Failing the Education System

Many parents, students, and taxpayers falsely believe that standardized testing is just a short chunk of time, usually a week or several days, where students take a state-mandated test and then go back to normal curriculum. While the actual pencil-to-paper testing may only take a week, the test itself effects a student’s learning throughout the entire school year. From narrowing curriculum to devoting a great deal of classroom time to test preparation, teachers feel forced to devalue education in order to allow their class to achieve high test scores.

Due to standardized tests increased emphasis on reading and math, studies have shown that teachers often exclude or limit topics that are not tested, particularly in elementary school. In the Center of Education Policy’s “Narrowing the Curriculum” study they found that many districts are cutting instructional time in areas like social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. A nationally representative study has found that 27% of districts cut a portion of social studies instruction time to increase reading and math instruction, 22% cut science, 20% cut music, and 18% cut other subjects. On top of this, 71% of districts admitted that students at risk of failing standardized tests had other subjects cut for them particularly in order to make more time reading and math. For example, students at risk of failing the standardized tests would go to extra small group reading and math instruction while the other students went to music class or gym class. This means spending a majority of time on reading and math while spending the bare minimum time on other valuable subjects. Although some may believe that emphasis on reading and math does not sound so bad, it is simply unfair to deprive students of valuable topics that help make them well-rounded citizens. Subjects like history and science are just as important in helping children discover their passions while obtaining knowledge.

Another way that standardized tests devalue education is through a process called “teaching to the test.” According to the Center for Public Education’s “High Stake Testing and Effects on Instruction,” teaching to the test is made up of a wide variety of teaching practices such as scrapping classroom learning time for test preparation, narrowing curriculum to better fit test questions, and teaching memorization over high order skills. Teaching to the test is not just ensuring test readiness by making an effort to cover areas that are being tested. Teaching to the test is a deliberate attempt to base curriculum on the sole priority of achieving passing scores. With increased stakes for students and higher pressures from administrators who crave more school funding, teachers find themselves more and more in the position of teaching to the test. A study by Rand Corporation called “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators” analyzed standardized testing in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Results found that an average of 99% of principals in those three states implemented a strategy of “matching curriculum and instruction with assessments” to improve scores. That means that in those three states, and likely across the country, teachers are being instructed by their bosses to teach to the test.

It may be hard to believe that teachers, who spend their career trying to provide knowledge to students, would be okay with devaluing education because of standardized tests. However, when the high-stakes nature of tests are considered it is not so unrealistic. In the same Rand Corporation study, “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators,” results found that an average of 54% of schools in the states of CA, GA, and PA use tests to assess teacher performance and 53% use them to decide student promotion and retention. Teachers want their students to succeed and in a educational system where passing a standardized test equates to success, there are not many options for struggling educators.

Works Cited

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Mitchell, Ruth. “High-Stakes Testing and Effects on Instruction.” Center for Public Education. Center for Public Education, 6 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

“NCLB: Narrowing the Curriculum?” NCLB Policy Brief. Center on Education Policy, 1 July 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

The Neglect of College Students’ Emotional Well Being

At college, people experience change. According to Brian Harke of the Huffington post, students come to college “overly optimistic and confident in their ability to manage the challenges they will encounter at college.” This can cause an amount of stress that student have never dealt with before, and therefore do not know how to manage in a healthy way. Many students may look to partying or relationships to cope with their stress. These relationships and parties are not inherently problematic, but when they are forced or done with the wrong people, they can create dysregulation.

First off, of course, there is the academic side of college, the main cause of stress. Students think that they can handle college academics, and often get a reality check in the form of a failed test or paper. College academics can get so stressful that people write entire books on how to deal with said stress, such as “College Success” created by the Extended Learning Institute and Lumens Learning. But stress is not limited only to academics in college.

Many students know only what other people have told them in terms of college. For many students, information and stories come from their parents, who have most likely been out of college for many years and are focusing only on the good. They talk about the “College Experience” as if there is a standard for activities in college, like partying or falling in love. This puts pressure on students to not only achieve academically in the ways they have been encouraged to, but also to achieve socially. The wild and sometimes-exaggerated stories set even more expectations for students to fulfill, so forced relationships and parties with acquaintances occur. These non-organic interactions can cause dysregulation, as they did not happen naturally, they are forced, and they are unhealthy. This is not to say that to say that all relationships and parties are inherently unhealthy or cause dysregulation, but it is important to consider the related statistics.

82% of college students have admitted to using verbal violence against a romantic partner, often brought on by the use of drugs or alcohol. In that vein, 44% of college students have been classified as binge drinkers. In those relationships and parties seen as part of the college experience, a good amount of dysregulation exists.

The immense change that college students are undergoing, and the pressure felt by many of them causes the dysregulation described by the earlier statistics. Not only academic pressure, but that to somehow “succeed” socially, if that is even possible. If a student is under almost constant stress and/or feels pressure to succeed and they are not receiving any type of help, dysregulation is bound to happen. This brings me to my original point; college students need DBT. Once we stop looking at dysregulation as a part of being at college and see it as a real problem that has a clear solution, we are on the path to fixing it.

Works Cited

Ed.D., Brian Harke. “High School to College Transition, Part 1: The Freshman Myth.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 June 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Shook, Nancy J., Debora A. Gerrity, Joan Jurich, and Allen E. Segrist. “Courtship Violence Among College Students: A Comparison of Verbally and Physically Abusive Couples.” SpringerLink. N.p., Mar. 2000. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

ELI (Extended Learning Institute at NOVA), Lumen Learning. “College Success.” Candela Learning. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

One of a Million

When someone commits a crime, it is very easy for the government or parents to blame video games, because they are not associated with them. The fact of the matter is, violent video games are only one out of many sources of increasing aggression, and it is not even one that is directly correlated with criminal activity. If people would dig deeper, they would find that the those who would easily blame video games and other media for mass murders and other crimes, almost have a motive to. An individual’s environment, upbringing, and society have huge impacts on their level of aggression, and as such, also can contribute to criminal activity.

A huge topic of debate is whether or not the way society in the United States is structured puts many people at a disadvantage to excel. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, but if people who are at the lower end of the spectrum are more prone to violence, it would definitely not help the government’s case. Unfortunately for them, an experiment performed by Tobias Greitemeyer and Christina Sagioglou proves that people of a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be aggressive than those of a higher status. This proves that just being from a poor or even middle class family might make one aggressive. The need for money might even cause someone to rob a bank, murder someone, or some other crime.

Furthermore, Jennifer Welsh wrote about a study by Michael Lorber which discovered that an aggressive personality can be formed due to negative parenting when a child is still an infant. Since a baby is very impressionable, a parent’s negative treatment towards the child and around the child can assist in building a violent mind that could later commit crimes.

To get to the point, violent video games are a proven cause of aggressive behavior in people, but it is not the only cause. Besides the ones mentioned, there are other reasons for increasing aggressive behavior, some of which are not flattering for various groups of people. If attention was put on the society or parenting as a form of increasing aggression, it might make the government or parents very concerned for their own image. To counter this, they put all of the attention on interactive media.

However, some might say that while there are other causes of aggression, violent video games as a cause is the most noteworthy one, because it allows a player to control the actions and desensitize them through that. If a cause of aggression is to be considered more effective than another one, then there should be some way of identifying that. An easy argument would be that crime clearly comes from playing violent video games. That argument holds little water when a study by the American Psychological Association shows that while it has been proven that games do increase aggression, there is an inability to clearly correlate these aggressive behaviors to criminal activity, especially since aggression takes on many forms, some of which are not even physical. In the end, someone who committing a crime due to their socioeconomic status seems more apparent since they are obviously poor and have a more clear motive.

In conclusion, things such as parenting and social status are just as much a cause of aggression as violent video games. This opens the door for tons of other possible causes of violent behavior. Video games may be correlated to increasing aggression, but they are hardly the core cause of it, and more so, only play as a factor among other causes.

Works Cited

Greitemeyer, Tobias, and Christina Sagioglou. “Subjective Socioeconomic Status Causes Aggression: A Test Of The Theory Of Social Deprivation.” Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology 111.2 (2016): 178-194. PsycARTICLES. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.

Welsh, Jennifer. “‘Negative Parenting’ Starts Aggressive Personalities Early.” Live Science. N.p., 26 Oct. 2011. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.

American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

The Preachers’ Attack on Rock ‘n’ Roll

People view Rock ‘n’ Roll as a type of music that highlights the worst qualities in human beings. When they think of it, these people picture scenes involving blood, darkness, satanic rituals, and vulgar movements. These beliefs are the effects of preachers’ efforts to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll.  Why these religious individuals are acting against the popular form of music, and influencing people’s view of it, unsurprisingly involves more than one overlapping cause.

The most immediate cause of this attack on Rock ‘n’ roll is, of course, that the music genre highlights themes that are greatly looked down upon in religious groups. As two devoutly religious men by the names of Alan Yusko and Ed Prior have said, “The term ‘rock and roll’ means fornication. It is a street name for sexual immorality. It has wrecked the lives of many teenagers through suicide, drug abuse, immorality, perversion, satanism, etc.” These actions conflict entirely with the morals commonly taught in churches- including love, purity, morality, and respectfulness to the Lord. So, in the eyes of preachers, it would seem only logical to denounce the source of all this blasphemy.

Contributing to this cause is the way the media supports this portrayal Rock ‘n’ roll. It is no secret that the media will twist the truth and choose sides to produce eye catching news. Rem Rieder of USA Today once said, “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes, and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.” Therefore, in this matter, it makes sense that God’s most devout followers are portrayed as the heroes. And it also makes sense that Rock ‘n’ Roll is portrayed as the villain, since it invokes dark forces and the Devil, as countless preachers have claim. The more interesting news story is not that Rock ‘n’ Roll has the power to make people’s lives better, but that it is a way for people to let their malevolent natures free. And through computers, TVs, tablets, and cell phones, the media is now always present in people’s lives. Our society is brainwashed into believing everything that appears news worthy, and rarely takes the time to search for the truth.

The most remote cause for preachers to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll is the diminishing number of people attending church. According to Dr. Richard J. Krejcir of churchleadership.org, “Most of the statistics tell us that nearly 50% of Americans have no church home. In the 1980s, membership in the church had dropped almost 10%; then, in the 1990s, it worsened by another 12% drop-some denominations reporting a 40% drop in their membership. And now, over half way through the first decade of the 21st century, we are seeing the figures drop even more!” Each subsequent generation slowly drifted away from church. Many preachers, witnessing this loss of followers, decided to lay the blame on Rock ‘n’ Roll, using it as a scapegoat. They claimed that the music was connected to the blasphemous values of sex, drugs, and irresponsibility, which in turn would attract young people who were not educated enough to make the right decision. Their denouncement of Rock ‘n’ Roll would be publicized in the media, which would influence society’s view of the music, and which in turn they hoped would bring people back to church as protection.

There is a precipitating cause included, however. When Rock ‘n’ Roll truly hit the music scene and took the world by storm, it actually seduced the preachers. They had grown up in conservative lifestyles with very “tame” music, and with the emergence of Rock, they experienced types of sounds unlike any they had ever heard before. Eventually, the preachers realized that they had become attracted to something other than God, which they considered to be a great sin. They had fallen into temptation and did not want the public to find out. So, like their ancestral religious brothers did when confronted by the emergence of the scientifically-proven theories of evolution and the heliocentric system, they denounced it as the work of the Devil. And since new preachers were taught by those that came before, this thought process was passed down through the generations.

As shown, there are multiple causes related to preachers’ denouncement of Rock ‘n’ roll, and the influence it has on society. Although all these causes can be analyzed separately, the fact of the matter is that they are all connected through the effect that they had on society’s belief concerning Rock ‘n’ Roll.

Works Cited

New Source Rieder, Rem. “Media Got Zimmerman Story Wrong from Start.” USA Today. Gannett, 14 July 2013. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

New Source Krejcir, Richard J., Ph.D. “Statistics and Reasons for Church Decline.” Churchleadership.org. N.p., 2007. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Yusco, Alan, and Ed Prior. “RELIGIOUS ROCK… The Music of Devils in the CHURCH.” RELIGIOUS ROCK… The Music of Devils in the CHURCH. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016

The threats we received from terrorism has become a giant problem in today’s society, we fear from going to some big event such as a big sporting events that will resolve in being attacked, due to past terrorist attacks that occurred. A few examples of these terrorism attacks that occurred would be the Boston marathon and the bombing in the Germany vs France soccer game before the European Cup which resulted in an unbelievable amount of security on all areas of France after. Due to terroristic threats occurring at major events, the people fear from experiencing some of the most entertaining events the world has to offer. By terrorists proving there strengths they might go on to do more drastic attacks to cause bigger problems.

The people of The US, have mostly agreed that the number one problem that we face in The US is terrorism, according to Rebecca Riffkin, in her article “Americans Name Terrorism as No. 1 U.S. Problem”  she claims about one in every six americans would say they feel terrorism is the biggest problem going on in the world so that should be the first things we solve in America, rather then worrying abouts others issues. If the people agree on a problem, the goverment should react to this problem first before the sitautions gets worse. 

Terrorism is also been a problem in Syria with ISIS getting involved and causing mostly chaos and forcing people out of the country and deported to countries willing to accept these Syrians. ISIS is not a fan of the Syrians leaving, if these Syrians leave and they are gone, they have no one to terrorise which defeats the whole problem of terrorizing these people. By The US allowing these people to come into our own country causes many problems. Which in may have ISIS feel like they need to attack countries who are letting in these Syrians so that they can contain power in Syria. But a benefit could come out of having Syrians stay in Syria in terms of defeating ISIS. By having Syrians stay in Syria we allow ISIS to be all in one area of the world rather then in all different countries, which will allow the counter terrorism programs to interven and finish the problem easily. 

First off this will be a threat to ISIS and will cause them to do an unethical response such as another attack in fear of retaliation. The people of America feel unsafe already with terrorism so why should the government go looking out for more problems. They should be fixing their own problem and exterminating terrorism here first. Once they do so, they can prepare for these other problems that may occur in the future. By getting involved with these issues in Syria we cause the national security to get into self defense mood, which will cause more fear for the american people which is not something the people would look forward too.

Another problem with letting in these Syrian refugees is we don’t truly know who is coming in. Many of these people are coming in with past histories such as rape and murder, know we are letting these people in with these lifestyles. By letting these Syrians in with these types of lifestyles they will inflict this on our own people because the government didn’t know who they were truly letting in. As well as some of these Syrian refugees have forged papers and are really with ISIS, know we are letting in these people who we are trying to take out and defeat. The US should have great knowledge of the people in the country, and if they don’t then how could they truly promise the people of US there safety. By having these Syrians in your causing more problems rather then solving one, these people have all different types of life styles that we may not be aware of that they could inflict on our own people so why just stop the problem by not letting them in.

The best bet for the US would be to let other countries take action on the problems that are going on in Syria and just have the US worry about themselves. Even though other would believe to stop terrorism we should go attack it head on, which could be a way to go about it but in worrying about our people of America we should let others intervene and fix our own problems first and then help other countries. The US has many issues to deal with between its own problems to worry about how another country is doing and ealing with there problems. If it is such a big concern to the world why hasn’t anyone else stepped in and interven.   

New sources

Riffkin, Rebecca. Gallup “Americans Name Terrorism as No. 1 U.S. Problem” November 3 2016. December 14 2015. Web

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187655/americans-name-terrorism-no-problem.aspx

Fantz, Ashley. CNN “ More than half the nation’s governors say Syrian refugees not welcome” november 3 2016. November 2015. Web

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/

Rosenthal, Max. Mother Jones “Here’s What Republicans Don’t Get About Refugees” November 3 2016. November 17 2015. Web

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/heres-what-it-takes-to-enter-us-as-a-syrian-refugee

A Sales Tax is Not Always a Regressive Tax on Lower Income Americans

The current sales tax rate in the States of New Jersey is 7%. This tax does not apply to groceries, clothing, and prescription medication. So people with lower incomes do not have to pay a tax when they purchase items that they need to survive. While New Jersey does not tax these items, some States do.

One example is the State of Kansas, as stated in an article published on the “TaxJar Sales Tax Blog.” According to the article “2016 State Sales Tax Rates,” Kansas overall has a lower sales tax than NJ. In Kansas the 6.5% sales tax rate applies to groceries. Let’s say a person in Kansas purchases a can of soup for $1, the total will be $1.07; while in New Jersey if that same can of soup costs $1, the total will be $1 because it is not taxed in New Jersey. While seven cents may not seem like a lot, for someone with a low income it can add up over time.

Now let’s say a person in Kansas buys $100 worth of groceries, like vegetables, packaged meat, and canned items. That person will pay $6.50 more in Kansas because there is a tax on food. That $6.50 could have been used to buy a bus ticket, pay for a bill, or put in a saving account. People who earn less income pay a higher of their percentage of their income on a sales tax when groceries, clothing, and prescription medication is taxed.

People with lower incomes in New Jersey do not have to pay extra for essential necessities.  If someone makes $600 a month, but they have to budget that money then they will count every penny . The article, “Progressive Tax and Regressive Tax,” discusses how a tax is regressive if a tax disproportionately takes up more of one person’s income than another. An example would be a tax on groceries takes up more or a poor peons’s income than a rich person’s income. Let’s say $300 goes to housing, $100 goes to insurance, $100 to clothing and medication, and $100 goes to groceries. That person may not have any money left to pay a tax.

So to conclude, a sales tax itself may not be regressive. If it has certain exemptions, then it is not regressive because it does not place an extra tax burden on people with low incomes. If it does not exempt essential items, then it is regressive because it is a tax that everyone has to pay and people with lower incomes will pay a higher percentage of their income than those with higher incomes.

Works Cited

“Sales Tax By State: Are Grocery Items Taxable?” TaxJar Sales Tax Blog. N.p., 30 Aug. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016. <http://blog.taxjar.com/states-grocery-items-tax-exempt/&gt;.

“Progressive Tax And Regressive Tax.” Encyclopedia of Education Economics & Finance(n.d.): n. pag. Sept. 2016. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.