Login to Change.org
Create an Account
James Fabiano
York, ME
Jim Fabiano, a teacher and writer who lives in York, is a past recipient of the Maine Press Association’s award for Best Weekly Column, and writes an education blog called 'Dinosaur of Education”. You can E-mail Jim at: jfabino@maine.rr.com, or comment on his blog at: http://fabiano.magic-city-news.com/
Recent Activity
-
James commented on the article |In order for consumerism to succeed we need consumers By J. G. Fabiano
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said that President-elect Barack Obama's proposed fiscal stimulus package could help the economy, but he added that additional bailouts of financial institutions may also be needed to bring about a sustained economic recovery.
So far, as far as I know, we have bailed out the banks, Wall Street, giant investment firms, insurance companies, and the automobile industry. Remember the bail out comes from our tax dollars. If our government does not have the money they will borrow it. This means we will not only have to pay back the principle but will also be responsible for the interest. We are told if we don't do this dire consequences will happen that will make the Great Depression look like a weekend in Burmuda.
The new administration is discussing ways in which the tax payer can get some help from the disaster that was caused by the people who caused the economic downturn. These are the same concerns we are being asked to bail out. Some ideas include giving everyone a $500.00 deduction and extending unemployment insurance. These programs would help but they would not turn the consumer around to buy more and thus pull all of us out of the recession.
I have an idea. This concept should be popular with the millions of people who are having a difficult time paying their credit card debt. This will not be popular with the banks even though it could liquidate many debts and thus make the banks more liquid. I understand the banks would rather have a bail out with few strings attached but so would the people who are paying for the bail out today and well into their futures. Hell, well into the futures of their children.
I propose a means the credit card customer could negotiate a payment that would eliminate the balance on the card. For example, if a consumer has a rolling debt of $5000.00, they could negotiate with the banks of giving them a payment of $3000.00, that would eliminate the debt. The credit card company would then limit the credit line to $1000.00 until the customer proves that he or she can handle the debt. This would allow the consumer to consume again. Today the consumer is only allowed to negotiate the finance charge on the debt. If a person falls behind on payments these charges could make it literally impossible for the consumer to ever pay it off.
Obviously the banks would lose some money. But, lets talk about the alternative. If the credit card customer is unable to handle the debt of $5,000.00, and goes into default the credit card company would be forced to bring the customer to court. This would cause an expense to the bank. One might say the customer would be forced to pay the expense but remember they couldn't pay the debt in the first place. In court the judge would ask the credit card company and the consumer to make a deal so the customer could pay the debt. This is usually 50 cents on the dollar. What I am stating is the bank would end up losing more money than they would if my proposed idea were put into effect.
The banks that refuse to help their customers would not get any money for a bail out. The bank card customers would also not lose standing in any credit bureau. There would be no penalty for the consumer as there is no penalty to the banks for a bail out. Each individual bank and consumer would work their own deal. If a customer has a poor credit rating then the deal would be equated using their credit standing. If a customer has a good credit rating then a better deal could be made. A watch dog agency would have to be used to make sure both the banks and creditors live up to their agreement.
If the banks decide to refuse this proposal I sincerely believe we, as tax payers should refuse to give them money as a bail out. Our nation is built on consumerism. If our population can't consume because of financial restraints this massive recession will never go away. In fact, it will grow into something our children and our children's children will have to deal with throughout most of their lives.
Jim Fabiano, a teacher and writer who lives in York, is a past recipient of the Maine Press Association’s award for Best Weekly Column. You can E-mail Jim at: jfabino@maine.rr.com.
-
James commented on the article |I would like to discuss how inquiry can be used to both educate and motivate our students into both the sciences and engineering. The best way to discuss this issue is to use ‘Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and their variations.’ Written by, the National Science Education Standards. This was written in 1996 long before testing became the most important part of public education. In other words, long before NCLB came into existence.
They discuss essential features of an inquiry based education. The document then goes on to explain how there are variations to these features. For example an essential feature could be to have the learner engage in scientifically oriented questions. In other words the student is responsible for the question itself. Without the proper training this would be an impossible task to ask any student. The variations to this would be to have the learner pose the question. This is still high in the amount of learner self-direction. If the student is still uncomfortable with this process he or she could select among a group of questions or the learner could sharpen or clarify a question provided by the teacher. The worse case scenario is what is happening today in that the teacher tells the student what the question is and provides materials and references.
Another essential feature would be to have the learner give priority to evidence in responding to questions. Variations could include having the student determine what constitutes evidence and then collects it, or the learner could be directed to collect certain data. The present day scenario would be to have the student given data by the teacher and told how to analyze it. I am not saying this is easy and it doesn’t entail a complete change in our curriculums but if we want to produce more scientists and engineers in our nation instead of importing them this change is critical.
In a classroom a student could be asked to formulate explanations from evidence he or she produces. The student could also formulate exploration after summarizing the evidence. I am sad to report in most of today’s classrooms the learner is provided with evidence from the teacher giving little to no ownership by the student.
In the inquiry based laboratory the student should be able to connect explanations to scientific knowledge learned in a lecture. Here is where content is critical. Then the learner could independently examine other resources. These connections should not be supplied by the teacher.
I believe the most important part of any inquiry based activity is to have the student communicate and justify explanations. This can be done with the whole class asking questions. The students would have to both explain and defend their work. The teacher can’t continue to provide the student with steps and procedures for how they will communicate their work.
Inquiry based education is critical if we are to compete in a global society that was forced upon us a decade ago. If we are to succeed with this task the concepts of testing, stringent curriculum mapping, and over-populated classes have got to go away.
-
James commented on the article |This will probably be cut or blocked or whatever else the powers to be will control the content of this blog. By the way, it is one of the better sites I have seen in awhile. I just wish all concerns would be left alone. Oh well. As far as evolution vs. intelligent design is concerned I don't see why there is a problem.
Let me explain:
I do not understand why people have to argue which concept or religion represents truth. Let me see if I can get this straight? The fundamentalist concept is based on the idea that man was created in God's image and what man is, is what he has always been and always will be. Of course, this image has to be the Evangelical Christian image. Because of this concept most fundamentalists are against any form of Darwinian evolution or any theory, which hints that man evolved from anything different from being created in the image of God. The fundamentalists have gone so far as organizing their beliefs in a discipline called The Science of Intelligent Design.
So, the Christian Fundamentalists and the evolutionists seem to be in direct confrontation with each other. I don’t understand this. I believe the fundamentalists make their biggest mistake in equating an idea of science to something that is anti-religious, even atheistic. As an educator and a Christian I believe it is imperative to discuss why any idea of science, by definition, has to be an example of thought that is based on theology.
Let me attempt to explain. Looking back eons, which are billions of years, physicists have been able, through mathematics, to show where all our origins were formed. At least back to 1.0 x 10-42 of a second before everything began. They discuss how sub atomic particles were formed and go back into the theory of the beginnings of our universe and thus energy itself. In fact, these so-called secular scientists go back to the hypothesis that we all evolved from the first spark of a star. After this a natural system of evolution took place.
The Christian fundamentalists do not appreciate this type of thinking because they believe this concept is the antithesis of the Christian belief that man was created in the image of God by God. This is the precise point where the fundamentalists lose sight of what the scientist and educator is striving to construe. Remember that physicists state that man can theorize and correlate how matter and energy began back to a micro piece of time. Before this all scientific ideas are blind. The scientists, not the fundamentalist, states that we must have faith that at this time, in this creative mix, all was originated. If the fundamentalist wants to divide this pre one-mega-millionth of a second into seven days, I am certain the scientist would have little argument.
A unified theory of the origin of the universe has been worked on since the times of Aristotle. Einstein considered his life a failure because he was unable to describe a unified principle that would have explained the beginning of time. Most physicists today realize this unified idea must be something so obvious, so beautiful, that maybe man, as a species does not have the capacity to understand its simplicity.
Man has always been intrigued by the term beginning; genesis. In man's quest to discover how the beginning originated, scientists, no matter what their beliefs are, realize that a vacuum is always established before the beginning. This vacuum is then easily replaced by that non-secular term, "faith".
Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian educators are always exclaiming that they are trying to re-educate our children in the ideas and laws of the Christian Faith. They must remember that we are all blessed with a sense of curiosity to seek one's roots and thus one's beginnings. Why the Christian Fundamentalist thought and Secular Scientific ideas are in direct confrontation is beyond all logical understanding. Scientific knowledge should never be considered an evil idea or a misrepresentation of any type of religious thought. It is simply a means of understanding what was and because of the consistency of nature, will always be.
Albert Einstein summed up this controversy between science and religion by stating, “"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."
Jim Fabiano is a teacher and a writer living in York, Maine
-
James commented on the article |Can you imagine a national curriculum attempting to teach the same material to a student in Brooklyn, NY and a student in Wyoming? Private control of education is critical if we are to build our education system back where it should be.
-
James commented on the article |I teach in a successful school in New Hampshire. This year the entire district is now using open source softwear. Obviously this is saving the district a lot of money. The largest problem I see is with the secraterial staff who wants to go back to microsoft product. Most of their computers now use the licensed microsoft office products. My students and my colleauges have little difficulty with the free programs. The only glitch I see is with their spreadsheet program. I have been told this will be corrected.
Universities still use microsoft programs. So, when my students go to post secondary work they do find some problems evolving into the old system. UNH has both.
I applaud the district in its attempt to save money. We are far from a rich district. -
James commented on the article |Working with many levels of education policy I have come to the conclusion money fuels policy as it does with research. The government used to have the deepest pockets but now it is time to go to private businesses and institutions if we want to be able to fuel change.
-
James commented on the article |Is there anyone else out there who is afraid?
Back in 1960, I wore a white shirt and dark string black tie in order to become a part of the New Frontier. I hoped my future would be filled with Peace Corps activities and with me evolving into becoming an integral part of Camelot. I was enthused, confident and full of hope. In my room was a giant poster of Kennedy's Inauguration and for months I tried to memorize his remarkable speech. I was young, I was open and knew he would lead the free world, the only world I knew, into all of our futures.
In 1963, my hopes were crushed. I remember feeling the vacuum of what happens when a person's beliefs are crushed and nothing is put into its place. I hated that feeling as much as I loved the way I felt before that dark November day.
I remember being confused to the fact that a man who did not have the same color skin I had could invoke such remarkable hope. I applauded this new face for our future yet did not have the courage to join his quest. I lived in a suburbia that had no people who did not look like me. The idea of a black man, woman, or child living in the same neighborhood I lived was simply not possible. To this day I defend my feelings by saying I wasn't a racist. I was just ignorant to the fact all men, women, and children were the same. But, then again, I guess this is the definition of racism.
In 1968, I once again felt the emotions of what I felt only five years before. I remember thinking I had no right to feel what people who supported his dream felt; but I did. How could anyone hope to destroy a dream by killing its dreamer. I became confused and lost.
But, still being young I came back. I remember the excitement of the elections of 1968. I wore the young man's denims hoping to be a part of a new era of belief and trust. I would be part of this new and young future of America. I followed his quest to be the second Kennedy elected to the White House. I watched in amazement how the hordes of followers filled every room he spoke in. At that time I thought my life was re-born in the fact there is hope for all of our future. I once again fell into another man's dream.
In 1968, my hopes were finally crushed. The vacuum returned with drugs, alcohol and defeat taking its place. History states I was not alone. Many of my peers couldn't believe this could happen to the same generation again. Trust and hope were finally defeated. I cried and swore I would not allow myself to ever open up again to trust and hope for my own future.
Now in 2009, as an old man, I am again looking up hoping the future of my country will be better than its past. I want to become a part of this tall skinny man's dream of having our nation once again have the all overwhelm the few. I am almost ready to join his crusade.
But, I am afraid. Is there anyone else out there who is afraid?
-
James signed the petition | -
James commented on the article |I am afraid........ By J. G. Fabiano
Is there anyone else out there who is afraid?
Back in 1960, I wore a white shirt and dark string black tie in order to become a part of the new frontier. I hoped my future would be filled with Peace Corps activities and with me evolving into becoming an integral part of Camelot.
In 1963, my hopes were crushed. I remember feeling the vacuum of what happens when a person's beliefs are crushed and nothing is put into its place.
I remember being confused to the fact that a man who did not have the same color skin I had could invoke such remarkable hope. I applauded this new face for our future yet did not have the courage to join his quest.
In 1968, I felt distressed. How could anyone hope to destroy a dream by killing its dreamer. I became confused and lost.
But, being young I came back. I remember the excitement of the elections of 1968. I wore the young man's denims hoping to be a part of a new era of belief and trust. I would be part of this new and young future of America.
In 1968, my hopes were crushed. The vacuum returned with drugs and alcohol and defeat taking its place. I cried to myself and swore I would not allow myself to ever open myself up again to trust and hope for my own future.
Now in 2009, as an old man I am again looking up hoping the future of my country will be better than its past. I want to become a part of this tall skinny man's dream of having our nation once again have the all overwhelm the few. I am almost ready to join his crusade.
But, I am afraid. Is there anyone else out there who is afraid?
Jim Fabiano, a teacher and writer who lives in York, is a past recipient of the Maine Press Association’s award for Best Weekly Column, and writes an education blog called 'Dinosaur of Education”. You can E-mail Jim at: jfabino@maine.rr.com, or comment on his blog at: http://fabiano.magic-city-news.com/
-
James commented on the article |Testing and vouchers and competencies; oh my !
The ides of March are once again upon us. This is a depressing time for most of our nation’s teachers. This is the time most state tests come out telling the citizens of our states how miserably our schools are failing. This is an especially difficult time in New Hampshire because the first report of our 11th grade NECAP tests have just been reported. The math tests were especially disappointing with only 28% of our students attaining a proficient level.
For the past decade or so I have been inundated with information about how NCLB and school vouchers will save public education. Anyone who is involved in education clearly understands that NCLB and vouchers will do the opposite. In fact, I believe both these systems were invented in order to do just that.
The NCLB state tests were supposedly developed to improve education. These tests were dynamic in that the schools had to improve every year if they were to receive the title, ‘annual yearly progress’. If they do not achieve the inflating scores they are considered a school in need of improvement. If the schools do not improve over the next year funds could be taken away from them. If this is not a blue print for failure I do not know what is.
Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D. wrote an article in “Human Events.com” titled, “School choice is the cure for over-priced, underperforming public schools”. Dr. Murray is a senior fellow in education studies at the Pacific Research Institute in Sacramento. I just wonder if she ever taught in public education. Most people who assault what our public schools are trying to accomplish usually have never stepped into the shoes of a teacher.
Dr. Murray explains, “Replacing the ossified monopoly system of assigned government schooling with a competitive, diversified education marketplace would introduce powerful incentives for all schools to perform. Money would follow students to any district-run or independent charter public school, regardless of family income or address.” She goes on to explain how, “Universal vouchers, tuition tax-credit-scholarships, and education savings accounts would help parents in all income-brackets send their children to private, non-government schools, which are about half as expensive as public schools, on average.” By the way, stating that private schools are less expensive than public schools is a point well worth investigating.
Let’s take some time to discuss what a possible voucher system would do to our public schools. First of all, all public schools have to take in all levels of students. This is a law that should be kept in place. What I mean is the public schools are filled with special needs students, English-as-a-second-language students, transitional students who transfer multiple times because of social and/or economic reasons, and students who simply do not want to be there. Private schools are not required to take in these types of students. They can and do decide to only take the highly motivated students. This is also true of religious schools.
So, if a public school is not performing because of remarkable challenges put before them people like Dr. Murray suggests we allow the parents of the motivated students to take their money out of the public schools in order to enroll and thus help pay for the tuition of a private school. The students left behind will have less public support and thus eliminate any chance they have for success. More schools will fail and there will be a mass exodus away from public education. Supply and demand will then have the tuitions of private schools increase thus only allowing only the more affluent students to enter their institutions. The public schools will then weaken to the point of closing thus leaving the poor and middle class children permanently behind.
This is actually happening now with our more motivated and successful students transferring to private schools thus lowering the average of the standardized tests. By the way the private schools are not mandated to take these tests for after-all they are private.
For the past decade I have observed a wider gap between those in society that are well off and those in society struggling to survive. Placing a voucher system in education will just widen this gap.
Impact
1 Action
0 Recruits