Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Support Our Troops (for real): A Missed Opportunity by President Obama

My husband wrote this editorial to raise awareness about the recent changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. If you'd like to sign the petition to establish a "grandfather clause" for veterans currently enrolled in colleges and universities to continue to receive benefits at the rate initially promised, here's the link:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gibill20/

As Americans, we are a patriotic people.  You can drive down any street in America and, more often than not, you will see storefronts and cars decorated with yellow ribbons that state, “Support Our Troops”.  Unfortunately, our government’s current actions don’t reflect the deep commitment that most Americans feel toward their military servicemembers. I listened to President Obama praise our servicemen and women during his State of the Union address last Tuesday night and talk about bringing our troops home, but what happens to the troops once we bring them home?  President Obama did not address this question on Tuesday night, though I assure you that our veterans are waiting for an answer.


I served my country as a junior officer in the United States Navy for 9 years, and I was faced with a tough decision as to whether or not to continue my military career this past July.  Ultimately, I decided to leave the service and take advantage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.  The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the single most influential piece of legislation pertaining to educating our servicemen and women since Franklin Roosevelt approved the Montgomery GI Bill in 1944 to allow returning World War II veterans to receive education benefits.  In short, the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a renewed and revised version of the original GI Bill, as it provides financial assistance to veterans attending institutions of higher learning.  Each eligible member receives tuition and fees assistance, based on a rate that varies from state to state, as well as a housing allowance and a stipend to purchase books and supplies.  Not every veteran is eligible to receive 100% of the tuition benefits.  Serving 90 days of aggregate service after September 11, 2001 earns a veteran 40% of the tuition benefits while serving a minimum of 36 months allows a veteran to receive the full 100% of the benefits of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. This kind of legislation has the potential to change—maybe even save—veterans’ lives as they embark on the difficult task of re-integrating into society after their service commitment ends.



I was extremely proud of our government in its foresighted attempt to provide returning men and women that nobly served their country in Iraq and Afghanistan an opportunity for higher education, which would enable them to make the leap into important positions in American society. Servicemen and women gain an invaluable education during their time in the military.  Nowhere else can you get a master’s level education in responsibility, leadership,adaptability, compassion, and working under extreme pressure.  These brave men and women also bring an experience back to society that has been increasingly undervalued in the re-invigorated, Tea Party-esque American isolationist movement: they have actually set foot outside of the United States and have seen how people in the world live and how they view Americans.  I can tell you from first-hand experience that serving one’s country abroad brings a greater understanding of how important America’s role is to rest of the world.  This understanding, I believe, is an essential one required of tomorrow’s leaders, and the Post-9/11 GI Bill provides the kind of higher education that would enable returning veterans to transition into leadership roles in business and government after their service and put their unique skills and knowledge to use for the public good. The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides a pathway toward that end, but only if we make several important changes.


Currently, the Bill allows servicemembers to receive tuition assistance at a value based on a state-by-state tuition rate.  For example, New York’s tuition assistance rate is $1010 per credit hour while Oklahoma’s rate is $472, as the cost of education and living expenses in New York are significantly higher than they are in Oklahoma. However, Congress has recently drastically changed the Post-9/11 GI Bill after only one year in existence.  I applaud some of the changes that our elected leaders have made.  For example, Congress increased the types of programs covered by the GI Bill.  Previously, only veterans that were physically attending a college or university were eligible for a living allowance; the new change allows veterans enrolled in a distance-learning program to also be eligible for the same housing allowance.  However, legislators overlooked one key issue in “fixing” this legislation.  Congress has now capped tuition assistance to a national flat rate of $17,500 annually.


I am currently in my second semester at Columbia Business School.  This change has effectively reduced my tuition assistance by 50%.  While the drop is a dramatic one, as I made the decision to leave the military counting on a certain amount of benefits, I am fortunate to have a wife with a full-time job and some money in savings.  However, what about the 21-year-old veteran who earned admission to Harvard or Columbia as an undergraduate and is now facing the same problem?  The reduction in tuition assistance could force this young man or woman to have to leave an incredible institution and miss a once in a lifetime opportunity.  It is unconscionable for the federal government to renege on the commitment it made to fund that veteran’s education and hang him or her out to dry.


Too many politicians wave the“veteran” flag to say that they “support the troops” when, in fact, very few of them have ever served this country or have children or spouses who have served time in the military.  In fact, the reality is quite the opposite: many members of Congress were afforded the opportunities to attend the most premier educational institutions this country has to offer without having to worry about where their next tuition payment would come from.  Isn’t it time that we offered those men and women whose boots are on the ground carrying out the policies that Washington enacts the same kinds of advantages that their senators have had?  If a veteran is able to earn admission to a premier private institution, shouldn’t he or she be afforded the opportunity to take advantage of that opportunity?  Perhaps if that were the case, we’d have more veterans running for office and providing this country the benefits of their military experiences as policy-makers with first-hand knowledge of the daunting issues currently facing our legislators.


I urge the ladies and gentlemen of the 112th Congress to make this mistake right.  First, immediately create a “grandfather” clause to allow the veterans already enrolled in school to finish their degrees at the current funding levels to avoid forcing veterans to leave school before the new changes are enacted on August 1, 2011.  Secondly, the tuition assistance amount needs to be readdressed.  We shouldn’t be “capping” our expectations on the types of institutions to which we think these men and women would be able to gain admission.  Setting the national tuition rate at $17,500 effectively limits the range of schools to which a veteran can apply and effectively eliminates top-tier private schools as an option for veterans. (Undergraduate tuition and fees at Harvard, for example, costs in excess of $47,000 a year.)


If the members of Congress really believe in the yellow ribbons and the American flags that they pin on their lapels, now is the time to show it. Symbols are cheap—a concrete pledge to the men and women risking their lives for our security at home is a rich source of investment for our nation’s future.
 

Friday, July 30, 2010

Move Over, Gutenberg

Today I'm thinking about technology; I'm considering the ways in which technology both links and divides us. I'm not thinking specifically about social networking sites (though I am sure that many a psych Ph.D. dissertation has been written on just that topic in recent years), but instead I'm thinking simply of access to (or lack of access to) information and what that access or lack thereof means for human society.

This afternoon, my sister and I met her husband in mid-town Manhattan for lunch and then decided to enjoy some ridiculously delicious cupcakes in Bryant Park. As we sat at a table chatting and enjoying our indulgence, a gaggle of teenagers paraded by us, cell phone cameras a-flashing in the direction of one teenager in particular who seemed to be being crushed by his throngs of adoring fans. My sister's husband asked one star-struck fan who she and her crowd were following, and she responded (with obvious annoyance at our lack of celebrity knowledge) that they were following Timothy Delaghetto -- just like that, all one word. Hmmm, we thought. Are we in the presence of some wildly famous person that we are too uncool to know about? Immediately, my sister's husband used his Blackberry to google this Timothy Delaghetto, and we discovered that he is an up-and-coming "Asian hip hop artist." Ok then.

While it would be difficult to argue that having instantaneous access to this sort of basically useless information is going to give us some kind of leg up on the rest of human society, I think that having access to information of any sort does, at the very least, separate people into categories: those who can be in the know and those who can't. I am wholly convinced that 90% of the apps available on the iphone basically give useless information -- where the nearest Starbucks is located, the title of the song currently playing on the radio (Shezam!), who the best-selling Asian hip hop artist is (ok, I don't know if they have an app for that, but I'm willing to bet it's out there or soon-to be, judging by the apparent popularity of Mr. Delaghetto). However, it's that 10% of useful information that iphone/Blackberry/Droid users can access immediately that does give them that leg up, such as when the next train leaves Port Authority or which way is west -- I needed both of those pieces of info today, and, as I am smartphone-less, I was forced to do the old-fashioned thing and Figure It Out. So, one way that technology separates us now is into People Who Can Find Out Faster and Easier and People Who Can Find Out Still Within a Reasonable Stretch of Time and With Only Slightly More Effort -- not such an enormous difference, in my view.

But, while smartphones may still be luxuries that not every human must have to survive, I think that internet access at some point in the day is a mandatory requirement for full and successful participation in our society today. After our cupcakes in the park, my sister and I headed over to the mid-town branch of the New York Public Library this afternoon (the place where Carrie and Big were supposed to wed in the first Sex and the City movie! Ahem....I mean, the place where one can find access to 15 million books and visual media and witness stunning architectural design and feel intellectual power pulsing through the air). Here, we got to see one of the 48 surviving Gutenberg Bibles, which was on display with a plaque noting that scholars generally agree that Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1440 was "the greatest achievement of the second millenium." If the printing press was revolutionary because it allowed wider access to information, how do we even begin to understand the impact of the worldwide web?

I just finished reading Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, her account of an undercover assignment as a low-wage worker in America's restaurants, hotels, and Big Box stores. She paints a moving portrait of what it means to live hand-to-mouth and work 70+ hours per week, but because she did her investigative reporting in the late 90s before internet access was a staple in every middle-class household, her book doesn't touch on what it means to be without internet access. I'd love to see an revised edition in which she comments on this huge difference that separates 1998 from 2010. The other day, as my husband spent hours comparing NJ car insurance quotes online, and I spent hours researching my choices for a primary care doctor, I wondered how on earth someone would one go about finding affordable car insurance or setting up one's healthcare plan without the internet? I realize that the telephone still works for these tasks, but the hours on hold alone would be enough to drive even the most bargain-conscious shopper or the most health-conscious individual to just sign up with one of the first two or three organizations found. So, technology also divides us into Those Who Have Options and Those Who Take What They Can Get With the Time They Have to Get It.

I think the coolest thing about the New York Public Library is that any library card-holder can borrow a laptop for several hours at a time and get free internet access within the library. While borrowing a laptop to use within the confines of the library is not as convenient as owning one and having internet access in the home, at least it's a start. It's a recognition by a well-respected public institution that the division between Those Who Have Options and Those Who Take What They Can Get With the Time They Have to Get It is one that is just too big to accept if we want to continue to call ourselves a democratic society. There are certainly civil rights issues at stake within the issues surrounding access to technology, and I can only hope that more schools, city halls, courthouses, and other tax-payer funded institutions follow the Library's lead.

I'm going to end this post by recounting, to the best of my ability, one side of a conversation that I overheard on the bus today, which amused me greatly, but also made me a little sad. I sat behind a guy of about my age, obviously coming home from a long day of work who was talking on his cell phone:

Guy: Yeah, Ma. I'm here.

Guy: Alright, it's on? Good. Ok. Now click on Firefox.

Guy: It looks like...a fire fox. Like a fox on fire.

Guy: No. It's orange. Maybe blue too.

Guy: Yes. That's it. Now click on it.

Guy: Are you double clicking?

Guy: Like, click-click -- real fast. With your index finger.

Guy: No -- the other one. The index finger that's on the mouse. Click-click.

Guy: Try it again.

Guy: Ok. Now click on the link on the homepage. It's in blue.  It has a lot of funny letters and numbers at the end...like a long line of funny letters and numbers.

Guy: You gotta work with me, Ma. Tell me what you see.

Guy: I'm not getting mad. I'm not...

Guy: (exhales deeply) My voice isn't annoyed, Ma.

Guy: No, it's not. I'm just....Don't get frustrated now, Ma. Why do you sound all frantic?

Guy: I'm not! I'm being completely calm,Ma!

Guy: Ok. Try it again.

Guy: Ma, listen to me. It might take a minute. It has to download.

Guy: What, 'download'? It's like retrieving information from another site.

Guy:  A site is a webpage. Like one page of the worldwide web. The Internet.

Guy: Well, not exactly like a book. But maybe kind of. Anyway, you don't need to know that now, Ma. Did it download?

Guy: Christ.

Guy: I'm not mad, Ma. I'm not mad. It's just that these are like the basics. Like stuff everyone knows.

Guy: I know! That's why I'm helping you!

Guy: Hello? Ma? Hello?

Guy: Damnit.(hangs up)

So, technology also divides us into Those Who Know How and Those Who Need to Know How. Unfortunately, this divide seems to fall along age lines, which is sad. This guy and his mom could be sending each other funny forwards or Youtube videos, sharing pictures and music, and generally connecting in more ways, but they aren't. Instead, they're fighting. Maybe I should have told him that the New York Public Library also offers free weekly technology-related courses, such as "Email I" and "The Internet I: The Basics!"

Teachers, like me, are constantly bombarded with pressure to "use technology in the classroom," and we are given so many instructions as to how and when we should use various sorts of technology with our students. The one question that never seems to be addressed, though, is why. I think there's sort of this circuitous logic at work that people are afraid to question: we should use technology because people use technology. For most people, though, this argument is not terribly compelling. Talk to us, however, about equal access, civil rights, generation gaps, and saving time, and we'll be all ears.