Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Public Education’ Category

. . . do as the Romans do.

(This is another special posting by Suzy. I hope you enjoy it.)

When I was teaching middle school I would tell the students that good manners were the lubricant that kept society civil.  Basically, the title of this musing means the same:  wherever you find yourself, good manners help you.

Throughout my formative years my parents used this adage, with many others, to teach without giving long sermons.   As I wander through my life they all come back to help explain what I see happening around me.

When I was almost thirteen, we moved to Italy where my brother and I were frequently admonished that “When in Rome. . .”  to keep us from embarrassing ourselves, or our folks, with some outlandish behavior.  They cautioned us to hold back and observe carefully so as to learn the preferred way of doing anything so as not to inadvertently offend our hosts.  Good manners and not making a scene were some of their prime directives.  This old saw said that succinctly.

Walt and I were recently on a delightful overseas vacation, which brought the title to mind several times.  Driving on the left side of the road is the custom where we were visiting.  Many of the people on our trip would refer to this as driving on the “wrong side,” and then emit a guilty little chuckle.  Our guides tried to keep from wincing at this tired joke.  It was the correct side for them.  Each excursion would find someone commenting on how they “just adored” the accent of one of our hosts, or found it strange, funny, odd or difficult to understand, never thinking it was they who had the accent, not our host.  At best this shows an insular or provincial attitude, at worst it is absolutely offensive.  One guide attempted to avert these types of comments by saying, “This is my country.  You have the accents, not me.  We drive on the correct side of the road.”  This was done with humor, but it is sad he felt the need to state it.

Familiarity is often comforting, but not necessarily the only correct way of handling things.  This has nothing to do with giving up that which is morally right. Which side of the road you drive on is not an ethical dilemma but a pragmatic one.  How one wields a knife and fork is just custom.  One’s accent is just usage.  Fit in and don’t make a scene.  Or consider staying home.

When we take small children to our parents’ houses we tell them that while there they must do things the way grandparents want them done.  That may mean not to touch the knick-knacks or how long they are expected to sit at the dinner table.  Perhaps it defines how and where they may play in the back yard.  None of these things affect their health or well-being, and so should be respected.

Likewise, when we send children to school, we expect them to comply with the rules, as long as those rules do not endanger them.  We also have the privilege of expecting our house rules to govern the behavior of guests to our home.  If yours is a home with no smoking, guests should refrain from smoking no matter how strong their addiction.  If you expect voices to be modulated in your home, even young children should be taught to respect that and speak softly.

All of that should seem fairly obvious.

Ours is a transient society.  Our founding fathers established a representative republic with the states having a degree of sovereignty in which to make the laws that would permit us to have a diversity of customs while having the power of a larger entity, the federal government, to protect us from international predators.  That statement presumes a number of givens, which are being lost as earlier political discourse yields to current cultural waves.  Some of this is due to the current popular sense of correctness and some to the dilution of historic concepts of who we are and from where we came that has been happening since the advent of the boomer generation.  We so outnumbered the adults of our growing years that our childish hedonism changed the vector of society.  One of the results is that in striving for personal gratification many never feel the urging of “When in Rome…”  We see people who become disgruntled with where they are living for any of a number of reasons:  Their health is affected by pollens in the air and they are advised to find a different climate.  An industry moves and they are jobless.  The current political classes raise taxes beyond what the individual is willing or able to pay.  The people in these scenarios look around and find that if they move to a different state the problem will be solved.  After all, that state has drier, pollen free air.  The other state has lower unemployment rates.  The next state has a lower tax rate.  So they move.

They find the new state is different than home.  Without thinking about why they had left or what had caused the conditions with which they had been dissatisfied, they begin changing things to more closely remember the old home.

Perhaps they move to a desert where they buy a home and then plant grass and flowers that produce the same pollen they are attempting to escape.  They follow the company, which then finds the new political environment requires they recreate the business and the transient employee is left outside again. They vote for politicians with an insouciant and somewhat familiar patter who then pass the same types of laws that raise the cost of living to a level similar to what they had in the place they left.  Some new comers are foreign nationals who want even greater changes to their new home than those who have come from a different state that is still internal to our country.  Their craving for familiar surroundings, or politics, or language causes them to try to recreate the environment they fled.

This isn’t a plea to dismiss change.  Some things need changing.  Some things need preserving.  Both require thought.  We perceive a problem, then conceive a solution. The key here is to think about what our solution will spawn.  The results that occur don’t effect just the transients, but all of the folks who had been contentedly making their lives in the “new” state.  The “new” state is now no longer “Rome.”   The established residents don’t understand what has happened to their home, and the new resident can’t understand where the charm that had enticed them to move there has gone.  In reality, each of these types of changes takes more than one person.  Sometimes the balance is changed by word of mouth drawing many independent people to the “new” state.  Sometimes, more nefariously, the balance is tipped when a group with the sole intent of changing “Rome” away from what the base population had wanted finances the shift in the population.  Regardless of the reason, the Visigoths have arrived.  Rome will survive, but not as Roma.

The last word:

Why is the saying about Rome and not some other place?  Because of a letter from St. Augustine to Januarius around 390AD:

Cum Romanum venio, ieiuno Sabbato; cum hic sum, non ieiuno: sic etiam tu, ad quam forte ecclesiam veneris, eius morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalum nec quemquam tibi.

Sister W. Parsons translated this in 1951 in St. Augustine: Letters Volume 1 as:

When I go to Rome, I fast on Saturday, but here [Milan] I do not. Do you also follow the custom of whatever church you attend, if you do not want to give or receive scandal.

Januarius was Bishop of Naples at the time, and later canonized as a martyred saint.

On July 10, 1948, the average humidity in Phoenix Arizona was 19%.  On July 10, 2013, the average humidity in Phoenix was 38%.  Over the same time frame, the population increased from a little over 100,000 to about 1.5 million.  Many of those people moved from the northeast to find a dry climate and escape pollen.  Then they planted lawns and shrubs and watered them a lot.

Comments solicited.

Keep your sense of humor.

Walt.

//

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The Cloud is driving a much-needed revolution in education, with the opportunity for vastly superior educational opportunities at significantly reduced cost.  Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) enable thousands of students located anywhere to have the benefit of a top-notch course taught by an expert with good communication skills at a low to zero price.  The experience can actually be more intimate than that in a classroom of twenty students, as it appears that the instructor is talking just to each student.  When coupled with one-on-one question/answer sessions and context- and result-driven on-line training, it can be a better learning experience than what is available in the traditional classroom.

While the course material has been updated, the process of education in the classroom has not changed in hundreds of years.  Recent and continuing studies have shown that there are a variety of different ways people learn; the traditional classroom is, for most students, far from the best.  The public education classroom model was developed in the U.S. largely to help the immigrant population learn English and U.S. history so they could quickly assimilate into the U.S. culture, take advantage of the American dream, and feel they were part of the nation.  Especially up to the early 1900s, students who lived in rural areas had no transportation other than walking or riding a horse.  That meant that schools had to be within a few miles of each student, and thus schools were small, often a single room with a single teacher covering several different grade levels.  Student could advance at their own pace in each subject.  The education each student received depended on three things: the willingness of the student to learn, the support of the parents, and the skill of the teacher.

In towns and cities, size forced education to adopt a different model: separate and larger schools for different groups of grade levels, and with public transportation the ability to draw students from a wider geography.  As schools got bigger, they got more structured.  Today, except for the bottom few and, less frequently, the top few, students are expected to move through a variety of subjects in lock step with all other students at the same age.  Since we would not want to embarrass a student, we pass a student along with his cohort whether he actually learned everything or even anything in the school year.  Children are not cars, and they cannot be effectively educated on an assembly line.  While there are many excellent and dedicated teachers, there are also a lot who are neither dedicated nor even mediocre.  Parents face increased time pressure just to provide for their family, and therefore parental support is often partially or completely lacking.  School administrators and politicians impose requirements that are often ridiculous on teachers driving down the teachers’ morale and dedication.  Perhaps worse, peer pressure and distractions make it difficult or even dangerous for a child to like school.

Many of these student distractions are driven by the Internet and the Cloud.  Facebook, Twitter, texting, You-Tube, on-demand movies and TV shows are all more exciting than a classroom full of bored or disruptive children.

The growing dissatisfaction with the U.S. public school system has caused the growth of homeschool children to increase seven times faster than the public school growth.  While only 4% of public school age children in the U.S. are currently homeschooled, if this level of growth continues, half of our children could be homeschooled in five years.  There are lots of reasons why this probably won’t happen, but the cost of homeschooling will continue to drop (it is free in many states) and its quality and variety continue to increase.  If it does happen, it will leave the public education system in shambles, much worse than many think it already is.   In many places, homeschooled children can participate in separate sports leagues and other events, or participate in those at local schools thus providing the social interactions that were not available to homeschoolers just a few years ago.

The current economic situation is only exacerbating disaster.  Colleges and universities continue to encourage students to take courses of study with almost zero chance of getting a job in the field.  The practice of taking a year off between school and work to “see the world” has pretty much disappeared.  It used to be an important part of the ideal education, but a very few families can afford that luxury today in terms of money and time.  I think it is time to rethink why we send our kinds to college.  Is it really worth the extra time and excessive cost to have the “university” experience of fraternities or sororities, football games and parties?  There are other and more effective networking techniques today than the college fraternity.  If the graduate can get a job, he or she has accumulated on average $26,600 in student loan debt (in 2011).  The average starting salary for 2012 college graduates was $44,259.  That level of debt is a huge financial burden on someone just starting out.  It makes it difficult to buy a car, a house, or even consider starting a family.  It adds to the stress of finding and keeping a job in the new “normal” of needing to frequently change jobs.  The median tenure for workers age 25 to 34 is just 3.2 years.  With a the median length of a job search at 16 weeks, each young graduate should have about a third of their annual salary set aside to help them ride out their next search effort.  Plus, of course, they will probably have to pay for their own health insurance and should be working diligently on their retirement savings.

A good understanding of the field and some practical experience is important in landing that first job, but based on my experience hiring young software engineers, a college degree in programming is definitely not a sufficient requirement.  Often the best candidates had a degree in some apparently unrelated field, or no degree at all.  Some employers are reconsidering the need for that “degree?” check box.

Most hiring managers are only interested in three things:

  1. Can the candidate do the job?
    Does the candidate have the necessary knowledge and skills for the tasks that need to get done?
  2. Will the candidate do the job?
    Is the candidate really interested and hopefully excited about doing this job, or does he or she just consider it a stopgap position?
  3. Do we want the candidate to do the job?
    Can we work with this person?  Will the candidate fit into our culture?

A traditional college is only one path to “yes” on just the first question, and has little bearing on the other two.

The last word:

As parents, it is our responsibility to prepare our children for the “real” world.  One way, of course, is to give your child a big enough trust fund that the “real” world becomes irrelevant.  For the rest of us, that means giving your child the basic skills to get along, have a personal set of acceptable behaviors (what we sometimes call morals, religion, ethics, or culture), and a strong desire to learn.  The world is changing quickly in all the areas that determine success as measured by satisfaction and happiness in life.  The drive to learn is the only thing that will enable your child to adapt to these changes.

Comments solicited.

Keep your sense of humor.

Walt.

Read Full Post »

I recently wrote about “Where are the workers?”  One of the serious issues in finding new hires is the general inability of today’s graduates to write.  I need people who can put coherent thoughts on paper that deliver a clear, concise and unambiguous message.

We used to know how to write.  My Great Grandfather and his brothers grew up on a poor farm in Western Pennsylvania and went to a one-room schoolhouse for eight grades.  They certainly were not, even for that era, well educated.  They worked hard on the farm.  Probably the only book in the house was the old family Bible, and the nearest public library would have been at least a two-hour walk away.  Unless there was an important errand to the town, no farm worker could take half a day off just to go the library.  Yet when they went away to war, the US Civil War, they wrote letters home.  Dozens of letters have survived, and while they are hard to read they are well written.  They are hard to read because they were written with a new-fangled device called the pencil on scraps of paper sitting on a rock around a campfire.  The grammar is not necessarily always good, and spelling was not important.  There were three different spellings of their last name in the letters.  Yet each individual letter told a story about how they felt, what they did, asked about family, and responded to letters from home.

What happened?  Why can’t most people write?  There is a lot of conversation claiming that it is all the fault of Twitter or email or some other relatively new technology.  These technologies make it easy to send something to others quickly, and seem to encourage thoughtless “communication.”  While it is true that these tools enable someone to put out a lot of junk, they also enable someone to put out good writings.  We have all seen tweets that were more like poetry, expressing in a very small space an interesting viewpoint that makes you think or laugh or cry.

The general inability of educated people to write well predates the Internet by decades.  Since at least the 1950s, the US education system has worked very hard to not teach students how to write.  This applies at every level.

I went to what was recognized as a very good public school district.  This district actually had a superintendent with a PhD in Education, something very unusual in that day.  We had top-notch teachers in science and math, the kind that inspired students.  We had physics and chemistry labs the equal of many college undergraduate labs.  The year I graduated we sent 47% of the students on to four-year colleges and universities, many with advanced placement credit in math, physics, chemistry, biology, English, and a couple of foreign languages.

bluebookAnd we did a lot of writing.  From the seventh grade on it seemed that every English class and most history or “social science” classes had a weekly in-class essay to write, and at least two term papers a year.   These in-class essays were usually done in a “blue book” – so called because it was, well, blue.  The 8.5 by 7 inch book had a few sheets of wide-ruled paper, usually fewer than five.  In class, the teacher announced the topic and you had the period to write.  You were permitted to use the last page to do a quick outline, but otherwise you started on the upper left of the first page and wrote until done.  You got the paper back on Monday with two grades: Mechanics and Content.  “Mechanics” included penmanship, spelling and grammar, with specific penalty points for each such infraction.  Misspelling something like “Mediterranean” five times meant nothing better than a C for that Mechanics grade.  (So I’ve heard – I would, of course, never misspell the same word the same way five times in a three-page paper.)  It had to be written in cursive, not printed.  Bic pens did not have built in spell-checkers, or a delete key.

“Content” meant including the three to six facts the teacher expected to be in the paper.  Of course it was up to you to guess which specific facts those were.

Notice that there was no grade for the quality of the writing.  You could, and this I did do on more than one occasion, simply use a series of well-structured sentences to state the facts you thought the teacher wanted with little or no organization and get a good grade.

There often was a length requirement: write ten pages or write 1,000 words about <insert subject here>.  These length requirements were minimums, not maximums.  You would get to the end of what you wanted to say, whether in a weekly essay or term paper, and realize that you needed another page or 200 words.  So, you just added another page or 200 words.  You can image how much value that additional effort added to the paper.

There is an old story, attributed to many folk including Mark Twain.  He wrote a lot of letters to friends.  At the end of one especially long letter, he added, “I apologize for the length of this letter.  I did not have time to make it shorter.”  It is hard to say what needs to be said concisely.  Far too often I get emails and papers that clearly did not have that extra effort applied.

I learned more grammar in two years of Latin than in all of my English classes.  Now that most schools do not offer Latin, I wonder how they are actually teaching grammar these days.

Because of my high school English grades and my AP score, I did not have to take the freshman writing class at the University.  Imagine my surprise when I got out in the real world and found out that I could not write well.  To whatever extent I can write today, it is because of my own efforts with lots of support from mentors and other who knew how to write.

There are exceptions.  A good friend of mine went to public school in the same area as I did and just a few years later.  She had a high school English teacher who really worked on writing.  She was the vicious editor who insisted that the result delivered a clear, concise and unambiguous message.  These teachers were, and probably still are, out there.  But do not expect that your child will ever see one of them.

I wrote that it takes about 10,000 hours to really become good with any skill.  But that 10,000 hours is not just beating a drum, but listening to lots of expert drummers and having others tell you how well you are beating that drum and giving you guidance.  Otherwise you have just spent 10,000 hours learning how to do something badly.

To learn to write you need to do three things:

  • Read.  Read lots.  Read critically.  Does this product’s documentation really explain the product?  Does this sales brochure make me interested?  Does this short story make me think?  What is different between the ones that I like and the ones that leave me cold?
  • Write.  Write lots.  Fiction, non-fiction.  View every writing assignment as an opportunity to learn.  When possible, write more than one version from a different perspective or with a different audience in mind.  Take something you wrote last year and write it again.  Make it 40% shorter without reducing the impact, which will probably increase the impact.
  • Seek out criticism.  Ask people to read what you wrote and be brutally honest.  If you can find a professional editor or writer, make friends with them because they can give you the best advice.  Remember that if you ask three people you will get three different responses, but each will have some value.  You don’t have to accept them all or even any of them, but each will tell you something.  Don’t make excuses, don’t try to explain, just sit there and take it.  And thank them.

Learning to write is like any other skill.  You need to observe the experts and study what they do, practice practice practice, but let much of that practice be under supervision of someone who can help you get better.

The last word:

Unfortunately you don’t always have access to a good (i.e., vicious) editor.  You do, however, always have access to a pretty good check mechanism.  Simply read your writing out loud.  It’s OK if you are the only audience; in fact I find that preferable.  If you read something out loud, you can get a better sense of how it will come across to your audience.  Listen to the cadence.  Did you create appropriate spaces to breathe; and for your audience to process?  Does the language sound stilted?  Is it hard to figure out the syntax – not from a technical grammatical perspective but from the “what I meant” view?  Usually the simple things like noun-verb matching, consistent tense, and confusing pronouns just jump out at you.  Did it start well, and did it come to a graceful end, leaving your message clear?

You need a non-distracting environment, both to prevent extraneous noise from distracting you, and to keep those around you from wondering why this crazy dude is talking to himself.  Eventually you will learn to do it silently, but since it really has to be “vocalized” at speaking speed, I find my lips move.  So, I still look like a crazy dude.

Personally, I almost always read out loud everything I write before sending it.  This applies to tweets, emails, marketing materials, technical documents, and just fun stuff like this blog.  When I don’t, I often wish I had.

Comments solicited.

Keep your sense of humor.

Walt.

Read Full Post »

(This is another special posting by Suzy. I hope you enjoy it.)

In the Twentieth Century, most of us were taught that The United States was a melting pot for the diverse people who created her.  I prefer to think of us as a stew, and I really like a good stew. It has complicated flavors, takes a bit of effort on the part of the cook, and some time.

In the early Nineteenth Century we were a nascent country attempting to create a separate identity for ourselves.  We created a mythology, which included the story of George Washington and the cherry tree to emphasize how we valued honesty.  Other tales emphasized rugged individualism and creativity.  We took words from the different people who were part of our population and made them our own; hence, American English includes words from Amerindian languages, Scottish, German, Dutch, and others that have confused our British brethren who thought we spoke the same language.  We, also intentionally, changed the spelling or pronunciation of words to help foster our distinct identity.  Did you read the English or American version of the Harry Potter series?  There were some editing differences so that audiences on both sides of the Pond could easily read, and enjoy, the story.

One of the original selling points for a publically funded school system came from the sense that without a shared education our various immigrants would be at best slow, or worst case, unable to assimilate.  Public schools were initially developed in the urban centers at the main points of immigration in the 1800s.  No one has ever claimed that our schools were perfect.  Rather we have always agreed that they are a work in progress. We disagree about their efficacy, but agree that it is important to retain them.

Our Revolution was, in part, successful because of people being able to read and discuss broadsides and newspapers.  Go to the tavern or the inn, read and pass around the papers and discuss them.  The same was true of the ratification of the Constitution, and the rapidity with which the Bill of Rights was adopted.  The Federalist Papers, originally called the Federalist, were a series of essays published in newspapers to facilitate discussion and encourage acceptance of the new Constitution.  There was an agreed upon understanding of who we were, where we had come from, and where we wanted to go.

With the Industrial Revolution and ever increasing numbers of immigrants the sense of who we were began to be lost.  We needed to have our immigrants participate in public discussion if our representative democracy was to continue.  The adults needed to work to be able to feed their families, so the obvious way to maintain the culture was to teach them through their children.  The children would learn to read so that they could read papers and share with and teach their parents to read.  The children would be taught our history so that the entire family would understand our mores and ethos.  They were also to be taught basic ciphering, that is arithmetic.  These skills would help the children to become good employees and Citizens.  The latter was a key reason for being able to convince people to allowed themselves to be taxed to provide for a public school system.

After World War II we had become a wealthy society.  Most who wanted a job could find one.  Most who wanted an education beyond high school could afford a technical school or at least a few classes at a college.  As a percentage of the total population, immigrants were fewer, thus more easily absorbed into the general population.  Those returning from the war had been raised during a severe economic depression and wanted to make a life for their family that was better and had more advantages than they themselves had had.  Walt and I are products of that frenetic effort.  Our parents gave us more material goods than they had had.  They encouraged us to go further in school than they had gone.  They required us to grow up more slowly and with less responsibility than they had had. We, the Baby Boomer Generation, have benefited from the advantages of having such largesse from our parents and in turn passed it on to this wonderful nation of ours.  We have also helped make our Nation and Society poorer due to the myths that such a large influx of new people, for that is what a generation is, have inflicted on the body politic.  As with any non-assimilated wave of immigrants we have kept to ourselves, put our own spin on the tale we tell the world about ourselves, and cost the general population by our very size.

During the idealism of our youth we determined to make this the best of all possible worlds without hearing the sarcasm of Voltaire as the baser nature of people caused unforeseen and unintentional consequences to the changes we had demanded with all good intentions.  As with many people who look for improvement, we touted the deficiencies in our systems, with no regard to how we were no longer citing the good things that had brought us this far.

Our current immigration policy is one of the systems that this generation feels obligated to fix.  This sense of ambivalence toward “all those foreigners” has been present in our society from its early years when we offered succor to those fleeing the French Revolution.  Quota systems have been the most frequent choice in our attempts to keep some sort of balance between overwhelming numbers of new people and our sense of the status quo.  Our contemporary repairs have neither benefited ourselves, nor our immigrants, legal or illegal.  We eradicated programs that facilitated migrant worker populations, because we felt the systems that had been created took unfair advantage of migrants.  Then we had immigration without the benefit of any regulations that should have been aimed at helping the new people establish their place here.  Then we tried an amnesty program so that we could turn a new page and start over without really establishing a new system of admittance.  How naïve we were.  In the meantime, we had a wonderful economy that was a draw for immigration in even greater numbers than we had seen in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

Today we are in the throes of Congress attempting to “give” us a new solution to the problem.  We need to applaud their effort.  Then we need to look very carefully at their proposal.  We are now faced with the same problem that confronted our population in the early Nineteenth Century:  our immigrants are keeping themselves separate from the rest of us.  This causes huge disruptions in society.  We can fix it.  We need to teach all of our children the good parts of our history, not just our flaws.  A road to citizenship should be strongly encouraged, with a number of requirements that enable the new citizen to be a full participant in our society. We need to require our immigrants to assimilate, especially in language so that we may all discuss things together.  Those who would forgo citizenship should have strictures on what they are permitted to reap from our social programs.  Assimilation and citizenship does not mean immigrants need to eschew who they are, but it does mean they need to renounce previous allegiances.

I like a good stew.  We have all the component parts.  Individuals who are separate parts of groups just as the meat and vegetables are cut into pieces.  But they need to jump headlong into the cauldron of our society and become part of us.  That is when the flavors of each part of the stew marry.  That means we all merge in such a way as to be better than any one of us, or small group of us could have been by ourselves, while allowing us to maintain our individuality and independence from each other.   Like a good stew it takes time and gentle heat.  The gentle heat is the discussion of ideas where we do not agree.  The key is that it is a slow heat that allows for us to maintain our integrity and still come to agreements.

Yes, I like a good stew in all its complexity.  And I love this country with all its diversity.  Neither is perfect, but they are both magnificent.

The last word:

ImmigrantsPercentAs Suzy indicates, the impact of immigrants has been more or less significant over the history of the United States.  This chart based on US Census data shows the number of immigrants as a percentage of the total population in the US.  An immigrant, for this purpose, is defined as someone who came into the US (legally or not) since the last census who had not been born here.  Numbers prior to 1840 are estimates.  The Industrial Revolution and the jobs it created drove historically high immigration up to 1920.  After that, repressive immigration laws, the Great Depression, and World War II had a significant impact on immigration rates.  Not until the laws were relaxed in the 1960s did immigration recover, and now is steadily moving up towards the historic highs.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1868 primarily to fill a gap in the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery.  Driven by President Lincoln to codify the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865.  While it abolished slavery, it gave no rights to the freed people.  Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment states that anyone born in the United States is, simply by that fact, a citizen of the United States.  At a stroke all prior slaves and, more importantly, their current and future children, were citizens with equal protection.  While primarily focused on the plight of freed slaves, the writers were well aware that this Amendment would also apply to the children of immigrants.  Immigration was rising rapidly after the Civil War, and those people needed to be assimilated into our culture.  Making the children citizens and providing public education was, as Suzy stated, the easiest way to assimilate a family.  In 1868, immigrants came to the US to stay.  Maybe a few would get back to the “old country” to say goodbye to a dying relative, but they all knew it was essentially a one way trip.

This is no longer true.  Modern transportation enables someone to drive, walk or fly into the US, have a child, and head home a week later never to return.  That child is a US citizen, yet that child is likely to have no opportunity to learn our history or our culture. They have the right to come back 20 years later; no matter what attitude they have about the US.

In the developed world, only the United States and Canada have such a broad definition of citizenship.  Personally, I think it is past time to rethink that provision.  What do you think?

Comments solicited.

Keep your sense of humor.

Walt.

Read Full Post »

The job market is really tough today, and I do not see it getting better anytime soon.

In case I was not clear, I’m talking from the employer’s perspective – not the individual looking for a job.  A recent survey by Yoh, a workforce solutions company found that while 80% of major US employers expect to increase their hiring in 2013 over 2012:

  • 81% of companies believe that finding the top performers is the most important criteria.
  • 91% have found it difficult to find and recruit qualified professionals.
  • Only 31% of companies use social media as a key component of their recruiting strategy.
  • 25% do not use social media at all for recruiting, including for posting positions.

I heard a segment on NPR about thousands of manufacturing jobs open today in Pennsylvania that the companies cannot fill.  Unfortunately, I cannot find the transcript of the show, but it nicely supported what I have heard anecdotally from hiring managers.  The jobs are there, but the workers aren’t.  It is very difficult to find people who can read and follow directions, show up on time, and pass the drug test.  Each part seems to be equally hard to find.  The drug test is because of safety.  Many manufacturing jobs involve things moving, high heat, and interesting chemicals.  Even with all of the safety devices, the key component of safety remains the alertness of every employee.

For the positions that I have been trying to fill over the past 40 years, I need to add one more requirement: the candidate must be able to write.  I don’t necessarily want a poet or a novelist, but I need people who can put coherent thoughts on paper that deliver a clear, concise and unambiguous message.  The type of document ranges widely from marketing material to technical documents, from short emails to many hundreds of pages, and with a shelf life measured in hours or years.  Often this last attribute, how long the document has to be useful, is forgotten.  For a status report, it may be just for the next hour, for a technical manual or legal document, perhaps for 20 years.

In April, the BBC published “The Great British Class Survey – Results.”  Britain tends to be a very class-conscious society.  This survey of over 160,000 people looked at class from a multi-dimensional view, looking at the “capital” that each person possesses in the areas of economic, culture, and social resources.  Previously surveys just looked at the job that the individual does.  This survey found there are now seven classes in British society:

  • Elite:
    Highest capital in each of the three areas, with a very high amount of economic capital that differentiates them.
  • Established Middle Class:
    High capital in each of the three areas, but not as high as Elites; the largest and most gregarious group, and culturally engaged.
  • Technical Middle Class:
    New, and fairly small, class: high economic capital but low scores for culture and social capital.  Distinguished by social isolation and cultural apathy.
  • New Affluent Workers:
    Medium levels of economic capital, but higher levels of cultural and social capital; primarily a young and active class.
  • Emergent Service Workers:
    New class with low economic capital but high levels of cultural and social capital; young and often urban.
  • Traditional Working Class:
    Scores low in all three capitals, but not the lowest group; average age is older than the others.
  • Precariat:
    Very low levels of all three capitals.  Their everyday life is precarious (thus the class name).

The Traditional Working Class is getting smaller.  A sobering 15% were in the Precariat.

Where do you fit?  And does it matter?  While British and American societies differ in many ways, I suspect these results offer some value to looking at the American workforce.

As the traditional middle class shrinks, it forces a very few to the Elite, the majority into the New Affluent Workers and Emergent Service Workers classes, and far too many into the Precariats.

Frankly, the young ones are doomed if we don’t fix some serious problems in the US.  While generalizations do not apply to everybody, here are few simplifications to think about.

  1. Social media encourages people to concentrate on “now.”  I can talk to my friend now, tweet my followers about where I am and what I am doing now.  If I want something, I can get it now.  In many cases, “now” is so busy that I can’t think about tomorrow.
  2. Parents are abrogating their responsibility.  Too many parents are too busy with their own “now” or desire to never say “no” to their little darlings that the child never learns restraint.  The parents “now” includes keeping the family economically afloat; difficult enough in these times and almost impossible if one or more are un- or under-employed.
  3. Public schools have given up on educating their customers. I firmly believe that we should educate each child to its maximum potential and give the child the most life options.  Yet programs like “No child left behind” and the dumbing down of course material along with the proliferation of “standardized tests” has led to many students graduating from high school and unable to read at even a third grade level.

I think this explains why employers cannot find candidates who can read and follow directions, show up on time, and pass a drug test.

As to writing, the young just are never given a chance.  Tweets, emails, and the excuse for writing exercises given in school never provide the right kind of feedback or experience to deliver a clear, concise and unambiguous message.  As the people I work with get, on average, younger, I am amazed at the lousy writing that I am presented.  I get at least once a month an email from a professional that I have to respond, “Was that a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’?”  I was recently given a paper by a student with a fresh MBA.  After reading it, I had no idea what it was about or what he wanted me to do with it.  Fortunately, I have a shredder.

Out of a dozen résumés that I look at, I am pleasantly surprised if I get two that do not have obvious grammatical or spelling errors, or is written so badly it is difficult to figure out what the individual has actually done.  Since the purpose of a résumé, from the employer’s perspective, is to eliminate the candidate from consideration, this sloppiness astounds me.  But it does significantly reduce the number of candidates to be considered.

And if your child is restricting his or her job choice to what they find via social media, they are missing out on a lot of opportunities.

You may not be able to fix the problem nationwide, but perhaps you can fix the problem one child, one neighborhood, or one school at a time.

The last word:

It is primary time for local elected officials.  Imagine our surprise when an actual candidate showed up at our door.  I think she expected to hand us her short pamphlet, give us a big smile, and go away.  That does not work at our house, especially for someone running for the school board.  As you may have guessed, we both have some thoughts on public education.  One of our early questions was if she supported the “Core Curriculum.”  She gave us an enthusiastic “yes, or course!”  When asked what was in the Core Curriculum, she did not know.  She also supported standardized tests, but again did not know what was covered.  She was surprised when we told her she was definitely not getting our vote.  If you do not know what the Core Curriculum is and you are interested in the results from public education as a parent, employer, or taxpayer I suggest you do some research.

Comments solicited.

Keep your sense of humor.

Walt.

Read Full Post »