disoriented

Homeschool

The dis-oriented author is a homeschooler. Starting with my oldest son some twenty years ago we have homeschooled all of our children. You might say, "we were homeschoolers when homeschooling wasn't cool."

Several weeks ago I had an enjoyable conversation with a lady on an airplane. She had been a biology teacher and I was reading a biology book. Our conversation revolved around books, learning and travel. Eventually we started talking about our children and schooling.

There was a notable silence when I mentioned that we were homeschoolers.

She mentioned that her experience with homeschool families had all been negative. Most of them were not competent to teach and were simply trying to shield their children from the evil influence of the public school.

There are, of course, different kinds of homeschoolers. We have not renounced modern society, gotten off the power grid and moved into the woods. We don't make our own bread, wear 'prairie clothing' or indoctrinate our children into some cult. [Note: since we are evangelical Christians, some readers may disagree with the cult part.]

Though we have concerns about public education we are not anti-public school. We homeschool because it gives our children the opportunity to thrive in the areas in which they are gifted and allows us to tailor their education to assist them in areas that are more difficult for them.

All but our youngest children have had a mix of homeschool, public school and private school. Homeschooling is not easy. It requires a considerable commitment on the part of the family.

In homeschool we have been able to focus on our children's interests and skills. Our oldest is a pianist and was homeschooled for part of middle school. He was able to devote time to the piano and this helped fuel his interest in music through public high school. He entered college on a piano performance scholarship.

All of our older children are voracious readers. We read a lot of history and my high school aged son was recently surprised that his history teacher did not know about the Doolittle Raid in WWII. He may be the fastest reader in the family, he is also the family athlete and he made the transition from homeschool to middle school to varsity athletics quite well.

The only problem our middle school aged daughter will have if she goes to public high school is that she may have already finished the basic math curriculum and be ready for AP Calculus. After that they will run out of math classes for her and she'll have to take college math to meet the 3-4 year math requirements for most college admissions.

Homeschool is not for everyone but for the families who commit to it it can be a wonderful alternative or supplement to an institutionalized education.

Teacher Salaries

The dis-oriented author comes from a family of teachers. My grandmother was a teacher, my mother was a teacher and my sister is a teacher. But at this moment teachers are beginning to annoy me. It must be the season. The state legislature is in session and once again we hear teachers and their unions complaining about their salaries. A survey found that teacher salaries in my state are forty-first in the nation. A letter to the editor in my local paper complained that most teachers are paid less than the accountants that prepare their taxes.

I think a better comparison would be to realize that most teachers are paid more than the city employees who collect their trash.

In the debate over teacher salaries, teachers ask that we compare their salaries to those of professionals like engineers. The problem is that teachers have chosen for themselves a salary model better suited to carpenters, waiters and sanitation workers. Teachers have chosen to be unionized.

When teachers compare themselves to other professionals they almost always choose professions that are not unionized. Accountants, engineers, computer programmers; these professions all have similar education requirements yet all receive higher compensation than teachers.

There are benefits to the unionized compensation model. Teachers have a high degree of job security that increases with seniority. In my professional position I have not had a raise since 9/11, yet Iowa teachers continue to receive raises during difficult economic times. A significant amount of my compensation consists of a bonus based on company earnings, during lean times I receive no bonus which amounts to a pay cut.

The difference is that in all these professions, salary is based on merit. As a professional I command a salary based on my abilities. In return I run the risk that if my performance decreases I could be let go. Most professionals in Iowa are either self-employed or ‘at-will’ employees who could be terminated even with out cause.

Teachers have chosen the same compensation model as sanitation workers and hotel bellmen. If teachers want to be treated and paid like professionals, let them adopt a professional compensation model. The problem is that teachers and their unions oppose merit pay. The argument is that there would be no fair way to rate teacher performance; reviews they say would be subjective. Ask any engineer, accountant or computer programmer; our reviews are also subjective.

The problem with measuring teacher performance is not that it is impossible — rather that no one has the courage to do so. Ask any teacher, they know the good ones and bad ones in their building. Ask any parent, they know which of their children’s teachers are good and bad. You can even ask any student — they know too. So if the only thing preventing merit pay is evaluating teachers I have a solution — I’ll volunteer for the job.

Hopscotch Math

The disoriented author and his wife are home school parents. Actually we have tried and continue to take advantage of a variety of educational opportunities for our children. We have had children homeschooled independently, homeschooled through a district sponsored  homeschool program, in public school, parochial school and this year our daughter was a Congressional Page and attended the Page Boarding School in the Library of Congress.

Each year we look at each child and try to choose the best educational opportunity for them. Next year we are planning a combination of public and home schooling for our remaining children at home.

Yesterday when I came home from running errands, I noticed that our kindergartner was drawing chalk numbers on the different squares on our front sidewalk. Generally she draws pictures and recently she wrote "I love you Daddy".

Today she had written numbers. As I got closer, I saw that she had written:

-2  -1  0  1  2  3  4

As a parent, with a mathematics degree, I was thrilled.

While Babylonian mathematicians had the concept of zero two centuries before Christ, it would take Western mathematics until the 15th century AD to fully realize negative numbers. And my six year old had drawn them on the sidewalk.

I was in a hurry and I  had my hands full of groceries. I set them down and asked her to show me the numbers. I then showed her how I could add 2 + 2 by standing on the 2 and hopping twice to the 3 and 4 respectively. We played this game happily for a while and then extended it to include the negative numbers and zero. Soon we started hopping backwards and doing subtraction.

I am sure that my daughter will only remember playing hopscotch with Dad. But somewhere under the surface I saw a bit of a mathematician poking through. When my father saw that in me, he encouraged it and nurtured it. He bought me books on math and talked to me about the math he was doing as a geographer. He explained trigonometry to me on the back of a napkin in a restaurant. Later he introduced me to basic statistics the same way.

As we both got older, the roles sometimes reversed. Later I sketched Göedel's Incompleteness Theorem for him on a napkin. We marveled together over the proof that the cardinality of the  Integers and Rational Numbers is the same while the Real Numbers have a higher cardinality. My father has since passed away but these are some of my fondest memories of him. I may have attended public school but I was also homeschooled.

I wish he were here to share these moments with my daughter but having learned from him,  I would not miss them for the world.

Faith of our Fathers

The disoriented author has just completed reading biographies of each of the pantheon of Founding Fathers. Along the way I have read The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W. Brands, James Madison: A Biography, by Ralph Louis Ketchum, Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, by Joseph J. Ellis and John Adams by David McCullough. Finally I read Joseph J. Ellis' brand new George Washington biography, His Excellency.

I have been deeply involved in politics for the last decade and a half. Being  an evangelical Christian, many of the people I run into hold firmly to the belief that this Nation was founded by like-minded Christians on Christian principles. They point to the Founding Fathers as examples of Christian character. In an attempt to be intellectually honest — I have not been able to come to the same conclusion.

In the days to come I will be chronicling my search for the Faith of our Fathers.

In 1984, George Orwell wrote:

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

In this country, we are reaching a crossroads. As a nation we are struggling to determine what place religion and people of faith play in our society. It is no wonder that Christian evangelicals want to portray the Founding Fathers as kindred spirits, to control the past as Orwell put it. I am one of those Christian evangelicals. I would certainly like to discover that the Founding Fathers and I share a heritage of faith not just a political heritage. On the other hand, my search is a search for truth.

I understand that many of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians. The Scottish Minister and Princeton University President, John Witherspoon certainly belongs in the Christian camp. But the philosophical and political leaders — the Pantheon, were they men of faith.

My initial reading seems to indicate that most were Deists not Evangelical Christians. Interestingly the two that seem to be exceptions may be John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

 

The three 'R's

One of the topics that is guaranteed to get the disoriented author's attention is education. As the father of eight [that's right eight] children I am certainly  more than a disinterested observer.

Sixteen years ago when our oldest son was ready to start school, we looked at the various options available to us. We interviewed the principal and teacher at the local public school. We also met with the team at a nearby Christian school. In the end we decided that neither school would be appropriate for our son. The week before school started we decided to home school him. While home schooling is relatively commonplace today it was rare sixteen years ago. Since then, we have used a combination of home school, public school and private school for all of our children. Some years ago, my concern for education even led me to run for a seat on the local school board.

As school budgets get tighter, schools are facing tough decisions. Some schools have decided to focus on the three 'R's. Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. Unfortunately this decision is often accompanied by a decrease in programs in foreign languages, the arts, sports and music.

To remove these extra-curricular programs from the schools would be to throw away some of the best parts of the American educational system.

There is more to an education than the three 'R's. Recently I have attended several music events for my children. I have been to show choir competitions, choir and orchestra contests, piano competitions. My children also participate in sports and theater and my oldest son started college on a piano performance scholarship and majored in French. As I look back on my own education, my participation in speech competition, Junior Achievement, journalism, theater, music and student government all helped to shape my education. While my academic studies in mathematics and computer science were crucial to my getting into my current career field, it is these other extra-curricular activities that have helped me develop a career.

If you ever get depressed about the state of the younger generation — I encourage you to spend a day at a show choir competition. This may be a Red State phenomenon but if you get a chance, you should go.

This weekend I attended a middle school show choir competition. There were 15 choirs with 40-50 singers, technicians and band members each. These competitions are huge all day affairs. Schools travel all across the country to enter some of the bigger competitions. Many students practice year round to build a show. Students learn about teamwork, responsibility and sportsmanship. They also learn dance and music skills at a very high level. My son (the family athlete) suddenly showed an interest this year. He says that the show choir practices are tougher than his football workouts.

As a nation, we are failing the grade in teaching math, science and English. In our efforts to fix the problems in the school system, we must be careful not to destroy those things that American schools do better than nearly any other in the world.

Why can't our schools teach math?

Ask anyone with a degree in mathematics what they would do if they won the lottery and this is what you are likely to hear:

First the lottery is a tax on people who can't do math. But if they were to play and win, a surprising number of them would retire and take up second careers as elementary math teachers.

Of course, the dis-oriented author doesn't have statistical evidence of these results — only anecdotal evidence based on being himself a mathematics major and asking this question of others. Even so, it warrants an inquiry.

Why would math people dream of teaching elementary mathematics? Is it because of the elementary teachers who did so much to encourage us? Could it be that an elementary teacher first opened our eyes to the wonder of  mathematics and that started us on a path through school, university and into life beyond?

Unfortunately no, to a man, the mathematicians I have spoken to dream of teaching elementary school mathematics because their elementary math teachers were so uniformly bad. 

I was fortunate, I had many excellent teachers who had a lasting impact on my life. My children, who have at various times bee in Homeschool, private school or public schools have also had some truly great teachers. I look back at my high school, Math, French, Humanities and Language Arts teachers. They helped me to see the magic in their subject matter. I went on and graduated with a university degree in mathematics and I still dabble in French, History, Speech and writing. These teachers had a profound effect on my life and I am grateful.

Unfortunately there are few Mr. Hollands or Jaime Escalantes teaching math in our elementary schools. Middle school is often not much better. Few elementary teachers are math experts. Most are reading specialists yet they are the ones who provide the primary science and math education for almost all K-6 students. Very few schools have math specialists in K-6. Unfortunately, by the time students reach Middle School, they are already unprepared to learn any mathematics and pre-disposed to consider the subject geeky.

One of my wife's special gifts to our family is that she loves (and knows) children's books. She reads to the kids all the time, classics like Louisa May Alcott and various Caldecott Award Winners. She makes reading come alive for them and when they are old enough they can't keep their hands off of books. She has instilled in them a love of reading that will enrich them throughout their lives. I also know that there are teachers out there in public and private schools who do the same with their students,

Can you imagine an elementary teacher teaching reading and never having her class read books, or poems, or plays? The entire class would be on basic skills like phonics. Students would learn how to read but have no sense of awe at where reading could take them. Students would know how to read and form sentences, but never appreciate Horton Hears a Who or Stuart Little or even Where the Wild Things Are.

No one consciously teaches reading this way. But this is precisely how mathematics is usually taught in our nation's elementary schools. Students start by memorizing arithmetic facts and never really see how they can apply to anything in their lives.

The problem is that most elementary school teachers are simply not qualified to teach mathematics. I went to a university with a large college of education. To make some extra money, I tutored students who were taking Math for the Elementary Teacher. What I saw then was frightening. Many of these students could not do much more than basic arithmetic — even long division was difficult. When it came to anything remotely advances like number systems and bases or simple geometry — well, that's why they needed me.

These students were for the most part caring committed professionals. But they were being sent into the field unprepared for the task ahead of them. If we are serious about improving our children's math skills then we must demand competent mathematics instruction from the start.

I understand that not every child will become a mathematician but for those who could, the present system is a sure route to mediocrity — we can do better.

 

Abstinence under Fire

This week, Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat  released a report critical of Federally funded abstinence programs. The Waxman report lists 5 flaws with abstinence education programs.

1. Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives.
2. Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risk of Abortion.
3. Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science.
4. Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact.
5. Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors.

Of course the Waxman report is an attempt to paint the entire concept of abstinence education as flawed.  Many of the claims of the report are questionable. For example, the report states that, "Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception." The Waxman report makes some good points but it is an amalgam of individual flaws drawn from several programs presented to indict all abstinence based programs.

Sex education programs that are not abstinence-based present as fact the religious view that life does not begin at conception.

The real issue in American sex education is the flaws in the non abstinence-based programs still in use in the majority of American schools. The primary problem with non-Abstinence Curricula is that they begin with the premise that kids will have sex, therefore we must teach kids how to have sex responsibly.  Proponents say that abstinence is just not realistic.

Since this is the majority thinking in education today, the dis-oriented author would like to propose the following defeatist curricula for adoption by our nation's schools.

1. Fire prevention curricula that teaches kindergarten students how to responsibly play with matches. (Emphasis on playing in well-ventilated areas away form accellerants like gasoline.)
2. Drunk driving curricula that teaches students how to drive drunk responsibly. (Emphasis on not carrying passengers, and letting people know your routes  in advance should you drive off a bridge or into a ditch. This precaution will limit the uncertainty and make it easier  for your family to find and identify your remains.)
3. Bullying curriculum that teaches students how to be compassionate, safe bullies. (Emphasis on not over- bullying a single student who might go postal but to try bullying mores students less to minimize the impact.)
4. Cheating/Plagiarism curricula that teaches students how to cheat without getting caught. (Emphasis on how to use term paper sites on the web without directly copying to make it harder to prove plagiarism.)
5. Sexual harassment curricula that teaches students how to make subtly inappropriate comments. (Emphasis on double-entendre so that statements made appear innocuous if taken out of context.)

Obviously these programs are absurd. It would be irresponsible to send such mixed messages too our kids. Programs such as these would actually be harmful to our kids and likely lead to the kinds of behaviors thay are trying to curb.

Why is it that we cannot see the absurdity of Sex Education that is not abstinence based?

No Child Left Behind

George W. Bush wants to be remembered as the Education President. In his first term, President Bush reached across the aisle to work with Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts to pass the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is designed to bring about improvements in elementary and secondary education by introducing a level of  accountability into the funding process. Even though NCLB was an olive branch offered to congressional Democrats, President Bush has received tremendous criticism for the measure from the left.

The National Education Association (NEA) says that : The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (the latest revision of ESEA) presents real obstacles to helping students and strengthening public schools because it focuses on: punishments rather than assistance mandates rather than support for effective programs privatization rather than teacher-led, family-oriented solutions

Typically, I support anything, the NEA vehemently opposes but not in the case.

I am a Republican, I supported George W. Bush — but in this case, I am with the NEA.

I am with the NEA in opposition to No Child Left Behind, but for quite different reasons. The U.S. Department of Education website has an FAQ on NCLB. Items 1 and 8 of the FAQ summarize my objections to NCLB rather nicely.

1. The U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states.   . . . 8. There are no federal education "mandates." Every federal education law is conditioned on a state's decision to accept federal program funds.

The FAQ is correct, education is not enumerated as a responsibility of the Federal Government. It is in fact a state responsibility. The idea of an Education President is a Constitutional oxymoron. Not because President Bush is doing anything wrong in regards to education, rather because the Federal Government has no business meddling in education in the first place.

There was a time when the conservative position was to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. On the stump against President Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan referred to the U.S. Department of education as President Carter's new bureaucratic boondoggle. Well, at least it is a bi-partisan boondoggle, because rather than eliminate or even shrink  the Department of Education, President Bush has grown it.

The FAQ number 8 is a typical Washington lie — worse, many people fall for it. NCLB may not be a mandate, but the Federal Government already has money taken from the states and the states must play along to get any of it back.

I guess it is half true, federal education funding is not part of a mandate, it is a protection racket.  What is a protection racket? Consider an example.

You own a small cafe. A gangster comes by and offers to protect you (for a price) from the recent rash of vandalism and robbery in the neighborhood. You know full well that the gangster is behind the crime wave. Even so, you pay up because  you have no choice.

The US Department of Education is like organized crime. They take your money through taxes and then require you to play along and comply with their rules before they will return it to you (minus the expense of running the bureaucracy.

As to the substance of NCLB. I like the idea of punishing schools for failure, and privatization where necessary.

I just don't like Uncle Sam doing what the Constitution says should be done in the statehouse.

Perverts Have Rights Too

Imagine my surprise when I read, in my dis-oriented state, that New York City was creating a public High School for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender students. I was shocked. I pictured classmates and family members pointing out suspected gay students to authorities. I envisioned gay students being dragged off to a distant school with pink triangles sewn on their clothing. How could this happen in America?

My immediate response was that people of courage and conviction needed to rise up and oppose this injustice. If we stood quietly by what would follow? Gays at the back of the bus? Lesbian drinking fountains? Homosexual Jim Crow laws? This action seemed more fitting for Alabama in the 1950s than New York City in the twenty-first century. Had we forgotten that ‘separate but equal is not equal?’

The extent of my dis-orientation became clear when I read that rather than oppose the school district -- homosexual advocacy groups generally support the idea. In fact the funding for the school comes from a homosexual advocacy organization.

I guess don’t really understand political correctness. I thought that homosexual activists wanted equal rights. I though that they wanted to end discrimination and be treated just like everyone else. When my hometown added sexual orientation (is Orient-ation politically correct?) to its Civil Rights ordinance, activists assured the city that they only wanted equality and fairness.

Why is it that groups that have fought for so long against segregation and discrimination now want to segregate themselves? Why is it that those who have struggled for equality now demand special treatment?

This is not limited to homosexuals. Black proms and fraternities are becoming commonplace in our high schools and colleges. Meanwhile, organizations like the Citadel, Augusta National and the Boy Scouts have been under fire for their exclusionary policies.

In their quest to become part of the American mainstream, homosexual activists have made great strides in recent years. The introduction of likeable gay characters into comic strips and television shows has been a brilliant success. Public debates like the one we had in my home town over adding sexual orientation to the local civil rights ordinance have portrayed homosexuals as ordinary people who just want to live, work and raise families in the community like everybody else.

On the other hand just when they begin to make headway, issues like gay marriage and homosexual high schools appear on the national scene. When I told my daughter about the New York School District plan she said, “Great, a school for freaks.” There seems to be a backlash developing in this country against gay activism and President Bush’s condemnation of gay marriage (you may recall that President Clinton opposed gay marriage as well) is just the tip of the iceberg.

As for me despite what my political opponents say, I support equal rights for gays. What I oppose is special rights. A gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender American has exactly the same rights I do. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

After all, in this country, perverts have rights too.

In State Tuition for Illegal Aliens

Imagine my shock last year when I read that a state university in my home state was planning on offering in state tuition to illegal immigrants. At first I though it was a mis-print but it was ture. In fact of the three state universities in Iowa, only one does not have some plan in-place to offer resident tuition rates to illegal aliens.

Iowa is not alone, while I was unable to come up with an exact number — several other states offer resident tuition to illegal aliens. [Yes, the dis-oriented author's use of the politically incorrect term is deliberate.]

The rationale is that the children of illegal aliens who grow up in this country have a greater chance of being successful and not being a burden to the taxpayer. Many of these illegals have been in this country for years and have attended our schools.

The problem is that these students are here illegally. Even if they did not make the choice — their parents did. It is absurd that we provide any but the most basic humanitarian services to illegal aliens. But to provide special privileges based on their illegal status, breeds contempt for the law.

I have friends who have come to the United States legally on student visas and attended university. Some of them waited years until they receives a visa so they could come. When they came they had to pay non-residetn tuition just like my children if they attend school outside of Iowa. What message do we send to those who obey the law if we reward those who do not.

Not only are such benefits unfair to law abiding citizens and visitors — they are illegal. Title 8 section 1623 of the United States Code reads:

Not withstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

While section 1623 is simple, clear and fair — it does not go far enough. The law is supposed to guarantee that illegal aliens receive no special privileges. It should deny all educational privileges to illegal aliens. In order to viloate section 1623, many states are simply not asking students for their immigration status.

Those who support such benefits for illegals say that it is the compassionate thing to do. The cost is minimal and it is spread across the entire society so no one is too burdened. Unfortunately they ignore an important side effect of special treatment for illegals. Special treatment for illegals has created a backlash against legal immigrants.

Hypothetically, if one of my children wants to attend the University of Illinois, I should encourage them to say they are in the country illegally — think of all the monney I'll save.