Our slightly tangential question today is, why are people so irrational about marriage? There have been cultures and times when legal marriage was important, and others when it was not. But there will always be people who are convinced that marriage is somehow a magic bullet for our social problems. Missives such as this one from otherwise intelligent columnists (in this case Emily Yoffe) show how weighed down with the baggage of "morality" the issue of marriage is. Yes, morality is involved; unfortunately, it is the definition of what morality is that gets confused and leads to calls for laws and policy that treat symptoms, rather than the underlying condition.

But perhaps in our desire not to make moral judgments about personal choices, young women wholly unprepared to be mothers are not getting the message that there are dire consequences of having (unprotected) sex with guys too lame to be fathers.

Yes, there are extremist meddlers who think truly personal choices should be legislated because God said so. But anyone who actually thinks that everyone living in society should be free to make all kinds of choices that negatively impact society is an extremist in the opposite direction. After all, morality actually is a mechanism for individuals living in societies to interact positively with other members of society, so that they will interact positively with you, which is all to your benefit. Society breaks down when personal desires and needs always take precedence over those of others. Once a critical number of people ignore the children they have and just keep on making more, there is no incentive to do otherwise because everyone is just out for himself anyway - the mark of a dysfunctional society.

Studies have found that children born to single mothers are vastly more likely to be poor, have behavioral and psychological problems, drop out of high school, and themselves go on to have out-of-wedlock children.

Of course, since we don't have any single-mom laboratory manipulation studies, the only information we have is correlational, not causal. Very likely a lot of the single moms were poor before they had a kid, and in no position to raise one successfully - meaning to produce a contributing member of society, rather than a drain on it who will likely not raise kids successfully because she does not have the experience to know what that means. But the problem is not that the moms aren't married to the kids' fathers, it is that they had kids at all.

Yoffe points out that "one key to effective fatherhood is first becoming a husband." But she is misdirected by her own definition of "husband," which in her mind, means a legally married man. She would be absolutely right if she defined "husband" as a man committed to one woman, emotionally and financially. When two people are able to commit to each other over the long term, they are much more likely to be successful parents, because they understand how society works - through the establishment and maintenance of relationships which in turn produces "moral" behavior. Thus they can raise their children to understand the importance of relationships, which is the key to avoiding dysfunctional behavior.

Marriage itself is actually a different issue altogether - or at least it would be if meddling politicians didn't think it was government's job to legislate morality. But the only true way to legislate morality is to remove dysfunctional people from society - which we pretty much do (albeit imprecisely) with laws against destructive behavior such as murder, theft, etc. Unfortunately tax code, welfare law, benefits rules, etc. put married people in a different economic category than unmarried people, which depending on your situation, either encourages you or discourages you to be married. Thus marriage is often driven by legal rather than personal considerations.

Marriage should be an entirely personal, not legal, decision. All the arguments about gay marriage are absurd because the idea that two people cannot declare themselves "married" if they want to is absurd. The reason that gays feel they have to fight for marriage is because policy makers have forced them to. If people don't want gays to be legally "married" then fine; fix the system so that there is no benefit to being married. If people want to avoid legal problems to do with benefits, alimony, inheritance, end-of-life issues, etc., there is all kinds of paperwork they can fill out. Legal marriage itself does not solve all of these problems anyway, so it is not clear why it exists, other than to legislate someone's particular "morality" that is not true morality.

In any case, you cannot legislate emotional commitment. The fact of "marriage" can make it easier to hide or ignore lack of long term emotional commitment, which can in turn lead to unwanted children anyway. Yoffe, as a child of bitter divorce, understands enough to know that marriage just for the sake of marriage makes no sense; but she seems to think that for a truly emotionally committed couple, marriage will somehow make their kids turn out better. But what is it that the kids have for their role model? The actual day-to-day relationship of their parents, or the certificate in their safe-deposit box? Those who argue that the legal hurdle of divorce will somehow force people to reconcile who might have otherwise split up has not checked divorce rates lately. If the emotional commitment is gone, no mere piece of paper is going to conjure it up again.

Save marriage for a symbol of personal commitment. To ceremonially bond with another human certainly has the impact of saying to society that "we are engaging in society through our relationship to each other." Therefore marriage certainly has societal value. But legally, it continues to be a pointless exercise at best and at worst confuses people about what is actually important.

Don't blame lack of marriage for the plight of poor neglected kids. Blame the parents who should have used birth control. The way to solve a lot of societal problems is to sterilize immediately anyone who has shown him or herself to be an unfit parent after the first kid. But we could never do that. It would be immoral.

Labels: humans, morality, sociality

Isn't it ever so satisfying when your hard-earned taxes are spent on something useful and constructive, such as the report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, which was charged with answering the question of why American students are falling behind the rest of the world in mathematical preparation. Of course, enormous piles of research has been done on mathematics education, and any math or science professor can tell you about the abysmal preparation of students who have gotten into college (and who are thus high school graduates).

The task of the advisory panel was basically to collate all the knowledge out there into a plan of action for fixing the disaster of math education in this country. Wouldn't it have been nice if math education researchers themselves brought all this knowledge together? Indeed, the mere existence of the panel shows that our problems go much, much deeper than any set of recommendations in a report can solve.

Fixing the problems with math education in this country will involve breaking a cycle that goes back decades at least. Until education professors face up to the elephant in the room, that poor students find an elementary education major an easy alternative, a million reports and recommendations like this one will be meaningless. All the experts in the world can make absolutely correct statements such as this:

Teachers and other educational leaders should consistently help students and parents to understand that an increased emphasis on the importance of effort is related to improved mathematics performance. This is a critical point because much of the public's self-evident resignation about mathematics education (together with the common tendencies to dismiss weak achievement and to give up early) seems rooted in the erroneous idea that success is largely a matter of inherent talent or ability, not effort.

But if elementary teachers consider themselves inherently "bad" at math, as I guarantee you many (if not most) of them do, they cannot possibly make their students understand that no one is just born bad at math.

There is a fundamental problem that has created this crisis to the point where any solution is at best decades away, if it is possible at all. Culturally, math illiteracy is not considered a deficiency. In fact, many people (including undergraduates taking required math courses) seem to wear it as a badge of honor. How did it get this way? We seem to take language illiteracy much more seriously (which is not to say that students are adequately prepared in reading and writing either). After all, while I have heard dozens of people proclaim their math illiteracy, I have never heard one person proudly announce that they cannot read or write. Parents don't think math is important, so their kids don't. Some of those kids go on to be elementary teachers. How do they get the degree when they continue to be illiterate in math? They do it within a system that gets many of the worst students, because instead of making them meet high standards, it accepts them adjusts courses accordingly. Minimum grade levels to graduate are meaningless; they just result in grade inflation. Programs focus more time on "methods" teaching than on content; even while all the skills in teaching methods in the world are useless if you do not have a firm grasp of what you are teaching.

Why are we passing poor math students through unchallenging courses that result in teaching degrees? One, because of the cultural stigma tied to proficiency in math. Two, because the profession of teaching today provides little rewards, even for the saints among us, which results in a high demand due to high turnover. Most teachers will tell you that it is not even about the pay and benefits - although the pay discrepancy between the teachers and administrators is a travesty. It is about a lack of autonomy in the classroom - due to government's and administration's love of relentless standardized materials and testing, which prevents even the smartest and most motivated teachers from using their abilities to teach creatively. It is also about parents who think schools are daycares for their snotty, insolent, bored-without-TV brats, instead of a controlled environment for children who have been taught respect to participate in the excitement of learning.

Thus, we have classrooms of teachers who know little content in certain areas and are even taught about teaching math in a way that reinforces its stigma:

Teachers and developers of instructional materials [added emphasis] sometimes assume that students need to be a certain age to learn certain mathematical ideas. However, a major research finding is that what is developmentally
appropriate is largely contingent on prior opportunities to learn. Claims based on theories that children of particular ages cannot learn certain content because they are "too young," "not in the appropriate stage," or "not ready" have consistently been shown to be wrong.

How is it that the people creating instructional materials have no idea what all the research has been telling us for years? This is a fundamental disconnect in most areas of education. The educational research that has been done decades ago and today is emphatically ignored by the people charged with actual education, such as school boards and administrators. For example, everyone knows that the best time for language acquisition (single or multiple) is early childhood. Yet, when is foreign language instruction begun in the U.S.? High school.

Another fairly futile recommendation:

...teachers must know in detail and from a more advanced perspective the mathematical content they are responsible for teaching and the connections of that content to other important mathematics, both prior to and beyond the level they are assigned to teach.

This seems to be a bizarre concept to students in math education. Even those at my campus planning to teach high school math - and thus who are essentially getting a content degree in mathematics with a few education courses - are known to complain, "why should I have to take this high-level math course when I will never teach this material?" The utter lack of interest in their major subject is astounding. Why are they math majors then? Because with such a shortage of math teachers, they are certain to get a job. And with teachers relatively uninterested in the subject they are teaching, the cycle of poor preparation continues.

And let's not forget that there is seemingly always a role played by big business when policy makes no sense:

Mathematics textbooks are much smaller in many nations with higher mathematics achievement than the U.S., thus demonstrating that the great length of our textbooks is not necessary for high achievement. Representatives of several publishing companies who testified before the Panel indicated that one substantial contributor to the length of the books
was the demand of meeting varying state standards for what should be taught in each grade. Other major causes of the extreme length of U.S. mathematics textbooks include the many photographs, motivational stories, and other nonmathematical content that the books include.

Why all the extra garbage in these math books? (For an extreme example of textbooks with gratuitous material that schools should definitely avoid, see this YouTube video.) Interestingly, the panel's report does not spell out the obvious reason: publishers' profits. The textbook industry has gotten completely out of control, filling books with junk to make them longer to justify the cost, and coming out with new editions every couple of years, which forces school districts to spend the money to replace their entire inventory, rather than order a few replacement books. In science, this can be justifiable given the rapid increase in knowledge and thinking that occurs - textbooks that define only two biological kingdoms, for example, would not be useful in preparing students in biology. But school-level math has been the same for decades, if not centuries. Discoveries on the frontiers of mathematics do not change how you do long division.

There are so many problems that the panel's report goes on and on. One suggestion the panel makes that has merit is the idea of having math specialists teaching at the elementary level. Like art and music teachers, they would travel from class to class an alleviate the burden of teaching math from all the teachers who hate it. The only way to break our current cycle of math phobics creating more math phobics is for kids to realize at an early age that math is interesting, and fun for everyone, not just for geeks. Math is part of what makes us human.

Another more radical suggestion is that there be no mathematics teaching at all until middle school. This may seem counterintuitive to the recommendations of the panel, but the main reason most students are terrible in math when they get to middle school is that their aversions have been so reinforced they are already lost causes - poor teaching at the elementary level has already convinced them they are no good at math so they don't even try. What if we waited to teach math, so that students haven't already closed their minds before they have a teacher who is actually interested in math? Why not use the time in elementary school to teach a foreign language? Since many current college students today cannot do middle-school-level math, no one can claim that it would be impossible for students to catch up at that point. As the report points out, the same simple concept is often taught year after year after year in elementary school, which adds to the boredom factor.

Whatever we do, it must somehow involve changing the greater American culture that looks down on the enjoyment of math as geeky, and the hatred of math as cool. Maybe someone could make some Einstein and Von Neumann action figures for Happy Meals. If the culture does not change, the performance of American students in math will not either.

Labels: education, mathematics

There is a tendency or those on the political right to invoke economic theory when developing or critiquing environmental policy. This can make sense or not, depending on the context. For example, a cap-and-trade system for dealing with the emissions causing acid rain (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) has contributed to significant reductions (though of course not elimination) of these pollutants, and as a result acid rain is currently less of a threat to northeastern U.S. ecosystems than it once was. So, many advocate a similar system to control carbon dioxide, which has recently become recognized as a pollutant for its role in exacerbating global climate change.

The basic premise of cap-and-trade is that government - such as the E.P.A. in the U.S., or state government - sets a total cap on allowed emissions for the whole country or region within it. They then issue a set number of licenses totaling that cap. These licenses can then be traded on the open market, so that companies emitting CO2 can either spend money reducing their emissions, or buying more licenses - whichever makes more financial sense. If the cost of reducing emissions (through special technology or alternative energy production, for example) is low for most companies, the price of the licenses will drop. If, however, the cost is high, licenses will go up too. because of the increased demand. Advocates of the approach support its reliance on the free market rather than excessive top-down regulation.

There are problems as well. For the system to accomplish its intended purpose, the cap must be set using the most objective scientific means possible, which seems an unlikely prospect, especially given the current political climate. But even if science is given a chance, CO2 is a global pollutant. That is, everyone's CO2 emissions affect everyone else. By contrast, acid rain in the northeastern U.S. was easily traceable mainly to coal-burning power plants in the east and Midwest, and thus the emissions were a local problem solvable by local policy. The harm done by carbon dioxide is genuine, but much less tangible and not at all direct. This is used by those opposed to emissions caps to insist that capping our own country's CO2 would be meaningless if other countries do not do the same, and it would somehow destroy our economy to do so. (This is despite the obvious counter argument that a genuine government mandate to develop alternative energy sources would spur a whole new economy for the U.S. However, the tangible economic benefits would not be immediate, but long term, which does not play well in capitalist societies.)

Of course, this is the point of the Kyoto treaty - to get as many countries on board as possible. Kyoto is a necessary first step because in practicality countries do have different levels of wealth and technological ability to control emissions, so to expect them to do so equally off the bat is absurd. The idea is that asking more of the fully technological countries will motivate the development of alternatives to greenhouse-gas-producing energy, that could then be implemented in other countries as well. But without the world's biggest emitter on board, it all breaks down completely.

We all know that getting the world to agree on scientifically reasonable global carbon dioxide limits is somewhat less likely than the proverbial snowball in hell. More recent coverage will give cap opponents more ammunition to argue there is no point in even trying. Should we really use the problems to excuse a mentality of "winner take all, and who gives a damn what the world is like in a few decades, after I am gone?" What if instead, the U.S. (as suggested often by Thomas Friedman) made a conscious decision to be a world leader in alternative technologies? (Mandating ethanol production from corn to justify huge taxpayer giveaways to corporate agriculture does not count.) What if the U.S.'s mantra turned into, "this is a great opportunity to show the world's people, most of whom hate our guts right now for our arrogance, greed, and imperialism, that we are the leader for remaking our planet's future." Even the cynics who only care about money surely see the benefits of replacing foreign oil, the defense of which has cost enormous amounts of resources and lives over the years, with foreign good will, which is a benefit?

There are times in history when what we really need is a little more government in select areas, not less. Since the "anti-government" crowd happily uses fear to justify the invasion of personal privacy, why isn't there, in vocal opposition, an actively pro-government voice that uses hope to stop the sub-prime mortgaging of our future? Probably because bringing up difficult truths doesn't win elections.

Labels: economics, environment, politics

The genetics-solves-everything crowd is continuing to have an influence on society that threatens to set Americans' notions of equality back decades. I still believe these attitudes are cyclical, but it is always depressing and disturbing to be in the regressive part of the cycle, with no hint of change in sight. The target now of course is public education - always in the sights of extremists, whether it involves adding prayer, subtracting science, or the current fad, teaching kids their gender roles, as if society weren't taking care of all of these things adequately outside the classroom.

Dr. Leonard Sax's website is called "Why Gender Matters". His publications have such objective scholarly titles as "Reclaiming Kindergarten: making kindergarten less harmful to boys" (Psychology of Men and Masculinity, American Psychological Association, 2(1):3-12, 2001), which like his other writings set up an absurd dichotomy between boys and girls as if they are unrelated species. He claims that for boys, but not girls, kindergarten is "a series of alienating failures and humiliations" and implies it is thus the end of their academic careers. Many women competing for professional jobs (requiring extended education) with men would be surprised to hear that all males' spirits were crushed in kindergarten, given that they are still pretty much running society.

The problem with our educational system is not that "no one is teaching them how to be men and women" (from Sax's website) but that we are using blunt instruments, such as standardized testing, which saps what little autonomy teachers had in the classroom before NCLB. This means they are unable to address differences among individual students in development times of different skills. Yes, that variation exists, but using gender as the blunt instrument to guide education reform is even worse than using a standardized test. On top of it being a pointless exercise to assume anyone's academic strengths and weaknesses at a given age can be assessed using their appearance, it also reinforces so many stereotypes that so many of us had finally begun to move past, and furthermore gives them false "scientific" credibility. This type of "science" is no different from attempts a century ago to demonstrate through physical qualities that blacks were less intelligent than whites.

This blog has previously summarized the alarming trend of claiming genetic origin for every trait anyone can think of, and why the papers supporting these ideas tell us absolutely nothing. The problem of the other type of research cherry-picked by Sax to support his agenda is that it studies already-developed human beings. Anyone who has raised a child should understand the intellectual dishonesty of claiming that behavioral traits possessed by a baby or toddler are clearly genetic. Humans are social creatures, programmed from birth to learn from other humans how they should behave. That includes identification with a particular gender, and all the traits associated with it in a particular society. Brain development does not occur in a vacuum, but is affected by experience. Brain-scan differences even in a newborn can not be determined to be genetic, because the newborn's brain started developing nine months before.

Most important though, the differences found are minor and slight - meaning it is unlikely that they are biologically significant. From the Times magazine article:

Sax initially built his argument that girls hear better than boys on two papers published in 1959 and 1963 by a psychologist named John Corso. Mark Liberman, a linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has spent a fair amount of energy examining the original research behind Sax's claims. In Corso's 1959 study, for example, Corso didn't look at children; he looked at adults. And he found only between one-quarter and one-half of a standard deviation in male and female hearing thresholds. What this means, Liberman says, is that if you choose a man and a woman at random, the chances are about 6 in 10 that the woman's hearing will be more sensitive and about 4 in 10 that the man's hearing will be more sensitive. Sax uses several other hearing studies to make his case that a teacher who is audible to boys will sound too loud to girls. But Liberman says that if you really look at this research, it shows that girls' and boys' hearing is much more similar than different. What's more, the sample sizes in those studies are far too small to make meaningful conclusions about gender differences in the classroom.

Why is it now acceptable to use "science" to foster people's underlying prejudices about gender, but no longer about race? Apparently there is some sort of hair-splitting going on in the minds of these "scientists" that of course skin color and other associated traits tell you nothing about what is going on in someone's brain, we know that now, so forget about that. But different genitals, now that clearly must be correlated with brain function. Especially the genitals of pre-pubescent humans!

It is especially insidious that the idea being promoted is just a new version of "separate but equal", which as anyone knows who is at all familiar with history, means anything but. Sax's motivation is clear. He has been on a crusade for years to convince people that public education is biased against boys because most of the teachers are women. (Of course, who is responsible for that? Surely not the men who over the ages told women that the only profession they could have was teaching, since obviously it is such an undesirable job. Surely not the principals and superintendents who for some reason are still overwhelmingly male, and oversee overwhelmingly female teaching staffs. But I digress.) He does a clever job of convincing people that he cares about girls too, but this concern is nothing but pandering to get people to buy into his system of segregation.

It's truly a shame, because for completely opposite reasons, single sex classrooms in public schools can be a good idea. For instance, in the context in which many kids are more interested in what the kids of the other gender think of them than the academics going on in class, single-sex classrooms can remove a major distraction. Because it's a good idea for kids to learn to relate to the other gender socially, it seems that the best situation is some, perhaps not all, single-sex classes in coed schools. It also does help remove some teacher biases which have usually been documented to favor boys (not girls, as Dr. Sax claims) in their participation. But if, as Dr. Sax claims, the majority of schools going to single-sex classes are basing their new paradigm on his "genetics" theories, then we are in big trouble, because it will make many of the gender prejudices that have sunk below consciousness openly acceptable again.

Labels: brain, education, gender, genetics, statistics