John, you make a good point, but conservatives are just as guilty. On more than one ocassion, we've seen national boycotts targeting companies that provide benefits to same-sex couples, regardless of any other features of those companies.
Pointing fingers doesn't get us anywhere.
Mackey is a man of paradoxes, as The New Yorker presents him. Unfortunately, if you've only read this post by Cameron Scott, you'd think the New Yorker article was all about Mackey's "bully pulpit" and his denial of climate change. But the article also reported that no one at Whole Foods makes more than nineteen times what the average employee makes, whereas the typical S&P 500 CEO makes 319 times what a production workers does. The article also discusses Mackey's philosophy that companies should embrace a social mission as well as a profit-seeking mission. Many of Mackey's positions might seem incommensurate with the ideals we left-leaning progressives uphold, but that is what makes him such an inscrutable - and perplexing - personality. Cameron, please do not consider my criticism a personal attack. My critique is simply that you presented only part of the story.
P.S. My experience in schools has convinced me that there is not just one problem with our educational system, but a host of problems all needing ameliorated. We need inner-city after-school programs as well as a better model for teaching students with special needs as well as more technology as well as a more student-centered teaching philosophy as well as a better model for assessment, etc. There is not just one problem, and there is not just one solution.
Lynn, as a teacher myself, I appreciate your genuine concern for children with special needs, whether those needs are cognitive, behavioral or socioeconomic.
Of course teachers need to improve their mastery of teaching and seek ways to meet the needs of all students, as Joe seems to be suggesting. Perhaps adopting a different teaching philosophy would help for many students. But the fact remains, as Lynn points out, that not all students' needs can be met in a traditional classroom. There are some students who, no matter what teaching philosophy is employed and no matter what technology used, need something beyond what a classroom can offer. As I understand the debate among SPED experts, the issue involves how to determine which students should be integrated and which shouldn't and to what extent students with special needs are integrated. I am continually looking for ways to differentiate my instruction to meet every student's needs, and I regularly consult the SPED teachers. Furthermore, I fully embrace a student-centered teaching philosophy. But sadly I've not been able to meet the needs of every student. There have been students who needed more than what I could give them in the classroom, and I was pained because of that.
Personally, I would rather my school (comprised of students of low socioeconomic status) invest more in a variety of after-school programs than in technology. Although I am not aware of any studies comparing the effects of classroom technology with the effects of after-school programs, my hypothesis would be that the latter are more effective in improving student success. Rather than have smart boards and computers, I would prefer for my students to be well-fed, to have sufficient health care and to have positive adult role models outside the classroom.
|
8 Actions
4 Recruits
|
8 Actions
|
|
5 Actions
2 Recruits
|
5 Actions
|
|
4 Actions
|
2 Actions
|