The role of higher education in the 21st Century

As our legislature comes to a close today, I am contemplating my role as an educator as well as an observer of family policy.  Specifically, how does higher education play a role in families and our society?

Higher education used to be only reserved for those who had the means to spend time in thinking about possibilities, theories, governments, and societies.  We learned about culture, history, and all sorts of endeavors that were NOT designed to get us job skills.  Having a bachelor's degree meant that we were problem solvers, big picture thinkers, and had more value than just the skills to do the job.  Government was invested in supporting these kinds of thinkers, so states provided more resources to their institutions of higher education.

Now, government expects that the faculty should be getting money to come into the university through research grants and other business investments.  Less and less state government money is coming to the Universities.  This means that as professors we need to focus more on applied research that can be some reward to the businesses who choose to help support our efforts.  What happens to educating those who are preparing for the future?  Students are taking on HUGE loans hoping that their investment in themselves will pay off in the long run, but they have less and less access to research faculty and research faculty pass their teaching responsibilities on to adjunct faculty or graduate students.

Now that distance education is becoming more and more available to everyone, what does that do to the value of an education?  Some have worried that our students' focus on technology and what technology can do for education leaves graduates without "soft skills."  This means that our graduates may be leaving the university with a Bachelor's degree and the inability to work with others, recognize what it takes to read people, and pick up on their behavioral cues and all other skills that are necessary in business.

I leave these thoughts with more questions than answers.  What is the role of distance education in a University setting?  I teach online classes enrolled with traditional and non-traditional students alike. Why do traditional students take my classes?  Because they don't have to be anywhere for class? They can do class at midnight in their jammies leaving daytime for their jobs. Are students sacrificing school to pay for nice cars, trucks, clothes? Non-traditional students are typically not close to a University setting and are generally older.  They are often supporting a family and parenting children in addition to getting a college degree. Full time parents, full time school, and full time jobs?  What has to be sacrificed with those kinds of demands?

Should universities still consider themselves as a developmental support institution?  Are they still preparing our youth to be leaders in our communities and societies?  Or, are we at the cusp of a major shift in thinking about higher education.  Should we look at community colleges as college prep? Post-high school education? What is the role of vocational education? Are Universities taking on that role of being a vocational institution rather than an institution of higher learning?

It seems to me that we need to make an effort to re-evaluate the role of our higher education system and focus on the goals that the student wants and that our country needs. Do we really need EVERYONE to have a B.S. degree?  Is the University a setting where we prepare for jobs and that's all?  How do we do that?

the Role of Family in Family Policy Issues

I just had an interesting class discussion with my Family and Social Policy Students. We are discussing the role of women in the workplace and how that has created stress in our families.  Andrew Cherlin (2012) writes that this shift from women being at home to women being at work has been one of the MAJOR shifts in our society and has had a HUGE impact on the well-being of our families.

I asked my students as future social services workers, what can be done to support the families if this is the case?  I was honestly surprised when their first recommendation was COMMUNICATION!  It wasn't one of the many options that I had considered...better work policies, government programs, early childhood education, etc. Their first thought was to support families by strengthening the relationships between the parents.  WOW!  Kind of an eye opener.

Politicizing the Victim

I have been thinking a lot lately how academic culture has been focusing on the victimization of so many different groups.  Women are victims because they have been oppressed.  Men are victims because they have been placed on the back burner by the women's movement, Black families are victims because of racism, poor families are victims because of the 1%.  Where are those who manage to NOT be a victim?  Are there any non-victims in the world?  Could that be the 1%?  But they are victims also because are they not Black, or Male, or Female?

Why do we need to have so many victims in our society? Do we need victims so that we can feel good about ourselves?  I think I just have lots of questions here, because it's so non-sensical.  Are we developing victims so we can figure out ways to control others through the government policy? Is that why academics are trying to hard to create hate for the 1%?  So we can use our hate to make them feel bad about being successful so they'll give their wealth away? I know that many people work hard to get wealthy so they can give to others, but why not create a system so all can get wealthy?

One of my friends who is a successful Black woman indicated that she doesn't need anyone to make her a victim, she just wants people and government to get out of her way!  Rather than creating victims, why not focus on those policies that get in the way of people's success?

For example, our constitution focuses on freedom of speech, the rights to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.  The US Constitution is widely considered one of the most brilliant and inspired documents of our time.  Do we accept that or not?

Our Supreme Court ensures that the laws fit with the constitution.  When the Mormon Church comes out and asks for laws that protect their right to religious freedom, what has happened to the constitution?  Who has the right to appeal to an organization to CHANGE their views because your lifestyle doesn't fit with their views?  If an organization chooses to behave in a way that we don't like, DON'T JOIN THAT ORGANIZATION!  Why are we required to pass new laws?

However, does the law control the job market? YES!  The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does require that our workplace is a place where people can go and build a living for themselves and the private family (taking care of others, providing for the future, etc.).  Thus, the government does have a responsibility to ensure that the workplace is a safe environment for everyone (all people regardless of sexual orientation, sex, gender, religious associations, race or ethnicity). Do business have a choice of who they serve?  ABSOLUTELY!  It's to their detriment to exclude people because of their own personal prejudices.  Does government need to be in control of who businesses serve?  I guess that is the question of the day.

If we look at how government may get in the way of people's success, I think that we all need to consider our social responsibilities to the people of this country. If your business uses hazardous chemicals that pollute the environment, then you have a social responsibility to NOT create a hazardous climate for others.  There should be penalties there. Why not frame our laws in a way that focuses on whether or not you are  being socially responsible so that others are not harmed by what you do?

Does this create a victim society?

Education in the US

We just had a discussion in my school age and adolescence class about education in the US.  We watched a TED talk by Sir Robinson who described how the US and the "No Child Left Behind" policy leaves lots of children behind.   He also compared our education system to Finland and noted that we seemed to be focused on the core education principle and all children are the same.  We certainly do seem to be wedded to the manufacturing model.

I have often wondered about this problem we have. Why do we insist on moving children through school based on age graded classrooms?  In all my studies of human development and how children learn, children don't follow a mold, nor do they follow a standard pattern! How do we expect that our children will learn if we are measuring them against STANDARD measures?

Why not try something new?  I keep wondering why we don't move back to classrooms that are not based on ages, but rather based on family relationships, or neighborhoods? Or, just random assignment so that the older children can help the younger children during class. It doesn't matter if you're not reading according to other kids your age, as long as you are learning to read?

Could we stand the idea of NOT using standardized measures?

Political Ideology!!!

It's been a couple of years since I posted last.  However, I am NOT supposed to be opinionated, but I struggle with this sometimes.  I have come to the conclusion that I should post anyway, try to hide my opinion and then let the discussion begin!  I hope that I can disguise my political ideology--mostly because I don't really hold to one ideology...I think we need to allow ourselves more intellectual freedom than aligning ourselves to one party or another.  Once you do, you seem to be locked in and challenged on your beliefs:  "You are not a real ___________" (just fill in the black with...Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Tea Partier, whatever!)

Can anyone answer that question?  Why align with a party?

Role of Social Services

We have recently been talking about our role as social service workers.  Where do you think we should step in when a family isn't doing well; or, what would be the best way to work toward healthy families?

Elections

Election day is tomorrow. I know we will all be glad when we are not assaulted by misinformation about the issues, the candidates, and the policies!  One of the things I have been interested in are serious changes to our government. It will be interesting to see who gets voted in and/or voted out.

Many Utahn's think that Orrin Hatch has been in the Senate too long; however, he barely manages to stay in the race and keep his job in the senate. This year, the issue isn't what Senator Hatch will vote for, but rather whether or not Conservatives maintain their percentage in Congress. If they do, their agenda gets to take priority; if not, then their agenda goes south and the liberal agenda takes priority.

Have you ever voted for an agenda? Or, do you vote for the person? What kinds of changes happen to government if we were to have a one party dominating all of the government?  For example, if there is a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in the Congress? Does it help to have opposite sides represent us?

upcoming election

We are getting closer all the time to the upcoming election.  I am wondering if we can take some time and list some of the issues that are related to family policy that are brought up in the campaigns?  Most importantly, how accurate are the claims made by the candidates and who is checking to see if the claims are true?  Can you find the truth about some of the issues?

I think this could be an excellent exercise in defining what is family policy and what is not. It's also an excellent exercise related to your media analysis.

One that I heard of today was an attack ad on Jim Mattheson (sp?)  The ad claimed that he changed his vote about getting our spending under control, but he voted to lower the debt ceiling.  Is that contradictory?  Is that family policy?

What have you heard?

Presidential Debate

As we move closer to election day, we will be seeing three debates between presidential candidates and one between potential vice-presidents. (OK, one is already Vice President and the other is already President.)

Since we have been discussing the quality of our information, I am curious about what you saw on the debates and your thoughts about the following story:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/viewart/20121003/NEWS03/310030029/Obama-Romney-clash-first-debate

When I read this story, I immediately wondered what you, as class members, thought about it. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the quality of reporting here and the content of the debates.

This is getting exciting!

See you on Tuesday. :)

Determining which topics are Family Policy

Karen Bogenschneider writes in her Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars:

Family policy, a subfield of social policy, encompasses one of four family functions: (a) family creation (e.g., to marry or divorce, to bear or adopt children, to provide foster care), (b) economic support (e.g., to provide for members’ basic needs, (c) childrearing (e.g., to socialize the next generation), and (d) family caregiving (e.g., to provide assistance for the disabled, ill, frail, and elderly). Family policies address issues such as child care, child support, divorce, family violence, juvenile crime, long-term care, and teenage pregnancy. Tax provisions that create a child care tax credit would be considered family policy. However, a tax reform law that lowers taxes for individuals, many of whom happen to live in families, would not be considered family policy. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would be considered family policy. However a universal health care program would not be considered family policy, because it targets individuals, irrespective of whether or not they live in a family setting.

So many things might be considered family policy, but some are not necessarily considered proper discussions for family policy. Since this field is considered a "sub-topic of social policy," what types of policies have we talked about in class might be considered social policy and what might be considered family policy?  

What are the arguments and current topics that are being discussed in this election season that might be considered family policy?  (Hint: see the four basic functions of families).

Media Paper

I see so many issues that are coming up related to the election that not all of them are associated with Family. However, when we are in an election season, which of the candidates share your views of family?  Family Policy is all about the family values that we share as a country.  Part of the problem with the US is that we all come from so many different cultures sharing so few of the same family values that we have a difficult time translating those values into effective public policy.

How would you determine which policies are about family?  Does the recent issue of the killing in Libya connect with Family Policy?

More to come...hint:  Karen Bogenschneider

Timely Ideas

In class last night we talked about possible projects. UPR (USU's NPR network) had an interesting discussion today about Rachel's idea to think about texting and driving as a possible topic. I was fascinated to listen about the tragedy that occurred in Vernal when a driver who was texting hit a young man from the Jr. High and killed him. What a horrific accident!  Texting seems to be on the rise, and it's a great problem to address.

NPR had a couple of guests talking about the issue. They had a Dr. Strayer who has been doing research on the quality of thinking as we text, or multitasking, etc. and another guest who can talk about the issues of policing people who are texting.  You can read the story or listen to the entire discussion at:  http://upr.org/programs/access-utah.

Pay attention to the upcoming membership drive. I'll match your contribution to UPR if you have decided that it's a valuable resource to you!

All Politics are Local

You've heard the saying: "All politics are local?"  I have often wondered about this issue, but recently, I have been thinking about my taxes burden, my house, where I live, and the laws that are in place here.  We get very focused on the national elections when we choose our president, but what really matters is in our local elections and the choices of judges. The judges are the ones who interpret the constitution.

I have been a bit frustrated about how we learn the competence of the judges. I reviewed one of our voting information books, and the review of the judges was based on lawyers interpretation of whether or not the judge came prepared to court, whether or not they were competent, etc. It's not a discussion at all about their values, their judgments, etc. I want to know how the judges rule on certain cases. Are they likely to view the constitution as a "dead" document where we are to follow it by the letter of the law? Or,  are we more likely to view it "living, breathing" document that is adjustable by circumstance and by the "zeitgeist?"

There's a very informative discussion on yahoo about the electoral college if you are interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-could-tie-electoral-college-just-explain-194537108.html#more-id

Democratic National Convention

Once again, I'm into listening to the DNC this week.  It's been a bit harder to catch all of the speeches, but I am able to watch some of the key speakers online. It's amazing how former President Bill Clinton can still inspire so many people. He was quite engaging and an enjoyable speaker. Many pundits were talking about how long his speech was, but it didn't feel that way. I have not been impressed with his sense of self-importance, however.

He did touch on some topics that address the "values" of America. Certainly the issue of whether or not being successful is a shared experience rather than an individual one is an important distinction between Republicans and Democrats. It's a good thing to think about. Do we attribute our success to the fact that America is built on individual's work? Or, do we attribute our success to shared effort?  The fable of the Little Red Hen is an important narrative exposing this "american value." Where does the family fit in to this narrative?

Obama speaks tonight. I am looking forward to hearing his speech.

Republican Convention: part deux

I really enjoyed watching the Republican Convention this past week. I think it's fascinating how the pundits and news reporters discuss what we saw. If you didn't see it, you would have a completely different perspective of the convention depending on who you watch or which station you spend more time listening to. Some of the pundits say that Governor Romney was inspirational and knocked it out of the park. Others say that he didn't get past his "wooden" persona and is out of touch with the regular people.

Some of the people I find caustic and rude. I got to watch a bit of Mrs. Romney's speech and thought she did a lovely job describing her husband as she saw him.  However, I read one reviewer that still believes that the privilege she experienced while going to school, living in a basement apartment, and scraping by isn't the same as others who live in poverty because she always had a back up system of her family. When people don't have family to back you up, or your mother is on drugs and you are raised in foster care, those who haven't lived that life can't relate to those who can.

I wonder if that's true?

Republican Convention

I am really enjoying the Republican convention this week. It's very interesting to listen to values they espouse as "American Values."  It's an interesting thought that an entire group of people can agree on values. I find it even more interesting as I listen to NPR unpack their speeches the next day. Mara Liasson (whom I very much admire) pointed out that Ryan's speech discussed how Obama's stimulus didn't save one of the GM plants. However, Liasson indicated that the plant was scheduled to be closed before Obama took office. It's an interesting question.

I love it that there are "fact checkers" who are validating these speeches. If the fact checkers point out that the plant was scheduled to close BEFORE Obama took office but didn't close until a few months AFTER he took office, should Obama be held accountable for not being able to close the plant?  True, he claimed that he could save jobs and keep plants from closing, but does that invalidate Ryan's statement?

Intellectual Laziness

I find it interesting that during an election season, many pundits, candidates and their supporters are charged with intellectual laziness. It's an interesting situation when we are charged with determining who is to lead our country. I think that our values speak louder than our intellect when we are determining such things, and I think that the candidates and their election team like to take advantage of us for the same things.

For example, I was just looking at a democratic website asking Romney to share his tax returns. He already shared his last year returns according to law, so why should more matter? Are his tax returns critical to making a decision about who is going to be a good president?  Personally, I am more curious about what kinds of laws he passed or signed into law in the state of MASSACHUSETTS when he was governor. Why are we not getting more information about that?  Conversely, why are we not hearing about  Obama's policies that he signed into law? What about the ones he requested but didn't get signed because of congress? I am still curious about why he brought us into the war in Afghanistan when we are now seeing soldiers being killed by their "trainees."  Why are we not talking about that? Why are we not talking about closing Guantanimo?

Our founders made sure that the President doesn't have too much power, but we certainly attribute a great deal of power to our president. There are many things that the president can control, but there are a great deal of things that he cannot since the Congress has much to do with what bills get passed, etc. Why are we not asking more questions about how the President can work with Congress? How well did Romney work with the MASSACHUSETTS state legislators? What's Obama's record?

Our values may be getting in the way of making a good decision in this election. I read an article recently in Salon.com that described our fascination with these "side stories" a matter of intellectual laziness. Is it? Can you find some evidence of intellectual laziness in some of the news stories about the upcoming election?

Sex Education in the Schools

The Governor just vetoed the Sex Education bill that passed during our legislative session. The bill required schools to teach abstinence only. However; right now, Utah has an "opt in" policy that means parents have to CHOOSE to allow their children to participate in the sex education in the schools.  They are still pretty strict in what they can teach, this bill just took the limitations one step further.

First, the supporters of the bill provided a pretty good argument that sex education should be taught by the parents and that students who learned abstinence only (according to their studies) tended to delay sex for longer.

The opponents of the bill suggested that the children should be armed with all the information they can get in order to NOT get STD's or get pregnant.

Where do you stand on this? Are you glad the governor vetoed the bill? Do you wish he hadn't?  What do you know about sex education and premarital sex?

I'd LOVE to hear from you!@
s

Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional

We just heard over the news that Caliornia's supreme court has ruled that the popular vote to pass California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This brings up an interesting question. We are NOT a democracy. We are a representative government. A democracy requires rules by popular vote. However, we are also bound by the constitution.

If, the people vote on something like Gay marriage, then the courts over-rule it...which is considered more valid. The courts or the people's views?

Families and Government

I caught the last part of the State of the Union address last night. Then I listened to the Republican rebuttal. I found it interesting that the Governor of Indianapolis thought to praise Obama for his dedication to family and spending time with them.

Michelle Obama is working on healthy diets for kids as her project while in the White House.  There are some guidelines created by the federal government about the quality of school lunches, etc.  Have the school lunches changed in the past 40 years?  Has the menu at home changed in the last 40 years?  What is the role of government in helping families to eat better?