Rhetoric or Roadmap?

I've been listening to several of the political advertisements that are being broadcast.  Do you listen critically to them?  And with neither of the candidates doing a great job of really detailing their plan to improve (roadmap) is there really any way to separate the wheat from the chaff (rhetoric?) 

I hear things like "…clear plan…" and "…strong middle class…" and "…giving the American people what they want…" - you've all heard it this time around, and last election, and the one before that.  For the most part, it's simply saying what you want to hear -- and at that, you are hearing what you want to hear.

I challenge you to listen critically - don't just accept one side as "evil" and the other "good" without knowing why.  We each have our own political leanings, and I am no different than you.  But what I want to hear from BOTH candidates is HOW they plan to make things better.  Neither side is without fault, here.

President Obama has a tough road this round because many of the staunch supporters -- those who heard what they wanted to hear last time -- are not so sure they can put much trust in his rhetoric any more.  Even some of the supportive media are not behind him as strongly this time.  I've not seen much in the way of details from that administration on how he intends to address "…what the American people want…"  Simply calling for more change does not seem to make it any more.

Similarly, Candidate Romney has a tough journey as well.  It's always hard to out a sitting president in one term.  There is an uphill struggle, especially when it seems you have to convince the political pundits and the media that you have a legitimate plan.  It's hard to convince the American people that there may really be a different (better?) way.  If there is, please tell us in detail how to get there.  Give us your roadmap.  If your way is, in fact, a better one, convince us so we can get behind you and help out.

Rhetoric or Roadmap?  You need to listen to each side and vote your conscience.  It's all about YOUR future, not theirs.

A new breed of bully

As I was growing up, I remember how I was impressed by those who "reported" the news - I looked forward to the Weekly Reader, watching evening news, reading the newspaper - I seemed to have a reverence for each of them in their own way.  My parents taught me that it is important to stay informed.  I knew that those to whom I was listening/reading were making an attempt to be impartial and tell me what was going on.

Fast forward from that to the Vietnam era, through the genesis of 24 hour coverage to the present day.  No longer can I read/hear anything with that same reverence - that same feeling - that what is being "reported" is factual and not skewed in some way by a "reporter" grinding an axe about something.  Maybe just the fact that we are bombarded with 24 hour coverage of EVERYTHING leads the journalist to detest "dead air," and consequently fills that time with their own opinions when there is nothing really to report.

The days of the Edward R. Murrow or Chet Huntley - David Brinkley journalist are long gone.  I am sure that these veterans of the media had their own - and sometimes strong - opinions about what was going on, but they kept them to themselves and let the listener form an opinion.

What I see today is extremely disturbing.  The media now has a collective opinion, and if you happen to subscribe to something OTHER THAN that opinion (on whatever the subject at hand happens to be) then the media acts like a playground bully and will "beat up" on whomever they choose.  If you think the way the media does, then you get a pass - on just about anything.  If you don't - you'd better watch your back(side.)

This happens time and time again.  The environment is ripe right now for this because of an election on the immediate horizon.  The media (collectively) stands generally behind a liberal philosophy, so they positively report that information while down-playing, or being outright belligerant toward, a more conservative stance.  This applies across the board - finances, stances on abortion, religious leanings, education, healthcare, and constitutional issues.

An example as evidence is the coverage (or lack of coverage) of the two political conventions we just endured.  It seemed that the media reluctantly covered - then hammered what went on during - the GOP convention.  You had to search the channels to find coverage, and then heard the commentators tear down speakers or activities.  There is, of course, little good one can say about the GOP.

Contrast this with coverage of the Democratic convention.  There was no way you could avoid it because coverage was everywhere, and all the commentators coming along in lock-step to buttress the fine opinions of the speakers and platform.

Well, isn't that what a bully does?  Do what "I" want and "I" leave you alone - even protect you.  Try to stand up to "me" and I will beat you up.

OK, media.  It's time to give up your bully ways.

Is Education a Noun or Verb?

Standby for RANT.

Face it. How we categorize something affects what we do with it. This is true in every facet of our lives, and no less in education. Just what "IS" education?

Right now, in South Dakota, as is happening in many other states, the underlying debate is whether education is a noun or a verb. Let me explain.

If education is a noun, it then becomes "…a person, place, or thing." It is something we can legislate, quantify, measure, buy, sell, manipulate, categorize, and normalize. We attempt to put it on an assembly line and push out a product - all the same - all measurable (or should that be miserable?) - and we create methods to assess whether the product is good, mediocre, or bad. They should come out, one after another, in development for years and years, and having been worked on by dozens of different people in numerous environments - finally to be released into the world in a perfect and finished state.

How do we measure this success? Let's test students and let them set the standards for how their teachers did - I'm sure they will be unbiased in grading their teachers, won't they?

Wait a minute. Numerous environments? Different people? Let's FIX that - we'll put in place a standard method of "assessing" the teachers (technicians, now…) who are creating the products. We want to make them all the same, so everyone gets the same "advantage."

The ones who produce the best products are awarded in some fashion, and that would usually translate into money in their pocket. If we incentive this production, we'll certainly get a better product! Let's pay the most productive - as determined by the afore mentioned flawed assessment process - $XX dollars for their hard work. This makes "education" better! (Oh, really?) How can actively fostering competition among staff members within a building or district help create an environment the improves the educational process? It instead does just the opposite - it stifles communication and sharing between teachers who are competing for the same dollars!

Let's instead consider education as a verb - something that's alive and precious and worthy of tending - only then can we make it what it needs to be.

Verbs convey action - change - movement - progression - something that's constantly growing and getting better. That's what is required in education. It is not something that can be captured and cloned, but rather an entity that needs nurturing, like feeding and watering a plant. There is growth and maturity and "greening" all along the way. Will repeated watering and feeding and pruning be required? Certainly - that's the only way to get the best result.

How do we nurture education? We need to take it out of the hands of the lawmakers and put it back with the schools, allowing it to be fine-tuned by people who have been trained to teach students, who have years and years of experience in classrooms and hallways and lunchrooms - those places where teachers and administrators meet, teach, and care for (dare I say love?) the students.

Wrestle this beast away from the legislators who have made a career of being elected and keeping constituents happy. I hold legislators in high regard for the awesome responsibility they have in shaping our state and nation. But being an elected official in no way qualifies them to define or create a workable educational environment. Make these same legislators come down to teach a class in an over-crowded room with all levels of ability and conduct. Ask them to sit in a meeting with parents, or observe the lunchroom, or monitor a detention session to find out what really goes on.

Maybe then, they would stop setting up competitions and races and such that create road blocks to the educational process, and instead put those same dollars into making things work instead of actively trying to break them.

Maybe then we could begin to create groups (teams, Professional learning networks, etc) who share best practice and learn from each other.

Maybe then they would put their hearts and souls into it like teachers and school staff do each and every day, to do everything we can to give education life.

That should do it!