From the Front Lines of No Child Left Behind

5 class sessions, 130 students, and 4.5 months. Those are the statistics of my personal, ongoing career in education. Teaching English at the high school level in a state with low funding and high testing standards has certainly been an eye-opener. First, allow me to say that I love the idea of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The very name of this program speaks of a desire to ensure that every child enrolled in public school leaves the school system as a functioning, literate, well-educated member of society. It is often coupled with attractive words like measurable results, accountability, and responsibility. The following is a sampling of verbiage being used by the White House to describe this program:

- "The President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) so that testing, accountability, and high standards will join with record new funding to help ensure educational excellence for every child."

Translation: Education is now driven and measured by standardized tests. Schools, you'd better measure up, or else...

- "$250 million will be used for State Assessments to ensure that high school diplomas are truly meaningful with required state assessments in high school."

Translation: If you're an idiot who can't pass a state assessment, your entire high school education is clearly in vain and a waste of your time.

- "programs that have not proven effective in improving our secondary students’ academic achievement will be consolidated."

Translation: Don't worry about all this extra spending folks. Plenty of budget cuts will follow.

- "To build on America’s education reforms, the President’s high school initiatives will increase the quality of secondary education and ensure that every student graduates from high school prepared to enter college or the workforce with the skills to succeed."

Translation: If you don't have the skills the government deems necessary for success in college or business, good luck passing high school.

-Source http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/education/

Needless to say, my time in the classroom has caused the shine to wear off this spiffy new program. In practice I see that administrators are constantly pressuring teachers to teach to test standards. Any assignment or project that does not match the stated benchmarks of the standardized tests is unworthy of the classroom. Teachers who want to teach students how to learn in addition to teaching raw facts and knowledge find that there is precious little time to cover non-essential skills like social behavior, time management, and creative thinking. Talented, able young adults who do not test well for a variety of reasons are being told that they have not earned a diploma despite meeting every other requirement and doing everything they can to graduate.

Is it just me, or does it seem wrong that the overwhelming number of students who end up as day laborers, trade workers, and others who do not require advanced writing and math skills in their careers are told that despite being productive adults they are unworthy of a real diploma. The alternative diploma which is basically a certificate of attendance is an arrogant insult.

Rather than forcing kids to pass tests on skills they may or may not use, rather than assuming that all students need to be at the same minimum level of proficiency to be diploma worthy, wouldn't it be fairer to allow kids to choose a vocational high school education for their 11th and 12th grade years? Can't we award them a vocational diploma? A piece of paper that says "This student is a competent adult with the experience, training, and skills to succeed in their chosen vocation" is certainly superior to a non-diploma that tells a potential employer "Look out for this one; (s)he couldn't even achieve the minimum score on a standardized test."

Until they reach working age, 16 years old in most places, children should be exposed to material and subject areas that they may never encounter again after they complete their schooling. The future plumber should know the wonders of biology (after all, they gotta know plumbing), and the future entertainer the majesty of astronomy (hey, gotta know a star to be one). After that age is reached, each child should be given the opportunity in consultation with their parents, teachers, counselors, and consciences to decide whether to pursue a college bound educational path or vocational path. Once we as a society accept that college isn't necessary or even useful for everyone, that life is the greatest educator, and that vocational training and careers that don't require college can be financially rewarding and personally fulfilling, the better off we'll be.

I'm a National Merit Scholar, a Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholar, a Magna cum Laude college graduate and a high school teacher. My brother is a high school graduate (barely and pre-No Child Left Behind). He cuts granite for kitchen countertops. Guess who makes more money. Yep, my brother, to the tune of $10,000 more per year than I, an illustrious college graduate, make in the field of education. Is his life less important or his work less financially stable and beneficial? He may never have been able to pass some of these exams with his learning disabilities, even with the special accommodations made for such students; does that make him less intelligent or his time in the classroom less valuable?

Frankly, I hope that schools do improve and that students do get more out of their educations. I hope each child is given all the tools he or she needs to reach his/her potential. I hope that basic skills improve and that every high school graduate has basic reading and math skills. I hope schools and educators get the funding they need and deserve to do this incredibly tough job. I hope parents and educators and legislators realize that the way to make sure No Child is Left Behind is to not leave a child behind! Don't tailor the kids to fit the goals of a test. Tailor their educational options to fit them.

Agree or disagree with me on this topic, I challenge you to thank a teacher, volunteer at a local school, be involved in the education of the children in your life, and be an advocate for children to our elected officials. Our future success as a nation does not allow the option of failure in education.

Who Owns Iraq

I read something great this morning. Today's Washington Post reports that in large parts of Iraq, attitudes are shifting against the insurgency that has killed far more Iraqis than the foreigners it claims to oppose.

What has changed? Materially, not much. Infrastructure is still lacking, foreign troops are still stationed withing Iraq's borders, and an interim non-elected government still ostensibly runs the country. Psychologically, however, it's a brave new world. This bravery is symbolized by men and women like Iraqi policeman Abdul Amir, who saw a suspicious person with a jacket approaching a polling site on election day. He single-handedly chased and tackled the suspicious man, who then immediately detonated his explosive laden vest, killing himself and Amir. Iraqis now have an Iraqi to look to as a protector and hero. Amir is joined by thousands of colleagues in the Iraqi police force who have similarly chosen to risk everything for the cause of protecting and birthing a new nation, conceived in war, but dedicated to the proposition that all men desire liberty.

All women appear to share this desire as well. It was not Iraq's men but her women that led the way to the polling sites. Often bringing their entire families along with them, they were on the front lines of the election effort and made the day truly historic.

Popular legend has it the Colin Powell told President Bush that if he invaded Iraq the "Pottery Barn Rule" would come into force. Namely, "You break it, you own it." For a time, it appeared to be a truism as the U.S. declared victory and then was forced to undeclare it and to prepare American citizens for further sacrifices in lives and treasure. Sovereignty was transferred from Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi Interim government. This transfer was more symbolic than substantive. Despite this shortcoming, Prime Minister Allawi's government scored its most important victory the day it held Iraq's first free elections in decades, the day it earned through blood and hard work the right to transfer its sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

Ask an ordinary Iraqi citizen who owns Iraq and you'll likely hear an answer with a ring of faithful familiarity: "We the people" do.

Social Security?

How many of us 20-somethings are counting on Social Security to give us any type of financial security in our retirement? Up until Wednesday's State of the Union speech it seemed dubious that any politicians would actually stick their necks out in order to fundamentally alter the program so that it becomes sustainable. While President Bush is eager to spend his political capital on selling this reform (he no longer needs to concern himself with re-election), it looks like there still aren't any (or at least not many) in the Congress who are willing to take a big political risk for the long-term good of the country.

Republicans and Democrats alike are running scared from this "third rail of American politics." Why? Easy, who votes? Senior citizens do. What group has high-powered, well-paid lobbyists constantly bombarding Capitol Hill with their message? Seniors.

Ever heard of the AARP?

According to their website www.aarp.com, AARP (formerly The American Association of Retired Persons) boasts over 35 million members in all 50 states and over 40,000 members who live overseas. This mega-block of voting power has a $600 million annual budget, a 160,000 strong army of volunteers, a National Legislative council, and a Public Policy Institute that coordinate issue advocacy at local, state, national, and even international levels.

Senior citizens are understandably concerned about potential benefit cuts, and to their credit, the AARP's CEO William Novelli has made public statements declaring that "Social Security needs to be strengthened for our children and grandchildren." Nobody is arguing that seniors are out to short-change future generations.

Unfortunately, the group shows a true reluctance to fundamentally altering the current system. In an article titled "Don't Mess With Success," AARP's Merrill Goozner calls Social Security the "most successful government program in the nation's history." She goes on to argue that no crisis is imminent and that moderate changes will largely take care of Social Security's long-term solvency.

Let's leave Social Security alone for everyone who is old enough to be counting on it. Fine. If you are in your 50s or older, you took part in a society that made a contract with you that included the safety net of social security. You deserve not only our respect and gratitude but our support in your retirement. I will gladly continue investing all of my FICA tax into the system's current beneficiaries simply because it is the right thing to do.

For the rest of us, let's not hold our breath and hope that somehow this safety net will be there for us without either drastic cuts or higher taxes. The math just doesn't work.

Maybe that's not such a bad thing though. Just because Social Security may have been the nation's "most successful government program" doesn't mean that it will continue to be the best thing for our country.

Hasn't anyone wondered why with all of our relative prosperity the national savings rate is at an all-time low, as in as low as levels during the Great Depression? Is an average savings rate of 0.8% of disposable income (Business Week, January 17 '05) enough to sustain most families in retirement, especially in light of the piles of consumer debt, increasing lifespans and inflation?

The country has been lulled into a completely false sense of security as far as retirement goes. Our grandparents are doing ok, so we assume we will too. If Generations X,Y, and Z really believe that we will most likely not have the same kind of livable safety net that today's seniors have, then what on earth are we thinking? Our grandparents as a group didn't pile up billions of dollars of consumer debt and forego saving up for the future and they were pretty sure that social security would give them a decent degree of assistance in retirement. Why are we piling up credit card and automobile debts that have zero value as assets and that will pose a serious drain on future earnings? Acceptance is the first step in overcoming blatant consumerism. Once we accept the fact that WE are responsible to save for our retirement and for the well-being of our children and grandchildren, we will all be a lot better off.

Frankly, I'd rather vote someone into Congress who has the courage to tell me that my retirement entitlement is something I'm neither truly entitled to nor should I expect it to provide enough income to sustain a particularly comfortable lifestyle in my old age, than someone who is willing to plunge the nation into bankruptcy and saddle the entire economy with a tax burden far too heavy for it to perform at or near peak efficiency.

Congress, you want social security? You want the society to be secure? Then stop throwing pork and special favors down from on high, and come up with a balanced, growth-oriented budget that accounts for the inherent insecurity of the world and sets aside surplus funds in the event that we should suffer another national hardship with long-term economic disruptions.

That would make me feel secure. Heck, it would even make me feel more secure about the future of my two small children who will someday live in a country that has either squandered their inheritance through a complete lack of fiscal discipline, or that has pulled the reins on runaway spending, prioritized and balanced a budget, and set aside funds to sustain America through future crises.

Can it happen? Can people look out not for just "their own interests, but also to the interests of others"? As a student of recent history, I'm doubtful. As a husband, father, patriot, and optimist; I can't help but believe that our better nature will ultimately win and that we'll put our children first.

YBlog is born!

Welcome to YBlog, a voice for a member of GenerationY who doesn't want to be nailed down to stereotypes, party lines, or spin room facts.

This is mainly a political blog so if you don't enjoy or care about politics, it probably isn't the place for you.

From time to time, there will also be educational topics discussed because I am a 25 year old high school English teacher and many of you in my generation are still on the other side of the desk and in college. I've gained a unique perspective and have also gained some strong opinions about educational policy.

I've been a member of both political parties and, to be honest, I'm not in love with either one. The Democrats don't understand my moral values and the Republicans don't seem to understand my social values so I find myself constantly torn.

Do you ever find yourself having the same struggle? I'm sure there are others out there who want to have good moral values and policies that encourage wholesome families, but still care about the less fortunate and want programs to assist them as well.

While political speech becomes more strident and partisan, this blog is here to be a voice of moderation, respect, and optimism. We'll cover news stories, tell you our take on them, and give you the chance to weigh in.

Here's to Generation Y! Here's to the great men and women who came before us and gave us a legacy of freedom! Here's to those who will come after us, for whom we seek to continue and build upon this legacy!

God bless you all!