UH trying to over-manage the students

As if there's not enough drama at UH!

Eariler this year, I wrote the blog post "Let them take less classes"
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/07/let-them-take-less-classes.html


It was about UH officials pressuring undergrads to take 15-credits instead of just 12-credits per semester.

That blog post basically told that UH officials to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS................. your students are adults, NOT children!

While that blog concentrated on the crazy statements of Linda Johnsrud, there's another UH official named Janet Itano who should even more idiotic statements

http://honoluluweekly.com/diary/2012/09/timely-grads-2/

but Itano says students should first enroll in 15, which costs no more money than 12, and then decrease their workload if need be.

Excuse me? You want students to sign up for classes so they can drop them AFTER they start enrolling in the class?

That is STUPID ADVICE!

The students (who I shall remind you, are ADULTS) know their personal situation better than you Ms Itano!

They know if they can handle their class load and balance that with work, family and free time!

So BACK THE HELL OFF, OK!


And here's an example of Itano's screwed up priorities

“I think graduation rates and retention are all parts of the criteria that different organizations that do ranking include,” Itano says. If we increase the number of graduates on time … it would help [our ranking].”

You see, Itano cares more about RANKINGS (which are based on arbitrary criteria by outside "experts") than the actual lives of the students!

UH's priority shouldn't be about rankings (read: popularity contests for mainland "experts"), the priority should be about access to higher education for Hawaii's students. And  greater access REQUIRES flexibility!

The for-profit-colleges get that, which is why they are attracting students who require a more flexible schedule than mainstream colleges.

Ms Itano doesn't get that! And neither do the UH administration, which is already in trouble for allowing themselves to be scammed over fake concert promotions, as well as corruption over hirings and firings!

Here's a student being quoted in that article.

While this would help with the university’s funding opportunities, many students find timely graduation to be a reality for only a lucky few. With many classes being cut to save money, sometimes there are only 20 spaces available in a course required for a particular major, and some of those classes are only offered once a year. Once the class fills up, students who do not fit are forced to wait.

Here's a letter to the Honolulu Weekly which backs up my point
http://honoluluweekly.com/letters/2012/09/ease-off-uh/

The assumption that a student should complete degree requirements in four years to graduate “on time” doesn’t make sense. [“Timely Grad,” Sept. 12] Individual circumstances are so variable that the “finish in four” imposes unnecessary and artificial pressures. Some of the most successful post-secondary (private) institutions are successful because they offer the most flexibility in scheduling, breaks in acadmic programs, etc. As THE public institution of higher education, UH should do everything it can to accommodate the individual–and become more user-friendly.




Kimo via [HonoluluWeekly.com]

It's time to "clean house" at UH! Change the administration!

And take down those "graduate in 4 years" signs already!

Obama and Romney NOT THE ONLY ONES running

If you just follow the mainstream media, you might think that the only people running for US president are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

photo from Associated Press

Not the only ones running for US President



However, there are lesser known contenders out there.




There is the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/


----

There is the Green Party  candidate Jill Stein











http://www.jillstein.org/


--


There is the Constitutional Party candidate Virgil Goode.



















http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/


---------



The major media outlets ignore them.  They only focus on well-known, well funded candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties.


The USA has 300 million people.

There is no way in hell that all 300 million people would be in near-total agreement with either of just 2 politicians!


But that's how the media portrays our nation.


To make matters worse, yesterday's  presidential debate only had Obama and Romney.


All I learned from the debate is both of them like to interrupt the moderator a lot!


And only 2 viewpoints are highlighted in the debate.


John Nichols, a liberal writer, express an extremely good point about opening the debates to more presidential candidates.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170312/these-debates-could-use-some-jill-stein-and-gary-johnson

The United States does not have presidential debates in any realistic sense of the word.

It holds quadrennial joint appearances by major-party candidates who have been schooled in the art of saying little of consequence in the most absurdly aggressive way. And Americans will be served a full helping this evening, as the travesty that the Commission on Presidential Debates foists on the country every four years begins its latest run.

Good starting point, but Nichols is about to make even stronger points that everyone needs to hear..

What would make the debates better?

More candidates.

In most developed nation—from Canada to Britain to France—debates are multi-candidate, multi-party affairs. It is not uncommon for five, six, even seven candidates to take the stage. Those countries do not just survive the clashes, they thrive—with higher levels of political engagement than the United States has seen in decades.

Only the most crudely authoritarian states erect the sort of barriers that the United States maintains to entry into the debates by so-called “minor-party” candidates.

and it gets even better

The fool’s argument against expanding the number of contenders is that debates involving more than the nominees of the two big parties—which, conveniently, control the access to the debates through their joint Commission on Presidential Debates—is that it would somehow confuse the electorate. As if Americans aren’t quite as sharp as the French.

Adding more candidates would not create confusion. It would add clarity
 

.

Imagine if Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein joined Obama and Romney for this year’s debates. Instead of having to listen to a pair of adult men trying to distinguish between Obamacare and Romneycare, we could hear a working physician explain why a “Medicare for All” program would be dramatically more efficient, economical and humane than what either the president or his Republican challenger has proposed.

Imagine if Libertarian Gary Johnson could respond to the predictably empty wrangling about whether America is “broke”—as opposed to suffering from broken budget priorities. Johnson would propose bringing American troops and resources home from policing the world’s trouble spots, a wholly sensible fix that would make the United States safer, richer and a more popular.

Imagine if Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode—who once talked about denying a US House seat to Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, because Ellison clutched a Koran rather than a Bible when he was sworn in—opened up a real discussion about the relationship between church and state. Instead of dancing around the issue, as they both do, Obama and Romney would be forced to get specific about how seriously they take the promise of Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” They might even call Goode out, sending a message that America needs to hear. from the leaders of both major parties.
 

So what are Obama and  Romney afraid of? Why won't they engage with their lesser known opponents?  Are they nervous that the side effects of their policies will get exposed? Are they afraid it will be harder to pander to certain demographics?  Are they nervous about losing voters?



And what are the major media outlets afraid of?  Are they afraid of new ideas? Are they afraid of not having enough air time (or newspaper space) to cover more than 2 candidates?  Are they afraid of having less time to cover celebrity gossip?



Are the partisan networks (ie. Fox News, MSNBC) afraid of no longer being able to just rely on the "good vs evil" narrative when it comes to Democrats and Republicans




Whatever it is, it is time to spread the word. Let the people know that there is more to this election than Obama and Romney. But more importantly, let the people know that there is more to our politics than just Democrats and Republicans.


-----------

I also wrote a blog post (also published on UH's newspaper Ka Leo O Hawaii) back in 2004 concerning the same issue.

Check it out at

 http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2004/10/back-on-ka-leo-after-so-long-my-stuff.html



Privatize PBS already

At last night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, there was a question over how to reduce the deficit. Each candidate had their own ideas of what to cut out of the federal budget.


Mitt Romney mentioned that he'll cut federal spending on PBS.


OMG, people on facebook went ballistic!


People were acting as if Romney was going to make PBS illegal!

People were acting as if Romney had hatred towards Sesame Street!


HELLO PEOPLE,  all Romney said was that PBS would no longer receive federal funding!

PBS could still receive private donations!


That's how it should be! 

Let's put it this way ---- I  may like hip-hop and rock music. I prefer those musicians get paid by their fans instead of  receiving government subsidies! 

I feel the same way about PBS! 


I have NOTHING against PBS programming! I used to watch Sesame Street, Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Reading Rainbow, Wild America and Caillou. 

But I also think those programs should be 100% privately funded!  


Governments shouldn't be running media outlets. Period. Exclamation Point!

Private organizations should be running media outlets.

I wrote a blog post about NPR (National Public Radio) a few years back. It was related to a controversy regarding one of its former journalists Juan Williams. Towards the end of that blog, I linked and posted quotes from Jeff Jacoby about why NPR (and PBS) should NOT receive government funding!

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2010/12/airport-secuirty-juan-williams.html

After the whole Juan Williams controversy, some right-wing conservatives were demanding the government stop funding NPR and PBS!

NPR and PBS are already mostly privately funded, though it still accepts government subsidises!

I do believe NPR and PBS should be totally privatized, but for a totally different reason from those Conservative Correctness Crowd!

Government shouldn't be owning any TV or radio stations. Government shouldn't be in charge of any journalism organization!

Jeff Jacoby made some following great points on the issue of government funding of NPR!

http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby112410.php3

1. They aren't fair. Other radio stations and networks, from Air America to Clear Channel to Univision to Westwood One, must sink or swim in a competitive market. They survive only if listeners and advertisers value what they do. Uncle Sam doesn't keep them afloat with tens of millions of dollars annually in direct and indirect subsidies. If they can operate without corporate welfare, NPR can too.

2. They aren't appropriate. In a free society, especially one with a robust tradition of press freedom, the very idea of government-underwritten media should be anathema. When news organizations depend on largesse from the treasury, there is inevitably a price paid in objectivity, fairness, and journalistic independence.

3. They aren't necessary. NPR's partisans claim that public broadcasting provides valuable news and educational content that listeners can't get anywhere else. That may have been a plausible argument in 1970. It is utterly implausible today, when audio programming of every description can be found amid a vast and dizzying array of outlets: terrestrial and satellite radio, internet broadcasting, podcasts and audio downloads.

4. They aren't affordable. At a time of trillion-dollar federal deficits and a national debt of nearly $14 trillion, NPR's government subsidies cannot possibly be justified. All the more so when public broadcasting attracts a fortune in private funding, from the gifts of innumerable "listeners like you" to the $200 million bequeathed to NPR by the late Joan Kroc in 2003.

AMEN to all that!

education reform - part 2

In my previous post, I mentioned some ideas to improve our education system

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/10/education-reform.html


Now, here's a few more


1) Get rid of seniority preferences


Imagine shopping at a store where those with seniority can say "you look fat in that dress" and still be less likely to be fired than a new hire who provides great customer service!


Well guess what? That is how our public education system operates!


That's right. A rude ineffective teacher who's been around for decades is LESS LIKELY TO BE LAID OFF than a new great teacher that inspires the students.


In fact, that's the union rules!


It's called Last In, First Out or LIFO!

I'm not anti-union per se!   Unions can help with workers who feel that they've been mistreated by their bosses.


But with LIFO, the unions are becoming the new oppressors!


Some say "hey, the older teachers have been in the community for a long time, let's keep them around"


A rude ineffective teacher HURTS the community, especially if he/she been around for decades.


Plus, sometimes people lose it with age.


Sometimes, a teacher who has "lost it" could be better placed in a different position (ie. tutor, security) than a lead teacher.


But more importantly, IT IS CRUEL to get rid of a new effective inspiring teacher just because of seniority issues!


It's time to put LIFO in the garbage



2) Pay math/science teachers more


I just heard President Obama promising to hire more math & science teachers.


Easier said than done.


Those who are talented in math and science can easily get more high-paying positions elsewhere!


Those who are English and history majors have less opportunities than those with math & science majors.


You know what this mean?


We will have to pay math/science teachers more than English/social studies teachers.


Blasphemy?



Look, LeBron James gets paid more than a bench-warming teammate. That's because it is harder to find and replace someone with LeBron's talent. It's easier to replace a bench-warmer. Therefore, LeBron gets paid more.


This is basic economics.



If you're smart enough to be a teacher, than you're smart enough to understand that the schools will have to pay more for certain teachers with certain specialties.


This isn't personal, it is business, even if you're not working for a private business.




3) Conclusion


While those ideas won't solve every problem, I believe they make major improvements to our educational system.

education reform

The Chicago teacher strike came and went, but it won't be the last time teachers, administrators, parents, students and politicians feel like they're being pitted against each other.


Teachers feel like they're being under attack! They are feeling the heat from their students, the parents, the administration, politicians and the general public.


But the general public is angry about the education results. Tons of money being spent, but the students aren't passing the standardized tests.  The students are falling behind their peers in Asia and Europe. And the students in low-income communities are falling even further behind.


This is why there are much louder calls for accountability. There are proposals to evaluate teachers based partly on their student's test scores. After all, many workers in other occupations are evaluated and judged by their results. 


This has got many teachers scared, especially those who work in low-income communities in which many students come from dysfunctional communities and even dysfunctional families.  It is harder to get students up to standards if they're not from education savvy families.


However, this has brought the issue of "soft bigotry of low expectations". After all, don't we want students from the ghetto to graduate with the same level of academic knowledge as students from wealthy suburbs?


As you can see, this is an on-going debate that isn't going to be settled anytime soon.

------

However, certain things can be done.


No, we can't expect every student to be the next Einstein.

But we can and should reduce the number of students who leave the school system unprepared for the 21st century economy.

---

For one thing, teachers should be evaluated partly by their student's test results.



Yeah, I know, teachers don't have full control all the factors leading to test results.

But salespeople are judged by their sales goal, even though certain things that affect their sales score (ie. how many  customers show up, etc) are out of a salesperson's control.

That's just life!



But I would NOT only just evaluate teachers on test scores. Other things, such as how a teacher interacts with students, classroom management, and other things will also be evaluated.

Teachers who are struggling which such things need mentoring. Those seen as hopeless even after mentoring shall be referred to a career counselor to help find the next chapter in life.

--------------------------


However, a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE that needs to be addressed is that the teachers and students need more help.



Expecting a teacher to control a classroom filled with 30+ rowdy students  alone is unrealistic.


Expecting a teacher to effectively teach a  large class filled with students of extremely varied academic levels alone is unrealistic.




That's NOT what happens in many of the private schools I subbed at!



But that is BUSINESS AS USUAL at many public schools I subbed at!



That needs to change!



In classrooms in which many students are disadvantaged, there needs to be more tutors/assistants/etc in the classroom.  This helps with both behavior management AND with academic learning.



Also, the lead teacher need some hired help with paperwork and keep the class items organized. (This is NORMAL at some private schools but UNCOMMON at most public schools).



You can't expect a teacher to do everything expected all by oneself with facing some serious burnout! That's just not realistic!



Sure, having multiple staff members can be an issue if they don't get along. There will be some growing pains.



But if we expect our students to be able to effectively work in teams in their future workplace, then the students need to see a TEAM of staff members helping them INSIDE their classroom.



Will getting this done be easy?


Nothing is easy!


The money to pay for all that is hard to come by.


That should be the goal.


Our local government can stop their pie-in-the-sky rail plans. The governments in mainland cities can stop trying to bribe pro sports teams to come or stay.  The feds could stay playing the global police!


But more importantly, the private sector can help too!


It could be from donations or even starting another private school to ease the burden on public schools.



Will my ideas  solve everything?




No, but it solves some things, and that is what is needed.