I am almost, not quite, but almost an absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression/speech. To be sure, protections should guard us from government restrictions and mostly should include political speech. There are, in our personal lives, much more opportunities for limitations, including slander and libel, pornography, etc. But that we can say or write something doesn't mean we should say or write it.
The shootings of the Republican party ballplayers can serve as a backdrop. It appears they were targeted solely because they are Republicans. The blame for the shooting remains with the shooter, nobody else. I know some folks are going to jump all over the liberals/Democrats, esp the Trump haters, saying the vitriol of their writing and speech encouraged and led to the shootings. Not me.
More than once, other shootings have been blamed by the Left on the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, and others. Their rhetoric spawned the hatred that inspired (?) the shootings. Nope......
Just because one side is wrong and uses these episodes for political capital doesn't make it right. The temptation is to give it right back to them, but that temptation is wrong. Again, the one responsible for the wounded Republicans lies with the shooter.
That said, the rights of free expression and free speech come with responsibilities. Where are the condemnations of what we see going on right now? OK, there was some blowback against that comedienne (I don't know her name, having never heard of her.) who held up an effigy of Don Trump's head--the result of beheading. But unless I'm mistaken, Palin and the Tea Partiers were targeted much more for violence that occurred by other deranged individuals.
And what's with that Shakespeare in the Park in Central Park, NYC? I heard the reproduction of Julius Caesar has a Trump look-alike being stabbed by the Roman Senators. It bothers me that someone actually considers that art, but freedoms...... What is most disturbing is that the audience actually cheered, at least according to reports. Even if that isn't so, that they didn't cheer (I don't know for certain.), why didn't the crowd hoot and boo or, better yet, walk out? Where is our sense of decency??????
So, the vitriol spewed by one side leads to shootings, but the vitriol by the other side gets a free pass? Do I have that right? Rights come with responsibilities. If those exercising their rights don't act responsibly, maybe other citizens should act for them--boycotting, walking out, booing, etc. Is Shakespeare in the Park funded by corporate donations? Again, I don't know. But if it is, where are the withdrawals of donations by those corporations? Oh, they pulled out fast enough in North Carolina and other places when laws were passed that made it legal for, say, adult men to use the same bathrooms as little girls. I guess it's OK to act irresponsibly and to overlook or even condone others' irresponsible actions in some instances, but not others, if those instances are politically correct ones. (Boy, I don't like using that term.)
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Monday, June 5, 2017
The World Turned Upside Down
I've referred to this before. Purportedly the British army, in surrendering to the Americans (and French) under General Washington at Yorktown, played the popular tune, "The World Turned Upside Down." How could the great British army under General Lord Cornwallis lose to the rag-tag army of Washington?
Sometimes that's what I feel like today. According to newspaper reports around here, the ACLU is defending the Detroit-area doctor who performed female genital mutilation on young girls. The ACLU is also opposing efforts in Maine to criminalize FGM. Huh? The rights group bases its opinion on the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause. Yet, the ACLU defends the right to have abortions? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. It's OK to mutilate young girls, but not OK to protect unborn children from death?
Toss in this one, too. Religious freedom grants the right to perform mutilations, but not the right to refuse to allow gay marriages on one's own private property? I, for one, would willingly host any gay or lesbian marriages--if I ran such an establishment and the payment was forthcoming. But many Christians see this as an abrogation of their religion. Why can't these Christians have their freedom of religion like Muslim doctors and parents mutilating their kids?
And unless I'm way out in left field (which might well be likely), what is the big deal about pulling out of the Paris Accords? Americans have, voluntarily I might add, decreased their "carbon footprints," pollution, etc. more than just about any other country. Despite signing the Accords, both India and China, with the two largest populations in the world, haven't taken any real steps in such reductions. What is it, their promise kicks in in 2030? And who believes anything the commies in China say? It seems much ado about nothing. BTW, I'd bet all those protesters of the pull-out either haven't lost their jobs or aren't in danger of losing them due to the Accords. Just a guess......
While the mobs protest Paris, the beat goes on in the cities of the US. Over the weekend, there were more murders in Detroit. Oh, there might be a vigil or two, but where are the protests over killing so many people?
If you've been following some of the stuff coming out of the Ivy League colleges lately, I don't need to explain. I just hope the students and even the professors (!) have been quoted out of context on some of the things they've said. If not, well, the Ivies have lowered their standards a great deal since I was there.
I'm just curious as to how Major League umpires can be so inconsistent on calling balls and strikes? I have seen pitches nowhere close to the plate called strikes and others that take big chunks of the plate called balls. Yesterday, Miguel Cabrera was called out on a pitch about halfway between his feet and knees, yes, his knees, the low point for a strike. Even when the catcher pulled up the pitch about half a foot, the ball was low. I turned off the game...... How can an umpire call out the best hitter in the game on such a terrible pitch? If they can, I don't have to watch.
My US History class this spring is really fun to teach! The class is loaded, with 30-some students. I haven't counted recently, since drops and adds. There's a strong nucleus which asks some very good questions--thoughtful and relevant. Some of the students are even translating what we learned from some events to other events that happened later. The mid-term is tomorrow and I'm betting many of the exams will be good. I doubt any of these students will come to class to take an exam without bringing paper and pen/pencil--as happened several times during the winter term.
Sometimes that's what I feel like today. According to newspaper reports around here, the ACLU is defending the Detroit-area doctor who performed female genital mutilation on young girls. The ACLU is also opposing efforts in Maine to criminalize FGM. Huh? The rights group bases its opinion on the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause. Yet, the ACLU defends the right to have abortions? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. It's OK to mutilate young girls, but not OK to protect unborn children from death?
Toss in this one, too. Religious freedom grants the right to perform mutilations, but not the right to refuse to allow gay marriages on one's own private property? I, for one, would willingly host any gay or lesbian marriages--if I ran such an establishment and the payment was forthcoming. But many Christians see this as an abrogation of their religion. Why can't these Christians have their freedom of religion like Muslim doctors and parents mutilating their kids?
And unless I'm way out in left field (which might well be likely), what is the big deal about pulling out of the Paris Accords? Americans have, voluntarily I might add, decreased their "carbon footprints," pollution, etc. more than just about any other country. Despite signing the Accords, both India and China, with the two largest populations in the world, haven't taken any real steps in such reductions. What is it, their promise kicks in in 2030? And who believes anything the commies in China say? It seems much ado about nothing. BTW, I'd bet all those protesters of the pull-out either haven't lost their jobs or aren't in danger of losing them due to the Accords. Just a guess......
While the mobs protest Paris, the beat goes on in the cities of the US. Over the weekend, there were more murders in Detroit. Oh, there might be a vigil or two, but where are the protests over killing so many people?
If you've been following some of the stuff coming out of the Ivy League colleges lately, I don't need to explain. I just hope the students and even the professors (!) have been quoted out of context on some of the things they've said. If not, well, the Ivies have lowered their standards a great deal since I was there.
I'm just curious as to how Major League umpires can be so inconsistent on calling balls and strikes? I have seen pitches nowhere close to the plate called strikes and others that take big chunks of the plate called balls. Yesterday, Miguel Cabrera was called out on a pitch about halfway between his feet and knees, yes, his knees, the low point for a strike. Even when the catcher pulled up the pitch about half a foot, the ball was low. I turned off the game...... How can an umpire call out the best hitter in the game on such a terrible pitch? If they can, I don't have to watch.
My US History class this spring is really fun to teach! The class is loaded, with 30-some students. I haven't counted recently, since drops and adds. There's a strong nucleus which asks some very good questions--thoughtful and relevant. Some of the students are even translating what we learned from some events to other events that happened later. The mid-term is tomorrow and I'm betting many of the exams will be good. I doubt any of these students will come to class to take an exam without bringing paper and pen/pencil--as happened several times during the winter term.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Education
It sure seems education is in the news more than usual around here. From the Betsy DeVos appointment to teacher pensions, there have been many articles, editorials, op-eds, letters about education, from teachers to school choice to testing.
I was a public school teacher for 33+ years. I have been teaching college history for more than 20 years, at public colleges. I believe in public education. But, and this might surprise folks, I don't oppose charter schools, school choice, vouchers, and the like. I say, "Bring them on!" I don't mind competition. And, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to say otherwise. I went to a private college and I can't imagine receiving a better education elsewhere. One of my two kids was a school of choice student and we sent all three of our grandchildren to schools outside of their attendance area. I do insist upon fairness in comparisons, though. That said...... How to reform education?
First, is education in need of reform? I suppose except for the most diehard, that's a question that has already been answered. Of course it does; there is a lot wrong with schools, public and private. I will, however, focus on the public schools, at least for today. Much of what I will write I've already written and said. Some will scoff at it and some will say I'm all wet. I will admit that much of what I propose will be very difficult to attain, for many reasons. And I also assume nobody will pay any attention.
A problem is that we say one thing and do another. We claim to value education, but we don't show it. For instance, how many colleges and universities award honorary degrees to teachers? Not many that I know. And if by chance some college or university professor is granted such an honorary degree, it's far more likely that the explanation will note what book she has published or what scientific advance he has made. There will be little, if any, mention of the teaching. And yes, my college, which purports to value teaching above all from its faculty, doesn't honor teachers in this way either.
There are too many administrators and too many of them are paid far more than they deserve. I know, I know. "But we need our principals and......" No, we don't. They are not as vital as many folks think. Remember, too, today's administrators are not like the ones of 50 and 60 years ago. Many don't lead, but follow. Many don't garner (or deserve) respect from those who are closely acquainted with what they do or don't do. Many won't believe me. Take a walk down to your local elementary building for several random days. Ask to see, not necessarily talk, to the principal. My guess is that a good portion of the time he or she won't be in the building. At least that's the case around here. So, if the schools run fairly well without principals a good percentage of the time, why do we need them? Or, if that seems a bit harsh, why not combine principals and buildings, say one principal for two buildings? After all, if they aren't there half of the time...... One time, at a staff meeting, our principal told us one of the assistant principals "would be back next week." Overwhelmingly the reaction was, "He was gone?" Few knew he'd been away for two weeks on some exchange program. He wasn't at all missed. Now some might think that is good, that the building ran smoothly without him due to the organization, discipline, etc. the assistant principal had instilled. Some would think wrong!
And there's no reason for administrators to be paid sometimes almost twice as much, if not more, than teachers. I see no reason at all. Around here the excuse has always been, "To attract top administrators we need to pay them top dollar." First of all, that didn't work and I'd submit it's not worked in many places. If it has, it's been pure luck. Second, why doesn't that also apply to attracting "top" teachers? Those in the private sector should think about that one, too.
Get politicians out of education! Oh, they all went to school, so they know all about learning and teaching, don't they? They want testing, testing, and more testing. Well, that's wrong. They, particularly the Republicans, also want to get rid of the teachers' unions. If they think teachers' unions are the primary source of problems in education, they are daft.
Find better teachers. I know that's far easier said than done. I understand. It's often hard to ascertain who is good and who isn't. Not everyone can be a "Miguel Cabrera" of teaching. But schools need and can use the "Andrew Romines," too. There's nothing wrong with that. Identifying good is not as easy as it seems. Test results are a lousy way to determine quality of teaching, esp results from standardized tests created by people three time zones away. There's far more to learning than test results.
To attract better teachers we have to agree to pay them more. We can't take away the few benefits they have. I know people were very upset when teachers had good pensions and health insurances. I wonder how many of those same upset folks would have traded their salaries and benefits for teachers benefits--and salaries. Nah, I don't wonder; I know their answers. I had to laugh at the Lt. Governor of Michigan jumping on the bandwagon for a part-time state legislature. He advocates a 90-day session (18 weeks) and, get this, "pay them what teachers earn." Wait a minute! They'll still work less than half of the time teachers work, but get the same pay? I don't know if that says more about how dismally we pay our teachers or how politicians still want to take care of politicians. As one of my teaching friends has said, esp regarding more and more attempts to take teachers' pensions, "I'm tired of having to beg for my money." I saw a recent article that claimed no teacher who teaches in San Francisco can afford to by a home on the market in that city. Wow! Imagine have a bachelors degree and finding a teaching job that pays about $33,000 a year--that's the starting average around here. I think it's a bit lower state-wide.
A big problem here--and I don't know how to solve it--is that some teachers aren't worth even the measly $33,000.
Get rid of schools of education and student teaching. They are scams that were perpetrated on the public years ago. OK, we need to keep some of the courses offered by the education departments in the colleges and universities, but not many. Perhaps one covering the increasing and detrimental paperwork that is required can be helpful; we can toss in record-keeping, grading, maybe lesson planning, etc. in that course. A specialized course in, say, teaching reading might also be kept. I wonder how many of my Amherst professors took courses from the education departments at their schools. No, I think I have a pretty good idea that the answer is close to "none." Rather than requiring the often useless education courses, let there be competition. Individual seminars could be offered to keep teachers abreast of new and innovative (Are those redundant?) methods, etc. The seminars could come from the private sector or from the colleges and universities to reach out. Teachers and schools/school districts could then determine what is most valuable and important to them.
Instead of student teaching, require a full year of substitute teaching. The scam continues with some colleges now requiring a full year of student teaching; some school districts play along and give more consideration to students with a full year of student teaching. Some not willing to completely abandon student teaching might be appeased with a shorter term of it, say a month. A substitute teaching requirement would do much. It would save some students a year's tuition! That is, they'd have less student debt upon graduation. In fact, instead of paying to teach, they'd be getting paid to teach. At the same time they'd gain valuable experience. Anyone who has substitute taught knows the challenges, esp regarding student behavior. All over the US school districts are facing shortages of substitute teachers; this would also help alleviate that problem.
Here's a final thing to think about. Again, all over the country, there are shortages of teachers in many disciplines, especially math, science, and special education; in some areas the shortages have reached the social studies and English departments. But look around. If your local districts aren't advertising for substitute teachers, bus drivers, playground and other aides, etc., it's probably lucky (or pays a lot higher than surrounding areas). I've never seen an ad or article citing a shortage of administrators. Have you?
I was a public school teacher for 33+ years. I have been teaching college history for more than 20 years, at public colleges. I believe in public education. But, and this might surprise folks, I don't oppose charter schools, school choice, vouchers, and the like. I say, "Bring them on!" I don't mind competition. And, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to say otherwise. I went to a private college and I can't imagine receiving a better education elsewhere. One of my two kids was a school of choice student and we sent all three of our grandchildren to schools outside of their attendance area. I do insist upon fairness in comparisons, though. That said...... How to reform education?
First, is education in need of reform? I suppose except for the most diehard, that's a question that has already been answered. Of course it does; there is a lot wrong with schools, public and private. I will, however, focus on the public schools, at least for today. Much of what I will write I've already written and said. Some will scoff at it and some will say I'm all wet. I will admit that much of what I propose will be very difficult to attain, for many reasons. And I also assume nobody will pay any attention.
A problem is that we say one thing and do another. We claim to value education, but we don't show it. For instance, how many colleges and universities award honorary degrees to teachers? Not many that I know. And if by chance some college or university professor is granted such an honorary degree, it's far more likely that the explanation will note what book she has published or what scientific advance he has made. There will be little, if any, mention of the teaching. And yes, my college, which purports to value teaching above all from its faculty, doesn't honor teachers in this way either.
There are too many administrators and too many of them are paid far more than they deserve. I know, I know. "But we need our principals and......" No, we don't. They are not as vital as many folks think. Remember, too, today's administrators are not like the ones of 50 and 60 years ago. Many don't lead, but follow. Many don't garner (or deserve) respect from those who are closely acquainted with what they do or don't do. Many won't believe me. Take a walk down to your local elementary building for several random days. Ask to see, not necessarily talk, to the principal. My guess is that a good portion of the time he or she won't be in the building. At least that's the case around here. So, if the schools run fairly well without principals a good percentage of the time, why do we need them? Or, if that seems a bit harsh, why not combine principals and buildings, say one principal for two buildings? After all, if they aren't there half of the time...... One time, at a staff meeting, our principal told us one of the assistant principals "would be back next week." Overwhelmingly the reaction was, "He was gone?" Few knew he'd been away for two weeks on some exchange program. He wasn't at all missed. Now some might think that is good, that the building ran smoothly without him due to the organization, discipline, etc. the assistant principal had instilled. Some would think wrong!
And there's no reason for administrators to be paid sometimes almost twice as much, if not more, than teachers. I see no reason at all. Around here the excuse has always been, "To attract top administrators we need to pay them top dollar." First of all, that didn't work and I'd submit it's not worked in many places. If it has, it's been pure luck. Second, why doesn't that also apply to attracting "top" teachers? Those in the private sector should think about that one, too.
Get politicians out of education! Oh, they all went to school, so they know all about learning and teaching, don't they? They want testing, testing, and more testing. Well, that's wrong. They, particularly the Republicans, also want to get rid of the teachers' unions. If they think teachers' unions are the primary source of problems in education, they are daft.
Find better teachers. I know that's far easier said than done. I understand. It's often hard to ascertain who is good and who isn't. Not everyone can be a "Miguel Cabrera" of teaching. But schools need and can use the "Andrew Romines," too. There's nothing wrong with that. Identifying good is not as easy as it seems. Test results are a lousy way to determine quality of teaching, esp results from standardized tests created by people three time zones away. There's far more to learning than test results.
To attract better teachers we have to agree to pay them more. We can't take away the few benefits they have. I know people were very upset when teachers had good pensions and health insurances. I wonder how many of those same upset folks would have traded their salaries and benefits for teachers benefits--and salaries. Nah, I don't wonder; I know their answers. I had to laugh at the Lt. Governor of Michigan jumping on the bandwagon for a part-time state legislature. He advocates a 90-day session (18 weeks) and, get this, "pay them what teachers earn." Wait a minute! They'll still work less than half of the time teachers work, but get the same pay? I don't know if that says more about how dismally we pay our teachers or how politicians still want to take care of politicians. As one of my teaching friends has said, esp regarding more and more attempts to take teachers' pensions, "I'm tired of having to beg for my money." I saw a recent article that claimed no teacher who teaches in San Francisco can afford to by a home on the market in that city. Wow! Imagine have a bachelors degree and finding a teaching job that pays about $33,000 a year--that's the starting average around here. I think it's a bit lower state-wide.
A big problem here--and I don't know how to solve it--is that some teachers aren't worth even the measly $33,000.
Get rid of schools of education and student teaching. They are scams that were perpetrated on the public years ago. OK, we need to keep some of the courses offered by the education departments in the colleges and universities, but not many. Perhaps one covering the increasing and detrimental paperwork that is required can be helpful; we can toss in record-keeping, grading, maybe lesson planning, etc. in that course. A specialized course in, say, teaching reading might also be kept. I wonder how many of my Amherst professors took courses from the education departments at their schools. No, I think I have a pretty good idea that the answer is close to "none." Rather than requiring the often useless education courses, let there be competition. Individual seminars could be offered to keep teachers abreast of new and innovative (Are those redundant?) methods, etc. The seminars could come from the private sector or from the colleges and universities to reach out. Teachers and schools/school districts could then determine what is most valuable and important to them.
Instead of student teaching, require a full year of substitute teaching. The scam continues with some colleges now requiring a full year of student teaching; some school districts play along and give more consideration to students with a full year of student teaching. Some not willing to completely abandon student teaching might be appeased with a shorter term of it, say a month. A substitute teaching requirement would do much. It would save some students a year's tuition! That is, they'd have less student debt upon graduation. In fact, instead of paying to teach, they'd be getting paid to teach. At the same time they'd gain valuable experience. Anyone who has substitute taught knows the challenges, esp regarding student behavior. All over the US school districts are facing shortages of substitute teachers; this would also help alleviate that problem.
Here's a final thing to think about. Again, all over the country, there are shortages of teachers in many disciplines, especially math, science, and special education; in some areas the shortages have reached the social studies and English departments. But look around. If your local districts aren't advertising for substitute teachers, bus drivers, playground and other aides, etc., it's probably lucky (or pays a lot higher than surrounding areas). I've never seen an ad or article citing a shortage of administrators. Have you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
