Federal policy issues
Federal and State editorial articles
The Strive HI Performance System is a new school accountability and improvement system developed by Hawaii. This schooling system is to replace the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and has proven that the previous system was flawed. The Strive HI Performance System however was developed to reengineer how education operates and to patch the previous flaws of the No Child Left Behind Act of 001 and to align education more to BOE (Board of Education) and DOE (The Department of Education) State Strategic Plans.
The No Child Left Behind Act was designed by the federal government through a flawed and outdated approach to reforming how education is set up. Some of these reforms include the focus on the real world and careers rather than successfully passing core classes. This resulted in an unproductive way of educating students. The Strive HI Performance System, on the other hand, was designed by Hawaii stakeholders in order to put State Strategic Plans into place. This recent system, as of 2013, has been facing problems with funding and the implementation of these State Strategic Plans.
Performance measurement tools like HAS’s (Hawaii Statewide Assessment) ACT"s and achievement gap programs do use a lot of money. Opponents of the Strive HI Performance System even go as far as to say that results of these measurements tools are irrelevant and do not give enough information about schools" progress. Without these tools, we would not be able to have a reference for changes. Funding must be made to programs that promote change and growth for the better for all. The Strive HI Performance System is a system that is focused on the readiness for college and careers to develop goals within the student body and a system like this should receive funding accordingly.
No child left Behind reformed in hawaii
What are we eating?
Education: State vs. Federal
States should be able to decide what kind of curriculum they should follow because they know what’s best for their citizens more than the federal government.
Education is something that needs close attention in order to be beneficial in the lives of the students. Usually, the Federal Government makes its decision about education based on the most common systems that are working well in most of the states. But this is not helpful in the effort to make educational system better for students because some students might need a different way of learning and a different system could work better for them. There is no “one size fits all” model in education.
Allowing states to choose how they want to control their educational system is highly beneficial because they are much closer to the school community than the federal government. If states are given the opportunity to make most of the decision for themselves, it would mean that school districts can have more freedom to design their own systems so that students can be more successful. School districts know their students more than state or federal offices, so if they can design their own system, it will most likely fit what the students need.
The idea that states should have more freedom to decide what kind of school systems they should follow doesn’t mean that the federal government should play no part in the issue. The federal government should still set some standards to make sure that everybody in the country is going at a certain pace, so that there wouldn’t be a big gap between students from different places. But still, states should be able to decide how they are going to get to that standard, so that they can give their school districts the chance to design the teaching and learning style in a way that will be most helpful to the students. This is the best way to balance the state and federal interests on the issue of education because it focuses the most on giving students the opportunity to achieve their highest potential by learning the way that best fits them.
Ambiguity doesn’t sound like a word one would want to think of when buying produce at the grocery store, right? The rejection of Measure 92 will perpetuate this “ambiguity” in the foods we eat.
Measure 92, also referred to as The Oregon Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, proposes to diminish any margin of doubt that surrounds the foods that are produced and sold in the state of Oregon. The measure calls for the mandate for labeling of certain foodstuffs that can be identified as genetically modified organisms.
We’ve seen multiple efforts toward the bans and identification of GMOs, as this has been a pressing issue throughout the country. The FDA and even groups such as GMO Inside have created petitions and tried to sway the public to sign off for the ban and labeling of GMOs. Millions of people in the country have acknowledged the risks of GMOs. The first state to officially accept this policy is Vermont, and other states like Maine and Connecticut have also followed suit. Unfortunately, we westerns states (Washington, Oregon, California) have failed to join in the solidarity of this movement.
Measure 92 was put on the ballot of the November elections as an initiated state statute, but was ultimately rejected. The narrow margin of the election results, with a disparity of about .2 %, shows the potential of the state of Oregon to move towards a step in the right direction, but the hesitation and misinformation has further obstructed our ability towards this necessary change in the food system on a state and national level.
The people of Oregon should have the right to know about the food they’re eating, and especially on GMOs, considering the potential health risks and environmental repercussions of this process.
Multiple studies have been conducted by scientists to evaluate the possible health and environmental effects of genetically modified organisms. All things considered, there still is a lot of contention and uncertainty on what the health risks really are, and that’s an issue that arises when people don’t have the choice to pick what they want to put into their bodies.
According to the scientific literature on GMOs, it has been observed that GM technology has the capacity to create new allergens in common foods, the biggest one being soy. Antibiotic resistance is also another issue, as well as the use of pesticides, which ultimately has health and environmental effects. Most of the experiments that have been conducted have been on animals, but we haven’t seen direct impacts on humans, which creates this sense of uncertainty, and, as stated before, ambiguity.
In Europe, GMOs are completely banned since countries there acknowledge and recognize these potential health risks. It’s a bit suspicious that people are not made aware of what they’re exactly eating.
It is necessary for the United States to also consider these risks, and protect the integrity of our agricultural and food system, while also upholding the freedom this country guarantees to the people.
