Education standards deserve more attention 
Last week, national news covered the teachers' strike in Chicago. While some news entities provided viewpoints regarding how this negatively impacts students, a more important conversation is needed to comprehensively understand the arguments supplied by the teachers. Politicians have long grappled with how to confront poverty in our nation and many recognize the important role of education in assisting with social mobility as promised in the "American Dream." The systemic problem of poverty has yet to be fully addressed in the conversation about teachers' rights, evaluations and the future of the American educational system. It has become clear that the current presidential campaigns need to provide clear policy prescriptions for solving the issue of educational reform and, more importantly, poverty.
I support teachers being evaluated and agree that there needs to be greater accountability. However, the metrics upon which these evaluations are carried out are of great concern. Forcing teachers to develop curricula around standardized testing is highly problematic because these tests are pure reflections of socioeconomic status versus student capability. Also, evaluations based upon standardized test scores seem inappropriate and appear to place a heavy burden on teachers. Teachers interact with students for roughly six to eight hours a day and we expect them to overcome issues presented to children in the remaining 16 to 18 hours? It appears expectations of teachers have gone awry and if we expect to hold them to standards of improving the futures of our children, then shouldn't other "community" entities be held to similar standards? What would it look like if our politicians were evaluated based on whether their policies effectively decreased poverty?
Interestingly, neither presidential candidate appears to be heavily involved in highlighting how their policy perspectives will address education and poverty. President Barack Obama has a record of policies that have assisted in addressing the needs of socially disadvantaged populations, however, his policy record has not explicitly addressed poverty. It appears Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's policies will disproportionately impact low-income populations, but honestly a clear articulation of exactly what he will do on this issue has not been conveyed.
Lastly, many have touted "school choice" as a valuable option for improving education, in which parents should have the right to determine what schools their children should attend. From an individualistic standpoint, this seems highly appropriate. Yet, digging deeper, this does nothing to solve systemic problems like poverty and is purely an exercise in shuffling the problem of poverty around. It is time for us as a nation to seriously address the issue of poverty and hopefully the presidential candidates will outline strategic measures they support to do so.
More Like This
Column: Educational system contributes to inequality
By Martin | Jan. 25, 2016Column: Bloomberg unlikely to win presidency
By Griffin Hobson | Jan. 24, 2016