Comments on "Our National Government"

My colleague Chris Ernst makes several valid points in his commentary on the public opinion of our national government. It is true that current public opinion for the government is low, especially so with congress, and Mr. Ernst points out a very important question that results from this. Is our current government whats best for us. However one area that my classmate fails to examine is the possible consequences and solutions to such a problem.

There are several issues that come with a public distrust or distaste of the government. One of which being a diminishing voter turnout. When public opinion turns and holds in a negative fashion voters begin to lose faith or interest in elections. They start to develop a defeatist attitude and simply move on thinking that nothing they do will help to solve the problem. And they are absolutely right. The moment that a voter falls into this mindset, and until they can get out of it, they're vote no longer becomes important. They are now disaffected,  uninterested, and unknowing. When citizens feel they can't relate to the issues or the politicians then it all just gets tuned out and looked pass.  For a truly democratic society one of the worst things that can happen is to have a populace that sees a lack of representation as an acceptable norm; at that point they can hardly be considered part of the democracy.

Another problem with a public distrusting of its national government is the increasing difficulty facing any government institutions or applications. How can a government built upon the passing of legislation continue on if the people that support it have no faith in the legislation? Even if the government tries to do something to help or to meet the needs of the people a distrustful public is a skeptical one, and all it takes is one little mistake to unravel a lot of progress. One current example of this is the current situation surrounding the Affordable care act and the technical difficulties surrounding its website: healthcare.gov . A piece of legislation that has the potential to help several million people in this country, that has already fallen under heavy skepticism and scrutiny, becomes even more endangered all due to some technical errors. Yet thats all the public needs to disregard and demerit it since at this point why should they have faith in something that comes through congress.

Then we come to the question of, "How can we help better public opinion of the national government?" The problem is that there isn't any easy answer to this question.One possible solution would be to adopt a multi party system instead of our current dual party system.  Maybe if politics wasn't a slug match between two strongly divided parties with very defined ideals people would be more akin to participating. When you only offer two choices you force people to make sacrifices in some departments, you force them to pick which one "fits the most" instead of allowing a more accurate mixed representation. Hopefully if the parties where far more numerous and far more balanced this wouldn't be so much of an issue and the public could feel more comfortable, less confrontational.

Teaching how to Teach

Peter Schmidt, director of studies at Gill St. Bernard’s School in Phillipsburg NJ, focuses this article on a serious issue throughout the American Education system:
  
"the growing influence of standardized tests and the test preparation industry for students as young    as those entering preschool to those who are preparing to enter graduate-level programs."

In the first paragraph of his letter to The New York Times Schmidt establishes his credibility on the subject; as a teacher for two decades and a high school principal  for another two decades, Schmidt has been living in a world of standardized testing. While not directly stated in the article anyone who has been or has had kids that have been in high school in the past 10 years knows what a huge impact standardized testing has had on education. Classes are paced based on "material to be covered" and if they're "ahead/behind schedule," not on how students are progressing. Every unit has its "vocab words" and "goals for the week" that must be learned. Some states will even base funding off of what results the school shows in its standardized testing. So when it comes spring its entirely natural for the faculty to drop their lessons, their projects and their discussions, and instead spend 1-2 weeks reviewing. Then of course that is followed with a whole week of S.T.A.R. or T.A.K.S. or C.A.T.S. testing; whatever your state wants to call it. Simply making the focus of the class these tests isn't enough. Instead students are forced to be pulled from a normal class day for 2-3 WEEKS to prepare for these tests. Needless to say Schmidt has some experience with standardized testing and how it can effect education.

Schmidt follows by introducing his argument, that such emphasis on standardized testing not only produces "unrelieved anxiety for students and their parents, but also interferes with students’ independent thinking, deep engagement with ideas in the classroom, and, ultimately, intellectual and moral development." After which Schmidt proposes three solutions to this problem.

1. Have colleges and Universities drop their requirement of SAT scores.
2. Secondary Schools need to lower their pressure on students to take and pass A.P. classes.
3. Have all schools from preschool through graduate education embrace once again the idea that creativity and imagination are at the core of genuine learning.

Schmidt argues that college SAT requirements create a disparity among students, keying in on the fact that economically advantaged students can take test prep classes or buy test prep books; something that more lacking students don't necessarily have available to them. While I agree with Schmidt's point here I also think it can be taken a bit farther. For one, there are several students out there that are exceptionally smart; they know the material, they have good study habits, they're responsible and dedicated, but they just aren't good at taking test. Test anxiety, misunderstanding due to format, whatever the reason these people just won't show their full potential through a standardized test. For a post-secondary institute to place so much emphasis on a standardized test is harmful, for the school on the great students they may be missing out on and for the student who has been misrepresented. However, this isn't a problem solely facing the S.A.T as the AP tests have the exact same issue. They put so much pressure on students to pass these certain few tests that school is hardly about learning anymore.

While Schmidt's letter was simply directed to an Editor at The New York Times it has a far broader message on an issue that should be a genuine concern to the American people. If we push the younger generations into an education focused purely on testing what will that do to our future? What will happen to innovation and creativity? How will we make progress?

Who needs legislation?

On Tuesday September 24 The New York Times posted an article entitled " In Corner of Arkansas, Frustration but No Panic Over Possible Shutdown." This article focuses on a serious problem starting to be found among today's voters: political complacency. What this means is that voters still care about issues, they're still going out and voting, but they don't expect anything to be done anymore. They lack any passion, enthusiasm, or urgency for how big political decisions may play out; because they don't expect anything to actually be accomplished. The article specifically addresses the current looming threat of  a government shutdown and how, “Wolf’s been called so much. I don’t think they’ll shut it down. But they won’t get anything solved, that’s what I think,”has become they general feelings over an issue that some would argue will greatly effect our country.

In all honesty this article is not very good, in fact I wouldn't even call it interesting. They focus way to much on the fact that the peopled interviewed are from small town Arkansas. Long flowery description of the scenery, the layout of buildings, and even how the museum gives the town a, "kind of cosmopolitan and hipster feel," just makes it hard to focus on the actual important information. The reality of it is that this problem extends beyond just some conservative corner of the state of Arkansas. Right now it would be reasonable to say that congress is just a battleground for Republicans and Democrats to fight for power, and that any real passing of legislation is just a next priority. Every bill makes headlines as "Victory for conservatives!" or "defeat for Liberals!" and vice versa, but as long as congress remains some stagnate war zone for politicians more and more Americans will just stop expecting progress.

I by no means have a solution to this problem, but in my opinion problems like these point towards mechanical issues that need to be fixed in our actual government, not just politicians.