Perry to Texas Education: “Drop dead, but not as fast as before”

July 10, 2009

Texas Gov. Rick Perry named Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas, to chair the State Board of Education.

Texas senators rejected Perry’s earlier nomination of Don McLeroy, R-Beaumont, due to McLeroy’s divisive tactics on board issues.  The chair must come from one of the board’s 15 elected members.

Perry was thought to favor a radical conservative to push the anti-education wishes of hard-core Republicans in Texas, whose vote Perry hopes to have in a tough fight for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2010.  U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will try to oust Perry for the party’s nomination.  Some feared Perry would nominate Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, who is even more radical than McLeroy.

In contrast, Lowe has been a relatively reliable vote against Texas teachers and science curricula, but she is not known to be as polarizing as McLeroy.  She has compromised on some issues, voting with educators and students.

Perry’s turning to Lowe indicates his disregard of education as an issue, and his writing off of the vote of Texas teachers and parents of students.  Perry could have named an experienced administrator and peace maker who could push the board to do its legally-mandated work on time, by nominating Bob Craig, R-Lubbock.  Perry’s turning to Lowe instead indicates that a working board is not among his priorities.

Lowe’s appointment to the chair probably is not so bad as a Dunbar appointment would have been.  But unless Ms. Lowe makes serious efforts to push for journeyman policy-making from board members, avoiding intentional controversies and simply resolving controversial issues that cannot be avoided, the SBOE will contined to be little more than political theatre in Austin, except when it actually rules on curricula and textbook issues.

Few expect the board to be a fountain of wisdom, or an example of education excellence over the next two years.

Perry’s action becomes not so bad as the potential slap in the face to Texas education that he might have delivered.  It’s the slap without a windup.  Texas students deserved a kiss instead.

Lowe will serve at least until the State Senate can act to approve or disapprove the nomination; the legislature will meet next in January 2011.  Lowe can serve for 17 months before the legislature meets.

Information:

Pre-nomination information:

Also at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:


David Barton: Mediocre scientists who are Christian, good; great scientists, bad

July 9, 2009

I’m reviewing the reviews of Texas social studies curricula offered by the six people appointed by the Texas State Board of Education.  David Barton, a harsh partisan politician, religious bigot, pseudo-historian and questionable pedagogue, offers up this whopper, about fifth grade standards.:

In Grade 5 (b)(24)(A), there are certainly many more notable scientists than Carl Sagan – such as Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse, etc.

Say what?  “More notable scientists than Carl Sagan . . . ?”  What is this about?

It’s about David Barton’s unholy bias against science, and in particular, good and great scientists like Carl Sagan who professed atheism, or any faith other than David Barton’s anti-science brand of fundamentalism.

David Barton doesn’t want any Texas child to grow up to be a great astronomer like Carl Sagan, if there is any chance that child will also be atheist, like Carl Sagan.  Given a choice between great science from an atheist, or mediocre science from a fundamentalist Christian, Barton chooses mediocrity.

Currently the fifth grade standards for social studies require students to appreciate the contributions of scientists.  Here is the standard Barton complains about:

(24) Science, technology, and society. The student understands the impact of science and technology on life in the United States. The student is expected to:

(A) describe the contributions of famous inventors and scientists such as Neil Armstrong, John J. Audubon, Benjamin Banneker, Clarence Birdseye, George Washington Carver, Thomas Edison, and Carl Sagan;
(B) identify how scientific discoveries and technological innovations such as the transcontinental railroad, the discovery of oil, and the rapid growth of technology industries have advanced the economic development of the United States;
(C) explain how scientific discoveries and technological innovations in the fields of medicine, communication, and transportation have benefited individuals and society in the United States;
(D) analyze environmental changes brought about by scientific discoveries and technological innovations such as air conditioning and fertilizers; and
(E) predict how future scientific discoveries and technological innovations could affect life in the United States.

Why doesn’t Barton like Carl Sagan?  In addition to Sagan’s being a great astronomer, he was a grand populizer of science, especially with his series for PBS, Cosmos.

But offensive to Barton was Sagain’s atheism.  Sagan wasn’t militant about it, but he did honestly answer people who asked that he found no evidence for the efficacy or truth of religion, nor for the existence of supernatural gods.

More than that, Sagan defended evolution theory.  Plus, he was Jewish.

Any one of those items might earn the David Barton Stamp of Snooty-nosed Disapproval, but together, they are about fatal.

Do the scientists Barton suggests in Sagan’s stead measure up? Barton named four:

Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse

In the category of “Sagan Caliber,” only von Braun might stake a claim.  Wernher von Braun, you may recall, was the guy who ran the Nazi’s rocketry program.  After the war, it was considered a coup that the U.S. snagged him to work, first for the Air Force, and then for NASA.  Excuse me for worrying, but I wonder whether Barton likes von Braun for his rocketry, for his accommodation of anti-evolution views, or for his Nazi-supporting roots.  (No, I don’t trust Barton as far as I can hurl the Texas Republican Party Platform, which bore Barton’s fould stamp while he was vice chair of the group.)

So, apart from the fact that von Braun was largely an engineer, and Sagan was a brilliant astronomer with major contributions to our understanding of the cosmos, what about the chops of the other four people?  Why would Barton suggest lesser knowns and unknowns?

Matthew Maury once headed the U.S. Naval Observatory, in the 19th century.  He was famous for studying ocean currents, piggy-backing on the work of Ben Franklin and others.  Do a Google search, though, and you’ll begin to undrstand:  Maury is a favorite of creationists, a scientist who claimed to subjugate his science to the Bible.  Maury claimed his work on ocean currents was inspired at least in part by a verse in Psalms 8 which referred to “paths in the sea.”  Maury is not of the stature or achievement of Sagan, but Maury is politically correct to Barton.

Joseph Henry is too ignored, the first head of the Smithsonian Institution. Henry made his mark in research on magnetism and electricity.  But it’s not Henry’s science Barton recognizes.  Henry, as a largely unknown scientist today, is a mainstay of creationists’ list of scientists who made contributions to science despite their being creationists.  What?  Oh, this is inside baseball in the war to keep evolution in science texts.  In response to the (accurate) claim that creationists have not contributed anything of scientific value to biology since about William Paley in 1802, Barton and his fellow creationists will trot out a lengthy list of scientists who were at least nominally Christian, and claim that they were creationists, and that they made contributions to science.  The list misses the point that Henry, to pick one example, didn’t work in biology nor make a contribution to biology, nor is there much evidence that Henry was a creationist in the modern sense of denying science.  Henry is obscure enough that Barton can claim he was politically correct, to Barton’s taste, to be studied by school children without challenging Barton’s creationist ideas.

Maria Mitchell was an American astronomer, the second woman to discover a comet. While she was a Unitarian and a campaigner for women’s rights, or more accurately, because of that, I can’t figure how she passes muster as politically correct to David Barton.  Surely she deserves to be studied more in American history than she is — perhaps with field trips to the Maria Mitchell House National Historic LandmarkIt may be that Barton has mistaken Mitchell for another creationist scientist. While Mitchell’s life deseves more attention — her name would be an excellent addition to the list of woman scientists Texas children should study — she is not of the stature of Sagan.

David Rittenhouse, a surveyor and astronomer, and the first head of the U.S. Mint, is similarly confusing as part of Barton’s list.  Rittenhouse deserves more study, for his role in extending the Mason-Dixon line, if nothing else, but it is difficult to make a case that his contributions to science approach those of Carl Sagan.  Why is Rittenhouse listed by Barton?  If nothing else, it shows the level of contempt Barton holds for Sagan as “just another scientist.”  Barton urges the study of other scientists, any other scientists, rather than study of Sagan.

Barton just doesn’t like Sagan.  Why?  Other religionists give us the common dominionist or radical religionist view of Sagan:

Just what is the Secular Humanist worldview? First and foremost Secular Humanists are naturalists. A naturalist believes that nature is all that exists. “The Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be.” This was the late Carl Sagan’s opening line on the television series “Cosmos.” Sagan was a noted astronomer and a proud secular humanist. Sagan maintained that the God of the Bible was nonexistent. (Imagine Sagan’s astonishment when he came face to face with his Maker.)

Sagan’s science, in Barton’s view, doesn’t leave enough room for Barton’s religion.  Sagan was outspoken about his opposition to superstition.  Sagan urged reason and the active use of his “Baloney-Detection Kit.” One of Sagan’s later popular books was titled Demon-haunted World:  Science as a candle in the dark.  Sagan argued for the use of reason and science to learn about our world, to use to build a framework for solving the world’s problems.

Barton prefers the dark to any light shed by Sagan, it appears.

More resources on the State Board of Education review of social studies curricula



Using Twitter in the classroom, for coursework

June 27, 2009

Older son Kenny nears graduation there, but we still get the newsletters to parents bragging on the school, and there is much to brag about.  The Good Folks at the University of Texas at Dallas asked us to share this story.  It’s right up the alley of a blog that worries about education, so share it I will.

After all, when was the last time you heard a teacher raving about students using their cell phones and Twitter during class? (Yes, I’m about three weeks behind the curve on this.)

Here’s the story from the press office at UTD:

ATEC Student’s Twitter Video Makes Waves

Project Documents History Prof’s Use of Popular Service as a Teaching Tool

June 11, 2009

An Arts and Technology student’s video account of a professor’s classroom experiment with Twitter is making waves on the World Wide Web, capturing thousands of viewers on YouTube and prompting an article in U.S. News & World Report.

UT Dallas graduate student Kim Smith’s video, “The Twitter Experiment,” shows how Dr. Monica Rankin, assistant professor of history in the School of Arts and Humanities, uses Twitter to engage her 90-student history class in discussion.  The communication application helps overcome the logistical issues involved in having scores of students interact in a short time span and encourages shy students to participate in the course.

“The video is a living example of what my Content Creation and Collaboration course with Dan Langendorf was all about: using emerging media technologies as a tool for education, collaboration with other fields, and documenting the experience for everyone to have access to,” said Smith.

Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that lets users send and read each others’ updates, known as tweets, in short posts of 140 characters or less.   The Twitter video was a course project for Smith’s digital video class.

The video, which took roughly 20 hours to record and edit, was shot during two class periods, one at the beginning of the semester and one at the end. Classmate Joe Chuang helped with the video and editing.

The collaboration of Smith and Rankin began when Smith documented a class trip to Guanajuato, Mexico, in 2008. They kept in touch via Facebook, and developed the idea of using Twitter in the classroom at the beginning of the Spring 2009 semester.

Smith worked out details on Twitter with Emerging Media and Communication (EMAC) faculty members Dr. Dave Parry and Dean Terry, who referred her to individuals who had done similar experiments.  To get students comfortable with using Twitter in a classroom setting, Smith created a simple how-to video and attended class to help Rankin introduce the idea to her students.

The video was first released on Facebook; Terry and Parry both tweeted about it on Twitter and it went global within 48 hours.  New-media icon Howard Rheingold tweeted about it, which helped it further circulate in the “Twitterverse.”

“I have gotten several direct messages from people saying that they were more ‘traditional’ and would not have considered using the social networking and micro-blogging tools in this way, but opened their minds after seeing the video,” said Smith.

A few weeks later Smith posted the video on YouTube, and an entirely different wave of viewers picked up on it.  On Monday, June 1, “The Twitter Experiment” registered 500 views in a few hours. Read Write Web and other popular blogs had picked up the video, causing views to skyrocket.

“I love my classes and experience at UT Dallas and want to master how to use what I learn in EMAC to help professors like Dr. Rankin, who are willing to consider new technologies intelligently and experiment with what they offer,” said Smith.


Media Contact: Karah Hosek, UT Dallas, 972-883-4329, karah.hosek@utdallas.edu
or the Office of Media Relations, UT Dallas, 972-883-2155, newscenter@utdallas.edu

UTD, where the football team is still undefeated.  Seriously, have you thought about using twitter in class, for coursework?  Please tell us the story in comments.

Meanwhile, I’m wondering just how I could make this work, in a district where cell phone use by students is against the rules (ha!), and where students are discouraged from using laptops in class.  In Irving ISD, where every high school kid gets a laptop, this could offer some great possibilities (anybody from Irving reading this; anybody try it yet?).  I’ll have to check to see if our network can handle such traffic, and I’ll have to get an account on Twitter; we have 87 minute class blocks, and smaller classes, but it’s tougher to get kids to discuss in high school.

With the layoffs in Dallas ISD, support for new technology tricks in classrooms is essentially non-existent.  Can I do this as a guerrilla teaching project and make it work before I get caught?

I may have to get some of these people at UTD on the phone.  If you’ve already overcome these problems, put that in comments, too, please.


Rick Perry’s education dilemma

June 25, 2009

Betsy Oney teaches in Arlington, Texas.  She’s a frontline soldier in the fight to educate our kids.

She also reads the newspapers and pays attention to what is going on at the highest levels in Texas government.  From her view, she describes better than anyone else I’ve seen, the problem facing Texas Gov. Rick Perry right now, after the Texas State Senate rejected Perry’s nominee to head the State Board of Education, Don McLeroy.

Betsy’s views appeared as an opposite-editorial piece in the Fort Worth Star Telegram on June 7, 2009:

Texas governor in a dilemma over education board pick

By BETSY ONEY
Special to the Star-Telegram

Gov. Rick Perry is in something of a Catch-22.

It started two years ago when he appointed dentist Don McLeroy to chair the State Board of Education. McLeroy is described by his many supporters as a “good and decent man,” and of that we can be sure.

McLeroy’s appointment came after the 80th Legislature adjourned, so he had to be confirmed during this year’s session. The confirmation failed in the Senate.

McLeroy’s supporters blame that on the fact that he’s a Christian. Records show that this Senate, and the House Public Education Committee in a July 16 hearing, were concerned not that he’s Christian but that McLeroy politicized Texas children’s education and led the board and the Texas education system into the spotlight. And what Texans and Americans saw in that light was a fairly grotesque parade of a few people — a majority faction of the board led by McLeroy — who listened to ideology instead of experts and were intent on imposing an antiquated education system on Texas children.

From that same elected board, Perry now must decide on a new chairman who, like McLeroy, will serve without scrutiny until the next legislative session, in 2011.

Perry’s decision is his Catch-22.

He probably won’t consider a Democrat. That leaves nine Republican possibilities. Seven are the radical members responsible for politicizing children’s education. They voted in lock step on a range of issues that individually and collectively have been widely seen by educators and lawyers as anything from illegal to unconstitutional to damaging children. Nominating from that pool might yield a different management style than McLeroy offered, but the ideology, intent and backward direction would remain the same.

The two remaining Republicans are conservative, but not extremists. Both District 11’s Pat Hardy of Fort Worth and District 15’s Bob Craig of Lubbock are well-qualified and would lead Texas public education in the right direction. In contrast to the radical members, they would be responsive to the changing educational needs that the future demands as well as to the rich diversity of children in our population.

Although Hardy has been mentioned as a nominee by senators, she’s recommending Craig.

Craig, an attorney, is a logical choice. He’s served on the board since 2002 and before that served on the Lubbock school board for 14 years. Craig is a “good and decent man,” but in contrast to McLeroy, his voting record and conciliatory demeanor show him to be a rational, uniting public education supporter. He listens to educators and experts. He respects the opinions of others. He votes in the interest of all children.

It’s clear that Perry could not make a better choice than Bob Craig. The Catch-22 is that by appointing a nonextremist, Perry risks losing support from his biggest donors, the religious right.

These donors see benefit in turning public education into religious education at taxpayer expense. They see benefit in keeping critical thinking out of the classroom. Their money is essential in his campaign against Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison in the next gubernatorial primary election.

If Perry appoints from the pool of radical rights, the voting public will be alerted that he’s sacrificing our children’s education and Texas’ future for his own political interests. So he’ll lose votes.

Money and ideology vs. public’s interest and, ultimately, its confidence. What a dilemma! Stay tuned.

Betsy Oney of Fort Worth holds a master of education degree and is a master reading teacher (and English-as-a-second-language teacher) in the Arlington school district.
Can you tell Ms. Oney is literate?  She tosses out “Catch-22” expecting us to know that that means!  She has high expectations for her audience.
Oney’s discipline in Texas schools is one of those insulted by new standards brought down from some mountain by the Texas SBOE in the past year, ignoring the work of Ms. Oney’s colleagues and professionals in her field.
Tip of the old scrub brush to Robert Luhn via Glenn Branch.

Heads up on student loans

June 20, 2009

Short note from Di Mortui Sunt:

Got student loans?  Did you know that the Federal government is changing the rules on the direct loans they give to students?  The two big changes are debt forgiveness, for those who meet certain guidelines, and new income based repayment plans.  If you’re about to get loans, you might want to wait til after July 10, when the new rules go into effect as the interest rate will be dropping and the size of the Pell Grant will increase.  Overview here and the official site here.

Official information from the U.S. Department of Education here.  You may want to check with the financial aid office at your college, too.  Gather ye lots of information while the gathering is good.


46 states agree to work for common education standards — Texas left out

June 17, 2009

(This issue has moved a bit since I first drafted this post — watch for updates.)

Ain’t it the way?

46 of the 50 states agreed to work for common education standards through a project of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  Texas is one of four states not agreeing.  News comes from a report in the venerable Education Week (and to me directly via e-mail from Steve Schafersman at Texas Citizens for Science).

National standards for education are prohibited in the U.S. by law and tradition.  Education standards traditionally have been set by each of the more than 15,000 local school districts.  After the 1957 Sputnik education cleanup, and after the 1983 report of the Excellence in Education Commission, the nation has seen a drive to get at least state-wide standards, though a jealous regard for federalism still prevents national standards.

Almost all other industrialized nations have a set of national standards set by the national government, against which progress may be measured.  All the industrialized nations who score higher than U.S. students in international education comparisons, have standards mandated by a national group.

So if it’s an internationally recognized way of improving education, as part of their continuing war on education, and their war on science and evolution theory, the Texas State Board of Education takes the Neanderthal stance, avoiding cooperation with the 92% of the states working to improve American education.

You couldn’t make up villains like this.

Article below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

In comedy, truth, wisdom, and education

June 13, 2009

Remember Jonathan Miller and “The Body in Question?

Dick Cavett remembers, discusses the now-75-years-old man.  Plus, delightfully, Cavett has video at his blog at the New York Times.

And here, Miller explains to Cavett just why creationism is in error, and why the study of Darwin and evolution is worthwhile.  You’ll have to go to the  Times site for the full program; here’s a few minutes’ of of Miller:


Crankery under the microscope: Denialism as pathology

June 10, 2009

You can see it in this little-noted blog.  Someone drops by to tell me I’m in error, that Rachel Carson really did plot with Pol Pot to murder millions, and then they also show up in the creationism threads defending the view that dinosaurs never existed, or in a tangentially-related note on climate change, perhaps arguing that ocean levels rising are either not a problem, or the product of Atlantis’s rising from the depths (and therefore no problem, since the denizens of that city had better science than we do and will be able to fix things, never mind their being dead for 5,000 years).  [That last description is mostly fictional – mostly.]

What is it that makes one person deny reality on so many different fronts?

Mark Hoofnagle hit the research journals, listing results at denialism blog, demonstrating that crankery can be studied.  This raises in my mind the interesting little question of whether such crankery is a pathology, and perhaps treatable or curable.

Our recent discussions of HIV/AIDS denial and in particular Seth Kalichman’s book “Denying AIDS” has got me thinking more about the psychology of those who are susceptible to pseudoscientific belief. It’s an interesting topic, and Kalichman studies it briefly in his book mentioning the “suspicious minds”:

At its very core, denialism is deeply embedded in a sense of mistrust. Most obviously, we see suspicion in denialist conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories grow out of suspicions about corruptions in government, industry, science, and medicine, all working together in some grand sinister plot. Psychologically, suspicion is the central feature of paranoid personality, and it is not overreaching to say that some denialists demonstrate this extreme. Suspicious thinking can be understood as a filter through which the world is interpreted, where attention is driven towards those ideas and isolated anecdotes that confirm one’s preconceived notions of wrong doing. Suspicious thinkers are predisposed to see themselves as special or to hold some special knowledge. Psychotherapist David Shpairo in his classic book Neurotic Styles describes the suspicious thinker. Just as wee see in denialism, suspiciousness is not easily penetrated by facts or evidence that counter individuals’ preconceived worldview. Just as Shapiro describes in the suspicious personality, the denialist selectively attends to information that bolsters his or her own beliefs. Denialists exhibit suspicious thinking when they manipulate objective reality to fit within their beliefs. It is true that all people are prone to fit the world into their sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality and does so with an uncommon rigidity. The parallel between the suspicious personality style and denialism is really quite compelling.

Go read it at denialism.

Denialism may be a little greater problem than is generally acknowledged, in my opinion.  When it infects policy makers it causes legislative and executive crackups, like Oklahoma’s Sen. Tom Coburn, who held up the naming of the Rachel Carson Post Office for a year under the bizarre misconception that she played a role in spreading malaria (ditto for Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, who shared the view but was unable to stop the bill in the House), or like the Bush administration officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development who kept refusing to authorize spending for pesticides in Africa, claiming environmental groups would oppose them while the environmental groups were lobbying the agency to spend the money on those pesticides.

Former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki denied that HIV causes AIDS.  Mbeki’s refusal to act on the best science available may have led to as many as 350,000 deaths, some accounts say.  Ashley Montagu told the story of Adolf Hitler’s odd views of heritage being spread by blood transfusions — to avoid any possibility of his soldiers’ being turned Jewish by a blood transfusion, Hitler forbade the use of blood banks.  Tens of thousands of German soldiers died unnecessarily from lack of blood for transfusing during World War II.  Partisans and scientists still debate whether  and how much Ronald Reagan’s belief that AIDS was a syndrome caused by sin rather than a virus early in the AIDS crisis created a cascade of actions that still frustrates the development of a vaccination or cure.

Denialism in high school students is interesting, but most often a classroom problem.  When kids take great issue with the course material the class can get derailed.  Even when a teacher is able to keep the class on track, the denialist student may feel marginalized.  A colleague reported a student had informed that historians now concur that George Washington was African-American.  She could not be dissuaded from the view.  I had a student who insisted well into the second semester than Adolf Hitler was a great leader, smart and humanitarian, framed for war crimes of the British and Americans.  Unfortunately, I could not put him in contact with the earlier student who believed Hitler had been framed by the Soviet Union, and that the Americans and British were victims of the cruel hoax.

As the nominal head of public relations in the old (Pleistocene?) office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, my crew and I got the brunt of denialists and crazies.  We had one woman in Salt Lake City, “Mrs. B,” who regularly called the Salt Lake office to complain about Hatch’s actions and what she assumed his beliefs must be.  For a while she complained that, as someone born outside of Utah, he could never appreciate the views of the Latter-day Saints in Utah.  When at last we persuaded her that he was also a Mormon, she began complaining that he ignored Utah’s non-Mormon population.  Her ability to switch sides in an argument so as always to remain on the opposite side of Sen. Hatch got noticed.

Near the end of a summer session just before the recess the Senate had a lot of late-night meetings.  The news of these sessions did not always make the morning papers.  On one issue of some Utah import, Hatch had suggested he would probably vote one way, because of some issue of agency direction that had him concerned.  In the end the agency agreed to amendments that assuaged all of Hatch’s concerns and he was happy to support the bill (I forget what it was — the issue is absolutely irrelevant to the story).

I had caught a late-night flight to Salt Lake, and arrived at the SLC office early enough to catch our Utah problem solver Jack Martin explaining to Mrs. B that Hatch did indeed care about Utah . . .   Jack and I could carry on a conversation with only his occasional remarks to Mrs. B keeping her going, a scene out of a Cary Grant comedy, perhaps.  “Yes, Mrs. B . . .  No, Mrs. B  . . . I think I see your point.”  What he said was unimportant.  I could hear her rant on the telephone, while I was on the other side of the room.  I finally asked Jack what her issue was, and he explained it was the bill that Hatch had reveresed his position on.  She was complaining at great length about his original position.  I explained to Jack that an accommodation had been reached and that Hatch changed his vote in the final tally.

Jack smiled broadly as he handed me the phone.  “You tell her!”  It took a long time to get her to stop talking so I could explain who I was and that I had new information.  Finally she fell silent and I explained that she should be happy because Hatch had come around to her position.  There was a silence of a few more seconds, and she started in again:  “Hatch is an idiot!  Only a fool would vote that way.”  And she was off again on a rant against Hatch, eviscerating the views that she herself had held less than a  minute earlier.

The issue wasn’t important to her.  Hatch was wrong, whatever he did, even when he supported her views.

That’s denialism in full force, a raw, unmitigated power of nature.

Hoofnagle concludes at denialism:

So what do these studies mean for our understanding of cranks? Well, in addition to providing explanations for crank magnetism, and cognitive deficits we see daily in our comments from cranks, it suggests the possibility that crankery and denialism may be preventable by better explanation of statistics. Much of what we’re dealing with is likely the development of shoddy intellectual shortcuts, and teaching people to avoid these shortcuts might go a long way towards the development and fixation on absurd conspiracy theories or paranormal beliefs.

Wouldn’t you love to see that study replicated on readers of Watt’s Up With That?, Texas Darlin’ , Junk Science, or one of the antivaxxer blogs?

You may also want to read:


June 9, 1902: Woodrow Wilson elected president . . .

June 9, 2009

107 years ago today  Woodrow Wilson was unanimously elected president, of Princeton University in New Jersey, on June 9, 1902.

Wilson’s history is remarkable.  He is not the only university president ever to have been elected president of the United States — Dwight Eisenhower and Charles James A. Garfield also served in that capacity (any others?) — but his election to the Princeton post marked an unusual rise in an essentially non-political career that would lead Wilson to the White House through the New Jersey governor’s mansion.

Wilson’s thinking, writing and thinking about how to make colleges and universities more democratic, and therefore more useful as fountains of leadership for the nation, propelled him forward.  This makes him unusually American in the way he worked for national service, and so was called to higher service.

All details courtesy the Library of Congress’s American Memory “Today in History” feature:

  • “On June 9, 1902, Woodrow Wilson was unanimously elected president of Princeton University, a position he held until he resigned in 1910 to run for governor of New Jersey. As university president, Wilson exhibited both the idealistic integrity and the occasional lack of political acumen that marked his tenure as the twenty-eighth president of the United States (1913-21).”
  • “Wilson served on the faculties of Bryn Mawr College and Wesleyan University before joining the Princeton faculty as professor of jurisprudence and political economy in 1890. A popular teacher and respected scholar, Wilson delivered an oration at Princeton’s sesquicentennial celebration (1896) entitled ‘Princeton in the Nation’s Service.’ In this famous speech, he outlined his vision of the university in a democratic nation, calling on institutions of higher learning ‘to illuminate duty by every lesson that can be drawn out of the past.'”
  • “Wilson began a fund-raising campaign to bolster the university corporation. The curriculum guidelines that he developed during his tenure as president of Princeton proved among the most important innovations in the field of higher education. He instituted the now common system of core requirements followed by two years of concentration in a selected area. When he attempted to curtail the influence of the elitist “social clubs,” however, Wilson met with resistance from trustees and potential donors. He believed that the system was smothering the intellectual and moral life of the undergraduates. Opposition from wealthy and powerful alumni further convinced Wilson of the undesirability of exclusiveness and moved him towards a more populist position in his politics.”
  • While attending a recent Lincoln celebration I asked myself if Lincoln would have been as serviceable to the people of this country had he been a college man, and I was obliged to say to myself that he would not. The process to which the college man is subjected does not render him serviceable to the country as a whole. It is for this reason that I have dedicated every power in me to a democratic regeneration.
    The American college must become saturated in the same sympathies as the common people. The colleges of this country must be reconstructed from the top to the bottom. The American people will tolerate nothing that savors of exclusiveness.
    Woodrow Wilson, president of Princeton University, “Address to Alumni,” April 16, 1910.
Woodrow Wilson, circa 1913 (in the Oval Office?) - Library of Congress image

Woodrow Wilson, circa 1913 (in the Oval Office?) - Library of Congress image


Fixing education at the top

June 9, 2009

No, Harold Levy doesn’t get it all right.  He’s a former chancellor of schools in New York City, so even if he did manage to get most what he says right, there would be enough people on the other side of some issue to say he did not, that if I compliment him too effusively, someone will say I’m wrong.

Among the greater products of the United States of America — and Canada, let’s face it — is the grand array of nearly 4,000 colleges and universities that set the pace for education in the world.  Our greatest export is education, the idea that education almost by itself can solve many great and vexing issues, the idea that education is a great democratic institution, and the education systems themselves, the methods of education used no matter how little backed by research.

Higher education makes up the better part of what we get right.

In an opposite-editorial page piece in the New York Times today Levy proposes some significant but eminently doable changes in how we work education in high schools and colleges.  Maybe surprising to some, he has good things to say about the University of Phoenix and their $278 million advertising campaign, about high-pressure tactics to reduce truants, and about the GI Bill.


Alberta: Academic freedom, or shackles?

June 3, 2009

Alberta, Canada’s legislature passed a bill that allows parents to pull kids out of the classroom if evolution is taught, or almost anything else that the parents deem counter to their own religion.  It’s a passive-aggressive response to laws that require non-discrimination against sexual orientation.

Or does it really allow an opt-out for evolutionMaybe.  Who can tell?

Even Albertans agree they don’t want to be Arkansas:

‘All they’ve done is make Alberta look like Northumberland and sound like Arkansas.’— Brian Mason, Alberta NDP leader

Oy.  Canada has its own version of the Texas Lege.

Bill 44 represents a deep-seated resentment of education in the hearts of conservatives.  It strikes at the purpose of education, to make students aware of society and other people.  It suggests that some ideas are so dangerous they cannot be discussed, even to rebut.

Fears of parents and conservatives are real.  Often what they fear is not real, or not a problem, or maybe even part of the solution.  Can they come to understand that if they can’t even discuss the issues?

Resources:


Molina High School jumps

June 2, 2009

We’re closing out the year at Molina High School, and it’s busier than a blogger wants it to be.  I’m way behind on blogging.  Among notable things I’ve not written about:

  • Students at Molina made dramatic gains in scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).  In fact, our kids jumped, from “academically unacceptable” to “recognized,” according to preliminary indications (Texas Education Agency (TEA) will post official results later in the summer).  In any case the gains should be enough to get the school off of Texas Academic Death Row.  Way to go, students.
  • We graduated the seniors last Saturday.  Nice bunch of kids, really.  Now we just have a couple of days of finals for the non-graduates left.
  • Dallas ISD is working to cut the funding for magnet schools and learning centers.  Remember this kid? They want to cut his school. Why?  Some wag thinks that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires that no school spend more per pupil than any other school.  These magnets and learning centers were created originally to aid in desegregating Dallas schools.  Nasty board meeting last week.
  • Dallas ISD is working to get rid of teachers with a rating system no one can explain.  My 90%+ passing rate for students on the TAKS doesn’t count for squat.  What does count?  I have to keep my door unlocked, among other things.  No kidding.
  • Dallas ISD needs money.  So the district officials propose to charge PTAs for use of school buildings.

Perhaps fortunately, the State Lege died yesterday, at least in regular session.  Alas, they didn’t get all the state programs funded.  Special session is likely.  No man’s life, liberty or property, etc.

You couldn’t make this up if you were trying to write a humor column.

More soon, I hope.


Life is like the Brooklyn Bridge: David McCullough at the University of Utah

June 1, 2009

Because there have been public libraries everywhere for so long, free to all, does not mean they will therefore go on without our appreciation and support. There are, it may surprise you to know, more public libraries in America than there are McDonalds. But their infinite value should never be underestimated just because they are so familiar.

Nor does the fact that we have so long believed in education for all mean that quality public education will quite naturally continue without our constant attention, or that good teachers will just come along, because they always have. There is no more important work than that of our teachers, or more important people in our society. In Utah alone there are presently some 23,000 teachers, true builders.

Because we believe we must be, as John Adams insisted, a government of laws and not of men, does not mean we should ever take it for granted that everyone understands that bedrock premise and will thus make certain there’s no straying off in less acceptable directions.

David McCullough, author of great histories like Mornings on Horseback and 1776, delivered the key commencement address to graduates of the University of Utah this spring.

His comments from which the excerpt above was taken, ripped off completely from news center at Utah, below.

Historian David McCullough, photo by William B. McCullough

Historian David McCullough, photo by William B. McCullough

“President Young, members of the Board of Trustees, distinguished faculty, fellow honorees, friends of the University, proud parents, and you who graduate today, May 8, 2009.

I deeply appreciate the high tribute of an honorary degree and the singular privilege of addressing this spectacular gathering. What an important, joyous occasion it is with so many assembled of all ages, all walks of life, from all parts of the country and of the world, all here to celebrate hard-earned, worthy accomplishment in so many fields of learning. I thank you and congratulate you one and all.

* * *

In the long ago year of 1869, with the opening of the Suez Canal and the completion of the transcontinental railroad, just to the north from here at Promontory, Utah, the world became appreciably smaller — in theory. It was the theory that led the celebrated French author, Jules Verne, to postulate that as of 1869 one could go “Around the World in 80 Days.”

The population of the United States stood at what seemed an unimaginable high of 39,000,000. Salt Lake City, which 25 years before was not to be found on any map, had grown to a thriving community of 12,000.

And that same year, 1869, at New York, the eastern-most terminus of the transcontinental railroad, work began on what was to be the greatest bridge in America, indeed one of the most famous American achievements in history.

If it seems odd that I begin my remarks at that distant time and distant place, it is because I see the Brooklyn Bridge as emblematic of the call I wish to make to you of the graduating Class of 2009 to give serious thought to what you wish to accomplish in your turn in your time, and how you wish to be remembered by history.

And because the Brooklyn Bridge, a surpassing symbol of affirmation, rose up out of an era as infamous for wretched corruption and absurd extravagance as, alas, our own has become.

The Gilded Age, as Mark Twain called it, seemed the ultimate show of just how rotten things could get, the very antithesis of what the founding generation of Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson had in mind.

And yet — and yet — out of that time, let us be aware, came a truly noble work that still stands today more than a century later.

It was the moon shot of its time — a brilliant, unprecedented technical achievement — and more, a great work of art intended, yes, to fill a utilitarian need, but also to enhance and enlarge the way of life of the communities it served, and to give justifiable pride to those who did the work.

For millions of immigrants arriving at New York by sea, including a great many who were bound for Utah, it was the first man-made wonder they beheld in America, the New World, where anything was possible.

With its enormous towers of granite, then the tallest structures on the continent, and its use of steel cables, the Brooklyn Bridge combined the architecture of past and future. It was the start of the high rise city in America, but also in its way very like the ancient cathedrals of Europe, in that, rising above all else within sight, it was intended, as said, to stand as a testament to the aspirations of the civilization that built it.

So what will we build in the years ahead? What will you build, you of the new generation upon whom so many high hopes are riding?

How will history regard you in years to come – you who are part of this over-ripe, shadowed, uncertain time which has understandably given rise to so many grave forebodings about the future?

Will you help navigate the troubled waters? Will you rise above avarice and indifference and self-pity? Will you be a generation of builders, not more mere spectators who leave creativity and performance and responsibility to others?

Will you take what you have learned here as inspiration to still greater learning?

Will you make your lives count?

The easy answer is time will tell. The better answer, I think, is it’s up to you.

We are a diverse lot, we Americans, and we have a lot of work to do, and thus it has been from the beginning and therein is our great advantage.

There is wondrous strength in our variety and a clear, powerful sense of direction in the fact that the American ideal in which we believe has still to be reached.

We have always been a people of many peoples and the high ideals professed by the Founders, though never fully attainable, have remained our stars to steer by. We strive on to reach those ideals — full equality, as one glowing example — and the desire to strive, the combined faith in what we stand for as a self-governing people, is what has helped us in the right course most, if not all, of the time.

Had the American dream been handed to us all in tidy order, all done up with everything set to operate perfectly in perpetuity, we would hardly be the people we are.

And this same, very American story is mirrored in the story of the Brooklyn Bridge. The great work was conceived in the mind of the brilliant engineer John A. Roebling, its Founding Father. But numerous flaws and problems in his design had still to be resolved when he met an untimely death at the very start of the work. Thus it was left to his son to address those problems and build the great work of his father’s dream, just as it was left to still others in succeeding generations to solve still further problems unforeseen at the start — the advent of automobile traffic, for example — and maintain proper upkeep and repairs.

So it has been with our American way of life and so it will continue. There must be no deferred maintenance, no dispensing with the old verities of individual conduct, no dodging responsibilities, no leaving national policy entirely to those in power — not that is if the structure is to endure.

Just because certain basic, familiar elements have been part of our way of life for so long does not mean they can be taken for granted. They must never be taken for granted.

Because there have been public libraries everywhere for so long, free to all, does not mean they will therefore go on without our appreciation and support. There are, it may surprise you to know, more public libraries in America than there are McDonalds. But their infinite value should never be underestimated just because they are so familiar.

Nor does the fact that we have so long believed in education for all mean that quality public education will quite naturally continue without our constant attention, or that good teachers will just come along, because they always have. There is no more important work than that of our teachers, or more important people in our society. In Utah alone there are presently some 23,000 teachers, true builders.

Because we believe we must be, as John Adams insisted, a government of laws and not of men, does not mean we should ever take it for granted that everyone understands that bedrock premise and will thus make certain there’s no straying off in less acceptable directions.

Remember please, you who are to carry the torch in your turn, that indifference to the plain duties of citizenship can prove perilous. Remember that common sense is by no means common.

Harry Truman, a man of very great common sense, whose birthday is today, once observed wisely that the only new thing in the world is the history you don’t know.

Many of the new American citizens I have spoken to have expressed puzzlement that so many native-born Americans know so little of their own history. How interesting — and disconcerting — that the American history exam required for citizenship now is one many Americans born and raised here could not pass.

How appropriate that John A. Roebling, an immigrant, named his son Washington, and at the onset of the Civil War insisted that that son answer Lincoln’s call to serve.

In the fourteen years it took to build the Brooklyn Bridge, there were terrible setbacks — fires in the caissons below the river, failure of equipment, the discovery of gross political corruption — again as in the larger American story. Men suffered dreadfully from caisson disease, or the bends. Twenty or more were killed in accidents.

Washington Roebling, a gifted leader who never asked anyone to do what he himself would not do, suffered such agonies from the bends that he spent years directing operations from the window of his sickroom overlooking the work, while his courageous wife, Emily Warren Roebling, became his all-important second-in-command in a day when women were not supposed ever to assume such responsibility.

Such was the determination and character of so many who took part that the work went heroically forward. Thousands were involved in the effort before it was finished, including many hundreds of immigrant laborers, and yes, every race and nationality took part.

President Young has said that this university was built upon “the principles of hard work, dedication, and a stubborn will to succeed,” no matter the obstacles. That, too, is exactly the story of the Brooklyn Bridge.

The grand opening, and the greatest public celebration ever seen in New York until then, took place just this time of year, in May, 1883.

* * *

I am here today due in part to a set of circumstances that led to a friendship with the remarkable Larry Miller. Larry was a builder who loved his family, his church, his hometown, his work, and his country. He believed fervently in the transforming miracle of education, and in the last years of his life took a leading role in helping to improve the teaching of teachers. I thank my lucky stars that our paths crossed and we had the chance to work together. It is one of my great regrets that I never had the chance to take him on a walk over the Brooklyn Bridge. He loved history.

History can be a great source of inspiration. History, as a wise teacher said, is an inexhaustible storehouse of ideas.

History encourages sympathies and a sense of humor and serves as a ready antidote to the hubris of the present.

So read more history, you who are about to commence to the next part of the journey. Read all you can in all fields. Never stop reading and especially books that have stood the test of time.

And make it your practice to ask people about themselves and what they’ve learned from experience. Don’t ever forget that there isn’t a man or woman, no matter their appearance or station in life, who doesn’t know something, or how to do something, that you don’t.

Try not to make the mistake of equating ease or possessions with happiness. Find that in your work if possible. Bear in mind that hard work and joy are not mutually exclusive.

By all means set your sights high.

I believe that as difficult and unsettling as so many of our large problems are today, that we will, by working together and using our heads, succeed in resolving most if not all of them. I have long been and remain an optimist at heart.

Still, a great civilization must have more in mind than solving problems. A great civilization must be one that thinks and works creatively, that is inspired to express itself in creative accomplishment of enduring value.

“The shapes arise!” wrote Brooklyn’s own immortal poet Walt Whitman, celebrating the era of the Brooklyn Bridge. What will be the shapes you cause to rise?

Whatever you build — figuratively or literally — build it to last.

By almost any measure ours is a vastly changed time from that of 1869. The record setting trip around the world made by jet plane a few years ago was not 80 days but 67 hours, 1 minute, and 10 seconds. But the old human urge, the need to express the best that is in us goes on as always it has, thank heaven.

In closing I urge each and all of you to make it a point some time to walk over the Brooklyn Bridge. You will never forget it. Go with a friend, a fellow spirit, and on a beautiful day like this one. The view is spectacular, the breezes blow free, the bridge itself is a masterpiece.

And wherever you go in your travels to come, and I’m sure you will go far, before checking out of a hotel or motel, be sure to tip the maid.”


Texas Senate rejects creationist’s nomination

May 28, 2009

A victory in a war that should not be.

Texas Freedom Network carries the news (4:43 p.m. Central) that the Texas State Senate voted 19-11 in favor of Gov. Rick Perry’s nominee to head the State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, a wedge politician who represents the Beaumont area on the board of 15 commissioners.  Fortunately for Texas, the nomination needed 20 votes for approval.

Difficulty arises because there is not a candidate on the horizon from among the board’s members who probably has Perry’s favor and who is not a creationist, wedge politician.  Technically, Perry could reappoint McLeroy, some observers think, and he could occupy the seat until the next regular session of the Senate in two years.

It’s a story about a road that goes on forever and the bad politics never end.

Press release from TFN below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »


HippoCampus: Technology’s promise shows

May 28, 2009

Teachers, are you using HippoCampus?  (Tell us about it in comments if you are.)

Topics with lesson plans and great support material:

Algebra
Algebra (Spanish)
American Government
Biology
Calculus
Calculus (Spanish)
Environmental Science
Physics
Psychology
Religion
Statistics
USHistory

HippoCampus is a product of the Monterey Institute, a part of the University of California system.