And the beat goes on...

Must keep posting... must not let feeling stupid get in the way! I have these visions of writing my dissertation and misinterpreting something one of my subjects says - I mean, grossly misinterpreting - and having him or her withdraw from my study. At least then maybe I will have learned not to be intentionally mean.

In any case, here is the latest in the Listserv War! My posting:

First, I'd like to make the comment that [two of the other respondants] and I were calling for something that needs to happen before we can debate school vouchers or school choice or right-wing extremism or any hot topic, for that matter. For a true debate, in which various parties may disagree, but come together to listen to each other's arguments, a climate of respect must be established first. I am unwilling to share my views when I believe that an audience may attack me personally and prevent me from speaking further. Some of our classmates have been booed in class, told that their language was wrong, and had their speech thwarted in other ways. No one can feel free to speak unless they first know their voice will be listened to and respected. Then, let the disagreement and debate begin!


And I remind all parties involved (and those of you who have had class with me will probably roll your eyes) that the etymology of the word debate does go back to the Latin "to fight." ;) However, even in the House and Senate they follow parliamentary rules. Each is allowed his (or her, but not as often the case, right?) time to speak. Personal attacks, even mentioning another representative by name on the House floor, are considered errant from the established and respected order. Even Republicans thought Representative Jean Schmidt (R-OH) had gone too far when she named Jack Murtha by name on the House floor in an attack.

Second, in a classroom environment, our professors often set the tone and tenor of the debate. That many feel we cannot openly express our views in the classrooms suggests something about our leaders in those forums.

As for school vouchers, I can't say I know enough about them to engage in a debate. I do know that it will be an issue we as educators will need to learn more about, since business is coming our way, whether we like it or not. The recent gift by Warren Buffett to the Gates Foundation displays this, but the Business Roundtable and others also have shown interest in charter schools and sometimes vouchers. We all have our pet issues, and this isn't one of mine, but I'd be willing to learn more about it and discuss in order to form a more concrete opinion.

Oh, and one more thing – yes, it is logical advice for someone to research a job before they take it. As educated masters and PhD students, however, I think we all know this. If your intent is to start a debate over school vouchers, then please be honest about your goals. We're all colleagues here, and I'm all for engaging each other in debate; but the more transparent we are about our agendas and our goals, the more comfortable others can be opening ourselves up.

War of Words

So the listserv war has begun. As usual, the participants seem to be talking past each other rather than to one another, but I will try to summarize some of the debate.

1st email: An internship posting by someone who works in the grad program office, highlighting an internship with the "Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options" (Hispanic CREO), a group that supports school vouchers.

2nd email:
FYI to All Concerned.

HCREO is a far-right wing organization whose mission is to advocate vouchers and de-fund public education. I would urge anyone considering an internship there to check out the group thoroughly to make sure you can stomach their ideology.

3rd email:

Everyone,

It is very unusual that I respond to the listserve, but I feel the need to respond in this case. I fear that our conservative classmates, who are in the minority in the college from my experience, will further keep their views and perspectives to themselves if we do not create a culture where everyone's perspective is valued. Though I appreciate [the above] email about gaining information about an organization for person-fit purposes, the inadvertent use of language (i.e. "stomach their ideology") may ostracize our classmates who identify themselves as conservative. I personally struggle with ways to address this issue especially
in the classroom. Thoughts?

Then a flurry of responses, one of which was mine:

I wrote a note to [the above author] personally, but realized that it might be a good idea to post to the whole community. I thanked [him] for raising this point. Diversity can also refer to diversity of opinion. Some of us do not choose to align with a particular political orientation and rather "try out" viewpoints in their writings and conversations in an attempt to find what best fits their personal orientation. While "trying on" these viewpoints, debate is useful and productive, but personal attacks and negative language are not.

I'd like to extend a big thank you to the individuals in this program who make classrooms feel like a safe place to explore issues fully. Voltaire may or may not have say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but the idea behind the statement is one we should all strive for. The ACLU, seen as a liberal organization, has even defended the right of extremist groups such as the KKK to protest in public. While they certainly do not condone the message, our Constitution protects their right to express it peacefully.

During most of our classes, we identify ourselves with our name, our career, and our research interests. Perhaps if we could also identify ourselves as open-minded by saying, "My personal political orientation is liberal/conservative/moderate

/independent, but I welcome debate and I will always listen to you and respect your opinion if you disagree with me" as part of our introduction. That way, those in the class who hold different beliefs or are unsure would know you as a safe person to whom they could express their thoughts. Kind of cheesy, maybe, but we all have a right to feel safe and respected among our peers.

Thanks for reading this.

The author of the initial email stating that Hispanic CREO has extremist right wing beliefs responded, stating:

My use of language was not inadvertent, it was intentional.

Yes, yes "conservatives" should be included in the conversation and made to feel welcomed and all that.

If you are someone who believes that public schools should not be adequetly funded and that allowing parents to use public money (vouchers) to send their kids to private religious schoolsis great, then by all means call HCREO and sign up. You
might also call the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) or the Alliance for School Choice - it doesn't really matter since they are all funded and run by the same crowd.

I'm not looking down on conservatives and I don't think people who agree with the right-wing anti-public education movement are immoral or evil. They are just wrong. If you want to be wrong too - HCREO has internships available.

[Inital author] and other - do you have an argument in support of the voucher movement's agenda, or is this just a chance to complain about how hard it is to be a conservative in the College?

Apparently all we do is complain about how hard it is to be conservative. Which, apparently, is different than "conservative." No, I kid. I don't mean to stoop to his level. When someone responded to this email stating that the emails about tolerance were attempting to establish an environment in which people could debate freely, K (the author of the last email), said that we should stop talking about language and tone and start debating. I think he missed the point. No one, certainly not the minority "conservative" (and please, people, you know I'm a moderate) voices, is going to open himself up to the blistering criticism K lambastes people on the listserv with on a regular basis. What point is there in debating an issue with someone who already thinks you are wrong for not agreeing with him?

Besides that, I'm unsure of how I feel about vouchers. I need to do more research. And I'm certainly not going to post my research on the listserv to unsympathetic ears. I know I have favorable opinions of some alternative school choice, due to my own positive high school experience in a magnet school. However, I'm unwilling to preach when I myself don't hold a strong opinion. I'm in a graduate program to learn, to listen, and to form my opinions based on readings, research, and what I discover about my own values and ethics. Not just to espouse the opinions of the status quo in our department.

Listserv Rumblings

There may be a war brewing on the listserv distributed to the community of my PhD program revolving around liberal vs. "conservative" (meaning, not extreme left wing) views. I'll post it here if it's of any interest.

Girls who are boys who like boys to be girls...

Oh, wait, that would be a different post.

This is all over the place! Well, not so much. From Newsweek to the Today Show, educators have lamented the tragic decline of boys in our schools. They're seen as "faulty girls." (Well, aren't they?). They need to run around. They need more variety in activity. The presentation on "how we should teach boys" struck me as "how we should teach," regardless of gender.

According to a report from The Education Sector, entitled "The Truth about Boys and Girls" (I sense gender bias! They put boys first!), boys are making substantial gains; however, girls are making them faster. Lower-income and minority boys (and girls) are the ones who are falling behind in school. So something the popular media has portrayed as a gender difference is a socio-economic and race difference. Maybe we're just tired of talking about those.

When I read the full report, I will give you a full report! Because I care.

"The Truth about Boys and Girls." (Mead, S. 2006. The Education Sector. Washington, DC)

Virginian-Pilot Letter to the Editor

I'm on this new kick of writing letters to the editor. Suggested, quite intelligently, by A.! Thanks!

As evidenced by the recent article, “For some immigrants, English is a lifelong challenge” (June 19^th, 2006), non-native English speakers in the U.S. fully recognize the value of learning our language. What good, then, does designating English as our “common, unifying” do us? Why make English the “official” language, when even immigrants recognize its importance?

Just as it is hard for immigrants to learn English, it is equally difficult for Americans to learn Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese. Why don’t we capitalize on the knowledge of the native speakers of these and other languages in the U.S. to fight the war on terror intelligently? English First laws serve only to undermine bilingualism in our country, and put our ability to gather intelligence and keep our nation secure at risk.

In reference to: "For some immigrants, English is a lifelong challenge." (Virginian-Pilot, June 19th, 2006)

Why You Failed High School French, Part II

More evidence that it is difficult for adults to learn a "foreign" language (only in this case, the "foreign" language is most of our native tounge, English).

"Learning English: Not as easy as it sounds" (Boston Globe, June 18th, 2006)

"For Some Immigrants, English is a Lifelong Challenge" (The Virginian-Pilot, June 19th, 2006)

Even Iraqi Students Do Better in Math!

I'm really into sarcastic titles today. In any case, I thought I could demonstrate to you how diverse I am becoming in my resources, so I clicked on an article in the International Herald Tribune on Iraqi schools. (I keep wanting to write "Iraqui"). In any case, it turns out their article came from the New York Times. -Sigh-

Imagine attending school in a country where bomb attacks, IEDs, and house-to-house searches happen on a daily basis. And imagine to going to schools that are in a state of disrepair (no, not in the Bronx - although they are there too!), and where "Only 20 percent of schools in central and southern Iraq had working toilets, the ministry report said. A quarter had trash bins." (NYT, June 26th, 2006)

And yet these kids come, and their parents are involved in making them attend school, even when exhausted and grief-stricken by the ravages of war. I can't imagine it must be easy to teach these children, but thank you for heroic teachers! If American children attended school in these sort of circumstances, they would be inundated with grief counselors. For Iraqi children and their families, perhaps the stability and hope of attending school every day is enough. I find it both sad and inspiring. Think of those teachers going to work tomorrow while you're on your commute - they need all the good thoughts they can get.

"Amid Iraqi Chaos, Schools Fill After Long Decline" (NYT, June 26th, 2006)

In an Era of Megachurches, Megamalls, and Megameals, Megaphilanthropy!

I assume you have already heard about Warren Buffet giving about 85% of his fortune to the Gates Foundation. I mean, I heard about it on the Today Show, so it's really all over the news. That was between the segments on summer camp and why you should eat brightly colored foods (like Green Slurpees?), hosted, quite humorously, by David Gregory, NBC White House correspondent. Bet he gets make fun of in the White House press pool.

In any case, Buffett is giving $30 billion to the Gates Foundation. According to the Wall Street Journal ("Warren Buffet Gives $30 Billion to Gates Foundation," June 26th, 2006, Page B1)

The agreement has the potential to mark the beginning of a new era of megafoundations. Mr. Buffett's gift to Mr. Gates is "revolutionary," says Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, a watchdog group based in Chicago. "Rather than competing, they are going to pool their resources for common causes. They are going to affect millions of lives."

Mr. Borochoff said that many charities might even redirect their missions to causes that the Gates Foundation supports -- which now include tackling malaria and AIDS in Africa and raising U.S. high school graduation rates. But he warned the enlarged Gates Foundation will need to practice care in fragile places, making sure to stimulate self-sufficiency rather than fostering dependence or the kind of corruption that often follows aid.

The Wall Street Journal adds, "While his decision to give to charity during his lifetime is new, Mr. Buffett's decision against bequeathing most of his wealth to his children isn't. He has long argued that children of wealthy parents can be sapped of motivation and spoiled if they inherit all of their family's riches." Bet his kids are thrilled.

This makes the recent Business Week coverage of the Gates Foundation all the more interesting. How will the Gates Foundation alter their strategy to prevent failures like the Manual school in Denver? Will they stick with small schools, and will they venture into new territory? What kind of research will they use to make these decisions?

According to the New York Times, Bill and Melinda Gates gave Buffett a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations from their personal library. How sweet.

"Warren Buffett Gives $30 Billion to Gates Foundation" (WSJ, June 26th, 2006, Page B1)
"Buffett Always Planned to Give Away His Billions" (NYT, June 26th, 2006)

Why you failed high school French

Those of you know me will see why this is right up my alley. There's a great article in the NY Times today about how difficult it is for immigrants to learn English, and how Congress legislating "English only" rules will do little to help. There are a couple of reports worth reading - I would summarize, but I'm heading out the door to my other job.

Language Skills and Earnings: Evidence from Childhood Immigrants (darn, this was going to be my dissertation topic!) Bleakley, H. and Chin, A. (2003)

"Legislate Learning English? If Only It Were So Easy" (NYT, June 22nd, 2006)

Minimum Wage

There's an interesting op-ed in the WSJ today about how the minimum wage negatively impacts high-schoolers and other young people in the workforce. According to the writer,

The main flaw in such thinking is that no one has ever demonstrated that raising the minimum wage reduces poverty. How can that be? Well, partly it's because the vast majority of minimum-wage earners are not, in fact, poor. Of an estimated 87% who are not, many live in households where two or more people work and where combined incomes may be two or three times the poverty level. Then there are young people and teenagers, who are more likely to earn the minimum wage than any other group. A significant number of them have high-income parents.

With the economy booming, more young people are finding work, including summer jobs. But economists have long known that when minimum wages go up, the number of jobs for kids tends to go down.

He goes on to state that

Why pay four kids, an employer may well reason, when for the same, now higher, minimum salary I may be able to attract three adults with a bit more experience?

The implications are especially profound for poor and inner-city black kids. Starting at a disadvantage, they have the most to gain from an introduction to the world of work skills. They also face the most predictably bleak future if they miss this foothold.

I never thought about summer jobs this way. I've been working since I was 15 (13 if you count all the babysitting I did on the weekends!). I first worked at an art studio, where my former elementary school art teacher ran a small summer camp. Then I worked at the Gap for about three years. I've worked at Chili's as a hostess (at the Orlando airport!), in a mail room, as a writing tutor, as a tech intern, and as a cocktail waitress. This is all in addition to my "real" jobs in education. I never thought that all those years of clocking in, making it to work on time, learning new skills quickly, and behaving properly in the workplace made me more successful in my "real" career.

For one of my intro ed classes, I read a book called Beyond College for All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half by James Rosenbaum. The book discusses how only about 40% or so (I actually think the percentage is in the 30s) of Americans between the ages of 24-35 have college degrees. And yet the policy in many high schools is "College for All," when many students may be better served by entering the workforce as an apprentice or in an entry-level, minimum wage job where they can learn skills and move up through the ranks. I have toyed again and again with going into retail - I always enjoyed working at the Gap, and from sales associate you can become manager, and even a buyer or some other higher-level position, without necessarily having a college degree. Even for those who go to college, learning how to "clock in" is such a useful skill. I dated several guys in college who had never had a job. Never. Never mowed lawns, never worked at the Dairy Queen, never tutored, never got any kind of paycheck.

My parents "encouraged" (ahem) me to work, and at the time I didn't much care for "clocking in," but now I'm so thankful that I learned the value of a dollar through making minimum wage. I used to get up every Sunday morning and clean the Gap at the Fashion Square Mall - get on a ladder, dust the outside sign, vacuum the whole store, dust every shelf, and take out the trash. I worked in a mail room where I got paper cuts. I got blisters on my feet delivering cocktails to wealthy Long Island so-and-sos at The Chalet. Sometimes I'd earn $300 bucks a night, but sometimes I'd come home with $40. There's a great book by Barbara Ehrenreich called Nickeled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. She works at WalMart, as a maid, at a HoJo's restaurant, etc, and writes about it. I worked those jobs, mostly while living with my parents, but I know that some of those jobs are really hard work. Much harder than filing and sitting at a computer all day, and actually much harder than being on my feet in front of 15 children.

Should we up the minimum wage? The WSJ claims that

And what about the broader "poor" that Senator Ted Kennedy talks about helping with a minimum-wage raise? In truth, his proposed rate of $7.25 an hour won't lift many poor families out of poverty because as many as 64% of the earners in these families already get paid more than $7.25. New research by Joseph Sabia at the University of Georgia and Cornell's Richard Burkhauser indicates that factors other than wages -- such as working fewer hours and supporting large families -- are holding them down.

As painful as it is to think of such people working hard and not getting ahead, at least they are on a payroll and can hope to improve their skills and prospects. It's those unskilled young people, Mr. Burkhauser notes, who are "the most vulnerable part of the population."

And while we can still debate how best to help them, one thing is clear: "What we are doing with a minimum-wage increase," Mr. Burkhauser says, is making sure "that for the folks who don't have the skills to be worth $7.25, they are not going to have a job."

I'm not sure (no citations on the stats), but it is interesting. Oh, and I'm quoting so much of the article because I don't believe that you can access it without full WSJ subscription, but I'll put the link here anyway.

"Labor Lost" (WSJ, June 23rd, 2006)

More Verification

So I started thinking about my last post, and realized that it's based on an assumption that many African-American residents of the District (well, in the NE/SE quadrants) come from lower-income and perhaps single-parent households. While this may be true, I need to verify this assumption before basing any theories on it. (Of course, no matter what the data proves, I still believe that the cultures we're brought up in - black, white, latino, asian, immigrant, etc are different and we have different "codes" we follow).

According to the 2000 census, DC has 572,059 residents. Of these, 343,312, or exactly 60%, are African-American. While not broken down by race, 24,561 people, or 9.9%, live in households with a female householder with her own children under 18. This didn't seem that high to me. I checked some of the zip codes I drive through - they tend to be have a higher percentage of African-Americans, more like 75%, but similar numbers of single mother households, 9.1% for the 20017 zip code, 9.7% for 20018 (both in the District). Once you cross the state line into Maryland's Prince George's county, the percentage of single mother homes goes up to 11.9% in 20712 and 10.5% in 20782.

Like I said, these numbers didn't seem so high to me, but I needed something to compare them to. So I checked the zip code where I grew up, 32812 (in Orlando, Florida). The first thing I noticed: the percentage of whites was 75.1%, and African-American/Black 12.3%. Those numbers are almost the reverse of many of the neighborhoods I drive through! However, the percentage of single mother homes is not much lower, 8.2%. Then I checked the zip code of the hospital where I was born, in Wheat Ridge, Colorado (outside of Denver). Similar stats for the white/black population as Orlando (in fact, I think they are exactly the same). The percentage of single moms? It's 7.3%.

My assumptions about children growing up in single-parent (mom) households, then, seems to be a bit exaggerated. The comparison of race, however, is pretty significant. Perhaps the school factor plays a more important role here. As I said before, I went to a school with an extensive driver's ed program and an entire course set up for driver's ed.

If we just take one zip code, 20017, 85% of the children enrolled in nursery through 12th grade are in public school. The real test here is to call up those public schools (the high schools) and ask about their driver's education programs. That may be a job for tomorrow, since I'm sure they close after 5:30pm, especially during the summer. In my hometown zip, 32812, 87% are enrolled in public school. So we're comparing similar public school enrollments. Next? Really, I should narrow this down to just high school students, and then find out how many of those schools have driver's ed classes and what kind of resources they have for them.

For another day. Don't you love that this has become a research project? It's also an interesting way to think about research design.

U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Gateway (click on "American Fact Finder" to find out information for a particular zip code)

How much is enough?

Let's get to the heart of the issue. I read one of BW's online features, which was excerpts from an interview with Bill and Melinda Gates. The very first response to them was:

Nickname: ps
Review: I truly appreciate the great cause you are serving and I believe you are on the right track in identifying the root cause of the problem. As someone had rightly stated, it is a matter of concern that we do rely on teachers to impart good education and make it interesting to students. However, when it comes to paying them, we don't pay very well. Date reviewed: Jun 19, 2006 4:26 AM

On WAMU (local NPR station), I recently heard that Prince George's County in Maryland was increasing their teacher pay to $40,000 a year for starting teachers, and more for those beginning with master's degrees and experience. There aren't that many entry-level jobs where you can make $40K. I have never made over $40K, and it will be a long while before I do. Of course, I taught in private school, where the pay and benefits are considerably less than public school (people are always surprised when I tell them that).

If you consider that teachers work 10 1/2 months a year, this works out to be over $3800 per month. Ok, it's not what B. is making as a law clerk in NYC ($4000 a month), but it's not horrible, either. I agree teachers should make enough money to live and work in the community where they teach. I think that it is essential for a teacher to be able to buy a house, raise children, and live a comfortable life. However, how much money is enough? Should people be getting rich being a teacher? After all, lawyers and doctors often go to professional school for years after getting a B.A., while teachers can begin immediately after getting a teaching degree at $40K (or more in certain areas). Now, I realize this varies by state, and some states are doing a better job of compensating their teachers. But how much, really, is enough?

The point is, I don't think anyone should go into teaching (or any profession for that matter) solely to make money. We work for the better part of our lives; shouldn't we do something we love? There was a chart in one of my magazines about how much certain career perks are worth. A good boss, a job you love - how much is that worth to you?

It all goes back to what we value

I still have not finished completely with the article (nay, volume) of information in Business Week on Bill and Melinda Gates; however, the first nibble I took confirmed something I've said all along. The article opens with a portrayal of the massive failure of attempting to split Denver's Manual High School into three smaller schools. The article goes on to say that the Gates Foundations experiements have worked in other instances, such as San Diego High Tech High (-sigh- what a silly name). But research shows that children in these smaller schools do not necessarily perform better on standardized tests, although many are more likely to go on to college. What the Gates emphacize is the close relationships students are able to build with teachers - a "community" aspect.

Which got me thinking about what really matters in education - is it high-performing students who can memorize by rote math and science, or is it children who are connected to their community, nurtured and encouraged by caring adults, and confidient enough to go into the world armed with ingenuity and a sense of purpose? Isn't that more valuable than knowing how to do calculus? Isn't that what we celebrate as being "most American"? I don't know the answer - and of course, there is no panacea to the problems plaguing our schools - but part of the problem lies in our inabilty to come together on what our schools value, what we value.

By the way, some school in... I want to say Arizona... pulled the plug on the valedictorian's graduation speech because she thanked God. Now that seems a little silly. Free speech, people.


"Bill Gates Gets Schooled" (Business Week, June 26th, 2006)

Monday Round Up

Alright, I decided if I can waste my day creating camp newsletter headings and chatting on gmail, I certainly have time to do a news roundup.

I'm still having the ethical issue with giving a survey to the 7th graders, but I think I'm going to need to move on. What's in the news today? Well, Business Week has a special on Bill Gates - his upcoming retirement as well as his educational philanthropy. I won't lie, I'm reading it tonight (or later this afternoon) since I don't have time to pretend to work, dink with photoshop, chat on gmail, and type this blog entry all at the same time. Apparently the Hoover Institute's faithful have some sort of response, called "Gates' warped idea of generosity" in the ocregister.com. It's a pretty ridiculous opinion piece, really, about how Gates doesn't owe anything to anyone. Yeah, but our tax code is set up to encourage people to give, and why shouldn't a successful businessman, if he wants to, try to have a positive influence on society? In fact, I always believed that was the conservative mantra - get rich and then influence society. Guess not.

Anyway, back to Business Week. They have a comprehensive spread on Gates, and worth checking out! Plus online they have some other features. I think it might take days to read this. Once I do, however, you will be sure to have a response! (I hope).

The National Review has a blog (one contributor is John Miller, a writer for the NR who came to my higher education curriculum class and spoke/insulted us, at least according to everyone in the class but me) called "Phi Beta Cons" - great elitist title, by the way - and I think it's worth a look-see. They're trying to be controversial, but at least they're talking about the issues. At one point they say that the reason our boys are lagging in school is because single motherhood is "sacred." Question mark. There's also a link to some commentary on the 2005 MLA conference, which suggests we should drop the "L" from MLA (stands for Modern Language Association, and it's a professional organization that represents English and foreign language teachers, although more the former than the latter). This is a touch dated, but an interesting read. Reminds me of my liberal professor who thought that teaching grammar was racist. (Shush. I don't care why you think that. It's stupid, and you know it.)

-Sigh- I have more to say, but I think I'm a touch exhausted. More to come once I peruse this week's Business Week, Economist, WSJ, etc, etc, etc.

Ethica questions

Originally I wanted to call this entry "ethical questions," but I decided I liked the typo. Ethica, like Ithica. Only it's a place where one goes to figure out what's right and what's wrong.

In any case, in my research methods class (wait! don't go! I promise I'll get more interesting! Oh... well, as long as a few of you still stick around) we talked about doing survey research. If you're doing a research project where the goal is to gauge people's feelings around a certain issue, is the best way to go about it to ask them questions through an online survey and then have them check 1 through 5 to tell you their feelings? Or to sum up in three sentences how they feel about a certain experience?

Many quantitative researchers have found that these methods do not really get at the heart of what they are trying to discover. And in fact, although a survey seems neutral, it can change the way people feel about a certain issue. My professor told a story of one researcher who surveyed people about marriage. She said he received a hand-written note from one of the respondants, who wrote "Before I took this survey, I wasn't sure about what I should do about my marriage. The questions really made me think, and now I know what I have to do. I'm gong to get a divorce."

Obviously, this particular survey provoked a strong response. And I believe that if you are questioning people about an emotional issue, no matter how benign the survey may seem, you will influence their thoughts and opinions.

In any case, in my work with the charter school kids and the school where I still am involved in some projects, we gave them a survey at the beginning of the sessions (6 sessions, each focused on learning about a different career). Of course, this was before I took the methods class, before I knew about the Internal Review Board you're supposed to clear all research through, and before I absolutely hated working with this particular project because I don't agree with the values it conveys. Now we're giving a final survey, and even though I didn't really design it, I am administering it, and I feel an ethical conflict because I'm not sure of what messages the questions symbolically convey and what emotions they might raise in the children taking them. They're not lab rats, they're real people, and I have a real problem doing this research in what I feel is an unethical way.

-Sigh- last session of this, so maybe I can come to terms with it if we pick the project back up again in the fall.

Ooooh, am I mad about this.

I have two favorite lines in the Catholic mass: before Communion, when we kneel and say "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed" and during Communion, when we say "It is right to give Him thanks and praise" (which relates to how we always say this, during regular mass, during funeral mass, and during wedding mass).

And now they're changing my favorite words to "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof." What? What does that mean? I HATE that.

Going from nice English iambic pentameter to some sort of 15 syllable crap. What is the world coming to? Arrrg.

"A Changing Mass for U.S. Catholics" (NYT June 16th 2006)

What's your poison...

Last night in class (my research methods class) we did an exercise with a partner in which we had to talk about something we're passionate about, and then ask our partner questions about their passion. I chose, quelle surprise, foreign language. My partner was having a hard time coming up with something she was passionate about, but in the end it turned out to be her marriage and her health (I think that's nice, anyway - what better things to be passionate about?)

We had to talk about what subjectivities the conversation raised. For example, my partner and I connected in the "Non Research Human I" - in other words, we connected in a non-academic way. There's also a "Justice Seeking I" which listens to what another person says and your sense of fair play is raised. One set of students talked about the over-medication of children with ADD and ADHD in correlation with the cutbacks in recess now in schools. The student, S., said that she began to feel angry and a sense of "this is not fair" when her partner was speaking. Apparently, as a researcher, it's important to know your "hot buttons" because you may not hear what the person you're interviewing is saying, but rather your own interpretation and feelings.

According to some of the books we're reading, it's important to keep a sort of journal (Peskin recommends 5x8 index cards) of your feelings during research, in order to keep a continual check on your subjective view of things.

That's kind of boring, right? Sorry, it's all I've got today.

That liberal indoctrination!

I can't believe I've let you down in posting about the Hoover report. The latest - an article about how parents can "counteract the liberal indoctrination" of schools. Sigh. I don't have a problem with the book he mentions, nor do I refute any of the historical facts he gives (although they are a bit one-sided). However, I do take issue with the fact that our schools engage in liberal indocrtination. Come on. There are a myriad of factors that contribute to a child's political leanings, one of them being schools. Parents, the influence of television, and the media are all important other factors. I think we need to talk about real issues in schools. Plus, this writer has a stupid face. That's one of my big insults. I guess everyone can't be a hottie like Jorge Ramos. Me gusta.

"How to counteract educational indoctrination" (DetNews.com, June 10th 2006)

Inside your brain

This is an interesting article, but I wonder why he compares foreign language learning to classics in its lack of usefulness in the curriculum. I think given the current state of globalization, learning foreign languages may be as if not more important than learning current scientific research. Besides, why can't we teach science to kids in a foreign language? ;) Kills two birds with one stone that way. Kill those birds! Kill'em dead! Sorry, that expression always seems a bit odd to me, and yet so useful.

The education site (for teachers/students) has a nice way of summarizing various articles in your field of interest. It's nytimes.com/college.

How to Get Inside a Student's Head (NYT, January 31st, 2003)

Monolith of Monolingualism

Interesting story this morning on NPR about the re-emergence of this "English only" movement in conjunction with the immigration debate. Jorge Ramos (who's hot, by the way) says that the bill is moot, because you can't regulate the language people speak in their homes and what they listen to on television and the radio. I think that the point of the bill, really, is that Congress will no longer provide federal funding for materials such as voting instructions in other languages. Which is a shame... one of my friends worked for the New York City school board's translation/language department (not sure of the exact title) where they worked to translate school communications into 8 different languages so all parents could keep abreast of school happenings. Pretty cool.

Anyway, Ramos says that in many places of the United States, Spanish is already a predominant language. True in South Dade, in my sunny hurricaine-ridden home state. My grandma once had to ask for "leche" in a Pollo Tropical (a Cuban fast-food restaurant which really should expand nationwide so I can get my fried plantains). In any case, Steve Inskeep (the reporter) commented that Europeans have languge boards (like L'Academie francaise) which govern the spread of foreign influence in their languages. Ramos stated that Europeans tend to speak a second language and even be trilingual. I have to say this is a gross over-generalization. From personal experience, many Eastern Europeans are fully fluent in several languages; however, the French and the Spanish have a very cavalier attitude towards second languages. They may speak a little, may be able to get by, but many are far from fluent. In all the classes and all the friends I made in Paris, none spoke English well enough for me to converse with them in the language. We usually spoke in French becasue my French was superior to their English. Obviously this is not true all the time, and many Europeans who have lived here speak English without even an accent.

However, many Europeans see the importance of learning a second language, while some Americans are stubbornly monolingual. And now our government is encouraging this monolingualism.

In any case, Ramos commented, ask any Spanish-speaking immigrant if it's important for them to learn English, and the answer is always, "Where can I sign up?" We need to provide more and better classes (I know, I should be teaching one) for immigrants to learn English.

Univision's Ramos: No Stopping Growth of Spanish (NPR, June 14th, 2006)

Quant and Cell Phones

So, for my new research methods class, I'm reading this fascinating article regarding summative and formative assessments in foreign language. It's an empirical study in which they quantify the value of formative assessments using a latent covariable equation, and the latentljs;dfkwoeirujlisdfnsxncjklfkjkrltjlwkerujoiwejrlkj

What? I think I just blacked out. (Sorry, B., to steal your joke). Yeah, I don't know that I'll be doing any quantitative studies soon. Wow. What is a latent covariable?

In more exciting and generally less useful news, the front page of the NYT has a very amusing article about children and cell phones.

"A Ring Tone Meant to Fall on Deaf Ears" (New York Times, June 12th, 2006)

Black-Blanc-Beur

Apparently education is not enough! At least according to a recent article in the Guardian regarding the "riots" or "events" in France in the forgotten, desolate banlieues (suburbs). The language depends on your point of view; in the "smart" (read:white) sectors, one refers to the burning of cars and demonstrations in the streets following the electrocution of two young French citizens of North African decent as riots; for those living in the communities from which the young protesters came, they are "events" or "the revolt."

The article states that "the schools in Clichy-sous-Bois are well funded and apparently not so bad." Yet young people (French citzens, born in the country, I remind you) still cannot find work. "their job application is likely to be turned down simply on the basis of their address and "foreign" name. If by some miracle they get to an interview, the job opening mysteriously disappears as soon as the interviewer sees the colour of their skin." Clearly, the problem lies not in education, but in the bias of the job market. How true is this for our country? I assume that we're less biased, but how many times has "looking the part" helped to land me a job? I'd say in every job I've had, my blond hair, blue eyes, and orthodontically corrected smile have helped at least in part. Not to say that I'm not qualified, but given two equally qualified candidates, was I chosen because of the way that I look?

This goes back to something I mentioned in my first entry in my blog, "Why Schools, Of Course." Schools cannot correct the bias of the job market or transform the economy to create more jobs. They can prepare students, but beyond that, there are other domains in society that must be examined for solutions. We can't keep blaming schools! Even in France, a country with much more socialism than America, they look to schools to fix a problem. Their country has much more government involvement in other sectors. I thought (and learned from Rothstein's "Out of Balance" article) that schools in America are often looked to for solutions because we don't have many other public sector areas we can use to solve societal problems. We can't fix poverty through the post office. And yet France looks to their schools as well to solve poverty and race problems.

Of course, I need to take into consideration the perspective of the author, who is an American (I'm pretty sure) and a Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank) senior fellow ('m certain). I found the article because of my Hoover Institution update email. In any case, a conservative would generally not want to create a new government agency or sector to solve unemployment problems; why not ship it off to the schools, which already exist? And while you're at it, make them charter schools so they are subject to more private sector-type pressure of supply and demand? This is part conjecture, but perhaps the control of goverment by conservatives has something to do with why we want school sto solve so many problems.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to have a French author's perspective. I wonder if they would also look to the schools as a solution. The government, at least from this author's perspective, did... but it would be interesting to see how a French journalist would see it.

By the way, I'm in this interesting reserach methods class that I will have to write about at some point.


"Despair turns to fury, but it's not too late to end France's war with itself" (The Guardian, June 8th, 2006)

My apologies

I know what you're thinking - here she goes again not posting! I have been out of town for the past two 1/2 weeks and this week started my new job and summer classes! The new job is great so far - it seems well organized and much less stressful than my previous employment. Summer class is interesting - it's in research methods, and we're starting by "getting to know ourselves" as researchers. As much as this sounds like hippie drivel (and I think we all know how I feel about hippies), it works quite well. For example, I tend to lean more toward believing in objectivist truth philosophies. At least that's my initial reaction. As I learn more about the various avenues I can take as a researcher, I might develop other thoughts.

I have not been reading the press as well as I should, although I found some fascinating articles about higher education in France for my course. Since this is one of my research interests, I might present a summary and some commentary as I read them! For now, suffice to say my postings may be a bit more erratic until I get used to this new summer schedule. At least I'm not sitting in front of a computer all day with nothing but my own thoughts banging around in my head. A good start, no? And let me tell you - filing can be meditative. Hahahaha.