Yesterday and this morning I read about the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee basketball team and their upcoming trip to Italy. The team will travel for eleven days and play four games against local Italian teams. The privately funded trip for 27 people, players, coaches and staff will cost $160,000.
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, also known as UWM, has enjoyed success as a mid-major men's basketball program. Since 2000, their Panthers have earned three trips to the NCAA Tournament and one NIT berth.
In 2005, they reached the Sweet 16 as a 12 seed. They beat fifth-seeded Boston College and fourth-seeded Alabama, only to lose to top seed and Final Four finalist Illinois. Their coach, Bruce Pearl, was offered the job at Tennessee, where he has had success, but scandal as well. In 2006, the eleventh-seeded Panthers upset sixth-seeded Oklahoma. Again, they fell to a Final Four finalist; this time it was the national champion Florida Gators. During the 2009-2010 season, they won 20 games on the road to rebuilding the program.
Neither the university's student association nor faculty are happy about the team taking the trip. Students have been asked, and they have agreed to pay a $25 per semester fee to help fund renovations to their basketball arena. But the association president is not happy that the team is traveling overseas while the athletic department is running an $8 million deficit.
I take the counterpoint. The team raised money from private donors who wanted them to make the trip. It's no different than an undergraduate student receiving an academic scholarship to study abroad. Only this trip is an opportunity to elevate the profile of the athletic program; people who donate money to athletics want to support high-profile teams. They would rather not bail out programs that are on the skids.
These men are not only going to have a cultural experience; they will also learn the more physical European style of play. The student abroad experience is about culture as well as education. These student-athletes have scholarships to play basketball. Why deny them a unique opportunity to improve on their game?
Every time I read of schools having fiscal difficulties, there is a rush to blame investments in the athletic program as part of the problem. In many cases this has proven true. Money has been taken from academics to underwrite deficits in athletics. That should not be the practice at public universities.
But there is no reason for Wisconsin-Milwaukee faculty to resent the basketball players for taking this trip. The cost is not adding to deficits, nor is it at the expense of academic courses.
It is also fair to ask: should the students and the public resent when their state schools pay for individual faculty to attend conferences in posh locations. The professor receives the recognition, but students receive nothing.
And, if the faculty member receives a grant from an outside source or an honorarium to attend their conference, no one bats an eye. Quite the opposite; the university celebrates the accomplishment and tries to use it to raise money. Why is it a big to-do when sixteen basketball players are offered the same opportunity?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Passage to College: The Impact on Parents and Teens, a Guest Post by Traci S. Campbell
Raised in Baltimore by a single mother, Traci S. Campbell has become a leading adviser and advocate on behalf of pre-teens and teens in single parent families. At 18, Traci became the head of her household, working full-time and taking care of her mother, who had become too ill to work, while attending college full-time.
Traci has written about her life experiences in a book, The C.H.A.M.P Within, which offers supplemental guides for teens, pre-teens and single parents. She also hosts Heroes At Home, a bi-monthly radio show that delves deeply into single parent issues.
This post, special to Educated Quest, is about the journey's parents take when their children leave for college for the first time. It is appropriate, as the journey will begin for many in as little as two weeks. A special thanks to Traci for sharing her thoughts.
The rite of passage from high school hallways to college dorms is an exciting time in a young person’s life - I can still remember watching my house in the car’s rear view mirror as we left my street to make the journey to my new college home.
The hustle and bustle of buying new linen and lamps for the dorm room, packing boxes, and completing registration is a time where teens and their parents truly bond to take care of the business at hand. But what about AFTER all of the shopping and paperwork is done? What happens as those parents watch their teen get their student ID in hand and it is now time to say….well….goodbye? This is when the often hard process of separation, for both the teen and the parent, commences.
In a study recently conducted by Alloy Media + Marketing’s 10th Annual College Explorer Study, a record number of students will go to college in the Fall of 2010…16 million to be exact. This is the largest class in history with a current college population (ages 18-34) jumping as much as 6% from 2009.
And, a lot more college freshman enrollment and many more parents dealing with the reality that their nest is emptying. According to experts, the move from home to college marks, for most parents, the end of the child-rearing phase of life and new type of parenting phase: more passive and less hands on.
From the teens’ point of view, this transition is both exciting as they welcome their newfound freedoms. But it can also be daunting and scary as they are, for the first time in their lives, truly responsible for their actions and the resulting consequences of those actions. For most teens, this is also a time where they will truly be treated as an adult and held accountable for their decisions without the” safety net” of their parents’ intervention.
So how can this transition to college become easier for both the parent and the teen? The answer lies in two concepts: 1) the communication between parent and teen after the move onto campus 2) the overall “perception” of the college move. These make a BIG difference in easing the stress, sadness, and uncertainty associated with this new phase of life for the parent and teen.
Let’s start with communication. While it is very tempting for most parents to want to call their teen everyday, this is actually counterproductive. When polled, most college students prefer the once a week call or even the “every few days” text message; anything more than that is viewed as an “infringement” on their [the teens’] space.
Conversely, it is helpful for the teen to occasionally initiate the communication with their parent. More often than not, the parent is the initiator. By reaching out, no more than once a week, to their parents, teens can greatly help their parents ease into the transition of their no longer being a part of the nest.
Then there is the perception associated with going off to college. For the parent, it is natural to have mixed feelings: happiness on one hand and a sense of loss on the other.
However, it helps to purposely focus on the main “reasons” for their teen’s college transition: 1) the pursuit of higher education which can lead to vast future opportunities for their teen 2) the learning of skills to become a success adult 3) the exposure to people and scenarios they would never encounter at home and how to assimilate into the world at large. Only by “letting go” will their teen be able to take advantage of these very positive things. To not “let go” will actually “hurt” their teen in the long run.
For the teen, it is natural to be excited and, at the same time, harbor anxious feelings and sadness of leaving the familiar comforts of home. Again the perception must remain positive and proactive. By viewing this new phase as the true beginning of adulthood and viewing it as an adventure, teens can curb some of those feelings of loss and separation from home. It is also very important for a new freshman to get involved with activities with other like freshman as soon as possible to make the transition easier.
A teen going off the college is a big step for any family. While some families do not experience the struggle with the transition, many families do. In the end, it is important to remember that this is actually a “win-win” situation for all; the teen is going to benefit academically and socially as they move into their next phase of life.
As parents, you can enjoy the fruit of your hard labor in raising your teen and have some much deserved “fun” re-acquainting and spending time with “you” as your next phase of life commences as well.
You are encouraged to learn more about Traci's C.H.A.M.P writing and counseling programs and Heroes at Home. These are remarkable and positive efforts.
Traci has written about her life experiences in a book, The C.H.A.M.P Within, which offers supplemental guides for teens, pre-teens and single parents. She also hosts Heroes At Home, a bi-monthly radio show that delves deeply into single parent issues.
This post, special to Educated Quest, is about the journey's parents take when their children leave for college for the first time. It is appropriate, as the journey will begin for many in as little as two weeks. A special thanks to Traci for sharing her thoughts.
The rite of passage from high school hallways to college dorms is an exciting time in a young person’s life - I can still remember watching my house in the car’s rear view mirror as we left my street to make the journey to my new college home.
The hustle and bustle of buying new linen and lamps for the dorm room, packing boxes, and completing registration is a time where teens and their parents truly bond to take care of the business at hand. But what about AFTER all of the shopping and paperwork is done? What happens as those parents watch their teen get their student ID in hand and it is now time to say….well….goodbye? This is when the often hard process of separation, for both the teen and the parent, commences.
In a study recently conducted by Alloy Media + Marketing’s 10th Annual College Explorer Study, a record number of students will go to college in the Fall of 2010…16 million to be exact. This is the largest class in history with a current college population (ages 18-34) jumping as much as 6% from 2009.
And, a lot more college freshman enrollment and many more parents dealing with the reality that their nest is emptying. According to experts, the move from home to college marks, for most parents, the end of the child-rearing phase of life and new type of parenting phase: more passive and less hands on.
From the teens’ point of view, this transition is both exciting as they welcome their newfound freedoms. But it can also be daunting and scary as they are, for the first time in their lives, truly responsible for their actions and the resulting consequences of those actions. For most teens, this is also a time where they will truly be treated as an adult and held accountable for their decisions without the” safety net” of their parents’ intervention.
So how can this transition to college become easier for both the parent and the teen? The answer lies in two concepts: 1) the communication between parent and teen after the move onto campus 2) the overall “perception” of the college move. These make a BIG difference in easing the stress, sadness, and uncertainty associated with this new phase of life for the parent and teen.
Let’s start with communication. While it is very tempting for most parents to want to call their teen everyday, this is actually counterproductive. When polled, most college students prefer the once a week call or even the “every few days” text message; anything more than that is viewed as an “infringement” on their [the teens’] space.
Conversely, it is helpful for the teen to occasionally initiate the communication with their parent. More often than not, the parent is the initiator. By reaching out, no more than once a week, to their parents, teens can greatly help their parents ease into the transition of their no longer being a part of the nest.
Then there is the perception associated with going off to college. For the parent, it is natural to have mixed feelings: happiness on one hand and a sense of loss on the other.
However, it helps to purposely focus on the main “reasons” for their teen’s college transition: 1) the pursuit of higher education which can lead to vast future opportunities for their teen 2) the learning of skills to become a success adult 3) the exposure to people and scenarios they would never encounter at home and how to assimilate into the world at large. Only by “letting go” will their teen be able to take advantage of these very positive things. To not “let go” will actually “hurt” their teen in the long run.
For the teen, it is natural to be excited and, at the same time, harbor anxious feelings and sadness of leaving the familiar comforts of home. Again the perception must remain positive and proactive. By viewing this new phase as the true beginning of adulthood and viewing it as an adventure, teens can curb some of those feelings of loss and separation from home. It is also very important for a new freshman to get involved with activities with other like freshman as soon as possible to make the transition easier.
A teen going off the college is a big step for any family. While some families do not experience the struggle with the transition, many families do. In the end, it is important to remember that this is actually a “win-win” situation for all; the teen is going to benefit academically and socially as they move into their next phase of life.
As parents, you can enjoy the fruit of your hard labor in raising your teen and have some much deserved “fun” re-acquainting and spending time with “you” as your next phase of life commences as well.
You are encouraged to learn more about Traci's C.H.A.M.P writing and counseling programs and Heroes at Home. These are remarkable and positive efforts.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Want to Know What It's Really Like to Work in Advertising?
This weekend the new season of Mad Men aired on AMC. I've come to really like the show for it's retro look and feel, though it's not always a flattering look at corporate culture during the Sixties. I was born in 1960, so I watched the first three episodes trying to guess if I had been born yet. I concluded that the series began in September--Sterling Cooper debated on taking the Nixon campaign as a client--a couple of months after I came into the world.
I became hooked on Mad Men from the very first episode. I had thought about working in advertising when I was in high school and college. The field has an eclectic blend of wonks and creatives, with just enough math to be studied like pure social science.
I figured that if you loved to read, write and futz with statistics and you had a reasonably pleasant personality, you could succeed in advertising. Only thing was, I was more the quiet type; the best advertising execs are more social.
I still follow advertising as a field and I've worked with agency people in the past. Before Mad Men I had read David Ogilvy's two books: Confessions of an Advertising Man and Ogilvy on Advertising. Ogilvy was an Anglophile who believed in research and long body copy, among other trends. Through his writing, he left the aura of being classy, diplomatic and brilliant. However, he had been a cook and an unemployed farmer before he entered the field, and he lacked a college degree.
Then I picked up Jerry Della Femina's reissued book, From Those Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Pearl Harbor two weeks ago at the Borders near Penn Station-New York. I'm glad I did, because I can't find the book anywhere in the New Jersey stores near home.
If you want to really learn what it was like to work in advertising in the days of the Mad Men, buy this book. Originally written in 1970, it was probably the inspiration for the television show.
Della Femina, who, like Ogilvy, does not have a college degree, talks about his life and the ups and downs of people in the business in a breezy, entertaining tone, yet he makes you ask yourself: do you really think you belong in his business?
He takes you through the trials and tribulations of winning and losing accounts and classifies account executives by their ability, or inability, to bring in and manage business. It takes nine months for a deposed account executive to find a new job, he said. That's probably true today, too.
Read this book and you'll learn about such events as the marketing of the first feminine hygiene deodorant spray, the VW Bug and Japanese electronics when people did not think they were any good. You'll also see how the rumor mill worked when it came to these accounts. You already get a sense of that watching Mad Men.
And if you read closely, you'll find real-life models for Don Draper, Roger Sterling, Burt Cooper, Peter Campbell and Peggy Olson. You'll see much of the truth behind the fiction, too.
Can Successful Business Executives Become Successful Governors?
This week's Time magazine has an interesting story about the California governor's race between former two-term Governor Edmund "Jerry" Brown and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. To date, Whitman, an exceptionally successful business executive, has spent $91 million of her own money in her attempt to win this race.
Whitman puts her business resume front and center; she's balanced a budget and managed a large growth-oriented company. But she has spent little time attempting to influence public policy beyond narrow corporate interests. Worse, she has rarely bothered to vote.
Whitman supported the candidacy of Mitt Romney for President in 2008. Curious, I looked up biographical information on Mitt's father, the late Michigan governor George Romney, a Republican and a true industrialist.
During his eight years as CEO of American Motors, George Romney made the compact Rambler America's third best selling car. His business decisions drove the value of the company's stock from $7 to $90 a share; as a result he introduced corporate-wide profit sharing into a union environment.
When he was elected governor in 1962, Romney was no stranger in Lansing or Washington. He had served as managing director of the Automotive Council for War Production during World War II; the leading advocate for cooperation between the major automakers during wartime, and their primary representative to Congress. He had also been a lobbyist for the National Manufacturer's Association and a leading advocate for improvements in public education in Michigan. He was also a supporter of various civil rights initiatives from the 1940's through the 1960's, although he opposed the views of his Mormon church. In 1959, he founded Citizens for Michigan, which made studied fiscal solutions and proposed a model for a new state constitution.
As Governor, Romney got a new state constitution passed by a Democratic legislature. He also reduced the number of departments in state government. He also backed a state income tax, a position unpopular within his party, and got it passed. He wiped out the state's budget deficit while increasing investments in the schools. He also refused to back Barry Goldwater as his party's nominee for President in 1964, because he was not strong on civil rights.
Romney was re-elected Governor twice, then declared as a candidate for President in 1967. He was re-elected ironically for his appeal to labor unions; they had traditionally voted Democratic in Michigan. Which provides one lesson for business executives cum governors: you do not have the luxury of ignoring the people you had to engage in tough negotiations in business. And you cannot govern as if the business community is your only constituent group. The employees, and their peers, who could not fire you as CEO can fire you at the poles. And they would relish the opportunity to do it.
George Romney had the resume, as well as the skills, to successfully transition from business to government. It is also fair to say the same about his son, with his leadership of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee in the aftermath of the bribery scandal that embroiled the 2002 Winter Olympics.
But if I lived in California, I would be cautious about electing a corporate executive who has little history of civic involvement and rarely bothered to vote.
Whitman puts her business resume front and center; she's balanced a budget and managed a large growth-oriented company. But she has spent little time attempting to influence public policy beyond narrow corporate interests. Worse, she has rarely bothered to vote.
Whitman supported the candidacy of Mitt Romney for President in 2008. Curious, I looked up biographical information on Mitt's father, the late Michigan governor George Romney, a Republican and a true industrialist.
During his eight years as CEO of American Motors, George Romney made the compact Rambler America's third best selling car. His business decisions drove the value of the company's stock from $7 to $90 a share; as a result he introduced corporate-wide profit sharing into a union environment.
When he was elected governor in 1962, Romney was no stranger in Lansing or Washington. He had served as managing director of the Automotive Council for War Production during World War II; the leading advocate for cooperation between the major automakers during wartime, and their primary representative to Congress. He had also been a lobbyist for the National Manufacturer's Association and a leading advocate for improvements in public education in Michigan. He was also a supporter of various civil rights initiatives from the 1940's through the 1960's, although he opposed the views of his Mormon church. In 1959, he founded Citizens for Michigan, which made studied fiscal solutions and proposed a model for a new state constitution.
As Governor, Romney got a new state constitution passed by a Democratic legislature. He also reduced the number of departments in state government. He also backed a state income tax, a position unpopular within his party, and got it passed. He wiped out the state's budget deficit while increasing investments in the schools. He also refused to back Barry Goldwater as his party's nominee for President in 1964, because he was not strong on civil rights.
Romney was re-elected Governor twice, then declared as a candidate for President in 1967. He was re-elected ironically for his appeal to labor unions; they had traditionally voted Democratic in Michigan. Which provides one lesson for business executives cum governors: you do not have the luxury of ignoring the people you had to engage in tough negotiations in business. And you cannot govern as if the business community is your only constituent group. The employees, and their peers, who could not fire you as CEO can fire you at the poles. And they would relish the opportunity to do it.
George Romney had the resume, as well as the skills, to successfully transition from business to government. It is also fair to say the same about his son, with his leadership of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee in the aftermath of the bribery scandal that embroiled the 2002 Winter Olympics.
But if I lived in California, I would be cautious about electing a corporate executive who has little history of civic involvement and rarely bothered to vote.
Rutgers Rejects Socialist Proposal by Chris Christie
Last week I read that Rutgers University has turned down a proposal from the Christie Administration to become the sole supplier of medical marijuana to New Jersey teaching hospitals.
Rutgers Dean for the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences said that the university rejected the proposal because it could not afford to risk losing $552 million in federal money for research contracts and student financial aid.
The university is not approved by the federal government to conduct marijuana research. If it were to receive such approval, it would be managed under the auspices of the Drug Enforcement Agency.
I can understand some of the intentions of Governor Christie as well as the legislators who supported this proposal; it was backed by Democrats and Republicans.
Supporters probably wanted to limit sources of medical marijuana to one they could control. Rutgers, a state university, receives approximately one-third of its funding from state governments. Current legislation allows medical marijuana to be provided by a minimum of six non-profit organizations.
Supporters might have also seen medical marijuana as a "cash crop," a source of new income for the university system, in case they had to propose further budget cuts.
Lastly, they knew Rutgers had the necessary expertise in agronomy and agriculture to manage a marijuana farm.
But I have one word to describe this proposal: Socialism.
Under socialism, government owns or highly regulates entire industries. Government may set prices and production quotas. They may expand or limit distribution and limit competition by setting barriers to entry so high that new firms do not enter the market. They may also tax cash crops; this would be realistic in the case of medical marijuana where you want to limit consumption as much as possible.
In the case of medical marijuana, a conservative Republican administration chose a socialist approach. I had to laugh since conservatives are so quick to call Democratic ideas socialism without knowing what they're talking about.
Rutgers made the right call. Their federal funds are dependent on the will of lawmakers from several states. I can only imagine how Senators and Congressmen from red states would react to funding a public university that grows marijuana on campus. They might be more likely to use Rutgers as a bad example than to call Governor Christie to ask for an explanation.
Rutgers Dean for the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences said that the university rejected the proposal because it could not afford to risk losing $552 million in federal money for research contracts and student financial aid.
The university is not approved by the federal government to conduct marijuana research. If it were to receive such approval, it would be managed under the auspices of the Drug Enforcement Agency.
I can understand some of the intentions of Governor Christie as well as the legislators who supported this proposal; it was backed by Democrats and Republicans.
Supporters probably wanted to limit sources of medical marijuana to one they could control. Rutgers, a state university, receives approximately one-third of its funding from state governments. Current legislation allows medical marijuana to be provided by a minimum of six non-profit organizations.
Supporters might have also seen medical marijuana as a "cash crop," a source of new income for the university system, in case they had to propose further budget cuts.
Lastly, they knew Rutgers had the necessary expertise in agronomy and agriculture to manage a marijuana farm.
But I have one word to describe this proposal: Socialism.
Under socialism, government owns or highly regulates entire industries. Government may set prices and production quotas. They may expand or limit distribution and limit competition by setting barriers to entry so high that new firms do not enter the market. They may also tax cash crops; this would be realistic in the case of medical marijuana where you want to limit consumption as much as possible.
In the case of medical marijuana, a conservative Republican administration chose a socialist approach. I had to laugh since conservatives are so quick to call Democratic ideas socialism without knowing what they're talking about.
Rutgers made the right call. Their federal funds are dependent on the will of lawmakers from several states. I can only imagine how Senators and Congressmen from red states would react to funding a public university that grows marijuana on campus. They might be more likely to use Rutgers as a bad example than to call Governor Christie to ask for an explanation.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Book Reviews: Two Summer Reads on Misfits Trying to Fit In
Books about teenage misfits are nothing new. Some have even been made into movies, I Love You Beth Cooper and Juno being two that quickly come to my mind. When I started writing I tried to do a story on teen bullying, but gave up. I wasn't sure if I had anything unique to say, or if I had enough of a life experience to talk about.
I still read stories about misfits coming of age. I'd like to recommend two for summer reading that anyone from middle-schoolers to parents will enjoy.
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie is not a new story. First published three years ago, it is now in its second paperback printing. A National Book Award-winning young adult novel, Diary is the story of Arnold, aka Junior, a budding cartoonist who lives on an Indian reservation in Washington State.
Unattractive and un-athletic, a misfit in his own culture, he enrolls in a white rural school twenty two miles away at the urging of a teacher who had not been friendly to Indian students in the past. While he starts out a misfit in his own school, he slowly makes friends and discovers that he is much smarter than he originally thought. The prose is intense but easy to follow. This is probably the best story on bullying and prejudice parents and teachers can share with children.
High Before Homeroomby Maya Sloan is an adult story, though it could just as easily satisfy a young adult audience. The main character, Doug Schaffer, sixteen, very bright, but socially insecure. His aptitudes are nearly off-the-charts, but he does the bare minimum of school work and gets by to the disappointment of his mother and his teachers. His brother, Trevor, had been a god on campus, a football hero who had everything handed to him, until he dropped out of college to fight in Iraq.
Doug is in love with Laurilee, a "girl-friend" who dates only bad boys. So, influenced by a classmate who has come home from re-hab a hero, Doug becomes a drug addict himself; meth, easy to find, becomes his drug of choice. Doug also finds that he can step into his role well enough to have the social life he never had, until his brother comes home.
The storyline is not unusual, but what makes this novel special is the way Sloan, in Doug's voice characterizes life in Oklahoma. He feels above this life, yet he strives to earn a lower stature within it.
I still read stories about misfits coming of age. I'd like to recommend two for summer reading that anyone from middle-schoolers to parents will enjoy.
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie is not a new story. First published three years ago, it is now in its second paperback printing. A National Book Award-winning young adult novel, Diary is the story of Arnold, aka Junior, a budding cartoonist who lives on an Indian reservation in Washington State.
Unattractive and un-athletic, a misfit in his own culture, he enrolls in a white rural school twenty two miles away at the urging of a teacher who had not been friendly to Indian students in the past. While he starts out a misfit in his own school, he slowly makes friends and discovers that he is much smarter than he originally thought. The prose is intense but easy to follow. This is probably the best story on bullying and prejudice parents and teachers can share with children.
High Before Homeroomby Maya Sloan is an adult story, though it could just as easily satisfy a young adult audience. The main character, Doug Schaffer, sixteen, very bright, but socially insecure. His aptitudes are nearly off-the-charts, but he does the bare minimum of school work and gets by to the disappointment of his mother and his teachers. His brother, Trevor, had been a god on campus, a football hero who had everything handed to him, until he dropped out of college to fight in Iraq.
Doug is in love with Laurilee, a "girl-friend" who dates only bad boys. So, influenced by a classmate who has come home from re-hab a hero, Doug becomes a drug addict himself; meth, easy to find, becomes his drug of choice. Doug also finds that he can step into his role well enough to have the social life he never had, until his brother comes home.
The storyline is not unusual, but what makes this novel special is the way Sloan, in Doug's voice characterizes life in Oklahoma. He feels above this life, yet he strives to earn a lower stature within it.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Christian Counseling Student Rebuffs Request for Remediation on GLBT Beliefs by Augusta State University
Last week I read of a complaint filed in U.S. District Court by an Augusta State University (GA) student who has been threatened with expulsion from a master's degree program in school counseling.
The student, Jennifer Keeton, a Christian, has refused to participate in a remediation program proposed by the school's faculty to help her overcome her religious biases against persons who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-gender.
The remediation program, according to the complaint, included attending three workshops in cross-cultural communication, multi-cultural competence and diversity sensitivity training; required reading of ten or more pieces in academic journals on counseling or psychology; and attendance at a gay pride parade with a follow-up report. Remediation also included further improvements in grammar and writing, which Ms. Keeton considered to be pre-textual.
In the complaint, Ms. Keeton has cited faculty comments that she supports conversion therapy and that she has attempted to impose her religious-based beliefs on her fellow students. She denies her support of conversion and defends her free-speech rights to promote her religious beliefs.
A major counter-point is that Ms. Keeton's actions and her views about GLBT persons are in violation of the codes of ethics of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselors Association.
The complaint is worth reading as it challenges not only the authority of the faculty of the university but also the codes of professional ethics, stating that they are vaguely written and do not allude to denial of a counselor's free speech right. In addition, Ms. Keeton has stated that she would be able to exercise professionalism when counseling GLBT students.
As I read the complaint, I wondered if Ms. Keeton should have simply gone along with the faculty and accepted remediation. To me, a registered Democrat, it would be no worse than being asked to subscribe to the National Review for a year, read books by conservative thinkers and attend a Sarah Palin rally.
I would not be changed by the experience. It might even serve to strengthen my own convictions. It might also help me in writing a good book about the experience.
But here's what I don't know: do the ethical standards of this profession apply to students as well as practitioners?
If they do not in the eyes of the court--and Ms. Keeton has not represented herself as a professional counselor--then she should win this case. An ethical standards board can deal with her later if she violates standards in professional practice.
If they do, the faculty is right and Ms. Keeton would be asked to leave her program for academic reasons. I cannot see how Ms. Keeton loses her argument for free-speech rights. But a fundamentalist Christian school may reward her with a full scholarship to compensate for "pain and suffering." And I'm sure there will be future employers who will not put her in a position where she will violate ethical standards.
The student, Jennifer Keeton, a Christian, has refused to participate in a remediation program proposed by the school's faculty to help her overcome her religious biases against persons who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-gender.
The remediation program, according to the complaint, included attending three workshops in cross-cultural communication, multi-cultural competence and diversity sensitivity training; required reading of ten or more pieces in academic journals on counseling or psychology; and attendance at a gay pride parade with a follow-up report. Remediation also included further improvements in grammar and writing, which Ms. Keeton considered to be pre-textual.
In the complaint, Ms. Keeton has cited faculty comments that she supports conversion therapy and that she has attempted to impose her religious-based beliefs on her fellow students. She denies her support of conversion and defends her free-speech rights to promote her religious beliefs.
A major counter-point is that Ms. Keeton's actions and her views about GLBT persons are in violation of the codes of ethics of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselors Association.
The complaint is worth reading as it challenges not only the authority of the faculty of the university but also the codes of professional ethics, stating that they are vaguely written and do not allude to denial of a counselor's free speech right. In addition, Ms. Keeton has stated that she would be able to exercise professionalism when counseling GLBT students.
As I read the complaint, I wondered if Ms. Keeton should have simply gone along with the faculty and accepted remediation. To me, a registered Democrat, it would be no worse than being asked to subscribe to the National Review for a year, read books by conservative thinkers and attend a Sarah Palin rally.
I would not be changed by the experience. It might even serve to strengthen my own convictions. It might also help me in writing a good book about the experience.
But here's what I don't know: do the ethical standards of this profession apply to students as well as practitioners?
If they do not in the eyes of the court--and Ms. Keeton has not represented herself as a professional counselor--then she should win this case. An ethical standards board can deal with her later if she violates standards in professional practice.
If they do, the faculty is right and Ms. Keeton would be asked to leave her program for academic reasons. I cannot see how Ms. Keeton loses her argument for free-speech rights. But a fundamentalist Christian school may reward her with a full scholarship to compensate for "pain and suffering." And I'm sure there will be future employers who will not put her in a position where she will violate ethical standards.
Special to Educated Quest: The Top Four Ways to Get Back Into Back-to-School , Guest Post by Kelly Wilson
August is just around the corner, the first sign that school will be starting soon. Back-to-school bargains will be upon us in a couple of weeks. But it is also helpful to provide parents with tips that will help their children transition from summer to school.
Teacher, education writer and mother Kelly Wilson has four tips to get parents started. Educated Quest would like to thank Kelly for today's post.
Heading back to school is an exciting time for everyone involved. However, all of the stimulation can turn chaotic, leaving everyone feeling overstressed. Here are a few strategies that help my family ease into the new school year.
Decide on Routines
The first two weeks of school can be a shock to your kids. Start now by setting up small routines. For example, before my kids can watch cartoons in the morning, they need to get dressed, eat breakfast and finish their chores.
As the summer fades into fall, set up routines that will ease everyone into the first week of school. When will chores need to be done? When will lunches be made and homework finished? Where should backpacks be put when kids come home from school? Talk with your kids about these decisions and get their input, then have them get into the habit of these routines before school starts.
Start Early
Get a jump-start on the school year by making sure your kids get adequate amounts of sleep. During the week or two before school starts, enforce a regularly scheduled bedtime. Grab window shades or blankets to block out all of the evening summer fun or provide eye masks for your kids that can be picked up for about a dollar at your local craft or fabric store. Establish additional routines that include:
+Bathing, reading stories and going to bed
+Getting up, getting dressed and eating breakfast
+Chores around the house
+Practice work in activity books
These extra steps will help everyone feel more comfortable as the school year gets going.
Provide Down Time
After the first day and especially during the first few weeks of school, your child is going to feel tired and probably overwhelmed. Provide down time in the afternoons or evenings, eating dinner together and talking about the day's events. Keep extra-curricular activities to a minimum or not at all during the month of September whenever possible. This will help everyone transition into the busy schedule of the new school year and get the rest they need.
Be Consistent
Since the sun doesn’t truly go down until fairly late in the summer evenings, it's tempting to not enforce a regular bedtime with your kids until school actually starts. Trust me, this is good for no one.
Begin a regular bedtime routine two weeks before school starts, and emphasize daily habits like brushing teeth, bathing, and reading stories. Other helpful routines to put into practice during this time include:
+Getting up, getting dressed and eating breakfast
+Chores around the house
+Practice work in activity books
+Building these habits before school starts will definitely help everyone as the days get busier.
The beginning of the school year can be a chaotic time, but it doesn’t have to be. These suggestions will help your family enjoy the transition without all of the chaos!
Kelly Wilson, is an editor for Teaching Resource Center, providing a variety of Teacher Supplies and Free Teachers' Resources for over 25 years. Kelly blogs regularly on Kelly's Corner on the Teacher's Resource Center site. She may be contacted at Kelly.wilson@trcabc.com.
Teacher, education writer and mother Kelly Wilson has four tips to get parents started. Educated Quest would like to thank Kelly for today's post.
Heading back to school is an exciting time for everyone involved. However, all of the stimulation can turn chaotic, leaving everyone feeling overstressed. Here are a few strategies that help my family ease into the new school year.
Decide on Routines
The first two weeks of school can be a shock to your kids. Start now by setting up small routines. For example, before my kids can watch cartoons in the morning, they need to get dressed, eat breakfast and finish their chores.
As the summer fades into fall, set up routines that will ease everyone into the first week of school. When will chores need to be done? When will lunches be made and homework finished? Where should backpacks be put when kids come home from school? Talk with your kids about these decisions and get their input, then have them get into the habit of these routines before school starts.
Start Early
Get a jump-start on the school year by making sure your kids get adequate amounts of sleep. During the week or two before school starts, enforce a regularly scheduled bedtime. Grab window shades or blankets to block out all of the evening summer fun or provide eye masks for your kids that can be picked up for about a dollar at your local craft or fabric store. Establish additional routines that include:
+Bathing, reading stories and going to bed
+Getting up, getting dressed and eating breakfast
+Chores around the house
+Practice work in activity books
These extra steps will help everyone feel more comfortable as the school year gets going.
Provide Down Time
After the first day and especially during the first few weeks of school, your child is going to feel tired and probably overwhelmed. Provide down time in the afternoons or evenings, eating dinner together and talking about the day's events. Keep extra-curricular activities to a minimum or not at all during the month of September whenever possible. This will help everyone transition into the busy schedule of the new school year and get the rest they need.
Be Consistent
Since the sun doesn’t truly go down until fairly late in the summer evenings, it's tempting to not enforce a regular bedtime with your kids until school actually starts. Trust me, this is good for no one.
Begin a regular bedtime routine two weeks before school starts, and emphasize daily habits like brushing teeth, bathing, and reading stories. Other helpful routines to put into practice during this time include:
+Getting up, getting dressed and eating breakfast
+Chores around the house
+Practice work in activity books
+Building these habits before school starts will definitely help everyone as the days get busier.
The beginning of the school year can be a chaotic time, but it doesn’t have to be. These suggestions will help your family enjoy the transition without all of the chaos!
Kelly Wilson, is an editor for Teaching Resource Center, providing a variety of Teacher Supplies and Free Teachers' Resources for over 25 years. Kelly blogs regularly on Kelly's Corner on the Teacher's Resource Center site. She may be contacted at Kelly.wilson@trcabc.com.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Must K-12 Education Be a Competitive Advantage Among States?
Today, I read an interesting quote in EdWeek online from former Massachusetts governor William Weld. I wondered if he forgot that our country is a republic of 50 states, not a collection of fifty countries, some to advance economically, some not.
Here's the quote, related to his opposition to common standards:
The state's unique education curriculum "is a competitive advantage Massachusetts has. If you say, 'Let's have one national standard,' then we're the same as everyone else. That makes no sense to me."
When I read comments like this I vow that I will never vote Republican in an election.
The idea behind common standards is not to "dumb down" or demean the efforts of the people of Massachusetts, but to ensure the mobility of our citizens. A family that has to leave Mississippi or Missouri or Maine for Massachusetts should be able to take their children from their school in one state and enroll them in a new school in another state without being forced to play catch-up. No one is telling Massachusetts not to have high standards; the president wants all states to have them.
Mobility is more important to Americans than it is citizens of other countries; it is essential to the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. Mobility is how we become open to job opportunities and how we help the economies of cities and states we visit.
And, as much I do not like the idea of "red states" and "blue states," I further dislike the thought of "smart states" and "dumb states" Weld alludes to in this statement. His state cannot take every possible citizen or every possible business; every state needs an economy. And every state needs a labor force educated to support it.
Here's the quote, related to his opposition to common standards:
The state's unique education curriculum "is a competitive advantage Massachusetts has. If you say, 'Let's have one national standard,' then we're the same as everyone else. That makes no sense to me."
When I read comments like this I vow that I will never vote Republican in an election.
The idea behind common standards is not to "dumb down" or demean the efforts of the people of Massachusetts, but to ensure the mobility of our citizens. A family that has to leave Mississippi or Missouri or Maine for Massachusetts should be able to take their children from their school in one state and enroll them in a new school in another state without being forced to play catch-up. No one is telling Massachusetts not to have high standards; the president wants all states to have them.
Mobility is more important to Americans than it is citizens of other countries; it is essential to the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. Mobility is how we become open to job opportunities and how we help the economies of cities and states we visit.
And, as much I do not like the idea of "red states" and "blue states," I further dislike the thought of "smart states" and "dumb states" Weld alludes to in this statement. His state cannot take every possible citizen or every possible business; every state needs an economy. And every state needs a labor force educated to support it.
Public Service Incentives and Socialism
At the beginning of this month I went to a Yankee game and sat next to a urologist who practices in New York City. He told me of the expenses of beginning a medical career: repaying student loans, malpractice insurance, office space, staffing and so. The debt repayments on the student loans were little less than the mortgage on a townhouse in a nice New Jersey neighborhood.
I understood the doctor's concerns and costs, then he commented: "I could have taken on a practice in a rural area. The government would have covered my debt. But that's socialism. The government is telling me where to practice medicine."
I argued that the military has offered incentives for a long time, too. They always need educated officers. ROTC has been around since the 1930's. The country has operated free military academies since 1802. But no one considers the military service obligation to be a form of socialism.
Until the first government-sponsored student loan funds were issued in 1959, the major sources of financial aid were a free undergraduate education through the public university system (like the city colleges in New York or the University of California before Reagan) or the military academies, a scholarship to a private college, an athlete scholarship, or an ROTC scholarship.
The free public university education and the private college academic scholarship carried no obligation, besides maintaining grades. That was more than fair; if you were smart enough to get in the school, you were smart enough to stay. The athlete had to play the sport and maintain grades to continue in school; the best athletes got breaks here and there, but a sport is work. The military academy and ROTC scholarships had a future obligation: full-time military service at the start of your working life.
I support ROTC and the service academies. My father had his college tuition paid through ROTC. The military has much to teach recent college graduates about leadership, self discipline and chains of command, and officers are highly sought by corporations when they want to leave for the private sector.
Unfortunately, we don't take the same attitudes towards other forms of public service. Instead of scholarships we have loan forgiveness.
College, graduate and professional degree holders who become public school teachers (regardless of the income level of the students in their school system), police officers, public interest lawyers, rural health care workers, government workers, even college and university employees are eligible to extend loan repayment terms for as long as 20 years. Debts are forgiven after ten years in public service work.
If the U.S was a purely socialist society, the government would be the major decision maker. Students would take various national examinations; the results determine their academic and professional future. The student would have little choice. Everyone would have a military obligation, because defense would be a large part of the economy and a major provider of homeland security. No student would graduate from college or technical school in debt; education is more likely to be free, but accessible to fewer people.
Under President Obama's leadership, as well as presidents before him, Democrats and Republicans alike, the United States has not headed towards the socialism feared by conservatives.
Conservatives support the military, the service academies and ROTC, yet they have been on record as opposed to conscription. Liberals have opposed defense build-ups and military conflicts, yet you do not see them move on ROTC and West Point. And, liberals have led practically every battle since World War II to make the military more inclusive.
Conservatives have not supported increased subsidies to higher education, however they have tried to limit tuition increases so that such subsidies are less necessary. Liberals have supported larger grants to students and the direct loan program, but neither means more government. College financial aid offices manage the loans; the same government workers who managed the smaller grants disburse the larger ones. Either way, the focus is on accessibility and affordability.
However, conservatives have been more opposed to public service related scholarships and fellowships as well as loan forgiveness, anything tied to an obligation to work for government or support the government. They want less government in the future, not more.
To the most extreme providing for future government workers or public service needs leads to socialism. This is too short sighted.
If government were to cease to pay caring and capable professionals to perform these services someone would need to step in to pay their salaries and benefits. The need for the service would not go away.
I doubt that any private entity, for profit or non-profit, or a religious organization would be able to pay more than the public sector to get the best people possible. I also doubt that they would be able to get them without the existence of government-sponsored incentives incentives such as grants and loan forgiveness.
I understood the doctor's concerns and costs, then he commented: "I could have taken on a practice in a rural area. The government would have covered my debt. But that's socialism. The government is telling me where to practice medicine."
I argued that the military has offered incentives for a long time, too. They always need educated officers. ROTC has been around since the 1930's. The country has operated free military academies since 1802. But no one considers the military service obligation to be a form of socialism.
Until the first government-sponsored student loan funds were issued in 1959, the major sources of financial aid were a free undergraduate education through the public university system (like the city colleges in New York or the University of California before Reagan) or the military academies, a scholarship to a private college, an athlete scholarship, or an ROTC scholarship.
The free public university education and the private college academic scholarship carried no obligation, besides maintaining grades. That was more than fair; if you were smart enough to get in the school, you were smart enough to stay. The athlete had to play the sport and maintain grades to continue in school; the best athletes got breaks here and there, but a sport is work. The military academy and ROTC scholarships had a future obligation: full-time military service at the start of your working life.
I support ROTC and the service academies. My father had his college tuition paid through ROTC. The military has much to teach recent college graduates about leadership, self discipline and chains of command, and officers are highly sought by corporations when they want to leave for the private sector.
Unfortunately, we don't take the same attitudes towards other forms of public service. Instead of scholarships we have loan forgiveness.
College, graduate and professional degree holders who become public school teachers (regardless of the income level of the students in their school system), police officers, public interest lawyers, rural health care workers, government workers, even college and university employees are eligible to extend loan repayment terms for as long as 20 years. Debts are forgiven after ten years in public service work.
If the U.S was a purely socialist society, the government would be the major decision maker. Students would take various national examinations; the results determine their academic and professional future. The student would have little choice. Everyone would have a military obligation, because defense would be a large part of the economy and a major provider of homeland security. No student would graduate from college or technical school in debt; education is more likely to be free, but accessible to fewer people.
Under President Obama's leadership, as well as presidents before him, Democrats and Republicans alike, the United States has not headed towards the socialism feared by conservatives.
Conservatives support the military, the service academies and ROTC, yet they have been on record as opposed to conscription. Liberals have opposed defense build-ups and military conflicts, yet you do not see them move on ROTC and West Point. And, liberals have led practically every battle since World War II to make the military more inclusive.
Conservatives have not supported increased subsidies to higher education, however they have tried to limit tuition increases so that such subsidies are less necessary. Liberals have supported larger grants to students and the direct loan program, but neither means more government. College financial aid offices manage the loans; the same government workers who managed the smaller grants disburse the larger ones. Either way, the focus is on accessibility and affordability.
However, conservatives have been more opposed to public service related scholarships and fellowships as well as loan forgiveness, anything tied to an obligation to work for government or support the government. They want less government in the future, not more.
To the most extreme providing for future government workers or public service needs leads to socialism. This is too short sighted.
If government were to cease to pay caring and capable professionals to perform these services someone would need to step in to pay their salaries and benefits. The need for the service would not go away.
I doubt that any private entity, for profit or non-profit, or a religious organization would be able to pay more than the public sector to get the best people possible. I also doubt that they would be able to get them without the existence of government-sponsored incentives incentives such as grants and loan forgiveness.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Reagan Purity Test
The current Newsweek has an excellent story: What Would Reagan Really Do? It is worthwhile reading for Democrats and Republicans alike.
The main premise is that devout conservatives loved the Reagan rhetoric but they fail to realize that he did not always walk the talk.
Reagan is credited with shrinking the size of government. He didn't. It grew by 60,000 workers, excluding the military. It shrunk under Clinton, but give a post-Reagan Republican Congress credit, too.
Reagan is credited with cutting taxes. He did, though he later had to raise them two years later, raise the gas tax a year after that and approved a social security tax hike upon the recommendations of a bi-partisan commission he appointed.
This story mentions that conservative social issue positions have not changed much since Reagan was elected. However, Reagan himself never sent a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion to Congress, nor did he ever send a Defense of Marriage Act. A school prayer bill was sent to Congress early in his first term, but it did not have enough votes to pass a Republican-controlled Senate. He did not send a school prayer bill down in his second term. The main point: a modern day Reagan presidency would have set social issue questions aside to keep them from dividing the country.
The story also mentions that a modern Reagan presidency would not need to emphasize tax cuts; the top tax brackets are the same as they were in 1980. The major military threats are terrorism and nuclear proliferation; neither requires an expansive military build-up reminiscent of the early 1980's. Yet, the more populist conservatives call for more tax cuts, with no comment on the military.
But more important, Reagan could impose tax cuts while the country was at peace as well as take them away. It's doubtful that he would have balanced tax cuts with full scale military conflicts such as those we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. He would have taxed appropriately and spent whatever was necessary to win the war. That's what Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, did in 1991. He approved a budget with tax increases before going to war in Iraq.
Today if a Republican candidate ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and national security (defend our borders, strategic defense) but remained neutral on the social issue positions and tax cuts while vowed to maintain the larger entitlements, that candidate would probably lose the primary. Strangely enough, that candidate could win as a Democrat.
The main premise is that devout conservatives loved the Reagan rhetoric but they fail to realize that he did not always walk the talk.
Reagan is credited with shrinking the size of government. He didn't. It grew by 60,000 workers, excluding the military. It shrunk under Clinton, but give a post-Reagan Republican Congress credit, too.
Reagan is credited with cutting taxes. He did, though he later had to raise them two years later, raise the gas tax a year after that and approved a social security tax hike upon the recommendations of a bi-partisan commission he appointed.
This story mentions that conservative social issue positions have not changed much since Reagan was elected. However, Reagan himself never sent a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion to Congress, nor did he ever send a Defense of Marriage Act. A school prayer bill was sent to Congress early in his first term, but it did not have enough votes to pass a Republican-controlled Senate. He did not send a school prayer bill down in his second term. The main point: a modern day Reagan presidency would have set social issue questions aside to keep them from dividing the country.
The story also mentions that a modern Reagan presidency would not need to emphasize tax cuts; the top tax brackets are the same as they were in 1980. The major military threats are terrorism and nuclear proliferation; neither requires an expansive military build-up reminiscent of the early 1980's. Yet, the more populist conservatives call for more tax cuts, with no comment on the military.
But more important, Reagan could impose tax cuts while the country was at peace as well as take them away. It's doubtful that he would have balanced tax cuts with full scale military conflicts such as those we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. He would have taxed appropriately and spent whatever was necessary to win the war. That's what Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, did in 1991. He approved a budget with tax increases before going to war in Iraq.
Today if a Republican candidate ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and national security (defend our borders, strategic defense) but remained neutral on the social issue positions and tax cuts while vowed to maintain the larger entitlements, that candidate would probably lose the primary. Strangely enough, that candidate could win as a Democrat.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
What If There Was No Federal Department of Education?
Tea Party U.S. Senate candidates Rand Paul and Sharron Angle, among others, are calling for the dissolution of the U.S. Department of Education. While it is a common conservative and libertarian theme to call for the elimination of a federal agency, including agencies at Cabinet level, you have to ask if their candidates consider the consequences of their position.
According to the Department of Education Web site, the federal share of K-12 education spending is approximately 10.5 percent; the rest is covered by state and local government. The federal share also includes education-related programs not run by the agency such as Native American schools (Department of Interior), school lunches (Agriculture), Head Start(Health and Human Services). There are also veteran's educational benefits available through the G.I. Bill and education partnerships through the military such as ROTC.
There has been a federal role in education since 1867. A non-Cabinet level department was established to collect information on the schools and teaching practices to help state governments develop their own school systems. In 1890, this department also assumed responsibility for supporting growing network of land-grant public colleges.
Direct federal aid to secondary schools began in 1917 with the Smith-Hughes Act which funded vocational programs in agriculture, trades and industry, and home economics. By the end of the 1950's, the number of vocational students had grown to 3.4 million with 176 million dollars spent annually on their education. The Lanham Act, passed in 1941, provided federal funds to school districts for child care to communities impacted by military operations, including munitions manufacturing.
The first student loan programs were established in 1958 with the passage of the National Defense Education Act. From 1959 through 1964, the federal commitment to student loans rose from $9 million to aid approximately 25,000 students to $443 million to assist over 600,000 students. These funds were distributed through the Education Department of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). Today, they are administered by the Department of Education.
Federal involvement in education came to the schoolhouse door during the Civil Rights era from the late 1950's through the 1970's. Today, the federal department is responsible for overseeing compliance with such laws, although the Justice Department represents the agency in court.
So, if you dissolved this agency, what would go away?
Enforcement of civil rights laws pertaining to education and the management of student aid would be handled by other agencies, as several education-related programs are today. The laws and programs would survive; they have very large constituencies.
Some of the grant programs, for example aid to publicly supported charter schools and Race to the Top, might go away, but these programs represent less than ten percent of a $72 billion agency budget. More likely, unspent funds would be returned to the U.S Treasury. Allocations for some of these programs are made over several years.
But some of these initiatives: accountability, information sharing,charter schools and performance-based pay are popular with Republicans as well as Democrats. I seriously doubt that Rand Paul or Sharron Angle would be in a position to go against their party leaders to zero them out of the budget.
And what would happen to the Department of Education?
It would lose Cabinet-level status. The Office of the Secretary could become an office of an assistant secretary under another Cabinet department or an administrator appointed by the president, as the FBI and CIA directorate and the Federal EPA administrator are now.
If either were to happen, education still has a seat at the table as well as the President's ear. There would still be a federal role in education.
Dissolution might end up becoming a symbolic victory for the libertarians and conservatives, but it would be a hollow victory as well.
According to the Department of Education Web site, the federal share of K-12 education spending is approximately 10.5 percent; the rest is covered by state and local government. The federal share also includes education-related programs not run by the agency such as Native American schools (Department of Interior), school lunches (Agriculture), Head Start(Health and Human Services). There are also veteran's educational benefits available through the G.I. Bill and education partnerships through the military such as ROTC.
There has been a federal role in education since 1867. A non-Cabinet level department was established to collect information on the schools and teaching practices to help state governments develop their own school systems. In 1890, this department also assumed responsibility for supporting growing network of land-grant public colleges.
Direct federal aid to secondary schools began in 1917 with the Smith-Hughes Act which funded vocational programs in agriculture, trades and industry, and home economics. By the end of the 1950's, the number of vocational students had grown to 3.4 million with 176 million dollars spent annually on their education. The Lanham Act, passed in 1941, provided federal funds to school districts for child care to communities impacted by military operations, including munitions manufacturing.
The first student loan programs were established in 1958 with the passage of the National Defense Education Act. From 1959 through 1964, the federal commitment to student loans rose from $9 million to aid approximately 25,000 students to $443 million to assist over 600,000 students. These funds were distributed through the Education Department of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). Today, they are administered by the Department of Education.
Federal involvement in education came to the schoolhouse door during the Civil Rights era from the late 1950's through the 1970's. Today, the federal department is responsible for overseeing compliance with such laws, although the Justice Department represents the agency in court.
So, if you dissolved this agency, what would go away?
Enforcement of civil rights laws pertaining to education and the management of student aid would be handled by other agencies, as several education-related programs are today. The laws and programs would survive; they have very large constituencies.
Some of the grant programs, for example aid to publicly supported charter schools and Race to the Top, might go away, but these programs represent less than ten percent of a $72 billion agency budget. More likely, unspent funds would be returned to the U.S Treasury. Allocations for some of these programs are made over several years.
But some of these initiatives: accountability, information sharing,charter schools and performance-based pay are popular with Republicans as well as Democrats. I seriously doubt that Rand Paul or Sharron Angle would be in a position to go against their party leaders to zero them out of the budget.
And what would happen to the Department of Education?
It would lose Cabinet-level status. The Office of the Secretary could become an office of an assistant secretary under another Cabinet department or an administrator appointed by the president, as the FBI and CIA directorate and the Federal EPA administrator are now.
If either were to happen, education still has a seat at the table as well as the President's ear. There would still be a federal role in education.
Dissolution might end up becoming a symbolic victory for the libertarians and conservatives, but it would be a hollow victory as well.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
No Government Program Should Be Immune from Scrutiny, Not Even a Popular Social Program
Yesterday's USA Today had a feature editorial on Head Start entitled: Fix Head Start before throwing more money at it. The editors call for changes in the program before more money is authorized for it; the Obama Administration has requested an increase of nearly $1 billion.
The editors called for several fixes before more money is appropriated. Three: more qualified teachers with bachelor's degrees, reducing fraud, and better alignment with kindergarten and first grade instruction make complete sense. A fourth, to make the program strictly academic-focused, does not.
First created in 1965 as a summer demonstration project under President Johnson, Head Start was modeled after pre-school studies of the day, In 1965,there were two thoughts in mind: educate children from disadvantaged families so that they could begin kindergarten on a level playing field with children in working class and middle class families, and to help their parents support the learning process. The latter should be part of a rejuvenated Head Start; parental support of learning is as important as the learning itself.
The early pre-school programs--the best known being the Perry Pre-School Project of the early 1960's in Ypsilanti, Michigan--emphasized parental instruction in health and nutrition as well as early childhood education. Qualified teachers worked with young students and parents.
The problem when you take a great idea on a small scale and blow it up to a much larger scale, like Head Start, is that you need to find the people with the qualities that made the successful program work.
As a federal program, Head Start and its kin were never intended to be a dole to existing programs, some of which would not meet the best of intentions. Qualified teachers, essential to the success of universal pre-school, was an unresolved issue until 2007, more than 40 years after Head Start's founding. The issues of parental involvement were not addressed until 1974.
Head Start has survived for 45 years through nine presidents; most social programs do not last that long. However, as the ideology of the president changed, so did the context of the program.
Head Start's expansion was dramatic. In 1965, $96 million was appropriated for the eight week summer program, run with schools and volunteers. By 1969, after President Johnson left office, Head Start funding had risen to approximately $334 million. President Nixon initially cut the funds, then increased them under the requirement that ten percent be set aside for students with disabilities. By the time Nixon resigned, performance standards were put in place and Head Start spending exceeded $400 million. Funding was increased under every president until 2004, when the Bush Administration flattened funding at $6.9 billion.
However, state governments also saw the value in pre-school programs. Ironically, the three universal pre-school programs in the U.S. are in states governed by conservative Republicans: Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma.
Conservatives embraced these programs, run by public as well as private and faith-based groups, as an extension of family values as well as an opportunity for future cost savings in other programs; special education, prisons and unemployment assistance being three examples.
The conclusions by state governors were drawn, oddly enough, from pre-school studies similar to those used to justify Head Start. The premise was the same: the better the quality of pre-school education, the more likely disadvantaged youth would grow up to be good citizens.
As one example, the Tulsa, Oklahoma public school systems has run state-supported universal pre-school for 18 years. Their success is attributed to qualified teachers and a 10 to 1 student-faculty ratio, neither of which is assured by the local Head Start program.
If the students in this pre-school program are having more success than students enrolled in Head Start, then Head Start should be asked to consider the best practices developed within the states as conditions for more funding. Especially when they have been among the best practices in pre-school education for nearly half a century.
The editors called for several fixes before more money is appropriated. Three: more qualified teachers with bachelor's degrees, reducing fraud, and better alignment with kindergarten and first grade instruction make complete sense. A fourth, to make the program strictly academic-focused, does not.
First created in 1965 as a summer demonstration project under President Johnson, Head Start was modeled after pre-school studies of the day, In 1965,there were two thoughts in mind: educate children from disadvantaged families so that they could begin kindergarten on a level playing field with children in working class and middle class families, and to help their parents support the learning process. The latter should be part of a rejuvenated Head Start; parental support of learning is as important as the learning itself.
The early pre-school programs--the best known being the Perry Pre-School Project of the early 1960's in Ypsilanti, Michigan--emphasized parental instruction in health and nutrition as well as early childhood education. Qualified teachers worked with young students and parents.
The problem when you take a great idea on a small scale and blow it up to a much larger scale, like Head Start, is that you need to find the people with the qualities that made the successful program work.
As a federal program, Head Start and its kin were never intended to be a dole to existing programs, some of which would not meet the best of intentions. Qualified teachers, essential to the success of universal pre-school, was an unresolved issue until 2007, more than 40 years after Head Start's founding. The issues of parental involvement were not addressed until 1974.
Head Start has survived for 45 years through nine presidents; most social programs do not last that long. However, as the ideology of the president changed, so did the context of the program.
Head Start's expansion was dramatic. In 1965, $96 million was appropriated for the eight week summer program, run with schools and volunteers. By 1969, after President Johnson left office, Head Start funding had risen to approximately $334 million. President Nixon initially cut the funds, then increased them under the requirement that ten percent be set aside for students with disabilities. By the time Nixon resigned, performance standards were put in place and Head Start spending exceeded $400 million. Funding was increased under every president until 2004, when the Bush Administration flattened funding at $6.9 billion.
However, state governments also saw the value in pre-school programs. Ironically, the three universal pre-school programs in the U.S. are in states governed by conservative Republicans: Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma.
Conservatives embraced these programs, run by public as well as private and faith-based groups, as an extension of family values as well as an opportunity for future cost savings in other programs; special education, prisons and unemployment assistance being three examples.
The conclusions by state governors were drawn, oddly enough, from pre-school studies similar to those used to justify Head Start. The premise was the same: the better the quality of pre-school education, the more likely disadvantaged youth would grow up to be good citizens.
As one example, the Tulsa, Oklahoma public school systems has run state-supported universal pre-school for 18 years. Their success is attributed to qualified teachers and a 10 to 1 student-faculty ratio, neither of which is assured by the local Head Start program.
If the students in this pre-school program are having more success than students enrolled in Head Start, then Head Start should be asked to consider the best practices developed within the states as conditions for more funding. Especially when they have been among the best practices in pre-school education for nearly half a century.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Is 'Drill Baby Drill' a Way to Curb College Fiscal Woes?
Last week I read a fascinating story in the Chronicle of Higher Education about colleges situated atop "energy gold mine," known as the Marcellus Shale.
According to the story, which is secured on the Chronicle site, the shale is deep beneath the soil of Pennsylvania, southern New York, eastern Ohio, and West Virginia. Optimists have estimated that the Marcellus Shale contains hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas. (By comparison, according to the Chronicle story, all of New York uses about a trillion cubic feet of gas a year.)
The story pointed out aspects of a boom town: Corporations and speculators descend on a community trying to purchase property at favorable terms, without any guarantee they will pay or actually drill; Environmental concerns, such as wells on schools and private property, gas fissures and contaminated water supplies; and, a dwindling supply of housing and temporary accommodations. These are only some of the concerns of colleges that might bet their future on "drill baby drill."
After reading this story, I looked up the history of what is perhaps the most famous mineral deposit to finance a college and university system, the discovery of oil in the Texas Permian Basin.
In 1876, the Texas state constitution established the Permanent University Fund (PUF) through appropriations of land grants given to the University of Texas at Austin. Seven years later, the university was granted an additional million acres.
Since 1931, two-thirds of the PUF has been allocated to the endowment of the University of Texas System and one-third to the Texas A&M University System. The PUF encompasses 2.1 million acres of land in 24 Texas counties, providing not only oil and gas revenues, but also fees from surface interests, including grazing.
But, unlike the story of the Marcellus Shale, we do not read of oil and gas wells sprouting on college campuses in these two university systems.
According to the history of the PUF, the first discoveries of oil in Texas took place in 1901 on land and along the Gulf Coast.
That same year, the Texas legislature gave the university the rights to "sell, lease, and otherwise control" mineral interests in the land owned by the PUF. However, the first significant strike on university-owned land, Santa Rita #1, christened by nuns, was not made until 1923. The movie, The Rookie, starring Dennis Quade, showed the rig, the nuns, and university vehicles on the site.
So, first lesson for these colleges on the Marcellus Shale: it might be a while before a meaningful well is extracted. Ask any college president if she would like to see well after well sprout within walking distance of her office. Especially if there is little chance there will be a successful well during her tenure.
I'd be curious to learn if an energy firm would trade land for land with any of these schools; identify a large tract for a new campus plus seed capital to build new buildings. I envision that schools will see new money, but the environmental clean-up and remediation expenses might cut too deeply into the benefits.
If there are no provisions to protect, sustain or relocate a campus community, then there may be no campus community. The atmosphere of a boom town does not blend well with the atmosphere of a college town.
According to the story, which is secured on the Chronicle site, the shale is deep beneath the soil of Pennsylvania, southern New York, eastern Ohio, and West Virginia. Optimists have estimated that the Marcellus Shale contains hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas. (By comparison, according to the Chronicle story, all of New York uses about a trillion cubic feet of gas a year.)
The story pointed out aspects of a boom town: Corporations and speculators descend on a community trying to purchase property at favorable terms, without any guarantee they will pay or actually drill; Environmental concerns, such as wells on schools and private property, gas fissures and contaminated water supplies; and, a dwindling supply of housing and temporary accommodations. These are only some of the concerns of colleges that might bet their future on "drill baby drill."
After reading this story, I looked up the history of what is perhaps the most famous mineral deposit to finance a college and university system, the discovery of oil in the Texas Permian Basin.
In 1876, the Texas state constitution established the Permanent University Fund (PUF) through appropriations of land grants given to the University of Texas at Austin. Seven years later, the university was granted an additional million acres.
Since 1931, two-thirds of the PUF has been allocated to the endowment of the University of Texas System and one-third to the Texas A&M University System. The PUF encompasses 2.1 million acres of land in 24 Texas counties, providing not only oil and gas revenues, but also fees from surface interests, including grazing.
But, unlike the story of the Marcellus Shale, we do not read of oil and gas wells sprouting on college campuses in these two university systems.
According to the history of the PUF, the first discoveries of oil in Texas took place in 1901 on land and along the Gulf Coast.
That same year, the Texas legislature gave the university the rights to "sell, lease, and otherwise control" mineral interests in the land owned by the PUF. However, the first significant strike on university-owned land, Santa Rita #1, christened by nuns, was not made until 1923. The movie, The Rookie, starring Dennis Quade, showed the rig, the nuns, and university vehicles on the site.
So, first lesson for these colleges on the Marcellus Shale: it might be a while before a meaningful well is extracted. Ask any college president if she would like to see well after well sprout within walking distance of her office. Especially if there is little chance there will be a successful well during her tenure.
I'd be curious to learn if an energy firm would trade land for land with any of these schools; identify a large tract for a new campus plus seed capital to build new buildings. I envision that schools will see new money, but the environmental clean-up and remediation expenses might cut too deeply into the benefits.
If there are no provisions to protect, sustain or relocate a campus community, then there may be no campus community. The atmosphere of a boom town does not blend well with the atmosphere of a college town.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Book Review: Full Court Quest, The Girls from Fort Shaw Indian School Basketball Champions of the World by Linda Peavy and Ursula Smith
Over the past three years I have worked on a novel focused around girl's high school basketball. It's evolved from a story about the parental politics in the sport to one targeted to the young adults who play the game and want to play in college. I've become acquainted with the sport by attending games, speaking to coaches and sportswriters and learning the history. I'm fortunate to have access to good teams at Princeton, Rutgers and the College of New Jersey.
I discussed my interest in girl's basketball with the folks at the University of Oklahoma Press, who sent me Full Court Quest. This is a story of a team at a Montana Indian school that was crowned World Champions at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair.
While the Fort Shaw Indian school has been closed since 1910, a memorial to the championship was dedicated on school grounds six years ago. The Fort Shaw team is also recognized as Montana's first official state champion as well as a national champion, having defeated schools from out-of-state on route to St. Louis.
The basketball played at the start of the twentieth century was very different than the game of today. For one thing, it was low scoring. A modern woman's high school or college team scores as many points in an eight minute quarter as the Fort Shaw team would score in a full game. These young women played in dresses, similar to those they wore at home or school. While the Fort Shaw women played a five-on-five full-court game, as players do today, the women's sport later became a half-court game.
What is unique to the Fort Shaw story are the ties to Indian exhibitions that enabled the team to go on tour. The team played at county fairs where student crafts were displayed. Their performance at the World's Fair was tied to the construction of the Model Indian School on the fair grounds. Indian students from across the county lived, received education and exhibited crafts in open booths across from the classrooms. The Fort Shaw players had to play Indian music as part of their visit to St. Louis. The Model Indian School attracted over three million visitors through the duration of the fair.
By the politics of today, the Model School might appear offensive. To quote from a source in the book: "disconcerting as that might be, there was no denying the public's fascination with the 'exotic' and their desire to see 'real Indians'--like Geronomo."
However, it presented the Fort Shaw team with an opportunity to return to Montana with a championship trophy. They were later invited to play exhibitions in upstate New York, and live at Vassar College, an opportunity they were forced to decline. However, they played in an exhibition in Portland, Oregon.
This book fits in well with a woman's studies or Native American history course as well as histories of Montana, a state with no professional teams and few notable collegiate athletes (though John Elway is Montanan by birth.)
The authors did an excellent job of reporting on a previously unreported athletic achievement in the context of its times. The attitudes towards Indians and Indian education changed dramatically over the first half of the 20th century. The Shaw School was a product of an era of under-investment, making the high profile exhibitions necessary. Sadly, the team broke up--one player had contracted tuberculosis--and their school closed soon after.
Book Review: Coach Tommy Thompson and the Boys of Sequoyah by Patti Dickinson
Shop Indie Bookstores
I received two books, unexpected surprises, from the University of Oklahoma Press. Both are set in the venue of the Indian (today Native America) schools in the West at the early half of the 20th century. I'll review the first: Coach Tommy Thompson and the Boys of Sequoyah, in this post, and the other in the next one.
The most famous American Indian school (using the term from the past) is the Carlisle Institute in central Pennsylvania which closed in 1919. The Carlisle Institute's fame came partly through its college football program, which began play in 1893. Coached by Glenn "Pop" Warner, the Carlisle Indians beat the football powers of their day, including the Ivy League schools and the U.S. Military Academy. Carlisle's most famous athlete was Olympian Jim Thorpe, a Cherokee and Oklahoman.
But Carlisle was not the only American Indian school; many others were established in the Indian Territories to provide academic and vocational training to men and women through high school, and in some cases, the equivalents of a "normal school," (later known as a teacher's college) or a community college. These schools were also boarding schools; students lived and worked on campus. These schools were run by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, today an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior.
The Sequoyah Vocational School,formerly known as the Cherokee Orphan Training School (COTS), in Tahlequah, Oklahoma is the venue of this story. From 1872 through 1914, this school, operated by the Cherokee tribe was known as the Cherokee Orphans Society. From 1914 through 1985, through five name changes, the school was operated by the federal government. Since 1985, the school, now known as Sequoyah High School, has been operated by the Cherokee Nation.
Tommy Thompson, a Cherokee, entered COTS with ambivalence in 1915 and left with a full athletic scholarship to Northeastern State College, now known as Northeastern Oklahoma State University. Thompson's only vice: alcohol. He believed that he could handle liquor because he was an athlete and exercised regularly.
After graduation, Thompson became a Field Education Specialist for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a position which put him on campus at several tribal schools. Later, in 1924, Congress passed a law making Indians U.S. citizens. Over the course of the next two decades, especially during the New Deal, the federal government made extensive investments in new facilities at Indian schools. Educated Indians, like Thompson, were essential to federal follow-through, to make sure that the government got a fair return on their investment.
Most of this book covers Thompson's role as a Field Education Specialist, as well as his return to his former high school as Boy's Coach and Advisor. While Thompson was a very successful football coach--he came close to winning a state championship--he was more important as a mentor to his students. He led them to consider college, in place of vocational careers. The education of the time included farming and vocational training as well as standards for a high school curriculum.
The best testament to Thompson's success, as discussed in this story, is through the careers of the nineteen former students who were interviewed to complete the book. Of these students, ten went on to graduate from college, six went on to careers in the military.
This is an excellent story for anyone who wants to learn about the Indian schools as well as the student experience. It will provide teachers with good contrast between philosophies of education past and present. It is more an educator's biography than a sports biography, but that is fine. This man was as influential as any coach in Oklahoma's deep and proud football heritage, even the college football legends.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Book Review: The Promise, President Obama, Year One by Jonathan Alter
An interesting account of President Obama's first year in office, The Promise is one of the more thoughtful accounts of the successes and failures of a sometimes befuddled administration. Jonathan Alter, who has also written a comprehensive biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was well prepared to write about a president who took office amid similar expectations for change and success.
Among the tidbits I garnered from The Promise:
+ Obama has shown more leadership skill than cynics believe, starting with the Bush Administration bank bailouts. While former President Bush and former Republic candidate John McCain offered nothing in the way of alternatives to the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).
+ Obama's closest associates, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, did not want to introduce a health care bill during the president's first year in office. Obama had only promised that a bill would be presented sometime during his first four years in office. The preference was to develop an energy bill highlighted by "cap and trade."
+ Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel tried to have Valerie Jarrett, an Obama confidante, installed as the president's replacement in the Senate. Emanuel was concerned about seeing two consigleire in a new administration.
+ Obama has made approximately 400 promises, and has kept or made progress on nearly 300.
According to Alter, Obama has proven himself to be effective as the "smartest guy in the room" and willing to do anything from preventing fistfights to crashing a meeting at a global climatic change conference to make his point. His appointments are considered to be bright and high-quality, though more had worked in the Clinton administration than expected because of the president's tighter rules on disclosure and ethics. This account, however, was written before the oil spill in the Gulf, where it has been said that Obama took too long to become involved.
In general, Alter leads one to believe that Obama has been more effective in some areas, education being one example, than others such as his early leadership on the stimulus bill, banking reforms and health care as well as Afghanistan.
However, it is difficult to argue with the president's accomplishments, given the situation thrust upon him. While I believe that the Democrats will lose seats in Congress--especially in red states--during the mid-term elections, I also believe that Obama has gotten better and better at the job of governing a complex country. Compare his progress to what a McCain Administration and a Democratic Congress might have achieved together. Such an administration might be licking more wounds by now.
Look forward to 2012. Suppose the U.S. government has withdrawn from Iraq (likely), drawn down in Afghanistan (doubtful but possible), reduced unemployment to seven percent (possible), successfully sold their equity state in General Motors (quite possible) and achieved meaningful progress in education (quite possible). Barack Obama would be re-elected easily. But he would have a narrower Democratic majority to work with.
Book Review: The Best of Learning and Leading with Technology by Jennifer Roland
When I started Educated Quest, I intended for the site to be a resource on education politics, policy and technology. Having been involved in a Web-related business that worked with schools, I felt that I could lend insight to the latter. Doing business with schools has its challenges, but there are always thoughtful educators who make it very rewarding.
As the former editor of Learning and Leading with Technology, Jennifer Roland and others enjoyed the opportunity to meet with these educators daily.
Learning and Leading Through Technology magazine is published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Based in Washington D.C. and Eugene, Oregon, ISTE represents over 100,000 educators and education professionals who advance the use of technology over all pre-school, elementary and secondary school grades.
Like other associations, ISTE influences public policy and hosts a major conference. However, ISTE also sets national professional standards for students, educators, administrators and facilitators on the use of technology in the schools. Digital citizenship, as one example, is an objective that is taken very seriously.
This recent composite of stories comes from volumes of ISTE's flagship publication that were written between 2003 and 2008, with updates by the authors. There are a wide variety of subjects ranging from ethical and professional issues (for example: should schools implement student tracking systems or discourage the use of "chat speak" and blogs) to the development of new school buildings around a wireless environment.
There have been various arguments over the use of technology in schools, particularly technology that students in all grade levels use at home: iPods, text messaging, blogs being good examples. Technology has evolved faster than law which makes these arguments more lingering, but at the same time more interesting. As the prices of iPods and iPads, in particular, come down to levels where schools will be able to consider purchase or use more seriously, these arguments will intensify.
Having gone to business school, I'm biased towards case-based problem solving instruction. To me, most fascinating story in this collection was about the development of a package called Pollution Solutions, a role-playing game where middle school students assume role of environment consultants.
In the first phase of the learning exercises, students play the role of consultants working on behalf of a public utility that has been sued by the Justice Department on behalf of the Federal EPA for violating the Clean Air Act. In the next phase, students work in teams: legal, engineering, economics and environmental science to try to develop a pollution solution for the company.
This collection confirmed several concerns: willingness of teachers to try new tools (mixed), returns on investment (tied to commitment by teachers), and the best tools (simulations, problem solving and multi-media support versus complete replacement of textbook instruction).
This collection from Learning and Leading is an excellent reference for educators who use or develop tools for learning. It also provides some direction to help teachers "sell" them to concerned parents. The ISTE and its publication appear to serve their membership exceptionally well; the individual stories are also good for parents and politicians to know. Many times teachers give us more than our money's worth. We don't read the good stories often enough.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
A Family That Kicks Together Learns Together Through Taekwondo
My friend, Cheryl Woodson, is one of the most accomplished and intelligent people I know. She has been a physician, a care giver, a mother and a tireless advocate for senior citizens and their families. She currently directs her own practice, The Woodson Center for Adult Healthcare, based in Chicago Heights, Illinois.
An author of a guide to care giving, and a highly sought-after speaker on that subject, Cheryl is also a very promising novelist. A native of Philadelphia, who now practices geriatric medicine in Chicago, she is a graduate of Wesleyan University and the University of Pittsburgh Medical School.
Like Kristin Oakley and Angela Hamilton, I met Cheryl in an intensive writing workshop. She speaks and writes with considerable energy. During our conversations, she told me how much Taekwondo has meant to the education and development of not only her son and daughter, but her entire family. I would like to thank her for sharing her thoughts.
We are a four black-belt family, and a family that kicks together and sticks together.
We first investigated martial arts training for our son who, at age five, looked more like an eight year old. His size and his learning challenge insured a wide gap between what people expected and what he could perform. This led to teasing from his fellow kindergartners, frustration from his teachers and a big hit to his self-esteem, but Taekwondo was a Godsend.
Our son developed discipline and confidence that spilled over into the classroom and on to the playground. He was able to say, “I don’t read as well as you, but I’m getting better. I can also break a board, can you?” As he moved up the ranks, his playground buddies came to the do-jahgn, the Taekwondo school to cheer him on.
Taekwondo is an anchor and haven for our son. He resists negative peer pressure, because Taekwondo gave him a peer group where everyone moves in a positive direction. Despite school struggles, he became an Instructor Trainee and earned his 1st degree Black Belt. Through tournaments, he has made friends all over the country,become an Illinois State Champion and ranked among the top 10 competitors in the nation. In two months, he will test for his 2nd degree black belt.
As we saw how Taekwondo benefited my son, we became a Taekwondo family. My daughter joined at age six; my husband signed up during a mid-life crisis at age 50 and I joined two months later for family glue. I never expected to love it! Our teachers are not at all like the evil instructor in the “Karate Kid” movies. At the beginning of each class, we pledge to give “respect for our juniors and seniors.”Our instructors expect and insist that students give their best. Humiliation and derision are never tolerated.
Training together as well as cheering each other at competitions, gave us something to talk about besides homework, being grounded and griping over cleaning the garage. Taekwondo is a great way to get teenagers to open up about their lives.
While practicing a spin hook kick with your kid, you can slide into finding out what’s going on with the girlfriend without running into a wall of one word answers.
Teenagers strain at the bounds, wanting to do more, but feeling powerless, especially compared to a parent who is a professional, but no matter how accomplished a parent is, she can never do what a 19 year- old can do. My son helps me improve my form and coaches me for tournaments. We are both very proud of that interaction. Unfortunately, no matter how great your relationship is, sometimes, kids don’t want to talk to their parents.
Taekwondo has given us a village, a family of other safe, sane adults. I know my kids talk to them, because their kids talk to me!
Cheryl Woodson, MD, FACP, AGSF is a 2nd Degree Black Belt and former Illinois state champion in Taekwondo. She would like to thank her teacher and mentor, Sr. Master Patti Barnum, a 7th Degree Black Belt and national leader in the American Taekwondo Association (ATA).
For more information on how you can join Cheryl and her family in the ATA family, please visit the ATA Web Site.
An author of a guide to care giving, and a highly sought-after speaker on that subject, Cheryl is also a very promising novelist. A native of Philadelphia, who now practices geriatric medicine in Chicago, she is a graduate of Wesleyan University and the University of Pittsburgh Medical School.
Like Kristin Oakley and Angela Hamilton, I met Cheryl in an intensive writing workshop. She speaks and writes with considerable energy. During our conversations, she told me how much Taekwondo has meant to the education and development of not only her son and daughter, but her entire family. I would like to thank her for sharing her thoughts.
We are a four black-belt family, and a family that kicks together and sticks together.
We first investigated martial arts training for our son who, at age five, looked more like an eight year old. His size and his learning challenge insured a wide gap between what people expected and what he could perform. This led to teasing from his fellow kindergartners, frustration from his teachers and a big hit to his self-esteem, but Taekwondo was a Godsend.
Our son developed discipline and confidence that spilled over into the classroom and on to the playground. He was able to say, “I don’t read as well as you, but I’m getting better. I can also break a board, can you?” As he moved up the ranks, his playground buddies came to the do-jahgn, the Taekwondo school to cheer him on.
Taekwondo is an anchor and haven for our son. He resists negative peer pressure, because Taekwondo gave him a peer group where everyone moves in a positive direction. Despite school struggles, he became an Instructor Trainee and earned his 1st degree Black Belt. Through tournaments, he has made friends all over the country,become an Illinois State Champion and ranked among the top 10 competitors in the nation. In two months, he will test for his 2nd degree black belt.
As we saw how Taekwondo benefited my son, we became a Taekwondo family. My daughter joined at age six; my husband signed up during a mid-life crisis at age 50 and I joined two months later for family glue. I never expected to love it! Our teachers are not at all like the evil instructor in the “Karate Kid” movies. At the beginning of each class, we pledge to give “respect for our juniors and seniors.”Our instructors expect and insist that students give their best. Humiliation and derision are never tolerated.
Training together as well as cheering each other at competitions, gave us something to talk about besides homework, being grounded and griping over cleaning the garage. Taekwondo is a great way to get teenagers to open up about their lives.
While practicing a spin hook kick with your kid, you can slide into finding out what’s going on with the girlfriend without running into a wall of one word answers.
Teenagers strain at the bounds, wanting to do more, but feeling powerless, especially compared to a parent who is a professional, but no matter how accomplished a parent is, she can never do what a 19 year- old can do. My son helps me improve my form and coaches me for tournaments. We are both very proud of that interaction. Unfortunately, no matter how great your relationship is, sometimes, kids don’t want to talk to their parents.
Taekwondo has given us a village, a family of other safe, sane adults. I know my kids talk to them, because their kids talk to me!
Cheryl Woodson, MD, FACP, AGSF is a 2nd Degree Black Belt and former Illinois state champion in Taekwondo. She would like to thank her teacher and mentor, Sr. Master Patti Barnum, a 7th Degree Black Belt and national leader in the American Taekwondo Association (ATA).
For more information on how you can join Cheryl and her family in the ATA family, please visit the ATA Web Site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)