As a state certified former high school Biology and Marine Science teacher, I have a keen understanding of the operative functions of American education, which requires teacher to do so much more than teach, requirements which most teachers are happy to satisfy.     

To be clear, K-12 educators—in every field of study—are professional educators, obligated with the difficult task of collectively educating impressionable minds. Whether teachers are “in-field,” that is, they received a degree in education or “out-of-field,” their degree is in a subject other than education, they should be regarded as professionals. The horrible saying that, “those who can do and those who can’t teach,” couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Just as the university allows its professors to plan their lectures as they see fit, as long as it addresses canonical texts and conceptions, so too should K-12 educators be given the flexibility to adapt their curriculum to meet the specific needs of their classes. Curriculum is an essential aspect of K-12 education, as it ensures a continuity of themes, canonical texts, and figures. Unlike the university system, however, teachers are increasingly required to teach from supplementary books (typically “consumables,” which are books with perforated pages).

The trouble with mandating that teachers teach from consumables arises as not all teachers are comfortable using prearranged lesson plans. For some, this practice encroaches on the teacher’s ability to freely choose a particular style of teaching. Many teachers, for example, love the ability to prepare lesson plans, which may differ for their respective classes, as a lot of time is spent planning and preparing for class. When district administrators enforce supplementary text on K-12 teachers, without giving high performing teachers the option of continuing with their own lesson plans, the institution effectively deprofessionalizes the educational system.

For example, the Hillsborough County Public Schools System in Tampa, where I live, has implemented SpringBoard, which produces a series of consumables for teacher to use in their classrooms. The specific problem with SpringBoard and other consumable, mass produced, educational textbooks is at least threefold.

First, teachers are not given an option. District administrators, desperate for any financing they can receive, often enter into contractual agreements with grant providers or national educational text providers and then mandate that all teachers conform to the new standards. As a former out-of-field educator, I may have welcomed such a supplement, as my degree and training are outside of education. For others, however, who were effective in their instruction, with acceptable pass rates and stellar students, mandating that they teach from supplements delegitimizes their already proven ability to perform.

Second, writers of these consumable textbooks are part of a larger industry that seeks to manufacture “consumables” for profit. The reason why these books are consumables relates to the inherent necessity to repurchase textbooks for each class. The fact is teacher autonomy is subordinated to the financial gains of textbook manufactures. These manufacturers, however, are motivated by profit, not academic excellence. To subordinate a teacher’s precise knowledge of her classroom to the preconceived notion of how that classroom should be governed is utterly unfair for those that would choose to tailor their lesson plans.

Third, the writers of these texts assume, as a starting point in the construction of consumable books, the homogeneity of a classroom, that is, they assume that all classrooms have the same needs with the same learning abilities. Consumable textbooks cannot adequately anticipate the dynamics of any given class in any part of America. Rather than raising teaching standards consumable textbooks marginalizes both the teacher and the students. To be fair, however, as a first year teacher I would have opted for the consumable text, and used it to guide my lesson plans, but after three years of teaching from consumable textbooks isn’t a teacher competent enough to create her own lesson plans?

Consumable textbooks are both a benefit and a curse. If implemented properly they can contribute to the betterment of the American education system. If it is mandated that all teachers of a particular subject area teach from consumable textbooks, the American educational system will invariably lose those teachers that feel their profession has been deprofessionalized.

Originally published at Blogcritics.

When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
when the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
when I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
when I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
how soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
in the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

Walt Whitman (1819 – 1892)

The pressures for students to perform well on standardized tests begin, in some states, once the child reaches the third grade. As the years pass and the student prepares for college, emphasis shifts to high stakes test like the SAT/ACT/GRE and so on. If, for example, students do well on the SAT/ACT their scores will translate to scholarships and possible acceptance into the university of their choice. If, however, they do poorly, they will most likely have to subsidize their education with loans, and college acceptance becomes more competitive. Thus, great importance is placed on their test scores.

A problem, however, arises when test preparation companies and test administrators create a system that excludes those incapable of paying for test preparation fees, in some instances, fees exceeding $3000.00. For example, the SAT test questions from two years ago will be licensed to a test preparation company, which will in turn prepare its students for this current year’s test with questions they received from SAT test administrators.

The “tuition” is then set, typically classroom instruction begins at $1000, and everyone wins, not quite. Test administrators win because they receive royalties on the license they provide. The test preparation companies win because they can now charge a fee for the “inside knowledge” they received from test administrators and the ability to analyze specific test questions. And those willing to shell out $1000.00 win because they have classroom instruction from former high scoring test takers with an inside understanding of the system.

But what about those that can’t afford the fees?

It is not being suggested that there is anything inherently wrong with the system, but the system is biased. It favors those capable of paying for the test preparation over those that cannot. The test prep business, however, is driven by instructors, not test administrators or test prep companies. I would argue that there should be some incentive—preferably governmental incentive—for qualified test prep instructors to offer pro bono work.

Those that have excelled on standardized tests and are currently test prep teachers have a very specialized skill. It would be a generous contribution to the American education system if they could allocate a few hours a week or a month in offering their services to the public free of charge.

It would be even better for a national charity to consolidate a database of locations and instructors where aspiring students without the financial means to afford classroom instruction could receive instruction, for their respective tests, free of charge. I would assume that test score and student interest in college would rise, and instructors would gain a sense of service for their communities.

President Obama has called on us all to serve our nation and this is a service I feel we desperately need. It is for these reasons why I strongly urge test prep teachers to do a bit of pro bono work.

Originally published at Blogcritics.

The United States Department of Labor stipulates the federal minimum wage and regulates “compliance with labor standards.” Since 1990 economists have debated the benefits and disadvantages of federal minimum wage laws, some of the most heated debate rising from David Card and Alan Krueger’s landmark research on employment and minimum wage standards.

There are those that support federal minimum wage standards and those that argue against them. In either case, this is not an analysis of federal minimum wage standards. This article is an attempt to discuss what could potentially be a new topic of interest among economists, namely, “should there be a global minimum wage?” and “should there be an international compliance committee that ensures corporations adhere to international law?”

In an article I wrote for International Studies in Philosophy,* I argue for the abuses inherent within a system of neoliberal economics and the practice of outsourcing labor. In the article I argue that outsourcing support a “race to the bottom,” wherein First World corporations maximize their profit margins by outsourcing their labor and seeking the lowest international labor costs. I then discuss the practice of slavery and draw the conclusion that outsourcing, in its worst forms, differs from slavery by the slightest degree. Are First World corporations justified in paying Third World laborers .17 cents/hr for a product that is then sold for one hundred U.S. dollars? If so, to what extent does this differ from slavery?

Since outsourcing is a viable economic model wherein First World corporations export their labor to defer cost and maximize profits, should there be an international standard for the minimum amount that laborers, of any country, may legally be employed for?

Though there would certainly need to be an entire field of researchers and statisticians assessing the pros and cons of such a proposition, one can surely agree that efforts to standardize international minimum wage laws would curb corporate greed and increase the pay rate for an international body of employees. How such regulation would influence the international employment rate remains to be seen.

We live in an era of globalization and our respective leaders must acknowledge this fact. Some measures must be employed to safeguard the rights and wages of international laborers. An international consortium of bankers, financers, auditors and regulators should assume the responsibility for global compliance and where there are violations of the law, embargos and sanctions should be enacted.

Some may argue that if .17 cents/hour is the highest wage paid to international laborers within a given region, then it is justifiable to pay those laborers .17 cents/hour. The tremendous flaw in this reasoning is that while it speaks to the practicality of market conditions, that is, the market will invariably seek to out the cheapest labor for the highest return in profit, is does not address the moral responsibility corporations have to their laborers and the international market at large. Market conditions will approximate slavery wherever it can. It is not because of the economic viability of slavery why its practice is illegal. Slavery is illegal because of the moral arguments and contradictions inherent within a system of slavery. Thus, despite the fact that .17 cents/hour may be the highest wage paid to international laborers within a given region, the question arises, "should it be?" Shouldn't we consider the ethical benefits or determinants of enacting global minimum wage laws?

The International Monetary Fund already has measures in place to regulate international exchange rates, which is not to suggest that they should enforce international minimum wage compliance, as there are many criticisms against the IMF. Nevertheless, there are structures in place that could expedite the process of protecting the wages of international laborers.

Without the ability to standardized and enforce international labor laws, it is certain that Third World laborers will continue to be exploited by First World corporations. The attempt to enforce international labor laws will standardize global employee wages and hopefully benefit Third World laborers.

In contemporary political discourse there is a fierce debate over the privatization of America’s penitentiary system. The late Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison articulates the foundations with which the penitentiary system first took root. It is not my intention to offer an analysis of Foucault’s argument, but I am interested in engaging in an ongoing discussion concerning the morality of privatizing the penitentiary system.

The private nature of a corporation is based on and fueled by the exchange of goods or services for capital. In effect, consumers pay for a service or a product. The question, then, one must ask is whether in the privatization of the penitentiary system  investors and shareholders are providing either a service or a product. There are those that argue what is readily apparent, that is, shareholders are providing a service, and that service is the incarceration of human beings. Others, however, namely proponents of the rehabilitative facets of incarceration, argue that the product is a fully rehabilitated and productive member of society, once the prisoner has been freed.

It is my view that either argument for the privatization of the penitentiary system based on service or product is fundamentally flawed. First, if one were to assume the stance that the privatization of the penitentiary system facilitates providing a service, insofar as potential criminals are incarcerated, then one must also recognize that the same market conditions that apply to any market, including this market of privatizing the prison system must also, therefore, apply. Thus, market conditions necessitate that the market will always seek the lowest bid for the highest level of service, which presents the problem of the quality of service rendered.

For example, in the growing demands for neoliberal outsourcing of labor, a corporation would best serve its shareholders if it could outsource its domestic labor, which is clearly less cost effective, to international laborers and thereby increase their profit margins in the cost saved to employ an international labor force. This has become a fairly standard practice. Now, if we translate that concept of outsourced labor to our current discussion of the privatization of America’s penitentiary system, then I can assure you that the next logical conclusion that will surely follow is outsourcing our penitentiary system.

There is a difference, however, in discussing the outsourcing of say customer service agents, which replaces domestic representatives with international ones, and physically outsourcing human beings to serve their incarceration abroad. Though this would make a fascinating fictional account, it is unnerving to recognize just how close to reality these prospects are.

Human beings, unlike products, often reject any and all attempts at objectification. Granted, there is more than one exception to this claim. However, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant noted we are to be treated as an end and not as a means to an end. What Kant is suggesting is that we are ends-in-themselves. We are to be treated as autonomous human beings irrespective of the crimes we have committed (a further claim that is extremely controversial).

On the one hand, the suggestion that the privatization of the penitentiary system benefits us insofar as it provides a service necessitates a terrible volatile discussion on the outsourcing of human beings. It would be the end of the career of any politician who endorsed such a view. On the other hand, human beings are not products and to attempt to objectify their existence for a return on capital is a morally and ethically unacceptable.

Today President Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay detention camp closed a decision that is being rejoiced by some and condemned by others. Various Human Rights organizations have complained about prisoner conditions at the detention camp, but the fundamental questions remains of where these prisoner will be sent?

Some would argue that relocating Guantanamo Bay’s prisoners is absurd. If interrogation methods, under the previous administration were called into question, and are currently being revised by this new administration, then why close the detention camp? Granted it is a symbolic gesture, insofar as closing the detention camp sends a very clear message that interrogation tactics and CIA leadership have changed. The physical structure, however, the building as such is positioned such that is a good location to house war criminals.

What is of importance is not the actual detention center, as a physical structure, but the rules and regulations that govern that building. Since the current administration has done everything in its powers to break from the policies and practices of the former administration, closing the detention camp is, some would argue, little more than a symbolic gesture and signal to the world that times have changed.

Others, however, may argue that it would be impossible to overcome or undue the horrible associations with Guantanamo Bay despite the best of intentions, despite a new administration and new policies governing the care of prisoners. The stigma, then, has so horribly tarnished Guantanamo Bay that no amount of political reform will ever be able disassociate that structure with Human rights violations.

I’m not sure how I feel about Guantanamo Bay being closed. In one sense I understand the need to make a clear break with the past, but I also understand the redundancy in relocation and the strategic location of the building itself.

Today is the third Monday of the New Year, which marks the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King’s lifelong quest for civil rights reform and the ultimate fulfillment of America’s dream, and though that dream will be fulfilled tomorrow, in the swearing in of America’s first African-American president, there are so many dreams still being deferred.

The dream of many within the LGBT community is simply having the right to marriage, yet “we” continue to defer “their” dream. Why? “We” recognize “their” partnership. “We” recognize “their” ability to adopt children. “We” recognize “their” contributions to society. “We” recognize “their” humanity. “We” recognize that “they” too love and want to loved, but “we” still deny “them” “their” right to marriage.

We are still a nation segregated into “us” versus “them”. We are still a nation that would have others yearn for the rights that “we” so freely enjoy. Though there aren’t any signs asserting “Whites Only” or “Heterosexuals Only,” we are still a nation firmly attached to the belief that “they” aren’t like “us” and solely because of that difference “they” shouldn’t enjoy the same rights as “we” do.

LGBT rights…tomorrow, not today. Today’s not the time for “their” cause. Today’s not the moment for “their” change. Just as White-Americans marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, just as Abolitionists fought for the abolition of slavery, “their” fight is also “our” fight.

P.S. it’s a bit technical, but you can read my paper on the importance of Transgender theory by clicking here.

Jason J. Campbell
www.jasonjcampbell.org
© 2009