The (Not So) Latest
3/6/05: A Shaft of Light
- These days you might feel a shaft of light
Make its way across your face
And when you do
You'll know how it was meant to be- — 10,000 Maniacs ("These are Days")
Things are getting good for America's youth. The Supreme Court has finally ended the practice of executing minors. The youth-friendly Howard Dean has taken over the Democratic Party. Danny Goldberg has taken over Air America Radio.
For the first time in years, I feel there is hope for the youth of America. For as long as I can remember, there was so much hatred toward youth that it would have been unthinkable for the Supreme Court to make any changes that helped youth. It would have been unthinkable for someone who cares about youth to be trusted with chairing a major political party or running a talk radio network. Now, doors are opening. The hard work done by youth advocates has started to pay off. We haven't won yet, but we have gotten our foot in the door. We have an opportunity now to make improvements for youth. If we don't let up. If we keep marching forward.
After so many years lost in the wilderness, a generation born in this lost civilization, a generation that never knew another condition, is hearing reports from the mountaintop: the Promised Land has been sighted. It's not far off now. We can get there if we keep moving.
- He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat
Be swift my soul to answer Him, be jubilant my feet
Since God is marching on- — "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
2/22/05: Unintended Consequences of NCLB
In California, there are two types of credentials a teacher can get: single-subject (for teaching a single subject, usually at the high school level), and multiple-subject (mostly for elementary school teachers). Bush's No Child Left Behind Act requires that each classroom have a "highly qualified" teacher. I'm currently earning a single subject credential to teach social studies so I will be "highly qualified" to teach that subject. I've already taken tons of coursework in history, geography, political science, etc. to meet these qualifications.
I'm now student-teaching at a middle school. In middle schools, each teacher usually handles a single subject. Many of the teachers, though, were hired with multiple-subject credentials. They aren't considered "highly qualified" to teach any one subject. So how are administrators responding to the new requirements of No Child Left Behind? That's right. Instead of having them teach one class for which they are not "highly qualified," administrators are getting each teacher to teach two different subjects for which they are not qualified. That way they are teaching "multiple subjects."
"So we can screw the kids up in two subjects," is the joke I've heard from more than one middle school teacher.
A teacher I know does both history and English. She holds a degree in neither subject. Her background is in art. But her multiple-subject credential qualifies her to teach both, so long as she doesn't teach only one.
Another middle school teacher I know teaches only 6th grade history. But because of her multiple-subject credential, administration is looking to replace one of her history classes with a class in some other subject to comply with NCLB.
This seems to be making a bad situation worse. If a teacher is entrusted with one subject for which she is not highly qualified, she can spend her evenings boning up on that subject. If she is given two subjects for which she is not qualified, she can spend only half as much time learning each subject.
Didn't anybody think through this NCLB stuff before implementing it? The definition of "highly qualified" needs to be re-examined.
2/12/05: Howard Dean Back on Top
Howard Dean has been elected Chair of the Democratic Party. He won't be able to help youth as much as he could have as president. But he will play a crucial role in leading the Democratic Party and shaping the values for which they stand.
If Dean moves the party in youth-friendly directions, and the party succeeds, the Republicans may soon match the Democrats by electing a youth-friendly Chair for their own party, and the whole country may move away from the current hostility toward youth. No results are guaranteed, but with Dean as the Chair of a major political party, at least there is hope.
2/7/05: The Teen Endangerment Act
With the Republican Party firmly controlling all three branches of government in America, checks and balances are out the window. The bad news for youth is that one of the Party's top priorities will be passing the Teen Endangerment Act. This Act was proposed many years ago and was shot down by Democrats and some thoughtful Republicans.
The Teen Endangerment Act is modeled after legislation from the days of slavery. Back in the day, slaves would sometimes try to escape their owners and run to a state where slavery was outlawed. So legislators passed laws against helping slaves travel without their owners' consent. Today, we have many states that place an age-limit on who can obtain an abortion. As if a fetus in a teenager's womb were more precious than a fetus in an older woman's womb. As if pregnancy could hurt an older woman's life more than a teenager's life.
The Teen Endangerment Act would make it illegal to help a teenager cross state lines to get an abortion is a state where the abortion policies do not discriminate against teenagers. More info here.
1/16/05: Victim Blaming
My Methods teacher told us this thing she does. Besides teaching student-teachers, she teaches a high school class, and if one of her high school students is late, she orders him to do janitorial work. After she said that, one of my classmates walked in the door — a good half-hour late. Of course, she did not punish him in any way. No college student would accept humiliating punishment for simply being late.
We were assigned to write response papers after each class. When I pointed out her double-standard in my paper, she defended herself by saying her high school has a tardy policy and our college does not. In other words, it's the Nuremberg defense: 'I am just carrying out orders.' I did my student-teaching at her high school, and I never punished my students for tardiness. I happen to know other teachers at this school do not punish students for tardiness, just as no college teacher would. So my Methods teacher was not as helpless as she claims.
In my response paper, I suggested it was ironic for a social science teacher to punish students in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution. The 13th Amendment says the government cannot impose involuntary servitude except on someone who has been convicted of a crime after receiving due process. For a public school teacher, punishing tardiness (which violates no law) with servitude is as illegal as dragging the student to a Catholic Church making her say five Hail Marys.
In response to these criticisms, my Methods teacher wrote on my paper this seven-word defense: "Then don't be late. Simple as that." This seems a bit like a rapist defending his crime by saying, "Don't want to get raped, don't wear a short skirt. Simple as that." It's known as 'victim-blaming.' Declare the victim deserved it. Make the victim feel guilty and ashamed, rather than outraged. It's an effective way to keep victims weak and helpless, and an easy target for future violations.
1/16/05: Army Ads
Lately I've heard radio ads paid for by the U.S. Army (i.e. paid for with your tax money). The ads urge people to get in teenager's faces and push them to attend school regularly and don't drop out.
When I was a high school student, I often cut class so I could hang out at the library and learn. I ultimately grabbed a GED and dropped out of school so I could pursue an education, and I still believe it was the best move I ever made. Now here's the government spending my money and yours to lecture us that students should be pushed into attending classes regardless of the quality of those classes.
Why is the Army spending money on this? The government recently cut benefits for veterans because the government needed to save money. The Army can't get enough enlistees because they can't offer soldiers enough pay for the risky job of fighting a war. But they spend money on anti-youth ads?!
How does the Army benefit from this expenditure? Is it because our schools promote submission and discourage students from thinking for themselves? That would certainly prepare them to join the Army. Is it because our schools promote jingoism and right-wing views that support the military? I'm not sure what the answer is.
What I find most interesting is that I've only heard this ad on Air America, a talk radio network with limited youth-appeal. It seems the Army is not as interested in lecturing young people as they are in getting old dudes to see them lecturing young people. Perhaps their strategy is to convince parents the Army is a good place for their children to be, a place that promotes "good values" like going to school, obeying your parents, and eating all your vegetables.
Whatever their reason, I think our money could be put to better use.
1/10/05: 10-Year-Old Violated and Arrested
In Philadelphia, a grade school teacher found some of her belongings missing. So the school searched all the students, including 10-year-old Porsche Brown, even though there was no warrant and no reasonable suspicion Ms. Brown was guilty. When they thoroughly searched the young girl's belongings, they found no stolen items, but they did find (gasp!) a pair of scissors. The school decided scissors constituted a concealed weapon, so police handcuffed the girl and took her away in a squad car.
After the police were done with her, the school (what else?) suspended Ms. Brown for five days and began hearings to have her expelled. And people wonder why some kids have no respect for the law, and no respect for their schools.
Details here.
1/10/05: God Bless Washington
The state of Washington's Supreme Court has ruled that teenagers have a right to privacy like anyone else. It's high time someone did.
This came in a criminal case. A woman spied on her daughter's phone calls. I wish I could say the mother was the one arrested, but in fact it was her daughter's friend who got arrested after the invasive mother overheard and reported the friend confessing to purse-snatching. The court overturned his conviction because the evidence was gotten illegally by the nosey mother.
It's a shame to see a purse-snatcher found innocent (though he did all his time before the Supreme Court overturned the conviction), but it's great to see the courts finally acknowledge that teenagers should have the same legal protections as anyone else. I hope everyone in Washington who has suffered invasion of their privacy will take the opportunity to use legal action against the perps.
Details here.
1/8/05: School Funds Spent Bribing Journalist
Many believe the main reason Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has failed so badly is because it was so poorly funded. Now we know one reason the Department of Education had so little money to fund this sucker. It turns out that, under Bush's leadership, the Department of Education had to spend $240,000 bribing a right-wing commentator to talk up NCLB on television and radio. And there are several other known cases of Bush using Dept. of Ed. money to enhance Bush's image rather than to educate children.
Spending tax-payer money to get the media to say our president is doing a great job: this is the kind of thing that happens in dictatorships. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein spent the Iraqi tax money spread his self-serving propaganda in his nation's. The American president should meet a higher standard. Of course, Bush's tactics are different than Hussein's. Saddam Hussein used direct government control of the media, while Bush is using tax dollars to bribe the media. The tactics are different, but the strategy is the same.
Armstrong Williams, the commentator who took the $240,000, has admitted his actions in this did not meet journalistic ethics, confessing he had used poor judgment and would not do this again; but what about Bush's ethics? Some are calling on Williams to return the money. I think he should, so that he does not benefit from his wrong-doing. Bush, however, should reach into his personal fortune and also pay money back to our school system. Williams did what he was bribed to do; he can't undo it now. George W. Bush benefited by getting the best press (for a half-hearted initiative) that money could buy. Bush continues to enjoy the benefit with a second term he might not have won had voters enjoyed more reliable information about Bush's "accomplishments." Bush should pay for what he got. Tax-payers should not.
Public money should be used to serve the public, not to serve one politician.
Details here.
1/5/05: How can We Keep Lasers out of the Hands of Adults?
Lately, there have been several incidents of pilots being temporarily blinded by jerks on the ground using laser pointers. This endangers lives as pilots could easily crash, killing both passengers and people on the ground. Finally, authorities have captured one of the alleged perpetrators, 38-year-old David Banach, who falsely accused his own daughter before admitting he was the guilty one.
Banash has been arrested and charged. That is appropriate. But imagine what would happen if the perpetrator were a teenager? We would see more than the arrest of one person who deserves it. Media nationwide would use this as an excuse to vilify youth in general and constantly demand we take action to "keep dangerous lasers out of the hands of kids." Legislators would enact laws to ban youth from buying or owning laser pointers.
Why doesn't this happen when the perp is old? Why isn't anyone trying to ban 38-year-olds from owning lasers? Is it because 38-year-olds have some vital need to own these toys? I've never seen a laser pointer be nearly as effective as a traditional stick pointer. Perhaps law-makers simply feel it is wrong to restrict the freedom of millions because of the bad behavior of a few. But why are they so quick to restrict the freedom of millions of youth whenever they learn about a few youth acting wrongly?
More on the Banach case here.
12/30/04: New Content
Standardized testing is discussed in our new review of The Perfect Score.
12/28/04: PBS Could Drive You to Drink
PBS stations across America are airing a special called "Sesno Reports: America Drinks." Big disappointment.
I watched it because I had heard Alex Koroknay-Palicz of NYRA would be featured, talking about the age-laws on alcohol. But before I got to see him, I had to sit through an hour of crap.
The show claims to examine alcohol in American culture. In fact, it spends part of its time discussing how Americans in general have enjoyed alcohol throughout our nation's history. The show spends most of its time, however, examining the "problem" of teenagers drinking. The show spends less than 10 seconds discussing problems that involve old dudes drinking. But when the show discusses young people drinking, it follows the assumption that such drinking is a problem. We see car-wreckage. We see head-shaking at those awful parents who help their children drink safely instead of punishing them for drinking at all.
At the show's conclusion, they have a panel of people discuss the issue. Alex Koroknay-Palicz gets one soundbite. Less than 10 seconds to say it is hypocritical for adults to drink while condemning youth for doing the same. That was a voice greatly needed in this program, but 10 seconds could not make the show balanced or thought-provoking.
12/21/04: Brainiac
I haven't posted in a while, but not because I have nothing to say. My student teaching and my ed. classes have kept me occupied, but now it's Winter Break. Some things I still can't discuss yet. But I will share what happened in my Methods class.
My Methods class was an ed. class for those who are going to teach social studies, where we were supposed to learn the best ways to teach this subject. (Those who are going to teach other subjects have different Methods classes.)
For the last several weeks of the course, students each presented an example of their best lessons. Watching my peers do their stuff, I was surprised to see people I knew and liked suddenly become the a--hole teachers I hated when I was in high school. Many started by saying, I am Mr. So-and-So. (In these reenactments of lessons, none of these teachers addressed us students as Mr. or Ms., but they all insisted we address them with that superior degree of respect.) Many would act bossy. ("I want to see pens moving!") During these presentations, I became the class clown I had been in high school, using occasional humor and irreverence to try and make class tolerable despite these teachers' best efforts.
What surprised me most was that, in these exemplary lessons, many of my peers were making factual mistakes about history. Most of these people were history majors showing us history lessons. They should have been on top of their game. I was an exception. I majored in political science, and I know very little about history. (That, of course, does not prevent the school system from assigning me to teach history.) Yet strangely, I seemed to catch my peers making mistakes about history. As I played the role of a student in the class, I would raise my hand and gently point out their mistakes.
In one instance, one of my sharper classmates gave a lesson on WWII. He showed a photo which he wrongly identified as showing something that happened in Paris. I gently asked, "Wasn't that actually Czechoslovakia?" It was, and I knew it was, but I phrased it as a question so as not to look like I knew that much more than him. No point showing him up more than I had to.
He snapped at me. "You need to pay attention, Bill. What would happen if you were at an army base and weren't paying attention? What if this were you," he asked showing a photo of Pearl Harbor getting bombed, "walking along this bridge not paying attention and a bomb hit you?"
What a strange accusation to make, that I wasn't paying attention. It sounds like the kind of thing one of my crappy high school teachers would have pulled. Was he lying to himself about what I had said? Refusing to hear me correcting him and imagining I was just making random comments unconnected to reality? Was he trying to change the class's perception so he would look smarter than he was? I don't know.
People don't like being corrected, especially while presenting something on which they are being graded. But I would do this — even with the nicer teachers — because I felt correction was better than letting misinformation about history spread to future history teachers. How can we teach if we don't have our facts straight? That should be the first concern of every teacher. Instead, our ed. classes all focus on how to organize group work and how to design busywork. No one cares if the future teachers know anything. George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act requires a "highly qualified teacher" in every classroom, but the school system has decided teachers are made qualified by degrees and credentials rather than by knowledge. And the people attracted to K-12 teaching don't seem to be people who care much about their own education let alone anyone else's.
In this Methods class, I became scorned as the know-it-all, and frankly I think it's sad, not only that these history teachers knew less about history than I, but that they cared so little about getting their facts straight.
On the last day of class, I got to do my presentation. I expected several students to get revenge by becoming class clowns or by correcting my historical facts. No one did, or at least it didn't seem like it. Twice, students pointed out facts I was omitting, but it never bothered me. These points were small and didn't really undermine me much. More importantly, I care about education more than I care about looking smart, so I valued these contributions. I wasn't bothered by them; I was grateful for them.
The revenge came when I got my written anonymous feedback from classmates. Many gave me positive feedback and thoughtful suggestions for improvement. But others got ugly. Some took shots at me for having a funny voice. Some attacked me as being rude and failing to support my classmates more.
Two criticized my opening. I had said, "My name is Bill. Since I don't address any of you as Mr. or Ms., I won't insult you by asking you to address me formally." Classmates complained I was robbing teachers of their due respect. "If you don't want to be respected," one wrote, "don't become a teacher." Yes, my treating students with respect was seen as a threat to the teachers who want to go on power trips. Once students get a taste of respect, students will no longer tolerate teachers' disrespect, and that would ruin all the fun for teachers who don't care about teaching.
I hope that's true. I hope I can have that effect. Bad teachers of the world, you who want your egos stroked more than you want to educate, be afraid. Be very afraid.
Archives from: 1/10 - 5/10 5/09 - 12/09 1/09 - 4/09 8/08 - 12/08 1/07 - 7/08 3/05 - 12/06 12/04 - 3/05 1/04 - 11/04 8/03 - 1/04
