Not a Mosquito, But a "Bug" Nonetheless

A Mosquito?

No.  It's an insect spy drone for urban areas.

The technology research was funded by the US government and it is already in production. It is remotely controlled and is equipped with a camera and a microphone. 

It can land on you, may take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window or attach to your clothing until you take it in your home. 

Given their propensity to request macro-sized drones for surveillance, one is left with little doubt that police and military may look into these gadgets next.  And we are worried about West Nile virus…

Not-So-Intellegent Design…

You hear about a growing movement to introduce the concept of “intelligent design” into public school science curriculum.  So what’s all the fuss?  Intelligent Design Theory or ID (not to be confused with ED) was crafted by folks who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the theory of evolution.

They think that the “scientists” are trying to debunk their religious beliefs by insinuating that natural evolutionary processes created life as we know it, not the Big Guy (Girl) Upstairs.  This is an unfair accusation because we all know that scientists do not have the time to debunk anything.  They spend the majority of their time chasing after government research grants.

ID proponents argue that many things in our environment cannot be satisfactorily explained by mere evolutionary theory.  Therefore, they believe that a “higher power” or some intelligent force out there must have created us and most of the stuff that makes up the natural world.

However, if the intelligent design people think that a higher power is responsible for many of the wonderfully complex things in our world, they should admit to some of the obvious flubs found in nature as well.  People of a certain age may remember the 1977 film “Oh, God!” starring the late George Burns in the title role.  In the movie, even he admitted that he got the avocado wrong (“The pit’s too big.”).  

There are many other questions that this so-called intelligent designer must answer.  Why does healthy food not taste as good as unhealthy food?  Why are weeds ugly?  Why does “weekend” time go by faster than “weekday” time?

The opponents of ID (scientists) are adamant about preserving the separation of church and state and protecting the sanctity of the public education system.  They feel that ID is nothing more than a thinly veiled reintroduction of creationism into our otherwise spiritually antiseptic public schools.

The say “veiled” because ID proponents cleverly disassociate themselves from mainstream religious beliefs by not specifically identifying the intelligent designer.  It could be God.  It could be alien beings.  Sci-fi fans are thrilled with the latter.

As you may recall, a fellow named Charles “Chuck” Darwin invented the theory of evolution more than 100 years ago, most likely in an effort to secure a government grant.  His theory is that living things “evolve” over time to adapt to changing environmental conditions.  If a plant or animal doesn’t adapt to its environment, it’s toast.

Most agreed that his was a swell theory.  Chuck didn’t stop there.  He further theorized that humans descended from monkeys.  Now this notion rubbed some people the wrong way, but Darwin’s supporting evidence is quite compelling: we like bananas; we scratch our heads when we’re confused, and we sometimes screech for no apparent reason. 

Ironically, the current intelligent design vs. evolution debate supports his theory, too.  We are behaving like a bunch of monkeys.  The simple fact is the debate is moot.  ID can exist in tandem with any scientific theory.  Religious faith and/or science fiction trumps ordinary science every day of the week.  Let’s just say God (or the aliens) invented evolution and dismiss the complicated or analytical parts or parts we don’t like to hear.  Sorry, Charlie.

While intellegent design theory cannot be completely discounted, teaching ID in science class is not a good idea.  The role of public education is to provide our young people with the basic knowledge and skills to navigate through life--the three Rs of Readin’ (w)Ritin’ and ‘Rithmetic.  Add to that gym class, which teaches us humility, embarrassment, and, in many ways, the practical application of evolutionary theory, e.g., survival of the fittest.

ID just complicate matters.  ID in science class makes it too easy on learners.  Since ID, by its very nature, does not require observable, measurable proof that it exists, it can explain, in one fell swoop, even the most complex systems in the realm of the natural sciences.  It is the academic equivalent of, “Because I said so.”

No more drawing a blank on the science quiz; “ID” is always a plausible answer.  Learners will undoubtedly use ID to their advantage in other ways.  Instead of using the time-worn excuse, “The dog ate my homework,” which is perfectly sound by ordinary scientific standards, teachers will now hear ID-inspired excuses such as, “A higher power directed me to play my X-box ‘til 3 a.m., which did not afford me the opportunity to complete the assignment.”

My real concern is if people start questioning the appropriateness of teaching the theory of evolution in school, what’s next?  How many times have perplexed math learners wondered aloud, “Will I ever use this later in life?” “Do I really need to know this?”  The answer is, quite frankly, no.  Not unless you are planning to be an engineer, math teacher, God forbid, a scientist, work in construction, use technology at the store or just help your kids with homework…

The First Amendment, Education and Profiling Violence

It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, and billed as the largest of its kind.  More than 100,000 learners, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school learners said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees.  Only half of the learners said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.  Scary thought.

The learners are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.  When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of learners did.

The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four learners saying they took the First Amendment for granted or did not know how they felt about it.  It was also clear that many learners do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.

Three in four learners said flag burning is illegal.  It’s not.  About half the learners said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet.  It can’t.

The study suggests that learners embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools do not make the matter a priority.

And on a final note: a profile of a teenager who killed many people recently emerged—one of a Native American who was described as a "NativeNazi" and who other fellow learners said was regularly “picked on” for his odd behavior.  While many will seek to frame this incident in moral, racial, political, socio-economic or other terms these next months and years, and while such violence cannot be condoned or justified, neither can someone be conveniently “labeled” and dismissed.  For in all the strangeness to us of the ways someone else may think or speak, we still live in a society that was founded so we could do just that…

The Elections and Higher Education

Although higher education took a back seat to issues like economy and national security during election campaigning this year, the election results will affect anyone seeking education beyond a high school diploma for many years.

One major and fundamental challenge the new incumbents will face is how they will make adjustments to federal and state financial aid and tuition funding formulas.

Many reports this year painted a picture of higher education as a river (an appropriate metaphor for our region that we all understand) with a calm surface hiding strong under currents and obstructions that may alter one’s journey down its course.

For example, 1) after adjustments for inflation, the relative cost of college dropped over ten years, yet tuition rates are rapidly increasing; 2) more learners are attending higher education institutions, but the gap is widening between college opportunity for low- and middle-income learner families and high-income learner families; 3) learner debt levels remain manageable because of record low interest rates, but learners borrow more than two times the money they did ten years ago to pay for college; 4) the federal government increased individual financial aid allocations, but even the maximum allocation does not keep up with rising college costs; 5) as a corollary, federal program funding was not adjusted as individual allocations were increased, so the total number of persons receiving full funding allocations decreased.  In other words, less financial aid dollars are proportionally available to offset rising costs and less people can get college financial aid.

President Obama and Governor Romney both made promises to increase college access and affordability, but neither has a strong record of higher education reform.  Now, after the elections, our Presidential and Congressional officials will make decisions on how these challenges are controlled and managed.  The outcome is a concern because the election results maintain the same partisan balance at the national level.

Higher education, and all those interested in changing their lives through education, have a stake in election outcomes at all government levels even though most candidates said little about the subject. The next four years will now give winners the chance to, hopefully, keep campaign promises that assure affordable educational opportunities remain part of the American Dream for all.

The Changing View of a College Education

The most intelligent answer for linking a globally competitive workforce and higher education may be better found in technological institutions rather than within the nation’s most august four-year institutions.

Career and technical education has the advantage of relevance.  For many learners of all ages, “academics suddenly make sense”.  Geometry makes more sense in construction technology than just drawing circles and squares on paper.  And the best technological programs include internships, co-op programs or real problems to solve.

Programs in technological institutions are often market driven. If the employment market changes, so does the program.  Professional licensing or state certifications are important to career opportunity as four year degrees because, in an era of outsourcing, high-skill jobs are not going away.  For example, you are not going to call someone in India to fix your car or do your home plumbing.  If your house is on fire, help is not coming from Mexico.

So how did “voc-ed” get such a bad rap? In the past, voc-ed was used as an avoidance mechanism for high schoolers who did not want to do academic class work.  Unfortunately, that is still the mind set within some schools and political settings.  The innovation is to combine a no-compromise academic program with technological education that matches learners of all ages with both career opportunity and academic counseling.

The fastest groups of learners in technical schools are those with bachelor and master degrees.  So why do we not reward institutions for delivering trained and retrained individuals?  Somehow we believe that four year colleges are all that count and that no other education matters. The reality is that good jobs DO require college-level expertise, but that fields such as health, automotive, public safety, business, industrial technology, etc., can support lifelong careers with post-secondary education from community colleges and “tech” school programs.

Celebrate Educational Opportunity This Graduation

Community and Technical Colleges in the 1960’s and 70’s were often viewed as places created by legislatures to train technicians and service workers for local business and feed bright learners to local four year universities.

Most learners were the first in their families to attend college.  Open admissions policies were trumpeted as the great democratizer for minority groups, women and people who scraped through high school.  But taxpayers balked at paying for frills like dorms, athletics and intellectual gibberish.  Two years. Learn a skill.  Go to work.

Four year institutions, which might have felt threatened by the competition if they had seen the future, liked the idea that two year schools would teach boring introductory courses for them and sift through the hordes for those worthy of transfer.

In this shadow academic world, professors taught many hours of basic classes, and were recognized by their university peers as submissive, second-class citizens in second-class institutions.  Sadly, many who worked and studied in our two-year college institutions also believed that.

Then the world changed.  Two-year schools more than doubled in number in the 1970’s and the U.S. two-year college model was exported around the world.

Today, the educational philosophy of two-year colleges reflects a split consciousness between careers and ideas and between security and esteem.  This odd mixture is now a model for business and other non-educational organizations in our society.

Today, about half of all four year university undergraduates have attended two-year colleges, many claiming their education there was the best they ever received. 

Today, two-year colleges have more excellent learners than ever; they seek us out now.  More importantly, we celebrate the hard cases; they stretch our hearts. 

Today, we are the tension between the commercial and intellectual, the community and the academy, between how and why.  We more truly reflect our culture and society than do institutions with screened, more homogeneous populations.

Each day, we help to that first rung on the ladder of success, a few who were supposed to fail.  What we have done, that few anticipated, was to truly care about learners that others discounted.  This is not submission, but fulfillment.