In a sociology course about gender and work at UGA, not a single man is enrolled. This may not be surprising, but it should be a concern. The way people learn is impacted by their existing values and views of the world. The idea of self-selection into education does not just apply to college access or careers postgraduate, but also to what people choose to learn while in college. When students choose to learn based on existing values, this can create an echo chamber where people are not exposed to new ideas and only reinforce what they already believe. This relates to the concept of endogeneity, where the independent variable (values and beliefs) is influenced by the dependent variable (class choice), creating a feedback loop of mutual influence rather than a single directional impact. In this case, students may choose courses that they have existing knowledge about, and then the course reinforces their beliefs.

Why is this a problem? If people do not want to learn something, why should they? The mere exposure effect explains that people have a “tendency to develop preferences for things simply because we are familiar with them,” thus people tend to make better choices when they have more information. It is therefore likely that the students who typically enroll in gender studies, race-related courses, or other classes that discuss contentious topics already have some knowledge and interest in these areas. 

Although people tend to resist going out of their comfort zone, there are ways to make doing so more attractive. Carl Wieman explains that experts often design classes without fully considering how those new to the subject perceive the content. People familiar with a subject struggle to teach novices because their deep understanding of a subject makes it hard to see how beginners approach learning. Especially when discussing sensitive topics that are often politicized, it is even more crucial for professors to understand how those not exposed to these ideas process the new information. Wieman talks about science education and how the professor and student are unknowingly “speaking a different language.” The same concept applies to social sciences, especially courses discussing topics seen as political. To those accustomed to social science classes, it feels natural to discuss intersectionality or Marxism. Even concepts that social science students assume to be well-known, such as the gender wage gap or institutional racism, may feel foreign, abstract, or complex to those not used to discussing these topics. Further, Wieman explains how students often have misperceptions about science, seeing it as irrelevant to real-life problems. In social science, especially in departments like sociology, people view it as useless or too ideological to apply to their lives or careers.

Understanding the problem is not enough; it is vital to determine the steps needed to address the issue. The availability heuristic explains that experts draw on their recent experiences with a subject rather than their initial learning experiences due to misremembering their performance as novices. Intermediates may be better than experts at understanding novices due to their more recent experiences. In this case, that would require talking to people recently learning about these topics to understand how new people will process the information. Instead of simply assuming why certain people avoid topics like gender studies, data should be gathered to understand their perceptions and make the content more relevant and approachable. Using empirical evidence to improve teaching methods is crucial rather than relying on assumptions.Many potential solutions focus on fostering open dialogue and freedom of expression. For example, a researcher focused on improving climate change education in conservative, religious, or low socioeconomic status communities in the Southeast. They used public dialogue sessions to unite diverse groups and ensured everyone felt respected and free to express their views. The authors argue that “preaching to the choir” does not work when trying to reach groups that are skeptical or dismissive of an issue because it only involves speaking to those who already have knowledge or interest in the issue. In addition, social constructionism explains that reality is constructed through conversations and interactions. People can co-create a positive future through building relationships. Creating an environment where dialogue can flourish helps to overcome polarization in communities, in and outside of the classroom. It seems like stating the obvious that the way to encourage people to learn about topics they may avoid is simply promoting open discussion. Still, it is important to push beyond raising awareness among those who already care about an issue and bring in interdisciplinary perspectives. “Preaching to the choir” can incentivize people who already care to take action and become well-educated about a topic, but it is not enough to create change. Social science concepts can reach beyond the “choir” by focusing on intersectionality with other disciplines. Instead of fostering niche echo chambers, education should be designed to welcome people of all views and give them space for open dialogue.

Across the US, the number of students who are English learners, “those whose first or primary language is anything other than English and who identify as requiring assistance in school to reach English language proficiency,” has been rapidly rising. As of 2021, nearly 11% (5.3 million) of public school students were classified as English learners (ELs), and the National Association for the Education of Young Children has estimated that by 2030, 40% of students will have a home language other than English. Due to decades of insufficient support from the government, many ELs are suffering academically. The most recent national data from the 2019-2020 school year show that the high school graduation rate percentage for ELs is 71% compared to the national average of 86%. And as of 2017, a very small percentage of graduating ELs, 1.4%, end up taking college entrance exams like the SAT or ACT. Despite the clear and pressing need for school programs dedicated to effectively supporting the increasing number of ELs and addressing some of these academic disparities, a multitude of challenges such as insufficient funding, teacher shortages, and a lack of culturally sensitive classroom spaces persist. 

Something that must be immediately addressed is the need for more funding and readily equipped EL teachers. As the New America think tank explains, “Education advocates have been pushing for more federal funding for ELs for years, calling attention to the fact that funds have not kept up with the pace of growth among the EL population.” Since 2022, the federal grant program dedicated for ELs has decreased by 24%, despite the increasing number of EL students. Furthermore, the Trump administration “has fired nearly every Education Department staffer who ensured states and schools properly spent the hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked to help over 5 million students learning English.” This development has sparked concerns from education advocates over the proper management of the already limited federal funds dedicated to ELs. 

To further complicate matters, there are not enough EL educators available. According to the latest federal data, while the number of EL students increased by 2.6% between the 2018-2020 school years, the number of certified EL teachers decreased by 10.4%. A report by the nonprofit the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) highlighted the impact of this data stating, “In the 2020-2021 school year, 33 states and DC reported a shortage of ESL or bilingual teachers.” The CCSSO further stated that in the 2020-2021 school year, “only 10% of teachers had a major, minor, or certificate in EL instruction.” Although 48% of these teachers were familiar with EL instruction to some degree due to courses taken in college, this is not the same as long-term training or a specialized degree. It is important that universities encourage education majors to consider learning more about EL instruction and offer specialized programs, as research has shown that EL students perform better academically when both their general and EL teachers have specialist certificates or training. General classroom teachers must be properly prepared to potentially instruct ELs, as “U.S. Department of Education statistics for 2020-21…showed 67% of all U.S. teachers had at least one EL student in their class.” 

Researchers and education advocates have also emphasized the importance of valuing students’ L1, or first language, as well as culturally sensitive classroom spaces for ELs. Educators and researchers have repeatedly expressed concerns over the common practice of “restricting support for students’ home languages, and emphasizing English-only approaches.” A multitude of studies and meta analyses have shown academic, cognitive, and language acquisition facilitation benefits that result from incorporating students’ L1 into classroom instruction. Furthermore, a research study on equity in classrooms emphasized the importance of teachers approaching education from a bilingual and bicultural perspective, understanding the intersection of language and culture, and applying this knowledge to support effective instruction for ELs. In order to fully support EL students and help them succeed, educators must embrace an asset-based pedagogy with ELs that values the “existing linguistic and cultural knowledge” that these students already bring with them to the classroom.  It is extremely evident by the lack of sufficient funding, trained EL teachers, and culturally responsive classrooms that ELs have been and continue to be drastically underserved and undervalued in the current US education system. With the Trump Administration eliminating “nearly 200 civil rights attorneys who would make sure school districts meet their legal obligations to support English learners” as well as declaring English to be the official language of the US, which “could lead schools to put less effort into translating documents and conversations for immigrant families” and discourage L1 incorporation in classrooms, it is clear that these policies actively harm EL students. Policymakers must recognize that EL’s “unique cultural and linguistic resources…can add considerably to the breadth and depth of knowledge, perspectives, and talents of American society.” The rise of ELs is not a burden but instead an opportunity for everyone present in the classroom. Educators and lawmakers valuing EL students and their perspectives allows for a “global, dynamic, and multicultural approach to education”—something that is necessary in an increasingly diverse and globalized world.

The issue of censorship has been a hot topic in politics, and within the last month it has come to a head in Georgia with a recent Senate Bill, GA SB 74. This bill addresses the distribution of materials deemed “harmful” to minors, and it eliminates the protections that were previously afforded to librarians within state code. Essentially, where libraries were originally exempt from legal repercussions regarding distribution of “obscene” materials to minors, librarians could now face consequences for the books they lend out to underage patrons. This includes any materials that might be perceived as indecent or profane, and this recently proposed Senate bill would substantially restrict the types of materials that can be freely distributed by libraries.

Given how controversial the issue of censorship is in contemporary politics, the bill has faced criticism from the public. Libraries have proven to be an invaluable part of the Georgia community, with over 400 spread across every county in the state. Without the previous exception protecting libraries’ ability to freely disseminate materials, young readers could face significant restrictions on the topics they can read about in libraries.

Georgia code defines works as “harmful to minors” when it lacks any serious literary, political, artistic, or scientific merit. However, there are no clear standards for determining what works fit under this exception. This determination is highly subjective and gives cause for concern about certain topics being more vulnerable to censorship than others. While it is true that the same standards may be applied to all literature in theory, restrictions on literature tend to disproportionately affect books addressing issues of race, gender, and sexuality. This bill has not yet been passed, as it is still awaiting a vote by the Georgia House, but should this bill be passed, Georgia librarians will forever have the threat of legal action hanging over their heads, preventing them from lending books that touch on historically censored topics to young students.

This threat to students’ ability to freely access books cuts to the core of what it means to provide young adults with a comprehensive education. GA SB 74 comes in the wake of President Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, including a recent executive order on the subject. It remains to be seen how the Department of Education might redistribute its powers to other departments–and which roles it plays will simply cease to exist. However, should the Department of Education be eliminated, the lack of federal funding to ensure quality of education would disproportionately affect poorer communities and rural areas. Furthermore, many communities dominated by racial minorities will tend to feel the impacts of this executive order the most severely, given the department’s role in providing funding to under-resourced Black-dominated neighborhoods. Additionally, the abolishing of the Department of Education would eliminate support for students with disabilities and make their education even more inaccessible.

Furthermore, through various executive orders, President Trump is seeking to push a pro-privatization agenda through educational policy. One way in which he is aiming to do this is by utilizing public funds that would go toward the public education system to instead help parents pay for privatized, often faith-based education. However, sending a student to a private school rather than a public school could severely restrict the scope of the education a student is receiving, especially without the Department of Education’s oversight in ensuring the quality of education students receive. This effect is only exacerbated by GA SB 74, which would restrict libraries from providing materials that could expose K-12 students to topics that their education may not address.

This is not the only executive order from President Trump that puts the integrity of K-12 public education at risk. Trump has also made education on race-related issues a target through his executive order banning education on race-related issues. With the Trump administration’s attempts to limit students’ exposure to race-related issues and privatize education, students’ exposure to diverse topics is becoming increasingly threatened, an issue exacerbated by GA SB 74. The best way for students to subvert these attempts to restrict what they can learn about is for them to be able to openly access information and literature outside the scope of their education. Thus, the legal perils of librarians providing such materials to young students is another means of censoring education.

President Trump cannot fully disband the Department of Education without congressional approval. Even so, he seeks to drastically reduce its power and functions to only the barest necessities and take action to preemptively facilitate its disbanding. This, coupled with the number of executive orders he has been able to pass regarding restriction of education, has severely destabilized the comprehensiveness of lower education, preventing young students from learning about highly essential topics related to social issues and taboo topics in American history and culture. The combined impact of this and the recent Georgia Senate Bill would make it immensely difficult for Georgia students to access information unrestrictedly.

GA SB 74 has not yet been passed into law; the end of the Georgia legislative session on April 4th may prevent it from being passed into law this legislative session. However, the introduction of this bill sets a dangerous precedent for the future of libraries’ legal protections. Given the recent attempts to dismantle the Department of Education, it is certainly possible that there will be continued attempts in future legislative sessions to strip libraries of their discretion on what materials to distribute. Such a development would have a substantial impact on Georgia students’ ability to receive a well-funded, comprehensive education.

As America began to globalize and solidify itself as a world power, we opened ourselves to threats internationally and on our own shores. 14 years since the beginning of the War on Terror, some still question whether or not we are actually succeeding in creating a safer world with the rise of ISIS and continuous domestic acts of terror (i.e. Boston Marathon bombing). These terrorists at home and abroad have made the most common of places – malls, movie theaters, office spaces, large events, and even schools – dangerous for our citizens.

But is our fear of future threats encroaching on other citizens’ rights? Just last month police arrested 14-year old Ahmed Mohammed for bringing an alleged “bomb” to school.  During their investigation, they realized that the ninth grader from Irving, TX, was truthfully describing the object as a homemade alarm clock. To add fuel to the fire, Ahmed was suspended for 3 day following this discovery; the Irving Independent School District and MacArthur High School cited in a letter the violation in the IISD Student Code of Conduct of “bringing items to school that are prohibited” and warned parents and students to report “suspicious items and or behavior.”

That day, Ahmed wasn’t a student, a tech-lover or an aspiring engineer; he was a “terrorist” simply because he was Muslim.  Islamophobia – the fear of, hatred towards, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or the Muslim community – is increasingly becoming a problem in the United States, and many incidents can even be seen in the Dallas area. For example, Muslim Americans gathered in January to condemn violent extremism, but were met with opposition from the Garland community, an area northeast of Dallas and just a few minutes from Irving. One gatherer yelled, “We’re here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us.” Ironically, the group Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate isn’t trying to destroy us and  bills itself as a dedicated force to teach Muslims to appreciate the true meaning of the Islamic faith.

Even the media has incorrectly approached the topic of Islam. For instance, John McCain (R-AZ) was being interviewed by Fox News anchor Brian Kilmeade who, after watching a video taken in Syria, asked the senator whether he could support someone who yelled “Allah Akbar.” McCain didn’t see anything wrong and even compared it to an English-speaker saying “Thank God.” Kilmeade is insinuating that anyone who proclaims thanks to Allah must be someone we can’t trust, which is completely misguided. The fact that a very common phrase can be misconstrued to make someone out as a terrorist is becoming a trend in America, and it’s not only limited to conservative thinkers.

CNN’s Don Lemon asked – for what seems like no reason – if Muslim International Human Rights lawyer and journalist Arsalan Iftikhar supports ISIS. Iftikhar emphasized the people that commit these types of crimes are irreligious and cannot represent the religion of Islam as a whole – a religion that represents many recent Noble Prize Winners and the creators of algebra and modern medicine.

One sector of UGA’s diverse population is our Muslim students who are represented on campus by UGA’s Muslim Student Association (MSA). MSA is a faith-based organization that strives to provide a stronger community within the UGA campus. It partners with other organizations on campus, such as Wesley’s Peacemakers, to start the conversation on the teachings of the Quran and its similarities to Christianity. I sat down with MSA’s spokesperson and event coordinator Sahar Khan to discuss the growing Islamophobia in the US.

Sahar is your average American student. The Georgia native from Norcross remembers a time where it wasn’t strange to be different. But after her family relocated to Forsyth County, she quickly realized she was a minority in a largely white community. What made it even worse was that her move followed the September 11^th attack on the World Trade Center. Even with this opposition, she found a way to connect with her classmates even though she was a Pakistani Muslim girl.

Coming to UGA wasn’t a hard decision for Sahar; she knew that she wanted to be a doctor of osteopathic medicine since she was 14 years old. Sahar always knew her goal in life was to help people, so her switch to Science Education this past year didn’t come as a shock to anyone. The third year’s love for teaching fell perfectly into place and launched her dream of inspiring kids across the globe.

As a science education major, the topic of Ahmed Mohammed was quickly discussed in Sahar’s classes. She recalls other students saying they would have done exactly what the teacher did in confiscating the clock, saying that it looked like a bomb. Sahar can understand their reaction as a fellow American and as an educator. Safety is very important in today’s day and age; she even notes our instinctive fear of homemade “bomb-like” items. But even with that, Sahar took a different path. She describes the desired student-teacher relationship where we “make sure that the mental status of each kid is okay.” She goes on to say “And I’m sure they’ve interacted with him on some level to understand that he’s not someone who would do something like that.”

We went on to talk about the idea if Ahmed’s caution to show the clock might have prevented this incident from occurring, which brought up the strained relationship that the Muslim community has with the rest of the population. When people think of the word Islam in America, Sahar believe the first thing that comes to people’s mind is terrorist, women in veils, and bearded brown men.  The truth about Islam is the biggest push to change the perception of their culture according to Sahar. “With any minority group, or any minority faith, at first there is always this pushback,” she explains, “But over time in America, people come to accept it.”

One way of changing the perception of Islamic culture is by teaching the true practices of the religion. This goes for both those from other religions and those who practice it. Sahar took the initiative to teach her friends the similarities between Christianity and Islam, but also says it’s up to Muslims themselves to understand what they are practicing. “Each individual person needs to go out and learn about whatever it is that they are.” She goes on to say, “A lot of people, they don’t understand why we pray five times a day, why we fast, why any of this is important. They just do it because they’ve been told to do it.”

Sahar applies this to the incident in Irving. She recalls an assignment in her education classes dealing with breaking stereotypes and recommends to “do it! It not just an assignment.” She also simply suggest teachers “use common sense. Look at the kid. If he’s wearing a NASA shirt then he’s not trying to hurt anyone.” Lastly she believes they should “invest time in students and get to know them so that way you can love and respect each other.”

This happened in Texas but make no mistake, with extent of anti-Muslim stereotyping in the US, it could happen anywhere#IStandWithAhmed

— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) September 16, 2015

Assumptions and fear don't keep us safe—they hold us back. Ahmed, stay curious and keep building. https://t.co/ywrlHUw3g1

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 16, 2015

Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great.

— President Obama (@POTUS44) September 16, 2015

“At the end of the day when Ahmed comes in with a clock he builds, you help him get it into the science fair instead of getting him in jail,” said Sahar. Ahmed may have experienced something on September 14^th that should have never happened, but the support he received on social media and around the globe helped break the grasp Islamophobia has on the country. “The way that you feel at home and when you feel safe is when you feel loved,” Sahar explains, and it is what she thinks will finally destroy this fear. The conversation has started, but it is up to us to steer it in the right direction.

For more information about the Islamic faith or the Muslim Student Association and their events check out their website and Facebook.

Photo Credit: Anil Dash

Georgia Board of Regents Policy 4.1.6 bans undocumented students from being admitted into the top five universities in Georgia, and Policy 4.3.4 bans them from receiving in-state tuition to those schools they can attend. In response to these policies, Freedom U, a “modern-day freedom school,” was established in 2011. It was inspired by the makeshift Civil Rights-era schools that provided an education to racial minorities barred from segregated institutions like the University of Georgia (UGA).

So who are the students attending Freedom U? The thinktank Educators for Fair Consideration estimates that about 65,000 undocumented students graduate from American high schools every spring. Only about 1,800-3,000 undocumented students, however, enroll in higher education programs every year. This translates to roughly 3 percent of undocumented high school graduates attending college. Compared to the estimated 66.3 percent of American citizens entering college, this percentage is staggering. However, there are other factors at play here besides bans like Georgia’s. Undocumented aliens tend to have lower incomes than citizens, making college a less feasible option for them regardless of admittance. Additionally, many fear deportation supposed to be working for free of for very little pay.” This is what Dr. Emiko Soltis told her class of and try to avoid detection by not applying to publicly-funded schools. That being said, state bans still have a major impact on an undocumented student’s decision on whether to apply to college.

In order to overcome these hurdles, students in Georgia can attain some level of college education by attending Freedom U. Freedom U provides free classes to undocumented students on topics such as immigration history, SAT prep, and debate. Educators come from across the state to voluntarily teach on Sundays. But education is only part of its mission. Freedom U is also involved in the fight to overturn the Board of Regents’ policies. Students are actively involved in protests and demonstrations of civil disobedience across the state, including at UGA. Nine such students, some documented and others not, were arrested in Moore College on Jan. 9, 2015—the 54th anniversary of UGA’s desegregation—while conducting a protest. Under the direction of Freedom U, students found a classroom in Moore College to listen to lectures on the Civil Rights Movement. Doors were marked with signs reading “Desegregation in Progress.” When the building closed, however, some students refused to leave the room in protest of what they consider to be “modern-day segregation.” The police escorted the students off the premises after receiving a tip from an unknown source. The nine students left the building wearing monarch butterfly wings, to symbolize the beauty of natural migration, and handcuffs.

Freedom U backs up its protests with several arguments against the ban. One is that, contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. A 2010 study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that undocumented immigrants in Georgia pay over $300 million in state and local taxes each year. Moreover, Freedom U says that Georgia’s policy is unusual and economically unsound. Georgia is one of only three states that bans students from top universities and denies them instate tuition. Other states have done away with such bans, because as Roberto Gonzales, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington has said, “Given the opportunity to receive additional education and move into better-paying jobs, undocumented students would pay more in taxes and have more money to spend and invest in the U.S. economy.”

Freedom U students and volunteers have confidence that the ban will be rescinded in the future. They believe that the empathy their protests evoke, along with economic reality, will eventually win over the naysayers. Kevin Ruiz, one of the students arrested at Moore College, said that it was a great illustration by his undocumented peers that “they’re willing to give up everything for their education.” Ruiz also said that he and the other Moore College protesters are not worried about the punishments they face. They are accused of “disrupting normal university proceedings,” but Ruiz said that the “normal operations are segregation, immoral … and should be disrupted.”

If these higher education policies that Ruiz describes as “immoral” are to change anytime soon, reforms will likely have to face the Georgia General Assembly first. Although the ban technically comes from the Board of Regents, the Board did not put it in place completely by choice. If the Board had not implemented the ban, the General Assembly would have likely passed a law that banned undocumented students from all of Georgia’s colleges, not just the top five. Ruiz says that although most undocumented students recognize this, the Board of Regents is still “actively preventing qualified students from attending college,” and therefore cannot claim to be “the good guys.”

But many Georgians do see the Board of Regents as “the good guys.” The dominant sentiment among the general populace is that these students are not American citizens, and therefore should not be allowed to take the place of citizens in top schools. But this attitude might actually be hurting the top schools. If a qualified applicant is rejected due to their citizenship status in favor of a less qualified one, then the school is becoming less competitive due to a non-academic factor.

More controversial is the ban on in-state tuition. In South Carolina, which is a state with a similar immigrant population to Georgia’s, a study by immigration attorney Michael Olivas estimates that each undocumented student paying in-state tuition at a public university costs each taxpayer approximately two cents per year. Students who earn a degree in the United States are more likely to stay in the country after receiving their degree. With a college degree, it is easier for these students to gain U.S. citizenship and receive higher paying jobs. The resulting higher income levels translate into a higher tax bracket. Olivas’s study estimates that the average undocumented student who takes advantage of this program would pay back within just seven years of graduation more in taxes than what the taxpayers had given them.

Georgia’s legislative process makes it difficult to grant reprieve to undocumented students who want to be treated like their classmates, and who didn’t appear so different from them until they began filling out their college applications. Even though the Georgia General Assembly’s threat to pass legislation banning undocumented students from attending all of the state’s secondary schools is ultimately responsible for the current ban, some of its members are beginning to fight against it. SB 44, introduced by Democratic State Senator Nan Orrock in January, would effectively overturn the Board of Regents’ policy, as it calls for noncitizens to be considered the same as citizens when determining college admittance qualifications and tuition rates. Before the bill was considered by the Higher Education Committee on Feb. 10, Freedom U students spoke with Republican Senator Michael Williams, a member of the Higher Education Committee, who had said earlier that he did not support SB 44. The students said that after speaking with Williams, he seemed much more supportive of their position, particularly after realizing that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants do indeed pay taxes and that they are more likely to keep living in Georgia and better its economy if they can attend the top in-state schools.

Despite Williams’ apparent change of heart, the committee meeting on Feb. 10 did not go well. The meeting only lasted 45 minutes before the chairman cancelled it, and although the crowd in the room seemed supportive of the undocumented students, SB 44 was not put to a vote, as it was unable to garner the necessary support from the committee members. If SB 44 ever makes it out of committee, it will still face several legislative obstacles including the Rules Committee and a floor vote before making it to the Governor’s desk.

While Georgia is clearly not a receptive place for collegebound undocumented students, it is possible for these students to attend out-of-state colleges. Some schools, like UCLA, even encourage undocumented students to attend in order to gain the most competitive student body and to increase diversity. But many students in this situation are low-income and have trouble paying out-of-state tuition, regardless of their acceptance. If the Freedom U students had their way, Georgia would follow the rest of the nation and repeal the Board of Regents’ policy. And they might get their way before too long. Georgia and its top colleges are beginning to listen to their concerns. With measures like SB 44 coming through the General Assembly, Freedom U is now optimistic that the ban will soon be overturned. They believe that protests like the one at Moore College show the state that education is so important to them, they are willing to go to prison for it.

It is well known that Georgia has a less-than-stellar record when it comes to civil rights. But our history does not determine our destiny. Change is in the air. For the students at Freedom U who want nothing more than to attend college in the same state that they grew up in and to continue to live and work here, that change cannot come soon enough.

– By Cait Felt & Rob Oldham/Photo Credit: AHAM

As Steve Jobs was introducing the iPad 2 in March 2011, he summarized the success behind Apple this way: “It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough – it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” He insisted that humanity’s greatest achievements and innovations came from the combination of science and arts – stronger together than individually.

These same virtues are instilled in America’s education system today – a mandatory core curriculum requiring all high school students to take classes on various subjects including mathematics, literature, history, and the sciences. By introducing students to different fields of interest, schools hope that they are gaining exposure to a wide variety of subjects. Critics of our nation’s current education system, however, believe that the traditional set of mandatory core classes are outdated.

So-called reformers argue that today’s education system limits a student’s creativity and inhibits the right to free expression. They argue that students should have the right to exercise freedom of choice and, to facilitate this, schools should allow students to choose classes they are interested in. This would spare students from “useless, difficult subjects” that wouldn’t be of any use in their future careers. Andrew Hacker, co-author of “Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids – and What We Can Do About It,” argues that our education system should only revolve around students’ future career goals and that anything else is just “depleting our pool of brainpower” and “misdirecting [our] precious resources.”

However, critics like Hacker miss the point of a high school education. High school isn’t necessarily about retaining the information taught, but rather retaining the process it took to learn that information. It’s where students “learn how to learn,” and develop important skill sets including fundamental critical and analytical thinking, good study habits, and other core academic abilities which they then utilize when moving on to postsecondary schooling.

In a few years, or even months, students won’t remember things like half-angle identities or the fact that colonial French exports included otter pelts – but that’s not the point. The objective of learning these seemingly “useless” facts is to practice the application of learning. A core curriculum including math, literature, science, and history is crucial because the processes students undertake to successfully complete these courses also provide the challenges of logical thinking and problem solving.

Experts in urban school reform Melissa Roderick, Jenny Nagaoka, and Vanessa Coca argue in their paper College Readiness for All: The Challenge for Urban High Schools “what is essential is not taking a specific set of college-preparatory courses, but engaging in coursework that develops the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind required for success in postsecondary schooling.”

They say, “the distinction between core academic skills and content knowledge can be subtle.” “Core academic skills,” they explain “such as writing and analytic thinking, are not subject-specific, but rather allow students to engage in work in a range of disciplines.” Meanwhile, content knowledge is fundamental to understanding specific subject areas such as “different literary techniques in the field of English.” While it is important that students learn new information across all disciplines, the end goal for most of these classes is simply to build core academic skills.

Another inherent problem with a schedule that limits a student’s education to a specific field is that young people don’t know what they want for a career yet. The innocent question, “what do you want to be when you grow up” turns out to be an extremely ironic one as it takes many years for students to really know what they want to do for a career. According to Dr. Fritz Grupe, a professor from the University of Nevada, Reno and founder of the website My Majors.com, up to “80 percent of college-bound students have yet to choose a major” and 50 percent of students who do declare a major “change up to two or three times during their college years.” “The key,” according to Grupe, “is helping students – preferably while still in high school – identify those areas of study best suited for them before the college tuition clock ever starts ticking.” Disregarding entire classes and basing a high school education period on a specific field is a high risk and extremely limiting. Making a student jump into a field of study before knowing whether he or she even wants to pursue a certain major is not necessarily the best option.

In addition, critics argue that some current core classes play no role in a majority of the careers offered. They argue that subjects such as literature and history have no purpose for scientists or engineers or that calculus has no role in the career of a lawyer. Dr. Loretta Jackson-Hayes, an associate professor at Rhodes College, sees it differently. She argues that “our culture has drawn an artificial line between art and science.”

Dr. Jackson-Hayes is quick to point out that such boundaries did not exist for innovators like Leonardo da Vinci who studied various passions which ultimately “helped him triumph in both art and science.” Mark Turner, professor of cognitive science at Case Western Reserve University, reveals that many of our brightest scientists and engineers read literature because “literary works are the most refined and complex versions of our natural way of thinking.” Troy Camplin, the author of “Diaphysics,” argues that literature “helps stimulate creativity” and enables people to recognize “patterns and connections,” both of which are “vital to scientific discovery.” Camplin reveals that specialists who only associate themselves with the work in their particular field typically engage in “uncreative group think.” This approach will play a detrimental role in our technology-driven society that constantly demands innovation and insightful creations.

An education system based on a core curriculum gives students a complete and whole education, enabling them to freely explore many different areas of study, while also teaching them life-long learning skills. “Education,” as astrophysicist Rob Knop once said, “should be training people to be members of civilization, not employees.” A high school education that is solely focused on a field of study and that ignores other core classes with no obvious “job relevance” should not be passed off as an education at all.

Winston Churchill once said “History is written by the victors.” That certainly seems to be the case for six Georgia state senators, who introduced a resolution in January stating their disapproval of the new Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) framework for the 2015-2016 academic year.

Advanced Placement courses offer an outstanding opportunity for high school students to receive college credit. After completing an AP course, students can take AP exams that mirror the rigor of college finals. If they pass, students can bypass that course in college. Over 14,000 high school students in Georgia took the APUSH course and exam last year, all hoping to receive some college credit for their efforts in the difficult class.

In 2012, the CollegeBoard (who writes the AP curriculum) introduced a new framework for APUSH. The framework for all AP courses is an outline intended to lay out the standards that students will be tested on in the end-of-the-year exam. Some Georgia lawmakers seem to have an issue with the new APUSH curriculum.

S.R. 80, the resolution introduced onto the Senate floor, says “the framework presents a biased and inaccurate view of many important themes and events in American history.” Specifically, the six state senators believe the outline doesn’t give enough attention to the Founding Fathers, the American free enterprise system, the Cold War, and America’s role in WWII. Sen. William Ligon from Brunswick, Georgia even goes as far to state that “our best and brightest students are being immersed in the negative aspects of our nation’s history, while the positive accomplishments Americans worked hard for, are minimized or omitted altogether.” These legislators think that APUSH should focus more on the great parts of American history instead of the negative parts. It doesn’t feel very patriotic to learn about the atrocities committed against the Native Americans or the roots of slavery, America’s “peculiar institution.”

If nothing is changed in the CollegeBoard outline, the resolution moves to withhold funds for APUSH courses within the state. This means that schools would not receive money for APUSH textbooks and teachers would not be able to attend professional development workshops.

Georgia isn’t the only state that is having issues with the new outline. Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Colorado have also issued legislation that condemns the new framework both at the local and state level. The Oklahoma legislature made national news when one of its committees approved a bill that cuts all funding for APUSH. The discussion has fired up the nation. APUSH trended nationally on Facebook and Twitter for several days after the incident in Oklahoma. Many students of Jefferson County Schools in Colorado were angered by a decision made by their local school board to review the new APUSH outline. Some were so upset they even attended a school board meeting to protest. One student declared “True patriotism ought to be based upon accurate understanding of American history, and not a biased promotion of American exceptionalism.”

The CollegeBoard has continued to defend their outline throughout this controversy. Recently Trevor Packer, the senior vice president for AP and instruction at the CollegeBoard, actually met with both the Georgia Senate and House Committees on Education to discuss their issues with the framework. When many lawmakers said that they felt that the new framework didn’t talk about the Founding Fathers enough, Packer responded by saying “Rather than reducing the role of the Founders, the new framework places more focus on their writings and their essential role in our nation’s history, and recognizes American heroism, courage and innovation.” Thinking in a critical manner is what really separates APUSH from a normal high school history class. Students are not just memorizing dates or regurgitating facts. APUSH focuses on students understanding what those facts mean and seeing their lasting impact on America society.

To gain a full understanding of U.S. history, students should learn about the events that America isn’t so proud of today. Japanese internment, slavery, the Trail of Tears—these are all things that can make students cringe, but they are essential to understanding the country we are today.

Should more time be spent discussing Roarin’ Twenties, while Japanese internment is reduced to a mere paragraph? America is an amazing nation but that doesn’t mean we should gloss over the gritty parts of our history. Our nation has had more than two centuries of important, nuanced history, both good and bad. Students should learn about America’s victories, but also about the times where America stumbled as a nation. Teach students about the smallpox blankets early Americans used to kill off Native Americans, teach them about the real impact of slavery and Japanese interment.

Glossing over the ugly parts of history has dire consequences. For example, a textbook in Texas in 1983 omitted any mention of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal because the school board saw his policies as socialist. Needless to say, learning how the New Deal affected the American economy and helped lifted us out of the Great Depression is essential to understanding everything from present day fiscal policy to standards of review in constitutional law.

Education is the most powerful weapon in the world. But that power must be used responsibly. The best way to honor our history is to acknowledge our mistakes and learn from them. Because of our past atrocities, we now understand to not let fear control our common sense. Learning about mistakes helps younger generations build a better future. After all, as Churchill reminds us, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Georgia can learn something from a fellow Deep South state when it comes to raising the bar for education. In recent years, many Georgia public schools have experienced academic failure, been embarrassed by administrative scandals, and found themselves in financial ruin. They are in desperate need of a solution. The model crafted in Louisiana to address underperforming school districts may prove palatable for the Peach State.

In his State of the State address, Gov. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) outlined new plans to manage the troubled public education system, including a proposal to broaden the state’s power to intervene in poorly-performing schools similar to Louisiana’s program.

Democrats in the state claim that Gov. Deal, alongside the Republican-controlled state legislature, has shortchanged Georgia’s children by cutting funding for public education. It is true that budget shortfalls caused by the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession forced austerity cuts to the state budget. These cuts temporarily pressurized local school districts by forcing them to find funding elsewhere in order to fill the spending gaps. But overall, education spending is up by $868.6 million since the governor took office in 2011.

Though the state’s education funding formula – a baseline mechanism which determines state funding for local school boards – is older than some members of the state legislature, the appropriations process is not the most pressing problem. More than half of the state budget is directed toward education spending, but the system needs a structural adjustment to make any amount of funding effective. Repairing the education environment for students in poor-performing districts should be prioritized rather than simply increasing funding. This is what will improve these students’ social welfare.

Last August, the Georgia Department of Education released a list of alert schools, described as those with “the lowest achievement of the all students group in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments.” Local districts have failed to revive these low-performing schools independently. Many of these low-performing institutions are located in low-income districts – mostly within the Atlanta perimeter or rural South Georgia – where student performance is perpetually underwhelming. Many of these schools belong to districts that face administrative incompetence and significant fiscal hurdles, thus building the case for outside assistance. There is a clear impetus for a change in direction.

Charter schools are becoming a vital part of the education debate. These taxpayer-funded institutions are exempt from many standards and regulations that apply to traditional public systems, thus permitting more curriculum flexibility. The governor’s plan to grant charters as a tool to improve academic welfare during his first term was shot down when the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that charters wrongly infringed upon local school districts. But now that voters have approved a constitutional amendment creating the state’s charter school commission – the entity in charge of granting waivers – a window of opportunity is open to address the challenge of lifting the bottom line in education.

And this is where Georgia should follow Louisiana’s lead.

The Louisiana Recovery School District program was pioneered in the early 2000s and adopted through state referendum. The referendum created a state-controlled entity which assumed control of chronically underperforming schools. According to the Cowen Institute at Tulane University, the Louisiana effort is charting progress. Since 2003, students have recorded gains in standardized test scores and school performance ratings have increased steadily. Most critically, the number of schools considered academically unacceptable is down by nearly 50 percent in recent years.

If modeled after the Louisiana program, a potential Georgia version could grant charters to struggling schools. These charters would put the school under the control of a specially appointed superintendent responsible for revitalization efforts. These superintendents would not be bound by typical Georgia education standards. Schools that do not show signs of improvement lose their charter. Those proving academic progress would be returned to local control.

Many claim that merely increasing funding for Georgia’s education system will allow local leaders to appropriate more efficiently and ultimately improve the learning environment. However, this conventionally popular theory loses credibility when the schools continually fail performance examinations, regardless of funding levels.

Systems like Clayton County Schools, City of Atlanta Schools, and DeKalb County Schools – metro-Atlanta districts plagued by structural administrative deficiencies – recently scored at the bottom of the Georgia Department of Education’s College and Career Readiness Performance Index. Though poorly-funded school systems typically fare worse on standardized examinations, merely increasing appropriations will be an insufficient antidote to the ills draining lagging districts without a structural change. Poor resource management and curriculum administration has systematically complicated improvement efforts in low-performing schools. It’s time to try something more innovative.

Gov. Deal is rightfully addressing the state of our education system. An effective government makes sure no student is a victim of circumstance and enables each one to compete in today’s world. The Recovery School District model could be the mechanism by which Georgia climbs the ranks of excellence in education while simultaneously building a more formidable workforce.

Georgians deserve an education system that will prioritize the academic welfare of all students, including those trapped in failing schools. Let’s look to Louisiana and give their program a try in order to raise student performance. It’s time to solve this problem.

Enjoy learning and want to go to a “good” school? Just maintain at least a 3.7 GPA to be competitive in classes; sacrifice sleep throughout the semester, especially during exam week to study; outrank most of your classmates; participate in a wide variety of extracurricular activities; satisfy all of the prerequisites for your program; and, most importantly, score high on expensive standardized tests.

This is the nature of the U.S. education system today. Rather than inspiring students to learn through error, natural interest, and desire, secondary and post-secondary schooling is unwelcome to creativity by generating exhausted and homogeneous young adults. Firstly, most institutions are based on traditional grading scales that train students to prioritize higher scores, rankings, and incomes over higher knowledge or error-based learning. Additionally, many school curricula in both secondary and post-secondary schools are too standardized to accommodate individual learning styles.

At its core, the high school and college grading system is counterproductive because it uses numbers as incentives, dwarfing the incentive of genuine curiosity. Such a number-based system comes with stakes as high as rejection from a school or a major altogether. Performance in classes and exams define cumulative GPA, class rank, and standardized score, the basic measures of academic performance. Consequently, students view success in learning as quantitative, rather than qualitative. In his analysis of grading systems and student motivation, Anthony Docan says that “… grades work to decrease intrinsic motivation and…may distract from the learning process and focus attention on the final result—that of getting a grade.” While grades do serve as a performance benchmark for students, this focus on maintaining higher numbers also takes a toll on the emotional and physical lifestyles of students. In the same study Docan’s research showed that students motivated by incentives such as grades showed signs of more negative emotions, especially in the classroom. While schools should inspire students to further their fields of study based on an instrinsic desire, they are, instead, causing students undue stress.

The American education system relies on a homogeneous curriculum, where students are all held to similar standards. This leads to neglect of other forms of intelligence such as aptitude in the arts and humanities. As a result, students are forced to follow narrowly-structured pathways that allow little room for error and place more emphasis on fulfilling pre-set requirements. A well-paid career should be the byproduct of an education focused on inspiring intrinsic motivation and curiosity among students.

In the current system, intelligence is heavily tied to mastering tests and completing a set curriculum. In his journal article, “’Standardized Minds’ or Individuality?” Dr. Stephen Dollinger, a psychologist at Southern Illinois University, cites research proving that such structured intelligence does not test for creativity in students. He argues that this research is based on “…classic work showing…that creativity depends more on divergent thought whereas admissions tests involve convergent thought.” While standardized tests are, to some degree, an indication of educational performance, Dr. Dollinger explains how students with creative intelligence that cannot be tested and scored are now expected to perform in a system that is built around the idea that intelligence is a numerical standard for all. Such students are falsely convinced that they are not talented or intelligent simply because they are not performing well in an educational environment that does not suit their nature.

Some might argue that there are career paths and majors in diverse areas that students can pursue. While there are a wide variety of organized pathways available for nearly all career interests, the problem is just that; they’re organized pathways. In the current system, careers are simply the end product of a string of required course credits and scores as opposed to lifestyles reached through trial and error or qualitative experience. As explained by education expert Joi Ito “…it feels like…they’re trying to make you memorize the whole encyclopedia before they let you go out and play.”

Such a strictly academic approach to the professional world is impractical as well as damaging to the future. Students are not encouraged to take chances or contribute unique points of view and are, in general, ill prepared to tackle the unpredictability of the professional world. A study done by Chegg, the Student Hub, and Harris Interactive found that while students felt ready for work in their field and confident in their skills, the majority of employers did not. In the study’s survey of over 1,000 hiring managers, less than 40 percent found students to be prepared for jobs in their respective fields. The study showed that part of the reason for this lack of preparation is that students lack  practical knowledge. Lesley Mitler, president of Priority Candidates says “…Instead of preparing our students for a particular job or career that would show more predictable and linear growth, they need to learn skills so they can adapt to whatever their job becomes.” Essentially, by restricting students to a limited, academic approach, the U.S. education system is generating a population severely lacking in practical problem solvers and innovators.

With such fundamental flaws in the U.S. education system, an innovative approach to learning should be implemented. Potential solutions include the promotion of secondary and post-secondary institutions that assess performance without grades or even developing schools where students choose their own curriculum. Brown University, for example, features an “Open Curriculum” where students are at liberty to choose their own set of courses. It is based on the idea that “…an undergraduate education is seen as a process of individual and intellectual development, rather than simply a way to transmit a set body of information.” Such unique styles of learning are necessary for harboring and encouraging creativity in current and future generations.

The face of education today consists of students pulling hairs and grinding teeth over textbooks rather than asking questions and forming ideas. With grades used as motivators, students see success as a percentage when they should be exiting the classroom encouraged to learn quality information. Furthermore, the route to the professional world has been systematized to a point where students are graduating unprepared to face challenges of the practical workforce. They are simply information retainers instead of innovators. As a result, schools have evolved into a factory that stifles creativity and starves a future thirsty for more creative minds.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, was signed into law on March 23, 2010.  It represents the most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.  However, long-term effects of the shake-up are not self-contained within the healthcare industry.  If Obamacare ultimately proves successful, it could serve as the model for regulatory overhaul for a variety of industries.

The intricacies of the Affordable Care Act are complex; however, in basic terms, it essentially lays out three broad mandates.  First, no individual may be denied healthcare coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  Second, if you do not work for a company that provides health insurance, you are required to purchase healthcare independently.  If that is unaffordable at your income level, the government will subsidize.  Finally, all health insurance plans are required to provide a certain minimum level of service.

In practice, these mandates create a difficult matrix for healthcare providers.  They must provide health insurance to everyone, at a very high quality, within a highly regulated environment while operating as an economically viable entity (making a profit).  Although challenging, this marriage of public sector regulation with private sector efficiencies promotes creative, unconventional, and ultimately successful results.  For example, in the past, health insurance providers have garnered profit by keeping costs low because they focus on covering healthy individuals.  While this system allowed insurance companies to make a profit, it inadvertently put a significant burden on hospital systems.  When uninsured individuals would run up an unpayable medical bill, the hospital would be left eating the cost.  From a high level view, this system put much of the risk insurance companies are designed to take on healthcare providers. It was economically viable but structurally inefficient.

Post Affordable Care Act, health insurance providers are required to provide coverage to everyone, so instead of discriminating among their customer base, they creatively squeeze profits from an entirely different angle.  One example is new ‘narrow network’ plans where instead of leaving out people, they leave out hospitals, only covering a limited set of medical facilities.  While seemingly counter-intuitive, these plans provide advantages to all parties.  Insurance companies keep costs low by only covering a small set of hospitals and facilities.  Hospitals are able to charge lower rates because they don’t eat costs from uninsured patients, and patients benefit because insurance providers can focus on premier care from a smaller group of facilities.  Presuming the consumer remains conscious of where their insurance is accepted, narrow network plans are advantageous to everyone.  This is just one example of how public sector regulation and private sector economic strategy can come together to form a system greater than the sum of its parts.

The marriage of public sector initiatives with private sector production is not new.  Think wartime tank production in Ford car factories for quick mobilization or Georgia Power for long term infrastructure.  Both examples represent government outsourcing for efficiency sake.  What makes the healthcare overhaul unique is that the industry is equally as service based (doctors, nurses, patients) as infrastructure based (hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and biotech).  This hybrid industry structure is naturally handled best by dexterous market forces.  For example, nurses today have longer careers and perform more diverse tasks than ever before.  As our population ages and demand increases for out of hospital nurses such as in the home or in secondary care facilities, nurses are able to extend their careers by taking on less physically demanding roles.  Such examples of shifts to meet demographic demand are consistent across the industry and symptomatic of the healthcare industries ability to shift and evolve.

Potential implications of a successful industry reform are broad and extend beyond healthcare.  For example, the higher education industry operates similarly to healthcare in many ways.  It involves governmental oversight of an extensive network of largely independent organizations.  Educational quality has come under fire in recent years.  More and more people are demanding access to higher education, and finally, structural inefficiencies, such as overpopulated schools and overly complex bureaucracy, leave the industry ripe for reform.  The idea of the government mandating public colleges to make their application process more transparent and their course offerings more consistent is not only possible but plausible.  A successful Affordable Care Act could very well serve as the cultural touch point and model for expanding and improving publically regulated industries in a regulated, organized and efficient manner.