Certainly some didn't like what one group or the other had to say. But isn't the point of the 1st Amendment that we hear these messages and make up our own minds, without the government telling us whom to believe or silencing voices before we hear them?
If last week's fines have the desired effect, in future elections we will not hear from groups such as the Swifties or MoveOn. Instead, there will be issues not raised, points of view not heard. The funny thing is, we voters won't even know who is not getting to speak or what issues are not being raised. Politicians who want to "control their own campaigns" will find this to their advantage. But how this is an advantage for democracy, I'm not sure.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
More on the FEC 527 Decision
Brad Smith has an editorial in today's LA Times, with this to say at the end about the efforts of groups like Swift Boat Veterans and Moveon.org:
Edu-Carnivaling
Check out this weeks education carnivals. The 98th Edition of the Carnival of Education and the 51st Carnival of Homeschooling.
Grading Exams--An Efficient Method
Daniel Solove has a fool-proof method for grading exams. Wish I would have known of this when working as a Teaching Assistant--would have made my life a lot easier.
By the way, I always suspected this of my law professors, but could never prove it.
Hat Tip: Carnival of Education, #98
By the way, I always suspected this of my law professors, but could never prove it.
Hat Tip: Carnival of Education, #98
KIPP Success in DC
What do you get when you take a 23 year old economics major with two years of Teach For America experience, the KIPP model of teacher management and a belief that most math textbooks have a serious flaw, mix in a little youthful exhuberance and frankly arrogance? A 61 point increase in math test scores amoung 80, mostly poor, mostly African American DC school kids.
Jay Mathews has the story of Lisa Suben. A good read, as is typical of Mathews work.
Suben has produced amazing results, largely through the creation of her own lesson plans, instead of using KIPP's prepared plans. Suben noted that most math texts had a significant flaw, they isolated concepts from real world application and understanding:
Good for her.
Jay Mathews has the story of Lisa Suben. A good read, as is typical of Mathews work.
Suben has produced amazing results, largely through the creation of her own lesson plans, instead of using KIPP's prepared plans. Suben noted that most math texts had a significant flaw, they isolated concepts from real world application and understanding:
In D.C. KIPP has been using the Saxon math series, a no-frills approach that often works well with students whose parents never went to college. Suben said she did not have anything against Saxon. She still has copies of Saxon books and a rival program, Everyday Math, in her classroom. But she thought all the textbooks she had seen had flaws.Much of what Suben seems to be talking about is that math is not just concepts and drill and kill. Sure, you have to have some basic, boring drilling to first understand the basic concepts, but that is where much math instruction ends. Suben was asking kids to take an active part in their learning and pushing them to a higher standard, even using 8th grade math texts to push her fifth graders to think more:
"I've found that most traditional textbooks oversimplify and isolate concepts, and yet, are still too difficult for non-readers to use. They don't generally push students to think, but offer repetitive, and boring, practice," she said. She started writing each lesson nightly. This was a remarkable feat of youthful energy when you consider that KIPP teachers work 10 hours a day, and Suben was putting in another three hours each night at home composing the next day's lesson on her Dell laptop.
Suben said: "My primary goal as a teacher is to help my students understand the reasoning behind math rules and procedures. I have several core beliefs about this: (1) Understanding is constructed by the learner, not passively received from the teacher. (2) Understanding is built by making connections between as many strands of knowledge as possible. (3) Understanding is galvanized through communication. (4) Understanding is only valuable when you reflect on it and question it."9emphasis added)
"I certainly refer to traditional textbooks for ideas and guidance as I write," Suben said. "My sequence and pace are set by a long-term plan that I have designed to catch the students up on second-, third- and fourth-grade material as well as introduce every single D.C. public schools fifth-grade standard by testing time. I model my word problems after the eighth-grade text that I used in Louisiana because those problems require the level of understanding that I am looking for. I focus on non-traditional problems so that students are forced to think."Suben has been successful for one year, the test for her curriculum will be two-fold. First, can she repeat her successes with another crop of students. Second, can someone else replicate her successes with in a different environment. If the answers to both of these questions are yes, then Suben may be the next math guru that can turn mathematics education on its head.
Good for her.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Don't Know Much About History (and other subjects)
The freshly returned Polski3 wrote a post in which he questioned the lack of emphasis on anything but reading and math when it comes to NCLB. With the law due for reauthorization next year, he wonders if Congress should consider adding things like history and the sciences to the law's mandate.
If you were to look up the texts that are used in teaching reading to upper elementary school kids, say fourth and fifth grades, you will likely find nothing but fiction/literature on the list. What I have never understood is why reading skills have to focus solely on literature? Reading skills for literature differ greatly from those for science, history, the arts or math. Yet by focusing solely on fiction, we forget about these other skills.
But the skills are not the only problem. Polski noted that while he was in college, everyone was required to take and pass a U.S. history course and a few other courses. Today, and even 10 years ago when I was at the University of Maryland, this is no longer the case. But the failure to emphasize history and other subjects in NCLB may lead to a more long term problem, one even greater than the concern that Polski expresses, that the education of children will be incomplete.
The problem that incompleteness brings is that education used to be a great unifier in this country. No matter what you background was, immigrant or native born, from the cities or in rural America, most schools taught the same general material, at the same general time. Students then learned a common cultural reference. Note that I am not suggesting that the students were indoctrinated in a common culture, although that may very well have been a by-product. All students, regardless of background had a common understanding of certain subjects, history, the sciences, literature and art, that allowed for the disparate segments of society to share a common foundation of knowledge. In this way, education, a good-solid, liberal arts education, allowed for a nation to be forged from disparate peoples.
The problem with a laser focus on reading and math only is that subject that provided a common understanding, history, social sciences, civics, even the arts, get left by the way side, further adding to the fragmentation of society. Our society, despite all its commonalities is on the verge of being too fragmented in its current state. How can we be expected to survive when the future generations don't know how to talk to each other, let alone talk across generational lines.
Polski right to be concerned about the lack of an educated, functioning, politically engaged generation currently in school. But the impact is much, much worse. I am not of the belief that we are necessarily at that point in historical development, or even close, but we need to get beyond just reading literature and basic math. Let us look to expanding our kids minds in other subjects, even as we teach them reading.
I see two possible paths; the one we are currently experiencing in which history is de-emphasized to the point where it may someday be extinct from most schools, or that testing in history (and science, humanities and arts) is added to the requirements of NCLB, which in a future form, works to try to ensure no child is left behind from being a well educated, functioning, employable, politically enlightened, thinking member of our society.While I can understand the emphasis on reading and math, and I understand the need to begin somewhere with a focus on short term start-up of programs, it would seem to me that the "blinders-on" focus on reading and math will shortchange our children in the long run, particularly as the move from elementary to middle to high school.
If you were to look up the texts that are used in teaching reading to upper elementary school kids, say fourth and fifth grades, you will likely find nothing but fiction/literature on the list. What I have never understood is why reading skills have to focus solely on literature? Reading skills for literature differ greatly from those for science, history, the arts or math. Yet by focusing solely on fiction, we forget about these other skills.
But the skills are not the only problem. Polski noted that while he was in college, everyone was required to take and pass a U.S. history course and a few other courses. Today, and even 10 years ago when I was at the University of Maryland, this is no longer the case. But the failure to emphasize history and other subjects in NCLB may lead to a more long term problem, one even greater than the concern that Polski expresses, that the education of children will be incomplete.
The problem that incompleteness brings is that education used to be a great unifier in this country. No matter what you background was, immigrant or native born, from the cities or in rural America, most schools taught the same general material, at the same general time. Students then learned a common cultural reference. Note that I am not suggesting that the students were indoctrinated in a common culture, although that may very well have been a by-product. All students, regardless of background had a common understanding of certain subjects, history, the sciences, literature and art, that allowed for the disparate segments of society to share a common foundation of knowledge. In this way, education, a good-solid, liberal arts education, allowed for a nation to be forged from disparate peoples.
The problem with a laser focus on reading and math only is that subject that provided a common understanding, history, social sciences, civics, even the arts, get left by the way side, further adding to the fragmentation of society. Our society, despite all its commonalities is on the verge of being too fragmented in its current state. How can we be expected to survive when the future generations don't know how to talk to each other, let alone talk across generational lines.
Polski right to be concerned about the lack of an educated, functioning, politically engaged generation currently in school. But the impact is much, much worse. I am not of the belief that we are necessarily at that point in historical development, or even close, but we need to get beyond just reading literature and basic math. Let us look to expanding our kids minds in other subjects, even as we teach them reading.
The Daily Top Five
December 19, 2006
1. Brad Smith goes off the sarcasm scale as he takes on the New York Times (yet again) and their editorializing on campaign finance reform.
2. Getting in on the campaign finance editorializing about editorials, Bob Bauer (with a little less sarcasm) also takes on the NY Times, but also discusses this Washington Post Editorial on 527s.
3. Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in a series of slave reparations cases. Anthony Sebok has this column at FindLaw, concluding:
4. Despite its strength, the American economy is rarely discussed in the media, being overshadowed by Iraq and other more negative news. But even when the economy is discussed, some basic mistakes are made, as Don Boudreaux points out. Responding to this editorial chastising the Bush Administration for not providing enough jobs for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Boudreaux writes:
5. So Laura Bush had a skin cancer surgery, big deal right? Well the White House Press Corps seems to think that failing to disclose her health matters is some sort of grand conspiracy and are whipping up a good whining about it. James Joyner has it right, the First Lady's health has no bearing on the commonwealth, unlike her husband. But for some reason the Press Corps thinks they should have an open door into the lives of any and all White House residents. Good for the White House and Tony Snow for putting the smack down on the nosy busibodies.
Driving into work this morning the talk radio hosts wondered if the White House Press Corps will get into a snit about it. They didn't think so, I did and well for a change I was right.
1. Brad Smith goes off the sarcasm scale as he takes on the New York Times (yet again) and their editorializing on campaign finance reform.
This weekend the New York Times once again grabbed its Thesaurus of invective to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform. Next time, we suggest they grab a copy of the First Amendment, too. Surely a reasonably important newspaper such as the Times must have a copy of the First Amendment lying around somewhere.Unlike Brad, I think I am to the point of giving up on the Times, the only worthwhile thing they publish on a regular basis is the Sunday crossword puzzle.
[snip]
The Times: People are running ads that are "obviously partisan."
The Constitution: It is so obviously unconstitutional to limit ads merely because they are partisan that, well, we don't even have a case to cite.
[snip]
There is a lot of other nonsense in the Times' editorial -- there always is -- such as the belief that if only the FEC had a "blanket regulation controlling candidate-oriented advertising" all this mess could be avoided. We suppose it could, if the First Amendment were not a part of the Constitution -- but we'll spare for now any detailed analysis of the silliness.
2. Getting in on the campaign finance editorializing about editorials, Bob Bauer (with a little less sarcasm) also takes on the NY Times, but also discusses this Washington Post Editorial on 527s.
Both the Post and the Times seem to agree that the law on this can be made clear to the advantage of readier, more effective enforcement. The Times assumes that we are there already, frustrated in this goal only by the recalcitrance (and worse) of the FEC. The Post, considering the emerging "test" for 527 regulation, restates it in fragmentary form (omitting to mention the $1,000 threshold for achieving political committee status) and wishes for "clearer guidance in the form of specific regulations that could be tested in federal court." Some days ago, Rick Hasen asked why the FEC did not promulgate regulations rather than proceed with a case by case adjudicatory venture that left only vagueness in its wake.
In all of these views are found an expectation—easily taken for a fantasy—that we can have clear, enforceable rules that guard against certain kinds of "influence"—the influencing of public views about particular candidates. The analysis employed by the FEC in the settled cases is not too different from one it tried out, in 2004, in proposed but abandoned rules. Then, too, in various drafts and proposals, the FEC toyed with the notion of what it meant by a "major purpose" of influencing federal elections, and it tried to bolster this sweeping but ambiguous construction with bits of regulatory straw—like the $1,000 threshold for political committee status and the PASO test (does the communication "promote, support, attack, or oppose" a candidate). It put this effort aside for the simple reason that, overwhelmed by partisan conflict in a Presidential election year, it could not produce a credible outcome or clear, timely guidance.
The FEC then did what editorials and commentators now do: it just "called them as it saw them," dispensing frontier justice on its sense of what the facts of the particular case justify. Since everybody knew that these organizations were not playing by the same rules as other "political organizations," it was assumed that they should be made to pay some price.
3. Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in a series of slave reparations cases. Anthony Sebok has this column at FindLaw, concluding:
It has always been obvious that the slavery compensation litigation has always been as much about education and politics, as about the underlying legal claims that motivated the suits. It seems to me that if the plaintiffs were to win on the legal theory left standing by Posner, then the litigation's message will be deeply estranged from its original moral and political source. In a case like this, then, victory at any price may not be worth it.
4. Despite its strength, the American economy is rarely discussed in the media, being overshadowed by Iraq and other more negative news. But even when the economy is discussed, some basic mistakes are made, as Don Boudreaux points out. Responding to this editorial chastising the Bush Administration for not providing enough jobs for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Boudreaux writes:
Creating jobs is absolutely no challenge. Indeed, that's a chore that even government can do well. Jobs are all around us, super-abundant. (Persons who doubt this truth should call me: I have an endless number of household chores that I'm happy to assign to anyone who calls.) Katrina herself was positively brilliant at creating jobs.What I find terribly troubling is that we as a nation and the Bush Administration is still struggling with the Left's baggage of having to coddle so many people who seem unwilling to help themselves. As Boudreaux pointed out, there are lots of jobs in post-Katrina New Orleans, one need only start working--some one will pay you for your goods or services if they need them.
What's not so abundant is real income.
And while in market economies most of us earn our incomes by performing valuable services for others -- that is, while in market economies each of our incomes is closely linked to the jobs we perform -- it's important to remember that the jobs are not the good; the incomes are the good. And real income -- genuine purchasing power -- is not created by make-work programs. If workers in such programs do get more purchasing power, it's because the money they are paid is really a disguised forced or charitable transfer of purchasing power from persons who created it to persons who perform make-work jobs.
5. So Laura Bush had a skin cancer surgery, big deal right? Well the White House Press Corps seems to think that failing to disclose her health matters is some sort of grand conspiracy and are whipping up a good whining about it. James Joyner has it right, the First Lady's health has no bearing on the commonwealth, unlike her husband. But for some reason the Press Corps thinks they should have an open door into the lives of any and all White House residents. Good for the White House and Tony Snow for putting the smack down on the nosy busibodies.
Driving into work this morning the talk radio hosts wondered if the White House Press Corps will get into a snit about it. They didn't think so, I did and well for a change I was right.
The Costs of E-Voting
Dan Tokaji, guestblogging this week for Rick Hasen, points to an article out of Utah noting the costs of the transition to electronic voting machines.
In truth, everyone is right to blame someone else and wrong because they don't shoulder the blame themselves. Let's face, for decades, we have looked not to the most reliable methods of voting, but the cheapest and that says a lot about our democracy. Even now, faced with expenses that seem high, they are once again looking for democracy on the cheap:
Unfortuneately, the cost trade-off has its own price. America could use a system of paper ballots, marked by hand and then mailed or delivered by hand. This is certainly a time-honored tradition of voting and generally pretty effective. However, the problem is that counting takes a long time and is much more prone to human error. The beauty of voting machines is that, for all their other failings, they do count very well and with far fewer errors than is commonly know.
So the trade-off is this: we can spend money for faster counting machines and satisfy our fix for instant gratification as to who won or we can go low tech, wait a long time to find out who won, and oh, yeah, spend the same amount of money paying people to count the ballots.
Democracy isn't cheap, but it sure used to be less expen- sive[sic].Everyone is pointing fingers for the costs, towns and small cities are pointing to counties, counties are pointing to the state and the state is fingering Congress and the EAC.
Switching from punch cards to touch-screen voting machines doubled the cost of this year's election.
In truth, everyone is right to blame someone else and wrong because they don't shoulder the blame themselves. Let's face, for decades, we have looked not to the most reliable methods of voting, but the cheapest and that says a lot about our democracy. Even now, faced with expenses that seem high, they are once again looking for democracy on the cheap:
Those costs are so prohibitive that many Utahns in next year's local elections will revert to a voting style used for generations: checking a box on a paper ballot.Utah is trying to work out a solution for short terms needs, but no one seems to be recognizing that the cost of modernization is always steep, and no less so when you are updating 40, 50 or 60 year old technology.
Unfortuneately, the cost trade-off has its own price. America could use a system of paper ballots, marked by hand and then mailed or delivered by hand. This is certainly a time-honored tradition of voting and generally pretty effective. However, the problem is that counting takes a long time and is much more prone to human error. The beauty of voting machines is that, for all their other failings, they do count very well and with far fewer errors than is commonly know.
So the trade-off is this: we can spend money for faster counting machines and satisfy our fix for instant gratification as to who won or we can go low tech, wait a long time to find out who won, and oh, yeah, spend the same amount of money paying people to count the ballots.
Joy Behar--The Idiocy That Keeps On Giving
Joy Behar, when she walks into the room, the average IQ level drops 20 points. She truly is the the gift that keeps on giving if you are looking for moronic, idiotic, quips. Even the normally lefty audience of the View didn't take kindly to this one. Allahpundit posted the video at Hot Air.
Anybody want to quote and over/under on when (or if) an apology will be offered?
Did Rumsfeld make mistakes? Almost certainly, but I think he did with good intentions and his decisions now look bad even though at the time, he was making them with incomplete information. When Robert McNamara was SecDef, he made mistakes and no one on the left compared him to Hitler. Do you want to call him an idiot, call him incompetent, call him unfeeling, fine, but to compare Rumsfeld to a genocidal leader has crossed the line of decency.
Why is this permitted and why does ABC keep coddling this woman who clearly thinks that going for a cheap laugh excuses the very behavior she castigates her guests about? Does anyone have video of her following Mel Gibson's tirade? The hypocrisy is so thick you need a buzz saw to cut it.
Anybody want to quote and over/under on when (or if) an apology will be offered?
Did Rumsfeld make mistakes? Almost certainly, but I think he did with good intentions and his decisions now look bad even though at the time, he was making them with incomplete information. When Robert McNamara was SecDef, he made mistakes and no one on the left compared him to Hitler. Do you want to call him an idiot, call him incompetent, call him unfeeling, fine, but to compare Rumsfeld to a genocidal leader has crossed the line of decency.
Why is this permitted and why does ABC keep coddling this woman who clearly thinks that going for a cheap laugh excuses the very behavior she castigates her guests about? Does anyone have video of her following Mel Gibson's tirade? The hypocrisy is so thick you need a buzz saw to cut it.
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Daily Top Five
For December 18, 2006
1. Polski3 asks a good question, in essence, should NCLB be amended to include history? What is the long term benefit of increasing reading and math skills if they are not used to actually learn something aside from the actual skill?
2. Dan Riehl wonders why the Democrats can see the disconnect between their assertion that if we don't withdraw from Iraq, then Iraq will becomce too dependent on teh U.S. Government and their policy regarding welfare at home?
3. Got an itching to see Milton Freidman in action, check out the Free to Choose items at ideachannel.tv. Hat tip to Todd Zywicki at Volokh Conspiracy.
4. Once again, Philip Mella writes a great piece. Has America's dominance as the world's leader in bringing freedom in jeopardy? I am not certain of the doom and gloom as yet, but changes in the world seem to collude in such a way as to isolate America against the rest of the world (except maybe Australia) in the fight against tyranny.
5. Finally, in the spririt of end of year ruminations, check out this list of the 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2006.
1. Polski3 asks a good question, in essence, should NCLB be amended to include history? What is the long term benefit of increasing reading and math skills if they are not used to actually learn something aside from the actual skill?
2. Dan Riehl wonders why the Democrats can see the disconnect between their assertion that if we don't withdraw from Iraq, then Iraq will becomce too dependent on teh U.S. Government and their policy regarding welfare at home?
I think the Dems are right on at least that one aspect of their thinking on Iraq. But I'd sure like to see them broaden their thinking a little on this whole dependence thing. If the concept is good enough for Iraq, maybe it's good enough for America, too. (smirk)I don't agree on Iraq, but the disconnect does beg the question.
3. Got an itching to see Milton Freidman in action, check out the Free to Choose items at ideachannel.tv. Hat tip to Todd Zywicki at Volokh Conspiracy.
4. Once again, Philip Mella writes a great piece. Has America's dominance as the world's leader in bringing freedom in jeopardy? I am not certain of the doom and gloom as yet, but changes in the world seem to collude in such a way as to isolate America against the rest of the world (except maybe Australia) in the fight against tyranny.
5. Finally, in the spririt of end of year ruminations, check out this list of the 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2006.
Would Jesus Shop at Wal-Mart?
According to the Unions--no.
But who knows? Jesus and Sam Walton never met. But if helping the poor is something that Jesus favored, Sam Walton may have been Christ's best friend.
But who knows? Jesus and Sam Walton never met. But if helping the poor is something that Jesus favored, Sam Walton may have been Christ's best friend.
FEC Confusion
Last week was a busy week at the FEC, with important decisions regarding 527 organizations, fundraising by PACs and a little attended to policy statement that could get a lot of committees in trouble. But the take away from all of these disparate actions is that the FEC is an agency struggling to provide coherence for the regulated community and failing miserably at the task.
But, I must be fair to the Commission and it staff because Congress has not made their job very easy. But that confusion from Capitol Hill is commonplace in the regulatory environment, so the FEC only gets partial credit for their effort.
On Wednesday, the FEC issued a press release announcing conciliation agreements with three prominent 527 organizations, the Swift Boat Veterans, Move.org and the League of Conservation Voters, agreeing to fines of $630,000. After looking through the documents associated with each case, one is left scratching their head about the underlying facts leading the General Counsel's office to recommend the Commission's action. All three groups had made public statements regarding one or more canddiates in the 2004 elections that the Commission interpreted as public communications intended to influence electoral outcomes. The trouble is that some of the statements may not have been "public," even as defined by the FEC. The factual basis and legal anaylsis done by the FEC includes references to several statements by Swift Boat leadership made on "news programs," and even cites the personal opinion of the Chairman of the group as violative of the law.
There is little to deny that many of the actions by the Swift Boat Veterans, Moveon.org and LCV actually lead to their classification as political committees subject to FEC regulations under current FEC law. The groups did make public statement supporting or opposing federal canddiates for office and those should have been paid for with hard money subject to the regulations. But as far as announcing a "standard" for 527 groups as to whether or not their actions would be subject to FEC regulation, there are no clues in these cases and no statement by the FEC as to what should be the standard.
On Thursday, the FEC considered an Advisory Opinion for the National Association of Realtors. I have commented on the matter here, and the CCP has an excellent analysis of the matter. The outcome was positive for the Realtors and that is good news, since had the decision gone the other way, the Realtors and the regulated community would have been stuck with a scenario where two actions, normally legal when done separately, would have been impermissible when done together or too closely together. Then the Commission would have been dealing with some rather arcane and frankly inane requests for guidance relating to how close is too close.
But like the 527 decision, the regulated community and the political world at large are still left with a situtation where common sense and logic are not nearly enough to deal with the campaign finance regulatory regime. If there are questions regarding similar factual scenarios, there is no guarantee that the average person would be able to figure out what is legal and what is not. Even gifted campaign finance attorneys like Jan Baran needed an Advisory Opinion. Why should something like campaign finance be so complicated that normal people can't decipher it?
Finally, the FEC issued a new "policy statement" relating to the the purposes of disbursements on disclosure reports. While it is nice to provide clarification on this topic, the fact that the list needed to be distributed at all indicates a lack of consistency of thought among the Commission and it staff.
For those who have never filed an FEC report, the policy statement sounds an awful lot like inside baseball. To a certain extent it is simply inside baseball, matters that involve only those people involved in dealing with FEC reports. But it goes beyond simply clarifying a policy, it clarifies a regulation that in itself was vague. If one were to simply look at the regulations, and why wouldn't a person do that, then under the regulation 104.3(b) common disclosures would be enough, but they are not enough, so a policy statement.
For those more familiar with administrative law, a policy statement is not subject the normal notice and comment procedures that a change in regulation is subject to follow. There is also the political aspect, issuing a policy statement is not necessarily subject to review and approval by Congress, who are afterall the most common violators or the lack of information for purposes of disbursements.
As I have noted many times, one of the purposes of the law, any law, is to provide clear and predictable standards for action. The FEC is stuggling mightily with this task and the actions of the past week are not helping matters. When does a 527 organization cross the line into political committee-hood? When can certain actions that are nomrally legal, suddenly become illegal due to proximity? What is a clear regulation and what is not? The actions of the past week are not isolated incidents either. It is easy to blame McCain-Feingold for complicating campaign finance law and it does deserve the lion's share of the blame, but that does not mean the FEC can make it a little clearer for the average guy to understand.
Campaign fince is not rocket science or quantum physics, but the FEC seems to be trying very hard to make campaign finance as complex as sending a rocket to Jupiter and the cost is to the American people. Most Americans are not sending a rocket to the moon, but they are voting for people for office on a regular basis and the law surrounding how campaigns are financed should be simple, clearly understood and above all, reflect a certain common sense and predictability.
But, I must be fair to the Commission and it staff because Congress has not made their job very easy. But that confusion from Capitol Hill is commonplace in the regulatory environment, so the FEC only gets partial credit for their effort.
On Wednesday, the FEC issued a press release announcing conciliation agreements with three prominent 527 organizations, the Swift Boat Veterans, Move.org and the League of Conservation Voters, agreeing to fines of $630,000. After looking through the documents associated with each case, one is left scratching their head about the underlying facts leading the General Counsel's office to recommend the Commission's action. All three groups had made public statements regarding one or more canddiates in the 2004 elections that the Commission interpreted as public communications intended to influence electoral outcomes. The trouble is that some of the statements may not have been "public," even as defined by the FEC. The factual basis and legal anaylsis done by the FEC includes references to several statements by Swift Boat leadership made on "news programs," and even cites the personal opinion of the Chairman of the group as violative of the law.
There is little to deny that many of the actions by the Swift Boat Veterans, Moveon.org and LCV actually lead to their classification as political committees subject to FEC regulations under current FEC law. The groups did make public statement supporting or opposing federal canddiates for office and those should have been paid for with hard money subject to the regulations. But as far as announcing a "standard" for 527 groups as to whether or not their actions would be subject to FEC regulation, there are no clues in these cases and no statement by the FEC as to what should be the standard.
On Thursday, the FEC considered an Advisory Opinion for the National Association of Realtors. I have commented on the matter here, and the CCP has an excellent analysis of the matter. The outcome was positive for the Realtors and that is good news, since had the decision gone the other way, the Realtors and the regulated community would have been stuck with a scenario where two actions, normally legal when done separately, would have been impermissible when done together or too closely together. Then the Commission would have been dealing with some rather arcane and frankly inane requests for guidance relating to how close is too close.
But like the 527 decision, the regulated community and the political world at large are still left with a situtation where common sense and logic are not nearly enough to deal with the campaign finance regulatory regime. If there are questions regarding similar factual scenarios, there is no guarantee that the average person would be able to figure out what is legal and what is not. Even gifted campaign finance attorneys like Jan Baran needed an Advisory Opinion. Why should something like campaign finance be so complicated that normal people can't decipher it?
Finally, the FEC issued a new "policy statement" relating to the the purposes of disbursements on disclosure reports. While it is nice to provide clarification on this topic, the fact that the list needed to be distributed at all indicates a lack of consistency of thought among the Commission and it staff.
For those who have never filed an FEC report, the policy statement sounds an awful lot like inside baseball. To a certain extent it is simply inside baseball, matters that involve only those people involved in dealing with FEC reports. But it goes beyond simply clarifying a policy, it clarifies a regulation that in itself was vague. If one were to simply look at the regulations, and why wouldn't a person do that, then under the regulation 104.3(b) common disclosures would be enough, but they are not enough, so a policy statement.
For those more familiar with administrative law, a policy statement is not subject the normal notice and comment procedures that a change in regulation is subject to follow. There is also the political aspect, issuing a policy statement is not necessarily subject to review and approval by Congress, who are afterall the most common violators or the lack of information for purposes of disbursements.
As I have noted many times, one of the purposes of the law, any law, is to provide clear and predictable standards for action. The FEC is stuggling mightily with this task and the actions of the past week are not helping matters. When does a 527 organization cross the line into political committee-hood? When can certain actions that are nomrally legal, suddenly become illegal due to proximity? What is a clear regulation and what is not? The actions of the past week are not isolated incidents either. It is easy to blame McCain-Feingold for complicating campaign finance law and it does deserve the lion's share of the blame, but that does not mean the FEC can make it a little clearer for the average guy to understand.
Campaign fince is not rocket science or quantum physics, but the FEC seems to be trying very hard to make campaign finance as complex as sending a rocket to Jupiter and the cost is to the American people. Most Americans are not sending a rocket to the moon, but they are voting for people for office on a regular basis and the law surrounding how campaigns are financed should be simple, clearly understood and above all, reflect a certain common sense and predictability.
Friday, December 15, 2006
The Daily Top Five
For December 15
1. Extreme Mortman has the Top Ten Funniest Political Moments of 2006. The post comes with pictures and some of those pictures are not very flattering. Who knew Katherine Harris has quite a nice body?
2. The inestimable Michael Barone notes that the Third World is getting richer. While some may complain that some people in the third world are getting richer faster than others, I think the good news is that they are getting richer. The culprits, well that damn, rule of law thingie, and free market economies. Amazing, huh!
3. Previously, I had noted that the FEC was considering a draft Advisory Opinion from the National Association of Realtors, but decided by a vote of 4-2 to allow the NAR to go ahead with its plan. The Center for Competitive Politics has more on FEC happenings here. The adopted Advisory opinion can be found here. More on this to come.
4. Edspresso reports on educational reform efforts in Boston, which is trying to launch a "pilot schools" program in which schools would operate like charter schools but under district control. But it turns out that the Teacher's Union is throwing up road blocks. Color me surprised!!!
5. As a sometimes rock climber, I like reading stories about climbing. While I have never had an interest in big mountain climbing, Tom Smith at The Right Coast has a way to simulate the experience of climbing Mt. Everest.
1. Extreme Mortman has the Top Ten Funniest Political Moments of 2006. The post comes with pictures and some of those pictures are not very flattering. Who knew Katherine Harris has quite a nice body?
2. The inestimable Michael Barone notes that the Third World is getting richer. While some may complain that some people in the third world are getting richer faster than others, I think the good news is that they are getting richer. The culprits, well that damn, rule of law thingie, and free market economies. Amazing, huh!
3. Previously, I had noted that the FEC was considering a draft Advisory Opinion from the National Association of Realtors, but decided by a vote of 4-2 to allow the NAR to go ahead with its plan. The Center for Competitive Politics has more on FEC happenings here. The adopted Advisory opinion can be found here. More on this to come.
4. Edspresso reports on educational reform efforts in Boston, which is trying to launch a "pilot schools" program in which schools would operate like charter schools but under district control. But it turns out that the Teacher's Union is throwing up road blocks. Color me surprised!!!
5. As a sometimes rock climber, I like reading stories about climbing. While I have never had an interest in big mountain climbing, Tom Smith at The Right Coast has a way to simulate the experience of climbing Mt. Everest.
If You Can't Retreat, Can't Sit Still--then Attack
This is the advice of Power Line to President Bush and I like it. It is bold, it is necessary and it is the right thing to do.
For too long, this Administration, which started off so right and gone so horribly astray, has tried to fight the war on terror and the war in Iraq by being politically sensitive. In doing so, neither war goes well and America is grumbling. Clearly leaving Iraq, no matter how much the Democrats want to do it, simply means delaying the inevitable return to the region, at a time and under circumstances not nearly as favorable as they are now.
But sticking with the current policy is not working either. "Stay the Course" does not inspire confidence and frakly, the course is off-target.
The only option is to take a bold and decisive step and attack. Attack the root cause, the militias and the sectarian violence. Unleash the fury and power of the American military upon these beasts that kill women, children and police. When a gun is fired in a town or city block, evacuate the whole area, strip search everyone for weapons, do a 100% positive ID check and search the area so thoroughly, you find every dog, rat, a flea in the area, confiscate any weapon, ammunition or bomb making device, arrest those who need arresting and start prison camps in the middle of the desert. In short, give insurgents no place to go, no place to hide and no material to fight.
Of course, lefties will tell you that you can't solve this kind of problem without talking. Fine, talk about this: how do you get two children who are fighting to talk? First you have to get them to stop fighting. In Iraq the only actor capable of doing that right now is the United States. We have to play the hard figure and separate the kids and take away not only their means of fighting but their will to fight. The only way to end their will to fight is to make the people who want to fight that their lives will be ten times as miserable as they are now.
The President should be bold, he should be active. Twenty-five years from now, the world will look at President Bush and consider him to be the most prescient leader of his time. There will be democracy in the Middle East and he will have planted that seed. Now in order to cultivate that seed, the President has to give it a chance to grow, give it a good soil to grow and that soil can not be tilled when it is a war zone.
For too long, this Administration, which started off so right and gone so horribly astray, has tried to fight the war on terror and the war in Iraq by being politically sensitive. In doing so, neither war goes well and America is grumbling. Clearly leaving Iraq, no matter how much the Democrats want to do it, simply means delaying the inevitable return to the region, at a time and under circumstances not nearly as favorable as they are now.
But sticking with the current policy is not working either. "Stay the Course" does not inspire confidence and frakly, the course is off-target.
The only option is to take a bold and decisive step and attack. Attack the root cause, the militias and the sectarian violence. Unleash the fury and power of the American military upon these beasts that kill women, children and police. When a gun is fired in a town or city block, evacuate the whole area, strip search everyone for weapons, do a 100% positive ID check and search the area so thoroughly, you find every dog, rat, a flea in the area, confiscate any weapon, ammunition or bomb making device, arrest those who need arresting and start prison camps in the middle of the desert. In short, give insurgents no place to go, no place to hide and no material to fight.
Of course, lefties will tell you that you can't solve this kind of problem without talking. Fine, talk about this: how do you get two children who are fighting to talk? First you have to get them to stop fighting. In Iraq the only actor capable of doing that right now is the United States. We have to play the hard figure and separate the kids and take away not only their means of fighting but their will to fight. The only way to end their will to fight is to make the people who want to fight that their lives will be ten times as miserable as they are now.
The President should be bold, he should be active. Twenty-five years from now, the world will look at President Bush and consider him to be the most prescient leader of his time. There will be democracy in the Middle East and he will have planted that seed. Now in order to cultivate that seed, the President has to give it a chance to grow, give it a good soil to grow and that soil can not be tilled when it is a war zone.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The Daily Top Five
For Decmeber 14, 2006
1. Most of us have received the spam with the Nigerian Bank scam. I get about 1 a week and usually just delete them. But here is the communication thread of one person who decided to find out what would happen. Very interesting (and long). Tip o' the hat to Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy, who also has seen a recent twist on the idea, using a U.S. Marine strawman. Watch out!!
2. Joy Behar (of the view) is a big fat idiot!!! She wonders if Sen. Tim Johnson's illness (it is not a stroke according to press reports) was "man-made" because she know what "that party is capable of" meaning the GOP? Hot Air has the video.
3. What if the NBA had quotas? So asks Larry Elder at Townhall. After positing a fictitious NBA Press Release on a new player recruitment policy that would place black players at the back of the line in favor a racial diversity policy for players, Elder writes:
4. I have often railed against teachers' unions, even once calling them the biggest impediment to improving education extant. I also know that some local unions organizations actually do what unions are supposed to do, stick up for the workplace conditions of their members. But I tend to think that the larger the union gets in terms of members and money, the less it actaully does to serve those members because it starts feeling its oats and believing it to be powerful influence in local politics. However, there are a lot of teachers out there who feel cheated by their union not to mention feeling their money has been wasted. Mamacita has her viewpoint, but summed up here:
5. JennyD has been at an education conference in Washington and reports:
1. Most of us have received the spam with the Nigerian Bank scam. I get about 1 a week and usually just delete them. But here is the communication thread of one person who decided to find out what would happen. Very interesting (and long). Tip o' the hat to Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy, who also has seen a recent twist on the idea, using a U.S. Marine strawman. Watch out!!
2. Joy Behar (of the view) is a big fat idiot!!! She wonders if Sen. Tim Johnson's illness (it is not a stroke according to press reports) was "man-made" because she know what "that party is capable of" meaning the GOP? Hot Air has the video.
3. What if the NBA had quotas? So asks Larry Elder at Townhall. After positing a fictitious NBA Press Release on a new player recruitment policy that would place black players at the back of the line in favor a racial diversity policy for players, Elder writes:
Yet when it comes to colleges and universities admitting Asian-American students, this is, in effect, exactly what is happening. Because of the superior performance of Asian students on high school grades and pre-college aptitude tests, many colleges and universities, through unannounced policies, place these "minority students" at the back of the line.Most race based preferences in academia discount both white and Asian students in favor of less qualifed Hispanic and black candidates, all in the name of "diversity."
4. I have often railed against teachers' unions, even once calling them the biggest impediment to improving education extant. I also know that some local unions organizations actually do what unions are supposed to do, stick up for the workplace conditions of their members. But I tend to think that the larger the union gets in terms of members and money, the less it actaully does to serve those members because it starts feeling its oats and believing it to be powerful influence in local politics. However, there are a lot of teachers out there who feel cheated by their union not to mention feeling their money has been wasted. Mamacita has her viewpoint, but summed up here:
Union rep: worthless.It goes downhill from there.
Union dues: ridiculously high and very little of it went to anything local.
5. JennyD has been at an education conference in Washington and reports:
It was not what I expected, at least not entirely. There's this weird political convergence on education, and some people who you might peg as hard-core conservatives or die-hard liberals can agree on aspects of schooling.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The Daily Top Five
For December 13, 2006
1. If you are interested in education like I am, be sure to check the 97th Edition of the Carnival of Education and the 50th Edition of the Carnival of Homeschooling.
2. The FEC has levied three fines against 527 organizations for a total of $630,000 for failing the major purpose test. What is interesting is that at least for some people like Allison "The Skeptic" Hayward notes:
3. LaShawn Barber reports on a call by North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones to investigate Durham County, NC District Attorney Mike Nifong for violating the civil rights of the Duke lacrosse players accused of rape. While I have followed the case, I have usually not posted on it. But Barber notes:
4. I know that stories of liberal bias on college campuses is old news, but Michelle Malkin points to a very good article on the subject. I suspect that despite accusations that the matter is some sort of conspiracy, I would argue that the dominance of the left on college campuses is a cyclical thing and in 50 years liberal commentators will be making the same arguements. But extremism on both ends is not good and colleges should do a better job of trying to find some sort of, if not a happy at least a tolerant, medium.
5. For those who didn't know, the issue of slavery is still alive and well in the United States. More specifically, slave reparation lawsuits have been filed in many places. Judge Posner has issued a decision on the issue, affirming dismissal of such cases in the lower courts. Check out the opinion here.
1. If you are interested in education like I am, be sure to check the 97th Edition of the Carnival of Education and the 50th Edition of the Carnival of Homeschooling.
2. The FEC has levied three fines against 527 organizations for a total of $630,000 for failing the major purpose test. What is interesting is that at least for some people like Allison "The Skeptic" Hayward notes:
Apparently the FEC is of the view that a vague line in the caselaw about "major purpose" (or the retroactive application of regulations) trumps the statutory language requiring a $1,000 threshold in contributions or expenditures before a group can be regulated as a political committee.A similar ongoing dispute between the Club for Growth and the FEC is being played out in the courts right now.
3. LaShawn Barber reports on a call by North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones to investigate Durham County, NC District Attorney Mike Nifong for violating the civil rights of the Duke lacrosse players accused of rape. While I have followed the case, I have usually not posted on it. But Barber notes:
If DOJ opens an investigation, which I’m praying it will do, first on the list will be the photo ID process. In violation of standard procedures, the photo ID array did not include photos of people not associated with the so-called crime. The stripper-accuser looked at photos of white Duke lacrosse players and pointed to random men she wanted to frame for the alleged gang-rape.If this aspect is true and I have no reason believe it not to be true, this is certainly a violation of standard police procedure as well as potentially a violation of constitutional criminal procedure. I certainly believe that Nifong has handled the in an amateurish manner at best and probably in an unethical manner.
4. I know that stories of liberal bias on college campuses is old news, but Michelle Malkin points to a very good article on the subject. I suspect that despite accusations that the matter is some sort of conspiracy, I would argue that the dominance of the left on college campuses is a cyclical thing and in 50 years liberal commentators will be making the same arguements. But extremism on both ends is not good and colleges should do a better job of trying to find some sort of, if not a happy at least a tolerant, medium.
5. For those who didn't know, the issue of slavery is still alive and well in the United States. More specifically, slave reparation lawsuits have been filed in many places. Judge Posner has issued a decision on the issue, affirming dismissal of such cases in the lower courts. Check out the opinion here.
Campaign Finance Math
The FEC is considering an advisory opinion for the National Association of Realtors in which two activities undertaken by the NAR and its PAC that when taken separately are completely legal, but when done in conjunction are somehow illegal. he two activities involved are joint fundraising for the federal and state PACs and the transfer of funds between the national assocation and state associations. Each activity, when done on its own, is clearly legal and actually pretty common. Indeed the transfer of association general treasury funds is not even the jurisdiction of the FEC. Yet, when done together, the two actions may be prohibited. The Center for Competitive Politics has a great breakdown of the legal arguments as to why this Advisory Opinion is bad regulation.
But there is an even broader problem we are facing when presented with these kinds of questions. NAR has significant resources and retained Jan Baran as their attorney, one of the best in the business. But what if an association had not retained an attorney and simply looked at the law themselves. Both activities are legal and it would not be a long stretch of the imagination to think that an association would simply proceed with its plan and if this Advisory Opinion is adopted, it would be likely to be found in violation of campaign finance laws.
The tortured reasoning of the NAR draft AO will not add to the comfort level of PACs as they seek to fulfill their mission. In law school, we were taught over and over again that the law seeks predicatbility, for it is only with predicatbility that people can understand the bounds of what is permissible and what is not. But when it comes to campaign finance law, we have moved from the realm of the predictable to the realm of the surreal. Only in FEC regulations and Dali paitings can two legal things be bent and distorted so as to become suddenly become illegal. Only in campaign finance law is predictability not a cherished goal.
But there is an even broader problem we are facing when presented with these kinds of questions. NAR has significant resources and retained Jan Baran as their attorney, one of the best in the business. But what if an association had not retained an attorney and simply looked at the law themselves. Both activities are legal and it would not be a long stretch of the imagination to think that an association would simply proceed with its plan and if this Advisory Opinion is adopted, it would be likely to be found in violation of campaign finance laws.
The tortured reasoning of the NAR draft AO will not add to the comfort level of PACs as they seek to fulfill their mission. In law school, we were taught over and over again that the law seeks predicatbility, for it is only with predicatbility that people can understand the bounds of what is permissible and what is not. But when it comes to campaign finance law, we have moved from the realm of the predictable to the realm of the surreal. Only in FEC regulations and Dali paitings can two legal things be bent and distorted so as to become suddenly become illegal. Only in campaign finance law is predictability not a cherished goal.
Maryland Teachers' Union Gets A Dose Of Its Own Medicine
Mike Antonucci reports on the revocation of email privileges by union members for the dessimination of political messages because it is not allowed in the contract.
Work to Rule indeed.
Work to Rule indeed.
The Wussification of Education
Honor rolls emphasize grades too much, so says Principal Paul Richards of Needham High School in Needham, MA (near Boston).
Furthermore, honor rolls also are the single most democratic of honors since anyone can get them with some hard work and study. Other forms of excellence described by Mr. Richards are not nearly as democratic. Athletic excellence is often possessed by only a few people, so the star quarterback or running back gets press, but not the center of the football team. A leading scorer on a soccer team or basketball team will get recognition, but not the kid who goes out and practices hard everyday and gets maybe 10 minutes of playing time and never scores a goal or a more than a baseket. Musical talent is likewise rare and usually the stars of the school play are recognized, but not the bit part player who tried hard and spent hours working on sets while the principal actors rehearsed. Finally, when was the last time you saw the chess club or the math club featured in local newspapers?
While Principal Richards may tout that excellence comes in many forms, my bet is that he generally "promotes" sports and rarely anything else. A quick perusal through the archives of the Needham Times doesn't show a great deal of the "other ways that students achieve" being highlighted.
Of course, we could blame the local media for failing to cover these other events, but I am likewise certain that the school does not do a good job, if it makes any effort at all, of highlighting other activies at the school. I heard the best description of this move on the radio this morning, "the wussification" of America coupled with the "dumbing down" of education.
Where will the stupidity and the inanity end?
Richards said publishing of the honor roll represented "an unhealthy focus on grades." He pointed out that there are lots of other ways that students achieve, such as in clubs, musicals, concerts, athletics and community service.While achievement in other areas is certainly worthy of mention and attention in the local press, getting good grades should be the mission of the school and the students. Getting good grades, by definition, promotes learning.
He said the ranking of students solely based on grades goes against the school's overall mission which is to "promote learning."
Furthermore, honor rolls also are the single most democratic of honors since anyone can get them with some hard work and study. Other forms of excellence described by Mr. Richards are not nearly as democratic. Athletic excellence is often possessed by only a few people, so the star quarterback or running back gets press, but not the center of the football team. A leading scorer on a soccer team or basketball team will get recognition, but not the kid who goes out and practices hard everyday and gets maybe 10 minutes of playing time and never scores a goal or a more than a baseket. Musical talent is likewise rare and usually the stars of the school play are recognized, but not the bit part player who tried hard and spent hours working on sets while the principal actors rehearsed. Finally, when was the last time you saw the chess club or the math club featured in local newspapers?
While Principal Richards may tout that excellence comes in many forms, my bet is that he generally "promotes" sports and rarely anything else. A quick perusal through the archives of the Needham Times doesn't show a great deal of the "other ways that students achieve" being highlighted.
Of course, we could blame the local media for failing to cover these other events, but I am likewise certain that the school does not do a good job, if it makes any effort at all, of highlighting other activies at the school. I heard the best description of this move on the radio this morning, "the wussification" of America coupled with the "dumbing down" of education.
Where will the stupidity and the inanity end?
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
When Am I Going To Use This In The Real World?
All you middle and high school teachers out there who have never heard this question, please raise your hands!
Even in the medium of this blog, I can be fairly sure that not one teacher has their hand in the air. Even us non-teachers can say with a fair degree of certainty that much of what is taught in school has a real world application, the problem is that application is missing from lessons. In an op-ed appearing in today's Seattle Times, Dr. Catherine Taylor laments the fact that mathematics classes in particular do a very poor job showing how all those drill and kill skills that kids practice over and over relate to real world problem solving.
For teh TV minded out there, I draw your attention to the CBS Show "Numb3rs" in which a math professor brother of an FBI agent uses various mathematical models to help solve crimes. While some of the theories seem a little contrived, at least it can show one application of how math can help solve real world problems. But as Dr. Taylor points out, not everything has to be higher order, model based mathematics:
Take economics for instance. Economics is a fascinating subject if presented with some real world appliations, witness the popularity of Freakonomics. But as my wife and I learned in college, most economics classes stick with the basic theory and concenpts, which it must, but fail to draw any connections with the real world. Most people can intuitively understand the concept of supply and demand and the effect of both on price. But what impact on both supply, demand and price do government regulations, weather patterns, sales incentives, and other factors have on the old supply and demand graphs. If Economics were presented in college as a course designed to study the effect of incentives upon the actions of individuals and large groups, I would have been more interested in teh class, rather than suffering through it as a required course.
To be sure, the basic threat of failure of the next test or poor scores on exit exams or the SAT often motivates many students to put forth the minimal effort to learn the material. But what if you can enrich those students and garner the attention of those who might otherwise slough off with a little real world application, might that not be worth the effort.
Even in the medium of this blog, I can be fairly sure that not one teacher has their hand in the air. Even us non-teachers can say with a fair degree of certainty that much of what is taught in school has a real world application, the problem is that application is missing from lessons. In an op-ed appearing in today's Seattle Times, Dr. Catherine Taylor laments the fact that mathematics classes in particular do a very poor job showing how all those drill and kill skills that kids practice over and over relate to real world problem solving.
For teh TV minded out there, I draw your attention to the CBS Show "Numb3rs" in which a math professor brother of an FBI agent uses various mathematical models to help solve crimes. While some of the theories seem a little contrived, at least it can show one application of how math can help solve real world problems. But as Dr. Taylor points out, not everything has to be higher order, model based mathematics:
There are two problems with this scenario. First, very few people become theoretical mathematicians; few discover the purpose of abstract mathematics. Second, memorizing dozens of abstract procedures doesn't help students understand how to use mathematics to solve theoretical or everyday mathematical problems.But the application problem does not end with math.
For example, systems of equations can be used to decide which of two investments will yield the best profits or under what conditions two investment options will result in the same profit; geometric transformations can be used to create video games and graphic designs; statistics can be used to describe or predict changes in weather, population, air pollution, consumer confidence, etc.
Take economics for instance. Economics is a fascinating subject if presented with some real world appliations, witness the popularity of Freakonomics. But as my wife and I learned in college, most economics classes stick with the basic theory and concenpts, which it must, but fail to draw any connections with the real world. Most people can intuitively understand the concept of supply and demand and the effect of both on price. But what impact on both supply, demand and price do government regulations, weather patterns, sales incentives, and other factors have on the old supply and demand graphs. If Economics were presented in college as a course designed to study the effect of incentives upon the actions of individuals and large groups, I would have been more interested in teh class, rather than suffering through it as a required course.
To be sure, the basic threat of failure of the next test or poor scores on exit exams or the SAT often motivates many students to put forth the minimal effort to learn the material. But what if you can enrich those students and garner the attention of those who might otherwise slough off with a little real world application, might that not be worth the effort.
The Daily Top Five
Here are today's Top Five
1. What have we wrought in political correctness when a 4 year old is disciplined for hugging a teacher? Betsy Newmark points to the story our of Waco. From press accounts, maybe the boy crossed the line, but did intend to and with what mindset? Sure, we need to protect against sexual harassment and molestation, but does that mean we have to abandon common sense?
2. The Supreme Court is currently considering two school integration cases from Seattle and Kentucky whereby the school's policy uses race to determine what school to send kids to. While Brown v. Board in 1954 ended de jure racial segregation, proponents of teh polcy claim that de facto segregation based on housing patterns has taken its place and schools have a duty to provide a diverse educational experience. Thomas Sowell calls it like it is:
3. Michael Barone is setting the record straight about a recent Washington Post article on dairy farming politics. He correctly notes that the problem is not lobbying or campaign contributions, although that is the way some people will undoubtedly see the article, but rather the problem is a big government program of price supports for milk production.
4. When do two activities that taken individually are legal but when done in conjunction are now prohibitied. Only in the arcane world of campaign finance and the FEC. The Center for Competitive Politics has the story. I will have more detailed comments later.
5. Why does the National Education Association keep preaching the smaller class sizes sermon over and over again, despite no proof of smaller class sizes making education better for kids? Because they need members to pay for the quite exorbitant salaries of the national staff. In case you are wondering, the 600+ staff of teh NEA makes an average of $178,000 in salary and benefits in 2005-6. To be fair, not everyone makes that kind of cabbage, but when the salary to benefits ratio is almost $60 million to $47 million, it is hard to cry for the staff.
1. What have we wrought in political correctness when a 4 year old is disciplined for hugging a teacher? Betsy Newmark points to the story our of Waco. From press accounts, maybe the boy crossed the line, but did intend to and with what mindset? Sure, we need to protect against sexual harassment and molestation, but does that mean we have to abandon common sense?
2. The Supreme Court is currently considering two school integration cases from Seattle and Kentucky whereby the school's policy uses race to determine what school to send kids to. While Brown v. Board in 1954 ended de jure racial segregation, proponents of teh polcy claim that de facto segregation based on housing patterns has taken its place and schools have a duty to provide a diverse educational experience. Thomas Sowell calls it like it is:
The racial dogmas have changed since 1954 but they are still dogmas. And flesh-and-blood children are still being sacrificed on the altar to those dogmas.Read the whole thing.
Some of the learned justices are pondering whether there is a "compelling" government interest in creating the educational and social benefits of racial "diversity." If so, then supposedly it is OK to do to white kids today what the Supreme Court back in 1954 said could not be done to black kids -- namely, assign children to schools according to their race.
3. Michael Barone is setting the record straight about a recent Washington Post article on dairy farming politics. He correctly notes that the problem is not lobbying or campaign contributions, although that is the way some people will undoubtedly see the article, but rather the problem is a big government program of price supports for milk production.
4. When do two activities that taken individually are legal but when done in conjunction are now prohibitied. Only in the arcane world of campaign finance and the FEC. The Center for Competitive Politics has the story. I will have more detailed comments later.
5. Why does the National Education Association keep preaching the smaller class sizes sermon over and over again, despite no proof of smaller class sizes making education better for kids? Because they need members to pay for the quite exorbitant salaries of the national staff. In case you are wondering, the 600+ staff of teh NEA makes an average of $178,000 in salary and benefits in 2005-6. To be fair, not everyone makes that kind of cabbage, but when the salary to benefits ratio is almost $60 million to $47 million, it is hard to cry for the staff.
The High Price of Helping Kids
Prince George's County Maryland has a program to help kids pass the High School Assessments, a series of four tests that students graduating in 2009 must pass in order to receive their diplomas. The program called Twilight Academy is desinged to help the more than half of county students who have failed the exam.
In a Washington Post article, County School Superintendant John Deasy pleaded with parents:
But one does have to wonder about the efficacy of the design of the Twilight Academy. According to the article, students meet two to four times a week for an hour to an hour and half to practice for the exam and get instructional aid in the subject matter. But the program generally does not begin until 4:00PM, a time when most students have already been at school for 8 hours. From the description of activities in the article, it seems as though these students are already exhausted beyond the point of being able to glean anything useful from the class.
While the scheduling options are, of course, greatly limited by the clock and the calendar, does adding an extra 90 minutes of extra instruction at the end of the day actually going to help? But there are also other questions that I have.
How is the Twilight Academy integrated with the student's other, regular instruction? Are the two complementary or do they clash in timing and purposes? If the student passed their basic instructional class but failed the exam, how much study goes into determining the root cause of teh failure? Is the failure the result of lack of knowledge of the subject, or lack of understanding of how to take the exam? Was the failure the result of one or two poorly understood concepts were remediation in those areas would be more effective?
Chances are, very little actual analysis went into why each student failed to pass teh exam the first time. This may of course be the result of an inability to actually review the exam by school leaders, but that seems unlikely. But the county and state school leaders have access to the very data they need to help these students, but likely failed to take advantage of it. Before spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a remediation program, why not spend a few thousand dollars to analyze the data and then determine what is best for each kid. If a student is having problems with one discreet area, why torment them with a full review?
A short, focused intervention will improve the chances of teh student passing by working on the weakest areas. Such a effort will also reduce costs, in terms of student and teacher time, to such a level as to make the program more cost effective.
While it is too soon to tell how effective the Twilight academy will be in helping students pass the HSAs, I would be surprised if it makes a stellar impact.
In a Washington Post article, County School Superintendant John Deasy pleaded with parents:
"I am distressed at an enormous level that we put together a program which is the best in Maryland and only one out of six children are going that need to take it," he said. "I need you to get your child to that program. I can build it, I can produce it, I can staff it, but I can't go to your home and make your child go there."Deasy is running into a common problem, the lack of parental involvement in education. This is not say that parents don't care, for I think we all believe they do, but for the freshmen and sophomores at whom the program is targeted, there is no urgency to the need to pass the exams. After all, graduation for the students discussed in the article is two years away, practically an eternity for almost all students.
But one does have to wonder about the efficacy of the design of the Twilight Academy. According to the article, students meet two to four times a week for an hour to an hour and half to practice for the exam and get instructional aid in the subject matter. But the program generally does not begin until 4:00PM, a time when most students have already been at school for 8 hours. From the description of activities in the article, it seems as though these students are already exhausted beyond the point of being able to glean anything useful from the class.
While the scheduling options are, of course, greatly limited by the clock and the calendar, does adding an extra 90 minutes of extra instruction at the end of the day actually going to help? But there are also other questions that I have.
How is the Twilight Academy integrated with the student's other, regular instruction? Are the two complementary or do they clash in timing and purposes? If the student passed their basic instructional class but failed the exam, how much study goes into determining the root cause of teh failure? Is the failure the result of lack of knowledge of the subject, or lack of understanding of how to take the exam? Was the failure the result of one or two poorly understood concepts were remediation in those areas would be more effective?
Chances are, very little actual analysis went into why each student failed to pass teh exam the first time. This may of course be the result of an inability to actually review the exam by school leaders, but that seems unlikely. But the county and state school leaders have access to the very data they need to help these students, but likely failed to take advantage of it. Before spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a remediation program, why not spend a few thousand dollars to analyze the data and then determine what is best for each kid. If a student is having problems with one discreet area, why torment them with a full review?
A short, focused intervention will improve the chances of teh student passing by working on the weakest areas. Such a effort will also reduce costs, in terms of student and teacher time, to such a level as to make the program more cost effective.
While it is too soon to tell how effective the Twilight academy will be in helping students pass the HSAs, I would be surprised if it makes a stellar impact.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Daily Top Five
My fever addled brain has compiled these stories:
1. Jeff Emanuel brings us the story of a Christian Fraternity suing to enforce its right to admit members it chose to admit, i.e. Christians, against the University of Georgia. At issue was an anti-discrimination policy:
2. Well, duh! Imagine that, school performance improves when students needing vision and hearing assistance gets it.
3. Here is an update on the state of School Choice in America.
4. Kofi Annan bids farewell (good riddance, I say) in the Washington Post today. Captain Ed calls it what it is:
5. Finally, Tammy Bruce sheds a little light in the Sea-Tac Airport Christmas tree dismantling:
1. Jeff Emanuel brings us the story of a Christian Fraternity suing to enforce its right to admit members it chose to admit, i.e. Christians, against the University of Georgia. At issue was an anti-discrimination policy:
which requires that student organizations include in their constitution, and adhere to, the statement that "Membership shall not be denied to any person because of age, race, sex, religion, handicap, sexual orientation, or national origin."What is interesting comes later in the article:
Though it took legal coercing, in this the University of Georgia corrected a wrong and made the right decision. Next, though, the school must follow through on its promise to “review and change” its nondiscrimination policy. As Timothy Tracey of the Christian Legal Society said Thursday, “We need a long-term solution and just saying, 'You, Beta Upsilon Chi, will be recognized,' isn't good enough. We need a policy change.”What seems to be missing from the reporting is the stupidity behind the policy, not as it applies to the Christian fraternity, but what the rule said. Under the policy, a man would be able to join a sorority and have a good case if he were denied admission. After all, the sorority would be required to have the nondiscrimination policy.
A policy change is indeed necessary. A blanket, one-size-fits-all program to provide a politically correct end to all discrimination cannot be enacted without inadvertently discriminating against some of those whom it was designed to protect. Enacting a policy which forbids an organization based around a common defining characteristic to acknowledge that characteristic when determining its membership is a proposition which is as foolhardy as it is unworkable.
2. Well, duh! Imagine that, school performance improves when students needing vision and hearing assistance gets it.
3. Here is an update on the state of School Choice in America.
4. Kofi Annan bids farewell (good riddance, I say) in the Washington Post today. Captain Ed calls it what it is:
If his rule hadn't resulted in such worldwide misery and despair, it would be one of the funniest pieces of opinion journalism so far this year.
5. Finally, Tammy Bruce sheds a little light in the Sea-Tac Airport Christmas tree dismantling:
The rabbi should have simply asked, and not threatened to sue. I have no problem at all with the idea of a menorah going up, but the bottom line is, 95 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas. This gorwing obsession with everyone everywhere needing to see their representation is the impact of narcissism and its increasing control of people's lives.Narcissism fuel "diversity." An interesting theory.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Education Theory and Opinion
As Ken DeRosa at D-Ed Reckoning points out, there is far too much opinion in education and not enough theory.
In a learned profession, new ideas are tested, retested, examined, picked apart and put back in to practice. Such processes lead to proper theories, as Ken defined. A learned profession seeks above all predictability in outcome when common factors are present. Now of course, those that read this statement will say, all students are unique and each learns in a different way. To which I say hogwash.
I firmly believe only a finite number of learning processes exist. While some students may present an amalgamation of these processes, even the combination of processes is likewise finite and therefore predictable. While psychologists and neurologists may be able to tell you how a person learns, the fact of the matter is that current educational practices appear not to be geared to that knowledge. Much of our educational "theory" is based on a small segment of the learning bell curve, whether it be on the upper end of the curve or on the lower end of the curve. Rarely do any educational theories span the curve.
But Ken points out, although he may not realize it, a reason why we don't have any unified educational theories--we are afraid to be wrong.
To test educational theories reliably, you have to test them on real kids, in a real learning environment. Such a proposition produces fear that any errors in an education hypothesis may do some wrong, however slight. Unlike a car you can test until it breaks, it is a fundamentally different concept to test hypotheses upon a car. This fear may not even be on the part of the researchers themselves but a fear held by the parents of kids being tested. In short it is difficult to impose a scientific method upon children in the educational field because of the fear of long-term or even short-term damage.
These fears however, while real and probably founded in some past experience, need not deter us from trying to find a solution. But part of our problem, in addition to a fear of experimenting with children, is that we still don't know what we are trying to achieve. "An educated child" is an amorphous goal at best and from a practical standpoint impossible to define, measure and examine. Without an adequate definition of a goal, we could have a fabulous line-up of theories to test, but no end outcome to test them against. We can take 100 "educated" men and women and have 100 different examples of what an adequate educated person should be and 100 different answers to that question.
The definitional problem is not a simple abstraction, for it lies at the heart of predictability and replicability. An engineering problem, like a "safer" car, "a car that better protects passengers from injuries than cars currently available" can be mathematically expressed as having fewer injuries to occupants in the same number and type of crashes. Furthermore, the lay person and the expert can generally agree on what that means.
In education, we have neither an adequate definition of an edcuated child, nor do we have any sort of consensus between "experts" and "lay persons" as to what that means. So a teaching problem, for example, a better way to teach children to do mathematics, cannot be boiled as simply. What is the measurement we should use? Proficiency in terms of passing some state test? While an easily measureable outcome, the process may not be replicable across all students?
As a profession, teaching needs to take a few examples from other professions. Spending more time in peer review and after action sessions may lead to a better understanding of what works. From most of the teachers I know, either personally or through this blogging medium, I have learned that there is little regular interaction with other teachers where methods and means are examined and "dissected" for effectiveness. There is no systematic examination of student inputs and student outcomes that could lead to teh development of a field of knowledge around which a real theory of education can be developed. Therein lies the difference between teaching and other learned professions, critical self-evaluation of practice.
Not all the blame can be laid at the feet of teachers. If administration and school leadership did a better job of not only asking for, but demanding such a self-evaluative process, you might see a better development of the practice. The educaitonal theorists and opinionists, the so-called experts, rarely take such a step themselves and if they don't why should lay persons place any faith in their words.
Because education is not yet a mature profession, no one bothers to validate these crackpot opinions via the scientific process. Educators nonetheless often label these unsubstantiated guesses or hunches as theories. They are not.I must disagree with Ken's assertion that education is not a mature profession, because it is a mature profession, in terms of time, in terms of acknowledgement of the profession by the general public. I would argue instead that teaching is not a learned profession.
Theories are not merely someone's opinion, even though that is how the word is often used in everyday speech. Even if that person appears to be an authority figure, their opinions do not magically become theories. In education, there are precious few authority figures at the K-12 level in any event. Most educators simply do not know how to induce learning in kids who are not part of the portion of the top of the bell curve which always has managed to learn no matter how poorly or superbly the material is presented to them. Educators have been much less successful in inducing real learning in the remainder of kids. Without this success in educating, there can be no authority. This is the difference between an opinion and a theory; a difference that is not understood by most educators.
A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. Most opinions given by educators have either never been tested or have failed under somewhat rigorous experimental conditions. The result is that these opinions are not reliably predictive of what works in education.
In a learned profession, new ideas are tested, retested, examined, picked apart and put back in to practice. Such processes lead to proper theories, as Ken defined. A learned profession seeks above all predictability in outcome when common factors are present. Now of course, those that read this statement will say, all students are unique and each learns in a different way. To which I say hogwash.
I firmly believe only a finite number of learning processes exist. While some students may present an amalgamation of these processes, even the combination of processes is likewise finite and therefore predictable. While psychologists and neurologists may be able to tell you how a person learns, the fact of the matter is that current educational practices appear not to be geared to that knowledge. Much of our educational "theory" is based on a small segment of the learning bell curve, whether it be on the upper end of the curve or on the lower end of the curve. Rarely do any educational theories span the curve.
But Ken points out, although he may not realize it, a reason why we don't have any unified educational theories--we are afraid to be wrong.
There is no shame in being wrong. Scientists often have hypotheses that prove to be wrong. Science progresses slowly in fits and starts and through lots of trial and error. There is no shame in saying that you don't know something or how something works. What is shameful is professing that you do know something, when in fact you don't. What is especially shameful is when you do this by circumventing or perverting the scientific process. You don't to pass off your opinion as a theory when it is not. If you try to do this in most of the legitimate hard sciences and engineering fields, you will be recognized as a fraud by your peers and discredited. In education, however, most of the theorists are frauds. What we have is a bunch of foxes guarding the hen house. There is a critical mass of frauds in education that prevents the peer review process from working as it should to discredit failed or untested hypotheses being passed off as theory.While there may be no shame in being wrong, there are consequences in education. I don't believe that educational theorists or opinionists or researches don't have the best interests of children at heart, and that may be their downfall.
To test educational theories reliably, you have to test them on real kids, in a real learning environment. Such a proposition produces fear that any errors in an education hypothesis may do some wrong, however slight. Unlike a car you can test until it breaks, it is a fundamentally different concept to test hypotheses upon a car. This fear may not even be on the part of the researchers themselves but a fear held by the parents of kids being tested. In short it is difficult to impose a scientific method upon children in the educational field because of the fear of long-term or even short-term damage.
These fears however, while real and probably founded in some past experience, need not deter us from trying to find a solution. But part of our problem, in addition to a fear of experimenting with children, is that we still don't know what we are trying to achieve. "An educated child" is an amorphous goal at best and from a practical standpoint impossible to define, measure and examine. Without an adequate definition of a goal, we could have a fabulous line-up of theories to test, but no end outcome to test them against. We can take 100 "educated" men and women and have 100 different examples of what an adequate educated person should be and 100 different answers to that question.
The definitional problem is not a simple abstraction, for it lies at the heart of predictability and replicability. An engineering problem, like a "safer" car, "a car that better protects passengers from injuries than cars currently available" can be mathematically expressed as having fewer injuries to occupants in the same number and type of crashes. Furthermore, the lay person and the expert can generally agree on what that means.
In education, we have neither an adequate definition of an edcuated child, nor do we have any sort of consensus between "experts" and "lay persons" as to what that means. So a teaching problem, for example, a better way to teach children to do mathematics, cannot be boiled as simply. What is the measurement we should use? Proficiency in terms of passing some state test? While an easily measureable outcome, the process may not be replicable across all students?
As a profession, teaching needs to take a few examples from other professions. Spending more time in peer review and after action sessions may lead to a better understanding of what works. From most of the teachers I know, either personally or through this blogging medium, I have learned that there is little regular interaction with other teachers where methods and means are examined and "dissected" for effectiveness. There is no systematic examination of student inputs and student outcomes that could lead to teh development of a field of knowledge around which a real theory of education can be developed. Therein lies the difference between teaching and other learned professions, critical self-evaluation of practice.
Not all the blame can be laid at the feet of teachers. If administration and school leadership did a better job of not only asking for, but demanding such a self-evaluative process, you might see a better development of the practice. The educaitonal theorists and opinionists, the so-called experts, rarely take such a step themselves and if they don't why should lay persons place any faith in their words.
The Daily Top Five
For today's reading.
1. Earlier this week, Vice President Cheney's office announced that both of his daughters were expecting children. One daughter is expecting her fifth child with her husband. However, the big "news" is that Mary Cheney, the openly lesbian daughter, is expecting a child. Apparently such news, common place in the rest of the country, is somehow big news because Cheney's dad is teh Vice President, and is causing a debate about gay rights. Why must this be the case?
2. Media bias--well duh, but Chris Lawrence at Outside the Beltway points to a probably different explanation than you may think.
3. A "growing consensus about the Iraq Study Group report--it sucks" or so says Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House.
4. Want to get some news that is more accurate and more useful, pick up a business newspaper or publication. Why? According to this post:
5. Tommy Thompson for President in '08? The GOP could do a lot worse.
1. Earlier this week, Vice President Cheney's office announced that both of his daughters were expecting children. One daughter is expecting her fifth child with her husband. However, the big "news" is that Mary Cheney, the openly lesbian daughter, is expecting a child. Apparently such news, common place in the rest of the country, is somehow big news because Cheney's dad is teh Vice President, and is causing a debate about gay rights. Why must this be the case?
2. Media bias--well duh, but Chris Lawrence at Outside the Beltway points to a probably different explanation than you may think.
The basic problem I see with this “profit-maximizing” theory is that newspaper readers tend to be of higher socioeconomic status and are more likely to be white than the average citizen–and both groups are significantly more likely to be Republican. Then again, it is possible that Republicans are more tolerant of left-of-center media slant than Democrats are of right-of-center slant, and thus the “ideal” slant in a typical circulation area is left-of-center–not because it best represents reader’s actual political preferences, but because it leads the fewest readers to cancel subscriptions.A newspaper after all is a business designed to make money.
3. A "growing consensus about the Iraq Study Group report--it sucks" or so says Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House.
The right hates it because “victory” isn’t mentioned. And because the group gave an honest assessment of what was actually happening in Iraq. And because they want the United States to talk to Syrian cutthroats and Iranian fanatics. And because it calls the President’s policy a failure. And because James Baker is a poopie head.So there are two points of consensus, the report sucks and James Baker is a poopie head.
snip
On the left, they hate the ISG report because they see it as a gigantic conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their electoral victory. And because it doesn’t advocate an immediate withdrawal of forces. And because the word “defeat” isn’t found anywhere in the report. And because it isn’t hard enough on Bush. And because Bush will ignore recommendations that they disagree with too. And because James Baker works for the Bush family and is a poopie head.
4. Want to get some news that is more accurate and more useful, pick up a business newspaper or publication. Why? According to this post:
I started reading the business press when I was in graduate school. I found it to be generally more unbiased, if you define unbiased in terms of being the reasonable basis for decisions. There is a reason for that. People making investments are making decisons. They are going to put their money where their mouths are and demand a higher level of accuracy. Publications such as "The Nation" or "Mother Jones" (is that still around?) can engage in fancifully flying diatribes that make intuitive sense but are wrong. The business press gets pulled down to earth much more often. They also tend to deal with more practical people.Although I don't read the WSJ daily, I do find their news reporting on current events much more accurate and balanced than any other outlet. Their business reporting, obviously is second to none.
There are two sorts of prognosticators. Those who predict what will happen and those who have a hand it making it happen. The former are more entertaining; the latter more useful.
5. Tommy Thompson for President in '08? The GOP could do a lot worse.
The Daily Top Five
Might help if you actually remember to click Publish.
1. Today being the Anniversary of teh attack on Pearl Harbor, I looked around for a good post about the lessons of the 1941 attack. It would be easy to do a Dec. 7-9/11 link, but I think Ilya Somin has one of the better posts I have seen.
2. Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston dismantle Gwenneth Paltrow.
3. Every election season, politicians attempt to speak at churches and even win clergy endorsements. The reason is that churchgoers vote, much more than non-churchgoers. Over the years, a number of churches have been prosecuted by the IRS for engaging in political and partisan activity, which contravenes the law regarding tax exempt organization. Bob Bauer discusses a recent article that argues that instead of attacking the churches and congregations, the IRS should go after the politicians who seek to and actually do speak at those churches. Bauer asks that we reconsider the wisdom of prohibiting such practices:
4. Yesterday Justice's Scalia and Breyer held a discussion about the Court and the Constitution. No Left Turns has a link to video and Allison Hawyard (whose husband writes at No Left Turns) posts about it as well, writing:
5. This just made it in, since I debated whether not to include it. In generally, I don't like the banning of any book for any reason, but sometimes I have to wonder about the wisdom of our school leaders. Just because a book is published doesn't mean it is suitable for all audiences. Michelle Malkin has a story about three books in a Queens school.
1. Today being the Anniversary of teh attack on Pearl Harbor, I looked around for a good post about the lessons of the 1941 attack. It would be easy to do a Dec. 7-9/11 link, but I think Ilya Somin has one of the better posts I have seen.
2. Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston dismantle Gwenneth Paltrow.
3. Every election season, politicians attempt to speak at churches and even win clergy endorsements. The reason is that churchgoers vote, much more than non-churchgoers. Over the years, a number of churches have been prosecuted by the IRS for engaging in political and partisan activity, which contravenes the law regarding tax exempt organization. Bob Bauer discusses a recent article that argues that instead of attacking the churches and congregations, the IRS should go after the politicians who seek to and actually do speak at those churches. Bauer asks that we reconsider the wisdom of prohibiting such practices:
Reflection on the nature of these violations might suggest that we might reconsider the proscription rather than seek out more militant and wide-ranging enforcement. How can be it said, for example, that politicians can be driven from the pulpit "without infringing a church’s First Amendment rights"? Politicians may wish to address a congregation, but a congregation may well wish to hear them. A congregation may be happy to entertain a request, or willingly issue an invitation, for such an appearance. It is not so much a question of whether we are punishing enough or the right people, but of why we believe that punishment of this behavior is even necessary or desirable.
4. Yesterday Justice's Scalia and Breyer held a discussion about the Court and the Constitution. No Left Turns has a link to video and Allison Hawyard (whose husband writes at No Left Turns) posts about it as well, writing:
I have to say in general that Justice Breyer comes across as a pleasant and smart person (surprisingly pleasant, actually). However, he talks about the Constitution like a mainline Episcopalian talks about the Bible. See, we’re not really suppose to follow the document - but think "hard" about the underlying "purposes" and follow those. Openended? Idiosyncratic? Banal? Yes.I can't wait to watch the video.
Breyer struck me as the guy who was so smart and system wise he never really had to work all that hard. So the vagaries and imprecision of what he’s advocating just don’t bother him.
Justice Scalia, on the other hand, was precise, crisp, sensible, amusing, and seemed to be having an excellent time. This surprised me - I anticipated he’d be more prickly. His point - which will come as no surprise to any of you - was that the Constitution is a real document you really need to read and follow.
5. This just made it in, since I debated whether not to include it. In generally, I don't like the banning of any book for any reason, but sometimes I have to wonder about the wisdom of our school leaders. Just because a book is published doesn't mean it is suitable for all audiences. Michelle Malkin has a story about three books in a Queens school.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
School Reform--NY Style
On Monday, the NY Times featured an article on Dr. Kathleen Cashin, the regional superintendent of Region 5 of teh NY City School system. The piece, which adoringly discusses Dr. Cashin's successes, and rightfully so, tries to cast the education debate in New York City as Cashin's way versus Klein's way, with Klein being Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.
What Cashin has done is to choose an alternative means to the very same end. Instead of holding individual principals accountable for their school's performance, Cashin has chosen to take such responsibility for herself. By relegating the school level administrators generally obsolete, she has fashioned an relatively autocratic scenario that has produced results. Clearly such an approach has worked for her and her schools. While no one can argue with her success, it does raise the question as to whether or not her process is replicable.
No doubt that Dr. Cashin is a forceful personality, such traits seem readily apparent from just the article. But in her feifdom, she has created a cult of personality, her personality, that may not be replicable on a broader scale or anywhere else for that matter.
But it may not need to be replicable on a broader scale. Perhaps Dr. Cashin's approach can work hand in hand with that of Mr. Klein as a sort of carrot and stick approach. A need for school leaders of both types will always exist and it need not be a zero-sum game between the two approaches. After all, the goal is a better education for our kids and sometimes you need a iron fist inside and velvet glove to achieve your goal.
Dr. Cashin’s results should be an easy reason for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein to gloat, a triumph in their takeover of the nation’s largest school system. But in many ways, her success raises questions about the thrust of their recent efforts to reshape the school bureaucracy.But if you read a little further, Dr. Cashin's ways are more authoritarian than the decentralization approach favored by Mr. Klein and Mayor Bloomberg. While Klein and Bloomberg prefer giving principals more autonomy to address the peculiar needs of their individual schools and students, Cashin takes the opposite approach, detailing curricula and lesson plans, effectively rendering moot the role of the principal as an educator and making the individual school administration almost trivial.
While Mr. Klein has derided the “status quo crowd” and sought to bring outsiders into the administration, Dr. Cashin is a lifelong city educator. While Mr. Klein wants to free principals from the control of superintendents like her, Dr. Cashin believes even the best principals need an experienced supervisor.
Where Mr. Klein insists that school administration must be reinvented to reverse generations of failure by generations of educators, Dr. Cashin, a product of the old system, insists she can get results with a clear instructional mission, careful organization and a simple strategy of every educator’s being supported by an educator with more experience.
"We are relentless," Dr. Cashin said in a recent interview. "The secret is clear expectations. Everything is spelled out. Nothing is assumed." She provides her principals, for instance, with a detailed road map of what should be taught in every subject, in every grade, including specific skills of the week in reading and focus on a genre of literature every month. (emphasis added)Dr. Cashin's methodology certainly does free up administrator and teacher time from planning a curriculum and developing lesson plans in order to focus on teaching. But here underlying message is not all that different from other school reform efforts, including those of Mr. Klein. Being relentless in the pursuit of learning for students, setting clear expectations of students, of teachers and of administrators and parents, and making no assumptions about anything. These are common element in just about every school reform proposal out there. Without clear standards and expectations, little success can be achieved by design.
What Cashin has done is to choose an alternative means to the very same end. Instead of holding individual principals accountable for their school's performance, Cashin has chosen to take such responsibility for herself. By relegating the school level administrators generally obsolete, she has fashioned an relatively autocratic scenario that has produced results. Clearly such an approach has worked for her and her schools. While no one can argue with her success, it does raise the question as to whether or not her process is replicable.
No doubt that Dr. Cashin is a forceful personality, such traits seem readily apparent from just the article. But in her feifdom, she has created a cult of personality, her personality, that may not be replicable on a broader scale or anywhere else for that matter.
But it may not need to be replicable on a broader scale. Perhaps Dr. Cashin's approach can work hand in hand with that of Mr. Klein as a sort of carrot and stick approach. A need for school leaders of both types will always exist and it need not be a zero-sum game between the two approaches. After all, the goal is a better education for our kids and sometimes you need a iron fist inside and velvet glove to achieve your goal.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
The Daily Top Five
Some thoughts for today:
1. Mr. McNamar, a teacher in Washington State, complains that too many people look at public schools as nothing more than glorified day care provided at taxpayer expense. He offers a plan to that would treat parents as paying customers.
2. With all the hubbub surrounding the Iraq Study Group's report, here is one post that may make people sit up and think about the conduct of this war. I have no doubt that if told to do so, the U.S. Military can take out any target at any time. The problem with such activity is that collateral damage is not only likely, but probable, even in the age of precision weapons. But when the rules of engagement contradict years or even decades of training, what can result? The fear of collateral damage has caused limitations on the rules of engagement on a scale not previously known and the PC war takes on a whole new meaning. Via Instapundit.
3. Speaking of the Iraq Study Group's report, so far of all the "reactions" I have seen by various people on the right, the fellows at Power Line have the best written reaction. I have done nothing but peruse the exec summary, but I am not finding anything shocking or particularly bold.
4. The prolific, aisle-hopping Dick Morris takes on the question of whether Hillary Clinton can win the White House in 2008, saying yes she could, but she shouldn't. Here is an excerpt:
5. This is not going to sit well with Nancy Pelosi: Reyes wants an increase in troops in Iraq.
1. Mr. McNamar, a teacher in Washington State, complains that too many people look at public schools as nothing more than glorified day care provided at taxpayer expense. He offers a plan to that would treat parents as paying customers.
First, the government will now only have to front the money for operational costs. Administrators, janitors, district personell, transportation and building maintenance will all be provided for through the governmental funds. I would also put in that category the curriculum and supplies.Really, it is not a bad idea. Simplistic and unlikely to happen in the current climate, but not a bad idea. Via Carnival of Education.
Second, the parents would then be responsibile for paying an hourly wage to the teachers. Let's set that at the current minimum wage, 5.15 an hour.
At the high school level, we have hour long class periods--approximately. In my first period Pre-College English class, I have 31 students--all for an hour. That translates into $159.65 for first period. Unfortunately, periods 2,3,5 are courses for accelerating student learning, so I have a grand total of 33 students between the three; that puts my earnings for those periods at $169.95. My sixth period class has 30 students, giving me an additional $154.50. That would be $484.10 if my math is correct. If we went to school for 182 days, that would mean a total of $88,106. 20. Over twice my current going rate.
If this were the case, I would really push for that increase to $7.25 an hour. That would mean $124,033 a year.
2. With all the hubbub surrounding the Iraq Study Group's report, here is one post that may make people sit up and think about the conduct of this war. I have no doubt that if told to do so, the U.S. Military can take out any target at any time. The problem with such activity is that collateral damage is not only likely, but probable, even in the age of precision weapons. But when the rules of engagement contradict years or even decades of training, what can result? The fear of collateral damage has caused limitations on the rules of engagement on a scale not previously known and the PC war takes on a whole new meaning. Via Instapundit.
3. Speaking of the Iraq Study Group's report, so far of all the "reactions" I have seen by various people on the right, the fellows at Power Line have the best written reaction. I have done nothing but peruse the exec summary, but I am not finding anything shocking or particularly bold.
4. The prolific, aisle-hopping Dick Morris takes on the question of whether Hillary Clinton can win the White House in 2008, saying yes she could, but she shouldn't. Here is an excerpt:
The enthusiasm that will grip many Americans — women in particular — at the cultural implications of a woman president will probably sweep through the primaries and cause many to overlook Hillary’s flaws and dismiss her defects. The generic of a woman candidate will prove so attractive that millions of voters will overcome their objections to the specific person who is running.Read the Whole Thing.
Her mastery of the establishment of the Democratic Party, her vast lead among ex-officio delegates — many of whom have received campaign contributions from her coffers — and the celebrity draw of her ex-president husband will prove hard for a mere mortal to overcome.
But should she win? No way!
Those who know both Hillary and Bill well and are willing to speak frankly in public realize the fundamental differences between the two and grasp how his abilities are the counterpoints to her defects.
5. This is not going to sit well with Nancy Pelosi: Reyes wants an increase in troops in Iraq.
Milestones
The old Site Meter ticked over to 20,000 this morning, thanks to someone in Washington DC who checked out this post at 7:45am.
Thanks to everyone who has read this blog over the past almost two years.
Thanks to everyone who has read this blog over the past almost two years.
Tips for Better Writing
Like Lucas McDonnell, I have read and heard a number of different tips for making my writing better and one of the reasons I started this blog was to improve my "snap" writing, that is writing done quickly and usually in relatively short form. I have always thought that my long form, revisionary writing was pretty strong since I have time to compose, revise, reread, research and repeate the process, steadily making my prose a little stronger each time.
However, I felt that if I could make the first words I put on the paper (or rather the computer screen) stronger from the start, my overall writing would improve. So, I decided to focus on "snap" writing, compiling thoughts and arguments quickly and putting them into words in short order. At times, I have been quite prolific and at others (like now) not so productive. But looking back over time, I think that my short form, snap writing has improved over time.
Getting back to Mr. McDonnell, this piece of advice I think is fitting for all writers, of all persuasions:
When writing in long form with time for revision, you can go back and add a little more structure to your paper. You can move sections around that will improve your arguments, increase the flow and provide a path for your reader to follow.
So if you want to improve your writing, write a lot and read a lot. It really is that simple.
However, I felt that if I could make the first words I put on the paper (or rather the computer screen) stronger from the start, my overall writing would improve. So, I decided to focus on "snap" writing, compiling thoughts and arguments quickly and putting them into words in short order. At times, I have been quite prolific and at others (like now) not so productive. But looking back over time, I think that my short form, snap writing has improved over time.
Getting back to Mr. McDonnell, this piece of advice I think is fitting for all writers, of all persuasions:
7. Stop thinking and start writing — and don’t stop.I think that the time to plan something out, something in a longer form than what any writer is used to is at the time of research and ordering. So here is my advice from preparing for the essay sections of the bar exam, spend no more than 20% of your time devoted to writing to actually thinking about writing and the rest of the time actually writing.
OK, so I’m suggesting breaking another cardinal rule of writing. Writing instructors will often tell you to plan out what you want to write very carefully.
While a rough sketch of what you want to do is always good to give you a general plan, don’t let it cripple your writing. Instead of trying to plan everything out very carefully, just start writing.
Once you get some ideas down on paper, you may be surprised by what you have to say about a subject. Sometimes the words will simply flow when you just force yourself to get something (anything) down on paper.
And when you feel like you’ve reached a point where you’re out of ideas, try two or three times to continue. Try to make yourself keep writing. If you are really stuck, you’ll know it. Get up and take a break from your writing for a while. You’ll come back to it with renewed energy and fresh ideas.
And remember, like anything else, the more you write, the better you’ll get at it.
When writing in long form with time for revision, you can go back and add a little more structure to your paper. You can move sections around that will improve your arguments, increase the flow and provide a path for your reader to follow.
So if you want to improve your writing, write a lot and read a lot. It really is that simple.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
The Daily Top Five
For your reading pleasure:
1. I thought NY was on a good trend under Giuliani and now Bloomberg, but it looks like the nanny state is taking hold. As if a Big Mac and Fries weren't expensive enough in Manhattan.
2. For even more news of the absurd, Joanne Jacobs talks about Baby Spas. Baby Spas, yes Baby Spas. Even typing three times still doesn't alleveiate the absurdity of it all. I am sorry, if parents can't massage their own kids, then maybe they need to rethink priorities both in terms of time and money. Also, while my 38 year old body may needs its chakras aligned, my 18 month old does not.
3. A recent NY Times Magazine article by Paul Tough has touched off a great debate among the edusphere. Kevin Carey looks at a reaction piece, noting that simplistic analysis will not help move the debate over the achievement gap forward.
4. Ever wanted to listen to oral arguments from Supreme Court cases, well the Oyez Project has downloadable mp3 files. For education buffs, the Seattle and Kentucky cases on the use of race to create racially balanced schools can be heard here and here respectively. Links provided via SCOTUS Blog, which also has links to various news items on the cases.
5. Finally, Philip Mella notes "The Dem's Get 'Religion."
1. I thought NY was on a good trend under Giuliani and now Bloomberg, but it looks like the nanny state is taking hold. As if a Big Mac and Fries weren't expensive enough in Manhattan.
2. For even more news of the absurd, Joanne Jacobs talks about Baby Spas. Baby Spas, yes Baby Spas. Even typing three times still doesn't alleveiate the absurdity of it all. I am sorry, if parents can't massage their own kids, then maybe they need to rethink priorities both in terms of time and money. Also, while my 38 year old body may needs its chakras aligned, my 18 month old does not.
3. A recent NY Times Magazine article by Paul Tough has touched off a great debate among the edusphere. Kevin Carey looks at a reaction piece, noting that simplistic analysis will not help move the debate over the achievement gap forward.
4. Ever wanted to listen to oral arguments from Supreme Court cases, well the Oyez Project has downloadable mp3 files. For education buffs, the Seattle and Kentucky cases on the use of race to create racially balanced schools can be heard here and here respectively. Links provided via SCOTUS Blog, which also has links to various news items on the cases.
5. Finally, Philip Mella notes "The Dem's Get 'Religion."
Monday, December 04, 2006
"Wizard of Oz Diplomas"
Arnold Kling talks about educational entrepeneurship in a recent column at TCS. The piece discusses several different items, including the need for removing entry barriers for new ideas in education. While all of that is pretty good reading, one passage captured my attention and leads to the biggest criticism of Mr. Kling and many teachers.
Toward the start of his article, Kling writes:
Here is my logic for failing a student who, while turning in a paper, turns in a paper of such poor quality as to be indecipherable. If not turning in a paper is considered non-responsive to the question presented, a paper that does not adequately address the question in language that can be understood should likewise fail for being non-responsive. If a foriegn born student turned in a paper in their native language, they would receive a failing grade if they refused to translate it into English. If an American student fails to turn in a paper that does not answer the question in understandable English, why then should they get a passing grade, even if it is a "D" paper.
Educational reformers often decry the practice of social promotion among grade schoolers. Similarly, critics of the current state of higher education blast the relative worthlessness of a college degree because many graduate lack basic communication skills. Kling himself notes the problem
The problem lies not in our failure to recognize that we as a nation have a problem with social promotion and "Wizard of Oz" diplomas; for nearly everyone knows of the problem. Our national problem is that no one seems to recognize the individual failures of each teacher at each level. When a child is "socially promoted," usually more than one adult is responsible for the education of that child and not one of them appears to stand up and say--"No, this child should not be promoted." No professor, like Professor Kling, stands up and fails a student for not being able to communicate in the written form. Advancing a student, whether in grade school or in college, when they shouldn't be advanced requires, at a minimum, a tacit approval by everyone involved, and an explicit rejection of responsibility by everyone involved.
All professors and teacher, acting in a fashion like Prof. Kling, figures, "well teaching adequate communication skills is not my problem, so I won't fail students who can't write." Such a mindset simply passes the buck and eventually it is the student who gets cashiered later--never his/her instructors who failed to point out their problem sooner.
Of course, I could blame the "self-esteem" era of concern, but that lets far too many people off the hook. If we as a nation are truly serious about making our high school diplomas and our college degrees mean something, we must stop thinking that social promotion and hollow degrees are someone else's fault. We must hold teachers, professors, administrators and everyone else accountable, each and every person.
Toward the start of his article, Kling writes:
One politically popular idea is to try to send more young adults to college. This may seem appealing, but in reality we already have too many students in college who lack sufficient basic skills.If one of the purposes of a college education is to provide students with the ability to adequately communicate their thoughts in a written medium, why then pass the student who cannot achieve that goal?
In November, after grading a batch of papers, I posted the following notice to the web site for an economics course that I teach at George Mason University:Many students did poorly with writing quality. If it were up to me, a lot of you would be taking remedial English classes. I would advise everyone to think twice about using the word "on." For example, it is wrong to say, "The book discusses on economic growth" when the proper sentence is "The book discusses economic growth."My recollection from my career in government and business is that written communication skills still matter. Out of over 100 students in my class at George Mason, no more than a handful could function in any capacity in a job that required writing a memorandum. Over half of the students are utterly incompetent when it comes to grammar and syntax. They have no ability to communicate complex ideas. Yet I do not fail these students. I feel that I must reserve my F's for the students who do not turn in papers at all.(emphasis added)
Here is my logic for failing a student who, while turning in a paper, turns in a paper of such poor quality as to be indecipherable. If not turning in a paper is considered non-responsive to the question presented, a paper that does not adequately address the question in language that can be understood should likewise fail for being non-responsive. If a foriegn born student turned in a paper in their native language, they would receive a failing grade if they refused to translate it into English. If an American student fails to turn in a paper that does not answer the question in understandable English, why then should they get a passing grade, even if it is a "D" paper.
Educational reformers often decry the practice of social promotion among grade schoolers. Similarly, critics of the current state of higher education blast the relative worthlessness of a college degree because many graduate lack basic communication skills. Kling himself notes the problem
I fear that many of the students who pass will go on to earn Wizard-of-Oz diplomas, which signify nothing. Students will claim to be educated, but employers will know otherwise. The phenomenon of the Wizard-of-Oz diploma has discredited the college degree.Yet, Kling fails to grasp or simply overlooks that he is partially responsible for the lack of real skills and knowledge of his students.
The problem lies not in our failure to recognize that we as a nation have a problem with social promotion and "Wizard of Oz" diplomas; for nearly everyone knows of the problem. Our national problem is that no one seems to recognize the individual failures of each teacher at each level. When a child is "socially promoted," usually more than one adult is responsible for the education of that child and not one of them appears to stand up and say--"No, this child should not be promoted." No professor, like Professor Kling, stands up and fails a student for not being able to communicate in the written form. Advancing a student, whether in grade school or in college, when they shouldn't be advanced requires, at a minimum, a tacit approval by everyone involved, and an explicit rejection of responsibility by everyone involved.
All professors and teacher, acting in a fashion like Prof. Kling, figures, "well teaching adequate communication skills is not my problem, so I won't fail students who can't write." Such a mindset simply passes the buck and eventually it is the student who gets cashiered later--never his/her instructors who failed to point out their problem sooner.
Of course, I could blame the "self-esteem" era of concern, but that lets far too many people off the hook. If we as a nation are truly serious about making our high school diplomas and our college degrees mean something, we must stop thinking that social promotion and hollow degrees are someone else's fault. We must hold teachers, professors, administrators and everyone else accountable, each and every person.
The Daily Top Five
Some good posts for your consideration:
1. As a Navy Brat and a Navy Veteran, the Sea Service holds a special place in my heart and my heart was warmed over the weekend when the Navy decided not to hold the commissioning ceremony for the U.S.S. Makin Island in San Francisco, the city that Michelle Malkin calls the City that Hates the Military. Check out Michelle's Latest Vent on this issue as well as other coverage here.
2. Jack Kelly (via Dean Barnett) has this great editorial which takes on the Leftist mindset regarding the military as being populated with morons and other assorted mental midgets (as opposed to our so to be majority party in Congress). The first thing to note is how stuck in Vietnam Sen. Kerry and Rep. Rangel are. The draft Army that fought that war was comprised chiefly of young men unable to obtain college deferments. Soldiers then had less education and lower intelligence than the youth population as a whole.
3. Ryan Boots at Edspresso brings us the story of a $6 billion education budget largess and the people lining up to get it. Odd thing though, no one seems to be talking about the kids.
4. Honoring the fallen.
1. As a Navy Brat and a Navy Veteran, the Sea Service holds a special place in my heart and my heart was warmed over the weekend when the Navy decided not to hold the commissioning ceremony for the U.S.S. Makin Island in San Francisco, the city that Michelle Malkin calls the City that Hates the Military. Check out Michelle's Latest Vent on this issue as well as other coverage here.
2. Jack Kelly (via Dean Barnett) has this great editorial which takes on the Leftist mindset regarding the military as being populated with morons and other assorted mental midgets (as opposed to our so to be majority party in Congress). The first thing to note is how stuck in Vietnam Sen. Kerry and Rep. Rangel are. The draft Army that fought that war was comprised chiefly of young men unable to obtain college deferments. Soldiers then had less education and lower intelligence than the youth population as a whole.
But this hasn't been true since Ronald Reagan became president. The average service member today has more education and a higher IQ than do his or her civilian counterparts.But this to me is the money quote:
Currently, about 98 percent of enlisted personnel have high school diplomas, compared to about 75 percent of 18- to 24-year olds as a whole. In 2005, more than 70 percent of recruits scored in the upper half on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, the military equivalent of an IQ test. Only half of the youth population, of course, scores in the upper half.
About 92 percent of officers have college degrees, and a higher proportion of military officers have advanced degrees than do college graduates as a whole. (Between 2000 and 2005, the proportion of officers with advanced degrees ranged between 35 and 45 percent.)
For many Democrats, being an American is all about rights, not duties. Though the rights they demand would not exist were it not for the dwindling number of Americans willing to perform the duties of citizenship, they regard with barely concealed contempt those Americans whose sense of duty causes them to go in harm's way. If America's "leaders" have such attitudes, can the nation long survive?I wonder.
3. Ryan Boots at Edspresso brings us the story of a $6 billion education budget largess and the people lining up to get it. Odd thing though, no one seems to be talking about the kids.
4. Honoring the fallen.
Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.5. What if the Supreme Court were rock stars, who would they be. Jack Balkin lets you in on his opinion. While Balkin's selections were interesting, the best one comes from the comments:
Know the line has held, your job is done.
Scalia is Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson. Histrionic, operatic, but knocks you on your ass when he opens his mouth.How true.
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Daily Top Five
Today's good stuff:
1. Remember when Hilary Clinton wrote "It Takes a Village" about raising kids in America. Well Brett Pawlowski is the founder of Business/Education Partnership Forum, a group that seeks to build partnerships between public schools and the business community, a relationship that can bear signficant fruit. Read Brett's recent letter to the Editor of the School Administrator discussing the reasons why the business community takes education so seriously.
2. The Maryland Court of Appeals is set to hear a case on same-sex marriage and will determine if same-sex marriage should be allowed in Maryland. In advance of that hearing, the gay right community is running a full-court (pun intended) press trying to sway public opinion. The Maryland Moment notes that psychologists, social workers and child welfare advocates think that
3. In college I wrote a thesis dealing with the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the Constitutional rafitication debates in teh 1780's. This post by Ilya Somin brought back some of those thoughts. Noting that history is written by the winners:
4. Here is an article by Jonathan Moreno about the military's research in to drugs that can reduce the mental fatigue of soldiers, which the military claims leads to more casualties and "friendly fire" incidents. A pretty interesting read.
5. And now for something completely vacuous, via the Pillage Idiot.
1. Remember when Hilary Clinton wrote "It Takes a Village" about raising kids in America. Well Brett Pawlowski is the founder of Business/Education Partnership Forum, a group that seeks to build partnerships between public schools and the business community, a relationship that can bear signficant fruit. Read Brett's recent letter to the Editor of the School Administrator discussing the reasons why the business community takes education so seriously.
2. The Maryland Court of Appeals is set to hear a case on same-sex marriage and will determine if same-sex marriage should be allowed in Maryland. In advance of that hearing, the gay right community is running a full-court (pun intended) press trying to sway public opinion. The Maryland Moment notes that psychologists, social workers and child welfare advocates think that
highlighted an extensive body of scientific research supporting the idea that children raised by lesbian and gay couples develop as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.I am not sure about the science and to be honest, I could care less whether a gay couple gets married or not, or whether the law says they can or not. But what I am sure about is that if a person has legal custody of a child, that person can get health insurance for that child through any health plan out there and that is a fact. They may not be able to get coverage for their partner, but they can get coverage for their kid. It is lies that these that don't do the debate any good.
[snip]
There are more than 15,000 same sex couples in the state of Maryland and between one quarter and one third are raising children, according to Susan Leviton, founder of the Baltimore-based Advocates for Children and Youth. Couples who are not allowed to marry face barriers such as getting insurance coverage for their families.
3. In college I wrote a thesis dealing with the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the Constitutional rafitication debates in teh 1780's. This post by Ilya Somin brought back some of those thoughts. Noting that history is written by the winners:
We today are so inured to to the idea that the Constitution is a good thing that we forget that many great Americans opposed its ratification, including Patrick Henry and George Mason, after whom George Mason University is named. Others, such as Thomas Jefferson, had serious doubts about it, though they didn't actively oppose it.A good post to read.
History is written by the winners, and rarely is this more true than in the field of Constitutional law, where most of us have forgotten the views of Henry and Mason. Indeed, even the very names by which we call the supporters and opponents of the Constitution ("Federalists" and "anti-Federalists") are the products of winners' history.
[snip]
But the anti-Federalist/anti-rat critique of the Constitution (including George Mason's criticism linked above) is much more compelling than we realize and some of it is relevant even today.
4. Here is an article by Jonathan Moreno about the military's research in to drugs that can reduce the mental fatigue of soldiers, which the military claims leads to more casualties and "friendly fire" incidents. A pretty interesting read.
5. And now for something completely vacuous, via the Pillage Idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)