Daily Connotations

Daily Connotations

Entropy Happens.
Join the madness.

You don't have to push the boundaries when you set the standards.

Connotation. 1. a. The configuration of suggestive or associative implications consitiuting the general sense of an abstract espression beyond its literal, explicit sense. b. A secondary meaning suggested by a word in addition to its literal meaning. 3. Logic The total of the attributes constituting the meaning of a term.

Observations, opinions, and ideas, all brought to you by Daily Connotations Company. Who Else?

May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
September 2006
February 2007
March 2007

Disclaimer: Any opinions contained on this page are those of, well, we don't really know who. Any offense taken to anything present should be directed to Sven, who will file and ignore your comments. Praise or compliments can be directed to either Dr. N, Dr. What, or Dr. Olga. All plagarized material has been tested and deemed satisfactory according to the esteemed code of Lehrer, version 2.3.
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO VIEWERS:
The Entire Physical Universe, Including This Blog, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally Small Space. Should Another Universe Subsequently Re-emerge, the Existence of This Blog in That Universe Cannot Be Guaranteed.

Things We Like

Sven Bjorn Borg: Sven has been with d-con since its humble beginnings, and is responsible for punctuating, finances, guarding the office from rabid dogs and loud noises, and acting as mediator amongst the other members. Dr. Borge is well-known as the world's foremost (and perhaps only) underwater-basket-weaving expert. Sven has recently published no less than 3 books, Klingon Grammar and Vocabulary for humans, Life among the Grapes, and Escher, Bach, Gödel: A gigantic elastic bungalow. In it's copious spare time, the Sven enjoys playing the harpsichord and diagramming sentences. Sven is Chief of Staff and Director of Intelligence in the UPICN,LLC.
Dr. Bob William "The Orange" Lavoisier a.k.a. Dr. Henry Parsons: Dr. N, as we like to call him, is officially the initiator of the Daily Connotations Company, and also holds important Offices in the VVIIPP society of America and The Department of Redundancy Department, which is a place where he holds an important office in the department of redundancy. Henry also spent a good deal of his life studying the behavior of Walruses (Walri?) in the wild, inspired by a long-running correspondence with Mr. J. Lennon, who, in fact, convinced "The Orange" that he was, in fact, a walrus. Dr. Parsons' curriculum vitae is rounded out by his extensive family history (including a brother, Alan), and double Ph.D. honors in Botany and the Study of Scandinavian Languages. Recently, Dr. Henry Parsons was elected president of the UPICN,LLC
The Doctor a.k.a. Dr. What??: Dr. What joins us now as a member of d-Con in very good standing. It is important that the doctor not be confused with his slightly-more-popular brother, Doctor Who, who has carved a niche for himself in the field of time travel. Dr. What never developed the talent for time travel, and has the ability to visit only two distinct temporal locations: The beheading of John the Baptist and that one time when Stanley met Livingstone (or was it Livingstone met Stanley?) Consequently, he spends much of his time knitting (the scarves, natch) on the planet Gallifrey whilst (and at the same time) contemplating Nietzschean philosophies and memorizing much of Immanuel Kant's work, both in the original German.
Dr. Phelealabean: Dr. Phelealabean also uses the alias Dr. Olga Olathe Parsons-Uhlmer. Dr. Parsons-Uhlmer is a sister to Henry and Alan. She has a dual honorary doctorate in Arabian Literature and Language. She also has teaching experience at the University of Rekjavik which was held in a small grass-covered hut. She iswidowed after an incident involving her husband and abandonment which she is not allowed to discuss pending criminal charges. Now that she is alone, she enjoys spending summers with her brother, Henry, in his summer home, The Parsonon.

9.29.2003

Three quotes from Victor Hugo to ponder on:

"Common sense is in spite of, not as the result of education."

"In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the former. That is why we demand education and knowledge. "

"Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause."

--Posted by s. on Monday, September 29, 2003.

9.28.2003

Jesus and his disciples were walking around one day, when Jesus said,
"The Kingdom of Heaven is like 3x squared plus 8x minus 9."
The disciples looked very puzzled, and finally asked Peter, "What on earth does Jesus mean - 'the Kingdom of Heaven is like 3x squared plus 8x minus 9?'"
Peter said, "Don't worry, guys. It's just another one of his parabolas."

*groan

--Posted by s. on Sunday, September 28, 2003.

9.27.2003

Allow me to post, today, an address for The Passion, directed by Mel Gibson. There is a form that lets you sign up for news and information for the movie and to put your zip code in to try to get it in a theatre near you. I kind of doubt that it will come closer than maybe Des Moines, but we can hope! I believe that it is a movie that we would enjoy. There are also pictures and a trailer.

passion-movie.com

--Posted by s. on Saturday, September 27, 2003.

9.26.2003

At this point, W. is still the forerunner for Republican candidates, and he's a pretty predictable guy - But, the crop of Dems, however, seems to be ever-growing and ever-changing. (Please remember THIS author, not necessarily the other d-con members, claims political apathy, um, I mean, multipartisanship, so the choice of subject for the following tutorial was simply for the public good.) How in the world is a person supposed to keep all of them straight? We may have the answer!
Tongue firmly in cheek, Daily Connotations proudly presents:
An introduction to the 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates.

Wesley Clark

He's got spunk - lots of spunk, jumping in kind of at the last minute like that. But he's smart and clean-cut and during a "war" people may feel more comfortable electing a regular-army man. It kind of makes sense - to have a four star general as commander-in-chief. He's politically untested - a country can't be run the same way as the military. But Bill Clinton likes him, so that bodes well.

Howard Dean

A trend setter. Started the big web campaign boom - which may be today's answer to the old railroad campaigns. Had the first blog out of the candidates. Plus he's got experience on his side - and has had success with health care and economy in Vermont. But America is considerably larger than Vermont - Will the programs stand up to the expansion? Also, his anti-Bush, anti-war stance is appealing to many Dems (I hear), but may be a turn-off to moderates and wandering Republicans.

John Edwards

I admit it - I've been ignoring good ol' John Edwards. I had to look up some info. What I found: if you donate to his campaign through his webpage he gives away a "fuzzy retro headband". Goodie! I know he's anti-large-corporation. I also know he's head to head with Gephardt for the populist vote. Yawn.

Richard Gephardt

This guy has something going for him: His wife's name is Jane! That makes them, officially, Dick and Jane. Awesome! I wonder if their dog's name is Spot. . . ? That could make a good campaign motto: See Dick. See Dick run. Run, Dick, Run! He's easily one of the front-runners and he's kind of got small-town nice-guy appeal.

Bob Graham

Kind of a conservative. But hard to figure out. Not too many op/ed pieces about him floating around the webpages or newspapers.
update: 10/6/03 Bob Graham announces the end of his presidential bid.

Dennis Kucinich

Big on health care. Talks like a throwback to the early 20th century. The good old days? I guess we'll find out!

John Kerry

Fighting with Dean for the leftist position. I'd be worried that they're both going to knock each other out. They both need to win NH, and obviously they both can't. Someone's got to fall, and it's going to hurt. He's perhaps got an edge over Dean because of his slight physical resemblance to Paul "Macca" McCartney (or is that just me?), but isn't as exciting and hasn't quite got the name recognition as the Doctor from the Green Mountain.

Joe Lieberman

Talks like a Republican. And if you're neither hot nor cold, then you're likely to be ignored.

Carol Moseley-Braun

An unconventional candidate, she's been overlooked in the race quite a bit. Probably doesn't have a chance, honestly, but may step on a few toes before she's done. The hyphen (or lack thereof) in her last name causes me much grief. I've seen it both ways, and have reason to believe that she had it surgically removed so as to come first in alphabetically-organized lists.

Al Sharpton

That is, the Reverend Alfred C. Sharpton. Running on equal-rights issues, and to get D.C. statehood privileges. Just smile and nod, smile and nod.

My recommendations: Zaphod Beeblebrox or Tom Lehrer. Because I want to, that's why!

--Posted by s. on Friday, September 26, 2003.

9.25.2003

Op/Ed Minibite

Computerized voting?

Nope. It won't happen - not until the gov't can be sure that there isn't a comp sci genius out there who can hack into the machines, change the program, and cause a major brouhaha. Which they can never be sure of, because, while the two are not mutually exclusive, politicians and programmers tend to run in different circles, and a good programmer can pop up when you least expect it.

Plus, what if the electricity goes out??

--Posted by s. on Thursday, September 25, 2003.

After such an (what's the word........................well.......nah..........I guess........but................no I do.........n'...........t........think so............okay fine............) "interesting" American Gov't (that's an abbreviation, ya know?) I thought it might be slightly appropriate (if such is considered inappropriate :>) (love the rangle) to post something regarding taxes (even though I could probably be taxed for doing it!).

The following is an update (or so I am led to believe) list of current (or current as of when she posted this yesterday).

Taxes:
-----------------------------------
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money) Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax) IRS Penalties (tax on top
of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone State and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Enjoy (or try to)!
--Dr. Henry Parsons (usually)

--Posted by Kelly D. Norris on Thursday, September 25, 2003.

9.24.2003

Well, not bad. A few changes have had to be made, but I like to think they're for the better. Now let's get back to ignoring the technology and concentrating on the ideas!

By the way, do you know what the first thing a computer science major says after they graduate from college?

"Would you like fries with that?"

--Posted by s. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003.

I would like to thank very much the wonderful man named Kevin Werbach who put The Bare Bones Guide to HTML on the web. I would be absolutely lost without him.

Amen and amen.

--Posted by s. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003.

Oh, I love technology. Well, I love it, except for when I DON'T. Our usually mild-tempered blog has been having a few fits recently. It must be pouting because we haven't been frequenting it as often as in the past.

Changes you see are a result of my fiddling with the stupid thing to make it work!!! Thanks to Google's amazing job of caching, I was able to rescue the disclaimer, bios and links. Hopefully things will be back to normal as soon as possible.

--Posted by s. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003.

9.23.2003

Just a comment.............what happened to the "look" of D-Con? Has our administator at large (the vile villainous, blasphemous, creature known to her close associates as Roberta the Sven) been up to no good?

For those of you interested in ye' ole' Hallow's Eve the following site might be of pumpticularkin interest.

CLICK HERE NOW FOR EXCITING FACTS ABOUT THE NEW WORLD OF PUMPKINS!

--Posted by Kelly D. Norris on Tuesday, September 23, 2003.

And who says that multiple-choice exams NEVER have interesting questions? Check out this goodie I found on Exam #2 Version A offered in a Biology/Genetics class from the University of Florida:

9.Ê If someone walks into to your room and shouts ÒWhat a mess!Ó.Ê A good comeback line that is energetically correct would be:
Ê
1.Ê ÒYouÕre full of potential energyÓ.
2.Ê ÒRelax, entropy happensÓ.
3.Ê ÒMy potential to chemical energy transformations just arenÕt workingÓ.
4.Ê ÒYouÕre a mess!Ó.

--Posted by s. on Tuesday, September 23, 2003.

9.19.2003

Whoa!
Gotta watch out for them ol' Baroque Composers

--Posted by s. on Friday, September 19, 2003.

9.18.2003

This is just almost too weird! There is a geography professor at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration whose name is, really now, I'm not kidding, Just Gjessing.

Odd.

--Posted by s. on Thursday, September 18, 2003.

9.17.2003

Ok, so Descartes walks into a bar. Beautiful young woman sitting on the counter says "Buy me a drink, baby?" Descartes, a bit miffed, replies "I think not!" and promptly vanishes.

*groan if you get it.

What are you doing here if you don't?

--Posted by s. on Wednesday, September 17, 2003.

9.16.2003

Entropy is happening......................of ye of scientific blood check out this site for a REAL meaning to entropy!

--Dr. Henry Parsons
Disturbed After Reading a Mildly Humorous Website Mentioned Above

--Posted by Kelly D. Norris on Tuesday, September 16, 2003.

"A mad scientist has placed his pet cat under a box with a diabolically murderous device that, upon detecting a single particle randomly fleeing a chunk of decaying radioactive material, will drop a hammer on a vial of poison that will kill the cat. However, since both the cat, the device, and the radioactive material are hidden under the box, nobody outside can tell whether the dastardly device has been activated yet. This leads the mad scientist to ponder a rather existential question: if you can't see that the cat is dead, does that mean it's still alive? Likewise, if you can't see that it's alive, does that mean it's dead? This scientist is preoccupied with a theory that two parallel universes exist inside the box at the same time: one where the cat is still alive, and another where the cat has been killed, and that both of those universes will continue to exist until he lifts up a corner of the box to find out for sure. Maybe his ethics are a bit questionable (besides parallel universes, this scientist is also fond of having two wives at the same time, too), but he's got a point there: can the act of observing an event change the outcome, and what can you speculate about the state of affairs if nobody's watching?

The mad scientist is Erwin Schršdinger (and the two wives in question were his own wife, Anny, and Hilde MarchÑa collegue's wife. The randy old goat was also known to get around a bit while studying in Dublin), and the particle fleeing the radioactive chunk represented a random quantum event. To his credit, Erwin didn't actually kill any cats; his famous feline experiment was just a playful thought, like a set-up to an eerie punchline. The fate of this poor imaginary feline is also at the heart of last century's greatest, worst, and most bizarre field of science: quantum physics."

For the entire article

--Posted by s. on Tuesday, September 16, 2003.

I've never really had any desire to enter the medical profession, but IF I DID, I know what I would specialize in: Hands. Perhaps hands and feet. I love the delicate precision in the tendons and ligaments and nerves that make our hands work the way they do. I'm not really even trying to be nice, or benefit humanity, or anything like that. It's maybe intellectual curiosity, maybe genuine wonder. If no other evidence were given, the amazing perplexity evident in an honest examination of the human hand would convince me of the existence of a higher power.

--Posted by s. on Tuesday, September 16, 2003.

9.14.2003

September 14, 1814

Fort McHenry was bombed, but the flag was still there.

--Posted by s. on Sunday, September 14, 2003.

9.12.2003

I don't watch much TV. Outside of my daily dose of Jeopardy! and occasional trysts with CNN, I tend to avoid it entirely. But I will miss John Ritter. Funny without being overbearing with a sweetheart teddy-bear everybody's uncle face. One of the good guys of the sitcom world (there are a few. a precious few, but a few nonetheless), and also a talented serious actor when he got out of the fluffy comedian stereotype.
He was a good egg.

--Posted by s. on Friday, September 12, 2003.

9.11.2003

Two years after the attack on our nation and slightly over two centuries after its beginning, I think we should pause for a minute and reflect on the miracle of persistance, determination, and sheer luck that defines the amazingly-still-United States of America.

We aren't perfect, but we are resiliant. We are resiliant because there are so many good people who have sacrificed their lives to make us strong. We have an ideal, the American Ideal, and we are willing to sacrifice a lot for the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We've survived a lot: English Oppression, Civil War, Depressions, World Wars, Terrorist Attacks, Economic Recessions, Bad Presidents, Good Presidents that made bad decisions. Two-hundred-and-twenty years ago, it was questionable that America would make it past infancy. Now, we've developed into number one. A political and social experiment that could have gone badly wrong turned out to be not that bad.

God Bless America.

--Posted by s. on Thursday, September 11, 2003.

9.09.2003

"as they say in the ed biz"

One of my biggest pet peeves is the overuse of euphemisms in American Society. For being such a dang open-minded, tolerant people we seem pretty scared to face the truth in its lowest form. Everything has to be altered - by the government, the media, businesses, and yes, even schools.

Remember the last standardized test you took. Yes, it is painful, but think about the content of the questions. Were there questions about "Jose" and "Tsu Li" (to promote multiculturalism)? Were women presented in the literature as being Doctors, Lawyers, or Bullfighters instead of secretaries and nurses (to promote intragender equality)?

Or textbooks. History is, and always has been, written by the winners. There is not such thing as an unbiased historical account, but textbook companies go out of their way to be politically correct. Typos are human error, but I don't expect to find them on every page, and I certainly don't want to see glaring errors or omissions in the middle of textbooks. Genuine content has been largely replaced by pictures (isn't that nice).

The standard of efficiency we hold our schools to are not nearly as stringent as those we hold our auto-mechanics to. The good teachers hold themselves to their own standards. The others, well, we just won't talk about them, all right?

--Posted by s. on Tuesday, September 09, 2003.

9.08.2003

Beam me up, Scotty!

On this day, 1966, the first episode of Star Trek aired, starring William Shatner as Capt. James T. Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock.

The show ran three seasons and gained a very devoted (some would say cult) following.

--Posted by s. on Monday, September 08, 2003.

9.07.2003

And now for something you'll really like

Meet Craig Butterworth, your friendly neighborhood tech-support guy.

--Posted by s. on Sunday, September 07, 2003.

We've been doing a lot of pointing out of the shortcomings of the public education system. That's acceptable, our school system isn't perfect -not even close- and it won't ever become better without undergoing some sometimes-painful criticism. But I feel that it is necessary to point out some of the successes of the American Public School system, because there are many. Mostly these come from teachers and administrators that love what they do and the kids they do it for.

I found this article on the subject, which points out several good things that I was going to mention, but the article shall substitute because it expounds and explains a bit more than I was planning on.

Let's not forget the debt we owe to the country that gives everyone access to free public education, and let us not overlook the many good things that free public education offers because we are too busy concentrating on its flaws.

--Posted by s. on Sunday, September 07, 2003.

9.06.2003

Thank you Dr.'s Peggy and Sven. These words will add nicely to our work.

My very, short thoughts below (it's 11:00 pm okay?)

1) It's almost burdenous to be intelligent. Those of us that are intelligent suffer more than those who have fallen behind the system.

2) Not to point anything out, but remember none of us have ever been in a Spec. Ed classroom to be able to accurately evaluate it.

3) Money is only relative to education when people want it to be.

4) Education is every person's outlet for aggression management. Remember to stay above the rest; not trying to point anyone out ('cuz I think we're okay here) but just as a thought in development of posts.

There really needs to be more than just the three of us, ON EDUCATION!

--Dr. Henry Parsons
...............................................................

--Posted by Kelly D. Norris on Saturday, September 06, 2003.

"Hurl that spheroid down the field"

Football season is on us again, and we here at Daily Connotations are proud to announce the arrival of our new book, 42 Interesting Things to do at a Football Game. The book is still in the early stages of being co-authored by S.B.B., Dr.H.P., Dr.P., Dr.O.O.P-†. Contributing authors include D.Davis and S.Malcolm. Perhaps an electronic synopsis will be made available at a later date. Until then, keep your eyes here, because we know what we're talking about!

--Posted by s. on Saturday, September 06, 2003.

9.05.2003

Why don't we do it? Because it's easier, more effective, and makes sense. Also because it costs more money.

But the issue hits closer to home than than. I have exactly 2 minutes, so it'll be a short one.

Dr. Pegg, you know my cousin (Dad's Brother's Son?). He began children-garden (hehe) in Maryland and was told not to read ahead so he wouldn't make the other kids feel bad.

Well, my aunt and uncle pulled him out quickly, and he was homeschooled for the rest of his school career. I'm all for homeschooling, but that isn't the issue here. If America's goal is to have a free public school system that educates everybody equally, they're practically shooting themselves in the foot. Thomas Jefferson said "There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals." Basically, everyone's needs, strengths, weaknesses, and abilities are different, and in an ideal system everyone's needs would be met and everyone's strengths would be reinforced. Don't try to get everybody on the same level, try to keep everybody moving up. Slower or faster, it doesn't really matter, just so long as they're going in the right direction.

--Posted by s. on Friday, September 05, 2003.

While we're on the subject of teachers, education, etc., I just can't resist one of my jokes.

Did you hear about the teacher who was killed in a car wreck?

He was grading papers on a curve.

*groan.

--Posted by s. on Friday, September 05, 2003.

9.02.2003

A moment of silence: Today, 2 September 2003, marks the 30th anniversary of the death of Professor J. R. R. Tolkien, writer of the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, and the Silmarillion.

--Posted by s. on Tuesday, September 02, 2003.

Allow me to assume a rather odd position now. Understand that these are merely questions, and do not necessarily reflect our personal views.
{
Why is it necessary to educate EVERYONE? Sure, people talk about the old days when the world was run by a select few who were educated. Why was that so bad? How is our current system better?

I realize that is an extreme view to take. Allow me to reword, again.
Why is it necessary that every child be given the same education? The fact is our society needs people with many varieties of skills to be successful, so why do we wait until college (late college, usually, to specialize)? If you want to be an underwater basket weaver, shouldn't you probably start learning about underwater basket weaving before you graduate? And is it really necessary for you to use time and brainpower learning, say, Differential Calculus when it does not imply to the job you are supposed to do for the greater good?

And don't you think I'm kind of sounding socialistic, if not communistic? Or is that merely an illusion created by the media and the government? That any kind of gov't (that's an abbreviation, there) that's different than ours is critically flawed?

It's an easily proven fact that smaller groups of people are easier to regulate. So wouldn't it be easier and probably more effective to have a separate, but loosely connected, group of teachers for several specific subject areas? They would be self-regulatory, and impostors posing as teachers would be evicted naturally. This could work because the standard would be that of the teachers as a whole, and I do believe that it is safe to assume that the majority of (say) Underwater Basket Weaving teachers could be considered well-versed in the theory and applications of Underwater Basket Weaving, and thus the group as a whole would be able to deal with under- or un- qualified teachers.

This system would replace what we know as high school, perhaps even including the middle school/junior high. There would be required curricula, but not required classes. This curricula would be covered, even if it were not covered by the same classes. An example: The required Math, (arithmetic, economics (merely handling money, not the grand scope of Economics-with-a-capital-"E") and some basic algebra) could conceivably be covered in a Science class, a Music Theory Class, or even (gasp) an Underwater basket-weaving class. Teaching cross-curricular material like this would require the teachers to think, which is a talent that will drip on to the students. It also leads to the ideal "science" (I use the quotes to distinguish Science as in Biology or Chemistry to "science" as a manner of looking at the world) which is that point where a realization comes that everything is somehow wonderously connected, and what's really worth studying is the connections. Somehow English and Math and Physics and Biology and Grammar and Government and Music and Art are all different facets of the same jewel, but the differences and the similarities make life what it is. That idea is something our current system overall sadly ignores. A few teachers realize it and try to present it, but the system goes, roughly, "Here I am conjugating verbs." "Here I am balancing chemical equations." "Here I am reading Dante." "Here I am categorizing genes." No connections between classes at all.

Schools aren't bad at giving out useless trivial information. It's the big picture they mess up at.
}

Well, there you have it. It did come out of my mind. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with myself or not. But it's out.

Also let me draw your attention to this article on the subject. I specially like the the second-to-last paragraph.

--Posted by s. on Tuesday, September 02, 2003.

9.01.2003

And it continues........................

In re-reading my original posts I find I make a reference to "have to solve the problem in the education process that teaches these people in the first place". Sadly in re-thinking this notion I find that it is rather cyclic and pointless. Why? Because the system we would be trying to solve would be no different at the collegiate level than at the high school level, still incompetent or competent teachers only at different levels of education. They are one in the same!

I like Sven's thoughts regarding standardized tests. Such a process is likely what these teachers will have to endure. As quoted in the article by Rebecca Pringle "I have prided myself in staying current and being active in the field. For all that to be reduced to a multiple-choice test is an insult." And it is Rebecca!! It is a crime to say that the $40-50,000 that you spent on an advanced collegiate and continuing education courses is being amounted into a multiple-choice test. Standardized tests are stupid. The ironic point in this whole matter of things is that incompetent teachers may still PASS the test, simply by stealing a trick of their students: guessing. What kind of a filter is an object without anything to catch the "filtered"?

The really sad point behind this is that it deals with humans and people, creatures of our own thinking doomed to all the negativity in the world. Such a thing created by people is likely to cause great disrupt and confusion by it's actions. One person's views of competency are likely to be regarded as incompetent by another.

Frightening is the fact that by such a rigorous screeing process we are killing off what isn't their to kill. Let's face the facts, teachers are an endangered race of people! Let's take an Education major run them through numerous hours of collegiate education, paperwork, expense, and stress and turn them into an environment where in 25 years (of which it's likely some of the same will go on) they will be asked to prove it all over again by going through the same process. Don't misread that I am against accountability I just don't see the efficiency in this piece of legislation; it's kind of like re-washing your clothes a second time each day just so you can make sure they are clean.

Our delvings into this discussion have revealed a true point about us, subconsciously we are victims of it all. The process itself managed by people processed of the same system. What are we becoming? A slowly, ever becoming dumber population? Are these discussions chipping away at the very bones of what is left? Education cannot truly be reformed in my mind until one of the following things happens:

1) We alter the ideals of "no child left behind".
2) We alter the way the government deals with education--guess what?..............According to the constitution the government shall have no part in each state's education system, but they do. It's a giant monopoly; "Don't except our educational policies and you WON'T get funding for a state highway project."
3) We change the way we educate students.

Perhaps number three sounds the easiest, but I guarantee you it's not. Can you imagine going to school and having no textbooks? No sports? No "extra/co-curricular" activities? This is where the solution lies, not in the minds of our teachers.

--Dr. Henry Parsons

--Posted by Kelly D. Norris on Monday, September 01, 2003.

Thank you, Dr. Henry Parsons, for the heads up(see). What follows are my thoughts, and not necessarily extremely organized thoughts, on the matter.

But first, a quote:
"Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education."
- President John F. Kennedy

I fully agree with the intentions of the law, but do not completely approve of the means in which it is going about fulfilling them. I do not believe that good teachers can be legislated into existence.

Firstly, we all of course have had run-ins with teachers who aren't worth any more than the paper they write their multiple-choice tests on. That is, sadly, an accepted part of our current school system. It is often written off as a "life lesson", a manner of learning to deal with someone who's not easy to deal with. Removing these (to borrow a term) bumps on a log would be a good thing for the students, but extremely difficult for the school district. Such a surgical manuever does require careful screening to avoid getting rid of the wrong person. There is no easy way of doing this.

Secondly, Standardized Tests are stupid. Let me rephrase that. Any test which requires filling in little bubbles with number two pencils is not an effective manner of judging anyone's knowledge, wisdom, or academic capability. We use standardized tests because they are supposedly "equalizers" and, more importantly, because we have the ability to score them without ever even having to read them. I shudder at the thought of forcing another large chunk of our current population to take them, as fill-in-the-bubble tests discourage actual thinking in favor of lucky guessing. My personal trust in a teacher would not be affected by the score they received on a standardized test. I've taken enough of such silly tests to know that they don't by any means give an accurate, complete picture of a person. (I was (am?) a National Merit Scholar. It wouldn't make sense for me to knock on the bubble-tests if I didn't really mean it.) Also, the art of teaching has a lot of intangibles that could never be measured in any manner, and it is easy to imagine a situation in which a really good teacher would get lower scores than a merely mediocre teacher. Being forced to take standardized tests will take away teacher's valuable time which they could be using to create lesson plans or research deeper into their subject.

Thirdly. Teachers, by their very job description, are trusted. They have a captive impressionable audience. That is a reason it is very important to remove any teachers who do not present accurate information. The ideas that are gotten by children in their formative years stay with them forever, even if they are later proven false. Most teachers would not present false information knowingly, but the increased access to information that the internet provides can put inaccurate information into the hands anyone, and a teacher who did not do any extra research could present such info to their classes, and the majority of the students would accept the information as true even if they had no other evidence to base their conclusion on.

The whole discussion leads to a deeper question about America's school system: If we graduated someone, and not just someone, someONES, 25 years ago who do not have the necessary abilities to be successful teachers, could the problem be deeper in our system than we are looking? And under-par students who grow up to be under-par teachers teaching under-par students to grow up and become . . . well, you know. . . is not going to effectively solve the problem.
Even if we do make them fill in little bubbles.

--Posted by s. on Monday, September 01, 2003.