Category: Education

By on

Texas wants to teach the Bible in public schools. I am so tired of this. Republicans are trying to leverage this as an issue because Democrats would likely oppose this and the Republicans can shriek about the anti-Christian Democrats.

They hold this very strange belief that just reading Bible stories will make children Christians. Well, I am sorry to break it to them but I am living proof that it will not. One of the great disappointments of my parents’ lives is the extra money they paid to give their five children a Catholic education and they got exactly zero Catholics in the bargain. Zero Catholics with 12 years of Catholic education.

Catholic education also had the advantage, at least as far as the Church saw it, of putting their lessons in context to a much larger Catholic belief system. The story alone is a story. The story with an explanation of what this means to Bible believing Christians is something completely different and impossible to tell because no two Christians believe exactly the same thing.

The Texas School system will be unable to do much in the way of incorporating these stories into a belief system because once they try to do that they will have Christians arguing among themselves about Christian doctrine. And that is when the real trouble will begin as any one conversant with European History knows — Christians like nothing more than to spill blood over Christian Doctrine. This is the very trouble, by the way, that our founding fathers wanted to avoid.

So, go ahead, read your damn Bible stories. I am sure it will have little effect on the thousands of kids staring out the window wondering what the cafeteria is serving for lunch.

By on

Florida continues to rewrite the history of the Civil War. The governor and his cronies want a much more palatable history so that white children don’t have to learn that their ancestors behaved like assholes. As Chauncey DeVega, in the above linked Salon article, noted: “The discomfort of Black and brown children — who watch their communities’ histories, experiences and reality being systematically erased and distorted — was apparently of little concern.”

But never mind, the fragile minds of white children are the concern here. They need to know that their country is great. Period. Any information that might suggest otherwise has to be massaged so that these delicate darlings don’t get the wrong idea about the country.

So the Civil War becomes a little kerfuffle about State’s Rights. The North wanted to force its ways on the South and the South wasn’t having it. Making State’s Rights the issue, as opposed to slavery, drains the Civil War of any meaning.

Florida education wants white children to think that slavery wasn’t so bad. The plantation owners gave the slaves a good profession, and kept them well fed, and housed. The plantation owners and the slaves, in fact, got along fabulously. Besides, slavery was a dying institution and wouldn’t have lasted much longer any way. Got it.

Leaving white children with the mistaken idea that the founding fathers were perfect and the nation was perfect from the beginning with no need to change. But the nation did change — a bloody civil war was fought, the slaves were freed, and the South began a hundred year resistance campaign against blacks which included lynching and legal discrimination.

How does one explain American History without touching on the Civil War and race? More importantly, how does this silence about what happened help anyone – Black, Brown, Red, Yellow or White? The fact is race is an ongoing concern for the American people. The American people’s approach to race has changed over time and this change is important both to note, to discuss and to understand.

How does a student understand Reconstruction without first learning about the Civil War? How does a student understand the Civil Rights Movement without understanding legal discrimination? Yes, these are unpleasant topics because a lot of people behaved badly and their behavior is difficult to understand. But it did happen. It is a part of history.

Children, contrary to popular belief, live in the real world not an imaginary world of lollipops and gum drops. They see confusing and terrible things every day. This is part of their transition to becoming adults. Not all truths are pleasant. Children need to know that. The country started with some grand ideas but some pretty awful ones too. It is important to learn from the awful ones in order to change our present to an even better future.

By on

Texas Legislators are discussing how to keep Furries out of the schools. Furries, in case you are unaware of what they are, and why should you as they are a complete figment of the right wing imagination, are children who identify as animals, specifically cats, and, therefore, require a litter box in their classroom in order to use the toilet. That there is no evidence that this is a problem in any Texas school is beside the point. Never mind. Some child could and, because of this highly remote possibility, the Texas legislature needs to act.

Now a Republican Congresswoman is fighting to keep strippers out of the classroom — a problem, again, with no reported occurrences. No matter the insignificance — the nation must act now because strippers in g-strings are camped outside schools just waiting to perform. It is sad, to say the least, that so much of what is troubling the right wing are not even remotely problems for our schools. But, by all means, lets spend precious time protecting children from strippers and furries when we could spend more time discussing an actual existential problem for pupils — something like, I don’t know, school shooters.

Think about it. If you can only protect children from one thing, who would your rather slip through the protective net for children — a school shooter or a stripper?

What’s the problem you may ask. These legislators are acting preemptively against a possible problem in this crazy world we live in. It isn’t hurting anyone and, if lighting strikes and it actually happens, there will be laws in place to protect children from the experience. But this isn’t some harmless ask from a publicity seeking legislator, it does real harm. Every moment these officials spend protecting children from these monsters under the bed is time, money and energy taken away from actual problems. It is a waste of time which isn’t harmless.

By on

Daniel Markovits explaining why the idea of meritocracy is just a way for rich people to keep their advantages. It is only a meritocracy if everyone starts out with the same education. People who get better schools get advantage. Now if all students went to schools of equal quality than yes viva the meritocracy. But that isn’t the case. Don’t tell me that parents who are paying $50,000 a year to educate their child think that this education is equal to a basic public school education. They pay to give their child a leg up. This isn’t meritocracy.

By on 1 Comment

The Conservative Press is agog at Jacob Savage’s the Lost Generation. Savage details the trials and tribulations of White men trying to break into Academia or Cultural positions right now. It is all DEI and racial discrimination. I am afraid they are emphasizing only one aspect of his argument while downplaying and missing some of his more salient points. They are going on about how lesser candidates who are women or people of color are getting the jobs that should rightfully being going to White men. This was not Savage’s point at all.

Savage points out that this problem exists for young white men and not older white men. Older White men already have their jobs in Academia and in Cultural institutions while younger White men are vying for open positions. The problem for younger White men is that these positions, in the past, skewed disproportionately to White men. This past discrimination worked against women and people of color. So if you presently have a staff of 10 and 7 of them are white men, what happens when a position becomes available and your institution is interested in diversity. The young white men are at a disadvantage. Not because of women and people of color but because the institution already has too many white men.

Is this unfair? Yes, absolutely. But how can you achieve two varied goals — a diversified work force and being absolutely fair to everyone. Conservatives say that diversity shouldn’t be considered a factor at all. The only thing that matters is who is the better candidate. Well, that would be nice but how exactly does the best candidate always get the job?

For example, Savage discusses the hiring of television writers. How does one determine who is a better writer? Particularly if one of your goals is to broaden the stories you tell to include more stories about women and people of color. Who better to tell these tales than women and people of color? White men can, of course, write women characters but then I am betting than women can write even better women characters. So, then, who is the best candidate for the job? The man or the woman?

How does one determine the best candidate in Academia? Is it teaching? Is it research? Or is it the old tried and true old boy network where connections with the people who make the decisions help you get the job? Why should groups who have been discriminated in the past, trust that you are hiring the best candidate? The word of the person making the decision? After how many white men are hired does one question the process? Five? Ten? Twenty? Never. And after twenty or so white men are hired and discrimination is determined, what happens to all of those candidates that were overlooked? Tough luck.

By the way, there isn’t only one perfect person for the job. Indeed this is rarely true. The difficult decision comes generally because there are several people who could do the job well. This is particularly true with jobs that everybody wants. Jobs in Academia and Culture have always had stiff competition. They carry salary, prestige, and power. In the past, a lot of white men vied with other white men for these positions. And a lot of white men were disappointed. Now the competition has expanded to include women and people of color. This means that the competition is fierce and there is even a bigger chance of not getting your dream job. Savage writes at the end of his essay: “The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”

The sad story is that talented White men are used to getting the job and they aren’t anymore. Their expectation did not match the reality of our present world. It is a difficult lesson to learn but life, as we are constantly being reminded, is unfair. Is it fair that some parents can afford private tutors for their children who may have fallen a step behind in class while poor parents with a child in the same situation can not? Is it fair that some schools are direct conduits to Ivy League Universities while other schools are not? Is it fair that some parents make a significant donation to a university which gets their children into an elite university while a poorer parent with an equally gifted child can not? Is it fair that some children are well fed when they arrive at school and poorer children are not?

I could go on but you get the point. Life is unfair in a lot of different ways. Why this particular unfairness is so important while other unfairnesses can be ignored is informative of the motives of the people complaining right now. I mean if the unfairness in the education a person receives throughout their life can be equalized as best we can then we wouldn’t have to discussing the unfair treatment of White men now. It wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would believe that everybody had a fair chance from the start. But we aren’t talking about the differences in education that people receive, are we? I wonder why?

We do not live in a perfect world. There are plenty of bigoted people in important position making employment decisions. Processes devised to protect groups who have suffered discrimination in the past skew the process against the people who did not suffer discrimination in the past. So maybe we look at how to do the process better as we learn more. But, please, please don’t talk to me about the loss of our meritocracy. Because it is bull shit and you know it is bull shit. We never had one and we never will. All we can do is continue to work at making it better. And we will never ever succeed.

By on

Texas wants to bring back religious training back to the public schools. The idea here is that the majority religion is Christianity and, given this fact, Texas’ children will learn a little bit about it and become model citizens.

I am probably more blase about religious education than the typical non-religious person. It doesn’t bother me in the least because I know after 12 years of Catholic education, religious training only increased my antagonism towards religion. Add forced Sunday church services like my parents did and Texas will probably get the same share of non-religious people as before Texas began religious education. Really if kids are already having problems with math, history, English and science what makes Texas think that educators will be any better with teaching religion?

But that is not that question before us — the question is can Texas government make children learn about Christianity. I would unequivocally say yes if it weren’t for one important factor. The assumption here is that Christians will sit down and agree on what is to be taught.

Given the past 2,000 years of Christians bitter and brutal quarreling about Christian doctrine, this assumption is a lot of wishful thinking (See Savonarola, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, 1970’s Northern Ireland if you need some refresher on this). The primary reason the founding fathers separated the Church from the State is that European Christians had spent the last thousand years or so killing one another over religion. All of whom claimed, by the way, they were Christians.

The Founding Fathers thought that any preference to any religion would cause trouble with the other religions — especially within the various Christian groups. Better to leave religion to the individual who can practice as they wish without government interference or, and this is important, government giving a preference to any one belief.

The public schools are already a cultural battleground. Texas will only make it worse with the introduction of religion. Part of me, would love to see the various Christian groups attacking one another about the right Christian doctrine to teach. Particularly since they also claim that the Bible is clear cut about doctrine. Not. Only my sympathy for teachers and students who face an already difficult struggle with non-religious education and, of course, the fear of bloody sectarian warfare keeps me from fully supporting religious education in the public schools.

But Texas is going do what Texas is going to do, so we shall see. Have your bandages ready.

By on

Yeah, the Texas legislature is making sure that the Ten Commandments are on display in all Texas classrooms. How this might help improve Texas education is still a mystery but never mind children need to see the Ten Commandments because it is a foundational document for the American Constitution.

There are numerous foundational documents to the Constitution, why stop at the Ten Commandments?You could throw in the Magna Carta and English Common law if you wanted to give them a thorough knowledge of the basis for American Law. You might even post the Constitution if you really wanted to show them the basis of American law. But the Republicans are only interested in the Ten Commandments.

What now is going to happen for Texas students? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The problem here is that posting something doesn’t mean anyone is going to read it. Just one more of the numerous postings that go up in a classroom that most students will ignore. Furthermore posting the Ten Commandments without context is pointless particularly if the child is being raised by heathens. What do the authors of this law think is going to happen? If any child is so bold as to read the post that the child will be struck by a bolt of lightening and have a come-to-Jesus moment. Good luck with that.

Since Texas is a big state with lots of people, there are a lot of classrooms which need the Ten Commandments posted. This will cost a lot of money. For nothing. Absolutely nothing. It isn’t going to make heathens Christians and it isn’t going to give anyone a better understanding of American law. But lots and lots of money will be spent to make it happen. Money spent on getting the law passed. Money spent on the actual posters. Money spent on seeing that the law is being followed. Money spent on law suits defending the posters. All money that could have been spent on making Texas education better. What program that helps the poor will lose funding to promote this law?

The only conceivable benefit coming from this law is that Republicans get to gloat about passing a bill that promotes Christianity. All it is is a big middle finger to their opponents and nothing else. This from the Republican party who claim to believe in fiscal responsibility.

So Texas post away.

By on

Texas State Representative Stan Gerdes is concerned about children identifying as cats and demanding litter boxes in the classroom or, as they are known as, furries. The fact that no child has ever made this demand is beside the point. If it could happen, we need to stop it.

I am relieved that this urgent problem has been addressed. I know I will sleep more soundly knowing that no child can make this claim any longer.

Now that this urgent problem has been taken care of, maybe, we can focus on the teaching of Reading, Writing and Mathematics. Things, by the way, that actually get done in the classroom.

By on

I had numerous misgivings about Bryan Caplan’s It’s Not Who You Know, It’s Who You Are. Caplan’s bottom line is that there is no advantage to being rich in a capitalist society. The cream always rises to the top and it is because the rich have better genes than the poor and middle class and this is why they always rise to the top.

How did he determine this? Did he give a bunch of poor kids a million dollar trust fund, a financial advisor and entrance into all the best private schools and then compare it to the rich kids who had this advantage already? Or did he force rich kids into resource stretched public schools, make them work three jobs just to meet rent, and made it impossible to talk to Daddy during the length of the study? A little more information is needed here in order for me to buy the bull shit Caplan is selling.

If he is just looking at where people ended up, then he failed to prove his point. Are you telling me that knowing other rich people isn’t helpful to rich kids looking for jobs? Almost every job I have ever gotten was because I knew someone in the company. I knew a job was available and I knew who to talk to in order to be seen. Being seen is half the battle in getting a job. This is a tremendous advantage over someone who knows no one. How does he factor that in to his analysis?

Why would rich people spend upwards to $100,00 a year for private education if this doesn’t give their child some advantage? If their child got the same education in a local public school, they would be a fool not to — it comes with their taxes. Yet these rich people, and Caplan believes smarter people, still spend a lot of money on a private education for their genetically superior kids. There can only be one explanation — expensive private schools make a difference. They are worth the money. If, of course, you have it.

Finally, I thought one of the assumptions of market capitalism is that poor people have to learn to work hard in order to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Anyone can make it to the top if they work hard, they too can become rich. But if they are too genetically inferior to make it happen, why needlessly raise their hopes if they are going to end up being poor no matter how hard they work. How sadistic is that.

Genetic superiority is a pernicious and dangerous lie. When people believe they are superior, it opens them up to differentiate between human beings. There are better people who deserve more. To diminish the value of money is equally dangerous. Why have public schools and Head Start if the kids are hopeless. You can’t spend enough money on rich kids and no amount of money will change the results for poor kids. Why waste time and money on lost causes? Nothing personal here. It is all genetic.

By on

I am a little annoyed after reading Chauncey Devega’s interview of Matthew Levendusky in Salon. They were discussing the importance of a Civic’s education in a democracy. But they weren’t really. They seem to want people to recite answers to random questions — like for example what is the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution?

How often in life will I have to answer that question. So far in my 66 years, no one has ever asked me yet nor have I been cognizant of needing this information. Maybe I unknowingly used the 3rd Amendment to live my life. Which is fine with me. There are more important things to remember say like the emergency number for the police is 911. 911 is important and I might use it, have used it. I am not saying the 3rd Amendment isn’t important. It is important but I may never use it or know that I am using it.

There is a serious misconception about the past. Like people used their civics and history education in making their civic decisions. My grandparents all came from modest circumstances. Working people. My Grandma Schnell never got past the 8th grade as she reminded us incessantly. That these people were debating the advantages and disadvantages of constitutional amendments before they voted seems like a bit of a stretch. They did however vote. What DeVega and Levendusky would like citizens to do and what they are actually doing are two different things.

A more realistic vision might acknowledge that people will do some research if it is required but will probably vote based on party preference and the endorsements of institutions or people who they agree with. They look at their pocketbooks, check with their family and friends, and maybe look at the television. To ask for a process of weighing the pros and cons of each and every candidate on the ballot is insanity. Have they ever seen a California ballot? We vote for the assistant to the assistant Dog Catcher here. I have absolutely no interest in researching everyone on that ballot and California is really good about giving you a lot of lead time to research. For me, it boils down to whether they are Democrats and are pro-choice. If they meet those two criterion, I am done researching.

The idea that better civics classes might make for better citizens made me shudder in horror. Civic’s education has always been bad. In my Catholic high school, it was taught by the lesser athletic coaches who couldn’t get the prime PE job which always went to our champion Football coach. They may have cared about history and civics but their hearts were definitely in their sports team and not the Dred Scott decision. My memory of these classes were of men talking each day about what you needed to memorize to pass the class. This meant that they were irredeemably boring. My most vivid memory of these classes was how difficult it was to stay awake in them. Often I would just surrender to the urge and nap.

And let me tell you I missed nothing. The answers to the test were also in the text book. If you read the text book, you could easily figure out what you needed to know for the test. So I just read the text book. That these two apparently intelligent men are advocating the need for people to learn the three branches of government in order to be responsible citizens is disheartening.

This, of course, is a broader problem with American Education. Memorizing facts passes for education in this country. It isn’t. It can be helpful and it can reduce the time a citizen takes to address a problem but it is unnecessary to know this information to act as a good citizen. Far more relevant, would be to give the students issues or problems and ask them how a citizen might act to resolve these issues. How do they use their vaguely understood freedom and rights to make civic life better and, if, in the course of their research, they learn about the three branches of government then good for them.

By the way, I still don’t know what the 3rd Amendment is. I thought about looking it up but then I thought, it is a bit of an effort, and I would really have to focus, and then I realized I have better things to do. So there.