The War on Blacks?

The United States has by an astronomical amount the largest proportion of its population in prison compared to other countries. Our competition, (though we still have them beat) are places like Russia and Uganda, and maybe China, though reliable statistics for China are hard to come by.

Prison population

And while Blacks make up around 10% of the population of the country as a whole, they make up about 40% (FBP) of the prison population on the federal level and similar disparities are found at the state level.

Fifty percent of the prison population at both federal and state levels are for drug related offenses ( The war on drug that produced these figures has had no measurable effect on reducing drug use. It has been a boon to the prison industrial complex, and possibly the effect of increasing the power of drug cartels.

This is not to mention the well documented disproportionate violence against Black by police, too often resulting in death as well.

A further repercussion is that for the most part prisoners cannot vote, and in some cases that lack of ability to vote carries past being released, sometimes for life.

Now add to that the recent voter suppression laws, and we see a pattern of the disenfranchisement of the Blacks and the Black vote.

If you look at this by numbers, it would be easy to interpret this as a police state for Blacks.

(I was recently hearing that similar statistics—if not even worse, are true for the Native American population).

Should we still require cursive?

I just came across a piece entitled Ten Reasons People Still Need Cursive by Jennifer Doverspike, in the Federalist. The piece is obviously on the importance of teaching cursive. As one who found its imposition on me as an elementary student to get in my way, rather than help me (and in fact, my teachers in middle school were glad when I quit using it, since they found it difficult to read my cursive), I decided to critique the 10 claims.


  1. Cursive Helps People Integrate Knowledge

So do lots of other things at least as well, such as the arts, theater, physical education, all of which there is way too little of in most public schools. These others sound like better and more interesting ways to integrate knowledge to me. And print is just as tactile as cursive, so would it not do this integration just as well?

  1. Writing Long-form Teaches Us How to Write

The author cites a correlation between the good writing and good handwriting in children. However, it may be that those that have good handwriting as children do so simply because they have matured earlier, both physically and mentally—so do not confuse correlation with causation. I would have to see evidence of such a correlation in adults to give it any credit. If you want fast, then learn to type—that is what I did, since I have atrocious handwriting.

  1. Our Hands Should Be Multilingual

“Should be?” Well, there are lots and lots of things maybe we should be—like be multilingual. Is its more important than all the other things that time could be spent on. Remember, time is school is an extremely limited resource. I do not see a reason to force this one particular “should” over all the others I can think of that we do not find time for in school.

  1. We Learn Better When We Write It Down

We can write it down without knowing cursive. In argument 2, they focus on the need for speed in writing, yet in this argument they argue slow is better. Well then go to print. And what the author is referring to writing down is lecture notes. Children rarely do have to do this, and a better way to learn is to be actively doing something rather than listening to lectures anyway.

  1. Handwriting Leads to Cognitive Development, Self-Esteem, and Academic Success

It may only do so because we give it that importance. And in fact, since good handwriting is easier for some, requiring it actually gives an academic advantage to those who have better dexterity, but may not be any smarter. Again from the research cited, they may very well be confusing correlation with causation, or even reversing the cause-effect relationship.

  1. It May Help Those With Special Needs

And it may hurt them too. That it “may” is not a reason to impose it on all. For many using a keyboard opens up a world denied to them, especially students with physical impairments which make handwriting more difficult. If it helps a particular student, great, but this is a sweeping generalization.

  1. It Reduces Distractions and Inspires Creativity

Maybe it does for some, and for others it becomes another burden—I know that when I started typing (in middle school) and then using a computer (in college), it was way less frustrating for me, and in each case I felt more creative, not less. I do not think I am all that unique in that way.

  1. It Keeps Our Brains Active in Old Age

There are millions of ways to keep one’s brain active in old age. It does not happen to be the one I would choose. If you like it great—but do not impose it on me.

  1. We Need to Be Able to Read Cursive

Actually, I have found extremely few times in my adult life when I need to read cursive—and the claim you need to be able to write it to read it is just plain false.  If and when such a time comes up, one can learn it. There is no critical age for learning to read or write cursive. Learning to read it can be done in a tiny fraction of the time needed to learn to write it. To force all to learn to write cursive for the few that might find it necessary seems wasteful and arbitrary.

  1. We Can Create Something Beautiful and Unique.

Again, there are millions of way to create unique and beautiful things. To impose this one way is arbitrary. I would hate it to be imposed on me.

My main argument is not that cursive is bad—but it is no longer necessary in modern society. I could make 10 easily as justifiable arguments for learning to ride a horse , but we do not require horse back riding or many other wonderful things that can integrate our brains and help us be creative. All of the arguments relate to why it may be worth doing, but do not justify it as a requirement, especially given the limited time that schools have with children.

As a teacher I happened to have liked teaching cursive—but that was because I could keep the kids busy and quiet at the end of a long day in a mindless activity that as third graders they saw as important. Learning cursive was, and may still be a sort of right-of-passage. That is the best argument I can come up with to teach it.





In this post I am going to discuss a pet peeve about the use of language–the use of a particular word. I am an avid tennis player (even if not particularly good). I get the magazine Tennis, and there was an article asking some tennis stars who their heroes were. The large majority of them named tennis or other sport stars from the past. I have found this use of the term hero to be quite common.

humptydumpty with quote

What is a hero? We can go to the dictionary, but that is problematic in that a) the dictionary offers several definitions, and b) dictionaries are not the arbitrators of definitions but the recorders of them—dictionaries decide definitions by their usage. My experience has been that the word hero is often used the way I described above.

However, for me, that use of hero is simply a synonym for idol. What I would like to reserve the term hero for when it includes two other criteria besides (and some dictionary definitions do include these, especially if you look up heroism, or heroic, rather than just hero). These are that it is done in the service of others, and that some risk is taken.

While I admire Roger Federer as a tennis player, and he may even be an idol or someone I want to be like as a tennis player, he does not fit my definition of a hero. His becoming one of the best tennis players ever took and takes an enormous amount of dedication and talent. But he did not take any what I would call significant risks—his life or future was not put in danger by his working to be a great tennis player. He did it for himself—no one is saved by his great tennis playing.

I see this phenomena of people naming idols—often media and sports stars—as common, true from kids to adults. I wonder if this is just a different idea of what hero means, or part of out focus on media and sports stars in our culture.

One common answer kids, and others often give, though, does fit my definition. Parents! Parents do fit the hero definition of mine! Having a child is a big risk—no one really comes prepared for what it means to be a parent. It is a big sacrifice! The work of a parent is to put one’s child before oneself.

Do you have a pet peeve about a word you feel is misused? What is it and why?

Multi-graded Classroom

We think of the age-graded classroom as so normal, as if it is just the normal order of things—and forget that it is a relatively recent modern invention.


The first public schools were mostly small one room buildings with kids of all ages a teacher. This was mostly done not out of any belief in multi aged classroom, but since most people lived in rural areas, schools were not likely to have more than a classroom full of kids from the town and surrounding farms, and their attendance often sporadic.

The age-graded classroom was a product of two simultaneous and connected changes in society: urbanization and industrialization. In a primarily agricultural society, there were too few students in close enough proximity to fill up more than a class or two, especially given that most did not spend much time in school. Most of what anyone needed to know could be, and really had to be, learned at home on the farm. Basic reading, writing, and arithmetic were all that was needed from school for most people, and not to a very sophisticated level.

Urbanization meant more of the population was living in larger cities, which meant schools could have larger enrolments. With more of the population living in large cities, now in many places there were enough children of one age to make a entire class or even more than one. It also meant more people’s jobs were working for someone else, and so schooling seemed more important as well. Further, since parents were working outside the home, they needed a place to send there kids.

Industrialization brought with it as well the idea of assembly line efficiency. It only made sense to apply the modern ideas of such efficiency to the classroom, especially given having so many children in one place. Curriculum was designed along these lines, where all teachers could give the same lessons to all the kids of a certain age in the proper order.

Soon this way of doing things, where students were grouped by age and taught subjects and content in a linear order, became what seemed the natural order of things. Multi-graded classrooms were now just an inconvenience of the few places left rural enough not to be able to have age-graded classrooms, or in larger schools to avoid hiring extra teachers when the numbers did not work out to have a complete class at every grade, putting the extra kids form two grades together.

When most teachers are now assigned such a combination grade class they dread it. After all, it is gong to mean two different curriculums they have to teach. Kids of different ages to manage. More different groups. How to instruct one group while keeping the other busy doing something meaningful? Given the paradigm of teaching as the delivery of curriculum, these fears are probably realistic ones.

However, if one has a different paradigm, multi-graded teaching can be wonderful. In my third year of teaching, when I had a second grade, I asked to keep my students the following year. I found it a huge advantage to start the year knowing my students. I felt I developed a much deeper relationship with these students. I could start the year right off and take them on from where they were. Classroom management was easier since we had already established the classroom norms. Having students for two years was a blessing.

The following year I switched school districts and was assigned a first grade. But as the year progressed, I started scouting among the other faculty for a teacher that might want to join me for teaming for multi-graded classrooms. My idea was to do a first/second, and keep half of my students, but the teacher I found that was willing to try this with me did not want to do first, so we ended up agreeing to do second/third. After doing that for several years, I also had years where I did 4/5, 4/5/6 and 3/4/5.

The big difference in the paradigm that makes one seem advantageous over the other is a belief in how people learn. Much of schooling is based, mostly implicitly, on a belief in learning as a linear process, generally passed from teacher (or any form of directed instruction which can be in the from text books, workbooks, or even computer programs as well as a teacher) to pupils. In this paradigm, teaching a group where everyone is around the same level is most efficient for delivering the correct instruction.

Another paradigm of learning—one which follows most of our out of school learning, is that we learn in communities of diversity, were different people have different levels of knowledge, and ability and just different ways of approaching and looking at things. We learn in this context by doing purposeful activities along side others—learning with and from them. If this is your paradigm for who learning takes place, then you will see multi-graded classrooms as an advantage rather than hardship.

As in moving up a grade with my students, multi-grade meant that I already knew half of my students. I could see how they were maturing, what they needed. In many ways knowing I had two years with them meant I had more patience for the natural differences in how children develop at different rates.

Learning is also to a large degree built on trust. Real trust is something that comes over time and with two years that trust is also deeper. This goes for families as well as the students themselves. In having my students for two or three years I found the trust level increased exponentially.

Then there is socialization to how the classroom runs. With half the children knowing the routines, the other half easily learn them as well, as they can follow the lead of the students who were with me the previous year.

In terms of curriculum, for much of it, I use a thematic approach. A thematic approach allows students of a variety of interests, abilities and styles to approach the theme in their own way at their own level. When students are reading real books and literature rather than text books, they naturally find the books that interest them—and a book that is too easy or too hard is not interesting. The same goes for writing, using a writer’s workshop model. For math, students would have self paced workbooks for arithmetic, and I would do on the spot grouping for particular skills, as well as thematic projects for the whole class to work together on. Themes could be anything form building a town, creating houses, studying bugs, investigating the environment, learning about the solar system, studying the peopling of the America’s to name just a few that I have done. The possibilities are practically endless.

In the multi-graded classroom, less able students have more experienced and knowledgeable students to model and guide them, who are just enough above to act as effective models. The more able students, in helping guide the less experienced, actually learn even more in the process of offering such help and guidance. It creates a form of having to meta-cognize—think about their own knowledge—in helping others. Teaching can actually be the most powerful form of learning.

In summary, multi-graded classrooms offer a variety of advantages: Getting to know students and families better; allowing more time to work with students; building greater levels of trust; easier classroom management; creating a more natural environment where those of different abilities learn from and with each other; and built in peer tutoring.

For these various reasons multi-graded classrooms can offer a more powerful environment for learning than a standard age graded classroom.


What is intelligence? Can we measure it? Do some have more of it than others?

I have just started to reread Stephen Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” If you have not read it—it is a must read, especially for anyone who calls themselves an educator.

intelligence test

He starts with two main points—or fallacies. One is the fallacy that intelligence is a thing at all. Rather, it is a construct, an idea. Intelligence is actually no more or less than we define it as.  The other fallacy he points out is ranking—as though there is some linear range, like height or weight on which to line up intelligence.

Our ideas of intelligence are socially and culturally created as well as historically situated, as Vyogtsky pointed out almost a century ago. Intelligence is only what we define it as. Our ideas of what it is are firmly entrenched in our belief systems, in our cultural paradigms. And also due to this any test of intelligence is to some degree a tautology. How do we prove someone is intelligent? Their score on the IQ test. How do we know that the IQ test is valid? We designed it so that those we “knew” were most intelligent got the highest scores and those we “knew” were less intelligence got the low scores. This is as true today of IQ tests as it was of the previous methods of measuring intelligence (craniology for instance). New versions of intelligence tests and even other forms of standardized testing are assessed on whether the same group that did well on the previous version do well on the new versions, and the same for those who did poorly—the curve needs to stay the same. If a different group does better on new test items (which are beta-tested first) those items are discarded as invalid (unless of course the test designers decide they want a different group to do better or worse).

The uni-dimensiality of intelligence has currently fallen into controversy, but it is as unprovable as intelligence itself—it is nether true nor untrue—since “intelligence” is what we define it as, we can choose to define it either way, and to categorize the different dimensions as we find useful.

The same is true of another assumption of intelligence—that it falls along a “normal curve.” This is a logical assumption based on other natural traits, such as height and weight. But we should not lose fact that it is another unprovable assumption, not a fact (and actually presupposes there is a thing called intelligence to measure and put on such a curve).

Because intelligence is a cultural construct, any test of it will be therefore biased toward those who share the knowledge, assumptions, world views and paradigms of the dominant culture. This again is unavoidable. A test has to have content, and any content exists in some context.

Because of these attributes of intelligence, I find the use of any measurement of intelligence highly suspect. When used to sort people in any official way, it is dangerous to a democratic society.

Sharing Economy

The term the sharing economy is thrown around a lot these days with new forms of online interactions. I would like to discuss here what it is and what it is not. The idea of a sharing economy is really very old. In fact, until the advent of capitalism, most people worked on some form of a sharing economy—I share with you what I have and you share what you have.

Sharing-Economy-Cover1-620x350However, these days all sorts of unregulated business, especially these that use the internet, are being referred to as the “sharing economy.” There are such things as Air B&B where people rent out their homes or rooms in their home. Another popular one is Uber and the like where people act as private taxi drivers using their own cars.

The rationale for calling this “sharing” economy is that these are things people have anyway and now they are “sharing” them with others.

However, the idea is really not “sharing” in the traditional sense of the word of what is mine is yours, but rather of making extra income. I do not see the primary motivation of these new businesses (which is what they are) as oh, i have something extra that I can let others have or use, but rather, a need for money. Such  businesses charge real money, and often use the advantage of not being regulated to undercut established businesses or offer a service where traditional business does not exist or do not find profitable. This is what in the rest of the world has always referred to as the “grey” market.

I actually see the growth of this economy not as a paradigm shift away from competitive capitalism, but more as the underbelly of that system, born in this country particularly out of a weak economy where many families can no longer support themselves due to the shrinking of decent paying jobs in the regular economy. Such grey markets have always been a large part of the economy of third world countries. I may have extra time without regular employment, yet I own a car, so I become an Uber driver. My kids have moved out and I have extra room, and am struggling on my fixed retirement, or low wage job—so I rent out my extra rooms.

However, this can actually lead to a downward spiral of income and job security. Regulated taxi drivers and their companies have large overhead and rules to meet. Their jobs are reduced when people can pay half the price to an Uber driver. The same with hotels and inns. Uber drivers and Air B&B types have no job security, no pensions, etc.—as it is based on the idea of it being “extra” income. And in the Air B&B market, some commercial companies are now buying properties in urban markets to run unregulated hotels, undercutting traditional hotels. They do not have to meet all sorts of regulations (as of yet) and do not have unionized protected employees.

I have a different idea of what a sharing economy really means. An authentic sharing economy is about bypassing the monetary economy. I have something that others can use, so I share it with others; others have something I can use, they share it with me. Examples of this from the relatively recent past might be a “roof raising,” when farmers and homesteaders built their own homes. While most of the house a man cold build himself, when it cam to putting up the roof, help was needed. The neighbors would come out and lend a hand. They knew when they needed something similar their neighbors would be there for them as well. No payment was given or expected.

Another example is farming cooperatives, where no one farmer could afford the some of the expensive machinery and they would pool resources and share them. Or even help plow each others field, or help at harvest time.

More recent forms of the sharing economy might be barter networks. While most of these do include some sort of exchange of an alternative “currency” (often in terms of hours of service rendered), they attempt to equalize the inequalities or the worth of some people’s time over others inherent in our current capitalist system. In some an hour is an hour, no matter what service is rendered. In others, their might be some leeway for differentials. Some even have no such accounting.

A real sharing economy is about thinking not how can I make the most money, but about how can I use my resources and skills in a way that contribute to others, giving back to my community. Capitalism is based on a competitive model, how can I get the most for myself and beat my competition. The sharing economy is based on a cooperative model, how can I help others.

Financial Crises and Austerity

Have you noticed that while it is the rich and powerful that create nation-wide and even worldwide financial crises through their greed and desire for quick profits at whatever cost, it is the working class and poor that are expected to pay for the mess they create?

In the U.S., where austerity measures have been mild by comparison to much of the world (and therefore the recovery actually stronger), even here it is the pensions of working people that are being attacked, as well as services to the most needy and vulnerable that are cut. Infrastructure that the common people rely on) are let to go to ruin–public roads in poor shape, pubic school budgets cut into the bone, public transportation cut, etcetera.

In Greece we see now that they are being forced to those same “solutions” only in even more extreme than we have–pensions cut, jobs lost, other social services cut. Public property sold of to private interests.

Not only do the rich not pay for the disaster brought on by their greed, we find that in the long run (or really not that long) they use these disaster for further profit. The banks are bigger and richer than ever. In Greece, for instance, private interests use this to take over what belongs to the public.

Austerity does not work, as it actually takes money from those who would spend it, and puts it in the hands of those who already have more than they know what to do with–except buy themselves more toys and consolidate more wealth and power.

Until the assumptions of global Capitalism are questioned, examined and overturned, such injustices will continue.