Poverty affects the success of schools. It also affects the eventual success of those students who grow up in poverty. Unfortunately much of the policies and thinking on poverty is outdated and not helpful.

Terms

Previously, I used two words to describe poverty. The first was being poor. I'm using this term to refer to "situational poverty." For example, someone is in an accident and loses his income for a while. The second was poverty. I will use this term to refer to a state of mind that limits success and may be passed down through many generations. Someone in poverty could conceivably have a middle-class or even upper-class income at a particular moment.

Anecdotal Observations

I don't think much of anecdotal evidence in making a case. However, they can flesh out information and help paint a picture. Without using names and by omitting identifying information, I will describe a few real people.

One family I knew moved into the area for a year or two. They weren't married and the kids had a collection of last names. They bought a cheap house that had once been a very nice house and been neglected. While there, the house became surrounded by children's toys, junk, old cars, and, for some reason, the screens and storm windows. The father did occasionally work, but not for long. The family was ambitious enough to rip out the hardwood floor and sell it. They continued to live on the subfloor. The proceeds from this floor were used to purchase an enormous flat-screen TV that didn't fit into their living room. The problem was a wooden (decorative, one hopes) pillar. No problem! A chainsaw quickly removed it and allowed the family to enjoy the TV. One night, the family disappeared. They left the mess, but did take the TV.

Another family moved in for a year and a half. This was another mix of last names. During that year and a half they owned several vehicles. All were quite old and none could be kept running. They continued to pile up behind their house. This family had a great stereo and TV. The school-age child was a discipline nightmare.

In another family, both parents (married this time) were on medical disability. They moved into a small town for a while. The child I taught consistently scored just barely above 0% on everything. This child had no plans of remaining in school and told me that quite emphatically. They had trouble driving or getting groceries, but had no trouble getting a nice computer, internet, and a nice TV. This family lasted just under 2 years and moved.

Common Themes

These three anecdotes (which, unfortunately, are not my whole experience with poverty) show a number of common themes.

The first is mobility. Families in poverty tend to move. Sometimes it's in search of jobs. More often, it is to escape social services or get into new social service systems. One family (not described above) was under investigation by the social services in their county, so they moved to my county. When it started to get serious in my county, they moved again. On the Indian Reservations, mobility is quite common. Again, this is an environment of poverty. Schools cannot plan for students because they come and go all year. How do we educate children? In my experience, we would start to have some success with a child and the child would get yanked out of the school.

Another theme is lack of marriage. In my anecdotes, only the last "family" was married. These children grow up with a continual succession of new adults in their lives. They don't have the stability that many of us grow up with. They are exposed to their parents' sex lives at a young age. Abuse can result. Also, they tend to be sexualized quite young.

We see a lack of long-term planning. I love wooden floors, but I can understand that you may need to sell your wooden floor for money. What I can't understand is buying any kind of TV with it, let alone a TV that is too big for your living room. Middle-class values call for putting that extra money away for the future. That way, when your car dies a month from now, you have the money to fix it and don't lose your job because you have no car.

A colleague of mine (a home-ec teacher) student taught in a high poverty school. One of her favorite projects is to make pickles. Pickles need a long time to complete the pickling process. She tried it it her poverty school. The students tried eating them right away. They couldn't wait or plan ahead to when they were done pickling.

Entertainment and relationships are a common theme as well. The poverty culture emphasizes entertainment over work. This explains the TV, stereo, internet, and so on. It also explains why jobs are not held. If a worker doesn't like his boss (or a student doesn't like his teacher) he doesn't work for him. Never mind the question of what he will do without that job. Remember, there is a lack of long-term planning.

So far, I haven't looked at why this exists or how schools can deal with it. I'll get into that soon. An expert on poverty is Ruby Payne. I borrowed from some of her work in identifying themes above.

Should schools publish all their financial information online? This has been proposed by the North Dakota Policy Council.

So this isn't quite part 2 of my poverty post, but I think it's worth discussing. (I'll do part 2 soon.)

Here's the deal. If you visit my school website (or that of any school in North Dakota) you will not find the school budget. You may, however, go down to my school (or any school) and request a copy of the budget. It is public information. Furthermore, North Dakota has some good "sunshine laws." The school board minutes are published in the local paper. These include all bills paid.

Now, these tend to arrive about a month after the fact. My school seems to issue them in batches with several months in between. This isn't exactly current. The newspaper is at fault. In some towns I've lived in, coverage of school board meetings is part of what a newspaper does. Not in this one!

With all the concern about school funding in North Dakota (see some of my earlier posts), this group suggested making it public exactly where all that money goes. Specifically, they suggest putting the information on a searchable website. It should even include scans of checks and receipts. That way, one guesses, they could find out that Mr. Squirrel ordered 30 frogs for dissection, even though he only has 28 students. AHA! Waste!

The concept doesn't bother me. I am bothered however that this group wants schools to put this on a searchable website. It is time-consuming to do this. My own finances are much simpler than my school's, and I would be at a loss to do this.

Who would do it? Few schools in North Dakota have a large office staff. I've known some where there are two people in the office: a secretary/business manager, and the superintendent/principal. What about Squaw Gap (the subject of an interesting exchange in the early days of this blog)? Does that teacher need to scan all the checks and information?

The concept is noble, but it falls flat on its face in terms of practical implementation.

A Few Financial Facts

For this information, I thank the Education Intelligence Agency. They put together financial and enrollment information for every public school in the nation. The information compares spending in 2000-2001 to that in 2004-2005. I'll compare the state of North Dakota to the US. Then, I will highlight a few schools.

Enrollment:
US : +1.82%
ND: -8.10%

Full Time Equivalent Teachers
US: +3.84%
ND: -5.37%

Per pupil spending:
US: +19.45%
ND: +29.14%

This limited selection of figures could be used in a lot of ways, some of them quite misleading. For example: why hasn't North Dakota lost as many teachers as students? Possibly because some schools have reached a minimum possible number of teachers, even as their enrollment continues plummeting. Why has North Dakota spending gone up so much? Possibly because we started at or near the bottom. Are we spending too much? Possibly.

Let me compare per-pupil spending in North Dakota's largest school and it's smallest school as well as the state:
Fargo:  (11,225 students) $8,132
Sheets: (2 students) $41,500
ND: (100, 351 students) $8,159

Let's compare how much per pupil is spent on compensation at these two schools:
Fargo: $6.593
Sheets: $19,500
ND: $6,475

Now, we'll forget my feelings about certain small schools for a moment. Sheets has certain fixed costs. They have 1 teacher. They cannot save money by cutting there. She may or may not do some janitorial work, but I'm sure she doesn't do maintenance (painting, repairing, etc.). They most likely have only one small building, but it must be heated. Fargo can lay off or hire teachers as needed. They can close buildings (and have done so) or build them as needed.

Sheets can't cut to save money like Fargo can. On the other hand, Fargo can easily bury waste in a mountain of data. Sheets really can't.

I favor public information, but let's also be practical about how we get it out there. That's why we elect local school boards. If they're not doing the job, throw them out!

The popular images of poverty are either incomplete, based on stereotypes, or just plain wrong. No matter what, most of these images do not help us actually fight poverty.

Though depressing, I am going to concede one important fact that liberals and conservatives alike are often unwilling to concede: the poor will always be with us. We live in a fallen world. Now, there are many ways to deal with poverty. To me, the best way to deal with poverty is to give people the tools to get out of poverty. For others, poverty is a result of outside forces. The victims of these forces need charity to help them. To still others, people are poor because they're lazy. If they would just work, they wouldn't be poor.

I'm going to do my best to discuss this without wandering into liberal vs. conservative. In fact, both sides have valid contributions to handling poverty, and both have harmful stereotypes that interfere with their handling it. I do lean very conservative in my interpretation of poverty.

The Victim

Consider this popular image: malnourished, ragged clothes, living in a shack, no options, a victim of society.

This is a popular stereotype. This image was the justification for Johnson's Great Society and for Roosevelt's social programs. I will concede that there was a lot of truth to this stereotype in Roosevelt's day. I could even be brought to concede that there was still some truth to it in Johnson's day. However, I will suggest that it is no longer true. It is possible to find individuals for whom it is true. Finding the exceptions does not help us deal with the population as a whole.

Those in poverty are not malnourished. With food stamps, there is no excuse for being malnourished. They tend not to wear rags. Their housing is often not great, but those who live in shacks are there by choice. Their options are indeed limited, but not necessarily by the rich or powerful in society. They are not necessarily victims. The causes of poverty are more complex.

Lazy

"Why don't they just get jobs?" This stereotype comes from the infamous welfare queens who would arrive to collect welfare checks in their limousine. It also comes from the inability of large numbers of poor people to hold a job for long. I must confess, that when I compare my TV (which is older than me) to that of some people on welfare, I really do wonder what is up. Why do they have a large flat-screen TV when I don't?

I'll get to why tomorrow. But there is a legitimate basis for this stereotype. Nevertheless, there are a lot of poor people who work like dogs and never get ahead. Is it just possible that there is more to poverty than simple laziness?

Poverty vs. Being Poor

The English language lacks the vocabulary to explain this concept. I will explain it this way: poverty is a state of mind. Being poor is a state of income.

Imagine a setback. I imagine that I get into a car accident and cannot work for a while due to my injuries. I will quickly eat through my savings and I will be poor. After I heal, I will go back to work and build myself back up.

Other people seem to be poor no matter what happens. Good things happen to them, bad things happen to them, they remain poor. They are in poverty. They make excuses. They are in poverty. Most likely poverty has been a state of their family for many generations.

Tomorrow, I want to look at why some people are poor and why others are in poverty.

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that I'm comfortable in my retirement? Mine? The government's?

I know this isn't the Christian article or the poverty article that I promised. They are coming, but I just got an update on my teachers' retirement today and it's always an unhappy day.

To start from the beginning, I'm on a decent path toward retirement. I have no mutual funds (yet), but I do have money in annuities, 403b's, and a Roth IRA. I also have a CD in the bank that functions as a back-up in case I need spending money for some reason. I also have some money in normal savings and checking accounts. These are for day to day expenses and the unexpected -- like a deer using my car as a suicide mechanism.

I'm on track with my retirement savings. Not ahead, but on track. I'll be comfortable when I get there. If social security still exists, it will be gravy. Teachers' retirement (which I'll get to in a minute) will be more gravy.

I do not play the stock market (except through third parties, as mentioned above). I don't really know enough to do that. My income is not large enough to play games with it.

Social security and all of its details have been done to death elsewhere. The general themes here apply equally to social security, but the specific numbers do not.

North Dakota Retirement

At present, 15% of my salary is used to fund the North Dakota Teacher Fund For Retirement (TFFR). To begin collecting retirement benefits, I must reach the rule of 85 (years of service +age). The last time I figured it out, that put me in my early fifties. If I wait until age 65, I can collect full TFFR. Some schools fully fund TFFR. I work in one of those. Other schools fund only one half of it (and teachers fund the other half). By law, the school must cover half.

Now, this is all a bit of misdirection. If my school covered only 1/2, the base salary would look more attractive, but that money would still go to the state. No real win there. Sometimes schools offer this instead of offering a raise. In reality, it is a raise.

So, my money is going into a mandatory retirement account (I'll come back to that in a moment). In the early part of this decade, TFFR had a bit of a rough ride. They realized that the retirement system will go broke if nothing is done, particularly with the huge number of retirements right now. Their solution was to change rules for new teachers. Now it's a rule of 90 and the percentage has gone up to about 17%. This won't apply to me (unless I leave the state and then come back).

The other change, which is a good one, is that retired teachers who come back to work part time must resume paying 1/2 of the TFFR payment. Too many teachers (and schools) were double-dipping. They were working and collecting retirement.

This actually led to serious problems in Michigan. Their teacher retirement system is in dire straits. This can all be read on the internet, so I won't look up links right now.

"We will take care of you."

That is a chilling phrase. I endorse it when parents say it to their children and I've said it once or twice as an EMT to a patient. However, I don't want to be taken care of (barring an accident). I take care of myself. I'm living below my means to fund my own retirement. It began because I didn't believe that Social Security would exist when I retire. Now I think it will be there, but suffering badly and sucking a lot more out of my income. However, ideologically, I can't allow the government to care for me.

I have made that choice. I could just as easily choose to indulge myself in wine, expensive coffee, newer computer, and so on rather than fund my retirement. Some people may just simply not know enough to save for retirement. In each of these cases, I ask simply why that is my problem. If I make the choice to eat down the road at Jabr's every night, the heart-attack I'll have at 40 will not be their fault. It will be mine.

What about those with limited income? To answer that, I would say simply that they are not teachers. Teachers all make what I do, thanks to collective bargaining. Most have families (which I don't -- yet) and these are expensive. However, plenty of teachers manage to have families and still save gobs of money for retirement. They do without things. They keep their eye on the future.

Even if limited income is a problem, I really question two things: why do you accept a limited income? Get a better job! also: can you do without? I'll discuss both of these when I finally post my article on poverty.

I am not property of the government. I am not a slave. I am an independent man who will stand on his own two feet. I will take care of myself. In the real world, something may happen to me. I may also outlive my retirement money. These are risks. However, I would rather risk these things than risk that the government will be unable to take care of me properly.

This isn't much. I just want to cite two articles that give more information on the lawsuit than originally available.

I also want to emphasize the retraction I placed at the head of my previous entry. It turns out that this was NOT the ACLU.

Atheist Group Files Suit

North Dakota Reaction to Lawsuit

It appears that this lawsuit has very little to do with North Dakota. Rather, it is a statement against George Bush and his faith-based initiatives.

Edit: upon rereading the KFYR article, I noticed that the phrase ACLU does not appear. I heard that on the radio. I will update tomorrow, but I am willing to concede the point that this may not be the ACLU.

The ACLU is looking for publicity, so they throw mud to see if any will stick. Just recently, a bit of mud landed in North Dakota. Only time will tell whether or not it actually sticks.

The ACLU has decided to file a lawsuit against the Dakota Boy's Ranch for religious indoctrination.

The story at KFYR.com

The Dakota Boy's Ranch is a school for troubled youth who have been placed there by court order. It is in the central part of the state near Minot. We have several such schools in this state. Another is located in Wahpeton (in the east). This school, the Circle of Nations, specializes in helping American Indian Youth in grades 3-8. Still another is in the Western end of the state near Beach. It is called Home on the Range. There are a few other such schools, but I know I'll forget one if I try to give an exhaustive list.

I'm in Western North Dakota, so I know the most about Home on the Range. It's similar to Dakota Boy's Ranch, except it has an interesting rodeo component. Both certainly have a religious basis, but they are not religious indoctrination centers. Rather, Christian faith informs their mission. This is similar to a church giving food to the homeless. It's not indoctrination, it is expression of faith. I may write on this later. For today, I just want to talk about how these schools work.

Home on the Range works closely with the Beach school. I understand that Dakota Boy's Ranch also works closely with Minot. Students often come to these schools with severe discipline problems. Part of their time in these places is learning self-control and proper behavior.

Students begin at the Home on the Range campus. They are taught there in self-contained classrooms. As students show that they can handle it, they are then allowed to attend school in Beach.

Beach has a wonderful facility that was built for these students. It is a self-contained classroom called the "Day-Treatment Room." Here, students take classes and are assisted in catching up on their academics. For example, Beach offers remedial reading classes in high school specifically for these students.

As they earn the privilege, they are allowed more and more interaction with the "regular kids" at Beach high school. This is a great privilege which they want. It includes attending regular classes, eating lunch with the regular kids, and other such things. It is a successful program and Beach has done a wonderful job managing a population of kids that could easily overwhelm their own small population.

There is no religious indoctrination. It is inspired by Christian Faith. Christians believe that everyone is created in the image of God and that informs how we deal with people. Tomorrow I'll talk about that and, by then, I may have learned more about this lawsuit. It just came up today!

I haunt a liberal forum from time to time. One of the posters there provided this link to an enlightening YouTube movie:

Woman + Photoshop = Supermodel

In it, an ordinary woman sits down in front of the camera. Then, in fast motion, makeup is applied, her hair is done, and she becomes a good-looking woman.

The fun part was that the picture was then put into Photoshop. Her neck was lengthened, her ears were altered, her eyes were made larger, her eyebrows were changed, and presto, the supermodel was unleashed to a billboard. Maybe I could be good-looking too!

I bring this up in part because it was an interesting minute of video and, in part, because media alters reality in many ways. Both students (and adults) either don't see it or simply realize it is not being done.

So, let's look at some easy twists on reality (some in education, some not).

Students
Take a look at most portrayals of high school. The actors who play the students are usually in their 20s. Why? They're more photogenic and more confident. When I look at my high school pictures, I see a skeleton with clothes over it. I have no desire to go back to a size 32 waist! I am much better looking now. The same is true with most people. As teens, they aren't filled out and they are awkward as their bodies grow and change. 20-something actors and actresses look the way teens think of themselves, not the reality.

There are also behavioral depictions that are wrong. I've been asked many times how I can put up with the kids screaming and swearing at me all day. The simple answer is that I don't. My students are polite. They're kids, of course, but basically good people. However, the media portrays teachers as having no discipline, so that's the reality for people who are not in school.

Last year, I taught a foreign exchange student from one of the Oriental countries (sorry, some attempt here at protecting anonymity). One day after school he asked why the girls and boys weren't "together". There was a language barrier, but I finally figured out that he was surprised that the students weren't "making out" in the hallways or after lunch. This was a perception born of TV.

College is all Parties
I hear this every year. I always get one or two students who tell me that I don't understand what college is like. It apparently passes over their heads that I'm 31 and haven't been out of college too long myself! Their perception of college is born from movies like "Animal House" or people they know, shortly before they fail out of college. This is not to say that there are no parties in college. However, the reality of college for most students is a hard slap in the face when they figure out it's not like high school. (Confession: I had a lot more fun in college than in high school, in part because there was no parental supervision -- sorry Mom and Dad!)

When I get out on my own, I'll have...
The reality of leaving the "nest" can be a blow. Movies and TV depict a life of spacious apartments, nice furniture, "hip" friends, great decorating style, a new car, and lots of free time. The reality is that you rarely have enough money to do more than live paycheck to paycheck. Even then, you lack the maturity to intelligently handle money, so you're always short. You actually do without a lot and have used furniture (if any) and struggle to get by with your elderly car.

Some make the mistakes of rent-to-own and using credit cards. Their hard dose of reality comes later.

I knew I had arrived when my alternator (in the car) died and I had to rent a motel room 300 miles from home while I waited for the part and the work to be done. I had the money for it! Earlier in life it would have been a disaster for me. I now have the money for more "toys." However, those habits from when I started out ensure that my purchases of "toys" are quite selective. My TV is actually older than me even though I could afford a nice flat-screen model with stereo sound.

Why can't the people and places where I live be like...
Most people aren't good looking. On TV and in movies they often are. Now, I'll admit that movies aren't meant to depict real life. However, I was traveling recently and watched a TV show on the sci-fi channel. Even the token "old man" in the show was handsome. This is not limited to one show. Of course, I've been told Fred Thompson is an actor and I'll admit that the man is an exception to the good-looking actor rule!

On TV and the movies, life is exciting. In the places I've lived you have to make your own excitement. My friends and I do not sit at the coffee-house and trade clever or flirty bon mots. I did discuss rodeo for half an hour today while standing by the post office. In real life, everywhere, the conversation is not what we see in movies. We don't slay fools with our rapier wit. I usually think up my cleverest lines hours later (which is probably a good thing).

A Solution
So, shall we have affirmative action for ugly people? Shall we require that movies contain a certain percentage of  us? Should we require movies depicting high school employ actual high school students? Should our fictitious singles live in cramped apartments with ratty furniture and leaky roofs? Should we require clumsy, fumbling conversations about rodeo?

Or, should we remind ourselves from time to time that movies, TV, books, and, yes, Townhall.com are all constructed worlds and do not necessarily reflect reality. I use these media to escape. I don't need movies about boring 31-year-old science teachers from North Dakota. I want exciting people doing exciting things.

Of course, it would help if they would stop portraying us science types as nerds...

Teachers (and other unionized workers) have won a victory against the unions! Nonmembers will not be forced to give their money to political causes to which they are opposed. These are two pertinent articles:

Union view of decision
Conservative website view of decision

This was a unanimous Supreme Court decision. In other words, the liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that unions must request permission from non-members to use their agency fees for political purposes.

This all started in the state of Washington. Those who were not members of the unions were required to pay "agency fees" because they benefitted from collective bargaining. If they did not want their agency fees to be used for political purposes, they needed to make this request in writing twice a year. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) felt that these workers should have to "opt in" to have their money spent on politics.

This was actually what state law said at the time. Needless to say, the unions disagreed. The Washington Education Association (WEA) battled it out with the EFF in court. A lower court found in favor of the EFF. The State Supreme Court found in favor of the WEA, and now the U.S. Supreme Court has found in favor of the EFF.

Due to changes in Washington state law, this decision will have limited application. Even so it was only applicable to the state of Washington. The reason that this is a victory is that it shows recognition of workers' rights.

Frankly, I am opposed to any sort of "closed shop." I live in a "right-to-work" state which allows me to work without being forced to either join the union or pay agency fees. This favors freedom of association. Closed shop does not.

I've gone through all of this in previous posts, so I won't do so today. I will close by posting a few links for those who want to investigate this topic further.

WEA Reaction
EFF Reaction (with many links to articles in various papers)
Teachers vs. Union Reaction
Investigation into EFF funding and motives

I spent today "shopping." A neighboring school closed for lack of students, so I went over to pick at the corpse. I actually got a lot of good lab equipment. Their science teacher was quite good, very organized, and had been there for years. In fact, it was his retirement that finally convinced them to close their doors.

This school was down to about 70 students K-12. Interestingly, though they lacked students, they did not lack money. The school was well maintained and, to be honest, was nicer than the one where I work. It had the quirks of an old building, but the money put into fixing it up was beyond belief.

Sadly, it was all for nothing. The school is closed. Another beautiful building sits empty. Over time, it will deteriorate and someone will finally decide it's time to knock it over.

It's a demographic reality. Rural North Dakota is emptying out. This particular town has only one paved street. It once had more houses and businesses, but now there are empty lots and abandoned buildings. I don't expect that it will ever recover. The only appeal this town has is for those looking for cheap housing. Industry or businesses won't come to the town because there are no workers and no amenities to attract workers from outside.

Some towns have tried to save their old school buildings. Sometimes they are turned into apartments. This spring I saw one that became a factory. Sometimes they are purchased by the city with the idea of using them as community centers. It's good to see them try. Usually these are nice buildings. Unfortunately, these sorts of things usually fall through.

There really is no solution to this. I've mentioned before that I love these schools. The first school I taught in was smaller and is now down to about 100 students, K-12. I expect that someone will be picking over its corpse in a few years.

To preserve my anonymity, I won't post a picture of the school I picked over today. However, I'm working on a photo website of the various rural schools around the state. Eventually the one I discussed today will appear in the collection. The one that is up is attractive, but doesn't have the money of the one I went through today.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/waski_the_squirrel/

My daily visit to townhall.com brought up 4 editorials on public schooling. They all were essentially the same theme: competition will improve education. In addition, there were several editorials about raising children, gay teens committing suicide, and the recent increase in violence in large cities. All of these are related to youth. I wonder if the vast right wing conspiracy got together last night and agreed to make that today's theme? (Which reminds me, there was another good one about conspiracy theories.)

These are the 4 education editorials:

Jonah Goldberg: "Do Away with Public Schools"
Walter Williams: "Competition or Monopoly?"
Nathan Tabor: "Teach Your Children Well"
Trent Franks: "Empower Parents to Choose What is Best for their Children"

The basic theme of all is competition between schools, though they each have a different focus. What is most interesting is to read the comments that follow these editorials. Both liberals and conservatives have a "kook fringe." It is quite interesting to hear the ideas of some of our "kooks". Now, I personally believe that liberal ideas have taken too strong a hold in education, but conservatives have some scary ideas as well.

It's interesting what people think goes on in school. I've had many people tell me that they couldn't stand teaching because they'd never be able to put up with the kids screaming and swearing at them all day. Neither could I. However, my students don't do that. Most are polite and well behaved. The occasional incident is promptly dealt with. On this forum, schools are criticized for liberal indoctrination. I see very little of that. Frankly, the liberals and conservatives on staff balance each other out. The science department actually could be criticized for leaning too far to the right. Various scary incidents occur around the country, but it is important to remember that they are the exception, not the rule.

Competition
I'm in agreement with this one. It would enable schools to specialize. Some could work with the college bound, some could emphasize the trades, and some could work with the various "special needs." In a large enough area, we could have competition. Two college-prep schools could compete: school A has a better science program, school B is better for liberal arts. Maybe there is also a school C that calls itself college-prep but is actually more interested in its sports program.

This is a weakness of competition. Not all consumers make good choices, and there is a market for bad choices.

There is also the possibility that such schools will limit students. One who attends a "trade school" may later decide to attend college. Will he have the academic background?

A personal problem with this is that competition will not work well in rural areas. The school district in which I teach covers almost 1000 square miles and educates 450 kids. The possibility has been idly kicked around of turning the abandoned high school in our district into a trade school. Realistically, we couldn't afford that. That's why that school district closed in the first place: they couldn't afford to stay open.

Teach Evolution as a Theory
We do. This conservative pet exists because too many people don't know what a theory is. They think it's someone's opinion. Theories are supported by evidence. That doesn't mean they can't be shown to be wrong, but it does not make them an opinion. Evolution is supported by evidence.

Students should be taught critical thinking skills. They need to learn to look for evidence. Blind acceptance of evolution is no better than blind rejection of it. These positions need to be based on evidence. Our culture, both liberal and conservative, is too willing to base opinions on emotion rather than facts.

Teach Facts, not Opinions
To a point, this is true. However, a purely fact based curriculum is as dangerous as one which is not based on fact. Are we creating cabbages or are we creating citizens? Cabbages can be loaded with dates, definitions, and so on and not be educated.  My students would love for me to teach that sort of thing. They could memorize everything for the test and then forget it.

On the other hand, if you have nothing to think about, are you really thinking? Some teachers have their students debate contemporary issues: gay rights, global warming, evolution. The trouble is that these students will debate on emotion, not fact. If you have no concept of weather patterns or climate, can you really have an intelligent opinion about global warming?

Some of those who spout off about education on this website could really stand to learn some facts about education first.

I love discussing things with people who disagree with me and can back up their opinions. It makes me better at backing up mine. I'm a member of a forum elsewhere that leans quite to the left. There are some liberals there that really force me to think about my opinions. It has actually made me even more right wing.

Get Rid of Education Schools ... or "Anyone can teach"
I mostly agree with the first part. My education classes were a waste of time, and I attended an extremely conservative college. A high school teacher needs to know the law. He needs to know a little about brain development and needs to be made aware of some of the basics of education. However, subject knowledge is the most important thing. This is closely followed by classroom management, a skill that is hard to teach. I would replace most of the education classes with a summer session and a year or two of graduated internship.

I can't speak as well to elementary teachers. The quote in my heading is usually in reference to them. I haven't met many people who claim that anyone can teach Physics or Chemistry. However, many people believe it is easy to teach children to read. No it isn't. A huge amount of patience is required as well as a knowledge of how children think. A high school colleague spent a day filling in for a first grade teacher. She told me that it was the worst day of her entire teaching career. Frankly, I don't know what sort of preparation is appropriate for elementary teachers. I do know that not everyone can do it.

General Closing Comments
This post got a bit long. I think conservatives can improve education, but I also think that they could ruin it. Conservatives tend to view the world in terms of their values: independence, work ethic, self-reliance, and so on. Not all people come equipped with this. My original plan for today was to talk about poverty (which I will do soon). The truth is that some people lack the skills necessary to get out of poverty. They don't have the work ethic and don't even realize that they need one. They don't know how to organize their thoughts to be successful.

A dose of reality does not wake everyone up. Many people lack the cognitive skills to wake up. Instead they decide that they are victims. "Oh the little man can't get ahead." "It's just because I'm black." "The rich are holding me back." Conservative prescriptions for curing schools don't deal with these attitudes. In fairness, liberal prescriptions feed into them and perpetuate them.

The world is not black and white. It mixes black and white together. I don't believe in shades of gray, but I do believe in evaluating an idea on its merits, whether it is conservative or liberal. Public education works if we will just take the best ideas from both the liberal and conservative sides. This doesn't make us moderates or fence-sitters or simply unwilling to take a stand. It makes us true citizens who can recognize a good idea, no matter who it comes from.

I love open source software and I see it as a way for schools to more efficiently spend taxpayer dollars.

Open source software is not freeware or shareware. It can be downloaded at no cost. Its code is open for anyone to edit, although there is usually a central body that approves any changes to the code. The license on this software requires that no one may resell the software at profit, though they can market their own contributions. The companies that offer this software profit from providing support and by donation. Others offer open source software as a sort of research for their more traditional product. A few popular names are: the GIMP, Open Office, Firefox, and Linux.

Contrast this with the more traditional software. Windows and Apple contain mostly this type. Under this license, a fee must be paid for the software along with an additional fee for each machine upon which it runs. For example, I might buy a CD of Microsoft office and run it in a lab of 25 computers. I would need to pay a licensing fee for each one of those computers (or else get a site license).

Clearly, in terms of initial cost, open source software wins. Yet, very few schools actually use it. I'll go through a few reasons and then offer my argument. I will also place links to a few popular pieces of software at the end of this post. It is free to try, but I do suggest reading to the end before you try it. Open source software does have some drawbacks.

One common argument is that students need to learn the software that they will actually use out in the working world. This argument is easily countered. When I was in high school, computers used Windows 3.1 or MS-DOS. My own school was still using Apple IIe's. None of this would have prepared me for what I do now. Quite simply, software changes quickly. Features move or change and new features are always added. I would prefer students learn more "global" skills such as how to operate a spreadsheet, how a file structure works, and other such things.

These "global" skills can then be applied to anything. If I understand spreadsheets, I can quickly be up and running on Excel, Lotus 1-2-3, MicroCalc, OpenOffice Calc, or any other spreadsheet on the market. I mostly use OpenOffice Calc, but am quite comfortable in Excel because so much is the same. Once in a while, I have to look for a feature.

Are we providing vocational training of specific skills or are we preparing free-thinking citizens?

Another common argument is that open source software is prone to bugs. I would counter this by saying that Microsoft is well known for bugs as well. Apple has bugs as well. The difference is that with open source software, anyone can fix the bugs. With Microsoft or Apple, only their own programmers may fix them. In my experience, as an avid user of open source software, the bugs show up rarely, unless you download experimental versions of software. This is similar to using beta software from traditional programs.

Some argue that open source software is difficult to use. I would counter that this is an issue of familiarity. Students use my Linux machines at school with no trouble. They're a little freaked at first but adapt quickly. Things are in different places, but they are there.

Now this does bring up a legitimate point. There is very little support for open source software. You may find some stuff online, but most often you are on my own. I attempted to set up Moodle on my Linux machine. It didn't work and now I can't get rid of the old version to try again. There is no one I can call. The best I can hope for is to find someone by luck on the Internet. Luckily, the more common pieces of software have attracted technical writers. I recently purchased a wonderful book on the GIMP that really opened my eyes to what it could do.

Schools need to decide for themselves how much they use the support. One point worth raising is that many open source programs have more traditional counterparts that do have the support. For example, the traditional counterpart of Open Office is Star Office. This has many of the same features, offers support, and is still a lot cheaper than the Microsoft or Apple offerings.

Another concern is lack of features. I offer two considerations. The first is that when we buy software, we are often dazzled by the array of features and then rarely use them. They serve merely to bloat the program. How many of you word processor users out there make use of Styles? They made my life much easier, but most people don't even know the feature is there. My second consideration is that most of the features are there. You may occasionally find that one picky feature, but that is rare. I wish Open Office had a curve-fitting feature like Excel. On the other hand, I can write one and this is a feature that most people will not use or miss.

The final concern I want to bring up today is security. Since the code is open to anyone, can't anyone find its weaknesses? The answer is yes. They can also change them. Many, many eyes look at the code. At its root, security is based on passwords and privileges. Linux is quite good on this score. In addition, Linux does not suffer from the viruses and spybots of Windows. On a personal note, I have Explorer and Firefox on my Windows machine at school. I use only Firefox. I scan for spybots every few months and may pick up 5-10. When I used to use Explorer, the number could be in the hundreds.

In sum, open source software is a viable alternative to traditional software and offers some real cash savings to schools.

*********************

I just wanted to note a few good open source programs. This is advertising.

The GIMP - this is a graphics-editing program that offers an alternative to Adobe Photoshop. It is an excellent program, though a little tough to learn. In its defense, Photoshop is also tough to learn. These are programs for professional graphic artists.

OpenOffice - this is an office suite that offers a great alternative to Microsoft Office. It also reads Microsoft files and saves in that format. Since getting this program, I rarely use Microsoft Office. I particularly love the formula editor. It's harder to use than the Microsoft version, but offers a lot more control and, once learned, is faster.

Mozilla Firefox/Camino - these are both web browsers. Camino only runs on Apple machines, but Firefox runs on everything. They brought tabbed browsing years before Microsoft. They have an excellent pop-up blocker, and can display almost everything that Microsoft displays. I only use Explorer when I'm on a strange computer that doesn't have the others.

Mozilla Thunderbird - this is an E-mail program (and the link takes you to the same place as the previous link). I'll admit it's a little slower on my Apple than I'd like, but I notice no difference on my Linux machine or the Windows machine at school.

Scribus - this is page layout software. I've used it very little, but I'm told that it's very good.

Moodle - this is an alternative to Blackboard. It is a program you can use to teach classes online. I had some trouble setting it up, but I've used it where others have set it up. I like its layout better and its operation, but I think Blackboard does a better job with the testing feature.

Linux - this is an operating system, an alternative to Windows or OS-X. It comes in several flavors, some of which cost money. The version I use is Red Hat Fedora (the experimental version of Red Hat). I like it because it enables me to use one machine as an old-fashioned mainframe while other old "junkers" can be connected to it and run as thin-client terminals. You can set up an entire computer lab at very low cost. I have my complaints with Fedora, but they're for another day.

It is a whole world of software well worth exploring. The best part about it is that it is free to explore. It is a true free market with an almost "Wild West" competition. Programs rise and fall daily and only the absolute best survive.

First, I need to apologize. I have not posted in a few weeks. I have been visiting my parents, and posting from their computer over dial-up internet is an exercise in frustration. I'm now back in North Dakota and my DSL.

My travels actually made me think about this post. In one motel, I watched a show called "Doctor Who." This made me think about why we teach science in high school. Math and Reading get most of the focus when we talk about education. Science and other subjects are "also-rans".

Few students actually pursue careers in science. For these students, taking it made sense. What about the vast majority who are not in science? Some would argue that taking the class is how they know they're not interested (or that they are interested). Others make the liberal arts argument that it's good to know a little about everything because it makes you well rounded.

I don't disagree with these arguments. However, I want to focus on two other reasons. The first is that it expands our enjoyment of life. The second is that it makes us better decision makers. Science is not alone in this, but I'll let the history and art teachers defend their own subjects.

Consider a train locomotive. One who is not scientifically inclined sees a big noisy machine that uglifies the view. The scientist sees powerful generators converting chemical energy (diesel) to electrical energy and using that to drive the train forward. He sees not just a switching yard, but a complex system of quickly exchanging cars between locomotives to go in different directions. He sees a motor that is full of power and a system that helps to hold our country together and ensure that someone in North Dakota can get fresh vegetables in the winter.

Now our scientist does not need to be able to explain the scientific details of how the train works, though that's nice. Scientific thought does not mean knowing everything. It's simply a way of looking at things.

The same is true with a flower.The non-scientific see that it's pretty and smells good. The scientific person sees stamens, a pistil, anthers, pollen, stigma, ovaries, petals, and so on. He sees a reproductive structure that works in cooperation with insects. It feeds the insect and the insect carries pollen from one flower to another. Neither could exist without the other. Again, the scientist may not know the names of all the parts, but he appreciates how they work with other things and that they are there for a purpose.

Which one enjoys more? The scientist gets to enjoy both views.

Those with scientific training are better decision makers. I once had a student who didn't want to learn science because, in her words, "All that matters is that God wants it this way." This is little more than superstition. She put Christian window-dressing on it instead of pagan window-dressing. As a scientist, I see a God who created flowers and insects so that they need each other. That is a more glorious God than the one who put flowers there because they are pretty.

Those who don't think scientifically don't know why things happen. At one time, medicine had no concept of germs. Hence, a limb was amputated to avoid gangrene. In the past, one person's wound would fester and rot, another's would not. This was the whim of some capricious deity. Now we recognize that one had few germs in the wound and the other had too many. We now know why it happened and how to prevent it.

The scientific among us look for explanations and evidence. The rest rely on emotional appeal. Would you rather have someone convicted by a jury repelled by his "shifty look" of by a jury that relied on forensic evidence and testimony?

Issues like global warming and animal rights are being fought on the emotional level, not on a scientific level. This is because too many people cannot think scientifically. I am no expert on global warming, but I see the difference between an appeal based on emotion and one based on evidence. The non-scientific don't see the distinction.

Science education does not just produce scientists. I don't consider myself to be a vocational instructor. Science education produces critical thinkers who are trained to weigh and interpret evidence.

******************

Now I mentioned "Doctor Who" at the beginning of this post, so I'm going to delve into pop-culture. I've made my point. This is just extra.

The episode of "Doctor Who" had a low special-effects budget. For the monster of the week, the show used stone angels. They never moved on camera. The show said they were "quantum-locked" which meant that they could only move if no one was looking at them. When anyone looked at them, they turned to stone. It made for a good monster because it was imagined rather than seen. I think it ranks as one of my favorite "Doctor Who" monsters.

The only trouble is that the writers didn't quite follow proper Physics in creating this monster. They were loosely basing the monster on the work of Schroedinger and Heisenberg. Schroedinger performed an experiment in which a cat was locked in a box with a vial of poison and a radioactive atom. If the atom decayed, the vial opened and the cat died. If it didn't decay, the vial didn't open and the cat lived. (This is a thought experiment, by the way. No cats were actually harmed.) Since you can't predict when an individual atom decays, is the cat alive or dead before you open the box? His answer was that it was both or neither. It didn't become one or the other until you observed it.

Heisenberg went into a different part of observation. He noted that you could either know the position or the velocity of a particle exactly, but never both. The more precisely you knew one, the less precisely you knew the other. This was because the simple act of observation destroyed the system. This phenomenon is seen by frustrated principals in schools across the country. Teacher X has lousy discipline, so he needs documentation to prove it. He sits in her room to document the misbehavior, but the students all behave because he's there observing them.

So, the monster was cool, but not scientifically correct. I enjoyed it anyway and got an extra layer of enjoyment at catching a mistake. My English teachers called this, "Willing suspension of disbelief."

The same is true of sound in space. Short answer: there isn't any. The problem is that scientifically accurate space battles in "Star Wars" would put the theater to sleep. I put up with it in the original three movies because I was willing to "suspend my disbelief." In the more recent three movies, I was not willing to "suspend my disbelief" because they were not good movies.

In both cases, some scientific knowledge and the ability to think scientifically added a few layers to the movies that someone who passively watches them will not be able to enjoy.