If Santorum Wins...

The plan is for this posting to be short. If Rick Santorum, a Catholic from my home state of PA, wins the Republican nomination, I will be calling for Ron Paul, or someone, to run as a third party candidate.

I have to get the religion stuff out of the way first. I don't believe in abortion, and I think pre-natal testing can be used heinously. However, I don't think my private beliefs are any of the government's business, and so shouldn't be part to the legislative landscape. This may be hard for pro-lifers to swallow, but I don't know when human life begins. Science may someday determine that human consciousness absolutely begins at conception, or soon thereafter, and then the pro-choicers will have to make some decsions of their own.

My position is that Roe vs. Wade shouldn't be on the books, precisely because the issue is one the government can't answer. Of course, that may sound crazy to some, but no argument I have yet heard tells me why a ruling should declare a right to kill a fetus. I may be odd, but I am comfortable leaving the accessibility and the 'rightness' up to the hospitals.

My problem with Santorum is actually fairly complex. He can make his religious beliefs known if he wants, but he obviously thinks the government should legislate his and his church's beliefs for everyone. Furthermore, I don't think Santorum can win in a general election. Let me be clear: I don't think he could win against any candidate in a general election. If Obama were abducted by aliens - the UFO kind, not the undocumented visitors who live and raise families here, and stay forever without contributing much to the general weal - and the Dems had to find another candidate in a hurry, whomever they find will defeat Santorum.

I am a little squeamish also in the number of times his candidacy has been described in some way as a mission from God. The last time this country attributed its actions to Manifest Destiny, the purpose was to legislate the Native American tribes almost out of existence. He can believe he's been chosen and that he's being directed if he wants, but he should keep that particular opinion to himself. Opinions like that one are a serious hindrance, in my opinion. The number of citizens who are leery of such a concept far outnumber the ones who have similar beliefs in an overt and obvious calling from above.

I think the Republican leadership should be very concerned about his current success and popularity. If I am right, and his nomination guarantees a victory for Obama, they should be strategizing on how to help Romney or Paul rally for a comeback. I am absolutely serious about this, and I am a pretty secure Republican, though all those on-line tests usually characterize me as a moderate one.

If Santorum is really not thinking he can pull ahead and win, but he is posturing for a place on the ticket, I am just as concerned, for the same reasons. He would theoretically prop up Romney in some areas, but he would sway many of the undecided's who share my concerns with his views.

In conclusion, I don't disagree with all of Santorum's ideas, but I am strongly opposed to the suggestion that his personal beliefs should be a part of the platform.

What's Wrong with Obama's Latest Mandate?

In case the news doesn't concern you, or perhaps you mistakenly think the mandate is a good thing, I offer a few things to consider in response to Obama's 'ruling' that insurance companies must offer contraceptive services in plans where the purchasers of the plans do not want them. Forget that these buyers reject it on religious grounds for just a minute, though that objection is a serious one to me.

The president is essentially saying that the government can dictate what products are available to everyone, since insurance is essentially a product. Companies that offer insurance of any kind take a calculated risk on an individual basis. However, they really face little statistical risk if they can sell enough policies to minimize the effect of individual claims. If that doesn't make sense to you, you may not be able to follow this post, and you might want to check out something lighter.

The point is that insurance is a product that is bought and sold. How it ever became viewed as a right is beyond me. Regardless, the greedy insurance companies, and the greedy pharmaceutical companies who have created an astonishing arsenal of treatments and medicines over the past 100 years, fueled primarily by capitalism, are now subject to governmental strangleholds that are sure to curtail innovation and advancement to some unknown extent, since one can never measure what might have happened if some outside force hadn't prevented it. If Jimi Hendrix were still alive, would he have created the greatest catalogue of modern music ever seen?

Our current incarnation of government foolishly believes that creating a national healthcare program will provide better living conditions for the poor, the downtrodden, and the destitute. What will happen, however, is this. The poor people may very well gain better access to treatment, but their having such will not make their lot better. Every system has managed to find a way to create or allow a peasant class. Human nature says that people will take less care of themselves, since the response to poor health will be more frequent doctor visits, or more demand, not less.

In simple terms, people behave most appropriately when influenced by fear of something. Why worry about getting sick, or not taking care of yourself if the medical community will have to bail you out? Some might say that such an opinion reveals a dim view of human nature. Guilty. I know that people can be noble, altruistic, and amazingly resourceful and resilient. I also know that these traits are born and nurtured most effectively when effort and setback, and persistence has ultimately been rewarded - either extrinsically or intrinsically. Moreover, I know that those who do not have fear of calamity woven into their being still find a way to foment calamity upon themselves and others.

I may have lost you there, so let's get back to the mandate. If the governemnt has the right to determine the characteristics and features of a product, which insurance is, they also have a right to mandate that other products have the features they decide are right and just and true. Taken to an extreme, it means that the government can decide that all cars must be blue, and all shirts yellow.

The liberals are now dismissing this as ridiculous, and they are allowed, since I will defend their right to think and act for themselves, even if I find their choices stupid or wrong-headed. If I don't believe in contraception, or sterilization, or abortion, or a vegetarian lifestyle, or homosexuality, why should I be driven to impose those beliefs on others. At present, all of those things are legal in fact. Some may not like the law, but I don't see that the government should be in the business of telling individuals what to think.

So the fact that religious institutions have enjoyed some protections is, in my opinion, a great thing. If I want my health care plan to include services that prevent pregnancy, and unwanted births, then I need to work for one of the million organizations that offers such care. An employee of an organization that does not espouse these things will know the rules when he pursues employment. What right does the government have to force the issue?

Seriously, what is gained in this case by forcing any religious organization to offer health care options that are contrary to their creed? How is that making the country stronger, or the world a better place?

JoePa Redux

I throw out the perspective of the tried and true Nittany Lion alum, fan, supporter, or current student. They are incapable of objectivity because they are too close to the scene.
I throw out the perspective of the haters. They have had an agenda for quite awhile, and it is grounded in their distaste for the perspective of the group identified in paragraph one.
I also have to throw out the perspective of the talking heads, the pundits, the radio and TV hosts: their viewpoint is too heavily influenced by the need to be 1) politically correct, or 2) outspoken enough to get ratings.

I believe Joe's legacy will ultimately be only marginally blemished by the Sandusky scandal. Sixty years of altruism, philanthropy, integrity, and honor will not be eradicated by association with someone else's crimes, someone else's negligence, and someone else's moral turpitude.

Joe's legacy can be tainted only if the facts disclose that he made a conscius decision to cover up the crimes, or that he was asleep at the wheel when the facts related to him reveal that he had a duty to report directly to the police, thereby subverting the principles his institution reasonably expected him to follow.

In simple terms, the grand jury would have held him accountable if what they learned suggested he were culpable. Those on their high horses have conveniently discounted the judgment of those who have all the facts, and who have gone out of their way to declare that Paterno was not named to the list of PSU officials who were guilty of either shirking their duties or deliberately creating a mechanism for abandoning them.

I don't think Joe was guilty of anything except not being suspicious or jaded enough. In many instances where players or people within his program were guilty of actions contrary to the principles he espoused, he responded decisively. In some cases, he was accused of responding too harshly. Of course, he chose unwisely in a few instances, but so has everyone when faced with information that doesn't dictate a clear choice.

Here's what I think happened. McQueary witnessed a heinous crime, but lacking the courage to live up to his responsibility he turned it over to Joe. Like a coward, he deliberately presented a sanitized account of what he saw, so that the mantle of responsibility did not fall on him. Burdened by an inexplicit report, Joe turned the case over to the proper authorities. Since he either didn't know or understand the severity of the situation, Joe relied on the people 'in charge' to take care of the business.

I refuse to believe that Joe never bothered to ask the AD or the administrator of the university police, perhaps unofficially, for an update on the report he filed. If those officials have any scruples, they will ultimately tell the truth: they did as much as they could to keep Joe in the dark. My guess is that they told Joe that the proper authorities were doing a full investigation, even encouraging him to not throw his weight around. Remember, if Joe had used his influence to force the details into the open, Sandusky would have been guilty until proven innocent.

Naturally, I don't know all the facts. I could be wrong. However, the spin that the media has put on the case doesn't jibe with any of the facts about Joe's character that preseded this scandal. I don't remember in forty years of following Penn State any instances of Joe putting the program or his image above his ethics. Were he a hypocrite, I suspect that one or more of the haters would have screamed to the heavens. Joe's tenure has spanned decades where the public has paid extravagantly to hear the sordid details of any and all discrepancies between image and fact. We are to believe that as his tneure drew to an end, Joe made the misguided decision to risk undermining everything he had stood for over more than sixty years? Sorry, this doesn't make sense.

I think the legacy may always come with an asterisk. The scandal that came at the end is real, and disgusting, and disheartening. Nevertheless, I truly believe that the facts will eventually vindicate Joe. I know from experience how ruthless people can be, and to what lengths they will go to hide an ugly truth to protect themselves. I simply don't believe that Joe Paterno was one of those people.

I measure the man by the gifts he gave, and I do not mean the monetary contributions. Joe recruited boys to play a game, and turned them into the best of men more often than not. How can someone make a more valuable contribution than that?

Data Driven Decision Making

I don't know if the TV show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader," is still on the air, but I hope that the audience here has seen it or heard of it, since I plan to use the premise of the show to make a larger point.

Adults are brought on to the program and are tested by questions that are integral content points of a typical 5th grade classroom in the US. The adult contestants are usually productive citizens who have found a way to contribute to their families and communities. The premise itself speaks loudly about the importance of 5th grade content. You see, if the content were critical to an adult's efficacy, the adult contestants would answer every or most questions correctly. Instead, the contestants rarely know all of the answers because the material is not critical in and of itself. What fifth graders need to know as it applies to adulthood and citizenship is not really represented by the 5th grade curriculum.

In short, the information covered in 5th grade is inconsequential to the productive adult. He or she can be very high functioning in his field without knowing very much material that is covered in 5th grade. This is true because the knowledge imparted in 5th grade is chosen on the basis of what the 5th grade mind can process. In other words, the skills are more important than the content.

This principle remains true at all levels of education, although to different degrees. I personally completed a BA at a private liberal arts college, and an MS at a well-respected university. The importance of most of the raw content I processed in these programs is dubious. I would venture a guess that I have maintained a knowledge base that includes about 10% of the information I have been asked to learn and to know.

What this has to do with Data Driven Decision Making, as it applies to secondary education, is as follows: Data Driven Decision Making has the potential to make a mess of education.

Presupposing that the date collectd presents a genuine reflection of the knowledge imparted and acquired by a given student (and such a supposition is itself questionable), the data collected is based on knowledge that is dubious in and of itself. To be a productive citizen, does every person need to have a facility with chemistry, with biology, with literature, with geometry? The question is rhetorical. We all know the answer?

The composition of the high school curriculum is generally formulated on the basis of exposure to ways of thinking. The type of thinking that is integral to an uderstaning of chemistry is peculiar to the chemistry classroom. Similarly, the type of thinking that is critical to the successful navigation of a literature lesson is peculiar to the literature classroom. The raw content in each and all cases is inconsequential and relatively unimportant.

In case I haven't been clear in pulling all of these points together, chew on this. Schools across the counrty are currently engaged in implmenting data teams, and RtI programs, as well as school specific programs, that are dedicating enormaous amounts of money and time to the creation of assessments which are supposed to provide diagnoses and prescriptions which will 'cure' learning ills. Because the data being collected is itself dubious, the resultant 'interventions' are dubious to the 2nd power.

I will end with a simple example. A 10th grade English teacher finds that one of her classes hasn't yet mastered an understanding of figurative language. The test item asked students to say what is meant when a character is described as 'cold as ice.' The assessments all agree that such facility is necessary. What does the teacher do? Tutoring? Remediation? Collaborative learning? More work sheets?

What if the test item itself is flawed? What if the students answered incorrectly because the context used in the assessment was unfamiliar and unrelated to their classroom curruculum materials? What if this question came up on the fourth consecutive day of standardized testing, and the students were disinclined to care?

Hopefully, the above was clear enough in touching on all of the concerns associated with data driven decision making. More information is almost always better than not enough information. But operating in response to information that is not what it purports to be sets off an expensive chain reaction where gobs of time and energy are expended in attacking a problem that may not be there, or in treating an illness that is merely a symptom.

More later.

The Shack

I know I have promised 'short' entries before, but this one must be by its nature. The Shack is a novel by William P. Young. The premise is somewhat challenging, as the foundation of the story is a meeting with God experienced by a man who is seriously troubled about the tenets of his religion - at least what he believes are the tenets of his religion. Many people will reject the premise, and close the pages immediately.

Don't.

The novel presents what the author believes is a viable way to approach spirituality, religion, God, faithfulness - whatever one wants to call the component of life that transcends to earthly/physical.

The story presents a three or four dimensional main character and creates a storyline that is compelling. Furhtermore, the author can write. Unlike Mitch Albom, who has become lucrative as a teller of heartfelt tales, but who approaches the task of writing like a plumber elected to create a three course meal, Young really can write. His characterization is solid, and the storyline is well managed, but his facility with language makes the difference.

Young covers difficult territory, and pushes the limits of credulity throughout the story, but he keeps the reader committed because he says what he has to say so well. I think I am a critical reader, and I was drawn to stick with the story to find out what he had to say, in large part because the voice of the narrator is so engaging.

I think the target audience for the book is anyone who has been troubled by the ambiguities and contradictions of institutional religion, whichever denominiation is involved. Let's face it, all of us have at one time or another happened upon dilemmas that our religious teachings really don't answer in a satisfactory way. Why do good things happen to bad people? What is the best way to live our lives? Why doesn't God intervene when tragedies strike?

It's an interesting book. Give it a shot.

Bitterness

About a year ago, at Thanksgiving, the topic of this blog was Gratitude. Uncharacterisically, I decided to focus on the things for which I was grateful. Despite the general state of affairs throughout the world, and more pressing, at home here in America, there are/were things to be thankful for - and to cherish.

Twelve months later, I am tending toward bitter. The Penn State and Syracuse scandals are part of the cause, but so are the other items of interest throughout the world and country. I can't help but thinking, "I didn't sign up for this" on a regular basis. Fortunately, on a personal level, everything is pretty much OK.

At PSU and Syracuse, I am bitter that these two institutions, two places that I have wanted to put on a pedestal and keep there, are being cast as rude reminders that the root of every image is a purposeful lie. I don't blame the current students, the faculty, or even very many of the administrators. I have to castigate myself for wanting to believe in the carefully crafted image.

For instance, for the moment, Jim Boeheim seems to have been removed from the shenenigans of his long-time assistant coach. But like the PSU case, I want to know how the image of the program can be kept so far removed activity that allegedly took place right under his nose. I want to know how JoePa managed to convince himself at any point that maintaining the reputation of his organization was more important than unmasking a monster who was almost assuredly not finished feasting on innocent prey.

Maybe Bernie Fine was slick enough to shield Boeheim from the truth of his depravity, but didn't the coach notice at any point that Fine had atypical interactions and relationships with boys in the program? Didn't he notice that ballboys were sometimes inexplicably traveling with the team, even though such inclusion was not condoned? Someobody made a rule or regulation that said ballboys are homegame employees. You mean the head coach didn't know the program's rule or the organiztional policy?

And what about Joe's lament that he wishes he had done more? Such a statement suggests that he was aware of what he could have done at some earlier point in time. I am befuddled by the situational ethics, or by the equivocation and rationalization that is required when the ignored, hidden, or sanitized offense is child rape.

I want Jim and Joe to be what they purport to be, or what the cultivated image professed them to be. When it walks like a duck, I want the blasted creature to be a duck.

Having made it halfway to 100, I am not foolish or naive`. I know that things aren't what they always seem to be. I am not so easily duped as to swallow whole and without thinking when the 'too good to be true' persona is thrust before my eyes. I have as much skepticism as the next guy; and if you know me well, you know I have more skepticism than many. I just want SOME of the icons to turn out to be almost as good as they are marketed to be. I will tolerate a wart or two.

I am bitter because I have always professed and believed that a man who really tries to do the right thing will choose wisely most of the time, and that his wrong choices won't betray a native evil that even the best of men cannot avoid. In short, I want some men to craft a pretty image and then be able to live up to it, and even go beyond. I am bitter because these latest two scandals force me to accept the possibility that even the best of men can be driven to disgrace by an inability to stay true to the ideals that made someone what to create the ideal image in the first place.

I know there are very few saints. I am bitter that I may have to admit that there are even fewer than I thought.

When the Students are the Teachers

I drew the short straw today and won the right to take my youngest child back to college after a brief Thanksgiving Weekend visit. My daughter has the luxury of driving herself for her three hour return to academia. My son though, is still dependent on a parent to provide a little assistance. This time it was my turn.

I don't really mind the trips, to be honest, as it gives me a chance to have a three hour learning experience. For ninety minutes, we catch up, since we are stuck in close quarters. The return trip always provokes me to consider and weigh the conversation that occurred at the start. All tolled, I get 180 minutes of education each time I serve as the chauffeur.

I have been involved in education for all of my adult life. My son is pursuing a course that may lead to a teaching position. Naturally, I am humbled by the notion that he saw my profession as a worthy one, but I am more interested in following the course of his education as he 'discovers' things I like to think I have learned. I am not sure if that makes sense to non-educators, but I suspect that my fellow teachers will understand.

He tells me that he is concerned that he won't be a good teacher. I tell him, confidently, that he will be fine. After thirty years in the business, I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what differentiates the professional educator from the great teacher. You see, he gets it. His interest is in helping his prospective students to acquire skills and knowledge that supercede the curriculum.

He runs a few ideas by me, and I reinforce them. They are good ideas, but the more important feature to me is that he is thinking about how to be as much of a difference maker as possible. I know from expereince that some of his ideas won't work very weil, and that some of them will be superb. From a distance though, I can not forecast which ideas will fall into which category.

On the ride home, as I debrief myself, I mull over the range of topics that we addressed: his training for lacrosse, nutrition, his fall tuition balance, classroom management, lesson planning, curriculum management, students teaching students, philosophy, and sociology. He also considered and weighed in on my professional life, telling me I should pursue a doctorate and get a job teaching college students. No kidding.

The sociology-philosophy combination is what got the juices flowing for the ride home. I inserted a Bruce Springsteen CD, "Born to Run," I found while rummaging through the trunk; I let the music overrun the car and my brain goes on cruise control.

The young man left me with this tidbit as he grabbed his guitar, and a couple of other odds and ends out of the back seat and made his way to his room: "Humans are bent on self-destruction, I think." he says. History shows that the most stable and productive societies are always small ones. The bigger a society gets, the easier it becomes to fragment and destroy it. But the whole world seems bent on this globalization idea, even though it runs the risk of ruining the societies it serves. It will almost certainly undermine the larger society it creates." (Obviously, the quasi-quote is a paraphrase. I never let anyone talk that long without interruption, and I don't recall the statements verbatim.)

As I pulled into the driveway, I packaged a number of items together from our dialogue. If he pursues a teaching career, I am convinced that he has what it takes to be a great teacher. He sees the big picture first, and the little picture second - a requisite for great teachers. Also, his final volley is the best apology I can think of for organized religion, whatever denomination or faith is involved. Each congregation is its own small society. Whatever global faction the world forces us to join, that small society of a church, synagogue, or mosque provides the structure and stability that humans need to thrive. (I confess that this thought doesn't occur to me until about three hours after my return to home, and after casually watching Mitch Albom's "Have a Little Faith.")

My students and my own children have been teaching me things for years, but I think this particular drive and dialogue has been the most overt instance I have had for quite awhile. The boy had asked me during the discussion of his ideas on teaching, if his thought that he can use his stronger students as in-class tutors and supporters of his less motivated students. "Let students learn from other students," he says with a question behind it.

He is not there to hear my reply, but I answer him anyway: "The students are the best and most important teachers. Always."