Margaret Spellings is under fire

[cross-posted at Moving at the Speed of Creativity]


U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings\nis under fire. Not only is the Department of Education dealing with the Reading\nFirst corruption scandal, challenges to the reauthorization\nof NCLB, and blowback from the recommendations\nof the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, apparently Secretary\nSpellings also is receiving heat from members of Congress and others for the Department's\nproposal to cut all educational technology funding at a time when many folks\nare quite concerned about America's ability to remain globally competitive (see,\ne.g.., A nation\nleft behind on ed tech?).\n


What's Spellings' solution to her ed tech problem? Well, according to one of\nmy well-connected sources inside Washington, she seems to be setting up a series\nof invite-only 'ed tech\nroundtables' to talk about educational technology issues. Her first one was\nin March in New York. She\nsaid that she met with some of the 'leading minds in technology and education,'\nbut two of the three people she listed, Wendy\nKopp of Teach for America and New York City\nSchools Chancellor Joel\nKlein, aren't obvious fits for that label and many of\nthe other participants seemed to either be government types or corporations.\nShe did hear from a few K-12 educators about their uses of digital\ntechnologies.


My inside source's biggest concern is that the major ed tech organizations –\nISTE, CoSN, SETDA,\nNACOL, many of the foundations, etc. – are\nbeing completely left out of the conversation. These groups have done an awful\nlot to further the cause of K-12 educational technology. At some point one hopes\nthat they will have an opportunity to participate in these roundtables.\nMoreover, Secretary Spellings likely has some purpose in mind for these\ndiscussions. The last time she did this kind of thing it resulted in the Commission on\nthe Future of Higher Education, which immediately made most postsecondary\ninstitutions quite unhappy. Is she planning a similar group for K-12 educational\ntechnology?


Another issue that will be of concern to many is her seeming interest in\ntechnology for data collection purposes, not for pedagogical purposes. As a\nparticipant in the first roundtable said, "She was especially interested\nin the role of technology in collecting data about kids and their achievement\nlevels." If students truly are to become globally competitive workers,\nattention must be given to effective classroom technology usage that helps\nstudents learn, be creative, and become collaborative problem-solvers.\nTechnology to collect performance data on yearly, summative, standardized tests\nof basic skills isn't going to cut it.


The biggest challenge for Spellings is that her rhetoric doesn't coincide\nwith her actions. She says that\nunderfunding of technology in schools is a big problem, but the Department's\nfailure to fund the federal Enhancing Education Through\nTechnology (EETT) program gives her statements no credibility. The federal\nTechnology Innovation\nChallenge Grant program, the Technology Literacy\nChallenge Fund, the Preparing Tomorrow's\nTeachers to Use Technology (PT3) program, the Community Technology\nCenters, and the Regional Technology in\nEducation Consortia – they are all gone. The only thing left is EETT, and\nnow the feds have proposed zeroing out that budget yet again.


If you're an educational technology advocate, it is time to spread the word\nabout what's occurring (e.g., link to this post!), express your concerns to\npoliticians and policymakers, and educate those around you about what the issues\nare and what potential responses might be. Although it's not quite clear what\nSecretary Spellings is doing with these roundtables, the notable absence of the\ned tech organizations and a seeming emphasis on NCLB-related technologies is of\nat least some concern. And of course the biggest concern of all is the fact that\nthe U.S. Department of Education, under Secretary Spellings' watch,\nkeeps trying to walk away from our children's technologically-suffused\nfuture. I wish it weren't so, but it's hard to interpret the facts\nany other way.


Be informed. Be proactive, not reactive. Get involved.


Political division is nothing new. Throughout American history there have been numerous flare ups in which the political arena was more than just tense but incideniary. In a letter addressed to William Hamilton in 1800, Thomas Jefferson once lamented about how an emotional fervor had swept over the populace in regards to a certain political issue at the time. It disturbed him greatly to see how these political issues seemed to seep into every area of life and even affect people's interpersonal relationships. At one point in the letter he states:

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Today, we Americans find ourselves in a similar situation, with our political environment even more splintered due to a number of factors. The advent of mass digital media, siloed identity-driven political groups, and a societal lack of understanding of basic discursive fundamentals all contribute to the problem.

Civil discourse has fallen to an all time low.

The question that the American populace needs to ask itself now is: how do we fix it?

Discursive fundamentals need to be taught to preserve free expression

In a 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey by Cato, it was found that 71% of Americans believe that political correctness had silenced important discussions necessary to our society. Many have pointed to draconian university policies regarding political correctness as a contributing factor to this phenomenon.

It's a great irony that, colleges, once true bastions of free-speech, counterculture and progressiveness, have now devolved into reactionary tribal politics.

Many years ago, one could count on the fact that universities would be the first places where you could espouse and debate any controversial idea without consequence. The decline of staple subjects that deal with the wisdom of the ancients, historical reference points, and civic discourse could be to blame for this exaggerated partisanship boiling on campuses.

Young people seeking an education are given a disservice when fed biased ideology, even if such ideology is presented with the best of intentions. Politics are but one small sliver for society and the human condition at large. Universities would do well to instead teach the principles of healthy discourse and engagement across the ideological spectrum.

The fundamentals of logic, debate and the rich artistic heritage of western civilization need to be the central focus of an education. They help to create a well-rounded citizen that can deal with controversial political issues.

It has been found that in the abstract, college students generally support and endorse the first amendment, but there's a catch when it comes to actually practicing it. This was explored in a Gallup survey titled: Free Expression on Campus: What college students think about First amendment issues.

In their findings the authors state:

"The vast majority say free speech is important to democracy and favor an open learning environment that promotes the airing of a wide variety of ideas. However, the actions of some students in recent years — from milder actions such as claiming to be threatened by messages written in chalk promoting Trump's candidacy to the most extreme acts of engaging in violence
to stop attempted speeches — raise issues of just how committed college students are to
upholding First Amendment ideals.

Most college students do not condone more aggressive actions to squelch speech, like
violence and shouting down speakers, although there are some who do. However, students
do support many policies or actions that place limits on speech, including free speech zones,
speech codes and campus prohibitions on hate speech, suggesting that their commitment
to free speech has limits. As one example, barely a majority think handing out literature on
controversial issues is "always acceptable."

With this in mind, the problems seen on college campuses are also being seen on a whole through other pockets of society and regular everyday civic discourse. Look no further than the dreaded and cliche prospect of political discussion at Thanksgiving dinner.

Talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner

As a result of this increased tribalization of views, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to engage in polite conversation with people possessing opposing viewpoints. The authors of a recent Hidden Tribes study broke down the political "tribes" in which many find themselves in:

  • Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
  • Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
  • Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
  • Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial
  • Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
  • Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
  • Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,

Understanding these different viewpoints and the hidden tribes we may belong to will be essential in having conversations with those we disagree with. This might just come to a head when it's Thanksgiving and you have a mix of many different personalities, ages, and viewpoints.

It's interesting to note the authors found that:

"Tribe membership shows strong reliability in predicting views across different political topics."

You'll find that depending on what group you identify with, that nearly 100 percent of the time you'll believe in the same way the rest of your group constituents do.

Here are some statistics on differing viewpoints according to political party:

  • 51% of staunch liberals say it's "morally acceptable" to punch Nazis.
  • 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
  • 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.
  • 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
  • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
  • 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

Understanding the fact that tribal membership indicates what you believe, can help you return to the fundamentals for proper political engagement

Here are some guidelines for civic discourse that might come in handy:

  • Avoid logical fallacies. Essentially at the core, a logical fallacy is anything that detracts from the debate and seeks to attack the person rather than the idea and stray from the topic at hand.
  • Practice inclusion and listen to who you're speaking to.
  • Have the idea that there is nothing out of bounds for inquiry or conversation once you get down to an even stronger or new perspective of whatever you were discussing.
  • Keep in mind the maxim of : Do not listen with the intent to reply. But with the intent to understand.
  • We're not trying to proselytize nor shout others down with our rhetoric, but come to understand one another again.
  • If we're tied too closely to some in-group we no longer become an individual but a clone of someone else's ideology.

Civic discourse in the divisive age

Debate and civic discourse is inherently messy. Add into the mix an ignorance of history, rabid politicization and debased political discourse, you can see that it will be very difficult in mending this discursive staple of a functional civilization.

There is still hope that this great divide can be mended, because it has to be. The Hidden Tribes authors at one point state:

"In the era of social media and partisan news outlets, America's differences have become
dangerously tribal, fueled by a culture of outrage and taking offense. For the combatants,
the other side can no longer be tolerated, and no price is too high to defeat them.
These tensions are poisoning personal relationships, consuming our politics and
putting our democracy in peril.

Once a country has become tribalized, debates about contested issues from
immigration and trade to economic management, climate change and national security,
become shaped by larger tribal identities. Policy debate gives way to tribal conflicts.
Polarization and tribalism are self-reinforcing and will likely continue to accelerate.
The work of rebuilding our fragmented society needs to start now. It extends from
re-connecting people across the lines of division in local communities all the way to
building a renewed sense of national identity: a bigger story of us."

We need to start teaching people how to approach subjects from less of an emotional or baseless educational bias or identity, especially in the event that the subject matter could be construed to be controversial or uncomfortable.

This will be the beginning of a new era of understanding, inclusion and the defeat of regressive philosophies that threaten the core of our nation and civilization.

A new study says alcohol changes how the brain creates memories

A study on flies may hold the key to future addiction treatments.

Scott Barbour/Getty Images
Mind & Brain
  • A new study suggests that drinking alcohol can affect how memories are stored away as good or bad.
  • This may have drastic implications for how addiction is caused and how people recall intoxication.
  • The findings may one day lead to a new form of treatment for those suffering from addiction.
Keep reading Show less

Watch: The first AI-scripted commercial is here, and it’s surprisingly good

A new AI-produced commercial from Lexus shows how AI might be particularly suited for the advertising industry.

Technology & Innovation
  • The commercial was written by IBM's Watson. It was acted and directed by humans.
  • Lexus says humans played a minimal part in influencing Watson, in terms of the writing.
  • Advertising, with its clearly defined goals and troves of data, seems like one creative field in which AI would prove particularly useful.
Keep reading Show less