Memorization in Schools

As part of the discussion taking place about the need for 'Big Picture' thinking and learning in our educational system, part of the argument against what is presently happening in classrooms has been too much memorization in order to do well on the next test. But good points are brought up that there is a need for memorization. Perhaps the best example is how medical doctors need to memorize human anatomy, which is obviously relevant and vital to a doctor's work.

I wanted to make the distinction, though, between the two types of memorization that educators need to worry about: short-term versus long-term. We should be looking for the latter type in education, rather than the former.

Here is my full comment on my friend Zenpundit's post about big picture thinking:

"The notion of memorization has come up in a few comments. I agree that a certain type of memorization is necessary in education, and that is memorization for the sake of learning and eventual application (i.e. long-term memory). The example of medical doctors needing to memorize human anatomy is a prime example. But this is very different than what takes place in, say, most history classes, which is memorization for the sake of passing the next test. This is why most cannot come up with dates and events, because the focus of the individual was solely for the short-term when they ‘learned about’ those dates and events in school, in order to pass the test.

Students freely admit this, and I and most of my teacher friends know this to be true because we did the same thing when we were in middle school and high school. There was no importance/relevance given to us to make us want to try and raise the level of our learning to long-term memory, and many teachers will explicitly state ‘you need to know this for the test.’ If that is all that is required, and if that is all the motivation students are given, then of course we should expect nothing more than short-term memorization.

I tell my students on a very regular basis that they need to challenge me as a teacher…ideally on a daily basis. They (students) need to ask me, and often they do, "What is the point of me wanting to learn this stuff today?" If I cannot give them any reason that will some how connect to their life in any way, then I need to ask myself if this should really be in the curriculum. They may not agree with my argument or reasoning as to how it affects them, but they at least will acknowledge my effort to make a connection. Why should students need to learn something if it truly does not matter for them in any way? A lack of relevancy inevitably leads to short-term memorization for the vast majority of students."

In a high-stakes testing environment, we are teaching to the test. And we've got to change how we approach this by offering students the reason for learning what we are teaching them, by giving them reasons beyond "doing well on the test" for them wanting to learn the material and skills. We are absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot with the approach we have been forced into in our classrooms, and many students are being ripped off in terms of the quality of their education.

WE MUST AVOID BECOMING A TEST MERITOCRACY AT ALL COSTS. It leads to a largely short-term memorization approach from students, devoid of creativity and innovation and application of long-term learning and strategic thinking.

Good Discussion Going on About 'Big Picture' Education

I recently posted about a topic started by the Drs. Eide, regarding the lack of 'Big Picture' thinking, teaching, and learning in our educational system. These two posts were then picked up by my good friend Zenpundit, after we had a good discussion over lunch a few days ago. Himself a stellar educator and deep-thinking analyst, Zen took the baton and presented his support of the notion that we are regressing in education, largely driven by the implementation of No Child Left Behind and high-stakes testing, and this has all led to a wonderful discussion thread you can follow from Zen's post.

Zen and others have brought up the near desperate need for high-level thinkers who have been trained and educated, at least in part within a 'big picture' framework, because this is precisely what is required for long-range, strategic thinking, planning and implementation. Society has largely been focused on short-range, today-to-tomorrow thinking and planning, and this is not at all what is required in this day and age. Many tend to forget, or worse have not been exposed to, history; perhaps this is because much of what we are taught in history classes boils down to memorizing dates and facts, rather than true analysis of cause and effect of particular policy or action that led to specific consequences, which in turn led to other consequences...you may be guessing, correctly, I am implying a lack of big picture thinking in history, too.

This type of longer term strategic thinking is and has been for some time largely absent from our policitical leaders. This is driven from the need to post today's and yesterday's results and accomplishments, rather than where such and such policy will lead us in ten, twenty or fifty years from now, because of the desire to extend one's career by winning the next election. And why do politicians do this? It is like any other market - politicians sell the electorate what the electorate wants to hear, and that is short-term results, because that is how the electorate has been trained to think in school.

I like what was posted at Red Herrings regarding this discussion:

"I think the problem in many ways goes even deeper. How much has a focus on the minimum required effort, intellectual instant gratification and a lack of any kind of emphasis or training in long-term thinking affected the very culture of the United States and contributed to a range of problems from obesity and political apathy to over-spending and the credit crisis.

How we teach becomes how we learn, and how we learn becomes how we think. We teach to the test. We learn the minimum required to reach the minimum standard. We think no farther than the next chapter, the next test, the next evaluation, the next paycheck, the next credit card payment. We have stopped thinking about year five much less year twenty five of a thirty year mortgage, and the same thinking horizon applies to health and political decision making. It isn’t about intelligence. There are many very smart people out there who are very good, very fast, thinkers, and if we have gained any kind of skill in dealing with “complex, dynamic, fast moving situations” it is only because we are in a constant state of flux, constantly in crisis mode, and constantly trying to squeeze advantage at best and survival at minimum, out of the bad situations we constantly find ourselves in. That takes skill and inventiveness, but not everyone is that quick, innovative or lucky. However, long-term, strategic thinking in advance of a crisis could have prevented those situations from ever adversely impacting us or even turned them into opportunities to further our goals."

I highly recommend reading through the various comments and links to posts about this topic.

A 2-Year Science Course for Grades 9-10. What do you think?

My previous post addresses why I think we have a need to include some amount of the 'Big Picture' to classes. We need to show students why what they are studying matters, how it applies to their world, and why we need to focus on real learning for students. I have thought about what a big picture science course might look like, and below is a basic draft of one possibility. It would be integrated and team-taught over grades 9 and 10 in high school, and it addresses in a logical (at least in my mind) order the connection between many different disciplines in science. I am curious to learn what you think about it.

First Year
I. Ingredients for a Universe
A. Size Scales – Powers of Ten; From Big to Small, Science Studies it All!
B. Observation and Scientific Process
C. Big Bang – What is it, and what evidence supports it?
D. Energy – Basics and Examples
E. Matter – Basics and Examples (include E = mc2)
F. Forces – Basics (Newton’s laws) and Examples
G. What is Physics?

II. Atoms
A. What are they?
B. Electric Force
C. Nuclear Forces
D. Molecules (and introduction to bonding, valence electron concepts)
E. State of Matter - Gas
F. Gravity
G. Phase transition – Gas to Plasma (new state of matter)
H. Stars – Heavy Atom Factories (nuclear reactions)
I. Evolution of Universe – Simplicity to Complexity (quarks/electrons to atoms to gas clouds to stars to supernovae to heavy elements to planets to solar systems to galaxies to superclusters)
J. What is Astronomy?

III. Periodic Table
A. Patterns in Nature
B. Organization of elements based on patterns of chemical properties
C. Why does it look like it does? What those electrons are doing…
D. Significance of the Table…more on bonding, intro to reactions (both chemical and nuclear)
E. What is Chemistry?

IV. The Solar System
A. Formation of Planets
B. States of Matter – Liquid & Solid
C. Behavior of Planets – Kepler’s laws of Planetary Motion
D. The Structure of Earth
i. Land (include core, plate tectonics)
ii. Water
iii. Atmosphere
E. Chemical Reactions
F. What is Geoscience?

V. Life
A. What is Life?
i. Characteristics of Life
ii. Chemistry of Life
B. First Life on Earth
C. The Cell
D. Genetics
E. Evolution of Life – Simplicity to Complexity (build off the previous series: simple molecules to polyatomic molecules to organic systems to molecular networks to simple structures to cells to tissues to organs to organisms…)
F. What is Biology?

Summer Supplements
I. The Math – algebra practice; basic trig of right triangles
II. Summer readings and/or project

Second Year
I. Motion in Everyday Life
A. Basics of Vectors
B. Applying Newton’s laws of Motion – Equilibrium vs Nonequilibrium
C. Applying Conservation of Energy
D. What is Engineering?

II. Thermodynamics
A. Energy in Chemistry
B. Entropy
C. Types of Chemical Reactions & why reactions happen in the first place
D. What is Physical Chemistry?

III. Electricity and Magnetism
A. Electrostatics
i. Field and Force
ii. Potential and Electrical Energy
B. Electric Current and Origin of Magnetism
C. Power Generation – Faraday’s law
D. Bioelectromagnetism
E. What is Biophysics?

IV. Communication
A. Intermolecular
B. Cellular (not the phones…at least not yet)
i. Cell-Environment
ii. Intercellular
C. Nervous system
D. Waves
i. Properties & Phenomena
ii. Sound
a. The ear
b. Sonar for animals
iii. Electromagnetic Radiation
a. Visual communication, the eye
b. Radar, satellites
c. Astronomical communication
E. What is Biochemistry?

V. Science for the Citizen (for political, economic, environmental issues): Applications of What We Have Studied That Affects Your Life on a Daily Basis (Relevancy of the science; prior knowledge, personal experience, self-discovery, project-based, choice of what to study, possible careers in science and technology, etc)
A. Global Climate Change
B. Genetic Engineering (including stem cell research)
C. Energy Sources
D. Nuclear Power and Weapons Proliferation
E. Computer Security
F. Food and Water Supplies
G. Medicine – Fighting Disease, Bioterrorism
H. Intelligent Design and Creationism vs. Big Bang and Evolution
I. The Next Generation of Space Exploration
i. Back to the Moon, to Mars?
ii. Protecting the Earth
J. Ethics in Science and in Public Policy related to Science
K. When Does Life Begin? The Abortion issue
L. Where will the jobs be for your generation? Why you should care about everything you have studied in this course…

A Need for some 'Big Picture' Exposure in Education

I am glad to see posts such as the recent one by the Drs. Eide, entitled "The Paradigm Shift for Big Picture Thinking." They argue for, and I agree entirely, that:

"Instead of training for compliance, careful rule-following, and exact memorization or a paragon of crystallized intelligence, we need to make more room for 'big picture' thinkers - while still recognizing the need for basic skills and knowledge."

When I talk with students (juniors and seniors in high school) about how different subjects and classes are taught, invariably it comes down to great amounts of memorization. Most students, when you engage them in real conversations about the education they receive, will open up freely and get right to the point...because of the continued emphasis on grades and GPAs by colleges, students feel the need to focus first on memorization and get the grade on the test, and then move on to the next topic without much concern with what was just studied. When this is the case in school, has true learning just occurred? Likely not, if students are unable to recall and actually apply concepts that were covered in the past. I personally would love to change my job title from 'teacher' to 'learning facilitator,' or something similar. Teaching happens everyday in every classroom. But if student learning does not take place, what is the point? Teaching and learning are not the same thing, and I for one want the latter over the former!

To make matters worse, as students rely so heavily on memorization and short-term success on tests (and this is driven home even more in the 'high stakes testing' environment we find ourselves in in the era of No Child Left Behind, as resently implemented), those students, many of whom are gifted, as the Eides point out, who prefer complexity in their learning, are not benefitting from the way many (most) classrooms are run. By complexity, I mean those students who want to 'see the big picture.' Those students who want to know why something works, and how it is related to the material that was studied last semester as well as to the material that was covered in another class. For example, I love when students in my physics classes come to me asking about how to interpret and apply a particular integral result which was just studied in calculus class, or how Einstein's theories changed political and military history, as studied in a history course. Those moments happen every so often, as a result of student curiosity and their wanting to truly learn about the material rather than memorize something for the test, and good teachers recognize such moments when they happen...that is what I want school and the education process to be like for every student. I guarantee we (i.e. society) will be the beneficiaries if we can figure out how to do this systemically.

How can change, or the paradigm shift the Eides are referring to, like this occur? I still firmly believe it won't ever happen until we get state boards of education together with teaching colleges and work together to change how teachers are trained. They need to be taught in this manner in the colleges so they have practical, real-world models to think about and employ when in the classroom, rather than the enormous amount of theoretical psychology that has been in traditional certification programs (and which I personally have never used in an actual classroom). Master teachers of this strategy need to be the ones to work staff development sessions rather than outside consultants who are preaching the traditional single-topic methodologies I think we should be using, but together with other methodologies (example: I've been to how to use phonics sessions, and how to use whole language sessions - I have yet to go to a session that gets teachers thinking about and trained in how to use the best of phonics and the best of whole language to get the most bang for the buck). Teachers need to learn how to do more coordinated team-teaching so kids are exposed to the interplay between math-science-reading-writing-history-art-technology.

Too many students are missing out on seeing the 'big picture' of what they study, and therefore have a difficult time in answering the question every student asks at some point, and that is - What is the point? of what I was just shown in class. This is then the lead to the next question - What is the point of school itself? We owe it to them to be able to answer this question, as more and more educators are unable to provide a good answer.

Some Thermafrost thawing, and some resulting Methane gas can be trouble

Just a quick post. Scientific American has an article outlining some research into the methane gas being released from thawing thermafrost up in Alaska. If all of the thermafrost were to thaw out, tens of billions of tons of methane gas might be released. This is truly significant since methane outdoes carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas by a factor of 25.

Prof. Yong Zhao Has it Right About Education: Mistake Obsessing About Test Scores

Michigan State professor of education Yong Zhao has been speaking at a number of conferences about education, education reforms, achievement gaps, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), technology in education, and so on, and I could not agree more with one of the main points he consistently stresses: "The point of education is NOT to produce high test scores." He makes what is, in my opinion, a key observation about our national obsession of comparing American students scores in math and science with those students in other countries. When such comparisons are made, typically the U.S. is in the bottom half of the countries that take the test. He asks the question, "Does such an achievement gap, while real, really matter, except for national pride?" He, like I have for a number of years, argues this 'gap' is not so important. What's more important is summed up nicely in an article he wrote for Phi Delta Kappa's journal Edge:

"Instead,we are becoming obsessed with test scores
in a limited number of subjects, which in essence is
the adoption of a single criterion for judging the success
of students, teachers, and schools. Once we
adopt this single criterion, and we are well on our
way, we will kill the most important and soughtafter
commodity in the 21st century — creativity."

I firmly believe there are some key reasons as to why the U.S. is the only superpower in the world, and included in this set of reasons is our often publicly pummeled and criticized public education system. We have been, until recently (i.e. up until the NCLB era), using a system where children do not have to take tracking tests at young ages (such as around the 5th grade) that will determine their academic and professional lives, and where students can take electives in all subject areas, where the student determines what he or she is good at and enjoys, and then has the ability to go to college or a trade school or into the work force and pursue their self-selected area of concentration. Creativity is encouraged, children are taught to take risks on occasion, and there are normally support systems in place to allow individuals to learn from mistakes and still have chances to move on. There has been a lack of 'high stakes tests' that determine a person's future, with only SAT and/or ACT exams approaching this level of testing. For those who go to college, there are hundreds of majors, all of which are available to pursue if one wants to, and there are more opportunities to get practical experience in one's chosen field as well as to get involved as undergraduates in research, internships, study abroad, and so on. Variety, exposure to multiple points of view, discovery of interrelationships between disciplines, and opportunities and rewards for creative solutions to problems are all part of the educational process. But limiting subjects of study and putting in single-assessment structures dampen, if not eliminate, all that is good and different within our education system. The U.S. has dominated in innovation, technology, science and economic development for the last six or seven decades because of what and how our children learn in school.

I have argued this, too, in the past, ranging from the reality of 'late bloomers,' the need to avoid becoming an exam meritocracy, and even how other countries are rethinking their test-focused education systems to add features of the U.S. education system. I anxiously await how the Obama administration will modify NCLB, particularly with how education is assessed. Will we stay with limited, snapshot tests that further restrict other curricula and limits creativity, or will the focus be on student growth (which can be measured) and ability to continue to not only emphasize math and reading, but also the arts, social studies, science, business and languages, so children can see a variety of disciplines that all affect our society and allow for interactions that encourage collaboration and innovation? I suspect there will be a change towards the latter, which I feel is absolutely the right thing to do for individual students learning as well as for the continued advancement of our country.

Year of Science Site - Very Cool

Although we are half-way through 2009, I highly recommend checking out the 2009 Year of Science, which features a new theme each month. The present theme is Oceans and Water. Other months will feature physics, chemistry, geoscience, technology, astronomy, climate, sustainability, and much more. Very cool site for adults and kids, with a Fun Zone for the youngsters to look at, scientist features and cutting-edge research highlights.

Beginning to get serious about tapping into oceanic energy

There seems to be an acceleration in plans to tap into the enormous energy naturally supplied by oceans, both tidal power and power from the deep oceanic currents. Check out a Scientific American article that begins to outline the plans to fast-track R&D in the American Northwest. The concept is completely analogous to wind farms, where 'windmills' are submerged into ocean current and 'blown' into spinning turbines just as terrestrial windmills and generators work. A challenge that becomes more of an issue in water is the effect on sea creatures of all types that benefit from ocean currents for food sources.

A second challenge that is relevant to both land-based and ocean-based mills and generators is the complete lack of infrastructure to transmit energy from the source to cities. This is precisely why the Obama administration dedicated down payments in the stimulus package for the initial development of some of this infrastructure, as well as money for modifications to the power grid in order to handle new energy plants and sources. As I tell my students who are now graduating high school and are interested in engineering and the physical sciences, it is a good time to be entering college and, in a few years, the job market, as we necessarily need to begin transforming the country's infrastructure and the way we produce energy. It is an unbelievably large task from both the research and applications sides of the business, but one in which we must accept and succeed as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Add more challenges to Obama's list...Somalia and Yemen

President Obama has come into office facing as many big challenges as any President in my lifetime, to be sure. And the list continues to grow, with the recent addition of a flu pandemic and a legacy-building opportunity to select a Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, beyond the economic meltdown he is trying to contend with, there are major foreign policy challenges in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, and the ever-present Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of these are important in the fight against terrorism as well as nuclear proliferation and stability in unstable portions of the world. But as luck would have it, two more nations are, in my opinion, about to make the list of major problems: Somalia and Yemen.

These nations have certainly been on the radar screen, with the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the Somali pirates. However, growing evidence and international concern are showing that these largely lawless nations are home to ever-increasing numbers of Al Qaeda fighters, with Yemen being the most recent making headlines. I am fairly convinced the blinders our previous administration had on Iraq is the primary reason this has been occuring, as a lack of attention and resources in other parts of the world has taken its toll. There were multiple years of time for al Qaeda and other militant groups to establish themselves and begin gaining more recruits in impovershed areas of the world. We must hope for large-scale success in Pres. Obama's attempts to re-establish our alliances with the rest of the world and win support in assisting us in breaking down new militant networks and financing, for we certainly cannot do this alone.

Venice to Build Algae Power Plant

The city of Venice, Italy, is taking a step in the truly green direction. There is a plan to build an algae power plant that will produce up to half of the city's energy. This is impressive, and also shows how efforts in other parts of the world are much more forward looking and advanced than what we Americans have been doing.

Producing energy from algae is not new. It began with research by none other than the US Department of Energy in the 1950s, but obviously there were political obstacles that never led to actual production. However, with some effort and extended research, there are some advantages to such power production, which includes taking carbon dioxide from the energy release process and feeding it back into the growth of new algae for future energy use. Researchers believe this can ultimately be close to a carbon neutral process, which is why there is a growing amount of interest in this energy production scheme. We are clearly close, since actual plants will indeed be built overseas.

Gregorash for Woodland School Board

Dr. Lawrence Gregorash is running for a second term on the Woodland District 50 School Board. As a true leader and a major influence for the continued improvement of the K-8 district, including being a leading voice that pushed through the strategic plan being followed by the district, we need Dr. Gregorash back on the board to continue on a positive path. Vote on April 7!

Local Elections on April 7

Local elections for mayors, village officials, school board members, and so on, take place next Tuesday. This round of elections tends to have poor turnout, even though "all politics is local." I wonder what tiny percentage of voters even know who their local trustees are, let alone school board members. But these offices are vital to how any small community runs, ranging from local tax rates to city ordinances to quality of life issues like parks and libraries, which in turn affects our property values and quality of schools for our children. It is important to have your voice heard when so many immediate issues are in play. Educate yourself with local news outlets about the issues and who is running, and get out to vote.

Disspelling a Myth - Public Schools do Better in Math than Private

A study coming out of my alma mater, University of Illinois, concludes that public school students perform better in math on standardized tests than students from private schools. Check out a Science News article outlining the results.

This is a comprehensive study that used data from 270,000 4th and 8th grade students from 10,000 schools, so the results are significant with little in the way of statistical uncertainties. The researchers looked at five factors to see which correlated more positively to achievement. Those factors are parental involvement, school size, class size, teacher certification and instructional practices.

School size and parental involvement did not correlate significantly with achievement. However, small class sizes do correlate positively with achievement, and small class sizes are more prevalent in private schools. Certainly, the general public perception of private vs public schools is that everything private tends to be better, with the possible exceptions of the elite, wealthy public schools (such as a New Trier or Stevenson in the Chicago area) or magnet schools in urban areas, such as Walter Payton Prep in Chicago. But typically the strerotype is private is better in general.

So if small class size is more typical of private schools, how can public schools end up doing better than private in mathematics? It lies in the quality of the teachers and in the trend to adopt research-based, modern curriculum. Many private schools apparently still adopt traditional "back to basics" methods of learning mathematics, built around rote memorization and 'drill and kill' problems. Newer curricula are built around understanding concepts, problem solving and applications of math. Private schools also do not require or are mandated to have certified teachers, and tend to offer smaller salaries that are not competitive for top teachers. The research suggests these are the two driving forces that lead to better achievement, at least in mathematics.

Like anything else, though, there are outstanding private and public schools, and there are other schools that are in dire straits. This is an interesting study that not only concludes something that goes against common perceptions, but I think it more importantly gives insights into factors that make for better learning experiences for students. The evidence that curriculum and teacher certification and expertise are significant drivers for learning supports efforts among school districts for robust and focused staff development programs and collaborative efforts between universities and school systems for continual development and improvement of data-driven/research-based curricula. One other piece of this puzzle is, in my opinion, using cognitive science research in larger capacities with the development of curriculum as well as in-class practices, where we provide more ideal environments for students that are literally targeted at students' brains, and how our brains make the inner connections that lead to learning. This includes understanding differences between male and female brains and how they are 'wired,' where genders learn differently. There is still much to do, and hopefully both public (where 90% of our children go) and private schools use such research to better educate our children.

Geothermal energy production costs on par with that of Coal

A new study suggests that the energy production costs coming from geothermal sources is now on par, and perhaps even cheaper, than the costs associated with energy coming from coal burning plants. This is important in this day and age of multiple billions of dollars from the stimulus package being destined for alternative energy sources. A summary can be found at Scientific American online.

Power production through turbines and generators is based on running pressurized steam through the turbine, which in turns spins loops of wire inside a magnetic field, thus inducing alternating voltage and currents. This is then brought into your town or city through the power grid. I don't think there is any doubt from any groups associated with the energy sector of the economy that the power grid needs serious work, and that there is a need for the U.S. to expand its energy portfolio. But how to go about reforming the energy sector is under intense debate from competing industries and other stakeholders. I am glad to not hear the "drill, baby, drill"groups on TV every evening, because that is not the answer long term. A well-balanced portfolio is necessary, and the dominant source of power will likely be based on local abundances of fuel or energy source. The south and southwest will likely have, in the next couple decades, a much higher percentage of its power coming from solar technologies relative to the north, and the north will likely have higher percentages of its portfolio using nuclear or wind. Certain areas of the country will make use of local geothermal or hydroelectric resources, and some may still rely more on fossil fuels.

One idea I would like to see researched is tidal power and the use of ocean currents to power generators. At some point, when drinking water becomes one of the major issues for certain portions of the U.S. and other countries, that same tidal or oceanic power is used by desalination plants along coastlines. This would certainly be cheaper than extending the power grid out into the oceans. It is an upsetting time for many as they consider the large increases in energy on a global scale, as China and India continue their march to becoming industrial and economic giants, but at the same time there is such an amazing opportunity to expand energy sources and see what some creative thinking will develop in the next 10-20 years. I do think Pres. Obama got it right to include some financial resources for new energy development in the stimulus bill, because in time the energy sector should be a major creator of good, technical jobs in the U.S. This all ties into national security and economic development, as well as manufacturing revival of some factories that will be needed to build the massive amounts of new infrastructure that the U.S. and most of the rest of the world will require as energy production expansion continues at rapidly increasing rates that match population increases globally. It is also a necessary step in protecting the environment and addressing global climate change. A good portion of the U.S. and global economies will, in fact, be 'energy economies' as we hear the president say so often.

I Agree with Newt Gingrich...did I just say that?! Mexico - a major security issue waiting to happen

Newt Gingrich was on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, and during a discussion about unforeseen problems the new Obama administration may encounter during its first year, Gingrich brought up the issue of Mexico and the near civil war that is presently underway between the government and the powerful drug cartels. Gingrich argued something that I have wondered about, largely due to the seemingly complete lack of American press coverage given to this issue - when will the U.S. get serious about a major problem right on our border?

With record numbers of homicides in Mexico, and some in southern border towns of the U.S., drug money from our completely failed 'War on Drugs' program of the past two decades is financing the terrible violence in Mexico. For a short summary of the problem, check out this article. When will we learn, or simply admit, that simply locking drug offenders in violent prisons is not the answer to our drug problems in the U.S.? When will treatment and educ ation programs take the lead, which tend to show much better results than the 'lock 'em up, I am tough on crime' mentality that we have had, making not even a dent in the drug flow or usage in the U.S.?

I have no idea what will work in Mexico, but I do agree with Gingrich (and this does not happen very often) that this issue may come up during Obama's first year as something the U.S. will need to get seriously involved in if violence continues to spill over the border and if it becomes an increasing issue with gang activity in the U.S. I fear it will become such an issue, which is something we cannot afford at the moment with the economy, unemployment, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Afghanistan, crumbling infrastructure, health care, entitlements and war on terror issues Obama is inheriting (and let's no forget another continuing problem we have not heard much from, a nuclear North Korea).

U.S. needs science and math teachers

Yet another study has come out that confirms what many others have concluded over the past couple years, and that is U.S. middle schools and high schools need many more teachers over the next decade. Specifically, it is estimated that schools are going to need some 200,000 plus science and math teachers to fill in positions. Keep in mind that it is already a bad situation in middle schools, where surveys have shown more than 40% of science teachers are not certified in science, but have been quickly converted from other areas of study they were originally trained in. This does not bode well for the U.S., nor for children, who need to be prepared for a globally competitive economy which, of course, is becoming more and more dependent on science and math. The need for massive teacher recruitment, training, and retention is upon us.

President-elect Barack Obama has identified this issue as one of his priorities for education when he officially takes office. Because of economic conditions, it is unclear what is fiscally possible because he would like to offer up to 40,000 scholarships for science and math teachers who would, in return, commit three years of teaching in high-needs schools. There would be a focus on teacher support and mentoring, seeing how something like 40% of new teachers leave the profession within three years (which is why I always scratch my head when I hear so many people complain how easy teaching is and how easy teachers have it, but that's just me). This is an ambitious plan that may or may not happen because there will likely be no money available for so many scholarships, so alternatives need to be figured out, stat.

One option is the concept of virtual science departments, which is something I am very interested in and have begun to think about, along with a number of education professors and think-tanks. There needs to be a paradigm shift in education that makes better use of technologies that already exist and can help expand educational opportunities and level the playing field so rural and inner-city children have similar learning experiences to those from wealthier suburban schools. In addition, the possibility to begin personalizing education to better-match individuals interests, and therefore increase student engagement and learning in and out of schools, will become a reality. I will be posting more about this in the future, as well as remote science experiments being developed for a global iLabs Network, being developed by MIT and Northwestern University. This network will allow high schools and universities to access physical experiments, for which they do not have the resources to do, from other locations and facilities that do have the required hardware and software, via the Internet. This is in the first stages of development and testing, but in the next couple years will begin expanding the lists of possible experiments all schools have available to them.

There is so much to do, and little time in which to do it, if the U.S. is remain at the top level of science, engineering and technological innovation, and have a work force that can keep the country competitive with good jobs in the future.

There is a Correlation between Child's IQ and Birthweight

I found an interesting, short article on Scientific American. There is a direct, positive correlation between birth weight and IQ scores for children at the age of seven. I am not sure if this is true or not, and will look into it, but if one assumes that larger babies have correspondingly larger brain mass, this would seem to make sense. A newborn is literally moving from one world into a brand new world, and will naturally be overwhelmed by the huge amount of environmental stimulus. More brain mass should allow the infant to better comprehend, learn and adapt over time. The effect is more pronounced for boys than for girls, but the effect is significant for both genders. There are several other related articles that can be linked to off this article, so I recommend checking those out if you are interested in this topic.

Guess: What am I?

This comes from the site http://www.bl.com/ben/things/warranty.html. A student brought this to my attention. To what do you think this is referring? Thanks, MC.

"WARNING: This Product Warps Space and Time in Its Vicinity.

WARNING: This Product Attracts Every Other Piece of Matter in the universe, Including the Products of Other Manufacturers, with a Force Proportional to the Product of the Masses and Inversely Proportional to the Distance Between Them.

CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight.

HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This Product Contains Minute Electrically Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred Million Miles Per Hour.

CONSUMER NOTICE: Because of the "Uncertainty Principle," It Is Impossible for the Consumer to Find Out at the Same Time Both Precisely Where This Product Is And How Fast It Is Moving.

ADVISORY: There is an Extremely Small but Nonzero Chance That, Through a Process Know as "Tunneling," This Product May Spontaneously Disappear from Its Present location and Reappear at Any Random Place in the Universe, Including Your Neighbor's Domicile. The Manufacturer Will Not Be Responsible for Any Damages or Inconvenience That May Result.

READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to Certain Suggested Versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles Constituting this Product May Decay to Nothingness Within the Next Four Hundred Million Years.

THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the Unlikely Event That This Merchandise Should Contact Antimatter in Any Form, a Catastrophic Explosion Will Result.

PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Product, in Any Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Amount of Disorder in the Universe. Although No Liability Is Implied Herein, the Consumer Is Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to the Heat Death of the Universe.

NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held Together by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known and Whose Adhesive Power Can Therefore Not Be Permanently Guaranteed.

ATTENTION: Despite Any Other Listing of Product Contents Found Hereon, the Consumer is Advised That, in Actuality, This Product Consists Of 99.9999999999% Empty Space.

NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: The Manufacturer May Technically Be Entitled to Claim That This Product Is Ten-Dimensional. However, the Consumer Is Reminded That This Confers No Legal Rights Above and Beyond Those Applicable to Three-Dimensional Objects, Since the Seven New Dimensions Are "Rolled Up" into Such a Small "Area" That They Cannot Be Detected.

PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State.

COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The Subatomic Particles (Electrons, Protons, etc.) Comprising This Product Are Exactly the Same in Every Measurable Respect as Those Used in the Products of Other Manufacturers, and No Claim to the Contrary May Legitimately Be Expressed or Implied.

HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative to the User.

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The Entire Physical Universe, Including This Product, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally Small Space. Should Another Universe Subsequently Re-emerge, the Existence of This Product in That Universe Cannot Be Guaranteed."


Very clever!

Some Major Problems and Issues Requiring Science to Solve

President-elect Obama's choices for his primary science team are some of the more important selections he will make. Here is a post written a year ago that outlines why I would make that statement.

When one thinks about the variety of problems we face as both a national and global society, it becomes clear that science will be looked to to develop answers and solutions to many of these problems. It is also clear that we need to think of this as science in the broadest sense, as all areas and disciplines will need to contribute. This goes to the heart of the definition of consilience, as numerous areas of knowledge and expertise will need to mix together if we are to make solid progress in finding effective solutions.

To get the ball rolling, consider the following broad issues/problems. All of these will require contributions from a variety of scientific and technical areas of study...multidisciplinary tasks galore:

* Quality of air and water
* Fresh water supplies for much of the west and southwest
* Disposal of solid wastes (everyday garbage)
* Modernization and maintenance of national power grid
* New energy sources, better energy efficiency and conservation
* Climate change (both at an understanding level as well as preparing for consequences)
* Improved electronic encryption algorithms as we digitize everything (medical, financial records, etc)
* Transportation infrastructure
* Telecommunications networks, both development and maintenance
* Continued improvement and progress in computing technologies
* Mass electronic data storage
* Medical treatments for the disease of your choice. This includes stem cell issues, genetic engineering, drug R&D, and so on.
* Military related technologies
* Improved search technologies for earth-crossing asteroids (something I have yet to hear policymakers talk about publicly, but there are literally many thousands of sizeable objects that cross earth's orbit we should try to identify and monitor)
* Food supplies and quality control
* Disposal of nuclear wastes, nuclear proliferation issues
* Nanotechnology in general
* Security technology of all types
* Robotics
* Implementation of educational strategies and structures based on brain research and learning theory to best prepare the next generation of workers
* Continued development of network theory, game theory, etc., and progress in our understanding of complex systems for physical and social applications
* Materials science and development

I encourage comments with additional major issues that are technical in nature and subject to progress via scientific avenues; this is not at all a complete list. What we cannot forget is that further inclusion of other areas of study are intimately connected with just about everything on the above list, such as ethics, state/national/international law, economics, political science, sociology, public policy, military concerns, all areas of engineering, business/industry, job creation, international relations, anthropology, and countless subfields that fall under these larger areas of specialization.

The quicker we as a society recognize and realize the complexity, multidisciplinarity, and difficulty level of finding both short-term and long-term solutions to problems found in any of these areas, the better off we will be. The next president will need to address all of these during the course of an administration, as will every other prominent political figure in every nation across the globe. We will not be able to ignore any of them, and these loom as multi-generational issues that need to be solved. This will require leaders who are able to connect with the masses and communicate the seriousness of the issues, as well as move his or her nation toward a mindset of long-term planning and policy, something we seem to not be very good at.

We need to find and create massive numbers of people who are trained in the all of the sciences, mathematics, engineering and technology, and all the other fields mentioned above to remain competitive in a global marketplace, as well as the maintain and improve the quality of life for future generations. It is challenging work, but do we have any other choice but to address these challenges? Does our consumption-based and entertainment-driven society have the backbone and means to deal with these issues? Will we leave the world in better condition for our kids and grandkids than what we inherited?

Selections of Science Advisers Show Obama Wants Change in Science Policy

The general public will likely overlook the latest appointments President-elect Obama has made today. In naming science advisers, the public largely does not connect the dots of what those selections tell us about the President's views or the path the President wants to follow into the future. There are very few scientists who have 'big names' and there is next to no conversation or debate among average Americans about these selections as there are when, say, Secretaries of State and Defense are named. Those much more notable Cabinet positions have popular, 'big name' individuals at the helm.

Obama is appointing Harvard physicist John Holdren to the position of science adviser, who is the go-to person on science policy. A Harvard marine biologist, Jane Lubchenko, will direct the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA), whose primary concern now is climate change. These two individuals are big names in the scientific world and are both experts in climate change. Two other scientists who will co-chair the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology are Nobel laureate and former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Harold Varmus and MIT professor Eric Lander, an expert in human genome science.

While not household names, this is an impressive team. It also tells us something that will be an ENORMOUS difference with the respect and role science plays at the top of government policy: there actually will be respect for science and a respect for open inquiry, and a goal of gathering facts, data and evidence for policy decisions. The Bush administration has been notorious for ignoring science that contradicts the path ideology laid down, particularly in climate change policy (or a complete lack of such policy, as it turned out). The Bush White House routinely ignored policy initiatives and edited out of papers those scientific findings and evidence from government scientists that contradicted Bush policy. I suspect the world is breathing a collective sigh of relief as well with these appointments and the use of science Obama has in mind. I also would imagine that, while not interested in a formal position within the administration, former Vice President and Nobel laureate Al Gore will play a big role in the development of policy and gaining public and global support for U.S. leadership in its approach to one of the great crises humans have ever collectively faced.

I applaud these selections in the form of a standing ovation, as I am sure scientists all over the world are doing this morning. Science is going to lead the way in the solutions to an enormous number of incredibly important problems and issues. My next post will be a re-post of something I wrote a year ago. While largely under the public radar and fanfare, these are some of the most important appointments Obama will make, and will have a lasting impact on how we are able to attack significant problems for decades to come. I sense a renewed energy and enthusiasm and sense of urgency in the scientific community is upon us.

Inefficiency when Multi-Tasking

The Drs. Eide found a study showing what happens in the brain when driving and talking to someone else...not on a cell phone, but to someone else in the car. It turns out that this type of multi-tasking, just listening to another person while trying to drive, involves visual and spatial areas of the brain that are also needed for driving. In other words, listening robs attention and capacity from the parts of the brain required for safe and effective driving. Cell phone use while driving certainly does the same sort of thing, but we are just learning what happens physically in the brain that makes cell phone use so distracting and dangerous.

I should mention that I often, at stoplights, observe how many cars drive by with cell phones to the driver's ear. My record so far is seeing 8 cars in a row with drivers with a phone to the ear. The illusion for those individuals is that the cell phone conversation does not affect the driving, so there is no danger. We need to change this myth with the hard data and evidence of studies such as this to show multi-tasking is not as hardened as we want to believe.

I am looking forward to seeing additional studies related to classroom participation and learning while there are side conversations that disrupt other students.

Genius in a Group-Think Era?

Found an interesting article off Yahoo. It asked the question if Albert Einstein is the last great genius. This is a legitimate question in an age where 'group-think' is becoming the rage. There are obvious benefits to mass collaboration, largely making use of Web 2.0 tools and applications, and the best set of examples I have found are in the book Wikinomics.

One would like to think that individuals can still make a difference. I suspect this will still be the case, but less frequently than in the past. Ideas can blossom so quickly once numerous people share concepts and possible solutions to problems, but I would argue that there lies a chance that group-think may, in some cases, have one idea catch on that leads the pack on a path that ultimately runs into a dead-end. The notion of 'trends' and 'fads' hold true, and the 'latest craze' idea can attract most minds of the group. It may turn out that it will take an individual or small subset of the larger group to break from the group mindset, think outside the box, and develop an original idea that becomes the next focus of the group. Perhaps a good structure to a mass collaboration is to have numerous subsets working on different aspects of the problem from different points of view, so as to resist the temptation to fall into a 'fad' mentality. This falls in line with 'Mediciexity.' One example of the 'fad' mentality may be string theory. The concept of the 'string' is attractive to solving the ultimate questions of the universe, and over the past couple decades many of the most promising and powerful theoretical and mathematical minds have become part of that 'group.' However, all these years later there is not a viable, i.e. testable, theory that fits into the experimental realm of physics. Time will tell if this mass collaboration is worth it in the end...it may end up one brilliant idea, from one brilliant person, completely separated from the string theory group, will end up being correct. Individuals may still change the world.

Perhaps the notion of individual genius making its mark in the modern mass collaboration age is evolving to the point of the genius required to form the right group. Web 2.0 technology has been applied in an unprecedented way by Barack Obama and a small, few person group of advisers. The creativity, forward-thinking plan and then the discipline and message-delivery by Obama himself has taken a young, smart, but relatively unknown and inexperienced politician whose future was supposed to be a decade away (according the group-thinking of the more traditional political parties)to the presidency. It still takes individuals or very small groups to develop a concept and start the larger group/collaboration, so perhaps this is where we will see genius more often than not.

There will always be a place for individuals, so we need to be careful not to push young minds, which tend to be the most creative and open to new ways of thinking, entirely into a group-think mindset...they still need to be encouraged to think for themselves, be skeptical of the group, and not be afraid to offer up 'outside the box' thinking and creative solutions. I want my students, at least, to never shy away from individual interests and ideas, and to not just go along with the latest fad if they don't agree with it. As always, I am not a proponent of going with one way of doing something, but rather using variety; not to fall into a 'whole language only' or a 'phonics only' way of learning, but rather taking the good things from each and using them. Variety, in this case group-think and individual-think, and the good that comes from each, is the spice of the new Web 2.0 life.

Repeat Post: What are the Goals of K-12 Education?

I wanted to bring this old post back, with a hope of getting a larger discussion going, and to just , get us thinking about what we want from K-12 education in this country. With a new President coming in, I think we will see No Child Left Behind improved upon. This will likely fall into how progress of students is measured. Barack Obama has been talking in terms of longitudinal progress of individual students, with long-term learning being the goal, rather than snapshots of different groups of kids year to year. I would like to suggest that individual student growth be measured in a way as is done with the Measure of Academic Progress, or MAP, testing. This national exam series allows for more accurate student placement in math and English, as well as the establishment of growth targets for students and a measure of student academic growth.

Below is a link to an old post from last April. I hope it helps get us thinking about what we want as we are making a national and global transition from manufacturing and industrial economy to an information and energy economy, with global competition for jobs running wild.

http://vonscience.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-are-goals-of-k-12-education.html

The Science of Thanksgiving

This is for my senior students, who shared with me some Thanksgiving science anecdotes before the holiday. Scientific American has a few articles related to the science of Thanksgiving. Enjoy!

Learning Enhanced Through Stories

Learning and memory can be enhanced and improved 2- to 7-fold when done through stories, rather than through listening or just straight factual reading. The Drs. Eide have a post up with some additional references. It appears that this is true because story comprehension requires both hemispheres of the brain, whereas other types of learning stay within one or the other hemisphere. Research like this is what educators need to pay attention to.

E = mc^2 Verified using QCD

The most famous equation ever written down (besides 1 + 1 = 2, perhaps) is E = mc^2. People who never had physics can quote it, although I suspect most have no clue what it truly means. Now, using a very mathematically sophisticated theory called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, it has been shown that Einstein's equation accounts for the strange situation where a proton's mass is made up mostly of the energy of complicated particle interactions within the proton. Quarks and massless gluons make up the guts of a proton, and lattice calculations from supercomputers in Europe have now verified that the energy-mass equivalence works out to produce the observed mass of a proton, which is 1.6 x 10^-27 kg. Very cool! From a press release:

" According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons.

The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?

The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass.

By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times, most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.

But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles -- in equations called quantum chromodynamics -- has been fiendishly difficult.

"Until now, this has been a hypothesis," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.

"It has now been corroborated for the first time."

For those keen to know more: the computations involve "envisioning space and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete points spaced along columns and rows."

Al Gore's 5-step Proposal for Energy Independence

Former Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore wrote a recent op-ed in the NY Times. He outlined how the U.S. can begin to make real change regarding its energy usage, ultimately reaching a point of energy independence. Below is an excerpt where he outlines 5 points to address to reach such a goal:

"What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis -- and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.

First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.

Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with "smart" features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid -- $400 billion over 10 years -- pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

Third, we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.

Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings -- and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world's efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.

Of course, the best way -- indeed the only way -- to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution. "


Will we have the political will to transform the nation and its thirst for energy? The technology for most of what is proposed already exists. It will take a massive effort from out science and technology base, but I do not doubt this will work if we put our collective minds to it. No nation in the history of the world can accomplish great things like the U.S. has, when it has the right leadership and the collective will of the American people behind it. Now is one of those times.

Read the entire op-ed here.

Interesting Discussion between Zakaria and Friedman

Two journalists whose main focus is globalization and how energy demands affect the present and project how those demands will affect the future, Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman, had an interesting discussion with each other. Read the transcript here. I am presently reading Friedman's latest book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded," and it is very interesting. I hope the Obama administration will consider his ideas as far as what our economy will likely look like within a decade, and how what we do fits in with the rest of the world. I suspect how we transition from an information economy to an energy economy, and how we do or do not lead the world with such an effort, will define this entire generation. And it will also set the path the world will take and the conditions of the world in this century, which our children will inherit. Complex, massive problems, with enormous challenges to overcome, but we have no choice but to take it on head-on. I want to be optimistic and say we will figure it out (we already have a good start on the necessary science and technology to begin an overhaul of our energy infrastructure and production, but we have lacked political leadership...this is why I am excited about possibilities for changing this situation with the election of Barack Obama, who has bought into the notion that energy will dominate the new global economy, and he wants to see massive change in the U.S. within 10 years), but time will tell.

YES WE DID!!!

Congratulations to President-Elect Barack Obama!

Turnout is now everything...get the word out!

In a little over 48 hours, polls begin to open on election day. In many states early voting continues through Monday. The name of the game is TURNOUT!! If the trend continues and record numbers of voters come out, that should be good news for Sen. Obama. This is because of the newly registered voters, which began to drastically increase during the later stages of the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama, favor the Democrats by something like 4:1. It is now a matter of getting these new voters to the polls. Many of these are also younger voters, especially an explosion of college students. Bug those students and make sure they have voted or will vote. Polling data is meaningless on any election day, and all that matters is the actual turnout. Time to act!

Mental Math Ability

The Drs. Eide have a short post about mental math ability. Young children memorize numbers and the simplest arithmetic facts in the prefrontal region of the brain. But more complex math is done as the brain matures and grows in the parietal cortex.

The ability to have 'number sense' is related to the amount of white matter in the left corona radiata, which can be affected by premature birth, birth stress, dyslexia, and some other conditions at birth; these kids tend to have difficulty with math, and this new research helps explain why.

How does solar power work?

When the elections are finally over, we can move on to the real business of solving problems. I am especially anxious to see serious R&D, certainly more than what has happened the last few years, into new energy sources. Solar power is (hopefully) going to become a star player in the next national energy plan. To begin to learn about how it works, check out the short article from Scientific American.

McCain's Argument for today

Sen. McCain is back to bashing Sen. Obama about national security, with Bill Ayers back yet again in his speech, and the attempt to say that what Ayers did when Obama was 8 years old means Obama is a terrorist...or whatever twisted 'logic' McCain is hoping will stick with certain voters. But then he said something that caught my attention.

"The question is whether this is a man who has what it takes to protect America from Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida and the other great threats in the world," McCain said. "He has given no reason to answer in the affirmative."

He pointed out bin Laden and al Qaeda. Here is my thought: If it were up to Obama and his judgment, there is a pretty good chance we would not still be talking about bin Laden and al Qaaeda at all. It was Obama who did not want the Iraq distraction in the first place. Obama wanted to actually finish the job in Afghanistan, the true front in the war on terrorism. Had we put in the effort and resources into actually hunting down and killing off al Qaeda, the Taliban, and bin Laden when they were in our sights 6 years ago, we can only imagine where we would be as far as national security and the status of the U.S. in the world. I suspect it would be very different than what we have now.

Judgment, Sen. McCain, that is what this is about, and whst many people think Obama has when it comes to national security. At least we only have five more days of campaigning where we must listen to whatever new attacks McCain will throw out there, hoping to win on nothing more than fear and smear. He and his associates have gone through calling Obama a non-patriot, a terrorist, a socialist, a marxist, the usual 'tax and spend liberal' (even though his tax plan benefits 95% of American workers more than McCain's plan), someone who wants to bring back the welfare state (when has tax cuts been the same as welfare???), someone who wants to teach kindergardeners sex before reading, and so on. All of this is utter nonsense and/or things taking completely out of context. What new names McCain will come up with is anyone's guess, all of which is meant to stick in the back of undecided voters' minds when they enter the voting booth, hoping that fear wins out over true beliefs and, yes, the actual truth itself. I suppose it worked four years ago for W's re-election, so that is all the McCain camp has left as its argument for why he should be President.

Presidential Dance-off - Funny!

One of the funnier things I have seen recently can be found here. Check it out, and enjoy!

McCain Has His Own Baggage When it Comes to Acquaintances with Shady Pasts

Unfortunately, the McCain campaign has stooped to levels McCain himself had pledged never to reach, which is for lack of a better term 'character assassination' of Barack Obama. This happens when campaigns have nothing left and are behind. Some times it works, some times it does not. But beware, if Sen. Obama is forced to respond in kind, I'll bet he has ads in the vault that are ready to go at a moment's notice. McCain has plenty of old acquaintances and even those he calls friends that he admires, such as G. Gordon Liddy and a number of right-wing evangelicals and preachers (I imagine this is why he has put Rev. Wright off limits in his ads) who have made numerous inflammatory comments over the years that most would say rival what Rev. Wright has said on a few occasions.

But there are others that are not as well known. Check here if interested in some of McCain's associations that rival Obama's relationship on educational boards with Bill Ayers. I wonder why the press has not picked up on these?

Cool Photos - Nikon Small World Photos

Nikon sponsors a contest each year for the best scientific photo contest for small phenomena or objects. Some truly beautiful and wondrous photos can be found on a Scientific American site. Check them out and enjoy.

Children Under 12 Generally Don't Learn From Mistakes, But Respond to Positive Feedback

The Drs. Eide have a short post from Science Daily showing results of fMRI studies on children who try to learn from mistakes and those who try to learn from positive feedback, as well as older teenagers and adults under the same circumstances. Teens and adults have had their brains mature and develop pathways to learn from mistakes that they have made. Younger children generally do not learn well from the mistakes they make - the brain does not develop the same pathways in order for this to occur. There are always exceptions because of the uniqueness of individual brain development, but many more children under the age of 12 do not learn effectively from mistakes and are prone to make the same mistake. Positive praise and feedback works best for most children. Negative feedback is not effective either, as some teachers and parents may get angry with those children who make the same mistakes, rather than praise them for progress in moving away from a particular mistake. Very interesting and important for the home and the classroom!

Gen. Colin Powell Endorses Obama

This just happened about an hour ago, but Gen. Colin Powell, former National Security Advisor and Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State during Bush's first term, a Republican, and long-time friend of John McCain, has given what may be the most eloquent and thoughtful reason to vote for Barack Obama as I have heard. On Meet the Press this morning, laid out his thinking and observations of both candidates, and gave very specific reasons why he is for Obama.

He stated his deep disappointment in how the GOP has been moving further to the right over the course of the campaign, and how the McCain campaign has continued to focus on what Powell believes to be insignificant issues and trying to make great stretches in truth and associations, such as the Bill Ayers issue (if McCain himself has called Ayers a "washed out terrorist," then why does he matter as an issue in a presidential campaign?), when those issues simply aren't part of the problems faced by America and by Americans. Powell is disappointed in McCain's daily changes to his message, and incosistency over many months. He is disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin for veep, and that she is not ready to take over should something happen to McCain. This is not a typical campaign because of the numerous serious issues that need to be solved, and Gen. Powell wants all energy devoted to solving those issues; that will not happen with all the nonsense and inappropriate/false robocalls, etc., that McCain's campaign has resorted to.

He praised Obama for his intellectual curiosity and command of issues, his steadiness during the campaign and specifically the economic crisis we are in, and his trust in him to surround himself with experts of both parties for reaching his policy decisions, whether they are domestic of foreign policy/national security. Gen. Powell also strongly believes our international standing must improve, and that Obama is best suited for that, too.

See his endorsement for yourself.

McCain's Last Stand - Campaign of Fear

And now the final chapter of this election campaign - all out fear! Obama is a socialist! Obama will tax every citizen back to the Stone Age, just he will tax 'Joe the plumber' and ruin the American dream! (Anyone else sick of hearing that phrase, 'Joe the plumber' or is just me?) Obama is a terrorist! Obama kills babies! Obama is bringing down democracy itself! Obama is bringing back the black power era! Obama cares more about his campaign than a war! These, of course, are already out there and have all been statements of McCain himself or Palin, his running mate. (Interesting to note about Palin - when is the last time her campaign watchers allowed her to speak with the media on her own? She will be on the stump only, since her handlers are fearful of how she will be able to answer policy questions. Is this telling about her readiness to take over should something happen to McCain, who will still be the oldest person to take the office should he win? Her own campaign doesn't have confidence in her to handle the job, but still some flock to her)

And I am just waiting for this phrase to be uttered by McCain or Palin - We will be attacked by the evil-doers if Obama is in charge! Just wait, it will be said at some point if McCain is still down in the polls the last week of the campaign.

McCain and Palin's stump speeches are filled with these comments, and now the robocalls are out with completely deceitful and literally made-up charges against Obama. And McCain is still using charges he has brought up in all three debates that are blatantly not true, as confirmed by looking at Obama's campaign platform and countless checks by the media and even other Republicans (in fact, a number of high profile Republicans, including members of Congress such as Sen. Collins from Maine) who are in close races are asking for an end of the completely negative campaign of the person who once said something like, "mark my words, I will never go that rout, even if behind", because of the nonsense the Bush campaign laid on him in South Carolina in the 2000 primary race. McCain, time and time again, goes back on his word, back on his honor, and is simply a pure politician who will do anything and everything to be elected. But a good number of people buy into it.

Looking back from when the primaries began in both parties, who has been the most consistent candidate? I think it is clearly Sen. Obama. His message has not changed. His speeches and policies have not changed. All his opponents have ended up using his campaign slogans and philosophy, and have tried to mimic his unprecedented use of technology to build his vast grassroots foundation. He has tried to stay away entirely from negative ads, but has had to throw in some, which are based on policy differences or actual things his opponents have said, in the face of constant attacks by the other side. This is because the other sides have always been behind, and that is what trailing campaigns resort to.

I cannot help but reach the conclusion that McCain, who likes to think of himself as an honorable man, has lost that honor. He is beyond where he said he would ever go. Fact Check (on taxes for now, due to lack of time at the moment):

McCain's claims of raising taxes on everyone ("Watch your wallets" is his phrase nowadays) is utterly false, and anyone who has analyzed the tax plans will agree it is a made up charge, but that does not prevent McCain from scaring everyone in his ads and speeches and robocalls. It just ain't so.

- taxes: Obama gives a larger tax cut to 95% of working Americans than McCain. Only if net income is over $250000 will taxes go up. Why this policy? First, let's not forget that both candidates say they will raise spending because of the unprecedented number of major problems the nation faces. We are likely to have a deficit of between $800 billion and $1 trillion just this year. McCain wants to cut taxes on the wealthiest (he has never denied this) because his philosophy is trickle-down economics. That is where the difference lies between the two. The reason I support Obama's plan is that, with conditions as they stand right now, the middle class is in terrible economic shape. Personal debt is at historic highs on average, and savings rates are at historic lows on average. The average wages and take home income have been flat at best, and some studies show have declined when adjusted for inflation (largely due to gas and food price increases) over the past decade or so. With the additional economic collapse of global banking and lending systems, as well as the drop in personal wealth as home prices have declined sharply, everyone expects a terrible retail holiday season, more job cuts, and so on, as all this is linked together. The middle class, which is the engine that drives our economy with its spending, is not in a position to spend. If they do not spend, what business is going to be able to expand and create more jobs, as revenue and sales drop? By taking an approach to boost up the middle class, this will ultimately be good for everyone. Now the rich will still be rich, even after modest tax increases. That is simply a fact. But in order to offer tax cuts to help the rich become richer in the long-run (via higher middle class spending and purchasing), there is a good chance the super wealthy will do better long-term, even though they take a short-term hit. This is not without example, as it happened during the Clinton era. The history behind lowering taxes across the board, with increased spending, is record deficits and a hit on the economy long-term, as happened with Reagan and now Bush, and perhaps McCain if he wins.

By the way, Joe the plumber would do much better under Obama's tax plan than under McCain's. He makes far less than $250000. And Joe said the business would cost about $270000 to buy...but guess what, that would not be his take home pay if he were ever to make the purchase of the business. After expenses, payrolls, benefits for employees, and all the rest businesses are allowed to deduct on their tax returns, his take home pay would certainly be well under a quarter million dollars. He would not see one cent of a tax increase! He would likely see a tax break! This is why something like 98% of small businesses are not going to be affected by the Obama plan, and actually helped!! And with Obama's health care plan, there are further cost reductions and tax incentives for small businesses, which will likely be the biggest source of new jobs. Question for someone who knows: Is the definition of 'small business' one with less than one hundred employees?

The Contradictions of McCain's campaign

It seems that Sen. McCain cannot quite find a way to connect with average Americans during the last days of the campaign for President. He has yet another new stump speech, desperately trying to find any sort of message that will change the momentum of the race with Sen. Obama. First, neither he nor Sarah Palin have mentioned Obama's name or any reference to Bill Ayers the past two days. They realize that version of a stump speech and strategy was counterproductive and actually turned off some swing voters because the people want to hear what will be done for the economy, not personal attacks about things that happened a decade or more ago. Obama was smart to stay on the issues side, and rightly stated McCain simply wanted to divert voters' attention from the issues. Obama appeared more concerned for the average American, and he appeared more presidential staying away from character assassination.

So now McCain is back to issues supposedly, but that may be a war he cannot win at this late date. This past week of trying to bring Obama down instead of raising himself up could have been the last bit of precious time McCain had, and ended up wasting it. McCain is only adding on to the view he is erratic, with no clear strategy or message in a crisis situation that requires leadership, not speeches given after polling data is available. Contradictions galore now have enveloped the McCain campaign.

He was a major force for deregulation for decades. Now in the heat of the campaign and down in the polls, he wants us to believe he is a lifelong fighter for regulation and oversight. He was running on experience, but when that became inconvenient with the economic collapse, he is now a fight for change. He puts country first as a slogan, but chooses a running mate that was clearly a campaign first action. Just days before the crash of the market, he said the fundamentals of the economy are strong - The next day he says things are a disaster. He wanted an honorable, issues campaign, and we saw what that turned out to be in the past two weeks. He continues, even today, to insist Obama is simply going to tax us back to the stone-age, when Americans have paid attention and know that is an utter lie; Obama will give tax relief to 95% of taxpayers and also proposes a bigger tax cut than the McCain plan. He suspended his campaign to work in Washington (on committees he was not a member of...), then came back and said things would pass when suddenly that evening his Republican friends in the House did not pass the bailout; should a President not be able to handle multiple issues and crises at a time? Obama looked strong by staying engaged via technology, working Democrats to vote for the bailout plan, while still campaigning, and came in when appropriate and helped get the deal done. And Sarah Palin's line today was,

"There's anger about the insider dealing of lobbyists. Anger about the greed on Wall Street. Anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite,"

She is correct about the anger. But consider this: McCain's elite campaign staff is almost entirely made up of lobbyists (some 60 throughout the campaign), while Obama does not have any paid lobbyists. Greed on Wall Street was able to flourish in part because of the deregulation McCain has advocated and supported for decades. Is not a senator who has been in Washington for 26 years not part of the definition of Washington elite? I am not sure this is a good line to use since it works against Palin's own party candidate.

We'll see if his latest 'plan' and speech does anything, but with all the contradictions I will predict not. Next week, or perhaps sooner, we are likely to hear an entirely new message and plan. Americans are apparently seeing through all the pandering and desperation, which has been helping Obama.

Early Voting Begins Today!

For those former students who log in from time to time, keep in mind that early voting begins today in Illinois, and it has already begun in a number of other states. Please make sure to vote, regardless of who you are supporting, for this is how our voices are heard. Many have died to give us this right, and it is our responsibility to do so as citizens. Encourage friends in person, over the phone, through email and text messages, through Facebook and other online options, but keep in mind you can be difference makers in this election if your age-group turns out in force. Your future is at stake with the major problems (economic, climate change, energy, security) we face, so do not take this election lightly or for granted, because it will likely be close. Thanks, and stay in touch!!

Two Unknowns for the Election

Polling suggests that Sen. Obama has been building statistically significant leads in national polls of likely voters, as well as in a growing number of state polls. One fear among his supporters is that there will be a "Bradley effect" in this election, in reference to Tom Bradley's run for California governor. Bradley, an African-American, was up significantly in opinion polls right up to the election, and ended up losing the election. Other races between a white and non-white candidate show similar drops in actual votes compared to opinion polls. Will this be the case this year? No one can answer that question except the voters. Because of the economic mess countless American families find themselves in, if people truly feel better with Obama in control rather than McCain, will that trump any racial bias they may have for Obama? No one knows.

But one other aspect of the race that is not being talked about as much is the turnout of younger voters. The 18-28 block of voters is notoriously absent in elections. This is a group of voters that overwhelmingly support Obama. Typically these are voters who are newly registered, have never voted before, and therefore do not come up on 'likely voter' lists that are in turn used for polling purposes. There are literally multiple millions of new voters in this election, which are Democratic by something like a 4:1 margin. If they actually do turn out in large numbers, and economic conditions trump racial bias, the election will be won by Obama. If they turn out in the usual percentages (in the 25% range, for example), and there is a real racial factor, it is more of a toss-up. If there is a large turnout of young voters and a Bradley effect in the electorate, my best guess is that they cancel each other out more or less, and Obama would end up being the winner. Besides some unforeseeable event that will change the dynamics of the election, these two factors are the two unknowns that will determine the results in this historic election.

Palin Reportedly Abused Power as Governor

The bipartisan panel in Alaska has apparently found Gov. Palin unlawfully used her power to try and have a state trooper fired. Known as "Troopergate," the panel, which originally was formed by fellow Republicans, came out with its initial findings tonight. The governor has built herself up as a self-proclaimed 'reformer' and 'maverick' and one who wants to clean up Washington. I was never too sure about all those claims, and perhaps McCain will look back and wish he had actually done a bit of vetting before making his decision. It will be interesting to see how the McCain spin machine tries to wiggle out of this one over the next day or two, for it just came out.

Some Thoughts About How to Teach Science

There is a very good, thought provoking post on Phil Long's blog (from MIT and U. of Queensland). It is based on the Carl Wieman lecture and his thoughts on new research that should be guiding science teachers at all levels. Carl Wieman was a co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in physics, for his work on Bose-Einstein condensation.

A Campaign Not for the Weak Hearted

The McCain campaign has actually admitted today that they are "taking off the gloves" in the presidential campaign. This is entirely predictable and expected, as McCain has run one of the more negative campaigns in recent memory. He has tried everything he can think of to keep media attention off of issues and policy positions, as he is aware he cannot win the election if it is in fact based on what each candidate wants to do for the country. It is yet one more admission that the campaign slogan of "Country first" is a front for "Campaign first."

Sarah Palin is now the attack dog, bringing up the Bil Ayers issue against Barack Obama at fundraisers and campaign stops today. The quote that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" is going to be but one more daily attempt to slow the Obama momentum. Some how they want the public to buy into something that has been out there since the days when Obama ran for the Senate, and anyone who has looked into the matter, which includes numerous papers, reporters, and opponents/political enemies have concluded there is no such thing as the 'buddy-buddy' relationship McCain and Palin will try to paint. The latest investigation into the matter was the New York Times, which concluded there is no close relationship at all. Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was a member of the radical Weather Underground, an anti-war group that did in fact act out bombings at government locations. While as despicable as Ayers' actions were, Ayers happened to move on and become a professor of education and has been active in Chicago Public School reform movements, such as small schools. This is how Obama and Ayers met, as they served on some of the same boards/committees when Obama moved to Chicago and worked in the community. The numerous investigations looking for close, personal and friendly relationships have concluded that there were none...McCain will try to use guilt through association to tilt the public towards away from Obama. Obama has never expressed any support for Ayers actions decades ago when the two did not even know each other, has denounced what Ayers did in his earlier life, has never had a friendship with him, and certainly has never used Ayers as an adviser, which I am sure McCain will try to state, though false. I can only imagine McCain and his allies will next bring up Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I would have to believe there are a number of ads from left-wing groups just waiting to bring out all of McCain's associations and skeletons over the last three decades, such as the Keating five and numerous radical right-wing preachers with whom McCain has been associated (and who believe, among other things, AIDS is God's way of getting homosexuals, etc), as well as a series of almost daily flip flops on the state of the economy and other issues. Does he really want to go there? Apparently so.

If McCain wants to continue this path as the thrust of his campaign, so be it. Obama will continue to address the problems that need to be solved, and keep plugging away on what he wants to do to solve them. He will continue to take the lead in appearing presidential rather than blatantly desperate, as McCain will, or at least should, appear. Is this what Americans want during the campaign, during a time when I suspect the vast majority of voters don't want their future leaders playing in the mud while they are on the verge of losing their homes, retirement savings, and health insurance? Give me a break, McCain. And one last thing...can someone please remind Sarah Palin she is running to be the Vice President of the United States, and not the vice president of the high school student council? I am personally so entirely sick of the 'folksy' and 'cute' commentary on her debate performance, where she consistently spewed out gibberish instead of talking about anything that resembled actual answers to the questions or any hint of detail in policy positions. And I cannot imagine, should she, God forbid, ever be President, that sitting across the table from a Vladimir Putin discussing nuclear proliferation and national security issues, that winking and saying that she looks forward to working 'wit cha' and being cute are going to win over any amount of respect. This is a serious job, 'doggone it,' and I'd like her to at least act like she understands that. She should also brush up on her high school civics so she understands the veep is only allowed to vote in the Senate to break a tie.