Comment on 50 Stars "America Sucks in Education"

This is a commentary I made in response to a fellow colleges editorial post "America Sucks in Education".

While keeping records would certainly assist in determining the magnitude of the educational crisis, and perhaps even point out particularly troubled areas in our nation, the numbers do nothing to ascertain what is causing students to not complete high school. Discovering that requires a less mathematical and more human approach to the problem.

Barbara Pytel, in her article “Dropouts Give Reasons” quotes The News Journal who interviewed 500 dropouts and asked what made them decide to quite school. Eight different reasons were sited, and a quick look at the percentages shows that the students often listed more than one reason for leaving. I purpose that the eight reasons can be reduced to three main causes: a lack of interest and motivation, difficulty with learning the material, and life obligations interfering with school.

Recently I had the privilege of spending some time with students from Denmark who where participating in a study abroad program with ACC. These students were the same age as juniors and seniors in high school here, but educationally they were at our college level. I was able to question some of them and learned about their amazing school system. In summary, they have an incredibly flexible system that focuses on finding the right path for each individual student. What tests they do have are more for determining the student’s strengths and tailoring their education accordingly. The first 9 years are mandatory, with the first several years focused on basic education and a set curriculum. The later years are more diverse, combining a set curriculum with electives in various career paths. If after 9 years the student has yet to figure out what direction to go in, there is an optional 10^th year, with nothing but electives. From there the students can go to a trade school, which is basically paid training, or secondary school, which is similar to community college. The students that came to ACC were in a secondary school for Humanities. Once finished they will go on to universities that focus on their particular field of studies, such as journalism, politics, music, etc.

Now, it seems to me that this type of approach would solve all three problems mentioned for dropping out. The cost would be somewhat prohibitive; Denmark citizens pay extremely high taxes to cover it; but the benefit of ensuring the US stay competitive in an increasingly well educated world market makes this venture worthwhile. Also, a complete restructuring of our system may not be necessary. Perhaps we can pick and choose which aspects would be most beneficial, and implement those. In any case, something must change, before we find ourselves a third world country.

This Little Piggy Went to Market

It was once said that if a family could see the bottom of the pork barrel, then they were in deep trouble financially. Once a common sight in household pantries, they contained salted pork that was used for flavoring dishes and as travel rations. To run out of this inexpensive item meant that a person or family was on the verge of starving.

Later this term was coined for government, namely pork barrel politics. The idea behind pork barrel politics is to take money from the government’s “barrel”, filled with “pork” garnered from taxpayers, and give it to benefit various constituents. Smacking almost of bribery, these moneys go to pet projects that are generally only useful to the constituents’ local districts. In return, the elected official who earmarked the funds gets “credit” in the form of votes or support.

Once vetoed by President James Madison as unconstitutional, pork barrel projects have become commonplace, even expected. While these pet projects are often low budget, especially when compared to overall government spending, taken in total the amount becomes a bit ridiculous. Last year there was 17.2 billion spent, and the year before that 29 billion.

Now, 17.2 billion is nothing compared to the 2.8 trillion that the government spent that same year, but it’s no chump change either. I’m sure there’s a few projects out there that could greatly benefit from that pork, and at the same time help all taxpayers. Projects like cancer research, and in particular, the dichloroacetate treatment, which shows promising results but because it can’t be patented, holds no monetary interest for pharmaceutical companies.

Either way you spin it, pork barrel spending is a ridiculous practice. The idea that our representatives use our own money to garner our votes--while a humorous joke on us--seems unethical, and gives a bad name to our representatives. Besides, with the current financial trouble our country is in, we’ve past the point of seeing the bottom of the barrel, and are now licking salt off the sides. It’s time we close the lid on pork barrel spending, and find a new way to feed ourselves.