Guns…Let’s Use Some Common Sense!

A couple of months ago, I wrote a piece ("Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?") about the need for the rational regulation of guns; not one based on leftist fear-mongering or right-wing “any-gun-should-be-available-no-rules” insanity! My suggestion was that access to guns by qualified citizens (excluding non-felons, ex-felons, and crazy people) should be based where a citizen lives, and the proportion of threat to their environments. Under this regime, the citizens of shooting galleries like Chicago (my hometown) would not be prohibited from purchasing and owning weapons to defend themselves, while those who live in gated communities—where police protection is fairly effective—would not be allowed to own arsenals of military-style weapons…the conspiratorial perception of a “tyrannical government” notwithstanding.
Somewhere in the fight about gun rights, both sides have chucked all level of reason aside in validating their point-of-views. Take for example the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Most supporters of open-ended gun ownership love to invoke the Constitutional provision allowing Americans the means to protect themselves with guns. However, many also seem to forget that the Second Amendment was written during a time when the existential threat to American liberty was real, not imagined…and was written as such. In case those of you who use the Second Amendment to defend you “right” to gun ownership have forgotten, the text reads:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Despite the many ideological interpretations over the years, it would seem that the right to keep and maintain guns was based on the ability of the citizens to mobilize in the face of a threat to the union. Yes, that right was extended to gun ownership in times of relative peace, but those who ignore this fact also ignore the implication that gun ownership is not absolute; it can be regulated in much the same way as liquor consumption and voting by age. Also, saying that gun ownership is an absolute right also ignores that the U.S. Constitution also has other provisions, some of them far out of date. Consider the Third Amendment:

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The rights and provisions of the Constitution are supposed to be flexible to accommodate changing times, customs, and beliefs. If an Amendment that has no bearing on our daily life can be out of date, so possibly too can one we hold in such high esteem. The caveat here is that that defenders of the right to keep and bear arms have to be open to the flexibility of gun ownership…it is more of a privilege than a right, one which our government affords us and should be as flexible with the times as much as any law of the Constitution.
However, many on the left have allowed their fear of guns to shatter what little reason there is in crafting reasonable social policy not predicated on knee-jerk reactions. Consider what happened last week in at a Pennsylvania community’s elementary school.
A 5-year-old kindergartener was suspended for 10 days for “making a ‘terrorist threat’” using (insert gasp) a small, Hello Kitty automatic bubble blower loosely-shaped to resemble a gun. According to news reports, “The kindergartner…caught administrators' attention after suggesting she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles.”

Such idiotic policies are the administrative variation of mandatory sentencing in our public schools. “Zero-tolerance policies” leave no room for the application of common sense, of the individual judgments of those who are required to enforce such policies (just 2 weeks ago, I myself was headed to court with a client, and was turned back at a metal detector because my barely-an-inch-long fingernail clipper set off the device, and a brief lecture by guards about how such “weapons” were prohibited).
People should be allowed to own guns for protections, but the debate of gun ownership and regulation, where it intersects the debate between security and policy, seems to have been flooded with an incredible amount of anecdotes, bumper-sticker statements, knee-jerk reactions, and ideological rhetoric from both sides of the political aisle…and all devoid of reason, logic, clear-thinking, and/or common sense.  When I see such instances of irrational thinking passing as public discourse, or put into practice in the form of questionable policies, I have to arrogantly wonder whether or not I (and a few others) am/are the only sane sole(s) left in America?

(See also: "Sandy Hook, Guns, & Questions")

Read More

Sandy Hook, Guns, & Questions!

When I see tragedies like that occurring in Connecticut yesterday, it becomes somewhat difficult to defend my thoughts that limiting gun ownership only hurts legal gun owners, and not the criminals…who tend not to follow the laws of gun purchasing anyway (see: "Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?").  But with 27 people killed by one lone gunman—including 20 children and 7 adults, including the shooter’s own mother—we are left with nothing but questions instead of answers.

Unidentified Sandy Hook Elementary School staff member leads students to safety

What can we do when our resources for mental health are being limited by cuts, and money becomes the primary concern over potential public (or self) safety? How do we balance privacy laws with the public's right to know when dangerous mental illnesses are a factor with unstable individuals?  How do we compel those with mental/emotional issues to seek help when such issues are so stigmatized that individuals who suffer from them—both marginally and extremely—would rather embrace denial than assistance? How can we balance the right of individuals, particularly those with mental and/or emotional illnesses, and the greater good?

What do we do when legitimate gun owners reflexively scream, “My rights..!” in defense of their legal right to own a weapon…no matter how ridiculous some of the gun laws are? How can we maintain the balance of gun owner’s rights to potentially defend themselves, while limiting the number of guns on the streets?

Is it healthy to create a siege mentality within our public school in the name of safety?

How can we craft gun crime laws in such a way as to make any act by gun-toting criminals prohibitive by way of punishment?

As I said a couple of posting ago, sometimes our “rights” get in the way of the greater good (see: "Too Many Rights Make Wrong.").  And maybe as individuals, we should start considering focusing less on our individual wants and likes and more on what’s best for everyone involved.
No matter how “pro-gun” you are, the deaths of 20 young children is just a little hard to defend, either politically, ideologically, or realistically.

Concealed gun laws, state-by-state (click to enlarge)

Maybe there should be a means testing for gun ownership...the weapons and amount of weapons one is allowed to purchase should be in proportion to the threat of one's environment or their actual profession...it would maintain gun ownership, BUT limit the amount of available weapons in the streets possible criminals and nut-cases to acquire. Maybe under such a policy, people living in the violence in gang-infested Chicago would have the means to defend themselves, while the George Zimmerman's of America wouldn't have to overreact to imaginary threats!

Read More

Paying Students to Learn…Another Bad Public School Policy!

One reason why in recent years there has been a proliferation of Internet blogs, talk radio/T.V. programs, and printed punditry is because there are so many bad policies either in proposal or in effect that people like myself have enough ammunition to fire off salvo after salvo of witty rebukes, cynical insights, and constructive counter-proposals well into perpetuity. Now bear witness to such an example.
Last evening, as per my normal daily routine to stay informed, I was flipping back and forth between the major networks’ evening news broadcasts. I stopped when I heard Katie Couric’s notification of an upcoming story I saw on CBS’s evening offering about paying students to learn (yeah…I did a double-take too when I heard that).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/10/eveningnews/main5078980.shtml

After anguishing through a plethora of commercials that revealed that there were in fact effective (if not profitable) treatments for sexual dysfunction, sleep deprivation, and migraines, I sat in absolute astonishment for the next 2 minutes and 11 seconds. I listened to the arguments—pro and con—of actually paying students to acquire basic skills necessary to function in a world where learning and knowing could literally make the difference between want and abundance, knowledge and ignorance, or life and death.




I had heard about the idea before, but still, I decided to watch the story with an open mind. After viewing this story, I decided to acquaint myself more background information about this notion of paying students to learn. What I learned was that it’s not just a “New York City” thing.
From Georgia, to Illinois, to Texas, many school districts are preparing or have started pilot programs that either pay students to get high test scores which (theoretically) reflect learning and retaining lessons taught, or to attend school and/or other academic-based programs.
The idea has more than it’s fair share of proponents, liberal, moderate, and conservative alike-- one of them being the former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican Newt Gingrich (if you don’t believe me, please refer to Mr. Gingrich’s very own website, http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3140/Two-Georgia-Schools-to-Pay-Students-to-Study.aspx).
Last year, two Georgia schools began studying the measurable outcomes (academically) of a 15-week pilot program that pays students $8 an hour to attend math and science tutoring for 4 hours a week. Also in 2008, the Chicago Public Schools paid more than 1,600 students to get good grades. As reported in the Chicago Tribune in October of last year,

…1,650 Chicago Public Schools students [cashed] in on a new district program offering money to freshmen at 20 schools for getting top—and even average—grades in five core subjects including math, English and science. District officials said students earned $265,986 this time, with the money coming from a Harvard University education research laboratory and private donations.

The arguments in favor of the idea are many. They range from idea that the increased grades spurred by payments serve as self-esteem boosters for students in low-performing districts, to preventing students from dropping out of school to work minimum-wage jobs in lieu of studying by giving them an immediate payoff to hard work.
From what I’ve read in and around the blogsphere and Internet news sites, most have come down on the side of sanity on this issue; it’s a philosophically and pragmatically insane idea. First, it undermines the ability to tell good teachers and administrators—those capable of actually motivating their students to learn—from those who are just trying to survive their post-honeymoon periods as teachers, and are merely holding on until retirement.
Second, it commandeers the responsibility of a child’s first and primary (at least supposedly) educators, their parents. Public schools should be a supplement for an education that a student is supposed to receive at home. Concepts such as manners, the instilment and understanding of rules, structure, respect for authority, and (insert gasp here) the value of performing to the best of one’s abilities for the sake of expanding one boundaries and to promote personal growth (and on this point, if a parent can teach the child that for most things, there is not always an immediate payoff, so much more the better for society as a whole).
Third, the money to fund such programs overwhelmingly comes from private donations and other like contributors. What happens when the money runs out? Do already cash-strapped school districts decide to use already limited funds to continue the programs, or do we watch as our kids must suddenly go cold turkey to their addiction to getting paid to for learning (come to think of it, such a prospect could conceivably teach our kids about the dangers of addiction)? There is a great deal of research that indicates that tangible evidence undermines intrinsic motivation.
Lastly, it does nothing to help dispel the globally-held belief that Americans are a people motivated simply by love of money. And to use money as a tool to motivate our youngest citizens to learn can’t possibly do anything to weaken that notion. It seems that if money were the answer, we wouldn’t have a problem with poor academic performance in the first place. How else can one explain the fact that American public school students have for years continually poorly when compared to students from countries that spend a lot less on their public school students, and who have stronger curriculums?
Now, ready for some common sense solutions? How about parents stop using the lack of time, scheduling conflicts, misplaced priorities and other such nonsense as excuses for failing to promote their children’s academic well-beings. If parents have the time to procreate them, then they have the time to raise their children. Working to pay bills is not an acceptable excuse for a parent’s failure to be actively involved with their children, which means it’s not up to television, the Internet, or computer programs to either baby-sit or help them with their homework (at least not solely). And on that note, it’s in our children’s interests for parents to be educated themselves. For adults to bring children into the world without the benefit of knowing enough about the world themselves so that they can prepare their children adequately is the height of irresponsibility! A parent should have, at the very least, a high school education—every bit of research supports the conventional wisdom that education and parental involvement are two of the biggest contributing factors to a child’s overall life chances (while I freely admit my belief that America will never totally be a society of “equal opportunity,” I am of the mindset that there are things we can so to limit inequalities).
How about we abandon this absurd notion of paying children to learn? Paying students for academic performance undermines the idea of a meritocracy—an already questionable concept even under the traditional course upward mobility—predicated on finding and shaping the best and the brightest. Consider our leaders and potential leaders; President Barack Obama and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor both have compelling life narratives which would be less inspiring to those who would emulate their success if money were their chief motivations for succeeding.
And if are going to make it a policy of paying students for attending school and exceeding their own expectations by way of bribery, why stop there? Why don’t we pay them to not do drugs? Just as we pay them to obtain a certain number of A or B’s, we could pay them by the number of times they say “no” whenever they are asked if they want to “take a hit.” And why not pay them to play sports, abstain from sex, and even for not texting while driving. The point is that most of us belonging to certain age groups, namely Baby Boomers and their children, Generation Xers, did what we were supposed to do because it was simply the right thing to do…not because we were bribed to do so. We were not motivated to excel or be better individuals simply because someone offered us money…we did so because we wanted a better standard of living than our parents, and realized that the only way to obtain more was to do better and be better than they were. If we have to bribe our children to simply learn to push themselves past all social, economic, and personal expectations, then we cannot blame them…the fault lies with the adults. We have only ourselves to blame if our children have lost their motivation to learn and excel for the sake of learning and exceling. Maybe someone should pay us to be more responsible adults…maybe then we will raise students.

Read More

Special Education in Public School (Or "Who's Pimping Our Kids?") Pt. 1

About week ago, I found myself up late one night for no other reason than somehow my body’s timing was off (having taken an unplanned nap earlier that day, my usual sleep pattern was thrown out of kilter). Looking for something to nudge me back into my normal sleep pattern, I started flipping through the television channels only to locate a guilty pleasure of mine…South Park.
For those who know of the often controversial animated series, it uses bawdy, sometimes gutter humor to make social commentary about the often idiotic tendencies and beliefs we harbor as a society by skewering our most heartfelt beliefs via parody. On the night I was watching, Park was in rare form. Creators Matthew Parker and Trey Stone used their highly popular and successful vehicle to poke fun at an issue that is somewhat close to me…our predilection as a society to label any disruptive behavior found in our children with some alphabet-soup-laden title. In this particular episode, they focused on the absurdity of over diagnosing of children—at least in many kids—with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).



That episode of South Park sparked recollections of my personal experiences in the public education system over the years. During 2007 school year, I found myself in a long-term substitute teaching position student at an alternative public school for students who fell under the auspices of those needing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), more commonly known as “Special Education” students. Working with predominantly black and/or low-income student, to say that this particular experience was eye-opening would be something of a criminal understatement.
First, I have to say that most teachers work under conditions that would rival the military in terms of stress, the pressures to meet deadlines and create tangible results, and scrutiny from those who have no clue what such a vocation entails. And on this latter point, I would wager any amount of money that those who criticize teachers—especially those working in city/urban-type settings—would be pulling out their hairs if they were expected to work under such trying conditions. Further still, if they work with Special Education students, they should not only be knighted, but given sainthood, and have a special place in Heaven reserved for their eventual arrival; they are literally expected to turn water into wine…without the enjoyment. That having been said, and after my own experiences in the public school system, I reserve my own criticisms for others involved in the “education” of special needs students…students, their parents, and administrators/decision-makers.
Back in the day when I was an elementary school student in the public schools, those we called “Special Ed” students were those with obvious deficiencies…those who utilized special equipment to assist them in their regular day-to-day struggles such as wheelchairs, leg braces, electronic hearing aids, or in extreme cases, human assistants. In other cases, the special education students were those who had afflictions that we didn’t understand back then, but whose episodes would disrupt the learning process of the regular classrooms, such as Turret’s Syndrome or Epilepsy. They were all placed in a classroom at the far end of the school building. They rode the “special bus.” Granted, in retrospect this segregation (as it were) created a level of social stigma among the regular students, it was hard to ignore the kid who wore the football helmet all the time, even in the off season. But in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act mandated "free and appropriate public education" to all public school students with physical, mental, or behavioral disabilities. That wasn’t the problem.
The difference between then and now was the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which expanded the ‘75 act to include all children with disabilities—regardless of the type or severity of their disability—an education in the least restrictive environment. This essentially meant integrating “special needs” students with the general classroom (i.e., non-disabled students), with a minimal level of separation for special tutoring, instruction, or etc.
At issue is the expanding definition of what constitutes a “disability.” For example, there have been more than a few studies critical of the over diagnosis and the resulting over-prescribing of Ritalin for an increasing number of American children(http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9909/01/adhd.overdiagnosis/). For those significant number of cases where the diagnoses may not apply, it is suspected—and I’m very much inclined to believe—that these instances are nothing more than cases where parents don’t put their feet down insofar as punishment and direct parenting. In these cases, Ritalin should not be the first “remedy” of choice; I’ve always been partial to a more “natural” approach…a strong male father (or mother absent of the father) figure with the will and the legal sanction to use a hickory switch. While I’m far from the first person to believe that medical doctors, child psychologists, and other like professionals over diagnose and “discover” too many purported childhood behavior-related “disorders,” I am one of the few fortunate (or “unfortunate) enough to have experienced how such questionable medical practices adversely affects public education.
From my own experiences, integration creates a ready-made circus-like atmosphere in many classrooms, complete with “special” class clowns. The resulting dynamic is predictable; the focus of the teacher is shifted from instruction to maintaining classroom order and the attention of the already easily distracted class is commanded by disruptive “special education” students. And because of their special status, the disruptive students tend to be given a “pass” or light sanctions when their behavior warrants more. It doesn’t help that most parents are standing at the ready with a potential lawsuit cocked and loaded in the event that their “special” children are treated “differently than the other students.” And because of the increased levels of funding that special education students and programs which cater to them command from the states, it seems that there is a greater effort to keep them a part of the total student population, which further reinforces the kid-gloved treatment that they are given when it comes to their in-school behavior. The result is that learning suffers, grades and test scores suffer, and discipline suffers.
I can’t remember how many times I have seen the parents and guardians of disruptive students get phone calls from stressed-out and frustrated teachers about their child’s oftentimes reprehensible behavior, only to have those same parents return the teachers’ concerns with a chewing out, a justification, or an outright defense of their child’s behavior from these same parents. And of course, there is usually very little backing for the instructor’s recommendations from principalss and other administrators. The necessity of disciplining the unruly and/or instituting progressive actions meant to create a classroom atmosphere conducive to learning is irrelevant compared to the fear of giving upset parents any reason for either pulling these funding cash cows out of the school district—as if that were even likely in most low-income urban areas—or bringing legal actions against already cash-strapped school districts, no matter how frivolous, how much at fault lax parenting, or how undisciplined children contribute to this pathological dynamic of learning…such as it.

To Be Concluded...

Read More