So cheating is suddenly common? I should think this was to be expected the second the ink dried on signing high-stakes into law. And to think that the Atlanta superintendent was named 2009 Supt. of the Year! Thank you, Atlanta, for proving once again that standardized testing is irrelevant to today's economy and the preparation of students to employed citizens.
I feel I've said this ad nauseum but tying test scores of students with whom teachers get about 1 hour/day to the teacher's economic livelihood is a recipe for disaster. Teachers can not overcome the years of parental failure with just 180 or so hours a year while competing with 29 other students; that roughly means a teacher can average 2 min of one-on-one instruction with each student daily. Image that parents only involved themselves directly only 10 minutes a week (and some do!). No wonder prisons are getting more funding than public education.
Which reminds me of a game my education friends and I like to play: School or Prison?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Who'da Thunk It?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Cycle of Absurdity
How far would you go to get health care? Would you be willing to rob a bank? This man did just so and only for $1. He rationalized that being unarmed for so little an amount would be enough to put him in jail for 3 years - long enough for him to reach Social Security/Medicare eligibility. He says that after losing his job of 17 years and savings, he could not find gainful employment as his health deteriorated. I can't say that I blame him.
Despite numerous laws, age discrimination is still a widely-known secret in the US. Although I'm apt to blame uncaring HR practices, perhaps the real blame here is the unchecked abuse of the legal system. Everyone and their mother brings a lawsuit at the drop of a dime now (hell, it's a recession - there's no dimes dropping anywhere....pennies!) the consequences are definitely a ripple effect: paperwork backs up, legal professionals extort hourly fees, ridiculous claims are made, laws become more and more complicated, health care costs soar, insurance costs soar, then the only way out is through a loophole.
This time the loophole should be a glaring spotlight on the inadequacies of American systems. We demand punishment for crimes and spend billions of dollars on a system to do so. We expect to have access to the best medical professionals and equipment in the world and spend billions of dollars to do so. We demand that no one gets a "free ride" and spend billions of dollars to legislate blocks to do so. We pride ourselves on treating all people humanely and to help those in need, regardless of citizenship, because we're better than "other countries" and spend billions of dollars to do so.
But what happens when punishment is more important than meeting basic needs? What happens when making access to health care harder is more important than sharing cases that could help advance the medical profession? What happens when stopping a "free ride" is more important than charity?
That's when you find a loophole. Maybe we should take a cue from this man to demonstrate the true absurdity that we created. Maybe if we are all criminals, we all won't mind paying taxes to punish ourselves while humanely treating ourselves to health care.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
What Are We Working Towards?
Today people have shared with me some educational things that have got me going. The first is an article that makes the argument comparing the way the US reacts to military failures versus educational failures. In sum, if the military fails, we don't blame the soldiers, we blame the administration and call for more support, tools, different strategy, etc while educational failures are blamed on "bad teachers". God forbid we ever blame the parents...oh *gasps* the students!
The second is from the creators of South Park about carrot sticks, which ties in nicely with a CNN article about graduating with a [useless] degree and realizing there is no place for you in today's economy except probably your parents' house.
It's a good day for reading,folks!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
To Voucher or Not To Voucher: It All Misses the Point
Yesterday The Indianapolis Star published an article claiming a majority of Hoosiers say schools are failing. Although this should come as no surprise (really, what constituents are truly happy with public education nowadays), the president of the state teachers' association claims their polls do not find this view. Yet no one denies there are serious problems in public education.
This blog is not the place to expound why there are problems; the internet is filled with such rantings. It is far more efficient at this point to start expounding real solutions and it cannot be anything like what has been tried before.
We can't think of education as a factory stamping kids out from ages 5-18 in lock step. We can't think of localities' property tax rates as the sole form of sustaining education institutions. We can't think multiple choice assessments as proof of success or failure.
Vouchers could be a good thing. But I harbor far more fear that politicians will find a way to politicize them into total useless oblivion, as another failed potential to achieve real reform. It shouldn't be about whether or not the voucher money ends up in a private school if that's where a parent sends their child; it should matter what specific school and how the child performs after studying there. If the student did not make any positive progress, then that was a bad investment - even if the outcome might have been the same had the student stayed in the previous school.
If education is indeed a "free public right" (free being a conditionally-operated term), then the money should follow the student immediately - none of this ridiculous 5-year waiting period currently in place in Indiana. School administrations might be more careful in spending and more aggressive in pursuing effective management methods (behavior policies if anything else!) if "income" were more business-oriented. Losing students left and right? What is it about your "practice" that's turning away "customers"? Have a reputation for allowing ridiculous student behavior? How will you rebuild your school's image? Getting massive applications from students and teachers? What are you doing that is so attractive?
The fact is businesses come and go; so do students, teachers, and administrators. Yet the system they all operate in does not...and the results are getting worse. It's high time the foundation itself is totally rebuilt with new thinking.
It's not like we build skyscrapers out of sticks and hides, now is it?
Friday, October 15, 2010
Redeeming Foreclosures
OCTOBER 28 2010 UPDATE: See article about former robo-signer who says industry expected such behavior.
You have to wonder about why individuals choose a certain career, particularly what are they getting from it and do they feel happy about it. It is nice to hear about someone who feels the need to "redeem" themselves from their career...and actually does so.
Thomas Cox, a retired Maine lawyer who was once responsible for foreclosing homes, is now fighting to keep foreclosures from barreling through the system. And he is setting off a chain reaction through an industry who has relied on "robo-signers".
The article also goes on to say how the bank, which has been fighting to foreclosure and evict the homeowner for two years, has now spent more in the process than the home is worth. Here again, one must question the motives of such an action.
Perhaps they still think by foreclosing, they can resell the home at a higher value, which may have been true a few years ago. But this home is located in a depressed area of Maine - who would be willing and able to buy anyway? In today's market that is flooded with foreclosed, empty homes, what use are these empty boxes if a bank owns them? Just ask Detroit, where vacancy leads to decay, which leads to crime, which leads to a host of other community problems (i.e. mass exodus).
Recently, all 50 state attorney generals have halted foreclosures as they examine whether the practices were fair and legal. (This is another example of "redeeming" one's career choice!) Yet, the financial industry is crying foul. Although they certainly made failed investments in home lending (whatever practices aside), what do they truly expect to recoup in a foreclosure market so deeply depressed without enough buyers? Sitting on vacant homes or pursuing expensive legal repossession tactics still equals a losing bet.
It's time to propose a new solution because clearly old tactics are not working (what a novel idea!). Temporary solutions could be:
1. Certainly examine all the paperwork and identify illegal and unfair practices.
2. If found, the homeowners get to stay but must pay a fair percentage of their income regardless of what the "mortgage" or "value" of the home is (remember the bank is losing money anyway but at least they would be recouping something out of it; that has to be accepted).
3. If found, for homeowners that are under/unemployed, they also get to stay but must maintain the appearance of their home and perform community services. This would help lessen the burden of administering these services that have decreasing budgets, keeps citizens engaged in their community in a productive manner, and offsets the chances of becoming a decaying community.
4. If no illegal or unfair practices are found, foreclosures can proceed. But former homeowners stay (paying a percentage of their income, maintaining the home, and community service) until the home is fairly purchased by new owners; at that point they would be fairly evicted with adequate notice.
5. Outlaw these practices that caused the industry mess in the first place. If lending institutions fail to follow legal procedure, they have to refinance at a discounted home value with no fees.
Bottom line is: Be greedy and you do it for free ;)
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Hire Questions
Yesterday Yahoo Financial posted an article reviewing illegal hiring questions. If one were to read the comments, you would think this article was joking.
Let it be known that employers do ask these questions, if not flat out, and they definitely skirt around to get the answers they are looking for: your age can be found from any "government id document" or background check or resume educational information; same goes for your race. If you are one of the throw-caution-to-the-wind people, your Facebook profile is a landmine of information waiting to be tipped. If you should happen to snag an interview while visibly pregnant, well, enough said.
While I consider myself a professional applicant (I estimate I have applied to over 600 jobs in the last five years) and fully aware of what is legal, I have been forced to answer every one of these questions in some fashion. I can not count the times I've stated my graduation year, marital status, citizenship, race, and whether I need disability accommodations to perform on applications. Later in interviews, I have had to carefully avoid discussions about religious influences, family plans, and be willing to submit to drugs tests at any time.
Perhaps the next time one fills out an application, they get creative with their answers. Want to calculate my age? Too bad, I'm only listing my degree and school, not year. I never complete the Mrs, Miss, Ms or Mr category (oh, how many interviews have been waylaid by one assuming my gender in the first place and promptly being disappointed - yet another illegal hiring move for another blog!). All other categories are off limits and frankly unrelated to just about every job.
I will, however, prove my citizenship status because that is the only thing left going for me in today's employment climate.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Irreconcilable Differences
The past year has been pretty much one long heated debate about....well, everything. The US is at a crossroads of the same epic proportions as other historical debates: taxation without representation, separate but equal, minority rights, globalization, and yes, health care reform.
The fact is that our culture is evolving but there are decisively opposing segments of the population; they are in direct conflict with each other. It's time to take a look at the real issues - and it's not health care.
The fundamental issue is how we view access to basic needs and the role of government in relationship to those needs. Rousseau's (Jean-Jacques not the crazy jungle woman from LOST)Social Contract Theory says that humans originally lived freely in nature alone until the population grew enough that old ways of satisfying needs had to change; people began to live in communities where divisions of labor developed which freed up people's time for leisure and of course they began to make comparisons between themselves.
But Rousseau focused on the invention of private property and the development of social classes, an institution that eventually bred greed and inequality. Therefore, he argued, government was invented to protect people's private interests from those who may choose to violate or confiscate, i.e. a social contract, providing equal protection of all. But Rousseau's reasoning pointed to a darker motivation: "the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers" (see Internet Encyclopedia from University of Tennessee).
So in theory government is really an invention of the strong to maintain their power even though they originally gained power by joining a community to satisfy basic needs. In the American "experiment" of government of, for, and by the people, we have embarked on a series of movements to balance the power between the powerful and the weak; Thomas Jefferson warned of the wrathful "power of the majority".
Every major sociopolitical act has been bred through grassroots movement of someone disaffected, someone without, someone in direct conflict with someone else in power. And although the reasons for someone to be disaffected is for another post, the end result is the same: we are all trying to satisfy our hierarchy of needs that Abraham Maslow discussed. And as our society evolves, we will focus on better ways to efficiently, collectively satisfy those needs.
So the fundamental issue is how to satisfy basic needs and the role of government in that process. The current debate really stems from the fact that our society, and increasingly the world, functions with commodities to be exchanged - but the base of exchange sits in the seat of power with the ones who can exchange, not those who can not exchange. Our irreconcilable differences are because there are segments of the population who view health care as a luxury commodity, not as a basic need. Maslow argued that health and safety are second only to food and shelter!
The role of American government has faced the lack of representation and equal rights of citizens, and developed safety nets for disadvantaged in terms of basic needs, such as food stamps, subsidized housing, and safety within our societal borders, yet there is severe riling up over opening access to another basic need.
The issue is not whether government should be equalizing power to access need satisfaction because clearly government was created to protect and balance power among all members of a community when surviving alone was no longer feasible. The issue is whether the community has evolved enough to realize that; only then can we move on.
Posts
