An Bachelor's Degree In Service

When Thomas Jefferson read a draft of our U.S Constitution, he wrote to the rest of the Founding Fathers: "This constitution of yours worries me because it asks so little of its citizens." Jefferson was alarmed because he believed that a democracy required active citizen participation in order to survive.

Currently, national service programs like Americorps and the Peace Corps have been seen as the "Jeffersonian Patch" to helping foster civic engagement and democratic principles. And even though these programs provide an invaluable educational experience (I myself am an Americorps alum), there is a missing link between one's year in service and one's experience in higher education. The majority of colleges and universities do not have a mainstream curriculum built around teaching the concepts of citizenship and public serivce.

Until now....

Recently, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) with her co-sponsors Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), Sen. Mukulski (MD), and Sen. Kennedy (MA) introduced the "Public Service Academy Act of 2006", which will create an undergraduate institution that will "promote public service and citizenship". The four year undergraduate institution will also require summer internships in various service industries so that college students will graduate with a well rounded "service" education.

Check out the U.S Public Service Academy website for info and how to help support this initiative

The Politics of Education

In this week’s Class Struggle, Jay Matthew’s tells the story of a KIPP school run by Principle McDaniel in Oklahoma, who was blocked from expansion and almost forced to shut down because of political conflicts between KIPP and the school district. Matthew’s exasperation is evident as he unfolds the series of events where politics is at the helm of the move to strike down this high achieving school. Mathew’s writes, “The political problems McDaniel had to deal with irritate me and seem irrelevant to how children learn, my first interest.”

Most people probably agree with Matthews. I have heard many educators, parents, and even politicians complain that our education system would run more smoothly if politics were left out of it. Sure, I am not a fan of politics playing such a large role in the lives of our students, but, this is where Matthews and I disagree.

Politics is not irrelevant to how children are educated, because education, by its very nature, is political.

Mark Hanson, a professor who has researched education systems worldwide, talks about how education creates political conflict because it is the “principle instrument” in how we allocate social roles and status to the next generation. Schools are the vehicle through which societies transmit their values and norms. And a shift in the education status quo especially creates conflict because it symbolizes a societal shift as well. According to Hanson, education and politics will always be interconnected, whether we like it or not.

Therefore, instead of trying to separate politics from our education system, we should be figuring out what actions will push politics towards improving education.

Many innovative education reformers are already doing just that. Examples of actions that have "pushed" the politics of education can be found in L.A, where Steve Barr and others mobilized parents from across the city and demanded mayor control over the school district. It can also be found in charter schools that are opening in increasing number nationwide because of actions taken by a mobilized community. And even in the case of the KIPP school, it was the actions of key stakeholders that prevented the school from closing its doors for good.

Like most of us, Matthews might not like the politics of education, but we have to be able to understand it in order to take action to change the status quo of education on a local and national level.

A Nation at Risk...of being Monolingual

I am not a regular Anderson Cooper blog reader, but randomly fell upon it today and found this post, about the best way to instruct non-native English speaking students. A CNN correspondent wrote about his visit to a school in Texas where children were learning in both Spanish and English. He posed this question:

Is there an issue with American taxpayers footing the bill for public school education taught primarily in Spanish?

While some respondents disputed the issue, the majority consensus was that "This is America and we should all speak English."

As we now become a nation that has hit the 300 million population mark with a rapidly increasing diverse population, ethnically and linguistically, it amazes me the amount of concern to make sure all our children learn English. In an age of globalization and transatlantic communication, shouldn't we really be posing this question:

Isn't there an issue with the fact that we are the only country who does not value bilingualism?

In the next decade or so, over 25% of our school age population will be speaking other languages than English. While I support the learning and acquistion of the English language, it will be a huge missed opportunity for the nation if we don't look at ways to systematically and structurally capitalize on the diversity of our childrens' languages. If we don't start to become a country that values other languages besides English, we will really be a nation at risk....of ceasing to compete in a global market.

It's Not Really about the "H" in the "H"-Debate

Since everyone who is anyone in the edupolicy blogosphere has been writing about this, I thought it's about time we jump in. The brief back story is that the Edpresso blog brought up the question of whether public officials, involved in some way with public education, are being "hypocrites" by sending their children to private schools. This has hit a edublog nerve and has led to a back and forth debate about the issue.

I agree with Joe William's point-that no parent, public leader or not, should be forced to send their child to a poor performing school. But they also shouldn't block other parents from making the same choice, rich or poor.

I however, think that this debate is about something deeper. It's not really about whether "John, the public official" puts his kid in private school or public school, but rather, about whether our country's political and education leadership are representing themselves in ways that are congruent with what they stand for, politically and socially.

Hubie Jones , legendary Boston change agent, used to lecture my young people about leadership. He would repeatedly tell them, "your private life and public life have to be the same!" Hubie would look them in the eye and say, "you can't fight for diversity and equity during the day and then go home at night and only hang out with people who are just like you." This concept of being congruent strikes a cord with many of us. It's why Mahatma Gandhi is so famous for saying that we have to; "be the change you seek in this world." He believed that in order to be an effective leader, you have to be truthful with yourself and with your community and only act how you want the world to be.

This is why I think NYC Educator and Edpresso are calling public officials hypocrits. I think they are tired of all the education rhetoric. They are tired of the "incongruent" public officials preaching one thing and practicing another. And to that, I totally feel you guys...I do.

Maybe if more of our public officials were "conguent" and became the "change that they seek" in our communities, we wouldn't care where they send their kids. I know I don't care where Hubie or Gandhi sent theirs.