“Bros Before Hos” written by Michael Kimmel is an excerpt from his book Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men which was published in 2008. Kimmel, a sociologist and University instructor in New York writes about what he calls “the guy code”, the reasons and meaning of what drives men’s need to appear masculine and all powerful. He states “Our efforts to maintain a manly front cover everything we do. What we wear. How we talk. How we walk. What we eat (612).” Kimmel discusses how young boys are set up to learn this code from an early age and why this has lead many more boys than girls to participate in high risk behavior and also statistically have more depression and ADHD.
This discussion begs the question, is it nature or nurture that causes boys and men to live by the “guy code” and my assertion is that although testosterone plays some role in this issue, our society has a much larger role in ensuring that “boys will be boys”. Kimmel discusses common theories “... of biology that claim that this definition of masculinity is “hard-wired,” the result of millennia of evolution adaption or the behavioral response to waves of aggression-producing testosterone and therefore inevitable.(614)” He goes on to explain that “if it were biological, it would be as natural as breathing or blinking. In truth, the Guy Code fits as comfortably as a straightjacket.(615)” When a boy is born, our society has already pigeon holed the child and programming starts pretty much instantly, from the types of toys that are purchased to the colors that are acceptable to dress the child or decorate his room in. Among many parents in today’s society buying a boy a doll or allowing him to wear something pink is completely unacceptable. From an early age boys are told that crying shows weakness and as they get older terms such as “man up” becomes common place. One can argue that fathers, who in most cases went through similar training from their fathers, feel that it is a threat to their own masculinity if their boy child should show any traits that fall outside of the expected norm. Even if some families have chosen to take a less dogmatic stance on teaching the code, once these boys emerge into their adolescent peer groups in elementary and middle school they are pressured to conform or they run the risk of being excluded if they don’t. I therefore agree with Kimmel when discussing the biology versus society issue he states “What these theories fail to account for is the way that masculinity is coerced and policed relentlessly by other guys.(614)” . He is really confirming that society’s role in ensuring the “guy code” is followed is really the major player.
When Kimmel uses the term “fits as comfortably as a straight jacket” he is talking about how men have got very little choice but to participate in the “guy code” and that participating means that they are bound by a set of rigid rules created by the culture in which they live.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Final Polish - Prop 30 Op Ed
Staking A Claim in California’s Future
Californians are well aware that our education system is in crisis. One of the most important decisions that will have to be made this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed State budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the general fund that would severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice. Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13 the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been increasing steadily, due in great part to that Proposition putting significant limits on the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes. Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s attempt to maintain sufficient levels of funding for education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000. This temporary increase in income tax will be in effect for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet in order for a long term viable solution to be established.
The quality and affordability of all levels of education is suffering and many college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education. This is incorrect on two fronts. First, the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account stated and funds spent for the areas of education stated in the Proposition. Secondly, having the funds available for K-12 and community colleges in this EPA account will allow more of the general funds to be allocated to the University of California system and the State Universities. This fact was highlighted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel who wrote that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor, George Blumenthal referred to Proposition 30 in his “State of the Campus” speech, this September by saying “Though it would not directly provide money to the UC or Cal State system, it would free up money for higher education and prevent a $65 million midyear cut to the UC budget.” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the Proposition the Cal State and UC Systems, so critical to California’s future, will also directly benefit.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have had abundant opportunities to succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that supported the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has come to expect.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation.” This grave statistic tells us that there is an urgent need to address the education issues in our State, in order for there to be a sufficient number of educated people to take over the many essential jobs as the baby boomers move into retirement. Surely all Californians are set to benefit if our young people receive equal educational opportunities that previous generations of Californians have enjoyed.
I am a long term California tax payer and the parent of two very motivated college students who benefited from both public and private education in the State of California. I feel fortunate that the public elementary school my children attended was a small school district with a lot of parent participation, no more than twenty-five children in their classroom and sometimes less, full time aides and wonderful teachers who were not burned out because of a lack of funding and support. My children received a good education and I believe this has motivated them and instilled in them a love of learning as it did for many of their peers. If paying more taxes means that other children can receive the quality education that my children received, which would motivate them to become fully productive residents of this State, then I have no argument with that.
As we look to the future of the Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30, let us consider that although this measure is not going to fix all of the problems in California’s education system right away, it is going to buy some time to address these funding challenges. It is also going to allow California’s education system to keep functioning as we have come to expect it and to keep the cost of a college education affordable for students. It will also allow them to complete their degrees on time. We have to start making inroads into closing the huge and growing skills gap between the well educated retiring baby boomers and the new generation of leaders and workers that the State will need in the coming decades. It stands to reason that the continuing success of California depends on this. In the words of an American Novelist, Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Californians are well aware that our education system is in crisis. One of the most important decisions that will have to be made this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed State budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the general fund that would severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice. Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13 the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been increasing steadily, due in great part to that Proposition putting significant limits on the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes. Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s attempt to maintain sufficient levels of funding for education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000. This temporary increase in income tax will be in effect for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet in order for a long term viable solution to be established.
The quality and affordability of all levels of education is suffering and many college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education. This is incorrect on two fronts. First, the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account stated and funds spent for the areas of education stated in the Proposition. Secondly, having the funds available for K-12 and community colleges in this EPA account will allow more of the general funds to be allocated to the University of California system and the State Universities. This fact was highlighted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel who wrote that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor, George Blumenthal referred to Proposition 30 in his “State of the Campus” speech, this September by saying “Though it would not directly provide money to the UC or Cal State system, it would free up money for higher education and prevent a $65 million midyear cut to the UC budget.” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the Proposition the Cal State and UC Systems, so critical to California’s future, will also directly benefit.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have had abundant opportunities to succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that supported the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has come to expect.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation.” This grave statistic tells us that there is an urgent need to address the education issues in our State, in order for there to be a sufficient number of educated people to take over the many essential jobs as the baby boomers move into retirement. Surely all Californians are set to benefit if our young people receive equal educational opportunities that previous generations of Californians have enjoyed.
I am a long term California tax payer and the parent of two very motivated college students who benefited from both public and private education in the State of California. I feel fortunate that the public elementary school my children attended was a small school district with a lot of parent participation, no more than twenty-five children in their classroom and sometimes less, full time aides and wonderful teachers who were not burned out because of a lack of funding and support. My children received a good education and I believe this has motivated them and instilled in them a love of learning as it did for many of their peers. If paying more taxes means that other children can receive the quality education that my children received, which would motivate them to become fully productive residents of this State, then I have no argument with that.
As we look to the future of the Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30, let us consider that although this measure is not going to fix all of the problems in California’s education system right away, it is going to buy some time to address these funding challenges. It is also going to allow California’s education system to keep functioning as we have come to expect it and to keep the cost of a college education affordable for students. It will also allow them to complete their degrees on time. We have to start making inroads into closing the huge and growing skills gap between the well educated retiring baby boomers and the new generation of leaders and workers that the State will need in the coming decades. It stands to reason that the continuing success of California depends on this. In the words of an American Novelist, Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Final Draft - Staking A Claim in California’s Future
Californians are well aware that our education system is in crisis. One of the most important decisions that will have to be made this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed State budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the general fund that would severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice. Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13 the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been increasing steadily, due in great part to that Proposition putting significant limits on the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes. Proposition 30 is Governor Brown’s attempt to maintain sufficient levels of funding for education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000. This temporary increase in income tax will be in effect for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet in order for a long term viable solution to be established.
The quality and affordability of all levels of education is suffering and many college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education. This is incorrect on two fronts. First, the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account stated and funds spent for the areas of education stated in the Proposition. Secondly, having the funds available for K-12 and community colleges in this EPA account will allow more of the general funds to be allocated to the University of California system and the State Universities. This fact was highlighted by the Santa Cruz Sentinel who wrote that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor, George Blumenthal referred to Proposition 30 in his “State of the Campus” speech, this September by saying “Though it would not directly provide money to the UC or Cal State system, it would free up money for higher education and prevent a $65 million midyear cut to the UC budget.” Therefore, although not specifically mentioned in the Proposition the Cal State and UC Systems, so critical to California’s future, will also directly benefit.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have had abundant opportunities to succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that supported the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has come to expect.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation.” This grave statistic tells us that there is an urgent need to address the education issues in our State, in order for there to be a sufficient number of educated people to take over the many essential jobs as the baby boomers move into retirement. Surely all Californians are set to benefit if our young people receive equal educational opportunities that previous generations of Californians have enjoyed.
I am a long term California tax payer and the parent of two very motivated college students who benefited from both public and private education in the State of California. I feel fortunate that the public elementary school my children attended was a small school district with a lot of parent participation, no more than twenty-five children in their classroom and sometimes less, full time aides and wonderful teachers who were not burned out because of a lack of funding and support. My children received a good education and I believe this has motivated them and instilled in them a love of learning as it did for many of their peers. If paying more taxes means that other children can receive the quality education that my children received, which would motivate them to become fully productive residents of this State, then I have no argument with that.
As we look to the future of the Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30, let us consider that although this measure is not going to fix all of the problems in California’s education system right away, it is going to buy some time to address these funding challenges. It is also going to allow California’s education system to keep functioning as we have come to expect it and to keep the cost of a college education affordable for students. It will also allow them to complete their degrees on time. We have to start making inroads into closing the huge and growing skills gap between the well educated retiring baby boomers and the new generation of leaders and workers that the State will need in the coming decades. It stands to reason that the continuing success of California depends on this. In the words of an American Novelist, Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Prop 30 Rough Draft
One of the most important decisions Californians will have to make this November is whether or not to pass Governor Brown’s Proposition 30. The current proposed budget shows “trigger cuts” of $6 billion dollars in the State’s general fund and this will severely impact not just every level of education, but also all departments that fall under the banner of public safety; city police, CalFire, flood control programs, water safety, Dept of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Department of Justice . Since 1978 with the passing of Proposition 13, which significantly reduced the State’s ability to receive revenue from property taxes, the discrepancy between State revenue and State expenditure has been on a steady increase. Proposition 30 is Governor Browns attempt at maintaining funding education and public safety by increasing income tax by 1% to 3%, depending on income level for California’s wealthiest individuals earning more than $250,000 or couples earning more than $500,000 for a period of 7 years. Sales tax will also be increased by ¼ percent for a period of 4 years. Proposition 30 is a short term solution and it will go a very long way to getting California back on its feet, in order for a long term viable solution to be found.
More and more college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education, however the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account mentioned and funds spent for education.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that set up the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has been on for many years.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation”. This grave statistic tells us that there is a great need to address the education in our State as a matter of urgency in order for there to be educated people to take over these jobs when the time comes. Surely the big picture will ultimately be that all the people of California benefit from this solution.
For those Californians who are concerned about the rise in the sales tax by ¼ percent for four years, putting it in real terms, the person who buys an $8 burrito for lunch, it would result in a two cent increase on that burrito. For the very poorest of Californians who have to worry about every penny they spend we need to remember that sales tax is not charged on basic necessities.
As we look to the future of this Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30 lets keep in mind the fact that passing this measure will make an enormous contribution to our children’s education as well as our public safety and buy us the time we need to look deeper at fixing the long term budget problems of the State. In the words of American Novelist Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Bibliography:
California Federation of Teachers: http://www.cft.org/component/content/article/825.html
Proposition 30:
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf
Public Policy Institute of CA:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_409HJRB.pdf
Quote by Robin Cook:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/quotes.html
More and more college students in California are concerned with whether they will be able to complete their degrees if the price of college continues to rise. According to the California Federation of Teachers who are proponents of Proposition 30, “State budget cuts to public education funding, totaling $20 billion over the past four years, have taken a terrible toll on our ability to deliver the education our students need and deserve”. With these huge budget cuts the price of higher education has necessarily risen and this has created an unexpected additional cost burden on students hoping to complete their education. These budget cuts have also severely impacted K-12 education by cramming more children into classrooms, cutting teachers and programs such as after-school and the arts. Considering this fact it would be prudent for education not to take another blow. Proposition 30 is set to restore much of that funding and get California back on an upward trajectory.
Critics of the Bill say that there is no evidence that the money raised with Proposition 30 will ever make it to education, however the Official Title and Summary of Proposition 30 prepared by the Attorney General states very clearly that “the new revenues would be deposited into a newly created state account called the Education Protection Account (EPA). Of the funds in the account 89 percent would be provided to schools and 11 percent to community colleges.” Considering that this Official Title and Summary is a legal document, the people of California can feel at ease that this money will be going into the account mentioned and funds spent for education.
Another argument raised by critics is that the Bill is unfair in that it requires only the rich to have an increase in their Income Tax. When we ask the question, who should pay the largest share of the bill, let us consider that one reason the top 1% of wage earners in the State should pay more is that they have succeeded in an environment that was conducive to business success. The State they succeeded in, the roads, the communication system, the legal system and even the education system that educated the employees that worked for the firms they benefited from was set up by a previous generation of taxpayers and they cannot just benefit without giving back. One can even argue that a portion of the 1% were educated by the efforts of that previous generation of taxpayers that set up the education system they enjoyed in the first place. It seems perfectly legitimate that those who have benefited the most put back a little more in order to help the future generations’ ability to keep California on the upward trend it has been on for many years.
While we argue about who needs to pay this bill to educate our young people, California is back sliding steadily from not only being a world leader in higher public education but also in technical and environmental issue innovation. A study by the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent and non partisan group have found that “California faces a shortage of almost a million college-educated workers by 2025.” They equate this problem to two reasons; one is “the retirement of the large and relatively well-educated baby-boom cohort” and the second reason is the State‘s “demographic shifts toward groups that have historically low rates of college attendance and graduation”. This grave statistic tells us that there is a great need to address the education in our State as a matter of urgency in order for there to be educated people to take over these jobs when the time comes. Surely the big picture will ultimately be that all the people of California benefit from this solution.
For those Californians who are concerned about the rise in the sales tax by ¼ percent for four years, putting it in real terms, the person who buys an $8 burrito for lunch, it would result in a two cent increase on that burrito. For the very poorest of Californians who have to worry about every penny they spend we need to remember that sales tax is not charged on basic necessities.
As we look to the future of this Golden State and ponder the pros and cons of Proposition 30 lets keep in mind the fact that passing this measure will make an enormous contribution to our children’s education as well as our public safety and buy us the time we need to look deeper at fixing the long term budget problems of the State. In the words of American Novelist Robin Cook “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility that society owes to itself”.
Bibliography:
California Federation of Teachers: http://www.cft.org/component/content/article/825.html
Proposition 30:
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf
Public Policy Institute of CA:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_409HJRB.pdf
Quote by Robin Cook:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ralf/quotes.html
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Proposal for Paper 1
1. Logos: Passing Prop 30 is critical for the future success of all Californians. It’s passage will not only benefit those who require an education but all of us who will be set to gain from a well educated State. According to the Cabrillo College Federation of Teachers, a positive vote on Prop 30 “would raise an estimated $6 billion per year for schools (K-12 through community college) and public safety at the local level”. (site) Without this funding the quality of our education will significantly deteriorate, massive cuts will be made and tuitions will continue to skyrocket, resulting in not only children being unprepared for the rigors of university but also less people being able to afford a college education. The CCFT continues to tell us that if Prop 30 does not pass “K-12 gets cut $5.5 billion, cutting three weeks of school. CSU gets cut $250 million, resulting in class cuts, layoff of faculty, staff and enrollment cuts.” (site). The decisions we make today will greatly affect the future. In other words if we do not educate our young people many essential jobs in California will not be filled, the middle class will become a much smaller group, we will become a poor and poorly educated State and the spiral downwards will continue.
I am hoping that the effect of logos on my audience will allow them to see that education is a cornerstone to success and no matter who you are, what socio economic background you come from, or whether or not you have children or grandchildren who need educating, you will be affected by this issue.
2. Pathos: Are we willing to have education become a privilege merely for the elite among us or is it a privilege for all to citizens to receive. By not funding Prop 30 education is going to become even more expensive than it currently is. In the K-12 arena parents who can afford it will prefer to send their children to private schools as the public school system looses more and more money. College tuition will also continue to skyrocket and the numbers of students will continue to be reduced thus allowing for only the wealthiest Californians to receive higher educations. As we see our middle class disappear and the chasm continue to widen between the small group of elite and the ever increasing poor and uneducated, it will become very clear that passing Prop 30 will benefit all of us.
I am hoping the effect of pathos will allow my audience to see that this is a very real scenario that can occur if we do not pass this measure. People need to be considering the fact that the demographics will drastically change in California. I also hope it will appeal to the caring side of people to see that it is up to all of us human beings to do what we can to support one another.
3. Ethos: As a mother of two college students and a student myself, I have been immersed in the education system since my children entered kindergarten, they attended both public and private schools and I feel I have had a good view of both systems. I have lived in this State for 27 years and have paid my fair share of taxes in that time and I am more than willing to pay a little more so that not only my children can benefit but all children can benefit.
I am hoping that the effect of ethos on my audience will have them see that I have credibility as a student, a mother and a taxpayer in this State. They will see that I have been part of the process with my own children and now myself, so I know what it takes. I also want them to know that I have been a tax payer for many years and am willing to make additional contributions if it means that others can also benefit. I think it is important for the audience to see that it is not just our own needs that we need to be thinking about but the big picture of our State and all of our futures.
I am hoping that the effect of logos on my audience will allow them to see that education is a cornerstone to success and no matter who you are, what socio economic background you come from, or whether or not you have children or grandchildren who need educating, you will be affected by this issue.
2. Pathos: Are we willing to have education become a privilege merely for the elite among us or is it a privilege for all to citizens to receive. By not funding Prop 30 education is going to become even more expensive than it currently is. In the K-12 arena parents who can afford it will prefer to send their children to private schools as the public school system looses more and more money. College tuition will also continue to skyrocket and the numbers of students will continue to be reduced thus allowing for only the wealthiest Californians to receive higher educations. As we see our middle class disappear and the chasm continue to widen between the small group of elite and the ever increasing poor and uneducated, it will become very clear that passing Prop 30 will benefit all of us.
I am hoping the effect of pathos will allow my audience to see that this is a very real scenario that can occur if we do not pass this measure. People need to be considering the fact that the demographics will drastically change in California. I also hope it will appeal to the caring side of people to see that it is up to all of us human beings to do what we can to support one another.
3. Ethos: As a mother of two college students and a student myself, I have been immersed in the education system since my children entered kindergarten, they attended both public and private schools and I feel I have had a good view of both systems. I have lived in this State for 27 years and have paid my fair share of taxes in that time and I am more than willing to pay a little more so that not only my children can benefit but all children can benefit.
I am hoping that the effect of ethos on my audience will have them see that I have credibility as a student, a mother and a taxpayer in this State. They will see that I have been part of the process with my own children and now myself, so I know what it takes. I also want them to know that I have been a tax payer for many years and am willing to make additional contributions if it means that others can also benefit. I think it is important for the audience to see that it is not just our own needs that we need to be thinking about but the big picture of our State and all of our futures.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Annotated Bibliography
Myers, Dowell. "The Conversation." The Sacramento Bee. N.p., 15 July 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2012. <http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/15/4630198/california-needs-to-examine-proposition.html>.
Dowell Myers is a professor of Public Policy at the University of Southern California and he writes this article published in the Sacramento Bee that is from a larger essay which was published in the summer of 2012 entitled "California Futures: New Narratives for a Changing Society”. This excerpt has a compelling argument that first states why Prop 13 was so attractive and potentially a good thing back in 1978. With rapidly rising property taxes, at a time of a big surplus of funds in California that came because of California’s housing boom and huge population increase due to non-Californians migrating into the State, he argues that although it may have served the problems back then we now have different problems and the crash in our housing prices greatly affects the now outdated Prop 13. Our elderly residents have enjoyed lower taxes with their expensive homes yet the younger folks among us are struggling to buy those expensive homes. He reminds us that people with a college education earn significantly more than people without one, so therefore funding our schools may help our State in many different ways in the future. This article helps to highlight what Prop 13 was all about and why it might have been necessary at a certain point in California’s progress but now we have to take a fresh look at the problems facing California and change the rules. As a professor, of Public Policy at a prestigious California University he undoubtedly has a lot of credibility.
Barnes, Brooks. "Californians Face Rival Ballot Initiatives That Would Raise Taxes and Aid Schools." Nytimes.com. N.p., 10 Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/us/californians-face-competing-tax-increase-propositions.html?_r=1>.
The New York Times’ Brooks Barnes, article entitled “Californians Face Rival Ballot Initiatives That would Raise Taxes and Aid Schools.” Is a very interesting article comparing two Propositions that could both help and hurt each other? Prop 30 is Governor Brown’s proposition that raises sales tax for 4 years and raises Income Tax for the wealthiest Californian’s for 7 years. While Prop 38 also written to help California Education is backed by a wealthy Civil Rights Attorney, who believes that more money will be made and these funds will go directly to education and only education. This Proposition raises the Income Tax of every Californian for a period of 12 years. What happens if both Propositions pass? Well California’s constitution takes care of that for us, the Proposition with the most positive votes will come into effect. I believe this article is a good one to read because it gives us some comparisons of these two Propositions. I think while investigating the merits of Prop 30 it is vital to include information about Prop 38 in order for Californians to make a completely informed decision. It also answers a very important question, that I had even asked myself….. What happens if both pass? Some people may hesitate to vote yes on both for fear of having to pay twice. On the other hand if half the State votes yes on one and no on the other, both may fail. So this article helps us realize that a Yes on both Propositions only heightens the chance that at least one will pass and if both pass, only one takes effect.
"As We See It: Gov. Brown in His Own Words." Santacruzsentinel.com. N.p., 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2012. <http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_21522357/we-see-it-gov-brown-his-own-words?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com>.
This article from the Santa Cruz Sentinel entitled “Governor Brown in his own Words” is just that. Governor Brown is defending the tough situation he has been in since becoming Governor of California for the second time. He justifies all that he has been accomplishing considering what he inherited. He is making a case to the people of California for voting positively on Proposition 30, which will help fund education. He questions whether mistakes made in one area of the State i.e. State Parks and the $54 million that went unreported should penalize unrelated Prop 30. He reminds us that he is spending much less than his predecessor, he is capable of bi-partisanship and is looking at what makes sense for the future of California like the high speed rail system. I think this article might be helpful for the Prop 30 Op Ed, because it gives Governor Brown’s very own reasons for doing certain things especially when his opponents are shouting out that they don’t trust the job he is doing or where the tax dollars are going.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Readers Response #1 - Gatto
John Taylor Gatto, an award winning teacher in the New York State Public Schools offers a provocative view on the current education system, in his article Against School, which was published in Harper’s Magazine in September 2003. Gatto discusses his observations, after a lifetime of teaching, on the level of boredom that exists with both teachers and pupils in the current model of education in the United States. He questions whether we really need to be schooled, or whether our education can be garnered in other ways, reminding us that many of the most influential people of our time had not been schooled as we know it, but had been educated in ways that allowed them to become great leaders, inventors or writers. He reminds us of the mission of public education, which is to make us good people and citizens who strive to reach our highest potential. He then questions the validity of this mission by discussing the Prussian education system in the early 19th century, that was adopted by the United States and whose purpose was to stifle creative thinking for the masses and only have a small elite group of scholars bubble to the top of the heap to keep the masses unquestioning and obedient.
As the parent of two children who are now adults themselves, my observation has been that many parents turn their children over to the school system with the hope that teachers will do the job of turning them into well rounded, intelligent, motivated adults by their 18th birthday. I fully concur with Gatto’s grandfather when Gatto at seven years old mentioned his boredom; he tells us his grandfather said “….. I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else’s” (148) . It is essential for parents to empower children to attain complete autonomy, while instilling a love of the natural world and adventure, and a belief that they should let nothing limit their thinking.
The more subtle message that Gatto received, at seven years old, when his Grandfather told him that he only had himself to blame if he was bored was that he had to take responsibility for creating the excitement in his life. Unfortunately today a temptingly easy response would be to put the child in front of a television set, as we busily go on with the things on our long list of “to do’s”. We have to resist that temptation and take the time to really listen to our children and encourage the creative thinking that comes out of someone being interested in their ideas. With my own children it was so important to me that they knew where their food came from so from a very young age we had a large vegetable garden that they helped to grow and nurture. My husband and I took them on backpacking and camping trips in the Sierra Nevada mountains, multi-day river rafting trips in Montana where they learned how to fish and take care of themselves out in the wilderness. We taught them about different countries and different cultures around the world. By age eighteen they had travelled to South Africa, the British Virgin Islands, Japan, Europe and Canada because we believe that nothing can open your mind up like traveling to another part of the world where people live very differently. We always encouraged them to try a new activity or even a new type of food. Our philosophy as parents was to introduce them to as much diversity as possible, so as to allow them to discover where their own passions lie which would then inspire them to achieve whatever they set their mind to.
Although I agree with Gatto in many ways, that our education system stifles creativity, encourages boredom and does not allow children to open their minds to their fullest potential, I do believe that some schooling has its place in our society and is very necessary in the absence of a viable national alternative. Perhaps if, as a society we could spend much less time in the classroom, worrying about grades and standardized tests that pigeon hole us into places we don’t belong, and if parents could take on more responsibility encouraging their children in a wide range of ways to discover their passions then perhaps we can transcend the current stagnant and somewhat ineffective system that is in place right now.
As the parent of two children who are now adults themselves, my observation has been that many parents turn their children over to the school system with the hope that teachers will do the job of turning them into well rounded, intelligent, motivated adults by their 18th birthday. I fully concur with Gatto’s grandfather when Gatto at seven years old mentioned his boredom; he tells us his grandfather said “….. I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else’s” (148) . It is essential for parents to empower children to attain complete autonomy, while instilling a love of the natural world and adventure, and a belief that they should let nothing limit their thinking.
The more subtle message that Gatto received, at seven years old, when his Grandfather told him that he only had himself to blame if he was bored was that he had to take responsibility for creating the excitement in his life. Unfortunately today a temptingly easy response would be to put the child in front of a television set, as we busily go on with the things on our long list of “to do’s”. We have to resist that temptation and take the time to really listen to our children and encourage the creative thinking that comes out of someone being interested in their ideas. With my own children it was so important to me that they knew where their food came from so from a very young age we had a large vegetable garden that they helped to grow and nurture. My husband and I took them on backpacking and camping trips in the Sierra Nevada mountains, multi-day river rafting trips in Montana where they learned how to fish and take care of themselves out in the wilderness. We taught them about different countries and different cultures around the world. By age eighteen they had travelled to South Africa, the British Virgin Islands, Japan, Europe and Canada because we believe that nothing can open your mind up like traveling to another part of the world where people live very differently. We always encouraged them to try a new activity or even a new type of food. Our philosophy as parents was to introduce them to as much diversity as possible, so as to allow them to discover where their own passions lie which would then inspire them to achieve whatever they set their mind to.
Although I agree with Gatto in many ways, that our education system stifles creativity, encourages boredom and does not allow children to open their minds to their fullest potential, I do believe that some schooling has its place in our society and is very necessary in the absence of a viable national alternative. Perhaps if, as a society we could spend much less time in the classroom, worrying about grades and standardized tests that pigeon hole us into places we don’t belong, and if parents could take on more responsibility encouraging their children in a wide range of ways to discover their passions then perhaps we can transcend the current stagnant and somewhat ineffective system that is in place right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)