Last night’s State of the Union
Address and subsequent responses by the minority parties represent all relevant
political perspectives in our country. It is not controversial to state that
Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian politics make up all our represented
interests so comparing the trio’s transcripts can reveal objective information
on a number of social issues. For academic purposes, comparing each
representative’s rhetoric to the relevant educational values will give us a
sense of where policy might lead. One of these three political perspectives
will wind up with significant influence and change our schools. Clearly they
identify education policy reform as a priority but do similarities end there?
Demanding
that our schools improve in relation to those in other nations was a common
thread within the transcripts. President Obama brought up vocational aptitude
in Germany while both Senator Rubio and Senator Paul referenced foreign
interests and how we should become the envy of the world, respectively. When
voiced, their addresses emphasized education policy reform as a high priority,
even if one speech was a bit heavy handed.[1]
Finding the American way will surely be a compromise and analyzing where the
interests are, as of last night, can reveal what imminent policy change will
look like. Imminent refers to the recognition by educators that changes must
occur, really soon.
Obviously
the President was able to go into much greater detail with his longer time at
the podium but proportionally, the Democratic perspective contained more
rhetoric addressing how we choose to learn as a nation. This was the result of
including it in the purview of other issues, as well as its own focus.[2] As
for policy, interests are specifically focused on pre-school improvement and
high school modernization to suit our institutions of higher learning and labor
responsibility. The most revealing quote that, “Higher education can’t be a
luxury – it’s an economic imperative every family in America should be able to
afford,” highlights the sound acknowledgement of progressive changes but also
introduces the biggest question, how will money play a role?
This
is the top concern for Republicans. Senator Rubio included it as part of a response
focused on funding, which considered the most “non-traditional” forms of
education. All proposals were primarily influenced by a party message of
reduced spending. It’s hard to tell if Republicans want to allow a democratic
president to oversee positive education reform, but political interests aside,
someone needs to know how money can change hands more efficiently.
Senator
Rand Paul’s Libertarian Response shares an emphasis of education policy reform
as a priority with the status quo, but actually goes against prevailing
academic trends. This perspective calls for schools to rely on “school choice”
and scholastic “competition” as a driving force to excellence. This goes
directly against core principals those working in education are finding to be
the best. We know that equity and collaboration facilitate innovative learning. The
political rhetoric behind Paul's counterproductive response to education reform
is in the nature of party followers but does not have a place in the modern
classroom.
Using
these three perspectives, the nation will now respond to incentives as they
present themselves over the next four years. The idea that education is best
served by an ethics of equality and collaboration in the interest of innovation
will land as ironic to the cynics of contemporary governance. Knowing that our
potential will only be realized in the form of a compromise, it’s nice to see
that each perspective represented by our government officials has at least
something in common. For the most up to date information as to how all this
proceeds, just look to your local school. While we question the competency of
those in Washington, remember that many more people are hard at work, dealing
with our novel situation every day.
No comments:
Post a Comment