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

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.

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.