New Normals IV

Let's get cynical about government and intelligence.

1. Why does the government want an intelligent population?  It doesn't. Too difficult to manage and govern.
Therefore, it is acceptable to allow the schools to continue failing their  mission.  It is fine for incompetent teachers to stay in place.

2. Why does the government want an intelligent congress?  It doesn't. Too difficult to manage; to willing to compromise; to practical about human activities.  Too liable to do something of lasting value.

3. Why does the government want an ample and well trained military.  It doesn't.  This is too risky for its personal security.  The military lives mostly outside the walls of government and is clearly a threat. 

4. Why does the government want efficient and fair federal agencies? It doesn't.   This increases the expectations of the population to fair and effective treatment.  It is better to keep people slightly off-balance and definitely without high expectations.

The government has now become a systemic force unto itself.
a. It appears to be not responsible to the people, but it follows its own code.
b. It demands a universal PPM manual (Policy and Procedures Manual with massive regulations) to function.
c. It demands huge legislative measures that not a single congressman can understand.
d. It makes decisions outside the scrutiny of overseeing public officials.
e. The government wants and has arranged a totally polarized governing body.  This implies little is done.
f. The government seeks control to manage and dictate all measures of man.
g. With the new ACA now linked with the IRS, the government becomes a powerful intimidating force against its citizens - thereby required desired behavior.
h. With the recent suspension of the Senate rules, the government can exploit to make appointments sustaining and enhancing government power. This will diminish some congressmen from proper considerations on the basis of their state.  States' power is now drastically reduced.
i. The government has developed such an array of regulations, it is virtually impossible for any general oversight, and even local intra-agency oversight is diminishing.
j. It operates essential outside the traditional three branches of government.

Possible flaws in the complete absorption of the citizenry to this new reality.  It seems to be essentially a non human agency, without sensitivity to the maintenence and long term health and well being of the populace.
1. The government essentially views itself as if in a cocoon isolated from the world.
2. It is blind to external threats.
3. It assumes that whatever it does, prosperity will sustain. 
4. It cannot comprehend public deterioration from within, whether spiritual, moral, or financial.
5. It views every social or fiscal problem has a regulatory solution.
6. It believes the country it inherited can be fundamentally changed, and vastly improved within its vision.
7. It reacts to problems with solutions without consideration of unintended consequences.  Basically, it treats a symptom of a problem, leaving the problem in tact.

In brief, this monolithic, almost all powerful government seems to be totally naive about the nature of the people it governs.

New Normals III

Jobs. No Thanks. "I don't want one," is the response from 34.3% of people. This is the latest statistic from the Wall Street Journal, where it is noted this is up from 30% just two decades ago. In a recent paper, Declining Labor Force Attachment and Downward Trends in Unemployment and Participation, by economists Regis Barnichon and Andrew Figura divided those out of the labor force using a simpler standard: whether or not the person says they want a job. the paper is rather technical, but understandable. But it does render a couple of questions. (1) How much unemployment by those not wishing employment can a prosperous nation absorb - and remain prosperous? (2) What is the critical mass whereby this "don't want a job" attitude toward work becomes epidemic in society? The answer the the second question is unexplored.

There is another population out there not yet analyzed. This group, those people employed by in totally non productive venues. Many government workers can be so classified. So also are many in law and order. This is not to say they have no value; they do. They are usually high in relative intelligence. They protect us from another class in society - those that violate laws. But they don't actually produce. One could posit that the Soviet society collapsed partly under the weight of its unproductive human infrastructure.

This new normal reflects the attitude of an endless summer for too many. It indicates that big success will not happen, that the nose upon the grindstone of life is not in their thinking. It suggests a lower standard of living where there is a life that is viable. It diminishes, what for many of us, have long regarded as the natural progression from childhood to adulthood. It indicates a diminusion of expectations in favor of an idealic world of fantasy. It suggests a dangerous trend. This viewpoint and lifestyle assumes that the country is so strong and so powerful it can and will sustain regardless. It suggests a good job shold be delivered without personal effort. It implies an psychological and philosophical emptiness of massive proportions.

In the old days, religions demanded all should strive to contribute, if only in a small way. Pride could be taken in achievement. In the new days, with religion depracated, there are few guideposts, few societal demands exacted upon anyone. Rather we have the new normal that if YOU want to earn more, then seek it, work hard for it, achieve it. But if you don't there is no penalty of any kind. Do nothing - that's ok. Do something - that's ok too.

Lies. So much has been written about the continual barrage of lies we face from advertising to politics. A silver lining to all this exists.  It makes people calloused and hardened to any and every statement.  People are forced to think about what to believe. The new normal of total lies has strengthened the mind of the populace false promises.  I think - or I'd like to hope.

Compromise Not.  Cling to your position until that last moment.  Politics has become a game of chicken.  Polls have determined ultimately what politicians will do. Control the message implies controlling the polls and this in turn implies controlling the agenda.  This new normal suggests a fundamental change in the manner politicians transact business. 


Think big.  Think bold.   Advocate huge programs.  Pass massive laws.  Demagogue the position.  Do little.  Or do Nothing

Comments XIV

Hotels.  Today I am at a hotel in Helsinki.  The hotel maid speaks English fine.  Last month I was in Miami.  None of the hotel maid  understand English.  :)

History.  It seems that history flows along on a river of blood.

Education.  It seems that the less students are willing to do, the more teachers are asked to do.

1.      Trust but verify.  This essential quote from President Ronald Reagan has gripped politics and the American press.  Yet, too many trust and must trust because they cannot verify.  This even goes with scientists themselves.  This is another aspect of problem solving.  It creates impossible problems where the assertion without verification leads to conflicts. Those who insist on verification but don’t see it, become distrustful and this, like an infectious disease, spreads to all comments or “trusting” of such testimonials. You know many people that frequently make obviously unverifiable statements.  It comes to this: eventually no matter what this person says on other matters is suspect - even disregarded.  Trusting, nonetheless, is but an eyelash away from belief.

1.      How do you solve a problem?  If you’re in business you favor business solutions; if a politician, political solutions; if a scientist, scientific solutions.  You use the techniques you know and are comfortable with. If you are running for office, you promise to find the best possible solutions, but you use your familiar techniques.  You cannot escape you.   If you are a politician, say, trying to solve or endorse a scientific problem, you are out of your sandbox (pond).  You still appeal to your techniques perhaps relying on testimonials of those you trust, i.e. those like yourself.   If you are a psychologist, say, trying to solve a math problem, then you are outside your sandbox completely.  Your level of profundity is exposed.  You must learn the math or admit you cannot solve the problem.  Admission of inability is difficult for experts.

 
The Cynic.  First he said he was deprived of puberty, then youth, then middle age, then naivety, then hope, then promise, then dreams, then care, then faith.  This chap has not much further to go.  :)

Implication.  In mathematics or most every subject if I say that A implies B and B implies A, this is the same as saying A and B are the same, or as we say in the business, equivalent. This makes implication a powerful tool of logic.  But there is a weaker logic implicit in the term "to find."  When I visited the artistic retreat far in the mountains, the mantra at the entrance said here "Expression finds Freedom and Freedom finds Expression."  This is a weak form of implication, no where near implicating equivalence, much less the only path to the achievement of either.  But it illustrates the fuzzy nature of  our language.  The expression seems lofty, profound, and even universal, but essentially means little. It is deceptive; it is distracting; it promises much while delivering little.

Having a Plan. There is a favorite line from the movie Tremors, 1990, starring Fred Ward and Kevin Bacon,  I truly like.  Said Fred Ward in one scene, "We always have a plan.  That way we don't have to do anything right now."  That's me.

Problem Solving.  Everybody supports problem solving.  The schools, especially so, as it is tied completely with the mantra of enhancing the teaching of critical thinking.  So, the mandate for no less than the new Common Core Curriculum is to bring this front and center into mathematics teaching.  But is this an impossible problem?  Can  teachers teach problem solving if they themselves are not problem solvers. Most teachers can surely navigate their students through set problems, but are they missing critical instructional understanding of at least a few essential problem solving techniques when problem solving as a venture is not fully appreciated by themselves. My view is that teachers should be constantly challenged by new problems - if only so they feel, firsthand,  the same pain and puzzlement of their students when confronted by new problems. (Mind you, I'm not talking about difficult problems, but only new one that demand teacher critical thinking.) This dimension of puzzlement is where most of their students live. Do teachers fully understand it? 

You cannot teach a skill you yourself do not have.

Ten years.  Suppose a message were delivered to you that you were to be given an extra ten years to do what you wanted, and then regular life resumes afterwards.  What would you do?

Victim.  It seems that once a person regards oneself as a victim of whatever, they also regard that a suspension of normal rules of behavior apply.  It is like the victim has a license to misbehave.


Kathleen Sebelius.  Judging by Robert Gibbs comments yesterday that the Obamacare website is a total WH embarrassment, it seems certain that HHS Secretary Sebelius is on her way out.  Someone big must pay the price.   Robert Gibbs is affable, true, but he is also completely loyal to the President.  This leads us to believe his remarks were orchestrated from on high.

Advice:  As I’ve told students and colleagues for years.  Be careful about giving advice.  If your advice taken, you do assume a measure responsibility. Yet, nonetheless, advise is so easy to give, and is often done with almost no thought of the full circumstances.

Gresham's Law.   This law, simply put, states that bad money chases out the good. Named after Sir Thomas Gresham (1519-1579), an English financier, it was first mentioned in 1858 by Henry Dunning Macleod.   "Good" money is money that shows little difference between its nominal value (i.e. the face value of the coin) and its commodity value.  But when the money is diluted by diminishing the percentage of precious metal in it, the money becomes "bad" and the good money is sequestered by owners for another day.  Bad money has been shown historically to create economic disasters. Witness the debacles in 17th century China. There is a political counter part, to wit when a credible source suggests the welfare-improving choice and a less credible source simultaneously suggests a choice that will make subjects worse off, subjects make worse decisions than when only the credible source is available.  Bad information has an effect.  When conflicting information about various political candidates is presented, it is not evident that the voter will discount the lesser source(s) of credibility.   This implies that the obvious not exactly not that obvious.  Like the dilution of the precious metal, conflicting information dilutes the truth with the consequence that some citizens will be attracted to alternative, less reasonable problem solutions.

In general, bad often drives away the good. 


Compromise  is an art requiring both skill and practice.  In the absence of either, it is an impossible, though essential, tool of government.

Comments XIII

Anonymous Lost.   Does that even exist any more?  I prepared a survey for my students on how they are viewing my course so far.  Simple innocuous questions they are.  And it is really anonymous. But will any of them actually believe it is anonymous?  With so much data piracy, scanning, recording, and peeking these days, the whole idea of anonymous may be vanishing.

This variation on Milton's Paradise Lost is simply an update.  Clearly paradise is lost, but it may be that anonymity is gone as well.  I use to believe I could live under the radar, thinking whatever I said would be too unimportant for anyone to take note of.  But today with big data and unlimited storage, I feel that whatever I say will be scanned or read with an eye to key words - most revealing about the message.

Importance. You know how important you are by the hierarchy of how many people stand in line to introduce your speech.  Most of us have just a single person make the introduction.  "Here's our speaker..." and that's it.   Big-shots get two, one to introduce the introducer.  Super-shots get three.   Anyone that gets four introductions, must be of celestial dimensions.   

Intellectuals.  Being an intellectual does not make you smart. 

Ted Cruz.  I might be willing to book passage on the Ted-Cruz-line. I know there will be a lot of time to explore one corner of the world, and I will know the destination.  While he is ridiculed by both parties, he does stand on principle - rare these days.

Nancy Pelosi.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, Pelosi has a moderate intelligence, and much to be moderate about.  Her latest confusion is between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.  I am simply amazed that someone with her apparent intellectual difficulties can rise to such heights within her party.  Many Democrats (e.g. Chris Van Holland) seem far more erudite, more able, and far more intelligent. Oh well, the Republicans have at least their fair share of the same.   Perhaps we should create a Pelosi Club with delimited extremists of all flavors admitted.  The criteria for admission should be misquoting facts, misstating events, and misrepresenting constituencies.

The snub.  For days, it was argued in the press the "What if" of President Obama meeting or even shaking hands with the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani. But, Rouhani deftly turned the table by simply rejecting any encounter.  The upshot must be that the one regards the other as essentially irrelevant.  One thing is to be rejected.  This is of the everyday for us all.  It is quite another to be relegated to the lower status - irrelevancy.  You just have to feel a little sorry for our President.

Boring.  I just completed a YAW, yet another Webinar.  It was boring, though boring may be the best attribute one can give to a particular event.  Less flattering comments come to mind.

Wisdom.  It was recently suggest to put my wisdom in a bottle.  I responded by saying that if I did so, there would be plenty of room remaining for more interesting contents.

Formal. You may have attended your formal senior prom. Great.  So you know what formal means.  Dressing up and looking good.   In the educational world the word is flung about everywhere.  We have formal and informal knowledge - that learned in classroom or without, formal and informal learning - classroom or without, and also formal and informal space - in the classroom or not.  The word "formal" seems to be reserved for what happens in the classroom, and is to an extent diminished by "informal"  meaning that which is not.  If educators are required to account for individual informal anything, their classes explode from twenty students to multiples of that.  Teachers need, therefore to account for a multiplicity of understandings, to account for misunderstandings, and worse, to account for misconceptions.   This is not good within any system, not just our educational example. Our teachers may be asked to achieve what we ask of no others - ourselves included.

Comments XII

Just a few remarks...

Open and closed systems. Too many problems are regarded as arising in and confined to closed systems.  In fact, many problems are not closed-contained but open, meaning it is a problem that continually interacts with its surroundings or environment.  Solving such problems without an encompassing view can lead to a cascade of system failures.  Closed systems are basically the "in-the-box" systems, where what we do is confined to the often small box in which they are addressed.

The team.   You don't make the team better by merely giving it new uniforms.

Science is what it is.  We may measure the “scientific-ness” of a subject according as the clarity of its postulates and the application of logic to decide truths.   Logic is a catch-all term that implies the application of analysis and reproducible experiments.  Can you name a single scientific endeavor to the contrary?

On Sports: How many times do you want to see the same thing?  The intoxication of the many with sports borders on addiction.  In fact, regular fans have seen almost the same plays and same strategies countless times.  Only slight variations obtain, and even these are similar to past plays.  There must be something about this immersion in the familiar that touches as essential to many more than a few.  It touches with past youth, hopes, and dreams; it touches with past glory.  It is what could have been, if only…

The Common Core is Irrelevant.  In almost every College Algebra course in the USA the curriculum is about the same.  The textbooks are similar.  The quality of instructors is similar.  The difference between classes and schools is the rigor with which the course is taught.   We could go on at length of variations and exceptions on this.   But why bother?  Some instructors, research shows, demand more and get more, while others do not.  The sterile attempt to universalize curriculum and create correspondent standardized testing tries to neutralize this, but the net result is a devolution toward teaching to the test.  This will never abate, much less end. 

Good teacher – bad teacher.  A bad teacher will do more harm than good.  Indeed, it has been demonstrated that if a student has three consecutive years with bad teachers, the damage is irreparable.  Bad teachers come in several flavors, easy, incompetent and unable.    Yet, some apparently bad teachers are not actually bad. They only appear to be bad; they demand performance apparently without helping.  They seem mean without being mean.  It is their style of exacting from students their best.  I had one of these teachers many years ago.  Lectures were kinda good; inter-personality skills were really bad; yet respect was engendered.   I studied like crazy.   I thrived in this antagonistic environment.  I remember this professor foremost.

The Word's Oldest Hate.  What might that be?  The Jews come front and center.  Jews have taken their lumps in history across time.  There are other nominees.  These include scientific discovery facing a barrage of the status quo. Also, disquieting are the hates of suffrage, slavery, prostitution, nonconformity, conformity, Christianity, tribal dominance, racism,and more. The oldest arise from at least four of the ancient seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Vice President Biden.  You have to credit Joe Biden for loyalty, even though possibly errant.  He appears to be seeking support for a presidential bid, though he really has little chance of winning an election.  His gaffs are legend; his role in the current administration is minor.  Yet he continues on.  Could it be he is the surrogate or alternative candidate for Hillary Clinton, who seems to be running, but will not announce.   Clinton (i.e. Rodham)  is continually under pressure for what her plans may be.  A Biden candidacy deflects some of this.  Biden is a decent man, but not exactly of the presidential timber the country need - in my view. Clinton may be viable, but anyone would have difficult thriving under the now growing spotlight of who comes next.

Enough is Enough.  Perhaps you heard, "Students in one Iowa school district this year are attending school Monday through Thursday, with Fridays available for teachers' professional development as well as enrichment, remedial or college-level instruction for students. This summer, state lawmakers redefined the school year as 1,080 hours, or 180 days, but allowed districts to determine how to meet the requirements. Other districts nationwide are adopting alternate schedules to save money on busing, staffing and utilities." http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/09/18/04fourdays.h33.html?tkn=WTCCrVPVdai8ogZeuIaYFR5NoQ%2Bt8kMnDWgf&cmp=clp-sb-ascd

Well this is interesting and at first blush enlightening. It forces teacher to compress by 20% their curriculum , while giving them for time for professional development. This is admirable on the one side, but on the other, it indicates the teacher need more professional development.  However, the courses they teach at the standards level far diminishes what they have learned in all their previous years in middle school, high school,  and even college.  One could compare the introduction of a day each week in the lives of all citizens for training in balancing a check book, or on safe driving, or managing household finances.  All these seem to be equipment we have;  so, why do we need further training?

Now students emerging from the four day teaching/learning week will have one common expectation.  A four day work week.  Don't worry, the intellectuals will fully dress the justification in wrappers of gold and silver from self-improvement time, to better parenting time, to reflection time.  None of them will mention more time for TV or video games.  Forget the 2/7 of every week folks have had for that in generations past.  All problems will be resolved when we have 3/7 of the week.   

Comments XI

• New term.   I think someone inside the beltway referred to the new normal (negotiating with the Syrians to divest themselves of chemical weapons) as a "brain fart."  Wow.  I'm brain-farted-impressed.
  
  
• Kerry and the Russians.   John Kerry will meet with the Russian foreign minister tomorrow.  The Syrians agree to give up their chemical weapons.  The net result?   A long protracted negotiation where by the Syrians can continue to prosecute their mission against the insurgents,now and years into the future.  What more could Assad hope for?  What more could our President hope for?  What more could Vladimir Putin hope for?  All of these persons are winners.  Assad gets a few more years before he is killed by opponents; Putin continues as Russia's Czar for decades. Only problem is the US continues its slide into international oblivion.  
   
• Hillary. Judging by Hillary's response to the new(est) normal, I believe it seems apparent that (1) she views Kerry is running in 2016, and (2) she views Kerry to be a competitor.  I am surprised that few have taken Kerry's obeisance to Obama's policies are not an indicator of his goals.
  
  
• Bashar Assad, like his father before him, having determined the weakened position and total lack of resolve of the United States, has called the bluff of the US and issued his own threat of retaliation in the event of a US led military strike against his country.  The beleaguered US President, likely out of his depth on international and terrorist dealings, must be perplexed.  Now what will be his counter move?  I suspect the US will walk away - possible with a token strike, enough to declare the message has been delivered and defeat assured.  (9/9/13)
  
  The President, an acknowledged master at working the US system and its arcane rules of relations, is facing a contingent that simply does not accept, adhere, or function by such rules.
  
  With this fluidity of action, we now have an inadvertent(?) comment by Secretary of State John Kerry that a strike by the US could possibly be avoided by Syria giving up all its chemical weapons.  The rejoinder from Russia seems to have given this option a life.  Russia knows, but we may not, this constitutes a lengthy delaying action for any action by the US.  Syria knows that by so agreeing they may need to give up some chemical weapon stores.  However, most are now so well hidden that a full accounting is impossible.  Thus, President Obama can rejoice that his mission is achieved - no more chemical weapons to be applied - and without firing a shot.  The other world has sustained the further weakening of the US.  All said, nothing has changed. The US has resumed its decline, now as the dupe of minor powers.
• Vincent van Gogh.  A new painting by this master has been discovered, Sunset at Montmajour..  See, http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/europe/netherlands-van-gogh-new-painting/?hpt=hp_inthenews.  He never sold a painting; he seemed to be a failure at everything attempted.  Yet he continued painting, once he discovered this venue.  In earlier days, I wondered what inspired and propelled him to continue his quest for art.  However...  The genius, despite constant and continuous defeats, understands and knows the value of his/her production, and carries on regardless, feeling assured of future vindication. For van Gogh, it has become a reality.  The master, if returning from the dead after so long a period, would not be surprised.  Maybe he would question why it took so long.
   
• It's all in a word. The most terrible weapon in the arsenal of mankind is the word.
• Lies.  What does it take to kill a lie?  Sometimes you have to kill it twice.

• Secretary of State John Kerry.  Judging by his slobbering fidelity to the President's rather unclear and vacillating  policy on Syria, I assume Kerry is in the run for the 2016 Presidency.   But what to do about Hillary?  Her assessment to "do something forceful" is so vague it shields her against future recriminations.  (Hate to go political - but  there you have it.)
• Bashar Assad: “If Obama was strong, he would have said publicly: ‘We have no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian state.’ He would have said publicly: ‘The only way to proceed is through UN investigations. We therefore refer everything to the Security Council.’ But Obama is weak because he is facing pressure from within the United States,” Assad said, according to a translation of his interview with Le Figaro in The Telegraph.
  
  In this remarkable statement, we see Assad appealing to his base, much of the Islamic world, where weakness is the mortal sin.   As to the weakness, the British seem to concur, and also even the French, who have made a science of weakness and appeasement.
  
  
• Extreme Words.  These days, Americans have trouble expressing themselves except in the extreme.  Currently, the big words are:  Phenomenal,Fantastic, Amazing, Awesome, Incredible,Wonderful
  
  Unless the expression is in the extreme, it has little value.  Whatever happened to subtlety?  Whatever happened to measured and pinpointed commentary?  Gone, I guess.
• Math riddle.  What can you add but never subtract? Answer: Salt on your burger; sugar in your coffee, hate in your speech, threats offered, promises to your love. 
  
  

New Normals - II

Think big.  Think bold.   Advocate huge programs.  Pass massive laws.  Demagogue the position.  Do little.  Or do Nothing

Big Laws - No Laws.  We seem to have reached yet another new normal about laws passed by Congress and in the process of development.   This means laws of serious magnitude are passed without any construction of implementation, and consequently delayed in part or in whole, but not rejected.  This implies an entire infrastructure is developed and currently  exists with almost nothing to do.

The New Foreign Policy.  There is now the international situation where serious violations of human rights have been proven, but the adjudication of the sympathetic advocates of said rights have developed a new policy.  It is to create a treaty or agreement with all parties that something should be done.  Something significant.  This "done or significant" clause takes time and takes resources.  It takes negotiations.  It takes high level meetings in comfortable locations. It takes press conferences.  It takes resolute statements.  In the meantime the violations continue.  No real end date is in sight; focus on the patented one-page talking points. 

Redistribution.  When I grew up, years ago in Milwaukee, it was always a given that some folks had wealth and some had not. We always considered this as a part of life.  We did not really resent those with more, even while we wished we has more.  There were the common commentary on those "with."  Can they really be happy?  And stuff like that.  These days, this theme has taken a more vicious tack.  It goes something like, "They have; we do not.  Let us take if from them and then we will have wealth."  This new ethos is not limited to African Americans, but to all without.  The ethos has transcended well beyond race.  Our politicians have convinced us that this (wealth) is a plum ripe for taking. After all, we do have the vote.  Let us just take it.  We can redistribute in an equitable way.  The rich do not work very hard; they simply enjoy the fruits of what they so carefully protect.  In fact, many of the wealthy work like demons to achieve, as though achievement is everything.  The wealth is a mere by-product is this scramble for more.  Many work themselves to death.

To achieve wealth without commitment and work is an illusion.  This new normal will have consequences beyond our imagination. 

However, history has shown us the poor cannot get rich by making the rich get poor. A new class of the privileged will emerge, as it did in Soviet Russia. These are the societal managers, the new dukes and princes of the new and just regime.

Big Laws; Big Programs.  It turns out that you just can't pass a law or make a regulation these days if it is presented with a readable text of manageable length.  Therefore, the new normal is to make the bill or regulation so massive it cannot be understood even by experts.  It takes years to read, to modify, and to regulate such instruments.  So goes the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and outside the Beltway the Common Core Curriculum.  In the meantime, lower level functionaries interpret and regulate such ventures. All have in common the aspects of massiveness, incomprehensibility, and interpretable results that take many years to unravel.   All have advocates that likewise cannot comprehend what is underway, much less understand long term consequences.

This is another new normal of our age. Too big to undermine; too big to critique; too big to deny!  Forget simplicity. Forget transparency. Forget clarity.  Focus on the talking points - about one page in length. 

Comments X

The new normal.  It turns out that you just can't pass a law or make a regulation these days if it is presented with a readable text of manageable length.  Therefore, the new normal is to make the bill or regulation so massive it cannot be understood even by experts.  It takes years to read, to modify, and to regulate such instruments.  So goes the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and outside the Beltway the Common Core Curriculum.  In the meantime, lower level functionaries interpret and regulate such ventures. All have in common the aspects of massiveness, incomprehensibility, and interpretable results that take many years to unravel.   All have advocates that likewise cannot comprehend what is underway, much less understand long term consequences.  This is the new normal of our age. Too big to undermine; too big to critique; too big to deny!  Forget simplicity. Forget transparency. Forget clarity.  Focus on the talking points - about one page in length.

An inconvenient paradox.  Constructivism is a modern, almost post modern, theory of education which promotes students' constructing their own knowledge.  We can do away with memorization and rote learning, and replace it by student thinking and learning - is the strong case for constructivism.  The curious paradox here is that constructivists marketing this pedagogy in colleges use the traditional lecture format to do so - and without exception.  It seems constructivist advocates prefer the teacher centered method of knowledge transfer they lecture to deprecate.

Constructivism is the hot pedagogy of the day.  All educators must so advocate it to the exclusion of common sense, history, and results.  All too often, we see "research" papers of college faculty invading K-6 classrooms with their new programs, giving heart and soul to their duties, and achieving remarkable conclusions. Yet,  the teachers cannot dedicate the kind of time it takes to pull off these miracles of educational excellence - nor can they duplicate the treatment.

All this said, it seems that educators cannot constructively construct a method for pre-service teachers to construct their own understanding of constructivism.  

Fuzzy Math.  Is 3 x 4 = 11?  Certainly not.  However, in the newest and currently nearly a national curriculum, the answer is OK, provided the student can give a reasonable explanation, with picture, of why it may be so.  The Common Core Curriculum is totally focused on higher order thinking skills even though conclusions may be incorrect.  See http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/18/obama-math-under-new-common-core-3-x-4-11-video/
There is much to be said about the student trying to reason out an incorrect answer, but the lesson learned seems that giving a plausible but incorrect answer trumps the correct but possibly memorized answer.  There is plenty of time and opportunity to teach students to think and to reason, but it should begin with students having basics for their learning.  You've got to begin with something.  You must have a knowledge base upon which to think.  Moreover, how many teachers have the time or ability to listen to errant explanations?

Problem solving.  Many teachers and the entire educational enterprise stress problem solving.  Yet, most of them only teach problems solving on problems for which they know well the answers.  Few, if any, are active problem solvers on their own.  Few know the perils of problem solving when you don't know the answer before hand.  Few appreciate the convoluted path the mind may take in solving a problem.  Therefore few can really teach a vital skill they do not themselves practice.

Here is an elementary example.  The Fibonacci numbers are 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233,..., with the next being the sum of the previous two.  Give an argument that every fourth Fibonacci number is divisible by 3. You can reason this out if you know basics of division, transparently and conveniently.  But if you remain at the doorstep of simple computations, you will be lost.

In politics stupidity is not a handicap.   --- Napoleon Bonaparte