I'm going to wander off topic today. Several bills in North Dakota that I was following are now settled, but I need to do some research before I comment on them. With the school year winding down, I don't have quite as much free time as I would like, but I don't want any readers to think I've abandoned this blog.

I am not a television watcher. I have no cable, no satellite, and I don't even have an antenna or rabbit ears on my television. I made this choice initially as a money-saving measure. However, I discovered that I didn't really miss it. Later, when I traveled and stayed in motels I realized how little of interest is on television. As time has gone by, I find myself surprised by what is shown on regular television.

This little post is actually not an attempt to bash television. I am not cut off from popular culture and I know there are good shows. I've found I enjoy the newer Battlestar Galactica series (which I download on iTunes). The series is beginning to stretch a bit thin, so I hope we are either entering the final season or the creative staff will get a shot in the arm.

More recently, I discovered a British series called Life on Mars. This is a police show (despite the name). At times in motel rooms, I've seen other shows that seem enjoyable (though not to the level of these two).

So what makes good television?

• Don't offend me. Life on Mars does contain some "period appropriate" euphemisms, but they work within the context of the show and are kept to a minimum to get across the idea, but not enough to offend. Similarly, Battlestar Galactica is guilty of overusing a substitute for a certain 4-letter word. Interestingly, both shows have a sexual component, but Life on Mars is not guilty of showing casual sex. The male and female leads are obviously attracted, but share one kiss in 2 seasons.
• Tell me a story. Both of these series accomplish this quite well. The creators of Life on Mars knew when they were out of ideas and ended the series after 2 seasons, at the height of its popularity. After 3 seasons, Battlestar Galactica is running out of ideas, but it is my hope that they are in their final season.
• Give me believable characters. Both series do this well. This has been particularly important in Battlestar Galactica as they have had more "filler" episodes. With weaker characters, I would probably not be interested.
• Give me a universe to explore. I use this in a non-science fiction sense. Both series give a universe of unique people, interesting places, and interesting events. There is a sense of history before and after the show, and the idea that there is more going on beyond the view of the camera. I want to explore 1973 Manchester England in Life on Mars, and I would love to explore the spaceships of Battlestar Galactica.
• Entertain me. I will forgive a lot if I'm entertained. Both of these shows have entertainment value. However, if I look at shows with lower (or older) production values, I find I can forgive a lot. Certain episodes of Star Trek make it possible for me to forget the cardboard sets and poor acting. In other episodes, these things annoy and distract me. I can forgive the "space noises" in Battlestar Galactica, but find them hard to forgive in Star Wars. It is called "willing suspension of disbelief."
  

Not every show needs all of these things, but the more of them it has, the better. I also enjoy being able to think about the show either because of an interesting idea or a good story. I think the idea of a "classic" goes well beyond what I listed here, but this is a beginning.

As I close this, I can't help but think it might be fun to talk about bad television. Unfortunately, since I haven't watched much in a few years, my references to shows are likely to be about 9 years (or more) out of date! I certainly don't spend my money to by the DVD of a bad show. I'll have to see what I come up with.

After the recent events in Virginia, I got to thinking about school safety. I spend four + years in college, but I don't feel qualified to critique anything that was done there. I am, however, familiar with high schools.

Except where extreme situations warrant, I don't think metal detectors at the door are necessary. Cameras may be nice, but mostly after the fact. Much of common sense school safety has been around for a few centuries.

One obvious precaution to take is to lock outside doors. Someone determined will get in, but this makes it more difficult and may provide that additional warning time the school needs.

The second obvious precaution is to monitor those doors which are unlocked. For example, in my current school, one enters the public door in full view of the office. Someone who doesn't check in may be dealt with. We don't have security, but ordinary people will be stopped. Those out of the ordinary may not, but, again, additional time will be provided.

A third precaution is to lock classroom doors.  This is not like a jail where we are locking students in. They may easily leave my room when the door is locked. What it does is delay the entry of an intruder. The intruder may, in fact, choose to go to an easier target elsewhere.

An essential precaution is to know the people around you. In a school like the one where I teach, this is easy. Small schools notice strange people. Larger schools have somewhat greater problems with this, and I lack the practical experience to make valid suggestions.

We will not stop those determined to do evil. What we can do is delay their action and make it more difficult.

About a week ago I wrote a blog criticizing North Dakota for going all "weak-kneed" on graduation requirements. Now I'm going to do my best to describe what I think should be done. If I was going to offend anyone, this is it!

Consider first of all that our students have different goals. Some plan to go to college. Even there, they have widely different goals. Some will pursue a scientific career, some a writing career, some a business career, and a host of others. Those who do not go to college may pursue a technical career, a military career (which may also include college), a career as a laborer, or a host of other possibilities.

We must also not forget that some of our students may "grow up" and decide on a different path. We must prepare our students for their path, but we must also ensure that we do not "lock them out" of an alternative path. The freedom to "grow up" is a strength of American education.

What this comes down to is that I believe in a certain "core" curriculum that all students should take. At a minimum, this would be 4 years of math (including Algebra and Geometry), 4 years of English, 3 years of science, and 4 years of "Social studies"  which should include American History, World History, a civics course, an economics course, and some sort of local history.

This is quite a limited selection. However, consider that this is a "core".

Mathematics
I have no desire to see mathematics watered down for the general population. I actually am a math teacher, so I do have some perspective. I would like to see some alternatives.

For the academic students, I would like to see a sequence that includes Algebra, Geometry, Advanced mathematics, statistics, and Trigonometry. There are a lot of ways to sequence it. I happen to be a fan of the integrated approach followed by COMAP or Saxon, but I recognize that there are many ways.

For those who struggle with math, I've seen and taught some good options. I taught in one school which offered an "Algebra 1/2". This course covered the ordinary Algebra 1 curriculum in 2 years. Nothing was missed or watered down. It was just slower. At my current school, we have a great course called "General Math." We have a good teacher and a good curriculum. This is a course that covers the major mathematical topics both as a review and extension. I was recently helping one of my students with his homework as he solved systems of equations. It may not be Algebra II, but it goes beyond Algebra I or basic math.

English
I cannot speak as knowledgably about this subject. It comes easily to me, but holds not interest for me. (Sorry!) I believe it should incorporate a solid foundation in writing and grammar, public speaking, reading skills, and cultural history. What this means is that students should try their hands at many different types of writing. They should read literature, poetry, and all of that. They should learn to read critically. They should learn to write well. By high school, they should be beyond basic grammar and basic writing. That many students are not is a testament to our failure as a public school system.

In addition, they should read works from our rich cultural heritage. This is a subject of a whole blog, so I'll leave it at that point for now.

"Social Studies"
I know conservatives don't like this term. However, I'm providing an umbrella term. Students should know history both of the world and America. Though some of this is memorization, it is also important that they learn why and how. There are a number of interesting topics that will, of necessity, be "chopped." However, it is so important to know what we are, why we are what we are, and how we came to be what we are. (This is another topic that requires more than a paragraph.)

Additionally, this umbrella would include an understanding of basic economics. It amazes me how many people don't understand where teacher salary comes from or where their own comes from or even how rich people became rich. I would also like to see a type of Civics education so that students understand how our government works.

Science
I am, primarily, a science teacher. I'll try to limit this!

On the whole, students need a grounding in basic Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. I'm afraid that I do not include Earth Science in this list. A true understanding of Earth Science would require, first, a good grounding in the others. There are certain ideas that educated people should understand.

I like part of North Dakota's approach to this. 9th grade is a "Physical Science" course which includes ideas from both Physics and Chemistry. Taught correctly, this can lay a good foundation. 10th grade is usually Biology.

After this, students don't have to take any more science (unless they go to a 4-year college). Even if they go to a college, there are no requirements beyond taking "at least 1 lab science."

For those who are not college bound, I would require a "senior" science which would be a sort of "integrated science."

For the rest, I would require Chemistry or Physics. I would also make available some sort of a Biology elective. I would want them to take 4 years of science by the time they graduate. The exact courses would depend on their plan.

Electives
I left a huge hole in my description of requirements. I personally do not approve of large numbers of electives. This really steps on toes.

I think electives in technical areas are important. I worked in one school where our Agriculture teacher's courses backed up my science courses beautifully. Also, his students graduated well prepared for technical jobs or for the technical aspects of their college careers. Other schools are not so lucky to have teachers like him.

Music is also a nice elective. I think this is part of teaching human culture.

I'm less of a fan of computer electives. I went to a school with a complete Apple IIe lab. I'm now quite good with computers. The field changes so much that anything learned in high school quickly goes out of date. Any computer electives should be more general in nature. Teach students to use spreadsheets and word processors rather than "Excel" and "Word."

I could go on with my review of each elective area, but I will stop here. This is a huge area, and it is so important that we don't overfill the student's schedule with so much "extra" that he doesn't get that education in the fundamental areas that are necessary for being a well-rounded, educated American citizen.

I had planned to describe what exactly I think graduation requirements should be. However, a link at the bottom of a page on Townhall.com caught my eye.

Last Naval WWI Veteran Dies

It may seem strange, considering my background, but I am fascinated by the First World War. As a Physics major, I should be more interested in the Second World War, where physicists played a pivotal role. As someone who has been fascinated with nuclear war since childhood, it would make even more sense.

However, it's the First World War that gets my attention. Perhaps it's because it is so often ignored in history classes and in movies. Perhaps its because so many who fought in it are now dead.

My interest was first developed by a British science fiction series called Doctor Who. In an episode called War Games, the characters set down in World War I. The concept of brutal trench warfare, gas, and the change between old-style fighting to mechanized warfare was fascinating. Here was a war which saw the use of both tanks and cavalry (the horse kind).

This was also a war which appealed to me because of my atomic war fascination. The battlefields were moonscapes. The soldiers were locked into a virtual stalemate. Equipment deteriorated to a more primitive level. The soldiers lived daily in an unimaginable horror: surrounded by the stench of dead, decaying comrades whose bodies could not be retrieved.

Reading the eye-witness accounts of the battlefields is enough to induce nightmares. Add to that the image of blinded and burned soldiers (from the gas). Since this war, gas has not been much used on the battlefield.

This war also saw the destruction of several civilizations and sowed the seeds for the next world war and the cold war. In this war, Russia collapsed and was replaced by the Soviet Union. Europe was carved up into many little countries (which the German war machine rolled over in the next war). Germany herself was little touched and this helped to breed the resentment and nostalgia that allowed a man like Hitler to come to power. In the Arabian Peninsula, a man named Lawrence gave the residents their first taste of organization and the larger world.

I am simplifying and glossing over a lot of important details. Suffice to say, this is an underappreciated war that set the stage for both the cold war of the 20th century and our current problems with Islamic terrorism.