The Apostle Thomas earned the moniker "Doubting Thomas" because he voiced a need for proof regarding the Resurrection. In matters of Theology and Religion, doubt would not often be considered a good thing. However, the bible also contains a quote about the "way, the truth, and the life" in such a way as to equate these three as components of Jesus. I can only speculate about what they way and the life might have meant. I am no theologian. It seems plausible that the way might mean the circumstances as laid out before you at your birth. Life might then be taken as a record of how you performed during your time on earth. That middle part, however, seems less foggy to me. Truth.
Truth as known by an Omniscient Being would be one thing. Being more limited in our capacities and understanding that various tricks of the mind and senses plague our organic brains, truth must have a meaning more approachable to us if the word is to have any meaning at all. We have people who study the concept of truth in detail and it can get complicated the more closely you peer. These people are called Epistemologists. The body of such men studying the concept of truth and knowledge vastly exceed my humble merits. Let us, however, consider truth to be "that which we are justified in belief."
In order to even approach truth we must consider the evidence before us. We must surrender to that evidence and try to listen to what it is telling us apart from what we wish to see or have previously believed true. (Humbleness, I recall hearing that mentioned in the bible, too.) As human beings, frail and imperfect, we are subject to logical fallacies, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and cognitive dissonance. We need a tool of some kind in order to test and confirm our ideas. Science would be a means of doing so, the Scientific Method a tool for doing so, and self-skepticism a mandatory element of such a search for truths we are justified in believing.
Perhaps the Apostle Thomas was too much maligned.
In my observations of the world, I have observed that all of creation is a complicated place. The closer one peers, the more mysteries to discover. It is, perhaps, as if the Universe were a created thing designed to engage the frail human mind and inspire it to seek after truth and knowledge. If so, Kudos to the Creator.
The sun and the moon, for example, capture attention of even the simplest and least civilized man. One is a light to illuminate the day, the other a light for the night. Even though we are told this in the bible, one cannot long look up at the night sky without noticing oddities. The moon changes shape with the waxing and waning phases. A marker for time! The sun also rise and sets at different places. The seasons change and seem to follow the movement of the sun. With a little time, we can learn how many new moons comes between seasons and prepare for the next planting or harvest time. Unfortunately, a lunar calendar falls slowly out of sync with the seasons because the cycles of the moon and the turning of the seasons don't match up. Ah, there are those stars! I can notice groups of stars and use them to track the seasons. Wait! Why do those stars move differently from the others? We'll call the wandering stars planets. Why do they move in those crazy loopy orbits? Ah, the earth and all the planets must orbit the sun!
It is almost as if someone is dropping bread crumbs for us to follow. As if there is a Creator and this entity wants us to be drawn to study his creation. Without skepticism and the reliance upon evidence, we can become self-deluded. We might, for example, declare some people to be witches and do the most horrible of things to them. We need our doubt. We need our skepticism. We need to question what we are told so we can check and we can see if what we are told stands to reason.
Conspiracy Theorists start, of course, with what they might call skepticism. However, in their hands it looks more like motivated reasoning whereby all 'evidence' is filtered out or distorted unless it backs up the pre-existing agenda. A little skepticism is a good start, but you have to dismiss your skepticism if the evidence shows otherwise. That is to say, it is important to be skeptical of your own beliefs and to thereby test or validate those beliefs before getting too far ahead of yourself.
I appreciate a healthy degree of skepticism and this leads me on some of my wanderings across the depth of human understanding. I ran across a blog called "Doubtful" which seemed promising. Some of the children that I am blessed to know call me their uncle despite any affinity through kinship. One of these children had taken to watching ghost hunting shows on television and seemed to believe in ghost hunters and that these shows had "proved it." I tried to walk him through a bit of skepticism, but in reading Sharon's blog, I discover she has devoted a far greater amount of time to this endeavor and seems particularly shrewd. I think a homeschool education curriculum might do well to assign reading from his blog as homework.
I found value also in this page: What is "Scientifical?" This seems to be clearly useful to me in building a discussion about skeptical thinking with relation to science. At the least, it seems like a solid starting point for a lesson. For example, it would be possible to play a video of a commercial and ask questions regarding the techniques of that commercial. Arming your children with this tool to pick apart attempts by advertiser to deceive or mislead... this can be a worthy accomplishment. Providing this type of a lesson would provide your homeschool child with a tool not commonly given to them from a standard public education.
Finding this, retained my interest and I continued looking and uncovered another page entitled, Sham Inquiry Behold! Another link, more resources and more of the things that I seem to feel need to be said.
"Genuine science is self-correcting, requiring new input, peer review and
open criticism as part of the necessary process. Science requires
skepticism and considers this quality necessary for science to progress
in a positive direction. If any theory, revolutionary or conventional,
has sufficient evidence, it will be considered. If it is show to be
valid, it will eventually be accepted as knowledge. If the scientific
methodology is not followed, or just selectively followed, it can’t be
called science." ~~ Doubtful Blog: Immutable
Sharon shares many articles well written in her attempts to help people inculcate a balanced and healthy dose of skepticism. By reading the list of articles to be found at the bottom of the Sham Inquiry page, you can develop in your homeschool child a practical dose of experience in seeing through misleading, deceptive, or self-delusional beliefs they are almost certain to encounter in their adult lives. In particular, with this aim in mind, one might engage in further reading at the "Doubtful News" in the form of their Media Guide to Skepticism.
Homeschooling: Careers without a college degree: Police
In my eclectic reading, I can across a career choice for young people involving the police academy. In this case, I am reading about the St. Louis County Police and Fire Training Center. As I understand, one can be hired by a local police department and sent through the training as a part of their employment. The costs out of pocket are limited to around $500. This might be a reasonable path to independence for some responsible young people. Homeschooling could tailor the child's education towards this path, making them more attractive on paper than someone with a more traditional high school career. A GED [1], of course, is required.
I decided my kids need to learn critical thinking skills. Today's lesson for Aiden went as follows:
Daddy: (Monstrous) "I'm going to EAT you, it is good for your healthy growth and development." Aiden: (Feigned horror) "No, daddy. Eating is bad." Daddy: (Inquiring) "Do you need to eat to grow?" Aiden: (Confused) "We eat food to grow." Daddy: (Malevolent) "Ah, then eating is necessary for growing." Aiden: ??? Daddy: (Monstrous voice) "See! Eating is good for your growth and development. Now I must eat you!"
....
This logical fallacy is called false equivalence. Obviously, it is
nonsense as eating food and eating babies is significantly different. It
is a false equivalence. What I pretend are equal are different because
of a different use of the word.
When I was a child, my
father was my Sunday School teacher. As you might expect, this meant
that bible study was considered somewhat important. In particular, I
recall to mind now a bible story about Doubting Thomas. Religiously,
this Apostle seemed not highly regarded for his doubt.
Science
is different. In science, critical thinking and skepticism are good
things. Much of scientific thinking can be thought of as similar to
keeping your room or your person neat and tidy. One good way of keeping
your room tidy, is to get rid of what you don't need. Critical thinking
and a healthy dose of skepticism allows a scientist to determine what
beliefs are rubbish and should be discarded.
Neat and Tidy Beliefs.
Anyone
have a mess in their room that could be lessened by getting rid of
things they don't really use anymore? What things might you get rid of
to make your room or playroom more tidy?
We
are a Science Club, but in order to understand science, one must also
understand what science is not. One way we can do this, is to look at
where science comes from originally. From what seed did science grow?
We
have minds that are curious about our surroundings. We look and we ask
"why did this happen?" We want to know "what does it mean?" If we are in
the middle of a jungle and we hear a rustling of leaves off to the
side, we instantly assume "something" is making the noise. Something,
that is, which might be dangerous. We would do this for a good reason.
If we assume it is something.. say, a tiger.. and it turns out to be the
wind we are still safe. Contrariwise, if we assume it is the wind and
it turns out to be a tiger... well, not so good for us.
We
also want to feel safe and secure. One way of achieving this is to have
some control over our surroundings. Yes, we have shelter. Yes, our
crops are growing. But, what makes the rain? How can we guarantee the
rains will come?
Creating Rain?
Does anyone remember how I described a
witch doctor trying to create rain? Does anyone know of a way we might
be able to make it rain with science?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
A
Witch Doctor looks at the sky when it rains and sees lightning and
hears thunder. Since flashes of light and crashes of thunder occur with a
heavy rain, he assumes that making flashes of light and creating
rumbles of noise like thunder will bring rain. This is magical thinking.
It is also a fallacy (mistake) of reasoning (logic). In this case, confusing cause and effect.
If the young "magician" performs his ceremony enough nights in a row,
it might happen by chance to rain. He might then take this as validation
(proof) of his ritual's effectiveness. This belief appeals to his emotions.
Feeling he has some control over his environment, which is necessary
for his comfort and survival, he is motivated to believe.
Once he believes his magic works, he will be subject to confirmation bias.
He will want to confirm or support his existing belief. We do not like
to surrender our beliefs easily. They become precious to us, like our
children. Looking at evidence which weakens our belief can make us feel
anxious, uneasy, nervous, and stressed. There is a term for those
feelings we'd like to avoid, cognitive dissonance. A person who engages in motivated reasoning will distort evidence, deny observations, or entirely ignore data that seems to disprove their existing belief.
Magic
doesn't work. If it did work, it would be reproducible. If it were
reproducible, it would be testable. If it were testable, it would become
Science. How did we move from Magical Thinking to the Scientific
Method?
How did we get from Magical Thinking to the Scientific Method?
New people are born all the time. They are not
born believing in the magic rituals, they must be taught to believe.
Eventually, someone will come around who isn't convinced that
drum-beating and torch waving produces rain. He, or She, will question
the existing assumptions. History is not always kind to those who choose
to question tradition. For example, if Sam the Savage were to suggest
to the village Witch Doctor that his ritual wasn't bringing rain, the
Witch Doctor might claim the ritual didn't work because Sam the Savage's
doubt angered the weather spirits. The Witch Doctor might even convince
the rest of the villagers that the only way to appease the anger of the
weather spirits required Sam the Savage's untimely demise.
Look out, Sam!
What
do you think about the Witch Doctor's suggestion? Is killing Sam the
best action? What do you think the villagers can do? Is the Witch Doctor
falling back on motivated reasoning to protect his precious belief?
Playing by the Witch Doctor's rules, can the ritual be disproved?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Assuming,
Sam the Savage manages to avoid a grizzly fate, his skepticism subjects
the rain ritual to a test.The great advance of the Scientific Method
lies simply in understanding a need for subjecting a hypothesis to
skepticism and testing before accepting it as belief. If the ritual is
proven false, then Sam's skepticism has uncluttered his village's
beliefs. Rejecting false beliefs makes room for the discovery of truths.
Let us imagine a group of people in a distant age who
have discovered metals. There are different types of metals. If we mix
some metals together, we get an alloy with certain properties. Mixing
others results in other alloys. For existence, brass is a mixture of
copper and zinc. Bronze is copper and tin. Steel is iron alloyed with
carbon. Copper, zinc, tin, iron, and carbon (which is not a metal) have
their own properties but if you mix them in certain amounts you get
something that looks like a metal but has different properties.
Brass
is good for use in decorations because it looks golden. It is also
useful for things like locks, gears, bearings, and ammunition casings
were low friction is desired. Bronze, meanwhile, is harder than brass
and was once useful for armor and weaponry like swords. More currently,
bronze is often used for cymbals and bells. Steel, of course, is harder
than bronze and commonly used in buildings and machinery.
Alchemists
thought all metals were alloys of different materials and supposed gold
to be the most pure metal. They sought for what they called the
Philosopher's Stone in the hopes of learning how to transmute lead into
gold.
"The alchemist maintained that all
the metals are compounds; that the baser metals contain the same
constituents as gold, contaminated with various impurities." ~~ Fairy Tales of Science by John Cargill Brough 1859 ( http://www.archive.org/stream/fairytalesscien00brougoog#page/n104/mode/2up )
They
were mistaken, but we should not treat too harshly the alchemists of
old. We cannot clearly draw a line separating the alchemist from the
chemist. "Alchemy is ancient chemistry, and chemistry modern alchemy."
~~ John Cargill Brough. Over time, people with questioning and skeptical
minds (like Sam's) pruned away false beliefs. In some ways, this is
like the philosopher stone.. by removing impurities you wind up with a
far more valuable product. In this case, reliable knowledge as opposed
to gold.
Air, Earth, Fire, and Water
Alchemists divided the world into four elements. Three of these we might call the phases of matter. Solid, Liquid, and Gas. Then they also had fire. Today, we would like to talk about this "element." Let us allow John Cargill Brough explain things from his perspective (as of the 1800s) : Fairy Tales of Science (Audio) ( http://archive.org/download/fairytalesofscience_1203_librivox/fairytalesofscience_03_brough.mp3 ) (The discussion of fire ceases at about the 8 minute mark.)
Experiment: Fire's oxygen dependence
Materials:
* Large Pot (deeper than jar candle)
* Jar Candle
* Lid closely fitting pot.
Procedure: Place the jar candle in the stock pot. Light
the wick. The spark of heat is sufficient to melt the wax. The liquid
wax is drawn up the wick to the flame. The heat of the flame vaporizes
the wax which can then burn freely. The heat liberated by this burning
is sufficient to maintain the reaction.. that is, keeps the fire
burning. The gasses of combustion are hot and will tend to rise. As the
hot gasses rise, cool (fresh) air falls into the pot to replace it. This
cool air brings new oxygen.
If the lid is placed on top of the pot, the candle will burn for a time and then be suffocated by the build up of carbon dioxide from the flame.
Experiment: Carbon Dioxide Gas to smother flame.
Materials:
* Large Pot (deeper than jar candle)
* Jar Candle
* Vinegar
* Baking Soda
Procedure:
Place the jar candle in the stock pot. Light the wick. Pour vinegar into the pot around the base of the candle. Slowly add baking soda to vinegar and watch reaction. The bubbles produced are carbon dioxide gas. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and will collect at the bottom of the pot. The level of carbon dioxide gas will build up until it rises above the level of the jar candle. The carbon dioxide gas will then pour over the sides of the jar candle and smother the flame.
From these two simple experiments, we see that fire needs three things. These are collectively called the fire triangle. Fuel, Heat, and Air (Oxygen) are needed to maintain the chemical reaction we call fire. You can put out a fire by removing any of the three components. For example, a lighter only remains lit so long as your finger is on the button. When you lift your finger off the button, a sort of valve closes and the fuel (a combustible gas) is no longer provided to the fire, which goes out. A candle which consumes all the wax also goes out. We've seen how a fire can be suffocated by preventing fresh air (and oxygen) from reaching it. You can also put out a fire with water. Water cools the fire, robbing it of the heat necessary for ignition.
Why can you put out a flame by blowing on it? Which of the three sides of the fire triangle explains why the candle flame goes out?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Experiment: Campfire Basics
Materials
* Tender (Drier lint, sawdust)
* Kindling (Twigs)
* Fuel (Logs)
* Fire pit or portable grill.
Procedure: Using the Fire Pit or Portable Grill, try to light the logs (Fuel) with a match. Try to light the twigs (Kindling) with a match. Now try to light the drier ling or sawdust (Tender) with a match. Observe which one lights most easily. Why do you think this is so?
Reaction speed, why is it harder to light the Log than the Tender?
If my car weighs 4,000 lbs and a young girl can lift 10 pounds, then 400 girls acting together could lift my car. The limiting element in this scenario, is getting all 400 girls where they can place their hands on the car and lift at the same time. The same thing happens with starting a fire. Only the outside of the wood is exposed to air. Only at the outside of the log can the match be pressed. So there is a very small area where fire can happen. (Any wood beneath the surface can't burn because oxygen can't get there and the heat of the match can't penetrate the physical layer of wood very well either.)
Surface area is important for a reaction to take place. In the case of the tender and even the kindling, there is more surface area exposed to the air whereby the reaction we call fire can take place. Therefore, it is easier to light tender than logs.
Tender, however, has a high surface area and burns up quickly. If we want a cook fire, we do not want to be constantly piling leaves into the fire. The tender can create enough heat to ignite the kindling. The kindling can create enough heat to light the logs. The logs can burn for a good long time.
Experiment: Campfire Building
Materials
* Tender (Drier lint, sawdust)
* Kindling (Twigs)
* Fuel (Logs)
* Fire pit or portable grill.
Procedure:
When building a campfire, start by gathering the wood you will want to use. You will need a little tender to get the fire started; Some twigs for kindling to get the fire going; Then large logs to use a consistent fuel. To be on the safe side, you should have three times the fuel you expect to use.
The site for the fire needs to be prepared. A prepared campsite might have a ring of stones. If you are going to be starting a fire on the dirt, you will want to clear away vegetation to a fairly good distance. Ten feet is a reasonable suggestion, but if the weather has been particularly dry greater precautions might be justified. Grass is flammable, depending on how dry. Sparks can also be wind-blown up into trees, which are another cause for concern.
Fire is a good servant, but a terrible master. ~~ Proverb
Campfires are like children; it is best to have clear and established limits. Fire, not well tended, can grow quickly out of control. Once this happens, it is you that must run around to contain the fire instead of the fire that meekly cooks your food.
For our purposes, we will use a portable grill as this greatly simplifies matters.
Benefits of a Portable Grill.
For purposes of starting a fire, a portable grill has some advantages. What advantages to you think are to be found in using a portable grill as opposed to starting a fire on bare ground or within a ring of stones laid upon the ground?
A portable grill simplifies the process of preparing the site for a fire. As the legs of the grill lift it off the ground, the impact on the campsite would be minimized. Furthermore, some fire pits also allow air to come up from underneath the fire as well, improving ventilation and thereby allowing more oxygen to reach the site of ignition.
When laying out the fire, you are arranging the tender, kindling, and fuel in a way that allows convenient access to the tender while also allowing good air flow. Tender does not burn long, but it quickly catches flame and provides heat. A teepee arrangement of sticks helps by allowing room for air to reach the tender but also trapping the heat produced by the tender's flame to ignite the kindling which will in turn perform the same service for the fuel.
Another arrangement which is sometimes used when lighting a fire is a "log cabin" fire where the branches are laid out in layers each running parallel to the layer before. Which arrangement do you want to try?
The term "High-Stakes" testing comes up in this video wherein the MAP testing requirement for some Seattle schools is no longer mandated. Some other method of assessing the student's performance is required, but this need not be the MAP testing. In this video, they do provide some explanation why the MAP testing isn't seen as a good thing. Of course, I don't imagine students like standardized testing, but their reasoning seems to go farther than this.
It seems well-reasoned. It would be nice if the money spent on testing could be spent on education. Some parts of the argument do not resonate so well with me. Unlike some opponents, the teachers are suggesting an alternative assessment.
Yong Zhao seems better educated and reasoned than other attempts at opposing Common Core. It would be foolish for me to lightly dismiss his experience and knowledge. I can, however, state with some confidence a few things.
He seems to favor individuality, and I can agree with that. America should be about diversity. Diversity of perspectives and opinions working together. There should be a respect for liberty and an individualized approach. Not all children learn the same or can be taught via the same toolset. I would assume there are many educators out there superior than I who can discuss this.
He does not make this a political attack against Obama. Or, at least, he conceals this which is refreshing at least. Some people, particularly Conservative Republicans, will oppose anything Obama promotes. Not because it's bad; they oppose everything blindly. This is exceedingly unwise. It builds a partisan attitude which does not respect a diversity of perspectives. Conservative Republicans seem disadvantaged when it comes to addressing evidence and employing reason. They engage, excessively, in highly motivated reasoning. They begin with an agenda; they work to that agenda while ignoring, deflecting, distracting, or distorting all available evidence to that end. They are blind; they have eyes but will not see. They are deaf; they have ears but will not hear.
Obama is not a saint; nor is he a devil. He is a popularly elected second-term President of the United States. The will of the people have spoken and they asked for him to lead. The Republican approach is inherently disloyal to the political process of America. Their own vested interest should, in their eyes, be imposed on others. This, I fear, is the tyranny which they seem to fear but cannot recognize in themselves. They cannot see it, perhaps, because people can be terrible at seeing through their own delusions.
Common Core may not be a good thing. If, however, it works for weal or brings about woe, this should be assessed on the merits of Common Core as opposed to knee jerk opposition. The American education system needs improvement and reform. The question needs to be asked, does Common Core offer any advantage over the existing, fractured system.
People greatly value their autonomy. The imposition of a set of standards can seem intimidating. The lack of autonomy hinders a person's ability to freely respond to their circumstances. This is also seen in nature as individuals of any given species all possess some slight affinity for variation. Some variations are superior to others and, in the event of unforeseen circumstances, these variations can have surprising benefits. For example, an animal may vary in a way that generates feathers and these may slowly transition into the gift of flight. The advantage of flight could not have been understood or expected from the first evolution of feathers. So, too, it may be that the variation in the approach to the educational system can lead to variations in outcomes which, although difficult to foresee, can lead to variations which are well suited to exploit some heretofore unforeseen circumstance.
We do not want to become cookie-cutter clones of each other. Diversity is good. The problem here lies in the tendency for Conservatives to not value diversity. The people promoting the Common Core educational reforms are more Liberal. We should expect to be able to reach such people with an appeal to maintain diversity within our education system. The contrary cannot be expected for the Conservative agenda. Therefore, while it seems this is something to keep an eye on, we would needs be more fearful if the transformation were being spearheaded by Conservative groups.
Yong also seems to want to transition what he sees as a left-side of the brain intensive education into a more right-side manner. Here, I must admit to having read somewhere in the past that this whole turn of phrase.. right-side vs. left-side is overused and inaccurate. It is possible, however, to understand the gist of what Yong advocates. He wants a more creative education. The question would be, can you educate creativity? If so, how do you do it?
He is arguing, as it were, in a vacuum. Let me explain that. Our existing education system is left-sided, not right-sided. No Child Left Behind is the existing system. Yong does not state that No Child Left Behind is better than Common Core at educating towards a creative intelligence. To oppose Common Core on these grounds, one would have to show the existing system in some credible way superior to the proposed changes. He has not done so.
Uniformity, while something we fear being enforced upon us, is also something we greatly prize. Widgets are made all exactly the same. Assembly lines intend to create exactly duplicate goods. We understand that uniformity and organization brings efficiency. We can see, through the evolution of businesses within our economy, what systems produce goods and services of reproducible quality and, thus succeed. Chaotic, fractured, inconstant, business models do not seem to be highly successful. In order to oppose uniformity in the education system, one would need some credible reason to believe that education operates differently than any other process in our economy.
And, as far as I can see, it does not. To do my job, for example, you have to pass a test by the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification board and engage in Continuing Education on a two-year cycle. If you want to complain about teaching to the test, it might be prudent to realize that some jobs revolve around being able, specifically, to pass a test. Doctors, like my employer, must also routinely take and pass tests in order to continue practicing. Lawyers must pass the Bar examination. How can you change the education system without changing the workforce requirements?
Yong may be very right about profit in finding some way of educating young minds to be more creative and flexible. But, as there is no plan on the table for accomplishing that, it doesn't make sense to criticize Common Core education reforms. For many occupations, we much teach to the test anyway. Creative intelligence is difficult to test, assess, measure, quantify, etc...
I got to understand and know Yong Zhao a little better form his response to Marc Tucker. The response seems to me to have very understandable and expected errors of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. I am, of course, always more comfortable talking to educated people because even if they have such biases, they have a more organized style of thought and it does remain, occasionally, possible to have a conversation.
It is hard to not have an agenda; a challenge to identify our biases and work to minimize them. Yong Zhao's background, coming from China, seems to have set him against a test-heavy mentality and State directed education. He has some good points about education becoming obsolete with a change in culture. We cannot expect Yong Zhao to lightly change his opposition to the Chinese style of education.
I can see his perspective. However, there is also a clear and defensible perspective in this video that he simply remains incapable of seeing. A great measure of intelligence and a healthy store of education does not necessarily help one critically and skeptically address their own biases.
There are many things in the video which will not resonate with Yong, but will resonate strongly with others. Consistency and fairness. The idea that the same student in different cities would be receiving a different education. We would like to know that a Grade Point Average of 3.8 in Seattle meant the same thing as one from a school in Chicago. When these kids go to college, their respective GPAs might be put in competition against each other as if they were equal. There is a measure of apparent unfairness in such a system. Yong, although undoubtedly more educated and intelligent than I, simply cannot see this point.
However, we cannot expect a Knife to serve the same function as a Hammer nor a Bolt to serve where a Nail works better. Instead of trying to tear down a great mind with significant education, allow me to try to see where he is seeing clearly and where he has something worth considering. That is, let me see the strengths of his position instead of merely seeking to immediately reject his position. Let me avoid or resist the temptation towards motivated reasoning.
We have an example of a system from Yong's experience and perspective which was in place in China. He tells us of the problems he saw with such an enforced set of standards. The phrase used is "high-stakes testing." Education is high stakes for the children. I have seen teachers who are dispassionate and merely hand out pamphlets. See also: Jeff Bliss (viral video), "there are kids in here that don't learn like that." Some stakes for teachers seem like a good idea.
As a part of the education system, we would expect people from Yong's perspective to take the side of the teacher's union. Now, I expect Unions strive to protect the jobs of their members. As such, it would be reasonable for a Union to wish to avoid or defeat any imposition of a standard that holds teachers accountable. However, there are teachers who have achieved tenure that need a little shaking up.
Zhao: First, it is not true that “it is now more important than ever to
figure out what all young people need to know and be able to do.”
Zhao is addressing Tucker in this excerpt. He quotes a British Philosopher advocating education reform from 150 years ago and illustrates briefly some continued effort at establishing standards. Zhao suggests, "There has never been a lack of attempts to figure out what all young
people should know and be able to do, consequently there is no shortage
of standards around." He also comments that "America did just fine as a Nation" without being able to come up with a set of standards.
As the times change, we would expect the standards to change as well. Given the power of tradition and the reluctance to change, we would expect periodic pushes being necessary to update those standards for the same reasons they were originally attempted. Establishing standards has been happening in the education system and will continue. Common Core doesn't change that. Common Core is merely the latest attempt at defining and establishing standards which may need to shift to keep pace with shifting times.
I cannot validate Tucker's claim that it is "now more important than ever," but I can suppose that every time someone has advocated for education reform and the establishment of standards that they have probably believed that it was "now more important than ever." Conversely, while portraying a continued effort at establishing standards, Zhao doesn't seem to establish a reason for believing it is not, in fact, "now more important than ever." Of course, it is hard to prove a negative.. as I recall hearing. Zhao does not believe there is anything particularly important about establishing standards. Or, at least he says he doesn't.
Elsewhere, Zhao has mentioned a changing workforce and, specifically, suggested a need to move away from a testing-heavy education system (left brained) to a more creative education (right-brained). He seems to have assessed the world as reaching a particular place of change where it is difficult to fathom what skills might be needed in the coming years to succeed. He has said that globalization has brought vast changes.. which, stated another way, would seem to support the perception that “it is now more important than ever to
figure out what all young people need to know and be able to do.”
In other words, he rejects a sentiment by Tucker because it supports Common Core but in another place has used a very similar argument to oppose Common Core. This is one of the ways to identify a particular strain of motivated reasoning.
Zhao says, "The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that either there are no
standards in America or the existing standards are not good enough." Now this seems fairly well defensible, if one takes the or into consideration. Clearly there are standards, so the full statement is a waste of time. So, removing the useless bit, we get: 'The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that the existing standards are not good enough." This is immanently logical. As the world changes, existing standards will no longer be good enough. Standards much change with a changing world.
But, is there any evidence that Common Core is better than previous ones? Zhao would like to know, but he forgets to turn the question around. Is there any evidence that the existing ones are better than Common Core? Clearly, in some states of our Union, there is reason to believe quite the opposite. For example, in any state who's local standards support teaching Intelligent Design as a "theory" on an even footing with the Theory of Evolution.
Creationism is religion. Evolution, even if it were wrong, is Science. A State's local standards that can possibly confuse the two is 1) a violation of the separation of Church and State in my opinion and 2) evidence that the standards in place are not good enough. There is no marketable value in teaching children Intelligent Design or muddying their understanding of Science and the Scientific Method in this way. Do not misunderstand me, you can teach your children any religion you like. Just don't pretend it is science. We must needs teach our children to identify and reject motivated reasoning, and trying to validate Intelligent Design accomplishes the opposite. There are no marketable jobs to be found from an understanding of Intelligent Design. Truth is not a matter of opinion.
I don't expect Zhao to read my little blog. I don't really expect anyone to read it. However, even if he did, I don't expect I'd be able to change his mind about anything. Even so, I would hope that he would agree with me that some autonomy to set standards at the State level aren't exactly helpful and that States pressing to put ID on the same footing as Evolution are no less tyrannical than the education system in China from which he fled. I would imaging this would very much look like forcing propaganda down the throats of the young and impressionable. I have done a little reading on Mao. I would really be surprised if Zhao can't see the comparison.
Zhao includes an anecdote to support his views, without realizing that the same argument can be turned around against them.
An anecdote: For hundreds of years it was possible for the adults in my
little village in China to figure out what all children should know and
be able to do: handling the water buffalo was one for the boys and
sewing for the girls. My village was small and isolated, with around 200
people. But that predication became invalid when China opened up to the
outside world in the 1980s. The common standards in my village proved
to be wrong later in at least two cases. First it did not work for me. I
was pretty bad at what my village’s Common Core prescribed (handling
the water buffalo) so I had to do something else (coming to America to
debate with Marc Tucker, for example). Second, it did not work for the
rest of the children in the village either, because working as a migrant
worker in the city is different from handling a water buffalo.
How would it be possible for education to be under any more "local" control than parents? In his own anecdote, he shows how local control failed to work. Common Core does not suggest such a limited education where boys are taught only one skill and girls only taught one other skill, both of which later prove inadequate in changing times. To attempt to defeat Common Core by such an anecdote seems clearly to be a Straw Man Logical Fallacy. You are not defeating the point under consideration, but substituting a vastly inferior point to defeat.
Aristotle believed that virtues were the means between two extremes. To endorse an excessive Federal control of education might lead to inflexibility which is damaging. And yet, to endorse too little oversight allows for a different set of abuses. The debate shouldn't be between "Common Core is a panacea" and "Common Core is evil." There should be a way to find a balance of concerns, I think.
Zhao asks if truly creative people are passionate about what they are interested in or about what the State feels they should know. And here, he has a solid point. It is far easier to work with the interests and proclivities of the student. By easier, I also mean more effective. I believe that P. T. Barnum wrote about this in his book, The Art of Money Getting.
The safest plan, and the one most sure of success for the young man starting in life, is to select the vocation which is most congenial to his tastes. Parents and guardians are often quite too negligent in regard to this. It very common for a father to say, for example: "I have five boys. I will make Billy a clergyman; John a lawyer; Tom a doctor, and Dick a farmer." He then goes into town and looks about to see what he will do with Sammy. He returns home and says "Sammy, I see watch- making is a nice genteel business; I think I will make you a goldsmith." He does this, regardless of Sam's natural inclinations, or genius.
Barnum, P. T. (Phineas Taylor) (2005-07-01). Art of Money Getting Or, Golden Rules for Making Money (p. 6). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.
Clearly, Zhao has a defensible point in asserting that education must address the strengths and interests of the child in question. He questions whether Common Core can accomplish this. In that, he has what seems to me a defensible argument, especially when one considers his anecdote and experiences with education in China.
And yet, I have also read "The Advance of Science in the Last Half-Century" by Thomas Henry Huxley. And in that book, Huxley explains that the greats like Newton studied science from a pure perspective without paying attention to what advances may come from it. While those who studied electricity did so from curiosity, this information drastically changed the world. Without pure scientific research, great advances cannot easily happen.
Zhao might think this supports his point, which it does to a good extent. Newton explored science because he thirsted for knowledge. Contrariwise, this also supports Tucker in a manner. You cannot know where a child's proclivity may lie. So, if you teach him a broad spectrum of knowledge, it may well be that one bit or another ignites a spark within him. When he goes on to higher education, like College, he may be better able to capitalize on this and individualize his education. Alternatively, once that spark is ignited within him (or her) she may be inspired to study independently and achieve much despite being unable to afford a traditional college education.
My stipulation here is that a student may sometimes need a certain broad exposure to knowledge and education in order to find where their interests lie. A reasonable set of standards can try to establish a broad base of information upon which the student can build what they will. Providing a standard base to children all across American can help ensure that every citizen starts with this broad base of knowledge and can use it as a personal resource. Spark needs tender to ignite. Making sure everyone is provided with a similar store of tender seems just.
Everyone is free to do extra learning on their own.
Zhao: Where do the children learn these and other “unrelated things” when they are pushed aside by the Common Core?
Where do they learn them, currently? You cannot make an argument against Common Core in this way unless the current system is demonstrably better. Is there any reason to believe that Common Core is less suitable to teaching the "unrelated things?" Zhao says they are "pushed aside by Common Core" which implies they are currently being taught. I don't believe that is self-evident.
Zhao: I am very appreciative of Tucker’s understanding of my background
but I am not convinced that the U.S. is immune to the same problems
China has suffered from testing.
Immune, probably not. Although, I would think we possess more than a few rather significant differences from a country run by Mao. I doesn't seem as if Zhao can recognize differences between setting standards via Common Core and through a Communist totalitarian regime completely taking over the education system.
Zhao continues to point out the expected emphasis on testing. He mentions some evidence of dishonesty and cheating on standardized testing. I am fully prepared to accept the probability of this being true. I believe that excessive testing wearies our students and takes from them any love they may have for learning. Accepting Common Core does not make inevitable an excessive level of testing and, I fear, No Child Left Behind has already created such a system. You'd have to explain how Common Core is worse than the existing testing. You can't just purport that it will be worse, you need a reason for believing this.
The end of the article seems to devolve into both sides asserting that one thing or another "simply is not true."
Tucker: It is simply not true that our inability to predict the jobs
people will have to do in the future and the demand of creative,
entrepreneurial young people relieves us of the obligation to figure out
what skills and knowledge all young people need to have before they go
their separate ways, or the obligation to translate that list of skills
and knowledge into standards and assessments that can drive instruction
in our schools.
Zhao: It is simply not true that the Common Core will prepare our
children for the future. To conclude, I quote a comment left on my
Facebook page by one of my personal heros, former president of America
Educational Research Association (AERA) and widely respected educational
researcher Gene Glass:
“Common Core Standards are idiots’ solution to a misunderstood problem.
The problem is an archaic, useless curriculum that will prepare no
child for life in 2040 and beyond.”
Of the two, Tucker is stronger here. Any difficulty that the Common Core standards would have in predicting the jobs people will have to do in the future would be shared with local teachers with more autonomy. Despite the difficulties or even the impossibility of the task, at the Federal or at the Local level, someone has to do exactly this. So, Tucker's "it simply isn't true" is hard to fault.
Zhao, on the contrary, asserts something which cannot be supported as "simply not true." Common Core could do a better job of preparing children for the future than the existing system. As standards must adapt and change with the time in order to be relevant (see Zhao's own record of continuing efforts to upgrade the standards with time) it seems clear that failure to update the standards will eventually cause those standards to become outdated.
He further closes with a style that seems very familiar. He insults. "Common Core Standards are idiots." There is no more reason to accept such a bold assertion coming from Gene Glass, whom Zhao respects than from Zhao himself. As such, it is base name-calling and I would have thought beneath Zhao's education. We need reasons to believe Common Core is bad.. not just fears that it is bad and comparisons to a system put in place by Communists in another country.
So, with respect for Yong Zhao's education, his articles seem full of suspicion, fear of tyranny, and concerns over things that might happen without anything concrete better to offer. He is better educated and better reasoned than other opponents to Common Core, but at the root his opposition is very similar to theirs. Knee jerk reaction against change and government involvement. I can understand why he might have such a response, but it doesn't mean that his background should determine American educational policy.
Today, my research has uncovered the above message, which promises to be a read more worth my time than my previous attempts to listen to Will Estrada's conspiracy theory approach and fear-mongering. This article seems to be from a teacher.
Peg seems to be concerned with the money trail involved in the implementation of Common Core. The first question that comes to mind for me would be a curiosity regarding how she felt about No Child Left Behind. One can argue very persuasively about the fears of a money trail, but if one was silent about the money trail during the Bush Era education reform, I would find their concerns regarding Common Core suspicious. Any education reform will generate a specific need for advice and consulting. The question should be, is this money trail more extensive or more corrupt than the Republican-led effort was. It seems to me that there is always money being spent on education and, therefore, someone is always making money. The question would need to be is this money more wisely spent?
In her argument I see a shade of anti-federalism. She believes that teachers will have less autonomy and control in their classroom. This is a question with two sides. For example, consider Jeff Bliss' video rant:
.
It might be that this teacher is the type of teacher you get when you have a teacher who must teach to the test. She has no autonomy and no control over her classroom because her job and the children's promotion might be tied to test performance. (This is the concern raised in Peg's post.) If that is the case, then the situation Peg worries about already exists. It may be then worthwhile to wonder if Common Core will make this problem worse. Do we have anything more than gut-instinct to work with?
Peg goes on to consider the high stakes tied to Common Core. Making teacher's dependent on their performance on standardized testing could seem to make a teacher more than a little uncertain. Especially, the sort of teacher Jeff Bliss complains about above. On some level, it seems to me, we do want to measure the results of a teacher's performance in order to get rid of the teachers who are not adequately performing their job. On another level, we do want to give students a reason to be motivated to take their education seriously. Holding the teacher accountable for test scores but not the students puts the teacher under the thumb of the students. Doing the opposite punishes the students for a teacher's lack of interest in doing her job (see teacher above). The question we need to be asking here, is how do we achieve a healthy balance?
To be honest, the stakes for a child's education are really pretty high to begin with. This is their future. This is their hope. This is the type of job they can have and the kind of place they can live. Some mechanism for tying a teacher's employment to the actual education the students receive seems prudent. The stakes should not be only high for the students when two parties are involved in the process. And, to be honest, there are teachers who need to be fired so a means, mechanism, an excuse for doing so isn't such a bad idea.
Peg circles back to finance, suggesting that publishing companies will make money by stepping in to save the day. Really, I don't so much care about companies making money so long as the education of our children is improving. Publishing companies already produce textbooks and worksheets. You'd have to establish that Pearson making money from helping to implement Common Core standards wasn't a good use of money.
But what about teacher autonomy, Peg complains. Consider the videos above again. Does that teacher really need autonomy? Does her autonomy actually benefit the students? That said, I will be respectful enough to try and understand Peg's concern. Some of it must come from anti-federalism or some similar fear of Big Brother watching. I do not thing many of us really enjoy being micro-managed in our work. It is stressful and leads to poor job satisfaction. We do want teachers to have enough autonomy to enjoy their work and find it rewarding. However, think to the videos above again. If this teacher only hands out packets and possesses a dispassionate attitude, her kids will not learn as well or as quickly. Jeff is correct in that some kids don't learn that way and this woman isn't reaching them. She will find her students not performing as well on the tests and if she values her employment, she will be motivated to do something different. That teacher doesn't really need autonomy. Contrariwise, a teacher who is able to motivate their students and "touch his heart" will find her students learning more quickly. As such her class, doing better on their tests, will have more time available with which to express their desire for autonomy.
Think about the Classroom. Some students in a given class progress more quickly than others. The teacher must teach at a rate limited to the slower students in the class. Therefor, the students who perform their required tasks more quickly enjoy more time to.. say, flirt or check text messages on their cell phones. In a school system at the teacher's level, we have another organized group much like the individual classroom. The standards have to be aligned so as to be achievable by the lesser quality teachers as well. Therefore, a better quality teacher will achieve their goals more efficiently and have more leeway. The process will continue at the school administration level.
Accountability is a good thing.
Peg's feelings regarding standardized testing certainly seems balanced. To teach a student, as Jeff Bliss tells us, you have to touch his heart. Constantly teaching to the test seems likely to be boring and lead to student lack of interest, burn out, or drop out. Peg says that some schools spend 5 1/2 months of the school year on testing. (Aside: an link to a source would be nice, a certain degree of skepticism is healthy in the reader. We wouldn't want to be falling for someone "cherry picking" their data, and that's what the formulation of this sentence sounds like. By saying "some schools," a person criticizing your assertion musts check every school to reject your assertion. It would have been better for her to give statistics for "most schools" and then point to a source for those numbers.) I don't want this heavy testing to be the case with our students. Memorizing facts and spitting them back out is not very useful in the long run. I'd rather have some way of working towards students comprehending information presented to them. Changes were made to the public school system during the days of No Child Left Behind's implementation. I would like to see the emphasis on excessive testing rolled back.
.
Peg provides a link when discussion the standards and their appropriateness for the level of development where they apply. I'm going to suspect that teachers were consulted in the drafting of the Common Core standards, so this may be question about teacher's disagreeing with the level of development where certain materials are appropriate. At this point, we must digress into the link she provides in order to have some understanding of her perspective. Our current focus is on Peg, so we want to address the link as an aside to be given a lighter treatment.
"New research points to the indivisibility of physical, social,
emotional, and cognitive development. The core standards are based on a
narrow and flawed focus on subject matter in isolation, overemphasizing
cognitive skills at the expense of all others."
A pointer to this research might have been nice to see. Seems reasonable, however. Even so, we would want to know what the general consensus is, not a minority opinion of a group performing new research. "New research" could also show the opposite and the authors of this page might be cherry picking their data.
"The core standards do not provide for ongoing research or review
of the outcomes of their adoption. The entire K–12 standards initiative
is flawed by this omission, which is especially egregious in relation to
the youngest students."
Again, this criticism could be levied at No Child Left Behind as well. To selectively demand such a process for the new education reform while not having the same criticism of the previous administration's push seems somewhat politically motivated. In fact, this isn't a reason to reject Common Core insomuch as it is something people might ask to be added to it.
"Tell your own governor, chief state school officer, and state early childhood specialists about the need to promote play and play-based learning in Kindergarten and the need to protect young children from testing."
I am entirely behind that.
I also checked the sites' "About Us" link. Again, I cannot verify the details listed under their link for "Partners" but it seems consistent with their style of writing and general level of apparent thoughtfulness and concern for the welfare of children. I cannot engage in background checking everything, and I don't want to venture into the territory of being one of the Conspiracy Theory nutjobs. I will now return to Peg's blog post.
....
Peg discusses what "history shows us quite clearly." Now, this is very similar to other bold assertions made. "As very one knows..," "it needs to explanations...," "common sense dictates." Not to needlessly question Peg's honest intent, but this isn't a sort of phrasing I like. She does go on to point to a blog by a Chinese educator. His "Vita" link provides credentials. Even so, Yong Zhao, does not appear to be an educator in China, as seems implied by Peg's blog. (He is referenced after she alludes to China moving away from test mentality.) Reading through the Vita, we can discern that he appears to have come from an education background in China sometime around 1992, subsequently, he appears to have held a number of appointments at various American colleges. (The level of detail he provides about himself is very comforting and does lend to him credibility.) Indeed, his writing seems worthy of additional attention and will be added to my "to do" list.
I like reading things written by people smarter than I am.
"But the Common Core, by forcing children to master the same curriculum,
essentially discriminates against talents that are not consistent with
their prescribed knowledge and skills."
So does the current education system. I suspect you know that. I would like to see more emphasis on solutions than problems. However, I am finding his clarity of thought comforting.
"When we looked at the underlying theories
of mandated statewide testing from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002
(No Child Le ft Behind [NCLB PL 107-110], 2002), Common Core State
Standards, and the proposals put forth in the Race To The Top program,
we found them driven by behaviorism and rational choice theories. Those
types of theories produce policies based on power relationships focused
on efficiency and monitorial control. The fundamental idea of policies
based on behaviorism and rational choice is that some policy body (e.g.,
State Education Agency (SEA) or U.S. Department of Education) develops a
set of expected education outcome measures, monitors the relationship
between the measures and school processes through a monitoring device
(e.g., high-stakes test), and then implements rewards or sanctions to
attempt to change behavior through external force to maximize
performance on the monitoring device."
I include this paragraph for two reasons. Yong has, in fact, addressed No Child Left Behind. The second reason to include the quote involves thoughts that occur to me as I read it. It can lead one towards having anti-federalist thoughts. I mean, it can do this in a way that makes sense as opposed to seeming paranoid. One of the advantages a system of governance like America enjoys is a diversity of perspective. A consistent education could be a good thing, but could also limit diversity of perspective. A lot depends on how the matter is accomplished. Perhaps that autonomy Peg mentions can help ensure some variability which may well be helpful. Nature does not know which variations will be helpful, but by chance some variations are found to be helpful and worth being retained by Natural Selection.
Yong has said elsewhere that we cannot predict what the jobs will be in the future. This may be a very valid reason for wishing to retain a diversity in our education system. Perhaps, even though we cannot foresee the future, some individual variability of teaching mechanism could produce certain individuals well-suited to some heretofore unexpected advance in technology.
....
Returning to Peg, she also earns some respect by the implication that she reads from sources like Yong Zhao. It further supports her status as it seems unlikely that anyone who is not a teacher and an education advocate would be likely to know of Yong's writing.
Peg's sixth problem seems to have already been addressed when I touched on Pearson publishing and making money previously.
Peg's seventh problem involves local control. This is rather blatant anti-federalism. You only have to worry about a loss of local control if the federalism generates a less well functioning system. Local control, in and of itself, is only a good thing if the local region is best suited to control the particular problem. For example, the federal government probably isn't the place to go if you want to ensure that the lawns in your neighborhood are all trimmed and adequately maintained.
Peg engages in a play on words regarding Common Core by asking you want your children to be Common. This is both manipulative and poorly reasoned. A Common (uniform) set of educational standards does not necessarily produce Common (base or poor quality) children. A loss of diversity might be a problem if one believes in the lessons to be learned by life science and ecology. However, for people who don't believe in evolution and who do not value diversity, this seems at best a questionable line of reasoning. Surrendering control to a local jurisdiction which is very Conservative and does not value diversity may be a more certain way of generating Common children.
Here, Peg inserts a link and a suggestion that Common Core was not written by educators. This would further serve to frighten people who are afraid of bureaucrats and federalism. However, the link she provides is from 2009. I mention this because I am prepared to believe she is cherry picking her data. This is 2013, should there not be an article regarding who actually, in the final assessment wrote the Common Core? Someone's fears about who is going to be writing Common Core from 2009 is not, perhaps, the best and most accurate source to go with.
"So who makes up the two Work Groups? Of the 25 individuals on the two
teams, (four people are on both) six are associated with the test-makers
from the College Board, five are with fellow test-publishers ACT, and four are with Achieve.
Zero teachers are on either Work Group. The Feedback Groups have 35
participants, almost all of whom are university professors. There
appears to be exactly one classroom teacher involved in the entire process, on one of the Feedback Groups"
Might it not be, if you are hoping for a college educated work force seeking white collar jobs of tomorrow, that one may well be biased in their thinking towards preparing children for a college career? Might your classroom teacher be not entirely well versed in that ultimate goal? Might he be unable to see the forest for the trees? The question would be, do you trust teachers to do what is going to be ultimately necessary for the children or to focus on the short term. The teacher in Jeff Bliss' video does not seem to be highly motivated in the long term picture. Would you want her sitting on the task force for Common Core?
Authors: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers
Title: Common Core State Standards (insert specific content area if you are using only one)
Publisher: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C.
Copyright Date: 2010
So, I guess I would not expect a lot of teachers on such a governmental board. And if the standards are out of touch with the advice of professional educators, this might be a concern. However, the above we see reference to 9 people who would probably have access to people qualified to advise them with regards to education practices and standards. (Five from ACT and four from Achieve.) The Common Core site does not say they were written by local individuals, parents, and teachers. It only says that "Teachers, parents and community leaders have all weighed in to help create the Common Core State Standards." So, it may be a lie that the Standards were written by "hundreds of teachers" (Peg) it would not be a great stretch to say they were created with teachers depending on how one accounts for feedback and "weighing in."
Peg transitions to her eight point and seems to be getting flustered. She devolves even more into an anti-federalist perspective and then transitions to a deeper level by suggesting corporations are the power behind the throne as it were. It would be hard to know better without having read more of Peg's blogs, but a little bit of anger and paranoia seem to be found here. She also insists: "Romney and Obama’s education policies differed on one count –
Romney supported vouchers and Obama did not – just food for thought." Apparently this assertion is deeply partisan and does not appear to be factually accurate. Vouchers were one area in which Romney and Obama differed, but represents a rather large policy shift between the two. (At least according to the source referenced above; but there others 234.)
Peg's next issue would seem to be that Common Core has never been field tested. That would be a really important point if field testing of education reforms was something we had come to expect. Generally speaking, reforms are made which one has reason to expect will be beneficial and results are seen. If the quality of education seems to decline, then people are politically motivated to vote for politicians who will change or roll back those reforms. This complaint seems like the NRA complaining that criminals won't follow gun laws so we shouldn't have any. Do we have credible reason to believe that the advice fo the National Governors Association will be better or worse in the long run? Time should tell us if we watch carefully. Unfortunately, there is no clear way of prognosticating the future.
At the tenth point, Peg continues the fear of Big Brother idea. She doesn't like the idea of children's data being collected and used by corporations to create materials with which to make profits. Um, if the data helps a publisher identify areas in need of improvement and they provide materials to fill this need.. I'm not sure how this is a bad thing. I make money in my job, too. I do something that people need and am compensated for doing so. I'm trying to figure out how Peg is working because she is sounding very socialist and I thought the conservatives were busy accusing Obama of that.
Peggy Robinson, at the end of her piece, does admit her bias. She is one of the founders of United Opt Out
National. Her mind is probably rather set on the issue. I do not, however, mean to disrespect her in any way. She is certainly better reasoned than some of the opinions that I've read on this subject. Unfortunately, the farther into the article she wrote, the more and more she seemed dominated by a fear of government and corporate interests to a degree that seems, perhaps, excessive.
Good insights to come from this reading is a reasonable skepticism towards bureaucrats meddling too greatly in public education. We do want to see educators being set in charge of education. People with Ph. D's in the matter, I would expect. Most Ph.D's in Education to be unlikely to be considered classroom teachers. We were also encouraged to ask about field tests and it would seem wise to have ongoing research concerning the outcomes of implementation. This seems like a fair request to make. We have a great concern about the loss of local control, which might be more weighty for me if local control hadn't been the means by which people previously had hoped to perpetuate racial segregation.
All and all, still a process of learning and we have a new link for future investigation. Yong Zhao.
