2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
E-mail 
E-mail 
E-mail Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > November > 13 > Entry
Alarms ringing: Will Obama back-burner education?
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof today picked up on some nervous buzz out there that education is going on the back burner for the upcoming Obama administration. This is in light of education coming in fifth on a list of Obama priorities.
Panic may be a little premature, but I am on board with the general sentiment of Kristof’s column — that the U.S. must take steps to improve its low performing mostly urban schools if it wants to improve the nation’s economic future fortunes.
I don’t agree that Kristof’s favored policy approaches — killing teacher certification and eliminating tenure — would do much to help. But I agree with him that education must be a key component to whatever comprehensive national reform Obama may be planning.
Finally, I have a personal pet peeve to nit-pick in the column.
Kristof does a good job running through the history of education in the U.S. and demonstrating that widespread free, quality schooling for a large chunk of the population helped give this nation a competitive advantage in the world economically over the last 150 years or so.
But I stumbled on this sentence:
“Then in the 1970s, the United States education system began to stagnate, with high-school graduation rates stuck at about three-quarters of all students. Probably as a result, income inequality increased again.”
First of all, what happened in education here in the 1970s? An earthquake hit called “integration.” Suddenly thousands of students who had been intentionally underserved were integrated into the wider national school system and counted in statistics like graduate rate.
It bugs me when I hear people suggest that scores dropped starting in the 1960s or 1970s because educators somehow just got lazy or education just “stagnated.” The 60s and 70s were, in fact, a time of vibrant experimentation in education. But educators absolutely struggled with the huge challenges of school integration and the concurrent social effects of the associated turmoil.
Second, I don’t think there is any way you can pin the income inequality we’ve seen since the 70s on education alone. There are many, many factors driving income inequality and a good bit of the problem, in my view, is rooted in national economic and tax policies.
Other than that, I’m on board with Kristof. Education should not be brushed aside by the new administration.
Permalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment | Categories: Schools and Politics
Comments
By null and void
November 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Seems like many of the problems we see today began when economics in America came to the point where it took two incomes to fund a household.
By N. Niranjan
November 25, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this
Colin Powell is a liar that started the Iraq war. Had he the integrity to resign as the Secretary of State, this country would not be spending $10 Billion a month. Now, he is going to become the secretary of education? What an example to set for our students. No wonder this nation is becoming a nation of idiots!
By dadofaspie
November 17, 2008 10:06 PM | Link to this
Scott, For once i agree with you. Scores dropped in the 60’s and 70’s with integration. Our country did a great injustice by not educating a significant part of the population. (Before that time, the disabled, if educated at all, were often taught by motivated individuals in church basements.) I would also like to see education made a priority. It isn’t a constitutional right; on the other hand, since we provided public education to some, it has to be made available to all (equal protection clause under the 14th amendment.) Some blame educators and others blame “poor parenting;” I doubt that argument will ever get resolved. There needs to be some attempt to equalize opportunities for education; the quality of schools and educators varies greatly across the state. Schools need to be more welcoming and work with parents, there are many of us that want to help but are shut out.
By Rick
November 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Independent, Mary, I agree with you. There is a huge social problem out there and liberals want to spend more money to solve a problem that the mostly are unable to. Independent, I need to make one correction. The Federal Constitution does not authorize the Federal government from getting into education. The Ohio State Constitution requires a free public education. Scott, there are many reasons education faltered. Read A Nation At Risk. You mention the 60s and 70s were a “vibrant experimentation in education.” Aye, Matie, there is the problem. Most of these experiments were more fun for teachers but were flops. Look at the whole word method of teaching reading; it is vastly inferior to phonetics but the education blob kept pushing it for decades.
By Oldprof
November 15, 2008 7:32 AM | Link to this
Scott, what history books are you and Kristof misreading? Integration was in the 1950s. Busing to achieve racial integration was mid-70s, after schools had started to decline. The proximate reason for the decline was that our state and local leaders decided that education funding could be slashed; they decided to buy cheap education, and cheap is what they got. As far as Obama is concerned, unless/until the USA does like those nations ahead of us in education—e.g., nationalize it—then the feds will have little effect. On the plus side they’ll collect and disburse good data; on the other hand, they’ll bias the debate a bit and impose more unfunded mandates. Which is OK with me; I don’t agree with Obama’s views on education anyway.
By Eve
November 14, 2008 10:53 PM | Link to this
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t believe the US constitution guarantees a free public education to everyone.
By Mary
November 14, 2008 6:44 PM | Link to this
IndependentOne, if you know where and when the free public education was put in the Constitution, I am open to a history lesson (I am being serious,not sarcastic). However, as I understand it, most responsibilities for education fall to the states. I can think of some federal tax code issues that affect education that I think the new administration and the Congress should be involved in.
By IndependentOne
November 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Mary, the constitution and a plethora of laws and regulations provide for a free public education. I don’t know about the nanny state, but I do know a ton of these kids need a PARENT who is capable of raising them. You are correct about the entitlements - parents fairly mob schools expecting them to do something for their child. Squeaky wheels get the attention. I am talking about kids whose parents wouldn’t be in there looking for something for the kid, they just don’t even notice it! We don’t see this parent in the school. They don’t ask for gifted education services, etc. These kids need an education to survive and maybe compete…but where they are starting from is not working.
By Mary
November 13, 2008 6:53 PM | Link to this
While education is important, it is appropriate for the administration to set priorities and schools should set priorities, too. The federal government has many more constitutional responsibilities, and I do not think education is one of them. IndependentOne, schools are also to blame by helping give parents and students a sense of a boatload of entitlements and a sense of the nanny state. Why should we wait for the administration to fix education problems? Where are all the other state and local political leaders? States should get their act together and also set priorities. One of the reasons we supposedly expanded schools under previous administrations was to keep young people out of the labor force. I have read other interesting takes on the history of education and why schools went downhill in the 60s?, and it wasn’t just integration.
By IndependentOne
November 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
There is such confusion over what is an education related problem and what is a social issue! Time and time again we try to fix the teachers, the buildings, the curriculum, ad nauseum. The problem is that whole portions of our society have no idea HOW to parent. Many kids start life as the child of a one parent situation, and the kid takes second place to the parent’s needs to socialize. As a result, no one reads to the child, nurtures its curiosity, teaches colors, numbers, alphabet, or pays much attention at all. The child could end up with brothers and sisters who STILL don’t have a two parent family and aren’t getting what they need to develop as a human being. Five years later they show up at school, never having been read to, not knowing red from green, and are two years behind their peers. Without a lot of personal attention to make up for what the parent(s) didn’t provide, this child will not ever flourish. He/she will be years behind, and fall further behind as the pace of learning picks up. Is this an education problem? I guess it is once the child gets to school. But the problem was created some time back. Obama has stressed the need for early childhood education and that is an absolute must to start addressing this problem. The part that still is not addressed is where do you get an adequate parent from for this kid? Where do you find a mom who will read to them and put their needs before all other things? Where do you find a dad who will play with this child, teach it things, and care about its needs? Who will work with this child to get its homework done? People, we have a huge social problem that needs correction. Handouts are not the answer but a hand up may be. Most of the parents of these kids didn’t get parented, either. The dividing line between have and have not may be more about this than about money. If you are deprived of good parenting from birth, how can you flourish as an adult? There is no bandaid for this that has to do with certifying teachers.