Op-Ed: Flawed Logic, Flawed System

I found Charles Fleming's article “In Praise of Year-Round Schooling” an interesting take on the issue of implementing a year round school schedule. This issue is key when looking at education in an urban setting. Some, like Fleming, feel it is necessary for schools in the Los Angeles area. I on the other hand feel that it is a system that should not be used and a traditional school schedule should be reinstated.

Fleming poses a good argument in favor the year-round system. He cites reasons like study abroad opportunities, being able to take classes at other institutions, as well as various work opportunities. The reasons that he cites, as enticing as they may seem, come with major drawbacks. One major flaw with this reasoning are the financial aspects. All of these opportunities are great for a child, but who is able to fund all of them? To the parents who are fortunate enough to grant these opportunities, a year-round schedule looks very enticing; but what about those who are not fortunate enough to grant their children these luxuries? Fleming even states himself that, “I have often wondered how single, working parents work around L.A. Unified's scheduling oddities like ‘professional development days,’ ‘pupil-free days,’ ‘shortened days,’ ‘minimum days’ and ‘reverse minimum days.’”

Another problem I found with Fleming’s article is that he downplays the negative aspects of a year-round system. His daughters say a downside is that because there are students in the school all year the school can not get the maintenance that it would receive during the summer break. Mr. Fleming fails to recognize that this is a massive problem. How can a parent who puts tax dollars into these schools be satisfied with substandard conditions? Even as a student, I do not feel that I could work to my potential in a dilapidated school. Another problem that Fleming downplays is the intermixing of the different “tracks.” Fleming states that there are territorial disputes over issues like who sits at what lunch table. How can a parent condone a system that results in fighting? It makes no sense that he be behind a system where issues like these are occurring and ignored.

In the end, Fleming makes a good argument as to why he is happy with the idea of year-round schooling. But that is his fatal flaw— it is why he is happy with the schedule. He barely concerns himself with why it would not work for others, and when he does he downplays it to the point where he barely seems to care. The fact is that if someone has the luxuries that Charles Fleming has, than year round schooling is great. But herein lays the problem: most do not. That is why year-round schooling has a major fundamental flaw: it caters specifically to the wealthy.

Jorge Barroso, editor

Op-Ed: The Gender Gap

A recent article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette discusses an "imbalance in the number of male and female college graduates." I feel compelled to bring this dialogue to the attention of others, as the tone of the article suggests that academia must scramble to either balance the aforementioned "imbalance," or return things to a male-dominated world of higher-education. Both notions are not only ignorant but detrimental to hundreds of years of female progression in society.

The article goes on to suggest ways to "counter the gap" and ameliorate the situation going on on campuses throughout the nation. The only shining light in the article is presented by Linda Sax, an associate professor at UCLA (Sax is also affiliated with their Higher Education Research Institute). Sax is quick to refute any inclination that 'the gender gap' will result in fewer marriages, which it appears is a major concern for the author of the article and her audience. In addition, the author touches on an idea presented by Tom Mortenson, a higher-ed analyst that gender-specific teaching is necessary to amend the gap. Thankfully, Linda Sax is able to nix this thought, arguing that better preparing men for college is a cause worth taking, any sex-specific education initiative may be detrimental to the progress experienced by women.

My main concern with some of the sentiments posted in this article are that there is some level of concern simply because women are now in the majority of degree-holders:

"In 2005, women made up 57 percent of the 17.5 million students enrolled in degree-granting institutions throughout the country...In 2005 there were 213,000 more bachelor's degrees awarded to woman than men nationally."

This should be a cause for celebration, or if nothing else further study. Is this such a dangerous problem because it threatens the male-dominated hierarchy that has subsisted in this country for so long? Perhaps. What is alarming is that such a great deal of emphasis is placed on marriage. While it may be noteworthy as a hypothesis for an externality of 'the gender gap,' why not explore more? Maybe 'the gender gap' will result in more stay-at-home dads. I'm sure that would please the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette audience. What I feel is most outrageous is that this article is written by a (wait for it) woman. What's more is that a simple search returns quite a few articles written by Ms. Tubbs for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Wouldn't it make sense for a professional woman to want the most for not only herself but for future generations of women? Why produce an article that, in my opinion, offers no semblance of progress for women?

Stephen Feldman, editor