O' Brother Where Art Thou?

The 1930’s and 40’s tested the strength and resolve of individual compassion. Finances were tight, jobs were scarce, and long, snaking lines materialized for the simple opportunity to buy bread. The Great Depression had brought about the tortures of poverty. Through this environment a new plan arose, pioneered by a move of compassion through the federal government, culminating in President Roosevelt enacting the “New Deal.” Social welfare became the saving grace of the unemployed, impoverished, and the elderly. Nevertheless, the infusing of government responsibility in the welfare of people may have excused the personal duty of individuals to care for one another.

When it comes to the topic of social welfare, most of us will readily agree that there are individuals who are in desperate need of assistance. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of who is responsible for providing that assistance. Whereas some are convinced that the state maintains the ethical and constitutional duty to care for its citizens, others maintain that support should derive from private parties. Proponents of the welfare state are quick to point that congress holds Constitutional authority to use tax dollars to provide for the general welfare of citizens. However, one must define the literal translation of general welfare when given that the same document identifies only the right to pursue happiness and not an entitlement to it. Bureaucrats commonly direct attention to the overwhelming need of individuals who would otherwise not progress from the current financial quagmire engulfing them, yet statistics continue to show the impoverished populaces are not making strides toward self-sufficiency. The establishment of the welfare state in America has proved to be counterproductive in terms, however, it cannot be said that socially policy has never been needed.

The welfare state is a government concept where the state plays the primary role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. Modern welfare programs derive their strength from this very model, but where did the need and authority for such programs originate? Jim Manzi, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute observes that the necessity of welfare programs stemmed from the conditions of the early 20^th century where poverty and starvation were common throughout America (2010, para. 6). These conditions inevitably ushered in vast welfare legislation from 1933 to 1936, capped by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” which brought taxpayer relief to the unemployed and poor, promoted labor unions, and created social security. However, Manzi argues the continuance of welfare given that the conditions prevalent in that day do not exist currently (2010, para. 16). Opponents may be quick to cite that need to any degree should fall within the social responsibility of the state; the Constitution guarantees the provision of government resources to the general welfare of its people. However, the relinquishing of individual responsibility has led to vast misinterpretation of the founding rights of this state.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress possesses the power to “…provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”  Still, liberal interpretation within this passage is contrary to the context of the entire document.  The remainder of Section 8 only identifies general welfare as the provision of the monetary system, establishment of post offices and roads, the progress of science and the arts, and the punishment of piracy and felonies. As Steven Voigt identifies in his article on the General Welfare Clause, “The founding fathers agreed that [it] is a limitation on the preceding taxation clause and not its own independent grant of power” (2010, p. 545). The preamble of the Constitution lays the foundation of what the founding fathers were implying by determining first the establishment of justice, insurance of domestic tranquility, provision of common defense, and the promotion of the general welfare. Professor and Chairman of Political Science at Radford University, Matthew J. Franck, alludes to Abraham Lincoln as identifying the role of government in individual welfare to be contained within the Declaration of Independence. Franck maintains that the “pursuit of happiness” is the peoples right as opposed to the right of happiness itself, later stating that the intended role of government was limited (2010, para. 2). Therefore, individual opportunity derives not from monetary benefit, but from free market and the freedom of every citizen to pursue their ideals. Yet, government spending bends markedly toward social welfare over creation of opportunity.

Those in favor of welfare will point to a relatively low 15.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) relegated to social assistance. On the other hand, that amounts to $2.34 trillion annually, or roughly $7,536 per person in the U.S. As Jim Manzi states, “The welfare system represents the majority of government spending in most modern, advanced nations” (2010, para. 9). Even considering the staggering amount spent on these programs, very little finds its way into the hands of those who actually require assistance. Of the nearly 14 million people unemployed nationally in 2007, a meager provision of $32.2 billion in unemployment insurance was allotted, roughly $2,322 per person. Despite constant reforms to social programs, the burden of support is too widespread for the government to cope with. However, the Census Bureau indicated that the disposable personal income per person in 2007 was $33,706; an amount almost five times larger than the figure determined through government provision. The question then remains as to whether the government is best equipped to run social welfare. The state fails in its attempt to provide because it cannot truly determine individual need and derives only a distant impression of its own citizens. The greatest clarification of personal need arises from the relationship of the person standing next you.

Michael Sherraden, a Professor of Social Development, contends that the problem with privatized benefits is that they are “regressive” and create social exclusions as the wealthy receive the greater share of responsibility. Sherraden indicates that such a model would isolate the state as the driving factor in creating “asset inequality” (2008, para. 11). On the contrary, the state currently drives social inequality by forcing the burden onto the middle class while not correcting the underlying issue; like bandaging a broken leg. To fix the problems inherent in society, one must address the root cause leading to the need of welfare. For instance, Britain boasts the highest dedication of its GDP to social assistance while the rate of “social mobility” fails to progress; individuals are not moving out of poverty (Saunders, 2010, para. 11). The solution comes in the form of developing solid assets within the economic realm of those impoverished. Sherraden attests, “Inclusion of everyone in asset-based policy will reduce social inequality and divisions” (2008, para. 1). The insertion of something tangible within the reach of those in need will foster an environment of sustainability in addition to negating personal abuses. If businesses are given the capital and resources to expand their level of employment, an influx of available jobs will stem the tide of employment and thereby assist in remedying the increasing level of poverty.

Currently, an incongruity exists in the area of employment. Despite Welfare to Work programs (President Clinton’s 1997 welfare reform) adopted in many countries, unemployment continues to rise. In Britain there are currently 450,000 job vacancies while 1.4 million “working-age” individuals are receiving social benefits including unemployment (Saunders, 2010, para. 7). The problem has too commonly been attributed to the individual in terms of work ethic and values while the root cause is in those jobs available rarely generating enough income to move out of poverty. The New York Times reported that only a third of the individuals who contacted a welfare agency held jobs four years later. Few of those who succeeded generated enough in benefits and pay to change their circumstance (Eckholm, 2006, para. 13). Therein lays the stumbling block; while society wants those on welfare to move back into the workplace, the employment available prevents welfare recipients from generating sustainable income. Part of the reason for this paradox is that welfare recipients are not being equipped to move back into the marketplace. No company wants to take the risk of hiring an individual whom they do not perceive to have viable skills, experience, or the work ethic needed to succeed (Pear, 1997, para. 12). However, two solutions exist in remedying the current problem.

 First, if the same level of welfare spending were redirected to the generation of small businesses, an employment environment of supply and demand would alter the field. The paradigm exists in the fact that in generating more jobs than there are seekers, then competitive wage redistributes the level of wealth among all employees. Britain’s answer for their welfare crisis is to mandate work application, acceptance, and activity among all those receiving benefits with the penalty of losing allowance for a minimum of three months. In conjunction, long term jobless will be required to participate in unpaid community work (Saunders, 2010). The error is in believing that these mandates will spawn any type of change in the social-economic standing of individuals. Another potential solution to employment is to ensure those on welfare are enrolled in trade schools or college courses. If the lower income workforce is educated and made a more viable employment option, the result would be an increased probability of long-term employment. Yet, government focuses predominantly on the control aspect of social welfare as opposed to determining a solution.

“Provider Capture”, the transformation where public benefactors and servants become political assets, is a term whose use is becoming widespread. A common display of it resides in teachers’ unions who manipulate the school system for their own political and self interests (Manzi, 2010, para. 10). The idea derives from the necessity to perpetuate the positive perception of social programs. Businesses are given tax breaks and incentives to hire particular demographics as are state programs. Overall, the goal is to ensure that funding will continue to grow throughout the government sector. The only means of achieving this goal is to flood the voter pool with people who are receiving the most out of their benefit, unions. What was once a much needed program has become a method of state control as the government can imply certain restrictions and recommendations in relation to candidate votes, potential legislation, and monetary distribution. As Idit Weiss-Gal and John Gal deduced in their studies, a large percentage of those involved in social work would prefer increased government spending as opposed to tax cuts (2007, p. 355). The creation of a dependant labor force allows the state to justify, through votes, the increase and deregulation of government spending. A number of experts will argue that increased spending will be for the greater good of all Americans, yet those involved in social work tend to favor increases in education, pensions, and social services over law enforcement, cultural expansion, and the military (Weis-Gal, 2007, p. 355). While no one would argue the merit in expanding educational funding, the argument in cutting police spending, given the shortages in county and state officer coverage, arises as an odd choice when pensions are placed at a higher priority. The welfare state thrives on a “me-first” mentality that causes the separation of individual responsibility and leads to a dependency on a system designed to continue its exponentially growing burden of debt.

To combat the ballooning state budget, legislators often turn to creative and unconventional means. Despite countless reforms to social welfare none have provided a viable long term option. Again, the government has fought to resolve this issue through control. The New York Times (1991) printed an article addressing a Kansas politician who put forth legislation that the state provides monetary reward to welfare mothers who use a long term contraceptive called Norplant (Lewin, para. 1). Fortunately the bill was rejected due to public influence, yet the government has turned to subtler means of population control. The Welfare Reform Academy at the University of Maryland has documented the success of current programs, typically guised as nurse consultations. According Glenn Lowry, “…home-visitation programs provided a greater number of unambiguous, normative messages that becoming pregnant again is not desirable” (1998, para. 57). By laying aside personal responsibility for others, power has been granted the state to mandate even the simple freedom of procreation. When the state becomes the provider, it also becomes the entity demanding compliance with its wants and desires. In this way, the system is counter-productive; a rending occurs in the humanistic perception of every individual.  Welfare recipients are no longer people, but numbers and figures to be pinched and squeezed into spreadsheets for individual political gain.

There are those who would say that the end justifies the means. But to what end is the focus of the state? The current systems have not shown to increase employment or perpetuate any sustainable option of income. Furthermore, the impact is being felt doubly by the next generation. An increasing number of children, whose parents are recipients of welfare, will grow up in households where no one has held employment (Saunders, 2010, para. 6). The system becomes self replicating as the next generation will spawn another more dependent than the last. As the burden increases upon the state, more general funding will require reduction. Yet, the children are not only being set up for dependency, but recent information has come to light that they are increasingly becoming victims of abuse. As Erik Eckholm reported, “…the most alarming finding was that because of neglect or abuse, a child was removed from the home of one in every six parents during the five years after they had applied for welfare” (2006, para. 5). Regaining control of parental responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of those closest to the problem. Those who are unemployed generally develop problems with low self-esteem, a condition that may lead to child abuse. Yet, the people who can make a difference are all throughout the community; as the proverb says, it takes a village to raise a child.  

Overall, the effectiveness of current social remedy must be measured in the perception of those who it intends to help. Social welfare was designed to assist people who could not otherwise alter their situation by personal means. If a program is to be judged on its merit, then the proper role is to question those receiving the benefit. Interestingly, those most critical of social welfare are those who use it: Single parents, unemployed, women, and pensioners (Muuri, 2010, pp. 187-9). The message coming from the people who need the benefit the most is that the services are not adequately meeting their needs and the level of benefit is too low (Muuri, 2010, p. 192). The reason for this apparent disparity is the dissociation the government has with the individuals it seeks to help. Where the greatest change could take place in social reform is to lay the responsibility of care on the shoulders of each person’s neighbor. Those who are closest to a person are typically in the best position to determine economic need and general welfare. Unfortunately, people have forgotten this role. The result is that an increasing number of abuses are taking place across the entire realm of government care, exemplified in the rapidly increasing focus of the poor quality of elderly care (Muuri, 2010, p. 191). If we continue to turn an eye away from personal responsibility, then the blame rests on our shoulders for the failures of the system.

The solution to the ineffective and unfair system of social welfare is to recall that every individual must shoulder the burden of their brother, father, and neighbor. If the task is left to bureaucrats and politicians, we must not be surprised at an environment of disconnection and manipulation. When it comes to the protection and provisions of resources, every person has the right and authority, and more so responsibility, to stand up for others. Steven Voigt puts it eloquently in saying, “The Constitution stands above men, and it stands above all other laws, to protect men from men” (2010, p. 558). We ought to more closely scrutinize a document founded by men who cared about the welfare of their fellow man. People must, at all costs, put forth the determination and effort necessary to love and care for others. Yet, if no change arises, the people of this nation should be prepared for the repercussions. Taxes will rise, poverty will increase, unemployment will continue to get worse, and the government will continue to grow in power and authority. Let it not be said that we stood by while this nation crumbled due to the incivility and uncaring attitude which now permeates our culture.

References

Eckholm, Erik (2006). For the neediest of the needy, welfare reforms still fall short, study says. The New York Times, p. 18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Franck, Matthew J. (2010). The lawless welfare state: It is unconstitutional, but the remedy will come from the people. National Review, p. 36. doi: GALE/A225938289.

Lewin, Tamar (1991). A plan to pay welfare mothers for birth control. The New York Times, p. 9. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Lowry, Glenn C. (1998). Preventing subsequent births to welfare recipients. Preventing Subsequent Births to Welfare Mothers, p. 2. Welfare Reform Academy. University of Maryland. Retrieved from: http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/ eval/toc.shtml.

Manzi, Jim (2010). Unbundle the welfare state: The next step in capitalism’s evolution. National Review, p. 30. doi: GALE/A243527653.

Muuri, Ann (2010). The impact of the use of the social welfare services or social security benefits on the attitudes to social welfare policies. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(182-193). Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pear, Robert (1997). Clinton will seek tax break to ease path off welfare. The New York Times, p. 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Saunders, Doug (2010). Britain to force welfare recipients to seek work. Toronto, Canada: Globe & Mail, p. 1. doi: GALE/A241924474.

Sherraden, Michael (2008). Low-income families should be encouraged to build their own assets. Welfare. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. doi: GALE/EJ3010173283.

 Voigt, Steven T. (2010). The general welfare clause: An explanation of original intent and constitutional limits pertaining to the rapidly expanding federal budget. Creighton Law Review, 43(2), 543-562. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Weis-Gal, Idit, and John Gal (2007). Social workers attitudes toward social welfare policy. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4), 349-357. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Failing the Future

Across the counter, a young woman poises, ready to meet any challenge presented. Only a sapling in the grand scheme of life, she holds out hope of a future separated from the grime and stench of fast food servitude. Her eyes beam with self-confidence, strength derived from years of personal esteem conditioning. She beckons to an aged customer come closer and place his order; her smile beams with pride as she attentively clings to his every request. The trained fingers speed to the keys on the register like a flash of lightning, yet the machine fails in its computed response. Barely checked, she repeats her movements with undaunted zeal; again, nothing. The smile melts from her face and her pulse quickens, pulsing so hard that the sound becomes a drum in her ears. The customer slides the crisp ten dollar bill across the counter, confident in the attendant’s skills and adaptability. Yet, her brow falls and her countenance descends into the mire of uncertainty. The register mocks her in its abandonment, the iridescent screen blank and foreboding. Numbers speed through her mind without ceasing, the difference of the $7.85 meal a mathematical wall of insurmountable height.  Panic spreads across her face like the ripple of an ill bred tide and great drops of perspiration bead across her forehead.

Sigmund Freud once declared, “What a distressing contrast there is between the radiant intelligence of a child and the feeble mentality of the average adult.” Though he was addressing sociological acceptance of philosophy, the same is true regarding the average education in America. Children start as impressionable sponges, ready to absorb any knowledge brought within their spectrum. Yet, todays graduates of secondary education are not prepared for the rigors of independent life. The education system in America has become a breeding ground for mediocrity; the goal of each level to pass the young person on to the next stage…whether prepared for it or not. However, the issue is not new; education reform has persisted as a platform for political candidates at every level. Legislation adopted and revised continually in the attempt to remedy the rifts in the system fall short of bridging the ever-widening gaps. Teachers bear the blame for the misguidance of the future generation. Demands for quality control clash against the unwillingness to agree on justifiable educator wage. Nevertheless, the solution to the equation has been before us, unseen and unknown. Through systematic changes to the culture of education, we will better prepare future generations for life outside the sandbox.

Upon graduating from high school in America, students have a number of options before them: primarily, go to work or go to college. Unfortunately, they are not prepared for either. At the age of seventeen or eighteen, a person has not gained the “real world” experience necessary to be employed in a demanding career; concurrently, uncertainty reigns over what career pathway students should desire to pursue in continuing education. But is that the fault of the graduate? Twelve years of education have conveyed them to this point with the promise of adulthood and freedom of decision. American educator and writer, Robert M. Hutchins, rightly noted, “The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.” The hours spent in mathematics, English, science, and history should have been the catalyst needed to release these fresh young minds into the working class, fueling the next generation of blue collar laborers. Yet the number of unemployed youth is ballooning beyond our future control. In 2009, the percentage of unemployed 16-24 year olds nationwide was a staggering 53.4 percent; a post World-War II high according to the Labor Department (Wilner, para. 2). America is not alone in this crisis. Throughout Europe, young adults are facing a bleak future in employment. The concern is whether these young adults are receiving an education that qualifies them for employment.

Nick Brake, president and CEO of the Greater Owensboro Economic Development Corporation, identifies the alarming issue that, “the Associate Degree today is the high school diploma of 50 or 20 years ago” (Gaston, 2005, para. 21). Have we as a nation allowed our education standards to lapse so far into mediocrity that our young are simply not ready to become contributing members of society? The answer is unequivocally yes. The current Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores continue to lag behind their 1970 levels, while the average school year has been reduced by seven days (Bethell, 2005, p. 17). Standards have been reduced throughout the nation to accommodate budgetary constraints and the idiom of not holding back those who struggle because of concern over self-esteem. In Illinois, meeting the state’s minimum graduation requirements will not open the door to most state’s four-year universities (Heckel, 2010, para. 2). The failing perception of public education is not limited to national testing or educator opinion. Forty percent of recent high school graduates believe there are gaps in what they acquired in secondary education and the expectations of them in college and in the work force (Peter, 2005, p. 2). Unfortunately, America is falling behind globally; while foreign graduates are finding an increasing number of opportunities available to them with our borders.

The results of national polls hold dire results for American education. As an emblem of freedom, wisdom, and the entrepreneurial spirit, this nation, scholastically, falls into the mid-range worldwide. In the 2009 educational score performance the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found the United States as being 33^rd in literacy, 27^th in mathematics, and 22^nd in science worldwide. The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in its report card for public schools indicates that students yield rapid gains in elementary school, decrease in middle school, and stop all together in senior high (Gaston, 2005, para. 2). However, it is not for lack of funding that these problems persist, nor is the issue relegated to states with a predominantly impoverished constituency. As a state that spends an astonishing portion of its budget on public education (28 percent), Oregon has fallen to 32^nd in the nation and has received a middling education reform grade, a clear indicator that more money does not fix the fracture in student comprehension (Ladner & LeFevre, 2010, para. 2). A startling level of mediocrity has permeated our educational culture and it is truly beginning to rear its head as a rapidly increasing number of graduates cannot demonstrate the skills necessary to move on independently.

Modern schools simply are not teaching our children the skills and knowledge required to become effective and efficient citizens. The focus has become one of permanent education; secondary education leading to undergraduate studies, only to be bombarded with continuing education once employed. Unfortunately, continuing education would be a welcome challenge compared to the startling necessity of remedial education in America. Among college instructors, the perception has become that a considerable amount of time is wasted teaching material that should have been learned in high school (Peter, 2005, p. 2). Community colleges, nationwide, utilize forms of standard testing to discover the general aptitude of applicants, specifically in the studies of math, writing, and reading comprehension. Alarmingly, classes such as pre-algebra, intro to writing, and basic reading occupy the schedules of a vast number of students, including recent graduates. Some may argue that the education received in high school is subject to the state standards, yet data displaces these arguments. The Kentucky journal Public Life Advocate states, “Kentucky schools rank reasonably well in the nation. However…too many students drop out of high school, too few graduates go on to college, too few of those attending college successfully complete their degree, and too many freshmen must take remedial courses” (Gaston, 2005, para. 4-5). The dilemma arises in logically deducing the assets dedicated to remedial education that could be better used elsewhere.

Strictly identifying the monetary allotment required to perpetuate the status quo, one quickly discovers grounds for tuition continuing to rise exponentially. The financial levy of remedial education has become a millstone around the necks of students, parents, and taxpayers. In Kentucky, $25 million is spent per year on remedial education; students, or their parents, pay $11 million while taxpayers pick up $14 million (Gaston, 2005, para. 16). A simple reallocation of this budget could assist in the reduction of student tuition or the hiring of more professionals aimed at educating our future workforce. Yet, repeatedly, the need for remedial education arises, propelled by the lack of previous education. Our schools are graduating students with minimal understanding in simplistic concepts. The end result becomes students who are ill prepared, ill equipped, and ill used. Additionally, remedial courses are not included in degree programs and are thereby an additional cost for incoming students. Tom Gaston, writer for Public Life Advocate, expounds by identifying the fact that these classes are not part of the degree program means that students are paying extra tuition, thereby losing income, eventually causing students to delay course completion or quit altogether (2005, para. 15). Through our lack of accountability for student education, we, as a nation, have created a culture of disappointment and failure. Though blame must fall on everyone involved in education, a primary focus is directed on those providing the teaching.

Those who choose to saddle themselves with the profession of educating our young adults must realize the expectation and quality required of them. It is disturbing to note that in various states an individual, in their personal studies, can score in the bottom 25 percent in mathematics and reading and still qualify to become a teacher (Sowell, 2005, p. 44). When the standard has developed into one of mediocrity, it becomes evident that we have left our children to receive substandard teaching from substandard college graduates. The question begs asking as to whether generalized teacher training has truly been to the benefit of our students. Yet, are we asking teachers to do more than they should and are capable of doing? Educators must now be babysitters, psychologists, referees, and back street doctors prescribing medication to children who are unruly. Perhaps the solution resides in focused education for instructors. The number of teachers possessing a Master’s Degree in a specific subject, as opposed to general education, has declined precipitously from seventeen percent in 1982 to a meager five percent in 2005 (Bethell, 2005, p. 17). We have left the blind to lead the blind and even students have begun to take notice of this failure. A study conducted in the European Journal of Teacher Education concluded students deemed value in educators with long academic studies in contrast to rudimentary teacher training (Jyrhama et al., 2008, p. 11). However, in requiring higher standards for teachers, a higher degree of compensation must follow, particularly in regards to trust and respect.

If we are to demand greater standards in education, conjoin it with a culture of trust. Pasi Sahlberg notes, “The culture of trust simply means that education authorities and political leaders believe that teachers, together with principles, parents and their communities, know how to provide the best possible education for their children and youth (2007, p. 157). Too often, teachers have become the educational pariah. Demanding change concerning personal education of future educators without regard to the obligatory freedom and respect that they deserve is, at a minimum, unfair. Yet, legislation continues to focus on demanding teacher accountability and thereby employment if students are not excelling. Sahlberg contends that Finland, as an example, has not copied the current trend globally in assuming that demanding accountability in student performance from schools and teachers is essential to increasing student achievement (2007, p. 155). Undoubtedly, America has strained the relationship between teachers, parents, communities, and politicians. The consequence of such tension has been detrimental to remedying the pitfalls of public education. Fortunately, beacons of hope remain outside this nation to light the path to redemption.

Finland has been regarded as a pinnacle of scholastic standards; the NAEP lists them among the top three most educated nations categorically. If a cursory view of foreign policy were to revolutionize American education, then an in-depth assessment of proven progress must be a priority. It is essential to first note that every standard educator is required to possess a Master’s Degree to achieve permanent employment (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 153). In order to attain the results for which we strive, we can look no further. To educate our future graduates, it is essential that we demand a high degree of scholastic excellence from our instructors; bear in mind that our teachers are the benchmark for student achievement. We must place a priority on presenting an image, a standard, through which all students hope to emulate. Here again, it bears repeating that greater responsibility on the teacher’s part comes greater compensation on the part of taxpayers, parents, and politicians. Finnish educators are favorably salaried; teaching is one of the most desired professions in Finland. Additionally, class sizes are kept to a satisfactory ratio. Sahlberg comments, “Well-equipped schools are typically small, with class sizes ranging from twenty to thirty students” (2007, p. 153). By reducing the burden on teachers, we would also discontinue the misappropriation of educator time and resources. The solutions are simple and well displayed throughout a multitude of nations, however, not everyone agrees with the global acceptance of educational ranking.

Adversaries of NAEP rankings will highlight the blossoming development of self-esteem and creativity permeating American education. G. W. Bracey contends that the culture of “cooperation and consensus” prevalent in Japan attribute to a more urbane society, yet our “combatative culture” bequeaths us with an advantage in creativity (2005, p. 28). Still, creativity does not promote, nor perpetuate educational achievement. No amount of imagination can compensate for the lack of logical thought; a requirement for basic employment in nearly every sector. Bracey continues by stating that though the U.S. is 29^th in mathematics, it ranks second in competitiveness; Korea who is third in mathematics is 27^th in competitiveness (2005, p. 26). The dilemma is that, though competitive, America is stuck contending with other mediocre countries. While creativity and competition are essential aspects of education, students who cannot complete basic math problems or comprehend simple literary works are not properly equipped to become functioning adults. However, Bracey makes a compelling point that standardized testing, which is the basis for NAEP rankings, may not be the preeminent means of determining scholastic achievement.

Many foreign countries are opposed to basing achievement on test results, contending that such analysis only detracts from the atmosphere of learning. Policy makers in Finland have remained unconvinced that “high-stakes” testing really increases educational discovery; the validity of such testing must be questioned if student learning remains positively unchanged (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 166). America has focused the majority of recent legislation toward adopting stringent testing policy, No Child Left Behind Act, where the generalized score of students dictate future curriculum. Faults are readily found in this way of thinking as defining education upon the basis of averages creates a disparity within student comprehension. Students who excel beyond the average are subject to stasis within their scholastic careers while those scoring below are apt to be thrust forward through the school system, hopeful that someone will invest the time to properly motivate them. As Sahlberg notes of Finnish education, “Primary school is, to a large extent, a ‘testing-free zone’ reserved for learning to know, to do, and to sustain natural curiosity” (2007, p. 156). It is this “natural curiosity” that needs fostering within our schools today. Testing and instruction must lessen in importance comparative to learning if we are to reestablish an environment focused on sustaining viable education. Nevertheless, students need to take a proactive approach to furthering their personal comprehension and dedication.

Too many students have developed lethargic attitudes pertaining to the importance of education. Despite sub-par standards within the education system, students reserve the freedom to direct future career paths according to their standards. Yet, scores of students recognize the requirement to take three years of mathematics to graduate and decide not to pursue a fourth year of direction (Heckel, 2010, para. 31). A problem has arisen in students choosing lethargy and complacency as opposed to competition and creativity Bracey indicates to be essential in secondary education. Students, at least the majority, are not interested in building upon the foundations laid through early childhood development. However, students are not provided adequate guidance in deeming paths most suitable to their scholastic goals. In Wisconsin, students can select the school district and career “pathway” leading to a specified four-year plan for grades 9-12. This path also includes guidance in selecting electives, possible internships, and post-secondary education befitting their preference (Strittmater, 2011, para. 14). It is imperative that young adults perceive the challenges awaiting them beyond the confines of public education. Without goals and aspirations, they remain to wander through entry-level employment and post-secondary education, according to the Dubai Business Report, “[Students] find themselves leaving university, often heavily in debt and entering a far more competitive work environment than ever before” (“Don’t Celebrate,” 2010, para. 4). If these young minds are not prepared for the evolutionary leap required academically, how can they be expected to understand the ominous professional landscape before them? It is the duty and responsibility of educators and pupils to invest in the revolutionary concept of preparatory education.

Nick Brake, member of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence task force, contends that students who choose not to enroll in college should be required to attend a specialized curriculum preparing them for the workplace (Gaston, 2005, para. 21). The idea derives from the necessity to prepare young adults for the transition to adulthood. As Native American culture has displayed, young men were required to go through a ‘trial’ in which the individual would be tested; this training would ready them for not only adulthood, but also the profession of warrior. Likewise, our students must be prepared to tackle the rigors of adult life, including proper conduct and comprehension within the work environment. Though not a revolutionary principle, real-world education will better suit the budding ideologies of students in the classroom. It is no secret that people learn better, when they are interested in the topic of conversation. In fact, 97 percent of non-college students believe that providing opportunities for real-world learning and making coursework more relevant would improve education conditions (Peter, 2005, p. 13). Graduates should walk off the dais, elated at receiving their diploma, with the awareness that employment is within their immediate grasp. Unfortunately, the public education system does not display concern over the importance of preparatory education. As recent attendance statistics show, families are migrating away from public schooling.

Private schools tend to be better equipped to handle the overwhelming need of education reform in America. Without the budgetary constraints of taxpayer-supported education, the school may alter or mold their standards to the need of individuals. Concurrently, private institutions remain free in policy regarding the hiring and retention of educators. Essayist T. Sowell agrees in stating that, “Private schools are able to get better qualified people, partly because [most] do not let education course requirements screen out intelligent people” (2005, p. 46). In allowing the most intelligent role models for future graduates, the atmosphere of complacency dissolves with the byproduct of socially and economically prepared individuals. A shift in understanding is progressing in which learning, primarily, is in the expectation of students to retain specialized training. Charter schools are adapting to these changes by offering scholastic programs bent towards subject driven education. Private schools are rapidly joining the fray. However, a primary item remains uninvestigated; parents must take an active role in supplementing education in America.

Homeschooling, especially within the southern Oregon valley, has grown exponentially. The cause of this growth readily attributed to the very issues presented in this document. The dilemma of parental interest in their child’s education is wholly addressed. Opponents of homeschooling argue that students are not compelled to validate achievement through state assessments, and no standardized curriculum is in existence for the revelation of individual progress (Hudak, 2005, p. 90). Despite these accusations, home educated students graduate earlier and enter college at younger ages than their publically taught counterparts; an important aspect as students must now contemplate their futures earlier and comprehend not only core subjects, but also the vital aspect of social skills and problem solving (Strittmater, 2011, para. 4).  It is imperative to note social distortions that occur in holding children out of public education. This aspect in itself in paramount in preparing future graduates for employment beyond secondary education. However, the social influence in schools today only appears to perpetuate the attitude of complacency; it simply is not ‘cool’ to exceed minimum standards. The NAEP found in mathematics particularly, the majority of publicly educated students fall at or below basic comprehension of mathematic fundamentals in 12^th grade. Nevertheless, a restructuring in scholastic perception is needed within every variety of education.

Priorities must be addressed within education regardless of the means. Through analyzing how school budgets are allocated, we can reveal our values, priorities, and “misguided ideas” about schools in the elimination of “counterproductive expenditures” (Kralovec, 2003, p. 47). Very little thought permeates the mist surrounding importance in education. A brief view of collegiate budgets displays frightening disparity in scholastic achievement and those pertaining to athletics. Moreover, the disinterest of parents and educators concerning student aptitude is evident through recent votes that have structured current education. Kralovec attests, “We don’t question the category of a budget line; we merely question whether we should allocate $19,000 or $24,000 to that line item” (2003, p. 65). Students, dropouts, failures have all become numbers to be annotated in a ledger that determines school budgeting. However, the amount of money exhausted on a particular field of study or student individually will never alter the present course or modify the current landscape of education. In Washington D.C., nearly $11,000 is spent per student while the dropout rate hovers at forty percent (Bethell, 2005, p. 21). No amount of money will change the culture of education if we do not first change the focus and determination of the school systems in the process. By throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at the problem, we are only creating expensive leeches to public assistance within unemployment and continuing education. Grimly humorous is the knowledge that everyone involved recognizes the problems, yet no one challenges the standard by which we adhere.

If left to continue in the current rut, future generations will inevitably construct for themselves insurmountable walls of ineffectuality. When educators and parents are not preparing their pupils for the quagmires inherent in individual life, dire consequences lurk in the shadows preparing to devour whomever they can. According to recent data, the average credit card debt among 25-34 year olds has increased 55 percent between 1992 and 2001. At the same time, credit card debt among 18-24 year olds has exploded by 104 percent (“Young Americans,” 2004, para. 4). Evidence presents the case that we have not even taught our children to manage their lives financially; though 80 percent of states have established personal finance education in K-12, nearly 64 percent of teachers feel unqualified to teach it. Only 37 percent of those same teachers had taken a college level course in personal finance (Holden & Way, 2010, p. 2). Despite the myriad of issues in education, this is the most alarming. We have educated our youth to consume without consideration, to spend without substantiation, and to remain dependent upon others for provision.

Look back at that young lady across the counter, eager for the answer to flash upon the screen…$2.15. Contemplate now whether this individual, a high school student, or recent graduate, if stymied by such a miniscule obstacle could effectively manage a bank ledger or accounting book. Yet, we are the ones who have created this standard. We have let this complacency permeate the confines of education. No longer can we remain in the back seat, hopeful for the return of common sense and ambition. If education is to change, those who know the importance of scholastic achievement must change it. If we remain idle, then it must not surprise us when the world supersedes this once mighty nation in education and industry.

References

Bethell, T. (2005). The quality of public education has declined. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 16-22). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Bracey, G.W. (2005). The quality of public education has not declined. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 23-28). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Don’t celebrate too soon: Degrees don’t mean jobs. (2010, July 5). In Kippreport. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from General Business File ASAP (A230732018).

Gaston, T. (2005). Prepared for college, prepared for life? Public Life Advocate 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.plfo.org.

Heckel, J. (2010, June 13). C-U Scholars program aims to prepare more students for life after high school. The News-Gazette.

Holden, K. & Way, W.L. (2010). Teacher’s background and capacity to teach personal finance: Results of a national study. National Endowment for Financial Education. Retrieved from http://www.nefe.org/tntfinalreport.

Hudak, E. (2005). Public education is preferable to home schooling. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 89-93). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Jyrhama, R., Kynaslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A., & Kansanen, P. (2008, February). The appreciation and realization of research-based teacher education: Finnish student’s experiences of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/02619760701844993.

Kralovec, E. (2003). Schools that do too much: Wasting time and money in schools and what we can do about it (pp. 47-65). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Ladner, M., LeFevre, A.T., & Lips, D. (2010). Report card on American education: Ranking state K-12 performance, progress, and reform. ALEC 16^th edition. Retrieved from http://www.alec.org.

Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2005, February). Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college and work? (Independent Study). Washington, DC: Author.

Sahlberg, P. (2007, March). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147-171. doi: 10.1080/02680930601158919.

Sowell, T. (2005). Incompetent teachers harm public education. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Education: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 43-6). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Strittmater, N. (2011, February 26). Educators, schools strive to prepare students for life after high school [editorial]. Stevens Point Journal. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from http://www.stevenspointjournal.com.

Wilner, R. (2009, September 27). The dead end kids: Young, unemployed and facing a tough future. New York Post. Retrieved May 26, 2011.

Young Americans face crushing debt, report finds. (2004, October 26). In Demos. Retrieved from http://demos.org.

Knowing Your Adversaries and Keeping Them Closer

          In this new age of global terror and pervasive threats of bombings, high-jacking, and kidnapping; the security standards employed in combating these events appears to lack the fervor required to eradicate it. America rests behind legislation aimed at curbing the influx of individuals linked to terrorist organizations, but hampers itself with the concerns over public opinion and civil liberty. Despite the surreal nature of the geographical origin and religion of current and former terrorists, the U.S. has not pushed to implement standards of security that include profiling individuals based on these points. Racial profiling summons resentful feelings in individuals, but used in the correct manner and with the proper training it has been utilized with great success. America must take a proactive and responsible approach to identifying those persons most likely to be linked with groups akin to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Mujahedeen. 

            The destruction of the World Trade Center has been etched into the minds of all Americans. Images of the nineteen suspects involved in the attacks that day, whose aim was to strike fear into the American psyche, were plastered over television sets. The statement was these men were predominantly Saudi Arabian with ties to Al-Qaeda, a terrorist faction stemming from Afghanistan, and devout followers of extreme Islamic Jihadists.  This group has taken its ideology from those of its predecessors; the taking of hostages and the murder of Christians and foreigners are a pious duty (Ibrahim). Though not all those devout to Islam can be identified with the few zealots performing acts of terrorism, it is essential to observe that racial, geographical, and religious factors have a role in determining persons more likely to perpetrate these actions.

            While there are legitimate concerns in profiling, given past events, particular groups are more responsible for terrorist activities than others. Opponents of profiling are quick to point to the idiom that not all people are the same and that pouring everyone into the same mold is unfair if not unjust. Identifying potential threats based on race can lead to overreaction. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Attorney General Warren authorized the use of land laws against all Japanese landowners in California. The premise being that a recurrence of an attack was an eminent threat, eventually leading to the prohibition of all Japanese from the coastal regions of California (Siggins 399). While it cannot be ignored that there are going to be hurdles to navigate, a reasonable measure of profiling has shown to be effective in preventing criminal activities.

            Police, nation-wide, incorporate profiling practices, commonly referred to as “racially biased policing” as a footing in stopping individuals (“Racial” 56-7). As Siggins emphasizes, “Racial profiling refers to a method…where individuals are identified as more likely to be associated with a specific crime because of their race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.”(qtd. in 398). The key points are “identification” and “more likely to be associated”; where an educated distinction can be made in asserting that particular individuals are more suspect than others. David Harel, a security expert for Shin Bet and El Al Airlines, believes that profiling is necessary due to the unfeasibility of enforcing “a high level of scrutiny” on all airline patrons (Tucker para. 27). Distinctions need to be made to reserve an embodiment of freedom while also ensuring the safety of all Americans. The primary factor that will resonate with the public is the perception that their civil rights are being violated in the name of overblown panic.

            Those who would say that profiling infringes on their rights and freedoms commonly forget the determination of those seeking to do us harm. Methods devised to combat racial bias have created directives that violate personal freedoms far more. Invasive body scanners dotting airport terminals and vast legislative measures like the Patriot Act create a vortex of dread for the American people. Considering the individuals responsible for the strike on the Pentagon and World Trade Center were comprised of Middle Eastern men “who fit a specific profile”; does profiling truly violate ones civil rights (Siggins 398)?  The Fourth Amendment provides, “The right of the people to be secured in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures…but upon probable cause…” (“Bill”). Simply detaining and questioning an individual based on the perception of criminal intent combined with racial and religious factors does not violate this statute. Two Supreme Court cases have been argued based on this distinction: Terry v. Ohio, 1968, and Whren v. United States, 1996, where the justices resolved that the “subjective motivation” of law enforcement personnel “has no part to play in the…justification for a stop and search when the officer can articulate objective reasons.” (Siggins 399). If there is no infraction on a person’s civil liberties, is profiling not a viable means of providing security to the public?

Israel, a victim of terrorism for the last fifty years, has laid the groundwork when it comes to balancing security with freedom. El Al airline dictates that “young Arabs” can be identified for “extensive research procedures”. They counter arguments against the practice by reasoning that they have “not had a high-jacking in over thirty years” (Siggins 402). Such evidence only strengthens the reasoning for targeting individuals more likely to commit crimes than others. A look through most international airports paints a grim perception of our resolve in stamping out terrorism. As Dr. Tucker emphasizes, “Large passenger aircraft are attractive targets…they are extremely vulnerable.” (qtd. in para. 23). The difficulty in providing further security is two-fold. First, the financial obligation required; El Al spends approximately $80 million annually just in Tel Aviv (Tucker para. 24). Magnify this number by the international airports throughout the U.S. and the figure is staggering. Second, the interagency communication required is something the American government has struggled with. Though both points present obstacles, the alternative of not truly protecting citizens is harder to swallow.

            People will say that America has done a decent job of protecting its populace, but recent events after 9/11 indicate otherwise. Dr. Tucker notes:

…when Richard Reid (the future “shoe bomber”) decided to fly in July 2001 from Amsterdam to Israel…El Al security personnel selected him for profiling and subjected him to a full security check from head to toe (including an X-ray scan of his shoes) that showed he carried no bomb or weapon. Although Reid was allowed to board the plane, El Al remained suspicious and made sure he was sitting near an armed sky marshal…American Airlines was not as careful, however, and allowed Reid to board a flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001. This time the Al-Qaeda operative carried an explosive device, concealed in a shoe, and he attempted to detonate the explosive in mid-flight (qtd. in para. 28)

Had American Airlines possessed the ability and freedom to selectively profile individuals, it is assumed that the incident could have been completely avoided. Unfortunately, freedom is not free. In fact, freedom requires the surrender of individual will for the common good of all. To overcome the threat of Al-Qaeda and its sister groups, America must take a proactive approach to securing its people. If only one percent of all Middle Eastern men are terrorists, is it not still worth the minor aggravation required to stamp it out? Terrorist groups will continue to recruit young men; those befitting certain profiles, and will continue to send them into this country. If America persists in hiding behind civil liberties, cowing to groups proclaiming profiling as prejudicial, and omnibus legislation, then it had better be prepared for the consequence of being caught off guard again.

           

 Works Cited

“The Bill of Rights: A Transcription.” The U.S. National Archives & Records Administration. 

Ibrahim, Youssef M. “The Twin Towers: Terrorism; Throughout Arab World, 20 Years of Growth

            of Islamic Terror Groups.” New York Times, 6 Mar. 1993. 

 “Racial Profiling.” Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco: Learning about Addictive Behavior. Ed. Rosalyn

            Carson-DeWitt. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. 56. 

Siggins, Peter. “Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism.” Crime and Punishment: Essential

            Primary Sources. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 398-

            402. 

Tucker, Jonathan B. “Strategies for Countering Terrorism: Lessons from the Israeli Experience.”

            Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute, Mar. 2003. .

Welcome....

If you came here looking for inane ramblings about the relationship status of Justin Bieber or the latest news from the litany of reality TV fodder, you have come to the wrong place.