JaneB

Good to acknowledge agreement eagleye :)

I think there is enough ignorance, small-minded-ness and self-servingness from many angles and quarters to create our failing education system. I don't disagree that unions are a big problem as they exist today, but even those who are supposedly well-intentioned have the wrong operating assumptions about what kids need in order to be engaged and succeed not only in school but in life.

The unions or the Common Corers or those upholding the current advanced degree grantors are all trees. The paradigm, our underlying assumptions about the nature of reality and human capacity, is the forest.

I have almost 35 years working with internationally known pioneering physicists, brain scientists, physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, mathematicians, biologists, biochemists, immunologists, virologists, astrophysicists, and Native American, East Indian, Asian, West African, Mayan, Egyptian, and Tibetan cultural leaders. I created a human capacity curriculum that for 25 years has had a consistently positive impact. Working in education is very near and dear to me. My most recent success is 4 years working (pro bono) at an almost all-black high school in a city's highest crime, violence, poverty neighborhood, with the boys' basketball team (I also work with athletes and I myself became a world champion figure skater in my 50's). Back in the day, the school had 1,200 student. Because of problems in the neighborhood and school, enrollment had dropped to 165.

The team was in last place when I was asked to help turn the team around by the then-new coach. They went from worst to first in the conference the first year and second year and by year 3 became state champions. Best of all the players have a 95% graduation rate, all seniors since the head coach and I started have gone to college (and stayed), and the school - in 3 years - grew to 400+ and many more slated for the coming year.

I now work with varsity, JV and c-squad. These boys are amazing. They've had to face challenges that would crush many. I have witnessed the racist comments and taunts when they travel. There have been games where parents of the opponent came over to apologize for the blatant bad calls on our kids. But our kids handled themselves so well we also got comments commending their composure in the face of great disrespect. When a student failing math as a sophomore gets so motivated by what he's learning that he catches up on all his homework despite the teacher telling him it was impossible, you'd think people who really care about RESULTS would want to explore a solution - even if presented by a democrat. When that sophomore ends up getting a scholarship to Morehouse, you'd really think people might want to know more.

In the years this story would come up in a discussion like this, never has a republican ever asked for more information. They find a way to get back to hammering me or Democrats for some reason or another. Too bad there doesn't seem to be an interest in exploring new ideas that could actually bridge some differences.

Out for the day - have a great one!

JaneB

My son, who graduated from U of MN in biological sciences and went to a "good public school", also doesn't know how to read cursive. It's not just the ones in lock up.

I gave him a card a couple years ago and he was reading it so intensively and apparently more than once that I thought he must really like what I wrote. He then says "Mom, I can't really read this". It wasn't that I was sloppy...he couldn't read cursive! I was shocked.

Have a great day.

Big Bass

That's common core for you.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Never meant to infer that lockup had anything to do with the inability to read cursive, just that that's how it was brought to my attention. Hell I wish they'd teach children how to socialize and actually interact without their "beak" stuck in a phone.

JaneB

So talking about education (and explaining my experience) when commenters make sweeping generalizations about black youth and education, or ask a question about teaching and curriculum is blather.

I guess all you can handle is hurling sound bite insults or "facts" that don't hold water. A discussion about anything outside FOX talking points has nowhere to dock with you so to speak.

"Edumacation"...what a perfect example of the desire to make sweeping and insulting generalizations about people and subject matter you know little about. Fortunately there are many - both republican and democrat - in business and the non-profit sector, who have the mindset and skill set to face facts and approach major problems with the kind of new consciousness that Einstein said was needed to solve them. This was an interesting break from my schedule but I have to get back to the work of creating new possibilities out of old probabilities. I actually don't spend much time with politics but I wanted to see what the conversation might yield.

I saved all the exchanges to a document so if I happen to hear or see the same claims that were waged here, I have my correct-the-record posts handy.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Did you ever answer my simple question?
Do you believe that phonics is the way to teach a child to read?
That was the case many decades ago, when children were reading by the second grade or sooner.
It was a requirement.

JaneB

Good morning eagleye,

There are many vital aspects to education that I have delved into deeply. I honestly haven't really looked into phonics vs rote as you initially asked me at any depth or observed it or even paid attention to either - or I should say to "rote" for reading.

What I did say eagleye is that I am not a fan of rote learning or memorization, and that reading to and with kids (and when you read with kids don't you naturally sound out the words while pointing with your finger?) is very important. I also said that we should use whatever works for each child and maybe rote has something to offer some children.

I answered your question. I don't have the time to do further research on phonics vs rote and I will be the first to admit that I know a lot but I don't know, or care to know, about everything. But I am happy to share my answers and opinions based on what I do know. If I've done the research and found solid evidence, with interdisciplinary and multi-demographic corroboration, and I can point out specific flaws in detractors' positions (while their efforts to debunk are sweeping generalizations, out of context citations, sketchy sources, attacks on diversionary things or people, and avoiding direct questions or substantive refutation).

I gave you my opinion. It sounds to me like you are correct that phonic makes a lot of sense. I will defer to you on this and hopefully have more time to learn more myself though when I brought up education it's not because I know the technicalities and pros and cons of math, science, English, history, etc, conventional teaching modalities. To me that's being in the trees. Which is not to say the trees aren't important!! So thanks bringing this very important tree to my attention.

On a departing note I will add that because research shows that 1) being in alpha brain wave state (alert relaxation) is optimal for the brain's capacity to receive, comprehend, and remember information - i.e. to learn, 2) imagery - a right brain hemisphere capacity - is highly experiential and teaching using imagery engages more of the student and facilitates the reception and integration of information, and because I have first-hand seen the impact over 25 years on 1000s of students and professionals, I know that whatever we teach, if we don't understand how to activate our brain and mind's fuller capacities, then we cripple students and the efforts to teach them. And until we get out of the box of the materialist mechanistic operating assumptions we will limp along to the cliff's edge. To me that's the forest.

No physicist today is going to insist there are only 3 dimensions (plus time). If there are more than just 3 material/physical dimensions, wouldn't it make sense humans are wired to navigate them? And maybe that's why we have a whole half of a brain capable of transcendent perceptions that perhaps can access the rest of the light spectrum that our limited 5 physical material senses can only catch a mere glimpse of? But education traps everyone in left brain processes and in a reality defined and limited by our 5 senses. That's one of the reasons mind altering drugs have such strong appeal...we are wired to seek transcendent perception and experience. I mentioned Harvard neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor who for 8 years perceived and experience life and reality through her right brain. What we write off as hallucinations or flights of fantasy are in fact quite real - on a different level. Many children with a lot to offer come in with lots of right brain strengths and all kids have right brain capacities and requirements - but we don't leverage/meet any of them.

Our brain includes the emotional brain/limbic system that we share with animals and mammals - many of who exhibit great bravery, protection of other species, friendship across species, compassion, empathy and a love that can be very therapeutic and healing. We do nothing to develop our emotional brains. Our brain also includes the reptilian brain/nervous system and we do nothing to help children master their own physiology and fight or flight response. We can be taught to regulate heart-rate, blood pressure, respiration and brain/body biochemistry. Instead we herd millions onto medications. Our neocortex has a r and l hemisphere and a frontal lobe. We ignore the right hemisphere and we think the frontal lobe is "executive functions" like an extension of left brain logical analytical thinking. The frontal lobe is about assigning meaning...that we get to choose what facts will mean to us...unfortunately most people don't rigorously reflect on and choose their meanings, they just swallow meanings they've been conditioned to accept. We are wired to seek transcendent meaning and interconnectedness. But we hit brick walls starting very young.

Sorry this got rather long! Best to you. I will check back later this evening to see if you had a comment or question and I would reply before checking out tomorrow morning.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Excuse me but,

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage----according to Wikipedia

Collusion--n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends. It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma's estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners.

Now the question remains, which part of Trump's side or even the Russians side, was a "deceitful agreement"? Where is the evidence to support,
1. an agreement?
2. the limitation of competition?
3. the defraud of/ or gain an unfair advantage or a third party with whom they are negotiating?
4. secret price? wage fixing? secret rebates? or pretending to be independent of each other when they are actually conspiring together for joint ends?

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt these questions. So, I am now asking them.
1. What, if any agreement was reached between Trump and the Russians? What were the terms?

2. proof of limitation of competition---How was this accomplished? Trump's competitors were, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. How did the Russians assist Trump to "limit the competition"? Remember Collusion happened after the RNC had a candidate. So this section falls apart. (Now looking at the facts, of election fraud that was brought to the attorney general when Bill Clinton was campaigning at the polls against Massachusetts election laws, against Bernie Sanders, that can be considered collusion)

3. The defraud of/ or gain an unfair advantage.....Poll numbers put Hillary Clinton in the lead all the way up until James Comey reopens the email scandal investigations. So, how did the accused Trump team/Russians change the FBI director's mind? Remember Comey was for Hillary Clinton. What made him reopen the email scandal investigations and report it publicly to Congress? Was Comey bribed and if so, by whom? Comey is the responsible one, did he conspire with the Trump campaign? However this theory falls apart, since the Trump campaign and Comey didn't get along. Was it the Russians? The FBI and Homeland Security were working as a team so even that theory falls apart. And if Comey was bribed, that would be conspiracy and bribery not collusion.

4. finally there is the conspiracy. The Russians hacked the already compromised Hillary Clinton server, which was probably connected to the DNC server. This is possible. We already know, that she was using private servers which the department of cyber security said that her private servers could be easily hacked. Is this the backdoor of how the Russians got in? And for what purpose, Bill Clinton was according to the News well received in Moscow with his speech. Trump on the other hand, was feared by the Russians and respected by Putin. Now I know there is word out there that Putin is not creditable. Actions in Syria showed that recently. This is understandable, however Trump and Putin are not really getting along. So why would Putin team up with Trump, when he's got Bill Clinton in the bag. The theory seems to fall apart.

What I am saying is simply this, Trump could have had a million meetings with the Russians. It doesn't mean any deals were made. In Business, unless the terms are on paper, there is no deal. Where's the deal? Remember, Trump is a master Business man, where's the documented agreement? There was an agreement between the Clinton foundation and the Russians however. This is common knowledge that is played down to a low key agreement. What is in that agreement?

Just like I told Pete, there is more to this than what meets the eye. To satisfy the law, and accuse Trump, the prosecution must establish certain criteria. These four questions are the criteria. In addition to the Who, What, Where, When, Why and How.

Jay Sekulow from the American Center for Law and Justice, already described this particular point on Fox News and the ACLJ's website. Since this topic seems to be the "jury" let's review these facts.

Within the evidence I have read against Trump, did anyone ever read the message. During the campaign Trump tweeted about a rigged election. Is it possible that the election was rigged against Trump? But when he made that accusation, the other side got scared and retracted the rigging? And if that's the case, is it possible that the collusion was from someone other than the Trump camp?

Everytime we go through the so called evidence and timeline, the focus is on what Trump said, without shining the light on the meaning of what he said. That's a major problem here. Remember, and Pete would remind me over and over again about this principle, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Trump attacked Hillary Clinton about fixing the election when Bernie Sander's supporters went to the attorney general of Massachusetts, to complain about election fraud. That was dismissed by the attorney general. This sparked the Trump tweet that brought up the accusation that the election was fixed. Why did the press dismiss that tiny bit of evidence, which could bring the accusation of Trump collusion to Clinton collusion or even Obama collusion, with the press being mislead or even worse, the Media misleading the people.

And the smoking gun, golden question: If Hillary Clinton suspected that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, why did she concede the election? There is smoke of voter fraud. The press failed to speculate on that too. Making this collusion thing more personal against Trump. If Trump is guilty of a crime, why did Hillary concede? We all can speculate that either Trump colluded or not, but Hillary Clinton has to be the one to accuse Trump of collusion for it to really go to court. Then Trump would have to confront his accuser. In this case the accuser would be Clinton, the supposed injured party.

Collusion is very hard to prove, like that of harassment. So there is more to this story. For those of you, who support Trump, do not be mislead by what I wrote. I support Trump. But I do not support this investigation unless they can answer and prove the answers to the questions stated above. All must be answered to uncover their plot. Let's take it a step further. The silent majority voted for Trump in the election. When the election tally was finally completed, Trump won by a majority. The people plainly said in various polls that they trust Trump over Hillary. The economy and welfare of the Country increased after the election but since day one, Russian Collusion trumped Trump.

Now collusion as defined above is the legal definition setting the stage for the required evidence to prove if collusion was done. Concrete evidence must support the answers to the above questions for the answer to be "Yes, Trump colluded with the Russians", Intent and motive must be proven. To date these key points of the so called evidence, accusing Trump, are using only his speeches and tweets. The Supreme Court declared that cannot be used, just recently in the case of the Immigration Ban. Trump just like every American has free speech. Therefore that is not collusion. Just be cause you dare someone to do something, does not mean you are liable for the dare if they do it. And a dare is not bullying, is not collusion. Trump dared Russia in turning over the 33,000 Clinton Emails to the FBI. That's not collusion. You know why? He did not deceive anyone about it. He was straight forward in the dare. And when you dare someone, they usually do not get anything out of it. Therefore, any speech Trump used is immaterial concerning this case. It shows his character and intent in the very words he chooses to use, but it is immaterial towards collusion. He did not use a false narrative to deceive the public or the Russians. That's why it is not collusion. He has been open and transparent about that.

damn this is a long post, I guess the democrats will make it longer oh well.

S. Maturin

--Here's one more for your collection:

First, I have some trepidation about entering into a verbal exchange with self-appointed authorities on, say, education and educational procedures. You seem to be setting yourself up as an expert simply because you had two successful children of whom you are rightfully proud. But since we all know, "pride goeth before a fall", I should caution you on trying to elevate yourself by attempting to belittle others. An educated person would refrain from that cheep trick.
Demanding to know my personal experience working with minorities- why you singled out blacks is interesting- is a frivolous move lacking in sincerity and a thinly veiled attempt at degrading whatever you think I said.

By the way.. you wish to, again, elevate yourself above many others by declaring you have no purpose for rote learning which prompts me to elaborate by telling us just how you taught your kids their numbers, their letters, their speech, writing , etc., if not through rote?

Discrediting rote by using the ultra liberal, popular snide remark that 'rote learning is "teaching to the test.." is being completely disrespectful of a major part of the learning which is necessary to becoming MDs, scientists, mathematicians, and even 'persons of word mechanics'- journalists.

There are things which we all learn which have to be learned by memorizing and to royally declare that such necessary exercise is 'teaching of the test' simply reflects a most simple evaluation and one which one hears in faculty rooms where accountability is not well though of.

Also, your declaration that learning this or that involves only specific parts of the brain .. where did you get that discarded information? All the latest information counters the left/right hemisphere business because better evidence tells us when learning complex and even not-so-complex skills involves a lot of information sharing by many parts of the brain. The brain seems to have evolved since you last read about it.

So, what can we discuss next- phrenology, perhaps? http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n01/frenolog/frenmap.htm

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"I answered your question. I don't have the time to do further research on phonics vs rote and I will be the first to admit that I know a lot but I don't know, or care to know, about everything. But I am happy to share my answers and opinions based on what I do know. If I've done the research and found solid evidence, with interdisciplinary and multi-demographic corroboration, and I can point out specific flaws in detractors' positions (while their efforts to debunk are sweeping generalizations, out of context citations, sketchy sources, attacks on diversionary things or people, and avoiding direct questions or substantive refutation)."


It is basic, no need for "educated" gobbledegook.
The results tell it ALL.
Results, Results, Results.
Reading was at the core of educational destruction.
Common Core is the latest insidious attack, on our public education system and our country.
The destruction of Public Education did not happen by stupidity.
An agenda has been in place by the Left/Liberal establishment.

What you fail to acknowledge or understand is the agenda;
Seeing the Forrest from the Trees.

JaneB

Hi Randy, Just as it was a crime to break into the Watergate offices to get information, hacking into computers to get information is illegal. There is obviously a lot of evidence that the Russians hacked or were aiders and abetters. Enough evidence that 17 intelligence agencies agreed there is reason to investigate.

There was an agreement to meet to receive damaging and illegally procured information. An agreement to meet so that the Russians could give valuable information for free (as a gift) to the Trump campaign. Jr agreed to the meeting with a fond “I love it!”. He was very much into entering the agreement to receive valuable information, illegally obtained, from a Russian lawyer with Russian govt and Russian intelligence ties.

It was a secret meeting...about which how many Trump campaign staff were deceitful? (What about honesty, integrity and honor?) What were they hiding if so innocent?

Russia is a hostile foreign govt. Trump and the campaign have Russian mob ties. There are many facts that have come out only when investigations uncover them...not because of Trump campaign integrity, honesty, or honor...or transparency. Honesty under duress is so diluted it's not honesty anymore. At best it's confession after getting caught red-handed, at worst it's another round of manipulation.

What were the agreements in those meetings that Flynn and Manafort had with the Russians that they deceived you into thinking they never had? And Sessions. Did you believe your sources that said they never met with the Russians (…before they changed it to never talked about the campaign or sanctions…before they changed it…)? Such honesty and integrity…are we tired yet of so much honesty, integrity and honor from Team Trump?

“Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends” but this leaves out – as seems to be a habit – a critical additional point (from the legal definition): or to obtain that which justice would not give them.

Maybe wiki and Webster are not as good a source for this as a legal dictionary? I guess it depends on whether you care about the quality of your source and the thorough quoting of all relevant aspects.

Legal definition: “Whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them” To get hold of that which otherwise legally wouldn’t be available.

Randy: "Now the question remains, which part of Trump's side or even the Russians side, was a "deceitful agreement"? Where is the evidence to support,
1. an agreement?
2. the limitation of competition?
3. the defraud of/ or gain an unfair advantage or a third party with whom they are negotiating?
4. secret price? wage fixing? secret rebates? or pretending to be independent of each other when they are actually conspiring together for joint ends?

The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt these questions. So, I am now asking them."

Please refer to my comments above. If you ask questions that sidestep the incriminating angles and aspects, you can conveniently ignore evidence for them.

You ask a lot of questions without answering mine. I stopped at a dozen that aren’t mere rhetoric but are important, relevant and appropriate. Dogmatists avoid directly responding to questions and will pivot and deflect or avoid totally. If there are questions of yours that aren’t rhetorical that I missed, I am happy to answer them if you repost.

Please first answer these dozen questions that you have ignored, or repost if already answered. Are you aware of what you overlook?

1) You didn’t answer why you only cited half the finding, leaving out 38,000 as the lower range [of non citizens who voted], and why did the report make it sound like Harvard had a finding of millions that it didn’t have? Weak, weak, weak sourcing. Just because you will cite any source doesn’t mean it’s automatically a credible source.

2) how about the fact of Trump's court filing to dismiss Stein' lawsuit? Her lawsuit was the only way a recount could take place...you don't think his attempt ("actual action") constitutes "one iota"? Is filing to stop a lawsuit an "action"? [You could not present any actual evidence that an entity or person not connected to Trump, the campaign, or the republican party was behind that action. No evidence, just assertion]

3) Where do you get your information that he wanted the recount and did nothing to block it? FOX News? [Truly I want to know]

4) And if you think Trump cares about saving tax payers' money, why does he go golfing every weekend or every other week if he is so concerned...to the tune of $20M in the first 100 days[?]

5) After referencing Forbes article "Trumps' family Trips Cost Taxpayers Nearly as Much in A Month as Obama's Cost in A Whole Year” I asked you Where the heck do you get your information [that Obama’s travel “extravagance” cost tax payers so much and that Trump is keeping his costs so low]? You are providing a great example of the disconnection your beliefs have to facts on the ground.

6) After referencing LA Times: "Trump and supporters ask courts to halt election recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin...", NY Times: "Trump Backers Go To Court To Block Vote Recounts in 3 States" and in that article "Michigan's attorney general, a Republican, filed suit to stop a recount in Wisconsin..." (Could have referenced more), I said/asked: Um...Trump and Republicans...and you wouldn't assume it was coordinated action (yes "action')? [What is your evidence that this is fake news?]

7) Randy, are you suggesting that a man who mocks the disabled, shames a tortured POW for being captured, insults a Gold Star mother and father, talks about grabbing women's pussies because he's a celebrity...the man who pretends he's a pr guy and pitches stories about himself to the gossip columnists has honesty, integrity and honor? The man who has put people out of business because he frequently decided to break contracts? The man who has out-of-the-ballpark more lawsuits than the TOP 5 real estate developers in the country COMBINED, the man whose buildings went up with undocumented labor, who had to close his foundation because it was not legally fit? Who never settles except when he does, like in the TRUMP U $25M fraud case (fraud), the man who doesn't want to show visitor logs and says there were no meetings with Russians, except that there were many meetings with Russians? The man who said he won with the greatest margin in history (far from the truth) and had more people at his inauguration than Obama (photos show that to be false)? The guy who called his time at work a sacrifice comparable to someone going to war or losing a child to war? Who didn't serve because he had bad feet? That guy has character traits of honesty, integrity and honor?

8) why you would leave off the fact that Clapper clarified he likely WOULDN'T have seen the evidence, to make the point he was not saying there was no evidence, but just that he hadn't seen any. Is that another sign of integrity? To leave out half the story?

9) I looked for the "widely reported" admission above of the Judge...could find nothing other than a FOX report stating "In his 31 page decision, US District Judge, Paul Diamond [an appointee or Republican President George W] there were at least 6 grounds that required him to reject the [recount]....Most importantly...compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised."

11) Can you provide links to the Judge's "widely reported" admission [that he stopped the voting recounts in Pennsylvania because he was warned that in the heavy Democratic polling precincts that they had many more votes than they had registered voters…]?

12) Also can you provide links to the independent investigations that found millions of cases of voter fraud? (You only gave the name of an article and some manipulated references in the article. Got actual links to the alleged “independent investigations that found millions of cases of voter fraud”?)

Dogmatists like to avoid direct questions by asking more of their own. I’ve answered yours and won’t consider answering any new ones if you can’t answer mine from before. I need to wrap up early this evening and there are a few of these. Thanks!

S. Maturin

" Enough evidence that 17 intelligence agencies agreed there is reason to investigate."... that has been totally debunked. It has been acknowledged false and misleading.

As for Trump and the Russians (without relying on a haystack of verbiage) eighteen months of intense investigation and not one scintilla of evidence. What does that tell you--- in 1000 words or less?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Yep,kankune; if only more people could get focused on current events. The ones covered up by the Liberal MSM AND FOX.

USA’s” Foreign Policy
USA Foreign Policy is CFR/CIA/NeoCON foreign policy.
The globalists have had it covered in both parties:
This is what the USA's CFR Foreign Policy has created all over.
All for "protecting" or establishing human rights? Libya before; Syria, Iraq and Ukraine now.
As always; follow the money

The road to WWIII by StormClowdsGathering.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4

What's really going on in Syria? Let's look at the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk&list=PLs34WGo3KNh3eg1CWdEoZCUVF0T8M6eha

JaneB

I apologize if your comments were not especially directed at black youth, especially males. I drew the wrong conclusion given you said:
“The kids- especially males- deeply resent the idea of going to school and show that by their drop-out rates, especially among blacks. So, those males drop out by the thousands, go thumping about all their lives as unemployable, dangerous loads on society demanding *entitlements* the liberal/progressives are only too willing to give them so to 'hook' them on free shat just like how their drug lords will 'hook' them on drugs.”

“…especially among blacks. So, those males drop out by the 1000s,…” is what I reacted to.

Regardless, as that group stood out among drop outs generally, some experience working with them as well as with students across the board would bear on one’s informed ability to comment, don’t you think? I am curious how much exposure you’ve had to adolescents and high-schoolers, in general and in the minority in education settings? I am curious where you get your information.

Maybe you missed it when I posted it, but I have 30 years’ experience teaching in all kinds of settings with all kinds of student populations, and working with internationally recognized leaders in science who’ve been on the cutting edge challenging institutional assumptions. I’ve had the good professional fortune to work with pioneers like the former chief of Brain Biochemistry at NIH, co-founder of the first Harvard Mind-Body Clinic, chairman of the Psychology Dept at Marquette University, Dean of Materials Science at Stanford, Dean of Academic Affairs at NASA Academy…not to mention the research available online and in my own work to apply new operating assumptions. My expertise is why I was invited into a struggling inner city school to work with the basketball team which became state champions and the players influenced a school turn-around, with the players at a 95% graduation rate in just the first 3 years.

By the way.. you wish to, again, elevate yourself above many others by declaring you have no purpose for rote learning which prompts me to elaborate by telling us just how you taught your kids their numbers, their letters, their speech, writing , etc., if not through rote?

First of all I said I wasn’t a fan of it, but that if it works for some it should be available. I twice was very clear about that. I am concerned it is too meaningless and mechanical. How is rote learning – the mechanical memorization of what kids need to remember for a test – not teaching to the test? And even if it’s NOT teaching to the tests, if it’s not working for millions of kids and if teachers themselves are complaining about it, why wouldn’t you want other options? Do you want a central authority dictating rote if teachers and students want something else that could work much better? You think faculty or teaching staff should have no say in how or what gets taught? Is that right?

I hope I already clarified that the use of repetition is warranted but rote is something else. It is a mechanization. I said I’m not a fan of rote or mechanical memorization. There is a difference between using repetition as part of the teaching/learning process and using rote memorization. Rote memorization is disconnected and boring for many if not most kids. There’s science and there’s student and teacher reports indicating that rote doesn’t fully engage students on many levels. How exactly is that “ultra liberal”?

Repetition includes a dimension of meaning and not just bare facts. The difference might be subtle but it’s there. The right brain is about subtleties.:)

JaneB

S: “Also, your declaration that learning this or that involves only specific parts of the brain .. where did you get that discarded information? All the latest information counters the left/right hemisphere business because better evidence tells us when learning complex and even not-so-complex skills involves a lot of information sharing by many parts of the brain. The brain seems to have evolved since you last read about it.”

First of all, S., the assumption that because the brain acts like an integrated unit it therefore can’t have specialized functions, is flawed. By that logic, a soccer team can’t function as unit and also have specialized player positions. Is that right?

There may be the assumption that because the brain has the capacity to compensate if certain areas are damaged, that means there are no specialized functions. That makes about as much sense as thinking a hand isn’t specialized for things like turning door knobs because a foot can learn to do it.
Fact: When doing mindfulness or meditating, brain waves change. Fact: Certain areas see increased activity. That means a brain can be more or less activated. It’s not just on/off. Did you know that?

How do you reconcile the fact that certain activities or processes can heighten activity of the brain or engage otherwise not-very-active areas of the brain, with your belief we are using all of it all the time?

Where do I get my information? From various sources including:

Kevin Boehm Yale Scientific April 2012: "When children were shown images and asked to tell a story about them, function was lateralized strongly in the left hemisphere for over 90 % of participating children. However, when asked to listen to an emotional story, both hemispheres of the brain were activated to a similar degree...The stories the children listened to, unlike the pictures, were emotional, which may indicate that the observed involvement of the right hemisphere is linked to emotional regulation."

Exactly in keeping with the (according to you “outdated”) 2012 research, story-telling that activates imagination activates the right hemisphere and balances L and R engagement. How do you explain that with your ‘no specialization, the brain always works as one’ set of assumptions? Can you? Or did you just accept what you read on wiki?

Einstein’s corpus callosum connecting the left and right was as vibrant as a twenty something when they looked at his brain because he used both. Why do you think he said imagination is more important than knowledge? Or that intuition is more important than rational thought? (One can be non-rational without being irrational…another case of subtle but significant difference.)

If you think they are interchangeable and not specialized, why do you think the right brain has significantly more connectivity to the emotional/limbic system than the left? If they’re no different why not equal? Could you only venture a guess?

July 12, 2011 by Martha Burns, Ph.D the Science of Learning: "...Several neuroscientists have accordingly revised and expanded the early right-left dichotomy to see the right hemisphere as preferential in processing form, structure, and perhaps, direct links to emotion, while the left hemisphere handles complex, rapidly changing stimuli, in which discerning the specific sequential order is critical to perception (as in speech perception, for example, where one must discern and order very rapidly changing complex acoustic events very quickly.)…the right hemisphere is preferential for pattern analysis, and comes from developmental neuroscience which has reported research that supports the contention that for most cognitive skills the right hemisphere matures before the left"

Stroke Smart Magazine July/August 2007 AMAZING BRAIN Right vs. Left: What Does It Mean? By Jay Schneiders, PhD:
“In the case of tasks such as talking, listening, reading and writing, both sides of the brain constantly communicate and work together no matter what we think, feel or do. Still, the left side of the brain does process information differently from the right side. This is especially important to stroke survivors who have had a stroke on one side of the brain or the other."

Rational thinking (I use both) would look at the evidence and say that L and R have complementary functions ideally working together at a high level for optimal results. It’s not rational to assert that just because the brain is an integrated unit (of course it is), it therefore doesn’t have specialized functions. The center of a lacrosse team has a special role and is an integrated part of the team unit.

Please share a link to the current research and findings that you say debunk specialization? What are your sources? The one experiment I’m aware of that gets touted as BIG evidence, is quite lazy research. If you believe that one study makes your point without stopping to think, wow it’s just one study, or thinking, hey, they were measuring activity while someone was lying in an MRI tube. C’mon. That’s your gauge for evaluating full usage of the brain? Someone lying in a tube? But that’s the “evidence” that many use to show that the brain is integrated. You didn’t know that already?

Roger Sperry’s Nobel L/R brain research kept going with further verification of the nature of hemispheric specialization, and check out Harvard neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor who knows the brain and experienced what life is like operating out of the hemisphere we subjugate.

You may cling to your dogma, but don’t think there aren’t lots of very credible scientists AND RESULTS that support all that I’m saying. Even an avowed detractor of the notion of hemispheric specialization in education was forced to concede there is definitely specialization. Which of course wholly undercut his claim of no bearing on education. He didn’t see that. He also didn’t see the hemispheric lateralization study of kids in the classroom from verbal to imagistic. That’s pretty solid evidence. Rote learning doesn’t engage enough of the brain. That’s why I’m discrediting it. Can you see that? How is it ultra-liberal? I want kids to learn and have many modalities available besides the mechanized memorization that I suffered through as a kid.

It's amazing that you would engage to argue about rote but express no interest in what could change a whole school in a struggling neighborhood, and unthinkingly dismisses research and findings that are both current and positively impactful.

If you answer even half the questions I ask I would consider reading your next reply...if one comes. If not we can make this goodbye :)