DREAM Act

During this lame-duck session for Congress, Arne Duncan has recently advocated the urgency in passing the DREAM Act. Under this act, minors who were brought into the US illegally by their parents will be allowed to attend universities at in-state tuition rate or join the military and gain citizenship upon proper documentation and lengthy requirements.

Duncan made a statement that outlines all the positives that will come out of the DREAM Act and rigorously pushes the necessity of the bill.

However, this bill cannot come without controversy. Many support the DREAM Act and say it will be a stepping-stone for ratification of immigration laws, which are up for debate soon. Others strongly disagree, and claim that this bill is only being used to garner the vote of Hispanics and disgraces the nation.

One media vehicle that commented on this new proposed legislation is the online news source Hispanically Speaking. On this site, they reposted an article from Politico.com that states the benefits for the passage of the DREAM Act and a summary of Duncan’s message. This would be a proper place to post such an article because Hispanically Speaking is targeted at Hispanics. A majority of the website is in Spanish, so to post an article that supports new opportunities for citizenship would be appealing for either an illegal minor or a parent looking for opportunities for their children.

This is important because this particular media source supports the bill and makes it look like the answer to immigration. Not only does it offer the opportunity, but it is important to note that the article also contains the specific requirements that illegal minors would have to take. This is especially important because it lets the readers know that it is not an easy scapegoat for citizenship, rather it is a law to be taken seriously, and will not be easily exploited and does not leave holes for fraud or misuse.

However, our friends at Kansas City Star would be appalled…in fact, they ARE appalled!  Kansas City Star posted a letter to an editor that demonizes the proposition of the bill, referring to it as a “bad dream” act. The author comments on the falsity of the provisions, saying that it is unfair to American citizens who work just as hard. The author also claims that illegal minors who take advantage of this new law will exploit it by using it to get green cards for their parents. It important to note this specific letter because it shows how uninformed people can still have crucial opinions that can influence other uninformed citizens.

Duncan Challenges NCAA

This post is different from any of the other posts on this blog, primarily because it does not address a specific policy or law. Rather, this post concerns a statement/essay made in January 2010 by Arne Duncan concerning college football and basketball programs.

In this statement Duncan calls for a reformation of the way college sports programs are run and the graduation rates of the student athletes. Duncan proposes that new regulations be implemented when deciding when a student can go pro, and the eligibility of teams to play in play-off games with regard to graduation rates.

Duncan offers data that about ¼ of NCAA men’s basketball teams graduate LESS THAN 40% of their players. Some schools graduate zero players, while other schools graduate 100% of their players. Duncan addresses the need to fix the unevenness. He proposes that teams with less than a 40% graduation rate should be banned from post-season competition.

The infamous “one-and-done” rule will be also overhauled. This rule requires potential professional basketball players to “attend” college for a year or requires them to be 19 to be drafted. Duncan thinks this is ridiculous because if a student is not given the chance at 18, they basically are wasting their time at a university for a semester until they turn 19. Duncan supports the right for students to try out for the pros upon graduation of highschool, and BEFORE entering college. If the student does not get accepted, he has the opportunity to get an education under his belt before trying out again.

There have been extremely mixed responses to this addendum. George Vecsey, writing for the New York Times, agrees whole-heartedly with this decision. He supports these new ideas and agrees with Duncan on the absurdity of collegiate eligibility laws. Vecsey goes on to say that Duncan’s points were terrific and attests to his credibility, saying he has the right to call these issues to attention and talk trash about coaches because Duncan himself played both college and professional basketball and was a coach before becoming Secretary of Education.

Quite contrary to this opinion is Bill Sweetland, who writes for Ragan Communications, and whose negative toned article was republished by the Huffington Post. Sweetland harshly criticizes Duncan, calling him delusional and unfit for the job of Secretary, and says that Americans should expect more from his position. Not only does he drag Duncan through the mud, he also claims that college sports are a mockery, and that student-athletes are a joke.

This is important because depending on what source a person chooses to read, their opinions can be strongly affected either for the good or bad

Higher Education Opportunity Act: Copyright Provision

The Department of Education has recently revised sections of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) specifically under the Program participation Agreement’s Copyright Provision.

Image Courtesy of Google Images

When dealing with copyrighted material and the illegal distribution, the first perpetrators that come to mind are college students. The ED used this knowledge to update the provision to assess this unlawful activity.

This new condition requires institutions to confirm that they have plans and proposals to thwart the possible unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Also, these institutions must offer students legal alternatives to downloading and/or file sharing.

Also, a subparagraph requires that institutions make available their policies on copyright infringement and the liabilities that come with each, both civil and criminal, that students may encounter for the illegal file sharing. This includes the prohibition of using the institution’s network to share the files. Such “file sharing” is defined as unauthorized peer-to-peer transfer.

As a way to get universities to comply, the threat is to take away federal funding.

Taking notice of this new condition, are The Daily Caller and university blogs.

The Daily Caller writes of the possibility for funding to diminish, and presents a somewhat objective tone. The author starts by mocking the condition, referring to the dismay computer junkies will feel after it takes effect. He then offers a more serious tone, presenting a quote from a college student, which supports the new ban on illegal file sharing. The author comments that this will make only a small dent in preventing piracy, but is a good stepping-stone.

Attorneys Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau, and Saturley have a non-profit blog that focuses on “items of interest” in higher education. They devoted a post to the new HEOA condition, which outlines the amendments and obligations of universities to students when dealing with copyright infringement. In the post is a transcription of expectations that the DE (Department of Education) will send to universities. It outlines what the university is to inform the students of and what information they are required to disclose.

Colleges have already started making the information available on their websites. The University of North Carolina has a link on it’s university website that provides a summary of the new provision.

National Education Technology Plan 2010

This plan requires the entire education system to apply the advanced technologies to the system that we use daily in our personal and professional lives. What we use on a daily basis will be incorporated into the technology used in schools systems nationwide.

This is in hopes to improve student learning while speeding up the adoption of effective practices. The plan will use acquired data and information for continuous progress in our educational system.

It offers an outline of five separate goals, each of which addresses how technology can power learning. These five components are: Learning, Assessment, Teaching, Infrastructure, and Productivity.

Image courtesy of Google Images

This plan was announced during the second week in November 2010. It was quickly reported on by various online sources subjected in education. These sources include Newsvine.com; UD-I Teach; Education Week; and Dr. Steve Yuen’s blog, a professor at The University of Southern Mississippi, just to name a few.

The Education Week article starts with a short overview of the purpose of the plan then goes on to quote Arne Duncan on his thoughts. The author Ian Quillen goes on to add his opinion, stating that one of the policies, he thinks, might be the most significant addition to the document since it’s first draft.

Quillen then goes on to explain in laymen’s terms what each section of the proposal really means. He uses common vernacular so the general public can better understand, rather than reading the politically infused dialogue of the original document.

Quillen uses positive quotes to support the legitimacy of the plan. However, he maintains objectivity by providing information that explains that not everyone feels as optimistic about the plan as some are saying. He mentions that advocates have doubted the timeframe and expected funding of the goals, thinking it will take more money than predicted or outlined in the document.

This is important because the author, although using a positive tone, also allows readers the differing opinion, which allows readers to be exposed to both, which helps individuals formulate their own opinions.

On a similar basis of objectivity, Newsvine is a website that offers more of a forum based platform for discussion on topics. It explains the website as “an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.”

For this particular subject, Newsvine offers a link to the Department of Education website where the original document is located, and then asks readers to give their opinion regarding the course of technology in education. A few have commented saying they are happy to see technology being incorporated into the learning system. Another reader offers a slightly different position; one with more skepticism about the effectiveness of Washington meetings by men who hardly know what children need in say, Arizona.

This is a beneficial source because it provides readers and viewers with a channel to express their thoughts and ideas about Congressional legislation. Before the advent of the Internet, such feedback was hardly possible.

Let’s Read. Let’s Move!

On Tuesday, June 29, the Department of Education (Arne Duncan) in combination with Michelle Obama kicked off the summer enrichment series “Let’s Read. Let’s Move.”

The purpose of this initiative is to prevent learning loss and physical inactivity, which many children face during the summer break from school. Often, children in certain locales only read or exercise during the school year. The activities of “Let’s Read. Let’s Move” will promote reading and academia, healthy life and physical choices for children, as well as an overall enrichment.

The kick off event, hosted in Washington, was made up of book readings, writing and arts activities, healthy snacks, and games. Secretary Duncan, Cabinet members, Administration officials, and other public figures were encouraged to participate with the children by reading books and participating in games and fitness.

The ‘Hands On Network’ is a blog/database for volunteer opportunities. For this particular volunteer event, the website chose to promote it. The article lists the facts about the enrichment series such as who in the administration is behind it, what the overarching purpose of the series is, and what the three main goals are.
After the main entry, there are sections of tools and references for people who might be interested in getting involved. Also, the site offers links to share information and continue to get out the word on the program.

The Corporation for National & Community Service promoted the United We Serve: “Let’s Read. Let’s Move” Summer Initiative. This website is sponsored by Serve.gov, the official government website promoting service. The article, listed under “Stories of Service,” includes a description of the events, and testimony from various people who stepped up to the challenge of summer reading and found it rewarding.

The article offers a personal testimony from a woman who claims reading was forced upon her in school and it wasn’t something she chose to do on her own, and that this program has helped her enjoy reading. The woman is also quoted saying her life is better now that she can read.

It is important to note these kinds of testimonials in the article, because it presents this summer enrichment series in a positive light and reinforces its effectiveness. The purpose of the web site is to promote volunteering. It would be hardly effective if the site posted anything about a service opportunity that was not enlightening.

Promoting and supporting this campaign, which is sponsored by Michele Obama and Arne Duncan, subjectively supports the government and our president. When people read this article they will think highly and positively about the administration.

National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention

On October 4, 2010 the President, Department of Justice and Department of Education met with various state representatives to discuss the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention. In short, this forum was created to establish new policies and strategies to prevent youth in certain violence-plagued cities from succumbing to the pressures of gang life and violence in schools.

Teams from Boston, California, Chicago, Detroit, and Tennessee got together with these federal agencies to work out these proposed strategies and plans, to find out what will work.

Courtesy of Google Images

What they hope will work, is combining the efforts of local law enforcement, educators, health providers, organizations in the communities, and families to work off of each other and stand together in the fight against violence. Arne Duncan says the administration will have to work with communities and schoolteachers to reach a conclusion about the reasons why kids get sucked into crime and gang life, and then find ways to prevent it.

Many news sources provided humbling testimony on the forum and proposed legislation. Many have high hopes for the plans, and are optimistic about it’s future success.

The Boston Globe’s online edition, Boston.com covers this topic and presents it to the public in an unbiased manner, detailing the facts as they unfold. They used quotes from both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education, which is important because the forum involves the Department of Justice and the Department of Education. Providing a short testimony from officials on the inside presents the issue as more human. A reader being able to hear quotes directly from the source adds to the forum’s credibility and depicts it as an open, translucent proposal, instead of being private and shut off to the public.

Taking a less open stance however, is Dr. Jeffrey Butts, staff to John Jay College of Criminal Justice. In Butts’ blog, there is the basic factual expression of the intention of the forum, with no commentary on the predicted outcome. Dr. Butts and a team will be working to assess the development of the National Forum and also analyze the effects of the participating states and communities involved.

Back to School Tour 2010

AKA, Courage in the Classroom.

In August 2010, Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan embarked on a tour known as the “Back to School Tour,” sometimes referred to as “Courage in the Classroom.” This is a bus tour that travels through various states and explores the looming first days of school for students around the nation.

The tour went from Arkansas through Louisiana and Mississippi to Alabama, then from New York through Massachusetts and New Hampshire to end in Maine.

The main purpose of the tour was to listen to teachers, parents, and students and get on-sight feedback.  Duncan also discussed the administration’s decisions like No Child Left Behind, now known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the ARRA, while in these various states.

Big newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Huffington Post all covered the tour with articles chronicling the progress and the purpose. The only reason I do not site the specific articles from the Washington Post and Huffington Post is because they were purely fact based and offered no opinion or commentary on the tour.

The New York Times, however, offered a more cynical take on the tour. Though not directly stated, the author Trip Gabriel takes on a skeptical stance, commenting that the tour was more of a political campaign than it was an honest outreach by the administration. Gabriel notes that the tour might have been prompted by the recent success of the Race to the Top campaign, and may have a bragging tour.

It is important to note the underlying negative tone of the piece, because it further points out the different political views people have of the tour. Some people think the tour really IS an honest outreach by Duncan, whereas Gabriel claims malice.

One of these outlets that honors Duncan as somewhat of a hero to the Education field, is the Christian Science Monitor. Amanda Paulson and Stacy Teicher Khadaroo wrote an article about Duncan’s rise to the top, from his upbringing at a Brooklyn public school to Harvard University, to Education Secretary. His tale is one of triumph, which places him in a hero category, according to Paulson and Khadaroo. They claim that Duncan is empowering, and has been the most influential secretary.

Another important aspect to focus on is the reaction by other blog sites about this presentation of the Bus Tour from the Christian Science Monitor. Nichole Dobo posted an article on the blog, “Delware Online” remarking on how Duncan told the Christian Science Monitor to visit Delaware and that Delaware’s DSEA President Donohue was a personal hero of his. This short article is nothing to be surprised about, but what IS surprising are the comments from readers about this article. One commentor in particular lashes out and refers to Donohue as a sell-out and that this plan will only weaken the education system and hurt the children.

With such polar opposites being thrust into the media, how are citizens supposed to know whether this Bus Trip is positive or negative?

Do your civic duty and read about it, then draw your own conclusions.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 2010 Reauthorization

In March 2010, the Obama administration issued the reauthorization to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also currently known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  This Act was up for reauthorization in 2007.

What this reauthorization will do, is improve the workings of our school systems by improving qualities of teachers and principles; helping families become more participative in their children’s education; preparing students for college and jobs by creating better assessments and standards; and providing a more well-rounded education to improve student learning and achievement.

This is a huge step in the process of bettering our nation’s competitiveness in education, and it did not go unheard in the media.

President Obama has a posted video on the White House Blog where he discusses the blueprint of the updated ESEA. In this video, Obama addresses the audience, talking into the camera and making it known that the audience is in fact citizens, not other politicians. This is a tactical move by Obama to help non-political people understand the logistics behind the act, which allows the Act to have more relevance to citizens.
click here for the video

The Alliance for Excellent Education created a webinar to further explain the president’s blueprint for success of the reauthorization. This blueprint, which can be found on the Dept. of Education’s website, is a lengthy report detailing every aspect of the reauthorization using political jargon and terms that may not be easily digestable by the common citizen’s vernacular.  Former Governer Wise (WVa) uses this webinar to answer questions about the report, such as why a reauthorization is necessary, and why now.

click here for the video

Race to the Top 2010

Race to the Top is a program receiving support under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This program will provide extra funding to states to create assessments for students to get them prepared for college and acquire the proper education in highschool. These will be standardized tests that will make sure students have gained the proper knowledge to succeed in college and after college.

This program was authorized April 6, 2010 and states were urged to apply for this extra funding. [click here for detailed information]

The New York Times covered this act in detail here. This act provides substantial financing for various states and the NYT offers an unbiased report and detailed outline of the program. However, after the winners were announced, the coverage shifted from unbiased to slightly suspicious.  This article concentrated not only on the winners, but the fact that the states awarded these grants were all on the east coast. The article goes beyond mere facts and goes a step further to arouse suspicion in the selection process.

Other sources that covered this act and the announcement of the winners were ABC News,  Politico,  and a few blogs including ‘FrumForum’ and ‘Examiner National.’

Liza Weidle, with Examiner National, covered the story with a positive tone, portraying the grants as a great addition to the economy and using quotes from prestigious people in education from the winning states. These quotes were all positive and thankful, and each showed their appreciation and excitement for the awarded grants. She wrote the story with the intent to show that these grants were the right thing to do for the country.

On the other hand, FrumForum covered the issue in a much less biased manner. The text remained unmoved, simply presenting the facts as they were, with the winning states and how much each was rewarded. FrumForum did not provide commentary on whether this act was positive or negative.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

February 17, 2009 marks a momentous day for public schools and education in our nation. President Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (ARRA)
With Americans in a slump about the state of the economy, President Obama enacted the ARRA to hopefully rejuvenate the economy and cradle the fragile jobs of citizens in the education field. As the act touches upon a multitude of subjects, such as energy independence, the national infrastructure, health care, and tax relief, it also has an important section on education.

The U.S. Dept of Education was given $100 billion to administer in the form of grants to all states, including Washington D.C., that have educational needs, such as loss of teachers’ jobs due to budget deficits, and a financial “income” for the states that are in need.
[Click here for the full report and the monetary distributions to each state]

In May of 2010, in addition to the money being reported to educational sectors in the United States, Education Secretary Arne Duncan requested that an emergency fund also be implemented to save the jobs of 300,000 teachers nationwide.

With this subject, the media is not quick to report financial information, for the fear of readers and viewers quickly tuning-out at the sight of numbers. One outlet that did report on this plan, however, was Fox News.com

FoxNews.com offers an in-depth description of the type of funding that was provided, and comments from government employees on the supposed effectiveness of the plans. The article features a negative take on it’s effectiveness, saying that the proposed plan has NOT in fact shown to be successful.

Although the act was implemented over a year ago, the states mentioned above are now reaping the benefits that were promised them under this Act and under the emergency supplement. Tennessee’s government page reports on their award of $67.8 million in a seemingly unbiased position. They offer no commentary on the effect the supplemental money will have on the state; rather they offer the facts as presented and distributed them.

This topic is generating billions of dollars and being allocated to a huge part of the nation’s success (education). The fact that this is not being covered by the media as a central topic is surprising. A lot of the jargon and numbers used it outlines and reports might have an effect on a reporter’s willingness to cover the topic.