A Short Documentary by Mekhali Peyyalamitta & Tim Muliari
0 Comments
By Ryan Tibbens
"I look around this room and see a lot of soggy, drowning horses..."
We all know that "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," and we've probably all heard a teacher use this phrase on multiple occasions. I myself have repeated it -- more sincerely early in my teaching career, more ironically later. It is true, but in the context of education, good teachers and students overcome more obstacles than simply leading and drinking. And, as we shall see, there are a discouraging number of scenarios that will lead to an exhausted, resigned handler or to horses that are drowned, dehydrated, or soggy and confused.
Sit back, relax, reflect upon your school experiences, and think about education. I have a handler-horse-water/teacher-student-content analogy I like, so I'm sticking with it. Pardon me if I'm beating a dead horse. (All puns are intended.) First, let's address the proverb: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." When education professionals use this phrase in earnest, they imply that a teacher's only job is to find and display knowledge and skills, that the student's only job is to learn what/when/where/how they're told. That might have worked in the schools our grandparents attended (probably not), but the modern world isn't so simple. More than any previous generation, our students know that a variety of "watering holes" exist and that the quality and taste of the content will vary; they know that their teachers' preferences for certain sources and types of learning are as much the result of personal bias as research-supported fact. In school divisions with less teacher autonomy, students still harbor these doubts, and they are often further alienated by teachers who are ambivalent toward the prescribed methods and topics. If the handler doesn't believe in the water, most horses are slower to drink. Plus, these horses are also inundated with the sounds and images of other water (sources), imitation water (misinformation), and soft drinks (through screens and earbuds). Modern teachers must do more than lead to water. Next, let's examine the ideal scenario: We have an expert horse handler and a well-trained, thoroughbred horse. The handler has years of experience, the best training, and access to the best tracks, facilities, and hydration equipment. The horse loves to run and, as a result, loves to drink. The handler teaches new horses where, when, and how to receive high quality water early on, and because these horses love to run and drink, the rest of the handler's job is simply a matter of scheduling how much water to provide, when, and of what quality. This is ideal -- the best teachers have the best tools while working with the best, most self-motivated students. This far too rare.
What about the thirsty horse? When a horse already knows how to find and assess the quality of water, handlers matter less. When the horse understands water's value and how to find it, then the handler could be terrible or great; the horse will still drink. This is why so many mediocre teachers enjoy above average results in wealthy, educated communities -- students are learning independent of classroom instruction. Those of us who teach in wealthy and educated communities must continually question our results -- how much have we contributed? When the students have the means and desire, teacher effectiveness measures become murky. A thirsty horse can save a handler.
But what about the horse that won't drink? I often remind my classes that "Every student has the right to fail, but I don't recommend you exercise the right." The reality is that some horses aren't thirsty (or are thirsty but resist the handler); this is when we need skilled handlers most. If a teacher simply writes off a student because he doesn't want to learn, that teacher is failure. If your job is sales, you won't make much money if you take "no" too readily, if you don't try to change the buyer's mind. So it is in teaching -- we need to change the students' minds. We need to show, not just tell, the value of the water. Make education desirable.
What could we do? Unfortunately, these are often the most popular paths forward. We can add more and more water in hopes that the horse will eventually be forced to drink, but this is just a good way to collect soggy and drowned horses. We can switch the horse to soda and sugary drinks -- focus less on what the students are learning and just be glad that some kind of easier learning is occurring (it probably isn't). We can flavor the water -- add in a little something extra to make the content more palatable but less concentrated. We can move to 100% projects and inquiry -- try to convince reluctant horses that finding good water and drinking it are life skills (true) and that slogging through months of inquiry and deadlines is better than the current mix (unlikely). We can threaten to call parents, assign detentions, or ruin college admissions -- bullying and scaring are not functional methods nor are they employed by skilled handlers. We can trick horses by hydrating intravenously -- when students don't realize they're learning, they can't fight back; but if they don't know they're learning, then metacognition is unlikely, and the learning will be shallow and short-lived. We can develop a wide variety of novel approaches, but most of them are built upon fads or disrespect the student as someone not capable of making informed, purposeful decisions about his education.
What should we do? First, a skilled handler knows that most horses need to develop a thirst, so they work out before water or food. Make the students 'thirsty'; make learning seem both desirable and necessary. Build curiosity and context. This can be done through thoughtful lesson-framing, attention-grabbing hooks and openers, or introductory assignments that force students to consider their own thirsts before instruction begins. Run the horses before you show them water. Second, teachers need to remember that most students need to learn how to learn as much as they need to learn the content. We need to model the drinking, show the horses how to find, assess, and imbibe the water. Showing a water source is useless if the horse doesn't know how to drink. FIND THE BEST WATER. WORK THE HORSES; MAKE THEM THIRSTY WHILE LEADING THEM. TEACH THEM HOW TO DRINK. If the horses still won't drink, then we need a veterinarian, not a handler.
By Ryan Tibbens
To be honest, the "zipper merge," by itself, will not save the world. But it could get us close. A few days ago, a member of my family, one of my favorite people in the world, shared this Tweet on Facebook:
The conversation went something, but not exactly, like this: I recommended the zipper merge. He said that all "zippering" should occur at the first warning sign, not as close to the obstruction as possible. And I said he was wrong. And he said I was wrong. Etc. I tried to convince him by sharing this well-explained and extraordinarily polite, Canadian-made (I love redundancy) video movie on the subject:
It didn't work. He referenced his personal experience in traffic, how the early merge works better, and that zipper mergers are "ass clowns." I looked to my wife for backup, but she agreed with him. I posted real research, state advice, and researched suggestions from mildly popular websites and nationally renowned newspapers. Here are highlights from the ensuing conversation:
That is when I realized that the zipper merge could save the world. Traffic is a serious concern for most voting-aged Americans; after all, about 88% of adult Americans own a car. If ever there was a problem we can agree on, it is that traffic sucks. Maybe it's just misguided sentimentalism, but when I was a child and young adult, I remember that people (mostly) agreed on our problems. We knew what was wrong and that something must be done; our disagreements sprouted on the solution side. Today, despite having the sum-total of human knowledge at our fingertips, we can't agree on basic facts. Not only can we not agree on solutions, but we can't agree on the problems themselves either.
Enter the zipper merge. We all agree that traffic sucks. And most of us do, or once did, agree that people who stay too long in the closing lane are "douche bags," as our Canadian friend in the video points out. He also points out that, in order for the zipper merge to work, everyone has to get on board. So how do we win converts? We use research and logic and patience and restraint (maybe more than I did when I pointed out how dumb a comment was). We need a tipping point. We'll need mavens, connectors, and salesmen. But imagine -- if people learn that traffic can be reduced or resolved THROUGH RESEARCH, then those same people might find themselves opening up to other research, say research on the death penalty as a deterrent, low fat diets, vaccines and autism, and climate change. Long before the zipper merge is de facto reality, people in the closing lane will need to tolerate being called "douche bags" and "ass clowns" and much worse. But if those missionaries stay true to the mission and peacefully accept the abuse, we can make the world a much better place. The zipper merge can save the world by teaching people, in practical and everyday ways, that high-quality, quantitative research can yield better results than our own myopic views of the road. First, we solve traffic. Then, we save the world. Also, here are some excellent, research-based methods to reduce traffic. Get to work.
What does it even mean – “on-time graduation”? It is earning a standard high school diploma in four years; it means graduating by age 18. It assumes a student has advanced through each class, in order, in exactly one school year each, while learning at least 60% of the associated knowledge and skills (or at least doing 60% of the work, but that’s a different issue). “On-time graduation” means nothing because it disregards learning – real education – and focuses on the amount of time a person spends schooling. If we truly care about the quality of a student’s education, we should consider learning, strong literacy and numeracy skills, and achievement of individual goals long before worrying about the exact timetable. Teachers and administrators love to say that they’re “creating lifelong learners,” but if that’s true, why shouldn’t we offer a little extra support to those who need it? In fact, if we truly care about the quality of education, then shouldn’t we push for “under-time graduation”? That would be respectful of both students’ time and taxpayers’ dollars. What good is “on-time graduation” if a student can honestly and effectively master the content and skills in less than the standard 13 years of public school? And if literacy, numeracy, and some worldly knowledge are actually important, then why should we fire faculty and penalize school divisions if it takes some students longer?
And what about special populations? Graduation timelines have obvious implications for some in the special education community, which is already granted exceptions in most states, but what about immigrants? I have taught dozens of English language learners (ELL) in my career, and many of them are among the hardest working and most capable students I've known. The only limit on their academic success is the rate of English acquisition. So if Americans are truly supportive of legal immigration, acculturation, and assimilation, shouldn't we be willing spend a few extra bucks to provide the educational services necessary to grant full access to our society's best opportunities? Even some of the wealthiest and most progressive school systems in the country can't seem to answer that question right. Don’t get me wrong – efficiency is important. I know that “over-time graduation” increases the likelihood of dropping out and decreases the student’s lifetime earnings. And it’s obviously a waste of tax-payer dollars – or is it? As it turns out, there is ample evidence to suggest that “over-time graduation” is actually beneficial to the student and society, as opposed to dropping out or even earning a GED, so maybe an extra year or two of school isn’t the worst outcome for some students. Maybe we should reduce the stigma of a fifth year of high school for students who need it. But if efficiency is important, as “on-time graduation” suggests, then we must consider “under-time graduation” as well. I truly believe that many students can, and should, graduate early. Until the early 20th century, it was not uncommon for students to matriculate at university between 14 and 18 years old, and sometimes even younger. If the average person today is more intelligent than the average person of a century ago, as testing data and the Flynn Effect suggest, then it stands to reason that many teens today can be fully prepared for university in a fraction of the current “on-time graduation” target. Any person who absolutely opposes “over-time graduation” or “under-time graduation” is either an educational charlatan or a myopic traditionalist. Learning must come before pacing unless learning is not the primary goal. In reality, the strict school timeline that politicians and administrators love so much has little to do with education and much to do with control. The push for “on-time graduation” is nothing more than a push to control the timeline on which we live. You enter school at age 5. You graduate and receive most rights and privileges at age 18. You retire at 67. There are intermediate markers along the way. This timeline is our feeble attempt to sort and organize chaos. It ignores the fact that people have wide ranges of skills and abilities, that people learn differently, that people have different interests and motivations. It ignores the fact that, although we often judge intellect based on speed, a person’s impact on the world has more to do with persistence. Those who believe in “on-time graduation” regard high school commencement, whether they realize it or not, as a cultural rite of passage, an entrance into adulthood. They are not wrong. However, graduating students without the skills is akin to granting manhood to a boy who hasn’t made his first kill or womanhood to a girl who hasn’t danced or the privileges of church membership to someone who never experienced the sacraments. The purpose of these rites is that they are earned and that a definable act has occurred signaling a transition. It is a way of sorting the psychological chaos of human maturation. Giving a student a diploma that he can’t read is a kind of cultural degradation that doesn’t just hurt schools; it hurts people. School should be about education, about gaining knowledge, skills, ethics, and wisdom. It should be about self-improvement. If walking the stage is more important than reading the books, then school is just pageantry, just signaling. If we want to make schools better, then we need to focus on education, not order.
By Ryan Tibbens for educational purposes only
(Updated 4/28/2020 -- Scroll to the bottom of the article for some GREAT visual demonstrations from other sources.)
I just saw a time conversion that, when I think about it in dollar figures, is absolutely mind blowing. Here goes... - 1 million seconds equal 11 and 1/2 days. - 1 billion seconds equal 31 and 3/4 years. - 1 trillion seconds equal 31,710 years. That means if you have one billion dollars in the bank, you can spend a DOLLAR PER SECOND, every second, or $3,600 per hour, and not run out of money for nearly 32 years; and because of the interest you'll be accruing, it will actually be substantially longer than that. Now, let's think about wealthy people in the news. Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots and patron of strip-mall whorehouses everywhere, is worth $6,600,000,000 (billion). If he converted all investments to cash, he could spend one dollar per second, every second for over 209 years, even without earning any capital gains. And, get this, he is only the 79th richest person in the United States. Jeff Bezos is the wealthiest person in the USA, with a net worth of over $160,000,000,000 (billion). That means he could spend a dollar per second, every second, or $3,600 per hour, for over 5,074 years. If we could travel through time (and given his wealth, he probably can), Jeff Bezos could start spending one dollar per second, every second at the beginning of the Bronze Age, and he'd just now be running out of money. The US national debt is currently about $21,974,000,000,000 (trillion), which means we would need to pay one dollar per second, every second, or $3,600 per hour, for 696,791 years to be debt free nationally. The average American household carries something like $140,000 of debt, which means that someone in that house would need to make and spend one dollar per second, every second for almost two days just to be even, just to be out of debt. Something is wrong. Data Visualization from outside sources
Since writing and posting this article a little over a year ago, I have encountered some great websites, videos, and posts that try to make the same point I did above -- big numbers are not at all what most people think they are. Before expressing opinions on issues that include big numbers -- government spending, economic inequality, personal finance, space travel, or anything else -- PLEASE review the sources below. WARNING: Link #2 might be the most startling and interesting, but because of this website's' formatting, it looks the least appealing. Definitely check out #2. Also remember that data changes all the time, so if you want to reference these sources, it is important to include production dates and context.
1) This 1-minute video uses grains of rice to compare hundreds of thousands to millions to billions.
2) This website offers a scrolling demonstration that includes commentary and explanations. Click the link, start scrolling right, read as you go, and keep scrolling right. Then scroll right some more. Seriously, this will blow your mind. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ 3) This is an oldie-but-goody. It is from late 2012, so the exact statistics are now inaccurate. Unfortunately, the numbers in 2020 are even more uneven and startling. For those who want to put wealth figures into more understandable terms like percentiles, this is a good visualization. (Just remember that the data is old.) 4) This demonstration compares the wealth of some of the leading Democratic candidates for president in 2019/2020. The candidates' names and politics are, for the purposes of the current discussion, less important than the visual comparison of wealth. CREDIT TO http://rossblocher.com/hosted/candidatewealth.html; check out his great work! Keep scrolling down!
by Ryan Tibbens
Over the last couple weeks, I've watched and listened to sports commentators, political analysts, comedians, athletes, politicians, keyboard warriors, and, well, it seems like almost everyone, argue about Colin Kaepernick and the recent national anthem protests. I've chimed in a few times, but mostly I've stayed out of it. In the last three days, I've been directly asked five times what I think. It's a little lengthy, but here's why you should be fine with the protests. I think the protests are fine. I stand for the national anthem and for the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm not offended if others don't. It's a free country. If you love the freedom of expression, it means that you love it even when it is exercised in ways you don't agree with or by people you don't like. I believe there are certain things people usually shouldn't say, but I don't suggest we legislate the language, and I don't think there should be public outrage or persecution as long as the statements are nonviolent. Sometimes I hear things I don't like, and I just let them go. This protest hurts no one, so if you disagree, the smart move is to let it go.
I recently saw a friend, a fellow teacher, post about his disagreement with and disgust for the anthem protests. He claimed that he was upset about the form of the protest, his perceived disrespect to our flag and nation and soldiers and all that, but that he was fine with players' desires for greater racial equality. I asked him what he does when students don't stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in school. I asked if their decision not to stand skewed his opinion of the students. He said he does nothing and that he is not biased against them. He said that his opinion of them is unaffected because he doesn't know their reasons. So, despite his claims, his disgust must be based, at least in part, on the protest's motives, not acts, because those same displays are tolerable from other people at other times. I suspect that most people who complain about the sitting or kneeling hold the same bias, at least subconsciously.
I've also noticed that many people complaining about the protests are hypocrites. Not everyone, but many people. Most of my friends who disagree with the protests are also those who claim to hate political correctness. They say people should toughen up and get over it; they say life isn't always fair. Political correctness is about adjusting your words and actions so as to avoid insulting or disrespecting other groups of people. But these same complainers say they feel insulted or that soldiers may feel disrespected or that veterans are hurt by these acts. If it's okay to offend some people sometimes, then it's okay to offend other people other times. You can't have it both ways. How about the fact that nearly all of my friends who support displays of the Confederate battle flag also strongly oppose Kaepernick's protest? They say they support the first amendment right to fly a flag and that they want to celebrate their heritage and that it was their ancestors' right to rebel and secede. They are defending a flag and a group of predominantly white people who took up arms against the United States of America in hopes of maintaining the institution of racial slavery. If the Confederacy's bloody resistance was just, then how is Kaepernick's quiet and peaceful protest unjust? If it is okay for someone to fly the Confederate flag, regardless of how it may make neighbors feel, then how is it so upsetting for a football player to choose to kneel during a song? These same hypocrites say they are sick of people complaining about Confederate flags, sick of people championing political correctness and limiting their freedoms. You can't have it both ways. White people complain about race riots. White people complain about civil rights parades. White people complain about traffic stoppages. Now, a low-level celebrity (catapulted to greater fame by this "controversy") is the subject of white complaint because he quietly, respectfully, and purposefully chose not to stand during the national anthem. Many people may disagree with my assertion that this protest is respectful, but consider that these football players are not interrupting the anthem: they're not shouting, cussing, spitting, rolling around, fighting, running, trampling flags. Nothing. They're just not standing. In fact, they are kneeling: a gesture that, in nearly every other setting, is considered an act of reverence. And suddenly this is an outrage. I suspect if Tim Tebow had knelt to pray during the national anthem, many white, Christian Americans would have cheered. While our country has come a long way in terms of human and civil rights for all people, we still have a long way to go. Compare poverty, education, healthcare, employment, home ownership, incarceration, average pay, or nearly any other aspect of quality of life -- you will find disparities, often large gaps, between racial groups in the United States. You will also find them between the sexes, but that's a different protest I suppose. These men are not wrong about their cause; their complaint is reasonable and worth discussing. So if the protest isn't really intrusive or abusive, and if the cause is just, how can we be upset about it? It's fine to say you would do it differently, but I don't think it makes sense to accuse them of wrongdoing. White people used to complain about black people at their dining counters or in their bus seats or in their schools. Maybe we should quit complaining when other people want to talk about inequality. |
Read.Think.Write.Speak.Because no one else Archives
December 2021
Categories
All
|