Many Things Happen to Some People

If there is a symptom of the meltdown of the American mind, it is the inability to speak and write in specifics. I think it is one result of the mad media rush that we live in, information overload with scarcity of meaning. Students seem to believe that vague statements that go absolutely nowhere actually say something. In fact, it only demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding. Allow me to present some classic examples.

There are many factors that led to the Cold War. There are some factors that had more of an impact than others. Many of the factors leading to the Cold War from 1945-1960 were mainly verbal, but there were some people that acted.

Hum, tells absolutely nothing. Next.

The Cold War didn't just have one reason why it occurred, but more than one. Many things brought it to a cold war.

The Cold War was one of many throughout history. There were many contributions and outbreaks during this time period. The countries involved probably wouldn't have had such a problem if there wasn't so much lack of communication.

As the event of the Cold War approached, the (sic) were factors leading to it along the way. There are various factors that may have led to the Cold War. The Cold War, a war fought on many levels, had many causes and effects. Many people around the world, in different countries, have different believes (sic) on how the world should be handled when it comes to a certain government.

OK. Enough. But, what to do about it. There are a million ways to write in a way that doesn't make sense. So, it doesn't seem that just correcting errors, or rewriting will lead to progress. What about teaching with models? Certainly, that is an important piece of teaching good writing, but years of using models of good writing have demonstrated difficulty in translating understanding good writing from actually writing it. Feedback on student writing and continued revision is another approach, but the difficulty with history essays is that the essay is a tool of content, not the content itself. At some point there is little time for revision and polishing, the student needs to become a competent writer, especially if that competence is for an exam or standardized test. The point isn't quality, it's competence.

We can take it apart, present it step by step, design a format, but in the final analysis, the knowledge has to be there, and that takes time, thought and study. Then a student will find a way to express what they know. A writing formula with little content knowledge or comprehension ends up as:

The Cold War was a war that grew from many factors. The tension made the factors grow and as time went by, the factors became immense. Some of the many factors involved in this war came from these immense factors.

I'm Goin' Mobile

Janine is moving for the third time in three years. This time taking off to spend time with an Aunt in California because she just doesn't get along with her step mother. Jarod, on the other hand, is moving back to New York with his family. Dad got another job and off they go. Jose is moving back to LA to live with his mother, since his father was just deported back to Mexico. RayAn is moving cross town, but will keep coming to school here, even though she is outside of the district. (By using her old address.)

The mobility of the American population, especially in the lower income levels who either have to move from job to job, or keep finding better jobs to move to, constantly disrupts the continuity of education, friendships, and socialization so critical to the teen years. Couple that with the hodgepodge of curricula, philosophy, and finances from school district to district and we have a recipe for a challenging problem.

Furthermore, statistics, such as graduation rates, dropout rates, and grades are heavily affected by this kind of mobility. Just keeping track of students, their grades, and where they are currently can prove to be an impossible challenge. Even movement within the same district leads to difficulty contacting parents and finding information. Out of five telephone calls home recently, two were disconnected numbers and an invalid address with no forwarding address. Yet the student still attends.

I often have students address envelopes to send home information or introductory letters. You might be surprised how often I have students who don't know their own home address. Just moved, you know.

I don't know that a common curricula and sequence would solve the problem, but with students and parents coming and going and often returning, districts should begin to grapple with the problem of too much local variation.

Heeeere's . . . Blog Quote

Since John Stossel's "Stupid in America" report has become the buzz of the moment, I quote here at length a blog post from someone who can speak to one of the issues from personal experience, which I cannot. I can speak to other issues, which I won't belabor here. I have to say, however, that Stossel's report didn't contain anything that the elitist, anti-public education minions haven't been repeating ad infinitum for far too long. Why do we continue to put up with their "how bad we are" mantra? Perhaps Stossel would benefit from taking a long, serious look at the beam in the eye of journalism. Stay tuned. At least he should be open and honest that he is a conservative voucher advocate who has an axe to grind. Of course, with all the errors and mis(dis)information in the report, it's a pretty dull axe.

Sunday, January 15, 2006
Re: Stossel and Belgian Education
I watched John Stossel's 20/20 piece called "Stupid in America" this afternoon, and what strikes me (other than his strident call for competition) is his at-best-disengenuous, at-worst-ignorant lack of a look at differences between the Belgian system of education and our own here in the States. He insists that Belgian schools compete in the open market, and that such a system would solve all that ails ours as well.

I'm fortunate to have been able to attend school in Belgium for a year: long enough to not only develop significant fluency in another language, but to also develop an appreciation for the culture, the education system it drives, and some of the differences between "over there" and "over here." I don't honestly believe we, as a nation, are prepared to embrace all of those differences, even in the spirit of fostering competition. Here's why:

First, envision a national teacher union, a national teacher contract, and a national right to strike. Think you can talk states like Texas and Nevada out of banning the right to strike to a NATIONAL teacher's union? Collaterally, of course, teacher salaries are established according to that national contract. Stossel berated "a union-government" monopoly on public education, but glossed over this "little" detail in the Belgian not-so-fine print: all those "competetive" schools pay their teachers according to the national contract, not according to local desires or needs.

Now, imagine trying to pass a national law that will impact all teachers without actually getting teacher input. Can you see all the schools in the entire nation shut down because the teachers wouldn't tolerate that? We're not talking a local teachers' strike. We're talking every single school in the "teachers-be-damned" nation shut down. The Belgian teachers did it most recently in 1996, from the end of February through the end of the school year.

Second, understand that Belgian schools do not provide transportation. You can choose a school 20 miles from home, but even if you live within three miles, there will be no yellow bus ferrying your kids at the public's expense. A very dependable system of public transportation will, however, provide regular-traveler discounts. If turning your child over to public transportation isn't something you feel comfortable with, you're on your own. Consequently, at least until "secondary" school, parents tend to keep their kids at the school closest to home.

I beg your indulgence as I get to number three: the Belgian school week was something of a shock to this American. I was used to seven classes (including study-hall), five days a week. Start at about 8 A.M., finish around 3:30 P.M. I had the same seven-class schedule every day, week in and week out.

Imagine my first Monday: Start at 8 A.M., go to four classes, leave at noon to go home for the noon meal. Get back at 2:00 P.M. for three more classes, and finish up at 5 P.M. to return home for the day. The school did NOT provide any meals whatsoever - we had two hours to get home, enjoy the biggest meal of the day with our family, and get back for the rest of the school day.

Tuesday was an equal shock: Start at 8 A.M. again, but five classes straight through to 1 P.M. and we were done for the day.

Wednesday echoed Tuesday: 8-1 and out.

Thursday and Friday had the same hours as Monday. Saturday was the same as Tuesday and Wednesday. Pick your jaw back up off the floor and adjust: we had five hours of school on Saturday.

So on to number three: in those 36 hours of class time, I had no course that met more than four times, but took 16 different courses. Two were four meetings a week, one was only one time, the other 13 were either two or three hours a week. Only twice did I have the same course back-to-back (two hours straight, on paper, but with a "passing-period" between). Three were foreign-language courses (and yes, I cheated. I took English as my second foreign language). No study-hall. That's what those afternoons off were for.

Somewhere here (and this seems the appropriate spot) I should mention that they aren't called "foreign languages" in Belgium: they're "modern languages." If you consider that Belgium was politically created as a buffer zone between Holland and France, by taking part of each country centuries ago, and then adding on a small chunk of Germany after WWII, you might well understand that Belgium has three official languages, none of them "foreign": French, Dutch, and German.

Fourth, the Belgian system made no pretense that all kids were the same, that they all needed the same education just because they had access to it. Mr. Stossel in his 20/20 piece suggests by omission that all Belgian schools attempt to provide the same opportunities to their students. Nothing, quite frankly, could be less true. Belgium does a much better job than we do of acknowledging that one doesn't necessarily need a college degree to inherit and run the family business. The courses you need for that can just as easily be taught in "high school." But if you want to be an architect, you don't need all those marketing and accounting classes either. In either case, you need some understanding of the concepts involved in the other's instance to have a truly well-rounded education, but you CAN actually specialize your secondary education so that if you have no need for university-level studies to accomplish your dream, you don't HAVE to prepare yourself for them.

And Belgian schools take that into account. Some are very, very good at preparing students to manage small businesses. Others are truly excellent at preparing students for a variety of pursuits requiring advanced degrees. Yet others do a marvelous job of preparing auto mechanics (for Peugots and Saabs and BMWs and Ferraris and for many makes we never, ever see on this side of the Atlantic). But none of them tries so hard to be everything to all people as we do with our public schools in this country.

Then we deal with the fact that a student in Belgium who begins on one track may not finish there: a test in eighth grade that determines whether the student is allowed to stay on a purely academic track or whether a "vocational track" might be more appropriate. Same kind of test at the end of tenth grade. If you reach your junior year in an "academic" school, you've demonstrated your right to be there. I wonder which sort of student group Stossel used for his comparison. I don't believe it was anywhere near as homogenous a group as the New Jersey students.

Stossel suggests that the schools in a Belgian city are in competition for students; at the secondary level that's only partially true. They each seek to develop, and perhaps expand, their niches, but none of them is after EVERY student. Before we swallow his bait clear back to the hook, we need to ask ourselves some very serious questions.

posted by Al at 5:26 PM

O, Say Can You See . . .

Civics 101. A foreign student here went with his host family to the Denver National Western Stock Show. I'm sure the experience was interesting, a taste of the old west and western culture. But the student was most affected by a comment, I think after the national anthem, if I have my story straight, by a soldier addressing the audience. The soldier stated, according to the student, that it wasn't the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that protects this country, it is the soldier. That was the lesson that the foreign student took away.

I assume this was a comment in reference to the debate over the secret, non-search warrant spying by the NSA. I hope most are as horrified by this comment as I am, but I'm not counting on it. Look at our recent political news headlines: "DeLay indicted." "Controversial lobbyist had close contact with Bush team." "Criminal probe of Congressman." "Ethics violations at the highest levels." The "pay-for-play" rules of Republican Washington were no secret to most. A Democratic member from Louisiana may be the next to fall from legal and ethical violations.

I wonder if the Civics that we teach students in the classroom is mere propaganda. The Bill of Rights. The importance of the Constitution. The way the courts (are supposed) to work. Perhaps we should be teaching the real world of political intrigue. Perhaps we should teach that the president can overrule legal and constitutional protections if there is good reason. (But, of course, those reasons will remain secret.) Perhaps we should teach that keeping your mouth shut is the proper policy, because whistle blowers lose their jobs and are publicly called traitors.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative skirmish. Even staunch conservatives are concerned with the direction and meaning of some of the Republican and administration policies.

Or should we just shut up and stick to the textbook and not look behind that curtain. (See above. Fate of whistle blowers.)

I Had a Dream

Today is a school holiday in remembrance of Martin Luther King, Jr. A remembrance that remains fraught with controversy. MLK's legacy is still being hashed out in our history, but there is no question that the "American Dream" is more inclusive and free because of his work and life. The problem with days of remembrance is they become weakened reflections of the cause of the day. We learn how to genuflect half-consciously, say what a good person the day celebrates, and hurry off to a day of shopping or sleeping in.

MLK's contributions are complex and still very much in process. The legal wall of racial separation has fallen, much like the concrete Berlin Wall at the end of the Cold War. But the mental and habitual separation is still very much with us. We need only look at the re-segregation of schools and the educational gap among diverse groups in America to see how far we have yet to go.

If you want to celebrate MLK day, read recent works about him; read Jonathan Kozol's, The Shame of the Nation; read Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's Racism without Racists; or Thomas Shapiro's, The Hidden Cost of Being African-American. For that matter, just search a book site or the internet or the library. There is so much, there is no excuse for ignorance.

Perhaps you can simply reflect on how that "snake coiled under the table" at the Constitutional Convention still hisses and spits its venom. The only way we can be self-satisfied with our progress with real equality of freedom is to live constantly in a state of denial.

Is the dream over, or do we have it still?