Yesterday I outlined what I think every student in this country should learn. That included things like the ability to care for themselves, how to vote wisely and otherwise participate in their government, how to function in an increasingly scientific and technical society, and how to communicate effectively.
“But wait,” you say.” “How in the world are you going to teach all that to inner city kids? Don't they have a hard time learning?” My answer is that we should teach the same way in the inner cities as we do in the suburbs. Let me correct that, we should teach the same way in the inner cities that we should teach in the suburbs. Sadly very few school districts anywhere really concentrate on getting students to learn the important things. They spend effort on self-esteem, sports, finding excuses why some students cannot learn etc. They do not emphasize needed skills nearly enough. I've worked with high school graduates who could not divide 5 by 7, even with the aid of a calculator – and those employees were the product of supposedly good schools.
So what should we do? Again it starts with attention to the goals, avoiding confusion of means and ends. As parents and citizens we must insist that schools concentrate on teaching the important things. Further we must insist that they actually teach – and that they expect students to learn.
So how do we improve education, not only among minorities but everywhere? I think Thomas Sowell has it right in his book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals. The fifth chapter, “Black Education, Achievements, Myths and Tragedies” explodes many myths surrounding inner city education and points the way to better results. Though the book concentrates on minorities and the poor, the concepts apply to all students.
As Sowell shows, successful Black and inner city schools do not all follow the same formula. However they all have some things in common: discipline, high expectations, and a no excuses attitude. Students are expected to behave themselves and to learn. In one successful school students are greeted each day with a list of logic, math, and word problems to work on during odd moments. They are expected to learn, not spend their time comparing clothes or planning parties. Successful schools have the belief that school is a place for learning, not a social gathering.
Discipline, high expectations, and a no excuses attitude. Those things work – though the education establishment has largely rejected them.
I should also point out that successful schools are often not particularly well funded. Clearly a minimum of funding is needed, but the standard political “solution” of throwing money at the problem tends to create more levels of administration to interfere with real learning. Often those administrators spend their time chasing grants for various forms of “disadvantaged” students and helping those students make excuses.
And of course schools should concentrate on what works, not unsupported theory. As Sowell points out, there is often a disconnect between theory and empirical fact. For example one mostly Black and poor school in California had a high success rate, beyond that achieved by more affluent schools. What was the result? The principal was nearly fired. Her crime was the use of phonics instead of the state-preferred whole language program. Only a parental revolt saved her job. The state authorities and the school board wanted to force their way on that school, regardless of outcome. That could have happened with any school, Black, White or mixed. The political emphasis was on the means, not the ends.
The other important change needed in education is one of attitude. Schools must teach students to function in our society. That means they must learn things like correct English, not “Ebonics” or some other substitute. If those students are to succeed they must be able to communicate in the standard language of the country. Too often, as Sowell says, “Today the culture that is celebrated in much of the media and in the schools is not the culture that has succeeded, but the culture that has failed.”
That must change. Students must understand that a solid education is not “acting white.” Many slaves took great risks to get an education, and some white teachers took risks to teach them. Their descendants face no such obstacles and should make learning a priority. We should emphasize the stories of those who risked so much to get an education. I can't help but think that that would inspire many young Blacks today to take advantage of their opportunities.
Of course we should also learn from the most effective teachers. You might think of one of the best teachers you ever had. How did he make a difference in your life? Almost certainly it was not his teaching methods. Teaching techniques are often useful but insufficient by themselves. Probably what you remember about that teacher is enthusiasm for the subject and love of the students. Such enthusiasm can fire a class with excitement and turn learning from drudgery to an enjoyable challenge.
Sadly most of our education system refuses to reward the best teachers. The drudge who just puts in time will be paid the same as the superteacher who fires a class with desire to learn and who helps them learn well. Worse, even a great teacher or principal may be disciplined for failure to follow “approved” methods even if the teacher’s method works better. In such an atmosphere even the best teachers tend to burn out.
Children can and should be educated in all the areas I've outlined. Unfortunately we cannot leave this to the “education” establishment. School administrators are often more concerned with new buildings, political correctness and their next promotion than with what students learn. Improvement will not happen unless parents and voters insist on goal-oriented learning, with teaching based on sound, empirically proven methods. Excuses must not be tolerated. Discipline must be enforced. Students must be expected to learn. That is true in the inner cities, it is true in the suburbs, and it is true everywhere else.
Showing posts with label minorities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minorities. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Educating Minorities (and Others)
OK, I’ve complained several times about the misguided practice of giving preferences to minorities. I’ve said that the way to help the disadvantaged is to start with primary and secondary education, helping children build a foundation for their lives. “So,” you might ask, “how do we go about that?” A good question and of course you know I wouldn’t bring it up unless I had some suggestions.
First, again we should begin and continue with the end in mind. There are some things every citizen should know, some skills every citizen should have. Primary and secondary schools are the place to teach that universally required material:
1. Students will need the ability to care for themselves, both financially and health-wise.
2. They will need some way to earn a living.
3. In the U.S. and other democracies they will need to vote wisely and otherwise participate in their government.
4. They will need to function in an increasingly scientific and technical society.
5. They will need good oral and written communication skills, including the ability to understand and to communicate information.
The waiter, the electrician, and the college professor all need these skills so we must provide them before they go their separate ways (except in the case of earning a living which they usually learn later). All students should have:
a. A health class to prepare them to care for their bodies. This should include disease prevention, good nutrition etc.
b. A class in personal finance, including the dangers and wise use of credit.
c. A solid preparation for citizenship. This should include how the country functions and how citizens can make a difference.
d. A class in critical thinking. Such a class will help future voters see through the nonsense in political ads and will help future consumers see through the similar nonsense in commercial ads. (Woops! Politicians and advertisers won't like this one.)
e. Solid math classes at least to the level of simple statistics.
f. Classes in basic biological and physical science.
g. At least one class in current technology, including how to prepare for changes in technology.
h. English classes, which emphasize reading and listening for understanding, and clear speaking and writing.
i. I'm going to add one more, a class that I've never heard of being offered but which is the most important of all: Every student should take a class in how to continue to learn outside of the classroom. Our modern society is changing so fast that learning should be a life-long process. This need not be continual enrollment in classes; it can be good reading, educational videos, attending lectures etc. A diploma should be regarded as a license to keep learning.
Those classes would teach skills that every adult should have and use. They should be taught in every school system so students learn them before they go off to work, job training, or college.
I regard each of the above as mandatory. Next time I’ll talk about how to get there.
First, again we should begin and continue with the end in mind. There are some things every citizen should know, some skills every citizen should have. Primary and secondary schools are the place to teach that universally required material:
1. Students will need the ability to care for themselves, both financially and health-wise.
2. They will need some way to earn a living.
3. In the U.S. and other democracies they will need to vote wisely and otherwise participate in their government.
4. They will need to function in an increasingly scientific and technical society.
5. They will need good oral and written communication skills, including the ability to understand and to communicate information.
The waiter, the electrician, and the college professor all need these skills so we must provide them before they go their separate ways (except in the case of earning a living which they usually learn later). All students should have:
a. A health class to prepare them to care for their bodies. This should include disease prevention, good nutrition etc.
b. A class in personal finance, including the dangers and wise use of credit.
c. A solid preparation for citizenship. This should include how the country functions and how citizens can make a difference.
d. A class in critical thinking. Such a class will help future voters see through the nonsense in political ads and will help future consumers see through the similar nonsense in commercial ads. (Woops! Politicians and advertisers won't like this one.)
e. Solid math classes at least to the level of simple statistics.
f. Classes in basic biological and physical science.
g. At least one class in current technology, including how to prepare for changes in technology.
h. English classes, which emphasize reading and listening for understanding, and clear speaking and writing.
i. I'm going to add one more, a class that I've never heard of being offered but which is the most important of all: Every student should take a class in how to continue to learn outside of the classroom. Our modern society is changing so fast that learning should be a life-long process. This need not be continual enrollment in classes; it can be good reading, educational videos, attending lectures etc. A diploma should be regarded as a license to keep learning.
Those classes would teach skills that every adult should have and use. They should be taught in every school system so students learn them before they go off to work, job training, or college.
I regard each of the above as mandatory. Next time I’ll talk about how to get there.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Entitlement Fraud
Suppose you are studying for your dream job, a job that will be interesting, rewarding, and that will pay well and provide good benefits. You expect that 1000 people will be hired when you graduate. The hiring process will require that you demonstrate knowledge of all aspects of your qualifications. However you learn that there are 10,000 people expected to apply for that job. How hard would you study?
Now let's change the scenario a bit. The people hiring not only want employees who can do the job, they also want a certain physical characteristic, namely red hair. In fact they are willing to hire people otherwise unqualified if they have naturally red hair. Of the 10,000 people studying for that job, only 800 are redheads and you are one of them. That means you are essentially guaranteed a job. Now how hard would you study?
“That's silly,” you say. “What employer would ever do such a thing? If they did they would only encourage certain groups to slack off. The employer would end up with incompetent employees. Other employees would resent them and the incompetents would feel inferior. Morale and company performance would both suffer.”
Sadly the answer is that lots of employers do similar things, and our government encourages them to do it. In fact government is the prime offender. The desired characteristics are not red hair but dark skin or two X chromosomes. Any employer with an insufficient number of employees in those categories is considered to be discriminatory, regardless of other reasons for the workforce makeup. Universities also attempt to admit students at least partly on the basis of ethnicity. The results are predictable. We've created a form of identity-based society. Groups of people think that they are entitled to jobs or advanced education because of their ethnicity or sex. In all too many cases, identity supersedes qualification.
For example, “Black American college students planning to go on to post-graduate education were found by one study to feel no sense of urgency about needing to prepare themselves academically 'because they believe that certain rules would simply be set aside for them.'”* That study was done before such things as the Bakke decision, but it does illustrate the problems created by entitlements. People simply don't work as hard when they perceive no need to do so.
Similar studies have found a lackadaisical approach to learning elsewhere when some ethnicities were given preference for hiring or admission. Malaysian students were legally entitled to preferential hiring for government jobs, over the better-educated Chinese minority. In the American Virgin Islands children knew they would have government jobs waiting so they failed to apply themselves in school. Meanwhile their West Indian classmates did better academically but were not eligible for those jobs. In those cases it was the majority getting the preferences and slacking off because of those preferences.* *
The result in such cases is discrimination against those who work harder to become qualified. Another result is poor performance of all employees. Those employees hired (or students admitted) to achieve “racial balance” or something similar are seldom qualified so they cannot do the work well. The qualified employees resent those hired to meet quotas, so they often fail to work to their ability. Everybody loses.
The U.S. Naval Academy is a sad example. Most applicants with C average grades and a 500 SAT score can forget about ever being admitted. Not so for black applicants. In an effort to “remove artificial barriers” they can be sent to a remedial school in Rhode Island where they will have a chance to improve their grades. Even if they fail there they may be admitted to the academy. Then if they do poorly in either class work or deportment they will be treated with kid gloves in order to reach the de facto quota of black naval officers.
As a result of this special treatment, those “special” students are the subject of resentment. Their white classmates resent the fact that they got special treatment. Of course there are plenty of qualified black cadets at the academy and they resent the fact that people may think that they were also admitted under affirmative action instead for their very real qualifications. As citizens we might all resent the fact that defense of our country is being entrusted to the unqualified.
Of course we should help inner city kids whose schools are hardly worthy of the name. However the way to do it is to provide them with opportunity for a good education, not to put them into situations where they are unqualified. Unfortunately too many people want to do it backwards. They want to build the superstructure before the foundation by admitting the unqualified to higher education or by hiring them. Instead we should build the foundation first by educating them at the primary and secondary level.
College admission is not an entitlement. Neither is a job. We need to encourage people to become qualified for education and jobs, not just give it to them because of skin color. Giving someone an “entitlement” because of irrelevant physical features deprives the person of the satisfaction that comes from being a productive citizen. It deprives others of the jobs or education they might have had. It deprives the country of what that person might have produced had he developed his potential instead of just taking “entitlements.”
We should all work to stop this nonsense, for the betterment of the country and for the benefit of both those discriminated against and those handicapped by receiving preferences.
*Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p40, referring to Daniel C. Thompson, Private Black Colleges at the Crossroads
** Ibid
Now let's change the scenario a bit. The people hiring not only want employees who can do the job, they also want a certain physical characteristic, namely red hair. In fact they are willing to hire people otherwise unqualified if they have naturally red hair. Of the 10,000 people studying for that job, only 800 are redheads and you are one of them. That means you are essentially guaranteed a job. Now how hard would you study?
“That's silly,” you say. “What employer would ever do such a thing? If they did they would only encourage certain groups to slack off. The employer would end up with incompetent employees. Other employees would resent them and the incompetents would feel inferior. Morale and company performance would both suffer.”
Sadly the answer is that lots of employers do similar things, and our government encourages them to do it. In fact government is the prime offender. The desired characteristics are not red hair but dark skin or two X chromosomes. Any employer with an insufficient number of employees in those categories is considered to be discriminatory, regardless of other reasons for the workforce makeup. Universities also attempt to admit students at least partly on the basis of ethnicity. The results are predictable. We've created a form of identity-based society. Groups of people think that they are entitled to jobs or advanced education because of their ethnicity or sex. In all too many cases, identity supersedes qualification.
For example, “Black American college students planning to go on to post-graduate education were found by one study to feel no sense of urgency about needing to prepare themselves academically 'because they believe that certain rules would simply be set aside for them.'”* That study was done before such things as the Bakke decision, but it does illustrate the problems created by entitlements. People simply don't work as hard when they perceive no need to do so.
Similar studies have found a lackadaisical approach to learning elsewhere when some ethnicities were given preference for hiring or admission. Malaysian students were legally entitled to preferential hiring for government jobs, over the better-educated Chinese minority. In the American Virgin Islands children knew they would have government jobs waiting so they failed to apply themselves in school. Meanwhile their West Indian classmates did better academically but were not eligible for those jobs. In those cases it was the majority getting the preferences and slacking off because of those preferences.* *
The result in such cases is discrimination against those who work harder to become qualified. Another result is poor performance of all employees. Those employees hired (or students admitted) to achieve “racial balance” or something similar are seldom qualified so they cannot do the work well. The qualified employees resent those hired to meet quotas, so they often fail to work to their ability. Everybody loses.
The U.S. Naval Academy is a sad example. Most applicants with C average grades and a 500 SAT score can forget about ever being admitted. Not so for black applicants. In an effort to “remove artificial barriers” they can be sent to a remedial school in Rhode Island where they will have a chance to improve their grades. Even if they fail there they may be admitted to the academy. Then if they do poorly in either class work or deportment they will be treated with kid gloves in order to reach the de facto quota of black naval officers.
As a result of this special treatment, those “special” students are the subject of resentment. Their white classmates resent the fact that they got special treatment. Of course there are plenty of qualified black cadets at the academy and they resent the fact that people may think that they were also admitted under affirmative action instead for their very real qualifications. As citizens we might all resent the fact that defense of our country is being entrusted to the unqualified.
Of course we should help inner city kids whose schools are hardly worthy of the name. However the way to do it is to provide them with opportunity for a good education, not to put them into situations where they are unqualified. Unfortunately too many people want to do it backwards. They want to build the superstructure before the foundation by admitting the unqualified to higher education or by hiring them. Instead we should build the foundation first by educating them at the primary and secondary level.
College admission is not an entitlement. Neither is a job. We need to encourage people to become qualified for education and jobs, not just give it to them because of skin color. Giving someone an “entitlement” because of irrelevant physical features deprives the person of the satisfaction that comes from being a productive citizen. It deprives others of the jobs or education they might have had. It deprives the country of what that person might have produced had he developed his potential instead of just taking “entitlements.”
We should all work to stop this nonsense, for the betterment of the country and for the benefit of both those discriminated against and those handicapped by receiving preferences.
*Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p40, referring to Daniel C. Thompson, Private Black Colleges at the Crossroads
** Ibid
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
New Haven – Who Won?
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
In view of the Supreme Court decision in the New Haven firefighter case, I’m going to postpone the continued discussion of factual analysis. Instead I’ll discuss the New Haven case while it is still fresh.
The typical news headline in this case is that the white firefighters won. While true, that merely scratches the surface. There are many more winners than just a few firefighters. In fact I would argue that nearly everyone in the U.S., black, white, or any other skin color is a winner and that there are few if any real losers. True, there will be many who complain about loss of what they see as a deserved “helping hand.” However that “helping hand” is counterproductive in the long term.
First on the long list of winners in this case are members of the public who might need help from the fire department. They have more assurance that the commander of any fire-fighting unit will be competent to do his job. The firefighters are likely to be better organized and trained than they would under a less-qualified officer. The person trapped in a house fire or injured in a traffic accident will benefit directly from this improvement. This applies not only to New Haven, but across the country as well.
Second, millions of young people will have greater assurance that their study will pay off as they prepare for the careers of their choice. The New Haven ruling tells government agencies that merit and qualification, not skin color should determine hiring and promotion. It is likely that this non-discrimination will extend to non-government employers as well. This decision is likely to strike a blow against the de facto quota system that has come to exist in this country.
Third, minorities will benefit in at least two ways. First, as hiring and promotion become more merit based there will be less suspicion that the minority employees got their jobs because of skin color. Sadly, many competent people have been tarred with the same brush as those who got their positions as a result of the quota system. Those competent and dedicated employees will be more respected and have more self esteem as the system of preferences dies off.
The second way minorities will benefit is that they will be encouraged to develop their natural talents instead of relying on preferences. I recall the case of a secretary in our department many years ago. She had ability and could have been an excellent employee. Instead she did not apply herself and when threatened with discipline would say in effect, “You can’t fire me, I’m a black woman and you need me for the numbers.” Eventually she left the company, taking her attitude with her. It’s impossible to say for certain how much that attitude had to do with this next but it probably played a factor. Sadly I later saw her picture in the paper, sentenced to jail for dealing drugs.
“But wait,” someone says. “What about the minority firefighters denied promotion? Weren’t they harmed?” I would say that they were not. It is true that they may have had to live on a lower salary than had they been promoted. However salary is not the only or even the most important consideration in job satisfaction. Most people like to feel that they are productive in their employment. Promotions or hiring for preferential reasons militate against that, a person who got his job because of his skin color is unlikely to have the same satisfaction as will someone hired and retained because of his work.
If an employee thinks he can get promoted because of his skin color, he is likely to depend on that skin. However if he is confident that promotions are merit-based, he is likely to work harder and study harder to become more qualified. That will increase his satisfaction with his job and his life. For that reason I maintain that the firefighters who did poorly on the test also will benefit in the long term. They cannot change their skin color but they can change how they work and how they study for the next promotional exam.
It is true that many minorities have suffered discrimination and economic problems in the U.S. and elsewhere. However history shows that those minorities who overcome such problems do so by struggle, hard work, and education. Preferential treatment simply helps them stay in the same situation and thus works against them long term.
As the country follows the New Haven decision, everybody will benefit from the wisdom of the fourteenth amendment. That amendment simply requires that no state “shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As I’ve described in my blog about the Gander Test, New Haven attempted to deny white firefighters the same protection the city would have given to minorities. The Supreme Court decided correctly in this case and we will all benefit from that decision.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
In view of the Supreme Court decision in the New Haven firefighter case, I’m going to postpone the continued discussion of factual analysis. Instead I’ll discuss the New Haven case while it is still fresh.
The typical news headline in this case is that the white firefighters won. While true, that merely scratches the surface. There are many more winners than just a few firefighters. In fact I would argue that nearly everyone in the U.S., black, white, or any other skin color is a winner and that there are few if any real losers. True, there will be many who complain about loss of what they see as a deserved “helping hand.” However that “helping hand” is counterproductive in the long term.
First on the long list of winners in this case are members of the public who might need help from the fire department. They have more assurance that the commander of any fire-fighting unit will be competent to do his job. The firefighters are likely to be better organized and trained than they would under a less-qualified officer. The person trapped in a house fire or injured in a traffic accident will benefit directly from this improvement. This applies not only to New Haven, but across the country as well.
Second, millions of young people will have greater assurance that their study will pay off as they prepare for the careers of their choice. The New Haven ruling tells government agencies that merit and qualification, not skin color should determine hiring and promotion. It is likely that this non-discrimination will extend to non-government employers as well. This decision is likely to strike a blow against the de facto quota system that has come to exist in this country.
Third, minorities will benefit in at least two ways. First, as hiring and promotion become more merit based there will be less suspicion that the minority employees got their jobs because of skin color. Sadly, many competent people have been tarred with the same brush as those who got their positions as a result of the quota system. Those competent and dedicated employees will be more respected and have more self esteem as the system of preferences dies off.
The second way minorities will benefit is that they will be encouraged to develop their natural talents instead of relying on preferences. I recall the case of a secretary in our department many years ago. She had ability and could have been an excellent employee. Instead she did not apply herself and when threatened with discipline would say in effect, “You can’t fire me, I’m a black woman and you need me for the numbers.” Eventually she left the company, taking her attitude with her. It’s impossible to say for certain how much that attitude had to do with this next but it probably played a factor. Sadly I later saw her picture in the paper, sentenced to jail for dealing drugs.
“But wait,” someone says. “What about the minority firefighters denied promotion? Weren’t they harmed?” I would say that they were not. It is true that they may have had to live on a lower salary than had they been promoted. However salary is not the only or even the most important consideration in job satisfaction. Most people like to feel that they are productive in their employment. Promotions or hiring for preferential reasons militate against that, a person who got his job because of his skin color is unlikely to have the same satisfaction as will someone hired and retained because of his work.
If an employee thinks he can get promoted because of his skin color, he is likely to depend on that skin. However if he is confident that promotions are merit-based, he is likely to work harder and study harder to become more qualified. That will increase his satisfaction with his job and his life. For that reason I maintain that the firefighters who did poorly on the test also will benefit in the long term. They cannot change their skin color but they can change how they work and how they study for the next promotional exam.
It is true that many minorities have suffered discrimination and economic problems in the U.S. and elsewhere. However history shows that those minorities who overcome such problems do so by struggle, hard work, and education. Preferential treatment simply helps them stay in the same situation and thus works against them long term.
As the country follows the New Haven decision, everybody will benefit from the wisdom of the fourteenth amendment. That amendment simply requires that no state “shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As I’ve described in my blog about the Gander Test, New Haven attempted to deny white firefighters the same protection the city would have given to minorities. The Supreme Court decided correctly in this case and we will all benefit from that decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
