Yet, another fucking national debate on schools in America.
And they still have it wrong...here's the jackass quote from the article:
"So, where do we start? With the basics [always back to some fucking basic, PE]. As President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parent's income--it is the quality of their teacher."
[by the way, if you don't think money fucking matters--you're dead wrong]
Here, what's the difference between these two questions:
Do teachers make a difference in childrens' lives?
Can a teacher make a difference in a child's life?
The answer to the first question is, no, and that is as it should be.
The answer to the second is, yes, it's possible.
Of course, we have to go back to actual question and take it more at face value. Let's read that one section again: "...whether students succeed in school..." [my emphasis].
Not succeed in life, but in school. Are those mutually exclusive? I think so. One isn't necessarily predicated on the other.
And of course the article goes on bring up, yet again, that immeasurable of immeasurables in the current public education system: performance. How do you measure a teacher's performance? Isn't it measured by the % of kids in their classes who pass the state mandated standardized tests? After all, why else have mandated standardized tests.
In the work force, most employees leave because of a boss not the company because their boss, basically, sucks at managing them. Now, there are a lot of shitty bosses and while that may determine whether you stay at the company or not, the boss won't determine if you are successful at what you do (politics aside and not using "moving up the ladder" as a measure of success).
All this being said, it doesn't mean that quality teachers aren't needed nor that our educational system needs changes. There are many things that can be done (not in the scope of this post--but go to your local bookstore and head to the Education section and you'll find all kinds of books by authors with all kinds of ideas on how to change it..we certainly are not short of ideas).
Now, I'm going to throw out an idea that I have not really fleshed out yet but I think we really need to re-think the purpose of our public education system. What exactly are we trying to achieve? A better work force? Better citizens? Again, are these mutually exclusive?
It's a great topic of conversation not lacking opinions, but seriously lacking an constructive movement. And the latest "national debate" will be like the others--a bunch of bullshit will be spewed and nothing constructive will be done--oh, I'm sure something will be done but I guarantee it won't be constructive.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Giving A Rat's Ass
My son's teachers' feedback is this:
While somehow he manages to pull good grades out of his ass, he does not do the work or put in the effort.
Now, this is an old problem...and I won't go into the long discussion on the various things his mother has attempted or thinks. But I know, I know exaclty what the problem is...and it's hereditary...he gets it honest, directly down from me and my father (not sure about his father etc...nor am I sure about my mother's side)--but I do know me and my father.
Neither stick nor carrot will change the behavior, nor adjusting his medication or changing it. I believe he suffers from:
The Jonah Syndrome (Maslow's)--go down to section VII
I believe this trait is hereditary, just as other personality traits can be (including, to give an example, the dislike of organized religion--got that one too--look it up if you don't believe me--you can find a reference to it in Judith Rich Harris' second book No Two Alike.)
But the question does remain and haunts my thoughts--how, how to get him not to suffer like I did growing up and continue to battle? How? Yes, how?
And so, that got me wondering about the Strengths Movement--I need to read the book, but perhaps this might help him. I don't know if I think it's a catch all for all kids but for some, there is value, plus I certainly don't see a down side. I will need to do some investigating.
While somehow he manages to pull good grades out of his ass, he does not do the work or put in the effort.
Now, this is an old problem...and I won't go into the long discussion on the various things his mother has attempted or thinks. But I know, I know exaclty what the problem is...and it's hereditary...he gets it honest, directly down from me and my father (not sure about his father etc...nor am I sure about my mother's side)--but I do know me and my father.
Basically, when we are not interested in something, we just don't give a rat's ass about it.
Neither stick nor carrot will change the behavior, nor adjusting his medication or changing it. I believe he suffers from:
The Jonah Syndrome (Maslow's)--go down to section VII
I believe this trait is hereditary, just as other personality traits can be (including, to give an example, the dislike of organized religion--got that one too--look it up if you don't believe me--you can find a reference to it in Judith Rich Harris' second book No Two Alike.)
But the question does remain and haunts my thoughts--how, how to get him not to suffer like I did growing up and continue to battle? How? Yes, how?
And so, that got me wondering about the Strengths Movement--I need to read the book, but perhaps this might help him. I don't know if I think it's a catch all for all kids but for some, there is value, plus I certainly don't see a down side. I will need to do some investigating.
It's Been Such A Long Time....
I do miss Brad Delp....but it's been a very, very long time since I even looked at this site let alone posted anything...not that it matters as I'm the only one reading it. Yet, it does represent an external "gathering" of an inner dialogue.
I'm pretty sure I now know why my writing has gone by the wayside...
I drink not from mere joy in wine nor to scoff at faith--no, only to forget myself for a moment, that only do I want of intoxication, that alone.
Omar Khayyam
Basically, I just got tired of thinking, even though it's not like you can just "shut it off", it doesn't work that way, but you can "muffle" it; hence no writing.
But then I started talking to this woman, a very intelligent woman and shit, she's got me thinking again. Went back to Becker's and Harris' books and well...here I am...posting for the first time in nearly a year....
I'm pretty sure I now know why my writing has gone by the wayside...
I drink not from mere joy in wine nor to scoff at faith--no, only to forget myself for a moment, that only do I want of intoxication, that alone.
Omar Khayyam
Basically, I just got tired of thinking, even though it's not like you can just "shut it off", it doesn't work that way, but you can "muffle" it; hence no writing.
But then I started talking to this woman, a very intelligent woman and shit, she's got me thinking again. Went back to Becker's and Harris' books and well...here I am...posting for the first time in nearly a year....
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Logic of Everything Happens for A Reason
When people say they believe "everything happens for a reason", what they are NOT sayings is that there are things that happen for no reason. What they really mean when they say it, is that they believe that everything happens for a "divine" or "pre-ordained" reason. And typically, they mean it happens for a reason that, while perhaps not understood, is for a "good" reason. [For the non-divine, everything DOES happen for a reason because everything has a cause and effect.]
Now, if we follow that logic, then anything that happens is, ultimately, for the best, for "me" the believer.
I believe that life is a journey not a destination and, like many journeys, companion travelers come and go along the way. If I believed that "everything happens for a reason" then I would except the coming and going as "pre-ordained" and hence, best or for the betterment of me.
Sometime after my first marriage ended, I realized that we had both ended up in better places than when we started. The question, however, is, had we not come together, would we have ended up, in the same time frame, better or worse than where we started? There is, of course, no way to answer this. But if I believe that "everything happens for a reason" then I should assume that it was better for both of us to have come together and thus, in the end, better for us to have come apart as that also was for the best of both of us. This would mean, then, that my journey and her journey needed to intersect for a time in order to bring us to a better point. Once that point was reached, our paths then led in different directions and we parted to carry on with our own journeys.
So, should I have looked upon my divorce as a bad thing or a good thing? At the time, we saw it as a bad thing and only in hindsight is it perceived differently. But, perhaps I should view all future "negative" events as really positive in that they are there to move me further along my journey. And while the "going away" of people we care about seems to be sad, perhaps we should not look at it that way but should instead rejoice that we have had the time we did together. Certainly, nothing that we know of precludes the possibility of our meeting again sometime in the future--with the assumption that we either 1) are better than when we parted or 2) perhaps are in need of each other again.
Now, if we follow that logic, then anything that happens is, ultimately, for the best, for "me" the believer.
I believe that life is a journey not a destination and, like many journeys, companion travelers come and go along the way. If I believed that "everything happens for a reason" then I would except the coming and going as "pre-ordained" and hence, best or for the betterment of me.
Sometime after my first marriage ended, I realized that we had both ended up in better places than when we started. The question, however, is, had we not come together, would we have ended up, in the same time frame, better or worse than where we started? There is, of course, no way to answer this. But if I believe that "everything happens for a reason" then I should assume that it was better for both of us to have come together and thus, in the end, better for us to have come apart as that also was for the best of both of us. This would mean, then, that my journey and her journey needed to intersect for a time in order to bring us to a better point. Once that point was reached, our paths then led in different directions and we parted to carry on with our own journeys.
So, should I have looked upon my divorce as a bad thing or a good thing? At the time, we saw it as a bad thing and only in hindsight is it perceived differently. But, perhaps I should view all future "negative" events as really positive in that they are there to move me further along my journey. And while the "going away" of people we care about seems to be sad, perhaps we should not look at it that way but should instead rejoice that we have had the time we did together. Certainly, nothing that we know of precludes the possibility of our meeting again sometime in the future--with the assumption that we either 1) are better than when we parted or 2) perhaps are in need of each other again.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Chicago
I've been listening to Chicago's Greatest Hits Vol I--you know "Saturday in the Park" and such and I just wonder why there's nothing like this going on in today's music. Hell, I don't even know if anyone is using horns in their rock let alone filling the void of this kind of great music.
Admittedly, I don't listen to the radio...the iPod has made that unnecessary so I can't say for sure there isn't anything out there, but I do peruse iTunes and can't seem to find anything.
Anyone know something I don't? (besides all that....)
Admittedly, I don't listen to the radio...the iPod has made that unnecessary so I can't say for sure there isn't anything out there, but I do peruse iTunes and can't seem to find anything.
Anyone know something I don't? (besides all that....)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Blogger
Well, well....guess who's bringing the 21st century to my conservative old school company? That's right, for the project I'm working on, I've convinced them to let me keep everyone updated via a corporate blog. Now that the idea's out of the bag, I've heard others wanting to do the same.
On the down side, our Legal won't let us keep it anonymous...but it's a start....
Saturday, August 15, 2009
A Little More On Healthcare
While the interview with one of my favorite persons contains much, here's a little more on healthcare:
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, healthcare is a dramatic case. I mean, for decades, the healthcare issue has been right at the top of domestic concerns, for very good reasons. The US has the most dysfunctional healthcare system in the industrial world, has about twice the per capita costs and some of the worst outcomes. It's also the only privatized system. And if you look closely, those two things are related. And the privatized system is highly inefficient: a huge amount of administration, bureaucracy, supervision, you know, all kinds of things. It's been studied pretty carefully.
Now, the public has had an opinion about this for decades. A considerable majority want a national healthcare system, like other industrial countries have. They usually say a Canadian-style system, not because Canada is the best, but at least you know that Canada exists. Nobody says an Australian-style system, which is much better, because who knows anything about that? But something like what's sometimes called Medicare Plus, like extend Medicare to the population.
Well, up until—it's interesting. Up until the year 2004, that idea was described, for example, by the New York Times as politically impossible and lacking political support. So, maybe the public wants it, but that's not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed, so it's not—no political support. Well, in 2008, for the first time, the Democratic candidates—first Edwards, then the others—began to move in the direction of what the public has wanted, not there, but in that direction.
So what happened between 2004 and 2008? Well, public opinion didn't change. It's been this way for decades. What changed is that manufacturing industry, a big sector of the economy, has recognized that it's being severely harmed by the highly inefficient privatized health system. So, General Motors said that it costs them over a thousand dollars more to produce a car in Detroit than across the border in Windsor, Canada. And, you know, when manufacturing industry becomes concerned, then things become politically possible, and they begin to have political support. So, yes, in 2008, there's some discussion of it.
Now, you know, this is very revealing insight into how American democracy functions and what is meant by the term "political support" and "politically possible." Again, this should be headlines. Will a proposal come that approaches what the public wants? Well, we're already getting the backlash, strong backlash. And what private healthcare systems are claiming is that this is unfair. The government is so much more efficient that they'll be driven—there's no level playing field if the government gets into it, which is true.
The whole interview is:
here
Or watch the video version.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, healthcare is a dramatic case. I mean, for decades, the healthcare issue has been right at the top of domestic concerns, for very good reasons. The US has the most dysfunctional healthcare system in the industrial world, has about twice the per capita costs and some of the worst outcomes. It's also the only privatized system. And if you look closely, those two things are related. And the privatized system is highly inefficient: a huge amount of administration, bureaucracy, supervision, you know, all kinds of things. It's been studied pretty carefully.
Now, the public has had an opinion about this for decades. A considerable majority want a national healthcare system, like other industrial countries have. They usually say a Canadian-style system, not because Canada is the best, but at least you know that Canada exists. Nobody says an Australian-style system, which is much better, because who knows anything about that? But something like what's sometimes called Medicare Plus, like extend Medicare to the population.
Well, up until—it's interesting. Up until the year 2004, that idea was described, for example, by the New York Times as politically impossible and lacking political support. So, maybe the public wants it, but that's not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed, so it's not—no political support. Well, in 2008, for the first time, the Democratic candidates—first Edwards, then the others—began to move in the direction of what the public has wanted, not there, but in that direction.
So what happened between 2004 and 2008? Well, public opinion didn't change. It's been this way for decades. What changed is that manufacturing industry, a big sector of the economy, has recognized that it's being severely harmed by the highly inefficient privatized health system. So, General Motors said that it costs them over a thousand dollars more to produce a car in Detroit than across the border in Windsor, Canada. And, you know, when manufacturing industry becomes concerned, then things become politically possible, and they begin to have political support. So, yes, in 2008, there's some discussion of it.
Now, you know, this is very revealing insight into how American democracy functions and what is meant by the term "political support" and "politically possible." Again, this should be headlines. Will a proposal come that approaches what the public wants? Well, we're already getting the backlash, strong backlash. And what private healthcare systems are claiming is that this is unfair. The government is so much more efficient that they'll be driven—there's no level playing field if the government gets into it, which is true.
The whole interview is:
here
Or watch the video version.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Healthcare
Of course I have to chime in on the subject. So here it is: There are a LOT of stupid jackasses out there and what I really want to know is how someone like Glen Beck gets his own TV show, 'cause that's what I want to do: get on TV and spout off ranting stupid bullshit and get paid for it (as it is, I do the same here, just don't get paid...and no one listens).
Oh, yeah...and after this nothing else need be said.
Oh, yeah...and after this nothing else need be said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
