Sitting through a high school debate recently allowed me to compare notes on how the issue of global warming should be addressed. Let me first say, to those of you who don't believe that global warming exists, please take your head out of the sand. Your indignation is disgusting. Your methodology of manipulating the system is failing our society and you are unwilling to admit it. In your opinion, its better to take the world down than to admit a mistake.
Pictures of sheets of ice plummeting to ocean level, the rapid loss of the icecap on the island of Greenland and the sadness associated with a polar bear drifting away to death on a tiny piece of ice is nothing short of appalling. The increase of world temperatures coupled with many devastating weather events leads to serious concern about the future. Yet, we seem to be making little or no progress in solving this problem.
The high school debate centered on government regulation vs. market mechanics. And the overriding question was "Which is better suited to help solve the global warming issue?"
An educated guess says the student vote favored the arguments presented by the side representing government regulation. I, for one, see no way the nation could ever depend on industry to take the necessary steps to begin the global warming reversal process. After all, it is industry, assisted obviously by the population which demands bigger and better and more energy powered devices, that has led us to our present dilemma.
Sure, industry will flaunt a few token ideas that will convince some that help is on the way. But, ultimately, the idea of profit making will filter back into the conversation. At that point, with even more profit to be made, it will be full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and to hell with global warming. Industry will sustain itself at the cost of every human being on the surface of the earth. It will squeeze every bit of loose change out of a poor man's pocket regardless of what that means in the big picture of our existence.
Profit making can be the equivalent of greed. Industry has, justifiably, always been concerned with making money. But, I yearn for that long-ago day when the industrial tycoon owned a business all to himself. While he certainly made a profit and lived much more comfortably than his employees, he also frequently gave back to society in a big way. Today, so many industries are publicly owned and there are numerous stockholders wanting to make money. And, making money is a natural desire of ownership, but certainly not the kind of behavior necessary to turn the global warming dilemma around.
On the other hand, government is equipped to deal with all sorts of dilemma. We as a species learned the necessity of government many centuries ago when we discovered that we could not live peacefully together. Some question whether we live peacefully together today, even with the existence of government. Still, as our nation views government, it is designed to allow for our existence in a fashion that is fair to all.
The high school debaters, to their credit, discussed the Environmental Protection Agency and its regulatory abilities to use government to fight the global warming problem. I have no problem with their arguments.
However, I want to put global warming on another level. I want a logical explanation why government is the route that needs to be followed to fight global warming rather than our profit-making industries.
The Preamble of the Constitution is a complex set of goals for our government. We have heard about "a more perfect government" the need to "establish justice," and the idea that government should "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defense." But I believe the other two goals of the Preamble are ideally designed to deal with global warming.
The Preamble ends with the final two goals, "...promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." It seems to me that the general welfare of our nation is threatened by global warming. And, it seems necessary for our government to act if we are going to pass on our system of government and the existence of our nation to future generations.
I am a firm believer that the US government is charged by the Constitution of the USA to deal in the best way possible with global warming. Yes, its going to cost money. Yes, our taxes will raise. And, yes, people will be upset. Case in point. There are no free rides in this world. We helped cause the problem and we will have to pay for it.
And, if we don't fix this problem of global warming, regardless what those with their head stuck in sand say, we are rapidly watching ourselves bring this world to an early demise.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
A Principled Man!!
From January 1977 until January 1981, James Earl Carter served as President of the United States. Was Jimmy Carter a good president? You would be hard-pressed to find someone who would say he was. Was he a bad president? Personally, I don't believe so. Was he a misunderstood president? There is little doubt about that; he certainly was.
Jimmy Carter rode to the presidency on the tail of an animal known as "corruption." The USA had survived the audacity of Watergate and the Nixon presidency, when personal power and hatred became more important to the man in the White House than the Constitution of the nation. Then, Nixon's hand-picked successor issued a pardon to Nixon. I fully understand Gerald Ford's logic in issuing the pardon, but the country wanted more retribution handed down to the former president than a slap on the wrist.
Thus, in rides Jimmy Carter on his white stallion. He is considered a good Christian man. He is an engineer who attended the US Naval Academy and rose to the rank of lieutenant. And, most importantly as the 1970's were coming to an end, he was a Washington D.C. "outsider."
We frequently hear politicians running for national office label themselves as "outsiders." Take note! If they are really outsiders we should not elect them. Washington D.C. doesn't take well to outsiders. True outsiders lack the necessary connections that makes Washington D.C. work for them. True outsiders don't understand the inner workings of the government. And true outsiders aren't trusted by others in power who fear their way of doing things could be compromised.
So Jimmy Carter, an outsider, became president and his presidency is considered by most to be a failure--much of that failure is associated with the Iran Hostage Crisis and an energy crisis. Don't get me wrong. The nation survived and there were some positive accomplishments such as the Camp David Accords. But Jimmy Carter, the outsider from Plains, Ga., was destined to be a one-term president.
Recently Jimmy Carter was interviewed by Time in its "10 Questions" feature. Carter has become a world-renowned humanitarian in his post-presidential life. He founded the Carter Center in 1982 and that agency has spent the past two decades working to improve the quality of life for millions around the world. In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Additionally, Carter has served as an international observer of elections, has been a valued participant in Habitat for Humanity, and has been critical of the unseemly behavior of other presidents--most notably Bill Clinton and his pardon of Mark Rich and George W. Bush for his overall approach to the presidency.
The Bush White House, following the Carter rebuke, referred to the former president comments as irrelevant. That certainly isn't the way I perceive things. Case in point. Carter was principled enough to criticize presidents from both political parties. He did not show partisanship, but called it like he saw it. He chastised presidents whom he felt had crossed the line in abuse of power.
Would I want Jimmy Carter as president again. The answer is a resounding NO. His lack of inside knowledge of government power left him just as ineffective as an outside like Ross Perot would have been. But do I respect this man who has devoted his past-presidential days to the good of society and the world. I have often said that "Jimmy Carter was not a good president. But, I believe him to be the BEST ex-president we have ever had."
Jimmy Carter rode to the presidency on the tail of an animal known as "corruption." The USA had survived the audacity of Watergate and the Nixon presidency, when personal power and hatred became more important to the man in the White House than the Constitution of the nation. Then, Nixon's hand-picked successor issued a pardon to Nixon. I fully understand Gerald Ford's logic in issuing the pardon, but the country wanted more retribution handed down to the former president than a slap on the wrist.
Thus, in rides Jimmy Carter on his white stallion. He is considered a good Christian man. He is an engineer who attended the US Naval Academy and rose to the rank of lieutenant. And, most importantly as the 1970's were coming to an end, he was a Washington D.C. "outsider."
We frequently hear politicians running for national office label themselves as "outsiders." Take note! If they are really outsiders we should not elect them. Washington D.C. doesn't take well to outsiders. True outsiders lack the necessary connections that makes Washington D.C. work for them. True outsiders don't understand the inner workings of the government. And true outsiders aren't trusted by others in power who fear their way of doing things could be compromised.
So Jimmy Carter, an outsider, became president and his presidency is considered by most to be a failure--much of that failure is associated with the Iran Hostage Crisis and an energy crisis. Don't get me wrong. The nation survived and there were some positive accomplishments such as the Camp David Accords. But Jimmy Carter, the outsider from Plains, Ga., was destined to be a one-term president.
Recently Jimmy Carter was interviewed by Time in its "10 Questions" feature. Carter has become a world-renowned humanitarian in his post-presidential life. He founded the Carter Center in 1982 and that agency has spent the past two decades working to improve the quality of life for millions around the world. In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Additionally, Carter has served as an international observer of elections, has been a valued participant in Habitat for Humanity, and has been critical of the unseemly behavior of other presidents--most notably Bill Clinton and his pardon of Mark Rich and George W. Bush for his overall approach to the presidency.
The Bush White House, following the Carter rebuke, referred to the former president comments as irrelevant. That certainly isn't the way I perceive things. Case in point. Carter was principled enough to criticize presidents from both political parties. He did not show partisanship, but called it like he saw it. He chastised presidents whom he felt had crossed the line in abuse of power.
Would I want Jimmy Carter as president again. The answer is a resounding NO. His lack of inside knowledge of government power left him just as ineffective as an outside like Ross Perot would have been. But do I respect this man who has devoted his past-presidential days to the good of society and the world. I have often said that "Jimmy Carter was not a good president. But, I believe him to be the BEST ex-president we have ever had."
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Wonders of Medicine!!!
During my daily visit to USA Today , an advertisement recently caught my eye. It was a simple question with an obviously complex answer. The headline on the advertisement read, "Are We Overmedicating Our Kids?"
The advertisement went on to point out that in 1983 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) called for children to receive 10 vaccinations before the age of six. Today the CDC mandates 36 vaccinations for our children.
The reasons for the change in numbers is rather obvious. Foremost among those reasons is the idea that medical advancements have made it possible for new vaccinations to be created to ward off deadly diseases that have wreaked havoc in the past. But, there have to be other reasons that might include the easy spread of diseases today that has evolved because our transportation systems have made the earth so much smaller.
The old motto, "an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure" has always made sense. Why wouldn't you prevent something before it starts instead of allowing it to root and grow and create even more problems in the elimination process? But, have we gone too far? The advertisement goes on to point out that during that same time period, roughly 24 years, that we have upped the vaccination requirements we have had an enormous growth in such neurological disorders as autism and ADHD. Of course, that leads me to ask, "Are we overmedicating our kids?"
Autism is a creature unto itself and one that I truly do not understand. The complexity of that disorder makes me shutter. Might it be Aspergers, Rett's Syndrome or Kanner's Syndrome, the visual I get when I think of autism is not a pretty picture. Granted, I know that some autism victims are rather high-functioning and can deal with society as we have created it. Others, however, are in their own little world and, while I have no desire to visit that world, it is curiosity that makes me wonder, "What is going on inside their head?"
ADHD is another animal that bewilders me. Yes, I know it exists. But, does it exist in the huge numbers that seem to be reported? I don't think so. I have long dreaded the student generated phrase "I am ADHD," when that student simply didn't want to comply with a command or do an assignment. Knowing full well that prior to the expectation of that student, things were fine, I have long suspected that the ADHD label has frequently been used as an excuse.
But I also feel that using that label as an excuse is hereditary. It has long been my belief that many parents have sought out a label for their child because they couldn't/wouldn't deal with the behavior issues of their child. Fine and dandy. But, by securing an ADHD label for their child they put them in direct access to medication that can have some troubling outcomes and it conceivably creates an unrealistic excuse system that might follow that child through life.
Mood swings, confusion, high blood pressure are just some of the side effects of these ADHD medications, especially if they are abused. Perhaps the most commonly known is methylphenidate, better known by the brand name Ritalin. Also on the list is amphetamines such as Adderall and dexamphetamines such as Dextrostat or Dexedrine.
The advertisement went on to point out that in 1983 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) called for children to receive 10 vaccinations before the age of six. Today the CDC mandates 36 vaccinations for our children.
The reasons for the change in numbers is rather obvious. Foremost among those reasons is the idea that medical advancements have made it possible for new vaccinations to be created to ward off deadly diseases that have wreaked havoc in the past. But, there have to be other reasons that might include the easy spread of diseases today that has evolved because our transportation systems have made the earth so much smaller.
The old motto, "an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure" has always made sense. Why wouldn't you prevent something before it starts instead of allowing it to root and grow and create even more problems in the elimination process? But, have we gone too far? The advertisement goes on to point out that during that same time period, roughly 24 years, that we have upped the vaccination requirements we have had an enormous growth in such neurological disorders as autism and ADHD. Of course, that leads me to ask, "Are we overmedicating our kids?"
Autism is a creature unto itself and one that I truly do not understand. The complexity of that disorder makes me shutter. Might it be Aspergers, Rett's Syndrome or Kanner's Syndrome, the visual I get when I think of autism is not a pretty picture. Granted, I know that some autism victims are rather high-functioning and can deal with society as we have created it. Others, however, are in their own little world and, while I have no desire to visit that world, it is curiosity that makes me wonder, "What is going on inside their head?"
ADHD is another animal that bewilders me. Yes, I know it exists. But, does it exist in the huge numbers that seem to be reported? I don't think so. I have long dreaded the student generated phrase "I am ADHD," when that student simply didn't want to comply with a command or do an assignment. Knowing full well that prior to the expectation of that student, things were fine, I have long suspected that the ADHD label has frequently been used as an excuse.
But I also feel that using that label as an excuse is hereditary. It has long been my belief that many parents have sought out a label for their child because they couldn't/wouldn't deal with the behavior issues of their child. Fine and dandy. But, by securing an ADHD label for their child they put them in direct access to medication that can have some troubling outcomes and it conceivably creates an unrealistic excuse system that might follow that child through life.
Mood swings, confusion, high blood pressure are just some of the side effects of these ADHD medications, especially if they are abused. Perhaps the most commonly known is methylphenidate, better known by the brand name Ritalin. Also on the list is amphetamines such as Adderall and dexamphetamines such as Dextrostat or Dexedrine.
The use of drugs has long scared me. Case in point. I am a product of a pregnancy when thalidomide was widely prescribed for pregnant mothers. Fortunately I wasn't one of the some 10,000 children that wound up with severe body deformities. Then, while in college, a research paper opened my eyes to that tragedy and set the stage for my reluctance to use medicine and my concern that the long-reaching side effects might be worse than the disease/ailment being treated.
Those two events have created in me an abhorrence to drugs. I seldom take them even when I am in pain. I would rather naturally work my way through it and not feel like I could be "overmedicating" myself.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Bad Boys, Bad Boys, What you gonna do?
A recent column in USA Today suggested that O.J. Simpson, since his most recent brush with the law, needed to be removed in some fashion from the Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but I found myself questioning the differences between O. J. Simpson, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds and their impact on the social fabric of our culture. Each, in their own way, present a unique situation that their respective sports of choice must deal with.
O. J. Simpson got away with it. Though one of my dear friends feels to this day that he was innocent of the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman, the majority of America was flabbergasted by the decision of the jury. And the followup civil case determined that O. J. was responsible and he is financially indebted to the Goldman family for the death of their son and brother.
O. J. was anything but a sympathetic client for his legal team. I have often wondered if they believed in his innocence. I just don't see how an educated, logical, reasonable person could believe he wasn't guilty (my apologies to my dear friend). But innocent of murder he is and even his book "If I Did It" doesn't change that. Today, O. J. garners very little respect from any segment of the nation. He is castigated for what we believe he did and got away with.
But, should he be removed from the Football Hall of Fame? Interesting question that is debatable from many points of view. I was in Canton, Ohio that day in 1985 when O. J. was inducted into the Hall of Fame. And what a list of inductees it was. Joining O. J. was Roger Staubach, Joe Namath, Frank "Gunner" Gatski, and Pete Rozelle, the former NFL commissioner. Arguably, it was the greatest class of inductees ever.
Now the big question. Does O. J. belong in the football Hall of Fame. My take is simple and I am sure debatable. But I say he stays. His accomplishments on the football field that won him that honor took place long before his legal difficulties. His legal difficulties had nothing to do with, nor in anyway, were connected to his football prowess.
That of course, forwards the issue of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds.
I agree wholeheartedly with the decision that keeps Pete Rose out of the baseball Hall of Fame and separates him from any activities associated with Major League Baseball. He is significantly different that O. J. in that his betting records indicate he was active in that activity while he was still playing and managing. Despite his denials, we have no guarantee that his betting didn't play a role in his managerial decision making. His marvelous career will always be in question and the vision of "Charlie Hustle" barrelling over Ray Fosse in the All-Star game will never erase the questions marks from what seemingly appeared to be a Hall of Fame career.
Barry Bonds is a story unto itself. He is unique. He is an enigma. I honestly don't know what to do with him.
Case in point. We all have to accept the fact that he is innocent until proven guilty. But all the warning signs are there. His immense body change that comes with the use of steroids is disturbing. His contempt of the media and his unwillingness to talk to the fans through the media is bothersome, though its not much different than the behavior of his father who was a great baseball player in his own right. And the constant fear that his record was not achieved fairly is worrisome. It seemingly takes away from the greatness of Hank Aaron who set the record, certainly, in a fair fashion--with only the hard work that he put in and the gifts that God gave him.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but I found myself questioning the differences between O. J. Simpson, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds and their impact on the social fabric of our culture. Each, in their own way, present a unique situation that their respective sports of choice must deal with.
O. J. Simpson got away with it. Though one of my dear friends feels to this day that he was innocent of the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman, the majority of America was flabbergasted by the decision of the jury. And the followup civil case determined that O. J. was responsible and he is financially indebted to the Goldman family for the death of their son and brother.
O. J. was anything but a sympathetic client for his legal team. I have often wondered if they believed in his innocence. I just don't see how an educated, logical, reasonable person could believe he wasn't guilty (my apologies to my dear friend). But innocent of murder he is and even his book "If I Did It" doesn't change that. Today, O. J. garners very little respect from any segment of the nation. He is castigated for what we believe he did and got away with.
But, should he be removed from the Football Hall of Fame? Interesting question that is debatable from many points of view. I was in Canton, Ohio that day in 1985 when O. J. was inducted into the Hall of Fame. And what a list of inductees it was. Joining O. J. was Roger Staubach, Joe Namath, Frank "Gunner" Gatski, and Pete Rozelle, the former NFL commissioner. Arguably, it was the greatest class of inductees ever.
Now the big question. Does O. J. belong in the football Hall of Fame. My take is simple and I am sure debatable. But I say he stays. His accomplishments on the football field that won him that honor took place long before his legal difficulties. His legal difficulties had nothing to do with, nor in anyway, were connected to his football prowess.
That of course, forwards the issue of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds.
I agree wholeheartedly with the decision that keeps Pete Rose out of the baseball Hall of Fame and separates him from any activities associated with Major League Baseball. He is significantly different that O. J. in that his betting records indicate he was active in that activity while he was still playing and managing. Despite his denials, we have no guarantee that his betting didn't play a role in his managerial decision making. His marvelous career will always be in question and the vision of "Charlie Hustle" barrelling over Ray Fosse in the All-Star game will never erase the questions marks from what seemingly appeared to be a Hall of Fame career.
Barry Bonds is a story unto itself. He is unique. He is an enigma. I honestly don't know what to do with him.
Case in point. We all have to accept the fact that he is innocent until proven guilty. But all the warning signs are there. His immense body change that comes with the use of steroids is disturbing. His contempt of the media and his unwillingness to talk to the fans through the media is bothersome, though its not much different than the behavior of his father who was a great baseball player in his own right. And the constant fear that his record was not achieved fairly is worrisome. It seemingly takes away from the greatness of Hank Aaron who set the record, certainly, in a fair fashion--with only the hard work that he put in and the gifts that God gave him.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Cleaning off the Desk #3
Oh how much fun it used to be. We would sit around in groups and shout out in our loudest teenage voices, "Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun."
The McDonald's Big Mac, a creation of Jim Delligatti, a McDonald's franchise owner in Uniontown, Pa., is now 40 years old. Who can believe it? I am not a regular visitor to McDonald's, or for that matter any fast-food restaurant, but the last time I did eat there, it was a Big Mac that graced my plate. After all, it is the sandwich of my generation. When I first purchased a Big Mac it was a whopping 45 cents. I think its safe to say the prices have changed but the burger is very much like the original.
The numbers are staggering. It is estimated 550 million Big Macs are sold by McDonald's each year--and that's just in the USA. That's about 17 Big Macs per second. Nutritionally, Big Macs are about a half-pound in size, with 540 calories and 29 grams of fat each. Certainly not the kind of item in your diet that will promote weight loss.
But, if you are out anytime in the next few days and have this burning desire to eat at McDonald's, just order a Big Mac and say, as loudly and quickly as you possibly can "Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun."
**************
Have you ever heard of "junk sleep" A small item in The Week dated Sept. 14, 2007, referred to junk sleep as a damaging part of the lifestyle of many teenagers.
Junk sleep is that "rest" obtained while a teenager (although I am not sure it is limited to teenagers) is "hyperstimulated" by the many electronic devices that have overtaken our lifestyles. These include video games, IPods, and the Internet. This hyperstimulation keeps many teenagers from going to bed when they are tired. Then they doze off in front of the electronic device and partake of "junk sleep."
As one doctor claimed, this type of rest is not nourishing to the needs of the brain, thus resulting in many "zombie" like children in our schools today.
******************'
The new TV season is underway and I can say that I am marginally excited. For the first time in years, I plan to check out a comedy. Yes Davis is going to watch a new comedy. Fox will be presenting "Back to You" with Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton. Heaton, a native of Cleveland (yes, Cleveland, Ohio-- "The best location in the nation"), seemed to me to be the heart and soul of the "Everybody Loves Raymond" series...and I thought that before I knew she was from Cleveland. And Grammer has always been a steady comedic performer going back to his days on "Cheers."
Also new this year will be another segment of "Survivor." You don't have to like it, but I do. Its the original reality show in the modern era and its always got some surprises and is always different. Sometimes the bad guy wins, sometimes the good guy wins. Each segment has its own personality and this segment is even more thrilling to think about since it originates in China.
Okay, there are my two series for the year. I hope they are each enjoyable. After that, I don't hold much hope for television, except for syndicated programs of the past. And, yes, I know the lines before they are spoken.
The McDonald's Big Mac, a creation of Jim Delligatti, a McDonald's franchise owner in Uniontown, Pa., is now 40 years old. Who can believe it? I am not a regular visitor to McDonald's, or for that matter any fast-food restaurant, but the last time I did eat there, it was a Big Mac that graced my plate. After all, it is the sandwich of my generation. When I first purchased a Big Mac it was a whopping 45 cents. I think its safe to say the prices have changed but the burger is very much like the original.
The numbers are staggering. It is estimated 550 million Big Macs are sold by McDonald's each year--and that's just in the USA. That's about 17 Big Macs per second. Nutritionally, Big Macs are about a half-pound in size, with 540 calories and 29 grams of fat each. Certainly not the kind of item in your diet that will promote weight loss.
But, if you are out anytime in the next few days and have this burning desire to eat at McDonald's, just order a Big Mac and say, as loudly and quickly as you possibly can "Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun."
**************
Have you ever heard of "junk sleep" A small item in The Week dated Sept. 14, 2007, referred to junk sleep as a damaging part of the lifestyle of many teenagers.
Junk sleep is that "rest" obtained while a teenager (although I am not sure it is limited to teenagers) is "hyperstimulated" by the many electronic devices that have overtaken our lifestyles. These include video games, IPods, and the Internet. This hyperstimulation keeps many teenagers from going to bed when they are tired. Then they doze off in front of the electronic device and partake of "junk sleep."
As one doctor claimed, this type of rest is not nourishing to the needs of the brain, thus resulting in many "zombie" like children in our schools today.
******************'
The new TV season is underway and I can say that I am marginally excited. For the first time in years, I plan to check out a comedy. Yes Davis is going to watch a new comedy. Fox will be presenting "Back to You" with Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton. Heaton, a native of Cleveland (yes, Cleveland, Ohio-- "The best location in the nation"), seemed to me to be the heart and soul of the "Everybody Loves Raymond" series...and I thought that before I knew she was from Cleveland. And Grammer has always been a steady comedic performer going back to his days on "Cheers."
Also new this year will be another segment of "Survivor." You don't have to like it, but I do. Its the original reality show in the modern era and its always got some surprises and is always different. Sometimes the bad guy wins, sometimes the good guy wins. Each segment has its own personality and this segment is even more thrilling to think about since it originates in China.
Okay, there are my two series for the year. I hope they are each enjoyable. After that, I don't hold much hope for television, except for syndicated programs of the past. And, yes, I know the lines before they are spoken.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Questionable Priorities!!
After 35 years in the classroom I have developed certain attitudes about what happens in the public school system on a daily basis. In some cases, my attitudes are very positive, while in others I am just thoroughly disenchanted.
A recent editorial in The Parkersburg News pointed out that West Virginia State Superintendent of Schools Steve Paine identified six "skill sets" that were vital to our youth. These included information and communication skills, civic literacy, thinking and problem solving, interpersonal and self-directional skills, global awareness and financial, economic and business literacy coupled with entrepreneurial skills.
That sounds wonderful. No, its not as easy as the old "reading, writing and arithmetic." But, the world is a much more complex and education has to adjust to those complications.
Honestly, there isn't much I disagree with on that list. But, the delivery and the intensity of what it entails might go past what I believe is necessary or right. Several years ago the school systems began requiring students to choose a major field of study. I laughed, went about my merry way, and told kids to choose their schedule and try to rearrange their majors to fit the schedule they wanted to take. And, I thought seriously to myself, "Surely they (the powers that be) don't think a 15-18 year old student knows what direction they want to head in their careers.
In fact, I consider that plan somewhat counter productive. A student winds up corralled in a field that they have declared as their high school major and then they have very little contact with other possibilities that might open up different doors to them as they mature.
But, what do I know? After all, how many people change their majors two or three times in their college career and change professions several times in the course of a lifetime. The number is staggering. Ask them if choosing a major in high school would have been meaningful to them. I am certain the majority would look at you with a bewildered expression on their face. Yes I know some people know from the get-go what they want to do (I am one of them). Still, I think high school education would be more meaningful if we allowed the student to explore the whole gamut of career possibilities instead of concentrating on just one.
As for Dr. Paine's list, I find very little to disagree with in general, but have some specifics that concern me. I have always been an advocate of civic literacy and was appalled that for a number of years government class was an elective, not a requirement. I taught government for years, registered voters, held mock elections in school and supported elected officials regardless of whether I voted for them or not. Additionally, I believe that one area where we have been negligent is in pushing economic literacy. However, I am not sure these two disciplines can be taught together and that is what the new Civics program is doing. I just do not see how a Civics teacher is going to successfully teach the nuances of our government and political system and do all that really needs to be done to help make students economically knowledgeable.
Case in point. I certainly believe that successfully handling a household economy can be a major task and many marriages fall victim to the inability to manage money. Checking accounts, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, stocks and bonds, interest rates, income tax--the list of economic pitfalls is monstrous. Still, we have lumped that learning skill in with civics. I just don't see how there is enough time to teach and practice economic skills and still learn the intricacies of our political system.
And, I haven't even begun to mention the one area not on the list that I think has been totally overlooked. Can you guess what it is? Here's a pretty blatant hint--The Arts. Oh well, that is another story sometime.
A recent editorial in The Parkersburg News pointed out that West Virginia State Superintendent of Schools Steve Paine identified six "skill sets" that were vital to our youth. These included information and communication skills, civic literacy, thinking and problem solving, interpersonal and self-directional skills, global awareness and financial, economic and business literacy coupled with entrepreneurial skills.
That sounds wonderful. No, its not as easy as the old "reading, writing and arithmetic." But, the world is a much more complex and education has to adjust to those complications.
Honestly, there isn't much I disagree with on that list. But, the delivery and the intensity of what it entails might go past what I believe is necessary or right. Several years ago the school systems began requiring students to choose a major field of study. I laughed, went about my merry way, and told kids to choose their schedule and try to rearrange their majors to fit the schedule they wanted to take. And, I thought seriously to myself, "Surely they (the powers that be) don't think a 15-18 year old student knows what direction they want to head in their careers.
In fact, I consider that plan somewhat counter productive. A student winds up corralled in a field that they have declared as their high school major and then they have very little contact with other possibilities that might open up different doors to them as they mature.
But, what do I know? After all, how many people change their majors two or three times in their college career and change professions several times in the course of a lifetime. The number is staggering. Ask them if choosing a major in high school would have been meaningful to them. I am certain the majority would look at you with a bewildered expression on their face. Yes I know some people know from the get-go what they want to do (I am one of them). Still, I think high school education would be more meaningful if we allowed the student to explore the whole gamut of career possibilities instead of concentrating on just one.
As for Dr. Paine's list, I find very little to disagree with in general, but have some specifics that concern me. I have always been an advocate of civic literacy and was appalled that for a number of years government class was an elective, not a requirement. I taught government for years, registered voters, held mock elections in school and supported elected officials regardless of whether I voted for them or not. Additionally, I believe that one area where we have been negligent is in pushing economic literacy. However, I am not sure these two disciplines can be taught together and that is what the new Civics program is doing. I just do not see how a Civics teacher is going to successfully teach the nuances of our government and political system and do all that really needs to be done to help make students economically knowledgeable.
Case in point. I certainly believe that successfully handling a household economy can be a major task and many marriages fall victim to the inability to manage money. Checking accounts, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, stocks and bonds, interest rates, income tax--the list of economic pitfalls is monstrous. Still, we have lumped that learning skill in with civics. I just don't see how there is enough time to teach and practice economic skills and still learn the intricacies of our political system.
And, I haven't even begun to mention the one area not on the list that I think has been totally overlooked. Can you guess what it is? Here's a pretty blatant hint--The Arts. Oh well, that is another story sometime.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Back to School!!
Today was my first day of substitute work. It was fun. Surprisingly, I felt like a teacher again.
Working at school today was a treat. And, I am scheduled to work the next three days. Students were coming in for their class (thankfully it was a set of small classes) and other students were coming in just to say hello.
Other visitors included former colleagues who immediately wanted to know what "retirement" was like. I never had any idea that people could be so interested in somebody who had left their ranks, but it was nice to be welcomed back by some of my friends.
The real joy of the day was the instructional part of teaching history again. Second block was a quick lesson in party politics, political machines, Progressives, Capitalists and Socialists. Third block was a look at early colonization, England as the mother country and mercantilism. Honestly, since my retirement it was the first chance I have had to be intellectual. Sure, I am doing crossword puzzles and never hesitate to hold a conversation with friends. But this was different.
The attempt to get through the natural barrier that students erect and then tapping into their seat of knowledge was a challenge, and one that I enjoyed.
*******
Speaking of school, it was also a treat to see progress on the new building. The last time I visited was about a month ago and to be honest I never thought that so much could be accomplished in so little time.
The last time I visited school in early August I don't believe any of the construction that was necessary for the start of this school year was completed. On top of that furniture and supplies had to be moved into place, cleanup was a necessity, rooms needed numbered and conveniences such as telephones and Internet needed to be installed.
Now all of that work isn't done. But enough was finished to get school off to a reasonably smooth start and even the colleagues I have left behind feel as good about the start of school as they can considering the trials and tribulations they have been through to get it underway.
My kudos to each and everyone that contributed to that effort.
And my special wishes to the seniors who, for the first time in their high school careers, have tile on the ceilings and floors of the rooms where their secondary education is taking place!
Working at school today was a treat. And, I am scheduled to work the next three days. Students were coming in for their class (thankfully it was a set of small classes) and other students were coming in just to say hello.
Other visitors included former colleagues who immediately wanted to know what "retirement" was like. I never had any idea that people could be so interested in somebody who had left their ranks, but it was nice to be welcomed back by some of my friends.
The real joy of the day was the instructional part of teaching history again. Second block was a quick lesson in party politics, political machines, Progressives, Capitalists and Socialists. Third block was a look at early colonization, England as the mother country and mercantilism. Honestly, since my retirement it was the first chance I have had to be intellectual. Sure, I am doing crossword puzzles and never hesitate to hold a conversation with friends. But this was different.
The attempt to get through the natural barrier that students erect and then tapping into their seat of knowledge was a challenge, and one that I enjoyed.
*******
Speaking of school, it was also a treat to see progress on the new building. The last time I visited was about a month ago and to be honest I never thought that so much could be accomplished in so little time.
The last time I visited school in early August I don't believe any of the construction that was necessary for the start of this school year was completed. On top of that furniture and supplies had to be moved into place, cleanup was a necessity, rooms needed numbered and conveniences such as telephones and Internet needed to be installed.
Now all of that work isn't done. But enough was finished to get school off to a reasonably smooth start and even the colleagues I have left behind feel as good about the start of school as they can considering the trials and tribulations they have been through to get it underway.
My kudos to each and everyone that contributed to that effort.
And my special wishes to the seniors who, for the first time in their high school careers, have tile on the ceilings and floors of the rooms where their secondary education is taking place!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
