If we want to enable more equitable opportunities for the nation's children, we need to invest in parents.
June is fast turning into college affordability month on Capitol Hill.
It is a horrible practice to ban commencement speakers because we disagree with them on policy.
Given the enormous and disproportionate role that MSIs play in the lives of young men of color, it seems that they are the keeper of many of the secrets to empowerment and success among this group.
Lawmakers have undoubtedly heard plenty from colleges and universities about real problems with the Department of Education's forthcoming college ratings system. One way to limit problems is for Congress to repeal the ban on a student unit record system.
As I read about the evolution of online college courses, and the debate about its efficacy, I'm drawn to recall my experiences as a young, 16-year-old college freshman.
It was in the dark ages, 1950-54, a time when veterans on the GI Bill flowed into college classrooms. While we kids caroused and "found" ourselves in our new social setting, away from home for the first time, there was a stark difference between us and them.
They were older, more serious, many already married and living in married student quarters. They were focused and dead serious in classes. They were there to be educated and get on with their lives. We were there to grow up and find ourselves.
The youth unemployment rate for newly minted college graduates in the 20- to 24-year-old age bracket is at an all-time high of 60.6 percent, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Department of Labor.
This raises the question of whether students can find meaningful employment after graduation with the degrees they currently have.
I have nothing against Chicago or Gates. I'm glad to see a Democrat "wake up and smell the failure" of public schools. For too long, Democrats have been the facilitators of teachers unions, to the detriment of children. The unions are doing their job: protecting the economic interests of their collective constituency, i.e., they favor the more senior teachers as they pay the most in union dues, and they favor a flat/time-serving rewards system over differentiation of performance and linkage of pay. Great. That's what they're “supposed” to do. However, Democrats have systematically privileged those interests above those of the taxpayers (ask the bankrupt municipalities in California) and children (ask the inner-city black and Hispanic kids in underperforming schools and their parents, who have no choices and no rights).
The federal government should stay out of elementary and secondary education.
Education is best decided by students and their parents. Students should have a choice of schools. Parents and students are best able to determine what works best for them, not bureaucrats sitting in their Washington, D.C. ivory tower.
Why does the politically correct environment do their best to stifle free speech when it's not their own?
Could it be that the ultra-left have a most difficult time defending their positions with logic? Therefore, before placing themselves in that awkward position of challenging well-thought-out points of view, they attempt to demonize or outright dismiss opposing points of view.
In a recent controversy that arose over the commencement speaker (Johns Hopkins Hospital Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Dr. Ben Carson) at Emory University in Atlanta, biology professors attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the choice of an individual who was a creationist and went so far as to accuse the individual of saying that evolutionists were unethical. They came to this conclusion because the speaker feels that is very easy to explain the source of morality if one believes in biblical principles.