Only 35 percent of American high school seniors are proficient readers. Only 23 percent are proficient in math. Nationwide, only 74 percent of ninth graders graduate within four years—and that number drops to about 50 percent for black and Hispanic students. Twelve percent of American high schools are “dropout factories”—schools where less than 60 percent of freshmen even make it to their senior year. It comes as no surprise, then, that America lags far behind other developed countries when it comes to schooling: Among large industrialized countries, America ranks last in educational effectiveness—despite spending the most. It is our responsibility to find a solution.

Please join us as we discuss education policy issues with filmmakers, experts, and local education administrators.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=248757265174531 

If you find yourself in Hong Kong, it is likely you will come across Eng, whose image adorns thousands of billboards and television screens across the city. It might be fair to compare his presence to that of Justin Bieber or Lebron James in New York City. However, Richard Eng did not earn fame and fortune by serenading teenage girls or making All-Star games.

Richard Eng in not a pop star, an actor, or an athlete. He is an English teacher.

The man whose face and stylish haircut is airbrushed on Hong Kong’s city buses is also known as the “Tutor God” – one of the most famous educators on the planet. Since founding Beacon College, a for-profit tutoring academy in 1989, Eng has developed a reputation as an entertaining, effective English teacher with an undoubted ability to improve standardized test scores. Meanwhile, he has been able to expand his academy’s enrollment to over 100,000 students.

And Eng is not alone. Across Hong Kong the tutoring industry is booming. Dozens of agencies have opened, and residents spend nearly half a billion dollars every year on tutoring for their children.  Many tutors earn over $150,000 every year.

These high salaries can be attributed to the agency’s response to high demand. For example, Richard Eng has built additional facilities, hired employees, and developed digital learning to accommodate more students.  Now compare this to the United States, where prestigious schools have lengthened their waiting lists and increased the cost of tuition.

There is no question – the competitiveness of the tutoring industry has benefited both students and teachers; competition improves teacher’s salaries and expands influence. Imagine if schools in the United States were scrambling to attract and retain the best educators.

I yearn for the day when educators in the United States take full advantage of their resources to reach the maximum amount of students. It should be our imperative to develop incentives for competition. Information should not be isolated at only select – nearly inaccessible – institutions. And our brilliant educators should be rewarded for their effective teaching.  Let’s scale up excellence.

(Submitted by Tyler Roberts, member of the Young Conservatives of Oklahoma)

This is the problem with universal education requirements being issued nationwide – they don’t work.  For the last decade the United States education system has been focused on “No Child Left Behind” and this year it has been decided that those requirements don’t mean anything after all.  This conclusion of “No Child Left Behind” was inevitable from the very beginning as the 100% proficiency requirement and many other unrealistic requirements like it were bound to fail.

So this week the Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, issued a statement of the Department of Education’s current role:  “Our job simply put, is to support reform at the state and local level. We need to get out of the way wherever we can.”  This truthful statement deserves applause but why must it be issued after a decade of following a seriously flawed policy on education?  Why can’t it be permanently recognized by the Department of Education that state and local governments will always know its populations best and therefore be able to make the best decisions for their own students?

At a time when American education isn’t standing up to global competition, being ranked lower than countries like Hungary and the Slovak Republic, our country’s leaders need to stop constructing feel-good policies that accomplish little and enable state and local leaders who know their areas best to take charge.  Let history’s lessons guide us as we look to the future – national mandates in education DO NOT WORK.

(Submitted by Taylor Stair, member of the Young Conservatives of Oklahoma)

For one thing, the political environment is dramatically different. While I wouldn’t go so far to say that the GOP is the party of the youth, it’s true that the Democrats no longer enjoy great popularity among our generation. They have seen what happens with unchecked Democratic control of the agenda of the country and have been turned off by the rising debt and deficit and especially the lack of jobs. Unlike in 2008, Obama is not the new candidate, he is the President. He is the symbol of the status quo. He has a record, not just speeches to run on in 2012. And that record has resulted in more debt that has been put on our generation’s tab and has led to staggering levels of unemployment. Our future is truly at risk. Many of us are fed up with speeches and platitudes. We want results. We want our debt lowered and we want government to get serious about creating jobs. That is the message that we as conservative and libertarian youth should take to our friends and neighbors. And that is the message we should expect from our eventual GOP nominee. The question must be: are you better off than you were four years ago?

However, from my conversations with those in my generation, they don’t believe that is enough. They want to rally around something positive. They know that Obama hasn’t delivered, but they also believe that Obama’s opposition hasn’t delivered a positive alternative that they can clearly understand and articulate to their friends and neighbors. Now it involves more than a message. It requires the new social media apparatus (Facebook, Twitter, Google +, blogs, etc.) that Obama’s campaign mastered.

If we don’t get this election right, then our future in this country is at risk even more than it is now. We can do better and here’s how we can. That should be our message to our generation.

(Kevin Shafer is a graduate student in the University of Florida’s Master’s Program in Political Campaigning and a recipient of a B.A. degree in Political Science from Florida Gulf Coast University. He has volunteered for the Marco Rubio U.S. Senate campaign and John McCain presidential campaign and recently interned with the National Republican Senatorial Committee.)

“We will conduct this campaign on the high road. I don’t think you need to run down someone’s reputation in order to run for the Office of President. Of course we’ll have our disagreements. That’s what campaigns are all about. But I want you to know that I respect my fellow Republican candidates. And I respect the President of the United States. He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love. But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better President; not who’s the better American.”

- Jon Huntsman

On Tuesday morning Jon Huntsman did more than announce his candidacy for President of the United States. He made a commitment to the American people – a commitment to civility.

It is unfortunate that young voters have only been alive to witness the viciousness of political campaigns.  We were born as Willie Horton’s mug shot broadcasted across television screens. We were elementary school students with extensive knowledge of Bill Clinton’s sexual exploits.  Despite never knowing war, we were instructed to not trust John Kerry’s military records. And we were reminded more than once of the possibility our future President might not be who he claimed.

It is understandable that the process has already left many young Americans disheartened and discouraged.

I remember feeling a strong sense of pride in Oklahoma when Senator Tom Coburn told a group of disgruntled constituents that Nancy Pelosi was a “nice lady” and “just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re not a good person.”

This is the opinion elected officials should be promoting.

In the same meeting Senator Coburn, like Huntsman, stressed the importance of civil debate. Telling a room full of Oklahomans that we must “make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make a determination yourself.”

Almost fifty years earlier, Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy, likely opponents in the 1964 election, agreed to a civil campaign. According to Goldwater’s memoir, the two men agreed to “ride the same plane or train to several stops and debate face-to-face on the same platform.“

This is the outlook our current crop of candidates should adopt.

In an era characterized by sound bites, buzz words, and attack ads, a return to honest, intellectual discourse amongst opponents is refreshing. It should be welcomed by both sides of the political spectrum, for only through civility can we make quality conclusions.

(Submitted by Tyler Roberts, member of the Young Conservatives of Oklahoma) 

Kissinger, in the 1970s, despite varying public opinion realized the importance of establishing formal relations between China and the United States. Now four decades later, just as Kissinger distinguished himself in China, Jon Huntsman has begun to distinguish himself in a crowded field of Republicans by calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S troops from Afghanistan.

In a recent interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Huntsman explained his views:

HUNTSMAN: Well, we — we have different world views. I worked the China relationship, which for 40 years has been a bipartisan relationship. It’s been America’s interest, there’s security, they’re economic, they’re cultural. And it was a great honor to serve my country in that capacity. But when you look at Afghanistan, can we hang out until 2014 and beyond? When you look at the Middle East — CROWLEY: Can we?

HUNTSMAN: Well, I would argue you can if you’re willing to pay another quarter of a trillion dollars to do so. But if it isn’t in our direct national security interest and if there isn’t a logical exit strategy and if we don’t know what the cost is going to be in terms of money and human lives, then I think you have to say it’s probably time we reevaluate this if we can’t make that strong argument with the American people.

CROWLEY: So President Huntsman would want to be out of Afghanistan earlier than 2014?

HUNTSMAN: Well, my — my hunch is the American people want to be out of there as quickly as we can get it done. You’re going to have to leave behind some presence, probably not 100,000 or 120,000 troops, but some presence.

These are the comments which set Huntsman apart from your average Republican. However, they are the views resonating with average Americans. In a recent straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference, Representative Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman finished first and second. What do these candidates have in common? Both believe that the nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are far too costly and do not benefit our national security interests.

Jon Huntsman has garnered considerable media attention and for good reason. He appears to be the lone credible voice representing the growing number of Americans tired of the war and its costs. I am looking forward to watching this campaign develop.

(Submitted by Tyler Roberts, member of the Young Conservatives of Oklahoma)

According to a recent article on Politico the GOP has proposed a “lock box” rule to ensure all spending cuts made by the House aren’t simply transferred to other Federal projects or accounts.  Without the new lock box rule in place funds cut in spending bills don’t actually reduce government spending because the Appropriations Committee redirects those funds to other places.

With a national debt of $13.9 trillion, 97% of 2010′s fiscal year-end annual GDP of $14.4 trillion, it is crucial that a lock box provision be included in the new House rules if any headway is to be made in reducing the national debt, an issue many of the newly elected Republicans used in their campaigns.  It is important that the lock box be set up from the outset of the 112^th Congress so that all cuts made to various appropriation bills over the course of the year will actually be used to reduce government spending.

In 1994 when the Republicans took control of the House with a newly elected freshman class much like the one elected in 2010, the lock box concept was also used but not before many of the largest appropriations bills had been settled.  This meant that passed cuts to many pork projects within the large spending bills was only redistributed by the Appropriations Committee as political favors to private companies and federal programs within the Republicans’ constituencies.  It was not until the education, health, and labor bills were being debated that the Republicans of 1994 decided to finally put the lock box to use.

The lock box is a necessary instrument needed if any progress is to be made in reducing government spending.  Much praise has been given to Paul Ryan for his smart policies and the lock box rule reflects that.  Hopefully the new Republican House Majority can do the responsible thing and ensure a lock box is created from the beginning rather than putting it off for political expediency.  This is what the freshman class of 2010 was elected to do.

(Submitted by Taylor Stair, member of the Young Conservatives of Oklahoma)

Prudence and courage are not often associated with one another, but on October 7^th Gov. Chris Christie combined the two.  By halting what would have been one of the largest construction projects of the decade, Gov Christie displayed the kind of wisdom that is needed in today’s politicians.

On October 7^th plans to build a brand-new tunnel under the Hudson from North Bergen, N.J., to a new station deep below 34th Street in Manhattan were called off.  The New York Times reported that Gov Christie was misled about both the true cost of the project and who was going to pay for the project.  This led the Governor to decide it would be more prudent to find other solutions to New Jersey’s transportation needs.

After two decades of planning the estimated cost of the project was cited at $8.7 billion, but after state transportation officials reviewed the costs only a month ago the new estimates ranged from $11-14 billion.  Both the federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had designated an unprecedented $3 billion of financing.  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had supported the project, but said that the city could not help pay for the overruns.  This leaves all costs exceeding the original $8.7 billion to be shouldered by the taxpayers of New Jersey

Given the current budgetary problems of states, politicians and government agencies are already scrounging to save nickels and dimes.  This year New Jersey’s state and local debt is upwards of $92 billion and just across the Hudson lies a state and local debt of $291 billion.  As needed funds to legitimate state agencies are already being slashed, is a project with ever increasing costs really what is needed right now?

Just look at similarly large construction projects around the country.  Boston’s notorious Big Dig started at a projected cost of $2.6 billion and two decades later had grown to $14.6 billion in 2005.  A highway interchange project in Springfield, Virginia was originally estimated at $241 million but ended up at $676 million by 2007.  And don’t forget Denver’s International Airport, which began at $1.7 billion and by 1995 had landed at $4.8 billion.  With New Jersey’s tunnel starting at an estimated $8.7 billion, there is no telling how much taxpayer money would have to be shoveled into that bottomless pit.

Yet the response to Gov Christie’s decision has been one of anger as various officials have condemned his decision.  According to Democratic Sen Frank R. Lautenberg, “Killing the ARC tunnel will go down as one of the biggest public policy blunders in New Jersey’s history.” As the project would have created 6,000 construction jobs for New Jersey in a time of recession, one can only imagine the heat Gov Christie is taking from various groups, yet he stands his ground.

For his courage in making the prudent choice in a time when politicians use high profile projects to gain popularity despite enormous budget deficits, I salute the audacity of Governer Chris Christie of New Jersey.  There is no doubt that Gov Christie is receiving enormous amounts of criticism from a broad spectrum of interests, but it is this kind of integrity that our nation will need in the era of government deficits.

(Submitted by Taylor Stair, member of the Young Conservatives of Oklahoma)

In the wake of the Bush-Obama spending duo, the time has come for the reassertion of a truly conservative Republican nominee in 2012. And not only one who is truly conservative, but also one who is well equipped with ideas: the foundation of sound political philosophy as well as a good presidential candidate. George W. Bush certainly did nothing to enhance the image of the Republican Party with the American people, so it is at this moment, while conservatives hold the cards they need to make a power play, that a strong presidential candidate well founded in ideas is needed.

Enters Sarah Palin, the hockey mom who is “Going Rogue.” Not only without good ideas, but logic forming thought processes as well, Palin represents the image-centric leadership in which the Republican Party has now fallen. At a recent book signing event in Columbus, Ohio one Palin supporter, when asked what policies of Palin’s she liked replied, “Fairness. Realness…I can’t think of the policies right off the bat.” This is reminiscent of Palin’s response to Katie Couric’s prodding about her news sources to which she responded, “All of ‘em. Any of them that have been in front of me over the years.”

This inability to respond to the simplest of questions is disturbing and leaves me hoping Republicans do the right thing in 2012, and nominate anyone but Palin. It is obvious that Palin has no foundation based on ideas but is simply a Republican branded, image-centric opportunist. For the sake of the Republican Party, the traditional yet recently questionable conservative party, and more importantly the nation as a whole I pray that in 2012 the American people are not asked to settle for Sarah Palin as their alternative to Barack Obama.

I yearn for a return to intellectual discourse between those who seek our most high office of President of the United States of America. We conservatives have a marvelous heritage set before us built on the political philosophy of our founding fathers, to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the conservative intellect would be reprehensible at the very least. I leave you with these words spoken at the Republican National Convention in 1876. They are as true today as they were then, and they are built on the firm foundation of ideas.

“The Republicans of the United States demand as their leader in the great contest of 1876 a man of intelligence, a man of integrity, a man of well-known and approved political opinions. They demand a statesman; they demand a reformer after as well as before the election. They demand a politician in the highest, broadest and best sense — a man of superb moral courage. They demand a man acquainted with public affairs — with the wants of the people; with not only the requirements of the hour, but with the demands of the future. They demand a man broad enough to comprehend the relations of this Government to the other nations of the earth. They demand a man well versed in the powers, duties and prerogatives of each and every department of this Government. They demand a man who will sacredly preserve the financial honor of the United States; one who knows enough to know that the national debt must be paid through the prosperity of this people; one who knows enough to know that all the financial theories in the world cannot redeem a single dollar; one who knows enough to know that all the money must be made, not by law, but by labor; one who knows enough to know that the people of the United States have the industry to make the money, and the honor to pay it over just as fast as they make it…”

To view this address in its entirety please visit this link.