Over the years it has become clear that kids entering college are far less prepared to tackle rigorous academic work than they were even 10 years ago. Across the country governments at all levels have poked, prodded, and in all manners studied our system of education in hopes of figuring out what is wrong. In the end the "fixes" put in place by random legislation end up doing more harm than good in that they inevitably stifle the creativity of good teachers for the sake of a "plan." In this era of economic downfall when school budgets are getting cut left and right, it is easy blame staffing cutbacks and increased class size for further amplifying the academic decline of our kids.
We as a country have failed to make education a priority. Regardless of what level of education you consider the lack of adequate financial backing is a common theme. In yesterday's Oregonian there was an article describing how competitive athletics in our high schools might be headed on the road to being relegated to club activities where they are totally supported by the participants. Even now the pay-to-play fees being charged many kids likely prevents some from participating. What a shame. Lack of support can also be seen the sizable debt that many or our kids incur when they go to college. We ask them (or their parents) to take on massive loans to pay their freight and expect them to begin painful payments in a time when gaining employment is not a given.
All of what I've said above is true. However, none of what I've said above has anything to do with the real problem with education in this country. I find it interesting that when class sizes are above 30 (particularly in elementary school) some sort of alarm seems to go off. Yet when I look back at my elementary school class photos from the 1960's my class sizes were routinely 33-35 governed by a single teacher. My elementary education was just fine. So, what is the difference. The real problem with education has nothing to do with what or how subjects get taught. Rather it has everything to do with what is happening at home. Over the past few decades we have seen the family structure change in profound ways. First, economics have required that both parents work where when I was in school is was common for kids to have a stay-at-home mom who could not only see that their kids attend to their school assigned tasks but also volunteer time in their kids classrooms on a regular basis. This, in my opinion, is why larger classrooms worked in my day. Today there are far fewer parents that have either the time or inclination to volunteer time in the schools. The second, and perhaps more important change that has occurred is the rapid disintegration of the family unit. The number of kids that live in single-parent homes is historically high. As many as 1 out of every 2 children under the age of 18 will live at some point in a single-family home. Assuming that the attending parent is earning a living at a job then these children are often left to fend for themselves. Further, as much as a single parent would want to help you all know how it feels to come home from work and.......well....work. It usually doesn't work. To make matters worse this problem creates a domino effect that will cause learning to continue to decline for the foreseeable future as were are getting to the point where the current teachers we are producing are less skilled at the basics (reading, writing, and arithmetic) than their predecessors.
Can we fix this problem? We have to otherwise this nation will literally get dumb (some would argue we are there already but I like to see an end to the tunnel where there is light). In my view the key is for the government to stop investing resources into controlling how teachers teach and instead invest resources into supports for the kids themselves. Single-parent homes where kids typically get minimal support are not going away so we must adjust. It is impossible to totally replace a parent (I grew up without a dad and can tell you it was my loss) but I do believe we can construct creative programs that encourage kids to study and prepare for success in higher education. This is really a must because pretty much all kids are being pushed into college whether or not they truly belong there. If the focus of resources is shifted from building teaching plans to providing academic support for the kids then the kids get help and the teachers are loosed to do what they do best emphasizing their creativity and strengths. It is that simple.
Cheers
Monday, August 1, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
I Should be Surprised.....but I'm Not!
Yesterday's Oregonian ran a story describing my congressman David Wu's sexual exploits with a teenage girl (the daughter of a major campaign contributor) in California. According to the article the young girl did not David Wu's "affection." At this point that is the sum total of the details. Regardless of how this shakes out it is yet another stupid choice a (my) high-ranking politician has made.
Another day at the office for David Wu?
Believe it or not I am less interested in David Wu, or any of the other number of congressmen, senators, etc. that have found colorful ways to gain national publicity and early retirement over the last many months, than I am concerned about the fact that we as a nation tend to put such people in to office in the first place. Don't get me wrong. I have no expectation that politicians are going to be any less human than anyone else. They will make mistakes. Even so it seems that to a large degree many of those elected to office (yes, I know there are notable exceptions) have a tendency towards behavior that suggests self-centeredness rather than self-sacrifice, personal agenda rather than interest in good of those they serve. Okay, so this is no great revelation.
We have a great country, but in many respects our political system is a bit of a mess. If you have ever served on a large committee (I am a university professor so have served on many) you know how hard it can be to come to consensus. In some ways our government is like a BIG committee with the compounded problem of what I have described above. So we end up with a bucket load of "safe" decisions that do little to improve our existence. Do I hear health care anyone? Sadly I am not sure I have a clue how to fix this problem. Do smart and talented leaders go into politics with any regularity? Consider that the President of the United States makes $400K/yr. Senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices make $250K or less per year. They would do better to work on making a high percentage of their shots from beyond the arc. What this means is that smart talented leaders who have not reached their full earning potential are unlikely to lead our nation. Instead we get many who seem to like to be in charge, have agendas that largely service the few, and have enough money to actually fund a political campaign. This latter point is huge in that one would be hard pressed to find a senator that ascended to office from a less than $100k/year job. Makes one wonder how such individuals could truly be in touch with the average American even if they wanted to be?
Okay, I'm starting to ramble a bit...but that's the price of writing this in a McDonald's during breakfast. Since I do not want to induce too many early naps I'll finish by saying that if I were king of the world (no, I do not want that job) there are a couple of things I would change about political office and campaigns that I believe would make a difference:
1. Require term limits. I did not used to be in favor of limits but have come to the conclusion an occasional change of scenery is a good thing.
2. Outlaw private political contributions. I firmly believe that politicians should not be financially beholding to anyone. If campaigns were government funded then everyone would have equal access to the people to convey their message regardless of their income.
3. Pay our elected government officials a salary that is worthy of the responsibility they shoulder.
4. Require all elected officials to live by the same rules as the people they serve (check out how good their healthcare is!). I realize this is a bit of an oversimplification, but you get what I mean.
I'll stop there. I long for the day when our government will stop being distracted by Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens so economic recovery and a renewed commitment to education can inch up the priority list.
Cheers
Another day at the office for David Wu?
Believe it or not I am less interested in David Wu, or any of the other number of congressmen, senators, etc. that have found colorful ways to gain national publicity and early retirement over the last many months, than I am concerned about the fact that we as a nation tend to put such people in to office in the first place. Don't get me wrong. I have no expectation that politicians are going to be any less human than anyone else. They will make mistakes. Even so it seems that to a large degree many of those elected to office (yes, I know there are notable exceptions) have a tendency towards behavior that suggests self-centeredness rather than self-sacrifice, personal agenda rather than interest in good of those they serve. Okay, so this is no great revelation.
We have a great country, but in many respects our political system is a bit of a mess. If you have ever served on a large committee (I am a university professor so have served on many) you know how hard it can be to come to consensus. In some ways our government is like a BIG committee with the compounded problem of what I have described above. So we end up with a bucket load of "safe" decisions that do little to improve our existence. Do I hear health care anyone? Sadly I am not sure I have a clue how to fix this problem. Do smart and talented leaders go into politics with any regularity? Consider that the President of the United States makes $400K/yr. Senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices make $250K or less per year. They would do better to work on making a high percentage of their shots from beyond the arc. What this means is that smart talented leaders who have not reached their full earning potential are unlikely to lead our nation. Instead we get many who seem to like to be in charge, have agendas that largely service the few, and have enough money to actually fund a political campaign. This latter point is huge in that one would be hard pressed to find a senator that ascended to office from a less than $100k/year job. Makes one wonder how such individuals could truly be in touch with the average American even if they wanted to be?
Okay, I'm starting to ramble a bit...but that's the price of writing this in a McDonald's during breakfast. Since I do not want to induce too many early naps I'll finish by saying that if I were king of the world (no, I do not want that job) there are a couple of things I would change about political office and campaigns that I believe would make a difference:
1. Require term limits. I did not used to be in favor of limits but have come to the conclusion an occasional change of scenery is a good thing.
2. Outlaw private political contributions. I firmly believe that politicians should not be financially beholding to anyone. If campaigns were government funded then everyone would have equal access to the people to convey their message regardless of their income.
3. Pay our elected government officials a salary that is worthy of the responsibility they shoulder.
4. Require all elected officials to live by the same rules as the people they serve (check out how good their healthcare is!). I realize this is a bit of an oversimplification, but you get what I mean.
I'll stop there. I long for the day when our government will stop being distracted by Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens so economic recovery and a renewed commitment to education can inch up the priority list.
Cheers
Friday, July 22, 2011
Health and Red Wine
George Fox University (GFU), where I teach, is a Christ-centered university in the truest sense. I have been on the faculty for 23 years, and during my first 18 years I was not allowed to consume alcohol. For many years this was a common requirement for faculty at Christian universities. Many of my friends thought this to be a silly policy but because I signed a contract promising I would abide by this requirement I did not touch a drop. At the end of the day my integrity is important to me.
Okay, so what does any of this have to do with "Health and Red Wine?" A few years back the university released the faculty from the requirement to abstain from alcohol consumption (as have most other Christian colleges and universities). The timing of this decision could not have been better since my youngest son started on his journey to become a winemaker. Now I could share this journey with him. Interestingly wine is pretty much the only type of alcohol I consume. For whatever reason I find trying to understand what makes a wine tick fun. I often refer to wine as "intellectual alcohol."
When my sons were young they used to refer to all our travels as "long cuts." So, I have taken the "long cut" to the topic of this post. For many years I have had issues with somewhat high blood pressure. This is understandable since stress pops its ugly head in my life with some frequency. Oddly enough though since I have resumed moderate wine consumption (and I emphasize moderate) I have not had a single high blood pressure reading. I am a scientist, and more specifically a physiologist. Even so I cannot state with certainty that my consumption of red wine has resulted in my lower blood pressure. There have been MANY reports about the health benefits of red wine, but the science associated with them is a bit thin. Bottom line is that the jury is still out. Even so, it is clear that my blood pressure is down since I resumed red wine consumption. Maybe it is coincidence, I do not know. What I do believe is that as more studies are done I am convinced that the health benefits of moderate consumption of red wine will become more clear. The French have low incidence of heart disease (although they also have a high incidence of trashing their livers) which seems to be related to their red wine consumption. As I find good studies that clarify this issue I will post them.
Okay, so what does any of this have to do with "Health and Red Wine?" A few years back the university released the faculty from the requirement to abstain from alcohol consumption (as have most other Christian colleges and universities). The timing of this decision could not have been better since my youngest son started on his journey to become a winemaker. Now I could share this journey with him. Interestingly wine is pretty much the only type of alcohol I consume. For whatever reason I find trying to understand what makes a wine tick fun. I often refer to wine as "intellectual alcohol."
When my sons were young they used to refer to all our travels as "long cuts." So, I have taken the "long cut" to the topic of this post. For many years I have had issues with somewhat high blood pressure. This is understandable since stress pops its ugly head in my life with some frequency. Oddly enough though since I have resumed moderate wine consumption (and I emphasize moderate) I have not had a single high blood pressure reading. I am a scientist, and more specifically a physiologist. Even so I cannot state with certainty that my consumption of red wine has resulted in my lower blood pressure. There have been MANY reports about the health benefits of red wine, but the science associated with them is a bit thin. Bottom line is that the jury is still out. Even so, it is clear that my blood pressure is down since I resumed red wine consumption. Maybe it is coincidence, I do not know. What I do believe is that as more studies are done I am convinced that the health benefits of moderate consumption of red wine will become more clear. The French have low incidence of heart disease (although they also have a high incidence of trashing their livers) which seems to be related to their red wine consumption. As I find good studies that clarify this issue I will post them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)