Recently at my school, many of the teachers have expressed a desire to change systems and other things because of a sense of burn-out and futility. For the first concern, it's been a pretty rough year for our school on a lot of different levels, so of course teachers are ready for a break
The second concern was that students didn't do very well on a set of testing we recently did. In fact, scores dropped drastically from the fall. I demonstrated that a variety of factors made most of the test results invalid in a recent meeting, especially when compared with two other forms of testing that we do at the school. Even so, a couple of the teachers said that changing lots of things is good because, "Change is good."
Now, I will be the first to advocate fixing things if they need to be fixed, but haphazardly changing things for the sake of changing things doesn't always help and can often times do more harm than good. For my students, what I'm doing right now is apparently helping because according to most tests that I've done, they've generally all made drastic improvements. While making changes on a school-wide basis may help, what if they don't? I would much rather leave well-enough alone.
This experience has led me to reflect on the state our country is in, and has been in for the last 130+ years. There is, and has been, a faction in the populous calling for nearly indiscriminate change. Granted, each person in the faction has generally had their own pet change they wished to see, but any change was good and they supported it. This can be seen in the many demands of the Populist Party, the grasping at whatever change the progressives could get in the turn of the last century , and the shotgun approach of the New Deal. We witnessed the same desire for any change again during the last election, as just over half of the electorate voted for "Hope and Change."
Now most of us are asking ourselves, "Is there any hope in change?" Change is good, when there is an isolated problem, stated goals, and definite ways to measure progress while minimizing collateral damage. We've had none of this in the "stimulus," "Obamacare," or any other change this administration has put forward.
I don't know if this was coherent. It was just something I had been reflecting on recently.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
On Fixing American Education
Over the last couple of years of teaching, I've noticed some things about the current educational paradigm that might be changed to improve overall outcomes. I am by no means an expert, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion, right?
Over the course of the last 40 years, there have been several pieces of legislation that have changed the face of schools to make them more accessible to all people, both physically and educationally. I believe that every person should be given a chance at a quality education. And that is the basis of all of my views: EVERYONE is entitled to a quality education. It is relatively easy to provide a quality education to those willing to learn or those with a talent for learning. It is much more difficult to provide it for those not willing or for those who don't have as much of a talent for learning. This legislation has been aimed primarily at these students, from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The unintended consequences of these acts are, in my opinion, the biggest thing that has damaged the educational system. Teachers have been required by law to accommodate the needs of classrooms filled with students whose abilities range so greatly that in a single period they would be hard pressed to address all of their needs. For instance, in a single classroom, I have students with (based on lexile scores) a beginner's reading level all the way up to students with a 6th grade reading level. They obviously don't all have the same needs. Traditionally, teachers would teach to the middle and try to find ways to enrich the curriculum for higher achievers and provide added scaffolding for lower achievers. This approach, however, often resulted in the bottom of the class never really reaching grade level performance. Thus NCLB put pressure on teachers to help students from the bottom to pass state tests and reach grade level. Is this something that should be done? Absolutely! Everyone should be given the chance at a quality education. But the unintended consequence has been the those higher achievers get less attention and begin to stagnate and/or have behavioral problems due to boredom.
What's my solution? While in Japan, I was acquainted with the education system, particularly for secondary education. Things were very competitive, and students spent long hours studying. Why? Because 8th grade is the only thing that's guaranteed. There are many levels of high schools, each with a different emphasis and academic standard, and each has an entrance exam. Every student will end up getting placed in some sort of high school. What I like about this system is that each student is getting an education that is at their level. Additionally, students work extremely hard to get into as good of a high school as possible because it matters what high school you graduate from. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but I believe that something like this is better than what we do now, and it better provides for the individual needs not only of the low achieving students, but of the high achievers as well.
Over the course of the last 40 years, there have been several pieces of legislation that have changed the face of schools to make them more accessible to all people, both physically and educationally. I believe that every person should be given a chance at a quality education. And that is the basis of all of my views: EVERYONE is entitled to a quality education. It is relatively easy to provide a quality education to those willing to learn or those with a talent for learning. It is much more difficult to provide it for those not willing or for those who don't have as much of a talent for learning. This legislation has been aimed primarily at these students, from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The unintended consequences of these acts are, in my opinion, the biggest thing that has damaged the educational system. Teachers have been required by law to accommodate the needs of classrooms filled with students whose abilities range so greatly that in a single period they would be hard pressed to address all of their needs. For instance, in a single classroom, I have students with (based on lexile scores) a beginner's reading level all the way up to students with a 6th grade reading level. They obviously don't all have the same needs. Traditionally, teachers would teach to the middle and try to find ways to enrich the curriculum for higher achievers and provide added scaffolding for lower achievers. This approach, however, often resulted in the bottom of the class never really reaching grade level performance. Thus NCLB put pressure on teachers to help students from the bottom to pass state tests and reach grade level. Is this something that should be done? Absolutely! Everyone should be given the chance at a quality education. But the unintended consequence has been the those higher achievers get less attention and begin to stagnate and/or have behavioral problems due to boredom.
What's my solution? While in Japan, I was acquainted with the education system, particularly for secondary education. Things were very competitive, and students spent long hours studying. Why? Because 8th grade is the only thing that's guaranteed. There are many levels of high schools, each with a different emphasis and academic standard, and each has an entrance exam. Every student will end up getting placed in some sort of high school. What I like about this system is that each student is getting an education that is at their level. Additionally, students work extremely hard to get into as good of a high school as possible because it matters what high school you graduate from. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but I believe that something like this is better than what we do now, and it better provides for the individual needs not only of the low achieving students, but of the high achievers as well.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Alaska Senate Race: Miller v. Murkowski
I know that there's a Democrat in this race as well, but the chances of him winning aren't good, even if all of the Republican votes are split up between these two.
I have a friend who is a little left-of-center, and he takes great joy in pointing out all of the problems with Tea Party candidates. The Tea Party candidate for Alaska (Miller) won the primary over the incumbent (Murkowski). Murkowski has decided, however, that she should have won and is conducting a write-in campaign. Miller has very idealistic views, and at times in his past he hasn't lived up to them.
Here is my take on the situation. I went and compared what each of them had to say on their websites. Joe Miller laid out a concise, easy to follow plan of what he would like to do in the Senate. He also laid out his immigration beliefs. Everything he talked about, apart from some of his policy suggestions for illegal immigration, I completely agreed with. Murkowski, on the other hand, only talks about opposing the Obama administration and opposing Joe Miller.
Put another way, here is Miller's position:
1. Balanced Federal Budget
2. Account for all expenditures in the budget (no more dipping into Social Security or keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the books)
3. Line Item Veto
4. Unspent and Repaid TARP funds be used to pay down deficit
5. No more bailouts
6. Repeal Obamacare/no new entitlements
7. End Czar layer of government
8. Hiring freeze for all non-essential government positions
9. Establish a sunset committee to review bills and put sunsets on all programs
10. Earmark reform: earmarks have to be passed with 2/3 majority for each specific earmark
11. Each bill has to say what part of the Constitution it deals with and can only address 1 item (no more omnibus bills)
12. Limit increases to government spending to the rate of inflation
Here's Lisa Murkowski's position:
1. I opposed the stimulus and Obamacare.
2. I think Joe Miller is an extremist backed by a conspiratorial national movement.
Don't take my word for it, though. Visit Miller's and Murkowski's sites and see for yourself.
I have a friend who is a little left-of-center, and he takes great joy in pointing out all of the problems with Tea Party candidates. The Tea Party candidate for Alaska (Miller) won the primary over the incumbent (Murkowski). Murkowski has decided, however, that she should have won and is conducting a write-in campaign. Miller has very idealistic views, and at times in his past he hasn't lived up to them.
Here is my take on the situation. I went and compared what each of them had to say on their websites. Joe Miller laid out a concise, easy to follow plan of what he would like to do in the Senate. He also laid out his immigration beliefs. Everything he talked about, apart from some of his policy suggestions for illegal immigration, I completely agreed with. Murkowski, on the other hand, only talks about opposing the Obama administration and opposing Joe Miller.
Put another way, here is Miller's position:
1. Balanced Federal Budget
2. Account for all expenditures in the budget (no more dipping into Social Security or keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the books)
3. Line Item Veto
4. Unspent and Repaid TARP funds be used to pay down deficit
5. No more bailouts
6. Repeal Obamacare/no new entitlements
7. End Czar layer of government
8. Hiring freeze for all non-essential government positions
9. Establish a sunset committee to review bills and put sunsets on all programs
10. Earmark reform: earmarks have to be passed with 2/3 majority for each specific earmark
11. Each bill has to say what part of the Constitution it deals with and can only address 1 item (no more omnibus bills)
12. Limit increases to government spending to the rate of inflation
Here's Lisa Murkowski's position:
1. I opposed the stimulus and Obamacare.
2. I think Joe Miller is an extremist backed by a conspiratorial national movement.
Don't take my word for it, though. Visit Miller's and Murkowski's sites and see for yourself.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Faith v. Works
I've been thinking about the debate of what brings salvation, faith or works. While personally feeling it is a false dichotomy, I decided to do a little bit of looking into it. I found the following:
1. Amongst "Paulian" Christians, there is, especially in recent years, a split concerning the role of faith and works. The classical belief is that faith alone brings salvation, and good works are a bi-product of that. The "New View" on Paul believes that faith brings good works which brings salvation. Those of you who know anything about the LDS faith know that this is hardly a "new" view on Paul.
2. Christ gave many sermons focusing on faith, saying that we should have faith, even if it's like a mustard seed. However, he also said things like only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
3. James is often quoted to advocate works, saying things like, "Faith without works is dead," and, "Shew my thy faith without works, and I shall show ye my faith by my works." Then there's when he said that the devils also believe.
4. Paul is often quoted to advocate faith, saying things along the lines of us being justified by faith and not works.
5. While reading the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans," I realized that in order to believe there really is a dichotomy, you would have to ignore half of what Paul says. In the first two chapters alone, there are at least 5 strong references to salvation by faith, and at least that many for works, as well. In fact, in the 2nd chapter, verses 5-6 and 13, he even says that during the judgment, we will be judged of our deeds (works). He goes on to later say in verses 25-29 of that chapter that circumcision (works of the Jews) is unnecessary.
So, I think it's safe to say that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation, if you believe in harmony in the gospel ("strait is the gate and narrow the way"). Why did Paul speak so forcefully against works and then say that we would be judged of them, that the doer of the law is justified? He must have meant two things by works, and that can be seen by being firm about circumcision being unnecessary.
The Law of Moses needed to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, being the one who fulfilled the Law and revealed the higher law. After the law was fulfilled, all ordinances necessary for that law were done away with, including circumcision and animal sacrifice. In their places were the sacrament, and other ordinances received by Jesus and his apostles. We need to still be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and do all else that Christ taught, faith being a prerequisite. Believing in a dichotomy puts a schism in the early church and makes Paul and others schizophrenic.
1. Amongst "Paulian" Christians, there is, especially in recent years, a split concerning the role of faith and works. The classical belief is that faith alone brings salvation, and good works are a bi-product of that. The "New View" on Paul believes that faith brings good works which brings salvation. Those of you who know anything about the LDS faith know that this is hardly a "new" view on Paul.
2. Christ gave many sermons focusing on faith, saying that we should have faith, even if it's like a mustard seed. However, he also said things like only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
3. James is often quoted to advocate works, saying things like, "Faith without works is dead," and, "Shew my thy faith without works, and I shall show ye my faith by my works." Then there's when he said that the devils also believe.
4. Paul is often quoted to advocate faith, saying things along the lines of us being justified by faith and not works.
5. While reading the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans," I realized that in order to believe there really is a dichotomy, you would have to ignore half of what Paul says. In the first two chapters alone, there are at least 5 strong references to salvation by faith, and at least that many for works, as well. In fact, in the 2nd chapter, verses 5-6 and 13, he even says that during the judgment, we will be judged of our deeds (works). He goes on to later say in verses 25-29 of that chapter that circumcision (works of the Jews) is unnecessary.
So, I think it's safe to say that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation, if you believe in harmony in the gospel ("strait is the gate and narrow the way"). Why did Paul speak so forcefully against works and then say that we would be judged of them, that the doer of the law is justified? He must have meant two things by works, and that can be seen by being firm about circumcision being unnecessary.
The Law of Moses needed to be fulfilled through Jesus Christ, being the one who fulfilled the Law and revealed the higher law. After the law was fulfilled, all ordinances necessary for that law were done away with, including circumcision and animal sacrifice. In their places were the sacrament, and other ordinances received by Jesus and his apostles. We need to still be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and do all else that Christ taught, faith being a prerequisite. Believing in a dichotomy puts a schism in the early church and makes Paul and others schizophrenic.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Positive Effects of Climate Change?
As I have studied and listened to hysterics and skepticism over the climate change debate, I've realized that the debate boils down mostly to, "Uh, huh!," "Nu, uhh!" On one side, they are crying that the sky is falling and it's man's fault. On the other side, their saying either it's not falling or that it's not man's fault. My one critique of the debate is this: if the sky is falling, is it really going to be all that bad?
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
As human beings, we all to some degree or other fall prey to the "normalcy bias." This means that we think that things are the best the way they are now and any change will make things worse. What if, however, things get better?
It is the same, I think, with climate change. What positives might come through a warming change to the climate? I've made a short list of some of my own thoughts, but it is by no means exhaustive of all possibilities:
1. Milder winters=fewer cold-related deaths (which there are far more of in proportion to heat-related deaths, even in lower latitudes)
2. Vast amounts of newly arable land in Canada, Alaska, and elsewhere.
3. Greater diversity of life (even though scientists say many things are dieing out with warming climate, eras in geological history with the greatest amount of biodiversity have been much warmer than it is today)
4. Lowered cost of wardrobe budgets (fewer people will have to buy coats and long pants...but then again, I'm sure the money would be spent on ridiculously expensive bathing suits, etc. :)
5. Polar bears are pretty cute, but I don't think anyone ever thought that as they were being chased by one. Who will really miss them, anyway? (LOL)
6. Warmer seas=more water vapor=more clouds=more rain=fewer deserts and fewer droughts.
7. We're past due for an ice age, so if mankind can warm the climate through pouring trace gases into the atmosphere, lets do it. Life in all its forms, not just humans, would be much more devastated by cold than heat.
What other thoughts do you guys have? If anyone who is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change and that we're all going to die in a fiery flood reads this, please try to consider any possible positives. The bottom line is that IF there truly is global warming, we're going to have to live through it one way or the other, and I'd rather be Polly Anna than Scrooge.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Tea Parties: The Anti-Populist Movement
Populism, in layman's terms, has been defined as the belief that the government should have control over both financial and social aspects of people's lives. The populist movement in the US was this, although they only articulated those aspects that were financial.
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
On Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
All through school, whenever they would have us say the Pledge of Allegiance, I never had a problem. I always took it as something I could do to express my gratitude and pride in living in a truly exceptional country. I still believe that this country is exceptional and I am extremely grateful to live here. What other country gives so much of itself, both in fortune and blood, for the interests and welfare of so many living outside its borders? Additionally, most of our ancestors came to this land seeking the "American Dream." Most of us, the beneficiaries of these and other great sacrifices, enjoy a better lifestyle and more opportunities for personal progress than we would had our ancestors never come.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
However, I have recently begun to rethink my feelings towards the Pledge of Allegiance. To me, the foundations of this country are great, as represented through the founding documents of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe in these and would be willing to fight for the ideals represented therein. The flag, on the other hand, to me is not a representation of the foundations of our country but of the government. I am not willing to give my unquestioning stamp of approval on whatever the government does, and to me that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Our government is not infallible, but values and principles can be.
Also, the Pledge is a very serious and weighty thing to say. For us to teach 5-year-olds to say it every morning, pledging their energies and interests to the upholding of this republic, with their hands over their hearts, is a little doctrinaire and oppressive. They don't have the faculties to make such a promise, assuming they understood the words they were saying. Because it is extremely unlikely that they understand in even a small degree what they are saying, it is inappropriate that they be forced to rehearse it every morning during school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)