Our Children, Our Food

To begin with, notwithstanding the title, this essay has nothing to do with Jonathan Swift's proposal. Now that that's out of the way I'll proceed with some food for thought. Note as well that this essay and “Our Children, Ourselves” are a unit totally unrelated to other discussions of parenting and written at a later time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Crediting Hashem for our children and the way they turn out, a friend of mine wrote, “I am a firm believer in that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get. If you are lucky, you can move them maybe an inch, but that’s it.” I'm not quite sure I fully agree with it, but I think my view needs a little expansion.

First of all, as I mentioned in a previous essay, I'm sure the child will develop along the lines he learns from his parents and friends, and from his teachers. But even that needs to be clarified. It's more than I said before. I'm comforted by the knowledge that, according the Jewish teachings, there are three who contribute to a child's birth, the mother, the father, and Hashem. But it's not over with that. What comes next is of great importance, not only to them, but to the society, and the world, in which they live.

There's an old, and bad, Jewish joke – a chestnut as it were – that claims to express the meaning of our holidays and our celebration of them. It boils down to “They tried to destroy us. We won. Let's eat.” As I said, it's a bad joke, but in its own way it explains a lot of what we understand about our children and our religion. All references to food and Judaism begin with the “Jewish mother” who is forever trying to feed us – to stuff us – no matter the circumstances. She is our first teacher. We get our initial education along with our mother's milk. It may start as simple comforting and feeding but, sooner or later, leads to the simple stories and ideas of our people. And later on, as the parents set the table for Shabbat dinner, they are preparing their children for the Shulchan Aruch. Certainly the bentching following the meal does so.

Those considerations, however, raise the question of how are children are fed both physically and spiritually. Before Sinai the Jews wailed for food and water. Perhaps, however, they sought Hashem's laws which hadn't yet been revealed. Perhaps their hunger was not only for physical food but for the Torah that revealed to them how they were to live. It would be from the Torah that learned both of their heritage and their future. That was the mahn and the water. And the quails as well. And there they would learn other lessons as well. They'd learn, along with all the other mitzvot, that, according to the laws of kashrut, they should not be eating whatever they want, but what Hashem wants. And they would learn from what they ingested into their mouths and minds, both the physical food and the message it transmitted.

They would also learn, after being instructed to “love the Lord thy G-d with all they heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” that if they turned aside from Hashem … the land [will] not yield her fruit.” The words come as part of a paragraph which deals with reward and punishment and, equating “fruit” with Torah and the halakhot, it tells us that if we do not follow Hashem's laws, they would not be ours. A meet punishment.

The same prayer, the Sh'ma, tells “And these words … thou shall teach them diligently unto thy children.” In the end the goal is “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land that the Lord swore unto your fathers.” Both we and our offspring will be rewarded if what we feed them is not only food for their bodies but for their spirits as well.

It is interesting to give thought to the excesses of learning, for that can be understood to be the transgression of the rebellious son mentioned in D'varim (Deuteronomy). His gluttony can be understood to be the eagerness to go beyond the Torah and learn false teachings. “They [his parents] shall say unto the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” That is how his parents might describe the behavior of a son who has strayed from his tradition. He has ingested words and ideas other than those of Hashem, and it is as if he had eaten of foreign fruit.

As parents we have a responsibility, along with all the others, of feeding our children nourishing food for their souls as well as their bodies.

My friend accepts the idea that children are unchangeable. It's possible that we have the same view, only that when she believes “that what you get in the nursery after they are born is what you get” she is presuming that the development that we teach and encourage is already built into our offspring no matter what we do. Perhaps, but I think it's our responsibility to help them along even if they don't need help. We learn that Hashem's omniscience is compatible with our free will. Similarly proper training of our children does not interfere with the development He plans for them. It is an aid not a challenge. After all, all three of us participated in his (or her) creation.

Let's eat. Spiritually. And let's feed our children the same.

August 31, 2017

There He Goes Again

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but (and I've said this before also) I'm not interested in rereading all my previous essays to make sure I'm not repeating myself.ⁱ One of the joys of aging is that we say the same things over and over. (My wife has heard some of my thoughts and stories ad nauseam, but wedded bliss also has a down side. She knows that, and she usually suffers in silence.) That, of course, is not the only reason I cover the same territory more than once, but my life up until now isn't changing and whatever I've thought I've thought, and whatever I've read is read, so all I have are the resulting views, even if I don't know where particular ones came from. It all forms part of my past experience, which is the major source of my current ideas. And it's well known, and has been for a long time, that there is nothing new under the sun. So if you've heard this before, remember that its repetition is better than the sun burning out.

I have some recommendations for parents. In my infinite wisdom I've lectured them before about how to raise their children, but I want to add to it. It's about education. Although I spent most of my career in medicine in academic settings, I'm not a professional educator. I've never taken courses in how it's done. I've relied on the enjoyment of my subject (Radiology) and the irritating ability I have to needle my students. And to make them think for themselves. And they catch on because they are learning the subject since they want to – they're well beyond the age of compulsory education but they're in the process of learning a trade.

In any case the subject of interest – childhood education – has piqued my interest because of the fact that I'm aging. Never having studied the subject, and having neither basic knowledge of it nor experience in it, I can be completely objective. Lacking the tools of the trade and a life devoted to childhood education, I won't be bothered by subjectivity. I'm purely a dilettante, but so, I suspect, are some of the “experts” who write books and make wise recommendations on the subject. If they can do it, so can I. Judge for yourself.

There seem to be some subjects that I tend to forget as the years pass, areas of interest to me in which I know basic concepts but not all of the ones I've learned more recently. All sorts of memory aids are available, in terms of advice about how to remember and, especially, a plethora of herbal products that their promoters claim will make your brain younger.

And that's just what I need – a younger brain. I need a brain with fewer vascular plaques and more neural connections. I have quite a few, and they've served me well, but some of them don't seem to be working as efficiently as they were in the past. It's not a unique experience, but it is an aggravating one. Some of it may have been avoidable and some inevitable. And I cannot discount the contribution of aptitude to acquisition of knowledge, nor aging as a reason for its loss, but there is certainly a contribution to learning that is based on the input of facts and skills at an age when the brain is prepared to receive it.

And that's what I want to discuss. It's well known that children learn fast – faster than us adults. Which leads to the obvious lesson. The earlier you start to educate your children the better the result will be. It's become an industry – partly sensible, but too much of it is without merit. And too much of it involves parental pressure rather than presence and encouragement.

It is undeniable that professionals are better prepared to conduct educational programs at all levels, but the competition for seats in the “best” schools, and early registration in order get a place for children, is not the way to go. And pressure on children to get high grades is little more than a form of bullying. That's not to suggest that doing well isn't desirable, but too often approval is withheld by parents seeking perfection. (On the other hand, rewarding everyone for everything, including just showing up, limits the value of merited praise.)

Additionally there have been gimmicks. One of the most famous and popular of the commercial entries into the market has been “Baby Einstein.” It is claimed to heighten a baby's understanding of the world around him by the use of classical music. It's alleged that the stimulation that the music provides will lead to an improved vocabulary. And because a parent can “educate” his child without any personal involvement or expense of time it's popular.

However it doesn't improve vocabulary. What seems to help with vocabulary is vocabulary. Surprise. Not a list of vocabulary words read to a baby, but talking and reading and an honest show of affection. Attention and concern (especially by a parent) are necessary. Babies learn a lot, and they learn fast, but they can only learn what we teach them. Perhaps those exposed to Baby Einstein will wind up with increased ability in music, but that wasn't the goal.

Language is skill that babies are best prepared to learn. So childhood is the best time for them to learn it. Even more than one language – preferably separating one from another. As we age we lose the ability to do so. Polyglots usually start young, even if they don't finish their education in the subject until much later. In the meantime they've learned how to learn. They may not be aware of that. It may simply be the development of certain neural pathways, but it's there. And they learn from others, whether parents, teachers, or peers. Language, especially, may be learned on the street from friends. Interaction is important, so recordings aren't likely to achieve very much. Perhaps in the future that interaction will be provided by computer applications, but for now we need people. A machine, however, cannot replace a loving parent or teacher or a friend.

There are, of course, some areas of study that flourish even without parental or societal reinforcement. A genius, after all, is a genius. Math, physics, chess, and some other theoretical subjects (even music) are often beyond the grasp of parents. But encouragement and concern are not. And love is not.

There are no gimmicks. There are inborn abilities and there is love. It's less expensive and far more efficacious than what they're hawking, and what zealous parents are buying. But it takes time and it takes true concern. Sadly that's too high a price for some.

December 6, 2016

I     I'll try not to repeat this idea too often in future essays, but trust me. I'll forget.

Death, Ethics, And Education

Triaging has been a feature of medical care for a long time. It's a method for sorting patients so as to make the best use of limited resources. According to the usual pattern, patients are sorted according to the following plan:

           Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those who are unlikely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome.

Medical attention is initially addressed to those in the third group. They're likely to be the most “productive” recipients of the limited resources.

Ethicists have discussed the proper husbanding of medical resources in view of the costs that have a significant effect on society. Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, raised a sensitive issue, fearing that the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels” which would decide where limited funds would be used, and deny care to some elderly patients. Denials followed immediately, but the issue, once raised, concerned a lot of people. The patients, especially the grandmas, for whom most of the fear existed, were often those who would best fit into the third category: immediate care might make a positive difference. Whether true or not, it raises serious questions about our use of funds.

I'm 78. I have no school-aged children. But I pay school tax. Long ago I had such children and paid the Day School where they were educated. And I paid the school tax in addition to the tuition. And I've paid ever since although I've never had children in public schools. That allows schools to collect money from all of us for students it doesn't educate. (Actually, international statistics suggests that it doesn't do a very good job for those it does try to educate.) Attempts to get “vouchers” authorized, so those who wished to send their children to private schools would not have to pay twice to improve the quality of the learning in general, and in particular areas, were always opposed by teachers' unions, and always failed to get approval. It was maintained that they'd take funds away from public education. (As does the Department of Education – bureaucrats who supervise the states.) That's true, but vouchers would probably allow children to get a better education – rich and poor alike – if they could choose the school they attended. But besides acting as a prod for professional improvement, such a system would also cost the jobs of some union members, and this would be intolerable, despite the fact that some teachers were not up to the job.

The complaint was also made that vouchers would aid parochial schools and thus constituted a violation of the first amendment by destroying the separation of church. The Constitution, of course, has no such mandate – only against the establishment of a state religion. That, however, doesn't stop opponents of vouchers from protesting. And it doesn't stop them from bowing before the god of public education.

(The ante has been raised. Because those with college degrees earn more, and there is a history of free municipal colleges, there is a movement to once again offer free education for almost everyone. Who pays for that? And do we need more cabbies with college degrees? )

Suppose the ethics panel considered the use of public money for an educational system that was functioning poorly. Would they approve the use of limited resources for a failing system when other options existed? Would they pay for the education of all comers, irrespective of qualifications or interest?

Another question that comes to mind is based on the reality that there seems to be no limit on the resources used to save a preemie or an otherwise damaged newborn. No expense is spared and publicity is extensively lavished upon successes. Thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars may be expended. An additional result may be the markedly increased expenses required to educate these children, which come from the costs of educating others – including the disabled. Do panels of ethicists ever ponder the morality and the wisdom of using limited medical and educational resources this way? I don't mean to suggest that we should withhold care from those who need it – preemies, the disabled, or grandmothers – only to raise the question of how we choose to use our limited resources.

It's basically a political issue. There are repeated and angry demands from all interest groups for the funding of their needs. Where do the funds come from? The treasury that contains our tax money. And the two opposing views of what funding should take place are those of ideologues.

Liberals: We are obliged as a society to care for our most vulnerable citizens, if that is possible. If it's not possible our ethicists will tell us what to do.

The costs should be born by the rich.

Conservatives: You get what you pay for.

They get what we pay for.

Perhaps we should reconsider, or even triage, taxpayer expenses with the aid of ethicists who consider all our problems, and all aspects of each of them.

Learning

Advice to writers: Write about something of which you're relatively ignorant.

Yes I know that contradicts the usual advice which is to write about something you know, but I don't agree. First of all it will give you the opportunity to follow the old comic routine, “Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.” More important (and less preposterous) it will provide the opportunity to learn about something which may have always interested you, but which never reached the top of your list.

Most important, however, it gives you the chance to think “outside of the box.” As an outsider you're not weighed down by what everyone in the field “knows.” Perhaps the cognoscenti would all remind you that there is nothing to be gained by “reinventing the wheel,” and that the best step forward is from “the shoulders of giants,” but you realize that a “wheel” is not likely to help you in your quest, and that stepping off shoulders will leave you flat on your face in front of those who preceded you. Ignorance gives you the chance to say something new and different about a subject already filled with “common knowledge.” Maybe you'll be wrong, but what you say will be honest, and faithful to your most important reader – yourself.

Several years ago I wrote Haggadahs (books delineating the meal service for the holiday of Passover) for my children. They included commentary on ancient history and religious practices, based on my own ideas. I was ignorant of what Judaism's sages had to say about the same issues during the millennia of our existence, but that didn't daunt me. I suspect that I contradicted many of them, but I'm satisfied with what I said, and I'd be surprised if some of my thoughts weren't on the mark.

Today's discourse will adopt the same approach. It's about education. I'm not a professional educator (I've taught medical students and residents, but that's more like apprenticeship – not that apprenticeship is such a bad thing. Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere served apprenticeships, and they turned out alright) but that won't stop me because I think we're missing on some important points. My ideas certainly aren't original but that's okay with me. They're based on the obvious – what I consider to be the goals of education: to prepare individuals to live in their society, to ready them for most of what they'll encounter over their lifetimes, and to provide them with the knowledge and skills to practice the professions that society requires. I'm aware of the fact that people are different: different in goals, skills, and interests. No, there's nothing new in what I'll say, but much of it is currently out of date; it doesn't conform with modern educational thinking. What follows is not a comprehensive plan, only some thoughts. To wit.

I'm an unswerving supporter of a common core. There are certain skills that everyone should have, though individual limitations may govern the level of proficiency achieved, and they are based on (are you ready?) the three R's. Basic literacy and numeracy are more critical for any society than rocket science for a few intellectuals. (Of course the basic scientists will tell you that pure science – science for its own sake – is a worthwhile investment of public funds. It may not pay off for hundreds or thousands of years (long after the taxpayers funding it are dead) – or not at all except to satisfy the curiosity of those seeking grants to fund their projects – but it's more important than other undertakings.) Of course we should be prepared, even at an early age, to offer some highly motivated and talented (chosen by tests, professional evaluations, or whatever methods work) students special tracks in fields like science, mathematics, and music, where early learning has the potential for producing geniuses, prodigies, and the like. But for most, a grounding in fundamental skills should be contained in the first lessons they receive. (Morality and ethics should also be early lessons, although there is certain to be disagreement over what is “right” and what is “wrong.”)

Add to that a basic knowledge of the local governmental system. It may be our wish that democracy would hold sway everywhere, but the minimum is some knowledge of how your own government works. Or doesn't.

[Thought should be given to the international provision of such basic education to poor countries, as the UN attempts to provide health services around the world, and many nations respond immediately to natural disasters in other countries. Indeed, a basic education might, in subsequent years, lessen additional needs for international aid by those countries.]

For many, however, an education of this kind won't be adequate. For them the preparation for a trade is seen either as a necessity or the path to a calling. Whether that trade is plumbing, carpentry, theology, or medicine (or, for that matter, the teaching of art, history, or English) is irrelevant, because all are required by the society in which we live. We'd be in sorry condition if we didn't provide both for those who seek a trade that will allow them to support their family's bodies, and for those who need to feed their own souls and those of others. Depending on their age at the time the decision is made, the education should be tailored to contain both the skills of the trade, and, if desired by the candidate, the theoretical fundamentals and the blandishments which will make him better and happier about what he does, but that needn't be required. Starting earlier, and without irrelevant distractions (an electrician doesn't need to know Greek history, and a clergyman's sermon will be just as good – or bad – if he has no background in calculus) the individual will have more time to learn what will be his life's work, and he'll be better at it.

There's a third group – a varied group – consisting of those at a loss for their future goals and seeking to delay a decision or to find something that interests them, those desiring to have a comprehensive background in all areas, and flat-out dilettantes. Their path is costly and time-consuming, but sometimes indicated – at their own expense. While most of those enamored of a particular craft won't be sidetracked, there's no reason why someone on the trade route couldn't also spend time in some such learning. But it's not a necessity. The program would be what we now call “Liberal Arts.” It's one of the main causes of student debt. It's what made up the classic model of education – certainly for upper class – and has been around for centuries. But its main beneficiaries are tenured professors and those students who want to be supported by their parents for a few more years of partying. And, of course, philosophy majors. What's most important to emphasize, however, is that despite the hype, college isn't for everyone. It's not a “right,” and it certainly doesn't guaranty an increased income – not for those who aren't interested nor those unsuited for higher education, whatever the reason.

A final group is worth mentioning: those who wouldn't be capable of benefiting from any of the usual programs. The reasons are many and include disability, resistance, and disruptive nature. They, too, merit education, but they may not fit conveniently into any of the categories mentioned, though they should not be automatically excluded from them, especially if those trained to recognize potential can do their job (Einstein appeared to be a “slow” learner but he blossomed with time and education).

There are also some general issues that cross some borders – issues that have no relationship to each other but which must be considered when planning an educational system. I'll list some of them in no particular order.

1. No matter how good the teacher, for many students lectures are boring, and involving them through active participation – like a question and answer format – may serve to stimulate greater thought and interest.
2. Someone has to pay for education. Should it be all taxpayers or only those who use the schools? Should industries that will benefit from educated workers chip in?
3. To what degree should we allow “relevance” to guide the choices of the student? Who decides what is relevant? At what age (or developmental stage) is it the responsibility of the student, rather than the parent, to make good or bad choices?
4. Recognizing that children are programed to learn certain things when they're very young (e.g. language), How can we incorporate this into the curriculum? Should everyone get such training?
5. Training in the use of the tools currently in use (nowadays it's computers) and those that are expected to change society (“the next big thing”) is warranted.
6. Students can choose which college they'll attend – at least of those to which they're admitted. Should that be an option in lower grades without affecting their costs?
7. Good teachers are often undervalued by government and salaries should be re-evaluated to reflect teachers' value to society.
8. Mixing students with different abilities is counter-productive. We are not all equal, and egalitarian attempts to make classes diverse so as to reflect society are harmful to everyone, leading to teaching to the weakest in a class.
9. Nevertheless, faculties should be diverse rather than homogeneous, and a variety of opinions expressed.

The most important lesson, however is that students should be taught to learn! Most of their lives will be spent outside of school, and whether they're more comfortable in a classroom, the public library, or in front of a computer, they should know how to take advantage of the situation to learn, and they should want to do so.

STEM And Roots

STEM is an acronym. “Roots” isn't. You'll find STEM primarily in an educational context, and it refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

It became a concern of many American educators and of the government when they saw that our students weren't scoring as high as those of some others – students in other countries – in the scientific and mathematical fields and feared that eventually, possibly imminently, those other countries would pass us in these areas, and take the lead in development of technology. And perhaps that is true already in some areas.

On July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC, the United States landed men on the moon. No one else has done that in the almost 47 years since. So what? Apart from bragging rights and a proof that we were worlds[!] ahead of everyone else I can't think of anything this achievement (and the expense of realizing it) have gained us. I'm sure there are some benefits but I, and I suspect others, cannot identify them.

In the 1940s we split the atom and demonstrated what that can do. It was a great achievement and the techniques we have learned about atomic manipulation have since provided us with nuclear power, but the costs, both fiscally and in terms of human life, have been enormous. There are many who are wary of the risks of nuclear energy, and who feel that the price of progress was far too high.

And there are other scientific efforts both underway and planned, with a great deal of interest in learning about the universe in which we live. They're expensive, but they answer questions (actually much of what is studied is only of interest to scientists, and taxpayers are funding their curiosity) about the origin of everything (some would call that Creation) and maintain our reputation as leader in science and technology. We are acknowledged leader in the area of space technology, although we are afraid that we are not preparing the next generation to maintain that lead.

I have no intent to belittle all scientific advancement – new medicines and technology have certainly increased our life spans and aided many of the poor around the world – but only to raise the question of whether all of what we are doing is necessary or appropriate; and whether it is necessary to solidify our position as leader simply for its own sake. I may be an advocate of free enterprise and believe that the development of new, and marketable, devices reflects the kind of economic system that has made us great, but I also wonder if it's not time that we slowed down. I wonder if, in a society where neither law nor ethics can keep up with science, we're not moving too fast. And I'm not sure we have to be the leader.

What is above the ground is growing far faster than what is below. And, unfortunately, our society seeks to widen the gap between what our scientists can learn and what the rest of us can understand and integrate into our lives. We want future generations of Americans to continue to show our superiority to the rest of the world. The specifics are not important. Improving education in STEM subjects will allow our descendents to glow, irrespective of their areas of interest and irrespective of the value and applicability of the knowledge they gain. They'll be able to move society forward at an ever more dizzying pace than before.

But perhaps the emphasis is misplaced. Perhaps we should better understand our own values before we consider the value of undreamed of scientific advancements. Perhaps future generations will be able to evolve their own scientific advancements – ones they value rather than those we dream up for them. Are we making a mistake when we seek to educate our children to be able to reach and establish new civilizations, while not taking the time and providing the education that will help them to better understand the history and nature of the civilization in which they now live? What is the value of transferring a valueless society elsewhere?

I cannot help but think that we have to slow down. A stem without strong roots is doomed no matter how well developed that stem is. Whatever the importance of scientific education, we should also be teaching our children about literature and the arts; about their own history, government, and society – its values and its laws. And we should be teaching them that many of those values are religiously based. Admittedly there are many among us who believe (they, too, have beliefs) that science is all there is and all that is important to know, but they are a minority and a society that stops for a moment to better understand itself as it is, is preferable to one capable of moving rapidly, but not knowing where it is going.

In My Expert Opinion

(I think) I've talked about experts and expertise in the past. (To paraphrase the Latin translation [from Greek] of Hippocrates – Ars longa, memoria brevis.) I'm fairly sure that I shall discuss this issue in the future as well. But for the moment I want to focus on a single aspect of the subject – only I'm not sure what it is, so I'll just see what develops.

It all started when I was reading about art. Actually art was just one of the subjects discussed in a book I'm reading: A War For The Soul Of America – A History Of The Culture Wars by Andrew Hartman. The book covers a lot of territory, most of which I'll address some other time, but the discussion of art pointed toward a somewhat more inclusive and, in the minds of many, oppressive practice.

The discussion of art as one of the battlegrounds of the culture war (which is basically a war between liberals and conservatives played out in many arenas) centered on the photographic works of Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe (recipients of grants from the NEA – National Endowment for the Arts). Serrano's subject in “Piss Christ” was a bottle of his own urine into which a crucifix had been placed, while Mapplethorpe depicted, among other things, naked men performing acts of sadomasochistic homosexuality. Their exhibitions were viewed by liberals as manifestations of free speech, while conservatives saw them as sacrilegious and, in the minds of many, Anti-American. Liberals felt that any action taken against these exhibitions would amount to censorship. As Senator Edward Kennedy put it:

The American people strongly support public funding of the arts and reject the know-nothing censorship the right wing is trying to impose.

Conservatives thought differently. Most didn't consider their opposition to be censorship, but opposition to taxpayer support of an anti-religious agenda. In the words of Dana Rohrbacher, a Republican House Member:

Artists can do whatever they want on their own time and with their own dime.

But the comment that interested me most was that of the book's author. Hartman writes:

… liberals … maintained that the NEA, representing the national community of art experts, should be free to decide which art merited funding.

There are two important premises of this view: that the taxpayer is obligated to support artistic endeavors, and that the same taxpayer is not competent to decide what he is paying for. Neither are his representatives, Congress. It is the prerogative of “experts,” and the NEA should have unquestioned discretion when it comes to the distribution of funds.

The first assumption, that support of art is a proper government function, is straightforward, though worthy of discussion (I think it is, but there are opposing views), but the second is far more complex. To what degree should unelected “experts” have veto power over the will of the people?

As I said, it's a complex issue. And it really has nothing to do with art, which is simply a single manifestation of the problem. We have, in a little over a century, developed a “progressive” form of government in which experts have the responsibility for making decisions in a wide variety of areas. And those experts control many spheres of our lives and of national policy. We neither choose them nor know who they are. Some are political appointees, sympathetic to the ideas of those who select them and who will last as long as their sponsors. Many are bureaucrats – tenured civil servants who make the rules that are the points of reference by which we live. Congress lays out basic policies, and the experts fill in the blanks. In essence they make the laws, even though from a constitutional standpoint it is the responsibility of the legislators. They also prosecute and judge those they consider violators of their prescriptions.

They're the “experts.” Most of them are people just like us, but they make the rules we have to follow. That's so because either they're smart enough to pass the civil service exam (giving them all but lifetime tenure), or they have been chosen for their loyalty by the politicians in office (to the winner belong the spoils) and are subject to dismissal without notice, by whoever made the appointment, or by a subsequent administration. Political allegiance is more important than expertise. However there's a third group – the real experts. Even they, though, are sometimes chosen only in part because of their knowledge, but also because of their political philosophy. Their scientific judgments are sometimes swayed by dogma.

Perhaps the most prominent group of experts are the Justices of the Supreme Court. They've been acting as experts for nearly the entire duration of our existence as a country. They have arrogated to themselves the role of determiners of the law, and we have not objected. There may even be Constitutional support for that position. In any event it is what has developed and we've become accustomed to live by their decisions, whether or not we agree with them.

But there are numerous such areas, and education is just one. (Others include the IRS, OSHA, the EEOC, the FDA and many more.) People we don't know, and who don't know us, can decide that we need to abide by a common core curriculum, and they can devise its contents. A school board can determine what schools to fund, and who our children's teachers will be (and the teachers can inject their own political philosophies). Perhaps we can choose our own school board and perhaps we can decide whether or not we accept the common core, but those in authority can choose to withhold funds from our community if they don't like our decision, or, like the courts, they can simply declare that decision null. We, however, cannot withhold tax money if we disagree with theirs. Indeed, we're required to pay income and property taxes even if we don't agree with, or require all the services offered. And we have to pay school taxes even if we don't have children, or have removed ours from the public schools – often because we don't agree with the decisions of the experts. But we can't alter their decisions. Our best option is to try to defeat them in the next election. Or to defeat the politicians who appointed them. Meanwhile they're in charge.

Of course we all select experts to advise us of preferred actions. We choose our doctors, lawyers, tax advisors, clothing designers, and a host of others who are better equipped to make technical decisions than we. But we choose them, and we can fire them on the spot if we're not satisfied with their recommendations or outcomes – or even if we are. And their judgments take our wishes into consideration. In addition, whether they're personal trainers, “experts” in parenting, or marriage counselors, we're free to ignore their advice and find other opinions more to our liking. Sadly, the same option is not available when government experts direct us.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of our government to formulate a solution to the problem. We ceased to follow the Constitution a long time ago and have accepted a system that is often not responsive to our wishes. Perhaps there's no going back – perhaps the experts cannot be dislodged from their positions of power – but that's not for me to say. I'd prefer to believe there are those familiar with the system and how to change it who can return choice and input to the taxpayers. They, too, are experts, however, and somehow or other we'll have to keep a tight rein on them.

9 AM And Education

A new, national survey released by the University of Michigan has found that 50 percent of parents who have teenage children would support later start times for high school. Makes sense. The primary responsibility of education is to educate. And if learning is more effective at an hour later than is now the case, it is logical to tailor school schedules to fit. Scientific studies have confirmed the improvement in learning with later start times. The circadian rhythms of teens have shifted, possibly due to staying up late to watch television or to call or text friends, but whatever the cause, they aren't able to learn as well in early morning as they were before.

In addition to the dispute about optimal learning times, here has been a sobering debate over the content of the curriculum, with Federal Government “experts” professing to believe that one “size” fits all and there are standardized examinations that can be used to assess and substantiate that view. Generally such an approach involves elementary school curricula, but authorities believe that there are certain facts and principles that they can delineate which are correct and which they can identify. And those principles are true at all levels.

Not all parents feel that way however, and there have been protests against both the curriculum and the examinations, with many localities rethinking the policy. Parents have a lot to offer. They may not have a union, but their numbers are huge, and when they agree about a policy their view merits serious consideration. That's not to say that they're necessarily right, but their eye is on their children first – before societal concerns. Some changes may need to be made – school bus times, methods of teacher evaluation, and the content of the education for example – but, rightly, they place their children's education first.

And that's the way it should be, not just for them but also because we, as a country, have come to realize that other nations are getting ahead of us in many ways. And some of them can be traced back to the education we have provided for our children. The parents' goal is – and our nation's should be as well – to make whatever changes will ensure a better education for the next generation, and beyond.

The problem is that not everyone agrees with this idea. For some it is more important to “mainstream” our students, to introduce them to the world in which they'll be living, than to give them the tools that will bring them success in that world. That world will, most likely, be in the United States, although with the frequent movement of our citizens around the country, and the inability to guess where any individual may wind up, the most prudent course is to prepare every child to be able to live in a world that contains the average distribution of all American citizens.

The University of Michigan study, however, suggests two things, though: that this is not the best way to educate, and that parents know it. Perhaps the world in which they'll be living won't tailor work hours to fit the sleep patterns of individual workers, but with a better education students whose learning schedule has been optimized will be better prepared for their jobs. And perhaps we are making the same mistake with other groups.

For example, boys and girls learn differently. As one teacher put it:

“For years I sensed that the girls and and boys in my classrooms learn in gender-specific ways, but I didn't know enough to help each student reach full potential. I was trained in the idea that each student is an individual. But when I saw the PET scans of boys' and girls' brains, I saw how differently those brains are set up to learn. This gave me the missing component. I trained in male/female brain differences and was able to teach each individual child. Now, looking back, I'm amazed that teachers were never taught the differences between how girls and boys learn.”

That's not a unique view. The real world may have both men and women, but perhaps classrooms should have one or the other. And perhaps they should have teachers who have been trained in the teaching of the different sexes. If there are different needs we should cater to them. If the goal is education rather than social fashion, greater consideration should be given to the different teaching styles and to separate education for boys and girls. Neither style is better and neither is worse, but they are different.

And just as there are both sexes in the “real world,” there are people of different races, abilities and disabilities, ages, and, whether we want to admit it or not, different levels of intelligence. It makes no educational sense to treat them all alike, with identical teaching methods, curricula, and content. Teaching to the lowest common denominator is neither fair nor educationally sound. And depriving some students of specific content because it will not benefit all, cheats them. Targeted education should be the goal – with the emphasis on education.

It will be expensive. More money will be needed for teacher training, smaller class sizes and thus more teachers, better equipment, educational environments and resources aimed at the targeted groups, and a host of other accommodations to student needs. And higher salaries for good teachers are certainly warranted if we are to attract the best candidates to educate our children. But where will the money come from? I'd leave that to the parents. They're smarter than we are. Whether we'll have to delay our Mars landing by a few years, begin Social Security payments a year later, or take some other steps, I'd trust the parents more than the politicians and government experts. And I don't need a university study to reach that conclusion.

The Olympics, Academia, And ISIS

The Greeks had a word for it. In fact, they had two words: Ολυμπιακοί αγώνες, Olympiakoi Agones, the Olympic Games. According to Wikipedia, the “athletic competition was tied to worship of the gods, and the revival of the ancient games was intended to bring peace, harmony and a return to the origins of Greek life.” So that the games could take place, a truce was declared suspending ongoing battles. And the prize for winning an olympic event was an olive branch. That's not to say that olympic ideals were always met, but those were the goals.

When the games were reinstituted at the end of the nineteenth century, they were restricted to amateurs, the “lovers” of sports, and they were designed to bring peace between nations. Indeed, one of the olympic goals is to “[c]reate a window of opportunity for dialogue and reconciliation, separate from any religious, economic or political influence.”

Unfortunately, the olympic ideals have been sacrificed over the years to dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity. Officials have been involved in corruption, competitors have used drugs to improve their performance, professionals have been accepted into the events, and, worst of all, as time goes by the “games” (they aren't really games any more) have been more a matter of politics than sport. Hitler politicized the games in 1936, and the Palestinians ascended to the world stage in Munich in 1972 by attacking and killing Israeli athletes. High ideals were betrayed – both by the people who were promoting them, and those with a political message.

Academia has seen the same kind of dishonesty. Universities have been functioning for centuries. For most of that time they have been viewed as places of learning, where our youth would be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and to explore the merits of scholarship other than that which they had met earlier. They would have the opportunity to consider and debate views that might be inimical to them, but which they never completely understood before. They expected others to be tolerant of their views as they would reflect on the ideas expressed by those others. That was the point of education: to determine if your preconceived notions stood up to challenges, and to offer counter-arguments to the contentions of others. It was a safe place to express yourself – whether in a formal setting or a bull session.

In recent years, however, those ideals have themselves been challenged and often betrayed. “Relevance” and anti-war sentiment were the themes of students toward the end of the twentieth century, and they were accompanied by the demand for free speech. They insisted that they be heard. It was a time when political sentiment was moving to the left, and they were a part of it. They were liberals and concerned for everyone. So much so that they avoided any reference to others that might be considered derogatory. Language was changing and euphemistic terms replaced the blunt descriptions we had of others (eg “disabled,” “short,” “retarded,” “blind,” “fat,” and the like). You had to be careful when you spoke. But you could speak.

However you can't always do that anymore. Times have changed. Free speech and the exchange of ideas aren't always tolerable on a college campus. That's an overstatement. Free speech is available to protesters and protected classes, but not to those who disagree with them. The “safe space” that once existed in order to allow those who disagreed to air their views without disparagement – and gave others the chance to hear them and, possibly, to learn from them – has been supplanted by a place where only your truths may be spoken and no one may disagree with you. You'll be comfortable and not face the “risk” of exposure to unacceptable views. You may not learn anything, but for your (parents') tuition money you can rebel and protest in peace. Those who disagree will be shouted down (much to the delight of protest organizers and the press) or, if they're faculty members or members of the administration, denounced, and forced to recant or resign. That's not the conventional way to learn about the USSR or Orwell, but it's as close as many college attendees (I hesitate to use the word “students”) will ever get.

It's also close to the procedure of ISIS. They're a bunch of people with fixed, if somewhat frightening views (and a huge income from stolen oil). And they don't tolerate disagreement. So while rioting college students may sometimes force university officials to apologize for disagreeing with them, at the risk of having to face sanctions – they must plead for their (academic) lives – from their faculty organization or the administration, ISIS requires more. There must be an admission of evil deeds and a demand that the subject's government change its policies to suit their needs. It is part of a ritual which they videotape in order to get publicity. Then they behead the one who has done the pleading (that's the French Revolution's approach to the problem), unless he converts to Islam and accepts their views. Even then, his future is not certain. There is no truce and the only chance to achieve peace and harmony is on their terms – by acquiescing to their view of the “worship of the gods.” It was good enough for the Greeks, though they were unbelievers and would also have lost their heads.

Dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity.

Perhaps there are times when the end justifies the means. Perhaps there are times when the end is justified. But that's not always the case.

Suppose

 

One of the more vituperative arguments of our time is over what is called “The Common Core.” It's a well-meaning attempt to ensure equal education of all so that no child is “left behind.” The improvement of the education of our children is a praiseworthy goal. And there is a basic body of information they should all share – whether its immediate use can be identified or not. The classical college education with a core curriculum illustrates the validity of this concept (although it is undeniable that some colleges have wandered from long-standing ideas of what constitutes a classical education and adapted the core to reflect current fads and fashions).

But, as far as the “Common Core” is concerned, the aim of many is also to establish a tool for comparing students and educational institutions, and to evaluate educators. Implicit in the concept are the assumptions that all children are equally able to absorb the education offered, that identical educations are appropriate everywhere, that one set of “experts” can, and should, make all the decisions, and that standardized tests are the best way to guarantee comparable evaluation. In short, all students, whether they have an IQ of 80 or 130, are the same (yes I know that people consider the IQ a poor indicator of ability, but I don't), and there is a single ideal way to determine knowledge. Teachers, moreover, can be evaluated by their adequacy in filling the children with the particular “facts” that make up the government approved warehouse of necessary information and ideas.

But granting the sincerity of its promoters – if not their wisdom – a significant fault of the concept, as seen from a distance by an amateur, is that the children are taught things, and that teachers are rewarded for drilling them in that kind of knowledge. Certainly such education is important, especially as a starting point for younger children, but it seems to me that it's more important for them to discover how to learn and how to think. And it's a shame. Kids have rich imaginations, and simply stuffing their minds with facts rather than encouraging them to learn some of those facts on their own, or to work out solutions to problems they can imagine, that they face, or that society has faced, sells them short.

Suppose, for example, some kids were asked to consider, and write about, what would have happened if Alexander Fleming hadn't discovered penicillin. They'd have to read about him, the times, and the results of his discovery, and then one might comment on the value of antibiotics in saving lives, and how the failure to have penicillin (and similar drugs subsequently) might have affected the outcome of the Second World War, while another will, perhaps, be more interested in the what could have resulted if there were no risk of overuse of antibiotics in cows and chickens. A third might choose to deal with “accidents” and the effect of their absence on science, while a fourth would, perhaps, expound on the fate of St. Mary's Hospital without him. The rote memorization of the simple facts of his discovery might fit well on a multiple-choice test, but it would be advantageous to consider the implications of those facts on their times, rather than memorize the facts themselves. Less structured by the specifics, it would give the student the opportunity to explore what interests him, while learning a little history, or science, or whatever. And the students could conceivably raise issues that hadn't been considered already.

Or suppose that the Supreme Court hadn't used Marbury v. Madison as a vehicle for establishing its dominance over the legislative branch of government (and the executive for that matter). What would be the implications in terms of more recent decisions? How would the current controversy over judicial “over-reach” be affected? How would the Judiciary's weakness, as anticipated by the Founders, change – if at all – the decisions about which cases should be judged and what the judgments should be?

What if President Washington hadn't imposed a two-term limit on himself or if Franklin Roosevelt had? How would these events have changed our history? There are many questions like these – perhaps involving Darwin, Napoleon, Einstein, Babe Ruth, or Moses – that would give a student the chance to use newly available technological tools to do research, and would provide a platform to use as a starting point in understanding the events involved and their implications.

The topics chosen – if the students don't choose for themselves – would obviously have to be tailored to different ages, but I suspect that even some younger students would be able to write a few paragraphs on what life would be like without television or pocket telephones (and it certainly wouldn't hurt if they thought about it). Perhaps they wouldn't be able to fully understand the history of those inventions, but they'd probably have some ideass about life without them – especially after reading “Little House on the Prairie” or some comparable work.

And older students could use their imaginations outlining a problem in modern science or society, and suggesting a plan for solving it, without retreating too far into the world of fantasy. Or maybe with such a retreat. It might take some research into current events or technology, but that could be useful – especially for future entrepreneurs. It would also give them the chance to give some thought to their own futures. Apart from future professions, having them consider how their lives would change if they had a baby could affect their behavior.

None of this is especially original (it's probably a standard technique for teachers), but the memorization of uninteresting and seemingly irrelevant facts, however useful it might be on a multiple-choice examination, is unlikely either to excite the student or engage him in learning. Reading, learning, and thinking – not to the book or the test – would probably provide a better hook for involving him. And it would probably interest the teachers more. It might not provide the metrics desired for evaluating students and teachers, but good teachers are the best evaluators of good students, and good supervisors of good teachers.

I suspect, however, I'm living in the past.

Next episode: “Staying Alive” – The goal of modern journalism.

Arts And Science

“[Nobel Prize winner Joshua] Lederberg lets us know that in this sea of democratic relativism natural science stands out like Gibraltar. All the rest is a matter of taste.” Allan Bloom in “The Closing of the American Mind,” Simon and Schuster, 1987.

It doesn't seem to matter what the subject is, there's no debating the almost universally held view that the best way to the proper conclusion – the way to learn what is most important about some particular subject – is by the use of scientific principles; the path to Truth is via Science. (See also essay named “Emphasis” on September 23.)

As a people we have discovered the value of this approach, and we view with approval governmental actions that preferentially support education of mathematics and science over the needs of other disciplines. And sports and nutrition programs, shown scientifically to benefit us all, have also been assisted politically. Our goal is “a sound mind in a sound body.” It became obvious, moreover, that the only way that our country could stay ahead of the rest of the world, or at least keep up, was by maintaining a superiority in scientific achievements. If this meant some loss to the “Arts,” so be it. The superiority of science, and our need for its blessings, dictated an emphasis on it. The important questions will only be answered through science and mathematics. For example, “Multivariate modeling of uncharacteristic harmonics using archimedean copulas,” which was published in 2010 in “Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems,” discusses harmonics, a discovery of the third century BCE scientist, Archimedes.

I won't bore you with any mathematical details, but it must be noted, as is clear from the title, that the fine points of harmonics, one of the primary features of music, were initially demonstrated by a scientist. It is also of interest that much of “modern” music has been described as mathematical. I don't know if that's meant as a compliment or an insult, but it's apparent that the distinctions between art and science are not always clear. Sometimes art and science overlap. A beautiful sunset may move a physicist who can explain its technological aspects, but not its effect on him. Although these examples don't prove the point, however, I doubt that we are placing the emphasis where it belongs when we laud the superiority of natural science. And that's what we do.

When I was in medical school I was told (by a non-surgeon of course) that you could teach a monkey to operate. What was critical, however, was an understanding of why he would do so. What is also bandied about by scientists is that another monkey, with the help of other members of his species and an adequate amount of time, could write the works of Shakespeare. It was all a matter of chance and probability. It's a clever rhetorical point, but that's all it is. The statistical likelihood of that happening must be less than of another Universe coming into existence through scientific principles. It's nil. And even if it were possible, the monkeys would lack any understanding of what they were doing. They would just be doing. It would be a mechanical exercise which, even if it succeeded, would have no meaning.

Though not as well paid, scientists are a lot like plumbers or electricians. And in a way they're like the operating monkey. Their goal is to do – not really to understand anything beyond their craft. It my be to extend our knowledge of the Universe in which we live, and it may require a great deal of intelligence and effort, but in many ways it is also a mechanical exercise. It is not my wish to denigrate science, but the questions that scientists address are “what” and “how.” At least journalists add “who,” “when,” and “where” to the list to more fully describe their subjects of interest.

But those questions, important as they may be, have no fundamental meaning if we don't know “why.” And that is the realm of the Arts and the Humanities rather than the Sciences. And the domain of religion. Science doesn't deal in values. (In that way it's valueless.) Astrophysicists may be able to tell me when the sun will burn out, but – and it doesn't embarrass me to say so – I don't care. In all likelihood I won't be around to see it.

But I'm here now. And I don't know why. And there are others around. Who they are (philosophically), how I understand them, and how I interact with them are of far greater concern to me than what some mathematical formula or scientific theory will disclose. And those others. How they interact with their fellows could have a far greater impact on the lives of my children and grandchildren than any scientific hypothesis. I'm far more fearful of a modern military conflict than of a future astronomical cataclysm.

There is no foolproof solution to the problem. There are too many fools and scoundrels around. And there are too many whose knowledge doesn't extend beyond their own needs. But it is reasonable to assume that the more fully that people have been educated to the way others think, to their values, and to the conditions that make life “livable,” the fewer and the less violent our future conflicts will be. And that is the purview of the humanities and the arts. “Music hath charms …” but first we have to hear and understand the music.

We must, in addition, understand each other. And ourselves, for without insight we lack any form of sight, and are unable to appreciate the needs of everyone else. We need to learn what science cannot tell us – what it cannot measure. History, literature, art, and all those other “irrelevant” disciplines reflect wisdom, and they are far more important in the long run – and, even more so, in the short-run – than mathematics and science. That is what we should emphasize in the education we provide for our young. “Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.” – Immanuel Kant. “Choose life.” – Deuteronomy, 30:19.

If there must be scientists then, and if they require projects to occupy their minds, we would all benefit if they would turn their attention to determining why some people don't respond to the arts and the humanities, and to find a cure for this affliction. Gibraltar's flowers are of greater significance than its rock. And “democratic relevance” must give way to human understanding.

Next episode: “Words Fail Us” – And vice versa.