Obama Our Choice for President in 2008
Education has long been a Democratic issue and this year is no different. While the Republicans have barely given any thought to domestic concerns, focusing instead on national security and creating fear based on the likes of Iran in the Middle East, those who support education have but two options to consider, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. At OpenEducation we believe that our nation’s best days are still in front of us and based on that belief we unequivocally cast our support for the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton, A Credible Choice
Hillary Clinton,
has earned the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The one time staff lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund definitely has experience on her side as she led a task force to improve education in the state of Arkansas as first lady in the state while husband Bill Clinton served as Governor.
The folks at AFT cast their support citing Clinton’s “proven ability to advance our nation’s key priorities, and her bold plans for a stronger America.” We were genuinely surprised given that Clinton voted for the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 and has since pledged to “reform” the law that she has not yet offered any detailed reauthorization plan.
We do agree with two aspects of her education platform. At the pre-K level, Clinton seeks to expand programming for every four-year-old. Definitely a good initiative. And in regards to higher education, she favors a significant expansion of the college tuition tax credit from the current level of $1650 to $3500. This represents a great step for those middle class parents who are funding their children’s college education.
Barack Obama, Agent of Change
But in Barack Obama,
the U.S. senator from Illinois, we see a man with a vision. A firm critic of the No Child Left Behind law, Obama seeks to make the teaching of science a “national priority” yet also casts support for music, and the arts, two subjects taking an enormous hit under NCLB.
We greatly favor Obama’s view that it is time to address the issue of teacher pay. His plan regarding monetary incentives for the teacher shortage areas of math and science is long overdue. And his understanding that the nation needs high caliber teachers has led to his promise to recruit new teachers by paying the college costs of college graduates who promise to teach.
His strong support for early childhood education leads him to push for greater federal involvement in education at the earliest ages possible. The Senator also recognizes that an early-learning council is needed to ensure the coordination of early-childhood programs at the federal, state, and local levels.
But as we noted earlier, the real area that sets Obama apart is his desire to create 20 “innovation districts” nationwide. His concept would be to provide school districts extra federal funds based on the implementation of systemic changes aimed at boosting achievement.
At OpenEducation, we believe this innovative concept is analogous to a research and development type of approach to education. It is time that education join the world of business where research and development become a critical component of the educational landscape. The fact that Obama seeks to have home districts develop proposals in consultation with their local teachers’ unions demonstrates that he understands the importance of engaging the teacher’s union in this process.
Clinton Is Status Quo, Obama Is A Step Forward
Based on what we see, Ms. Clinton is the candidate for the status quo, one who might tweak the system yet has little to offer that would truly set a new path. Obama on the other hand, as he has campaigned, would indeed be the candidate of change, one who would seek to foster a new direction for education in America.
From the very first time we heard Obama speak, the night that he delivered his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, we have been intrigued by the man who invites comparisons to Martin Luther King. Given that education could benefit immensely from his campaign mantra, his “fierce urgency of now,” we cast our support for the person we believe should be the next president of the United States, Barack Obama.
Listen to Barack Obama as he talks about education, our kids, and the responsibility that all of us face:
8 comments
I have endorsed Obama’s presidential bid for many reasons, including a perception of his commitment to America’s liberal principles. In many aspects, for example, on health care, I disagree with Obama’s policies and reforms entirely, favoring a Medicare-for-All approach.
In public education, again Obama is closer to my ideal than many of his competitors, but still far from ideal. Like your recommendation, I believe education must remain in the “public sphere,” pedagogy must be competent, salaries scalable, and “innovation” (or “competition”) a must. Teachers must be just as accountable for their “performance” as the private market requires its employees.
Unfortunately, teachers’ unions and their monopoly of public education, coupled with recent devaluation of education by extremists, or its “use” for political agendas, spells an immense challenge for any “reform.” At this juncture, the most we can aspire is to “change course.”
My own view of education is that it should be exceptionally diverse and cognizant of different talents and different maturities within a structure that is still accountable for its performance — or lack thereof. Today, the U.S. spends more per pupil for public education than any other industrialized nation, save Switzerland, yet consistently receive significantly inferior results for our “investment.” Where is all this “money” going? After-school events? No. Athletics? No. Bureaucracy? Yep.
The D.C. school district spends about $40,000 per pupil, and still has the lowest graduation, not to mention skills, for its results. Where is all this money going? Counselors. Social consciousness. Activism. Self-esteem schemes. But definitely not “education.” And not just “academic” education, but “social” education, like the arts, music, sport, clubs, etc. Education should include the “whole person,” not just his ability to answer test questions.
Then, the question of “government” as an “interest” appears, such as NCLB, the federal department of Education, and the “education industry,” which feeds off governments’ poor achievements of compulsory education. And every justification for “feeding this trough” is not to educate American citizens of the future, but to engineer cogs in industry. Education “for its own sake” is anathema.
Today, the free-market educators oppose the union monopoly educators, and neither gets the “job” done, because they don’t understand their objectives, let alone their means. At least Obama expands the educational objectives from mere “economic cog” to “literate citizens in a a pluralistic democracy.” I’m unsure of his “means,” but they cannot be worse than at present. At least, his “openness” to alternatives is encouraging.
Because he rejects capitalist education, and is willing to challenge union monopolization, he succeeds better than most of his rivals. That said, he’s deliberately being “coy” about most of his plans in an effort to create an “elan” rather than an “agenda.” It leaves those of us who would like “substance” without much but gut feelings to appraise. Not what an educated class would do, but what our emotions suggest.
Ideally, the nation would establish an Education Accreditation Agency that provides nothing more than guidelines for pedagogical objectives — with no “carrots on a stick,” but mandates of achievement. But as many college accrediting agencies have shown, they are capable of preposterously Low Standards. So, this National Agency must be subject to Political Scrutiny. In this respect, it would be entirely regulatory about the “kind, type, and extent” public education of an “average U.S. citizen.” Civics courses would be mandatory for more than a single semester. When 2/3rds of today’s graduates cannot identify the three branches of our federal government, what justifies public education? Not all students should be expected to “achieve” equal competence, but certain minimum objectives in some disciplines, and tiered objectives in others, must be met.
In a word, we must refocus on Dewey’s educational objectives, but allow ever new means of pedagogy. Some respond to adult lectures, others to heuristics, others to inductive challenges, others to practicals. But these various methods should not dilute the minimum objectives of an “educated citizenry.”
Yes, we must encourage more curiosity in the natural sciences, our education’s total failure, but also in the imagination of literature and art, in creative endeavors of dance and sport, and of the immense wonders of calculus, complexity, biology, etc. We also need to “educate” our youth about our economic system as well as our governmental system — not preach dogmas as my generation tried, but how mixed economies function in this world, how to open a bank account, buy a house, how the workforce is structured.
Finally, we have a requirement to teach our youth a minimum of morality and ethics in a “religious-free” environment. Aristotle’s Ethics nor any modern morality requires a “god” to understand. But if our teachers our indoctrinated by their own narrow ideologies, where “preaching” substitutes for “teaching” in the classroom, don’t expect a massive respect for teachers, education, or reform.
Unfortunately, education has become a “special interest” as opposed to a “public duty,” largely created by the “education interests.” Until that special-interest focus is eliminated, no one will be satisfied — save unions and their members. At least Obama appears inclined not to feed the “milk-and-honey types” with more of their special self interest.
As for Barack Obama being against No Child Left Behind, he is publicly calling to increase funding for it. I know this is true because I saw him say it in person in New York.
If you really want a candidate who would raise teacher pay and introduce a TRULY innovative education initiative, vote for John Edwards. He wants to raise teacher by up to $15,000 a year, and has a detailed plan to provide at least a year of college for everyone, regardless of economic circumstances.
I think that hillary would be better for president. Pres Bush has left a lot to fix in this country and I don’t think that Obama is the right choice, he does not know what he is getting into. I think that once we undo what Bush did Obama would be great. He can go and make a big change is this world. But for now I don’t think he is the right choice. In the future I think he will be wonderful.
[...] concept is one Barack Obama has discussed and it his support for the concept is one of the reasons we cast our vote for him. We believe that not only is it time to throw out an antiquated system that makes no sense it is [...]
BARACK NOPE CLINTON YEP AS SOON AS HE LOST A STATE HE STARTED WITH THE COMMON BLACK CRY THEY WE ALL HEAR SINCE GOD KNOWS WHEN THEY RUN OUR MUSIC INDUSTRY THATS BAD ENOUGH AND THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT LISTEN TO THE CRAP IS YOUNG WHITE LITTLE GIRLS THAT HAVE NO TASTE AND DON’T KNOW GOOD MUSIC IF THEY HEARD IT NOPE NOT PREJUDICE JUST SPEAKING THE TRUTH THAT 90% OF THE WORLD THINK BUT DON’T SAY CAUSE IF WE SPEAK WE GET IN SHIT FOR OUR TRUE FEELINGS
Barack is going all the way
I am all the way a REPUBPLICAN and I am only 16 but if I could vote i would vote for OBAMA!! Obama all the way or McCain!!
none have stopped to think that the legislation has more power than the president…..HE wouldnt be the one who determined teacher pay anyways….An up in pay would be great but a passionate teacher seeks to see children learning whether that teacher be paid or not…..what has HE said about that???? A whole lot of nothing!!!
Leave a Comment