What is the Right Answer to Education?

“I want my children to understand the world, but not just because the world is fascinating and the human mind is curious. I want them to understand it so that they will be positioned to make it a better place,” said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner.

To make the world a better place, Gardner believes that children’s individual talents and learning styles must be recognized and expanded on at an early age. His multiple intelligence theory introduces the concept that each child enters school with one of seven types of intelligence that is more developed than the rest. From the start, we notice the children with high energy who excel in sports and movement but cannot seem to contain their exuberance in class (bodily-kinesthetic intelligence). We see those with a gift for instruments and performance (musical intelligence), children with an understanding for design and form (spatial intelligence), ones with strong social skills (interpersonal intelligence), and children who are more deep and introspective (intrapersonal intelligence). And yet of these seven forms, only two are largely encouraged in the average public education setting— linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence (in essence, the ones that can directly influence standardized test scores).

Like Gardner, proponents of charter schools come from the belief that there needs to be more schools and teachers who are willing to give all types of students outlets and opportunities to excel— teachers who see diversity as a sign of potential and not a sign of deviance. As a longtime student of the public education system, I find myself applauding a solution that highlights instead of regulates differences, one that creates instead of cuts music, art, and physical education programs. While I read about Gardner’s intelligence theories, examples of classmates from the past continued to surface in my memory. There was always the kid in the back who created abstract doodles instead of notes or the children who only appeared contented when it was time to pick up an instrument, take out the blocks, give friends advice at recess, or run across the blacktop. These were also the students who I remember struggling, acting out, and getting punished for the only activities that truly engaged them. So often, the programs that would help children progress in their area of interest and eventually in all the others are seen as supplementary to their education—they are adequate at bringing fulfillment but are not essential to development. But are linguists, mathematicians, and scientists all the country needs to create a vibrant and innovative culture? How many people instead end up finding a future in architecture, art, social work, and athletics? Think about the increased job opportunities, effective leaders, and heightened morality that could come from sociology, business, art, and public policy being integrated into secondary schools.

Although charters are trying to do just this, when I first stumbled upon their development, I found myself not knowing who to agree with—the people who said “public education isn’t working;” “it’s time to create an individualized form of instruction” or those who argued that “we need to fix what we already have.” It is true that our current public education system leads to 50% of minority students dropping out, teenagers rebelling or ending up in jail, and students reaching college without basic skills or career aspirations. Public ed is evidently inadequate and unequal, but it is also what over 90% of Americans rely on as a source of free and local education, as well as something people have fought to establish over the course of history. Like private schools, charters are can offer more innovated services, but because of their non-profit, public status, can provide these programs for free. The downside is that the funds going into charters are being redirected away from the public schools that serve the majority of children in the district. Charter schools also present the danger of giving say-so and regulatory freedom to individual institutions. It opens the question firstly of how to make sure employees at charters are skilled and trained to work in education and secondly, how we feel about the differences between each charter from area of specialization to level of competency. Will the advent of charters create a population of diverse expertise or one that continues to leave some students disadvantaged because of where they chose to go to school? In my last post, I asked whether we can better serve communities through large, government-funded organizations or grassroots, unfunded efforts. Though the type of funding differs, the outcome is the same: directed, unregulated services can more adequately target and benefit groups whereas large, public institutions can create widespread, clear-cut changes in policy.

Forms of private education give Americans the chance to act as a consumer with their education instead of a recipient, but there is also the danger that others will ultimately start looking at their education as a commodity. As the education system changes I’ve noticed decisions being made on behalf of business and not our education. In 2009, the University of California regents decided to raise tuition by 32 percent for all UC students to close a supposed budget gap, when in reality, they were having a record year in research grants and profits. This means that the regents (who are mostly conservative former CEOs) were thinking about making surplus, not making quality education affordable. It seems like schools could be falling into the same trap with funding that other organizations have been confined to—letting those with money dictate what is taught, what is researched, and what money goes towards (teachers and texts or unnecessary infrastructure).

Because of economic downturn and new initiatives like Obama’s “Race to the Top,” about 5,200 teachers have received pink slips in Los Angeles, as well as 900 in San Francisco. Detroit has initiated $10,000 dollar pay cuts and the closing of 40 schools while Kansas City is in the process of closing 61 schools and firing ineffective staff. I am concerned that as states are encouraged to shift their focus to charters, public education will continue to suffer.

My solution? We continue to look for new systems of education that can more than just adequately serve every kind of student, but at the same time continue to reform and improve the public education that we already have. Instead of thinking that we can abandon one system for another, we should continue to try to create the best of both worlds.

....So many risks but so many solutions!

Until next time,

Sarah

The Forming of Activists

What motivates someone to work in community groups or nonprofit organizations? Is it because they grew up surrounded by activism? Are they determined to advocate and make programs for those facing similar obstacles? Or are they just looking for a sense of community and support? The reasons for becoming active in nonprofits are about as diverse as the organizations themselves.

But what struck me about this week’s readings is just how many people get involved because of the humanitarian emphasis in their religions. It's evident that churches are adamant about promoting charity work; for doing selfless philanthropic acts is said to not just to help others but to aid your own development as a religious person. However the fact that Americans contribute more of their time and money to religious organizations than any other group in the third sector, was new to me. Though religious associations have a hugely positive impact on America, what interests me is why so many people are becoming active through religious groups instead of other nonprofits—and also, what affect religion has on their decisions. I feel like this large volunteer base stems from the religious services themselves. If roughly “seventy percent [of Americans] claim membership in a religious congregation,” the majority of citizens are regularly benefiting from having a source of community and the inspiration to become active. They connect philanthropy with a greater religious purpose and therefore are more compelled to promote it. According to O’Neill, Americans support religious non-profits more than secular ones because they trust religious institutions, having been involved and familiar with their mission for years. However, because so much of humanitarian work is being done by religiously affiliated groups, it is dictated by beliefs that do not apply to everyone those groups aim to help. As a result, religion begins to dictate the agenda of organizations involved with children’s education, women’s and human rights, mental health, and homelessness, indirectly affecting the policies surrounding them.

As much as I may be opposed to the Protestant stance on certain social issues, I am impressed by the ability of religious associations to create so many active individuals who want to get behind their cause. Recently, I was introduced to a conversation that has been sparking debate at blog sites and lunch tables of many third sector workers. It is the idea that the nonprofits who remain financially dependent on the government and/or foundations have a harder time accomplishing their goals and holding onto that independent spirit that activism used to thrive on. This idea is highlighted in the book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded, in which 21 nonprofit activists discuss how having to report back to the government and attract foundations has created a shift in how nonprofits must think of themselves. While they once focused on engaging citizens and making connections to start a movement, they are now having to think more like businesses, advertising their work in a way that will appeal to money-holding foundations and government—all of whom have their own agendas (statistics they want produced, quotas they want fulfilled). This quest for funds creates a competitive environment amongst organizations advocating for similar causes. When we were talking about the qualifications to become a 501(c) 3 (or any recognized nonprofit) in class, I assumed that it was these government funded organizations that could have the most success in reaching their goals. However, ideas brought up by activists who want to distance themselves from this type of funding have made me reconsider. In the end, it comes down to who can make the most progress and what progress means to that individual organization. Does it mean working hard to create a movement of activists and engaged citizens to slowly change the lives of individuals? Or does it mean gaining the financial support to become a nationally recognized nonprofit that can hopefully create widespread change sooner than later?

How can we create a combination of the two?

I have a feeling this will be an ongoing discussion.

Thanks for reading!

- Sarah

Take a look at this article to hear more about the ideas brought up by The Revolution Will Not Be Funded:

http://www.utne.com/Politics/Revolution-Will-not-be-Funded-Nonprofit-Industrial-Complex.aspx

And here for an organization in Portland that has decided to proceed without government funding:

http://www.pearmentor.org/home.html

Introductions

"A Look at the Other 10 %". Ten percent of what you may ask? The non-profit or third sector to the more clear-cut business and household sectors makes up for 10% of our nation’s economy. Now, ten seems like an insignificant number at first mention compared to the 90% that for-profit businesses offer the U.S. However if we broaden our field of study to the international market, we discover that this 10% creates more profit for the United States than most countries can gain from all of their sectors combined. This statistic from Michael O’Neill’s NonProfit Nation jumped out at me for multiple reasons:

1. Because I often forget how developed the U.S is compared to other nations;

2. Because it demonstrates the significance and breadth of the sector;

—And—

3. Because it measures a not-for-profit sector in financial terms that do not begin to describe its greater social impact.

In this blog for my Intro to Non-Profit Administration class, I will be taking a further look into the important work of the 10% that is all too often undervalued and misrepresented in our society (as well as the many churches, community groups, and small non-profits that it does not include). I will be reacting to readings from O’Neill’s NonProfit Nation among others, posting helpful findings, and hopefully, uncovering the complexities of the third sector so that we call all better understand it’s role in our lives and how we can best use it to initiate change.

Now, that I have introduced my site, I will tell you a little about myself. My name is Sarah Norman and besides being a first-time blogger, I am also a poet, dancer, musician, nature enthusiast, community volunteer, and full-time learner. I find inspiration in the personal stories of the people around me and am continuously amazed at the wisdom I can find outside of the classroom—often from people I would not expect to have such rich past experiences. I love learning about people, which was perhaps the main influence in my declaring a Sociology major when entering the University of Oregon. Now at the end of my Sophomore year, I still have a passion for the more academic disciplines of the social sciences but feel I have found my future in the more practical, skill based arenas the university has to offer. Which brings me to the PPPM department (Planning, Public Policy, Management). It is here that I’m starting to see my desire to bring real social change to people and communities unfold. Though the ins and outs of policy and administration are often unfamiliar to me and take time to wrap my head around, it is a challenge I am more than willing to take on if it means I can eventually better serve others.

It's the second week of my Non Profit Administration class and the professor has already emphasized many times that people go into business with their minds and the non-profit world relying on their hearts. Each time he says it, I come up with more people and organizations where this holds true. I think that the pure benevolence of non-profit workers is inspirational and I see so much potential in each idea. But I have heard too many stories of great non-profit ideas that never get off the ground and human service providers who inadequately serve those they set out to help. The world of social services has good intentions but still many flaws that need people with business and policy sense and fresh ideas to work out (paired with good hearts and an understanding for people of course). Though this work is usually now referred to as the third sector or not-for-profit, we seem to still associate it with its past titles: “voluntary,” “moral, intellectual” or “charities” (O’Neill 8). I think that most Americans (including myself) are unaware of just how many non-profit organizations there are in the U.S, realize their importance, or understand what it takes to run one.

I came across a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville in this week’s reading that changed the way I look at our relationship with non-profits. He said that “The more government takes the place of associations, the more will individuals lose the idea of forming associations and need government to come to their help.” I used to have the sense that non-profits take care of the people and causes that the government has neglected and that governments need to focus more on creating and supporting social welfare programs. As true as this is, Tocqueville reminded me that community organizations that call for volunteers and activism are vital to developing our democracy. Not only that, but religious groups, special interest clubs, and non-profits are the institutions that give people a voice, a supportive family, a creative or emotional outlet, and often a job. Without a sense of purpose and a source of inspiration, I don’t think people would have the motivation or resources to get to where they want to be.

Stick with me as I work to figure out the great world of non-profits. Comments are welcome! And hopefully I will be able to offer an informative and fresh perspective on this important sector J

Till next time,

Sarah