I have been rambling on for quite awhile on education topics, and think it fitting if I change gears a bit to recommend a book I just finished. The abbreviated title is the subject of this entry, and the author is Charles Murray. It is available on your kindle for $11.99.
I am making this move primarily because I downloaded the book on a bit of a whim: it was a rainy Sunday with plenty to do, but most of it required standing out in the rain. I didn't want to. That I read the book in one day says something, though I have been inspired to read books in one day before.
His four simple truths are as follows. 1) ability varies. 2) half of all students are below average. 3) too many people are going to college. 4) America's future depends on how we educate the academically gifted.
I immediately agreed with three of the four truths, which prompted me to buy the book and start in. I should forewarn you that the book is written for a certain audience, so if you are not one of the academically gifted, or you are not involved and interested in education reform, you are probably not going to invest in the reading. If you fit the two criteria, however, you should give it a look.
Murray's book, to summarize, attacks what he calls educational Romanticism. (An earlier entry or two, on egalitarianism and pluralism, discussed variations on the same theme, revealing my particular bias.)
Educational romanticism hold true to what Murray believes are the fallacies that undermine school reform efforts. The inverse of those fallacies comprise the Four Simple Truths mentioned above.
For halaf a century or more, Americans in education have subscribed to the belief that schools can somehow magically improve academic performance by dealing with the factors over which they have some control, but Murray contends that such an effort has also necessitated that they ignore 'facts' that have led many people astray.
I will discuss one here, then invite you to read the book. The reformers have long subscribed to the 'truth' that all students can learn. However, more recent reforms have expanded that starting point to champion the notion that all students can learn at a high level, with the high level being what is determined to be 'grade level' performance. Murray contends that the evolutionaly 'truth' is false. He maintains that ability varies to a high degree, and that no degree of hard work or intervention that we know of can elevate a low ability student into the ranks of the high achiever. (Remember, the definition of high achievement means consistent grade level work.)
The ramifications of this are myriad, and Murray contends, self-destructive. Whether the program is NCLB or Title I or Head Start, the consequence is that schools are spending massive amounts of money to lift a statistical portion of the population beyond the limits of their ability. As evidence he presents the statistical results of a number of programs, with the conclusion being that even those efforts that seemed to create significant and laudable improvement were ephemeral. In other words, those students who were identified and received expensive and broad attention to items that should improve academic performance were nevertheless unable to retain that high level of performance throughout their academic careers. Some made great gains on the targeted test, but subsequent tests revealed that these students rather quickly performed at levels commensurate with the low ability that identified them in the first place.
Read the book. Murray goes further than to attack the fallacies. He suggests ways that we can effectively redesign the educational system to meet the needs that face us as a country and a culture. His suggestions extend to colleges, the hiring practices of the business world, and currucular choices made K-12.
Read the book. I think he is far more right than wrong.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
Now I know that the American Experiment was not originally conceived to be or to become an empire in the same way that the Roman Empire did. Yet the similarities between the two entities has got to grab the current citizens' attention. Furthermore, this is far from the first time that discussion of the topic, the title of this entry, had been bandied about. My contribution to the topic is, I hope, a bit different.
Everyone knows that the fall of the Roman Empire really happened rather slowly, over centuries, and the causes have been debated for years. Nevertheless, most agree that a shift in values - that is, a culture shift contributed to the demise. This is where I believe the similarities are most striking.
I am a moderate Republican. I think that viewpoint obviously colors all of the perceptions that I have regarding the precipitious slide that America is experiencing. This posting promises to be a bit different from here, as I plan to make observations, and not to comment on the significance thereof.
1. For more than 150 years, American values were heavily influenced by a small pocket of people known as the Pilgrims, and their counterparts, the Puritans. As evidence, I mention merely the tendency in two directions - prudery, and industry. Those of us who are correclty classified as baby boomers have witnessed the eradication of conservative morality. From sex and nudity to profanity and tastelessness, our media - TV and film - have reflected a pendulum swing away from that prudery. Presently, almost anything goes. As to industry, the American commitment to work has waned as well. Whereas the parents of baby boomers took sometimes annoying pride in accounting for their capacity for work, the next generation has made "money for nothing" their aim and a point of pride.
2. Patriotism is no longer universally applauded and practiced. Our parents were eager to complain and debate the relative merits of whatever policy prevailed at the time, and even the Vietnam era objectors tended toward a belief in the peaceful protest. Today, what we are witnessing is a tendency toward violent protest for its own sake, to the point where the target of the protest is incnsequential. Rather, the prepondernance of flash mobs speaks to a belief that the individual dissatisfaction is cause enough to wreak harm on anyone within arms' length, even if the victim has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the protest. In short, previous values tended to respect the rights of the collective individual over the rights of the individually dissatisfied or disaffected. Again, the Vietnam era protestors sometimes wrought serious harm, but the undercurrent seemed always to value the Amercan citizenry. That is, the aim seemed to be the betterment of the country.
3. Our Congressmen are no longer committed to the betterment of the country either, and this is not an indictment of every congressman, but rather an indictment of the system and its values. Clearly, the American people have no great objection to the compensation package of our political leaders or we would have had backlash along the way. Today though, the populace has recognized that while we were tolerant of perks and privileges, the politicians have been raiding the cookie jar. I doubt you could find a regular citizen in the country who really believes that a congressman should be compensated for life, that congressman should have a gold-laced health plan for which they pay nothing, that per diem expenses, on top of a generous salary are warranted.
4. America's foreign policy has failed to live up to its principles. Though we have maintained a presence of some kind in many countries across the globe for a long time, our presence has usually been welcomed or easily tolerated, as we were not in the business of disrupting the course of life in those countries. Recently though, our presence has become unwelcomed and intrusive in many places. The military presnce in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq are unwelcomed incursions, sure. But the current aim, as I perceive it, is to play watchdog for the world. I may be under-informed, but our objectives seem to be duplicitious, even to me, an American. (I should emphasize that this is a perception that is surely the result of my own ignorance, as the information that we hear is so sparse.)
Again, I won't elaborate on these observations; the judgments are up to you.
Everyone knows that the fall of the Roman Empire really happened rather slowly, over centuries, and the causes have been debated for years. Nevertheless, most agree that a shift in values - that is, a culture shift contributed to the demise. This is where I believe the similarities are most striking.
I am a moderate Republican. I think that viewpoint obviously colors all of the perceptions that I have regarding the precipitious slide that America is experiencing. This posting promises to be a bit different from here, as I plan to make observations, and not to comment on the significance thereof.
1. For more than 150 years, American values were heavily influenced by a small pocket of people known as the Pilgrims, and their counterparts, the Puritans. As evidence, I mention merely the tendency in two directions - prudery, and industry. Those of us who are correclty classified as baby boomers have witnessed the eradication of conservative morality. From sex and nudity to profanity and tastelessness, our media - TV and film - have reflected a pendulum swing away from that prudery. Presently, almost anything goes. As to industry, the American commitment to work has waned as well. Whereas the parents of baby boomers took sometimes annoying pride in accounting for their capacity for work, the next generation has made "money for nothing" their aim and a point of pride.
2. Patriotism is no longer universally applauded and practiced. Our parents were eager to complain and debate the relative merits of whatever policy prevailed at the time, and even the Vietnam era objectors tended toward a belief in the peaceful protest. Today, what we are witnessing is a tendency toward violent protest for its own sake, to the point where the target of the protest is incnsequential. Rather, the prepondernance of flash mobs speaks to a belief that the individual dissatisfaction is cause enough to wreak harm on anyone within arms' length, even if the victim has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the protest. In short, previous values tended to respect the rights of the collective individual over the rights of the individually dissatisfied or disaffected. Again, the Vietnam era protestors sometimes wrought serious harm, but the undercurrent seemed always to value the Amercan citizenry. That is, the aim seemed to be the betterment of the country.
3. Our Congressmen are no longer committed to the betterment of the country either, and this is not an indictment of every congressman, but rather an indictment of the system and its values. Clearly, the American people have no great objection to the compensation package of our political leaders or we would have had backlash along the way. Today though, the populace has recognized that while we were tolerant of perks and privileges, the politicians have been raiding the cookie jar. I doubt you could find a regular citizen in the country who really believes that a congressman should be compensated for life, that congressman should have a gold-laced health plan for which they pay nothing, that per diem expenses, on top of a generous salary are warranted.
4. America's foreign policy has failed to live up to its principles. Though we have maintained a presence of some kind in many countries across the globe for a long time, our presence has usually been welcomed or easily tolerated, as we were not in the business of disrupting the course of life in those countries. Recently though, our presence has become unwelcomed and intrusive in many places. The military presnce in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq are unwelcomed incursions, sure. But the current aim, as I perceive it, is to play watchdog for the world. I may be under-informed, but our objectives seem to be duplicitious, even to me, an American. (I should emphasize that this is a perception that is surely the result of my own ignorance, as the information that we hear is so sparse.)
Again, I won't elaborate on these observations; the judgments are up to you.
Monday, August 1, 2011
E-A-G-L-E-S - Eagles!
I am listening to the sports talk radio guys, and I just disagree with everything they say about the Eagles' prospects. They are trumpeting the recent acquisitions, many of which are impressive and reason for excitement and optimism. They go too far, however, with evaluating the Eagles' status as Super Bowl contenders. In fact, they have gone so far as to say that this should be a Super Bowl or bust season for Andy Reid.
Hold on, buckaroos. The roster overhaul was necessary and, as I said, exciting, but have they really positioned themselves to compete with the elite? I say no, and here's why.
What I saw last year was an unexpected series of performances from Michael Vick. He had a much better season than I anticipated, but I have trouble elevating his success to Herculean standards. His numbers, in the end, were just very good, not great. Furthermore, as opponents overcame their surprise with his return to athletic excellence, they developed game plans designed to contain him - and they suceeded to an alarming degree.
Consequently, I saw Vick's season as a personal victory, but not much else. In the playoffs, and even in the tougher games at the end of the regular season, I though Vick returned to the form he demonstrated in Atlanta: tremendous, highlight-reel plays which ultimately led to disappointing outcomes at crunch time.
If a team does not have a dependable QB, they cannot go deep into the playoffs. Vince Young is something of a younger, even more physical version of Vick, with the same limitations. He and Vick either cannot read defenses, or they are unable to stand up in the face of pressure and retain the poise that is needed when the pressure is relentless, as it always is in the playoffs.
In addition to the QB position, the Eagles have done nothing to upgrade their offense. DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin are both accomplished weapons, but they are small and limited also. Neither one will be confused with Larry Fitzgerald or Sidney Rice. If the QB were Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, I would declare the receiving corps as good enough to contend for a championship. Furthermore, if they were not still questionable along the offensive line, with Winston Justice and King Dunlop being counted on to contribute, maybe Vick and/or Young would be good enough.
On defense, they have giant question marks at safety and linebacker. True, they have upgraded the defensive line and cornerback positions, and those two positions are of paramount importance in the pass-happy NFL. Yet the other two areas concern me greatly.
Super Bowl or Bust? I don't think so. My prediction is that Michael Vick's bubble will burst early, and that Philly fans will be yellng for Vince Young, who will meet with some of the same failures as the man he replaces.
I hope I am wrong, because I like when the Eagles win. But we will see...
Hold on, buckaroos. The roster overhaul was necessary and, as I said, exciting, but have they really positioned themselves to compete with the elite? I say no, and here's why.
What I saw last year was an unexpected series of performances from Michael Vick. He had a much better season than I anticipated, but I have trouble elevating his success to Herculean standards. His numbers, in the end, were just very good, not great. Furthermore, as opponents overcame their surprise with his return to athletic excellence, they developed game plans designed to contain him - and they suceeded to an alarming degree.
Consequently, I saw Vick's season as a personal victory, but not much else. In the playoffs, and even in the tougher games at the end of the regular season, I though Vick returned to the form he demonstrated in Atlanta: tremendous, highlight-reel plays which ultimately led to disappointing outcomes at crunch time.
If a team does not have a dependable QB, they cannot go deep into the playoffs. Vince Young is something of a younger, even more physical version of Vick, with the same limitations. He and Vick either cannot read defenses, or they are unable to stand up in the face of pressure and retain the poise that is needed when the pressure is relentless, as it always is in the playoffs.
In addition to the QB position, the Eagles have done nothing to upgrade their offense. DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin are both accomplished weapons, but they are small and limited also. Neither one will be confused with Larry Fitzgerald or Sidney Rice. If the QB were Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, I would declare the receiving corps as good enough to contend for a championship. Furthermore, if they were not still questionable along the offensive line, with Winston Justice and King Dunlop being counted on to contribute, maybe Vick and/or Young would be good enough.
On defense, they have giant question marks at safety and linebacker. True, they have upgraded the defensive line and cornerback positions, and those two positions are of paramount importance in the pass-happy NFL. Yet the other two areas concern me greatly.
Super Bowl or Bust? I don't think so. My prediction is that Michael Vick's bubble will burst early, and that Philly fans will be yellng for Vince Young, who will meet with some of the same failures as the man he replaces.
I hope I am wrong, because I like when the Eagles win. But we will see...
Monday, July 11, 2011
Christian Lopez Did What He Needed to Do...
So let's set the record straight. If your boyhood hero hit a milestone, and you had a chance to be a unique part of it, you SHOULD do the noble thing and make a contribution to that hero.
In case you weren't aware, Derek Jeter of the Yankees hit a homer to reach the 3,000 hit plateau for his career. As a rule, I can't like a Yankee, being a Phillies fan, but I have always thought that Jeter has done it right. He is a super player, and he has been classy along the way. If I were asked to try to like a Yankee, he would be the first choice.
Christian Lopez, a 23 year old fan in the stands for the event, had the great fortune to catch the ball that capped Jeter's pursuit of 3,000 hits. Naturally, eschewing the instinct to see the good luck as a chance to cash in - by holding someone hostage to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the piece of memorabilia, the young man decided to be as classy as his hero, by returning the ball, with no demand for payback.
Sure, he said he'd like to meet Derek, and he thought an autograph or two would be nice, but in the end he made no demands. Had he been me, a fifty-year-old guy who can't elevate these professional athletes to a pedestal anymore, perhaps one could question the decision. But given the circumstances, he did what he had to do.
My first ballplayer hero was Larry Bowa, who didn't ever get near the milestone of 3,000 hits. So to try to make a half-decent comparision, let's say I came up with a ball he hit for a ground rule double in the 1980 World Series, and let's say that hit clinched the Series win. At that moment, I would want the chance to be part of Larry's finest moment - for the rest of my life, and his. A picture with him would have sufficed. For much of his early career, the Phillies were terrible, and still I loved watching him play. I would not have had a chance of seeing my fortune to be financially lucrative.
All the columnists and talk radio guys are being short-sighted, and therefore, predictably foolish. The ball isn't a lottery ticket, except in the sense that it can represent a stroke of luck that binds a regular boy and his baseball hero forever. That boy can tell that story for the next fifty or sixty years. To some extent, I think it justifiable if the boy says he is simply going to keep the ball, put it on his mantlepiece, and maybe someday donate it to the Yankee museum, or the Baseball Hall of Fame, or maybe leave it to his own children, so they can continue the story.
The point is that we are all bound in our decision-making by the forces that control us at any given point in time. Middle age men don't have the ability to idol worship anymore, unless the subject is their own children, or later, grandchildren. To me, Derek Jeter is a kid playing ball for lots of money; he is not a model of what I want to be someday. Likewise, I couldn't feel that same allegiance to any of the current Phillies, for whom I love to cheer. Ryan Howard's 800th homer - yes I am being a bit silly - would go on the market should I be the one to catch it. Ryan could certainly make a reasonable bid that I would be inclined to accept, but the money would be more improtant to me now. Perhaps that means I have grown old and jaded, but I have earned each smudge and smear on that once pristine soul.
In case you weren't aware, Derek Jeter of the Yankees hit a homer to reach the 3,000 hit plateau for his career. As a rule, I can't like a Yankee, being a Phillies fan, but I have always thought that Jeter has done it right. He is a super player, and he has been classy along the way. If I were asked to try to like a Yankee, he would be the first choice.
Christian Lopez, a 23 year old fan in the stands for the event, had the great fortune to catch the ball that capped Jeter's pursuit of 3,000 hits. Naturally, eschewing the instinct to see the good luck as a chance to cash in - by holding someone hostage to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the piece of memorabilia, the young man decided to be as classy as his hero, by returning the ball, with no demand for payback.
Sure, he said he'd like to meet Derek, and he thought an autograph or two would be nice, but in the end he made no demands. Had he been me, a fifty-year-old guy who can't elevate these professional athletes to a pedestal anymore, perhaps one could question the decision. But given the circumstances, he did what he had to do.
My first ballplayer hero was Larry Bowa, who didn't ever get near the milestone of 3,000 hits. So to try to make a half-decent comparision, let's say I came up with a ball he hit for a ground rule double in the 1980 World Series, and let's say that hit clinched the Series win. At that moment, I would want the chance to be part of Larry's finest moment - for the rest of my life, and his. A picture with him would have sufficed. For much of his early career, the Phillies were terrible, and still I loved watching him play. I would not have had a chance of seeing my fortune to be financially lucrative.
All the columnists and talk radio guys are being short-sighted, and therefore, predictably foolish. The ball isn't a lottery ticket, except in the sense that it can represent a stroke of luck that binds a regular boy and his baseball hero forever. That boy can tell that story for the next fifty or sixty years. To some extent, I think it justifiable if the boy says he is simply going to keep the ball, put it on his mantlepiece, and maybe someday donate it to the Yankee museum, or the Baseball Hall of Fame, or maybe leave it to his own children, so they can continue the story.
The point is that we are all bound in our decision-making by the forces that control us at any given point in time. Middle age men don't have the ability to idol worship anymore, unless the subject is their own children, or later, grandchildren. To me, Derek Jeter is a kid playing ball for lots of money; he is not a model of what I want to be someday. Likewise, I couldn't feel that same allegiance to any of the current Phillies, for whom I love to cheer. Ryan Howard's 800th homer - yes I am being a bit silly - would go on the market should I be the one to catch it. Ryan could certainly make a reasonable bid that I would be inclined to accept, but the money would be more improtant to me now. Perhaps that means I have grown old and jaded, but I have earned each smudge and smear on that once pristine soul.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
I Don't Care About the Casey Anthony Trial
My wife cares a great deal about the Casey Anthony trial, and her sympathy and empathy are among her most enviable traits. By osmosis, because she was riveted to it, I have become relatively familiar with the details, having sat in the room reading or playing on the computer while she hung on as many words as she was capable of taking in.
I don't care about the trial. I care that a young child was killed, and I care that her mother was not held very accountable for taking care of that daughter. I just don't care about the theatrics and the media circus of the trial.
In fact, I object to very many things associated with it. A heinous incident occurred. Because I didn't engage on an emotional level, I can't say that I have an opinion on whether her mother did it or not. I don't care about that either. My caring begins with the notion that a parent is supposed to take care of his or her children. This mother didn't. She should be held responsible, on some level, for what happened.
To my wife and the others who engaged and invested - please don't hold ill will toward the jurors, who in my opinion, reached the only verdict they could. The prosecution may have proved that the mother considered killing her daughter; they may have proved that she is a lying, conniving monster who was willing to cast suspicion on anyone she could, including her parents and sibling. From my vantage point, since they don't know exactly the manner of death, or the cause of death, and since they can't put mother in the room when the death occurred, they can't convict for murder.
Now the real source of my annoyance is the ridiculous coverage of the trial. At least five Nancy Grace's sprouted when this trial commenced, all of them yelling at the TV audience in one manner or another, and none of them apparently capable of providing one scintilla of information that matters. Like many of the riveted audience members, they were incapable of dong what a journalist ought to do - provide some insightful thoughts.
The problem is with the coverage itself. I contend that the general public's inclusion in the trial subverts the justice system. Jurors need to be harvested from another area so that they might be found unbiased. Then, all of the yelling faces insert themselves into the mechanics of the trial. We all know that the lawyers, the witnesses, the police themselves have been influenced by what the screaming faces have said. Sure, they pretend to be unaffected, rising high above normal human behavior to maintain their objectivity, but none of us would really be able to do so. I therefore don't blame them. I blame the notion that the general public has some right to know the case on an intimate level, which is what the screaming faces purport to provide.
I don't know that the outcome of the trial was affected by all of the hullabaloo; in fact, that's my point. I don't want that to be a consideration. I want the court to summarily reject all requests for TV or radio, or computer access. If the screaming faces are going to scream, let them do so on the basis of having sat through the tedium themselves, or let them rely on professional reporters to go in and sift through the mountains of factoids.
Get the cameras out of the courtroom. Allow no obvious external obstacles to objectivity or clarity. Audience, since my preferences are not going to be met, stop watching the screaming faces unless they do their jobs and augment the audience's understanding of the situation.
Quite simply, the prosecution did not prove the mother guilty, as I see it. They tried to rely on the juror's expected emotional response to the odious circumstance of the little girl's death. Their case should have been laid out as I noted above. Parents should take care of their kids. They should have been able to prove that this one didn't.
I don't care about the trial. I care that a young child was killed, and I care that her mother was not held very accountable for taking care of that daughter. I just don't care about the theatrics and the media circus of the trial.
In fact, I object to very many things associated with it. A heinous incident occurred. Because I didn't engage on an emotional level, I can't say that I have an opinion on whether her mother did it or not. I don't care about that either. My caring begins with the notion that a parent is supposed to take care of his or her children. This mother didn't. She should be held responsible, on some level, for what happened.
To my wife and the others who engaged and invested - please don't hold ill will toward the jurors, who in my opinion, reached the only verdict they could. The prosecution may have proved that the mother considered killing her daughter; they may have proved that she is a lying, conniving monster who was willing to cast suspicion on anyone she could, including her parents and sibling. From my vantage point, since they don't know exactly the manner of death, or the cause of death, and since they can't put mother in the room when the death occurred, they can't convict for murder.
Now the real source of my annoyance is the ridiculous coverage of the trial. At least five Nancy Grace's sprouted when this trial commenced, all of them yelling at the TV audience in one manner or another, and none of them apparently capable of providing one scintilla of information that matters. Like many of the riveted audience members, they were incapable of dong what a journalist ought to do - provide some insightful thoughts.
The problem is with the coverage itself. I contend that the general public's inclusion in the trial subverts the justice system. Jurors need to be harvested from another area so that they might be found unbiased. Then, all of the yelling faces insert themselves into the mechanics of the trial. We all know that the lawyers, the witnesses, the police themselves have been influenced by what the screaming faces have said. Sure, they pretend to be unaffected, rising high above normal human behavior to maintain their objectivity, but none of us would really be able to do so. I therefore don't blame them. I blame the notion that the general public has some right to know the case on an intimate level, which is what the screaming faces purport to provide.
I don't know that the outcome of the trial was affected by all of the hullabaloo; in fact, that's my point. I don't want that to be a consideration. I want the court to summarily reject all requests for TV or radio, or computer access. If the screaming faces are going to scream, let them do so on the basis of having sat through the tedium themselves, or let them rely on professional reporters to go in and sift through the mountains of factoids.
Get the cameras out of the courtroom. Allow no obvious external obstacles to objectivity or clarity. Audience, since my preferences are not going to be met, stop watching the screaming faces unless they do their jobs and augment the audience's understanding of the situation.
Quite simply, the prosecution did not prove the mother guilty, as I see it. They tried to rely on the juror's expected emotional response to the odious circumstance of the little girl's death. Their case should have been laid out as I noted above. Parents should take care of their kids. They should have been able to prove that this one didn't.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
An UPdate on Religion
Recent conversations, some on networking sites populated by my children and their friends, have drawn me into discussions about the place of religion and church and spirituality in the lives of the regular Joes of the world. (I know I posted a longer rumination on religion in an earlier post, so this will be something of a tune-up.)
The discussion thread in question started with a posting of a quote attributed to Buddha, the gist of which was that the individual human must find his own answers: the minute the individual's perspective is dependent upon any authority, literary, philosphical, canonical, or otherwise, the individual has ceded himself, and thereby diminished himself. That is, at least, what I took from the quote. Responses ensued. The respondents are intelligent people, so the thoughts were generally well-crafted and comprehensible, despite an apparent disregard for the conventional mechanics of written communication and the occasional typo. What struck me, however, upon re-reading the thread, was just how much of the dialogue and the observations are dependent upon the limits of the experience of the speakers.
Lest the conclusion of the last paragraph sound dismissive of the posted views, let me clarify. Most of the people contributing are in their twenties. Consequently, though their respective voices are intelligent and thoughtful, they are to a large extent encumbered by their lack of years. The oldest of the respondents took the broadest approach, and so on down the line. So, while I have respect, comprehension, and appreciation for their thoughts, I am incapable of seeing things as they do. My point is not that I am older, wiser, and therefore more 'right.' Rather, my point is merely that I can't agree and accept the viewpoint each espouses, since living more than twice as long as all of them, I have been shoved into my way of seeing by the cumulative experiences that I have had.
Examples might help here. One of the participants is closely aligned with an orthodox religious approach. Another has been influenced by an orthodox religious perspective, but has rejected such viewpoint entirely. A third has been less indoctrinated into any formal theology, and so has adopted a somewhat carefully crafted hybrid of those with which he is familiar: he is a contemporary L. Ron Hubbard who is blazing a trail that is malleable and organic. Finally, the oldest contributor - except for me - has apparently concluded that there is no one way, and that if there is, it will always elude him just as he gets close enough to nab it.
Again, all of these people are interacting with and responding to life as they know and are living it. All of them are right, and none of them is, including me. People, if they are so inclined to make spiritual or religious discoveries, are constantly taking in new information on the basis of the things they observe. Only the most severely indoctrinated believes that the answers to life's questions have all been generated, and that the individual needs only to locate the template and then adhere to it.
My observation is simply this: the individual finds and tries to adhere to an approach that makes the most sense to him at the time. The indoctrinated individual believes he has found the pertinent answers in a formal code that will serve him for the rest of his life. Yet I feel confident that the details of the personal application of the philiosophy or theology will go through myriad developments as life throws its curves his way. The same is true for the rest of the group; the only difference is that their epiphanies may come to them not as a shock, or as a necessary adjustment, as they have already determined that the answers are elusive or ever-changing.
I don't know that any of this is clear enough, but for those who were part of the discussion thread, I think it best clarifies the broad range of the discourse.
The discussion thread in question started with a posting of a quote attributed to Buddha, the gist of which was that the individual human must find his own answers: the minute the individual's perspective is dependent upon any authority, literary, philosphical, canonical, or otherwise, the individual has ceded himself, and thereby diminished himself. That is, at least, what I took from the quote. Responses ensued. The respondents are intelligent people, so the thoughts were generally well-crafted and comprehensible, despite an apparent disregard for the conventional mechanics of written communication and the occasional typo. What struck me, however, upon re-reading the thread, was just how much of the dialogue and the observations are dependent upon the limits of the experience of the speakers.
Lest the conclusion of the last paragraph sound dismissive of the posted views, let me clarify. Most of the people contributing are in their twenties. Consequently, though their respective voices are intelligent and thoughtful, they are to a large extent encumbered by their lack of years. The oldest of the respondents took the broadest approach, and so on down the line. So, while I have respect, comprehension, and appreciation for their thoughts, I am incapable of seeing things as they do. My point is not that I am older, wiser, and therefore more 'right.' Rather, my point is merely that I can't agree and accept the viewpoint each espouses, since living more than twice as long as all of them, I have been shoved into my way of seeing by the cumulative experiences that I have had.
Examples might help here. One of the participants is closely aligned with an orthodox religious approach. Another has been influenced by an orthodox religious perspective, but has rejected such viewpoint entirely. A third has been less indoctrinated into any formal theology, and so has adopted a somewhat carefully crafted hybrid of those with which he is familiar: he is a contemporary L. Ron Hubbard who is blazing a trail that is malleable and organic. Finally, the oldest contributor - except for me - has apparently concluded that there is no one way, and that if there is, it will always elude him just as he gets close enough to nab it.
Again, all of these people are interacting with and responding to life as they know and are living it. All of them are right, and none of them is, including me. People, if they are so inclined to make spiritual or religious discoveries, are constantly taking in new information on the basis of the things they observe. Only the most severely indoctrinated believes that the answers to life's questions have all been generated, and that the individual needs only to locate the template and then adhere to it.
My observation is simply this: the individual finds and tries to adhere to an approach that makes the most sense to him at the time. The indoctrinated individual believes he has found the pertinent answers in a formal code that will serve him for the rest of his life. Yet I feel confident that the details of the personal application of the philiosophy or theology will go through myriad developments as life throws its curves his way. The same is true for the rest of the group; the only difference is that their epiphanies may come to them not as a shock, or as a necessary adjustment, as they have already determined that the answers are elusive or ever-changing.
I don't know that any of this is clear enough, but for those who were part of the discussion thread, I think it best clarifies the broad range of the discourse.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The School Reform Boondoggle
If the reader has followed this blog in any regard, he has noted the author's disdain for the school reform movement. Briefly, most reformers are well-trained and versed, and their ideas are generally usable and defensible in some regard. However, the reform/testing/accountability model has proven to be costly in terms of money and time. One could easily make the case that the current budgetary mess is directly caused by the high performing school reform movement.
Before I go further, I am going to provide a link to an article that anyone with serious interest must read. It is not very long, but it highlights in an effective way the statistics and correlative reasoning behind most of the premises of this article. Heres the link: http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/12/pisa_its_poverty_not_stupid_1.html. This blog format will not allow me to make the URL a hyperlink, so you will need to copy and paste it into your browser.
The school reform movement was born around 1980, with the Chicken Little response to "A Nation at Risk." That study alerted leaders to serious deficiencies in American schools, and it took a good twenty years before enough traction was gained to have the Federal government intervene and make the mess even worse.
The article referenced above DOES NOT maintain that American schools are doing great and that all the initiatives are unnecessary. Rather, the author's conclusion is that all of the worries about American competitiveness are genuine and worrisome. However, the focus of the article is the manner in which school leaders misinterpret the statistics - I think purposefully.
Simply put, the gap between the US and the rest of the world is misleading in some ways. For a long time, the US education model was internationally successful. However, as the rest of the world has closed the socioeconomic gap, US aggregate superiority has evaporated. ALL of our students do not perform as well as the best on the world stage. Again, if you think I am trotting out the same old teaching community excuses and defenses, please read the article.
When socioeconomic parallels are drawn, US students outperform the world in many, if not all, areas and subgroups.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that the reformers have been, and will continue to be, misleading on purpose. If the data says that the most crucial way to improve our global competitiveness is to improve our economic status, so that we do not have such a high percentage of students below the poverty level, then the sundry reform initiatives don't command such attention - and so many dollars.
School leaders NEED for the public to believe that their proposals will make a difference, because they need to justify their existence. Reform gurus need to tout their ideas, and to convince school boards to spend money on them, or they cannot capitalize on the millions of dollars to be spent.
The truth is that schools need to continue to work toward improvement, in their own self-monitored and intiated ways. I maintain that no local school will benefit from a reform initiative as much as they might benefit from internally generated improvement. Researching and devising ideas is necessary, but adopting the plans that have worked for others, in vastly different cultures and communities, is foolish, expensive, and doomed to less effectiveness, in my opinion.
Before I go further, I am going to provide a link to an article that anyone with serious interest must read. It is not very long, but it highlights in an effective way the statistics and correlative reasoning behind most of the premises of this article. Heres the link: http://nasspblogs.org/principaldifference/2010/12/pisa_its_poverty_not_stupid_1.html. This blog format will not allow me to make the URL a hyperlink, so you will need to copy and paste it into your browser.
The school reform movement was born around 1980, with the Chicken Little response to "A Nation at Risk." That study alerted leaders to serious deficiencies in American schools, and it took a good twenty years before enough traction was gained to have the Federal government intervene and make the mess even worse.
The article referenced above DOES NOT maintain that American schools are doing great and that all the initiatives are unnecessary. Rather, the author's conclusion is that all of the worries about American competitiveness are genuine and worrisome. However, the focus of the article is the manner in which school leaders misinterpret the statistics - I think purposefully.
Simply put, the gap between the US and the rest of the world is misleading in some ways. For a long time, the US education model was internationally successful. However, as the rest of the world has closed the socioeconomic gap, US aggregate superiority has evaporated. ALL of our students do not perform as well as the best on the world stage. Again, if you think I am trotting out the same old teaching community excuses and defenses, please read the article.
When socioeconomic parallels are drawn, US students outperform the world in many, if not all, areas and subgroups.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that the reformers have been, and will continue to be, misleading on purpose. If the data says that the most crucial way to improve our global competitiveness is to improve our economic status, so that we do not have such a high percentage of students below the poverty level, then the sundry reform initiatives don't command such attention - and so many dollars.
School leaders NEED for the public to believe that their proposals will make a difference, because they need to justify their existence. Reform gurus need to tout their ideas, and to convince school boards to spend money on them, or they cannot capitalize on the millions of dollars to be spent.
The truth is that schools need to continue to work toward improvement, in their own self-monitored and intiated ways. I maintain that no local school will benefit from a reform initiative as much as they might benefit from internally generated improvement. Researching and devising ideas is necessary, but adopting the plans that have worked for others, in vastly different cultures and communities, is foolish, expensive, and doomed to less effectiveness, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)