Don't Educate So People Will Believe Anything

Many say that our public education has been going downhill for decades. Even more so now that "Test Culture" has taken over learning. While students are learning how to take tests, they are not exposed to important aspects of history and society. They don't know who Napoleon is, or Queen Victoria, or Queen Elizabeth 1, Freud, or the Great Society. And of course they don't know anything about places other than Europe and the United States...

This is the way of our world. Now then you wonder why Sarah Palin appeals to so many people. It's a reverse brain washing. Don't teach and people will desperately look for their own teachers... even if the teacher knows very little.




See Palin's Sleight of Hand by Frank Rich and

How Christian Were Our Founders? by Russell Shorto

Another Student in the news!

It is good that the media is paying more attention to cases like these, it is sad that cases like these happen. Before, students who Could Not continue their studies further because of their status- were not even taken into account. But reality has to set into the politicians and truly pay attention to what the people in this country are facing. How difficult is to understand the necessity of ‘allowing’ for students to keep up with their goals in schools and careers. The careers that others may not fill, but the needs and wants are there.

------

Aspiring artist, 18, who grew up in U.S. fighting deportation to Mexico

By Tal Abbady | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

“Garcia adjusted to his new life and became fluent in English. He attended Silver Lakes Middle School and Coconut Creek High School, where he discovered his artistic talent. In 10th grade, he won first place in an art competition for ESOL students for his drawing of a Mayan man standing next to a jaguar. That prize spurred more drawings. Garcia took art classes at school and began to see his future as an artist.

But a random checkpoint at the Port of Miami in August put Garcia on the radar of immigration officials. Garcia and a 21-year-old friend, an undocumented Salvadoran immigrant who was driving the pair, were stopped by officials when they accidentally drove into the Port of Miami. They tried to leave, but both were asked for their ID. Neither had any. Officials took Garcia's friend into custody. He was deported soon after. Garcia was held in Miami for two days before authorities sent him to a detention center in New York. He was there three weeks, before he was given a hearing date and released. Garcia, who has little understanding of the immigration system, said he'd heard of the deportation of adults. But he said he doubted that school children such as himself could be ensnared by the law.

Roughly 700,000 children enrolled in K-12 schools throughout the country are undocumented, according to Josh Bernstein, director of federal policy for the National Immigration Law Center. A proposed bill, the Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for students like Garcia, has languished in Congress for years. Bernstein referred to Garcia as part of the "1.5 generation" -- wedged between the first generation of immigrant adults and the second generation of U.S.-born children. "It is a very promising generation, but our laws are written in such a way that we treat them like criminals," he said. But proponents of tougher immigration enforcement say that is the easy side of the argument.

"When parents break the law, they're taking the risk that there will be consequences for their children," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "Immigration policy forces people to make tough ethical decisions," said Stein, "but the laws matter."

After his hearing, Garcia was hopeful for his future. Bolstered by the judge's decision, he said he will focus the next months on his case. "I came here to be someone," he said of his entry into the United States. "I have a good shot.""

Bush, McCain and shrinking GI Education Benefits

There needs to be no discussion on the expansion of GI education benefits... especially to Iraq veterans who are serving 2 and 3 tours of duty.

The bill is sponsored by Democrats and Republicans - but not supported by the Bush Administration. McCain doesn't support it either and has presented a bill with significantly fewer benefits.

Speaking of the GI Bill - on my mother's side of the family, in my generation, there have been 9 cousins who finished college. This would not have happened if my father and two uncles would not have gotten GI education benefits during WWII.

-----
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Mary 6, 2008

Doing the Troops Wrong

By BOB HERBERT

At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb’s proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

It’s awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don’t deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.

Senator Webb, a Virginia Democrat, has been the guiding force behind this legislation, which has been dubbed the new G.I. bill. The measure is decidedly bipartisan. Mr. Webb’s principal co-sponsors include Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, and Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

(All four senators are veterans of wartime service — Senators Webb and Hagel in Vietnam, Warner in World War II and Korea and Lautenberg in World War II.)

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.

Who wouldn’t support an effort to pay for college for G.I.’s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?

We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?

Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.

Reinvigorating the G.I. bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original G.I. Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran’s education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite.

As The New York Times wrote on the 50th anniversary of the G.I. bill: “Few laws have done so much for so many.”

“These veterans were able to get a first-class future,” Senator Webb told me in an interview. “But not only that. For every dollar that was spent on the World War II G.I. bill, seven dollars came back in the form of tax remunerations from those who received benefits.”

Senator Lautenberg went to Columbia on the G.I. bill, and Senator Warner to Washington and Lee University and then to law school.

The benefits have not kept pace over the decades with the real costs of attending college. Moreover, service members have to make an out-of-pocket contribution — something over $100 a month during their first year of service — to qualify for the watered-down benefits.

This is not exactly first-class treatment of the nation’s warriors.

The Bush administration opposes the new G.I. bill primarily on the grounds that it is too generous, would be difficult to administer and would adversely affect retention.

This is bogus. The estimated $2.5 billion to $4 billion annual cost of the Webb proposal is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions being spent on the wars we’re asking service members to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. What’s important to keep in mind is that the money that goes to bolstering the education of returning veterans is an investment, in both the lives of the veterans themselves and the future of the nation.

The notion that expanding educational benefits will have a negative effect on retention seems silly. The Webb bill would cover tuition at a rate comparable to the highest tuition at a state school in the state in which the veteran would be enrolled. That kind of solid benefit would draw talented individuals into the military in large numbers.

Senator Webb, a former secretary of the Navy who specialized in manpower issues, said he has seen no evidence that G.I.’s would opt out of the service in significantly higher numbers because of such benefits.

Senator McCain’s office said on Monday that it was following the Pentagon’s lead on this matter, getting guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Under pressure because of his unwillingness to support Senator Webb’s effort, Senator McCain introduced legislation with substantially fewer co-sponsors last week that expands some educational benefits for G.I.’s, but far less robustly than Senator Webb’s bill.

“It’s not even close to the Webb bill,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an advocacy group.

Politicians tend to talk very, very big about supporting our men and women in uniform. But time and again — whether it’s about providing armor for their safety or an education for their future — we find that talk to be very, very cheap.

On the side of decency and humanity part I

Yesterday my husband and I were having a conversation about what people are thinking when they say nasty things about the immigration movement. I was remembering a hearing I attended in Austin and the Texas Legislature where one politician from Humble Texas asked why didn't DREAMERS go back to Mexico and have their country pay their tuition. I have to admit this is laughable, if anyone knows anything about Mexico as a nation-state, they are very aware that MOST young people in the country don't get past "secundaria" -- 8th grade...

Our current problem (the 50% drop out rate in the U.S.) -- is caused by lots of subterranean reasons: among them, inequity in funding of inner city schools, a not so subtle push by the U.S. government (and powerful citizens) to keep a majority of the population uneducated (we don't want to give the upper middle class kids more competition).

In Mexico its actually very black and white - there just isn't a way for most kids to go past 8th grade. Tuition is charged for the higher grades and most people barely have enough money to eat. Many many kids are desperate to go to school. That is why-when they immigrate and have their own children, the next generation generally knocks itself out (like the DREAMERS) so they can carry on their parent's dreams of going to school.

DREAMERS keep the U.S. intelligent

At a Washington D.C. meeting of DREAMERS in June 2007





Everything seems upside down in America. Our population is supposedly getting "dumber" according to a Washington Post article published today. Maybe this is true. Colleagues tell me that a number of their undergraduate students don't know who Napoleon was. I've had a good number not know about the Alamo. Some people can blame our public school system - and maybe there is a point to this.... the neo-conservatives worked on dumbing down our school curriculum - so potential voters could vote for people like George W. Bush and it worked. Only a very unprepared national population could have let W. become president.

Amid all the concern for our lowering IQ we have closed our eyes to a group of young people who are the opposite of our - computer game obsessed millennial children - We have chosen to ignore the DREAMERS. (undocumented college students). Yes, all the ones I've met know who Napoleon was, and know about the ALAMO. Just about all of them make better than decent grades and actually take their educations seriously. They are focused on having professional careers, knowing their future competency can make a big difference for their country (yes I mean the U.S.).

Yet, we continue to hold the hand of the millennial game playing child (and hope she gets it) while we ignore the fantastic possibilities for our country if DREAMERS could work as professionals in their fields once they graduate (they cannot because they are not legal U.S. residents).

It's not that our country is getting dumber - its that our priorities have changed. We place a huge priority in continuing a war that is killing off our millennial children - a war that is swallowing whole resources that could bring our public school education back to a level that can be respected.

In the meantime, DREAMERs make due with inner city schools and limited resources... and become star scholars. We reject the most innovative and hard working while we teach little to the rest... something is upside down in this world.


------

The Dumbing Of America
Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces

By Susan Jacoby
Sunday, February 17, 2008; B01

"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.

This is the last subject that any candidate would dare raise on the long and winding road to the White House. It is almost impossible to talk about the manner in which public ignorance contributes to grave national problems without being labeled an "elitist," one of the most powerful pejoratives that can be applied to anyone aspiring to high office. Instead, our politicians repeatedly assure Americans that they are just "folks," a patronizing term that you will search for in vain in important presidential speeches before 1980. (Just imagine: "We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . and that government of the folks, by the folks, for the folks, shall not perish from the earth.") Such exaltations of ordinariness are among the distinguishing traits of anti-intellectualism in any era.

The classic work on this subject by Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," was published in early 1963, between the anti-communist crusades of the McCarthy era and the social convulsions of the late 1960s. Hofstadter saw American anti-intellectualism as a basically cyclical phenomenon that often manifested itself as the dark side of the country's democratic impulses in religion and education. But today's brand of anti-intellectualism is less a cycle than a flood. If Hofstadter (who died of leukemia in 1970 at age 54) had lived long enough to write a modern-day sequel, he would have found that our era of 24/7 infotainment has outstripped his most apocalyptic predictions about the future of American culture.

Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

First and foremost among the vectors of the new anti-intellectualism is video. The decline of book, newspaper and magazine reading is by now an old story. The drop-off is most pronounced among the young, but it continues to accelerate and afflict Americans of all ages and education levels.

Reading has declined not only among the poorly educated, according to a report last year by the National Endowment for the Arts. In 1982, 82 percent of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later, only 67 percent did. And more than 40 percent of Americans under 44 did not read a single book -- fiction or nonfiction -- over the course of a year. The proportion of 17-year-olds who read nothing (unless required to do so for school) more than doubled between 1984 and 2004. This time period, of course, encompasses the rise of personal computers, Web surfing and video games.

Does all this matter? Technophiles pooh-pooh jeremiads about the end of print culture as the navel-gazing of (what else?) elitists. In his book "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter," the science writer Steven Johnson assures us that we have nothing to worry about. Sure, parents may see their "vibrant and active children gazing silently, mouths agape, at the screen." But these zombie-like characteristics "are not signs of mental atrophy. They're signs of focus." Balderdash. The real question is what toddlers are screening out, not what they are focusing on, while they sit mesmerized by videos they have seen dozens of times.

Despite an aggressive marketing campaign aimed at encouraging babies as young as 6 months to watch videos, there is no evidence that focusing on a screen is anything but bad for infants and toddlers. In a study released last August, University of Washington researchers found that babies between 8 and 16 months recognized an average of six to eight fewer words for every hour spent watching videos.

I cannot prove that reading for hours in a treehouse (which is what I was doing when I was 13) creates more informed citizens than hammering away at a Microsoft Xbox or obsessing about Facebook profiles. But the inability to concentrate for long periods of time -- as distinct from brief reading hits for information on the Web -- seems to me intimately related to the inability of the public to remember even recent news events. It is not surprising, for example, that less has been heard from the presidential candidates about the Iraq war in the later stages of the primary campaign than in the earlier ones, simply because there have been fewer video reports of violence in Iraq. Candidates, like voters, emphasize the latest news, not necessarily the most important news.

No wonder negative political ads work. "With text, it is even easy to keep track of differing levels of authority behind different pieces of information," the cultural critic Caleb Crain noted recently in the New Yorker. "A comparison of two video reports, on the other hand, is cumbersome. Forced to choose between conflicting stories on television, the viewer falls back on hunches, or on what he believed before he started watching."

As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible -- and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be. Harvard University's Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate -- featuring the candidate's own voice -- dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds.

The shrinking public attention span fostered by video is closely tied to the second important anti-intellectual force in American culture: the erosion of general knowledge.

People accustomed to hearing their president explain complicated policy choices by snapping "I'm the decider" may find it almost impossible to imagine the pains that Franklin D. Roosevelt took, in the grim months after Pearl Harbor, to explain why U.S. armed forces were suffering one defeat after another in the Pacific. In February 1942, Roosevelt urged Americans to spread out a map during his radio "fireside chat" so that they might better understand the geography of battle. In stores throughout the country, maps sold out; about 80 percent of American adults tuned in to hear the president. FDR had told his speechwriters that he was certain that if Americans understood the immensity of the distances over which supplies had to travel to the armed forces, "they can take any kind of bad news right on the chin."

This is a portrait not only of a different presidency and president but also of a different country and citizenry, one that lacked access to satellite-enhanced Google maps but was far more receptive to learning and complexity than today's public. According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it "not at all important" to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it "very important."

That leads us to the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge. The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. Call this anti-rationalism -- a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse. Not knowing a foreign language or the location of an important country is a manifestation of ignorance; denying that such knowledge matters is pure anti-rationalism. The toxic brew of anti-rationalism and ignorance hurts discussions of U.S. public policy on topics from health care to taxation.

There is no quick cure for this epidemic of arrogant anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism; rote efforts to raise standardized test scores by stuffing students with specific answers to specific questions on specific tests will not do the job. Moreover, the people who exemplify the problem are usually oblivious to it. ("Hardly anyone believes himself to be against thought and culture," Hofstadter noted.) It is past time for a serious national discussion about whether, as a nation, we truly value intellect and rationality. If this indeed turns out to be a "change election," the low level of discourse in a country with a mind taught to aim at low objects ought to be the first item on the change agenda.

info@susanjacoby.com

Susan Jacoby's latest book is "The Age of American Unreason."

for link to article click the title of this post

photo: http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/CHIRLA/images/rsz_2april10_action%20(41).jpg