For those of you just tuning in...

I love to write. And I don't suck at it, in that "can-form-coherent-sentences-utilizing-more-or-less-proper-grammar' sort of way. But I have never blogged before, for a variety of reasons, the foremost being that blogs are by necessity pretentious, as all blogging is done with the assumption that anyone gives a flying frak what you think. As I don't think that 99% of the time, I never saw the point. This is salted with the fact that I don't care what most other people think, and the entire blogging community is based on a system of reciprocal attention, ie, "I'll read your stuff if you read mine." Considering that I think almost all (again with the 99%) of blogs fall into two categories: Self-absorbed rants against things the individual obviously doesn't care enough about to change and...randomness.

But recently, a few of my favorite people have taken up the web-pen, and I feel the urge to add my voice to their symphony of musings. I will not apologize for posting too much, posting too little or for being incredibly hypocritical and posting the exact sort of thing that I detest in the stereotype that is blogging.

Moving on...

Why I consider myself a historiographer-
Historiography refers to the Philosophy of History, that is, how we do it, how we think about it. Meta-history, if you will. It is seeing history not just as a series of occurences or recording of events but asking the bigger question, 'Why?'. Why did they report it this way, what were the circumstances, why is this considered important, how has that changed, etc. I always thought everyone thought this way, but apparently it is a not a common trait. I love the concept because Philosophy and History are two of my greatest loves (up there with jewelry, leather, motorcycles, books and Final Fantasy). Essentially, it means that I consider myself a philosopher with an emphasis on thinking about the past, bolstered by a strong interest in Epistomology (the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of Knowledge and Truth; What do we know and how do we know it and how do we KNOW we know it?).
Again, this is extremely pretentious this is my little corner of the Inter-Webs, so I suppose I'm allowed.

Now on to the topics at hand.

As many of you reading this know, my dream is to become a teacher. I've been progressing towards this goal since about second grade. My preferred specialty is Special Education, though recently, History has vied for top position. At the moment, the plan is to be certified as a Secondary (that's Middle to High School for the uninitiated) History teacher with a Special Education Endorsement.
This will probably take a few years, which kind of sucks considering my lack of funds and our shaky economy. But that isn't actually the most discouraging thing I faced the first year of my University Experience.

THAT came in the form of the 2001 Reauthorization of Public Law 107-110...also known as the No Child Left Behind Act. The intent was good: Get more children literate and passing high school, get rid of bad teaching practices, encourage schools to set higher standards. No one would argue with these ideals, especially in a rapidly changing world where having the brightest young people really decides your future. It would have been a good investment if it hadn't failed so very very miserably.

Here are the problems:
It was poorly funded. The government only gave half the money it promised, leaving the burden of cost on the already underfunded education system. This meant that they were expecting schools to make Grade A lesson plans with Grade D equipment. It may be hard to realize, but not having a computer in your school is a huge disadvantage.
This is especially a problem here in Washington where our education funds come from income taxes. This means that cities like Bellevue have fantastic, modern schools complete with technology and sports equipment, while West Seattle High School is falling apart...literally. It is a self-perpetuating class distinction...poor kids have to go to poor schools where they will not be as well educated and therefore continue to be poor. This is the sort of misdistribution of resources that make young revolutionaries embrace socialism...or at least reject capitalism.

NCLB (also called Nickelbee) puts the responsibility onto the teachers and the students, while offering little help to either.

Every (or at least most) educational psychologist will tell you that High Stakes Testing (like the kind we have with the WASL) is a BAD IDEA. It creates undue stress on the student, frequently making them perform lower than they would normally, and it does not properly reflect their growth as a student or individual. Standardized tests are also...well, standardized. This means that if you have a learning, mental or physical disability, there are few options to accomodate your needs...leaving you Behind. Go figure.

A POSITIVE effect of NCLB is that teachers were no longer able to 'teach however they felt like it'...folk-practices and 'traditional methods' were not just allowed (like locking students in closets...disgusting but also common in some places). All routines, less plans, and practices had to be backed up by researched and approved methods, making sure that students were getting the best education. Teachers also had to be constantly updating their curriculum so that the latest information could help them serve the students better. It put the emphasis back on the student and serving his/her needs, as opposed to having the emphasis on the teacher.
Some red tape to push through for someone like me is the need for Specialization. This is a good idea that unfortunately has some practical problems. Specialization refers to the need for teachers to be Highly Qualified in whatever area they are teaching. On paper, that's awesome, it means that we have specialists teaching areas they are the most the knoweldgeable in. But if you're a poor school in Ohio with only a handful of teachers, you can't afford to have one for each subject, your English Teacher is also your PE teacher, your Math Teacher is your Chem teacher, and so on. But the government says you are required to hire more, yet doesn't provide the funds to pay them.

Another problem is the responsibility and punishment scheme, which is another self-defeating cycle. If a school district fails to meet the requirments, they get one or two years to pull up their grade. If this fails, they have to redo their entire curriculum, often firing their entire staff and getting new people. If this fails, they have to offer to pay to send the students to specialists (such as the Sylvan Learning Center) or to a school with a higher grade. If this fails, the government comes in, throws everyone out and essentially 'occupies' the school.

Now, again, the problem comes from poor funding. The school doesn't make the grade because they don't have money for decent text books or computers or chalk. So the government tells them they have to spend MORE money to get new curriculum. They already can't afford that, so now they are even farther behind, which means the students do even worse. Then they have to pay to send students to other places (and sometimes there are no better schools, leaving the parents with no options). 'Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny' is not a bad allegory here. There's really no way for the school to pull up so they try to find ways around it. One school expelled half their students the day before they took the state test. Teachers have rigged the tests, altered scores, 'lost' a few students. Schools are now actually encouraged to LOWER standards instead of raise them. Why? Because the schools can't afford to not pass. This is perhaps the greatest failing on the part of NCLB to take care of the students.

Teachers have to spend hours doing paperwork, documenting everything they ever do ever, adding to their already stress-filled, busy lives. This can adversely affect their class, though to their credit, most teachers make the best of it and do an incredible job. Still, it gives them less time to spend with the students, to write better lesson plans, to think of innovative ways to reach students.

NCLB also represents an unprecedented amount of federal involvement in what should be a private, state-run responsibility. The federal government isn't suppose to meddle with education, it says so in the Constitution. NCLB is just another form of control, meant for the best most likely, but a dangerously slippery slope.

Now, next year, we will have a new administration. And as always, education was one of the issues the candidates debated on. As most of you know, I didn't vote for a variety of reasons, number one being I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils (Vote Cthulu), however in the realm of education, I firmly believe that Obama IS the lesser of evil here. McCain wanted to keep NCLB and just 'take it back to basics', rework it. I'm fairly certain that by this point, it's clear that there is no 'reworking', it simply DOESN'T WORK. A totally new system of accountability has to be put into place, one that either doesn't have federal involvement (or at least limits it) or one that puts MORE responsibility on the government to pay for it. I, for one, hope that it is worked out before I get my certification because otherwise I may have to relearn everything.

Here's hoping for a brighter tomorrow.

So there's my intro and first set of musings. Feel free to let me know what you think.