When I first heard about this: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-gradefolo_16met.ART.State.Edition2.4d98197.html I thought I must have misunderstood.
But no, it appears to be true.
The Dallas school district has decided to force teachers to allow assignments to be turned in late and for kids to re-take tests on which they performed poorly.
This, of course, is to help students who are slow, or in need of a boost of self-esteem.
Let me be blunt: The people responsible for this are morons.
Faced with the problem of students not getting their work done and blowing off tests, these geniuses decided that school work must have been too hard. So, they take away any sense of responsibility, any sense of pride in a job well done and done on time and any sense that they must adhere to someone else's expectations.
The Dallas school district is creating a bunch of teenaged narcissists who will demand that the rest of the world conform to their demands on their time.
The people responsible for this are educrats who are themselves so lazy and weak they can't bring themselves to demand something from children. They're wimps and they ought to be sued for educational malpractice. They don't deserve to have a place of leadership over the development of young minds. They are a waste of taxpayer dollars.
I thought Texans were supposed to be tough. If y'all really are, boot these pantywaists out and put in some people who'll tell the kids that the people who will one day hire them from jobs take a real dim view of laziness, tardiness and selfishness, which appear to be the only things the Dallas schools are capable of teaching.
Think the Cowboys won Super Bowls with that kind of attitude? Nope.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Pinheads in the Ivory Tower
If ever you needed proof positive (in fact, I'd say this idea is about 80 proof - ha ha) that the Peter Principle is in good working order, check this out:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/19/20080819drinking-age0819.html .
The Peter Principle, of course, states that people will often rise to their highest level of incompetence. Well, I'd say a lot of college presidents fit that bill.
Yes, drinking on college campuses has reached epidemic proportions. Then why is the solution, according to these academics, to make booze MORE easily available? Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?
Now I understand that Prohibition was a failure and I guess these presidents are thinking that we should at least get the problem out in the open. But what I guess they don't know is that is ALREADY IS IN THE OPEN!
I had the chance to go to a football game at a huge midwestern university a few years back. In fact, it's one of the schools whose president advocates this strategy. The stadium seats 100,000 people or so, but there were easily twice that many outside before the game and most of them were having a beer or twenty.
I can tell you from personal observation that more than a handful of this throng was under the age of 21 and partaking of Mr. Anheuser's, Mr. Busch's, Mr. Miller's and Mr. Coors' finest products. Not to mention demon rum and a bit of Jose for good measure.
If the kids are flaunting the law, well, change the law! That'll do it! While we're at it, let's loosen up the laws on prostitution. After all, kids are having sex all over campus, why shouldn't some of them make money to pay for their outrageous textbook and tuition costs? Theft? THAT's a huge campus problem. It's hard to control, too. Make it legal, that way nobody will have to report these petty crimes like ripping off bikes or swiping a purse. Then the cops will be able to spend time chasing really bad criminals. Heck, everyone cheats. There's a whole industry based on buying term papers online. Schools presidents must know this, so why not condone or even endorse it?
Ridiculous, you say? Of course it is, but no more ridiculous than calling on the nation to lower the drinking age to 18 because adults who ostensibly operate these universities (many of them public) can't bring themselves to tell the students NO.
Here's a novel idea: Either get the cops to really crack down on these boozers (admittedly a tall order) or, do what colleges love to do in regards to guns - make the school an "alcohol-free zone." Hey, if it's good for firearms, why can't it be good for booze? Enforce the same penalties for alcohol possession that exist for weapons. Too extreme? O.K., but find something to do and really enforce it. There are large universities that do this very thing today. But, sshhhhh... they're religious in nature and we can't be nuts like them.... Yeah, well try it. You may like it.
Of course, the problem with that is at some point, the schools would lose a lot of students and the money they bring in. All you'd have left are the ones who want to learn and get a degree.
And we all know most universities gave up the mission of providing a quality undergrad education a long time ago to pursue the almighty grail of research and the money it brings...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/19/20080819drinking-age0819.html .
The Peter Principle, of course, states that people will often rise to their highest level of incompetence. Well, I'd say a lot of college presidents fit that bill.
Yes, drinking on college campuses has reached epidemic proportions. Then why is the solution, according to these academics, to make booze MORE easily available? Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?
Now I understand that Prohibition was a failure and I guess these presidents are thinking that we should at least get the problem out in the open. But what I guess they don't know is that is ALREADY IS IN THE OPEN!
I had the chance to go to a football game at a huge midwestern university a few years back. In fact, it's one of the schools whose president advocates this strategy. The stadium seats 100,000 people or so, but there were easily twice that many outside before the game and most of them were having a beer or twenty.
I can tell you from personal observation that more than a handful of this throng was under the age of 21 and partaking of Mr. Anheuser's, Mr. Busch's, Mr. Miller's and Mr. Coors' finest products. Not to mention demon rum and a bit of Jose for good measure.
If the kids are flaunting the law, well, change the law! That'll do it! While we're at it, let's loosen up the laws on prostitution. After all, kids are having sex all over campus, why shouldn't some of them make money to pay for their outrageous textbook and tuition costs? Theft? THAT's a huge campus problem. It's hard to control, too. Make it legal, that way nobody will have to report these petty crimes like ripping off bikes or swiping a purse. Then the cops will be able to spend time chasing really bad criminals. Heck, everyone cheats. There's a whole industry based on buying term papers online. Schools presidents must know this, so why not condone or even endorse it?
Ridiculous, you say? Of course it is, but no more ridiculous than calling on the nation to lower the drinking age to 18 because adults who ostensibly operate these universities (many of them public) can't bring themselves to tell the students NO.
Here's a novel idea: Either get the cops to really crack down on these boozers (admittedly a tall order) or, do what colleges love to do in regards to guns - make the school an "alcohol-free zone." Hey, if it's good for firearms, why can't it be good for booze? Enforce the same penalties for alcohol possession that exist for weapons. Too extreme? O.K., but find something to do and really enforce it. There are large universities that do this very thing today. But, sshhhhh... they're religious in nature and we can't be nuts like them.... Yeah, well try it. You may like it.
Of course, the problem with that is at some point, the schools would lose a lot of students and the money they bring in. All you'd have left are the ones who want to learn and get a degree.
And we all know most universities gave up the mission of providing a quality undergrad education a long time ago to pursue the almighty grail of research and the money it brings...
Friday, August 15, 2008
Just checking....
If you have a kid in school, have you:
1. Checked his or her backpack for homework?
2. Gotten to know the teacher?
3. Taken a look at any pertinent academic rankings for the school? (States differ in how they do this and federal "Adequate Yearly Progress" is a joke.)
4. Investigated a charter school (if your state has any)in case your district school, well, stinks?
5. Told your kid you love him (or her) and you expect junior to do his very, very best, even if it's not always fun?
6. If not, why not?
Yes, it's August, and school hasn't started everywhere. But in lots of places, classes are in session. In any case, it's never too early or late to think about these things.
Heck, half the battle in education is just being prepared.
1. Checked his or her backpack for homework?
2. Gotten to know the teacher?
3. Taken a look at any pertinent academic rankings for the school? (States differ in how they do this and federal "Adequate Yearly Progress" is a joke.)
4. Investigated a charter school (if your state has any)in case your district school, well, stinks?
5. Told your kid you love him (or her) and you expect junior to do his very, very best, even if it's not always fun?
6. If not, why not?
Yes, it's August, and school hasn't started everywhere. But in lots of places, classes are in session. In any case, it's never too early or late to think about these things.
Heck, half the battle in education is just being prepared.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Would you go back just to say hello?
Mr. and Mrs. Reformer went to parent night at Junior Reformer's high school not too long ago.
It's hard to get an idea of what the ol' sprout's teachers are really like in just a matter of minutes. They all seem nice, of course; but we're all on our best behavior at times such as these.
But there are some things that just can't be faked...
Take Junior's world history teacher, for example. We entered the classroom knowing nothing about this man. No advance intelligence, no neighbor kids raving good things or bad about him.
He was a blank slate to us.
The room was filled, which was not unexpected, but there were lots of students without parents hanging out in the back. "What's up with that?" we wondered.
It turns out they weren't students at all; they were graduates. They had come back to say hello to a teacher who had really made a difference in their lives. This is apparently a man who has a rare ability to connect with the kids, to make the material stand out and who inspires former students to take a night out of their lives to go back to their old high school -- the very place they rejoiced upon graduating just three months ago -- to bask in the warmth of a teacher who made them love learning.
This is what school is all about, folks. I bet this teacher does not grouse to students about lousy pay. He does not moan about standardized testing or idiotic administrators. I'm sure he does expect a lot out of his students and he knows the subject inside and out. He demands that they join a service club on campus, and no job is too big or small. In other words, this teacher lives in the real world, teaches to the real world, and the students know it.
This man does not need any accolades from me. He does not need his name in the paper or on some plaque.
This is a teacher. And his reward is the people standing in the back of the room.
It's hard to get an idea of what the ol' sprout's teachers are really like in just a matter of minutes. They all seem nice, of course; but we're all on our best behavior at times such as these.
But there are some things that just can't be faked...
Take Junior's world history teacher, for example. We entered the classroom knowing nothing about this man. No advance intelligence, no neighbor kids raving good things or bad about him.
He was a blank slate to us.
The room was filled, which was not unexpected, but there were lots of students without parents hanging out in the back. "What's up with that?" we wondered.
It turns out they weren't students at all; they were graduates. They had come back to say hello to a teacher who had really made a difference in their lives. This is apparently a man who has a rare ability to connect with the kids, to make the material stand out and who inspires former students to take a night out of their lives to go back to their old high school -- the very place they rejoiced upon graduating just three months ago -- to bask in the warmth of a teacher who made them love learning.
This is what school is all about, folks. I bet this teacher does not grouse to students about lousy pay. He does not moan about standardized testing or idiotic administrators. I'm sure he does expect a lot out of his students and he knows the subject inside and out. He demands that they join a service club on campus, and no job is too big or small. In other words, this teacher lives in the real world, teaches to the real world, and the students know it.
This man does not need any accolades from me. He does not need his name in the paper or on some plaque.
This is a teacher. And his reward is the people standing in the back of the room.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
What are my children's names?
Great.
As if having federal micromanagement of local schools isn't enough of a burden, our intrepid Congress wants to stick its Pete Townsend - sized nose into our family rooms.
Take a look at this bill that was passed by the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02343:@@@L&summ2=m&
Don't you just love the Title? The "Education Begins at Home Act." No kidding! It just occurred to these geniuses in Congress that kids begin their lives at home before they are shipped off - for the most part - to government-run public schools six hours a day.
But the Democrats in Congress (remember, they run the joint these days) aren't satisfied with tinkering with education at schools. Now, they want to send a local friendly bureaucrat to your door to make sure you can handle raising little junior. And if you can't? Well, brothers and sisters... We got the gubmint to help us!
Here's the summary of what the bill will do:
Education Begins at Home Act - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to: (1) allot grants to states, Indians, territories, and possessions for programs of early childhood home visitation; and (2) make competitive grants to local educational agencies and other eligible applicants for early home visitation for families with English language learners. Directs the Secretary of Defense to make competitive grants to eligible applicants for early home visitation for military families.
Amends the Head Start Act to direct the Secretary of HHS to establish standards for home visitor staff in Early Head Start programs with respect to their training, qualifications, and conduct of home visits.
Revises Early Head Start programs to provide for: (1) training in parenting skills and child development; (2) certain home-based and family support services; (3) procedures for transition into Head Start or other local early childhood education programs; (4) staff communication and program coordination; and (5) professional development and personnel enhancement.
Directs the Secretary of HHS to develop and implement a public information and educational campaign to inform the public and new parents about the importance of proper care for infants and children under five years of age.
In other words, you, my friend, must be an IDIOT. Therefore, the government will render its expertise. It's not like people have been raising kids on their own for oh, five millenia!
This reminds me of an exchange between Sen. Phil Gramm and a Clinton appointee who ran a federal agency. The appointee was touting a new government program that would "help" children. Sen. Gramm wanted to know the justification for this program and the appointee assured the Senator that government workers really, truly and sincerely love other people's children.
The Senator, God bless him, said: "You mean the government can care for my children as well as I can?" The reply: "Yes, senator, I believe we can." To which Sen. Gramm queried... "Then what are their names?"
Keep your eyes on these jokers in Congress. They want to strip you of everything.
As if having federal micromanagement of local schools isn't enough of a burden, our intrepid Congress wants to stick its Pete Townsend - sized nose into our family rooms.
Take a look at this bill that was passed by the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02343:@@@L&summ2=m&
Don't you just love the Title? The "Education Begins at Home Act." No kidding! It just occurred to these geniuses in Congress that kids begin their lives at home before they are shipped off - for the most part - to government-run public schools six hours a day.
But the Democrats in Congress (remember, they run the joint these days) aren't satisfied with tinkering with education at schools. Now, they want to send a local friendly bureaucrat to your door to make sure you can handle raising little junior. And if you can't? Well, brothers and sisters... We got the gubmint to help us!
Here's the summary of what the bill will do:
Education Begins at Home Act - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to: (1) allot grants to states, Indians, territories, and possessions for programs of early childhood home visitation; and (2) make competitive grants to local educational agencies and other eligible applicants for early home visitation for families with English language learners. Directs the Secretary of Defense to make competitive grants to eligible applicants for early home visitation for military families.
Amends the Head Start Act to direct the Secretary of HHS to establish standards for home visitor staff in Early Head Start programs with respect to their training, qualifications, and conduct of home visits.
Revises Early Head Start programs to provide for: (1) training in parenting skills and child development; (2) certain home-based and family support services; (3) procedures for transition into Head Start or other local early childhood education programs; (4) staff communication and program coordination; and (5) professional development and personnel enhancement.
Directs the Secretary of HHS to develop and implement a public information and educational campaign to inform the public and new parents about the importance of proper care for infants and children under five years of age.
In other words, you, my friend, must be an IDIOT. Therefore, the government will render its expertise. It's not like people have been raising kids on their own for oh, five millenia!
This reminds me of an exchange between Sen. Phil Gramm and a Clinton appointee who ran a federal agency. The appointee was touting a new government program that would "help" children. Sen. Gramm wanted to know the justification for this program and the appointee assured the Senator that government workers really, truly and sincerely love other people's children.
The Senator, God bless him, said: "You mean the government can care for my children as well as I can?" The reply: "Yes, senator, I believe we can." To which Sen. Gramm queried... "Then what are their names?"
Keep your eyes on these jokers in Congress. They want to strip you of everything.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Haven't these people been thoroughly discredited yet?
I was reading the hometown fishwrap the other day and ran across a column (apparently it was written apropos of nothing) that tried to discredit phonics. And yes, the author (a retired educrat) did sneak in a snide reference to "Hooked on Phonics" while he was at it. Cute, if not trite.
Now my role in life is not to bore you with technical stuff, so I will distill his argument into this: phonics doesn't work because... well, um, because... uh.... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T!!!
Yes I know, I'm being unfair. His argument wasn't even as good as that.
He tried to argue that some words cannot be deconstructed phonetically, therefore phonics fails at all levels. There are, in fact, a few words such as "for", "come" and "who" that can't be deciphered phonetically and therefore must be learned by sight.
But the alternative to phonics is whole language. And whole language requires that virtually ALL words must be read by sight and memorized. I'm sure future chemistry majors, doctors and lawyers will all really appreciate that.
No, sir, phonics is time-tested and proven to work. In fact, very few colleges of education insist in perpetuating whole language instruction. The most prominent of the dinosaur thinkers is the University of Arizona in Tucson, AZ, and they invented the thing.
Critics of phonics say they find it lacking because some kids who learn using phonics are poor readers. That's a circular argument not worthy of an academic thinker. There are endless reasons why kids are poor learners, blaming phonics is just scapegoating. Note that this guest columnist did not have the temerity to claim that all kids taught with whole language are excellent readers, one and all. He knows better.
His claims are pure sophistry designed to prop up a failed and unloved system of reading instruction - whole language. I am so happy the author of that article is now a retired educator.
And I am so happy I learned how to read by phonics.
Now my role in life is not to bore you with technical stuff, so I will distill his argument into this: phonics doesn't work because... well, um, because... uh.... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T!!!
Yes I know, I'm being unfair. His argument wasn't even as good as that.
He tried to argue that some words cannot be deconstructed phonetically, therefore phonics fails at all levels. There are, in fact, a few words such as "for", "come" and "who" that can't be deciphered phonetically and therefore must be learned by sight.
But the alternative to phonics is whole language. And whole language requires that virtually ALL words must be read by sight and memorized. I'm sure future chemistry majors, doctors and lawyers will all really appreciate that.
No, sir, phonics is time-tested and proven to work. In fact, very few colleges of education insist in perpetuating whole language instruction. The most prominent of the dinosaur thinkers is the University of Arizona in Tucson, AZ, and they invented the thing.
Critics of phonics say they find it lacking because some kids who learn using phonics are poor readers. That's a circular argument not worthy of an academic thinker. There are endless reasons why kids are poor learners, blaming phonics is just scapegoating. Note that this guest columnist did not have the temerity to claim that all kids taught with whole language are excellent readers, one and all. He knows better.
His claims are pure sophistry designed to prop up a failed and unloved system of reading instruction - whole language. I am so happy the author of that article is now a retired educator.
And I am so happy I learned how to read by phonics.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
...more rucketing in the brain...
I kind of like my new word, "rucketing" but I might get tired of it, too. You may hate it. You may hate me. I hope not. But let's try the new word on for a while...
Seeing as it's summer, you may have seen something slip by. Even though the schools are not in session (for the most part), school boards are still meeting in many precincts of this great nation.
You know what they're talking about? Money.
I don't know if you've noticed, but budgets are pretty tight these days. we're in a growing economy, by the way, but it's pretty flat. But despite the growth, states have spent so much in the past few years, they have little or no reserve funds. And guess who takes some of the hit for that less-than-stellar planning? Yup, schools.
We've got districts cutting back on nurses, librarians, field trips, the whole Magilla. Now what's been rucketing in my head (slick, no?) is that you almost never see cuts to six-figure administrative jobs in the district offices. Or, you rarely see the pricey consultant services trimmed back.
Here's a thought for you: Go online to your local district website and find when the board meetings are. Pay them a visit. Ask the tough questions and make you voice heard.
Don't the the boards run their budget knife through the heart of education - the classroom and library (nurses, too) while leaving the fat untouched.
Seeing as it's summer, you may have seen something slip by. Even though the schools are not in session (for the most part), school boards are still meeting in many precincts of this great nation.
You know what they're talking about? Money.
I don't know if you've noticed, but budgets are pretty tight these days. we're in a growing economy, by the way, but it's pretty flat. But despite the growth, states have spent so much in the past few years, they have little or no reserve funds. And guess who takes some of the hit for that less-than-stellar planning? Yup, schools.
We've got districts cutting back on nurses, librarians, field trips, the whole Magilla. Now what's been rucketing in my head (slick, no?) is that you almost never see cuts to six-figure administrative jobs in the district offices. Or, you rarely see the pricey consultant services trimmed back.
Here's a thought for you: Go online to your local district website and find when the board meetings are. Pay them a visit. Ask the tough questions and make you voice heard.
Don't the the boards run their budget knife through the heart of education - the classroom and library (nurses, too) while leaving the fat untouched.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy 232rd Birthday!
Happy Birthday U.S. of A! I love ya!
Did you ever notice how eloquent our Founders were when they wrote and spoke?
Did you ever notice how entreprenuerial they were and how they understood economics and business?
Did you ever notice how mathematically inclined a lot of our Founders were?
Did you ever notice many of them had some artistic ability, or, at the very least, a deep appreciation for music, painting, or scuplture?
Hey, did you ever notice that our Founders never put anything about a federal department of education in the Constitution?
How did these guys become educated? They mastered a classic liberal curriculum with a heavy emphasis on math, grammar, the sciences, vocabulary, literature and Greco-Roman history.
Did you ever notice how in many ways, we're a lot less smart than those guys?
Did you ever wonder why?
Did you ever notice how eloquent our Founders were when they wrote and spoke?
Did you ever notice how entreprenuerial they were and how they understood economics and business?
Did you ever notice how mathematically inclined a lot of our Founders were?
Did you ever notice many of them had some artistic ability, or, at the very least, a deep appreciation for music, painting, or scuplture?
Hey, did you ever notice that our Founders never put anything about a federal department of education in the Constitution?
How did these guys become educated? They mastered a classic liberal curriculum with a heavy emphasis on math, grammar, the sciences, vocabulary, literature and Greco-Roman history.
Did you ever notice how in many ways, we're a lot less smart than those guys?
Did you ever wonder why?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
and we're back...
It's been a busy month at EdReformer Ranch. Lots of stuff going on, but very little of it has to do with education. It's summer break, after all.
But I have not forgotten you, dear readers. Not by a longshot.
I have promised you a proposal that would rock the education world if anyone really had the guts to implement it. I will nto break that promise. But it IS summer, and that's a bad time to launch new and wonderful ideas. So, it will wait. I like building the anticipation anyway.
So there are a few random thoughts rucketing through my brain. (I made up a new word - rucketing - do you like it?)
For example, did you happen to see the HBO documentary about Douglass High School in Baltimore? It was labeled an indictment of No Child Left Behind. Now, I'm not a huge fan of NCLB, though I do like it's basic premise - accountability, but there's no way this HBO film could really have measured NCLB. The footage was shot in 2004, when NCLB had barely taken hold. It can hardly be blamed for this school's many shortcomings.
No, the blame squarely lies with leadership. The principal does not have real control over the students and many of the teachers are just marking time. The good educators are struggling and the real losers are the kids.
No news there.
More random thoughts later....
But I have not forgotten you, dear readers. Not by a longshot.
I have promised you a proposal that would rock the education world if anyone really had the guts to implement it. I will nto break that promise. But it IS summer, and that's a bad time to launch new and wonderful ideas. So, it will wait. I like building the anticipation anyway.
So there are a few random thoughts rucketing through my brain. (I made up a new word - rucketing - do you like it?)
For example, did you happen to see the HBO documentary about Douglass High School in Baltimore? It was labeled an indictment of No Child Left Behind. Now, I'm not a huge fan of NCLB, though I do like it's basic premise - accountability, but there's no way this HBO film could really have measured NCLB. The footage was shot in 2004, when NCLB had barely taken hold. It can hardly be blamed for this school's many shortcomings.
No, the blame squarely lies with leadership. The principal does not have real control over the students and many of the teachers are just marking time. The good educators are struggling and the real losers are the kids.
No news there.
More random thoughts later....
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Somewhere in America...
A grad student is developing a thesis. The thesis involves a new way to teach kids reading.
Somewhere in America, a university professor is reading a dissertation about methods of developing number sense for 3rd graders.
Somewhere in America, a child is sleeping, not knowing that in a few years she will be subjected to experimentation that will change her life. But will it be changed for better or worse? The grad student thinks he knows. So does the professor.
Are they right or are they wrong? How can they know and do they actually care?
Your children's future may depend on it.
There is a threat, and we're not responding to it.
My proposal is coming soon.
Somewhere in America, a university professor is reading a dissertation about methods of developing number sense for 3rd graders.
Somewhere in America, a child is sleeping, not knowing that in a few years she will be subjected to experimentation that will change her life. But will it be changed for better or worse? The grad student thinks he knows. So does the professor.
Are they right or are they wrong? How can they know and do they actually care?
Your children's future may depend on it.
There is a threat, and we're not responding to it.
My proposal is coming soon.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
...Slipping away
I mean your money.
Lots of it.
No, really, I'm talking about billions and billions of dollars, y'know, Carl Sagan-like amounts.
That's what this thing costs; this thing I think causes more trouble for your kids' education than just about anything else.
My proposal is to get rid of it.
The answer... soon.
Lots of it.
No, really, I'm talking about billions and billions of dollars, y'know, Carl Sagan-like amounts.
That's what this thing costs; this thing I think causes more trouble for your kids' education than just about anything else.
My proposal is to get rid of it.
The answer... soon.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Coming Soon
I haven't forgotten my modest proposal.
I'm not ready to unveil it yet, but here's a hint:
What costs billions of dollars but is little more than a full employment act for the Ivory Tower crowd?
Keep thinking.
I'm not ready to unveil it yet, but here's a hint:
What costs billions of dollars but is little more than a full employment act for the Ivory Tower crowd?
Keep thinking.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
A modest proposal...
I've hit upon an idea that I think, if implemented, would have a gargantuan effect on public education.
No, really. I mean it.
This idea would restore sanity to the classroom, make teachers' lives less-complicated, and radically reinvent the way universities train future educators.
In other words, it's doomed.
But I shall intrepidly pursue this idea.
More to come later.
No, really. I mean it.
This idea would restore sanity to the classroom, make teachers' lives less-complicated, and radically reinvent the way universities train future educators.
In other words, it's doomed.
But I shall intrepidly pursue this idea.
More to come later.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Wake can't see the Forest for the trees...
It is a ritual that most anyone under the age of 60 or so, who aspires to go to college, can appreciate - the spring rite of SAT and ACT college entrance exams.
These tests are usually the source of some angst. After all, your ability to get into a good university or college depends in part on how well you do on these exams.
And why is that?
It's pretty simple: the managers of ACT and SAT spend a lot of time and money to set up tests that they believe will adequately measure a high schooler's knowledge base. Everything is designed to represent the type of education a student will get from Maine to Hawaii.
Except that some people think the tests are unfair and biased. Well... they are. EVERY test is in some way unfair and biased. No matter who you are and what you are, you will bring personal biases to very part of your daily existence. It's part of being human.
But critics of these tests (and by extension all standardized tests) harp about "cultural bias." Boo hoo. Get over it.
I'll over-simplify here, but since educrats love to over-complicate things, it will even out. Here's why cultural bias is a load of manure:
1. The root causes of the American Revolutionary War are the same no matter if the student who must write an essay about those causes is Anglo, Asian, Native American or whatever.
2. The value of "pi" is no respecter of a test-taker's religious convictions.
3. The implications of plutonium vs. uranium nuclear weapons are not changed if the student who's asked to explain them is from Rochester, MN; Rochester, NY, or is the great-grandson of "Rochester" from the old Jack Benny program.
In other words, facts are facts. Do you hear that, Wake Forest University?
Wake Forest is dropping the SAT and ACT admission requirements in favor of other performance measures when considering admission. That's their right, of course, but their reasoning is typical educrat fuzzy thinking.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1086264.html
Universities need to spend more time teaching their students and expecting high standards (there's that dreaded word: STANDARDS) rather than wasting tears on how the little darlings might have their feelings hurt by taking the SAT or ACT.
'Cause let me tell ya: When those darlings hit the job market, their employers are going to expect high standards of them. The real world has no pity. The academic world is just pitiful.
These tests are usually the source of some angst. After all, your ability to get into a good university or college depends in part on how well you do on these exams.
And why is that?
It's pretty simple: the managers of ACT and SAT spend a lot of time and money to set up tests that they believe will adequately measure a high schooler's knowledge base. Everything is designed to represent the type of education a student will get from Maine to Hawaii.
Except that some people think the tests are unfair and biased. Well... they are. EVERY test is in some way unfair and biased. No matter who you are and what you are, you will bring personal biases to very part of your daily existence. It's part of being human.
But critics of these tests (and by extension all standardized tests) harp about "cultural bias." Boo hoo. Get over it.
I'll over-simplify here, but since educrats love to over-complicate things, it will even out. Here's why cultural bias is a load of manure:
1. The root causes of the American Revolutionary War are the same no matter if the student who must write an essay about those causes is Anglo, Asian, Native American or whatever.
2. The value of "pi" is no respecter of a test-taker's religious convictions.
3. The implications of plutonium vs. uranium nuclear weapons are not changed if the student who's asked to explain them is from Rochester, MN; Rochester, NY, or is the great-grandson of "Rochester" from the old Jack Benny program.
In other words, facts are facts. Do you hear that, Wake Forest University?
Wake Forest is dropping the SAT and ACT admission requirements in favor of other performance measures when considering admission. That's their right, of course, but their reasoning is typical educrat fuzzy thinking.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1086264.html
Universities need to spend more time teaching their students and expecting high standards (there's that dreaded word: STANDARDS) rather than wasting tears on how the little darlings might have their feelings hurt by taking the SAT or ACT.
'Cause let me tell ya: When those darlings hit the job market, their employers are going to expect high standards of them. The real world has no pity. The academic world is just pitiful.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Tune in, turn on, drop out. Yeah, that was smart advice.
There's a lot of talk in the education world about what to do about high school dropouts.
This reminds me of the young man who sat across from me in art class in high school. I stunk at art, but I had to take an elective, so....
But I digress.
This guy seemed reasonably intelligent but it was obvious he and school were not on the best of terms. His attendance was pretty good, but he missed enough that it was noticeable.
He was a senior and I was a junior and I envied that about him because I had "junioritis" pretty bad.
We spent months in this class, and some time in late April I noticed that he had been gone several days in a row. I asked another guy nearby what happened to our acquaintance and he casually mentioned that he had dropped out.
He dropped out five weeks shy of graduation.
That guy made a short-term decision to enter society unprepared. Bad idea.
I never found out what became of him, but I bet he didn't get a job at Microsoft. He may be printing license plates, or worse, by now.
The point is, my school did nothing wrong. They provided a decent education and he threw it away.
So just what are schools supposed to do to keep kids from dropping out?
There are lots of technical strategies, and they may have some effect, but nothing, NOTHING can stop a motivated kid who has the legal right to abandon his or her education.
You can raise the age for dropping out, but then you have older kids who have no interest in school disrupting the students who want to be there.
How about sending them to vocational education? Those kids tend to face more difficult academic requirements. (Have you tried to repair a modern car today? It's not for Goober Pyle anymore.)
There are alternative high schools, schools within schools and so on, and so on. But if a kid really and truly wants to go, he will go.
All this to say there are some problems public schools and their tax dollars cannot truly solve. It's a societal and cultural problem. The stigma of being a dropout has eased somewhat and that's a shame.
I've seen an apparently homeless man on a corner near my office three days in a row now. He seems perfectly able-bodied; in fact, his schtick is to juggle and get some spare change for his talent. He could probably get a performing job with that skill, but he just won't for whatever reason.
If you know a kid who's just "juggling" school and wants to take to the streets as soon as possible, tell him about the guy by the freeway who squandered his talent.
Maybe I knew him in art class.
This reminds me of the young man who sat across from me in art class in high school. I stunk at art, but I had to take an elective, so....
But I digress.
This guy seemed reasonably intelligent but it was obvious he and school were not on the best of terms. His attendance was pretty good, but he missed enough that it was noticeable.
He was a senior and I was a junior and I envied that about him because I had "junioritis" pretty bad.
We spent months in this class, and some time in late April I noticed that he had been gone several days in a row. I asked another guy nearby what happened to our acquaintance and he casually mentioned that he had dropped out.
He dropped out five weeks shy of graduation.
That guy made a short-term decision to enter society unprepared. Bad idea.
I never found out what became of him, but I bet he didn't get a job at Microsoft. He may be printing license plates, or worse, by now.
The point is, my school did nothing wrong. They provided a decent education and he threw it away.
So just what are schools supposed to do to keep kids from dropping out?
There are lots of technical strategies, and they may have some effect, but nothing, NOTHING can stop a motivated kid who has the legal right to abandon his or her education.
You can raise the age for dropping out, but then you have older kids who have no interest in school disrupting the students who want to be there.
How about sending them to vocational education? Those kids tend to face more difficult academic requirements. (Have you tried to repair a modern car today? It's not for Goober Pyle anymore.)
There are alternative high schools, schools within schools and so on, and so on. But if a kid really and truly wants to go, he will go.
All this to say there are some problems public schools and their tax dollars cannot truly solve. It's a societal and cultural problem. The stigma of being a dropout has eased somewhat and that's a shame.
I've seen an apparently homeless man on a corner near my office three days in a row now. He seems perfectly able-bodied; in fact, his schtick is to juggle and get some spare change for his talent. He could probably get a performing job with that skill, but he just won't for whatever reason.
If you know a kid who's just "juggling" school and wants to take to the streets as soon as possible, tell him about the guy by the freeway who squandered his talent.
Maybe I knew him in art class.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Let's hope there is no "D"nial...
All over the United States right now, school computers are whizzing away keeping tabs on students' grades.
The end of the school year is approaching and when it's over, there's no going back so these grades mean a lot.
Scary, huh?
Uh, for the kid, maybe.
Hopefully you're not scared. Well, maybe you're a bit nervous. After all, you don't want to see Junior do poorly. You poke and prod and hope that he (or she) does his or her best and gets good grades.
You do poke and prod don't you?
I admit I have never been good at this, personally. That's why I'm glad I "married up" to a fabulous woman who lovingly, but firmly, demands that our little scholars get good grades. Of course, I have learned to support her wholeheartedly in this. She has, uh, expectations of me, too...
There is no scuffling by in our house.
Fortunately, Ed Reformer Junior and Juniorette get very good grades. They're pretty good self-starters. But I'm sure they would have slopped off and gotten a few lower marks without the prodding of the lovely Mrs. Reformer.
I never was much of a discipline problem at home because I knew Ma and Pa would not have been happy if I played the fool. It's that way in my own house now, but especially when it comes to grades.
If you don't expect your kids to perform at their highest capability, they probably won't. Heck, they're children and they need to have their hineys kicked (metaphorically) once in a while; sometimes more than that.
Low expectations = low return and low self-esteem. High expectations = valuable return and better self-esteem.
We expect our schools to push the students, but reform starts at home.
The end of the school year is approaching and when it's over, there's no going back so these grades mean a lot.
Scary, huh?
Uh, for the kid, maybe.
Hopefully you're not scared. Well, maybe you're a bit nervous. After all, you don't want to see Junior do poorly. You poke and prod and hope that he (or she) does his or her best and gets good grades.
You do poke and prod don't you?
I admit I have never been good at this, personally. That's why I'm glad I "married up" to a fabulous woman who lovingly, but firmly, demands that our little scholars get good grades. Of course, I have learned to support her wholeheartedly in this. She has, uh, expectations of me, too...
There is no scuffling by in our house.
Fortunately, Ed Reformer Junior and Juniorette get very good grades. They're pretty good self-starters. But I'm sure they would have slopped off and gotten a few lower marks without the prodding of the lovely Mrs. Reformer.
I never was much of a discipline problem at home because I knew Ma and Pa would not have been happy if I played the fool. It's that way in my own house now, but especially when it comes to grades.
If you don't expect your kids to perform at their highest capability, they probably won't. Heck, they're children and they need to have their hineys kicked (metaphorically) once in a while; sometimes more than that.
Low expectations = low return and low self-esteem. High expectations = valuable return and better self-esteem.
We expect our schools to push the students, but reform starts at home.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
It's not a "beach" novel, but...
Summertime is approaching, which means it's time to think about that reading list.
You probably want your kids to make just such a list, but let me suggest one for you. There is a brilliant man named E.D. Hirsch, and he's written many books that will convince you that public education has plenty of areas that need attention. But more than just kvetching about it (ahem), he has some very bright ideas.
The brightest of these ideas is found in The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v29/ai_19189460
Check it out. Literally. You won't be sorry.
You probably want your kids to make just such a list, but let me suggest one for you. There is a brilliant man named E.D. Hirsch, and he's written many books that will convince you that public education has plenty of areas that need attention. But more than just kvetching about it (ahem), he has some very bright ideas.
The brightest of these ideas is found in The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v29/ai_19189460
Check it out. Literally. You won't be sorry.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
By all means, test what ISN'T taught
It's very odd to me that some people are critical of the idea of teaching to the test. Yes, I understand that a well-rounded education must incorporate a vast array of subjects and you certainly can't test the students on every detail. If you did, you'd do nothing but teach one day and test the material the day after, or some such nonsense.
But I have to say that there are some teachers - some - who use what a former colleague of mine once called the "cardiac assessment" on her students. What's that? Simple: "I know in my heart what each of my students is capable of doing."
Bull puckey.
You must test students, and there must be some standardization otherwise it wouldn't be fair, measurable or accurate.
Would you go to a doctor whom you knew did not pass any test to become a doctor? How about an accountant, lawyer or mechanic? We all want the professionals who have critical skills to be accountable for knowing the fundamentals (and more) about those skills. Why would we expect anything less from students?
The "cardiac assessment" teachers have a problem because they want to affirm the intrinsic value of each student, which is nice, but it fails as a measure of what the kids know. And that's what school's all about, folks.
So they complain about "teaching to the test." Since I hope I've laid out a case for testing in the first place, let's agree on that and ask what's so bad about teaching to the test?
Suppose I ask 1st graders to do basic addition. I spend time on task drilling the concepts into the kids, send home homework and have the entire class do learning games to fully grasp the concept of addition. Then, at the end of the week, I tell the kids there will be a test. Only I decide to test them on subtraction instead.
Preposterous, you say? Of course. No teacher would do that. She or he would test what has been taught.
Now, wasn't that simple?
But I have to say that there are some teachers - some - who use what a former colleague of mine once called the "cardiac assessment" on her students. What's that? Simple: "I know in my heart what each of my students is capable of doing."
Bull puckey.
You must test students, and there must be some standardization otherwise it wouldn't be fair, measurable or accurate.
Would you go to a doctor whom you knew did not pass any test to become a doctor? How about an accountant, lawyer or mechanic? We all want the professionals who have critical skills to be accountable for knowing the fundamentals (and more) about those skills. Why would we expect anything less from students?
The "cardiac assessment" teachers have a problem because they want to affirm the intrinsic value of each student, which is nice, but it fails as a measure of what the kids know. And that's what school's all about, folks.
So they complain about "teaching to the test." Since I hope I've laid out a case for testing in the first place, let's agree on that and ask what's so bad about teaching to the test?
Suppose I ask 1st graders to do basic addition. I spend time on task drilling the concepts into the kids, send home homework and have the entire class do learning games to fully grasp the concept of addition. Then, at the end of the week, I tell the kids there will be a test. Only I decide to test them on subtraction instead.
Preposterous, you say? Of course. No teacher would do that. She or he would test what has been taught.
Now, wasn't that simple?
Sunday, May 4, 2008
You can be TOO true to your school
I'm all for school spirit; the rah-rah attitude, the pride in great accomplishments and so forth. It's a good thing, and unfortunately it's probably a bit too out-of-fashion these days.
But like anything good, it can have its drawbacks. For example, when a neighborhood fights tooth and nail for a school that may be a bit long in the tooth and in need of more than a few nails.
Yes, folks, sometimes schools must close. But whenever a school board decides the time has come for your kid's school to face the wrecking ball, or the school just doesn't have enough students, you would have thought the board voted to tear down the Sistine Chapel. There are stories in the paper with photos of little kids with signs pleading to keep their classrooms open. (These are probably the same kids who are the first to bolt from campus when the last bell rings in the summer and dread the onset of autumn.) There are contentious board meetings filled with angy parents who threaten petition drives, recall elections and everything else short of pistols at dawn.
In short, it's chaos.
Normally I want parents to raise heck with a school board. But not in these cases. And it's not because the boards are the source of all wisdom in these matters.
No, it's simple market forces at work.
In what other business, would a CEO demand to keep a location open when it clearly has outlived its usefulness and / or not enough people go there?
This is one instance in which government can actually get it right; if the board has the guts.
And they'll need plenty of guts because no elected official wants a bunch of little kids and mommies outside his or her office door.
But that's what school closings bring.
Yet the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Think about it. A school gets closed because fewer students are going there? Well, put those students elsewhere. Does it make sense to have a half-full school open for business when there may be room to put the students on other campuses? Is it logical to spend more money than the buildings are worth to bring them up to code? Is it sensible to keep the campus available for kids when the neighborhood is getting older and the only people who can walk to school are the retirees who observe the all-but-empty crosswalks?
No, no, and no to all three.
School closures stir up emotions, but you wouldn't balance your bank account based on emotion. You need to know how much money you have. You wouldn't put paint on a car with no engine or tires. You need a different car. So you shouldn't expect school districts to turn a blind eye to cold, hard reality and keep a dying or obsolete school open for purely emotional (if commendable) reasons.
The truth is, within a few weeks the students who left a closed school dry their eyes and get on with their lives in a new and hopefully improved location. No, it's not perfect. But have you noticed a lot of people aren't voting for school budget overrides anymore? They're asking the tough questions and making the districts make tough choices as a result. School closures are a part of that. And the fact is that most districts could stand to get a little leaner at all levels. Closing a school that is draining resources means some of those resources can be plowed into other schools. There is a net gain.
So be true to your school, but if the truth demands you let that school go... then let it go.
But like anything good, it can have its drawbacks. For example, when a neighborhood fights tooth and nail for a school that may be a bit long in the tooth and in need of more than a few nails.
Yes, folks, sometimes schools must close. But whenever a school board decides the time has come for your kid's school to face the wrecking ball, or the school just doesn't have enough students, you would have thought the board voted to tear down the Sistine Chapel. There are stories in the paper with photos of little kids with signs pleading to keep their classrooms open. (These are probably the same kids who are the first to bolt from campus when the last bell rings in the summer and dread the onset of autumn.) There are contentious board meetings filled with angy parents who threaten petition drives, recall elections and everything else short of pistols at dawn.
In short, it's chaos.
Normally I want parents to raise heck with a school board. But not in these cases. And it's not because the boards are the source of all wisdom in these matters.
No, it's simple market forces at work.
In what other business, would a CEO demand to keep a location open when it clearly has outlived its usefulness and / or not enough people go there?
This is one instance in which government can actually get it right; if the board has the guts.
And they'll need plenty of guts because no elected official wants a bunch of little kids and mommies outside his or her office door.
But that's what school closings bring.
Yet the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Think about it. A school gets closed because fewer students are going there? Well, put those students elsewhere. Does it make sense to have a half-full school open for business when there may be room to put the students on other campuses? Is it logical to spend more money than the buildings are worth to bring them up to code? Is it sensible to keep the campus available for kids when the neighborhood is getting older and the only people who can walk to school are the retirees who observe the all-but-empty crosswalks?
No, no, and no to all three.
School closures stir up emotions, but you wouldn't balance your bank account based on emotion. You need to know how much money you have. You wouldn't put paint on a car with no engine or tires. You need a different car. So you shouldn't expect school districts to turn a blind eye to cold, hard reality and keep a dying or obsolete school open for purely emotional (if commendable) reasons.
The truth is, within a few weeks the students who left a closed school dry their eyes and get on with their lives in a new and hopefully improved location. No, it's not perfect. But have you noticed a lot of people aren't voting for school budget overrides anymore? They're asking the tough questions and making the districts make tough choices as a result. School closures are a part of that. And the fact is that most districts could stand to get a little leaner at all levels. Closing a school that is draining resources means some of those resources can be plowed into other schools. There is a net gain.
So be true to your school, but if the truth demands you let that school go... then let it go.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Is sheepskin just a state of mind?
Admit it, you've been kept up nights worrying about your state's high school graduation rate.
I know I have... not.
Frankly, the only graduation rate I'm concerned about is that of my own kids. They'd better graduate (and in the case of the college student, thanks for getting ready to graduate early. You're a peach, Sweetie.)
Now the feds want to make the graduation rate standardized nationally.
I admit, as a statistic, it can be rather interesting for the sake of comparison. But admit it, unless you're a real stats geek, do you, as a consumer really care?
I mean, I like baseball a lot, but it has waaaaay too many stats. Some are useful. For example, it's handy for a pitcher to know what kind of pitches a certain hitter likes and does not like. That way, the pitcher can prepare to throw the ball a certain way and increase his chances of success. Good stat.
Bad stat? Home runs.
Home runs?
Yeah. The home run is what all the fans want to see, but as a statistic, it's almost useless. The pitcher wants to avoid giving up home runs, and to do so, he uses the more useful stats that tell him which pitches to avoid. But you can have a player who's known for hitting home runs, but maybe he does it more when the game is already well-in-hand. (Is a 10-3 loss any better than losing 10-1? No.) The fact he hits home runs does not tell you much. And sometimes a team can have one great home run hitter, but no one else can hit worth a lick and the team stinks.
Grad rates are like home runs. They are easy to understand, but tell you very little about what's really happening in education. Some states include people who get a General Ed Degree (which is often more difficult to do than attend high school), and some do not. Some allow for kids who take five years due to hardship or other factors, while other states ignore that.
So this stat is all over the map and doesn't give a real picture of how well a state teaches its kids.
So the feds can standardize it. It looks nice. But it means nothing.
After all, isn't the most important graduate the one in your family?
I know I have... not.
Frankly, the only graduation rate I'm concerned about is that of my own kids. They'd better graduate (and in the case of the college student, thanks for getting ready to graduate early. You're a peach, Sweetie.)
Now the feds want to make the graduation rate standardized nationally.
I admit, as a statistic, it can be rather interesting for the sake of comparison. But admit it, unless you're a real stats geek, do you, as a consumer really care?
I mean, I like baseball a lot, but it has waaaaay too many stats. Some are useful. For example, it's handy for a pitcher to know what kind of pitches a certain hitter likes and does not like. That way, the pitcher can prepare to throw the ball a certain way and increase his chances of success. Good stat.
Bad stat? Home runs.
Home runs?
Yeah. The home run is what all the fans want to see, but as a statistic, it's almost useless. The pitcher wants to avoid giving up home runs, and to do so, he uses the more useful stats that tell him which pitches to avoid. But you can have a player who's known for hitting home runs, but maybe he does it more when the game is already well-in-hand. (Is a 10-3 loss any better than losing 10-1? No.) The fact he hits home runs does not tell you much. And sometimes a team can have one great home run hitter, but no one else can hit worth a lick and the team stinks.
Grad rates are like home runs. They are easy to understand, but tell you very little about what's really happening in education. Some states include people who get a General Ed Degree (which is often more difficult to do than attend high school), and some do not. Some allow for kids who take five years due to hardship or other factors, while other states ignore that.
So this stat is all over the map and doesn't give a real picture of how well a state teaches its kids.
So the feds can standardize it. It looks nice. But it means nothing.
After all, isn't the most important graduate the one in your family?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Baseball, hot dogs and apple pie should watch out
YOU'RE IT!
No, you're not. And neither is anyone else.
"Tag" has been tagged -- at least for a while.
In one Virginia school district, the educrats have deemed the purest sport imaginable off-limits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402988_pf.html
It's too violent, don't ya know? Kids might get a boo-boo, a scrape, or get hurt feelings. Sure, nobody really wants those things, but a little adversity on the playground might just help you be better prepared for the adult games that are a little rougher than "tag."
You see, the little darlings in McLean, Virginia are getting a little roughed up playing tag. Small wonder. They probably spend most of their time cooped up playing on the Wii or surfing the net. (That is, of course, when they are done with their homework, natch.)
Is it any wonder they need to blow off some steam and have turned tag into a pre-pubescent rave?
The solution for this one is on the parents' shoulders. Tell the school board in McLean to allow tag once again. But, in return, parents forego the right to sue when their little precious gets a bloody elbow.
Hmmm. I guess "tag" is doomed after all.
No, you're not. And neither is anyone else.
"Tag" has been tagged -- at least for a while.
In one Virginia school district, the educrats have deemed the purest sport imaginable off-limits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402988_pf.html
It's too violent, don't ya know? Kids might get a boo-boo, a scrape, or get hurt feelings. Sure, nobody really wants those things, but a little adversity on the playground might just help you be better prepared for the adult games that are a little rougher than "tag."
You see, the little darlings in McLean, Virginia are getting a little roughed up playing tag. Small wonder. They probably spend most of their time cooped up playing on the Wii or surfing the net. (That is, of course, when they are done with their homework, natch.)
Is it any wonder they need to blow off some steam and have turned tag into a pre-pubescent rave?
The solution for this one is on the parents' shoulders. Tell the school board in McLean to allow tag once again. But, in return, parents forego the right to sue when their little precious gets a bloody elbow.
Hmmm. I guess "tag" is doomed after all.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Life is soft... and so are we
There was a time, not so long ago, when the United States was at the top of the charts when it came to student performance on math and science.
There was a time...
But no more.
And it hasn't been that way for years.
We are headed for a crisis, folks, and we need to figure things out. Now.
The U.S. is ranked somewhere in the 20th spot or thereabouts in international science and math scores.
20th place.
If this was the Olympic Games, the good ol' U.S. of A. wouldn't get the gold, or the silver or bronze medals; maybe tin, pot metal, or appropriately, lead.
Who's on top?
Big surprise: China and India.
Times were, students from China and India would come to the U.S. to study at a university, and in many cases, stay here and become productive citizens.
But they are staying home now and making their own huge countries economic behemoths, at our expense, mind you.
A little competition is a good thing. I happen to think we can outdo any country when it comes to just about any academic subject. But we won't do it if we aren't motivated.
And we aren't motivated.
But the Asians are; especially in places like India and China, where, let's be realistsic, life is more difficult for the average Joe, or Hu, or Jawarhalal.
If you have brains but are stuck in a rural Chinese hut or a filthy suburb of Mumbai, math or science may be your ticket out. You can write code, develop software, work for a chemical lab, get into medicine. The options in India and China are exploding and the people are snapping up those options.
And why not? They're motivated. Who wants to do menial labor when you can make more money and get out of poverty? And the schools in India and China value those skills so much, they are pushing their kids to excel. In fact, society as a whole on most pan-Asian countries demands academic excellence. To not live to one's potential is to bring shame to yourself, your family, and your country.
Does that sound like America?
No. Americans obsess over Britney Spears' panties, Simon Cowell's scowl and how well George Clooney's latest flick did at the box office. We have forgotten the essentials and value the ephemeral and meaningless.
OK, so we can't fix all of society here, but what about the schools?
The biggest problem is a shortage of math and science teachers. If nobody wants to learn this stuff, even fewer want to teach it.
The best solution is to fast-track professionals who already know these skills and are willing to spend time either as adjunct or second-career teachers to fill these positions that are going begging.
Ask a retired Air Force Major if he or she would consider teaching 7th grade math. You'd be surprised how many would at least consider it. And people like that and from the corporate world who understand the real world needs for people with math and science skills would get the best out of those kids. Perhaps all they would need to be good teachers is some classroom management skills. And you DON'T need years of college to do that.
But, of course, the unions throw a conniption at the very thought. And the parents don't understand why Johnny can't add. And America slips further into mediocrity -- for purely avoidable reasons.
It's enough to make me want to learn Chinese.
There was a time...
But no more.
And it hasn't been that way for years.
We are headed for a crisis, folks, and we need to figure things out. Now.
The U.S. is ranked somewhere in the 20th spot or thereabouts in international science and math scores.
20th place.
If this was the Olympic Games, the good ol' U.S. of A. wouldn't get the gold, or the silver or bronze medals; maybe tin, pot metal, or appropriately, lead.
Who's on top?
Big surprise: China and India.
Times were, students from China and India would come to the U.S. to study at a university, and in many cases, stay here and become productive citizens.
But they are staying home now and making their own huge countries economic behemoths, at our expense, mind you.
A little competition is a good thing. I happen to think we can outdo any country when it comes to just about any academic subject. But we won't do it if we aren't motivated.
And we aren't motivated.
But the Asians are; especially in places like India and China, where, let's be realistsic, life is more difficult for the average Joe, or Hu, or Jawarhalal.
If you have brains but are stuck in a rural Chinese hut or a filthy suburb of Mumbai, math or science may be your ticket out. You can write code, develop software, work for a chemical lab, get into medicine. The options in India and China are exploding and the people are snapping up those options.
And why not? They're motivated. Who wants to do menial labor when you can make more money and get out of poverty? And the schools in India and China value those skills so much, they are pushing their kids to excel. In fact, society as a whole on most pan-Asian countries demands academic excellence. To not live to one's potential is to bring shame to yourself, your family, and your country.
Does that sound like America?
No. Americans obsess over Britney Spears' panties, Simon Cowell's scowl and how well George Clooney's latest flick did at the box office. We have forgotten the essentials and value the ephemeral and meaningless.
OK, so we can't fix all of society here, but what about the schools?
The biggest problem is a shortage of math and science teachers. If nobody wants to learn this stuff, even fewer want to teach it.
The best solution is to fast-track professionals who already know these skills and are willing to spend time either as adjunct or second-career teachers to fill these positions that are going begging.
Ask a retired Air Force Major if he or she would consider teaching 7th grade math. You'd be surprised how many would at least consider it. And people like that and from the corporate world who understand the real world needs for people with math and science skills would get the best out of those kids. Perhaps all they would need to be good teachers is some classroom management skills. And you DON'T need years of college to do that.
But, of course, the unions throw a conniption at the very thought. And the parents don't understand why Johnny can't add. And America slips further into mediocrity -- for purely avoidable reasons.
It's enough to make me want to learn Chinese.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
In Spanish, "mal" means "bad"
One of the biggest - if not the biggest - proponents of bi-lingual education is the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund: MALDEF.
In case you don't know, the theory behind bi-lingual education is that kids who do not know English will do better if they are taught in their native language and they will eventually pick up English along the way.
The only problem is that it usually takes about seven years for the kid to get proficient in English whereas if you put them in a classroom where nothing but English is spoken, they know the language much sooner - no more than three years -
and usually much less.
But I digress.
MALDEF also has some ideas about why minority kids drop out of high school. Actually, they have one idea: the lack of money. Never mind that in districts such as Detroit where the average spending per pupil exceeds a whopping $11,000 a year, the dropout rate is nearly three out of four students. Yeah, the money goes a long way in Detroit - like into Lake Huron.
So it was in that context that I had the chance recently to ask a MALDEF representative if the real answer for school success is actually having good leadership. I pointed out several instances in which high schools in low-socio-economic areas had excelling ratings.
They got the same amount of state funding as any other school, but their principals had another thing in common: they demand excellence from their students. They expect the kids to dress appropriately, come to class on time, do their home work and class work and be respectful of others. In other words, they expect their kids to act like reasonable members of society.
Even so, MALDEF's answer was: mo money, mo money, mo money.
Money can't buy good leadership. If it did, every multi-million dollar Wall St. CEO would be successful. But they're not.
The real world demands real leadership for real results.
MALDEF should get real or get another line of work.
In case you don't know, the theory behind bi-lingual education is that kids who do not know English will do better if they are taught in their native language and they will eventually pick up English along the way.
The only problem is that it usually takes about seven years for the kid to get proficient in English whereas if you put them in a classroom where nothing but English is spoken, they know the language much sooner - no more than three years -
and usually much less.
But I digress.
MALDEF also has some ideas about why minority kids drop out of high school. Actually, they have one idea: the lack of money. Never mind that in districts such as Detroit where the average spending per pupil exceeds a whopping $11,000 a year, the dropout rate is nearly three out of four students. Yeah, the money goes a long way in Detroit - like into Lake Huron.
So it was in that context that I had the chance recently to ask a MALDEF representative if the real answer for school success is actually having good leadership. I pointed out several instances in which high schools in low-socio-economic areas had excelling ratings.
They got the same amount of state funding as any other school, but their principals had another thing in common: they demand excellence from their students. They expect the kids to dress appropriately, come to class on time, do their home work and class work and be respectful of others. In other words, they expect their kids to act like reasonable members of society.
Even so, MALDEF's answer was: mo money, mo money, mo money.
Money can't buy good leadership. If it did, every multi-million dollar Wall St. CEO would be successful. But they're not.
The real world demands real leadership for real results.
MALDEF should get real or get another line of work.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Light blogging for a few days
Off to the land of Oz, otherwise known as our nation's capital, for a few days so blogging will be light for a little while.
But DC being DC, I bet I come back with some material.
But DC being DC, I bet I come back with some material.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Is it really worth it?
I've been asked to come up with a reasonable analogy about the federal government's role in education vs. what states are supposed to do.
See what you think:
Imagine a pyramid. The pyramid represents a state's budget for education - including federal dollars. The top 10 percent of the pyramid represents those federal funds. (Yup, about 90 percent of education spending in most states comes from state budgets, not the feds, which is the rest of the pyramid.)
Now imagine an upside-down pyramid. This one represents the ways in which states and the feds measure just how well students do on standardized tests. If the scores are not so good, states, and now the feds under No Child Left Behind, have ways to get the schools to shape up. A state may label a school as poorly performing or whatever, and the feds have a pass / fail system called Adequate Yearly Progress. That's assessment and enforcement.
Since some states have great enforcement and others are not-so-good, let's split the upside down pyramid 50 - 50 for the sake of argument. In this scenario, the state's part of the pyramid is on top. As you can imagine, an upside-down pyramid is pretty wobbly, but if it's balanced well enough, it might stand up for a while.
With the dollar pyramid, if you lop off the top 10 percent, the pyramid stands just fine. But with the enforcement pyramid, if you cut off the federal half at the bottom, that part of the pyramid falls down. The state part still has enough of a base to work perfectly.
The point?
The feds are responsible for a relatively tiny amount of education funding for any state. But since no state wants to lose even one dime of money, they will obey the dictates of the DC educrats. Think about it: Would you willingly take a 10 percent pay cut or put up with some extra hassle?
But even if a state did take the financial hit, how long would it be before a parent or group of parents in a school district that just lost several million dollars took someone to court? This is especially true because in education the vast majority of federal dollars go toward improving schools in low income areas.
Can anyone say "civil rights lawsuit?"
You don't want to go there.
So, for the foreseeable future, we have a federal education bureaucracy with a Napoleon complex: a little thing with too much power.
This proves the Ed Reformer dictum that giving authority to the federal government always results in the federal government claiming more power than its contribution deserves.
See what you think:
Imagine a pyramid. The pyramid represents a state's budget for education - including federal dollars. The top 10 percent of the pyramid represents those federal funds. (Yup, about 90 percent of education spending in most states comes from state budgets, not the feds, which is the rest of the pyramid.)
Now imagine an upside-down pyramid. This one represents the ways in which states and the feds measure just how well students do on standardized tests. If the scores are not so good, states, and now the feds under No Child Left Behind, have ways to get the schools to shape up. A state may label a school as poorly performing or whatever, and the feds have a pass / fail system called Adequate Yearly Progress. That's assessment and enforcement.
Since some states have great enforcement and others are not-so-good, let's split the upside down pyramid 50 - 50 for the sake of argument. In this scenario, the state's part of the pyramid is on top. As you can imagine, an upside-down pyramid is pretty wobbly, but if it's balanced well enough, it might stand up for a while.
With the dollar pyramid, if you lop off the top 10 percent, the pyramid stands just fine. But with the enforcement pyramid, if you cut off the federal half at the bottom, that part of the pyramid falls down. The state part still has enough of a base to work perfectly.
The point?
The feds are responsible for a relatively tiny amount of education funding for any state. But since no state wants to lose even one dime of money, they will obey the dictates of the DC educrats. Think about it: Would you willingly take a 10 percent pay cut or put up with some extra hassle?
But even if a state did take the financial hit, how long would it be before a parent or group of parents in a school district that just lost several million dollars took someone to court? This is especially true because in education the vast majority of federal dollars go toward improving schools in low income areas.
Can anyone say "civil rights lawsuit?"
You don't want to go there.
So, for the foreseeable future, we have a federal education bureaucracy with a Napoleon complex: a little thing with too much power.
This proves the Ed Reformer dictum that giving authority to the federal government always results in the federal government claiming more power than its contribution deserves.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
When in Rome...
If you've ever traveled throughout the world, you may have been cautioned about avoiding the "Ugly American" syndrome.
Remember the James Bond movie "The Man with the Golden Gun?" In case you don't, there is a character who typifies the classic Ugly American. He's a Louisiana Sheriff vacationing in Thailand. He's so uncouth he berates the locals for "wearing pajamas" and having "pointy heads." He's basically a harmless oaf who gets some minor comeuppance in the end.
But at least this guy's just visiting. I imagine his type would not want to live abroad, nor would his hosts be thrilled to have him.
The character in this movie is based on a factual stereotype. There really are people out there who think like him. They think that American culture exists wherever there are Americans. But that's not the case.
In some countries, shaking hands is offensive. In others, the old "shave and a haircut" knock on a door will get you a punch in the nose. It's the way life is.
So why is it that Americans have to kowtow (to use a word from another culture) to every culture of the world? I want to respect other cultures, but at least ours could get respect as well.
Perhaps one of the highest forms of respect for our culture is the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a bond between all Americans -- even those who, for various reasons, decline to participate. Their decision and the reaction it usually gets demonstrates the power of the Pledge.
I'm not sure what to make of news that some schools (here's one: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/232859.php) that encourage reciting the Pledge in multiple languages.
On one hand, it can be movingly patriotic to have someone from another country pledge allegiance to Old Glory using his or her native tongue. And I cannot be critical of saying it in sign language.
But there is one group of folks to whom I will generally defer in matters like this: veterans.
I'm not a veteran, but I have deep respect for any man or woman who has put on the uniform of this nation and risked life and limb so I could do things like freely write this little 'ol blog. And the veterans I have spoken to are not pleased that the Pledge would be said in anything but English. They have their reasons, most of which boil down to respect for the language of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution. If it's good enough for those...
I think of the flag being raised at Iwo Jima, or the Stars and Stripes that flew over Ft. McHenry and is on display at the Smithsonian; or the flag that was raised over the rubble of the World Trade Center on 9-11 and I think of the men and women who fought and died for what that flag represents. So many of them bled for the ideals embodied in that cloth and so many of them want to pay respect to that flag in the language of our Founders.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
Remember the James Bond movie "The Man with the Golden Gun?" In case you don't, there is a character who typifies the classic Ugly American. He's a Louisiana Sheriff vacationing in Thailand. He's so uncouth he berates the locals for "wearing pajamas" and having "pointy heads." He's basically a harmless oaf who gets some minor comeuppance in the end.
But at least this guy's just visiting. I imagine his type would not want to live abroad, nor would his hosts be thrilled to have him.
The character in this movie is based on a factual stereotype. There really are people out there who think like him. They think that American culture exists wherever there are Americans. But that's not the case.
In some countries, shaking hands is offensive. In others, the old "shave and a haircut" knock on a door will get you a punch in the nose. It's the way life is.
So why is it that Americans have to kowtow (to use a word from another culture) to every culture of the world? I want to respect other cultures, but at least ours could get respect as well.
Perhaps one of the highest forms of respect for our culture is the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a bond between all Americans -- even those who, for various reasons, decline to participate. Their decision and the reaction it usually gets demonstrates the power of the Pledge.
I'm not sure what to make of news that some schools (here's one: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/232859.php) that encourage reciting the Pledge in multiple languages.
On one hand, it can be movingly patriotic to have someone from another country pledge allegiance to Old Glory using his or her native tongue. And I cannot be critical of saying it in sign language.
But there is one group of folks to whom I will generally defer in matters like this: veterans.
I'm not a veteran, but I have deep respect for any man or woman who has put on the uniform of this nation and risked life and limb so I could do things like freely write this little 'ol blog. And the veterans I have spoken to are not pleased that the Pledge would be said in anything but English. They have their reasons, most of which boil down to respect for the language of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution. If it's good enough for those...
I think of the flag being raised at Iwo Jima, or the Stars and Stripes that flew over Ft. McHenry and is on display at the Smithsonian; or the flag that was raised over the rubble of the World Trade Center on 9-11 and I think of the men and women who fought and died for what that flag represents. So many of them bled for the ideals embodied in that cloth and so many of them want to pay respect to that flag in the language of our Founders.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Shut up and teach
Maybe that motto ought to be placed at the back of every high school classroom.
There is something about teaching high school and junior high that seems to bring out the activist in some teachers. There are few things more unprofessional than a teacher putting down the beliefs of his or her students, but that happens all-too-often.
I'm accustomed to hearing reports from kids who come home to talk about how a certain teacher complained that the jobs is so hard because pay is so bad. Yeah, teacher pay generally stinks . That's not news, and yes, it would be great if that would change. But if you got into the profession in the first place, you hopefully didn't do it for the dough.
In any case, you're paid to teach, not complain. My kid is supposed to come home a little smarter, not holding a piece of a teacher's bitterness.
And the bitterness gets spread around a whole lot more when you have teachers like this one:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/lawsuit-corbett-case-1996170-attorney-judge
James Corbett is going to trial because he has harshly criticized Christian students for holding to their beliefs. He has belittled those students by saying you can't think intelligently or critically when you have on your "Jesus glasses."
James Corbett will have his day in court. A fair trial will determine if he crossed the line. But what of the kids who have been attacked by an authority figure over whom they have little power? Finally, someone stood up to him.
Mr. Corbett, you are innocent until proven guilty. But no matter what, you can't think clearly when you have your "Bully glasses" on. And neither can your students.
There is something about teaching high school and junior high that seems to bring out the activist in some teachers. There are few things more unprofessional than a teacher putting down the beliefs of his or her students, but that happens all-too-often.
I'm accustomed to hearing reports from kids who come home to talk about how a certain teacher complained that the jobs is so hard because pay is so bad. Yeah, teacher pay generally stinks . That's not news, and yes, it would be great if that would change. But if you got into the profession in the first place, you hopefully didn't do it for the dough.
In any case, you're paid to teach, not complain. My kid is supposed to come home a little smarter, not holding a piece of a teacher's bitterness.
And the bitterness gets spread around a whole lot more when you have teachers like this one:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/lawsuit-corbett-case-1996170-attorney-judge
James Corbett is going to trial because he has harshly criticized Christian students for holding to their beliefs. He has belittled those students by saying you can't think intelligently or critically when you have on your "Jesus glasses."
James Corbett will have his day in court. A fair trial will determine if he crossed the line. But what of the kids who have been attacked by an authority figure over whom they have little power? Finally, someone stood up to him.
Mr. Corbett, you are innocent until proven guilty. But no matter what, you can't think clearly when you have your "Bully glasses" on. And neither can your students.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Maybe they should get Nike as a sponsor...
It may come to that.
Pay to Play may or may not be something your local schools are implementing. Maybe they've already done it. Or maybe they're just thinking about it.
But I predict it's coming on a more widespread basis. See here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/112597
This is just like developer "impact fees." You know what those are, right? A developer builds news homes but the local government, busy giving cozy tax breaks to just about everyone but Joe Sixpack, demands that the developer build "improvements." You know, little things like roads, and sewer connections; things your tax dollars are already supposed to pay for.
So where are your taxing going? Who knows? They don't seem to be covering the basics anymore.
Schools have the same problem. Education funding has gone up more than 60 percent (for federal spending) since 2001. That money goes to local schools. So why do some districts need to charge you if your kid wants to play football, swim competitively, or join the dance squad?
I don't know, but if I were living in a school district where they chisled me for something that ought to be free, I'd want to know why. Ask your School Board. Demand to know.
Follow the money.
Pay to Play may or may not be something your local schools are implementing. Maybe they've already done it. Or maybe they're just thinking about it.
But I predict it's coming on a more widespread basis. See here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/112597
This is just like developer "impact fees." You know what those are, right? A developer builds news homes but the local government, busy giving cozy tax breaks to just about everyone but Joe Sixpack, demands that the developer build "improvements." You know, little things like roads, and sewer connections; things your tax dollars are already supposed to pay for.
So where are your taxing going? Who knows? They don't seem to be covering the basics anymore.
Schools have the same problem. Education funding has gone up more than 60 percent (for federal spending) since 2001. That money goes to local schools. So why do some districts need to charge you if your kid wants to play football, swim competitively, or join the dance squad?
I don't know, but if I were living in a school district where they chisled me for something that ought to be free, I'd want to know why. Ask your School Board. Demand to know.
Follow the money.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
We're from the government and we're here to help you
Oh yes, there is a great deal of consternation about No Child Left Behind.
Many teachers hate it because it relies so much on test scores, and some teachers really don't want to be held accountable for students who may or may not really give a poot about learning.
Then again, some teachers just don't want to be held accountable. Some.
Administrators at the local and state levels hate the one-size-fits-all approach NCLB takes and they are flummoxed by how the feds define Highly Qualified Teachers. Every teacher is supposed to be "Highly Qualified," but even the educrats in D.C. aren't really sure what it means.
I know my dear departed Grandma who taught Kindergarten for 35 years, retired decades before Congress defined what a Highly Qualified Teacher is. But, I assure you, she was dang qualified and she didn't need an educrat to confirm that fact.
So why do we need NCLB? We don't, but states want the money. Well, most states want it...
Arizona, Minnesota and Virginia have talked about "opting out" of NCLB and forgoing the hundreds of millions of dollars each state gets from the federal government. Utah has its finger on that trigger all the time.
People are fed up.
But the irony is that for virtually every state, the funding they get from NCLB is a small fraction of the total education budget - maybe 10 percent, if that, in most cases. For that, the feds get to run the show? Seems a bit out of whack, but that's the gubmint for you.
Congress is looking at re-writing the law. They were supposed to have it done last year, but it won't happen until at least 2009.
There is a better option. Michigan congressman Pete Hoekstra has a bill called "A-Plus." It would get rid of virtually all the federal meddling and give the federal money - your money - back to the states to use for education. That's how it ought to be.
You may or may not want to read about the bill, but it's actually pretty simple; so here it is: http://hoekstra.house.gov/UploadedFiles/A-PLUS%20Summary%20(house%20bill).doc
Everyone has a congressman (or woman) and two senators. Give 'em a call or an email and tell them to support the House version of A-Plus. There's a Senate version, too, but Hoekstra's bill is less intrusive.
Don't know who serves you in Washington? Finding out is simple. For Congressmen go here: www.house.gov. For Senators, head here: www.senate.gov.
I'm not from the government, but I'll still try to help.
Many teachers hate it because it relies so much on test scores, and some teachers really don't want to be held accountable for students who may or may not really give a poot about learning.
Then again, some teachers just don't want to be held accountable. Some.
Administrators at the local and state levels hate the one-size-fits-all approach NCLB takes and they are flummoxed by how the feds define Highly Qualified Teachers. Every teacher is supposed to be "Highly Qualified," but even the educrats in D.C. aren't really sure what it means.
I know my dear departed Grandma who taught Kindergarten for 35 years, retired decades before Congress defined what a Highly Qualified Teacher is. But, I assure you, she was dang qualified and she didn't need an educrat to confirm that fact.
So why do we need NCLB? We don't, but states want the money. Well, most states want it...
Arizona, Minnesota and Virginia have talked about "opting out" of NCLB and forgoing the hundreds of millions of dollars each state gets from the federal government. Utah has its finger on that trigger all the time.
People are fed up.
But the irony is that for virtually every state, the funding they get from NCLB is a small fraction of the total education budget - maybe 10 percent, if that, in most cases. For that, the feds get to run the show? Seems a bit out of whack, but that's the gubmint for you.
Congress is looking at re-writing the law. They were supposed to have it done last year, but it won't happen until at least 2009.
There is a better option. Michigan congressman Pete Hoekstra has a bill called "A-Plus." It would get rid of virtually all the federal meddling and give the federal money - your money - back to the states to use for education. That's how it ought to be.
You may or may not want to read about the bill, but it's actually pretty simple; so here it is: http://hoekstra.house.gov/UploadedFiles/A-PLUS%20Summary%20(house%20bill).doc
Everyone has a congressman (or woman) and two senators. Give 'em a call or an email and tell them to support the House version of A-Plus. There's a Senate version, too, but Hoekstra's bill is less intrusive.
Don't know who serves you in Washington? Finding out is simple. For Congressmen go here: www.house.gov. For Senators, head here: www.senate.gov.
I'm not from the government, but I'll still try to help.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
What's next, mug shots?
Generally you will find me agreeing with the ACLU about as often as often as Homer Simpson passes up a free doughnut -- infrequently.
But here's an idea that the educrats have dreamed up in the name of efficiency; fingerprinting students. The ACLU is not amused and neither should you.
It's happening in Akron, Ohio: http://www.woio.com/global/story.asp?s=2885663&ClientTpe=Printable
Take a look at the story. This is being touted not only as efficient (Hmmm, what type of societies value efficiency over common sense? Oh yeah, oppressive ones), but eliminates stigmatizing low income kids.
That makes perfect sense. A kid who lives in dire circumstances and may not have enough clothes to wear or food to eat really cares that he has to present a card to get some food in his belly. I bet he has other concerns besides being stigmatized.
So the kill-the-fly-with-a-hammer solution is to fingerprint all kids and use that system to track their meal purchases. Certainly such information could only be used for good and never for anything nefarious by a government bureaucracy, right?
The really scary part is that this is will not be limited to Akron. Districts nationwide have been looking at this technology. It may be coming to a school system near you.
Has there ever been a school named after George Orwell?
But here's an idea that the educrats have dreamed up in the name of efficiency; fingerprinting students. The ACLU is not amused and neither should you.
It's happening in Akron, Ohio: http://www.woio.com/global/story.asp?s=2885663&ClientTpe=Printable
Take a look at the story. This is being touted not only as efficient (Hmmm, what type of societies value efficiency over common sense? Oh yeah, oppressive ones), but eliminates stigmatizing low income kids.
That makes perfect sense. A kid who lives in dire circumstances and may not have enough clothes to wear or food to eat really cares that he has to present a card to get some food in his belly. I bet he has other concerns besides being stigmatized.
So the kill-the-fly-with-a-hammer solution is to fingerprint all kids and use that system to track their meal purchases. Certainly such information could only be used for good and never for anything nefarious by a government bureaucracy, right?
The really scary part is that this is will not be limited to Akron. Districts nationwide have been looking at this technology. It may be coming to a school system near you.
Has there ever been a school named after George Orwell?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
New Age PE... or not.
There's a big debate going on about how much time there ought to be for recess or, in the case of middle and high schools, PE classes.
The problem is that we're turning into a nation of butterballs, and it's not just you and me; it's the kiddos. Little Johnny gets plenty of stimulation for his fingers while shredding to Guitar Hero or the latest abomination on the Wii, but that's about it.
Instead of having six-pack abs one day, their bellies will look more like a keg.
But the latest exercise fad may have some flaws. See here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0i6-DJeEQpXKJiVx2054FBCPnlQD8VLOI802
Yeah, let the kids whale on each other for a while. That'll burn off calories and teach conflict resolution.
To be truthful, I'm not sure this is all bad. If you're a teacher with some of these kids in class, maybe they're so pooped out they can't give you grief.
At least, as one mother says, it keeps her kid off the streets; you know, where he might get into a fight.
The problem is that we're turning into a nation of butterballs, and it's not just you and me; it's the kiddos. Little Johnny gets plenty of stimulation for his fingers while shredding to Guitar Hero or the latest abomination on the Wii, but that's about it.
Instead of having six-pack abs one day, their bellies will look more like a keg.
But the latest exercise fad may have some flaws. See here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0i6-DJeEQpXKJiVx2054FBCPnlQD8VLOI802
Yeah, let the kids whale on each other for a while. That'll burn off calories and teach conflict resolution.
To be truthful, I'm not sure this is all bad. If you're a teacher with some of these kids in class, maybe they're so pooped out they can't give you grief.
At least, as one mother says, it keeps her kid off the streets; you know, where he might get into a fight.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Isn't it about time?
In 1517, Martin Luther did the unthinkable for someone in his position -- he rebelled. A Roman Catholic priest, he was fed up with the abuses of the church in that era. But rather than grumble about it, he did something.
The first shot in his revolution was to pound 95 "Theses" on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. These 95 paragraphs were critical of many church practices, explained some good ideas for reform and set in motion the Protestant Reformation.
Wow... How's that for grandiose comparisons?
Just so you know, I'm not comparing this blog to anything Martin Luther ever did, but you've got to start somewhere.
Here goes...
Public education in this country is cherished, and with good reason. We so value the idea that our children receive a decent education that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to set up a massive system to accomplish that goal.
But does it really work?
Certainly, there are many examples where this system works pretty well. But, sadly, there are far-too-many stories of flaccid curricula, bored teachers and unmotivated students.
Just as many of the people of the Roman Catholic church of Luther's day were honorable in their intentions and practices, there are many hard-working, dedicated professionals in education. But the system is broken. It hasn't really changed much in, oh, about 100 years.
Sure, we have computers in many classrooms, there are more essential services for special needs kids and maybe the cafeteria food is less noxious than before, but these are just marginal changes. The way we teach kids hasn't much changed. And where changes have occurred, they have been disastrous experiments. More on that in the days to come.
I don't have all the answers. Heck, I may have very few, but you may have an idea or two.
I would love to hear your take on why public education isn't working right. I don't want to hear mere griping, I want to hear ideas and solutions.
You see, the best-kept secret about public education is that it is controlled by people; you and me. We elect district and charter boards (for those of you fortunate enough to live in states with charter schools). We send our kids to these institutions, and we sure as heck pay for all of it.
We should be able to get some ideas of our own put into play. And we definitely need to kill a few of the educrats' ideas before they either get started or get out of hand.
We need professionals to run schools, but not to overrun them. (And I mean overrun in every possible context).
So here I am.
I'm ready to listen.
Ready to react.
Ready for reform.
The first shot in his revolution was to pound 95 "Theses" on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. These 95 paragraphs were critical of many church practices, explained some good ideas for reform and set in motion the Protestant Reformation.
Wow... How's that for grandiose comparisons?
Just so you know, I'm not comparing this blog to anything Martin Luther ever did, but you've got to start somewhere.
Here goes...
Public education in this country is cherished, and with good reason. We so value the idea that our children receive a decent education that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to set up a massive system to accomplish that goal.
But does it really work?
Certainly, there are many examples where this system works pretty well. But, sadly, there are far-too-many stories of flaccid curricula, bored teachers and unmotivated students.
Just as many of the people of the Roman Catholic church of Luther's day were honorable in their intentions and practices, there are many hard-working, dedicated professionals in education. But the system is broken. It hasn't really changed much in, oh, about 100 years.
Sure, we have computers in many classrooms, there are more essential services for special needs kids and maybe the cafeteria food is less noxious than before, but these are just marginal changes. The way we teach kids hasn't much changed. And where changes have occurred, they have been disastrous experiments. More on that in the days to come.
I don't have all the answers. Heck, I may have very few, but you may have an idea or two.
I would love to hear your take on why public education isn't working right. I don't want to hear mere griping, I want to hear ideas and solutions.
You see, the best-kept secret about public education is that it is controlled by people; you and me. We elect district and charter boards (for those of you fortunate enough to live in states with charter schools). We send our kids to these institutions, and we sure as heck pay for all of it.
We should be able to get some ideas of our own put into play. And we definitely need to kill a few of the educrats' ideas before they either get started or get out of hand.
We need professionals to run schools, but not to overrun them. (And I mean overrun in every possible context).
So here I am.
I'm ready to listen.
Ready to react.
Ready for reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)