Every Child Left Behind

I was wondering what to write about when I found this outstanding video on a friend's FB profile...so I'm going to be lazy.



Information, knowledge about HOW we learn, cultural assumptions about who can be educated and standardization / anaesthetization in an industrial-era education system are bad news for our kids.

Huh?

I wonder if I'm overreacting or being a typical "my kid is smarter than you and can do no wrong" parent. I probably am, a little bit. But my (and my wife's) hide is slightly chapped. Last week, my son turned in what appeared to be a typical piece of homework, geared toward preparing for the state standardized academic tests he will go through later this year. We really have a problem with the outcome.

First, I have a problem with the entire process. I find that the homework, especially the math homework, is more geared toward teaching problem-solving mechanics than actually comprehending concepts. I've talked about this before. Teaching toward understanding concepts is more effective.

This time it was in a reading comprehension piece, not math. The story was an adaptation of the classic fable of Androcles and the Lion.

There were a series of multiple choice questions, and a final question requiring a written answer. The final question was "Did Androcles deserve to die? Why or why not?" My son's answer was very basic - No he did not, because he was escaping slavery, and nobody should be made to be a slave. My wife and I reviewed the answer, and agreed.

It turns out the teacher didn't and awarded 50% (2 of 4) for the question. Her comment was "What about helping the lion?"

What about it?

First of all, the question misses the entire point of the story - which is simply that kindness and friendship are repaid many times over. While it definitely influenced the lion's decision to let Androcles live, it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he "deserves" death. Take the Lion out - does Androcles deserve to die simply because he is an escaped slave? Put the lion back in but assume Androcles is a child molesting AIG executive who routinely waterboards endangered polar bears. Does he deserve to live because he helped a lion?

Secondly, the grade automatically discourages thinking beyond the face value of the story. Which is bad because, as I stated, the very question was not germane to the moral.

But my wife and I were in an absolute funk over this. He wasn't happy either; he wondered what he could do and we told him he could always ask her about it and explain, which he did. Nope. He deserved to live because he took the splinter out.

Now I don't think we're going to press anything. It's small potatoes, really - it's not going to keep him from going to Harvard (the cost will, though), the state standardized tests are not "counted" at this level, and his teacher repeatedly sings his praises when we see her out and about. I'll just chalk it up to "It's those stupid standardized tests."

What we really wanted to do was write a letter and attach it to the paper stating that the actions of Androcles, while demonstrating friendship and kindness, have zero bearing on the ethical and existential question governing whether he retained or forfeited his right to continue breathing. I still might. Or, maybe I'll just write "What if Androcles were a child-molesting AIG Executive who routinely waterboards endangered polar bears?"

No, I won't do that either.

Here's Why Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan for Education is So Important!

After reading what a guy I follow in Twitter showed me, we need it to find and pay better teachers.

However, with an African American about to be inaugurated as president, Foley wonders whether 'Huck Finn' ought to be sent back down the river. Why not replace it with a more modern, less discomfiting novel documenting the epic journey of discovery?

"The time has arrived to update the literature we use in high school classrooms," Foley wrote in a guest column this month for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Barack Obama is president-elect of the United States, and novels that use the 'N-word' repeatedly need to go."

Hmmm, let's see, how can I put this delicately? Oh, I've got it...

No. You're wrong.

How about, "Only if every piece of literature that has any word that any race or demographic can find offensive, regardless of context, comes off reading lists with it."

See where I'm going? Honors 12th Grade English would suddenly consist of The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew.

"It's just my experience teaching, especially 'Huck Finn.' Every year, it seems to be a tougher sell to the kids. I have a lot of passion for 'Huck Finn,' and my enthusiasm usually carries the book. But I have kids come up to me, very smart kids, who say, 'Mr. Foley, I hate this book.' " They hate not only the difficult dialogue, he said, but what students -- usually white ones -- object to as "demeaning stereotypes."

First - your students need to grow up. Not everything they read has to be (or will be) easy. I read EVERY FUCKING WORD of The Scarlet Letter and Of Human Bondage without pulling my eyes out (though I wanted to) or whining to my teacher. So can they. Oh, and Huck Finn is a tough read? Are you sure these students are "very smart kids"?

It's sad you have to try and educate the "angry mothers" of your students on the meaning of context as well as try to get your students to understand. You shouldn't have to. But it makes it that much more important that you take the effort to make the students, not give them an easier read. That way, maybe future teachers won't have angry parents asking why a book has the "N-word" in it.

If you can't do it, won't do it, or are too tired to do it, you need to find something else to do.

Adams' Hierarchy

We don't have a cable box in our bedroom, so when we're in bed, it's kind of fun to surf through the higher COMCAST channels and see what pops up. If we're lucky, someone else on our block is watching an on-demand movie and we pick up the feed. We saw "Knocked Up" for free this way, and we've even stumbled across some ... ahem ... well, you know. It'd be wierd if it were the nice older couple two doors down ordering that stuff and fast forwarding through the boring parts.

Last night, it was "John Adams". We had considered getting HBO just to watch this series, but I'd since dug into McCullough's book, and every time we decide to get premium channels, they seem to stop showing anything even remotely interesting.

I have no idea what number the episode was, but Adams was on his mission to France with Ben Franklin, uncomfortably dealing with the loathsome French aristocracy trying to get a commitment of naval power to the Revolution, when he says:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

Never mind that this was actually written in a letter to Abigail Adams, instead of spoken to a drunk, lecherous, powdered and perfumed Frenchman.

I find so much in these words. They are at the same time a source of inspiration and clarity as well as fear and disappointment.

There is no clearer nor more elegant way to outline in principle what the intellectual makeup and pursuits of the republic and it's citizens should be. But I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic when I say we are failing to achieve it.

Our incoherent foreign policy, complete lack of grand strategy and our precarious economy are a given, but they are not what I am referring to; they can, and I believe will, be at least turned in the right direction in a matter of years. The impending failure from within, through inadequate education and lack of engagement in the political process, is what concerns me the most. Unless we correct it, we all but guarantee that the most elementary parts of Adams' Hierarchy - government, security, and the generation and sustainment of wealth - will fail.

And all our "painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain" will be hollow symbols indeed.

I always hated those trains...

From Scientific American:

If a train heading east leaves Chicago at noon and a train heading west leaves New York an hour later, will that make you any better at math? New evidence says "No." In a report in the April 25th issue of the journal Science, researchers from Ohio State University say the preferred method of teaching math just doesn't make the grade. The researchers taught undergraduates mathematical principles they would need to solve future problems. Some were taught using concrete visual examples, like cups filled with water or a pizza cut into slices. Other students learned abstract formulas in terms like "n=x."

When asked to solve new problems using these teachings, major discrepancies appeared. In one case, abstract-learning students scored an average of 80 percent on a test. Their "real-world" counterparts, however, seemed unable to transfer their knowledge to a new situation, posting only a 44 percent average. The researchers say using concrete examples is alluring, because students seem to learn lessons faster. However, students who take the time to get abstract concepts down are able to get on the train before it leaves the station.

Word problems and real world example are the preferred method of teaching? Hmmm, things have changed. I seem to recall being taught by endless repetition of solving "8x = 24" and almost no repetition of "How many 8-slice pizzas do you need if 24 people want one slice each?" Which is good. The former teaches algebra. The latter teaches you to count pizza slices, which is helpful if your dream job is at Papa Gino's.

Wish I could read more about this, to find out exactly how the researchers used "pizzas and cups of water" to teach concepts to undergrad students ("this pizza is an electron with up 1/2 spin...this cup of water is an electron with down 1/2 spin") but I'm too cheap to pay AAAS the $10 for 24 hrs of the article, let alone $144 for a membership when the most scientific thing I get to do any more is ... well, read 60 Second Science feeds.