"COURSE" EVALUATIONS: neutering professors

 At eighty four years of age, I have survived good times and bad and have the scars to prove it. I raised two children to happy, productive adulthood and stayed married to the same loving woman for more than half a century before she was torn from my side by Parkinson's Disease. I worked as a day laborer, a janitor, a night watchman, a store clerk, a barber’s apprentice, an Army officer, a seventh-grade teacher, and, for forty-six years, a teacher educator and author. Nevertheless, until I became Professor Emeritus and retired from the teaching battlefield, I was required to submit to anonymous evaluations of my "courses" by unripe, often remarkably ignorant undergraduates who sometimes were more interested in partying and petting than in studying and learning. My doing well on these ratings was insufficient compensation for tolerating this neutering nonsense  to begin with. That professors quietly put up with this nonsense suggested the professoriate may have been neutered already.

To make matters worse, a disempowering ritual accompanied these evaluations. We professors were sternly instructed to distribute the evaluation forms and then leave the room. We were not permitted to touch the envelope containing the completed evaluations. The last student finishing was seal the envelope, sign it on the seal, and hand carry it to the department secretary, who was so above reproach she was licensed to kill much less handle evaluations. 

 This humiliation was accomplished under the pretense that these were "course" evaluations, not evaluation of the professor him or herself. Hopefully, that fooled no one. (If it did fool any professors they obviously weren't smart enough to be professors.)  Had someone asked me to evaluate my professors when I was in college, I would have thought they had taken leave of their senses. I knew, and I hope my classmates knew, that we were green kids in the presence of full-scale adults who had accomplished a great deal more than we had or, perhaps, were likely to. It was the professors business to do the evaluating. It was our business to try to learn — or at least pretend to.

Perhaps I knew my place better than most. As a teenager I apprenticed in my dad’s barbershop, largely populated by tough, no-nonsense railroaders, coal miners and war veterans. I learned the hard way that I didn't know much and to keep my opinions to myself. I remember once voicing an opinion on an adult subject only to have a grizzled railroader tell me that I reminded him of the barber's cat. Full of piss and wind." Everyone thought that was quite funny. After that I kept my mouth shut. 

Professors might be able to learn something useful from these so-called “course” evaluations. But only if they knew which students wrote them. (After all, one doesn’t want to take a class-cutting dullard’s comments seriously; but the opinion of accomplished students are another thing entirely.) Sadly, student anonymity precludes the professor from knowing who is saying what, while it simultaneously teaches students to hold their tongues unless they can totally avoid responsibility for what they say. (Incidentally, this is great training for future politicians and ambassadors.)

 Professors are generally not afforded the commensurate privilege of evaluating their chairs, deans, provosts, or presidents. And it is highly significant that professors are almost always expressly forbidden from initiating communication with anyone on the board of trustee's. This pertains despite the fact that mature, experienced professors with expert knowledge are far better qualified to evaluate college administrators than immature. inexperienced and often strikingly ignorant youngsters are their professors. 

 Of course college administrators know full well that granting professors the power to evaluate them would result in the same disempowerment as their present "course" evaluation policies disempower professors. Wisely, they are having none of that. What's sauce for the goose turns out, in this case, to be gall for the gander. 

 Sadly, student "course" evaluations are part of an emerging pattern of teacher disempowerment that is renders teachers at all levels more and more impotent. Paradoxically, at the same time, teachers are being held more and more accountable. Political correctness is making it even worse. Woke-ism, is the new religion that's turning students into immature, intellectually half baked, but self-righteous blood hounds for the new god. Simultaneously it turns true believer or gutless, opportunistic administrators into minor league Torqamadas.  What a deadly combination. No wonder the morale of teachers and professors is as down as low as the very bottom of the Mindanao Deep. 

 Things would change a great deal if students were put back in their place, faculty evaluations of college administrators served the same purpose that student "course" evaluations serve for the professoriate and students had to sign their "course evaluation" just as classroom educators put their name on every grade. But don't hold your breath waiting for these innovations. The new inquisition is already within city walls.

 To examine these and similar issues further, see articles at www.newfoundations.com

ARE MOST AMERICANS EDUCABLE OR MERELY TRAINABLE?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity: and I'm not sure about the universe." 

Albert Einstein

“Essential questions” are intended to guide instruction and help students discover the big ideas that constitute the core of a topic of study. Let's suppose we apply this methodology to education itself. What is the most essential question we can ask about it? How about this? How many Americans are truly educable?

What’s the difference between being “educable” and “trainable?” Let’s stipulate that for a person to be “educable” they must be “capable of being improved in ways that depend on accurate information, reason and understanding.” A trainable person, in contrast, is incapable of being improved in these ways.

Have you ever wondered if many Americans are educable in any deep and abiding sense? A great deal of human misery is preventable if people could be taught to think effectively, listen closely, weigh facts accurately, and carefully consider alternative points of view. But failure to achieve these skills is commonplace — as is the misery. Why? Maybe most humans, including Americans, are just not truly educable. We'll focus on Americans.

Lack of Capacity 

How could this be? Is it flaws in educational content and methodology? To some degree it is. But suppose the main culprit is a widespread lack of capacity and/or commitment to the kind of learning that surpasses mere training? For education to be a cure, much less a cure-all, the majority must be capable of, and sufficiently interested in, gaining hard-won reason and understanding. Are a lot of Americans up to that? Maybe not. 

Consider the long-standing popularity of P.T. Barnum’s observation that “There’s a sucker born every minute.”  Ponder the durability of H.L. Mencken’s dictum that “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” Are such observations so durable because they reflect a fundamental reality? After all, half of the American people really are dumber than the other half - at least as measured by IQ tests. And, as Martin Luther King Jr., observed, "While you can fix a lot of things, you cannot fix stupidity."

Such an opinion is heretical to Americans bought up on our culture's nearly obligatory optimism regarding schooling's possibilities. Such a consideration is rarely even acknowledged by garden variety educational "leaders" be they principal, superintendent of schools, or Secretary of Education. Nevertheless, there is a large amount of evidence that supports this pessimistic view. Consider, as one of many examples, that many Americans continue to either deny or ignore that we humans are heating the globe to a catastrophic level. And they persist in this folly despite overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and growing ever more serious. 

Also consider how many humans trot off to slaughter every time someone in power decides to give a war. Instead of learning from repeated previous slaughters, we humans continue to enthusiastically divide ourselves into pseudo-species, carefully nurture distrust and hatred toward one another, and then, sooner or later, join in still another horrific mutual slaughter of our fellow humans that is utterly foreign to any “lesser species.” For instance, fully fifteen million people were killed and twenty two million wounded in World War I. Yet just nineteen years later homo sapiens (man the thinker?) got himself into a far worse slaughter — WW II, This ghastly tribute to human folly cost, maybe, 60 million people their lives and loosed hellish suffering on many more. Does any of this sound like the behavior of a species that is educable, i.e. “capable of being improved in ways that depend on reason and understanding?”

How come years of compulsory schooling failed to cure their blindness?  Is it that their education was inadequate? Is it because a substantial number of the deniers are unable to grasp the depth and urgency of the problem because they lack the brain power? Or, is it because of the many other educational impediments?

Enduring Stupidity

The fact is many homo sapiens displays a peculiar reluctance, or inability, to employ reason and understanding even when the truth is readily apparent. The Harris Poll reported, for instance, that despite repeated official reports that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the belief that Iraq possessed such weapons increased substantially after the war was over and evidence to the contrary was in.

That’s right, despite massive and widely publicized evidence to the contrary, the number of Americans who thought that Iraq possessed such weapons prior to Operation “Enduring Freedom” actually went up as evidence to the contrary became widely known. As a matter of fact, in February of 2005 only 36% thought Iraq was so armed; but in July of 2006 fully 50% believed they were. Does that sound like a conviction that grew out of widespread capacity for reason and understanding?

To be fair, those who changed their mind about those weapons of mass destruction might have done so out of an unconscious desire to rationalize their own original enthusiasm for the war and/or to justify the tremendous costs it has generated. In short, what seems to be evidence of public credulity might just be people being human, all to human. But that still leaves us wondering why the species is so very eager to cling to the mindless tribalism, hatred and the organized murder we call warfare? Is that evidence of Homo sapiens' educability?

Campaign Ads

One can also profitably consider the success of political campaign strategies based on the principle that most of us are fools. In the recent presidential election, for instance, swing state Pennsylvania's citizens were bombarded by an unprecedented and unrelenting multi-million dollar TV ad blitz that offered little but unsophisticated attack ads. Why so many of that kind? Because ads like that work and work well. Does their success suggest there is a great deal of deep thought going on out there?

Of course, political propagandists know how to play on emotions such as fear of the unknown, the alien and the complex. Moreover, the simplicity they offer is beguilingly attractive to a public that has to reach conclusions based on imperfect information and deliberate disinformation. Maybe that, rather than widespread intellectual ineffectiveness, is why the general public remains so exploitable and so oblivious to many urgently important issues. Let’s hope so. But don't put any money on it.

The Media

Evidence of a widespread ineducability is not confined to the repetitive insanity of war, assaults on the environment, or crass political chicanery. Consider, the quality of the media. More specifically, let’s consider infomercials or “paid programming.” 

Multiplied millions of dollars are spent buying TV time to peddle bogus nostrums, physical and spiritual, and many, many more millions are realized in consequence. Psychic hotlines generate fortunes for their bogus operators even though they have absolutely nothing but hot air to sell. Omega 3 fish oil is successfully huckstered as a cure for an impossible range of maladies and tens of thousands have been convinced that purging their bowels will have the same beneficial effects on their body that emptying a full sweeper bag can effect for s clogged up Electrolux. Ka-ching$!

Also consider how dozens of televangelists of dubious background and motive, repeatedly and successfully conning the public on TV by means of such obvious scams as packets of “miracle spring water,” or dollar green “prosperity prayer cloths”, that allegedly convey magical pecuniary powers. “Pastor, right after I got that prayer cloth a thousand dollars mysteriously appeared in my bank account. Praise God!”

The fact is there is a small army of prosperity “pastors” on TV convincing tens of thousands of financially desperate people that giving generously — to the pastor, of course— will not only eliminate some benighted fools financial troubles but prompt a ten-fold return on their “offering.” One oily, but particularly persuasive, televangelists lives in a multi-million dollar California beach front mansion and flies to world-renown resorts in his private jet. Years back I even saw one of them wheedling still more money out of the faithful so he could buy an even bigger business jet —the price tag was nine million dollars! Let’s pump this sacerdotal bunko artist full of truth serum then ask him about the educability of the average American. Can you guess what he would say?

Media Programming

Ponder also the generally appalling quality of media programming both cable and broadcast. Broadcast TV, for instance, is still the same cultural wilderness it was in 1961 when FCC Chairman Newton Minnow invited us to:

“…sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you--and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience-participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western badmen, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials--many screaming, cajoling and offending. And most of all, boredom.”

Newton was right on target until he got to that very last sentence. Since TV bored him, he concluded that the broad masses must also be bored. But Minnow failed to consider that shows remain on the air by virtue of their ratings. TV content is a function of the public tuning in or tuning out. Hence the generally mindless quality of TV programming must be regarded as an indirect index of widespread public preference for drivel. Network executives long ago learned that they pan the most gold by designing a preponderance of their shows for people of limited capacity and less sophistication — i.e. the general public.

Radio programming is similarly selected via public popularity. So what do the masses tune to? Well here in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, home to almost 6 million people, it is unlikely to be classical music because the one commercial station that played it switched to soft rock. Philadelphians can listen to hip-hop, dance, country, soft rock, hard rock, pop/rock, stupidly one-sided right wing “talk” shows and endless gassing about sports, but the likes of Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn are out so far as commercial radio is concerned. Why? The broad masses weren’t tuning in. Evidently the broad masses prefer Rap to the Ode to Joy. And keep in mind that even greater desolation exists in the hinterlands where semi-literate pastors read God’s mind for the masses while country music grinds on endlessly in cacophonous concert. That is nearly all there is in the media heartland.

Do the happenings on social media give the lie to this argument? No, it reinforces it several orders of magnitude. The truly dumb entries on X, for example, offer overwhelming evidence of massive, breathtaking, shitheadedness that dominates much of social media.

Too Dumb, Too Scared, Or What?

To be fair, no one knows for sure how many people are deeply disgusted with this media garbage. And many people might have far better discernment if they had more knowledge to work with. American schooling helps little here. It is woefully inadequate when it comes to the arts and the discernment they can develop and it shies completely away from anything that might help kids see through bogus divines. As a matter of fact, by the time budget cuts slash “frills” from the curriculum, high stakes testing takes its share and the self-appointed censors finish off anything that might trigger thought, the curriculum is a cultural wasteland par excellence. Perhaps, then, we should beware of blaming the victim for the wasteland’s results.

All of these oblivious folks are not lacking in native intelligence. Sure, many are too dumb to know better. But many others are smart enough but lack their lack of intellectual training and knowledge prohibits their putting their intelligence to skillful use. This variety of blindness COULD be cured by a well-designed and implemented education provided if other things aren't weighing their intelligence down. But these "other things" often do. 

People are rendered uneducable for a wide variety of reasons other than stupidity. They may be too scared, too slothful, too unloved, too mentally or physically ill, too preoccupied with meeting primal needs, too angry, too substance dependent, too distracted, too bent down in soul wasting misery, too little in awe of the power of nature, to be educable. Any one of these causes, plus a number of similar factors, can block, or seriously impede, critical thinking even when it's vitally necessary.

What Proportion?

What proportion of the American population is rendered uneducable by one or more of these various causes? Is it, say 10%? According to the US Department of Education, that is the approximate population of Americans who qualify for special education. How about 76%? That's the percent of people who try to get into the U.S. military but fail to qualify. Is it somewhere in between and if so where on the continuum? You decide. 

But one thing is certain. Education, however well conducted, has strict limits. Schiller was right when he observed: "With stupidity the Gods themselves struggle in vain." When we add a host of alternative obstructions such as those just listed, it's enough to have a seriously negative impact on our species future on this tiny planet that is our only home.

 To further examine these and similar issues, visit www.newfoundations.com 

TESTING POLITICAL CANDIDATES: spotting the unqualified

Here we are Lon the eve of the presidential election and a lot of us still could use more actual information about the candidates. We could add that add that vital information in future elections. Offer each candidate the opportunity to take a battery of standardized tests on subjects such as the U.S. Constitution, Federal law, American history, basic economics and climate science, then publish each and every one of their scores.

Before running for President under this new requirement, Donald Trump would have had to take such a test battery and have his scores made public knowledge OR publicly turn down the opportunity. Kamala Harris also would have the same opportunity to take them, have her scores reported or publicly decline. My guess is well=qualified candidates would take the opportunity while ignorant blowhards and inveterate bullshitters would not. Voters could still choose those who decline, to be sure, but their refusal would provide voters with useful information.

Why not require such tests? Because the Constitution sets the criteria for candidates and such a requirement would necessitate a Constitutional amendment. 

We could employ a professional testing corporation such as the Educational Testing Service to devise these tests. It's fun to imagine possible questions. Here's a few that I would like asked:

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. Given an enormous federal budget deficit, which of the following would be best?

a. borrow still more money 

b. cut taxes for the middle class 

c. cut taxes for the super rich 

d. spend only what is taken in 

2. If an attractive female intern offers oral sex, a male public official should: 

a. quickly agree before she changes her mind 

b. make sure she doesn't keep the dress afterwards

c. politely decline 

d. ask her what she means by "sex." 

3. Should our schools decide to emphasize “good character,” the best person to exemplify good character would be: 

a. J. Edgar Hoover 

b. Richard Nixon 

c. Bill Clinton 

d. none of the above 

4. If a terrorist attack on the U.S. originates in country A, the best U.S. course of action would be to: 

a. turn the other cheek 

b. invade country C 

c. invade country B 

d. none of the above

5. The Second Amendment is predicated on the necessity of :

a. self-defense

b. maintaining a well-regulated militia

c. preserving a viable small arms industry

d. none of the above 

TRUE FALSE:

6. With the exception of James Buchanan, every U. S. President played par golf

7.  Mexico is actually paying for "the wall," but in small, secret installments

8.   James Madison, the man behind the US Constitution, barred any and all Christian elements from that document.

9.  During the Trump administration, Denmark really did have Greenland up for sale

 

10. The Bill of Rights contains a total of 12 Constitutional amendments

We might also want to test all potential appointees to key administrative offices. Secretary of Agriculture or the Treasury, for example. The tests would be keyed to their anticipated areas of responsibility. For instance, every aspiring state Secretary of Education would have to pass the same battery of tests required of aspiring teachers. 

If we use Pennsylvania as a model, for example, the candidate would have to pass separate NTE tests in Reading, Writing, Listening Skills, Mathematics and Principles of Teaching and Learning. We might also want to add a content specialty test in their college major -- aspiring secondary educators have to take one of these. We could even also require standardized tests in Elementary Education Content and Curriculum. After all, officials in the Department of Education tell teachers at every level what to do. 

Some wannabe chief state school officers could not pass such examinations, because they are politically connected B.S. artists, not professionally trained educators. They would be disqualified. A change that  would be most welcome.   

Of course, in any test of aspiring politicians or potential office holders, cheating will be an especially significant problem. Safeguards are absolutely required. At a minimum we must have different forms of the test in order to eliminate would-be candidates from copying each other's work. We also must put the tests under the tightest possible pre-use security.  Remember we're usually dealing with would-be politicians and their minions!

That, in broad outline, is the plan. But it needs filling in. That’s where you can help. Tell us what you think. Should aspirants for and holders of public office be required to take pass standardized content area tests? If so should we also measure wisdom, rectitude, practical knowledge, educational expertise, sexual predilictions, or what? Additionally, should we test just once, or test longitudinally every year that the person is in office? (Longitudinal testing has the obvious advantage of measuring whether or not the subject is learning while “serving.”) 

 You might like to suggest specific test items. They need not be multiple choice or true/false as exemplified in this commentary. Any type of questions typically found on standardized tests are welcome. Short answer, etc, Rush your comments and suggestions to the Worm Turns Foundation. org, or post them here. 

 To examine like issues, see articles at www.newfoundations.com 

2ND RATE TEACHERS: a national necessity

 

During the Obama administration Arnie Duncan, the Education Secretary, repeatedly charged that the nation's teacher preparation programs were second-rate. He said they attract inferior students and weak faculty. He added that colleges and universities use teacher prep programs as "cash cows," bleeding off the revenues they generate instead of investing in their improvement.

There's some truth in all of that. But at the same time Secretary Duncan was making these charges, he was praising alternative quickie routes into teaching. He had a novel "let's make it tougher by making it easier"strategy. Logic demands that if teacher education lacks rigor, it should be made more rigorous. Yet Duncan's favored quickie routes did the exact opposite. And he cheered on his boss for doing even worse. Obama, had the cahonnes to officially classify untrained interns as "highly qualified teachers." Why on earth did he do that? To make employing them as teachers (something California was doing a lot of) compliant with the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Had Duncan really been concerned about strengthening teacher preparation he would have declared war on weak state certification requirements, publicly denounced quickie routes into teaching, and shamed colleges and universities that exploit teacher education as cash cows. Moreover, had he really cared, he would have demanded the abolition of undergraduate teacher certification programs in favor of  professional graduate schooling modeled on the training that has been so successful in dramatically boosting Finland's educational ranking. He did the opposite.

Since Duncan things have deteriorated still further in teacher education. Given lousy teacher working conditions and whale feces low morale, it's little wonder that the pool of would-be teachers has shrunk dramatically. No one but a saint, and they are very scarce, is going to put a lot of effort into becoming a teacher when they'll likely end up underpaid, under-appreciated, scapegoated by conscience-free politicians, attacked from both the political left and right, "led" by weathervane administrators, and pilloried by ungrateful parents anxious to blame others for their own incompetence? No, unless these conditions change, it will be necessary to further reduce the requirements for entry into teaching. The nation's schools urgently need replacement cannon fodder because of the present short supply. 

Will this situation change during either a Trump or Harris presidency? Not likely. Trump, the founder of that film flam "Trump University," daily evidences life-long immunity to schooling. (Penn still owes us a an apology for gifting him that M.B.A.) And Harris evidences no concern whatsoever for improving teacher preparation, much less teaching itself. So let's just settle down and expect the worst. 

For more on Duncan go to: http://www.newfoundations.com/Clabaugh/CuttingEdge/Tinkering.html

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION? it's humbug and here's why

Teachers are urged to practice "multicultural education." They're told their classroom should be a rainbow where kids from multiple cultures each add a complimentary color. Advocates such as Professor Sonia Nieto, author of the popular Affirming Diversity, claim that "cultural, ... differences can and should be honored, respected, and used as a basis for learning and teaching." This prescription is based on two false assumptions. The first: all cultures are compatible. They aren't.  The second: all cultures incorporate the tolerance that a cultural rainbow requires. They don't. 

For instance, members of cultures little influenced by the enlightenment are likely to view multiculturalism with anger, fear and repulsion. Consider the Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam. (The retrograde dogmatic religious sect dominating Saudi Arabia and promoting intolerance with vast amounts of oil money throughout the Muslim world.) Wahhabi true believers divide the world between good guys who subscribe to their version of Islam and Godless heretics. How do the Wahhabi deal with unbelievers? They silence them. And if they must be flogged, jailed, even liquidated, to achieve that silence, so be it.

Is this an exaggeration? In 2004 a Saudi royal study group found that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.'  Embarrassed by this finding by their own study group, high ranking Saudi officials promised to eliminate the cited intolerant dogmatism from their curriculum. But years later, when the Washington Post analyzed "reformed" Saudi religion texts, they found the self-same, intolerant preachments.  

Let's imagine someone like Professor Nieto teaching in Saudi Arabia while trying to follow her own multicultural prescription. Let's say she openly affirms the value of all religious views. What do you think her fate would be? And before you decide, consider that in 2005, a Saudi teacher cautiously suggesting that Jews and the New Testament could be viewed positively, was not only fired, but sentenced to 750 lashes and sent to prison. (He was eventually pardoned, but only following intense international protests.) 

If Professor Nieto actually "affirmed diversity" in a Saudi classroom  she would doubtless suffer for it. And since this cultural backwater is misogynistic and Professor Nieto is a woman, a severe outcome would be especially likely.  

Is Saudi Arabia unique? Is it an island of intolerance in a tolerant world? Of course not. Religious and related cultural intolerance is so common that tolerance is often a novelty. And this is especially true when believers subscribe to a religion that asserts that it, and only it, commands THE truth. 

Also, let's not forget that cultures sometimes define themselves, at least in part, by their rejection of, hatred of, and even aggression toward, other cultures. Palestinians rarely love the Jews. Armenians have serious reservations about the Turks. The Irish have a less than cordial attitudes toward the English. And let's not expect Native Americans to be grateful to the "white man" for ethnically cleansing them from most of the continent. As Simon and Garfunkel once intoned:

 "The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles. Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch. And I don't like anybody very much!"

Should a teacher actually set out to affirm diversity how should he or she deal with another culture's practice of, say, hating and persecuting homosexuals? (Some cultures even put them to death!) That murderous intolerance sure doesn't blend well in any imaginary cultural rainbow. What about pre-marital sex. That's a pretty common practice. But an Iranian couple accused of enjoying each other were sentenced to death, buried up to their necks in sand, and stoned to death. Should an American teacher affirm that kind of diversity? 

There are cultures and subcultures that condone selling one's own daughter into prostitution, throwing battery acid in the face of girls who merely want to go to school, killing one's sister for "dishonoring" the family, hiring amateurs to carve out the clitoris of little girls with razor blades, forbidding female inclusion in a last will and testament, assigning women second rate legal standing, ad naseum. Should these differences be accepted, respected, and used as a basis for learning and teaching? Of course not. But advocates of multiculturalism either pretend such practices don't exist or are too ignorant to be aware of it. At bottom, their prescription is simply more of the simple-minded happy talk that badly hampers serious educational discourse.

 

WHY NOT CHEAT? it can certainly pay off

 It often pays to cheat, so why not do it? There are two sorts of reasons. The first involves looking out for number one. The second involves honor and character. Let’s examine both.

Looking Out for Number One
One reason not to cheat is that the potential costs too often outweigh the likely benefits. This is not a moral argument. The point here isn’t that cheating is wrong, though it generally is for reasons we will soon examine. It’s that cheating isn’t wise. It too often lacks serious forethought and an accurate estimation of the chances of getting caught.

Few things enrage real educators more than cheating. If they take their profession seriously, they will take weighty measures against guilty students. These can include such things as:

• Double weighted zeros on the test or assignment
• An informative phone call to parents
• Course failure
• A letter of reprimand in the student’s permanent record
• Compulsory community service
• Expulsion from a program
• Expulsion from school

Another prudential reason for not cheating is that it stifles the development of the cheater’s own potential. Cheaters cheat themselves out of their own possibilities. Oscar Lavant once observed: " It's not what you are, it's what you don't become." He's dead right. But cheating also involves what you are. Or, put another way, it defines what you really are. As Emerson noted; "As a man chooses, so is he." 

Another reason not to cheat is that it's particularly dumb to do so in subjects that are learned sequentially. Here cheating only postpones inevitable failure. Let’s say someone cheats his way through an introductory math or foreign language course. His or her lack of actual accomplishment typically catches up with them in the very next course. The same applies to many other subjects of that nature. The odds that cheaters can keep cheating their way through school get slimmer and slimmer as the cheater "advances." 

We see, then, that there are solid practical reasons not to cheat.

Honor and Character
The Ten Commandments offer one argument against cheating. The applicable commandment is: “Thou shalt not steal.” Since a cheater gets a grade they didn't earn, cheating is stealing. But Judeo-Christian values aside, deciding whether or not to cheat is a measure of character. And that's especially true if there is little to no chance of getting caught. That's the point of the U.S. military academies utilizing honor codes. So all would-be cheaters would be wise to remember that their character is their very essence. It's who they really are.

Cheating also produces unjust consequences. Justice requires that each person gets what he or she deserves. Deciding what people deserve isn’t easy. But that's not the case with cheaters. The cheater didn’t actually do the work. Their honest classmates did. Therefore, cheaters cheat every honest member of the class — including their friends. And it's particularly dishonorable to cheat one's friends.

Here is still another consideration. Ethical persons only choose an action if it would be okay for everyone in similar circumstances to do the same. Apply that to cheating. Imagine everyone cheating everyone. That would be disastrous. So, using the above standard, cheating is not okay. Imagine a physician who cheated their way through medical school now faced with saving someone from a potentially deadly disease they knew nothing about. How about architects who cheated their way through the instruction regarding how to build structures that won't collapse? Each of us repeatedly benefit from others who did not and do not cheat. We might even depend upon that with our very lives. 

Cheating also requires using others to get what we want. We behave without regard for their rights. The rights of the teacher and the other test takers, for instance. People aren't mere objects and should not be treated as if they are. Cheating requires doing just that. Therefore, it is wrong.

We also need to consider the total good and the total harm that will result from our action. With cheating the total harm typically outweighs the total good. Honest effort provides greater benefits to a greater number. Does that matter? If you're a decent human being it does.

Remember, though, cheating is only usually wrong. "Usually" because it matters why you are cheating and in what context you cheat. For instance, if you are an inmate in a concentration camp and cheating the guards would save your life of the life of another. In circumstances similar to this cheating is morally obligatory. 

Summary
We’ve seen there are two general kinds of reasons not to cheat. The first involves looking out for number one. In other words, being prudent.The second involves simply doing the right thing. The combined force of both these kinds of reasons suggests cheating is a bad idea. 

Trouble is, cheating can and does pay off. In fact, it often pays off handsomely, Consider the corrupt grifter politicians who frequently win public office. But such payoffs are only payoffs when they don't get caught and place no value on their own honor and integrity.  Psychological research reveals that when people have a chance to reflect on a moral issue, they are much more likely to behave in accord with their consciences. Give yourself that opportunity.

(This is an edited version of something originally written in 2009.)

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: untrained, unqualified bullshitter?

The position of Secretary of Education is frequently filled with the secular equivalent of flim-flam artist televangelists. These individuals lack the training, experience, common sense or moral virtue to do the job. They do, however, possess a crucial skill. They are accomplished bullshitters. Tub thumping humbugs of the first magnitude.  

The Reagan administration provides a sterling example. Ronald Reagan promised he would eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, but dropped that when education unexpectedly gained national attention. He still slashed education spending in half. But Reagan staffers knew his administration had to look like they supported public education. They were in luck. Reagan had already appointed a know-nothing blowhard as Secretary of Education. William F. Bennett was a carnival barker in both style and substance. This gas-bag's unrestrained exaggerations and gross simplifications repeatedly made the news. And as they did, gullible Americans came to believe that: A. much was wrong with America's schools and B. the Reagan administration was working hard to fix them.

This is not the place to detail Bennett's demagoguery.  Let's just recount an incident that captures the noxious essence of his humbug. Reagan's Secretary of Education wrote an article that appeared in the November 1988 Readers Digest. In it he praised a school principal's extraordinarily simple method of "reforming a troubled inner-city Washington, D. C. school." "On the very first day," wrote Bennett, this remarkable "educational leader," this "no-nonsense principal, assembled the student body and ... with practiced eye, chose 20 potential troublemakers" to enforce order and put an end to chaos." And, according to Bennett, putting the school's most likely miscreants in charge of the rest of the student body worked magic! Order was restored and education proceeded!

Can you imagine? The school is chaoticl and the principal's solution is to put the potential trouble-makers in charge! Even a Secretary of Education should recognize such a policy is just plain nuts. Of course Bennett was not interested in the multifaceted and highly complex nature of actual reform. He was shoveling bullshit for political purposes.  Simple solutions for the simple minded. This is  how he politicized his position with carnival-barker effectiveness. For example, he repeatedly beat up on the National Education Association  — a relatively innocuous organization at the time. Charging that it was a major cause of what he alleged to be national school decline, he repeatedly pointed to it as the chief villain.  But why did Bennett really attack the NEA? It was a union that favored the Democrats and, rather ineffectually, opposed the Reagan administration's education policies.  Never mind facts! Bennett's job was to confirm the biases of Reagan voters and he did that well. What he failed to do was offer genuine leadership.

Enough about Bennett. Let's turn to Arnie Duncan, President Obama's Secretary of Education. Unlike Reagan, Obama increased Federal education funding by an extra $100 billion. But his selection of Mr. Duncan was similar to Reagan's choice of Bennett in that Arnie's chief skill was bullshitting. He actually lacked any knowledge of education policy, curriculum design, research on learning, human growth and development etc.. He had never even taught. Yet despite his utter lack of qualifications,, he had served as CEO of the Chicago public school system from 2001 - 2008. How come? Can you spell P O L I T I C S? 

Yes, Arnie was utterly unqualified to be secretary of anything. But he did have that one qualification as Secretary of Education. He really could dish out the shit. He was skilled at looking like he knew what he was talking about.  (He also provided the President with an excellent basketball buddy. An ex-professional hoopster, Arnie played a mean game of one on one.)  

During the Bush administration "No Child Left Behind" had been signed into law. It stipulated that in the future only "highly qualified" teachers would be permitted to teach." In fact it specifically ordained that "to teach math, science, social studies, the arts, reading or languages, candidates must have obtained a long-term teaching certificate, and demonstrate subject matter knowledge by either obtaining a college major in the subject, by passing a test in the subject taught." 

That's got real teeth, right?  Ah, but wait! The lawmakers also inserted the following at the very end: "...or by some other means established by the state." This was nothing less than a last second castration! It allowed states to dodge all of the supposed rigor. States could substitute whatever feeble faldarall suited their situation. And, of course, that's exactly what happened in state after state. Were legislators surprised that this happened? Hardly! They wanted to look tough, while simultaneously allowing the same laxity that has characterized teacher education since its inception. Tougher entry standards means paying more to entering teachers. Otherwise no one will want to meet these stringent standards. But that means you have to pay more to attract the best. And raising taxes to pay teachers more is politically unpalatable

California initially failed to take advantage of the No Child Left Behind escape clause. Consequently, the state faced an immediate shortage of highly qualified teachers. But President Obama came to the rescue. He waived his executive order wand and declared that wanna-be teachers still in training were, in fact, "highly qualified?" At that time many such people were filling in as full-time teachers in California. Now, thanks to Obama, these rank amateurs were instantly transformed into masters of the art. California's shortage of "highly qualified" teachers was over. 

Did Secretary Duncan complain when Obama transformed apprentices to master craftsmen with the stroke of a pen! Not a whimper came from Arnie. Apparently he had changed his mind. 

Eventually a federal judge ruled that Obama's evasion violated the No Child Left Behind "highly qualified" requirement, Congress corrected that. They piously legislated that the classification "highly qualified" included those who weren't. Arnie went along with that too. By then his expressed concern about inadequate teacher preparation had evaporated.

Last, there is Betsy DeVoss, Secretary of Education under Donald Trump. How much training in education did she have? Zero. How much teaching experience? Zero. How much personal experience in public school where 90% of American send their children? Zero. How much has she and the rest of her family donated to Republican causes? Forbes reports about $200 million dollars in 2017.  

That's 200 million reasons why, having always attended private conservative Christian schools, having long demanded deep cuts in federal education spending, having enthusiastically championed privatizing public schools through vouchers, and after boldly boosting the for-profit college industry despite their student loan default rate being 6 times higher, she still ended up U.S. Secretary of Education. 

Was Ms. DeVoss a bullshitter similar to the two cited above? To be fair, that's not clear. Perhaps she was just a true believer trained in the fundamentalist tradition that renders one incapable of reasoning. A sort of free market fanatic who falsely linked materialistic capitalism with the decidedly anti-materialist teaching of Jesus Christ. In any case, she was clearly in over her head as Secretary of Education. In fact, to even get the job Vice President Pence had to cast the deciding vote, given the 50-50 tie in the Senate vote on DeWees.

There are competent, qualified people who have served, and now serve, as secretaries of education at the state and national level. But there are too many counter-examples. Should our political "leaders" want to get serious, not just solemn, about improving America's schooling it is way past time for them to appoint highly qualified experts. In the meantime, though there still will be lots of openings for untrained, unqualified, conscience-free bull shitters.