Migration v. Immigration

Understanding Immigration

Quick recap of previously discussed Immigration History of the United States. Many people in our country have a rather skewed version of original immigration. And clearly this different ‘version’ of American history has been used by politicians as well as several special interest groups to capitalize on this tragic misunderstanding.

We also established that stringently speaking, the first settlers to come to this country were not immigrants at all, but rather “colonists” a distinction between the founders of a nation and the later additions to that nation; subsequently, the entire facts regarding immigration are either forgotten or molded to benefit some group of today’s immigrants.

Therefore it is to be understood that the biggest dissimilarity between the immigrant and the colonist is in the notion of establishing a settlement (city, county, shire, state, and nation) with a government; furthermore, the immigrant is one who is migrating for reasons of work, avoidance of oppression, war, or any other reason to leave their country.

There have been those who have argued the point of “America is a nation of immigrants” and this simply is not the case, albeit, waves of immigrants have successfully assimilated into the American fabric.

America was sought after by people who endured the expensive, dangerous, and very unpleasant mostly mote than two week voyage to the New World and upon arrival, were coming to buy, barter, purchase, and at times steal, new lands that they could settle.

The first waves of these settlers were primarily Dutch, English, Scots-Irish, and Scottish. Indeed some of the most successful (meaning, lived through it all) were the Puritans in 1607-1650 who were the original settlers in Massachusetts.

All one need to do is look at the names of cities on the eastern seaboard to come to realize who the original settler’s were from. “New York” originally was New Amsterdam, and Peter Stuyvesant, the Duke of York perhaps benefitted the most and who got credit for founding the colony.

Maryland was being established as the refuge for English Catholics and received its charter in 1634. Throughout history many have argued that “Mary’s Land” was a way of privately paying homage to Mary of the New Testament, however, most people acknowledge that Maryland was the honor paid to King Charles’ queen, Queen Mary.

Interestingly Delaware was originally, New Sweden, and certainly the most influential of the settlers, William Penn, was extremely generous with his Pennsylvania (literally meaning-’Penn’s Woods’) and it was during this time that waves of non-English speaking settlers arrived namely, the Germans and the Quaker’s.

Therefore in wrapping up for today it should be clearly noted that the first settlements of the New Colonies started with the Puritans in 1610-1650; this wave was followed by a series of waves and then some smaller troughs: Virginia, roughly a bit earlier and mainly during the latter portion of the seventeenth century, and this carried on with the wave of 1720 most of which were Germans and again in 1750s; yet, to this point forth in particular the 1760s all sorts of settlers simply stopped coming. We were entering the American Revolutionary period.

More later…

Immigration v. Migration

Age of Exploration

Immigration to the United States is an often misunderstood part of American history. Many quasi-scholars, politicians, and definitely special interest groups, who aggressively use our history of immigration as an argument for mass immigration in the present day, imply that the present day situation is comparable to different times in American history when there were large influxes of migrants to the U.S.

However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The current reality is far more complex, and speaks to our present immigration crisis in a number of ways. Oh yes! I still get a bit ticked when most people are scurrying around espousing such idiosyncrasies as ‘immigrant rights, or whether or not an illegal alien should be subject to the same laws as any other citizen of the United States.’ Worse still is the notion of the benefits illegals receive that U.S. citizens don’t.

Those who are against illegal immigration should hone in on their American history skills and be prepared, more than prepared-qualified-to discuss our present day atrocious situation.

For starters it is important that all of us, albeit, for illegal immigration or against the shameless act, need to come to a working set of definitions. Let me illustrate:

In the strictest terms the first settlers to come to this mass of land were not immigrants at all; rather they were colonists, which is a distinction between the founders of a nation and the later additions to it. Unfortunately, far too many people have either never known this distinction or simply have forgotten it.

The first colonists to this land were the Puritan’s that settled in the New England colonies during the first wave of settlement and often referred to as the “Puritan Wave” of 1629 to 1641.

From this point it is extraordinarily important to understand that although in the southeast, especially what is present day Florida, many Spaniards, Portuguese, Caribs, and a wayward entrepreneur with a boat of African prisoners-of-war, crashed into Florida, the Caribbean islands, and of course the Outer Banks area off the middle colonies coast.

As in the case of St. Augustine, Florida, who boast being America’s first established settlement by the Spaniards in the late 1500s. It is important to establish this working definition “established settlement.” Don’t get too excited and start making claims to Florida inasmuch as the entire settlement was sold off to the French, Seminole Indians, Geo. Oglethorpe, Haiti, among others.

More later…

Hypocrisy and Double Standards, but What Else is New?

Where's the Love?

Here we are once again at the crossroads of the your way-and–my way;  your way sucks and don’t ever do it!  But it’s our word and we will use it the way we want too! You have no idea what’s it like to be called this word, but since it’s our word we’re going to use it with love, endearment, and in judging people.

Is this a little confusing to you? It sure is for me, but I do have an understanding of how reverse prejudice works on the one hand and on the other I have come clean with myself that racists are racist’s and color of one’s skin has very little to do with it. 

Just as certain members of The View  television program stated, the “N” word should not be used by anyone. A suggestion I might add is plain and simple, clear, concise, and to the point. If for whatever reason a particular word is deemed “offensive and condescending” and by mutual respect the word is taken out of the primary culture’s list of acceptable words, then I agree with notion wholeheartedly.

Think of it this way: There’s a television program called “The L Word”; we know about the “N Word”; we also know that in most teen circles and young adults the “P Word” is off limits, as is the “F Word’ and the “S” Word; insofar as the older folks are concerned the “D” Word simply does not exist in their vocabulary either.

What are we becoming as a learned society? Well fact of the matter is we’re not. Implementing double standards for members of the same society is wrong; and that my good friends are why the word is not acceptable.

It does not make sense whatsoever to say to one sector, “it’s unacceptable ‘and don’t ever call me that’”  and for another sector the word is allegedly used to convey endearment or how to describe a situation; however, only black people can use it that way. I’m of the firm conviction that if there is a word being used in any language that means either debilitating or condescending issues, then the word in its entirety should be banned.

Experience has taught me that this is not the first time something like this has happened. Take for example in the 1960s when two Olympians stood a top the pedestals’ receiving their medals and during the National Anthem raising a black-gloved left hand. It was during this same time that “Black Power” got going and I don’t remember hearing anyone saying anything about discrimination then.

A year or so later, Blacks did not want to be called ‘Blacks’ anymore. During the onset of the Richard Pryor and especially the Angela Davis years it was “Afro-Americans.” One problem still existed; since the hairdo was an afro, and of course, through the evolvement of language it now became “African-American.” And here’s the irony in all this rubbish: people of every other color from green to red just went along and tried to get along.

What a crock of bull-squat! You’re not going to hear Dr. William Cosby espousing that idea anytime soon, or ever for that matter. Unfortunately there is some degree of truth to what The Most Honorable Whoopi Goldberg and Taye Diggs say when they allege that we do live in different worlds. That will be addressed in a different article tomorrow or during the week.

I meant how I introduced Ms. Goldberg as the “The Most Honorable”; some might wonder why? Because she is! Beyond any question of doubt, Whoopi Goldberg is one of the smartest and most intelligent people I’ve had the pleasure of seeing; consequently, most of the time Whoopi is misunderstood. Why again? It is because she resides on a mental plane so high that it takes a long time for her to get people up there…where reality is. Now, on the other hand, Mr. Diggs, good try, but you are no Ms. Goldberg.

Further reading:

Whoopi and Elisabeth Spar over ‘N-Word’

Taye Diggs Weighs in on the ‘N Word’ debate

African American Registry - Word Origins

National Public Radio - Minnesota

Wikipedia - Word Origins

This is NOT the American Way

Off in the distance...

How many times have you asked yourself-even better-how many times have you kicked yourself in the rear end after making a decision with a few choice words, “…if only I knew”?

Rarely ever in life do we get these rare opportunities of almost divine foresight, or for some, déjà vu, too literally see into the future or having lived a particular situation somewhere, somehow, and at times with someone we know or want to know.

Time to make book folks! If I were a betting person I’d advise everyone to wager everything-including the farm-of what Barack Obama and the democratic party have in store for this country over the next four years. Just a small prelude:

At a town hall meeting in Georgia, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama told an audience that, “you need to make sure that your child can speak Spanish.” Speaking in Powder Springs, Ga., the Illinois Senator said that the nation’s chief priority should not be for immigrants to learn English, but for American children to learn Spanish.

I am all about phrenology and utilizing our brains as much as possible including learning new languages! However, many Existentialist philosophers would be also quick to point out the notion of freedom of choice to do so at home and particularly in one’s own country.

I’m not altogether certain if I’ve seen such hypocrisy centralized in one place. I mean this person, Obama, is saying one thing out of the left side of his mouth and totally doing the precise opposite out of the right side.

I am not aware of any organization that sports a Mission Statement that is demanding that everything in America be done in English. I do know of a magnificent source that has answers to most every question asked from government costs of printing to how many languages are spoken in your state.

Please do yourself a favor and visit U.S. English .  It is not incumbent upon a people to change their culture to accommodate folks who would like to be part of it, albeit legally or illegally.

Lots more coming…

More on Curriculum…

In an attempt to help schools provide a quality education, reformers mistakenly believe that covering as much material as possible is the way to go. But this approach is counterproductive. It overloads teachers by designing a curriculum that emphasizes breadth over depth.

This is where the greatest atrocity is happening in most classrooms. Most people outside of the profession don’t know a great deal about curriculum, or the actual discipline to be taught. Furthermore, I believe that today’s students are at an overwhelming disadvantage given the amount of options they are confronted with and the priorities they assign such priorities. Again this is where parenting gets dramatically essential pursuant to priorities.

Here is an example of what I am referring too, as told to me by a professor of statistics. As Dr. Spacoli entered the room, his penetrating eyes moving side to side, with wizard white hair long and looking like he’d just been hit by lightening…he paused, and the very first question he asked was, “Who won the Civil War? Oh! do they still call it that? Or is it the War between the States for political correctness?”

Moving on whilst jumping onto a waist-high desk, he stated, “Bet that got your attention..! At my age I am the only one who can jump that high vertically…” Of course I whispered, ‘the key: at my age’ under my voice when Splat! his feet hitting the ground as he said: “Exactly! Good to see someone is listening tonight!”

“But my main point is ‘who won the Civil War’? I mean, to this day I could not tell a soul, truthfully, who won that war, or World War I or WW II, or even the Korean War, humm, I don’t think they even teach about the Korean War in school anymore, do they?”

And that was precisely his point. In a weird yet effective way he managed to capture attention, hold attention, demonstrate humor, whilst making the point that when he went to school, year-to-year they never finished these critical points in history. Who knew over 40 million people died, murdered, or somehow killed in China during the Chinese Cultural Revolution starting in 1968?

Essentially my point is in our ‘convenience oriented society’ where we can have first rate films buzzed through our modems and Viola! I’m watching a newly released film on my home pc, or family television. Sure we will have time, I’ll just whip-up this ‘Lean Cuisine’ in four minutes or less, then I’ll microwave the popcorn so we can have popcorn and a movie.

Unfortunately this very phenomenon has infiltrated our public school system. Do you realize that our national average of graduating seniors from high school is 70 percent? The other 30% receive certificates stating they completed high school (just that they did not pass enough courses to fully graduate).

Sorry folks…their will never be a ‘convenience oriented education’. Why? Because learning takes time and sometimes less is better, just ask any bass player.

Tests, tests, and more…

To be certain, in my experience most students are okay with taking tests. They know that they have prepared diligently; they also know that they have been given every conceivable resource available to them including other educational professionals, any or all libraries in the United States, university tutors how come in for sessions of observation and participation, and most of all, they have the confidence that they have been prepared properly.

However, I am completely convinced that all of this jibber-jabber concerning “Teaching to the Test” is far more concerned with what each state has laid out as their ‘Standards of Learning.’ Ironically coined the ‘SOLs’ this is where most, if not all, of those outside the education community, are not completely aware.

I have written an article that referenced Walt Gardner and his ideals of teaching to a test. Although I linked the entire article at the time of writing, most people are just to lazy either to read where the data is actually coming from, or they have formed their rebuttals and are preparing their comments and not reading the link which, by the way, is the origin of the information. 

Quick sidebar: There is a distinct difference between teaching to the broad body of skills and knowledge that a test represents (good), and teaching to the exact items that will appear on the standardized test (indefensible and illegal). Teaching students how to answer a particular set of items that appears on a test shortchanges them ethically and educationally. The confusing part arises when we fail to make that distinction.

The distinction is crucial in today’s debate over the method used to identify effective teachers because it also calls into question another widely misunderstood concept - the curriculum.

In an attempt to help schools provide a quality education, reformers mistakenly believe that covering as much material as possible is the way to go. But this approach is counterproductive. It overloads teachers by designing a curriculum that emphasizes breadth over depth.

This is where the disconnect is happening. Most people outside of the profession don’t know a great deal about curriculum or the actual discipline to be taught. Furthermore, I believe that today’s students are at an overwhelming disadvantage given the amount of options they are confronted with and the priorities they assign such priorities. Again this is where parenting gets dramatically essential pursuant to priorities.

The result is that teachers are given far too many targets to aim at in their lessons. These extensive lists of high-blown objectives certainly look impressive on paper, but they cannot realistically be addressed by teachers in their day-to-day instructional decisions.

This is particularly the case when classes are composed of students with a wide range of individual differences. And this doesn’t even take into consideration the time constraints of a given school year, which puts great pressure on teachers in planning their lessons.

 Another word: The Standards of Learning for any given state are not established by those who are in the day-to-day trenches from 6:00AM to 7:00PM with the extracurricular activities demanded of teachers that can last until 12:00AM or even later. No, the SOL’s established by states are done so by the political-educational people outside of the teaching environment. Here’s a great case in point: Do you believe your child should be exposed to Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle during the fourth grade? Me either!

 

 

How Many Tests do You Take?

As promised there is and will be much, much more on this ‘Assault on Testing’ and the progressive folks who believe that we ought to do away with them for good.

This of course prompts me to ask:

How many tests do we take in a day? Month? Year? Decade? Quarter century, or full half century?

Moreover, based on that little (ut-oh!) question one is all the more prompted to ask this: What kinds of tests do we take and why do we take them?

All things being equal, I would love it if my students got as excited about displaying their knowledge say on a ‘Pop Culture’ test as they do about a trip to the department of motor vehicles to get their ‘Learner’s Permit’; I see these same young adults bring the DMV guidebook to answering the questions on the Driver’s License Exam into our classroom and study studiously!

Furthermore, not a break or lunch or snack period goes by that they’re not out there studying their little behinds off. So why do you think this is? Let’s look at some of the angst and pressures we feel about testing, evaluating, or authentic assessment; indeed, let’s also look at some of the tests we take and why we do. Sound fair enough? Great!

I remember my sophomore year in high school as though it was yesterday. Especially the day Russ was lecturing on how “…getting a driver’s license, changes everything! New doors are constantly being opened up and life just gets way more amazingly interesting.”

Here comes the immenient peer pressure. “Oh my gosh…What if I don’t pass? What if I fail?” How many people are counting on me to get this license? ‘Clueless Cher’ managed okay, I guess.

In short for all those who argue against taking tests here is perhaps something to ponder on:

Many folks believe, as I do, that we are tested every single day of our lives; in one way or another albeit spiritually, mentally, physically, or emotionally we’re going to face tests.

And that’s pretty much it–if life is filled with tests, don’t you think we ought to embrace them rather than repell them? Makes sense. Now consider this little reminder: Every single profession in the United States has a test to assess and evaluate whether or not a person is ready to perform in that profession, right.

Law students take the Bar Exam, Medical students take Board Exams (after residency), Dental students have their Boards, and Contractors have exams too, the likes I would hate to take! I have a friend who works at an oil refinery; for higher level pay, for higher level job security, for promotion, he must take tests at each level.

Think about it…

Thoughts on Testing, Exams, Evaluation

Please bear with me here if only for a moment. I’ve had this notion on my mind for quite some time now, and this is a great place to start laying it out. Topic: Tests, Test taking, Exams, the lot.

I have heard more rhetoric in the last oh….realistically, perhaps ten years about this idea of testing. Any educator worth their salt knows full well the value of testing. It is the other folks–parents, progressive minded pseudo-teachers, liberal-minded quasi-educated people who really think they know something about learning, types of learning, cognitive development, heck…human development in general that frighten me crazy.

Seriously there is such a movement of those who reside to the left, that feel ‘tests, or testing’ isn’t necessarily viable or creditable. As for me…the worst test taker in the history of humankind…would simply like to know the following:

Why? Why not test students? Certainly we need a ‘benchmark’ as it stands in order to place every individual where they rightly belong; what do you think?

From the onset of learning, professionals need to know how individuals will be placed–or–do we just randomly choose or simply go by age, gender, ethnicity, or orientation? C’mon people you want to be in the right class don’t you?

That last question reminded me of an episode of ‘Malcolm in the MIddle’ when the family finds out there’s something ‘different’ about Malcolm. All they really know is that young Malcolm has been ‘tagged’ for a special learning group. All during the episode Malcolm and the family believe he’s headed to Room 4 where the developmentally challenged hold on to each others belts to form a line when walking so no student gets left behind.

For most Malcolm fans we come to find out that he is of the Gifted and Talented (’G/T’) and is so far ahead of his peers the professionals want to develop and continually challenge Malcolm to become all he can be. Anyone ever see Doogie Hauser, M.D.?

Standardized testing is just one of the ways that individuals are assessed on what they know and where they begin the learning process, that’s all…nothing more.

Much, much more on Testing later…

What do you expect??

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been secretly detaining terrorism suspects aboard floating “prison ships,” a British legal charity charged on Monday, but the Pentagon described the report as inaccurate.

The charity Reprieve, citing sources including U.S. military officials, parliamentary bodies and former prisoners, said it believed the U.S. government had operated as many as 17 shipboard prisons, particularly in the Indian Ocean region.

“Prisoners have been interrogated under tortuous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations,” Reprieve said, adding that it would issue a detailed report later this year.

Department of Defense spokesman J.D. Gordon called the report “inaccurate and misleading.”

“We do not operate detention facilities on board Navy ships. DoD detention facilities are in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo,” he said

With all due respect…what do you find surprising about any of this?

Please continue reading…(here) 

Hat tip and source:

Randall Mikkelsen

 

An Open Letter to Mr. McCliment

Recently I received a comment or response to one of my articles that addressed the notion of “Teaching to a Test.” Quite openly I’m very tired of people thinking they know  what that expression means, but folks I must share with you in all candor, not very many people, pundits, or alleged ‘experts’ have a clue.

Therefore, I decided to present the issue in totality and you can be the one’s who decide based on merits. Prior to delving straight into the “Open Letter” I gently suggest that one read the source articles before venturing into the discussion.

The first of such articles is written by Mr. Walt Gardner, a long-standing professor and lecturer at U.C.L.A. in Los Angeles, California and this is a must read. Click here to read his work. 

There is another article from Mr. Gardner that addresses the notion that not everyone is college bound and worse how little we in the educaiton community are doing to facilitate their strengths, please read here.

First here is the link to my previous article on the matter of “Teaching to a Test” please read here. And this is the comment I received from Mr. Michael McCliment, and I present that to you here, please read.

Dear Mr. McCliment:

I am extremely pleased that you enjoyed my position paper cum article on “Teaching to the Test.” I admire anyone who delves into the world of education insofar as most people who go around espousing their views  with so little research, information gathering, or hearsay (the latter most commonly found in gossip and rumors) are basically those who really know very, very little of what they are espousing.

Having read and reflected-and read again-I must say that with all due-respect to you, sir, that you fall into the latter category. Of the first part it is rather strikingly clear that you have a bias toward assessment media. I suspect that this is caused in part by either doing miserably on similar ’standardized’ testing vis-a-vie S.A.T. scores, college entrance exams, or perhaps even post baccalaureate educational endeavors.

Your position becomes quite clear for the following reasons:

1. “You won’t attempt to explain why you feel it is wrong; but, you will explain why you judge it to be wrong.

2. Remotely suggesting that a ‘teaching concept’ is objectionable regarding the word “to” is lunacy.

In an attempt to dazzle your audience with empty rhetoric e.g., “…teaching a broad body of skills and knowledge on the one hand… [and] a test in the other…” means precisely what? Throughout your amateurish critique your position wanes to the degree of ignorance.

You venture into the “Oxford English Dictionary” (OED) like a magician and his or her tricks. Of the eight you listed, only one had anything whatsoever to do with expressing a limit, amount, or degree. However, the real travesty is in the notion that the word “to” is only a preposition, or so you chose it to be for the sake of your opinion.

If one were to look with an open mind they would also find that there is perhaps more pages dealing with how the word “to” is also a verb, adjective, and adverb.

And finally, I believe that I left one or two different citations within the article; moreover, I know I made reference to Mr. Walt Gardner, a lecturer at U.C.L.A. for the last 28-years, who was the original author and I included a link to his further work in this subject area.

Notwithstanding all else, it is all too obvious that you did not read the invaluable information for further understanding and awareness of the education community. It is for the aforementioned that your presentation to me, and to my readers, at best is a D- (read ‘D’ minus).

Now before further embarrassing yourself, please read the assigned material then and only then will we take the time to discuss your bias, oh yes, and your grade.