Public (and private) schools around the world often have students from a variety of cultures and countries. In the USA, the dominant nationality in those schools would be "American"--students born with all the rights and responsibilities of a US passport holder and resident. In Germany, I imagine the dominant nationality would be...German. "International schools" are the exception, and I teach in such a school. We have well over 200 students who hold passports for more than 40 different countries. We have students from every continent except Antarctica. (Someday, maybe :) )
Tonight was the night of the long-awaited Modern Classics concert. Except for a 6th grader who played a Bach prelude to open the evening, the entire performance belonged to the 18-member concert band. They played six pieces, from grade 2.5 to 4. (If you direct an amateur band or orchestra, those numbers have meaning for you.)
Membership in the concert band begins at grade 8. Tonight's band featured kids from the USA, Pakistan, South Korea, and our host country. Because our school has limited space, concert band is an after-school activity rather than a course for a grade. With sports teams, a spring drama, a choir, and several other after-school options, the concert band is limited to one 90-minute practice per week. There are only four seniors in the band. Musical instruments here are tremendously expensive; a "beginner" flute is about double the price one pays in the US, and renting an instrument is unheard of here. The school owns a few instruments, but many concert band members must share (everything except mouthpieces) with the 7th grade beginner band. Practice schedules are fun.
Many of our students are here for just a few years. Their parents have jobs with one of the giant aerospace companies, or have been sent by a government as diplomats and staff (with families) for a brief stint. Other students will probably be here until they graduate. Perhaps their parents teach at our school (1st trumpet, 2nd trombone and 2nd clarinet). Perhaps they were born to a family of hyphenated citizenship (1st baritone, the FIRST ever student from this country to be accepted into the AMIS International Honor Band). Perhaps their families have invested years living in this country to bring hope to a barren land.
Our school doesn't have a swimming pool. We don't have an auditorium for concerts, or a gym for basketball practice. We have hot lunches delivered every day (including McDonald's once every two weeks) and we just this week got our first lettermen jackets and official school t-shirts. Our teachers are qualified teachers who love to teach and who genuinely care about their students.
The reality is, though, that our students--the concert band kids, the drama kids, the soccer stars, the juggling-club kids, and the 4-year-olds who took a field trip to the dentist today--our students are the best kids in the world. They are from all over the world, will leave us to live all over the world, and if statistics are true, will probably spend some part of their adult lives in residence far away from their home countries. The best part of a school with the best kids in the world is that "home" for these kids is whatever place they are right now. No one's country is better than another's; no one fights with a classmate because their nations' armies can't get along. English is our common language (which the teachers appreciate) and the kids use it faithfully to communicate: in class, at lunch, and for hours each evening on Facebook.
A concert band is a collection of individuals, each playing an instrument. The rhythms are usually different from section to section. Percussion notation is very different from the melodies played on flute; the also sax music is transcribed in a different key from the music played on trombone. Once everyone is seated, the conductor raises the baton, and it all fits together. Some whole notes, played fortissimo; some staccato drum beats; a boom from the gong and a fanfare from the trumpets.
The best kids in the world are just like that. Some stay with us for years, resonating in our hearts. Others have our attention for just a short time before they fade away into memory. Together, they fill our school with laughter and learning and life. These kids may make the world a better place someday, and I'm thankful to be part of the audience.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Message or messenger? (aka "The Attack of the Killer Comment")
Within a half-hour's time, I received two different links in my Twitter timeline. One dealt particularly with the concept of Creation vs. Evolution as it appears in a US state's public-school curriculum. The other offered a rather science-intensive look at a possible flaw in "Neo-Darwinism". The juxtaposition of the two ideas intrigued me, and I began to contemplate a blog post on the subject.
I wasn't sure which direction to take: simply reporting on the information, discussing the concepts of creationism and evolution in school classrooms, the science of creationism. I remembered a tweet I had favorited a few days ago about legislation involving the teaching of evolution in US public schools:
First, to summarize the article in my own words:
If you have not yet heard of the "National Center for Science Education", it is a "not for profit" 501(c)(3) organization with a ".com" internet prefix. Organized in 1981, it boasts 4,000 members "with diverse religious affliations." In the "disclaimer" section, the mission is stated: NCSE is "devoted to promoting and enhancing the teaching of science, especially the evolutionary sciences, in K-12 public schools." (emphasis mine)
This post is not intended to be about the NCSE; I offer that information simply as a means of explaining the position taken by the author of the "9 Bills" post. The tone of the article, from the opening lede to Steven Newton's quote, indicates nothing but contempt for the idea of creationism. As I read the comments, I realized that the intended audience was expected to agree with that contempt.
There was very little clear, factual explanation of the theory of evolution and its educational value. (Kudos to the few commenters who tried.) There were a few "anti-evolution creationists" who tried to offer clear, factual explanations of their ideas. However, the overwhelming use of comment space was personal attack of those creationists. Appeal to Ridicule, mis-direction, ad hominem attacks abound. Why?
As the article is a few days old, I don't expect that my comment at the MotherJones site will be read by those who frequent the site, so I've reproduced the comment here. I replied to a comment that began with this sentence:
I wasn't sure which direction to take: simply reporting on the information, discussing the concepts of creationism and evolution in school classrooms, the science of creationism. I remembered a tweet I had favorited a few days ago about legislation involving the teaching of evolution in US public schools:
9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
Then I read the comments on the that article. I knew after reading just a few comments that I had my blog post.First, to summarize the article in my own words:
Even though our country has money troubles, it's the perfect time to force schools to teach creationism. Texas, Kentucky, Florida, New Mexico, and Missouri each had a bill presented this year (2011); Tennessee and Oklahoma had two. Some of these pieces of legislation passed; others died in committee. Speaking of the bills in process in Tennessee, Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education states: (this legislation will) "allow teachers to bring this culture war into the classroom in a way that is going to leave students very confused about what science is and isn't."
If you have not yet heard of the "National Center for Science Education", it is a "not for profit" 501(c)(3) organization with a ".com" internet prefix. Organized in 1981, it boasts 4,000 members "with diverse religious affliations." In the "disclaimer" section, the mission is stated: NCSE is "devoted to promoting and enhancing the teaching of science, especially the evolutionary sciences, in K-12 public schools." (emphasis mine)
This post is not intended to be about the NCSE; I offer that information simply as a means of explaining the position taken by the author of the "9 Bills" post. The tone of the article, from the opening lede to Steven Newton's quote, indicates nothing but contempt for the idea of creationism. As I read the comments, I realized that the intended audience was expected to agree with that contempt.
There was very little clear, factual explanation of the theory of evolution and its educational value. (Kudos to the few commenters who tried.) There were a few "anti-evolution creationists" who tried to offer clear, factual explanations of their ideas. However, the overwhelming use of comment space was personal attack of those creationists. Appeal to Ridicule, mis-direction, ad hominem attacks abound. Why?
As the article is a few days old, I don't expect that my comment at the MotherJones site will be read by those who frequent the site, so I've reproduced the comment here. I replied to a comment that began with this sentence:
If you wish to understand why the cliche of "Dumb Americans" gets kicked about so much over here in Europe.... look no further than this article.
Creation or evolution? Anti-creation and anti-evolution? The original topic, a very important discussion in today's America, is lost (at least in this comment stream) in the flood of an attack. This flood, I suspect, will last much longer than did the flood in Noah's day. A note of caution to those who wish to defend their faith, regardless of Who or what is the recipient of that faith: if you disagree with the message, don't shoot the messenger. Your readers will appreciate it, and you may actually accomplish what you set out to do: share your ideas with others.From bteacher99: Having lived outside of the US for several years, I can assure you that "dumb Americans" has less to do with the beliefs of Creationists and more to do with the behavior of American tourists and expats who give every impression that what they want is the most important concern, and that the only thing worth thinking about is the latest claptrap on TV or the web.
Any Creationist who dared to comment on this thread was immediately shot down with "facts" accompanied by insults. Are some of you unable to have a coherent conversation with someone that disagrees with you without calling names like kids on the playground? That's not the impression you are leaving for the reader.
If this is such a serious and important issue to you, shouldn't you be about the business of converting the opposition with reasoned arguments and replies? There is some of that, to be fair, but what I saw more than anything is appeal to ridicule, and perhaps some personal attack. So what if I disagree with you? Does that mean you should explain your views step by step, or just take the easy road claim those with whom you disagree are uneducated, "special", "dumb" or perhaps even in need of re-education.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
How would you know?
I was working late the other day. The boss was still in the office. The nature of our jobs sometimes requires that. The particular place where we work requires something else of us as well: he and I are both believers. We are Christians. We chose to become Christians long before we took our respective jobs here, but we would not have chosen this location in which to work if we had not already chosen to follow Christ.
My boss had collected his briefcase, coat, and the remains of his lunch. I heard him say, "Good night, see you tomorrow" or something equally innocuous. I realized that it was nearly dark outside and that the workday should have ended more than an hour ago. I busied myself with collecting papers, shutting down the computer, and exiting my office. As I locked my office door, I noticed the boss's office was still open. As I walked through the lobby, I saw that his coat, briefcase and lunch were sitting on the desk. The light was on. The boss was nowhere to be found.
It had been a few minutes since his goodbye, but I presumed he had stepped into the restroom before his brief walk home. I collected my lunch from the office fridge, signed out, and put on my coat, rather more slowly than normal. The boss was simply not in the office, but neither had he left for home.
As I exited the front gate of the campus, I thought, "Heh. Maybe the rapture happened."
(Briefly: I Thessalonians 4:16 - 17 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. The rapture is the time when Christians--those who are saved by the grace of Christ's death on the cross--are taken from the earth to live forever in heaven. The time when this will happen is not known, nor is the timing known: what must happen first. One thing that will take place: wars and rumors of wars.)
As I mentioned in the beginning, I am a Christian. If the rapture had actually happened, I would not have been Left Behind. I wasn't really worried...then a much more sobering thought occurred to me.
How would I know?
I live in a part of the world where the Muslim call to prayer sounds five times each day. The number of Christian churches in this part of the world are numbered in the single-digits per major city (if one is even available for local citizens). In some lands, Christians can choose to be identified as such on their government identification, and officially should fear no reprisal. The reality is, though, that Christians who are natives of this region often keep their faith from their family and friends for a little while. If those closest to them do not know of their faith, how likely is it that I will know, as I see them only at the grocery store or on the bus to the mall?
Had the Christians in this region...in my city...suddenly been "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air", the effect on daily life would have been minimal. A wife missing from this building; a husband missing from the office; perhaps an entire family might be gone here and there. Governments would still have their personnel in place. Stores could still open; transportation would run without a hitch. Teachers would be in their classrooms to greet the children that arrived that morning. What would those teachers tell the children about the disappearances?
Never figured out where the boss went that day, but the feelings remain a week later: feelings of despair—so few believers here in this region of the world; feelings of hope—that while the time grows short, time still remains; feelings of longing—how would they know, unless someone tells them?
My boss had collected his briefcase, coat, and the remains of his lunch. I heard him say, "Good night, see you tomorrow" or something equally innocuous. I realized that it was nearly dark outside and that the workday should have ended more than an hour ago. I busied myself with collecting papers, shutting down the computer, and exiting my office. As I locked my office door, I noticed the boss's office was still open. As I walked through the lobby, I saw that his coat, briefcase and lunch were sitting on the desk. The light was on. The boss was nowhere to be found.
It had been a few minutes since his goodbye, but I presumed he had stepped into the restroom before his brief walk home. I collected my lunch from the office fridge, signed out, and put on my coat, rather more slowly than normal. The boss was simply not in the office, but neither had he left for home.
As I exited the front gate of the campus, I thought, "Heh. Maybe the rapture happened."
(Briefly: I Thessalonians 4:16 - 17 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. The rapture is the time when Christians--those who are saved by the grace of Christ's death on the cross--are taken from the earth to live forever in heaven. The time when this will happen is not known, nor is the timing known: what must happen first. One thing that will take place: wars and rumors of wars.)
As I mentioned in the beginning, I am a Christian. If the rapture had actually happened, I would not have been Left Behind. I wasn't really worried...then a much more sobering thought occurred to me.
How would I know?
I live in a part of the world where the Muslim call to prayer sounds five times each day. The number of Christian churches in this part of the world are numbered in the single-digits per major city (if one is even available for local citizens). In some lands, Christians can choose to be identified as such on their government identification, and officially should fear no reprisal. The reality is, though, that Christians who are natives of this region often keep their faith from their family and friends for a little while. If those closest to them do not know of their faith, how likely is it that I will know, as I see them only at the grocery store or on the bus to the mall?
Had the Christians in this region...in my city...suddenly been "caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air", the effect on daily life would have been minimal. A wife missing from this building; a husband missing from the office; perhaps an entire family might be gone here and there. Governments would still have their personnel in place. Stores could still open; transportation would run without a hitch. Teachers would be in their classrooms to greet the children that arrived that morning. What would those teachers tell the children about the disappearances?
Never figured out where the boss went that day, but the feelings remain a week later: feelings of despair—so few believers here in this region of the world; feelings of hope—that while the time grows short, time still remains; feelings of longing—how would they know, unless someone tells them?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Who is the bully? Who is the victim?
On March 14, a video link appeared in my Twitter feed with an appeal to teachers and school administrators to explain their response to the video. A few versions have been pulled from YouTube already, but this link seems stable.
The words are often difficult to understand, but the premise is this. Small boy insults bigger boy, takes a few swings, and waits for something to happen. Someone was obviously prepared to film the incident. I am not sure, though, that anyone was prepared for what the bigger boy chose to do.
The bigger boy has been publically identified as "Casey" (you can find his last name if you search diligently). Casey is a Year 10 (US grade 9) student at Chifley College Dunheved Campus in New South Wales. The smaller boy is a Year 7 (US grade 6) student. According to a friend of Casey's who is quoted in the Daily Telegraph, the two boys do not attend the same school.
Casey's father stated that Casey "had been the victim of bullying for several years and feared for his safety if he spoke about the fight." Both Casey and the smaller boy have been suspended (for four days, with long-term suspension or even expulsion mentioned as a possibility). A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Education and Training said that "the only injury sustained was a grazed knee."
Who is the bully? Who is the victim?
The Student Information Handbook (page 10) for Chifley College (as part of the NSW government school/preschool system) states that there are eight "behaviours (that) are not acceptable at school. They are stated here so that there can be no misunderstandings about what is expected as appropriate behaviour at school." Those eight behaviors are:
Drugs, weapons, items used as weapons, and replicas of weapons are also forbidden.
How many of these eight actions occurred during the brief video? I observed five. Of these, bullying is the most obvious, and most important.
Bullying is defined by Chifley as "intentional, repeated behaviour by an individual or group of individuals that causes distress, hurt or undue pressure." The smaller boy definitely bullied Casey. The smaller boy did harass--(1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct his schoolmate Casey. Casey is a victim.
A question that was voiced repeatedly is, "Where are the teachers/administrators/adults?" That is a question I cannot answer. Teachers and administration should be in the hallways monitoring students during class changes, at lunch, and before/after school. Sheer numbers, though, dictate that students will be able to find places that adults are not. If adult supervision always occurs at set times and places and does not occur elsewhere on campus, trouble will arise in those unsupervised areas.
I know this because I am a school administrator for a private international school in Asia. My school is a little smaller than Chifley's 364 students, but like Chifley we serve a diverse student body. Chifley is home to students from 15 different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. As a public school, designed to meet a specific need (it "supports the Dharug language revitalisation program") it still has a 25% annual turnover in students. That is a mobile, often-changing student body, just like what is found at my school. It takes a great deal of work to help students from so many different regions and languages form one cohesive "family." As an administrator, and teacher, there are several observations that I can make about this particular situation, based on the video.
I disagree with both those views. Casey is a victim, but he did use excessive (violent) force against a smaller, younger boy in retaliation for the action taken against him. The boys were fighting, even if the only injury was a scraped knee. According to Chifley's own guidelines, both boys acted improperly, and therefore should both face consequences.
As a schol administrator, I am often called upon to make decisions. Based solely on this video, was Casey bullied by the younger boy? Yes. Did Casey retaliate? Yes. Do the boys deserve consequences? Yes.
Do the two boys deserve the same consequences? No.
Here is what they do deserve. The teachers and administrators at Chifley College need to investigate on YouTube and on Facebook. They need to talk to students--privately and publically--to learn just what is happening on their campus. Casey is a victim, but so are the other students at Chifley, if they are indeed attending a school with an atmosphere where students bully and mistreat students. Staff and administration need to be doubly vigilant to monitor hallways and gathering places, particularly when the boys involved return to school. Perhaps trusted parent volunteers can help with this.
I hope that the investigation brings needed changes to Chifley. I hope that Casey is not faced with another situation like the one in the video. I hope that the younger, smaller boy who has been bullying others will be counseled by a mentor who can teach him how to treat others with respect. I also hope that other schools who hear about the problem Chifley is facing will consider their own student community. Could such a thing happen at any school? Of course. How we handle the situation as adults will have a lasting impact on the lives of our students. We cannot wait until something goes wrong to make our choices. Else, like Casey, we may react passionately, but inappropriately.
The words are often difficult to understand, but the premise is this. Small boy insults bigger boy, takes a few swings, and waits for something to happen. Someone was obviously prepared to film the incident. I am not sure, though, that anyone was prepared for what the bigger boy chose to do.
The bigger boy has been publically identified as "Casey" (you can find his last name if you search diligently). Casey is a Year 10 (US grade 9) student at Chifley College Dunheved Campus in New South Wales. The smaller boy is a Year 7 (US grade 6) student. According to a friend of Casey's who is quoted in the Daily Telegraph, the two boys do not attend the same school.
Casey's father stated that Casey "had been the victim of bullying for several years and feared for his safety if he spoke about the fight." Both Casey and the smaller boy have been suspended (for four days, with long-term suspension or even expulsion mentioned as a possibility). A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Education and Training said that "the only injury sustained was a grazed knee."
Who is the bully? Who is the victim?
The Student Information Handbook (page 10) for Chifley College (as part of the NSW government school/preschool system) states that there are eight "behaviours (that) are not acceptable at school. They are stated here so that there can be no misunderstandings about what is expected as appropriate behaviour at school." Those eight behaviors are:
| Fighting | Vandalism | Retaliation | Violence |
| Bullying | Racism | Harassment | Stealing |
Drugs, weapons, items used as weapons, and replicas of weapons are also forbidden.
How many of these eight actions occurred during the brief video? I observed five. Of these, bullying is the most obvious, and most important.
Bullying is defined by Chifley as "intentional, repeated behaviour by an individual or group of individuals that causes distress, hurt or undue pressure." The smaller boy definitely bullied Casey. The smaller boy did harass--(1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct his schoolmate Casey. Casey is a victim.
A question that was voiced repeatedly is, "Where are the teachers/administrators/adults?" That is a question I cannot answer. Teachers and administration should be in the hallways monitoring students during class changes, at lunch, and before/after school. Sheer numbers, though, dictate that students will be able to find places that adults are not. If adult supervision always occurs at set times and places and does not occur elsewhere on campus, trouble will arise in those unsupervised areas.
I know this because I am a school administrator for a private international school in Asia. My school is a little smaller than Chifley's 364 students, but like Chifley we serve a diverse student body. Chifley is home to students from 15 different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. As a public school, designed to meet a specific need (it "supports the Dharug language revitalisation program") it still has a 25% annual turnover in students. That is a mobile, often-changing student body, just like what is found at my school. It takes a great deal of work to help students from so many different regions and languages form one cohesive "family." As an administrator, and teacher, there are several observations that I can make about this particular situation, based on the video.
- The incident was planned: no teachers were present, a student had a camera (or camera phone) on and ready, and supportive friends were near for the bully's routine.
- Chifley asks that students "actively work together to resolve incidents of bullying behaviour when they occur." The female student who stops the second, potential bully from interacting with Casey acted just as her school would ask.
- The cameraman and the potential bully should be punished. They did not act appropriately, but instead exacerbated the problem.
- There were no weapons in sight. Therefore Casey was not yet in severe physical danger. (NOTE: responsible authority should investigate this incident thoroughly. It is possible that weapons or threats involving weapons were made at other times. I cannot determine that from this video.)
- Casey, not in severe physical danger, reacted with excessive force. His actions were a brief moment of passion, but he could have brought serious harm to the smaller, younger boy who bullied him.
- The bully (and his friends) did not expect Casey to react as he did, giving evidence to Casey's father's claim that Casey is not a violent kid.
- If the claims made in news articles and on Facebook are true, Chifley has a much bigger problem than two boys starring in a YouTube video.
I disagree with both those views. Casey is a victim, but he did use excessive (violent) force against a smaller, younger boy in retaliation for the action taken against him. The boys were fighting, even if the only injury was a scraped knee. According to Chifley's own guidelines, both boys acted improperly, and therefore should both face consequences.
As a schol administrator, I am often called upon to make decisions. Based solely on this video, was Casey bullied by the younger boy? Yes. Did Casey retaliate? Yes. Do the boys deserve consequences? Yes.
Do the two boys deserve the same consequences? No.
Here is what they do deserve. The teachers and administrators at Chifley College need to investigate on YouTube and on Facebook. They need to talk to students--privately and publically--to learn just what is happening on their campus. Casey is a victim, but so are the other students at Chifley, if they are indeed attending a school with an atmosphere where students bully and mistreat students. Staff and administration need to be doubly vigilant to monitor hallways and gathering places, particularly when the boys involved return to school. Perhaps trusted parent volunteers can help with this.
I hope that the investigation brings needed changes to Chifley. I hope that Casey is not faced with another situation like the one in the video. I hope that the younger, smaller boy who has been bullying others will be counseled by a mentor who can teach him how to treat others with respect. I also hope that other schools who hear about the problem Chifley is facing will consider their own student community. Could such a thing happen at any school? Of course. How we handle the situation as adults will have a lasting impact on the lives of our students. We cannot wait until something goes wrong to make our choices. Else, like Casey, we may react passionately, but inappropriately.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Discovery's Last Landing
Soon Discovery will be an icon preserved in a museum. The thrill of discovery: "Space, the Final Frontier" will not belong to America. We will not be leading the way into the vast unknowns of space. Neither Discovery nor her fellow shuttles Enterprise (the adorable first-born, who without heat shields could never be launched), Endeavour (scheduled for a final flight in April) and Atlantis (our last "space-plane" to retire, in the summer of this year) will be inspiring young and old by climbing into the heavens.
Is that fair?
Should America's Space Race end so feebly? We've not been to the moon in forty years; do we need to go back? We never made it to Mars, our nearest planetary neighbor. After Atlantis returns home, America will need to rely on the good graces of another nation--Russia!--to reach the International Space Station. Remember how the Space Race began? President John F.Kennedy challenged us to get to the moon first, before the then-Soviet Union. We made it. Apollo 11 reached the lunar surface, and men walked upon the moon. By 1972, Apollo 17 marked the end of our human exploration of the moon. That was ok, though, because we had the Space Shuttle!
Tragically, the Shuttle program would bear the burden of loss. Challenger broke our hearts as millions of children watched a teacher "break the bonds of earth." Columbia was nearly home when the signal was lost; was that the day our spirit was broken?
America is in financial ruin, facing mounting debt that currently increases at a rate of nearly $60,000 per second. That is more than $200 million dollars per hour. For less than 3 hours of debt, we can fund a shuttle mission. Of course, we can fund many other worthy causes for that amount of money, such as a year's worth (each!) of NPR and Planned Parenthood.
Before anyone attempts to prove the relative worth of those two organizations, please take a deep breath. My point is that as a nation we have been spending too much on too many programs of pork and pablum. Why is the still-functional shuttle program ending when the funds are being (in my opinion) misused and inappropriately given to NPR, PP, and others? Years ago, as NASA planned for the end of the shuttle program, they looked to return to the moon, and were working on a manned mission to Mars and beyond. The Constellation/Orion programs were funded, then unfunded, then funded again, and now...is anyone quite sure what is happening?
As a child, I watched the contrails from unmanned rockets and fully-staffed shuttles climb through the atmosphere over the Central Florida coastline. I dreamed of being in one of those vehicles one day. I would still go, I think, given the chance.
Will America's children be allowed to dream of space? How long will America's best and brightest have the chance to sail out to the black? After this summer, when again will they travel in a ship bearing the Stars and Stripes?
There are two more scheduled shuttle flights. Tonight, though, I recognize that Discovery will fly no more. "They can't take the sky from me..." but it feels somehow as if that's exactly what has happened.
Is that fair?
Should America's Space Race end so feebly? We've not been to the moon in forty years; do we need to go back? We never made it to Mars, our nearest planetary neighbor. After Atlantis returns home, America will need to rely on the good graces of another nation--Russia!--to reach the International Space Station. Remember how the Space Race began? President John F.Kennedy challenged us to get to the moon first, before the then-Soviet Union. We made it. Apollo 11 reached the lunar surface, and men walked upon the moon. By 1972, Apollo 17 marked the end of our human exploration of the moon. That was ok, though, because we had the Space Shuttle!
Tragically, the Shuttle program would bear the burden of loss. Challenger broke our hearts as millions of children watched a teacher "break the bonds of earth." Columbia was nearly home when the signal was lost; was that the day our spirit was broken?
America is in financial ruin, facing mounting debt that currently increases at a rate of nearly $60,000 per second. That is more than $200 million dollars per hour. For less than 3 hours of debt, we can fund a shuttle mission. Of course, we can fund many other worthy causes for that amount of money, such as a year's worth (each!) of NPR and Planned Parenthood.
Before anyone attempts to prove the relative worth of those two organizations, please take a deep breath. My point is that as a nation we have been spending too much on too many programs of pork and pablum. Why is the still-functional shuttle program ending when the funds are being (in my opinion) misused and inappropriately given to NPR, PP, and others? Years ago, as NASA planned for the end of the shuttle program, they looked to return to the moon, and were working on a manned mission to Mars and beyond. The Constellation/Orion programs were funded, then unfunded, then funded again, and now...is anyone quite sure what is happening?
As a child, I watched the contrails from unmanned rockets and fully-staffed shuttles climb through the atmosphere over the Central Florida coastline. I dreamed of being in one of those vehicles one day. I would still go, I think, given the chance.
Will America's children be allowed to dream of space? How long will America's best and brightest have the chance to sail out to the black? After this summer, when again will they travel in a ship bearing the Stars and Stripes?
There are two more scheduled shuttle flights. Tonight, though, I recognize that Discovery will fly no more. "They can't take the sky from me..." but it feels somehow as if that's exactly what has happened.
Monday, March 7, 2011
NCLB is a symptom, not the cause
I was still in the public school system when "Nickelby" (NCLB--No Child Left Behind) was announced to all the world. Emotionally, it made sense: set high standards for kids and watch the kids reach those standards. I remember that our school's first big "Oh no!" came when we realized that a small but statistically significant group of students would be required to meet standards in English: our ESL (English as a Second Language) or ELL (English Language Learner) population. How would those standards be assessed: a (not so simple) test, in English, at the appropriate grade level to be administered after three years of enrollment in English-language schools.
The No Child Left Behind legislation was signed into law by then-President Bush in January 2002. This past year, President Obama converted NCLB into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. One stated goal of the revised legislation was to "prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace."
Diane Ravitch wrote an op-ed piece earlier this week for the New York Times. The title of the post asks, "Why Blame the Teachers?" and makes the astonishing claim that "It Started With No Child Left Behind." To Ms. Ravitch, the "campaign of vilification" of teachers--from Rhode Island to the LA Times to the collective bargaining issues in Wisconsin-- all started with NCLB. To quote Ms. Ravitch: "The assumption behind this punitive approach is that poor student performance is caused by incompetent teachers and principals, despite the fact that decades of social science show that family income is the most reliable predictor of test scores."
Here is my problem with Ms. Ravitch's post. If "poor student performance" was measured solely by the test scores used in programs such as NCLB, the LA Times features, and other studies, we could lay blame at NCLB's feet. However, what is our current national graduation rate for students who actually finish a "high-school" education in the traditional 4-year span? In 2008, the "averaged freshman graduation rate" (document page #52) was 74.9% nationwide. That indicates that just over 25% of students who entered as freshmen in 2004 did not graduate within four years. High school graduation rates have improved in the last two decades to reach this level (though I assert that a 2008 nationwide average of 1-in-4 students not graduating high school in 4 years is appalling).
How well can our graduates read, write and do basic arithmetic? The Army is concerned. Seems that 23% (nearly 1 in 4) applicants who completed the ASVAB reached the minimum score of 31 correct of 99 questions. College admissions personnel may have reason to be concerned as well. Check out the growing trend toward remedial coursework needed by those who earned diplomas just months or weeks before: here and here and here.
Did all this "start" with No Child Left Behind? Are the struggles of America's students really so recent?
Perhaps it is not that teachers are now suffering unjust blame; I believe parents and other concerned citizens are simply more vocal now. Some of those concerned citizens are teachers themselves. We as a nation have realized that our children cannot pay the price for outdated tenure policies like "last in/first out." No child deserves ineffective teachers. Finding valid methods of assessing teacher competency and remediating teachers who are willing to change will help all our students. NCLB was an attempt to identify schools that succeeded in reaching all students, because--misguided as the program was--we recognized as a nation that something must be done. NCLB was definitely not a cure, but neither it was not the cause of the turmoil our public education system faces today.
The No Child Left Behind legislation was signed into law by then-President Bush in January 2002. This past year, President Obama converted NCLB into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. One stated goal of the revised legislation was to "prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace."
Diane Ravitch wrote an op-ed piece earlier this week for the New York Times. The title of the post asks, "Why Blame the Teachers?" and makes the astonishing claim that "It Started With No Child Left Behind." To Ms. Ravitch, the "campaign of vilification" of teachers--from Rhode Island to the LA Times to the collective bargaining issues in Wisconsin-- all started with NCLB. To quote Ms. Ravitch: "The assumption behind this punitive approach is that poor student performance is caused by incompetent teachers and principals, despite the fact that decades of social science show that family income is the most reliable predictor of test scores."
Here is my problem with Ms. Ravitch's post. If "poor student performance" was measured solely by the test scores used in programs such as NCLB, the LA Times features, and other studies, we could lay blame at NCLB's feet. However, what is our current national graduation rate for students who actually finish a "high-school" education in the traditional 4-year span? In 2008, the "averaged freshman graduation rate" (document page #52) was 74.9% nationwide. That indicates that just over 25% of students who entered as freshmen in 2004 did not graduate within four years. High school graduation rates have improved in the last two decades to reach this level (though I assert that a 2008 nationwide average of 1-in-4 students not graduating high school in 4 years is appalling).
How well can our graduates read, write and do basic arithmetic? The Army is concerned. Seems that 23% (nearly 1 in 4) applicants who completed the ASVAB reached the minimum score of 31 correct of 99 questions. College admissions personnel may have reason to be concerned as well. Check out the growing trend toward remedial coursework needed by those who earned diplomas just months or weeks before: here and here and here.
Did all this "start" with No Child Left Behind? Are the struggles of America's students really so recent?
- In 2009, 12th grade students in 11 states were tested as part of the NAEP (National Assessment of Education Progress) "Nation's Report Card" program. Coincidentally, 74% of students tested scored "Basic" or above on the reading comprehension portion of the assessment. Most telling is that reading scores are "statistically significant" when showing a 4-point drop (292 to 288) from the 1992 assessment. That 2009 score is also 2 points lower than the assessments given in 1998.
- In 1999 US students scored 502 in mathematics and 515 in science on TIMSS. The US 8th grade mathematics score was the median score; half the countries in the assessment scored better than our students, and half scored worse.
- Science scores were much improved in 2003 (527) while math was relatively stagnant at 504.
- By 2007, TIMSS scores in math reached 508 for US 8th graders, and we were in ninth place overall. However, a significant gap of 62 points keeps us from the top 5 nations. Our science score of 520 had us in 11th place for the 47 nations in the year's assessment.
Perhaps it is not that teachers are now suffering unjust blame; I believe parents and other concerned citizens are simply more vocal now. Some of those concerned citizens are teachers themselves. We as a nation have realized that our children cannot pay the price for outdated tenure policies like "last in/first out." No child deserves ineffective teachers. Finding valid methods of assessing teacher competency and remediating teachers who are willing to change will help all our students. NCLB was an attempt to identify schools that succeeded in reaching all students, because--misguided as the program was--we recognized as a nation that something must be done. NCLB was definitely not a cure, but neither it was not the cause of the turmoil our public education system faces today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)