Teachers: born or made?

Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:08:29 -0800

As a former teacher and the husband of a long-time Marysville educator, I read with interest the linked article. It seems especially timely, given the recent coverage of what's going on in two Marysville schools.
I, for one, have so many opinions about the article and the state of public education, most of which are extremely negative, that I scarcely know where to begin. So I won't, but to say that teaching has to be the most difficult job, which is why the frustration level among Marysville teachers, in particular, is now so high; they're being blamed for their lack of "accountability," when, as the linked article implies, no one's quite sure how to increase "accountability." Rather, the method of choice is to simply cut off people's heads with very blunt axes.
I, too, am upset, because the No Child Left Behind law and the Obama-Duncan Race to the Top initiative are testament enough to the victory of conservative ideology (essentially clueless and lame). Neither the law nor the current administration dare admit to the rather inconvenient truth: socioeconomic status is the best predictor of test scores. (Lest you disagree, try this exercise, which I have done. Wade through the statistics provided by the Office of Public Instruction on its website. Guess what? There's an extremely high and inverse correlation between poverty—free or reduced lunch figures—and WASL results. The higher the poverty rate the lower the score.)

Conservatives, including Duncan and Obama, believe that education is the way out of poverty. Progressives (the few of us remaining, it seems) prefer to tackle poverty straight on; edu–cational scores will follow.

Love to hear from you.

Obama’s F

Wed, 3 Mar 2010 08:31:54 -0800

My distaste and contempt for the No Child Left Behind Act know no bounds. However well-intentioned, the federal legislation is now proceeding like a juggernaut, bent on destroying public education, especially with conductors Barack Obama and his new education secretary, Arne Duncan, in control of the throttle.
Ushered in with much bipartisan fanfare, NCLB has forever tainted Ted Kennedy’s legacy. He was either duped or hadn’t bothered to read his own bill. That he appeared side-by-side with G.W. Bush to praise the legislation, should have set off alarms. But few were paying attention.
Today, NCLB’s fine print has combined with the Great Depression to transform state and local education systems into dens of prostitution, whose “madams” turn draconian tricks in exchange for federal dollars. Schools underperforming? Fire their principal. Better yet, fire the whole faculty. Then what? Uh, replace them with…different principals and teachers—from the same pool. Go figure.
Have we lost our senses? By what twisted logic and spurious research did teachers become the scapegoat for the perpetual “crisis in the classroom”? That alleged liberal Democrats both championed NCLB and righteously carry out its dictates serves as ample testament to men—and a few women—gone mad.
Diane Ravitch, the education historian who did as much to promote the federal bill, has done a 180. She seeks to bury not to praise. Good for her. I fear it’s much too little and too late to halt this train wreck.

Humble beginnings

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:42:25 -0800

I am not, dear reader, a classical music snob. Indeed, I know very little about key signatures, composition, or orchestration—all of which fly comfortably over my head. Nor can I play a musical instrument, although I once played guitar and in my adolescence a string bass. As a child I heard no music in the house; for years we lacked a phonograph and records. But we always had a television, albeit a barely functional one that was ridiculously small. Whatever music I heard came through the tiny TV speakers or at my grandparents’ apartment. There I’d listen to my grandfather’s “vinyl,” a small collection of mostly classical recordings.
Whenever we’d visit, I would rush to pull the records from their sleeves then place them on my grand–father’s turntable—the latest and best Magnavox. The brief menu consisted of: Ferdé Grofé’s Grand Canyon Suite, which I played over and over; opera arias, including several sung by Enrico Caruso; and Dvořák’s New World Symphony. That’s about it.
So, my music experience was both limited and rare. Yet, I have always preferred classical music to any other genre, despite being largely ignorant of its complex ingredients.
I remain in awe at those who have some mastery of classical music. I am especially astounded by conductors who commit entire scores to memory, directing their bands with only a baton and gestures.
A few years ago I purchased a copy of Mahler’s Fourth Symphony orchestral score. Here are the opening bars:
Actually, this part is not very busy, not nearly as busy as things get down the road. Yet, by the last two opening bars above there are seven different kinds of instruments playing—and they all fit together in harmony and in time. Coming full circle, the symphony concludes as quietly as it begins, with low notes played on a harp and contrabass.
A competent conductor can “hear” the music by simply looking at the notes on the page. I, on the other hand, suspect that the music is either busy or or not and whether the sounds are pitching up or down. On occasion, I try to “follow” a recording of Mahler’s Fourth with the score in front of me. I’m quickly and hopelessly lost.
In brief, I have no idea why my tastes run toward the classical music genre. I simply like it.
So there.

Clever

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:56:37 -0800

We can’t eat principles

Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:05:05 -0800

I hesitated to watch the program, Bill Moyers’s latest. It featured a conversation with two individuals holding opposing views of the recent Supreme Court case Citizens United. I had already heard the arguments pro and con; I did not wish to raise my blood pressure levels listening to another “free speech” proponent. But I relented, watching the show last night.
Nick Gillespie edits and writes for Reason magazine and its online site. He believes that the constitutional prohibition against Congress’ abridging free speech is sacrosanct. He also believes that corporations are simply “associations” of individuals. Thus, if an individual has a constitutional guarantee of free speech, so does an association of individuals; and all the rights, duties, and privileges enjoyed by citizens extend to associations of individuals.* But his logic is flawed.
The set of all frogs is not itself a frog. The set of all red-haired persons is not red. Gillespie commits the fallacy of composition, which wrongly ascribes the properties of the members of a group or set to the group or set itself. Therefore, an association of persons is not itself a person—notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s judgment in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886).
While listening to Gillespie I could not help but wonder about principles (such as the sanctity of free speech) and the real lives of ordinary Americans. In particular, how are the nation’s poor faring under the existing system, already dominated by the oligarchs? As it happens, not very well.
Suppose, I wondered further, self-described libertarians such as Gillespie somehow came to rule. Suppose they were able to implement their free-speech-is-sacred principle. Suppose, as they advocate, government were then shrunk so small as to make it flushable. What then?
It does not take much imagination to appreciate that under a laissez faire system the poor would become poorer and the rich richer. After all, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare, no unemployment benefits, no food stamp program, no minimum wage, no labor laws, no environmental protection agencies, and so on. Above all, however, markets would be free and presumably self-managing, just as Alan Greenspan told us. Everyone would just have to fend for themselves.
Curiously, those who push the Constitution and, in particular, its first amendment, conveniently ignore the justification for the document—as expressed in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It would seem that a fair reading of these words would arrange priorities by the order they appear in the text. The Founders were interested in:

1. ongoing perfection of the United States (“Union”);
2. justice for all (as in fairness?)
3. peace and harmony
4. homeland security
5. the people’s welfare
6. freedom

The libertarians would place Freedom über alles. They would not be concerned (at all?) about outcomes.
Moreover, people can’t eat principles.
_______________
* Could a corporation run for political office, then?