As previously stated, higher education is sought for different reasons. Each potential student has their own reasons for its pursuit and there is no doubt that education at a higher level is expensive. There is not just the cost of the tuition to consider. Living expenses whilst at study, hidden costs like student unions and parking and the actual study materials like text books also contribute to the expense. The thought of attending a university is tantamount to an impending battle to a new student. The harder curriculum and discipline required is forbidding to say the least. Therefore, with these pressures upon them, it is not fair to add the financial burden as well.

The government argues that it does not expect an Australian student to bear the entire cost. At the moment, the federal government covers approximately sixt percent of the cost of a university degree. It also contends that schemes such as the Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS) and the Youth Allowance or Austudy are designed to encourage potential students to enter the higher education arena. While this may be true, it is a fact that the Government has tightened the Youth Allowance and Austudy eligibility requirements which has made it harder for students to support themselves while at university. Private scholarships awarded to students to assist with their fees are now counted as income by Centerlink. Therefore, the amount of a a students Youth Allowance is affected. These changes have a number of implications on the equity of higher education.

If a student is ineligible for either the Youth Allowance or Austudy, their avenues to university become limited. They could become reliant on their parents for an even longer period of time. After having been supported by their parents for many years already, students may be reluctant to access their family’s assistance as a means of financial support through university. They could also be forced to seek part-time employment to subsidise their costs. Not only could this take jobs away from the unemployed, but it also places the student under increased pressure. If a student is working as well as studying, the inevitable conclusion is that there is less time for study. This could result in a poorer academic record than those students who do not have to work part-time. It can also mean that a student is fatigued and not at the peak of their learning capacity. Marshall maintains that due to scholarships being counted as income, a lot of students are even giving up this avenue of help because they cannot afford to live on the reduced amount of Youth Allowance.

A higher education cost to a student does have its positives. The fact that they have to support themselves, with or without parental help, can be empowering to a student. Feelings of self-satisfaction and confidence can result. It can also teach them, in a way that no amount of schooling can, how to budget and manage money. In terms of their education, few things affect a student’s ability to manage their time like a lack of it. With time to be devoted to work and study, students often become better organised and this skill and the other positives can be carried through for the rest of their lives. However, many of these plusses can become swept away due to pressure felt by the student to keep up the juggling that is caused by the need to meet the higher education costs.

It has been argued by Chapman that when deciding to go to university, factors like parental education and academic results feature more strongly than the economic factors. In direct contrast to this statement are the figures released after the Youth Allowance changes in 1998. After the changes, some thirty-five percent of students who were previously receiving Youth Allowance dropped out of higher education after becoming ineligible. This shows that the cost of higher education for these students placed it out of reach and so impacts on its equity.

HECS is a system that was designed to make higher education more feasible for economically disadvantaged students. It works on the principle that students defer their tuition fees and pay them back once they reach a predetermined salary. The unfortunate side-effect of this scheme is that students are often daunted by the thought of this debt and so don’t see university as a practical path. HECS is also promoted as an interest free loan to students. On the other hand, a twenty-five percent discount is offered to students for payment up-front. Effectively, this means that students who defer are being charged a flat rate of twenty-five percent interest on their tuition fees. Current rates of HECS accumulations incur approximately 1.7 billion dollars in HECS liabilities for the Government. Although this money is paid back through the tax system, the government is proposing reforms to the HECS system in order to increase the amount of HECS a student pays. On their website, the Department of Education, Science and Training states that the new reforms will, amongst other things, encourage equity within Australian universities. This could prove not to be the case. With students already deterred by the current HECS debt, an increased debt of a proposed thirty percent could further erode student confidence and university equity.

Norton states that the government currently engenders a net profit through the application of higher education costs. It does this through the repayments of the HECS debt through the tax system and by the increased revenue supplied by graduates higher tax amounts. It then uses part of this profit as revenue to continue to subsidise higher education for the students which is an encouragement for future students. Unfortunately, if they push ahead with the plan to increase the HECS debt, it could result in less students being able to attend university. Bruce Chapman, the creator of the HECS system, believes that the changes to the system will also cause a number of full-time students to drop out due to the rising costs. This could cause a vicious circle where the government can’t fill the university places due to the cost of a degree. It would then be less likely to make the net profit that is required to continue to subsidise higher education and so could continue to increase the cost. These effects on students and the equity of universities are just some of the ramifications that the costs of higher education have on students and their studies.

There is certainly no doubt that government subsidisation of higher education has advantages for many areas. Students gain a better career, which usually equates to a better salary. Other benefits are a potentially better social position and the ability to pass their experiences of university on to their children. Because of these benefits, it is argued that taxpayers shouldn’t be responsible for a student’s education. However, graduates enjoy a higher rate of employment than non-graduates. Appendix A shows the labour force participation and unemployment rates of both sexes and is divided into two age groups. The table shows people who have only basic skills are more than twice as likely to be unemployed than a graduate with a Bachelor degree. This confirms higher education as a benefit to a student. It also confirms that subsidisation is beneficial to the community. Because of the high rate of employment of graduates, they are able to start paying their HECS debt as soon as they become employed – provided their income is over the income threshold. Also, as previously stated, students who do defer and depend on the taxpayer to fund their education actually pay a penalty of twenty-five percent on top of their tuition costs for this convenience.

A follow through effect of this higher rate of employment are the benefits that it has to the government. With graduates of higher education more likely to be employed, this helps to keep the unemployment figures down. Another benefit of the subsidisation of higher education is the returns that the government makes upon its investment. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records that in the year 2000, 695 500 people were studying in an either full-time, part-time or external capacity. It is conservatively estimated that a graduate will earn over $622 000 in their lifetime. On an income that size, the tax rate is approximately fifty cents in the dollar which equates to tax revenue for the government of approximately $311000 per student. Multiply this by the number of students in the year 2000 alone and the figure that the government is earning for its investment is over $219 billion dollars. This benefit far outweighs any deficiency perceived in government subsidies for higher education.

The minimising of higher education costs to students can also have benefits to society as well. As well as helping to keep unemployment rates down, it can also flow on to the type of people that society is producing. Norton acknowledges that higher education can have a stabilising effect on society. It improves the knowledge base and as previously mentioned, spans across the generations. A study conducted by Monash University shows that the highest percentage of undergraduates had fathers in the professional field. This confirms the beneficial effect that government subsidisation of higher education can have on society. As well as producing stability, undergraduates are the potential leaders of tomorrow. By keeping the costs of higher education as low as possible, the government is creating the people with the skills to take over the running of the establishment.

In conclusion, the concerns regarding the cost of higher education to students are complex. The issue are relevant to students, the government and society. Government schemes such as HECS and Youth Allowance are designed to encourage students to attend tertiary studies but changes to both systems are making it increasingly harder for students. The extra costs places on students can have benefits. The non-material results of the financial pressure can produce a person who has more to offer to society and the workplace due to the challenges they have met. Unfortunately, these benefits are often not considered when students are faced with the financial pressure that higher costs can bring. The HECS reforms are also making students reluctant to enter higher education especially with the increase of debt after university. However, in spite of this, the government subsidisation of higher education does have its positives. The material benefits to a student such as a better job and higher salary can be added to the non-material benefits. This can results in a person much better equipped to handle employment and life in general than one who has not had those pressures to cope with. The benefits to the government in terms of increased tax revenue also outweigh the expense cause by higher education subsidisation. Finally, the benefits to society in terms of an increased quality of education and lower unemployment rates also offset the cost to taxpayers. Governments and taxpayers need to see that an investment in higher education is an investment in the future.

Lack of personal responsibility is the most troubling problem in America at the moment. From frivolous lawsuits to murderers who were egged on or just lost control, people these days seem to have excuses and scapegoats for every problem they face.

“You have to go to private school in Alabama,” says an acquaintance of mine. “Colleges don’t like transcripts from public schools in Alabama.” As ignorant, closed-minded and overall atrocious that comment sounds it was spoken and is the attitude of more than one American I’m afraid.

Private schools are any one of a multitude of educational alternatives. Six million American schoolchildren attend private school. Don Erikson has identified 15 major categories of private schools: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Seventh Day Adventist, independent, Episcopal, Greek Orthodox, Quaker, Mennonite, Calvinist, Evangelical, Assembly of God, special education, alternative, and military. A stereotypical prep school is included as well as a tiny school in California where students live in self-made shacks, cook their meals, and study poetry in the forest. The overwhelming difference between public and private schools is that most private schools are focused primarily on academics while public schools tend to be more social, vocational, and academically equal.

One of the most appalling statistics about private schools is along racial lines. Approximately 46 percent of private schools enroll less than 5 percent minority students. So, despite what private school advocates are yelling, the private school experience is in no means adequate to teach students about other races or cultures. Reading information in a book is no comparison to actually being in contact and sharing with people of other races, cultures and backgrounds. Along with student diversity, public schools also employ a greater percentage of minority teachers and principles. Minorities represent 12 percent of teachers and 16 percent of principals in public schools. In private schools the numbers are 9 percent teachers and 8 percent principles.

Along with racial problems, the private schools of America are harbors of status and wealth. While 29 percent of children in public school receive subsidized lunches from the government the number is only 6 percent in private schools. Parents who believe they are sending their kids to better schools are often misinformed. Many public schools far outperform their private counterparts. Some private schools even lack accreditation to award recognized diplomas.
One statistic that I find points to the adequacy of public schools is that public schools are more likely to have libraries than private schools. Not only libraries but also computers, Internet access, cable TV, and broadcast TV. This is especially intriguing to me because libraries are a more-than-integral part of the learning process.

Let’s get to the key aspect of education, family background and support. In study after study done by sociologists, students with strong family support perform better than others. The reason for this is simple. Education has more to do with expectations set at home and help along the way from family than the type of school you go to. Richard Murnane, a researcher of education, states that the reason private school students do better on tests is because “They come from more advantaged homes and bring more skills to school with them.” A child who’s parents neglect them will wind up performing poorer in school regardless of the type of school they attend.

One issue that makes comparing public and private schools difficult is the ability for private schools to be selective. This leads many people to argue that private schools don’t teach better they just have better students. A private school is able to pick and choose whom they wish to admit with minimal government interference, i.e. affirmative action. They can eliminate the troublemakers and poor students, leaving them for the public school system to deal with. I’ve never attended a private school. I have friends who have and they seem well enough. My problem with private schools lies less in fact than in reason. I can’t understand thinking a school isn’t appropriate for your child but is for others just down the street. What is that telling kids? In essence it’s instilling an elitist attitude in them from the very beginnings of their education. I never attended private school but I was always a part of the extra, once a week programs for the “gifted” kids throughout elementary school. We got out of class, in some cases got bussed to other locations and worked on activities we wouldn’t have had a chance too in our “normal” class. There were some kids who thought they were better than the other kids and there were kids that didn’t. When I was in 5th grade our extend teacher gave us a speech at the beginning of the year that really hit me. She told the story of the detention center high school kids who helped build our facility. She said they achieved something great. Were they better than us? No. Were we better than them? No. We were just different. I’ve noticed myself at time in the past taking a negative view towards people who didn’t understand things or who saw things differently and I’ve tried to train myself out of it. It’s a bad feeling to realize you’re closed-minded.

I believe that instead of sending their kids away from “inadequate” schools, parents should become involved in the education community and work to improve their town or city as a whole. The “I’ve got mine” attitude that is permeating the nation is not a welcome sign for our future. I’m not calling for the national adoption of hippie communes, I’m just saying that people shouldn’t be so quick to attempt to solve their worries or problems with money or status and put some real effort into their lives.

For example, if you click on the “Office Button” you are able to select “word options” and then go to “proofing.” Once in the proofing section, you have a number of settings you can change to enable you to have better success with the Spelling and Grammar check in the Review tab. In this way, your essay can be reviewed for success with less work from yourself, because these settings advice you of mix-ups in terms, formatting errors, grammar errors, and spelling errors. In addition, in the final block after the checking of the document, you will be able to see what the grade level of your essay is and through use of the thesaurus and review of your paragraph structures, you may improve this level after practice.

Finally, your higher education essays will need to demonstrate your ability to develop research. Your school will most likely have an online library database that allows you to search through records quickly and effectively. If you use this source, the final the step will be implementing information and carefully evaluating your work for errors.

Your particular essay may not address a new need, but may address the needs of all people and students to have a successful education. In this way, you need to develop research that demonstrates how an education will assist students in the future. For example, you may determine that your essay will demonstrate how important it is to develop educational systems similar to those of home-taught children. These are theories that have been considered for many years; however, today we have even more statistics and evidence that defend the academic values of this type of learning. While writing your essay, find research from your school library that provides you with the needed research to be successful.

Finally, your essay will be developed to demonstrate higher learning skills and application, but even critical thinking. Most educators are required to meet far higher standards than ever before in history, this is based on the need to embrace critical thinking as a focal point for most education. Your essay should demonstrate this strength in your writing.

When you select a good education essay idea remember to keep it simple, it will get complicated and out-of-hand very quickly if you do not monitor your topic. For example, if you select to write an essay about the desire of the US to begin all year schooling, you may wish to decide first which side of the argument you agree with, and then only select one or two aspects of the argument to discuss.

A number of issues are revolving around globalization and diversity where educational needs demonstrate a future where all people will need to be able to successfully interact with each other. If you select this topic, also remember that diversity in school systems takes on a number of needs. You will need to determine which of these you will address and stay on topic.

These are just a couple of ideas that can quickly turn into dozens of ideas in a paper; however, all educational ideas have a number of “sides” a number of related theories, and even more needs as identified by current policies and agendas

Additionally, your study is very important to the success of your good education thesis. Your study may be done through an educational source – such as a college, local school district, or even through an organization, that creates curriculum. Before deciding on which type of study you will conduct, check with sources and potential organizations to ensure that they are willing to participate in your study. This is essential because if you gather a lot of research for a study you cannot complete, you may have to spend hours revising or even restarting your education thesis paper.

Your education thesis is important to your degree program, you need it to be the best possible thesis, and with organization and patience, you can demonstrate why you are the best candidate for a new job position as well as the degree you are earning. Spend a few hours every day working on your thesis and even find someone to assist you with editing so that you know you are not missing anything. Now you know exactly how to be good at Education thesis writing.

In May of 2003 the University of Michigan was sued by a group of white applicants who were denied admission to the University’s graduate school because they were white. The main focus behind this lawsuit was whether affirmative action should take place in college admission policies. The facts disclosed that less qualified applicants of diverse minorities with lower test scores were admitted at the expense of better-qualified white applicants. The University of Michigan did not deny the plaintiff’s claim and argued that diversity is an essential element of current American society. Over 50 public corporations including Microsoft, Intel, General Motors, Exxon, and Texaco supported the University of Michigan’s position by filing “friend of the court” briefs claiming corporations need a more culturally diverse work force to meet the needs of their multi-cultural clientele ( Hawkins). David Wilkins, director of global diversity at Dow Chemical Company claimed, “the reason Dow and other companies support University of Michigan is because it is right, good and beneficial for the educational environment” (Parker). In another quote “our customer base is extremely diverse and it is important that our workforce represent the diversity of our customers,” claims Randall Mehrberg, the executive vice president for Exxon Corp” (Becker).

These corporations have little motive to support the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy other than attempting to gain social status among the minorities and liberals. Bill Gates, president of Microsoft, is a believer in affirmative action in higher education systems. In 1999 Gates began a twenty-year billion-dollar scholarship fund program. However he openly said that all white students are void from these scholarships (Williams 1). It is an appalling and racist act, when one of the world’s wealthiest men feels a need to intentionally discriminate against disadvantaged white children. The message Gates put out says either there are no deserving underprivileged white students in the country or that race is the most important standard for determining charity. This clearly is reverse discrimination in action.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan by a six to three vote, however the University can no longer use its current admissions point system or a quota system.
This quota system that the University of Michigan and many other universities used was based on a 150-point scale. Minorities were awarded an automatic 20 extra points towards the 150 just for applying. (Zeman 4). The most absurd part is that a perfect SAT and ACT score is only worth twelve points each. Therefore a genius, with a perfect score on their SAT and ACT receives 24 points while a minority student scoring a twelve on the ACT and a 930 on the SAT is awarded 32 points. A racial quota like this should not exist anywhere in today’s modern society particularly in higher education. In a public response to this issue, President George Bush said “students who accumulate 100 points are generally admitted, so those 20 points awarded solely based on race are often the decisive factor “(Bush 1). “Bush called the University of Michigan’s race-based admissions policies unfair, and said he was intervening in the Supreme Court case examining their constitutionality”(Flores). The United States Supreme Court basically ruled against university quotas per se, however the court manufactured a new theory of law establishing a concept of protected diversity.

Realizing how corrupt affirmative action can be, the Texas Circuit Court of Appeals banned state universities from the ability to use affirmative action in their admission process in 1996. With the U.S. Supreme Court being the supreme law of the land according to the U.S. Constitution, the University of Michigan court ruling unfortunately put the Texas court ruling to an end. The University of Michigan filed by the white applicants against racial quotas actually made it possible for Texas universities to once again use affirmative action in its admission process. A liberal school like the University of Texas did not hesitate at such an opportunity as they already began adding affirmative action to their admission policy (Affirmative 1).

During the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberation on the University of Michigan case, the top ten percent rule in the State of Texas was notably discussed. President George Bush had an interest in the top ten percent rule because he signed the rule into law while Governor of Texas. President Bush argued that his affirmative access program is not a racial quota. The rule allows the admission of the top ten percent of each high school’s students to Texas universities. The President claimed this rule is a better alternative than racial quotas or affirmative action. Regardless of the size of their high school any student whose grade point average ranks in the schools top ten percent are qualified for acceptance. Parenthetically, the discussion in the University of Michigan case was whether the top ten percent rule in Texas is considered a quota.

In a large well-educated high school with hundreds if not thousands of students per class, the top ten percent rule may work well. However, a class of 15 to 150 students in a much poorly educated district the law is not fair. A likely ten percent drop off point for the large high school is a 3.8 grade point average while it is close to a 3.0 in the smaller less educated school. This is a clear disadvantage for the students in the larger school. A less educated student with a 15 on his act but a 3.0 in his small high school will be automatically accepted to a University whose ACT requirement is 24. It’s much harder to argue this point for a student in a well-educated school with a 3.8 grade point average. President Bush argues that the Texas top ten percent rule provides for diversity. The reason the President feels that way is very simple because the ten percent rule is colorblind. This gets to the essence of diversity verses excellence, allowing excellence to prevail.

Foreign and minority students applying for admission to any American university has a very good chance of acceptance. Many of these foreign and minority students are well qualified and deserve to be admitted. Nevertheless the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the University of Michigan case changes the entire playing field. By establishing the new legal principle of law saying diversity should be protected, this means that diversity takes precedent over excellence. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically said we are going to promote, advance, and protect diversity because many people in America feel that diversity is the best interest in our nation. While there may not be anything wrong with promoting diversity per se, when diversity is promoted at the expense of excellence in simply cannot be considered to be in the best interest in the United States of America. Excellence should be promoted not discouraged. In our politically correct society it appears that large universities that promote diversity appear to receive more respect from the media, the academic and liberal segments of our society. This is to be expected because these same entities are on the front battle lines of nearly every social change being advocated from abortion, homosexuality, and secular society. Today, colleges with large diversities appear to receive more respect throughout the nation for giving “others” the opportunity to succeed. Nationality, race, gender, and religion should be irrelevant. Just as no one should be discriminated against neither should anyone receive a special benefit such as a quota because of their race, gender, or religion. Acceptance and advancement in life should be primarily based on performance, qualification, and ability. Therefore ACT scores, SAT scores, high school grades, transferred college grades, and their extra curricular activities should be the only consideration granted.

It is inaccurate and unfair for a university to be labeled racist or prejudiced if their students turn out to be primarily white. Universities claiming above ninety percent non-white students such as Grambling State, Hampton University and others never hear complaints about their “need” to diversify. These schools do not have many white students and yet they are not targets of the “diversity at any cost” Klan. These schools are considered historical and no one challenges their diversity or lack there of. An Internet or newspaper search relating to black colleges comes up with an advertisement of all so-called “diverse” schools such as Grambling State and Hampton University. However when using the same search procedure for white colleges emphasis is placed on the need for white colleges to diversify and much is made about minority struggles at primarily white schools. Most predominately white schools will not claim to educate only white students and will welcome qualified foreign and minority students. However most black colleges claim that pure African American education and campus life is their goal. Today it is acceptable to have Black Entertainment Television, black magazines, black sororities and fraternities, and black schools, but anything labeled white-only is considered prejudice. Bill Thomas, Hampton University’s director of governmental relations, talked about the Michigan lawsuit saying “Hampton University will… bring people home when they’re not welcome elsewhere. Black people need to come home. We’ve got to do for ourselves.” This comment proves how conflicted affirmative action followers can be (Gaona 1).

Who is right when it comes to universities using affirmative action for admission? Easy question. The white students who challenged the University of Michigan’s admissions quotas are right. These students clearly had the better qualifications to be accepted over the minority students. Nevertheless the better-qualified white applicants were denied admission. Our nation will never put race “behind us” and make it a thing of the past if actions like this and affirmative action exist. Justice Thomas, a black U.S. Supreme Court judge, was against the Supreme Court’s ruling in the University of Michigan’s case. “Thomas called affirmative action a “cruel farce of racial discrimination” and a “faddish slogan of the [elite].” (Kelly 2). Ruban Duran, a Hispanic student of the University of Michigan claimed, “I would have wanted to see the University of Michigan’s policies knocked down. I would have liked to see an end to the use of racial preferences in college admissions. Period” (Washington 1). Ward Connerly a black founder of the conservative American Civil Rights Institute said “it is about ending preferences on the basis of race…affirmative action hurts minorities by presuming they are inadequate” (Shine 1). These quotes prove that members of various minorities also see the fallacy of affirmative action and believe that it will lead to greater racial mistrust.

The battle between diversity and excellence is in its infancy. Just as infants grow up and change throughout their lives, the conflict between diversity and excellence will also develop. We attempt to teach our infants to do their best at everything they do. Likewise we should teach our infants not to find excuses to justify their lack of success. Just as everyone should have the right to rise to the level of their competency, regardless of their race (even whites), everyone should also have the right and the probability that they will rise to the level of their incompetence.

According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules, any player under scholarship is forbidden from having a full-time or part-time job (David Nelson). Thus, college athletes do not have an opportunity to earn extra money as the majority of students do. Scholarship is their only way of having money, but it hardly covers education fees, not saying about personal needs. College athletes the same as other students need to buy food, cloths, spend money to rent an apartment or to entertain with friends. Though they do not have a chance to earn such money since they spend most of their time in the gym or in sporting area while exercising, training or playing games among the universities, thus, bringing large amount of money to the universities. In such a way, universities should also take care about those who bring additional funds to them.

Many people claim that big money will prevent college athletes from studies because they will feel superiority over others in money, power, reputation, etc. Also they will need to think about additional things that will prevent them from athletic and academic schedules. There is also an opinion that usually college athletes leave the college earlier in order to participate in the professional sports. Thus, many athletes do not finish their education. They have a good job that brings good money, that is why, they do not even think about completing their courses or graduating from the universities. At the same time some people offer that if college athletes are paid, it is less obvious that they will leave university early.

In the current debate whether to pay college athletes or not, those who have financial needs should be taking into account as well. Since they decided to continue their sport career they expect help and support from the university they study in or some outside sponsor. Otherwise, they can quit sport career for the job in order to earn money for surviving. In such a way, university as well as sport industry loose a very talented and perspective athlete.

Missouri Valley Conference Commissioner Doug Elgin states that there are at least two organizations that provide financial help to all students, including students-athletes and those who are in need. These are NCAA’s Special Assistance and Trust Fund. Doug Elgin as well as Saluki men’s basketball Coach Rich Herrin agrees that paying athletes would not prevent some of them from moving to professional ranks before they graduate. Professional sports provide not only big money, but also fame, which is very important for young athletes as well. During the last years in college many talented athletes meet with potential sponsors who try to insure them to enter this or that team. Sponsors promise good life, fame, big money, luxury car, expensive apartment, etc. All these things are very attractive for young athletes. Their heads are spinning of such large amount of opportunities that they never face before. No wonder that many young athletes choose this good life instead of opportunity to continue their education. “Why should I study further if even now without complete education I can earn such big money?” – some of them would ask. In some extent they are right. Though being so young and faced with great opportunities they forget about the importance of education in “adult life”. What if their sport career will not last long because of some reasons? What they will do outside sports without high education? Thus, the further question occurs: how to insure young athletes that even being perspective sportsmen they still need to finish their education and graduate from the universities? Only some of them understand the importance of education.

Though the controversy deals with the question whether to pay college athletes or not. SIUC junior guard Troy Hudson offers that weekend jobs or summer jobs that do not affect athlete’s athletic and academic schedules could be beneficial. Despite the opposition, which claims that financial aid such as Pell Grant provides support for needy college athletes, Hudson still proves that paying college athletes would make a big difference in preventing them from leaving school early in order to enter the pros. It is well-known fact that most of the players who leave school early do this because of the financial need. That is why, if college athletes are paid there is a chance that more athletes will stay in school for four years, thus, complete their education.

As Debbie Schlussel states, current restrictions prevent athletes from accepting any kind of compensation for their athletic abilities. Otherwise, they will be disqualified from competing at the collegiate level. As it was written above, college athletes are prohibited from taking outside employment. Though recently NCAA issued Proposition 62 that includes an opportunity for college athletes to earn up to $1,500 per year. Actually, this Proposition has to be implemented years ago, but was delayed because of the opposition. In addition the opposition claims that it is not fair if college athletes are paid while other “extra-curricular” activities like school drama or playing some music instrument is unpaid. Though athletes’ supporters give evidence that only athletics provides universities with enormous revenues and only college athletes are prohibited from earning additional satisfactory income while enrolled.

At the same time college athletes in comparison with other students have more responsibility towards the university they study in. First of all, it is because they play in the college or university teams, thus, responsible not only for the efficiency of their game, but also for the image and prestige of the university. In such a way, athletes face with ‘adult’ issues much earlier than other students. College athletes start to think about their career and future life earlier since their performance in university team might greatly influence on the opportunity to be chosen to the pros and later the opportunity for good career, big money and fame.

Many people who state that college athletes live a good life and do not need extra money do not even think about psychological aspect of this issue. Ryan Keith argue that young talented college athletes happen to be between the opportunity to continue their education further or start playing in the pros and get big money, thus, perhaps, never finish the education at all. Being in such situation young people whose personality still develops feel great tension from outside: parents, team coach, friends, and potential sponsors. Their decision is very important for future life. That is why, in many cases this decision is very hard to make. Though lack of money to live or continue education should not influence their decision whether to go to professional sports or stay in school to finish education. That is why, college athletes should be paid, at least, some reasonable amount of money that allows them to make their decisions freely and continue their athletic and academic education. College athletes should feel compensation for those hours they spend in the gym while other students have an opportunity to earn extra money. Financial support might help college athletes to continue their athletic and academic schedules without harming any of them. National Collegiate Athletic Association should take all opinions and needs of students-athletes into account before making the final decision whether to pay college athletes or not. Whatever the decision is, it should consider rights and needs of college athletes as well as opportunities in their future life.

Those who argue that elementary students should be required to wear uniforms are forgetting that we are still living in America. If a parent wants his/her child to wear a uniform, then they should send the child to a private school. Then all elementary students won’t have to wear uniforms just because other parents want their own child to wear a uniform.

Numerous people, myself included, don’t concur that elementary students should have to wear uniforms, because it could take their uniqueness away, it is called Freedom of Expression! Parents also argue that wearing uniforms could be too sheltering and could lower a child’s self esteem. Here is one anonymous student’s idea about uniforms; Uniforms are all about making all the kids the same… Hey, why don’t we just get rid of names? Numbers are easier. We’ll give them numbers. So it is my belief that student shouldn’t be made to wear uniforms unless they attend a private school.

On the other side of this dispute, I recognize why parents, teachers, and public schools would like to enforce this uniform dress code. Parents would like it so there is no discrimination between who wears what, being equal with the other children in the school and so there is a slimmer chance of the parents’ children to get labeled. Teachers also have a good reason for wanting uniforms, simply so that teachers don’t have to repeatedly tell the children what they can and cannot wear. Schools want this for similar reasons as both teachers and parents. Here are some questions you might ask yourself; is this a helpful thing? Does it reduce conflict among students based on their ability to wear the latest fashions? Does it allow them to concentrate on schoolwork? So even though I do not support uniforms in public schools there are good reasons for them.

Even though some people claim that they do not care whether grade school children wear uniforms or not, most people do care about a dress code. And most public schools have a dress code, which most likely doesn’t allow little girls to wear spaghetti straps, or the girls’ shorts and skirts aren’t too short. Boys are not allowed to have chains for wallets or watches, because a chain is considered a weapon. This is what uniforms try to enforce and get rid of. That’s fine, but taking it to public schools is going too far.

Uniformity in elementary schools should not be allowed because of all the reasons I already stated. Because in America, the land of the free, we really shouldn’t make elementary school students wear uniforms unless the children were sent to a private school, where uniforms belong.

Although goals are important guides in education, they cannot be directly observed or evaluated; rather, they are broad statements that denote a desired and valued competency, a theme or concern that applies to education in general. Sometimes the most general goals are called aims. Goals or aims are formulated at the national and state levels, often by prestigious commissions or task forces. Goals at the school district level begin to narrow in focus. For example, a school district goal related to the national goal of school readiness might be that “all children will have access to high –quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs that help prepare children for school.” Goals at the school level usually narrow in focus even more, translating national, state, and district goals in to statement that coincide more closely either the philosophy and priorities of the local school community. By describing what schooling is intended to accomplish, goals provide a direction, but they are too vague for teachers and students to apply directly in the classroom. Thus for classroom use, goals must be translated into more specific objectives.

Objectives are generally written at three levels of instruction: subject/grade level, unit plan level, and lesson plan level. In practice, most educators at the classroom level organize instruction with a combination of general and specific objectives in mind. General objectives are characterized by “end” terms such as to know, learn, understand, comprehend, and appreciate. At the level of the individual lesson plan, objectives usually become very specific.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
We live in an era when educators and the public at large are questioning the purposes of American education. To understand this debate, we need to know how education purposes have developed and changed over the years. Proponents of the mental discipline approach believed that the mind is strengthened through meant activities, just as the body is strengthened by exercising. The more difficult the subject and the more the studied had to exercise the mind, the greater the value of the subject. This approach established a curriculum hierarchy, from elementary school through college that promoted academics and college preparation ignoring the majority of students who were not made for college.

In contrast to the perennialist philosophy and mental discipline approach that prevailed before WWI, the period from WWI until after WWII was dominated by the philosophy of progressivism and the science of child psychology, emphasis was placed on the whole-child concept and on life adjustment. The prevailing view held that schools must be concerned with the growth and development to the entire child, not just with certain selected mental aspects. Goals related to cognitive or mental growth had to share the stage with other important purposes of education, including goals involving social, psychological, vocational, moral and civic development.

During the era of the Cold War and the Soviet Sputnik flight (1957), international events gave major emphasis to the U.S. movement to reexamine academic disciplines as the focus of schooling. The country was appalled ant the notion of losing technological superiority to the Soviets; national pride was challenged, and national goals were threatened. Influenced by the perennialilst and essentialist theories of education, critics called for a return to academic essentials and mental discipline. The National Defense Education Act singled out science, mathematics, modern languages and guidance. The new educational climate included and increasing emphasis on providing topnotch education for the academically talented child. The scientific community, university scholars, and curriculum specialists were called upon to reconstruct subject-matter content, especially on the high-school level, while government and foundation sources provided the funds.

During the 1960’s the social conscience of America burst forth, bringing increased concern about poverty, racial discrimination, and equal educational opportunity. In this new climate new education priorities surfaced, often related to the progressive and social conscience of America burst forth, bringing increased concern about poverty, racial discrimination, and equal educational opportunity. The focus on disadvantaged students extended into the 1980’s and was expanded to include multicultural and bilingual students and students with disabilities. During the 1970s and 1980s, much concern also surfaced for special education especially for students with learning disabilities or other special needs. The cornerstone of these new policies and programs was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1975. This legislation mandated a free and appropriate public education for all children and youth with disabilities. The act was amended in 1986 to extend the full rights and protection of this law to children aged three through five.

By the 1990’s the term at risk began to replace the older term disadvantaged, and the definition of students covered by the term has continued to expand. A category of the “new needy” has emerged, including homeless children, cracked-exposed babies, and children of migrant workers. Some educators would further expand the at-risk category to include students who fall into any of these groups; (1) abused or neglected, (2) substance addicted, (3) pregnant, (4) gang or cult members, (5) HIV virus infected or (6) living in a single-parent family.

These needs are recognized in the first goal of the National Education Goals, which stated that “by the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn. Finally, as the late 1980’s and 1990’s brought increase demands for the educational accountability, many argued that education should focus more clearly on outcomes or outputs – that is, on meaningful, measurable academic results- rather than on inputs such as money, programs, efforts, and intentions. As a result of this new focus, twenty-five states have developed or implemented as outcomes-based education (OBE) approach, and eleven others have made outcomes a part of the state assessment process. Some fear that it emphasizes affective outcomes and critical thinking to the detriment of religious faith and family values. Others claim that OBE promotes minimal academic standards, “dumbing down” the curriculum.

THE CALL FOR EXELENCE
By the early 1980’s national attention began to focus on the need for educational excellence and higher academic standards for all students – particularly the neglected “average” student – and not just the disadvantaged or the talented. To support their proposals, the reports have presented devastating details and statistics indicating a serious decline in American education. For example, one, average achievement scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test declined steadily from 1963 to 1995. By 1996 only 24 percent of eighth-grade students achieved math competency for their grade level. International comparisons of student achievement in the last two decade have revealed that on nineteen academic tests U.S. students were never first or second and were last seven times. Some 21 to 23 percent of the 191 million U.S. adults are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading and writing. These problems have occurred despite a relatively good student-teacher ratio: approximately 16 to 1 students per teacher in the U.S., compared to ratios of over 25 to 1 in Japan and Korea.

All of these reports emphasize the need to strengthen the curriculum in the core subjects of English, math, science, foreign language, and social studies. The reports further emphasize tougher standards and tougher courses, and majorities propose that colleges raise their admission requirements. Most of the reports also talk about increasing homework, time for learning, and time in school, as well as instituting more rigorous grading, testing, homework, and discipline. They mention upgrading teacher certification, increasing teacher salaries, and providing merit pay for outstanding teachers. Overall, the reports stress academic achievement, not the whole child, and increased productivity, not relevancy or humanism.

Most of the reports express concern that the schools are pressed to play too many social roles; that the schools cannot meet all these expectations, and that the schools are in danger of losing sight of their key purpose – teaching basic skills and core academic subjects, new skills for computer use, and higher-level cognitive skills for the world of work and technology. Many of the reports, concerned not only with academic productivity but also with national productivity, link human capital with economic capital. Investment in schools would be an investment in the economy and in the nation’s future stability. If education fails, so do our work force nation. Hence business, labor, and government must work with educators to help educate and train the U.S. population.

The report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, compiled by a panel appointed by the Department of Education, indicates that eh well-been of the nation is being eroded by a “rising tide of mediocrity.” The report lists several aspects of educational decline that were evident to educators and citizens alike in the late 1970’s and the early 1980’s: lower achievement scores, lower testing requirements, lowered graduation requirements, lowered teacher expectations, fewer academic courses, more remedial courses, and higher illiteracy rates.

The reports calls for, among other things, tougher standards for graduation, including more courses in science, mathematics, foreign language, and the “new basics” such as computer skills; a longer school day and school year; for more homework; improved and updated textbooks; more rigorous, measurable, and higher expectations for student achievement; higher teacher salaries based on performance, and career ladders that distinguish among the beginning, experienced and master teacher; demonstrated entry competencies and more rigorous certification standards for teachers; accountability from educators and policy makers; and greater fiscal support from citizens.

Reports such as A Nation at Risk and Educational Policies Commission reports often spring form a broad-based concern about the quality of public education in changing times. The goal of these reports is to make practical recommendations for educational improvement and, as such, provide guidance to state and local boards of education, school districts, and ultimately teachers as they plan for instruction.

In 1990, President George Bush announced the establishment of national goals for education that would serve as guidelines for state and local education agencies. The overriding theme of the published document was the push for an educated citizenry, well trained and responsible, capable of adapting to a changing world, knowledgeable of its cultural heritage and the world community, and willing to accept and maintain America’s leadership position in the twenty-first century. Educators must be given greater flexibility to devise teaching and learning strategies that serve all students, regardless of abilities of interests; at the same time, they should be held responsible for their teaching. Parents must become involved in their children’s education, especially during the preschool years. Community, civic, and business groups all have a vital role to play in reforming education. Finally, students must accept responsibility for their education, and this means they must accept responsibility for their education, and this means they must work hard in school.

The original report outlined six national goals to be reached by the year 2000. In 1994 Congress passed Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which added two new goals to address the critical areas of teacher education and professional development and parental participation.

In 1997, the National Education Goals Panel issued a progress report on the 8 goals and 26 “indicators” in Goals 2000. They found 6 indicators that had improved significantly: infants with health risks, 2 year-old immunization, families reading to children, mathematics achievement, degrees granted in math and science, and incidents of threats and injuries to students in school. The Panel found 7 areas in which performance has declined: grade 12 reading achievement, percent of secondary teachers with degree in main teaching assignment, participation in adult education programs, student drug use, sale of drugs at school, threats and injuries to public school teachers, and classroom disruptions that interfere with teaching. Another 7 indicators showed no change. While the National Education Goals report shows positive gains in math and science proficiency, American students barely perform at the international average in comparisons. The Educate America Act also formalized the development of national standards, such as content, performance, and opportunity-to-learn standards, and authorized the development of standards for students not bound for college.
National reports often address the educational concerns for the times and make recommendations, however, do not always filer down to the school district and classroom level. Criticisms of the various national reports by the educational community tend to center on the three major points: (1) the reports are too idealistic and therefore unrealistic; (2) they put too much emphasis on excellence at the expense of equity; and (3) they are enormously expensive to implement.

Some educators point out that reports ignore a basic fact about school change and improvement: that the process is complex and involves the cooperation of teachers, administrators, parents, and community members, all of whom often have different agendas and ideas about reform. Others say the reports ignore the realities of students’ situations – the: whole-child” view. Why talk about raising standards when most at-risk students cannot even meet existing standards because of their difficult social and home environments? Seasoned educators have learned, sometimes the hard way, that there are no “magic bullets” for reforming schools. Moreover, the education highways are cluttered with reforms that have run out of gas – the “wrecks” of famous bandwagons. Why should today’s reform movement be any different?

One reason, according to former NEA president Mary Futrell, is that there seems to be a new consensus on the necessity of providing high-quality education for all students. Reflecting this new consensus, coalitions are now being formed among government, corporate, and educational groups. It has taken many years to reach this point of cooperation.

Furthermore, as educators assert, the political force driving educational reform is another basis for optimism. Reforms in the past were based on educational ideas that did not necessarily have widespread support from legislators or policy makers, much less the public. Today, the fear about American decline touches far more people that ever before, and they seem willing to do something about it. People are now making the connection between education and economics, realizing that school failures are tied to economic failures and that it is time to invest in children and youth. There seems to be a guarded willingness on the part of the public to spend money on education, as long as educators show substantive results. In addition, a study of high-school students ten years after A Nation at Risk showed several positive indicators of change. First, high-school students ere taking more courses, particularly in academic areas. Second, NAEP scores showed increased student learning in math and science, even among lower-ability students. Third, fewer students were dropping out of high school, and finally, student educational aspirations were increasing. These were changes of a positive nature, even though much concern remained for the high level of eight and ninth-grade dropouts, especially in urban schools. Overall, the national reports on education have captured public attention, spotlighted concern for the quality of education, and helped to upgrade school standards. In the view of many educators these reforms merely scratch the surface. Nevertheless, we may now have the best opportunity we have had in generations for comprehensive and effective reform of American schools.

Swing of the Pendulum
In examining educational goals from the turn of the twentieth century until today, we see considerable change but also old ideas reemerging in updated versions. For example, a stress on rigorous intellectual training, evident in the early twentieth century, reappeared in the 1950’s during the Cold War and again in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a result of concern over economic competition with foreign countries. Similarly, as the social ferment of the 1960’s and 1970’s brought increasing concern for the rights and aspirations of low-income and minority groups, the ideas of the early progressive educators resurfaced, and a renewed stress was placed on educating the disadvantaged. Although this concern for the disadvantaged or at-risk students are more diffuse, and academically talented groups.

Unquestionably, the goals of education must be relevant to the times. If the schools cannot adapt to changing conditions and social forces, how can they expect to produce people who do? Today we live in a highly technical, automated, and bureaucratic society, and we are faced with pressing social and economic problems – aging cities, the effects of centuries of racial and sexual discrimination, an aging population, economic dislocations, and pollution of the physical environment. Whether we allow the times to engulf us, or where we can cope with our new environment, will depend to a large extent on what kinds of skills are taught to out present-day students – and on the development of appropriate priorities for education.