According to a recent Sun editorial, the number of women obtaining college degrees now exceeds that of men, though the gender gap in pay remains. I have watched this growing trend of women getting college degrees for several years. At times, I have warned my male chauvinistic students if they don’t get serious with their studies, they will find themselves either working for a woman or reporting to a woman to get their welfare checks.
I have noticed in recent years that most of my serious students are female and that more females tend to be willing to take the difficult academic courses. So, if the women are willing to take the courses and obtain the degrees, why do we still have the gender gap in pay? I offer a couple of hypotheses badly in need of research.
First, I believe there has been a major shift in what colleges do that accounts for the increase in the number of college degrees going to women. Historically, colleges provided a liberal arts education for students to enhance their quality of life or to prepare them for professional schools, primarily law, medicine, theology, the arts and maybe business. Not many women entered these fields, and so at the turn of the 20th century, only about five per cent of college degrees went to women.
A hundred years ago, the college degree meant entry into the intelligentsia, but things changed over the 20th Century, and colleges have become primarily vocational schools, offering degrees that were unheard of a century ago. A college degree now amounts to entry into a vocation. Many of these modern degrees are now necessary to obtain jobs. Many of those jobs are primarily sought after by women, plus many, many more women now enter the job market. The gateway to many of the jobs sought after by men is still found in technical schools and union apprenticeships. All this accounts for the increase in the percentage of degrees going to women.
Second, and this is pure speculation, I suspect in many instances, industry is bypassing college degrees in favor of indentifying employees and prospective employees with potential and training them for their specific industry. Of course, those who occupy the executive suites still come from colleges, as do engineers and other technical types, but I think many others are not. It has been a common practice of large corporations to employee several college graduates for each position they wished to fill, and then watch how these new employees perform. They keep the one or two they need and send the others packing.
I suspect this practice continues; only the college education is no longer necessary to get into the pool of those being considered. Even as industry no longer trusts the high school diploma to mean much, the same thing is happening to the college degree. I remember a pundit commenting a few years back that he knew American education was in trouble when the first Ph.D. degree was awarded in drivers’ education.
At the high school level, education is diluted by having to deal with students who don’t want to be there. The same thing is happening at the college level in a little different way. Between student loans, grants, and scholarships made plentiful by government programs and lotteries, students who couldn’t afford college in the past, can now find ways to finance it. This means there are more and more students there because parents want them there, or they don’t know what else to do, or they want to avoid the work force as long as possible. But, they are not there to be serious students.
What happens when these students won’t produce a decent product and a professor starts to flunk too many of them? Remember, a college is in the business of marketing credits and they have spent millions creating attractive facilities. These facilities must be paid for.
When a professor flunks too many students, the administration gets concerned. They need those students buying credit hours. Pressure is brought to bear to pass those who don’t earn a pass. Also, if a professor gets too demanding of his students, they look for an easier boss. That professor who used to require a dozen books be read besides the text, finds fewer and fewer students taking his class. The result is grade or degree inflation.
If the degree doesn’t mean much, why not just look for responsible people with or without degrees and train them? In this regard, my guess is that at a time when more and more women are getting college degrees, ironically, some in industry are bypassing the college system and still rely on the “good old boy” network to fill many slots. These are just a couple of hypothses.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Left Back -- commentary
Left Back, A Century of Battles Over School Reform, by Diane Ravitch, will never be a blockbuster, but it should be. This book should be required reading for all those involved in or interested in our schools. Ravitch is an historian of education, has served in the Department of Education and has edited papers for the Brookings Institute on educational policy.
I was surprised to learn, maybe not so surprised, that the current trends we think will cure our educational woes, such as project based learning or problem solving based learning, are simply being recycled, having been tried before. “There is nothing new under the sun.”
It became obvious that policy makers and parents have different agenda. Most parents believe the function of a school is to teach the kids how to read, write, and cipher at least competently enough to gain meaningful employment and operate a household. Those who influenced educational policy throughout the last century had a whole different agenda in mind and often still do.
They didn’t like rote learning, memorization, skill and drill. They argued that students don’t need to learn stuff they can look up. Instead they needed to learn higher order thinking skills, analysis, and problem solving skills. They forgot, or never figured out, that these skills require facts as a starting point. Facts are the building blocks of thought.
Ravitch says, “What was sacrificed over the decades in which the schools were treated as vehicles for job training, social planning, political reform, social sorting, personality adjustment, and social efficiency was a clear definition of what schools can realistically and appropriately accomplish for children and for society.”
Most of what a public school can realistically and appropriately accomplish for children can and should be accomplished by grade nine or ten. The parents of people my age had a better education by the eighth grade, if reading, writing, and math are the goals, than the above average high school graduate of today.
The failed theories of those who led the reform movements of the last century left us with barely literate students applying for jobs with empty high school diplomas. A couple of examples come to mind. Early in my teaching career, I had a straight “A,” 11th grade student, brag that she had never read a book in high school. I had an “A “ student in the 10th grade, when asked to identify the verb in the sentence, respond with “blue.” These examples are not atypical.
We will continue to recycle these worn out reforms until we are ready to face the real problem with our schools. Early in the book, Ravitch inadvertently touches on the real problem, though she never says as much, I assume because she doesn’t see it as the problem, though most secondary classroom teachers know what it is.
Here are some quotes that hint at the problem: “The schools would work their democratic magic by disseminating knowledge to all who sought it.”
“The report urged that young people should go as far in school as their talents and interests would take them.”
“…every subject … should be taught in the same way and to the same extent to every pupil so long as he pursues it…”
Note the phrases “all who sought it,” “as far as their interests would take them,” and “so long as he pursues it.” Each of these assumes a desire on the part of the student. For all of the reforms attempted in the last century, none of them solved, or even dealt seriously with the student who doesn’t want to be there.
Compulsory education until age 18 is a sop to organized labor to keep cheap labor off the market and a way of placating well meaning child advocates who think they are being humane by giving every human a childhood. The problem is many 16, 17, and 18-year-olds are no longer children and don’t really appreciate a childhood which forces them into a classroom six and seven hours a day. I speak from experience, having been one of those students.
It would improve modern education significantly if we allowed students to leave the system when they want to. We need a constructive alternative for those students. The student who doesn’t want to be in school dilutes the process for those who do. He consumes instructional time by being disruptive, and he doesn’t listen well and so needs things explained over and over again. We get all worked up over the high school dropout rate and we solve it by corrupting our system. Surely educators who think we need to teach kids higher order thinking skills, can apply the same to finding a better solution to this problem than forced learning, which can’t be forced at all. I can think of several.
I was surprised to learn, maybe not so surprised, that the current trends we think will cure our educational woes, such as project based learning or problem solving based learning, are simply being recycled, having been tried before. “There is nothing new under the sun.”
It became obvious that policy makers and parents have different agenda. Most parents believe the function of a school is to teach the kids how to read, write, and cipher at least competently enough to gain meaningful employment and operate a household. Those who influenced educational policy throughout the last century had a whole different agenda in mind and often still do.
They didn’t like rote learning, memorization, skill and drill. They argued that students don’t need to learn stuff they can look up. Instead they needed to learn higher order thinking skills, analysis, and problem solving skills. They forgot, or never figured out, that these skills require facts as a starting point. Facts are the building blocks of thought.
Ravitch says, “What was sacrificed over the decades in which the schools were treated as vehicles for job training, social planning, political reform, social sorting, personality adjustment, and social efficiency was a clear definition of what schools can realistically and appropriately accomplish for children and for society.”
Most of what a public school can realistically and appropriately accomplish for children can and should be accomplished by grade nine or ten. The parents of people my age had a better education by the eighth grade, if reading, writing, and math are the goals, than the above average high school graduate of today.
The failed theories of those who led the reform movements of the last century left us with barely literate students applying for jobs with empty high school diplomas. A couple of examples come to mind. Early in my teaching career, I had a straight “A,” 11th grade student, brag that she had never read a book in high school. I had an “A “ student in the 10th grade, when asked to identify the verb in the sentence, respond with “blue.” These examples are not atypical.
We will continue to recycle these worn out reforms until we are ready to face the real problem with our schools. Early in the book, Ravitch inadvertently touches on the real problem, though she never says as much, I assume because she doesn’t see it as the problem, though most secondary classroom teachers know what it is.
Here are some quotes that hint at the problem: “The schools would work their democratic magic by disseminating knowledge to all who sought it.”
“The report urged that young people should go as far in school as their talents and interests would take them.”
“…every subject … should be taught in the same way and to the same extent to every pupil so long as he pursues it…”
Note the phrases “all who sought it,” “as far as their interests would take them,” and “so long as he pursues it.” Each of these assumes a desire on the part of the student. For all of the reforms attempted in the last century, none of them solved, or even dealt seriously with the student who doesn’t want to be there.
Compulsory education until age 18 is a sop to organized labor to keep cheap labor off the market and a way of placating well meaning child advocates who think they are being humane by giving every human a childhood. The problem is many 16, 17, and 18-year-olds are no longer children and don’t really appreciate a childhood which forces them into a classroom six and seven hours a day. I speak from experience, having been one of those students.
It would improve modern education significantly if we allowed students to leave the system when they want to. We need a constructive alternative for those students. The student who doesn’t want to be in school dilutes the process for those who do. He consumes instructional time by being disruptive, and he doesn’t listen well and so needs things explained over and over again. We get all worked up over the high school dropout rate and we solve it by corrupting our system. Surely educators who think we need to teach kids higher order thinking skills, can apply the same to finding a better solution to this problem than forced learning, which can’t be forced at all. I can think of several.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Insurance and You -- commentary
There have been a lot of poorly thought out ideas floated on talk radio and letters to the editor columns during the ongoing debate over health care, and I can’t help but take my swing at a couple of them.
One idea compares the government forcing people to buy health insurance to forcing people to buy automobile insurance, the idea being that one is no different than the other. But, there is a difference. The government only forces us to buy liability insurance. If you are forced to buy comprehensive and collision insurance, it is the institution financing your car that insists on that.
The law requiring you to buy liability insurance is there to protect others from the damage you might do. In most states, if you can prove you have the assets to self-insure, you don’t have to purchase liability insurance on your car. The fellow who came into my lane of traffic, knocked me off my motorcycle, and put me in the hospital for two months suddenly incurred a $400,000 liability. He carried a minimum liability policy of $25,000 required by the state of Arizona. Who gets stuck with the difference, since he had no assets worth pursuing? Insurance and me. Medicare and Tri-care covered a large part of the medical costs. I ate the rest, plus missed wages, and compensation for pain and suffering and diminished quality of life. Obviously, the law was inadequate to protect me, even though it was intended to do so.
I don’t know what the state of Arkansas requires, but I believe the state of Arizona is amiss by not requiring a much larger liability policy. If you think the government is being intrusive by requiring you to purchase liability insurance, explain how you would meet such a liability in case of an accident?
So, then we hear the argument about the intrusive government requiring people to wear seatbelts and motorcyclists to wear helmets. Though I wouldn’t think of leaving my driveway without a fastened seatbelt when in a car or a helmet when on a bicycle or motorcycle, my libertarian instincts agree with those arguing against such laws. But those instincts get checked by something else.
To begin with, insurance companies should be enforcing the wearing of seatbelts and helmets through their pricing schemes, and maybe they do. But, the government also gets involved, because it is expected to be the payer of last resort. The law states, I assume with the consent of the governed, that a hospital cannot turn away anyone in need of medical attention. Therefore, the cost of treating the uninsured is born by paying patients and government programs. This gives the government a vested interest in passing laws to minimize this expenditure.
If you want to repeal seatbelt and helmet laws, you should first repeal the law requiring medical providers to make their services available to those who can’t pay. I promise you the average motorcyclist suffering a severe head injury cannot afford to pay the ensuing medical bills. Until we are willing as a society to let people die for lack of adequate medical attention, somebody is going to have to pay for those services, either the individual, an insurance company, or the government.
Since the government has the taxing capacity, the ability to make law, and is looked upon by the people as ultimately responsible, these laws will prevail. In fact, with the advent of the new health legislation, the government now has an even bigger, and rightfully so, interest in how you live your life as it relates to your health. I say rightfully so because as long as it is paying for health care, it has a right to expect certain behavior from those it cares for.
Life and health insurers have done this for a long time. If you want to jump out of airplanes, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol excessively, ride motorcycles, participate in combat, or be overweight, you pay extra. They do this because they have a vested interest in your behavior. Now, the government too has such a vested interest. However, the government’s response won’t be to charge extra so much as it will be to pass laws restricting your behavior. The price we pay for allowing it to pay for our health care is to accept this intrusiveness.
My libertarian bent is often tugged at by my Christian convictions. I have to ask myself if I am willing to live in a society where people are allowed to die in the streets for lack of medical care or where many people do not have adequate health care? I am not, though I wonder if it takes a 2,000 page bill with lots of back room bargaining to solve the problem.
One idea compares the government forcing people to buy health insurance to forcing people to buy automobile insurance, the idea being that one is no different than the other. But, there is a difference. The government only forces us to buy liability insurance. If you are forced to buy comprehensive and collision insurance, it is the institution financing your car that insists on that.
The law requiring you to buy liability insurance is there to protect others from the damage you might do. In most states, if you can prove you have the assets to self-insure, you don’t have to purchase liability insurance on your car. The fellow who came into my lane of traffic, knocked me off my motorcycle, and put me in the hospital for two months suddenly incurred a $400,000 liability. He carried a minimum liability policy of $25,000 required by the state of Arizona. Who gets stuck with the difference, since he had no assets worth pursuing? Insurance and me. Medicare and Tri-care covered a large part of the medical costs. I ate the rest, plus missed wages, and compensation for pain and suffering and diminished quality of life. Obviously, the law was inadequate to protect me, even though it was intended to do so.
I don’t know what the state of Arkansas requires, but I believe the state of Arizona is amiss by not requiring a much larger liability policy. If you think the government is being intrusive by requiring you to purchase liability insurance, explain how you would meet such a liability in case of an accident?
So, then we hear the argument about the intrusive government requiring people to wear seatbelts and motorcyclists to wear helmets. Though I wouldn’t think of leaving my driveway without a fastened seatbelt when in a car or a helmet when on a bicycle or motorcycle, my libertarian instincts agree with those arguing against such laws. But those instincts get checked by something else.
To begin with, insurance companies should be enforcing the wearing of seatbelts and helmets through their pricing schemes, and maybe they do. But, the government also gets involved, because it is expected to be the payer of last resort. The law states, I assume with the consent of the governed, that a hospital cannot turn away anyone in need of medical attention. Therefore, the cost of treating the uninsured is born by paying patients and government programs. This gives the government a vested interest in passing laws to minimize this expenditure.
If you want to repeal seatbelt and helmet laws, you should first repeal the law requiring medical providers to make their services available to those who can’t pay. I promise you the average motorcyclist suffering a severe head injury cannot afford to pay the ensuing medical bills. Until we are willing as a society to let people die for lack of adequate medical attention, somebody is going to have to pay for those services, either the individual, an insurance company, or the government.
Since the government has the taxing capacity, the ability to make law, and is looked upon by the people as ultimately responsible, these laws will prevail. In fact, with the advent of the new health legislation, the government now has an even bigger, and rightfully so, interest in how you live your life as it relates to your health. I say rightfully so because as long as it is paying for health care, it has a right to expect certain behavior from those it cares for.
Life and health insurers have done this for a long time. If you want to jump out of airplanes, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol excessively, ride motorcycles, participate in combat, or be overweight, you pay extra. They do this because they have a vested interest in your behavior. Now, the government too has such a vested interest. However, the government’s response won’t be to charge extra so much as it will be to pass laws restricting your behavior. The price we pay for allowing it to pay for our health care is to accept this intrusiveness.
My libertarian bent is often tugged at by my Christian convictions. I have to ask myself if I am willing to live in a society where people are allowed to die in the streets for lack of medical care or where many people do not have adequate health care? I am not, though I wonder if it takes a 2,000 page bill with lots of back room bargaining to solve the problem.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Signs of Spring -- comentary
I saw the first sign of spring today, or I should say heard about it when a student exclaimed, “Mr. Grove, we had a mosquito in our house last night!” There is nothing louder than a mosquito buzzing around your head as you lay in the dark trying to doze off. Mosquitoes aside, in spring, brain cells begin exploding, especially in our agricultural setting here in the Delta. At my age, these little explosions don’t lead to romance but rather to polishing up old memories.
There is a different buzzing sound that first catches my attention in the spring, the buzz of crop dusting airplanes doing their spring thing. These yellow Ag Cats screaming across a field a hundred feet off the deck trigger excitement. Are they flown by ex-combat fighter pilots seeking yet another adrenaline rush? They scream down the field and at just the right second steeply climb. Look out for that power line! And they do! I suspect my eyes follow them for the same reason I watch stock car races.
Though I would like to fly one of those Ag Cats, I don’t know how. The closest I’ve come to such an adrenaline rush is riding a sport motorcycle, so when motorcycles escape from winter garages, I again sense spring in the air. My motorized two-wheel addiction tugs at me insanely. One spring day, I hope to again be in the saddle, taking my rightful place in the Cripple Old Biker Boys Society. (Boys isn’t exactly what that last B stands for, but it will do. You can Google it: C.O.B.B.)
There are also some docile signs of spring. The giant tractors busily till the soil, and I wonder how life would have been different had I followed my youthful urge to farm instead of joining the Air Force. Memory plays tricks on us, especially where nostalgia is concerned. But, when I see all this farm equipment at work and have to dodge some of it on the highways as farmers go to their fields, a fondness for the past seems to overtake me. Sometimes I think I should buy an old two cylinder John Deere Model B tractor, drive it around the yard and get in the way of neighborhood cars to get this foolishness out of my system before I do something muddleheaded, like hire out to a farmer.
Raise your hand if you too remember days spent on an old Johnny Popper. Hour after hour it was pop, a, pop, a, pop, a, pop. And as you lay your head on the pillow at night, it was still there: pop, a, pop, a, pop.
The Johnny Popper that I so fondly remember from my youth was owned by a poor guy who failed to stomp out a wave of nostalgia that was overtaking him, and he bought a dairy farm as a retirement project. It nearly worked him to death before he could get rid of it.
There are other things that endear me to spring. The first Jonquils start to pop out. The wild yellow ones we see popping up around here hint of the acres and acres of daffodils that colored the Puyallup Valley in Western Washington near where I grew up. Even as the Californians had their annual Rose Parade, we had our annual Daffodil Parade. I dressed in my dark blue band uniform, cleaned off my white shoes and gave them a fresh coat of paint, shined the bell of my trombone, and boarded a school bus for the trip to Puyallup Valley and the several mile march in the big parade. While polishing these memories, I think about the trombone and wonder if I could ever play it again. I bought a used one once to give it a try: no practice, no luck.
And with the coming of the Jonquils, I know the blooming of the dogwoods is not far behind. The blooming Dogwood tree is one of my truly Southern joys. They are an experience of the present, stirring no memories of the past. Every year I patiently wait for the time when I can drive to Spring River, trout fish and report back that the Dogwoods are blooming. There is nothing that makes a ride along the country roads of Crowley’s Ridge more enjoyable than the white flowers of the Dogwoods scattered among the many other trees of the forest.
As the old song says, “June is busting out all over.” You are probably reading this on a Sunday morning. Check and see if the sun is shining. If it is, put the paper down, pack a picnic lunch and go for a ride on the back roads and byways and rediscover spring. See what it does for your disposition.
There is a different buzzing sound that first catches my attention in the spring, the buzz of crop dusting airplanes doing their spring thing. These yellow Ag Cats screaming across a field a hundred feet off the deck trigger excitement. Are they flown by ex-combat fighter pilots seeking yet another adrenaline rush? They scream down the field and at just the right second steeply climb. Look out for that power line! And they do! I suspect my eyes follow them for the same reason I watch stock car races.
Though I would like to fly one of those Ag Cats, I don’t know how. The closest I’ve come to such an adrenaline rush is riding a sport motorcycle, so when motorcycles escape from winter garages, I again sense spring in the air. My motorized two-wheel addiction tugs at me insanely. One spring day, I hope to again be in the saddle, taking my rightful place in the Cripple Old Biker Boys Society. (Boys isn’t exactly what that last B stands for, but it will do. You can Google it: C.O.B.B.)
There are also some docile signs of spring. The giant tractors busily till the soil, and I wonder how life would have been different had I followed my youthful urge to farm instead of joining the Air Force. Memory plays tricks on us, especially where nostalgia is concerned. But, when I see all this farm equipment at work and have to dodge some of it on the highways as farmers go to their fields, a fondness for the past seems to overtake me. Sometimes I think I should buy an old two cylinder John Deere Model B tractor, drive it around the yard and get in the way of neighborhood cars to get this foolishness out of my system before I do something muddleheaded, like hire out to a farmer.
Raise your hand if you too remember days spent on an old Johnny Popper. Hour after hour it was pop, a, pop, a, pop, a, pop. And as you lay your head on the pillow at night, it was still there: pop, a, pop, a, pop.
The Johnny Popper that I so fondly remember from my youth was owned by a poor guy who failed to stomp out a wave of nostalgia that was overtaking him, and he bought a dairy farm as a retirement project. It nearly worked him to death before he could get rid of it.
There are other things that endear me to spring. The first Jonquils start to pop out. The wild yellow ones we see popping up around here hint of the acres and acres of daffodils that colored the Puyallup Valley in Western Washington near where I grew up. Even as the Californians had their annual Rose Parade, we had our annual Daffodil Parade. I dressed in my dark blue band uniform, cleaned off my white shoes and gave them a fresh coat of paint, shined the bell of my trombone, and boarded a school bus for the trip to Puyallup Valley and the several mile march in the big parade. While polishing these memories, I think about the trombone and wonder if I could ever play it again. I bought a used one once to give it a try: no practice, no luck.
And with the coming of the Jonquils, I know the blooming of the dogwoods is not far behind. The blooming Dogwood tree is one of my truly Southern joys. They are an experience of the present, stirring no memories of the past. Every year I patiently wait for the time when I can drive to Spring River, trout fish and report back that the Dogwoods are blooming. There is nothing that makes a ride along the country roads of Crowley’s Ridge more enjoyable than the white flowers of the Dogwoods scattered among the many other trees of the forest.
As the old song says, “June is busting out all over.” You are probably reading this on a Sunday morning. Check and see if the sun is shining. If it is, put the paper down, pack a picnic lunch and go for a ride on the back roads and byways and rediscover spring. See what it does for your disposition.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Stargirl -- commentary
We teach from stories in school because through stories we pass on cultural values. With this in mind, I just introduced my seventh graders to my all time favorite girl in adolescent literature, Stargirl, which is also the title of the book in which she stars as the main character.
Stargirl, born Susan but self named Stargirl, is an eccentric teenager who has been home schooled but is trying her luck at the public schooling in Mica, Arizona, a fictional place.
Her eccentricities include things like researching student birthdays and then going to them in the cafeteria on their birthdays and singing happy birthday, as she accompanies herself on the ukulele.
She wears pioneer dresses and carries a large hand bag with a huge flower on it. In each class, she takes a cloth from her hand bag, covers her desk and then takes out a vase to place on the cloth and a flower to put in it.
At first, the kids don’t know what to make of her. In time they recruit her as a cheer leader; however, she has a disturbing practice of cheering for every basket no matter which team makes it. Her philosophy is that we should all celebrate everyone’s happiness not just our own.
In time Stargirl’s exuberance infuses a new sense of school spirit where none existed before. This school spirit leads to a winning basketball season, something that hasn’t happened before.
As the team begins to win, the students learn to boo and hate, rather than celebrate the other team’s success. They don’t realize that Stargirl is the well from which this new school spirit has sprung and they soon turn on her.
Stargirl also has a habit of befriending every misfit, grieving, or in some way troubled person in town. She learns who these people are by reading the things in the paper over looked by most people: hospital admissions, obituaries, society pages, and fillers. Just as she celebrates other’s joy, she feels other’s sadness and responds by sending cards or leaving anonymous gifts.
During her brief period of acceptance, she becomes the girlfriend of Leo, one of the popular kids and it appears to be as close to true love as teenagers experience.
As Stargirl’s acceptance wanes, Leo faces having to choose between her and his own popularity because the kids have begun to shun her. They won’t sit with her in the cafeteria, talk to her in the halls or have anything to do with her. And when Leo is with her, they treat him the same way.
I am fond of asking the kids how they think Stargirl would fare at fare at their school. Mostly the kids self perception is that they are very tolerant of people who are different and they often see themselves as highly individualistic.
The reality is that in most schools where I have taught, there is a fairly narrow bank of acceptance. Students will allow for some individuality, but it doesn’t take much to be an outcast.
Stargirl is really about two things: Having the courage to make the right decision even if you must stand alone, and the acceptance of those who are different either by choice or by things
beyond their control.
As I think about Stargirl, I’m reminded of the quote, “Everyone is born an original and dies a copy.” I don’t know the source of the quote, but Stargirl’s challenge is to maintain her originality. In an effort to keep her relationship with Leo, she tries for a brief period of time to become like all the other kids, but it doesn’t work. She is a great original but not a very good copy.
Many things work against our retaining our originality. Schools want to us to conform to the ideal of a model student. Many churches are great for turning us into copies. Governments often have an image to which we are to conform as seen in regulations they adopt for the many social programs they sponsor. And above all, advertisers try their best to make us into copies. If we want to be part of the in group, we must wear this brand or have this product. A father told me recently he had a pair of Wal-Mart brand jeans hanging on his son’s door to remind the boy if he didn’t get his grades up he will have to wear them to school. The implication being that this would not be cool. This doesn’t end with jeans; it includes cell phones, jewelry, make up, shoes and so much more. And, then there is peer pressure.
To my relief, Stargirl reverted back to the original. She loved Leo, but she couldn’t pretend to be somebody she wasn’t. Our challenge, as adults, is to rediscover the original us, reclaim it, and celebrate who we really are.
Stargirl, born Susan but self named Stargirl, is an eccentric teenager who has been home schooled but is trying her luck at the public schooling in Mica, Arizona, a fictional place.
Her eccentricities include things like researching student birthdays and then going to them in the cafeteria on their birthdays and singing happy birthday, as she accompanies herself on the ukulele.
She wears pioneer dresses and carries a large hand bag with a huge flower on it. In each class, she takes a cloth from her hand bag, covers her desk and then takes out a vase to place on the cloth and a flower to put in it.
At first, the kids don’t know what to make of her. In time they recruit her as a cheer leader; however, she has a disturbing practice of cheering for every basket no matter which team makes it. Her philosophy is that we should all celebrate everyone’s happiness not just our own.
In time Stargirl’s exuberance infuses a new sense of school spirit where none existed before. This school spirit leads to a winning basketball season, something that hasn’t happened before.
As the team begins to win, the students learn to boo and hate, rather than celebrate the other team’s success. They don’t realize that Stargirl is the well from which this new school spirit has sprung and they soon turn on her.
Stargirl also has a habit of befriending every misfit, grieving, or in some way troubled person in town. She learns who these people are by reading the things in the paper over looked by most people: hospital admissions, obituaries, society pages, and fillers. Just as she celebrates other’s joy, she feels other’s sadness and responds by sending cards or leaving anonymous gifts.
During her brief period of acceptance, she becomes the girlfriend of Leo, one of the popular kids and it appears to be as close to true love as teenagers experience.
As Stargirl’s acceptance wanes, Leo faces having to choose between her and his own popularity because the kids have begun to shun her. They won’t sit with her in the cafeteria, talk to her in the halls or have anything to do with her. And when Leo is with her, they treat him the same way.
I am fond of asking the kids how they think Stargirl would fare at fare at their school. Mostly the kids self perception is that they are very tolerant of people who are different and they often see themselves as highly individualistic.
The reality is that in most schools where I have taught, there is a fairly narrow bank of acceptance. Students will allow for some individuality, but it doesn’t take much to be an outcast.
Stargirl is really about two things: Having the courage to make the right decision even if you must stand alone, and the acceptance of those who are different either by choice or by things
beyond their control.
As I think about Stargirl, I’m reminded of the quote, “Everyone is born an original and dies a copy.” I don’t know the source of the quote, but Stargirl’s challenge is to maintain her originality. In an effort to keep her relationship with Leo, she tries for a brief period of time to become like all the other kids, but it doesn’t work. She is a great original but not a very good copy.
Many things work against our retaining our originality. Schools want to us to conform to the ideal of a model student. Many churches are great for turning us into copies. Governments often have an image to which we are to conform as seen in regulations they adopt for the many social programs they sponsor. And above all, advertisers try their best to make us into copies. If we want to be part of the in group, we must wear this brand or have this product. A father told me recently he had a pair of Wal-Mart brand jeans hanging on his son’s door to remind the boy if he didn’t get his grades up he will have to wear them to school. The implication being that this would not be cool. This doesn’t end with jeans; it includes cell phones, jewelry, make up, shoes and so much more. And, then there is peer pressure.
To my relief, Stargirl reverted back to the original. She loved Leo, but she couldn’t pretend to be somebody she wasn’t. Our challenge, as adults, is to rediscover the original us, reclaim it, and celebrate who we really are.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Working Out -- commnetary
The acerbic columnist Malcolm Berko recently ranted about health care and health insurance. He bemoaned the fact that we Americans are “becoming increasingly reluctant to take responsibility for our own actions.”
He pointed out that 74 per cent of health care costs are derived from four things: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity, all of which are highly preventable. Two things play into this in a big way: nutrition and exercise. My wife insures our healthy eating habits; I am on my own for the exercise.
I have learned some things about exercise over the years. First, regular exercise requires motivation. For many years, having to pass the military annual physical test motivated me. As I got older, I could not wait until 30 days before the test to get in shape. I had to stay in shape.
The bathroom mirror also motivated me. When my image reached the disgust level, it was back to the workout regime. Of course the results were motivational. I remember an ex Marine who ran five miles a day saying he “hated the process but loved the results.” The results are worth the effort.
Age 60 brought forced retirement from the Army National Guard and there went my best motivator. For the next six years I quit working out and joined the ranks of the obese, until an accident, which led to physical therapy, got me back on track. A desire to return to normal and the need to stay healthy, knowing that I have already consumed more than my fair share of medical costs, became the new motivator.
For me to stay with a workout regime, I have to make it as convenient as possible. That means rolling out of bed and going straight to my workout. To do this, I have had many types of home exercise equipment over the years.
The cheapest was a good pair of running shoes. There was a time when I ran six miles a day, six days a week. During this time, I could eat as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted and not gain weight. It came to an end when I damaged a knee. Jogging, though enjoyable, is hard on the joints, especially as you age.
Also, in Alaska running was pretty much a summertime workout; something else was required in the winter. For several years, I had a Concept Two rowing machine, which was supposed to be the closest thing available to competitive rowing. This provided a great workout in that it worked both upper and lower body and the respiratory system. Unfortunately, it took up a lot of space and had to be left behind when moving. For a while, I had a single station weight lifting machine that I liked. It was good for bulking up muscles. Somewhere in this mix there was also a Nordic Track cross-country ski simulator, a Power Rider and a snow shovel.
After coming to Arkansas, bicycling became my primary workout. It is hard to beat bicycling. It is very aerobic, doesn’t jar your skeleton like jogging does and is good ten months out of the year. The furthest I have ridden was 150 miles over two days, from Conway to Russellville and back, for a charity fundraiser. I also rode to Batesville once on a hot, summer day, and rode back the next day. This was my introduction to heat exhaustion.
Sadly, Jonesboro is not a bicycle friendly town and bicyclists take a risk on the public streets. However, there is an active bicycle club working on making it a friendlier place for riders. I also read where a bike trail will be added to the Crowley Ridge Historic Highway. It sounds like a great ride.
Now that I am back in a workout frame of mind, I have purchased a Bowflex home gym and am working on building a Bowflex body. I have also purchased one of those gadgets to turn my bicycle into a stationary, exercise bike for winter use.
Before obtaining this equipment, I had a gym membership for $17 a month, but I had to work out in the evenings and only got in two sessions a week. It costs me $20 a month to pay for the home gym, and now I get in five or six workouts a week. (The spirits of our overworked ancestors must think we’re insane spending money on machines dedicated to making us work.)
So, Mr. Berko, I do take some responsibility for my wellbeing. By so doing, I hope to avoid getting more involved in the high cost of health care than is absolutely necessary. Aside from that, I kind of like the idea of dying healthy rather than surrounded by doctors. I invite my readers to also get involved.
He pointed out that 74 per cent of health care costs are derived from four things: cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity, all of which are highly preventable. Two things play into this in a big way: nutrition and exercise. My wife insures our healthy eating habits; I am on my own for the exercise.
I have learned some things about exercise over the years. First, regular exercise requires motivation. For many years, having to pass the military annual physical test motivated me. As I got older, I could not wait until 30 days before the test to get in shape. I had to stay in shape.
The bathroom mirror also motivated me. When my image reached the disgust level, it was back to the workout regime. Of course the results were motivational. I remember an ex Marine who ran five miles a day saying he “hated the process but loved the results.” The results are worth the effort.
Age 60 brought forced retirement from the Army National Guard and there went my best motivator. For the next six years I quit working out and joined the ranks of the obese, until an accident, which led to physical therapy, got me back on track. A desire to return to normal and the need to stay healthy, knowing that I have already consumed more than my fair share of medical costs, became the new motivator.
For me to stay with a workout regime, I have to make it as convenient as possible. That means rolling out of bed and going straight to my workout. To do this, I have had many types of home exercise equipment over the years.
The cheapest was a good pair of running shoes. There was a time when I ran six miles a day, six days a week. During this time, I could eat as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted and not gain weight. It came to an end when I damaged a knee. Jogging, though enjoyable, is hard on the joints, especially as you age.
Also, in Alaska running was pretty much a summertime workout; something else was required in the winter. For several years, I had a Concept Two rowing machine, which was supposed to be the closest thing available to competitive rowing. This provided a great workout in that it worked both upper and lower body and the respiratory system. Unfortunately, it took up a lot of space and had to be left behind when moving. For a while, I had a single station weight lifting machine that I liked. It was good for bulking up muscles. Somewhere in this mix there was also a Nordic Track cross-country ski simulator, a Power Rider and a snow shovel.
After coming to Arkansas, bicycling became my primary workout. It is hard to beat bicycling. It is very aerobic, doesn’t jar your skeleton like jogging does and is good ten months out of the year. The furthest I have ridden was 150 miles over two days, from Conway to Russellville and back, for a charity fundraiser. I also rode to Batesville once on a hot, summer day, and rode back the next day. This was my introduction to heat exhaustion.
Sadly, Jonesboro is not a bicycle friendly town and bicyclists take a risk on the public streets. However, there is an active bicycle club working on making it a friendlier place for riders. I also read where a bike trail will be added to the Crowley Ridge Historic Highway. It sounds like a great ride.
Now that I am back in a workout frame of mind, I have purchased a Bowflex home gym and am working on building a Bowflex body. I have also purchased one of those gadgets to turn my bicycle into a stationary, exercise bike for winter use.
Before obtaining this equipment, I had a gym membership for $17 a month, but I had to work out in the evenings and only got in two sessions a week. It costs me $20 a month to pay for the home gym, and now I get in five or six workouts a week. (The spirits of our overworked ancestors must think we’re insane spending money on machines dedicated to making us work.)
So, Mr. Berko, I do take some responsibility for my wellbeing. By so doing, I hope to avoid getting more involved in the high cost of health care than is absolutely necessary. Aside from that, I kind of like the idea of dying healthy rather than surrounded by doctors. I invite my readers to also get involved.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Schol Consolidation -- commentary
The school consolidation dragon is about to swallow up the Weiner School district. However, this victim is not going to be eaten without a scream or two. They discovered a legal loop hole that might allow them to keep their school in operation while saving the Delight School District from also being eaten by the dragon. The districts, though 200 miles apart, intend to consolidate, allowing each to keep their schools open. By consolidating, they will no longer be below the 350 student population which requires consolidation or closing. I hope they make this succeed.
To begin with, a school is the heart and soul of a small town. Over the years, I have not been a great sports fan, but when I started teaching school, I felt compelled to attend the athletic events my students participated in. To my surprise, I discovered a football or basketball game wasn’t so much about the game as it was about the fellowship of the town folk who had come out to cheer on the players.
The high school ball game is where the people of the town exchange gossip, visite with those they haven’t seen for awhile, exchange greetings and comments with their kid’s teachers, and keep up with what goes on at the school. And of course, it is nice if their side wins the game. To take this out of the community devastates it. How do you replace it?
In a small town, the teachers get to know their students’ families. This puts a teacher in a much better position to accurately empathize with her students. Also, a small community acts as a conscience for its citizens. I wanted so badly to steal a car when I was a teenager and go for a joy ride. However, I knew what it would do to the family reputation in our small town. The community served as a restraint, as a part of my conscience. When my son was in a small, neighborhood elementary school, he did all right. Things started going wrong when he had to go to the distant, larger junior high school. But when he then had to go to a huge, and even more distant high school, it was the end of his schooling. And, the anonymity of the situation allowed him to misbehave without our knowledge.
Theologically, I belong to that branch of Christianity that believes man has a fallen nature. Because of that, we must train children to be civil and moral. Unfortunately, not all children get trained adequately. If you have three hundred students, and 10 per cent of them didn’t get trained adequately, you have 30 problem kids. The teachers and administrators all know who those students are and they are able to keep track of them. When you have a school of 3,000 students, you now have 300 hundred such students. It is impossible to keep track of them and they spread their poison.
What is the justification for this seeming need to consolidate our schools? It seems to be that we can offer a much more diverse curriculum: more foreign languages, more music, more art, better laboratories, etc. There was a time when this argument had some legitimacy, but with modern technology and distance learning labs, even a small town like Weiner can provide anything their students desire. This is no longer a valid argument for creating larger schools. Isn’t it ironic that Arkansas insists on closing down smaller schools, while the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending millions to create and promote smaller schools?
I was listening to “Booknotes” on C-span recently and Brian Lamb was interviewing Dianne Ravitch, author and education historian. He asked her why she thought educators promoted these huge school campuses. She said it was a way to track students. Tracking students, that is grouping them by ability, became a big taboo in education in the 80s and 90s. It hasn’t produced better education for anyone, and by having a greater selection of electives, the kids will sort themselves out, thus skirting this issue.
In her book, “Left Back, A Century of Battles Over School Reform,” Ravitch says, “Large schools may have worked well enough when adult authority was intact and educators set the tone, but they became dysfunctional when adult authority dissipated in the late 1960s and early 1970s.” (You will hear more of this terrific book in future columns.)
Weiner and Delight will get the news sometime in March as to whether they are going to be allowed to do this most unusual and creative consolidation. I hope they do succeed. They may be skirting the spirit of the law, but they didn’t create the loop hole and they are justified in taking advantage of it.
To begin with, a school is the heart and soul of a small town. Over the years, I have not been a great sports fan, but when I started teaching school, I felt compelled to attend the athletic events my students participated in. To my surprise, I discovered a football or basketball game wasn’t so much about the game as it was about the fellowship of the town folk who had come out to cheer on the players.
The high school ball game is where the people of the town exchange gossip, visite with those they haven’t seen for awhile, exchange greetings and comments with their kid’s teachers, and keep up with what goes on at the school. And of course, it is nice if their side wins the game. To take this out of the community devastates it. How do you replace it?
In a small town, the teachers get to know their students’ families. This puts a teacher in a much better position to accurately empathize with her students. Also, a small community acts as a conscience for its citizens. I wanted so badly to steal a car when I was a teenager and go for a joy ride. However, I knew what it would do to the family reputation in our small town. The community served as a restraint, as a part of my conscience. When my son was in a small, neighborhood elementary school, he did all right. Things started going wrong when he had to go to the distant, larger junior high school. But when he then had to go to a huge, and even more distant high school, it was the end of his schooling. And, the anonymity of the situation allowed him to misbehave without our knowledge.
Theologically, I belong to that branch of Christianity that believes man has a fallen nature. Because of that, we must train children to be civil and moral. Unfortunately, not all children get trained adequately. If you have three hundred students, and 10 per cent of them didn’t get trained adequately, you have 30 problem kids. The teachers and administrators all know who those students are and they are able to keep track of them. When you have a school of 3,000 students, you now have 300 hundred such students. It is impossible to keep track of them and they spread their poison.
What is the justification for this seeming need to consolidate our schools? It seems to be that we can offer a much more diverse curriculum: more foreign languages, more music, more art, better laboratories, etc. There was a time when this argument had some legitimacy, but with modern technology and distance learning labs, even a small town like Weiner can provide anything their students desire. This is no longer a valid argument for creating larger schools. Isn’t it ironic that Arkansas insists on closing down smaller schools, while the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending millions to create and promote smaller schools?
I was listening to “Booknotes” on C-span recently and Brian Lamb was interviewing Dianne Ravitch, author and education historian. He asked her why she thought educators promoted these huge school campuses. She said it was a way to track students. Tracking students, that is grouping them by ability, became a big taboo in education in the 80s and 90s. It hasn’t produced better education for anyone, and by having a greater selection of electives, the kids will sort themselves out, thus skirting this issue.
In her book, “Left Back, A Century of Battles Over School Reform,” Ravitch says, “Large schools may have worked well enough when adult authority was intact and educators set the tone, but they became dysfunctional when adult authority dissipated in the late 1960s and early 1970s.” (You will hear more of this terrific book in future columns.)
Weiner and Delight will get the news sometime in March as to whether they are going to be allowed to do this most unusual and creative consolidation. I hope they do succeed. They may be skirting the spirit of the law, but they didn’t create the loop hole and they are justified in taking advantage of it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)