What He Said.

The other day in the newspaper I read a sad story about a young man who was convicted of a "hate crime" specifically making racial slurs while physically attacking another man.  The story said that the young man's father said "My son is not a racist" as the verdict was read.  I had several thoughts about this; one was that we live in a sound bite society, and a good quote will always get repeated in the news, especially if it's short and doesn't require too much thought, and another thing was that no one had said the man was a racist.  He was convicted of making racially offensive threats.  It would be like a person being arrested for drunken driving and saying "I'm not an alcoholic".  I recall that President Bush when being interviewed about his recent memoir said his major regret was being called a racist by "Conway" West.  Actually Kanye West said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people".  Now, that statement is a provocative statement for sure, and you could easily argue that President Bush's handling of the crisis of Hurricane Katrina was not enough evidence to form a complete opinion of his views on race.  But, and this is an important "but" he was not called a racist in that situation.  It makes me wonder if we're becoming a society that refuses to accept any critique of our actions.  More recently some people have reacted with righteous indignation to the idea that the so called "birthers" the people who doubt that President Obama was born in the USA, is a Christian, "deserved" to have attended Columbia and Harvard, etc., are following a racist agenda.  It seems clear to me that the movement that challenges the validity of the president's birth certificate, his faith or his college grades is without a doubt racist.  Anyone who is supporting those theories is supporting a racist agenda. Does that make the individual person a racist in all aspects of their life?  Are the major cheerleaders of that movement from the carnival barkers to "reality" TV stars, to elected politicians more guilty than the average person at home listening to the lies? I don't know that those points are really that important.  More important, I feel, is the way people seem to want to avoid any critique of what they've just said or done by claiming "I'm not a racist"  Maybe while we've become a much more coarse and crude society, perhaps we've also become too polite or timid to be honest.  Do we need to put a disclaimer on a film like "Gone With The Wind" that says "This movie is based on, and promotes a false view of history, based primarily on the myth of the 'Lost Cause' which purports to give reasons for the Confederacy's starting the Civil War being something other than to continue slavery"  No, I think most people understand that those stories are fantasies.  I'd like to think we don't need to put disclaimers on news coverage of the birthers and their clan that this is all racist nonsense.  But maybe they're the ones who need the disclaimers something like "By supporting this line of thinking you are supporting a racist idea, you may or may not be a racist in all aspects of your life, but you might want to take a good look at your beliefs."

What Does It Mean?

One of the key elements in reading instruction is helping students develop the skills to apply when they don't understand what they're reading.  In the early stages it's clues on how to decode or sound out words, later it shifts to comprehension and how to make use of what you're reading, how to talk about the ideas in a text and how to use what you read in your life.
In recent years I've had many encounters with young readers who are turning the pages and seem to be engrossed in a book but are unable to tell me anything about what they have read.  Sometimes they're unable to even recall main characters or "what's going on" but a more common experience is that they have no opinion about the story, the decisions made by the characters, the implications of the plot etc.  In other words, not thinking at all about what they're reading.
When teaching these comprehension and deeper thinking skills it's important that a student know when they're not getting it.  I, for example, when reading a complicated novel often will flip back a few pages if a character appears and I'm not sure exactly who they are or what their motives might be.  Many of you probably do the same, or in a newspaper article when a person is quoted you might look back to see exactly who it is, especially if they're listed only by their last name.
When students are reading along without comprehending it becomes difficult to lead them towards a deeper connection and understanding of what they read.
I began asking what was happening with these kids.  Why were they content to read what they didn't understand?  What sort of dull experience were they accepting by doing this?
My theory is that many kids are developing the skills to accept what they don't understand and be passive receptors of information or entertainment in our current culture.  When I would talk further with kids who were not able to form an opinion about what they read, or remember any essential information about the text I found that most of the time they were watching large amounts of video games, TV and video.  Now, the electronic media has been the bad guy in the "Why are students so stupid" stories for as long as there's been electronic media, but I think there's something else going on here.  And while "What it is ain't exactly clear" I have some ideas.  The types of entertainment these kids were talking about were almost entirely programs, games, films etc. that were built around mature themes.   Sex and violence of course being the major selling points, but not the only things going on in the stories to be sure.  Asking further what they thought about the video stories yielded almost the same lack of deeper thinking or comprehension.   It seems like the young kids, and I'm talking about eight year old kids watching R rated films, were content to watch something that made little sense because they knew from experience that pretty soon someone who either loose their clothes or there would be some terrific explosions.  My theory is that kids can become used to not understanding what they're seeing or reading because they've grown accustomed to it through a daily diet of entertainment that was originally designed for a much older and hopefully wiser audience.  You could easily argue about the suitability of some of the material for anyone, but I think free choice is an important thing for adults to exercise.  And I think we have that,  prime time TV may be filled with one programs that aim low but there's still the off button on the remote.
Recently there has been a lot of discussion about a new series on MTV called "Skins" I've never seen it and know virtually nothing about it other than some people are writing editorials saying "They've gone too far this time" while others are saying "The average young teen has seen much worse" My question is "Why has the average young teen seen much worse?" and "What can we do to make sure the average teen doesn't see much worse?" and "What price do we pay when the average kid sees much worse?"
I don't like to sound alarmist, I'm not inclined to predict the end of the world but I am fearful of people not asking the questions.
What does it mean if so many people are developing the skills to not think?  This might be the cue to move into a discussion about the age of sound bite, accusation, and conspiracy theory passing for news but I'll save that discussion for another time.  Right now I have a good book I'd like to read and think about.

You Don't Know Where Your Interest Lies

The title, by the way, comes from a Simon and Garfunkel B-side but that's beside the point or on the other side of it as the case may be.
There's a lot of discussion now about creating educational settings that are focused on student's interest.  One popular video making the rounds of teacher meetings highlighting the need for teaching 21st century skills stresses that students have to be engaged by curriculum that fits their interests.  Thinking back to my days in elementary school I think I would have liked to have more going on in class that fit my interests, trouble is I can't honestly say what my interests were then.  Was I primarily interested in what would happen in the next issue of Batman? yeah, that's likely.  Was I interested in what the new Beatles record would sound like? of course.  So what would a curriculum founded on Batman and The Beatles have looked like, well we know it would have sounded cool, but what would it teach?
As a teacher today I listen to kids talking about what they're interested in all day.  They write about the things they care about, they share about the latest game they're into or the movie they saw over the weekend.  We look for connections between the various dots of young people's diverse interests and pull those into the rest of our curriculum.  For example Spongebob, I've discovered, provides an excellent opportunity to practice classifying and organizing creatures when talking about exoskeletons.
But here's what I'm wondering today.  Is organizing curriculum around student's interests a backwards way of doing things?  Should schools be primarily oriented around teaching a wide variety of skills and a broad knowledge base so that kids can develop "interesting" interests?  Any school that I've ever worked in has provided plenty of opportunity for students to express their interests and make connections between prior knowledge and whatever the subject that is being studied.  What do you think?  Should we orient curriculum more around what kids are interested in when they walk through the door, or should we create curriculum that aims to give them plenty of interests when they walk out the door?
Most likely it's a mix, but what is the recipe?

Can I Help You?

Discussions about education seem to be off the radar for the moment in the news cycle although a recent issue of Newsweek featured several articles on "school reform"  Which makes me think "what schools?" and " what kind of reform?"  There are several films floating around communities currently presenting differing views on education, specifically public education.  The merits of charter schools and or standardized testing are the focus on the most popular ones but from what I've seen so far there is a lot missing from the discussion.  Here are a few ideas I have that I think would do well to be added to the overall discussion.
I believe that schools have been assigned the task, and in many cases have made claims that they can serve every student in his or her own learning style.  It's been years since the concept of multiple intelligences has entered the mainstream and schools like to talk about how well they meet the varied needs of students.  Text books often include suggestions for visual learners, kinetic learners etc. but how well are these implemented?  And even if they were, what would the results be?  As I stated in an earlier post schools today don't look all that different from 50 years ago, and yet the world has changed around them in radical fashion.  I believe my grandmother, a teacher in the 1950s could walk into my classroom and recognize the basic set up and even take over teaching for the day if need be.  I've yet to see a school that really seems able to truly meet the needs of every student in his or her own learning style and adapt to their interests.  What we are left with, I think, is a disconnect between a stated (or at least implied) claim and the "facts on the ground"  Most schools still operate with one teacher and twenty to thirty students in a room covering material perscribed by the district curriculum.  So what would a school look like if it was truly adaptable to every student's interest and learning style?
We're still operating on a school schedule that was devised to allow children time off to work on the family farm and why is that still the expectation?  Especially when you look at the "summer brain drain" that occurs (albeit in larger amounts with low income children) across the country.
What about students who come to school with huge disadvantages due to social economic status or lifestyle?  When you have a child who has been watching TV or playing computer games since they were a toddler (and we know from various medical studies that children should not be exposed to TV under the age of two for any length of time) and they're struggling to learn to read and deal with school curriculum it can feel like being a doctor with a patient who comes complaining of chest pains who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day, won't quit and wants to be cured. 
As a teacher I can help a student learn to read better, to think about what they're reading and share it in a more connected, logical way but I can't teach someone to have an interest in learning.  I can't teach a student to have a literate background. 
Too many of the discussions I've heard in the past around school reform (and fear I'll hear in the future) seem to miss many of these vital points.  They speak of teaching and schools as if they were factories that with only the right machines could turn out a quality product.
What do you think?

What we have here is a failure to communicate

I just saw a post from a friend on Facebook asking what we all think of Glenn Beck, so I thought I'd post my thoughts here.  He seems to be a very popular entertainer.  He makes outrageous statements with very flimsy connections to reality and people love it, or at least some do.  What do I think?
I'd rather have a good solid debate grounded in reality any day.  I 'll be honest I don't care for Beck, Limbaugh, Palin or their fellow travelers.  My major issue is two fold - one, they deal primarily in fabrication, in rumors or outright lies.   Obama's birth certificate, the cost of a trip to India, etc. all get headline status in their world.  Imagine if every time you picked up the newspaper you had to wade through ten pages of Elvis's alien love child stories, it's the same thing in that crazy mixed up world they seem to inhabit.  It's not a matter of conservative versus liberal.  There are plenty of conservative writers who will go to bat to defend "Trickle down economics" and that's fine, you can debate that, but you can't debate an alternate universe.  Secondly, I can't connect with their disdain for education or thinking in general.  Sarah Palin seems to be the master of this bit - that common sense trumps knowledge at every turn and of course common sense is based on her definition.  I don't believe that when someone calls her on her lack of knowledge that they're being "uppity" or "elite".  By the way, when did "elite" become a bad word? doesn't it mean the best? the cream of the crop? the toppermost of the poppermost?
I'll throw in a third reason - from my view point as someone following the teaching of Jesus, they seem to be mostly about hate - that's all I hear, hate for the President, hate for most of America, hate for the rest of the world.  That crew is about as far away from the spiritual teachings I believe in as can be.    So this week I see that Sarah Palin is against caring about children's health ( she spoke out against the recent work to improve the quality of school lunches) and Glenn Beck has come out against food safety (Of course he's against the current legislation to improve food quality standards- it's government intrusion!)
What do I think? The style of entertainment that Palin, Beck and Limbaugh are selling is not for me.   If someone wants to talk, to debate, to deal in real issues and think together, I'm all for that.

For What it's Worth

I'm pretty sure my opinion on the current political landscape will not make any headlines beyond this website but for what it's worth I think what I'm hearing from President Obama via interviews and statements in the press is among the wisest thoughts I've heard from a politician in sometime.  I would call the current Republicans from the far right "hostage takers".  When a minority holds up legislation that benefits the many in order to obtain rewards for the few, what else would you call it?  By the same token, the swaggering, defiant stand that you don't make deals with hostage takers sounds a lot like the unilateral language of the previous administration that created much of the current problems.  Sometimes hostages get hurt or killed.  Of course that doesn't happen on the hyped up crime dramas on TV which seems to be where many people are getting their version of reality these days.  Sometimes you make a deal and you compromise.  When did the compromise become a dirty word?  I remember when I worked in radio and would get all kinds of advice about programing.  People would earnestly tell me that "all their friends" love this song or show or whatever.  I would try to share that "all their friends" put together made up about a tiny fraction of the listening audience.  In fact, I'd say that my days in broadcasting were a great learning experience.  Not everyone likes or wants exactly the same thing and yet you can provide a product that satisfies a large portion of the population.  The editorial page of your favorite news outlet isn't sacred text, it's an opinion.  Your opinion or mine is one part of the greater whole.  And I don't say "It's JUST a part of the greater whole", that would minimize the value.  Our opinions and beliefs are vital to the big picture, we ARE the big picture but that picture isn't going to look like only one persons vision.  Could the President get a better deal from the hostage takers? perhaps but time and history don't stop when a deal is made.   Compromise, in my opinion, moves you forward to the next opportunity.  The swaggering tough guy from crime fiction who makes no deals is sometimes left standing all alone at the end of the day with nothing to show for the bravado.  I'd rather be walking forward.

To Tell the Truth

As the recent political season (the only thing that would make pro football seem mild) fades away I find I'm left with the nasty after taste of mud from the stinking pile of advertising and so called experts expounding at length on what the election and everything else means.  From what I've seen in the past I'm not surprised at the tone of commentators on the far right like Beck and Limbaugh, but I have been surprised by the lengths they stray from anything resembling a fact.  Okay, I'll admit that truth is a slippery subject.  Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air, a leader with a direct line to the pulse of America who would govern with common sense or she's a photogenic reality show character whose not only has a complete lack of knowledge about our constitution and history but seems darn proud of that lack of awareness.  Everyone has their own version of the truth, so what is the truth?
It's not just the far right entertainers like Beck whose popularity depends on making outrageous statements like the President was using one third of the US Navy for his recent trip to India.  I would assume that most people hear that sort of thing and just laugh it off as more nonsense from the folks who brought you death panels and birth certificates.
Recently there have been several Op Ed pieces that suggest that both the far right as heard on Fox news and the progressive voices on MSNBC are guilty of fudging the facts or using language that appeals primarily to anger and leaves reason in the dust.  I can see how calling George W. Bush a war criminal would be something that would offend his supporters and as such probably isn't a good way to lead off a discussion.  But, in his recent book President Bush admits to approving waterboarding, a technique that has been considered torture for hundreds of years.  Our country has in the past prosecuting leaders for approving of it's use.  It is a form of torture banned by international treaties that the USA has signed and thus is also US law.  It has been considered a war crime for decades.
So where is the truth?  Here's a person who admits to having committed what is considered a war crime in international and US law and if a person commits a crime they are often called a criminal.
I'll admit that using the phrase "war criminal" would put many people off, but how best to state the facts?
Okay, President Bush admits to having committed several acts that are considered war crimes by US law and international agreements.  It's a little long-winded but maybe would promote some conversation.  And if I had a wish, it would be for more conversation.  Debate needs two partners, not just two people who state different versions of reality and then stop talking.