The Second Opinion

History NOT for the masses

Not so long ago, I was working on my MA in US History.  I quit.  I am a professional chemist and was only taking the courses for entertainment (hey, it kept me out of the strip clubs!), and when they ceased to entertain me, I quit.

One of the reasons I quit was disgust at the way that History is written.  I'm not talking about the need to obsessively footnote everything, or to find at least three secondary and five primary sources.  I'm not even talking about the trend in History to write 'from the bottom up' and try to find a racist / sexist / homophobic angle to every historical event (though this certainly grated on my nerves) or at the very least try to write the History that 'the common man' experienced.

What I'm talking about is writing History so that NOBODY in their right mind would want to read it.  Writing that is as dry as burnt toast.  Writing that is so convuluted, so full of jargon, so packed with dependent clauses and parentheticals that the average reader would sooner read stereo instructions.(1) Allow me to humbly offer these two passages.  The first is the introductory paragraph from the first draft of a paper I wrote about the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The second is the introduction from the final draft:

In the early hours of Sunday, October 14, 1962 Air Force Major Richard Heyser climbed aboard his glider-like U-2 aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California. Few missions in a U-2 could be considered routine. The aircraft operated at altitudes around 70,000 - 80,000 feet where it would be safe from almost any interceptors or surface to air (SAM) missiles. The pilots referred to such high altitudes as “Coffin Corner” because anything more than a seven-mile per hour change in airspeed could either let the aircraft stall and fall from the sky or shake itself apart. Today’s mission had an extra element of danger: Heyser would be flying over the communist island of Cuba as part of an on-going effort to monitor the Soviet military buildup on the island. There had been no flights since August 29, due in part to bad weather and to the fact that among the advanced weapons being emplaced were SA-2 “Guideline” SAMs of the same type believed to have downed Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 over the Soviet Union in May, 1960. The U-2 carried no armament; Heyser could only count on his altitude and defensive maneuvers to protect him if the Soviets decided to fire on him.

My professor asked me if I was a journalist.  I decided NOT to be insulted, as I WAS wearing my Fox News Channel ballcap.  She told me that the writing, while not bad, was not appropriate for a scholarly paper.  After several rewrites, this is what I finally submitted:

In October 1962 the United States discovered that the Soviet Union had started deployment of nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba. For the next thirteen days, the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded, threatening literally the end of the world. Until recently, the historiography of the crisis has focused on the Kennedy administration and its response to Krushchev’s actions. Recent scholarship, however, has shed light on two critical areas: Khrushchev’s rationale for ordering missiles to Cuba and the role Castro played in the decision. Khrushchev had several different reasons for deploying the missiles, but the most important was to preserve Cuba as a Soviet client state. Contrary to the belief of many Americans that Castro was at best an ignorant pawn and at worst an outright dupe of the Kremlin, he was an active partner in the decision to deploy the missiles and a principal player in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Though history in general or the Cuban Missile Crisis in particular may not be your cup of tea, which paper do you think you'd WANT to read?

While I appreciate that there are certain stylistic requirements for scholarly work, my feeling is that history SHOULD BE written for the edification and (dare I say it?) entertainment of the average person.  Some historians seem to understand this.  For example, Barbara Tuchman, Robert Massie and Sir Winston Churchill are historians whose work I have actually enjoyed reading.  Unfortunately, most of the 'scholarly' works I had to read in college were FAR from entertaining.  Some were downright painful.  Consider this passage from one of my textbooks; I assure you that this is far from the worst writing I encountered:

Women have always worked, but until the past century their work has been confined almost entirely to the domestic setting, and it has been for the most part unpaid labor.  Women's work was an element in the larger family economy that prededominated in preindustrial society.  Although this work proved crucial to fmily subsistence, it also constituted the basis for women's subordinate positition in patriarchal society.  In the American colonies, for instance, w0men made substantial contributions to both agricultural production and domestic manufacture; still, married women could not own property, nor could the make contracts on their own.  This legal framework reinforced the economic subordination of colonial women; without the means for self-support, women's place was clearly in the home.(2)

See what I mean?  Even if I had some bizarre interest in female mill workers in Lowell, Mass., or in female workers in general, I'd be put off by such an introduction.  Ick.

What's even more disturbing is that history students are not only taught that this sort of style is desireable, but a more conversational style that 'reads too much like a novel' is outright BAD.  In one course, we discussed Queen Elizabeth with reference to the following books:

Garrett Mattingly, The Armada (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1959)

Carole Levin, The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994)

I enjoyed The Armada, which was written in a pleasant, literary style.  I could barely stomach Levin's book, which was not only written in a 'scholarly' (i.e. incomprehensible) style, but also made the most bizarre assertions on the flimsiest evidence.  Which book did my classmates prefer?  You guessed it.  Not because they loved Levin's prose, you understand: they just thought that The Armada 'read too much like a novel', implying that it therefore could not possibly be a 'serious' work.

But enough ranting.  There's really nothing I can do about the lamentable state of historical writing in American academia.  Thus, educating the common man about history will fall to a few 'popular' historians (ALWAYS said with a sneer) and the History Channel.

Too bad.

(1) I am aware that my own writing is often very convuluted and hard to read.  I am sorry.

(2) Thomas Dublin, Women at Work: The Transformation of Work and Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826 - 1860, 2nd Ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 1.

Alliance for the Separation of School and State

(hat tip: The Contrary Goddess)

Thought this website was interesting, not least because it is an idea that I've had.  Now, their motivation is rather different than mine; they believe that schools should attempt to teach kids the answers to the 'Big Questions' as well as facts.  In other words, they want the schools to teach morality as well as the three R's.  Personally, I'd be happy if the schools WOULD teach the three R's.

Anyway, the site is well worth a look.  I especially like the FAQs on the sidebar, including this:

How about irresponsible parents?

Helping one's children prepare for life is a deep human need. Except for a few pockets of animism in Asia and Africa, virtually all parents aspire to prove some sort of formal schooling as a crucial part of helping prepare their children for life. Hence the question, "Is compulsion of attendance by government a good thing or not?" One bit of evidence that it is not necessary is to compare the "Asian Tigers." Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong range from 93-95 percent of school attendance with their compulsory attendance laws. Our own history provides a bit more evidence that compulsion is not necessary. Singapore averages 94 percent attendance without compulsion.

The 1840s' municipal and state takeover of schools told parents they weren't responsible for their children's education. It's the government's job. The 1850s-1890s' compulsory attendance legislation relieved parents of the awesome burden of convincing children to attend school. It's the government's job.

The 1930s' Social Security told children they weren't responsible for their elderly parents. It's the government's job.

The 1970s-200s brought us government breakfast, lunch, health care and after-school care. When governments usurp, many parents abdicate their responsibility. Family life is weakened and children are harmed.

This usurpation/abdication two-step has been ratcheting parental responsibility downward for 160 years and has been accelerating in the last 40 years. Government attempts to rescue children from poor parenting are the great enabler of irresponsible parenting.

NC public schools declining

From the AP (via the Durham Herald-Sun) by Margaret Lillard:

The number of North Carolina schools performing as expected dropped for the second year in a row, while student performance on math and reading tests slipped slightly after more than a decade of steady gains, state education officials said Thursday.

Data from the ABCs of Public Education program show 69 percent of schools statewide met or surpassed grade-level performance targets set by the state. In the 2003-04 school year, 75.1 percent reached the benchmarks, a significant drop from the 94 percent that did so in 2002-03.

...

The tests also showed that 56.3 percent of North Carolina's schools met federal Adequate Yearly Progress goals, a significant drop from the 70.5 percent that did so last year. Lou Fabrizio, director of accountability services, blamed the difference on new reading standards for 10th grade students.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act mandates that schools meet performance targets each year for subgroups of groups divided, for example, by race. Under the stringent program, if one subgroup misses its target then an entire school doesn't meet the goal.

I hope nobody is surprised.  Dismayed, yes, but not surprised.  The public schools in NC are a bad joke, and I suspect that this is true across the country.  Notice how Lou Fabrizio blames the problem on tighter requirements.  HOW DARE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPECT KIDS TO DO BETTER???

The Conservative Rant indicates that Texas ain't exactly dazzlin' everybody with their scores, either.  His suggestions:

1. Rigid discipline within the school, so students know they are coming to learn and not socialize.
2. Everyone reads on their grade level. Most of my students did poorly because they don't understand what the question is asking. They don't posess the necessary vocabulary for their grade level. How do you improve your vocab? You read.
3. Get the kids to class on time and keep them there. In most of the low performing schools, the students aren't where they are supposed to be.
4. Get rid of teachers who can't do their job. That would include me if I wasn't up to snuff.

Makes sense to me.  Of course, I can already hear the NEA, NAACP, and a host of other special interest groups shrieking in outrage now.

Well, no WONDER the NYC schools are doing so badly!

According to the New York Post's Andrea Peyser, the NYC public schools have adopted - for already failing students, yet! - a math book that is littered with errors:

Take this sample test problem: Students are shown drawings of two clocks. The first is set at 3 o'clock. In the second diagram, the clock reads 3:30. "How much time has elapsed?"

Possible answers are, F: 15 minutes; G: 20 minutes; H: 30 minutes; and J: 25 minutes.

Even a numerical moron like me knows the correct answers is H. Right?

Er, no. According to the book, the answer is J: 25 minutes.

Before you start probing the intricacies of time-telling on distant planets, get a load of another question: "Which fraction is less than 1/2?"

Possible answers are: F: 7/10; G: 4/10; H: 4/5; and J: 1/4. The book gives the answer as G: 4/10, which is correct — 4/10 is less than 1/2. But what about J: 1/4?

...

The book, called "Exploring Math: An Intervention & Reinforcement Resource," is a "teacher resource guide," featuring lesson plans and sample tests that are designed to be photocopied and distributed. The fear is, they'd be graded by teachers operating on autopilot, using the answers in the book.

Hmmm... Doesn't have too much faith in teachers, does she?

The publisher, Teacher Created Materials of Huntington Beach, CA, offered the excuse that they normally deal with English and social studies books, and that "Exploring Math" was rushed through the publication process.

GROAN!

Hey, I've got an idea!  Why not send the books to San Bernardino.  Maybe they can develop a 'mathbonics' course to complement their 'ebonics' classes.

Teaching kids... ebonics

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

When I wrote earlier today about what the schools should teach kids, this ISN'T what I had in mind.

The IDIOTS who run the San Bernardino Unified School District have decided that, in order to keep black students 'interested' in school, ebonics will be taught there.  According to the San Bernardino Courier's Irma Lemus:

Incorporating Ebonics into a new school policy that targets black students, the lowest-achieving group in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, may provide students a more well-rounded curriculum, said a local sociologist.

The goal of the district's policy is to improve black students' academic performance by keeping them interested in school. Compared with other racial groups in the district, black students go to college the least and have the most dropouts and suspensions.

And so the key to helping these kids stay in school is teaching them bad English???

Mary Texeira, a sociology professor at Cal State San Bernardino, commended the San Bernardino Board of Education for approving the policy in June.

Texeira suggested that including Ebonics in the program would be beneficial for students. Ebonics, a dialect of American English that is spoken by many blacks throughout the country, was recognized as a separate language in 1996 by the Oakland school board.

"Ebonics is a different language, it's not slang as many believe,' Texeira said. "For many of these students Ebonics is their language, and it should be considered a foreign language. These students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language.'

(massages temples to help fend off an impending attack of apoplexy)

IF one accepts the fatuous premise that ebonics is a 'language' and not merely bastardized English, it still leaves one with the question of HOW IN THE HELL IS TEACHING KIDS TO SPEAK IT SUPPOSED TO HELP THEM??? 

HELLLLOOOOO!!!!  MOST AMERICANS SPEAK ENGLISH!  THESE KIDS WILL HAVE TO SPEAK ENGLISH IF THEY WANT TO GO TO COLLEGE OR GET A DECENT JOB!!!  YOU ARE ROBBING THEM OF THEIR FUTURE!!!!!

Texeira said research has shown that students learn better when they fully comprehend the language they are being taught in.

"There are African Americans who do not agree with me. They say that (black students) are lazy and that they need to learn to talk,' Texeira said.

But you, Prof. Texeira, because you are a SOCIOLOGIST, know SOOOO much more than they do, right?

Len Cooper, who is coordinating the pilot program at the two city schools, said San Bernardino district officials do not plan to incorporate Ebonics into the program.

"Because Ebonics can have a negative stigma, we're not focusing on that,' Cooper said. "We are affirming and recognizing Ebonics through supplemental reading books (for students).'

In other words, they're trying to hide what they're doing in order to avoid being a laughing stock.

Beginning in the 2005-06 school year, teachers will receive training on black culture and customs. District curriculum will now include information on the historical, cultural and social impact of blacks in society. Although the program is aimed at black students, other students can choose to participate.

The pilot program at Rio Vista Elementary and King Middle schools focuses on second-, fourth- and seventh-grade classes. District officials hope to train teachers from other schools using the program as a model.

I shudder to think about this.  There's nothing more silly than watching a white person try to act like a hood rat.

Board member Danny Tillman, who pushed for the policy, said that full implementation of the program at all schools may take years, but the pilot program is a beginning.

"At every step we will see positive results,' Tillman said.

Tillman hoped the new policy would increase the number of black students going to college and participating in advanced courses.

Oh, yes, of COURSE.  I can see these kids in AP English:

"And Cassius, he be, like, 'Yo, man, Ceasar done be dissin' me an' all my homies, thinkin' he be all bad an' s***.' So, like, he and Brutus and dey homies, be like, 'Yo, man, Ceasar got to go down wid dat big head.  So dey gets dey posse together, and, like, man, they SHANK that mutha f*****.  Den Ceasar, he ax Brutus, 'Man, you et, too?' I don't know WHAT dat s*** be about.  Mutha f***** stick a shiv in MY a**, I ain't gonna be asting him if he be done got he snack on!  Know what I'm sayin'?  S***." 

I think I'm gonna be sick...

Teresa Parra, board vice president, said she worried the new program would have an adverse effect.

At last, a voice of sanity.  Ooops, spoke to soon.

"I'm afraid that now that we have this the Hispanic community, our largest population, will say, 'We want something for us.' Next we'll have the Asian community and the Jewish community (asking for their own programs). When will it end?'

Perhaps when every teacher has quit and all the students decide they'll get a better education reading comic books and drop out?

Texeira urged people not be quick to judge the new program as socially exclusive. She said people need to be open to the program.

"Everybody has prejudices, but we must all learn to control that behavior,' Texeira said. She said a child's self confidence is tied to his or her cultural identity.

It is?  I'm no expert on children, but I would think that a child's self confidence is tied to his rearing and life experience.

She compared the low performance of black students to starvation. "How can you be angry when you feed a family of starving children?'

If some idiot is feeding the starving family something that will kill them, you'd better believe I'd be upset.  And that's the parallel here.  By teaching kids who are already 'behind the curve' that bad English is not only acceptable but EXPECTED, the schools will only reinforce a self-destructive habit.  What's next?  Ebonic math?  Ebonic science?  Ebonic US history?

If the head a**hole of the KKK got together with the head a**hole of the skinheads and designed a curriculum intended to keep blacks in a permanent underclass, they could hardly have outdone the San Berdoo schools.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of the Westside Action Group, a coalition of black activists, said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

"This isn't a feel-good policy. This is the real thing,' Jacocks said.

Jacocks said he didn't believe the new policy would create animosity. He said he welcomed the idea of other ethnic groups pushing for their own programs.

"When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements.'

Yes, imagine how proud you'll be when the kids graduate (IF they graduate), and won't be able to get a job because their speech will be unintelligible.  You'll glow with pride when they're flipping burgers or perhaps even have to turn to crime to make ends meet.

This is why we need school vouchers: to get our kids AWAY from morons like this.

What do we want kids to learn in public schools?

There have been several very good posts and comments around the blogosphere (or, at least, the part that I regularly visit) about the public schools.  Partial Transcripts, The Conservative Rant, and NYgirl have all commented on the schools and the problems they have.

Let's get to the fundamentals: what do we want the kids to learn in public schools?

For example, Ari at Partial Transcripts has written about classes being interrupted or cancelled so students could attend an assembly about being environmentally friendly.  Chris at The Conservative Rant has asked his readers how to teach young men without fathers how to be and act like men.  NYgirl has commented on a National Board of Governors survey that indicates  that most high school students find school boring, unchallenging, and not very effective at teaching them skills they think they need.

So, what DO we want the kids to learn?

Before attempting to put together any sort of curricula, we need to understand and accept that not all children have the same intellectual talents, and therefore shouldn't be placed in the same classes.  In other words, smarter kids need to be placed in advanced classes that will challenge them, while slower kids need to be placed in classes where they can get the necessary repitition and help to understand the basics.

We also need to accept the fact that some kids are going to fail.  Whether through indifference or lack of aptitude, they will not meet such goals as are established.  When this happens, they should NOT be promoted.  What good does it do to send them on to a higher grade with (presumably) more difficult course work when they don't understand what has come before?  Along the same lines, not all students 'test' well.  Unfortunately, there aren't any good alternatives to standardized testing, and so this should NOT be an excuse for poor academic performance.

Further, we need to understand and accept that public education is NOT a right; it is a state REQUIREMENT for the betterment of our society and nation.  Student who refuse to behave in school, refuse to do their work, or are otherwise disruptive, should be removed from the public schools and put into special 'reform' schools to learn discipline along with their lessons.  School uniforms may be useful; dress codes should be mandatory.

Finally, while I don't think that hobbling teachers' creativity with excessively standardized lesson plans ('teaching to the test') is a good idea, there is nevertheless a body of academic skills and knowledge that all American students should understand.  These include:

1.  Reading comprehension.  Students should be able to read a modestly complex piece and be able to answer basic questions about it.  They should also be able to determine the meanings of unfamiliar words from the context of the sentence / paragraph.

2.  Writing.  Students should be able to express themselves clearly in writing, follow the rules of English grammar, and spell common words correctly.

3.  Mathematics.  Students should be able to perform basic arithmetic operations without the aid of a calculator, as well as understand common 'business math' problems such as calculating percentages, discounts, etc.  Students should also be able to solve basic word problems requiring modest skills in algebra.

4.  American history and government.  Students should be able to demonstrate a basic understanding of United States history, including the origins of the American nation, the Age of Exploration, and the colonial era; founding of our country and the War for Independence; the formation of our constitutional system of government; the expansion of the country; slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction and Jim Crow; the industrial revolution and the 'Gilded Age'; the rise of the United States as a world power, 'big stick' diplomacy, the Monroe Doctrine, and the First World War; the Great Depression; the Second World War; the Cold War; the space race; integration and civil rights; the Vietnam War; Watergate; and the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the United States as the sole superpower in the world.

Students should also demonstrate a basic understanding of the structure of the US government, the Constitution, and the rights of American citizens.

The schools should be responsible for teaching students these four things to AT LEAST the 8th grade level.  Anything else, such as science, music, vocational skills, PE, etc. is desirable, but should NOT detract from the goal of 100% of students demonstrating that they have these skills / understand these concepts by the time they graduate.  If it means two or three periods of math or reading per day for slower kids, then so be it.

Regarding moral instruction, I must say that I don't think that the public schools are capable of teaching this, nor should they try.  While lack of morals is a problem in our country, this is simply too big a hornet's nest for the schools to be involved.  If the schools can teach basic skills to the kids, then I'd say they've done their job.

High schoolers everywhere agree: school is boring!

(hat tip: The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

It's official: most American high school students find school boring!

The New York Times' Michael Janofsky found this unbelievable fact and reports:

A large majority of high school students say their class work is not very difficult, and almost two-thirds say they would work harder if courses were more demanding or interesting, according to an online nationwide survey of teenagers conducted by the National Governors Association.

The survey, being released on Saturday by the association, also found that fewer than two-thirds believe that their school had done a good job challenging them academically or preparing them for college. About the same number of students said their senior year would be more meaningful if they could take courses related to the jobs they wanted or if some of their courses could be counted toward college credit.

Now, what did a leading democrat think such a survey might show?

"I might have expected kids to say, 'Don't give us more work; high school is tough enough,' " said Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a Democrat and chairman of the governors association, which opens a three-day summer meeting here on Saturday.

"Instead," Mr. Warner said, "what we got are high school students actually willing to be stretched more. I didn't think we'd get much of that."

You can almost hear him stammer, 'B-b-but, we don't grade with red pens anymore!  And w-w-we let you graduate even if you can't read.  A-a-and we do everything we can to reinforce your self esteem.  What more do you want?'

"A lot of business people and politicians have been saying that the high schools are not meeting the needs of kids," said Barbara Kapinus, a senior policy analyst for the National Education Association. "It's interesting that kids are saying it, too."

Yeah, I've heard about surveys like this, too.  While school districts obsess about whether or not they've got state-of-the-art computers in all the classrooms, business people complain that many job applicants can barely read or write a coherent sentence.  Tip for school systems everywhere: you teach them to read, write, and do arithmetic.  We'll teach them to operate the kind of computers we want them to use.

Marc Tucker, president of the National Council on Economic Education, an organization that helps states and school districts create programs that are more tailored to contemporary student needs, said he did not believe that American high schools could adequately prepare students without a fundamental change in how they operated.

Mr. Tucker said American schools had been too slow to adapt high school curriculums to the real-life demands of college and the workplace. Except for that small fraction of highly motivated students with an eye toward prestigious private colleges and state universities, many more students, he said, are under the impression that just having a diploma qualifies them for the rigors of college and the workplace.

I can't stress it enough: TEACH THEM TO READ, WRITE, AND DO ARITHMETIC, AND LET THOSE OF US WHO HIRE AND TRAIN AND SUPERVISE THEM WORRY ABOUT TEACHING THEM ABOUT 'REAL-LIFE DEMANDS'.

Also, make the diploma worth something.  Companies are demanding associates or even bachelors degrees from job applicants because they know that a high school diploma is pretty meaningless: all it tells them is that the applicant made it through twelve years of public school, which doesn't necessarily mean he can even count past ten or spell his own name.

The NEA: Putting Children Fifteenth!

(hat tip: Captain's Quarters; Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

You can see the full list of the NEA's new 'business items' here, but this is the summary that Captain Ed has:

1. [Defeated, no description]
2. Fighting Wal-Mart
3. Investigating the positions of financial firms regarding Social Security privatization
4. Adding "multiethnic" and "other" as options on ethnicity questions
5. Celebrating the 40th anniversary of the NEA and ATA
6. Forming coalitions to "protect" Social Security
7. Explaining the difference between two different pension plans
8. Requesting an article for their newsletter on "health problems from exposure to fragrance chemicals".
9. Getting outside funding to allow 25 more people to attent the EPA Tools for Schools Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Symposium
10. Creating a workgroup on health care
11. Sponsoring "political training" for Congressional candidates friendly to NEA priorities (see above!)
12. [Defeated, no description]
13. Opposing "billionaire Eli Broad and any other entities to remove elected school boards from cities"
14. Repealing the Social Security offset and explaining the differences between states' approach to Social Security for teachers who move

There are quite a few others.  # 32 is interesting:

Move that NEA, utilizing existing policy, study the feasibility of initiating a boycott of Gallo wine.

It's linked with # 47:

The NEA will inform members about reasons for the boycott of Gallo wines called by the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO.The NEA will ensure that Gallo wines are not served at any function of the Association.

This was referred to the Executive Committee.  Wonder why?  Could it be because the public might start wondering why the NEA is holding a boycott of a company just because another union asked them to?

I LOOOOVE # 42:

The NEA shall work with other pro-democracy and pro-labor organizations to lead an education campaign among members and the general public about the need for support of strong public programs and institutions in the face of increasing privatization. [somehow, I suspect that the real aim of this is against school vouchers]

But at least in # 38, they recommend something sensible:

NEA Representative Assembly directs President Weaver to express NEA's opposition to the annual observance of "Take Your Child to Work Day" during the traditional school year to the appropriate organization(s). We request this worthwhile day be observed during a non-attendance day for students (or one with less impact on student learning).

No wonder the public schools are such a mess.

Why should we have public schools?

DISCLAIMER: The author of the following is a crabby old man inhabiting a (more or less) young man's body.

Chris Roberts posed the following question on his blog:

What is the most effective means of teaching young men without fathers the skills needed to be a man within the context of a public education classroom?

NYgirl gave her opinion about the answer on her blog, and there have been other insightful and useful comments.

The problem is that they are all predicated on the belief that the schools have some role in teaching morality.  I argue that the schools have lost much of their ability to teach ANYTHING effectively.  Because the public schools have failed in their mission, I believe that they should be disbanded, or at least organized much differently than they have been in the past.

When the country was founded over two centuries ago, public education was not widely available, especially outside of New England.  The vast majority of the American population was rural / agrarian, and there was little spare time during the year for children to waste on something as (relatively) useless to them as reading, writing, or arithmetic.  As time passed, however, towns, counties, and states determined that an educated populace is a boon to industry and commerce and makes for a happier, more law-abiding community.  Therefore, they began to establish some form of compulsory public schooling, and eventually the system evolved to the K-12 system that we know today.

The system began to go wrong in the 1960s.  One could propose many reasons for this: interference from the federal government, especially after 1957; desegregation; the influence of liberal / leftist teachers and ideas; rise in crime rates; busing; skyrocketing divorce rates; etc, etc.  My own feeling is that the schools were ruined by these factors:

1.  Poor parenting.  Whether it's because single parents simply haven't got the time to spend supervising their childrens' education, or because parents don't feel qualified to oversee their children, or because parents can't accept 'bad news' about their children, or because they simply don't want to take the time, too many kids are not getting the support and discipline at home that they need.  The schools cannot do the parents' job, and nor should they try.

2.  Sinking standards.  It seems that kids are required to learn less and less each year, because somebody complains that the course work is excessive or 'too hard.'

3.  Too much emphasis on childrens' self-esteem.  This connects strongly to #2 above.  Children are promoted when they haven't learned the appropriate course work, high grades are given for what objectively is mediocre work, and even marking with red pens is being banned.  All this is done in the name of protecting the kids' fragile egoes.

4.  Teachers are not allowed to run their classrooms.  They have little say in determining what the coursework will be, and have few effective means to keep discipline.  Unions also make it very difficult for school systems to get rid of bad teachers, or even reward good teachers.

5.  Crime.  Because too many people think that public school is a right (and a handy babysitter), kids with behavioral problems and even outright criminal records are in schools, totally disrupting the learning environment.

6.  Too much time spent either entertaining or indoctrinating the kids, to the detriment of teaching them basic skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

I would also note that efficiency is not the strong suit of any government, especially ours.  If public education is so vital to our national well-being, why do we entrust it to an entity that pays $400 for a toilet seat?

For these reasons, I believe that the public schools should be disbanded, along with county, state and federal boards or departments of education.  It goes without saying that state and local taxes should fall proportionately, and parents can use the savings on their taxes to send their children to private schools... or not, as they choose.  I regret that some children will pay the penalty later in life for their parents' laziness, but perhaps this will teach them to value education and provide for it when they have children of their own.

A nation of wimps

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

I'm no fan of the public education system, which I believe doesn't do its job of actually educating our kids.  Much of this is due to the lefty fascination with 'self-esteem': we dumb down curricula, use 'social promotion', eliminate 'advanced' courses, and even ban honor rolls in the name of not hurting a kid's feelings by making him feel stupid.  The result, of course, is legions of graduates who cannot read, write, do simple arithmetic, and know nothing about our country or government.

The latest craze in publik edukayshun is 'anti-bullying'.  According to the New Yorker's Lauren Collins:

Over the course of the next year, the [NYC] Department of Education will introduce into all of its elementary and middle schools “Operation Respect: Don’t Laugh at Me” [DLAM], an intensive curriculum in character development. The program, which is the brainchild and heart’s desire of Peter Yarrow, of Peter, Paul & Mary, aims to combat bullying by emphasizing the moral lessons of folk music.

By character development, do they mean building such traits as self-confidence, honesty, courage, or generosity?  Ummm... Not quite.

A couple of Tuesdays ago, at a fusty Department of Education building in Brooklyn, Lynne Hurdle-Price and Mark Weiss, conflict-resolution experts, led a DLAM training session for about two dozen middle-school teachers... Hurdle-Price distributed paper and Magic Markers. She asked each group to draw an outline of a human figure, inscribing negative behaviors (“put-downs”) on the outside and positive behaviors (“put-ups”) on the inside, close to the heart. Each group then presented its finished product, a Caring Being, which, according to the DLAM teacher’s guide, would help the participants to “explore creating agreements around behaviors.”

...

On to DLAM’s outreach video. The tape included accounts of book-slamming, sandwich-spitting, and shin-kicking, as well as footage of a rendition of “Don’t Laugh at Me” that Yarrow had performed at the United Nations. “A ridicule-free world,” a soothing voice intoned. “It’s possible, but only with everyone’s help.”

Ai-yi-yi!

Now, I don't approve of children insulting or hurting one another.  As the target of some pretty vicious bullying when I was in middle school, I strongly sympathize with kids who are bullied or insulted on a regular basis.  However, the way to combat this is NOT to teach kids to sit around and sing 'Don't Laugh at Me.'

Further, how does this teach kids to deal with the adult world?  There's no principal to run to when your coworkers ridicule you (well, OK: there sort of is if you're a woman or a minority), or when somebody calls you an idiot while stuck in traffic.  While solving conflict in non-violent or even non-confrontational ways is highly desireable, it sometimes isn't possible.  Kids need to understand this and have the experience to recognize and deal with cases that require them to do more than blub, 'Don't laugh at me!!!'