I’m really surprised by something that Rick Santorum said. Not that he called our president names, but that we agree on something. I also have issues with the idea that every student should be pushed to attend college. If I thought politicians could be sincere or follow through with convictions made public while campaigning, this would give me hope for the Republican party.
This article had me taken back because I don’t think I’ve heard any politician speak against the never ending increase of demands and expectations of school children. Almost every single year a new course, test, or project is required to graduate high school. Most of the Republicans who post comments online seem to constantly admonish public school teachers for questioning “one size fits all” models like this and No Child Left Behind or “college prep for all” – which requires EVERY high school student to have an all academic schedule with college prep classes only. I have read many accusations from openly conservative bloggers how teachers want everything easy and are too lazy to embrace change, especially if it includes more work by challenging students so each one performs above grade level and goes away to college. In reality, most teachers understand comprehensive high schools need ROP programs or vocational classes along with a variety of electives for students to experience an/or develop career or personal interests. Being that teachers are the ones who actually work with students, they also know that “one size” never “fits all”.
I am one of the teachers who understand this and am concerned with the direction public schooling is going. Most high schools have already eliminated (or soon will) all general courses and only offer college prep classes for every subject (besides special education classes for students with moderate to severe disabilities). Many high schools in California have also increased the demands to earn a high school diploma. Students must now meet the eligibility requirements for admission to the University of California (A-G requirements). So now students no longer have the choice to enroll in more rigorous college prep classes or not, but in lieu of preferred or vocational electives, they also must earn extra high school credits by taking seven additional classes they may never need or may not be able to pass. This includes a third year of advanced math (Algebra 2, Calculus, or higher since Algebra 1 is now expected to be taken in the 8th grade); only “ laboratory” science classes and an extra year totaling two of these three disciplines: biology, chemistry, and physics; two years (four semesters) of the SAME foreign language; college prep Visual and Performing Arts; and one year of a College Preparatory Elective. It is important to remember that these are only the minimum requirements to be eligible to attend a University of California, not necessarily be accepted. Earning achievements, awards, a high SAT score, along with the GPA to stand out in such an extremely competitive process is different story.
Many students who do achieve all this may still not get accepted or may not have the financial means to go straight to a four-year university and will need to attend community college anyway, and then transfer to a university as a junior. This is the actual path students should be encouraged to take advantage of. I would have never been able to go to UC Berkeley without transferring from NVC. It is upsetting that our education system makes this look inferior and only promotes (and forced preparation for) attending universities. Two different professors at Cal told me that they thought you get a better education from a community college for the first two years for many reasons and didn’t understand why parents and teachers push to send kids away to universities right out of high school.
Back to Santorum surprising me, it sounds like he agrees with me and is advocating for lowering some expectations (a current one is 100% of students testing above grade level thanks to NCLB) and to not to stop making it sound like getting accepted into a university is the only option for a successful livelihood. I am used to hearing how it is a sign of our “failing education system” if we can’t send every kid to college right after their senior year. Most Republicans comments about education issues claiming that public educators don’t work hard enough adequately preparing students for college and the work force (meaning work that requires a BA or higher). Teachers are often publicly berated in the media for selfishly trying to make our jobs easier by not teaching enough “21st Century Skills” and for not preparing rigorous lessons and challenging curriculum. The “evidence” to back up such claims are usually related to a standardized state test scores and the statistics with how many students will be attending universities. It sounds like double speak to come down on public schools for this while at the same time argue why it’s not necessary.
As a secondary special education resource teacher, I agree with Santorum’s statements that, “Not all folks are gifted in the same way.” An example is studies show that college students have an average IQ of 115. I also agree that, “There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor”, (although I can vouch that not all professors are liberal). There are many wonderful, lucrative careers that don’t require a college degree and I hate the rhetoric that those who choose to go into these fields have somehow failed society’s expectations or didn’t try hard enough to fit the model that was easily laid before them.
It seems to me that his statements have more to do with publicly insulting President Obama and the goal of a nation that has access to higher education for every student that desires it than it does with an actual education policy that will stop pushing to make graduating high school more and more difficult, let alone out of reach for some. I don’t see any politicians from either side backing this up unless it comes with some major financial or personal gain. For Santorum, maybe it is not having to figure out how to make higher education accessible or affordable for all of our citizens… or maybe just his fear of the masses being educated (his opinion of the college experience is clear by hinting it turns you liberal). Judging the type of things he says, I suspect it has more to do with his alliances with the private sector of manufacturing and multi-national corporations.
Santorum was quoted saying, “We create private-sector jobs by helping the private sector be successful …putting something directly in someone’s pocket is not going to create manufacturing jobs. That isn’t going to make the local steel manufacturer or fabricator more competitive.”
I could see how a nation preparing it’s youth to pursue employment better than working in a factory for the private manufacturing industry and/or wealthy corporations goes against what he believes. He seems to support a caste-like class system where people have their roles in society to play. Someone has to put the chicken in the bucket right? However, some of his ideas seem to be contradictory in theory. In the same speech he also advocates for corporations and manufacturers using overseas labor to cut costs by avoiding all those luxuries “handed out” to American workers that the unions have corrupted our economic system with here such as health and safety laws and wages high enough to live on.
The article stated, “Santorum echoed other Republican candidates condemning the National Labor Relations Board for its decisions against Boeing Co. over locating manufacturing jobs. He came out against so-called domestic content legislation requiring that a certain percentage of parts be produced in America — the kind of “domestic content” proposals that were popular in the 1980s and which the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll shows are back in fashion. He also denounced the auto bailout, saying “all it did was pay off a special interest” — unions — “because they’re big buddies with Barack Obama.”
Again, this sounds like more double speak to advocate against making higher education accessible to everyone because corporations and private manufactures needed an uneducated work force, but to then be in favor of laws eliminating or reducing the amount of actual jobs for this work force.
Although I know better to get my hopes up with the Republican party, or think that any changes that I want see will come from the comments a presidential candidate makes campaigning, I am still grateful that it started dialogues regarding expectations relating to every student in America graduating from college with higher education degrees.