Why Other Countries Teach Better

Three Reasons Students Do Better Overseas

Link to article: NY TIMES

The article gives three reasons, more like examples, of why education is better overseas. The three examples are Shanghai's fighting against elitism, Canada's school funding, and Finland's teacher training.

Shanghai, one of China's most industrialized cities, took major steps to repair the disparity between strong and weak schools. They have closed or merged poor schools with higher-level schools. Money as well as teachers were transferred to the weaker performing schools. This allows for the city to move away from an elitist system where the greater resources and better instructors were given to wealthy favored schools. Shanghai has shifted education toward a more egalitarian approach, and gives students with diverse backgrounds and abilities the same high-level education. Today, their students test first in the world in math, science, and literacy on international exams. The US trailing miles behind in certain categories.

Canada, specifically in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, has significant differences with the US over how they fund their schools. US relies on property taxes which means wealthy areas will bring in more money than poor ones. Then state tax money is used to fill in the gaps in poorer districts. Canada has moved towards province-funding formulas based on district's size and need. The system is meant to distribute money evenly to schools. This idea is similar to Shanghai's strategy to fight against elitism within the education system. Canada students are testing better and is on a rising trend.

Finland, though much smaller and less diverse than America, has for years been globally of the top rankings in mathematical and literacy skills. Their focus has been to improve teaching, but have also invested energy in providing high quality education for the poor and the wealthy. They even have gone as far as to provide health and dental services, psychological counseling, as well as other services for families and children. Finland has improved their teaching by moving teacher preparation from teacher colleges into universities, where it is more rigorous. Teachers are valued more in Finland, though their pay isn't monumentally different from teachers in America, and their programs accept the top quarter of the graduating high school class. Their teaching programs are renowned for across the globe,

The United States is falling behind the ranks of education. Some American workers have already felt the heavy pressure from job seekers across the globe and it has and will in no doubt affect the US economy. Our country needs to be able to compete with those around the world, but China, Canada, Japan, Finland, are currently crushing us. According to international tests the US scores around 28th in education and is slightly below the global average in the following categories; reading, science, and math.

I believe the our country needs to do something to heighten the quality of our education. Under the current circumstances, it is evident that the US will need to step up its game somehow in order to continue to compete globally. However, it is hard to imagine that the United States will adapt to such a disparate system like Finland. I could see the United States adopting a system similar to Canada's and possibly Shanghai's. Increasing the quality of education is a good investment for a country, and equality in education seems to have proven itself to work. It will be interesting to see what America will do (hopefully in the near future) to better the quality of our nation's education system.

Judge rules NSA collection of phone records is legal

Link to article: CNN


The NSA won a victory in court after a series of setbacks over the legality and usefulness of its massive data collection program. A federal judge in New York ruled that NSA's bulk collection of data on almost every phone call made in the U.S. is legal.

A judge who ruled on the case a week ago was very much opposed against the NSA's bulk collection program calling it "almost Orwellian" and likely unconstitutional. The term Orwellian is used as an adjective to describe a situation that is destructive to the welfare of a free, open society.

I would agree with the latter judge in saying that this program is "almost Orwellian". I don't believe that it is necessary to be snooping around everyone's cell phone's looking for a suspecting terrorist. It is an irrational and arbitrary invasion of privacy, and I believe it infringes upon our Fourth Amendment rights over our a degree of privacy. The controversy over it's usefulness is just as monumental as the controversy over its legality. The real assumed life threatening terrorists don't live in the United States. We spend so much resources and willingly give up our liberties in a search for terrorists that are in America, only to scantly find a few petty, probable suspects.

If you play the numbers game, it just doesn't make sense fight terrorism this way. My question is, cant our war on terror be over yet? We've played the big bad wolf long enough haven't we? What is the real threat we face with terrorist groups today? If there really is a major threat, I could understand the desire for passing a Patriot Act or the NSA's bulk collection program. I also understand there are well intended reasons in watching and suppressing potentially violent terrorist groups, but I think our country is going  overboard with the mass surveillance and data collection over America's citizens. So while we may have well-intended reasons for such programs, I believe it is detrimental to our free, open society, and such programs should not be passed unless under more threatening circumstances.

Lawmakers pass more blame than bills in do-nothing Congress

Link to article: CNN


This article says that if Congress doesn't pick up the pace, this will become the least productive Congress in at least the last 40 years. The House passes the blame on the senate, and vice versa. So far, 56 bills have been signed into law in the first session of the 113th Congress.

But is the fact that fewer bills are being passed in Congress necessarily a bad thing? That depends on your point of view, but both representatives and senators readily acknowledge that some major issues have not been addressed. One of the problems maybe that the Democrats and Republicans are growing more ideologically distant by the day, a recipe for gridlock.

I think the passing of fewer bills is a symptom and precursor of political gridlock. The government shut down in October exemplifies this. Among other examples, Congress hasn't passed budget, new farm bill, and none of the 12 annual spending bills have made it too the president's desk. Immigration reform has been held up along with tax and entitlement reforms.

It's unhealthy for the government be as unproductive as it is. Hopefully there will be changes made and issues addressed within Congress that promote its productivity.

The Obamacare question: Can the website handle the volume?

Link to article: CNN

 

The Saturday's self-imposed deadline approaches for President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms, yet he still needs to get the website to work properly for most users. The website continues to have many problems and can't handle the traffic of people trying to enroll. There are transmission of data problems with people trying to sign up for coverage, and small businesses are now excluded from availability.

Luke Chung, president of Virginia-based software developer FMS Inc., called the administration's prediction that HealthCare.gov would work at 80% capacity on or around November 30 an impractical threshold in the software world.

"I don't know how to build something that's only 80% complete," Chung told CNN. "I don't even understand how that works."

The enrollment period runs until March 31, and officials have said the target for the first year was 7 million people. To ensure they have coverage starting on January 1, consumers must sign up by December 23, the administration recently announced. 

I'm not very confident in the accomplishment of their goals. The whole website has given a bad face to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), whether the ACA is good or bad. October 1st was a huge mess, leaving many people unable to access the website, and doubting the viability of the ACA. We talked about in class how important public perception is, and I think it will play an important roll with what happens with the ACA.

Some say these problems were unavoidable, I don't entirely agree. Of course, President Obama, doesn't know much about how to fix the website problem himself, though could he have hired better more experienced company to be in charge? Maybe he could have avoided much of the website woes. Some say these problems are exaggerated. Maybe, and probably by some conservative republicans who want to do away with the ACA entirely, but in reality there are a lot of problems with it, and public perception of the ACA is eroding. (TIMES article)

Link to article: TIME

$1 coins: Unwanted, unloved and out of currency

Link to article: CNN

The article talks of the how the $1 coin is so reviled when the lowly, tarnished penny is so revered. Pennies are everywhere, but where are the those $1 coins? The answer is in the federal banks. The Federal reserve banks hold about $1.4 billion in $1 dollar coins. That is enough to meet the demand for the next 40 years. 

Much over half of $1 coins ever minted lie in government banks

The government's stockpile in $1 coins actually grew. Last year more coins were returned to the Federal Reserve than were paid out, and many businesses were returning these coins than asked for them.

The article then goes on to say how useful the $1 coin could be to the US. They much more durable than paper money, and can far outlast them. With respect to public preference however, "paper beats rock", though the public preference of paper money over coin money comes at a cost. The federal government would save $4.4 billion within the next 30 years, or about $150 million a year if Congress decided to go with metal according to the GAO, which would like to see $1 paper notes phased out.

Despite this, the Treasury Department limits the number of minted $1 coins and declares that "it is not a prudent use of tax payer resources". The Federal Reserve continues to mint pennies and nickels which cost more to make then they are valued, yet it denounces $1 coins.

Many countries use $1 or more coins, like Japan, France, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Canada, in order to combat the public's preference of paper money, did away with $1 paper notes entirely. In Canada, the federal government experienced cost savings ten times their initial estimate.

Link to Dollar Coin website

Currently a Senate bill seeks to improve the circulation of $1 coins. GovTrack.us gives the bill a 1% chance of making it out of the committee.

This has to do with what we talked about in class when we talked about what a bill has to go through in order to become a law. This bill looks like it it will come to a short stop in its first few steps of existence at the Senate Committee.

As for my opinion, I very much agree with a shift to $1 coins instead of paper money because of its lasting money benefits it has for our country. I would be fine with giving up the convenience of $1 paper notes for the efficient production our currency. It worked out great for Canada, and so many countries find it an thrifty, economical choice.

Four things we learned from government shutdown

Citizens happy parks are re-opened

Link to article: CNN


This article underlined four "lessons" we've learned since the government shutdown. The first being how much we love our parks. It was evident in our public outcry depicted as well through social media sites and other places. The second lesson stated that we learned was that the Grand Old Party isn't so grand. This article recognizes and cleverly points out that the party of President Lincoln, the Republican Party, is now a house that is seemingly divided. Since the government shutdown, the GOP has reached its all time low in approval ratings. The third lesson we've learned from the government shutdown is the economic implications a government shutdown will have. It is speculated that because of the shutdown, America will lose 24 billion out of the U.S. economy. Also after what comes from a decrease in economic income for the country, less jobs will be available that many struggling American people need during this time. The last lesson that the article points out is that this won't be the end of the issue, that there will be a sequel to the problem. The government shutdown was put off until debate over budget issues until January 15 of next year, where clash between Republicans and Democrats will likely happen again.

I think it's interesting that this article states that we are "learning" these lessons from the shutdown, when in fact, we have been repeating the same mistakes as we have done before. Government shutdowns have happened six times since 1789 all the way to our present day. Not only that but the more recent government shutdowns have had been between Republicans and Democrats biting back and forth at each other.

Newspaper from 1995 government shutdown

We already know the repercussions of a government shutdown, but our government yet again got itself wrapped up in one again. This is usually started by one dissatisfied party that holds power in either the Senate, House of Representatives, or Presidency. The GOP clearly started this setback in America. Unfortunately, our government processes allow for such a setback to easily take place when one party is dissatisfied by the other party's passing legislation.

Deputy kills 13-year-old carrying fake rifle

Link to article: CNN

In northern California, a Santa Rosa County Sheriff mistakingly thought he saw a teen with an assault rifle, presumably told the boy to drop the weapon, in which the boy turned around, and fearing his safety and the safety of others the sheriff shot the boy 3 times killing the boy. The sheriff and his deputy  were given a release from duty for a couple weeks. The thirteen year old kid was carrying a plastic replica of a AK-47 that shoots plastic pellets, not an actual assault rifle.

The police have a legitimate ability to use force on an armed person when they make a potentially threatening move, and when their life and the life of others is a legitimate concern. However under the circumstances, where the sheriff yelled a warning to the kid and the kid could have wondered who was calling his name and turned around to see who it was, the sheriff should be obligated to exercise more judgement. Every circumstance isn't the same. Like with the young teenage boy walking in the streets with an alleged assault rifle. Though I was not a witness of the accident, I am confident that the sheriff could have approached this young teen successfully in several different ways than the way he did. The sheriff also fatally shot the boy three times as he turned around. Did the sheriff have to shoot three fatally wounding bullets into the kid or could he have fired minor injurious shots at the boy? The kid, as witnesses stated, looked hardly like a man, with a face that exhibited no malicious intent. The kid was walking in an active neighborhood with people out with a fake plastic assault rifle. If the sheriff observed his surroundings, thought of his approach better, this innocent kid could still be alive. Residents around the area feel concerned and unsafe around their policemen that are supposed to protect them.

This issue seems like an infringement on our right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... specifically the life part. Air pellet guns even BB guns are still a growing popularity among youth. I have seen several young kids playing with them in my neighborhood. The likeliness of these children from being perceptive enough not to turn in the direction of police officers when being shouted at is unlikely. It is a natural reaction to do so. Hopefully every policeman's reaction isn't to put three bullets into these kids. The policeman who shot the boy in Santa Rosa however acted in the way he was trained to act. Hopefully, there can be different ways of approaching situations like this one, taught to police officers so that innocent lives aren't lost.

Government Shutdown = More Democrats in 2014

Link to article: CNN


Polls from across America, show the majority disapproval for the way the Congressional GOP handled the fight over funding the Affordable Care Act and the government shutdown. Even some vocal Republicans like John McCain, Tom Davis, and several others strongly disagreed with the way the GOP conducted itself (tending to be the moderate Republicans speaking against the Tea Party Republicans). The back and forth and lack of unity displayed a noticeable rift in the Republican Party.

We have talked about the possible and likely result from the government shutdown of Republicans losing power, and a dominant Democratic party coming in and holding its power for years to come. This article addresses draws the same analysis as we did in class stating that unless the Republicans show some unity, functionality, and pliability, it could be a long recovery for them.

Pragmatism is an appealing characteristic to me, and I believe it is a necessity in government. The Tea Party doesn't exemplify this quality well. I hope they dissipate before they harm the Republican party even more as they have already done currently. Issues should be solved by finding a common ground, where maybe not everyone isn't standing as straight as they wanted, but at least they are standing on a platform and not left on the ground with nothing. I hope that if a Democratic dominance occurs (which I believe is not an ideal healthy structure for government), that we don't have to deal with an increase in extreme Democrats, just as with the Republican Tea Party. I can handle moderate Democrats, since moderates tend to be the more pragmatic bunch of politicians. Hopefully the Republicans party can get their issues settled and our nation can refer back to a more healthier, efficient structure than it is now.

What Does RESPECT Have To Do With the Government Shutdown

Link to article: CNN


This article reports about the conservatives house of representatives saying that aren't getting enough respect from President Obama and Senate in the government shutdown debate.  The congressional stalemate pits a conservative GOP wing that wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act against Democrats trying to protect Obama's landmark health care reforms passed in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court last year. Because of this political gridlock over the budget bill, we hold a government shutdown.

"Republicans are now in a position where they don't want to cave in because it sets a bad precedent that the Senate would be somewhat dictating how the House runs," GOP Rep. Michael Grimm of New York said this week.

This comment by GOP Rep. Michael Grimm is ironic since the House bullied the Senate to face the option of either passing a budget bill that doesn't include Obamacare or fall into a government shutdown. It's not about one side not respecting another, the issue with the government shutdown is pride. Pride beginning initially with the Republican House of Representatives, but also with the Senate and President. Neither side can back down or compromise. Now the issue has become an attack on each of the party's pride, Republicans vs Democrats, and neither side is willing to give in, continuing the government shutdown for longer than expected, which can and does have some serious repercussions on a global scale. We've talked in class of what the government shutdown in America can do to nations around the globe. China is very anxious with the shutdown in America, and they should be, they are our biggest creditors.

To conclude, I would place most the blame on the Republican House of Representatives. They are the ones who are still hanging themselves over Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) which Obama won two presidential elections with those health care reforms under his wing. I may not be an all out fan for Obamacare, but it has already been passed. The House needs to accept it and move on, or find other ways to fix and tweak the already passed health care reform, trying to remodel it as much as they can to their likes. No one wants to take the blame for the government shutdown, but it will have to fall on the Republican party.

Obama's Critics: Media and Lawmakers Alike

Link to article: politico.com

This article, "What's wrong with President Obama", points out the shift of public opinion and even from fellow lawmakers between Obama's first term to his second. The recent battle with Syria's government backed by the Russians, left Obama less composed and "casually articulate" than usual (where most of his supporters agree is an appealing Obama characteristic is his coolly rational, comfortable and complex nuance). The media that was once his trusty ally now streams countless criticisms and talks of scandals, musing whether the president knows what he is doing.

I personally find it hard to condemn the president for certain issues that accumulate during their term of presidency. I know it is our tendency to jump on the first mistake or misfortune that occurs for our president and especially the media, who has displayed this proneness in the history of two-term presidents. The same shift in opinion happened to President George W. Bush.

In class we've talked about how the media can affect many people, especially pertaining to the "ignorant masses" that swim with the ideals and portrayals the media elicits. The media is regularly and unfailingly pressed to report on mistakes and negative aspects of issues, since almost always the media is used to trigger and emotional response from its viewer in order to persuade and influence the viewer. When we see constant news of shootings, murders, and violence, and we feel emotional pain for those affected. As a result it may influence our opinion on harsher prison sentences, gun-control, etc. Sometimes news can be overwhelmingly biased in the release of their material. As an easy, popular example in Mrs. McMurray's class, Fox News has substantial bias towards Conservatives. Because of likely and potential biases in the display of news, being educated on the issue that concerns you is crucial to making your own decision.

Just a photo of George Bush mixed with Barrack Obama...

Colorado Recall: Two State Senators Fired For Gun Control Efforts

September 10, 2013

AP Government Unit 3

First recall in the state of Colorado happened on Tuesday, removing the two Democratic Senators, John Moore, and Angela Giron because of their support for gun-control initiatives. The recall has been viewed as a major win for gun rights activists and the National Rifle Association (NRA). 

Link to article: TIME

Link to article: Huffington Post

Colorado Democratic State Senate President John Morse, left, and state Sen. Angela Giron

Colorado's history on gun rights has been a long, heated, and controversial one. It is the state that is home to two of the most deadly shootings in U.S. history, the Aurora movie theater shooting on July 20, 2012 and the Columbine High School Massacre inn 1999. Since then there has been a larger push for gun control laws on a national scale. Senators Morse and Giron both voted in support of the legislation, signed into law by Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, that required background checks for all firearm purchases and bans on ammunition magazines with over 15 rounds.

Outraged gun activist started the talk of a recall, with previous motion to recall four democrats who supported this recently passed legislature, but went with the two most vulnerable, Morse and Giron. The news of a recall spread quickly across the nation. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, steadfast supporter of stricter gun laws, billionare philanthropist Eli Broad, and other Democratic politicians donated and raised nearly 3 million dollars to support their fellow democratic friends.

On the other side of the recall, organizations like the NRA, Americans For Prosperity (AFP), and local newspapers such as the Pueblo Chieftain, heavily supported the removal of Colorado's two Democratic senators. The recall soon became a crusade between gun activists vs gun control disciples, and Democrats vs Republicans.

 

Tuesday the results came in with the Republicans and gun rights activists wearing the crown. The NRA political victory fund proclaimed the victory as "historic".



I thought this article was interesting in the fact that there was a recall and it actually came through, since we've just learned about it through our textbook and it is one of our vocabulary words. Though, this issue becomes somewhat ridiculous when it becomes a fight over party politics. Both sides of the recall were guilty of this, the NRA and Mayor Bloomberg of NYC especially. I don't believe that outside influences should interfere with issues that regard the state. The public opinion in Colorado is different of that in New York or Wyoming, and Colorado should be represented on how its citizens desire it to be, without heavy strategic interjections from strong authorities/organizations.

As for my opinion on gun control legislation, I am a supporter of gun rights. With the passing of required background checks for all firearm purchases and bans on ammunition magazines with over 15 rounds, Morse said Colorado's gun laws were common sense ideas to reduce fatalities in mass shootings. I disagree with the effectiveness of the legislature. With the Aurora movie theater shooting, James Holmes, the man convicted for the shooting, planned the attack out and even booby trapped his apartment with chemical bombs. A person like Holmes would be able to attain the weapons and ammunition even with the gun control laws. Same situation with the massacre at Columbine. The two students that committed the shootings attained their firearms through illegal means, so its hard to believe that the passing of gun control laws will stop these haunting violent acts through legal means, since they are acquiring the weapons through illegal means. I feel as if the only way to stop such horrific acts of violence would be to expunge our right to bear arms entirely, but this diminishes our right to protect ourselves, and I believe in our unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

My position regarding the recall, I would not recall an elected official over their support for gun control. Recall isn't something I believe is suited for such an issue and should be decided in the elections. 

Feds sue to stop Texas voter ID law

Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department announced on Thursday it would sue the state of Texas over voting rights enforcement.

August 22, 2013

AP Government: Unit 1

Link to CNN article

The Justice Department has said that it has been put in motion to issue a court order declaring that the strict 2011 
Texas Law violates the Voting Rights Act. This will halt the Texas voting requirement that identification must be shown at the polls in order to vote. The Supreme court makes this bold decision declaring that Texas Law violates "certain constitutional guarantees", and signifies the U.S. Supreme Court's new effort on enforcing voting rights.

"Today's action marks another step forward in the Justice Department's continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 makes it illegal to discriminate against a person who is voting. What the Justice Department must do now is prove whether it is "purposeful" discrimination to require voter identification. 

Several courts including a federal court in D.C. have accused Texas saying they have failed to come up with evidence that the voter ID law did not discriminate. The NAACP applauded this accusation, and said Texas has had a long history of discriminating against African Americans and Latino voters.

This all goes to show that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still regulating our government and affecting our people today. Some say we've moved past racial issues and that we do not have any problems anymore with racial discrimination. But, it is evident that these issues are still being debated in our generation. With Texas requiring voter ID, I believe that the simple idea that voters should be legal voters is definitely a correct idea, and that required voter ID's protects from fraudulent voters. BUT there are ways that requiring photo ID's can be used to change the outcome of the polls. Poorer individuals and people with disabilities can have a hard time with acquiring voter ID's, means of transportation is hard to come by and spending the little money they have to go and get an ID can be difficult. I believe this issue applies to race mainly because most of the racial minority lies in the low income category. What I don't know is the real purpose for enacting required voter ID. Whether it was purposefully discriminating against African Americans and Latinos, or trying to leave out some of the poorer class in votes, or to protect from fraudulent voters and protect the citizen's votes, I don't know for sure. That is why this topic is controversial.

This correlates to what we have learned in class through what we've learned in John Locke's Treatise, and demonstrates that our constitution is the "highest law of the land",  that our judiciary branch of government has the ability to exercise power over state governments.