Despite education’s monumental importance and pervasive
influence in our society, it was barely discussed in this year’s presidential
election. Debate after debate, the topic of education failed to make its grand
entrance onto the well-lit stage. How could such a salient topic go unnoticed
in the greatest political arena on earth?
In Baltimore City’s recent mayoral election, most of the
near dozen candidates dedicated some portion of their proposed plan to
education. Nick Mosby’s plan included a citywide community school program,
universal pre-kindergarten and early head start programs for children with
disabilities. Sheila Dixon stressed the importance of forming strategic
partnerships, preparing teachers for success, and attracting as well as
retaining effective principals. Mayor-elect Catherine Pugh outlined her plan to
restore governance of schools to Baltimore City, employ year round literacy
programs for youth, and expand learning methodologies.
A quick search of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign
website leads me to his own plan for revamping our country’s education system.
It seems like every candidate out there knows that education is too important to leave
out of their platform, yet not important enough to be a key theme of their
campaign.
2 comments:
In our class we often discuss many ideas about improving education and the conclusion we always come too is that there is no one correct answer. There isn't a secret formula to make perfect schools. Everything needs trial and error and everything takes time. In many cases, no one wants to give the time needed to fully let schools and programs grow to show how effective they are. I think, everyone mentions education in his or her campaign because education is so important to our communities and our country; however, I think the lack of any definitive plans might be because the candidates just don't have any set plans. They don't have any quick fixes. When a person is running for office, he or she doesn't want to say, "I have a plan that might work, but we'll have to try it out to see." They stick to common ideas and buzzwords that will get people's attention, but not tie them to a certain policy or idea that may or may not work.
One example that comes to mind for me is Donald Trump and his talk about Common Core. Donald Trump has stated that he wants to get rid of the Common Core and bring education back to the states. Common Core was adopted by the states. I'm not completely well-versed on his campaign, but I feel that he heard of the struggles with Common Core and, instead of trying to learn about its goals and implementation, he just stated, "We're going to get rid of Common Core." To me, he really does not have a set plan about education, he just latched onto the "buzzword" Common Core, hoping to gain support by feeding into people's struggles with it rather than actually trying to gain information about it. Saying, "I am going to look into Common Core and see where we can better help teachers and schools implement it," or "I am going to work with the states to gain more information about the use and implementation of Common Core in their schools," is not going to get him the same type of support as the strong statement, "I am going to get rid of Common Core," even if the former statements makes more sense.
I happened upon this Washington Post article earlier today entitled, "Will Donald Trump destroy U.S. public education?" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/14/will-donald-trump-destroy-u-s-public-education/). While I also wasn't too closely following his campaign, I recall not hearing much rhetoric regarding his plans for education since they it not make his priority list. This article, however, talks about how he advocates for school choice and how this might "drive the privatization of public schools with unprecedented speed."
This article was also a particularly interesting read in regard to a very strong stance on charter schools. Having talked about charters in class and understanding a lot more about them than many probably do, I found the article to be somewhat misleading in its descriptions, likely leading many to think that charters are not public schools and are only for an elite group of students within certain communities. The article definitely offers a strong perspective that helps to understand the polarizing debate that is education in this country and century.
Post a Comment