Responce to Obama's Education Agenda

I thought that I would add an addition post about education in response to learning the agenda behind Obama's Education Plan, because It stirred up a lot for me.... So here it goes.

Obama's education plan is based around three major 'policy vehicles', as Sarah our classes GTF would say. These being 1- Race to the Top Fund, 2- investing in Innovation Fund, 3- re-authorization of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act). Narrowing down what exactly this means, Obama is focusing specifically on enhancing college & career readiness, common core standards, increasing charter schools, effective teachers &leaders, longitudinal data systems, and increasing STEM skills. To me some of the most important of these are having common core standards initiatives that will define the level of skills and knowledge students should be at through there K-12 schooling no matter what school they are attending, and going along with this would be having longitudinal data systems. These would provide a data base where each student's progress throughout their K-12 school careers could be traced so that when a student transitions into a new school or with a new teacher, there will be no repetition of what they already learned or the techniques of teaching that were already tried and didn't work.

Of just as much importance to me are the increasing of Charter schools and increasing of STEM skills in the Obama education plan, yet highly controversial even within myself at times. Charter schools to me really outline what America is all about, freedom. We should have a right to chose where our children get educated and the way in which they do it. There is no questioning whether or not parents want their children to receive to highest, most qualitative education they possibly can to help them be prepared and succeed in their future careers. Yet usually this means that it would come in the form of private schooling, which most are very pricey indeed. Charter schools give an alternative to either pricey private schools, or often inadequate overpopulated public schools. This alternative can come in many different forms, and this is where I think the controversy behind these schools is founded. For example there can be charter schools that extend their hours of a school day and work load, and there can be those that meet less or focus on hands on field work instead of in class work. The line to be drawn between a public, private, or charter school are often misunderstood by many. A charter school is in fact a public school in that it does not charge a pricey fee to attend the school, yet often there is an application process maybe with an interview or viewing of one grades that students go through to get into the school. I personally found that there way a lack of charter schools in Hawaii (well at least on Maui where I am familiar with the education provided) and the only real options where private schools you pay a lot of money for or public schools that were often just categorized as, well a joke. An alternative school I attended for two years in middle school called Hui Malama Learning Center was a small private non-profit school. When I attended I only went to classes from 8am -12pm on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays and attended a special class on Tuesdays that focused on career building and real life skills. In general Hui Malama Learning Center charges a lot less than most private schools yet offers this alternative to middle and high school, as well as GED preparation programs, and tutoring. They focus on hands on project based learning, small classes, sustainability themes, youth engagement strategies, and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) skills. Hui Malama Learning Center could very well be a charter school if they had a set agreement with the government to be one. The reasons why they are not are unknown to me, but my guess it that they offer services that a school would normally not, but a learning service could. I wonder though that if this school program was a charter school if it would have more student attendees.

The fact that Hui Malama's emphasis on STEM skills is clearly outlined in their program, brings me to the next controversial matter in Obama's education plan. STEM skills are stated to be lacking in America, and flourishing in other countries especially Europe and Asia. It seems to me though that this lack of STEM skills has no more need emphasis than any other part of our curriculum, all areas of public education seem to be lacking in America. This need to emphasize STEM skills is purely driven by history changing what is known to be important to know in the work force after ones educational career is over. What is now known as working class to low class jobs such as carpentry, auto shop, art classes and others used to be basis necessity skills to learn in school because there was a great chance you would end up working those same jobs. Today those classes are purely emphasized as extra curricular activities and instead the emphasis is on the STEM classes where one would be directed to become a doctor, scientist, engineer, and other higher paying, higher education needing careers. All K-12 students can not afford to go to undergraduate and then graduate schooling, and some may find a passion in wood working or art that they want to pursue a career in. I find that while there is definitely a need for STEM skills to be taught to all students, it should be done in a way that does not take away from the humanities courses at the same time. History in America is taught usually from a very narrow viewed perspective of a white male, and then only what they think should be taught with emphasis on the glorifying moments in American history and not on the down falls. If this is how history has been and is still being taught, then what will happen with a higher emphasis on STEM courses bringing a lack in the humanities courses? Will history not matter anymore? Will creative outlets for students in schools not be offered?

I think it is important for me to state why exactly these questions were brought to my attention, and then maybe they will be worth pondering yourself.
[As a side note- credit goes to our GTF Sarah for the statistics about to be listed]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest in the world, has a $33,300,000,000 endowment. Of this money they spend around $2000 million per year on the American education system. In addition to the moneys being given, the Education Secretary Arne Duncan's chief to staff and deputy secretary both used to be Gates education program directors. With all this money being given and inside heads with past Gates experience, there is no doubt that the Gates Foundation have some say in what is happening with the education system itself. So I ask you this, what kinds of jobs does the Gate Foundation offer? Yes a wide range of jobs, but is there no doubt that those with these STEM skills would not flourish within this foundation with all the research being done, statistics being gathered, new buildings being designed and such? So who's then, best interest in really in mind here? Just to note once again that I do personally agree that an emphasis on STEM skills is needed in our education nationally, however I do also believe that their is an extent to which the education system can push a student to study in a certain area. All students will not flourish with the same types of education, some will become politicians driven by the history of American politics, others will make more than doctors utilizing their acting skills and passion for the arts, yet of course their will be those that do become scientists, researchers, mathematicians, doctors, and engineers that got to where they will be in the future because of this emphasis on STEM skills being taught in our schools.