Tests are the Bestest

I love teaching.  Learning is fascinating and guiding through others in the process is a honest joy.  Education should and could be one of the best parts of growing up but it is being suffocated by those who want to make it a controlled process rather than the inherently organic system it is.  I asked the internet the other day "Why can't I learn algebra?" and found enough interesting answers to get the rusty gears turning.  People could not even explain why they did not understand the subject for it was so obtuse to their line of thinking.  They had demonstrated problem solving through their writing or had successful careers and so they had the honest question of why they were forced to learn something that they never understood and so clearly aided little in their development.  Math is a growing field and we have found a way to apply it everywhere we can because it provides evidence to our arguments and makes us more confident in our decisions; moreover, computers only make choices based on logical progressions, though those are designed by people.  I have students who can grasp programming logic as if it is second nature but struggle mightily to solve an equation.  They think they are bad at math but I see them demonstrating and making use of calculated and formal decision making, finding patterns, and solving a problem.  If that ain't math, then I don't know what is.  Really, what is math?  My favorite thing to hear from a student is that, "It makes me think so hard." I know I have had some measure of success and he or she is gaining the real key from the study (at the level I teach).  I could have them make and design all kinds of cool stuff that allow them to have a purpose for thinking so hard.  I could try to guide a discussion on infinite and nothingness and all that would entail, or try to make sense of transcendental numbers but I need to make them learn how to find out how long it will take John to paint a house if he and Bob usually can do it in 7 hours and Bob can do it in 28 hours. Why? It could be on a standardized tests.  ETS, a non-profit, had a revenue of over $1,000,000,000 last year.  The largest component of education reform is standardized tests.  Kids in middle school are forced to stress out all year and then take two weeks of tests that determine their worth.  Later on, they are forced to believe that the ACT/SAT is the most crucial element for getting into college because all those grades mean so little.  There are many studies that don't support this, Geiser and Santelices have an excellent study.  Grades are the most important predictors of college success, followed by subject tests.  Those tests are focused and allow the student to demonstrate his or her strengths.  One going into the liberal arts needs to be able to write and one into STEM needs to be able to add.  Grades show a greater body of work as well as a student's work ethic.
At this time, we have models in other countries of better education systems that don't use testing.  The education communities are constantly proving that we need to foster real growth and learning for the best success but it falls on deaf ears.  Your tax dollars pay for people with PhD's to find the best solutions but those results are not use because someone else paid legislators for a different solution.  I want the smartest people solving the hardest problems, not the richest.
I got lost somewhere in this train of thought but it is a question I am still working with.  I believe all students can learn math and can find value in the subject but algebra is not the only math out there.  Even as a math, it is a toolbox and not an end.
- to be continued.

Birds and other things

A small flight of soon to be earrings resting on the windowsill I see.  Taking pictures of jewelry is kinda tricky, but we can all appreciate the grainy cell-phone picture in its beauty.  Every moment must be documented so we can prove to ourselves how cool we are in those times when we are being our more standard selves.  That isn't really true but the pseudo-intellectual cynics deciding what has weight in the discussions of the everyday like to think so.  The greatest moments in my life weren't documented at the time.  I wish I wrote about them more but that will come in time as I forget what they were and struggle to preserve what I have left.  The reality is that those moments define who I am and they resonate through me for I have been molded by my interactions with the world.  What causes a more profound impact, the few individually great ones or the continuous cycle of mundane ones?  Who knows but the nature of the question reminds us that the everyday moments are vital to the lives we lead and the people we wish to be.  I, for one, have an extremely difficult time changing my habits and changing these multitude of small interactions for the best, despite my best wishes.  Oh well.
I will put up some better pictures of the earrings when they are finished. Shout if you are interested.

Why do we need this.

I am about to be teaching my students about rational functions.  The one above is one I am planning on basing a lecture around.  In all likelihood, a few students will ask why they need to know this and what it is that they need to know.  I want them to be able to explore the relationships involved in the function and how they result in the curve.  There is some application of the problem, I am not sure of what that is but one can find areas where math is used in all kinds of interesting places.  People did not arrive at these problems to solve an application, though.  The vast majority of math problems have been solved as reasons unto themselves. What purpose does this have? Math is a creation of man.  We use it to explain things around us but everything you see above is applied thought, not a reflection of observation.  Many of the courses we study are based on observation of actions and reactions of the world around us but some are extensions of personal expression.  People recognize paintings and songs as such but they like to exclude math from this group.  The do so because math takes study to understand. 
How do these forms of expression aid our knowledge? Why study them? Our minds, bodies, and souls are built from the same stuff as the rest of the universe.  Those things that we create from within are not expressions different from what we observe but internal developments in a manner that reflect the relationships we see in the world and amongst ourselves.  Math is a study of thought and provides us a possible window into the cognitive process of the everything around us.  Does this make sense? I wish I could more carefully formalize the argument and make a more profound connection.  Hopefully, through the act of teaching and learning, I can.

T.V. makes me feel worse about myself.

Most video productions of a band are not good.  Musicians, producers, effects people, and more all work together to make the show.  The music, lights, sets, and all of the other elements are what make for the show.  It is not the work of one person but the camera is on a jittery closeup of the lead singer.  They sell us this face and this person as the one responsible for all of the spectacle, most of which we can not see.  We can't see the fireworks and dancing robots and the back up singers doing their cool moves and the drummer keeping count; most importantly, we can't see it as one grand piece.  They do the same thing with sports.  They focus on the man with the ball and not the whole game that is interesting.
I went to an opera the other night.  I have never been but the show reminded me of this.  I would get tired of the singing and other parts but when the stage was full of people, there was a whole world to watch.  The members of the chorus were engaged in antics and storytelling so I was able to take far more from the show than the basic story.
Yet T.V. and more want to sell me the powers and genius of an individual, and they do so with individuals who are clearly the face of a larger group.  The Beatles today would be sold as Lennon.
The problem is that no one person can be so profoundly great.  Those who may reach such levels of brilliance tend to hide or attribute those around them.  Why is the superstar pushed on us?  We look to one person to rescue all.  People blame or praise the President as if he is the one making all the laws and decisions of the country.  He is one hyper-publicized face of government.   Even if he made all of the choices of the Executive Branch, he is one-third of the Federal government.
Here I am, one part of a family and a small part of a school.  In neither case, am I a savior.  I can do all that I can for the best but nothing more.  That fact is probably at the root of the cause.  We do not like to believe ourselves not in control.  Each of us is an essential element of our world and can change the world so we can achieve happiness.
Individuals can do monumental things but we are not sold most of these people.  They are not produced and polished to fit a certain image of star or hero, though they would definitely be more profound to some people.
to be continued....

"What an honorable life to emulate."

I know I should be more respectful but something has me confused about a great man who is distinguished by having the most kills in American sniper history.  My confusion came from a series of comments in his memory and how he would be in heaven.  He has killed at least 150 people and probably more.  These comments were near discussions of gun freedoms and how the president hates Christians.  I am no scholar of the Bible, I need to read and study it but I find it so boring to read.  I just do not have any way of understanding how followers of Jesus can find any form of killing to be okay, much less moral.  The fundamental Christian argument against abortion is that one can not take a life.  If that is the case, how can one shoot someone in self-defense, much less kill innocent people with rockets?  If you really believe in the Jesus's teachings, should you not be working to overcome enemies with love.  Feed their poor and not strike when attacked.  I actually think this would work better toward a global peace than sending armies.  We could then use all those resources for destructive technology toward positive things.
"These people hate us and our freedom.  They want to kill us." Hate comes from suffering and oppression.  Nations of fed and free people do not hate us.  Perhaps we should start with feeding the hungry.  It's an easy way to get people to not hate you.
None of these pipe dreams will happen while established powers fight to keep the status quo and themselves in the bridge.
On top of that, or at the base of if the debate, is that we must respect and fear violence for we are living creatures that prefer to stay alive.  People use it in any confrontation that they have lost control in.  They use it because it makes them feel powerful and respond to it out of self-preservation.  We have paths for violence.  Today is a holy day of a sport based on violence and aggression.  If we could only fight wars with marching bands and sporting contests.  That would be a civilized approach and one in which we wouldn't have shell-shocked soldiers, orphans, and widows.
I had somewhere I was going but I don't know where it is.  The goal is to find a way out of this dark path and to a trail of more hope and more possibility.  Society can at least give everyone the best chance to pursue happiness.  Our individual demons make it hard enough, much less the power struggles of presidents bombing thousands in pissing contests.

On guns, in some sense.

Guns are not the reason people commit heinous acts but I believe access to them makes such acts more imaginable and therefore may facilitate the process of insanity to reality.  We can't legislate ourselves out of a problem, though.  People always cry for more or less government, depending on what they need.  Which is it?

I decided to read through the Bill of Rights since that is the key piece of the debate.  Why are the first two the ones always discussed and argued about? I hear no  arguments about the ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This says that the Constitution can only give people more rights and not limit any others already held by the people.  Now we have come to an argument on State and the people.  

"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."  

Here we have the purpose of the militia is to guard the State.  People were guaranteed the right to arms since citizens made up most of the army.  We now have a professional army but a time may come when we will all be called to protect the security.  The key for our present debates is that the right shall not be infringed.  Legalese can leave much room for interpretation but I see none here.  However you feel about someone walking down the street with an RPG, it is his or her right as defined by the laws which we hold so dear.  Gun control is unconstitutional.  

Do we want to live in a place where we need armed teachers?  I don't.  What manner of society have we created where people shoot down hundreds in schools, where people get in gunfights at funerals, where someone feels better strapped while he waters his pansies?  

Oh the loopholes of law.  Do these scenarios violate any of my rights as a person not covered in the Constitution?  I am not sure but imagine it is rather likely.  These events do bring to light my central issue on guns.  I just don't want to live in a place where I need a gun.  Should we not examine ourselves.  We want to arm teachers but don't think many of the skills to teach.  I'm confused.  

I gotta go for a bit...