Normally I am an optimist. However, there are times I get cynical - sometimes it seems there is so much drek out there that it is difficult to see the positive side of a story. This will be three posts in a row in which I point out the negative side of public education. I will post some upbeat pieces next. Meanwhile, here is another example of why we home school: the way in which history is taught, as exemplified by a story on Columbus day.
"...the whole Columbus being the founder of the United States, doesn't sit well with a lot of people, myself included," said Paul Prussing, deputy director of Alaska's Division of Teaching and Learning Support.
Perhaps Mr. Prussing should take a history course before opining on history. Christopher Columbus, of course, did not found the United States, the U.S.A. being a political entity that was not founded until nearly three centuries after Columbus' journey to the Americas. And whatever opinion Prussing has of the man, he should still encourage history to be taught factually, and see to it that the actions of historical figures are taught in context with the culture of their times, not through the filter of a different age and culture.
From the same story, "Every hero is somebody else's villain," said Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, a scholar and author of several books related to Columbus.... "Heroism and villainy are just two sides of the same coin."
Alright, so let's look at an extreme example. I'm sure that the firefighters who gave their lives rescuing people from the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, were villians in the eyes of some people. But can you truly say that selfless heroism in the effort to save lives is the offset to the mindless hate that villainizes these heroes because they prevented deaths?
Moral relativism has no place in teaching. Sure, Mussolini was a vicious dictator, but he made the trains run on time! This type of attitude attempts to bridge the gap between good and evil; it minimizes accomplishment and excuses atrocity. It judges action and intent from the court of political agenda.
Children taught by the incompetent and the activist will suffer a terrible loss of perspective- they will be unable to perceive the currents in the world and will make faulty decisions based on the inaccurate data they have been given. To refer back to Dr. Sowell, they should be taught how to think, not what to think.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
"...schools are supposed to prepare children..."
Thomas Sowell has an interesting comment on the recent problems we've seen in the schools. This link leads to Townhall.com, a fine political web site, but be warned that sometimes the readers comments can be rude and crude.
I normally don't quote articles at any length, but this section is well worth it:
The mindset that sees children in school as an opportunity for teachers to impose their own notions, instead of developing the child's ability to think for himself or herself, is a dangerous distortion of education.
I normally don't quote articles at any length, but this section is well worth it:
The mindset that sees children in school as an opportunity for teachers to impose their own notions, instead of developing the child's ability to think for himself or herself, is a dangerous distortion of education.
Parents send their children to school to acquire the knowledge that has come down to us as a legacy of our culture-- whether it is mathematics, science, or whatever-- so that those children can grow up and go out into the world equipped to face life's challenges.
Too many "educators" see teaching not as a responsibility to the students but as an opportunity for themselves-- whether to indoctrinate a captive audience with the teacher's ideology, manipulate them in social experiments or just do fun things that make teaching easier, whether or not it really educates the child.
The commentary is well worth reading. Whether we home school, or choose private schools, we, as parents, will have greater influence over the education of our children. We cannot leave their education to the discretion of others, "experts"or not.
Another Reason to Home-School
It seems odd, but I have trouble working up some righteous anger over this - it has gone so far that it is now in the realm of being ridiculous.
You may have seen the classroom video (since removed from YouTube) of children singing (chanting) their praises of our President. Well, really, they are singing what the instructors taught, as I truly doubt these young children would sing songs about equal work for equal pay.
The religious imagery used is just silly. Taken from the children's hymn ("Jesus Loves the Little Children"), the verse is changed from:
Red and yellow
Black and white
They are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children
Of the world.
To:
Red and yellow
Black and white
They are equal in His sight.
Barack Hussein Obama.
The Principal of the school, on learning of this controversy, was justifiably outraged. Outraged, that is, that the video was leaked without permission. The indoctrination and pseudo-religious motif were not, evidently, problematic.
Let us forget the political aspect of this event; we can only laugh at the religious implications of these teachers using slightly altered Christian hymns to make obeisance to any political figure. But we can ask ourselves these questions: What did the teachers think they were going to accomplish? What did the teachers think the students would gain from the exercise? After all, isn't school about the kids, not the teachers? Why did they think this was in any way appropriate in a public school setting?
Of course, if we lack a Masters Degree in Education, we are told we are not qualified to second guess these educational experts. As parents, however, we are qualified to make decisions on whether this type of activity, rare as it may be, truly meets the educational needs of our children. That is why we home school.
You may have seen the classroom video (since removed from YouTube) of children singing (chanting) their praises of our President. Well, really, they are singing what the instructors taught, as I truly doubt these young children would sing songs about equal work for equal pay.
The religious imagery used is just silly. Taken from the children's hymn ("Jesus Loves the Little Children"), the verse is changed from:
Red and yellow
Black and white
They are precious in His sight.
Jesus loves the little children
Of the world.
To:
Red and yellow
Black and white
They are equal in His sight.
Barack Hussein Obama.
The Principal of the school, on learning of this controversy, was justifiably outraged. Outraged, that is, that the video was leaked without permission. The indoctrination and pseudo-religious motif were not, evidently, problematic.
Let us forget the political aspect of this event; we can only laugh at the religious implications of these teachers using slightly altered Christian hymns to make obeisance to any political figure. But we can ask ourselves these questions: What did the teachers think they were going to accomplish? What did the teachers think the students would gain from the exercise? After all, isn't school about the kids, not the teachers? Why did they think this was in any way appropriate in a public school setting?
Of course, if we lack a Masters Degree in Education, we are told we are not qualified to second guess these educational experts. As parents, however, we are qualified to make decisions on whether this type of activity, rare as it may be, truly meets the educational needs of our children. That is why we home school.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Does the healthcare debate teach us about economics?
Or is this more of a civics lesson?
I start by reminding myself that this is not a political blog - and yet, I have to admit to varying degrees of upset and frustration as I see the current Congress and Administration move us rapidly down a disastrous road.
To concentrate on one aspect of this disturbing push, the "debate" over the health care system provides a lesson that we do not have to glean from history; we can watch it and experience it in person.
Economics: one side claims they will reduce health care costs, cover more people, and improve services; the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office claims the plan will actually cost over a trillion dollars; the opposing side claims the cost will be much higher than that, or else rationing will be necessary. Can we know the truth?
The history of our own country could be a guide. Ask your student to research the debate over Medicare and Medicaid. Both were touted as cures to the problems of our health care system. Compare the cost estimates generated by their proponents in Congress, the estimates of cost generated by the CBO, and the actual costs. For a more advanced economic comparison, consider that Medicare and Medicaid underpay hospitals and doctors, who then shift those costs onto patients covered by private insurance. What does Medicare/Medicaid really cost?
Now jump forward, and apply the factor by which Medicare/Medicaid costs were underestimated to the current cost estimates for the plans being proposed by Congress and the administration. How much will this experiment cost? And, considering there will be no private insurers to shift the costs onto, how much revenue will have to be raised (through increased taxes) to pay for this new system?
Wait a minute (I hear you say) - the President and Congress have said that private insurance will still be allowed. But.. let us shift to a civics lesson now. How do politicians assure you that you will have what you want, while they take it away from you? This editorial in Investors Business Daily (highly recommended, by the way, for any students who are of an age to begin investing [and yes, I admit that my girls watch the financial channel with me, and have more than a nodding acquaintance with the stock markets even though they are not yet out of grade school]) is an excellent lesson in the duplicitous nature of the political beast.
More civics: what happens to a government when there are no longer checks and balances? When the Congress and the Executive are in lock step with each other, and the party in control has a majority of sufficient size to block dissension, where are the checks and balances?
The Judicial is supposed to be the final check, but is the nationalization of a portion of our economy unconstitutional? If there is a chance for court intervention, would any particular citizen have standing before the court? OK, this may be getting into questions most homeschoolers will not be able to answer, because I think scholars will be divided on the answer. It makes for an interesting thought experiment, though.
Ah, but the final check and balance comes from the so-called Fourth Estate. No, not the conventional press, as few in the legacy media seem to have an interest in providing detail in this debate. Yes, they publish the press releases and cover the media events, and perhaps add a little editorial comment disguised as news, but have they provided us with a look at how these proposals work in other countries? Surprisingly, no! However, there are those enterprising folks in the so-called New Media who have. Take this young fellow, who was raised in Canada and has friends in Canada. He has given us a patient's-eye view of the Canadian system:
An entertaining look. For a more general look, taken from various British publications, try this list of links. Harry Erwin's "Letters from England" cover a variety of topics, but he often has reports on the British health care system. This is from a Google search of Jerry Pournelle's blog - another site with some tremendous information on it.
So, we have a lesson for our students. A lesson in looking beyond the speeches, diving deeper than the press releases, ferreting out the lies and distortions. A lesson in using the resources that are now easily available through the Web, and a lesson in critical thinking. And the lesson for the home school teacher? Perhaps for most a reinforcement than a lesson; we can provide our children with mental tools, with critical skills, that the public schools (and many private schools) will not encourage or develop in their students - much to the detriment of our society and our culture.
I start by reminding myself that this is not a political blog - and yet, I have to admit to varying degrees of upset and frustration as I see the current Congress and Administration move us rapidly down a disastrous road.
To concentrate on one aspect of this disturbing push, the "debate" over the health care system provides a lesson that we do not have to glean from history; we can watch it and experience it in person.
Economics: one side claims they will reduce health care costs, cover more people, and improve services; the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office claims the plan will actually cost over a trillion dollars; the opposing side claims the cost will be much higher than that, or else rationing will be necessary. Can we know the truth?
The history of our own country could be a guide. Ask your student to research the debate over Medicare and Medicaid. Both were touted as cures to the problems of our health care system. Compare the cost estimates generated by their proponents in Congress, the estimates of cost generated by the CBO, and the actual costs. For a more advanced economic comparison, consider that Medicare and Medicaid underpay hospitals and doctors, who then shift those costs onto patients covered by private insurance. What does Medicare/Medicaid really cost?
Now jump forward, and apply the factor by which Medicare/Medicaid costs were underestimated to the current cost estimates for the plans being proposed by Congress and the administration. How much will this experiment cost? And, considering there will be no private insurers to shift the costs onto, how much revenue will have to be raised (through increased taxes) to pay for this new system?
Wait a minute (I hear you say) - the President and Congress have said that private insurance will still be allowed. But.. let us shift to a civics lesson now. How do politicians assure you that you will have what you want, while they take it away from you? This editorial in Investors Business Daily (highly recommended, by the way, for any students who are of an age to begin investing [and yes, I admit that my girls watch the financial channel with me, and have more than a nodding acquaintance with the stock markets even though they are not yet out of grade school]) is an excellent lesson in the duplicitous nature of the political beast.
More civics: what happens to a government when there are no longer checks and balances? When the Congress and the Executive are in lock step with each other, and the party in control has a majority of sufficient size to block dissension, where are the checks and balances?
The Judicial is supposed to be the final check, but is the nationalization of a portion of our economy unconstitutional? If there is a chance for court intervention, would any particular citizen have standing before the court? OK, this may be getting into questions most homeschoolers will not be able to answer, because I think scholars will be divided on the answer. It makes for an interesting thought experiment, though.
Ah, but the final check and balance comes from the so-called Fourth Estate. No, not the conventional press, as few in the legacy media seem to have an interest in providing detail in this debate. Yes, they publish the press releases and cover the media events, and perhaps add a little editorial comment disguised as news, but have they provided us with a look at how these proposals work in other countries? Surprisingly, no! However, there are those enterprising folks in the so-called New Media who have. Take this young fellow, who was raised in Canada and has friends in Canada. He has given us a patient's-eye view of the Canadian system:
An entertaining look. For a more general look, taken from various British publications, try this list of links. Harry Erwin's "Letters from England" cover a variety of topics, but he often has reports on the British health care system. This is from a Google search of Jerry Pournelle's blog - another site with some tremendous information on it.
So, we have a lesson for our students. A lesson in looking beyond the speeches, diving deeper than the press releases, ferreting out the lies and distortions. A lesson in using the resources that are now easily available through the Web, and a lesson in critical thinking. And the lesson for the home school teacher? Perhaps for most a reinforcement than a lesson; we can provide our children with mental tools, with critical skills, that the public schools (and many private schools) will not encourage or develop in their students - much to the detriment of our society and our culture.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Dihydrogen Monoxide - an environmental disaster
The study of Dihydrogen Monoxide is vital for a solid understanding of the environmental disaster that awaits planet Earth. All home schooled kids should take some time to study this chemical, its effects on the environment, and the political ramifications of its continued use.
I first heard of this problem when three University of California students outlined the danger of this pernicious chemical, and it gained a wide national audience 'in 1997 when Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student, gathered petitions to ban "DHMO" as the basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We?"'
Yes, the study of Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O, or water in the vernacular) gives our students an excellent picture of how environmental sciences have been perverted for political gain, how the most benign substance can be portrayed as dangerous, in other words, how modern advocacy works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
