Where Have All The Teachers Gone?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/604702/

This article is somewhat interesting. However, what I find most compelling is a segment of the introductory comments, > In 1988, a teacher most commonly had 15 years of experience. Less than three decades later, that number had fallen to just three years leading a classroom. <

This is a serious problem. One of the finest benefits of the former situation was that young teachers were surrounded by colleagues who were able to help and support them in learning to be better teachers. When you have a staff composed almost entirely of the inexperienced, you lose that resource. The next question, the most important question, is why aren’t there more experienced teachers in our education system?

My own belief is it the American educational system is driving them out.   Good teachers want to teach, not train children to take standardized tests. Yet training children to take standardized tests is exactly what teachers are required to do under today’s structures created by educational “experts” who have never actually taught a child in the classroom, much less a classroom full of children.

Strong on credentials, mighty in theory, appallingly ignorant of reality, and firmly grounded in political ideology; these individuals have guaranteed that a good education is a distant memory in the United States.

The Flying Giraffe

So today I learned why pterosaurs could get so much larger than birds. I wondered about that. How could it be that an Azdarchid like Quetzalcoatlus could be the size of a giraffe (!!) while the largest bird was much, much smaller.

I’ve been watching presentations by the Royal Tyrell Museum and found one on pterosaurs.  It turns out that birds are stuck using only their two hind limbs to leap into the air to begin their flight. This limits them. They only have two legs to accomplish sufficient heights to begin flapping. If the hind legs get stronger so they could leap higher, it would add weight and that would require a stronger stroke and larger wings for flapping, which would require more muscle, which would add more weight… this works up to a certain point, but after that you just can’t balance the ratio of the weight to be overcome with the wing load. Eventually the situation degrades into a positive feedback loop.  Birds can only get so big and still be able to fly.

Pterosaurs, however, walked on all four limbs as modern bats do when they are on the ground. And like modern bats, the evidence is that they used all four legs to push themselves up into the air. So the muscles of the wings did add weight, but they also provided extra strength to the wings. This allowed them to leap higher into the air, and still maintain an adequate wing load. They could grow to the size of a giraffe and still fly.

(So why can’t bats get that big? It is peoposed that the answer is due to the fact that bats simply can’t find enough food if they get much larger.  That does not mean that, in the future, bats might not evolve to be as big as, well, a giraffe.)

I found this to be a very satisfactory explanation. I love it when science manages to answer a perplexing question.

I remember teaching science class. I always told the children science was like a never ending mystery story. Every time a mystery was solved it opened up the door for more questions to be answered. It’s one of the things I most love about science. One of the greatest mysteries which fascinated my generation when we were children was how the dinosaurs died out. Paleontologists were also obsessed with the problem, but never could come up with a good answer. A new hypothetical solution would be proposed every few years, only to be quickly be debunked by other scientists.

I remember my excitement when the now accepted impact proposal was first made by Luis Alvarez. Watching it slowly become more and more proven and finally accepted was intellectually exciting and engaging. So also with the mysterious moving rocks of Death Valley or the mystery of how a bumblebee could fly. On the one hand it’s very sad to see the mystery solved, but on the other hand it’s so exciting to learn that there is indeed a resolution and watch the process of that resolution being calculated and determined, and to see how it is finally proven.

My inability to function mathematically put an end to childhood dreams of a scientific career, but my love of science continues.

Unfortunately, I cannot figure a way to post the illustration here. But if you will Google simply three words you’ll get to see it. Type in azdarchid, giraffe, man: and you will see an amazing picture.

Say Again!?

An interesting exchange with a friend on Facebook.

It started with a meme containing a partial quote from Thomas Paine.

L:  “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead...”

(The complete quote is as follows, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”)

Me:  I know. But I do care about America so I keep trying to talk to conservatives and Republicans anyway. It’s a bad habit but at least I try.

L:   so the turn towards socialism doesn't bother your heart for our grandkids? Common Core, learning the Quran and condom races in the 5th grade here are fine with you?

— Picture of an eagle wrapped in a flag banner—

Me: Common core is not in and of itself a bad idea but I haven’t studied in it in sufficient detail to know how effective or ineffective it is. 

Socialism is extremely effective all across all of Europe. Please note that socialism and capitalism are working together there in a mutually cooperative situation. It’s not an either or forced choice false dichotomy as you present it.  I am opposed to mindless cutthroat capitalism that lets children die for lack of medication because they can’t afford to buy it. And equally opposed to any extreme form of socialism which ignores the powers of capitalism.  

I know of no public school system that is learning from the Koran. That is simply a really bizarre statement. But I do know many school districts down south using A very limited interpretation of the Bible as lesson plans. Jefferson was right, there must be a wall of separation between church and state.

I have never heard of anything so insane as condom races in the fifth grade. Where do you get this information? Please state some sources. If you state the sources I will check them out. But without sources for such weird statements I simply cannot credit them.

More to come? If so I will add them to this post or to the comments below.

A Diatribe With A Side Of Recommendation

 https://quillette.com/2019/12/01/when-disruptive-students-are-coddled-the-whole-class-suffers/

I have two rather different responses to this article.

First, I have a response which, while it is based on my factual knowledge and experience, is profoundly emotional. It provides an excellent example of my attitude that both rationality and emotionality need to work hand-in-hand in order to create a balanced view of the world and, indeed, of reality itself.

Second is my own response to the problem; and it is a very real problem with which every educator has dealt to one degree or another. That is, how to deal with disruptive students.

I will begin with a set of excerpts which I found to be emotionally triggering. (Please forgive me for borrowing a term from those I refer to as the woking brain dead, but it is an effective descriptor in this case.)

> The worst-behaved students effectively are taught that the rules don’t apply to them in the same way they apply to others. <

And > ...where a single agitated student has the power to seize control of any classroom he pleases.<

Finally, > And to the extent that student misbehavior is seen as being a product of trauma, anyone who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating that trauma. <

I tried to find evidence of the author’s source of his presumed expertise. I didn’t find any evidence that he ever taught in the classroom or worked with emotionally disturbed children.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply profoundly ignorant of reality.  Otherwise, I would be forced to conclude that he, like so many who made comments on this article, simply believes in magic punishment. Personal responsibility is of course one essential element of proper emotional development for all human beings.  However, to dismiss the fact that children who are this emotionally disturbed are often victims of horrific abuse including being burned, beaten, and otherwise abused with the statement that one “who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating the trauma” is an appalling attack on the needs of the most damaged and vulnerable members of our nation.

Most disciplinary action normally taken against a healthy, emotionally sound student, if taken against such children, would in fact be exacerbating the trauma. Stating a fact is not making an accusation.

I find the author’s opinion, which appears largely to be let us discipline these individuals as if they were not traumatized children, to be morally repugnant.  I note in the comments a cold, callous and inhuman response on the part of many. The conviction that the way to handle brutalized, traumatized children is to punish them more effectively is inappropriate even in the last century. These children are not being taught to “seize control”.  They are desperately acting out their terror and their fear of being placed in a situation where they feel profoundly threatened. No child wishes to have other children laugh at them, or fear them, or condemn them for being strange. assuming that these so troubled youngsters simply need discipline or isolation indicates something is very very wrong with a person who expresses that opinion.   The spread of civilization and the advance of our culture should have gone beyond this.

So many who have never been in a classroom except as a student, so many who have never worked with the emotionally traumatized, so many who know nothing of the reality of these situations are so ready to make their arrogant, smug judgments. I spent much of my professional career dedicated to working with the poor, the traumatized, the wounded children of our society.  At least when I open my mouth, you know that I have some experience upon which to base my opinions and my judgment.

End diatribe. Begin recommendation.

One of the points which I found irritating is the suggestion that suspension is some sort of magic solution.  Suspension works only when parents respond appropriately to it. One of my students was a particular problem. Although I knew that it would inevitably follow its normal course there were times when I simply had no choice but to suspend him.  The  problem was that once he was suspended,  he went home, took off his shirt, got on his bike, and then would ride around across the street from the school laughing at all the children who were denied his freedom. Then he was off to whatever adventures he wished, since his parents took no action in response to his discipline.

In short, any disciplinary action can be effective if it is appropriate to the child and if the parents are supportive of the school. Any disciplinary action can also be counterproductive and damaging to discipline if it is inappropriate to the child and the parents do not support the school.

As a few commenters pointed out there are very effective programs which can actually help troubled children.  Obviously, they should be utilized. However, I must acknowledge that the author makes one excellent point which must be implemented for the benefit of all, including the troubled children.  

When the policy of placing children in the “least restrictive environment“ was first adopted in California, I was a young teacher. I was asked by our district psychologist to attempt placing such a child in my class.  I thought the idea was an excellent one and gave it a try. To some extent it was successful. Although he did require a great deal of my attention, he was certainly not disruptive or a problem.  I found, however, that the other students tended to take advantage of him. 

So in a sense it was not a success. The least restrictive environment for this youngster was an environment in which he was not in a position where other students would take advantage of his trusting nature. This is the point to be made. Students who are truly emotionally disruptive and may throw a tantrum in which they endanger themselves and other students are not being indulged when they are not suspended. The abuse that is occurring is not abuse by that child. The abuse is being accused by a system which has placed them in an environment in which they are emotionally incapable of functioning.

To repeat for the sake of clarity , a least restrictive environment is an environment in which both the child and those surrounding the child are sufficiently secure that they can function effectively. The mistake the overly liberal are making is thinking that least restrictive is a term which simply means placing the child in a normal classroom. But that is extremely restrictive for a traumatized child. It is in fact in itself a form of abuse.

The problem is complex and difficult. Simplistic solutions will not be effective. There are many ways in which children can be at least partially integrated into the normal school environment. These should be employed. But magic punishments have never worked. They never will.

Restore Factory Settings?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/opioids-pot-criminal-justice-reform-helped-undermine-decade-s-war-ncna1108231

An interesting article, but it doesn’t seem to clearly make the point that the war on drugs was a guaranteed failure from the very moment it was conceived. (With the exception of its suppression of racial minorities elements, which I will not address here.) Quite a number of us knew this at the time and asked, isn’t this just Prohibition all over again? Didn’t that do no good at all but in fact made the mafia great and powerful? Won’t this just do the same? And it did. Obviously.

The biggest question is, why do we do such stupid self-destructive things?

Isn’t it possible that we human beings could actually do things that are rational and sensible instead of things that are hysterical and self-destructive? It’s possible. But we rarely seem to do it...or at least all too often we go for the hysterical and self destructive.

Why?

Because our emotional default setting, our factory setting, is emotionalism. It’s clear why emotions evolved. They allow us to act without thinking. They guarantee behaviors that might rationally be rejected in favor of evolutionary preferments. For example, an individual might logically choose to save himself at the expense of his children. Emotions will direct him to save the children, which saves the passing on of his genes. It might be argued that you can always have more children, but that may not be true. Furthermore, how many children would survive childhood if we didn’t feel an emotional need to protect them and care for them? Ignoring the issue of a life-and-death situation, we all know the horror stories of children who have been killed by their parents either Through neglect or physical abuse and that’s even with emotions working in the child’s favor.

To repeat one of my favorite default phrases, we are facultative rational beings but we are obligate emotional beings. That is to say, we can think rationally, but we must feel emotionally. This is not a condemnation. This is simply an acknowledgment of reality. If you discover that you have a tendency toward alcoholism, this does not mean you may as well give up and become a drunk. It means that you must spend the rest of your life being very careful not to fall into that trap. The same applies for tendencies toward cancer, Alzheimer’s, or any number of other debilitating diseases. It follows that if we humans have a tendency to be emotional to the point of self-destructiveness, we must struggle very hard to develop protections against that fate. We must learn to think rationally. We must learn to think objectively. We must simply learn to think.

It is important to note again that we should not give up on emotions. They are essential to our existence. A non-emotional being is a psychopath, if it can even manage to survive. Rather than eliminating emotions, we must learn to control them and to direct them.

This is easy to say; and very, very difficult to accomplish. Yet, in a world in which we are more and more capable of inflicting mass destruction upon ourselves, we must learn to do this. It is a matter of our survival.

Which is an excellent emotional reason to learn to think effectively and clearly.

Bloodletters Unite!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/12/28/the-end-of-education-reform-or-a-new-beginning/amp/

I don’t agree with every point in this article but I do agree with most. It was obvious the moment the great “reforms” were proposed that they would fail miserably and only make things worse. So why did all the experts think the plan was so great? In fact, why are many of them still praising them? Because so many of the experts have never taught a child anything in a classroom. They display high degrees and endless hours of studying about how to do things which they have never actually done. Imagine if, in World War II, instead of pulling our aces out of combat and taking them back to train new pilots we had those recruits trained by experts had never actually flown a plane but had studied and studied how to do so and knew all the theories of how to do it right.

I’m on record as saying and I will repeat again, these modern educational experts with their endless testing and competition theories are the exact equivalent of you going to a doctor with the flu and he declares, “Thyne humors art in imbalance. I shall bleed thee!”

Whose Song Of The South?

https://www.news10.com/news/the-jim-crow-film-that-just-wont-die-song-of-the-south/

An extremely mixed situation. On one hand the Uncle Tom element of the story is undeniable and repulsive. On the other hand, Brer Rabbit is clearly a descendent of Anansi and the other tricksters African folklore has handed down. I find the movie to be both a celebration and honoring of some powerful elements of African/slave culture AND an ugly affirmation of racism. I do not find it surprising that one can find elements of both. Today we tend to insist that everything must be polarized into rigid absolutes. In reality, the situation is often much more complicated.

The film would make an excellent teaching vehicle. I wouldn’t recommend it below fifth grade at the lowest, middle school is probably a more effective venue. The point being that it serves two significant educational functions.

First, a discussion of Jim Crow and thus of slavery. It is a horror of America’s past which is far too often ignored in our schools. I always made a point of dealing with it honestly at an appropriate level for the children I was teaching, but I was a rarity. We did have teachers who dealt with the issue quite openly, including teachers I worked with. But most teachers are uncomfortable with the subject and simply veer away from it.

Second, it opens up the whole of folklore, including trickster tales from many cultures. How these immigrants, whether willing or unwilling, contributed to American culture is a fascinating topic and one which promotes understanding of other cultures and even of our own, which is an amalgam of these many disparate elements.

It would not be an easy topic to teach, and would require preliminary work with the community and administration, but it is one which I think would be of great importance in helping our youngsters to understand our own history and the culture in which they are embedded.