Final Timeline

Cheers,

Timeline Link

Works Cited

"CORAS: The Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools." COALITION OF RURAL AND APPALACHIAN SCHOOLS. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.coras.org/>.

Hunter, Molly A. "Studies in Judicial Remedies and Public Engagement: Trying to Bridge the Gaps, Ohio's Search for an Educational Finance Remedy." N.p., Feb. 1999. Web.

Miller, Gerald, and Brian Cordes. "Inequality of Education in the United States." Rochester University, n.d. Web.

"Nearly $500 Million in State Funding for School Construction Approved." StateImpact Ohio. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/07/13/nearly-500-million-in-state-funding-for-school-construction-approved/>.

Phillis, William L. "The Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequecy of School Funding." N.p., 11 Nov. 2003. Web.

"Preservation Leadership Forum - About the Program." Preservationnation.org. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/saving-a-place/historic-schools/helping-johnny-walk-to-school/>.

"Welcome to the Ohio School Facilities Commission." Ohio School Facilities Commission Home. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.osfc.ohio.gov/>.

Writing Circle #3

We spent the majority of our writing circle, on Thursday July 5th & on Tuesday July 9th, talking about our project ideas.  While Darcy and Jim are focused upon the differents between public and private education, they are doing so from different directions --- and with very different hypothesis' going into the project.

I bring up their work because it seems to cause the most conversation, and it has left me with progress on my opinion regarding these schools.  I recently told Jim that I believed he, getting a private education from St. Ignatius, received a 'better' education than I, at the public high school in Mayfield.

That stance was after a great deal of thought, and is based upon a few thoughts: (1) At a good private school, such as St. Ignatius, the education is college oriented. With courses offered such as Latin, Anatomy, etc. --- replacing home economics, wood shop, etc. ---- his education would make him more desirable, and further, better equipped for a rigorous college environment. (2) Although the 'top' of the class may be offered the same opportunities --- such as college choice --- the least achieving in each class show a great disparity.  While the least achieving may be lucky to graduate high school, the bottom of a class at St. Ignatius will still, surely, be expected to enter college.

I speak in generalities, for the sake of brevity, and I only mention these opinions to paint a picture of my position --- rather than to defend it. Because I am honestly still unsure of the answer.  

Jim brought up that the education at each school was simply 'different' --- not 'better or worse,' as I described it.  I think there is common ground to be had here.  For example, if a student had no interest in going to college, and instead wanted to become an auto mechanic, wouldn't he be better suited not to take Latin, and instead take, and enjoy, auto-mechanics? I think those at Surrey Hill would agree that that student shouldn't be forced to take Latin. 

And my last qualification comes here: it is not the basis of each class, the option of each class, or the choosing of each class which makes either inherently better.  It is that we are placed in each school, offering different classes, based upon the our economic and social distinctions.  Further, we rank how valuable or how much 'better' each choice is.  It doesn't help, and it doesn't make things better.  THIS we need to fix. and we cannot hide behind the ideal of 'class mobility,' because it is just that, an American ideal --- not a reality. 

A Growing Resistance

I find myself with the overwhelming idea that I need to bring all of the angst splattered upon this page into a coherent, cohesive and possible idea, and it comes to this: social change as a growing resistance.  That is, resisting the notion of the unreachable, implausible and the backlash received when testing out a new idea.  Theoretically, our class have beaten the ethical education horse to a pulp, yet a theoretical foundation for education lacks an important aspect: the necessary tools to implant such profound ideas.

In education, perhaps more than anywhere else, it is valuable to put our values and ideologies to the test, and not just in a safe classroom, on a gated campus, with the glasses of hindsight and the omnipresent knowledge of socially accepted ideas being placed ever so firmly into our heads (no offense, Mr. Spring).

On March 24th, 1997 --- it seemed that the Ohio Supreme Court stood up and declared the state's ethics and behavior were misaligned. In a 4-3 decision, the court's ruled that the Ohio system of funding education "fails to provide for a thorough and effective system of common schools," as required by the Ohio Constitution. 

The then current system, and the system today, allowed Ohio's public schools to be funded with a combination of property tax revenue and state grants.  This led to an obvious disparity for each student as quality of education in more affluent areas lead to greater funding and less wealthy districts, such as that in rural Cleveland, were left strapped with poor funding and dilapidated buildings. 

Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled against such a system of funding --- talk about putting your money where your mouth is. While some might call it "judicial activism" and renounce such a ruling, aren't the judges simply following the parameters of the State's ethics written in ink? The Ohio Constitution calls for a a "thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the State." 

Please, speak up if anyone finds that to be a valid statement regarding our state's school system.  Further, if someone were claim the statement valid, than an education in the Cleveland city school districts would be equally thorough and effective than the one received in a suburban district like Mayfield, Strongsville, Solon or Twinsburg.  

14 years after the decision, the system of funding has not been changed, and the court ---whose job is not to implement law, simply to interpret it, eventually renounced jurisdiction upon the case. Our system of common school funding is still unevenly funded and our elected officials turn a blind eye to the overwhelming disparity in education in our state.

Once again, ethics are nailed to the door, written in ink and sworn to by every congressman, governor and elected official, but when it comes down to it, our Constitution counts more as glorified PR than anything else.

How can a nation based upon equality enslave a colored people for a hundred years? How can a nation demanding the absolution of oppression with one hand annihilate a native people with the other? And How can a state which has sworn to a thorough and equal education turn a blind eye to such intellectual oppression? Our ability to ignore our own words is astounding and it has not stopped, it has merely become less blatant -- another nice PR move. 

Yes, recognizing the disparity is important.  But the nation, the state, and the school, need more officials to make note of the issues and continue to strive toward their destruction.  Such dilemmas cannot hide behind paper forever. 

Writing Circle #2

Our writing circle, on June 28th, offered a great deal of conversation beginning with Dan Gilbert, as a businessman, and as a human being, ebonies as a proper form of dialect moving into the issue of: private v. public school.

Needless to say, so much was covered that I question the amount of progress made. That being said, Rome was not built in a day, and merely asking these questions is progress, in and of itself.  I find myself boxed-in by some of these questions. Reason being, I (usually) put a good deal of thought into what I have to say before I say it, and because I hold little knowledge of these topics (and little background) I mostly just want to absorb as much as possible before making a judgement.

Further, I feel my general compass must be off because the mere direction I believe these discussions should be headed is off-course --- as is event by my use of the word "judgement."  Not everything in this world is to be weighed, measured, and judged, and that seems to be my ideology, perhaps because it is a simple and normal formula for most issues.

I will have to put much more thought and time into these issues before I can fully come to an understanding which can layout my ability to handle such questions in a classroom.

Lawful Education in Ohio Timeline

Although I am severely lacking in an idea great enough for intrinsic motivation to complete my timeline, this is what I have come up with: A timeline, and final research paper, that follows the goals, both lawful and otherwise, of the state of Ohio and judge that against the academic and ethical standards of its people.  Beginning with the Ohio Constitution, the ruling against a system run by property tax, and running up to present day, I hope this project will give a better, and more realistic, understanding of the public education system. 

By using the class material to judge the purpose and possibilities of a public education, I would like to judge that against the standards we, as a state of people, have set for ourselves legally.  And perhaps, offer a direction we might find solutions for these issues. 

You will find the link to my timeline below: 

http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/education-in-ohio

The Use of Pronouns in Discussion

Our discussion yesterday surrounding cultural assimilation/annihilation throughout history had both a progressive feel, in that I believe the class was moving in a particular direction rather than stagnation, and was helpful in showing me just how little I know about topics of ethnicity.  Being a part of the "Puerto Rico" presentation, I was considering topics and ideas that I had previously failed to take the time to consider.

That being said, it got me to thinking about my use of pronouns and seemingly absent, or broad, qualifiers to analyze fault.  We sit in class and consider different ethnic groups but the class tends to move in a direction of "We shouldn't do this..." "I can't believe what happened to them..." "Shame on White people."

While these qualifiers are able to expound upon the emotion of our history, they lack sincere judgement.  We are able to "blame" a figurative someone that doesn't really exist.  As an advocate for these issues, I must stop using such broad words. Those of us who fall into such habits, are only able to express our personal feelings on the issue and cannot force change --- because the force is empty.

When we speak of past events, one might argue that we lack the historical perspective/judgmental capability, yet these issues have current implications. Take the issue of Puerto Rico's initiation into "American Culture" and the subsequent issue of a national language.  That debate is happening now. And the failure I seem to continue to come back to is answers like "We need to do better" "We cannot discriminate against the spanish language as a country." Were does this get me? Practically no where.  Yes, I have proven my opinion to the issue --- but I have failed to address the issue at its source. I cannot solve a problem "we" have.

Finding the right channels to become apart of the conversation is important.  I need to begin finding those channels, and the proper names to address my issues to, rather than simply demanding "We change."

Broadly, when citizens of the United States have issues with the federal governments policies, we become so angsty regarding our opinions that it festers into an unhealthy personal soapbox. Opinions need to be expressed to the proper channels of those in power, rather than every 4 years when awareness seems to be heightened and we can point to one man to fix it all, but doesn't it seem to be more like noise at that point?

Our power is in representatives --- stop screaming into the abyss, speak to a real person, not a pronoun or generalization.

Expectations v. Possibility

This country was founded upon ideas of equality in opportunity.  Britain was filled to capacity, estates had been built and roles were defined.  The estate system created social class, little-to-no social mobility and options were limited.  As an idealist nation, we believe in the power of all of these things. We worship our Rockefellers --- the american dream.  Being innovative, shaping a country, and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Yet, here we stand, almost 300 years later and we seem to be struggling with the same class mobility that sparked revolution. Our Rockefellers are now the "Dan Gliberts" of the world but has Dan made his money with innovative ideas? Surely not! He makes his money by advantage of others --- just examine the business tactics of Quicken Loans.  Then he builds a casino in Cleveland to fill his own pockets.  Taking the few dollars of others has added up to millions for him.  And we cherish him for it. Is THIS the american dream? Efficient theft?

Class revolution has been sparked, but the fire won't light. Why has revolution become a term to roll your eyes at? Why has dramatic change become a cursed word? "Oh, there he goes again, talking about revolution --- it's an impossibility and conversation for the fictional novel.  The world will always spin in the same direction, the human race will always categorize itself." This is a false ideal, in fact, it is not an 'ideal' at all.  It is appeasement for an accepting world. 

We went from a country determined to make our own way, to one which fights the system until we are jaded enough to accept our respect places, to follow the script written for us.  George W. Bush's quote to a school of Mexican-American students while on the campaign trail, "we need people to build our buildings....people who do the hard physical work of our society," (Educational Foundations, 60) seems to imply that they, the students, need to accept their position in life as the manuel labor force.  Not the thinkers. Not the innovators --- not, in fact, the American dream at all.  

And things are not terribly better than the past, we are a country that demands the proper ideals but looks out only for ourselves. And what choice are we given? As the upper class continues to get richer, the middle class holds onto their pennies to fend of demotion.  

You won't find quotes to back up these claims, but read between the lines. Our world has evolved, politically correct politicians and business men have change the way things are said --- but the underlying implications are still there. The roles of men, women, african americans, hispanics (and many others) are still there.  We cannot simply ignore these issues.  By ignoring them, we are accepting them as fact, and as the rules by which our world works. 

If we continue to label those who attempt to change the world to make it more enjoyable for all human beings as 'liberal revolutionaries' we are doomed to squander our work, time and love to the depths of the deepest seas.  It is not being written, it is not being shared, it is not being considered.  

We are fed what to think and feel by news networks with financial stakes in the outcome. I'm not offering a solution, simply a response to the noise.