How to make sure your kid fails at school.

This post is inspired by an absolutely wonderful little girl that I had the pleasure of tutoring last year. First, some history:

The little girl is from a military family, and came to our school at the start of the second grade. Her dad was stationed in Italy, where she had spent her entire life. Because her dad is american, she is fluent in english – english was the language spoken at home, even though mom is Italian. .
Even though this little girl (Lets call her Mary, even though it isn’t her real name) was in the second grade, she hardly knew her alphabet, didn’t know any of the sounds that letters make, couldn’t count to 10 reliably, and couldn’t name multi-digit numbers. She was placed in the second grade based on her age – academically, she should have been in the first grade, but by age she should have been in the 3rd, so second was the compromise.

Mary’s teacher gave up on e her very quickly. If the subject material was beyond what Mary was comfortable with, she would simply tune out and daydream. Because she wasn’t disruptive, this was pretty much allowed. At the end of the first month of school, I was told that Mary was “hopeless” and “unteachable”. She was tested, and didn’t fit into any learning disability label, so she didn’t qualify for any of the special ed funding. Because she wasn’t “learning disabled”, almost all of the special classes that might have helped her were not available to her. Instead, she got a little help from some of the staff that help the kids that are a bit behind – an hour a week with a reading specialist, an appointment with the school shrink once a month, and that was about it.

Not too surprisingly, Mary’s parents were getting a bit worried. Mary had already been “held back” one year, and simply was not learning. Her teacher had written her off, and as long as she didn’t raise a fuss in class, she was going to daydream her way through the year. After I spent a few days in Mary’s class as a volunteer, her parents approached me and asked me to tutor Mary. They signed releases to allow me to review the tests that Mary had taken, discuss her with the teachers and other school staff, and did everything they could to make it possible for me to access the evaluations and opinions that the school had generated.

After two sessions, it became very clear that Mary is no slouch. While we worked on solidifying her alphabet, we started putting sounds to letters. The connections were almost instant – a few repetitions, and the “non-changing” sounds were down pat. The letters that change sound depending on their location in a word took a bit longer, and the vowels were pretty tough – but that is expected for most second graders. Math was equally rapid. At the end of our first session, she could count to 20, recognize the written numbers, and could place the appropriate number of objects into a pile.

I worked with Mary for about 2 1/2 months – until her father was re-stationed over an hour away. In that time, Mary mastered counting to 100 and beyond, the concept of “places” in a number, addition and subtraction of both single and multiple digit numbers, counting by 2, 5, and 10, and telling time on an analogue clock. Her reading skills also flowered. She moved from picture books to reading Dr. Seuss in 10 weeks.

Clearly, Mary’s problem is not her ability to learn. I don’t think my teaching abilities are good enough to make that much of a difference, so what could have caused such a dramatic change?

There were two reasons that Mary was failing. The first was that the school had written her off. It is an unfortunate reality that if a kid isn’t a problem, or doesn’t fit into a special ed slot, they are often left to flounder until they are so far behind that they do qualify for special ed. By then, it’s usually too late. The problems in the schools are well known, and I’ve blogged about them enough to not want to go over it all again here.

The second problem is the one that I want to make sure people understand. It was simply that Mary’s parents didn’t do anything to teach her at home. They are wonderful people, and have a wonderful home, but they simply don’t do anything to provide mental stimulation at home. Neither of them is a recreational reader, and Mary never had someone to read to her or with her at home. Because she is so capable of self-entertaining – with dolls, a sandbox, or pretty much anything, it is easy to allow her to take care of herself. When she got too bored, there was always TV. While I was working with her, I encouraged Mary’s parents to take 15 minutes every night to read with her, to do some math problems with her, to do something to show her that it was good to use these skills at home – they weren’t just for when I was working with her. This simply was not their parenting style, and they never really understood how important it was.

I saw Mary again last week – her parents invited me to visit, so I trucked over, and we had a great evening together. Two things that happened that evening are what really triggered this blog entry. First, when I first got out of the car, Mary came charging across the yard, and pulled short about 10 feet from me. At the top of her lungs, she counted to 100 by tens, then by fives, with a huge grin on her face. When she finished, she charged the last 10 feet and threw herself at me. I’ve worked with a lot of kids, and I can’t remember any of them that was ever so proud to be able to prove that she still had what she had learned with me.

The second thing was that she simply would not leave me alone. Once I had disentangled myself from her, she ran into the house. She came back out a few minutes later with a copy of Fox in Socks, and insisted that we sit down so that she could read it to me. She read the book, and it was a real eye-opener. Mary was still reading at almost exactly the same level she was the last time I had worked with her – almost a year before. She spent the rest of the evening bringing me books so she could read to me, asking me to make up math problems for her, and doing everything she could to turn the visit into another tutoring session.

Mary is a perfect example of a kid that is falling through the cracks. She is desperate to have someone who is willing to teach her, and she isn’t getting it at school or at home. I worked with Mary for a short period – a total of about 20 hours – and as far as I could tell, that was the last time she had made any progress. Her new school is not paying any more attention to her than her old school did. Her parents are focusing on other things, and Mary is simply being left adrift. Sure, the schools are at least partly at fault, but its her parents that are really dropping the ball.

So next time you’re too busy, tired, distracted, or whatever to sit down and read with your kids, or help them with their homework, think about Mary. She is in the 3rd grade now, and has math and reading skills that are appropriate for an early second grader. And she hasn’t moved an inch in  a year.

Teaching: the cost of public education vs. private tutoring

Public schools are like any other government entity – they will create work to justify their continued growth. The bloat effect creates complex, redundant, and useless work that “has” to get done, because without it, the bureaucracy simply couldn’t justify existing. Every single teacher I’ve worked with spends more time on paperwork than they do actually teaching. In many states, the cost per student is over $20,000 per year – that’s about $54.80 per day, assuming that the kid is in school every day of the year. If you use the “180 teaching days per year” standard, that number goes up to $111.11 per day. Around here, most private tutors charge about $25 per hour for one-on-one private education. Given a 6 hour school day, a private tutor should charge about $150 per day, so the public schools are actually a bargain, right? Lets break it down a bit:

Students in public schools spend an estimated 60% of their time on non-instructional activities – recess, lunch, busy work, and simply waiting for something to do. In a public school, a student is one of many – between 18 and 30 - students in a classroom, and the teacher simply cannot give the one on one attention needed to maximize the use of the time. Plus, there’s all that paperwork….

So, if we take a look at the real situation, a private tutor can provide 6 hours of direct one on one education for about $150 per day. A public school teacher can provide (in a generous scenario) 50% actual teaching time = 3 hours per day and 1/18th of the direct attention (because there are at least 17 other kids in the class). This boils down to:

3 hours * (1/18) = 3/18 or .17 hours per day – about 10 minutes. Granted, there are educational activities that the teacher can manage in a group setting, so lets be generous, and throw in another hour of teaching time. That gives the student a whole hour and 10 minutes of true educational time per day.

Lets take another look at those cost numbers:

Private tutor: 6 hours of direct 1:1 teaching per day: $150.00 = 41.7 cents per minute

Public School: 70 Minutes of direct 1:1 teaching per day: $111.11 = $1.59 per minute

Granted, the public schools also act as babysitters, and for those parents that need a place to put their kids, there is some benefit, but I will stick with the model that the purpose of the schools is to teach – if you need childcare, use childcare.

So there ya go. Just another example of how government “oversight”, “involvement”, or plain old meddling drives up the cost of education. Think about what you could do with your child’s education if you could spend that $20,000 a year of teaching money however you wanted? Private tutors or Private schools, maybe home schooling. If nothing else, the ability to pick what school to send your kids to instead of having to accept whatever schools your tax dollars happen to have to go to.

Symbolic Illiteracy?

After having a debate with a friend about the sad state of literacy in many of the kids (and adults) that we know, we found ourselves using a new term: Symbolic Illiteracy. This refers to the fact that in much of our day to day life, the written word has been replaced with symbols. Take a look at whatever electronic device you have nearby. Look at all the buttons, dials, widgets and doo-dads. How many of them actually have a word telling you what that particular control does? I bet almost all (if not all) of them have little symbols or pictures.

The gist of our debate was trying to decide if this was a good thing or not. The advantages of this type of communication is that a lot of information can be passed in a very small space. If the symbols are well designs (or are universally adopted), we have the beginning of an international language – at least a writtten one. Imagine getting off a plane in Japan, China, or Russia. You really have to pee. How do you find the bathroom? You don’t speak the local language, you don’t read the local language. Depending on the airport, you just might see the universal “man” or “woman” symbol that tells you there’s a bathroom behind the door. Even if the international symbol is not used, many countries have developed symbols that are pretty obvious. I can’t recall what country I was in, but the sign for bathroom was a stick man running. Sounds kind of odd, but when I saw it, I knew exactly what it was. The “running man” was a constant joke that trip….

The arguments against the “symbol” language are the same arguments against any pictographic form of writing. If you need to communicate simple ideas, it isn’t that hard, but as you move into more complex ideas, it is much more difficult to develop symbols that are meaningful. Eventually you end up with a system where you have to fall back on some sort of alphabet because there are just too many symbols to know. Anyone who has studied Japanese knows that there are thousands of symbols – each word has its own symbol. There are so many that even native Japanese speakers often run into pictograms that they don’t know. Fortunately, Japanese also has an “alphabet”, and uncommon words are often spelled out instead of using the pictogram.

An interesting aspect of the “symbol” is the fairly new “IM Speak” – the truncating of words to a few letters, or the replacement of a word with a symbol that sounds the same as the word (homophones). Examples are using “8″ instead of “ate” or “l8r” for ‘later’. This new form of shorthand is becoming incredibly pervasive. It shows up in school work, University assignments, and I’ve even seen it in newspapers and journals. Language is a dynamic thing, and is constantly changing. The ‘net revolution has introduced a whole new medium of written communication, and our language is adapting to the ‘instant on’ aspect of it – if there is a faster way to key something in and move it on, it will get used.

Many of the educators I know lament this trend. Lets face it, the educational systems are almost always the last places where changes like this are accepted. The ‘net shorthand is finding its way into industry and business – I’ve received memos, letters, and other business documents with emoticons on them , and the occasional blot of ‘net shorthand. I will admit that I view this as unprofessional, and if I get a job application or resume with any of these, I tend to view it as if it had been written in crayon. Having said that, I must also admit that the style and format of business communication is very different from the day-to-day spoken and IM-ed language that many of us use in our informal communications. The real (and about the only) danger I see in the current mutation of the written language is the fact that many people – especially young people – don’t seem to understand that there are different modes of written communication, and that if the wrong mode is used, it can make you look like an idiot. While I have no problem getting a quick message filled with emoticons, ‘net slang, and the rest of the symbols that are used in electronic communications, if a student turned in a paper written in that form, I would punt it right back at them, and either give them an “f”, or ask them to re-write it in English. As I said above, resumes, job applications, and other formal business documents that have this type of shorthand end up in the wastebasket.

The danger with the new symbolic writting is not the change to the writing itself, it is the fact that we are not teaching our young people the importance of using the proper communication style based on the environment the communication is taking place in.

Public Schools: Improve performance by dumping low-scoring students

Last night on the drive home, I was listening to a talk show with a bunch of government wonks talking about schools and how to “fix them”. In almost an hour of “happy speak”, there were only two comments made that actually had any meaning.

First, one of the panelists suggested that because “no child left behind” in the only true measure of how successful a school is, the schools should drop any teaching that doesn’t ensure the kids will pass the tests. He made it clear that he was being sarcastic. The only problem is, this is exactly what a lot of schools are doing. Since No Child Left Behind (NCLB) began, many of the public schools have tailored their curriculum to match the exams – just as many high schools used to tailor their curriculum to the SATs. Another of the wonks, who was on the state committee that sets curriculum – admitted that one of the major deciding factors on curriculum design was the impact it would have on the NCLB testing, because funding depended on the kids scores on the tests. Interesting to see this admission of free-market capitalism in the public schools. The only problem is that the students ability to pass a standardized test does absolutely nothing to prepare them for the real world……

The second comment, also made in jest, was that the schools should simply encourage their worst students to drop out before the NCLB tests are given. By dumping the bad students, the scores would be inflated. What is truly ironic, is that many schools are actually already doing this, and have been for years. True, most schools are probably not actively encouraging students to drop out – after all, drop out rates are one of the minor factors used in measuring school success. However, many schools are extremely passive when it comes to retaining students that are under achievers. A student who is an athlete is almost guaranteed all of the help, special consideration, and assistance needed to make sure (s)he stays in school. Special tutoring with teachers, exceptions from assignments that interfere with practice or games, waivers for requirements, and administratively forced grade inflation are all extremely common among athletes.

A student who is at the same academic level as an athlete, but is bored, uninterested, or for any reason detached from academia may get a bit of special attention – usually a battery of tests to see if the child can be tagged as a “special needs”. If the tag sticks, the kid falls into a whole different category, and no longer has a negative effect on the schools overall performance measures – after all, it wouldn’t be fair to include the test results of  a special needs kids in with all the others. Besides, special needs kids bring more dollars per head than a “normal” kid. If the label doesn’t stick, the kid may get an occasional lecture form a guidance counselor, some letters to the kid’s parents, but not a whole lot more. When the kid drifts away from school into something else, the standard reaction is to try and get the kid into a GED program. Once again, this moves the kid off of the roster of students that the school is accountable for.

So, what we are left with is a system that lets over-achievers do what they will, panders to athletes, and encourages under achievers into avenues that relieves the school of responsibility for their education – or at least moves them into a category that has little effect on the schools performance metrics.

None of this should be a surprise – our culture has fallen into the habit of making exceptions for athletes, and measuring a school by testing will ensure that he schools not only teach to the test, but find ways to keep the underperformers from being counted on the test. There have actually been cases where schools have separated their poor students during testing, and then “lost” their tests. Like any government run institution, the schools are really set up to ensure that they will continue to exist, regardless of their effectiveness. Too many people are employed by the schools to allow them to go away (they have already failed, so I won’t use that word), and too many parents rely on the 6 hours a day of “free” day care their kids get at “school”. Until we, as a country, are willing to truly address the issues in the schools, there is no hope of changing the public school system to something that truly prepares students for the real world. In order to do that, we have to admit that most students should succeed, some will move through the programs more slowly, and some will simply fail. Until we are willing to acknowledge that some people are simply incapable of being truly productive citizens, we will continue to lower the standards at our schools to ensure that those people can “pass”.

Now THIS is a scary thing to hear a teacher say

While reading interviews with students at the University of Akron, I came across a few comments that shows how well prepared these students are for careers in sciences. Here are some of them:

“My high school biology teacher only went over it (evolution) for a couple of days – didn’t want to get into it”

OK, this girl is an accounting major, so she probably doesn’t really have any deep need to understand the finer details of evolutionary theory. BUT the fact that her HS bio teacher “didn’t want to get into it” is truly scary. to me, this indicates that either the teacher simply sucks and shouldn’t be teaching at all, or the teacher has been forced to not teach a critical part of a biology curriculum. The fact that there were at least 2 days scheduled to cover evolution suggest the first. Why is this so scary? Let’s take a look at another quote.

This time, we’re listening to a young man who “plans to be a biology teacher”:

“I hold with intelligent design”

This kid wants to teach biology, but can’t even tell the difference between Sunday school fantasy and real science. I have to wonder if this wanna be teacher believes that a spider bite can turn him into spider man, or maybe that wonder woman really does have an invisible plane and a magic lasso (and how does she stay in that outfit when she’s fighting?). But seriously, the first quote is a direct lead in to this poor slob. Somehow, this kid made it through high school and never learned to tell the difference between science and fantasy. And now he wants to teach science. Do you see a problem here?

The truly sad part is that this kid will probably go on to actually become a biology teacher, and will also refuse to teach things like evolution to another generation of kids. The lack of understanding of evolution is scary enough, but the fact that this guy is incapable of even thinking enough to realize that he’s a fool is what is truly scary. Honest to goodness – this type of crap gives me nightmares about things like McCarthyism and the Holocaust. If people are willing to believe things like intelligent design, they are foolish enough to believe things like “the commies are out to pollute our precious bodily fluids” or “the Jews are sacrificing babies”.

Be afraid. Be. Very. Afraid.

More failure of US education

Whilst perusing the 6 July 07 issue of Science (why yes, I am a geek), I came across a rather interesting section about undergraduate education. Now, keep in mind that  Science is a journal for scientists, and tends to reflect that in their articles. Of course, they are a peer reviewed international journal, that is recognized as one of the top rags in the business…. Anyway, there are some interesting numbers – not only for the US, but for the world in general.

The first knock-out is some numbers about undergraduate degrees awarded by country, and what percentage of them are in the Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Here’s the data: 

1. India: 9.2 million degrees, no data on STEM %
2. China: 4.13 million degrees, no data on STEM %
3. US: 1.4 Million, 17% STEM (187,000)
4. Russia: 1.1 Mil., 18% STEM (198,000)
5. Brazil: 717,858, 12% STEM (86,143)
6. Australia: 665,526, 22% STEM (146,416)
7. Japan: 551,000, 25% STEM (137,750)
8. S. Korea: 328,476, 38.4% STEM (126,135)
9. U.K.: 315,985: 27.5% STEM (86,896)
10. France: 155,000, 24.5% STEM (37,975)
11. S. Africa: 111,000, 27% STEM (29,970)
12. Austria: 23,500, 27% STEM (6,345)

 There are a couple of things that are kind of scary about these numbers. Take a look at how low the percentages for STEM degrees are. Now stop and think: this population represents the doctor’s, pharmacists, engineers and scientists that will be responsible fro maintaining our health, making sure our planes continue to fly, and ensuring that science and technology continue to advance. Look again at where the degrees are. India and China are the top producers of people with higher education. We don’t have the percentage of them that are getting STEM degrees, but even if it is only 10%, they are producing at least twice as many techies as the US. Wonder why more and more technology seems to come from these countries? Wonder why so many of our high tech jobs are now outsourced to those countries? Think about the billions (and billions) of dollars that are flowing from our economy to theirs as a result of their ability to produce these workers. 

Some other scary thoughts that don’t show in this chart: the number of students pursuing degrees in “STEM” fields is dropping – fast. Not only that, but within the STEM fields, there has been (and continues to be) a strong trend to take the degrees in IT related fields -meaning less mathematics, science and engineering. That’s good as far as trying to keep computer jobs here in the US, but not so good if you expect to need a doctor, or are hoping for advances in any other fields.

This decline in STEM students is already having an effect on the academic world – many universities are cutting their STEM staff – there simply are not enough students to justify maintaining them. While this may sound harmless, keep in mind that almost all of the major research that is done in the US has its roots at research universities – the ‘net came from academia (and the military), the technology that makes this blog possible is a direct outgrowth of academia, the navigation system your car, the DVD player, the flat screen TV are all the results of research that was done at University. The impact of this reduction will probably not be felt much for a while, but in a decade or so, the few STEM students that are graduating today will be in a great position to sell their skills – if the research market hasn’t completely collapsed or headed to India or China. Maybe we should be making sure that our scientists and engineers are taking Chinese as well as chemistry and physics….

Teaching Critical Thinking

The more I read about “critical thinking” the more I realize that it is quickly becoming a buzzword in education. It is what our schools are failing to teach. It is what our students need to succeed. yack, yack, yack, – all the normal crap that really means a true problem has been identified, and no one has any idea as to how to fix it. Instead, buzz word the problem, make a ot of noise about changes that will address the problem, and hope things will get better on their own. In other words, business as usual for our public schools.

Not for me. Critical thinking IS important. It refers to a students ability to solve problems – to apply known facts and methodologies to new situations and problems, and solve them. There area  couple of reasons that the public schools are completely incapable of truly teaching this skill, and there are some truly simple solutions.

The first issue that most schools fail to address is that problem solving skills alone are useless. The student needs a base level of knowledge and information in order to solve problems. For example, a student may be extremely good at figuring out complex logic puzzles, but completely hopeless at solving simple math problems. In this case, the student has already developed (or learned) a methodology for solving problems – this is proved by the ability to solve logic puzzles. What the student is lacking is a basic understanding of the underlying math principles needed to solve the math problems. If the student is past early elementary school, chances are that all of the math that the student has learned so far has been rote learning instead of the underlying principles. Math facts (addition and subtraction tables), multiplication tables, and “recipes” for solving division problems make the kids great at vomiting the info back onto a standardized test, but are useless as soon as the child is faced with a problem that exceeds the parameters of the memorized table.

The same situation applies to sciences, english, history, civics, or any other subject that we actually expect the students to be able to think about. Before we can expect them to think critically about a topic, we have to teach them the basic information about the topic. Of course, that would also mean making sure the kids understand that a lot of what they are taught in schools is grossly oversimplified (because they couldn’t possibly understand the real issues), wrong (because the teacher doesn’t really understand the material), or simply propaganda (because we wouldn’t want our kids to have politically incorrect opinions or thoughts). The solution? Simple, accept the fact that the public schools are not there to educate kids. They are there to turn out docile, easily led, unthing factory workers. They are Really Good at what they do too. So, what to do if you want your kid to actually be able to think? Start teaching them at home. Discuss what is in the news. Talk about how things work. The goal is to make sure your kid has a good broad set of facts to draw on when they have to solve a problem. This approach won’t make your kid a math whiz, or ensure that they ace chemistry. They will still have to learn the basic facts in those subjects (unless you teach them those as well). What it will do is give your kids a broad base of information, which will prepare them to think critically about what they are taught in school. make sure a kid understands that the Civil War was about economics, trade wars, and supply-and-demand – with the South producing raw materials, and the North turning them into manufactured goods. Then, when the school tries to teach them that the civil war was all about slavery and freeing the slaves, the kid will be able to put the fiction that is being taught into perspective. Of course, if the child dares to question the doctrine that is being taught, or presents something that the teacher doesn’t agree with, expect a poor grade (which can be overcome with appropriate parental intervention).

The second issue is much more difficult, and that is how to teach a child to apply the knowledge that they do have to solve problems. Many kids will learn this simply through trial and error – watch a child as is learns to build with blocks, and you will see trial and error teach the child about balance, stacking, and a host of other physics concepts (also known as statics and dynamics). When the kid takes those concepts, and applies them to building a snow fort, critical thinking is taking place. For these children, the challenge is to keep the schools from teaching them not to use the skills they already have. Critical thinkers ask questions – often hard questions that the teacher can’t answer. That is because the kid is using critical thinking to make associations that the teacher never thought of. If the teacher responds (as if often the case) by brushing off the question, ignoring, or sending the message that the student is out of line, eventually the student will realize that questioning is a Bad Thing (remember our factory worker?), and stop asking, and eventually stop thinking. The only real hope in these cases is to be as involved as possible in your child’s school activities, and when you end up with a teacher like that, get your kid moved into another class. (Other options include things like homeschooling, group schools, and other alternatives).

For the student that has not learned critical thinking “by accident”, teaching it can be a difficult and time consuming process. There will be no quick solutions, and the development is slow – there will rarely be sudden advances. If the teacher doesn’t know the student very well, it will be impossible to determine if progress is being made. Once again, the answer here is that the parents ahve to accpet responsibility for ensuring that their kids learn these skills. There is no single method that will work for all kids. You will have to find out how your kid thinks, encourage them to figure things out. Make sure that they know that making a mistake is OK – it is just as important to know what doesn’t work as it is to know what does.

Is Magic Real?

Magic, the stuff of wizards, fairy godmothers, and witches – or is it? In today’s world, much of what we take for granted can easily be defined as magic.

During the dark ages and the middle ages, every king, lord, and major leader had some sort of wizard or sorcerer. This person was responsible for performing all sorts of “magic” – much of it was the fantasy sort of magic – trying to change lead into gold and such, but much of it was also what we would think of today as early science – astronomy, agricultural sciences, weather and such. Pretty much anything that required education was the realm of “magic”. So, how does “magic” exist in today’s world?

“Magic” surrounds us. Almost any technology or highly specialized field is treated by most people as magic. If I want to go somewhere, I get into my “magic carpet”, use the magic wand (key), and magically I can suddenly travel at 70 MPH to wherever I want to go. If I want to communicate with people, I wave my hands in the proper way, say the appropriate incantations, and I can send email or blog. If I’m hungry, I open the magic “cold box”, take out what I want to eat, perform a few Magic Moves, and by magic, the food is hot. If I can’t find what I want to eat at home, I go to the magic food creation building that somehow always has all kinds of foods from all over the world. The examples are endless. Heat, air conditioning, phones, the lock on the front door, medicine, Cable TV, the ‘net, planes, cars, microwave ovens – all of it is magic.

Don’t be silly! None of that stuff is magic! It’s all technology! Yes, it is true that it is technology, but from my perspective, what is the difference? Most people have no idea how most of the things that they use work. They know how to perform whatever motions, actions, or incantations are needed to make them work, but they have no idea what is really happening.

Is this any different from “Magic”? To perform “magic”, someone drinks a potion, chants a spell, or waves a wand. Drinking a potion is the same as taking a pill, chanting a spell is the same as talking to your computer or car (or if you have it, using voice recognition software), and waving a wand is the same as pushing buttons, turning dials or flipping switches. We take it on faith that whatever the “magic” is will work, and when it doesn’t, we take our car, computer, or other gadget to a “wizard” that specializes in making the magic work again.

Even our language reflects our view that things we don’t understand are magic. A computer “wizard” can make the computer work. A mechanical “wiz” can fix any car. When a something is broken beyond repair, you have “let out the magic smoke”, and it’s time to get a new one. In today’s world, we all use magic in one way or another. The question is simply how we view the magic things we use. If we call them ‘magic’, we’re superstitious, uneducated, or boors. By using more modern and socially acceptable words -like “technology”, “medicine”, or “science”, we really mean the same thing, we’re just using a different word so people won’t think we’re stupid.

The Disconnected Family, or: Living With Mass Media

I had an interesting conversation last week regarding how much mass media our children are exposed to, and how many parents feel that the mass media should be censored to protect kids from inappropriate content. This touches on a couple of topics that I feel fairly strongly about, so here goes:

The first concept is the idea that it is the governments (or someone else’s) job to ensure that our kids are not exposed to “Bad Stuff” in the media (I’m including Movies, TV, Radio, the ‘net, music, and, for those rare folks that still read them, newspapers, books, and magazines). A number of the people involved in the discussion felt that the rating systems used by the movies, and to som extent by music and video games should be expanded to include pretty much any type of media. They felt that it was unreasonable to expect a parent to preview or evaluate something before letting their kids have it, so by having someone else do the review, the parents could simply see what the item was rated, and decide if their kids could be exposed to it or not.

I have a number of problems with this particular approach. First of all, part of being a parent in knowing what your kids are doing – and that includes knowing what TV shows, movies, music, and video games they are exposed to. Sure, it can be time consuming, it may mean that you have to review things that you’re not really interested in, but who ever said being a parent was easy? Second, if the parents aren’t willing to decide what is or is not appropriate for their kids, who will? Sure, there are plenty of organizations out there that are more than willing to try and force their ethics on others – the moral majority (more accurately: Immoral minority) is a great example. They have lobbied to ban books from school libraries, have been leading lobbyists for a host of “decency” laws (things like outlawing extramarital sex, sex education, teaching evolution, etc.). I don’t know about you, but I consider myself a much better judge of what I want my kids exposed to than anyone else. Especially anyone who is so sure they know what is best for everybody that they are willing to make a career out of it.

The second issue I have is the whole concept of just how much mass media our kids are exposed to. On estimate I read was that kids spend something like 70% of their waking time consuming mass media in one form or another. 70%! This is where the disconnect part come in. If kids are really spending that much time soaking up the various forms of mass media, when are they connecting with their family? Think about it. The kids  are plugged in to an ipod or a hand held video game (or both or all three), in the car they have movies, and if the TV is off at home, they’re surfing the web. How many families actually sit down and have dinner together? OK, those that do, how many of the kids show up to the dinner table with an ipod or some other gadget to entertain them? Mass media has become a more pervasive teacher of our kids than family. Kids learn about acceptable language, sexual behavior, drug use, and clothing styles from the mass media. How many parents actually believe that they are the primary source of their kids ethics? Most probably believe it, but how can you tell. Here’s a simple test. find some aspect of your kids life that reflects an aspect of mass media that you don’t like. Music style, clothing, language, whatever. Now, exercise your parental authority to change it to something that is acceptable to you. For most families, this is simply impossible – the parents simply have not established that they are the source that defines what is acceptable and what is not.
There are a few families I know that are exceptions to this. In almost all cases, they are the families where the TV is limited, as are the ‘net and other forms of mass media. By limited, I mean that the parents actually know what they kids are being exposed to, and regulate it – regardless of what “everyone else is doing”. Of course, these parents started this when their kids were still infants. These are also the kids that tend to be “different” at school. They are not afraid of outperforming the other kids, they have ethics and standards that are somewhat different – because they reflect their parents ethics and standards, not those pushed by the mass media. Oh yeah, and they are secure in who they are. They know that they are different, and they know why they are different.

So, think about it. What do you want your kids to be? If you want to raise Charlie’s angels or Sex in the City characters, you don’t have to do anything – mass media will raise your kids for you. If you want something else, turn off the TV, unplug the ipod, kill the ‘net, and spend some time (a lot of time) with your kids showing them what is important. Remember: YOU, the parent are responsible for selecting the role models your kids are exposed to.

Education is NOT a right, it is a privilege.

OK folks, we’re way overdue for this particular rant.

Somewhere along the line, some bozo came up with the great sound bite that education was (is) a right, which All People are entitled to. Of course, being something that all people are entitled to, it is the Govenments responsibility to make sure everyone gets it. Everyone.

First of all, education is not a right. It is a privilege. The idea that a school must allow any kid attend whatever classes their age group is currently enrolled in is insane. Face it, some kids simply have no business in a classroom. Here are two examples.

The first example was a student that I encountered in a first grade class. The child’s parents had insisted that the child be enrolled in a normal first grade class, because they (the parents) felt that the child was prepared for first grade, and would benefit from being around other first graders. Sounds reasonable? Before you decide, lets take a look at the child. The child is in a wheel chair. OK, so am I, big deal. The child cannot speak. Hmmm.. this might be a problem. The child is deaf and blind. This is getting more and more challenging isn’t it. The child has little control over its bowel or bladder, or, for that matter, any part of its body. The good news? The child does come with a full-time attendant.

So, what was the end result of this kid being in a normal first grade class? Well, first of all, the kid wasn’t really in the class all that much. It turned out that the lack of motor control resulted in a lot of loud and ummmm… Unanticipated noises – both vocal and, well, excretory. If you have ever dealt with a classroom full of first graders, you are well aware that a well placed fart can cause mayhem for at least an hour. If the fart is accompanied by other, more solid effluvia, the mayhem is guaranteed. In any case, both the teacher and the aid somehow managed to work together to ensure that this particular student spent very little time in the classroom. So, what lesson did that bunch of first graders learn? It doesn’t matter what they were told the take-home lesson – the one that will stick – is that retards are all jut like that kid, and are best handled by being sent away. What about the kid in question? Well, probably the child really didn’t have the capacity to know what room (s)he was in anyway, so probably there wasn’t any real harm done.

The second example is another kid I dealt with – this time in a third grade class. I have no idea what was going on in this kids home life, but he could be counted on to start a fight at least once a day – on the playground, in the lunchroom, or in the classroom. He was disrespectful – to an extreme – to everybody. He was well aware that there was absolutely nothing anyone at the school could do to discipline him, and he took advantage of that fact. He had absolutely no interest in learning. His primary goal in the classroom seemed to be to get sent to the principles office – which happened on a regular basis. Of course, when he was in the classroom, he made it impossible for anyone else to learn, and the teacher spent most of his time trying to keep this particular student in line. Because this particular kid was in the third grade, he was subjected to the normal battery of tests – ADD, hyperactive, learning disability – the whole spread. End result? The kid didn’t have any “special needs” – he was just a plain old little shit who had never been disciplined. In the end, this particualr kid ended up completely disrupting the class for the majority of the year. Who lost? The teacher – who was powerless to deal with this kid. The other kids in the class – at least those who’s parents couldn’t raise enough of a stink to get their kids moved to a different class. They would have gotten as much education staying home and watching spongebob squarepants instead of coming to school.

So, what do these two examples have in common? The fact that the first kid was allowed into a classroom to start with – the fact that this kids parents actually thought that their kid had a right to be in a classroom, and the fact that in the second example the teacher, principle, and school couldn’t simply kick the little shit out. Because the general public has somehow accepted the fantasy that education is a “right”, it is impossible to prevent these situations from arising. Imagine these two scenarios if we accepted that education is a privilege. In the first case, even if the kids parents have convinced themselves that their kid really is normal (OK, maybe a bit slow), ten seconds with the school administration would simply result in a comment like “I’m sorry, but we cannot accept your child into our school, as we do not have the facilities to provide the special care (s)he needs”. End of story. Bye-Bye. In the second case, the kid would have a couple of meetings with the principle, and when things didn’t improve, the parents would be called in. Maybe the school would be soft, and have a few meetings with parents, but at some point the discussion would boil down to “either your kid shapes up, or we’re punting the little shit”. If the kid doesn’t toe the line, off he goes. Where does he go? dunno. Not the schools problem – he was given a chance to use a privelege, and he blew it. Now he’s mom and dad’s problem.

Another common situation that results from the “education is a privilege” idea is that Colleges and Universities are expected to accept pretty much anyone that applies – if their standards are too high, they lose the status that allows their students to access student loans, federal scholarships, and a slew of other benefits that make it possible for most people to actually pay for a college education. In order to keep those benefits for the students that deserve them, most colleges and universities accept a large number of students that they know are going to fail or drop out. They go through the motions of providing “remedial classes” – essentially trying to teach the kids what they should have learned in Jr. or Sr. high school. Even with those classes, most public colleges and universities expect 50% (yes: half) of an incoming freshman class to fail or drop out. Sure, they’ll take the money for a year or two, the they know those kids are never going to make it to graduation. The colleges and universities can’t be blamed – after all everyone is entitled to an education. Instead of fighting a losing battle with the government, the schools simply found a way to meet the insane federal requirements without having to drop their graduation standards (well, not much anyway). Sure, their entrance standards may be so low that a competent third grader could meet them – after all, they have to give everyone a chance. Fortunately, the colleges and universities only have to give them a chance – they don’t have to ensure that they finish.

So, what happens if we accept the fact that education really is a privilege? Take a look at how most European countries operate, and you’ll get a good idea. Sure, kids there are given the chance to get a free education, but for the most part if they don’t keep up to snuff – both in behavior and grades – they are shunted off to programs where their behavior or lack of academic acuity doesn’t matter. If, later in life, they get their act together, there are plenty of avenues available to them to learn what they would have had they stayed on a different educational track. Of course, they have to do it on their own nickel now, but hey, life choices do have long term consequences. Oh yeah, and most of those educational systems test the students on a  regular basis. As long as you can perform adequately on the tests, you can move on to the next level on the states dime. This includes University – both undergraduate, graduate, and post graduate. And their drop out/failure rates are a lot lower – if you get in, you typically finish. So what system is better?