Over the past week, I happened upon a column by a local left leaner that bemoaned the recent Republican power play on tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the columnist, the Republicans agreed to the lifting of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision, as well as other concessions, only after tax cuts were extended for the richest Americans. The implication of the column was that the right has no other motivation than in keeping the top 1% of the population obscenely wealthy. The upshot of that sentiment is that the right has no soul, no conviction. How could they abandon their narrow-minded hatred of homosexuals so casually or quickly, so long as the rich got richer.
I commented on the column using the newspapaer's comment feature, and the coulmnist, surprisingly, responded. What ensued was an interesting dialogue that I think is instructional.
Though the 'professional' was initially disrespectful and condescending in his response to my challenges, he ultimately engaged in a thoughtful exchange of information with me.
What I discovered is that although we will continue to disagree on the most compelling principles, we do have areas for agreement. For instance, we both object to the reprehensible money grab that the CEO's - the top 1% mentioned previously - engaged in after the completion of the multitudinous government bailouts. For him, the tax cut extensions recently approved served as validation for the greedy bastards. That the congressman were willing to swallow their principles for the other - rather than greater - good, was troublesome to the columnist.
I, on the other hand, have less trouble with the tax cut extensions, even though the greediness of the top 1% bothers me as well. You see, I suspect that the driving force,otherwise known as arm-twisting, wasn't attributable nearly so much to the top 1% as it was to the people in the top 2 or 3%. Those who are reporting incomes in the millions are less effected by the proposed increase than the people who stand at the $250,000, and higher range. Consequently, a tax increase for that slightly upper echelon is more significant. The tax increase won't necessarily change the lifestyle decisions of these wealthy people. It will, however, strongly influence their ability to build their wealth.
The larger point is this one: my right side point of view objects to the excesses as much as the columnist's left side point of view. We will not bridge the gap on the solution to the problem on a global scale, since he has faith that father government can effectively redistribute the wealth. I, on the other side, distrust the notion that the governemnt can ever do such a thing, nor even that they should.
What we can agree on is the principle that destructive greed of the kind exhibited by the CEO's should not be supported by law. I certainly don't think that the solution is to have all the people who have maximized their income foot the bill for those who cannot or will not adopt a work ethic that will allow them to manage their lives.
The other bridge-able gap, in my opinion, is the picture of the down-trodden that the columnist holds. He sees them, I think incorrectly, as victims of a system that denies them access to opportunities. I see many of them as lazy bastards who rely on the safety nets that we already provide. The truth lies somewhere, and I think rules, laws, and regualtions, can prevent my picture from being the true one, just as well as rules, laws, and regualtions can prevent his vision from being the true one.
So, can the people in charge similarly reach acress the aisle?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
I have grown tired of the various shibboleths regarding the extended tax cuts and the Republican platform for limiting the taxes that people pay. People need to understand that the wealthiest Americans and the taxes they pay are sgnificant. In fact, the sliding tax rates guarantee that the wealthy pay more in taxes, individually, than the middle class people. The annoyance that I have concerns what has become the general consensus and popular opinion that the Right is motivated by indifference to the plight of lower income people. In fact, the stance that I take is that taxes need to be lower for everyone, including the wealthy.
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
For Parents of School Children...
A conversation with an old friend who has a daughter in 9th grade, and a similar conversation with a teacher and parent has given birth to this monologue.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Gratitude on Thanksgiving Day.
I am not sure if sentimentality is a natural side effect of middle age, but I have found myself being easily choked up by various things. People send schmaltzy emails about God, country, babies, milestones, friendship, and all manner of other topics that I would generally dismiss, and I find myself reading them closely. Morevoer, I saw a touching commercial the other day and had to feign an allergy attack to disguise my embarassing reaction.
I read about the young Medal of Honor winner, SSgt. Salvatore Giunta, and I never made it to the end of the story. I am genuinely awed that we have young people so committed to their causes and their comrades that they will risk their own life to adhere to abstract principles and values. In fact, when I incline toward pessimism about the future of our country, I am psychologically galvanized by the stories of our soldiers, missionaries, and commmunity volunteers.
With that in mind, I turn my thoughts to this Thursday, November 25th, 2010.
I am grateful. Oh sure, I am also still concerned, worried, and often distressed, but I cannot deny my sense of gratitude any more than I can deny my loss of composure when I hear "Butterfly Kisses" on the emo radio station. Heaven help me when the "Christmas Shoes" ditty starts playing in a week or two.
The sense of gratitude is fueled by my realization that, despite all the baggage that is part of life, the most important elements are things I can count on: I love my wife and my kids, and my job still provides me with a chance to make a difference. I am healthy, appreciated by the people that matter, and I still find reasons to summon up an old-fashiioned belly laugh on a regular basis.
Lest i undermine a persona that took a lifetime to cultivate and grow to maturuty, let me declare that I still maintain the capacity to morph into a grumpy old man at a moment's notice. My default psycholigical state is still comprehensive dissatisfaction. The difference is that I think I hhave reached a point where the funks don't last so long, though they still tend to run as deep. (Maybe the next stage of evolution will diminish that tendency?)
So as Thanksgiving approaches, I am surprised to find myself focusing on the good things, not at the absolute exclusion of the sources of angst, but with a conscious conviction that these sources of gratitude, gratefulness - dare I say it, (Happiness?) are paramount. I think the holiday's preeminent invocation is to find the elements which are so critical, and to place the negative forces in solitary confinement for a few days.
I know it's trite, cliche`, and maudlin, but just suppose that you can armwrestle the forces that compromise your sense of hopefulness, and take a concerted look at the roses that are just waiting for your nose to smell.
Happy Thanksgiving, I say, and I don't know where this whole thing came from. I think I need to apologize.
I read about the young Medal of Honor winner, SSgt. Salvatore Giunta, and I never made it to the end of the story. I am genuinely awed that we have young people so committed to their causes and their comrades that they will risk their own life to adhere to abstract principles and values. In fact, when I incline toward pessimism about the future of our country, I am psychologically galvanized by the stories of our soldiers, missionaries, and commmunity volunteers.
With that in mind, I turn my thoughts to this Thursday, November 25th, 2010.
I am grateful. Oh sure, I am also still concerned, worried, and often distressed, but I cannot deny my sense of gratitude any more than I can deny my loss of composure when I hear "Butterfly Kisses" on the emo radio station. Heaven help me when the "Christmas Shoes" ditty starts playing in a week or two.
The sense of gratitude is fueled by my realization that, despite all the baggage that is part of life, the most important elements are things I can count on: I love my wife and my kids, and my job still provides me with a chance to make a difference. I am healthy, appreciated by the people that matter, and I still find reasons to summon up an old-fashiioned belly laugh on a regular basis.
Lest i undermine a persona that took a lifetime to cultivate and grow to maturuty, let me declare that I still maintain the capacity to morph into a grumpy old man at a moment's notice. My default psycholigical state is still comprehensive dissatisfaction. The difference is that I think I hhave reached a point where the funks don't last so long, though they still tend to run as deep. (Maybe the next stage of evolution will diminish that tendency?)
So as Thanksgiving approaches, I am surprised to find myself focusing on the good things, not at the absolute exclusion of the sources of angst, but with a conscious conviction that these sources of gratitude, gratefulness - dare I say it, (Happiness?) are paramount. I think the holiday's preeminent invocation is to find the elements which are so critical, and to place the negative forces in solitary confinement for a few days.
I know it's trite, cliche`, and maudlin, but just suppose that you can armwrestle the forces that compromise your sense of hopefulness, and take a concerted look at the roses that are just waiting for your nose to smell.
Happy Thanksgiving, I say, and I don't know where this whole thing came from. I think I need to apologize.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Patience
My great aunt used to like to say that patience is a virtue. I always assumed then that the opposite, impatience, would be a sin. Ironically, I have decided lately that both can be virtues or sins, and that the context is the determining factor in every case.
Naturally, to be inclined to exhibit patience, generally speaking, is a good thing and probably a virtue. Yet I am not so sure that exhibiitng patience when it's not warranted isn't akin to maintining silence when the circumstances scream for you to speak up.
Helping to crystallize this conclusion is a story told by my son's girlfriend. While conducting a tour at the zoo, she encountered a bratty kid and an ineffective parent. Excited, the boy in the scene was just a bit out of control. The parent told the 8 or so year old to stop his outbursts. The child retorted by telling the father to stop his outbursts, and added to the reaction by punching his father repeatedly in the midsection.
"What did you do?" I asked.
"Nothing, really," she said. "We all just had to wait for the kid to calm down."
The girl exhibited great patience, as the tantrum continued for some five to ten minutes. I am convinced, however, that her patience wasn't a virtue. I suppose I can't ask her to reprimand the parent, though I might have, but she could have politely requested that the father leave the tour so all the other patrons could move along.
I know she, the guide, is a young adult, and that confronting adults can be difficult, but she needs to be trained to handle such things. Furthermore, I think the implicit patience on the part of the other patrons, some of whom must have been adults, is clearly a sin. Why couldn't they have spoken up on behalf of all the people involved?
Perhaps the reader's immediate reaction is disagreement on the grounds that the innocent bystander has no business telling anyone how to parent, but I find this argument silly and unsupportable. The tour was the business of all the parties, and this one pair was compromising everyone else's time and creating a distresing environment.
The larger point to be made is that I am not content with having one of the imposed-upon patrons speak up to address the annoying scene; I think they all should speak up! An individual who speaks up may run the risk of having to deal with an embarassed, offended parent. That same person, who might create an even larger scene when challenged, is more than likely not going to choose to pick a fight with the whole crowd.
An anti-bullying program I have been reading about is centered on teaching young people to utilize this group approach. The plan is to have the mob work for right and good by teaching them how to demand that that bully stop bullying for fear of having the group turn against him. Of course, the program says that others should show support for the victim, rather than trying to shout the bully down. But i think the reason the tactic can and does work is that the crowd, by standing up for the victim, is really ostracising the bully.
Think about it. The bully gains his power by the silence of the crowd, and increases his power if members of the crowd laugh, join in, or otherwise seem to support the power play.
As noted earlier, silence isn't always golden, especially when it serves as an avenue for someone to infer support for an action. Likewise, patience in not a virtue when waiting promises not to lead to a more favorable set of circumstances. In fact, being patient in some cases is really just cowardice. The same is true with impotent silence.
Put the two main themes together and we happen upon a great piece of advice: speak up now!
Naturally, to be inclined to exhibit patience, generally speaking, is a good thing and probably a virtue. Yet I am not so sure that exhibiitng patience when it's not warranted isn't akin to maintining silence when the circumstances scream for you to speak up.
Helping to crystallize this conclusion is a story told by my son's girlfriend. While conducting a tour at the zoo, she encountered a bratty kid and an ineffective parent. Excited, the boy in the scene was just a bit out of control. The parent told the 8 or so year old to stop his outbursts. The child retorted by telling the father to stop his outbursts, and added to the reaction by punching his father repeatedly in the midsection.
"What did you do?" I asked.
"Nothing, really," she said. "We all just had to wait for the kid to calm down."
The girl exhibited great patience, as the tantrum continued for some five to ten minutes. I am convinced, however, that her patience wasn't a virtue. I suppose I can't ask her to reprimand the parent, though I might have, but she could have politely requested that the father leave the tour so all the other patrons could move along.
I know she, the guide, is a young adult, and that confronting adults can be difficult, but she needs to be trained to handle such things. Furthermore, I think the implicit patience on the part of the other patrons, some of whom must have been adults, is clearly a sin. Why couldn't they have spoken up on behalf of all the people involved?
Perhaps the reader's immediate reaction is disagreement on the grounds that the innocent bystander has no business telling anyone how to parent, but I find this argument silly and unsupportable. The tour was the business of all the parties, and this one pair was compromising everyone else's time and creating a distresing environment.
The larger point to be made is that I am not content with having one of the imposed-upon patrons speak up to address the annoying scene; I think they all should speak up! An individual who speaks up may run the risk of having to deal with an embarassed, offended parent. That same person, who might create an even larger scene when challenged, is more than likely not going to choose to pick a fight with the whole crowd.
An anti-bullying program I have been reading about is centered on teaching young people to utilize this group approach. The plan is to have the mob work for right and good by teaching them how to demand that that bully stop bullying for fear of having the group turn against him. Of course, the program says that others should show support for the victim, rather than trying to shout the bully down. But i think the reason the tactic can and does work is that the crowd, by standing up for the victim, is really ostracising the bully.
Think about it. The bully gains his power by the silence of the crowd, and increases his power if members of the crowd laugh, join in, or otherwise seem to support the power play.
As noted earlier, silence isn't always golden, especially when it serves as an avenue for someone to infer support for an action. Likewise, patience in not a virtue when waiting promises not to lead to a more favorable set of circumstances. In fact, being patient in some cases is really just cowardice. The same is true with impotent silence.
Put the two main themes together and we happen upon a great piece of advice: speak up now!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Student Empowerment ?
I will do my best to make this as brief, as clear, and as applicable as possible.
A fine teacher I know was complaining about a troublesome student who chronically teeters on the edge of insubordination and disrepect. Often, the princess in question will try to camouflage a personal oversight or error of omission on her part by claiming that the teacher had failed to adequately explain, notify, or remind the student of her responsiblities.
"You should have reminded us," she will say - or - "if you had taught that better I would have understood."
In each case, the student is using a simple dynamic: blame someone else for her error.
I say, ignore the tendency to respond by being affronted by the disrespect lurking in the shadows, or even the defiance standing at full attention. Address the challenge head on.
"Well Susie," the teacher might say, "Let's test the theory."
"Class, I need you to answer the next few questions as honestly as possible? How many of you remember how I notified you that the homework/project/assignement was due today?"
"You told us Wednesday in class."
"It's on the board right behind you."
"Don't you have all the assignments posted on your web page?"
"I put it in my agenda book."
"Question two: Does anyone have an idea for how I might make it easier for everyone to remember their due dates and assignment schedule?"
"You could put in on a calendar."
"You could tell us to write it in our agenda books."
"You could send us an email or a text."
Now, of course, most teachers are not going to want to send out assignment alerts via email or text, but you get the idea.
I think early in the school year, teachers should review a small number of rules for classroom engagement. Something like this:
1. Bring required materials.
2. Copy assignments from the board during class warm-up or closure period.
3. Adrress absolutely everyone respectfully while in the confines of the classroom, including the teacher.
Then ask the students what other rules they think should be followed, and how they should be enforced. The funny thing is that invariably, the students know how school should work, and their mechanism for enforcement and penalties for irresponsibility are often mre severe than the teacher can or will enforce.
Also important: the class need not adopt all the suggestions. The teacher can simply explain where the suggestions are inappropriate, and offer alternatives to the unsupportable ideas. In the end, the teacher is still the authority for which rules and expectations will stand.
The value of the exercise at the early part of a year or semester is that academic indifference - or even the disrespectful comments noted in the intro. - can be bluntly and directly addressed when they occur.
The student who claims that notification was absent or ineffective cannot deny that notification methods have been common practice throughout the year. [Important warning here: in those instances where circumstances have prevented the teacher from notifying according to the plan, the teacher will need to make allowances. For instance, for an assignment that didn't make it to the teacher web page, or wasn't posted on the board, the teacher must give the student to the end of the day, or even allow for the item to be submitted a day late without penalty depending on the circumstances.]
For the comment critical of the teacher's instructional method, the student empowerment scheme can also help. Most teachers have systems in place for clarifying messages, instructions, or requirements. Make certain that remediation opportuities are also posted. "See me after school. Send me an email. Post on the discussion board. I will take questions during the last five minutes while the class reads independently, sets up the homework assignment, or reviews notes."
I know of a teacher who has a suggestion box of sorts. Students drop 3x5 cards with their question in a box at the door and the teacher posts the answers on the teacher web page.
One major point is this: no part of the learning process should be a guessing game. Students are going to screw up and neglect duties of one kind or another. The test of their commitment needn't be whether they copied the assignemnt, but whether they turned it in at the appointed time. Therefore, set up study buddies, or employ some of the ideas suggested in here. Make access to the necessary information routine, clear, and easy. The only excuses for not submitting something should be that the dog really did eat it, or the student didn't do his job. The student should never be able to claim that he couldn't overcome a momentary error or oversight.
After all, the measure of teacher success is student achievement. Teachers know that students are often lazy, indifferent, irresponsible, and careless. Why let expected student responsibility challenges be the reason for teacher failure. A student failure is a teacher failure, and teacher's want to have as few of those as possible.
The ultimate success occurs when the teacher can say, "Susie gets little parental support, does not engage consistently in her learning, socializes too frequently, and exhibits some definite knowledge and skill gaps, but she earned a legitimate B in my class."
Good job teach!
A fine teacher I know was complaining about a troublesome student who chronically teeters on the edge of insubordination and disrepect. Often, the princess in question will try to camouflage a personal oversight or error of omission on her part by claiming that the teacher had failed to adequately explain, notify, or remind the student of her responsiblities.
"You should have reminded us," she will say - or - "if you had taught that better I would have understood."
In each case, the student is using a simple dynamic: blame someone else for her error.
I say, ignore the tendency to respond by being affronted by the disrespect lurking in the shadows, or even the defiance standing at full attention. Address the challenge head on.
"Well Susie," the teacher might say, "Let's test the theory."
"Class, I need you to answer the next few questions as honestly as possible? How many of you remember how I notified you that the homework/project/assignement was due today?"
"You told us Wednesday in class."
"It's on the board right behind you."
"Don't you have all the assignments posted on your web page?"
"I put it in my agenda book."
"Question two: Does anyone have an idea for how I might make it easier for everyone to remember their due dates and assignment schedule?"
"You could put in on a calendar."
"You could tell us to write it in our agenda books."
"You could send us an email or a text."
Now, of course, most teachers are not going to want to send out assignment alerts via email or text, but you get the idea.
I think early in the school year, teachers should review a small number of rules for classroom engagement. Something like this:
1. Bring required materials.
2. Copy assignments from the board during class warm-up or closure period.
3. Adrress absolutely everyone respectfully while in the confines of the classroom, including the teacher.
Then ask the students what other rules they think should be followed, and how they should be enforced. The funny thing is that invariably, the students know how school should work, and their mechanism for enforcement and penalties for irresponsibility are often mre severe than the teacher can or will enforce.
Also important: the class need not adopt all the suggestions. The teacher can simply explain where the suggestions are inappropriate, and offer alternatives to the unsupportable ideas. In the end, the teacher is still the authority for which rules and expectations will stand.
The value of the exercise at the early part of a year or semester is that academic indifference - or even the disrespectful comments noted in the intro. - can be bluntly and directly addressed when they occur.
The student who claims that notification was absent or ineffective cannot deny that notification methods have been common practice throughout the year. [Important warning here: in those instances where circumstances have prevented the teacher from notifying according to the plan, the teacher will need to make allowances. For instance, for an assignment that didn't make it to the teacher web page, or wasn't posted on the board, the teacher must give the student to the end of the day, or even allow for the item to be submitted a day late without penalty depending on the circumstances.]
For the comment critical of the teacher's instructional method, the student empowerment scheme can also help. Most teachers have systems in place for clarifying messages, instructions, or requirements. Make certain that remediation opportuities are also posted. "See me after school. Send me an email. Post on the discussion board. I will take questions during the last five minutes while the class reads independently, sets up the homework assignment, or reviews notes."
I know of a teacher who has a suggestion box of sorts. Students drop 3x5 cards with their question in a box at the door and the teacher posts the answers on the teacher web page.
One major point is this: no part of the learning process should be a guessing game. Students are going to screw up and neglect duties of one kind or another. The test of their commitment needn't be whether they copied the assignemnt, but whether they turned it in at the appointed time. Therefore, set up study buddies, or employ some of the ideas suggested in here. Make access to the necessary information routine, clear, and easy. The only excuses for not submitting something should be that the dog really did eat it, or the student didn't do his job. The student should never be able to claim that he couldn't overcome a momentary error or oversight.
After all, the measure of teacher success is student achievement. Teachers know that students are often lazy, indifferent, irresponsible, and careless. Why let expected student responsibility challenges be the reason for teacher failure. A student failure is a teacher failure, and teacher's want to have as few of those as possible.
The ultimate success occurs when the teacher can say, "Susie gets little parental support, does not engage consistently in her learning, socializes too frequently, and exhibits some definite knowledge and skill gaps, but she earned a legitimate B in my class."
Good job teach!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Whose Job is it Anyway?
I have never been one to reject a task simply because it wasn't my job. In fact, I have sometimes gotten myself into trouble because I put my two cents worth where it didn't belong. After all, that propensity for overstepping my bounds is the reason for the title of this blog.
I am taking this a step farther now though, because I am sick and tired, tired and sick, of people who won't do their own jobs, let alone tackle one that cries out for an owner.
I will be hard-pressed to provide an example without revealing the object of my ire, so I will tackjle this a bit differently. I know people who will refrain from responding to an email because their delay will force another to co-opt the task. Knock it off, I say. The email was sent to you because you are the one, or one of the ones, who can further a process, approve a decision, or stop a mistake from happening. Do your job!
Directly related to this is the person who deliberately does only half of his job, thereby shielding himself from full responsibility. Again, providing specific instances promises to create more problems than its worth, so generalities will have to do. And to be honest, specifics aren't really necessary. The delay-ers and half-hearted dally-ers now who they are, and so do you.
Nothing is worse than being the next person in the information chain, knowing that the adjacent link is dawdling, waiting for someone to snatch responsibility away. I suppose that is an offshoot of the other point of complaint, the CYA colleague. You know the guy, his first and primary concern is making certain that he didn't make the mistake. These poeple see the potential for blame in every action they take, and some are rendered catatonic by the prospect of being held accountable for --- anything.
I know this has been generic and probably somewhat bland, but I am relying on the idea that the reader knows plenty of specific examples, and he has already plugged in the specifics on the fly.
I am taking this a step farther now though, because I am sick and tired, tired and sick, of people who won't do their own jobs, let alone tackle one that cries out for an owner.
I will be hard-pressed to provide an example without revealing the object of my ire, so I will tackjle this a bit differently. I know people who will refrain from responding to an email because their delay will force another to co-opt the task. Knock it off, I say. The email was sent to you because you are the one, or one of the ones, who can further a process, approve a decision, or stop a mistake from happening. Do your job!
Directly related to this is the person who deliberately does only half of his job, thereby shielding himself from full responsibility. Again, providing specific instances promises to create more problems than its worth, so generalities will have to do. And to be honest, specifics aren't really necessary. The delay-ers and half-hearted dally-ers now who they are, and so do you.
Nothing is worse than being the next person in the information chain, knowing that the adjacent link is dawdling, waiting for someone to snatch responsibility away. I suppose that is an offshoot of the other point of complaint, the CYA colleague. You know the guy, his first and primary concern is making certain that he didn't make the mistake. These poeple see the potential for blame in every action they take, and some are rendered catatonic by the prospect of being held accountable for --- anything.
I know this has been generic and probably somewhat bland, but I am relying on the idea that the reader knows plenty of specific examples, and he has already plugged in the specifics on the fly.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Sometimes, Things Just Slide out of One's Control
About eight years ago, I realized that I am a control freak. I think, however, that my disease is a bit different from typical manifestations of the disorder. Most control freaks I have met need to assert control over the physical elements of their lives. They have a system for organizing the desks, sorting the mail and personal papers, storing their clothes, managing their daily calendar - that sort of thing.
My disorder is limited - and I apply the term somewhat facetiously - to control over my psychological environment. The desk may be messy and usually is. The laundry will get sorted at some point, and I do have a system for doing so, but I feel no sense of urgency toward completing that task. Ok, I do when I am running out of appropriate clothing for work or the gym, but generally, those types of tasks don't upset my emotional applecart.
I need to feel in control of the situations and the people around me. This malady is extremely troublesome because I am well aware of the fact that I am not in control of the situations or the people around me. I think sometimes I could go insane with only a gentle push.
Cases in point: I am all out of sorts today for a couple of reasons, and though I have been counseling myself on an intellectual level, my own words of wisdom are falling rather flat.
Yesterday at work, I was involved in a conflict where I was apparently failing to adequately take charge of an expected duty. I was caught off guard because I thought I was doing the expected thing. I won't go into details because they aren't germane to this discussion. I messed up; I was held responsible; I am internally pouting. Twenty-four hours later, despite great efforts to convince myself that, because I thought I was handling the situation as asked, there was nothing I could have done to avoid it. I must put it behind me, make certain not to repeat the error, and try my best to avoid similar mistakes in the future. I had no control over the change in psychological status, and I still feel emotionally as if I have placed my forehead on a baseball bat, spun around twenty times, then tried to run a forty yard dash.
Complicating the coping/recovery process is an accident that occured in my front yard at 3:30 am. A young man fell asleep at the wheel on his way home from college. He left the roadway in front of my house, came over a bank between the road and my driveway, ran into the car I am currently driving (though fortunately I wasn't doing so at the time), did a vehicular one and a half with at least a full twist, and landed upright in his car in a position that made it look as if he had parked behind my car.
In the process of doing this, he propelled my car, a small SUV about ten feet diagonally, so that it was sitting in my front yard, its rear end smashed into a young maple tree. The passenger side of both vehicles are about mid engine. Both cars are total losses.
I probably should have told you the driver is OK before now. He is fine. Maybe because he was asleep, and also because he had his seatbelt on and his aribags deployed, he came through a 60 mph collision with an SUV about twice the weight of his car with a few cuts. He probably received the cuts when he scrambled out of the car, came to my front door, and rang my ancient crank handle door bell, rousing the dog, my wife, and I in the wee hours.
He said, and I quote, "I fell asleep at the wheel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I totaled my car, and the damage to your car is significant too."
How's that? The damage to my car is signficant!
What's significant is that he rang my doorbell after a crash like that.
But back to my malady. The car he totaled actually belongs to my daughter. We switched vehicles when she left for college so that she could drive the one with better gas mileage. The car once belonged to my daughter's friend's father, a loveable, opinionated guy with whom my family and I had a good relationship when the kids were little. We came into ownership of the car when he died - too young - after essentially drinking himself to death.
Of course, I know that I have/had no control over any of those things: the accident, the alcoholism, the intimely death. Yet this situaiton is adding to my distress, no matter how hard I work to provide self-therapy. I liked Pippy, whose name was George but whom I called Tom (all true), and every once in awhile I felt a little connection to him when I remembered that I was driving his truck. Nevertheless, I am out of control of my sense of well being. I am feeling loss with the destruction of a vehicle that had no special redeeeming features. It was a twelve year old SUV. I liked driving it, but it really wasn't a special thing, except that it reminded me of my friend once in a while.
Late this evening, I am sitting here typing this, hoping that by doing so I will regain my artificial equilibrium. I am not confident or optimistic - and that is really the source of the problem. I know that I haven't ever had control over things, but I work pretty hard to maintain the delusions that I do. I am therefore all befuddled because reality has swept in and unceremoniously stripped me of my fabrications, and now that same reality is standing in my living room laughing at me.
I tried to nap, but I didn't even have control over that. Tonight we must turn back the clocks, so that starting Monday I will go to work in the dark, and come home in the dark. The time of year weighs on me too.
Being a control freak isn't easy.
My disorder is limited - and I apply the term somewhat facetiously - to control over my psychological environment. The desk may be messy and usually is. The laundry will get sorted at some point, and I do have a system for doing so, but I feel no sense of urgency toward completing that task. Ok, I do when I am running out of appropriate clothing for work or the gym, but generally, those types of tasks don't upset my emotional applecart.
I need to feel in control of the situations and the people around me. This malady is extremely troublesome because I am well aware of the fact that I am not in control of the situations or the people around me. I think sometimes I could go insane with only a gentle push.
Cases in point: I am all out of sorts today for a couple of reasons, and though I have been counseling myself on an intellectual level, my own words of wisdom are falling rather flat.
Yesterday at work, I was involved in a conflict where I was apparently failing to adequately take charge of an expected duty. I was caught off guard because I thought I was doing the expected thing. I won't go into details because they aren't germane to this discussion. I messed up; I was held responsible; I am internally pouting. Twenty-four hours later, despite great efforts to convince myself that, because I thought I was handling the situation as asked, there was nothing I could have done to avoid it. I must put it behind me, make certain not to repeat the error, and try my best to avoid similar mistakes in the future. I had no control over the change in psychological status, and I still feel emotionally as if I have placed my forehead on a baseball bat, spun around twenty times, then tried to run a forty yard dash.
Complicating the coping/recovery process is an accident that occured in my front yard at 3:30 am. A young man fell asleep at the wheel on his way home from college. He left the roadway in front of my house, came over a bank between the road and my driveway, ran into the car I am currently driving (though fortunately I wasn't doing so at the time), did a vehicular one and a half with at least a full twist, and landed upright in his car in a position that made it look as if he had parked behind my car.
In the process of doing this, he propelled my car, a small SUV about ten feet diagonally, so that it was sitting in my front yard, its rear end smashed into a young maple tree. The passenger side of both vehicles are about mid engine. Both cars are total losses.
I probably should have told you the driver is OK before now. He is fine. Maybe because he was asleep, and also because he had his seatbelt on and his aribags deployed, he came through a 60 mph collision with an SUV about twice the weight of his car with a few cuts. He probably received the cuts when he scrambled out of the car, came to my front door, and rang my ancient crank handle door bell, rousing the dog, my wife, and I in the wee hours.
He said, and I quote, "I fell asleep at the wheel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I totaled my car, and the damage to your car is significant too."
How's that? The damage to my car is signficant!
What's significant is that he rang my doorbell after a crash like that.
But back to my malady. The car he totaled actually belongs to my daughter. We switched vehicles when she left for college so that she could drive the one with better gas mileage. The car once belonged to my daughter's friend's father, a loveable, opinionated guy with whom my family and I had a good relationship when the kids were little. We came into ownership of the car when he died - too young - after essentially drinking himself to death.
Of course, I know that I have/had no control over any of those things: the accident, the alcoholism, the intimely death. Yet this situaiton is adding to my distress, no matter how hard I work to provide self-therapy. I liked Pippy, whose name was George but whom I called Tom (all true), and every once in awhile I felt a little connection to him when I remembered that I was driving his truck. Nevertheless, I am out of control of my sense of well being. I am feeling loss with the destruction of a vehicle that had no special redeeeming features. It was a twelve year old SUV. I liked driving it, but it really wasn't a special thing, except that it reminded me of my friend once in a while.
Late this evening, I am sitting here typing this, hoping that by doing so I will regain my artificial equilibrium. I am not confident or optimistic - and that is really the source of the problem. I know that I haven't ever had control over things, but I work pretty hard to maintain the delusions that I do. I am therefore all befuddled because reality has swept in and unceremoniously stripped me of my fabrications, and now that same reality is standing in my living room laughing at me.
I tried to nap, but I didn't even have control over that. Tonight we must turn back the clocks, so that starting Monday I will go to work in the dark, and come home in the dark. The time of year weighs on me too.
Being a control freak isn't easy.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
So, Really, What's Wrong With Being a Democrat?
Though I feel no strong animus toward the people on the left side of the aisle, I do often experience incredulity. As an idealist, I understand the 'progressives' (not liberal's) desire to believe that the collective power of humanity, driven by noble intentions and good will, CAN direct a government to take almost parental care of its citizens.
I also happen to be a cynic. That side takes precedence in matters political, so that I can not bring myself to subscribe to the delusion that any group of people, given power over others, will not succumb to the temptation to take care of themselves at the expense of others.
Consequently, I am a moderate Republican. I can't make it to far right because these people are really just the opposite incarnation of the far left. Both fringes are ruled by emotion. The forces in the middle of both dispositions are the only ones whom we can trust to govern, but the most powerful means of persuasion in the world is emotion. Therefore, the platform for each side must make peace with the extremists: they win the most arguments and so garner the most votes.
I tend to defend the Constitution, perhaps because it has proven to be a remarkably flexible and reasonable approach to governance. The framers argued long and hard and tried to inoculate the Great Experiment against the virus that is human frailty. Translation: the Constitution delineates limits in many cases so that the federal government cannot neglect its duty to provide fundamental services for its people. However, the document also avoids delineation in some cases so that leaders can not exercise powers they ought not have.
For instance? The Constitution provides no place for the federal government to dictate the creation of a national health care program. It does not because to do so will abridge the freedom of the individual. Yet it does not prohibit a state from creating a healthcare vehicle that is formulated by the state. Most states currently have no provision for creating just such an agency, but they could pass provisions through the amendment of their state constitution.
I don't want a state or federal health care plan. I want the situaiton to grow so unwieldy that states are persuaded to make regulations that protect the citizens and guard against abuses. Whether at the state or federal level, I object to the idea of prescribed health care because the cynic in me knows that an agency with the power to control so much money is destined to become a way for a few greedy individuals to make money at the expense of others. The idealist in me wants to believe that carefully crafted regulations can prevent such abuse, and that ingenuity and noble intentions will drive people to create fair, effective mechanisms by which people can access healthcare.
I think most Democrats are hopeful idealists. Like them, I would love to have a government that is benevolent and which ensures rights, privileges, and protections for its people. But the cynic in me doesn't trust people, especially in powerful groups, to be able to maintain that benevolence. So I want a mandated limitation of the exercise of power.
Of course, this rumination has been provoked by the shift in power that is expected to be the result of these 2010 elections. If the House does shift to the right, I am not going to be happy though. I think the shift is emotional and somewhat driven by pettiness. As an earlier commentary noted, people will be voting against a current state of affairs, not in favor of a 'better' way to do things. Remember the cynic in me isn't very hopeful or trustworthy.
What I would like is for the citizenry to think everything through. Voting the Democratic way can be a statement that says one has faith and hope in people and the instituations they create. Voting Republican can be a statement that says indivisual people and their organizations can provide the benevolent services that a society needs to thrive.
I am sorry to believe that most voters vote not with their consciences, since doing so requires rational thought and careful examination. Instead, the rights and the lefts will primarily vote with their emotional selves at the forefront - reacting to fear of one kind or another.
I also happen to be a cynic. That side takes precedence in matters political, so that I can not bring myself to subscribe to the delusion that any group of people, given power over others, will not succumb to the temptation to take care of themselves at the expense of others.
Consequently, I am a moderate Republican. I can't make it to far right because these people are really just the opposite incarnation of the far left. Both fringes are ruled by emotion. The forces in the middle of both dispositions are the only ones whom we can trust to govern, but the most powerful means of persuasion in the world is emotion. Therefore, the platform for each side must make peace with the extremists: they win the most arguments and so garner the most votes.
I tend to defend the Constitution, perhaps because it has proven to be a remarkably flexible and reasonable approach to governance. The framers argued long and hard and tried to inoculate the Great Experiment against the virus that is human frailty. Translation: the Constitution delineates limits in many cases so that the federal government cannot neglect its duty to provide fundamental services for its people. However, the document also avoids delineation in some cases so that leaders can not exercise powers they ought not have.
For instance? The Constitution provides no place for the federal government to dictate the creation of a national health care program. It does not because to do so will abridge the freedom of the individual. Yet it does not prohibit a state from creating a healthcare vehicle that is formulated by the state. Most states currently have no provision for creating just such an agency, but they could pass provisions through the amendment of their state constitution.
I don't want a state or federal health care plan. I want the situaiton to grow so unwieldy that states are persuaded to make regulations that protect the citizens and guard against abuses. Whether at the state or federal level, I object to the idea of prescribed health care because the cynic in me knows that an agency with the power to control so much money is destined to become a way for a few greedy individuals to make money at the expense of others. The idealist in me wants to believe that carefully crafted regulations can prevent such abuse, and that ingenuity and noble intentions will drive people to create fair, effective mechanisms by which people can access healthcare.
I think most Democrats are hopeful idealists. Like them, I would love to have a government that is benevolent and which ensures rights, privileges, and protections for its people. But the cynic in me doesn't trust people, especially in powerful groups, to be able to maintain that benevolence. So I want a mandated limitation of the exercise of power.
Of course, this rumination has been provoked by the shift in power that is expected to be the result of these 2010 elections. If the House does shift to the right, I am not going to be happy though. I think the shift is emotional and somewhat driven by pettiness. As an earlier commentary noted, people will be voting against a current state of affairs, not in favor of a 'better' way to do things. Remember the cynic in me isn't very hopeful or trustworthy.
What I would like is for the citizenry to think everything through. Voting the Democratic way can be a statement that says one has faith and hope in people and the instituations they create. Voting Republican can be a statement that says indivisual people and their organizations can provide the benevolent services that a society needs to thrive.
I am sorry to believe that most voters vote not with their consciences, since doing so requires rational thought and careful examination. Instead, the rights and the lefts will primarily vote with their emotional selves at the forefront - reacting to fear of one kind or another.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Bully for Everyone
Three responses to the last two entries asked about the role that parents can play in transforming the bullying culture that prevails. Some comments at the end of the previous post addressed this briefly, but perhaps a more pointed response will provide some food for thought.
To combat some of the nameless, faceless, and overwhelming cyberbullying that takes place, parents should control and limit access. I am tired of hearing the excuse that students need personal cell phones to access the resources they need throughout daily life. Crap! If your son or daughter is at practice or an activity of one kind or another, his coach or advisor has access to a telephone. If your son or daughter is out in public, phones are ubiquitous - payphones, land lines in businesses, available adults with cell phones abound.
If your young son or daughter is somewhere that a phone is not accessible, you as the parent should be standing next to him or her. People younger than 16 do not need cellphones.
The fact of the matter is that our young people have access to phones, computers, blacberries and other electronic communications tools because having such access is easier on parents. Parenting, part of which involves monitoring your child's activities and whereabouts, is demanding. I maintain that parents can't protect their children from anything when they provide the youth with unsupervised access to all these toys.
Parents can also counteract the prevailing culture by having intelligent conversations with their children as young as age five or six. All interactions with people should subscribe to the patterns that comprise the rules or courtesy, civility, and propriety. This may sound more difficult than it is, since all such rules may be reduced to the Golden Rule. If you don't want someone doing it to you, don't do it to someone else.
I also endorse one other controversial point of view. I taught my children the following rules of engagement when confronted by aggressive behavior. 1. Tell the other person to stop. 2. Run away, even if it makes you look bad. 3. If running away doesn't work, run to an adult that you can trust - teacher, parent, neighbor. Kids my tease, but you will be safe enough to devise the next plan. 4. If you cannot find an adult you trust, find any adult and ask for help.
The fifth rule is a big one, and I will endorse it, though I know many people will reject it. 5. If you are backed into a corner, or you think you are in danger that you cannot run from or avoid, hit the bully as hard and as often as you can, for as long as it takes to provide an avenue for escape.
In the 8th grade, my son was suspended for driving a pencil into the arm of his attacker. The bully had him pinned in a student desk, and after a full minute of telling the bully to get off of him, to no effect, he lashed out with the only weapon he had. I supported the suspension, but demanded to know why the teacher was not near enough to provide assistance. I forget the reason why, so it must have been a rare, but unfortunate case of divided attention brought on by another incident.
The bully never interacted with my son again.
At 10, my daughter kicked a neighbor boy in the groin to thwart an attack. She tried to get help from the neighbor boy's father, whom she said closed the curtains of the upstairs bedroom when he heard her cries for help. (He said he didn't hear her.)
Last year, that same daughter was trapped in a dormitory bathroom by a drunken visitor to the college. She didn't scream for help, though I don't know why. Instead, she told him he wasn't going to get her, and dashed through a small opening in the doorway that he must have thought he had completely blocked. She ran back to her room, locked the door, and phoned for help. He followed her to her room and tried to get in.
These incidents validate my belief that I have provided sadly appropriate advice.
To combat some of the nameless, faceless, and overwhelming cyberbullying that takes place, parents should control and limit access. I am tired of hearing the excuse that students need personal cell phones to access the resources they need throughout daily life. Crap! If your son or daughter is at practice or an activity of one kind or another, his coach or advisor has access to a telephone. If your son or daughter is out in public, phones are ubiquitous - payphones, land lines in businesses, available adults with cell phones abound.
If your young son or daughter is somewhere that a phone is not accessible, you as the parent should be standing next to him or her. People younger than 16 do not need cellphones.
The fact of the matter is that our young people have access to phones, computers, blacberries and other electronic communications tools because having such access is easier on parents. Parenting, part of which involves monitoring your child's activities and whereabouts, is demanding. I maintain that parents can't protect their children from anything when they provide the youth with unsupervised access to all these toys.
Parents can also counteract the prevailing culture by having intelligent conversations with their children as young as age five or six. All interactions with people should subscribe to the patterns that comprise the rules or courtesy, civility, and propriety. This may sound more difficult than it is, since all such rules may be reduced to the Golden Rule. If you don't want someone doing it to you, don't do it to someone else.
I also endorse one other controversial point of view. I taught my children the following rules of engagement when confronted by aggressive behavior. 1. Tell the other person to stop. 2. Run away, even if it makes you look bad. 3. If running away doesn't work, run to an adult that you can trust - teacher, parent, neighbor. Kids my tease, but you will be safe enough to devise the next plan. 4. If you cannot find an adult you trust, find any adult and ask for help.
The fifth rule is a big one, and I will endorse it, though I know many people will reject it. 5. If you are backed into a corner, or you think you are in danger that you cannot run from or avoid, hit the bully as hard and as often as you can, for as long as it takes to provide an avenue for escape.
In the 8th grade, my son was suspended for driving a pencil into the arm of his attacker. The bully had him pinned in a student desk, and after a full minute of telling the bully to get off of him, to no effect, he lashed out with the only weapon he had. I supported the suspension, but demanded to know why the teacher was not near enough to provide assistance. I forget the reason why, so it must have been a rare, but unfortunate case of divided attention brought on by another incident.
The bully never interacted with my son again.
At 10, my daughter kicked a neighbor boy in the groin to thwart an attack. She tried to get help from the neighbor boy's father, whom she said closed the curtains of the upstairs bedroom when he heard her cries for help. (He said he didn't hear her.)
Last year, that same daughter was trapped in a dormitory bathroom by a drunken visitor to the college. She didn't scream for help, though I don't know why. Instead, she told him he wasn't going to get her, and dashed through a small opening in the doorway that he must have thought he had completely blocked. She ran back to her room, locked the door, and phoned for help. He followed her to her room and tried to get in.
These incidents validate my belief that I have provided sadly appropriate advice.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Bully for Me
A long tenure in public schools provides me with the experience to make the following pronouncements and observations.
Bullying and harassment among school children has grown worse over the years for a number of reasons. One person's opinion on the why's will be forthcoming. As a special prize, that same person will propose solutions to the problem that no one will like.
First, the causes: bullying has escalated and become more vicious because our culture has lost its way, and because technology has enabled people to act hatefully and to solicit mob assistance with the click of a button.
Last year, I was party to an incident where one young girl was angry at another for failing to invite her to a party. The 'uninvited' girl sent a text message to everyone in her address book, asking them to attack the party hostess. On a whim, most of the recruits complied, sending hateful texts over the next 24 hours, though they were oblivious to the cause of the rift between the two girls. The hostess received more than 100 texts, at least two of which concluded by telling the jilted girl that she should die.
The girl's parents changed her phone number and placed her in a private school within a few days. The parents could not conceive of a response to the blitz bullying that would allow the girl to return to the environment that had given birth to such a devestating personal attack.
More than a few of the students were foolish enough to send texts from their phones with their names and numbers attached. In case after case, the students seemed genuinely surprised that their words had done so much damage. One of those who told the victim that she should die was sure the recipient would have to know that she was joking.
We live in a world where face-to-face accountability is not a constant expectation, nor even a regular feature of existence. We create profiles and character sketches that may or may not be true - and we interact with people whose identities and motives are just as dubious. As a result, we are paradoxically more and less available and accountable for our actions. Think about that. We believe ourselves to be shielded from retaliation for our remarks by geography - the other person is far away. However, the same technology that allows us to send the faceless vitriol can link that message to our phones, blackberries, and computers.
The solutions that no one will like are fairly simple. No child younger than 16 should carry a personal cell phone. When phone contact is necessary, young people should have a pre-paid phone with limited applications.
Likewise, no student younger than 16 should have unsupervised access to the internet or other communications technology. They can have monitored access to the internet for informational purposes, and parental controls should enable parents to block access to social networking sites. Your children don't need friends in Zimbabwe: tell them to get off their butts and find friends in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, parents and schools should begin training students in civility, courtesy, and propriety as early as kindergarten. The curriculum should be determined on the following basis - what is acceptable in regard to personal conduct with others must adhere to the golden rule. Of course, the areas of examination could fill three of four years' worth of instructional material, but we could spread it out over twelve of thirteen, so the children have more time to learn how to read and spell entire words.
Bullying and harassment among school children has grown worse over the years for a number of reasons. One person's opinion on the why's will be forthcoming. As a special prize, that same person will propose solutions to the problem that no one will like.
First, the causes: bullying has escalated and become more vicious because our culture has lost its way, and because technology has enabled people to act hatefully and to solicit mob assistance with the click of a button.
Last year, I was party to an incident where one young girl was angry at another for failing to invite her to a party. The 'uninvited' girl sent a text message to everyone in her address book, asking them to attack the party hostess. On a whim, most of the recruits complied, sending hateful texts over the next 24 hours, though they were oblivious to the cause of the rift between the two girls. The hostess received more than 100 texts, at least two of which concluded by telling the jilted girl that she should die.
The girl's parents changed her phone number and placed her in a private school within a few days. The parents could not conceive of a response to the blitz bullying that would allow the girl to return to the environment that had given birth to such a devestating personal attack.
More than a few of the students were foolish enough to send texts from their phones with their names and numbers attached. In case after case, the students seemed genuinely surprised that their words had done so much damage. One of those who told the victim that she should die was sure the recipient would have to know that she was joking.
We live in a world where face-to-face accountability is not a constant expectation, nor even a regular feature of existence. We create profiles and character sketches that may or may not be true - and we interact with people whose identities and motives are just as dubious. As a result, we are paradoxically more and less available and accountable for our actions. Think about that. We believe ourselves to be shielded from retaliation for our remarks by geography - the other person is far away. However, the same technology that allows us to send the faceless vitriol can link that message to our phones, blackberries, and computers.
The solutions that no one will like are fairly simple. No child younger than 16 should carry a personal cell phone. When phone contact is necessary, young people should have a pre-paid phone with limited applications.
Likewise, no student younger than 16 should have unsupervised access to the internet or other communications technology. They can have monitored access to the internet for informational purposes, and parental controls should enable parents to block access to social networking sites. Your children don't need friends in Zimbabwe: tell them to get off their butts and find friends in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, parents and schools should begin training students in civility, courtesy, and propriety as early as kindergarten. The curriculum should be determined on the following basis - what is acceptable in regard to personal conduct with others must adhere to the golden rule. Of course, the areas of examination could fill three of four years' worth of instructional material, but we could spread it out over twelve of thirteen, so the children have more time to learn how to read and spell entire words.
Bully For You
I suspect that I really have two completely separate commentaries to deliver, but they are intricatley related to one another, so I have opted to post them one after the other.
I am furious with the local newspaper, which has decided to cover a recent teen suicide in as irresponsible a manner as one can imagine. Grieving parents in the school district in which I reside have lost a beautiful young son, 17. He left no note when he took his life, so the parents -understandably - are searching despertely for an answer that will explain the cause of such a tragic decision. The parents are suspicious that bullying, on-line and in school, drove their son to make the gut-wrenching choice to take his own life.
I feel so bad for the parents. Why, the mother asked in print, did she have to lose her little boy? She doesn't know. I don't know. The newspaper doesn't know. Absent a note, or an insight from one of the boy's friends, or a school official - teacher, administrator, counselor - we may never have an answer to that question.
So the cause of my fury is the newspaper's decision to run with the story and to hypothesize that bullying could have been the cause. No one seems to have any evidence that harassment has been taking place, but the country has had some high profile cases the past few years, and bullying was a primary cause in those cases. An investigation being conducted by the police, and I'm sure a similar inspection by school officials, will try to draw some conclusions, but two stories have already run. The theme of each story has been that bullying can drive young people to desperate measures. Of course it can. We already knew that. Did it do so in this case?
When the stories were run, no one involved with the terrible loss of life was ready to attribute the tragedy to bullying. Nevertheless, readers have now been led by the reporter's speculation to reach a conclusion that doesn't exist.
If harassment is determined to be the culprit, then everyone in the community needs to answer a huge number of questions. Why wasn't the problem reported? If it was reported, why didn't the school intervene? If they did intervene, why weren't the efforts to stop the harrrassment effective?
Here's my major beef: what if bullying or harrassment had nothing to do with the boy's belief that the only remedy for his despair was his own death? What if the investigation by police and school district yields evidence of a different catalyst? Unfortunately, young people commit suicide for a large number of reasons, including bullying. If the cause was something else, the community has been wasting time. Already, a local organization is taking the district to task for what they have prematurely decided is an attempt to 'sweep the situation under the rug.' The angle of the story leads community members to mistrust the people who run the schools, undermining its efforts to make sure that students are safe.
My guess is that students, at least some of them, are more afraid than they would otherwise be. Teachers, support staff, and administrators are likewise more highly stressed. What good then will the decision to run the story, with a bullying angle, have been?
I realize that I run a risk here by deflecting attention away from the tragic events and the overwhelming pain that the family and friends are experiencing. I am not callous or unfeeling, but I am perplexed and incensed at the senselessness of the local paper. For crying out loud, find out if the bullying angle has any weight. If it does, trumpet your disappointment and indignation as stridently as you wish. But realize the damage you are doing when you imply two schools - the home school and the tech school - have been blind, deaf, dumb, and duplicitous.
I am furious with the local newspaper, which has decided to cover a recent teen suicide in as irresponsible a manner as one can imagine. Grieving parents in the school district in which I reside have lost a beautiful young son, 17. He left no note when he took his life, so the parents -understandably - are searching despertely for an answer that will explain the cause of such a tragic decision. The parents are suspicious that bullying, on-line and in school, drove their son to make the gut-wrenching choice to take his own life.
I feel so bad for the parents. Why, the mother asked in print, did she have to lose her little boy? She doesn't know. I don't know. The newspaper doesn't know. Absent a note, or an insight from one of the boy's friends, or a school official - teacher, administrator, counselor - we may never have an answer to that question.
So the cause of my fury is the newspaper's decision to run with the story and to hypothesize that bullying could have been the cause. No one seems to have any evidence that harassment has been taking place, but the country has had some high profile cases the past few years, and bullying was a primary cause in those cases. An investigation being conducted by the police, and I'm sure a similar inspection by school officials, will try to draw some conclusions, but two stories have already run. The theme of each story has been that bullying can drive young people to desperate measures. Of course it can. We already knew that. Did it do so in this case?
When the stories were run, no one involved with the terrible loss of life was ready to attribute the tragedy to bullying. Nevertheless, readers have now been led by the reporter's speculation to reach a conclusion that doesn't exist.
If harassment is determined to be the culprit, then everyone in the community needs to answer a huge number of questions. Why wasn't the problem reported? If it was reported, why didn't the school intervene? If they did intervene, why weren't the efforts to stop the harrrassment effective?
Here's my major beef: what if bullying or harrassment had nothing to do with the boy's belief that the only remedy for his despair was his own death? What if the investigation by police and school district yields evidence of a different catalyst? Unfortunately, young people commit suicide for a large number of reasons, including bullying. If the cause was something else, the community has been wasting time. Already, a local organization is taking the district to task for what they have prematurely decided is an attempt to 'sweep the situation under the rug.' The angle of the story leads community members to mistrust the people who run the schools, undermining its efforts to make sure that students are safe.
My guess is that students, at least some of them, are more afraid than they would otherwise be. Teachers, support staff, and administrators are likewise more highly stressed. What good then will the decision to run the story, with a bullying angle, have been?
I realize that I run a risk here by deflecting attention away from the tragic events and the overwhelming pain that the family and friends are experiencing. I am not callous or unfeeling, but I am perplexed and incensed at the senselessness of the local paper. For crying out loud, find out if the bullying angle has any weight. If it does, trumpet your disappointment and indignation as stridently as you wish. But realize the damage you are doing when you imply two schools - the home school and the tech school - have been blind, deaf, dumb, and duplicitous.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
On the Precipe of Election Day...
Next Tuesday, many Americans will dash off, at one point of the day or another, and they will in many cases proudly exercise their right to vote. They will mistakenly and sadly believe adhere to the delusion that their individual votes count and matter.
Sad the situation is, but not because the votes don't matter, but because the individual vote cannot subvert the inevitable outcome. Trends are not random nor inconsequential: the upcoming elections will collectively validate the conventional opinion that the current regime, in light of the current state of affairs, is failing. So Republicans will win significanlty more seats than Democrats. They will win because the party in power will always lose seats when the country is experiencing the troubles that this country is plagued by right now.
I have been a lifelong Republican, and I could explain in detail why I subscribe to the right side. I won't though. The reason is that I will derive no satisfaction from the imminent shift to the 'right' side. The vote will designate not a shift to the right, but a shift away from the current dominant position. Few of the voters who swing to the other side will do so because they have made an ideological shift. Instead, they will vacillate because of a petty, superficial hope that different equals better.
I recognize that I have written here in generalites, but the point is that generalities rule the day. I believe this country needs a scare that will force the electorate to think deeply and strongly about the 'proper' way to encourage our citizenry to make long term ideological choices about the ideals that should be at the heart of our government.
We have all heard the rallying cry that exhorts people to vote their consciences. The troublesome thing is that they don't and they won't. In truth, they do not consult their consciences when determinng for whom they should vote. Rather, they vote against whichever side is currently in power.
Sure, I will make time to vote on Tuesday, but I will cast my vote with grave concern that few people will have done enough to identify thecandidates whose views morror theirs. They will choose their candidates for all the wrong reasons.
Sad the situation is, but not because the votes don't matter, but because the individual vote cannot subvert the inevitable outcome. Trends are not random nor inconsequential: the upcoming elections will collectively validate the conventional opinion that the current regime, in light of the current state of affairs, is failing. So Republicans will win significanlty more seats than Democrats. They will win because the party in power will always lose seats when the country is experiencing the troubles that this country is plagued by right now.
I have been a lifelong Republican, and I could explain in detail why I subscribe to the right side. I won't though. The reason is that I will derive no satisfaction from the imminent shift to the 'right' side. The vote will designate not a shift to the right, but a shift away from the current dominant position. Few of the voters who swing to the other side will do so because they have made an ideological shift. Instead, they will vacillate because of a petty, superficial hope that different equals better.
I recognize that I have written here in generalites, but the point is that generalities rule the day. I believe this country needs a scare that will force the electorate to think deeply and strongly about the 'proper' way to encourage our citizenry to make long term ideological choices about the ideals that should be at the heart of our government.
We have all heard the rallying cry that exhorts people to vote their consciences. The troublesome thing is that they don't and they won't. In truth, they do not consult their consciences when determinng for whom they should vote. Rather, they vote against whichever side is currently in power.
Sure, I will make time to vote on Tuesday, but I will cast my vote with grave concern that few people will have done enough to identify thecandidates whose views morror theirs. They will choose their candidates for all the wrong reasons.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Advice for Educators
I now commence upon an almost impossible task: to convince some teachers to change their view of what education looks like. The arduousness of the task is grounded in a simple truth: the message will not reach the intended target primarily because the target audience is disinclined to look for this advice. Their view of teaching is flawed, as it is built upon flawed thinkng from its inception.
Teaching students, from my stance, is an intimately personal task, especially when one considers that I have become convinced over more than a quarter century in education that teachers don't really teach students anything. I know, I am being somewhat obtuse.
My viewpoint is that even in a classroom with thirty students, the teacher is holding a conversation with each student individually. Teachers always teach individual students, never classes. The conventional structure is usually a classroom with desks, students, various presentational tools and materials, and a teacher. However, the simple dynamic, though inordinately complicated in its exercise, is for the teacher to lead the student to knowledge or skill. In short, the teacher wants the student to understand something, and to have the skill to use that something in a mutlitude of ways.
This viewpoint is in stark contrast to the perception of the education process that my target audience exhibits. They see themselves as purveyors of knowledge, rahter than coaches and cultivators of talent. Consequently, their expectations are that students will acquire the necessary skills and knowledge because of an intrinsic appreciation for what the teacher has to offer.
The problem is simply that teaching is tough, regardless of the clientele, and the education of prepubescents and adolescents is even more difficult.
The complexity of the task of teaching is created by the scope of factors that influence the teacher's ability to lead students to the understanding and faciiity that is the objective of the lesson. The teacher has strengths and weaknesses, as do the students. The students have an immeasurable range of prior knowledge and understanding - or dearth thereof - as well as a full spectrum of aptitudes, prejudices, values, and ethics.
Additionally, students are subject to myriad external forces, many of which serve as impediments to learning. Among these are developmental issues including intellectual capacity, psychological readiness, and emotional stability and maturity.
Considering all of these things, one may think it a wonder that anyone ever learns anything at all. Yet learning is a natural occupation for all humans, and this fact is the most crusial tool that the teacher has at his disposal. Left to his own devices, every human is in a continual state of self-eduation; the problem is often that the student is engaged in learning things that are not included in the district curriculum. So the quesiton really becomes, "how do we get the students to learn what we think they need to learn, even when they are stridently averse or apathetic to learning it?"
An anecdote, certifiably true, and recently witnessed, may help to illustrate. A recalcitrant student in a fairly undemanding math class approaches the assistant principal to complain about his math teacher. The teacher, he contends, yells at him especially, and at the class as a whole, with great regularity. Considering the composition of the class, the assistant principal can imagine why the teacher is often inspired to yell: the students are disruptive, resistant to authority, disinterested in learning, and often surly to boot. When they aren't surly, they generally compensate by being apathetic or sleepy.
The student complains about one feature in particular. At the end of the class, the teacher often asks students to start their homework. She then uses this time to invite students who haven't grasped the day's objectives to come to her desk for individual help. When this student asks for help, he claims the teacher yells at him and tells him to sit down.
The assistant principal engages the teacher in conversation at his next opportunity. He acknowledges the difficulites that a teacher might have with this particular student, but expresses concern that she has sent the message that he is not eligible for help at the end of a lesson. "If they haven't taken notes, or if they haven't tried the whole period, I spend the time on students who are trying their best." she says. {I am paraphrasing here.]
The assistant principal says he understands, and advises the teacher to be certain that all of her students are given help when they request it. He acknowledges the inclination to make the student earn the support, but reminds the teacher that she is the one who invited students to the tutoring session. In short, if she is going to continue the practice of offering individual help to students who asks for it, she should make all of her students eligible for the help.
The teacher leaves, unhappy, as she feels that this student will abuse the privilege and prevent other needy students from accessing extra support.
What the assistant principal wants to say is this: "These annoying, beliggerent, lazy, and unresponsive students are exactly the people who will earn this school an unsatisfactory grade when the state assessments are given in the spring." In fact, this particular student is a junior, a member of the grade that will be assessed this year. He also wants to say, "Stop taking student behavior personally. Your job is to teach math, and to help all of your students to progress to an acceptable level. The state doesn't care about this student's personality. The state reports only his score, not his personality profile."
Having been in the trenches for twenty-three years, I know the challenges of undisciplined, defiant students. I also know that the real challenge of the teacher is to rise above the urge to let the troublesome student win. Students like the one described above aren't stupid; they are unaccomplished. The teacher should take it as a challenge to advance these students especially. Even the most mediocre teacher can help the motivated, engaged, and committed pupil. The excellent teacher teaches all of his/her students.
Perhaps this little nugget of wisdon might be of some value. I was told early in my career to always start out tough and strict, with the suggestion that I could always back off later. After all, the wisdom went, the students didn't have to like me; they just had to respect me.
I think that advice is foolish and wrong-headed, and I am glad I never listened. The expectations for behavior should be the same at the end as they are at the beginning. Those expectations should be few, simple, and consistently enforced. Furthermore, students who like their teachers work harder for them. Why in the world would teachers not want students to like them?
One warning: teachers should not make concessions or provide allowances so that students like them. None of the classroom management procedures should be implemented solely to promote high regard for the teacher. Instead, the teacher should be admired, respected, and highly regarded because his attitude is predicated on respect for the students. The rules of the classroom, intended to create the most user-friendly environemnt, and enforced with consistency and care, will promote the best in the teacher-student relationahip.
So the target audience for this piece will say, "So you are telling me that hard work isn't a requirement? You are saying that students who are lazy and disengaged during the lesson should be able to commandeer valuable time for personal assistance when industrious students will be made to wait in line?"
My answer is "No," and "Yes." Hard work allows most students to learn the lesson the first time, and few of them will be clamoring for help at the end of the period. Therefore, the teacher is still encouraging and reinforcing hard work. Secondly, the student who hasn't grasped the lesson, even if it's his own fault, still needs to grasp the lesson. Most of these students won't ask for help regardless. When one does, the teacher should take it as the greatest of opportunities.
The best thing that can happen is that the student will learn something, be encouraged to do the homework, and show up to class the next day with a better attitude. The worst thing that can happen is that one or two hard-working, but needy, students will be denied individual help. Truthfully, this happens to industrious students every day, and because they are industrious, they access help from friends, parents, tutors, and other services.
Again, quite simply, teaching a lesson to a student who may not otherwise learn it is more important than the secondary concerns.
Many teachers already know these things. The ones who don't have already stopped reading, and have constructed specious arguments to obviate their need to make an attitude shift.
Nevertheless, I needed to say what I have said.
Teaching students, from my stance, is an intimately personal task, especially when one considers that I have become convinced over more than a quarter century in education that teachers don't really teach students anything. I know, I am being somewhat obtuse.
My viewpoint is that even in a classroom with thirty students, the teacher is holding a conversation with each student individually. Teachers always teach individual students, never classes. The conventional structure is usually a classroom with desks, students, various presentational tools and materials, and a teacher. However, the simple dynamic, though inordinately complicated in its exercise, is for the teacher to lead the student to knowledge or skill. In short, the teacher wants the student to understand something, and to have the skill to use that something in a mutlitude of ways.
This viewpoint is in stark contrast to the perception of the education process that my target audience exhibits. They see themselves as purveyors of knowledge, rahter than coaches and cultivators of talent. Consequently, their expectations are that students will acquire the necessary skills and knowledge because of an intrinsic appreciation for what the teacher has to offer.
The problem is simply that teaching is tough, regardless of the clientele, and the education of prepubescents and adolescents is even more difficult.
The complexity of the task of teaching is created by the scope of factors that influence the teacher's ability to lead students to the understanding and faciiity that is the objective of the lesson. The teacher has strengths and weaknesses, as do the students. The students have an immeasurable range of prior knowledge and understanding - or dearth thereof - as well as a full spectrum of aptitudes, prejudices, values, and ethics.
Additionally, students are subject to myriad external forces, many of which serve as impediments to learning. Among these are developmental issues including intellectual capacity, psychological readiness, and emotional stability and maturity.
Considering all of these things, one may think it a wonder that anyone ever learns anything at all. Yet learning is a natural occupation for all humans, and this fact is the most crusial tool that the teacher has at his disposal. Left to his own devices, every human is in a continual state of self-eduation; the problem is often that the student is engaged in learning things that are not included in the district curriculum. So the quesiton really becomes, "how do we get the students to learn what we think they need to learn, even when they are stridently averse or apathetic to learning it?"
An anecdote, certifiably true, and recently witnessed, may help to illustrate. A recalcitrant student in a fairly undemanding math class approaches the assistant principal to complain about his math teacher. The teacher, he contends, yells at him especially, and at the class as a whole, with great regularity. Considering the composition of the class, the assistant principal can imagine why the teacher is often inspired to yell: the students are disruptive, resistant to authority, disinterested in learning, and often surly to boot. When they aren't surly, they generally compensate by being apathetic or sleepy.
The student complains about one feature in particular. At the end of the class, the teacher often asks students to start their homework. She then uses this time to invite students who haven't grasped the day's objectives to come to her desk for individual help. When this student asks for help, he claims the teacher yells at him and tells him to sit down.
The assistant principal engages the teacher in conversation at his next opportunity. He acknowledges the difficulites that a teacher might have with this particular student, but expresses concern that she has sent the message that he is not eligible for help at the end of a lesson. "If they haven't taken notes, or if they haven't tried the whole period, I spend the time on students who are trying their best." she says. {I am paraphrasing here.]
The assistant principal says he understands, and advises the teacher to be certain that all of her students are given help when they request it. He acknowledges the inclination to make the student earn the support, but reminds the teacher that she is the one who invited students to the tutoring session. In short, if she is going to continue the practice of offering individual help to students who asks for it, she should make all of her students eligible for the help.
The teacher leaves, unhappy, as she feels that this student will abuse the privilege and prevent other needy students from accessing extra support.
What the assistant principal wants to say is this: "These annoying, beliggerent, lazy, and unresponsive students are exactly the people who will earn this school an unsatisfactory grade when the state assessments are given in the spring." In fact, this particular student is a junior, a member of the grade that will be assessed this year. He also wants to say, "Stop taking student behavior personally. Your job is to teach math, and to help all of your students to progress to an acceptable level. The state doesn't care about this student's personality. The state reports only his score, not his personality profile."
Having been in the trenches for twenty-three years, I know the challenges of undisciplined, defiant students. I also know that the real challenge of the teacher is to rise above the urge to let the troublesome student win. Students like the one described above aren't stupid; they are unaccomplished. The teacher should take it as a challenge to advance these students especially. Even the most mediocre teacher can help the motivated, engaged, and committed pupil. The excellent teacher teaches all of his/her students.
Perhaps this little nugget of wisdon might be of some value. I was told early in my career to always start out tough and strict, with the suggestion that I could always back off later. After all, the wisdom went, the students didn't have to like me; they just had to respect me.
I think that advice is foolish and wrong-headed, and I am glad I never listened. The expectations for behavior should be the same at the end as they are at the beginning. Those expectations should be few, simple, and consistently enforced. Furthermore, students who like their teachers work harder for them. Why in the world would teachers not want students to like them?
One warning: teachers should not make concessions or provide allowances so that students like them. None of the classroom management procedures should be implemented solely to promote high regard for the teacher. Instead, the teacher should be admired, respected, and highly regarded because his attitude is predicated on respect for the students. The rules of the classroom, intended to create the most user-friendly environemnt, and enforced with consistency and care, will promote the best in the teacher-student relationahip.
So the target audience for this piece will say, "So you are telling me that hard work isn't a requirement? You are saying that students who are lazy and disengaged during the lesson should be able to commandeer valuable time for personal assistance when industrious students will be made to wait in line?"
My answer is "No," and "Yes." Hard work allows most students to learn the lesson the first time, and few of them will be clamoring for help at the end of the period. Therefore, the teacher is still encouraging and reinforcing hard work. Secondly, the student who hasn't grasped the lesson, even if it's his own fault, still needs to grasp the lesson. Most of these students won't ask for help regardless. When one does, the teacher should take it as the greatest of opportunities.
The best thing that can happen is that the student will learn something, be encouraged to do the homework, and show up to class the next day with a better attitude. The worst thing that can happen is that one or two hard-working, but needy, students will be denied individual help. Truthfully, this happens to industrious students every day, and because they are industrious, they access help from friends, parents, tutors, and other services.
Again, quite simply, teaching a lesson to a student who may not otherwise learn it is more important than the secondary concerns.
Many teachers already know these things. The ones who don't have already stopped reading, and have constructed specious arguments to obviate their need to make an attitude shift.
Nevertheless, I needed to say what I have said.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
A Mosque At Ground Zero
I have waited for the firestorm to die down so that I can comment rationally on the situation.
This promises to be a short statement - at least it will be shorter than most of the earlier ones.
First, Obama's opening statement is one that had to be made. The Iman and his group have every right to secure possession of a property and to build what they want - a mosque, a grocery store, a restaurant, or a terrorist training center. Their proposal should not be denied on the basis of their religion.
However, the city of New York has every right to deny the application, for lack of the appropriate word, on a multitude of bases. City officials are SUPPOSED to make approvals on the basis of fitness, aptitude, or viability of the proposal. If the area in question already has fifteen grocery stores in a two block area, they can discourage the construction of another one.
In this case, the likely disruption of domestic tranquility in the area in question is a good enough reason to deny the project. The relatives and friends of those murdered in 2001 WILL BE offended by the construction of the mega-mosque. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but the fanatical Islam element is the primary cause for their distrust. Islam does have an undeniable history of building mosques as a symbol of their victory over a particular country, regime, or rival. Moreover, there really are a multitude of mosques already in service in NY. The Iman's contention that location is critical is silly. Why can't the US show tolerance in some other location? Why MUST it be precisely in a place where the motives of the builders MuST be questioned?
To say that the Iman is being disingenuous is ironic understatement. The mosque promises to cause a firestorm of backlash that will continue until the day that some extremist group within THIS COUNTRY blows it up. Don't be stupid, Iman. We have wackjobs too, and though we honor the notion that religious buildings and books are sacred and holy, we have already had a nutjob threatening to burn a Quran, Koran, or whatever is the appropriate spelling.
I don't want the situation to end in tragedy, but it will. Americans enjoy a level of freedom that creates the opportunity for zealots to mastermind tragedy and idiocy. Perhaps such things rarely happen in the Middle East, the UAR, and other Muslim countries. Provoked by the possibility that your group's motives are malicious, a illegal, dangerous, and tragic response is likely.
Build the mosque elsewhere and continue your proposed education of the Western culture, with the objective being to separate your religious position from the radicals who murdered more than 3000 Americans. The whole freaking world is wired. Communication is immediate. You can create a bully pulpit almost anywhere in the country. You have no compelling reason to maintain that the mosque MUST be built where you propose.
This promises to be a short statement - at least it will be shorter than most of the earlier ones.
First, Obama's opening statement is one that had to be made. The Iman and his group have every right to secure possession of a property and to build what they want - a mosque, a grocery store, a restaurant, or a terrorist training center. Their proposal should not be denied on the basis of their religion.
However, the city of New York has every right to deny the application, for lack of the appropriate word, on a multitude of bases. City officials are SUPPOSED to make approvals on the basis of fitness, aptitude, or viability of the proposal. If the area in question already has fifteen grocery stores in a two block area, they can discourage the construction of another one.
In this case, the likely disruption of domestic tranquility in the area in question is a good enough reason to deny the project. The relatives and friends of those murdered in 2001 WILL BE offended by the construction of the mega-mosque. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but the fanatical Islam element is the primary cause for their distrust. Islam does have an undeniable history of building mosques as a symbol of their victory over a particular country, regime, or rival. Moreover, there really are a multitude of mosques already in service in NY. The Iman's contention that location is critical is silly. Why can't the US show tolerance in some other location? Why MUST it be precisely in a place where the motives of the builders MuST be questioned?
To say that the Iman is being disingenuous is ironic understatement. The mosque promises to cause a firestorm of backlash that will continue until the day that some extremist group within THIS COUNTRY blows it up. Don't be stupid, Iman. We have wackjobs too, and though we honor the notion that religious buildings and books are sacred and holy, we have already had a nutjob threatening to burn a Quran, Koran, or whatever is the appropriate spelling.
I don't want the situation to end in tragedy, but it will. Americans enjoy a level of freedom that creates the opportunity for zealots to mastermind tragedy and idiocy. Perhaps such things rarely happen in the Middle East, the UAR, and other Muslim countries. Provoked by the possibility that your group's motives are malicious, a illegal, dangerous, and tragic response is likely.
Build the mosque elsewhere and continue your proposed education of the Western culture, with the objective being to separate your religious position from the radicals who murdered more than 3000 Americans. The whole freaking world is wired. Communication is immediate. You can create a bully pulpit almost anywhere in the country. You have no compelling reason to maintain that the mosque MUST be built where you propose.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
So I'm Frustrated By the Educational Establishment
In earlier installments, I have complained about organizational or cultural stupidity within school buildings, districts, or even states. An entry from about a year ago fairly specifically addressed a few of the important examples. Here comes a new one.
I know of a fairly large number of districts that are currently in the process of implementing change that is designed to improve the educational process, and therefore improve achievement. Their method, mechanics, and mindset are driving the educators crazy, and I don't know why they don't get it.
For instance, I spoke with a former student whom I taught very early in my career. He is currently a math teacher in a school for the performing arts. This year, he was teamed with a co-teacher. They share fifty students for a math=-science block. The science teacher was the target of the reassignment, as she had been ineffective with her previous partner. The math guy is pulling his hair out, because the science lady has no interest in pulling her weight, and essentially doesn't have to, since the newly implemented team is supposed to solve the problem. The pair are at philosophical odds, in addition to having diametrically opposed work ethics. The science lady refers to the students as 'her babies,' and subsequently parents them badly, sometimes by screaming at them the way an ill-equipped young mother might handle a toddler's temper tantrum. How does this happen?
In another example, a former colleague of mine is in his fifth year of co-teaching; he is an English teacher paired with his third different special education teacher. I know for a fact that he is a superior teacher, one of those that administrators call their 'superstars'. While his students collectively are performing adequately, which means they are making their marks on standardized tests, the situation severely limits the advancement of the best students. "Differentiate the instruction!" the gurus yell from on high, but that mantra is STUPID. A certain percentage of students walk in the door with a performance level that is beyond the target FOR THE YEAR. Differentiated instruction will not serve them well enough. The teacher's job is well-articulated: he is to make certain that his students can perform as a certain level, and it's human nature to focus efforts on those students who will potentially fall below the target. Consequently, he and his partner KNOW they will not advance the superior group to a level in keeping with their capacity.
Again, how does this happen?
Here's how it happens. The people who are trotting out the ideas are not in the trenches. Their hypothetical improvements are usually pedagogically sound, but they do not consider the human element of education. They approach the situation like a person who needs to manufacture a widget. Moreover, the administrators who are charged with implementing the hypothetical improvement are likewise not in the trenches. They often do consider the human element, because they are confronted with it, but they have only the hypothetical script to work from. Consequently, some excellent administrators take the idea, implement it wisely, and tout the success of the program. Neighboring schools then try to profit from the example, but haven't the strength and vision of that excellent administrator, and subsequently struggle mightily.
In short, the same error is made at every level, though not in all cases. Excellent teachers implement programs and plans and meet with success BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT TEACHERS working with a good hypothetical idea. They intuitively tackle the potential hurdles, or genuine hurdles, and make the situation work. The excellent administrators are successful with the same good idea BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT ADMINISTRATORS. They anticipate the problems that might arise - they expect to accommodate the human element - and they often have enough initial success to incrementally address the obstacles that prevail.
So I return to a very basic premise. Teaching is not a science. Education is not a business. The principles of science can be helpful in improving instruction, but they cannot be seen as the answer. Education at the structural level needs to be run much like a business, but because of truth number one in this paragraph, business principles cannot dominate the process. Schools can't fire under-performing teachers or students to mastermind the widget production process. Business can to some extent, though their response to the human element isn't directly determining the quality of the widget.
A guidance counselor friend of mine always refers to the school improvement purveyors and those who facilitate the implementation as the ones who are 'drinking the Kool-Aid.' However, I liken this idea that one can FOLLOW A SCRIPT set forth by the ivory towers as more akin to the Josef Goebbel's propaganda machine: "If you make a lie big enough, and say it often enough, people will believe it." [This is not a direct quote, I don't believe, but I wanted the effect of the quotation, and it is close enough to do the job.]
The moral of the story is this: great teachers are amazing, because they are driven by a love for students and a passion for what they do. They will find a way to engineer success using some awful ideas. They will work wonders with good ideas. Unfortunately, every school building has a limited supply of these people. So one must consider the corollary. Poor teachers will make a mess of weak ideas, and do significant damage in the process. They will only rise to a level where they avoid harm if charged with implementing a good idea.
I know of a fairly large number of districts that are currently in the process of implementing change that is designed to improve the educational process, and therefore improve achievement. Their method, mechanics, and mindset are driving the educators crazy, and I don't know why they don't get it.
For instance, I spoke with a former student whom I taught very early in my career. He is currently a math teacher in a school for the performing arts. This year, he was teamed with a co-teacher. They share fifty students for a math=-science block. The science teacher was the target of the reassignment, as she had been ineffective with her previous partner. The math guy is pulling his hair out, because the science lady has no interest in pulling her weight, and essentially doesn't have to, since the newly implemented team is supposed to solve the problem. The pair are at philosophical odds, in addition to having diametrically opposed work ethics. The science lady refers to the students as 'her babies,' and subsequently parents them badly, sometimes by screaming at them the way an ill-equipped young mother might handle a toddler's temper tantrum. How does this happen?
In another example, a former colleague of mine is in his fifth year of co-teaching; he is an English teacher paired with his third different special education teacher. I know for a fact that he is a superior teacher, one of those that administrators call their 'superstars'. While his students collectively are performing adequately, which means they are making their marks on standardized tests, the situation severely limits the advancement of the best students. "Differentiate the instruction!" the gurus yell from on high, but that mantra is STUPID. A certain percentage of students walk in the door with a performance level that is beyond the target FOR THE YEAR. Differentiated instruction will not serve them well enough. The teacher's job is well-articulated: he is to make certain that his students can perform as a certain level, and it's human nature to focus efforts on those students who will potentially fall below the target. Consequently, he and his partner KNOW they will not advance the superior group to a level in keeping with their capacity.
Again, how does this happen?
Here's how it happens. The people who are trotting out the ideas are not in the trenches. Their hypothetical improvements are usually pedagogically sound, but they do not consider the human element of education. They approach the situation like a person who needs to manufacture a widget. Moreover, the administrators who are charged with implementing the hypothetical improvement are likewise not in the trenches. They often do consider the human element, because they are confronted with it, but they have only the hypothetical script to work from. Consequently, some excellent administrators take the idea, implement it wisely, and tout the success of the program. Neighboring schools then try to profit from the example, but haven't the strength and vision of that excellent administrator, and subsequently struggle mightily.
In short, the same error is made at every level, though not in all cases. Excellent teachers implement programs and plans and meet with success BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT TEACHERS working with a good hypothetical idea. They intuitively tackle the potential hurdles, or genuine hurdles, and make the situation work. The excellent administrators are successful with the same good idea BECAUSE THEY ARE EXCELLENT ADMINISTRATORS. They anticipate the problems that might arise - they expect to accommodate the human element - and they often have enough initial success to incrementally address the obstacles that prevail.
So I return to a very basic premise. Teaching is not a science. Education is not a business. The principles of science can be helpful in improving instruction, but they cannot be seen as the answer. Education at the structural level needs to be run much like a business, but because of truth number one in this paragraph, business principles cannot dominate the process. Schools can't fire under-performing teachers or students to mastermind the widget production process. Business can to some extent, though their response to the human element isn't directly determining the quality of the widget.
A guidance counselor friend of mine always refers to the school improvement purveyors and those who facilitate the implementation as the ones who are 'drinking the Kool-Aid.' However, I liken this idea that one can FOLLOW A SCRIPT set forth by the ivory towers as more akin to the Josef Goebbel's propaganda machine: "If you make a lie big enough, and say it often enough, people will believe it." [This is not a direct quote, I don't believe, but I wanted the effect of the quotation, and it is close enough to do the job.]
The moral of the story is this: great teachers are amazing, because they are driven by a love for students and a passion for what they do. They will find a way to engineer success using some awful ideas. They will work wonders with good ideas. Unfortunately, every school building has a limited supply of these people. So one must consider the corollary. Poor teachers will make a mess of weak ideas, and do significant damage in the process. They will only rise to a level where they avoid harm if charged with implementing a good idea.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
So Long US World Cup
Ok, so this will probably not be a politically correct blog entry, but I can't help myself. The US has bowed out of the World Cup after finishing first in their group with 5 accumulated points. I tried to be interested, and to be supportive of the endeavor on a private, personal level. After all, I am a loyalist. I root for all the local sports teams - a 4 for 4 guy - in cheering on the Phillies, Eagles, Flyers, and Sixers. I cheer on the local high school teams, and I go to local college games as time and opportunity permits.
I watched a decent amount of the England-US game. I saw almost all of the US-Algeria game. I glanced briefly at the US-Ghana game today. I didn't care. I wanted to care, but I just didn't. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the games (sports) with which I have had the most involvement: baseball, basketball, football, and lacrosse. Even hockey might qualify, especially playoff hockey. You see, in those sports with which I am most familiar, one basic truth prevails: if the offensive player does what he is supposed to do with a high degree of technical and situational skill, his team will be rewarded with a reasonable chance to score a goal, touchdown, or run.
Now, look at soccer. These guys are admittedly some of the most remarkable athletes in the world. They can run, jump, stop on a dime, control a ball with only their feet, and generally make torturously difficult athletic movements look ridiculously easy. However, if the offensive player in soccer does everything he is supposed to do with high degree of techinical and situational skill, his team will have a reasonable chance to score a goal approximately one out of every thirty times. Moreso than baseball, and almost every other sport except for field hockey, failure is the norm.
90 or more minutes every game, and the most common score is 1-0. My conclusion is that the game is just too hard. I don't need high scoring, a 1-0 baseball game or a 1-0 hockey game can be riveting, as can relatively low-scoring basketball and football games. The problem isn't the final tally, but the futility of the efforts on a regular basis.
I think they need to change the rules. Maybe if they played with fewer players per side, or if they changed the off-sides rule to allow those sneaky guys to hide behind the defense. I honestly don't know the game well enough to suggest a legitimate rule change. What I know is that the games I watched weren't compelling. I respect the athletes, and am often awed by their conditioning and skill. What I would like to see is the fruit of the definition mentioned earlier. If a soccer teams executes its play, sequence, or set EXACTLY as they have prepared and practiced, they should be rewarded with a chance to score. Perhaps a defender will streak in to redirect a shot. Perhaps the goalie will make a phenomenal save. Perhaps the offensive player will kick the ball just barely wide. I don't need a higher level of success in scoring, just a higher chane for success.
I wish the US had advanced. I would have no problem with soccer's popularity growing to rival the rest of the world's. I believe that will never happen, however, so long as chances are so few and far between, and so long a games are won and lost so often on the whim of a referee's call that no one can explain, and which the referee himself isn't required to explain. So long as games are won and lost on the capricious bad or good bounce - depending on which team one is cheering - the games will not hold my interest.
I apologize to all of the fans out there who will hate my position. I admit in advance that I don't understand, and I am not inclined to try to learn. I think the sport needs to change. Put 7 men on a side. Do away with off-sides. Do something to elevate the sport beyond what it is now, a great deal of work while waiting for one team or the other to get a stroke of luck.
I watched a decent amount of the England-US game. I saw almost all of the US-Algeria game. I glanced briefly at the US-Ghana game today. I didn't care. I wanted to care, but I just didn't. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the games (sports) with which I have had the most involvement: baseball, basketball, football, and lacrosse. Even hockey might qualify, especially playoff hockey. You see, in those sports with which I am most familiar, one basic truth prevails: if the offensive player does what he is supposed to do with a high degree of technical and situational skill, his team will be rewarded with a reasonable chance to score a goal, touchdown, or run.
Now, look at soccer. These guys are admittedly some of the most remarkable athletes in the world. They can run, jump, stop on a dime, control a ball with only their feet, and generally make torturously difficult athletic movements look ridiculously easy. However, if the offensive player in soccer does everything he is supposed to do with high degree of techinical and situational skill, his team will have a reasonable chance to score a goal approximately one out of every thirty times. Moreso than baseball, and almost every other sport except for field hockey, failure is the norm.
90 or more minutes every game, and the most common score is 1-0. My conclusion is that the game is just too hard. I don't need high scoring, a 1-0 baseball game or a 1-0 hockey game can be riveting, as can relatively low-scoring basketball and football games. The problem isn't the final tally, but the futility of the efforts on a regular basis.
I think they need to change the rules. Maybe if they played with fewer players per side, or if they changed the off-sides rule to allow those sneaky guys to hide behind the defense. I honestly don't know the game well enough to suggest a legitimate rule change. What I know is that the games I watched weren't compelling. I respect the athletes, and am often awed by their conditioning and skill. What I would like to see is the fruit of the definition mentioned earlier. If a soccer teams executes its play, sequence, or set EXACTLY as they have prepared and practiced, they should be rewarded with a chance to score. Perhaps a defender will streak in to redirect a shot. Perhaps the goalie will make a phenomenal save. Perhaps the offensive player will kick the ball just barely wide. I don't need a higher level of success in scoring, just a higher chane for success.
I wish the US had advanced. I would have no problem with soccer's popularity growing to rival the rest of the world's. I believe that will never happen, however, so long as chances are so few and far between, and so long a games are won and lost so often on the whim of a referee's call that no one can explain, and which the referee himself isn't required to explain. So long as games are won and lost on the capricious bad or good bounce - depending on which team one is cheering - the games will not hold my interest.
I apologize to all of the fans out there who will hate my position. I admit in advance that I don't understand, and I am not inclined to try to learn. I think the sport needs to change. Put 7 men on a side. Do away with off-sides. Do something to elevate the sport beyond what it is now, a great deal of work while waiting for one team or the other to get a stroke of luck.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The 8th Habit - Hmmm...
So I picked up Stephen Covey's book, The 8th Habit, and started to have a look at it. I vaguely remember reading the 7 habits book from many years ago, but I was less impressed than everyone else on the planet.
While I agree with Covey's points, I suppose my lack of excitement was housed in the fact that I thought the advice was less than earth-shattering. You see, aren't most of his ideas grounded in the same optimism that Thoreau and Emerson espoused with their Transcendental philosophy of the middle 1800's?
The 8th Habit therefore is even less earth-shattering, though again I must express a general agreement with the principles. If I read Thoreau and Emerson correctly, they seems to agree that each human has to think for himself, trust that he and other people have the potential for greatness if they connect with the universal in themselves and in the world in general, and believe that the self-reliant individual will act in a way that will benefit himself and those around him.
Now go look at the Covey book and tell me that his philosophy isn't essentially transplanted from the woods of Walden to the top offices of the corporate centers of the world.
So why respond?
Could it be that no matter how complicated the world becomes, the more basic is the philosophy that can help people to wend their way through it?
A summary then... Be yourself. No matter the external forces and circumstances, marshall your efforts so that you are making yourself as viable and efficacious as you possibly can. When decorum or propriety tell you to tread softly, listen. But do not stop following the principles and drives that tell you what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong DO NOT CHANGE with the times. They are intractable, constant, and timeless.
It didn't take a book.
While I agree with Covey's points, I suppose my lack of excitement was housed in the fact that I thought the advice was less than earth-shattering. You see, aren't most of his ideas grounded in the same optimism that Thoreau and Emerson espoused with their Transcendental philosophy of the middle 1800's?
The 8th Habit therefore is even less earth-shattering, though again I must express a general agreement with the principles. If I read Thoreau and Emerson correctly, they seems to agree that each human has to think for himself, trust that he and other people have the potential for greatness if they connect with the universal in themselves and in the world in general, and believe that the self-reliant individual will act in a way that will benefit himself and those around him.
Now go look at the Covey book and tell me that his philosophy isn't essentially transplanted from the woods of Walden to the top offices of the corporate centers of the world.
So why respond?
Could it be that no matter how complicated the world becomes, the more basic is the philosophy that can help people to wend their way through it?
A summary then... Be yourself. No matter the external forces and circumstances, marshall your efforts so that you are making yourself as viable and efficacious as you possibly can. When decorum or propriety tell you to tread softly, listen. But do not stop following the principles and drives that tell you what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong DO NOT CHANGE with the times. They are intractable, constant, and timeless.
It didn't take a book.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Do we Really Think? An Impertinent but Necessary Question to Ask Ourselves
The title and text of the following entry is entirely borrowed from a book af essays and observations. I will give proper credit at the end, so that the reader has a chance to respond as intended/expected.
"We Americans are firm believers in education. The litle red schoolhouse is the very backbone of our entire experiment in government and living. Education is widely encouraged and made available to almost everyone."
"It would shock most of us, then, to hear that our education is sadly in need of repair. That despite our buildings and books and teachers and endowments we have overlooked the most important result which any education should give."
"The truth is that, as a nation, we have not been educated to think. We are filled with dates and names and even a wide variety of knowledge, but the ability to think --- to think through to the very end of a problem --- is stil a very rare quality with us."
"Millions of men come to problems which they earnestly seek to solve. On paper the solution they bring seems to be the right one. Weeks later, Time has proved it the wrong one. Isn't that the real reason why so many men who are sincere, ambitious, and hard working still meet with so little success?"
"As a nation, we enjoy a fine percentage of literacy. We read, write, spell, count, and talk reasonably well. Yet the ability to think, to rationalize --- to reason coldly and logically, is something apart from all this. And to men in business, this remains and shall always remain the greatest of assets."
"It is time to inquire into this. It is time to realize that in this machine age, average knowledge, average ability to do anything, is worth only half of what it was fifty years ago. We are building machines today which add better than men can and faster too. It is only a matter of time before machines will spell and provide information and carry out tasks of all kinds. In short, the mechanical man we are perfecting threatens to do almost everything we do - except one, and that is to think."
"Thinking on the surface---or halfway--- or three quarters of the way --- is like making half or three fourths of an automobile. And thinking this distance is just as useless.
"It is time to ask: are we really thinking things through?"
Heatter, Gabriel. Faith: a selection from essays and editorial that appeared in "The Shaft." United States of America, 1936.
Seventy-five years ago, at least one voice was forewarning, and forecasting, the perils that plague us in 2006. How prescient for a pre-WWII radio man to see that we were headed for an eduational disconnect that has not gotten better in the end?
Too many of us aren't thinking, about anything, all the way through to the end.
Admit it, if the 'red schoolhouse' and the dated computer references hadn't given it away, you would have thought this was written today.
How else to explain the current predicaments we are in? Pick a current issue - the Gulf Oil leak, the various war zones, the global economy, the jobless rate, the bailouts. You cannot tell me that the perpetrators would have taken us to where we are now had they thought there various situations through to the very end.
"We Americans are firm believers in education. The litle red schoolhouse is the very backbone of our entire experiment in government and living. Education is widely encouraged and made available to almost everyone."
"It would shock most of us, then, to hear that our education is sadly in need of repair. That despite our buildings and books and teachers and endowments we have overlooked the most important result which any education should give."
"The truth is that, as a nation, we have not been educated to think. We are filled with dates and names and even a wide variety of knowledge, but the ability to think --- to think through to the very end of a problem --- is stil a very rare quality with us."
"Millions of men come to problems which they earnestly seek to solve. On paper the solution they bring seems to be the right one. Weeks later, Time has proved it the wrong one. Isn't that the real reason why so many men who are sincere, ambitious, and hard working still meet with so little success?"
"As a nation, we enjoy a fine percentage of literacy. We read, write, spell, count, and talk reasonably well. Yet the ability to think, to rationalize --- to reason coldly and logically, is something apart from all this. And to men in business, this remains and shall always remain the greatest of assets."
"It is time to inquire into this. It is time to realize that in this machine age, average knowledge, average ability to do anything, is worth only half of what it was fifty years ago. We are building machines today which add better than men can and faster too. It is only a matter of time before machines will spell and provide information and carry out tasks of all kinds. In short, the mechanical man we are perfecting threatens to do almost everything we do - except one, and that is to think."
"Thinking on the surface---or halfway--- or three quarters of the way --- is like making half or three fourths of an automobile. And thinking this distance is just as useless.
"It is time to ask: are we really thinking things through?"
Heatter, Gabriel. Faith: a selection from essays and editorial that appeared in "The Shaft." United States of America, 1936.
Seventy-five years ago, at least one voice was forewarning, and forecasting, the perils that plague us in 2006. How prescient for a pre-WWII radio man to see that we were headed for an eduational disconnect that has not gotten better in the end?
Too many of us aren't thinking, about anything, all the way through to the end.
Admit it, if the 'red schoolhouse' and the dated computer references hadn't given it away, you would have thought this was written today.
How else to explain the current predicaments we are in? Pick a current issue - the Gulf Oil leak, the various war zones, the global economy, the jobless rate, the bailouts. You cannot tell me that the perpetrators would have taken us to where we are now had they thought there various situations through to the very end.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
State of the Union
State of the Union (ca.1994)
We are too like Ulysses, in decline.
We are become a name – or even less –
A shadow of a name, a misty scent
Of glory days too often perfumed over.
The paunch of our complacency sits well
As we preside over a savage race,
Exacting self-inflicted fines for crimes
Committed more as an accessory
Than as a perpetrator. Yet are we
Betrayers guilty, chasing silver dreams –
Mistrusting eyes which once saw past the sky.
In our bright youth we led like pioneers
Into a new frontier, each mountain pass
Divulging treasures. Onward to a sea
As vast and boundless as our spirit – strong
Enough to tame the wilderness of fear.
Then when we should have sailed upon the tide,
To have momentous current serve our will,
We heeded servile voices, counsel stern:
“Leave off this long, intrepid odyssey.
Take root and flower here beside the sea.”
Relenting, we grew cautious, lost desire,
Denied the motives burning deep inside;
Bequeathed by proud Prometheus, this fire
Provided grit for noble enterprise –
To strive with gods was once within our grasp.
Except… we acquiesced. The compromise
Accepted soon but never justified.
Now we grow fat, luxurious – our eyes
Glassed over turning inward.
We must try
To find a quest as worthy as the first
Of all the exploits listed by our names.
Then hereby make a promise and a pact
Between us and our honor: Once we flew
By instinct pure and simple, so we swear
Upon the moral fiber of our past
We will stay true to principle, in spite
Of obstacles and hardship. We must fight
To lead all those we touch – in quiet ways
And with bombast alike if it need be-
By nurture and example show the world
That we have not completely lost our will.
Rage out against all thunderclaps, despite
Our ineffective blows. No! No! because
Our impotence encumbers and confines.
Not by decree can any living soul
Embark upon a tempest-tortured sea,
Without regard for imminent dismay
Or setback. Yet surrender must not breathe
Within our hearts, when storms will fracture skies
With lightning. What is lightning? But a sign
From all and any gods, what so they be.
A sign that power lives and breathes, as we
Forever may, unless we choose to sleep.
I speak for you, “I choose to seek the dream.”
Obviously, this was originally composed in 1994, two years after the Bill Clinton regime began what appears to have been the final phase of the dissolution of the American heart and spirit. Yes, the process began as early as 1950, with the Korean Conflict, and continued with the embarrassment that was Vietnam. Reagan tried to reverse the course through the 80’s, but even his successor, Bush I, quickly blinked and reverted to the heartless approach that gathered support through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. I trace the acceptance of our lack of heart to Clinton, who made the stance popular.
We are too like Ulysses, in decline.
We are become a name – or even less –
A shadow of a name, a misty scent
Of glory days too often perfumed over.
The paunch of our complacency sits well
As we preside over a savage race,
Exacting self-inflicted fines for crimes
Committed more as an accessory
Than as a perpetrator. Yet are we
Betrayers guilty, chasing silver dreams –
Mistrusting eyes which once saw past the sky.
In our bright youth we led like pioneers
Into a new frontier, each mountain pass
Divulging treasures. Onward to a sea
As vast and boundless as our spirit – strong
Enough to tame the wilderness of fear.
Then when we should have sailed upon the tide,
To have momentous current serve our will,
We heeded servile voices, counsel stern:
“Leave off this long, intrepid odyssey.
Take root and flower here beside the sea.”
Relenting, we grew cautious, lost desire,
Denied the motives burning deep inside;
Bequeathed by proud Prometheus, this fire
Provided grit for noble enterprise –
To strive with gods was once within our grasp.
Except… we acquiesced. The compromise
Accepted soon but never justified.
Now we grow fat, luxurious – our eyes
Glassed over turning inward.
We must try
To find a quest as worthy as the first
Of all the exploits listed by our names.
Then hereby make a promise and a pact
Between us and our honor: Once we flew
By instinct pure and simple, so we swear
Upon the moral fiber of our past
We will stay true to principle, in spite
Of obstacles and hardship. We must fight
To lead all those we touch – in quiet ways
And with bombast alike if it need be-
By nurture and example show the world
That we have not completely lost our will.
Rage out against all thunderclaps, despite
Our ineffective blows. No! No! because
Our impotence encumbers and confines.
Not by decree can any living soul
Embark upon a tempest-tortured sea,
Without regard for imminent dismay
Or setback. Yet surrender must not breathe
Within our hearts, when storms will fracture skies
With lightning. What is lightning? But a sign
From all and any gods, what so they be.
A sign that power lives and breathes, as we
Forever may, unless we choose to sleep.
I speak for you, “I choose to seek the dream.”
Obviously, this was originally composed in 1994, two years after the Bill Clinton regime began what appears to have been the final phase of the dissolution of the American heart and spirit. Yes, the process began as early as 1950, with the Korean Conflict, and continued with the embarrassment that was Vietnam. Reagan tried to reverse the course through the 80’s, but even his successor, Bush I, quickly blinked and reverted to the heartless approach that gathered support through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. I trace the acceptance of our lack of heart to Clinton, who made the stance popular.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Is Everybody Really So Enamored of Tiger?
My son texted me to let me know that ESPN had added a text box to its screen, thereby making a busy screen even busier. The contents of the box on permanent display allowed viewers to follow Tigers progress at the Masters. Even though the means of communication was a text message, I could smell the disgust eminating from each keystroke.
Really, a text box on the screen at all times to mark the fortunes of a disgraced golfer who hasn't played in almost five months? Are my son and I the only ones who don't get it?
I have written in an earlier blog or two that I must acknowledge that Tiger is the best golfer in the world. The revelation that he is a hypocritical, low-life punk hasn't changed that. However, I have changed my perspective since the scandal broke. Before, I never vocally rooted for or against Tiger. I would root for a player I liked if he was contending with Tiger. I held no animosity.
Privately though - meaning in conversation with my wife, who is a major Tiger fan - I had the sense that Tiger was not what he seemed. I told her on more than one occasion, "I just think he's not a good person. The charity work, the education foundation, the family values platform: they all seemed contrived to me.
An earlier column alluded to my misgivings, but this entry is really more about the public, the fans, the media. Developments have confirmed that Tiger is indeed less than what he seemed or protrayed, and the media assumption seems to be that Tiger, warts and all, is bigger than the game.
I realized that this 'bigger than the game' theme has been what rankles me. But now, even after a public scolding from the Director at Augusta, and after a disingenuous apology from Tiger himself, the implications of which are that Tiger is NOT bigger than the game, ESPN puts a text box on its screen to declare that the Masters tournament is really all about Tiger. He is, they are saying, bigger than the game.
He shouldn't be. Each week, each year, each decade - individual players or teams get the chance to bask in a few moments of glory. Some players and teams do so more often than others, and thereby elevate themselves to the pantheon of all-time greats. As a golfer, Tiger will undoubtedly always be in that club, even if he never wins another tournament. He should never be bigger than the game. Older champions earned their accolades in the milieu that prevailed during their respective careers. When too much time separates two all time greats, comparisons are frivolous. Considering the car accident that almost killed him, should Ben Hogan be considered the greatest golfer of his era? the half century when he played? All time? Is it Nicklaus, since he won the most majors? Is Sam Snead's victory total more impressive? You see, the answer is very tough. Where does Arnie fall? How about Watson?
Fans are fickle and generally dumb about many things. I suppose my wife can still root for Tiger if she wants, though I don't understand it. However, I think the media should know better, and stop fawning over every move that Tiger makes. And I think ESPN should take down that damned text box. It's Sunday, and Tiger is playing like crap. Put up a Lee Westwood text box. A Phil Mickelson, or a Freddie Couples. No one should be bigger than the game.
Really, a text box on the screen at all times to mark the fortunes of a disgraced golfer who hasn't played in almost five months? Are my son and I the only ones who don't get it?
I have written in an earlier blog or two that I must acknowledge that Tiger is the best golfer in the world. The revelation that he is a hypocritical, low-life punk hasn't changed that. However, I have changed my perspective since the scandal broke. Before, I never vocally rooted for or against Tiger. I would root for a player I liked if he was contending with Tiger. I held no animosity.
Privately though - meaning in conversation with my wife, who is a major Tiger fan - I had the sense that Tiger was not what he seemed. I told her on more than one occasion, "I just think he's not a good person. The charity work, the education foundation, the family values platform: they all seemed contrived to me.
An earlier column alluded to my misgivings, but this entry is really more about the public, the fans, the media. Developments have confirmed that Tiger is indeed less than what he seemed or protrayed, and the media assumption seems to be that Tiger, warts and all, is bigger than the game.
I realized that this 'bigger than the game' theme has been what rankles me. But now, even after a public scolding from the Director at Augusta, and after a disingenuous apology from Tiger himself, the implications of which are that Tiger is NOT bigger than the game, ESPN puts a text box on its screen to declare that the Masters tournament is really all about Tiger. He is, they are saying, bigger than the game.
He shouldn't be. Each week, each year, each decade - individual players or teams get the chance to bask in a few moments of glory. Some players and teams do so more often than others, and thereby elevate themselves to the pantheon of all-time greats. As a golfer, Tiger will undoubtedly always be in that club, even if he never wins another tournament. He should never be bigger than the game. Older champions earned their accolades in the milieu that prevailed during their respective careers. When too much time separates two all time greats, comparisons are frivolous. Considering the car accident that almost killed him, should Ben Hogan be considered the greatest golfer of his era? the half century when he played? All time? Is it Nicklaus, since he won the most majors? Is Sam Snead's victory total more impressive? You see, the answer is very tough. Where does Arnie fall? How about Watson?
Fans are fickle and generally dumb about many things. I suppose my wife can still root for Tiger if she wants, though I don't understand it. However, I think the media should know better, and stop fawning over every move that Tiger makes. And I think ESPN should take down that damned text box. It's Sunday, and Tiger is playing like crap. Put up a Lee Westwood text box. A Phil Mickelson, or a Freddie Couples. No one should be bigger than the game.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Parenting Faux Pas
I am aware that an earlier monologue was called "Parenting," but it was written a number of years ago, and with an eye toward parenting toddlers to early teens. Furthermore, I am not sure that I have added it to this collection yet. So I have full reign to say what I want about raising children.
First of all, and least important, I think my kids are and have been great. They have tested my patience, my capacity for tolerance, and my every bias and prejudice since they passed the earliest years of adolescence.
Often through these diatribes, I have tended to focus, or at least reference, the propensity for stupidity that prevails among humans. Consequently, I intend to at least touch on my and my wife's least intelligence moments or decisions.
For instance, I decided when my oldest son hit teenager-hood that I would allow him to delay his entry into the ranks of the formally employed. The deal was that he could avoid a regular job so long as he was invested in his sport - lacrosse - and his academics. Now I need to clarify that he often went to work. For instance, he served as a waiter at a catering establishment that my brother owned, commencing after his sixteenth birthday. However, he worked only sporadically, and his bills were my bills.
Why, you might ask, did I make such a decision? Well, I expected him to hit the weight room three times per week, during the school year and in the summer. I also expected his participation in summer, winter, and fall league and tournament play. I didn't know if he would be good enough to play the game in college, but he had expressed an interest in that direction, and I wanted to support the quest.
(As it turned out, he was good enough to play at the next level, but to sustain the quest after the high school opportunities expired, he would have had to reconcile himself to being a specialist, a face off guy who wouldn't be on the field throughout the action, unless he was able to make a great deal of improvement during his college career.)
The foolshness of this decision had nothing to do with the pursuit of a sports career
or anything. The stupidity was this: the work ethic that he needed to develop, the one that would have enabled him to pursue a goal of collegiate athletics, was the very one I was squelching by giving him an out. I personally played two high school sports, trained for each of them, and held down various part time jobs from thirteen years old on. While it’s true that I wasn’t on a program, and that the sports I played were not as demanding thirty years ago.
Why would I have not sent the message that the boy should find a way to work his ass off to do all of the things he wanted? True, maybe I was deluding myself that I might have been a better college athlete had I been able to devote more time to the craft. But really, I know that my limitations weren’t caused by a lack of opportunity to train and play. I simply wasn’t that good. I had/have no resentment toward my parents in that I had to follow a frenetic pace and schedule. I don’t bemoan the fact that I had to pay my own way through school. I resent my parents for a set of reasons that have nothing to do with these subjects. My point is that of course I knew better. Why didn’t I simply send the message that I had personally learned and benefitted from? Stupidity.
Oh, and by the way. Even with my bonehead decision, my kids found plenty of opportunities to develop a work ethic. The circumnavigated my errors. Isn't it great that sometimes these mistakes don't quite come back to haunt?
First of all, and least important, I think my kids are and have been great. They have tested my patience, my capacity for tolerance, and my every bias and prejudice since they passed the earliest years of adolescence.
Often through these diatribes, I have tended to focus, or at least reference, the propensity for stupidity that prevails among humans. Consequently, I intend to at least touch on my and my wife's least intelligence moments or decisions.
For instance, I decided when my oldest son hit teenager-hood that I would allow him to delay his entry into the ranks of the formally employed. The deal was that he could avoid a regular job so long as he was invested in his sport - lacrosse - and his academics. Now I need to clarify that he often went to work. For instance, he served as a waiter at a catering establishment that my brother owned, commencing after his sixteenth birthday. However, he worked only sporadically, and his bills were my bills.
Why, you might ask, did I make such a decision? Well, I expected him to hit the weight room three times per week, during the school year and in the summer. I also expected his participation in summer, winter, and fall league and tournament play. I didn't know if he would be good enough to play the game in college, but he had expressed an interest in that direction, and I wanted to support the quest.
(As it turned out, he was good enough to play at the next level, but to sustain the quest after the high school opportunities expired, he would have had to reconcile himself to being a specialist, a face off guy who wouldn't be on the field throughout the action, unless he was able to make a great deal of improvement during his college career.)
The foolshness of this decision had nothing to do with the pursuit of a sports career
or anything. The stupidity was this: the work ethic that he needed to develop, the one that would have enabled him to pursue a goal of collegiate athletics, was the very one I was squelching by giving him an out. I personally played two high school sports, trained for each of them, and held down various part time jobs from thirteen years old on. While it’s true that I wasn’t on a program, and that the sports I played were not as demanding thirty years ago.
Why would I have not sent the message that the boy should find a way to work his ass off to do all of the things he wanted? True, maybe I was deluding myself that I might have been a better college athlete had I been able to devote more time to the craft. But really, I know that my limitations weren’t caused by a lack of opportunity to train and play. I simply wasn’t that good. I had/have no resentment toward my parents in that I had to follow a frenetic pace and schedule. I don’t bemoan the fact that I had to pay my own way through school. I resent my parents for a set of reasons that have nothing to do with these subjects. My point is that of course I knew better. Why didn’t I simply send the message that I had personally learned and benefitted from? Stupidity.
Oh, and by the way. Even with my bonehead decision, my kids found plenty of opportunities to develop a work ethic. The circumnavigated my errors. Isn't it great that sometimes these mistakes don't quite come back to haunt?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Let's Pass Laws That Excuse Parents From Parenting - Not!
I read the local paper today, and learned about pending legislation that will limit the number of passengers that a young driver may carry in his/her vehicle. I also read in the same paper a comment from a parent bemoaning the public displays of affection witnessed in front of a local high school at dismissal time.
I am sick of the trend this country is taking. Everybody wants somebody else to be in charge of parenting our children. Of course, younger drivers should limit the number of passengers they carry. Of course, every driver should wear his set belt. Of course, school children should not turn displays of affection, which ought to be private no matter the age of the participants, into public enterprises.
If a law is passed that limits the number of passengers, or if the school does a better job of pollicing the kissers, will enything have really changed? The missing ingredient isn't the clarity or completeness of the legal code, or even the level of supervision at the school. The missing engredient is the set of values that curbs the questionable behaviors.
Parents need to acquaint their children who are younger drivers with the set of values that say a car is a potentially lethal weapon, and that every trip in a motor vehicle may end in tragedy. Also, parents need to convince their kids that showing affection toward their boyfrineds or girlfriends - in public venues - is simply in bad taste. If the children don't appreciate the value, the parents can demonstrate their point by having a gropefest right there in front of the children. Middle school and high school students will invariably find their parents' behavior disgusting, and after they vomit, the point will have been made.
My wife shared with me a conversation she had recently with a parent whose school had just adopted a uniform policy. The parent was ecstatic about the adoption of the policy, but not because the effect might be a better school environment, a cost-effective way to outfit the children, or an improvement in the relative appearance of the student body. No, this parent and others were ecstatic because they no longer had to fight with their children about their clothes choices. They were happy that a school dress code had precluded them from having to educate and influence their children.
The impetus for the Pennsylvania House Bill regarding passneger limitations is the same. Legislators crafted the bill because their constituant parents will support it. The parents will support it because they will need to have one fewer argument with their children. Many parents and studnets will refrain form carrying large numbers of passengers the minute the law is passed. That will be a positive side effect of POOR LEGISLATION.
Why poor legislation, you may ask. The answer should be obvious. The passage of the law will not eliminate the instances where young drivers carry too many passengers. You know, sometimes young drivers will BREAK the LAW! Sometimes, these young drivers fall prey to the distractions that plague young drivers, and they will sometimes have accidents. The negative side effect is that parents will be having one fewer conversation with their children about the way they should conduct themselves as they make their way through life.
Again, the complainant regarding the PDA episodes is motivated by the same faulty reasoning. If the school supervises and reduces the visible incidents, will the behavior really be changed? No, the adoption of a set of values that promotes self-discipline, and which encourages youngsters to be aware of the propriety of their behavior, will promote a resuction of the behavior.
In both cases, the most effective method for promotion of the positive behavior is the parent and all adults with whom the student comes into contact.
We will never be successful in legislating human behavior. Every adult must be responsible, to obviously different degrees, for the behavior of all younger people. The lady in the car who witnessed the PDA should have voiced her displeasure to the offenders. No, she shouldn't have confronted these people she didn't know, but she shouldn't have done nothing except go home and find a way to blame someone else.
My own three children have made it to young adulthood. Along the way, they have each crossed the boundaries that my wife and I have set, and I would guess that would have to do with both qualtiy and quantity. However, I am pretty sure they knew where we stood on each issue, and I am farily certain they crossed those boundaries with a sense that they were traviling outside a comfort zone. My wife and I worked pretty hard to advertise and edcuate about our set of values. Our kids tested those values - sometiems with impunity, and sometimes with definitive negative consequences. I don't want legislation to mitigate that process. I don't want to blame school officials when young people test boundaries.
Parents need to parent.
I am sick of the trend this country is taking. Everybody wants somebody else to be in charge of parenting our children. Of course, younger drivers should limit the number of passengers they carry. Of course, every driver should wear his set belt. Of course, school children should not turn displays of affection, which ought to be private no matter the age of the participants, into public enterprises.
If a law is passed that limits the number of passengers, or if the school does a better job of pollicing the kissers, will enything have really changed? The missing ingredient isn't the clarity or completeness of the legal code, or even the level of supervision at the school. The missing engredient is the set of values that curbs the questionable behaviors.
Parents need to acquaint their children who are younger drivers with the set of values that say a car is a potentially lethal weapon, and that every trip in a motor vehicle may end in tragedy. Also, parents need to convince their kids that showing affection toward their boyfrineds or girlfriends - in public venues - is simply in bad taste. If the children don't appreciate the value, the parents can demonstrate their point by having a gropefest right there in front of the children. Middle school and high school students will invariably find their parents' behavior disgusting, and after they vomit, the point will have been made.
My wife shared with me a conversation she had recently with a parent whose school had just adopted a uniform policy. The parent was ecstatic about the adoption of the policy, but not because the effect might be a better school environment, a cost-effective way to outfit the children, or an improvement in the relative appearance of the student body. No, this parent and others were ecstatic because they no longer had to fight with their children about their clothes choices. They were happy that a school dress code had precluded them from having to educate and influence their children.
The impetus for the Pennsylvania House Bill regarding passneger limitations is the same. Legislators crafted the bill because their constituant parents will support it. The parents will support it because they will need to have one fewer argument with their children. Many parents and studnets will refrain form carrying large numbers of passengers the minute the law is passed. That will be a positive side effect of POOR LEGISLATION.
Why poor legislation, you may ask. The answer should be obvious. The passage of the law will not eliminate the instances where young drivers carry too many passengers. You know, sometimes young drivers will BREAK the LAW! Sometimes, these young drivers fall prey to the distractions that plague young drivers, and they will sometimes have accidents. The negative side effect is that parents will be having one fewer conversation with their children about the way they should conduct themselves as they make their way through life.
Again, the complainant regarding the PDA episodes is motivated by the same faulty reasoning. If the school supervises and reduces the visible incidents, will the behavior really be changed? No, the adoption of a set of values that promotes self-discipline, and which encourages youngsters to be aware of the propriety of their behavior, will promote a resuction of the behavior.
In both cases, the most effective method for promotion of the positive behavior is the parent and all adults with whom the student comes into contact.
We will never be successful in legislating human behavior. Every adult must be responsible, to obviously different degrees, for the behavior of all younger people. The lady in the car who witnessed the PDA should have voiced her displeasure to the offenders. No, she shouldn't have confronted these people she didn't know, but she shouldn't have done nothing except go home and find a way to blame someone else.
My own three children have made it to young adulthood. Along the way, they have each crossed the boundaries that my wife and I have set, and I would guess that would have to do with both qualtiy and quantity. However, I am pretty sure they knew where we stood on each issue, and I am farily certain they crossed those boundaries with a sense that they were traviling outside a comfort zone. My wife and I worked pretty hard to advertise and edcuate about our set of values. Our kids tested those values - sometiems with impunity, and sometimes with definitive negative consequences. I don't want legislation to mitigate that process. I don't want to blame school officials when young people test boundaries.
Parents need to parent.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Why Philly Sports Fans are Infuriatingly Stupid.
This is the second attempt at responding to the rampant stupidity of Philly fans. The first approach was doomed to be too long and circuitous at getting to its point, so I will try again to take the direct approach.
Philly fans are too busy being passionate, loyal, and hungry to use their brains before they react. The Eagles just concluded another disappointng season by losing for the third time in a year to the Dallas Cowboys, who demonstrated that they are simply the better team this year.
Now they are calling for the release, trade, or sale of Donovan McNabb, the best QB in franchise history, who just completed the second best season of his career. They watched the Cowboys demonstrate the superiority of the Cowboys on both the offensive and defensive lines. They saw the coaching staff of the Eagles look under-prepared and ineffective. They saw the inferiority of the Eagles' linebakcers and secondary, and they concluded that the best way to respond to those observations was to call for the head of the quarterback.
If you think I am saying that the fans are wrong, I am. However, I don't have a problem with their being wrong, and I don't object to their opinion, though I disagree, that McNabb should be shown the door. They are entitled to their opinions. They are not allowed to be so blindly stupid that they disregard the obvious failings and focus their umbrage on NcNabb. I realize I am now going to make a comparison between Tom Brady and McNabb, and that to do such a thing will infuriate the McNabb haters, but I am nothing if not thoughtful and objective.
I watched the golden boy Brady, almost uniformly seen as the greatest QB of the decade becasue his team has won three Super Bowls, look disarmingly like McNabb against the Baltimore Ravens. And Brady looked mostly awful for the same reasons that McNabb looked awful: his receivers weren't consistently good enough, and he spent too much time dodging pass rushers who disrupted his sight lines or his footwork.
Brady finished 23-42 with four turnovers on his dance card. McNabb's stats were eerily similar. 19-37 and 1 turnover. Brady did throw for 2 TD's but he more than compensated by throwing three INT's. He also lost a fumble. McNabb, by contrast, had 1 TD and 1 INT. McNabb also won the total yardage race.
No one in New England will be calling for Brady's dismissal. No one in New England will be wishing for the return of Matt Cassel, who actually put up good numbers last year while Brady recovered from an injury. By contrast, Philly fans will largely be happy with just letting McNabb leave, paving the way for Kevin Kolb, a COMPLETE unknown entity. Furthermore, they would probably approve of a plan to let McNabb walk and to name Michael Vick, whose season was mostly awful when it wasn't non-existent, as the heir apparent. I will go farther. Philly fans would support the idea of bringing Jeff Garcia back to play QB, even though the entire NFL agreed this year that Garcia's career is over.
Please don't think that I am excusing McNabb for his poor play. He wasn't good enough, the same way that Brady wasn't good enough. However, Brady is sharper in some ways than McNabb when it comes to addressing the media. Brady minimized his own part in the debacle to some extent, and told reporters that he would have booed the Patriots' performance too. McNabb was baited, by contrast, into talking about whether or not he will return next year, and into avoiding any mention of what caused the loss, because he made the mistake stating a fact after the season ending loss to Dallas - that the Eagles showed their youth in the game.
If Philly fans were SMART, and if they were as KNOWLEDGEABLE as they claim to be, they would be hoping that the off season has the following highlights. 1. The Eagles sign a quality LB from the free agent pool, AND they draft a quality LB like Rolando McLain. [Yes, McClain will cost draft choices or players if the Eagles wish to move up, but they have bait in Kolb and Vick, who are worth something on the open market to the right team.] 2. The Eagles find a quality right tackle via free agency or the draft. 3. The Eagles find a quality safety via free agency. 4. The Eagles extend Sheldon Brown's contract after disclosing that he has been injured more seriously than they have let on for the past six weeks. 5. The Eagles announce a genuine expectation that their most significant injured players - Stewart Bradley, Jamaal Jackson, Kevin Curtis, and Cornelius Ingram - will be able to return at full strength for the 2010 season.
The Eagles have a lot of work to do, but their future does not look as cloudy as Eagles fans will say it is. They have two talented young receivers. They have the best QB in franchise history. They have a reasonalbe chance to use both McCoy and Westbrook as a running tandem. They have Leonar Weaver and Brent Celek, who made themselves conspicuous by their qualtiy play through most of the season.
However, I expect four months of McNabb and Redi bashing. I expect more lamenting the departure of Brian Dawkins, who happens to be the first veteran they have let go about whom they were short term wrong. Dawkins may not have many more seasons left in him, but this is the first time they have let someone go becasue they thought his skills were diminishing, and he proved them wrong. Good for him. I miss him too.
I also expect more radio hosts to invent reasons to object to McNabb. He's pointing fingers at his teammates. He's too aloof on the sidelines. He chokes under pressure. He can't bring them back in the fourth quarter (Oh that's right: he did that three weeks in a row during the six game win streak.)
Philly fans are too busy being passionate, loyal, and hungry to use their brains before they react. The Eagles just concluded another disappointng season by losing for the third time in a year to the Dallas Cowboys, who demonstrated that they are simply the better team this year.
Now they are calling for the release, trade, or sale of Donovan McNabb, the best QB in franchise history, who just completed the second best season of his career. They watched the Cowboys demonstrate the superiority of the Cowboys on both the offensive and defensive lines. They saw the coaching staff of the Eagles look under-prepared and ineffective. They saw the inferiority of the Eagles' linebakcers and secondary, and they concluded that the best way to respond to those observations was to call for the head of the quarterback.
If you think I am saying that the fans are wrong, I am. However, I don't have a problem with their being wrong, and I don't object to their opinion, though I disagree, that McNabb should be shown the door. They are entitled to their opinions. They are not allowed to be so blindly stupid that they disregard the obvious failings and focus their umbrage on NcNabb. I realize I am now going to make a comparison between Tom Brady and McNabb, and that to do such a thing will infuriate the McNabb haters, but I am nothing if not thoughtful and objective.
I watched the golden boy Brady, almost uniformly seen as the greatest QB of the decade becasue his team has won three Super Bowls, look disarmingly like McNabb against the Baltimore Ravens. And Brady looked mostly awful for the same reasons that McNabb looked awful: his receivers weren't consistently good enough, and he spent too much time dodging pass rushers who disrupted his sight lines or his footwork.
Brady finished 23-42 with four turnovers on his dance card. McNabb's stats were eerily similar. 19-37 and 1 turnover. Brady did throw for 2 TD's but he more than compensated by throwing three INT's. He also lost a fumble. McNabb, by contrast, had 1 TD and 1 INT. McNabb also won the total yardage race.
No one in New England will be calling for Brady's dismissal. No one in New England will be wishing for the return of Matt Cassel, who actually put up good numbers last year while Brady recovered from an injury. By contrast, Philly fans will largely be happy with just letting McNabb leave, paving the way for Kevin Kolb, a COMPLETE unknown entity. Furthermore, they would probably approve of a plan to let McNabb walk and to name Michael Vick, whose season was mostly awful when it wasn't non-existent, as the heir apparent. I will go farther. Philly fans would support the idea of bringing Jeff Garcia back to play QB, even though the entire NFL agreed this year that Garcia's career is over.
Please don't think that I am excusing McNabb for his poor play. He wasn't good enough, the same way that Brady wasn't good enough. However, Brady is sharper in some ways than McNabb when it comes to addressing the media. Brady minimized his own part in the debacle to some extent, and told reporters that he would have booed the Patriots' performance too. McNabb was baited, by contrast, into talking about whether or not he will return next year, and into avoiding any mention of what caused the loss, because he made the mistake stating a fact after the season ending loss to Dallas - that the Eagles showed their youth in the game.
If Philly fans were SMART, and if they were as KNOWLEDGEABLE as they claim to be, they would be hoping that the off season has the following highlights. 1. The Eagles sign a quality LB from the free agent pool, AND they draft a quality LB like Rolando McLain. [Yes, McClain will cost draft choices or players if the Eagles wish to move up, but they have bait in Kolb and Vick, who are worth something on the open market to the right team.] 2. The Eagles find a quality right tackle via free agency or the draft. 3. The Eagles find a quality safety via free agency. 4. The Eagles extend Sheldon Brown's contract after disclosing that he has been injured more seriously than they have let on for the past six weeks. 5. The Eagles announce a genuine expectation that their most significant injured players - Stewart Bradley, Jamaal Jackson, Kevin Curtis, and Cornelius Ingram - will be able to return at full strength for the 2010 season.
The Eagles have a lot of work to do, but their future does not look as cloudy as Eagles fans will say it is. They have two talented young receivers. They have the best QB in franchise history. They have a reasonalbe chance to use both McCoy and Westbrook as a running tandem. They have Leonar Weaver and Brent Celek, who made themselves conspicuous by their qualtiy play through most of the season.
However, I expect four months of McNabb and Redi bashing. I expect more lamenting the departure of Brian Dawkins, who happens to be the first veteran they have let go about whom they were short term wrong. Dawkins may not have many more seasons left in him, but this is the first time they have let someone go becasue they thought his skills were diminishing, and he proved them wrong. Good for him. I miss him too.
I also expect more radio hosts to invent reasons to object to McNabb. He's pointing fingers at his teammates. He's too aloof on the sidelines. He chokes under pressure. He can't bring them back in the fourth quarter (Oh that's right: he did that three weeks in a row during the six game win streak.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)