The debate over the historical meaning of the second amendment is one that has been raging since the 1960's. It is the job of many skilled historians to discern the sometimes unclear meaning of the words in our constitution. If there is ever a consensus among that group, it is of even further importance to decide if the constitution should be taken at face value in its historical context, or if it should be adapted for an evolving, modern society. Proponents of second amendment rights often interpret the meaning as applying to an individual's right to bear arms for the purpose of protection. This interpretation has been upheld by Justice Scalia who is quite well known for ruling in favor of the historical context of the constitution. Justice Scalia is not in favor of reinterpreting the constitution to uncover how it might apply to a modern society. Proponents of gun-control find the second amendment to be concerned with the society in which our country was founded over 200 years ago, mainly the idea that this amendment refers to the right of the people to form militias for the common defense, which was a reasonable assertion during the revolutionary era in our country's history. Many others believe that regardless of the historical context of the second amendment, our current government should be concerned with the forward progress of our society and the protection of the citizens of our country.
Whichever side of the argument you happen to be on, one thing is clear, the policies that are currently in effect in our country are not sufficient in protecting the public from those that mean to do harm with firearms. Two-thirds of homicides in our country are committed with firearms. One might argue that without firearms, criminals would find another way to attack, but the problem with this argument is that others modes of violence are less effective. It is fairly easy to shoot someone from a long distance with a firearm and inflict a large amount of damage. It is much more difficult to inflict that same amount of damage with a different weapon at a similar distance. Only thirty-three percent of homicides are carried out sans firearm. This provides for an interesting correlation. One might deduce that not only are crimes with firearms increasing, but they are also becoming more deadly as guns, in and of themselves, become more efficient.
Our historical predecessors certainly could not have known that in 2014 criminals would have access to semi-automatic weapons and sniper rifles. Society has changed. Hunting and farming on a personal level is no longer our primary means of obtaining food, and our democratic government has progressed to a point where forming a militia for common defense is infeasible. Military intelligence is past the point of fearing public retribution. Those who follow Justice Scalia's views on the second amendment have one valid point: a gun can protect your family against those who wish to do harm against you. This is a true fact. However, households which maintain firearms are three times more likely to harm an innocent family member than an intruder. Both statistics and psychology dictate that having a firearm in your home decreases overall safety.
There is also an ever-escalating dilemma when it comes to gun-control. Gun laws cannot have a long-lasting positive effect if they are not imposed on a national level. Statistical analysis has shown time and again that whenever a state or city within the continental United States issues a strict gun control law, there in an immediate reduction in both firearm-related and general crime which gradually increases as guns are smuggled back into the area from nearby states/cities which do not have similar laws. This creates an imbalance in the "system" whereby criminals are able to obtain firearms and law-abiding citizens are not. This scenario further enables the idea that citizens need guns for protection. If you combine this with the fact that the process of purchasing a gun is very loosely regulated in our capitalist economy, it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the absence of increasingly unfavorable federal mandates, nationwide reduction in gun violence is not possible.
At this point in my argument, the debate on this issue comes down to philosophy. Is it EVER okay to intentionally hurt another human being? Many would say that, yes, it is okay to do so in order to protect yourself or your family. Their intentions seem justified to most, and I have often found myself pondering my own ability to refrain from this reaction. But, as painful as the idea is to me, and as much as I would like to always be able to prevent harm against myself or my family, I simply cannot condone the use of violence in any circumstance. Yes, I could thwart a criminal with a gun. I'm actually quite skilled with most weapons. But the deepest part of my soul tells me that hurting another human being, for any reason, is just wrong. My dear husband has the complete opposite view from me, so I take solace in knowing that my children will grow up with the ability to make their own decisions on the subject, but I cannot place justifications along the way whenever it would be beneficial to me. I have suffered from misdeeds in the past, and I am sure to encounter more along the way. I plan to cry and be fearful at the injustice in the world. Throughout it all, the one attribute I hope to never lose is my ability to understand and forgive others. I pray that terrible violence never happens against my family, and if it does, I pray that I will maintain my love for humanity and seek to forgive those that do harm.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Friday, May 2, 2014
Government Education Reform: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Ah, the government regulation of our education system: the sharp, penetrating thorn in my side. To be clear, I am not opposed to the conceptual idea of federally regulated education. It is important to have a standard by which we and our children may compare our progress through primary and secondary schooling. Whether or not our government is capable of producing this system is a debate for another time. My argument is against current government initiatives that have taken this conceptual masterpiece and transformed it into cataclysmic motel art. Since the most recent implementation in public education is the Common Core program, that is where I will focus my argument.
In order to discuss the good and bad ideas in Common Core, we must first address its most fundamental goal. The central idea in Common Core is to provide a building-block pathway in English, Literacy, and Mathematics throughout a student's primary education process that will lead them to be successful in their secondary education endeavors. National participation is not mandated, however, it would ensure consistency among those who relocate to new schools. This is a great idea. I've been that student who relocated to a new school and had no idea what was being taught because I had been learning something else entirely. But as with every great idea, one must be able to test, analyze, correct, retest, reanalyze, (lather, rinse, repeat) and implement. These steps rarely happen, and here is why: we are a country of very impatient people seeking immediate results from a complicated system.
It's easy to get swept away in the tide of angry, frustrated, sometimes desperate parents who seek answers for our ever-failing education system. Our government representatives hear those desperate pleas, and in order to both assuage the concerns of their constituents and remain in their elected positions, they swiftly climb the executive ladder and achieve what we want: Common Core. There is no time to slowly implement these standards into the system over a carefully monitored, flexible period of time. What is written must be in stone lest our frustrated parents lash out when scores do not increase dramatically within one school term. Cranking out education reform like a sausage link inevitably leads to shortcomings in the system.
As I stated before, the goal of preparing college-bound students is a worthy one. Common core, if started in kindergarten and followed through, is a great program. It teaches a few core principals and then builds upon those each year, enforcing a deeper understanding of the material. This is great for students who plan to attend college. College. College-bound. We hear those words a lot in Common Core. I believe that the states who stick with this program, provided it isn't replaced by another one next year, (remember the frustrated parents?) will eventually achieve success. Eventually. The very young students who aren't starting out below the Common Core standard will likely be more prepared and successful in college. All children will definitely be going to college, right?
Here is where I become critical of this program and others before it. All children are not the same. Many will follow this path to college. They will achieve great success. Others will be excited to do the same, but will not have the funding to attend a University. Tuition prices aren't exactly dropping, so I imagine by the time our successful Common Core graduates send in their application packets, it will be quite difficult to afford. Instead, they will attend a technical college or learn a trade. Our remaining graduates will find jobs that do not require degrees. Some of them will still climb the ladder to success. Many of them will not. So, our end result is not much different than it has been historically. We have provided an opportunity for a superior education, provided the student comes from a privileged, English-speaking family and is of greater than or equal to average intelligence. We haven't raised the number of available scholarships. We haven't lowered tuition. We have in fact done nothing to brighten our children's futures. There is little purpose in creating a program with the core value of preparing for college when the only students who stand to benefit are those who would have done moderately well to begin with. Other countries have instituted programs that cater to persons from varying environments. For example, in Finland you may attend a variety of free post-secondary education schools which provide a meal plan, daycare, and transportation at no cost to the student. Finland currently leads the globe in education, whereas the United States ranks in the bottom one-third of developed countries.
There is no acceptable reason for our country to rank so poorly. I realize there is a national budget and money must be appropriated to other departments, but what our government fails to realize is that by not allocating enough funds toward education, those students who might otherwise go on to universities and learn a valuable skill that could influence our country in a positive way are instead working minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay their bills. If there was a promise of free secondary education with the amenities previously mentioned in Finland, more lower and middle class students would be motivated to work hard and make something more out of their lives, which would in turn decrease crime-related and welfare costs. We need a nation full of more highly educated, hard-working citizens now more than ever. Climate change, energy deficits and resource abundance problems are not going to fix themselves.
We have yet to even scratch the surface on budget cuts to education programs, low standards in teacher qualifications, low pay for educators, rising costs of tuition, incorporating programs for non-English-speaking students, non-traditional family backgrounds, the rise in mentally disabled children in our education system, standardized testing... I could go on, but my point is this: There is no current, workable, government-regulated program that can take the time to address all the flaws in our education system.
If our children follow through with this program without addressing the bigger problems within the public education system, we are doing a disservice to our country. Instead of implementing a program that provides little future benefit to lower and middle class families, increase the budget for public education; provide schools with ample resources and materials; pay teachers better and be more picky about their qualifications; hire more teachers so that children have more time to ask questions and get help; feed students healthier foods that sustain their bodies throughout the day; provide an environment and system that encourages a desire for educational growth and promises that each child has the opportunity to choose the best path for themselves. Over time if we are patient and dedicated enough, we will produce this amazing system. Citizens are more powerful than they know. Write and call your senators. Send emails to the schools. Attend school board meetings. Make your voice heard, and when the time comes, get out and VOTE YES on the proposed resolutions. No change will ever come if we fail to participate in this very important civil duty. Until that time comes, I would encourage you to take the time to search for a school that fits the needs and learning style of your children. Take an active role in their education. Don't be afraid to ask questions and make suggestions. If you are looking for a suggestion, I'm a huge advocate of the Montessori approach.
I believe that children actively seek out knowledge when provided with the time and resources, and nurturing their curiosity with gentle direction leads to more independence and confidence in their skills. When they are able to touch, manipulate, hear, see, and smell their education, it will naturally lead them to success. There are so many more things I could say, but I'll leave you with this: Success isn't a score; it is a unique quality inside each one of us.
In order to discuss the good and bad ideas in Common Core, we must first address its most fundamental goal. The central idea in Common Core is to provide a building-block pathway in English, Literacy, and Mathematics throughout a student's primary education process that will lead them to be successful in their secondary education endeavors. National participation is not mandated, however, it would ensure consistency among those who relocate to new schools. This is a great idea. I've been that student who relocated to a new school and had no idea what was being taught because I had been learning something else entirely. But as with every great idea, one must be able to test, analyze, correct, retest, reanalyze, (lather, rinse, repeat) and implement. These steps rarely happen, and here is why: we are a country of very impatient people seeking immediate results from a complicated system.
It's easy to get swept away in the tide of angry, frustrated, sometimes desperate parents who seek answers for our ever-failing education system. Our government representatives hear those desperate pleas, and in order to both assuage the concerns of their constituents and remain in their elected positions, they swiftly climb the executive ladder and achieve what we want: Common Core. There is no time to slowly implement these standards into the system over a carefully monitored, flexible period of time. What is written must be in stone lest our frustrated parents lash out when scores do not increase dramatically within one school term. Cranking out education reform like a sausage link inevitably leads to shortcomings in the system.
As I stated before, the goal of preparing college-bound students is a worthy one. Common core, if started in kindergarten and followed through, is a great program. It teaches a few core principals and then builds upon those each year, enforcing a deeper understanding of the material. This is great for students who plan to attend college. College. College-bound. We hear those words a lot in Common Core. I believe that the states who stick with this program, provided it isn't replaced by another one next year, (remember the frustrated parents?) will eventually achieve success. Eventually. The very young students who aren't starting out below the Common Core standard will likely be more prepared and successful in college. All children will definitely be going to college, right?
Here is where I become critical of this program and others before it. All children are not the same. Many will follow this path to college. They will achieve great success. Others will be excited to do the same, but will not have the funding to attend a University. Tuition prices aren't exactly dropping, so I imagine by the time our successful Common Core graduates send in their application packets, it will be quite difficult to afford. Instead, they will attend a technical college or learn a trade. Our remaining graduates will find jobs that do not require degrees. Some of them will still climb the ladder to success. Many of them will not. So, our end result is not much different than it has been historically. We have provided an opportunity for a superior education, provided the student comes from a privileged, English-speaking family and is of greater than or equal to average intelligence. We haven't raised the number of available scholarships. We haven't lowered tuition. We have in fact done nothing to brighten our children's futures. There is little purpose in creating a program with the core value of preparing for college when the only students who stand to benefit are those who would have done moderately well to begin with. Other countries have instituted programs that cater to persons from varying environments. For example, in Finland you may attend a variety of free post-secondary education schools which provide a meal plan, daycare, and transportation at no cost to the student. Finland currently leads the globe in education, whereas the United States ranks in the bottom one-third of developed countries.
There is no acceptable reason for our country to rank so poorly. I realize there is a national budget and money must be appropriated to other departments, but what our government fails to realize is that by not allocating enough funds toward education, those students who might otherwise go on to universities and learn a valuable skill that could influence our country in a positive way are instead working minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay their bills. If there was a promise of free secondary education with the amenities previously mentioned in Finland, more lower and middle class students would be motivated to work hard and make something more out of their lives, which would in turn decrease crime-related and welfare costs. We need a nation full of more highly educated, hard-working citizens now more than ever. Climate change, energy deficits and resource abundance problems are not going to fix themselves.
We have yet to even scratch the surface on budget cuts to education programs, low standards in teacher qualifications, low pay for educators, rising costs of tuition, incorporating programs for non-English-speaking students, non-traditional family backgrounds, the rise in mentally disabled children in our education system, standardized testing... I could go on, but my point is this: There is no current, workable, government-regulated program that can take the time to address all the flaws in our education system.
If our children follow through with this program without addressing the bigger problems within the public education system, we are doing a disservice to our country. Instead of implementing a program that provides little future benefit to lower and middle class families, increase the budget for public education; provide schools with ample resources and materials; pay teachers better and be more picky about their qualifications; hire more teachers so that children have more time to ask questions and get help; feed students healthier foods that sustain their bodies throughout the day; provide an environment and system that encourages a desire for educational growth and promises that each child has the opportunity to choose the best path for themselves. Over time if we are patient and dedicated enough, we will produce this amazing system. Citizens are more powerful than they know. Write and call your senators. Send emails to the schools. Attend school board meetings. Make your voice heard, and when the time comes, get out and VOTE YES on the proposed resolutions. No change will ever come if we fail to participate in this very important civil duty. Until that time comes, I would encourage you to take the time to search for a school that fits the needs and learning style of your children. Take an active role in their education. Don't be afraid to ask questions and make suggestions. If you are looking for a suggestion, I'm a huge advocate of the Montessori approach.
I believe that children actively seek out knowledge when provided with the time and resources, and nurturing their curiosity with gentle direction leads to more independence and confidence in their skills. When they are able to touch, manipulate, hear, see, and smell their education, it will naturally lead them to success. There are so many more things I could say, but I'll leave you with this: Success isn't a score; it is a unique quality inside each one of us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)