Why Our Children Fail

Other countries have poverty, also.  There will always be the haves and the have-nots.  Life in the big city. Nothing will ever change that.  It's part of the human condition.  To exonerate American decline in the quality of education on the basis of poverty, doesn't wash.

It's about motivation, about the home, about standards.  Tell a person he can't learn because he's poor, and he won't. "Aw, shucks.  Poor me:"  Self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, people were very poor.  They came here in cattle boats, starving, with nothing.  No ESL classes, no welfare, no nothing. Make it or break it.

Guess what?  We became the most powerful, smartest, achieving nation in the world.  What changed since then?  Poverty didn't.  Rather, it's the value system that uses poverty and free hand-outs as an excuse, that has come into vogue.  The "poor little helpless things" mentality.  It's sickening to pity one's fellow man like that, rather than to inspire him to achieve and do better for himself. Our value system is upside down.

I'm not impressed with the poverty excuse.  Rather, I go with the reality that teachers need to teach, children need to learn, parents need to parent.  It's not a perfect world. My philosophy is more about "get over it," than "poor baby."  It's not that I'm naive.  I work in the garment district, in the ghettoed portion of town; with minorities as workers, street people, customers, and residents.  I taught in inner city schools.  I get it.

Americans have worked their butts off, in order to have a piece of the American Dream,  for over 200 years, and were magnificent, as a result.
Was every story a success?  No.  As a nation, overall, were we successful? You bet.

Give a person a hand-out (vs. a hand up), and one essentially has said to that person that he is incapable of making it on his own, so others will make it for him.  The fulfilling prophecy of failure and dependency.
*
I do not feel that machines can replace a competent, thinking teacher. However, as many of the teachers today are incompetent, it becomes a debate.  Sadly, students and teachers are stumbling over one another, racing for the "Dumbest in the Class" awards:  The tragedy.  I think machines are a magnificent resource. Period.  Unfortunately, our society disagrees, in significant part:  Teachers have cultivated disrespect, society needs a scapegoat for its failing children, and the technology has become the rescuer.  Bingo...

The other day, a dim-wit of a teacher whined that each of her first graders just HAD to have a calculator. Why is that?

Well, they can't learn arithmetic without one!

What if it breaks?? What will the child do then?  Why, go next door and get the calculators from the other teacher, of course!

Augh!

Are Teachers Still Necessary For a Society To Grow

There are problems with this hypothesis. Everyone today is Not taught by a teacher, other than in some sort of metaphorical sense.  Today, many children are home-schooled, taught by parents, and/or computers; they learn on the internet by themselves, either as part of a learning program, or for pleasure; they learn from their peers; they learn just about everywhere; but perhaps less in the classroom.

Our society, and I'm speaking of the United States, does not value the teacher as it used to.  Partly, this is because of the breakdown of the society--today, the children are in charge, and the adults march to their drummers; part of the reason is that many teachers today really don't teach, or know how to teach.

The methodology is trendy rather than proven; the teachers themselves aren't that well educated; the students are there for reasons that are in addition or instead of learning.  The teachers' unions are focused on one thing: Maintaining membership in order to stay in business; this means, giving teachers what they want vs. what education needs.

All one has to do is to look at the scores, both locally, nationally, and internationally, to document how poorly educated our children are today.  We used to be the leaders of the world in virtually everything, particularly education; today, we are 25th, next to last, and scattered here and there across various scales of achievement.  The latest is that the SAT's and ACT's are being abandoned in several colleges and universities, because folks don't feel that tests measure a student's true abilities.  Isn't it interesting: When the United States was at its peak, tests were an instrument of pride and stature, and our students were the best and the brightest.  Mediocrity breeds mediocrity.

There can be only one of two reasons, academically, why our children have not been learning, and are learning less and less: Either the teaching methods & teachers have declined; or the kids are dumber.  Something to ponder...

As to the question, can society grow without a teacher:  Those who are firm believers in technology will say yes, of course!  Put the student in front of the monitor, and away he goes.  Depending on the integrity, the responsibility, the discipline, the curiosity, the maturity, and the intelligence of the student--in addition to the programmed/canned material that is offered-- this may or may not be so.

However, we are human beings. We can do something that machines can't: We can be spontaneous.  The question is, what can other human beings--in this instance, students and teachers--do to both inspire and respond to that spontaneity, that curiosity, that creative question and response?  What can a human being offer in terms of an off-handed observation, or a comment off the cuff?  What kinds of alternate routes can a human being offer that can be supportive as well as knowledgeable, experienced regarding life and application of learning?

Without teachers, how will people know how to create the machines and the programs that allow students to learn by computers as support tools?

Without education, a democracy or democratic republic such as ours used to be, cannot survive.  It is education that grants freedom.  Not anarchy, revolution, war, and rebellion.  Rather, truly educated individuals who are civilized and respect one another as a result of learning.

This is what teachers are for.

Dumb down the teachers, and the society becomes dumbed down, as well.  Without education, provided by genuinely knowledgeable individuals, our country will not survive.

So, are teachers necessary?  For an educated, enlightened society, yes.  Do we have the kind of teachers we need to maintain this kind of society, today?  Fewer and fewer all the time; which is why so many teachers currently can be replaced by machines.  

Maimon, The Outcast

I'm continuing to learn as I make my way through books about Maimonides.  As I said, he can't win.  He was too smart, too unique, too out of step with the Jews, too definite and without compromise.  He threatened too many people; and the traditional Kabbalistic/Ashkenazic/Gaonic ways of life were against him.  He wanted for the Jews, what the Jews didn't want. His intentions were the best--for the glory of Hashem (God), and "all Israel."  However, "all Israel" wasn't on the bandwagon with him.

One of his fundamental goals was to organize and settle the totality of age-old Talmudic dissension, controversy, and dispute, henceforth and forever more; essentially, he wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff, deleting argument from Jewish law (halacha); he wanted the Jewish world to be able to cleanly and easily grasp the crux of the law without having to stumble and meander through all the arguments preceding it.  The Jews, however, problematic and divisive to the core, had to argue with someone, so they disputed Maimon instead of Talmud--exactly what he was trying to eradicate!!!

The Jews needed to stick with what they knew--Talmud the old-fashioned way; a "mishmash" of debate. Interestingly, the Jews accepted Judah ha Nasi and his Mishneh; they accepted Joseph Karo and the Shulchan Aruch (Set Table--rules of behavior).  But when Maimon came along in between the two, isolated there in the southern Sephardic/assimilated Graeco-Roman-Moslem world, it was a "Thanks but no thanks."  Maimon was perceived as being too radical.

I love Maimonides.  I understand why he wasn't accepted.  I respect that.  He wasn't wrong; he was different.  He was writing for "the Bunch," and at the same time, he wasn't one of them.  Remember about community--how one has to fall in line.  How community keeps one in line if one falls out, or ultimately rejects him, altogether.  Snius, snius--(Modesty, modesty: Humility). 

That's the answer.  Right there.  Maimon didn't fit the mold.  It wasn't that he was arrogant, or mean, or anything that was a negative.  He was just different, and too bright to know or reckon with how deeply his work and persona impacted others.  He was aware of others' disdain regarding him, and their arguments concerning his dedication to rational discourse. Yet, he hoped that in time--the future--Jewish perspective no longer would be personally directed at him, and objectively would swing toward his way of thinking, instead. It did not.

His was THE greatest mind during all of the Middle Ages (not just amidst the Jews, but everyone)--on a par with Einstein, easily; albeit much better rounded than an Einstein.  Maimonides was a freak, an outcast; too brilliant for the masses--even the educated masses--to grasp. Astounding man.

The truth is, the Jews didn't want him because his expediency, clarity, and organization of thought threatened their established, dithering ways. Maimon, in his zeal for codification and rationalism, was about more than just regimenting the Talmud and Jewish law.  Ironically, and Jewishly, he was about unraveling the "Jewish mind" without realizing it.  He wanted a kind of linear thinking, in a Jewish world that was ponderously circular in ideology and thought. Essentially, he wanted the Jews to think like the Greeks: they were not able, as they were Jews.  There is a fundamental difference between the two cultures in terms of mindset.  This is one element that Maimonides was unable to grasp, in my opinion; quite possibly because he was Jewish, himself.

Perhaps, one could say the Greek mind was about, "either this or that." The Jew is about, "Well, maybe a little this and maybe a little that; but then again, maybe not..."   For the Greek, everything has to add up mathematically; for the Jew, there are always two possibilities; unless there is need for one more.

Alas, Aristotle and Maimon, of the crisp and decisive Greek mentality, must have had fits regarding such willy nilly back and forth discussions and debates.

Thus, Maimon became read and studied as a Jewish philosopher, and a commentator on Jewish law.  His effort to re-write and define the Talmud, was acknowledged, but not rendered authoritative. A first-rate second-stringer at best, others were studied long before him--if he is studied at all. He ran rings around every single Jewish scholar who ever lived.  Even now. But it didn't matter.  He wasn't part of the Bunch.  And that, in Judaism as with all tribes, is the bottom line.

I read about him with tears in my eyes.  It is so hard to be different.  It really is very lonely at the top...

Maimonides by Moshe Halbertal

My review written for Amazon: Try it; you'll like it. 
I suppose it begins with the book jacket, which is elegant, no-nonsense, and straightforward. The content of the book only gets better from there. Mr. Maimon (as I refer to him), happens to be one of my heroes. This volume, which is thorough, laced with appositives and careful elucidating explanations, clearly defines why I feel the way I do.

The author is succinct, logical, exceedingly well organized--no doubt Maimonidean himself--and the book, in my opinion, is exquisitely sensitive to Maimon the man, as well as to the philosopher/logician/astronomer/physician. The book covers his entire life in the initial biographical chapter that is about one quarter of the book. The rest of the book is devoted to Maimonides' most significant works--his "Commentary on the Mishneh," "The Commandments," "The Mishneh Torah" and "The Guide for the Perplexed." Halbertal refers to additional compositions; however, the focus of the book is primarily reflective of these--the best, most influential, and most powerful of Maimonides' writings.

Maimonides, himself, in addition to his incredible mind, was funny, sarcastic, brash, impatient, rude; in short, he was straightforward to a fault, and had no positive sentiment for the "stupid" or the "foolish," as he referred to them. It is important to note that he was as caring and feeling about those whom he loved, as he was passionate about those whose ire he raised. The author covers all aspects of this extraordinarily gifted gentleman; not infrequently exasperating in his insistence that his way was the right and only way: At one moment, Halbertal actually refers to Maimon's behavior as that of a "harebrained amateur!" (This, to add depth of thought, and chuckles, too, regarding the most profound of all medieval thinkers).

I think one has to be a little bit peculiar to relish such a book as this--printed by Princeton, that seems to do a wonderful job of choosing its authors--because Maimonides in today's world, by many would be deemed as somewhat esoteric; even among Jews, themselves. Mr. Maimon took no prisoners when he wrote, slammed head-on into the established Jewish scholars of his day; and those with whom he took issue, all the way back to the time of the "other" Moses. Had he been burned at the stake or excommunicated, it would have been fitting, albeit so hideously wrong. However for me, being an eccentric, I fairly swoon over his principles: Provincially Jewish to the core; but grounded, developed, and enhanced by the classical thinkers of Greece, Rome, and the golden age of Islam.

I say this book "rocks."

It is at once an introduction to the magnificence of Maimonides, and it is a summation, too; depending upon the reader. For the novice such as myself, who craves information about Mr. Maimon, Halbertal's volume is superb. I would imagine that for the knowledgeable reader, "Maimonides: Life and Thought" would be a sublime refresher, synthesizer, and assistant with insightful information.

It's tough going on the one hand; I find myself wanting the primary sources. On the other, it's deliciously rich, beautifully written, not without witty similes and metaphors. It's terrific! What can I say? As for the translator (the book was originally published in 2009, in Hebrew), the 2014 (yes) English edition's eloquence is clean, fluid, and filled with fun vocabulary to delight: Three cheers for Joel Linsider!

So for me, I think "Maimonides: Life and Thought," by Moshe Halbertal, is a million times better than any Harry Potter tome; and between us, many times more spellbinding... Enjoy.

"Hypers, Nancy!" George ejaculated. Response: Political Incorrectness In Nancy Drew Books

[ The followimg post is a response to an article : Was Nancy Drew Politically Incorrect? ]

In every single thing I do, I am a detective.  Some people call that "doing one's homework."  From the moment I arise until I drop, I am a grade-A busybody; whether it is about medicine, law, education, business, or just trying to survive in today's world.

Nancy Drew's, some in first editions (yes, really), have a place of honor on my bookshelves.  I have them printed on cheaper paper for the sake of saving money to support the Second World War; I have them with R.H. Tandy's marvelous illustrations both in glossy black and whites printed from 1929 through the '30's, in pen and ink's from the late '30's and '40's, in their colored covers.  I also have the later illustrators who cheapened and simplified Nancy's style and persona.  It was R.H. Tandy who gave her her beauty.  Not to mention that of chums, Helen Corning, Bess Marvin, and George Fayne; with loyal housekeeper, Hannah Gruen, and Dad--Carson Drew. Remember???

The books, complete with running boards on automobiles that required blankets for "motoring" as there were yet to be car heaters; a whopping speed limit of 20 miles per hour; rumble seats in roadsters; or "electrical ice-boxes" as the term "refrigerator' was brand new; were also very real. That is to say, the books reflected the times in which they were written, as the author states.

There neither was nor is absolutely nothing wrong with them.  Nothing.

As several of the folks commented below, it wasn't about "racism" or "anti-Semitism'" in those days.  It was about reality: The way things were.  That's called "HISTORY."   The books, with the nom de plume of Carolyn Keene, were well written--for third and fourth graders--full of fun vocabulary, settings, adventures, and new things for young girls who wanted to be grown-up's.  In those days, when a girl like Nancy was 16, she was already running a household and solving mysteries.  As the books progressed, and our society was ever more protective of its children, Nancy's age upped to 18.  She had to be more mature to do all of those things; it wasn't so much about time passing, as it was about our society becoming less mature.

The bigotry and prejudice, if one wants to look for it, is there--"good and plenty."  But you know, it's how things were.  As the author writes, rather than hide reality from children, talk with them about it.  Learn from it.  Be glad that Nancy offers so much in so many dimensions--historically, politically, socially, culturally--in addition to the simple plots that were ever so adventuresome!  I still "blush to the fingertips" when something exciting is upon me. Don't you??

If one wants to address the 'Drew books, rather than frown upon the culture of the times, one might also take a look at Nancy as a top-drawer feminist--in fact, as are all of the women in these books.  Take Mr. Drew's sister: Eloise Drew, unmarried, a career woman, and living quite successfully in New York.  I believe Aunt Lou was a practicing attorney, and helped Nancy on more than one case...  See, it wasn't about deliberate attacks on this group or that; again, it was about society, commentary, the culture; and authors who used--yes--the ideal Girl Scout, as the epitome of the role model for Nancy's character.

This author did a very good job of discussing the slants in Nancy's world.  I have little doubt that those same slants were in far more books and series--e.g.: Mark Twain--than just Nancy Drew.  Hide the truth of the times, and they will re-live themselves.  Expose them for what they were, and they're valuable  lessons.

Nancy Drew is one of The Best aspects of my life.  She is alive and well, and with me every single day.  I am so glad that the author was as generous as she was, and wise.  Sometimes, people aren't so kind.  I have no patience with the politically correct: It's one thing to be courteous, polite, and civil. It's quite another to hide the truth, and live in a world that isn't or wasn't, or will never be: That is not Nancy Drew; it is the Emperor's New Clothes.