain history in a way that helps support their political agendas instead of providing facts that may go against their actions or agendas.  They create this image of the enemy (ie. terrorists, bad teachers) and the average uninformed citizen becomes afraid and buys into the decisions being made and rarely challenge them. They feel that the decisions and policies being made are in their best interest and they should cooperate.  Kumashiro would describe this as the winners (those with power) making the rules in a way that convinces the losers to keep playing.

And let's face it, its much easier to convince the losers to keep playing when you control not only the messages they receive but also what they learn and their access to education.  Our education system is in the midst of a huge crisis and the solutions from the those with power and influence are reforms focus on standardizing what is taught and ignoring the substance of learning.  This focus on standardization and test scores create a huge disadvantage for those quality teachers who engage students in alternative teaching methods that require students to think critically, but will benefit a teacher who can simply teach the basics.  So what we have is and education crisis with significant issues and the responses from our leaders have been reforms to structure schools in a way that limits teachers' abilities to teach as well as limit what and how a students learn. Oh, and by the way the structure of these schools are not structured the same as the most successful schools where most of those making reforms have children attending.  And because of the extremely high increases of College tuition (which nobody seems to be paying attention to except those paying) those who are lucky enough to graduate can finish or even attend college.  And those who have attended college know that it is a place where a great deal of critical thinking and alternative teaching methods take place.  Could this be the reason why the Government hasn't stepped in to control tuition prices?  Because it creates a barrier for students to learn how to think critically and they fear that this could create educated citizens that would challenge the status quo? 

Now I'm not one to always believe in conspiracy theories (although I enjoy reading them) nor do I necessarily think there is an education conspiracy where they are trying to turn us all into robots, but some of these decisions being made really make you wonder who is really in charge and what their true motivations are. While researching information about education conspiracy theories, I came across this interesting clip by comedian George Carlin which is an extreme viewpoint but not very far off from some of the topics and ideas we've talked about in class.  Carlin also challenges this belief of "The American Dream" which many public intellectuals seem to be doing nowadays. 

(warning: the video does contain some vulgar language).

Is Education Really a Priority - Response to Blog Prompt

Isn't it amazing that there never seems to be a funding crisis when it comes expanding America's political agendas through war or a shortage when it comes to the hundreds of millions of dollars that presidential campaign's cost, yet when it comes to educational resources for our children, finding the funds to provide them with the basic necessities proves to be difficult.  To put things in perspective, according to the Washington Post's 2012 Presidential Campaign Finance Explorer, President Obama and his allies have raised $775 million dollars and already spent $606 million.  Mitt Romney and his allies have raised $784 million and sepnt $534 million.  Much of this money goes toward advertising on the TV and radio and that advertising usually consists of attacking the other candidate or feeding the public with promises that the candidates will most likely not deliver upon.

Throughout these campaings the candidates never fail to talk about the critical issues facing the nation including the state of the economy, unemployment, national defense and education.  President Obama himself has preached the importance of education reform yet according to the projected Federal Budget spend, only 4% will be spend on education as opposed to 24% on defense.  The projected budgeted spend for welfare is 12%, 3 times that of education, does anyone else see the irony of this?  Because many of these people don't have the education or resources to obtain jobs they have no other choice but to depend on the government for assistance.  This government assistance is simply a band aid to stop the bleeding instead of attempting to fix the the issues that lead to the need for financial assistance.

Kumashiro brings forth a very compelling and accurate argument around the fact that those elites framing today's educational reforms have very little knowledge of what the issues really are and how they should be fixed.  As he mentions in his book both President Obama and Mayor Emmanuel are telling us what changes need to be made in struggling public schools, all while their children attend schools with the best resources, facilities, and teachers.  And since these schools with the best teachers obtain high scores, then it's very easy for these elites to simply point the fingers at teachers rather then themselves, who actually have the power and influence to make the changes.  In my opinion, the elites don't necessarily address these issues with as much urgency as they should because they don't directly impact their children.

I agree with Kumashiro's belief that all schools are in need of improvement and the reforms that should lead to those improvements should not be framed or influenced by those who don't have children's best interests' in mind (the elities, teacher unions, etc.).  The fact of the matter is that the current structure of the education system is failing when it comes to preparing children for their future and the proposed reforms are only going to contribute to that failure.  Those elite schools may not be failing when it comes to test scores and education but the fact that these students are surrounded by others just like them who don't know what it means to struggle or face adversity, doesn't prepare them for life after school.  The workforce these children will soon be entering is an extremely diverse place in which these people of all races and cultures will interact with one another, and dealing with these new cultures for the first time could prove to be challenging.  Growing up I was blessed to attend some very good schools that continue to be succussful today.  These schools were made up with kids that looked just like me and came from very similar backgrounds, so that was the only world I know.  When I started my career, the diversity within the corporate environment was very intimidating and definitely took a while for me to get used to.  So although my the schools I attended were considered great when it comes to providing education, they failed when it came to giving me the tools to succeed after shool.

Unfortunately I can't provide the answers as to how to fix the education crisis today, but I definitley think they need to get a more diverse group of individuals involved in the framing of the reforms.  The entire educational system could use improvement, and instead of having the decisions made by the elites and politicians who have their best interests in mind, they need to include those directly impacted like the teachers and parents of these children in struggling schools.  Of course these improvements will cost money, but if Education was truly a top priority for those with power, finding the money wouldn't be an issue.  Perhaps instead of candidates spending hundreds of millions of dollars advertising and pursuading people to vote for them, perhaps they can invest that money into improving our nation and let their actions earn votes instead of their words.

To Compete or not to Compete...

One thing that can't be when it comes to the educational system and those who have influence it, is that they are very effective at teaching students about contradictions.  A prime example of this is when it comes to "competition."  A few weeks ago I was with a group of friends and the discussion of education came up and one of the people involved in the conversation was a first grade teacher and shared a story that I could not believe.  She explained that her principal was requiring that the teachers keep a bulletin board, visible to all students and anyone who entered the room, with a list of the students ranked according to test scores.  The thought process was that this would drive competition amongst the students and motivate them to perform better.  Parents would also be able to see where there child ranked against others in the class.  A few weeks have past now and I recently found out that after a great deal of pushback from the teachers, the principal modified the request to where the bulletin board would only contain the students ID numbers.  Is that really the extent that schools have gone to get students to perform well on tests?
This made me think, wasn't there just a heated debate about whether or not youth sports should keep score and the impact of winning and losing had on children? Critics of competitive youth sports believe that they were becomming far too competitive and putting too much pressure on children to win as opposed to just "do their best and have fun."  However many of those same critics support the current educational reforms which are clearly competition based.  So are we trying to teach students that competition is good or that it's bad?

Educational reforms today are framed in a manner that competition will solve our problems and author Kevin Kumashiro points to programs such as Race to the Top and school-choice programs that presume schools will improve when schools, teacher preparation programs, educational services, and even teachers compete.  So how do we explain that competition against other schools is acceptable when it comes to test scores but not acceptable when it comes to a football or basketball game? Isn't the pressure of performing well on tests or risk losing your teacher and perhaps your school much more pressure than losing a ball game?  Although I don't agree with the standards-focused framework of the recent educational reforms, if those reforms are promoting the importance of competition in the classroom, then this certainly should be echoed throughout other activities including sports.  After all, the real world is a compeititive market place and the minute they apply for their first job outside of school they will realize how important it is to be better than somebody else and stand out from the crowd. 

Too Much Political Knowledge

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/188933/october-22-2008/too-much-political-knowledge?xrs=share_copy

Here is a pretty funny bit Stephen Colbert did after he heard how well his viewers scored on a PEW Research Poll that measured Political Knowledge.

What does a Terrorist Look Like?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-16/news/chi-man-charged-with-trying-to-blow-up-downtown-bar-with-car-bomb-20120915_1_fbi-agents-jihad-bomb

http://www.suntimes.com/15623651-418/alleged-terrorists-family-says-theres-more-to-story.html

The above articles contain two separate terrorist plots with local ties that were recently uncovered thanks to the work of law enforcement and a civilian tip that potentially saved the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians.  The two individuals, Gregory Weiller II and Adel Daoud, come from completely different backgrounds, had different reasons for carrying out their crimes, but both were part of extremist religious groups.  The interesting thing about the articles are the way in which the plots were discovered.  In the first article, the Islamic teenager was arrested after plotting an attack for months with informants whom he actually thought were other extremists and the other was a Christian extremist who was discovered after authorities were notified by a worker at a motel who came across some suspicious items.  How was one terrorist's activities able to be monitored by authorities and the other was discovered merely by luck?  Public Intellectual's like Deepan Kumar would say because of the fact that the individual was outspoken about Islam he was already considered a suspect and was being monitored by authorities for fear of violence.  But given the outcome of the investigation, was this a bad thing?  It could be a bad thing if our nation is focusing too much of its attention on a certain group(s) rather than being aware of all threats.

In her book Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire Deepan Kumar summarizes the US approach to obtaining intelligence and averting future terrorist attacks as "preemptive prosecution" and states that it focuses mainly on "islamic terrorists" especially after 9/11. Kumar refers to the tactics used as entrapment, where individuals are enticed to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. In my opinion, the "entrapment" argument is a weak one because these individuals are not being forced to do something they don't want to do, and are we supposed to think that if the informants were actually extremists plotting a terror attack, that the individual would not have made the same choice? The fact that these individuals would actually carry out such violent crimes whether influenced or not justifies the fact that they should not be on the streets.  While I think the entrapment arguement is a weak one, I can't disagree with the notion that the US has focused their attention and stereotyped certain groups with who they have constructed as terrorists.

The truth of the matter is that terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and we need to be aware that in this day and age, any individual with access to the right information or weapons can pose a terrorist threat.  Unfortunately there isn't a blood test that can be issued to determine whether someone will commit a terrorist act so those agencies responsible for our security must utilize all resources possible including surveillance and undercover operations.  While I do condone taking appropriate efforts to stop violent attacks and ensure our nation's safety, those efforts should not be isolated to only individual groups that our leaders tell us are the enemy.  Below is a picture authorities collected of Gregory Weiller II from his computer following his arrest for planning to firebomb 48 churches in Oklahoma, this is certainly not an image of an individual we would suspect of being a terrorist. Sadly though we wouldn't say the same thing if this image contained an individual with darker skin, a beard, and a turbin.

Americans and Access to the Internet

Critics of the internet as a benefit to democracy are quick to point out this whole notion around accessability.  It's the basic argument that this is a benefit for the rich and creates a disadvantage for the poor. In my opinion, this is a very simple and weak argument and the articles we reviewed this week failed to support this argument with any relevant facts or statistics.  Of course not everyone in this country can afford to have a computer in their home but this certainly doesn't mean they don't have access to the internet through other means (work, public libraries, smart phones, etc) if they truly had a need or want to access the internet.  I would argue that the problem is not the access to the internet but rather the lack of motivation to use it for educational purposes.  And I put a great deal of blame on the structure of mainstream media for this lack of motivation.

According to data provided by Nielson Online, in 2011 approximately 273.1 million (almost 78.6%) of the population used the internet and that number is on the rise. That remaining population who didn't use it aren't necessarily those that cannot afford it.  There is a whole population of senior citizens who avoid technology all together so for them not accessing the internet is a choice rather than a disadvantage.  Additionally just because someone has access to the internet doesn't mean they use it for eduactional purposes or to participate in political discussions.  Using the internet as a first resort for information is not the norm, typically an individual sees or hears something that sparks their interest and leads them to the internet for more information.  I believe that it's the responsibility of mainstream outlets such as newspapers and television to spark viewers' interest by providing enough information from both sides to entice that viewer to want to learn more.  Instead media today  with its fragmented, biased reporting, fails to create interest in politics let alone motivate individuals to go out and obtain more information on their own.  This is the reason why more and more people aren't participating in the public sphere the internet has created, not because they can't afford the internet at home.

So it's very easy to use the accessability theory and the rich vs. the poor as a scapegoat for why people don't participate in political discussions on the internet but the truth of the matter is that even those who have access aren't motivated to use it to engage in political discussions.  There was an article last week in the Sun Times about Chicago's plan to increase internet access in low income neighborhoods and provide additional sources of public places with internet access. If implemented, it will be interesting whether or not we see an increased participation in the public sphere and polical activity.  Unless we change the structure of mainstream media, I doubt that more access to the internet will result in more engaged citizen.  If that's the case, it will be interesting to see what these same critics will have to say.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15350928-418/emanuel-aims-to-bring-internet-access-to-chicago-parks-underserved-neighborhoods.html