The Wrong "View" of Education

I don't watch "The View" regularly, but I found a YouTube clip from the show titled "Should Mediocre Students Skip College?". The hosts were responding to comments Mayor Michael Bloomberg made suggesting that not all students are meant to go to college. I found myself disappointed in the discussion and I wanted to I forget it, but I can't, so I'm going to write about it.

First of all, a major political figure, college graduate, and leader of arguably the nation's most influential public school system making any statements about choice, achievement, and mobility is going to be noteworthy, which is why I found Bloomberg's comments incredibly irresponsible.

"Mediocre" may bring to mind images of a student who refuses to reciprocate the kindness and hard work of his teachers, but what we consider a "mediocre", "failing", or "successful" student is actually a source of great debate right now. While it may seem heartening in theory to think that an unmotivated student should do something outside of school, we know that's not as easy as it should be, especially when so many college graduates are unemployed or underemployed.

Different people learn in different ways, but the response to that shouldn't be "Leave school and learn a trade". There are some passionate advocates of Career and Technical Education (CTE) in high schools, but I take issue with how CTE is suggested and to whom. The fact is, in an education system that can vary widely in quality from neighborhood to neighborhood, there are different responses to the same issues. Where one school might offer tutoring to a student failing math, another might suggest the student drop out and pursue a GED.

Mayor Bloomberg didn't make his comments because our country needs more plumbers and electricians than we have. He couldn't have, because we also need engineers and doctors, which requires people go to college. While it would be cheaper to set up six-month training programs that offer a certificate at the end, it would be more desirable to develop rigorous college preparatory curriculums and robust extracurricular cultures...just ask the students. And if a student is underperforming, you can't just assume it's because they don't care; you have to ask. But maybe that's too radical for some...

Brooke Shields, a guest co-host, made the point that college is expensive and students are graduating with a lot of debt. True, but the argument "students are graduating with too much debt" does not lead to the conclusion "less students should attend college". Instead, it should beg the question "What should we do to reduce the student debt burden?".

Barbara Walters tried to defend the intention behind Bloomberg's comments, suggesting that he was trying to decrease the stigma attached to people pursuing careers in the trades. I might have been convinced IF Bloomberg had addressed his comments to any student who doesn't find our traditional educational structures appealing, but he said nothing like that.

According to the show, he said "mediocre" students, implying that high-achieving students shouldn't deign to pursue a trade. The idea that a trade is a good option only if every educational option falls through actually reinforces the stigma, and I worry about how educational professionals- teachers, counselors, social workers- will apply this thinking to their interactions with students who have been failed by our system and may not know how to advocate for themselves.

Mayor Bloomberg sets the tone for education reform in New York City and to some extent nationally, and this was an awful message to send to students who need more.

Watch "Should Mediocre Students Skip College? - The View" on YouTube

Guns and Rights

On the most recent episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher", there was a discussion about guns. As would be expected in the wake of recent events, the discussion turned to the issue of a gun registry.

S.E. Cupp and Michael Moore were on this episode's panel. If I was going to be writing about anyone's comments, I thought it would be Mr. Moore's, but Ms. Cupp and Mr. Maher surprised me for different reasons.

I've never thought of Bill Maher as reactionary, but his statement, "I'm going to own a gun as long as we live in gun country" struck me as such. He mentioned that there had been several home invasions in his neighborhood in the past year, but he didn't make the domestic security argument many gun rights advocates make. In fact, he didn't come off as a gun rights advocate at all, just someone who wanted something that other people had or someone who was justifying a curiosity by connecting it to something substantial. I felt this even more as Moore asked Maher how many times he practiced his shooting and Maher responded dismissively.

Whatever issues one may have with guns or even gun owners, I've never heard a gun owner, on television or personally, be dismissive about being properly trained. In fact, my understanding of the arguments of gun rights advocates in this gun control debate has been that the vast majority of gun owners are well-trained and take other precautions to make sure their weapon is not misused. Maher's idea about gun ownership seemed to be more "if you can have it, I can have it" than it was "I will use my gun responsibly to hunt and/or protect my home".

Cupp, this week's lone conservative on the panel, brought what I thought was some depth to the debate. In spite of the audience's feelings she made the point that gun owners are offended by the registry idea because it presumes that they are innocent until proven guilty. She stated that when someone goes to a store to buy a gun and is told they have to wait five days, that makes them feel that they can't be trusted.

I have to admit she has a legal point. We don't add sex offenders to the sex offender registry before they've committed a crime, but only after they've been tried and convicted of sex crimes. We don't use the commission of other crimes such as robbery or murder as a reason to assume "if X committed these crimes, then he could commit a sex crimes" and then add X to that registry. The mere accusation of sexual abuse, even if it's baseless, can ruin a person's life. And in light of the awful gun crimes we're seeing, the presumption that someone could commit gun crimes because they're purchasing a gun (or even ten) could be offensive to the purchaser and damage their reputation.

If the presumption that someone walking in a high-crime area is going to commit a crime isn't enough to justify a stop-and-frisk, why should purchasing the same guns Adam Lanza used lead to the assumption you'll do what he did? Guilt by association is not appropriate, especially when the associations made are vague.

There has to be some way of tracking who's buying guns and where that's less offensive. I know you can't please everyone when making public policy, but you should try to offend as few as possible. Maybe, instead of a gun registry that lists all current and future owners, we should develop a database of people convicted of any crimes that reflect dangerous behavior as a result of poor or impaired judgment. These crimes could range from felonies to DUIs. This database would be available to gun shop owners so that when someone who has proven to be a danger to the public tries to buy a gun, then a delay of however long can kick in.

It's not a perfect proposal for these issues, but which one is?