Education Technology

I noted to someone the other day, "Look around almost any school, from elementary to high school to even colleges.  You'll find umpteen computer labs/rooms.  In practically every instance, the room/lab will be filled to far less than capacity."  In fact, I suggested, "It would be rare to find such rooms 20-25% full at any one time."

Yet, consider how much money is spent on "educational technologies," the overwhelming amount I'd guess on computers.  But there are other "tools," too.  Some schools place a television set in each room, more than likely mostly used to get the daily announcements, see what's for lunch, etc.  Is there a college corridor anywhere in the country which doesn't have its own television, often for running ads for the college, its bookstore, etc.  Of course, I'm exaggerating--or am I?

Nobody argues that technology can't be an effective tool in education.  But that's all it is, a tool.  Far too often it's become some more than that, worse than that. Technology has become a distraction.  Instead of focusing on what matters most, say, effective teaching and learning, technology has become the focus.  Can anyone really show that it is more effective than traditional methods?  Oh, it might be more fun and perhaps even more interesting.  But, is that the point?  Do students really study more, learn more by using a computer than a textbook?  I'd suggest that studies would probably say no.  Will they use a computer (or some other new-fangled tech tool) more than a book?  I'd guess so, until it became old hat, humdrum, no longer a novelty.  Then, regardless of the technology, it's "just school."

No doubt in some areas, with really motivated students (emphasis on really motivated, the number of whom is far, far lower than your local school or teacher claims) technology can make great tools.  Students can be taken to areas they've never been before--and more quickly, too.

Consider the often-cited benefit of "students learning at their own pace," etc.  Of course students learn at different paces and better or worse with different methods.  Traditional classrooms and methods don't always address that.  But I think that is often used as an excuse for poor performance, lack of personal drive and motivation.  Is that what education is all about, students can learn what they want and when they want, as short as their attention spans will allow?  Should education be based on what students seem to have an interest in at any one particular moment?

It would be hard to convince me that most, not all, but certainly most computers in schools today are used as encyclopedias and typewriters/word processors.  Granted, they might be faster, but is "faster" always better and, too, worth the huge expense?

"Distance learning" and on-line courses are, I think, more ways of getting students' money than actually educating them.  Years ago, I spoke with a professor who taught on-line courses, asking him if they are as effective as traditional classes.  He immediately blurted out, "Oh heavens no!"  Talking with students, those I consider good ones, who have taken on-line courses seem to echo that.  And think of the lures for students to take them.  Those colleges which offer four-year degrees in one year ultimately must rely on distance learning and on-line courses.  How would you like a doctor who finished his four-year degree in one year?  One selling point I've heard directed at students runs like this, "How would you like to earn your degree while never changing out of your pajamas?"  Now, that's a great rationale!

Remember when television was going to revolutionize education?  The so-called success of Sesame Street and other such shows proved it. But television is a much more complicated medium than that.  First, to produce such shows, far larger budgets than most schools, school districts, etc. have are required.  And, all educational television, like television in general, has accomplished is to shorten students'/people's attention spans.  That's not really conducive to quality education, is it?

I think educational technology is often based on flawed reasoning, that students and the real world are as rational and logical as technology is.  That's not the case, not at all.  Anyone who has taught and paid attention to teaching knows that students and their behavior are not always logical and rational.

I know my views are considered Neanderthal, if not worse.  I believe that there is a place, maybe even an important place, for technology in education.  But before it can be used to greater advantage, other real problems in education need to be addressed--the lack of effective and knowledgeable teachers, inept administrators, curricula that often seem based more on teachers' personal interests, weak leadership, deleterious meddling by politicians (who, since they went to school themselves, obviously know all about learning and teaching), and corporate-types who want already-trained employees.  Only then might we find some real advantages that technology can bring to education.

99% v 1%

I think we are looking at this so-called "income inequality" all wrong.  We are asking the wrong questions and focusing on the wrong thing.

Instead of pointing out that "the rich are getting richer...," obviously benefiting from tax loopholes, an unfair or not level playing field, etc., perhaps we should look at the big picture differently.  How about if we ask if most of the 99% are better off than their counterparts of, say, a generation ago?  I think all but the most die hard politicians seeking to exploit the wealth disparities for their own agendas would have to agree they most certainly are.  (Now, with all the rotten things being done now, I'm not sure we can say that about the next generation, but that's a question for after the war.)

Quite seriously, at my age, did my parents have what I have now, have what my siblings have?  Were my wife's parents able to buy the things she can or live the way she does?   I ask that of a lot of people and, before they realize what I am up to, admit they are far better off than their parents.

In fact, most people are far better off today than they were twenty or thirty years ago.  OK, my evidence is merely anecdotal, not empirical, but I think it's safe to say that.  When I was a kid, we had spaghetti several times a week because it was cheap to make.  (I didn't mind; I love it.)  For the same reason, we had canned salmon patties, with lots of bread crumbs, macaroni and cheese, lots of soups, etc.  We never had steaks, never.  Desserts?  Rarely.  Oh, there was a lot of peanut butter and jelly, which I still have for dinner once in a while when I eat by myself.  Maybe a Sunday or two a month we had a roast.  We couldn't afford it.  And we were not deprived; at least we didn't think so  We never considered less of ourselves.  Week-long winter or spring trips to Florida or other points south?  That never happened.  Owning a place Up North?  C'mon.  If we took a vacation up there once in four or five years, it was great.  And we never lacked for anything, at least nothing we needed or thought we wanted.  We made fun of the richer people in the West End, calling them "cake-eaters," never envied them.

Visit a school in a so-called "economically depressed" area.  Note the clothes the kids are wearing.  I wonder if any of them have smart phones or even just cell phones.  Check the student parking lot.  Student parking lot--what's that?  They have cars.  There are been studies that show incredible percentages of US households have cable television, air conditioning, more than one car, and other necessities of life that, well, weren't necessities a few decades ago.

In other words, instead of comparing ourselves to the billionaires, maybe we should take stock of what we have compared to what others, like us, had in years past.

I think my use of the word "envy" is appropriate.  People envy what others have, not that they need what others have, just that they want them.  After all, if other people have this or that, then we deserve this or that. Envy....  Now isn't that a hoot.  Many who exploit this "income inequality" cite the "greed" of the wealthy.  Well, what exactly is "envy?"  Isn't it a self-absorbed greed?  Of course it is.  We can't be happy with all that we have--we demand what others have, whether we need it or deserve it or have earned it or......

I had a discussion with a guy a few days ago who thought he should have to have a job he doesn't like in order to provide the necessities of live, specifically in this case health insurance, for his family.  OK, I sort of opened the door to this, but never suggested this.  But my look at this comment (and I'm paraphrasing, not remembering his exact words or what I even had for lunch two hours ago!), led to a question from him, asked a bit sheepishly.  Again I don't remember the exact words, but they were something like, "You think I'm greedy to expect this, don't you?"  I don't think I had to say it, but I did anyway, "Yes, I do."  If you don't want to take care of your family, don't have one.  If you aren't willing to sacrifice for your family, your own kids, don't have any.  Don't have them and then expect or even demand that others fulfill what are your responsibilities.  I'm sure I didn't score any points, though.  Politicians and the media have done a terrific job to convince people that they are owed something just because......

Limited Government?

Are we doomed?

I've started to believe that limited government is not possible (or at least likely) without virtuous people/citizens.  That is, government is there to protect people from lack of virtue, from others who are bad or act badly.  That's as far as government should go before it, too, runs the very real possibility of becoming tyrannical.

Yes, government is needed, as Thomas Hobbes noted, because without it, life in a state of nature is "nasty, brutish, and short."  Or as Madison noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."  So, of course, there is a need for rules, for regulations--that is, government--so people can live together.

The key here is limited government.  More and more government strangles liberty.  Ultimately more and more government leads to dictatorship and totalitarian dictatorship.  (There is a difference--note Mussolini's Fascist Italy and Hitler's Nazi Germany.)  Our government, without question, is trending in that direction, although I know a lot of people would react with an "Oh, c'mon......"

But, consider my original premise, that limited government is not possible without virtuous people/citizens. Are we to the point where too many people are not virtuous, that more and more government (not less and less) is required because of this lack of virtue?  The Detroit Police Chief noted the "culture of crime" in Detroit (his term, not mine), the violence that is found in other cities, but not nearly at the continual frequency.  He noted that in other big cities (and he knows more about this than I do), there is an unwritten criminal code that kids and the elderly are off limits.  Yet, in Detroit there are no such restrictions on the young and old; they are fair game for scams, violence, and even murders.  Another speaker noted the number of abortions and divorces, hardly virtuous actions.  Of course, the list could go on and on......

But I wonder if many people, esp the younger generations, don't know virtue/virtuous behavior.  Have they really been taught what is right and wrong, the difference between them?  I don't think that's an idle question.  Who teaches them?  Who shows them?  Who models right behavior?

Look at our so-called "role models" or leaders, in business, in government, in sports, in entertainment, (Hey, sports figures and the Hollywood-types have become role models, no doubt.), and other areas.  How virtuous are they, at least many of them?  What sorts of behavior do they exhibit, model?  Politicians, celebrities, professional and major college athletes, business leaders--they are self-centered, corrupt, arrogant, etc.

How are the younger generations to learn virtue?  What do they see?  The most visible American, the most recent Presidents of the US, live by deception and deceit, even bold-faced lying.  Remember, one looked right at the American people and lied to us and was later disbarred as a lawyer for lying under oath.  Another is constantly lying, with the help of compliant party members and the enabling LameStream media.  Pick up a newspaper, any day, and try to go through it without some Hollywood-type or professional sports figure who has engaged in some despicable behavior.  The past 15 years are replete with examples of corporate-types who have cheated, lied, scammed, etc., with many other innocent people paying the price.

So, what behavior do we show the younger generations?  (I'm talking those who have grown up since the '60s and '70s.  Yes, rotten behavior was also found before then, but the advent of television and investigative journalism have changed the ground rules.)  Who is glorified (or at least gets the most headlines) but the basest members of society?

I know someone called me "An old fogey" a few weeks ago when I deplored all the television shows that have free sex, almost prime-time pornography, even of young people, incredible violence, especially fatal violence, and suggested these must contribute to teen-age pregnancies, to fatherless families, to the blatant disregard of life as evidenced by all the shootings, etc.  Maybe so, but is there another explanation for what is going on?

Just a Couple of Thoughts

I paid zero attention to this, before last night.  My class had five absent students last night, for whatever reasons.  It took only a couple of minutes after starting that I noticed all of the students but one were males; yep, there was only one female.  All five absentees were females.  I never really paid any heed to the division.  It never dawned on me.

Yesteday AM, I ran with the temperatures at 2 below zero (Mississippi weather?).  This AM's temp was at 31 degrees.  What is going on?  Tue it was 51 degrees headed out to eat at Sparkie's; overnight into Wed we had 7 or 8 inches of snow......

I heard on the radio this AM some politician [I guess since I didn't catch a name or title] talking about all the good things Congress is going to do to remedy "income inequality."  He mentioned the minimum wage and the current overtime things Congress is considering and maybe more, including "affordable health care."  At the end of the interview he was asked, almost tongue in cheek I thought, if that meant by 2015 (when the guy said all this would like take effect), "a Big Mac will cost $17?"  Not missing a beat, the interviewee retorted, "That may well be, but it's a zero-sum game and the money must come from somewhere."  I think the guy missed a little something there, if not in Economics 101, at least in common sense.  Who is going to pay $17 for a Big Mac??????  And, if nobody is buying Big Macs, what will that do to those workers who are the potential recipients of minimum wages, more overtime pay, and affordable health care?  I'd guess it would put them out of jobs, where minimum wages, more OT, etc. won't affect them any long.  Ah, the best of intentions......

Was this really in the newspaper, as I was told?  Some woman down South somewhere went into a clothing store and bought some fancy lingerie using an EBT (?)/welfare card?  Aren't those cards for food?  (The store operator had no problem taking the card, saying, "I don't discriminate," whatever that means other than, "I want the money."  I presume that's standard operating procedure.)  Of course, we all have anecdotal evidence, that's all it is, anecdotal (but no less truthful?), of shoppers using these cards--government-issued from taxpayer monies--while holding the latest and greatest, say, cell phones or I-pads or whatever they are called.  Wait a minute!  Isn't there something incongruous about that?  Have we created a culture where people now expect free stuff without working for it?  Have we created a culture that no longer views hard work as having a reward?  Have people come to believe that they are owed something just because they exist?  Do they believe that they don't have to take jobs they don't like or work more hours or whatever to provide for their families?  After, they must think, the government will give them food (or cards for food, with which they can apparently buy anything?), health care, etc., so I don't have to work or don't have to work at a job I don't like or....

I think back to how my mother-in-law just shook her head when Karen and I first were married and we subsisted most days with Chunky Soup on rice (the bulk stuff, not Minute Rice) for dinners. We were saving to buy a house.  Gee, I didn't know (or maybe it wasn't the culture then?) that I could still have ribs or steaks or even burgs for dinner every night because the government would pay.  Silly me.  Then, when we bought our first house, for the first five or six months, we had no stove/oven--we couldn't afford one.  So, we cooked outside on a cheap Hibachi, boiled spaghetti and noodles in an old electric coffee pot (which worked well for corn on the cob, too), and had lots of cold sandwiches.  Oh, the local pizza place had yucky spaghetti, all you can eat, on Wed--oh, it was yukky, but was only 99 cents.  I already have mentioned my "five jobs" at one time--to pay bills and save/pay for college for the kids.

I still can't get over Obama and his family taking these vacations, some just weekend jaunts, and they cost more than I will make in my lifetime.  I know, I know, his supporters will say "But, he deserves those vacations."  Yeah sure, but other rich people don't deserve what they have.

Random Thoughts on Yet Another Snowy AM

If people are so concerned about the money in politics, it seems there's an easy way to fix that.  Voters could find which candidate(s) spend(s) the most money and then vote for the other guy(s). That is if people are so concerned about the money in politics.  Sometimes, I think, our idealism and our pragmatism conflict.

An op-ed piece in the newspaper this week (I don't remember the day) claimed most members of Congress are hard-working (I have no reason to believe otherwise), work to please the majority of their constituents, have integrity, and are not primarily motivated by personal interest or ambitions, but rather of what is best for the nation as a whole.  (How he can write this in the face of, say, ObamaCare is beyond me.)  The writer didn't say anything about party ideologies.  Later, though, in the same piece some contradictions seems to appear.  Despite all of the above accolades (?), most members of Congress don't see issues from the perspectives of "ordinary people" because they are too busy sidling up to special interests and money.  After all, getting re-elected is the endgame, isn't it?  (Yes, I understand that to get anything done, they must win first.  But, does that mean "win" at all costs?)  He goes on to add that many members of Congress don't know much about the issues ("misinformed"), that they rely on staffers to know things.  Then, to boot, the article criticizes, not the members, but the "process" of Congress.  Wait a minute!  Who determines the "process" of Congress?  Isn't that the members?  Who determines the leadership?  Isn't that the members?  He then goes on to suggest that members abuse or, at the least, take advantage of the "process."  Hmmm...how does that mesh with "integrity?"

And isn't this IRS scandal frightening?  Here is the federal agency with the most potential for abuse being put to work against political opponents by the administration in power.  And, to nobody's surprise, the woman (I have forgotten her name right now) called to testify before Congress has invoked the Fifth (the Amendment, not the bottle!).  That, of course, is her Constitutional right and should not be considered, at least legally, an admission of guilt.  But, extra-legally, don't Americans also have a right to surmise about such invocations?  That is, can't we ask why she might take the Fifth?  Is she protecting herself or others higher up?  If so, is that out of fear of retribution or even a sense of ideological superiority, that abuse of government power is OK as long as it's directed against "the bad guys?"  And the guy appointed to investigate is a minion in the IRS and a big-time Obama contributor.  Hmmm......  What was it Patrick Henry once said about a completely different matter?  "I smelt a rat."  Yet, there are still members of Congress calling for the IRS to crack down even harder on these political opponents.  No, I'm not going to start on that history stuff again, but I could.

No time now, but later in the week I want to add some fuel to the debate on educational reform, namely the idiotic reliance on student test scores to determine quality.

More Government Folly

Apparently public schools across the nation received a letter from Obama's Justice and Education departments warning them against "racial discipline," which according to these dimwits, "is a real problem."

C'mon, do these people really have college degrees?  Have some of them, the Attorney-General for instance, really graduated from law school?

The 32-page report warned schools, perhaps in not so many words, that students must be disciplined to match the racial make-up of the schools.  I guess, if 54% of a school are black students, then 54% of the discipline must be for black students, not 55% or 56% or......

Another ridiculous--both in nature and in the waste of money--study by the federal government cited that "students of certain racial or ethnic groups tend to be disciplined more than their peers."  Who are these fools who come up with this stuff??????

Does this also mean that, if a school's student population is 54% female, then 54% of the disciplinary actions must be taken against girls?  After all, if not, then doesn't that demonstrate that "certain [gender] groups," that is, boys, are being discriminated against?

Do any of these federal bureaucrats--right up to the very top--ever think?

BTW, did you read of the elementary school kid who was suspended because he ate his Pop-Tart into the form of a gun?  I guess he then pointed at some other student......

If I didn't have 43 years of experience with the public schools, I'd think this was all fantasy, just made up stuff, maybe from the Tea Parties!  But I know better; it really happens like this.

Education and the Young

More and more I am coming to the conclusion that much of education, higher/college education, is wasted on the young.  No, I'm not criticizing today's students.  I'm picking on me!

I've thought about this for a while, but it seemed to come to something more lucid when I was talking to a good friend and college mate last September.  We were talking about our college days--no, not our adventures and accomplishments on the athletic fields--our academic endeavors.  We were comparing, favorably, our experiences in the classroom--the reading loads, the mounds of writing, the rigor required, etc. Then he said something that nailed it.  "After about five years, it clicked.  I started to understand our education [at Amherst]."  Yes, that was it!  It was the same for me.  I did the work, well at least much of it, enough to pass with reasonable grades.  But I never quite understood where all that was taking me.

Like my good friend, it did finally begin to dawn on me.  I thought, originally, that it was teaching that finally led me to appreciate what I had been taught and how I had been taught.  But it was more maturity, I think, than anything.

I certainly agree with another classmate who asserted, "I could have (and should have) been a better student at Amherst."  He then added, "But I've never doubted that Amherst made me a far better student/thinker that I was before...."  Yes, that's it.

One other thing I've never doubted is the love of learning, the curiosity to know everything--or at least as much as I can--that was instilled in me at Amherst, by my professors, the work they assigned, and the atmosphere of the college.

Food and Schools

There were two items in the newspaper the last week that clearly show why the federal government is too big, that it has its nose in areas it doesn't belong.  OK, I will admit that the goals may be noble, that the intentions are good, but......

Both articles dealt with the foods that schools serve to students.  I forget what federal agency/department (likely the Dept of Edu?) is involved.  First, schools are now required to sell only healthy foods--at least according to several local school district administrators who were interviewed for the article.  More typical kid foods--OK, junk food--are not permitted.  More fruits and vegies are required.  Now, who can be against that?  Some bureaucrat has great intentions, but has no idea about kids--none!  The Metro area administrators claimed that, due to the federal regulations on what types of foods must be served, the cost for the school districts has gone up an average of 13 cents a lunch.  (I must assume these guys aren't lying?)  So, out of budgets that are already very lean--even in deficit?--here's yet another expenditure.  The real kicker is that the kids don't eat the healthy food.  Gee, now there's a surprise!  And I was thinking about opening a new fast food franchise--McBroccoli.  I guess it won't work, huh?  I also got a personal anecdote from an employee at one of these districts (?) who claimed he and other workers count about 50 or more oranges on the floor of the school cafeteria each lunch--and there are three lunches per day and one breakfast.  Do the math.  Oh, I wonder how many oranges made it to the trash cans.  If oranges are pitched, think of what the odds are that the carrot sticks make it to the kids' stomachs, esp with no ranch dressing allowed??????  Good intentions from some guy 700 miles away who doesn't have a clue.

Then I read that federal regulations from the Obama administration have banned "junk food" ads at school athletic facilities.  That is, Pepsi or Coke can't buy a banner for several thousand bucks to say "Go, Tractors" if it promotes the sugary drinks.  Ah, there's more money the schools won't be getting.  Of course, they may well make up the lost revenue if they can sell ads to, say, V-8 or some tomato juice company.

Maybe the bureaucrats (or even whatever czar is in charge) should be made to make up the difference in lost revenues.  Now, there's an idea which might cause some of these people, well-intentioned though they may be, to actually think before handing down their diktats.

Nanny State.  Nanny State.  Nanny State.  Let me eat what we want to eat, drink what we want to drink.  You try to do a far better job at the other things you're fouling up.