Candidate Murphy posts on education
I originally received this post as a comment, but considering its author–newcomer independent congressional candidate Patrick Murphy–and its length, I’ve decided to post it below for easier reader access.
On June 4th, 2007, Patrick Murphy wrote:
Dear Jackie,
I spoke with the Lowell Sun on Friday for over an half hour about my candidacy, but more particularly about education for Monday’s article. I went into great detail with my education proposals, but this was not reflected in either articles run by the Sun on Saturday or Monday. In fact, I was not even included in the graphic of summarized positions in the paper edition, perhaps because they were the most comprehensive and nuanced. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to elaborate on my plans at the debate tonight, partly because of the format and partly because I am just getting started. In any case, I would like to restore my policies to their proper context. A worthwhile education is first a transmission of ideas through which we view the world, of clarified convictions, of who we are and how we are to live. Without wisdom, knowledge and ideas become useless or worse, dangerous things indeed. We have scientists, for example, working on the development of all kinds of cures for debilitating diseases and yet we also have scientists in this country perfecting so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. We have tiny technologies emerging that connect people from around the world, and yet we grow ever more distant from neighbors and strangers on the street. So while many argue for education to spur economic growth and for greater emphasis on math and science, we will do well to remember also that no amount of money or organization or administration will solve the problems of our education system without an education that gives us values and ideas by which to live. Having said that, I see a need for the role of the federal government in education to be turned on its head. Its main role now is really in higher education, and although the No Child Left Behind Act expands its involvement in primary and secondary education, it gives no indication of where we are going. As I said in Friday’s interview, but was not quoted in Monday’s article, I believe that the No Child Left Behind Act must be completely reworked.
I would propose that: 1. We sever the link between education funding and local property taxes. This revenue when combined with state funding (though much less) makes up the majority of funding and leaves the quality of our education system subject to fluctuations in the market. It also leaves the schools with the greatest need the least amount of help.
2. We shift our federal emphasis to early education, starting with preschool opportunities.
3. We shift focus from rote preparation for standardized tests to a true high-quality education by reducing class sizes, recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers, building and updating school buildings, and funding both alternative education and that for individuals with disabilities. We retain teachers by creating better work environments—more freedom for their creativity, smaller class sizes, better pay, guaranteed health insurance (under my expansion of Medicare for all) and loan forgiveness programs.
4. We expand the 180 day agrarian calendar to allow for more thorough coverage of material, more flexibility for teachers in developing their curriculums, a less-pressurized atmosphere, and deeper teacher-student relationships key to a child’s progress. We honor and pay teachers professionally for this even greater commitment.
5. We reverse the perverse system of penalties in the NCLB Act which fails to address the root causes of the problem—, and we oppose any sort of vouchers which not only fail to improve public schools, but strip them of their ability to improve. 6. We similarly oppose increasing Pell Grants and tax credits for college students attending private universities because of the arbitrariness of tuition hikes which have been shown to spike with higher grants. (This was the only part of my plan mentioned in the article, and with no explanation, which is necessary. I disagree that yes or no answers make for the best debate because they don’t allow for sophisticated arguments in defense of one’s policies. The more the federal government issues in grants, the more universities feel they can charge without being subject to any standards or cost-control mechanisms. They can raise tuition at any time, by any amount.) We have to examine costs of a college education more closely and their loan practices. I would support raising the grants for public universities, over which the government does hold some power, and extending to the top quarter or third of graduating high school students a more affordable opportunity to attend our public universities. (This last measure would be under the state’s jurisdiction.) We must also acknowledge that education is both invaluable to and inseparable from a number of other policy areas including the war (encouraging critical thinking, the ability to analyze arguments, citizenship and other important democratic values: those things which cannot be measured with tests); the environment (teaching the science of these problems, moral obligations and responsibilities); health care (lending more importance to lifelong habits and responsibilities through health and physical education programs, as well more nutritional options or lack of options in school cafeterias); housing and work (of obvious importance) and that all of these must act in concert with one another to achieve our goals. I’m not sure that voters are particularly interested in our personal backgrounds so much as our policy proposals, but everyone seemed to talk about theirs tonight. If they are, I will just say briefly that I was educated in the public and private school systems, attending Phillips Academy in Andover on scholarship. At age sixteen, I began working with my cousins as a masonry laborer, and after high school, paid my way through a year at American University, Trinity College Dublin and Emory University with scholarships and my own labor. No matter where I went, I found the college system to be much like our political system: a superficial, fundamentally flawed and corrupt business. Always learning from my experiences, I returned several years ago to work with my cousins as a brick- and stone mason. I am forever learning. I learned quite a bit tonight. And my education remains happily unfinished. Thank you for the opportunity to post my ideas.
All the best,
Patrick