WHY SCHOOL

If you follow any of my blogs, you probably get the feeling that writing does not come easily for me.  Well you are absolutely correct.  At times, I labor over each word trying carefully to select the right one thus, providing the meaning I wish to convey.      One good thing–I have discovered the more I read the better writer I become, or at least I think this is the case.  Of course it’s incremental and you don’t automatically become Shakespeare by reading Shakespeare.  Also, there seemingly, is no fixed number of books read that make you a world-class author.   You get the picture.  I do love to read and this, in my case, is a very real benefit relative to the written word.  I always have a book going, sometimes two or three.  With this being the case:

 Some days ago, I completed a marvelous book entitled “Why School”, written by Will Richardson.  Mr. Richardson was teacher in the public-school systems in New Jersey for twenty-two (22) years and methodically develops the case for changing the way we teach by virtue of addressing the ways we NOW learn.  When I was growing up, we had radio, some TV, newspapers, magazines and books.  No Internet, no Facebook, no Twitter, no Google, no Yahoo, no instant messaging, etc.  As we all know, times have changed and dramatically—dramatically!   He makes the case that by virtue of the Internet, our kids are considerably more literate and resourceful when finding answers than we adults are now or possibly ever were.  “I need to Google that to find out how many members we have in Congress.”  “Can someone tell me the zip code for Red Bank, Tennessee?  I’ll go on line and find out.”  “Who was the thirty-eighth President of the United States?”  All of these answers are at our fingertips if we go on line.  Almost in an instant.   He emphasizes we rethink teaching by accomplishing the following:

• Share everything (or at least something).  Talk to each other.
• Discover don’t deliver ( the curriculum)
• Talk to strangers. Don’t limit yourself to individuals you know.  Seek answers from the “guy who wrote the book” or at least someone who has read the book.
• Be a master learner.  Know something about everything and everything about something.
• Do real work for real audiences.
• Transfer power.

As a result of COVID-19, more and more children are forced to work from home.  They use their computers to access lesson plans submitted by hard-working teachers.  In some cases, this is a workable solution and, in some cases, a real “bust” but it demonstrates the point made by Mr. Richardson. 

 His challenge is as follows: “Our kids, and we ourselves, can now carry the sum of human knowledge around in our pockets.  Teachers and classrooms are no longer found only in brick-and-mortar schools.  We can have teachers and classrooms with us wherever we go.  What’s needed for reading and writing literacy is evolving far beyond traditional definitions. In fact, by modern standards, most of us are illiterate.  In large measure, the professional and, to some extent, personal lives of our kids will be lived online in transparent, public ways that are vastly different from the much more private spaces most of us grew up in.  It’s now easier than ever to communicate, create, and collaborate with others from around the globe who share our passion to learn.  This changes just about everything when it comes to being educated.”

I think most of us have already discovered the “new” and alternate path to learning.  Who would have ever in a million years predicted a marvelous web site like Word Press?  One in which we all can “publish” for anyone who wishes to read.  A new way to learn.

THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE

Merriam-Webster defines language as “A systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures or marks having understood meanings.”  The operative words in this definition are ‘means of communicating’ and ‘understood meanings’.  There are 116 different “official” languages spoken on our planet today but 6900 languages AND dialects. The difference between a language and a dialect can be somewhat arbitrary so care must be taken when doing a “count”.  English, French, German, Greek, Japanese, Spanish etc, all have specific and peculiar dialects; not to mention slang words and expressions so the discernment between a language and a dialect may be somewhat confusing to say the least.. 

The book of Genesis (Genesis 11: vs. 1-9) recounts a period of time, during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar, when an attempt was made, by mankind, to become equal with God and that one language was spoken by all the people.  We are told that the attempt was not met with too much favor and God was pretty turned off by the whole thing.  Go figure!    With this being the case, He, decided to confound their language so that no one understood the other.  This, as you might expect, lead to significant confusion and a great deal of “babbling” resulted.  (Imagine a session of our United States Congress.)  Another significant result was the dispersion of mankind over the earth—another direct result from their unwise attempt.  This dispersion of the populace “placed” a specific language in a specific location and that “stuck”. 

Regardless of the language spoken, the very basic components of any language are similar; i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, etc.  You get the picture. The use and structure of these language elements within a sentence do vary.  This fact is the essence of a particular language itself. 

Would mankind not benefit from a common language?  Would commerce not be greatly simplified if we could all understand each other? Think of all the money saved if everything written and everything spoken—every road sign and every label on a can of soup—could be read by 6.8 billion people.  Why oh why have we not worked towards that over the centuries as a collective species.  Surely someone has had that thought before.  OK, national pride, but let’s swallow our collective egos and admit that we would be well-served by the movement, ever so gradual, towards one universal language.  Let me backup one minute.  We do have one example of a world-wide common language—

MATHEMATICS

Like all other languages, it has its own grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and word order, synonyms, negations, conventions, abbreviations, sentence and paragraph structure.  Those elements do exist AND they are universal.  No matter what language I speak, the formula for the area of a circle is A=π/4 (D)². 

• π = 3.14159 26535 89793
• log(10)e = 0.43429 44819 03252
• (x+y)(x-y) = x²-y²
• R(1),R(2) = -[b ± ( b²-4ac)]^0.5/2a
• The prime numbers are 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37—You get the picture.
• sinѲcscѲ = 1

 Mathematics has developed over the past 2500 years and is really one of the very oldest of the “sciences”. One remarkably significant development was the use of zero (0)—which has only been “in fashion” over the past millennium.  Centuries ago, men such as Euclid and Archimedes made the following discoveries and the following pronouncements:

If a straight line be cut at random, the square on the whole is equal to the squares on the segments and twice the rectangle contained by the segments. (Euclid, Elements, II.4, 300 B.C.) This lead to the formula:  (a + b)² = a² + b² + 2ab

The area of any circle is equal to a right-angled triangle in which one of the sides about the right angle is equal to the radius, and the other to the circumference, of the circle. (Archimedes, Measurement of a Circle, (225 B.C.)  Again, this gives us the following formula:

A = 2pr·r/2 = pr ²

These discoveries and these accompanying formulas work for ANY language we might speak. Mathematics then becomes the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE.

With that being the case, why do we not introduce the “Language of Mathematics” to our middle-school and high school pupils?  Is any school district doing that?  I know several countries in Western Europe started this practice some years ago with marvelous results.  This “language” is taught prior to the introduction of Algebra and certainly prior to Differential Equations.  It has been proven extremely effective and beneficial for those students who are intimidated by the subject.  The “dread” melts away as the syntax and structure becomes evident.  Coupled with this introduction is a semester on the great men and women of mathematics—their lives, their families, were they lived, what they ate, what they smoked, how they survived on a math teacher’s salary.  These people had lives and by some accounts were absolutely fascinating individuals in their own right.  Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus, was a real grouch, a real pain in the drain AND, had been jilted in his earlier years.  Never married, never (again) even had a girlfriend, etc etc.  You get the picture.  The greatest mathematicians of all time are said to be the following:

Isaac Newton Carl F. Gauss Archimedes Leonhard Euler Euclid		Bernhard Riemann Henri Poincaré David Hilbert Joseph-Louis Lagrange Gottfried W. Leibniz		Alexander Grothendieck Pierre de Fermat Niels Abel Évariste Galois John von Neumann
Srinivasa Ramanujan Karl W. T. Weierstrass Brahmagupta René Déscartes Augustin Cauchy		Carl G. J. Jacobi Hermann K. H. Weyl Peter G. L. Dirichlet Leonardo `Fibonacci’ Georg Cantor		Arthur Cayley Emma Noether Eudoxus of Cnidus Muhammed al-Khowârizmi Pythagoras of Samos

What do we really know about these guys?  Do we ever study them when we use their wonderful work?  I think not.  Think about it.  PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!

RELAVENCE

The first two paragraphs are taken from: “WISDOM TO GO”.  By Dr. Elizabeth Taylor

Members of the northern Natal tribes of South African greet one another daily by saying “Sawa bona”, which literally means: “I see you.” The response is “Sikhona” which means: “I am here”. This exchange is important, for it denotes that ‘until you ‘see’ me, I do not exist; and when you ‘see’ me, you bring me into existence. Members of these tribes go about their day with this personal validation from everyone they encounter – seen for who they are.  This speaks to the powerful intrinsic human need for validation, which we all share.  Compared to greetings in American and most western cultures this kind of deep acknowledgement of the ‘other’ on a daily basis is far more humane and vital, and it supports the wellbeing and integrity of the human community.  Our western way of saying “Hello.  How are you?” lacks this presence – this depth.  Often we greet in an automatic and rather perfunctory way, not really paying attention to the other’s response.  Ready to rush on once the greeting leaves our lips.  But the response we get may very well be “Well I’m not doing so great”.  We expect and assume a standard and predictable retort from the ‘other’, such as “I’m fine, and you?”which keeps us comfortable and not requiring any further effort or engagement on our part. Too often our greetings are not meant to go any deeper than superficial pleasantries.  We hear what we want to hear because we don’t want to or have time to engage at deeper levels.  We generally are not comfortable with and avoid those kinds of openings and intrigues.

What we stand to learn from the South African tribes is the importance of being ‘present’ with every person we greet during each day.  Our presence with them validates their humanity – which in-turn validates our own humanity.  We must watch and manage our tendency to rush through greetings, our tendency to not really ‘see’ or listen to others as they share their points of view or frames of thought.  We must monitor our tendency to get busy formulating assumptions and rebuttals while watching the other person’s lips move; and our tendency to impose criticism or even advice when it is not invited. These are forms of abuse, which often leaves the ‘other’ feeling bereft, assailed or treated in some unseemly way and embodying a vague sense of ‘dis-ease’ from a simple personal exchange. Moreover, these unsound feelings interfere with one’s further interactions, because this leftover ‘hurt’ energy must be relieved and acted out in some way.

These are definitely words of wisdom.  My wife and I were care-givers for a ninety-three (93) year old father (mine) and a ninety-five (95) year old mother (my wife’s).  Even though they were senior citizens plus, they each required the daily validation a visit and/or a phone call brings.  This validation is not age-dependent.  Even infants need validation given them by loving and caring parents for the best shot at a normal life.  This past weekend four (4) individuals, some children, were murdered in Chicago with thirty-two (32) individuals shot injured.  The gunfire resulted from gang members squaring off at each other.  Turf wars to be exact.  Grievances unresolved.    The philologists tell us gang members, usually young men, gather together for the validation not found at home within a strong family unit.  Their family is represented by the peer group they choose to associate with.  I think so much is lost when proper encouragement of a positive nature is not given no received; not just by the “gangs of Chicago”, but by individuals we meet on a daily basis.

I would challenge everyone to live, not just say “sawa bona” to those we see on a daily basis—friend, family or stranger.  We all deserve and need validation.

REPLACEMENT RATIO

You probably will not appreciate the term replacement ratio when I tell you it applies to “fertility rates”.  If we look at death rate vs the birth rate, we see several very troubling trends.  I want to mention the idea for this post came from the pod cast “CALM CASH”.  Calm Cash is written, produced, and broadcast by Ben Jackson.  It’s an excellent source of information on several topics but specifically how to invest wisely.  Several facts for this article also came from a post written by James Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher works for the BBC and is the Health and Science Correspondent for them.

Let’s now define the term fertility rates:

The fertility rate, at a given age, is the number of children born alive to women of that age during the year as a proportion of the average annual population of women of the same age. If you want information relative to rates for each country the very best source is the CIA Information fact book at https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/.  It has a wealth of information on each country.

If the fertility rate number falls below approximately two point one (2.1), the size of the population for any one country or region starts to fall. In 1950, women were having an average of four point seven (4.7) children in their lifetime.  Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to two point four (2.4) in 2017.  Their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below one point seven (1.7) by 2100.  So, why is the two-point one threshold important? You might think the number should be two (2.0) – two parents have two children, so the population stays the same size.  But even with the best healthcare, not all children survive to adulthood. Also, babies are ever so slightly more likely to be male. It means the replacement figure is two-point one (2.1) in developed countries.  Nations with higher childhood mortality also need a higher fertility rate.  The graphic below will indicate the projection.

OH, by the way, 2100 is this year.  As a result of the falling rates, researchers who keep track of such things expect the number of people on the planet to peak at nine point seven (9.7) billion around 2064, before falling down to eight point eight (8.8) billion by the end of the century.  When I first became aware of this fact, my reaction was—what’s the big deal?  Is this not a good thing?  When you look at trying to feed the world’s population you see right now that’s a huge problem in some countries.  Also, think of the worlds’ diminishing resources, water being the most scarce.  So, what is the problem?

“That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” researcher Prof Christopher Murray told the BBC. “I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognize how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganize societies.”

It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility.  Instead, it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.  In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.  But as we look closer; we might become somewhat alarmed.  The graphic below will tell more of the story.

Japan’s population is projected to fall from a peak of one hundred and twenty-eight (128) million in 2017 to less than fifty-three (53) million by the end of the century.  Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from sixty-one (61) million to twenty-eight (28) million over the same timeframe. They are two of twenty-three (23) countries, including Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea, expected to see their population more than halve. “That is jaw-dropping,” Prof Christopher Murray said.   China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at one point four (1.4) billion in four years’ time before nearly halving to seven hundred and thirty-two (732) million by 2100. India will take its place.  The UK is predicted to peak at seventy-five (75) million in 2063, and fall to seventy-one (71) million by 2100.

This fall in fertility produces an “inverted age structure”.  This inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure,” is the real problem says Prof Murray. 

The study projects:

• The number of under-fives will fall from six hundred and eighty-one (681) million in 2017 to four hundred and one (401) million in 2100.
• The number of over eighty (80)-year-olds will soar from one hundred and forty-one (141) million in 2017 to eight hundred and sixty-six (866) million in 2100.

Prof Murray adds: “It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like.” Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?

Prof Ibrahim Abubakar, University College London (UCL), said: “If these predictions are even half accurate, migration will become a necessity for all nations and not an option.  “To be successful we need a fundamental rethink of global politics.  “The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers.”

I personally think this just might be crisis greater than global warming or sustainability.