Congressional Problems, Our Problems (Part 2)
Last time I discussed pressure to do something even if it’s wrong, and stage one thinking. Those problems affect all of us but especially congress. Now let’s move on to a couple of other problems.
A third congressional problem is that there is seldom any motivation for congress to fix the problems it creates. Just look at the mortgage issue for example. People who should never have qualified for mortgages were able to do so because of pressure on lenders and because of programs to allow them to get loans with no down payment. It should have been no surprise that many subsequently defaulted on those mortgages. So has congress cracked down on the problem? Of course not, that might cost votes. Instead we now have a program of mortgage subsidies that allows the subsidy to be used for the down payment. I'm afraid the results will be predictable.
In our own lives we are also tempted to stick with bad decisions long after we should recognize that they are bad. This is a natural human tendency, based on something that has benefited the race for eons. When a child misbehaves we usually do not immediately decide that having a child was a mistake and abandon that child. That is a good thing when it comes to children, but not with investments or most other bad decisions.
We all make mistakes. The wise learn from those mistakes and correct their problems. The unwise persist with their bad decisions, to their detriment. (In fact the truly wise learn from the mistakes of others.)
A forth problem is accessibility bias, the tendency to be unduly influenced by most recent or most noticeable events. The cognitive psychologists have done experiments demonstrating that what we have recently seen, or what is spectacular, tends to overwhelm the less spectacular things or those in the distant past. In one experiment, subjects spun a wheel giving numbers up to 100. Then they were asked to guess how many African countries were in the UN. There was an amazing correlation between the number they saw on that wheel and their guesses about UN countries. The number accessible in their minds unduly influenced their guesses on an unrelated topic.
Think of how this affects congress. Who gets most of their attention? Clearly not the guy working in a factory or on a farm trying to keep up with the needs of his family. No, there are union and business lobbyists, “public interest” groups with an ax to grind, and others twisting their arms or convincing representatives of their viewpoints. All that attention provides accessibility bias toward meeting the demands of those groups at the expense of good citizens who haven't time to camp on the representative's doorstep. The result is that congress has a distorted, one-sided view of reality.
Of course accessibility bias affects us all. The memorable advertisement, the spectacular and bloody news story etc. all cause us to view the world differently than we would otherwise. Without conscious effort to avoid distortion we will not have a good picture of the world.
I’ve mentioned four problems here:
Pressure to do something, even if it’s wrong,
Stage one thinking,
Failure to learn from and correct previous mistakes, and
Accessibility bias
Those four problems affect us all. However the nature of congress causes them to have more effect on that body than on most of us. We see the reason every time we look in a mirror. As Pogo said, “we have met the enemy and he is us.” Voters continue to demand action, even if wrong. Voters demand superficial solutions and fail to demand evaluation beyond stage one. Voters fail to demand that congress correct past errors or look beyond the lobbyists when making decisions. Until that changes, congress will not change.
What can we do? As voters we can demand that congress do better in these areas. More importantly, we can look at ourselves, how we vote and the things we ask of our representatives. However, beyond that we should encourage a return to a limited, constitutional government. We need to get away from the whole idea of government as a paternalistic solution to all our problems. The power to solve those problems is also the power to take our freedoms and create new problems.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Congressional Problems, Our Problems (Part 1)
About a week ago I wrote about how congressional obfuscation is going to cause problems with health care and elsewhere. Those obfuscations seem to be the work of a few congressional leaders and may be deliberately caused. However even beyond that, congress operates under some serious disadvantages. Those disadvantages also apply to much of what the rest of us do, though not to the extent that they apply to congress.
First, congress is under pressure to do something about any perceived problem. Sadly, our representatives will get lots of bad publicity if they refuse to act and almost no positive reaction if they fail to move, even if the proposed action is damaging to the country. That publicity swings elections, putting pressure on our representatives to do something, even if it's wrong. I posted an entire blog on this subject back on June 15, 2009. (http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=something%2C+stand+there)
A second disadvantage is that congress by nature engages in stage one thinking. What that means is that they look only at the initially expected results and do not ask things like, “and then what?” Political pressure is always for the quick fix, Adverse results usually come later, on someone else’s watch. Congress will authorize bailout funds for all sorts of businesses but fails to ask, “Then what?” What will happen when the money is spent? What will the massive borrowing or taxation do to the economy?”
How about when congress voted to pressure banks to make mortgage loans more “equal opportunity” by loaning to minorities? Did the representatives ask, “What then? Will those marginal mortgages have a high default rate?” If they did they must not have cared about the answer, which was obvious. We now have economic problems caused in large part by the defaults on those marginal mortgages. Furthermore, those who borrowed and were forced into default have their credit damaged. They were harmed by the “help” congress gave them.
This of course applies also to our personal and work lives. It is easy to make a decision based only on the obvious. We can buy that TV or new car we want, even on credit. However it is more difficult to think about “what then?” What happens when the bills start coming in? What happens if our employer has to cut back and our income drops?
This also applies to our love lives. A friend was recently married after a rather rushed courtship. She is older than most and perhaps a bit set in her ways. Her husband likewise has previous life experiences that gave him certain expectations. My wife and I tried to warn her that she should look at things carefully, especially the “big three” marriage problems: children, money, and in-laws. She did not do that, and the marriage may not survive. She and her husband now have problems in all three of those areas. She could have asked herself (and her intended husband) things like, “How will we deal with your children? Any children we have? How will we act if your parents interfere with our family decisions? How will we manage our money?”
Some have the idea that love conquers all. Well nearly all marriages start with two people in love – but have you checked the divorce rate in this country? Stage one thinking contributes heavily to that problem. However if couples would just look a little deeper many would either not marry or would go into marriage with a better idea of how to stay happy with each other.
Stage one thinking is a recipe for trouble, in personal, work and national life.
To be continued next time with a couple of other such problems.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
First, congress is under pressure to do something about any perceived problem. Sadly, our representatives will get lots of bad publicity if they refuse to act and almost no positive reaction if they fail to move, even if the proposed action is damaging to the country. That publicity swings elections, putting pressure on our representatives to do something, even if it's wrong. I posted an entire blog on this subject back on June 15, 2009. (http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=something%2C+stand+there)
A second disadvantage is that congress by nature engages in stage one thinking. What that means is that they look only at the initially expected results and do not ask things like, “and then what?” Political pressure is always for the quick fix, Adverse results usually come later, on someone else’s watch. Congress will authorize bailout funds for all sorts of businesses but fails to ask, “Then what?” What will happen when the money is spent? What will the massive borrowing or taxation do to the economy?”
How about when congress voted to pressure banks to make mortgage loans more “equal opportunity” by loaning to minorities? Did the representatives ask, “What then? Will those marginal mortgages have a high default rate?” If they did they must not have cared about the answer, which was obvious. We now have economic problems caused in large part by the defaults on those marginal mortgages. Furthermore, those who borrowed and were forced into default have their credit damaged. They were harmed by the “help” congress gave them.
This of course applies also to our personal and work lives. It is easy to make a decision based only on the obvious. We can buy that TV or new car we want, even on credit. However it is more difficult to think about “what then?” What happens when the bills start coming in? What happens if our employer has to cut back and our income drops?
This also applies to our love lives. A friend was recently married after a rather rushed courtship. She is older than most and perhaps a bit set in her ways. Her husband likewise has previous life experiences that gave him certain expectations. My wife and I tried to warn her that she should look at things carefully, especially the “big three” marriage problems: children, money, and in-laws. She did not do that, and the marriage may not survive. She and her husband now have problems in all three of those areas. She could have asked herself (and her intended husband) things like, “How will we deal with your children? Any children we have? How will we act if your parents interfere with our family decisions? How will we manage our money?”
Some have the idea that love conquers all. Well nearly all marriages start with two people in love – but have you checked the divorce rate in this country? Stage one thinking contributes heavily to that problem. However if couples would just look a little deeper many would either not marry or would go into marriage with a better idea of how to stay happy with each other.
Stage one thinking is a recipe for trouble, in personal, work and national life.
To be continued next time with a couple of other such problems.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Lessons from Fort Hood
By now nearly everyone in the U.S. knows that Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded over 30 others at Fort Hood. This tragic event almost certainly could have been prevented and we should learn from it. However we should be careful that we learn the right lessons. One thing we should not do is blame all Muslims. Most Muslims in the country have condemned this act as anti-Islamic. They point out that the Koran prohibits such murder of non-combatants. Hasan was clearly an extremist, out of the mainstream of U.S. Islam.
Nor should we blame “quiet loners,” another group often implicated after the fact. The great majority of loners in this country are upstanding citizens and never commit any serious crime.
No, the lesson we should learn from the Fort Hood killings is that we should look at the facts, regardless of what they say. In the case of Hasan, the facts were plentiful and pointed to an officer who could not be trusted. He had posted his anti-American views quite openly on the Internet. It now appears that he had attempted to contact al Qaeda. Why trust someone like that? Would a football team hire a trainer who wanted that team to lose? Would a business hire an employee who was loyal to a competitor?
While nobody could have predicted that Hasan would “go postal” and commit mass murder, there was plenty of evidence that he was not to be trusted. Even had he not committed murder, he would probably have been an ineffective in a combat area and quite likely would have worked against the cause he was paid to support.
In such cases we must reject the temptation to treat employment and similar decisions as though we were in a court of law. There is no automatic presumption of innocence in the employment arena. Instead, employers must do what is likely to be best for the organization. In cases such as that of Nidal Hasan, that means looking at if he was likely to be an effective therapist to the soldiers he was supposed to serve and to help them function effectively in their jobs. Decision makers must look for positive evidence of ability and willingness to do that job, and do it right. Lacking such evidence they should not assign him to the task.
In Hasan's case, the ability was probably there but there was reason for serious doubts about the willingness. In fact, there was reason to suspect that he would work against U.S. interests. He should have been placed in some non-critical assignment or even suspended from duty until all relevant questions were answered. Of course we cannot know what would have happened had that been done. However it is possible that he would never have committed those murders.
The lesson applies elsewhere. Except as required by such things as union contracts, employers need not give employees the benefit of a doubt. If there is reason to suspect that an employee is damaging the company, the employer can and should investigate. And there is no requirement of “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” If there is no evidence that the employee is doing the job as it should be done, that employee has no right to a presumption of effectiveness.
Likewise, we as consumers are in the position of employers when we decide whom we will employ by purchasing their products or services. We need not assume that advertisers or sales people are totally honest. It is up to us to evaluate their claims and refuse to “hire” them if we find the evidence insufficient.
We must all learn to investigate pertinent evidence for cases that affect our lives.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Nor should we blame “quiet loners,” another group often implicated after the fact. The great majority of loners in this country are upstanding citizens and never commit any serious crime.
No, the lesson we should learn from the Fort Hood killings is that we should look at the facts, regardless of what they say. In the case of Hasan, the facts were plentiful and pointed to an officer who could not be trusted. He had posted his anti-American views quite openly on the Internet. It now appears that he had attempted to contact al Qaeda. Why trust someone like that? Would a football team hire a trainer who wanted that team to lose? Would a business hire an employee who was loyal to a competitor?
While nobody could have predicted that Hasan would “go postal” and commit mass murder, there was plenty of evidence that he was not to be trusted. Even had he not committed murder, he would probably have been an ineffective in a combat area and quite likely would have worked against the cause he was paid to support.
In such cases we must reject the temptation to treat employment and similar decisions as though we were in a court of law. There is no automatic presumption of innocence in the employment arena. Instead, employers must do what is likely to be best for the organization. In cases such as that of Nidal Hasan, that means looking at if he was likely to be an effective therapist to the soldiers he was supposed to serve and to help them function effectively in their jobs. Decision makers must look for positive evidence of ability and willingness to do that job, and do it right. Lacking such evidence they should not assign him to the task.
In Hasan's case, the ability was probably there but there was reason for serious doubts about the willingness. In fact, there was reason to suspect that he would work against U.S. interests. He should have been placed in some non-critical assignment or even suspended from duty until all relevant questions were answered. Of course we cannot know what would have happened had that been done. However it is possible that he would never have committed those murders.
The lesson applies elsewhere. Except as required by such things as union contracts, employers need not give employees the benefit of a doubt. If there is reason to suspect that an employee is damaging the company, the employer can and should investigate. And there is no requirement of “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” If there is no evidence that the employee is doing the job as it should be done, that employee has no right to a presumption of effectiveness.
Likewise, we as consumers are in the position of employers when we decide whom we will employ by purchasing their products or services. We need not assume that advertisers or sales people are totally honest. It is up to us to evaluate their claims and refuse to “hire” them if we find the evidence insufficient.
We must all learn to investigate pertinent evidence for cases that affect our lives.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Congress: Obfuscations are Us
Released in a meeting closed to the public, Nancy Pelosi's latest health care plan is a masterpiece of obfuscation. Nearly 2000 pages, all written in legalese – if a reader wants to know what one section means, he must go to a different section to see what special meaning is applied to the words, or what exceptions are built in. What does it really say? I don't pretend to know since I've not read the monstrosity. If I get lots of time and can find a copy on the web I'll try to read it. However I suspect part of the intent is to discourage citizens from reading it.
I have heard commentator claims about what it says. Medicare cutbacks. Reduction in the right to put money in a health savings account. Higher taxes (probably inevitable in any “reform” this congress is likely to pass). Costs heaped on business and individuals. The possibility of federal charges for anyone who refuses to buy insurance. Are those claims true? I suspect so but I'm not sure. I am sure that Pelosi and her cohorts became complicit in those claims by creating such an undecipherable monster. When nobody understands a bill it is inevitable that rumors will circulate. Some of those rumors will be true, some false.
Furthermore, if the past actions of Pelosi, Obama and Reid are any guide we can now expect to see a push for quick action before people have time to understand this bill. I do not believe they trust the people enough to let us know what it will mean. In fact Pelosi has now reneged on her promise to post it on line for 72 hours before any vote.
So much for the open government the democrats promised.
And all that brings up another question: What is the probability that any such health care legislation will actually work? It is well known in engineering that the more complicated a design, the less likely it is to actually function as intended. In one class I took the saying was, “if you can't explain how it works to a retarded five-year old you will never understand why it doesn't work at all.” The point was that all successful circuit designs are simple, or combinations of simple designs.*
That rule applies in life generally. Complexity is more useful for obscuring the issues than for reaching stated goals. That applies to government programs as much as anywhere else. The health care bills being proposed are all complex in the extreme. I cannot believe that any of them will actually work as advertised. And there is a huge disadvantage just because they are proposing a government program. An electronic circuit goes into production only after it is tested. In contrast, the test of the health care bill will come only when it is imposed on the citizens who will have no choice but to live with it.
The entire health care “reform,” as proposed by Pelosi, Reid et al, promises to be an expensive boondoggle. We must convince our representatives to oppose it.
*This has been somewhat modified in recent years as computer modeling of electronic circuits has become the norm. That allows problems to be identified before the actual circuit is constructed. However the human designer still works with relatively simple parts of the circuit. Unfortunately we have no such modeling programs available for government programs.
Postscript to the previous blog about big lies and the Obama administration: I've just read about how administration officials are equating pay raises to jobs saved. "If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," The speaker was HHS spokesman Luis Rosero.
(www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300)
How any reasonable person could swallow that one is beyond me. The administration seems to be making a career out of telling big lies.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
I have heard commentator claims about what it says. Medicare cutbacks. Reduction in the right to put money in a health savings account. Higher taxes (probably inevitable in any “reform” this congress is likely to pass). Costs heaped on business and individuals. The possibility of federal charges for anyone who refuses to buy insurance. Are those claims true? I suspect so but I'm not sure. I am sure that Pelosi and her cohorts became complicit in those claims by creating such an undecipherable monster. When nobody understands a bill it is inevitable that rumors will circulate. Some of those rumors will be true, some false.
Furthermore, if the past actions of Pelosi, Obama and Reid are any guide we can now expect to see a push for quick action before people have time to understand this bill. I do not believe they trust the people enough to let us know what it will mean. In fact Pelosi has now reneged on her promise to post it on line for 72 hours before any vote.
So much for the open government the democrats promised.
And all that brings up another question: What is the probability that any such health care legislation will actually work? It is well known in engineering that the more complicated a design, the less likely it is to actually function as intended. In one class I took the saying was, “if you can't explain how it works to a retarded five-year old you will never understand why it doesn't work at all.” The point was that all successful circuit designs are simple, or combinations of simple designs.*
That rule applies in life generally. Complexity is more useful for obscuring the issues than for reaching stated goals. That applies to government programs as much as anywhere else. The health care bills being proposed are all complex in the extreme. I cannot believe that any of them will actually work as advertised. And there is a huge disadvantage just because they are proposing a government program. An electronic circuit goes into production only after it is tested. In contrast, the test of the health care bill will come only when it is imposed on the citizens who will have no choice but to live with it.
The entire health care “reform,” as proposed by Pelosi, Reid et al, promises to be an expensive boondoggle. We must convince our representatives to oppose it.
*This has been somewhat modified in recent years as computer modeling of electronic circuits has become the norm. That allows problems to be identified before the actual circuit is constructed. However the human designer still works with relatively simple parts of the circuit. Unfortunately we have no such modeling programs available for government programs.
Postscript to the previous blog about big lies and the Obama administration: I've just read about how administration officials are equating pay raises to jobs saved. "If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," The speaker was HHS spokesman Luis Rosero.
(www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300)
How any reasonable person could swallow that one is beyond me. The administration seems to be making a career out of telling big lies.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Big Lie
“Tell a big enough lie and people will believe it because they think nobody would dare say such a thing if it weren't true.” That advice, often attributed to Hitler's dictatorship, seems to have spread around the world. It pains me to say this about my country, but it also seems to have infected the U.S. presidency and congress.
For four straight weeks in October President Obama mentioned his health care reform in his weekly message. In each of the four messages he went so far as to claim that the people and congress were coming together to provide bipartisan support for his plan. I do not understand how anybody could believe that claim. Doubts have been growing, even in Obama's own party, and that was obvious before Obama made his claims. Either he is completely out of touch with reality or he is telling a big lie.
It saddens me to make such an accusation within my own country, just as it saddened me when Nixon was shown to have engaged in a cover-up of the Watergate break-in. Unfortunately the facts are there. Nixon did participate in the cover-up. Obama did tell a flagrant lie, claiming people were coming together to support his plan when the opposite was true.
Worse, that was not an isolated incident. On 24 October, Obama claimed that the “reform” would help save small business in the country. Somehow imposing higher costs on those companies is supposed to help their bottom line? You gotta' be kidding! Can he be that out of touch with reality or is he telling us another big lie?
Though there is not yet a single, finalized health care reform plan, it is clear that all the plans Obama and his followers support would add costs, either through taxes or through forcing employers to provide insurance. Companies with that additional expense would be competing with imports from China, Southeast Asia and elsewhere, places where wages are low and employer-paid health coverage hardly known. The result will be the near destruction of small business in this country.
Obama is not alone in this. Sen. Max Baucus claims that there is a “sense of inevitability....we're going to pass health care reform and it's going to lower costs, provide better health insurance coverage.” Sorry Max, there is no sense of inevitability except as you create one. Nor is it all that obvious that government meddling will lower cost or provide better coverage. I’m not sure if you are that out of touch with reality or if you’re telling another big lie, but it has to be one or the other. What you claim is completely wrong.
Al this is reminiscent of teen-age peer pressure. “Everybody's doing it, why don't you?” It appears to be an attempt to steamroll the opposition by creating a false impression that the “reform” is inevitable. Reasoned discussion takes a back seat. Instead the message is that we better get on board, join the bandwagon, do what everybody else does without thinking it through.
There was a time when we expected honor in our elected servants. While the story of Washington and the cherry tree was not true, it does illustrate an expectation that the people we hire to run the country should tell us the truth. Sadly that expectation has changed and we now go so far as to say that the way to tell if a politician is lying is if his lips are moving. That must change. We, the voters, must put a stop to this nonsense. We must contact our representatives and tell them to stop lying. If they refuse we must publicize that, then fire them at the next election – or recall them before that election if recall is available.
No democratic government can long survive unless the voters can trust their representatives.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
For four straight weeks in October President Obama mentioned his health care reform in his weekly message. In each of the four messages he went so far as to claim that the people and congress were coming together to provide bipartisan support for his plan. I do not understand how anybody could believe that claim. Doubts have been growing, even in Obama's own party, and that was obvious before Obama made his claims. Either he is completely out of touch with reality or he is telling a big lie.
It saddens me to make such an accusation within my own country, just as it saddened me when Nixon was shown to have engaged in a cover-up of the Watergate break-in. Unfortunately the facts are there. Nixon did participate in the cover-up. Obama did tell a flagrant lie, claiming people were coming together to support his plan when the opposite was true.
Worse, that was not an isolated incident. On 24 October, Obama claimed that the “reform” would help save small business in the country. Somehow imposing higher costs on those companies is supposed to help their bottom line? You gotta' be kidding! Can he be that out of touch with reality or is he telling us another big lie?
Though there is not yet a single, finalized health care reform plan, it is clear that all the plans Obama and his followers support would add costs, either through taxes or through forcing employers to provide insurance. Companies with that additional expense would be competing with imports from China, Southeast Asia and elsewhere, places where wages are low and employer-paid health coverage hardly known. The result will be the near destruction of small business in this country.
Obama is not alone in this. Sen. Max Baucus claims that there is a “sense of inevitability....we're going to pass health care reform and it's going to lower costs, provide better health insurance coverage.” Sorry Max, there is no sense of inevitability except as you create one. Nor is it all that obvious that government meddling will lower cost or provide better coverage. I’m not sure if you are that out of touch with reality or if you’re telling another big lie, but it has to be one or the other. What you claim is completely wrong.
Al this is reminiscent of teen-age peer pressure. “Everybody's doing it, why don't you?” It appears to be an attempt to steamroll the opposition by creating a false impression that the “reform” is inevitable. Reasoned discussion takes a back seat. Instead the message is that we better get on board, join the bandwagon, do what everybody else does without thinking it through.
There was a time when we expected honor in our elected servants. While the story of Washington and the cherry tree was not true, it does illustrate an expectation that the people we hire to run the country should tell us the truth. Sadly that expectation has changed and we now go so far as to say that the way to tell if a politician is lying is if his lips are moving. That must change. We, the voters, must put a stop to this nonsense. We must contact our representatives and tell them to stop lying. If they refuse we must publicize that, then fire them at the next election – or recall them before that election if recall is available.
No democratic government can long survive unless the voters can trust their representatives.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Friday, October 30, 2009
A Longer School Year? Part 2
Consider a typical elementary or secondary student in the United States. As September rolls around mom takes him to the store for new clothes, maybe a notebook, new pencils or pens, or crayons depending on his age. With all this new stuff he may even be excited about the new school year (though that is more likely if “he” is a she). Off he goes on the first day of school to meet his new teachers, maybe some new friends and to undergo the rite of passage of being in a grade more advanced than last year.
By the end of September that student has probably settled into his new class. More importantly, his teachers may have finished re-teaching him what he forgot over the summer. By November he is glad for a Thanksgiving break and by mid-December he is more than ready for Christmas vacation. By the time June rolls around, he is tired of school and of his teachers. He can't wait for summer vacation to start. The teachers are also tired of the students and the administrators are tired of the students and the teachers.
The student’s next three months often include family vacation, playing with neighbor kids, maybe camp or a summer job. The first month is great, he enjoys the freedom. The second month is OK. However by August he probably gets bored and complains to his mom that there’s nothing to do. He has had three months to forget what he learned during the school year. Meanwhile the expensive buildings and equipment at his school have been unused.
That type of school year is the heritage of our agricultural past. It made sense when children were needed on the farm for the summer. It still makes sense in many agricultural regions, but not in most urban areas.
There has to be a better way – and there is.
Some places already have year-around school, with students in school for nine weeks and then on vacation for three weeks. Total class time is the same as with the standard year but that class time is more evenly distributed. They find this more effective than the traditional school year. Kids don't get as antsy toward the end of the school year, nor do they get as bored toward the end of a summer vacation. Teachers don't have to spend the first month in the fall re-teaching what the kids forgot over the summer. Because they do not need to re-learn so much, students can learn more effectively. In addition, schools can divide students into four tracks, with one track on vacation and three in school at any given time. That reduces the number of schools needed and frees up resources for other uses.
This is one of those ideas with which almost everybody wins. Students like it; teachers like it; most parents like it. Taxpayers like it because it reduces the number of school facilities required. The only opponents are typically administrators who have to do extra work to manage the different tracks of students. This type of school year is especially effective in elementary schools where there are no sports programs. However I’m confident that it could be made to work in secondary schools as well. Athletes could show up to practice and games even during the time their track is on vacation. In fact those playing fall sports already show up for practice before school starts.
It’s high time we got rid of the anachronistic school year and started using something more effective. This would make for better use of educational time, providing the benefits of more class time without actually requiring that class time.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
By the end of September that student has probably settled into his new class. More importantly, his teachers may have finished re-teaching him what he forgot over the summer. By November he is glad for a Thanksgiving break and by mid-December he is more than ready for Christmas vacation. By the time June rolls around, he is tired of school and of his teachers. He can't wait for summer vacation to start. The teachers are also tired of the students and the administrators are tired of the students and the teachers.
The student’s next three months often include family vacation, playing with neighbor kids, maybe camp or a summer job. The first month is great, he enjoys the freedom. The second month is OK. However by August he probably gets bored and complains to his mom that there’s nothing to do. He has had three months to forget what he learned during the school year. Meanwhile the expensive buildings and equipment at his school have been unused.
That type of school year is the heritage of our agricultural past. It made sense when children were needed on the farm for the summer. It still makes sense in many agricultural regions, but not in most urban areas.
There has to be a better way – and there is.
Some places already have year-around school, with students in school for nine weeks and then on vacation for three weeks. Total class time is the same as with the standard year but that class time is more evenly distributed. They find this more effective than the traditional school year. Kids don't get as antsy toward the end of the school year, nor do they get as bored toward the end of a summer vacation. Teachers don't have to spend the first month in the fall re-teaching what the kids forgot over the summer. Because they do not need to re-learn so much, students can learn more effectively. In addition, schools can divide students into four tracks, with one track on vacation and three in school at any given time. That reduces the number of schools needed and frees up resources for other uses.
This is one of those ideas with which almost everybody wins. Students like it; teachers like it; most parents like it. Taxpayers like it because it reduces the number of school facilities required. The only opponents are typically administrators who have to do extra work to manage the different tracks of students. This type of school year is especially effective in elementary schools where there are no sports programs. However I’m confident that it could be made to work in secondary schools as well. Athletes could show up to practice and games even during the time their track is on vacation. In fact those playing fall sports already show up for practice before school starts.
It’s high time we got rid of the anachronistic school year and started using something more effective. This would make for better use of educational time, providing the benefits of more class time without actually requiring that class time.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Longer School Year?
President Obama and others are proposing that the school year in the U.S. be extended. The theory is that more time in the classroom will improve learning. There probably is something to that, but is it really the best way to improve education? I doubt it.
More class time would be more of the same, that is obvious. If teaching or student commitment is inadequate, we would just get more poor teaching and lack of student commitment. If parents regard schools as simply a baby-sitting service they would regard a longer school year as more baby-sitting rather than pushing their children to learn. What we need, before we extend the school year, is to teach more effectively. That is especially true of math, science, logic, and critical thinking.
Look at a typical science project in an elementary school. The child is expected to make a model of island ecology or some other scene. After hours with paper, crayons, and clay, the student proudly delivers the project. The teacher then grades it based on how well the colors match reality and how well shaped the model is. Next open house, that project is likely to be displayed as an example of how well the students are learning. Yes they have learned: they learned something about art, but precious little about science.
Sadly, science is often taught as a collection of bloodless facts which students are expected to memorize and regurgitate. Children who eagerly read mystery stories or watch mystery TV shows are not exposed to the way scientists investigate the mysteries of the universe. Students may follow the clues of the mystery story to the final conclusion of who is guilty. However they are denied a view of the excitement that comes from examining scientific clues and finally reaching a conclusion that reflects the real world.
As an example, we have students being told that nearly all the world's scientists believe in man-made global warming. However that is presented as a simple fact, to be accepted and not disputed. Typically only the shallowest of evidence is presented and no alternative explanations are allowed, much less offered to the students. The teacher is the authority and is not to be questioned.
Contrast this with they type of teaching I read about years ago, in Reader's Digest though if memory serves. The author described how, during the first class of the year, the teacher held up what he described as a model of a skull from a South American animal, now extinct. He said that the animal had vanished, leaving no trace that it had ever existed. He then described the animal, its food, its environment etc. Then he gave a quiz on what he had said. Most students did quite well at regurgitating what their teacher had told them. As a result every student got a zero on the quiz.
Can you see why the students flunked? If not, you may be a victim of the “memorize and regurgitate” system of “education.” Not even one student bothered to ask the critical question, “How do you know all this? Especially if the animal left no trace of having ever existed?”
That teacher was driving home a lesson in critical thinking, something central to science.
We need more of that in education. Students should be encouraged to question, to think critically, to generate their own theories and then to describe how such theories could be tested. Instead, too often the questioning student is regarded as a troublemaker. As in Kipling's story “The Elephant's Child,” curiosity and questions can elicit disapproval.
In other disciplines as well, emphasis should be on learning and thinking. Some memorization is necessary of course. Students need to memorize addition, subtraction and other mathematical facts. However school personnel should always keep in mind that they are to prepare students for a changing world, a world filled with con artists. Some of those con artists are criminals, some are advertisers and sales people, some are politicians. Students should learn to evaluate claims as they would the clues in a murder mystery.
With a commitment to real learning instead of busy-work, we can improve our educational system, and we can do it with students spending the same amount of time in class as they do now.
Only after we establish a solid educational system should we consider extending the school year. Even then there is a way to get more effective learning time without more time in class, or more homework. I plan to discuss that next time.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
More class time would be more of the same, that is obvious. If teaching or student commitment is inadequate, we would just get more poor teaching and lack of student commitment. If parents regard schools as simply a baby-sitting service they would regard a longer school year as more baby-sitting rather than pushing their children to learn. What we need, before we extend the school year, is to teach more effectively. That is especially true of math, science, logic, and critical thinking.
Look at a typical science project in an elementary school. The child is expected to make a model of island ecology or some other scene. After hours with paper, crayons, and clay, the student proudly delivers the project. The teacher then grades it based on how well the colors match reality and how well shaped the model is. Next open house, that project is likely to be displayed as an example of how well the students are learning. Yes they have learned: they learned something about art, but precious little about science.
Sadly, science is often taught as a collection of bloodless facts which students are expected to memorize and regurgitate. Children who eagerly read mystery stories or watch mystery TV shows are not exposed to the way scientists investigate the mysteries of the universe. Students may follow the clues of the mystery story to the final conclusion of who is guilty. However they are denied a view of the excitement that comes from examining scientific clues and finally reaching a conclusion that reflects the real world.
As an example, we have students being told that nearly all the world's scientists believe in man-made global warming. However that is presented as a simple fact, to be accepted and not disputed. Typically only the shallowest of evidence is presented and no alternative explanations are allowed, much less offered to the students. The teacher is the authority and is not to be questioned.
Contrast this with they type of teaching I read about years ago, in Reader's Digest though if memory serves. The author described how, during the first class of the year, the teacher held up what he described as a model of a skull from a South American animal, now extinct. He said that the animal had vanished, leaving no trace that it had ever existed. He then described the animal, its food, its environment etc. Then he gave a quiz on what he had said. Most students did quite well at regurgitating what their teacher had told them. As a result every student got a zero on the quiz.
Can you see why the students flunked? If not, you may be a victim of the “memorize and regurgitate” system of “education.” Not even one student bothered to ask the critical question, “How do you know all this? Especially if the animal left no trace of having ever existed?”
That teacher was driving home a lesson in critical thinking, something central to science.
We need more of that in education. Students should be encouraged to question, to think critically, to generate their own theories and then to describe how such theories could be tested. Instead, too often the questioning student is regarded as a troublemaker. As in Kipling's story “The Elephant's Child,” curiosity and questions can elicit disapproval.
In other disciplines as well, emphasis should be on learning and thinking. Some memorization is necessary of course. Students need to memorize addition, subtraction and other mathematical facts. However school personnel should always keep in mind that they are to prepare students for a changing world, a world filled with con artists. Some of those con artists are criminals, some are advertisers and sales people, some are politicians. Students should learn to evaluate claims as they would the clues in a murder mystery.
With a commitment to real learning instead of busy-work, we can improve our educational system, and we can do it with students spending the same amount of time in class as they do now.
Only after we establish a solid educational system should we consider extending the school year. Even then there is a way to get more effective learning time without more time in class, or more homework. I plan to discuss that next time.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
