Various Thoughts XVII

Variations on a theme.

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

It's become a frequent occurrence. Sports figures fall to their knees or link arms (or both) when the National Anthem is being played at the beginning of one of their games. They're exercising their First Amendment rights – their freedom of expression. I wonder if they display their love of the Constitution and kneel every time they hear the anthem, wherever they are and whenever it's played, or only when they're in the spotlight and can make a political statement (or are showing unity with their teammates). Does a football star kneel at a baseball game when the anthem is played and everyone is standing?

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

I heard on the radio that the Republican action on the ACA (“Obamacare”) will be defeated in the Senate. The merits of the original bill or the proposed replacement are not at issue here. What interests me is the voting in the Senate. The report stated that four Republicans would vote “no” and, joining all the Democrats, they would prevent the bill from passing. The Senate, and, to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, is ruled by “Groupthink” rather than individual decision making. There is a party position to which all are expected to adhere. It's politics. The candidates for whom we voted based on their expressed opinions on a variety of issues, eventually vote in lockstep, supporting what the party favors and opposing whatever the leaders of the party oppose. There's no room for compromise. In this particular instance there are four Republicans who oppose their party's position. They shouldn't expect party support in the next election if they continue to think independently. All the Democrats are hewing to the line.

And that, sadly, is the rule. More and more supposedly independent “representatives,” our representatives, follow the instructions of party leaders instead of what they have promised to voters. Disregard of the party is of greater significance, and potentially more damaging, than disregard of the voters.

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

I used to think that fashion was a term that referred to clothing, changing annually according to the whims of designers. And it was strictly a matter of economics. By changing what was “in” each year, by building guaranteed obsolescence into every garment, it was possible to stop consumers – especially rich ones – from thinking for themselves. It became a competition. And what should have been choice based on individual preference became adherence to what had been accepted as “right,” at least at that time.

Now I realize that my view of fashion was too constricted, too limited. I had been considering the word while blindered. It's clear now that “fashions” – fads – exist in all fields. All that's required is that the individual let someone else decide what's “in,” and that failure to follow the fashion marks you as an outsider.

That's what has always been, and that's what we see all around us now. Certainly clothing fashions – even lower end, like baggy pants and garments that are torn – are involved (although among a different group from those who prefer Paris offerings) as well as slang, sexual mores, television programs, tattoos and the like. Most significant in my view is the readiness of people to protest whatever the “smart” people tell them is evil. Although the protesters are usually opposed to the “system,” they march at a moment's notice, often without any real knowledge about the particular situation to which they are objecting. But it's “in” to be part of the movement. And even more so to be arrested for “exercising your rights.” Especially if you're a lower level politician who needs the publicity to work his way up. It's in fashion to protest. It doesn't matter what the cause is. Everybody's doing it.

Fashions and fads permeate our society. And you'd better adhere to them or you'll be exposed on Facebook.

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

All of these are permutations of the effect that society and conformity have on the individual. And it's increasing all the time. Soon enough we'll all look alike and have the same opinions, or we'll be ostracized.

September 27, 2017

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.