Profile

User Profile

Native English speaker from Canada with a Masters degree from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I am also fluent in speaking and reading French as a second language after living in Montreal for two and a half years. I can translate any length of French text into American English: I have particular experience with translating scientific and historical writings from French into English. I am now enrolled in a MA in English at an American university. Please see the entry below as a sample of my work!





The Effect of Politics on American Education

For most American parents, the idea of not having a say in their children’s education would be unthinkable and un-American. Some people might be convinced that the influence of politicians on the American education system can be a good thing since they have the power to hold teachers “accountable” for their job performances and achievement of educational goals. That sounds very reasonable: why would anyone object to that? But what would happen if the values and influence of the political group shaping the education of your children were so narrowly defined that they did not agree with your own? What would be the consequences of such policies and programs on the students? Could the effect of politics on such an important public service such as education be detrimental, even disastrous for the well-being of your children?

Imagine this scenario: you are awakened in the middle of the night by the sound of your smoke detector going off. You scramble out of bed only to discover a fire has started in your house. You wake up the kids and manage to escape in your pajamas. Within minutes, the fire engines arrive and the firefighters get out. The fire chief comes over and asks you for your Social Security number and enters it into a laptop computer. He gets information on the types of charities and non-profit organizations that you have donated money to. The fire chief shakes his head and instructs his men to do nothing: he explains that on religious and moral grounds that his men can refuse to fight the fire at a house whose owner has supported pro-choice organizations. He offers you the use of the fire fighting equipment so that you can put out the flames yourself but you can barely lift the fire hose let alone know how to operate the equipment. You better learn fast: experience can be a tough teacher.

Imagine this scenario: you live in a small rural town with only one pharmacy. The next drugstore is in a town fifty miles away. You have a prescription for the Pill for a number of years and are married with two children. When you go up to the counter to get your prescription filled, the pharmacist says he refuses to fill it on religious grounds, telling you to go elsewhere.

Do these two scenarios sound unbelievable? Are they implausible? While the first scenario is entirely fictional, it demonstrates the point of what can happen under extreme circumstances when politics and personal beliefs are allowed to interfere with essential services. The second scenario was, unfortunately, a true incident of a woman living in a small Texas town who went to a drugstore to fill a birth control prescription. Both examples show what happens when other people’s beliefs or politics interfere with the provision of a necessary public service. Then why should Americans tolerate the same type of political interference in an essential service such as education? But this has already happening in thousands of school boards across this country where battles are being fought in court to stop politically motivated groups from shaping the curriculum taught in public schools.

Politically motivated policies and programs such as abstinence-only sex education programs and the teaching of intelligent design are doomed to failure because they do not allow for a full dissemination of information or discussion of controversial subject matter which promotes critical thinking in students. If students are only given half of what they need to know to succeed in life, they will not be prepared or protected for the demands of modern life.

Abstinence-only programs pose a very real threat to the health and the well-being of American teenagers because there is little or no discussion of contraceptives or safe-sex methods which could prevent sexually transmitted diseases as AIDS or gonorrhea. The president of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards summed it up when she said, “Abstinence-only programs keep teens in the dark and do nothing to help parents protect their children’s health (Stover: 37)”. There is another reason why abstinence-only programs will not work: they ignore the reality of teenage sexual behavior.

There has been no reliable scientific proof that abstinence does work in delaying sexual activity among older teens (Stover: 39). What the available research does show is that abstinence programs coupled with lessons on age-appropriate behavior and information on effective contraception does reduce sexual activity among teens (Stover: 39). Despite the lack of scientific evidence to back up their educational policies, the neo-conservative politicians are determined to win over school boards by electoral or funding pressure. The abstinence-only programs remain popular with school boards because of the generous federal funding attached to the implementation of such programs. President Bush has expanded funding to $206 million annually, and since 1998, total federal funding has topped $1 billion (Stover: 37). What can be done to ensure that American schoolchildren get the education that will protect and equip them for the challenges of the future?

Get involved in politics on a local and a national level. Vote in the next presidential elections for a candidate who understands and respects the professionalism and expertise of America’s teachers and who stands up for the complete dissemination of information and knowledge to protect the children of today. Go to meetings of your local school board and ask questions of the board’s representatives.

Apply this litmus test to any change in school curriculum that might promote the interests of a narrowly focused interest group: does the program come into conflict with the professionalism of your child’s teachers, does it ignore the complexities of life for today’s youth, does it stifle dissenting opinions and critical thinking about issues? If the answer is ‘yes’ to any of these questions, chances are your children will be left dangerously unprepared to face the adult challenges of life, whether it’s voting, sex or even signing up for the military. After all, the future of any democracy relies on the active participation of an educated citizenry who can function, think and act decisively to safeguard the best interests of their children.

II. Analysis: While the first version of this assignment was more expository and dispassionate, defining the topic, coming up with examples that supported my thesis statement and drawing conclusions from the material that I read, I decided to take a different tact with this version of the same assignment. I turned it into a persuasive argument on paper, and by doing that, I personalized it, creating a dialogue with a skeptical person, someone who wasn’t politically involved.

The weakest parts of the essay – the scenarios- were also the most original but would be subject to the criticism that the first scenario was just sheer hyperbole. I thought the scenarios were the most difficult and the most creatively demanding part of the paper to write because I wanted to prove my point by showing how ridiculous and dangerous political interference is be in education by demonstrating a parallel situation with the provision of an essential public service such as firefighting. The second scenario I presented was actually a true incident and I put that in the essay to counter any claims that it would be ridiculous to imagine that politics interfering with public services would never happen in this country. I think I succeeded in making my point by writing the scenarios in second person singular and not attacking the audience’s viewpoint directly by showing how ineffective and dangerous abstinence only programs are.

To strengthen my thesis, I “recycled” some of the information from my second assignment about why abstinence only programs are ineffective (no real scientific proof to show they encourage lasting changes in teenagers’ behavior) but also why they will be so hard to eradicate from school curriculums (generous funding from the Bush Administration).

Finally, I believe that in making a persuasive argument truly persuasive to an audience is to offer the possibility of changes, of hope in transforming the situation just as I had synthesized my findings and come up with recommendations of my own to guard against politicization of the educational system, whether from right-wing or left-wing ideologues. The “litmus test” that I presented in my final paragraph offers a way to critically think through any new or established program in a school curriculum. Solutions are possible to particular problems if you win over, rather than alienate the very people who might be resistant to change.







Works Cited


Stover, Del. “Politics and Policy”. American School Board of Education Journal. November 2006. Retrieved from www.google.com on Sept. 28/07.

Buyer Activity

Provider Activity