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.

Present Perfect – Now Is The Time

Tell me a little about your great-grandmothers on your mother's side.

That's alright. I can't either.

We all live in the present. My new great-granddaughter Amalya will live in the present. My ancestor, Shlah Hakodesh,ⁱ lived in his present. We pretend that it's not true of us – that we are working to prepare a better world for our children and grandchildren – but we're fooling ourselves.ⁱⁱ Did our ancestors prepare for us?ⁱⁱⁱ The real truth is that they were concerned with their own problems, and the reality is that we're thinking about ourselves, not our descendants.

It's true of all of us – we live “now.” But what that means is a little more confusing.

If I never knew my great-grandmothers, you can be certain that I can't tell you much about the time before I was born, apart from what's in history books and in cosmology texts. The eternity that preceded me is all but a blank slate, and the eternity that will follow me is even more so. We live between eternities.^iv With the help of “futurists” we can make some intelligent guesses about what is likely in the very near future, but that period, one that is disappearingly short, will have no ultimate significance and will fade into a similarly unknown past very quickly. The truth is that we cannot change the past^v nor know the future. So why bother?

In many ways – in almost all ways – we're like the “lower” animals. They, too, live in the present. They go about their lives as their instincts direct, with no consideration^vi of the past or the future. “Death” doesn't exist for them. Nor do previous generations.^vii At least not as far as we know. Those ideas – especially the concept of death – are burdens of which we alone are aware, and which we have to bear. In that respect, our ability to think and understand are psychologically harmful to us.

Why do we have this capability? What is its origin? The scientists who have described it and who study it are not certain how it came about, but the reality is that we have it. We are conscious of more than just the elements of survival, we're aware of the irrelevant features of our world – the optional ones that pique our interest or affect our emotions; we're capable of understanding, analyzing, and planning. And we know more. So those abilities extend far beyond what was available to our predecessors. Perhaps that's a good thing, but often it isn't. It should be, however we're too often controlled by our own desire to do what we've always done: to live now.

We have the opportunity and the ability, limited as it may be, to plan ahead. Unfortunately, instead of looking for the best answers, we often look for the fastest. We want immediate gratification and quick answers. We don't want to think. It's better to get all the information prepared for us. Whether it takes the form of fast food, Google, or Cliff's Notes, we can't wait. That's what makes us so susceptible to ready-made information – whether it's from the media, the “smart” phone, or grandma. And that's why we're always looking down, at the devices in our hands.^viii We're forever texting or using our latest “apps.” Part of the reason is that we can't tolerate solitude or silence. We live only in the present, but we protect ourselves from it. Any distraction will do.

Some believe they are doing otherwise. They're working to make the world better. Better, of course, means the way they want it to be. Too often they're satisfying their own egos without solving any of the real problems we face. They're spending much of their time arguing with other people who would make the world better by doing the opposite of what they propose. We allow current dogma to dictate the stands we take, even though, and especially because, we don't always understand the underlying issues. We believe the “party-line” ideas to be the best approach available now. If we, or our children have to change those ideas later because they don't work or if they're harmful, so be it. We want to believe that it's about the future, but the present, now, is the focus of our thinking. And we, not them, want to decide what that will be like.

You don't remember your great grandmothers? They didn't know you either. Whatever dreams they may have had about their descendants, they had neither the knowledge nor the conceit to think they could do so. And chances are they would have guessed wrong about the way the world would look, and who we are and what we need. As Yogi Berra said, “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

So it makes sense to live now. It's hard enough to get things right for ourselves. Amalya will do very well without our help. And her great grandchildren without hers.

Next episode:  “42” – The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything.  (see The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams)

I        Author of “Shnei Luchot Habrit” hence Shlah. (Hakodesh means the holy one.) Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz was born in 1565 and died about 1630.

ii        If we really cared about them and their future we'd think twice before increasing the national debt that some generation in the future will have to deal with.

iii      For example, and it's only an example, what steps did our predecessors in the sixth century (BCE or CE – your choice) take to make our lives better? Did they even think about it?

iv       At least that's what the scientists say. But do they know any better than the rest of us?

v        As Big Brother would tell you, that's not really true. All you have to do is erase a few lines from the history books and you'll change the past. At least what people believe it to be.

vi        Of which we're aware.

vii       It's somewhat presumptuous of me to believe that animals can't think and plan, and that they have no knowledge comparable to ours, but that is the commonly held view. While evolution relies on efforts of the individual to ensure the longevity of the species, that is by instinct, not thought. We recognize our inability to converse with them, but that may be our weakness, not theirs.

viii     I was on the subway recently and all I saw in front of me were people looking down at their phones or their tablets. Actually that's an overstatement. Some were sitting with their eyes closed and their earbuds open. When I was young there was a lineup of open newspapers. It was the same phenomenon of distraction from reality, but at least it required more active participation.