Heretics' almanac

Educational attainment neurosis

What with recent discussions about my daughter's school, I've had opportunity lately to reflect on my own primary education. I attended six different schools through 9th grade: the Cedar School in Campbell River, BC; the Charleston School in Ocean Falls, BC; Vigaun Volksschule in Hallein, Austria; Jar barneskole outside of Oslo; and Ringstabekk ungdomsskole near Oslo. Two of the schools (Cedar and Ringstabekk) were experimental, and Ringstabekk, brand new when I attended, was literally torn down last year. I had my very best teacher (Mrs. Cleveland) and worst teacher (Miss Hoon) in Canada; in Austria, corporeal punishment was still used; and in Norway, we had to endure pseudo-socialist ideals of equality. My school in Ocean Falls burned down to the ground one year. I had to learn three different styles of cursive writing and be told that what I learned earlier was not just different but wrong. And of course instruction was in three different languages. In Canada and Austria I had to learn new languages without the benefit of any remedial instruction.

I have no doubt that in today's world - at least in the New York suburbs - there would have been no end to the interventions to “help” me get through these transitions. Some number of identified special needs woulkd have been brought up. As it was, I simply dealt. My clearest recollection of any anxiety was when I arrived in Norway and didn't know how to play the flute recorder. After faking it for a few months, I fessed up to the teacher and set out to learn to play on my own. Within a year, my friend Pål and I were much coveted performers of Baroque duets at school events. He was a musical talent (and is today a professor of music), but I clearly wasn't.

I probably had the benefit of a scholastic aptitude and relatively language acquisition, but it must be said that the obstacles were formidable and the support minimal. It all makes me wonder whether we fuss to much over our children today. There's something to be said for articulating the challenge, providing emotional reassurance, and letting the kids figure it out on their own.

My son has a real developmental handicap; he's nearly six and doesn't talk, to pick one illustrative point. Of course he needs help and a tailored approach. But in a recent parent meeting it came to light that 38% of one class at my daughter's (private and parochial) school had “identified special needs.” It's entirely possible that the criteria for “typical” are too tight at this school, the learning milestones too rigidly set, and that there - quite frankly - is too little faith in the kids' ability to come around on their own.

Perhaps we're driven too much by neuroses and too little by reason and experience. Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Parsing the Social Security debate

The Social Security debate is not dying down.  But let's be clear that we're discussing two different issues here:

One is the purpose of Social Security: Bush is urging "privatization" of Social Security to promote an "ownership society" that makes our social security account more than just a promise of benefits in return for a mandatory tax.  He wants the tax to become a mandatory savings program, in which the account is measurable, inheritable, etc.  That's a perfectly reasonable proposition, but we should debate openly whether we want that or something else, such as an insurance program for all elderly, or a welfare program.

The other is the solvency of the program in the long run.  After having read all the back and forth, I'm coming around to the view of "who the fuck knows anyway?"  The projections are so far into the future that they hardly make any sense.  The economic fluctuations that are certain to happen will blow the projections out of the water, anyway.

No politician has an incentive to separate those two issues, and most of the press is too partisan to bother.  Is this something the blogosphere has to get excited about?

Scalia, lethally angry

The Wall Street Journal is all pissy about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that executing minors violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and that it runs afoul of evolving standards of decency. They join Scalia's dissent to the notion that what other countries are doing (abolishing the death penalty) should hold any sway over the US Supreme Court.

It seems to me that the Journal has a point. I don't quite understand why a punishment that is acceptably usual and uncruel to adults is different for a 17-year old. The answer appears to be in the principle of evolving standards of decency - half-hanging, drawing and quartering may have been considered “decent” in the 17th century, but we'd consider it “cruel and unusual.” Scalia asks for clearer consensus on the issue before he accepts that executing 17-year olds falls beneath this standard - absent that, he accuses the Supreme Court majority of applying *their* (bleeding-heart pinko) standards to the issue.

According to Dahlia Lithwick, Scalia is upset at Kennedy for reasons that go beyond this particular case, though I'm sure he'd take offense that he's let his personal feelings affect the tone of his opinions.

It doesn't make much sense to me that Scalia gets so angry about this.

First, neither he nor anyone else has proposed a standard for what constitutes consensus. We'd say that slavery was indecent by an absolute standard today, but you'd be hard pressed to get a consensus on the issue in 1850.

Second, it should be a reasonable position to err on the side of leniency when it comes to capital punishment. Why risk being indecent on such a grave matter?

Third, even Scalia concedes that some age limit must apply. He says that *some* 16-18 year olds have enough maturity (though not the moral character and/or impulse control) to be held accountable as if they were adults for capital crimes. He points out that the same bleeding heart pinkos that want to ban executions of minors are okay with teenagers having abortions without their parents's consent. But he neglects to mention that 17 year olds can't marry, enlist in the military or even be trusted to vote. Yes, there is inconsistency, but as a society we're obviously willing to live with it.

I also want to take issue in Scalia's views that foreign impulses have no relevance in what the court decides.

First, that's a naïve statement. It's not as if Scalia's own perspectives aren't affected by events outside the US. He's a smart, educated man, and he at least knows the difference between different systens of jurisprudence.

Second, it's an astonishingly unnuanced view. Nobody is suggesting (as far as I know) that British case law can be used as precedence in American courts. But it would be foolish to ignore the experience of other states when confronting American problems. And there can be no question that American decency is affected (for good or bad) by outside influences.

I'll accept the issue is complex and probably deserved to get on the Suprme Court docket. But I can only imagine that Scalia et al would (rightly) be offended if a dissent to their views contained an ad hominem attack on their motivations.

Lighten up, Antonin. Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.