If You Want to Win a Man Back, You Have to Learn to Tackle

And when The Oprah tells you to dress sexier, she means it.

[begin rant]

I love Boston Legal. I could, however, do without the incessant political commentary. We get it, you hate President Bush. The only character who likes him is suffering from Mad Cow Disease. I do love how they use random numbers to support themselves without providing context. For example, Halliburton made $10 million or billion or something since the war started. The question is: how much did they make in the x years before the war started? The one number alone doesn't tell you if the war has even had a benefit for this one company (which is important mostly because it's one that people recognize, not because someone in office was associated with it - think about it this way, how much would you really do for your former employer. Sure, Cheney may know the bosses there and be friends, but it's not like no one else doesn't have friends who get favors FROM BOTH PARTIES). I'm sure from the industry that Halliburton is in, it's had some benefits, but so have other companies not associated with executives. Those, however, aren't as quickly recognizable.

On the opposite side of politics, I happen to agree that No Child Left Behind has failed in its mission. For one, much as this is un-PC, some kids need to get left behind. Not throw them to the wolves left behind, but people don't need to keep getting passed along without mastering the skills of the previous grade. END SOCIAL PROMOTION. (I'm going to stop doing nightly quotes, but I really like the one I'm using tonight, and it relates to this topic.) Also, teaching most non-math and -English courses without mastery of math and English is pretty much a waste of time. How can we expect people to understand the complex workings of the treaties and alliances that led to World War I if they are (a) too young to be expected to make logical inferences such as those common in math and (b) unable to READ. At Thanksgiving, we teach 5-year-olds about the Pilgrims and the harvesting and the eating of turkey, but we fail to explain religious (in)tolerance which led to these people starting out for a new life in the New World. These religious problems stemming from any number of other causes you don't learn about before high school (if then). And I don't know who to blame. Teachers try, but they teach the way they were taught, which is the method I'm criticizing. Parents, for the most part, I think, want to help, but they're in the same situation as the teachers - they learned it one way and have trouble changing, or never really learned it themselves and can't help. Organizations of any type are resistant to change, so little would be done even if we had a coherent plan. The best and brightest in the current system tend to be those who work outside it. By that I mean they don't stay with the lesson plans. They read on their own, or seek other sources of information, or happen to fall into some type of extracurricular activity that provides the challenge they need in order to excel. They also tend to go into fields other than teaching because their teachers, as a rule, weren't the biggest influence in their lives. I know some people who have gone into teaching who I think can do some great things, but the system tends to encourage mediocrity. Inventive teaching, really reaching students and encouraging them to keep working and find something they are really interested in, isn't encouraged. It's teaching to the test - and it's not new. Since kindergarten, I took the TCAP (Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program, I think), a standardized test. What did this test tell my teachers? Well, that I took the TCAP well, mostly. That I could ace a week-long series of tests the week after I just lost an hour of sleep due to daylight savings time, since it was always the week after the time change. Instead of teaching up to the best students, or even teaching to the middle of the class, we now teach to the bottom students. Sure, they deserve an education, too, I guess, but the reason we don't get excellence out of our students anymore is that we actively discourage it (a) by telling kids everyone is equal (news flash - they're not. People are better at some things than others. Some aren't good students. The truth hurts.) and (b) forcing our schedules on them. This mass-produced education means that schedules trump ability. We aren't dealing with identical parts off of an assembly line, yet everyone needs two weeks on factoring or whatever. You have to push and have an outline, but when the schedule trumps the student, you've already lost. You want a great education system? Not going to happen. The system can never be great. It can be better, but no system of education can be great. The greatness comes from the individuals - teachers reaching students in a way that can't be measured on any test. That's not systematic, and it can't be produced with a system. Criticize the system, it deserves it, but I have yet to hear either side suggest something that will actually work better. At least we tried No Child Left Behind. Not a success, OK, we make sure it's given its fair chance (we're close if not already past that), then we try something else. More money into a failed system isn't the answer, though that seems to be the solution everyone falls back on. My solution, which will never work because it's "unfair" is to let the best students be the best. [1] Competition has done nothing but make me better. [2] It allows the pace of the class to be tailored more closely to the student's natural pace. [3] It weeds out the goof-offs. [4] Larger classes of the self-starters (class size was never an issue for my level of learning) frees more teachers for the needier learners. [5] It encourages excellence among those most capable of producing it, while still providing the time for those who need that. [6] It may discourage the slower learners by separating them, but then again it may not. How many students fall behind because they see themselves as too slow and holding the class up? What if everyone is at their level? When did age become the ONLY factor in determining if someone is ready to learn something? Yes, there will be a stigma with being in the slower class and some people who might could handle the faster pace will be slowed by their placement (solvable to a degree with multiple tiers of speeds), but the stigma still exists in classes, and if anything is worse because people are teased, then are embarrassed to ask for the help they really do need. If you made it this far: what, you don't have work you should be doing instead of reading my rant? I'll admit, it's not a perfect solution, especially in smaller school districts where reasonable speed-of-learning groups might be 2 or 3 people, but it's A solution. America has always been about achievement, and this idea rewards ability and hard work. Yeah, you'll probably be stuck with whatever your label was for the rest of your life, but you really already are. You know people who didn't need to be in high school, but they were because they had to be, and they held your learning back. Maybe you knew people who had no real business in college, but were there anyway. They didn't care about working for a degree and either dropped out (wasting everyone's time before they did) or majored in something useless (those majors do exist) just to finish a degree program. Not everyone who doesn't make it through college is "less" than those who do - there are a million reasons for not getting the degree, but you have to admit some people just don't belong in upper levels of education. It's true, admit it.

[end rant]

I've had a headache for the past few days. That's your update. Get over it. Read the rant then complain about the length of the actual update.

Sam Seaborn: Mallory, education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

More tomorrow.