When it comes to education mixing with politicians, it’s good to know what credentials they have. This infographic from Online Schools serves it up nicely — profiling Republicans with degrees.

Detailing Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman by how many degrees they have, as well as how many degrees each politician holds.

There’s also a section of 10 presidents that have not held any degrees at all, if you weren’t aware of this, it’ll serve as a good reference.

Created by: OnlineSchools

Leave your comments below.

First, let’s understand what we’re talking about here. Wisconsin is running a budget deficit because of the fiscal crisis and Republicans are looking to public sector employees to make up the difference.

From WSJ:

Mr. Walker’s bill would close a projected $3.6 billion shortfall by forcing public employees to pay 5.8% of their salary toward their pensions and 12.6% of healthcare premiums, up from 6% on average. Mr. Walker said it is necessary to cut many of the collective bargaining rights from union members to prevent massive layoffs.

So what’s the compromise? The bargaining rights would be reinstated in 2013.

I’m sure you can understand why Democrats aren’t going for this. Because it’s only a compromise if you think Republicans will keep their promise and let the legislation they’re proposing expire. Also, what are they willing to do to raise revenue from other sources in the interim?

Also, the unions have already agreed to help close the fiscal gap…

Several senators also said a compromise on the bill that would sunset the collective bargaining provisions in 2013 would not be acceptable to Democrats. One reason is that Republicans will likely still be in control of both the state senate and assembly and simply extend the provisions. But a bigger reason, according to several senators, is that unions have already agreed to fix the fiscal issues.

Republicans are just looking for a way to take away workers’ rights. That’s all there is to it. The unions and Democrats have already compromised. And to have these collective bargaining rights snatched away so soon after they won them has to sting. See, these folks have been fighting for the better part of 40 years. They won these rights back in 2009. Think you would be out in full force if you fought for 40 years and 2 years later they were trying to be taking away from you?

Meanwhile, the head of the teacher’s union is calling for them to go back to work…

Mary Bell is president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council. She said on Sunday that it’s time for her members to return to work. For districts that do not recognize Monday as the President’s Day holiday, she said teachers should go to work. Others should report as scheduled on Tuesday.

By the way, I know I said I’m on vacation, but I’m in airports most of the day so I’ll probably be posting more.

Numerous reports are surfacing in the mainstream media that Obama is giving a speech to America’s students that will somehow brainwash/indoctrinate/cast magical spells over them.

Why? Because the lesson plan asks the kids to think about what the President means by his speech. Basically, the White House is posing completely open ended questions designed to make kids think for themselves.

But hey, take a look for yourself at how shockingly socialist/communist/radical it is. Joseph Goebbels couldn’t have written a better one…

Obama’s Address to Students Across America September 8, 2009 Menu of Classroom Activities PreK-6 –

Folks, I genuinely can not understand the mindset that would read that lesson plan and come to the conclusion that’s being spread across the media.

And to that point, here’s the response from the chairman of the Republican party in Florida…

“The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.”

Do note that the quote is from a story that’s on the front page of Yahoo titled, “Parents angry at Obama.” That’s how far this story has spread.

And, again, I ask angry for what? Asking kids to think for themselves? Asking them to interpret what somebody means after they give a speech? Trying to turn a speech into a teaching moment instead of just another “Shut up and listen” assembly?

Seriously, what in the hell is wrong with these people?

First, the numbers…

. Last year, after the recession had begun, the number of applications rose by 12 percent to more than 16 million, according to the Education Department. Detailed estimates are not yet available for last year, but of all full-time college undergraduates in 2007, 58 percent applied for aid, and 47 percent received it.

Still, many who are eligible do not apply. The American Council on Education, in a 2004 report, estimated that 1.5 million students probably would have been awarded Pell Grants had they applied for them. That was up from 850,000 such cases in 2000.

Now, the fixes…

• Shorten and streamline the online application, reducing the number of screens by about two-thirds.
• Create a Web application to use tax data families have already submitted to the IRS, helping to eliminate confusion in answering questions.
• Ask Congress to pass legislation that removes more than half of the financial questions on the form.

I’d expect this one to fly through Congress, but we shall see…

If he weren’t such a cult hero, I wouldn’t even bother, but the following is insane…

Parents deserve educational choices; choice is what this country was founded upon. Government’s controlling and monopolizing education is just another avenue for usurping power and control on the slippery slope to socialism. And it’s unbecoming for our republic, whose Founders created a system of freedom, choice and minimal government intervention.

Is it merely coincidental that the private choice of home schooling was outlawed by the Soviet state in 1919, by Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1938, and by Communist China in 1949?

Is America next?

Yes Chuck, America is next.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Yet another way we could save billions every year and get them back into the hands of those who need them most.

From AP:

Obama wants to end the decades-old, dual system the federal government uses to advance loans to students to pay for college. Under that system, students at some colleges borrow directly from the government, while others get loans from banks, nonprofits or state agencies that in turn receive subsidies from Washington.

The president’s proposal would switch the federal student loan system entirely to direct lending from the government.

Obama has claimed that the change would save at least $48 billion over the next 10 years — money that could be funneled to student aid. But Republicans are concerned about the costs of that and even some Democratic lawmakers oppose the switch.

I don’t anticipate that this will be an easy fight because that’s A LOT of money to be pulling away from some pretty powerful interests, but the idea does make sense…especially if we want more folks going to college.

Your thoughts?

Then you better reject part of the stimulus package.

At least that’s what Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindal and now Sarah Palin are doing…

JUNEAU — Gov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services. [...]

Palin is not taking about $288 million of the $930.7 million that Alaska is due in the federal stimulus. Palin said she is accepting the federal stimulus money that would go for construction projects, but not funding directed at government operations.

What’s curious is that the money she’s turning down is set for education, and Alaska is struggling with very large high school dropout rates. So this is an area where they need some extra help, right?

Well, it seems Palin understands this because I think I see a bit of “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” in the last paragraph here…

The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is “shocked and very disappointed” that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.

Palin said she’s sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn’t be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. “It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we’re willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska,” Palin said.

Yes, Palin is taking a public stand against the money, but if the legislature wants to approve it, well, her hands are tied.

Sure…

Folks, let’s remember that Palin was for $223 million in “pork” for that “Bridge to Nowhere”, as well as a similar total for another “Nowhere” bridge. So why be okay with nearly half a billion in federal money that would benefit only a tiny percentage of Alaskans and now be against less than a couple hundred million that would benefit the entire state?

I think it’s pretty clear, but I’m cynical that way.

There are of course many folks who think President Barack Obama is trying to do too much too soon. Republicans, looking for every chance to assert their differences, have hammered on the president in recent days for not focusing his attention solely on the economy.

However, having run a campaign featuring the word hope and the call for a better future, the president has always insisted he would look to rebuild our country if given the chance to lead. Provided with that chance, on Tuesday Obama took a much-needed step toward a more prosperous country by addressing America’s maligned educational system.

And this time, he took a play out of the recent Republican playbook with calls for greater accountability and his endorsement of a GOP mainstay, the idea of school choice. But he did so on his terms and his steadfast focus on a long-term approach to rebuilding the country.

Obama on education.

In the past, President Obama has indicated he’d be supportive of teacher merit pay and charter schools. Today, he made that support official in his first major presidential speech on education:

His solutions include teacher pay and charter school proposals that have met resistance among members of teachers unions, which constitute an important segment of the Democratic Party.

Obama acknowledged that conflict, saying, “Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom.”

Despite their history on the issues, union leaders publicly welcomed Obama’s words, saying it seems clear he wants to include them in his decisions in a way President George W. Bush did not.

Teachers unions might be wise enough not to sound bitter today, but make no doubt they will fight Obama’s “teacher pay” idea if the president is indeed talking about merit pay and not just better pay for certified teachers. And it seems quite likely, based on the statement, that Obama is talking about linking bonuses and raises to in-classroom performance — an important change which teachers unions would do well to help implement rather than keep resisting.

In addition to wanting to allow for more charter schools, Obama also said he’d like to see the time students spend in public schools increased. While he didn’t specifically reference the fact that our nation still operates the school year on an agrarian calendar, his willingness to support more time in the classroom is a positive sign that our nation might finally consider adopting a school schedule in line with modern realities, with breaks spaced out through the year and not lumped together in the summer.

All in all, Obama’s education speech was more a description of his education philosophy and not an announcement of any new programs. However, it’s great to see he is leaning towards ideas whose time have come.

Later today, President-elect Obama will announce his nomination of fellow Harvard grad, Hyde Park neighbor, and basketball enthusiast Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education, according to numerous press reports. 

Superintendent of Chicago’s public schools for the past seven years, Duncan has been a reformer, supporting merit pay for teachers and charter schools, for example, while also earning respect from teachers’ unions.  As The Chicago Tribune notes:

Since Mayor Richard Daley plucked Duncan from obscurity to head the country’s third-largest school district in 2001, Duncan has gained a reputation as a reformer who isn’t afraid to rankle the teachers union or punish underperforming schools. His decisions to pay students for good grades, back an unrealized plan for a gay-friendly high school and consider boarding schools often polarized the community while bolstering his renegade image.

“He has the brains, courage, creativity and temperament for the job,” said former Chicago schools chief Paul Vallas, who hired Duncan as his deputy chief of staff in 1998. “And he’s very close to the president[-elect], which is an important thing, too.”

Close, indeed.  Duncan, who played basketball at Harvard and professionally in Australia for a while, has been a frequent player in Obama”s pick-up ball games.  

By choosing Duncan, Obama is making an adroit play down the middle with a seasoned professional he can trust who has sought to work with all sides in the often rough battles over education:

Obama’s choice has been anticipated, and argued about, by education groups anxious to see what Obama will do to fix the country’s ailing schools. Obama managed throughout his campaign to avoid taking sides in the contentious debate between reform advocates and teachers’ unions over the direction of education and the fate of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind accountability law. 

The selection of Duncan may satisfy both factions. Reform advocates wanted a big-city school superintendent who, like Duncan, has sought accountability for schools and teachers. And teachers’ unions, an influential segment of the party base, wanted an advocate for their members; they have said they believe Duncan is willing to work with them. 

The choice of Duncan has won bi-partisan praise, as well.  President Bush’s Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, told the Chicago Sun-Times a few days ago, ”He’s a terrific school leader. I consider him a fellow reformer and someone who cares deeply about students. He’d be a great choice.”

Apparently wage stagnation matters…a lot.

Not just because middle class families are swimming debt, but we’re apparently on a collision course with having a work force that doesn’t represent the best and brightest in the world.

From NY Times:

The rising cost of college — even before the recession — threatens to put higher education out of reach for most Americans, according to the biennial report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, adjusted for inflation, while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families.

“If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won’t have an affordable system of higher education,” said Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education.

“When we come out of the recession,” Mr. Callan added, “we’re really going to be in jeopardy, because the educational gap between our work force and the rest of the world will make it very hard to be competitive. Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers.”

So what to do?

We could significantly increase education subsidization, but no doubt conservatives would cry foul at the additional spending. But we all know that a strong nation starts with education, and if getting a solid foundation becomes nearly impossible without going hopelessly into debt, the American dream will start disenegrating a lot quicker than it is presently.

Honestly, I think we’re looking at a serious realignment of national priorities in the next 20 years and one that most people on the right side of the aisle won’t like very much: slowly drawing down defense spending and investing in the American people. Let’s face it, the defense budget is a big pot of honey that never gets touched, but it’s the most obvious choice to draw out of. Or, at the very least, stop increasing the budget year after year and make the military tighten their belts just like everybody else.

After all, folks like McCain characterize any infrastructure project as “pork”, but they have no catch phrases for defense projects. And many of those give us no discernible gain. You know, sort of like the war in Iraq…nearly a trillion dollars spent when all is said and done and no demonstrable benefit from it.

At the very least, by upping education spending, we know that we’ll collectively get smarter and be more competitive as a result.

What do you think?

The news release that a Texas School District could be the first in the nation to allow teachers and staff to pack guns for protection was deemed so preposterous it received a prominent spot on the Nutty News Network.

But the story is legit – the Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District have approved a district policy that allows school employees to carry concealed firearms. And listening to Superintendent David Thweatt, the move is a necessary one to to deter and protect against school shootings.

“When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started,” stated Thweatt. “Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ‘sic ‘em’ to a dog.”

Teachers packing heat.

In his 2006 report to the Panel on Innovative Teaching and Learning Strategies, Associate Professor David Wiley, Ph.D., raised more than a few eyebrows when he informed panel members that higher education in America was “in very real danger of becoming irrelevant.”

Wiley describes the antiquated college classroom experience thus:

“Students are inside a classroom (tethered to a place), using textbooks and handouts (printed materials), they must pay tuition and register to attend (the experience is closed), talking during class or working with others outside of class is generally discouraged (each student is isolated though surrounded by peers), each student receives exactly the same instruction as each of her classmates (the information presented is generic), and students are students and do not participate in the teaching process (they are consumers).”

In contrast, students experience a completely different world when they are outside the classroom:

“From her dorm room / the student center / a coffee shop / the bus, a student connects to the Internet using her laptop (she is mobile), uses Google to find a relevant web page (a digital resource which is open for her to access). While carrying out her search, she chats with one friend on the phone and another using instant messaging to see if they can assist in her search (she is connected to other people), she follows links from one website to another exploring related information (the content is connected to other content), she quickly finds exactly the information she needs, ignoring irrelevant material (she gets what is important to her personally), and she shares her find with her friends by phone and IM (she participates in the teaching process).”

Higher Education – Dangerously Close to Becoming Irrelevant

On Thursday, Democratic platform committee members were provided a draft of the Democratic National Committee’s 2008 platform. Titled “Renewing America’s Promise” and broken out into four distinct sections, “Renewing the American Dream,” “Renewing American Leadership,” “Renewing the American Community,” and “Renewing American Democracy,” the platform is a strong counter to the current Bush administration policies and is drafted in the ‘hopeful of a better future’ format that has marked Senator Barack Obama’s stump speeches.

Declaring, “it is time for a change,” the party is committing itself to comprehensive immigration reform as well as a strong and unequivocal support for Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion. In addition, the party insists it will not continue the intrusive Bush policing actions based on post 9/11 world.

“We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation’s founding commitment to liberty under the law,” the draft platform states.

While the platform has a little something for everyone, it is the strong, broad approach to education, one that mixes support with accountability, that has us continuing to back Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States.

Democratic platform educational planks.

Here’s an interesting piece of data courtesy The Wall Street Journal:

In the economic expansion that began in 2001 and now appears to be ending, the inflation-adjusted wages of the majority of U.S. workers didn’t grow, even among those who went to college. The government’s statistical snapshots show the typical weekly salary of a worker with a bachelor’s degree, adjusted for inflation, didn’t rise last year from 2006 and was 1.7% below the 2001 level.

The Journal notes that workers with a college degree still make 75% more than those with just a high school diploma, but the wage stagnation is affecting all those with college degrees, from new graduates to those nearing retirement.

Why? Globalization, technological improvements and more educated immigrants have all played a role in making college degrees less valuable. But economists point to this:

The issue isn’t a lack of economic growth, which was solid for most of the 2000s. Rather, it’s that the fruits of growth are flowing largely to a relatively small group of people who have a particular set of skills and assets that lots of other people don’t…In short, a college degree is often necessary, but not sufficient, to get a paycheck that beats inflation.

What’s this mean for those of us who’d like to be better off in four years than we are now? Get specialized. Find what we can offer that few others can. Except that can be rather difficult. We’re not all highly intelligent or extremely creative or fortunate enough to have a prestigious degree that opens more doors. We’re talking about putting a lot more work into working.

The bad news is: we are likely entering an economy that doesn’t support the kind of “live better than my parents did” expectation that we all thought was our birthright during the last half of the 20th Century. The good news is: effort still pays in America. Make yourself valuable and you will be well compensated. Only it’s not so simple as just getting a degree. We’re more on our own now. The trick will be making the transition.

David Brooks has has an interesting analysis of Barack Obama’s donor base, which is heavily reliant on well-educated, information-age workers.

Once, the wealthy were solidly Republican. But the information age rewards education with money. There are many smart high achievers who grew up in liberal suburbs around San Francisco, L.A. and New York, went to left-leaning universities like Harvard and Berkeley and took their values with them when they became investment bankers, doctors and litigators.
…
Amazingly, Democrats have cultivated this donor base while trending populist on trade by forsaking much of the Clinton Third Way approach and by vowing to raise taxes on capital gains and the wealthy. If Obama’s tax plans go through, those affluent donors could wind up giving over 50 percent of their income to the federal government.

They’ve managed to clear these policy hurdles partly by looking out for tort lawyers and other special groups. But mostly they have taken advantage of the rivalry between the two American elites.

Forget what’s the matter with Kansas. How about what’s the matter with Google executives? As Brooks points out, there are a lot of Democratic voters who are quite wealthy and who are voting in direct opposition to their economic interests.

Brooks thinks, if Obama wins, all his wealthy supporters will make sure those tax rates are never significantly raised. I’m not so sure I’d bet on that. But I know one thing: if elected, Obama will be our first information-age president and his victory will be thanks largely to the information-age class. Look for that group’s values and needs to drive his presidency.

Here’s and interesting initiative proposed by Barack Obama.

He wants to give students a $4,000 tax credit to be used towards tuition – but there’s a catch. To earn the credit, the students would have to complete 100 hours of community service.

Plus, since it’s a tax credit (rather than a plain ole handout), students will have to be working and paying taxes in order to benefit. Thus the initiative will directly influence those students who are most in need of assistance, such as those with families who are returning to school or those without parental or spousal resources on which to draw.

Although the details of the plan aren’t available (i.e. what qualifies as community service), this sounds like the kind of smart initiative that balances federally provided opportunity with personal responsibility.

He’ll be accused of offering the typical Democratic tax and spend plans, but with the housing market tanking because of free market loopholes and the prices of basic goods skyrocketing due in part of out of control war spending, I’m thinking the middle class would appreciate some fiscal attention refocused on their needs.

From the AP:

Speaking to about 200 people in Wayne, a Philadelphia suburb, Obama made no new proposals but emphasized earlier ones in light of rising gas prices, inflation and job losses. They include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.

Where would he get the money? Well, first he’d roll back the tax levels for the wealthy to about where they were during the Clinton years. And then there’s Iraq. The quicker we get out of there, the quicker we can refocus some of those dollars elsewhere.

And then there are savings due to investments in alternative energy…

He also vowed to spend $150 billion over 10 years to establish a “green energy sector.” It would require greater fuel efficiency in cars and devote more money to solar, wind, and biodiesel energy.

Personally, I wish we’d spend the amount we poured into Iraq ($600 billion and counting) on green energy innovations alone. This IS the next space race, and the quicker we can realize an oil-free society, the quicker we’ll see an end to this “war” we currently find ourselves in. Because while I know it’s not important to many who support the war, at least we’d see a type of return on green investments, as opposed to the big fat question mark we’re getting out of Iraq.

So what do you think? Good plan? Bad plan? Don’t care either way?

And, if you had to do it differently, what would your economic plan look like?

Tom Hanson is the editor of OpenEducation.net, a site dedicated to tracking the changes occurring in education today especially the impact of technology on teaching and learning. A retired school superintendent, Tom has 32 years of experience in the profession as a classroom teacher, coach and administrator.

To the surprise of many, Glenn Beck continues to appear nightly on CNN where he delivers an exceedingly biased and convoluted form of commentary. Somehow, this conservative commentator remains on the air despite having once offered this singular gem, “I think Jesus Christ and Hitler had a lot in common.”

Such statements have led some to call him a menace and a moron. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC went one step further and referred to the commentator as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and a “very dangerously bigoted guy.”

To see why Beck is referred to in such terms we need only turn to a recent example of a convoluted, error-filled argument the commentator penned for CNN regarding taxing higher education endowments. A single read of his op ed piece will leave most educated folks shuddering. With a second read you soon understand why it is that many folks wonder aloud, “How is this man given an opportunity to be on the air?”

Read the rest of this post.

One of my favorite creative enterprises is the One Laptop Per Child project which seeks to make computers so affordable that every child in developing nations will be able to own one.

The original goal was $100 laptops. The initial model went for $188. Now, they’ve developed a version that will cost only $75. It looks like a computerized book, utilizes touch-screen technology and will be available by 2010. Plus, the new version is lighter, more energy efficient and will run a version of Microsoft Windows.

From a technological standpoint, this is a pretty cool achievement. From a world education standpoint, it could be revolutionary. The genius of this idea is that these computers will help create opportunity where there is nearly none. While it is true that many developing countries still need the basic essentials (food, clean water, medicine), this project ensures future generations in those nations are integrated into the computer age and can participate in new economies both in their native countries and on a global scale.