Facts: Why They're Not Optional

Image - www.allvoices.com

One of the first things that students are told to do when making an argument, whether in an essay or in a debate setting is to find facts to back them up and cite them.  English teachers everywhere are harping on the importance of finding text references, citing sources and making a VALID argument; one where the facts support your thesis.  If you have unsupported arguments in your essay, then you have lost credibility, not just where those arguments are used, but in your entire paper.  When there is no fact to back up an argument it cannot stand, therefore you have no argument.

This might seem like common sense to anyone in the education world, however, where are the teachers of today's political masterminds and campaign leaders?  Why do politicians feel they are above the rules of validity and fact?  The lack of factual, source cited arguments in this campaign have actually been nauseating. On a daily basis there are hundreds of television ads that are based in little to no fact.  How are the American people supposed to make a choice when they really have no idea who they're choosing or why?

In this regard, the president actually has the advantage.  He's had four years to do something and can be judged based on what he's done, attempted to do, and failed to do.  We don't need some fiery rhetoric (though the Republicans have supplied plenty) to know what has taken place the past four years.  So while the Obama campaign is no better than the Romney campaign in its use of facts, at least there is four years of undisputed evidence to use for or against him.

Or is there? If you believe what the Romney campaign would have you believe, Obama has actually not done anything in the past four years except destroy this country.  Some of these arguments are based in reality and are just a matter of opinion on what it means to "destroy" the country.  Others however, like Clint Eastwood's invisible chair speech are so far from reality its difficult to understand how anyone can support such a fact-less claim: "I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK. You know, I mean — you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did it — they did there for 10 years." (Read more: www.politico.com)  Blaming Obama for the war in Afghanistan? Interesting fact-less tactic for sure.

So while this election will likely be a close one, I encourage everyone to try and find the truth behind the candidates before they vote.  Either that, or decide how each party would do in the fictional world they have created and vote based on their ads that are also not based in reality. But don't let your students forget than an argument is only good if it has facts to support it.  And don't forget, BOTH sides have forgotten to back up their arguments, so while one might be more entertaining than the other, don't let your students believe that  only the "other" party is to blame.

-MB

For more facts visit:

Politifact.com - http://www.politifact.com/

FactCheck.org - http://factcheck.org/

Back to School: Keeping Politics in the Classroom, But Leaving the "Politics" Behind

For most schools in Massachusetts this is the last weekend of summer.  Teachers will enter their buildings on Monday to begin preparing for student arrivals.  Students will be flooding the stores to buy that new pair of shoes, clothes, the coolest backpacks and if they have time maybe some of those not so cool school supplies.

On this last weekend of summer another group is flooding (hopefully not literally... Issac) into Tampa Bay to begin a week-long political ritual known as the Republican National Convention.  It will be followed the week after by the Democrats' version in North Carolina.  This provides for countless hours of political drama, "he said"/"she said," doomsday statements about Medicare, the civil war that will break out if one side gets elected, etc.  But this is also a perfect teaching moment to truly engage students because they can relate their knowledge to the world they're seeing around them.

Andrew Jackson is attributed with holding the first truly "national" conventions to nominate a candidate for president in 1832.  Prior to this, party elites would select the candidate they felt would best represent their interests in the White House.  So despite the fact that these conventions seem distant and that the average person really doesn't have a say in what happens there - they represent a huge leap forward in the democratic process of party politics.

Not being too far removed from my classroom experience leading up to the 2008 elections, and having some distant memories of the 2004 elections I have a list of suggestions that might help teachers in disseminating the information, but leaving as many of their biases at home as possible.

1. If you're going to talk about one candidates stance on an issue, give an equal amount of time to the other candidate

     

     Students pick up on any and all perceived biases that teachers have.  If a teacher keeps telling students about one candidates plan and how it will save the country the students clearly know where that teacher's favor lies and might be unfairly swayed based on one side of the story.  Students are impressionable and teachers have a lot more power than they might realize in shaping student ideas.

2. Try to avoid political satire

     Its out there, and its funny, but it usually zeros in on a small one-sided part of an argument and often misses the big picture.  While a well-educated adult who has had years to formulate their world-view can laugh at a show like "The Daily Show" but not take it too seriously, students haven't developed beyond believing everything they hear from a "reputable" person.  They might not believe what John Stewart says, but if a teacher presents it as a good argument, that's another story.  Tread carefully.

3. Play devil's advocate and keep your views a secret

   Students WANT to know what you think about an issue.  They will become increasingly inquisitive and read into every comment you say if you keep your opinions to your self.  When having a discussion about politics (or any topic for that matter) always come prepared with both sides of the argument so you can debate against any idea your students present.  Its good practice for people to see both sides of an issue before formulating an opinion.  One of my favorite history teacher's in high school said he would tell us his political views after we graduated... I had him freshman year and despite countless attempts he never wavered. Upon graduating I could have asked (some friends did), but at that point I had realized his opinions were his own, and it was up to me to develop MY own based on what I'd learned, not based on what his were.  A great lesson I hope to teach my students.

4. Teach your students about biases 

     They're everywhere.  Every television news organization, every magazine, every newspaper has a bias of some sort.  There's no such thing as a truly unbiased source of information in this country.  However, if you teach students to take everything they hear with a grain of salt, find out what the other side is saying, and develop their own opinions, then you enable them to rise above the biases.  Also, teach them the difference between the news and talking heads.  National nightly news is very different and more likely to be factual than a show like "The O'Reilly Factor" or "Morning Joe."  One is trying to present you with information (yes, it's still biased) while the other is also providing entertainment and trying to get ratings.

5. Don't cut productive conversations short

     If your students are engaged, asking genuine questions and providing thoughtful and appropriate responses in a class discussion, your PowerPoint on Christopher Columbus can wait. (they probably won't pay attention to it anyway...)  Allow students to spread their wings and become active members of the political process.  The only way to ensure a democracy will work is to make sure the participants are educated.  It's too late when they're 18 to start teaching them about the voting process and the issues, any opportunity to have a productive conversation or debate should be leaped upon.  There will be plenty of time to cover the other topics the rest of the year.

-MB

Obama Talks Education in his Weekly Address

Weekly Address: Congress Should Back Plan to Hire Teachers

President Obama's weekly address today talks about a plan to hire back teachers.  He states that the United States has lost over 300,000 education jobs in the past few years.  Looking at the current job market for teachers, I've noticed that the average job posting for a classroom teacher in Massachusetts receives over 100 applicants.  At the same time, the average class size continues to rise and currently there are schools with between 30-35 students per class.  With all of these licensed teachers searching desperately for jobs, the problem in our schools isn't one of resources or availability, it's a money issue.

It would be great it there was a way to get funding for education from somewhere other than state and local government.  While these institutions do the best they can in most places, they do not have enough money to run themselves AND provide for education.  Having the federal government give a little more to support education would not only create jobs (remember that 300,000 figure...) but also provide our children with a better education.

I do not know all the details to the plan the president mentioned in his video, but SOME plan is better than no plan. Romney-Ryan do not believe the federal government should be responsible for education in this country, believing it is a state/local issue.  I believe that Education should be one of the greatest priorities of the Federal government as it is an issue that affects our national standing in the world.

Let's get the education issue on the table this election season - its just as important to the economy as medicare and taxes.

-MB

State of the Race: Where Romney-Ryan and Obama-Biden stand on Education

This morning after learning of Romney's decision to have Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, I decided it was finally time to do a little perusing through the issues.  Of course the first issue on all websites is the economy and the tit-for-tat between the candidates and political pundits on this issue has been rather nauseating the past few months.  I decided to pick a lesser discussed topic and do some light reading on the candidates' websites: Education.

Let's start with Barack Obama (see Education Policy) as he has already had 3 years to implement some type of Education policy.

1. Making college more affordable: He's doubled Pell Grants, helped students deal with student loans and has "plans" to reform community colleges to provide a better pathway to jobs.
   
   - for the most part, as a recent college grad I like to hear these things, college is becoming more and more expensive and any relief or assistance is appreciated, however where is this money coming from when the government can't afford the programs they already have in place?
   
2. Reforming No Child Left Behind: President Obama allowed for states to create their own, more efficient and productive plans and apply for waivers from NCLB.
   
   -might be a good thing, might not, all depends on the state.  For instance, Massachusetts has always had good education, before NCLB, despite NCLB and it will continue to have a good education system after NCLB.  But the law wasn't passed for states like Massachusetts, it was passed to help students in states like Mississippi and Alabama whose scores in Science and Math are in need of much improvement.  Generating an alternative as opposed to just negating NCLB might have been a better course of action, but the jury is still out on this one
   
3. Supporting Teachers an Students: President Obama wants states to "Keep good teachers on the job and keep students in school until the graduate or turn 18"
   
   -sounds good to me, how are you going to do it?  I don't think there's a single politician out there who would say anything different from this as part of their education policy (except maybe Ron Paul who thinks the government shouldn't have an education policy).
   

Biden's similarities and differences: at this point, he no longer has his own website and it would probably be a copy&paste from the President's website effectively removing his opinions from record

Now for Governor Romney's proposals (see Education Policy) most of which are based on the successes of Massachusetts education during his term as governor.

1. Expand access to charter schools: Governor Romney believes that charter schools allow parents to choose so they're not forced to send their children to failing schools.
   
   -when I read this it sounds like turning education into a Free Market system.  If your public school is failing, then shut it down by creating charter schools and sending all of your students there.  Is this really fixing the problem in public schools or just brushing it under the rug?  What about the students who cannot get in to the charter school for whatever reason?  Are they left to attend the now half-empty and definitely not well supported public school?
   
2. Making college more affordable: Governor Romney proposed a scholarship that would give free tutition to the top 25% of students if they attended a state institution.
   
   -this policy (though I don't remember it being Romney's idea) has been quite a success in Massachusetts.  As a recipient of this scholarship, the $4,000 it saved me over four years was just one less thing I needed to worry about. (note: just found an article while writing this and it WAS a Romney proposal see Article)  I'm not sure how this could work on a national level, but finding ways to help students attend college is always a good thing, so long as the budget can afford it.
   
3. Empower Governors to reform their education systems: Governor Romney believes that each state should set its own regulations and education reform should not be a national priority.
   
   -That's great, if the governor has the resources and wherewithal to do so.  I believe part of his reasoning for wording the policy this way is because he can say "I was governor of Massachusetts and our education system worked great."  The problem I have with this was that Massachusetts had a great education system long before Romney became governor, and nothing he did during his term really impacted the system as a whole.
   

Ryan's similarities and differences: Congressman Ryan doesn't say too much that is at all different from Governor Romney's policies.  He is also in favor of charter schools and believes that education policy should come from state and local government, not the federal government.

Those are the basics of what is coming in with whomever is elected president. Please add your own opinions and information to help fill out this article.

-MB