Are Comprehensive Sex Ed curriculum actually comprehensive?
Heritage says no. They argue that so called programs are just re-packaged Safe Sex curricula. What is interesting in the article is a Zogby poll conducted with questions from Focus on the Family. They found, "Very few parents support the basic themes of comprehensive sex-ed courses." Parents have no idea what goes on in school. "Overall, the poll shows that parents are extremely supportive of the values and messages contained in abstinence programs."
I think that a prohibitionist program, be it regarding sex, alcohol, or whatever adult activity is considered, is a bad approach because at some point young people (including college students) experiment with the thing they were told not to. If no one ever communicates how adults behave responsibly, then responsible behavior is impossible, except by hard experience or happy accident. Everyone can use the reminder that alcohol, sex, gambling, and other adult behaviors burn adults, even when they act responsibly. That is the nature of a vice. Youth will explore vice. Our educational purpose should be to delay experimentation for as long as possible, to mitigate as much harm as possible resulting from experimentation, and to aid the transition away from experimentation to boring adulthood as easily (and quickly) as possible. Prohibitionists hope the experimentation step can be avoided for everyone (tell it to St Augustine). They focus on steps 1 and 3, youth who delays and adults who no longer are interested. The Safe Sex crowd by contrast focus only on step 2, mitigating the consequences of experimentation. We need all 3 steps. Steps 1 and 3, do as much if not more to mitigate harm in experimentation as condems, &c. Ignoring step 2 leaves young people totally vulnerable if they stray from the strairt and narrow. This has two ill consequences. First some people get badly harmed because they stray and could have avoided it by knowing how to partake more safely. Second some people avoid ill effects for a long time and come to believe that all the talk of harm is without a basis in reality. Neither case is good.
The Heritage interpretation of the polling does over reach a bit.
'Some 47 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual activity until they are married." Another 32 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual intercourse until they have, at least, finished high school and are in a relationship with someone they feel they would like to marry."
'When these two categories are combined, we see that 79 percent of parents want young people taught that sex should be reserved for marriage or for an adult relationship leading to marriage.'
Another question that asks this question directly: 'Some 68 percent of parents want schools to teach teens that "individuals who are not sexually active until marriage have the best chances of marital stability and happiness."'
So there are times when I thought the 68% figure was better applied in analysis than the 79%. This 11% difference isn't a big deal, but its something I took note of. Even the low figure is better than 2/3's. The analysis is right to point out that the schools favorite message is only approved by 7% of parents. How like the Progressive school to re-package the same unpopular policies rather than actually accomodate the will of parents, tax-payers, and citizens.
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Edwards
Saw him on Wednesday at SMSU. I was surprised at how liberal he was. The coverage has spent so much time on his good looks, charisma, campaigning ability (yes, he is good on the stump), that they seem to have buried his positions. He is running and us vs them campaign, wants to focus on poverty and race as well as more sensible issues like education and the economy. I think he has taken the analogies to JFK so to heart that he thinks its 1964.
I talked to several other attendees, and eavesdropped on several conversations. Everyone I talked to or overheard went mad over one of two topics. There are the protectionists who think that somehow jobs and incomes can be preserved against foreign competition of we adopt anti-competitive policies, and there were those who thought the war on terror was a means to some ultimate ends (other than that of ending the scourge of terror). I am supposed to be attending a MeetUp deal for conservatives next week. We'll see if they are as crazy, albeit differently crazy, as their Dem peers. I have in my experience found other sensible people in the world, some of whom disagree with me, so I know they exist. I am perfectly happy to entertain not only other values for sake of argument, but also other assumptions (necessary for understanding), so its not a question of agreement with me on ends, means, or fundamentals. I just want people to organize the ideas they have in a way that they make sense in relation to one another.
Saw him on Wednesday at SMSU. I was surprised at how liberal he was. The coverage has spent so much time on his good looks, charisma, campaigning ability (yes, he is good on the stump), that they seem to have buried his positions. He is running and us vs them campaign, wants to focus on poverty and race as well as more sensible issues like education and the economy. I think he has taken the analogies to JFK so to heart that he thinks its 1964.
I talked to several other attendees, and eavesdropped on several conversations. Everyone I talked to or overheard went mad over one of two topics. There are the protectionists who think that somehow jobs and incomes can be preserved against foreign competition of we adopt anti-competitive policies, and there were those who thought the war on terror was a means to some ultimate ends (other than that of ending the scourge of terror). I am supposed to be attending a MeetUp deal for conservatives next week. We'll see if they are as crazy, albeit differently crazy, as their Dem peers. I have in my experience found other sensible people in the world, some of whom disagree with me, so I know they exist. I am perfectly happy to entertain not only other values for sake of argument, but also other assumptions (necessary for understanding), so its not a question of agreement with me on ends, means, or fundamentals. I just want people to organize the ideas they have in a way that they make sense in relation to one another.
Is there a lemon statute in electorial law?
KausFiles has been using the idea of buyer's remorse a lot in regards Kerry.
KausFiles has been using the idea of buyer's remorse a lot in regards Kerry.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Saturday, January 24, 2004
You make the call
Oak-Land Junior High is distributing laptop computers to students, according to the Pioneer Press at twincities.com. Drew Curtis' FARK website predicts "Junior high students get their own school laptops this week, porn downloads to increase" and rates it "obvious." Science teacher Todd Rau in the story says, "For these kids, it's really not just about getting the computers. They have them in my class every day," Rau said. "What they're excited about, I think, is the opportunity to do what they're doing in my class, and do it all day long." (last graph in the story)
Who is probabaly closer to reality in their prediction? You make the call.
Oak-Land Junior High is distributing laptop computers to students, according to the Pioneer Press at twincities.com. Drew Curtis' FARK website predicts "Junior high students get their own school laptops this week, porn downloads to increase" and rates it "obvious." Science teacher Todd Rau in the story says, "For these kids, it's really not just about getting the computers. They have them in my class every day," Rau said. "What they're excited about, I think, is the opportunity to do what they're doing in my class, and do it all day long." (last graph in the story)
Who is probabaly closer to reality in their prediction? You make the call.
Why CEO's Fail
I am linking to this in part, so I can find it again. As I think I may have blogged, this issue came up in Philosophy of Ed. The teachers think its all about greed. I regard greed as a constant (they just aren't tuned in because the potential for really making a killing in the 3rd grade isn't very large). Both successful and failed CEO's are after money. No, failure comes from some combination of the list at this link (usually 2-3 really stand out).
I am linking to this in part, so I can find it again. As I think I may have blogged, this issue came up in Philosophy of Ed. The teachers think its all about greed. I regard greed as a constant (they just aren't tuned in because the potential for really making a killing in the 3rd grade isn't very large). Both successful and failed CEO's are after money. No, failure comes from some combination of the list at this link (usually 2-3 really stand out).
A side effect of term limits
Dan at midagedwriter notes: "One would think that the Missouri General Assembly Republicans would chastise their Speaker Pro Tem for breaching decorum, good manners, and good judgment, but, instead, they joined him in interrupting the Governor and defended him afterward.
"Do they not understand that their actions set precedent? Or are they so immature and short-sighted that they don't care?"
When you have term limits, the world ceases to exist for you as a legislator after your last possible term ends. Who cares what precedent you set, what nonsense you pass as law, or what trouble you leave the state in. You will be elsewhere for sure, and the babes who are there to pick up the peices will have no idea what they are doing (much like you don't), so why worry?
Dan at midagedwriter notes: "One would think that the Missouri General Assembly Republicans would chastise their Speaker Pro Tem for breaching decorum, good manners, and good judgment, but, instead, they joined him in interrupting the Governor and defended him afterward.
"Do they not understand that their actions set precedent? Or are they so immature and short-sighted that they don't care?"
When you have term limits, the world ceases to exist for you as a legislator after your last possible term ends. Who cares what precedent you set, what nonsense you pass as law, or what trouble you leave the state in. You will be elsewhere for sure, and the babes who are there to pick up the peices will have no idea what they are doing (much like you don't), so why worry?
Europe. Quite Important
According to the EUObserver, this is the slogan for Europe in the second half of the comming year. Prosaic indeed.
According to the EUObserver, this is the slogan for Europe in the second half of the comming year. Prosaic indeed.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Why didn't we fight the terrorists sooner?
It has been my practice here not to just link to something and go on. I have preferred either an extensive commentary of my own or a pair of links that I think go well together. The most common single links without comment fall into two catagories, either they relate to something which I have posted in my prefered fashion earlier and they are yet another link in the conversation, or its an indulgence, for example links to my brother's site.
Two links came up on Instapundit this morning and last night. One, the more recent, on Clinton's speech before a group of Mideast thinkers in the Washington Post, the other an analysis of why, despite having anti-terrorist special forces, we did not use them before 9-11. Read them together. They inform one another. They both speak to Clinton's strengths and weaknesses, to the errors in American foriegn policy between Iran-Contra and 9-11, and to the supposed radicalism of George Bush.
On this last point, W's radicalism, I think what is based in is a rejection of the bad direction in policy that Richard H. Shultz describes in the Weekly Standard. He does cast aside a dozen years of thinking on terrorism. What is interesting is how Clinton did as well, but for a variety of reasons was unable and unwilling to do so himself. Shultz' final 'graph is telling: "For now, it appears that the most powerful defense secretary ever has failed in his attempt to do this." Rumsfeld knows what changes must take place, and unlike Clinton is willing to do it, but its hard. Shultz refers to the famous October 16, 2003, memo. If one such as Rummy is having difficulty changing and uprooting the bad policy, with W's support, after 9-11, imagine how hard it would have been for Clinton, prior to 9-11, hindered by his relationship with the military, and hindered by his own tendency to contemplate much and act little. He could see what needed to be done, but had a harder time acting. Now we have a presedent who can see what needs to be done, aided by Clinton's own work, by 9-11, and by people like Rumsfeld and Rice. Still the work meets resistance and hostility. There are no easy answers, even when you know what must be done.
It has been my practice here not to just link to something and go on. I have preferred either an extensive commentary of my own or a pair of links that I think go well together. The most common single links without comment fall into two catagories, either they relate to something which I have posted in my prefered fashion earlier and they are yet another link in the conversation, or its an indulgence, for example links to my brother's site.
Two links came up on Instapundit this morning and last night. One, the more recent, on Clinton's speech before a group of Mideast thinkers in the Washington Post, the other an analysis of why, despite having anti-terrorist special forces, we did not use them before 9-11. Read them together. They inform one another. They both speak to Clinton's strengths and weaknesses, to the errors in American foriegn policy between Iran-Contra and 9-11, and to the supposed radicalism of George Bush.
On this last point, W's radicalism, I think what is based in is a rejection of the bad direction in policy that Richard H. Shultz describes in the Weekly Standard. He does cast aside a dozen years of thinking on terrorism. What is interesting is how Clinton did as well, but for a variety of reasons was unable and unwilling to do so himself. Shultz' final 'graph is telling: "For now, it appears that the most powerful defense secretary ever has failed in his attempt to do this." Rumsfeld knows what changes must take place, and unlike Clinton is willing to do it, but its hard. Shultz refers to the famous October 16, 2003, memo. If one such as Rummy is having difficulty changing and uprooting the bad policy, with W's support, after 9-11, imagine how hard it would have been for Clinton, prior to 9-11, hindered by his relationship with the military, and hindered by his own tendency to contemplate much and act little. He could see what needed to be done, but had a harder time acting. Now we have a presedent who can see what needs to be done, aided by Clinton's own work, by 9-11, and by people like Rumsfeld and Rice. Still the work meets resistance and hostility. There are no easy answers, even when you know what must be done.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Unscientific Poll
The Exite Poll for Sunday, Jan 18, was on removing pop machines from schools. Out of some 12,544 respondants, 64% favored removing the machines. 28% prefered to keep them. The poll was prompted by this Reuters news story: "Philadelphia officials have banned the sale of sodas throughout the public school system in an effort to fight obesity among its students." I voted for removal, though I think the responsibilty for obesity rests with parents and the students themselves, not a nanny state. My vote was based on two issues, one the caffine and sugar induced energy levels of students can disrupt their learning, their very purpose for being there, and second, I think that selling a potentialy disruptive product to generate income for schools (and it is a big money maker) puts the schools in a conflict of interest.
If parents (who are also taxpayers and voters) are happy with the pop machine arangement, there is no question: they stay. But, this unscientific poll (though the numbers are pretty handsome) suggests parents may not be. I also wonder how many kids voted to keep the machines out of self-interest.
This is an issue for me much more in the middle school than in the high school, where I think more responsibility should be placed on students, even for their own success and failure. Wither the nanny school as students get older.
The Exite Poll for Sunday, Jan 18, was on removing pop machines from schools. Out of some 12,544 respondants, 64% favored removing the machines. 28% prefered to keep them. The poll was prompted by this Reuters news story: "Philadelphia officials have banned the sale of sodas throughout the public school system in an effort to fight obesity among its students." I voted for removal, though I think the responsibilty for obesity rests with parents and the students themselves, not a nanny state. My vote was based on two issues, one the caffine and sugar induced energy levels of students can disrupt their learning, their very purpose for being there, and second, I think that selling a potentialy disruptive product to generate income for schools (and it is a big money maker) puts the schools in a conflict of interest.
If parents (who are also taxpayers and voters) are happy with the pop machine arangement, there is no question: they stay. But, this unscientific poll (though the numbers are pretty handsome) suggests parents may not be. I also wonder how many kids voted to keep the machines out of self-interest.
This is an issue for me much more in the middle school than in the high school, where I think more responsibility should be placed on students, even for their own success and failure. Wither the nanny school as students get older.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Where is the center?
Eleanor Clift described MoveOn.org as representing a lot of people in the center. Now Locke reminds is that ever man is an orthdoxy unto himself, but in an age of statistical analysis of voter behavior, it is objectivly possible to find the center. There remains a subjective or a definitional problem of its boundaries, but I am quite sure that by most standards, MoveOn isn't there. Centrists tend to see themselves between two ideologies, so they don't demonize one side and idealize the other. They may demonize both sides as insiders, politicians, or what have you, but MoveOn is not just as frustrated with the left as they are with the right.
Clift was on the Laura Ingraham show this morning (her web site is annoyingly not clickable so you can't cut and paste from her site). Ingraham refered to the polls that show 2/3's of church goers identify as Republicans. Clift responded by fallacy so outrageous that I have to take her to be an idiot or a liar. Clift ignored the polling data and went right for the unrepresentative sample. Reagan wasn't very religious and Carter was, oh and Clinton seemed to know the Bible pretty well. As though these individuals are fine stand-ins for all democrats. Aparently all democrats feel lust in their hearts, cheat on their spouses with young people, and speak with a southern lilt. Or not. Ms Clift, when confronted with polling data, deal with polling data, and don't try to argue that a hundred million people can be described by the guy who chose to ran and then got elected.
She also claimed to not know why she was a polarizing figure. As I said, and idiot or a liar.
Eleanor Clift described MoveOn.org as representing a lot of people in the center. Now Locke reminds is that ever man is an orthdoxy unto himself, but in an age of statistical analysis of voter behavior, it is objectivly possible to find the center. There remains a subjective or a definitional problem of its boundaries, but I am quite sure that by most standards, MoveOn isn't there. Centrists tend to see themselves between two ideologies, so they don't demonize one side and idealize the other. They may demonize both sides as insiders, politicians, or what have you, but MoveOn is not just as frustrated with the left as they are with the right.
Clift was on the Laura Ingraham show this morning (her web site is annoyingly not clickable so you can't cut and paste from her site). Ingraham refered to the polls that show 2/3's of church goers identify as Republicans. Clift responded by fallacy so outrageous that I have to take her to be an idiot or a liar. Clift ignored the polling data and went right for the unrepresentative sample. Reagan wasn't very religious and Carter was, oh and Clinton seemed to know the Bible pretty well. As though these individuals are fine stand-ins for all democrats. Aparently all democrats feel lust in their hearts, cheat on their spouses with young people, and speak with a southern lilt. Or not. Ms Clift, when confronted with polling data, deal with polling data, and don't try to argue that a hundred million people can be described by the guy who chose to ran and then got elected.
She also claimed to not know why she was a polarizing figure. As I said, and idiot or a liar.
Monday, January 12, 2004
"Its just a tool boys"
Jeff Jarvis arranged these words to make an observation about the political uses of the internet. Er schrieb,
"This is still stupidly generalizing. IT'S JUST A TOOL, BOYS. Tools have no ideology or loyalty. Whether pamphleteering or phone canvassing or direct mail or the Internet or weblogs, they're just tools that are used wisely or not. Dean learned quickly and used them wisely. That says a lot about Dean -- and his people -- and little about the tools, you tools."
Yes and no. Potentially it has no ideology, but internet use is not even distributed. Recall the famous telephone survey of 1948 that predicted Dewey to win the White House. Opps, people who owned phones were significantly more likely to be Republican that it threw off the polling results. When technology is not evenly distributed (and it rarely is) its not just a tool, it has implications about its owners, even when only a small group is excluded (because sometimes that small group becomes significant). This doesn't justify some of the broad sweeping generalizations one sees about who blogs, or uses the internet, but the internet is not "just a tool" devoid of any information about its users. Even television, though nearly ubiquitous, is not watched the same amount or the same way by everyone.
Jeff Jarvis arranged these words to make an observation about the political uses of the internet. Er schrieb,
"This is still stupidly generalizing. IT'S JUST A TOOL, BOYS. Tools have no ideology or loyalty. Whether pamphleteering or phone canvassing or direct mail or the Internet or weblogs, they're just tools that are used wisely or not. Dean learned quickly and used them wisely. That says a lot about Dean -- and his people -- and little about the tools, you tools."
Yes and no. Potentially it has no ideology, but internet use is not even distributed. Recall the famous telephone survey of 1948 that predicted Dewey to win the White House. Opps, people who owned phones were significantly more likely to be Republican that it threw off the polling results. When technology is not evenly distributed (and it rarely is) its not just a tool, it has implications about its owners, even when only a small group is excluded (because sometimes that small group becomes significant). This doesn't justify some of the broad sweeping generalizations one sees about who blogs, or uses the internet, but the internet is not "just a tool" devoid of any information about its users. Even television, though nearly ubiquitous, is not watched the same amount or the same way by everyone.
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Science as fact
Justin Harris at Sophorist.com posts on teaching macroevolution as fact. (He concedes that we can breed dogs, hence "macro".) His objection is that it is taught as fact and that no competing theories are advanced. I shall reply.
All science is taught as fact and no science is ever taught as theory, or definitional, or open to more sophisticated analysis. The history of science is presented as the clear and unambiguous advance of knowledge against superstition. Just this past Friday I overheard students wonder how the planets got their names. I began explaining and we moved along to the days of the weeks when a student asked about Sunday, since the Sun is not a planet. Oh, but planet just means wonderer, I explained and the ancients numbered it as one of the things that moved across the sky. Another student firmly asserted that the Sun did not move, they had learned it in school. Aside from the movement of the Milky Way from galactic central point, the rotation of the outer spiral arm of the Milky Way and hence the solar system around the center of the galaxy, and the very curious notion that such an object as the sun is fixed in place and is not pulled upon by other heavy objects, I asked the student if he could prove that it was the sun that moved and not the earth. This is a question of relativistic motion. Apparently, the teacher who had passed on this bit of cosmology has closed the door on Einstein. As a result, whoever attempts such a task must unteach some old ideas and replace them with better ideas. And this all relates to the movement or presumed stability of the sun. Imagine more complex ideas, like the evolution of species.
Science is all theoretical (in the common English usage) because it is tentative. If students were to ever come away from science with the kind of knowledge included in these course materials, this would not be an issue. Students would understand that some of what they understand to be the nature of things will be revised. My own grandmother was once taught that the atom could not be split. That has since been rejected in favor of an explanation that includes fission.
This is a particular irritation to those of us who are historically minded and see the advance of thought as including errors as well as improvements. Science texts in the public schools which pretend to an advance of inherently obvious knowledge create a false authority for science, one that science does not claim for itself (though some practitioners will).
finally that leads us to alternate theories. Well, in science class, these alternate theories should conform to the same rules as all the other science material ought to in terms of its emperical validity, framwork in a testable hypothesis, and so on. There are a good number of subjects in which science can say very little, although scientists can speculate just like anyone else on the street. Michael Crichton has useful things to say on this subject in two of the speeches up on his official website. Speech 3 and 4 adress the questions of speculation and political advocacy in science. Crichton likes neither.
Since I have followed human evolution, quite a bit has changed. The science of human evolution is quite young and just looking over the conventional wisdom of the past 30 years one can be surprised at just how much has changed. After all science is tenative. Sometimes, the whole framework is overthrown (the famed paradigm shift of Khun's scientific revolutions). This has certainly happened in politics during my adult awareness, as the Cold War ended, but it has not happened in the areas of science I pay most attention too. I hear stirrings on the nature of time, but I don't follow it to closely. In any event I am happy to witness a new understanding overthrow the old one in the question "where did we come from," but any explanation needs to deal seriously with the observable phenomena, like the fossile record and radiological dating. Any explanation needs to avoid untestable hypotheses, speculation, and conjecture. When students ask questions that cannot be answered scientifically in a science class, teachers should begin by explaining what science can and cannot answer. Its handy to have scientific annecdotes on hand to illustrate this point. Then one might venture into speculation (students may insist) with an obviously open mind, since one is speculating, and conclude with a solid barrier between speculation and the scientific method.
Say a student asks about extra-terrestrial life. One could immediatly reply that there is no verifiable evidence of any despite fourty to fifty years of search. Remind the class that negative evidence is not proof. If they want more, discuss the issues, express multiple points of view from a variety of sources, and conclude nothing except that we do not know much more than we did before Sputnik (or Columbus for that matter) and remind the class that work in this area is speculative. Point to empirical evidence of your next topic and move on.
Justin Harris at Sophorist.com posts on teaching macroevolution as fact. (He concedes that we can breed dogs, hence "macro".) His objection is that it is taught as fact and that no competing theories are advanced. I shall reply.
All science is taught as fact and no science is ever taught as theory, or definitional, or open to more sophisticated analysis. The history of science is presented as the clear and unambiguous advance of knowledge against superstition. Just this past Friday I overheard students wonder how the planets got their names. I began explaining and we moved along to the days of the weeks when a student asked about Sunday, since the Sun is not a planet. Oh, but planet just means wonderer, I explained and the ancients numbered it as one of the things that moved across the sky. Another student firmly asserted that the Sun did not move, they had learned it in school. Aside from the movement of the Milky Way from galactic central point, the rotation of the outer spiral arm of the Milky Way and hence the solar system around the center of the galaxy, and the very curious notion that such an object as the sun is fixed in place and is not pulled upon by other heavy objects, I asked the student if he could prove that it was the sun that moved and not the earth. This is a question of relativistic motion. Apparently, the teacher who had passed on this bit of cosmology has closed the door on Einstein. As a result, whoever attempts such a task must unteach some old ideas and replace them with better ideas. And this all relates to the movement or presumed stability of the sun. Imagine more complex ideas, like the evolution of species.
Science is all theoretical (in the common English usage) because it is tentative. If students were to ever come away from science with the kind of knowledge included in these course materials, this would not be an issue. Students would understand that some of what they understand to be the nature of things will be revised. My own grandmother was once taught that the atom could not be split. That has since been rejected in favor of an explanation that includes fission.
This is a particular irritation to those of us who are historically minded and see the advance of thought as including errors as well as improvements. Science texts in the public schools which pretend to an advance of inherently obvious knowledge create a false authority for science, one that science does not claim for itself (though some practitioners will).
finally that leads us to alternate theories. Well, in science class, these alternate theories should conform to the same rules as all the other science material ought to in terms of its emperical validity, framwork in a testable hypothesis, and so on. There are a good number of subjects in which science can say very little, although scientists can speculate just like anyone else on the street. Michael Crichton has useful things to say on this subject in two of the speeches up on his official website. Speech 3 and 4 adress the questions of speculation and political advocacy in science. Crichton likes neither.
Since I have followed human evolution, quite a bit has changed. The science of human evolution is quite young and just looking over the conventional wisdom of the past 30 years one can be surprised at just how much has changed. After all science is tenative. Sometimes, the whole framework is overthrown (the famed paradigm shift of Khun's scientific revolutions). This has certainly happened in politics during my adult awareness, as the Cold War ended, but it has not happened in the areas of science I pay most attention too. I hear stirrings on the nature of time, but I don't follow it to closely. In any event I am happy to witness a new understanding overthrow the old one in the question "where did we come from," but any explanation needs to deal seriously with the observable phenomena, like the fossile record and radiological dating. Any explanation needs to avoid untestable hypotheses, speculation, and conjecture. When students ask questions that cannot be answered scientifically in a science class, teachers should begin by explaining what science can and cannot answer. Its handy to have scientific annecdotes on hand to illustrate this point. Then one might venture into speculation (students may insist) with an obviously open mind, since one is speculating, and conclude with a solid barrier between speculation and the scientific method.
Say a student asks about extra-terrestrial life. One could immediatly reply that there is no verifiable evidence of any despite fourty to fifty years of search. Remind the class that negative evidence is not proof. If they want more, discuss the issues, express multiple points of view from a variety of sources, and conclude nothing except that we do not know much more than we did before Sputnik (or Columbus for that matter) and remind the class that work in this area is speculative. Point to empirical evidence of your next topic and move on.
Mental Discipline
One hundred years ago, one of the explicit purposes of education was the training of the mind for effort, patience, willpower applied to accomplish a task, and similar concepts which were grouped under the name "mental discipline". One of the first attacks that Progressive educators made against the academic curriculum was that there was no such thing as mental discipline. Their argument was that an ability gained was not transferable to a new task. That is, learning the state capitals did not prepare you in any way to learn a new set of facts in any way later on. It was effort for effort's sake, nothing was gained, and time was wasted which might have benefited the student. These challenges are nearly 90 years old. Today there is nearly nothing left of mental discipline. Rote memorization, the use of challenging tasks to build a sense of accomplishment, the notion that certain subjects imparted some greater ability to reason (mathematics and Latin were favorites for this claim) are all discredited by educational experts and most practitioners. You can find math teachers who argue that math helps reasoning aptitude, but many are happy to achieve basic functioning (with a calculator) for daily purposes. The ability to assess the risk of, say, Mad Cow Disease, of smoking, unprotected sex, or speculating on precious metals, are not common goals. Many teachers have abandon imparting any kind of reasoning all together and just want to produce results on standardized tests, thereby making the same error of reasoning that students make, namely that the test is supposed to measure the actual goal of learning, not become the goal itself.
I wonder if it could be possible to study the role of the decline of mental discipline in the schools and the rise of problems currently being labeled as hyperactivity and attention deficit syndrome. It may well be that many such diagnoses frequently occur before school starts, so could not be blamed. I can't help suspecting that if part of school was the cultivation of patience, appliction of effort, delay of gratification, a sense of accomplishment over a difficult task mastered, that we might well see less ADHD.
Then again, it could all be television.
One hundred years ago, one of the explicit purposes of education was the training of the mind for effort, patience, willpower applied to accomplish a task, and similar concepts which were grouped under the name "mental discipline". One of the first attacks that Progressive educators made against the academic curriculum was that there was no such thing as mental discipline. Their argument was that an ability gained was not transferable to a new task. That is, learning the state capitals did not prepare you in any way to learn a new set of facts in any way later on. It was effort for effort's sake, nothing was gained, and time was wasted which might have benefited the student. These challenges are nearly 90 years old. Today there is nearly nothing left of mental discipline. Rote memorization, the use of challenging tasks to build a sense of accomplishment, the notion that certain subjects imparted some greater ability to reason (mathematics and Latin were favorites for this claim) are all discredited by educational experts and most practitioners. You can find math teachers who argue that math helps reasoning aptitude, but many are happy to achieve basic functioning (with a calculator) for daily purposes. The ability to assess the risk of, say, Mad Cow Disease, of smoking, unprotected sex, or speculating on precious metals, are not common goals. Many teachers have abandon imparting any kind of reasoning all together and just want to produce results on standardized tests, thereby making the same error of reasoning that students make, namely that the test is supposed to measure the actual goal of learning, not become the goal itself.
I wonder if it could be possible to study the role of the decline of mental discipline in the schools and the rise of problems currently being labeled as hyperactivity and attention deficit syndrome. It may well be that many such diagnoses frequently occur before school starts, so could not be blamed. I can't help suspecting that if part of school was the cultivation of patience, appliction of effort, delay of gratification, a sense of accomplishment over a difficult task mastered, that we might well see less ADHD.
Then again, it could all be television.
Friday, January 09, 2004
Outsourcing of knowledge economy jobs pt II
More free market goodness from Michael Kinsley in Slate, who takes on the word "but" which so often follows the phrase, "I prefer the free market."
More free market goodness from Michael Kinsley in Slate, who takes on the word "but" which so often follows the phrase, "I prefer the free market."
Monday, January 05, 2004
Textbooks
Bought my textbooks for my 12th and last year as a student and what do I find but that one of my classes draw all of its texts from Eugene Volokh.
Bought my textbooks for my 12th and last year as a student and what do I find but that one of my classes draw all of its texts from Eugene Volokh.
Outrage!
Hugh Hewitt is not on KIDS anymore! I was in the drive through of a local eatery when Micheal Reagan's show came on. KIDS is hard to track down. Searches of phone lists and other sites didn't identify phone numbers of other contact information. Eventually I hit upon a web site for the city of Clever Missouri. Finally an ownership reference. A search of Thirteen Forty Productions lead me to a resume for their Controller, and an explantion that KIDS is now owned by Shepherd of the Hills Entertainment Group. I called. Bussiness office is closed. I'll try tomorrow between nine and five. I cast 1340 into perdituion if they have banished Hugh Hewitt.
Hugh Hewitt is not on KIDS anymore! I was in the drive through of a local eatery when Micheal Reagan's show came on. KIDS is hard to track down. Searches of phone lists and other sites didn't identify phone numbers of other contact information. Eventually I hit upon a web site for the city of Clever Missouri. Finally an ownership reference. A search of Thirteen Forty Productions lead me to a resume for their Controller, and an explantion that KIDS is now owned by Shepherd of the Hills Entertainment Group. I called. Bussiness office is closed. I'll try tomorrow between nine and five. I cast 1340 into perdituion if they have banished Hugh Hewitt.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Outsourcing of knowledge economy jobs
Kim du Toit argues that knowledge based jobs moving overseas is a bad thing. One of his examples, and the apparent inspiration to post on this subject was IBM's announcement that it wants to move "4,730 programmers to India, China and elsewhere." Du Toit observes that the National Review takes an unabashedly favorable view of what is often called creative destruction.
I will put aside the observation that IBM was considered an old dinosaur when Microsoft became the master of software and that cost cutting measures by IBM strike me as good news for IBM. Because, even if it were a young, vigorous company still in its growth that was expanding overseas rather than at home, I would argue that this is a good thing. There are three main reasons it is good.
1) Democracies are based on knowledge workers. Knowledge workers, like the computer programmers mentions, strengthen the democracy in India, encourages the rise of reform in China, and so should be welcomed in the parts of the world where democracy is threatened or nascent.
2) Jobs is not only not a zero-sum game, market economics (including jobs) is a geometerical growth scenario. In short, high paying jobs produce more high paying jobs. American unemployment is low, remains low, and our standard of living climbs. All of this despite the creation of jobs overseas by American firms coincident with those same firms destroying jobs domestically. As it turns out many Americans end up going from thier old job to a similar job or a better job in similar or related fields. In a country that is still subsidizing the importation of programmers because of the huge undersupply of programmerlabor available, I'm not worried.
3) Over the long run (an I mean several years and longer) free markets produce more wealth for nearly all of their participants than to "fair" markets. When the price of bread got too high (say because of a bad harvest) the bakers would be forced by a mob to sell bread at prices that people could afford. This is because there was assumed to be a fair price for bread. Today this fair/free divison remains. But the fair market advocates are really playing a variation of the hand that the socialists play. One wants fairness acomplished by government redistribution, the other by government regulation (or investment) to prevent the free flow of labor and capital.
When free markets produce more than fair markets, when job production anywhere produces job production everywhere, and when the growth of knowledge based jobs (and white collar jobs in general) is a precondition for democracy, its an easy decision to support free and unfettered market activity over any alternatives.
Kim du Toit argues that knowledge based jobs moving overseas is a bad thing. One of his examples, and the apparent inspiration to post on this subject was IBM's announcement that it wants to move "4,730 programmers to India, China and elsewhere." Du Toit observes that the National Review takes an unabashedly favorable view of what is often called creative destruction.
I will put aside the observation that IBM was considered an old dinosaur when Microsoft became the master of software and that cost cutting measures by IBM strike me as good news for IBM. Because, even if it were a young, vigorous company still in its growth that was expanding overseas rather than at home, I would argue that this is a good thing. There are three main reasons it is good.
1) Democracies are based on knowledge workers. Knowledge workers, like the computer programmers mentions, strengthen the democracy in India, encourages the rise of reform in China, and so should be welcomed in the parts of the world where democracy is threatened or nascent.
2) Jobs is not only not a zero-sum game, market economics (including jobs) is a geometerical growth scenario. In short, high paying jobs produce more high paying jobs. American unemployment is low, remains low, and our standard of living climbs. All of this despite the creation of jobs overseas by American firms coincident with those same firms destroying jobs domestically. As it turns out many Americans end up going from thier old job to a similar job or a better job in similar or related fields. In a country that is still subsidizing the importation of programmers because of the huge undersupply of programmerlabor available, I'm not worried.
3) Over the long run (an I mean several years and longer) free markets produce more wealth for nearly all of their participants than to "fair" markets. When the price of bread got too high (say because of a bad harvest) the bakers would be forced by a mob to sell bread at prices that people could afford. This is because there was assumed to be a fair price for bread. Today this fair/free divison remains. But the fair market advocates are really playing a variation of the hand that the socialists play. One wants fairness acomplished by government redistribution, the other by government regulation (or investment) to prevent the free flow of labor and capital.
When free markets produce more than fair markets, when job production anywhere produces job production everywhere, and when the growth of knowledge based jobs (and white collar jobs in general) is a precondition for democracy, its an easy decision to support free and unfettered market activity over any alternatives.
Thursday, January 01, 2004
http://www.sophorist.com/
Bumped into this local blog (via Evangelical Outpost). I'll be keeping an eye on it.
Bumped into this local blog (via Evangelical Outpost). I'll be keeping an eye on it.
Colin Powell lays out plans in NYT
The Secretary of State wrote a piece which appears in the opinion section of the NYT enitled What We Will Do in 2004. Key sections include:
"While our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue in 2004, we are resolved as well to turn the president's goal of a free and democratic Middle East into a reality. We will expand the Middle East Partnership Initiative to encourage political, economic and educational reform throughout the region. We will also stand by the Iranian people, and others living under oppressive regimes, as they strive for freedom."
and
"The centerpiece of our program for development, to be started in 2004, is the Millennium Challenge Account — an incentive system that makes assistance contingent on political and economic reform."
and
"Freedom cannot flourish and prosperity cannot advance without security, and this we are determined to achieve. Americans are safer as 2004 begins than they were a year ago. Afghanistan is no longer a devil's playground for terrorists, nor is Iraq an incubator for weapons of mass murder that could have fallen into terrorists' hands."
and
"Freedom, prosperity and peace are not separate principles, or separable policy goals. Each reinforces the other, so serving any one requires an integrated policy that serves all three."
check it out
The Secretary of State wrote a piece which appears in the opinion section of the NYT enitled What We Will Do in 2004. Key sections include:
"While our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue in 2004, we are resolved as well to turn the president's goal of a free and democratic Middle East into a reality. We will expand the Middle East Partnership Initiative to encourage political, economic and educational reform throughout the region. We will also stand by the Iranian people, and others living under oppressive regimes, as they strive for freedom."
and
"The centerpiece of our program for development, to be started in 2004, is the Millennium Challenge Account — an incentive system that makes assistance contingent on political and economic reform."
and
"Freedom cannot flourish and prosperity cannot advance without security, and this we are determined to achieve. Americans are safer as 2004 begins than they were a year ago. Afghanistan is no longer a devil's playground for terrorists, nor is Iraq an incubator for weapons of mass murder that could have fallen into terrorists' hands."
and
"Freedom, prosperity and peace are not separate principles, or separable policy goals. Each reinforces the other, so serving any one requires an integrated policy that serves all three."
check it out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)