Sometimes something annoys me and I can't stop thinking about it. I have to tell someone about it. That's part of why I started this blog (btw, I'm not dead!), so I'd have 'someone' to tell. If you're good at putting 2 and 2 together, you may have guessed I have someone to tell all that stuff to now :) and don't have much reason to write here. Except today, I can't stop rehearsing telling him about this annoying thing and I will only see CR briefly tonight and don't want to waste breathe on this stupid thing, and I can't tell Honu-Girl (because she is annoyed about the same thing and doesn't need to hear more of my ramblings on the matter and definitely doesn't need the background...although she'll probably read this), but I can't stop rehearsing what I'd say...So, y'all are the lucky winners of the totality of my thoughts on the matter at hand - Adopt-A-School and money.
A little background to this week's drama: My employer (state science agency) has been an AAS partner for about 20 years. Our current coordinator has been doing it for about 17 years. (I've been working here for 5.5 years.) To fund AAS activities apparently they used to do bake sales, t-shirt sales, etc and passing the hat until someone came up with the idea of a golf tournament to fund all the educational outreach for the agency. Somewhere along the way a bank account was set up to handle the 'education fund' monies. Most of the funds went to AAS activities, as I understand it, but some money was donated to water festivals and a few other similar events. As I understand it, the agency became AAS partners to support Earth Science education, in particular (which is why we partnered with a middle school), but not to the exclusion of activities to support all education, teachers, and students. A bone of contintion between the education committee and the AAS coordinator was how she spent money - most of the committee favored trying to target actual educational things (equipment, books, fieldtrips), she likes to do a lot of prize type stuff (snacks during testing week, good behavior rewards (candy), lunch for the teachers). No one has a problem with rewards and treats but there is only so much money to go around.
Last summer one of our agency lawyers noticed all of this and realized this was illegal, primarily the money part. Generally state agencies can't go out and under their name seek charitable donations, at least not ours (maybe some can, idk). This was decreed right before the golf tournament. There was some chaos, then the geological society stepped up and offered to handle the money, become a co-AAS partner. Well, the chaos sort of continued through the summer as the old bank account was closed, money handed over, etc. At the beginning of the school year there wasn't a budget to hand the AAS coordinator, the society officers didn't know how much had been spent in the past, how much to expect to be spent this year, or have a firm number for the amount that could be spent. (That last was easy to take care of, it just hadn't been figured.) And in the midst of this a second school had been added to our AAS partnership, which upped the amount spent by 150% or so.
This first half of the school year AAS-coordinator would spend money then turn in receipts to the treasurer and get reimbursed. Few, if any, questions asked. After a while the treasurer started to wonder when, if ever, he was suppose to say no - so the officers got together, looked at the money spent, the money raised in the previous golf tournament, other money potentially available, and what else might education money might be spent on. They also asked the AAS-coordinator to put together a budget showing what she wanted to do for the second half of the year .(I can' t remember if there were two meetings, or a bunch of emails and one meeting) After the discussion the AAS-coordinator was told how much was available to be spent in the second half of the year and which activities were thought to be key to our goals (science education or at least directly educational), but the final decisions on how to spend the money fell to her.
Yesterday afternoon, I was included in a reply (as one of the society officers*) to an email about an Earth Day contest at one of the schools that need judges and prizes. It appears in the email that the AAS-coordinator is also asking about additional funds (although maybe she's just mentioning that she'll be buying prizes already covered in her existing budget). The society president states he can't attend but maybe someone else can go and asks the treasurer if there's still outreach money available. Emails go back and forth, up shot is there's some money and clearly this is the kind of thing we really want to support. This morning we get an email from the AAS-coordinator about how AAS isn't just something 'she' wants to do, it started before she was hired, all our bosses since then have affirmed the commitment, she doesn't appreciate others telling her what she can spend money on, she can't plan if she isn't sure there'll be money to cover activities,...and some more stuff along those lines. Oh, and suggesting we need to meet with everyone involved to discuss all this.After this email, several of us on this hall were sputtering, semi-incoherent about it. The Pres replied reminding her why the society took over the funds, that money is not unlimited, and we gave her a budget - stick to it.
My thought: We gave her a budget, she should know if there are funds left to do this. If it is indeed something the school decided to do recently and she's asking for additional money to cover prizes (as it appeared in her email) then she needs to recognize that there might not be any more money. Personally, if it's between feeding the teachers lunch (teacher appreciation lunch is apparently the only other thing this school year) and giving prizes for the Earth Day contest, I'd go with the prizes. I think most teachers would say reward academic and creative effort before you feed us - it's nice to be appreciated but we're all here to teach and encourage the kids. And if she didn't spend so much money on candy for the students maybe she could spend money on stuff that is actually educational.
Well, I feel better now.
*I got roped into being the society newsletter editor. Go me.
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
20 April 2011
28 September 2009
Read, Read a Book, Read a Book Right Now*
Preferably a banned book, as it is Banned Books Week. I don't know which books I have on my shelf and which I don't so instead of following Sarah's example I'll examine the lists of most challenged/banned books from 2001-2008. Of those I've read:
Captain Underpants
Bridge to Terabithia
Julie of the Wolves
His Dark Materials series
Harry Potter series
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Of Mice and Men
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
The Color Purple
I've put these in approximate age of readers. Captain Underpants is a beginning chapter book, I think, or read to your K-1st grader. I saw it was challenged for being "unsuited for age group" - well, I don't know about the people who challenged it but Mom and Nettie had the best time ever reading it together. It's the only one on the list I haven't read all of (OK, also haven't read Amber Spyglass, yet) but I think from the bits I have read/heard that it is perfect for the age group. Potty humor and burping is right up an average 6-9 yr old's alley, parent's might not always appreciate it but their kids love it. Mom and Nettie laughed the whole time.
The next three are (my impression) for late-elementary schoolers. I read Bridge to Terabithia and Julie of the Wolves in 6th grade, both for discussion/book reports. I'll admit that 6th grade was a while ago, so my memory may not be perfect but violence? I don't remember any particular violence in either. In BtT the kids have a fantasy world with battles against imaginary foes - you can't have kings and queens without dragons - but, in my mind, that's different than 'real' violence. It wasn't gratuitous or glorified. In JotW, Julie's village hunts, the wolf pack she joins hunts, but I can't for the life of me come up with any other potential violence to complain about. Maybe I've forgotten a bunch in the intervening 20 years? IDK, IDU either.
His Dark Materials is somewhat anti-church (in my reading really more anti-establishment or anti-dogma than anti-Christianity despite, perhaps, the author's intent) and this would make it a target of many book banners. Don't want the kiddos asking too many questions. Yeah, there's some violence but not gory and how do you have epic battles with out some violence? How many kids are going to read a trilogy that doesn't involve a major world changing conflict? And how many of those world changing conflicts are going to not involve a war? Yeah, you can do it, but the central conflict of the story needs to grab kids - war grabs kids (and adults).
It seems to me that the Harry Potter series starts as a mid- to late-elementary (3-5th grade) reading and ends as intermediate school reading (7-8th). I suspect a lot of the challenges to Harry Potter are because of the magic - inherently anti-church, if you're afraid of questions. My sister has a friend who isn't allowed to read the books or watch the movies because of this (but can watch Mary Poppins, go figure.). Yeah, there's violence. Violence with consequences and not without reason (at least for the good guys). Again the good guys are fighting evil, and Harry, et al. (due to an accident of birth) get sweep up in it. It's hard to fight evil without shedding some blood, Harry, Dumbledore or any of the other of our heroes, didn't started it but someone has to end it. BTW, sometime this happens in real life, not so much an 11 yr old kid being swept up into and being central to the resolution of the war, but bad things happen and sometimes young men and women have to go off to war - many not more than a year or two older than Harry, Hermione, and Ron in HPatDH - and kill or be killed.
I think kids can handle a little more than we tend to give them credit for. Or more than the idiots who ban books think they can. Not only can they handle people in a book fighting battles or hunting their food - they can tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
*post title is poorly purloined from RIF-Man lyrics
Captain Underpants
Bridge to Terabithia
Julie of the Wolves
His Dark Materials series
Harry Potter series
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Of Mice and Men
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
The Color Purple
I've put these in approximate age of readers. Captain Underpants is a beginning chapter book, I think, or read to your K-1st grader. I saw it was challenged for being "unsuited for age group" - well, I don't know about the people who challenged it but Mom and Nettie had the best time ever reading it together. It's the only one on the list I haven't read all of (OK, also haven't read Amber Spyglass, yet) but I think from the bits I have read/heard that it is perfect for the age group. Potty humor and burping is right up an average 6-9 yr old's alley, parent's might not always appreciate it but their kids love it. Mom and Nettie laughed the whole time.
The next three are (my impression) for late-elementary schoolers. I read Bridge to Terabithia and Julie of the Wolves in 6th grade, both for discussion/book reports. I'll admit that 6th grade was a while ago, so my memory may not be perfect but violence? I don't remember any particular violence in either. In BtT the kids have a fantasy world with battles against imaginary foes - you can't have kings and queens without dragons - but, in my mind, that's different than 'real' violence. It wasn't gratuitous or glorified. In JotW, Julie's village hunts, the wolf pack she joins hunts, but I can't for the life of me come up with any other potential violence to complain about. Maybe I've forgotten a bunch in the intervening 20 years? IDK, IDU either.
His Dark Materials is somewhat anti-church (in my reading really more anti-establishment or anti-dogma than anti-Christianity despite, perhaps, the author's intent) and this would make it a target of many book banners. Don't want the kiddos asking too many questions. Yeah, there's some violence but not gory and how do you have epic battles with out some violence? How many kids are going to read a trilogy that doesn't involve a major world changing conflict? And how many of those world changing conflicts are going to not involve a war? Yeah, you can do it, but the central conflict of the story needs to grab kids - war grabs kids (and adults).
It seems to me that the Harry Potter series starts as a mid- to late-elementary (3-5th grade) reading and ends as intermediate school reading (7-8th). I suspect a lot of the challenges to Harry Potter are because of the magic - inherently anti-church, if you're afraid of questions. My sister has a friend who isn't allowed to read the books or watch the movies because of this (but can watch Mary Poppins, go figure.). Yeah, there's violence. Violence with consequences and not without reason (at least for the good guys). Again the good guys are fighting evil, and Harry, et al. (due to an accident of birth) get sweep up in it. It's hard to fight evil without shedding some blood, Harry, Dumbledore or any of the other of our heroes, didn't started it but someone has to end it. BTW, sometime this happens in real life, not so much an 11 yr old kid being swept up into and being central to the resolution of the war, but bad things happen and sometimes young men and women have to go off to war - many not more than a year or two older than Harry, Hermione, and Ron in HPatDH - and kill or be killed.
I think kids can handle a little more than we tend to give them credit for. Or more than the idiots who ban books think they can. Not only can they handle people in a book fighting battles or hunting their food - they can tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
*post title is poorly purloined from RIF-Man lyrics
03 August 2009
Another for the REALLY file.
Over on Free Range Kids, there's a post about kids, PE, nutrition, and health (inspired by this). I was going to leave a comment but I think I need a little more room to organize my thoughts.
Oddly, more PE, healthier lunches, and nutrition education doesn't make kids skinnier. Who would have guessed? It might have made the kids healthier but apparently they didn't check for that. I don't think this study means we should scrap PE (or daily PE) or not worry about what the schools feed them.
I don't think PE teaches kids to be healthier. It can give kids the tools to be healthier, if it's done right. It's possible to introduce kids to different sports and activities that they may enjoy for life. It may not but it might. Giving kids the basics of basketball will allow them, if they want, to join pick up games later in life. (BTW, you have to teach some of those basics. My little sister was marked down in PE in Kindergarten because she didn't know how to dribble a basketball. At my parents house didn't have a basketball hoop, a basketball, or anyone to have ever shown her how to dribble. Where was she suppose to have learned it?) Recess, I think, has an even better chance to help kids be healthier now and throughout life because it lets them choose the activity. We had tons more fun playing soccer or rugby (only for a few days then a teacher made us stop tackling) at recess (which we had every non-rainy/snowy day K-6*) than I ever had playing soccer or flag-football in various grades' PE classes. Recess tends to get dumped before PE in elementary schools because the classroom teachers get a break from the kids - often the only one they get all day. But recess is more important for the kids; they burn off energy, get to take a mental break, learn to negotiate rules, etc with one another, and a bunch of other important stuff. (I don't feel like looking all the benefits of recess up in my old pedagogy texts.) Anyway more PE may not help but maybe better PE could. Not everyone is athletic but helping kids have fun being active might help them be more active as an adult.
Healthier lunches and nutrition education, again, may not help in the short term but it might help long term. First of all "forcing" kids to make relatively healthy decisions at school will reinforce what they (hopefully) are learning at home. However, we have to keep in mind that kids are programed to prefer fat, salt, and sweets more than adults are. (There was a segment on NOVASscienceNOW on this recently.) Their tastebuds are different and you have to keep offering new foods before they'll really try it (ask any parent). We certainly shouldn't be encouraging junk food.
But in the end what kids learn in school can be unlearned at home. If a child isn't being encouraged to play outside, doesn't see his/her parents be active, is given unhealthy food to eat and has unhealthy eating modeled for him/her, I'm not sure what the school teaches will make the difference in the long run. And focusing on weight instead of health isn't helpful for anyone**.
*and if we were stuck inside several days in a row they'd figure out times a couple of classes could use the gym for recess
**If I found out a particular person was the reason my ELEVEN YEAR OLD sister (not one of the tallest or skinniest kids in her class but in no way overweight) was asking me this weekend if I thought she needed to lose weight, I will kick his/her ass up one side of town and down the other. ("I weighs 80 pounds now and I used to be 70lbs." [read in worried tween voice] I pointed out she used to be shorter, too; I'm not sure she's convinced.)
Oddly, more PE, healthier lunches, and nutrition education doesn't make kids skinnier. Who would have guessed? It might have made the kids healthier but apparently they didn't check for that. I don't think this study means we should scrap PE (or daily PE) or not worry about what the schools feed them.
I don't think PE teaches kids to be healthier. It can give kids the tools to be healthier, if it's done right. It's possible to introduce kids to different sports and activities that they may enjoy for life. It may not but it might. Giving kids the basics of basketball will allow them, if they want, to join pick up games later in life. (BTW, you have to teach some of those basics. My little sister was marked down in PE in Kindergarten because she didn't know how to dribble a basketball. At my parents house didn't have a basketball hoop, a basketball, or anyone to have ever shown her how to dribble. Where was she suppose to have learned it?) Recess, I think, has an even better chance to help kids be healthier now and throughout life because it lets them choose the activity. We had tons more fun playing soccer or rugby (only for a few days then a teacher made us stop tackling) at recess (which we had every non-rainy/snowy day K-6*) than I ever had playing soccer or flag-football in various grades' PE classes. Recess tends to get dumped before PE in elementary schools because the classroom teachers get a break from the kids - often the only one they get all day. But recess is more important for the kids; they burn off energy, get to take a mental break, learn to negotiate rules, etc with one another, and a bunch of other important stuff. (I don't feel like looking all the benefits of recess up in my old pedagogy texts.) Anyway more PE may not help but maybe better PE could. Not everyone is athletic but helping kids have fun being active might help them be more active as an adult.
Healthier lunches and nutrition education, again, may not help in the short term but it might help long term. First of all "forcing" kids to make relatively healthy decisions at school will reinforce what they (hopefully) are learning at home. However, we have to keep in mind that kids are programed to prefer fat, salt, and sweets more than adults are. (There was a segment on NOVASscienceNOW on this recently.) Their tastebuds are different and you have to keep offering new foods before they'll really try it (ask any parent). We certainly shouldn't be encouraging junk food.
But in the end what kids learn in school can be unlearned at home. If a child isn't being encouraged to play outside, doesn't see his/her parents be active, is given unhealthy food to eat and has unhealthy eating modeled for him/her, I'm not sure what the school teaches will make the difference in the long run. And focusing on weight instead of health isn't helpful for anyone**.
*and if we were stuck inside several days in a row they'd figure out times a couple of classes could use the gym for recess
**If I found out a particular person was the reason my ELEVEN YEAR OLD sister (not one of the tallest or skinniest kids in her class but in no way overweight) was asking me this weekend if I thought she needed to lose weight, I will kick his/her ass up one side of town and down the other. ("I weighs 80 pounds now and I used to be 70lbs." [read in worried tween voice] I pointed out she used to be shorter, too; I'm not sure she's convinced.)
13 March 2009
Never Win.
FSP and Chad are talking about cheating. I left an amusing anecdote about my 8th graders on FSP, I thought I'd tell a less amusing story about a fellow Geo. major of mine from back in the day*.
I had at least 5 upper level classes with Obnoxious Guy (not his real name) over 3 semesters. During the first semester he seemed to get sick the day of a test a lot. He'd then call someone to find out what was had been on the test. One day KK came into class seriously pissed off because she hadn't gotten to bed until the wee hours (due to aqueous solutions needing to be run and the computer not cooperating much) and OG had called her at like 7 to find out about the test he'd missed because he'd been "sick"*. I think KK was contemplating changing her number after that. After some other test he'd had a "migraine"* for, he stopped me on the sidewalk to ask me what had been on the test; I just couldn't remember any specifics - funny that, huh?
More than halfway through the semester he told our optical mineralogy TA that he was color blind. He was hoping he'd get some help (/benefit of the doubt/get off easy) because he would have difficulty with mineral id with birefringence. Unfortunately for OG, one of the other grad students actually was red/green color blind (in geology this kind of thing comes up) and he could tell what order and high/low. Beside by this point in the semester I'm pretty sure our TA was onto him.
OG had non-subtle wandering eyes. For example: In Op Min, as I recall, there'd be 2-4 slides of a given rock type, and one weeks lab might cover several rock types. Everyone has their own microscope and often people sitting next to one another will trade off slides. OG rarely traded slides with the person behind him, he had a definite preference for trading slides with a person whose lab sheet he could see. What's sad is we were allowed to ask one another questions and for help, even when we weren't working in groups, in most labs.
In sed/strat and ig pet we'd almost always work in groups because there weren't enough samples to go around and discussing why a rock is x or y helps you learn how to identify. OG would sit there and not say a word. KK and I were to polite to tell him to fuck off so he often worked "with" us. One day she and I were going back and forth on the percentages of quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments. The sample was close to the line between three potential classifications, and our different estimates made a difference. We had gone back and forth for maybe 5 minutes, and OG says "so what is it?". KK plops the sample in front of him, and says "I don't know, what do you think it is?" He stumbles through some words like quartz, k-spar, 50%, etc. and finishes with "I don't know, what do you think?" KK and I rolled our eyes and finished deciding what the classification was, he copied down what we wrote and we all moved on.
One day he told us he didn't like rocks, he wanted to do geologic engineering. Scuttlebutt was that he'd been in the College of Engineering but they kicked him out. Another rumor was that one geo prof caught him cheating and told him to "withdraw failing"^ or he'd be reported. Obviously I don't know if any of that is true but it wouldn't have surprised me. I don't have anyway of knowing if he was ever reported to the appropriate authorities or not (or, for that matter, if he actually did anything reportable) but God, did I wish he had been. Still, I never could figure out how he stayed in school; he took many of the courses twice. His GPA had to have been in the toilet.
I spent much of the first semester mentally making excuses for OG, his personality not the cheating. He wasn't from the US (home was in sub-Saharan Africa) and the first thing that I didn't like about him was the way he spoke, not accent but mannerisms and volume; volume was actually the first thing that annoyed me. I told myself that maybe that's normal in his home country. Then when he kept being "sick" for tests, I thought maybe he's gotten away with that his whole life and so doesn't understand how much the rest of us resent it; maybe his family was important/rich enough at home he could get away with shit like that growing up.** Obviously when he refused to help cook or clean up dinner on a camping trip, it was because in the culture he grew up in, it was "women's work". So on and so forth. One day, as I was mentally excusing some behavior I'd find annoying in anyone else, I realized that all of his countryman couldn't possibly be that obnoxious, I was being extremely unfair to them, and he was a jerk no matter where he grew up.
*Migraines can be horrible and debilitating, I know. He may have even suffered from such migraines but since he was sick with something for every test I was highly suspicious.
^After a certain point in the semester you can't withdraw for a course without grade determination (W), it's either 'WP' or 'WF'; even later in the semester it has to be a 'WF'. A 'WF' and counts against your GPA, 'W' and 'WP' has no impact on it.
**I guessed his family had money or connections because he was going to school in the US and had no obvious means of support here. He certainly didn't seem to be the kind of student who would catch the eye of some scholarship granting group.
I had at least 5 upper level classes with Obnoxious Guy (not his real name) over 3 semesters. During the first semester he seemed to get sick the day of a test a lot. He'd then call someone to find out what was had been on the test. One day KK came into class seriously pissed off because she hadn't gotten to bed until the wee hours (due to aqueous solutions needing to be run and the computer not cooperating much) and OG had called her at like 7 to find out about the test he'd missed because he'd been "sick"*. I think KK was contemplating changing her number after that. After some other test he'd had a "migraine"* for, he stopped me on the sidewalk to ask me what had been on the test; I just couldn't remember any specifics - funny that, huh?
More than halfway through the semester he told our optical mineralogy TA that he was color blind. He was hoping he'd get some help (/benefit of the doubt/get off easy) because he would have difficulty with mineral id with birefringence. Unfortunately for OG, one of the other grad students actually was red/green color blind (in geology this kind of thing comes up) and he could tell what order and high/low. Beside by this point in the semester I'm pretty sure our TA was onto him.
OG had non-subtle wandering eyes. For example: In Op Min, as I recall, there'd be 2-4 slides of a given rock type, and one weeks lab might cover several rock types. Everyone has their own microscope and often people sitting next to one another will trade off slides. OG rarely traded slides with the person behind him, he had a definite preference for trading slides with a person whose lab sheet he could see. What's sad is we were allowed to ask one another questions and for help, even when we weren't working in groups, in most labs.
In sed/strat and ig pet we'd almost always work in groups because there weren't enough samples to go around and discussing why a rock is x or y helps you learn how to identify. OG would sit there and not say a word. KK and I were to polite to tell him to fuck off so he often worked "with" us. One day she and I were going back and forth on the percentages of quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragments. The sample was close to the line between three potential classifications, and our different estimates made a difference. We had gone back and forth for maybe 5 minutes, and OG says "so what is it?". KK plops the sample in front of him, and says "I don't know, what do you think it is?" He stumbles through some words like quartz, k-spar, 50%, etc. and finishes with "I don't know, what do you think?" KK and I rolled our eyes and finished deciding what the classification was, he copied down what we wrote and we all moved on.
One day he told us he didn't like rocks, he wanted to do geologic engineering. Scuttlebutt was that he'd been in the College of Engineering but they kicked him out. Another rumor was that one geo prof caught him cheating and told him to "withdraw failing"^ or he'd be reported. Obviously I don't know if any of that is true but it wouldn't have surprised me. I don't have anyway of knowing if he was ever reported to the appropriate authorities or not (or, for that matter, if he actually did anything reportable) but God, did I wish he had been. Still, I never could figure out how he stayed in school; he took many of the courses twice. His GPA had to have been in the toilet.
I spent much of the first semester mentally making excuses for OG, his personality not the cheating. He wasn't from the US (home was in sub-Saharan Africa) and the first thing that I didn't like about him was the way he spoke, not accent but mannerisms and volume; volume was actually the first thing that annoyed me. I told myself that maybe that's normal in his home country. Then when he kept being "sick" for tests, I thought maybe he's gotten away with that his whole life and so doesn't understand how much the rest of us resent it; maybe his family was important/rich enough at home he could get away with shit like that growing up.** Obviously when he refused to help cook or clean up dinner on a camping trip, it was because in the culture he grew up in, it was "women's work". So on and so forth. One day, as I was mentally excusing some behavior I'd find annoying in anyone else, I realized that all of his countryman couldn't possibly be that obnoxious, I was being extremely unfair to them, and he was a jerk no matter where he grew up.
*Migraines can be horrible and debilitating, I know. He may have even suffered from such migraines but since he was sick with something for every test I was highly suspicious.
^After a certain point in the semester you can't withdraw for a course without grade determination (W), it's either 'WP' or 'WF'; even later in the semester it has to be a 'WF'. A 'WF' and counts against your GPA, 'W' and 'WP' has no impact on it.
**I guessed his family had money or connections because he was going to school in the US and had no obvious means of support here. He certainly didn't seem to be the kind of student who would catch the eye of some scholarship granting group.
22 July 2008
Writing Implements
A comment on Sarah's post about Gender Genie reminds me of the English professor* (actually most likely a grad student) I had for World Lit. II (mid-19th to mid/late-20th century). World should perhaps be in scare quotes since almost everyone/everything we read was by an English speaking author and most of the more modern stuff was by Americans, but that's a whole other story. Much as Nick's mate's class found masculine and feminine imagery in everything, this professor found sexual imagery in everything.
One day when we broke up to discuss a short story (don't remember the name) in groups, the group I was in tried to find the most ridiculous things (usually because there was something better and more obvious) to make into sexual references. For example, the wife is using a candle snuffer to put out the chandelier in the dining room leaving the only light in the house the fireplace in the living room. She moves the candle snuffer, obviously a phallic symbol, away from her body. I don't remember what we said it meant. A shallower reading of the piece might have had one commenting that she's making the house dark to wait for her husband's body to be brought home, how silly. Probably the funniest thing she did was while discussing this story she started talking about a scene in a Steinbeck short story I'd read in American Lit. And read excessive, to me anyway, sexual imagery into it. Taking off gloves is not, without other indications, a proxy for getting undressed.
It's not that phallic symbols don't show up in stories or that there are never any subtle images, it's just that I tend to think the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct and what the author intended.
*I feel like I've written about this before. If so, I'm sorry. I hope I'm not repeating myself.
One day when we broke up to discuss a short story (don't remember the name) in groups, the group I was in tried to find the most ridiculous things (usually because there was something better and more obvious) to make into sexual references. For example, the wife is using a candle snuffer to put out the chandelier in the dining room leaving the only light in the house the fireplace in the living room. She moves the candle snuffer, obviously a phallic symbol, away from her body. I don't remember what we said it meant. A shallower reading of the piece might have had one commenting that she's making the house dark to wait for her husband's body to be brought home, how silly. Probably the funniest thing she did was while discussing this story she started talking about a scene in a Steinbeck short story I'd read in American Lit. And read excessive, to me anyway, sexual imagery into it. Taking off gloves is not, without other indications, a proxy for getting undressed.
It's not that phallic symbols don't show up in stories or that there are never any subtle images, it's just that I tend to think the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct and what the author intended.
*I feel like I've written about this before. If so, I'm sorry. I hope I'm not repeating myself.
04 February 2008
Why Science?
To expand on my comment left here: Film strips like that are why when my mom (already possessing her MRS & MOM degrees) thought her choices were to be a nurse or a teacher. One year of teaching high school and she went back to school to find out what other possibilities existed and ended up ABD in ed. pysch. If she'd realized when she started (and her first hubby'd been ok with it) that a mom could be a scientist too to begin with who knows what she could have done. I suspect it would been still have been in Pyschology.
But then she probably wouldn't have met my father and I wouldn't exist. That would've been bad.
But then she probably wouldn't have met my father and I wouldn't exist. That would've been bad.
09 January 2008
Favortie Subject
Science, definitely. What more is there to say? Unless you read German than you can learn a little bit more.
08 January 2008
RIF-MAN
I was blessed with a number of good teachers but my absolute favorite, the one I wanted to be like, was Rick Wormeli (6 grade, Elementary school). He was just made of teaching awesome.
He had so much energy and creativity. I wish I could (have been) be a teacher like that. He was not only good at actually presenting the material but also great at keeping our interest. Well, mine anyway, I liked school, but I don't remember lots of discipline problems that would suggest bored students. Where to start?
At the beginning of the year he had us all lay down on the floor and lead us through a relaxation technique. Then he basically started with the Big Bang and drew, with his words, the universe up to the point where our history studies would start (Ancient Greece, I think). It was pretty cool.
One day when it had snowed and no one else was going out for recess (yes, we had recess in the 6th grade), he took us out and we played follow the leader. We were trying to make as few footsteps in the snow as possible, but Mr. Wormeli is about 6'3" so it was hard. At one point he was taking these big leapy-steps, where his footprints were probably 6 feet apart. Behind him there's a line of twenty or so kids trying to jump off one foot and land on one foot who are a foot to foot and a half shorter.
He separated a few of us out who were very good at math and made us the Mach I group. We went through the text book in one semester. The second semester we were Mach II and moved into an 8th grade book (he couldn't find a 7th grade one); the rest of the class became Mach I. Kids who weren't good at math got extra help but were never singled out. One day, the 3 or 4 of us got to go out and measure the flag pole and some other tall things in the school yard using the length of the shadows.
He was Cupid, at least a few years, and delivered the Valentine's candy or cards or whatever it was. (It was a fund raiser for someone, like carnations in high school.) I remember my 3rd grade year, in particular. He wore pink tights and a diaper like thing, wings if I remember correctly, and carriered a toy bow and arrow. My 3rd grade teacher was short (I was as tall as Ms. Aleanza, I was 8.) and he gave her a peck on the cheek. It was quite scandalous.
He read to us. He read "Flowers for Algernon" to us and several others. He did voices. With the help of the teacher intern and, maybe, the reading specialist at our school Rick had us pick two of three books to read and we "studied" them in groups. For "Tuck Everlasting" we decorated t-shirts to show important things from the story. (Along with more traditional book report type activities.) I also read a book about a girl and her brother who run away to an art museum. Rick took several of us to one of the art museums after we finished the book.
He killed the meal worms that we were suppose to do something with for science. (Left them in the box forever) He let me set up an experiment in the classroom on dissolution of limestone by acidic water.
I'll stop rambling on about 6th grade now. Suffice it to say that Rick was the only Elementary teacher I ever went back to talk to. I wish I could thank him now.
Oh, wait one last thing - I was sworn to secrecy in 6th grade but since he doesn't appear to be teaching anymore I think it is safe to let his secret identity be known. Mr. Wormeli was RIF-man.
He had so much energy and creativity. I wish I could (have been) be a teacher like that. He was not only good at actually presenting the material but also great at keeping our interest. Well, mine anyway, I liked school, but I don't remember lots of discipline problems that would suggest bored students. Where to start?
At the beginning of the year he had us all lay down on the floor and lead us through a relaxation technique. Then he basically started with the Big Bang and drew, with his words, the universe up to the point where our history studies would start (Ancient Greece, I think). It was pretty cool.
One day when it had snowed and no one else was going out for recess (yes, we had recess in the 6th grade), he took us out and we played follow the leader. We were trying to make as few footsteps in the snow as possible, but Mr. Wormeli is about 6'3" so it was hard. At one point he was taking these big leapy-steps, where his footprints were probably 6 feet apart. Behind him there's a line of twenty or so kids trying to jump off one foot and land on one foot who are a foot to foot and a half shorter.
He separated a few of us out who were very good at math and made us the Mach I group. We went through the text book in one semester. The second semester we were Mach II and moved into an 8th grade book (he couldn't find a 7th grade one); the rest of the class became Mach I. Kids who weren't good at math got extra help but were never singled out. One day, the 3 or 4 of us got to go out and measure the flag pole and some other tall things in the school yard using the length of the shadows.
He was Cupid, at least a few years, and delivered the Valentine's candy or cards or whatever it was. (It was a fund raiser for someone, like carnations in high school.) I remember my 3rd grade year, in particular. He wore pink tights and a diaper like thing, wings if I remember correctly, and carriered a toy bow and arrow. My 3rd grade teacher was short (I was as tall as Ms. Aleanza, I was 8.) and he gave her a peck on the cheek. It was quite scandalous.
He read to us. He read "Flowers for Algernon" to us and several others. He did voices. With the help of the teacher intern and, maybe, the reading specialist at our school Rick had us pick two of three books to read and we "studied" them in groups. For "Tuck Everlasting" we decorated t-shirts to show important things from the story. (Along with more traditional book report type activities.) I also read a book about a girl and her brother who run away to an art museum. Rick took several of us to one of the art museums after we finished the book.
He killed the meal worms that we were suppose to do something with for science. (Left them in the box forever) He let me set up an experiment in the classroom on dissolution of limestone by acidic water.
I'll stop rambling on about 6th grade now. Suffice it to say that Rick was the only Elementary teacher I ever went back to talk to. I wish I could thank him now.
Oh, wait one last thing - I was sworn to secrecy in 6th grade but since he doesn't appear to be teaching anymore I think it is safe to let his secret identity be known. Mr. Wormeli was RIF-man.
07 January 2008
F = 0?
I've got Stop Homework in my Google Reader and there was a link in the post today to this article about why teachers shouldn't give a zero for an F in the 100 point system. And I have to say, ummmm, you missed the point a bit.
The authors agree that a 0 for an F in a typical 4-point GPA scale makes sense and I agree. But then they say that because it is ten points from A to B, B to C, and C to D in the 10 point/100 point scale often used in schools*, that it should be 10 points from D to F. The reason being that A is to B as 90 is to 80. I disagree.
The 4-point GPA scale is an attempt at a proportional scale. The 100 point scale isn't. I've always understood that the idea behind the 100 point scale is the "grade" represents the percentage of the information the student learned. If you answer 90% of the questions right on a test than you get a "90" and and "A"; if you earn 85% of the points, you get an "85" and a "B". (There is debate about whether mastering 70-79% of the material is truly "average" and deserving of a "C" but that's another question all together.) If you master only 50% of the information on a test then you are, or have been, considered failing with respect to that material. So is correctly answering 40%, or 22.5%, or 5% of the questions. It is very possible to earn less than 50% of the points on a given assignment.
There are problems with this system. A very low grade on one test can make it harder to pull one's grade up with later test scores (20, 70, and 90 give an average of 60, while 50, 70, and 90 give an average of 70) but if the goal is for the final grade to somehow represent the amount of information learned (particularly versus the amount instructed) than the 20 shouldn't become a 50 to maintain the proportionality of the letter grades. There is also a problem when an assignment is given a letter grade and not a numerical grade; in that case 100, 90, 80,70, 60, 50, and 0 may be the only appropriate numerical grades. 100 would be for an assignment that far exceeds standards, 90 exceeds, etc. with the 50 for the assignments that completely fail to meet standards and a 0 for failure to do a the assignment. I don't have much problem giving zeros for failure to do an assignment.
When I taught, as best I can recall, never gave a zero except in the case of no assignment turned in or cheating. If a student attempted to do an in class or homework assignment (and by "attempted" I mean they turned something in that had more than just their name on it) than that student got some points.) With one class I would vary the grading from simply a completion grade, number correct, and half-and-half on classwork/homework assignments to actually get them to do the work rather than just write down random things and turn it in. (They didn't care about their grades as long as they didn't, at report card time, get an "F". Very frustrating.) With the other classes their classwork/homework grades were based on the number of correct answers. I gave partial credit. I worked hard to get my kids points but sometimes there just weren't any to be had.
The long and short of it is, IMHO, the GPA scale and the 100 point scale are trying to measure or represent two different things. One is reasonably proportional the other a percentage.
A little on my grading philosophy: I used a modified "point pot" system in that each classwork/homework assignment, test, lab, and quiz was assigned a point value, usually one or two points per question except labs which were 10 or 20 points each. I calculated averages for each category (classwork, tests, quizzes, labs) by dividing points earned by points possible, and then used those averages to calculate their grade by weighting tests and classwork equally (30% each) and quizzes and labs equally (20% each). If a student had a passing test or classwork grade they would not get an F, even if mathematically that was the grade calculated. I believe that if a kid tries, (i.e. does the classwork) he shouldn't get a failing grade and if a kid knows the material whether he does any classwork/homework at all, he should not get a failing grade. I might not have given the student exactly the same grade as the classwork or test grade but he was guaranteed not to fail (i.e. 90% test, 10% classwork, 90% quiz, 10% lab scores might get a 85/B instead of a 51. Never happened, so, moot point.) I also tried to make sure my tests were fair and while I usually didn't do a rigorous item analysis (hard to do with only 12 students, max, per subject) I did throw out questions and/or give points back for bad questions.
*Just a little aside- The school district I grew up in had a "hard" grading scale. 100-94 A/4, 93-90 B+/3.5, 90-84 B/3,...,63 and below F. When I moved to Alabama my two C+s became Bs and my numerous B+s became As, and did that ever help my GPA. But to this day a 63 is failing to me.
The authors agree that a 0 for an F in a typical 4-point GPA scale makes sense and I agree. But then they say that because it is ten points from A to B, B to C, and C to D in the 10 point/100 point scale often used in schools*, that it should be 10 points from D to F. The reason being that A is to B as 90 is to 80. I disagree.
The 4-point GPA scale is an attempt at a proportional scale. The 100 point scale isn't. I've always understood that the idea behind the 100 point scale is the "grade" represents the percentage of the information the student learned. If you answer 90% of the questions right on a test than you get a "90" and and "A"; if you earn 85% of the points, you get an "85" and a "B". (There is debate about whether mastering 70-79% of the material is truly "average" and deserving of a "C" but that's another question all together.) If you master only 50% of the information on a test then you are, or have been, considered failing with respect to that material. So is correctly answering 40%, or 22.5%, or 5% of the questions. It is very possible to earn less than 50% of the points on a given assignment.
There are problems with this system. A very low grade on one test can make it harder to pull one's grade up with later test scores (20, 70, and 90 give an average of 60, while 50, 70, and 90 give an average of 70) but if the goal is for the final grade to somehow represent the amount of information learned (particularly versus the amount instructed) than the 20 shouldn't become a 50 to maintain the proportionality of the letter grades. There is also a problem when an assignment is given a letter grade and not a numerical grade; in that case 100, 90, 80,70, 60, 50, and 0 may be the only appropriate numerical grades. 100 would be for an assignment that far exceeds standards, 90 exceeds, etc. with the 50 for the assignments that completely fail to meet standards and a 0 for failure to do a the assignment. I don't have much problem giving zeros for failure to do an assignment.
When I taught, as best I can recall, never gave a zero except in the case of no assignment turned in or cheating. If a student attempted to do an in class or homework assignment (and by "attempted" I mean they turned something in that had more than just their name on it) than that student got some points.) With one class I would vary the grading from simply a completion grade, number correct, and half-and-half on classwork/homework assignments to actually get them to do the work rather than just write down random things and turn it in. (They didn't care about their grades as long as they didn't, at report card time, get an "F". Very frustrating.) With the other classes their classwork/homework grades were based on the number of correct answers. I gave partial credit. I worked hard to get my kids points but sometimes there just weren't any to be had.
The long and short of it is, IMHO, the GPA scale and the 100 point scale are trying to measure or represent two different things. One is reasonably proportional the other a percentage.
A little on my grading philosophy: I used a modified "point pot" system in that each classwork/homework assignment, test, lab, and quiz was assigned a point value, usually one or two points per question except labs which were 10 or 20 points each. I calculated averages for each category (classwork, tests, quizzes, labs) by dividing points earned by points possible, and then used those averages to calculate their grade by weighting tests and classwork equally (30% each) and quizzes and labs equally (20% each). If a student had a passing test or classwork grade they would not get an F, even if mathematically that was the grade calculated. I believe that if a kid tries, (i.e. does the classwork) he shouldn't get a failing grade and if a kid knows the material whether he does any classwork/homework at all, he should not get a failing grade. I might not have given the student exactly the same grade as the classwork or test grade but he was guaranteed not to fail (i.e. 90% test, 10% classwork, 90% quiz, 10% lab scores might get a 85/B instead of a 51. Never happened, so, moot point.) I also tried to make sure my tests were fair and while I usually didn't do a rigorous item analysis (hard to do with only 12 students, max, per subject) I did throw out questions and/or give points back for bad questions.
*Just a little aside- The school district I grew up in had a "hard" grading scale. 100-94 A/4, 93-90 B+/3.5, 90-84 B/3,...,63 and below F. When I moved to Alabama my two C+s became Bs and my numerous B+s became As, and did that ever help my GPA. But to this day a 63 is failing to me.
28 December 2007
Transitional Form
I went by to check on Honu-Girl's cats today. I think I offended Percy when I didn't let him sit in my lap because I was about to eat. And I generally offend Molly because "I'm not Mom." But I stayed and tried to convince Percy to come sit with me and get some loving and watched a Nova episode they had tivo'd, "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". A great episode in my opinion.
If you haven't seen it here's a quick summary. The Dover, PA Board of Education's curriculum committee adopted a brief statement that was to be read to the students presumably just before studying evolution. The statement mentions the State's requirements that evolution be taught and that standardized test would cover it. It then states that evolution is a theory and not a fact (and it has "gaps"). Intelligent design is said to be another theory of how life on Earth began and suggests the book "Of Pandas and People" as a reference. (Sixty copies had been donated to the high school.) The science teachers refused to read the statement and eleven parents sued the school board on the basis that requiring the mention of intelligent design was a violation of the Constitution. The judge agreed that intelligent design was not only not science but that the statement's intent was a violation of the establishment clause.
One of the things creationists, and their descendants the intelligent design proponents, like to say is that if one animal evolves from another than why are there no transitional forms. THERE ARE. Plain and simple, transitional forms exist*. Scientists have not found every single transitional form in an evolutionary line and never will, but transitional forms do exist. In fact one person who testified for the plaintiffs had recently been part of an expedition that found an excellently preserved fossil of a fish that had lobed fins, scales, and a flat amphibian like head. He didn't get to talk about that fossil since the paper was in preparation during the trial but he did talk about many others. Transitional fossils are one piece of evidence amongst many many pieces that support evolution as the explanation of how life began.
Intelligent design proponents argue that an "intelligent agent" designed life. Well, even if you don't call it God, Allah, Gaea, or Yahweh, this intelligent agent is a god. Intelligent design may not specify a religion but it relies on the existence of a god. This is not good science. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Her intervention in a given event may be disproven, although the most stubborn will cling to the argument that "that She only makes it look like [insert appropriate scientific principle like gravity, germs, and natural selection]", Her actual existence is not disprovable. The key to science is that if something can't be tested, often by negation, than it isn't science. Many things can't be proven to always be true but can be disproven. Take Pythagoras' theory for example, find just one right triangle that doesn't fit a*a + b*b = c*c and no one will ever have to learn their Pythagorean triples again (but they are so useful).
My favorite part of the two hours was when they went back to discuss one tactic for proving the religious nature of intelligent design. A reference to the academic editor of "Of Pandas and People" wanting to write a "balanced" textbook that presented both evolution and creation was found, so the lawyers subpoenaed all drafts of the book from the publishers and sent them to Barbara Forest. She found two drafts one written shortly before the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision that outlawed the teaching of creation in schools and one shortly after it. The first had this statement:
Wow, there's a big rewrite. The first word becomes two and a seven word phrase becomes a four word one. Gee, really changes the meaning, doesn't it? Well, in addition to this blatant attempt to hide the religious foundation of this "theory", she also found something somewhat amusing. You may have noticed up there I referred to intelligent design proponents as the descendants of creationists. They really evolved from the creationists. Now you may ask if they evolved than where is the transitional form? That's what Dr. Forest found. In the later draft there is reference to "cdesign proponentsists". This is the transitional form between "creationists" and "design proponents". There you have it evolution occurs even to those who don't believe in it.
If you haven't seen it here's a quick summary. The Dover, PA Board of Education's curriculum committee adopted a brief statement that was to be read to the students presumably just before studying evolution. The statement mentions the State's requirements that evolution be taught and that standardized test would cover it. It then states that evolution is a theory and not a fact (and it has "gaps"). Intelligent design is said to be another theory of how life on Earth began and suggests the book "Of Pandas and People" as a reference. (Sixty copies had been donated to the high school.) The science teachers refused to read the statement and eleven parents sued the school board on the basis that requiring the mention of intelligent design was a violation of the Constitution. The judge agreed that intelligent design was not only not science but that the statement's intent was a violation of the establishment clause.
One of the things creationists, and their descendants the intelligent design proponents, like to say is that if one animal evolves from another than why are there no transitional forms. THERE ARE. Plain and simple, transitional forms exist*. Scientists have not found every single transitional form in an evolutionary line and never will, but transitional forms do exist. In fact one person who testified for the plaintiffs had recently been part of an expedition that found an excellently preserved fossil of a fish that had lobed fins, scales, and a flat amphibian like head. He didn't get to talk about that fossil since the paper was in preparation during the trial but he did talk about many others. Transitional fossils are one piece of evidence amongst many many pieces that support evolution as the explanation of how life began.
Intelligent design proponents argue that an "intelligent agent" designed life. Well, even if you don't call it God, Allah, Gaea, or Yahweh, this intelligent agent is a god. Intelligent design may not specify a religion but it relies on the existence of a god. This is not good science. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Her intervention in a given event may be disproven, although the most stubborn will cling to the argument that "that She only makes it look like [insert appropriate scientific principle like gravity, germs, and natural selection]", Her actual existence is not disprovable. The key to science is that if something can't be tested, often by negation, than it isn't science. Many things can't be proven to always be true but can be disproven. Take Pythagoras' theory for example, find just one right triangle that doesn't fit a*a + b*b = c*c and no one will ever have to learn their Pythagorean triples again (but they are so useful).
My favorite part of the two hours was when they went back to discuss one tactic for proving the religious nature of intelligent design. A reference to the academic editor of "Of Pandas and People" wanting to write a "balanced" textbook that presented both evolution and creation was found, so the lawyers subpoenaed all drafts of the book from the publishers and sent them to Barbara Forest. She found two drafts one written shortly before the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision that outlawed the teaching of creation in schools and one shortly after it. The first had this statement:
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly, through the agency of an intelligent Creator, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.
The second had this sentence in place of the above on:
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, et cetera.
Wow, there's a big rewrite. The first word becomes two and a seven word phrase becomes a four word one. Gee, really changes the meaning, doesn't it? Well, in addition to this blatant attempt to hide the religious foundation of this "theory", she also found something somewhat amusing. You may have noticed up there I referred to intelligent design proponents as the descendants of creationists. They really evolved from the creationists. Now you may ask if they evolved than where is the transitional form? That's what Dr. Forest found. In the later draft there is reference to "cdesign proponentsists". This is the transitional form between "creationists" and "design proponents". There you have it evolution occurs even to those who don't believe in it.
(I can't take credit for the transitional forms bit, Nick Matzke said it on the show. I just thought it was hilarious and wanted to share it with y'all)
*Bill, hate to break it to you but fossilized rooted surfaces are found under coal seams. Jack can show you some, not that it will change your mind. All coals are NOT deposited from rafts of floating vegetation and they most certainly were NOT deposited in a world-wide flood.
*Bill, hate to break it to you but fossilized rooted surfaces are found under coal seams. Jack can show you some, not that it will change your mind. All coals are NOT deposited from rafts of floating vegetation and they most certainly were NOT deposited in a world-wide flood.
03 December 2007
OMG, WTF is wrong with the world?
This weekend I finally got the story on why a good friend of my mother's daughter is now being home-schooled and heard about what happened to her son, too. And OMG WTF?!?!?!?
First the son's story. (It's shorter.) He was hanging out with some friends from high school and one of them spiked his drink with something. He spent a week in the hospital. The doctors don't know what it was. He's been unable to work or go to school because he can't concentrate and now he's severely depressed. He's spending December in the hospital's psychiatric ward. Hopefully he'll be able to function in the new year. He was allowed to medically withdraw from school, so at least it won't hurt his GPA. Guys, don't leave your drink unattended, don't accept open drinks from other people. (Apparently, this information isn't just for young ladies anymore.)
Now the daughter, I'll call her C. C was attending one of the City's high schools and doing well. She's a good kid. A few weeks ago she was in a fight and ended up at the hospital with her scalp. split open. The other girl claimed C jumped her for no reason and the next day expulsion proceedings were begun on C. (The other girl was suspended for 2 or 3 days.) C tells her mother that she didn't know what hit her, she didn't start it, she doesn't know what it was about.... Since C is a basically a good kid and the other girl hasn't a scratch on her, C's mom is suspicious about the official story. When she finds out that the school is going to expel C, she is furious. She meets with the principal who tells her that there are no witnesses, the security
cameras don't actually work, and the other girl said C jumped her. End of story. C's Mom is very suspicious, as she's been in the school a lot and the halls are never completely empty. This all sounds very fishy, but she has no proof.
Then a teacher calls C's Mom and says she resigned over this but is afraid to speak publicly. The former teacher wants to meet at Wal-mart. When they meet, the teacher tells C's Mom that there were witnesses, a bunch of them, the other girl jumped C without warning, and it was a gang initiation. Now C's Mom goes to legal aid and tells the story. Legal aid lawyer goes to the school and gets a copy of the security tape (which does work after all). The tape shows not only multiple student witnesses but teachers and the principal either witnessing the fight or there immediately afterwards (e.i. completely aware that there were witnesses). Now the other girl is expelled and the school board reverses their expulsion of C. But C now refuses to set foot in the school (I don't blame her.). So C's Mom pulls her out for the rest of the year, to be home schooled, and isn't sure about next year. Meanwhile the principal at the school, who lied about the incident, is still there.
WTF is up with our schools? The city has reorganized the schools in the last few years in ways that have messed them up and re-segregated them, but this? This is beyond the pale.
First the son's story. (It's shorter.) He was hanging out with some friends from high school and one of them spiked his drink with something. He spent a week in the hospital. The doctors don't know what it was. He's been unable to work or go to school because he can't concentrate and now he's severely depressed. He's spending December in the hospital's psychiatric ward. Hopefully he'll be able to function in the new year. He was allowed to medically withdraw from school, so at least it won't hurt his GPA. Guys, don't leave your drink unattended, don't accept open drinks from other people. (Apparently, this information isn't just for young ladies anymore.)
Now the daughter, I'll call her C. C was attending one of the City's high schools and doing well. She's a good kid. A few weeks ago she was in a fight and ended up at the hospital with her scalp. split open. The other girl claimed C jumped her for no reason and the next day expulsion proceedings were begun on C. (The other girl was suspended for 2 or 3 days.) C tells her mother that she didn't know what hit her, she didn't start it, she doesn't know what it was about.... Since C is a basically a good kid and the other girl hasn't a scratch on her, C's mom is suspicious about the official story. When she finds out that the school is going to expel C, she is furious. She meets with the principal who tells her that there are no witnesses, the security
cameras don't actually work, and the other girl said C jumped her. End of story. C's Mom is very suspicious, as she's been in the school a lot and the halls are never completely empty. This all sounds very fishy, but she has no proof.
Then a teacher calls C's Mom and says she resigned over this but is afraid to speak publicly. The former teacher wants to meet at Wal-mart. When they meet, the teacher tells C's Mom that there were witnesses, a bunch of them, the other girl jumped C without warning, and it was a gang initiation. Now C's Mom goes to legal aid and tells the story. Legal aid lawyer goes to the school and gets a copy of the security tape (which does work after all). The tape shows not only multiple student witnesses but teachers and the principal either witnessing the fight or there immediately afterwards (e.i. completely aware that there were witnesses). Now the other girl is expelled and the school board reverses their expulsion of C. But C now refuses to set foot in the school (I don't blame her.). So C's Mom pulls her out for the rest of the year, to be home schooled, and isn't sure about next year. Meanwhile the principal at the school, who lied about the incident, is still there.
WTF is up with our schools? The city has reorganized the schools in the last few years in ways that have messed them up and re-segregated them, but this? This is beyond the pale.
28 November 2007
Church and Public Life
Early today I was driving a co-worker and two visitors out to our project site. I was running late and never properly introduced to the visitors, so I'll just refer to them as the Kingsport guys. (Their office is in Kingsport, TN.) We got talking about being in the Bible-belt. And how public religiousness isn't confined to the traditional Bible belt anymore. Then KG#1 says that he didn't like that they had stopped having invocations/prayers before football games and such. He understood why you couldn't have prayer in the classroom but seemed to be saying that a school football game is different and if the majority want it then it would be OK. What harm is there? seemed to be his point. Luckily, my co-worker is a talker. He jumped in with comments about how uncomfortable this can make the religious minority and how arrogant it is to assume that it isn't a problem to make someone else sit through your prayer. KG1 agreed that American Christians are often arrogant and assume they are in the majority and that a little humbleness could go a long way. I don't think, in the 2 minute conversation, he changed his mind about public prayer.
Now I would never suggest that one can not pray in public. Or that one can't pray out loud in public; or that one can't pray in groups in public. But we were talking about public school functions - that means the government is, in some small way, sanctioning this prayer.* All the non-Christian spectators and participants have to listen to the blessing. No one can force them to join in the prayer but there is strong peer pressure to stand and bow your head. Can you imagine a lone Muslim football player not kneeling and removing his helmet for the prayer? I'd be very impressed if he didn't, that would take some serious balls. I joined the circle when the marching band clasped hands to pray before going out for the pre-game, at my Alabama high school. The time I was too shocked not to join in. It had never occurred to me that a public school group would have teacher lead prayer. The rest of the season, I just was too much a wimp to not join in. (The director, in addition to everyone's safety, would pray that the band had a good performance. Like God doesn't have bigger fish to fry!)
The school system I grew up in was diverse. We didn't have "Christmas Break" it was "Winter Break." The idea of having a elementary school class concert in December with out the dreidel song, is completely foreign to me. When we were sending a jazz combo to play at a Toys for Tots collection site, our HS band director said "You guys know these tunes." (carols) and the sax player said "not really" under his breath. Non-Christians weren't free of Christian symbolism at school but they were also exposed to other faith's symbolism, too. If you decorated your door with a cross, there had better have been a menorah and/or Star of David, too. And possibly a crescent. Prayer before a football game? Are you insane? (But everybody stood, removed their hat, and faced the flag for the national anthem. Something I don't see all the time here.)
(Kinda' belabored the point, sorry.)
Because of where I grew up, I think I have a different view of the issue than a lot of Alabamians I've talked to about this. Religious diversity isn't a moot point, it is real to me. I'm aware of the minority and have been taught to take their feelings into account. I also like what my former Sunday school teacher said about it: "We won't be the majority forever. If we cram our religion down their throats, they'll cram their down ours." Unfortunately, she didn't say this to our whole class, just me.
I am amazed, along with several other co-workers that we have a blessing before the meal when we have a pot luck. There isn't even an attempt at being ecumenical with the blessing, it is definitely a Christian one, and usually pretty Baptist sounding, too. A co-worker of mine is shocked we have a Christmas party; I'm more shocked by the Christmas tree that goes in the lobby. At least the meals and party are for employees (and families) only. The lobby is public space at our government office. But that's Alabama.
*Yes, I know sessions of Congress open with prayer, doesn't make it constitutional. I also know that most (if not all) 50 State Constitutions mention God, that does not make it OK either.
Now I would never suggest that one can not pray in public. Or that one can't pray out loud in public; or that one can't pray in groups in public. But we were talking about public school functions - that means the government is, in some small way, sanctioning this prayer.* All the non-Christian spectators and participants have to listen to the blessing. No one can force them to join in the prayer but there is strong peer pressure to stand and bow your head. Can you imagine a lone Muslim football player not kneeling and removing his helmet for the prayer? I'd be very impressed if he didn't, that would take some serious balls. I joined the circle when the marching band clasped hands to pray before going out for the pre-game, at my Alabama high school. The time I was too shocked not to join in. It had never occurred to me that a public school group would have teacher lead prayer. The rest of the season, I just was too much a wimp to not join in. (The director, in addition to everyone's safety, would pray that the band had a good performance. Like God doesn't have bigger fish to fry!)
The school system I grew up in was diverse. We didn't have "Christmas Break" it was "Winter Break." The idea of having a elementary school class concert in December with out the dreidel song, is completely foreign to me. When we were sending a jazz combo to play at a Toys for Tots collection site, our HS band director said "You guys know these tunes." (carols) and the sax player said "not really" under his breath. Non-Christians weren't free of Christian symbolism at school but they were also exposed to other faith's symbolism, too. If you decorated your door with a cross, there had better have been a menorah and/or Star of David, too. And possibly a crescent. Prayer before a football game? Are you insane? (But everybody stood, removed their hat, and faced the flag for the national anthem. Something I don't see all the time here.)
(Kinda' belabored the point, sorry.)
Because of where I grew up, I think I have a different view of the issue than a lot of Alabamians I've talked to about this. Religious diversity isn't a moot point, it is real to me. I'm aware of the minority and have been taught to take their feelings into account. I also like what my former Sunday school teacher said about it: "We won't be the majority forever. If we cram our religion down their throats, they'll cram their down ours." Unfortunately, she didn't say this to our whole class, just me.
I am amazed, along with several other co-workers that we have a blessing before the meal when we have a pot luck. There isn't even an attempt at being ecumenical with the blessing, it is definitely a Christian one, and usually pretty Baptist sounding, too. A co-worker of mine is shocked we have a Christmas party; I'm more shocked by the Christmas tree that goes in the lobby. At least the meals and party are for employees (and families) only. The lobby is public space at our government office. But that's Alabama.
*Yes, I know sessions of Congress open with prayer, doesn't make it constitutional. I also know that most (if not all) 50 State Constitutions mention God, that does not make it OK either.
15 October 2007
Class of '94
So, John Scalzi is going on about his 20th reunion over at Whatever. And it reminded me that a) my 10th blew by a few years ago and I didn't even notice and b) I'm not sure I'd ever go to my high school reunion.
It isn't that I had a HORRIBLE high school experience and don't ever want to set foot in there again. It's just that the high school I graduated from is not the high school I identify with. We moved to Alabama the summer I was a rising 12th grade. When I think of high school, I think of my school in VA not AL. But since I didn't graduate from JMHS, I won't ever hear about the reunions. There are people there I'd be interested in seeing again, finding out what they're doing, etc. I hardly knew anyone at HHS. A few people I remember. I might recognize a few more names, if I had class with them. (One of the nurses at my internist office was in my English class, I have no idea what her name is.) Otherwise, I have no clue. And they wouldn't know me either.
The local schools tend to run announcements in the paper about reunions and I don't know if they mail stuff out to graduates or just figure we'll see it in the paper. I don't know if we had a 10th reunion or not (or anyothers).
A funny thing about moving when I did, and having been in a class of about 500, was that other than my friends few people realized I'd moved. That meant I got to go to the "All Night Graduation Party". The party was only for that years grads, nobody else younger, older, or from other schools. If you left you couldn't come back and no one admitted after a certain time (like 11 or 12). My Alabama school got out three weeks before my old school and I was still "dating" (obviously not many actual dates that year) the same guy. So he bought the two tickets and no one batted an eye when he put my name down for the second ticket. I came up to visit, watched my friends graduate, and went to the party.
It isn't that I had a HORRIBLE high school experience and don't ever want to set foot in there again. It's just that the high school I graduated from is not the high school I identify with. We moved to Alabama the summer I was a rising 12th grade. When I think of high school, I think of my school in VA not AL. But since I didn't graduate from JMHS, I won't ever hear about the reunions. There are people there I'd be interested in seeing again, finding out what they're doing, etc. I hardly knew anyone at HHS. A few people I remember. I might recognize a few more names, if I had class with them. (One of the nurses at my internist office was in my English class, I have no idea what her name is.) Otherwise, I have no clue. And they wouldn't know me either.
The local schools tend to run announcements in the paper about reunions and I don't know if they mail stuff out to graduates or just figure we'll see it in the paper. I don't know if we had a 10th reunion or not (or anyothers).
A funny thing about moving when I did, and having been in a class of about 500, was that other than my friends few people realized I'd moved. That meant I got to go to the "All Night Graduation Party". The party was only for that years grads, nobody else younger, older, or from other schools. If you left you couldn't come back and no one admitted after a certain time (like 11 or 12). My Alabama school got out three weeks before my old school and I was still "dating" (obviously not many actual dates that year) the same guy. So he bought the two tickets and no one batted an eye when he put my name down for the second ticket. I came up to visit, watched my friends graduate, and went to the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
