The European Union is at a crossroads in terms of deciding what it is to be. Most Europeans have an opinion, however there are two main groups: the Euro-federalists who believe that the European Union is an intermediary step in the evolution to a supranational European federal state, and the anti-federalists who believe the current economic union is the final stage of evolution for the European Union. (Grigoriadis, 2006). The question of Turkey’s accession to the European Union is at the crux of the debate. As many current EU member nations continue to struggle with immigration issues, racism, and religious intolerance of Muslims—specifically in England and France (Roskin, 2011), it is not surprising that the question of Turkey’s accession is bringing discussion of these social cleavages to a head. The outcome of the debate, while far from certain, will have lasting impacts in terms of what Europe will or will not become. Immigration to EU member nations is not likely to decrease with the increasing trend of climatic change and the forecast of over two-hundred million climate, or environmental, refugees by 2050. (Kolmannskog and Myrstad, 2009). A supranational United States of Europe may be better able to cope with the influx of immigrants and coordinate future disaster and relief efforts than the present European Union and may provide the impetus to bring the nation states together into a supranational federal state. But before that can happen, the people and nations of the European Union must answer questions about their own individual and national identities. To forge a supranational European identity, the people of the European Union nation states must embrace their cultural diversity. It is only then that they can make a decision about what they want Europe to be.

Now this is the type of leader America needs! It has nothing to do with partisanship, and everything to do with wanting to solve our nation’s problems. Please watch this video.

Thank you Representative Huizenga! This is what the American people, all of us, expect out of Congress: Responsiveness to the people’s needs and a critical understanding of where our uncontrolled spending will lead: Bankruptcy of the United States.

Abstract

Articulating a uniform purpose with specific outcomes through standards-based accountability is just one small step in instituting successful high school reform. In this article, Matthew S. Urdan examines prominent research on the topic and finds that when different aspects of issues that persist are examined and looked at from a holistic perspective, patterns emerge that indicate that the adoption of a coherent core curriculum, a reduction in school size, and the use of varying subject specific instruction methods would synergistically improve academic achievement across the socioeconomic status spectrum. To be effective, however, these reform initiatives would need to be components of a very specific, three-layered, detailed plan of implementation to overcome fragmented policies and the greatest impediment to reform: teacher inertia and a reluctance to embrace change and proven instructional techniques. This is a two-part article. Please continue reading High School Reform: The Three “R”s Part II after reading Part I below.

The Purpose of High School

As high school attendance has become nearly universal since the beginning of the 20th century, two major schools of thought regarding what the primary purpose of high school should be have emerged: to prepare students for a college education, as articulated by Charles Eliot and his Committee of Ten; and the National Education Association’s Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education’s idea that coursework should prepare students for their future occupational needs. The existence of these two competing major schools of thought as to what the purpose of high school should be has resulted in seemingly endless reform attempts to improve education and the rise of the comprehensive high school which tries to be all things to all students. (Lee and Ready, 2009). Up until 1970, the comprehensive high school had achieved a steady increase in graduation rates; but since 1970, graduate rates have remained static at seventy-five percent. (Stern, 2009). With the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, which slammed high schools for their poor results and which sparked a flurry of calls for reform, much debate and research has taken place regarding what is broken in the educational system. Many solutions have been suggested, some have even been implemented and achieved moderate success. A major result has been the standards-based reform movement, perhaps capped by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and an increasing trend towards the reinstitution of original Committee of Ten core curriculums designed to prepare students for college. However results within and between states have been fragmented and it is clear that a standards-based approach alone is not enough. While independent researchers at the nation’s top academic institutions address many component parts of the educational system, not a lot of synthesis is taking place, nor is a comprehensive plan being offered by any school district, state, or the federal government as to what and how school reform can be implemented that would result in an increase in standards, equity, and performance of all. Clash, debate and research continue, but in all the literature, very few are asking what may be the most important question: what is the purpose of high school?

Abstract

Articulating a uniform purpose with specific outcomes through standards-based accountability is just one small step in instituting successful high school reform. In this article, Matthew S. Urdan examines prominent research on the topic and finds that when different aspects of issues that persist are examined and looked at from a holistic perspective, patterns emerge that indicate that the adoption of a coherent core curriculum, a reduction in school size, and the use of varying subject specific instruction methods would synergistically improve academic achievement across the socioeconomic status spectrum. To be effective, however, these reform initiatives would need to be components of a very specific, three-layered, detailed plan of implementation to overcome fragmented policies and the greatest impediment to reform: teacher inertia and a reluctance to embrace change and proven instructional techniques. This is a two-part article. Please read High School Reform: The Three “R”s Part I before continuing with Part II below.

Conditions of Successful High School Reform

While any one student can succeed admirably in any given school setting in any location in the country, three conditions for success have emerged as critical in the literature for achieving educational success. These three conditions, or components, should be incorporated into any new high school reform. They are the adoption of a standardized and coherent core knowledge curriculum, a reduction in size of high schools, and the utilization of proven and evidenced-based instructional practices.