No Teacher Left Behind

Of the three presidential debates, the final was my favorite, thanks in large part to the moderator, Bob Schieffer, whom I felt asked insightful questions about issues that have not received the attention that they merit, among them education, which to me is one of the most important issues. After all, who hasn’t heard the cliché “children are our future?”
McCain wants to reauthorize No Child Left Behind--a program that has provoked protest from parents and educators alike, even from the Department of Education. The National Education Assocation (NEA) has criticized this program of failing to meets its goals, and as of last Tuesday, has asked the Department of Education to delay enacting changes until the next president is inaugurated, as they hope for a more thorough reform.

While McCain’s support of No Child Left Behind is no suprise, I was alarmed by his proposal to eliminate teacher qualification exams—the profession is already crowded with people who do not consider it a serious vocation, which in part explains why the drop-out rate is one of the highest to be found in any profession (1/3 teachers quits after the first three years). Yes, we should increase the incentives for people to enter such programs as Teach for America and to brave the rougher school systems, but by no means should we decrease the requirements for certification. In a report published on the Department of Education’s website, Carolyn Dikson cites “improving the teacher corps” as a priority in reforming our education system.
McCain’s proposal may have been a response to complaints about the requirements that NCLB places for “highly qualified teachers,” which even the NEA identifies as discouraging some educators and paraprofessionals. However, the NEA proposes solutions that assist teachers in meeting “reasonable” standards set by members of the profession. It suggests offering incentives to encourage teachers to work in high-poverty schools; these incentives would include not only salary raises contingent on participation in the rigorous National Board Certification program, but also federal grants to promote continuing education and the mentoring of new teachers by more experienced teachers. The assocation’s proposals may sound expensive, but I think that in the long run it is more efficient to invest in higher quality educators versus throwing money into school systems that employ unqualified teachers.

Obama’s response combined policy with common-sense; besides discussing the monetary aspect of reforming the education system, he also mentioned teacher evaluations and incentives, the importance of which, in my opinion, cannot be underestimated. When we discuss education, we aren’t talking about marketplace laws and numbers; we are talking about people, and so ultimately, the successful reform of American education will rely on the human element—how motivated are the teachers and how committed are they to their profession? McCain likes well enough to talk about the benefits of competition between school systems and, in his energy policies, between companies, but he seems to ignore its benefits among teachers as a way to ensure that only the most committed are given the responsability of shaping the next generation of thinkers.

Paying Health Insurance

I loved going to the optometrist when I was younger, and my favorite part of the trip was when I got to choose a pair of new frames. The doctor’s office I visited has a store attached where people can purchase brand name frames or contacts. There was one year though, where I was gently directed away from the shiny, sleek, brand name frames and asked to choose from a much smaller, boring selection. That was the year I had Medicare.

At the time, I was sulky about having what I thought was an uncool health plan. But, now that I’m uninsured and waiting to sign onto a plan that will cut away half of my paycheck each month, I wouldn’t mind any plan that is more affordable. Boring frames or not.

It was mentioned in last night’s presidential debate that 45 million Americans don’t have health insurance. (The figure was around 47 million in 2007, according to NCHC). I think that this is a serious problem. Hospital bills are horrendous even when one has insurance, so what about those who don’t? What do you do if you’re on a budget and the thirty pills you need each month to control high blood pressure costs more than a hundred dollars?

Senators Obama and McCain both suggest health care reform. They discussed their plans in last night’s debate. I understood one of the basic differences in their plans to be that McCain wants to give families a $5000 tax credit for them to spend on the insurance plan of their choice, and Obama wants to offer a new type of health insurance for those without, which he hopes will be more affordable.

But how are they going to allocate the money needed for reform? This article asks this question. And in the debate, Obama admitted that the new system will cost money at the outset but should pay off in the long run.

Can the government afford to reform health insurance policies at the moment? Should it have more control over the health insurance system?

[On a lighter note, check out these views on health care that The Onion attaches to the candidates who are or were running in this election. Despite the fictional nature of the views, I think this article highlights how candidates can propose vastly different, opposing solutions for just one issue.]

$700,000,000,000 bail out money "Potentially alot of money" said Obama

We all know the Robin Hood story right. If you don't, you better read this before continuing.

He is known as the great hero of all poor and middle class and enemy of the rich in the Victorian age. He was admired by the public because he rubbed the rich and gave it too the poor. Seams like good idea, not many people will be against it. That is of course except the rich which are the minority. It is believed that 5% of the American's earn 95% of the country's wealth. if you think it is bad how about this?

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people. Interesting ratio!

You might be thinking where i am going with this. Well recently we all have heard about this $700billion bail out. Unfortunately it is being raised from our taxes. Now doesn't it look similar to the reversed version of Robin Hood story.

Ladys and gentlemen, truth of the matter is Robin Hoodism (if there is such a word) has backfired and it switched to the poor and middle class feeding the rich. This $700,000,000,000 bail is the exact illustration of Hoodism, government robbing it's 95% of its citizens and handing it to the big boys club. Biggest gainers from this bail out, if it gets approved likely to be the rich.

Unfortunately both Obama and Mccain, our dear candidates seem to be for this idea in order to win the election. Congressman Ron Paul in my opinion gave clear explanation what is going on.

Luckily bill wasn't passed on the first vote and lets hope it doesn't pass at all!

Now what is your opinion on this? How do you think you will personally benefit from this bail out? Do you see it as sand clock where the poor feeding the rich or vise versa or do you see it as mutually benefiting all?