Clinton and Education: Policies without Meaning
Svi Shapiro
In this
article, Shapiro points out the inequalities in the type of education the “poor,
minorities, and working class students receive.” While reading the section of the text, I was
reminded of our readings of Finn and Kozol from last week. He states, “the oppressiveness of schooling
is compounded by an even more stark separation of the classroom from the
culture of the streets and the neighborhood.”
Shapiro would have agreed with Kozol (and based on my understanding from
our class discussion, Finn as well) when he discussed the lack of attention to
the backgrounds of these students, lack of school materials, and the impact
that tracking has on their education and futures. Through demanding higher test scores, more
standardization of curriculum, and better grades we are ignoring the real focus
of education, which Shapiro argues is, “to develop a sense of what our lives
are about and what it means to live with others in community.”
In choosing
my article for this week I (like Madonna) read many articles and felt
overwhelmed by the information in them.
Finally, I settled on one that discussed Mitt Romney’s economic plan (or
lack-thereof) if he is elected president.
This article, The
Optimism Cure, by Paul Krugman initially appeared in the New York Times on September 23,
2012. What really stuck out to me in
this article was Romney’s statement that his plan for the economy was, “without
actually doing anything — we’ll actually get a boost in the economy." I definitely consider myself an optimistic person, but a quote like this coming from a potential president really worries me. For years we have been hearing about the state of the economy, the unemployment rate, gas prices increasing, and to hear that Romney is predicting a boost in the economy 'without actually doing anything' causes me great worry. Near the end of his article, Krugman points out, “Mr.
Romney’s whole campaign has been based on the premise that he can become
president simply by not being Barack Obama.”
I often
find myself shutting down or trying to redirect conversations when they turn to
politics. I think this is partially
because it is a sensitive topic and partially because I don’t always feel like
I know enough about the issues to discuss, especially with people who pay close
attention to things as they happen. While
the Internet has played a role in past elections, I feel that the role of
social media has noticeably increased during this one. I rarely check my Facebook page without some
hyperlink, video, or ecard posted declaring people’s political views. Without question, there is plenty of access
to information about the issues, but like many others have pointed out – I just
don’t feel like I have the time.
Christina, I feel the same way about politics. I try to listen to NPR in my car, although my new Mumford & Sons album has been the listening choice the past few days. I usually catch the network news at 6:00 and nightly news at 6:30 and every now and again I tune in to John Stewart's show which I just think is so darn funny.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog for not only the content but the honesty of it. Politics is definately one of those things that can be difficult to talk about. Some people debate it (which is good) but others take it too personally. It is really hard to know what to believe in the news anymore when some media outlets are geared towards different sides of the political spectrum. It's like there is always an agenda out there and usually it isn't to the benefit of the overall society. The Romney quote" without actually doing anything" wasn't surprising to me but still sad.
ReplyDeleteI echo Rachel comments, too. Politics are hard. I am curious about what you think of as political. Is it just as hard to talk about racism as it is to talk about the presidential election? Are these both political topics? DO you find that to be true among your colleagues, family, friends, etc as well?
ReplyDeleteChristina, you wrote "I often find myself shutting down or trying to redirect conversations when they turn to politics" and mentioned you noticed there's been an increase in social media during the latest election. Isn't it funny how the more ways we have to share information, the less clear the information gets, or the more blurry reality seems? Hypothetical question: How did you get information about politics before the social media boom and crazy cable news? TV, newspaper, radio, and that's about it. Seems like a simple time, long past, even though it wasn't too long ago.
ReplyDeleteThis idea reminds me of a movie directed by Orson Welles called The Magnificent Ambersons, set in the early 1900's. During one of the biggest scene of the movie, the exchange went like this:
"George: I said automobiles are a useless nuisance. Never amount to anything but a nuisance and they had no business to be invented.
Eugene: I'm not sure George is wrong about automobiles. With all their speed forward they may be a step backward in civilization. May be that they won't add to the beauty of the world or the life of the men's souls, I'm not sure. But automobiles have come and almost all outwards things will be different because of what they bring."
You could say the same about social media, no?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's hard to know what to believe...I try to make decisions based on evidence and data, but when they're making false claims at conventions which are televised on national tv....
ReplyDeleteRomney said in his acceptance speech, "Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before."
from factcheck.org:
"This one's true, but misleading. As Factcheck.org points out, the reason that there are more Americans in poverty than ever is because there are more Americans than ever. The poverty rate - a far fairer gauge of poverty under the president - was 15.1 percent in 2010. That's the highest since 1993, and it's nothing to be proud of. But it's 7.3 percentage points lower than the 1959 poverty rate."
THis is just an example, but this happens all the time.
GK