OCR Text |
Show Do you have an opinion? your comments, letters and questions are welcome. What topics would you like our columnists to sound in off on visit dixPesunlink.com to give us your feedback. 'Brims real eduncattiom toack home BY MARK GREEN Editor in Chief The problem with the American education system is not merely a lack of or funding qua ified staff; these are simply components of one idea that completely encapsulates Americas educational downturn: a lack of foresight. Shortsighted thinking cripples any institution, organization, government or person that chooses to engage in the practice. Our schools suffer as a direct result of shortsighted thinking about the way we teach our students, the way we treat our teachers, and the manner in which we attempt to resolve the problems schools face. Proper teaching methods are the cornerstone of successful schools, and sadly our students have been saddled with teaching methods that make their future success a doubtful prospect. In many classrooms across the country mediocre work is being praised, Fs are being removed from report cards entirely, and students face curriculum that has been reduced to the lowest common denominator. Of course teachers should not publicly berate students for doing poor work in school, but teachers need to stop giving students glowing reports when they hand in C papers. Praise should be sparing but sincere. Empty praises, promises and compliments make a student feel good immedi-"atelbut in the long-terit renders them incapable of striving for excellence. They also learn to question the sincerity of any compliments delivered their way. In our pursuit of boosty, m ing childrens we have lowered stan self-estee- dards of student work rather than improving the standards of our teaching. If Olympic high jumpers cannot clear a bar they have two options. They can train harder, or they can lower the bar. The former will result in a better performer, the latter will keep them from succeeding in competition. This same analogy runs true with our students. If we simply lower the bar and make a diploma easier to get we fail our youth. If we leave the bar at a competitive international level then we must coach our students better in order for them to succeed. Which of these do you think will be more beneficial in the long run? Once a curriculum is established our second step is the treatment of teachers. Teachers are in contention for the most important job in society. Education is everything, and as such we should be very selective when deciding which teachers we allow to instruct our youth. As it stands it is very hard for schools to fire bad teachers. It makes sense, if youre short sighted that is. A system in which a teacher may only be fired after a long series of complaints, hearings and legal action would seem to provide a good defense against malicious firing practices. But lets take a look at the long term results in the real world. These procedures are so daunting and time suming that many schools would rather put up with a bad teacher than go through this nightmare. It is nearly impossible for school officials to fire failing teachers, and this needs to change. It may seem unfair to make teaching so demanding, but it seems more unfair to allow hundreds of students to set themselves up for failure. Teaching must absolutely be a competitive industry. It should attract the cream of the college crop, which segues nicely into my next point. The most common solution Americans try to implement is increasing funding for the department of education. Or if funding is cut Americans blame this for failing standards in schools. Money, despite what many people think, is not the most critical part of academic success. A good teacher is worth far more than what we currently pay our educators. Money cannot possibly create a good teacher or even make a bad teacher more likely to better serve his or her students. We could save vast sums of money by gutting the bulky federal administrative systems running our schools, firing bad teachers, and reigning in the extra costs created by overzealous teachers unions. With the money we save we could boost teachers salaries enough to make people covet jobs, and thus attract the oroun a lure 5 larger pool of available talent. These answers seem easy, almost superficial. And they are. Occams Razor suggests that the simplest answer is usualh the right one. However, ' simple answers do not mean simple to execute. The ideas are easy to understand, but they are dreadfully difficult to ip. plement. Fixing education will take a lot of work and a lot of patience. Americans need elect officials who understand the needs of education and let the ones in office know what they need to do about education in order to earn our vote. It will take time and gu wrenching effort to get what will appear to be little short term gain, but! promise you our investment in education will pay dramatic dividends our children and our nation in the years to come it to pore mode' tually The Islam as p block of the sides alid trade tentio debat portai merit assoc with Cente The point sacre' zero, ir ues terror story niunii grour woun hasn'i Lib port t oftol Inns assoc How to solve immigration BY RYAN WARE Opinion Editor Not many citizens actually value their citizenship. I think the best way to handle im migration reform may be to sell citizenship. Citizenship can take years to complete. For many potential immigrants, this could be a barrier to immigration. In addition to time constraints, many immigrants cant afford to be away from their home country for more than six months. Goinv back to Mexico, Canada or China (yes those are the top three places immigrants come from in the U.S.). If someone visits another country while on a visa or trying to gain citizenship, he or she risks losing the ability to gain citizenship. When I look at immigration, I look at it like a math problem (as much as I dont like math.) when you break down the previous paragraph, it begins to sound like time multiplied by money multiplied by opportunity equals immigration (T$0I.) Like any multiplication problem, reducing one of the variables to zero makes the entire equation equal zilch. An example of this would be taking times zero. No matter how you look at it, it equals zero. So which factor of the citizenship equation should we make zero? We can reduce the cost to zero. Doing so would create a terrible burden on the 1 U.S. government, no revenue would come in from immigration. This would create a plan during the economic problems we are currently embroiled in. We cant reduce opportunity to cross the border to zero. This kind of system would require resources the U. S. government couldnt muster. We would either have to employ more people than the system could support or authorize a shoot to kill policy. Even with those policies, it would soluonly be a Band-Ai- d tion. Not allowing in new citizens would result in backlash from the global community. After all, we are the melting pot of the world. The final option is to reduce the time to be a citizen down to zero. We can do this by selling citizenship to the highest bidder. As a nation, we allow x amount of people to enter legally every year. Allowing those x amount based on their income is essential to the American economy and culture. The fee would be based on their income or how much they are willing to pay to be U.S. citizens. Americans work to gain wealth. These immigrants would have traits that most of us would view as positive. They would have money, essential skills and talents. Selling citizenship would revitalize the economy. It would do this by adding revenue to the budget of the U. S. government, and would create more jobs within the United States. Revenue could be used to increase border security and would help solve most of the current immigration problems this country faces. According to The New American Dilemma: Illegal Immigration by Gary Becker published on March 26, 2006 and available at irassToap wmzss&ss DIXIE SUN they few t Tu'KDL i sts Mark Green, Editor in Chief freed plies "A -, i 1Q I- 1 ' )r J I1 Tom Betar, News Editor Ryan Ware, Opinion Editor Develon Isom, Sports Editor Matt Jacobson, A & E Editor Kate Semmens, Lifestyles Ed- JV. itor bekcer-posner-blog.co- Becker said if we were to charge more for immigration, we could be making up to $55 billion eveiy year. This system would be beneficial to the U.S. because it will produce quality citizens that are less likely to drain Social Security, welfare or any other social services. Critics to this method may say it would be unethical to sell citizenship. I believe this is the best solution to the immigration debate. It is more fair compared to other mainstream alternatives, and it offers just compensation for the U.S. economy for the burden of immigration. Critics will also argue this doesn't solve the problem of illegal immigration. By charging per head that comes across the border, the federal government can grant temporary status until the potential citizen pays off the $50,000 (which happens to be the right price point according to Becker.) Many immigrants would be willing to do that over taking years to get citizenship status. Challenging the status quo is what the U.S. is about. Lately, conservatives and liberals have been having problems with challenging the status quo of immigration. Write your representative on how you feel about attacl China climbs. Japan reverses BY MCT Kansas City Star In the 1980s, when pundits mulled the supposed economic threat from Japan, few would have dreamed that Japan's sun would set so soon. In the 1990s, Japan wallowed. In the second quarter of this year it was surpassed by China as the world's No. 2 economy. For the quarter, Japan tallied a gross domestic product of $1.2 trillion. China came in at $1.3 trillion, just less than a third the size of the U.S. economy. Still, its performance marks what is perhaps the greatest economic transformation in human history: 300 million Chinese lifted out of poverty in the space of some 30 years. What was once a dirt-ponation had become the world's largest exporter and the biggest car market. In 1978, China crawled out of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution and began putting market economics to work, first in agriculture and then in other industries. In the or 1990s, the country grew at the breakneck pace of 10 percent or so a year. Meanwhile, Japan's stock ' market and property bubble had popped and the country entered its "lost decade." Over those years, China's government sector shrank as a proportion of the economy. Japan's ballooned. There is an obvious lesson here for our policymakers. China's rise has been spectacular, but its future is hardly assured. Its banking and finance system is underdeveloped, corruption is a continuing problem, its population is y aging, it remains a authoritarian state, and in recent years it has begun shielding selected industries from competition a prescription for stagnation, at least in those sectors. But at this moment, China's future seems boundless and bright, just as Japan's did in the 1980s a reminder that no nation's rise or continued predominance is just t The lion i Islam Amei stead Bryan Uhri, Online Editor Tyler Marsmg, Photo Editor Mickelle Yeates, Assistant Photo Editor Alex Armstrong, Ad Manager from the le we ta rienc migh Levi Amone succe Chris Caldwell Ashley Chlarson Kimberly Stuart Alaina Allred Amei begui Richard Bnggs Michael Christensen Taylor Grin Amanda Jacobs Robert Lovell Mckoye Mecham Eric Reed Mark Schurr Rhiannon Bent, Adviser DIXIE SUN HOW TO REACH US Dixie State College Jennings Bldg. 225 South 700 East St. George, UT 84770 Phone: (435)652-781- Fax: (435) one-part- 656-401- 8 9 dixiesundixie.edu www.dixiesunlink.com The DIXIE SUN is distribute1 ach Wednesday during Fall and pnng semesters as a publication oi Dixie State College, Arts, Let' ers and Sciences, a and Dixie Itate College Student Activi-leThe unsigned editorial on he opinion page represents the position f DIXIE SUN as determined y its editorial board Other-visthe views and opinions expressed m DIXIE SUN are hose of the individual writers ind do not necesol sarily reflect the opinions DIXIE SUN or any entity of ollege. s ify sell, sens COI Ale di |