Stage Five: Original Editorial

No Child Left Behind Act was created to help public education reach higher standards of teaching and learning by having standardized testing in each state for the students. The act aids the schools that are inadequate as well as rewarding money to the schools that surpass the qualifications with flying colors. Although not all the states are requiring these standardized tests, a majority of states are improving the ability and the skills of teachers that are not on a collegiate level. Many states are making it mandatory that teachers take tests for the subject they intend on teaching. I believe that while this act was intended to do good by the less fortunate, it is extremely harmful to the majority of the public schools. The schools that need the money from this act are not receiving it. The less fortunate schools are struggling to fund their programs that are lacking in participation because the curriculum is lacking. The schools that have a strong base curriculum do not have as hard as time raising funds because the participation is higher in those schools. Because of the standardized tests, teachers focus so much on the subjects on the test the students miss out on other aspects of learning and are forced to put all their efforts on a single test. While all these factors place high importance on the one test, is it really showing what students are capable of? As a student myself, I have taken these standardized tests and feel that tests like the TAKS show nothing. It is not challenging and I feel like they are a waste of time. What schools need are entrance and exit exams in each course using the curriculum that is taught in that course specific to that teacher. Only then we will know how students are succeeding  and what the schools need to improve

Stage Four: Critique an Editorial From a Blog

On a blog from thinkprogress.org, the author describes his opinion on taxing options. He believes that the best way to decrease the deficit is to raise the taxes on the wealthier people in America. He shows us proof that this idea is wiser than ideas the republicans are suggesting by showing the amount of money the new taxes would be greater in comparison to the amount of money that the republican's ideas would bring in. The author tells us what the republicans are trying to cut in a slant to prove his is the best, but at least we have an idea on what the republicans want to do; republicans want to cut education and benefits for the poor instead of putting heavier taxes on the wealthy. He then starts describing, almost idolizing, the democrats idea for decreasing the deficit. the author shows us and interview and a couple of graphs showing how taxing the rich is the best idea. He throws many names and graphs around in order to prove his point, which possibly shows that he lacks creditability himself. On the other hand, this shows that he has taken the time to research this issue thoroughly and completely in order to establish an opinion rather than not knowing the subject and spitting out his opinion, which is what most bloggers do nowadays. His audience is mainly democrats, as this is a liberal blog site, but I also think it is for anyone who wants to read it because if he persuades enough people he will be able to see the plan he is promoting work out. The blog post could also be directed at republicans to show that there is a better way to save money and decrease the deficit rather than cutting education and retirement costs.

I agree with the author because it will decrease the national debit by gaining money from wealthier Americans. As a student, I feel that we should not cut education costs to decrease the deficit because education is much more important than the wealthy having an extra million dollars to throw around. If the wealthy were taxed more it would solve our problems much quicker than cutting other programs. As well as decreasing the national debit, heavier taxes on the wealthy will also decrease the gap of wealthy and poor in this country which, we can all agree, is increasing each day.

Stage Three: Critique an Editoral

In the editorial Fair to Muslims on the New York Times website, it is said that the author of the editorial is Muslim and it described his views of touring different mosques around America. He goes on to say that Muslims are treated unfairly due to the lack of knowledge Americans have about the Islam faith. I strongly agree with this editorial because I think every deserves to be treated fairly with respect, and frankly, we could all use a lesson in a faith different from our own. In my world history class last year we learned about many different religions, including Islam. It opened our minds to the similarities of the religion to many others. It helped us realize that every group has extremists and to not judge an entire religion on the extremists when most Muslims do not agree with what they are doing. In the editorial the author discusses different interviews they took while traveling. Many interviewees thought America was the best thing in their lives and they love living here. They also praised Thomas Jefferson for being a protector of religious freedom. While many Muslims think very highly of America, they have also been prosecuted for their religion. Women and children have being attacked verbally and physically because of their traditional attire or just because of their faith. The interviewees even commented on government officials or other agents came into their mosques to try to find terrorists. The agents snuck into the mosques and tried to trick it out of the members, the members felt insulted that they were not open enough to just ask the questions up front. I believe, as does the author, if everyone understood the religion more fully that we could more peacefully coexist with each other.