Edumakayshun: Or "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Here is the rather long winded response to an article my congressman posted on his Facebook page. I think my conservative side has finally reared it's head there. I probably should cross post things here to keep track of my longer comments since the same themes tend to come up repeatedly and searching for sources can be time consuming.

There needs to be a paradigm shift in our society for academic performance to improve. I agree with Brian R in that parental interest and participation in the education and general care of their children is sorely lacking, in part to the pressure to have both parents working to have the income to participate in the our consumer culture. Really, having a parent at home, either full time or through shift work, is a matter of choices and priorities. Many people want the extra things in life over doing the hard work of being the primary guidance and influence on their children, and so pay for substitute caregivers to shoulder that responsibility of instilling values and discipline. My husband was talking about this the other day from a legal perspective. In Louisiana, where the state laws are based on the Napoleonic Code, parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children, whereas in states where the laws are based on English Common Law, it is the child held responsible for any violations of the law. It is our opinion that this cultural difference is partly why a teacher we know had first graders last year that were "stabby" and "biters" that were sent to the principal, if not daily, weekly from her mainstream classroom. The parents did not care and were not held in any way responsible for their child's actions. Even when I was in high school I saw the effects of parents too wrapped up in themselves in their children who were just as self-centered, with no manners and no sense of community or civic responsibility.

This also ties into John's comment about the gadgets and media. It's a parent's place to set limits and enforce standards. However, it's difficult to do that when our children are bombarded with media and advertising everywhere they go. Age compression from using sex to sell to kids is why you can buy thong underwear for your 5 year old in mainstream department stores. Brand loyalty begins before they can read. Just about any child can tell you what restaurant the golden arches belong to, and cartoon characters are used to sell more than toys and videos. Dora the Explorer is an example of a character that is on many products, many that parents would not otherwise buy except for the nag factor from their children. Things like fruit snacks that have no real fruit, cereals filled with sugar and artificial colors and flavors, poorly made clothing and accessories, etc. that would never sell without that brand recognition on the part of children. The books and toys that are sold in connection with the limited world of these cartoons do not foster imaginative play or thought outside that narrow construct. Which also ties into the ban on happy meals in San Fransisco. The influence of the media and advertising on our children's diet and how they learn to eat is enormous. Even my own children will ask to go to a specific restaurant based, not on the food, but on the toys given away in the kid's meals. Even when parents say no, it creates a wedge in the family. No matter how many times I say we choose where to eat based on the food we eat not what toys they are giving away, they still ask because the advertising is so pervasive. More about the negative effects of ads on young children can be found at http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/

Early academics is not the answer either. The push for early reading in particular is to make it easier to quantify what a child has learned, not necessarily to benefit the child. Expecting a child to read in Kindergarten in order to administer a test in the second grade is what we have now. We've already reached the extremes of teaching to the test with only mediocre outcomes. When I was a child, kindergarten was radically different. The only explicit instruction I remember was how to work in groups, how to write our name, and dental health. Everything else was more intuitive and discovery oriented. We learned through doing, not desk work. It wasn't until first grade that we were expected to start reading in the way some children are expected in preschool now. I don't remember homework until the third grade, and kindergartners here and now have it 4 nights a week. Now children are expected to memorize things for a test instead of truly learning. It's no wonder that there is only limited retention of concepts, as they are not truly learned. Here is a good article about some teachers in the UK talking about a later start to formal education with links to other articles within it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559237/Does-early-schooling-harm-our-children.html

I don't think private schools are necessarily the answer either. While they can be useful as an alternative to a public school that has failed a child and only wants to pad promotion rates by then placing the child in remedial classes one grade level up, they are not a one size fits all answer to problems in public schools. Part of what makes private schools seem like the answer goes back to the top of my comment with parental involvement. There is only so much any institution can do for a child without an interested and active primary caregiver. The thing I haven't heard the school voucher crowd advocate is homeschooling. While I would probably not consider homeschooling if money were not an impediment to enrollment in certain private schools, it's the only alternative available for our family to the failed public school system. I know that my children are learning at a developmentally appropriate pace, are actually learning not memorizing by rote, and have a much broader experience than their age peers in public school because of the experiences they are able to have not confined to a classroom for 6-8 hours a day.

Societal things like personal responsibility, work ethic, and civic involvement are key things that are going to have to make a comeback before many of our problems, public education included, are going to be truly addressed. The decadence of our "Me First", instant-gratification culture will be our downfall. The things that make society work take hard work, cooperation, and time.

A Message on Hate Crimes

I've heard a bit about hate crimes legislation in Congress and here's what I have to say to those who think that it's not necessary to have "special classes" of people protected and that it violates the concept of equal protection.

What makes a hate crime a hate crime is not that it is assault or murder against a person of a "special class". It is that the crime was committed in order to harass or intimidate members of that "special class" as a whole including the individual victim because of that which makes them different.

It would be one thing if the victim of the crime just happened to be [insert special class here] and the motive for assault or murder were say, financial (mugging), road rage (guy/gal cut you off in traffic), perceived assault (drunk in a bar and someone bumped into you on their way past), etc.

It's quite another thing to actively seek out someone who is of a racial minority or different gender, different sexual orientation, etc (or thier friends and family) to send a political or social message to the larger community that "those" people or their affiliates are not welcome or acceptable in your community.

It's not about protecting individuals or even these "special classes" but protecting the community at large from harassment and intimidation. When you put it in terms of protecting entire communities or our society as a whole from the threat of harassment or intimidation, I don't see how much more equal a protection you could imagine.

As the supportive and accepting sister of an openly gay man, I feel this is important. There may be times my brother irritates the snot out of me and I can see where someone might want to deck him at times, but that has nothing to do with who he is attracted to. Heck, sometimes I wonder if I might be attacked for hanging out with some of my GLBT friends simply because someone with an agenda might think I'm either Lesbian or was born male and had a fantastic plastic surgeon. (on second thought, nobody is going to mistake me for anything but female...) In any case, I shouldn't have to worry about these things in a polite and free society. If your religious beliefs are such that anything other than a man and a woman having sex within the sacrament of holy matrimony is anathema to you, then please, by all means, practice that, but leave others to their own free will. And if you're going to be so stringent on one aspect of your faith, I challenge you to be as strict about all the rest of it. Are you? I doubt it. Consider that the next time you're oggling a bikini clad woman on the beach or at the car/gun/boat show with or without your wife present, "Gentlemen".