Homework Can't Teach

I know at least one of the things that is wrong with American education today. Students are expected to learn their basic skills from doing homework, not from introduction, instruction and explanation in the classroom. I'm not sure what does get done in the classroom, but it seems the most fundamental teaching is absent. Once upon a time, homework was an exercise to practice skills that had first been taught in the classroom. No more.

If by some chance, anybody is actually reading this site (God be praised), among those who read these words will no doubt be a few teachers. I mean, individuals who have pursued professional training, dedicated themselves to teach as a profession, who go into classrooms every day and work hard. Among those teachers will be some who are competent, even exemplary, who teach their subject effectively. Such teachers will naturally object to the broad sweeping statement in the first paragraph. Rightly so.

I am sure there are many competent teachers who somehow manage to impart knowledge and skill and cultivate aptitude. The best evidence that this is so, is that millions of Americans show considerably more ability to think and do productive work than the abysmally deficient example offered on a daily basis by our president. Somebody must be doing some effective teaching. Maybe it even happens at Yale sometimes. I once met a Yale graduate who seemed intelligent and competent. Unlike most Harvard graduates whose written work I have read, she also knew how to spell English words correctly and consistently.

What do I know? I do a lot of tutoring with students struggling with homework, who have no idea where to begin. I'm not certified. I'm not paid. I show up at the library in a Boys and Girls club. I drop by friends homes who have school-age children. I get called over to a table in the break room at my job driving a paratransit bus, to help a driver who is pursuing a degree while working full time, and is trying to master a course in mathematics as applied to cryptography.

I'm not one of those opportunistic "tutors" who get paid $20 an hour and up to spend an hour or two for a few weeks with children from "failing schools" on funding from the No Child Left Intact law, then walk away when the money runs out, and never see them again. (I looked into such a job once. I was horrified by the attitude of the petty little entrepreneur who ran it, who could talk about nothing but that people who worked for him last year really made a lot of money. I think HE must have billed $40 per hour for each child allegedly served.)

As a matter of fact, I suspect that the lack of teaching in the classroom is closely related to the government's, and the education profession's, addiction to standardized tests. By "the education profession" I do not mean dedicated, certified, experienced, hard-working professional teachers. I mean, the gurus that dominate the upper levels of education and administration with new fads, pet theories, and the bright ideas that are passed off as Ph.D theses in a world overcrowded with knowledge. These gurus exist in every profession. They cover the ideological spectrum from "left" to "right" – as if those archaic terms have any meaning.

Here is what I do know: at the beginning of the school year, a young lady in 3rd grade named Tinika walked into the library with some subtraction homework. It took me four hours to work through it with her. Why? Because she had no idea what to do with it. I don't give answers, I ask questions that lead the child to find the answers for themselves. But that wasn't enough this time. I had to teach her what subtraction is, teach her what to do with the numbers on the page, teach her how to carry or borrow or regroup. (Each of those terms is a slightly different approach to doing the same thing. No doubt someone got a Ph.D degree, an article published in a professional journal, or a book published by a textbook company, for coming up with each "new" approach.)

There was no deficiency in Tinika's brain. How do I know that? Because the second day, the woman who runs the library only needed to spend two hours with her. The next day, I only needed to spend one hour with her. The next week, Tinika breezed through it all by herself, even though the problems were getting more difficult. Once we taught her how to do subtraction, she took off on her own. The problem was, nobody taught her how to do subtraction at school. (An even more mindless use of homework: I see first graders coming in with homework. They are expected to follow written instructions – but they have yet to be taught the fundamentals of reading. Homework uber alles!) Nobody should be given homework sooner than 4th grade. The idea that we will produce highly educated advanced human geniuses by cramming them early is ludicrous.

Nobody in the school system responsible for Tinika's education seems to teach much history either. I was helping Tinika find a book to read one day, after she finished her math. One of the books on the shelves was a child's biography of Malcolm X. Tinika looked at it, and asked "He go to Malcolm X school, right?" I said, no, there was no Malcolm X school when he was a child. "The why his name Malcolm X if he don't go to Malcolm X school?" I should have known nobody was teaching anything about Malcolm X in that school district. Most of the children at this club are up in each other's faces all day long, "you're darker than me, you're nappier than me, you're ugly, ugly ugly." Nobody who understood Malcolm X would indulge in that foolishness.

Nobody has taught them anything about "Black is beautiful." I'm trying to find ways to do that. My melanin-deficient skin and hair that is a mix of straight Germanic and curly Jewish shouldn't be an overwhelming obstacle. I'm reasonably certain that my mother's mother's family includes some runaways from colonial Virginia, both European and African, as well as some east Tennessee Cherokee. If the One-Drop Rule were consistently applied, two thirds of the population of the United States are black. That never-ending and inescapable mind game doesn't help any when trying to teach of course.

But back to quantifiable branches of education. College level. Cartesian planes and temperatures and graphing and functions and algebra. I must admit I cheated a little helping a young woman with homework in that field. When I was eight years old, I learned that to convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit temperatures, you multiply by 9, divide by 5, and add 32. Conversely, to convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade, you subtract 32, multiply by 5 and divide by 9. Simple formulas, difficult to keep straight, useful when memorized properly. Easier to apply accurately if you kinow WHY they work. Memorization alone does not give a working perspective on the relationship between these two temperature scales. But I knew these formulas. And I used them to get the graph started. Then I tried to explain what I had done. I ran into a blank wall for a while.

The problem, essentially, was to graph the relationship between Fahrenheit and Centigrade on a Cartesian plane. Of course, that produces a line with a slope of 5/9, and an x-intercept of 32. That much is easy. The y-intercept, it turns out, is -17.777777777777777777777777... (It is, if Centigrade is the vertical axis, and Fahrenheit is the horizontal axis). That would have been a harder number to work with on a graph. But to make sense of all this, I had to spend an hour explaining what Centigrade is, what Fahrenheit is, drawing little diagrams to show that one Centigrade degree is 1.8 times one Fahrenheit degree (i.e. 9/5), and one Fahrenheit degree is 5/9 of one Centigrade degree. Then I worked with x1-x2 / y1-y2 = slope, and y=mx+b.

The significant point, for the way education is being done in the USA these days, is that this was all news to the woman struggling with this homework! It was no part of the preparation for assigning these problems! Or, if it was, it was somehow presented in a manner that completely escaped her. She did not have the conceptual tools to even ATTEMPT to solve the problem! This reminded me of a course I tried to take in Fortran many years ago: the instructor, a stoned-out TA, said little more in the classroom than "find time to go to the lab and work on your program." Program? I had no clue what the language was, or how to punch the cards! I eventually dropped out of that course.)

Oh yes, the Centigrade scale is now known as "Celsius." Why? Because some dern fool in the scientific establishment decided that since the Fahrenheit scale is named after Mr. Fahrenheit, the Centigrade scale should be named after Mr. Celsius. What fatuous nonsense! Centigrade is a perfectly good name that explains what the scale is all about: 100 degrees from freezing to boiling point. A very practical approach. Who cares who invented it? It was a contribution of the French Revolution, developed by committee. Who knows anything about Mr. Celsius these days anyway? And unlike Malcolm X, who cares? But that leads to another point: why did the Fahrenheit scale set freezing at 32 degrees, and boiling at 212 degrees? BECAUSE MR. FAHRENHEIT SAID SO. Why did he say so? Nobody knows. It was completely arbitrary. It is also a pain in the neck.

Which leads to a more important conceptual point: water freezes at the temperature water freezes, with supreme indifference to what number we assign to it in our own thinking. When the air is hot enough and the sunlight direct enough to cause heatstroke, it doesn't matter what scale you measure it with, your life is in danger. You can't change that by assigning a different number. I could decide that freezing is 100 degrees, and boiling is 1000 degrees, and then there would be 900 degrees between one and the other. But why is the ratio 5:9? Because, with a Centigrade scale, it takes exactly 100 degrees to get from the freezing point to the boiling point of water. With Fahrenheit, it takes exactly 180 degrees (212 - 32 = 180). The ratio of 100 : 180 can be reduced to 5 : 9. So that's what we have to work with. But that hadn't been taught in the classroom either.

Now what, in the name of God, are the government bureaucrats, the meddling idiots in the White House, the latest gurus of the educational establishment, the little household gods of the textbook publishing industry, the school boards, the trustees, and the almighty funding sources for education, getting our teachers and students wrapped up in? Why was the above was not taught to this aspiring, intelligent, but not-yet-very-knowledgeable college student BEFORE assigning the homework which required these skills and perspectives? Why had nobody in the public schools taught the bright, eager, but clueless little Tinika HOW to do subtraction?

I really count the teachers as victims of the whole process, as much as students. If we could break up the national educational establishment, pull the federal government OUT of setting endless reams of standards and regulations, ABOLISH STANDARDIZED TESTING (which benefits only the companies that reap lucrative contracts writing and grading them), return initiative not only to local school boards but to individual teachers, and then set some minimum standards to deal with districts that are truly incompetent or indifferent, we would be a lot better off. Some of the best teachers available are not even certified. Me, for instance. But I have my limits. I am not skilled at maintaining discipline in a room of 30 or 40. I have trouble with five or six. Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools be silent.

Equal Sentences in Kansas

Are some kinds of molestation better for children and families than others?

The Kansas Supreme Court has provoked a little squall of controversy. How? With a simple ruling that the state's criminal penalties for older teens, who molest younger children, cannot be harsher in cases of homosexual contact. Those who popped up in front of the cameras with knee-jerk howls of unholy chatter, for example, Matthew Staver of the misnamed "Liberty Counsel," have certainly revealed something about their own sleazy moral standards.

Let's take a look through the other end of the telescope. If the state should be able to impose harsher penalties for homosexual exploitation, does that mean that it should impose smaller penalties for heterosexual molestation? Are they saying that rape is not so bad if it is between man and woman? Staver said different treatment is justified by the state's interest in protecting children and families. Apparently, heterosexual molestation is better for children and families than homosexual molestation!

Maybe what these caterwauling political manipulators really mean, but don't dare say, is "hey, the older boys shouldn't do that to the little girls, but, at least they're learning to do it the right way." Maybe they also mean, "now, those sexually experienced older girls should not be pressing themselves on the younger boys, but, gosh, the little men have to learn some technique some time."

The moral and legal basis for the STATE to prohibit sexual molestation is that vulnerable children are being forced, coerced, pressured, influenced, and otherwise taken advantage of by people who are bigger, more powerful, and dominating. The victims are not mature enough, physically, emotionally or mentally, to give free and voluntary consent. The sexual nature of the offense usually ups the penalties, compared to say, theft or simple battery, because the physical body of the victim is invaded in an emotionally overwhelming way. All of that is true whether the crime is committed by someone of the same gender as the victim, or someone of a different gender.

Hypothetically, we could get into whether a specific act of rape violated the individual's sexual preference. That would mean greater penalties for heterosexual rape of a homosexual, than for homosexual rape of a homosexual. A heterosexual young lady could then get a higher penalty imposed on the male who raped her, by claiming to be gay! The opportunities for perjury and manipulation of the sentencing process, for revenge or to protect the perpetrator, are almost infinite. Do we really want to get our courts into that?

Or, perhaps the critics would tell us that heterosexual rape of a homosexually oriented teen is a good thing? Maybe it shouldn't be against the law at all? After all, it is important to straighten them out before it is too late? Even if a little violence is required?

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline made a point that the defendant in this case is a predator with a prior record. It may be true that his pattern of behavior justifies a tough sentence. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that his predation was homosexual. A heterosexual predator deserves a tougher sentence than a one-time offender too! If state law doesn't provide that option, perhaps the legislature should do something about it. The court cannot legislate harsher penalties for predators, the court can only insist on equal protection of the laws in whatever the legislature prescribes.

Staver is widely quoted as running the tired old line about an "activist court system" usurping a "legislative function." When Staver talks about "liberty," he clearly means liberty for the legislature. He advocates that legislators be freed of restraints which currently protect the liberty of citizens and our families. Remember what Mark Twain said: "Nobody's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session." The courts have not overturned any law making sexual molestation of children a crime. The courts have not mandated light sentences for this crime. The courts have simply insisted that the law apply equally to all. That is precisely the role Alexander Hamilton outlined for the courts in The Federalist Papers. Enemies of liberty who have styled themselves "Federalists" don't want to actually READ what the ORIGINAL INTENT of federalist philosophy was. It doesn't fit the prejudices of these modern demagogues and charlatans.

Kansas does, wisely, have a "Romeo and Juliet" provision in its laws. This recognizes that many young teens are voluntarily experimenting with what they believe to be "love," and should not be sentenced to long prison terms. The legislature has given the courts discretion, when the perpetrator is under 19 and less than four years older than the victim, to impose a short term or even probation. Of course, if too many loopholes are built in, predators will slip through them also. A short sentence or probation may not be appropriate to the defendant in this case. But that, again, has nothing to do with whether he is homosexual in his orientation or choice of victims.

Gay rights advocates, those who have warmly welcomed the Kansas decision, also have something to answer for. What kind of victory for "gay rights" is it, that the penalties for homosexual molestation of children by older children have been brought into line with those for heterosexual molestation? Gay rights is not about equal right to commit rape, is it? It is about partnerships freely chosen by consenting adults, is it not? No respectable gay rights activists would consider this decision to represent greater acceptance of homosexuality would they? Every act prohibited by the laws in question is unacceptable. I expect that homosexuals are no more pleased to be raped than heterosexuals are. IF this defendant is a predator, then his impending release is nothing to celebrate. Some innocent adult homosexual may be his next victim.

The next move is, quite properly, up to the Kansas legislature. Maybe they will raise the penalties for all molestation of younger children by older children. Maybe they will equalize all sentences at a lower level. Maybe they will exclude repeat offenders from the lighter penalties of the "Romeo and Juliet" law. Those choices are up to the legislators, not to the judges. There is no sign that the courts are going to rewrite the legislature's decisions.

Miered in Prejudice

No nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States should be asked, or should answer, questions about how they would decide any question that may come before the court. Nor should any qualified nominee have such a position in their own mind or heart.

John Roberts had to say it to Senator Biden, and Harriett Miers may have to say it to Senator Brownback. Supreme Court justices are not confirmed based on campaign promises to vote this way or that way on any particular issue. As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out many times, justices are life-tenured so they can uphold the law, not the popular will.

Prejudice means to pre-judge, to judge a matter before the facts, arguments, and applicable law, are first heard and weighed. The role of the Supreme Court in our system of government is to uphold the constitution, if necessary in the teeth of temporary popular majorities, zealous congressional crusaders, or presidents seeking to concentrate more power in their own falliable hands. Anyone who does not understand that is unworthy of the name "federalist" – because Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote it all over the Federalist Papers.

It is possible that Harriett Miers still favors legislation to ban or severely limit abortion. She once said that she would vote for such legislation if the Supreme Court were to allow for such laws. It is possible that time has modified her views on this subject. It doesn't really matter, because she is not running for a legislative position. Supreme Court justices do not vote on legislation.

If she holds this view, she may still, as a justice of the Supreme Court, recognize that the constitution simply does not allow legislators to intrude upon the intimate life of individuals and families, or private medical decisions, with such legislation.

She may also, as a justice of the Supreme Court, join with justices Scalia and Thomas in maintaining that the constitution does not restrict state legislatures from imposing criminal penalties on abortion. She might therefore vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. She would have to provide a well-documented opinion that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, that the constitution does not, and never did, impose such a limitation on state authority. That has nothing to do with whether she believes abortion to be a moral choice.

Either way, her opinion on such a question would not depend on counting heads, or on which interest groups had the most colorful literature, the hottest slogans, the most passionate orators, the most award-winning web sites. It would depend on her analysis of what the constitution does, or does not, say, what it does, or does not, mean.

There are many voices who denounced Miers's nomination, because they were not certain she would vote their way on their pet issues. Now, some of those voices are satisfied by her record that she would. Therefore, they are now announcing that it would be wrong to hold her personal views against her in the confirmation process. These voices have revealed themselves to be opportunists, hypocrites, subversives; their transparent vacillations border on treason to the Constitution of the United States of America.

If Miers has already made a decision on how she would dispose of any question that may come before the court, then she is morally and ethically incompetent to serve. It doesn't matter if she is firmly committed to preserve or to overturn any particular line of cases. If she is not mentally and morally committed to reserve judgment until a live controversy comes before the court, and then to apply the Constitution, as it is, to the arguments presented to the court, she should be denied confirmation. If the meaning of the constitution changes according to the personal preferences of those appointed to the Supreme Court, then we have no constitution at all.

If Miers is open and honest with the senate, it should be obvious whether she is qualified to serve as a justice or not. Of course she could deliberately deceive the senate by concealing her intention to rearrange the law as soon as she is safely confirmed. If any senator suspects such intentions, it is more than fair to try to expose it. But it is awfully difficult to "prove" what is truly in the mind and heart of another human being.

The ranking Republican and Democratic members of the judiciary committee have found her initial answers inadequate. If this means, they can't tell whether she has the integrity and impartiality to serve, they should insist she stop being coy. If this means, she declined to take positions on matters that may come before the court, they should back off.

It is entirely possible that no case will come before the court in the next ten years, which raises the issues most on the minds of mindless lobbyists and preoccupied senators. Perhaps Roe v. Wade will be overturned, some years after Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Miers have all resigned or died at their posts on the court. After all, well established law can be disposed of by federal district judges, by state courts, certainly by federal courts of appeal. The Supreme Court may not accept, or even receive, cases that reopen the legal issues most on the minds of the senate's judiciary committee.

One of the most infamous decisions ever made by the Supreme Court of the United States was Dred Scott v. Sanford. George W. Bush is fond of pointing out that he would not appoint justices who would uphold that case. It is mighty white of him to think he can sway the votes of 21st century American citizens, particularly those of known African descent, by denouncing Chief Justice Roger Taney's majority opinion. It should be a no-brainer. Had Dubya Augustus entertained the notion of reinstating Taney's finding, that individuals of African descent have no rights which federal law is bound to respect? Have some of his "advisors"?

It is worth noting, that Dred Scott v. Sanford was never overturned. No new composition of justices reconsidered the earlier reasoning, or found it to be faulted. In fact, at the time Justice Taney wrote, his opinion was a perfectly sound statement of the Constitution as it was then written. Taney accurately reflected the legal foundation that emerged from the constitutional convention, and the compromises necessary to establish any federal government that all thirteen colonies would accept.

Dred Scott v. Sanford ceased to be good law, not because of any decision by the court, but after four bloody years of civil war, and three amendments to the constitution. Those amendments were secured by a good deal of arm-twisting too. The former confederate states were denied readmission, denied their own senators and congress representatives, denied their own elected state governments, until they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfair, but gloriously to the credit of our nation.

Nobody except Eric Rudolph is prepared to fight a civil war over Roe v. Wade, or any other judicial ruling of the past fifty years or more. Nor is there sufficient consensus among American voters to amend the Constitution. There is ample room in our current jurisprudence, politics, and culture, for those who are committed to one position or another to win over their fellow citizens without resorting to arms.

Harriett Miers has been nominated to be a guardian and steward of a constitution. The sole requirement is that she understands what she has been called to do. The senate's primary concern is whether she is qualified to fill that specific role. The opinions of five million pressure groups, religious, civil, cultural, or otherwise, are supremely irrelevant.