Welcome...

I was recently up visiting the town I was raised in as a small boy. A lot of synthesis of ideas about one's life and one's world seems to happen when you go back to these places. One big realization came to me upon assessing the town newspaper, and the corresponding zeitgeist of the community. People in the town are definitely not happy people. They're rednecks in the worst sense of the word. I can see the writers of the newspaper try to be very conscientious in how they approach things... yet and still, they are failing their community. The intellectuals who write the articles, or select them from the national wire, don't see the negative impact that they're having on the zeitgeist of the community.

I think it's one of the bigger problems in our society that intellectuals assume that everybody has the maturity level to think critically about things that they read. In reality, most of society is comprised of simple ordinary people. These are people who take the world at face value, and are likely to accept what writers say at face value as well.

Consider the difference in tone between this Associated Press article:

BILLINGS - Billings police say a fire that gutted an apartment hours after a domestic disturbance call may have been deliberately set.

The fire was reported shortly after 1:30 a.m. Sunday. It caused an estimated $150,000 worth of damage, but no one was injured.

Sgt. Jason Gartner says police had been called to the apartment shortly before 10 p.m. Saturday for a domestic disturbance. A 21-year-old woman reported her boyfriend had choked her, put his hands over her mouth and held her to the ground.

Gartner says when the woman tried to call police, the boyfriend left with the phone. The woman was in a neighboring apartment when the fire started.

Nathan Searsdodd was arrested Sunday morning on suspicion of partner or family member assault.

And this article which I just found today on one of the two main news websites in New Zealand (http://www.stuff.co.nz).

The body of a New Zealand tourist, reportedly brutally murdered, has been found on a surf beach in Bali.

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesman said Jordan Lucas had died in Bali and his family was being provided with consular assistance.

Mr Lucas' body was found at Uluwatu Beach, a popular surf beach in South Bali.

Indonesian media are reporting that police believe he was murdered.

Police said the man, found semi-naked with his head crushed, was the victim of a murder, The Jakarta Globe reported.

"He was a lovely kid, a lovely boy who just loved Bali. He was here for four months just surfing. I've known him for a long time and that's all he loved - surfing," a relative in Bali told the New Zealand Herald.

"It's just a terrible thing. His parents are understandably just terribly distraught - they've only just found out."

The Ministry said the family had requested privacy and would not release any further details.

In both cases, the details about what occurred are in short supply - and the writers have to be very brief because of that. The New Zealand article however, is much more palatable. The tone of it doesn't alarm folks. There's a note about what kind of cool guy the victim was. There's a note about how the parents feel about the matter. There's a note about how the family is getting help from the consulate.

The AP article, on the other hand, is nothing but doom and gloom. It would be very disconcerting for a person to read that, who was just an ordinary joe or jane. A simple minded person who didn't understand how newspaper authors spin stories in order to make them more edgy would be disturbed by it. The meat of the story is hearsay - a brief sequence of events at the apartment as related by those involved. There is no broader context about how long the folks lived in the neighborhood, what they did for a living in Billings, and other things like that. Furthermore, the writer heavily favors speculation over fact. The idea that the fire was deliberately set seems to be a guess on the part of the police. The way the prose is but together, makes me think that perhaps the author would rather be a film noir movie script writer. Maybe she or he missed her calling.

The impact of the prose of each article on the ordinary reader is very different - even though, in both cases, the event being described is extremely tragic.

I honestly think that the USA would be a much better country, if its journalists were conscientious enough to consider the impact of their style of writing on the minds of people who are ordinary simple folk. Canada and New Zealand, it seems to me, are much happier societies with healthier ways of discussing social issues - and I think it's because of how journalists ply their trade in those countries.

Also, recently, I visited my sister in San Francisco, and read through the Chronicle. It's a wonderful paper if you are particularly intellectually disposed. However, again, most people wouldn't see the beauty in the prose. They would see an ugly narrative about class struggle which is woven throughout the paper's stories.

I also passed through Portland, and Salt Lake City in recent weeks. Those papers (the Oregonian, and the Salt Lake City Tribune, I believe do far better at improving the attitudes and vision of people in their cities. They do it, however, in a weird way. They deconstruct the spectres that most other papers in the nation are creating as they make people scared of criminals, or terrorists or whatever else is out there. For example, the other day the only article I saw in the Tribune about the Middle East happened to be about a flood in Pakistan. So the threat there is to the local people, from a natural disaster - rather than the threat from terrorists to people in the USA. Another example of this deconstruction was a front page story about a gentleman who was a prisoner trying to get his footing in the community after doing his prison time. I applaud the gesture of such journalists. However, they still are playing defense, as writers, rather than going on the offense. They'll still needlessly playing up drama.

We need clean, proper prose in our newspapers to encourage social health, as much as we need clean air, and clean water for our physical health.

I have just, in the past week or two, discovered the BBC in Britain. It's possible to watch their programming over the internet if you pay for an internet proxy service. It's amazing programming. If the BBC would ever see fit to sell television licenses overseas, it would change the world. People in the USA always bemoan the fact that you can spin through hundreds sattelite and cable television channels and find nothing of value to watch. I think anyone comparing BBC programming side by side with the fare you can get in the States would be astonished at the difference in quality; and this competition from across the pond would force usa broadcasters and usa newscasters to improve the quality of their programming.

I was impressed when I discovered Australian television... the ABC and SBS do broadcast some of their programming freely to overseas netizens. However, the BBC just blows me away. I'm in awe. Here, I see the standards in film that I have always longed to see in mainstream media in the USA. In British and Australians I see the kind of reasoning which I admire and which I wish academics in the USA would adopt.

I've seen so many monumentally amazing programs over the past few days. One particularly interesting one that I feel I need to write about today, revolves around a relic which was produced from someone's attic in Britain. It was a child's skeleton that was mummified. Imagine keeping that kind of relic out in the family shed for two hundred years! There's a joke about that, which has even become a metaphor: we talk about people having skeletons in their closet - things in their past which they don't want to publicize to their friends and aquaintances.

So the BBC designed a television program where they researched the history of this skeleton. Apparently, there was no documenation preserved along with this relic. This program was a wonderful glimpse into all these different corners of Britain and British history. You got to see this art supply shop which still had all these traditional materials that were listed in the old books of the anatomists who wrote recipes for embalming in the latter 1700s. You got to see this church with a cemetary which was directly across the street from a hospital, and learn about how the grave robbers would provide fresh corpses for the anatomy students across the way.

The biggest thing I learned from this program, was that it gave me a chance to build a model about why British people reason differently than USAers. I have spent seasons over the past year and two and three studying different English speaking countries through their mass media - television and radio programming - which is often available over the web. And one thing that has really jumped out at me is the vast differences in how people in anglophone countries discuss their national issues, and how people reason about these things with eachother. Here, in the USA, every discussion about national issues is political in nature - that is to say - people take sides and use hyperbole and other debate tactics to win for their side in the discussion. In Canada, people defer to scientists and academics. In Australia - there is a prime directive people have, which is caring for their society - and upbuilding their communities. In Britain there's far too much complaining going on - there seems to be a conception they have that critical thought and deep intellectualism is only found in the midst of earnest complaint; however, the Brits' critical thinking abilities are amazing.

So, I'll go on to talk about my model about why the Europeans and the British reason differently than people in the States: My conclusion is, that one reason for this is the sheer amount of history in the country. The BBC researchers could not have used the "scientific method" to pull together the narrative about where this boy came from, and what happened to him. The folks working on this project needed to induce and deduce. Europeans have this wonderful history which is not always documented well; it seems that there can be these egregious holes in it. It turned out that this little boy whose skeleton they were studying was embalmed and used as a medical student specimen in the late 1700s before it was legal to collect children's corpses. Naturally, because of the illegality of the trade in corpses - the records about where his body came from would have been lost.

It strikes me that this historical time when they robbed graves in order for med students to have cadavers is a lot like this problem we have today with the illegal drug trade in Mexico and the USA. When something that should be legal is made illegal - you end up having organized crime evolve around it - and with that organized crime, you have lots of terrible things happen.

The program series is called "History Cold Case" and the segment I watched appears to be "Episode 2: Mummified Child."

It's available for streaming as long as the BBC chooses to keep it posted on their website: here

Last night I was watching this historic debate between the leaders of the three main political parties in Britain. One very poignant question was from a high school student - Joel Weiner - who complained about the very rigorous assessment regime they have for students in the UK. He said that students were "over-examined and under taught." Gordon Brown and David Cameron really pooh-poohed his concern - obviously enraptured with the idea that high test scores are synonymous with successful schools. The phrase which they used was "maintaining the level of standards" - and of course, this word "standards" is a synonym which means various things including rigorous testing practices and personal sense of ethical conduct. It's difficult to talk sense into folks who use this kind of politically-expedient language.

This last term in my university classes, I noticed that a lot of the academic research from the USA tended to use test scores to try to prove a b or c. Test scores represent a wonderfully easy data set to look at. Scientists love this kind of data - crunching numbers always makes their studies appear more rigorous. Unfortunately, one problem with science is that the data that is most presently available isn't always the kind of data which is relevant to the thing being studied. I am adamant that test scores are not a great metric of student achievement. And many educators would agree with this standpoint to some extent.

One thing I researched during the term was the school system in Australia. I was very impressed with how wholistic the education system there is. The main goal in Australia is to prepare children with what they themselves need as human beings when they go out into the world as adults at the age of 18; they call this "Outcomes Based Education." In contrast to this, states in the USA focus on academics; they go around asking professionals in various fields what they believe children should be taught about their particular academic area.

Even as a student at a small state university here in the Rocky Mountains I felt put-off by the essentialist style of my professors. It dawned on me yesterday a way to reform at least tertiary education in the States - so that students enjoy their time more, and learn more quickly and efficiently. I think we ought to separate education from assessment. I believe that teachers ought to introduce students to all the skills and concepts which are relevant to the subject area they are studying - but in a forum where there is no assessment to see how much the students are learning. If the students have to hold down a job, or if they are taking a 25 credit courseload because of special circumstances, they wouldn't be penalized for not getting work in, over the course of the term. Then, when students feel that they have gained the relevant skills and knowledge, they can opt into a two week or a month-long assessment regime - where they demonstrate what they have learned.

The way the typical university education is set up now - it's almost absurd. At the beginning of the term - you're walking into a classroom with three to eight unknown professors - each of which will demand a certain slice of your life for the next 9 to 16 weeks. And there's nothing preventing them from asking so much of your time that you really don't have the time to get the work done properly. And this wouldn't be because you aren't able to demonstrate the skills or knowledge - it's just because of the capricious schedule which is laid upon you by all the various syllabuses of your professors.

I don't know why no one seems to have recognized this, before. It's as obvious as the light of day to me that children and young people learn a lot more easily and quickly when they are not being micromanaged. Micromanagement tends to teach children how to parrot what the teacher wants from them... and on a strict syllabus schedule, you don't have time to devote to absorbing the material in a way that you would get the most out of it. Kids who are more talented either rebel against such a regime, or they just give up on all of the other things that are important in their life - like peers and social development.

Also, yesterday, I watched a PBS Frontline program on the rise of alternative for-profit tertiary institutions in the USA. I really hope one of these businesses would see the possibility in profiting off of a new model of education like the one I propose. They could really set some progressive trends.

I believe that in the West we should really separate the concepts of "teaching" as compared to "credentialing."

What educators call an "essentialist" style of instruction is very common in the USA as you go into high school, and as you go on to upper crust universities. This is a system where someone lectures, and then tests you to see if you've gained a certain requisite amount of knowledge and skills. It used to even be a common method in elementary schools. In fact, the phrase "toeing the line" was coined when children would stand up in front of the room with their toes in a neat line, and recite what they had learned.

This essentialist technique, in my opinion, is not teaching. It doesn't qualify as such.

According to my sensibilities - a teacher, by definition, cannot pass or fail or grade his students in any way shape or form. This practice runs counter to the aims of teaching. A teacher does not let the student who doesn't understand the material, or who is not gaining the skills, slip through the cracks. A teacher can assess how well he himself is teaching the children - by seeing how much they're learning. But that's a grade the teacher gives himself - not a grade he gives the students.

Now, a person offering a credential, must test the knowledge and skills of those seeking that credential. Indeed, some people will pass that test, and some will not. Certainly, passing fifth grade, and graduating from high school are both credentials - so you need to have someone there who will test the children... and assess whether they have met the requirements of the credential. But that ought not to be the teacher's job.

The fact that we conflate these two ideas - teaching, and credentialing - really hurts our society, in my estimation. All over the net you see people offering tutorials in technical trade knowledge who have no idea what teaching is. They have run through the gamut of the credential system at a demanding university, and they thought that they were being taught. In reality, they were teaching themselves well enough to get their credential.

I watched a few MIT lectures the other day on introductory computer programming. This "professor" was not a teacher, in my book. He was throwing out concept a b c and d, and expecting his students to pick up the pieces. It's shocking to me that we regale this kind of practice as if it were the best kind of teaching in the USA.

It's also disturbing to me that university students don't know how to demand a better educational product from their schools. People in tertiary education are typically fresh out of their parents' homes. They've been children their entire life. And they're used to being told what to do, and complying. They meekly accept whatever odd curveballs their department or their professors throw at them; if they can't get an assignment done because they simply didn't have enough time or resources, they are cowed and hang their head in shame, and believe it's their fault. Somehow, these young people rate their college choices based on a rating institution's assessment of the university. Youth believe that they need to work hard in order to get into a "selective university." Instead, they ought to realize that they are the customers with money in hand, who are going to give this money to a business called "a university." They, as customers, are the ones who need to call the shots - demanding the kind of educational product which they want. Uni students need to demand better pedagogy from their schools.

Recently, I've been very impressed with what I've learned about the Australian educational system. I don't know much about uni over there - but their high schools and elementary schools seem to have a really cool pedagogy. Their high schools are very much focused on vocational skills - and on what that person will need for his life when he leaves home at 18 years of age. They call this "Outcomes Based Education." In contrast, we in the USA have "Standards Based Education;" educators in North America think that the most important thing is that kids get a foundation of knowledge in science, and social studies, and literature, and so forth.

You young people at the university aren't kids anymore. Wake up and demand better professors... and yes, be willing to work hard for credentials. However, please don't confuse teaching with credentialing. They are two very separate things.

This is a wonderful talk by Michael Taussig, an anthropologist at Columbia University. Here, he is speaking at Monash University which is in Victoria, Australia. I have just recently come to realize that some of my favorite thinkers are anthropologists. The actual links to listen can be found on the webpage I linked you to, and over in a box to the right hand side of the page.

Personally, I've clearly seen the very bad effects of corporal punishment on children. It saddens me that there isn't currently a budding body of research about this, amongst educators and child psychologists.

I've worked with small groups of kids in many different settings. And what I've seen is that regular spanking of small children can cause a couple different outcomes. The child can become hyperactive - in other words, the child becomes squirrely, because this behavior is a way to get the parent in a better mood, and avoid the slap for awhile.

I've also seen elementary school kids who become bullies of their peers in school, and the neighbor kids - because that's what they're learning from their unwitting parent. The kids are learning that you ought to impose morality on others using physical agression.

Sweden outlawed spanking or smacking of kids in 1979. The law is very well written, in that it doesn't provide for any punishment of perpetrators. However, if what the parent did to the child can be defined as assault, there are laws which come into effect there.

Here's a great explanation about the Swedish policy by Adrienne Haeuser

One problem which seems to be prevalent in Australian schools - violence. According to a Queensland schools website - 16,000 kids in the state were suspended at one point or another last year because of physical aggression.

Here's a news report from Adelaide - a city in South Australia:

I have been enrolled in a teacher education program at my local university this last few months, and for one of the projects, I was asked to research and present on another country. I decided to check out the education system of a country which has caught my interest recently - Australia.

I was really impressed with what I learned - that Australia has a constructivist pedagogy - students learn things in a hands-on way. And they take this all the way up through high school - so that vocational skills are really focused on a lot in their upper grades.

Australian teachers also seem to have a profound respect for children's intellect. They believe that children are reasonable people, and that they can achieve great things right now. It's very refreshing, and certainly parallels my view on children which I had thought was very unusual, until I saw that all of Australia seems to see things the same way.

More specifically, the pedagogy folks have in Australia is what they call "Outcomes Based Education." Australians would contrast that with what we have in the USA - they call our system "Standards based education." Tests are not as important to Australian educators as they are to usa educators. The main goal in the Australian education system is to prepare the kids for real life - whereas the main goal in the usa system is to make certain kids have a basic competency in academic areas like science, and math and social studies, and so forth.

Here are some films which I found particularly inspirational - of Australian schools and Australian kids. You can see the spark of intelligence in the kids which you usually don't see in American kids. I attribute that to the better pedagogy (teaching style) of Australian educators.

I think I've figured out why Australian society has what they over there call: "Tall Poppy Syndrome." I've heard a lot about this - the idea that they scorn people who appear to think themselves better than others. In other words, if someone drives down the street in a fancy car, the youth will call out an insult like "You wanker!" - whereas in the States, that car would attract admiring glances.

I heard this audio clip from the Australian public broadcaster, tonight about "Cultural Cringe". The links to listen to the clip are off to the right on the ABC's webpage.

My conclusion today after listening to this discussion was that Australia is always trying to compare itself to Europe. The people down under feel very self-conscious and they squirm, and they feel that they are an oppressed minority among Western nations. They feel that Europeans are derisive of them, and this really hurts their feelings. Thus, it becomes a prevalent attitude in Australia to resent whatever might be perceived as snobbery.