Poverty and Media

Man is curious by nature and always remains busy in new and novel things. Poverty has many dimensions and quenches the thirst of man in this regard. He always comes by odd, weird and strange happenings due to poverty. Mother killed her babies, a father slaughtered his family, a brother ate to his fill while his little sisters and brother died due to famine. All these headlines are the offspring of obnoxious poverty. Hunger is the worst thing in this world. If one is hungry, he can sell his honor, his homeland and even his loved ones. It is a curse and an 'anaconda' that gnaws at the very roots of the humanity. It is not only shown on the media but also discussed in the meetings and seminars. The UN has included it in its millennium development goals. It is ever hot issue of the world. The most powerful nations of the world are not devoid of this anathema.

A lot of people die due to hunger and unavailability of eatables in the advanced countries. According to the facts and figures of the UN about 25000 deaths occur daily due to non availability of food. It means that one person is dying in every four seconds. The children are the worst prey to poverty all over the world.

Irony of the situation is that there is plenty of food present in the reservoirs of the world. In spite of the stock piles of the food,the same is not available to the hungry and the poor. The poor have no money to buy this food and are not able to live. Constant starvation makes them weak and they did not remain able to work. This unemployment breaks their neck and they fell down and down in the abyss of poverty and hunger.

This vicious circle ends in unfortunate deaths of these pitiable people. The world watches these hapless human beings dying only due to lack of few dollars. Not only the one man dies but also his family is famished and constrained to disappear from the face of the earth. World media and world organizations forget them after making their deaths headline on the face of their periodicals. Nobody comes out to disburse food or money. Only word jugglery is performed in the meetings and seminars for keeping oneself in the news and promoting one's image as a humanitarian.

Poverty is ridiculed instead of redeemed. The poor are punned and are shown with the naked feet and deprived souls on the media. It is done in the name of good faith but there is not even simple faith except shenanigans.

The UN is trapped by the profiteers and pseudo-non governmental organizations whose sole aim is to grab and pile up money by hook or by crook. Such persons and organizations try their best to remain in limelight. Their aim is to pretend humanism. They want people and governments of the world to praise their work. They influence the common folk by their false image. This is one of the reasons that poverty becomes the important news. Few organizations try sincerely and work out plans to save the starved people. Such programs need advertisement and publicity. This also makes poverty an important news item. To conclude it can be said that overt and covert aims of being publicized and remain in the news are the causes that include poverty in the major news items and discussions on all the forums.

Self Observation

LG Orsay Review For Students

Students all need mobile phones to get in touch with friends, classmates and family. They also need more access to information for their school requirements. Entertainment is very much in demand to most students as well.

The Basic Mobile Phone Needs of Students

Most students enjoy sending text messages. They send SMS to classmates, to friends and to almost everybody many times a day. While voice calls still has a demand, text messaging seem to have caught on with the students.

Then students love sending out and receiving multimedia messages too. In connection with this, they love taking photos so they can send them to their friends and even to family. And so they would need a good built-in camera to take pictures with.

For this, they are very fortunate that the LG Orsay is now available in the market. This mobile phone is well equipped with a 5MP camera. Students will certainly have a good camera when they have an LG Orsay. It has great optics and the rest of the camera features are just to die for. Students will really love the photos they will be able take with the Schneider-Kreuznach certified lens and the image stabilisation and the autofocus features. Photo editing is even possible in-camera.

Video clips can easily be taken with the LG Orsay camera. Students would have fun taking 30 frames per second videos. And watching them would surely be fun using the video player that is in this camera as well.

Of course, students need to go online many times during the week and even during the day. The internet capabilities would surely come in handy when on mobile and during emergencies. When one needs to search the internet right away, the LG Orsay will surely have its purpose.

It's also common knowledge that many students love listening to music. For this purpose, the LG Orsay is a good music player. With additional memory, this mobile phone can certainly store a lot of music. But the beauty of this built-in music player is it plays many of the music file formats. One does not need to convert a lot of their music files to be able to load them into their phone. They can use the songs as ring tones. It can also serve as an FM radio.

LG Orsay Review: This Is for Students!

The most that students need is a mobile phone that will serve them at the lowest cost possible. That is why this LG Orsay review recommends this mobile phone to students. Students do not even need to spend ?200 to have an LG Orsay. And the mobile phone deals available for this unit are so affordable. The packages are packed with services like unlimited text messaging and unlimited internet usage among others. If students need a mobile phone that rocks with so many features LG Orsay is the phone to get. And there are certainly many mobile phone deals to choose from. Students will not find a hard time looking for an affordable one. And the services are there to compliment the features that LG Orsay mobile phone is packed with. Again, the LG Orsay is the phone for the most demanding students.

About the Author:
We compare prices for the LG Orsay in the UK. You can also read our LG Orsay review and other handset reviews.

How banks rip off college students and the government.

By Michael Kinsley

If you know anything at all about the federal student loan program, you will not have been surprised by the scandal of recent months. The only amazing thing is that it has taken so long to arrive. Here's how the program works: Banks and other private companies lend money to students. The federal government pays part or all of the interest—currently 7 percent or 8 percent. The government also guarantees the loans.

What is wrong with this picture? Well, the government itself borrows the odd nickel to finance the national debt. This borrowing, obviously, is also guaranteed by the government. For that reason, it carries an interest rate of only 3 percent or 4 percent. If the government can borrow money at 3 percent or 4 percent, why should it be paying 7 percent or 8 percent for the privilege of guaranteeing loans to someone else? Wouldn't it make more sense for the government to loan out the money itself?

That is the $4 billion question (the approximate annual cost of the interest subsidy). And the answer is: Of course that would make more sense. It is what any levelheaded businessperson would do. And what is stopping the government from behaving like a levelheaded businessperson? Not those head-in-the-clouds Democrats. It's Republicans, who adopted the student loan "industry" in its infancy, like a stray cat, and have nurtured it and protected it ever since. There actually is a parallel student loan program that does use government funds. It was started in the early days of the Clinton administration. It costs less to operate, and it has not been tainted by scandal. But when the Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994, they pushed through a law forbidding the Education Department to encourage the use of this program. As a result, direct federal loans account for only 25 percent of all student loans.

There is plenty of other encouragement going on. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has extracted fines of more than $1 million each from prestigious institutions like Columbia and Johns Hopkins—and, for that matter, nearly as prestigious institutions like Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. It seems that kickbacks were being paid to university financial aid officers who delivered customers. Some of them even got stock in some of the more specialized, and dubious, student loan companies. When the government is giving away free money—which is what the program amounts to (and I mean giving it away to the banks, not to the students)—it's worth a good deal to get cut in on such a good deal.

When the student loan abuse story broke, fingers were pointed at the Education Department, which is supposed to supervise the program. The Government Accountability Office minced no words. It called on the department to "develop a protocol to determine the appropriate level of response for cases of non-compliance and assess the effectiveness of these actions to inform and improve this protocol." Wow. While the Education Department quaked in its boots over that one, Congress more usefully passed a bill substantially reforming the student loan program and cutting the subsidy to banks and other loan providers by 80 percent. President Bush, to his credit, will sign these reforms into law. In fact, he actually proposed some of them in his budget from February of this year. But this puts him at odds with his party.

The student loan "industry," as it is comically referred to in the newspapers, is an interesting case study in politics and business. To start, it is hardly an industry. There are no factories. The only things it "makes" are loans. Furthermore, it exists only because of a government program. Yet in the four decades since the federal government started it, the student loan business has evolved into a pretty good imitation of an industry, with trade associations, lobbyists, and support from politicians, mostly Republican. This "industry" is so dependent on the good will of politicians, in fact, that the reform bill alone may be enough to queer the deal in which its biggest player, Sallie Mae, is supposed to be bought by a private-equity firm for $25 billion. Even before taking over, the private-equity firm booted Sallie Mae's CEO on the explicit grounds that he did not have good relations with Democrats. To run this so-called company, in other words, you don't need to know how to make widgets or even how to make loans. You just need to know how to make nice. But don't feel too bad for this CEO who suddenly found his Rolodex obsolete: He made $40 million last year and will get millions more if the deal does go through.

But why do Republicans love student loans? Oh, in part the usual reasons: lobbyists and campaign contributions. There is almost sure to be at least one of these firms in your district—the local bank, if no one else. But there is more. Student loans are the clearest example of the common Republican confusion between free-market capitalism and business. Capitalism is an economic system that is held, with some justification, to be the best guarantor of prosperity. Business can be capitalism in action, or it can be something entirely different. There is very little about the student loan program that has anything to do with free-market capitalism. Yet whenever the student loan system comes under criticism, lobbyists, "industry" leaders, and supportive politicians haul out the same old clichés as if they were defending Adam Smith's famous pin factory itself.

During the recent reform bill debate in the House, for example, a Republican from Texas, Jeb Hensarling, declared that the very notion of reducing the subsidy to private companies was "all part of a Democratic tax-and-spend program." Rep. Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, declared that "we should call this the new Democratic welfare bill," because it was "taking away personal responsibility from people and giving them out and out payments for loans that they take out." This may be referring to a part of the bill that would forgive loans after many years for people who devote their lives to public service. Or it may just be nuts.

A so-called "analysis" by an industry expert, which (according to the Washington Post) circulated on Capitol Hill during the debate, worried that the big boys would survive, but the subsidy reductions "may leave smaller lenders unprofitable." Concern for "small lenders" was a common theme, as if a loan from a ma-and-pa bank, if such an institution exists, would be warmer and cuddlier than a loan from Citibank. Another common theme was that the subsidy cut was part of a covert Democratic effort to drive people into the direct federal loan program—or, as one lender CEO described it, the "one-size-fits-all direct loan program." This would be no bad thing, but it doesn't seem to have been the case. I'm not sure what "one size fits all" means here, but if it refers to the interest rate that students and their families have to pay, it's true that there is only one rate in the government program, compared with many in the private one—all of them higher, but maybe there are people for whom the variety is worth it.
via www.slate.com

True education reform

As the furor over American education increases, the demand for simple answers to complex issues escalates.

The easiest – and most visible – target for the ills of education is the classroom teacher. After all, teachers are entrusted with providing students with the tools to be successful in life and society; taxpayers expect a return on their investment.

Local, state and national standards lay out in excruciating detail just what is expected. Curriculum standards describe the content that students must learn, and professional development sessions disseminate the newest educational pedagogy designed to impart this information. To say that it is a daunting task is an understatement. The issue is not why so many teachers leave the profession, but rather, why so many stay.

Schools are a reflection of the society as a whole. If society truly values education, why is the average academic school year in the United States almost two weeks less than the international average for industrialized nations? When Americans complain about the preparation their students are receiving for college or work, perhaps some attention to should be directed to how long our students are in school and what takes up their time while they are there.

Then there is the need for "soft" preparation – things like work ethic, behavior, punctuality. Business leaders complain that new workers often don't understand the need to be on time, work hard, dress appropriately and act in a manner acceptable to the work place. But if the community – and parents – don't make sure students come to school on time, dressed properly and prepared to work, teachers must take up the slack. That takes time away from education in the curriculum standards. Perhaps an expectation that students arrive at school on time and get ready to work might be in order.

So, how should we improve high school to prepare students for college/career? The following suggestions might help.

• Lengthen the school year, but not the curriculum. Give schools more time to teach the existing curriculum, and there will be improvement. Even 10 or 15 more days would allow teachers time for review, for exploration of ideas, or for in-depth writing assignments.

• Get past the idea that school should be "fun!" What adults consider fun and what students consider fun are not the same. School should be challenging, interesting, exciting and illuminating, but not necessarily "fun." Sometimes it takes plain old hard work to master a concept. Sesame Street and other well-intentioned shows have done more damage than we realize in reducing education to sound bites. Education should not be all "drill and kill," but it is also not all fun and games. Homework is a necessary reinforcement, and the students won't learn the material as well when the parent decides that soccer practice, dance lessons or work is more important. The message that is being sent to the students is that hard work and practice are not necessary for school work.

• If the purpose of school is education let's consider the amount of time students spend on non-academic pursuits like athletics, journalism, band or choir, cheerleading and drill team, or theater. Of course there is value in each of these activities, but if the time students spend preparing for them were directed into academics, there would undoubtedly be improvement in academic results. Heresy? Perhaps, but this is where the community and society have to change. As long as Friday Night Lights or the high school musical have priority, not much will improve.

A demand for higher test scores, more stringent teacher evaluations, or more money – these are not the primary answers to the problems of education. The responsibility for education lies not just with the teacher, but with students who come to school prepared to learn, educational environments that are free from interruption and parents who work with the schools for the academic success of the students.

Without them, all other changes are cosmetic at best.

Sue Blanchette teaches U.S. history at Hillcrest High School in Dallas and is a Teacher Voices volunteer columnist. Her e-mail address is eagle91048@ ix.netcom.com.

AASA Supports NEA NCLB Lawsuit

The NEA announced today that six states (CT, DE, IL, ME, OK, WI, and DC), the governor of Pennsylvania, state and local officials in California, and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) filed a series of amicus briefs in support of the NEA’s appeal of the dismissal of their NCLB lawsuit, Pontiac v. Spellings.



Perhaps the most interesting development is AASA’s support for the lawsuit. It adds a management component to the labor plaintiff. If nothing else, NCLB has brought the superintendents and teacher’s union together on one issue.



Specifically, AASA takes exception to the Secretary’s interpretation of Section 9527, criticizes the costs involved in complying with NCLB, blasts Congress’ failure not to appropriate more money for Title I, and is dismayed at what it considers the dumbing down of state tests because of cost considerations.





Highlights of AASA’s amicus brief:



Amici agree with appellants that the Section imposes a broad prohibition against requiring states or school districts to spend their own funds for NCLB compliance, including compliance with requirements that are imposed by the NCLB itself. Amici do not write, however, to reiterate the basic principles of statutory interpretation that compel that conclusion. Rather Amici write to respond to an argument made by the defendant Secretary of Education (“Secretary”) in the district court (and noted with apparent approval in the decision of that court), and that Amici anticipate the Secretary may make in this Court as well…



the Secretary argued that Section 9527(a) could not possibly mean what appellants say it means, because if states and school districts were obligated to comply with the mandates of the NCLB only to the extent that they received sufficient federal funds to do so, this could prevent full implementation of the NCLB, and in turn could undermine the statutory purpose of “improving the academic achievement of all students . . ..” Amici disagree. As appellants explained in their complaint, in the NCLB Congress imposed extensive and costly new mandates on states and school districts in exchange for significant new federal funding to carry out those mandates….



Specifically, to provide states and school districts with the funds necessary to comply with Title I of the NCLB (which is the NCLB Title that imposes the most

significant mandates on states and school districts), Congress authorized the appropriation of $116.25 billion dollars over the course of the first six years of the

program, from fiscal year (“FY”) 2002 through FY 2007, with the authorized amounts steadily increasing from $13.5 billion in FY 2002 to $25 billion in FY

2007, to correspond to the increasing number and cost of the NCLB mandates during that period.



In the six years since the NCLB was enacted, however, Congress has appropriated (for FY 2002-2006) and the President has proposed (for FY 2007), an aggregate total of only $72.547 billion for those purposes, leaving states and school districts with a funding gap of at least $43.703 billion to fill. Moreover, the amount of the funding gap has steadily grown from fiscal year to fiscal year, as the NCLB mandates have become increasingly more extensive and expensive. Indeed, in the current school year, more than two-thirds of school districts in the country are receiving less in NCLB Title I funds than they previously did. Over the next few years, the situation is expected to deteriorate further: twenty-eight states and nearly two-thirds of school districts nationwide are receiving less Title I monies for FY 06 than they received during FY 05, and forty-one states are slated to receive less Title I monies under the President’s proposed budget for FY 07 than they did in prior years. This deterioration reflects the reality that instead of increasing appropriations for NCLB compliance each year as promised when the NCLB was enacted, Congress actually cut NCLB funding in FY 06 and is currently considering flatlining NCLB funding for FY 07 at the same level as FY 06….



Many states and school districts modified or abandoned their pre-existing testing regimes – which often were fuller and more comprehensive than the testing program mandated by the NCLB – because they lacked the resources necessary to maintain two separate testing regimes and/or could not sustain the pre-existing testing regimes on the scale mandated by the NCLB given the minimal federal funding provided….



Connecticut, for example, chose not to expand and strengthen its testing of students in grades 4, 6, 8 and 10 because of the need to devote its funds to developing and administering the standardized tests in grades 3, 5 and 7 that the NCLB mandates, but for which the federal government has not fully paid. Illinois reportedly abandoned plans to develop assessments for students on all of the Illinois learning standards, finding it necessary to proceed solely with the NCLB mandated tests rather than with the richer assessments in writing, social studies, arts, health and physical development that had been under consideration. And, Maryland stopped testing students in writing, science, and social studies, limiting its assessments solely to the reading and math tests currently required by the NCLB.



The cutbacks in testing subjects not covered by the NCLB inevitably have resulted in cutbacks in instruction in those subjects – illustrating the truth of the adage that what you get in education is what you assess. Throughout the country, elimination of tests in non-NCLB subjects has resulted in the elimination or reduction of classes in such subjects, including social studies, music, physical education, art and others. A recent nationwide survey of school districts found that to comply with the NCLB mandates, 71% of districts had reduced hours of instruction in elementary school on non-NCLB subjects, “systematically trimming courses like social studies, science and art” from the curriculum, and significant percentages of school districts reported similar reductions in their middle and high schools…



In sum, the Secretary’s insistence that states and school districts fully comply with the NCLB mandates no matter how far short federal funding falls from covering the costs of doing so, has forced states and school districts to divert funds away from other educational programs and priorities that, in their professional judgment, are essential to a sound educational system…



Congress has sought to fund the NCLB school improvement mandates by providing that states are to set aside for this purpose 4% of their Title I, Part A funds. However, the statute stipulates that the 4% set-aside must give way to the extent that it would result in a reduction of the total Title I, Part A funding that any school district receives as compared to the previous year. In reality, therefore, the 4% set-aside can only be applied to the portion of the state’s Title I, Part A funding that is allocated to school districts whose funding Is increasing. For most school districts, however, NCLB funding is declining, and many states therefore are not permitted to set aside 4% of their Title I, Part A funds. In the current school year, ten states were unable to set aside the full 4% – with two states (Oregon and New Mexico) unable to set aside more than .1% of those funds for school improvement activities. As a consequence, New Mexico now has only about $130,000 and Oregon has only about $169,000 to devote to the school improvement activities that must be undertaken in order to ensure that the schools in their states that have failed to make AYP for two years in a row make the necessary improvement in the future. Given that there are 95 such schools in New Mexico (leaving the state with just $1,368 per school for improvement activities) and 44 such schools in Oregon (leaving the state with just $3,834 per school for improvement activities), it could hardly be more apparent that the available federal funds do not even provide a foothold for beginning the type of comprehensive school reform strategies necessary to raise student test performance to the NCLB mandated levels…



The virtual absence of federal funding for NCLB-mandated school improvement activities is so severe that states and school districts cannot possibly be expected to come up with sufficient funds on their own to carry out those activities. Thus, at the existing levels of federal funding, the NCLB school improvement mandates and, with them, the NCLB as a whole, serve to undermine rather than improve the quality of public education…



there is growing evidence that the NCLB testing regime is unsound due to the inadequate funds the federal government has provided for the development and implementation of the required assessments – an inadequacy that again, is so pronounced that states and school districts cannot realistically be expected to fill the gap.28 According to one recent report, “lack of time, money, and skilled staff have led a substantial number of states to introduce tests that many testing experts say are not fully aligned with state standards – tests that don’t test what states expect their students to know.”...

In the Middle of a State Takeover

The Maryland State Board of Education’s move to take over 11 Baltimore schools has caused a fight between the legislature and the governor. Both the state house and senate voted overwhelmingly, 100-34 and 30-17 respectively, to block the Baltimore schools from being taken under state control and could force Governor Ehrlich to veto the bill, though the vote margins suggest that the legislature can override the veto.

The larger issue is the looming gubernatorial contest between incumbent Bob Ehrlich (R) and democratic front-runner Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley. Partisans view the take over of 11 Baltimore schools as a slam at O’Malley.

As usual, the kids and the state board of education find themselves caught in the middle.

Maryland Taking Over 11 Baltimore Schools

11 Baltimore schools are going to be taken over by Maryland after the state board of education approved the move.

Specifically, the state will take over 4 high schools and direct the city to find a 3rd party to manage 7 middle schools. The takeover is being done under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act's accountability provisions.

"It's time for the state's frustration with the lack of progress, the failure to deal with problems more seriously in a timely manner, to be expressed in action. Today is that day," said Ed Root, Maryland State Board of Education chairman.

Flunking the Final Four

NCAA President Myles Brand is defending the academic standing of his tournament's Final Four teams. All four schools Florida, LSU, UCLA – even Cinderella George Mason University – all had unsatisfactory “academic progress rates” (APR). (Think of the APR as the NCAA’s version of NCLB’s AYP…how’s that for education acronym-speak?).

An APR score of 925 equates to about a 60% graduation rate. 925 is the NCAA cut score for satisfactory progress. The APR for the Final Four schools are: George Mason – 918, Florida – 903, UCLA – 915, and LSU – 860.

Teams that continually fail to meet the 925 threshold are supposed to face sanctions, including the loss of scholarship, though none of the Final Four teams have been penalized yet. (Hard to believe a the NCAA considers a 60% graduation rate acceptable. A 60% shooter I can understand, but leaving 40% of your players without a college degree after four years?).

They might have fallen just short of the Final Four, but there is one team whose players are all winners in the academic arena. Villanova was the only school of the Sweet 16 teams with a perfect graduation rate – 1000. Well done, Coach Jay Wright and seniors Randy Foye (Big East player of the Year), Allan Ray, and Jason Fraser.

Colorado Civics Lessons

Tony Lewis, executive director of the Donnell-Kay Foundation, takes aim at the Colorado State Board of Education and administers a self-inflicted wound – and he does so even before his gun is out of its holster!

In his opening sentence Lewis asks, “When a statewide elected body fails to represent the people of Colorado, what action is left other than to replace it with a group that has both the wisdom and experience necessary to make important decisions? When an institution fails to fulfill its basic mission, fails the very people that are represented by it and fails in every attempt it makes to improve itself, what course of action is left but to dissolve it and to begin again?”

What to do, indeed. In fact, the benighted leaders and citizens of Colorado have created exactly the sort of mechanism and action that Lewis can’t quite put his finger on. They’re called “ELECTIONS.” And in Colorado they occur on a regularly scheduled basis. In fact, there is one coming up in seven months.

Imagine what would happen if we took Lewis’ advice and dissolved elected bodies every time we didn’t agree with it. His idea is practically parliamentary! Fortunately, we live in a Republican democracy.

Oddly, though, Lewis wants to do away with the elected board in the name of accountability, as if standing for election before the voters of your community is not the very essence of accountability. In the end, his proposal is not so much democratic, enlightened, or even logical….it’s tyrannical – calling for the dissolution of an elected body with which you don’t agree.

Lewis’ screed is the just the sort of contradictory and ill-conceived thinking that afflicts so-called educational policy experts when they stray from their classroom and curriculum comfort zones and dabble in the complex issues of school governance. I do agree with Lewis’ call for the need for highly qualified, thoughtful and committed people to oversee the state's education system (Colorado already has eight such individuals on the state board right now). A pity, though, that Lewis’ essay isn’t qualified, thoughtful or committed in its “solution” for improving Colorado’s public schools.

Will Reed Run?

Indiana Superintendent Suellen Reed is usually the biggest statewide vote-getter on the Republican ticket – and has been for the past 14 years. But her recent clash with Governor Mitch Daniels over his preference to move the state testing dates from the fall to the spring has some wondering if the fallout will effect the 2008 race – should she decide to run again.

Pay for Performance

This Florida student takes exception to the state board’s recent move to institute pay for performance salary structure.

Student Face to SAT Debacle

Here's a real life example of the unfortunate impact of the SAT's scoring mistakes on a student's academic career from that same NY Times story.

"Jake DeLillo, a star lacrosse player at Yorktown High School in New York, received recruitment letters from more than 50 colleges last year, and he was particularly interested in colleges like the University of Massachusetts, which had strong lacrosse programs. But, he said, some of the coaches told him that his spring SAT scores were not high enough, and he needed to raise them about 100 points to be considered.

When he took the October SAT, he thought he had done well — until he got his scores. The results forced him to shift his search to other colleges, and he was accepted by the New York Institute of Technology, last year's national Division II lacrosse champion. Mr. DeLillo said he was looking forward to attending.

Two weeks ago, he said, the College Board told him it had understated his October results by 170 points. "It was definitely upsetting," he said. "People make mistakes, but this was a big one.""