 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought September 10, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
I do not recall doing much homework when I was growing up. Most certainly, I was not burdened with it in elementary school. It probably began in what is now called Middle School grades. I do recall wondering, after having spent the better part of the day in school, why the teachers thought that additional study at home would have any benefit? To put it another way, if a teacher is unable to impart the basic knowledge required of a student during the many hours he spends in the classroom, why expect that same student to acquire that knowledge independently and, presumably, on his own time? Why must parents be pressed into service to do the teacher’s job? Why must otherwise good time spent with one’s family or just being a kid be wasted on the rigors of homework? Did it build character? No. Did it help me to learn “time management” techniques? No. Did it develop in me a burning desire to learn more? No. By contrast, during my teenage years, I became a professional magician, earning scads of money entertaining at birthday parties and other events. I learned to be confident in front of an audience of any age. It taught me to be skeptical of other kinds of “magicians” offering up reports, surveys, and polls purporting to support some harebrained notion or other. Someday, perhaps, grateful generations of students will erect statues of Aflie Kohn on the campuses of their schools. Who is Alfie Kohn, you ask? He is the author of “The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing.” ($24.00, Da Capo Press) Suffice it to say, I am going to share the central message of his book with you because it happens to have answered many of the questions asked above. It answers the questions that parents across this fruited plain called America continue to ask teachers and school administrators without ever getting a decent, honest answer. Indeed, anyone witnessing tiny tots and older students trudging to school, stooped over with backpacks filled with the previous day’s homework assignments, must surely wonder why whole generations of Americans went to school without once wearing a backpack? There was homework, but it was never the burden that it is today. As Kohn notes, the mystery surrounding homework “deepens in light of the fact that widespread assumptions about the benefits of homework—higher achievement and the promotion of such virtues as self-discipline and responsibility—aren’t substantiated by the available evidence.” That’s right. The author pored through countless studies of homework and concluded that it serves no purpose whatever. What is evident, however, is “The most striking trend regarding homework in the past two decades is the tendency to pile more and more of it on younger and younger children.” Those of us who have examined the education establishment since the 1960s have long concluded it is utterly failing the students passing through government schools. Loading up kids with after-school work is simply proof of that failure. Kohn notes five significant aspects of homework and why it is a bad thing. (1) It puts a burden on parents. In many cases, both parents work and, after a full day on the job, why should they and their children then have to deal with still more work? (2) It is responsible for a lot of stress in the lives of children by simultaneously overwhelming the struggling student and removing the joy of learning for high achievers. (3) Homework is frequently the cause of family conflict. Specifically the nagging to which parents must resort followed by the whining of the child. This affects the parent-child relationship negatively, as do the tensions that arise when kids try to work with parents on homework. After a full day at school, home should be a place to unwind, to engage in hobbies, to play, to be a kid! (4) There is less time for other activities. “There is less opportunity to read for pleasure, make friends and socialize with them, get some exercise, get some rest, or just be a child.” The freedom to “do nothing” is very important to children and, in my case, an adult. (5) Perhaps most important of all, one of homework’s worst adverse affects is to dull a love of learning. If learning something is always “work” than learning anything takes on the same connotation. This is why most kids hate homework. Learning is what they are required to do in school. Why can’t their home be free of the tentacles and burdens of school? Kohn’s book, a densely documented look at the realities of homework clearly demonstrates that all the things we are told about it or believe about it are wrong. There are laws against child labor in America that were, when enacted, considered quite progressive. There is no law against homework. There ought to be! |
|||||
Recently. al-Zawahari appeared in a tape with one Adam Yehiye Gadhan, born American by the Grace of God and turned stupid by the failed left-wing skools in California. He is an interesting person to read about because a pattern begins to emerge as you read his story. His mother was Jewish and his father Christian, but he attended the Islamic Society of Orange County Mosque. That is, right up until he slapped the Imam around in a disagreement. His upbringing is quite bland, and one has to wonder if that didn’t contribute to his being so easy to turn. He had no friends as he began looking into and studying Islam. When he converted, he became close with a subgroup within the mosque where he underwent a second conversion. Up until then, he did things like play rock guitar and listen to death metal. He liked to hike the Sierra Mountains with nothing but a backpack. He grew up on a farm, so he should know the rules: When a pet such as a dog has tasted blood, it can never be turned back to being civilized. It will forever lust for that taste. There is but one solution, and quite sadly that is death. More than likely in this case, it may be a life in prison throwing excrement at guards after he finishes of the last of his Beluga caviar. Azzam the American is but one of the many names he has traveled and operated under. He is now viewed as the mouthpiece of radical Islam. He is also considered to be their chief propagandist. I ran across several references to his work and a letter that was sent to many sites and posted in the many blogs online. Here is a quote regarding what is coming from the radicals who now realize that showing them removing someone’s head with a piece of sandpaper in an execution has not helped their cause. They are going to try to put a warm fuzzy face on their cause now, and let everyone find out what they’ve really signed on for later. The SS also used to do that, by the way. But here is that quote.
I think that now would be another really great time to point out that even the jihadists of al-Qaeda are aware of the damage and help from the our leftist media. They are acknowledging in that statement what the effect of fraudulent and bad press has on our war efforts. Once again, a Moslem gets it and the liberals don’t. A pattern emerges once again, and it is relative to intelligence. One of the rules of revolution is to activate and merge with the disaffected. If they aren’t disaffected, convince them they are. And what better place to start than with a bunch of teenagers who, as a normal part of growing up, always feel disaffected and misunderstood? Gorbachev once sent a communiqué to one of the leaders in the Warsaw pact before the walls came down. In it he said they were going to have to go back to the old model of using the above tactics against the west. As it stands in our society, parents are quite often not there for their children when they should be. Azzam the American is a good example of what our future will look like if the parents don’t wake up and pay attention. I put a few reference links at the bottom of this article for you to read later. When I read the articles and comments made by the leftist politicians and media personnel in the DC area, I wonder at their state of mind. They remind me of Azzam while he was younger. Someone such as Kennedy or Clinton would love to be able to treat women the way these people do. I have seen many comments made by these leftists, and I see a strange trend that may very well be related to something in the water in that area. Now in all fairness to Tokyo Rose, she was captured and forced to do the propaganda for the Emperor or her family would be killed. She wasn’t a traitor in any way near to the way that Azzam is. Azzam is like the rest of these people who hate life and love death. I find it shocking that the leftists become annoyed when we grant them their wish by blowing them up before they blow us up. Reference Links: Adam
Yahiye Gadahn: An Appeal R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
The same day our nation commemorated the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, I learned that the state of California had passed — and was now waiting for Governor Schwarzenegger to sign — a new measure legalizing industrial hemp crops. This is very encouraging news. It’s just unfortunate no one realizes this is part of the Hurricane Katrina story. With all due respect for those who died or were stranded on their rooftops, if I was in charge of a cable news station, I would’ve made industrial hemp a main part of my anniversary coverage. Hemp used to be a common thing in America. It also used to be an integral part of our nation’s economy. This changed in the 1930s, when fear over its mind-altering cousin, marijuana, led to a national hemp ban. Except for a short reprieve during World War II, it’s been illegal to farm the stuff ever since. Today, many products — such as clothing, food, and rope — are made from hemp imported from Canada. Most Americans understand that owning such products in no way, shape, or form makes them part of some underground drug culture. Hemp remains illegal, however, for two important reasons. One, because Washington insists hemp crops would serve as cover for marijuana growers. And two, because the rest of us have accepted — or at least decided to live with — Washington’s assessment. As a result, it is very difficult to have a rational industrial hemp discussion. Most people realize hemp isn’t the same as marijuana. However, most people think you’d have to be a paranoid stoner to so much as bring it up. When you really start to consider this issue, you start to wonder, though: Who’s paranoid here? The stoners who brag about hemp’s many uses? Or the people too frightened by visions of stoners to have this conversation? Hemp is a viable alternative fuel source. It’s clean. It’s renewable. And it can be used in place of many synthetic, oil-based materials. It’s actually quite odd that we’d choose to import it rather than grow it — especially in light of our usual “Made In America” mentality. Just think what this crop could do to ease our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Even if it was the same as marijuana, you’d still have to be crazy — or paranoid — not to use it. This brings me back to Hurricane Katrina. By now, most people seem to agree Washington failed the city of New Orleans. Why this happened is up for debate, but one possible reason I don’t hear many people discuss anymore is the fact that our soldiers were too busy overseas to help rescue all those folks on their rooftops. Leaving aside whether disaster recovery is the military’s job, I would say this is a fair argument. Our men and women sign up to defend our country. That’s why they’re “our” men and women. Often, though, they end up defending other countries. It’s been this way since September 11th, but it was like this long before September 11th, too. America maintains a military presence of some size or another in roughly 130 countries. This makes it hard for us to defend the only country that ought to matter to America, which, of course, is America. Now, I’m not going to sit here and tell you the Iraq War, for instance, was “all about oil.” Like all conflicts, it was about many things — some more or less noble than others. But if it’s true our military was too busy in Iraq to help the people of New Orleans, then you have to ask yourself: Why does America maintain such a broad overseas presence to begin with? Why do we care what happens in the Middle East? Why should it even concern us? Oil isn’t the only answer to these questions, but it is an answer for each of them. Oil is crucial to us. We need it. And this means we need to worry about other countries, because they’re the ones who have it. I’m not naïve enough to think industrial hemp would cut our ties with the Middle East overnight. If I had to guess, it wouldn’t even cut our ties with the Middle East altogether. We would still need oil for something or another. But that’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with doing business. Just imagine how things in New Orleans might have been different if we hadn’t been draining our resources elsewhere, though. Maybe the military would’ve been here to help rescue people more quickly. Or maybe we would have simply fixed the levees before they broke and drowned the city. Of course, this is all conjecture. There’s no way to actually prove it. But before you complain about Washington failing New Orleans, just consider how industrial hemp would alter such problems as oil, war, and pollution. Until this useful crop becomes legal, I would argue Washington is failing us all. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
In recent weeks I've written about the threat of rising property taxes posed by state and local governments hungry for more and more of your money; and the threat of widespread eminent domain actions posed by a planned North American superhighway running straight through Texas. It's clear that many political and business interests are only too willing to drive people literally out of their homes to make way for the grand schemes of those in power. This is why every American needs to understand that property rights are the foundation of a free society. Without property rights, all citizens live subject to the whims of government officials. When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated. Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments. Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities. The Kelo case demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government. Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it's easier to fight city hall than Congress. But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against. Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics. The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope things don't get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master. Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property. I've introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation. But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
Although federal money accounts for less than 10% of the cost of public education, as part of NCLB, schools that accept these tax dollars are to be held accountable for each subgroup of students making adequate yearly progress in their education or face sanctions. To avoid sanctions, some states have made a mockery of the law by administering measures of progress in which the local results are not in line with national indicators, yet on which AYP is based and found in compliance. Other states have made headlines for saying they are better off rejecting federal funding for all the headaches and additional costs involved in testing. Regardless, in the states which have accepted this money, students found to be enrolled in failing educational institutions have not been given legitimate opportunity to transfer to the best available school, public or private. They’ve often had to settle for additional services to make up for gaps in instruction because the best learning environment is not always an option. Originally, NCLB was intended to break the class barrier by allowing poorer families vouchers, access to the tax dollars earmarked for failing public schools so they could transfer their kids to a public or private school of their own choosing. That section of the law was omitted from the final version because Teddy Kennedy, and others beholden to the NEA (fully funded by tax dollars used to pay teachers, whose contracts they negotiate often in favor of administration), refused to sign legislation which might break the union’s sway over education taxes; using the tired argument that the separation between church and state must be upheld. Instead, parents were only given the option to transfer their kids within the public school system, maintaining its monopoly on tax dollars. Still, people who use vouchers to send their children to private schools are not being forced to practice a religion by our government and that has been upheld by the courts. Therefore, the current administration has decided it is time to give parents real educational options. On July 18, Congress introduced the America’s Opportunity Scholarships for Kids Act. If passed, states, school districts and nonprofit organizations could compete for $100 million in grant money being awarded by the U.S. Department of Education in fiscal year 2007. These local education agencies would, in turn, provide scholarships of up to $4,000 to children from low-income families enrolled in persistently low-performing schools so as to allow them the means to transfer to a private school of their choice. In addition, up to $3,000 could be awarded for tutoring services if they choose to stay at their school. It could be argued that $4,000 is not enough money for students to transfer out of public school into private school. The cost of educating a child is often over $10,000 a year in the public schools. Catholics are a charitable group, though, and often supplement the cost of their educational institutions. It could be argued that the public should not have to bear the cost of additional education dollars being doled out by the federal government, however, upon last examination, it was the Bush administration’s intention to pay for the cost of these grants by reducing or eliminating federal dollars previously earmarked for instructional programs less directly related to student achievement. But I will be surprised if there is any strong dissention by the public school system over the federal government rewarding local education providers with more tax dollars to ensure students receive adequate education. Why would they complain about the possibility of more money being thrown at a failing system of education? They are receiving what they have been demanding all along. They will be provided money to fund what they have been screaming is an unfunded mandate. What is wrong with this picture? Parents should have all along been able to decide where their designated education dollars will be spent. By forcing schools to compete for students, they will have to raise their standards and operate with more efficiency and legitimacy. But when schools can keep their tax dollars, regardless of their performance, there is no incentive for change. Where is the incentive now? Where is the accountability? Schools who lose students will still keep their tax dollars. Schools who receive students will pay for them with additional tax dollars. It is understandable that the federal government has been frustrated by the roadblocks to achieving NCLB goals. Yet by throwing more money at the system, it has awarded one big temper tantrum led by the unions who have been screaming that schools can’t change unless they have more money. Who loses? Students in successful schools that might have benefited by education programs cut out of the federal budget and which will now be spent on students forced to exit failing schools that continue to benefit from public money and yet will not be held accountable for their failure. Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Monday, September 18, 2006 1:24 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
