Friday, October 15, 2004
A Minor Oversight
Not one question. Four debates, three of which had questions concerning domestic issues, and not a single question directly related to education. I don't know, maybe I missed it. But for all of the prattling about that goes on from the candidates, and the several times that they both (and their running mates) mentioned that they looked forward to the education questions to come, not a single one ever arose. Oh, we got the question, "What have you learned most from your strong willed wife?" along with the requisite questions on Homeland Security, Roe v. Wade (which Bush never actually answered…), and Health Care. But no direct questions on education. All four of the debate participants mentioned No School Left Standing, er, No Child Left Behind in one way or another, but apparently education is not important to our esteemed moderators. Heck, Bush could barely shut up about how great No School Left Standing is -– most of what he said was false, misleading and/or bad policy, but that doesn't seem to matter -– and yet, no questions. No follow up. No discussion. Nothing.
Education is the silver bullet. It is the solution to so many of the nation's problems and yet the rhetoric that is spewed about is full of platitude and empty promises. It can solve poverty, outsourcing, crime... you name it, education can help. We have a long way to go to make education as important as it needs to be in this country. No Child Left Behind is a start. There are some very good things about that law, but by and large it is a poorly written law (its central theme being: "The problem with American education is that teachers aren't trying hard enough") and needs revision. Every study shows that early childhood education significantly increases a child's chances at long term academic success, and yet Bush and the recently-and-finally-dubbed-ethically-challenged Tom DeLay led the charge to cut funding for programs like Head Start and Americorps reading programs. Teachers are routinely touted as professionals and great Americans (usually about this time of year every 2-4 years) yet we don't treat them as such on a day-to-day basis (like the Secretary of Education referring to our union as a "terrorist organization" or the fact that I earn less today than four years ago). We need to stop punishing schools for things that are beyond their control and start giving them the resources they need to make students successful. We need to have real incentives for teachers to excel. And we need to elect people who understand all of this, who listen to professional educators (who have SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ACTUALLY TEACHING IN A CLASSROOM) and who care about the welfare of our children and the future of the country.
But how will we ever know if they don't get the question? How will Joe Average Voter know what I know about educational policy and the ripple effect that it has on our society if they don't have the opportunity to let our presidential and vice presidential candidates tell us in their own, often convoluted, way? Why must we allow a few media elite dictate the topics for which these men speak to if they are not going to represent all of our concerns? The truth is that there is too much on the line in this election to ignore the "secondary issues" that will ultimately lead our country in the future. Instead, in all of the debates, we got nothing.
Not one question. Four debates, three of which had questions concerning domestic issues, and not a single question directly related to education. I don't know, maybe I missed it. But for all of the prattling about that goes on from the candidates, and the several times that they both (and their running mates) mentioned that they looked forward to the education questions to come, not a single one ever arose. Oh, we got the question, "What have you learned most from your strong willed wife?" along with the requisite questions on Homeland Security, Roe v. Wade (which Bush never actually answered…), and Health Care. But no direct questions on education. All four of the debate participants mentioned No School Left Standing, er, No Child Left Behind in one way or another, but apparently education is not important to our esteemed moderators. Heck, Bush could barely shut up about how great No School Left Standing is -– most of what he said was false, misleading and/or bad policy, but that doesn't seem to matter -– and yet, no questions. No follow up. No discussion. Nothing.
Education is the silver bullet. It is the solution to so many of the nation's problems and yet the rhetoric that is spewed about is full of platitude and empty promises. It can solve poverty, outsourcing, crime... you name it, education can help. We have a long way to go to make education as important as it needs to be in this country. No Child Left Behind is a start. There are some very good things about that law, but by and large it is a poorly written law (its central theme being: "The problem with American education is that teachers aren't trying hard enough") and needs revision. Every study shows that early childhood education significantly increases a child's chances at long term academic success, and yet Bush and the recently-and-finally-dubbed-ethically-challenged Tom DeLay led the charge to cut funding for programs like Head Start and Americorps reading programs. Teachers are routinely touted as professionals and great Americans (usually about this time of year every 2-4 years) yet we don't treat them as such on a day-to-day basis (like the Secretary of Education referring to our union as a "terrorist organization" or the fact that I earn less today than four years ago). We need to stop punishing schools for things that are beyond their control and start giving them the resources they need to make students successful. We need to have real incentives for teachers to excel. And we need to elect people who understand all of this, who listen to professional educators (who have SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ACTUALLY TEACHING IN A CLASSROOM) and who care about the welfare of our children and the future of the country.
But how will we ever know if they don't get the question? How will Joe Average Voter know what I know about educational policy and the ripple effect that it has on our society if they don't have the opportunity to let our presidential and vice presidential candidates tell us in their own, often convoluted, way? Why must we allow a few media elite dictate the topics for which these men speak to if they are not going to represent all of our concerns? The truth is that there is too much on the line in this election to ignore the "secondary issues" that will ultimately lead our country in the future. Instead, in all of the debates, we got nothing.
