2+2=5

Sometimes this country's education system really boggles my mind. I know there's no easy fix and that, presumably, people are doing the best they can to make it work, but a lot of the policies seem counter-intuitive. Take my job for example. The students I tutor receive the help for free thanks to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and increased Title I funding to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). In other words, the government is paying for the tutoring the children receive.
Under NCLB, each state sets their own academic standards and determines the level at which each child should perform. There is no national standard set. So far, so good. All this testing and goal setting is, of course, put in place to make the states and their districts more accountable for the help the kids get. The government wants to make sure their money gets put to good use and the students are improving at a rate that is satisfactory. Fine. That makes sense.

Where things start to break down is in the lack of leeway educators are given in choosing and creating curriculum for their students. Like everything else about the program, it is strictly regulated by LAUSD, the state government, and the federal government. It is my job, as a tutor, to assess the students' abilities against state standards, to do all I can to make sure they reach those standards and give the student a post-assessment to see if they reached their goal. The big problem here is that test assessment covers a wider range of subjects than the government sanctioned curriculum covers. It's like the government asking students to be proficient in 10 categories, but only giving them help is three and forbidding any outside assistance.

At one point my company had an account to an online service that allowed educators to access supplemental worksheets; extra lessons to be used in addition to the main curriculum. That account is no longer available because it does not fall under the category of acceptable education material set by the state. Now I have to look elsewhere and find material on my own that may or may not pertain to the sanctioned curriculum. It's not that I mind looking for the material, it's that the state is asking for higher scores in subjects they are unwilling to provide material for.

I have a student who needs help in spelling. The lesson plans in the district approved workbook I am supposed to use do not cover spelling. It is meant as a reader. I asked my boss if they had any spelling material and she said no. I can only use what's in the workbooks and maybe adapt some of the reading lessons into something for spelling. Well, my student does not need the type of help given in the workbook. He needs something far more specific.

I understand the need for quality control and assurance, but limiting the resources of the educator creates two problems: The student will receive limited help in their given subject of need and/or the educator will go out on their own and find their own material to teach, standards be damned. Either way, the students are the ones losing out. They are not getting the help they need and the post-assessment test will show that. The government will either throw more money at the problem and hope it helps or stop funding because they think the status quo is ineffective. If the government approved curriculum matched the subjects being tested a lot of the program's deficiencies would disappear. I know that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one writing and passing the legislation. But still, honestly people, it's a simple game of matching things up. Test four subjects. Give help in four subjects. It's so easy a first grader could do it.

Art 101: Prof. Obama------Building: White House------Time: 2008-2012

I had never really thought about the logistics of moving into the White House until I read a "Wall Street Journal" article about the Obama's art collection choices. While most of us have to settle for posters and prints of famous painters, presidents get to hang the real deal. The Obamas, like presidential families before them, send out notices to museums nationwide, saying they would like to borrow pieces by certain artists for the length of the president's term. These pieces will be hung throughout the White House, some in public space, some in private. As per the article, "The president can hang whatever he wants in the residence and offices, including the Oval Office, but art placed in public rooms, such as the Green Room, must first be approved by the White House curator and the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, an advisory board on which the first lady serves as honorary chair."

The Obamas--like it's any surprise--have a more progressive and modern sensibility when it comes to art. Artists requested include Jasper Johns, Robert Raushcenberg, and Edward Ruscha. In an effort to make the White House art collection more inclusive and representative of the American artistic landscape, the Obamas have also requested art by female and African American artists such as Alma Thomas.

Currently, the roughly 450-piece permanent collection includes five works by black artists: the Clinton portraits by Mr. Knox; “The Builders” by Lawrence ; “Sand Dunes at Sunset, Atlantic City” by Henry Ossawa Tanner, which hangs in the Green Room and was purchased at Hillary Clinton’s urging in 1995; and “The Farm Landing,” a tranquil landscape painted in 1892 by Rhode Island artist Edward Bannister, purchased with donations in 2006.

The Obamas consistently seem to embody an effortless cool and hipness. They are aware of modern culture and openly embrace it. Their goals of inclusion and unity are not a part of a PR policy, but of genuine concern. The national media have taken some heat for promoting and covering this image of cool, while neglecting coverage of the president's political work. Stories on Michelle Obama's dresses or the President Obama's NCAA Tournament picks are seen as inconsequential and letting the president avoid political criticism because his public image is that of a very hip, forward thinking man. (Anyone who gets made fun of by John Hodgman automatically gets some pop culture street cred.) Are the aforementioned stories merely fluff? I think interest in the Obamas art collection, the First Lady's Dresses, and the President's basketball favorites, all indicate a general interest in government. It shows that there is a man leading the country that people are watching and want to know more about. I think any interest at all in political figures is a good sign. It shows investment in the political process and the future of the country. If said investment involves learning about the First Family's love of Jasper Johns, then so be it.

"Wall Street Journal" article in its entirety.

A little background on President Obama's favorite artist, C.M. Coolidge. (just kidding)