Tag: learning

Cultural Vacuum

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I got thinking after Carl asked why I don’t talk about how the government should be focused on supporting the family. Carl is absolutely right that the no-such-thing-as-standard modern family is at the root of all of our social problems. What I have been realizing as I have thought about how we can support the family as the social unit where values that lead to good citizenship and productive adulthood can be fostered is that we have created a Catch-22 for ourselves.

Carl wants to know how government can be used to support the family structure while I contend that only family can support and improve the family structure. As I tried to consider how we might go about removing government from meddling in family matters I realized that doing so would create a vacuum in our social structure because of how much we have come to depend on the government to lend any value to the family concept. Couples get married often for little other reason than to procure the legal or material benefits of marriage conferred by the government. Among the fundamental purposes of families is to provide an environment where children can be taught those skills which are necessary to make them into healthy and productive adults. (Productive being defined as having something to contribute to society.) We have turned over the responsibility for educating our children to the government on an almost universal scale. At the elementary level of education we have developed an opt-out model that is compulsory (you can’t simply opt-out, you must opt out on terms that the educational establishment has agreed to). In higher education the majority of institutions are state funded and state run. Even at private institutions, the largest individual source of funding for students is provided by the government in the form of grants and loans.

The more we receive from the government the more we begin to expect and demand from the government. The more we rely on the government the less we feel inclined to support and be supported by our families. As the government has come to provide all the necessities of health and retirement benefits for the elderly there has been less incentive for children to take any responsibility to care for their aging parents. On the other end, since the government is fully integrated in the family structure and responsible to provide the education, and fill the time of the children through school in place of parents, it becomes more and more common for children to abandon their families, through emancipation or by simply running away, before they are ready and able to take full responsibility for their own care.

As I write I realize that the solution is simple, though difficult. The solution is for families to shoulder the burden of responsibility for educating their children. This does not mean that they cannot have their children in public schools (although to a degree that adds some inherent difficulty to the process) but it does mean that they accept that they are the final authority on what should be taught and they must be willing to fill in the inevitable gaps in any education received outside the home. Besides taking back the responsibility for educating their children, families must also teach their children to demand less from their government – this is one gap that will always be present in a public school education. As each generation takes more of the responsibilities back from the government which naturally devolve to the family the government will have to shrink and the family will once again regain its rightful place in society.

If this practice of families bringing family responsibilities back inside the home were widespread for two generations we would once again have a limited government that provided the protections, structure, and services that had been outlined in the Constitution and we would have a healthy society that would be less prone to the excesses and instability that we see in our nation today.

Tags citizenship, discourse, family, learning, prediction, values

culture State

More Is Not Always Better

In January I wrote my personal feelings about the value of all-day kindergarten. Today I learned a few things I didn’t know before. As a fan of irony I knew I would enjoy this when I read the opening:

All-day kindergarten sounds like a great opportunity. The teacher really gets to know your child, and how to help them learn. Your child gets enough hours in a learning environment to really absorb important skills. And, after all, kids are a lot smarter these days, so they are ready to get on with ‘real’ learning at a younger age.

Other good aspects of all-day kindergarten programs are not having to pay day-care costs for another year, and your little tired 5-year-old can just have his 1 p.m. melt-down at school, not at home. There are only 28 students in the class, so your kid will have plenty of attention. And don’t worry, the school will take care of teaching your child everything they need to know — you don’t have to worry about a thing.

The short takeaway list that should make you cautious of all-day kindergarten is this:

All-day kindergarten damages the academic performance of kids from middle- and upper-class homes
The Goldwater Institute found that there was no measurable impact on reading, math or language arts test scores by fifth grade of children who attended all-day kindergarten
All-day programs cost more

I should not take much observation to conclude that “most 5- to 6-year olds are not ready for a six to seven-and-a-half hour school day.” I think that those who push for all-day kindergarten are well-intentioned but I am confident that we would not want the social blow back that it is bound to bring. I think Ms. Herron got her conclusion just right:

In Utah, even kindergarten is optional — and with good reason. We shouldn’t push very young children to be in school all day at the expense of the family and playtime that makes childhood special.

Tags Education, kids, learning

life Local State

Active Citizenship

When I think of ways that people can be active citizens in their political community the easiest action to consider is running for office. I know there are other ways to participate, but that’s the most prominent that I can think of. I was pleased today to see another great example of active citizenship. Pete Ashdown posted a letter to mayoral candidates by Tony Weller. Tony expresses his concerns and asks for feedback from the candidates in order to make an informed choice when he votes for his new mayor. He even invites the candidates to explain why they disagree with him when their position differs from his. For Tony, the key issues are related to local businesses and the vitality of downtown Salt Lake. I think any reasonable person who read the letter would have to concede that it is well thought out and respectful, just like political dialog ought to be.

The results of this kind of effort can be very rewarding. I am interested in the transportation situation currently and as Lehi continues to grow. That interest caused me to contact one of our candidates for city council to ask her for her perspective on that issue. She subsequently arranged to meet with me to discuss the issue. I’ll have to wait until the meeting to know how her position compares to mine, but because I took the time to ask I will not be voting blindly on this issue. That being said, I am starting to think that I might get even more information by querying all the candidates generally, such as Tony Weller did, rather than relying on meeting as many candidates as possible.

Tags candidates, citizenship, community, learning, Lehi

General

Endorsement Lessons

My series of endorsements for 2008 was very enlightening. I learned a lot about my political leanings and what I thought was required of a president. I hope to capture some of what I learned here.

One thing that I learned was the value of time. When I began the endorsement process I had different expectations for what I was looking for than when I finished. There were a number of candidates who I did not reach the conclusion on endorsement that I had anticipated. I noticed how my own attitudes and perceptions about the political health of our country affected my perceptions about where different candidates stood as far as how I perceived their ability to lead the country. Also, as I continued to look at the candidates I found that my perceptions of them changed over time. I was no longer making judgments based on a snapshot of their positions, but I was also able to determine the trajectory of their positions and adjust my judgments accordingly.

I learned that timing is important. There were a number of candidates I could not endorse simply because they were not a fit for the needs of the day.

My appreciation grew for the work that is required of citizens if they are to make informed choices. making informed choices requires being informed about the candidates and the issues as well as understanding your own assumptions and values.

I have come to believe through this process that the rigors of campaigning are good exercise for a potential president. They are seeking a position that is challenging and unpredictable. The job requires them to consider the present as well as the future, knowing that their decisions can affect the lives of people everywhere. It makes more and more sense to me why we frequently select men (so far) who have been governors and generals, and less frequently select men who have spent time as legislators.

Tags endorsements, learning, national candidates

culture

Depths of Public Discourse

The current voucher mess illustrates a sad low point in public discourse. The course of events reads like the script of a soap opera. Our legislature passed two laws to implement a voucher system with the expressed intent of giving citizens a choice in educating our children. One of the two bills is now up for a ballot referendum in November which casts a cloud on the whole situation. The second bill stipulates that the State Board of Education should implement vouchers this summer but the chairman of the Board of Education, an outspoken critic of vouchers, has refused even after the Attorney General has told the board to comply with the law as written. Of course the whole thing has gone to the courts for “clarification” but no matter what the courts say we will still have dedicated people on both sides of the debate who will push their respective agendas. Now we have the Attorney General revoking the status as “special assistant to the Attorney General” of two attorneys working for the Board of Education.

It boils down to the fact that the Board of Education is refusing to comply with the law when they are not elected either to make law or to interpret it. On the other hand, the legislature managed to pass two bills that are largely redundant and forcefully opposed. They have done this in such a way that neither the ruling of the courts nor the ballot referendum will necessarily settle the issue. This sounds more like the work of a handful of powerful partisans than the result of honest efforts by 104 people (the combined size of the House and Senate) trying to represent their constituencies and bring about the best resolution to a high-profile issue.

People on both sides of the issue have called for a special session as the means of clearing up the two existing bills and paving the way for the issue to be resolved. Those who advocate for this approach are likely the most intent on finding a solution rather than just pushing an agenda.

Whatever the outcome of the whole thing, I fear that the final effect on education will be to provide a striking example of how our system of government can be manipulated and hobbled by any minority that is determined enough about what they are trying to accomplish or prevent.

UPDATE: The state Supreme Court ruled that if the citizens voted against vouchers on the referendum in November it would be binding on both bills.

Tags discourse, learning, State

culture

Heroes and Idols

Laura and I were having a fascinating conversation with good friends which rolled around to the topic of teaching children about their future roles as adults. We got to talking about the types of role models that children have and the messages that they are being fed from our society about those adult roles. Out of that conversation came the following gem – speaking about a person being sensitive to the needs of those around them and responding to the needs of others rather than being focused on their own needs and their own image:

“That’s the difference between being a hero and being an idol.” Denise Black

The meaning being that an idol is someone who we might look up to who is more concerned with their image than their substance while a hero is more concerned with being worthy of emulation than they are with their level of popularity. In case anyone is wondering, there are those among the ranks of our social idols (musicians, athletes, actors) who qualify as heroes under this definition. The key is to help our children understand the difference between the idols and the real heroes.

Tags friends, insights, learning

culture life

Are Children Dumber Today Than They Used To Be?

Post author By David
Post date January 24, 2007
5 Comments on Are Children Dumber Today Than They Used To Be?

Lest I get in hot water with all the parents out there, my short answer is “no.” Now let me explain the question.

I recently learned of a bill coming before the Utah Senate which would fund all day kindergarten throughout the state. Perhaps I am thinking of my own kids only, but I am convinced that all day kindergarten is not helpful to most students. For those who would point out that it is optional and not required I will say two things: first, when will that change, because our trend is towards adding requirements such as these to combat falling achievement results; and second, This post is not just about all day kindergarten. (Now on to what it is about.)

Forty years ago we had fewer after school programs, less technology in schools, and less emphasis on standardized testing. We also had higher literacy rates, better scores on math and science tests, and probably higher graduation rates (I could be wrong there – I have no data). If we add those two things together we should come to the conclusion that after school programs, more technology and emphasis on standardized tests are not the solution to the problem facing our education system. (They are great for the bottom line of some technology companies and some education companies who specialize in testing or after school programs.)

I don’t mean to imply that having computers and other technology in schools is bad, or that tests make kids dumber (I know some people who make either of those arguments) but we should see that they do not solve the underlying problem.

Another trend that I think has a greater impact on our education system than the technology, tests, and extra programs is this – the vast majority of students today come from one of two kinds of homes: single parent homes or two income homes. This was not the case forty years ago. The real problem confronting our society and manifesting itself in our education system is that children are not getting the care from involved parents that they used to get. They are getting more activities and government sponsored daycare solutions and less of mom or dad sitting down to help with homework, attending parent-teacher conferences, being aware of what’s happening in their lives, or even playing with them in the back yard. Our problem is homes which are nothing more than places to sleep and families which are all about blood relations with no thought about relationships.

Programs like all day kindergarten make it that much easier for parents to decide that they can both work and let the government raise their children. I admit that some people are in a position where they need outside help, but in most cases it is a matter of convenience rather than need. Society should not be burdened by the financial and social cost of funding a convenience. For those who have needs, we should be looking for ways to help their needs without making it convenient for others to go joyriding at our expense.

Tags family, kids, learning, thoughts

culture life

Undoing Past Progress

I read two articles today in the New York Times today that got me thinking about how we are undoing the benefits that first made our country the place it was when I was growing up. The first article was about the increase in people in my age group without health insurance. I understand firsthand what they were talking about – not because I do not have health insurance, but because I had to spend more than 10% of my pretax paycheck to pay my portion of the company sponsored health plan. To put that in perspective – I was making something close to the national median income (if I remember correctly what that figure was).

The second article was about why college educations are no longer affordable and what changes have caused that problem. I have long had strong feelings about this problem. I think that the fundamental problem here is that we have lost sight, as a society, of what we were trying to accomplish with tuition assistance and other forms of federal education assistance in the first place. From the article:

By subsidizing public universities to keep tuition low, and providing federal tuition aid to poor and working-class students, this country vaulted tens of millions of people into the middle class while building the best-educated work force in the world.

Another article at CNN elaborated on this by saying the following:

“There’s been a sea change in the last decade-and-a-half over how (colleges) spend their money,” said National Center president Patrick Callan. “It used to be about giving students opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise have. Now it’s about giving them money to go to one college instead of another.”

At first these programs were designed so that there would be money for students to go to college, now the money is being used for students to go to “the right college.” We seem to have lost sight of the fact that the goal was to educate large volumes of people, not to make education one more field for competition in our society.

Some startling statistics to back this up from the CNN article:

The report card finds colleges awarded grants to 36 percent of their students from families earning $20,000 per year or less. Those grants averaged $4,700. But wealthier students received comparable attention.

The colleges gave grant aid to 29 percent from families earning $100,000 or more. And those grants were even higher on average: $6,200.

Let me make that clear – slightly over 1/3 of students from families living in poverty (or very close depending on where the poverty line falls) are getting under $5000 a year to help them go to school. Almost 2/3 of students from those poverty situations are going to school without grant money. At the same time nearly 1/3 of students from families among the top 5% of wage earners are getting over $6000 a year – we can assume this is to lure them to “better” schools.

I do not mean to argue that all schools are equal, but we would probably be better off as a nation if we thought of them that way.

If my experience and the experience of other people I know is any indicator, there is another problem that also plagues our nation with regards to higher education. The degrees that we are paying so dearly to get are often being underused once we graduate and try to use them. Many jobs I have seen require a degree for work that could easily be done without a degree. What is worse, many jobs in which a degree is useful are more interested in experience than in the degree. I have known many people who choose to work and gain experience rather than finish a degree and they end up with better jobs because they have more experience.

If experience is the best teacher – and I believe that it generally is – then our college degrees should be designed to provide marketable experience. If they did, perhaps companies could eliminate the requirement to have a degree as a prerequisite for jobs that do not actually require the training that comes with a degree.

Tags federal aid, learning, reactions, work