Religious leaders recently descended on Washington to weigh in on the immigration debate. Scripture was thick as the Bible was quoted from Leviticus and Micah through Matthew and Luke. Contradictions, or seeming contradictions, abounded. We were reminded that we are obliged to care for the least among us. We were also reminded that we are obliged to obey the law. Atheists no doubt smiled as the Bible was often turned in on itself and exposed as a seeming jumble of contradictory injunctions. It is not difficult to find scripture to support virtually any position one might take: especially for amateur scholars and theologians. But there is a thread through all the injunctions and commandments that is too frequently ignored by those who expound scripture. That thread is that the commandments and injunctions are addressed to people, not governments.
There is an ethical imperative to help those in need as those who descended on Washington pointed out. But that imperative does not fall on governments or societies. It falls on each and everyone of us. We were not instructed to support candidates and policies to help those in need. We are to take care of those in need, not the government. We are to love our neighbors as our self, not the government. Jesus was careful to avoid enjoining the state to do any of the tasks or follow any of the commandments He placed before mankind. He consistently refused to be drawn into taking a position on policy. Perhaps the ultimate example of Jesus' refusal to involve himself in the political affairs of men is when He refused Satan's offer of the world. Certainly it was within Jesus' power to effect any political change He thought was merited. But He refused to do so. That is because Jesus did not come to right wrongs or remedy injustice. He did not come to establish a perfect state. He came for mankind, one soul at a time.
The answer to the question of what Jesus would do regarding immigration policy, abortion, gay marriage, or any other controversial issue confronting the nation is absolutely nothing. He did nothing two thousand years ago and most likely He would do nothing today other than what He did then. He would tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves, tend to the least among us, and give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. If we did as Jesus asked, everything else would take care of itself and that is precisely the point. Nations and politics come and go. Issues come and go. But people remain and people are what it is all about.
Jesus did not come to fix the world. He came to fix our souls. Good laws and good societies come from good souls. There is no other place for them to come from. It is our job to love our neighbor and take care of those in need, not the government's. Voting democrat or republican and paying your taxes doesn't count.
Jesus didn't go to Rome and lobby the Senate. He did not propose policy or advocate for laws. He stayed in an obscure part of the empire and spoke with prostitutes and tax collectors. It is not a question of what Jesus would do. It is a matter of what Jesus did. We can learn a lot from Jesus.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Clockwork Students
In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, columnist William McKenzie sets out his ideas on how to improve education in the U.S. He begins with a nod towards President Obama's "Race to the Top" education plan. In particular, Mckenzie takes hold of the "parental engagement" role in that race. Parents, says Mckenzie enthusiastically, are the "new educational frontier."
"Lets deal first with why going after parents makes sense" McKenzie writes ominously. The reason we must go after parents is because parents will not come to us. McKenzie then sets out to make his case. Not just any case, but a thoroughly modern and scientific one. Anything less will not do.
McKenzie first notes that "A significant body of research shows students whose parents pay serious attention to their classwork end up with larger horizons than peers whose parents don't open the world to them." It is difficult to know what to do with this statement. Children whose parents are interested and involve themselves in their education and homework do better in school than their peers whose parents don't. There is nothing new here. Children whose parents involve themselves in their activities in general tend to be better adjusted and more content. It is as if, after years of statistical, pedagogical, economic, psychological, methodological, racial, ethnic, gender, and class studies and evaluations, parents have once again been added to the calculation: and it is a calculation. Studies, numbers, reports, and evaluations all point to the remarkable conclusion that parents have a large impact on their children's education. While it has long been suspected that parents play an influential role in their child's development, we finally have the numbers to prove it.
McKenzie's editorial is at times a tedious and tiresome exercise of belaboring the obvious. We are informed that by reading to children and getting them ready for school in the morning parents increase their children's chances of getting into college. It is also a pointless exercise because parents who do not read to their children or get them ready for school are unlikely to read the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News. Unless, of course, McKenzie is not writing to those parents but is instead writing to the rest of us in order to encourage us to take action. And by take action, he means find someway to encourage or compel those neglectful parents to change their ways. He cites Heather Weiss, director of the Family Research Project at Harvard University's Graduate School of Education who states that "what families do is one of the strongest predictors of a child's success." A fair enough observation. But Weiss doesn't stop there. She adds ominously that "the difficulty is how to translate that understanding into interventions that move the needle." By intervening to "move the needle" Wiess no doubt means change how parents raise their children. By "translate" we can infer that what she means is how we can bring that change about.
What this comes down to is a discussion over how best to change the way parents raise their children. It is one thing to discuss how best to raise children. It is quite another to discuss how we can change the way people raise their children. According to modern, scientific standards, many parents are doing an inadequate job raising their children. There is no way to change this without somehow getting between the parent and the child. The growth of "parenting programs" developed to address the perceived inadequacy of parents is disturbing on a number of levels. Perhaps none are so disturbing as the "Cradle to career" program advocated by Weiss.
The "Cradle to Career" program would be a "breakthrough" that would change the way children are raised in the U.S. The program would entail parents working in tandem with schools to raise their children. Indeed, part of a school principle's task would require him or her to assess how well that child was being "parented." Parenting that resulted in increased school performance would be "good" parenting and reflect positively on those principals in those districts where it occurred. Poor school performance would infer poor parenting and, we can assume, in a poor evaluation. Principals would be motivated to monitor how well children in their school were being "parented' and to intervene where that "parenting" was deemed to be inadequate.
In a chilling statement, McKenzie writes that "Districts that do parenting well make parental engagement part of the principal's annual review." Districts do not "do parenting." Only parents do "parenting." I am not even quite sure what "parenting" means. I do not think McKenzie or Weiss have given it much thought beyond the ability to equip children to perform tasks determined to be valuable or important by society. But to hold school districts and principals accountable for how well parents are raising their children is to give them a stake in how that child is being raised. That would be an intolerable intrusion into family life. Schools teach children. They should not raise them.
Raising children is one of the most private and personal activities that can be imagined. Some people raise "good" children. Some people raise "bad" children. "Good" parents can raise "bad" children and "bad" parents can raise "good children." Raising children is not a science. It is an art. Yet, again and again, from Obama to Weiss, to McKenzie, it is treated as a science. In ancient Greece, where the subject was first brought up, art was distinguished from science in that art required wisdom and virtue where science only required knowledge and skill. Science could be taught. Art could only be achieved. Good students cannot be produced any more than good children can be produced.
All of the laws, regulations, and codes in the world cannot create a good parent, a good student, or even a good person. To claim otherwise is hubris of the highest order. There is an arrogance on the part of those who think the world can be remade if only the the right laws can be crafted and the right policies adopted. Whether one goes after teachers, students, parents, textbooks, or curriculum, education will remain a subjective and elusive affair. It always has been subjective and imprecise and it always will be. This is because education involves people. People write text books and devise lesson plans. People read text books (or don't read them). People teach and people learn.
All of the planning and statistical analyses in the world will not result in a good education. Only good teachers and good students will result in good education. But we no longer recognize good as a standard. There are only goals and efficacy in achieving those goals. Education has become a system of clockwork teachers teaching clockwork students. The failure of the educational "system" is interpreted by people like McKenzie and Weiss as the result of flaws such as inadequate parenting or poor organization and curriculum by the schools. Those flaws can be rectified through incentives, adjustments, and programs to compensate for the unpredictable human factor in the system.
Too many beleive that, sooner or later, if we work hard enough we will finally get the bugs out of the educational system and at last get to where every student receives a good education and goes on to a fulfilling and productive career. And that is what getting an education is all about: getting a good job and being productive. Once that is achieved, we can move on to the next great challenge, whatever that may be.
To anyone who might wonder why it is society's or the government's business in the first place how parents raise their children, or how well a child does in school, it is because their business is no longer their business. Through economic casuistry, there is no such thing as personal business anymore. Everything that in any way touches upon the community or the economy is society's business. And society's business is the government's business. Government cannot be expected to stand idly by while parents raise ineffective children.
You cannot force parents to care about their child's education. You may be able to bribe or coerce schools to achieve goals and meet standards. You can even bribe and coerce parents to work with schools to achieve those goals and standards. But no amount of bribery or coercion can compel care. And, without care, all you are left with is coercion and bribery. That is no way to raise a child or run a school.
Education is not a commodity or a product. It cannot be produced or delivered. It is an activity that must be engaged in. To compel people to participate in education is like compelling people to play the piano. You might be able to teach them the notes and how to read music. You can teach them technique. But you cannot make them want to do it and you certainly can't make them any good at it: especially if they don't care or do not want to be good at it. They may be able to read music and reproduce what is written, but that is only technique. It is not education in any meaningful sense. You can teach kids to read and write. You can teach kids to remember what they read and repeat it. But you cannot make them want to read and write nor can you make them understand what they have read. Even parents can't do that. At some point, people enter the equation.
Education is a means to an end, it is not an end in itself. If the end is not desired, the means will be of little interest. Despite the best efforts of statisticians, social scientists, politicians, and teachers, some people will learn and others won't. It is human nature. All the methodology and science in the world cannot change human nature. That is what drives liberals crazy and gives humanity hope.
Parents are the new frontier writes McKenzie. Other frontiers await. New correlations will be found. New causalities will be deduced. New tools will be developed. We are on the verge of a brave new world.
"Lets deal first with why going after parents makes sense" McKenzie writes ominously. The reason we must go after parents is because parents will not come to us. McKenzie then sets out to make his case. Not just any case, but a thoroughly modern and scientific one. Anything less will not do.
McKenzie first notes that "A significant body of research shows students whose parents pay serious attention to their classwork end up with larger horizons than peers whose parents don't open the world to them." It is difficult to know what to do with this statement. Children whose parents are interested and involve themselves in their education and homework do better in school than their peers whose parents don't. There is nothing new here. Children whose parents involve themselves in their activities in general tend to be better adjusted and more content. It is as if, after years of statistical, pedagogical, economic, psychological, methodological, racial, ethnic, gender, and class studies and evaluations, parents have once again been added to the calculation: and it is a calculation. Studies, numbers, reports, and evaluations all point to the remarkable conclusion that parents have a large impact on their children's education. While it has long been suspected that parents play an influential role in their child's development, we finally have the numbers to prove it.
McKenzie's editorial is at times a tedious and tiresome exercise of belaboring the obvious. We are informed that by reading to children and getting them ready for school in the morning parents increase their children's chances of getting into college. It is also a pointless exercise because parents who do not read to their children or get them ready for school are unlikely to read the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News. Unless, of course, McKenzie is not writing to those parents but is instead writing to the rest of us in order to encourage us to take action. And by take action, he means find someway to encourage or compel those neglectful parents to change their ways. He cites Heather Weiss, director of the Family Research Project at Harvard University's Graduate School of Education who states that "what families do is one of the strongest predictors of a child's success." A fair enough observation. But Weiss doesn't stop there. She adds ominously that "the difficulty is how to translate that understanding into interventions that move the needle." By intervening to "move the needle" Wiess no doubt means change how parents raise their children. By "translate" we can infer that what she means is how we can bring that change about.
What this comes down to is a discussion over how best to change the way parents raise their children. It is one thing to discuss how best to raise children. It is quite another to discuss how we can change the way people raise their children. According to modern, scientific standards, many parents are doing an inadequate job raising their children. There is no way to change this without somehow getting between the parent and the child. The growth of "parenting programs" developed to address the perceived inadequacy of parents is disturbing on a number of levels. Perhaps none are so disturbing as the "Cradle to career" program advocated by Weiss.
The "Cradle to Career" program would be a "breakthrough" that would change the way children are raised in the U.S. The program would entail parents working in tandem with schools to raise their children. Indeed, part of a school principle's task would require him or her to assess how well that child was being "parented." Parenting that resulted in increased school performance would be "good" parenting and reflect positively on those principals in those districts where it occurred. Poor school performance would infer poor parenting and, we can assume, in a poor evaluation. Principals would be motivated to monitor how well children in their school were being "parented' and to intervene where that "parenting" was deemed to be inadequate.
In a chilling statement, McKenzie writes that "Districts that do parenting well make parental engagement part of the principal's annual review." Districts do not "do parenting." Only parents do "parenting." I am not even quite sure what "parenting" means. I do not think McKenzie or Weiss have given it much thought beyond the ability to equip children to perform tasks determined to be valuable or important by society. But to hold school districts and principals accountable for how well parents are raising their children is to give them a stake in how that child is being raised. That would be an intolerable intrusion into family life. Schools teach children. They should not raise them.
Raising children is one of the most private and personal activities that can be imagined. Some people raise "good" children. Some people raise "bad" children. "Good" parents can raise "bad" children and "bad" parents can raise "good children." Raising children is not a science. It is an art. Yet, again and again, from Obama to Weiss, to McKenzie, it is treated as a science. In ancient Greece, where the subject was first brought up, art was distinguished from science in that art required wisdom and virtue where science only required knowledge and skill. Science could be taught. Art could only be achieved. Good students cannot be produced any more than good children can be produced.
All of the laws, regulations, and codes in the world cannot create a good parent, a good student, or even a good person. To claim otherwise is hubris of the highest order. There is an arrogance on the part of those who think the world can be remade if only the the right laws can be crafted and the right policies adopted. Whether one goes after teachers, students, parents, textbooks, or curriculum, education will remain a subjective and elusive affair. It always has been subjective and imprecise and it always will be. This is because education involves people. People write text books and devise lesson plans. People read text books (or don't read them). People teach and people learn.
All of the planning and statistical analyses in the world will not result in a good education. Only good teachers and good students will result in good education. But we no longer recognize good as a standard. There are only goals and efficacy in achieving those goals. Education has become a system of clockwork teachers teaching clockwork students. The failure of the educational "system" is interpreted by people like McKenzie and Weiss as the result of flaws such as inadequate parenting or poor organization and curriculum by the schools. Those flaws can be rectified through incentives, adjustments, and programs to compensate for the unpredictable human factor in the system.
Too many beleive that, sooner or later, if we work hard enough we will finally get the bugs out of the educational system and at last get to where every student receives a good education and goes on to a fulfilling and productive career. And that is what getting an education is all about: getting a good job and being productive. Once that is achieved, we can move on to the next great challenge, whatever that may be.
To anyone who might wonder why it is society's or the government's business in the first place how parents raise their children, or how well a child does in school, it is because their business is no longer their business. Through economic casuistry, there is no such thing as personal business anymore. Everything that in any way touches upon the community or the economy is society's business. And society's business is the government's business. Government cannot be expected to stand idly by while parents raise ineffective children.
You cannot force parents to care about their child's education. You may be able to bribe or coerce schools to achieve goals and meet standards. You can even bribe and coerce parents to work with schools to achieve those goals and standards. But no amount of bribery or coercion can compel care. And, without care, all you are left with is coercion and bribery. That is no way to raise a child or run a school.
Education is not a commodity or a product. It cannot be produced or delivered. It is an activity that must be engaged in. To compel people to participate in education is like compelling people to play the piano. You might be able to teach them the notes and how to read music. You can teach them technique. But you cannot make them want to do it and you certainly can't make them any good at it: especially if they don't care or do not want to be good at it. They may be able to read music and reproduce what is written, but that is only technique. It is not education in any meaningful sense. You can teach kids to read and write. You can teach kids to remember what they read and repeat it. But you cannot make them want to read and write nor can you make them understand what they have read. Even parents can't do that. At some point, people enter the equation.
Education is a means to an end, it is not an end in itself. If the end is not desired, the means will be of little interest. Despite the best efforts of statisticians, social scientists, politicians, and teachers, some people will learn and others won't. It is human nature. All the methodology and science in the world cannot change human nature. That is what drives liberals crazy and gives humanity hope.
Parents are the new frontier writes McKenzie. Other frontiers await. New correlations will be found. New causalities will be deduced. New tools will be developed. We are on the verge of a brave new world.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Come on Down!
Washington has begun taking steps, very small ones, to demonstrate its seriousness about addressing the appalling national debt. After a spending frenzy, many in Washington are eager to put their profligacy behind them as they prepare for elections in the Fall. To this end, there is talk of raising the benefit retirement age from from 65, or 66 depending on exactly where you fall in the spectrum, to 70. No numbers were given on how much money such a move would be expected to save. It is very unlikely it will have any appreciable impact on the debt. The country is not going broke because too many people are retiring. But a step is a step and every step is a headline.
According to some, raising the age from 65 to 70 would be "politically acceptable" (a phrase which always brings to mind a party official addressing the Politburo), because it would have very little immediate effect. "Raising the retirement age- going out 20 years and not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 - is a step that needs to be taken" said House Republican leader John Boehner. And a shrewd step that would be. Those receiving benefits would continue to receive them and those far from the the new retirement age would not pay much attention to it. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer sought to demonstrate the new resolve and sobriety of Congress when he stated that "we are lying to ourselves if we say we can maintain our current levels of spending... without bankrupting the country." Many in Washington have a knack for stating the obvious only after it is no longer possible to avoid it.
People are healthier and living longer than they ever have before. Life expectancy in the U.S. is 80.8 years at the moment. It is expected to rise to 81.9 by 2020. That means people will linger even longer and mooch off the government for an additional year unless something is done about it. And, if Obama's health care plan works out as claimed, we can expect even more people to live well into their eighties, if not beyond. The mooching problem will only get worse. Even if the retirement age is raised to 70, it will not be so bad. People can still hope for ten years to enjoy it.
There is greater glory in creating new programs than mending old ones. In its eagerness create new programs such as national health care, the government has neglected those programs that already exist. To off set the massive expenditures by Washington, some will soon have to work until they are 70 before they can retire. When you consider there are far more people in their 30's than there are in their 70's, it is a clever plan. Very few people in their 20's and 30's can even envision being in their 60's, let alone their 70's. Besides, future burdens have always been easier to bear than present ones.
It is always better to pass social programs than rely on them. In order to scrimp some savings, legislators in Washington are tinkering with a program none of them will have to rely upon. Where many once might have hoped they could retire with some good years left, they are now having to face the possibility of spending another five out of however many years they have left working.
The government has just been giving things away. Like in those late night furniture commercials, the government has been saying come on down! They will give us a whole new living room set with no money down and no interest for a year. But let there be no doubt, that furniture will be paid for along with the interest.
The government has only just begun to realize they cannot just keep spending money and giving things away. Many have always known that, sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for all the government is doing for us. They just hope it is not now and not them. In the mean time, come on down! This sale can't last forever.
According to some, raising the age from 65 to 70 would be "politically acceptable" (a phrase which always brings to mind a party official addressing the Politburo), because it would have very little immediate effect. "Raising the retirement age- going out 20 years and not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 - is a step that needs to be taken" said House Republican leader John Boehner. And a shrewd step that would be. Those receiving benefits would continue to receive them and those far from the the new retirement age would not pay much attention to it. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer sought to demonstrate the new resolve and sobriety of Congress when he stated that "we are lying to ourselves if we say we can maintain our current levels of spending... without bankrupting the country." Many in Washington have a knack for stating the obvious only after it is no longer possible to avoid it.
People are healthier and living longer than they ever have before. Life expectancy in the U.S. is 80.8 years at the moment. It is expected to rise to 81.9 by 2020. That means people will linger even longer and mooch off the government for an additional year unless something is done about it. And, if Obama's health care plan works out as claimed, we can expect even more people to live well into their eighties, if not beyond. The mooching problem will only get worse. Even if the retirement age is raised to 70, it will not be so bad. People can still hope for ten years to enjoy it.
There is greater glory in creating new programs than mending old ones. In its eagerness create new programs such as national health care, the government has neglected those programs that already exist. To off set the massive expenditures by Washington, some will soon have to work until they are 70 before they can retire. When you consider there are far more people in their 30's than there are in their 70's, it is a clever plan. Very few people in their 20's and 30's can even envision being in their 60's, let alone their 70's. Besides, future burdens have always been easier to bear than present ones.
It is always better to pass social programs than rely on them. In order to scrimp some savings, legislators in Washington are tinkering with a program none of them will have to rely upon. Where many once might have hoped they could retire with some good years left, they are now having to face the possibility of spending another five out of however many years they have left working.
The government has just been giving things away. Like in those late night furniture commercials, the government has been saying come on down! They will give us a whole new living room set with no money down and no interest for a year. But let there be no doubt, that furniture will be paid for along with the interest.
The government has only just begun to realize they cannot just keep spending money and giving things away. Many have always known that, sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for all the government is doing for us. They just hope it is not now and not them. In the mean time, come on down! This sale can't last forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)