Tag: Education

By on

Katharine Birbalsingh, Britain’s strictest Head Mistress bemoans the missing morality lessons of the good old days. Parents raised their kids to take personal responsibility. Things were so much better than they are today.

I am not sure what planet Birbalsingh is visiting from but she certainly missed Earth for the past 10,000 years where human beings have been pretty beastly towards one another. If people were so damned good in the past, why do we have to teach children about Hitler, Slavery and Civil Rights. Well, because people in the past weren’t so good and moral. We wouldn’t have to teach children about racism if society had not been racist in the past. Is this the morality she misses?

She talks about the man who was so proud of his 50 years at one company. Bully for him but his moral purity might be overshadowed by also teaching his grandchildren that Blacks are inferior and you shouldn’t live next door to them. Or women should be paid less than men. Or Gay men are perverts and deserve social ostracism. He may have also beaten his grandson from time to time if he felt the child was out of line. If the man was a man of his times, would it be surprising that he would hold those views as well and, I might add, a far cry from being morally superior man.

Hence why people are now teaching about Hitler, Slavery and Civil Rights.

People held much more horrible beliefs in the past than they do today and we are all better for being free from them. Can we be better people? Of course, we can. The answer to our problems will not be found in the past but in incorporating the lessons from our past failures and moving forward from there.

By on

Mean Girls and Bullies are a reoccurring theme in any depiction of American adolescence. They always seem to pop up as a potent, almost dictatorial, presence in high schools. They also seem to land at the top of the school hierarchy which, given their nastiness, seems odd. It baffles me.

Think about it. On the first day of school the teacher doesn’t announce to the class that you are going to start dividing yourself into people you like and people you don’t like. Some of you will get invited to all the birthday parties, others will not. Suzy will be the chief mean girl and Bill is the big bully. Let the school year begin.

It is a hierarchy created by the kids. It is cruel. It is pervasive and it is has an effect on a child’s life.

Adults can try to mitigate the social hierarchy but it happens regardless of their best efforts. Adults can tell kids to be respectful but how does a school control the in crowd and the out crowd. The creation of these groups, be it — Jocks, Nerds, Cool Kids, Stoners — is an act of group self-creation. Adults don’t make the decision.

How the hierarchy all sorts out is a mystery to everyone but, perhaps, the group itself. In reality, there may not be any rational explanation other than this is the chemical reaction of this particular group of kids.

The two things that interest me here is why does it happen at all and why do the same type of kids (jocks and cheerleaders) end up at the top and others (nerds and goths) end up near the bottom. The story, the one you see in the movies and read in books, always is the same. Mean Girls and Jocks take over and end up at the top of the teenage hierarchy.

This would seem like an unimportant detail. Who cares why some kids rise to the top and other kids don’t. It is just school but I am afraid it is very important because mean girls and bullies continue their reign of terror throughout their lives.

Explain Trump. He is a bully. Why is he tolerated? Why are people still willing to work for such an asshole even though he has made everyone perfectly aware that he has no loyalty to anyone except himself?

Maybe the whole problem with Trump, particularly for the people who are immune to Trump’s charm, is trying to find a rational reason for people putting their faith in such an asshole when it is more of an instinctual thing — irrational and subconscious.

He is the silverback who beats his chest in the most convincing manner and to our ape selves that is all that matters.

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 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 1 Comment

Heather MacDonald writes that Donald Trump took “the most important step it can to restore meritocracy. to American society” by eliminating disparate-impact. When exactly was there a meritocracy in the United States? Certainly no time before 1964 when discrimination against people of color and women was legal. Not directly after the passage of Civil Rights laws in 1964 when White resistance to the new laws was so fierce it required the implementation of Affirmative Action in order to ensure that Whites complied with the new law. Since MacDonald finds any tool that aids people of color a boost is an affront to meritocracy, it certainly isn’t the recent past So MacDonald needs to identify the golden age of meritocracy in USA because from the evidence I can see, there never has been a meritocracy.

MacDonald glosses over 200 years of American History. She assumes that the 1964 Civil Rights ended discrimination and nothing more needed to be done. For her racial prejudice is obvious, racists are obnoxious assholes in a Ku Klux Klan robe screaming the N word. It certainly couldn’t be nice middle class whites who hire employees or admit students to Ivy League colleges. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a Ku Klux Klan robe, so how could they be prejudiced.

The advantage of the public bigots is that they are easy to identify. The problem is the more prevalent form of racism that Blacks encounter is from polite and powerful White who, just the same, might be disinclined to hire someone different from them. They don’t say we are picking a White over a Black. They know the game. They say that the White guy is just more qualified for the job than the Black guy. For this reason, discrimination is difficult to prove. This is the barrier that Blacks face. MacDonald doesn’t appear to be bothered much by this more subtle form of racism or even acknowledge that it might exist.

Disparate-impact was one of the tools that the government used to show discrimination. If an employer has never hired Blacks, year after year, in a community where the population is 25% Black, then the government can see that there might be a problem with discrimination in hiring. Without disparate impact, how does MacDonald propose to identify non-compliant businesses and schools?

She doesn’t. She views discrimination as a phantom problem that doesn’t occur any more so there is no reason to investigate. People are only looking for the best – Black, White, Man, Woman. Race and Gender don’t matter only quality. Well, maybe, but how do we know this is happening unless we evaluate?

Finally, for the record, there will never be a meritocracy as long as rich families hand over their businesses to their children. It is never going to happen as long as some people have connections and others don’t. It never is going to happen as long as people with money can buy their children’s ways into universities. It never is going to happen when White middle class people can avoid “bad” school districts. It never is going to happen as long as poor Black children are given a second rate educations while White middle class children are given a first rate one.

How does MacDonald feel about those problems? Until she addresses them, I don’t believe that she gives a damn about meritocracy.